Community Budget Meetings Report

Community Budget Meetings Report Executive Summary

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The City of Winston-Salem continually seeks to involve citizens in the budget process. During these tough economic times, it is even more important to engage citizens to understand their needs. To that end, we, the Winston-Salem Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council (CBAC), working with budget office staff, discussed the idea of holding community meetings to gather input from City residents about the budget process. Through interacting with citizens, CBAC would be able to relay information to the City Council and staff about the needs and desires of city residents. This idea was proposed to City Council on December 13, 2010 as a follow-up to the long-range general fund forecast presentation. Citizen Engagement Process The CBAC sponsored four community budget meetings the week of January 24, 2011. The meetings were held on January 24th at the Carl Russell Recreation Center, January 25th at the Georgia Taylor Recreation Center, January 26th at the Old Town Recreation Center, and January 27th at the Sedge Garden Recreation Center. The respective recreation centers were chosen for their locations throughout the City in an effort to allow for maximum attendance. Overall, there were 78 individuals who participated in the meetings, with total attendance per meeting ranging from 17 to 28. The meetings were publicized in the Winston-Salem Journal, the Winston-Salem Chronicle, and on the City website. Also, the City’s Office of Community Assistance distributed flyers and contacted neighborhood association presidents about the meetings. At these meetings, we started off with a staff presentation on the long-range budget outlook followed by general discussion, a survey ranking city services by importance, and small group conversations providing feedback on other budget issues. Specifically, the survey included questions that asked citizens to rank the importance of specific City services and to identify services that should be reduced and those that should not be reduced. Similarly, the questions posed in the small group discussions focused on defining core services and determining what the City should be doing and not doing during tough economic times. The discussion questions also sought to identify what new or increased revenue sources the City should consider to close potential funding gaps. Organization of the Report The full report provides information concerning logistics, methodology, results, and findings. Conclusions are summarized on the last page of the report. The report also includes three appendices that provide the meeting presentation materials, verbatim questions and comments resulting from the budget presentation (Appendix A), budget survey and survey responses (Appendix B), and small group discussion questions and responses/comments (Appendix C). Conclusions General conclusions of two types can be drawn from this report. First, we can draw conclusions as to what the meeting attendees considered most important to them and what they would define as core services of the City (i.e., those services that they consider essential and highly important to the community). Second, we can summarize the verbal comments of the attendees into general themes about the City’s service costs and revenues.

Core Services. In both the survey and group discussion questions, public safety and environmental health were ranked as the most important services. In the Public Safety category, Police and Fire were consistently ranked high. In Environmental Health, sanitation was identified as a core service, with more than 80% of survey respondents ranking refuse collection as a service of high or medium importance. However, only 2628% of survey responses ranked brush, leaf, and bulky item collections as highly important. Several suggestions were made during group discussions to examine these collection schedules and potentially decrease these services. Both traffic maintenance and street lighting were also rated as high priority services in the survey. Inspections was also a high priority service in the survey and mentioned by four of the small groups as a core service. Public transit was ranked as a core service by six of the nine small groups. Also, 67.3% of survey respondents labeled public transit as a high or medium priority service. Only three respondents suggested cutting public transit services in the open-ended section of the survey. Economic development was mentioned by three out of the nine small groups as a core service, and 71% of survey respondents rated it a high or medium priority. Among the lower-ranked services, the coliseum and convention center were identified as medium or low priority services by more than 80% of respondents. Likewise, only one small group considered the coliseum as a core service. Swimming pools and athletics programs also ranked as some of the lowest priorities in the survey. Themes. The major and minor themes charts in the verbal comments summary help illustrate the general comments that recurred throughout the meetings. One major theme was the need to examine the size of City government, including the number of positions. The most frequent comments expressed were cutting positions, cutting salaries, examining benefits, contracting out services, and increasing efficiency. These comments, in aggregate, suggest that many of the attendees are worried about the personnel costs associated with running the City. Also, looking at the themes overall, the focus is to reduce expenses rather than to raise taxes. Only two suggestions were made to raise the property tax rate if necessary. In conclusion, the comments, survey responses, and suggestions of the meeting attendees provide budget-related citizen input that we hope will be useful to City Council and staff, as the City continues to face budget challenges in the future. Because the information provided represents feedback from a small group of citizens, not a scientific sample, we have not included any recommendations. Rather, this report is extended to Council as information only. We extend our appreciation to those citizens who took the time to participate in the community budget meetings. The Budget and Evaluation Office will email this report to those citizens who provided their email addresses at the meetings. The report also will be posted on the City website. We thank the City Council and City Manager for this opportunity to help increase citizen engagement in the budget process.

Community Budget Meetings Report Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

March 17, 2011

March 17, 2011

Table of Contents Background and Introduction……………………………………………………………..

1

Budget Meeting Methodology and Reporting……………………………………..

2

Methodology for Collecting Survey Comments…………………………………….

4

Summary Responses to Survey Questions………………………………….

4

Methodology for Collecting and Reporting Verbal Comments..………..

8

Summary of All Verbal Comments and Suggestions…………………..

9

Summary of Small Group Suggestions and Comments………………

11

Conclusions…………………………………..……………………………………………………

14

Appendix A…………………………………………………………………………………………

A1

General Fund Outlook Presentation………………………………………………… A2 Individual Comments and Questions………………………………………………. A7

Appendix B………………………………………………………………………………………….

B1

Budget Survey………………………………………………………………………………. B2 Survey Responses by Location………………………………………………………… B4

Appendix C………………………………………………………………………………………….

C1

Small Group Discussion Questions………………………………………………… C2 Responses to Group Discussion Questions………………………………………. C3

March 17, 2011

March 17, 2011

Background and Introduction The City of Winston-Salem continually seeks to involve citizens in the budget process. During these tough economic times, it is even more important to engage citizens to understand their needs. To that end, we, the Winston-Salem Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council (CBAC), working with budget office staff, discussed the idea of holding community meetings to gather input from City residents about the budget process. Through interacting with citizens, CBAC would be able to relay information to the City Council and staff about the needs and desires of city residents. This idea was proposed to City Council on December 13, 2010 as a follow-up to the long-range general fund forecast presentation. To gather budget-related information from residents, CBAC members hosted four public meetings at recreation centers located throughout the City, on January 24-27, 2011. The centers were chosen geographically to allow for the greatest number of attendees. The meetings were held MondayThursday of the same week in hopes that those who wished to attend would have at least one free evening during the week. After the centers and dates were chosen, the meetings were announced in the Winston-Salem Journal, the Winston-Salem Chronicle, and on the City website. Also, the City’s Office of Community Assistance distributed flyers and contacted neighborhood association presidents about the meetings. At these meetings, we started off with a staff presentation on the long-range budget outlook followed by general discussion, a survey ranking city services by importance, and small group conversations providing feedback on other budget issues. Specifically, the survey included questions that asked citizens to rank the importance of specific City services and to identify services that should be reduced and those that should not be reduced. Similarly, the questions posed in the small group discussions focused on defining core services and determining what the City should be doing and not doing during tough economic times. The discussion questions also sought to identify what new or increased revenue sources the City should consider to close potential funding gaps. In the pages that follow, we have outlined information concerning logistics, methodology, results, and findings. Conclusions are summarized on the last page of the report. The appendices provide the meeting presentation materials, verbatim questions and comments resulting from the budget presentation (Appendix A), budget survey and survey responses (Appendix B), and small group discussion questions and responses/comments (Appendix C). We specifically do not offer “recommendations” due to the fact that the meeting attendees do not represent a scientific sample of the city’s population. Rather, we provide this report in the hope that the service rankings, comments, and suggestions will be useful to the City Council and City Manager as they prepare for the budget challenges of the future. We extend our appreciation to those citizens who took the time to participate in the community budget meetings. The Budget and Evaluation Office will email this report to those citizens who provided their email addresses at the meetings. The report also will be posted on the City website.

