HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Resolution 1418RESOLUTION NO. 1 Y/8
A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLAN
FOR THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
RECITALS:
A. Whereas the Mayor and City Council are committed to preserving the assets and services
of the City thru strategic, resilient, and sustainable financial planning; and
B. The Mayor and Council have reviewed the attached Long Term Financial Plan and wish to
adopt this plan to guide financial decisions that will favorably influence the stability and
health of the City for current and future years.
THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT RESOLVES:
Section 1: To adopt the Long Term Financial Plan for the City of Central Point.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this February 26, 2015.
Hank Williams, Mayor
Deanna Casey,
CENTRAL
POINT
City of Central Point
Long Term Financial Plan
February 2015
FCS GROUP
7525 166th Avenue NE, Suite D-215
Redmond, WA 98052
T: 425.867.1802 1 F: 425.867.1937
This entire report is made of readily recyclable materials,
including the bronze wire binding and the front and
back Cover, which are made from postconsumer
recycled plastic bottles.
•�>FCS GROUP Finn Headqua m Serving the Western U.S.
*
�� Redmond Town Center and Canada since 1988
Solutions -Oriented Consulting 7525 166^ Ave NE Washington 1 425.867.1802
Suite D-215 Oregon 1 503.841.6543
Redmond, Washington 98052 Alaska 1 907.242.0659
February 9, 2015
Bev Adams, Finance Director
City of Central Point
140 South Third Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Subject: Long Term Financial Plan
Dear Ms. Adams:
Attached is our final report for our Long Term Financial Plan. We want to thank you and all the City staff
for their assistance and participation in helping us gather information for the study. We have included
revisions that reflect comments received during the City Council briefing. We will send the financial
forecasting models and the user guide separately. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at
(425) 867-1802 extension 228.
Sincerely,
/� -;w27
Peter Moy
Principal
City of Central Point, Oregon Long Term Financial Plan
February, 2015 page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
City Background ..................
The FY 2015 Budget .........
CHAPTER II: BEST PRACTICES....................................................................................................... 6
BestBudgeting Practices.............................................................................................................................7
FinancialPolicies...........................................................................................................................................9
CapitalPlanning..........................................................................................................................................10
Performance Measures..............................................................................................................................12
Conclusions and Recommendations......................................................................................................13
CHAPTER III: HISTORICAL FINANCIAL TRENDS..........................................................................14
Observations................................................................................................................................................18
CHAPTER IV: LONG TERM FINANCIAL FORECASTS..................................................................19
CityFinancial Challenges..........................................................................................................................19
KeyAssumptions..:.......................................................................................................................................19
TheBaseline Scencido.................................................................................................................................20
Fee and Rate Increase Scenario.............................................................................................................22
EconomicGrowth Scenario....................................................................................................._...............24
Property Tax Rate Increase Scenario......................................................................................................25
Conclusions and Recommendations......................................................................................................25
APPENDIX A: NACSLB BEST BUDGETING PRACTICES SELF-ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX B: PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL PROJECTS
•:;> FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
Long Term Financial Plan
page 1
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Although the City of Central Point has successfully navigated the recent recession by utilizing a variety
of tools and techniques common to short-term reduced revenue situations, the City believes that it can be
less reactive and more strategic in its financial planning. To help it improve decision making and be more
strategic, the City initiated a process to develop a long range financial model and plan that will help it be
more strategic, resilient, and sustainable. To assist the City with this effort, it engaged FCS GROUP to
help create a financial modeling tool for the City's major activities that includes five major City funds:
General Fund, Street Fund, Building Fund, Water Fund, and Stormwater Fund.
As part of developing the financial model and plan, FCS GROUP's approach included the following:
• Meeting with City management to discuss the financial model elements and plan,
• Interviewing each department head about the department's future program and financial issues,
• Identifying best financial practices,
• Reviewing preliminary forecast results with the City Manager and Finance Director,
• Providing a financial forecasting model, training, and model documentation, and
• Making presentations to City management and the City Council.
We want to acknowledge the staff assistance and support from City department managers, especially
the City's Finance Director Bev Adams. This financial forecast and plan identifies best practices, the
City's use of such practices, General Fund trends, and different forecast scenarios.
CITY BACKGROUND
The City of Central Point was incorporated in 1889 and currently includes an area of 3.52 square
miles and has a population of over 17,000. The City is located in the northwest part of Jackson
County and borders Medford, the largest city in the county. According to the City, the City's physical
development has been relatively slow and has for many years retained a rural community
atmosphere. However, a building boom in Southern Oregon significantly altered the landscape of the
community with housing and commercial projects creating population growth and impacting the need
for services that accompany growth. The national economic recession resulted in no significant
growth in either population or residential and commercial projects. The regional economic base is
tied to agricultural tourism healthcare transportation, and manufacturing.
The City provides a range of services including police protection, construction and maintenance of
the City's streets, storm drains, water facilities, building inspection, planning, economic
development, parks, and recreation. The City operates under a council-manager form of government,
and the City Council consists of a mayor and six council members. The mayor serves as the
ceremonial head of the City, a voting member of the Council, and the presiding officer of the
meetings. An organizational chart of the City's government is shown in Exhibit 1.
•:;> FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
Exhibit 1
City Organizational Chart
Long Term Financial Plan
page 2
qty Rewnier Human Peawmea iecM1niralkNkes Polka Fz Works
bik
Oeaebpmeknt
ParksaM
kecres[bn
Publk Wort
Water kmefs
I Fb I
The FY 2015 Budget
BulCing
CLrmnt a lory
Term Planning
The basis for the financial forecasts is the FY 2015 budget, and different scenarios have been created
based on this budget. In FY 2015, the five funds analyzed as part of this financial plan represent 73%
of the City's financial resources and support almost all the services provided by the City. Other City
funds include the debt service fund revenues, reserve fund, the HTCTF fund, capital improvements
fund revenues, and internal services fund revenues. Exhibits 2 through 6 show a summary of the
adopted FY 2015 budgets for the five funds included in this plan. It should be noted that City
provided some revised estimates and that all of the FY 2015 budgets show that expenditures exceed
revenues and fund balances are being used to compensate for the gap.
•:;4FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
Exhibit 2
General Fund
Revenue Category
Budget
Taxes*
$6,239,942
Licenses & Fees
59,500
Intergovernmental
497,100
Charges for Service
994,500
Fines & Forfeitures
105,000
Interest
32,500
Miscellaneous
137,000
Use of Fund Balance*
419,158
Total Revenues*
$8,484,700
*Revised Estimate
Expenditure Category
Budget
Administration
$701,100
City Enhancement
198,500
Technical Services
548,400
Mayor & Council
61,250
Finance
775,600
Parks*
793,350
Recreation
522,740
Planning
403,850
Police*
4,180,910
Interdepartmental
95,000
Transfers
44,000
Contingency
160,000
Total Expenditures*
$8,484,700
*Revised Estimate
Exhibit 3
Building
Revenue Category
Budget
Permit Fees
$144,500
Interest Income
1,500
Use of Fund Balance
29,600
Total Building Fund Revenues
$175,600
Expenditure Category
Budget
Personnel Services
$156,300
Total Materials & Services
16,300
Contingency
3,000
Total Building Fund Requirements
$175,600
':.> FCS GROUP
Long Term Financial Plan
page 3
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
Exhibit 4
Street Fund
Revenue Category
Budget
Taxes
$240,000
Intergovernmental
990,000
Charges for Services
550,000
Interest Income
11,000
Miscellaneous
5,000
Use of Fund Balance
329,200
Total Street Revenues
$2,125,200
Expenditure Category
Budget
Personnel Services
$406,700
Materials & Services
1,078,500
Capital Projects
255,000
Transfers Out
32,000
Street SDC Capital Projects
253,000
Contingency
100,000
Total Street Fund Requirements
1 $2,125,200
Exhibit 5
Water Fund
Revenue Category
Budget
Total Charges for Service
2,885,500
Interest Income
6,000
Miscellaneous Revenue
10,000
Use of Fund Balance
297,800
Total Water Revenues
3,199,300
Expenditure Category
Budget
Personnel Services
$664,900
Materials & Services
1,770,800
Capital Projects
210,000
Debt Service
392,600
Water Operations/Capital
Projects
3,038,300
Water SIC Capital Projects
16,000
Contingency
145,000
Total Water Fund Requirements
$3,199,300
FCS GROUP
Long Term Financial Plan
page 4
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
Exhibit 6
Stormwater Fund
Revenue Category
Budget
Total Charges for Services
$841,150
Interest Income
4,000
Use of Fund Balance
49,500
Total Stormwater Revenues
$894,650
Expenditure Category
Budget
Stormwater Operations
Personnel Services
$239,550
Materials & Services
404,100
Capital Projects
62,000
Debt Service
9,000
Stormwater Quality
Materials & Services
62,000
Capital Projects
50,000
Stormwater SDC Capital
Projects
25,000
Contingency
43,000
Total Stormwater Requirements
$894,650
•:;> FCS GROUP
Long Term Financial Plan
page 5
City of Central Point, Oregon Long Term Financial Plan
February, 2015 page 6
CHAPTER II: BEST PRACTICES
As part of this financial plan, best practices for local government financial planning and budgeting
were identified to find opportunities for enhancing and adding to the City's long range financial
health and policy framework. As resources become more limited and demands for continuing quality
City services remain constant or increasing, the City might need to take steps to improve its budget
policy framework, process, and the information needed to make budget and financial decisions for
the long term, especially for the General Fund.
The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and the National Advisory Council on State
and Local Budgeting are primary organizations that have identified best practices for improving
governmental finance and budgeting. The GFOA's mission is to enhance and promote the
professional management of governments for the public benefit by identifying and developing
financial policies and practices and by promoting them through education, training, and leadership.
The National Advisory Council has recommended budget practices that provide a framework for
improving local government budgeting.
GFOA recommends that all governments regularly engage in long term financial planning, and
GFOA identified the following planning elements and essential steps for long term financial
planning.
