The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About043 02 cC: ft\\ï:èpb 7{17/0;) STATE OF WASHINGTON County Of Jefferson In The Matter of Establishing Goals And Objectives for the 2003 County Budget Resolution No. 43-02 WHEREAS, Jefferson County's population has grown by an annualized rate of 3.1% since 1969, and WHEREAS, an expanding population puts additional demands on county services, and WHEREAS, an expanding population can help create a broadening of the tax base, and WHEREAS, the economy of state and local governments in Washington State are experiencing significantly lower revenues as a result of slower economic growth, and WHEREAS, the state legislature eliminated aid to local governments for the high cost of the criminal justice system managed by counties, and WHEREAS, additional revenues sources needed to sustain existing county programs will need to be referred to Jefferson County voters for approval, and WHEREAS, the future economic vitality of the county needs to be maintained and enhanced, and WHEREAS, increases in cost due to inflation affect salary and operating expenses for county services, and WHEREAS, adequate funding reserves need to be maintained for each operating budget to provide for emergencies and for cash flow, and WHEREAS, the annual budget process provides opportunities to focus resources in support of strategic issues facing Jefferson County, and WHEREAS, priority will need to be given to funding strategic objectives in order to maintain and improve the quality of life for county citizens, and Page 2 Jefferson County 2003 Budget Goals and Objectives WBEREAS, the strategic objectives with the highest priority are: a) supporting economic development, b) protecting and enhancing natural resources, c) supporting law and justice programs, d) addressing local public health problems, and e) planning for long-term capital facility needs. WBEREAS, county services must meet citizen needs efficiently and effectively, and WBEREAS, it is recognized that citizens of Jefferson County expect both accountability and affordability from their government. WBEREAS, Jefferson County together with the City of Port Townsend and other local government agencies recognize that collaborative efforts to provide services benefits all citizens of the county, and NOW, T.BEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Commissioners of Jefferson County does hereby establish the following goals and objectives to guide development and adoption of the 2003 Jefferson County Budget: BUDGET PREPARATION 1. Budget requests shall be prepared in a consistent, citizen friendly format that clearly identifies the resources needed for each program, what services are being bought through that program. 2. Departments shall prepare departmental budget requests that include the standard Budget Accounting Reporting System (BARS) financial request as well as a narrative and such other information as appropriate to summarize the program and financial needs of the department. Expenditures shall be summarized by program and by major object (salaries, benefits, supplies, etc.) 3. Departments shall prepare budgets following the standard format provided to them in the Call For Budgets from the County Auditor. 4. Each department shall prepare a narrative which shall Jefferson County 2003 Budget Goals and Objectives Page 3 include: a) The department mission statement in a clear concise statement telling why the organization exists. b) The department's staffing requirements for the coming year clearing indicating which staff positions are grant supported. c) The outcomes, with measures, expected to be obtained by the program including impacts anticipated by increased or decreased funding. d) A description of how the program supports the county strategic plan. 5. Departments shall also prepare program budget requests for each department program in the same format as department budgets. FISCAL BUDGET OBJECTIVES 6. The budget, when adopted, will need to be balanced within available resources. In addition to annual fiscal objectives, efforts need to be made to look into the future to meet long-term service needs. 7. Growth in General Fund property taxes shall not exceed 1% plus taxes collected on new construction. 8. Growth in Road Fund property taxes shall not exceed 1% plus taxes collected on new construction. 9. Consideration will be given to use of "banked capacity" tax for one-time expenses that are for a specific duration. 10. Departments shall prepare budgets which will yield the best results for the revenue available. 11. Law and Justice related departments are encouraged to prepare budgets in a collaborative way that will achieve the best results. Two budgets will need to be prepared: one within projected resource levels, and a second budget including voter-approved local option sales tax. 12. Where programs are dependent on the continued availability of grant support, departments need to indicate the sustainability of the grant source and the implications of Page 4 Jefferson County 2003 Budget Goals and Objectives the grant funds being reduced or eliminated. 13. Where possible other departments are encouraged to collaborate on budget preparation to achieve the best results. Budgets will need to be within projected resource levels. 14, A minimum reserve of 10% shall be maintained for all operating funds. A minimum reserve of 25% shall be maintained for the non-capital expenses of the Road Fund. 15. Revenues collected in excess of the minimum reserve shall be held for one-time, special purpose needs that fulfill strategic objectives of the county. 16. Departments with programs that are primarily funded with permit and service fees shall prepare a summary of fee revenue in relation to overall program costs and program activities and outcomes. 17. Departments shall identify those program costs that are directly resulting from a mandate from any state law or agency rule that does not provide full funding for the costs incurred along with any proposed legislative changes that would eliminate the mandate or provide funding for it. REALIGNMENT OF BUDGET 18. The focus for the General Fund shall be for programs that are primarily dependent on taxes and intergovernmental revenues. These include Law and Justice related programs, and general government. Other programs will be moved to separate funds as appropriate. These include Cooperative Extension, Animal Services, Parks & Recreation, and Community Development. 19. The Natural Resources program shall be moved out of the Health & Human Services Fund into a separate fund. 20. The Parks and Recreation Program shall be funded on a short-term basis with the goal of the program to be shifted to a voter-approved special purpose district for long-term funding. STRATEGIC BUDGET OBJECTIVES 21. Support an effective economic development strategy for Jefferson County 2003 Budget Goals and Objectives Page 5 Jefferson County. a) Analyze community assets and impediments to commercial and industrial development. b) Establish a staff position to coordinate economic development within county offices. 1) Provide support in permitting processes to those businesses providing economic growth in the county. 2) Work with the City of Port Townsend, Port of Port Townsend, Peninsula Development Agency, Economic Development Council and others to develop a common economic development agenda. 22. Partner with Jefferson County PUD, City of Port Townsend, and Port of Port Townsend and other government agencies in development of fiber-optic network to serve local government in East Jefferson County. 23. Complete Urban Growth Area studies and capital facilities studies associated with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 24. Supporting and maintaining law and justice programs. a) Collaborate with the courts, law enforcement, prosecution, and other law and justice providers through the Law and Justice Council in the development of strategies that will yield the best outcomes within available resources. b) Seek voter approval for increased funding for law and justice programs. 25. Support of programs that identify and treat significant public health threats. a) Develop programs to address substance abuse issues that emphasize prevention, early intervention, recovery and overcoming community complacency. b) Seek alternative ways to deliver programs that will improve services within available resources. 26. Provide improved space for sheriff administration, emergency operations center, and dispatch services. Page 6 Jefferson County 2003 Budget Goals and Objectives EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OBJECTIVES 27. In order to meet the fiscal and strategic objectives above, efforts to make county government more efficient and effective will be a priority. Specifically: a) Consolidate programs where missions are similar, and where funding streams can be leveraged. b) Eliminate or reduce costs associated with management and overhead through consolidation of programs. c) Emphasize improving financial and reporting systems, consolidation of data, and management of technology infrastructure. 28. Continue to partner with other local agencies and to develop opportunities to work together on service delivery. a) Ensure that costs associated with delivery of service are equitably apportioned. b) Continue to provide: 1) E-911 Communication and Dispatch services. 2) Jail services. 3) District/Municipal Court services. 4) Human services. 5) Animal services. 6) Computer, GIS and telecommunications services. c) Develop agreements for: 1) Cooperative Extension programs. 2) Emergency Management services. 3) Parks and Recreation. 29. Establish performance goals associated with budget approval with incentives for departments to participate. 30. Consider privatizing services where beneficial. Jefferson County 2003 Budget Goals and Objectives Page 7 Approved this ~th JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS \\\1'( CQ\¡\f ~ . .. oIÎ .1< '. '.J Q . ~.~ ~ (;). J.'> -~~. '. ' § ~~~." ¿ ': '~.ì1·~ f : ::~ . ,(. :_': ) / ,~I .. . ~ ...". .... . 'M ~T. ~~~; ¿'J ,.'. ~. .., ~ ~-~.....J \ , . . ""\ 1-. A \ ( ¡ ) 'I ". "~lCt :Jb1ì~ Lorna L. Delaney, CMC '" Clerk of the Board day of -3l&\J , 2002, Dan Titterness, Member --------.-- 11 ëD '"0 II) ëD a. C" '< G> II) ~ ;;u o ::E CD ~ '"'- CO Ñ o o I'\) z o ~ r- II) ::E Qo c... r::: !!!. õ' CD m X '"0 CD :::I en CD :¡- o E" a. CD en m I ~ ~ 0 Z -0 ç G) -0 0 C m m z OJ ::E z ;;0 0 r- m » Pi ~ ;;0 ;:j m '-' » z -0 (f) C r- G) » m (f) G) ~ ;;0 -I -I < Pi 0 ;;0 :;:: Pi < » m m m m ;;0 Z Z (f) Z (f) ~ .." :;:: m r- m ;;0 Z (f) -I > r- > r- 0 < n 1"11 .... .... .... -I'- .... > ~ W 111 IV 0 00 -I .... ~ .. Ii) 0 IV 0 111 C!