1 / 36

Impact Fee Analysis: Maintaining the Public’s Trust

Impact Fee Analysis: Maintaining the Public’s Trust. CFO Perspective. Continuation of a Process that is related to all other financial issues Unfortunate Situation during a Hectic time Lack of Structure, Accountability, Experience, and Trust Long Lasting Implications Interfund Loans

eliana-richmond
Download Presentation

Impact Fee Analysis: Maintaining the Public’s Trust

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impact Fee Analysis: Maintaining the Public’s Trust

  2. CFO Perspective • Continuation of a Process that is related to all other financial issues • Unfortunate Situation during a Hectic time • Lack of Structure, Accountability, Experience, and Trust • Long Lasting Implications • Interfund Loans • New Impact Fee Law

  3. Warning Signs • Impact Fee Fund Deficits and No Interfund Loans Recorded • Fire Impact Fee Fund Deficit = $4+M • Transfers instead of Loans • FY 2010 Budget showed a $4M+ Transfer Out from the Library Impact Fee Fund • “Paid Cash for City Hall” • Limited Discussions of Financing Decisions with City Council

  4. Consultant Analysis Scope of Work • Verify accuracy and consistency with current Impact Fee study • Project Funding (Growth vs. Non-Growth) • Accuracy of project costs, scope, etc. • Verify Accounting and Budget Practices • Use of “Home Fund” • Transfers between funds

  5. Consultant Analysis Outcomes • Preserve Integrity of Impact Fee Program • Accurately report the City’s Financial Condition • Document the Priorities and Strategies of the Current City Council

  6. Project Evaluation Steps

  7. Consultant Analysis Examples • City Hall • Public Safety Headquarters • 2003 MPC Debt Service Allocation

  8. Flow of Funds-Development Activity General Fund One-Time Revenues: Permits, Construction Sales Tax, etc. 11 Impact Fees (Growth Projects) Roads Police Fire Public Works Parks Rec General Gov’t Portion of One-Time Revenues Water Production Water Resource Library General CIP Fund Non-Growth Projects Wastewater Reclaimed Water

  9. $61M City Hall-Should Have Been General Government Impact Fee Fund City Hall: -$35M General CIP Fund City Hall: -$26M City Hall’s growth costs (future needs) of $35M, or 57% City Hall’s non-growth costs (existing needs) of $26M, or 43%

  10. $61M City Hall-Actually Recorded General CIP Fund City Hall Costs: Non-Growth -$26M Growth -$35M Total -$61M General Government Impact Fee Fund City Hall: $0M Because incorrectly recorded in General CIP Fund, the fact there were insufficient funds in the General Government Impact Fee Fund as masked.

  11. $61M City Hall-Proposed Action General CIP Fund City Hall Costs: Non-Growth -$26M Growth -$35M Total -$61M General Government Impact Fee Fund City Hall: $0M Interfund Loan

  12. $61M City Hall-Proposed Action General CIP Fund City Hall Costs: Non-Growth -$26M Growth -$35M Loan To $35M General Government Impact Fee Fund Growth -$35M Loan From $35M

  13. $61M City Hall-Proposed Action General CIP Fund City Hall Costs: Non-Growth -$26M Loan Repayment +$35M *** OPPORTUNITY *** General Government Impact Fee Fund Growth -$35M Loan From $35M Repayment of Loan

  14. Example – Public Safety Building

  15. Example – Public Safety Building

  16. Example – Public Safety HQ Funded in single fund with multiple funding sources • Total expenditures all sources less any MPC debt funding which is addressed through debt service repayment. • Amounts funded within the separate development fee funds.

  17. Results– 2003 MPC Debt Service • Remaining debt service not related to growth-related development fee projects are allocated to the general fund.

  18. Interfund Loans: Opportunities and Challenges

  19. Summary: General Capital Fund $38M net Due From Other Funds • Owes Police SDF fund $2.5 million and Public Works SDF fund $4.6 million because growth portion of facility was overstated • General Govt. SDF fund owes General Capital $36.0 million due to charging growth portion of City Hall and other facilities to this fund • Parks & Rec. SDF fund owes $4.7 million due to transfers exceeding non-growth portion of various projects charged to Gen. Capital • Fire/EMS SDF fund owes $4.3 million due to funds transferred from General Capital to cover deficit.

