Laserfiche WebLink
XR <br />those incentives will be based on staff's recommendations. <br />Ms. Merchant was upset at the inference that they were trying to confuse the County <br />with various applications. They were not and she specified what was sent and that they were <br />all legitimate and approved by the FHFC. She felt they should not be penalized for trying <br />to take advantage of a window of opportunity. They were not trying to be unfair to the other <br />developers. <br />Chairman Ginn specified that the request was not within the Board's policy and the <br />new policy has not been established. They could not open the windows of opportunity <br />without a policy in place. <br />Deputy County Attorney Will Collins pointed out that what is legal in other counties <br />may not be legal here. He had no clear understanding of the source of the money. The only <br />discussion was regarding a deferred payment of utility impact fees and that is not a matter <br />of policy. The County already has an ordinance saying that we can allow for deferred <br />payment of impact fees not to exceed 5 years at such interest rate (which could be 0%) as <br />the Board may determine. The Code also provides that we have a superior lien before <br />allowing that. <br />Ms. Merchant remarked that they would be willing to do that as long as the rate was <br />not 8% and asked the Board to allow Mr Fabbri to tell them of a conversation he had with <br />someone in the Utilities Department. <br />Mr. Fabbri had met with the Department sometime ago and they had mentioned the <br />ordinance's provisions but thought it applied more to single family dwellings, not this <br />purpose. <br />Utility Services Director Donald R. Hubbs advised that he had spoken with Mr. <br />Fabbri and Bruce Barkett on a conference call and the main point of his subsequent letter <br />sent in response is that the Utilities Department, along with the Utilities Advisory <br />March 6, 2001 - <br />94 <br />6K 1 1 7 P6 3 5 3 <br />