We are currently facing a decrease in our village income (the general fund), which is likely to mainly affect the capital projects we have been hoping to complete. We will also likely need to increase rates for garbage collection, as our costs are now exceeding our income.
LEGISLATION will include:
1. Resolution: Approving a Tax Budget. This is a form that we send to the county budget commission to make sure that our tax levies are properly collected by the county tax commissioner. It indicates what our tax levy is and how much we expect to collect from it.
2. Ordinance: Second reading/ Public Hearing: Establishing an Energy Board As I mentioned last month, this is renamining and slightly re-purposing the Energy Task Force into an on-going board that focuses on helping reduce our electricity consumption and to make decisions about power sources.
3. Ordinanc: First Reading: Approving an "Efficiency Smart Power Plant Schedule" with AMP: American Municipal Power (AMP) is a non-profit co-op of municipalities that own their own electrical systems; YS is a member of this co-op and a representative from AMP, Eric Lloyd, will be on hand . Through AMP, we've been an investor in the Gorsuch plant since 1988, from which we have drawn a significant poriton of our power needs over the past several years--and as such we are also responsible for the liabilities due to any pollution. AMP communities invested in Gorsuch are required to pay a portion of an EPA fine levied against Gorsuch plant: AMP was allowed to make $15 million of its fine be dedicated to improved energy efficiency for all investor communities. AMP has partnered with the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC) to accomplish this task. This program will launch in 2011 and is expected to save more than the $15 million dollar cost. There are a few services that could be offered to residents, including possibly financial incentives for improving lighting and energy efficient appliances.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. State of the Budget Discussion. We have asked Sharon Potter to report as to the current state of our village budget. Her report, dated June 30 of this year, suggests that our income is coming in at about 10% less than we expected, which is a concern ($129,429 less than where we were in 2009 at this time). Looking at the current income/expenses sheet, the biggest number--accounting for about 3/4 of that loss--is an $87,677 lower than expected contribution from "State Shared Taxes and Permits" (which is essentially due to reduced income from estate taxes this year). Additionally, local income and real estate taxes are down by about $21K from 2009 levels. This means we will need to defer some capital expenditures planned for this year in order to avoid eating further into our reserve funds. We are focused on this and planning to be pro-active in our response to this issue.
We are also watching the "enterprise funds"--electric, water, sewer, solid waste. We will likely need to raise our solid waste rates in order to keep up with rising costs.
2. Levy Discussion: Last May we decided to hold a vote for the renewal of our current levy in May 2011. Here is Mark Cundiff's discussion of the numbers and what they mean, which I found helpful and succinct:
" REVENUE, OPERATING EXPENSES, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COST PROJECTIONS: The Village will be receiving revenue from the current levy through 2011, so we are looking at those years beyond 2011. Assuming that revenues will remain flat over this time period, here are projections for the years 2012-2016:
Year Revenue w/Levy Revenue w/out Levy
2012 $3,055,179 $2,178,806
2013 $3,055,179 $2,178,806
2014 $3,055,179 $2,178,806
2015 $3,055,179 $2,178,806
2016 $3,055,179 $2,178,806
Expenses vs. Revenues Without Levy Proceeds: If you compare the projected non-enterprise fund operating expenses (those non-capital or variable expenses associated with the general operation of the Village projected with a 3% growth rate) to the projected revenue without levy proceeds you get the following:
Year Revenue Operating Difference
Without Levy Expenses
2012 $2,178,806 $2,774,873 -$596,067
2013 $2,178,806 $2,858,119 -$679,313
2014 $2,178,806 $2,943,863 -$765,057
2015 $2,178,806 $3,032,178 -$853,372
2016 $2,178,806 $3,123,144 -$944,338
This indicates that without the levy revenue there would not be adequate revenue to cover the operating expenses. The loss of over $876,000 of revenue would make it very difficult to maintain services at their current level. Ability to finance non-enterprise fund capital improvements would also be negatively impacted, as indicated in the following table:
Year Revenue Op & Cap Difference
Without Levy Expenses
2012 $2,178,806 $3,097,873 -$ 919,067
2013 $2,178,806 $3,046,119 -$ 867,313
2014 $2,178,806 $3,126,863 -$ 948,057
