Mayor
McAlister and Members of Council:
Submitted
herein, in accordance with the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act, is
the annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 for the Town of
The
approach of the FY 2007 Recommended Budget is to continue that begun in FY 2006
which is to create a budget structure and philosophy that will expand on our
use of basic business principals to guide decisions now and in the future. Our primary goal for the future is to provide
high quality service at a low cost with a stable tax rate and fee structure in
an equitable manner. Our secondary goal
is to regain our focus on providing traditional municipal services and
expanding into areas of specialty services on a planned basis when resources
are available.
The
approach started last year in developing the FY 2006 budget was necessitated by
many of the budget and policy decisions made between Fiscal Years 2000 and
2004. During that period of time, the
Town appropriated $109 million in cash to develop parks, recreational
facilities, and purchase open space including two major regional parks and a
number of specialty facilities; $150 million primarily in debt to widen
critical thoroughfare sections and Town facilities, which is a primary reason
debt service increased from $1.6 million in FY 2001 to $14.3 million per year
by 2009 for projects already approved and budgeted; created new and expanded
programs and services (e.g. traffic signalization, C-Tran); and funded services
that have historically and legally been the responsibility of other levels of
government such as providing $5.3 million for school operations, $1.5 million
for the purchase of school sites. Also
the Town has committed $40 million to fund roads and utilities infrastructure
for new developments in exchange for developers agreeing to pay school impact
fees. Prior to FY 2000, these same
infrastructure costs would have been paid by developers.
While
some of these decisions resulted in substantial one time capital expenses, the
decisions to provide new major parks and recreation facilities; specialty
facilities and new programs significantly increased ongoing operating costs,
including personnel, equipment, and contracted services. The Town’s other operating expenses grew by
$24 million, or 53%, from FY 2000 to FY 2005 in order to operate and maintain
the new facilities and programs and to maintain previously existing levels of
service to an expanding number of customers.
At
the same time these expenditure decisions were made, the Town reduced solid
waste fees and taxes, and implemented growth management policies designed to
limit population growth. These decisions
helped reduce the rate of tax base growth occurring in
MAJOR ISSUES
Tax Base Growth
During the
early 2000s, the impacts of the poor economy, coupled with the Town’s
successful growth control measures, combined to slow the rate of revenue growth
compared to that of the mid to late 1990’s. Approximately 71% of the Town’s tax
base is residential in nature, so reductions in the population growth rate had
a significant effect on the level of ad valorem tax
revenues. This is the largest revenue
source for the Town and, at $53 million, it comprises
54% of all General Fund revenues.
Growth in ad valorem receipts is expected to
be 4% in FY 2007, compared to the average annual growth rate of 12% from FY93
to FY02. The recommended budget for FY
2007 maintains a tax rate of 42 cents per $100 of assessed value.
A historical
perspective of the Town’s assessed value (tax base) growth since FY 1995 is
provided in the graph below. The
extremely high growth rate in 2001 reflects property revaluation which is done
every eight years in
The Town has
started to see an increase in the number of new single family (SF) permits being
issued in the last couple of years.
During 2002, only 466 new permits were issued compared to an average of
about 1,500 per year in the mid 90s. The
assessed value on which tax receipts are calculated is based on what has been
built by the prior January 1 meaning that FY 2007 revenues are based on values
as of
Sales Taxes
Projected
sales tax revenues totaling $20 million in FY 2007 make up 20% of all General
Fund Revenues. The historical growth
rate of this major revenue source was greatly impacted by the economic slowdown
of the early 2000s, but the current economic recovery helped this revenue
source recover in FY 2005 and growth is expected to continue into FY 2007.
The graph
below depicts the historical growth of sales tax revenues and includes the one
cent (Article 39) which is distributed based on sales delivered in Wake County,
the two half cents (Articles 40 and 42) which are distributed state-wide based
on the population of each county, and the one half cent (Article 44) which is
distributed based on a combination of both approaches mentioned. Article 44 was approved in December 2002 to
replace the expiring Inventory Tax Reimbursement and Intangibles Tax
Reimbursement revenue sources.
Solid Waste Program
Service
Levels
The Town’s solid waste program provides service to
all residences in the Town and any small businesses that choose to have the
Town provide their solid waste services.
The Town does not offer these services to commercial enterprises that
generate a high volume of solid waste. There was considerable discussion over
the past decade about whether the premium service level of backyard garbage
collection is worth the extra cost.