\ 0 1"11 0 .... -..J <D 111 00 ,¡¿ ,¡¿ ,¡¿ ,¡¿ ,¡¿ ,¡¿ z 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... N 1"11 .... .... .... -I'- .... III Q w ~ 0 .... <D ;-I Q .... 00 N 0 W -..J C!\ W "'" 0 -I'- 111 <D -I'- -..J <f' <f' ,¡¿ ,¡¿ ,¡¿ ,¡¿ 0 0 0 0 > N '" r- 0 Q r- Q > r- " N III 0 -I ..... 1"11 n .. 1"11 C ~ 0 .... .... .... -I'- .... III 0 Z .... w -I'- 0 .... ~ ;-I .. 0 W -..J C!\ 00 W "'" Z 0 101 0 -I'- 111 <D -I'- -..J Z <f' <f' <f' <f' <f' ,¡¿ 0 ::u 1"11 III 00 .... .... W .... 00 00 III :z: -.. N Ù1 èJ, -.. , èJ, 0 > .... <D .... c: -..J W -I'- 0 -I'- -I'- -..J -I'- IV ::u ::u .... ,0 <D 111 -I'- .... .... <D 0 1"11 Ò èJ, èJ, èJ, Ò ~ Ò ~ n c .... 1"11 111 111 0 ~ -I'- 0 0 00 00 III 00 IV C!\ -..J 111 00 111 -I'- <D ::u " 1"11 IV .... III ::u ~ '"....¡ 0 0 00 W c: Ii) 111 W <D IV ::u ~ C!\ -..J C!\ W ~ N N W n 1"11 J: 0 <D <D IV III -..J 0 0 IV -I'- .... ... ::u 1"11 ...... ... ... III ... III -I )... Ñ " W ìø 0 0 NW "" "" "" en c: -f ...,Q \I) N Q ~ ::u > '\ø"" ø. ìø ìø 101 n r- en III Q 101 101 N 1"11 IIIN en \I) \I) \I) III ... " ...... .!"' ... III ... 1"11 ::u )... " ). ìø >< 0 N " ... NN "" 101 Q ... 1"11 1"11 COlli "" CO III "" Z n œ~ in "¡.. in ÌIo III -f ..."" CO N "" ... 1"11 1"11 WUI "" "" ..., 101 C C .. '" '" 1"11 ch -I'- ::u 1"11 -I'- 111 -I'- -I'- <D Z 00 -.. ò ÒJ èJ, Ù1 n -1'-0 IV .... 0 .... 1"11 -..J 00 IV C!\ 00 C!\ o ¡¡;. '"0 II) Õ ::T o '"0 CD ~ :¡- CO - ID :::I en ~ 0 Z -0 ç G) -0 0 C m m z OJ ::E z ;;0 cJ r- m » Pi ~ ~ ;:j m '-' z -0 (f) C r- » m (f) G) G) ~ ~ -f 0 -I Pi ;;0 :;:: Pi < m m » m m ;;0 z z (f) z (f) ~ :;:: .." m r- m ;;0 z (f) -f > r- ~ r- 0 n 1"11 .... .... .... -I'- .... ~ ::u w 111 IV 0 ÇIO > .... ~ .. Ii) 0 IV 0 111 C!\ 0 1"11 0 .... -..J <D 111 00 ,¡¿ ,¡¿ ,¡¿ ,¡¿ ,¡¿ ,¡¿ Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... N 1"11 .... .... .... -I'- .... III Q ~ -I'- 0 .... <D ~ Q .... ~ ër. 00 N 0 w w 0 -I'- 111 <D -I'- -..J ,¡¿ <f' <f' <f' <f' <f' 0 > ~ III r- 0 r- > r- " 1"11 III 0 -f ~ 1"11 n .. c > 0 .... .... .... -I'- .... -f Z .... W 111 IV ~ 00 Ii) 0 .. 0 IV 0 ~ 111 C!\ 1"11 Z 0 N 0 .... -..J <D 111 00 Z ,¡¿ ,¡¿ ,¡¿ <f' <f' <f' 0 0 0 ::u 1"11 III 00 .;' .... .... W .... 00 00 III :z: -.. N Ò -.. Ù1 -.. , èJ, 0 > .... .... c: -..J .... -..J 111 W 00 -..J -I'- IV ::u ::u .... ~ C!\ ,00 ,111 !" "" <D 0 1"11 ~ '"....¡ ~ Ò ~ n c .... .... W 111 1"11 0 w .... -I'- 111 111 0 00 00 III 111 <D C!\ .... 00 IV l11 -I'- <D ::u " 1"11 IV .... III ::u ~ '"....¡ 0 0 00 W c: Ii) 111 W <D IV ::u ~ C!\ -..J C!\ W ~ N N W n 1"11 J: 0 <D <D IV III -..J 0 0 IV -I'- .... ... ::u 1"11 ...... ... ... UI ... III -f ~... Ñ ÒO Ñ ìø 0 0 N... ..., \I) 101 Q c: ~ CO \I) en UI ... UI ::u èo't- " ). ø. òo n r- "'101 ... 101 UI ..., 1"11 101\1) en 101 ... 101 III ... " ...... ... ... UI ... 1"11 ::u ~.... Ñ " ). ìø >< 0 " ... NN "" 101 Q ... 1"11 1"11 COUl "" CO UI "" z n èD"- in .. in ÌIo III -f ..."" CO N "" ... 1"11 1"11 WUI "" "" ..., 101 C C .. '" '" , 1"11 .... .... ::u ch w 111 -..J 00 1"11 !" -..J W Z èJ, .... w ÒJ ~ n 0 w .... <D -I'- 1"11 oc!\ IV 0 C!\ 0 0 Z -0 r- G) -0 0 C » m m z OJ ::E z ;;0 0 r- m » Pi ~ ;;0 ;:j m '-' » z -0 (f) C r- » m (f) G) G) ;;0 ~ -I -I -I Pi 0 ;;0 :;:: Pi < m m » m m ;;0 Z Z (f) Z (f) ~ :;:: .." m r- m ;;0 z (f) -I > r- > r- < 0 n 1"11 .... .... .... -I'- .... ~ ~ .... w !-" IV 0 00 .. Ii) 0 tv ~ 0 1"11 0 .... 111 111 ,¡¿ ,¡¿ <f' ,¡¿ ,¡¿ ,¡¿ z 0 0 0 0 0 ..... N 1"11 III Q .... .... .... -I'- .... ;-I Q .... w -I'- 0 .... <D N 0 00 00 ~ "'" 0 W -..J ,¡¿ ,¡¿ ,¡¿ ,¡¿ ,¡¿ ,¡¿ 0 0 0 0 0 0 " > ::u 0 '" r- 0 r- !-' > r- " III 0 -f 1"11 1"11 n .. >< C > 0 .... .... .... -I'- .... " 0 -f Z .... w -I'- 0 IV ÇIO 1"11 .. 0 IV C!\ C!\ C!\ -..J Z Z 0 ... 0 <D <D w 0 <D III Z <f' <f' <f' ,¡¿ ,¡¿ ,¡¿ 1"11 0 0 0 ::u 1"11 III 00 .;' .... W .;' 00 00 III ::c -.. N èJ, -.. , èJ, 0 > .... <D 111 .... c: -..J IV -I'- 0 0 <D -..J -I'- IV ::u ::u .... 111 .-1'- .0 <D .... .... <D 0 1"11 ~ ~ Ò ÒJ ~ Ò ~ n c 111 111 1"11 0 .... IV C!\ W -..J 0 00 00 III 111 C!\ w -I'- IV .... 111 -I'- <D ::u " 1"11 IV .... III ::u ~ '"....¡ 0 0 00 W c: Ii) 111 W <D IV ::u ::u C!\ -..J ,C!\ ,W ~ N n > IV W 1"11 3: 0 <D <D IV III -..J 0 0 IV .>. .... ... ::u 1"11 ...... ... ... UI ... III -f ~;.. Ñ " ). ìø 0 0 NN "" 101 Q ... c: -f COUl "" ..., UI ~ ::u > ÒO'\ø in ÒO W ... n r- ...... N UI N \I) 1"11 wen 101 en UI N III ... " ...... ... ... UI ... 1"11 ::u )... Ñ " ). ìø >< 0 " ... NN "" 101 Q ... 1"11 1"11 COUl "" !TJ UI "" z n CD'- in ... in ÌIo III -f ..."" CO N "" ... 1"11 1"11 WUI "" "" ..., 101 C C .. 'TI 'TI 1"11 ::u 1"11 N N z .... ch w n -..J C!\ IV -..J 1"11 0 IV .... 00 IV <D o m z m ~ r- "T1 C "T1Z oe ::0> Nr- cr- cO w(') m~ c- eO OZ mo ~"T1 ::0 m en o c ::0 (') m en JEFFERSON COUNTY GENERAL FUND REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE FORECAST 2003 To 2007. General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 2 Prepared by Gary A, Rowe, P.E, Deputy County Administrator Central Services Director June 28, 2002 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 3 GENERAL FUND REVENUE FORECAST TAXES 63.1% of Total For purposes of preparing the following forecast, revenues have been aggregated into resource categories as defined by the State Auditor's Budget Accounting and Reporting System (BARS). These categories are taxes; licenses and permits; intergovernmental revenues; charges for goods and services; fines and forfeits; miscellaneous revenues, sale of fixed assets, and transfers in from other funds. Additional breakdown has been added where appropriate to provide further clarity. Following are tables and estimated revenue growth factors. Chart 1 Resource Categories General Fund 1997-2002 Average --..----- INTERGOV ERNI\¡1ENrAL REV B\lUE 12.6% Cl-f.6.RGES FOR SERV ICES 8.4% INTffiEST AN) OTHER EARNINGS 6.4% ------.. -fCE}5ESAND, 3.7% The General Fund's primary source of revenue is taxes at about 63%. Property tax (including diverted road taxes) comprises the largest portion of tax collected. Historical collections for property tax yield an annual growth of 6.9%, which will decline steadily with property tax limitations established by Initiative 747 adopted in November, 2001. The growth is a combination of tax increases imposed by the Board of Commissioners together with taxes collected on new construction. Retail sales and use tax is the second largest source of revenue for the General Fund. Sales tax growth in 1998 was larger due to large construction projects at Chimacum and Quilcene Schools. The other taxes, timber harvest tax and excise June 28, 2002 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 4 tax, are cyclical in nature and go up and down over time. Table 1 Historical Revenues from Taxes 010 Inc Dfo Inc TAXES 19~7 1~98 19~5 2000 2001 ~7-'01 Annual 3~ ~ -G::'~ERA_ :'~:JPER1Y TA:ŒS 3,735,2,;3 4.);',;,335 "-,745,5;'2 4,:":'''-.570 "-,876.2:"- 3) 3~'cl 5.9% 3~ 2- TI',1B::~ ;A~O¡EST TAX::5 288,;':'~ 233,;'85 155,4)7 ~ 3::',277 213,~ ::.) -262":' -7 3% 3~ 3'R::TAJ L 5A_'ëS/ JS:: TA;':. 1.59~ ,;::;';:: ~ ,327.911 1,906,n~ 2, ))).102 1,93~,~2"- 2~ .:. ~.~) :'.0% 3~ 7-EXCJSE TA:>:E5 61,38~ :'3.1:10 6"-,197 6,,327 57,59: 10 : ',:, 2 "-',:, 3~ 9-PENA_11::5 A'm ] NI=~::5T D::_ TA:ŒS 288."-"-2 2,;"-,472 3~:.: )) 232,06: 255.:'33 - .. ':':"~'CI -,;.0% -- TOTAL 5,965,304 6,447,803 7,183,117 7,182,338 7,343,627 23.1% 5.3% A comparison of the 2002 projected budget revenue and 2001 revenue received shows an overall increase in tax revenue of 0.9% compared to the originally budgeted growth of 3.3% as shown in Table 2. The Board of Commissioners adopted a 0% increase in property taxes for 2002 which combined with tax on new construction yielded an overall increase of about 3.1%1. Property tax also includes a budgeted amount of $262,500 diverted from the County Road levy. Chart 2 GENERAL FUND RETAIL SALES TAX $2,100,000 $2,000,000 $1,900,000 $1,800,000 $1,700,000 $1,600,000 $1,500,000 $1,400,000 r. 12-M)NTH M)VING TOTAL $1,914,917 -rT--ì-TT" r-- en en ..- co en 0) ,.. en 0) en ..- o o o N o o N N 8 N - ANNUAL TOTAL _ 2002 BUDGET 6-M)NTH M)V ING AVERAGE -12-M)NTH M)VING TOTAL The downturn in the state and local economy has had a significant effect on retail sales tax revenue and timber harvest taxes. Sales tax revenue, as shown in Chart 2 above, is projected to be lower than budgeted for 2002 due to the downturn in the state and local economy. Timber harvest tax has dropped significantly due to reduced timber harvesting as a result of poor timber prices. Excise taxes and penalties 1 Note: New construction accounts for 2.6% of the increase. The remaining amount is collections from prior years' taxes. June 28, 2002 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 5 and interest on delinquent taxes are also estimated based on current trends. Table 2 Revenue Growth from 2001 to 2002 for Taxes %Ine ::¡/:; Ine Budget ::J,,: Ine Projected ;': Ine TAXES 200] 97-'01 Annual 2,002 Annual 2002 Annual 3;:-: EN: =A = =.:'PERTo' T" XES "-,;:7,.,21"- 3).5% 6 =' :~': : .025,750 3 1 :!': : .)L5, 750 3 1 % 3: 2- TJ M3: =. HA=.·.': 5T T"XES :1::.1:') ·2".2% :: :~': B",500 -12 ::J.:' ;'),000 '57.8% 3:3-=.ET "I L SA_ESj .l5E T"X 1.;',1.12"- 21."-% - ):!': L,:'''-0,430 "7).:' 1.;':').~30 1. : % 3; 7-: :<:15: TA:'::5 :.7.:~1 1).1% 24!', ,,1.800 ·8.6!" :'1. 3)) '8.6% 319-=:'j"LTJES A'D I'HE=.E5T D:_ TAX: 5 L== ,538 ,11.4% - ) ;~': 270,300 :i:!': L7),300 - 8:~': TOTAL 7,343.627 23.1% 5,3:·~ 7,584,780 3.3:·~ 7,408,280 0,9:': Growth in taxes is primarily dependent on the levy amount budgeted by the Board of Commissioners. Initiative 747 set a growth limit of 1% for property taxes. Tax on new construction is added to that amount, Because the Board of Commissioners has not levied the maximum authorized by law in prior years there is an amount of tax under this maximum that the Board of Commissioners could levy. This amount commonly referred to as "banked capacity" is around $500,000 for the county levy and $225,000 for the county road levy. The Board of Commissioners has complete discretion and authority to levy any portion of that entire amount. LICENSES AND PERMITS License and Permit revenue primarily comes from building permit revenue in the Department of Community Development (DCD). Table 4 lists those departments that report this revenue with DCD receiving about 90%, 3.7% of Total Table 3 Historical Revenues for Licenses and Permits 0/0 Ine 0/0 Ine LICENSES AND PERMITS 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 97-'01 Annual 00:-020-:,:-:,: ADIT::R 1.7::"~ 1,808 2,:':'S L.160 1,880 9.0% 2 ::"~'ê 001'100-:':-:': A'jIM".L SERVICES ::";" :,~;;' 1"-,907 15,:;,7 L7'::'·1 16,:80 '29.9% ,8 :,'è 00:-130-:-:·:·: C::M'·1J'jITY :'E'iELO=",1ENT :,1,·,:,,·1 <·,.,745 37:,9:,:' 4:';',,,",,:: :.:,5,909 6.2% 1.5% 001- 180-:-:-:·: S-i::RFF :;,:,"-2 1"-,319 14,;.7:: ::,,'-19 2"-,232 201.3% 3: 8,'è TOTAL 349,216 437,779 403,883 452,648 378,201 8,3"" 2.0:.'