MEMORANDUM BUDGET OVERVIEW

(1)

AGENDA ITEM #35 May 10,2011

MEMORANDUM

May 6, 2011

TO: County Council

FROM: Marlene

Michaels~nior

Legislative Analyst SUBJECT: FY12 Operating Budget for Urban Districts

Those expected for this worksession:

Natalie Cantor, Director, Mid-County Regional Services Center

Kenneth Hartman, Director, Bethesda-Chevy Chase Regional Services Center Reemberto Rodriquez, Director, Silver Spring Regional Services Center Brady Goldsmith, Office of Management and Budget

This memorandum presents the Planning, Housing, and Economic Development (PHED) Committee's recommendations for the FY12 Operating Budget for Urban Districts. The Executive's recommendations for the Urban Districts is attached at © 1 to 5. FY12-FY17 Fiscal Plans for the Urban Districts are on © 6 to 8. The PHED Committee recommends approval of the Urban

District Budgets as submitted by the Executive.

Urban Districts were created to promote public interest activities that benefit residential and commercial interests in particular communities. Urban Districts are intended to enhance safety and security, promote economic stability and growth and a sense of community identity, ensure adequate infrastructure, foster a dynamic social and business climate, and ensure that communities are maintained in a clean and attractive manner. The County's three Urban Districts are in Bethesda, Silver Spring, and Wheaton. The Bethesda Urban District is run by an Urban District corporation, the Bethesda Urban Partnership (BUP). The Silver Spring and Wheaton Urban Districts are managed by the respective Regional Services Centers.

BUDGET OVERVIEW

For FY12, the Executive recommends total expenditures of $7,399,320 for the 3 Urban Districts, a 538,510 or 0.5% decrease from the FYII approved budget. Not included in this amount are Silver

(2)

Spring Urban District expenditures of $387,860 and 8.0 WY that are charged to the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and $104,870 and 3.0 WY that are charged to the Silver Spring Parking Lot District for the Clean and Safe Team's efforts during the construction of the Interim Operations Site (IOS) for the Silver Spring Transit Center (CIP project #509974). Both charges are unchanged from FYII and will end in FYI2 once the Transit Center Opens.

URBAN DISTRICT EXPENDITURES AND WORKFORCE

FY10 FY11 I FY11 ! FY12 % Change Actual Budget 1 Estimated CE Rec. FY11-FY12

!

Urban District Expenditures 7,043,969 7,437,830 7,449,02017,399,320 -0.5%

Positions: ₁

Full time 321 30 301 31 3.3%

Part time 1 1i 1 1

i

WORKYEARS 1 58.1 50.2 50.2 52! 3.6%

While various technical adjustments increased the workyears associated with Urban Districts (including adding back furlough time), total funding decreased by 0.5%. The increase in workyears and decreases in costs are associated with the Silver Spring District. Increases in Bethesda personnel are due to a change in an employee and changes in the Wheaton Operating costs related to motor pool costs.

Summary of Urban District Expenditures by Category

FY11 FY11 FY12 CE % change

Urban District FY10 Actual Budget Estimate Rec. FY11-12 Bethesda Personnel Costs 62,517 62,960 103,750 110,470 1 75.5% Operating Expenses 3,227,177 3,285,760 3,256160 3,261,020 1 -0.8% Total Expenses 3,289,694 3,348,720 3,359,91~ 3,371,490 0.7% Silver Spring ! Personnel Costs 1,480,934 1268,200 1 1,768,200 1,701,230 -3.8% Operating Expenses i 805,834 910,740 910,740 900,160 -1.2% Total Expenses 2,286,76~ 2,678,940 2,678,940 2,601,390 1 -2.9% Wheaton Personnel Costs 1,100,366 1,017,250 1,017,2501 996,6701 -2.0% Operating Expenses ~ ~67,141 392,920 392,920 429,770! 9.4% Total Expenses 1,467,507 1,410,1701 1,410,170 1,426,440 1.2% Programs

The Urban Districts operate 6 programs. The change in funding for each is shown below.

(3)

E~penditurelWorkyear Changes in Urban District Programs 1 Expenditures

• Workyears

1 ₁ _.1 _{% change}

Program FYll FY12 FYll FY12 • % change $ w?rkyears Promotion of

Community and I I

Business Activities _{1,135,860 1 1,146,610}I 0.9 0.9 0.9%.

-Sidewalk Repair 143,970 143,9701 0.0 O.O!

-

-Streetscape Maintenance 3,153,210 3,073,310 20.9 21.7 -2.5% 3.8% Tree Maintenance 115,710 115,810 0.0 0.0 0.1%

-Enhanced Security 1,185,300! 1,162,290. 23.4 _{24.3 1} -1.9% 3.8% Administration 1,703,680 1,757,330 5.0 5.1 3.1%1 2.0% Total 7,437,730 7,399,320 _{50 1} 52 -0.5%1 3.6% EXPENDITURE ISSUES

The Executive's budget proposes only minimal changes in all three service districts. Other than compensation adjustments, the only changes proposed for FYI2 are a $13,040 increase in the cost of the Bethesda Circulator Contract, a $10,000 decrease in streetlight replacement, and a $34,860 (1 %) decrease in the Bethesda Urban Partnership (BUP) contract reflecting a vacant position that will not be filled. l

The PHED Committee recommends approval of these changes as recommended

by

the

Executive.

