Arlington County Civic Federation
The Civic Voice of Arlington
Report on
Revenues and Expenditures
Adopted April 6, 2004
1.
The Arlington County Civic
Federation recommends to the Arlington County Board that it adopt a
Fiscal Year 2005 General Fund Budget that is balanced at $714.3 Million [an
increase of $48.6 million – 7.3% over the FY’04 Adopted Budget]. This would be accomplished by:
The real estate property tax rate, within the advertised
rate, would be reduced by 4.6 cents to 93.2 cents per $100 of assessed
value. With the recommended rate, the
average single-family homeowner’s tax bill would still increase by about $355 –
nearly 13% (rather than the about $525 proposed).
There is concern that this magnitude of increase, well
above inflation and population growth, has continued for a number of years and
is not sustainable for the County. This
concern should influence future budget decisions and presentations.
2. The Federation recommends to the Arlington County Board a number
of procedural improvements in budget presentation and in program operation as
well as expressing its thanks to the Board and staff for adoption of a number
of past Federation recommendations, such as summary presentations for program
areas crossing departmental boundaries.
3.
The Federation recommends to the Arlington
County Board that: 1) it direct the County Manager to issue the Mid-Year Review
and recommendations on the use of proposed budget contingents as early as
possible in the public review process of future budgets, and 2) it direct the
County Manager, through the budget guidelines for FY’06, to prepare a base
budget proposal which provides a continuing level of services regardless of
real estate assessments as well as readopt, beginning in FY’06, the Greenrod
principle whereby budget proposals would periodically identify for specific
public scrutiny, agency by agency, programs where recent levels of staffing and
funding may no longer be required to provide reasonable levels of service.
4. The Federation recommends that the School Board and the County
Board reexamine the Revenue Sharing Agreement at least every four years.
Any future revenue sharing agreement(s)
between the County Manager and the School Superintendent should be subject to
full public hearings before ratification by both elected Boards.
5. The
Federation recommends that the School Board establish a policy that the Reserve
Fund be maintained at a fixed percentage of the operating budget. The Federation notes that there are a number
of contingency funds, separate from the reserve fund, which can be used
administratively. The Federation
recommends that the experience with the contingency funds be reviewed to
determine the extent to which they have been used, the purposes for which they
have been used and, when they have not been used, what has happened to those
funds.
6. Whereas we are concerned with the growing level of Schools debt
service on capital improvement projects, compared to the amounts allocated for
pay-go (referred to as “Capital Projects” throughout the proposed budget), the
Federation recommends that the School Board maximize the use of pay-go projects
to decrease bonded indebtedness and, thus, the amounts that must be allocated
to debt service in future years.
The President of the
Federation is authorized to transmit approved motions and supporting
information, including macro-economic calculations and comparisons, to the
County Board, the School Board, the media, and other interested parties and to
offer to make Federation Committee members available to explain the motions,
recommendations for procedural improvements, and supporting text.
Table of Contents Page:
Overview.........................................…………..2
Summary of
Recommendations.............…...…4
Explanation of Recommendations..........……..4
Procedural
Improvements.......................……12
Report of the Schools
Committee........……...14
OVERVIEW
On February 7, 2004, the County Manager presented the
County Board with a proposed FY 2005 budget. It followed earlier County Board
guidance.
Proposed revenues at current
rates of $715.8
Million (+7.5%)
[includes a
dedicated $10 million prior fund balances
for capital
improvements and an 9.5% increase in the
transfer to
the Schools]
Proposed expenditures $712.7
Million (+7.1%)
[includes a compensation contingent of $8.8 million]
Leaving an FY’05 Budget Contingent of $
3.1 Million
[Out of which
recommended policy priorities were
noted in the
amount of $1.2 Million and tax relief
was mentioned
as possible]
Overall expenditures for basic County services were
presented as receiving a 2.9% increase (more accurately 5.4% with the addition
of the compensation contingent which will be fully used or 6.3% if the budget
contingent were also added). On
February 21, 2004, the County Board voted to advertise the real estate rate at
the current rate of 97.8 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. At this current rate, the tax bill of the
average single family home would have increased by 17.2% -- a sum of about
$525.
