Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 05/31/2011COMCC ,Y W A $ H THE C TY OF T ANGELES anda N G T O N 2011 Financial Report - through April Budgeting for Priorities Update Update on 2011 Work Plan 0 Capital Projects and Funding 0 Budget Calendar Presented May 31, 2011 by: Kent Myers, City Manager Yvonne Ziomkowski, Finance Director 5/31/2011 1 2011 City -wide Idudget Where are we now? 4 Month Review ends Sump 150 c 100 50 0 C 1 verview ❑ Revenues a Expenditures Expenditure 124,501,864 30,400,482 24% 28,018,443 _ The majority of this is flo-2219flgd related to capital projects 5/31/2011 2 2 ©U L locjhig e M we mez ¶ r ©ug h Q �� Revenues below prior year • Court fines • Utility/Utility taxes (Water, SW Trf Stn) • Gambling taxes • Parking ticket penalties • Leasehold Excise tax 2on HrigMgo Revenues above prior year Grants (Stormwater grant $1M) • REET • Lodging tax n Property tax (continued collection of prior years ?) rt Sales tax Utility /Utility taxes (Electric, Wastewater, SW Coll., Stormwater) O Building & Planning Activities • Interest Earnings b Criminal Justice tax 5/31/2011 3 20an1g gG is Cry -le EKpencirivez Expenditures within budget • Personnel - 3l% • Supplies -- 40% • Charges for Services - 28% • Capital Projects/Equipment - 5 °Io 0 Expenditures to monitor Q Jail • Equipment repair and fuel T El En] d . 5/31/2011 4 Note: 1St half property taxes are received in May. Closed Special Revenue funds such as Recreation and Criminal Justice will result in higher revenues and expenses in comparison to 2010. 2011 2011 Actual % Use dl 2010 Actual , Budget As of 4/30 Collected As of 4130 Revenues 17,592,334 4,702,226 26.7% 4,627,709 , Expenditures 18,007,334 5,896,106 32.7% 5,723,849 I Rev. - Exp. (415,000) (1,193,880) (1,096,140) maa, SF MK Mewanmes aDlla I Category Budget * Receipts through May 2011 Budget vs. Actuals through April General Fund Noaa Aetua n 334K ce Annual Budget 8% Kmo Actual ag Cg 295K Change pages Ka) 13% Property 4M H Tax (w/ Street) Utility 3.7M- 1.31M 35% 1.27M Taxes Sales * 2.6M 1.16M 45% , 1.07M 8% Leasehold 115K 32K 28% 36K (11%) Gambling 23K ; 5K 20% 110K (52 %) 3% 5/31/2011 5 OrocklzHng Street) nedo $601( Budget Assumptions o 1% increase in 2011 ($40K) Historical collection rate - 97- 98% New Construction - $8M Budget vs. Actual Receipts through April 13% above prior year Why the increase? • New construction • Continued "catch up" in paying prior year's • 1% increase • Increased collection efforts • Payment of full year UnIty Cod ° cled t Pough L [ In C In v I- 2 a it it Il 000 800 500 400 51.2©0 000 800 500 400 , 2® 2 ©bb 20ili eudget R 7 40% cted 0°0 0% 0 °1a 5/31/2011 6 Utny — EX MemineT Inn] E ectric Budget Assumptions 6 Based on utility revenue projections and utility tax rates 2011 increased rates; • Electric - $2 increase in base rate • Wastewater - 4.5% based on CSO rate increase • SW Trf. Stn. - 4.5% increase for self - haulers 0 Weather forecast 6 Nippon budgeted $1.7M below 2010 actual receipts Potential period of closure Water pact ast Qty. CoOdev tempeFatuves Onareamc d alle calc End p duc ed roster consum Oon counpav d Ut 2o20 - )Emes = ©3.72H Budget Budget vs. Actual n Electric Utility Tax Budget will be reviewed for increase during budget amendment period • Based on cold winter /spring • Nippon - significant closure periods are not anticipated Water and Transfer Station generally have peak revenues during summer months 5/31/2011 7 Seise TaN $2.6H Budget ceipts thr ©mg's Hay uil • Based on historical receipts less revenue from closed or moving businesses Less PC build receipts Budget Assumptions Budget vs. Actual • Sales tax revenues above prior year • Energy (fuel & propane from cold winter) • Telecommunications, Internet & electronics • Rentals and leases • Specialty trade contractors • Sales tax revenues below prior year Sale of clothing, furnishings & building material • Construction (not including cont'd receipts from PC build) Pad ras']B ©ugh A 511 3a 25 20 15 10 5 0 ` Pt � ee el • ‹ t .R\ „t, ,R\ 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% -50% 2010 =2011 % Change Small signs of recovery! 