Laserfiche WebLink
from some other source, likely General Fund dollars. The consensus of the EZDA was to <br /> recommend approval of this proposed incentive. <br /> It is difficult to estimate the countywide impact of this incentive whether implemented in the <br /> Enterprise Zone only or on a countywide basis. Please see the table below for the impact that <br /> this incentive would have generated for each of the three local jobs grant applicants. <br /> Development3. Waive or Subsidize(in whole or in part) <br /> Estimated <br /> Additional <br /> Company Name Incentive Comments/Notes <br /> INEOS New Planet BioEnergy LLC $94,141 Building permit fee of$86,361 and <br /> development review fee of$7,780. <br /> SpectorSoft Corporation $0 Company operates in leased office <br /> space, so no development fees were due <br /> Company continues to use existing <br /> Communications International Inc. $0 facilities. No building expansion, so no <br /> development fees were due. <br /> Total $94,141 <br /> INPB paid significant building permit fees and development review fees due to the size of this <br /> project. It should be noted that building permit fee revenues for last fiscal year totaled $1.6 <br /> million. Therefore, the INPB building permit fee was about 5.3% of all building permit fees for <br /> the fiscal year. Likewise, development fee collections for fiscal year 2011/12 were about <br /> $190,000. These fees were put in place to help recover the cost of planning staff. When such <br /> fees are waived, the M.S.T.U. Fund taxpayer subsidizes such costs. <br /> 4. Subsidize (in whole or in part) Water and Sewer Connection Charges. <br /> Water and sewer connection charges can vary substantially from one applicant to another. <br /> Connection fees can be as little as $155 (meter install fee of $130 and service fee of $25). <br /> However, connection charges can include line extension fees if service is not available at the <br /> current location. The line extension fees are charged on a per foot basis and vary depending <br /> upon the frontage of the project. Since the Utility Department is an enterprise fund and must <br /> maintain equitable rates, these charges may not be subsidized by other utility customers. <br /> Therefore, payment from another source would be required. General Fund revenues would be <br /> the likely funding source for this subsidy. The EZDA consensus was to recommend approval of <br /> this proposed incentive. <br /> Once again, it is difficult to estimate the countywide impact of this incentive whether <br /> implemented in the Enterprise Zone only or on a countywide basis. Please see the table below <br /> for the impact that this incentive would have generated for each of the three local jobs grant <br /> applicants. <br /> 116 <br />