5/14/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� � r breakdown of Countryside fees paid after June 5, 1985, and noted they are paying $2,163 as of the last increase. Chairman Bird recapped that out of 640 some total units, we are acknowledging approximately 174 vested; we, therefore, know there are approximately 470 that are not vested, and we know those by specific lot numbers. So, as those units are resold, the prevailing impact fee at the time of sale will be paid, but after a certain period of time, the developer pays for the unsold ones. Administrator Chandler confirmed that the developer under the terms of the 185 agreement is responsible for paying the entire amount of ERUs by 1995. Commissioner Scurlock discussed possibly extending the vesting period for this group. We are now to an impact fee of $2,163, but he believed some residents did not pay earlier because they were waiting for this matter to be resolved. He, therefore, has some sympathy for allowing them to pay in at a lower amount. Discussion followed as to the amount, and Administrator Chandler noted that at the time we adopted the new rate structure, the fee we gave the option to vest at for a certain period was $1,004.17. Commissioner Scurlock stated that is -the figure he felt we still should extend. -to these residents to vest in and pay now. Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that we will have to pick up the difference between $2,163 and $1,004, and Commissioner Scurlock agreed there is no doubt that we have to make up that difference. Discussion ensued as to how long a period of time should be allowed for such payments. Commissioner Scurlock felt it should be a fairly reasonable period of time, and Chairman Bird noted that if they don't sell between now and 1995, they don't have to pay anything; so, it is a judgment call. Commissioner Scurlock agreed, but he believed a lot of people are sitting on the sidelines and have not made a decision based on what may come out of this meeting. Chairman Bird referred to the ordinances where we increased the impact fee and asked why did we make those increases if it wasn't to bring the impact fee to a point that made it financi- ally feasible to vest that unit in the system? Director Pinto explained that when you are paying the fee directly into the impact fee fund, it is different than paying it into an escrow fund anticipating connection. When someone actually becomes a customer of the system, that is vesting. When 4 s 21 «iabK01 �,r.-��:�►� MAY 14 1991 It