HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 1446City of Palo Alto (ID # 1446)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/14/2011
March 14, 2011 Page 1 of 9
(ID # 1446)
Council Priority: City Finances
Title: Long Range Financial Forecast 2011-2021
Subject: Acceptance of the Long Range Financial Forecast 2011-2021
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council review and accept the attached forecast of revenues
and expenses, as well as revisions requested by the Finance Committee and described below.
Background
Attached to this report is the City’s updated General Fund Long Range Financial Forecast (LRFF)
for the fiscal years 2011 through 2021, along with CMR 1315:11 which accompanied the report
presented to the Finance Committee on February 1, 2011. After Council reviews and gives final
direction on the Forecast, staff will revise and reprint the report.
The LRFF identifies key issues that will guide the upcoming FY 2012 budget process and affect
the City’s future financial condition. It is not, however, itself a budget; nor is it a commitment to
implement the spending or revenues outlined in the Forecast.
Discussion
Due to the slow pace of the economic recovery and diminished sources of City revenues, our
Forecast assumes slow growth in all revenue categories, and slower salary growth than in past
Forecasts. On the expense side, pension costs show significant increases due to the reduced
2009 investment performance of the PERS portfolio and revised demographic assumptions
adopted by PERS.
The Base Model included in the attached report and presented to the Finance Committee
included a number of assumptions which the Finance Committee believed to be overly
optimistic. Specifically, the Finance Committee requested the following changes to the Base
Model:
March 14, 2011 Page 2 of 9
(ID # 1446)
1. The Base Model assumed health care cost increases in line with the assumptions used in our
January 2009 Retiree Medical Actuarial Valuation –6.5% increases in the first three years of the
forecast, and 6.0% increases in the last seven years. The Finance Committee asked us to use
10% annual cost increases (as was assumed in our Pessimistic Scenario, on page 15 of the
report) given the City’s history of double digit health care cost increases over the last 10-year
period and the anticipated impact of healthcare reform legislation on these costs.
2. The Base Model incorporated Transient Occupancy Tax revenue from the Ming’s Hotel,
beginning in FY 2013. The Finance Committee asked staff to delete that revenue, due to the
uncertainty of the Hotel’s opening date.
3. The Base Model assumed a continued 7.75% discount rate for the PERS investment portfolio,
while the Pessimistic Scenario assumed a revised 7.5% discount rate. The Finance Committee
asked that the Base Model include the lower discount rate since the PERS Board is likely to vote
to approve an investment mix that will result in this rate of return. Staff assumed that the PERS
rate increases resulting from the discount rate change will be in the middle of the range
indicated by CalPERS, starting in 2013.
4. The original Base Model assumed sharply increasing PERS rates in FY 2012, 2013, and 2014,
due to the latest PERS actuarial report. After 2014, however, the Base Model assumed no
further increases for the duration of the Forecast period. Our Pessimistic Scenario assumed 3%
annual increases after 2014. The Finance Committee requested that we use the latter
assumption in the Revised Base Model since it is likely that PERS rate increases will continue
into the future.
5. Lastly, the Finance Committee asked that the Base Model include, at a minimum, an
additional $10 million per year invested in infrastructure, beginning in FY 2012, increasing by
3% a year, as we had shown in two of our alternate Infrastructure scenarios.
In addition to the five changes above requested by the Finance Committee, staff also made an
additional revision to the Base Model:
6. The Base Model had assumed that no staff would receive a salary increase in 2012, but that
in 2013, Miscellaneous employees, after three years of salary freezes, would receive a 2%
increase. Public safety employees were assumed to begin 2% annual increases in 2014 after a
two-year salary freeze. Staff has revised the model so that all bargaining units have three years
of no salary increases before receiving 2% annual increases.
The bottom-line effects of each of the above changes to the Base Model are summarized in
Chart 1 on the following page:
March 14, 2011 Page 3 of 9
(ID # 1446)
Chart 1: Impacts of Finance Committee Requested Changes to Original LRFF Base Model
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
FY
2017
FY
2018 FY 2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
10-year
Total
(2012-
2021)
Original Base Model Net Surplus (Deficit)
(2.2)
(4.3)
(4.4)
(3.3)
(2.4)
(1.1)0.4 1.7 2.3 2.9
(10.4)
Finance Committee-Requested Changes*
1
Health Care Costs Increase 10% per
year
(0.1)
(0.4)
(0.8)
(1.2)
(1.7)
(2.2)
(2.8)(3.5)
(4.3)
(5.2)
(22.1)
2
Eliminate assumed TOT revenue from
Ming's Hotel -
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.4)(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(3.1)
3
Assume PERS discount rate decreases
to 7.5% -
(1.6)
(1.7)
(1.7)
(1.7)
(1.8)
(1.8)(1.8)
(1.9)
(1.9)
(16.0)
4
Assume PERS rates increase 3% per
year from 2015-2021
(1.8)
(3.7)
(5.7)
(7.7)(9.8)
(12.0)
(14.3)
(55.0)
5
Additional $10MM/yr infrastructure
investment
(10.0)
(10.3)
(10.6)
(10.9)
(11.3)
(11.6)
(11.9)
(12.3)
(12.7)
(13.0)
(114.6)
6
All units with 3-year salary freeze
(one-year deferral of PD increase) - - - 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 2.3
Resulting Revised Base Model Net Surplus
(Deficit)
(12.3)
(17.0)
(17.5)
(18.5)
(20.2)
(21.6)
(23.1)
(24.9)
(27.6)
(30.5)
(213.0)
* Change #6 was added by staff without Finance Committee request.
Note that impacts of the individual changes are imprecise due to the compounding impacts of all the changes taken together.
Given the six requested changes described above, the Revised Base Model is summarized in
Chart 2 below (See Attachment B for complete Revised Base Model).
March 14, 2011 Page 4 of 9
(ID # 1446)
Chart 2: Summary of Base Model Revised as Requested by Finance Committee
2011-2021 LRFF -SUMMARY OF BASE MODEL REVISED AS REQUESTED BY FINANCE COMMITTEE
FY 2011
Adopted
FY 2011
Projected FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
TOTAL REVENUES 139,433 140,962 144,009 146,326 151,193 156,387 161,601 167,270 173,273 179,150 184,632 190,165
ORIG INFRASTR INVESTMT INCL.9,802 10,438 10,852 11,294 11,747 12,217 12,706 13,214 13,743 14,293 14,865
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 139,399 141,899 146,289 152,981 158,062 163,934 170,508 177,316 184,423 191,761 199,542 207,591
SUBTOTAL NET SURPLUS
(DEFICIT)33 (937)(2,280)(6,655)(6,869)(7,547)(8,908)(10,046)(11,150)(12,611)(14,911)(17,426)
ADDITIONAL INFRASTR
INVESTMT*--10,000 10,300 10,609 10,927 11,255 11,593 11,941 12,299 12,668 13,048
GRAND NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT)$ 33 $ -$(12,280)
$
(16,955)
$
(17,478)
$
(18,474)
$
(20,163)
$
(21,639)
$
(23,090)
$
(24,910)
$
(27,579)
$
(30,473)
TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT 9,802 20,438 21,152 21,903 22,674 23,472 24,299 25,155 26,042 26,961 27,913
* Per Finance Committee Request, pending Council direction
The Revised Base Model shows a projected net deficit for FY 2011 of $0.9 million, and a deficit
of $12.3 million for FY 2012. Over the ten-year period from FY 2012 through FY 2021,
cumulative deficits are projected at $213.0 million.
Council direction on infrastructure funding is still pending. The Council has established an
Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission to identify funding solutions for the City’s unmet and
deferred infrastructure maintenance needs. Without the additional $10 million infrastructure
investment, the deficit would be projected to decrease to $2.3 million in FY 2012 and the
cumulative projected deficit for the ten-year period would be $98.4 million. The FY 2012
proposed budget will address the $2.3 million gap.
Given that the estimated (unaudited) Budget Stabilization Reserve balance for June 30,2011 is
$26.5 million, that Reserve would be depleted in fiscal year 2013, or early in fiscal year 2016
without the additional infrastructure investment, if the City were to rely only on reserves to
balance its budgets. Moreover, the Infrastructure Reserve is projected to dip to $3.81 million at
year-end FY 2011, having started the year at $8.97 million. This makes it clear that permanent
changes are needed to match resources with expenditures to address this projected long-term
structural gap.
Chart 3 shows the annual surpluses (deficits) in the original LRFF Base Model (as presented to
the Finance Committee on February 1), the Based Model revised as requested by the Finance
Committee with the exception of the additional infrastructure investment, and the Base Model
as revised by all five of the Finance Committee requests.
March 14, 2011 Page 5 of 9
(ID # 1446)
Chart 3
LRFF Annual Surplus (Deficit) in Original and
Revised Base Models
(2.2)(4.3)(4.4)(3.3)(2.4)(1.1)0.4 1.7 2.3 2.9
(12.3)
(17.0)(17.5)(18.5)(20.2)(21.6)(23.1)(24.9)
(27.6)
(30.5)
(10.2)(10.4)(10.6)(11.5)(12.7)(13.6)(12.2)
(14.2)(15.0)(14.6)
(35.0)
(30.0)
(25.0)
(20.0)
(15.0)
(10.0)
(5.0)
-
5.0
FY
201
2
FY
201
3
FY
201
4
FY
201
5
FY
201
6
FY
201
7
FY
201
8
FY
201
9
FY
202
0
FY
202
1
Annual Surplus (Deficit) in Millions $$
Original Base Model Net Surplus (Deficit)Finance Committee Requested Changes but not Infrast
All Finance Committee-Requested Changes
In addition to the Alternate Scenarios prepared as part of the original LRFF report, staff added
the following three scenarios for comparison purposes:
1. One in which the Finance Committee requested changes are in place, with the following
exception: PERS rates increase by 1.5% per year from FY 2015 through FY 2021, rather than
increasing by 3% per year during that period. Given the unknown future increases in pension
rates, staff suggests examining an alternative rate of increase for 2015-2021 of 1.5%. This
shaves off $23.3 million of the deficits projected in the Forecast (See Attachment D for
complete model) for a projected ten-year deficit of $189.8 million.
March 14, 2011 Page 6 of 9
(ID # 1446)
PERS Portfolio Returns as of Year-End 6/30 (%)
2.5
10.5
3.7
16.6
19.1
-24.0
13.3
-5.1
11.812.3
-6.1-7.2
12.519.5
20.1
15.3
16.4
11.8
12.5
6.5
8.9
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
Year
Returns (%)
Source: CalPERS December 31, 2010
2. One in which the Finance Committee requested changes are in place, and all salary increases
are deferred by an additional year (all bargaining units would receive no salary increases for
four years). Therefore, no salary increases occur in 2012 or 2013; in 2014 the Miscellaneous
group receives a 2% increase; in 2015 Miscellaneous and Fire groups receive a 2% increase; and
from 2016 onward all groups receive a 2% increase. This results in a savings of $13.7 million
over the ten years. (See Attachment A for a summary of salary increase assumptions in the
Revised Base Model and updated scenarios. See Attachment E for complete model showing
one-year salary increase deferral.)
3. A revision of one of the salary constraint scenarios included in the original LRFF report. This
scenario assumes that no salary increases will occur in any year in which deficits are projected.
Given the increased deficits in the Revised Base Model, there are no salary increases in the ten-
year period for this scenario. The ten-year savings are $46.9 million and the cumulative deficits
are $166.2 million (See Attachment F for complete model).
Chart 4 on the following page summarizes the revenue impact of the revised scenarios
described above.
March 14, 2011 Page 7 of 9
(ID # 1446)
Chart 4: Summary of New Scenarios
Long Range Financial Forecast 2011-2021
SUMMARY OF NEW SCENARIOS MODIFYING BASE MODEL AS REVISED BY FINANCE COMMITTEE REQUEST
(Millions of Dollars)
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016 FY 2017
FY
2018
FY
2019 FY 2020
FY
2021
10-year
Total
(2012-
2021)
Base Model Revised as Requested by
Finance Committee ---Net Surplus
(Deficit)
(12.3)(17.0)
(17.5)
(18.5)
(20.2)
(21.6)(23.1)(24.9)(27.6)(30.5)(213.0)
---Impact of Alternate Scenarios on Bottom Line ---
PERS rates increase 1.5% per year
after 2014, rather than by 3% in Base
Model
- - -
0.5 1.4 2.3 3.3 4.2 5.3 6.4 23.3
Resulting Net Surplus (Deficit)
(12.3)(17.0)
(17.5)
(18.0)
(18.8)
(19.3)(19.8)(20.7)(22.3)(24.1)(189.8)
Salary increases deferred by one
additional year
- 1.3
1.4
1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 13.7
Resulting Net Surplus (Deficit)
(12.3)(15.6)
(16.1)
(17.1)
(18.7)
(20.1)(21.5)(23.3)(25.9)(28.7) (199.4)
Revised Salary Constraint Scenario -
No increases in deficit years;
therefore no increases
- 1.4
2.6
3.3 4.3 5.2 6.1 7.0 8.0 9.0 46.9
Resulting Net Surplus (Deficit)
(12.3)(15.5)
(14.8)
(15.2)
(15.9)
(16.4)(17.0)(17.9)(19.6)(21.5)(166.2)
The Forecast does not capture a number of additional risks which are less quantifiable at this
time. First, given the State budget situation, additional State take-aways are possible, either
directly or in the form of pushing down costs of service delivery from the State to local
governments. Secondly, the City’s lease for Cubberley Community Center is due to expire in
December 2014, and negotiations will begin in 2012 for renewal. The lease requires that the
City notify the School District by December 2013 whether it will terminate the lease or exercise
the first of its five-year renewal options. The City’s future costs for the upkeep of the facility, as
well as the leasing costs, are therefore uncertain. Third, the City will undergo its next Retiree
Medical Valuation as of June 30, 2011, with completion expected in the fall of 2011. This
March 14, 2011 Page 8 of 9
(ID # 1446)
valuation will likely increase the City’s Annual Required Contribution, due to the jump in
retirements and the rate of health care cost increases.
This Forecast is not a prediction. It is a snapshot contingent upon a number of assumptions, all
of which are outlined in the report. What comes into sharp focus in this snapshot is the
necessity for change over the next ten years to address what is projected to be a significant
structural deficit. The increasing cost of employee benefits above and beyond the growth in
revenue sources, means that employees will need to bear a larger proportion of the cost of
those benefits. Otherwise the City will either need to cut services or aggressively evaluate
outsourcing options for some of those services.
Palo Alto is far from alone; many agencies are facing similar choices. This Forecast does not
include concessions for Fire or Police that could close the budget gap in FY 2012 and
significantly reduce future gaps.
It is staff’s hope that by examining this snapshot, Council members and staff may identify issues
that must be addressed now to improve the long-term picture. While the FY 2012 budget will
focus on closing that year’s projected deficit, staff and Council must also explore changes for
incorporation into FY 2013 and future budgets.
Resource Impact
As with any financial forecast, the fiscal impacts shown are estimates. Estimates of future
deficits and surpluses, as well as the estimated costs of future financial challenges, are meant to
guide future policy and budget decisions.
Staff will introduce the recommended midyear budget adjustments to the Finance Committee
in March 2011 and continue with the 2011-12 budget process.
Policy Implications
The Long Range Financial Forecast is a tool for Council’s use in making policy decisions
regarding the allocation of resources.
Environmental Review
This report does not require California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.
Attachments:
·Attachment A -Salary Increase Assumptions (PDF)
·Attachment B -Revised Base Model (PDF)
·Attachment C -Revised Base with Slower PERS inc (PDF)
March 14, 2011 Page 9 of 9
(ID # 1446)
·Attachment D -One-Yr Delay in Salary Inc (PDF)
·Attachment E -No Salary Inc if Deficit (PDF)
·Attachment F -1315 Long Range Financial Forecast (PDF)
·Attachment G -Finance Committee minutes of February 1, 2011 excerpt (PDF)
Prepared By:Nancy Nagel, Senior Financial Analyst
Department Head:Lalo Perez, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
FY 2016 - FY 2021
10-year Total
(2012-2021)
1.1% 1.9% 1.7% 2.0% 2.0% 18.3%
Miscellaneous 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Police 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Fire 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
1.1% 1.9% 1.7% 2.0% 2.0%18.3%
Miscellaneous 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Police 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Fire 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
1.1% 0.0% 1.9% 1.7% 2.0%16.0%
Miscellaneous 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Police 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%
Fire 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0%
1.1% -0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%-0.7%
Miscellaneous 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Police 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fire 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Overall Salary increase
Overall Salary increase
Overall Salary increase
PERS rates increase 1.5% per year after 2014, rather than by 3% in Base Model
Salary increases deferred by one year
Salary Constraint - No increases in deficit years; no increases beyond rate of revenue growth
Long Range Financial Forecast 2011-2021
SUMMARY OF SALARY INCREASE ASSUMPTIONS
(Percentage increase over prior year)
Overall Salary increase
Base Model Net Surplus (Deficit)
SCENARIO
FY 2010
Actual
FY 2011
Adopted
FY 2011
Projected FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Revenues
Sales Taxes 17,991$ 18,218$ 19,507$ 19,646$ 20,320$ 21,085$ 21,888$ 22,750$ 23,649$ 24,594$ 25,295$ 25,940$ 26,638$
Property Taxes 25,982 25,907 25,323 25,830 26,699 27,665 28,734 29,914 31,177 32,581 34,114 35,227 36,186
Transient Occupancy Tax 6,858 7,021 7,400 7,704 7,946 8,196 8,470 8,771 9,091 9,432 9,701 9,968 10,237
Utility User Tax 11,296 11,429 10,824 10,859 11,069 11,329 11,654 11,708 11,976 12,252 12,528 12,796 13,054
Documentary Transfer Tax 3,707 3,613 4,000 4,219 4,377 4,546 4,723 4,908 5,103 5,310 5,504 5,694 5,948
Other Taxes and Fines 2,047 2,330 2,137 2,384 2,455 2,529 2,605 2,683 2,764 2,846 2,932 3,020 3,110
Subtotal: Taxes 67,881 68,518 69,191 70,642 72,866 75,350 78,074 80,734 83,760 87,016 90,074 92,644 95,173
Charges for Services 19,593 20,068 21,000 21,420 22,063 22,725 23,406 24,109 24,832 25,577 26,344 27,134 27,948
Permits and Licenses 4,720 4,533 4,646 4,739 4,881 5,027 5,178 5,334 5,494 5,658 5,828 6,003 6,183
Return on Investment 2,624 1,646 1,337 1,317 1,314 1,331 1,354 1,380 1,412 1,459 1,489 1,516 1,540
Rental Income 14,397 13,716 13,716 13,991 12,150 12,515 12,890 13,277 13,675 14,086 14,508 14,944 15,392
From other agencies 333 155 155 158 163 168 173 178 183 189 195 200 207
Charges to Other Funds 11,027 10,622 10,698 10,745 11,067 11,399 11,741 12,094 12,456 12,830 13,215 13,611 14,020
Other revenues 2,360 1,490 1,513 1,544 1,590 1,638 1,687 1,738 1,790 1,843 1,899 1,956 2,014
Total Revenues Before Transfers 122,936 120,748 122,257 124,555 126,094 130,152 134,505 138,843 143,602 148,658 153,551 158,008 162,477
Operating Transfers-In 22,011 18,684 18,705 19,453 20,232 21,041 21,882 22,758 23,668 24,615 25,599 26,623 27,688
TOTAL REVENUES 144,947 139,433 140,962 144,009 146,326 151,193 156,387 161,601 167,270 173,273 179,150 184,632 190,165
Expenditures
Salaries 61,080 59,020 60,003 60,661 61,798 62,843 64,113 65,409 66,730 68,078 69,453 70,855 72,286
Benefits 32,900 29,525 29,645 33,593 37,136 40,684 43,524 46,983 50,589 54,407 58,365 62,672 67,150
Subtotal: Salaries and Benefits 93,980 88,545 89,648 94,254 98,934 103,527 107,637 112,391 117,319 122,485 127,818 133,527 139,436
Contract Services 8,899 10,180 10,591 10,382 10,833 11,116 11,449 11,792 12,146 12,510 12,885 13,272 13,670
Supplies & Materials 2,867 3,242 3,262 3,541 4,112 4,235 4,362 4,493 4,628 4,767 4,910 5,057 5,209
General Expense 9,341 10,022 10,448 10,172 10,375 10,686 11,007 11,337 11,677 12,027 12,388 12,760 13,143
Rents and Leases 627 663 663 774 789 813 837 862 888 915 942 970 999
Facilities and Equipment 1,734 452 452 459 468 482 496 511 526 542 558 575 592
Allocated Charges 14,540 15,371 15,371 15,102 15,404 14,646 15,085 15,538 16,004 16,484 16,979 17,488 18,013
Total Expenditures Before Transfer 131,988 128,475 130,435 134,684 140,915 145,505 150,873 156,924 163,188 169,730 176,480 183,649 191,062
Transfers to Other Funds
Operating Transfers Out 4,737 1,122 1,662 1,167 1,214 1,263 1,314 1,367 1,422 1,479 1,538 1,600 1,664
Transfer to Infrastructure 9,900 9,802 9,802 10,438 10,852 11,294 11,747 12,217 12,706 13,214 13,743 14,293 14,865
Additional Transfer to Infrastructure for
Backlog 10,000 10,300 10,609 10,927 11,255 11,593 11,941 12,299 12,668 13,048
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 146,625 139,399 141,899 156,289 163,281 168,671 174,861 181,764 188,909 196,363 204,060 212,210 220,639
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap)(1,678) 33 (937) (12,280) (16,955) (17,478) (18,474) (20,163) (21,639) (23,090) (24,910) (27,579) (30,473)
Drawdown on BSR for BOA - - - - - - - - - - -
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap) (1,678) 33 (937) (12,280) (16,955) (17,478) (18,474) (20,163) (21,639) (23,090) (24,910) (27,579) (30,473)
Reserve
Comprehensive Annual Fin. Rpt. Recon (89)
Subtotal (89) - - - - - - - - - - -
GRAND NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT) (1,767)$ 33$ (937)$ (12,280)$ (16,955)$ (17,478)$ (18,474)$ (20,163)$ (21,639)$ (23,090)$ (24,910)$ (27,579)$ (30,473)$
*In FY 2011, Adopted Budget assumed 90-10 plan implementation for Miscellaneous group effective April 1 2011.
