HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-10 Correspondencer/~~/~9
City of Iowa City
FY2010 Budget Work Session
January 10, 2009 -Handouts
Page No.
Agenda ......................................................................................................1
Taxable vs. 100% Valuation .....................................................................2
Change in Valuations 2007 - 2008 ..........................................................3
Building Permits .......................................................................................4
Administrative Chargeback Formula ......................................................5
General Fund Summary ...........................................................................6
Cash Balance -Projections thru FY2014 ...............................................7
Decision Point -Housing Inspection Fees (3 pages) ............................8
Decision Point -Parking Fees ..............................................................11
Expanded Service Level Requests (ESL) .............................................13
Priority Setting Model ............................................................................14
Road Use Tax ..........................................................................................17
Debt Service Summary ..........................................................................18
FY2010 Budget Work Session
January 10, 2009
Budget Overview
General Fund Revenues
• Property Taxes
Tax Cycle Timeline
Valuations
Residential
Commercial
City Assessor -current vs trends
Tax Levies
• Licenses and Permits
Building Permits
Rental Inspection fees -rate increase
• Use of Money & Property
Interest Rates
Parking Permits -rate increase
• Intergovernmental
• Charges for Services
• Miscellaneous
Parking Violation fines -rate increase
• Other Financing Sources
General Fund Expenditures
• Personnel
• Services
• Supplies
• Capital Outlay
• Other Financial Uses
Cash Balances
• FY2012 - 27`h pay period
Expanded Service Levels
Priority Setting Model
Road Use Tax
Debt Service
Enterprise Funds
• Sanitation -rate increase
• Airport
• Parking -rate increase
-1-
O
}
C
O
O
O
N
woao0o N ~ oo ~ nR Oocp et N
CO N V n 00 CO N O) O M ~n n M~ 01 r
V ~ 00 O M ' O In ~Y ' N In (O ~ ~ t0 ~
~ CO M t0 n N ~ (D CO 1A
00 O V
00 O J M CO
O O 01
01 ~
e~
~ n V N 0 00
In N M W n M r
N 0 0 N N
M M <O O (O Q
F.- V '~ N
~ `- `~ "' M `~ ~ ~ `-
~ ao
ao v n co
n m ~n
~ n
O O ~'- M M `-~ M M
~ co wnrn a v v H
~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' '
W M M M W
C~ O O O ~
W N O
N N T W
N O>
N N W
r ~ l17 lf) O ~ 01 W O
U N N 00 r r U
Z ~' `" Z
oooM Ne-' n oo n v~o 00 co v
rn v ~n aD rn oo co o rn rn ~ u~ co M ~n rn
00 (D N Q1 O ' O O r ' Of M G M ~- M 10
W O V N~
M n M ~ N N M 0
0
O ~
O
O O
O 0
0
Q N ~
I M N O O (O N a n M M M O M I
m
M
~
N
N N
M M
N
~
m ~
e-
C
D
f
0 M O
O O O Cp
N E
N _
M M r- V' V' ~
(D V' N O O 00 N O O h O h ~ V' Q1
n
O N OD N O O O O r ~ {O M N in
~
~ 00 n O M CO ~
N O O O M
n CO n
~ ~ CD O
O n
O
I
~ In CO O> O 00
O In 'cY O) n _
M O
00 to ~- N N
M M n 10 F.. M ~!
O O R M
0
N M M A a O .- r
~ n
O t
A
O
O M ~'
v v ~ co ro " ~o
~ ~ N' N N
H ~
Z ~
~ ~ M M ~ M
J
W ~
~ i
' W
O O to N 07 O/ Of
W N N~~ N N N ~
0
~ Of Oi OI
F U N N 0
0 U
Z r r r Z
~ 00 V V M O r O O r V O r V7 d' T O
~ N N O 00 O
c0 V: N O) ~' N f0 O!
O tl') n O O
' O
<O ~~ M
M n~ M N
O O M
M
V
n
n
~~ 0 M 0 N N n 0~ ~ W (O
0 n
~ ~ D C
O
0 N
M M
.--
- M
y O
~ p
o N
n
m I n ~ N ~ CO a0 ~ OD ~ ~
A l
Q ~ 7
'
m N N M h tD N M M M O tt~ 1
m < O
C M 00 N O ~ 10 <O V ~
~. r r- .- N N N N
d
N
N C
O
= O
'
Q
a
p ~
~
~
~
a
Q
v
N
>
Z O
~,
~ ~ ~ J 7
~ w 0 ~ ~ U ~
W
~ N j
U C O ~ w Q
~0
~
~+
m .°_ U
U
E t Q
N 0)
V ~
Q d O v _ _
~OS ~ ~ v
t
N O y ~ C E Q « (~ ~ r _
U "~'' ~
Q ~a N x E p U Q ~
N
Q ~ ~
W 0) ~~
~ to 7
~
O 3
°'
~ ~ W w °~ ~ O ~ w d
_ i
a
c
~ •~ a
~ v,
W _ ~
0 ~ ~
~ C ~
~ ~ ~
J LL C ~ ~
lL p
a O
O d~
0 0 N ~~ ~ 2~ ' J m
} ~
~ ~ a a
m ~
~ ~ W
r ~
> ..
7 }
F-
m ~o ~
~ O
H
1- ?
~ Z, o C
o
U a~ d ~ ~ ° `°
N~ ~ ~
O m
Z N '«
N V ' ' `°
~ c
~ m .L-. ~ w O _
Z ~~ ~ 7 10
N Q O~ j N ~~ R ~ Q y
N ~ ~ J 7 U U ~ ~
O
'C7
~ U
d -
~ H J F 7 l0
~ to O O ~
~ Z Q Q f-
m
O
n
O
W
N
O
O
N
r
-2-
o
M
~
M
~
o -
O
N (
O ' ~ ~ ~ ~ '
_
~ OMO ~ ~ ~ M ~ N O O
LL (O O M ao CA O lt) ~ O O
\ ~ N N
p CO ~ M `-' N N N
O
O
N Efl Efl b9 EA tf3 69 Efl Efl ffl b9 Efl b9
O
O ~ ~
~ ap
~ O
N -n
~ O
M O O
O _O ~
~
O ~ ' t
0 ' M (O
} ~ ~ N c~0 000 OMi n t(7 ~ ~
~ 0 CO N to to O O CD d'
~ O C+J 0 ~ N ttl f ~ ~ t~ ~
~
O N N ~
O
N Efl b9 69 Ef? ffl Efl 69 Efl EA 69 EA d9
O
0 O
O O
0 N
O N
M ~
O ~-
0 M
O O
O O
O ~
~-- O
~ O
~
0 N ~ ~ O) l!') h N (D ~ f~ ~ ~-
CO
CJ CO
t!') O
M O
Op
- 00
t!') M
M to
VJ CO
N VJ
~ M
O tf~
~ to
~
~ N ~--
`~ h d' M ~ O Cfl c0 f~ ~ ~
NJ ~ ~ O M N cD cM ~ c0 c0
C; O N O O ~ N N N
O O
'++
lC O
N
to
E9
ER
EA
(!l
Efl
E9
Efl
EA
EA
Efl
dJ
R ~ O ~ M ~ ao O O O O ~'
O
O M ' M ~ 000 ~ ~l ' ti ~ N ~
N
L' N
~ M ~ O) ~ 00 O ~ O d' N
r O 0 •~ O M ~ O ~ O
h ~ ~ M 00 O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~
N O ~ ~ `-
N
N ~ f!3 ER b4 £A EA 69 69 EA ffl ER lf3
Q ~-.
CD to ~
~ ~_ O
N 00
~ O
M O
r f~ !~ O
~ O
~
L O (O ' to C
O ~ ~
tC N
~ N
0 (fl
d' ~
O 0
O) O
~ ~
O ao
O) 0
(O 0
O CO
0 0
l17
} ~ d' M 0 M O N (O 00 O) ~t ~
~ ~ N M M v M M ~ N N
V O
fA O
N EA EA EA E9 EA EA Efl Efl (A fA Efl Efl
`
~ t,f)
O ~t
00
' I~
~ O
(O O
O O
0 O
~ O
00
- O
'~t O
~ O
N 00
O
M
~ O
N O
N N
~- O
0 M
O 00
N M
N c
O 00
~ 0
O ~
CO 0
~' ~ 00 tf> N 0 ~ ~-- N O O N M
~ 00 r- ~ ~ r- ~ O M h ••- 0
~ ~ ~ N ~ ONO M ~ M 0 t00 (O
M
`-
O
O
N Efl Efl EA Efl Efl Efl ER 69 Efl d9 fA Efl
0 r-
N O
V' O
O) O
O O
~- ~t
0 N
O O
N O
O 00
O O
M O
M
O
N M t~ l!1 N O ~
~ O ti d' O N N
~ t17
O) 0
~ ti
~ ~
M M
O t
O CD
~ 00 ~
Q) O
d' tt~
~ ~
~
lL I~ ~ N M O I~ N O ~ ti ~
'~
(V f~ ~ O
M lf~ ~'
0 I~
N CO
v ~
N O
~ V' ~
O
O
N d3 ER EA EA EA EA EA EA EA E9 EH EA
O O
~ ~
Q
.~
~ ~
O` C
~tB X
fB ~
O C
~~ X
~
F- O ~~ ~ (6 0 O ~~ ~ ~ ~
• w ` ~ ~+ ~ ~ C C w L ~ +J `
Q ~ ~ O O
• fn ~ U O -O ~ ~ O
U O to ~ U O ~ ~
O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ N > ,,
W ~ ~ ~ O C ~ ~ ~ >
d ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ a > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ a > O
U
_
~~> C N ~ ~ ~ N ~ N> C N ~,
N D ~ w•.'
