Marked set by osterksFY2011-12 Proposed Budget …...FY2011-12 Proposed Budget in Brief City of...

osterks

Sticky Note

Marked set by osterks

spitzerab

Text Box

FY2011-12 Proposed Budget in Brief

spitzerab

Text Box

City of Gainesville, Florida

2

the necessity of trimming $8.3 million in order to balance the General Fund budget for FY11 and FY12.

The following chart demonstrates that the projected financial difficulties are not confined to the next

two years.

FY11 Budget FY12 Plan FY13 FY14 FY15Utility transfer 35,154,463 36,222,989 36,500,762 37,931,761 39,004,830 Property tax 23,609,120 23,018,892 23,479,270 24,183,648 25,150,994 Utility tax 10,415,919 10,540,538 10,681,087 10,973,412 11,208,653 Charges for services 7,568,008 7,913,999 7,970,961 8,283,286 8,546,729 Half cent sales tax 5,833,121 5,949,783 6,187,433 6,434,930 6,756,677 State revenue sharing 2,275,095 2,343,228 2,374,919 2,512,169 2,692,443 Communication services tax 5,619,442 5,703,734 5,811,213 5,869,325 5,928,018 Other revenues 7,837,223 8,082,088 9,154,356 9,325,323 9,432,516 Total revenues 98,312,391 99,775,251 102,160,001 105,513,854 108,720,860

Personal services 64,337,773 66,968,112 69,533,023 72,245,793 75,574,663 Operating expenditures 25,180,773 25,604,451 26,490,882 27,492,036 28,903,810 Debt service 9,995,307 10,315,717 9,953,635 11,242,392 8,194,463 Infrastructure/FY15 debt issue - - - - 3,356,000 Non operating & capital 5,488,413 5,167,376 6,125,517 6,336,888 6,557,320 Total expenditures 105,002,266 108,055,656 112,103,057 117,317,109 122,586,256

Projected deficit (6,689,875) (8,280,405) (9,943,056) (11,803,255) (13,865,396)

FY11 - FY15 GENERAL FUNDForecast

The contributing factors to these deficits have been developing over the past several years. Three issues

have arisen which have combined to recast our financial paradigm.

National and global economic downturn – Economic cycles by their very definition come and go.

However, there are characteristics of the most recent economic events which give rise to

broader concerns. First is the depth, the most devastating in the past 80 years. Second, but just

as troubling, is the fact that as we are now truly a global economy, these events can come

suddenly, without the benefit of warning from leading economic indicators, and from sources

over which traditional economic regulators have little or no control.

Legislative changes – We have seen the effects of House Bill 1B in 2007 and Amendment 1 in

2008 on our ad valorem revenues. Together with the impact of the economic slowdown on the

real estate market, these two initiatives have turned what was once a stable revenue source,

the General Fund’s second largest at approximately 25% of total revenues, into a much more

unpredictable revenue stream.

The success of Gainesville Regional Utilities’ demand‐side management programs – The

effectiveness of GRU’s demand side management programs, the lagging economy and

resulting price sensitivity to recent rate increases, has slowed growth in GRU sales, particularly

in the electric and water systems. This in turn has slowed the rate of growth in the General Fund

Transfer, the General Fund’s single largest revenue source, accounting for approximately 35%

of our revenue.

3

The result has been a distinct decline in the growth rate of General Fund revenue. Almost 78% of

General Fund revenues come from four sources:

Utility transfer

Property tax

Utility tax

Intergovernmental revenues (half cent sales tax and state revenue sharing)

The growth rate of these sources has been slowing over recent years, and there is no empirical evidence

to suggest that the potential exists for significant growth from these sources on the immediate horizon.

As will be discussed in more detail later in this document, General Government and Gainesville Regional

Utilities have entered into an agreement to lock in utility transfers at specified levels through FY14.

While this agreement affords us budgetary stability and a guarantee of some growth, the 2.84% average

annual growth through FY14 is considerably less than forecasted just two years ago. Property tax

revenues have flattened due to a combination of legislative action and a soft real estate market. The

potential is there for some growth in utility taxes, but this is on a scale of two to three hundred

thousand dollars per year in potential growth for this source against a $100 million dollar total revenue

budget. State intergovernmental revenues have declined drastically over the past five years, and staff is

forecasting modest increases as the State’s economy recovers.

73.1978.86

84.4490.06 92.76 95.87 96.11 97.96 98.31 99.78

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

General Fund Revenue Trendmillions

7.75%7.08%

6.66%

3.00%3.35%

0.25%

1.92%

0.36%

1.50%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

9.00%

FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Annual % Revenue Growth

Our reaction to this altered revenue picture over the past several years has been to implement short

and intermediate term initiatives to significantly tighten expenditure controls – a hiring freeze, a travel

freeze, and intensified review of quarterly expenditure patterns. These initiatives have been extremely

successful, and have allowed us to protect General Fund reserves as revenues have fallen short of

forecasts over the past two years. However, they are intermediate term measures and are not intended

or sustainable for the long‐term.

It has become imperative that we resize the organization to fit our revised revenue outlook. Over the

course of our budgetary travails of the past four years, I am confident that we have been successful in

making many tactical changes to the way we do business. However, the continuing projected budget

4

deficits evidence that going forward we must focus on strategic changes and challenge some of the

underlying structural issues in our long‐term expenditure patterns. The current projected path of our

expenditure levels does not appear to be sustainable for an organization of our size, and a continued

cycle of tactical cuts threatens to bleed us of our ability to remain an effective and efficient service

delivery entity. Therefore, as part of the effort in putting together proposed expenditure reductions for

this recommended budget I directed staff to focus on identifying organizational efficiencies which would

bring about a significant flattening of the General Government organizational structure. These changes

will impact all levels of the operation, from top to bottom, and have resulted in a recommended

reduction in management positions in many of the largest General Government departments such as

Gainesville Police Department

Parks, Recreation & Cultural Affairs

Budget & Finance

Administrative Services

General Services, and

Planning & Development Services

Another area of emphasis for the upcoming two year budget cycle is the City’s benefit structure. Defined

benefit pension plans have come under intense scrutiny as the turbulence in the financial markets has

impacted the asset levels of governmental pension plans across Florida and the nation. As will be

covered in detail in the expenditure section of this message, the City’s two defined benefit plans were

no exception to this pattern of significant investment losses. And while these losses will translate into

significant increases in pension contribution expense in FY11 and FY12, the financial status of our

pension funds remains sound and on a comparative basis to municipal pension plans in Florida our

contribution rates are modest. This is attributed to the effective administration of our investment

portfolio and also to the fact that we have controlled the growth in benefit levels over the past decade

more effectively than the majority of our peers. It has been the City’s goal to maintain our overall

benefit package in the mid‐range of our peers and we have stayed true to that goal.

It is standard practice to review the components of our benefits on an ongoing basis. Nevertheless,

given the marked increase in contribution levels projected for FY11 and FY12, I have directed staff to

work with the City’s actuaries, pension consultants and financial advisors to conduct a thorough analysis

of the City’s pension plans in the upcoming year. This will be a comprehensive study including a review

of plan assumptions, benefit levels and a determination of the appropriate form of plan to provide going

forward. The objective is to develop a list of potential alternatives and to describe how these various

alternatives may impact plan costs in the future. Our intent is to complete this study early in calendar

year 2011 and present the findings to the Commission prior to the FY12 budget update process.

Clearly there are a number of contributing factors to our financial situation on both the revenue and

expenditure sides of the equation. Given the composition of our General Fund expenditures, with public

safety and fixed costs making up approximately 66% of total costs, to balance this budget strictly

through expenditure control would result in solutions that are too draconian in nature, and I believe

would reduce our service delivery to levels which would be unacceptable to our citizens.

5

48

18

34

General Fund Expenditures

Police & Fire

Debt/TIF/Utilities

Other

66% public safety & non‐discretionary

%%

%

Therefore, in addition to the proposed decrement package that has been prepared, I am suggesting

consideration of a revenue alternative through a fire assessment which could serve to offset a portion of

these proposed decrements. The fire assessment would provide sorely needed diversification to our

revenue base and allow for a balanced approach in dealing with our fiscal issues in the coming years. In

the event that the City Commission does not adopt a fire assessment, an increase in the ad valorem

millage to the rolled‐back rate or greater may well be necessary to ensure that appropriate service levels

are maintained.

A detailed listing of my recommended budget decrements is outlined in the City Manager

recommendation section of this document. The chart below summarizes the scope of the proposed

decrements, which are categorized in three tiers. Tier 1 decrements are those which are damaging to

the organization but represent the least impact to core services and, while not desirable, would be the

first level of reductions recommended. Tier 3 decrements reflect those reductions which represent the

most significant impact to core services, and would be the last to be recommended for elimination from

the budget. In keeping with this categorization, any incremental revenues resulting from

implementation of a fire assessment would be recommended to replace Tier 3 decrements first.

Offsetting the Tier 3 decrements in this manner will allow us to preserve, to the extent possible, delivery

of core services such as public safety as we move through this resizing of the organization. Additional

fire assessment revenue could be used to selectively maintain services impacted by reduction options in

Tiers 1 and 2.

Fire

Total Personal Other Assessment

Filled Vacant Positions # Services $ Expenditures $ Total $ Alternative

Tier 1 8.00 22.35 30.35 2,371,600 1,224,387 3,595,987

Tier 2 2.50 6.60 9.10 728,371 161,497 889,868

Tier 3 33.25 18.00 51.25 3,495,663 298,887 3,794,550 3,794,550

Total 43.75 46.95 90.70 6,595,634 1,684,771 8,280,405

Personal Services

The recommended budget as outlined in this message will contain adjustments sufficient to balance

both the FY11 and FY12 budgets. While instituting $8.3 million in budgetary relief will create slightly

6

larger reductions than are initially required for FY11 only, the incremental FY11 savings placed in

General Fund reserves will allow us to comply with our General Fund reserve policy.

FY11 Budget FY12 Plan FY13 FY14 FY15

Revenues 98,312,391 99,775,251 102,160,001 105,513,854 108,720,860

Expenditures 105,002,266 108,055,656 112,103,057 117,317,109 122,586,256

Net Deficit (6,689,875) (8,280,405) (9,943,056) (11,803,255) (13,865,396)

Recurring Decrements 7,379,792 8,280,405 8,590,564 8,990,120 9,393,902

Remaining surplus (deficit) 689,917 ‐ (1,352,492) (2,813,135) (4,471,494)

Forecast

FY11 ‐ FY15 NET DEFICITS

Initiating the reductions in FY11 will also provide a margin of correction for our revenue forecasting

process. In these times of a truly global economy, economic forces both near and far can rapidly trigger

financial events such as those which we have experienced over the past several years. In conjunction

with other issues such as legislative changes, despite conservative revenue forecasting techniques the

potential for negative variability in the City’s revenue streams has increased markedly in recent years as

detailed below.

FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Projected

Original Budget 82,224,627 86,494,356 92,183,664 94,605,052 97,899,511 99,970,871

Actual 84,437,697 90,055,096 92,780,892 95,871,631 96,108,683 97,959,348

$ Difference 2,213,070 3,560,740 597,228 1,266,579 (1,790,828) (2,011,523)

% Difference 2.69% 4.12% 0.65% 1.34% ‐1.83% ‐2.01%

GENERAL FUND REVENUES

Based on these factors, putting forth budget proposals to deal with the total estimated deficit for the

full FY11 and FY12 periods is the financially responsible and prudent path to follow, and one that will

safeguard our financial position going forward. This financial plan was cited as a key to maintaining our

Aa3 bond rating by Moody’s and AA‐ rating by Fitch as part of their recent review of the City’s finances

in conjunction with the issuance of the Series 2010 Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds.

The following reflects the detail of my recommended FY11 and FY12 Financial and Operating Plan.

Gainesville’s General Fund expenditure budget, before recommended decrements, is $105,002,266 for

FY11 and $108,055,656 for FY12. Acceptance of my recommended expenditure adjustments will result

in a surplus of $689,917 in FY11 which will be deposited into General Fund reserves and in a balanced

budget for FY12.

7

STRATEGIC GOALS

The strategic planning and goal setting process for the FY11 budget occurred during the City Commission

retreat on June 7, 2010. The purpose of the workshop was to establish goals for the year that serve as a

guideline for resource allocation for the construction of the FY11 and FY12 Financial and Operating Plan.

One of the principal Commission directives coming out of this workshop was to build the FY11 and FY12

budgets under the assumption of no new revenue sources.

Following are the strategic goals which the City Commission identified:

Public Safety – Maintain a safe and healthy community in which to live.

Economic Development & Redevelopment – Foster economic development and encourage redevelopment.

Human Capital – Assist every person to reach their true potential.

