Fund 335 Fund Balancing - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

i Interest fund interest $7 000 PW En . $397,131 2.46 ( ) g Total $337;338 Total ~ $556,548 3.85 An interdepartmental SDC Task Force was established earlier this year with members from Public Works, Central Services and Planning & Development. We have reviewed and analyzed each of the revenue and expenditure components of the fund. Based on this analysis our preliminary recommendations are as follows: 1. .Reduce Central Services Direct Program Charges -Central Services has moved the related costs of their .3 FTE in FY09 out of the SDC Admin fund and will not cliar~e any more costs in , FY09 and future years until unless this issue is revisited. Our assumption is that these billing and collection staff costs will be incorporated into the CSA cost, pool , the recover of which will have a nominal, impact on all funds. Immediate FY09 savings for Ftrnd 332 = $42,000. 2. Receipt-Revenue from the Interest "Bump" into the Admin Fund (Crcclit the Capital Funds only for their "opportunity loss" on monies tied financed contracts~and not invested in .the city pool) _Interest charged on SDC fmanced. retracts is 8%., which incluc~s a "bump" over the normal city investment earnings rate which intended to'~lp fund the cost of proc~;s~mg and servicing the financed accounts. Since FY96, the e»iire amours interest has been ~ -c;dited back in error directly to the system funds. We would like to rctroacti~~el~~ecoup a porti of the. difference between the interest actually earned in the system funds and-the 8% charged to developers in order to help shore ur the diminishing resources in. the Admin Fund: We are proposing going back three years (FYO~iFY07lFY08) to reinibr,i Fund 3'32 for its "loss" on the interest bump revenue it has foregone. This same situation.is tuc he MWMC charges which are financed, collected and then ~~isscd through to that entit' a fmancial.impact on the system capital funds ofthis~three-year ret~o,,cti~~c adjustmerrt wo~ be as follows: Fund 33~ DC: $26,845 Fun 334 - S Sewer SDC: $8,189 F 5 - Sto er SDC:. $2,290 un - POS $7,544 Subtotal im it city fads $44,868 1v~i~~IC pas ~ gh acco t c~ctions "Total to l7e ~reim ~ from all funds & MWMC m ~ Ti addit n, i, the fiittu~c iti~nuld rucei gill c~miracli its ci a~~~ i~ c,n c~uartarlybr,~is mo~rc; tTie aciu~~l ii~tere5t earned on col~tracis Thy tiic s~~steznti funds 'l~lvs 1~rot~] rc,~ult in ~~1~ t5tui~~ilcd addi ~ i~~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ St ~ r ~ ~ 1' ~ 'i 3 Thereould bc. nn imulediate impact on funding for current capital projects; however, in all system fu,tds, rc~ e,n,es are declining and this_change would increase that funding challenge for .future projects. 3. Increase the A~Imin fee from 5% to X% - The Administration Fee was 7.5% unti11993., when it was 'reduced to 5% We would propose an Admin Fee increase as _part of the overall SDC Rate Methodology update process, which would,processed through and approved by the RAC, as it would require a change to City Code. At this point we are not prepared to suggest a specific rate increase, but we do believe that this change must be implemented in the next six months unless we're willing to sustain drastic reductions in the services funded by the Admin Fund. - 4._ Continue to Evaluate Other Opportunities for Reducing. Admin Fund Expenditures' Page ~ of 4 _ _ - _