REVENUE ISSUES

On the revenue side, Urban Districts are funded from a combination of sources, including Urban District taxes, transfers from the Parking Lot District (PLD), General Fund transfers, and maintenance charges for enhanced services. A table showing the proposed FYI2 funding sources for Urban Districts appears below. The proceeds from either the Urban District tax or parking fees transferred into an Urban District Fund must not exceed 90 percent of their combined total. In addition, the transfer from the Parking Lot District must not exceed the number of parking spaces in the Urban District times the number of enforcement hours per year times 20 cents. Urban District fund calculations from the FY12-17 Fiscal Plan are attached on 6 to 8. A table showing the change in funding for each Urban District from FYI1 to FYI2 is attached on © 9.

I The reduction in the BUP contract will be absorbed by the elimination of a vacant administrative assistant position. This will eliminate the availability of a live person to answer phone calls and greet visitors at the BUP office. The response time to address constituent questions and needs wiII correspondingly be lengthened.

(4)

FY12 URBAN DISTRICT FUNDING SOURCES

Funding Source Bethesda Silver Spring Wheaton

Beginning Fund Balance 12,8201 442,230 145,560

Revenues

Urban District Tax 465,460 639,610 160,160

Charges for services for enhanced services 130,000 134,000 _.... 0

Investment Income 0 0 ...-0

Interfund Transfers

Transfer to the General Fund for indirect costs* -15,790 -243,110 1

-142,420 Transfer from the General Fund for baseline services 0 0 76,090 Transfer from the General Fund for non-baseline services 1

0 1 0 932,000

1,696,000

Transfer from Parking Lot District 2,865,000 292,320

3,457,490 2,668,730 1,463,710 Total Resources

CE Recommended Operating Budget -3,371,490 -2,601,390 -1,426,440 Projected FYI 0 year end fund balance

End of year reserves as a % of resources

86,000 2.5%! 67,340 2.5%i 37,270 2.5% !

*Indirect costs are calculated by formula to cover the costs for services provided to the Urban Districts by centralized County functions such as Human Resources, Management and Budget, County Attorney, etc. As with other special funds, indirect costs are transferred from the Urban District funds to the General Fund.

For FYI2, the Urban District tax rates are recommended to remain the same as in FYIl. Decreases in the assessable base for real property in each district will result in small decreases in Urban District tax revenues. In the Silver Spring Urban District, transfers from the Parking Lot District will be reduced by 6%; in Bethesda they will increase by 10%, and in Wheaton they remain the same. A comparison of Urban District Tax revenues and transfers from the Parking Lot Districts and General Fund from FYll to FY12 is shown below. A table comparing all of the funding sources for each Urban District is attached on © 9.

Urban District Tax Rate: The Executive is proposing no tax rate changes for the Urban Districts from FYll to FYI2. The recommended tax rates are shown in the table below.

Urban Real Personal

District Property Property

Bethesda .012 .030

Silver Spring .024 .060

Wheaton .030 .075

Transfers from the General Fund: Several years ago, the Council defined "baseline services" for Urban Districts: those services that would routinely be funded by the County's General Fund if there were no Urban Districts. The idea was that the special revenues in each Urban District Fund (Urban District taxes, Parking Lot District transfers, and investment income) were to provide for certain

(5)

services above and beyond what would normally be covered by the General Fund. The baseline services included street sweeping three times each week, twice weekly trash pickup, litter collection between two and five times each week, semi-annual cleaning of brick pavers, monthly mowing, tree pruning on an optimal cycle, and regular streetlight maintenance.

Using a formula based on costs at that time, the "baseline service" target level was established for the three districts. The goal was to use each Urban District's General Fund baseline transfer as the starting point for building the rest of its budget. This objective often has not been met due to fiscal exigencies. F or example, for the past several years, the Bethesda Urban District usually has had sufficient resources from its Urban District tax and Parking Lot District transfer, and the Council has used the funding "due" to Bethesda to fund other needs in the General Fund portion of the budget. The baseline service cost to Wheaton is set at $76,090. In addition, the Wheaton Urban District receives "non baseline" transfers from the General Fund to provide funding for services not covered by Urban District taxes or the Parking Lot District.

For FYll, Wheaton was the only Urban District to receive transfers from the General Fund. The other Urban Districts funded all services through a combination of other sources. For FY12, the situation will remain the same. In the Wheaton Urban District, the baseline transfer from the General Fund will remain the same while the non-baseline transfer will increase by $59,000 or 6.7%. The table below shows the estimated baseline service costs, the total FY12 resources, and the amounts of the Wheaton General Fund transfers.

Urban District Baseline Transfer Baseline Service Cost Non-baseline Transfer Total General Fund Transfer Total FY12 Resources Bethesda $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,371,490 Silver Spring $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,601,390 Wheaton $76,090 $76,090 $932,000 $1,008,090 $1,463,710

The PHED Committee recommends approval of the revenue sources and tax rates proposed

by the Executive.

This packet contains:

CE's FY12 budget for the Urban Districts FY12-17 Fiscal Plan, Bethesda Urban District FY12-17 Fiscal Plan, Silver Spring Urban District FY12-17 Fiscal Plan, Wheaton Urban District Comparison of Urban District Funding, FYII-12

circle # 1 6 7 8 9 f:\michaelson\urban districts\budget\J:Y12\l10415cp,doc

(6)

Urban Districts

MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of the Urban Districts (Bethesda, Silver Spring, and \Vheaton) is to: ensure that each district is maintained in a clean, safe, and attractive manner; promote a strong sense of identity in each district; ensure that each district has adequate infrastructure and the enhanced services required by their higher levels of activity in order to foster a vibrant social and business climate; and ensure long-term economic viability and vitality.

BUDGET OVERVIEW

The total recommended FY12 Operating Budget for the Urban Districts is $7,399,320, a decrease of $38,51 0 or 0.5 percent from the FYl1 Approved Budget of $7,437,830. Personnel Costs comprise 38.0 percent of the budget for 31 full-time positions and one part-time position for 52.0 workyears. Operating Expenses account for the remaining 62.0 percent of the FY12 budget ..

LINKAGE TO COUNTY RESULT AREAS

\\-'bile this program area snpports all eight of the County Result Areas, the following are emphasized:

..:.. A Responsive, Accountable Counly Government ..:.. Healthy and Sustainable Neighborhoods .:. Safe Streets and Secure Neighborhoods .:.. Strong and Vibrant Economy

. _ .:. . Vital Living for All of Our Residents

!:_;,,;.":\

~·;ACCOMPLISHMENTS

AND INITIATIVES

.:. Wheaton Urban Distric;t launched the first downtown "mobile app'" in the area, m.wheatonmd.org, which allows a

smartphone user to find local restaurants, shopping and events with step-by-step GPS navigated directions,

.:. Silver Spring Urban Distric;t established a program to introduce the use of c:leaning products that are earth-friendly . ..:. The 21st annual '''Taste of Bethesda" had a record attendance of over 40,,000 people enjoying the sights, sounds

and tastes that Bethesda has to offer. The annual event featured international cuisine from SS downtown Bethesda

restaurants and live music and dance from diverse cultures and nationalities.

PROGRAM CONTACTS

Contact Catherine Matthews of the Urban Districts at 240.777.8040 or Brady Goldsmith of the Office of Management and Budget at 240.777.2793 for more infonnation regarding this department's operating budget.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS

Promotion

of

Community

and

Business Activities

This program enhances the quality of life in the Urban Districts and surrounding communities; fosters a strong, vibrant business climate within each Urban District; and creates a positive image and a sense of identity for the Districts. These goals are accomplishedtbrough enhanced maintenance ,activities; sponsorship of community events, including festivals, concerts, and parades; the instalhition of seasonal banners, unique signs, holiday decorations, and other amenities to give each District a sense of place; and the development and distribution of newsletters, brochures, and other promotional material highlighting the Districts. Each Urban District develops its programs with the active participation of its advisqry cpmmittee or Urban District Corporation.

Ff11 Approved 1,135,3~C 0.9

(7)

Expenditures WYs

c

Miscellaneous adjustments, including restoration of employee furloughs, employee benefit changes, changes due to staff turnover, reorganizations, and other budget changes affecting more than one program

-2,290

0,0 0,0

I FY12 CE Recommended ' 1,146,610 0.9

Sidewalk Repair

This program provides for the removal and replacement of deteriorated concrete and brick walks and curbs in the Urban Districts.

m2'Recommended Changes Expenditures WYs

FY11 Approved 143,970 0.0

FY12 CE Recommended 143,970 0.0

Streetscape Maintenance

,

This program provides maintenance of, and improvement to, the streetscape amenities within each Urban District. VariOllS service levels include litter collection, semi-annual sidewalk pressure washing, trash receptacle service at least three times a week, mowing and snow removal as needed, lighting maintenance, maintenance of planted/landscaped areas, and street sweeping.

"J2 Recommended Changes Expenditures WYs

FY11 Approved

-10,000 0,0

Decrease Cost: Bethesda Urban Partnershi Contract from $3,207,970 to $3,173,11 0 1 ereent -34,860 0,0

Miscellaneous adjustments, including restoration of employee furloughs, employee benefit changes, changes -35,040 0.8 due to staff turnover, reor anizalions, and other bud et chan es affeclinS"'-'-'m""'o..;"re=-.;,;;th,;..;;a:.;.n:..o;..;.n,;..;;eCJP;..;.r..:..o"'-grc;:ac:.;m"'--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - - I

Decrease Cost: Streetli

FY12 CE Recommended 3,073,310 21.7

Tree Maintenance

This program provides pruning, planting, fertilization, necessary spraying, replacement, watering, mulching, and ,tree base cleaning

m,.

the Urban Districts. . (..':::~~:::..

\:, ,.:::1

"J2 Recommended Changes Expenditures WYs

FYl1 App d

FY12 CE Recommended 115,810 0.0 I

Enhanced Security

This program provides safeguards against property theft, vandalism.- and personal security in the Silver Spring and \V'heaton Urban Districts. The goal of the program is to provide an enhanced level of protection and reduce the perception of crime through the use of County and Park Police support, as well as the Safe Teams.

M2'Recommended Changes Expenditures WYs

FY11 Approved 1,185,300 23.4

Miscellaneous adjustments, including restoration of employee furloughs, employee benefit changes, changes -23,010 0.9 due to staff turnover, reor anizations, and other bud et chan es affectin more than one ro ram

FY12 CE Recommended 1,162,290 24.3

Administration

This program provides staff support for contr~ct administration and clerical services to the Urban District Advisory Committees and for the adrpinistration of the Bethesda Urban: Partnership (BUP), Inc., a non-profit Corporation created to manage the day-to-day operation

6f

the Bethesda Urban District. This program also provides for budget preparation and monitoring, payment authorization, and records maintenance.

• Ff11 ApprQvea 1,70::3,680

I

Decrease Cost: Mise Operating Expenses -4,330 0.0 ,

(8)

BUDGET SUMMARY

_ ,

BETHESDA URBAN DISTRICT EXPENDITURES

o

eratin Ex enses ~~italOutlai: Actual FYl0 51,149 11,368 62,517 3,227,177 0 Budget FYl1 50,460 12,500 62,960 3,285,760

°

Estimated FYll 72,910 30,840 J03,750 3,256,160

°

Recommended FY12 % Chg Bud/Rec 79,620 30,850 JJO,470 3,261,020 57.8% 146.8%1 75.5% -0.8%

°

- ,

Bethesda Urban District Expenditures 3,289,694 3,348,720 3,359,9JO 3,371,490 0.7"10 i PERSONNEL Full-Time 1 Part-Time

°

Workyears 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 REVENUES Property Tax 478,068 502,370 477,040 465,460 -7.3%

Optional Method Development 123,172 130,000 130,000 130,000 -

--Bethesda Urban District Revenues 60J,240 632,370 607,040 595,460 -5.8%

ISILVER SPRING URBAN DISTRICT EXPENDITURES

Salaries and Wages 1,179,456 1,349,080 1,349,080 1,343,140 -0.4%

Employee Benefits 301,478 419,120 419,120 358,090 -14.6%

Silver Spring Urban District Personnel Costs 1,480,934 1,768,200 1,768,200 J,70t.230 -3.8% ".~I _,

Operating Expenses 805,834 910,740 910,740 900,160 -1.2%

Capital Outlay

Silver Spring Urban District Expenditures PERSONNEL Full-Time Part-Time Workyears REVENUES Property Tax 0 0 2,286,768

°

2,678,940 2,678,940 2,60J,390

°

-2.90/0 18 17 17 18 5.9% 0 0 ' 35.2 30.5

°

30.5 31.7

°

3.9% 662,161 663,120 655,890 639,610 -3.5%

Optional Method Development 138,019 134,000 134,000 134,000

Miscellaneous/Risk Momt Dividend Distribution 3,790 0 0

°

0

Investment Income 884 0 0

Silver Spring Urban District Revenues 804,854 797,J20 789,890 773,6JO -2.9%1 WHEATON URBAN DISTRICT

EXPENDITURES 861,860 783,610 783,610 787,900 0.5% 238,506 233,640 233,640 208,770 -10.6%1 J,JOO,366 J,017,250 J,O J7,250 996,670 -2.0% r--?perating Expenses 367,141 392,920 392,920 429,770 9.4%' ! Capital Outlay

°

o

°

=1 Wheaton Urban Distrid Expenditures J,467,507 J,4JO,J70 J,4JO,J70 J,426,440 J.2% PERSONNEL Full-Time 13 12 12 12 - i Part-Time, 1 Workyears 21.9 18.7 18.7 19.3 3.2% i REVENUES Property Tax "-' 163,797 171,640 164,160 160,160 -6.7% -l. Investment Income 633 o 0 0

-,

\ W:,e'C~n lJr:H:m DLstTic:t !hv1!!1'wes

~·.*k4""iM·¥'bM&ig;g;.,--'·#j Wi ~#h± 5th::;:• •¥-· -lD:EPAR1'MENT TOTALS 164.,430 J7J,64''} & t 164. J 6.0 i60,150 #$##4##5 -6.7%

•

I Totcl bpendltures 7,043,969 7,437,ale 7,449,021) 7,399,320 -0.5%,

Wheaton Urban District Personnel Costs

(9)

. Actual Budget Estimated Recommended % Chg

fYtO Ffl1 Ff11 Ff12 Bud/Ree

Total Full-Time Positions 32 30 30 31 3.3%

1 1 1 1

58.1 50.2 50.2 52.0 3.6%1

1...!.~~~=~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---.,;J:J:,=-57:...:0::!:,5=-2:..4.:..-_ _~lrc:6:.:::0.:.,J,!:.!1.:!3::!.0_ _~1:.!::,5~6~J~,0:::..9~0~_ _

...!,!::.,5~2:.!9,~2~3~O_-.:::._::!:..:4.5r-FY12 RECOMMENDED CHANGES

BETHESDA URBAN DISTRICT FYll ORIGINAL APPROPRIATION

Other Adjustments (with no service impacts) Increase Cost: Annualization of FY11 Personnel Costs

Increase Cost: Circulator Contract [Promotion of Community and Business Activities] Increase Cost: Risk Management Adjustment

Increase Cost: Restore Personnel Costs - Furloughs Decrease Cost: Occupational Medical Services Adjustment Decrease Cost: Group Insurance Adjustment

Decrease Cost: Retirement Adjustment

Decrease Cost: Mise Operating Expenses [Administration]