(, June 28, 2002 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 6 A comparison of the 2002 adopted budget and 2001 revenue received shows an overall increase in License and Permit revenue of 19.7%. This is primarily due to an increase of 22.6% in building permit revenue from DCD. This projected increase is due to an increase in fees adopted by the Board of Commissioners early in 2002. The increase in fees offsets lower revenue for 2001 which was 18% lower than 2000 due to reduced permit activity. Revenue from the Sheriff's Office is expected to exceed the budgeted amount at 3.2% above 2001 revenue levels. Chart 3 Building Permit Revenue 12-Month Moving Total $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 --rrTT-TTI!~ -Tr,r--IT'" ,... a> a> ~ co a> a> ~ ~ a> ~ o o o N o o N ~ o N _ Annual Total_ Budget -12-Month Moving Total Chart 3, above, summarizes revenue for building permit activity for a rolling 12-month period ending at each month for the past five years. The downward trend for 2001 has been reversed with adoption of fee increases for building permits in early 2002. Table 4 Revenue Growth from 2001 to 2002 Licenses and Permits '.·oInc 0/0 ] nc 8 udge-t 0/0 ] nc Projecte-ct 0/0 ] nc L]CENSES AND PERMJTS 2001 9'i -'01 Annual 2002 Annual 2002 Annual 0):-:'2)-))): ~.U:IIT:)~ 1,83) 3.0% 2.2''", 2,150 14 "-'.(, 2,:50 144":' 0):-: ))-))): ~.NJWL S=RVJC=5 16,:3) -23.9''', -85',:, 27.)00 66 ;'~'b 27,))0 663''", 0): -: 3)-)):': :OM'-UNJTY :'EV=_::)P"1E'~T 335,309 6.2',:) - 5~':) "-:: ,377 22 ",,;:, "-11,377 22 ",.:, 0):-: 3)-))): 5H=RF~ 2",2;;2 2):.3% 31.8":' 1: .550 -52 3% 25,))0 32',:, TOTAL 378,201 8.3</0 2.0'/0 452,6-i7 19'.7';0 466-,127 23.2'/0 For forecasting purposes growth in building permit revenue is expected to be on par with population growth and inflation after the fee increase for 2002. This should yield a growth factor for Licenses and Permits at 3% overall. June 28, 2002 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 7 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 12.6% of Total Intergovernmental revenue is comprised of federal, state, and local revenues. This source of revenue makes up about 12.6% of the total General Fund revenue pie. These revenues come in the form of shared revenues, grants, and interlocal agreements. Revenue from federal sources is primarily the Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program. PILT funding has increased significantly over the past three years. Other federal revenues are related to law and justice, salmon recovery and marine resources. The majority (about 70%) of intergovernmental revenue comes from state sources. Most of the state funding is law and justice related, including direct allocations for criminal justice support, 1-695 MVET replacement funds (eliminated by the state legislature), and grants. Other intergovernmental revenue comes from interlocal agreements for services primarily with the City of Port Townsend. Table 5 Historical Revenue from Intergovernmental Services %In( %In( INTERGOVERNME~TALREVENUES 1997 1998 1999 2000 200J 97·'01 Annual FEDERAL 3RANTS :.,' .:.:..:. :.1..-.,'..:: 1~5,<': 197 .~~1 316.?", ;68.5% 47.1':': STATE 3RANTS 7:,:,:.::, 83:,:·:,:, 9551:01 1,137.?~:, 757.11:. -1.2% ·0,3:~': I'H: :.:;:VERN·,IE·H':'_ 3: :VJ:E :.E'.'E"WE3 ...: "::..': :.: 2: :',:.:'1 2?:',~:,: 32~,;'?;' 435.:,;: 92.5% 1;'.:.::': TOTAL J ,060.662 LJ72.192 J.390.987 J ,660,184 L509,879 42.4°,', 9.2% Table 7 provides a further breakdown of state sources by department. The two primary recipients of state revenues are Juvenile & Family Court Services and the Treasurer for criminal justice funding. Table 6 Historical Revenues from State Sources %In( %In, STATE SHARED REVENUES 1997 1998 1999 2000 200J 97-'01 Annual 001'020-000: A.OITO:. 1:,.:.;' 1 3,:'~2 2,75: '74.7% '29.1% 001-050-000: :_ERK 1:·,:: 2 11,;:~ 1~,:.;' :' 17,7:·1 25,1:0: :: 1.5% 10.9% 001-060-000: ::WIISSI:NERS 5:,: 001-065-000: W:ED ::NTRO_ 1,50:' 001-:10-000: LJo.'ENLE 50 F':'ML Y COJRT 3E::.' 1~:·,~~8 ...:.':-."::::' 2~ :-.1 ¡:.:.. 2~?,;;:, 23;' .E;' 62.4% 1: :').~ 001, :30-000: ::M",I.JNITY D:V:LO'M:'H :: 1.:·":";' :::'.:':'1 . , 'u 2:,,:-:,:, 001-: 50-000: 'R03: :JTlNG ATTO::IE,' :'; ,1"4 ''-..::: :..:.:.:.:. :..:..:,'.: 10; .5:,? 24.6% 5';':~': 001-151-000: ::RO·I::. 4,052 001-:80-000: 3,::.1 F' 11 .:,:~ 3.:.1:.:, 2:,,:,:,: 3:·.;': :' 4:.,?;':. "", ~% 41.2% 001-250-000: TR:ASU:.::. :-/:..:;: :: :"':.,,:.i...::'... 571./ :':' 72:.,;:'? 33:,.:,: : -29.3% ·8.3::': TOTAL 766,628 836.666 955,10J LJ37,946 7S7,U6 -:l.2J,·c -0.3°,', Table 8 shows a comparison of the 2001 revenue received and the 2002 adopted budget which indicates an overall increase in intergovernmental service revenue of 36.3%. This increase is primarily due to an increase in criminal justice funding for 2002 only. The state legislature eliminated this funding for 2003. Revenues reported by Juvenile and Family Court Services are a variety of state grants including Becca June 28, 2002 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 8 funding, Proctor Home grant, Consolidated Juvenile Services grant and others. Table 7 Revenue Growth from 2001 to 2002 State Shared Revenues %Ine 0/0 Inc Budget :lie Ine Projected % Ine STATE SHARED REVENUES 2001 97-'01 Annual 2002 Annual 2002 Annual 00: -:': :0. 000 '" UDITO=. 2,752 -747,'( ·29.1% 3,000 ~.O% :,.:':':1 9 :I~'i: 00:-:': :'·000 :::L::=.K 25,:02 -- -= ~'( 10.9% 1"-,500 -"-:.2% - .: :.:. -4::' ¡~'c 00: -:::-. 000 JUV::'~LE & :A"1LY ::::'U=.T SERV :;,7,787 624% 12.9% :"-"-,~17 - :I~'é 244.~17 30% 00:-:;,:',000 :::O··1MJNlTï : EV::_O= ',1ENT 32,500 ;.::'.::':' 00:-:: :',000 = =.:'S:::::JTn::; ATTO=.N::Y 103,589 24 5~'i: 5.7% 11:'."-86 :. 7~'i: 11 :I.":"~::. 6 7~'i: 00:-:::·000 :::O=,:'N::=. 4,052 6,000 "-::.1% :1.:«1 49 1 ~'i: 00: -: :::-·000 SHERI F: 46,978 297 :.~'i: 41.2% 37,538 -::":'.1% :./.: :.::' -20 1 ~'i: 00:·:: :,·000 T=.E"'SU=.::=. 336,855 -29 ;,,'è '8.3% 5::3,294 I;. ::"~'i: :s:·.:;a~ 73 :,'è TOTAL 757,116 -1.2% -0.3'.', 1,032,235 36.3% 1,032,235 36.3'.', Table 9, below, summarizes growth for intergovernmental revenues for 2002. It is difficult to project growth in intergovernmental services due to uncertainty in the state budget. The state legislature has eliminated the I-695 MVET replacement funds and could cut funding for local governments further. Federal PILT funding has grown over the past two years and is anticipated to be about 20% higher in 2002 than budgeted. Continued funding for PILT is dependent on the annual federal budget which the president has requested at a lower level than authorized by Congress. The forecast for 2003 should be adjusted downward by $240,000 with the loss of I-695 replacement funds and growth should be set at 0%. Table 8 Intergovernmental Revenues % Ine % Ine Budget '.', Ine Projected °/0 Ine INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES 2001 97·'01 Annual 2002 Annual 2002 Annual FED::=."'. ::;RA'HS 316,928 368 : :~'è 47.:% 25"-,083 -1 ;'.:;~'i: ;.1 :'.:'::":' ·2 :~'i: STAT:: ::;RANTS 757,: :6 . ~::·c '0.3% 1.032,235 ;':1.3% ...,.'.;.,,:...:..:.: 36 ;,~'è I'~T ::RG:".' ERN'-1ENT':'_ 5::=,'.'1::::: =,E'.'ENJ::5 "-:,5,835 92.::% 17.8% ;,1:.1"-5 -::.~: '::"~'i: 3::,1"-: '28.4% TOTAL 1,509,879 42.4% 9.2'.', 1,598,463 5.9°/0 1,654,920 9.6'.', CHARGES FOR SERVICES 8.6% of Total Charges for service revenue is comprised of those revenues for recording of documents, court charges, development reviews, etc. This revenue source represents about 8.6% of General Fund revenue. Table 10, below, lists those departments and collections for prior years. The largest recipients of these revenues are the Auditor for motor vehicle licenses, recording of documents and election services, District Court for adult probation fees, and Community Development for plan checking fees and other development review fees. The amount listed under the Treasurer is an internal cost allocation charge to other departments. June 28, 2002 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 9 Table 9 Historical Revenues from Charges for Services %[ne :I,,,: Ine CHARGES FOR SERVICES j997 1998 j999 2000 2001 97-'Oj Annual 001-):)·000: ASS: 350:;. 7,584 :1,)::'::" 5,914 :: .:S) 5,603 -~:I 1 :~.: -7 ;·% 001-)~)'000: AJDITOR 200,368 ::..::..:.): 217,171 ':"'::."'; ::' 244,976 -: -: -: ),~ - L :~':: OO:-)~:'OOO: : ,ECTIONS 124,279 =,-,).::..: 89,384 ;:1.71 ~ 124,251 , :. :~': o O:~', 001-:':)'000: CER< 65,:16 :'::",L-:';' 70,430 :7,~1~ 68,252 4 :::~" 1 ~% 00:-),,)·000: e:'M'·lISSIO·~E~.S 1,108 ¿.1:1;' 1,884 1.'::"):' 1,660 .::..:' :::!': 106% 00:-)7)·000: e:'O::RATI'.'E E:';TENSDN 900 ,':1':" 859 -, , -1 )) :. :~.: -100 O~', 00:-)::)-000: :>ISTRI:T :OFT 85,213 1):,:::: 128,468 1:='::".)7:: 108,739 ~, :. :~': 6 : :~" 00:-:)),000: A'~]M':'L SE~.'.'IC:S 13,268 - .:7;' 15,754 1 ;'.:::':- 26,343 :-:: .: :~': 18 7 :~.: 001-::)'000: JJ'.'ENL: ;. F,:.·,' L Y e:'URT 5: ~.'.' 175 1:1:' :70 30 -:'L ~, -3: 7:1.: OO:-:~:·OOO: :A~,<S ':'N:> ~.E:REATI:'N 20,136 B.~::7 27,907 1:-,)77 19,618 ~ e,::': -0,,':-, 00:,:: )·000: C:'M'-IU'~IT"i D:V:_O:··IENT 149,475 1~1.117 : 56,983 17'::'.:1:::1 168,577 1 . :.+: 1 :~': .:. - 001,::)·000: : ROSECUTI'~::: AlTO~,NEY 48 0 1:') 56 ". ,. :~" 39% 001-:;:)'000: S-E~.IFF 36,971 '::").)~1 28,384 .:.,,,-.::.:.; 41,543 1 '- .::.. :~': 3 O:~" 001-~: )·000: T=.:ASJRER 157,909 -::",,:,:': 164,329 ::.a::,:;a;. 197,761 ~- '- :~': - 8:~', TOTAL 862,550 856.036 907,636 939,987 j ,007,409 16.8% 4.0'/, A comparison of the 2001 revenue received and the 2002 adopted budget below shows an overall decrease in charges for service revenue of 4.4%. This is primarily due to a decrease in Elections revenue, which will increase or decrease depending on the number of local elections held. For forecasting purposes a growth rate of 2% is recommended. Table 10 Revenue Growth from 2001 to 2002 Charges for Services % Ine % Ine Budget :¡"c Ine Projected % Ine CHARGES FOR SERVICES 2001 97·'01 Annual 2002 Annual 2002 Annual 00:-:-1 :-·000 ':'SSESS:'R 5,603 -26 1 :~'i: ·7.3% 6,000 7.1% :.,_1-,-, 7 : ~'i: OO:-:'~:'·OOO ,:. UDITO~. 244,976 22 ::.~'i: 5,2% 2"-1,125 -1.,.% 2'::"1.1::': -1 :'~'c OO:-:'~l'OOO ':_'::T]O'G 124,25: 0 :' :~'i: 0.0% 52,942 -: 7.'::'% :::..~'::'::' -37 4~'c 00:-:'::'-000 :L::=,K 68,252 4 S~'ê: 1.2% 68,250 :',0% :·S,2: :. " :·~·c 00:-:':':'·000 :O',1M]SS] :'N':=,5 1,660 49 9 :~'i: 10,6% 1,350 -1:: 7~'i: ~ :: ø -18 7~'c ... ,-.