HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 04-20-87 SpMtgApril 24, 1987
The HonorabIe Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Tayior and Members of Council:
I am forwarding to you a copy of the comments that I made at
the City Counc~l,s regular meeting on MOnday, April 20, i98~.
These comments are for your information.
Sincerely,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/a
cc: ~s. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. SchIanger, Finance Director
215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24011
CO~ENTS BY CITY MANAGER
BUDGET
April 20, ~987
Let me start off with a parable:
A Captain in the Navy was on the high seas when all of a sudden a little blip
shows up on the radar screen. The Admiral tells the ensign, "Tell that
ship to change its course 15 degrees." The word came back on the radio, "You
change your course ~5 degrees." The Admiral said, "Tell that ship that we are
the United States Navy and to change its course ~5 degrees." The word came back
on the radio, "You change your course 15 degrees." The Admiral himself got on
the radio and said,
course ~5 degrees."
am a lighthouse.',
"I am an Admiral in the United States Navy--change your
The word came back, "You change your course 15 degrees--I
It is a perfect parable for my views. I believe that Roanoke needs to chart a
new course--a course that will position us for the future.
The City of Roanoke is at a decision point. The challenges at present are
outrunning current solutions. Decisions that we must make this year will have a
significant positive or negative affect on past investments. The current
challenges have many roots and, to a large extent, the City of Roanoke is a vic-
tim of a series of institutional problems.
There are a number of issues that individually would not cause long term concern
but cumulatively are surely warning signals that should be paid attention.
They are:
Positioning the City budget for short-term success but long-
term failure.
Examples: o Inadequate capital equipment is being budgeted in
the basic budget. A long-term target would be to
budget approximately $2.1 million annually.
Insufficient capital maintenance is being budgeted
in the basic budget.
o No paving is being budgeted in the basic budget.
No revenue flexibility for debt serv£ce to enable
bond referendum for fall of 1987.
o
Our population base is at the verge of a significant shift.
Examples: Roanoke Vision Plan indicates that pockets of this
City are shifting from middle class to economically
disadvantaged. As an example, the student popula-
tion in the RoanoKe City Public Schools has doubled
in the percent of poverty-level students enrolled in
the schools. These students come from economically
disadvantaged homes (and disadvantaged parents) and
qualify under federal regulations for subsidized
breakfast and lunch programs. In ~980, 15.8~ of the
student body was from economically deprived homes.
In 1986, the percentage had increased to 33.79~.
Another example is this City ~st recognize that the
Student Enrollment figure was at its hi~hest durin~
the last ten years in Fiscal Year 1977-78 (17,5~7).
The Student Enrollment figure projected for Fiscal
Year 1987-88 is 13,600, a difference of -3,917. This
drop in e~rollment represents an annual loss in
State revenue of $7.8 million at today's reimburse-
ment rate. The projected Student Enrollment low
will occur during Fiscal Year 7989-90 (13,200).
This additional drop represents an additional loss
of $800,000 in State reimbursements at today's rate.
I have talked with School parents and they want to
be assured that the City is committed to ~ntainin~
neighborhood schools an~ the question here is not
simply keeping them o~e~ but modernizing them. It
becomes clear under t~i$ scenario that the very
population that we would most like to retain sees
their areas of interest i~ potential jeopardy. We
could be structured for s~ort~term success (keeping
the cost of government down) by not pro~idi~
necessary dollars for capital repairs due to inade-
quate revenue growth to fund a bond issue but for
lon~-term failure because of a continuing shift
~n the future financial ability of our citizens to
pay. It is possible everytime we reduce, or post~
pone City capital maintenance and capital projects,
we raise questions in the minds of the business and
citizens. I want to ensure that we are doing enough
to keep our current population and businesses here.
The City of Roanoke has for good reasons reduced its real estate
tax rate during the last eight years from $1.64 to its present
$1.29. It has reduced its personal property taxes from $~.~0 to
$3.45 and has reduced its utility tax by 50 percent. This is a
tremendous message from City Council to its citizens and was made
possible through a growing economy, heavy federal financial
assistance, as well as continuing productivity improvements
within the City government.
My concern is that we should look to new solutions to deal with current pro-
bler~. These issues and resulting challenges of co~ti~uin~ to provide quality
services have been looming on the horizon but only because of the current econo-
mic dowmturn have we bee~ forced to bring these matters forward and begin to
discuss them i~ a very forthright manner. The question and the challenge that
now faces this City Council and its citizens is how much local government do we
want? How much l~cal government involvement is enough to keep the City moving
ahead a~d to retaim amd entice new imvestment and how are we goisg to pay for
it? It is my hope that we will realize that if we structure ourselves only for
short-term goals (keepin~ cost of government down) we are i[moring the long term
challenge of keeping the City .moving ahead.