Effective Governance – Continue to increase the effectiveness of local government and maintain a strong fiscal condition.

Infrastructure & Transportation – Invest in community infrastructure and continue to enhance the transportation network and systems.

Neighborhoods – Improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods for the benefit of all residents.

Environment & Energy – Protect and sustain our natural environment and address future energy needs.

FUND ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING

The governmental financial reporting model is based on the concept of fund accounting. A fund is

defined as a separate fiscal and accounting entity, segregated for the purpose of performing specific

activities or attaining certain objectives in accordance with special regulations, restrictions or

limitations. Governments must comply with significant legal restrictions on the use of public resources,

and the use of separate funds allows public officials to monitor and demonstrate compliance with these

restrictions.

Following are the financial highlights of the FY11 and FY12 Financial and Operating Plan, focusing on the

City’s General Fund and Enterprise Funds. The majority of the narrative and schedules pertain to the

General Fund, which is the chief operating fund, and is used to account for all activities except those

required to be accounted for in a separate fund. In the “Other Funds” section there is a review of each

of the City’s enterprise funds, which are used to account for activities where a fee is charged with the

intent to fully recover the cost of providing the service.

8

GENERAL FUND

REVENUES

There has been a distinct slowing in the growth rate of General Fund revenues over the past five years.

Four revenue sources make up approximately 78% of total General Fund revenues:

Utility transfer

Property tax

Utility tax, and

Intergovernmental revenues (half‐cent sales tax & state revenue sharing)

With the exception of property tax, where the City Commission sets the millage rate, the City has little

control over the pace of the growth of these major revenue sources. Over the five year period between

FY02 and FY06, the average annual growth of these revenues was 7.16%. Over the next five year period

from FY06 – FY10 (with FY10 projected), the average annual growth rate of these sources was less than

half of that of the previous five years, falling to 3.43%. The estimated growth rate for the period from

FY10 through FY12 declines all the way to 0.85% per year. This deteriorating growth rate for sources

which account for the majority of General Fund revenues explains the revenue side of the General Fund

deficit equation.

The following review reflects upcoming issues specific to each of these major revenue sources.

Utility transfer ‐ The transfer from Gainesville Regional Utilities is the single largest revenue source for

the General Fund comprising approximately 35% of General Fund revenues. Since 2000, the transfer has

been structured as follows:

Electric System – the Electric System transfer is based on a formula which is tied to a three year

average of retail kilowatt hours delivered. As long as the three year rolling average of retail

kilowatt hours delivered was positive, the base portion of the Electric System component of the

transfer increased by 3%. There was also an incentive portion, which provided to the General

Fund 3% of net interchange sales, plus one‐half of the average increase in retail kilowatt hours

delivered for the prior three fiscal years that exceeds 3%, applied to the current base dollar

transfer.

Water, Wastewater and Gas Systems – the transfer formulas for these systems provided to the

General Fund 14.65% of the second preceding audited fiscal year’s gross revenues less fuel

expense and surcharges, plus the current year’s surcharges.

An increased degree of variability had been introduced into the former transfer formulas related to the

effectiveness of GRU’s demand‐side management efforts and the lagging economy. These factors had

combined to significantly reduce the projected growth rate of the transfer. Converting to the specific

dollar transfer allows for budgetary stability and a certainty of cash flow for both the Utility and General

Government during unpredictable fiscal times. It also provides guaranteed growth in the General Fund’s

largest revenue source, approximately 2.84% on average per year through FY14.

9

In February of 2010, staff took a proposal to the Regional Utilities Committee to suspend the current

formula methodology and lock in specific dollar level transfers to the General Fund for the period FY11 –

FY14. These dollar levels were developed as part of the FY10 budgeting process and represented the

utility’s projections for the transfers over the next four fiscal years.

36.938.9

41.243.2

27.529.5 30.4 31.5

34.2 34.1 35.2 36.2 36.7 38.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Utility Transfer

2009 projection

Revised formula

2.84% avg. annual growth FY10 ‐ FY14millions

To limit potential exposure for the Utility and General Government related to this change in

methodology, each year between FY11 and FY14, audited financial statements will be used to calculate

what the transfer would have been under the previous formula. Any difference greater than $500,000 in

either direction between the previous formula amount and the fixed dollar transfer will be shared

equally by the Utility and General Government.

Property tax – Reduced to its simplest form, generation of ad valorem revenue is dependent upon two

components, the millage rate levied and the taxable property value base against which that millage rate

is applied. In recent years, both sides of this equation have been impacted in a manner that has resulted

in a reduced revenue stream, transforming what once was a stable source of income for Florida local

governments into a much less predictable funding mechanism.

Millage rate – House Bill 1B passed by the Legislature in 2007 required the City in FY08 to roll its millage

rate back to FY06 levels and then further reduce the millage rate by 3% based on our five‐year property

tax revenue per capita history relative to the state average. This resulted in our millage rate declining

from 4.8509 in 2007 to 4.2544 in 2008, a 12.3% decrease. In 2009, the City Commission voted to move

to the rolled back rate of 4.3963.

10

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6Trend in Millage Rates

Retirement of GO 1974 2007 Property tax reform: House Bill 1B

Move to rolled back rate

Budget Plan

As depicted in the chart above, my recommended FY11 and FY12 Financial and Operating Plan assumes

that the millage rate will remain at the current rate of 4.3963 for both the FY11 Budget and the FY12

Plan.

The following charts provide perspective on how the City’s millage rate levy compares both to other

local taxing entities as well as Florida peer cities. These peer cities were selected based on similarity in

population to Gainesville.

0.41581.3771

4.3963

8.29959.408

23.8967

0

5

10

15

20

25

St Johns WMD

Alachua Cty. Library Dist

City of Gainesville

Alachua County

School Board

Total

Local Millage Rates

3.2 3.54.2 4.4 4.7 4.7 4.8 5.0 5.4

5.9 5.9

8.5

0123456789

Florida Peer City Millage Rates

11

In FY10, of the 23.8967 mills levied in direct and overlapping rates, Gainesville’s 4.3963 levy accounted

for only 18.39% of the total levy and is fourth lowest among Florida peer cities. The following table

demonstrates the tax bill from each of these taxing entities :

Assessed Value 100,000 150,000 200,000 350,000

Taxable Value 50,000 100,000 150,000 300,000

Millage Rate

St. Johns Water Management District 0.4158 20.79 41.58 62.37 124.74

Alachua County Library District 1.3771 68.86 137.71 206.57 413.13

City of Gainesville 4.3963 219.82 439.63 659.45 1,318.89

Alachua County 8.2995 414.98 829.95 1,244.93 2,489.85

School Board of Alachua County 9.408 705.60 1,176.00 1,646.40 3,057.60

Total 23.8967 1,430.04 2,624.87 3,819.71 7,404.21

ESTIMATED TAX BILL BY TAXING ENTITY

Taxable base ‐ Two factors have combined in recent years to affect the growth of Gainesville’s taxable

property value. One was legislative, the approval by Florida voters in January of 2008 of

Amendment 1. This amendment expanded exemptions to taxable property values through:

Essentially doubling the existing $25,000 homestead exemption

Providing for portability of accumulated Save Our Homes exemptions

Providing a 10% cap on the growth in assessments of non‐homesteaded property, and

Establishing a $25,000 exemption on tangible property tax

For Gainesville, this exacerbated the problem of an extensive portion of our property value being off the

tax rolls due to the heavy concentration of University of Florida (UF) and government owned property

within our corporate limits. With 54% of our property value exempt from tax, Gainesville has the lowest

percentage of taxable to gross value of all Florida cities.

The second and more significant factor affecting our tax base has been the economic downturn. The

chart below outlines recent statistics in the local single‐family housing market.

Median Closed

Sales Price Transactions

2006 213,200 3,174

2007 210,400 2,644

2008 189,100 1,925

2009 168,700 1,828

Source: Florida Association of Realtors and the

UF Bergstrom Center for Real Estate studies

Single Family Existing Homes

GAINESVILLE MSA

The combined effects of these factors have contributed to a pronounced change in the growth rate of

the City’s taxable base. The June 1, 2010 preliminary taxable base information provided by the Property

Appraiser indicated that over the past year the City’s tax base declined 5.45% to $5.565 billion. The

FY12 budget projects a further 2.5% decline in FY12. Based on these assumptions, the following chart

details the trend in the City’s gross taxable value.

12

3.563.81

4.34

4.97

5.63 5.70 5.67 5.895.56 5.42

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Trend in Gross Taxable ValueBillions

The charts below provide a comparison as to how our taxable value compares to our peer cities in

Florida as well as Gainesville’s percentage of property on the tax rolls relative to our peers.

2.55.9

7.89.8 10.2 10.2 10.7 10.8

13.515.7

25.1

30.5

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Peer City Taxable Property Value FY09Billions

4655 60 64 66 66 68 72 73 74 75

94

0102030405060708090

100

Peer City % of Property Taxable FY09% taxable

Gainesville’s net taxable value is the second lowest among our Florida peers. As noted previously our

percentage of property that is taxable of 46% places us not only the lowest among our peers but the

lowest in the state.

Applying the assumptions of maintaining the current millage rate of 4.3963 to the $5.565 billion taxable

value figure from the Property Appraiser produces a projected property tax revenue figure for the FY11

budget of $23,609,120. In FY12, the assumed 2.5% decline in the tax base with the same millage rate

generates property tax revenue of $23,018,892. The chart below outlines the recent trend in the City’s

ad valorem revenue based on these projections.

13

15.5316.93

18.1420.52

23.28 23.11 23.2125.02

23.61 23.02

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27


Property Tax Revenuemillions

The charts below provide a comparison of where Gainesville stands relative to its Florida peers in terms

of both property tax revenue and property tax revenue per capita for FY09.

23.2 25.633.6 34.0

44.9 46.9 51.6

75.4 75.989.7

123.1 124.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Peer City Property Tax Revenue FY09millions

175 191 264 272 289 341 427 449 535693

870

1309

0200400600800100012001400

Peer City Property Tax RevenuePer Capita FY09per capita revenue

As the charts indicate, Gainesville is lowest among its Florida peers in both gross property tax revenue

and property tax revenue per capita.

As this information indicates, Gainesville faces a different set of challenges than other Florida cities in

terms of property tax revenue generation. Due to the large percentage of property off the tax rolls, ad

valorem revenue is not as efficient a mechanism for generating revenue as in other locales. This is

contributing to the overall flattening of the General Fund revenue totals and emphasizes the need to

further diversify our revenue base to deal with our financial difficulties.

14

Utilizing the June 1 preliminary numbers from the Property Appraiser, we have estimated the rolled‐

back rate for FY11 at 4.7220. As noted earlier, the FY11 budget is built based on the millage rate

remaining at its current level of 4.3963. The following table details the incremental revenue potential in

moving from 4.3963 to the projected rolled back rate.

Current millage rate Estimated rolled‐back Incremental

@ 4.3963 @ 4.7220 revenue

Current year gross taxable value 5,565,000,000 5,565,000,000

Divided by 1,000 1,000 1,000

Times millage rate 4.3963 4.722

= Estimated ad valorem proceeds 24,465,410 26,277,930

Discounted @ 3.5% 0.965 0.965

= Projected ad valorem revenue 23,609,120 25,358,202 1,749,082

Based on current estimates, a decision to move to the rolled‐back rate for FY11 will generate an extra

$1,749,082 in property tax revenue for the upcoming year.

Utility tax – The FY11 and FY12 utility tax projections were provided by Gainesville Regional Utilities

staff.

6.37 6.37 6.456.99

7.83

9.24 9.4210.25 10.42 10.54

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Utility Taxmillions

Approximately 98% of utility tax is generated through electric, water, and natural gas utility taxes. This

revenue is a function of consumption and price, and the impact of the slowdown in the rate of

consumption in recent years has been somewhat offset by rate increases.

15

Intergovernmental revenues – As the chart below demonstrates, combined half‐cent sales tax and state

revenue sharing funds peaked in FY06 at approximately $10.60 million and have dropped precipitously

since then. FY10 revenues are projected at $8.11 million, a 23% decline from the FY06 high‐water mark.

Staff is projecting that FY11 revenue will be flat at FY10 levels before improving slightly in FY12.

7.10

8.60

10.0010.60

10.16 9.77

8.50 8.11 8.11 8.29

0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.00

10.0011.00


1/2 Cent Sales Tax & State Revenue Sharingmillions

Total revenues – Below is a summary, by major category, of FY10 General Fund budgeted and projected

revenues, as well as the FY11 revenue budget and FY12 revenue plan.