-- 00:-:,7:,· 000 :O)PERATI'.' ': E:-:T ENS] :'N -100 :' :~'i: ·100,0% 0 00:- :.:::.. 000 :-15T=.ICT ::'U=.T 108,739 27 :'::'( 6.3% 1:-6,099 ~- ::. ~'i: l~':I,:';':e 25 ::. ~'i: 00:-: :-:,. 000 ':'NJ"IA_ S':=.'.']C':3 26,343 98 ::!'c 18.7% ~"-,800 ~~'( .::.::...:::-:' ·5 ~~'i: 00: -:: :··000 JUV':·~L E & :A',1LY :;'U=.T 3ERV 30 ·82 9~'ê 35.7% 300 ;.:.:' :'~'i: ;.:1:' 900 )~'i: OO:-:~:-OOO :':'=.KS A'~D =,'::REATDN 19,618 -2 :'::'C ·0,6% ~;"OOO i "7 ::. ~'c .:..:....1.'.' 17 ::. ~'i: 00:-::·:-· 000 :O"IMJNJTY :- EV':_O: ',lENT 16::,577 :28:!'c 3.1% B:,,"-65 S :;~'i: 18:,,"-:.: 88% 00:-:: ;',000 : =.:'S'::.nn3 AlTO=.N':Y 56 :6 :I~'i: 3,9% 100 I:: 1 ~'i: 1 :-:' 78 1 ~'i: 00:-: :: :,. 000 SHER] F: 41,543 "~ .::.. :~'c 3.0% 28,500 -:.1."-% 2-S.: :.:' -31 .::.. ~'i: OO:-~: :.. 000 T ~,E':' SU =.':~. 197.76: 23 ::. :~'i: 5.8% 1~7,637 -:'.1 ~'i: 1:-7.:·;·7 -0 1 :'i: TOTAL 1,007,409 16,8% 4.0'/, 963,568 -4.4% 963.568 -4.4':, Fines and Forfeitures Revenue from fines makes up about 3.5% of the General Fund revenue total. District Court collects the majority (about 80%) of this revenue. Table 12, below, lists those departments that collect revenues from fines. About two- thirds of District Court fines revenue is from traffic fines. June 28, 2002 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 10 3.5% of Total Table 11 Historical Revenues for Fines and Forfeitures %Inc % In( f'INES ANI) FORFEITURES 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 97-'01 AnnuIII 001'050-000 :_:RK '-.;.;".:: 32,:.?" 48,2,1 42,2?:, 60,73, 41 ;% 9.1% 001-080-000 :'ISTRICT C: JRT 33:'.;" 3:'5, ?:. 30:·,?'" 311,3;: 327,1;: <.1% -0.3"': 001-100-000 ,,'JIM,,_ S:RVI::S '-- .:....;:':.: ".E:- 5.31, 5,77? ~4.7% 5.7% 001-130-000 ::WIUNITY :':V:_O:M:'T -'- :":':'.: 1.1":, 2,6?: 15, -;73% -31.0% 001-: 80-000 S;E'.I F= ....':.J.. 1:', :., 13.7;, 9,7;1 12,2:-5 :69% 11.9% TOTAL 386,750 357,260 374,243 371,402 405,994 5,0'.', 1,2% A comparison of the 2001 revenue received and the 2002 budget shows an overall decrease in fines revenue of 0.4%. The year-to-date figures for this revenue category would indicate that actual revenue for 2002 will be about 5.3% lower than budgeted. For forecasting purposes a growth rate of 1% is recommended. Table 12 Revenue Growth from 2001 to 2002 Fines and Forfeitures % Ine =,,: Ine Budget 'to Ine Projected :I..: Ine FINES AND FORFEITURES 2001 97-'01 Annual 2002 Annual 2002 Annual 001 -):)- 000 :L:'.< :.).7~ L. "1.5% 9 1 :~,~ 5).000 ·17.7'~·' ~:.))) ·25.9% 001-):;)-000 :>ISFICT CoURT '~7.125 '1.1% -0 ; :~" 33?,900 3 9:~', , ~5.0)0 '0.6% 001-D)'000 " '~I ',IAL SERVI :ES :,77;' 2".7% - "7 ).~ 5,000 -13 : :~., 5.0)0 ,13.:% 001-:; )·000 ::'MMJ"HTY :>E'.'EL:oPM:·n 153 ·77.3% -;: :. :~.~ 2,500 1: 31 :::1.:' ~.5)0 :531.3% 001-B)'000 :;;ERI" 1~.~=15 5:;',;:'% -. :¡:I.; ".000 -42.6 :~, 7.))) '42.6% TOTAL 405,994 5.0% 1.2't: 404,400 -0.4'.': 384,500 -5.3;': INTEREST AND OTHER EARNINGS This source of revenue is primarily made up of interest received from investments of available funds by the Treasurer. These combined revenues account for about 6.4% of General Fund total revenues, although the amount is down considerably from prior years at about 4%. 6.4% of Total Table 13 Historical Revenues for Interest and Other Earnings 1997 1998 793,?: ? 1999 709,681 2000 2001 608,896 'to Ine 97-'01 ·7.7% ;': Ine Annual '2.0% INTEREST AND OTHER EARNINGS :1: ;t.:.::.::.. ::),::7? A comparison of budget growth from 2001 revenues received to 2002 budget shows an anticipated increase in interest revenues but this was an overly optimistic estimate. With reductions in interest rates the projected revenue for 2002 is 25,1% lower than 2002 receipts (and 39.1% lower than 2000). This dramatic reduction is shown in Chart 4. The reduction in interest rates is expected to bottom out and June 28, 2002 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 11 begin to go back up in 2003. An adjustment will need to be made to account for interest revenue on the County Road Fund due to a state auditor ruling that interest cannot be diverted from the road fund. For forecasting purposes an increase of 3% is recommended. Table 14 Revenue Growth from 2001 to 2002 Interest and Other Earnings INTEREST AND OTHER EARNINGS ~/: Inc ~/: Inc 2001 97-'DJ Annual :,):;.:;~:, ,7.7% ·2.0% Budget 2002 656,325 Projected 2002 "::1,:: L: Chart 4 GENERAL FUND INTEREST EARNINGS 12·MONTH MOVING TOTAL $850,000 $750,000 $650,000 $550,000 $450,000 $350,000 $250,000 .... 0> 0> .- $428,960 -'TTïI"~I·"TII'T'T--ì··T"""r'Tî----'---'-'T"·rTl,'-·r~ I I I I I I rT"T""'rTI' co 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> .- o o o N o o N N o o N SALE OF FIXED ASSETS Revenues received from the sale of fixed assets are from the sale of timber from Jefferson County trust lands managed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). This revenue source is somewhat cyclical based on market conditions and amount of timber offered for sale. The revenue for 2001 was significantly lower than 1998 through 2000, but 21% higher than 1997. 2.3% of Total Table 15 Historical Revenues for Sale of Fixed Assets SA.E 0= =¡:';E::J A55:T5 :¡l:: Inc ~': Inc 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 97-'01 Annual 108,:77 "-",6?:' :42,1:4 3?2,999 1; 1.':")) :1 ):~': 4.9% Projections from the DNR indicate that revenue for 2002 will be 133.6% higher than 2001. The average for the five year June 28, 2002 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 12 period ending in 2001 is $262,560. For forecasting purposes the growth rate is assumed to be zero after adjusting for planned harvesting for the ensuing year. Table 16 Budget Growth from 2001 to 2002 Sale of Fixed Assets S;'.L: o~ -IX=:, ASSETS '/" Inc '/" Inc 2001 97- '01 Annual 13:,4)) ::'1.0% 4 ~:~·c Budget '/" J nc 2002 Annual ::'::'7,100 72 3"(' Projected % Inc 2002 Annual 307,))) 133.6% RESERVES The Board of Commissioners by policy has established a 10% reserve (about $1.2 million) for the General Fund. When the budget needs additional funding a transfer in from reserves has been budgeted. Transfers in are existing funds transferred from reserves or other sources and as such are not current year revenues and as such, no forecast has been made for this revenue source. Historically the unencumbered fund balance has gone up and down with the vagaries of revenue receipts. As Table 18 shows below, the fund balance is currently healthy and exceeds the amount required to meet the 10% reserve policy. Chart 5 CASH RESERVES $3,000,000 - .. -...................................................................................... ................ -.... -.................. $500,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $- 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ~ Year-End Total -General Fund Cash Row 12-Month Moving Average GENERAL FUND REVENUE SUMMARY The historical annual growth of the General Fund revenue for the past five years has been 4.9%. Property tax and sales June 28, 2002 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 13 tax are the largest source of revenue for the General Fund and have sustained growth at that level with annual growth at 5.3%. Table 17 Swmnary of Revenues REVENUES TAXES LlCENS,S A'D P,=:'lITS ¡'T,=,:;:VERN',IE'T':'_ ="V,'U, CH':'=.:;E5 F:R SERV¡:,5 FIN,S ¡·T'=.'ST A'Ü OTH,R ,AR'jINGS SA_E :F FIXED ASS,TS TOTAL A....NUALINCREASE %In( %Im 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 91'-'01 Annual 5,9:"., :'~ 6,4~;'",:', 7,18, ,11;' 7,182",:, 7,343,:,< ;. 23.1% 5.3':', 3~?,<::, 43;' .;.;.? 4:', ,:.,., 452.:,~:, 37:,,2:'1 8.3% 2.m': 1.:'":",,,< 1.1;'<1?< 1,3?:'.?:,;' 1,6'·:',E~ 1,50?:.;' ? 42.4% ?2':" :.::..:.:: . 85".:'::, 9:';'.:·::, 93?,?'·;' 1,007,<'? :6.8% ~.):~': 3:.,·,;', :' 35;'<,,:, 37~,2~; 371.<'< 405,9?~ ,.0% 1.2% ",?",;4 7?;?,? 7:'?:,:,: 75:',;;'? 60:.,:.?:, '7.7% ·2.:":', Ü:,.';';' 43;' ,',?:' 2~<,1<~ 392. ??? 131.~:':' 2:.0% ~.9':': 9,392,692 10,502.727 11.211.671 11. 749,935 11,385,406 21.2'1, 4.9% U.8~', 6.8'1, 4,8'1, -3.1'1, In comparing revenue growth from 2000 to 2001 there are several changes worth noting: lower license and permit revenue, reductions in intergovernmental revenue, lower interest revenue and lower revenue from sale of fixed assets. These revenue changes, both increases and decreases, result in an overall negative growth of 3.1%. The revenue budget for 2002 was adopted with an anticipated increase of 4.4% higher than 2001 actual revenue. After adjustments in the forecast the projected revenue is 2.2% higher than 2001 but considerably below the amount originally budgeted. This forecast is higher than recently projected with increases in sale of fixed assets (DNR trust land sales) and slightly higher license and permit revenue. Table 18 General Fund Revenue Growth from 2001 to 2002 % Inc :It: Inc Budget :1,,: [nc Projected :11: Inc REVENUES 2001 97-'01 Annual 2002 Annual 2002 Annual TAX,S :.~'::"~ .:IL7 :~.l% 5 -: :].~ 7.:::'::".7:;) 3.3% "7 .4):;.~:::) 0.9% LlC, '6E5 A'Ü PERMITS ~ 7::.::")1 :;.3°/0 2 : :~': ~:.:..:'" .- 19.7% 4:.:,,:<', 23.2% ¡·HE=.GO..· ERWIENTA, =.' V, 'JUE 1,: )~,:;7~ .:.:..,::".,::,°/0 9 -: ),~ : ,: ~::.'::":I: 5.9% 1.-5,:'::",;'L) 9.6% C-I':'RG,5 =:IR 5,=.'.'1(,5 1.))7.'::'):- l,d% 4 :. :~': ~:.':.: :.:; ·4.4% ~:I:: ..::.:; ·~.4% FI'J,5 .::..).:; .:-:-'::" - ., ).~ 1 2':', .::..).::....::..)) '0,4% :: :;.;;.,.:)) '5,3% nTE'.E5T ANJ OT-IER EAR'JING5 :,)::.:;~:. . 7.7°/0 ~ :. :~': :.: :'.:.:.: 7.8% 4".,;<': ·25.1% 5A_E 0= =1 :-:ED ~55ET5 1:: 1.':':")) '::"1.)% 4 ~ :~': ¿¿7.1)) 72.8% ::)7,:((1 133.6% TOTAL 11,385,406 21.2% 4.9'.~ 11,887,313 4.4°.~ 11,640,720 2.2~·, Chart 6, below, shows a running 12-month revenue total for General Fund together with totals for each year. The chart shows the slowdown in revenue growth that began in 2001 and continues into 2002. Revenue through May, 2002 for the previous 12-month period totals $11,644,893 compared to a budgeted total for 2002 of $11,887,313 (not including transfers from reserves) . June 28, 2002 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 14 Chart 6 General Fund Revenues GENERAL FUND REVENUE 12-MONTH MOVING TOTAL $12,500,000 $12,000,000 $11,500,000 $11,000,000 $10,500,000 $10,000,000 $9,500,000 $9,000,000 $8,500,000 $8.000,000 $11.644.893 o >: ,.:. a> a> o >: cb g¡ o >: ¿, g¡ o ~ o o o N o ~ o o N l- t!) CD N o o N _ Annual Revenue _ 2002 Budget -12-Mmth IItoving Total 6-lItonth Moving Average REVENUE FORECAST Jefferson County is experiencing lower than anticipated growth in several resource categories. This coupled with shortfalls in the state budget has created a negative growth rate for 2001 and 2002. Assuming that the downturn in revenue is complete, positive growth in revenue can be anticipated although at a much slower rate than recently experienced. Based on the analysis above, growth in General Fund revenue is forecasted for the next five years for each revenue category. The net growth rate is 2.4% per year. There are several issues that make the revenue forecast challenging. These include Initiative 747 and its limit on revenue growth from property taxes, lower investment returns, and the availability of criminal justice funding from the state budget. Table 20 summarizes anticipated revenue growth for the next five years. Table 19 General Fund Revenue Forecast REV!"