•
Longterm financial planning combines financial forecasting with strategizing. It is a highly
collaborative process that considers future scenarios and helps governments navigate challenges.
Long term financial planning works best as part of an overall plan.
• Long term financial planning is the process of aligning financial capacity with long term service
objectives. Financial planning uses forecasts to provide insight into future financial capacity so
that strategies can be developed to achieve long term sustainability in light of the government's
service objectives and financial challenges.
• Many governments have a comprehensive long term planning process because it stimulates
discussion and engenders a long range perspective for decision makers. It can be used as a tool to
prevent financial challenges, stimulate long term and strategic thinking, develop consensus on
long term financial directions, and communicate with internal and external stakeholders.
• Time horizon —A plan should look at least 5 to 10 years into the future. Governments may elect
to extend their planning horizon further if conditions warrant a longer forecast.
• Scope - A plan should consider all appropriated funds, but especially those funds that are used to
account for the issues of concern to elected officials in the community.
• Frequency - Governments should update long term planning activities as needed in order to
provide direction to the budget process, though not every element of the long range plan must be
repeated.
• Content - A plan should include an analysis of the financial environment, revenue and
expenditure forecast, debt position and affordability analysis, strategies for achieving and
maintaining financial balance, and plan monitoring mechanisms such as scorecard or key
indicators of financial help.
4%)o FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon Long Term Financial Plan
February, 2015 page 7
• Visibility - The public and elected officials should be able to easily learn about long -tern
financial prospects of the government and strategies for financial balance. Hence governments
should devise an effective means for communicating this information through either separate plan
documents or by integrating it with existing communication devices.
GFOA also recommends that all governmental entities use some form of strategic planning to
provide a long term perspective for service delivery and budgeting thereby establishing links between
authorized spending and broad organizational goals. The City adopted a strategic plan, Forward, Fair
City Vision 2020, in 2007. GFOA noted that an important complement to the strategic planning
process is the preparation of a long term financial plan, ideally prepared concurrently with the
strategic plan. For the best practices, this chapter's focus is on budgeting practices, financial policies,
capital planning, and performance measures.
BEST BUDGETING PRACTICES
The Government Finance Officers Association and seven other state and local government
associations created the National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting (NACSLB) in
1995. The Council's charge was to develop a set of recommended practices in the area of state and
local budgeting. The NACSLB developed a comprehensive set of processes and procedures in 1997
that define an acceptable budget process. The recommended practices advocate a goal -driven
approach to budgeting that spans the planning, development, adoption, and execution phases of the
budget. The GFOA continues to support these practices and has issued several other long range
planning practices. According to the NACSLB, a good overall budget process does the following:
• Incorporates a long term perspective,
• Establishes linkages to broad organizational goals,
• Focuses budget decisions on results and outcomes,
• Involves and promotes effective communication with stakeholders, and
• Provides incentives to government management and employees.
The NACSLB's overall framework consists of four principles and twelve budgetary elements.
Within each element, specific budget practices are identified and recommended, and overall there are
more than 50 budget practices identified. The following shows just the principles and budgetary
elements.
Principle A. Establish broad goals to guide government decision making.
• Element 1 - Assess community needs, priorities, challenges and opportunities,
• Element 2 - Identify opportunities and challenges for government services, capital assets, and
management, and
• Element 3 - Develop and disseminate broad goals.
Principle B. Develop approaches to achieve goals.
• Element 4 - Adopt financial policies,
• Element 5 - Develop programmatic, operating, and capital policies and plans,
• Element 6 - Develop programs and services that are consistent with policies and plans, and
• Element 7 - Develop management strategies.
Principle C. Develop a budget consistent with approaches to achieve goals.
401 FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon Long Term Financial Plan
February, 2015 page 8
• Element 8 - Develop a process for preparing and adopting a budget,
• Element 9 - Develop and evaluate financial options, and
• Element 10 -Make choices necessary to adopt a budget.
Principle D. Evaluate performance and make adjustments.
• Element 11 - Monitor, measure, and evaluate performance, and
• Element 12 - Make adjustments as needed.
Based on a self-assessment of all the above practices, the City could make improvements to its
budget policies, process, and document by refining some of its current practices and by instituting
new practices with regard to its financial policies (see the Financial Policies section). Appendix A
includes the City's self-assessment. There are three areas that may be important to the City in the
near future:
• Adopting financial policies,
• Capital planning, and
• Monitoring, measuring and evaluating performance.
Besides the NACSLB's best practices for budgeting, the Government Finance Officers Association
has a Distinguished Budget Presentation Awards program to recognize governmental agencies that
utilize their budget documents as an effective communication tool to meet the needs of their
constituents, media, and policymakers. The program is designed to encourage and assist state and
local governments to prepare budget documents of the very highest quality that reflect both the
guidelines established by the National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting and the
GFOA's best practices on budgeting and to recognize individual governments that succeed in
achieving that goal. The program has 31 evaluation criteria that measure the information in and
presentation of the document according to four key areas: policy document, financial plan, operations
guide, and communications device. The goal of these criteria is to define standards for a budget that
presents comprehensive financial information to the public in simple, non-technical language. The
City currently shows in its budget its GFOA Financial Reporting Award, which is associated with its
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and not its budget.
The GFOA criteria present a multi-year, quantifiable, and goal -oriented budget structure. According
to the criteria, information should not be limited to the upcoming budget period, but should also
reflect on past and current performance to provide adequate context to the reader. Descriptions of
objectives, issues, initiatives, and program alterations should, when possible, be quantified to identify
impacts to the budget presented. Goals for departments, divisions, programs, and activities should be
expressed as both quantified short-term plans and long-term objectives, and they should be linked to
overall City goals. Performance measures illustrating both workload demands and goal achievement
should be included where possible and applicable.
As a policy document, GFOA believes that the budget should describe the priorities and issues that
drive the direction for the coming year. Overall goals for the City should be referenced throughout
departmental plans to demonstrate consistent execution of stated objectives in all departments,
divisions, programs, and activities provided. Goals should be both short and long-term plans, with
short-term goals that have quantifiable objectives.
To fulfill GFOA's criteria as a financial plan, the budget must describe key financial data in
understandable, summary level formats covering all funds. Comparing budget projections to past and
current periods is mandated in nearly all criteria. The document must strike a balance between
maintaining a "budget in brief' format and providing enough information to be complete without
dwelling on technical detail.
4#4 FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
Long Term Financial Plan
page 9
The operations guide aspect of budgeting requires the City to clearly describe and quantify
performance for departments, divisions, programs, and activities. Budget figures, objectives, budget
issues and changes, and performance measures should be provided for the major services of each
department and/or division. Information at the program or activity levels should relate not only to
department goals but also to Citywide objectives defined within the budget document.
Finally, the budget, as a communications device, should be presented in a manner designed to speak
to a public audience interested in the management of the City. The document should strive for a
clean, simple layout and professional look. Information should be readily available and easy to find.
Most importantly, it should focus on the needs of the intended audience and speak to their
requirements, excluding technical detail but providing complete, consistent information.
FINANCIAL POLICIES
One of the initial steps in a long term financial plan is to adopt financial policies that establish the
framework for the City's overall approach to its financial practices and management. For the past
several years, the City has developed financial policies as part of its budget process, and these
financial policies have provided the foundation for the City's budget decisions and related financial
practices.
As part of the annual budget process, the City's department heads, the Mayor, and City Council
adopt budget goals and policies in January and based on these policies and priorities, the various City
department directors prepare their budgets. Once the budget is prepared by the end of April, the
budget is then submitted to the City's Budget Committee for review, modification, and
recommendation. The Budget Committee consists of the Mayor, City Council members, and seven
citizens. The City includes its financial management policies with the budget.
The City's FY 2015 budget, the financial policies provided guidance on the following broad categories:
• Cash Management,
• Accounting,
• Operating Budgetary Policy, and
• Fund Structure and Fund Balance.
From an overall policy framework, the City's policies generally address many of those identified by
the Government Finance Officers Association. In 2002, GFOA recommended developing financial
policies that it considered fundamental to the budget process. These fundamental policies include
financial planning, revenue, and expenditure policies. For financial planning policies, GFOA
recommended that, at a minimum, such policies should address defining balanced operating budgets
and disclosing when a balanced budget is not planned or will not occur. Another key element is
having long range planning policies that support a financial planning process that assesses the long
term financial implications of current and proposed operating and capital budgets, budget policies,
cash management and investment policies, programs, and assumptions. The third financial planning
policy area is an asset inventory that inventories and assesses the condition of all major capital
assets.
For revenue policies, GFOA policy recommendations seek to provide stability and to avoid potential
service disruptions caused by revenue shortfalls. At a minimum GFOA recommends that
jurisdictions should (1) encourage revenue diversification to handle fluctuations in individual
revenue sources, (2) identify the manner in which fees and charges are set and the extent to which
they cover the cost of service provided, (3) discourage the use of one-time revenues for ongoing
expenditures, and (4) address the collection and use of major revenue sources that a jurisdiction
considers unpredictable.
•:;> FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon Long Term Financial Plan
February, 2015 page 10
For expenditure policies, GFOA recommended that jurisdictions adopt policies that (1) specify the
appropriate uses for debt and identifies the maximum amount of debt and debt service that should be
outstanding at any time, (2) establish a prudent level of financial resources to protect against the need
to reduce service levels or raise taxes and fees due to temporary revenue shortfalls or unpredicted
one-time expenditures, and (3) compare actual expenditures to budget periodically and take action to
bring the budget into balance, when necessary.
The City has recognized the importance of adopting financial policies and has for the most part
developed financial policies recommended as part of the NACSLB's budget practices. Under the
"adopt financial policies" element there are several types of policies recommended by the NACSLB.
The financial policies include the following:
• stabilization funds,
• fees and charges,
• debt issuance and management,
• debt level and capacity,
• use of one-time revenues,
• use of unpredictable revenues,
• balancing the operating budget,
• revenue diversification, and
• contingency planning.