Decrease Cost: Streetlight Replacement [Streetscape Maintenance1

Decrease Cost: Bethesda Urban Partnership Contract from $3,207,970 to $3,173,110 (1 percent) [Streetscape Maintenance] FY12 RECOMMENDED: Expenditures 3,348,720 49,190 13,040 11,420 1,080 -10 -1,150 -1,610 .4,330 -10,000 -34,860 3,371,490 WYs 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 SILVER SPRING URBAN DISTRICT

FYll ORIGINAL APPROPRIATION

Other Adjustments (with no service impacts) Increase Cost: Restore Personnel Costs - Furloughs Increase Cost: Risk Management Adjustment Increase Cost: Printing and Moil Adjustment

Decrease Cost: Occupational Medical Services Adjustment Decrease Cost: Retirement Adjustment

Decrease Cost: Motor Pool Rate Adjustment Decrease Cost: Group Insurance Adjustment

Decrease Cost: Annualization of FYl1 Personnel Costs FY12 RECOMMENDED: 2,678,940 17,390 8,450 780 -260 -11,090 -19,550 -29,410 -43;860 2,601,390 30.5 L2.

.

~t.

.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.7 t:.:> .

.:':':

WHEATON URBAN DIS'rRICT FY11 ORIGINAL APPROPRIATION

Other Adjustments (with no service impacts) Increase Cost: Motor Pool Rate Adjustment

Increase Cost: Restore Personnel Costs - Furloughs Increase Cost: Annualization of FY11 Personnel Costs Increase Cost: Risk Management Adjustment Increase Cost: Printing and Mail Adjustment

Decrease Cost: Occupational Medical Services Adjustment Decrease Cost: lapse

1,410/170 32,430 9,090 6,650 3,940 650 -170 -6,650 18.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1

Decrease Cost: Retirement Adjustment .10,190 0.0

Decrease Cost: Group Insurance Adjustment -19,480 0.0

(10)

PROGRAM SUMMARY

Promotion of Community and Business Activities 1,135,860 1,146,610

. Sidewalk Repair 143,970 143,970 Ad Streetscape Maintenance 3,153,210 3,073,310 Tree Maintenance 115,810 115,810 Enhanced Security 1,185,300 1,162,290 istration 680 1 757

CHARGES TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS

FUTURE FISCAL IMPACTS

CE REC. ($OOO's)

Title FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

This table is intended to present s!9nlflcant future flscallmc:c.I:.pa.:::.cts::::;;;...::-o:,..f:..:th:.:e:...:d=e::..~,~:.:a:.:.rt:..:m:.:.e=n.:.:f-=s..ip:.:lr-=0.>t:..:glra=.:m.::s:::.:.:...-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - - I

BE'rHESDA URBAN DISTRICT Expe nditu res

FY12 Recommended 3,371 3,371 3,371 3,371 3,371 3,371

No inflation or com~ensotion change is included in outyear projections.

'. Svbtotal Exeendiftlres 3,371 3,371 3,371 3,371 3,371 3,371 '. ';.r

. rSILVER SPRING URBAN DISTRICT E enditures

FY12 Recommended 2,601 2,601 2,601 2,601 2,601 2,601

No inflation or com ensation change is included in outyear rojections.

Motor Pool Rate Adjustment 0 6 6 6 6 6

Svbtotal Ex endiwres 2,601 2,608 2,608 2,608 2,608 2,608

:WHEATON URBAN DISTRICT Expenditures

FY12 Recommended 1,426

No inflation or compensation change is included in outyear projections.

1A26 1,426 1A26 1A26 1,426

Motor Pool Rate Adjustment 0 17 17 17 17 17

I Subtotal Expenditures 1,426 1,444 1,444 1,444 1,444 J,444

(11)

PropMy r ... Rafol: R....t p,..periy

~<Ihl<oa-.: R...I Ptoporfy !OCCJ

PropMy T"" Colladion FacIoi: b ..ll'mperiy

p~TaJ< ~:Pwaonal p,...,.ny

""....,bl. a-.: P...nal Propetly (000) ProP"rtr Tax Con_ Fodor: P....oncH P"'p4Irfy

Ind"""'CwRcm. 0'1 (!'is",,' Y4IGtj T _ Chor;-For s.Mc.. 5vb...tal ...u .... (

Tro"""',. To The Gor.ral Fvnd

Inc:fonoct CoJll

TraM"'!'rom S""';"I Fda: Non.T"" + !Sf

FTom s.n...da Ponang Oislrid

YIAl END FUND BAlAHCI

Assumptions:

L Tra~rsfrom the a.the.scla /'Qrking District era edjusted annually to fund the approved servi<:e program and 10 mClimein an .nding fund

balance of approximately 2.5 percent of ruOUTC,"

2. Property lox revenue i$ assumed to increase over the six years hoS4d on an improved assessable base.

3. large ~bleba,... increases or.. due to ,""a_mic growth and "'"w projects coming 0..1;"",•.

4. 1'hesa praiecliom ..'"" hosed on the Exect.ffive·J Recommended BlJ<Iget and include !ha ,.,....,nue and I'1!$Oun:e assumptions of that budget.