~ Z ~ Q Z Z Q ~ Z U Z ~ Q Z Z Q ~ Z
-3-
Z
O_
Q
J
Q
W
a
Z
J_
m
J
Q
Z
Q
C
O
.2
N
U
N
Z
O
0
O t0 N ~ u7 O
M 1~ O m O _
O O h M ~ f~
O M ~ n ~ M b
N V V n ~ ~ 01
fA fA UY ff3 fA W
I~ 'R O In O
N a0 O W O
co co M n ca aD
~. co r~ ~i of m ~c
p O V 01 N I~ N
N N f~ a0 O oD 00
a [} N _ 07
fA fA fA fA fA IR
O m O r f~ fD
h N M N
M_ O M_ e0 N
~p N M f~ ~D
O O a0 ~ a0 M
N O M n N N T
V V W O N ~
fA fA fA fA fH fA
(~D ~ M (00 ~ r
cD tf) cD N QO
y~ M N V I~ W O
O v ~ O ~ N ~
O
N N ~p ~ N O
h s} r O
fH f9 fH fA FA Cew}p
N ~ ~ N N P7
~ (+j V OD ~ M b
p ~ V O (`') M 01
N V M N M O Oro
fH fA fA fA f9 W
~ N N 7 ONi h
00 ~D c0 a0 N 'Q
M W ~ V (O h O
O ! ~ t~ N Of
o ~ n m o
N ~ r O ~ O N
O O _O h
fA ffl f9 fA fA N
vNi ~ cn ~ a0o a
ao rn M n ao
N n W 1n a0 O N_
p (~7 O N O ~ 1~
N ~ pppp M V O 10
M V N _ 00
fA 69 fA f9 fA N
~ O c0 M N
r ~ O N ~ N
M O n (V O
p O fD _ O O
O o0 ~ I~ - M
N O tp ~ O M N
M I~ r- _N _
fA fA fig fA EA W
~ ~ ~ ~ w rn
f~ M c0 m n I
O 01 O ~ 10 ~O
O N ~ c00 ~ (O 01
N O (O V a0 m O
M M N 01 P
fn fA fH fH fA w
m o °o o m oro
pOj O oD a0 h V A
~ M M C N r
f9 fA fA fA fA N
n U O O N N
a0 O O O O~ 01
O N ~ ~ W t00 N
~ N O a0 n n O
O O
M ~ N
fA fA fA fH f9 ~9
In In O O O O
r V O O O O
r r~ ui Sri ui o
r r u~ n N
01 W M ~
~ N N N N
fA fA H9 fA fA fA
d
O
d
u
O D
N ~ O
m ~ a m
.C ~ ~ X ~
b x E ` N A
N
~ U ~ Z ~
-4-
a
d „ E E Y E ~
Z 0 M
~ [n (n (n
CD M Q1 ~ M O O
O M V Q1 0D N LL) O V
~ CO 00 N I~ O ' ~ O CO
Y
LL O 0 N M I " O _
~ '
7
M
CO
O
E M
M U
)
~ M
M
~ t N
~U
Q
~i v~ v~ v~ E» v~ E» v~ F»
N CO M O) 00 0) 0 W VA N
C M
CO M
~ O
O (U
f~ M
to O
u7 CO
to M
O) O
(O
M N N N ~
L ~ ~ t~ O
V M `-' M CO
Cfl Efl Efl EA ffl d9 Cfl fH Vi
O M O) u7 V O O O
~ N ~ M
} O 0
0 ' - N CO
O O N M ~ COO Cn M a~O
F ~ N tn t0 ~ X 00
C
r `
a _
y v3 t» ~» v3 En tfl v~ E» u9
D!
0 y ' 0~0 N ~ M
1 ~ N COO
Z O
its
~ N CO
M N
m O
O CO
N O
M 00
I
~.
L to C
O -
g O
va
~ v> v~ v~ En v3 v~ ~» va E»
U
`m ~ 0 0 0
Y ~ ~
' o
N 0
~ 0
M
m `
~ a ~ F»
E» ~» E» va ea u~ E»
w
t7
O CO O P M O O CO CD
2 'p M f~ O) O N O O~ O O
V CO W N O) 0 1n C(J N N
W C`
~ N
~ I~
O O
OD CO
00 to
N C0
M N
O 0)
~
~ C. 16 0
0 O
C v
F- ~ U
a N
~ v~ ~» v~ E» ~ ~» En E» ea
N
Z
a
o
o
e
o
o
o
o
o
0
N O CO ~ ~ Cn d' 00 O O
0
In CO 'ci O M 00 0 0 0
y~ ~ M N CO CO N M O N O tO N O! O tn V 01 tn N ~ O
m
~ n
f~ W
O _
I~ N
r O
CO O
~ N
~ ~
O M
N QI
n O
O N
m O
~ N
t0 ~
M CO
t~ ~
O
~ M
M CO
i- V
t~ ~
lf)
O
M
O p ~ OD n ~ M CO O) O 0) N ~ _ r .- ~ 00 CO ~ CO Qi CD N
r
' CO M N ~ O O O O CO d' ~ tC
~ O O N O O> I~ O
O
} ~ In ~ O tn d' f~ M O N O r ~ ~ ~ M CO M O O O
~ LL ~ to ~ iA M Q) N n ~
X
W fA CA E9 b9 Efl fA b9 Efl EA fA d9 fA EH V/ ffl ffl EA d9 Ei9 CA V~ d9 E+H f+H
U _ t9
C O
y y
~
:;
T
m
~E
~>
~
c m
c N
N
C
d _
V C CA
CO V
Q
C
C Q
C _
-p O
W O -O N w
V C
~ `
N ~
~ N
C
O
C
N
7
O -
~
U O
O
a
C~
U
Q fC
~
o
c
~
t
~
E
m 3
LL N
c
m
a
o
E
°'
~ 8 ~ o ~
c ~ ~ ~ v
cj ._ ~` ~' L
U y c 5 a
i o
` o c o a
i
C7 `°
~ `°
~
~ m a
Q °
tn ~
U
U U U a LL. Q n- ~ o U ~ W F- ~ J
-5-
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
Financial Plan for 2010 - 2012
Fund: 1000 General
Beginning Balancs
Propertyy Taxes
Other City Taxes
Licenses And Permits
Construct. Permit & Inspect. Fees
Federal Intergovt..Revenue
Property Tax Credits
State 28e Agreements
Disaster Assistance
Other State Grants
Local Govt 28e Agreements
Building & Development Fees
Transit Fees
Culture And Recreation
Misc. Charges For Services
Code Enforcement
Parking Fines
Library Fines & Fees
Contrib & Donations
Animal Adoption
Misc Merchandise
Intra-city Charges
Miscellaneous Revenue
Interest Revenues
Rents
Pkg Ramp Revenue
Royalties & Commissions
Sale Of Assets
Road Use Tax
Intrafund Reserve Transfers
From Water Operations
From Wastewater Operations
From Parking Operations
From Airport Operations
From Broadband
Transfers From Go Bonds
Interfund Loans
Misc Transfers In
Loans
Total Receipts
Personnel
Services
Supplies
Capital Outlay
Transfers Out
Contingency
Total Expenditures
Ending Balance '
Reserved / Designated
Unreserved Balance
~ of Expenditures
2008 2009 2010 2011 20 12
Actual Estimate Budget Projection Projection
21,131,480 18,744,625 15,992,227 16,000,481 15,76 1,563
30,107,850
1,160,175
259,424
1,026,400
1,171,269
41, 780
1,206,986
6,606
764,068
776,345
383,378
858,904
641, 627
125,336
316,360
474,279
198,470
64,339
13,170
48,712
1,664,663
322,536
1,693,447
388,414
426,723
30,979
110,497
58,304
1,133,640
14,699
14,699
200,000
7,350
152,821
31,834,083
1,202,531
203,566
1,104,949
6,334,312
24.,739
1,330,136
710,000
625,907
760,056
312,354
904,802
781,256
135,747
362,511
549,502
193,449
258,325
. 11,740
47,196
1,604,063
194,006
1,200,719
413,868
376,646
31,369
109,808
59,986
162,944
16,718
16,718
200,000
8,359
152,821
33,160,803
1,205,530
209,062
1,116,836
889,334
24,739
1,398,138
34,593,812
1,226,298
209,062
1,191,836
889,334
24,739
1,394,376
35, 014,009
1, 247,413
209,062
1, 128,336
889, 334
24 , 739
1,457,024
1,000,054 526,335
3,000
18,151 100,.000
46,882,455 52,864,521
31,249,893 32,954,639
8,144,807 9,635,623
2,007,985 9,315,329
1,709,967 2,365,068
6,156,458 994,460
352,000
49,269,110 55,617,119
18,744,825 15,992,227
560,311
834,758
352,108
858,904
695,295
209,631
316,360
592,845
198,470
58 , 100
15,000
62,337
2,619,914
256,818
800,000
406,783
543,838
25,249
85,768
62,965
178,220
19,561
19,561
560,311
784,104
352,108
858,904
695,295
209,631
316,360
592,845
198,470
58,100
15,000
62,337
2,619,914
256,818
700,000
406,783
543,838
25,249
85,768
65,390
106,922
20,895
20,895
560, 311
789,236
352 ,108
858 , 909
695,295
209,631
316 , 360
592,845
198 , 470
58,100
15,000
62,337
2,619,919
256 , 818
600 , 000
406,783
543 , 838
25, 249
85, 768
68,084
62,422
22,400
22,400
9,781 10,448 11,200
55,000 55,000 55,000
290,000
500,000
3,000 3,000 3,000
200,000 200,000 200,000
46,835,019 49,353,842 49,661,390
33,592,243
10,041,366
2,404,863
1,439,587
983,706
365,.000
35,348,501
9,178,411
2,453,910
1,575,462
666,476
370,000
36,288,353
9,470,049
2,507,968
1,233,691
632,697
1,775,000
48,826,765 49,592,760 51,907,758
16,000,481
15,761,563
3,142,881
12,618,682
13,515,195
2,882,224 2,972,126 3,099;333
15,862,601 13,020,101 12,901,148
32 ~ 23 ~
26 ~ 25 ~
3,238,976
10,276,219
20 ~
=6-
7
LL
fC
C
N
g
rn
~
01 j0
o E
N ~ ~
0 ll
c+1 O
ID d
M f0
0 LL
M O`
co d
N 'S
LL 'p
4.
~_ ~j
O 4)
} ~~
t1d
O
O
N 7
~ CD ^
N
M
~
tf')
01
r
~
~
tM0
N
n
h
r
r
V
O
O
~
N
ON1
O!
~
N
W
00' M N
001
O
~
N '-
O1
N
~
O
~
0
OI r
M
tD
0/
V
N e
~ r
In
M
~
a
O o0
M
W
~
N M
N .-
0~0
N
Y1 A N
aNa
N
~
~~
V
r
H
r
~
N N
n
07
r
11'1
tOO N
n
01
N
~
~
n N
N r
00
V
~ M
r
r~
VD
N
N sNs{
M
~
V
T
~
O
0O
c~
N
N
W
O)
M
N
~
W
Wi
tC)
N
f.
N 00
N
OV",
N
0
IA
~
~
~
O
O
N
~ M~pp ~
o7 01
~~~pp M
00 N
O M
O n
n O7
N M
M N
~ M
01 E
1n N
H M
~M~pp Oro
in OD
(O ~
1~
~vi
R M
01
O O
W ri
N N
N r
~~
001
~ N OAO
M
N
10
ph11
N
I:
W
O
07
N
N
O
r
pNppp
f0
r
tO
~
~
rp
Of
N
r
O
N
O
~ t0
.-
'
N
~
o
O
r
N
~
~
0
00
~ Y9
r
D
e
N
f
N
°
N
M
N
0 ~ e r o
V N
ap
p a
0 ~ C ~ '
V
" U N ~
y p
OD N iD ~ M
0 ~
M ~
W ~ ~<OpOp uj W
W
~
O
' a
O N (7 O
D O
O
f`
)
O 1D OA N OD N N
-
N < a r
.