Of the above types of policies, the City has not yet developed policies regarding stabilization funds,
use of one-time revenues, use of unpredictable revenues, and revenue diversity. The City's debt
management policies could also be supplemented. There are two recommended practices for
establishing debt policies. The first practice is to adopt policies that guide the issuance and
management of debt. The types of policies should include the purposes for which debt may be
issued, the matching of the useful life of an asset with the maturity of the debt, limitations on the
amount of outstanding debt, types of permissible debt, structural features, including payment of debt
service and any limitations resulting from legal provisions or financial constraints, refunding of debt,
and investment of bond proceeds.
The second practice is to adopt a policy on the maximum amount of debt and debt service that should
be outstanding at any one-time. These policies should provide for different policies for general
obligation debt, debt supported by government enterprises, and other types of debt such as special
assessment bonds, short-term debt, variable rate debt, and leases.
Examples of the NACSLB's practices are provided on the GFOA's website. For example, a debt
management policy established limits on the amounts of unlimited tax general obligation debt and
limited tax general obligation debt. The policy was to have no more than .75% of the city's taxable
assessed valuation as unlimited tax general obligation debt. For the limited tax general obligation
debt, the total limit is 1% of the city's taxable assessed valuation, and annual debt service cannot be
greater than 10% of the annual General Fund revenues.
CAPITAL PLANNING
Besides general budgeting best practices, capital planning is also an important area to address and
was mentioned by several City departments as a key future issue. There are two GFOA best
practices that apply to the City: capital planning policies and coordinating economic development
and capital planning.
GFOA believes that policies designed to guide capital planning help assure that a jurisdiction's
unique needs are fully considered in the capital planning process and that effective policies can also
help a government assure the sustainability of its infrastructure by establishing a process for
•:;> FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
Long Term Financial Plan
page 11
addressing maintenance, replacement, and proper fixed asset accounting over the full life of capital
assets. According to GFOA, capital planning policies should provide, at a minimum, the following:
• A description of how an organizations will approach capital planning,
• A clear definition of what constitutes a capital improvement project,
• Establishment of a capital improvement program review committee,
• A description of the role of the public and external stakeholders in the process,
• Identification of how decisions will be made in the process including a structured process for
prioritizing need and allocating limited resources,
• A requirement that the planning process includes an assessment of the government's fiscal
capacity so the capital plan is based on what can be realistically funded rather than being simply
a wish list,
• A procedure for accumulating necessary capital reserves for both new and replacement
purchases,
• A policy linking funding strategies with useful life of the asset including when debt can be
issued,
• A requirement that a multi-year capital improvement plan be developed and that it include long
term financing considerations and strategies,
• A process for funding to ensure that capital project funding is consistent with legal requirements,
• A requirement that the plan include significant capital maintenance projects, and
• Provisions for monitoring and oversight of the CIP program, including reporting requirements
and how to handle changes and amendments to the plan.
As part of the City's strategic plan, there are several areas where capital planning is critical to
implementing several goals in the plan concerning downtown revitalization and beautification,
managing growth and infrastructure, recreation, and transportation elements. GFOA identified best
practices concerning economic development and capital planning and include the following elements:
• Alignment with the organization's goals and objectives,
• Timing of economic development and capital planning projects,
• Value public infrastructure as an economic development strategy,
• Opportunities for having developers fund capital assets,
• Impact of development on existing assets and ongoing maintenance,
• Use of economic development tools to fund capital projects (e.g. redevelopment districts),
• Debt resulting from either economic development or the capital improvement program,
• Administrative aspects of economic development agreements, and
• Coordinating economic development strategies with other initiatives (e.g. master plans, the City's
comprehensive plan, the long term financial plan).
The NACSLB's best practices for capital planning include the following.
• Adopt policies and plans for capital asset acquisition, maintenance, replacement, and retirement,
• Develop a capital improvement plan that identifies its priorities and time frame for undertaking
capital projects and provides a financing plan for those projects. The plan, including both capital
•:;> FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
Long Term Financial Plan
page 12
and operating costs should project at least five years into the future and should be fully integrated
into the overall financial plan, and
• Monitor, measure, and evaluate capital program implementation.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
GFOA recommends that program and service performance measures be developed and used as an
important component of the long term strategic planning and decision making. GFOA encourages all
governments to use performance measures as an integral part of the budget process. GFOA believes
that when used in the long term planning and goal setting process and when linked to an
organization's mission, goals, and objectives, meaningful performance measures assist government
officials and citizens identify financial and program results, evaluate past resource decisions, and
facilitate qualitative improvements in future decisions regarding resource allocation and service
delivery. The NACSLB's budget practices for performance measures are:
• Develop and utilize performance measures for functions, programs, and/or activities,
• Periodically evaluate the performance of the programs and services it provides, and
• Performance measures, including efficiency and effectiveness measures, should be presented in
basic budget materials, including the operating budget document.
Although the current budget identifies key objectives, performance measures and goals, it is difficult
to determine the level of service provided, the effectiveness of the City's use of resources, and the
demand for services. The measures are more oriented toward processes, tasks, activities, and outputs
rather than service levels. To understand the balance between efficiency and effectiveness, more
quantitative performance and workload measures are necessary to identify and determine the cost and
level of service and to increase accountability. For example, the Police performance measures
involve reduced liability, increased efficiency, and accuracy of records, evidence control, and
timesheets. GFOA recommends the following for performance measures:
• Be based on program goals and objectives that tie to a statement of program mission or purpose,
• Measure program outcomes,
• Provide for resource allocation comparisons over time,
• Measure efficiency and effectiveness for continuous improvement,
• Be verifiable, understandable, and timely,
• Be consistent throughout the strategic plan, budget, accounting and reporting systems and to the
extent practical, be consistent over time,
• Be reported internally and externally,
• Be monitored and used in managerial decision-making processes,
• Be limited to a number and degree of complexity that can provide an efficient and meaningful
way to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of key programs, and
• Be designed in such a way to motivate staff at all levels to contribute toward organizational
improvement.
•:;> FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon Long Term Financial Plan
February, 2015 page 13
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Compared to policies and practices recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association
and the National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting, the City has established a good
policy framework that has helped guide the City through some difficult economic times. The future
challenge for the City is to address its capital needs in a comprehensive manner, to develop the
information needed to refine its operating budget decisions, and to monitor performance. To
complete its policy framework and meet best practices, we recommend the following:
• Refine existing financial policies and develop additional financial policies concerning revenues
as needed according to best practices,
• Establish more specific debt issuance and management policies as well as policies concerning
debt level and capacity,
• Adopt policies and plans for capital asset acquisition, maintenance, replacement, and retirement,
• Develop an overall capital improvement plan that identifies priorities and time frames for
implementing capital projects and provides a financing plan for those projects. The plan,
including both capital and related operating costs, should project at least five years into the future
and should be fully integrated'into the overall financial plan,
• Identify cost effective opportunities where performance, efficiency, and effectiveness measures
can be developed and included as part of the basic budget materials and budget document, and
• Improve the budget document, where appropriate with best practices, and consider applying for
the GFOA's budget award in the future.
•:;> FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
Long Term Financial Plan
page 14
CHAPTER III: HISTORICAL FINANCIAL TRENDS
To provide a perspective about the City's past financial performance, an analysis of the City's
financial trends was conducted for the City's General Fund by reviewing the past ten fiscal years .plus
the FY 2015 budget. The General Fund is the City's largest fund and supports many of the City's
basic services such as police, parks, recreation, planning, and the City's administrative and support
services. Between FY 2005 and FY 2012, the City's annual General Fund revenues exceeded
expenditures except for FY 2006, but since 2012, the City has operated at a deficit in 2012 and 2013
and had a slight surplus in 2014. FY 2015's budget also includes a planned deficit where estimated
revenues are less than the budgeted expenditures. Exhibit 7 shows the trends since FY 2005.
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
S3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000.000
$o
Exhibit 7
11 Year History of General Fund Revenues and Expenditures
FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FC 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY2015
Budget
—Expenditures —Revenues
With the surpluses before FY 2012, the City increased its fund balance before having to rely on its
General Fund balance to maintain services since FY 2012. According to the City staff, the City has
been working over the years to stabilize the General Fund balance during its budget deliberations.
Compared to the budgeted ending fund balances, the City has, however, managed to increase the
fund balance in several years and achieve higher actual fund balances. As shown in Exhibit 8, the
budgeted ending fund balance has been between about $1.7 million to $2 million, while actual ending
fund balances have been between $2.2 million to $3.3 million.
•:;> FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
$4,000,
$3,500,
$3,000,
$2,500,
$2,000,
$1,500,
$1,000,
$500,
Long Term Financial Plan
page 15
Exhibit 8
FY 2005-2015 General Fund Balances
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
5a
FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2013
—Actual Ending Fund Balance —Budgeted Ending Fund Balance Budget
Over the past 11 years the following revenue and expenditure trends have occurred:
• Compared to total General Fund revenues in FY 2005, the FY 2015 budgeted revenues are almost
58% higher ($5,0410,771 compared to $7,950,600). Over the past ten years the average annual
growth rate in General Fund revenues was 4.9%, but most of the growth occurred between FY
2005 and 2008 before the economic recession. The average growth during this period was about
13% per year, while from FY 2009 to 2015, the average annual growth rate was about 2% per
year.
• Besides a 9% average revenue growth in taxes between FY 2005 and 2008, charges for services
grew at an average of 42% per year during the same period. The revenue growth was caused by
large revenue increases from overhead charges to other funds, planning fees, and recreation fees.
Since FY 2008, the fee revenues in these categories started to significantly decrease. The average
annual revenue growth in taxes decreased to about 3%, while the average annual growth in
charges for services averaged -2%. For example, planning fees were about $59,000 in FY 2005,
peaked at $122,300 in FY 2007 and were at $5,500 in FY 2013. Recreation fees were at $168,000
in FY 2005, peaked at $220,600 in FY 2008, and dropped to $63,200 in FY 2013. One reason for
the decrease is that the City eliminated a day care program partially supported by fees.
