PowerPoint Presentation 4-21-15... · Title: PowerPoint Presentation Author: Mander, Kai, CAO Created Date: 4/22/2015 12:57:43 PM

County Administrator’s Office

FY 2015-16 Funding Gap and Balancing

Options

Presented to the Alameda County Budget Workgroup

April 21, 2015

Susan S. Muranishi, County Administrator

Kai Mander, Principal Analyst

Alice Park-Renzi, Budget Coordinator


Federal & State Budgets

Federal Budget

President’s Budget totals $4 trillion - $1.091 trillion or 25% for discretionary spending.

Bipartisan budget agreement ends October 1, 2015 – results in automatic $91B discretionary spending cut, $54B defense and $37B non-defense. Discretionary spending level would be $1.017 trillion.

State Budget – May Revision

Increased revenue estimates expected

Funding directed to education and debt reduction

Democrats pushing for some restoration

2


State Legislative Efforts to Reduce Poverty

SB 3: proposal by State Senator Mark Leno to raise statewide minimum wage from current $9/hour to $11/hour in 2016 and $13/hour by July 2017

Would supersede local ordinances that have wage rates lower than the proposed minimum

Would allow cities to set higher minimum wages

AB 43: proposal by State Assemblyman Mark Stone to create a state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)

Would supplement the federal EITC

3


Credit Rating Agency Presentations Executive Summary

Alameda County Rating Agency

Presentation | page

4

The economic fundamentals of the County are strong.

Growth in population, jobs and spending.

Increasing concentration in high-income sectors, such as technology, research, and digital arts.

Assessed valuation has reached new highs, with major real estate development underway—drives major sources

of discretionary revenues.

The County continues to prudently manage its budgets without having to implement layoffs

or furloughs or significantly reduce service levels.

County voters support government services in renewing local sales tax to finance local safety

net (Measure AA in June 2014) and transportation (Measure BB in November 2014, which extended and

increased tax).

The County is addressing the challenges of the Alameda Health System, and the Acute

Care Tower project at Highland Hospital is on time and on budget.



6


7

Median Family Assessed Value

County Income Per Capita

Santa Clara $90,747 $167,516

Contra Costa $78,187 $139,318

Orange $75,566 $142,483

Alameda $71,516 $129,583

San Diego $63,373 $124,742

Riverside $57,096 $93,166

Los Angeles $56,241 $109,784

Sacramento $55,846 $85,740

San Bernardino $54,750 $80,328

Fresno $45,741 $64,556

State of CA $61,400

Reflects 10 largest California Counties

Relatively High Wealth Levels

Source: United States Census Bureau, 2008-2012. Various County Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for FY2012-13, with exception of

Sacramento County, which is FY2011-12.


8


9


10

11

12

13

14

15


FY 2015-16 MOE Budget – General Fund ($ in millions)

FY 2014-15

FINAL

FY 2015-16

MOE

Inc/

(Dec)

%

Change

Appropriation $2,313.9 $2,388.8 $74.9 3.2%

Revenue $2,313.9 $2,323.8 $9.9 0.4%

Funding Gap $0 $65.0 $65.0

FTE Positions* 7,648 7,685 37 0.5%

*Full-time equivalent positions Note: Totals may vary slightly due to rounding 16


17

FY 2015-16 MOE Budget –

Net Cost Change by Program ($ in millions)

Program

2014-15

FINAL

Net Cost

2015-16

MOE

Net Cost

Change %

Change

General Government $84.5 $89.3 $4.8 5.7%

Public Protection $263.6 $295.9 $32.3 12.3%

Public Assistance $68.5 $86.2 $17.6 25.7%

Health Care $118.4 $127.7 $9.3 7.9%

Subtotal – Programs

$535.0

$599.1

$64.1

12.0%


18

FY 2015-16 MOE Budget –

Net Cost Change Non-Program ($ in millions)

Program

2014-15

FINAL

Net Cost

2015-16

MOE

Net Cost

Net Cost

Change

Net Cost

% Change

Capital $10.0 $10.9 $0.9 9.0%

Contingency/Reserves/Debt Service, Designations

$51.9 $57.9 $6.0 11.6%

One-time use of FMR ($36.5) $0 $36.5 100%

Non-Program Financing ($560.4) ($602.9) ($42.5) -7.6%

Subtotal – Other ($535.0) ($534.1) $0.9 0.2%

TOTAL $0 $65.0 $65.0


Net County Cost Increases by Program ($ in millions)

FMR = Fiscal Management Reward

Program

Net County Cost (NCC)

Increase Prior Year FMR Use

Net County Cost

Increase w/ FMR

General Government $4.8 + $11.3 = $16.1

Public Protection $32.3 + $9.1 = $41.4

Public Assistance $17.6 + $2.1 = $19.8

Health Care $9.3 + $14.0 = $23.3

Program Total $64.1 + $36.5 = $100.6

19


NCC Changes Outside of Program Areas ($ in millions)

NCC Increase/

(Decrease)

Contingency/reserves, debt service, designations $6.0

1% of discretionary revenue for Capital Projects

$0.9

Non-program revenues

($42.5)

Non-Program Total ($35.5)

Total Gap: $65.1M

20



Reduction Target Option A ($ in millions)

Option A

Equal Distribution Among Programs

General Government $16.3

Public Protection $16.3

Public Assistance $16.3

Health Care $16.3

Total $65.1

Numbers and percentages are rounded for display purposes, but calculations are based on exact numbers.

