Loading...
12/12/01 Jentz/Proposed 2003 BudgetTri-City Planning Office 17 Second Street East Suite 211 Kalispell Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 751-1850 Fax: (406) 751-1858 tricity@centurytel.net Ji_ _J1 a ' TO: TRI-CITY PLANNING BOARD FROM: TOM JENTZ, DIRECTOR <��A DATE: DECEMBER 12, 2001 RE: PROPOSED 2003 BUDGET As requested, I have prepared a year 2002-03 budget. Attached is a budget packet with a considerable amount of information. First, please find attached a sheet of "budget assumptions". This serves as an explanation for each line item adjustment in the proposed budget. Following this is a proposed 2002-03 budget. The formal budget presented here supposes an identical member contribution as was made last year. Note that the budget is proposed to increase $24,738 (8.5%). If member contributions were to stay the same as 2002, there would be a $57,000 cash carry over deficit. I have also attached a budget sheet, which portrays the local member contributions when applying the new funding allocation formula. As you remember, this formula uses 3 indicators each equally weighted, 2000 population; current taxable value and a 5-year rolling average of permit activity. The very last attachment is a worksheet, which presents the new formula and portrays the changes in funding for each jurisdiction. Briefly, the new formula increases Columbia Falls contribution from 10.7% to 13.3%. It lowers Whitefish from 32.65% to 32.54% and it lowers Kalispell from 56.64% to 54.15%. Note that staff does intend on submitting a CDBG technical assistance planning grant for Columbia Falls. If awarded it would provide up to $7,500 per year for two years. These funds could be used by Columbia Falls to offset the funding increases imposed by the new formula. Providing Community Planning Assistance To: • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish • A. 10 TRI-CITY PLANNING BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS FOR 2002 — 2003 Presented December 12, 2001 Operations and maintenance expenses Proposed adjustments: • Legal Notices would be increased $500 to reflect increased activity • Telephone would be increased $3000 (54%) to address fixed costs of phone, cell phone, long distance, internet and VVEB page • Insurance would be dropped $200 to reflect actual costs • Office rent would increase $1000 to reflect rent and utility increases • Net effect is an 8.3% increase in O & M of $4,500 Unresolved issues: • The administrative charge to be charged by the city of Kalispell. • Anticipated extra charge if Planning Office has access to the County data records Personnel Expenses Proposed adjustments • For budget purposes a 3% COLA was used for all 5 staff. The actual number will not be released for some time and will be used when available. • Based on the adopted salary schedule, Narda, Eric and Cookie are all in mid step. Sandie is eligible for a step increase (2%). • Tom has also been factored in with a 2% increase. He is not part of the salary schedule and did not receive a raise last year. • These adjustments total $8,738 Additional adjustments • Contract employee for minutes - $4,000 • Cookie Davies, GIS coordinator position - add 8 hours to make her full time to assist secretarial vacation and overflow. - $7,500 C. Total budget changes Total O & M adjustments - $ 4,500 Total personnel adjustments - $20,238 Total increase - $24,738 D. Revenue assumptions: • Planning fees for the first six months have averaged $5,250/month. This is above the 3-year average of 3,750. I propose using $4,500/month as a budget figure, which provides $54,000 per year in revenue. Using these figures and projecting the same contributions by members as the current year, we are at a shortfall of $57,848. • Staff proposes to submit a $15,000 CDBG Planning Grant in March for next year. They typically are good for two years ($7,500 per year) for the purpose of updating the Columbia Falls Master Plan to Growth Policy status. The uncertainty arises in whether the County will cooperate in the approval process. This would reduce the shortfall to $50,348 if awarded. n b n F-+ Ul Cn W W W W W W W W W W N N N N • ' • W W 'w,s' V� C�It O O O NOy Uy/l C)CD O C7 n n b j n W W� €�� a r� r Oro y n C `rt r o Clq