• Overall, taxes have represented an average of 74% of all General Fund revenues, while charges
for services averaged about 14%. Intergovernmental revenues averaged 6%. Exhibit 9 shows the
proportion of revenues by category.
•:;> FCS GROUP
City of Central Point Oregon
February, 2015
100%
sax
8D%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
lox
10%
0%
Exhibit 9
Percentage of General Fund Revenues by Category
Long Tenn Financial Plan
page 16
Fr2005 FY2006 "2W7 W200B R2009 %2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 W2015
Budget
■Tates ■ licenses and fees a Intergovernmental ■ Charges for Service
■Fines and Forfeitures ■Interest & Miscellaneous eTransfen
• Overall, compared to FY 2005 General Fund expenditures are 71% higher in FY 2015
($4,910,950 compared to $8,409,700). The average annual increase in expenditures during the
period was about 6%. About 50% of the increase in total General Fund expenditures has been
related to the Police Department which has also averaged about 49% of the annual General Fund
expenditures. Other areas that have increased compared to FY 2005 involve Technical Services,
Finance, Parks, and Recreation. Technical Services and Finance did not exist in FY 2005 and
were established as separate units in FY 2006. Exhibit 10 shows the percentage of annual
expenditures by service over the past eleven years.
Exhibit 10
Percentage of General Fund Expenditures by Service
SOOx
aoz
Box
log
Eox
sox
,Bx
aox
mx
wx
ox
W2005 fl1000 "2W flID09 fl1009 fl1010 fl3031 %2033 fl2013 fl1014 fl3015
euaerr
eadmMMnnbn My Enlwnrerunt •Maya&Council
e Parkr enenneatbn a Plannft&C nMO 610Pm nt
e Polre eTranshn, Out S MerdeWdme l
•:;� FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
Long Term Financial Plan
page 17
• Most General Fund expenditures are for personnel services, which have averaged about 65% of
annual expenditures during the past 11 years. Materials and services have averaged about 31% of
annual expenditures. Exhibit 11 shows the percentage of expenditures by category over the past
11 years.
Exhibit 11
Percentage of Expenditures by Cost Category
FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY2015
Budget
Is Personnel Services III Materials &Services •Capital Outlay ■TransfersOut
• As previously mentioned, the City's General Fund had only one deficit year prior to FY 2012, but
since then, it has had two actual years and currently has a budget where expenditures exceeded
revenues. Overall, during the eleven year period, General Fund revenues have increased at an
average of about 5% per year, while General Fund expenditures have increased at an average of
6% per year. However, the City has avoided deficits because it has been reducing its overall
staffing levels for all funds, including the General Fund. Since the FY 2007 peak in staffing, the
City has reduced its staffing level by 15%. Exhibit 12 shows the total City FTEs for the past ten
years.
Exhibit 12
Total FTEs FY 2006-2015
90.00
85.00
80.0
FTEs
75.00
70.0
65.00
•:. FCS GROUP
FY2006 FY2007 FY2006 "2009 "2030 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 H20M FY2015
Budget
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
OBSERVATIONS
Long Term Financial Plan
page 18
As previously mentioned, the City had an economic growth spurt between 2005 and 2008, but when
the recession occurred and revenues associated with the economic growth were lost, the City
survived by reducing its staffing levels. Because of those reductions and other budget management
strategies, the City was able to generate surpluses between FY 2007 and FY 2012 that has allowed it
to offset deficits in the past few years. Other trends show the following:
• The City is more dependent on property taxes now than during the economic growth period when
charges for services were increasing primarily because of planning fees, overhead charges, and
recreation fees,
• Personnel costs continue to represent the largest expenditure category,
• Funding deficits are becoming more common in recent years even though the national economy
has improved, and
• It appears that after all the staff reductions following the recession, the City might now be at a
point where the staffing levels are at the minimum levels to support the City's desired levels of
service. The current budget, however, still shows an imbalance between revenues and
expenditures, which indicates that a systemic problem might exist.
4.4 FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
Long Term Financial Plan
page 19
CHAPTER IV: LONG TERM FINANCIAL
FORECASTS
To help the City understand whether its General, Building, Street, Water, and Stormwater Funds can be
sustainable in the future, long tern financial forecasts were developed for the next ten years. As part of
the forecasts, primarily for the General Fund, several different scenarios were forecast to help the City
understand the impacts different strategies might have on the City's financial future and sustainability.
Although the financial model can be used to forecast many different scenarios, the City identified four
different scenarios. The scenarios include a baseline scenario and three scenarios that modify revenues to
match expenditures. Scenario descriptions are the following:
The Baseline Scenario - No change in property tax rate or fees, includes the 3% Measure 50
assessed value increase, no new expenditures from FY 2015 except for an added police officer and
Parks Master Plan, no utility rate increases except Water's recently adopted increase, and no capital
improvement funding in future years.
Fee and Rate Increase Scenario - No change in property tax rate, includes the 3% Measure 50 assessed
value increase, new public safety and parks fees, Water, Street, and Stormwater rate increases based
on CPI, and includes future capital improvements over the next four years.
Baseline Economic Growth Scenario — Needed increase in assessed value without the Measure 50
limitations to avoid General Fund deficits.
Baseline Property Tax Rate Increase Scenario — An increase in the property tax rate to avoid
General Fund deficits and includes the 3% Measure 50 assessed value increase.
CITY FINANCIAL CHALLENGES
As part of developing this financial plan, the City's management staff was interviewed to discuss
their perspectives about future financial issues and challenges related to their departments. From
those discussions, the following general themes emerged:
• City revenues are not keeping up with inflationary costs,
• The City is facing new or increased costs in areas such as communications and dispatch and
health insurance, and
• Investments in new equipment and City infrastructure are needed, but funding is not available.
•:;> FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
KEY ASSUMPTIONS
Long Tenn Financial Plan
page 20
The scenario forecasts include several basic assumptions that generally apply to all the scenarios.
The following describes the assumptions.
• The baseline revenues and expenditures are based on the FY 2015 revised budget where property
taxes are based on more recent estimates after the budget was adopted.
• Starting fund balances for the FY 2015 budget are based on the actual balances from the audited
financial statements as of June 30, 2014.
• No new or additional costs, services, or staffing are added to any of the scenarios. Where
departments have indicated potential or desired additions, they have been noted in the scenario
discussions.
• All the scenarios include the following annexations and developments and the timing when they
will start adding to the property tax base: White Hawk (FY 2017), North Village 1 (FY 2018),
North Village 2 (FY 2018), North Village 4 (FY 2016), Beebe Woods (FY 2016), Dairy Queen
(FY 2016), Walgreens (FY 2016), and Cardmoore Annex (FY 2016). Estimated new utility
accounts are added to the base with each annexation and development. No additional costs to
provide services to these areas have been identified at this time.
• The Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases are based on a 10 -year sample of CPI -U for smaller
western cities from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. All personal services costs increase by the CPI
of 2.17%.
• Benefit increases are based on a 10 -year sample of the ECI (Employment Cost Index) for benefits
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. All benefit costs increase by the ECI of 4.34%.
• The baseline property tax rate is $4.47 per $1,000 of assessed value. Property tax revenues are
based on the Measure 50 limit (3%) and all other General Fund revenues are assumed to be the
same as estimated for the FY 2015 budget. Interest income for all funds is based on the average
return from the Oregon Short Term Fund managed by the State Treasurer's Office.
• Except for property taxes, all other General Fund revenues remain constant over the ten year
period.
• Building Fund revenues increase by the CPI.
• City overhead charges are based on the FY 2015 charges to the Street, Water, and Stormwater
Funds and are increased annually by the percentage increase in the expenditures of the overhead
departments.
• Utility rate revenues are based on the average revenue per account. The recent Water Fund rate
increase is included in the revenues starting FY 2016 as is the cost increase in Medford water
purchases.
• Capital projects for the Street, Water, and Stormwater Funds for the next four years were
provided by Public Works. Appendix B shows the projects and the schedule. Capital costs have
been inflated by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. Project funding is based
on an assumption that system development charges will pay for 20% of the Street Fund projects
and 15% for the Water and Stormwater Fund projects.
THE BASELINE SCENARIO
The Baseline Scenario represents a financial future with constrained revenues because there are no
changes in the property tax rate, General Fund fees, and utility rates. At the same time, personnel
•:;> FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon Long Term Financial Plan
February, 2015 page 21
costs are increasing at inflationary rates, and there are no capital projects, It is assumed that
annexations and developments help to add additional revenues, but have no currently identified costs.
In this scenario, the forecasts show the following:
• Because the General Fund was already budgeted at a deficit for FY 2015, the General Fund
continues to operate at a deficit requiring the use of its fund balance to offset the difference
between revenues and expenditures. As soon as FY 2017, the minimum fund balance will begin
to drop below the 20% of revenues policy level. At the end of the ten year period, the General
Fund will have used all of its fund balance and will have a negative fund balance.
• Like the General Fund, the Building Fund will also continue to operate at a deficit requiring the
use of its fund balance to offset the difference between revenues and expenditures. This still
occurs even though fee revenues are assumed to increase by the CPI, By FY 2019, the minimum
fund balance will begin to drop below the 25% of revenues policy level, and by FY 2021 all of its
fund balance will be used resulting in a negative fund balance. This assumes that building
activity is not increasing.
•
For the Street and Stormwater Funds, they can support their operations at the current rates and
148,477 $
151,527 $
will generate a surplus that could be used to support capital improvements.
157,811 $
161,046 $
•
For the Water Fund, the baseline scenario includes the recent rate increase as well as the 5%
171.139 $
174,636 $
increase in Medford water purchase. The fund can support its operations, but with the debt
Ewenditula
172600
177,133
service for the reservoir, the Water Fund will start operating at a deficit in FY 2023.