2011-2021 LRFF - BASE MODEL, REVISED AS REQUESTED BY FINANCE COMMITTEE
FY 2011
Projected FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Cumulative %
Change
2010-2021
Revenues
Sales Taxes 8.43% 0.71% 3.43% 3.76% 3.81% 3.94% 3.95% 4.00% 2.85% 2.55% 2.69%
Property Taxes (2.54%) 2.00% 3.36% 3.62% 3.86% 4.11% 4.22% 4.50% 4.71% 3.26% 2.72%
Transient Occupancy Tax 7.90% 4.11% 3.13% 3.15% 3.35% 3.55% 3.65% 3.75% 2.85% 2.75% 2.70%
Utility User Tax (4.18%) 0.32% 1.93% 2.35% 2.87% 0.46% 2.29% 2.30% 2.25% 2.14% 2.02%
Documentary Transfer Tax 7.90% 5.48% 3.75% 3.85% 3.90% 3.92% 3.97% 4.05% 3.65% 3.45% 4.47%
Other Taxes and Fines 4.42% 11.55% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Subtotal: Taxes 1.93% 2.10% 3.15% 3.41% 3.62% 3.41% 3.75% 3.89% 3.51% 2.85% 2.73%40.21%
Charges for Services 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Permits and Licenses (1.56%) 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Return on Investment (49.07%) -1.49% -0.24% 1.31% 1.76% 1.91% 2.31% 3.38% 2.01% 1.81% 1.61%
Rental Income (4.73%) 2.00% -13.15% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
From other agencies (53.47%) 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Charges to Other Funds (2.99%) 0.44% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Other revenues (35.87%) 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Total Revenues Before Transfer (0.55%) 1.88% 1.24% 3.22% 3.34% 3.23% 3.43% 3.52% 3.29% 2.90% 2.83%32.16%
Operating Transfers-In (15.02%) 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%
TOTAL REVENUES (2.75%) 2.16% 1.61% 3.33% 3.44% 3.33% 3.51% 3.59% 3.39% 3.06% 3.00%31.20%
Expenditures
Salaries (1.76%) 1.10% 1.87% 1.69% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02%
Benefits (9.89%) 13.32% 10.55% 9.55% 6.98% 7.95% 7.68% 7.55% 7.28% 7.38% 7.15%
Subtotal: Salaries and Benefits (4.61%) 5.14% 4.96% 4.64% 3.97% 4.42% 4.38% 4.40% 4.35% 4.47% 4.42%48.37%
Contract Services 19.01% -1.97% 4.34% 2.61% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Supplies & Materials 13.79% 8.55% 16.13% 2.99% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 2.99% 3.01%
General Expense 11.85% -2.64% 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Rents and Leases 5.74% 16.74% 1.94% 3.04% 2.95% 2.99% 3.02% 3.04% 2.95% 2.97% 2.99%
Facilities and Equipment (73.93%) 1.55% 1.96% 2.99% 2.90% 3.02% 2.94% 3.04% 2.95% 3.05% 2.96%
Allocated Charges 5.72% -1.75% 2.00% -4.92% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Total Expenditures Before Tran (1.18%) 3.26% 4.63% 3.26% 3.69% 4.01% 3.99% 4.01% 3.98% 4.06% 4.04%44.76%
Transfers to Other Funds
Operating Transfers Out (64.92%) -29.78% 4.03% 4.04% 4.04% 4.03% 4.02% 4.01% 3.99% 4.03% 4.00%
Transfer to Infrastructure (0.99%) 6.49% 3.97% 4.07% 4.01% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES (3.22%) 10.14% 4.47% 3.30% 3.67% 3.95% 3.93% 3.95% 3.92% 3.99% 3.97%50.48%
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap)(44.16%) 1210.47% 38.06% 3.08% 5.70% 9.14% 7.32% 6.71% 7.88% 10.71% 10.50%
PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN REVISED BASE MODEL
FY 2010
Actual
FY 2011
Adopted
FY 2011
Projected FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Revenues
Sales Taxes 17,991$ 18,218$ 19,507$ 19,646$ 20,320$ 21,085$ 21,888$ 22,750$ 23,649$ 24,594$ 25,295$ 25,940$ 26,638$
Property Taxes 25,982 25,907 25,323 25,830 26,699 27,665 28,734 29,914 31,177 32,581 34,114 35,227 36,186
Transient Occupancy Tax 6,858 7,021 7,400 7,704 7,946 8,196 8,470 8,771 9,091 9,432 9,701 9,968 10,237
Utility User Tax 11,296 11,429 10,824 10,859 11,069 11,329 11,654 11,708 11,976 12,252 12,528 12,796 13,054
Documentary Transfer Tax 3,707 3,613 4,000 4,219 4,377 4,546 4,723 4,908 5,103 5,310 5,504 5,694 5,948
Other Taxes and Fines 2,047 2,330 2,137 2,384 2,455 2,529 2,605 2,683 2,764 2,846 2,932 3,020 3,110
Subtotal: Taxes 67,881 68,518 69,191 70,642 72,866 75,350 78,074 80,734 83,760 87,016 90,074 92,644 95,173
Charges for Services 19,593 20,068 21,000 21,420 22,063 22,725 23,406 24,109 24,832 25,577 26,344 27,134 27,948
Permits and Licenses 4,720 4,533 4,646 4,739 4,881 5,027 5,178 5,334 5,494 5,658 5,828 6,003 6,183
Return on Investment 2,624 1,646 1,337 1,317 1,314 1,331 1,354 1,380 1,412 1,459 1,489 1,516 1,540
Rental Income 14,397 13,716 13,716 13,991 12,150 12,515 12,890 13,277 13,675 14,086 14,508 14,944 15,392
From other agencies 333 155 155 158 163 168 173 178 183 189 195 200 207
Charges to Other Funds 11,027 10,622 10,698 10,745 11,067 11,399 11,741 12,094 12,456 12,830 13,215 13,611 14,020
Other revenues 2,360 1,490 1,513 1,544 1,590 1,638 1,687 1,738 1,790 1,843 1,899 1,956 2,014
Total Revenues Before Transfers 122,936 120,748 122,257 124,555 126,094 130,152 134,505 138,843 143,602 148,658 153,551 158,008 162,477
Operating Transfers-In 22,011 18,684 18,705 19,453 20,232 21,041 21,882 22,758 23,668 24,615 25,599 26,623 27,688
TOTAL REVENUES 144,947 139,433 140,962 144,009 146,326 151,193 156,387 161,601 167,270 173,273 179,150 184,632 190,165
Expenditures
Salaries 61,080 59,020 60,003 60,661 61,798 62,843 64,113 65,409 66,730 68,078 69,453 70,855 72,286
Benefits 32,900 29,525 29,645 33,593 37,136 40,684 43,040 45,612 48,296 51,155 54,118 57,390 60,794
Subtotal: Salaries and Benefits 93,980 88,545 89,648 94,254 98,934 103,527 107,153 111,021 115,026 119,233 123,571 128,245 133,079
Contract Services 8,899 10,180 10,591 10,382 10,833 11,116 11,449 11,792 12,146 12,510 12,885 13,272 13,670
Supplies & Materials 2,867 3,242 3,262 3,541 4,112 4,235 4,362 4,493 4,628 4,767 4,910 5,057 5,209
General Expense 9,341 10,022 10,448 10,172 10,375 10,686 11,007 11,337 11,677 12,027 12,388 12,760 13,143
Rents and Leases 627 663 663 774 789 813 837 862 888 915 942 970 999
Facilities and Equipment 1,734 452 452 459 468 482 496 511 526 542 558 575 592
Allocated Charges 14,540 15,371 15,371 15,102 15,404 14,646 15,085 15,538 16,004 16,484 16,979 17,488 18,013
Total Expenditures Before Transfers 131,988 128,475 130,435 134,684 140,915 145,505 150,389 155,554 160,895 166,478 172,233 178,367 184,705
Transfers to Other Funds
Operating Transfers Out 4,737 1,122 1,662 1,167 1,214 1,263 1,314 1,367 1,422 1,479 1,538 1,600 1,664
Transfer to Infrastructure 9,900 9,802 9,802 10,438 10,852 11,294 11,747 12,217 12,706 13,214 13,743 14,293 14,865
Additional Transfer to Infrastructure for
Backlog 10,000 10,300 10,609 10,927 11,255 11,593 11,941 12,299 12,668 13,048
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 146,625 139,399 141,899 156,289 163,281 168,671 174,378 180,393 186,616 193,112 199,813 206,928 214,282
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap)(1,678) 33 (937) (12,280) (16,955) (17,478) (17,991) (18,792) (19,346) (19,839) (20,662) (22,296) (24,117)
Drawdown on BSR for BOA - - - - - - - - - - -
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap) (1,678) 33 (937) (12,280) (16,955) (17,478) (17,991) (18,792) (19,346) (19,839) (20,662) (22,296) (24,117)
Drawdown on Budget Stabilization Reserve
Comprehensive Annual Fin. Rpt. Recon. (89)
Subtotal (89) - - - - - - - - - - -
GRAND NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT) (1,767)$ 33$ (937)$ (12,280)$ (16,955)$ (17,478)$ (17,991)$ (18,792)$ (19,346)$ (19,839)$ (20,662)$ (22,296)$ (24,117)$
*In FY 2011, Adopted Budget assumed 90-10 plan implementation for Miscellaneous group effective April 1 2011.
2011-2021 LRFF - REVISED BASE MODEL WITH SLOWER PERS INCREASES AFTER 2014
FY 2011
Projected FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Cumulative %
Change
2010-2021
Revenues
Sales Taxes 8.43% 0.71% 3.43% 3.76% 3.81% 3.94% 3.95% 4.00% 2.85% 2.55% 2.69%
Property Taxes (2.54%) 2.00% 3.36% 3.62% 3.86% 4.11% 4.22% 4.50% 4.71% 3.26% 2.72%
Transient Occupancy Tax 7.90% 4.11% 3.13% 3.15% 3.35% 3.55% 3.65% 3.75% 2.85% 2.75% 2.70%
Utility User Tax (4.18%) 0.32% 1.93% 2.35% 2.87% 0.46% 2.29% 2.30% 2.25% 2.14% 2.02%
Documentary Transfer Tax 7.90% 5.48% 3.75% 3.85% 3.90% 3.92% 3.97% 4.05% 3.65% 3.45% 4.47%
Other Taxes and Fines 4.42% 11.55% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Subtotal: Taxes 1.93% 2.10% 3.15% 3.41% 3.62% 3.41% 3.75% 3.89% 3.51% 2.85% 2.73%40.21%
Charges for Services 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Permits and Licenses (1.56%) 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Return on Investment (49.07%) -1.49% -0.24% 1.31% 1.76% 1.91% 2.31% 3.38% 2.01% 1.81% 1.61%
Rental Income (4.73%) 2.00% -13.15% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
From other agencies (53.47%) 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Charges to Other Funds (2.99%) 0.44% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Other revenues (35.87%) 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Total Revenues Before Transfer (0.55%) 1.88% 1.24% 3.22% 3.34% 3.23% 3.43% 3.52% 3.29% 2.90% 2.83%32.16%
Operating Transfers-In (15.02%) 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%
TOTAL REVENUES (2.75%) 2.16% 1.61% 3.33% 3.44% 3.33% 3.51% 3.59% 3.39% 3.06% 3.00%31.20%
Expenditures
Salaries (1.76%) 1.10% 1.87% 1.69% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02%18.35%
Benefits (9.89%) 13.32% 10.55% 9.55% 5.79% 5.98% 5.88% 5.92% 5.79% 6.05% 5.93%
Subtotal: Salaries and Benefits (4.61%) 5.14% 4.96% 4.64% 3.50% 3.61% 3.61% 3.66% 3.64% 3.78% 3.77%41.60%
Contract Services 19.01% -1.97% 4.34% 2.61% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Supplies & Materials 13.79% 8.55% 16.13% 2.99% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 2.99% 3.01%
General Expense 11.85% -2.64% 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Rents and Leases 5.74% 16.74% 1.94% 3.04% 2.95% 2.99% 3.02% 3.04% 2.95% 2.97% 2.99%
Facilities and Equipment (73.93%) 1.55% 1.96% 2.99% 2.90% 3.02% 2.94% 3.04% 2.95% 3.05% 2.96%
Allocated Charges 5.72% -1.75% 2.00% -4.92% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Total Expenditures Before Tran (1.18%) 3.26% 4.63% 3.26% 3.36% 3.43% 3.43% 3.47% 3.46% 3.56% 3.55%39.94%
Transfers to Other Funds
Operating Transfers Out (64.92%) -29.78% 4.03% 4.04% 4.04% 4.03% 4.02% 4.01% 3.99% 4.03% 4.00%
Transfer to Infrastructure (0.99%) 6.49% 3.97% 4.07% 4.01% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES (3.22%) 10.14% 4.47% 3.30% 3.38% 3.45% 3.45% 3.48% 3.47% 3.56% 3.55%46.14%
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap)(44.16%) 1210.47% 38.06% 3.08% 2.93% 4.46% 2.94% 2.55% 4.15% 7.91% 8.16%
PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN REVISED BASE FORECAST WITH SLOWER PERS INCREASES AFTER 2014
FY 2010
Actual
FY 2011
Adopted
FY 2011
Projected FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Revenues
Sales Taxes 17,991$ 18,218$ 19,507$ 19,646$ 20,320$ 21,085$ 21,888$ 22,750$ 23,649$ 24,594$ 25,295$ 25,940$ 26,638$
Property Taxes 25,982 25,907 25,323 25,830 26,699 27,665 28,734 29,914 31,177 32,581 34,114 35,227 36,186
Transient Occupancy Tax 6,858 7,021 7,400 7,704 7,946 8,196 8,470 8,771 9,091 9,432 9,701 9,968 10,237
Utility User Tax 11,296 11,429 10,824 10,859 11,069 11,329 11,654 11,708 11,976 12,252 12,528 12,796 13,054
Documentary Transfer Tax 3,707 3,613 4,000 4,219 4,377 4,546 4,723 4,908 5,103 5,310 5,504 5,694 5,948
Other Taxes and Fines 2,047 2,330 2,137 2,384 2,455 2,529 2,605 2,683 2,764 2,846 2,932 3,020 3,110
Subtotal: Taxes 67,881 68,518 69,191 70,642 72,866 75,350 78,074 80,734 83,760 87,016 90,074 92,644 95,173
Charges for Services 19,593 20,068 21,000 21,420 22,063 22,725 23,406 24,109 24,832 25,577 26,344 27,134 27,948
Permits and Licenses 4,720 4,533 4,646 4,739 4,881 5,027 5,178 5,334 5,494 5,658 5,828 6,003 6,183
Return on Investment 2,624 1,646 1,337 1,317 1,314 1,331 1,354 1,380 1,412 1,459 1,489 1,516 1,540
Rental Income 14,397 13,716 13,716 13,991 12,150 12,515 12,890 13,277 13,675 14,086 14,508 14,944 15,392
From other agencies 333 155 155 158 163 168 173 178 183 189 195 200 207
Charges to Other Funds 11,027 10,622 10,698 10,745 11,067 11,399 11,741 12,094 12,456 12,830 13,215 13,611 14,020
Other revenues 2,360 1,490 1,513 1,544 1,590 1,638 1,687 1,738 1,790 1,843 1,899 1,956 2,014
Total Revenues Before Transfers 122,936 120,748 122,257 124,555 126,094 130,152 134,505 138,843 143,602 148,658 153,551 158,008 162,477
Operating Transfers-In 22,011 18,684 18,705 19,453 20,232 21,041 21,882 22,758 23,668 24,615 25,599 26,623 27,688
TOTAL REVENUES 144,947 139,433 140,962 144,009 146,326 151,193 156,387 161,601 167,270 173,273 179,150 184,632 190,165
Expenditures
Salaries 61,080 59,020 60,003 60,661 60,661 61,798 62,843 64,113 65,409 66,730 68,078 69,453 70,855
Benefits 32,900 29,525 29,645 33,593 36,949 40,366 43,421 46,843 50,411 54,190 58,108 62,372 66,806
Subtotal: Salaries and Benefits 93,980 88,545 89,648 94,254 97,610 102,164 106,264 110,956 115,820 120,920 126,186 131,825 137,661
Contract Services 8,899 10,180 10,591 10,382 10,833 11,116 11,449 11,792 12,146 12,510 12,885 13,272 13,670
Supplies & Materials 2,867 3,242 3,262 3,541 4,112 4,235 4,362 4,493 4,628 4,767 4,910 5,057 5,209
General Expense 9,341 10,022 10,448 10,172 10,375 10,686 11,007 11,337 11,677 12,027 12,388 12,760 13,143
Rents and Leases 627 663 663 774 789 813 837 862 888 915 942 970 999
Facilities and Equipment 1,734 452 452 459 468 482 496 511 526 542 558 575 592
Allocated Charges 14,540 15,371 15,371 15,102 15,404 14,646 15,085 15,538 16,004 16,484 16,979 17,488 18,013
Total Expenditures Before Transfers 131,988 128,475 130,435 134,684 139,591 144,142 149,500 155,489 161,689 168,165 174,848 181,947 189,287
Transfers to Other Funds
Operating Transfers Out 4,737 1,122 1,662 1,167 1,214 1,263 1,314 1,367 1,422 1,479 1,538 1,600 1,664
Transfer to Infrastructure 9,900 9,802 9,802 10,438 10,852 11,294 11,747 12,217 12,706 13,214 13,743 14,293 14,865
Additional Transfer to Infrastructure for
Backlog 10,000 10,300 10,609 10,927 11,255 11,593 11,941 12,299 12,668 13,048
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 146,625 139,399 141,899 156,289 161,957 167,308 173,488 180,328 187,410 194,798 202,427 210,508 218,864
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap)(1,678) 33 (937) (12,280) (15,631) (16,114) (17,101) (18,728) (20,140) (21,525) (23,277) (25,876) (28,699)
Drawdown on BSR for BOA - - - - - - - - - - -
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap) (1,678) 33 (937) (12,280) (15,631) (16,114) (17,101) (18,728) (20,140) (21,525) (23,277) (25,876) (28,699)
Drawdown on Budget Stabilization Reserve
Comprehensive Annual Fin. Rpt. Recon. (89)
Subtotal (89) - - - - - - - - - - -
GRAND NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT) (1,767)$ 33$ (937)$ (12,280)$ (15,631)$ (16,114)$ (17,101)$ (18,728)$ (20,140)$ (21,525)$ (23,277)$ (25,876)$ (28,699)$
*In FY 2011, Adopted Budget assumed 90-10 plan implementation for Miscellaneous group effective April 1 2011.