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page 1

Budget Meeting Methodology and Reporting The City of Winston Salem Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council (CBAC) sponsored four community budget meetings the week of January 24, 2011. The meetings were held on January 24 th at the Carl Russell Recreation Center, January 25th at the Georgia Taylor Recreation Center, January 26th at the Old Town Recreation Center, and January 27th at the Sedge Garden Recreation Center. The respective recreation centers were chosen for their locations throughout the City in an effort to allow for maximum attendance. Over the course of the week, a total of 78 residents attended the meetings. Two people attended two meetings and one person attended three meetings making the total number of attendees 82 for all four meetings. Breakdowns of attendees by meeting and attendees by zip code are provided below: Attendees by Location Location Carl H. Russell, Sr. Recreation Center Georgia E. Taylor Neighborhood Recreation Center Old Town Neighborhood Recreation Center Sedge Garden Neighborhood Recreation Center Total

# of Attendees 28 17 18 19 82

Attendees by Zip Code Zip Code 27105 27106 27107 27104 27127 27040 27284 27103 N/A 27045 27101 27102

# of Attendees 23 11 10 9 8 5 4 3 2 1 1 1

Staff collected information from residents in two different formats: verbal comments taken at the meetings and written comments submitted via paper survey. The purpose of these meetings was to gather input from citizens that could be used to frame discussions for the City’s operating budget and capital planning process.

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page 2

The meetings were scheduled to last approximately 90 minutes. The agenda was as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Introduction by CBAC member Presentation of General Fund outlook by Deputy Budget Director Comments and questions by residents related to General Fund outlook Completion of a survey by residents Small group discussions Wrap-up and next steps

Results found in this report are taken from two sources: verbal comments made by residents during the meetings (steps 3 and 5 above) and surveys filled out by residents (step 4 above). Those results are reported in five sections: Methodology and Summary of Responses to Survey Questions – This section describes how the survey was administered and provides charts and graphs presenting the survey results. Methodology and Reporting of Verbal Comments – This section describes how verbal comments were recorded and reported. The results are broken into two sub-sections: o Summary of All Verbal Comments – This sub-section compiles the information from the small group discussion questions and general comments made related to the presentation. This sub-section reports the major and minor themes found in the verbal comments. o Summary of Small Group Discussion Questions – This sub-section summarizes the responses given to each small group discussion question. Conclusions – General conclusions Appendix A –This appendix provides the General Fund Outlook Presentation. It also reports all comments and questions posed by attendees about the presentation. Appendix B – This appendix provides a copy of the small group discussion questions and all of the responses to those questions. Appendix C - This appendix provides a copy of the budget survey and all of the responses to those questions, broken down by meeting.

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page 3

Methodology for Collecting Survey Comments The survey was provided to the attendees as they signed in before the meeting started. They were given an opportunity to fill in the survey as the meeting progressed and prior to the small group discussions. Surveys were collected before the attendees left the meeting. Fifty-eight surveys were returned out of a total attendance of eighty-two. A copy of the survey is provided in Appendix B. All of the responses for each survey question are recorded and compiled in the following overall summary and by date/location in the appendix.

Summary of Responses to Survey Questions Survey Question #1 - Please rate how important the following services are to you. Police Fire Emergency Management Refuse Collection Recycling Brush Collection Seasonal Leaf Collection Bulky Item Collection Housing Code Enforcement Housing Development

Economic Development Initiatives Support to Community Agencies Traffic Maintenance Street Lighting Street & Sidewalk Maintenance Public Bus Service Recreation Centers

Parks and Open Space/Greenways Swimming Pools Athletic Programs Coliseum Complex Convention Center City Building Maintenance Planning Building Inspections/Zoning Enforcement

For survey question #1, the attendee was asked to rank each service High, Medium, Low, or No Opinion. The overall top five rated services selected were: Police, Fire, Emergency Management, Traffic Maintenance, and Street Lighting. The lowest six rated services were: Swimming Pools, Convention Center, Seasonal Leaf Collection, Brush Collection, Bulky Item Collection, and Coliseum Complex. Six are identified as the lowest because three have the same number of responses.

Survey Question #1 Response Totals and Percentages Total Responses Services Police Fire Emergency Management Refuse Collection Recycling Brush Collection Seasonal Leaf Collection Bulky Item Collection Housing Code Enforcement Housing Development Economic Development Initiatives Support to Community Agencies Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

High 53 52 46 27 17 15 15 16 25 18 24 16

Med 5 5 10 20 26 23 22 21 21 23 17 22

Low 0 1 1 5 13 17 19 17 11 12 11 9

No Opinion 0 0 1 6 2 3 2 4 1 5 6 11

Percent of Total Responses High 91.4 89.7 79.3 46.6 29.3 25.9 25.9 27.6 43.1 31.0 41.4 27.6

Med 8.6 8.6 17.2 34.5 44.8 39.7 37.9 36.2 36.2 39.7 29.3 37.9

Low 0.0 1.7 1.7 8.6 22.4 29.3 32.8 29.3 19.0 20.7 19.0 15.5

No Opinion 0.0 0.0 1.7 10.3 3.4 5.2 3.4 6.9 1.7 8.6 10.3 19.0 Page 4

Total Responses Services

Percent of Total Responses No High Med Low Opinion

High

Med

Low

No Opinion

34 32 27 19 17 14 7

16 14 16 20 25 29 24

4 12 9 15 13 14 25

4 0 6 4 3 1 2

58.6 55.2 46.6 32.8 29.3 24.1 12.1

27.6 24.1 27.6 34.5 43.1 50.0 41.4

6.9 20.7 15.5 25.9 22.4 24.1 43.1

6.9 0.0 10.3 6.9 5.2 1.7 3.4

Coliseum Complex Convention Center City Building Maintenance Planning

8 7 7 13 26

22 29 25 31 18

21 17 24 10 10

7 5 2 4 4

13.8 12.1 12.1 22.4 44.8

37.9 50.0 43.1 53.4 31.0

36.2 29.3 41.4 17.2 17.2

12.1 8.6 3.4 6.9 6.9

Building Inspections/ Zoning Enforcement

25

21

10

2

43.1

36.2

17.2

3.4

Traffic Maintenance (Signals, Signs, And Markings)

Street Lighting Street & Sidewalk Maintenance Public Bus Service Recreation Centers Parks and Open Space/Greenways Swimming Pools Athletic Programs (Softball, Basketball, etc.)

Green: The 5 highest ranked services

Yellow: The 6 medium ranked services

Red: The 6 lowest ranked services

The following chart provides the number of rankings of high importance for each service.

53 52

46 34 32

27 27 26 25 25 24

19 18 17 17 16 16 15 15

14 13

8 7 7 7

Parks and Open… City Building… Athletic Programs… Swimming Pools Coliseum Complex Convention Center

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Police Fire Emergency… Traffic Maintenance… Street Lighting Refuse Collection Street & Sidewalk… Planning Housing Code… Building Inspections/ … Economic… Public Bus Service Housing Development Recycling Recreation Centers Bulky Item Collection Support to… Brush Collection

Number of Responses

Services Ranking by High

Services

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page 5

Survey Question #2 – Are there any programs or services that you believe should not be reduced during the upcoming budget? Survey question #2 had approximately 149 written responses. A majority of the comments are oneword or short-phrase responses. If a full sentence or paragraph is written with mention of multiple services, the individual service is counted as a separate response. The services are categorized by service areas and sorted based on the frequency of the response. The Public Safety service area received the most frequent responses with almost 50% of the total responses. Within this service area, Police and Fire were the most noted services that should not be reduced during the upcoming budget. The Environmental Health service area received the second most responses with over 14% of the overall responses. Within the Environmental Health service area, Sanitation/Refuse/Trash Collection received the highest number of responses for services that should not be reduced during the upcoming budget. The Community and Economic Development service area falls as the third highest at 13% of the overall responses. A special note should be made that there were 5 responses indicating that all services should be reduced or considered for reduction and 3 responses indicating that all services should be maintained in order to maintain the community’s quality of life. The following chart shows the number of responses by service area. Appendix B provides the total responses for specific services and programs noted on the surveys.