N 0 W O
~
p
tD fO 00 f
7 O> N 01 ~
~ t0
n R M N 00 OD O V
N W N ~ ~
N
~ OD 1~ lh N
~ 00
C7 U7 1~
~ Of W n N W
~Y V N
t~ ~ ~ 'V fO
e o
0 00 0 (O ~ ~
W
W n _ ~.j uy a0 '- V
N 0 M N .~ n M
_
O ~ ~
fh 0 ~ n O n
tO n lf7 f l O N 1~
r C C .-
~
p
V0' o
n o
N N a
~
' ~
M N~ O ~
0
N
O O
M
N V
O ~..j
h. N V r 1
M
p
fh 07
0 <O
00 N
cO V
N I~ O h_
O
O C O a' tO t0 O
O N
R
C n .- O
r
g o o ~ o
~ ~' ~ ~ 0
O
~
N O1 M (+
9 N 1
fi
N
~ M
O N O ~ M M
n
N
lh M O _ W o
o (
O
~ (O 1t7
/D 117 O 0 10 .- 'Q
r- V (`~ r
M
0
N o
~ o
~ 0
W 0
O O
h
0 i
O O n _
n O
N N 1A tO ~ 0 ' O) N M
r R ~ 0 0
0
M
a
N
N 0
0
O t
O f
O
~ O O 1~ N fh M
•- V M r
p
n o
N
tp
0
O 0
0 0
W
O
O
O O O N .- i 0
O (
O c
p <O
N 00 n' O M N N r M
C N O ID
t0
Ol ~ ~ O O
O o 0 0 0
~
O O Ins ~ ~ ~ p
Ol M
r
`' ~ N
N
~ _
~
O N
~ r
O
to W (
D O
0 M M Ol 0
p o o e s
sy~ ~ e
O N n p
o
W N
N sf ~ tOr N
nj ' O
M
~
~
fM7
0
~ ~
~ ~ ~ M Oi Oi
O01
M ~
M ~ ~
b o ~
0
0 o
0 .-
O) W e-
V? O
i tD
N N N N OD
N ' N ~
M
M n ~ N ~ t~O
_
f0 O) N R I~ f~ f~-
0 M N O O
N
d
N
~ ~
~ ~ N w
C U
} } ~ .C+ ~ d
~~"' ~~1
41
`o_ o W
' ~
m
~ x
W
c~ a ma ~~
a
3 $ ~~
m a O C
O y O (may C W~ ~
yU
~ ,
~,
N
a ~ N ~
(D 61
.E N
~ K ~ ~
[
}
~ C
~
C L W L ~ C
N L C
y o V o V y o ~ ai ~ U ~
0] V- o F- o Z o W J~ o 0
-7-
~ r
~.,:.®~r,,~
~; "m~'
®.~~~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 3, 2008
To: Michael Lombardo; Kevin O'Malley
From: Norm Cate
Re: Rental licensing fee options for budget discussion
This memo illustrates three fee options for budget discussion. Each option shows the
percentage of general levy funds that will be required to balance the rental housing division's
budget for the next four fiscal years (2009 through 2013)
As background information, prior to 2002, the rental housing division required between 30% to
50% in general levies to balance its budget. Because of serious budget constraints beginning in
FY2002, Council directed the rental housing division to be, over time, fully funded through fees.
Since FY 2003, the division has produced two years of revenue exceeding expenditures and
three years revenue deficit, thereby reducing the general levy share of our budget from over
40% in 2001 to less than a 9% cumulative total through the following five fiscal years.
In the spring of 2008, Council considered a staff recommendation for a fee increase to fully fund
its budget, along with changing single family and duplex structures from a three year to a two
year inspection cycle. At that time, Council approved the inspection change but decided not to
increase fees.
Council then directed staff to provide it with an update in the fall of 2008 of the rental housing
division's budget status.
• FY 2008 general levy contribution was 12%, or $52,000 to the division's budget.
• FY 2009 budget projection~estimates a 15% general levy contribution, or $70,000.
• FY 2010 budget projection estimates a 22% general levy contribution, or $115,000.
The jump in the general levy contribution for FY 2010 reflects moving 75% of the housing
assistant position's salary and benefits from the H.I.S. administration budget to the H.I.S. rental
housing budget. This addition to the rental housing budget will be ongoing and will contribute to
a greater general levy contribution than previously projected.
The following three tables show three different rental permit fee options for budget
consideration.
Option 1 (the staff recommendation for the budget) demonstrates a balanced budget
over a four year period, (FY 2009 through FY 2013) with a 19.5% rental permit fee
increase, effective July 1, 2009.
• Option 2 illustrates the percentage of general levy contribution over that same period of
approximately 5%, but with a 12.5% rental permit fee increase, effective July 1, 2009.
Option 3 shows the percentage of general levy contribution over that same period of
approximately 12.6%, but with no rental permit fee increase during that period.
-8-
December 4, 2008
Page 2
~ OPTION 1
(_ _
PROJECTED REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES FY 2009 THROUGH 2013 WITH A
PROPOSED 19.5% FEE INCREASE (STAFF RECOMMENDATION)
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 TOTALS
Total 380,000 460,000 535,000 590,000 665,000 $2,630,000
Receipts
Total 449,000 516,000 536,000 556,000 576,000 $2,633,000
Expenditures
-69,000 GL -56,000 GL -1,000 GL +$34,000 +$89,000 -$3,000 GL
Totals
Surplus Surplus
• With a 19.5% fee increase, option 1 produces a balanced budget solely from rental
licensing revenues for the combined fiscal years 2009 though 2013.
OPTION 2
PROJECTED REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES FY 2009 THROUGH 2013 WITH A
PROPOSED 12.5% FEE INCREASE
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 TOTAL
Total 380,000 430,000 500,000 560,000 620,000 2,490,000
Receipts
Total 449,000 516,000 536,000 556,000 576,000 2,633,000
Expenditures
-69,000 GL -86,000 GL -36,000 GL +4,000 +44,000 -143,000 GL
Totals
Surplus Surplus
• With a 12.5% fee increase, option 2 produces a general levy contribution of $143,000
(5% of the budget) for the combined fiscal years 2009 though 2013.
-9-
December 4, 2008
Page 3
OPTION 3
PROJECTED REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES FY 2009 THROUGH 2013 WITHOUT A FEE
INCREASE
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 TOTAL
Total 380,000 390,000 450,000 510,000 570,000 $2,300,000
Receipts
Total 449,000 516,000 536,000 556,000 576,000 $2,633,000
Expenditures
Totals -69,000 GL -126,000 GL -86,000 GL -46,000 GL -6,000 GL -333,000 GL
• With no fee increase, option 3 produces a general levy contribution of $333,000 (12.6%
of the budget) for the combined fiscal years 2009 through 2013.
These tables were constructed in a manner similar to the Council's budget layout to illustrate the
projected revenue and expenditures from FY 2009 through 2013. To achieve a balanced budget
for the combined fiscal years of 2009 through 2013, staff recommends implementing option 1, a
19.5% rental permit fee increase, effective July 1, 2009.
-10-
City of Iowa City
~- MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael Lombardo, City Manager
FROM: Chris O'Brien, Director of Transportation Services
DATE: December 12, 2008
RE: Changes to Parking Rates
This memo is to summarize the proposed changes to parking rates for the FY10
budget. These changes include changes to the downtown on-street meter rates, increases
in all parking citation fines and an increase in the monthly permit rates. Following is a
summary of all of the proposed changes as well as the budgetary impact.
Increase of on-street meter rate
The proposed change includes an increase in the on-street meter rate from .75 per
hour to $1.00 per hour for parking meters in the area bounded by Gilbert Street, Burlington
Street, Clinton Street and Market Street. This increase is being proposed to encourage long
term parking customers to utilize the cashiered parking garages which will maintain a rate of
$.75 per hour. This is a 33% increase in rate and we anticipate a 25% increase in revenues
as some customers will choose to utilize other parking options. Rates were last increased
from $.60 per hour to $.75 per hour in FY07.
FY08 Actual* Proposed FY10
Rate Budget Rate Budget
$.75 $580, 000 $1.00 $725,000
`adjusted due to change in collection area
Increase in parkins citation fines
The proposed change includes an increase in $5.00 parking fines. The original fine
amount would be $10.00 with a $3.00 discount if paid within 7 calendar days. The payment
structure will look as follows:
Days 1-7 8-30 30+
$7 $10 $15
The proposed change would also include an increase in $10.00 parking fines. The
original fine would increase to $15.00 with an escalation to $20.00 if not paid within 30 days.
One exception is the fine for illegally parking in a commercial loading zone. We propose
that this fine we increased to $25.00 with an escalation to $30.00. This is proposed as part
of our effort to relieve commercial parking congestion in downtown Iowa City. As a result of
these changes we anticipate a 40% increase in revenues from $5.00 citations and a 25%
increase in revenues from $10.00 citations. Fines were last increased in FY04.
FY08 Actual" Proposed FY10
Fine Budget Fine Budget
$5 $627,427 $10 $878,400
$10 $474, 320 $15 $592,900
`adjusted due to staffing levels
-11-
December 15, 2008
Page 2
Increase of monthly permit rates
The proposed change includes an increase in all monthly permit rates for the parking
garages; Capitol Street, Dubuque Street, Chauncey Swan, Tower Place and the Court
Street Transportation Center. We propose an increase so that all covered parking garages
have a rate of $80.00 per month. All lot permits will remain at $60.00 per month. Monthly
permits were last increased by $5.00 per month in FY07. Following is the budgetary impact
at each facility.
Location
Capitol Street
Tower Place
Dubuque Street
Chauncey Swan
Court Street TC
FY08 Actual
Rate Budget
$75 $169,810
$75 $152,567
$65 $215,053
$60 $251,363
$60 $366,767
Proposed FY10
Rate Budget
$80 $181,700
$80 $163,250
$80 $264,500
$80 $334,300
$80 _ $487,800
If you wish to spread the increase out over two years for the Chauncey Swan Garage
and Court Street Transportation Center the revenues would be estimated as follows:
Location
Chauncey Swan
Court Street TC
FY08 Actual
Rate Budget
$60 $251,363
$60 $366,767
Proposed FY10
Rate Budget
$70 $294,000
$70 $429,100
Proposed FY11
Rate .Budget
$80 $334,300
$80 $487,800
Transportation Services will see significant increases in operating expenditures as
we implement plans to build another 600 space parking facility on the St. Pat's property. In
addition, we have had several capital projects to upgrade existing facilities and software.
We have maintained a healthy reserve balance despite our large expenditures. It is our
desire to maintain our parking fund while continuing to upgrade our services. In order to do
this, we needed to review our current rate structures. Please let me know if you would like
to discuss these items further and how you would like us to proceed.