186.649
191,643
Exhibits 13-17 show the revenue and expenditure summaries for the different funds.
202,129
M7,634
213,323
Exhibit 13
225,278
Not change in fund balance
(27,017)
General Fund Baseline Scenario
134288)
(3201 1)
®
FY 7)14591§ FYZI15-2016 FYMId-1017 FY2017-2018 FY AI&1019 82019.2020 FY 10'CI=] FY=1-= FY 1021.'"!3
PY Mo -M4
FY Ml -=5
Ra:
(44566)
(47,077)
8e4nnirlg fund balance
To
Toren
3 6,239.942 f 6,420,812 3 6,587,075 S 6,496483 S 6,991.691 3 7,195 7M § ].3 3 1.566561 3 >.77,994 3
1940.95{ S
8.134618
IlwmeF antl lea
59.500 2,50 59 59
0,5 59.500
00 ,500 59,500 59,200 591500 2,500
Am
59.500
59,500
e
Intargm
197100 114000 424,000 424000 424.000 424000 414,000 424.000
124,090
420.000
lol
W
TinarOalaservlaa
994500 Ilam 1, W.011
1.011,601 1,062513 1,050930 1,099,951 1,119,207 1.139.912
1,11,23
1,1825)4
Tina lo1le11u1a
lam
105051 109,000 105,000 10.9,000 105000 105900 105.000 10.5,000 105000
105900
105000
rt.tIn
011>allnoome
32500 12745 10.11&1 9,012 7,362 5912 4202 3.191 1,>BB
316
(1,138)
Sgotal.ous
137000 6 135,000 135900 195000 135,000 135000 135000 135,100
135000
135000
lotalrevmaa
mlon
&065.542 8,161,151 8,319,20{ 8,563,616 4>45.OM 9.006,020 9.90."0 9,/12865 9,616,194
9,825,693
10.041156
bmenrnNla:
Mmininancen
201,100 115123 130.87) 146{01 162500 1",124 196291 814024 832311
851,16
810884
I
194300 19870 19&500 598500 198,500 190,500 19 19&500
194500
199,503
T nld In ld,d
Te ltnlmis
W71W m
961,20) ss2)u 96.103 91.320 5Will 24330 609,39 63,131 63zm
6",629
65.191
Council
and Coundl
61,250 61.602 61,962 62331 62110 63,268 63,496 63.901 9,312
",151
6.5.191
Find a
115600 004603 825916 813,"6 862164 891,341 991,019 921,91
9{2453
920,198
PaTo,
P
7141%
"3350 114206 1 1%563 811,094 824.015 83.&21 451,93 865.541
850.350
895.682
Benning
.$M
522113 524561 5345X! 51,01) 541,180 551,795 564626 50,682 5)1,9)1
552501
590, 11
Plannln0
403,450 112&7 112126 131.698 91.520 451.72 4621X1 113116 1&,311
7.192
4.IE0.= 4201.w1oi 4.135302 1.512621 4,653.509 1,168.117 4,804660 590.150 5,135,"0
5,166493
266,720
5,402141
Intal
Intotaledendlt
139,000 115000 145010 115,000 149,11) 176113 173220 ImmM,240
1)3,196
IM=
iotaleQxn ndb
43241m0 "9.196
8,690,206 8.869.196 9055550 9twl 9,02,10{ 9612625 9,883${0
101100,59
10.324301
(M,961
loadbolanra 1159,1581 1350.215 1311, .. I .. { 12:1,39 1259:7601 12
Netcnin,
I 4
1 ,7531
Nn
BBBlnning Nntllo,iov 2619,388 231.015 1010.015 1,669,932 1364412 1094901 852,120 SPo4S9 331008
120831
Entlkp M1Mtl bobnM
§ 2320,225 § 2010,015 j 1.669.932 5 1.363.112 E 1974,904 E 852120 § 590,859 j 331.000 § 64.01 j
10MI
IRIO LIi II E
1491.5981
Exhibit 14
Building Fund Baseline Scenario
FY 2014-2015 FY 2015-2016 FY 2016-2017 N2017-2318 FY 2818-2019 FY 2819-2020 FY 20204011 FY 28213011 FY 201 .AD "202}.2826 FY 924-2025
Revenues
$ 145,584 $
148,477 $
151,527 $
154,638 $
157,811 $
161,046 $
164.345 $
167,709 $
171.139 $
174,636 $
178.201
Ewenditula
172600
177,133
181,815
186.649
191,643
196,&11
202,129
M7,634
213,323
219,M2
225,278
Not change in fund balance
(27,017)
(28,656)
134288)
(3201 1)
(318321
(35.755)
(37,784)
(39,925)
(42,184)
(44566)
(47,077)
8e4nnirlg fund balance
182.632
155,616
126,959
96,671
64660
3D,828
(4,927)
(42,711)
(82,636)
(124,820)
(169386)
Ending fund balance
$ 155,616 $
126,959 $
96,671 $
64660 $
30,828 $
(4927) %
f42.7111 $
(82,6361 $
(124.8211 $
1169.3861 S
12164691
•:;> FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
Exhibit 15
Street Fund Baseline Scenario
Long Term Financial Plan
page 22
FY 31141015 FY 311&3116 FY 1016.2017 FY 1017-2018 " 41118-1819 FY 3119.3110 "3 .=I FY 3321.3112 FY 1012.1023 "2023-2724 " 20242029
Revenues
$ 1.818.656
$ 1,818,109 $ 1,825,591
$ 1,833,961
$ 1.843.062 $ 1,849,169 $ 1,854,215
$ 11857,277
$ 1,860,291
$ 1,863.25.3
$ 1.066160
Operating E4pendllum
$ 1,555.310
$ 1,500,305 $ 1,51&OBD
$ 1.532301
$ 1,549,077 $ 1,566431 $ 1,504.353
$ 1.602898
$ 1,622000
$ 1.611.921
$ 1,662446
Capital Projects
$ 470.000
$ - $ -
$ -
$ - $ - $ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Total bpendllurm
2025,310
1,500,385 1,516,080
1.532304
1.549,077 1156&!23 1.584,353
1.602898
1,622000
1,641,921
1,662446
NO change in fund balance
(364,5/4)
317.725 3D9,511
301,660
291985 312750 269,861
254,379
3311211
221.332
313.714
Beginning fund boonce
1332301
1,530.657 1,841,382
2157.893
2459554 2753539 1006,288
3.306.151
3,560,530
3,7913.741
4,02D,073
Ending fund balance
$ 1,530,657
$ 1,811,382 3 2157.893
4 2459.554
$ 2753,539 $ 3,036%18 $ 3.306,151
$ 3.560,530
$ 3,798,741
$ 4.02D.073 $ 4.723.787
Exhibit 16
Water Fund Baseline Scenario
FY 10142015 FY 2015-1016 FY W16-MI7 FY 1017.3118 FY 201&3119 FY 1019.1010 FY 2020.1021 79 2D21.2022 FY 2122123 " 1003-2024 FY 20241025
Revenum
$ 2899.500 $ 2956.697 $ 2980.848
$ 3.017,796
$ 3,058556
$ 3,084,045 $ 3097,589
$ 32399.672
$ 3,099.994 $ 3,100.126 $ 3.100.061
Operating Expanditurm
3 2839.300 $ 2891.675 $ 2921,570
$ 2952465
$ 2954,398
$ 3,017,405 $ 3.051,527
$ 3,086,806
$ 1123,285 $ 1161,037 $ 3,310.03)
Capital Protects
$ 215.000 $ - $ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $ -
$ 1
$ - $ - $ -
Total bpendtum
$ 3,054.300 2891,675 2911.570
$ 2952465
2984.398
$ 3,017,405 $ 10.51,527
3,%64
$ 1121385 &161.007 131003)
Net change in fund balance
65.032 59,278
65,300
74,159
66.610 462362
12866
- $
Beginning fund balance
1,791081 1,636,581 1.7611,6¢1
1,760.880
1.826,211
1,900.369 1,967.009
2013.070
2025,937 2002646 1.941,765
Ending fund balance
$ 1.636,581 $ 1,701,603 $ 1,760,88D
$ 1,126,211
&1,900,369
$ 1,967,OV7 $ 2011070
$ 2025.937 $ 2002646 $ 1,941.765 $ 1,841,806
Exhibit 17
Stormwater Fund Baseline Scenario
"40143115 FY 1015.4016 FY 2016.1017 FY 1017-1018 FY 101&1019 FY 219.202 FY 22-2021 FY 1021.10'!1 FY 3122-2021 112023.3124 17 20242=
Revenum
$ 845150 $
847439 $
855236 $
866876 $
879.658 $
887,850 $
892.450 $
093,605 $
894.226 $
894387 $
895.285
Operoting E>mendt.
$ 728650 $
715,050 $
724364 $
734,004 $
745.181 $
755913 $
767007 $
778478 $
79034I $
802610 $
815,301
Capital Projects
$ 120790 $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
. $
- $
- $
- $
-
Total &penditurm
851,W)
715.000
724,764
734,800
745,183
755,913
767,007
776478
790341
802610
815,301
Net change in fund balance
(61500)
132.389
130473
132.072
134,475
131,937
125.444
115,127
103,896
92177
79,984
Beginning fund! balance
M2D5
843,705
916,094
1,10&567
1.2311.638
1.373113
1,505000
1,630,04
1.745,620
1,849,506
1,941,683
Ending fund balance
$ 813305 $
976,094 $
1,10&567 $
1,238&31 $
1,371113 $
1,9)5.09) $
1,630,494 $
1,74563) $
1,849,964 $
1.941.683 $ 2021.668
FEE AND RATE INCREASE SCENARIO
The Fee and Rate Increase Scenario represents a financial future with no change in the property tax
rate, but includes increases in General Fund revenues because the City will charge a $3 fee for parks
and recreation and for public safety. The City estimates that these fees will annually generate
$456,000 in additional General Fund revenue. The Street, Water, and Stormwater Funds also slightly
increase their revenues by increasing their rates by the CPI. At the same time, personnel costs are
increasing at inflationary rates, and capital projects are now included over the next four years for the
Street, Water, and Stormwater Funds. Again annexations and developments are assumed to help add
additional revenues without any currently identified costs. There are no changes to the forecast for
the Building Fund in this scenario, and it is not included. The forecasts for the General Fund and the
Street, Water, and Stormwater Funds show the following:
• In contrast to the Baseline Scenario, the forecast shows that with the additional fee revenue the
General Fund can avoid future deficits and significantly increase the fund balance at the end of
ten years. However, any capital improvements as a result of the Parks Master Plan are not
included.
