Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Solari stated that coupling the interest might be "more squeeze than juice" <br />and going with the higher rate of interest earned by the County would make up for the bit of <br />interest that would be lost by keeping the decoupled interest. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Solari, <br />SECONDED by Commissioner Flescher, for the County <br />to disburse the impact fee refunds with decoupled (simple) <br />interest at the rate earned by the County on the funds. <br />Commissioner Davis opposed the Motion, and asserted that the County should make a <br />one-time expenditure to get the software adjustment and begin issuing the refunds with the <br />coupled interest. <br />Chairman Wheeler observed that the interest differential seemed miniscule for the <br />amount of work and expense for the Clerk/County to convert to and administer a coupled interest <br />system. <br />Administrator Baird recommended retaining the current method of decoupling interest. <br />Vice Chairman O'Bryan noted that the impact fees do not cover the complete costs for <br />the infrastructure projects, and felt it was necessary to put the accumulated interest towards those <br />costs. He foresaw that if all the interest is returned, impact fees would need to be raised. <br />Charlie Wilson observed that the Board's focus today was on simple and compound <br />interest, but the problem in Fund 101 was that the interest was decoupled from the principal, and <br />15 years later, the County started spending the interest. <br />Clerk of Circuit and Comptroller Jeffrey K. Barton expressed willingness to comply with <br />the Board's wishes; however, he advised that handling the impact fee accounts differently would <br />require additional manpower and costs. <br />February 21, 2012 19 <br />