22


Reduction Target Option B ($ in millions)

Option B

2015-16 MOE NCC w/o FMR

Prior Year

FMR Use

NCC w/ FMR

% Share of NCC

w/ FMR

Based on % Share of

NCC w/ FMR

General Government $89.3 $11.3 $100.6 15.8% $10.3

Public Protection $295.9 $9.1 $304.9 48.0% $31.2

Public Assistance $86.2 $2.1 $88.3 13.9% $9.0

Health Care $127.8 $14.0 $141.8 22.3% $14.5

Total $599.1 $36.5 $635.6 100.0% $65.1

Numbers and percentages are rounded for display purposes, but calculations are based on exact numbers. 23


Reduction Target Option C ($ in millions)

OPTION C

Net County Cost (NCC) Increase

Prior Year

FMR Use

NCC Increase w/ FMR

% Share of NCC

Increase w/o FMR

Credit Share of $35.5M

Based on % Share of NCC

Increase

Absorb NCC Increase w/ FMR and Credit Share of $35.5M Based

on % Share of NCC Increase

General Gov’t $4.8 $11.3 $16.1 7.5% ($2.7) $13.5

Public Protection $32.3 $9.1 $41.4 50.4% ($17.9) $23.5

Public Assistance $17.6 $2.1 $19.8 27.5% ($9.8) $10.0

Health Care $9.3 $14.0 $23.3 14.5% ($5.2) $18.2

Program Total $64.1 $36.5 $100.6 100.0% ($35.5) $65.1

Non-Program ($35.5)

Total Gap $65.1 $65.1



Reduction Target Option D ($ in millions)

OPTION D

Net County Cost (NCC)

Increase

Prior Year FMR

Use

NCC Increase w/ FMR

FY 2015-16 MOE

NCC % Share of NCC

Credit Share of $35.5M

Based on % Share of

NCC

Absorb NCC Increase w/ FMR and Credit Share of $35.5M Based

on % Share of Net County Cost

General Gov’t $4.8 $11.3 $16.1 $89.3 14.9% ($5.3) $10.8

Public Protection $32.3 $9.1 $41.4 $295.9 49.4% ($17.5) $23.8

Public Assistance $17.6 $2.1 $19.8 $86.2 14.4% ($5.1) $14.6

Health Care $9.3 $14.0 $23.3 $127.8 21.3% ($7.6) $15.7

Prog Total $64.1 $36.5 $100.6 $599.1 100.0% $65.1 $65.1

Non-Program ($35.5)

Total Gap $65.1 $65.1 $65.1



2015-16 Reduction Target Options ($ in millions)

Option A Option B Option C Option D

Equal Distribution

Among Programs

Distribute Based on %

Share of Net County Cost

Absorb NCC Increase w/ FMR

and Credit Share of $35.5M Based on %

NCC Increase

Absorb NCC Increase w/ FMR

and Credit Share of $35.5M Based on %

Share of NCC

General Government $16.3 $10.3 $13.5 $10.8

Public Protection $16.3 $31.2 $23.5 $23.8

Public Assistance $16.3 $9.0 $10.0 $14.6

Health Care $16.3 $14.5 $18.2 $15.7

Total Gap $65.1 $65.1 $65.1 $65.1

Numbers and percentages are rounded for display purposes, but calculations are based on exact numbers.

26

4/22/15 Note: At the April 21 meeting, after discussion of the options the Budget Workgroup voted to adopt a different solution that resulted in the following reduction targets: $14.8M for General Government, $19.8M for Public Protection, $14.7M for Public Assistance, and $15.8M for Health Care.


2015-16 Proposed Budget Calendar

Budget Workgroup Meeting -

Balancing Options & Reduction Targets April 21, 2015

Reduction Plans submitted to CAO May 6, 2015

Budget Workgroup Meeting May 18, 2015

Proposed Budget to Board Early June 2015

Budget Hearings June 2015

Final Budget Adoption Late June 2015

27


Alameda County Budget Information on the Web

http://budget.acgov.org

28


FY 2015-16 Funding Gap and Balancing

Options

Presented to the Alameda County Budget Workgroup

April 21, 2015

Susan S. Muranishi, County Administrator

Kai Mander, Principal Analyst

Alice Park-Renzi, Budget Coordinator

Documents

PowerPoint Presentation 4-21-15... · Title: PowerPoint Presentation Author: Mander, Kai, CAO Created Date: 4/22/2015 12:57:43 PM