(a) In general. Following the director’s denial of a CAPF-R pursuant to section 4-11, in addition to the developer options described in section 4-16(a), a developer has the option of requesting to establish, or contribute money to, an escrow account as set forth in this section 4-17. The establishment of a new escrow account must be approved by the mayor and board of aldermen. The director may approve the developer’s escrow request pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.
(b) Proportionate share. The amount of money the developer shall be required to place in the escrow account shall be the proportionate share of costs of making the improvements required to satisfy the roads adequacy requirements in section 4-11. Based upon information supplied by the developer, the director shall determine the proportionate share in accordance with this section. This proportionate share shall be based on an equitable allocation or portion of new peak hour vehicle trips that the proposed development is estimated to cause, when measured against the additional usable capacity that the proposed improvement is creating. The amount of such escrow shall be roughly proportionate to the anticipated traffic impact of the proposed development. In arriving at the equitable allocation or portion, the director shall consider the traffic impact of the development as it relates to the entire road improvement being proposed. The proposed road improvement may, upon request of the developer, be designed to create more new capacity than only that which is required for the project to satisfy the adequacy requirements in section 4-11, if the director determines that the road link or intersection to be improved will require greater improvement to handle additional future development consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(c) Approval of escrow request. Subject to sections 4-17(c)(2) and 4-17(c)(3), the director shall approve a developer’s escrow request if the director determines that it would not be equitable to impose the entire cost of the required improvements on the developer because of the limited impact that the proposed development would have on the roads in question and that the development would not have a substantial adverse impact on traffic. The director may approve an escrow request if improvements necessary to establish adequacy are practically infeasible due to circumstances beyond the control of the developer but which are feasible for construction as a public project.
(1) A limited impact project is a project that produces fifty (50) percent or less of the traffic impact capable of being handled by the proposed road improvement. In determining whether a development has limited impact, the director shall consider the general requirement in section 4-11(b) that the developer not avoid the intent of this chapter by submitting piecemeal applications.
(2) For limited impact projects of between twenty-five (25) and fifty (50) percent impact of the road improvement, the director may deny the proposed escrow account request for either of the following reasons:
(A) There are funds in the escrow account representing forty (40) percent or more of the traffic capacity associated with the proposed improvement needed for road adequacy, and along with the developer’s proportionate share, there are sufficient funds to substantially complete the necessary improvements; or
(B) The escrow approval will result in a piecemeal effort by the developer to avoid making the necessary road improvements.
(3) The director shall deny an escrow request if the director determines the road improvement is infeasible to construct.
(4) If the director denies the escrow request in accordance with this subsection, the director shall deny the CAPF-R.
(d) Already-established escrow accounts. Once an escrow is established for an improvement project, any developer having an impact on the improvement project shall be required to pay its proportionate share into the escrow account. If, pursuant to a mitigation agreement with the city as described in section 4-16, a developer constructs road improvements for which an escrow account has previously been established pursuant to this section 4-17, the funds in the escrow account shall be made available to the developer to defray the construction costs of the improvements.
(e) Maintenance of account and refunds. The escrow account shall be maintained by the director of finance in an interest bearing account and shall be used solely for road improvements benefiting the property as determined by the board of aldermen. Any funds in the escrow account (together with interest earned thereon) which are not expended or encumbered by the end of the tenth fiscal year following collection shall, upon application by the escrow account payer, be refunded to the payer. The mayor and board of aldermen may extend this ten (10) year period for a specified term based on a reasonable expectation that road improvements benefiting the property will be constructed during the extended term. In addition, if the money paid into an escrow account for road improvements exceeds actual costs, the developer may seek a refund. Any application for refund must be filed with the director of finance within one year of the time at which such funds become available for refund.
(f) Issuance of CAPF-R. If the director approves an escrow request for road improvements under this section and the development meets all other requirements, then the director shall issue a provisional CAPF-R. Once the developer remits to the director of finance the proportionate share of funds established pursuant to this section, the director shall issue a final CAPF-R.
(g) Other government agencies. A county, state, or municipal government agency may participate in the construction of road improvements associated with an escrow account. (Ord. No. G-07-6, § 1, 3-22-07; Ord. No. G-07-19, § 1, 9-6-07)