Laserfiche WebLink
's <br /> j. <br /> i <br /> Administrator Joseph Baird conveyed that he had met with staff officials several times <br /> regarding the process of application denials , and he truly believed that the refunds are not due . <br /> Attorney Polackwich, in response to Commissioner Solari , stated that according to the <br /> Code , he saw no inconsistent interpretations by staff. <br /> i <br /> Chairman Wheeler called a break at 4 : 10 p. m. and reconvened the meeting at 4 : 16 p. m . <br /> with all members present. <br /> CROSS -EXAMINATION FROM MR. WILSON <br /> Mr. Wilson went through a cross - examination process with Director Keating, Attorney <br /> r, <br /> Polackwich, and Administrator Baird, pertaining to the denial of impact fee refund applications . <br /> S <br /> t44 <br /> Chairman Wheeler led a lengthy discussion and debate regarding applicable ordinances , <br /> procedural aspects , references and reasons for the denials , eligibility for refunds , Fund 101 , the <br /> impact fee refund calculation of $ 1 . 4 million, and the methodology of spending the money . <br /> Vice Chairman O ' Bryan asked Mr. Wilson to provide evidence showing that the ' <br /> expenditures in question are incorrect . Chairman Wheeler suggested that if Mr . Wilson believed <br /> there to be an error in the numbers , he needs to point out the mistake and allow Director Brown <br /> to recalculate it . <br /> Director Brown reiterated the methodology regarding impact fee accounting . <br /> Mr. Wilson said that the decision staff used is not in the ordinance, and he believed the <br /> decision could be changed by staff without changing the ordinance . He felt the decision on how <br /> to count the money affects those who are eligible . <br /> June 19 , 2012 17 <br /> IK 142 PG 599 <br /> 3` <br />