My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/13/2001
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2001
>
2/13/2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/14/2020 4:21:22 PM
Creation date
9/25/2015 4:12:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC
Document Type
Migration
Meeting Date
02/13/2001
Archived Roll/Disk#
2275
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
173
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
Commissioner Adams thought the County would get a "bigger bang for the buck" by <br />not taking the SHIP allocations but instead financing impact fees. We would get double the <br />value for the same amount of dollars. <br />Commissioner Macht asked for a definition of "financing impact fees", and Director <br />Keating explained that an applicant would not be required to pay his total impact fee liability <br />at building permit time; the payments could either be amortized over a number of years or <br />a lump sum payment could be deferred to a future specified date in, perhaps, five years. <br />Commissioner Adams advised that interest could be charged. <br />Chairman Ginn advised that she was totally against this and felt that any developer <br />needs to pay at least the impact fees for water, sewer, and transportation. These <br />developments will impact on our parks and other public services. As far as she was <br />concerned, the impact fees had to be paid up front. <br />Commissioner Adams stated that nothing is done with impact fee money in the <br />beginning; so the County would still get their money plus interest. She pointed out that there <br />is no impact fee for parks or other public services. The utility system now has over $50-$60 <br />million in outstanding bonds and it would behoove us to have enough things going on to <br />make the project pay for itself From a business standpoint, this method would provide <br />funds to help get the bonds paid off The impact fee was only one alternative. The SHIP <br />allocation is another alternative but we would reduce that allocation by more than 30% if we <br />took the money out. <br />Commissioner Macht preferred to use the SHIP funds as they have been in the past. <br />Commissioner Adams thought there was no question about the need for affordable <br />housing. She has seen the single mothers trying to make it on $6/hour and they do not want <br />to own a home, Susi to have a nice clean place to live. Workers here have to live in St. Lucie <br />or Brevard Counties. We cannot put our heads in the sand and say they do not exist; they <br />February 13, 2001 <br />109 <br />BK 1 1 7 PB 121 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.