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