Minutes 01-26-2018 Retreat - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9 The following additional points were noted by the facilitator during the presentation: • In reply to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Mr. Knutson said that Management Partners recommends that the County use a ten year financial forecasting model instead of a five year model. They have two reasons for this. First, the longer view enables the analysis to consider that economic recessions occur about every 4-7 years. Second, the longer view also enables the analysis to capture the impacts of Orange County’s four-year property revaluation cycle. • In reply to a question from Commissioner Price about the Major Assumptions used in the modeling, Mr. Knutson said the growth in the set of operating cost drivers reflects growth in the number of staff as well as growth in the cost per staff person of health costs, salaries/benefits, etc. • In reply to a question from Commissioner Rich, the $11M annual structural imbalance does not include any tax increase associated with the recent bond. • In reply to a question from Commissioner Marcoplos, Ms. Ramaglia explained that the annual half-million dollars anticipated from Wegman’s offsets the impact of future recessions on the County’s sales tax projections. • In reply to a question from Commissioner Burroughs, Mr. Knutson said that the divergence (increase) of forecasted property tax revenue from the short term trend at 2021 is influenced by the growth of development in the county over time. • In reply to a question from Commissioner Rich, Mr. Knutson said that the property tax rate analysis does not include fees other than those fees directly related to the tax such as late payments and interest charges. • In reply to a question from Commissioner Jacobs about Intergovernmental Revenues, Ms. Ramaglia said that the $1.3M for the lottery is now included in this category after being reclassified from Miscellaneous. • In reply to a question from Commissioner Price, Ms. Ramaglia explained that the Intergovernmental forecast is being driven by two changes: a decision by the State to remove Social Service pass through fees from the County budget, and the reclassification of the education lottery into this category. Ms. Hammersley added that child care services will continue to be paid for, but they will be paid for by the State. • In reply to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Ms. Ramaglia said that the proposed impact fee for parks is not included in revenue from Transfers In category, although it is addressed in the study’s conclusions and recommendations. • In reply to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Ms. Hammersley said that Support Services includes IT, Human Resources, and Finance. Mr. Myren added that increases in personnel costs are assigned first to Support Services and then reallocated to the other categories as needed. • In reply to a question from Commissioner Price, Ms. Ramaglia explained that there is no growth in the forecast line for Transfers: School Capital Projects after 2020 because that line is based on the projected $1.3M education lottery revenues. • In reply to a question from Commissioner Burroughs, Mr. Myren said that the Baseline Forecast and Sample A Option assumes that the County does not drop to a revenue neutral position. Other options presented today do allow for revenue neutrality. • In reply to questions from Commissioners McKee and Price, Mr. Knudsen and Ms. Ramaglia said the model captures revenue expected from an assumed rate of growth in population and development, based on historical patterns. Revenue from development that would push beyond that historical pattern is not included. Mr. Benedict, Director of Planning and Inspections, explained that there is a 2% growth baseline built into the model. • In reply to a question from Commissioner Dorosin, Ms. Hammersley said that even under phase-in scenarios, such as Sample Option B, the Board retains the flexibility to set the tax