http://www.christiansburg.org/index.aspx?nid=455
The Center for Priority Based Budgeting also provided town staff with access to their proprietary spreadsheets and filtering systems as they work to allocate resources based on priorities. These systems will allow for closer examination of programs and services and the impact they have on town spending. They are designed to promote questioning by staff of what else can be done, who the town can possibly partner with to continue to provide the same level of service expected by the public, etc. The intent of the process is to provide a new way of looking at information and generating the conversations that need to be had in order to make tough funding decisions.
The town hopes to continue to utilize the priority based budgeting approach in the future, whether facing tough economic times or not. In addition to providing a way to completely review existing programs and services in upcoming years, it will also allow suggestions for new programs or services to be evaluated using established criteria as a means of determining whether implementing the prospective program should be a high priority for the town and our citizens.
F.Y. 2011-12 Proposed Budget
Proposed F.Y. 2011-12 Annual Budget (from 4/25/11)
Following months of work by staff and the launch of a new priority based budgeting process, Christiansburg’s proposed F.Y. 2011-12 Annual Budget was presented to Town Council at a special meeting on April 26, 2011.
Total revenues expected for the general fund are $23,169,208. General fund budgeted operating expenditures are $21,414,380 and an additional amount of $2,091,146 for capital equipment and capital construction. Debt service payments included in the operating budget of the general fund total $1,111,175. The total proposed budget, including enterprise funds is $31,414,244.
When taking into account all sources of revenue and proposed expenditures, the draft budget calls for the use of a carryover of $384,250 in unspent funding from the F.Y. 2010-11 budget and designated reserves for the ambulance and fire station HVAC repairs of $406,000, leaving $9,430 to come from undesignated reserve funds in order to be balanced. The beginning fund balance on July 1, 2011 is expected to be $13.7 million and, as proposed, will have an ending fund balance of $13.7 million; with approximately $3.2 million of this fund balance expected to be assigned to designated funds for an emergency services building, fire truck and rescue vehicle reserves, public works complex, and software reserve.
More explanation regarding revenues and expenditures may be found beginning with the “Executive Summary” on page 5 of the draft budget.
Though the proposed budget reflects a tremendous effort to cut spending and trim costs, it is important to point out that many planned major capital purchases were reduced or removed from the initial draft in order to keep expenditures as low as possible. As proposed, the affected capital purchases that were reduced or removed include items such as garbage trucks and police cars otherwise scheduled for replacement, funding for sidewalk repair, and a $250,000 reduction in the paving budget, among other items. The town is well aware that these proposed cuts only provide a “stop-gap measure” that may keep expenses lower in the upcoming year but will eventually need to be “caught up” or restored in order to maintain vehicle fleets and services to full operational capacity in the future.
As presented, there are no changes to the tax rate as part of the F.Y. 2011-12 Annual Budget.
However, the proposed budget does include fee increases for water, sewer and garbage as follows:
Current minimum two-month Water, Sewer and Garbage bill for 4,000 gallons: $66.80
Proposed minimum two month bill: $75.00 (+12.3%)
Current two month Water, Sewer and Garbage bill for 10,000 gallons: $126.80
Proposed two month bill: $138.90 (+9.5%)
These proposed increases break down as follows:
Water fees:
Minimum bill from $13.80 to $16.00 for the first 4000 gallons. The next 96,000 gallons from $4.00 to $4.40 per 1000 gallons.
Sewer fees:
Minimum bill from $23.00 to $26.00 for the first 4000 gallons. All above 4000 gallons from $6.00 to $7.00 per 1000 gallons.
Garbage fee:
From $15.00 to $16.50 per month.
The fee increases are not being proposed as a means to increase revenue for the town’s general fund, but to offset the actual cost of providing these services. For further explanation, please review the following table:
Without fee increase With fee increase
2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2011-2012
Actual Cash Basis Projected Budgeted Budgeted
Water Authority price per 1000 gallons:
1.54 1.61 1.68 1.68
Projected water fund shortfall:
90,454 (16,600) (430,066) (154,066)
Projected sewer fund shortfall:
(813,590) (754,810) (752,413) (212,413)
Projected garbage shortfall:
37,006 2429 (50,885) 57,115
Total Shortfall: (686,130) (768,981) (1,233,364) (300,364)
Note: Numbers above in () reflect a deficit.
As the table above indicates, despite the nominal fee increases that were implemented in F.Y. 2010-11, the town still used $768,981 in general fund revenues to provide utilities to residents. Between a mandated increase from $1.61 to $1.68/1000 gallons from the Water Authority and general increases in the cost of doing business for the upcoming fiscal year, the town projects it will have to use $1,233,364 in general fund revenue to provide utilities to residents in the upcoming fiscal year if all fees remain at their present rates. If Town Council approves the proposed fee increases as presented, the amount of general fund revenue used to provide utility services would be reduced to $300,364. While this means the town is still supplementing its utility services and they are not self-supporting, the proposed fee increases would move residents toward paying the true cost for receipt of these services.
Major capital improvements contained in the budget are:
-Alleghany and Miller Street sewer line replacement (partial carryover)
-Alleghany and Miller Street water line replacement (partial carryover)
-Water tank rehab (carryover)
-HVAC replacement at Fire Department (partial carryover)
-Annual Paving Program
The designated reserve funds will be increased by the following proposed amounts:
To Be Added: Currently In Fund:
Fire Truck Reserve $25,000 $833,000
Rescue Truck Reserve $25,000 $182,000
Software Reserve $25,000 $107,750
Emergency Services Building $200,000 $1,670,000
Public Works Complex $200,000 -0-
There are no new positions in the proposed budget, but it does include a 3% cost of living increase for employees. Employees have not received a cost of living increase since July of 2008.
It is important to reiterate that the budget is currently in draft form and will undergo extensive continued discussions by Town Council before being presented for public hearing and adoption.
The next special meeting of Council to discuss the proposed F.Y. 2011-12 Annual Budget is scheduled for Wednesday, May 4, 2011, at 6:00 p.m. at Town Hall, 100 E. Main St. Though not a public hearing, members of the public are welcome to attend and listen to Council’s discussions.
Priority Based Budgeting Process
Consultants Chris Fabian and Jon Johnson with the Center for Priority Based Budgeting, the firm that developed the priority based budget process, also gave an overview of the process that was followed to help create the town’s proposed budget. Priority based budgeting identifies and evaluates the specific programs and services offered by the town and ranks how well they help achieve overarching goals and results.
They outlined the Steps for Successful Prioritization:
1) Determine results (goals):
Clean, Healthy, Safe Place to Live
Everyone’s Hometown with Well-Informed and Engaged Citizens
Green, Well-Planned Community
Interconnected Community
Recreational, Cultural, and Entertainment Mecca
Retail, Commerce, and Tourist Destination
Good Governance
These results were initially taken from Council’s 2020 Vision and then refined through a workshop process in December 2010.
2) Clarify result definitions (via result maps):
Each result listed above was expanded into a “result map” that indicates how the town defines its results or goals. Each result map is available in detail here.
Citizens were then engaged in a validation exercise known as the “Citizen $100 Exercise.” In the exercise, each resident was asked to look at the six results or goals that the town strives to achieve through the programs and services it provides and indicate how they’d prioritize the overall goals based on their allocation of a hypothetical $100.
1152 surveys were returned, which equates to a 6.6% response rate by adults residing in Christiansburg.
In analyzing the results of the exercise, residents weigh the overarching results/goals of the town as follows (using a base factor of 1.0 based on the lowest rated result):
Everyone’s Hometown with Well-Informed, Engaged Citizens: 1.0
Interconnected Community: 1.06
Recreational, Cultural, & Entertainment Mecca: 1.21
Retail, Commerce, & Tourist Destination: 1.25
Green, Well-Planned Community: 1.55
Clean, Healthy Safe Place to Live: 3.79
This citizen input had a critical impact on determining how programs and services were ultimately weighted and valued.
The results also particularly highlight the importance residents place on the town’s efforts to provide a clean, healthy, safe place to live.
3) Identify programs and services
As part of the priority based budgeting process, town staff also approached the budgets for each department differently this year. Instead of merely looking at line item expenses, the specific programs and services provided by each department were identified. In total, the town of Christiansburg provides more than 300 programs and services to residents; from reading utility meters, to assistance with car seat installation, to fire safety programs, to maintaining athletic fields, and everything in between.
4 & 5) Value (score) programs based on results & allocate resources based on results
Each program and service provided by the town was then scored relative to every result and basic program attribute. This means that each program was evaluated to determine how well it helped achieve the following:
Is the town mandated to provide the service?
Do residents have a reliance on the town to provide the service?
Has there been a change in demand (positive, negative, or neutral) for the service?
Is there any cost recovery to the program? If so, to what extent?
How well does the program help influence the town’s efforts to be a…
Clean, Healthy, Safe Place to Live?
Everyone’s Hometown with Well-Informed and Engaged Citizens?
Green, Well-Planned Community?
Interconnected Community?
Recreational, Cultural, and Entertainment Mecca?
Retail, Commerce, and Tourist Destination?
Additionally, each program and service went through an objective peer review process to ensure accuracy and appropriate scoring via quality control measures. Just as many original scores for programs were decreased as were increased as a result of the peer review process.
Citizen survey results were weighed at this point in the process. This involved identifying the programs that influenced the outcome of a goal and then multiplying the value of that program by a corresponding weighting factor. It sounds complicated so think about it using this example: If police patrol services were determined by staff to have a high influence on the town’s efforts to provide a Clean, Healthy, Safe Place to Live for residents, the score given to patrol services for “Clean, Healthy, Safe Place to Live” was multiplied by 3.79 (i.e. the corresponding weighting factor that represents how much residents value a “Clean, Healthy, Safe Place to Live”).
The resulting list shows that every department has programs and services that ranked as a very high priority, as well as other programs that did not rank as high; a clear indicator that each department plays a vital role to the town. A complete list of each program and service ranked by quartile is available here or via a link below.
After grouping programs and services by quartile, the amount spent on each program and service was determined. The outcome showed that the town spends the majority of its funding in Quartile 1, confirming that the greatest amount of funding is going to programs that have been determined to be the most important in the community based on survey results. This reflects appropriate spending allocations by the town, although there is always some room for improvement. For further information, the graph showing spending by quartiles may be found here or in the link to the PowerPoint presentation below.
The Center for Priority Based Budgeting also provided town staff with access to their proprietary spreadsheets and filtering systems as they work to allocate resources based on priorities. These systems will allow for closer examination of programs and services and the impact they have on town spending. They are designed to promote questioning by staff of what else can be done, who the town can possibly partner with to continue to provide the same level of service expected by the public, etc. The intent of the process is to provide a new way of looking at information and generating the conversations that need to be had in order to make tough funding decisions.
The town hopes to continue to utilize the priority based budgeting approach in the future, whether facing tough economic times or not. In addition to providing a way to completely review existing programs and services in upcoming years, it will also allow suggestions for new programs or services to be evaluated using established criteria as a means of determining whether implementing the prospective program should be a high priority for the town and our citizens.
Additional Resources
(Some links may take a few minutes to load)
Video of Council’s special meeting for the proposed budget presentation, held on April 26, 2011
PowerPoint presentation made by consultants from the Center for Priority Based Budgeting
Complete list of programs and services provided by the town and ranked by quartile
Proposed F.Y. 2011-12 Annual Budget (version from 4/25/11)
No comments:
Post a Comment