2015 $2,178,806 $3,215,178 -$1,036,372
2016 Outside of 5-year CIP Timeframe (2011-2015)
Expenses vs. Revenues With Levy Proceeds: If you compare the projected non-enterprise fund operating expenses (those non-capital or variable expenses associated with the general operation of the Village projected with a 3% growth rate) to the projected revenue with levy proceeds you get the following:
Year Revenue Operating Difference
With Levy Expenses
2012 $3,055,179 $2,774,873 +$280,306
2013 $3,055,179 $2,858,119 +$197,060
2014 $3,055,179 $2,943,863 +$111,316
2015 $3,055,179 $3,032,178 +$ 23,001
2016 $3,055,179 $3,123,144 - $ 67,965
This indicates that even with the levy revenue there would not be adequate revenue to cover the operating expenses in 2016, resulting in having to use fund balances to cover all of the operational costs. Ability to finance non-enterprise fund capital improvements without using fund balances would also be negatively impacted, as indicated in the following table:
Year Revenue Op & Cap Difference
With Levy Expenses
2012 $3,055,179 $3,097,873 - $ 42,694
2013 $3,055,179 $3,046,119 +$ 9,060
2014 $3,055,179 $3,126,863 - $ 71,684
2015 $3,055,179 $3,215,178 - $ 159,999
2016 Outside of 5-year CIP Timeframe (2011-2015)
This table indicates that even with the levy proceeds, there will be years in which fund balances will need to be used in order to complete the Capital Items in the CIP. Council and Staff should reexamine the 5-Year CIP and determine if a less aggressive approach might make more sense fiscally in order to not have to use fund balances.
All of these tables indicate that the Village needs the levy revenues to continue to provide the current level of services and capital improvements. To help supplement these revenues, we also need to continue to seek out grants and other outside funding sources, look at ways to deliver these services in the most cost efficient manner, and increase revenue from other sources such as income tax through business expansion, start-up, and attraction.
NEXT STEPS:
Some members of Council and citizens have expressed an interest in examining the Public Safety budget since it is the largest “slice” of the General Fund “pie”. Staff has begun some preliminary data collection and would like to have this discussion scheduled sometime in August. Other non-enterprise fund operational areas mentioned to be examined included the Sidewalk Program. If there are other operational areas Council would like to discuss at this meeting (or I forgot one), please let me know.
Finally, Council needs to determine what millage they wish to ask the voters to approve. A table showing you the revenue generated at each millage should be included in your packet. Please note that this table was generated last year and levy proceeds have increased since that time."
Please come and join in this important discussion!
After that, I need a funny poem, so I give you this one by Dorothy Parker, which I just discovered (and have already posted to facebook). I've been told by outsiders that they're convinced that everyone in YS is a psychotherapist or a massage therapist--this poem is at least good for a laugh from the psychotherapists and English majors who had to read at least a little Freud, or any of us who have read some pop psychology. The rhymes are fun, and it's worth reading all the way to the (pun-laden, groan-inducing) punchline at the end!
POEM
The Passionate Freudian to His Love
By Dorothy Parker
Only name the day, and we'll fly away
In the face of old traditions,
To a sheltered spot, by the world forgot,
Where we'll park our inhibitions.
Come and gaze in eyes where the lovelight lies
As it psychoanalyzes,
And when once you glean what your fantasies mean
Life will hold no more surprises.
When you've told your love what you're thinking of
Things will be much more informal;
Through a sunlit land we'll go hand-in-hand,
Drifting gently back to normal.
While the pale moon gleams, we will dream sweet dreams,
And I'll win your admiration,
For it's only fair to admit I'm there
With a mean interpretation.
In the sunrise glow we will whisper low
Of the scenes our dreams have painted,
And when you're advised what they symbolized
We'll begin to feel acquainted.
So we'll gaily float in a slumber boat
Where subconscious waves dash wildly;
In the stars' soft light, we will say good-night—
And "good-night!" will put it mildly.
Our desires shall be from repressions free—
As it's only right to treat them.
To your ego's whims I will sing sweet hymns,
And ad libido repeat them.
With your hand in mine, idly we'll recline
Amid bowers of neuroses,
While the sun seeks rest in the great red west
We will sit and match psychoses.
So come dwell a while on that distant isle
In the brilliant tropic weather;
Where a Freud in need is a Freud indeed,
We'll always be Jung together.
Peace!
L.
--
