#5 Establish Council objectives for upcoming budget
First Macro Projection of 2010 Operating Budget
Current
Projection
Revenue Changes:
Community Development Permits$ (190,000) (1)
Interest on General Investments (313,000) (1)
State Shared Revenues (361,000) (2)
Subtotal for Revenue Changes$ (864,000)
Use of Structural Deficit (applied fund balance)$ 1,231,000
Expenditure Changes:
Economic Wage Adjustments$ 840,000(3)
Wisconsin Retirement System Rate Increase 145,000(4)
Utility Increases 82,000(5)
Vehicle Operations and Maintenance/Transit 108,000(6)
Oak Hill Cemetery Subsidy 100,000(7)
Position Eliminations (275,000) (8)
Subtotal for Expenditure Changes$ 1,000,000
Projected 2010 Deficit for Operations w/o Levy Increase$ 1,864,000(9)
(1) Interest rates and construction starts have declined
(2) Assumes a 6.2% decrease in State Shared Revenue per Governor's proposed budget
(3) Assumes 3% wage increase based on union contracts and no increase in health insurance costs
(4) Assumes a WRS contribution rate increase of 0.8%
(5) Electricity increase 9.2%, Heat/Gas increase 2.6%
(6) Internal Service fund charges and Transit subsidy
(7) Projected annual subsidy for the operations of Oak Hill Cemetery
(8) Includes 4 position eliminations per City Manager consolidation plan
(9) Maximum levy limit in State Budget is 3%, which yields an additional $725,000 property tax revenue
JJW /PL - 5/1/2008
Macro Projection of 2009 Note Issue
Current
Projection
Initial Submittals for General Fund Capital Projects funded by Note Issue
2009 Projects$8,300,000
2010 Projects$10,500,000
2011 Projects$10,000,000
Total$28,800,000
Current Outstanding General Obligation Debt$28,100,000
2009201020112012
Current Debt Service (before 2009 Note Issue)$5,290,000$4,800,000$4,130,000$3,810,000
New Debt Service
Debt Service on 2009 Projects$1,328,000$1,128,800$1,095,600
Debt Service on 2010 Projects$1,470,000$1,428,000
Debt Service on 2011 Projects $1,400,000
Total New Debt Service$0$1,328,000$2,598,800$3,923,600
Total Debt Service$5,290,000$6,128,000$6,728,800$7,733,600
Percentage Increase in Debt Service15.8%9.8%14.9%
Estimated Tax Rate for Debt Service (per $1,000)$1.51$1.75$1.92$2.20
Debt Service for Average Home Assessed @ $113,300$171$198$217$250
Annual Increase for Debt Service$27$19$32
Estimated Increase in City Tax Levy for Debt Service2.0%1.4%2.3%
C:\Documents and Settings\wellnitzs\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\JKW9EPWN\2009 Macro note issue.xls
Comparative Evaluation Matrix
Budget Process
The goal of the comparative evaluation matrix is to standardize the evaluation and priority ranking
process and to ensure consistency between the mix of projects and the goals and policies implemented
through City plans and programs. The matrix is intended to be simple to understand and use and
flexible enough to allow modifications over time.
A comparative evaluation matrix system will be used as the primary tool to evaluate and prioritize both
capital projects and in right-sizing the operations budget. In the capital budget, this process will
prioritize projects by evaluating each project against all other proposed projects using Capital Project
Information sheets and Evaluation Criteria guidelines. These documents are intended to serve as a
starting point when evaluating projects.
An Evaluation Criteria Guide sheet will be created for both the note issue and the operating budget to
identify a series of comparative criteria. An example is provided to assist you in seeing how the
evaluations will work.
A comparison matrix worksheet will be used to record and assist in ranking each project against the
others. Reviewers will review each project; taking into consideration the various components of the
project and to what extent they comply with the established criteria for both the operating and capital
budgets. Each project will then be compared against the other proposed projects. Reviewers must select
the project, which they feel best meets the criteria and record their choice on the comparison matrix
worksheet.
After completing the evaluation of each project against the others, the projects receiving the greatest
amount of support will be placed in numerical order to indicate a preliminary priority order for the
projects. The City can further refine the priority order based on eligibility and availability of resources,
specific funding sources or other factors. Fiscal constraint will continue to influence the timing of
projects, as can other unforeseen matters.