5/31/2011 8 Ov r e GF ev Fi 0 Cet. • Overall major GF revenues on track to meet budget o Utility Taxes Sales Tax o Property Tax o Building Permit Activity o Telephone Tax o Investment Income Ovrfr GF ExrtenOmtuires • Expenditures within budget • Personnel - 32% Q. Supplies - 30% o Charges for Services - 32% • Expenditures to monitor • Jail c Equipment repair and fuel Note: Some expenses are due in full at the beginning of the year (i.e.. Insurance) 5/31/2011 9 oranana ouo goo Cos= nrough aprn = Connwed Concern Cost increases: 20aa CoAdokl • Jail at 2010 level lug • May exceed budget by estimated $110K oMd Qt° al a� • County Court fees OVME • May exceed budget by estimated $10K • Indigent Defense • Currently within budget Revenue decrease: • Fines down 25 %, or $24K Y t potenUad change nge to 2 ©1,2. budget t +$148K Sp cal Revenues k'R Casts 5/31/2011 10 Other oi> Reuenmeo vough Zi\gp a)ZA VJm ` Ala Category Actual C oR 4go Bud et GgdQ40 ® Lodging 69K 15% 63K 10% Motor 127K 31% 129K (2 %) Vehicle REET 1 & 2 35K 15% 29K ' 21% LPencom * 178K 25% 172K 3% *Receipts through March U tI figs og 2INI® noamotiO AebuaD Rec,yclopetha 5/31/2011 11 NDait qo igge Electric * 30M 13M Water 5.7M 1.7M Wastewater 6.9M 2.2M SW Coll. 3.3M 1.1M SW TS . 5.4M ; 1.30M Stormwater 787K 95K Cash Utn� Electric - $5.8M O Conservation - $369K O Water - $2.6M O Wastewater $2.7M O Solid Waste Collection - $3.2M a' Solid Waste Transfer Station - $2.1.M a Stormwater - $726K O Medic I - $64K u t ewenuaz tNvolo Annual Budget Reserved Designated Aetua I nig CR 43% 12M 30% 1.9M 31% 2.1M 33% 1.1M 24% 1.33M 12% 81K npol hcan,ge *With increased consumption, Electric expenditures are at 39% a budget due to the additional purchase of power 5/31/2011 12 h z DI Utility Operational Expenses o Personnel - 32% Supplies - 41% Power Purchase - 41% Offset by additional revenue from higher consumption oCharges for Services - 29% Budgeting for Prlores - Update sev Brno Eve =oft w Wed cHasno What do nav ugen2 20 keep? 5/31/2011 13 Budgetring Tor PrniorMes EmNennentaUon Pvocess Cii0zets, ,„, S . t are the desked 1. resuks? Cokmgftc4 Step 2. Step 3. Step 4. eggrAe resuRts \ Rdentify programs , Evakmate score lo N & prritize \ progra:: lkssign $ Step 5. \ Programs Step 6. easure Step EdenUTy PrregFamo and . Zenuricez c Staff will identify and define programs based on clear program objectives Measure relative size- b on costs, people asc-ci9+ gram Departm isions = too big Tasks = too small a Can a program be divided into major and minor functions? 5/31/2011 14 Lean Govern en • Improve Quality • Eliminate Waste • Minimize Cost • Reduce Time • Improve Services Innoyation Steps to be Completed... Staff & Council will evaluate programs How will this program /service help to achieve the vision? Eliminate non -value added steps and programs 5/ 15 St t ▪ a [luate, Scare, and rioritiz • Should we provide a service? • Which programs are essential to achieving results or community vision • How much is the community reliant on the City to provide the service? . o Is there an alternative service provider? • Private, Federal State, contracted etc. 4 Would many people be adversely affected if the service were eliminated? • Would other related services be impacted if service was eliminated? • How do we provide a service? 4: Evaluate, Scare, and ri o ritize (c:©r) • Legal requirements? r.= Program/services mandated? • Does the service address life safety issues? • What is the financial impact of the service? • Are there other potential sources of revenues? • What is the cost /benefit relationship of the service? • Cost recovery of service • Economic Impact • Does the service contribute to economic growth? o Is there a change in demand for a service? 5/31/2011 16 5/31/2011 Map coneC., SCOTS PTegvams Use prior evaluation of programs and services to apply a "value" Based on evidence of a program's influence on achieving results 0 A program scorecard can be used as an evaluation tool DOWnientPre,ram Score.ctrd E DFETTI ProgTaniu Scarecavd 17 mple gat? — Made PrroNtaaztj ©n Array 4 - Priority "4" 4 { 5 Total City -Wide Program Prioritization Total Program Scars (SeakR of 0to LOC. where 10 = 'Perfect Score") 14 70 30 40 50 50 70 34 f1� Priority "3" Priority "1" - Top Quartile Priority "2" 1 2tap Qssagn doh ays 11© Fire Expenditures by Program ($) Administration 356,170 Suppression 1,312,003 Prevention 141,554 Volunteers 57,314 Special Operations 3,725 Training 133,811 Facilities 44,862 Emergency Management 3,060 100 5/31/2011 18 2,0a2 Q2. o mdgetil ng TOT Pni ©xittlez Focus on results for the community Citizen survey addressed • Goal or priority driven budget process Long -term and sustainable • Review cost - saving measures O Lean Government AS-ES ar _grogram success Update on 2011 Expectabons Dog park fund raiser 5/31/2011 