• The Street Fund shows positive operating results even with the capital projects, but the costs for
resolving deferred street maintenance at about $250,000 per year are not included. With the
inflationary increase in the rate, there is not enough money to fund the street maintenance costs
in the next four years.
•:;> FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
Long Term Financial Plan
page 23
• For the Water Fund, rates are increased by the CPI after FY 2016 and the recent rate increase.
The increases will initially not be enough to support both the anticipated capital projects and the
Fund's existing debt service during the next four years.
• The Stormwater Fund's forecast is similar to the Water Fund where CPI rate increases will
initially not be enough to fund all of its capital projects during the next four years.
Exhibit IS
General Fund Fee Increase Scenario
Fxpenditums:
YY,17.2016
FY 2015-2016
FY2M&Ml7
fY MII-2018
FY 2111&2019
FY,19.2060
FY 97.0@021
fY =I -=
FY 2601209
IN 'A Mbl
FT 2%4,25
Rene ue
701,100
715,723
730,820
766107
76213
779,124
796,1
014,574
032,312
851.260
870,82()
Tone. E
6.239,942 }
6420,812 $
6,507875 }
6.186,1&1 $
6.991,697 $
7,195735 $
].332)31 E
].566,55] E
].]A,%d $
7.910,9.51 $
).136.612
Lkenw and! fees
1,500
1,500
59,.900
59.11
59.12
59,500
609314
59.500
59,500
59.500
59,500
vfor.1 l
997,100
121,000
126000
124,000
124000
12().000
24.Yp
04057
129,00
121,000
424,000
121,000
Ch., arsakes
lines
994500
1,010691
I,P17"5
1.011,6111
1,06251)
1,084930
1,01,951
1,119,607
1137.912
LIAM
1,182571
and
lines antlforfeiluea
105000
149.000
113.181
113.81
105,000
109,000
105,000
119,000
10.9,000
108,00
105,000
Intemtinmme
32,60.
12.715
I&181
11815
14653
15745
10.91
18.027
191161
m,IDi
9,367
Nbcellanecw
137,01
135,01
15,=
13501
135.01
135,01
IWIM
01116
136,01
13501
135,1
Paps and raaaotlon Ne irweasa
-
220.01
285.01
225.01
m
228057
228.01
M000
211.01
228.01
225,0=
228,=
228.01
Pubic salelyfceinrnaw
199,=
115,1
228,000
2111,000
m
228,1
229,I1fq
223000
228.570
239.570
3/9,00
228,000
Total mvenues
8,065,512
M751
9,623)51
9,1],9)1
9,024,179
9,218,363
911)1.8)0
9.6791098
91883,12
10.01,513
10.301.628
10,520.0.56
Fxpenditums:
$ 1,818,65fi
$ 1,829,255
$ 1,80,143
$ 1,866,034
$ 1.886550 $ 1,904313
$ 1,922,811
$ 1,939,426 $ 1956,352
$ 1,973,594
11 1,991,157
Operating Expenditures
$ 1,555,200
Rdminidnatlon
701,100
715,723
730,820
766107
76213
779,124
796,1
014,574
032,312
851.260
870,82()
Qty Enhantxment
1981570
198110
198500
19851
190,50(i
191111
198557
190,500
198500
198500
198540
Technical 3alwr
518100
567,747
57.13
577,379
587687
.598.3311
609314
620720
632477
614629
657,192
AMpr and Coundl
61,250
611057
61,962
62179
62710
am
63196
61904
61.3M
61.751
65.191
Finance
775,600
nil=
838603
825.916
&3.796
862264
881,311
901,049
99,412
942,153
964198
Pak!
793.31
7991706
786.439
798.563
811.094
=4.605
837.433
851.93
065.583
9=3=
895,82
Reaeatlon
522740
520561
531.570
510,774
5171 Im
551795
564626
567.682
574,971
5821501
51,21
Planing
4=,850
412817
422126
1311698
"1.572
451,759
1622)0
01116
4111,311
495,65
17,792
Police
4,180910
4,331,437
41,435302
4,51269
4.653.539
4,768171
1.986660
5.009,150
5,135790
5,266.733
54m.141
Inbrtlenorhental
199,=
115,1
115,=
114000
145.000
149,717
176,143
173,206
173533
173,496
17151
Total empardt.
8,324,7=
BMZ%l
8,690.726
8,869,196
9,5151
9,248810
9,02104
9,672625
9,0&1,2.
10,1=.177
10325.=I
Not Change In fund balance
121,1581
=790
117.215
155282
19470
233.060
216993
211.077
21,334
MIM)
194752
%ginn8pfundad..
2619.382
2360.224
2141,014
25581259
2713,511
29011,324
3,131,384
1338378
1519.455
1758.708
3.956.&0
Ending Nntl balance
5 2360.YN $
201,014 3
2558259 $
2713541 $
29=.324 5
3.131.381 5
3.35.3111 $
3,569.60`5 $
175,789 5
3.9bW $ 4151.SM
Exhibit 19
Street Fund Rate Increase Scenario
lY 20142015 FT 2015.2016 FY 2016-2017 FY 2017-2018 FY MIS -MIT FY MIT. 10 FY 2010-1021 FY M21 -MM FY 8022-2023 FY 2023 -MM FY 2024.2920
Rwenues
$ 1,818,65fi
$ 1,829,255
$ 1,80,143
$ 1,866,034
$ 1.886550 $ 1,904313
$ 1,922,811
$ 1,939,426 $ 1956,352
$ 1,973,594
11 1,991,157
Operating Expenditures
$ 1,555,200
$ 1,500,385
$ 1.516,M
$ 1,532,304
$ 1,549.077 $ 1,566,427
$ 1,584,353
$ 1,602,898 $ 1,621.080
E 1,611.921
$ 1,662.796
Capital Projects
$ 00,000
$ 227.939
$ 310,827
$ 259,22
$ 259,021 $ -
$ -
$ - $ -
$ -
$ -
TotalElRxenditures
2,025,200
1,728,324
1,826906
1.791,326
IAB,099 1,566420
1,584353
11602898 1,622080
1,641,921
1,662,446
Net Mange in fund balance
(X579)
100,931
21,216
76,708
MAI 3371923
338158
336,528 336.273
331,674
328.712
Beginning fund balance
1,732201
1,5'1169
1,631,588
1,651,824
1,726,532 1.804983
2142906
2181,366 2,817892
3,152,165
3,483838
Ending fund balance
$ 1.531657
$ 1.631.588
E 1,651,824
$ 1,726,532
$ 1,804983 $ 2142,906
$ 2481,364
E 2812,892 $ 3.152.165
$ 3.483,38
$ 3.812.550
Exhibit 20
Water Fund Rate Increase Scenario
FY 20143015 FY 2019-2016 FY MU -1017 FY 2017.018 FY 2=11-1019 FY M19 -MV FY 2010-021 FY 2021.2=2 "MZ! -MU FY 3023-2124 FY 2121-2029
Revenues
$
2,899,500
$ 2.960,724
$ 3.047040
$ 3,149,124
$ 3,258,319
$ 3.354479
$ 3,442,267
$ 3,519,604
$ 3.596,990 $ 3,6]6,222 4
379,338
Operating Expenditures
$
2839,300
$ 2,891.675
$ 2,922286
$ 2953913
$ 2.986,593
$ 3,020364
$ 3,055,267
$ 3,091,363
$ 3,128,636 E 3,167.190 1
3,217,054
Capital Projects
$
215,00
$ 207,218
$ 268.370
$ 333,666
$ 305,]0]
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $ - $
-
Total Expendhure5
3,054,300
3.098,893
3,190,656
3387,579
3.332300
3,020364
3.055,267
3.091,313
3.128,636 3,167,190
327.054
Net change in fund balance
(154,8=)
(138169)
(143,616)
1138,4551
173,982)
334,115
38701
428,261
468355 509,032
550,284
Beginning fund balance
7.]91.381
1,636,581
1,498,412
7.354795
1,216340
1,142,358
1,476,03
LB63174
2291,735 2,768089
3,269.121
Ending fund balance
$
1,636,581
$ 1,498,412
$ 1.351.]95 $ 1316.340
$ 1,162358
E I,d]6.03
$ 1,863,6)6
} 2,291,7M
$ 2.760,089 $ 3,269,19 $
3.819.406
•:;> FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
Exhibit 21
Stormwater Fund Rate Increase Scenario
Long Term Financial Plan
page 24
172/142115 N 2015.2016 fY 2016-2117 H21117-2016 FY 2018.2119 FY 2019-2021 H2020 -Ml N 3#1.33722 FY 3172.3123 N3)23.=11 H2021-21)25
Raven®
$
80.5,150 $
865.062 $
890,378 $
92],013 $
951,907 $
9]9,447 $ 1.005,64 $ 1,028,520 $ 1.051,410
$ 1.074.828 $ 1,098]83
01Odting bV.KV.
$
72964 $
715,050 $
724.764 $
73184 $
745.183 $
755,913 $
767,007 $ 778478 $ 790,341
$ 802610 $ 815.301
Cdpit01 Pm1ed6
$
121000 $
165,774 $
2611,370 $
278.055 $
334.184 $
- $
- $ - $ -
$ - $ -
1ot01830endif.
