Laserfiche WebLink
BOOK 94 F -nn 899 <br />Under discussion, Commissioner Bird understood that the anchor <br />tenants will be paying a share of this, and Mr. Curl stated that <br />negotiations on that are still ongoing. It all depends on timing. <br />Traffic impact fees are at $2.1 million right now, and everything <br />that is built in the project would be accounted for as part of the <br />total impact fee. <br />Commissioner Eggert emphasized that this is not to be <br />construed in any way to forgive transportation impact fees. <br />Chairman Macht remained concerned about setting a precedent, <br />especially in the case of an owner wanting to build a house for the <br />purpose of renting it. <br />Director Keating felt that was a good question, and advised <br />that we don't have a mechanism for that as we have in a situation <br />where an owner would have to get an internal improvements building <br />permit. We are not sure what would happen down the road. <br />Commissioner Macht was in total disagreement that this could <br />be handled on a case by case basis, and he reiterated his concerns <br />about what would happen in the case of bankruptcy. <br />Director Keating explained that when the applicant comes in to <br />do his SR -60 improvements and any other improvements, we will <br />enter into a formal credit agreement with him. A portion of that <br />credit could be bonding to ensure construction of the improvements. <br />Through the credit agreement we will be reserving capacity so that <br />there will be a need for the County to have some level of comfort <br />that the improvements will be done. <br />Commissioner Bird understood we will require the <br />transportation improvements to be completed prior to the issuance <br />of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project -- they would- either <br />do the improvements or we would have their money up front. <br />Mr. Curl noted that condition is in their present Development <br />Order. They will enter into a hold harmless agreement that will <br />take the County totally out of this issue if any legal questions - <br />come up on this in the future. <br />Chairman Macht suggested that a reverter clause or condition <br />be included in the agreement stating that the mall will open in <br />1996 with a minimum of 3 anchors. Otherwise, we might be here 5 <br />years from now. He believed that what the developer is asking for <br />is minimal compared to the overall construction costs, and it <br />indicates to him that they don't really believe this is a viable <br />project now or will be in the future. Chairman Macht believed <br />that without these conditions, the precedent we would be setting <br />isn't worth the risk. <br />42 <br />APRIL 18, 1995 <br />