New Search
j <br /> F09 Expenditure Budget: <br /> Budget FTE <br /> PDD $117,417 0.90 <br /> i Central Svcs $42,000 0.50 <br /> PW Eng. $397,131 2.45 . <br /> i Total $556,548 3.85 <br /> i An SDC Task Force was established with members from Public Works, Central Services and Planning <br /> and Development. We have reviewed and analyzed each of the revenue and Expenditure components of <br /> i the fund. Based on this analysis our recommendation is to do the following: <br /> i <br /> j l . Central Svcs has moved the related costs of their .5 FTI : in FY09 out of the SDC Admin fund and <br /> ~~~ill not char-ge any more costs in FY09. 5~~~': follo~~° uh will this be part o[~ the CSA? Im~nediatc <br /> I F~"0) say in~~s: ~4?,~IOQ. «'AI'1'ING ~I'(~ AFAR RACK i~ IZOM .11~hF PI3RRl~' <br /> j 2. Interest charged on SDC fmancing is 8%. Since FY96, the entire amount of interest has been <br /> credited back directly to the system funds; we would like to rec~~up the difference between the <br /> interest actually earned in the system funds and the 8% charged to developers. We would <br /> propose going back three years (FY06/FY07/FY08) to reunburse Fund 332 for their "loss" on the <br /> difference in the interest. The financial impact on the system iluxls would be: <br /> Fund 333 -Trans SDC: 6.845 <br /> Fund 334 -Sanitary Sewer SDC: $5.189- <br /> Fund 335 - Stormwater SDC: $2,90 <br /> Fund3 ~G - I'OS SnC $7,544 <br /> Total $44,868. <br /> In addition, mop i ug fur« ard, wouldpropose to do this on asemi-annual basis. There would <br /> . be no immedialE impact on current capital -pn~j~cts, however, in all system funds, revenues are <br /> declinin~~ acid there i11 bean imha~~t oir vq~ital projects in future years. <br /> 2. Increase the Admin I_cc: ~f~liE Administration Fee was 7.5% and was reduced to 5% in 1993. We <br /> C would propose an increase as part o C the overall SDC Rate Methodology process. which would <br /> incorporate ~,~~itl~ the RA(', this mild he a City Code change. h'or c~-cry 1 do i~icrcasc in the <br /> Admin [~ec it translates into approximately a 527,000 increase in re~~eiiuc. <br /> Decreasing E;:pcnditures: <br /> 1. PDD: Currently rctiiews their FTE allocations every few years or so to make sure their program <br /> areas with and between funds is equitable. According to PDD, the level currently budgeted in <br /> 332 is correct. <br /> On the M&S side of the budget, Bank Service Fees account for $33,400 of the FY09 budget, we <br /> are following up on a different option to charge customers directly for the bank service fees and <br /> not have them be part of the M&S budget. <br /> <br /> i <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> - <br /> <br />