The Civic Voice of Arlington, Virginia



Arlington County Civic Federation

The Civic Voice of Arlington

 

Report on Revenues and Expenditures

April 3, 2001

 

Motions

1. The Arlington County Civic Federation recommends to the Arlington County Board that it adopt a Fiscal Year 2002 General Fund Budget that is balanced at $580.5 Million [an increase of $41.3 Million -- 7.7%-- over the FY2001 Revised Budget] . This would be accomplished by:

The real estate property tax rate would, as advertised, remain at the current rate of $102.3 cents per $100 of assessed value.

 

2. The Arlington County Civic Federation recognizes and appreciates the continued outstanding support provided by staff of the Office of Management and Finance to the members of its Revenues and Expenditures Committee in this year's budget review.

 

3. The Arlington County Civic Federation recommends to the Arlington County Board a number of procedural improvements in budget presentation and in program operation as well as expressing its thanks to the Board for adoption of a number of past Federation recommendations, such as summary presentations for program areas crossing departmental boundaries.

 

4. The Arlington County Civic Federation recommends to the County Board that it schedule its public hearing on the FY'03 budget so that Federation members might attend that hearing after our regular monthly meeting and after the release of the Mid-Year Review.

 

The President of the Federation is authorized to transmit approved motions and supporting information to the County Board, the School Board, the media, and other interested parties and to offer to make Federation Committee members available to explain the motions and attached text.

 

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . Page:

Summary of Recommendations.....................4

Overview........................................................2

Explanation of Recommendations.................4

Procedural Improvements..............................9

Report of the Schools Committee................10


Overview

 

On February 10, 2001, the Acting County Manager presented the County Board with a proposed FY 2002 budget. It followed earlier County Board guidance.

expenditures were proposed at $562.9 Million (+4.5%)

proposed revenues at current rates of $575.2 Million (+6.8%)

leaving an unallocated balance of $12.3 Million

Expenditures for basic County services were projected for a 3.4% increase; all other expenditures (including transfers) were also projected for an increase.

The Schools Superintendent had not presented his proposed budget to the School Board when the County Manager made his presentation to the County Board.

On February 28, 2001 the County Board voted to advertise the real estate rate at the current rate of $1.023 per $100 of assessed valuation.

 

Major Factors

A Increased Expenditures:

The Manager identified the following "major base General Fund budget components":

o $49.3 million for debt service for the County and Schools, which, thanks to lower interest rates, is down $1.7 million from original projections.

o $7 million for a compensation contingent, including $3.5 million each for the County and the Schools, equal to a 2 percent salary increase..

o A 2 percent increase in the County transfer to the Schools for operations ($3.4 million), Community Activities ($0.2 million), and Capital Improvements ($0.1 million) and full funding for School debt service at $16.7 million.

o Added funds to support Fire Department overtime costs, and 7.0 positions to continue the County Board-approved new Medic Units in FY 2002 and ensure Fire an Emergency Management Services remain at or above current levels in ensuring support to people, who live, work or play in Arlington County.

o Funds to increase the compensation for Election Officers, keeping Arlington competitive in the region.

o Funding of $0.8 million after rigorous programmatic evaluation of requests by selected nonprofit agencies, which provide service to the County.

o Support for the Public Arts Program via funding of 1.5 new FTEs.

o Funding for proactive approaches to public health concerns, including 1.0 FTE to combat the threat posed by Arbovirus, the so-called West Nile Virus. The County is working closely with state health officials to obtain regional funding to support this effort.

o A set-aside of a $3.0 million reduction in employers' contribution from the defined benefit portion of the County's Retirement Plan, based on an actuarial evaluation, to fund pay plan adjustments to permit the County to remain competitive among public sector employers in the region.

 

B. Increased Revenues:

1. Because of increased assessments and new building, real estate tax collections would increase by 10.8%. Personal Property tax collections would increase by 6.8% at the current rate. Overall, local taxes were projected to increase by 7.8%. Revenues from the State were to increase by 1.2% and those from the Federal Government by 4.8%. The Transient Tax, which goes into the travel and tourism promotion fund, will increase by 7.8%.