-.J J! S -AXE, LlCE',;;5 t·, 0 P:RMIT, IN-:R:;)I,':::RN"1e", T~._ R::veo __ :-CRGEE =):; .=E:¡,,"lCE= F:',:5 IN-:R:':T £'·0 OT-:R :ARN:N3':: 5'..E OF ~IXE:' A55:T: TOT". =r:jed,¡d % 1-, S-as¡: 2003 G-:wth 20:'3 2:'04 200S 2:':'E 2007 2:':-2 An"'~31 "dJ. B3ie lõ.ate E-ud;;£t B~ : get =-~dgEt BU:;;8t ;',dg.t 7403,28: 0;% :,4:8.230 3:% 7 ~3052= 7,85, ,4<4 8,:;5223 8333,034 3,538,227 46:,' 27 232% 4:61:7 2 :% 47545: 484,959 4;4:53 .304,55] 514:42 1 :54,92: 9:% -:~4:,O:: 1,414,;:0 0::% 1 4J4 92: 1,414,920 J,4J4,2: 1414,92: J,4J4,;20 ;63,56: -44% 9:35::8 : :% ;82 B; J,OJ2,4;6 :1,:22 54: 1 :42,9::; J,0:3357 384,5:1: -5 ;% 3345::0 1 :% 388345 3;2,228 3;;6 JSt 40:,11: 4:4113 45:,323 ~5 J% ·4;,0:" 4J6 ',5 :% -428 ~13 44J,679 -434;3: 46~,5:': 4~2 '535 ;0:,0::: 133 ::% -5:,0:: 237 ::0 ~% :57 :0: 257,0:0 ~37-:0: 257,0:: 257 :00 11,640.'20 2.2~¡' -330.:0:00 11,31:0,720 2,4'!;, II.S",8;' 11,852.'.2 6 12,135,431 1. ,42 6,24. 1.,72S,3g3 June 28, 2002 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 15 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE FORECAST NOTE: Because of changes in the way expenditures are reported the budget for 2001 only contained eleven months of expenditures with December expenses reported in January, 2002. In order to prepare this analysis the following tables include those expendi t ures reporting in January, 2002 in the 2001 expenditure amounts. For purposes of preparing the following forecast, expenditures have been aggregated into object level categories as defined by BARS codes. These are salaries and benefits, supplies, other services, capital outlay, interfund services, and transfers to other funds. Additional breakdown has been added where appropriate. The following tables provide a historical analysis of expenditures and estimated growth factors for each expenditure category. Chart 7 2002 Expenditure Breakdown SALARIES AND BENEFITS ~~ ,~ 57.0% of Total SALARIES & BE....EfITS ::'·5~L~:;.JES AN:} \f:':"::;ES ':··P:~'::;=N"~:. BEN:FITS TOTAL Salaries and benefits make up approximately 60% of General Fund expenditures. Growth in salaries and benefits is a result of increases in costs for wages and benefits together with increases in staffing levels. Overall growth has been about 3.2%. This amount is lower than actual growth in salaries and benefits due to budget restructuring that moved the E-911 Dispatch program out of the General Fund. Table 20 Historical Expenditures for Salaries and Benefits 0/0 In( 0/0 to( J997 1998 1999 2000 2001 97-'01 Annual 4,: 20,353 '-,,?, , .'4 4,90?,:'11 , ,082,456 ::.: :.:..:.:::: 14.3% 3.4% :,:39,633 1.1' :";:'" 1,371.":.1 : ,423,085 1.:':":':":: 1 9.6°/0 2,3% 5,859,986 5,928.642 6,280,492 6,505,541 6,637,028 13.3% 3.2% A comparison of the 2001 actual expenses and the 2002 budget request shows an overall increase in salaries and benefits of 7.6%. This increase is a combination of June 28, 2002 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 16 requests for additional staff together with increases in salaries and benefits. The growth is somewhat overstated because expenses for 2001 are lower due to vacant positions. Table 21 Expenditure Growth from 2001 to 2002 Salaries and Benefits % Inc 0:( I nc Budget 0/0 Inc Projected 0/0 Inc SALARIES &. BENEFITS 2001 91-'01 Annual 2002 Annual 2002 Annual l:'·SA_A:,JES AN:: WA'3ES :,168,877 :4 :::~'i: 3.4% : ,:,1~,~71 8.7% : ,"-1~,672 4 7,'c ~:"PERSO'm::_ :e~::=JTS 1."-68,151 9 :'% 2.3% 1.:~:',7::1 3,6% 1,"-::"-.285 1 1 ~'i: TOTAL 6,637,028 13.3°1( 3.2°:( 1.140,052 7.6°.'( 6,896,951 3.9°.~ For forecasting purposes, expenditures for salaries and benefits are projected to increase by 4% per year. SUPPLIES ~~ ~" Supplies make up about 3% of General Fund expenditures. The majority of the expense is for office and operating supplies. Expenditure growth for supplies has been around 7.4% per year. Table 22 Historical Expenditures for Supplies SUPPLIES ; 1- :,FFICE & :·P::.':'TlNG SJP:.I:S ". F .IE. ::,NSU': ED ;"--ITEMS =J:,:H FO:. I·NENTO:....-RES.:. ;:·SMA_L T:'O.S A'Ü MINO:. E::UI:':E'~ TOTAL %Inc % Inc ]997 1998 ]999 2000 200] 91-'0] Annual "46.; :9 2," ,;'''-:, 284,138 :::14.;';'4 3"-:·.7:,:- 408% 89% 5.5E 1,610 1.:"-:, 243 1.: ~·O -1000% ,1000% . :,:84 E.:;" 21,410 ; 1.:;" 15.2;':, -449% ,139% 275,154 293,06] 305,19] 338,141 367,574 33.3°,', 7.4;', A comparison of 2001 a decrease of 20.9%. budget restructuring and marine resources the General Fund. expenditures to the 2002 budget shows This decrease comes primarily from with the E-911 Dispatch, weed board, committee programs being removed from Table 23 Budget Growth from 2001 to 2002 Supplies 0/0 Inc :1/( Inc Budget 0/0 Inc Projected 0/0 Inc sUPPUES 2001 91-'01 Annual 2002 Annual 2002 Annual ;.1·0==I:E & 0=::.':'1I'-J'3 S.F=.L5 3"-6,760 408% ::,9% ::I;'.~::'~: -22.2% ~:::.0"-6 -25 :"'C ;.~. FUEL CO·~SU··1ED 5,518 :·,500 17 ~:~'i: 6,500 17 :::~'é ;'''-'!T::''1S PU:.:H =0:. IN'I::·HO:.ï·RESA 0 - 100 0% '1:0:'.0% :;::.:, 800 ;·:·SM':'L 1:'O.S ;"~D ',1!'D:, :::!U!P',1::N 15,296 '44.9% -1:-.9% L:·.Ea~· '9.7% 1:',250 ·33 :,,·c TOTAL 367,514 33,3°:( 1.4°:( 290,920 -20,9':( 215,595 -25.00:0 June 28, 2002 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 17 For forecasting purposes supplies have been projected to increase by 3% per year. OTHER SERVICES 16.3% of Total Expenditures summarized under "other services" include communications, travel, advertising, rents and leases, insurance, utilities, repairs, and other miscellaneous costs. These costs have increased by 6.1% per year for the past five years. The majority of these expenditures, about 80%, are in the communications, travel, insurance and miscellaneous categories. The miscellaneous category includes a variety of costs from memberships in organizations to schools and seminars to jury fees and other costs. ~~ ~" Table 24 Historical Expenditures for Other Services 0/0 Jnc %Inc OTHER SERVJCES 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 97-'01 Annual "-)-:ITH:::: S::::'':¡:ES .- C,;',R3ES 58 214 "-1':'::::;=-::55DN;'.L SER',:¡C::5 738,7:'~ 3);1,253 922,390 : ,080,3::3 :, )2"-,08) 38 ;J~':) 3.5% "-2· ::: ·,1MU·'¡¡C;'.TI ::N5 117,:'3,. II 2,927 : :~,:'33 118,:'32 ;)),22:' ·14 3~'(, -3.9% ~3'P;'.v::_ 55,873 ,."-,48: 62,7,.7 74,81:' 7),701 26 5~'c' ,..1% "-"--A:'V::::TI5IN3 30,5~:' ::2.689 4)".18 35,::37 2"-,06:: -21 ~j~'ç, -:'.8% "-5-:IPERATIN3 ::ENTA_5 & _::;',SES '::"5,2):1 :":,142 4~,,,52 55,23:' :'3,59:: 18 :I~'(:I "-.3% "-'.-IN3JRA·'JC:: 131,44: ! ~::'218 23),7:'.9 246,1:0 2'::"3,585 37 )~,:;, 3,2% "-7-:'JBU: UTI LITI::5 S:::: 'iCES 27,:':':'. ::7,049 ::7,::"-0 39,:',1:' 33,73;J 40 :I~'O 3.9% "-3-::EP;',P & "1AI NT::NA "JC:: "-4,912 :;7,099 23,:113 33,25:. 2"-,327 -45 3~'c' -1"-,2% "-~-"1I5C::_LA"JEOJS 166,::42 217,5: : :9),"-19 :::31,732 1~7,864 19 )~,ç. "-,4% TOTAL 1.408,275 1,562,429 1,682,515 1,915,740 1,78-2,177 26.6% 6.1'..0 A comparison of the 2001 adopted budget to the 2002 budget request indicates an increase of 10.3% for 2002. Table 25 Budget Growth from 2001 to 2002 Other Services 0/0 J nc 0/0 Inc B.ud g et 0/0 Jnc Projected % Inc OTHER SERVJCES 2001 97-'01 Annual 2002 Annual 2002 Annual 41-PROFESSI:N~,L SERVIC::S : .024,08) ::3.6% 8.5:!:) ;/:;13,)15 -3.0% 923,457 -93'·(, 42'::OMMJ'HO,TI:'~S 10),225 -:4.8% -3.9':, Dl,310 33,7J7 43- TRA':E.. 7).70: 25.5% 6.: ':, 73,555 55,455 44-~.D':E":TISnG 24,063 '2:.3% -5.8'.', 26,2)3 3.9% 21,253 -1: 7;¡'~:J 45-:=-::RATIN:Õ RE'HA_S & _::~,S::S 53,593 :3.6% 43'.', 35,)42 33/554 46-nSURA'K:: 243,585 37.0% 8.2',:, 255,330 7.0% 244,63) - - 5:1'::1 47-PU3LIC UTILITIES SE":':¡::ES 33.739 4).6% 8.9',:, 39,548 2.3% 37,643 '23% 48-RE:'AI": & Mi\nT::'~':':K:: 24,327 -45.8% -14.2',:, 31,319 23.7% 21,6:2 -1: ¿~:, 49-MIS::ELL'>, '~EOUS 197,364 :;/.0% 4,4',:, 2)5,: 31 3.7% : 53,2:;1 -175":' TOTAL 1,782,177 26.6':-0 6-.1°/0 1,771,752 -0.6':'0 1,585,546 -11.0% For forecasting purposes, expenditures for other services are expected to increase at 3% per year. June 28, 2002 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 18 INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES Intergovernmental service expenditures are for those payments made to other government agencies. The small amount in the General Fund budget is for payments made to the City of Port Townsend for animal licenses collected by Jefferson County as part of the regional services agreement for Animal Services. Table 26 Historical Expenditures for Intergovernmental Services ¡"ITE::GO'¡::R"JMENTA_ 5::RVJ::::5 1997 o 1998 J 1999 o 2000 o 0/0 Jnc "io Inc 2,001 97-'01 Annual 2.105 There have been no expenditures in this category until 2001. The amount shown is for payments made in accordance with the regional services contract with Port Townsend. Table 27 Budget Growth from 2001 to 2002 for Intergovernmental Services 2001 0fo Ine 0/0 Ine 97-'01 Annua I Budget 2,002 3,910 0/0 Ine Annual Proje-eted % Ine 2,002, Annua I 8,9:J ¡'-JT::R:= ::·'.'::RN"'::N, AL 5E'<....¡:::::5 2,:O:J The budget for intergovernmental services is for the regional services agreement for animal services. CAPITAL OUTLAY Capital outlay expenditures are one-time costs associated with improvements to buildings, property acquisition, and equipment. Typically, major capital improvements have not been budgeted in the General Fund. Capital outlay in the General Fund has primarily been for machinery and equipment. Table 28 Historical Expenditures for Capital Outlay CAPITAL OUTLAY 50-C':;=-ITtL :)T..A'f' 54-M':;:: - 1'.. ='<.Y :' =QUIP"E\ T TOTAL 0/0 Jnc °i" Ine 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 97-'01 Annual 17.270 934 :,763 : ,330 -: JO J% -: JJ.O:,': 46,J44 33,711 95,773 39,354 23,342 -48 2% .: 3.2~": 63,315 39,69S 98,540 41,2,84 23,842, -62,,3% -11.7% A comparison of the adopted 2001 expenditures and the 2002 budget shows a decrease of 69%. This amount has been cut further with mid-year budget cuts. The amount projected is for the Prosecuting Attorney's law library. June 28, 2002 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 19 Table 29 Budget Growth from 2001 to 2002 for Capital Outlay ~.'O Inc % Inc Budget % Inc Proje-cted 0/0 In c CAPITAL OUTLAY 2001 97-'01 Annua I 2.002 Annual 2.002. Annual 50-CAPITA_ :'JTLAY <JJ )% <00.0:.': 54-'.'ACHI"'F'.Y & =::;:JIP'.'::N' 23,342 -48 2% -15.2:.': 7,320 -59 3% 3.623 -84 3% TOT AL 2.3,842 -62.,3% -21,7% 7,320 - 69.30/0 3,62.0 -84.8% For forecasting purposes, an assumption is that the 2002 Base budget (same as 2001) would be used as the basis for forecasting budget growth. Growth in capital outlay is estimated to increase at 0% per year. INTERFUND SERVICES .