Prior to its decision to begin the conversion process to a curbside
collection system during the FY 2006 budget process, the Town of
Fees
For Services Provided
In FY 2005, the Town of
The percentage of program cost recovery has varied
over the years and was 50% during FY 2005.
At the rate of $7.67 per month, half of the program costs were being
subsidized by other general fund revenue sources, including the entire tax base
(both residential and commercial).
Continuing the FY 2006 council adopted rate of $11.75 into FY 2007 is
being recommended and it is expected to recover about 65% of the total program
costs from the customers receiving direct services and includes the costs of
actually collecting and disposing of the garbage, recycling materials (net of
revenue received from selling recyclable materials), and yard waste. The Town is targeting a cost recovery rate of
approximately 86% over the long term, with the remaining 14% of costs being
funded by other existing general fund revenues (including the tax base) as they
benefit the community at large and include services such as the Dixon Avenue
convenience center, Town-wide litter collection and code enforcement
activities, and the disposal of wastes generated by Town activities. Due to projected truck price
increases in the near future to accommodate new
emissions standards, staff is pursuing early procurement funding during late FY
2006 to save about $100K in capital costs.
In addition, by advancing replacement by one year, staff anticipates
saving about $578K in personnel and operating costs because complete conversion
to automated curbside collection and commingling of recycling can take place by
the end of FY 2007. Staff will continue
to evaluate the cost recovery projections and related fees as we approach full
conversion in FY 2008.
Prior to recommending the conversion to automated
curbside collection during the FY 2006 budget process, the staff evaluated funding
solid waste services through the property tax and rejected that alternative for
the following reasons. The Town chose to
make the costs of solid waste collection and disposal subject to a user fee at
the time the Town stopped providing that service to businesses and industries
because the costs had become prohibitively expensive. The decision was made to only provide
residential waste collection with the users paying the costs through a user
fee. Since businesses and industries
were not getting any service, the user fee provided the mechanism for the costs
to be borne by the users and not adding to the property tax burden of those not
getting any service. If the town was to
cover the costs of the residential solid waste collection and recycling service
through the property tax, it would require a tax increase of approximately
$0.06/$100 valuation (14% of today’s tax rate)
for every tax payer, including those not receiving any service. The negative financial impact on businesses
receiving no service would be significant.
In addition, since they receive no service for this increase, it would
create a severe service inequity which the Town has always, as a matter of
policy, tried to avoid.
Investment Earnings
Existing cash
balances on hand due to current receipts, fund balances, and project funding
are often invested temporarily to earn the Town income in the form of
investment earnings to help offset total income needed for Town services. While the sagging economy of the early 2000s
drove debt service rates lower in the bond market, it also reduced the amount
of return available for the Town’s investments.
Interest earnings in FY 2001 were $8.7 million across all governmental
funds, while net investment earnings in FY 2004 in these same funds were only
$1.3 million, which is a drop of $7.4 million or 85%. As these market changes have affected the
Town’s income over the past few years, the Town has had to adapt its expense
and pay-as-you-go capital planning accordingly. If the recent economic recovery continues
and the expected average yield rates of 3.5% in FY 2007 materialize, total
investment earnings should be about $300K higher than those expected in FY
2006.
As approved
at the 2006 Council/Staff Retreat, staff is pursuing the issuance of $47
million in already appropriated general obligation debt for general capital
projects. This debt is an accumulation
of funds that are needed for projects approved by Council in previous years, as
they will be spending over the next two years.
The cash from this variable rate borrowing will be invested until it is
ready to be spent, but the incremental investment income over the next two
years from these proceeds will be used to pay debt service on the funds. So while investment income is expected to be
about $1.6 million higher than otherwise in FY 2007, this revenue increase is
helping to offset the corresponding debt service payment which is expected to
require interest payments only during FY 2007 and FY 2008 with both principal
and interest payments being due in FY 2009 (an incremental increase of about $2
million).
Maximizing Existing Resources to Continue Advancing the
Quality of Life
Operating
Margin
The slowing
growth of some revenues and decline of others, increasing operational expenses,
and increasing debt service costs have combined during poor economic times in
the early 2000s to present an increasingly challenging budget scenario over the
past few years. Ad valorem
revenue growth, after a ten year low of 2.5% in FY 2005, is expected to rebound
slightly in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 with 4% growth each year as a reflection
of the recent resurgence in single family permit activity. These slight increases are a welcome change
from recent years, however they are not strong enough
to create operating margins like those of the 1990s. Operating margins from FY 1992 through FY
2002 averaged nearly $15 million annually.