2. The current water/sewer rate of $4.46 per thousand gallons is proposed o increase by $0.12 due to increased costs to the County and the County's share of capital improvements to the Dalecarlia Reservoir. The household solid waste rate would increase by $7.12 from $219.48 to $226.60 a year.

3. As in past years, the Committee believes that there are incremental opportunities for increases in fees which would move some County programs which serve only a few persons closer to full fee recovery.

5. The Manager proposed a $3 million "adjustment" in retirement contributions; less funds were scheduled to be paid into employee retirement accounts than in the current fiscal year. However, this same amount would cover "the anticipated costs for retirement enhancements approved for Chapter 46 employees effective January 1, 2001".

 

C. Both:

The Manager's Proposed Budget contains Program Change Proposals which, taken as a whole, would increase expenditures by $6.3 million. Many of these proposals would have been shown as Base Budget items if the Manager had been given different directives by the County Board.

 

Within the constraints of this Overview, the Revenues and Expenditures Committee makes the following recommendations:

 

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:

(in millions of dollars)

EXPENDITURES:

County Manager's BASE BUDGET......................................................................................$562.9

 

1. Transfer to the Schools: Schools' Committee Recommendation

(Consistent with Schools Superintendent/ County Manager "Agreement")................+$6.9

2. General Government...........................................................................................................+$0.5

3. Courts and Constitutional Offices.......................................................................................+$0.4

4. Public Safety.......................................................................................................................+$0.7

5. Public Works.......................................................................................................................+$0.2

6. Environmental Services......................................................................................................+$0.8

7. Human Services..................................................................................................................+$0.1. 8. Libraries..................................................................................................................................0.0

9. Economic Development..........................................................................................................0.0

10. Community Planning, Housing, and Development...........................................................+$1.2

11. Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources..................................................................+$0.4

12. Non-Departmental & Debt Service....................................................................................+$0.4

13. Regionals/Contributions and METRO..................................................................................0.0

14. Pay-As-You-Go Capital.....................................................................................................+$1.3

TOTAL: $575.7

 

REVENUES:

County Manager's BASE BUDGET......................................................................................$575.2

 

15. Increased Carryover.......................................................................................................... +$4.5

16. Miscellaneous Fees and Revenues.................................................................................... +$0.8

17. Recognition of Additional Commonwealth Funding.............................................................0.0

TOTAL: $580.5

 

18. Unallocated Balance/Reserve for Future Fiscal Years....................................................... $4.8

 

 

EXPLANATIONS OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES:

M='s millions, K ='s thousands of dollars

 

(1) Transfer to the Schools (+$6.9M):

The County Manager proposed a transfer to the Schools;

including: Operations, Comprehensive Services Act, Capital,

Debt Service, Community Activities Fund, and Other of ............................$205.2 million

Consistent with the Superintendent/County Manager "Agreement",

the Federations Schools Committee recommends............................................$6.9 million

For a total Transfer of..................................................................................................$212.1 million

 

See the report of the Schools Committee, beginning on page 10. For illustrative purposes, this recommended transfer of $212.1 million is equal to about: a) 35.6% of recommended General Fund revenues, b) 85.7% of real estate tax revenues at current rates, and c) 47.8% of FY2002 'local tax revenues'. It is the largest single programmatic category in the County's budget.

 

(2) General Government (+$452.5 K):

No specific expenditure reductions are recommended. However, the Committee notes that County/Schools consolidation efforts that affect units such as the Human Resources Department must be closely monitored for their expenditure implications.

The Committee supports the Program Change Proposal to increase tuition reimbursement for County employees at a cost of $50K; however, courses reimbursed should be limited to those related to an employee's career ladder. It accepted the Program Change Proposal to "restore the [real estate] appraisal staff and provide for continued quality of real estate assessments" at a cost of $52.5K. Also, it supports part of the Program Change Proposal for Intranet program expansion at a cost of $100K; the remainder can come from resulting savings in current operations.