~ ,~ Interfund services are those services charged by departments operating outside the General Fund for the services those departments provide. These services include professional services, communications, and equipment rental. The majority of Interfund service costs, 98% in 2001, is comprised of equipment rental fees. The increased cost in 1999 was due to the Tri-Area special study conducted by the Public Works department. 10.7% of Total Table 30 Historical Expenditures for Interfund Services % ]nc o/",Inc REVENUES 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 97-'01 Annual n,I"'T::R:"JN) PR::: :"::S S I:::"'AL S::R,/i 98,567 55,777 229.2:9 30.J35 ~ 1,5JO -38 3% -4:.6:.': n-I"'T::R:"JN) ::::"~"UNICATI:::"'S 16.4 7: : 5,437 :4.603 16. J87 :0,537 -354% -: J.4:.': 93-I"'T::R:"JN) SJP:O_IES 267 450 30 95,I"'T::R:"JN) ::OE:O,ATI"'G '!.EN-~._S 357,518 :,037,252 :,169.425 1,:60,J32 1,2~ 7,3J2 231 3% 34.9:.': 98,I"'T::R:"JN) R:::OAIRS A"'D MAI...TE...A 12) 482 240 99,O-HER I...T::R:"JN) S ::'!VI:::S =, :-G 12) TOTAL 482.,657 1.179,466 1.413,75050 1,2.07,086 1,240,368 157,00/", 26.6% A comparison of the adopted 2001 expenses budget shows an overall increase of 8.7%. primarily due to an increase for interfund services. Several cuts were made mid-year net being a decrease of 6.2%. to the 2002 This is professional 2002 with the June 28, 2002 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 20 Table 31 Budget Growth from 2001 to 2002 Interfund Services % Inc 0/0 Inc Budget: 0/0 Inc Projected % Inc REVENUES 2001 97-'01 Annual 2002 Annual 2002. Annual ;>IN"'"E=!,=JND :>::;.:=::SSIONA_ SER'.' ~ 1,500 -38 3% ,4~ .6::: 47,346 316 1% 2),846 313% ;2·IWE=<=JND CO'·"·' j"JI:ATI:"JS ~0,537 - 35 4% -:).4::: ~ 3,565 74,S::: ~ 1,955 125% ;3-IWE=!,=JND SU:>P_I::S 19) 5JO ~ 538::: SJO ~ 53 3% ;S-INTE=!,=JND O:>::RATI"'J~ R::NT ALS _.2: 7,302 231 3% 34.9::: 1.281,)74 52% 1.23~ ,424 11% ;8-INTE=!,=JND ::;.E:>AIRS AN) MAI"JT: 240 -: )0 )% -1)) J% ;9-0TH::R I"JTE:>,FUN) S::Rv¡C::S s, CH::: TOTAL 1,240,368 157,0% 26.6% 1,347,985 8,70/0 1,2.64,735 2..00/0 For forecasting purposes a growth rate of 3% per year for interfund services has been estimated. TRANSFERS 12.6% of Total The General Fund provides operating cash in the form of transfers to other funds as part of their operating revenues. Interfund transfers made up about 12.6% of the budget in 2002. The largest on-going operating transfers go to the Health & Human Services Fund (Substance Abuse, Health Department, Natural Resources), the Community Services Fund, and the E-9ll Dispatch Fund. Transfer payments to Information Services and Facilities are now budgeted in the Non-Departmental budget. .~ ,,, Table 32 Historical Expenditures for Transfers %Inc Projected o,~ Inc EXPENIJoITURES 1997 1998 1999 ;;:000 2001 Annual 2002 Annual T:;.':·"~SF::. T: B:All'~3 S':'F:lY 3,200 ,,200 ,,00 , ,;:'0 ,,:'0 0.0::': ',,00 O.O'~': 5JB5T':'NCE ':'BUS: 48,971 ;; ,973 <::6 -. . --. :: ~ -~;: ·9.8% " ,431 O.O'~': T: :O·ßT~.J:TJ: N 50 ~,:'CVATIO'~ :.::..:.'; .' JEF'ERSO'~ COU'~lY 'AI'. 4,:00 4,:00 ~.:OO ~.::'O -100.0% 0 _AW LIBRA~,Y 'UN:> 2,:00 ¿,:OO ~,:OO "-.::'0 "-,::'0 15.8% 4,:00 O.O'~': : P:~. T~.':'·~S T: S: ECIA_ PROJ::TS 'U'D 12"-,:, : :::-.:<.) -83.9% ::UNlY P':'RKS FUN) 5:',:':':' -100.0% I NF: R',I':' TlO', 5::. ,.f] :ES , )9,:00 ::'0,000 -100.0% 3IS/"IAPPJ NG :,0,000 :,,000 .. .. ,·::<'0 ,,::<,0 ·5.1% :·'::,:'00 ·"-.6:~': - -- - ~ ::M',IUNJlY S:~,V]:E5 'J'm 146,500 :46,825 : :':',:'95 ;:':',°95 : :':,,"-;' 3 ?2'~': ;:,7,:73 - :1.':" :~': T:.~·~5 T: YIPPE: 2: ,:.:-:. '100.0% -1E':'_TH ): 'A~.T',IE·~T : )9,800 ::',,:06 :::·,'63 :::..:.61 ,,"-: ,?;'1 6.1':': "-;':,638 ·2".: ':': T~,;"ßF:~, TO H&HS T:;.~·45 H &-15 .~.:, T JRAL RE5: URC: 5 .:....,:'.': .:'-.:..': ,,:',:'00 143.9% "ß,HS-:)~T~ 5T" ~J NG :: M'-1ITT:: ,1>: ,;, : .}~, ~ -~HS-':== D ::NTRO_ :,,?:'4 T~XGF:~. TO E-911 DI5'ATCH 1?1.:Oe.:· ~1~.?~8 15.2% T~XGF:~, T: F _0: D/5TO~,MWATER FJND .-.~ .'- '.~JN·':N FL: :D Z:NE :,:00 , ,:00 -:00.0% 0 :_ULCENE FL: OD Z:NE ",,00 11.,00 -" -- '29.9% 1:1.:.::5 183.3% :~J M: VJ:TIM5 :..,.: ::) .. .~.- .....- 1:,"0 '49.4% : P:~, T=."6F: =, T: HJ :':'=,=.:LL :.1.:'", 51.;-:, -:5.2% TOTAL 1,122.571 969,104 847.415 924.445 1,469.876 7.0% 1,3] 6, I S4 -10.5% June 28, 2002 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 21 :;;JILC::"E FLO::D ZON:: :RI',1:: ·':I:TI'·1S ::::':::~ TRA"JSFER T:: ;] ::A:~::O__ TOTAL Table 32 (cant.) :5.500 11.5)0 3,75) -753,,(, -2;'.9% 3,250 3),,;53 30,35,: ,,1,032 1,439,716 969,104 847,415 924,445 l,469,a.76 2.1% (;.5=/0 A comparison of the 2001 expenditures to the 2002 budget shows an overall increase of 9.6%, It should be noted that the 2001 budget was amended to provide for a transfer to E- 911 Dispatch for the new E-911 Dispatch Fund. The increase for the 2002 budget includes capital project related requests totaling $171,620, Mid-year budget reductions cut several transfers resulting in an overall decrease of 10.5%, Transfers to Construction and Renovation and Health and Human Services accounted for nearly 80% of the mid-year cuts. Table 33 Budget Growth from 2001 to 2002 for Transfers 0/0 Inc Budget 0/0 Inc Projected 0/0 Inc EXPENDITURES 2001 Annual 2002 Annual 2002 Annual RA"JSFE::' T:: B::ATI"JG SAFET-' 3,20: 0:% 3,2:0 0:% 3,2:0 0:% SJBSTA"JCE A:='USE 32.43~ -9 ::% 32,43~ 0:% 32,43~ 0:% -0 ::ONS-RJ::TION & =<,E"'JQVATI::"J ~ 7~,620 8:,,620 J::FF::RSON COU"JT-' =AIR -1:0 :% 0 LA\'.' .J:3RA=<:·· =U"J) 4.30: ~5 ::% 4,5:0 0:% 4,5:0 0:% OPE=<. TRANS -0 SP::CIAL :>=<.OJEeS FY'J 124,52~ 4:,0:0 2:,0:0 -::3 ;% C::Y'JTY PAR-<.S =Y'JD 50.:0: -1:: :% 0 -1:0 :% I"J=:: =<.MA-ION SER'.'ICES -1:0 :% GISiMPPIN::: :·5.:0: -51% 65,0:0 : :% 62,0:0 -4 :.% C...'·'U'·JITY SERVIC::S FJNO 2:8.473 92% 207,573 -: 4% 207,573 -04% -R:.'-JS T:: vIPP::E 25,: 0: 25,0:0 : :% 0 -1:0 :% H::A_-H ::::::>A=<T-::N- 645,;7~ 61% :.2:,9:5 -3 ;% 473,638 -267% -RA '·JSFE=<. T:: H&HS - 0 - -RA"JS -t &-tS NATU=<.AL =<.ESOUR::ES 24.:·05 6:,0:0 143 ;% 6:,0:0 143 ; % HS..-JS-:::A TA S-::ERI"JG ::0'- '-IITE:: (lX) 25,0:0 25,0:0 HS.-tS-'.'.'::EO ::ON-::;.OL ::,9:4 ::,9:4 -RA'·JSFE::;. T:: E-9L DI5PA-::H E1.:4: 2E,9;8 ~5 2% 2E,9;8 ~5 2% -RA ··JSFE::;. T:: F _:::: :::/S-ORMWA T::R F JNO 34,5::3 34,3::3 B::;.IN"J:: "J =LOOD ZONE -1:0 :% 0 QUL::E"J:: F _00::: ZO"JE 3,75: -29 ;% 1:,625 1::33% 1:,625 1::3 3% C=<.IME vreI"'S 30.353 3:,350 : :% 15,350 -49 4% OPE", TRANS=ER T:: HJ ::AR=<,::__ :.1.: 32 5~,732 -~5 2% 5~,732 -~5 2% TOTAL 1,469,876 7.0% 1,611,421 9.6% 1,316,154 -10.5% A forecast for transfers is difficult in that several are for projects that may be for short duration. The need for capital funding is greater than available funding in the Capital Improvement Fund, For purposes of forecasting, transfers will be set at the 2002 mid-year budget level with a 0% growth factor, June 28, 2002 General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 2003 - 2007 Page 22 EXPENDITURE FORECAST Based on the analysis above, growth in General Fund expenditures is forecasted for the next five years for each expenditure category. The forecasted growth rate nets out to 3.6% per year. This follows similar expenditure growth for the past five years. The expenditure forecast is based on the 2002 budget request with growth factors for 2003 to 2006. Table 36 General Fund Expenditure Forecast ...: In= ProJ.a.:I %In: :In. 20J3 Gro,..1h .1J03 2J04 2:105 2JJe 20:17 ~D(~E" :'JTUR¡;S 2:101 An1u5 2:102 A',u!l1 Adj 311se R!lte 3u:lgd 3u:lg.t 3.Jd¡¡et BJd;¡et BJd;¡.' S.a_.aR:::S AN~ 8::N::m3 '=;,6:;7 O~B 3 ~; "i,S:¡-:ï,957 3 9:'" ;<60.;.6 67:;8911 4 ~ :',077,6'i6 7 3'57 851 76-'19 n3 7 :¡B4 ~O:J \::11,:'61 SU;'PU:= 395:'4 14, 27:;,5:;5 ~5 0;,. 2;'55;5 30;" 28;:,86:: 2;;2 379 3)1 150 HO ]::5 ::19.:.9J OT-+E:: =:RV::::= 1,8;;8 O~6 77:" 1,535,5.;.6 -165:' 50::0 1 :-;;10 ;'.:.6 30:". 1,6:;:1,2:;2 1 637 410 1 :-::6 D2 ] :'90 17:; ],34::,373 1'..-:;:::GQwPNM::N-A_ 3E::V: :E5 21:;5 :1,9)0 3~3 3:' 8910 00:" '!,9JJ 89]0 8910 8 :;10 3,:;1] C.:·:-A_:.- _oily :3 8~2 '~1 T ",6:0 ,:1.:. 8:" 3 6~O o o~'. ),6:) 36:0 3 6~O 3 -520 ;¡ 52J ¡...-:::F_ND SER..ICES 1,2.;.0 338 26 6~,. 1,25';',7;;5 20:,-, 12347;5 3 O~.., 1,3::2,677 13.;.1757 1 ;;:12 ::10 ] .;.2;j .;.7J J,.;.65,17.;. T:~AN~FE;:S 1,4::98:"5 05' 1,3J5,13.:- 0 5~ ·D85:;0 1 117:;,4 3 O~ 1,1"'i1,4.a 1 B62'34 12:;2132 12'39117 ] ;;:17 ]90 TO:AL U,138..U; 5.1% 11,331.317 -23% 11,059,911 3.1% 11,4i'1..U::! 11,8:18.191 12,33 5,! 07 12.i'89,815 13.261,023 June 28, 2002 JEFFERSON COUNTY GENERAL FUND BUDGET PLAN FOR 2003 General Fund Budget Plan for 2003 Page 2 Prepared by Gary A. Rowe Deputy County Administrator Central Services Director July 7, 2002 --_.