Valley Journal
Valley Journal

This Week’s e-Edition

Current Events

Latest Headlines

What's New?

Send us your news items.

NOTE: All submissions are subject to our Submission Guidelines.

Announcement Forms

Use these forms to send us announcements.

Birth Announcement
Obituary

Something doesn’t add up

Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local. You are now reading
3 of 3 free articles.



Subscribe now to stay in the know!

Already a subscriber? Login now

Editor,

Last fall, a homeowner in the Ridgewater subdivision, after paying $5,756 in impact fees for his new home, discovered that the city attorney had not paid fees on his own new home in the Hideaway Subdivision.

In response to questions raised, the city retained Bob Long, a private attorney, to explain that Ordinance 624 imposing impact fees on all new developments contained an error that supported the conclusion that the city attorney’s home was exempt.

But now, four months after receiving Bob Long’s letter and paying his $500 fee out of city funds, the city has determined that three other homeowners may be exempt from paying the fees.

Although these three homeowners may be eligible to receive a refund, they will be forced to apply under section 6.12(a)(1) of the ordinance to the Impact Fee Review Board. Unless the city waives the $100 fee for this review, they will also have to pay that just to be considered for a refund. The board’s recommendation would then be forwarded to the council.

However, the city manager has determined that even if the impact fees are ultimately refunded, the Administrative Service Charge ($274 in the original homeowner’s case) “will not be refunded”. Apparently that Administrative Service Charge was levied to pay for the collection and processing of the fees they were exempt from. The Green Bean Espresso kiosk, located in the same phase of Ridgewater as two of those on the list, paid impact fees totaling $492 on April 26, 2010, but they are not apparently being considered for a refund. The Walmart fees of $276,739, paid on June 20, 2011, are conspicuously not on the list, although they appear to meet the same “exemption criteria.” At the council meeting on March 19, the manager concluded that a consensus of the council was to retroactively eliminate the “exemption” from as many as 44 additional lots not yet built upon that meet the existing exemption criteria by redrafting the ordinance. Sometimes to those of us not endowed with an understanding of the context of all this, things just seem wrong.

Bob Fulton
Polson

Sponsored by: