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 .0 M 600 580 Gap = difference between revenue and expenditures each fiscal year 560 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 • 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 o 1.5% growth rate in operations to maintain current service levels o 1 Budget Overview General Fund Revenue Forecast Scenarios General Fund Revenue/ Expenditure Sensitivity Analysis ( $ m illions) $30.0 $20.0 + $ 1 5 .5 $10.0 $- + $ 4 .3 - $ 2 .0 $(10.0) - $ 8 .3 $(20.0) - $ 1 5 .2 $(30.0) $(40.0) $(50.0) $(60.0) $(70.0) FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 Projected 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) Note: Worst case revenue scenario assumes the per capita sales tax distribution as proposed by the General Assembly during the 2015 Long Session. 2 Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 2

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 3

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 4

Rate the Community Impact I ncrease CMPD resources in program s w here additional staff can have the greatest im pact on crim e 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 5 - Great Im pact 4 - Significant Im pact 30.0% 3 - Moderate Impact 2 - Slight Impact 25.0% 1 - Minimal Im pact 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 4 Feedback from Departm ent Directors Rate the Urgency I ncrease CMPD resources in program s w here additional staff can have the greatest im pact on crim e 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 5 - Less than 12 months 4 - 12-24 months 40.0% 3 - Two - Three Years 30.0% 2 - Three - Four Years 1 - Four+ Years 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 5 Feedback from Departm ent Directors Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 5

Rate the Funding Support (Two Questions for Council) I ncrease CMPD resources in program s w here additional staff can have the greatest im pact on crim e 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 5 - Great Support 4 - Significant Support 40.0% 3 - Moderate Support 30.0% 2 - Slight Support 1 - Minimal Support 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 6 Feedback from Departm ent Directors Rate the Community Impact 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 60.0% 50.0% 5 - Great Impact 40.0% 4 - Significant Impact 30.0% 3 - Moderate Impact 2 - Slight Impact 20.0% 1 - Minimal Impact 10.0% 0.0% 7 Feedback from Departm ent Directors Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 6

Rate the Urgency 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 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 5 - Less than 12 months 50.0% 4 - 12 -24 months 40.0% 3 - Two - Three Years 30.0% 2 - Three - Four Years 1 - Four+ Years 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 8 Feedback from Departm ent Directors Rate the Funding Support (Two Questions for Council) 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 60.0% 50.0% 5 - Great Support 40.0% 4 - Significant Support 30.0% 3 - Moderate Support 2 - Slight Support 20.0% 1 - Minimal Support 10.0% 0.0% 9 Feedback from Departm ent Directors Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 7

Rate the Community Impact 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 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 5 - Great Im pact 25.0% 4 - Significant Im pact 20.0% 3 - Moderate Impact 15.0% 2 - Slight Impact 1 - Minimal Im pact 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 10 Feedback from Departm ent Directors Rate the Urgency 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 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 5 - Less than 12 months 25.0% 4 - 12-24 months 20.0% 3 - Two-Three years 15.0% 2 - Three - Four years 10.0% 1 - Four+ years 5.0% 0.0% 11 Feedback from Departm ent Directors Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 8

Rate the Funding Support (Two Questions for Council) 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 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 5 - Great Support 4 - Significant Support 20.0% 3 - Moderate Support 15.0% 2 - Slight Support 10.0% 1 - Minimal Support 5.0% 0.0% 12 Feedback from Departm ent Directors Rate the Community Impact Support CMPD efforts in addressing the broader root causes of crim e in targeted areas 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 5 - Great Impact 30.0% 4 - Significant Impact 25.0% 3 - Moderate Impact 20.0% 2 - Slight Impact 15.0% 1 - Minimal Impact 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 13 Feedback from Departm ent Directors Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 9

Rate the Urgency Support CMPD efforts in addressing the broader root causes of crim e in targeted areas 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 5 - Less than 12 Months 30.0% 4 - 12-24 Months 25.0% 3 - Two - Three Years 20.0% 2 - Three- Four Years 15.0% 1 - Four+ years 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 14 Feedback from Departm ent Directors Rate the Funding Support (Two Questions for Council) Support CMPD efforts in addressing the broader root causes of crim e in targeted areas 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 5 - Great Support 30.0% 4 - Significant Support 25.0% 3 - Moderate Support 20.0% 2 - Slight Support 15.0% 1 - Minimal Support 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 15 Feedback from Departm ent Directors Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 10

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 Budget Workshop February 24, 2016 11