As the graph below illustrates, the rate of debt service growth (in red)
and steadily climbing expense growth (in blue) has put increasing pressure on
the rate of revenue growth (in black).
Operating margin is demonstrated in the graph by the area where the
revenues, shown in black, are still visible since they exceed debt service and
expenses. The recommended budget
reflects an operating margin of approximately $4.7 million or about 4.7%. This operating margin is being consumed by
recommended pay-as-you-go funding of capital projects.
Of the $12.7
million in debt service payments due during FY 2007, $1 million is related to
the widening of North Carolina Highway 55 which is currently being performed by
the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The widening of this roadway was originally
planned to take place in FY 2007 as a state funded project, but the construction
time frame was advanced to take place sooner when the Town of
Debt
Capacity
Fiscal Year
2003 marked two significant milestones in
Wastewater
Management Facility (WWRWMF) in the most affordable manner,
The only
general obligation bond referendum authority being recommended for
appropriation in FY 2007 is the $10 million for open space acquisition. While the price of land has risen much faster
than inflation in recent years, the amount of available open space land has
also dwindled as
·
2003
$130 million street bond: $99.5 million
available
·
2003
$30 million park bond: $25.7 million
available
·
2005
$110 million west plant bond: 97.1
million available
Debt
Affordability
With $160 million
in newly approved debt authority for streets and parks comes a great deal of
responsibility. The cost of borrowed
money remains relatively low compared to historical levels, but it has been
rising slightly over the last year.
While lower interest rates are a great incentive to leverage the Town’s
remaining debt capacity, being able to repay the related debt service each and
every year is a major factor when deciding which projects to undertake and how
much to borrow. Debt service related to
the 1999 bond authority for streets and parks, costs related to the NC55
widening and an expansion of Town Hall combined to increase debt related costs
in the general fund to $10.9 million in FY 2005 with expected increases of
about $4 million with the FY 2007 budget.
Following the FY 2006 budget development process, Council focused a
great deal of attention on all previously funded capital projects including the
liquidity of their various funding sources.
Several work sessions were held to determine options related to
minimizing the impact of pending debt service on the General Fund without
altering or delaying any projects already approved. The first approach involved using the Town’s
cash balances within existing projects that were not spending right away to
prevent borrowing funding for debt funded projects that were ready to
spend. This approach was used up until
the time that the variable interest rate market provided an opportunity for the
Town to use its borrowing power and triple A credit
rating in the spring of 2006. The Town
is planning to borrow $47 million with only interest payments due the first two
years (fiscal years 2007 and 2008) and principal being due for the first time
in FY 2009. Increased investment
earnings on the bond proceeds during this two year time period are expected to
help pay the interest costs the first two years, and then general fund debt
service is expected to increase to $14.3 million by FY 2009 for these
borrowings which are all related to capital projects approved prior to the FY
2007 budget.
The declining
rate of revenue growth in both operating and capital reserve funds is of major
concern when evaluating the future ability of the Town to afford additional
debt service and other operational increases.
Prior to the FY 2007 budget, the Town appropriated $30.4 million of the
street authority and $4.3 million of the park authority. Based on identified project needs, other
available funding sources, and trying to limit the pace of acquiring additional
debt, the recommended general capital budget for FY 2007 includes no new street
or park bond appropriations. A
replacement service ladder fire truck and remaining funding for the radio
system upgrade project started last year comprise the $8.3 million installment
purchase debt being recommended as part of the FY 2007 budget. These comparatively low levels of debt
funding are being recommended to help reduce operating margin deficits that are
projected in FY 2009 should additional revenue growth not materialize. The Cary Town Council directed at its 2006
Council/Staff Retreat to be presented with capital options and
implications. The recommended budget is
seen as the low end of that spectrum that focuses on what is needed and what can
be afforded within existing resources this year. While some debt will be needed to fund
continuation of major projects next year that are being recommended this year,
other options for more expansive capital programs are certainly available and
additional debt funding will play a major role in accomplishing them. We will work through what more aggressive
options might look like during our budget worksessions.
