Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”
-
Upload
kirby-robbins -
Category
Documents
-
view
31 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”
![Page 1: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities.
G.R.E.A.T. “TEMPLATE”
![Page 2: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Focus on 4 Key Areas:
ExpendituresRevenues
TaxesTax Base
![Page 3: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
KEY OBSERVATIONS
• To what extent is your community’s spending similar/different to the average?
• To what extent does spending shift over time?
![Page 4: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
TRENDING G.R.E.A.T. DATA OVER TIME
A couple of points to consider:
1. What are basic/external factors that should be considered to account for when trending data?1. Population2. Inflation
2. What is the timeframe you want to trend?1. Use all GREAT data?2. Since 2000?
3. Any issues with the data analyzed?1. GREAT data include capital; possibly use sub-totals
that exclude capital
![Page 5: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Two Sets of Data
• Comparisons of counties and municipalities
• Example of a template for the city of Titanville
![Page 6: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Spending distribution
• Years 1987, 1998 and 2009 (most current)
• The key observation for the following four bar charts is the consistency in relative spending by service.
![Page 7: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Half of city general purpose spending is on three services: administration, protective services (police, fire and ambulatory) and, roads and transportation
![Page 8: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Town spending (see below) is dominated by roads, debt service and protective services (largely fire prevention)
![Page 9: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Village spending is comparable to cities. Unlike other forms of local government, debt service is becoming a larger share of spending. Debt service accounted for 16 percent of spending in 1987 and was 24 percent in 2009.
![Page 10: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Counties are largely responsible for the provision of social services; other major expenses are for protective services and administration.
![Page 11: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Proportions of Real Per Capita Revenue: 1987, 1998 and 2009.
The “story” in each of these bar charts is the growth in reliance on property
taxes in place of shared revenues.
![Page 12: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
In 1987, property taxes accounted for 32 percent of revenues and in 2009 the proportion rose to 36 percent. Conversely, Shared Revenues as a share of total GF revenues dropped from 7 percent to 3 percent.
![Page 13: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
The levy share for cities was 27 percent in 1987 and 34 percent in 2009. Shared Revenues for cities fell from 23 percent in 1987 to 10 percent in 2009.
![Page 14: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Reliance on levies increased 5 percentage points over these 22 years; at the same time, Shared Revenues dropped 12 percentage points.
![Page 15: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
For villages: the story is the same, less reliance on Shared Revenues (from 17 percent in 1987 to 6 percent in 2009) and increased reliance on property taxes (from 23 percent to 29 percent).
![Page 16: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Tax Base
• The following pie charts break out property by valuation class: residential, commercial, manufacturing, personal property and agriculture.
• Trends in tax base help explain the distribution of property taxes, thus if a community's residential tax base is growing at a rate higher than manufacturing and/or commercial, home owners will be paying more of the tax burden.
• The data are broken out into two sets of pie charts, property class as a percentage in 2000 and 2009.
![Page 17: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Villages: on average, the distribution of tax base shifted by only a couple of percentage points. Manufacturing’s share dropped from 7 percent in 2000 to 5 percent in 2009. Conversely, residential property increased from 71 percent to 73 percent.
![Page 18: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Towns: interestingly, agricultural land decreased as a proportion of total valuation from 5 percent in 2000 to 1 percent in 2009. Residential value jumped from 77 percent to 83 percent.
![Page 19: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
For cities, there was little change in the relative distribution of property valuation by class
![Page 20: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Similar to cities, the distribution of property by class for counties changed little between 2000 and 2009.
![Page 21: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Titanville Template
![Page 22: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
$-
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
$1,400.00
$1,600.00
$1,800.00
TITANVILLE AVERAGE
19871989
19911993
19951997
19992001
20032005
20072009
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
$160.00
TITANVILLE
AVERAGE
19871989
19911993
19951997
19992001
20032005
20072009
$-
$50.00
$100.00
$150.00
$200.00
$250.00
$300.00
$350.00
$400.00
$450.00
TITANVILLEAVERAGE
$-
$50.00
$100.00
$150.00
$200.00
$250.00
$300.00
$350.00
TITANVILLEAVERAGE
General Operating and Capital Expenses
General Government
Law Enforcement
Fire Prevention
TRENDS IN SPENDING
![Page 23: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
TITANVILLEAVERAGE
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
$160.00
$180.00
$200.00
TITANVILLE
AVERAGE
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
$160.00
TITANVILLEAVERAGE
19871989
19911993
19951997
19992001
20032005
20072009
$-
$50.00
$100.00
$150.00
$200.00
$250.00
$300.00
$350.00
$400.00
$450.00
TITANVILLE AVERAGE
TRENDS IN SPENDING
Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Culture and Education
Parks and Recreation Debt Service
![Page 24: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUES
![Page 25: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
REAL PER CAPITA REVENUES
19871988
19891990
19911992
19931994
19951996
19971998
19992000
20012002
20032004
20052006
20072008
2009 $-
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
$1,400.00
$1,600.00
$1,800.00
TITANVILLE AVERAGE
Total General Revenue
![Page 26: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
REAL PER CAPITA REVENUES
19871989
19911993
19951997
19992001
20032005
20072009
$-
$100.00
$200.00
$300.00
$400.00
$500.00
$600.00
$700.00
$800.00
$900.00
TITANVILLE
AVERAGE
19871989
19911993
19951997
19992001
20032005
20072009
$-
$100.00
$200.00
$300.00
$400.00
$500.00
$600.00
TITANVILLE
AVERAGE
Municipal Property Tax Total Intergovernmental Aid
19871989
19911993
19951997
19992001
20032005
20072009
$-
$50.00
$100.00
$150.00
$200.00
$250.00
$300.00
$350.00
TITANVILLE AVERAGE
19871989
19911993
19951997
19992001
20032005
20072009
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
$160.00
$180.00 TITANVILLE
AVERAGE
State Shared RevenuesCharges for Services
![Page 27: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
DISTRIBUTION OF LEVIES BY SOURCE
![Page 28: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
PROPERTY VALUATION BY CLASS
![Page 29: Major revenue and expenditure trends for counties and municipalities . G.R.E.A.T. “Template”](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813240550346895d98af39/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
In Conclusion
• Historical trends provide means by which to put current and future budgeting discussions in context
• You have access to statewide trends by municipal type and county; and group comparisons
• Importance of “controlling” for environmental factors such as population and inflation
• THE story over the past 22 years is: spending patterns are remarkably stable; revenues are shifting away from decreasing state aids
• Changes in distribution of tax base may help explain shifts in property tax burdens