FY13.17 expenditunts are bosed on th<t 'major, known commitments" of erected officials and include negotiated labor ag... ments, estimates of

comp..mcfion and inifaiion cost im:raaS4U, the op<Jrating com of capital i'ocilities, the fiscal impact of "pproved legis/ation or l'09ulAtlons, and other progrommotic: c:ommifm<tnfs. They do not iIKlud. unapproved sorvic:e improvements. The projected Mure oxpenditurM, l'1!MInu.... , and fund balanca may vary hosed on chang", to fee or lox rales, usage, inflation, Mul'e labor agreements. Clnd other !acton no! Qssumed here. 5. Section 68A-.4 of!he County Cod .. requires: 01 that fu" proceeds from either Ihe Urban District lax or parking fee transfer must not be

greo1er!hcJn 90 p.o/'Cent of their combined total; and b) that fu .. transfer from tho Porkitlg District not e>a:eed the number of parking s!",cII!I in

,the Urban Dmrict IimGS tM numbel" of enforcement houn; pery>llCr limes 20 <:IIInts.

I

,

I

'

s@

(12)

f'lT2~17PUBUCSERVICES PROGRAM: fJ5CAt. Pt.AN SiM!r Spring Urban District

fY11 m:z fY1:a 1'Y14

,

_I'YU

I

m6 ! 1'Y17

FISCAl. PROJECTIONS ESTIMATE 1I1C PWOJlcnON PItOJICTION I PIlOJICTlON HOJECflON I PROJrcnoN

ASSUMPTIONS I

O.O2~

Prop4l<iy T"", Rale: R""I P"'P"t1lf 0.024 0.02 0.02.4 0.0241 0.024 0.02

Au.-.bl. a...., Reed Pro.,.ny (000, 1,443,100 2,375,900 1.384,400 Z.44S.000

I

_2,.49S'2~ 2.626.300 1.7il:l,400

I"rop"riy T"" Collodion Fac:!or. R.ol P"']>'Jrtr 99.1% 99.1~ 99.1%

':~

99.1" 99.1~ 99.1"

I'rop«!y Tax loW. P...,n,,11'ropwty 0.060 0.06C 0.060 0.0 0./)40 O.O<!C

Au_obi. &0..: P...'"oll'rop<lr!y !OOOI 1l7,900 127 • .0100 128,000 130,100 133,000 I 13~.200 , 137,600 I'ropoor!y T"" CollOldio.. Factor. hn<>noI ?roper!y 97.!i% 91.5% 97.S% 97.'% 91.~, 97.5%1 97.~

Inditocl eo,t Rate 1 4.19'l(. 14.29% 1••29%! 14.29% u.29'l(,1 14.29%1 14.29%

!

3.2%1

CI'1 (Fiocol i'.at) 2.0'lI0 2.4%

2'~1

.lI.O'lIo 3 . .4%; 3.6%

Invatmanllnco_ '(...1eI O.U% 0.4O'lIo O.90'l0 2J)0'l!.. 2.7S'!!.! 3.~0%1 .'-1:)0%

IIGINNING FUND IA1ANC:E 1.t6.1s.l "2~ 61.3401

! 69,57Q1 n.05Oj 15,6$01 11,450 Illl'aNUI!S 703,nO I T _ 6~5.119O 639,610 641,990 657,630 671.270 734,890 ChCl'9- For s.m.:. 134,000 13..1.000 134,000 134,000 13".000 134.000 13.4.000 S<obfolCl' _ _ _ _ 71iI9..1190 77:1,.610 175,9'10 791s630 H5..270 137.730 i 1I4lI.a90 INT!I!f1JND TRANSnllS (N.. ~IP) 1,5$4,500 1,45:2,1190

1,;,~~~~)! 2,040,290 2.154,.'%90 2,.'%41..290 2..:sas,.'%90

Tra..m..r. To Th. G.ne<aI Fund (220,500) • (243,110) (2+l.110) (243,110) 1243,110) (243,1I0l

l .. dinoct C...** (220.!iOO) (243,110) _(243.1101₁ (2-'3,110) _!:243,11Ol: (243.110) (243,1101 Tra.,.f." mm $peOol Fe!.: Non·T"" + !SF I,B05,COO 1,696,000 _2.181,400

I

_2,2113,..!OO

I

_2,397,400_! 2,3i).4,.0100 2.628,400 F""m Silv... Spring Paricing Cillrict 1,SO$,OOO 1,696,000 2.1111."00 2,283,.0100 • 2,397•.0100 2,3i).4,4OO 2.628•..!OO

I !

TOTAl RESOURCES 3,121,110 :%,661,130 2,11",.620

I

2,901,490

I

3,032,210

i

3,174.070

I

3,332,630

psp OHII. aIJOGlT AntOP/ EXP'S.

I

O~e.xlgef {2,678,94Oj (2,601,390) (2,705,~1 l'UI22,440) , (2. 95(), 1 40J \3.089,1120] i (3,242,53OJ

Motor '<><>lit.... Adj ..

.-nt

n/Q f1Io {6,4001 (6,.0100)1 (6 • .400) (6.4OOJi _, (6 • .oIOO)

Sa..total P5P 01"1' ludgatAppNp IIxp's (2,071,940) (2,60t,390) (%,712,OSG)

i

(%,8'1$,«40)

I

(2,956,560) (3,096,.'%20) i (3,..241,930)

!