- -_._-----_._----- General Fund Budget Plan for 2003 Page 3 GENERAL FUND BUDGET PLAN FOR 2003 The General Fund budget is the primary budget for Jefferson County. This budget's primary focus is to provide for General Government services and for Law and Justice services. These services combine for about 65% of the General Fund budget with the remainder providing for Public Service programs, Non-departmental (overhead) and transfer to other funds. County taxes are deposited into the General Fund along with fees, grants, fines and other revenues associated with these services. For purposes of developing the General Fund Budget Plan services are divided into primary functional areas: General Government; Law and Justice; and Public Services. Following is an analysis of these functional areas and proposed allocation of resources for the 2003 budget. EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTIONAL AREA GENERAL FUND PROGRAMS GENERAL GOVERNMENT ASSESSOR AUDITOR ELECTIONS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF EQUALIZATION TREASURER OPERATING TRANSFERS GENERAL GOVERNMENT The General Fund budget is broken into several departments with specific responsibilities outlined by state law. The following table summarizes the functional areas and associated departments. Table 1 General Fund Functional Areas LAW AND JUSTICE CLERK CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION PUBLIC SAFETY DISTRICT COURT JUVENILE & FAMILY COURT SERV PROSECUTING ATTORNEY CORONER SHERIFF SUPERIOR COURT PUBLIC SERVICES PLANNING COMMISSION WEED CONTROL MARINE RESOURCE COMMITTEE FUND COOPERATIVE EXTENSION ANIMAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LAW AND JUSTICE E-911 DISPATCH BOATING SAFETY CRIME VICTIMS LAW LIBRARY PUBLIC SERVICES HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES NATURAL RESOURCES PUBLIC WORKS CENTRAL SERVICES COUNTY FAIR COMMUNITY SERVICES In addition to the above breakdown there is one other budget, the Non-departmental budget, which is primarily overhead items. Table 2 summarizes expenditures for these functional areas with the overhead (Non-departmental) budget calculated as a percentage of the functional areas. The annualized growth from 1997 to 2001 has been 5.1% for July 7, 2002 General Fund Budget Plan for 2003 Page 4 Functional Area General Government Law &. Justice Public Services Total Growth Non-Departmental Overhead Rate Transfers Total Expenditures Growth the overall budget. This compares to an overall growth rate of 2.8% for the General Government, 5.8% for Law and Justice, and 2.1% for Public Services functional areas. Operating Transfers have grown the most significantly with an annualized increase of 12.0%.1 The Operating Transfers budget as shown in this analysis does not include the E-911 Dispatch program which was moved out of the Sheriff's budget and into a separate fund. This change in budgeting understates the growth rate for Law and Justice programs. For purposes of this analysis E-911 Dispatch has been included with the Law and Justice functional area. Table 2 Historical Spending for General Fund by Functional Area 1997 1,687,488 4,402,572 1,611,572 7,701,632 Annualized °/0 Growth 2.8% 5.8% 2.1% 4.4% 1998 1,643,841 4,651,942 1,644,291 7,940,075 3,1% 1999 1,760,358 4,887,144 1,677,219 8,324,721 4.8% 2000 1,870,620 5,153,754 1,811,267 8,835,641 6.1% 2001 1,881,151 5,520,330 1,754,315 9,155,796 3.6% °/0 Growth 11.5% 25.4% 8.9% 18.9% 1,017,801 1,066,417 1,241,684 1,175,351 1,207,387 18.6% 4.4% 13.2% 13.4% 14.9% 13.3% 13.2% 13.6% (AVERAGE) 810,271 965,904 1,062,103 921,244 1,275,635 57.4% 12,0% 9,529,704 9,972,395 10,628,508 10,932,237 11,638,819 22.1°/0 5.1°10 4.6°/0 6.6% 2.9°/0 6.5°/0 Chart 1 Allocation of Costs to Functional Areas GENERAL FUND ALLOCATION OF COSTS I Law & Justice 60,2% Chart 1, above, shows the allocation of costs for the functional areas of the budget not including Non- departmental and Operating Transfers. Nearly 60% of these costs are related to Law and Justice programs. Early in 2002,the Board of Commissioners made mid-year budget cuts to keep expenditures within projected revenues. 1 Facilities and Information Services expenditures are reported as operating transfers in 1997. These costs were moved to Non-departmental in 1998. For purposes of this report these costs have been moved to the Non-departmental budget for 1997 for comparison. July 7, 2002 General Fund Budget Plan for 2003 Page 5 Table 3 summarizes and compares the 2002 adopted budget with the revised amounts summarized under the projected budget totals. Overall expenditures have been cut by 2.5% with Operating Transfers being cut the greatest amount at 10.5%. Table 3 Budget Growth from 2001 to 2002 by Functional Area Annualized 2002 '01-'02 2002 Projected Functional Area 2001 °10 Growth 010 Growth Budget Growth Projected Growth General Government 1,881,151 11,5% 2.8% 1,974,939 5,0% 1,903,996 1.2% Law & Justice 5,329,290 21.0% 4.9% 5,476,650 2.8% 5,228,094 -1.9% Public Services 1,754,315 8.9% 2.1% 1,808,471 3.1% 1,698,138 ,3.2% Total 8,964,756 16.4% 3.9% 9,260,060 3.30/0 8,830,229 Growth 1.5°/0 Non-Departmental 1,207,387 18.6% 4.4% 1,310,079 8.5% 1,208,334 0.1% Overhead Rate 13.5% 13.7% (AVERAGE) 14,1% Transfers 1,466,675 81.0% 16.0% 1,608,221 9,7% 1,312,954 -10.5% Total Expenditures 11,638,819 22.1% 5.10/0 12,178,360 4.6% 11,351,517 -2.5% REVENUE ALLOCATION BY FUNCTIONAL AREA The largest revenue source for the General Fund is including property tax, sales tax, and excise tax. the taxes collected and some of the other revenues collected by the county treasurer are all shared by various departments to balance their budget. These resources make up about 73% of the revenues for the Fund. taxes, Most of the shared General Table 4 Resources Shared by all Functional Areas 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 SHARED RESOURCES TAXES 5,794,507 6,261,635 6,984,152 6,967,634 7,130,755 GRANTS 143,337 161,578 181,227 218,447 318,773 SERVICE CHARGES 154,362 154,046 153,435 187,517 187,186 INTEREST & OTHER INCOME 607,537 712,025 662,667 658,164 539,627 SALE OF FIXED ASSETS 107.734 432.913 238,415 392.999 131 ,400 TOTAL 6,807,477 7,722,196 8,219.895 8,424,761 8,307,741 RESERVES 128,965 -530,331 -590.662 -817 .698 253,413 TOTAL RESOURCES 6,936,442 7,191,865 7,629,233 7,607,063 8,561,154 Table 4, above, summarizes the resources shared by all functional areas. Taxes (property tax, timber excise tax, and sales tax) account for the majority (about 83%) of these resources. Reserves are included as necessary to balance revenues with expenditures. Positive amounts indicate the need to balance the budget with reserves while negative amounts indicate funds going into reserves. The three year period from 1998 through 2000 all had funds going into reserves due to spending below authorized budget levels. July 7, 2002 General Fund Budget Plan for 2003 Page 6 Table 5 Resources Allocated to General Government 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 GENERAL GOVERNMENT PERMITS 1,724 1,808 2,008 2,160 1,880 GRANTS 10,871 0 27,093 47,448 2,752 SERVICE CHARGES 336,886 280,597 325,246 325,704 387,064 INTEREST & OTHER INCOME 2,377 2.512 2.502 7.650 6.654 TOTAL 351,858 284,917 356,849 382,962 398,350 COST 1,687,488 1,643,841 1,760,358 1,870,620 1,881,151 % FUNDED 20.9% 17.3% 20.3% 20.5% 21.2% SHARED RESOURCES 1,335,630 1,358,924 1,403,509 1,487,658 1,482,800 % OF SHARED RESOURCES 19.3% 18.9% 18.4% 19,6% 17.3% General Government offices generate historically about 20% of the revenue needed for these offices. The majority of the revenue comes from service charges collected by the Auditor for licensing of vehicles and conducting local elections. General Government historically uses about 18.7% of the shared resources for the General Fund. Table 6 Resources Allocated to Law & Justice 2 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 LAW & JUSTICE TAXES 170,797 186,168 198,965 214,704 212,872 PERMITS 8,042 14,319 14,378 13,219 24,232 GRANTS 826,246 917,633 1,087,094 1,294,718 1,019,345 SERVICE CHARGES 187,522 195,949 227,452 215,923 218,621 FINES 381,442 348,487 368,916 363,394 400,062 INTEREST & OTHER INCOME 12,615 19,906 16,096 25,876 21,754 OTHER 8,047 0 0 0 0 SALE OF FIXED ASSETS 817 4.785 3,709 0 0 TOTAL 1,595,528 1,687,247 1,916,610 2,127,834 1,896,885 COST 4,402,572 4,651,942 4,887,144 5,153,754 5,520,690 % FUNDED 36.2% 36.3% 39.2% 41.3% 34.4% SHARED RESOURCES 2,807,044 2,964,695 2,970,534 3,025,921 3,623,805 % OF SHARED RESOURCES 40.5% 41.2% 38.9% 39.8% 42.3% Law and Justice offices historically are funded with a variety of resources dedicated for their programs. The tax that supports Law and Justice is a .1% local option sales tax to support criminal justice programs. Grants make up the largest source of revenues for these offices. Included in the grant category is intergovernmental payments made by the City of Port Townsend for regional services. The largest grant source is the state which provides criminal justice funding and 1-695 (MVET) replacement funds. Historically, the Law and Justice offices are funded at 37.5% with dedicated resources with the remaining 62.5% using about 40.5% of shared resources. 2 Note: For purposes of this analysis the operating transfer to E-911 Dispatch is included in the Law and Justice totals. July 7, 2002 General Fund Budget Plan for 2003 Page 7 Table 7 Resources Allocated to Public Services 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 PUBLIC SERVICES PERMITS 339,450 421,652 387,497 437,269 352,089 GRANTS 80,208 92,981 95,575 99,570 169,009 SERVICE CHARGES 183,780 225,445 201,503 210,843 214,538 FINES 5,309 8,774 5,326 8,008 5,932 INTEREST & OTHER INCOME 37,105 59,516 28,416 58,689 40,861 SALE OF FIXED ASSETS 25 ° 7,500 ° ° TOTAL 645,876 808,367 725,817 814,378 782,429 COST 1,611,572 1,644,291 1,677,219 1,811,267 1,754,315 % FUNDED 40,1% 49.2% 43.3% 45.0% 44.6% SHARED RESOURCES 965,696 835,924 951,402 996,889 971,886 % OF SHARED RESOURCES 13.9% 11.6% 12.5% 13.1% 11.4% Public Service departments account for about 16% of the General Fund budget. These offices combined provide about 44% of the funding needed to support them with Community Development and Animal Services providing about 94% of the 44% funded. The Public Service Departments historically have used about 12.5% of shared resources to balance their budgets. Table 8 Resources Allocated to Non-departmental and Operating Transfers 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,017,801 1,066,417 1,241,684 1,175,351 1,207,387 % OF SHARED RESOURCES 14.7% 14.8% 16.3% 15.5% 14.1% OPERATING TRANSFERS 810,271 965,904 1,062,103 921,244 1,275,275 % OF SHARED RESOURCES 11.7% 13.4% 13.9% 12.1% 14.9% Shared resources allocated to the Non-departmental (overhead) budget averaged 15.1%, while those allocated to Operating Transfers averaged 13.2%. Table 9 Historical Allocations of Shared Revenues by Functional Area AVERAGE 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ALLOCATION 2002(EST.) SHARED RESOURCES 6,807,477 7,722,196 8,219,895 8,424,761 8,307,741 8,480,644 RESERVES -128965 S30 331 590 662 817 698 -253 413 289 203 SHARED RESOURCES 6.936,442 7,191,865 7,629,233 7,607,063 8,561,154 8,191,441 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 1,335,630 1,358,924 1,403,509 1,487,658 1,482,800 18.7% 19,4% 1,586,959 LAW & JUSTICE 2,807,044 2,964,695 2,970,534 3,025,921 3,623,805 40.5% 41.8% 3,427,636 PUBLIC SERVICES 965,696 835,924 951,402 996,889 971,886 12.5% 10.7% 875,556 NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,017,801 1,066,417 1,241,684 1,175,351 1.207,387 15.1% 14,8% 1,208,334 OPERATING TRANSFERS 810271 965 904 1 062 103 921 244 1 275275 13.2% 13,3% 1 092 956 6,936,442 7,191.865 7,629,233 7,607,063 8,561,154 100% 100.0% 8,191,441 Table 9 summarizes how shared revenues (listed in Table 4, above) have been allocated to balance against expenditures in each functional area. The amount listed for reserves represents the amount taken from reserves (minus) and put into reserves (plus) to balance out the allocation. The Law and Justice functional area is allocated around 41% of shared resources while all others are allocated between 10 and 20%. The amount allocated depends a great deal on the July 7, 2002 General Fund Budget Plan for 2003 Page 8 level of resources received directly. Chart 2, below, shows how grants influence the allocation of resources for the Law and Justice programs. The chart shows how the contribution from shared resources increased in 2001 with the decline in grant income, which is primarily state criminal justice funding. Chart 2 Resource Allocation for Law and Justice Programs $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $- ~ - 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1>1 SALE OF FIXED ASSETS __OTHER -..m INTEREST & OTHER INCOME __ ÆRMrrS c:::::::::J TAXES ~ SERVICE CHARGES "","'" FINES ~ GRANTS - SHARED RESOURCES Based on the analysis above, a proposed allocation for 2003 is shown below. Historically, the budget process focuses on prior year expenditures rather than allocation of resources. By adopting an allocation plan of shared resources the departments can then add the resources specific to their programs such as grants and fees to make up the total level funding level. Table 10 Allocation of Shared Resources for 2003 AVERAGE SHARED ALLOCATION 2002(EST.) RESOURCES SHARED RESOURCES 8.480,644 8,620,989 RESERVES -289 203 SHARED RESOURCES 8,191.441 8,620,989 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 18.0% 19.4% 1,586,959 18.5% 1,594,883 LAW & JUSTICE 39.1% 41.8% 3.427,636 41.5% 3,577,710 PUBLIC SERVICES 12.0% 10.7% 875,556 10.5% 905,204 NON-DEPARTM ENTAL 14.5% 14.8% 1,208,334 14.5% 1,250,043 OPERATING TRANSFERS 12.7% 13.3% 1 092 956 15.0% 1 293 148 96% 100.0% 8,191.441 100.0% 8,620,989 By adding the estimated revenues from the functional areas the total funding level for 2003 is established. July 7, 2002 General Fund Budget Plan for 2003 Page 9 Table 11 Total Resource Allocation for 2003 by Functional Area 2003 BUDGET ALLOCATION SHARED PROGRAM TOTAL RESOURCES RESOURCES RESOURCES SHARED RESOURCES 8,620,989 RESERVES SHARED RESOURCES 8,620,989 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 18.5% 1,594,883 323,321 1,918,204 LAW & JUSTICE 41.5% 3,577,710 1,796,294 5,374,004 PUBLIC SERVICES 10.5% 905,204 837,292 1,742,496 NON-DEPARTMENTAL 14,5% 1,250,043 0 1,250,043 OPERATING TRANSFERS 15.0% 1 293 148 0 1 293 148 100.0% 8,620,989 2,956,907 11,577,897 BUDGET REALIGNMENT Jefferson County has been able to balance its General Fund budget over the past several years without much difficulty due to a robust economy and traditional growth in property taxes. Growth in revenues has declined in 2001 and 2000 due to the slow down in the economy and voter initiated limits on property tax growth. With lower forecasts for revenue growth it is prudent to consider changes in how the General Fund budget is structured so that priorities for program support can be established and policies developed for how programs will be supported in the future. For the 2002 the Board of Commissioners established a policy to have certain Public Service programs to be primarily fee supported and established a fee structure intended to recover 100% of direct operating costs and 75% of direct administrative costs (continual analysis is needed to determine whether this goal has been met). This 2003 budget plan continues with that same policy and expands it to restructure the General Fund budget by moving these programs in to separate funds with the General Fund focus remaining on General Government and Law and Justice programs. Table 12, below, lists those departments/programs that would be budgeted separate from the General Fund and receive funding by an operating transfer. July 7, 2002 General Fund Budget Plan for 2003 Page 10 GENERAL FUND PROGRAMS GENERAL GOVERNMENT ASSESSOR AUDITOR ELECTIONS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF EQUALIZATION TREASURER OPERATING TRANSFERS GENERAL GOVERNMENT TABLE 12 BUDGET REALIGNMENT LAW AND JUSTICE CLERK CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION PUBLIC SAFETY DISTRICT COURT JUVENILE & FAMILY COURT SERV PROSECUTING ATTORNEY CORONER SHERIFF SUPERIOR COURT PUBLIC SERVICES LAW AND JUSTICE E-911 DISPATCH BOATING SAFETY CRIME VICTIMS LAW LIBRARY PUBLIC SERVICES HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES NATURAL RESOURCES PUBLIC WORKS CENTRAL SERVICES COUNTY FAIR COMMUNITY SERVICES PLANNING COMMISSION WEED CONTROL MARINE RESOURCE COMMITTEE FUND COOPERATIVE EXTENSION ANIMAL SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The above budget realignment would be a significant change and would require additional analysis to determine the impact on budget management and accounting. The above allocation in Table 11 would now have Public Service functions included in the totals for Operating Transfers as shown in Table 13 below. Table 13 Allocation of Shared Resources Under Budget Realignment SHARED PROGRAM TOTAL RESOURCES RESOURCES RESOURCES SHARED RESOURCES 8,620,989 RESERVES SHARED RESOURCES 8,620,989 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 18.5% 1,594,883 323,321 1,918,204 LAW & JUSTICE 42.0% 3,620,815 1,796,294 5,417,109 PUBLIC SERVICES 0.0% ° ° ° NON-DEPARTMENTAL 14.5% 1,250,043 ° 1,250,043 OPERATING TRANSFERS 25.0% 2 155247 837 292 2 992 540 100.0% 8,620,989 2,956,907 11,577,897 July 7, 2002 en w 0:: :J l- e z w CL >< w e z :J u. ...J « 0:: w Z w C) ..- 0)..- (') N l"- N 0 ..- 0) N ..- I"- (') l"- N I"- IJ') ..- 00 (') 0 ..- '<t ..- I"- iã N OCX) ..- ..- ..- N 0 I"- c.D N 0)c.D IJ') 0 0) '<t 0 0) O'<t (') CX) '<t '<t IJ') (') C'!. 0_ ..-, c.D , '<to 1"-. OC!. (') , 0 '<t_ , IJ'), c.D. '<t_ '<to N c.D_q '<t_ (') ..- N_ IJ') 0_ c.D. N.. (') N :J LÔ N - IJ')'<t1"- ~ c.D c.D N 0) oi 0) I"- '<t (') c.D N Ncx) ..- IJ') oi IJ') (') ..- IJ') ..- u CX) '<tcx) CX) 0 N CX)CX) IJ') CX) I"- CX) (') IJ') IJ') ..- ..- CX) '<t (') N I"- (') « '<t (') ..- N c.D ..- '<t ..- ..- '<t N (') 0, IJ') ~ (') N CX) 0) ..- ~ 0 N ct5 0 0 ..- 0 N '# '# '# ~ '# '# '# '# ~ '# '# '# '# '# '# '# ~ '# '# '# ~ '# '# '# '# '# '# 0 0 0 0 OJ 0 OJ 0 OJ 0 ('0 '<t '<t OJ I!) ('0 co 0 0 '<t N N I!) 0 (J) 0 (J) 0 ~ ;;:; ~ m ~ '<t tC> CD ('0 OJ r-- '<t '<t co (J) I!) " .,. ~ 0 OJ ~ ('0 ('0 tC> tC> r-- 0 m 0 r--: m r--: 0::; <D 0 m r--: N m m 0 r--: m cO 0 .,f r--: m 0::; :; ::I ~ m m m ~ 0 ~ '<t I!) '<t '<t '<t ('0 '<t I!) ~ ('0 L{) '<t '<t I!) '<t '<t I!) I!) I!) '<t '<t '<t ..., f- >- N '<tc.D 0 0) '<t (') 0) 0 I"- c.D ..- N c.D I"- '<t ..- c.D 0) c.D 0 ...- 0) ...- N 0) (') '<t I"- '<t '<t 0) 0 0) I"- CX) ...- '<t '<t c.D CX) N I"- 0 CX) (') IJ') CX) (') ...- N N IJ') 0 N_ ('). 0), IJ') , 0)_ N. o_ N.. , IJ') 1"-- , 0_ CX) 0)_ (') ..- '<t 1"-- '<t, ...- N, '<t_ c.D ...- c.D_ c.D c.D, 0)_ 0 CX) (,)I"- IJ') CX) ...- ...- '<t ~ IJ') ...- c.D IJ') ...- c0 N N CX) N ..- IJ') r-: '<t (') l"- N C 0 (') l"- I"- (') 0) I"- IJ') I"- 0) '<t '<t I"- 0) I"- ..- c.D 0 ...- c.D I"- 0) (') I- ..!. N ..- ...- N N N ..- ..- '<t N No N ...- (')- '<t '<t (') >- :J '<t LÔ ., '# ;i :; 0 :::J ..., f- f- >- ~ .... Co I-..!. >-~ N o o N o M Q) c: :::I ., c¡¡ :J - U « I"-{')O)OO)...-NNc.D 0)'<t'<t...-1J'){'){')1J')'<t 0)c.Dc.D...-CX)'<tCX){')CX) r-:LÔc0N~c0<.Ö~r-: I"-N'<tcx)'<t...- '<t{')...-NN{') IJ')1"-CX){')CX){')c.D...-{,)1"-c.D0)1J'){')1J')CX) NCX)CX)Nc.DNNI"-c.DCX){')CX){')'<t...-'<t '(')OIJ')N..-...-NO)'<to)l"-'<tIJ')IJ'){')O ~ N . r-: . cr) LÔ ct5 c.D ct5 '<t- c0 0 ~ 0 <.Ö OIJ')I"-{')CX)Nl"-lJ')o)I"-NCX)...-N ...-...-'<t...-...-'<tN{,)cx)1J') ..-'<tN N ~~~~~~~~~g;g;~g;~g;~ o ~ ~ æ N 0 ~ ro M 0 N M ro M ~ N 0 ro M ~ N N ~ ID M ~ ~ ID 6 ~ ~ ~ 0 M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (,)1"-CX){')O)IJ')O)Ocx)o)cx)I"-c.DNCX)"'- NCX)",-,,-CO{,)I"-c.DO...-c.DIJ')NOIJ')c.D 'CX)O{')IJ')IJ')c.D{')..-{')c.DCX)CX)IJ')c.D'<t1J') ~Ncr)~c0Nc.DNr-: -N<'öoiôLÔe0 (')CX)c.D1"-0)'<t1J')0)0)..- ..-{')N N N ..- ...- '<t (') ..-_ N ...- IJ') '<t IJ') IJ') 0) 1"-0 c.D0) <.ÖLÔ c.D0) '<t_...- 0) N ...- '<t o 0)_ o ~ '" m CX) (') ~ CX) 0) IJ') IJ') "0 CD "0 r::- CD CD E.g' « :J Na:I o o N II) c: ,S! N c; o '£: o 0. N 0 C- o. « - N CD o CI 0"0 N~ 'Q; CI) '#. C) c: 0 'C ::I f- ::I ..., >- .c Õ N Co I- C --->-- "" ...- o o N cf2.cf2.~?ft.?ft. f8~~t:~ ~~~~~ ~?f?~?f!. ~ L() ~ co N '<t ~ '<t ~~t:~ c.D{,)01"-..-0)1"-{,)c.D 1"-c.D{')...-Nc.D...-O)N IJ')I"-'<tIJ')O{')N01"- <'öcr)~ ·<.Ö<.ÖNc0c0 IJ')1"-c.DIJ')NI"- Nr- r-'r""'r- Ncx)c.DN'<tI"-N{,){,) '<t'<tc.Dc.D'<tIJ')I"-ON ...-{')c.Dc.D{,)...-I"-cx)"'- c0c.D 'c0~NLÔc0Ô '<t1J')1J')...-1J')'<t IJ') (') ...- (') N (') ;;;tC;;-U?<õ'roro8Lô' c.Do)l"-c.D{')NCX)O IJ')O)N..-O)O{')'<t NNNc.DLÔÔ~- S--~S~:S- c.D...-..-CX)NIJ')NCX){') O'<t'<tNcx)cx)1J')ON I"-{')O)CX)N...-...-N...- LÔ cr) c0 cr) Ô N· r-: ~ Ô IJ')1J')c.DNcx)1J') IJ'){')..-{')N{') ~ ~ ~ ro CD g., CD 0 0 <D 0 M '<t I!) '<t ~ ~ ~ " I'-, co ~ m g ?ft. ?fl. (j? N co I!) I!) 0 u) M .,f N N '<t CX)..-NN{') I"-{,) I"-IJ') (')O)c.DNIJ')Nl"-o)lJ') IJ') (') N '<t IJ') 0) '<t CX) '<t, c0ct5LÔ~""':c0 - '<t IJ')1"-c.Dc.D{,)1"- N ..- ---- ...-{')'<t1J'){')1J')000)...-0c.Dcx)1"- '<t1J')..-NO{')OOIJ')I"-IJ')O)O)c.D '1"-1"-'<tO)IJ')OI"-NIJ')O){')c.D1"-1J') Nct5 °<.ÖNNc0Ô<'öc0N'<t-N-O NI"-..-O...-c.DIJ')I"-NONI"-IJ')IJ') ...- ...- IJ') ...- N '<t N (') 0) c.D '<to (') N N (Qt:2c:oor::-OO;;;tCr:::--O~~L!) '<t...-0)1J')CX)c.D0{,)0)001"-1J')c.D NIJ')IJ')c.DCX)c.DO{')IJ')O)..-OI"-I"- ~oJ<.Ö-ÔNOÔoJct5""':c0r-:LÔ N-~ "r"'""T""""'Ì"N<Dr--(Qt.(')- -- -- ------- -- 1"-001J')01J')0'<t1J')cx)0I"-NN cx)1"-...-1"-0)0)0{')1J')1"-1J')c.D1J'){') 'O)NOIJ'){')c.DI"-IJ')...-cx)'<tI"-IJ'){') c0 ct5 ct5 r-: c0 ~ c0 Ô c.D N c0 1"-- Ô <.Ö '<tCX)NONI"-O)O)O)NN{')...-1J') ...- ..- IJ') ...- N '<t N (') 0) c.D IJ')_ '<t N N ?fl.rf!.?ft. OJ r-- ('0 I!) co r-- <D N 0::; I!) I!) '<t ?fl ?fl. ?ft. ?f!. èJ? ~¡::oo~cc mO<DO::;o '<t '<t '<t '<t I!) ?f2. eft. OJ '<t OJ "! ~ m :::R ~ M m : :: I!) I!) (')..-c.DO)'<tO{')N'<tO)O{')'<t1"- c.D..-No)..-I"-NOO)lJ')o)l"-..-1J') ''<tIJ')N..-'<tc.D'<t{')'<tc.D'<tOIJ')O cr)~cr)ct5cr)ct5c0c0ct5LÔct5ct5r-:r-: c.DO)'<tIJ')ONOI"-'<tO c.Dc.DN N T"""NT"""T"""-q-('V) C'\iT"""T""" ?ft. ?ft. co '<t r-- r--: 0 '<t I!) ..- '<t N_ CX) ~ ~ '<t M I!) ?F- cft. co 0 OJ I!) ui M '<t '<t c.D ..- IJ') ..- IJ') (') ..- ..- ~ '<t '<t CX), c.D N ~ o c.D (') CX) I"- ..- N ..- ~ M N M I!) CX) c.D N '<t o (') 0) 0)_ (') o '<t_ '<t '<to ..- (') '<to N, '<to I"-N c.D1J') CX) N N, o (') CX)_ CX) '<t'<t IJ'){') 0)_ (')_ N CX) ..-0 (')N N (') OC!. 0) N ~ ~LO c.D'<t N.. 1"-_ IJ')..- 0) 0 ~S o c.D o Ô c.D N_ O) ..-0) NI"- N.O, CX)O 0..- c.D,~ ~ o ('0 CD m '<t ?ft. eft. CD I!) '<t ~ m 0 co '<t '<t ..- '<t, N CX) (') 0) IJ') 1"-1"- IJ')..- '<t1J') I"-cx) ..-'<t