My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/26/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
3/26/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:08 PM
Creation date
6/5/2015 3:53:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/26/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ANALYSIS• <br />The Department of Utility Services has provided "Notice to Connect"' <br />to ARCP, pursuant to Section 20 of Resolution.74-78. The Department <br />Of Utility Services and ARCP have negotiated the attached agreement <br />to effect the connection to the Indian River County water and <br />wastewater system, and set forth a payment schedule for water and <br />wastewater impact fees. <br />ECOMMENDATION: <br />The Staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that -the <br />Board of County Commissioners approve the attached agreement between <br />Indian River County and American Retirement Communities Partnership <br />for the connection- of ARCP to Indian River County water and, <br />wastewater facilities and authorize the execution of the agreement <br />by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. <br />Chairman Bird asked how this would affect the residents and <br />Director Pinto commented that, since we are dealing with the park <br />owner, we don't know how it is going to affect the residents. <br />Commissioner Scurlock felt it would ultimately be passed on to <br />the residents as is the usual procedure with rental property owners <br />unless the lease arrangements can be construed otherwise. <br />Director Pinto recalled a letter which indicated that by the <br />park owner moving immediately he will be circumventing future <br />impact fee increases as far as wastewater so, if anything gets <br />passed through, it will be passed through at a lesser amount <br />because of this agreement. <br />County Attorney Vitunac referred to Paragraph VI, IMPACT FEES, <br />of the Agreement and advised that if we just made the developer pay <br />the County a certain percentage, 150 or 20%, of the outstanding <br />impact fees, and uncoupled this agreement from the sale of units in <br />the park, that would remove us even further from the problem <br />between the developer and mobile home owner. In other words, not <br />require an impact fee at the sale of each unit but just require <br />that the developer give the County the fees for 43 units per year, <br />a minimum of 43 units per year, period, and not require the money <br />at the time of sale, because that requirement is what is tying the <br />fee to the mobile home owner. <br />Commissioner Scurlock brought up the point that Utilities has <br />been receiving checks from the renters on their personal checking <br />accounts, which he had previously thought was not happening. <br />Director Pinto explained that people are coming in, they want <br />to pay an impact fee on behalf of the park owner, but in no way do <br />they want that money to go through the park owner; they insist we <br />take the money. So, we take the money and notify the park owner. <br />Chairman Bird was sure their intent is to vest themselves at <br />today's rate, and there is nothing wrong with that. <br />35 <br />//fi�r �•o <br />BOOK FK;r V <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.