My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/21/2012 (4)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2012
>
02/21/2012 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/20/2018 4:25:39 PM
Creation date
3/20/2018 4:21:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/21/2012
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
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
12.J.2. UPDATE TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-013 INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM <br />(IPP) ORDINANCE <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Flescher, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Davis, the Board unanimously approved <br />the Public Hearing date of March 13, 2012, for an <br />amendment to the Industrial Pretreatment Program <br />Ordinance 2007-13, and authorized staff to advertise for <br />the public hearing, as recommended in the memorandum <br />of February 14, 2012. <br />13. COUNTY ATTORNEY MATTERS <br />13.A. AMENDMENT TO SIX YEAR IMPACT FEE REFUND ORDINANCE <br />County Attorney Alan S. Polackwich, Sr., provided background on the Board's decision <br />to amend Section 1000.15 Refund of Fees Paid of County Code, Chapter 1000, Impact Fees - <br />Purpose and Intent, to establish a procedure for refunding impact fees not encumbered or spent <br />within six years. He stated that on January 17, 2012, the Board directed him to report back on <br />several issues related to the revised impact fee ordinance, and additional issues posed by County <br />Administrative and Clerk of Court staff (the latter administer the impact fee refund process). <br />For Issue I, Coupling and Decoupling Interest, he stated that both systems are legally defensible <br />and would be at the Board's discretion. He reported that the Clerk pays simple interest at the <br />Federal Funds interest rate, but Ordinance 2005-015 has provided for interest at the rate earned <br />by the County (normally higher) on the impact fee funds. He explained that it would be an <br />arduous process to convert all existing funds to coupled interest and the refund differential is <br />small between coupled (compound) and decoupled (simple) interest; and that County and Clerk <br />of Court staff recommend using the Federal Funds as the interest rate. <br />February 21, 2012 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.