2011-2021 LRFF - BASE MODEL, REVISED AS REQUESTED BY FINANCE COMMITTEE,
WITH SALARY INCREASES DEFERRED BY ONE YEAR
FY 2011
Projected FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Cumulative %
Change
2010-2021
Revenues
Sales Taxes 8.43% 0.71% 3.43% 3.76% 3.81% 3.94% 3.95% 4.00% 2.85% 2.55% 2.69%
Property Taxes (2.54%) 2.00% 3.36% 3.62% 3.86% 4.11% 4.22% 4.50% 4.71% 3.26% 2.72%
Transient Occupancy Tax 7.90% 4.11% 3.13% 3.15% 3.35% 3.55% 3.65% 3.75% 2.85% 2.75% 2.70%
Utility User Tax (4.18%) 0.32% 1.93% 2.35% 2.87% 0.46% 2.29% 2.30% 2.25% 2.14% 2.02%
Documentary Transfer Tax 7.90% 5.48% 3.75% 3.85% 3.90% 3.92% 3.97% 4.05% 3.65% 3.45% 4.47%
Other Taxes and Fines 4.42% 11.55% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Subtotal: Taxes 1.93% 2.10% 3.15% 3.41% 3.62% 3.41% 3.75% 3.89% 3.51% 2.85% 2.73%40.21%
Charges for Services 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Permits and Licenses (1.56%) 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Return on Investment (49.07%) -1.49% -0.24% 1.31% 1.76% 1.91% 2.31% 3.38% 2.01% 1.81% 1.61%
Rental Income (4.73%) 2.00% -13.15% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
From other agencies (53.47%) 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Charges to Other Funds (2.99%) 0.44% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Other revenues (35.87%) 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Total Revenues Before Transfers (0.55%) 1.88% 1.24% 3.22% 3.34% 3.23% 3.43% 3.52% 3.29% 2.90% 2.83%32.16%
Operating Transfers-In (15.02%) 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%
TOTAL REVENUES (2.75%) 2.16% 1.61% 3.33% 3.44% 3.33% 3.51% 3.59% 3.39% 3.06% 3.00%31.20%
Expenditures
Salaries (1.76%) 1.10% 0.00% 1.87% 1.69% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02%16.00%
Benefits (9.89%) 13.32% 9.99% 9.25% 7.57% 7.88% 7.62% 7.49% 7.23% 7.34% 7.11%
Subtotal: Salaries and Benefits (4.61%) 5.14% 3.56% 4.67% 4.01% 4.42% 4.38% 4.40% 4.35% 4.47% 4.43%46.48%
Contract Services 19.01% -1.97% 4.34% 2.61% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Supplies & Materials 13.79% 8.55% 16.13% 2.99% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 2.99% 3.01%
General Expense 11.85% -2.64% 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Rents and Leases 5.74% 16.74% 1.94% 3.04% 2.95% 2.99% 3.02% 3.04% 2.95% 2.97% 2.99%
Facilities and Equipment (73.93%) 1.55% 1.96% 2.99% 2.90% 3.02% 2.94% 3.04% 2.95% 3.05% 2.96%
Allocated Charges 5.72% -1.75% 2.00% -4.92% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Total Expenditures Before Transfers (1.18%) 3.26% 3.64% 3.26% 3.72% 4.01% 3.99% 4.01% 3.97% 4.06% 4.03%43.41%
Transfers to Other Funds
Operating Transfers Out (64.92%) -29.78% 4.03% 4.04% 4.04% 4.03% 4.02% 4.01% 3.99% 4.03% 4.00%
Transfer to Infrastructure (0.99%) 6.49% 3.97% 4.07% 4.01% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES (3.22%) 10.14% 3.63% 3.30% 3.69% 3.94% 3.93% 3.94% 3.92% 3.99% 3.97%49.27%
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap)(44.16%) 1210.47% 27.28% 3.09% 6.12% 9.51% 7.54% 6.88% 8.14% 11.17% 10.91%
PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN ONE-YEAR-SALARY-INCREASE-DEFERRAL SCENARIO
FY 2010
Actual
FY 2011
Adopted
FY 2011
Projected FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Revenues
Sales Taxes 17,991$ 18,218$ 19,507$ 19,646$ 20,320$ 21,085$ 21,888$ 22,750$ 23,649$ 24,594$ 25,295$ 25,940$ 26,638$
Property Taxes 25,982 25,907 25,323 25,830 26,699 27,665 28,734 29,914 31,177 32,581 34,114 35,227 36,186
Transient Occupancy Tax 6,858 7,021 7,400 7,704 7,946 8,196 8,470 8,771 9,091 9,432 9,701 9,968 10,237
Utility User Tax 11,296 11,429 10,824 10,859 11,069 11,329 11,654 11,708 11,976 12,252 12,528 12,796 13,054
Documentary Transfer Tax 3,707 3,613 4,000 4,219 4,377 4,546 4,723 4,908 5,103 5,310 5,504 5,694 5,948
Other Taxes and Fines 2,047 2,330 2,137 2,384 2,455 2,529 2,605 2,683 2,764 2,846 2,932 3,020 3,110
Subtotal: Taxes 67,881 68,518 69,191 70,642 72,866 75,350 78,074 80,734 83,760 87,016 90,074 92,644 95,173
Charges for Services 19,593 20,068 21,000 21,420 22,063 22,725 23,406 24,109 24,832 25,577 26,344 27,134 27,948
Permits and Licenses 4,720 4,533 4,646 4,739 4,881 5,027 5,178 5,334 5,494 5,658 5,828 6,003 6,183
Return on Investment 2,624 1,646 1,337 1,317 1,314 1,331 1,354 1,380 1,412 1,459 1,489 1,516 1,540
Rental Income 14,397 13,716 13,716 13,991 12,150 12,515 12,890 13,277 13,675 14,086 14,508 14,944 15,392
From other agencies 333 155 155 158 163 168 173 178 183 189 195 200 207
Charges to Other Funds 11,027 10,622 10,698 10,745 11,067 11,399 11,741 12,094 12,456 12,830 13,215 13,611 14,020
Other revenues 2,360 1,490 1,513 1,544 1,590 1,638 1,687 1,738 1,790 1,843 1,899 1,956 2,014
Total Revenues Before Transfers 122,936 120,748 122,257 124,555 126,094 130,152 134,505 138,843 143,602 148,658 153,551 158,008 162,477
Operating Transfers-In 22,011 18,684 18,705 19,453 20,232 21,041 21,882 22,758 23,668 24,615 25,599 26,623 27,688
TOTAL REVENUES 144,947 139,433 140,962 144,009 146,326 151,193 156,387 161,601 167,270 173,273 179,150 184,632 190,165
Expenditures
Salaries 61,080 59,020 60,003 60,661 60,530 60,661 60,661 60,661 60,661 60,661 60,661 60,661 60,661
Benefits 32,900 29,525 29,645 33,593 36,967 40,232 43,703 47,435 51,437 55,738 60,192 64,886 69,777
Subtotal: Salaries and Benefits 93,980 88,545 89,648 94,254 97,497 100,893 104,364 108,096 112,098 116,399 120,853 125,547 130,438
Contract Services 8,899 10,180 10,591 10,382 10,833 11,116 11,449 11,792 12,146 12,510 12,885 13,272 13,670
Supplies & Materials 2,867 3,242 3,262 3,541 4,112 4,235 4,362 4,493 4,628 4,767 4,910 5,057 5,209
General Expense 9,341 10,022 10,448 10,172 10,375 10,686 11,007 11,337 11,677 12,027 12,388 12,760 13,143
Rents and Leases 627 663 663 774 789 813 837 862 888 915 942 970 999
Facilities and Equipment 1,734 452 452 459 468 482 496 511 526 542 558 575 592
Allocated Charges 14,540 15,371 15,371 15,102 15,404 14,646 15,085 15,538 16,004 16,484 16,979 17,488 18,013
Total Expenditures Before Transfers 131,988 128,475 130,435 134,684 139,478 142,871 147,600 152,629 157,967 163,644 169,515 175,669 182,064
Transfers to Other Funds
Operating Transfers Out 4,737 1,122 1,662 1,167 1,214 1,263 1,314 1,367 1,422 1,479 1,538 1,600 1,664
Transfer to Infrastructure 9,900 9,802 9,802 10,438 10,852 11,294 11,747 12,217 12,706 13,214 13,743 14,293 14,865
Additional Transfer to Infrastructure for
Backlog 10,000 10,300 10,609 10,927 11,255 11,593 11,941 12,299 12,668 13,048
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 146,625 139,399 141,899 156,289 161,844 166,037 171,589 177,468 183,688 190,277 197,095 204,229 211,641
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap)(1,678) 33 (937) (12,280) (15,519) (14,843) (15,201) (15,867) (16,418) (17,004) (17,944) (19,598) (21,476)
Drawdown on BSR for BOA - - - - - - - - - - -
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap)(1,678) 33 (937) (12,280) (15,519) (14,843) (15,201) (15,867) (16,418) (17,004) (17,944) (19,598) (21,476)
Drawdown on Budget Stabilization Reserve
Comprehensive Annual Fin. Rpt. Recon. (89)
Subtotal (89) - - - - - - - - - - -
GRAND NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT) (1,767)$ 33$ (937)$ (12,280)$ (15,519)$ (14,843)$ (15,201)$ (15,867)$ (16,418)$ (17,004)$ (17,944)$ (19,598)$ (21,476)$
*In FY 2011, Adopted Budget assumed 90-10 plan implementation for Miscellaneous group effective April 1 2011.
2011-2021 LRFF - BASE MODEL REVISED AS REQUESTED BY FINANCE COMMITTEE, PLUS NO SALARY
INCREASES IN DEFICIT YEARS
FY 2011
Projected FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Cumulative %
Change
2010-2021
Revenues
Sales Taxes 8.43% 0.71% 3.43% 3.76% 3.81% 3.94% 3.95% 4.00% 2.85% 2.55% 2.69%
Property Taxes (2.54%) 2.00% 3.36% 3.62% 3.86% 4.11% 4.22% 4.50% 4.71% 3.26% 2.72%
Transient Occupancy Tax 7.90% 4.11% 3.13% 3.15% 3.35% 3.55% 3.65% 3.75% 2.85% 2.75% 2.70%
Utility User Tax (4.18%) 0.32% 1.93% 2.35% 2.87% 0.46% 2.29% 2.30% 2.25% 2.14% 2.02%
Documentary Transfer Tax 7.90% 5.48% 3.75% 3.85% 3.90% 3.92% 3.97% 4.05% 3.65% 3.45% 4.47%
Other Taxes and Fines 4.42% 11.55% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Subtotal: Taxes 1.93% 2.10% 3.15% 3.41% 3.62% 3.41% 3.75% 3.89% 3.51% 2.85% 2.73%40.21%
Charges for Services 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Permits and Licenses (1.56%) 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Return on Investment (49.07%) -1.49% -0.24% 1.31% 1.76% 1.91% 2.31% 3.38% 2.01% 1.81% 1.61%
Rental Income (4.73%) 2.00% -13.15% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
From other agencies (53.47%) 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Charges to Other Funds (2.99%) 0.44% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Other revenues (35.87%) 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Total Revenues Before Transfe (0.55%) 1.88% 1.24% 3.22% 3.34% 3.23% 3.43% 3.52% 3.29% 2.90% 2.83%32.16%
Operating Transfers-In (15.02%) 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%
TOTAL REVENUES (2.75%) 2.16% 1.61% 3.33% 3.44% 3.33% 3.51% 3.59% 3.39% 3.06% 3.00%31.20%
Expenditures
Salaries (1.76%) 1.10% -0.22% 0.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%-0.69%
Benefits (9.89%) 13.32% 10.04% 8.83% 8.63% 8.54% 8.44% 8.36% 7.99% 7.80% 7.54%
Subtotal: Salaries and Benefits (4.61%) 5.14% 3.44% 3.48% 3.44% 3.58% 3.70% 3.84% 3.83% 3.88% 3.90%38.79%
Contract Services 19.01% -1.97% 4.34% 2.61% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Supplies & Materials 13.79% 8.55% 16.13% 2.99% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 2.99% 3.01%
General Expense 11.85% -2.64% 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Rents and Leases 5.74% 16.74% 1.94% 3.04% 2.95% 2.99% 3.02% 3.04% 2.95% 2.97% 2.99%
Facilities and Equipment (73.93%) 1.55% 1.96% 2.99% 2.90% 3.02% 2.94% 3.04% 2.95% 3.05% 2.96%
Allocated Charges 5.72% -1.75% 2.00% -4.92% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Total Expenditures Before Tran (1.18%) 3.26% 3.56% 2.43% 3.31% 3.41% 3.50% 3.59% 3.59% 3.63% 3.64%37.94%
Transfers to Other Funds
Operating Transfers Out (64.92%) -29.78% 4.03% 4.04% 4.04% 4.03% 4.02% 4.01% 3.99% 4.03% 4.00%
Transfer to Infrastructure (0.99%) 6.49% 3.97% 4.07% 4.01% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES (3.22%) 10.14% 3.55% 2.59% 3.34% 3.43% 3.50% 3.59% 3.58% 3.62% 3.63%44.34%
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap)(44.16%) 1210.47% 26.37% -4.35% 2.41% 4.38% 3.47% 3.57% 5.53% 9.21% 9.58%
PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN NO SALARY INCREASE SCENARIO
City of Palo Alto (10 # 1315)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 2/1/2011
Title: Long Range Financial Forecast 2011-2021
Subject: Update to Long Range Financial Forecast, 2011-2021
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee review and comment on the attached forecast
of revenues and expenses and forward It to the full Council.
Background
Attached to this report is the City's updated General Fund Long Range Financial Forecast (LRFF)
for the fiscal years 2011 through 2021. The LRFF Identifies key issues that will guide the
upcoming 2011·2012 budget process and affect the City's future financial condition.
Discussion
Although the Recession was declared officially over as of June 2009, there remain in the range
of 15 million American workers, or 9.4% of the workforce, unemployed. The housing market
shows underwhelming evidence of a rebound, and the general recovery is painfully slow.
Moreover, unemployment statistics are just a subset of a broader problem of under-
employment. Adding in those who are working part-time because they cannot find full-time
work, the total underemployed number Is about 22 million Americans.
The Impact of these economic developments on our Forecast Is reflected In slow growth
assumptions in all revenue categories, and slower salary growth than In past Forecasts. On the
expense side, pension costs show significant Increases due to the reduced investment
performance of the PERS portfolio and revised demographic assumptions adopted by PERS, A
summary of our Base Model -our best estimate of the fiscal picture over the next ten years -
appears below.
February 01, 2011
(10111315)
Page 10f4
Sublotal:
Return on
Investment
Total Revenues
Before
TOTAL
GRAND NET
SURPLUS
2011-2021 LRFF -BASE MODEL SUMMARY
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011
Actual FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018
The Base Model shows a projected net deficit for FY 2011 of $0.9 million, and a deficit of $2.2
million for FY 2012. Over the eleven-year period from FY 2011 through FY 2021, cumulative
deficits are projected at $11.3 million.
This is a much improved fiscal picture compared to the one presented in February 2010.
Looking at just FY 2011-2020, for comparison pursposes, last year's Forecast showed a
cumulative deficit of $147.5 million, while this year's Base Model projects a cumulative $14.2
million deficit over the same period, with much of the improvement due to the significant
Budget reset accomplished by the FY 2011 Adopted Budget.
On October 5, 2010, however, staff presented the Finance Committee with an update to the
2010-20 Forecast that predicted an even rosier $1.2 million surplus over the ten-year period
from 2011-2020. This downward revision to this projection is primarily due to an adjustment in
revenue projections: UUT projections came down by $22.9 million for the 2011-2020 period,
due to the cancelled rate increases; property tax projections came down $14.3 million; on the
other hand, Documentary Transfer Tax estimates increased $8.6 million for the ten year period,
and Sales Tax estimates increased $5.5 million.