Cc: Kevin O'Malley
Leigh Lewis
Mark Rummel
-12-
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
ADDITIONAL POSITIONS
APPROVED FOR 2010
Department Position
Eastside Recycle Ops ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS
2010 TOTAL - ADDITIONAL POSITIONS RECOMMENDED
* FTE = Full Time Equivalent
Salary /
FTE* Wages Benefits Total
1.00 43,633 20,434 64,067
1.00 43,633 20,434 64,067
1.00 43,633 20,434 64,067
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
Additional Positions Requested For 2010
NOT RECOMMENDED In 2010 Financial Plan
Department Position
Mass Transit Admin
Criminal Investig
Patrol
Patrol
Fire Emergency Oper
Fire Emergency Oper
Fire Emergency Oper
Fire Prevention
Shelter Oper & Admin
Shelter Oper & Admin
Park Maint Admin/Sup
Parks Oper & Maint
Library Bldg Maint
Computer Systems
Economic Development
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
Parking Admin & Supp
Airport Operations
ELECTRICIAN - TRANSPORTATION S
CLERK/TYPIST
CSO/EVIDENCE CUSTODIAN
POLICE OFFICER
FIRE LIEUTENANT - RESCUE
FIREFIGHTER - RESCUE
FIREFIGHTER - ST#4
FIRE LIEUTENANT - PLANS REVIEW
ANIMAL CENTER ASSISTANT
KENNEL ASST - ANIMAL
ASST SUPT - PARKS
M.W. I - PARKS
MWI - LIBRARY
LIBRARY WEB SPECIALIST
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
ELECTRICIAN - PARKING
AIRPORT OPERATIONS SPECIALIST
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS
2010 TOTAL - NOT RECOMMENDED IN 2010
* FTE = Full Time Equivalent
Department
Fire Emergency Oper
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
Salary /
FTE* Wages Benefits Total
.50 21,161 10,053 31,214
1.00 34,028 18,960 52,988
.50 18,831 9,874 28,705
6.00 241,206 128,544 369,750
3.00 167,400 77,979 245,379
6.00 263,556 142,602 406,158
3.00 131,778 71,301 203,079
1.00 62,211 27,195 89,406
1.00 31,831 18,738 50,569
.75 23,873 14,083 37,956
1.00 47,983 21,125 69,108
1.00 30,887 18,478 49,365
.25 8,712 2,607 11,319
.25 13,263 5,283 18,546
1.00 94,337 28,259 122,596
26.25 1,191,057 595,081 1,786,138
.50 21,817 10,151 31,968
.15 6,316 3,033 9,349
.65 28,133 13,184 41,317
26.90 1,219,190 608,265 1,827,455
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
Additional Positions Requested For 2011
NOT RECOMMENDED In 2011 Financial Plan
Position
FIRE LIEUTENANT - ST#4
Salary /
FTE* Wages Benefits Total
3.00 176,994 90,462 267,456
3.00 176,994 90,462 267,456
3.00 176,994 90,462 267,456
2011 TOTAL - NOT RECOMMENDED IN 2011
* FTE = Full Time Equivalent
-13-
s
N
O
c~
D
0
3
0
z
N
N
d
L
f+
V
.~
u.
0
0
t
s
~F+
.~
~i~+
d
N
V
0
0
~ N
U-~
~ ti
N ~
L
o ~
U ~
O U
~ ~
Q >;
Q ~
U ~
. ~
N
-14-
O p
N ~
p
~ ~
O O
~ O
~ ~ U
0
~ c
c
N to ' O
~ ~ U
~~ o
~ ~
L
~~
.~
~~
U
C
U
:~
..~
U
~N
a
a
-ac
~a
'~
J
a
~'
h N ~ N
c ~ E
p E
~
~
L
~ ~ ~
.w
i CA
U .'
"
m3 c-°o:: wom
c_ o Z ~ ~ ~ as
~adyEcadiE
~=`~o`
-O
W oA
i
a
~ c c ~? ~ ~' ~ c U
Q N>~ LL = C
> N a ~ N
N
O
N hi N O
O C L NO ~
Q
W C
«
? E c c> E~~ ~' ~ cu ro a~
K N
271
C CA
Y
N
.
X O) U O
>
C p1 V
¢¢ 2~ 04Q Ha"ocd o d
~ 1
ry ~ ~E ~ ~,
N
i
3 N tlml N N 'O G
7 `
= ~
_
N
~
U W y
~
~ L
y ~. '~ m x 4f1 O ¢1 >
N ~c`~mc ~~~r• w0~
v1 ~ ~
c
Z _
~oa1t, ~cn^umi ~ E
N ~ ~•-
}
~ i ~
~ i
C
1„ ; A O W ~
~ ~~~t v m> a ~~ c a
~' aio~ m m oO~w G'~~7a
~ ~
CA
N M `
~
~ 0
~
~
~~ ~~~~~t
[~
~"
Z y
y
N 'G 7 7 C N C~
~
~
~
~-
FFF N
~ C
V ~
f6. C ~
~ A ~ d S
C '
~ ~ U
N
p
N Y C
C C a
>
~ C
~
~
y J O ~ ~ ~
~
C 6~+
Ft~io'om o~ci~:E~oi
o-
`p u N p O ~..
O
~
~
~
r. cy ~ o
QE
o$^~a~ oc c
~ c $ m U~ .o A y
O
Q C• O 7 d ~'~" n. 'C y
O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
' `~ ~
~
7
g .-
.
:7
~ m ~~ C g O1 q 0. ,.~.. G U y
o ~ a1 ~ v 3 ? T c
a c r y
y L1 :C y A
"~29
QW C.S ~Q CJtL d0"_g
1 ~
of ro
£
>, ~
~ ~ ~ a
to
F- ~,n ~UV c
c ~ - ~
~
~L
Z ~
C cOi C p m
W
f O V N O N O
C
U
a
~ d
n
~
c`1 ~ ~1
„
~ c
"' ° ~ A ~v~ •eo'~B
p c o ~ ~ W'~ $?? ~
mnc a1~~
!=~W
c
{pp
{
C ~ C i1 > U C N~
' 0 3 .,_ O O 1p
U LL O = LL ~ > oD C C
MW tp
l 4 ~
N ON 6
S.
~J
r
A
~ m
J ~ n•
m N w ~
~ A
N O
ff~~
U T
o ., v y y1 ~ O
. J% ;;; ,~~
O
Z O ~ C ,
~- U Of`- a-~ U
CI C y C ~ C ~ }
('
Q C ~,~ ~ CA 4: G.
.
O r U
~ ~ ~
~
o rn~ ~'
'c c f j
i a
m U v~ Q~~ Q
U>
~ ~
~ m ~ c ~ c
~~ A$~,Em Ep a~
~
• a ~ •c ~
~ O G
~ ~
~
Z
W.. O
a
C
~ C ,Z. p C~ •Z. C N a> ~ p E
r m o C~ O U N N
N ~ C N
vLL `° 8 a ~'~ ov E E m~ E g1$
C
_
N V O ~` U N QZ` W~ D ~1 b a~
c2aaL=-aa~
oirS
o
v
:o
m~
>
>
Q1
C ~ 01 Y " d
Q~~ ~~~~~~ y~go
~ap F
~
0 0 Z C0 0
O W q
~E
az~~
=
"
'
yy ;~~, o
arc
o
m
v
.°.'o°~p•Z ~g~ a`~ Etc
(
~
Z
(~ 4. v; ~~ q~ y C~ V y~ N p U C
O c t0 'C O O N
` v,
$ `
^smTo ° V E~11
Ed>a»~ o e1>,m3
'
~ _
aamF
4c» 3 m ~ nH c~iv yQ Y~tv
~_
~~
O
O N - C C
~ °
V N
f- N} y O
3
>
~ui N
G Lu1 t L O iC S A= N
z
~ y~ a1 ° 01 ~~ h w ~L
~ A ~ y `o ct ~ ~ ?t y 3
Q4
W
~ N
N C
~W °~o~ '~~-~ ca;c
'~ O O '6 O N
41
a
Y
, ~ N c
~ ,,, c 'm
N .~. O~ u } 'O ~~ E O N
o
.aEm=mZ a1Aa
wu
~ ~
c
n~ _
~ d aZ'c:u c
Qd«: vN'_~«V
~
F E E
y~ E° m o
~~'
~
`
°
N
O d
~~ ~3
a
in
3
Em ~ 1n°~r
C7 ~
°' ~' A m ad >y y > >.
T ~
E~
~
0 N Z
%
a; m 3 v
N~ N U
N
iYRZ~~mE~a~'tm~
~
_
"a a d
~ G
rs
tC a G jp S7. a ~ O ~ 'C:
a }
Z ~ 4r py R7 U ~ ~ C~I ~ ,~'j GI
w .- w c> .~ c o w 'g w
~
~p `4
_
ro ~ c
w
~
? ~
~
~
~
''3
n
V
p
'n
N
Hu
Ya
i
.
a
n
~~
~.ea ~~~ ~i~o~'c'
G'
,
e
d `~ a 'a > > ~ N u `~ cs
uai w¢~~a i-~m.Wda~
~ ~ >
c
i
~Vl s
"} _ tL
~
R a Q w
O.N.
7
'
.
Q ~~ C
d
U y G d
M
d
~
~
°
s
w
t
v
S
w
~ _
V
Q H
1
'~ o
~•y-C
~ ~ 3 ~
m O ~'
p +r ~ i
40,0
~_ a
eT
a
~ ~,` N h y'G. C
~ o 0
m
m E
_
p
_
m `g m m N _~ c
d ' ~ ~ N Y1 O U
a
p
~a-oo `o V
N
dM N
y Ea :: c4
a s m p N c - '-~ `p « 4
m '
G
poE ;~d~cv c a
u,
O
N
F-
C w
.
p
Y i_
,~ p
C R ~ C ' _ ,~ ~y ~ .
Q
E
(~ E O
a
y1 0 7
O a (
d
a
~a0 °pn`.awc7 c~ ~`oa
y e
a N
O ~ Ol O
~ `
p X C C ~
p G _
d ~ 0
7
h
U V
!
' Y~ F.
7
G
'~:. d
~
~
'.~1 LL~U O
a N OO~~
,
~ ~ ~
: 4~aC~¢ ~~3aciUaaHSu1
> > ~
~ ~ r,.
w C ~.
Q
'j y
~
~
W \
V
~
J
-~
N
._ -
~~
h ~ I
w 0
~~~;AA,,
O W
~~~"~
~~~~
-m su~~
~ b;`
w' I
?, ego
V Q .V
~oa ~
E w '_
y ~W
~n
W i
-16-
~ N
Y
~ ~
L
oU~ cs
d ~. M ,O 10 0 d
.C aL.+ t 7 d~ a i
tl! N M dl Q' 7
a
m~
w o, •-a
Nw
~ ~ `p ~ CA ~ '~ ~ ~
7
i
'
~
6 ~y d ~ 1
j
.`.r
~
,
~
_ a w ~
7
d" y a a
~Y~o oiAOC
'
a
adds ~ y v c
a
d
~.
c c d
.n w> do ao,y
N d~ V ~ d G d> C
wU W¢ v,a ~awC
> >
T ~
C`. +_~
.N. d U d
- U a ~ r
,, p a ~i ~ 7. >
U Q: C fn ~9 d
3 .. ~ a? c
y i r a ELd
U
d
~~
~
z
~ ~
_~ ~;~
~:.~ ..~
..~ ,.~ ~ .. i. V
t £ c.
~ ~ O ~ ~ ~
c
o ° v ~
° m
oa aw ~a~
S
a
~
G
C ~
~ a A C
m r-
N R N T N w'
p ~ ti
t= O U 'fl
W d
p
a
C 3~ .O h '~
a N d ~ ~
H ~
7
Y N
RI N C .~ N ~ .~.~ N
FK .