Signs of an
economic recovery have begun to materialize in
Fund
Balance
The Town of
Impact of Declining
Operating Margin
Fiscal
Year 2007 represents a very interesting mix of several factors that have
affected operating margin over the past several years:
· Revenue growth
from new tax base, although showing signs of moderate growth recently, is well
below that of the late 1990s and will likely never reach double digits again
· Operating
expenditure growth has been limited to maintaining service levels in most areas
other than staffing, operating, and maintaining several new facilties
(
· Debt service in
FY 2007 is projected to grow by $1.8 million to $12.7 million and is expected
to reach $14.3 million by FY 2009 to help fund projects budgeted prior to FY
2007 (there is often a delay between the time a project is approved and when
the cash is actually needed to pay for construction – debt is not sold until
just before the related cash is needed (see the “Debt Affordability” section
above).
While
healthy levels of General Fund fund balance exist to
assist with capital purchases and one-time emergency situations, it is not a
sound financial planning practice to pay for long term operational expenditures
with fund balance. This is especially
true when current forecasts indicate as much as a $5 million deficit for Fiscal
Year 2009.
Options
for Creating Additional Operating Margin
A major cause for
decreased levels of operating margin over the past decade is the growing amount
of debt service that has been absorbed within the General Fund with no tax
increases. In fact, the tax rate was
reduced by one cent in FY 2002, which is equivalent to about $1.2 million less
in annual revenue. In addition, the
solid waste fee was reduced from $11.50 to $7.67 in FY 2001, which equated to
about $1.5 million less in annual revenue until FY2006 when the fee was raised
to $11.75. Since FY 1994, four bond
referendums have been approved by the voters authorizing $242 million of
general obligation debt for streets and parks with the understanding that the
potential tax increase resulting from all of that debt could be as much as 14
cents on the tax rate once all the debt is issued (all tax rate impacts here
have been adjusted for property revaluation impacts in 2000). Other initiatives to help create and/or
reduce the impact on operating margin totaling about $9 million for the next
couple of years (with $5 million recurring annually) have been initiated
recently including:
· beginning the transition
to curbside automated solid waste collection and commingled recycling
collection in FY 2006 (expected to yield $1.5 million in annual savings once
converted in FY 2008)
· raising the business
license fees effective for FY 2007 for the first time since 1990 (expected to
generate an additional $650,000 in FY 2007)
· reducing employee
average raise amounts in FY 2006 (saving about $320,000 annually)
· increasing the monthly
solid waste and recycling fee from $7.67 to $11.75 (expected to generate about
$1.6 million in additional revenue)
· delaying the pending $47
million debt sale for already appropriated street and park projects beyond FY
2006 and then approving a variable rate mechanism that will delay principal
payments until FY 2009 (delaying $4 million annual debt service beyond FY 2006
until full payments are due in FY 2009)
· leveraging the buying
power of Blue Cross and Blue Shield as the Town’s new third party administrator
of our health and dental self-insurance fund in FY 2006 (helping to create
savings versus budgeted funds of $1.3 million for FY 2006)
· updating the parks and
recreation fee system in FY 2006 (expected to generate about $150,000 annually)
The
Balance Between Revenue Growth and Expenditure Growth
Historically,
the NC General Assembly has given local governments a limited range of
responsibilities for services and capital facilities and a limited set of
revenue sources to meet those responsibilities.
Over an extended period of time, local governments need to develop and
maintain a focus on community priorities within the limits of their responsibilities. Having this prioritization structure and
focus assists local governments in the struggle to balance revenues and
expenditures as well as maintaining a strong and stable financial position.
During the
decade of the 1990s, the Town of
Over the past
few years, however, the tax rate has been reduced by one cent (worth $1.2
million in FY 2007) and the solid waste fee was reduced by one-third (worth
$1.4 million in FY 2005 before being increased to $11.75 per month adding
revenue of $1.6 million in FY 2006).
These revenue reductions have been coupled with significant service
level increases in the form of new appropriations to roads, parks, specialized
facilities, economic development funding for schools, affordable housing, and
the initiation of a transit program. In
addition to the initial capital costs to build many of these facilities, some
of them require additional staffing to maintain and program their use. General Fund operating expenditure and debt
service growth in FY 2007 are expected to have increased by $32 million or 52%
since FY 2002. Over that same time period,
General Fund revenues are anticipated to grow by only $23 million or 31%. This disparity between the level of revenue
and expenditure growth over the past five years has effectively eroded most of
the $14 million annual operating margin that existed in FY 2002. Without significant shifts toward increasing
revenues through growth, further increases in existing fees, or decreasing
expenditures in the very near future, the excellent financial condition of the
Town can only be maintained by an increase in property taxes.
