Laserfiche WebLink
Director Brown discussed the intricacies involved in accounting for coupled interest. He <br />also noted that the economic downturn has resulted in the County not spending a lot of the <br />impact fees on projects, and he did not anticipate large accumulations of interest moving <br />forward. <br />Mr. Zorc suggested using as the interest rate for the impact fee refunds, a weighted <br />blended average of the short term/long term interest rates earned by the County. <br />Mr. Barton responded to Mr. Zorc's suggestion with details about the Clerk's investment <br />practices. <br />Mr. Wilson asserted that the only other change the County needs to make, besides <br />addressing the Fund 101 issues, is to establish the notification process for individuals entitled to <br />an impact fee refund. He noted that the County's decision to separate and use the impact fees <br />first and the interest later was an administrative decision that can be changed without an <br />ordinance. <br />Commissioner Davis wanted to know whether the County is going to expend the <br />principal and interest in the same year, and if not, if the refunds will be disbursed with the <br />principal and interest after six years. <br />Finance Director Diane Bernardo affirmed that staff has a means for refunding the <br />interest; the difficulty lies with coupling the interest. She advised that Director Brown undertook <br />a test case converting one month's worth of Parks and Recreation impact fees to coupled interest <br />and the process had taken 20 hours. <br />Director Brown referring to a 77 -page spreadsheet he had compiled, provided an <br />overview of the layers involved in converting one month of the Parks and Recreation impact fees <br />to coupled interest. <br />February 21, 2012 20 <br />