FY10 Budget FY10 Projection FY11 Budget FY12 Plan

Utility transfer 34,972,788 34,065,617 35,154,463 36,222,989

Property tax 25,015,326 25,015,326 23,609,120 23,018,892

Utility tax 9,696,998 10,252,689 10,415,919 10,540,538

Charges for services 7,349,316 7,120,211 7,568,008 7,913,999

Half cent sales tax 6,048,962 5,833,121 5,833,121 5,949,783

State revenue sharing 2,343,766 2,279,768 2,275,095 2,343,228

Communication services tax 5,640,306 5,412,762 5,619,442 5,703,734

Other revenues 8,903,409 7,979,854 7,837,223 8,082,088

Total revenues 99,970,871 97,959,348 98,312,391 99,775,251

TOTAL REVENUES

16

EXPENDITURES

As the table below demonstrates, in the face of the fiscal crisis over the past several years, expenditure

controls have been tightened significantly in the General Fund.

Projected

FY08 FY09 FY10

Actual 98,175,378 96,129,692 97,170,299

Budget 98,845,268 98,609,808 100,431,214

% expended 99.32% 97.48% 96.75%

Actual

General Fund Expenditures

Several administrative measures were put in place to control the rate of expenditures. First, a hiring

freeze was instituted whereby every position which becomes vacant is scrutinized by senior

management. Only those positions deemed critical for operations are approved to be advertised for

filling. Second, a travel freeze was initiated which follows a similar process. Finally, a procedure was put

in place in FY09 under which each department head meets quarterly with budget staff to review their

department budget vs. actual expenditure reports on a line by line basis, which are then used to

generate expenditure projections for the balance of the fiscal year. These reports and projections are

presented to the City’s Audit & Finance Committee, and then to the full City Commission each quarter.

Even taking into account these austerity measures, there are several issues driving General Fund costs

over the FY11 and FY12 periods:

Fire Station 8 is expected to open approximately midway through the FY11 fiscal year. A full year

of operating expenditures for this station, including a complement of 13 additional firefighters,

is approximately $950,000.

COPS grant funding for 12 police patrol positions will expire midway through FY11, requiring

that the General Fund pick up this expense.

Due to two years of investment losses and a reduction in the investment return assumption rate

in the General Employees’ Pension Plan, employer contributions to the City’s two defined

benefit contribution plans are expected to increase significantly over the next two fiscal years.

The City’s net payments to Alachua County under the Fire Services Administration Agreement

are expected to rise more than anticipated in part due to last year’s SW20th Avenue

annexation

The following discussion addresses some of the more significant expenditure issues over the next two

years.

17

Personal services – The significant categories of personal services expense are broken down in the table

below:

FY10 Adopted FY10 Projection FY11 Budget FY12 Plan

Direct salaries & wages 46,177,080 45,262,404 47,587,559 48,893,223

Overtime 1,391,859 1,101,651 1,331,832 1,332,832

Pension contributions 2,693,384 2,592,952 4,543,202 5,307,427

Health insurance 3,612,691 3,701,132 4,125,001 4,558,829

Other salaries & fringes 6,324,963 6,076,081 6,750,179 6,875,801

Total 60,199,977 58,734,220 64,337,773 66,968,112

General Fund Personal Services

Salaries & wages – As mentioned above, 13 more firefighter and 12 more police patrol positions will be

picked up in the General Fund midway through FY11. No salary increases have been proposed as part of

the FY11 budget, but 2% increases are incorporated in the FY12 Plan. These increased positions, as well

as the fact that the hiring freeze has kept the actual vacancy rate in FY10 higher than the FY11 budgeted

rate of 1.5%, accounts for the 5.1% increase from the FY10 projected direct salaries and wages to the

FY11 budgeted level.

Overtime – Gainesville Police Department and Gainesville Fire Rescue are the predominant users of

overtime in the General Fund. Each of these departments has focused on limiting this expense to the

extent possible in the past several years, as evidenced by the reduction in annual expenditures from

$1,823,753 in FY08 to a projected $1,101,651 in FY10.

Pension contributions – The dramatic reversal in the financial markets that began in September of 2008

wreaked havoc on the market value of pension plan assets all over the country, and the City of

Gainesville’s defined benefit pension plans were no exception. As we have stated before, pension

liabilities are long‐term in nature and the investment plan and asset allocation strategy to fund these

liabilities should be long‐term as well. Accordingly, approximately 70% of the City’s defined benefit plan

assets are invested in equities. This exposure to equities contributed to poor returns on assets over the

past two fiscal years as the table below demonstrates.

FY08 FY09

General Employees Plan ‐16.41% ‐1.79%

Consolidated Police Officers' & Firefighters' Plan ‐16.19% ‐3.77%

DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS RETURN ON ASSETS

Obviously, returns of this nature had a significant negative impact on the asset values of the two plans.

18

230.6257.1

275.0308.2

248.6228.5

141.1161.1 174.8

194.4160.9 146.5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Trend in Market Values

General

Consolidated

millions

The City engages actuaries to perform actuarial valuations on the defined benefit pension plans each

year. These valuations serve multiple purposes. First, they measure the fiscal health of the plan in terms

of the actuarial value of the plan assets compared to the actuarial liabilities of the plan to determine the

funded percentage of plan obligations as of the date of the valuation. Second they determine the

required contributions to the plan measured in terms of a percentage of covered payroll of each plan. As

would be expected, declines in market value as displayed above have a noticeable impact on the funded

percentage of plan obligations.

97.48 97.48 95.78 97.0192.18

75.67

97.66 97.98 99.02 100.92 99.0991.97

0102030405060708090

100110


Funded Ratios: Assets as % of Liabilities

General

Consolidated

In looking at the decline in the funded ratio for the General Plan from 92.18% in FY08 to the 75.67%

ratio in FY09 there are several points to consider. First, of course is the impact on assets from the poor

investment performance of the previous two years. Second, in FY09 the General Plan Board of Trustees

approved a significant assumption change, dropping the assumed return on investment rate from 9.25%

to 8.50%. This change was prompted by a recommendation from the State Division of Retirement,

whose role it is to review and approve each actuarial valuation. The Division felt that the existing return

19

assumption was higher than they considered reasonable, despite the fact that the General Plan’s

annualized average rate of return over the past 25 years has been in excess of ten percent. In

consultation with our actuary, the Board of Trustees approved the return assumption reduction. The

return assumption is perhaps the single most powerful actuarial assumption in terms of influence on the

funded ratio of the plan, affecting the calculation of both the actuarial value of assets and the actuarial

value of liabilities. On the asset side, there are three primary sources of inflows into the pension plan:

Employer contributions

Employee contributions, and

Return on assets.

Employee contributions are bargained with employee groups and at this point are fixed at 5% in the

General Plan. If we assume that the return on assets is going to go down (as we have in moving the

return assumption from 9.25% to 8.50%), then it remains that employer contributions must rise to make

up the difference. On the liability side, pension payment obligations are projected into the future over

the estimated lives of employees and beneficiaries. To discount those future projected liabilities back to

present day to make a comparison of today’s assets against the present value of those liabilities, the

return assumption is used as the discount rate. All other factors held equal, a lower discount rate will

produce a higher present value when applied against the future obligation stream. Therefore, lowering

the return assumption rate increases the present value of the pension plan’s liabilities. Consequently,

the change in the return assumption lowers the actuarial value of the assets and increases the actuarial

liability, resulting in a significant negative impact on the funded ratio. In this case, the change in the

return assumption reduced the funded ratio by 6.20%, or almost 38% of the total reduction from 92.18%

to 75.67%.

The other point to consider in this funded ratio decline is a technical component of the formula used to

develop the actuarial value of assets. The last step in the algorithm compares the actuarial value of

assets to a “corridor” around the market value of assets. If the actuarial value of the assets is greater

than 120% of market value or less than 80% of market value, the actuarial value is reduced or increased

to come within that corridor. In the FY09 actuarial valuation, the actuarial value of assets was above

120% of market value and therefore had to be reduced. This adjustment took over $20 million dollars

from the actuarial value of the assets for the purpose of the calculation, or almost 7% of the assets.

To summarize, controlling for the change in the return assumption and the impact of the 80/120 market

value corridor adjustment, the funded ratio of the General Plan moves to 87.88% and, despite the fact

that the past two years have been very difficult ones for defined benefit plans, our plans remain

financially sound.

Nonetheless, the change in the funded ratios coming out of the FY09 actuarial valuations has a

significant impact on the required employer contribution rates and dollar contributions.

20

3.514.00 3.97

5.48

11.14

12.40

6.13 5.855.15

6.10 9.08

10.62

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Employer Contribution as % of Pay

General

Consolidated

2.13 2.22 2.172.66

4.52

5.16

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Trend in General Fund Pension Contributionsmillions

As stated earlier in this document, while these pension rates and dollar contributions represent a

considerable increase in the City’s pension costs compared to previous years, the table below

demonstrates that as compared to our peers, our pension costs are still relatively low.

Valuation Contribution Valuation Contribution

Date % of pay Date % of pay

Coral Springs General 2008 102.88 Cape Coral Fire 2008 29.00

Pembroke Pines Police & Fire 2008 72.70 Fort Lauderdale General 2008 28.68

Hollywood Fire 2006 68.46 West Palm Beach Fire 2008 27.11

Hollywood Police 2007 56.30 Miami Beach General 2008 25.20

Miami Beach Police & Fire 2008 55.32 Miramar General 2008 24.08

West Palm Beach General 2008 50.73 Cape Coral General 2008 22.40

Coral Springs Police 2008 48.10 Tallahassee Fire 2007 16.35

Fort Lauderdale Police & Fire 2009 48.00 Lakeland 2007 14.65

Miramar Police 2008 41.80 Tallahassee Police 2007 13.80

Cape Coral Police 2008 35.60 Port St. Lucie Police 2008 12.80

Coral Springs Fire 2008 33.80 West Palm Beach Police 2008 12.80

Pembroke Pines General 2007 31.10 Gainesville General 2009 11.14

Hollywood General 2007 29.35 Tallahassee General 2007 9.08

Clearwater 2009 29.17 Gainesville Police & Fire 2009 9.08

Miramar Fire 2007 29.15

Plan Plan

The Gainesville defined benefit plan contribution rates in the table above are not inclusive of debt

service costs associated with the Series 2003A and B Pension Obligation Bonds issued by the City. The

proceeds of these bonds were deposited into the pension plans to retire the Unfunded Actuarial

Accrued Liability (UAAL) of the plans as of March of 2003. The required debt service payments by the

City are significantly less than the payments to the pension plans the City was required to make to

amortize the UAAL. Translating the required debt service payments into percentage of covered payroll

terms raises the contribution percentage of pay for the Police and Fire Plan from 9.08 to 21.04, and the

General Plan from 11.14 to 13.31.

What makes these numbers even more striking is that many of the valuations of the peer cities are

dated 2007 and 2008, while Gainesville’s were completed as of September 30, 2009. Valuations done in

21

2007 were completed prior to both of the recent down market years and those done in 2008 missed the

second difficult return year.

Despite our strong standing relative to our Florida peers, given the sharp increases in City pension costs

projected to come, it is our fiscal responsibility to review potential alternatives to existing City plans. To

that end, I have directed staff to work with our actuaries, pension consultants and financial advisors to

examine our pension plans in detail. This study will explore questions such as:

Does the defined benefit plan model still make the most sense for the organization? Under this

model, retirees are guaranteed a return based on their years of service, final average earnings

and a multiplier factor. Under a defined contribution model, the investment risk shifts from the

employer to the employee.

Are our benefit levels appropriate? This would include such factors as:

o Multiplier

o Cost of living increases

o Components of final average earnings such as overtime and longevity

o Utilization of unused sick leave as credited service

Are employee contribution levels appropriate?

Is the current 20 year requirement to attain a normal retirement benefit still viable?

The goal of this exercise is to review the elements of our plan, identify potential alternatives and

determine the effect of these alternatives on our pension costs to ensure that the plans are viable and

affordable as we move forward. It is our plan to complete this review in early calendar year 2011 and

bring results forward to the City Commission to consider as part of the FY12 budget update process.

It is important to note that the pension elements mentioned above are subject to collective bargaining.

Any changes related to the pension plans will be a cooperative venture between management and

bargaining units. Given the marked rise in pension costs and the context of our larger financial

challenges we believe that it is mandatory that we begin this dialogue on the future structure of our

retirement plans.

Fire Services Administration Agreement (FSAA) – Last year’s southwest area annexation changed the

allocation of the FSAA between the City and the County more than anticipated. County Fire Station 19 is

a high call‐volume station, and a significant percentage of these calls occur in the area that has changed

from County to City ownership subject to the annexation. Therefore these responses now generate a

payment requirement from the City to the County. A portion of this change is offset by tax revenue

generated through the annexation. The net FSAA payment, due in part to the SW20th Avenue

annexation, is rising approximately $400,000.

