Laserfiche WebLink
10.A.2. FINAL CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF SIX YEAR REFUND <br />ORDINANCE <br />PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE <br />OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD <br />Attorney Polackwich recapped his memorandum of March 6, 2012 to present background <br />and analysis regarding a proposed final ordinance relating to refunds of impact fees that are not <br />spent or encumbered within six years. He explained that although impact fee Ordinances 86-014 <br />and 2005-015 had included the refund provision, there was no requirement for the County to <br />provide notice to the fee payer (1986-2005) or current property owner (2005 to present). He <br />outlined several key components of the final Ordinance: (1) for funds collected by the <br />municipalities the County will treat the date "in" as the date the fee was paid; (2) the interest <br />that accumulates will be treated as a single deposit into the same impact fee fund on the first day <br />of the next fiscal year; (3) property owners will be given 180 days from the date of the first <br />notice to apply for a refund and 60 days thereafter to correct any problems in the application; <br />and (4) an option has been included (with associated criteria) to extend the baseline refund <br />period from six to nine years for one or more specific impact fees. <br />The Chairman opened the Public Hearing. <br />(Clerk's Note: Commissioner Davis exited the meeting at 10:56 a.m. and returned at <br />10:58am) <br />Charlie Wilson outlined aspects of the proposed ordinance that he objected to, and <br />questioned why it was necessary to have an ordinance to effect the notification process when <br />staff could simply be directed to provide the notice. He was also opposed to the reduction of the <br />application period from one year to six months, and the optional extension of the refund period <br />from the baseline six years to nine years. <br />BK 142PG..1.89 <br />March 13, 2012 13 <br />