In addition to the Base Model, staff prepared a number of Alternative Scenarios, including:
• one in which salary increases are tied to projected revenue increases -either harming
the General Fund (GF) by $3.4 million over ten years or helping it by $7.3 million, the
latter achieved by withholding salary increases in years when an increase would cause a
deficit;
February 01, 2011
(ID # 1315)
Page 2 of 4
• an optimistic one in which Public Safety bargaining units accept reductions comparable
to those implemented in the Miscellaneous group, and revenues grow slightly more
quickly -putting the GF $40.1 million to the better over ten years;
• a pessimistic one in which medical costs Increase by 10% per year every year over the
ten-year period, PERS adopts a 7.5% discount rate, and PERS rates continue to escalate
not only for FY 2012, 2013, and 2014, but every year beyond as well -causing an
additional $137.7 million in expense over ten years;
• three scenarios in which the GF increases its annual Infrastructure investment by either
$10 or $15 million -which eliminates the unfunded backlog and funds a portion of the
projected Future Infrastructure Needs, as well as increasing deficits, but by varying
degrees depending on whether $10 or $15 million is invested and whether the GF issues
a General Obligation bond.
This Forecast is not a prediction. It Is a snapshot contingent upon a number of assumptions, all
of which are outlined in the report. The overall color of the snapshot, however, is one of
"business as usual" -or business as it is in FY 2011, assuming that over the next 10 years, the
same size workforce will provide basically the same services, and the revenue base will
continue its recent anemic course. It is staff's hope that by examining this snapshot, Council
members and staff may identify issues that must be addressed now to improve the long-term
picture, and that as a result incorporate into the FY2012 budget changes that will improve the
City's outlook for future years.
RESOURCE IMPACT
As with any financial forecast, the fiscal impacts shown are estimates. Estimates of future
deficits and surpluses, as well as the estimated costs of future financial challenges, are meant to
guide future policy and budget decisions.
Staff will introduce the recommended midyear budget adjustments to the Finance Committee
in March 2011 and continue with the 2011-12 budget process. Staff's proposed FY 2012 budget
will include recommendations to balance the budget.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Long Range Financial Forecast is a tool for Council's use in making policy decisions
regarding the allocation of resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This report does not require California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: Long Range Financial Forecast FY 2011-2021 (PDF)
February 01, 2011 Page 3 of 4
(lD 111315)
Prepared By:
Department Head:
City Manager Approval:
February 01, 2011
(ID # 1315)
Page 4 of 4
LONG
RANGE FINANCIAL
Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021
FORECAST
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
IV. UPDATED MODEL 7
III. ECONOMIC OUTLOOK 3
V. ALTERNATE SCENARIOS 14
VI. CONCLUSIONS 20
VII. ENDNOTES 21
VIII. APPENDICES 22
City of Palo Alto 1
2011
INTRODUCTION
I. INTRODUCTION
This report is the City’s updated General Fund Long Range Financial Forecast (LRFF) for the fiscal years 2011
through 2021. The LRFF identifies key issues that will guide the upcoming 2011-2012 budget process and
affect the City’s future financial condition.
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Although the Recession was declared officially over as of June 2009, as of December 2010, there remained in
the range of 15 million American workers, or 9.4% of the workforce, unemployed. The housing market shows
underwhelming evidence of a rebound, and the general recovery is painfully slow. Moreover, unemployment
statistics are just a subset of a broader problem of under-employment and long-term unemployment. Adding
in those who are working part-time because they cannot find full-time work, the total underemployed num-
ber is about 22 million Americans, including 6 million who have been unemployed for over six months.
The impact of these economic developments on our Forecast is reflected in slow growth assumptions in all
revenue categories and slower salary growth than in past Forecasts. On the expense side, pension costs show
significant increases due to the reduced investment performance of the PERS portfolio and revised demo-
graphic assumptions adopted by PERS. A summary of our Base Model – our best estimate of the fiscal picture
over the next ten years – appears below.
FY 2010
Actual
FY 2011
Adopted
FY 2011
Projected FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Revenues
Subtotal: Taxes 67,881 68,518 69,191 70,642 73,166 75,659 78,394 81,066 84,103 87,372 90,440 93,021 95,559
TOTAL REVENUES 144,947 139,433 140,962 144,009 146,626 151,503 156,707 161,932 167,613 173,629 179,517 185,008 190,551
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 146,625 139,399 141,899 146,163 150,906 155,913 160,007 164,304 168,695 173,237 177,850 182,733 187,698
GRAND NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT) (1,767)$ 33$ (937)$ (2,154)$ (4,280)$ (4,410)$ (3,300)$ (2,372)$ (1,082)$ 393$ 1,667$ 2,275$ 2,853$
2011-2021 LRFF - BASE MODEL SUMMARY
2 City of Palo Alto
2011
The Base Model shows a projected net deficit
for FY 2011 of $0.9 million, and a deficit of
$2.2 million for FY 2012. Over the eleven-year
period from FY 2011 through FY 2021, cumula-
tive deficits are projected at $11.3 million.
This is a much improved fiscal picture compared to the one presented in February 2010. Looking just at FY
2011-2020, for comparison purposes, last year’s Forecast showed a cumulative deficit of $147.5 million, while
this year’s Base Model projects a cumulative $14.2 million deficit, with much of the improvement due to the
significant Budget reset accomplished by the FY 2011 Adopted Budget.
On October 5, 2010, however, staff presented the Finance Committee with an update to the 2010-20 Forecast
that predicted an even rosier $1.2 million surplus over the ten-year period from 2011-2020. The current Base
Model’s downward revision to the October projection is primarily due to an adjustment in revenue projections:
UUT projections came down by $22.9 million for the 2011-2020 period, due to cancelled rate increases; property
tax projections came down $14.7 million; on the other hand, Documentary Transfer Tax estimates increased
$8.6 million for the ten year period; and Sales Tax estimates increased $6.0 million.
In addition to the Base Model, staff has prepared a number of Alternative Scenarios, including:
• one in which salary increases are tied to projected revenue increases – either harming the General Fund
(GF) by $3.4 million over ten years or helping it by $7.3 million, the latter achieved by withholding sal-
ary increases in 2014 and limiting the increase in 2015 to avoid deficits. (see page 14 and Appendix 1);
• an optimistic one in which Public Safety bargaining units accept reductions comparable to those imple-
mented in the Miscellaneous group, and revenues grow slightly more quickly – putting the GF $40.1
million to the better over ten years (see pages 14-15 and Appendix 1);
• a pessimistic one in which medical costs increase by 10% per year every year over the ten-year period,
PERS adopts a 7.5% discount rate, and PERS rates continue to escalate not only for FY 2012, 2013, and
2014, but every year beyond as well – causing an additional $137.7 million in expense over ten years
(see page 15 and Appendix 1);
• three scenarios in which the GF increases its annual infrastructure investment by either $10 or $15 mil-
lion – which eliminates the unfunded backlog and funds a portion of the projected future infrastructure
needs, as well as increasing deficits, but by varying degrees depending on whether $10 or $15 million is
invested and whether the GF issues a General Obligation bond (see pages 16-18 and Appendix 1).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Alternate Scenarios include:
• Salary Increases Constrained to Revenue Growth Rate
• Optimistic
• Pessimistic
• Additional Infrastructure Funding
This Forecast is not a prediction. It is a snapshot
contingent upon a number of assumptions.
City of Palo Alto 3
2011
This Forecast is not a prediction. It is a snapshot contingent upon a number of assumptions, all of which are
outlined below in the report. The overall color of the snapshot, however, is one of “business as usual” – or
business as it is in FY 2011, assuming that over the next 10 years, the same size workforce will provide the
same services, and the revenue base will continue its recent anemic course. It is staff’s hope that by examining
this snapshot, Council members and staff may identify issues that must be addressed now to improve the
long-term picture, and as a result, incorporate into the FY 2012 budget changes that will improve the City’s
outlook for future years.
III. ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
The Great Recession was declared officially over as of June 2009 by the National Bureau of Economic
Research;i yet there remain 15 million unemployed American workers, the housing market shows spotty
evidence of rebounding, and the overall recovery is painfully slow. Moreover, there is an unprecedented
disconnect between rising corporate profits and the rate of job creation.
U.S. unemployment was in the 9.6% range for the third quarter of 2010, jumping to 9.8% in November,ii be-
fore dropping to 9.4% in December. Yet unemployment statistics tell only part of a story which also includes
the long-term unemployed and the underemployed. The U.S. Department of Labor uses a measure known as
U-6 to quantify both the unemployed and others working part-time who want full-time work but cannot find
it. The Department’s November 2010 Job report showed the U-6 rate hit 17.1% in September, decreased
slightly to 17.0% in October and November, and then dropped to 16.7% in December.iii That 16.7% underem-
ployment rate translates to 14.8 million Americans unemployed, and another 7 million underemployed, to
total about 22 million Americans who want full-time work but cannot find it. Furthermore, 6 million people
have been unemployed for longer than 6 months, many of whom will face challenges reintegrating into the
industries from which they came.iv
Source: Gallup
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
4 City of Palo Alto
2011
The housing market is showing tepid recovery, with large variations by region and area. Pending sales of U.S.
existing houses jumped by a record 10 percent in October 2010, following a 1.8 percent drop in September
2010. Many took this as a sign that the housing industry was in recovery, yet the October 2010 figures were 22
percent below pending sales of October 2009.v
In California, home prices have largely stabilized in the $250,000 range, after declining some 57% from the
peak to the trough of the housing market.vi
In Santa Clara County, a 13-month trend of year-over-year home price increases was reversed in November
2010 by a sharp 7.3 percent drop in the median price to $510,000, as reported by DataQuick, a real estate in-
formation service. In San Mateo County, the median price dropped 3.7 percent or $617,500 from a year ago,
and sales dipped 2.7 percent. However, sales in the high end were strong in San Mateo County. One Data-
Quick analyst observed, “It all varies at the neighborhood level, and the bigger picture is that home prices are
essentially flat across the board.”vii
According to the State’s Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), “California’s recession started even earlier than the na-
tion’s and was deeper. While U.S. employment dropped about 5 percent since 2007, employment in CA declined 9
percent (1.4 million jobs). Unemployment in the state – under 5 percent as recently as 2006 – has topped 12 percent
for over a year now, with only 53,000 jobs recovered out of the 1.4 million lost. In 2009, personal income in Califor-
nia actually dropped 2.4 percent – the first annual decline since 1933…”viii As recently as August 2010, the state’s
unemployment rate rose by 0.1% to 12.4 percent after declining or holding steady for the last four months.ix
The main cause of the state’s economic implosion has been the housing market. Though the collapse of the
state’s residential housing sector appears to
have ended, growth is expected to be weak.
Furthermore the state’s construction sector –
having endured a crushing 40 percent em-
ployment decline since 2007—is not on track
to regain its pre-recession strength in the fore-
seeable future.x
“A year ago this time most people were holding on
to jobs, and very few people were quitting.
Now...people are leaving and being replaced. That’s
what gets things going again.”
— Sterling Infosystems
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
City of Palo Alto 5
2011
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
Nationally, consumers are spending more, but month-to-month results vary. The Conference Board
Consumer Confidence Index, which had improved in November 2010, decreased slightly in December. The
Index now stands at 52.5 (1985=100), down from 54.3 in November. This index is based on a survey of 5,000
US households.
Consumers’ holiday spending improved compared to last year, but not as much as analysts had hoped. Octo-
ber 2010 retail levels had climbed by the most in seven months, with purchases rising 1.2% over the previous
month, and 7.3 percent above October 2009. This rise was led by a 5% gain among auto dealers, compared to
September, and sales excluding automobiles advanced just 0.4%.xi At the same time, American’s personal in-
come grew at a faster pace than it had for much of the year, and consumer spending expanded.xii
As the LAO described it, “the slow recov-
ery results from a combination of (1) excess
inventories of residential and commercial
real estate, (2) severely depressed eco-
nomic confidence among both individuals
and firms, and (3) for many consumers, a
considerably weakened financial capacity
to spend and invest…. While businesses
have been spending more in recent quar-
ters to address equipment, software, and
other needs they deferred during the reces-
sion, they remain very reluctant to hire.”
In the last month or so, some businesses
have noticed a pick-up in the job market.
In early December 2010, an executive from
Sterling Infosystems, a firm that helps
companies screen employees, said, “A year ago this time most people were holding on to jobs, and very few
people were quitting. Now you’ve got churn. People are leaving and being replaced. That’s what gets things
going again.”xiv
Furthermore, since its trough in June 2009, the Federal Reserve’s index of industrial production is up almost 10%.
Part of this is due to strong demand from abroad as the rest of the world recovers from the global downturn.xv
Projections
The U.S. can expect “very sluggish growth” for the foreseeable future. Beacon Economics, a California-based
economic research and analysis firm, projected in early November 2010 that the national unemployment rate
would stay above 8 percent until the 3rd quarter of 2012.xvi The LAO was even more pessimistic, predicting
that unemployment would remain above 9 percent throughout 2012.xvii Most pessimistic of all, a January 9,
2011 New York Times article predicted that “at the current rate, the economy will need 72 to 90 months to
recapture the jobs lost during the Great Recession. And that does not account for the five million jobs needed
to keep pace with a growing population.”xviii
General Fund Major Revenues (in millions)
$19.5
18 .0
$25.8
$13.3
Sales Tax
$7.4
Transient Occup.
Tax
$3.1
$9.5
$4.0
$5.8
$1.3
Documentary
Transfer Tax
$25.3
Property Tax
$8.1
$26.0
Utility User's Tax
$5.4
$10.8
$11.3
$-
$4.0
$8.0
$12.0
$16.0
$20.0
$24.0
$28.0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Fiscal Year
6 City of Palo Alto
2011
For California, Beacon forecasted an unemployment rate above 12 percent through 2nd quarter 2011, dipping to
10% in late 2012, and that “it will be well into 2015 before California reaches its pre-recession peak of 15.2 million
jobs.”xix In Silicon Valley, while the overall regional economy is improving, hiring has not picked up significantly.
The Bay Area Council released its fall Business Confidence Survey in December 2010, and the results show
that Bay Area CEO’s and executives are feeling more positive about the Bay Area economy. However, they
expect the current status quo of slow growth and recovery to continue. The Business Confidence Index – the
number that distills the survey findings – registered at 58 out of 100, up 2 points from the last survey, but still
down 4 points from May 2010. A reading over 50 signals positive economic times, while below 50 is negative.
In January 2009, the index reached its all-time low of 31.
The Survey also indicated that 56% of executives expect their workforces to remain the same over the next 6
months, while 27% planned to increase their workforce. 50% of Bay Area companies with over 10,000
employees expect to increase their workforce over the next six months, an increase of 41 points since last
quarter’s survey.xx
With unemployment at a relatively low rate of 5.8% in November 2010, Palo Alto has been spared the higher
unemployment rates experienced by the rest of Santa Clara County, which remained at 10.8% in November.
Yet Palo Alto’s unemployment rate was more than double its 2007 pre-recession rate of 2.5%.
Source: California Employment Development Department
Impact of Economic Outlook on the Forecast
The impact on our Forecast of these economic developments is slow growth assumptions in all revenue cate-
gories. On the flip side, the recession’s affect on labor markets allowed salary growth assumptions to decrease
relative to past Forecasts. Specific assumptions are detailed in the discussion of the Model below.
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
Unemployment Rates Nov
2007
Nov
2008
Nov
2009
Nov
2010
Santa Clara County 4.7% 7.0% 11.5% 10.8%
City of Palo Alto 2.5% 3.7% 6.2% 5.8%
City of Palo Alto 7
2011
IV. UPDATED MODEL
ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE BASE MODEL
The Base Model represents staff’s “Best Guess” of where the General Fund Budget is headed if it continues in
the general direction set out by the 2011 Budget and given the conditions surrounding revenues and expendi-
tures that staff can discern as of this writing.
Staff assumes the following in the Base Model:
EXPENSES
1. Miscellaneous employees, after experiencing salary freezes in 2010, 2011 and 2012, will receive a 2% salary
increase in 2013 and each year thereafter through 2021.
2. All Safety employees will have a salary freeze in 2012 and 2013, after which they will also receive 2%
annual increases. Prior to this, Fire received a 4 to 5 percent salary increase in 2010 but not in 2011; Police
received a 6 percent salary increase in 2011. The City is in the process of negotiating concessions with the
IAFF and will begin similar talks with PAPOA in the near future.
3. PERS rates will rise as estimated in the most recent PERS valuation, dated October 2010, as follows:
The Base Model assumes that after 2014, pension rates will remain constant through 2021.
4. Transfers to the Infrastructure Fund will follow the 5-year CIP Budgeted amounts, which are $9.8 million
in FY 2011, $10.44 million in FY 2012, increasing by 4% per year through FY 2021. (Alternate Infrastructure
scenarios are discussed below on pages 16-18.)
5. Technology Fund repayments of $1.225 million per year continue in 2012 and 2013, after which the Fund
will have been completely repaid.
6. Library Operating Cost increases of $0.25 million are incorporated into FY 2012 Operating Costs, and
from FY 2013 onward $1 million in increased costs are included.
UPDATED MODEL
Fiscal Year Miscellaneous
Rates
Safety Rates
2011 17.56% 24.7%
2012 21.73% 30.13%
2013 23.10% 32.30%
2014 - 2021 26.20% 37.80%
8 City of Palo Alto
2011
7. Medical insurance costs will increase each year at the rate assumed by Milliman Associates in their
January 2009 Actuarial Report for the City. That is, 6.5% per year in FY 2012, 2013, and 2014; 6% for FY
2015-2021.
8. Savings from Miscellaneous Group’s Two-Tier Retirement Structure (2% at 60) begin in FY 2013 – 2 years
after the date of implementation – as PERS rates generally have a two-year delay.
9. Savings from the Miscellaneous Group’s 90-10 Medical cost-sharing plan are assumed to begin in April 1,
2011. Employees will ramp up to paying 10% of medical premiums over 3-4 years.
10. The FY 2011 projection for non-salary expense is $0.9 million above the FY 2011 Adopted Budget. In FY
2012, non-salary expense increases by 1.5 percent; in FY 2013, it increases by 2 percent. In FY 2013 and be-
yond, annual increases are assumed at 3 percent, which approximates the average annual rate of inflation
for the Bay Area during the past ten years.
UPDATED MODEL
General Fund LRFF Expenditure by Type
Adopted FY 2011 Budget
Supplies & Material
2.3%
Contract Services
7.3%
Transfer to Infrastructure
7.0%
Operating Transfers-Out
0.8%
Allocated Charges
11.0%
Facilities & Equipment
0.3%
General Expense
7.2%
Rents & Leases
0.5%
Salary & Benefits
63.5%
Total Budgeted Expenditures = $139.4 million
Due to rounding error % may not equal 100%
City of Palo Alto 9
2011
UPDATED MODEL
Salaries, Benefits, and Number of Employees (FTE)
$55.6 $57.0 $60.4 $62.1 $61.1 $60.0 $61.2 $61.8 $63.0 $64.3
$27.3 $29.9 $30.9 $29.5 $32.9 $29.6 $33.5 $35.1 $39.4$38.3
580580580623647 650
653 652
580580
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Fiscal Year
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
(F
T
E
)
Salaries Benefits Full-Time Equivalent Permanent Employees (FTE)
`
General Fund LRFF Revenue by Type
Adopted FY 2011 Budget
From other agencies
0.1%
Charges for Services
14.4%
Chgs. to Other Funds
7.6%
Other Revenue
1.1%Operating Transfers-In
13.4%
Rental Income
9.8%
Permits and Licenses
3.3%
Return on Investment
1.2%
Documentary Transfer Tax
2.6%Other Taxes and Fines
1.7%
Utility Users Tax
8.2%
Transient Occupancy Tax
5.0%
Property Tax
18.6%
Sales Tax
13.1%
Total Budgeted Revenues = $139.3 million
Due to rounding error % may not equal 100%
10 City of Palo Alto
2011
REVENUES
1. FY 2011 sales tax revenue is estimated at $19.5 million, a $1.3 million increase above the FY 2011
Adopted Budget. $0.8 million of the increase is due to stronger sales tax performance in the 3rd calendar
year quarter and indications of a stronger 4th quarter in retail sales. The remaining increase is a conse-
quence of the State’s “triple flip” underpayment for FY 2010 which will be remitted in FY 2011. Based on
the new projections for FY 2011, revenue of $19.6 million and $20.3 million are projected for FY 2012 and
2013, respectively.