The most costly proposal was for $1 million for largely undefined technology initiatives by a County Department that continued to be under strength and seeking a meaningful direction. Instead, the Committee supports an allocation of $250K for an outside audit, similar to that done by Tridata for the Fire Department, to more carefully analyze and quantify real technology needs. Further, the Committee suggests that a citizens group be created to monitor and advise the County's technology enhancement efforts. The proposal did not appear to recognize the substantial investments made last fall from carryover funds.

(3) Courts and Constitutional Offices (+$374K):

The Committee again recommends that the Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) be made self-sufficient from the fees that it charges participants; a net tax savings of $45K. The County's taxpayers should not subsidize non-indigent drunk drivers.

Of the Program Change Proposals, the Committee accepted: a) the amended Electoral Board request for $370K for additional voting machines and b) request for additional court security, but believe that half the costs can be recovered from increased fine revenue by the new Judge to be guarded, for a net tax support increase of $49K.

The Committee did not support the Program Change Proposal for an additional transportation deputy in he Sheriff's Office; the justification provided was not consistent with previously provided information.

 

(4) Public Safety (+$705.5K):

The Committee supports both of the Fire Department's Program Change Proposals. The first would implement the Tridata Study recommendations regarding adequate staffing at a cost of $531.9 K. The second would add two permit/systems inspectors at a cost of $90 K. The Committee also supports funding for additional thermal imaging equipment for the Department at a cost of $48 K.

For the Police Department, the Committee voted not to support the Program Change Proposal for mobile data equipment; the need was not clearly demonstrated and the manner in which Asset Forfeiture Funds would be utilized raised many questions. The Committee supports the Program Change Proposal for Additional Red Light Cameras; no net tax support as costs would be covered by new revenues. The Committee supports the Program Change Proposal to add middle school crossing guards a cost of $35.6K; pedestrian travel for students to and from school is becoming increasingly hazardous in this County. The Committee repeats its support for the 'safe routes to schools' program in the County.

For the Emergency Communications Center, a thorough analysis of the efficacy of adding a 311 option to the 911 system, as many other metropolitan areas have done, appears both timely and prudent. We are concerned about improvements to ECC facilities that are planned to be moved "soon".

 

(5) Public Works (+$150K):

Public works continues to provide a comprehensible and well‑thought out budget package. Every year we find evidence of responsible management of resources and attempts to achieve efficiencies. There are also clear signals of cost increases expected soon in several programs.

This Department has been tightly budgeted for a number of years, and the stringency is beginning to show. The Program Change Proposal for funding consultant services to update the Master Transportation Plan shows that there is no slack in planning resources to respond to periodic increases in workload for such a project. At the same time, there are other cyclical workload projects on the horizon that will require similar infusions of outside resources unless additional FTE's are added to the planning division. For the present we support this year's $150,000 request for consultant services, but for the longer term we would like to see an analysis of optimizing our planning tax dollars through use of external consultant services compared to adding additional FTE's for this function. In addition we still see a need for an additional position to plan pedestrian and bicycle projects.

The Specialized Transit for Arlington Residents(STAR) program supplements the MetroAccess program. While it is encouraging that utilization has risen, costs are spiraling out of control at present. We recommend that Public Works review the per‑trip costs, which reached $31.16 in 2001, to determine if there are not more efficient ways of providing this service. Direct subsidies to the program participants through refunds of taxi fares might reduce the program costs considerably, for example. In addition, it may be necessary to review the guidelines for covered services, which now include trips from non‑Arlington destinations to other non‑Arlington destinations, for example.

We support the Program Change Proposal for the Rosslyn to Georgetown shuttle bus, but only if the funding is provided from the Travel and Tourism Promotion Fund and not out of general tax revenues.

