My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/17/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
3/17/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:31 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 11:19:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/17/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
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
eooK F°,E J13 C-1 <br />cursory examination, it would appear that the Florida Department of <br />Transportation would be the net beneficiary on this arrangement as <br />the utility and traffic impact fees for any facilities that might <br />be built in the county would probably more than offset the <br />connection permit fees that we pay in connection with any road <br />improvement projects. However, it should be pointed out that the <br />Possibility of the FDOT building any future facility in Indian <br />River County is, at this time, only speculative. The roadway <br />connection fees charged by the FDOT range from $1,000.00 to <br />$4,000.00, depending on the road volume. <br />ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS <br />Alternative No. 1 - Do not approve the fee waiver, with the <br />explanation that the county will pay all connection fees and all <br />other proper fees, and that the Board of County Commissioners is <br />not comfortable in waiving impact fees, especially on utility <br />services as this is a user cost. <br />Alternative No 2 - Approve the agreement with the FDOT and have <br />the Chairman execute on behalf of the Board. <br />RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING <br />Staff recommends Alternate No. 1, to return the fee waiver <br />agreement with an explanation of our objections, and with a <br />recommendation that the wording "impact fees", "facility charges" <br />and "capital improvement fees" be deleted from the agreement and <br />that the agreement be modified to incorporate only normal permit <br />and connection fees. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Bowman, that the Board approve Alternate #1 <br />to return the fee waiver agreement with an explanation <br />of our objections along with a recommendation that the <br />wording "impact fees", "facility charges" and "capital <br />improvement fees" be deleted from the agreement and that <br />the agreement be modified to incorporate only normal <br />permit and connection fees. <br />Under discussion, Commissioner Bird asked if a more equitable <br />way to do this would be to have everybody pay their own way, and <br />Mr. Cain agreed that it probably would be the most equitable way, <br />but it would raise the costs both to the County and to the State. <br />They tried to do this because there is a provision in the new <br />access management code that we get a reciprocal fee waiver <br />arrangement. Quite frankly, he felt the State just has not thought <br />about some of these things and that their attorneys had inserted <br />34 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.