AgdaPkt 2009-10-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7C Page 3 Scenario 2: SERAF Take from Aaencv General Fund. The SERAF take would result in the Agency's general fund having a working capital deficit of $701,000 and $1.47 million at the end of FY 2009/10 and FY 2010/11 respectively assuming that the administration, programs and project allocations remain "as is" in the approved FY 2009/10 Budget. Scenario 3: SERAF Take from Aaencv General Fund + Borrow Maximum Housina Set- Aside Tax Increment. If the Board borrows the maximum allowed in housing set-aside tax increment from FY 2009/10 and FY 2010/11 to make the SERAF payments and maintains the current Agency level of service, the Agency's general fund budget will have a positive ending working capital balance of $1.83 million and $1.29 million respectively. The impact of borrowing housing tax increments for FY 2009/10 reduces the housing working capital balance from $4.09 million to $1.56 million while the working capital balance in FY 2010/11 is reduced from $7.11 million to $4.36 million. The borrowing of the allowable housing set-aside during these two fiscal years will not have a substantive effect on the Agency's housing program because the Agency expects to have a positive unencumbered working capital balance of $1.56 million in FY 2009/10 to pay for housing projects. The key reason is attributed to the beginning working capital balance of $2.15 million in FY 2009/10 in the housing fund from higher than projected tax increment ($377,000), administrative expenditures under budget ($228,000), and housing rehabilitation expenditures under budget ($280,000) Scenario 4: SERAF Take from Aaencv General Fund + Borrow Maximum Housing Set- Aside Tax Increment + Deobliaate Proiect Funds in RDA General. This scenario is similar to Scenario 3 with the addition of deobligating $1.2 million of unexpended funds from project appropriations established in prior years to increase the Agency's working capital. Projects proposed to be deobligated include, but are not limited to, $450,000 budgeted for garage fund upgrade and $415,000 for critical "pioneering" development. The general fund working capital balance in this scenario is $3.05 million in FY 2009/10. The impact to the housing fund would be the same as Scenario 3. ALTERNATIVES 1. Same as Scenario 2, this alternative shows the SERAF payment from the Agency's general fund without borrowing housing set-side tax increment. Not borrowing housing set-aside will result in a negative working capital balance in the Agency's general fund to $701,000 in FY 2009/10 and $1.47 million in FY 2010/11. Consequently, the Agency would need to borrow from the City's general fund or severely reduce the operating costs in the Agency's general fund, which would likely entail reducing staffing and service levels. 2. Same as Scenario 3, this alternative borrows the maximum allowed of housing set-aside tax increment allocated in FY 2009/10 and FY 2010/11. Additionally, as an option, the Board could eliminate $500,000 operating reserve to reduce the amount of housing set-aside borrowed. 3. Same as Scenario 4, this alternative borrows the maximum allowed of housing set-aside tax increment allocated in FY 2009/10 and FY 2010/11 and deobligate