..
a ~4 `~ aR- N
S~~N
7
`
' '~' ~
~
~M
o °: wc
o w
~ ~
~~ a
d
~ ~ >
d
~
J
( 7
O " `~ 3 °' ~'
E oEN
-
w
m U ~_
y a
Et~~•
am
L
y~ ~
C~v~
O '° d O u O d J
a fo
p V '~ >
'o
Z _ .c
o
..Jo
Y a
~~
, ~
Er a
d~ 4 ~' ~ U> a~+ d~
d N O U
m w ` d
o~ G c ~ a
oain c~ r = .
~' ~ aZi
~
`
~a~
~ n
a
o
~
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
FINANCIAL PLAN FOR 2010 - 2012
Fund: 2200 Road Use Tax
2008
Actual
Begi~ing Balance 2,254,708
Fed. Intergov. Rev. 42,615
Road Use Tax 5,431,415
Disaster Assistance 5,709
Bldg & Development 39,491
Other Misc Revenue 43,157
Empl Benefits Levy 316,297
Total Receipts 5,878,884
Personnel 2,388,824
Services 1,631,491
Supplies 686,638
Capital Outlay 268,794
Other Financial Uses 1,143;650
2009 2010 2011 2012
Estimate Budget Projection Projection
2,014,195 1,570,825 901,769 433,292
5,391,712 5,583,010
35,475 30,000
3,699 13,665
372,259 381,370
5,803,145 6,008,045
2,381,444 2,482,828
1,515,599 1,822,712
652,791 813,121
225,908 370,475
1,470,773- 1,187.,965
Total Expenditures 6,119,397
Ending Balance 2,014,195
---- FTE ----
Personnel Services 2009 2010
ASST SUPT STREETS/SOLID WASTE 1.00 1.00
ELECTRICIAN - TRAFFIC ENG 2.00 2.00
ELECTRONICS TECH/TRAFFIC ENG 1.00 1.00
M. W. II - SIGNS 1.00 1.00
M.W. I - STREETS 6.00 6.00
M.W. II - STREETS 7.00 7.00
M.W. III - STREETS 7.00 7.00
MW III - LEAD SWEEPER OPERATO 1.00 1.00
SR CLERK/TYPIST - STREETS 1.00 1.00
SR M.W. - STREETS 2.00 2.00
SUPT STREETS/SOLID WASTE .65 .65
29.65 29.65
Transfers In
5,738,960
30,000
13,665
408,039
6,190,664
2,574,370
1,851,617
837,514
240,250
1,155,390-
5,863,720
30,000
13 , 665
430,282
6,337,667
2, 663, 210
1,881,122
862,633
240, 500
1;108,084
6,246,515 6,677,101 6,659,141 6,755,549
1,570,825 901,769 433,292 15,410
Capital Outlay 2010
Controller Hardware/Software 133,300
Crack Seal Program 40,000
Radios (3) 2,400
Right-of-Way Repairs 2,000
Sidewalk Regair 60,000
Traffic Sign Improvements 33,828
Traffic Signal Equip 98,947
370,475
Transfers Out
Empl Benefits Levy 381,370 JCCOG Trans Planning
I-80 Aesthetic Imp
Burl St Ped Bridge
Forestry Rt/Way Mnt
Traffic Calming
Street Pavmt Marking
Railroad Crossings
Overwidth Paving
Annual Bride Maint
Biennial Brick Sts
Pavement Rehab.
Intr City Bike Trail
381,370
220,000
20,000
85,000
62,965
30,000
185,000
25,000
30,000
60,000
20,000
400,000
50.000
1, lti /, 7b5
n~F- ~ctur~ed~ ~n i~ z~~Z ~~
-17-
General Obligation Bonds
Outstanding Debt Obligation at June 30, 2009
Summary by Individual Issue
2001 G.O. /Multi-purpose 11,500,000 2016 6,060,000 1,034,280 1,037,193 1,032,630
2002 G.O. /Mufti-purpose, 29,100,000 2021 16,895,000 2,811,980 2,809,160 2,815,960
$18.4 Mill Library Expansion
2002 G.O. /Mufti-purpose; 10,600,000 2015 2,470,000 473,413 470,113 476,463
Refunding '92 Capital Loan Notes,
'94 GO, '95 GO, and '96 GO
2003 G.O. /Mufti-purpose 5,570,000 2014 2,710,000 596,450 599,785 597,460
2004 Taxable G.O. /Plaza Tower T.I.F. 7,305,000 2023 6,660,000 668,553 669,953 668,978
2005 G.O. /Mufti-purpose] 7,020,000 2015 4,505,000 854,475 855,500 855,650
2006A G.O. /Multi-purpose 6,265,000 2016 4,690,000 772,600 774,200 779,800
20068 G.O. Taxable 1,000,000 2016 765,000 132,383 132,433 137,208
2006C G.O. Refunding 1997A 3,350,000 2017 2,415,000 398,883 382,723 371,590
Capital Loan Notes ,
2007 G.O. /Multi-purpose 8,870,000 2017 7,350,000 1,080,625 1,080,438 1,079,125
2008 G.O. /Mufti-purpose 9,150,000 2018 8,355,000 1,100,119 1,098,794 1,096,656
20086 G.O. Refunding 1998, 1999 8 17,005,000 2018 15,150,000 2,405,063 2,367,613 2,324,563
2000 Capital Loan Notes
2009 GO -Proposed 8,400,000 2019 8,400,000 1,087,842 1,087,842 1,087,842
2010 GO -Proposed 10,400,000 2020 1,346,852 1,346,852
2011 GO -Proposed 9,900,000 2021 - 1,282,100
2012 GO -Proposed 9,400,000 2022 - - -
.. ~. .. ~-. qtr'
Iowa City's property tax asking for debt service
expenditures include the following abatements:
WAh $13.4 million scheduled in principal and
interest payments, the property tax asking is
reduced by $1.8 million in debt service
abatements.
~ ~• .. -.
G.R.I.P. (TARP) Loan Repayments (40,000) (40,000) (40,000)
G.I.C.H.F. Loan Repayments {71,910) (71,910) (71,910)
Library Commercial Space Net Income (100,000) (100,000) (100,000)
Gas 8~ Electric Excise Tax Funding {191,689) (229,193) (248,011)
Water User Fees (752,288) (745,009) (742,104)
T.I.F. District Property Tax Revenue (668,553) (669,953) (668,978)
TotaIG.O.DebtServiceAbatement: (1,824,440) (1,856,065) (1,871,002)
^•~ •• ~ ~•
- ~$ -
m m r r v i m m o m
c
u c
u ~
~ m v ~ o ° Z
" o ~ ~, o
c n ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~? ~ ~
c c
m ~
N
m ~
.~ ~
~
c~
~ c~
~ - ~ v, ~ ~ cn cn ~ ~ m m
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n
~ ~ s o ~ c~ o
w ~.
~ o
• < ~ ~
< < m Q • m .
~ ~ ~ ~ C m
~ _~
o ~ `~ ~ ~ m
~ as r ~ ~ x
,~
~
~
~
~ a ~
~ D ~ ~ ~
Q ~ ~ ~ •
o ~
c~ a, m •
~ ° o ,
C1 ~ o
o
~ .~ ~
rt
N C CA
~ ~ ~
a
~' m
cc •
~ ~ -- ~
~ O ~ O
t
J~ O CO N N ~ 31
C -
W - O Cn N O O ~ Cn O)
O
O
O
O
~
~
W
N O ~ C
O J1
C O
O CJ7
N OD O , - O O O O O O O
to EA - - ' Efl
~ ~ ~ v ~
~ W CO ~l N ~ -
W 11 N Cn ~l ~I CJ7 OD v
0 ~ N O O ~
~ ~ W W P
- CJ~
N ~ ~ ~ O -~ O U~ ~I O
E,A Eft - - ~fl
..
~ - N j ~ N ~ ~ W ~ -
O
O
O ~ ~ O ~ W N
~ ~ O O i
U O
O
G7 CO ~ ~ U~ CO O N ~ O
~~
w
~n a n c-e ~~ rem ~-v
~ /~~/~./
General Fund Revenue
FYM08 FY2009 FY20f0 FY2011 FY2012
ActuM Bud9sl Protected Prolsclsd Proleded
1. Property Texes 30,101,850 31.834.003 33,160,803 34,593,812 35,014,009
2. OtMr Gly Tux 1,160,1]5 1.702.531 1,203,SJ0 7.226.298 1.24],413
J. Llcenxsa PermM 1,284,0]4 1,309,040 1,325,023 1400,023 1]36,523
4. Uw Ol Moneys Properly 1,]1].11] 1,218,544 a/9,T53 ]19.]55 619,155
5. Interpovernmentel 3.95],610 9,]15,331 3,898,000 3,642,244 3,110024
e. CMr9es FOr Services 4,3]2,269 1,433,802 S,S/3p39 5.5]3.939 5.5]3,939
T. MlacNlaneous 1590,]85 1835,501 1,829,433 1829,453 1629.d53
a. Other Flnenclnp Sources 2,691,115 1,256,688 1,223,838 366,318 330,2]4
ToW Revenue: b46,882,155 552,864,521 548,8]3,019 549,353,642 549,661,390
X cNnee M1em gior yeu 39% 1l.eX .I.e%• IIK ee%
am~e enn,eae,o axerer rear runm,mm rrzoos c e
u~9 ... s
Parmile Inlerpovt
3%
FY 2010 Budget omen
e%
General FUnd Revenue city Taxes ue. or Mon9y
548,835,019 2°i _ a Praporty
/
2.0
^\
Char9oa For
/
/
~
Services
\
'/
11%
L~-~'
Property - r Miac.
