Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Wilson questioned whether the extension of the refund period for an additional three <br />years would accomplish its intended goal, and whether it would be legal. He also requested that <br />the Board grant refund applicants more time to complete the application process than the 150 <br />days stipulated in the draft ordinance. <br />Attorney Polackwich explained that extending the time period in which the impact fees <br />may be spent is in accordance with the economic downturn and delays or extensions in project <br />completions. He also remarked that since the County is going to a notice process, it is justifiable <br />to decrease the time period for application submittals. <br />Administrator Baird noted that some road projects were delayed due to backlogs in the <br />permitting agencies. <br />Attorney Polackwich clarified for Ms. Robertson that six years would remain the base <br />underlying refund period in the proposed ordinance; the Board would need to decide whether the <br />optional three year period is needed for a specific impact fee fund prior to the conclusion of the <br />six years. <br />Mr. Zorc suggested that the proposed ordinance be amended to provide for the impact <br />fee refunds with interest calculated according to the actual return earned on the money, as <br />opposed to the rate earned by the County on the fund. <br />The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION, and by a 4-1 <br />vote (Vice Chairman O'Bryan opposed), the Board <br />directed the County Attorney to report back to the Board <br />with analysis on three scenarios related to the proposed <br />ordinance for amending impact fee refund procedures: <br />(1) the effect of coupling the interest with the impact <br />fees; <br />January 17, 2012 16 <br />ILO PG 898 <br />