2. The property tax projection for FY 2011 is $25.3 million -- $0.6 million below the FY 2011 adopted budget,
and $0.7 million or 2.7 percent below FY 2010 receipts. This is due to the sizeable number of commercial
property appeals on properties’ assessed values which the County has received. These appeals will be
processed over the next 2-3 years, with a corresponding drag on City property tax receipts.
3. The FY 2011 estimate for Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is now $7.4 million, a $0.4 million increase from
the FY 2011 Adopted Budget amount. In FY 2010, TOT revenues ceased their prior downward trend and
began to rise. Occupancy and daily rates increased from 66.2% and $145 per day in October 2009 to 80.5%
and $150 per day in October 2010. These trends, along with the opening of the new Hotel Keen in May
2010, have led staff to forecast higher revenues in FY 2011 and forthcoming years. An additional uptick in
FY 2013 is due to the potential opening of a new Ming’s Hotel. Although additional hotels are expected to
open over the next 3-5 years, their receipts have not been included in the Forecast.
4. The Documentary Transfer Tax revenue projected for FY 2011 is $4.0 million, nearly $0.4 million above
the Adopted Budget. Through the middle of this fiscal year, revenue results have been running nearly
equal to those of the prior year. Staff believes, however, that property transaction activity will increase in
the second half of this year and lead to slightly higher transfer taxes at year-end.
5. The FY 2011 projection for Charges for Services increased by $1.0 million compared to the FY 2011
Adopted Budget. This includes an increase of $0.6 million for plan check fee revenue due to increased
building and development activity within the City, and an increase of $0.4 million as a result of the year-
end reconciliation of the Stanford joint service agreements for public safety.
BASE MODEL
The Base Model is included below. The first table shows projections over the 10 years, and the second table
shows year-over-year percentage changes in each category. The Base Model shows a projected net deficit for
FY 2011 of $0.9 million, and a deficit of $2.2 million for FY 2012. Over the eleven-year period from FY 2011
through FY 2021, cumulative deficits are projected at $11.3 million.
UPDATED MODEL
City of Palo Alto 11
2011
The October 5, 2010 Update to the Long Range Financial Forecast of 2010-2020 had shown a balanced budget
in FY 2011 and a deficit of $1.6 million in FY 2012. Since then, the following adjustments were made:
• 2011 revenues increased by about $1.5 million – primarily in Sales Tax, Planning and Building fees,
and in the Joint Service Agreement with Stanford
• Contract Services expense increased by $0.4 million- due primarily to the restructuring of the
Development Center and the standards of coverage study for the Fire Department
• General expense increased by $0.4 million – primarily due to Measures R (firefighter charter
amendment) and S (election date change) election costs
• Operating Transfers out increased by $0.5 million due to loans to the Airport and Refuse funds
Also, since the October update, the following changes were made in FY 2012 projections:
• Revenues decreased by $1.1 million – primarily because of the cancelled electric rate increase, which
cut projected UUT revenue by $1.3 million. Property tax estimates were cut by $0.7 million
• Sales Tax estimates were increased by $1.1 million, mostly due to the timing of the State’s “triple flip”
process
• Salaries and benefits increased by $1.6 million to align budgeted with actual overtime expenses,
adding $0.8 million—on top of a $0.8 million overtime increase in FY 2011
• The Infrastructure transfer was originally planned to increase by an additional $1 million per year
starting FY2012, but given the budget gap, staff cut the additional $1 million, bringing it back to the
recommended budgeted transfer of $10.4 million
UPDATED MODEL
12 City of Palo Alto
2011
UPDATED MODEL
FY 2010
Actual
FY 2011
Adopted
FY 2011
Projected FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Revenues
Sales Taxes 17,991$ 18,218$ 19,507$ 19,646$ 20,320$ 21,085$ 21,888$ 22,750$ 23,649$ 24,594$ 25,295$ 25,940$ 26,638$
Property Taxes 25,982 25,907 25,323 25,830 26,699 27,665 28,734 29,914 31,177 32,581 34,114 35,227 36,186
Transient Occupancy Tax 6,858 7,021 7,400 7,704 8,246 8,505 8,790 9,102 9,434 9,788 10,067 10,344 10,622
Utility User Tax 11,296 11,429 10,824 10,859 11,069 11,329 11,654 11,708 11,976 12,252 12,528 12,796 13,054
Documentary Transfer Tax 3,707 3,613 4,000 4,219 4,377 4,546 4,723 4,908 5,103 5,310 5,504 5,694 5,948
Other Taxes and Fines 2,047 2,330 2,137 2,384 2,455 2,529 2,605 2,683 2,764 2,846 2,932 3,020 3,110
Subtotal: Taxes 67,881 68,518 69,191 70,642 73,166 75,659 78,394 81,066 84,103 87,372 90,440 93,021 95,559
Charges for Services 19,593 20,068 21,000 21,420 22,063 22,725 23,406 24,109 24,832 25,577 26,344 27,134 27,948
Permits and Licenses 4,720 4,533 4,646 4,739 4,881 5,027 5,178 5,334 5,494 5,658 5,828 6,003 6,183
Return on Investment 2,624 1,646 1,337 1,317 1,314 1,331 1,354 1,380 1,412 1,459 1,489 1,516 1,540
Rental Income 14,397 13,716 13,716 13,991 12,150 12,515 12,890 13,277 13,675 14,086 14,508 14,944 15,392
From other agencies 333 155 155 158 163 168 173 178 183 189 195 200 207
Charges to Other Funds 11,027 10,622 10,698 10,745 11,067 11,399 11,741 12,094 12,456 12,830 13,215 13,611 14,020
Other revenues 2,360 1,490 1,513 1,544 1,590 1,638 1,687 1,738 1,790 1,843 1,899 1,956 2,014
Total Revenues Before Transfers 122,936 120,748 122,257 124,555 126,394 130,462 134,824 139,174 143,945 149,014 153,917 158,385 162,862
Operating Transfers-In 22,011 18,684 18,705 19,453 20,232 21,041 21,882 22,758 23,668 24,615 25,599 26,623 27,688
TOTAL REVENUES 144,947 139,433 140,962 144,009 146,626 151,503 156,707 161,932 167,613 173,629 179,517 185,008 190,551
Expenditures
Salaries 61,080 59,020 60,003 60,661 61,798 63,047 64,321 65,621 66,947 68,299 69,678 71,085 72,520
Benefits 32,900 29,525 29,645 33,467 35,061 38,331 39,389 40,566 41,752 42,999 44,228 45,632 47,022
Subtotal: Salaries and Benefits 93,980 88,545 89,648 94,128 96,859 101,378 103,710 106,187 108,698 111,299 113,907 116,718 119,543
Contract Services 8,899 10,180 10,591 10,382 10,833 11,116 11,449 11,792 12,146 12,510 12,885 13,272 13,670
Supplies & Materials 2,867 3,242 3,262 3,541 4,112 4,235 4,362 4,493 4,628 4,767 4,910 5,057 5,209
General Expense 9,341 10,022 10,448 10,172 10,375 10,686 11,007 11,337 11,677 12,027 12,388 12,760 13,143
Rents and Leases 627 663 663 774 789 813 837 862 888 915 942 970 999
Facilities and Equipment 1,734 452 452 459 468 482 496 511 526 542 558 575 592
Allocated Charges 14,540 15,371 15,371 15,102 15,404 14,646 15,085 15,538 16,004 16,484 16,979 17,488 18,013
Total Expenditures Before Transfers 131,988 128,475 130,435 134,558 138,840 143,356 146,946 150,720 154,567 158,544 162,569 166,840 171,169
Transfers to Other Funds
Operating Transfers Out 4,737 1,122 1,662 1,167 1,214 1,263 1,314 1,367 1,422 1,479 1,538 1,600 1,664
Transfer to Infrastructure 9,900 9,802 9,802 10,438 10,852 11,294 11,747 12,217 12,706 13,214 13,743 14,293 14,865
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 146,625 139,399 141,899 146,163 150,906 155,913 160,007 164,304 168,695 173,237 177,850 182,733 187,698
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap) (1,678) 33 (937) (2,154) (4,280) (4,410) (3,300) (2,372) (1,082) 393 1,667 2,275 2,853
Drawdown on BSR for BOA - - - - - - - - - - -
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap) (1,678) 33 (937) (2,154) (4,280) (4,410) (3,300) (2,372) (1,082) 393 1,667 2,275 2,853
Drawdown on Budget Stabilization Reserve
Comprehensive Annual Fin. Rpt. Recon. (89)
Subtotal (89) - - - - - - - - - - -
GRAND NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT) (1,767)$ 33$ (937)$ (2,154)$ (4,280)$ (4,410)$ (3,300)$ (2,372)$ (1,082)$ 393$ 1,667$ 2,275$ 2,853$
*In FY 2011, Adopted Budget assumed 90-10 plan implementation for Miscellaneous group effective April 1 2010.
2011-2021 LRFF - BASE MODEL
City of Palo Alto 13
2011
UPDATED MODEL
FY 2011
Projected FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Cumulative %
Change
2010-2021
Revenues
Sales Taxes 8.43% 0.71% 3.43% 3.76% 3.81% 3.94% 3.95% 4.00% 2.85% 2.55% 2.69%
Property Taxes (2.54%) 2.00% 3.36% 3.62% 3.86% 4.11% 4.22% 4.50% 4.71% 3.26% 2.72%
Transient Occupancy Tax 7.90% 4.11% 7.02% 3.15% 3.35% 3.55% 3.65% 3.75% 2.85% 2.75% 2.69%
Utility User Tax (4.18%) 0.32% 1.93% 2.35% 2.87% 0.46% 2.29% 2.30% 2.25% 2.14% 2.02%
Documentary Transfer Tax 7.90% 5.48% 3.75% 3.85% 3.90% 3.92% 3.97% 4.05% 3.65% 3.45% 4.47%
Other Taxes and Fines 4.42% 11.55% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Subtotal: Taxes 1.93% 2.10% 3.57% 3.41% 3.62% 3.41% 3.75% 3.89% 3.51% 2.85% 2.73%40.77%
Charges for Services 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Permits and Licenses (1.56%) 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Return on Investment (49.07%) -1.49% -0.24% 1.31% 1.76% 1.91% 2.31% 3.38% 2.01% 1.81% 1.61%
Rental Income (4.73%) 2.00% -13.15% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
From other agencies (53.47%) 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Charges to Other Funds (2.99%) 0.44% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Other revenues (35.87%) 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Total Revenues Before Transfers (0.55%) 1.88% 1.48% 3.22% 3.34% 3.23% 3.43% 3.52% 3.29% 2.90% 2.83%32.48%
Operating Transfers-In (15.02%) 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%
TOTAL REVENUES (2.75%) 2.16% 1.82% 3.33% 3.44% 3.33% 3.51% 3.59% 3.39% 3.06% 3.00%31.46%
Expenditures
Salaries (1.76%) 1.10% 1.87% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02% 2.02%
Benefits (9.89%) 12.89% 4.76% 9.33% 2.76% 2.99% 2.92% 2.99% 2.86% 3.17% 3.05%
Subtotal: Salaries and Benefits (4.61%) 5.00% 2.90% 4.67% 2.30% 2.39% 2.37% 2.39% 2.34% 2.47% 2.42%27.20%
Contract Services 19.01% -1.97% 4.34% 2.61% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Supplies & Materials 13.79% 8.55% 16.13% 2.99% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 2.99% 3.01%
General Expense 11.85% -2.64% 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Rents and Leases 5.74% 16.74% 1.94% 3.04% 2.95% 2.99% 3.02% 3.04% 2.95% 2.97% 2.99%
Facilities and Equipment (73.93%) 1.55% 1.96% 2.99% 2.90% 3.02% 2.94% 3.04% 2.95% 3.05% 2.96%
Allocated Charges 5.72% -1.75% 2.00% -4.92% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Total Expenditures Before Transfers (1.18%) 3.16% 3.18% 3.25% 2.50% 2.57% 2.55% 2.57% 2.54% 2.63% 2.59%29.69%
Transfers to Other Funds
Operating Transfers Out (64.92%) -29.78% 4.03% 4.04% 4.04% 4.03% 4.02% 4.01% 3.99% 4.03% 4.00%
Transfer to Infrastructure (0.99%) 6.49% 3.97% 4.07% 4.01% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES (3.22%) 3.00% 3.24% 3.32% 2.63% 2.69% 2.67% 2.69% 2.66% 2.75% 2.72%28.01%
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap)(44.16%) 129.90% 98.65% 3.05% -25.18% -28.11% -54.39% -136.28% 324.67% 36.49% 25.40%
PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN BASE FORECAST FOR REVENUES AND EXPENSES
14 City of Palo Alto
2011
V. ALTERNATE SCENARIOS
Staff developed several alternate scenarios of the model, to ascertain the impacts of different assumptions on
the City’s bottom line. The scenarios are described below, and a summary of the results of all scenarios may be
found on page 19.
SALARY CONSTRAINT SCENARIOS
In the first of two Salary Constraint Scenarios, combined salaries and benefits were constrained to increase at
a rate no greater than the expected rate of increase in revenues in each year. This resulted in lower increases
in salaries and benefits than the Base Model in fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 – when PERS rate increases
dramatically drive up the cost of benefits, leaving little room for salary increases. In each year after 2014,
however, salary increases of 2.75% to 3.5% are possible while remaining within the revenue growth con-
straint. Since the Base Model assumes continued 2% salary increases starting in 2013, this alternate scenario
costs the City an additional $3.4 million over the ten years.
In the second Salary Constraint Scenario, combined salaries and benefits were constrained at no greater per-
centage than the expected revenue increase, and salaries were not permitted to increase in any year in which
that would cause a deficit. Therefore, in this modified salary scenario, salaries did not increase in 2014, and
increased by just 1.5% in 2015 (compared to rising by 3.4% in the first salary constraint scenario), and in 2016-
2021, increases were nearly identical to the above scenario. This second scenario would save the City $7.3
million over the 10 years, compared to the Base Model.
OPTIMISTIC SCENARIOS
The following Optimistic Scenarios were introduced to the model:
• Public Safety employees agree to the 90-10 plan for medical and retiree medical costs, joining the Miscel-
laneous employees for whom that plan will start April 1, 2011. This saves the General Fund $4.8 million
over the ten years.
• Public Safety employees agree to a second tier retirement formula for new employees of 2% at 55, again
joining the Miscellaneous group which already has a 2% at 60 second tier. This saves the General Fund
$3.5 million over the eight years (there is a lag of two years before PERS rates decrease with a new tier).
• Revenues are projected to grow at an annual rate of 3.38% (Compound Annual Growth Rate, or CAGR),
as opposed to the 3.02% CAGR in the Base Model projected revenues, providing an additional $29.4 mil-
lion over the ten years.
The full Optimistic Scenarios model can be found in Appendix 1.
ALTERNATE SCENARIOS
City of Palo Alto 15
2011
PESSIMISTIC SCENARIOS
The following Pessimistic Scenarios were introduced to the model:
• Public Safety Salaries begin to rise in 2013, after just one year of salary freeze for Police, and two years for
Fire. Rather than having their salaries frozen for three years as they were for Miscellaneous employees,
this scenario assumes a 2% annual increase for all employees beginning 2013. This costs the General Fund
an additional $4.8 million in salary alone, plus another $1.4 million in PERS expense over the ten years.
• The PERS Discount Rate is changed to 7.5% from 7.75%. In December 2010, the PERS Board voted to ap-
prove an investment mix that likely means the assumed discount rate will decrease by 0.25% to 7.5%.
This will translate to an increase in PERS rates starting 2013 of 1.5% to 3% for Miscellaneous employees
and 3% to 5% for Safety employees. If we assume the center of that range for each group, the impact will
be $18.3 million in additional PERS costs over the nine years through FY 2021.
• PERS rates continue to increase after 2014. Rather than increasing each year – FY 2012, 2013, and 2014, and
then remaining constant, PERS rates continue to increase 3% per year from 2015 on. This costs the General
Fund an additional $59.1 million in those seven years.
• Medical Costs increase by 10% per year. Rather than increasing at the rate assumed by the City’s actuary-
in the 6.0 to 6.5% range - this scenario assumes a 10% annual increase in medical costs, costing the General
Fund an additional $24.4 million over the ten years – both in premiums for active employees, and addi-
tional annual required contribution for retiree medical.
• Revenues increase by an average (CAGR) of 2.72% instead of the 3.02% CAGR in the Base Model. Thus
the City brings in $34.6 million less in revenues over the ten years.
The full Pessimistic Scenarios model can be found in Appendix 1.
ALTERNATE SCENARIOS
16 City of Palo Alto
2011
INFRASTRUCTURE SCENARIOS
In these scenarios, it is assumed that the City will at minimum erase its infrastructure backlog over the
ten-year period of the Forecast. In quantifying the backlog as well as future needs, staff was aware that the
Public Works Department is in the process of updating these estimates for the Blue Ribbon Infrastructure
Commission’s efforts. However, since that process is not yet complete, staff used the numbers from an inter-
departmental staff analysis completed in 2008 and delineated in pages 297-298 of the FY 2011 CIP Budget.
(See Appendix 2, as well as CMR 167:08) These numbers are expressed in 2007 dollars.
Staff quantified the infrastructure needs for fiscal years 2009-2013 at $153.2 million, and the projected backlog
for FY 2014 to 2018 at $55.0 million, for a total ten-year backlog of $208.2 million. The FY 2009-2013 CIP fund-
ing plan included $64.2 million in funding, and the LRFF assumes an additional $61.2 million in funding for
FY 2014-2018, leaving an unfunded backlog of $82.9 million.
In Infrastructure Scenario 1, the General Fund invests an additional $10 million per year in 2012, increasing
by 3% per year, of which $8.3 million pays down the backlog each year (with that amount also growing by
3% per year), and the remainder funds a portion of projected future needs as well as additional operating
costs associated with the additional infrastructure work. Also in 2008, staff identified an additional $208
million ($148 million identified by staff in 2008 plus an assumed $60 million for the Public Safety Building) in
future infrastructure needs – meaning needed renovations and replacements of City facilities such as Fire
Stations, the Police Building, the MSC, and the Animal Shelter, that are likely if not inevitable over the next
several years. That brings the total infrastructure needs to $416 million.