  20. Consultant Report Findings • No Money is Missing • Impact Fees were Used to Construct Growth Related Projects • Timing of funding-not usage causing $73 million disconnect! • Growth projects budgeted vs. spent

  21. Consultant Report Findings • JE’s lacked supporting documentation, explanation of intent, and approvals • Significant number of correcting journal entries • Three MPC Bond Issues were all recorded in the same fund • $3.4 M Deficit in 2000 MPC Bond Const. Fund • $4.0 M Excess in 2007 MPC Bond Const. Fund

  22. Consultant Report Findings • Bond Reserve requirements were not met • Restatement of $971K on financials • $3.9M bond issuance to cover a shortfall in pooled operating cash

  23. Consultant Recommendations 1. Record $73M of Interfund Loans and other correcting entries 2. Journal entries should always be approved by appropriate staff and contain good supporting documentation including explanation of intent and outcome (e.g. transfers and loans)

  24. Consultant Recommendations 3. The City should transfer funds into the 2007 Bond Reserve account to bring the balance up to the required $5M 4. Update the Impact Fee Study and fee calculations

  25. Questions 1. Who was responsible? • ALL involved could have done a better job 2. What does this mean to the City? • Growth pays for growth • General Fund’s Fund Balance $4.1M Reduction • $1M+ Increase in Debt Payments in General Fund • Bond Rating? • CIP: Opportunities and Challenges

  26. New Development Fee Legislation • How did SB 1525 effect Surprise? • After January 1, 2012, cannot charge or collect fees for specific projects defined in new statute • Limitation on fees collected and pledged for repayment of debt service for projects not allowed under the new legislation • Debt must be issued before June 1, 2011 • Surprise “pledged” impact fees for interfund loan

  27. New Development Fee Legislation • How did SB 1525 effect Surprise? • Dev. Fee schedules will need to be revised • Funds collected up to Jan.1, 2012 must be spent in same fee category by January 1, 2020 • Surprise will be impacted by this portion of the law---i.e. City Hall

  28. Major Changes in SB 1525 • Major Policy Change regarding Funding and Financing Infrastructure • More Narrowly Defines “Necessary Public Services” • Unclear, Unproven Language • Cities are Impacted Differently • Difficult for cities to issue new debt with impact fees as repayment pledge • Specific project types are not allowed to be paid by impact fees starting January 1, 2012

  29. Major Changes in SB 1525 • Fees under new statute must be adopted by August 1, 2014 • New requirements for Infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP) • Includes existing infrastructure and available capacity • Identify service areas for “necessary public services” • Includes “land use assumptions” • Must be prepared by “qualified professionals” • Must be updated every 5 years

  30. Major Changes in SB 1525 • New timelines for adoptions • Advisory committee vs. biennial audits • Additional reporting requirements • Required to demonstrate need to service new growth by “service unit” and “service area” requirements • Forecast growth related revenues to offset costs of new infrastructure/facilities

  31. Major Changes in SB 1525 • New growth projects allowed • Must have a 3 or more year life expectancy • Must be owned or operated on behalf of municipality • Financing costs are allowed for growth related projects

  32. Major Changes in SB 1525 • What is not allowed • General government facilities • Administrative, operating and maintenance costs • Limits projects for police, fire, parks and library • Increased level of service • Parks over 30 acres that do not show a direct benefit to new development

  33. Major Changes in SB 1525 • Capacity can be reserved • Development fees MUST be assessed to all customer classifications and burden on new growth • Provides additional language for credits/reimbursements • Define time period for projects to be completed for new growth • Except for water & sewer, cannot exceed 10 years • Water and Sewer is 15 years

  34. Major Changes in SB 1525 • On or after June 1, 2011 – No adoption or increase in TPT rate for construction or similar excise tax • Remains in place until July 31, 2010 • On or after August 1, 2014 – Excess TPT above average TPT rate has to offset development fee calcs • Potentially could impact future development agreements

  35. Summary of SB 1525 • Most important upcoming dates: • January 1, 2012 • August 1, 2014 • January 1, 2020

  36. Comments and Questions

More Related