V ~
Taxes
"~ `~J <%
BT%
Olher
Financlrq
Sources
3%
Taxable vs. 100Y. Assessed Valuations
4.ea
410
J.BD
,S 3.10
m
a 2.b .. •.
g° z19
ne...a
tw
v.iu.9oe
1.10 • Teaeble
9.fia v.ia.6ee
9eo
9°°` ode 9de 'pd 9° 9de 9°^ 9a 9M '~~
Fiecel YSer IFYI
1
s,w.ooo.ooo
swo.aoo,oaa
sxw.ooa.ooo
saw.oaa,ooa
E sxxiooo mo
'> sma,ooo.mo
siso mo mo
swo.ooo.aoo
uo.aoo,ooa
t
2
ro~a .. 1.,.m. n..m.m~a v.m.uo~ m~..m.m
Ths Ciry'e IeoWrtY iw rpueeb Iw FY20101hrouph Fv29121n4udIn91M FY2009 urti6stl tea
re9wet. era ee /ollowe:
e,~l 4 IIN:
1 fl 1011 $ ~0,4A9
` O.Ifro
Trens9 2,288.]62 0950 $ ),38/M1 U.9:-0
Twl LledWy 1.000.356 b119 g 105],160 0.421
LMe 650490 0,2]0 670 fi50 0.2]0
Suhblel: 23/62714 B.1]B $ 2 N71/0 8.]41
Spadel Rwenw Lavlse:
Emer9enq 120.461 0.050 $ 1256]6 0.050
E ee Bewfils 8 134 59D 3625 $ 9 1]0 334 3.652
Suhblel: B 055 051 3.6]5 0 304 010 7.]02
Oebl Service 10.046.130 4.303 $ 11,6]]2]8 4135
%Cherps hom
w 790% 1.13% 5.73% 0.91%
A lend Le 4 235 3.001 1235 3.004
Tohl PropertyTwee { 13.16].130 ! 45,160,663
General Fund Revenue
1. Property Taxss
2. OIMf GN Taxes
7. Licensee 8 Petmite
• Uw O/ Money 8 Propsry
5. Intsrpovemmenlel
6. Cherpes For Servlus
7. Mfacallenpus
8. OIMr Firuntirq Sources
Tobl Revenue:
%cnxq. from prbr r•er
FY2008 FY2009 Fy2010 FY2011 FY2012
Actual Budusl Prolectetl Prolectad Protected
30.101850 31834063 33,160,803 34593,812 35,014,009
1,160,175 1, 202, 5 3 7 1, 205, 530 1, 226, 298 1, 24 ], 4 7 3
1,284,874 1,308.040 1,325,023 1,400,023 1, 336, 523
1,17],71] 1.218.541 819,755 119,155 619.755
3,957,610 9.715,331 3,696,660 ]642,244 3,710.0]4
4,372,269 1,433,802 5,573,939 5,5]3,939 5,5]3,939
1,590,185 1.835,507 1,829,453 7.829,453 1.829,153
2,691,1]5 1.256,669 /,223,856 3fiB,31B 330,274
546,882,455 552,864,521 548,835,019 549,353,842 519,661,390
s.ox usx -vew +ex osx
Estimated Property Tax on 5100,000 Residential Valuation
(Iowa City portion)
FY2009 FY2050
5780.96 5815.02
FV2D09 Fy2010
Taxable Valualbn $ 44,080 $ 45,509
CItY Levy $ 17.717 $ 17.877
Property Taxes $ 780.90 $ 815.02
3
Fed Funds Rate
Local Gor4mmoMY: 3aE •pmm~uMu
r 903
169 1 J1 000 131000 131400
IC GOmme6en bmMerae
r POd ,
91,159 09,]68 00.384 104,561 109,(xl8
unry. Unrv Hp19MS.H brary 385363
m Counry~6nnlw Onnrm 15.000
pony Hpgnn-r
a
m
s
eu te.ew
HngnN-6
enm
nmwwy
rvenlrypllpvn~iirePmNCrbn 3
1208908
1330130
1390 ~JB -
1J94316 -
5]034
Local GwmnmrMY Rarmrm-
n brCreUne J1 ]t1 13.000 1J.000 1J000
AF 1
etlmel Pesa4NU 300.35 1)9.990 .fiJt
108,553 Bt <1] 131,98] 134.80] t3a,90]
n
TYY aYNA wnur:~b 8808 ]10000
R
r
iA
Ownllrg Grnme
irenan FRpule Expambn GnnI IJARCf 1,104 e91
- 8]3,008
]0
000 8]3006
- 6]3,006
- 813.008
FE
A
N 368 ,
33
00
SebNncp
MA
nl Rarunw: 5
5 5
5
0
merppvpmmm,Nl zan
4
Jun-0/ Jan-05 Jun-06 Jan-06 Jun-06 Jen-07 Jun-07 Jan-06 Jun-06 [NC-06
General Fund Expenditures by Category
moo. moos mo+o more moiz
e.ca vur Im
soa
iw
goo
~°A ~°! Et°y 4~ ~ 4~° F~° G~°9.Gi° .~ ^.~~
Recel YSerIFl1
G.O. Debt Outstanding
- by Fiscal Year -
o Allowable Wahl Marpln
^ o~tranalnp Debt
al July 7
G, / / hC~/'(G2
l ~~
COVER STORY ~~C/may
by Chris Fabian, Scott Collins, and Jon Johrisor~
Getting Your
Priorities Straight
IS PERMANENT FISCAL CRISIS OUR TOP CONCERN2
x111 local government managers have seen what sometimes happens. Revenue
growth is slowing, expenses are increasing, fund balances are dwindling, and it's
perceived that these conditions will persist for the foreseeable future. As David
Osbourne and Peter Hutchinson proclaim in their 2004 book, The Price of Goverri-
me11t, we are in an `'age of permanent fiscal crisis!"' The National League of Cities
identifies "local fiscal conditions" as a top issue,' while the U.S. Government r1c-
countability Office anticipates `'persistent fiscal challenges." 3
Gu[ why do local government professionals befie~'e that this is the crisis? ~~'hat
assumptions do we hold so firmly and that so calcify our thinking to convince us
that changing I7sca1 conditions represent our crisis? Would higher revenues and
lower expenses allow us to operate crisis free? Cdr does the true crisis -exist when,
despite our fiscal realities, we don't focus on those priorities and objectives that
ensure the success of our communities?
THE CRISIS IS NOT FISCAL
In Reengineering the Corporation, Michael Hammer writes that organizations suffer
from "inuxibility, unresponsiveness, the absence of customer focus, an obsession
with activity rather than result, bureaucratic paralysis, lack of innovation, and
high overhead." Why?
"1f costs were high, they could be passed on to customers. If customers were dis-
satisfied, they had nowhere else to turn."`' Should we in government only now be
concerned with flexibility, responsiveness, customer focus, and results because we
can no longer afford not to be?
Public Manaeement .June 2008
r~ ~
1,~,~„e,~ < <, ~< <~~ ~~ ,.~r,
I~,~~i~:~i;~ th~~ ~ -
Li„ i~ n~,i .i li,~ ,il rri~i, I ni .ii u~ nd~
,uul c~~uduion, arr h~ and I.u~~;e ,uu ul
our cuntn~l anti ~inrl~l~ rci>rrtirnt a rr
alit~~ kith ~~~hich ~~~~ aced to cults the
real critiis on our handy i~ ~+hether
nor orl,aniruinns have the capabilr-
tic5 try addrrss runcnr (isc~tl rc.ditics
and sill meet the objectives of grrv-
crnnunt anti the cxhcctations of our
constituents.
~~'hen facing declining growth in
rcvenuc~, government leaders have
al~prouched thc~ issue of balancing
the budget in >nnil;u ~~~a~:~. ~~ recent
,u~ticle dcsrribcs Caliiurnia's ai~hruach
to managing itti lisral realit~~~.
l~he slwkrsntxn for the C~o~~ernur
;;riel. ~~In ~wr ~~ir~c- an ~u~ru>>-the-hoard
ai~i,ruarh i, dr~i~~nrd to hr~~trct es-
sential sen~ires. h~~ spreading those
rrdurfion~ a~ r~~,~ttl~~ .~~ j~,~~~ibl~' <~, nn
single progr;un get; singled itut for se-
~cre mduction~.~~ In response the state
legislative analyst ~~~rutc. ~~thr ,~o~~rr-
nor~s approach ~~~ould he lilu a famil~~
deciding to cut its nu~nthly nuu-rgage
payment, dining-out fah. and Netllix
subscription each b~ 10 percent rath-
er than eliminating the restaurant and
DV'D spending in order to l:ecp up the
house pay meats- '
fhe I'iii~• ~~l (~r~~~rrnnirru describes
more thorr~ughl~ the "~ Deady Sins~~
ur the sc~ en most annmonly imple-
mented strategies that local govern-
ments nse to manage their fiscal
realities:"
1 . 12ub Peter to pay Paul.
2. Use accounting tricks.
3. Borrow.
4. Sell assets.
5. Male something up.
6. Nickel and dime the employees
7. Delay asset maintenance or
replacement..
~ r : ~a~'«~nK inC nix
The figure for step I shows the five results developed by Jefferson County,
Colorado.
Results t)escri flan ofResu/ts
~f,iSC~ 173S~1slble -".
.~. ~ - ., Qtarxgar>izationis>"~xri+it~'Udtt~~. ,s ~P
wig +~ ~+A~Y t4he
~
Gov ear 5~k)r~ovauyoi{~yt~~
Our approach to land use planning and development produces
Predictab/e growth and
deve%R anent predictable results based on the overall land use vi~ipn for ttie~county,
Ow planning processes result U balanced cor~rixtr~ties t(~t focus/
~
P primary~ub creation, p<oviswn of open space, 2nd atGeetive~~^ ~
neiGhtwrhootls and comma^,;ties. .~„
:' Our trap portation sy~tcm is efiECtfv~
MObtlll ~0 bons ~
Y
P aar~pon j[iori netvork is eRectlvetY p>"dt(~i
~
s
t
l
rl
~
~ d streets, art
new;op
regu
a
y mait
amc
wns
Norttnvest Parkwv'y ; ~ .~
~«
Our employees are responsive to the needs of otx customers.
Quality customer service Employees are ethical in their behavior and communicate effectively xrith
our customers.
Our approach to providing solo commun~tles is a ca{nbination of ., '.. -
Safe communities proactive public safety services and courts cprnbrned wah a
`"" ~
'~'~
'~`
"
?
entorcementof codes antl standards`
Source: le/%rson Counfy, Co/oredo
Objectives:
• Results are clear, understandable, and measurable.
• Results are the objectives and priorities of the board or council and the
citizens.
• Results accommodate potentially diverse board or council views.
• Results incorporate majority as well as minority opinions.
• Results are definable
Keys to Success:
• Strive to establish between five and 10 results.These should be the main
priorities of the government. Not everything can be a priority.
• Be broad but precise. "Safe community" as a result is broad, but it is also
distinct. You can talk about what it is and what it isn't."Quality of life" as
a result is broad, and it is also too ambiguous and subjective.
• Results are the objectives and priorities of your council or board and
the citizens.These are the primary stakeholders who must be directly
engaged in influencing the results-development process. Revise results
periodically, especially when these stakeholders change.
• Recognize there are internal as well as external stakeholders. Draw a
distinction between results of public programs and internal operating
programs.The differing results will lead to differing evaluation and
measurement.
Although these strategies lead to Each member of the board or council does not need to agree on the vat-
... balanced budgets, do they redly assist j
us in reaching our greater ublcctivc ue of each result if the opportunity exists foreach to express individual
that o{ achieving results and meet- beliefs about which results should be of higher value.
ing citizens' demands' Don't the}'
ultimately lead to cost ctiltting that i
_ __ __
ICMA.orglpm Public Management .~~ ~une294$_-
i
Road erM BrkJpn Snow Renwvn/
I~~In~~~
Roed nru/ Urrdyn ~ rnLia>rnx'rurn MnLrrnn.rncu
•.: ~~ H/gMVeyn xnd lranspnrrru/on Pnnrnrrir>g :,rs/ lnapncuun>
?+ r~I~~~I~~~ IPwrd nnt> (MNlyx ~ /rnnk .!lj/rren urW Rwn/ MxrMkrg
,, ,
R P/arrrr/ng arrAZw/ng . L1iVdk>pnronr env Sufx)rvnrun P/annrny
snar/n Cakra PrdYxnrkrr end ronr n/lnrr
sperm. Pxrro/ enn rrnnr cornrol
yy_ Ofarrlcf A/fpney - (:rlnw> Ayainsl L rrikknn '~.