The Future Course
Members of Council, there are no chocolate sundae diets. The slow but sure
change in the City's population composition and the lack of a formal financial
program to deal with paving, equipment replacement and important community pro-
jects is surely a social and economic time bomb. Long term, we may end up with
a disproportionate share of the population who are most demanding of services
and least able to pay for the services. If we find a way to maintain the long
term investment that is necessary to keep this City moving forward, and
resultantly retain current economic investment and attract new investors with
jobs and tax base, we will De able to continue to provide the wide range of ser-
vices that are needed.
I believe the City of Roanoke needs a new solution. In our effort to define how
much government we want snd how we want to pay for it, we should address at
least a four-prong program.
Define the level of government and services that we want to have!
Reevaluate services that we are currently providing and ask the
question if they are desired or if the public is willing to do
without them. If we are goisg to reduce services, I believe we
should target those service cuts and clearly understand the impact.
I believe that we need to increase and enhance our economic develop-
ment effort. An additional staff person in economic development is
necessary to make "hot calls" on those businesses who are on the
verge of making investment decisions. This is being done only on a
limited basis. I believe we can continue to increase revenues by new
ta× investment in this City by new companies. I must redistribute
the staff that we have within the City of Government and place more
priority on economic development. I am prepared to do this.
I believe that we need to continue our effort to increase produc-
tivity and provide productivity training for the employees of the
City of Roanoke. To that end, I believe that I must redistribute
existing staff to add an industrial engineer who will be dedicated to
productivity studies, work force analysis, and work programs and work
directly with employees if an employee suggestion program is to be
properly implemented.
I believe we need a formal pro~ram to fund 57 lane miles a year of
paving. I believe we must have a vehicle replacement program to
address our $2~ million of rolling stock. The City of Roanoke
(including all departments and the school board) has 776 vehicles. A
police car costs $16,000 fully equipped and lasts two years. A fire
truck costs $~65,000 and lasts appro×imately ~5 years and a fire
ladder truck costs us in e×cess of $300,000. Dump trucks cost
$30,000, refuse trucks (22 in our fleet) cost $85,000 and have a life
of ap~ro×imately seven years. Leaf collection machines cost $7500.
Backhoes cost $46,000, sewer rodder trucks cost $48,000 and school
buses (which we have 140 school buses) cost $30,000 each. We have an
obligation to deliver services to the citizens of Roanoke and the age
of our fleet is at the point where a formal replacement program is a
necessity. Please don't confuse what I am saying with the fact that
we need to replace all of them at once. What we need is a thought-
ful businesslike plan to replace an appropriate number of our
vehicles on an annual basis. Finally, my concern is that we have
needed for two years to do a capital improvements program. The
Director of Finance told you last su~er we were not in a financial
position to have a bond referendum that was necessary in the fall of
1986. Now he is predicting the inability of this City to have a bond
sale for the ne×t three to five years. I am not talking about dream
projects, I am taking about renovating public schools. I am talking
about completing the programs on Williamson Road and beginning to
address the needs on Peters Creek. I am talking about positioning
ourselves, should we desire to go forward on the Roanoke River chan-
neliza- ~n ?oject, as well as the need to provide for major bridge
repairs and our five percent share of approximately $32 million worth
of new road projects that the City will be paying for over the next six
years. The challenge is that we must provide a formal program and
revenue co support it.
My recommendation to you is that we should focus our attention on
two revenues. First, that we should look to a new revenue source;
one that has not yet been tapped and implement the single largest
potential source of revenue aYailable to the City, the prepared food
and alcoholic beverage tax. I believe that we should redistribute
or shift the burden from our taxpayers to the regional users of the
City's services. Every City within the Commonwealth of Virginia of
populations of 100,000, or greater, cities which are regional cities
and who have a disporportionate share of elderly and low-income in
comparison with the surrounding communities have all utilized the
prepared food and alcoholic beverage tax. A prepared food tax is a
tax on prepared food and alcoholic beverages and ranges in Virginia
cities from a minimum of 2 percent up to 5 percent, with the average
being 3.7 percent. City Council is correct to say that Roanoke is a
regional city. I believe that City Council is correct to say that
Roanoke is carrying a di~porportionate share of the regional load
in terms of services to its residents and to surrounding residents.
