01/17/2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chairman Wheeler asserted that the County should not have a windfall accumulation of interest. He suggested that after a fee is applied to a particular project, the accumulated interest for that fee should be expended next. Commissioner Davis was concerned that the proposed ordinance provides for the return of the impact fees, but has no provision for the return of the accumulated interest. He observed that in theory, the County could spend every impact fee dollar on a project, zero out the account for the year, and let the interest continue to accumulate. Charlie Wilson, 1057 6th Avenue, wanted to see the optional extension of the refund period (if approved by the Board), apply exclusively to the traffic impact fees. He objected to decoupling the interest from the impact fees, and alleged that capital improvement projects were being expedited to use up the Fund 101 moneys and avoid having to pay the refunds. Commissioner Davis stated that he did not have difficulty with extending the refund period; however, if the interest is not spent after the nine year period, it should be refunded along with the impact fee. Attorney Polackwich clarified that there is no refund of interest alone; it is only refunded as a component when the underlying impact fee is being refunded. Commissioners Davis and Solari voiced concerns about the lack of a mechanism in the proposed ordinance for giving the accrued interest back to the impact fee recipient, particularly where the County cannot afford to do the project associated with those fees. Chairman Wheeler advocated spending the interest with the impact fees; thus, avoiding the issue of accumulating interest in the future. January 17, 2012 14 141 PG 89.