Budget Overview Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 1 Budget - - PDF document

budget overview
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Budget Overview Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 1 Budget - - PDF document

Council Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 Budget Overview Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 1 Budget Overview General Fund Base Projection 700 680 660 + $ 4 .3 M -$ 1 5 .2 M 640 Revenue + $ 1 5 .5 M -$ 8 .3 M Expenditures 620 -$ 2


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 1

Council Budget Workshop

February 24, 2016

Budget Overview

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 2 Budget Overview General Fund Base Projection

  • The Chart above reflects estimates based upon moderate base expense growth and moderate

base revenue growth

  • Assumes all services maintained at current levels
  • The Chart only includes base budget adjustments:
  • increases in merit pay, health premiums, retirement contributions
  • 1.5% growth rate in operations to maintain current service levels

1

560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 Revenue Expenditures + $ 4 .3 M

  • $ 2 .0 M
  • $ 8 .3 M
  • $ 1 5 .2 M

Gap = difference between revenue and expenditures each fiscal year + $ 1 5 .5 M

Budget Overview General Fund Revenue Forecast Scenarios

2

FY2016 Projected FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 High Revenue/ Low Expenditure $15.5 $7.4 $12.4 $18.5 $23.3 Medium Revenue/ Medium Expenditure $15.5 $4.3 $(2.0) $(8.3) $(15.2) Per Capita Sales Tax/ High Expenditure $6.0 $(26.0) $(36.0) $(46.3) $(57.1)

+ $ 1 5 .5 + $ 4 .3

  • $ 2 .0
  • $ 8 .3
  • $ 1 5 .2

$(70.0) $(60.0) $(50.0) $(40.0) $(30.0) $(20.0) $(10.0) $- $10.0 $20.0 $30.0

General Fund Revenue/ Expenditure Sensitivity Analysis ( $ m illions)

Note: Worst case revenue scenario assumes the per capita sales tax distribution as proposed by the General Assembly during the 2015 Long Session.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 3

Council Priorities Discussion

Workshop Discussion

  • Goal: Council priorities in the budget context

– To focus immediate work effort on those priorities deemed most critical – To check alignment with staff assessment – To guide budget deliberations

1

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 4 Council Priorities - Process Update

  • 1. Updated draft based on Council input
  • 2. Added baseline funding information
  • 3. Added FY2017 funding requests

– Work in progress, feedback needed – No recommendations at this time

  • 4. Review input from Executive Staff

– Based on assessment criteria

  • 5. Use priorities to frame key budget

allocation decisions

2

Scoring Exercise

  • Review results from Department Directors
  • Complete Survey sheets for one of the six Strategic Policy

Objectives

  • Survey sheets will be collected when complete
  • Results will be projected on the screen for discussion
  • Evaluate the results of this exercise to determine patch

forward

3

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 5 Rate the Community Impact

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%

I ncrease CMPD resources in program s w here additional staff can have the greatest im pact on crim e

5 - Great Im pact 4 - Significant Im pact 3 - Moderate Impact 2 - Slight Impact 1 - Minimal Im pact

Feedback from Departm ent Directors

4

Rate the Urgency

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

I ncrease CMPD resources in program s w here additional staff can have the greatest im pact on crim e

5 - Less than 12 months 4 - 12-24 months 3 - Two - Three Years 2 - Three - Four Years 1 - Four+ Years

Feedback from Departm ent Directors

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 6 Rate the Funding Support

(Two Questions for Council)

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

I ncrease CMPD resources in program s w here additional staff can have the greatest im pact on crim e

5 - Great Support 4 - Significant Support 3 - Moderate Support 2 - Slight Support 1 - Minimal Support

Feedback from Departm ent Directors

6

Rate the Community Impact

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Ensure that the Charlotte Fire Departm ent can m eet response standards by adding com panies based on analysis to target resources to have the greatest im pact

5 - Great Impact 4 - Significant Impact 3 - Moderate Impact 2 - Slight Impact 1 - Minimal Impact

Feedback from Departm ent Directors

7

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 7 Rate the Urgency

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%

Ensure that the Charlotte Fire Departm ent can m eet response standards by adding com panies based on analysis to target resources to have the greatest im pact

5 - Less than 12 months 4 - 12 -24 months 3 - Two - Three Years 2 - Three - Four Years 1 - Four+ Years

Feedback from Departm ent Directors

8

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Ensure that the Charlotte Fire Departm ent can m eet response standards by adding com panies based on analysis to target resources to have the greatest im pact

5 - Great Support 4 - Significant Support 3 - Moderate Support 2 - Slight Support 1 - Minimal Support

Feedback from Departm ent Directors

Rate the Funding Support

(Two Questions for Council)

9

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 8 Rate the Community Impact

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%

Collaborate w ith effective youth crim e diversion program s especially for first tim e, non-violent offenders to avoid a crim inal record and increase their opportunity for success

5 - Great Im pact 4 - Significant Im pact 3 - Moderate Impact 2 - Slight Impact 1 - Minimal Im pact

Feedback from Departm ent Directors

10

Rate the Urgency

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%

Collaborate w ith effective youth crim e diversion program s especially for first tim e, non-violent

  • ffenders to avoid a crim inal record and

increase their opportunity for success

5 - Less than 12 months 4 - 12-24 months 3 - Two-Three years 2 - Three - Four years 1 - Four+ years

Feedback from Departm ent Directors

11

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 9

Rate the Funding Support

(Two Questions for Council)

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%

Collaborate w ith effective youth crim e diversion program s especially for first tim e, non-violent

  • ffenders to avoid a crim inal record and

increase their opportunity for success

5 - Great Support 4 - Significant Support 3 - Moderate Support 2 - Slight Support 1 - Minimal Support

Feedback from Departm ent Directors

12

Rate the Community Impact

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%

Support CMPD efforts in addressing the broader root causes of crim e in targeted areas

5 - Great Impact 4 - Significant Impact 3 - Moderate Impact 2 - Slight Impact 1 - Minimal Impact

Feedback from Departm ent Directors

13

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 10 Rate the Urgency

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%

Support CMPD efforts in addressing the broader root causes of crim e in targeted areas

5 - Less than 12 Months 4 - 12-24 Months 3 - Two - Three Years 2 - Three- Four Years 1 - Four+ years

Feedback from Departm ent Directors

14 Rate the Funding Support

(Two Questions for Council)

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%

Support CMPD efforts in addressing the broader root causes of crim e in targeted areas

5 - Great Support 4 - Significant Support 3 - Moderate Support 2 - Slight Support 1 - Minimal Support

Feedback from Departm ent Directors

15

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 11 Criteria for Assessing Priorities/ Scoring Exercise

  • Which Strategic Priorities…

– Have the m ost im pact in the Community

 Great Impact  Moderate Impact  Minimal Impact

– Are the m ost urgent

 High Urgency  Medium Urgency  Low Urgency

– Have the most significant budget im pact and require council policy direction and allocation decisions

 Is this a priority for funding in FY2017?  Does the level of staff effort need to be adjusted?

16

Next Steps

  • Add specific action steps to the existing priority

descriptions

  • Define success measures to track progress

– Dependent on budget decisions

17