Survey Question #2: Responses By Service Area Total Responses = 149 80

72

70

Frequency

60 50 40 30

21

20 10

19

13

11

8

3

2

0

Note: The Recreation and Culture service area includes the City's public assembly facilities such as the Convention Center. This area also received a high number of responses for services that should be reduced.

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page 6

Survey Question #3 – Are there any programs or services that you believe should be reduced during the upcoming budget? Survey Question #3 had approximately 84 written responses. A majority of the comments are one-word or short-phrase responses. If a full sentence or paragraph is written with mention of multiple services, the individual service is counted as a separate response. The services are categorized by service areas and sorted based on the frequency of the response. The Recreation and Culture service area received the most responses with 20% of the total responses for services that should be reduced during the upcoming budget. Within this service area, the Coliseum received the most responses with 35% of the total responses. The Community and Economic Development service area received the second most responses with 19% of the total responses. A special note should be made that there were 6 responses indicating that all services should be reduced or considered for reduction and 5 responses indicating that no services should be reduced during the upcoming budget.

Survey Question #3: Responses By Service Area Total Responses = 84 18

17

16

16

Frequency

14

14

13

12 10 8 6 4 2

8

8 5 2

1

0

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page 7

Survey Question #4 – Other Comments Survey Question #4 received eighteen responses in topics that ranged from general budget suggestions to compliments and complaints. The detailed responses can be found in Appendix B. A summary of the responses are listed in the table below.

Methodology for Collecting and Reporting Verbal Comments The budget staff developed four small group discussion questions for the budget meetings. The questions were designed to gauge resident responses about services and revenue sources during tough economic times. The discussion questions are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

What do you consider to be the City’s core services? During these tough economic times, what should the City be doing and not doing? What, if any, revenue sources should be considered to close potential funding gaps? What other budget ideas should be considered?

To answer the four discussion questions above, the attendees were broken into small groups, and each group was assigned a City staff member to record all answers/comments and help moderate the group discussion when needed. All citizen comments were recorded on flip charts by City staff to be compiled later into the appendices at the end of this report. Over the course of four meetings, a total of nine small groups were formed from the 82 attendees. To summarize the themes found in the verbal comments, staff tallied the responses from each meeting for each discussion question. For discussion question #1 relating to core services, the information is presented as a chart showing the number of responses for each service. There were nine small groups; therefore, the scale is from one to nine – determined by the number of small groups who suggested the service was a core service. For discussion questions #2 through #4, staff tallied the responses and assigned the responses to thematic categories. Creating themes allows the reader to grasp the general ideas expressed at the meetings without having to read all of the data. Further, the comments in response to the General Fund outlook presentation were also tallied and assigned to the thematic categories. The charts depicting these themes can be found on pages 9 and 10. The budget staff categorized the comments into major and minor themes based on the frequency of responses. The major themes chart and the minor themes chart provide the most prevalent themes found in the verbal comments made by attendees at all budget meetings. Major themes are defined as ideas that were expressed more than nine times, and minor themes are defined as ideas that were expressed between five and eight times.

Summary of All Verbal Comments and Suggestions Made at the Four Meetings The themes presented in the charts below were developed from responses to the discussion questions and the General Fund outlook presentation. The themes reflect the ideas most often expressed at the meetings. The themes were created by reviewing individual comments to determine broad ideas expressed in the meetings. Brief definitions of each theme can be found in the bullet points on the next two pages.

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page 8

Major Themes (those expressed more than nine times): Increase/Study Efficiency and Reduce Waste: The City should look for ways to reduce waste and achieve greater efficiency in all operating areas. Cut Positions: The City should look to reduce its workforce. This could be done through acrossthe-board cuts, vacancy freezes, attrition, and early retirement incentives. Pursue New Revenues Sources: The City should be proactive and entrepreneurial in finding new ways to generate revenue. A few suggestions included seeking new grants, providing for advertising on public transit, looking into providing and charging for wireless internet service, establishing revenue generating events, and seeking corporate sponsorships. Reduce Salaries: The City should reduce the current salaries it pays to its employees. Increase/Create User Fees: The City should examine and increase user fees to offset costs. The City should look at services for which it could charge user fees. Service Cuts: The City should look at the possibility of cutting some non-essential services.

Major Themes

18 18

14

Number of Comments

16 14

13 11

12

10

10

9

8 6 4 2 0 Increase/study efficiency (reduce waste)

Cut positions

Pursue new Reduce salaries Increase/create revenue sources user fees

Service cuts (including closing facilities)

Minor Themes (those expressed 5-8 times): Examine Vehicle Usage: The City should examine take-home vehicle usage, personal use of City vehicles, and situations where more efficient vehicles could be used. Examine/Reduce Sanitation Collections: The City should examine current sanitation schedules and services and potentially cut the frequency of certain collections. Consolidate Services: The City should eliminate duplication of services in departments. Also, the City should seek to consolidate services and departments with Forsyth County. Cut General Fund Subsidies: The City should cut General Fund subsidies to the Convention Center, LJVM, and WSTA. Focus on Core Services: The City should focus on core services expressed by residents. Economic Development: The City should seek to promote development by attracting new businesses, investing in current businesses, and potentially rezoning property. Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page 9

Charge Non-Residents for Services: The City should research and impose a fee of some sort on non-residents who use City services. Several comments included imposing a non-resident payroll tax. Contracting Out Services: The City should contract out services where appropriate. Seek General Assembly Authority for Sales Tax Increase: The City should lobby the General Assembly for a sales tax increase. Examine Benefits and Retirement: The City should look into cutting benefit costs. No Long-Term Projects or Major Buildings: The City should not be engaging in major capital projects during a recession.

Minor Themes Number of Comments

8 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

8 7

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

7

7

7 6

6

6 5

5

Page 10

Summary of Small Group Suggestions and Comments Question 1) What do you consider to be the City’s core services (most important)?

Number of Comments

Core Services 9

9

9

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

6

6 4 2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

For discussion question #1, the chart above presents the core services identified in the small group discussions. Because all comments were recorded, if one person in a group suggested it, the budget staff recorded the service as a group comment. Because there were nine small groups, the number of comments, or frequency, of responses is between one and nine. All nine groups identified Police and Fire as core services. All nine groups also considered sanitation a principal City service. Public transit was identified by six small groups. However, one response was qualified as “some public transportation,” and one response was recorded as general transportation. Both responses were counted in the total of six comments. Sic groups also identified water and sewer services as core services. For discussion questions #2 through #4, the comments are reported in the same thematic categories described on previous pages. The charts for each question present themes based on ideas expressed by three or more small groups. All of the comments from each small group are documented in Appendix C.

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page 11

Question 2) During these tough economic times, what should the city be doing and not doing?

Themes Regarding What the City Should and Should Not Be Doing (Expressed by Three or More Small Groups)

Frequency

8 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

6

6

5

5

4

3

3

3

3

Note: These themes mainly focus on what the City should be doing. Three groups recommended that the City should not invest in long-term projects or major buildings at this time. For question #2, staff recorded citizen comments about what the City should be doing and not doing. Comments from the “Do” and “Don’t Do” lists were combined and assigned to themes for reporting. The most prevalent idea was for the City to study and increase efficiency. Six out of the nine groups recommended examining and potentially cutting sanitation collection cycles as a cost saving initiative. Six groups also suggested focusing on core services (as identified in question #1). Five groups suggested cutting positions and cutting subsidies to the Convention Center, the Coliseum, and the Winston-Salem Transit Authority.