ALTERNATE SCENARIOS
FY 2010
Actual
FY 2011
Adopted
FY 2011
Projected FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
TOTAL REVENUES 144,947 139,433 140,962 144,009 146,626 151,503 156,707 161,932 167,613 173,629 179,517 185,008 190,551
Total Expenditures Before Transfers 131,988 128,475 130,435 134,558 138,840 143,356 146,946 150,720 154,567 158,544 162,569 166,840 171,169
Transfers to Other Funds
Operating Transfers Out 4,737 1,122 1,662 1,167 1,214 1,263 1,314 1,367 1,422 1,479 1,538 1,600 1,664
Transfer to Infrastructure 9,900 9,802 9,802 10,438 10,852 11,294 11,747 12,217 12,706 13,214 13,743 14,293 14,865
Additional Transfer to Insfrastructure to Erase Backlog 8,287 8,536 8,792 9,056 9,328 9,607 9,896 10,193 10,498 10,813
Additional Transfer to Insfrastructure to fund Future Needs 413 427 441 456 471 486 502 519 536 554
Additional Maintenance staff 260 267 273 280 287 294 302 309 317 325
Additional Operating Expenses for 1,039 1,070 1,102 1,136 1,170 1,205 1,241 1,278 1,316 1,356
Additional Infrastructure Investments*
Subtotal Additional Infrastructure Investmt 10,000 10,300 10,609 10,927 11,255 11,593 11,941 12,299 12,668 13,048
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 146,625 139,399 141,899 156,163 161,206 166,522 170,934 175,559 180,288 185,177 190,149 195,401 200,746
GRAND NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT) (1,678)$ 33$ (937)$ (12,154)$ (14,580)$ (15,019)$ (14,227)$ (13,627)$ (12,675)$ (11,548)$ (10,632)$ (10,393)$ (10,195)$
Balance of Unfunded Backlog at year-end (2011 dollars) 82,875$ 74,587$ 66,300$ 58,012$ 49,725$ 41,437$ 33,150$ 24,862$ 16,575$ 8,287$ -$
Balance of Future Needs at year-end 208,280$ 207,867$ 207,440$ 206,999$ 206,543$ 206,072$ 205,586$ 205,083$ 204,564$ 204,028$ 203,474$
2011-2021 LRFF - INFRASTRUCTURE SCENARIO 1 - INCREASE INVESTMT BY $10MM PER YR STARTING 2012
City of Palo Alto 17
2011
In this scenario, the General Fund cumulative deficit increases by $114.6 million beyond that in the Base
Model. The backlog is eliminated, and the unfunded balance of future needs is reduced to $203 million by
2021.
In Infrastructure Scenario 2, the City issues a $100 million general obligation bond at an assumed interest rate
of 5% and a 25-year amortization period. Again by investing an additional $10 million per year (increasing
by 3% per year), the General Fund can use the bond proceeds to complete the unfunded portion of the back-
log in the first 3 to 4 years, pay its $7.1 million annual debt service, and apply the remaining $3 million to-
wards the future needs and additional construction management costs. This scenario also increases the com-
pound GF deficits by about $114.6 million over the ten years; it brings down the future needs balance to $160
million in 2021. However, at that time, the City would still owe about $106 million in principal and interest on
the bond.
Note that in this scenario and in Scenario 3, any cost savings due to completing the backlog in 3 to 4 years
rather than in 10 years have not yet been estimated, and are not included in the analysis.
ALTERNATE SCENARIOS
FY 2010
Actual
FY 2011
Adopted
FY 2011
Projected FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
TOTAL REVENUES 144,947 139,433 140,962 144,009 146,626 151,503 156,707 161,932 167,613 173,629 179,517 185,008 190,551
Total Expenditures Before Transfers 131,988 128,475 130,435 134,558 138,840 143,356 146,946 150,720 154,567 158,544 162,569 166,840 171,169
Transfers to Other Funds
Operating Transfers Out 4,737 1,122 1,662 1,167 1,214 1,263 1,314 1,367 1,422 1,479 1,538 1,600 1,664
Transfer to Infrastructure 9,900 9,802 9,802 10,438 10,852 11,294 11,747 12,217 12,706 13,214 13,743 14,293 14,865
Debt Service on Infrastructure Bond 7,099 7,099 7,099 7,099 7,099 7,099 7,099 7,099 7,099 7,099
Additional Transfer to Insfrastructure to Fund Future Needs - - 210 500 3,450 3,750 4,050 4,375 4,685 5,015
Additional Maintenance staff - 267 273 280 287 294 302 309 317 325
Additional Operating Expenses for 2,901 2,934 3,026 3,048 419 450 490 516 567 609
Additional Infrastructure Investments*
Subtotal Additional Infrastructure Investmt 10,000 10,300 10,609 10,927 11,255 11,593 11,941 12,299 12,668 13,048
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 146,625 139,399 141,899 156,164 161,205 166,522 170,934 175,559 180,289 185,177 190,149 195,401 200,746
GRAND NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT) (1,678)$ 33$ (937)$ (12,155)$ (14,580)$ (15,019)$ (14,227)$ (13,627)$ (12,675)$ (11,548)$ (10,632)$ (10,393)$ (10,195)$
Balance of Unfunded Backlog at year-end 82,875$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Balance of Future Needs at year-end 208,280$ 185,910$ 185,910$ 185,700$ 185,200$ 181,750$ 178,000$ 173,950$ 169,575$ 164,890$ 159,875$
Balance of 25-year Bond "Debt Service Liability" -$ 170,382$ 163,283$ 156,184$ 149,084$ 141,985$ 134,886$ 127,787$ 120,687$ 113,588$ 106,489$
2011-2021 LRFF - INFRASTRUCTURE SCENARIO 2 - INCREASE INVESTMNT BY $10MM PER YR WITH $100MM BOND
18 City of Palo Alto
2011
All of the above Infrastructure scenarios illustrate the order of magnitude of the financial impact on the Gen-
eral Fund of addressing the infrastructure backlog in a timely manner. With an additional $10 million per
year the City can erase the backlog over 10 years without a bond, and much more rapidly with a bond. If the
City is willing to take on the increased liability of a general obligation bond, it can eliminate the backlog in
the next few years and make greater headway with funding needed renovations. Again, precise estimates of
the volumes of backlog and future needs, as well as cost trade-offs involved with issuing a general obligation
bond for infrastructure, remain to be developed more completely by Public Works staff in concert with the
Blue Ribbon Commission.
Given the City’s limitations in generating new revenue, finding the funding for the additional infrastructure
needs would require a reduction in expenses—including programs and/or services, and salaries and benefits.
The table at right summarizes the results of all Alternate Scenarios, compared to the Base Model.
ALTERNATE SCENARIOS
In Scenario 3, the General Fund invests an additional $15 million per year, increasing by 3% per year, in infra-
structure. It issues the $100 million bond, applying the remainder of the $15 million after debt service to fu-
ture needs and additional operating costs required by the additional infrastructure projects. This scenario in-
creases the compound GF deficits by about $172 million over the 10 years, brings down the future needs bal-
ance to $109 million in 2021, but leaves a balance of $106 million in unpaid principal and interest payments on
the bond.
FY 2010
Actual
FY 2011
Adopted
FY 2011
Projected FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
TOTAL REVENUES 144,947 139,433 140,962 144,009 146,626 151,503 156,707 161,932 167,613 173,629 179,517 185,008 190,551
Total Expenditures Before Transfers 131,988 128,475 130,435 134,558 138,840 143,356 146,946 150,720 154,567 158,544 162,569 166,840 171,169
Transfers to Other Funds
Operating Transfers Out 4,737 1,122 1,122 1,167 1,214 1,263 1,314 1,367 1,422 1,479 1,538 1,600 1,664
Transfer to Infrastructure 9,900 9,802 9,802 10,438 10,852 11,294 11,747 12,217 12,706 13,214 13,743 14,293 14,865
Debt Service on Infrastructure Bond 7,099 7,099 7,099 7,099 7,099 7,099 7,099 7,099 7,099 7,099
Additional Transfer to Insfrastructure to Fund Future Needs 4,150 4,540 4,950 5,370 8,480 8,920 9,375 9,850 10,350 10,840
Additional Maintenance staff 260 267 273 280 287 294 302 309 317 325
Additional Operating Expenses for 3,491 3,544 3,592 3,641 1,017 1,075 1,135 1,190 1,236 1,308
Additional Infrastructure Investments*
Subtotal Additional Infrastructure Investmt 15,000 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,883 17,389 17,911 18,448 19,002 19,572
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 146,625 139,399 141,899 161,164 166,355 171,827 176,397 181,187 186,084 191,147 196,298 201,735 207,270
GRAND NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT) (1,678)$ 33$ (842)$ (17,155)$ (19,729)$ (20,325)$ (19,690)$ (19,255)$ (18,471)$ (17,518)$ (16,781)$ (16,727)$ (16,719)$
Balance of Unfunded Backlog at year-end 82,875$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Balance of Future Needs at year-end 208,280$ 181,760$ 177,220$ 172,270$ 166,900$ 158,420$ 149,500$ 140,125$ 130,275$ 119,925$ 109,085$
Balance of 25-year Bond "Debt Service Liability" -$ 170,382$ 163,283$ 156,184$ 149,084$ 141,985$ 134,886$ 127,787$ 120,687$ 113,588$ 106,489$
2011-2021 LRFF - INFRASTRUCTURE SCENARIO 3 - INCREASE INVESTMNT BY $15MM PER YR WITH $100MM BOND
City of Palo Alto 19
2011
ALTERNATE SCENARIOS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Total
(2012-
2021)
(2.2) (4.3) (4.4) (3.3) (2.4) (1.1) 0.4 1.7 2.3 2.9 (10.4)
0.6 1.6 3.0 2.0 1.0 (0.1) (1.4) (2.6) (3.4) (4.1) (3.4)
Resulting Net Surplus
(Deficit)(1.5) (2.6) (1.4) (1.3) (1.3) (1.2) (1.0) (0.9) (1.1) (1.3) (13.8)
0.6 1.7 3.2 3.3 2.4 1.3 0.0 (1.1) (1.8) (2.5) 7.3
Resulting Net Surplus
(Deficit)(1.5) (2.6) (1.2) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.3 (3.2)
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 4.8
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 3.5
0.1 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.3 3.2 4.2 4.8 5.5 6.1 29.4
0.6 1.1 1.7 2.5 3.4 4.4 5.4 6.2 7.1 7.7 40.1
Resulting Net Surplus
(Deficit)(1.6) (3.2) (2.7) (0.8) 1.0 3.3 5.8 7.9 9.3 10.6 29.7
-
- (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.6) (0.6) (0.6) (4.8)
(1.8) (1.9) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.1) (2.1) (2.2) (2.2) (18.3)
(1.9) (4.0) (6.1) (8.3) (10.5) (12.9) (15.4) (59.1)
(0.1) (0.5) (0.9) (1.4) (1.9) (2.5) (3.1) (3.8) (4.6) (5.6) (24.4)
(0.7) (2.0) (2.5) (3.1) (3.6) (3.9) (4.0) (4.4) (4.9) (5.5) (34.6)
(1.2) (4.7) (5.7) (6.8) (11.7) (14.8) (17.8) (21.2) (24.9) (28.9) (137.7)
Resulting Net Surplus
(Deficit)(3.3) (9.0) (10.1) (10.1) (14.1) (15.8) (17.4) (19.5) (22.6) (26.0) (148.1)
Scenario 1: $10 MM
add'l / yr (10.0) (10.3) (10.6) (10.9) (11.3) (11.6) (11.9) (12.3) (12.7) (13.0) (114.6)
Scenario 2: $10 MM/yr +
$100MM bond (10.0) (10.3) (10.6) (10.9) (11.3) (11.6) (11.9) (12.3) (12.7) (13.0) (114.6)
Resulting Net Surplus
(Deficit) for Scenarios 1 & 2 (12.2) (14.6) (15.0) (14.2) (13.6) (12.7) (11.5) (10.6) (10.4) (10.2) (125.1)
Scenario 3: $15 MM/yr +
$100MM bond (15.0) (15.4) (15.9) (16.4) (16.9) (17.4) (17.9) (18.4) (19.0) (19.6) (172.0)
Resulting Net Surplus
(Deficit)(17.2) (19.7) (20.3) (19.7) (19.3) (18.5) (17.5) (16.8) (16.7) (16.7) (182.4)
SUMMARY OF ALL SCENARIOS
Long Range Financial Forecast 2011-2021
(Millions of Dollars)
Lower Revenue Forecast
Salaries & Bens. Constrained
to < Revenues
--- Impact of Alternate Scenarios on Bottom Line ---
Base Model Net Surplus
(Deficit)
Salaries & Bens. Constrained
to < Revenues, Increases Only
When No Deficit
Safety joins 90-10 Plan
Higher Revenue Forecast
Infrastructure
Safety agrees to second tier
at 2% at 55
Optimistic:
Pessimistic:
PERS Adopts 7.5% Discount
Rate
PERS rates increase 3% per
year 2015-2021
Health Care Costs increase
10% per year
Safety receives 2% Salary
Increase in 2013
Total Optimistic Scenarios
Total Pessimistic Scenarios
20 City of Palo Alto
2011
VI. CONCLUSIONS
This Long Range Forecast shows a much improved fiscal picture compared to the one presented in February
2010. Last year, the Forecast showed a cumulative deficit of $147.5 million between 2011 and 2020 (ten years).
This year, the Base Model projects a combined $16.5 million deficit over the same period. Much of the im-
provement is due to the significant Budget reset accomplished by the FY 2011 Adopted Budget. The October
5, 2010 update to last year’s Forecast had predicted a much rosier $1.2 million surplus over the ten-year pe-
riod from 2010-2020, but since then revenue projections have been adjusted: UUT projections came down by
$22.9 million over the course of 2011-2020, due to cancelled rate increases; property tax projections came
down $14.7 million; yet Documentary Transfer Tax estimates increased $8.6 million for the ten year period,
and Sales Tax estimates increased $6.0 million.
There remain in this Forecast $11.3 million in cumulative deficits over the 2011-2021 period that must be ad-
dressed. If the City addresses its infrastructure backlog in a robust fashion, those deficits could increase
eleven-fold to $125 million. On the flip side, if Public Safety bargaining units agree to changes already ac-
cepted by the Miscellaneous groups – specifically a second retirement tier for new hires and the 90-10 medical
cost sharing plan – the eleven-year deficits would shrink by approximately 73% (or $8.3 million). Faster-than-
expected revenue growth would also help.
However, darker developments are also easily imagined. Specifically, PERS rates could easily jump due to
either a small decrease in the assumed discount rate (costing $18 million over nine years) and/or annual ad-
ditional rate increases of 3% after 2014 (costing an additional $59 million). Those increases alone would put
us in the same negative position as erasing our entire unfunded infrastructure backlog, yet would not put a
dime towards that critical need.
Palo Alto is not alone in finding its pension and health care liabilities to be increasingly difficult to sustain.
While the organization has successfully begun to restructure these benefits with non-safety staff, there still is
a strong concern going forward due to continued PERS rate projection increases and revenues failing to close
the growing gaps. The City must continue to make difficult choices to ensure that it keeps its AAA credit rat-
ing, stays fiscally balanced, and lives within its means.
