Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> Discussion ensued among the Commissioners as to whether this item should be tabled, <br /> Mr . Wilson continued with his cross- examination of staff. <br /> and they decided to continue . <br /> MR. WILSON ' S PRESENTATION <br /> Mr. Wilson stated that his firm had appealed the decision of the Community <br /> Development Director based upon an inaccurate interpretation by staff that the impact fees paid <br /> were encumbered or spent within the six -year period as defined in Section 1000 . 15 of the Code ; <br /> and the methodology used for determining eligibility (not as directed by the ordinance) . He said <br /> unless the balance is zero , there is impact fee refund money left . He did not believe the money <br /> was spent in the original six-year period , and the people who paid their money in that six-year <br /> period deserve it back . <br /> Chairman Wheeler asked the Commissioners , staff, and the public if there were questions <br /> for Mr . Wilson ; there were none . <br /> Directors Brown and Keating emphasized that staff had followed the ordinance during <br /> the process . <br /> Attorney Polackwich said the ordinance states that if the money is expended or <br /> encumbered by the end of the six-year period, then it is not eligible for refund . <br /> Discussion ensued among the Commissioners regarding the six-year period, the first in- <br /> first out process , and the eligibility for refunds . <br /> Vice Chairman O ' Bryan observed that during today ' s hearing he had not heard sufficient , <br /> F' competent, factual evidence in Mr. Wilson ' s claim to overturn the decision of the Community <br /> Development Director . <br /> June 19 , 2012 18 <br /> 7 IK 14 2 PG 600 <br />