Town staff has
a history of being very frugal in its application of new resources to
accomplish both existing and new tasks by never adding people or new funding
until it is absolutely necessary to achieve the Town’s goals. In addition, there is recognition within the
organization that most often, people are the most expensive solution to any
problem. Many of the recent
privatization efforts the Town has undertaken and studies related to
operational improvements and efficiencies were detailed very thoroughly in the series
of Operation Worksessions held with Council during
the Fall of 2004.
In response to the dynamics of the past five years, the staff has taken
an even harder look at operations to help reduce and control costs and examples
of some of these initiatives are identified below:
·
Reduction
of eight positions in Inspections & Permits (5 inspectors, 3 permit staff)
when the number of new permits being issued dropped in 2003 – recommending to
add three inspectors and one permit staff positions back in FY 2007 given the
resurgence in the number of new permits and resulting inspections
·
Discontinuation
of the residential plan review program
·
Did
not fill Recycling Coordinator vacant position (reassigned the majority of
duties and increased a 30 hour position to 40 hours to handle the remaining
workload)
·
Reduction
of two positions in Engineering (development inspections manager and projects
administrator)
·
Contracting
janitorial services, landscaping, right of way and town facility mowing
·
Reduction
in the minimum staffing on aerial ladder units in the Fire Department from 4 to
3
·
Change
in approach to rising Health and Dental Insurance costs by encouraging more
consumerism
·
Consultant
studies on operations and staffing efficiencies at all utility plants and fleet
operations
·
Reallocating
four sworn officer positions from elementary school resource officer positions
to higher priority objectives (two to new 9th grade centers, one to
patrol and one to investigations)
·
Class
and pay study approach changes to not have associated automatic increases with
grade changes
·
Required
a 10% reduction across the board in training and travel expenses for FY 2006
after holding amounts flat for the last several years
·
Required
a 3% reduction across the board in non utility operating and maintenance
expenses for FY 2006
GENERAL
FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE TOWN
FY 2007
budget recommendations have been made relative to the current overall financial
condition of the Town and to the goals set by Council for the future financial
condition of the Town. The Town’s
financial condition continues to be above average, according to the rating
agencies, currently providing adequate liquidity with a slowly recovering
economy. All three major national bond
rating agencies have awarded the Town of
The Town has
maintained a strong cash position, and property tax revenues consistently
increased during the 1990s, allowing the Town to avoid property tax rate
increases since Fiscal Year 1990. Since
then, any adjustments to the tax rate have been for revaluations, except in FY
2002, when the tax rate was dropped by one cent from 43 to 42 cents per $100 of
property valuation. While revenue growth
has continued, a decrease in the growth rate has been experienced. Past strong population and commercial
development has resulted in the need for a sizable and aggressive capital
improvements program for both general and utility needs. Due to these growing
infrastructure needs and reduced growth rate, the Town can no longer depend on
its financial reserves to the extent it has in the past. Alternative financing options must be sought
which will enhance funding flexibility and continue to ensure cost
effectiveness. While the Town has
traditionally funded major capital needs with cash, recent plans to leverage
the Town’s borrowing power by increasing the use of debt financing are evident
with the resulting increases in debt service during the past few years. Although current financial reserves are
adequate to temporarily sustain operational needs, their ability to fund
significant capital requirements in the future will be minimal. These changes will affect future operating
budgets with increased debt service and investment income fluctuations
reflecting shifts in cash balances.
Acquiring additional debt without existing margin will require some
combination of tax increases, additional revenue sources, and/or expenditure
reductions to create the amount of margin necessary to service the debt load
pending in FY 2009 (see “Debt Affordability” section above”).
The Town’s
strong financial reserves have provided significant flexibility in the past
allowing the Town to move quickly to take advantage of economic opportunities
and/or begin new projects in the middle of the year. Plans for the Town’s financial actions should
include consideration for maintaining flexibility for periods of both economic
growth and downturns.
REVIEW OF REVENUES
General
Fund
Revenue
assumptions have been developed according to the effects of the economy and the
growth management initiatives on the Town’s revenues such as population,
assessed value, and building permits.