Acquisition of environmentally sensitive land – In the wake of the passage of the Wild Spaces Public

Places half‐cent sales tax, the City Commission decided to suspend the $425,000 transfer from the

General Fund to the Greenspace Acquisition Fund for the purchase of environmentally sensitive

property for the duration of the half‐cent sales tax. The tax sunsets effective December 31, 2010,

therefore the $425,000 transfer is scheduled to resume in FY12.

22

Also included in the proposed FY11 expenditure budget are two one‐time expenditure items. The first is

an appropriation of $200,000 to fund the re‐writing of the Land Development Code. The other is

$15,000 to fund a study of the potential expansion of the Eastside Tax Increment District.

Total expenditures – Below is a summary of FY10 General Fund budgeted and projected expenditures,

as well as the FY11 expenditure budget and FY12 plan.

FY10 Budget FY10 Projection FY11 Budget FY12 Plan

Personal services 60,230,246 58,734,220 64,337,773 66,968,112

Operating expenditures 24,474,364 22,793,700 25,180,773 25,604,451

Debt service 9,523,595 9,523,595 9,995,307 10,315,717

Non operating & capital 6,203,009 6,068,784 5,488,413 5,167,376

Total expenditures 100,431,214 97,120,299 105,002,266 108,055,656

TOTAL EXPENDITURES

Overlaying the revenue and expenditure total for the FY11 Budget and FY12 Plan produces estimated

net deficits as described in the following table.

FY11 Budget FY12 Plan

Revenues 98,312,391 99,775,251

Expenditures 105,002,266 108,055,656

Net Deficit (6,689,875) (8,280,405)

PROJECTED DEFICITS

The following section of the document will describe my proposals for balancing the FY11 Budget and

FY12 Plan.

CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION

The continuing trend of projected General Fund budget deficits dictates that we take a hard look at the

depth and breadth of our organization. Our flattening revenue estimates mandate that in order to

maintain financial stability we must resize our operations to fit this diminished revenue outlook.

In an organization whose budget is over 61% personal services, there is no way to achieve budgetary

savings of the magnitude required for FY11 and FY12 without considerable impacts to employees.

Management has taken steps to mitigate this impact to the extent possible through several initiatives.

The hiring freeze imposed over the last 24 months has generated effects in two ways. First, keeping

positions open has saved crucial expenditure dollars to help us deal with falling revenues. Second, the

23

vacant positions created by the freeze have provided options for decrements where operationally

feasible that reduce the need for layoffs as decrement packages have been developed.

The other program put in place is the voluntary separation program. In the fall of 2009, a separation

program was implemented in which certain classes of employees with 17 or more years of service were

offered three years of credited service for the commitment to separate from the City by January 1, 2010.

The early separation offer was accepted by 43 employees and of these 43 positions, nine were

eliminated from the FY10 budget and another 17 were eliminated from the FY11 budget.

This summer a similar program was developed and offered on multiple levels:

Three years of credited service were offered to certain groups of employees within 3 years

of attaining normal retirement,

A program was developed which offered up to five years of elimination of the City’s

existing early retirement penalty, and

Cash incentives were offered for early separation regardless of service time with the City.

This program offered two weeks severance for each full year of City service up to a

maximum of twelve weeks paid, with a minimum of four weeks severance.

Once again, this program offered the dual benefit of lowering net City expenditures and, where

operationally feasible, generating vacant positions for consideration in the development of decrement

packages. Sixteen employees accepted cash incentive offers, and fourteen employees accepted offers

of either three years credited service or elimination of the early retirement penalty. Of these 30

positions six are recommended for elimination as part of the FY11 proposed budget.

Despite these efforts, as you will see in the details of the decrements, a significant number of positions,

many filled, are proposed for elimination. In putting these decrements together, I directed staff to

identify opportunities for significantly flattening the organization and focusing on strategic and program

based cuts. Therefore as part of these decrements, you will see a reduction in management positions

and positions of rank across the organization as follows:

Gainesville Police Department – I am recommending that two vacant lieutenant positions be eliminated

from the FY11 budget, and two more command staff positions in FY12.

Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs – Currently three division manager positions are vacant as a result

of a combination of normal retirements and early separation incentive acceptances: Cultural Manager,

Nature Manager, and Parks Manager. I am proposing the elimination of the Parks Manager position, and

the merging of the Nature Manager and Cultural Manger into a single position.

Budget & Finance – I am proposing elimination of the Treasurer position which has become vacant

through acceptance of an early separation incentive. In addition, the Chief Investment Officer

management –level position is being deleted and replaced by a professional position, Pension

Investment Officer.

24

Administrative Services – Due to staffing changes in the Strategic Planning office, I am recommending

that the Strategic Planning Manager position be downgraded to a senior level professional position.

General Services – The Director of General Services position is currently filled by a contractual employee

whose contract period will end at the end of the fiscal year. I am recommending that this position be

unfunded for FY11 and FY12, with two existing supervisor positions reporting directly to an Assistant

City Manager during this time period. Over the course of the next two years, I will evaluate how this

reorganization has impacted the effectiveness of service delivery in the department to determine

whether the change will be permanent in nature.

Planning & Development Services – Under my proposed reorganization, the existing Planning Manager

position will be converted to a professional position, Principal Planner.

The scope and magnitude of the budget reductions required to balance the FY11 Budget and FY12 Plan

does not provide me with the opportunity to avoid public safety cuts, as you will see in the decrement

details to follow. However, I have taken steps to limit to the extent possible the impact of these cuts. In

an effort to affect the delivery of public safety services to the least degree practical during these difficult

financial times, I am proposing that GPD specialty units such as the aviation unit and the mounted unit

be eliminated. The positions of the officers participating in these units would not be impacted. Instead

they will be reassigned to patrol positions in order to put more officers on the street on regular patrols.

On the following pages are the details of the decrements proposed. As you can see from the length and

severity of these cuts, the proposed budget makes it clear that we are no longer in a position to operate

in a business as usual mode. Tier 1 decrements are damaging to service delivery but represent the least

impact to core services and while not desirable, would be the first level of reductions recommended.

Tier 3 decrements reflect those reductions which represent the most significant impact to core services,

and would be the last to be recommended for elimination from the budget. However, with no revenue

alternatives included, my recommendation includes the reductions shown in all three Tiers.

25

FTE F/V $ FTE F/V $

Share Strategic Planner 0.50 F 44,386 Reduce operating expenditures ‐ 1,204

Delete Staff Specialist 0.50 V 26,092

Delete 2 Bud. Analysts & share St. Plan. 1.50 F 77,613 Reorg. Pension & Investment Division 0.20 F 24,686

Delete Account Clerk: payroll 1.00 V 51,585 Delete PT Mail Services Clerk 0.50 V 14,720

Reduce operating expenditures ‐ 26,405 Downgrade Fin. Svcs. Coordinator ‐ F ‐

Unfund Asst. City Atty (FY11 only) 1.00 V ‐ Reduce operating expenditures ‐ 14,500

Realloc. Sr. City Asst. Atty. from CRA 0.18 F (21,651)

Office reorganization 1.00 F 80,334

Unfund Legislative & Grants Coord. 0.90 V 76,920 Reduce operating expenditures ‐ 17,825

Reduce State lobbyist contract ‐ 25,000 Reduce City Manager contingency ‐ 5,000

Reduce operating expenditures ‐ 6,406

Delete Broadcast/Digital Media Producer 1.00 V 57,408 Decrease printing budget 2,113

Reduce closed captioning ‐ 6,200

Delete HR/EO Technician 1.00 F 40,731 Reduce operating expenditures 20,000

Reduce utilities expenditures ‐ 110,747 Tran. Acct. Clk. & Supp. Spec. to Fleet 1.10 F 54,226

Delete 2 Custodial Workers 2.00 V 73,329 Reduce operating expenditures ‐ 4,028

Delete Risk Reduction Staff Specialist 1.00 V 45,822 Reduce operating expenditures ‐ 6,800

Reduce travel/training ‐ 40,000

Command staff reduction 4.00 F/V 406,639 Additional officer funded GHA contract ‐ 62,000

1.5% vacancy factor (FY12 only) ‐ 310,316 Charge fuel & maint. To Billable OT Fund ‐ 55,375

Delete Community Relations Coord. 1.00 V 69,606 Delete Police Records Tech 1.00 V 39,270

Delete HR/OD specialist 1.00 V 83,568 Reduce operating expenditures ‐ 37,228

Delete Sr. Analyst 1.00 V 82,644 Reduce prof. svcs. ‐ labor arbitration ‐ 17,244

Terminate GRU cont. add wiring/phone (2.00) 210,632

Delete funds for new neighborhoods ‐ 12,375 Allocate 10% of Code Enf. Mgr. 0.10 F 8,888

Reduce operating expenditures ‐ 5,762

Tran. Small & Minority Bus Coord to CRA 1.00 F 72,921

Part. Fund Hist. Planner from Bldg. Fund 0.50 F 36,108 Reduce planner to half‐time 0.50 F 40,988

Transfer Zoning Tech to Bldg. Fund 1.00 F 45,687

Planning


Human Resources

Information Technology

Neighborhood Improvement

Planning & Development

Gainesville Fire Rescue

City Auditor

DescriptionDescription

TIER 1 DECREMENTS

Administrative Services

Budget & Finance

City Attorney

City Manager

Equal Opportunity

Clerk of the Commission

Communications

General Services

26

FTE F/V $ FTE F/V $

Delete Operations Supervisor 1.00 V 66,951 Delete Nature Assistant 1.00 V 37,542

Delete Labor Crew Leader II & vehicle 1.00 V 61,908 Delete Rec. Aide II ‐ Athletics 1.00 V 34,047

Delete Horticulturist 1.00 F 59,277 Delete Maintenance Worker I ‐ Parks 1.00 V 33,099

Increase Tran from Evergreen Trust ‐ 55,995 Change in Arborist position ‐ 23,446

Delete Rec. Leader ‐ Nature Operations 1.00 V 47,694 Delete Program Assistant ‐ Recreation 0.50 V 23,112

Afterschool Program fees ‐ 45,000 Delete Rec. Aide I ‐ Centers 0.50 V 16,737

Reduce Fall youth athletic programs 1.00 F 41,860 Reduce Support Svcs. Funding by 15% ‐ 11,622

Delete Rec. Aide II ‐ TB McPherson 1.00 V 39,612 Delete Teen Zone administration ‐ 9,450

Defer operating expense ‐ Traf. Mgt. Sys. ‐ 98,003 Delete Staff Specialist 0.60 V 28,352

Reduce op. expense. ‐ Op. Maint/Const. ‐ 100,000 Reduce op. expense ‐ Tran. Planning ‐ 20,000

Delete Maint. Worker II ‐ Concrete 1.00 V 40,312 Tran. Storekeeper I to Fleet 0.37 V 14,494

Delete Operations Supv. (1 of 2) 0.50 V 39,601 Reduce op. expense ‐ Env. Svcs. review ‐ 9,400

Tran. Asst. Operations Mgr. to SMUF 0.50 V 36,971 Increase vehicle boot fee ‐ 4,700

Delete Maint. Worker I ‐ Asphalt 1.00 V 33,799 Reclass Supv Eng/Project Team leader ‐ V 3,741

Delete Public Education Spec. 0.35 V 29,582


TIER 1 DECREMENTS (concluded)


Public Works

Clearly the Tier 1 decrements represent a broad based cut, impacting every operating department to

some degree including public safety. In total, 30.35 positions will be eliminated or unfunded in this

round of decrements. A total of 8.00 of these positions are filled, and 22.35 are currently vacant. The

total dollar decrement for this tier is $3,595,987.

FTE F/V $ FTE F/V $

Delete Grants Accountant II 1.00 F 66,492 Delete Customer Accts. Rep. ‐ Bill & Coll 1.00 V 49,612

Delete Buyer 1.00 F 63,115

Delete Executive Assistant 0.70 V 43,741

Reduction of overtime ‐ 126,486

Eliminate specialty units ‐ Aviation Unit ‐ 1,440 Eliminate specialty units ‐ Mounted Unit ‐ 1,440

Eliminate Web Application Developer 1.00 V 80,721 Reduce operating expenditures ‐ 46,000

Delete Parks Manager 1.00 V 73,968 Delete Cultural Affairs Manager 1.00 V 73,968

Reduce Morningside op. & events 0.50 F 25,206 Consolidate Mickle & NE pools ‐ 100,000

Delete Supv Eng/Project Team Leader 0.40 V 56,930 Delete Operations Supv (2 of 2) 0.50 V 37,464

Delete Motor Equip. Operator II ‐ Asphalt 1.00 V 43,285

TIER 2 DECREMENTS

Budget & Finance



Public Works



Information Technology


The highlights of the proposed Tier 2 reductions are the consolidation of the Mickle and Northeast Pools

and the reduction in Gainesville Fire Rescue overtime. The decision to consolidate the pools is based on

low participation numbers at Mickle Pool. The savings represents the decrease in operating costs such as

27

utilities from operating one pool instead of two. The reduction in GFR overtime continues a recent trend

in declining overtime costs and is based primarily upon lower numbers of firefighters attending

paramedic school. Fewer training hours means fewer requirements to cover these shifts through

overtime. In total, 9.10 FTEs are recommended for elimination, 2.50 of which are currently filled. The

total decrement for this Tier is $889,868.