We are pleased that the new program of sidewalk maintenance on a shorter cycle is underway. We would have welcomed a discussion in the Capital Construction Program writeup of the anticipated increase in requests for new sidewalk, curb and gutter following the decision last year to eliminated the homeowner's assessment. We do not believe that use of NCAC funding as a stop‑gap for this program will be adequate, and would welcome a Program Change Proposal for additional funding for curb, gutter and sidewalk projects under this program in next year's budget.

Neighborhood complaints about the County's street marking program indicate a perception that the program is slow, is not maintaining existing markings, or is skimping on additional needed lane and crosswalk markings. We recommend that this problem be assessed with a study, with comments from the Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Civic Federation and NCAC. We recognize that an increase in costs is the most likely outcome.

It is worthy of mention that the Department's long‑standing signs problem has been addressed, apparently without a cost increase. We were also pleased that our past comments on the need to strengthen the storm sewer and maintenance program have been addressed with the joint Program Change Proposal from DES and Public Works.

The improved work measures in this budget for the Subdivision and Bond Administration Program are welcome. We hope that the performance and workload measures for the new Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program can be improved as the program gains momentum.

There is still almost no funding in this budget for installation of the new Carlyle streetlights. At minimum there should be some lights converted each year, and a long‑term conversion strategy laid out. we do not believe that NCAC funding should be considered a substitute for funding under this program. We would welcome a Program Change Proposal for this purpose in next year's budget.

We recognize that our comments taken in total would imply approval of a considerable increase in the Public Works budget. Although such increases are normally phased in over a period of years, we believe that there is a case for additional Public Works funding that should be reflected in coming budgets.

The Snow Removal Program shows no expenditures for clearing the sidewalks and trails that are the County's own responsibility. These routes are important for pedestrians and bicycles after a snowfall. County ordinance requires homeowners to clear sidewalks in front of their own homes, but there is no obligation for the County to clear its own sidewalks, and many pedestrians observed after snowfalls in 2000 and 2001 that County-owned walkways were not cleared.

 

(6) Environmental Services ($763.3K):

With one exception, the Committee supports the full Program Change Proposal for the phased implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Task Force and Watershed Management Plan at a net tax support cost of

$763.3K. The Federation was earlier briefed on the details of these plans. There are legal requirements and environmental reasons for the remediation work that is proposed. Some of the measures such as cleaning drainage catch basins are simply good maintenace procedures and should have already been in place. The additional street sweeping will help to mitigate our runoff problems but also will contribute to cleaner neighborhoods and reduced tire punctures. The exception is the conduct of a storm water utility feasibility study; the Committee believes that residents already pay for these services through tax deductible real estate taxes and that separate, non-tax deductible fees are not appropriate.

The Committee supports the increase in the household solid waste fee to continue full cost recovery for this service; an increase already a part of the base budget. This is consistent with prior Federation recommendations for full cost recovery.

In past years there has been much media speculation about a possible additional $20 million in costs to enhance sewage treatment facilities to reduce odors both at the County's plant and at disposal sites. Since no formal proposals have been made either in this budget or for public hearing by the County Board, the Committee has taken no position on this matter at this time. The Committee is willing to consider a further increase in the water/sewer rate at some future date if the additional funds would be held in reserve to cover anticipated, but not yet quantified, costs of system quality improvements.

 

(7) Human Services (+$80K):

In recent years, this Department has been undergoing almost constant change; a virtually every County Board meeting one or more programs is adjusted. Hence, the Committee has found no significant reform to recommend for cost savings.

Because it does not conform to the Federation's repeated call for full cost recovery from fees, the Committee does not support the Program Change Proposal for additional environmental health inspectors. They may be needed, but should be funded appropriately.

The Committee supports the no net tax support increase Program Change Proposal for services for children and families. This is an appropriate use of available Federal funds.

The Committee supports the Program Change Proposal for psychiatric nurses for mental health and substance abuse clients. However, since such services are usually reimbursable from Medicaid, only one-half of the requested funds are deemed necessary -- $80K in net tax support.