Some of the specific revenues affected are ad valorem
taxes, permit and inspection fees, solid waste fees, sales taxes, utility
franchise tax, wine and beer tax, inventory reimbursement tax, cable TV
franchise fees, and recycled goods.
The General
Fund Revenues for Fiscal Year 2007 total $99 million which is a 4.3% increase
versus estimated revenues for Fiscal Year 2006.
This growth rate is bolstered by $2 million in ad valorem
receipts and $1.6 million in investment earnings expected related to earnings
from borrowed funds that will be used to help pay down the related debt service
increases in FY 2007 (see “Debt Affordability” section above). The graph below demonstrates the consistent
and substantial year over year growth during the 1990s that has changed
dramatically over the past several years.
|
|
The Town's
major source of revenue for FY 2007, the property tax, is based on
For the Town
of
Utility Fund
Utility Fund revenues
are budgeted at $42.8 million for FY 2007 and reflect a full year of
Morrisville customer generated revenues following the
As was
initiated in FY 2002, the
The current
tiered utility rate structure shifts more of the financial burden to the
high-volume users who require additional capacity to support their peak
demand. The rate structure also
currently includes a monthly base charge for all users. Rate changes in Fiscal Year 2002 included
increasing the first tier from 4,000 to 5,000 gallons. With the Town’s increased emphasis on water
conservation measures, the rates provide a financial incentive for the
high-volume users to conserve. As recommended
in the Water Conservation and Demand Management Plan, adopted by Council in
April 2000, the new tiers are designed to encourage customers to maintain their
water consumption at an efficient level.
The changes were adopted with implementation in March 2001, and
primarily target excessive irrigation.
Other revenue
sources in the Utility Fund include connection fees, pretreatment fees, water
and sewer wholesale service, bulk water sales, and interest income. Total revenues in the Utility Fund are
projected to increase 8% compared to the FY 2006 estimated revenues. Fund balance levels are lower as well with
approximately $34 million in FY 2002 compared to about $28 million at the
end of FY 2007. Primary drivers of this
reduction in Utility Fund fund balance include an $11.2 million transfer for
open space acquisition in FY 2002 and another $13.5 million transfer to help
offset utility costs related to involuntary annexation areas in FY 2003. Growing debt service needs related to
infrastructure investments are continuing to increase revenue requirements in
the Utility Fund. The
As the chart
below illustrates, Utility Fund revenues have been increasing to help afford
related debt service and operational cost increases. The rate of debt service growth (in red) and
steadily climbing expense growth (in blue) has put increasing pressure on the
rate of revenue growth (in black).
Operating margin is demonstrated in the graph by the area where the
revenues, shown in black, are still visible since they exceed debt service and
expenses. The recommended budget
reflects an operating margin of approximately $2 million or about 4.9%. This operating margin is being consumed by
Morrisville merger related recovery costs and the generation of $1 million in
open space funding.
REVIEW OF EXPENDITURES
General Fund and Utility
Fund Total Expenditures Summary
General Fund expenditures
and inter-fund transfers total $100.2 million for FY 2007. Included in this amount is $5.9 million in
the form of fund balance transfers to support Fire, Parks, and General Capital
Projects. This expenditure level
reflects a $2.9 million increase compared to FY 2006. Debt service is budgeted at $12.7 million in
FY 2007 and is expected to increase to $14.3 million by FY 2009. Utility Fund expenses and transfers total
$42.3 million. This includes $14.4
million to cover utility-related debt service requirements.
General Fund:
Since FY 2002, debt service in the General Fund has increased by $9.6M
or 298%.
Utility Fund:
FY 2002 includes an $11.2 million transfer to the Open Space Capital
Project, and FY 2003 includes a $13.5M transfer to help fund water and sewer
capital requests related to Town initiated annexations effective
Major Personnel Impacts
The demand
for services has continued to grow through the economic downswing and now
recovery, so it has become increasingly difficult to maintain quality service
within current funding levels. In order
to maintain current essential service levels and to support upcoming capital
projects coming on-line, 28.875 new positions, all in the general fund are
recommended in the FY 2007 Budget.
The staffing ratio for FY 2007 is expected to drop compared to the last
few years to 9.5 employees per 1,000 population as portrayed in the graph
below. Population figures are as of the
beginning of each fiscal year and the