CONCLUSIONS
City of Palo Alto 21
2011
VII. ENDNOTES
i. Legislative Analyst’s Office, “The 2011-12 Budget: California’s Fiscal Outlook,” November 2010, page 13
ii. Bloomberg News, “U.S.Economy: Sales at Retailers Climb by Most in Seven Months,” by Timothy R. Homan,
Nov 15, 2010
iii. Joseph Lazzarro, “Tell-Tale Stat: US Underemployment Rate Rose to 17.1% in September,”
www.bloggingstocks.com posted October 11, 2010
iv. Beacon Economics, “Beaconomics: A quarterly economic forecast for the US and California from Beacon Eco
nomics,” Vol. 3, no. 1, January 2011, page 5
v. Courtney Schlisserman and Timothy R. Homan, “Pending home sales surge 10% in October,” San Francisco
Chronicle, December 3, 2010
vi. Beaconomics, Op.Cit, page 12
vii. Pete Carey: “Bay Area home prices, sales dip,” San Jose Mercury News, December 17, 2010
viii. Legislative Analyst’s Office, “The 2011-12 Budget: California’s Fiscal Outlook,” November 2010, page 13-14
ix. California Dept of Finance “Finance Bulletin,” October 2010
x. Legislative Analyst’s Office, Op.Cit., pages 15-16
xi U.S. Census Bureau News, “Advance Monthly Sales for Retail and Food Services October 2010,” released Nov
15, 2010
xii. Jonathan Cheng, “Dow Rallies 150.91 in Preholiday Sessions,” Wall Street Journal.com, November 24, 2010
xiii. Legislative Analyst’s Office, “The 2011-12 Budget: California’s Fiscal Outlook,” November 2010, page 13-14
xiv. Tom Abate, “Rise in jobless rate spurs benefits, tax-cut debate,” San Francisco Chronicle, December 4, 2010
xv. Beaconomics, Op.Cit., page 6
xvi. Beacon Economics, “Beaconomics: A Quarterly Economic Forecast for the U.S. & California,” August 2010
xvii. Legislative Analyst’s Office, “The 2011-12 Budget: California’s Fiscal Outlook,” November 2010, page 13
xviii. Michael Powell, “Profits Are Booming. Why Aren’t Jobs?,” New York Times, January 9, 2011
xix. Beaconomics, January, 2011, Op.Cit., pages 11 and 14
xx. Bay Area Council, Press Release: After slight dip over the summer, Bay Area Business Confidence Trends Up
ward Again, December 13, 2010
ENDNOTES
22 City of Palo Alto
2011
VIII. APPENDICES—APPENDIX 1: ALTERNATE SCENARIOS
APPENDICES
FY 2010
Actual
FY 2011
Adopted
FY 2011
Projected FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Revenues
Sales Taxes 17,991$ 18,218$ 19,507$ 19,646$ 20,320$ 21,085$ 21,888$ 22,750$ 23,649$ 24,594$ 25,295$ 25,940$ 26,638$
Property Taxes 25,982 25,907 25,323 25,830 26,699 27,665 28,734 29,914 31,177 32,581 34,114 35,227 36,186
Transient Occupancy Tax 6,858 7,021 7,400 7,704 8,246 8,505 8,790 9,102 9,434 9,788 10,067 10,344 10,622
Utility User Tax 11,296 11,429 10,824 10,859 11,069 11,329 11,654 11,708 11,976 12,252 12,528 12,796 13,054
Documentary Transfer Tax 3,707 3,613 4,000 4,219 4,377 4,546 4,723 4,908 5,103 5,310 5,504 5,694 5,948
Other Taxes and Fines 2,047 2,330 2,137 2,384 2,455 2,529 2,605 2,683 2,764 2,846 2,932 3,020 3,110
Subtotal: Taxes 67,881 68,518 69,191 70,642 73,166 75,659 78,394 81,066 84,103 87,372 90,440 93,021 95,559
Charges for Services 19,593 20,068 21,000 21,420 22,063 22,725 23,406 24,109 24,832 25,577 26,344 27,134 27,948
Permits and Licenses 4,720 4,533 4,646 4,739 4,881 5,027 5,178 5,334 5,494 5,658 5,828 6,003 6,183
Return on Investment 2,624 1,646 1,337 1,317 1,314 1,331 1,354 1,380 1,412 1,459 1,489 1,516 1,540
Rental Income 14,397 13,716 13,716 13,991 12,150 12,515 12,890 13,277 13,675 14,086 14,508 14,944 15,392
From other agencies 333 155 155 158 163 168 173 178 183 189 195 200 207
Charges to Other Funds 11,027 10,622 10,698 10,745 11,067 11,399 11,741 12,094 12,456 12,830 13,215 13,611 14,020
Other revenues 2,360 1,490 1,513 1,544 1,590 1,638 1,687 1,738 1,790 1,843 1,899 1,956 2,014
Total Revenues Before Transfers 122,936 120,748 122,257 124,555 126,394 130,462 134,824 139,174 143,945 149,014 153,917 158,385 162,862
Operating Transfers-In 22,011 18,684 18,705 19,453 20,232 21,041 21,882 22,758 23,668 24,615 25,599 26,623 27,688
TOTAL REVENUES 144,947 139,433 140,962 144,009 146,626 151,503 156,707 161,932 167,613 173,629 179,517 185,008 190,551
Expenditures
Salaries 61,080 59,020 60,003 60,129 60,406 60,690 62,745 64,743 66,967 69,300 71,574 73,561 75,565
Benefits 32,900 29,525 29,645 33,382 34,812 37,698 39,002 40,400 41,869 43,427 44,938 46,526 48,096
Subtotal: Salaries and Benefits 93,980 88,545 89,648 93,511 95,217 98,388 101,747 105,143 108,836 112,727 116,512 120,087 123,661
Contract Services 8,899 10,180 10,591 10,382 10,833 11,116 11,449 11,792 12,146 12,510 12,885 13,272 13,670
Supplies & Materials 2,867 3,242 3,262 3,541 4,112 4,235 4,362 4,493 4,628 4,767 4,910 5,057 5,209
General Expense 9,341 10,022 10,448 10,172 10,375 10,686 11,007 11,337 11,677 12,027 12,388 12,760 13,143
Rents and Leases 627 663 663 774 789 813 837 862 888 915 942 970 999
Facilities and Equipment 1,734 452 452 459 468 482 496 511 526 542 558 575 592
Allocated Charges 14,540 15,371 15,371 15,102 15,404 14,646 15,085 15,538 16,004 16,484 16,979 17,488 18,013
Total Expenditures Before Transfers 131,988 128,475 130,435 133,941 137,198 140,366 144,983 149,676 154,705 159,972 165,174 170,209 175,287
Transfers to Other Funds
Operating Transfers Out 4,737 1,122 1,662 1,167 1,214 1,263 1,314 1,367 1,422 1,479 1,538 1,600 1,664
Transfer to Infrastructure 9,900 9,802 9,802 10,438 10,852 11,294 11,747 12,217 12,706 13,214 13,743 14,293 14,865
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 146,625 139,399 141,899 145,546 149,264 152,923 158,044 163,260 168,833 174,665 180,455 186,102 191,816
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap) (1,678) 33 (937) (1,537) (2,638) (1,420) (1,337) (1,328) (1,220) (1,036) (938) (1,094) (1,265)
Drawdown on BSR for BOA - - - - - - - - - - -
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap) (1,678) 33 (937) (1,537) (2,638) (1,420) (1,337) (1,328) (1,220) (1,036) (938) (1,094) (1,265)
Drawdown on Budget Stabilization Reserve
Comprehensive Annual Fin. Rpt. Recon. (89)
Subtotal (89) - - - - - - - - - - -
GRAND NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT) (1,767)$ 33$ (937)$ (1,537)$ (2,638)$ (1,420)$ (1,337)$ (1,328)$ (1,220)$ (1,036)$ (938)$ (1,094)$ (1,265)$
2011-2021 LRFF - SALARIES AND BENEFITS CONSTRAINED TO RATE OF REVENUE GROWTH
*In FY 2011, Adopted Budget assumed 90-10 plan implementation for M iscellaneous group effective January 1, 2010. Given the likely April 1 2010 implementation date, an
additional expense (foregone savings) is anticipated. For remaining years in the Forecast, savings are
City of Palo Alto 23
2011
APPENDICES
FY 2010
Actual
FY 2011
Adopted
FY 2011
Projected FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Revenues
Sales Taxes 17,991$ 18,218$ 19,507$ 19,646$ 20,320$ 21,085$ 21,888$ 22,750$ 23,649$ 24,594$ 25,295$ 25,940$ 26,638$
Property Taxes 25,982 25,907 25,323 25,830 26,699 27,665 28,734 29,914 31,177 32,581 34,114 35,227 36,186
Transient Occupancy Tax 6,858 7,021 7,400 7,704 8,246 8,505 8,790 9,102 9,434 9,788 10,067 10,344 10,622
Utility User Tax 11,296 11,429 10,824 10,859 11,069 11,329 11,654 11,708 11,976 12,252 12,528 12,796 13,054
Documentary Transfer Tax 3,707 3,613 4,000 4,219 4,377 4,546 4,723 4,908 5,103 5,310 5,504 5,694 5,948
Other Taxes and Fines 2,047 2,330 2,137 2,384 2,455 2,529 2,605 2,683 2,764 2,846 2,932 3,020 3,110
Subtotal: Taxes 67,881 68,518 69,191 70,642 73,166 75,659 78,394 81,066 84,103 87,372 90,440 93,021 95,559
Charges for Services 19,593 20,068 21,000 21,420 22,063 22,725 23,406 24,109 24,832 25,577 26,344 27,134 27,948
Permits and Licenses 4,720 4,533 4,646 4,739 4,881 5,027 5,178 5,334 5,494 5,658 5,828 6,003 6,183
Return on Investment 2,624 1,646 1,337 1,317 1,314 1,331 1,354 1,380 1,412 1,459 1,489 1,516 1,540
Rental Income 14,397 13,716 13,716 13,991 12,150 12,515 12,890 13,277 13,675 14,086 14,508 14,944 15,392
From other agencies 333 155 155 158 163 168 173 178 183 189 195 200 207
Charges to Other Funds 11,027 10,622 10,698 10,745 11,067 11,399 11,741 12,094 12,456 12,830 13,215 13,611 14,020
Other revenues 2,360 1,490 1,513 1,544 1,590 1,638 1,687 1,738 1,790 1,843 1,899 1,956 2,014
Total Revenues Before Transfers 122,936 120,748 122,257 124,555 126,394 130,462 134,824 139,174 143,945 149,014 153,917 158,385 162,862
Operating Transfers-In 22,011 18,684 18,705 19,453 20,232 21,041 21,882 22,758 23,668 24,615 25,599 26,623 27,688
TOTAL REVENUES 144,947 139,433 140,962 144,009 146,626 151,503 156,707 161,932 167,613 173,629 179,517 185,008 190,551
Expenditures
Salaries 61,080 59,020 60,003 60,129 60,329 60,460 61,377 63,362 65,539 67,824 70,050 71,994 73,956
Benefits 32,900 29,525 29,645 33,382 34,812 37,698 39,002 40,400 41,869 43,427 44,938 46,526 48,096
Subtotal: Salaries and Benefits 93,980 88,545 89,648 93,511 95,141 98,158 100,379 103,763 107,409 111,250 114,988 118,520 122,053
Contract Services 8,899 10,180 10,591 10,382 10,833 11,116 11,449 11,792 12,146 12,510 12,885 13,272 13,670
Supplies & Materials 2,867 3,242 3,262 3,541 4,112 4,235 4,362 4,493 4,628 4,767 4,910 5,057 5,209
General Expense 9,341 10,022 10,448 10,172 10,375 10,686 11,007 11,337 11,677 12,027 12,388 12,760 13,143
Rents and Leases 627 663 663 774 789 813 837 862 888 915 942 970 999
Facilities and Equipment 1,734 452 452 459 468 482 496 511 526 542 558 575 592
Allocated Charges 14,540 15,371 15,371 15,102 15,404 14,646 15,085 15,538 16,004 16,484 16,979 17,488 18,013
Total Expenditures Before Transfers 131,988 128,475 130,435 133,941 137,122 140,136 143,615 148,296 153,278 158,495 163,650 168,642 173,679
Transfers to Other Funds
Operating Transfers Out 4,737 1,122 1,662 1,167 1,214 1,263 1,314 1,367 1,422 1,479 1,538 1,600 1,664
Transfer to Infrastructure 9,900 9,802 9,802 10,438 10,852 11,294 11,747 12,217 12,706 13,214 13,743 14,293 14,865
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 146,625 139,399 141,899 145,546 149,188 152,693 156,676 161,880 167,406 173,188 178,931 184,535 190,208
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap) (1,678) 33 (937) (1,537) (2,562) (1,191) 31 52 208 441 586 473 343
Drawdown on BSR for BOA - - - - - - - - - - -
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap) (1,678) 33 (937) (1,537) (2,562) (1,191) 31 52 208 441 586 473 343
Drawdown on Budget Stabilization Reserve
Comprehensive Annual Fin. Rpt. Recon. (89)
Subtotal (89) - - - - - - - - - - -
GRAND NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT) (1,767)$ 33$ (937)$ (1,537)$ (2,562)$ (1,191)$ 31$ 52$ 208$ 441$ 586$ 473$ 343$
*In FY 2011, Adopted Budget assumed 90-10 plan implementation for Miscellaneous group effective January 1, 2010. Given the likely April 1 2010 implementation date, an
additional expense (foregone savings) is anticipated. For remaining years in the Forecast, savings are
2011-2021 LRFF - SALARIES AND BENEFITS CONSTRAINED TO RATE OF REVENUE GROWTH, WITH NO
INCREASES WHEN DEFICITS WOULD RESULT
24 City of Palo Alto
2011
APPENDIX 1: ALTERNATE SCENARIOS, CONTINUED
APPENDICES
FY 2010
Actual
FY 2011
Adopted
FY 2011
Projected FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Revenues
Sales Taxes 17,991$ 18,218$ 19,507$ 19,714 20,387 21,162 21,951 22,820 23,733 24,670 25,388 26,034 26,664
Property Taxes 25,982 25,907 25,323 25,523 26,477 27,520 28,688 30,016 31,458 33,060 34,811 35,996 37,016
Transient Occupancy Tax 6,858 7,021 7,400 7,731 8,476 8,633 8,931 9,239 9,614 9,974 10,102 10,375 10,644
Utility User Tax 11,296 11,429 10,824 10,909 11,119 11,379 11,707 11,761 12,029 12,306 12,581 12,848 13,105
Documentary Transfer Tax 3,707 3,613 4,000 4,231 4,391 4,562 4,741 4,929 5,127 5,337 5,513 5,695 5,829
Other Taxes and Fines 2,047 2,330 2,137 2,396 2,473 2,566 2,664 2,770 2,881 2,996 3,110 3,227 3,348
Subtotal: Taxes 67,881$ 68,518$ 69,191$ 70,504 73,323 75,822 78,682 81,535 84,842 88,342 91,506 94,175 96,606
Charges for Services 19,593 20,068 21,000 21,525 22,225 23,058 23,934 24,892 25,887 26,923 27,946 28,994 30,081
Permits and Licenses 4,720 4,533 4,646 4,762 4,917 5,101 5,295 5,507 5,727 5,956 6,165 6,396 6,636
Return on Investment 2,624 1,646 1,337 1,322 1,324 1,339 1,361 1,386 1,421 1,466 1,493 1,519 1,542
Rental Income 14,397 13,716 13,716 14,059 12,251 12,710 13,193 13,721 14,270 14,841 15,404 15,982 16,581
From other agencies 333 155 155 159 164 170 177 184 191 199 206 214 222
Charges to Other Funds 11,027 10,622 10,698 10,798 11,149 11,567 12,006 12,486 12,986 13,505 14,018 14,544 15,090
Other revenues 2,360 1,490 1,513 1,551 1,602 1,662 1,725 1,794 1,866 1,940 2,014 2,090 2,168
Total Revenues Before Transfers 122,936$ 120,748$ 122,257$ 124,680 126,953 131,429 136,373 141,504 147,190 153,173 158,752 163,913 168,926
Operating Transfers-In 22,011 18,684 18,705 19,453 20,232 21,041 21,882 22,758 23,668 24,615 25,599 26,623 27,688
TOTAL REVENUES 144,947$ 139,433$ 140,962$ 144,134 147,185 152,470 158,256 164,262 170,858 177,788 184,352 190,537 196,615
Expenditures
Salaries 61,080 59,020 60,003 60,661 61,798 63,047 64,321 65,621 66,947 68,299 69,678 71,085 72,520
Benefits 32,900 29,525 29,645 33,006 34,505 37,564 38,467 39,518 40,589 41,745 42,838 44,098 45,339
Subtotal: Salaries and Benefits 93,980$ 88,545$ 89,648$ 93,667 96,303 100,611 102,788 105,139 107,536 110,044 112,516 115,183 117,859
Contract Services 8,899 10,180 10,591 10,382 10,833 11,116 11,449 11,792 12,146 12,510 12,885 13,272 13,670
Supplies & Materials 2,867 3,242 3,262 3,541 4,112 4,235 4,362 4,493 4,628 4,767 4,910 5,057 5,209
General Expense 9,341 10,022 10,448 10,172 10,375 10,686 11,007 11,337 11,677 12,027 12,388 12,760 13,143
Rents and Leases 627 663 663 774 789 813 837 862 888 915 942 970 999
Facilities and Equipment 1,734 452 452 459 468 482 496 511 526 542 558 575 592
Allocated Charges 14,540 15,371 15,371 15,102 15,404 14,646 15,085 15,538 16,004 16,484 16,979 17,488 18,013
Total Expenditures Before Transfers 131,988$ 128,475$ 130,435$ 134,097 138,284 142,589 146,024 149,672 153,405 157,289 161,178 165,305 169,485
Transfers to Other Funds
Operating Transfers Out 4,737 1,122 1,662 1,167 1,214 1,263 1,314 1,367 1,422 1,479 1,538 1,600 1,664
Transfer to Infrastructure 9,900 9,802 9,802 10,438 10,852 11,294 11,747 12,217 12,706 13,214 13,743 14,293 14,865
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 146,625$ 139,399$ 141,899$ 145,702 150,350 155,146 159,085 163,256 167,533 171,982 176,459 181,198 186,014
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap)(1,678)$ 33$ (937)$ (1,568) (3,165) (2,676) (830) 1,006 3,325 5,806 7,893 9,339 10,600
Drawdown on BSR for BOA - - - - - - - - - -
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap) (1,678)$ 33$ (937)$ (1,568) (3,165) (2,676) (830) 1,006 3,325 5,806 7,893 9,339 10,600
Drawdown on Budget Stabilization Reserve
Comprehensive Annual Fin. Rpt. Recon. (89)$ -$ -$
Subtotal (89) - - - - - - - - - - -
GRAND NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT)(1,767)$ 33$ (937)$ (1,568)$ (3,165)$ (2,676)$ (830)$ 1,006$ 3,325$ 5,806$ 7,893$ 9,339$ 10,600$
2011-2021 LRFF - COMBINED OPTIMISTIC SCENARIOS
City of Palo Alto 25
2011
APPENDICES
FY 2010
Actual
FY 2011
Adopted
FY 2011
Projected FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Revenues
Sales Taxes 17,991$ 18,218$ 19,507$ 19,578$ 20,257$ 21,016$ 21,825$ 22,680$ 23,592$ 24,542$ 25,270$ 25,811$ 26,405$
Property Taxes 25,982 25,907 25,323 25,630 26,442 27,349 28,371 29,491 30,672 31,973 33,428 34,368 35,129
Transient Occupancy Tax 6,858 7,021 7,400 7,674 7,914 8,476 8,762 9,074 9,401 9,750 10,027 10,303 10,575
Utility User Tax 11,296 11,429 10,824 10,809 11,018 11,278 11,602 11,655 11,923 12,198 12,475 12,743 13,002
Documentary Transfer Tax 3,707 3,613 4,000 4,209 4,362 4,530 4,706 4,890 5,084 5,289 5,479 5,665 5,914
Other Taxes and Fines 2,047 2,330 2,137 2,360 2,390 2,432 2,480 2,542 2,612 2,691 2,766 2,842 2,920
Subtotal: Taxes 67,881 68,518 69,191 70,260 72,384 75,080 77,746 80,332 83,283 86,443 89,445 91,732 93,944
Charges for Services 19,593 20,068 21,000 21,210 21,475 21,851 22,288 22,845 23,474 24,178 24,855 25,538 26,241
Permits and Licenses 4,720 4,533 4,646 4,692 4,751 4,834 4,931 5,054 5,206 5,362 5,512 5,664 5,819
Return on Investment 2,624 1,646 1,337 1,312 1,306 1,324 1,348 1,375 1,406 1,454 1,454 1,471 1,520
Rental Income 14,397 13,716 13,716 13,853 11,805 12,012 12,252 12,558 12,904 13,291 13,663 14,039 14,425
From other agencies 333 155 155 157 159 161 165 169 173 179 184 189 194
Charges to Other Funds 11,027 10,622 10,698 10,805 10,940 11,132 11,354 11,638 11,958 12,317 12,662 13,010 13,368
Other revenues 2,360 1,490 1,513 1,529 1,548 1,575 1,606 1,646 1,692 1,742 1,791 1,841 1,891
Total Revenues Before Transfers 122,936 120,748 122,257 123,818 124,368 127,969 131,691 135,618 140,095 144,966 149,565 153,482 157,402
Operating Transfers-In 22,011 18,684 18,705 19,453 20,232 21,041 21,882 22,758 23,668 24,615 25,599 26,623 27,688
TOTAL REVENUES 144,947 139,433 140,962 143,271 144,599 149,009 153,573 158,376 163,763 169,581 175,164 180,105 185,090
Expenditures
Salaries 61,080 59,020 60,003 61,172 62,395 63,643 64,916 66,215 67,539 68,890 70,267 71,673 73,106
Benefits 32,900 29,525 29,645 33,392 37,180 40,923 42,487 48,142 52,071 56,159 60,461 65,063 69,844
Subtotal: Salaries and Benefits 93,980 88,545 89,648 94,564 99,576 104,567 107,403 114,357 119,610 125,048 130,729 136,736 142,950
Contract Services 8,899 10,180 10,591 10,382 10,833 11,116 11,449 11,792 12,146 12,510 12,885 13,272 13,670
Supplies & Materials 2,867 3,242 3,262 3,541 4,112 4,235 4,362 4,493 4,628 4,767 4,910 5,057 5,209
General Expense 9,341 10,022 10,448 10,172 10,375 10,686 11,007 11,337 11,677 12,027 12,388 12,760 13,143
Rents and Leases 627 663 663 774 789 813 837 862 888 915 942 970 999
Facilities and Equipment 1,734 452 452 459 468 482 496 511 526 542 558 575 592
Allocated Charges 14,540 15,371 15,371 15,102 15,404 14,646 15,085 15,538 16,004 16,484 16,979 17,488 18,013
Total Expenditures Before Transfers 131,988 128,475 130,435 134,994 141,557 146,545 150,639 158,890 165,479 172,293 179,391 186,858 194,576
Transfers to Other Funds
Operating Transfers Out 4,737 1,122 1,662 1,167 1,214 1,263 1,314 1,367 1,422 1,479 1,538 1,600 1,664
Transfer to Infrastructure 9,900 9,802 9,802 10,438 10,852 11,294 11,747 12,217 12,706 13,214 13,743 14,293 14,865
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 146,625 139,399 141,899 146,599 153,623 159,102 163,700 172,474 179,607 186,986 194,672 202,751 211,105
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap) (1,678) 33 (937) (3,328) (9,024) (10,092) (10,127) (14,098) (15,844) (17,405) (19,508) (22,645) (26,015)
Drawdown on BSR for BOA - - - - - - - - - - -
Net Operating Surplus/(Gap) (1,678) 33 (937) (3,328) (9,024) (10,092) (10,127) (14,098) (15,844) (17,405) (19,508) (22,645) (26,015)
Drawdown on Budget Stabilization Reserve -
Comprehensive Annual Fin. Rpt. Recon. (89)
Subtotal (89) - - - - - - - - - - -
GRAND NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT) (1,767)$ 33$ (937)$ (3,328)$ (9,024)$ (10,092)$ (10,127)$ (14,098)$ (15,844)$ (17,405)$ (19,508)$ (22,645)$ (26,015)$
2011-2021 LRFF - COMBINED PESSIMISTIC SCENARIOS
26 City of Palo Alto
2011
APPENDIX 2: CITY EXPENSE CHARTS
APPENDICES
Citywide Healthcare Expenses
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Mil
l
i
o
n
s
Active Employees Retirees
Citywide Pension Expense
$6.1
$4.8 $3.8 $2.4
$15.6
$18.2 $19.5$20.8
$22.9
$20.0 $19.5
$23.3 $24.8
$28.9
$6.9
$28.5
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$302000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
City of Palo Alto 27
2011
APPENDIX 3: EXCERPT FROM CIP BUDGET – BASIS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE
SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS
APPENDICES
28 City of Palo Alto
2011
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3: EXCERPT FROM CIP BUDGET – BASIS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE
SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS, CONTINUED
Visit our website at: www.CityofPaloAlto.org
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT STATEMENT
Contributors Nancy Nagel
Tarun Narayan
Christine Paras
Lalo Perez
Joe Saccio
Dale Wong
Graphics Copy Factory
& Printing Palo Alto
In compliance with
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990,
this document may be provided
in other accessible formats.