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page 12

Question 3) What, if any, revenue sources should be considered to close potential funding gaps?

Themes Regarding Revenue Sources to Close Potential Funding Gaps

Frequency

(Expressed by Three or More Small Groups)

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

9 7 4

3

3

3

For question #3, attendees were asked what revenue sources should be pursued to close funding gaps. By far, most suggestions fell under the theme of pursuing new/alternative revenue sources. There were many suggestions including advertising on Winston-Salem Transit Authority vehicles, seeking out corporate sponsorships, enhancing collection of delinquent receivables, seeking new federal and state grants, enlisting volunteers, and providing wireless internet service for a fee. Seven out of the nine groups suggested raising user fees or creating new user fees for services. While many groups suggested raising user fees in general, parking, code enforcement, and coliseum fees specifically were mentioned for potential increases. Four groups also mentioned lobbying the General Assembly to change sales tax statutes to create more revenue for municipalities. Also, three small groups mentioned charging a nonresident tax. Staff will look into the availability of this revenue source.

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page 13

Question 4) What other budget ideas should be considered? Question #4 asked attendees to comment on other budget ideas. Although all four discussion questions were open-ended, this question drew the most varied responses. The most frequent ideas expressed were increasing efficiency, cutting positions, and cutting services and closing facilities. Due to the openended nature of this question, staff suggests that you examine all comments to this question, which are provided in Appendix C. Comments recorded by City staff at the conclusion of the General Fund outlook presentation During each meeting, attendees were given an opportunity to ask questions and give comments regarding the General Fund outlook presentation. The most frequent ideas expressed were reducing salaries, cutting positions, examining vehicle usage, and examining benefits and retirement. Due to the open-ended nature of the comments, staff suggests that you examine all comments, which are provided in Appendix A.

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page 14

Conclusions General conclusions of two types can be drawn from this report. First, we can draw conclusions as to what the meeting attendees considered most important to them and what they would define as core services of the City. Second, we can summarize the verbal comments of the attendees into general themes about the City’s service costs and revenues. Core Services. The core services of the City are expressed in group discussion question #1 and in questions #1-#3 in the survey. In both the survey and group discussion questions, public safety and environmental health were ranked as the most important services. In the Public Safety category, Police and Fire were consistently ranked high. In Environmental Health, sanitation was identified as a core service, with more than 80% of survey respondents ranking refuse collection as a service of high or medium importance. However, only 26-28% of survey responses ranked brush, leaf, and bulky item collections as highly important. Several suggestions were made during group discussions to examine these collection schedules and potentially decrease these services. Both traffic maintenance and street lighting were also rated as high priority services in the survey. Inspections were also a high priority service in the survey and mentioned by four of the small groups as a core service. Public transit was ranked as a core service by six of the nine small groups. Also, 67.3% of survey respondents labeled public transit as a high or medium priority service. Only three respondents suggested cutting public transit services in the open-ended section of the survey. Economic development was mentioned by three out of the nine small groups as a core service, and 71% of survey respondents rated it a high or medium priority. Among the lower-ranked services, the coliseum and convention center were identified as medium or low priority services by more than 80% of respondents. Likewise, only one small group considered the coliseum as a core service. Swimming pools and athletics programs also ranked as some of the lowest priorities in the survey. Themes. The major and minor themes charts in the verbal comments summary help illustrate the general comments that recurred throughout the meetings. One major theme was the need to examine the size of City government, including the number of positions. The most frequent comments expressed were cutting positions, cutting salaries, examining benefits, contracting out services, and increasing efficiency. These comments, in aggregate, suggest that many of the attendees are worried about the personnel costs associated with running the City. Also, looking at the themes overall, the focus is to reduce expenses rather than to raise taxes. Only two suggestions were made to raise the property tax rate if necessary. In conclusion, the comments, survey responses, and suggestions of the meeting attendees provide budget-related citizen input that we hope will be useful to City Council and staff, as the City continues to Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page 15

face budget challenges in the future. Because the information provided represents feedback from a small group of citizens, not a scientific sample, we have not included any recommendations. Rather, this report is extended to Council as information only. We extend our appreciation to those citizens who took the time to participate in the community budget meetings. The Budget and Evaluation Office will email this report to those citizens who provided their email addresses at the meetings. The report also will be posted on the City website. We thank the City Council and City Manager for this opportunity to help increase citizen engagement in the budget process.

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page 16

Appendix A Budget Presentation Comments and Questions Related to General Fund Outlook Presentation

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page A 1

City Budget Outlook FY 10-11 through FY 15-16

Community Budget Meetings

1

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page A 2

Property Tax Base History and Projections $25.0

$18.86

$20.0

$19.63 $20.06

$21.44 $21.29 $21.33 $21.43 $21.64 $21.85 $22.07

Billions

$16.85 $15.0

$10.0

$5.0

$0.0 Actual 2006

Actual 2007

Actual 2008

Actual 2009

Actual 2010

Est 2011

Proj 2012

Proj 2013

Proj 2014

Proj 2015

Proj 2016

Fiscal Year Notes Future growth assumptions – FY 2012 = 0% ; FY 2013 = 0.5%; FY 2014-2016 = 1% 3

Sales Tax History and Projections $35.0 $30.0

$30.7 $28.2

$29.7

Actual 2006

Actual 2007

$29.8 $27.0

$26.8

$27.2

$27.4

$27.3

$27.3

$27.5

Actual 2010

Est 2011

Proj 2012

Proj 2013

Proj 2014

Proj 2015

Proj 2016

Millions

$25.0 $20.0 $15.0 $10.0 $5.0 $0.0 Actual 2008

Actual 2009

Fiscal Year Note Future growth assumptions of 1% to 2% are offset in part by decreasing share of the tax that goes to the City, which is based on the proportion of the property tax levy that goes to the City, compared to other Forsyth County jurisdictions.

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

4

Page A 3

General Fund Expenditure and Revenue History FY 07 through FY 10 actual, FY 11 estimated, and FY 12 through FY 16 projected 200.0 192.2 186.9

190.0 181.9 177.2

180.0

173.1

172.8

$-in millions

170.0

168.6

169.2

165.4

158.9 160.0 156.7 150.0 140.0

Property taxes for 2006 annexation were not levied until 2007.

168.8

166.6 165.7

168.4

Impact of FY 09 economic recession resulted in -$1.2 M in fund balance.

170.0

169.5

165.3 165.6 Stimulus funds drop off in FY 13 and FY 14 & "Sunset" for "hold harmless" revenue in FY 14

166.8

130.0 120.0 110.0 100.0 FY 07

FY 08

FY 09

FY 10

FY 11 est. FY 12 proj. FY 13 proj. FY 14 proj. FY 15 proj. FY 16 proj. Revenues

Expenditures

6

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page A 4

Future Challenges • Low growth projected for major City revenue sources (property tax, sales tax, construction-related revenue) • Losing Federal funding for 25 police officers and other Police grants (-$760,050 in FY 12-13, -$850,530 in FY 13-14, -$120,000 in FY 14-15, and -$50,000 in FY 15-16) • Losing “hold harmless” revenue from the State ($3.7 M in FY 13-14) • Reinstating employee merit pay increases (2% per year, starting in FY 11-12) • Increasing cost of employee benefits, primarily for retirement contributions to the State and local systems (+$2.3 M per year, starting in FY 12-13, and a 5% increase per year) • Growing pressure to replace aging equipment (forecast 7 includes +$28.75 M in replacements over 5 years)

Potential Budget Threat from the State • With the loss of Federal ARRA funds for FY 12, the State could be facing a $3.9 B gap for the coming year. City revenues “at risk” when the State is short of funds could include the following. ($-impact on general fund in FY 12) – – – – – – – – –