Major Factors:
Increased Expenditures:
According to the Manager,
there were eight “key budget drivers” – which were:
Contracts and Living Wage $1.567 Million
Utilities
0.381 “
Landfill Charges
0.499 “
Auto Charges 0.278
“
Inmate [medical] Care 0.278
“
Lease Purchase Agreements
0.124 “
Rent
0.397 “
Insurance Claims 0.265
“
This is largely a continuing
services budget; although items such as METRO operations would increase significantly. The manager’s proposed budget did not
consider a $750K increase in net tax support for METRO as a “key budget
driver”. Also, projects begun through
mid-fiscal year 2004 would be continued at full year funding.
Increased Revenues:
Based upon very pessimistic assumptions, the Manager projected increases as follows:
·
Because
of increased assessments and new construction, real estate tax collections
would increase by 11.8%. Personal property tax collections would fall by 0.2%.
Overall, local taxes were projected to increase by 9.5%. Revenues from the Commonwealth were to
increase by 2.7% and those from the Federal Government to increase by 3.5%.
·
Water
and sewer fees were scheduled to increase by 17.9 percent.
Motor vehicle decal fees
were projected to decline by 6% (9,166 vehicles and $220K) compared to FY’04.
Distributable Contingents:
The Manager proposed an $8.8 million compensation
contingent to be available for review sometime before April 24. This contingent was to cover COLA,
retirement system changes, employee benefit changes, and further implementation
of the living wage. It was not
available to the Committee as of March 27th.
The Manager also proposed a $3.1 million budget contingent to cover proposed priority expenditures and possible tax relief.
Committee Review Process:
The Revenues and Expenditures
Committee again agreed at the start of its examination of the budget that our
review would be conducted on the following terms:
o
Base budget programs would be examined for excesses (including
duplication) or under-funding;
o
Normal inflation allowances (including step increases) would
be expected;
o Withdrawn Commonwealth or Federal funds would be
replaced with local funding where necessary;
o The Schools funding level would follow the budget agreement
between the County Manager and the School Superintendent;
o Some modest increases would be considered for priority
new initiatives, particularly in public safety;
o Some early decisions were to be made tentatively;
subject to review after County staff responses to Committee questions were
received and reviewed. Compared to
FY’04, more responses were received;
o A realistic estimate of carryover funds from FY’04
would be developed without reference to the County Manager’s unwillingness to
incorporate an estimate in his budget; and
o The Committee would then recommend a real estate tax
rate that would balance the resulting budget.
This is our standard procedure whatever the changes in assessments have
been over the past year, with the focus always on taxing the exact amount
required to fund County operations, regardless of changes in real estate
assessments.
Using these procedures, the Revenues and Expenditures
Committee makes the following recommendations:
SUMMARY
OF RECOMMENDATIONS
(in millions of dollars with rounding)
Expenditures:
County Manager’s BASE BUDGET
(including contingent)..……………....................................$715.8
1. Manager’s Policy Priorities….…………………………………………………………………...-1.8
2. Transfer to the Schools:
Schools’ Committee Recommendation……………….............………..0.0
3. General
Government...............................................……………………………………..…….…..0.0
4. Public
Safety................................…..………………………………………………..................+$0.1
5. Infrastructure and Operations.........…………………...............…………………………………..0.0
6. Human
Services……………….……..…………………............................................…......….+$.0.1
7. Community Planning, Housing, and
Development….................……………………………....+$0.3
8 . Parks, Recreation, and Community
Resources…..…..................…………………………………0.0
9. Non-Departmental &
Debt Service…..….......…………..............……………………………….-$1.6
10. Regionals/Contributions
and METRO................…..............………………………………….. -$0.1
11. Pay-As-You-Go Capital
Budget………………………………………………………………..-$0.6
12.
Effects
of Schools/County Revenue Sharing Agreement:
a)
Increased
transfer due Schools from revenue changes (14) – (16) below.………………+$13.3
b)
Reduced
transfer as per (18)
below….…………………………………………………..-$12.0
13. Emergency Preparedness Reserve
Fund………………………………………………………+$0.7
TOTAL: $714.3
County Manager’s BASE
BUDGET.....................................………………………………….....$715.8
14. FY’04 Mid-Year
Review……………………………………………………………………..+10.2
15.
Further
FY’04 Revenue Reestimate………………………………………………………….. +2.8
16.
FY’05 Revenue
Reestimates………………………………………………………………..+$10.0
17. Miscellaneous FY’05 Fee
Increases………………………………………………………….+$0.2
TOTAL: $739.0
Surplus
of revenues over expenditures………+$24.7
18.
Net Committee Balancing
Recommendation...............……………………………………...-$24.7
When comparing FY’04 adopted
budgets and the Federation’s recommendations for FY’05, the results are as
follows: Schools – 8.4% increase and County (General Fund after Schools transfers)
– 5.4% increase. Using revised and/or
appropriate budgets would, of course, produce different results, but the
Schools would increase more the County (after Schools transfers) with virtually
any combinations of comparisons.
EXPLANATIONS OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES
M =’s
millions K =’s thousands of dollars
(1)
Manager’s Policy Priorities (-$1,780.6K):
The
Manager’s Budget Contingent totaled $3.1 Million. The Committee recommendations below amount to $1,319.4K. Therefore, the above number reflects the
amount remaining for other uses.
Affordable Housing:
The
Committee accepts the Manager’s option of a “compliance specialist” who would
“ensure compliance with federal, state, and local funding requirements and
contracts” related to affordable housing units in the County at a cost of $65K.
The Committee accepts the Manager’s
revised March 30, 2004 option of adding $750.2K to the housing grants
program. Earlier, the Committee had
accepted an earlier recommendation and added supplemental funds that approached
this amount. The new estimate meets the
Committee’s goal of preventing any loss of grants to current recipients and
emergency new cases.
These additional amounts are supported only
under the following conditions: new applicants must meet the guidelines for the
program previously established by the County’s housing task force, the minimum
age for new elderly applicants be raised to 65 (to match the County’s real
estate tax exemption/deferral program), new applicants must be Arlington
residents for a minimum of six months and be able to prove lawful residency,
and existing grant recipients must be able to prove lawful U.S. residency. The County must ensure that requirements
will be strictly enforced and that monitoring mechanisms are in place to avoid
any future overspending for this program.
At the March 30 budget work session, County Board members directed the
Manager to tighten program requirements; hence, such Federation recommendations
are very timely.
Economic Sustainability:
The
Committee accepted the Manager’s option to add 2FTE’s in CPHD – one planner for
the site plan review process and one construction codes inspector at a gross
cost of $200K; all costs were estimated by the Manager on March 30 to be
covered by an increase in associated revenue of $200, shown below in (17).
The workload in Public Works of reviewing developer and private owner plans, including site plan work and compliance has risen sharply as projects have increased. The average days required for plan review has increased from the target of 60 to 65. This is in part due to County adoption of stricter controls on infill, by-right and special exception-related development. The County Manager is requesting 2 new FTE’s to expand the staff reviewing projects and site plans. We support this recommendation, but note that the expansion should be structured to permit the County to reduce staffing when the current building boom subsides. There is a cost of $70K.
Public Health and Safety:
Consistent with prior Federation recommendation: Increase staffing for FY05 by 2 FTEs for environmental health inspectors. As the budget has now, for two years, pointed out, the number of inspections is declining – not merely because of a focus on “higher risk” establishments, but because supply of inspectors is not keeping up with demand resulting from new establishments coming on line. Currently, the inspections for both high-risk and medium-risk establishments is nearly 50% less than the suggested national standard for inspections. This is critical for the obvious reason that our restaurant industry is a major contributor to the quality of life in Arlington and to its economic base and because inspections are tools for educating food handlers – those who are on the true front line of food-borne illness defense and are most susceptible to natural or intentional causes of food-borne diseases. There have been no additions in environmental health inspectors in over a decade (since 1992). (+$189.6K)
In
the Committee’s FY’04 report, we noted a Critical Unfunded Need: An Administrative Assistant for ECC. Thus, we support the Manager’s option to
spend $42.6K for Emergency Communications Center staff support.
Because there is no clear plan to prudently
spend the revenues which would be raised, the Committee does not support the
proposed increase in the E-911 Wireline tax; see also a Procedural Improvement
Recommendation below.
No
Committee member made a motion to support any of the other options offered by
the Manager.
(2)
Transfer to the Schools (x.x):
The Committee accepts the County
Manager’s proposed transfer to the Schools including: Operations, Comprehensive
Services Act, Capital, Debt Service, Community Activities Fund, and Other of
$275.9 million – 48.6% of the Manager’s projected local revenues as per the
Superintendent/County Manager “agreement”.
See the report of the Federation’s Schools Committee, beginning on
page 13.
Motion #4 above was, in part, reflective of the concern
of some R&E Committee members that the Revenue Sharing Agreement was
instituted at the time when enrollment peaked and rising enrollment could no
longer be used as a significant factor in School’s requests for transfers in
the budget.
(3) General Government ( 0.0):
The Committee notes that last fall
the County Board voted to use carryover to fund the 2 additional FTE’s that the
Federation had recommended for the County Board Office.
Given Arlington's proximity to the National Capital and it's
extremely strong tourism, real estate and labor markets, it is difficult to see
the value added that arises from county-supported tourism and visitor
promotion, particularly alongside already substantial state, regional and
private sector efforts. A General Fund
transfer of $247K seems excessive to support the Visitor's Center. Some of these resources could perhaps be
more effectively deployed or increased at the Business Information Center
(e.g., one-stop information/forms, etc.) and/or a Small Business Ombudsman. With the Department of Economic
Development's reduced role following the transfer of the Housing Division, a
question should also raised as to whether it is necessary to operate this
function as a separate Department. It
would appear that the principal functions could easily be transferred to or
absorbed by other departments with a possible reduction in overhead and
associated expenses.
(4) Public Safety
(+$100K):
For FY 2006, it is recommended that
consideration be given to:
1. Four-man
staffing of the two Truck Companies ($607.5K in today’s dollars)
2. A
Public Affairs/Public Information Officer ($125K)
3. One
additional FTE Administrative Assistant.
4. Address
the headquarter deficiencies, particularly the administration/staff ratio. See Tri-Data.
5. Addition
of $2 million to the next CIP for upgrades to the Fire Academy.
For
the Fire Department, the Committee the addition of one non-uniformed FTE in the
Emergency Preparedness Program for the purposes of CERT administration, CCC
support, and the provision of community disaster education. (Cost:
$100K)
For the Emergency Communications Center, immediate
procedural recommendations (without a specific budgetary impact) include:
1) Insure that ECC is staffed with a
Fire Department officer, either permanently or rotationally through assignment
of those on light duty. This will
greatly enhance the ability to screen calls requiring medical attention; and, 2)
The County is encouraged to have a well-established career
ladder/banding approach to employee retention in place by end of FY’05.
The Police Department is to be commended for its
recruitment successes. The Civic
Federation urges that greater attention to training be given, particularly in
CBRNE, as evidenced by the beliefs of the officers queried by members of our
Public Services Committee.
Attention should be given to the caseload in the Criminal
Investigations Division of the Police Department. Without making a recommendation, the Civic Federation questions
whether the resolution rate might not suffer as a result of the increase in
cases per detective. The Civic
Federation further urges that the Police Department and County Manager review
the pay scale for the rank of Detective.
Assign
at least one Police Department FTE to the development of neighborhood-based
mutual aid systems, including, but not limited to, the introduction of a
police-based training program to complement the CERT training. Training would focus on Neighborhood Watch
and a variety of programs for neighborhood strengthening, including
communications. (Personnel
reassignments could accomplish this, or using light-duty officers.
Further Police Department recommendations: 1)
Refocus attention on an increase in the shift differential pay for police
officers. There has not been an
increase in 12-14 years. (Additional
money paid to officers for working evening or night shifts.) This should not be in lieu of
overtime. A study of neighboring
jurisdictions should be considered. And,
2) Review the status of Cold Case Squad; Washington Area Vehicle Enforcement
Task Force; JTTF; joint Narcotics programs; intelligence gathering. Insure adequate staffing/participation.
(5) Infrastructure
and Operations (0.0):
This budget chapter results from a
reorganization of County functions that is bringing together the Department of
Public Works, Office of Support Services and Department of Environmental
Services. Net Tax Support rises 6% in FY’05. The biggest growth in expenditures
is for new Arlington Rapid Transit routes to supplement or replace Metrobus
routes, increases in paratransit costs and increases to cover the Living Wage
rule, primarily for custodial services performed by contractors.
The revenue picture is bleak
for ART until Metro solves its Smartrip card difficulties and begins sharing
fares from transfer passengers. The Revenues and Expenditures Committee does
not recommend cutting any of the new ART routes for lack of revenues until that
situation is cleared up, but we note that the routes and fares of ART routes
should be adjusted so that fare revenues cover at least 15% of route costs by
18 months after the initiation of service and 20% of route costs after 30
months. [The Fiscal Affairs and Transit Advisory Committees have made similar
recommendations.] If these standards are not met, then route adjustments or
increased fares for some categories of reduced fares should be made.
There is no cost breakout of
cost per rider for any transit program other than the STAR paratransit program
for the disabled. The subsidy for the STAR program is $29 per passenger trip,
leading us to repeat our recommendation that this growing program be analyzed
for more efficient ways of providing the service.
The Mobile Commuter Stores will be cut in FY 2005
due to a loss of the State grant that funded them. The Fiscal Affairs and
Transit Advisory Committees both recommended accepting this cut. From FY 2001 to FY 2004 the number of
transit passenger trips rose from 64.9 million to 75.6 million, a very sharp
increase.
See a related recommendation in (1) Manager’s Policy
Priorities above.
The workload of reviewing developer and private
owner plans, including site plan work and compliance has risen sharply as
projects have increased. The average days required for plan review has
increased from the target of 60 to 65. This is in part due to County adoption
of stricter controls on infill, by-right and special exception-related
development. The County Manager is requesting 2 new FTE’s and $70,000 net tax
support (after fee revenues) to expand the staff reviewing projects and site
plans. We support this recommendation, but note that the expansion should be
structured to permit the County to reduce staffing when the current building
boom subsides.
Performance measures show a need for additional
attention to the condition of our streets. We are concerned that the quality of
Arlington’s asphalt maintenance is targeted to decline slightly in FY’05, a
discouraging development for those taxpayers who live on streets whose pavement
is already poor. Linear feet of centerlines and lane lines painted dropped 25%
in FY’04 due to contract coordination problems, but is expected to recover to
normal levels in FY’04 and will not receive additional funding. There is no
funding in this budget for additional traffic calming staff, although
neighborhoods continue to wait in a long queue for measures to be installed.
The planning division is still in need of more resources to update master
plans, but has lost an admin position instead. We would welcome proposals to
address these needs in the FY’06 budget.
During this Fiscal Year the Arterials Transportation
Management Task Force expects to complete its work and propose pilot projects
on three segments of Arlington arterials. We have not proposed funding from
Pay-As-You-Go capital in this budget, but following County Board consideration
of the recommendations any projects adopted can be funded at mid-year or in the
fall bond issue.
The biggest cost increase for Environmental Services
results from a higher tipping fee for taking our trash to the joint
Arlington-Alexandria Waste to Energy facility. Again the Mission Outcome
measures should be revised to include measures of environmental quality such as
counts of E Coli form bacteria in streams, stream oxygen content and the annual
number of raw sewage dumps.
Mission Outcome Measures in this Department do not
adequately reflect goals in some cases. “Value of projects completed,” a
workload measure, should be supplemented with a performance measure of
“projects completed on time and within budget.”
The Office of Support Services should delineate more
clearly how its funding for the computer help desk does not duplicate the
functions of the Office of Technical Services.
In the future the County needs to fund additional
Geographic Information System work to facilitate data access, but there is no
proposal for that in this budget. The work might be most efficiently done by
outside contractors. Costs for electricity and maintenance for streetlights and
signals will continue to increase as the number of lights rises. The eventual
completion of the Arterial Transportation Management study may result in
additional spending requests in future years.
In the future, this chapter should provide an
analysis bringing together the separate presentations for proposed activities
under Infrastructure and Operations (Tab F), the Utility Fund (Tab N) and
elements of the capital budget that are not a part of the Proposed Budget to
facilitate analysis of this organization.
The Committee supports
the proposed and advertised fee increases for water and sewer and for household
solid waste consistent with prior Federation recommendations to achieve full
cost recovery.
(6) Human
Services (+$120K):
Public
Health: consistent with prior Federation recommendations. Increase staffing by at least one FTE in
either surveillance or epidemiology.
The County Manager’s proposed budget notes that “significant workload
increases are projected due to intense disease surveillance involving
monitoring of emergency room visits, hospital admissions, community physicians,
and frequent contact with laboratories.
The surveillance activity has ALREADY increased and does not yet include
recommended inclusion of EMS and veterinarians. It should be noted that two surveillance nurses, one
bio-terrorism planner, and one new epidemiologist were added mid-FY’03 as a
result of state funding. (+$90K
including vehicle)
Increase the number of
public health outreach and information campaigns, either independently or in
partnership with existing community resources to better educate the entire
public on all aspects of the more serious diseases currently confronting
Arlington. (+$30K)
In addition, the Committee believes that four procedural
items with immediate budget implications must be addressed: 1) Upgrade the placement of Public Health as a full
partner in all emergency preparedness activities; 2) Conduct a full-scale
public-private review of the public health system; 3) Plan for budget increases in outlying years in the event State
grant funding for bioterrorism personnel is not extended beyond FY 2005; and,
4) By FY 2006, have a well-developed
plan for incremental budgetary increases to improve the public health
infrastructure.
Agency on Aging and Disabilities: Identifying the currently un- and
under-served population is the greatest problem facing this agency. It is recommended that a system/approach be
devised to identify senior citizens and the disabled in such a way that help
could easily be delivered to them in the event of a disaster while still
maintaining privacy and confidentiality needs.
(7) Community Planning, Housing, and Development (+$300K):
The Community Code Enforcement Division still struggles with enforcement of property management codes, noise control, and the garbage, refuse and weed codes, particularly in the evening and on weekends, when most noise violations occur. The program continues to be understaffed and staff requires additional training and certification. Tickets issued have fallen from 979 in FY01 to 500. To honor the commitment to continue the initiative announced by the late Charles Monroe in January, the Committee recommends two additional FTE’s at an estimated cost of $160K and two vehicles costing $40K.
The Inspection Services Division is using extensive
routine overtime to keep up with a workload estimated as 20% over capacity, and
is in need of one additional FTE. The Committee recommends that this position
be added at a cost of $80K with a vehicle costing $20K for a total of
$100K. Some or all of this additional
cost may be offset by fees from permit processing and code compliance as well
as the reduction of overtime pay.
(8) Parks,
Recreation, and Community Resources (0.0):
The PRCR budget for FY’04 continues the base level of services with
some minor additions. There is a major increase in maintenance funds included
in Paygo capital.
Park users and the Federation’s Parks Committee have noted for years
the need for better maintenance of our tree stock, trails, shelters, signage
and other park features. The proportion of parks buildings being maintained to
standards has declined from a miserable 60 percent to a shameful 55 per cent,
with similar results for comfort stations, tennis courts, light poles and
fountains. In addition, the two nature centers are deteriorating and trail
maintenance is below standard on 50% of the County’s paved trails. In addition,
making facilities ADA compliant is still being put off. Finally, there is no
new tree maintenance funding following the Dominion Electric devastation along
Four Mile Run, or to follow up on the canopy replacement initiative of previous
years. We did not recommended additional maintenance funding last year, asking
the County to develop a coordinated plan for additional maintenance. We are
pleased that the Manager has responded, with a recommendation to add $1 million
in Paygo capital to fund additional
maintenance for parks and park facilities for this Fiscal Year, coordinated
under the Capital Asset Preservation Program.
Carver, Drew and Lee Recreation Centers have been renovated and
required additional program funds last year and this year. The new Langston
Community Center is open, the Powhatan Springs Skate Park will be open soon,
and program activities have begun at Fort C. F. Smith Park. Parking facilities
at Barcroft Park and elsewhere are to be used for overrun public parking.
Master plans are in preparation for new facilities including the North Tract,
Greenbrier Park, Arlington Mill Community Center, 13th and Herndon Street,
Quincy Park, Oakland Park and Maury Park. We support the enhancement of
Arlington’s parks, and would like to see more comprehensive planning for the
normal increases in operational and maintenance costs at the time when the
capital spending is presented to the voters for approval as a bond initiative.
No Parks bond should be presented without this analysis.
The PRCR staff has undertaken limited snow and ice removal on the
County’s trails since 2001. Given the all-season use of our trails by a wide
variety of users and the opportunity to encourage new transit users to reach
Metro by trail during snowstorms, we encourage PRCR to continue to budget for
this activity. We recommend that the County adopt a comprehensive snow
clearance policy for sidewalks and trails similar to the one used in Eagan,
Minnesota and available on the Web. The cost of various options should be
presented in the PRCR and Public Works budgets for FY’06.
The Cultural Affairs Division has again gained a partial FTE to reach
24.1, a net increase of 10 per cent in personnel over the last two years since
it was reorganized to improve efficiency. Its net tax support has risen 12.7
percent over the same period. Still, use of the Costume Shop is denied to
nearly half the applicants, including neighborhood theater groups. Fees for
this program should be evaluated to see if full cost recovery is a viable
option. In light of the appetite for additional funding by proponents of this
program the County should maintain its perspective limiting new Arts funding.
Although employee perceptions of the value of the Health Smart program
are important, the budget should present additional information keyed to
employee performance measures such as use of sick leave, supervisors’
evaluations or disability claims. Since the program is a benefit for County
employees only, it probably should not be under DPRCR
(9)
Non-Departmental/Debt Service (-$1,596K):
Debt Service: 1) The County has historically
issued bonds and therefore begun debt repayments AFTER the dates used for
budget planning and at a lower interest rate; thus a reduction of $212K is reasonable
based upon the accuracy of past Federation projections.
2) On March 27, the County
Board approved the sale of general obligation public improvement bonds and
refunding bonds; the sale is planned for April 28. The refunding was not included in the Proposed Budget; refunding
will save between 1 and 1 ½ cents on the interest rate. With the $132.5 million dollars in bonds
expected to be refinanced, this amounts to a FY’05 savings of between $1.325M
and $1.988M. The Committee recommends
accepting the lowest estimate as a fully realistic FY05 budget expenditures
savings.
Affordable Housing Investment
Fund Contingent: Unlike the last
four years, the Committee recommends no change in the Manager’s recommended
level of funding.
Compensation
Contingent:
The Committee: 1) supports continued
funding of the Manager’s “living wage” program, 2) expects that COLA parity
between County and Schools employees will be maintained, and 3) accepts the
need to replenish the retirement fund based on lower investment earnings.
As
a part of the use of this contingent, the Federation recommends both that an
additional $35K be added to the ‘live where you work’ program and that the
program’s eligibility rules be tightened to limit purchases to residences at or
below the County’s medium priced residence.
Other:
Retirees Health Insurance: Reduce expenditure estimate by $59K to more
accurately reflect recent fiscal year actual costs. Reduction reflects better
managed care; e.g. greater reliance on 'primary payer' of MEDICARE.
(10) Regionals/Contributions and METRO (-$144K):
The Committee again
recommends that $1K be added to the Health Systems Agency allocation to
accurately reflect current population for the County’s per capita contribution.
The Committee recommends
that the recommended contribution to the Ibero American Chamber of Commerce be
eliminated; a reduction of $45K. The
FY’04 contribution was added without any public indication prior to budget
approval that a request had been made; there was no public discussion of any
potential benefits nor any opportunity for analogous organizations to
apply. The one sentence justification
in the proposed budget does not indicate a specific benefit to Arlington
residents/businesses.
The Committee recommends a
reduction of $100K in the County’s contribution to the Hispanic Committee of
Virginia. All benefits to residents
cited in the justification, except for immigration counseling, are provided
already in County programs; primarily in DHS.
The DHS Volunteer Office in
addition to recruiting volunteers for County programs should be directed to
also recuit volunteers for County funded non-profit organizations such as
Crisslink and the Hispanic Committee of Virginia.
Many previous Federation recommendations have been acted
upon and cost savings achieved.
However, modest long-term savings are possible for the County by: better
management of regional agency reserve funds, better monitoring of comparative
use rates, and constant updating of population-based assessments because
Arlington's share of the regional population is declining.
(11)
Pay-As-You-Go Capital Budget (-$550K):
The
Committee recommends the addition of $500K to the Emergency Preparedness
Program for the purpose of implementing the recommendations of the Citizen
Corps Council, particularly those for communications systems and educational
materials in emergency preparedness.
For the FY04 budget, the Federation had recommended this as a part of a
broader recommendation to establish a public preparedness reserve fund in the
amount of $5 million to be funded from carryover funds.
In addition, the Committee makes the following
recommendations to existing entries:
Capital Asset Preservation
Program (CAPP) for Parks and Recreation ($1M). This fund provides for one time expenditures to consolidate and
upgrade maintenance critical maintenance of park facilities. The Federation
feels that such expenditures belong in the Parks and Recreation operating
budget rather than as a catch up effort.
We recommend that the CAPP funding be included in the DPRCR operating
budget.
Neighborhood Conservation. The original 500K PAYGO amount used in FY03 funded the initial plus up of this project. Since then, the PWD has transferred a substantial number of project types to this fund. The Committee recommends ending this funding practice after this fiscal year and increasing the CIP bond funding