19 2 1.1. °ll PL;in • Retail Sector Analysis Report • Think Local Campaign • Feasibility Study on new Conference Center • Regional Fire Authority • City/County Task Force on Cooperative Approaches • Construction of Dog Park • Volunteer involvement Program 2011 ork Pi in Gorit 4 • Task Force Recommendations for Improvements to Civic Field • Consideration of Transportation Benefit District • Shoreline Master Plan completed/approved • First Street Stormwater Project • Complete Study on Regionalization of Emergency Communications Services • Continue Discussions on Clean- up/Restoration of Rayonier Property 5/31/2011 20 CE Lral [ T©,- (- C1 PrricleZo on LJ t Ll Ll e LI Lk C E CD LJ u Lauridsen Bridge - $4.716M = Waterfront - $1.250M Future phases approximately $15.5M BTaP - $3.724M za L, 5/31/2011 21 Other Potential_ Pvolects on G 1 • 215 S Lincoln (Historical Restoration) } Civic Field improvements O Cross town truck route • Major street improvements • Port Angeles Boys & Girls Club • Marine Life Center • Anything else? Ca[pRa Profiecto PotenUM Funding Sources Identify funding for capital projects Lauridsen Bridge o Waterfront Project future phases • Street projects deemed essential BTOP local match • 215 Lincoln (Historical Restoration) 4 Port Angeles Boys & Girls Club • Civic Field improvements 4 • Cross town truck route • Marine Life Center po, aaatt 5/31/2011 22 Possl.Me aural able FuncIng Caplta PTojecro $C.2,H • General Fund Savings - $600K Street Reserves - $300K • REET $750K , Reserves - $500K • 2012 & 2013 Revenue - $250K 0 EURED Reserves - $150K O Economic Development - $2M • Undesignated Reserves - $1M • Settlement Reserves - $1M O Contingency - $250K • Debt Service (Gateway Property) - $200K $000 g)) -faouirJti 3collt7@Gf@ Project City GF Cost Grants Funds Reserves 4,716 3,716 1,000 250 750 *$500K from reserves $250K 2012 & 2013 revenues LauFksen Bou]sward Erridge__ Design/permitting/public outreach - Accomplish in 2012 Construction - 2013 Photo courtesy of Peninsula Daily REET* News 5/31/2011 23 E'nFfont and. YrranspoTta on ffmp)voweffinern Phase EE Q 000 Phase II Project Cost 1,250 aimE ua®c Settlement Reserves Phase II -- Engineering, permitting and construction documents for a portion of downtown Waterfront • Black Ball Ferry Terminal west to Valley Creek • Transportation Comprehensive Plan Update (completed over two year period) lAILIOCADO EURED Street GF Reserves Reserves Reserves Add iti 500 300 150 300 p ia z Left Ern Maos ! Verb = VLSlJ"VJ General Fund Reserves - $1.75M Street Reserves - $10.5K o EURED Reserves - $140K O Economic Development - $2.4M a Undesignated Reserves - $300K Settlement Reserves - $2.1M O Debt Service (Gateway Property) - $500K 5/31/2011 24 Other Pose:ft .1\_ Souvcso Transportation Benefit District Additional use of Economic Development Funds • Business license fees o Lodging tax $2/night O REET starting 2014 • Bond issue O Property tax increase O Sales tax increase o Other ideas? - 12b ) omoolcon cawf Rewenue 5/3 25 G June 7 - Budget workshop and first public hearing on Capital Facilities Plan. ✓ June 21 -- Second public hearing on Capital Facilities Plan. O June /July -- Finalize program identification and scoring O July 5 - If needed, continue public hearings on CFP (pass resolution) O July 19 - Council meeting - public comments from citizens related to City budget Qu.amOlorma 5/31/2011 26 Department -- 0-4 Scale l4 =State /Federal Mandate; 2= Charter; 1 =Ordinance/ Resolution; I 0-No Mandate Program i Score Evaluation Criteria Basic Program Attributes Priority Results Mandated to ; Change in Cost Recovery . Reliance on Provide Demand for of Program City to Provide Program Service Service 0 - 4 Scale -4 till 4 Scale based on i -4- demand Percentage significantly (4= 75 -10O %; decreasing; 3=50-74%; 4= demand 2= 25 -49 %; significantly 1 =1 -24 %) i increasing) Score ! Score (4 =Only City can On a scale of 0 to 4 points provide service; ° = program has no influence on achieving the Result 2 =Only public = program has some influence on achieving the Result entities can provide; 2 = program influences the Result 0=other entities 3 = program has a strong influence on the Result can provide) 4 = program is essential to achieving the Result Score Program Score Department Program Scorecard Financially Plan for a Excellence in Our Unique Economic Responsible Sustainable Government Community Development Government Community Score Score Score Score Public Safety Score Score