Repeal of local government sales tax refunds (-$750,000) Beer and Wine Tax (up to -$1,119,370) Gasoline Tax (up to -$4,983,000) Utilities Franchise Tax (up to -$13,803,790) “Hold Harmless” Payment (-$3,704,070) ABC revenues (-$600,000) State Fire Insurance (-$83,280) State Highway Maintenance (up to -$80,000) State Traffic System Maintenance (up to -$437,000)

8

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page A 5

Next Steps • CBAC and staff to summarize the results of the service level discussions undertaken at the community budget meetings • CBAC Chairman to present a summary of citizen discussions as a part of the pre-budget workshop with the City Council in March, 2011 • Annual operating budget to reference citizen concerns and suggestions identified through the service discussion process

9

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page A 6

Questions and Comments Resulting from the Budget Presentation Note: All questions were answered by city staff. January 24, 2011 – Carl H. Russell Recreation Center Comments: There seem to be a lot of City vehicles at fast food restaurants during working hours. Employees are taking trucks (utilities, public works) for personal use. A cost of living increase for City employees is not necessary. City employees have not taken salary cuts like other businesses. Look for internal management cuts that would not affect service delivery. The City should charge non-residents for emergency response calls. The City should get rid of the coliseum. The City needs to cut jobs by as much as 1/3 of the City workforce. Fire marshals are disseminating incorrect information to citizens and there are more than needed. Fire inspections are not taking place. The marshals drive around and never perform inspections. Cut down on the personal use of public vehicles. The private sector is losing jobs and not offering COLAs; the city should not offer COLAs. Look into early retirement packages. Look into using smaller vehicles as first responder vehicles. The City needs to cut positions. The City should privatize landscaping and street cleaning services. Water and sewer rates are already high; do not raise them. The City should expand interdepartmental services to cut duplication of services. The City should contract out for services to reduce employee costs. There should be a breakdown of exactly what services (activities) recreation provides. Questions: Should building inspectors be riding two to a car? Who pays for the gas when Fire trucks are deployed? How much return do we get on the sale of vehicles? Is money returned from sale of vehicles used to buy new vehicles? How can we save money at the convention center? How much is the bus service actually subsidized? Does the City pay to support PART? Why don’t we have subcontractors for services other than snow removal? Does the City anticipate increases in any revenue sources? Is there a replacement schedule for City vehicles? Why are fire trucks used for all emergency service calls? What are the current public transportation ridership figures? What is NCLM doing to create new legislation regarding Hold Harmless revenue?

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page A 7

January 25, 2011 – Georgia E. Taylor Neighborhood Recreation Center Comments: The City has a financial responsibility for the annexations it has done. The City should cut salaries by 20%, similar to what is happening in the private sector. The City should look at staffing cuts. Administration salaries are too high in the City. The City should not be forecasting for employee merit increases. The City should do a pay study of the highly paid officials to determine what they are making compared to large businesses in Winston Salem. The City should consider offering early retirement. Be fair when examining position cuts. Do not eliminate service positions without eliminating management and administrative positions. Questions: Why do we have a hold harmless payment? Why does the ½ cent increase (associated with the hold harmless payment) not cover our lost revenue? Does the City have its own retirement plan? Do employees participate in the City/County retirement plan? Is the contribution to the City’s retirement fund enough to cover the liability? Why were these meeting only designed to cover the General Fund if the General Fund is less than half of the City’s Budget? How does the City go about determining financial responsibility when it comes to annexations? Does the City intend to annex farmland? Does the revenue taken in as a result of annexation cover the cost of providing service in those areas? Is the City allowed to use the Baseball field? What is the City doing to help WSSU be able to play baseball games at the Dash Stadium? Is the City considering providing police support to Clemmons? Why does the Town have so many attorneys? Can the City cut several attorneys and expand contractual services with Womble-Carlyle? What is the City’s current 2/3 Bond capacity? What is the City’s bond rating? Didn’t the City produce a cost savings report a few years back? What happened to those suggestions?

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page A 8

January 26, 2011 – Old Town Community Recreation Center Comments: The City should look at cutting longevity pay. Questions: What is a hold harmless payment? What departments and services are in the fiscal management category? Where is debt service paid? How much are the City’s yearly debt service payments? Does the City offer seniority or longevity pay? How much longevity is paid out per year? Are there plans for new employees to receive longevity pay?

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page A 9

January 27, 2011 – Sedge Garden Community Recreation Center Comments: The City should cut merit pay from its projections. Public Works vehicles are being used to take breaks. The City and County could look to consolidate more law enforcement services. A police officer notified a resident of this: “There are only three officers working during the day and six at night on the south side of town.” The City should not allow employees to use public vehicles on personal time. Eliminate four fire marshal positions. They are doing less today than they have in previous years. Citizens should get reports on police activity in their neighborhoods. The City should create a “City Efficiency Group” charged at examining internal controls and processes of specific departments, activities, and governmental functions. The City should ask the General Assembly for authority to raise the sales tax. Questions: How much does a 2% cost of living adjustment actually cost? What is the current year’s funding gap? What is the anticipated funding gap in 2016? When will the State notify the City about potential revenue withholdings? How is work assigned to City employees before leaving City Yard? What discussions have occurred in City Hall between leadership about ways to increase efficiency? What efficiency studies have been done by the City? What law enforcement services do the City and County currently share? How much savings were realized from the Charlotte/Mecklenburg County law enforcement merger? Are there any initiatives to expand law enforcement services? Fire marshals should be eliminated. They are doing less today than they have in previous years. What is the purpose behind allowing take home vehicles for the police department? Does the City have a vehicle take home policy? Why do so many City police vehicles sit vacant at night? What defines the “South Side of Town?” Is there an organization with the City that reviews efficiency in departments and services? Will there be an increase in the property tax rate? Why do we not increase the sales tax rate? What is the current tax collection rate? How much is owed to the City in back taxes? What is the current bond debt? Are there plans to issue a bond referendum? How many riders use Mass Transit? How many miles of service does WSTA chart per year? Can we reduce the subsidy to the transit system? What is Emergency Management and how is it different than the Fire department? What percentage of the General Fund is Emergency Management? Why are citizens not ticketed for junked vehicles in yards? What would be the impact on City service of cutting 2-4 fire marshals?

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page A 10

Appendix B Budget Survey Survey Responses by Meeting Location

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page B 1

BUDGET SURVEY Community Budget Meeting #1 January 24, 2011

Please complete the following survey prior to the focus group discussions. If you have any questions, City staff will be available to provide you with additional information. After the focus groups, please hand in your surveys to the designated City staff member. Question #1 - Please rate how important the following services are to you. High

Medium

Low

No Opinion

Police Fire Emergency Management Refuse Collection Recycling Brush Collection Seasonal Leaf Collection Bulky Item Collection Housing Code Enforcement Housing Development Economic Development Initiatives Support to Community Agencies Traffic Maintenance (Signals, Signs, & Markings) Street Lighting Street & Sidewalk Maintenance Public Bus Service Recreation Centers Parks and Open Space/Greenways Swimming Pools Athletic Programs (Softball, Basketball, etc.) Coliseum Complex Convention Center City Building Maintenance Planning Building Inspections/Zoning Enforcement Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page B 2

Question #2 - Are there any programs or services that you believe should not be reduced during the upcoming budget?

Question #3 - Are there any programs or services that you believe should be reduced during the upcoming budget?

Question #4 - Other Comments?

