28. REPORT ON SECOND QUARTER FINANCIAL ACTIVITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003
Meeting Date: February 27, 2003 Budgeted: N/A
Program/Line Item No.: N/A
Staff Contact: Rick Dickhaut Cost Estimate: N/A
General Counsel Approval: N/A
Committee Recommendation: N/A
CEQA Compliance: N/A
SUMMARY: December 31, 2002 marked the conclusion of the second quarter of the District's 2002-2003 fiscal year. District staff has conducted an analysis of revenues and expenses during this period. Exhibits 28-A and 28-B are graphs showing both budgeted and actual income and expenses for the first three months of the fiscal year. Exhibit 28-C presents the same information in a table format. The following comments summarize District staff's observations.
The graph on Exhibit 28-A compares actual revenues received during the first six months of Fiscal Year 2002-2003 with the amounts budgeted for that same time period. While budgeted amounts are shown as one-half of the annual budget, actual revenues can differ greatly due to timing differences in the actual collection of funds. As the graph shows, revenues for permits were approximately equal to the budgeted amount while connection charges were 39% over the budgeted amount. While the “Other” category appears significantly under budget, the principal components of the category are revenues derived from outside sources for projects undertaken by the District. This includes items such as reimbursement from Cal-Am for work on the Carmel River Dam and Reservoir Project. Consultant effort, and therefore billing, on this type of work is not equally apportioned among the fiscal quarters. In addition, there is typically a lag between the completion of a project and the receipt of reimbursement. Interest revenues for the period were approximately 34% under budget due to continued declining interest rates. User fees are about 5% over budget and the actual receipts do not include user fees collected by Cal-Am or the Seaside Municipal Water System for December. Tax revenues received during the first six months were approximately 25% more than the amount budgeted. No grants were anticipated or received during the first half of the fiscal year. Overall, total revenues received for the first half represent 97% of revenues budgeted for the same period.
Expense activity as depicted on Exhibit 28-B is similar to patterns seen in the past several years. Personnel expenses are 16% below budget. Most of this variance for the period is attributable to a vacant position (Engineering Technician), the unexpended personnel contingency ($59,500) and under expended staff development budget ($24,700). Expenditures for supplies and services were below budget by 10%. Project costs, which are significantly below the budget as is typical, currently represent only 54% of the six-month budget. Other budgeted amounts with little or no expenditures during the first three months included $159,500 for payback on the Harris Court office building and $126,800 for contingencies. Overall, the six-month expenditures total approximately 64% of the budgeted amount.