For information contact:
ADA Coordinator
City of Palo Alto
285 Hamilton Avenue
(650) 329-2550
The City of Palo Alto is located in northern Santa Clara County, approximately
35 miles south of the City of San Francisco and 12 miles north of the City of San Jose.
Spanish explorers named the area for the tall, twin-trunked redwood tree they camped
beneath in 1769. Palo Alto incorporated in 1894 and the State of California
granted its first charter in 1909.
Phone:650-329-2100 Fax:650-325-5025
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
www.cityofpaloalto.org
30% post-consumer recycled
1
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Excerpt from the Finance Committee minutes of
February 1, 2011
Chairperson Scharff called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Council
Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Scharff (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd
Absent: Yeh
3. Update to Long Range Financial Forecast, 2011-2021.
Director of Administrative Services, Lalo Perez gave a brief presentation of the
upcoming budget forecast. He started with a ten year view beginning with Fiscal
Year 2012. Staff was requesting feedback from the Finance Committee
regarding their thoughts on the forecast as it was presented.
Senior Financial Analyst, Nancy Nagel presented the assumptions and the
information the base model showed. She compared the differences between the
presented and past forecasts and walked through the alternate scenarios. She
explained there was an anticipated slow growth to financial revenue recovery
over the next ten year period. In the base model the anticipated growth would
average 3.1 percent per year, the landfill was a revenue based program and
therefore the closure meant there would be a $2.2 million loss in rent per year
beginning in 2013 to the General Fund. In terms of salaries, it was assumed
there would be no increases during the Fiscal Year 2012; for 2013 it had been
assumed the miscellaneous group would receive a 2 percent increase and for
2014 and the subsequent years there would be a 2 percent increase. In terms
of pensions, Staff had received an update from the Public Employee Retirement
System (PERS) it was determined by 2014 PERS would be 12.5 percent of the
General Fund budget. The 2012 figures were certain where the 2013 and 2014
figures were assumptions. Health care costs were assumed to increase by the
same percentages as in the actuarial valuation of retiree medical which was 6.5
percent per year for the first three years and 6 percent for the subsequent
2
years. The miscellaneous 90/10 cost sharing plan would begin on April 1, 2011.
For infrastructure the base model assumption was the financial reserve would
be that which was budgeted in the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget
which increased 4 percent per year. She noted earlier models included an
additional million dollars per year due to the need for increased funding in
infrastructure. Recent trends indicated City wide there would be a four fold
increase in pension costs between Fiscal Years 2001 and 2011. She stated for
the first five years of the forecast the expenses were higher than the revenues.
Later in the forecast the expenses level out into surplus. She summarized the
projections for the upcoming years as, in 2011 the deficit was $.9 million, in
2012 a $2.2 million, and she stated if you were to add the deficit with the
surplus together between 2011 and 2021 it added to a deficit of $11.3 million.
Mr. Perez stated the current forecast was more manageable than the previous
year; although, the Council may still have difficult decisions to make. He noted
if there were concessions from the safety labor groups there would be no gap in
2012. The current negotiations were with the Fire Department since the Police
Department was still under contract until June 30, 2011. He stated 41 percent
of the City’s budget was spent on the safety division, approximately $57
million. In the non-safety labor groups the City restructured to a two-tier
retirement system and will be beginning the cost sharing for the health care
premiums. He stated the structural changes have been effective, although if
there was still a deficit of $2 million that could likely lead to Staff showing the
Finance Committee recommendations in the proposed budget with eliminations
of services and a reduction in the work force.
Council Member Schmid stated the Utility Users Tax (UUT) passed coincident
with the assuming responsibilities of the Palo Alto Unified School District
(PAUSD). The payments to the PAUSD increased and he asked what the rates
of acceleration for those payments were.
Mr. Perez stated the increase was based on the inflation of the prior December.
For example Staff was currently calculating for December 2010 which was an
increase of 0.8 over the $6 million figure.
Council Member Schmid stated the UUT appeared to have doubled over the last
15 years. He asked whether the City was receiving a proportionate increase of
that tax each year.
Mr. Perez stated a small portion of the UUT was distributed to the PAUSD with
the remainder staying with the City.
Council Member Schmid stated if there was an increase in the utility rates of 6
percent, 3 percent would be going to the PAUSD.
3
Mr. Perez explained there were two sides to the UUT, the commodities and the
phone and taxes. He clarified the correlation between the UUT commodities was
related to rate increases. He noted there was a decrease of approximately
$250,000 in the phone area of the UUT due to a correction by a major
telephone carrier.
Council Member Schmid asked if the telephone tax went directly to the City or
was it part of the overall UUT sharing with the PAUSD.
Mr. Perez stated all the tax revenue was General Fund monies so all of it was
received directly to the City from the telephone companies.
Council Member Schmid stated the expectation of rents was increasing at a
slower rate than that of the other items listed.
Mr. Perez stated rents were tied into the cost of inflation and Staff felt the rate
of increase was along the appropriate line. He mentioned Stephen Levy, a local
economist had indicated if the revenues were in a 2 to 3 percent growth the
rents anticipated were reasonable.
Council Member Schmid stated in reviewing the base scenario of the forecast
the actual savings does not begin until 2015. He asked if the assumptions being
presented were realistic assumptions in a base case model. With the goal of the
base case model not being a forecast but more of a cure for what that City had
to deal with.
Mr. Perez stated the assumption was that the City was not going to see the
increases and absorb them but rather utilize them to renegotiate labor
agreements. He noted employees needed to give greater contributions to the
City as expenditures exceeded revenues. He clarified there needed to be a
balance between employee contributions and revenues.
Council Member Schmid stated the forecast showed an optimistic view with
regard to the safety labor groups accepting certain conditions. If that is the
case then there was twice the optimism that PERS would be able to run their
operation effectively.
Mr. Perez stated the PERS pension program results area were largely unknown
and therefore difficult to predict.
Council Member Schmid stated he saw there were assumptions being made in
the areas of retiree medical costs and pensions. He stated concerns with the
risks of putting in base case-assumptions regarding CalPERS making positive
strides in both the medical and pension arenas.
4
Mr. Perez stated the concerns were legitimate and he agreed. Unfortunately,
there was nothing else for Staff to base their assumptions on. The projected
PERS rates through 2014 were set for now and the medical actuary
assumptions were at 6 percent; those numbers were used to create the base
model figures.
Council Member Shepherd stated her first concern was the health care costs
which increased by 15-16 percent in the last year. She noted a recent court
ruling that influenced her opinion regarding the 6 percent increase being too
low. She felt CalPERS did not have a strong investment strategy. She stated her
understanding was if the safety labor groups joined the pension and health care
plans that contribution would provide cushion against the budget deficits. She
had a conflict with the projected infrastructure budget which she felt was too
low. As part of her infrastructure concern, she noted the Cubberley transaction
in 2014 might change which could add revenue or reduce expenses.
Mr. Perez stated the City paid approximately $6 million to the PAUSD for the
use of Cubberley and other sites. He noted the current contract had the option
to exercise a five-year extension which Council would need to decide in
December of 2013.
Council Member Shepherd stated the rents at Cubberly showed $0.60 to $0.70
per square foot for artists, she asked whether there were increases to the rents
or whether the rents had been reviewed as a potential source of funding to
make improvements to the facility.
Mr. Perez stated those were valid issues and were decision points being brought
forward for Council consideration. He stated the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon
Commission (IBRC) had requested information regarding the utilization of
assets and whether or not we were getting the market return for the facilities.
The answer was no, because of prior Council policy decisions which had allowed
for lower than market rents to non-profit organizations.
Chair Scharff agreed that the base case model was wildly optimistic and did not
consider the infrastructure issues. He noted each alternative scenario appeared
to cost an additional $10 million annually for infrastructure.
Mr. Perez stated that was an accurate assessment until the backlog is updated.
Chair Scharff stated the $10 million should be budgeted no matter which
scenario was chosen and the deficits should be shown so Council could make an
informed decision.
Mr. Perez stated what was being reviewed at the time was a forecast; Council
would have the opportunity make policy decisions during the proposed budget
process.
5
Chair Scharff stated if the City was serious regarding the intent of the IBRC and
resolving the infrastructure deficit the budget, whether forecasted, proposed or
actual it needed to reflect all of the necessary figures. He asked what Staff was
seeking from the Committee.
Mr. Perez stated Staff was looking for feedback from the Committee in regards
to what items in the forecast needed to be re-worked for a more proficient
discussion. He confirmed the Committee was requesting the base case model
should include the PERS increase of 3 percent after FY 2014, the 10 percent for
health care instead the assumed 6 percent, and the $10 million annually for
infrastructure.
Council Member Schmid asked for clarification on the amount of funds being
spent on the Capital Improvement and asked if it was funneling through the
Infrastructure Fund. The amount being spent on capital improvements was $20
million with $10 million of the total going through the Infrastructure Reserve.
His understanding was a large portion of the funds were used for technology
and vehicle replacement although a reasonable portion was reflecting Staff time
spent on infrastructure.
Mr. Perez stated that there were multiple sources of funding outside of the
General Fund such as State or Federal grants.
Council Member Schmid asked for clarification about why the amount being
budgeted was $10 million and the amount necessary was higher.
Mr. Perez stated the amount showed in the forecasted budget was the amount
being transferred into the Fund where there were remaining dollars from an
ongoing annual transfer.
Council Member Schmid stated to clarify there needed to be $20 million added
to the fund per year to make up for the long term forecast needing $400 million
over twenty years.
Mr. Perez stated the $20 million amount was subject to change with inflation
although it was a good number to bring to the discussion.
Council Member Schmid asked for an accurate amount that was being spent
each year on infrastructure including the $10 million from the Infrastructure
Reserve and the amount from other sources.
Mr. Perez stated Staff would return with firm numbers to assist in the
explanation in the multiple funding sources and resources.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification between Capital Projects and maintenance
of existing Capital Infrastructure.
6
Mr. Perez clarified there was an amount of ongoing work or maintenance
considered Capital. There was a certain amount that needed to be completed
each year as well as an amount of work that was considered backlog which
needed to be included in the numbers budgeted.
Acting Director of Public Works, Mike Sartor stated there was routine custodial
work or operating maintenance that was funded out of the Operating Budget.
Maintenance of a building came from the Capital Budget for items such as
roofing, unfinished or refurbished interior work, any project greater than
$50,000. Capital Improvements were when a building was remodeled or ground
breaking a new facility.
Council Member Schmid asked for clarification on the annual sidewalk
maintenance which was shown on the backlog schedule.
Mr. Sartor stated there were projects under contract which were annual Capital
Improvement Projects (CIPs) such as sidewalk maintenance.
Council Member Schmid asked whether that type of work was listed in the
Public Works budget or the Infrastructure Reserve Fund.
Mr. Sartor stated both funds were utilized. He clarified Infrastructure reserve
Fund monies were managed by the Public Works Department.
Council Member Schmid asked whether there were Public Works funds included
independent of the Infrastructure Reserve.
Mr. Perez stated the Public Works Department had an Operations Budget which
indeed incurred costs for the maintenance such as sidewalks.
Mr. Sartor explained the sidewalk maintenance program was unique to Palo
Alto. Part of the sidewalk Capital budget included the concrete crews who
perform the concrete work in the field.
Mr. Perez stated in an effort to eliminate future confusion in the terminology
being used surrounding the budget, the IBRC was altering the use of the term
maintenance which was used in both the Capital and the Operating Budgets.
Council Member Schmid asked why the Cubberley site, the bicycle or pedestrian
pathways, and the public safety building were not listed in the backlog
schedule.
Mr. Sartor stated the public safety building was mentioned in the note below
the backlog schedule although not significantly pointed out in the backlog itself.
He noted the list was currently being revised and prioritized.
7
Council Member Schmid stated the Cubberley site should be included.
Mr. Perez stated he felt the need could be identified although a note should be
retained informing the reader there were pending policy decisions.
Council Member Schmid stated he understood a portion of the facility was being
rented from the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and the City owned
eight acres.
Mr. Perez noted there were two policy decisions needing to be made
surrounding both the Cubberley site and the eight acres. The option to renew
the lease on the Cubberley site from the PAUSD was under consideration as
was the use of the eight acres by the Foothill/De Anza Community College. The
question at hand was whether the Capital Improvement Projects should be
completed without either of those options being decided.
Chair Scharff asked whether Staff would be bringing forward structural changes
that could offset the anticipated deficit of $11 million in 2012.
Mr. Perez stated that in the base there is an increase assumption that could be
removed. It would remove a million dollars in deficit in 2013. He add that if
there is no structural change there would be no salary increases.
Chair Scharff asked whether there was adequate Staff and resources to make
and identify the requested changes.
Mr. Perez stated given the current available resources he felt uncertain about
whether the changes could be made by the given timeframe of April 2011.
Council Member Schmid suggested if Staff returned to the full Council with a
decision on infrastructure and present their proposed changes it may alleviate
some necessary Staff strain.
Mr. Perez clarified Staff would have a separate discussion with the Council
regarding funding the additional $10 million for Infrastructure Reserves. He felt
a decision of that magnitude would be better served as a direction to Staff by
the full Council. He stated ensuring the full Council was going in the same
direction benefited the Staff performing the work.
Council Member Schmid stated the goal would be to present the actual updated
base number for the infrastructure data.
Mr. Perez stated Staff was not necessarily close to confirming the base data on
the needs for the infrastructure and noted recently the 17 members of the IBRC
had broken into three committees to corroborate the data.
8
Council Member Shepherd stated Council had given a clear direction to the
IBRC to examine the infrastructure needs and return to Council with a
methodology for paying for them. It was expected to have substantial figures
by the close of 2011; although since the IBRC was not ready with the data she
asked if Staff could present an anticipated timeframe.
Mr. Perez stated the IBRC members had significant concerns regarding which
funding sources should be involved in their discussions; Staff had informed
them which Funds were used for what type of work. They had informed Staff
they were not clear as to the timeline expected of them by Council. They
requested to present to Council their ideas and thoughts on their timeline and
request input form the Council.
Mr. Sartor stated there was a Study Session scheduled for March 14, 2011 to
review their work to date.
Mr. Perez suggested a Study Session on the Long Range Financial Forecast on
March 14th with the revisions requested by the Finance Committee the same
day the IBRC presented their work.
Chair Scharff stated he did not see there would be a need for less than $10
million per year in any of the presented scenarios.
Council Member Shepherd stated the current percentage of employees retiring
had been left off of the forecast; although having added in those figures it
would clearly alter the data. She asked how difficult it would be to consider the
trend in order to grasp a better understanding of when the 50/50 would begin,
where the City was paying for the same number of people who were retired as
were employed.
Mr. Perez stated the forecast was based on the assumption there would be no
changes to the 90/10 plan which would trigger another wave of retirements by
the end of March 2011. He stated there may be a difference in the numbers
with the rate of health care increases moving forward due to the dated health
care medical costs being used. A new actuarial as of June 30, 2011 will be
completed in the Fall of 2011.
Council Member Shepherd stated there seemed to be a trend in the increase of
regulatory costs which was occurring annually. She noted those costs did not
appear in the forecast and asked why.
Mr. Perez stated the lack of regulatory cost data placed under the impact
section was an oversight. He clarified Staff was reviewing the Legislative
information in an attempt to verify the costs and benefits that may be
implemented.
9
Council Member Shepherd stated the City needed to be aware of costs that
have not been implemented although could have future impacts to the budget,
such as Open Space shifting to CalFire. She voiced concern for services being
taken from the community in order for the City to stay regulated.
Mr. Perez stated Staff would include known information regarding the State
Legislative decisions as they could impact the City financials.
Council Member Schmid stated CalPERS had considered the average employee
was retiring at 30 years although Staff indicated the reality was after 22 years.
Ms. Nagel stated the time an employee worked prior to retirement was a
separate number than the retiree medical discussion. She clarified one reason
the PERS rates were inclining at such a steep rate for the next three years was
because of a new demographic study performed by PERS.
Mr. Perez stated Staff had compiled the financial impact of the retiree however
did not calculate the actual number of years employed prior to retirement. He
stated the concern was, as restructuring occurs within an agency, there were
fewer public employees therefore there was fewer people contributing to the
need of the funding. At some point there needs to be consistency for PERS to
be able to pay out, if that need is not met, there will be rate increases.