BuiM/ng /ntpec/w~>rr P rnr r ~ s ! Nrr. o> n
UiKrrlcr Anumny L ~ (' 4 F
P/nnniny xrrd Zoning / .. nd R lufnrrurr
Lris(r/tt Ar/wrwy . Cri l nve.riyurrnr!s nrrr/ Cn>.> Prnpnrvhnn
~. Uisnk:t ArrorrwY ~ Uivorrirq Prrrrprr; /rurrr urea Cnr Y.srr. rrr
C Ulsrrkr Arrorrrny ~ luvnni/er C;nrno Prrr.rcvoun
~ snorm. ai.,pmcn
Sh[n/n ~ Ernuryoney Munxyunrorrr xnd Grrrrcn/lte.•~rwnsr~
A>sessor - Pr ~erty Apprnrsnls nrrrl Valunfrnn Appc
D/srrk:r A«orney - Prn.ncrrnnrr .rf Cnurr t: rrsc.
ffnvun f/eu//h Svc, ?..,,,,/.r , A:r rn.r Were r ih,. y rnnr<rrdr
Jn.LOU Snrweas - Aherrn.wvo t lxr.mrrrm o/u//r. rv/or>
corr,m„ vey F+nnhn s.;rvrcr... cnrn.nrrnrcnvfe dvns• L>rc~r•nnnrr
•
shnnn mmno-. w<,/,rrr.r ,,/. ,,, , . , ..
shone- Srr~rkn/ L i~>re Ar Y>rs
- tnvrra ,/exlUr _SVL] - Plsnr reg. Cr nrp/n~r r.ry ,.r, :ry
n, r .rn,, <-r„rr,r..,
snerin _ non,nvnn,
j lusrrcr~ Scrvrccs - Fr crrra/ Sc. vrcc_
TtnxA and BrMge . Mrbinn Mnmrennnce
(;rnnrs and cnnrnn orinns L~,mt._.r,~ Y,n,r.nrn „5ss,anrrr
Clerk nnn /: erwder h1V - Vehicle L/cnnsrrrg and Tirrer_s
r"r,rnnrrr r,A>srsrnn~e-sett,r„A,>,-,,.rnrr.,ndP,r,r<-~r,,,n5,,~,r-~.
eranr: and c'nnnmrrvonx . Munr:r/ f/eohn Assrsh,nr.. .
//u.'r/rh f'rornnhon and (//esry/c. Mnnnyemnrrr - !_ rri/dre~n w-.rh SPecrn/ Nvc+ds
I length Prornuhon and Li/ns yles Manayemenr - Srrh+rnnre Ahrrcr C,'u<rrrse/iny
~.- _~ Trens<rrar - Cuflertinn and Uispnrcernnnr n/!>rnnrvrv In.rr•s'
,r,i,n
_ 1 O/xn Sparc Trailn yn, Lonsh cn.,cd M, a rvncr.
+~ ~' ~ ~ ~ Clerk and R<cordcr Elrctiors Cann I tit u L-lr.rr 1 Vn r.~ !.
_ --_] urrlr/rr_n vnrrrn.nr/~;rrrr,n:rrru,.r~rr...rr. ~ ~-r„,rr.,
> -. a,_,r/ ,nr~r.,- rf L,rr/dsa,, r,Ln~,rrr_,rr r,
'r' --~ (. Id err. Y. / P .nral Training and Mcnroriny
- -: --~ Sherif/ . Ar rnr.d C nn4ol nnrl Licensing
-'=i= ~ r-~ Solid Wosre - LandNfl Munlrwing and Posf G/osure fc~srrng
v~~_s~-C ~____ _ _ -_ ] snnrm- scnnol ROSOUrcc omr:en
-- I Building /nspacrron - /n<pecrlnn o! Construction end Rernodrls
~~~-~- __/G. - ___~.`- Hcxd S[xrt - Endy /er-risk/ GnrMhood UevelopnwnL
r ~~=~--.-..-. _ _.] Cornnrn city Nonhh Scwrtes ~ Mrnral F/ealrh/FCra/rt lcnhol Syndronrc
-. -__ _~ .",___ _ Cunrmr,nity Health Services . Pre.narnl.vnA Chi/d Hnvlrh Csrc
-'viM.r^: _sa _ ~] Comnnrniry Assisranco - /ncornc, Ur///tics, Food and Ncnhh Assisrnnr: r;
I-----'.. --.--. ___ _ _ Grants and Conrriburiorrs -Economic Oevalopmenr Support (F COn Oov Councin
--=f- -~~. _ ~:-J wnrk~ tor, neYrMpmenr ~ env r fining any F»aremenr _
Clerk RRecorder - OTCial RecdrAmg o/Real Estate Tran -~ _~ -- -" -__-"--- ---~
Conmunity De va/Dement -Housing Education and Flnencia/ASSrstence
F/Qa/rn Promotion arrA Li/.sry/ns Manayemenf Nurnriunil //ca/rh EJUC'arion
Open Space -Open Space AcquisR/ons
Community pevefopnrcnr - Comnrunily Uc vcluprnanr Grants
L/Ovary: Tcon E'AUCalional Programs
Open Space .Perk Ranger Visit. r Services R Resource Protection
ATOrt -Rental of Hangers and F-aCipY{es
(:r;vnrs and GOntr/bur ons-Developm ra/y Oisab/eel Assistance
Open Spate . Weed and Pest Cpnrro/ n
r r,~ry . Bonks and Medi, C'rcu/noon
CrT „pace Edueaiion A Vdhinfeer Services Prp9re s (ietlriHng Fliwnn
[lhrary-CO/ , car AiCess
_ _-~ cone F _ ,n ~,rr ra ~„yfn Deve/npm
J C 'N - //y d C Sc'. /N ! r P g s
- -~ H ch M 7 nA E 1 r / P uq (/~>cGiduvg G/R ShnP)
_ C~ehrl N., ~; rn - Werhbngs/EVants/LOnlere es
__~ rr,r :(•e ~r: r: rrr »nif Cr p 1 nt F-rgrnunds
-- ~ Ca're~r Jarnr.i/ R "oriel HonlGU/tu EAUCatiOn..
Source: Jefferson County, Colorado
E
a
a
-- -
anagamenx >~June 2Q98
in]pacls highl~~ dcsirrd u•n~ic~cs at tlic
sanu• Icvcl as services that .uc rcla-
ti~~cl~~ unimportant u/ ~ itizcn~~'
l)un't they endanger guvernmm~t~,ti
ability' to provide statruorily nuu]-
datecl services while preserving those
services that are simply nice to have?
:Ind furthermore, what does this say
about the strategies that governments
would use to allocate resources when
]Wore revenue was available?
hhe true crisis governments face
is hardly fiscal; it's a crisis of pri-
orities. How strategic are we, as lo-
cal government professu>nals, about
undcrstaniling what we do, wh~~ we
do it, and (in times of scarcity as well
as abundance) how we should invest
our resources to achieve the results
our communities need? While f~cus-
ing un priorities sometimes takes a
bacl: seat to other issues during times
of fiscal stress, it's actually even more
critical t~, makr pri~riti=ati~~n ;i t,,l~
priority/.
PRIORITIZATION, ABETTER
WAY TO DEAL WITH THE
CRISIS
Prioritization is a way to provide clar-
ity abort[ how a government should
invest resources in order to meet its
stated objectives (and about what
services could he funded at a reduced
level ~~-ithout impacting those objcr-
ti~ cs). Prioritization as a process helps
us better articulate why the programs
we offer exist, what value they offer to
citizens, how they benefit the comnnt-
nity, what price we pay for them, and
what objectives and citizen demands
are they achieving.
The objectives of implementing a
successful prioritization initiative al-
lOW Us CO:
• Evaluate the services we provide,
one versus another.
• Better understand our services in
the context of the cause-and-effect
relationship they have on the orga-
nization's priorities.
• Provide a higher degree of under-
standing among decisionmakers
as they engage in a process to rank
services based on priorities.
• Articulate to people in the organiza-
_ _
•-~~~ .rra~ ...= 4vp-rarfRnrg program m tn]s county-w]de program prioritization was
snow removal, while the bottom-ranking program was natural resources and hor-
t(culturer Snow removal scored highest because the program was proven to have a
significant influence on all of the county's results.The horticulture program had the
least amount of influence of the results,This is the very definition of "Bang for the
Buck" as, for every dollar spent on snow removal, Jefferson County achieves more of
the results.
tion and t~~ the public hove vve value
our services, huvv~ vv~r invc~t in ~ntt
l~riuritic~, and huvv wr div~c5i ~uu~-
sclvcs of luvv~cr-priurit~~ x~rv~i~rs
~>v'hilc we arc nt>t adv-ucaling that
public sector organiruiuns mimic our
colleagues in the private sector, we
(ind context in an unusual and unique
private sector perspective from Jacl:
Welch, (amrd chief rxecutive oflicer
of GE:
Every company has strong business ur
product lines and weal: ones and
some in between. i)i(Icrentiation tr-
gLllrfS nlamlger$ tll knovl' \v'Inch 15
vehich and invest accurdini;l~~ ... (TJu
do that you have to have a clear-cut
dcfinilion of "strung.'
At GE, 'strong" meant a business
vvas No. 1 or No. ? in its market. If it
wasn't, the managers had to lix it, sell
it. ur close it ... diffcrcntiation anum~~
vour businesses requires a Iransparcnt
framework that evrrv~unc in the cunr
pang understands.'
To meet our real crisis, a compa-
rable approach should be applied by
government leaders vv~hereh~~ our pro-
grams are prioritized, which in turn
encourages decisionmakers to recog-
nize high-priurit~~ resuttrcc• allocations
and differentiate them from those ul
lovv° priority.
THE PROCESS Off
PRIORITIZATION
The logic behind prioritization is
that effective resource allocation
decisions are transparent when the
results of an organization can be
identified and defined, when pro-
grams and services can be distinctly
(and quantitatively) evaluated as to
their influence on any of the results,
and when programs can be valued
relative to one another and ultimate-
ly prioritized on the basis of their
impact on results.
Successful execution of prioritiza-
tion depends on three factors:
~ ~ ~
The figure in this step is from Fort Collins, Colorado's initiative to define the re-
sult of "improved transportation:' Fort Collins used the Kaplan-Norton strategy
mapping technique.*
Note that the five categories in the oval closest to the result statement (traffic '
flow, quality travel surfaces, and so forth) are what the city believes are the pri-
mary factors or indicators demonstrating the achievement of the result.
Objectives:
• Definitions should encompass all conceivable influences, causes, factors, and
indicators that spell out the meaning of the result.These factors could be ex-
ternal to your organization.