FTE F/V $ FTE F/V $

Delete Executive Assistant 1.00 V 62,286

Remove Engine unit from service 11.00 F 670,048 Terminate PIO agreement w/County ‐ 40,150

FS 8: reallo. staff from Engine unit 13.00 V 873,048 Reduction of overtime ‐ 190,000

Eliminate Explorer & Cadet programs 1.00 F 83,301 Investigations bureau reduction 7.00 F 468,452

Reduce Crime Analyst program 1.00 F 43,812 Reduce School Crossing Guard program 11.00 Temp 144,154

Eliminate Program Assistant ‐ Legal 1.00 F 45,777 Eliminate Party Patrol ‐ 112,189

Reduce Front Desk hours 4.00 F 241,923 Eliminate Juvenile Assessment Ctr. Cont. ‐ 90,000

Reduce School Resource Ofc. Program 4.00 F 187,025 ‐

Eliminate Code Enf. Ofc. & Supv. 2.00 V 132,445 Reduce demolitions/lot clear/bd.& seal ‐ 30,918

Delete half‐time GIS Specialist 0.50 V 31,536

Reduce Plaza events & Child. Theatre 0.25 F 28,257 Reduce outside agency funding by 15% ‐ 21,375

Consol. afterschool & summer camps 1.50 F 98,172 Reduce Wilhemina Johnson contract ‐ 6,750

Suspend Great Air Potato roundup ‐ 4,991

Reduce Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator 0.50 F 35,985 Delete Engineer III/Utility Designer III 0.50 V 40,332

Delete MEO I: Right of Way 2.00 F 71,312 Delete Traffic Signs/Marking Tech I 1.00 V 40,312


TIER 3 DECREMENTS

Public Works



GPD

Neighborhood Improvement

Planning


Several characteristics of the proposed Tier 3 decrements stand out. First, this Tier contains significantly

more position reductions than Tiers 1 and 2. Second, a higher percentage of the positions to be

potentially impacted are filled. Of the 51.25 permanent positions recommended for elimination, 33.25

are currently filled. Finally, there is a much higher concentration of Tier 3 decrements affecting public

safety programs. For GPD, tier 3 cuts represent over $1.4 million in budget reductions and 29 positions

(40 including the 11 temporary school crossing guards). Gainesville Fire Rescue would lose 24 budgeted

positions along with an Engine unit among their total cuts of just under $1.3M. As indicated above, Tier

3 decrements represent those reductions which represent the most significant impact to core services

and are the last to be recommended for elimination from the budget. In total, Tier 3 cuts equal

$3,794,550.

The proposed decrements outlined in Tiers 1 through 3 above reflect the required expenditure budget

reductions to address the projected deficits in FY11 and FY12 if the deficit is to be handled entirely on

the expenditure side. The causes of our financial problems have roots on both the revenue and

28

expenditure side of the equation, and I believe that to attempt to address these issues through a purely

expenditure –side solution may not be in the City’s best interest.

Therefore, as a possible alternative to a portion of the expenditure reductions, I propose that the City

Commission seriously consider implementation of a fire assessment. In addition to reducing the

expenditure cuts required, such an assessment would provide much needed diversification to our

revenue base during a period of generally flat revenue growth. As we have stated before, Gainesville has

the highest percentage of property off the tax roll of any municipality in Florida, with 56% of the value of

the property within the corporate limits exempt from property tax. A fire assessment would broaden

the base of those who pay for services delivered by the City. Due to the timing of the fire assessment

discussion I could not assume that revenue from a fire assessment would be available to offset

reductions. In the event that the City Commission adopts the fire assessment, incremental revenues

could be used to eliminate many of the most damaging reduction options in Tiers 1, 2, and 3.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

On May 17, 2010, the City Commission approved the FY11 – FY15 section of the Capital Improvement

Plan (CIP). Some of the highlights among the new projects funded in the core FY11 – FY15 CIP were the

establishment in FY15 of a facilities maintenance fund and an equipment replacement fund. It is

management’s intent to develop these fully–funded maintenance and replacement funds so that we

can proactively meet our facility and equipment needs going forward without having to allocate new

capital dollars from the General Fund. Also approved was establishment of a recurring $490,000

incremental allocation, beginning in FY15, to the City’s residential resurfacing fund which will more than

double the current $300,000 allocation.

The Commission approved in concept a $21,000,000 debt issue for FY15. The following projects were

approved for funding with the proceeds of this issue:

Depot Park 3,500,000

Hogtown Creek Headwaters 900,000

Pavement Resurfacing 4,500,000

Fire Station 1 6,000,000

Roundabout @ South Main & Depot Avenue 1,200,000

Main Street streetscape 1,100,000

Facilities maintenance projects (3 yrs @ 437,500) 1,322,500

Equipment replacement (3 yrs @ 822,500) 2,477,500

TOTAL 21,000,000

FY15 DEBT ISSUE: APPROVED PROJECTS

29

The Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) element of the FY11 – FY15 CIP contained new funding for

six projects. The TIP is funded primarily through the additional 5 cents Local Option Gas Tax levy which

began in 2008. The projects are funded through a combination of utilizing the gas tax dollars to directly

fund project expenditures as well as using the fund to pay debt service to support bond issues which

provide up front dollars for projects. The next bond issue scheduled for the TIP is in FY11 for

approximately $4.3 million. The six projects which received new funding through the FY11‐ FY15 section

of the TIP were:

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 TOTAL

Depot Avenue Construction 500,000 500,000

SE 4th Street Construction 800,000 800,000

NW 23rd Ave. & 55th St. Intersection construction 55,000 55,000

NW 22nd Street Design/Construction 1,000,000 1,000,000

SW 6th Street Design/Construction 1,500,000 1,500,000

SW 40th Boulevard New construction 1,000,000 1,000,000

TOTAL 55,000 3,000,000 ‐ 1,800,000 ‐ 4,855,000

PROJECT

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN FY11 ‐ FY15

As part of the FY11 – FY15 CIP process, for Stormwater projects, the City Commission approved in FY11

the final year of a five year plan initiated in FY07 to increase by 25 cents per Equivalent Residential Unit

(ERU) per month a capital surcharge intended to provide funding for water quality improvement

projects. Based on this increase, the FY11 capital component of the stormwater fee will be $1.25 per

ERU per month. New funding was approved for the following projects as part of the FY11 – FY15 CIP.

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 TOTAL

Depot Stormwater Basin 4,515,000 4,515,000

Paynes Prairie Sheetflow Restoration 1,500,000 1,500,000

Suburban Heights Piping 250,000 750,000 1,000,000

Hatchett Creek Basin Management Action 80,000 80,000

Rosewood Trash Trap 575,000 575,000

SW 35th Terrace Flood Hazard Mitigation 310,000 310,000

TOTAL 6,655,000 1,325,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,980,000

PROJECT

There are a number of vertical capital projects that are currently under construction or in the planning process. These projects are funded in a variety of ways (bond issues, previous Capital Improvement Plans, Wild Spaces Public Places half cent sales tax, grants, or internal funding sources). These projects include:

Fire Station 8

Public Works Administration Building & Traffic System Management Center

Centralized Garage

Senior Recreation Center

One Stop Homeless Assistance Center

GPD Headquarters expansion, and

Phase I of the RTS Facility maintenance expansion

30

WILD SPACES PUBLIC PLACES HALF CENT SALES TAX

The Wild Spaces Public Places half cent sales tax was approved by voters for a two‐year period

beginning January 1, 2009 and ending December 31, 2010. Current projections estimate the

revenues to the City from this tax at approximately $12.8 million. Significant progress has been

made on the list of projects approved by the City Commission to be funded from this revenue

source.

The following projects have been completed at this date:

Possum Creek Park – A premier class

skate bowl has been completed. This

facility is one of the finest in the region

and is expected to be a destination site

for serious skaters across central

Florida. Additionally, an off‐leash dog

park, playground area, pre‐fabricated

restrooms, and mulched trails have

been finished at this site.

Citizens Park/Northeast Pool – The approved projects for this facility have

been completed: a geo‐thermal

heating/cooling system has been

installed, interior pool lights have been

repaired or replaced, and the pool deck

and locker rooms have been

resurfaced.

Thomas Center refurbishment – New

flooring and carpet have been installed,

building repairs have been completed,

and the building has been painted.

A number of other major projects are underway

as well:

Senior Recreation Center – Site preparation is slated to begin on this 17,000 square foot facility

in August of 2010. Construction is expected to commence in October of 2010 with completion

projected June of 2011.

Possum Creek Park

Geo‐Thermal Heat/Cool at Northeast Pool

31

Westside Tennis Pavilion Westside Pool Slide

Cone Park track and multipurpose fields – the

original Master Plan of 1999 was reviewed and

updated. A conceptual design has been

completed and approved. Work on the design

and construction plans and specifications is set

to begin in July of 2010. Construction is

anticipated to begin at the end of calendar

2010.

Westside Park Pool – the deck and locker room

resurfacing has been completed. The removal

and replacement of the filtration system is

complete, and a new slide has been installed.

The new Tennis

Hut/Pavilion is

currently under

construction and

scheduled to be

completed in July

2010.

Citizens can check on the progress of Wild Spaces, Public Places construction projects through the City’s

Park, Recreation and Cultural Affairs website (link below) and selecting View Projects Online. http://www.cityofgainesville.org/RESIDENT/ParksRecreationCulturalAffairs/WildSpacesPublicPlacesUpdates/tabid/625/Default.aspx

OTHER FUNDS

Stormwater Management Utility Fund – As noted earlier, FY11 is the final year of a five‐year 25 cent per

ERU per month increase authorized by the City Commission in FY07. The revenues from this capital fee

are committed to provide funding for the completion of water quality improvement projects. Following

is a summary of the composition of the Fund’s revenue generation since the inception of the rate

increases:

Historic Thomas Center Flooring Tile

32

Capital Operating Total FeeCapital Operating Total Capital % Operating % Revenue Revenue Revenue

FY07 0.25 6.70 6.95 3.60% 96.40% 200,691 5,378,531 5,579,222 FY08 0.50 6.90 7.40 6.76% 93.24% 410,772 5,668,647 6,079,419 FY09 0.75 6.90 7.65 9.80% 90.20% 622,638 5,728,268 6,350,906 FY10 1.00 6.90 7.90 12.66% 87.34% 828,029 5,713,404 6,541,433 FY11 1.25 6.90 8.15 15.34% 84.66% 1,035,276 5,714,724 6,750,000 Cumulative totals FY07 through FY11 3,097,406 28,203,574 31,300,980 FY10 & FY11 revenue projected

REVENUE BREAKDOWNFEE BREAKDOWN

The objective of the stormwater program is to improve Gainesville’s water quality. To accomplish this

goal, in addition to water quality improvement capital project design and construction, the stormwater

staff performs maintenance of basins and ditches (open watercourses) and maintenance of the

stormwater system (closed watercourses). Following are performance statistics for stormwater

activities in FY09.

Results

Maintenance of basins & ditches Acreage of ditches treated with weed suppressant 149

Acreage of basins treated with weed suppressant 38

Miles of ditches mowed 245

Acreage of retention basins mowed 241

Maintenance of stormwater system Number of sediment traps inspected & cleaned bi‐annually 16

Install new/replace storm systems (linear feet) 383

Clean inlets 3,354

Pipe cleaning (linear feet) 13,216

Action items Performance measures

Following is a chart depicting the trend in Equivalent Residential Units billed from FY01 – FY09.

705,361 707,186

790,068 794,023 801,720 806,143 811,759830,985 828,056

600,000

650,000

700,000

750,000

800,000

850,000

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Equivalent Residential Units Billed

33

Florida Building Code Enforcement Fund – This fund was created to account for building inspection

program related costs. Florida Statutes mandate that all revenues generated by building inspection

programs, such as permitting fees, be used only to fund the costs of providing these programs.

The decline in the economy has had a dramatic effect on the level of development in Gainesville and

therefore on the level of business permit revenues as outlined in the table below.