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page B 3

Survey Question #1 Responses by Location Question 1: Please Rate how important the following services are to you. January 24 - Carl Russell Services

No Opinion

High 19 18 18 11 6 7 6 7 10 8 12 8

Med 1 1 2 7 9 9 10 10 6 10 6 8

Low 0 1 0 1 5 3 3 2 4 2 1 2

13 18 14 11 10 6 4

5 1 4 7 8 12 12

1 1 1 2 1 2 4

1

Coliseum Complex Convention Center City Building Maintenance Planning

4 6 5 4 13

13 9 9 11 4

2 4 6 4 3

1 1

Building Inspections/ Zoning Enforcement

12

5

3

Police Fire Emergency Management Refuse Collection Recycling Brush Collection Seasonal Leaf Collection Bulky Item Collection Housing Code Enforcement Housing Development Economic Development Initiatives Support to Community Agencies

January 24 - Carl Russell By % No Opinion

High 95 90 90 55 30 35 30 35 50 40 60 40

Med 5 5 10 35 45 45 50 50 30 50 30 40

Low 0 5 0 5 25 15 15 10 20 10 5 10

65 90 70 55 50 30 20

25 5 20 35 40 60 60

5 5 5 10 5 10 20

5 0 5 0 5 0 0

1 0

20 30 25 20 65

65 45 45 55 20

10 20 30 20 15

5 5 0 5 0

0

60

25

15

0

0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 5 10

Traffic Maintenance (Signals, Signs, And Markings)

Street Lighting Street & Sidewalk Maintenance Public Bus Service Recreation Centers Parks and Open Space/Greenways Swimming Pools Athletic Programs (Softball, Basketball, etc.)

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

1 0 1 0 0

Page B 4

Survey Question #1 Responses by Location (Continued)

Services

Jan. 25th - Georgia Taylor High 17 17 12 8 6 5 5 4 9 6 6 4

Med 0 0 3 3 7 4 5 5 4 6 2 5

Low 0 0 1 4 4 7 7 8 4 4 6 4

8 7 6 4 3 3 1

7 5 4 4 5 6 5

Coliseum Complex Convention Center City Building Maintenance Planning

2 1 2 4 6

Building Inspections/ Zoning Enforcement

5

Police Fire Emergency Management Refuse Collection Recycling Brush Collection Seasonal Leaf Collection Bulky Item Collection Housing Code Enforcement Housing Development Economic Development Initiatives

Support to Community Agencies Traffic Maintenance (Signals, Signs, And Markings)

Street Lighting Street & Sidewalk Maintenance Public Bus Service Recreation Centers Parks and Open Space/Greenways Swimming Pools Athletic Programs (Softball, Basketball, etc.)

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

No Opinion

Jan. 25th - Georgia Taylor By % No Opinion

0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 4

High 100 100 70.6 47.1 35.3 29.4 29.4 23.5 52.9 35.3 35.3 23.5

Med 0.0 0.0 17.6 17.6 41.2 23.5 29.4 29.4 23.5 35.3 11.8 29.4

Low 0.0 0.0 5.9 23.5 23.5 41.2 41.2 47.1 23.5 23.5 35.3 23.5

2 5 5 6 8 8 10

0 0 2 3 1 0 1

47.1 41.2 35.3 23.5 17.6 17.6 5.9

41.2 29.4 23.5 23.5 29.4 35.3 29.4

11.8 29.4 29.4 35.3 47.1 47.1 58.8

0.0 0.0 11.8 17.6 5.9 0.0 5.9

3 7 7 9 8

10 7 8 2 3

2 2 0 2 0

11.8 5.9 11.8 23.5 35.3

17.6 41.2 41.2 52.9 47.1

58.8 41.2 47.1 11.8 17.6

11.8 11.8 0.0 11.8 0.0

9

3

0

29.4

52.9

17.6

0.0

0.0 0.0 5.9 11.8 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 17.6 23.5

Page B 5

Survey Question #1 Responses by Location (Continued) Jan 26th - Old Town Services

Jan 26th - Old Town By %

No Opinion

High 10 10 9 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

Med 0 0 1 6 5 2 3 2 6 4 6 6

Low 0 0 0 0 2 6 5 5 2 4 3 2

7 2 3 1 3 2 1

2 5 5 6 7 6 5

0 3 1 3 0 2 4

1

Coliseum Complex Convention Center City Building Maintenance Planning

2 0 0 2 3

3 7 6 5 5

Building Inspections/ Zoning Enforcement

3

3

Police Fire Emergency Management Refuse Collection Recycling Brush Collection Seasonal Leaf Collection Bulky Item Collection Housing Code Enforcement Housing Development Economic Development Initiatives

Support to Community Agencies Traffic Maintenance (Signals, Signs, And Markings)

Street Lighting Street & Sidewalk Maintenance Public Bus Service Recreation Centers Parks and Open Space/Greenways Swimming Pools

No Opinion

High 100 100 90 40 30 20 20 20 20 10 10 10

Med 0 0 10 60 50 20 30 20 60 40 60 60

Low 0 0 0 0 20 60 50 50 20 40 30 20

1 0 0 0 0

70 20 30 10 30 20 10

20 50 50 60 70 60 50

0 30 10 30 0 20 40

10 0 10 0 0 0 0

3 2 4 3 2

2 1 0 0 0

20 0 0 20 30

30 70 60 50 50

30 20 40 30 20

20 10 0 0 0

3

1

30

30

30

10

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 10

Athletic Programs (Softball, Basketball, etc.)

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page B 6

Survey Question #1 Responses by Location (Continued) Jan 27th - Sedge Garden Services

No Opinion

High 7 7 7 4 2 1 2 3 4 3 5 3

Med 4 4 4 4 5 8 4 4 5 3 3 3

Low 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 2 1 2 1 1

6 5 4 3 1 3 1

2 3 3 3 5 5 2

1 3 2 4 4 2 7

2

Coliseum Complex Convention Center City Building Maintenance Planning

0 0 0 3 4

3 6 3 6 1

Building Inspections/ Zoning Enforcement

5

4

Police Fire Emergency Management Refuse Collection Recycling Brush Collection Seasonal Leaf Collection Bulky Item Collection Housing Code Enforcement Housing Development Economic Development Initiatives

Support to Community Agencies Traffic Maintenance (Signals, Signs, And Markings)

Street Lighting Street & Sidewalk Maintenance Public Bus Service Recreation Centers Parks and Open Space/Greenways Swimming Pools

Jan 27th - Sedge Garden By % No Opinion

High 63.6 63.6 63.6 36.4 18.2 9.1 18.2 27.3 36.4 27.3 45.5 27.3

Med 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 45.5 72.7 36.4 36.4 45.5 27.3 27.3 27.3

Low 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 9.1 36.4 18.2 9.1 18.2 9.1 9.1

2 1 1 1 1

54.5 45.5 36.4 27.3 9.1 27.3 9.1

18.2 27.3 27.3 27.3 45.5 45.5 18.2

9.1 27.3 18.2 36.4 36.4 18.2 63.6

18.2 0.0 18.2 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1

6 4 6 1 2

2 1 2 1 4

0.0 0.0 0.0 27.3 36.4

27.3 54.5 27.3 54.5 9.1

54.5 36.4 54.5 9.1 18.2

18.2 9.1 18.2 9.1 36.4

1

1

45.5

36.4

9.1

9.1

0 0 0 3 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 4

0.0 0.0 0.0 27.3 18.2 9.1 9.1 18.2 9.1 27.3 18.2 36.4

Athletic Programs (Softball, Basketball, etc.)

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page B 7

Survey Question #2 Responses by Location Question 2: Are there any programs or services that you believe should not be reduced during the upcoming budget?

January 24 - Carl Russell Category CED CED CED CED CED EH EH EH RC RC RC RC RC T T T T T T

ALL ALL

Q

Response Summer feeding program for schools Housing Community/economic development Community development Support to community agencies Sanitation Heavy brush pickup Public works Recreation Recreation Recreational services Recreation centers Parks Bus Service Bus Service Bus Service Bus Service Bus Service Street lighting

Category

Response

PS

Police

PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS

Fire Police Police Fire Emergency Management Police Fire Most of public safety Police Fire Emergency Services Security Police Fire Police Fire Emergency Management Fire Department Police Fire

All programs and services should be maintained to the maximum feasible. I trust management to determine which would be necessary to reduce if mandatory. There must be a careful examination to determine that funds are alloted to the most critical programs and services. I am hopeful that we can at least maintain the same level of services that we current have. I want W-Salem to continue to be a progressive city. I know with the current budget situation choices must be made but I want to live in a progressive and attractive city.

