Laserfiche WebLink
Mrs. Robertson said that the fact that not one individual applied for a refund points to <br /> the County ' s lack of a non-functional refund procedure . She questioned whether the statement in <br /> the ordinance about a fee payer having one year to apply for a refund (after the six years) was a <br /> valid notice requirement. <br /> Vice Chairman O ' Bryan proposed that individuals be given the chance to request through <br /> an application process , their impact fee refunds, including the interest tied to the $ 132, 159 of <br /> principal . He also wanted the applicants to sign an affidavit acknowledging the need for the <br /> AIA Project, and the probable lack of other funds to effect <br /> the intersection improvements . <br /> The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION, and by a 2-3 <br /> vote (Commissioners Flescher, O ' Bryan, and Wheeler <br /> opposed), the Motion FAILED . <br /> MOTION WAS MADE by Vice Chairman O ' Bryan, <br /> SECONDED by Chairman Wheeler, to refund to the <br /> current property owners, the $ 132, 159 of unspent Fund <br /> 101 (Original Traffic Impact Fee District II Trust <br /> Account) traffic impact fees ; to request the Clerk of Court <br /> compute the interest related only to the $ 132, 159 impact <br /> fees ; and to require impact fee refund applicants to sign an <br /> affidavit acknowledging the need for the AIA Project, and <br /> the probable lack of other funds to effect the intersection <br /> improvements . <br /> Director Brown explained that the impact fees that were paid first have already been <br /> expended. <br /> December 20, 2011 28 14 1 PG 8 1 B <br />