Electric, Plumbing

# permits $ Value Fee revenue & Gas Fees ($)

FY07 8,882 2,763,331,678 3,912,721 852,661

FY08 8,236 2,950,047,697 1,769,144 1,147,071

FY09 7,018 2,753,463,461 913,561 481,063

@ 3/31/10 4,485 996,994,713 578,008 181,617

Building permits

Fortunately, this fund has sufficient equity to deal with the declining revenue trend associated with the

reduction in development activity.

Currently, there are four vacant positions in the Building Inspections department:

Plans Examiner 3

Building Inspector

Building Inspector 2, and

Customer Service Support Specialist 1

While permitting revenue is up approximately 17% from the same point in time in the previous fiscal

year, the present level of development does not justify filling these positions at this time. Rather than

eliminating these positions and then potentially having to reinstate them when the economy rebounds,

I am proposing unfunding these slots for FY11 and FY12 or until the building inspection workload

requires they be filled.

FY11 will mark the beginning of a new initiative in the building inspections area in which plans will be

reviewed digitally. Staff is currently in the final training and testing phases of new digital planning review

software. This software will allow contractors, architects and engineers to submit their plans

electronically. City staff will review the plans on‐line, place comments in the digital file and send the

proposed revisions electronically. This process should significantly expedite the communication process

between staff and developers since both parties can review the proposed changes at the same time

from different locations. The result should be a more streamlined and efficient permitting process.

Solid Waste Fund – On September 30, 2009, the City’s existing contract for waste management services

expired. This contract was previously held by Waste Management Inc. but was sold to Emerald Waste

Services (EWS) in 2008. EWS purchased the contract with full knowledge that the City intended to go out

for bid at the expiration of the current agreement.

The City and County determined that it would be in the residents’ best interests if a joint proposal was

issued. It was hoped that by bidding jointly certain economies of scale might be captured, and it would

34

provide the opportunity to better align services in the City and County. The RFP process also allowed the

forum to address questions such as route maximizations and early start times.

Five firms presented proposals and EWS submitted the lowest price for the route maximization option

which was selected as the preferred alternative. Not only were price increases kept to 25%, at a time

when 40% to 60% increases on expiring contracts were common, but the route maximization option

selected allows us to reduce our carbon footprint by having large trucks on the road one less day per

week. It also keeps the large trucks out of neighborhoods on Saturdays, when children are more apt to

be playing, thus increasing safety.

In order to lessen the immediate rate impact on customers , the 25% rate increase was distributed as

follows: 10% for the first two years, and then 5% per year until the 25% level is reached.

Previous Current Previous Current

Mini ‐Can 13.71 14.53 22.19 24.41

35 gallon 17.18 18.90 25.84 28.42

64 gallon 21.14 23.25 31.42 34.56

96 gallon 26.42 29.06 38.50 42.35

Curbside Backdoor

MONTHLY RATES

The chart below demonstrates the trend in the number of households served.

26,216 26,305 26,596 26,925 26,557 26,555

20,000

22,000

24,000

26,000

28,000

30,000


Trend in Households Served

Some of the upcoming issues for the Solid Waste program include:

As the City moves toward achieving the goal of 75% waste diversion by the year 2020 as

required by the State, changes in how we bill residents using our pay‐as‐you‐throw curbside

collection program will probably be necessary to maintain the effectiveness and viability of the

program. As we succeed in recovering more types and larger quantities of recyclable materials,

more of the operating costs will shift away from the garbage disposal side and over to the

35

materials processing side. Rates for various residential services will have to be adjusted

thoughtfully so that strong incentives to recycle are maintained. The Solid Waste Division is

doing some preliminary work on how rates might need to be restructured, but some variables

on the collection and disposal side of the issue are currently unknown. Waste haulers, transfer

stations and landfills will also have to change some of their business models to address

significant reductions in the amount of per capita garbage being generated, and those decisions

will affect how the City is charged for both hauling and disposal of our community’s reduced

waste stream.

In August 2006, the State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) met with Solid Waste

Division personnel to inspect the old airport landfill site which was used off and on by the City

from the 1940’s through the 1970’s at which time it was closed. DEP observed several areas of

concern where water runoff had caused the erosion of topsoil used for the landfill cap, and

some areas where buried tires were working their way back up through the surface. Based on

that visit and the recommendations of DEP the City submitted a conceptual plan for remediation

of the landfill, which DEP approved in December 2006. Among other things, the plan calls for the

tire dumping area to be excavated and all the tires removed and properly disposed of, the repair

of eroded areas and the placing of two feet of ground cover in those areas, construction of a

system to collect surface water from the top of the landfill and flattening of some slopes. All of

this work is to be performed while leaving large areas untouched and in their natural state as

much as possible. The preliminary cost estimate was $2,083,213. Staff will have this on their

work plan for resolution in FY 11 and 12 as funds become available. A factor has been built into

the new rate structure to begin setting aside reserves to deal with this potential cost.

Another issue the Solid Waste Division expects to address over the next two years is the lack of

public recycling containers downtown, on University Avenue, and at bus stops all over town.

Over the past year the division has worked closely with the Parks Department to begin placing

recycling containers next to every trash can in every park. The efforts have been well received

by park visitors, and during the month of May 2010, 1,828 lbs. of recycling was collected. The

next phase will be to begin placing recycling containers at bus stops, and the final phase will be

to place recycling containers next to trash cans downtown and on University Avenue. There is

considerable expense involved in the initial purchase of hundreds of containers for public

recycling since they need to be effective, durable, recognizable and reasonably attractive. The

signature theme of these containers will be their “recycling blue” color which will provide a

necessary distinction to help prevent contamination of the recyclables with trash, which so

often plagues attempts at recycling in public spaces. In spite of Gainesville’s long time emphasis

on recycling and sustainability, currently the City provides no opportunities for citizens to

recycle in any outdoor public areas except some parks.

The Solid Waste Division also hopes to purchase several solar‐powered trash compactors

designed to serve in place of traditional public trash cans to test their effectiveness in specific

situations. The City currently pays $9.10 each time a public trash can is emptied. Compacting

cans can hold five times as much trash as traditional cans while taking up the same amount of

space on the sidewalk. When substituted in place of heavily used trash cans they can pay for

36

themselves in two or three years by reducing the frequency with which those containers have to

be collected; and can even be equipped to send an electronic signal to the hauler when they’re

full so the truck never stops to collect a partially empty container. They have the potential to

lower not only the City’s collection costs, but its carbon footprint as well.

In the event of a manmade or natural disaster, the Solid Waste Division is responsible for

directing the debris removal and recovery effort after the initial response phase of the disaster.

The division maintains primary and secondary debris removal and debris monitoring contracts

with nationally known companies that can be activated on very little notice. In cooperation with

the Budget and Finance Department, the Solid Waste Division ensures that debris removal

operations comply with FEMA requirements in order to maximize reimbursement of the cost of

the clean‐up by FEMA.

Ironwood Golf Course Fund – Progress has been made on

the Commission directives related to the Ironwood Golf

Course. The course improvements – rebuilding the greens

and tee boxes, fairway drainage improvements, rebuilding

sand traps – are well underway and on schedule for the

course to re‐open at the end of October of 2010. The

projected cost of the improvements is approximately

$1.26 million and is funded through a portion of the

proceeds of the City’s Series 2010 Capital Improvement

Revenue Bonds to be issued in July 2010. The debt service

associated with the bond issuance will be paid through

incremental revenues generated from a greens fee

increase scheduled when the course re‐opens. The food

and beverage Request for Proposals for the concessions

operation has been distributed and responses are due

back in early July.

FY10 is the first year of the initiative to transition the golf

course operation into the General Fund over the next ten

years. Under this plan, the transfer from the General

Fund will be set at a level sufficient to cover the net loss

from operations each year, and in addition a $300,000 transfer will be made to the Golf Course Fund

each year for the next decade to address the Fund’s cash deficit.

As the graph below demonstrates, rounds played at Ironwood have remained relatively steady over the

past five years. Based on recommendations included in the National Golf Foundation review, greens

fees were increased by $5 per round at the beginning of the fiscal year, and as stated above, another $5

per round increase is scheduled when the course re‐opens in October.

Completed green shaping

Rebuilding greens

37

35,67034,985

37,08436,429

36,770

32,000

33,000

34,000

35,000

36,000

37,000

38,000

39,000

40,000

FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Ironwood Rounds Played

While rounds played have been down over the first six months of FY10 due to wet and record cold

weather, it is expected that in the wake of the course renovations the improved quality of the course

will resonate with golfers and have a positive impact on the volume of play. Combined with what should

be fewer days lost to weather events due to the improved drainage on both the greens and the

fairways, rounds played are projected to improve over their historical levels. With projected annual debt

service cost associated with the renovations of approximately $95,000 per year, even at the 30,000 paid

round level of the past several years, incremental revenues associated with the $5 fee increase will

more than cover the anticipated debt costs. Projected increases in rounds played based on course

improvements together with higher revenues

per round resulting from the fee increases

should combine to reduce General Fund

operating subsidies as we move through the

period of transitioning the operation to a

recreation program within the General Fund

by 2019.

In FY11, Ironwood will continue to sponsor

programs that provide public outreach and

offer the opportunity for residents to

experience golf that otherwise may never

have had the chance to do so. Some of the

programs offered by Ironwood are:

PGA First Swing Program/Clubs for Kids – This program provides free golf equipment that is

donated by local residents. This equipment is distributed by staff and volunteers to give young

golfers the opportunity to try golf. Ironwood gives away between 400‐500 clubs each year to

individuals, elementary and middle school physical education (PE) teachers, who teach golf as

part of their curriculum.

Fairway drainage work

38

Golf in Schools Program – Equipment, lesson plans and on‐site instruction is provided for PE

teachers who request help with their in‐school golf programs. Hundreds of local youth have

been exposed to the sport of golf on the PE fields at their respective schools via this program.

Staff offers a three‐hour in‐service training at Ironwood with a 20 minute video from the PGA

followed by hands on training at our

driving range. The PE teachers are given

in‐service hours for their participation.

High School Golf Programs – Ironwood is

the host course for the Eastside Lady

Rams and the Buchholz Bobcats boy’s

team. As their home course we host all

of their home matches and have hosted

the County and District championships

for both boys and girls through the

years. We are also the home course for

St. Patrick’s Inter‐Parish School.

Special Olympics Golf – Ironwood is the home course for Special Olympics Golf in Alachua and

Columbia counties. We allow athletes and their companions to play at no charge, and host an

annual training school for coaches and athletes. We host the County Games and Area Games

which give athletes an opportunity to participate at the State Championship. In 1999, 2000 and

2001 we hosted the Special Olympics Golf State Championship which brought over 250 athletes

from all over Florida to Ironwood for two days of competition. Some of our athletes have

brought back medals from the “World Games” and have received recognition in the Gainesville

Sun.

Reichert House Golf Clinics – Ironwood continues to host the Reichert House students by giving

them an opportunity to learn golf at no charge, providing both equipment and instruction.

Reichert House students have been coming to Ironwood since it was purchased by the City in

1992, and generally 12‐15 students have attended the clinic each year.

One Room School House – Because of its proximity, Ironwood has forged a special relationship

with the students at the One Room School House. Teachers and volunteers walk a class of

students to Ironwood for an hour of golf as part of their PE curriculum.

Regional Transit System (RTS) ‐ RTS is the second largest department in the City of Gainesville with 236

full‐time employees. Currently, 184 (77%) of all RTS employees work in operations ‐ providing the

Gainesville community with over 250,000 hours of transit service 355 days each year with 47 different

city, campus, late evening, and weekend bus routes. Since 1996, RTS staff has increased by 150

positions as a result of transit enhancements.

Chip. Putt & Drive program

39

RTS Employees by Function and Fiscal Year

0

50

100

150

200

250

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f E

mp

loye

es

Vehicle Operations Vehicle Maintenance Non-vehicle Maintenance General Administration

The result of this growing and maturing transit workforce has been a steady increase in ridership and

greater community reliance on public transportation for everyday travel.

Performance Trends – As the chart below demonstrates, the past five years at RTS show stable increases in funding support from local, state and federal agencies. These funding partnerships have allowed RTS to make small but continual improvements to the bus fleet, transit services and facilities. RTS revenues have continued an upward trend, despite a setback in mid 2008, when high fuel prices created an unexpected budget deficit that required fare increases and reductions to weekend services. Since 2008, fuel prices have stabilized and most of the services that were removed have been restored. Work has

RTS Ridership FY 1997-2009

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

10,000,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

Total Riders

Campus TotalCity

40

continued on improving the bus fleet, facilities, and implementation of technology and services to keep pace with the community’s interest in expanding public transportation options.

RTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

The Rosa Parks RTS Downtown Station The Rosa Parks Downtown Station is the central connection between the eastbound and westbound routes that cover a significant portion of the 75 square mile RTS service area. The facility opened in August 2007 and serves more than 2,000 passengers each day. The Station plays a vital role in helping RTS fulfill the vision of becoming the transportation mode of choice for the Gainesville metropolitan area by underscoring the importance of creating transit centers and stations that our citizens recognize as important public places.