The Committee believes that the County has not aggressively enrolled eligible Arlingtonians into the 'State Child Health Insurance Program'. This new program can provide equal, or better benefits, using State/Federal funds for Arlingtonian than are now provided out of local funds. In addition, the Committee was very disappointed not to see clear evidence in the text that the County is undertaking necessary planning efforts to prepare for the termination of benefits due to occur under Federal welfare reform. That event could be very costly for the County and clients.

 

(8) Economic Development (0.0):

The Program Change Proposal for a global alliance program enhancement was opposed by the Committee because I would duplicate services already available free from the Federal Government.

The Committee supports the gateway visitors' center study proposal contingent upon its being funded from available surpluses in the travel and tourism promotion fund and no from the general fund. Further, this should be an objective study with no preconceived conclusions and not undertaken until the state match is assured.

Since its purpose is to assist developers in requesting additional County funds, the Committee opposes he Program Change Proposal for the housing development program.

 

(9) Libraries (0.0):

While there no Program Change Proposals to review, the Committee was concerned to note that the number of Internet sessions from the libraries were decreasing and that a number of performance indicators were incomplete.

 

(10) Community Planning, Housing, and Development (+$1,163.3K):

Consistent with long-term Federation support for the neighborhood-driven projects of the Neighborhood Conservation program, the Committee supports the request of NCAC for an additional $1 million for the program. Neighborhood Conservation has been an increasingly successful program in Arlington. It has attracted many new neighborhoods and is generating many new neighborhood improvement projects. The program is in need of additional funding to cope with a growing backlog of unfunded projects. Projects constructed under this program have been funded in the past exclusively from bond funds. In keeping with our consistent recommendations on maintaining a healthy balance between new bond issues and pay-as-you-go capital, we recommend adding $1.0 million in funding in FY 2002 for NCAC projects.

Consistent with earlier Federation support for enforcement of County codes, the Committee supports the Program Change Proposal for and additional code enforcement inspector (for site plans) at a cost of $82.9K. In addition, the Committee supports the requested four additional cars for inspectors at a cost of $80.4K.

In 1998 and 1999, the Federation supported a civil penalties program for violations as a means of code enforcement (replacing most criminal penalties). That program has been adopted by the County Board and is widely seen by the public as desirable. The Committee urges the County Manager to continue to fully implement this program which has both public benefits and budgetary savings. Unfortunately little evidence of that commitment is seen in the performance measures presented.

 

(11) Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources (+$444K):

The functions performed by the Audience Development Section and the Marketing and Development staff in the Director's Office are essentially similar. Combining the two could save one FTE and about $66,000.

Park users and the Civic Federation's Parks Committee have noted the need for better maintenance of our tree stock, trails, shelters, signage and other park features. In addition, making facilities ADA compliant is still being put off. The Program Change Proposal for maintenance management funds is essentially a means of replacing resources siphoned off during the past fiscal year to service new park areas. This is perhaps the inevitable result of acquiring new park facilities without providing the additional budget necessary to manage them. We again this year recommend the reprogramming of funds within the PURR budget to allocate more for park maintenance and ADA compliance actions. We would support the entire of the PCP at a cost of $325K.


It is evident that the manager's budget ranked maintenance needs in the parks as less important this year than funding for Smartscape median maintenance on Wilson Boulevard and Fairfax Drive, gypsy moth spraying, the public arts policy and the Bully Prevention Reduction Program. While we do not suggest that these are inappropriate tradeoffs, Arlingtonians will face inadequate park maintenance for the foreseeable future while we add to our parklands and undertake new initiatives of the type unless we are willing to provide additional funding.

In light of our inability to deal with park maintenance funding for the past several budget cycles, we again propose splitting Parks out into a new Department as it had been in the past. There is a bias within any organization that deals with both maintaining physical facilities and providing program resources to clients in need that tends to favor the client needs. Although we expect and approve of this bias toward the human need first, in the case of Parks it will inevitably lead to under‑maintenance of facilities unless the Parks function is a separate Department.

Parks should provide in the budget a more definitive schedule for making our facilities ADA compliant. The vague statement that this needs to be done at some future time is insufficient.

