New Search
1 ~ ~ <br /> { <br /> Interest (fund interest) $7,000 PW Eng. $397,131 2.45 <br /> Total $337,338 Total $556,548 3.85 <br /> An interdepartmental SDC Task Force was established earlier this year with members from Public Works, <br /> Central. Services and Planning & Development. We have reviewed and analyzed each of the revenue and <br /> expenditure components of the fund. Based on this analysis our preliminary recommendations are as <br /> .follows: <br /> 1. Reduce Central Services Direct Pro ram Charges -Central Services has moved the related <br /> g <br /> costs of their .5 FTE in FY09 out of the SDC Admin fund and will not charge any more costs in <br /> FY09 and future years until unless this issue is revisited. Our assumption is that these billing and <br /> collection staff costs will be incorporated into the CSA cost pool, the recover of which will have a <br /> nominal impact on all funds. Immediate FY09 savings for. Fund 332 = 542,000. <br /> i <br /> 2. ReceipfRevenue from the Interest "Bump" into the Admin'Fund (Credit the Capital Funds <br /> only for their "opportunity loss" on monies tied tip iu financed contracts and not invested in <br /> ,the city pool) _Interest charged on SDC financed contracts is 8%., which includes a `bump" over <br /> the normal city investment earnings rate which is intended to help fund the cost of processing and <br /> servicing the financed accounts. Since FY96, the entire amount of interest has been credited back <br /> j in error directly to the system funds. We would likr; to mtroactively recoup a portion of the <br /> difference between the interest actually earned in the sti stem hinds and the 8% charged to <br /> developers in order to help shore up the diminishing resources in the Admin Fund. We are <br /> proposing going back three years (FYO6;TY07/FY08) to reimburse Fund 332 for its "loss" on the <br /> interest bump revenue it has foregone. This same situation is true 1~ ith'he MWMC charges <br /> which are fmanced, collected and then passed through to that Celt it ~ . I'he fmancial impact on the <br /> system capital funds of this three-year retroactive adjustment ould be as follows: <br /> Fund 333 Trlns SDC:. $26,845 <br /> Fund 33-} Sauitar~ Sewer SDC: $8,189 <br /> Fund 33~ Stc~nnwater SDC: $2,290 <br /> Fu x} ~ 36 - POS SI)C $7,544 <br /> Subtotal to be rcimbursc~~`fi~um city funds $44,868 <br /> <br /> i <br /> 'v~1~~'~'ti9C` pass-tl~rou~~l~ account collections <br /> Total to be rcinlburscil Il~oni all funds & MWMC <br /> In addition, in tl~e suture we. ~~~ould receipt all contract inteicst in }~urrd 332 and iln on s <br /> <br /> i <br /> quarterly basis nio~,e the actu€~I interest earned oli colrtracls by llic systems 1~unds -}'his would <br /> u}t in an estimated addition S~~,xxk in annual co>tract interest bu~i~ ret~enuc for fund 332. <br /> i <br /> There would he no innncdiate impact on funding for current capital projects; however, in all <br /> system funds, rc~ c Hues are declining and this change would increase that funding challenge for <br /> futureprojects. <br /> 3. Increase the Admin fee from 5% to X% - The Administration Fee was 7.5% until 1993, when it <br /> was reduced to 5% We would propose an Admin Fee increase as part of the overall SDC Rate <br /> Methodology update process, which would processed through and approved by the RAC, as it would <br /> require a change to City Code. At this point we are not prepared to suggest a specific rate increase, <br /> but we do believe that this change must be implemented in the next six months unless we're willing <br /> 'to sustain drastic reductions in the services funded by the Admin Fund. <br /> 4. Continue to Evaluate Other Opportunities for Reducing Admin Fund Expenditures. <br /> i <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br />