The Category Legend is located on Appendix B14.

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page B 8

Survey Question #2 Responses by Location (Continued)

January 25 - Georgia Taylor Category CED CED CED CED CED EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH HR HR IS IS NONE All

Response Housing code enforcement support to community agencies Economic Development Initiatives Arts Building Inspections, etc. Environmental Health Water-Sewer Sanitation Waste (garbage ) Waste (recycle) Water Sewer & storm facilities Health care Trash Collection Refuse collection Brush Collection Leaf Collection Water & Sewer Sanitation Sanitation Jobs Education Facility Maintenance Equipment Maintenance No No - at least some reduction in all areas would be appropriate. A lesser amount to the high priority services.

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Category PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS RC RC T T

Response Police Fire Emergency Management Police Fire Public safety Police Fire Police Fire Emergency Management Safety Police Fire Emergency Management Emergency Police Fire Fire Police Fire Police Appearance & beauty of town Recreation Streets Bus

T

Traffic maintenance

T T

Street Maintenance Street Maintenance

Page B 9

Survey Question #2 Responses by Location (Continued)

January 26 - Old Town Category

Response

Category

ALL CED CED CED CED CED CED CED EH EH RC RC RC RC RC RC

Nothing should be taken off the table Housing Development Planning Building Inspections Housing code enforcement Planning Building Inspections Planning Refuse collection Recycling Recreation Pools Recreation Parks Adult & Youth Programs Programs for youth

PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS

Response Police Fire EMS Police Fire Emergency Management Police Fire 1st Responders Police Fire EMT Police Police Fire EMS Police Fire Invest in the Emergency Management Program more

January 27 - Sedge Garden Category CED CED EH EH Q ALL

Response Housing for poor Taking care of our communities Refuse Recycling Quality of life All should be evaluated for inefficiencies

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Category PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS

Response Any safety services Police Fire Safety Police Fire Safety Police Fire Emergency Services

Page B 10

Survey Question #3 Responses by Location Question 3: Are there any programs or services that you believe should be reduced during the upcoming budget?

January 24 - Carl Russell Category CED Building Inspections staff by 1/2 CED City code enforcement CED Building inspections zoning inspections Anything that does not include economic development and economic growth in the CED eastern part of this city. EH Leaf collection GG Review Sister City program and its effectiveness. HR 100K at staffing HR Freeze merit pay I see city cars all around the city with just one person in the car, can some doubling be IS done. IS Reduce gasoline consumption NONE None - we need all services. NONE None NONE None NONE Not to my knowledge NONE Can't advise as yet. PS Fire Marshall $1,000,000 RC Coliseum complex RC Convention Center RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC T T

Funds to areas like the coliseum and the convention center need to be viewed with an attitude of practical resourcefulness. I don't have a problem with these areas being subsidized but there needs to be practical restraints. Beautification projects (planting trees, flowers, etc.) Coliseum Convention Coliseum Convention Coliseum Coliseum Convention Center Street sweeping Banners (seasonal, special events, etc.)

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page B 11

Survey Question #3 Responses by Location (Continued) Category ALL ALL ALL ALL CED CED CED CED CED CED CED CED EH EH EH GG GG GG GG HR HR HR HR RC RC T T T T

January 25 - Georgia Taylor All departments can be reduced All - based on priority of program/service Only cut across the board if possible. Then look at all non-essential services Improve Eff of all Dept. Neighborhood services Loans to downtown businesses Planning Building inspection/zoning Neighborhood Assistance Specialist Housing Development Operations Neighborhood services Community & economic development Brush collection Bulk Item collection Seasonal leaf collection Human Relations Marketing Marketing and Communications Human Relations Total employees (2460). Subtract core employees. Eliminate 10% of the Non-core employees. Reduce salaries across the board Try to decrease cost of medical insurance/benefits. Try to decrease benefits to hurting employees. Hold raises until increase general fund Recreation Recreation (generally) Traffic maintenance Street lighting Street and sidewalk maintenance Public bus service. Running empty busses is very expensive.

I do care about the above jobs (Brush, Bulky items, leaf collections, traffic maintenance, COMMENT street lighting, street & sidewalk maintenance) and the reduction impacting W-S families, however I feel as though reducing the above may help to save jobs overall and focus on programs and services more in need

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page B 12

Survey Question #3 Responses by Location (Continued) Category EH ALL T EH HR EH EH EH EH EH EH EH CED CED CED Category ALL EH RC RC T HR RC CED County

CED County EH GG HR IS PS

January 26 - Old Town Bulky Item Everything should be looked at Public bus mass transit it is a wonderful idea but almost every bus I see is empty. Bulky item pickup should be cut. Eliminate all travel expenses for city employees such as driving city vehicles back and forth to work., offsite conferences and retreats, etc. Recycling can be centralized stations. Seasonal leaf collection Bulky items collection Brush Collection Brush Collection Seasonal leaf collection Bulky items collection Bldg inspections/enforcement Housing code enforcement Housing Development

January 27 - Sedge Garden General "belt tightening" for all depts of City government Less bulk collection Pools sports Public transportation The retirement program seems more generous than what many citizens do not enjoy. Athletics Anything related to things that can be "for profit" such as ball field complexes, etc. Animal control services Category Legend Community & Economic Development County Service Environmental Health General Government Human Resource Management Interdepartmental Services Public Safety

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

RC All Comment None Q T

Recreation & Culture All Services General Comment No Services Quality of Life Transportation

Page B 13

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page B 14

Appendix C Small Group Discussion Questions Small Group Responses and Comments

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page C 1

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION Community Budget Meeting

Question #1 - What do you consider to be the City’s core services?

Question #2 - During these difficult economic times, what should the City be doing and not doing?

Question #3 - What, if any, revenue sources should be considered to close potential funding gaps?

Question #4 - What other budget ideas should be considered?

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page C 2

Community Budget Meeting #1 January 24, 2011, 6:00 PM Carl H. Russell, Sr. Recreation Center

Small Group Discussion Answers Group # 1 Question 1) What do you consider to be the City’s core services? Police Fire Transportation Recreation for the children Free lunch program Recycling Garbage Pickup Water Question 2) During these difficult economic times, what should the City be doing and not doing? Do: Invest in small, local businesses that can rapidly employee citizens and produce revenue Lay off administrative positions but not service positions Attempt to capture taxes from non-residents who use city services Consider additional funding cuts to community agencies (non-profits) based on citizen priorities Eliminate the yard cart fee Use a city wide recycling program to generate revenue Increase police patrol numbers Do not: Raise taxes Charge for Storm Water Invest in long term projects that don’t produce immediate revenue Question 3 ) What, if any, revenue sources should be considered to close potential funding gaps? Raise parking fees for all City lots and meters Raise code enforcement fees, specifically for neglected lawns and lots Question 4) What other budget ideas should be considered? None mentioned

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page C 3

Group # 2 Question 1) What do you consider to be the City’s core services? Police Fire Sanitation services Zoning enforcement – inspections Coliseum Streets and sidewalks Bus service Question 2) During these difficult economic times, what should the City be doing and not doing? Do: Cut or reduce non-essential services Continue to pursue other revenue sources (federal and state grants, etc.) Do not: Raise taxes Question 3 ) What, if any, revenue sources should be considered to close potential funding gaps? Federal grants Endowments Increase Coliseum fees so there is not loss to the City Non-resident payroll tax for those who work in the City but do not live in the City Question 4) What other budget ideas should be considered? Eliminate the night time teen event in the summer to save costs Continue to network with other cities to get their ideas for reducing costs Raise property tax rate ½ to 1 cent Continue to explore an increase in economic development -Bring new businesses -Economic incentives