Snow and ice removal on the County's trails and sidewalks improved in limited areas this year. Given the all‑season use of our trails by a wide variety of users, some portion of the PRCR budget should be earmarked for this activity.

The Committee also voted to support the expansion of the County's contribution to the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust by $20K as well as to support the post-presentation budget proposal for $165K to eliminate invasive/non-native species from County parks..

 

(12) Non-Departmental/Debt Service (+$435)

The Committee not only accepts the Manager's proposed 2% COLA for County and Schools employees; it also supports the more current Manager "priority" of a 3% COLA at an increased cost of $1,750K. The full amount will be added to payroll accounts throughout County agencies as the budget is approved. However, also note the Committee's procedural recommendation regarding a compensation study below.

Affordable Housing Investment Fund Contingent : As per last four years' recommendations, eliminate entire local contribution of $950K no necessary for Federal matching. Repayments and Federal funds into contingent will generate considerable funds for FY'02. As of mid-year FY'01, no such funds had been used by the County. Further use of Industrial Development Authority, such as the recent $9.5 million commitment, is also a possible source of funds for affordable housing projects. Even with this proposed reduction, over $23 million in expenditures will occur for housing in FY 2002 plus any IDA funds used..

Retirees Health Insurance: Reduce expenditure estimate by $146K to more accurately reflect FY'01 actual costs plus premium increases. Reduction reflects better managed care; e.g. greater reliance on 'primary payer' of MEDICARE. The Manager's proposal shows an overall 39% increase in this category; these recommendations reduce it by about one-tenth.

Tax Refunds: Reduce expenditure estimate by $27K to more accurately reflect historic costs.

Debt Service: The County has historically issued bonds and therefore begun debt repayments AFTER the dates used for budget planning; thus a reduction of $192K is reasonable based upon the accuracy of past Federation projections.

 

(13) Regionals/Contributions and METRO (0.0):

Even though expenditures are scheduled to increase by 4% -- a rate exceeding the inflation rate, no specific reductions are recommended by the Committee.

Many previous Federation recommendations were acted upon and cost savings achieved (for instance, $2.2 million is projected in METRO "audit adjustment" for FY'01). However, modest long-term savings are possible for the County by better management of regional agency reserve funds and constant updating of population-based assessments because Arlington's share of the regional population is declining. For METRO: the County should actively work within METRO Boards for better employee productivity and long-term savings in workman's compensation costs to achieve long-term reductions in operating costs.

 

(14) Pay-As-You-Go Capital (+$1,347K):

The Committee recommends elimination of the following proposed expenditures (-$735K):

1. Replacement of the TJ gym floor ($250K)

Modest repair, not replacement, is needed.

2. Shirlington Library/Performing arts center (**)

Expenditure not needed if neighbors concerns about site phasing are heeded

3. Replacement of Detention Center boilers ($235K)

Use available residual bond funds, not current funds

4. Evaluation of telecommunications outsourcing ($250K)

Ask competing vendors to provide free estimates

In addition, the Committee has many questions about details of the adhere planned expenditures which are separately being sent to the County for answers.

Instead, we recommend that the following three investments (+$550K) be made even though no Program Change proposals were submitted:

1) The County still lacks a strategy for conversion of older street lights on residential street to the new Carlyle lights. If we had a long-term strategy, additional funding for this purpose should have been a part of this proposed budget. In many neighborhoods, this is a significant safety and security issue. Consequently, we recommend allocation of $100K in FY'02 for this purpose and increased amounts in future fiscal years. If Public Works does not yet have a plan to determine where the new lights are most needed, the funds could readily be channeled through the Neighborhood Conservation program; letting neighborhoods determine where the need is greatest.

2) We were dismayed to see no funding at all in this budget for Arlington's increasingly popular and crowded pedestrian/bicycle trails. Even the title of the segment "Bicycle Trails" does not reflect the realities of how Arlingtonians use these facilities. We recommend a steady stream of funding for these facilities and recommend that $250K be allocated in FY'02. Note, this is for construction and upgrading of trails; not for routine maintenance which is a separate problem area.

3) We were also dismayed to see that funding for Disability Access was reduced to only $43K and was devoted to automatic door openers. The County's continued failure to produce a plan to upgrade ALL of its facilities to ADA standards is unconscionable. We recommend increasing funding for these facilities by $200K in FY'02 and maintaining funding at least that new level until ALL County facilities have been brought into full compliance.

Regarding the Program Change Proposals for Pay-As-You-Go Capital, the Committee recommends accepting the following ($1,532K):

1) Economic Development Fund for Columbia Pike ($1 million)

Adjoining neighborhoods must be actively involved in spending these funds.

2) new generator for the Emergency Communications Center ($170K)

Support is contingent upon the equipment being transferable to the ECC's new location

3) DHS facilities renovations ($362K)

Long overdue renovations supported by neighbors of the current slum conditions.

 

Whenever a "contribution" is made to a single vendor of social services to the County, the Committee believes that it should be an interest-free loan and not a grant.

 

(15) Carryover (+$4.5M):

The County Manager's "Mid-Year Review" of revenues, expenditures, and balances was presented on March 17; the Committee accepted its estimates as being the minimum available. This year's estimate is more clearly in line with earlier Committee recommendations.

 

(16). Miscellaneous Fees and Revenues (+$0.8M):

In all of the above segments, acceptance of Program Change proposals and/or shifts to full fee recovery, involve additional revenues to balance the budget. The total is $805.7 thousand.

 

(17) Recognition of Additional Commonwealth Revenue (0.0):

At this time, the Committee does not project any additional Commonwealth funding. Some is indeed possible when the budget gridlock in Richmond is resolved, but cannot be reasonably and prudently estimated at this time.

 

(18) Unallocated Balance/Reserve for Future Years ($4.8M):

At the current tax rate, the Committee believes that $4.8 million is not necessary to meet priority needs. At the current tax rate, this unallocated balance could be placed in reserve for future fiscal years as a 'rainy day' fund to be used when recessions cause revenue shortfalls or there are adverse changes in State and/or Federal funding.

 

 

PROCEDURAL IMPROVEMENTS:

 

The Committee recommends (not in priority sequence) that:

 

1. The County Board, through an entity such as the Environmental and Energy Conservation Commission, conduct a study for volume/weight based charging for solid waste pickup as well as reviewing the current efficacy of special pickup charges.

 

2. In order to offer a market rate competitive benefits package, the County should conduct a study of selected occupations each year to review regional competitiveness; to the extent feasible such a study should be conducted by all local jurisdictions on a regional basis.

 

3. Whenever a Program Change Proposal is presented which will require expenditures in more than one fiscal

year, it should be accompanied by: a) a "fiscal impact" analysis for future fiscal years, and b) an itemization of performance/workload measures which will be used to evaluate it if it is accepted.

 

4. Prior to the next County bond referendum, a consistent County policy should be developed, with full public participation, on the criteria for the use of bond proceeds to fund any County operating staff.

 

5. Routine maintenance costs for County facilities must be shown as a part of the base budget and not presented as Program Change Proposals. Such costs should always be in the fiscal impact statements when new facilities are approved by the County Board and/or the voters of Arlington.

 

6. The County Board and the School Board must establish a more productive and amicable consultation process for budget procedures, including Fall planning estimates for the Manager and Superintendent, and deadlines. At a minimum, the School Board should vote to approve its budget (based upon the Superintendent's proposal) before the County Board's public hearing on the budget.

 

7. While the Committee generally found the proposed budget well organized and presented, there are a number of specific problems which will be identified in writing to the Department of Management and Finance. In particular, the Federation urges consistent budget presentations including the current budget year's Adopted Budget. In addition, the year-to-year percentage increase should be calculated using the prior year's Adopted budget amount rather than the prior year's revised budget amount. A consistent presentation would provide more meaningful trends. Use of the revised budget amount has consistently produced lower year-to-year changes for public review.

