3/17/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r 1 6000 IN Fu.637 appealed the impact fee decision to County Administrator Charles Balczun, again referencing "Re: Grand Harbor/Hatala (PYP 53rd Street Right -Of -Way Donation". 4. On July 22, 1987 a letter from staff planner Cherelene Boudreaux informed Mr. Henderson that a traffic impact fee credit in the amount of $112,218 had been approved for "Grand Harbor/River Club Project (SP -MA -86-05-37)". 5. Mr. Henderson, who represented both Hatala and Grand Harbor, never objected that the credit should have gone to Hatala, not Grand Harbor. 6. Grand Harbor utilized the entire traffic impact fee credit by the end of 1987. 7. Ten years late, on October 7, 1997, Mr. Henderson wrote to Jim Davis requesting a letter confirming the traffic impact fee credits were still applicable to the Hatala property. The Planning and Public Works -staff requested that the County Attorney's Office review the file and responerto'Mr. Henderson. 8. On December 11, 1997 William Collins responded to Mr. Henderson that no TIF credit was ever approved for Hatala, it was approved for Grand Harbor, and thus credits couldn't be confirmed to Hatala 10-1/2 years later. 9. On December 16, 1997 Mr. Henderson wrote to William Collins with additional information supporting his. request for the traffic impact fee credits of Hatala. 10. On January 20, 1998 William Collins responded to Mr. Henderson that the lapse in time and change in circumstances resulting in prejudice to the County would give rise to an affirmative defense under the doctrines of Laches and Estoppel. 11. On January 28, 1998 Mr. Henderson notified Mr. Collins that Mr. Hatala intended to sue for declaratory judgment No suit has been instituted at this point 12. By letter received March 6, 1998, Mr. Hatala requested that the Board of County Commissioners consider a resolution of this matter. ANALYSIS: There is no question that Mr. Hatala donated the right-of-way and should have been compensated for the donation. What is unknown from the perspective of 11 years later is whether there was any compensation from the prior owners of Grand Harbor. Also at issue is, if there was no compensation from Grand Harbor, who should compensate Mr. Hatala - the County or his agent, Mr. Henderson, who failed to object when notified July 22, 1987 that the impact fee credit was awarded to Grand Harbor. ALTERNATIVES: Allow the Circuit Court to declare the respective rights of the parties with respect to the traffic impact fee credits, Mr. Hatala's stated intent 2. Allow the traffic impact fee credits to Mr. Hatala, the original applicant, and reimburse the trust account for traffic impact fee district 4. 3. Reach some alternate compromise of the claim with Mr. Hatala, such as repurchasing the credits at discount RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends defense of suit for declaratory judgment, Alternative No. 1., impleading Mr. Henderson as a third -party defendant. March 17,1998 48