FINANCIAL SUMMARY. The total maximum amount of disbursement pertinent to this contract is Contract Amount. Contract overruns will not be paid.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY. Tables 8 and 9 display aggregate financial information and define the first advanced payment.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY. Upon request of the Commission, the Sponsor shall provide to the Commission a financial summary of the total funds expended. The summary must show the source of funds and the specific items for which they were expended.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY. In order to follow the disbursement cycles, the columns are divided into biannual groups (two quarters), and the rows are grouped by the work packages. · First, choose the relevant year and quarter by clicking the + on top of the sheet · Second, choose the relevant work package(s) by clicking the + on the left-hand side Once every six months the projected expenditure for the upcoming period should be completed. Please note that the projected expenditure cannot exceed six months. Please fill in the actual expenditure for the relevant quarter and the relevant sub-work package. Please include only expenditure that has actually been incurred and reimbursed during the quarterly period.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY. Over the life of this contract, purchasing cards have replaced the use of purchase orders as the method to authorize and process eligible low-value transactions, consistent with the Auditor General’s recommendations made in 2017. To account for this increase in activity, a $7.368 million upset limit increase is required to address anticipated spending to the end of the contract term on March 31, 2023, inclusive of an additional $0.250 million provision for one- time emergency requirements related to the TTC’s COVID-19 response, as summarized in the table below. The contract upset limit was based on historical spending rates and a 25% growth contingency, with annual purchasing card spending anticipated to be $3.3 million annually. However, with the program’s expansion, spending activity has now reached approximately $6.1 million per year. This is broadly consistent with the decrease in non-stock purchase order spending which has declined from approximately $3.5 million annually at the start of the contract to approximately $0.75 million per year currently. Based on the projected spend rate for the period ending March 31, 2022, the requested amendment to the upset limit anticipates an average monthly spending rate of $0.533 million or $6.4 million for the last year of the contract term. There is no financial impact arising from this requested increase, as the upset limit increase is substantially a re-allocation from non-stock purchase orders to the purchasing card contract The financial impact is limited to an allowance of $0.250 million to address any emergency expenses that may arise as part of the TTC’s COVID-19 response that would be processed using a purchasing card. Funding for COVID-19 response expenses are incorporated in the total COVID impacts included in the 2022 Operating Budget approved by the Board on December 20, 2021, and to be considered by City Council on February 17, 2022. The shifting of small purchase requirements to purchasing cards has resulted in an increase in annual rebates received by the TTC, from approximately $33,000 in the first year of the contract to $60,000 per year currently. Given that the current contract was established as a joint purchasing venture with the City of Toronto (City) and its Agencies and Corporations, the annual rebate percentages offered by the PCard provider are based on the aggregate TTC and City expenditures. 2021 YTD April 2021 to Nov. 2021 294 5.0% 4,407 $3,698,172 $462,271.50 $508,498.65 $46 2020 Ap...
FINANCIAL SUMMARY. The Grant amount is initially calculated based on Xxxxxxx’s estimate of the total Planning Costs. Agency will withhold the final payment of the estimated grant funds, up to 100 percent, until submission of the Final Report. Upon receipt of the Final Report, Agency will recalculate the Grant amount using actual Planning Costs, and Agency’s disbursement of the Grant Monies may be reduced as a result. So that Agency may calculate the disbursement, provide the following information: Promptly following completion of the project planning, the Grantee must submit an account of total Planning Costs that identifies all funding sources and includes all receipts, paid invoices, cancelled checks (if applicable), and bank loan or promissory note documentation. It should also include an itemized list of equipment and incurred Planning Costs. If they pay property taxes, Grantee must also provide proof that Grantee or owner of the Project location, if other than Grantee, is current on the property taxes for the Project’s location. If the total Planning Costs are $50,000 or more, Grantee must include an independent Certified Public Accountant’s attestation to the validity and accuracy of the account. The following guidance is intended to help Grantee comply with these requirements.