7.10.160 j
851,650
880.824
993.134
1,012,859
1.079.367
755,913
767.007 77&478 790.341
802610 8151301
Net change in h]nd (did m
59.54
(615001
(15,7611
1102756)
(92,816)
(127.460)
223,534
2319,600 250042 261,49
272.218 283,483
B6 Innin0 fund balance
42464
8`1,215
843,74
827,944
725.188
632372
54.912
72&446 967.46 1,217,088
1.4711157 1,750,375
Endn0 fund bdN
$
848705 $
827.941 $
79,188 $
632372 $
54.912 $
72&446 $
961,046 $ 1,217,088 $ 1.478,157 $ 1.750.375 $ 2033858
ECONOMIC GROWTH SCENARIO
In working with City management, an economic growth scenario was developed to help the City
understand what type of growth is necessary to help the City make its General Fund sustainable.
Because the City's major General Fund revenue source is property tax, economic growth must
translate into higher assessed value growth for the City to benefit. Such economic growth might
generate additional revenues from other sources, but it can also result in demand for more or
improved public services. One aspect of City growth that has already been accounted for in the
previous forecasts is annexations and currently known developments. The Baseline Scenario already
includes eight annexations and developments that add small increases to the City's assessed value
and property tax revenues, but do not have any currently identified costs.
Because the Baseline Scenario begins with a budget where expenditures exceed revenues, the initial
growth must be higher to compensate for the deficit and the impacts of inflation. Using the Baseline
Scenario without Measure 50 increases (3%), Exhibit 22 shows the needed percentage increases in
the City's assessed value to make the City's General Fund sustainable. Exhibit 23 shows the forecast
based on percentage changes in the assessed value needed to avoid deficits.
Exhibit 22
Percentage Assessed Value Growth Needed for a Balanced Budget
FY
2015-16
FY
2016-17
FY
2017-18
FY
2018-19
FY
2019-20
FY
2020-21
FY
2021-22
FY
2022-23
FY
2023-24
FY
2024-25
10.26%
2.63%
2.17%
2.19%
2.42%
3.19%
2.85%
2.99%
1 3.00%
1 3.01%
Exhibit 23
Baseline Economic Growth Scenario
-
099137015
f1 M&NI{
"IDI& 11)
99x1)-308
fYWI1 Ml9
"4119-3e91
fYA X131
)371081-N=
fY YR-Xa
%303 X24
)37=3 N3
Re O B:
iwx
S 0.2W,912 $
4].09 S
6,91&95] S
],88.43 j
].H435 S
7.10.160 j
],6µB18$
).8'1.5W 3
8.019.60 $
B.RI f
0.180.166
IlarlwsaM fm
59 ,5=
E,500
W
59,500
59.54
.4.041
59.500
59.54
59.500
E.5=
59.56X61
59,00
tllelBov
191.11E
42464
860110
1214]
40,011
121.®
119.41
Q4W2
1Y4,W4
to,
OEmO4lorO.t.
1.01&691
Lamm
1,Oµ491
I,
09001)
1.083,9E
1Iftm
1,119.60
LIM.0V
LM=
IAMMam
I,IR,91
Mm
105.0E
10506
1060=
105700
1050.4
IMgN
105.00
IOSOW
IW,WO
1=7171
IIZM
IOSm0
Wenn, inp0elurm
Fllaefl income
N.=
12)15
`105
12755
1280.5
¢102
Iz919
A9Wgll neons
1
115.%1
n=
135.40
n=
IUAW
135,mO
mm
I3S.W0
n,=
111M
13577
nam
r
!W
0,0.5,512
8,51),961
M617
469261)
8.88,910
M94
9,0$4!
9,255,01
40,
9.87.141
9.682,321
9,&91,'71
10,113.90
IO.3A.SN
dff.eneaf
W
u:
Mrnl holbn
Al,lm
T14G0
]1010
76293
]]9,121
811W1
&91,268
BTA021
city CnMncn
IPo.Sm
19&041
I%=
14e,5W
IW.SW
19&56
I
In
19&500
19&56
M=
19&EO
190,56
11e.E0
.
lecRmcal Servicm
7.
561.4(
59.)4]
36),14
5]],ml
X`11
Sam
66.34
d
69,61)
64,729
4a191
Mopl wM Courrol
61,230
61,""
61,731
6291
a7B]
62)10
63,418
69,N665,&11
1.
6Al2
4.751
65,191
Fnwlce
17566
]91,&90
025916
&3,106
86224
801,361
WI,OW
91712
912459
9µ11B
Po'ks
733.50
711]116
M&
A.1K
]90.'0
811.1]1
811,01$
BD.43
&991.2]3
06.5561
095.610
Razmilan
S=7Q
52&561
SL.SA
510.]]1
.4.14)1
553.195
X0.616
41).611
91.41
= 92501
X"
SW.210
PWnninO
196
412&7
=IN
191,690
41.5372
451,759
42Z]0
471116
401311
4nM5
9].]92
Pofice
6.110.910
4.W. ]
1655:4!
151262]4.653.539
1.)69.1)1
4741,410
5,49,1E
511(]4
5Mm
5,02.111
n1.d.pvlmenW
IN.=145.[60
Iyom
14560
144LW
IN,)I]
174113
in
In=
171196
113, 6
iold eimerMilue4
8,321)6
8,5171961
&d9 M
&419.196
9,053.5=
9,24).810
9.472101
9.6]2625
90&6,&1
IO,I=. '
IO.T25E1
104 cFan0e in l�md Ed¢ce
I.C21
1713
5413
6,892
&210
9.6Po
II.I51
114153
11241
ftinninB fund Educe
2619.310
230,95
237095
2412116
236580
2NI.M
23]0.165
29405
23M.101
24)7.]32
2419 -RIS
ErKwv fund Ed.
$ 2341.95 i
2360.225 S
2362116 S
2365,659 f
23]I.= $ 351&165 $
23,05 f
2.3%.101 S
201151 S
2419605 S
201111
•:;> FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
PROPERTY TAX RATE INCREASE SCENARIO
Long Term Financial Plan
page 25
An alternative to economic growth and an increase in the General Fund fees is to increase the property tax
levy rate. The property tax rate is currently $4.47 per $1,000 in assessed value, and according to the City,
the maximum rate is $5.28. Like the Economic Growth Scenario, the financial model calculates the
property tax rate needed to balance the budget if there are deficits. Based on the Baseline Scenario,
Exhibit 24 shows what the property tax rate needs to be for the City to have a sustainable General Fund if
property tax is the only revenue source to increase. As shown in the Exhibit 24, the FY 2016 rate is the
highest rate because it must compensate for the current budget year's deficit, but as the annexations and
developments occur, the rate needed is lower, and by FY 2020 the rate needed is. stabilized. It should also
be noted that the Measure 50 increase is included as part of the assessed value increase. Exhibit 25 shows
the General Fund summary based on this scenario.
Exhibit 24
Baseline Property Tax Rate Increases
FY
2015-16
FY
2016-17
I FY
2017-18
FY
2018-19
FY
2019-20
FY
2020-21
FY
2021-22
FY
2022-23
FY
2023-24
FY
2024-25
14.78
$4.76
1 $4.72
1 $4.68
1 $4.65
$4.66
$4.65
$4.65
1 $4.65
$4.65
Exhibit 25
Baseline Property Tax Rate Increase Scenario
®
FT'ID14W16
fl 1015.3016
fl ]016.]01]
fY'Al)-P11
flJI1B-1019
fl 9t19.]D10
IY 917,4,3031
fl 2111 -ML
fY 90298-'A/i
fY ,43,7,105
fl AN,10]S
Revenue:
Taves f
6.4J9,9<2 j
&771, E
6,921.290 f
],05.,)36 $
$
7.4.,W $
].M2.0% j
7.024,2,4 $
56015,75 S
0.93.412 $
8,117,729
J.,ineoMf.
591:
59.500
59.503
59,.05
W.
N..,01
W.500
W.=
wean
591SCO
59.503
Inta00vemmeMal
697,100
Q} 000
424,000
420.000
42e000
65,053
44,=
424,000
42400
424000
Q4.0V
CM1 ,.law Ica
99450
1,010.694
I.W,,415
IAH1681
I1W2513
1001930
11099.%1
1,119.6W
LIS4912
11160,893
1,1025]4
Flmt and fddelfues
10510X1
MOM
105.000
105,4]0
105,003
105,430
]moan
105053
IM.=
imm
IW,OT
Intaaf inwme
3),.500
12)45
12,7x5
12752
12]65
11]85
12,812
12&6
12001
12,915
MW
W 1.deoa
137.000
16,000
IJ500
1600
1351000
16,000
16,00
135000
135000
13506
13500
Wd,.enua
8015,512
8.517,%l
0.69L99
0.071,669
9.05936
9,25,7,795
9.4,7835
9,600,173
089269
10,110.743
10.mm
AciAwmW l0a:
118,100
)15,]9
19853)
)96,50]
)62503
])9,120
]%.500
032362
&51,269
8)0024
City Mhadtin
Enbam
190,500
190,500
198.50
5901500
19850
1%.500
1SU.m98.W0
198.500
194500
19&500
198,500
Tmi y1cm
1x
SC.Un
510,500
551,]8]
55,503
s)),Ml
5in=87,W
50),60]
590,00
60939
69,)9
4324)1
61465
65),192
an
Ngpl and Council
61,250
61,12
60962
62.311
62710
W,OR
605,,4,
".M9,)51
15,191
Fnance
)]4600
)91,830
804603
82
813,M6
862261
801,311811u)
9011019
921,412
982453W196
M3350))1,)116
)04439
,4513W
8111104
028,015
03),43
491,273
845,541
880.300
895,482
,eaeolion
522,]10
52/,561
511,570
$10,))4
57,100
500,5
505.626
567.682
5]4.05]
502501
590.100
Mandl,
401050
41284)
422.126
4311698
"115n
451,759
86290
473116
481,311
495865
W7,M2
Police
411031910
413311,07
4,435X12
4,542627
4,65J,St9
4,)60,1)1
1,804650
5.0,4,150
5.1nm
5.165,1E
5,6@,141
rdard atmental
139.003
145.000
10.5,03
WIM
145,0.17
149,)1)
1)41,0
1]3,25
5]359
In.4%
1)3,50
Toa`aTendtan
432410
0,517,961
8,6%,M6
8.64196
90.850
9,2,,810
9,4,101
9,6$69
9,89&0
1010,5])
10,315331
NelcM1on,1,Nnd1aa1ance .,
-
1191
2.4n
3.79
4,985
4250
7,548
0,405
10.10
11,491
Be0lnnln0 fund bal0nce
211121
2311,95
2,360225
2%1,456
2341,929
2,35,451
2,3,,63)
23)889)
2305415
2395294
246458
EadOq fund balance j
23H1,Y35 j
2350.., $
2361. 6 j
2341.99 $
2.36).51 $
23,637 $
2378,091 j
2386,5 $
2,39s.W4 S
216.449 S
2414948
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As identified in the previous chapter, the current budget situation appears to have a systemic imbalance
between the revenues and expenditures needed to provide the services. The forecasts show that the
Baseline Scenario for the General Fund, Building Fund, and Water Fund are generally not sustainable
over the next ten years except for the Street and Stormwater Funds. However, the Baseline Scenario also
assumes that there will be few or no capital projects and infrastructure investments. The Fee and Rate
Increase Scenario shows that the General Fund and Street Fund remain sustainable. The Building Fund is
not sustainable unless building activity begins to increase. The Water and Stormwater Funds are not
sustainable in the near future with the currently identified capital program.