Cr4, R �. A o C()�* cu �, of Ro ��' `id C o Z D - v� U2 o cra p r+ CDn `� o H CZ n W" n 3 a � d t� o C� ° P. CD�. y G W G a 60 {��� H y �'� tea' F0 4� 0 cD Cl) �. � v, � ro E" H W ccC) ( o' a �' r `D CCl! x O O tI1 H H C- t r O O � N P P Cn O 00 •0. N Un to N 00 r 00 00 3 Cn --1 W IJ Cn N N N W N OD r O W O W 00 --1 W W -P O N tJ Cn O Cn O Cn O Cn Cn O Ui O U1 U7 C, �-- O Cn N o-, 4 -P �,o O W O O O O O O O O O O O 00 cc co O 0 0 0 0 0 O O 1t P �o O O O O O O O O O O O Coco 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0000 0 O O C 0 0 O O C) C) C) O O O O O 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 O 4 N �-, ON O O P to (n 00 Ut 0000 W0) N W o> N W W N 00 O W O W 00 �o � W 00 to O 00 ,) Cn Cn O 'oo O O -1 O O N U� N � W C) Cn N ON 0► -P t10 O W N C)O O O O O "o �7 O O O O O Ul O O 0 0 0 0 0 O C) J -P. � O 0 00 0 0 0 Cn Cn O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O C 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 OR. wwww w Q�• w www w N N �0 N N N Cn Cn r• Cn O N W O U1 O •7 P �o �o N 00 00 00 W 01 J W N Cn Ul N W W N F W 00 W O W N a, �1 W Cn �o O O N Cn O Cn O U1 O O Cn N Cn O Cn In '`1 P O Ut N0) '`T --1 �c O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O O O 00 0o --I -Ph --4 O 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O C7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 C 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 �,z � Y r;•.;g �? F ��� { �S t I v s 1 � F d �"^k' �+P �` S � it, '� cYk cft 7`Jtk "F ts„ a is fi ,=ilk-� •''X'•'t:' P��"j Y", is Yd? 'n�2L �`3�?P !� �.t� �-� k L� ..p4 � � ;�h •ik '� .%;'1 !l`'•} � € 3J4" .r �}E _,�,,;t$l�"�U �{�k ?z� x k .. Y�J �3 � 1 �ti3 # �` C71��t�,©, 0�;•-,3�, ��{ W is W t0 C7 b O ^� C7�S�? t� cJ C3 �? �%r\ � �, d M �N 40 £O �0�,�� �U „�1 �C?�O ,Cn f 2 t 4 sli : ,i�` `§t d C C R 4 i SE' � 4' X`x§, 9 :) ^.a�k1 u'' "•" Lam:' �:'"� w � '¢�rt:�' � � ". � -. 3 s 8'N+cy ri'=' J.,7� "i''"a:: � � }°ix 2 4.:: �3 � i£ my 3. h'r' S Ct -',. i t R '�`c} �"' ? '� £§ az 7-4"�S4 R t £.F.. - Z:s�"{: L'� # �¢`.xts�' E 3 t k. f' � ES';dA�h k £ l S} £ #. { � { IX� k'2 k.j Yi}> i� „, .'i_�„"�.;<Ct.?'�. �tH. �?.� Zw.a L }1 j §� �43hy,,, y"�S 33 CY�'cY{"�w.�•�,., k ..$ 4 {3 kJ y. ,{ -i'% i � iv''.'..i '"# y1; ... Rz �' b.J i 4 '� , fS�? Cj �'U€'}rT i'+.. ��e Y•td tL 5_ �'Z[� zi'.j�4r f l $eJ..; ^�, �`%.:J€S C'P'w^"�$�..., k iR 4 2 i nA. PS S �#• f '; l }k a 4 `. �!'!; �. P.f S ;� {' €nF f'Ud k LSA,, 124t iFt ': .. 4 § .. 4,'Ct £ CS ":k''3? •a.:'f'V} ..<,wi -. Sf'k\ t4..h i` a x 25.€ i` =';'' yS E "`' { Y L kS. 1.. ? ,9l 7 :, 'L. ^:.; 'a S�' fS'f o'0'i� 'TiF :. LsfLl.}`j�� '7 "LY Si`. }�� JL iG��i`� 1' A t � 34 L• �» a ➢rya\{. f .- t i'X ,�� �:,. �?'1 f. �+Sa' :.`t i' i � L �L ' t i `q', '� .L Gai''. 4 { f: L€. 2 ''t#i}i.?. 3{✓€: t "u" '°3 S' Hf L K 1"'`,`tn.3{' .i� q. 'ssc 'a kn1hL1 1 Cf f'U§ f %4 } 1 �\ S k f 'L { "F }F t �. r� H. �I 00 °- µ CD H y 0 m ' O Opx111 (D y dam Ct9 saw6c� 69- 6ox-6% 49. C% P U7 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0100000 O 4&6Sw-6-j-if3Let 4& -P Ui Ut O a O 4 � O N 0 i-- O W O W 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 49- 6s -Ga {9} f09- -(fi fo N J 4 00� N N 0o O N 00 00 Ln P O A Cn cn 0o O O O 00 O O O W O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O f n G Y# � E a i TRI-CITY PLANNING BUDGET 2002-02 USING THE REVISED FUNDING FORMULA Pop (2000) Tax. Value (7-01) App. (5 Year Ave.) Total (% of budget) Current Budget Share Over/Under 2002 contribution (ASSUMES $57,857 CASH CARRYOVER) Kalispell Whitefish Columbia Falls 20.70 7.32 5.31 20.35 9.07 3.91 13.10 16.15 4.08 54.15 32.54 13.30 56.64 32.65 -2.49 -.11 102,360 $59,020 2003 contribution $ 97,850 $58,850 Difference -$ 4,510 -$ 170 10.71 2.59 $19,350 $24,030 + $ 4,680 % Value 33.33 33.33 33.33 99.99 (ASSUME NO CASH CARRY OVER — USING NEW FORMULA AND ONLY FEES AND LOCAL CONTRIBUTION) 2002 contribution 102,360 $59,020 $19,350 2003 contribution 129,166 $77,633 $31,730 Difference $26,806 $ 18,610 $ 12,380 (ASSUME $7,500 GRANT BY FALLS, COLUMBIA FALLS CONTRIBUTION WITH GRANT STAYS CONSTANT, WHITEFISH AND KALISPELL INCREASE WITH A $36,670 CASH CARRY OVER — USING NEW FORMULA) 2002 contribution 102,360 $59,020 $19,350 2003 contribution 109,318 $65,691 $26,850 Difference $6,958 $ 6,671 $ 7,500