08/21/2012 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Q IO. B. PUBLICDISCUSSIONITEMS IOAL REQUEST TO SPEAKBYIMPACT FEE CONSULTANTS REGARDING IMPACT FEE DENL4L 8770 65TH STREET VERO BEACH (Clerk 's Note : The following two items were heard after Item 10. B. 4. and are placed here for continuity) . Charles Wilson, representing Impact Fee Consultants, addressed the Board concerning a situation involving his clients, Tammy and Ryan Haffield, who had been notified by the County that they were eligible for an impact fee refund . He explained that due to a processing delay on the County ' s end, Impact Fee Consultants decided to advance the refund money to the Haffields . Subsequently, Impact Fee Consultants was notified that the County had already paid the refund associated with the Haffields ' property, and the Haffields were therefore not eligible for the compensation. He declared that the County made a mistake by putting the Haffields on the refund list, and wondered : ( 1 ) what action the Board would take to mitigate the error; and (2) whether the refund that did not go to the Haffields would be returned to the impact fee balance and enable another fee payer to receive a refund . A lengthy discussion followed, with input from Attorney Polackwich and Director Keating , regarding the timelines for the impact fee refund process . Director Keating explained why denying an impact fee refund to the Haffields would not affect the number of people who qualify for a refund . He also clarified that the impact fee payment associated with the Haffield property had been refunded to the Haffields ' contractor. Director of Budget and Management Jason Brown emphasized that the Haffields ' refund money had already been disbursed and removed from the impact fee fund balance, and the County cannot refund the money twice . 8 ,22 August 21 , iidl2 ' 23