To kick it off  Village Manager Dave Fieldman ran through some quick numbers…

All the cutting and scrimping and leaving staff positions unfilled for this year, was just that: for this year.  After all that, next year there’s a projected $4 million budget gap, growing to $6.5 million in 2013 if no changes are made.  There’s three ways to address the gap:

a) cut services

b) increase revenues

C) both of the above

The general assumption of staff is that c) will be the correct answer.  There were two exersizes staff provided council with.  The first was called the Long Range Financial Planning Village Services Exersize (LRFPVSE…they may want to work on the names of this stuff so it makes a better acronym).  In it, roughy 80+ things were given a 1-5 rank, 1 being lowest and 5 being highest priority to the village.  Unsurprisingly, things like Capital Improvements: Stormwater (New), Police Response, Police Patrol, Emergency Fire Response, Snow Removal, Emergency Medical Response, and several others ranked highest.  No brainer basic muni services.

Lowest ranking items were things like Domestic Animal Control, (Wild Animal Control ranked a bit higher), Leaf Collection, Historic Preservation, Holiday Recognition Program, Ice Sculpture Festival, Commuter Shuttle (pretty sure on this I’ll double check), and the Taxi Subsidy Program for seniors were among the lowest ranked.  The largest group was the middle, including things like the 4th of July Parade, Sidewalk Maintenance, Tree planting, New Sidewalks, Crossing Guard Program, Green Operations, and Downtown Beautification.

Village staff identified seven possible strategies to deal with budget planning;

• Implement operating efficiencies
• Enhance revenue base
• Reduce/eliminate village services
• Reduce/eliminate village funding programs
• Reduce/eliminate village events
• Increase/enhance property tax revenues
• Increase/enhance other revenue sources

The second quiz was the Solutions and Strategies Prioritization Exercise General Fund Structural Gap (SASPEGFSG…really, guys, the acronyms are just not there).  The categories matched up with the above for the most part, but here the exercise was to assign a portion of 20 “chips” to each strategy.  Staff then tallied everything and did a fast and dirty Mean/ Median/Minimum Chips Assigned/Maximum Chips Assigned data breakout.  There’s plenty of ways to misinterpret the raw data, so here’s my spin on the numbers.

Increase the Tax Base via Economic Development. This includes growing EAV, sales tax base, utility taxes through annexation and economic development.  Kind of a no-brainer.  Score 1.00/1/1/1.  Out of a possible 0-1 chips, it scored a 100%.  Greg Bedalov and Linda Kunze were sitting behind me smiling; if you’ve been reading DGreport you know they’re doing their part.  Weighted (1 of 61 chips gives it a 0.82% weight) knocks it way down.

Improve Operating Efficiencies. Provide existing services at or near current levels but at reduced costs.  this could include reducing staffing levels.  Score 1.71/2/0/2.  Out of a possible 0-2 chips, it scored 85.5%, or 2.8% weighted

Reduce or Eliminate Existing Services. This includes reducing staff levels.  Score 4.29/5/2/6.  Out of a possible 0-20 chips (pre-prepped as a big category), it scored 21.45% or 7.03% weighted.

Reduce or Eliminate Existing Funding Programs. Score 1.57/2/0/2. Out of a possible 0-2 chips it scored 78.5% or 2.57% weighted.

Reduce or Eliminate Village Community Events. Score 2.85/3/1/4.  Out of a possible 0-4 chips, it scored 71.25%, or 4.67% weighted.

Increase/the Property Tax Levy. Score 3.57/4/0/6.  Out of a possible 0-20 chips, it scored 17.85% or 5.85% weighted

Increase/Enhance Other Revenue Sources. this includes increasing existing revenue sources and introducing new revenue sources.  Score 5.00/4/2/9.  Out of a possible 0-12 chips it scored 41.66% or 8.33% weighted.

In order, here’s a possible to-do list based on the highly unscientific above:

1. Increase/Enhance Other Revenue Sources.
2. Reduce or Eliminate Existing Services.
3. Increase/the Property Tax Levy.
4. Reduce or Eliminate Village Community Events.
5. Improve Operating Efficiencies.
6. Reduce or Eliminate Existing Funding Programs.
7. Increase the Tax Base via Economic Development.

My percentage assignments are just that, a simple percentage of score, then a percentage of the mean of chips cast for each category.  If it has any basis (which it may not), staff will look to reduce or eliminate existing services, then look to enhance “other” revenue sources (many munis have already cranked up developer fees while it’s really slow).  It’s also possible the village portion of property taxes will go up, and some community events get trimmed.  But it does kind of reflect the sentiment of council that they are going to look for cuts to ease any possible tax/fee increases.

The Powerpoint presentation from the 7/7 meeting is here.

The Long Range Financial Planning Village Services Exercise worksheet is here.

The Solutions and Strategies Prioritization Exercise General Fund Structural Gap worksheet is here.

A buddy downstate emailed me this study, noting one other blogger already has written about it.  His point; there’s a temptation to simply do what generates surplus income for the municipality.If Champaign follows the trends illuminated by the study, they will become a city of high end single family home, high end apartments, and national big box stores.

Would a logical pathway for DG see the CBD and Ogden Avenue taken over by national chains, as they generate (downstate, at least) more sales tax surplus per 1,000 square feet than do local businesses?    See Naperville.

There would be less talk of more middle income, affordable, insert-your-favorite-catchphrase-here types of homes, only high end single family homes and downtown apartments.  Surprisingly, attached homes like the high density townhouses currently languishing unsold around DG (especially downtown), would be cut back; they have a net cost instead of providing a net surplus of revenues.

Note to village: Champaign also plans to raise developer fees across the board to help balance their budget.

Pointing out the obvious, the reason high end homes make money for the muni is any given sized family tends to impose the same level of expenses on a muni whether they live in an  expensive $1-million-plus home or a $300 thousand modest home, yet the real estate tax based revenues make the big home owner pay well over three times more.  The cost burden on the library, schools, police, fire, etc. are about the same.

But without that imbalance, DG would be up the creek like every other western ‘burb.  We need our expensive homes with their expensive RE tax bills, and generally speaking, most owners of the big expensive homes can afford the burden.