Greeley commission tables review of historic building permit fee refund amid budget concerns

The Greeley Historic Preservation Commission on Feb. 3 continued its review of the city's historic building permit fee refund policy after staff proposed adding the phrase "subject to availability of funds" to the policy.

The change stems from recent large rebate requests and city accounting rules that require a budgeted expense account for refunds. "We beg from Peter to pay Paul," Deputy Community Development Director Don Threewitt said, describing how the department has covered refunds by transferring money from other project budgets. Staff told the commission it will request a $10,000 line item for the rebate program in the 2026 budget and is investigating an escrow or suspense account and the possibility of pooling incentive dollars with economic development and urban revitalization funds.

Commissioners and local preservation advocates pushed back on language that conditions refunds on fund availability. Ron Thompson of Historic Greeley Inc., who said his group has applied for the rebate, argued the city should treat refunds as money already paid by applicants: "If you do the project the way we're asking you to and it's approved by this board, you get your money back," he said, calling a process that leaves applicants unsure "a violation of trust." Historic preservation staff noted the program has existed in city code since the late 1990s and was updated in 2021; staff provided a refund history back to February 2004 and said most years see only minimal activity but that 2024 included a $27,000 refund that strained budgets.

Staff outlined three near-term options: continue funding refunds by transfers from other project budgets in 2025, request a dedicated $10,000 budget line in 2026, and continue exploring an escrow/suspense account or pooling incentives across departments. Commissioners pressed staff to clarify how an obligation to refund would be fulfilled if a large claim arrived in a year without the budget authority to pay immediately; staff said large claims could require a council appropriation or rolling the obligation into a future budget year while it explores a suspense account.

After further discussion, the commission voted to table the item and asked staff to return with more concrete options and clarification on how refunds would be handled administratively and politically before approving any policy language.