Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Daggett County Commission weighs administrative fees on special funds to protect general fund
Summary
Commissioners reviewed interest earned on several funds and discussed applying accrued interest and fund-specific administrative percentages so those funds 'stand on their own' and reduce pressure on Fund 10; staff was asked to produce per-fund totals for possible one-time adjustments and future budgeting.
The Daggett County Commission resumed at 10:38 to consider establishing administrative fees for several special funds, with the stated goal of reducing draws on the general fund (Fund 10).
Chair opened the item by saying the objective was to let funds "stand on their own" and not be "a draw from the general fund, fund 10". Finance staff Brianne presented the county's cash summary and explained that interest earned in PTIF accounts associated with multiple funds has historically been posted to Fund 10 rather than broken out by fund. "This is the interest that we've earned on that account since 2019," Brianne said, describing how the county currently records PTIF interest.
Commissioners and staff reviewed Zions checking and PTIF interest totals for 2024 and 2025 and discussed whether interest alone would cover recommended administrative charges identified in an internal study. The chair estimated combined interest totals and told the commission that "the total interest ... would be $577,038.86, if I've done my math correctly," noting that interest could be used without touching principal in many cases. Commissioners cautioned that interest rates vary over time and recommended using multi-year averages for budgeting rather than relying on a single-year spike.
The commission named specific funds under consideration, including fund 11 (road fund), fund 19 (SRS), fund 22 (economic development), fund 23 (TRT), fund 25 (RDA), fund 28 (enterprise — water/sewer and related bonds), and fund 32 (event fund). Staff and commissioners agreed some PTIFs associated with bonds (notably in fund 28) may be restricted by bond covenants and require further legal review before any interest can be reallocated to administrative costs.
Brianne cautioned the commissioners about timing and process for related tax actions, noting work on a potential judgment levy or truth-in-taxation procedure would have procedural deadlines and public-notice requirements. She said the county must act quickly if pursuing a judgment levy because notices and postings must meet statutory timelines.
Commissioners asked staff to prepare a per-fund summary showing the impact of recommended admin fees and any one-time adjustments to bring past charges in line with the internal study. The commission discussed acting at the same meeting if numbers could be prepared quickly, but otherwise agreed to compile the figures and return for a decision.
The record shows this as a discussion and planning step rather than a final policy decision; commissioners directed staff to provide detailed totals and legal research on bond restrictions and levy timing before a final action.
