My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/14/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
6/14/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:09 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:26:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/14/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
4 191 BOOK ,J <br />FA.GE �5 <br />After discussing the pros and cons of the various method- <br />ologies for over one hour, Director Pinto recommended square <br />footage as the most equitable way to calculate special assessments. <br />Commissioner Scurlock was absolutely convinced that the <br />square footage methodology was the most equitable, and Attorney <br />Vitunac advised that the square -footage method is the only -one <br />that has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Florida. That was a <br />case where a county was charging a dog track $1 -million for water <br />and sewer for a parking lot, but the owner was arguing that it <br />was going to be used only as a parking lot and would never have <br />any facilities built on it. The Supreme Court said that the <br />utilities improved the property because someday the property <br />could be subdivided. <br />Commissioner Scurlock realized there may be some inequities <br />with the square footage methodology, but felt we would be far <br />better off by looking at those situations on an individual basis <br />through the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Equalization <br />Board rather than trying to come up with a Rube Goldberg approach <br />that has never been tested in court. <br />Director Pinto pointed out that the square footage assessment <br />is not new. It goes back over 100 years. The reason they came <br />to a square footage assessment is because other methodologies <br />have failed. <br />Commissioner Eggert noted that in the calls she's been <br />getting people have been upset over the size of the impact fee as <br />well as the assessment. She inquired if there had been any kind <br />of explanation about the impact fee in the information that went <br />out to the residents. <br />Director Pinto advised that we have an information sheet <br />that tells the amount of the impact fee and the cost for setting <br />the meter, but there was some confusion in the very beginning of <br />this project. The current total impact fee for water is $1320, <br />but $502 of the impact fee pays for lines and storage in that <br />system. So, in essence, that impact fee has reduced the assessment. <br />Commissioner Eggert was concerned that the explanation of <br />the impact fees and the assessment costs just is not getting out <br />to the people. It seemed to her that a little more information <br />would be helpful. In fact, she understood that is what we were <br />going to do when we talked about this a couple of years ago. <br />Director Pinto suggested that if the Board decides to go <br />with the square footage assessment and addressing the inequities <br />through the Board of Equalization, we make up a little pamphlet <br />IN <br />M M r <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.