TOTAL USE OF RESOURCES (2,6111,"'0) (%,601,390) (2,712,oSO) (2.821,540)1 {2,9".,.S{t0)! {3,Q96,220}! (3,241,930)

! ,

75,6501

"AMi

YEAR END FUND BALANCE 442,.'%30 07,340 ~,570 : 72,650

i

&3,100

fND-Of.YEAlI 1!5111VH AS A

2"J

:z.J

uJ

HltC!NT Of usouaas H..2% 2.5% 2.5% :l.S'!!

As.vmptions:

1, TrQl1$Mors from In. Sm..r Spring Parkil'lg District are odiustecl cnnuollyto fund the approved service progfl:lm and 10 maintain an "nding fund b4lcnce of r:pproxim.rn.iy 2.S p<lt1:ent of l'MOurces.

r'

Properly tax revenue is Q5$lJmed to in<:ntOS8 over the six years bcs.ed on on improved aSS8SSobie bQ~,

3. Larga asseuable bose incr"tmIS aI'S dlJ<!t to "COnomic growth and new projods (;oming online .

... These projl!lctions ora based on the Executivo's R<lcommended Budget and in<:lude the ravenue and fl!l$Qun;e assumptions of that bvdget. !FY13. 17 '""pern:iiture:s aTl!l boSIId on !he "mojoI', known c:ommitment:s' of aleeted officials and include negotiol>..d labor cgreem"nts, asiimm.s

of eomp"nsotion and inlkltion cost increases, tne operating costs of ccpital facilities, the 'fiscal imp<;ct of approved legislation or regulQtiom. and oto", programmatic commitments. Thay do not indude unopproved satviee improvements. The proj<tcted Mu... axpenci1tunls, revenues, Qnd fund balal'\Cll may vary bosed on changes to fee or lax rntss, usage, inflation, future Iobor Qg... m ..nts, and other facto... not Quumed

here.

5. Sedion 6SA.4 of the County Code requires: oJ that the proceeds from eith .. r the Urban District tax or parking r-msmtar must not be

gr8Ol.r than 90 parcent of their combined total; and b) that the ms..mer from the Parking District not exceed the number of perking spaces in the Urban District times lhe number af enforcement hours par year times 20 cenb.

,

I

(13)

M2-17 PUBUCSiRVICES PROGlfAMt FISCAL Pl.AN Wheaton Urban Ois1rid

1'Y'14

I

I'Y'IS ~ "1$ ! l'Y11

F1SCAL PROJ!CTlONS I!SnMAT'I! RIC ",",JEC'nON I PIOJ!CTlON PROJECTION ! PROJECTION ! PROJECTION

I'Y'Il m3

MSUMPnOHS _! !

Propoorty r"" Rollo; I!....I P""I""1Y 0.030 0,03e . 0.030\ a.OlO 0.0301 0.030 O,03C

AA_bI. ea..., R_I Propoorly (000) 479,600 -464,AOO 468,100 ! 480,000 ~9,900

I

515,600 540,200

I'ro~T"" c>u...:n<.n !'ador. Rool Prci>""Y 99.1%' 99.1"

99.1'l.j

99.1% 99.1%. 99.1" 99.1'11>

P"'periy Tax RoN: 1'.".0""/ l'to,..ny 0,075 0.07! 0.0751 0.075 0,075 0.075 O.O7~

...bl. llc_ P<moncl Propet1y (OOOl 29,1100 29,400 29,500 I 30,000 3tI,700 31.200 31,700

ProJ>l"lY Tax c..lle<!io" Fad"" P....".,I Propoony 97.S'IIi 97." 97.S'!!. 97.5% 97." 97.5% 97.3%

I I

lrocii.... COlt I!cd. 14.29% lU9'lI! T4.2~ U.29'!!.i )'(,29% l.4.%~l 14.29'l1. CP1 (F"caI Y ...r) 2.Q'lfi 2.4% 2.7% 3.Q'!(,! I 3.:2% 3.4","\ 3.0'11.

I..-tm.rri lo<.om. Yi.1d O,U'!!. 0 ...0% O.W!Ii 2.00%! Z,75'li. 3,SO%I 4.00')(,

I1GINNING fUND aAlANC! 277,440 145,540 37,270 33.400/ 40,130 41,9"101 44,010

IIVINUU _! i

Tax.. 164,160 160,160 160.740 16".6.40

I

168,100

!

176,110 1113,790

S .. biofal~_ 1....,160 160,160 UoO,74d' _{164... 0}_I 161,100 j 116,1112 143,1110

I

INTIElU'UJIID ntAM5nltS (Htol NotI.Qp) 1,114,130 1,157,990 1,34;l,A90 1 ",OS,.210 _l,471,2'~

I

1,543,210

I

1,621,210 Trans!... To TIt. a.n.rQ! n.nd {U7,21lO) 11.42,4201 (142,420) (142,4l0) IU2,.420), IU2• .420) 11.42.420)

lndinoc! Co.I> (127,100) (l ~2,.42OJ P.42,..2Ol, (142,,4l0) p.42,.t2OJ (142,420) (l42,.420)

Trans!.., Fro", 111. 0.""",1 Fomd 949,090 l,ooa,09O 1,192,590 ! 1,255,310 1,322,310 1,393,:110 , 1,471,310

T" llcuofi .... s.r.w:.. 76,090 76,090 76,090 i 76,090 76.090 76,090 ! 76,090 T.. No".a...ne~ 873.000 932,000 1,116,.500 1 1.179,220 1,2..16,120 1,317.220

I

r.:l9~.220

TraM!_ F""m Spacicl Fd., I'I .. ""rex i' ISF 292.:nO 292.320 :Z72.320 i 292,320 '292.320 292,320 , 292.310

F""m Wh_n PorIOng DistricI 292,320 %92,320 _.292.320

I

292.320 292,320 292,320

I

292,320

TOTAL RESOURCES 1,.$$5,730 1,463,110 1.540,500

!

