My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08/16/2011 (4)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2011
>
08/16/2011 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2016 12:03:19 PM
Creation date
9/25/2015 5:07:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/16/2011
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
4050
Book and Page
141, 203-276
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
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 .A.6 . CONSIDERATION OF IMPACT FEE ISSUES <br /> Director Keating, through review of his memorandum of August 5 , 2011 , provided a <br /> synopsis of several impact fee concerns raised at the July 12 , 2011 Board of County Commission <br /> meeting by Charlie Wilson, President, Asset Research and Recovery, LLC (ARR) . Among other <br /> concerns cited, Mr . Wilson contended that the $200 cost of the impact fee refund application was <br /> too high, and that the application fee should not have to be paid when the application <br /> was <br /> initially filed . Director Keating noted that the County Attorney will be addressing the impact <br /> fee issues of a legal nature at a future meeting . <br /> Director Keating reported on the two types of impact fee refunds in the County ' s Impact <br /> Fee Ordinance : ( 1 ) Non- Commencement, when the fee payer opts not to start construction of his <br /> project; and (2) FailureAo-Expend Funds , when the County fails to spend the funds within six <br /> years of collection . He stated in light of ARR' s concerns, staff has established an application fee <br /> collection process where upfront payment is no longer required ; the fee is subtracted from the <br /> application fee refund amount . Regarding the impact fee refund application fee, staff has <br /> prepared for Board consideration a Resolution reducing the fee from $200 to $75 and <br /> recommends the Board apply the fee to both types of refunds . Director Keating thereafter <br /> provided details on a tracking mechanism that could be used to generate reports and possibly <br /> email notifications about eligibility for an impact fee refund . <br /> Chairman Solari requested that the Board keep the Motions separate for the Non- <br /> Commencement impact fee refunds and Failure-to -Expend Funds impact fee refunds . <br /> Director Keating, responding to Commissioner O ' Bryan ' s inquiries, provided staff' s <br /> definition of "non- commencement of construction, " and confirmed that the structure on Marsh <br /> Island (discussed under Item 12 . A . 1 . ) , would not qualify for an impact fee refund . <br /> Attorney Polackwich clarified that Chapter 1000 of County Code, the Impact Fee <br /> Ordinance, does not use the term "non-commencement of construction" - it talks about the <br /> BK 141 PG 258 <br /> August 16 , 2011 37 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.