Rosa Parks RTS Downtown Station

41

RTS Facility Expansion RTS has reached capacity at its current Operations, Maintenance and Administration facility. The expansion of RTS’ internal infrastructure is critical to delivering quality service and is essential for continued federal funding support. A federal review of the RTS facility determined that fleet expansion is not possible until the maintenance facility is expanded to hold at least 50 more buses. Until then, RTS is only eligible for funds to replace existing buses and not expansion funds. RTS has received some federal funds to help expand the maintenance facility, but more funds are needed to design a facility that can accommodate the demand for future transit services. RTS recently purchased land for facility expansion and is now in the preliminary design and engineering phase of constructing a new maintenance facility.

RTS Bus Purchases The rapid increase in ridership from 1997 to 2003 caused RTS to more than double its fleet size. In order to meet the demand, RTS acquired many used buses, which caused the average age of the bus fleet to climb to nearly 12 years by 2000. More recently, and largely due to federal stimulus funds, RTS has reduced the fleet age to under 9 years. Despite the improved fleet age, 49 RTS buses still exceed their useful life in years and mileage. Older, high mileage vehicles require more repairs that can cost as much as $45,000 more per vehicle annually. RTS plans to lower the fleet age to an average of 6 years and then work to maintain that average age with a more regular replacement cycle.

Concept for new RTS facility

42

TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN (TDP) PROJECTS The Transit Development Plan calls for an average of two existing bus route enhancements each year and the creation of one new route per year. Several existing route enhancements are approved for fall 2010 including extending evening service on routes 1 and 8 until 11 p.m. The following new routes are also scheduled to begin in August 2010. Route 23 – Oaks Mall to SFC via Ft. Clarke Boulevard RTS has received Section 5311 rural transportation assistance funds to begin route 23, which will provide service between SFC and the Oaks Mall via Ft. Clarke Boulevard and Newberry Road.

Route 25: UF to Gainesville Regional Airport (GNV) RTS is fortunate to have funding partners who support continued transit service expansion. The University of Florida and the Florida Department of Transportation have each provided half of the funds needed to demonstrate a new route connecting the Gainesville Regional Airport to the UF main campus – Route 25. The route is currently scheduled to begin service in August 2010. Passenger participation is crucial to continuing the service beyond the one‐year demonstration period.

New Route 23

43

PLANNING STUDIES

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study and Alternatives Analysis RTS is working to obtain funds to begin a federally required study called an Alternatives Analysis, which is required to be eligible to use federal funds to construct and operate a BRT service or other types of premium transit service. Alternatives Analysis can take more than a year to complete and are often followed by a Preliminary Engineering & Design study before construction can begin. RTS is optimistic about the potential benefits of having BRT and other forms of premium transit services such as express buses to park and ride lots in or near neighboring communities and the Alternatives Analysis is an important step toward operating premium transit services in Gainesville.

44

COMMUNITY OUTLOOK

I have spoken at great length during this budget message, and justifiably so, of the challenges facing the

City of Gainesville today. It is just as important to take stock of the opportunities for progress that exist

here in the Gainesville community. While we have not been spared from a portion of the hardships

resulting from the recession of the past two years, we must look outside our borders and recognize that

the fundamental structure of our local economy shelters us to some extent from the degree of financial

loss experienced by the majority of our peers in Florida.

The fact that two of every three area jobs come from the governmental or educational sector provides

us with an economic base that does not grow as rapidly as others during periods of economic expansion

nor fall as precipitously during periods of economic decline. On a relative basis this has mitigated our

fiscal distress since 2008, and we have much to look forward to. Our primary economic engine, the

University of Florida, has a number of exciting expansion plans in progress.

UF Health Science Center and Shands Healthcare have announced a five‐year plan, $580 million

plan with the goal of adding 300 faculty positions and putting the Health Science Center among

the top 10 percent of national academic health care facilities. Of the $580 million, $230 million

will go to new or expanded clinical, research or educational facilities, $200 million to new

research programs, $110 million to enhancement of clinical services and $40 million to

enhanced educational programs. The infusion of new jobs and expansion of physical facilities

should have a significant ripple effect on both the local and regional economy.

While undergraduate enrollment is expected to remain relatively stable, UF plans to increase

graduate school enrollments by approximately 300 students per year.

Ground was broken on the Florida Innovation Hub (Hub) at UF in June of this year. The Hub is a

45,000 square foot “super incubator” to be constructed on the existing Shands AGH site that will

house 15‐20 startup technology companies and six to eight service providers when it is

completed in the fall of 2011. In addition to tech startups, the Hub will be home to UF’s Office of

Technology Licensing and UF Tech Connect. Both assist with getting emerging technologies on

the market. It is expected that this project will drive job creation, economic development, and

open opportunities for residents. The facility should also function as a bridge between

downtown Gainesville and the UF campus along the crucial 2nd Avenue corridor.

The City has long coveted the prospect of diversifying our revenue base through attracting clean high‐

tech industry, with job creation that is consistent with our community values. The potential growth

available from these UF projects provides the promise of not only helping to lift the City from the

current economic doldrums, but also propelling us forward to fulfill our visions and goals.

While we should acknowledge and prepare to meet our current challenges, so should we be equally

prepared to capitalize upon and celebrate the opportunities that abound before us. Through these

efforts we can endeavor to keep Gainesville the great place it is to live and work.

________________________________________________________________ CITY OF ________________________ GAINESVILLE

General Fund

With Comparative Data for Prior Two Years

FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012ADOPTED ACTUAL ADOPTED PROPOSED PLAN

SOURCES OF FUNDS:

Revenues: Taxes $41,097,991 $40,132,036 $42,852,332 $42,111,099 $41,737,766 Licenses and Permits $1,642,414 $1,745,034 $1,822,635 $1,793,333 $1,849,095 Intergovernmental Revenue $10,918,706 $9,389,852 $9,296,923 $9,043,245 $9,255,192 Charges for Services $7,730,548 $7,491,078 $7,486,882 $7,620,635 $7,966,026 Fines and Forfeitures $1,483,694 $1,493,287 $2,068,173 $1,459,127 $1,571,032 Miscellaneous Revenues $977,154 $1,266,890 $1,045,947 $809,585 $846,390

$63,850,507 $61,518,178 $64,572,892 $62,837,024 $63,225,501

Transfers From: Other Funds $371,930 $438,804 $372,874 $434,226 $440,068 Utility Transfer $33,677,074 $34,151,652 $34,972,788 $35,154,463 $36,222,989 Fund Balance $314,215 $0 $0 $0 $0

$34,363,219 $34,590,456 $35,345,662 $35,588,689 $36,663,057

TOTAL SOURCES $98,213,726 $96,108,634 $99,918,554 $98,425,713 $99,888,558

USES OF FUNDS:

Expenditures: Expenses $85,243,929 $82,706,002 $85,071,922 $82,935,469 $85,038,858 Transfers $12,969,797 $13,423,691 $14,846,632 $14,800,327 $14,849,700

$98,213,726 $96,129,693 $99,918,554 $97,735,796 $99,888,558

TOTAL USES $98,213,726 $96,129,693 $99,918,554 $97,735,796 $99,888,558

EXCESS (DEFICIT) OF SOURCES OVER USES $0 ($21,059) $0 $689,917 $0

FUND BALANCES: October 1 $14,427,811 $14,427,811 $14,406,752 $14,406,752 $15,096,669

September 30 $14,427,811 $14,406,752 $14,406,752 $15,096,669 $15,096,669

Financial Plan for FY 2011 & FY 2012

_________________ FY 2010-2011/2011-2012 FINANCIAL ________________________________________________________ AND OPERATING PLAN


General FundRevenues and Other Sources of Funds



TAXES: Real Property, Net $23,415,036 $23,205,086 $25,015,326 $23,609,120 $23,018,892 Hazmat Gross Receipts Tax $243,717 $197,388 $247,372 $218,212 $218,212 Local Option Gas Tax $864,626 $696,854 $821,994 $798,406 $806,390 Utility Service Tax: Electric $7,365,244 $7,196,428 $7,337,218 $8,113,000 $8,202,000 U of F Housing $26,337 $23,734 $27,229 $23,703 $24,414 U of F Physical Plant $59,349 $66,042 $70,179 $78,375 $80,726 Water $1,316,700 $1,301,143 $1,379,032 $1,412,000 $1,435,000 Natural Gas $642,010 $760,869 $786,248 $711,000 $719,000 Fuel Oil $375 $270 $11,206 $625 $638 Propane Gas $75,110 $72,831 $85,886 $77,216 $78,760 Insurance Premium Tax $1,368,743 $1,254,267 $1,430,336 $1,450,000 $1,450,000 Simplified Communications Service Tax $5,720,744 $5,357,125 $5,640,306 $5,619,442 $5,703,734TOTAL TAXES $41,097,991 $40,132,036 $42,852,332 $42,111,099 $41,737,766

LICENSES AND PERMITS: Occupational Licenses $939,397 $942,062 $1,032,537 $1,008,797 $1,018,885 Home Occupational Permits $27,024 $32,307 $28,781 $26,766 $27,034 Miscellaneous Permits $0 $0 $5,000 $5,006 $5,306 Open Burn Permits $0 $0 $10,000 $1,000 $1,000 Landlord Licensing Fee $661,780 $761,184 $735,447 $742,801 $787,369 Taxi Licenses $14,213 $9,480 $10,870 $8,963 $9,501TOTAL LICENSES & PERMITS $1,642,414 $1,745,034 $1,822,635 $1,793,333 $1,849,095

INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES: State Revenue Sharing - Sales Tax (Net) $2,149,136 $1,866,448 $1,714,103 $1,663,882 $1,713,710 State Revenue Sharing - Motor Fuel Tax (Net) $793,090 $616,043 $629,663 $611,213 $629,518 Mobile Home Licenses $33,940 $37,334 $36,787 $36,207 $36,207 Beverage Licenses $89,121 $92,552 $95,597 $92,917 $93,846 Half Cent Sales Tax $7,124,356 $6,014,999 $6,048,962 $5,833,121 $5,949,783 Firefighters Supplemental Comp $47,000 $51,241 $48,644 $57,916 $57,916 State Gas Tax Rebate $30,308 $32,760 $31,210 $39,144 $40,392 County/MTPO Contribution to B/PAB $7,575 $10,730 $7,802 $4,165 $8,000 FDOT-Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement $204,146 $204,146 $208,573 $214,830 $221,275 FDOT-Streetlight Maintenance Agreement $407,034 $407,034 $419,017 $431,588 $444,535 Payment in Lieu of Taxes-GHA Inc. $33,000 $56,565 $56,565 $58,262 $60,010TOTAL INTERGOV'TAL REVENUES $10,918,706 $9,389,852 $9,296,923 $9,043,245 $9,255,192