• Definitions should be clear, comprehensive, logical, and measurable.They
should depict the cause-and-effect relationship between the result and all
identified influences on the result.
Keys to Success: 'i
• Focus on identifying all possible, logical influences and causes for each result. I
Complete definitions are the key to linking programs and services to the re-
sults they influence. Clear definitions for each result make it easier to deter- ~
mine a program's value.
• Use teams to develop the definitions for results to ensure organizational
buy-in. Even if the board or council does not agree with: a1f the identified in-
fluences and factors for a particular result, members can identify which influ-
ences and factors they believe are most critical to the achievement of a result
in the scoring process.
• Be Concise' in writing result definitfons.Avoid eloquent, overly articulate, and
lengthy paragraphs.The purpose of result definitions is to guide and facilitate
program scoring based on than program's influence on results.
• Solicit the advice of subject-matter experts within your organization when
developing results definitions; this adds value to the final product.
*Robert $: Kaplan and David P. Norton;: Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tongible ~
Outcomes (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2004).
_.Puhllc_Management_~juae2Q.0_
The right results. accurate pri-
oritization of programs depends on-
the comprehensive identification
ICMA.orglpm
The figure in this step is from Jefferson County, Colorado, and it shows the
scoring process used for several programs offered by the sheriff's office.
Objectives:
• Each program, service, and project needing to be funded should be identified
by name, by cost, and then rated as to its believed influence on results.
• Scoring criteria should be established to allow programs to be compared, one
with another, based on overall value to the citizens.
• Scores should be reasonably assigned to programs on the basis of measurable
evidence, not opinion.
Keys to Success:
• When defining programs, make sure they are neither too big (the sheriff's of-
fice is not a program) nor too small (answering a-mails is not a program).
• Link programs, services, and projects with a result by assigning scores based
on their influence on that result.
• Evaluate every identified program.
• Expand the grading criteria beyond results to include other factors that give
programs a higher priority. Qefferson County believed the more a program
could pay for itself-in other words, be sustained by user fees-the lower
would be the investment of county taxes in funding the program and, there-
fore, the higher the priority of the program was to the county.)
• Program scoring is inherently subjective. Minimize subjectivity by requiring
performance metrics and other measurements to demonstrate how the pro-
gram influences the result.Where measurements don't already exist, require
'program managers to develop theories abotat the cause-and-effect relation-
ship a peogram has on a result, and test the theory..
• Require justification for all scores given.Tie performance evaluations to the
scores.
__ _ __
-- --._, _
blis_Maruagemenx. lane 2Q08 _ __
til IIII' R'>Ull•, tAi aft Ill l~u~in('„ I~~
:U i l l i.' \"t'
• The right definitions. I'n ~ i~i~~n iii
prioritizathm results innu the articu
lation of tln~ causr-anti-elite[ rcla-
uun5hip hci~~~rrn ~i program anti ,t
result- With clearly defined causalit~~
and ;ut undcrstanduig u( the influ-
I ences on results, we can niinimi~r
suhjecti~~ity in linking programs
with results.
• The right valuation. With tits right
I results and with clear definition; we
can ~~ccuratcly ~aluc our pr~~r;ran~~
rclati~'c to tlicir inllucna• on a<hic~~
ing results. Stcp~ I. ~', .unl i ~h~_~~~
hu~~~ two jurisdictions addre5scd this
isstt~.
SUMMARIZING
PRIORITIZATION: PUTTING
IT ALL TOGETHER
l~he final steps in the prioritization
process in~~olve weighting the results,
calculating program scores, anti de-
veloping atop-to-bottom sununar~• of
all programs, in approximate order of
priori[}. It is critical that this process
be completed before making any bud-
getdecisions.
This is a significant dry iati~~n Gent
the budgeting-for-outcomes process
because with the premisr outlined
in this article, priuritizatio^ is the
beginning of any resource allocation
discussion. As in GE's differentia-
tion process, using prioritization as-
sumes that regardless of the amount
of revenue an organization generates,
regardless of a reasonably calculated
price of government, and regardless
of what amount of funding a board,
council, or citizenry leek a particular
result should receive, it is only when
confronted with the end product of
prioritization that resource allocation
discussions can begin.
CASE STUDY: JEFFERSON
COUNTY,COLORADO
Figure 1 shows the result of the Jef
ferson Countds prioritization process,
with atop-to-bottom profile of ever}'
program offered to the public. The
bar measurements indicate the prior- ~~
Note that the programs are scored on the basis of their relationship to each re-
cult (see BCC/Public Results) as well as the basic program attributes.The county
recognized that a program's influence on the stated results alone was not ad-
equate to understanding the program's overall priority.
ity score (the scale is 0 to ]00, and
higher scores indicate ahigh-priority
program).
I~igurc 2 profiles the dollar amounts
spent by Jefferson County on pro-
grams offered to the public, in order
of priority (where the top 25 percent
of programs are Priority 1, the second
25 percent arc Priority 2, and so on).
Without addressing the fiscal real- ~I
ity facing Jefferson County, we can
see that these extremely telling figures
make statements about the appro- 'i
priateness of this county's resource '~
allocation. Is the level of spending
for Priority 3 or Priority 4 programs
acceptable? Should the county con-
sider shifting more dollars Priority 1
programs?
If a significant revenue downturn
suddenly occurred, should the county
implement across-the-board budget
cuts, or might the county use the prior-
itization information to consider other
alternatives about where to look first
for potential spending cutbacks? Con-
versely if revenues were unexpectedly
higher, would the county implement
across-the-board spending increases,
or should the additional invesnnent he
made in top priorities first?
Jefferson County at the end of
2006. projected a $l2 million budget
shortfall in the general land alone.
With the adoption of the 2008 bud-
get, 37 full-time positions were elimi-
nated or not funded, and the budget
in total was reduced by $13.7 million
. without a single layoff. Cotmty
Administrator Jim Moore observed:
"This is the first year that a county
budget has been less than the previ-
ous year. This is especially remarkable
given the rising costs that we must
pay for fuel and other supplies and
expenses."
Of more significance, however,
according to Todd Leopold, admin-
istrative services director, was "that
the discussions with the board and
the departments shifted from fund-
ing levels for programs to how those
programs contributed to the county's
overall mission and goals. At the end
of the process, there was a much bet-
ter understanding of what we do and
why we do it."
ICMA.orglpm
Prioritization Process Summary
Jefferson County, Colorado
200tl Vroposed Resourco Allocation, Basad on Priorities 1 through 4
SO (10,000,000 f20, 000.000 f30,000, 000 f~0,000, 000 ff0,000, 000 f80.000,000 f70, 000.000
L
Y
A
b
Y
A
a
CRISIS AVERTED
fhe biggest challenge we face in gov-
ernment is not the ever-changing fis-
cal conditions. Instead, the issue most
often is a crisis of strategy. Recogniz-
ing this, we believe that implementing
prioritization is an effective way to
combat crises. All organizations, espe-
cially those that are stewards of public
resources, establish values and objec-
tives to meet the expectations of those
for whom they exist to serve.
Resources contributed by the com-
munity or other constituencies are
dedicated to achieve those established
objectives, regardless of the cur-
~ ~ • ~
ICMA Center for Performance
Measurement helps local govern-
ments deliver results that matter
in challenging times.lCMA-staff
members work with communities
to collect, clean, and report data in
15 service areas and`help to con-
duct rigorous citizen surveys. Btad-
get and policy decisions are results
based, and local governments have
.implementation tools. For more
information, visit www.icma.org/
performance.
Sours: Janorson ca.nry, co~oeao
rent fiscal condition. As we evaluate
the inventories of all programs and
services offered, we would find it im-
plausible to believe that each achieves
those objectives to an equal extent.
Prioritization offers an objective
process that allows those responsible
for resource allocation decisions to
ensure that those programs of higher
' value to citizens, those programs that
achieve the orgatiization~s objectives
most visibly and effectively, can be
susr~incd through adequate funding
levels regardless of the fiscal crisis du
' jour.
Whether there are more resources
to distribute or fewer to allocate,
prioritization guides that allocation
toward those programs most highly
valued by the organization and,
most important, by the citizens who
depend on those programs for their
well-being, their comfort, and their
expected quality of life. PM
'David Osborne and Peter Hutchinson,
The Price of Government: Getting [he Re-
sults We Need in an Age of Permanent Fiscal
Crisis (New York: Basic Books, 2004).
zChristine Becker, "Local Fiscal Con-
ditions, Public Infrastructure Important
Issues to NLC Members," Nation's Cities
Weehly, December 3, 2007.
"`State and Local Governments: Persis-
__ __ _ ..
r
I
r I
3
v
i
trnt ritical Chall/~n)tcs V1'ill I ikl•lr Lnu°rv,~c I
,
~~1l hlll lilt' ~~t'\i i)CC;IdC, hrlr~~rl nip • , ,
(~,~1111~ IUNl1~•~' 1~1 a^.I I111,1;1~~1, ~).( I:. `,
~,,.,vcrnuu~nt .1rr,nultahiht~ l)Ihcc•, jul~ R~~X'•:~Cil$hlp ~kftls 1.11dAp~~rOa~GE1@8Tfi1t
lti. zoo-ri ~ff~~tive h~anagters l~Fse
~`Michacl lianunrr and Janlcs Ctwnlp~.
Nrrnt;i,trrrint; fhr (nrpl,rnti,ar :1 :A1nnlJru,~
' ~,
i Take a personal interest in others.
url:: }latpcl
for Bt+sincss Re~~nlutiun (New Y
'~ Business, 14931- Otiffer h~l Burin a crisis.
~ ! • ~ g
~, Mike Zapler, "Governor's Depiction of ~ Honor the ego needs of others.
rinances .~<c1lr;uc, tiolution I-;Ills Sh~~lt,"
~ ~ Find a shared interest with colleagues.
' ~~feaury ,veins, Sacraulento Burrnl, Jams- ~ ` . ~iarif~-expeetatioMS.
ary l5, zoo8.
- ~ Usten carefully to learn the needs and agendas of others.
hr Prier uJ
"Osborne and Hutchinson, 1 i ~
~ Eat together.
Gnvernnlent.
'Jack ~'Velch. 11'inning, ~~•ith Suzy' ~\'clch f Earn trust by sharing credit, keeping confidences, and being
(Nr~~ York: tlarlu•r Busiucss Publishers, trustworthy.
?u~>>). Take the first step.
- i
i
i
' E
i
n jo
nt tra
n
ng.
ngage
Chris Fabian is business process analyst, ' Use humor.
Jefferson County, Colorado (cfabian@
• Make interactions authentic.
leffco.us); Scott Collins Is sensor budget
analyst, city and county of Denver, Colorado
(Scott.Collins@denvergov.org) and a former
budget analyst, Jefferson County; and )on
Johnson is budget director, Jefferson County
(jxjohnso@jeffco.us).
Source: IQ Report. 2007."The Fine Art of Mana~in~ Relationships:' published by
ICMA, Washington, D.C. (For information, visit bookstore.icma.org.)
__
~~I
f~ -
~.
~,
~ ~~1 ;
~,~~ ~.
~~_ ,-