Council Guidelines
Proposed 2009 Note Issue policies and evaluation criteria
The following proposed policies and evaluation criteria are based on criteria that would in City
Management’s view assist the City Council in evaluating the 2009 Note Issue.
Balance essential service needs and quality of life needs by allocating a percentage (i.e.
$
approximately 20% of the capital program to quality of life improvements.such as Parks and
Recreation projects.
The City can further refine the priority order of capital projects based on eligibility and
$
availability of resources, specific funding sources or other factors. Fiscal constraint will
continue to influence the timing of projects, as can other unforeseen matters.
Capital funding for engineering design should only be appropriated where funding can also be
$
made available for implementation in the following fiscal year.
City Council should allocate funding for strategic land acquisition in designated areas of the City
$
based on Council priorities.
Proposed 2009 Note Issue Evaluation Criteria
1.Health & Safety
2.Fiscal Impact
3.Percent of the community who will benefit
4.Risk Analysis
5.Relationship to other Projects
6.Sustaining or Enhancing the local Economy
7.Quality of Life Features
8.The Project has Prior Authorization
9.Funding from Outside Sources
10.Will Maintain an Established Service
11.Other (As determined in Discussion)
Example of Evaluating Criteria
Evaluation Criteria Guide for Capital Improvement Projects
Health and Safety
The project is absolutely necessary to address a health and safety issue
$
The project will improve health and safety in the community
$
The project does not address any issue relating to health and safety
$
Fiscal Impact
All or a majority of the project is funded from outside sources including grants and donations.
$
The City’s dollars are highly leveraged. The project will not be expensive to manage and/or
maintain or will be maintained by another agency. Service levels will not be negatively affected.
The project is expensive but realistic based on community needs.
$
The project is expensive and totally reliant on general revenues. The project will be costly to
$
maintain and will place stress on service levels.
Percent of Community that Benefit from the Project
The vast majority of citizens will directly and indirectly benefit from the project (may include
$
quality of life benefits).
Many of the citizens will benefit from the project. However, it may be up to them as to how
$
much.
A small minority or very few of the citizens will benefit from the project.
$
Risk Analysis
The project will directly address a legal issue or mandate and significantly decrease the City’s
$
legal exposure.
The project will have no effect on legal issue or mandate.
$
The project will substantially increase the City’s legal exposure.
$
Scenic Quality
The project provides a specific improvement to the community’s scenic quality.
$
The project has the potential to improve the community’s scenic quality.
$
The project will have no effect on the community’s scenic quality.
$
Relationship to Other Projects/Coordination/Inconvenience/Disruption Caused
The project can be coordinated with other project(s) to lower costs, decrease construction time,
$
minimize the inconvenience and disruption caused; the timing of the project is critical in order to
take advantage of outside funding sources; or project is part of and implements a larger overall
plan.
The project has some opportunities for coordination, timing, and implementation of larger plan.
$
The project is mutually exclusive and cannot be coordinated with other projects; has no timing
$
issues and is not part of larger plan.
Sustaining and Stimulating the Local Economy
The project will provide substantial long-term benefits to the local economy.
$
The project has the potential to help stimulate the local economy.
$
A small minority or very few of the citizens will benefit from the project.
$
Community Enrichment
The project will significantly enrich the community’s quality of life
$
The project has the potential to enrich the community’s quality of life.
$
Council Guidelines
Proposed 2010 General Fund Operating Budget Evaluation
Criteria
The following proposed guidelines or decision-making matrix are based on criteria that would in
City Management’s view assist the City Council in developing an Operating Budget that would
right-size the City of Janesville’s General Fund heading forward into the future.
What level of emphasis does the Council want to place on these criteria?
1.Maintaining a balanced budget without utilizing current Fund Balance/cash reserves
2.Taxes ranging from maintaining no increase in the operating levy to increasing the levy limit up
to 3%.
3.Revenue Enhancements including non-tax revenues
4.Reducing service levels to enhancing specific service levels. (i.e. evaluating all services)
5.Reducing staff (layoffs, furloughs, freezes, incentive reduction program)
6.Impacting salary increases
7.Balancing the increase in the Debt Service with increases in the General Fund operating fund.