CHARGES FOR SERVICES: Airport Fire Services $456,500 $456,500 $479,325 $474,113 $485,966 Airport Security Services $295,817 $289,205 $273,003 $319,602 $327,592 S.F.C.C. Training Contract GPD - Recruitment $42,000 $65,338 $42,000 $42,420 $42,844 Miscellaneous Fees Police $28,297 $17,951 $20,440 $32,798 $34,766 GFR Billable Overtime $0 $26,962 $0 $28,570 $28,570 Zoning Fees (Land Development Codes) $292,092 $153,924 $141,016 $159,592 $195,668 Football Game Day Services-UAA $0 $0 $0 $12,000 $12,000 Trepass Towing Application Fee $19,561 $23,152 $15,436 $25,092 $26,598 Cash Overage/Shortage $0 $664 $0 $0 $0 Property Sales $0 $16,800 $0 $0 $0 Domestic Partnership Registration Fee $0 $350 $0 $200 $300 Document Reproduction Fees $123,019 $32,277 $22,413 $71,326 $72,039 Traffic Engineering Small Cities Projects $29,534 $32,686 $30,420 $33,667 $34,003 Fire Protection - County $0 $149,864 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Signals - County $147,589 $194,471 $139,522 $200,305 $202,308 Cemetery Fees $58,558 $32,172 $33,708 $32,899 $34,873 Parking-Meters and Permits $219,170 $218,383 $252,717 $226,263 $259,659 Parking Garage Revenues $360,571 $220,702 $226,280 $221,896 $224,115 Street Division Cost Recovery $68,000 $155,757 $109,955 $111,055 $112,166 Recreation-Membership/Sports $34,510 $28,095 $22,373 $15,118 $16,506 Swimming Pools $98,455 $135,408 $114,269 $164,982 $172,181 Recreation Centers/Playgrounds $345,364 $289,869 $280,299 $320,358 $336,879 Vending Machine Revenue $0 $1,645 $0 $0 $0 Asst City Attorney-GRU Share $157,264 $161,969 $167,014 $197,055 $202,666 Utility Indirect Services $1,593,650 $1,593,650 $1,673,333 $1,757,000 $1,844,850 RTS Indirect Services $775,148 $791,642 $813,905 $910,911 $955,218 C.D.B.G. Indirect Services $129,704 $143,663 $136,190 $72,307 $73,030 S.M.U.F. Indirect Services $331,861 $331,861 $348,454 $317,689 $320,866 Solid Waste Indirect Services $125,760 $125,760 $132,048 $138,650 $145,583 Ironwood Indirect Services $152,411 $152,411 $160,031 $168,033 $176,434 Fleet Indirect Services $299,324 $299,324 $314,290 $330,005 $346,505 Gen. Insurance Indirect Services $147,678 $147,678 $155,062 $162,815 $170,956 E.H.A.B. Indirect Services $91,233 $91,233 $95,795 $74,855 $75,604 C.R.A. Indirect Services $84,795 $84,795 $89,035 $93,487 $98,161 Building Inspections Indirect Services $327,599 $327,599 $343,979 $246,358 $248,822 General Pension Indirect Services $105,454 $105,454 $110,726 $116,262 $122,075 Police Pension Indirect Services $19,310 $19,310 $20,275 $21,289 $22,353 Fire Pension Indirect Services $12,873 $12,873 $13,517 $14,193 $14,902 Special Events Processing Fees $2,000 $493 $670 $677 $718 Cultural Affairs Accounts $117,142 $110,042 $109,887 $162,662 $172,421 Direct Financial Services - RTS $136,733 $136,733 $136,733 $0 $0 G.P.D./G.H.A./H.U.D. Contract $40,000 $47,406 $40,000 $97,801 $102,000 S.R.O. Contract - S.B.A.C $188,207 $184,859 $182,725 $91,362 $91,362 Broadcast Services $5,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 Development Review Fees $45,675 $0 $45,000 $10,000 $10,000 Environmental Review Fees $45,675 $0 $45,000 $13,714 $14,537 Traffic Impact Review Fees $20,300 $11,000 $14,700 $9,358 $9,920 Towing Application Program $0 $0 $60,000 $20,000 $20,000 Fire Inspection Fees $156,465 $69,150 $75,337 $101,896 $108,010TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES $7,730,548 $7,491,078 $7,486,882 $7,620,635 $7,966,026

FINES & FORFEITURES: Court Fines & Forfeitures $768,355 $619,675 $829,948 $556,500 $567,630 Parking Fines $262,158 $497,545 $690,995 $554,312 $584,541 Municipal Ordinance Fines $79,060 $51,220 $75,522 $84,350 $86,037 False Alarm Penalties $316,406 $280,789 $413,785 $220,163 $288,146 Code Enforcement Penalties $57,715 $44,058 $57,923 $43,802 $44,678TOTAL FINES & FORFEITURES $1,483,694 $1,493,287 $2,068,173 $1,459,127 $1,571,032







MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES: Interest on Investments $617,134 $593,170 $691,475 $458,855 $506,000 Interest on CRA Loans $0 $106,238 $0 $150,001 $142,506 Rental of City Property $125,460 $89,617 $103,210 $71,284 $71,284 Porters Oaks Mortgages $4,000 $1,978 $2,148 $1,874 $1,000 AFSS Agreement-Airport $0 ($4,633) $0 $0 $0 Demolition/Lot Clearing/Board & Seal $38,570 $39,495 $58,952 $22,759 $22,759 G.P.D. - Court Restitution $9,135 $22,243 $9,272 $12,097 $10,000 Recreation Nature Programs $44,660 $35,891 $20,176 $2,344 $2,485 GRU Energy Conservation Rebates $0 $97,383 $0 $0 $0 Other Misc Revenues $106,575 $280,339 $124,962 $51,162 $51,147 Sale of Surplus Equipment $31,620 $5,169 $35,752 $39,209 $39,209TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES $977,154 $1,266,890 $1,045,947 $809,585 $846,390

TOTAL REVENUES $63,850,507 $61,518,178 $64,572,892 $62,837,024 $63,225,501

TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS: Solid Waste Collection $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 General Pension Fund $0 $35,864 $0 $0 $0 Crossing Guard Trust $20,300 $20,300 $20,605 $21,635 $22,717 Cemetery Trust $42,630 $42,630 $43,269 $103,591 $108,351 Special Revenue Fund $0 $31,010 $0 $0 $0 Arts in Public Places Trust $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 Water/Wastewater Connections Surcharge $223,820 $462,852 $112,673 $365,872 $402,466 GRUCOMM $344,562 $344,559 $354,899 $365,543 $376,509 Gas Utility $1,804,466 $2,166,653 $2,027,032 $1,861,672 $2,143,596 Water $5,232,886 $4,986,157 $5,761,416 $5,983,361 $6,549,148 Wastewater $6,171,638 $5,961,711 $6,856,865 $7,005,396 $7,550,744 Electric $19,899,702 $20,229,721 $19,859,903 $19,572,619 $19,200,526TOTAL TRANSFERS $34,049,004 $34,590,456 $35,345,662 $35,588,689 $36,663,057

Appropriation from Fund Balance $314,215 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL SOURCES $98,213,726 $96,108,634 $99,918,554 $98,425,713 $99,888,558




General FundExpenditures and Other Uses of Funds by Agency



AGENCY NAMES & NUMBERS Neighborhood Improvements (620) $1,379,885 $1,245,987 $1,321,329 $1,177,174 $1,198,342 Planning and Development Services (660) $246,347 $258,466 $246,932 $388,889 $195,194 Planning (670) $1,426,942 $1,359,654 $1,298,266 $1,160,313 $1,173,109 Administrative Services (700) $430,120 $428,858 $422,481 $378,504 $389,507 Commission (710) $274,492 $281,502 $278,909 $362,968 $395,236 Clerk of the Commission (720) $728,330 $751,259 $733,735 $570,446 $585,180 City Manager (730) $869,438 $809,777 $820,855 $754,099 $771,978 City Auditor (740) $515,298 $519,721 $511,224 $457,212 $469,741 City Attorney (750) $1,591,477 $1,439,111 $1,560,651 $1,563,073 $1,686,812 Information Technology (760) $2,479,376 $2,410,170 $2,351,581 $2,165,547 $2,212,356 Budget and Finance (770) $2,864,454 $2,766,888 $2,744,102 $2,502,211 $2,573,775 Equal Opportunity (780) $523,719 $496,673 $527,196 $509,265 $520,938 Public Works (800) $9,654,524 $8,519,443 $9,692,934 $9,374,601 $9,715,082 Police (810) $29,404,118 $29,546,501 $29,601,368 $29,806,868 $30,582,543 Fire/Rescue (820) $13,850,801 $13,665,286 $14,288,000 $13,532,405 $13,973,860 Combined Communications Center (830) $3,610,840 $3,553,975 $3,794,490 $3,908,325 $4,025,574 General Services (840) $2,149,296 $2,137,915 $2,356,397 $1,959,593 $1,979,378 Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs (850) $7,450,924 $7,481,203 $7,631,155 $6,519,834 $6,682,731 Human Resources (900) $1,414,833 $1,361,427 $1,455,317 $1,244,410 $1,276,791 Risk Management (920) $5,524 $4,487 $5,294 $5,590 $5,766 Communications (960) $407,864 $370,044 $427,105 $373,910 $383,278 Non-Departmental Expenditures (990) $16,935,124 $16,721,346 $17,849,233 $19,020,559 $19,091,387TOTAL GENERAL FUND USES $98,213,726 $96,129,693 $99,918,554 $97,735,796 $99,888,558




General Fund

Contingencies and Transfers



CONTINGENCY ACCOUNTS: Commission Contingency $25,000 $15,800 $0 $0 $0 City Manager Contingency $25,000 $21,940 $25,000 $20,000 $20,000 Outside Agency Contingency $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Trans-Retiree Cola $0 $1,504 $0 $0 $0 Contract Issues $100,000 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Personal Services Adjustment $75,000 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 Allowance for One-Time Items $248,235 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 Allowance for General Fund Reserve $0 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000TOTAL CONTINGENCIES $493,235 $39,244 $125,000 $470,000 $420,000

TRANSFER TO OTHER FUNDS: Ironwood Golf Course $360,000 $360,000 $1,460,000 $862,975 $862,975 Greenspace Acquisition $0 $425,000 $0 $0 $425,000 Fleet Fund $0 $63,289 $0 $0 $0 Regional Transit System $7,858 $7,858 $100,285 $100,785 $101,285 Tax Increment 5th Ave $152,348 $152,155 $210,131 $198,277 $196,294 Tax Increment College Park/Univ. Heights $992,549 $986,800 $1,129,062 $1,025,780 $1,015,522 Tax Increment Downtown $480,718 $471,391 $609,744 $568,177 $562,495 Tax Increment Eastside $213,080 $208,693 $242,483 $223,763 $221,525 General Capital Projects $765,000 $383,690 $854,895 $1,232,767 $784,254 Solid Waste Collections Fund $6,400 $6,400 $6,400 $6,400 $6,400 Fl Bldg Code Enforcement Enterprise Fund $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 Water/wastewater Surcharge Infrastructure $111,910 $231,426 $114,148 $182,936 $201,233 CDBG (102) $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Misc. Grants Fund (115) $126,318 $333,374 $185,376 $246,160 $0 Misc. Special Revenue Fund (123) $200,000 $239,754 $503,513 $200,000 $200,000 FFGFC Bond of 1996 $463,000 $463,000 $8,104 $0 $0 FFGFC Bond of 1998 $797,794 $798,294 $797,646 $794,108 $794,108 FFGFC Bond of 2002 $774,522 $784,522 $777,916 $775,385 $776,465 POB-Series 2003A $400,675 $400,675 $439,471 $492,713 $536,208 POB-Series 2003B $2,933,921 $2,933,921 $3,093,921 $3,263,920 $3,438,920 FFGFC Bond of 2005 $395,339 $402,084 $393,797 $391,921 $394,734 FFGFC Bond of 2007 $115,805 $117,805 $113,605 $116,405 $114,005 FFGFC 2005 Capital Projects Fund $0 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 OPEB Obligation Bond-Series 2005 $1,922,691 $1,922,691 $2,011,163 $2,119,872 $2,217,721 CIP Bond-Series 2006 $1,724,869 $1,724,869 $1,725,869 $1,725,468 $1,728,668 Debt Service-Fy 2010 Debt Issue $0 $0 $69,103 $222,515 $221,888TOTAL TRANSFERS $12,969,797 $13,423,691 $14,846,632 $14,800,327 $14,849,700




General Fund

Non-Departmental (Agency #990) Expenditures



ACCOUNT NAMES: Motor Pool $110,299 $74,160 $86,254 $64,632 $66,204 Unemployment Compensation State $43,000 $24,285 $43,000 $50,000 $50,000 Allowance Annexation Reserve $21,835 $12,764 $17,920 $17,920 $17,920 GIS Upgrade $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 Elections $102,000 $7,743 $202,000 $212,100 $222,705 Fee Study-General $0 $105,420 $0 $0 $0 Allowance for Boards & Committees $21,765 $0 $21,765 $21,765 $21,765 Uncollectible Receivables $35,000 $591,471 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 County Street Lights $1,122,850 $964,702 $1,076,860 $1,122,627 $1,156,305 Early Learning Coalition $45,600 $42,559 $45,600 $45,600 $45,600 Stop the Violence Contribution $0 $0 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 Fire Services Assessment Agreement $0 $0 $0 $512,088 $537,688 Koppers Site Consulting Contract $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Koppers Site Legal Expense $0 $0 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 Culture Study $0 $0 $15,000 $0 $0 Transfer to Other Funds $12,969,797 $13,423,691 $14,846,632 $14,800,327 $14,849,700 Contingency $493,235 $39,244 $125,000 $470,000 $420,000 Voluntary Separation Savings $0 $0 ($339,634) $0 $0 Property Insurance Premium $603,479 $586,462 $630,635 $650,000 $650,000 Casualty Insurance Premium $765,264 $667,805 $799,701 $800,000 $800,000 Lobbyist Contract $163,000 $163,840 $163,000 $138,000 $138,000 Greenspace Acquisition $425,000 $4,200 $0 $0 $0TOTALS $16,935,124 $16,721,346 $17,849,233 $19,020,559 $19,091,387



Marked set by osterksFY2011-12 Proposed Budget …...FY2011-12 Proposed Budget in Brief City of...

Documents

Transcript of Marked set by osterksFY2011-12 Proposed Budget …...FY2011-12 Proposed Budget in Brief City of...