1,6Oa,250 I 1,61$1,.lMO . 1,161,310

I

1,M9,06(\

I

(l.6:21,~1

PSI' OMIL aUCGfT AnaOP!1XP'S. _I

Opoorating ~~ - (1,410.170) (1.426.«0) (1.484,980) (1.5150.300) l (1.700.020) (l.7Ss,~lOJ

-..'001 Ml"#moInt "/,,, n/Q [17,220) _{17.220)i _fl7.22°I,

,

fl7,2201 (17,220) S<lb_IPSP0,.. a..dpt Apprap ! &pit (,,,,,1 0.1 10} flAUMO} (1,502,1 OO} _{(1,.$07,.5201}1 ('I,639,OI.IO}! (1,717,2.40) ('I,lI02,730}

1

TOTAL USE OF RESOURCES (1,410,170} (1A2oMO) (1,.$02.'",· (1,547,.520) I (1.439,O!Sl)}I (1,117,2.40)} (1,302,1341

YEAR END fUND BALANCE 145,.561) 31,27111 ~,40()

:

! _40,730

I

41,990 44,010

I

46,330 I

!HI.'I-01.l'EAlt IIUJlYI.$ AS A _!

H1ICI!NT 0' IIIlIOUIIaS U'JI 2.5% 2.S,.J 2.5% . 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%

Assumeffoms,

1. Transfers from tho Wheaton Parlcing Oislrid are adj\J$teQ annoolly to fund tho approved service Pl'09rom and 10 moinltlin an ending fund bolance' of 0PProJOmotoly 2.5 pen:eurt of ruourc:es.

2. Properly '!ax revenue ;$ aa:iumed to increase <;ovor the ";,, yea"" based on an improved oSS<USQbl.. ba... 3. Large a _ h i . base in<:rllCl$l!lS ore due 10 economic: growth and new projecb c:omin9 onli"",

4. Tho Boseline Se~tronsfer provides bclsic right-Qf-way mointenQm: .. compal'Qble to _rvices providod countywide, 5. Tho Non-Bose""" Services transfer is nec_ry to mCiintain fund balan<:lt palicy.

6. These projedians ant based on tho Executive's R...:ommended Budget and includ$ tho reVenue and I'O$OUrco OS$vmpnon:s of ihat budget. FY1 3.17 expenditures are based on the "mojor, known eommi:lmems' of eIacted officials and include negotiated ta bar Qgrnments, mmote5

I

of compensotian and intlaticn cost incntasas, the operating costs of ccpital facilities, tM n=1 impad of approved legislation or regulations, and olMr programmatic commitments, They do not include unopPl'l)\fod selYtce improvements. The proj.a.d fuN... expenditures, revenues, land fund balonce mQy vory based on chang" to fee or tax mtes, 1.1$(190, infia1i<:on, future labor agraoments, and otMr fcdor:s nat assumed

here.

7. S<!dion 68A-4 of !he County Codo l"IKIuires: eJ that 1M proceeds from either tho Urban Oistrid fox or parking fee transfer must not 1>0 9f1!1crtflr than 90 pel'Qlnl of !heir combined totcd; and b} thot th. transfer from the PerkinS Distrid not exC80d ih.. number of pcsrlcing spaces in the Urban Distrid times th. number. of enfercement hours per yeor times 20 "ents..

(14)

COMPARISON OF URBAN DISTRICT FUNDING SOURCES

FYll-FY12

Urban District FYll Estimate FY12 CE Rec. Bethesda Urban District

Beginning Fund Balance 180,600 12,820

Revenues

Urban District Tax 477,040 465,460

Charges for services to optional method development 130,000 130,000

Interfund Transfers

Transfer to the General Fund for indirect costs* -7,910 -15,790 Transfer from Bethesda Parking Lot District 2,593,000 2,865,000

Total Resources 3,372,730 3,457,490

Operating budget expenditures -3,359,910 -3,371,490

Projected year end fund balance 12,820 86,000

End of year reserves as a % of resources 0.4% 2.5%

Silver Spring Urban District

Revenues

Charges for services to optional method development 134,000 134,000

Transfer to the General Fund for indirect costs* -220,500 -243,110 Transfer from Silver Spring Parking Lot District 1,805,000 1,696,000

Total Resources 3,121,170 2,668,730

Wheaton Urban District

Revenues

Transfer to the General Fund for indirect costs* -127,280 -142,420 Transfer from the General Fund for baseline services 76,090 76,090 Transfer from the General Fund for non-baseline services 873,000 932,000 Transfer from Wheaton Parking Lot District 292,320 292,320

Total Resources 1,555,730 1,463,710

*Indirect costs are calculated by formula to cover the costs for services provided to the Urban Districts by centralized funclions such as Human Resources, and Budget. County Attorney, Etc. As with other funds. indirecr costs are transterred from the Urban District funds to the General Fund.