Laserfiche WebLink
Administrator Baird recommended that the Board follow the advice of the Clerk's office, <br />because they would be administering the new policy. <br />Ms. Robertson felt that spending the interest associated with a particular impact fee <br />payment would allow more refunds to be distributed. <br />Commissioner Solari said he wanted to table this issue indefinitely. <br />Commissioner Flescher withdrew his second to Commissioner Solari's Motion. <br />(Clerk's Note: Vice Chairman O'Bryan later seconded this Motion and it was put back <br />on the table). <br />Commissioner Davis recapped that the County needs to decide whether to allocate <br />compound or simple interest with the impact fee refunds; and if the interest associated with a <br />particular impact fee payment should be expended at the same time as the principal. <br />Discussion continued, with input from Attorney Polackwich, about issues related to <br />coupling the interest and principal linked to a particular impact fee payment. <br />Ms. Bernardo elaborated on the complexities of breaking down and tracking the interest, <br />determining who gets the refunds, and other issues associated with coupling the interest. <br />Vice Chairman O'Bryan advocated refunding the impact fee amounts plus interest <br />calculated with the rough average interest earned by the County. He pointed out that there would <br />always be an accumulation of interest from the impact fees that had been expended, but did not <br />foresee a large amount of accrued interest such as occurred with Fund 101. <br />February 21, 2012 21 <br />