My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/08/2013AP
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2013
>
01/08/2013AP
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2018 10:47:48 AM
Creation date
3/23/2016 8:54:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
01/08/2013
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Book and Page
163
Subject
Greenway
Supplemental fields
FilePath
H:\Indian River\Network Files\SL00000E\S0004BE.tif
SmeadsoftID
14193
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
163
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
agreement and the County would then record a mortgage on the property. <br /> Commissioner Flescher inquired where the County was placed on receivership if <br /> there was a forfeit. Attorney Polackwich responded water/sewer liens were covered by <br /> a different statute which gave priority to the lien. He explained that if there were a <br /> mortgage on a property, water/sewer would generally have the same priority as Ad <br /> Valorem taxes. He further said other impact fees such as transportation etc., would <br /> have priority according to the date is was recorded because it was not covered by a <br /> similar statute. <br /> Commissioner Flescher inquired whether the agreement for utilities and <br /> transportation was separate or inclusive as one. Attorney Polackwich said he believed <br /> there would be a separate lien on water/sewer so as not to jeopardize its priority. <br /> Vice Chairman Chandler inquired if there was a length of time in which those <br /> funds must be used. Attorney Polackwich replied in the affirmative. Vice Chairman <br /> Chandler inquired if all the other impact fees except water/sewer were they all identical. <br /> Attorney Polackwich replied in the affirmative. <br /> A conversation ensued regarding the financing of impact fees. Attorney <br /> Polackwich stated that some financing was up to ten years. No one was clear how <br /> long water/sewer was financed. <br /> The general consensus of the committee was: <br /> 2. Low interest (or no interest) impact fee financing (impact fee financing was <br /> already in place, but interest rates would be lowered or waived in the <br /> Enterprise Zone. <br /> a. Lower interest rate on the impact fee financing in the Enterprise Zone <br /> General consensus of the committee was in favor <br /> b. Waiving on the financing fees within the Enterprise Zone <br /> General consensus was not in favor <br /> c. Interest rate should be the same interest rate the County generally charges <br /> General consensus was in favor <br /> The committee reviewed item #3 of the possible New Local Incentives Report <br /> 3. Subsidize (in whole or in part) or waive development fees (e.g., site plan <br /> application, concurrency application, etc) and/or building permit fees <br /> (because the Building Department is an enterprise fund, the County would <br /> have to come up with funds to pay whatever building permit fees the <br /> Enterprise Zone does not pay) <br /> EZDA UN-APPROVED 6 November 08, 2012 <br /> CADocuments and Settings\apolackwich\Local Settings\Temporary Internet 127 <br /> Files\Content.Outlook\5ERVKF3F\11-08-12.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.