•:;> FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon Long Term Financial Plan
February, 2015 page 26
The Economic Growth Scenario shows that a large increase in this coming year needs to occur to help
offset the initial gap between FY 2015's revenues and expenditures. Subsequent growth in future years is
more modest and closer to the allowed Measure 50 growth. The Property Tax Rate Increase Scenario is
faced with the same challenge as the Economic Growth Scenario where a large increase must occur in FY
2015 and more stable rates are needed in the future.
Overall, the different scenarios show that for the General Fund some action must be taken for it to be
sustainable over the next ten years. Given the region's current economy, it is unlikely that economic
growth can resolve the deficits in the near term. Consequently, fee increases or a property tax rate
increase seem to be the most viable options for achieving sustainability unless the City determines that it
should be providing lower levels of service in the future.
For the Street, Water, and Stormwater Funds, inflationary rate increases will support the operational costs
and some capital projects. To accomplish the capital improvement programs for these funds as provided
for this plan, additional rate increases beyond inflation are needed, especially in the near future. For these
three funds, capital investments are critical because the City's infrastructure are long term investments
that benefit not just the City's current population, but also future generations. Delays in maintenance and
repairs can result in higher future repair and replacement costs. In addition, the City should also consider
how such improvements will assist the City in its economic development efforts and how projects can be
coordinated and funded with the Urban Renewal Plan.
Based on these scenarios and the best practices, the following actions are recommended to achieve a more
sustainable financial future.
• Because the City has a strategic plan, the City should assess the City's progress in implementing
the plan and then determine whether the current budget reflects the City's desired progress and
strategies. At that time, the City should determine if the long term financial plan reflects the
strategic plan initiatives and needs to be revised.
• At a minimum, the City should take action to increase its General Fund revenues if the City
wants to keep the current service levels and have a sustainable budget over time. To help
diversify the City's General Fund revenues, the City should consider implementing a
combination of fee increases as well as increasing its property tax rate. This combination
provides some stability and equity in helping provide funding for a1I services that benefit the
overall community and in charging for specific services. Every $.10 in the property tax rate
generates $107,800, and every $1 in either a parks or public safety fee generates $76,000.
However, based on the City Council's concern about increasing the property tax rate,
implementing a parks and recreation and/or a public safety fee might be the only option to
stabilize revenues. As shown in the fee increase scenario, a $3 fee for both parks and recreation
and public safety generates significantly more revenue than necessary at the end of ten years, but
a $2 fee for both provides only enough revenue (i.e. $300,000 per year) to slightly increase the
fund balance at the end of the ten years.
• The City might want to consider increasing building fees to help initially offset the Building
Fund's deficits and determine whether building activity will be sufficient in future years. Another
alternative is to partially subsidize the Fund's activities with General Fund and include an
amount in the fee and rate increases to achieve that purpose.
• For the Street, Water, and Stormwater Funds, the City should consider increasing rates,
reviewing the timing of the capital projects, identifying any additional costs such as the deferred
street maintenance costs, and incorporating these items in the next rate study for each fund. The
capital projects should be incorporated as part of the City's overall capital improvement plan and
process as previously identified in the best practices recommendations.
• The City should update the long term financial analyses and scenarios every three to five years as
part of its financial planning process.
•:;> FCS GROUP
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
Long Term Financial Plan
Appendix A
APPENDIX A: NACSLB BEST BUDGETING
PRACTICES SELF-ASSESSMENT
•:;> FCS GROUP
C
0)
m
0
N C
C
3
O
'O
0➢
7
�YYy
,O
G
�
T
�
UD
'g a
4,5 $
e
E o
E
S
O
z
F
o
O
a
O
E
b0
N
O
8
49
E
L
U
2m
O
L
ttl
�
13pQ
V
'�'
in
y
4�:
y�
a
4
N
y
N
pip
0
0
a
RR"R
R.
IL
17,qOi
yO
O
Z.
gel�
yO
yO
N
d
a
a
r
Q
Q
4
O
isIts
�
Q.
...
C
t
.=
o
rL'
�
y
b
m
C
o
�`
6
of
E
•p
t
241
p
U
.d
C
w
♦
C
vi
�N
Q
e
�
W'
N
3
0
0.
o
V
a
PC
E
V
O jC
U
i
�
�
tail
O
�
ou
000
FOCIM6
NN
W
N
N
rn
N
NW
W
m
m
0
N C
3
O
'O
�YYy
C
'g a
4,5 $
e
E o
E
S
v
E
b0
N
O
49
E
L
U
2m
O
L
ttl
�
13pQ
V
'�'
in
y
4�:
y�
a
4
0
0T
0
0
0
a
RR"R
R.
IL
17,qOi
yO
O
Z.
gel�
yO
yO
N
d
a
a
r
p
d
U 2
O D
2�
U�
a4
0
U
w
.1.
A
W
�y
N
N
o.
a
v
3 §
d
a
N
H
0.
bp
ttl
yCy
q
.0
O
r
0.
O
••U`V
66LL
�
�
N
�y
�
4%
O
�
O
.�
•��
Ug
�
p
O
eu
y
�
�
�
N
C
•
i
Y
.�
y
�
V
c�
y
2
yam]
N
N •pp
G
o2.
a2 ta'
C�
CSS
CSS
C
C�
U
m
E
cl
E
m
E
_
a4
0
U
w
.1.
c
CD
d
g
Y
z
E
QUN
G
S
d
a
.V
•o
0
b O
N
�
V
w
�
�
N ry
C
v
d
V
F�.
g
aa
v
O
O
'F
y
V
r
F
OVD
N
U
d
Y❑
�
V
O
m
m •S
ra
ra
o
m
•�
'Q
�
3
Q,
o
c
0
1
�
W
00
kl
•S
�
�
•L
�
Yr
y
Y
�
/��
�1
•�
G
•Q?
w
�
Ei
G
�iV
yi
G
7Y
7
C
E
c.
O
O
8.9
q>
>
gg>�� o
�
>
c
•�G
Q
d
N
M
a
C
N
w
NN
L
V
N
9
N
00
OG
00
CG
W
O
O;
Oi,
T
D`
O;
g
Y
z
E
S
d
a
.V
•o
b O
N ry
C
d
V
F�.
g
aa
v
V
r
F
W
U
d
Y❑
�
V
O
m
m •S
ra
ra
o
m
>
0
1
00
kl
/!
\
k
)
J
J
�
s
�
)
\
§
f
�
■
$
k\\
§
m
§
k
■
\)
(
■
\
/
k
k
i\
\
7
i
CL
)
\
�
k=
5
})
a
m§
d
d
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
Long Term Financial Plan
Appendix
APPENDIX B: PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL
PROJECTS
•:;> FCS GROU P
City of Central Point, Oregon
February, 2015
Public Works Capital Projects
Long Term Financial Plan
Appendix B
Water
Cost
Project Name
Year
Cost
Project Name
2014-2015
$ 200,000
Laurel Street W/L Replacement
2015-2016
$ 100,000
Maple Street W/L Replacement Phase 1
2015-2016
$ 100,000
Shop Tank Demolition & new waterline for transmission
2016-2017
$ 250,000
Maple Street W/L Replacement Phase 2
2017-2018
$ 300,000
Dutch Brat hers/Chickory/99 new 12" w/I
2018-2019
$ 210,000
Hazel & 9th 8" fire flow replacement line.
2018-2019
$ 90,000
Engineeringfor Beall Pump Station
Streets
Year
Cost
Project Name
2014-2015
$ 280,000
Freeman Road Phase 1
2015-2016
$ 220,000
Freeman Road Phase 2
20162017
$ 300,000
Crater Rail Crossing - Twin Creeks
2017-2018
$ 250,000
Table Rock Road Phase 1
2018-2019
$ 250,000
Table Rock Road Phase 2
Storm Drain
Year
Cost
Project Name
2014-2015
$ 73,000
Comet Outfall
2015-2016
$ 110,000
Freeman Road/Ash Illicit discharge
20162017
$ 250,000
Victoria Way Phase 1
2017-2018
$ 250,000
Victoria Way Phase 2
2018-2019
$ 125,000
Rose Valley Phase 1
Storm Water Quality
2014-2015
$ 50,000
Jewett School
2015-2016
$ 50,000
Comet Outfall Water Quality
20162017
-
no project
2017-2018
-
no project
2018-2019
$ 165,000
Laurel Street Green Street Phase 1
•:;> FCS GROUP