 

8. The contribution to the Arlington Community Access Corporation shown in the Regionals/Contributions section of the budget is unclear. In future years, the monetary relationship of this contribution to the County's net revenues from the cable licensing fee should be better explained to the taxpayers.

 

9. As a part of its Capital Improvement Program, the County Board should create a five year plan to fully fund all improvements in County facilities necessary to achieve full compliance with the access requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act. [See also, Federation recommendations in Pay-As-You-Go Capital above.]

 

10. The Department of Human Services should initiate a study to determine which components of its day care licensing, training, and inspection services are suitable for full recovery of costs through fees.

 

11. Since an important part of the budget process is to determine how well individual programs are serving the community, the County Board should create a policy statement itemizing guidelines for determining levels of user satisfaction and when levels of satisfaction are to be collected by County operating units.

 

12. The Ballston Parking Garage is a very underutilized and poorly understood County asset. This asset should be thoroughly evaluated and considered for sale/privatization.

 

13. Performance measures are needed whenever a County service, such as many solid waste collection routes, is contracted out.

 

14. The County should add a Citizens Fund for Arlington mechanism where taxpayers who advocate a higher level of taxation and spending could voluntarily contribute for either the general fund or for specific funding needs such as schools, libraries, affordable housing, parks, the arts, the Columbia Pike initiative, enhanced e‑government or other purposes.

 

15. The scope of the mandate of the Fiscal Affairs Advisory Commission should be usefully expanded to include the functions of a citizens' Inspector General.

 

REPORT OF THE SCHOOLS COMMITTEE:

 

The Schools Committee recommends an FY2002 school budget of $272,643,259 with a General Fund transfer of $212,061,555.

 

The Schools Committee supports the School Board's base line budget for FY2002 to maintain services at their current level, including funds for 377 projected new students and financing new cost of the existing salary schedule. Below are the Schools Committee's comments about the four area of initiatives addressed in the School Board's budget. Due to time constraints, we have had to make our recommendations before receiving all the answers from the school staff to questions we submitted; we may revise our recommendations when we have received those answers. Meanwhile, the separate, attached handout details how we would allocate spending differently from the School Board's revised budget.

 

Raising Achievement and Eliminating the Gap.

We support the School Board's budget proposals to strengthen the summer school and early childhood development programs.

We believe that the School Board should restore the full amount of the Superintendent's original proposal to combat truancy. Students are unlikely to pass the essential SOL tests if they are not in class.

We are skeptical about the emphasis given to staff positions and to the expansion of "exemplary projects." There has never been a useful evaluation of the existing exemplary projects and the budget proposal for the new exemplary projects contains no component for measuring student success.

We have seen no data showing that either the Minority Student Achievement Network or Diversity Peer Training Coordinator positions have a demonstrated record of assisting students in improving their grades, attendance, disciplinary records or test scores. We recommend against funding either of those initiatives.

 

Improving Staff Quality Through Recruitment and Retention.

We think this is the most important element of the budget and support all the School Board's proposals. These initiatives include a 3% COLA.

 

Evaluation and Accountability.

We think evaluation and accountability must be included in all programs.

 

Essential Support.

We do not support funding for two initiatives in this category. We do not recommend funding a clerical position in each of the elementary schools for two additional months during the summer, as principals currently have a year‑round assistant. We also do not recommend funding the two middle school activity director positions that came from the Community Activity Fund.

Our recommendations represent an additional savings of $372,120. The monies gained from our savings should be applied to the Capital Projects Fund which was cut $1,000,000.

 

Comments.

We believe if additional funds become available the first priority should be to finance the Superintendent's original VRS and Capital Projects proposals. Additional funds beyond that should go to implement the Superintendent's supplemental compensation package. It is our opinion that teacher salaries will have to increase substantially to attract and retain good teachers. The Superintendent's supplemental compensation proposal was a step in that direction.

 

 



And here is the Schools Committee Report
that accompanies this document.




------

This page was last revised on: April 3, 2001.