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY. Total spend on DFG and HRA adaptations by district councils within the county has been of the order of an average of £6.2m per year in recent years. In addition, HCC funds minor works: £378k was budgeted for these in 2014/15. In the same year, District Council staffing costs totalled an estimated £624k, with HCC’s Housing Occupational Therapy service delivered via Serco costing £804k. A number of national developments created an opportunity to review the delivery of DFG within the county area and consider how to integrate provision of help with home adaptations across housing, health and social care system. Table 2 – 6 below provide a summary of the current cost and funding position, and proposed ongoing cost of the Shared Home Improvement Agency Service. Table 2 reflects the following • Gross and net costs of running the Home Improvement service, and details how this is financed in each authority. The table below summarises the average annual cost of DFG and Home Improvement related services in all Hertfordshire district authorities. BBC DBC EHC HBC NHDC SADC SBC TRDC WBC WHBC Districts total £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s Running Costs 111 66 113 82 50 70 80 94 111 123 900 Disabled Facilities Spend 450 602 384 435 605 701 350 418 386 442 4,773 Gross cost of service 561 668 497 517 655 771 930 512 497 565 6,173 Funded by Grant ( 314) ( 366) ( 293) ( 295) ( 360) ( 291) ( 305) ( 250) ( 279) ( 316) ( 3,070) Revenue resources ( 56) ( 32) ( 113) ( 82) ( 12) ( 70) ( 80) 0 ( 36) ( 123) ( 604) Other capital financing (usually capital receipts) ( 191) ( 236) ( 90) ( 140) ( 232) ( 409) ( 45) ( 262) ( 183) ( 126) ( 1,914) • Baseline figures have been investigated thoroughly since the outline business case and updated where appropriate; the most significant changes are that running costs have been amended from £539k to an increased figure of £900k. This is following the verification of district information, and the inclusion in running costs of system costs, overheads, and travel costs, where previously only staffing costs were known. • There is differing treatment among districts regarding whether staffing costs are charged to revenue or capital. • Registered housing providers also fund some adaptations, in some cases in full but more commonly by contributing a percentage towards the cost of works; these figures are not generally included in table 2. • Three Rivers and St Albans did not respond to the request for updated and verifi...
FINANCIAL SUMMARY. 7.1 The County Council has agreed to provide funding of £200,000 in 2007/08 rising to £400,000 p.a. in 2008/09 and 2009/10 to support VCS capacity building through SCIO.
7.2 The County Council agrees, subject to the satisfactory outcome of the shared review of progress in delivering the outcomes detailed in the agreement, to guarantee the level of funding but it will seek to share the financial commitment in 2008/09 and subsequent years by negotiating a proportionate contribution from partners through the LAA process. In seeking this new investment the County Council will work with SCIO to ensure that existing investment in SCIO partners is not displaced.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY. A summary of the cost and benefit position for the implementation of CVSSS is shown in Table 11 below, which illustrates the overall strength of the business case. The table shows the upper and lower ranges from the two Scenarios described in Section 4.4. Diagram 6 below illustrates the annual savings profile projected over a ten year period for both scenarios, with additional detail provided in the subsequent tables. £40,000 £35,000 £30,000 £25,000 £20,000 £15,000 £10,000 £5,000 £0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 The growth in savings from year one reflects the phased transition of Council functions into the Shared Service and the impact of moving to best practice processes for service delivery. There is significant variation in performance across functions within the participating Councils, with best practice spread across different Councils for different functions. As described in Section 5.5.3 below, the business case prudently assumes the initial target operating levels of productivity will be that currently being achieved by lowest cost Council in the Xxxxx Valley. It is also assumed that it will take three years following transition into the CVSSS to achieve this initial target productivity level. Thereafter, it is assumed that the continuous improvement culture created within the organisation will drive annual efficiency improvements of 3%. This is in line with that reported from other successful Shared Service operations in the public and private sector. Tables 12 and 13 below show a summary of the annual project costs and savings for the two modelling scenarios and the annual net cashflow position over the first five year period. Capital -£7,750 -£4,000 -£4,000 £0 £0 Revenue -£3,458 -£4,193 -£3,636 -£456 £211 Contingency -£173 -£210 -£182 -£23 £11 Total project spend -£11,381 -£8,403 -£7,818 -£479 £221 Savings against 10/11 base budget £1,209 £5,961 £12,491 £17,039 £18,583 Annual net saving -£10,172 -£2,442 £4,673 £16,561 £18,804 Capital -£7,750 -£4,000 -£4,000 £0 £0 Revenue -£3,654 -£5,161 -£4,696 -£1,194 -£63 Contingency -£183 -£258 -£235 -£60 -£3 Total project spend -£11,587 -£9,419 -£8,931 -£1,254 -£66 Savings against 10/11 base budget £1,961 £9,667 £20,257 £27,634 £30,138 Annual net saving -£9,626 £248 £11,327 £26,380 £30,071 The delivery of the business case identifies a total investment requirement of up to £31.2m. This is split approximately 50:50 between capital (for systems and infrastructure) and revenue (primarily for the change programme and s...
FINANCIAL SUMMARY. A summary of the results and of the assets and liabilities of the Group for the past five financial years is set out on pages 80 to 81.