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page C 4

Group # 3 Question 1) What do you consider to be the City’s core services? Police Fire Emergency Services Public Transportation Sanitation Streets Housing/Neighborhood Services Recreation and Parks Planning Inspections Economic Development Question 2) During these difficult economic times, what should the City be doing and not doing? Do: Cut spending Do not: Continue to employ fire marshals who do nothing Continue large subsidies to the coliseum (contract out) Question 3 ) What, if any, revenue sources should be considered to close potential funding gaps? No fee increases Expense reduction Land use and development – attract businesses Question 4) What other budget ideas should be considered? Neighborhood development – streets, sidewalks, lighting Do not build or renovate a train station Put forward a bond referendum for capital improvements No tax increase Examine where services may be duplicated Make administrative cuts without cutting service

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page C 5

Group # 4 Question 1) What do you consider to be the City’s core services? Police Fire Emergency Management Roads Sanitation-garbage collection Street lighting Question 2) During these difficult economic times, what should the City be doing and not doing? Do: Be more proactive in fee collection rates Look back at previous budgets (service levels, funding, etc.) Use managed competition Enlist more community involvement Continue the freeze on merit increases Do not: Continue “non-City” services (e.g. Coliseum, Convention Center – contract out) Question 3) What, if any, revenue sources should be considered to close potential funding gaps? Be more proactive with collection processes Hold the Fair twice a year Question 4) What other budget ideas should be considered? The Northampton area needs sidewalks, street lights, and traffic calming Payroll tax on non-residents More downtown events that make money

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page C 6

Community Budget Meeting #2 January 25, 2011, 6:00 PM Georgia E. Taylor Neighborhood Recreation Center

Small Group Discussion Answers Group #1 Question 1) What do you consider to be the City’s core services? Police Fire Sanitation – garbage and recycling Code enforcement Inspections Traffic Water Street and sidewalk maintenance Public transportation City Image Economic development Planning Question 2) During these difficult economic times, what should the City be doing and not doing? Do: Have a business type mentality Lay off at least 10% of employees in non-core functions Perform a pay study to see what the market is paying comparable private sector jobs Freeze all vacant positions Across the board staff reductions Examine the garbage and recycling collection schedules Go back and look at the previous Citizens’ Efficiency Review Do not: no answers provided Question 3 ) What, if any, revenue sources should be considered to close potential funding gaps? Increase user fees Identify services where user fees could be charged Enact a yard sale user fee City service use tax for non-City residents Charge for a City license plate tag Raise taxes Privatize residential or business garbage pickup Look at providing WiFi service and charging citizens and businesses Question 4) What other budget ideas should be considered? Examine efficiency in public safety service

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page C 7

Group #2 Question 1) What do you consider to be the City’s core services? Police Emergency Management Fire Water and Sewer Street Maintenance Garbage Collection Contributions to community agencies Equipment and facility maintenance Question 2) During these difficult economic times, what should the City be doing and not doing? Do: Focus on core services: Eliminate 10% of non-core positions Examine total personnel costs in all funds Control costs through the use of contracts Minimize job loss through furloughs and pay cuts Review levels of supervision without impact on core services Maintain AAA bond rating Find a more efficient way to deploy work crews Continue to look at comingled recycling Look at collection cycles for sanitation services Evaluate funding to community colleges Look at varying collection cycles based on volumes in different parts of the City Conserve water Use IT to work more efficiently Establish better communications between City departments to find common “share points” Close under-utilized and parking lots and decks Do not: Reduce costs to the point that service can no longer be provided Give funds to non-profit organizations/community agencies Question 3 ) What, if any, revenue sources should be considered to close potential funding gaps? Let the user pay for services Increase user fees Cooperate with State officials to reform the tax code to create a benefit to the City Continue to pursue economic development efforts for small and large businesses Question 4) What other budget ideas should be considered? Reduce hours at recreation facilities Evaluate staffing for planning and inspections based on permit activities Cross train inspections staff to do different types of inspections Examine certain departments for elimination – e.g. Marketing, Human Relations Retain marketing Examine rate of earning vacation and sick leave Minimize benefits costs Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page C 8

Community Budget Meeting #3 January 26, 2011, 6:00 PM Old Town Neighborhood Recreation Center

Small Group Discussion Answers There was only one group at the event on this evening. Question 1) What do you consider to be the City’s core services? Public Safety – Police and Fire (911) Sanitation services Public bus service Street Lighting Water Infrastructure *It is important to weight City service Question 2) During these difficult economic times, what should the City be doing and not doing? Do: Evaluate cost effectiveness of single stream recycling Make sure all expenditures are justified Call-in bulky item collection Stricter enforcement of fire zones – charge more fees for violations Maintain core budget but cut administrative office supplies Postpone new programs except those that create jobs Do not: Do any forced annexations Allow take home vehicles Collect garbage and recycling weekly Hold off-site retreats Increase property tax Perform annual bulky item pickup Supplement the ballpark Build new buildings or initiate new programs Question 3 ) What, if any, revenue sources should be considered to close potential funding gaps? Emergency management tax – similar to one used in Pennsylvania Look at all revenue options Privatization of services – e.g. Convention Center Consider raising user fees Property transfer tax (suggested in W-S Journal) Question 4) What other budget ideas should be considered? Renting out versus selling City property Look at volunteer services Smaller government Use pickup trucks for snow removal Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page C 9

Maintain services that directly benefit all citizens The smaller the number of citizens served, the less likely a service should be kept Look at the efficiency of every department Try to remove the scare tactics and drama from the decision making process

Community Budget Meeting #4 January 27, 2011, 6:00 PM Sedge Garden Neighborhood Recreation Center

Small Group Discussion Answers Group #1 Question 1) What do you consider to be the City’s core services? Police Fire Emergency services Neighborhood and Housing Water and Sewer Streets Sanitation Question 2) During these difficult economic times, what should the City be doing and not doing? Do: Sell the ballpark Create or increase outside user fees for recreation services Add to Police force Examine City/County Police consolidation Consolidate SWAT forces Raise public transit rates Think about selling the airport Do not: Collect brush or bulky items Light rail Recycling services Spend money on a panhandling ordinance Question 3 ) What, if any, revenue sources should be considered to close potential funding gaps? Talk to Raleigh about City sales tax increases Allow advertising on public transit Look for corporate sponsorships Increase user fees Sell unused property Close facilities – e.g. recreation centers Issue more citations for code violations Outsource non-core services – e.g. payroll, HR, etc. Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page C 10

Question 4) What other budget ideas should be considered? Consolidate City/County administrative departments (e.g. HR, Finance, Revenue, etc.) Cut police jobs created through stimulus money after mandatory year of employment

Group #2 Question 1) What do you consider to be the City’s core services? Police Fire Sanitation Building code enforcement Some public transportation Water and Sewer Streets Courts Image – greenways, parks, etc Question 2) During these difficult economic times, what should the City be doing and not doing? Do: Economic development Review expenses to look for efficiencies Maintain the 25 grant funded Police positions Lobby for additional sales tax Raise the retirement age Raise rates for public transit Consolidate Police services Do not: Cut Police department or Fire department Eliminate bulky item collection, leaf collection, or recycling Invest in ballparks Subsidize public transit at current levels Question 3 ) What, if any, revenue sources should be considered to close potential funding gaps? Achieving efficiencies as a source of revenue Fines for junked and abandoned vehicles Aggressive collection of fines Increase sales tax Judicious use of property tax Find revenue from public transportation Corporate sponsorships Advertising on public transit Question 4) What other budget ideas should be considered? Alert and educate citizens about engaging state budget Small fees for events that generate tourism Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page C 11

No use of Police take home vehicles for “hustles” Crack down on [undocumented workers] to save money Sell the ballpark Stop light/high speed rail systems De-annex areas Hire more competent leaders

Citizens’ Budget Advisory Council

Page C 12