Laserfiche WebLink
Staff Recommendation: <br />For the reasons stated above, staff recommends that the Board of Commissioners approve Option 1. <br />Further, staff recommends that the Board adopt a policy setting the minimum interest rate on County <br />financing equal to the average interest rate on County Utility bonds This would result in a minimum <br />interest rate of 5.75%, which would still be lower than current market rates from private financial <br />institutions. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, <br />SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, to deny the <br />request and continue the policy of not financing <br />impact fees for multi -family developments. <br />Bill Mills, realtor, requested that the Board consider financing the fees for low-cost <br />housing at 6% over 2 years as is done for residential housing. These fees will amount to <br />about $350,000. <br />Commissioner Ginn remarked there is a lot of money to be made in low-income <br />housing. <br />In response to Commissioner Adams' inquiry, Assistant County Administrator Joe <br />Baird expressed his concerns that large developers would expect the same. However, if the <br />financing arrangements were limited to low-income housing, over a short period of time <br />such as 2 years, and at an interest rate of 6% which is greater than the current interest rate <br />the County is charging, that would not have as great an impact. <br />Mr. Baird pointed out that due to the low level of the prime rate, the County is <br />charging less (4.75%) in interest than it is paying out on bonds (5.6% and 5.75%). He <br />recommended that the Board move the minimum interest rate on County financing back to <br />5.75% which would provide more financial security. The projects already financed at 4.75% <br />would remain at that rate. <br />FEBRUARY 5, 2002 <br />-86- <br />t <br />