Fund 334 Fund Balancing - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

I i Interest (fund interest) $7,000 PW Eng. $397,131 2.45 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 :j follows: 1. Reduce Central Services Direct Program Charges -Central Services has moved the related costs of their .5 FTE in FY09 out of the SDC Admin fund and will not charge 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 Fund 332 = $42,000. 2. Receipt Revenue from the Interest "Bump" into the Admin-Fund (Credit the Capital Funds only for their "opportunity loss" on monies tied tip in tivanced contracts and not invested in the city pool) _Interest charged on SDC financed contracts is 8%., which includes a "bump" over the normal city investment earnings rate which is into nd~d to help fund the cost of processing and servicing the financed accounts. Since FY96, the entire amrn~rt of interest has been credited back in error directly to the system funds. We would like to ret react iti c1}T recoup a portion of the ~ difference between the interest actually earned in the system thuds and the 8% charged to developers in order to help shore uh the diminishing resources iit the Admin Fund. We are proposing going back three years (FZ'U6,'FY07lFY08) to reinibursc Fund 332 for its "loss" on the interest bump revenue it has foregone.. This san~_e situation is true wiih~he MWMC charges which are financed, collected and then has~cd tluough to that entity. The financial impact on the i system capital funds of this three-year retroactive. adjustment would be as follows: I Fund 333 -Tans SDC: $26,845 Fund Z,4 - Sauitarv Sewer SDC: $8,189 Fund 33~ - Stornn~ ater SDC: $2,290 Fwic,l :33G - f'OS SIB(' $7,544 i Subtotal to he reimbursed from city foods ~ $44,868 i M~r~IC Mass-throu~~h accouvl cultcctions ~j Total to be rcimbu,:sed from all funds & MWMC ~ In a~itit~n. in the fiiture u c «-ould reccihL allor~tr,et intere--tit in u~d 33? and then on a ' flr,~~l-terly basis move the arlual interest earned. on contracts b~~ tl~ie stir toms funds 'I'bis «~ou}d ~ result in an estimated additional ~~X,ax~ in annual contract intcr~st bunlp~r~vie forFund 332 I Them ~~~uuld be no inmlediate impact on funding for current capital projects; however, in all system funds, rc~ cnucs are declining and this change would increase that funding challenge for future projects. 3. Increase the Admin fee from 5% to X% - The Administration Fee was 7.5% until 1993, 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 2 of 4