Roanoke City Council is correct in trying to reduce the impact on
the cost cf providing these services from our own residents.
would be correct for Roanoke to move into the area of a prepared
food and alcoholic beverage tax. The 7980 U. S. Census verifies
that 53% of t~e working population in Roanoke City resides outside
of the City. As an indicator of Roanoke Regional strength we can
look at sales figures whioh show Roanoke ranked 172rids in population
nationally and 48th in per capita retail sales. That is not because
households in Roanoke are so wealthy or spend so much, it is because
so many people from outside Roanoke shop here. Roanoke needs to
find a way to shift the burden to the regional visitors who benefit
from our facilities, programs and services. Roanoke needs to find a
way to continue to lessen tax burden on City residents who provide
so much for al! of western Virginia. I believe that a ~ percent
prepared food and alcoholic beverage tax would generate on an
annualized basis $2,400,000 or $600,000 per percent and could allow
the City of Roanoke to continue its real estate tax reduction
9
program and begin to shift the burden of providing services away
from the real estate owners. This additional expense will not make
Roanoke non-competitive for tourist travel and convention business
as we are already the least expensive city for such activities in a
survey of ~00 United States metropolitan areas. I realize that the
hotels and restaurants may claim that they would be called upon to
carry a disporpcrtionate share of the taxing burden. The hotels
claimed that they would be damaged by the transient room occupancy
tax. But the fact is that we have had both an increase in tax
receipts and an increase in hotel rooms constructed since the tran-
sient room tax was implemented. Roanoke, in fact, is a regional
destination and whether it be hotels, restaurants, or public ser-
vices, by the very nature and composition of the City, we will con-
tinue to draw these people into the community. Every city that has
been surveyed by the Director of Finance the question has been
asked, "Was there any impact on the hotel and restaurant industry by
virtue of the prepared food tax?" and the answer from Virginia
cities has uniformly come back, "No." There was the usual opposi-
tion by Restaurant industry in warnings that it would have dire con-
sequences but the fact is that this tax is not paiJ by the
restaurants, it is paid by the people who are eating food and
drinking alcoholic beverages in their facilities. Our research
shows a 4 percent prepared food tax on a prepared meal for most
families would not make (and historically in other cities has not
10
made) a difference in their choice of restaurant sites. Addi-
tionally, if City Council were to see fit to make a real estate
tax reduction to off set some of the additional costs associated
with both living in the City and paying a prepared food and alcoho-
lic beverage tax, and increase the limits of tax freeze for the
elderly, I believe that Council would eliminate or lessen the direct
impact perhaps on the elderly or other families in a marginal
condition. ~ prepared food and alcoholic tax is a fact of life in
Virginia and we now pay it in every major city with the exception of
the City of Roanoke. (See Chart.) This revenue source coul~ provide
revenue to lessen the tax burden on real estate owners. It would
provide us revenue to give confidence to those people who are mst
concerned that we do intend to reinvest in our schools, ix our flood
control measures, and, more importantly, in the ability to continue
to provide services through purchase of capital equipment and paving
programs. Yes, it could not all be done in one year but the pre-
pared food an~ alcoholic beverage tax I believe 'would grow at a rate
as strong if not stronger than other taxes and woul~ allow us a
reliable source of revenue that would be paid by something in e×cess
of 50 percent of people who live outside the immediate City of
Roanoke.
The second tax I recommend you consider is a cigarette tax increase.
Roanoke has the lowest cigarette tax of those who utilize this tax
in the State. I recommend to you a 3 cent increase in this tax to
help fund the recommended supplemental budget.
11
My request to you, City Council, is to allow me to bring this program forward,
to make my case in terms of the challenges that this City is facing and to offer
this as a solution. Today, I have raised serious questions that we as a com-
munity must openly discuss and debate. The issues are of importance and they
deserve time to be considered, along with the proposed funding solution.
I believe we are at a crossroads that as one council member has said, we can
either oversee the decline of this City, or we can see its continuing growth and
prosperity. I believe that Roanoke is positioned to move forward. You know
the signs that have led us to this crossroads, the loss of federal monies, the
inability to annex, the shifts in income of our population base, and the flat~
tening in local tax revenue. What we truly must understand is the need for both
ion? and short-term solutions. If we fail to act, our citizens will see this
first-hand in the quality of service in Roanoke. We need new solutions to a new
set of problems. These are tough issues and this is a matter of hard choices.
You can approve a basic budget that is indeed balanced with no ~ew sources of
income, but it will not position us for the future. Or you can look to a new
source of revenue that will allow us to plan not only for the next year but for
the years ~o come. A new source of revenue would shift the tax burden to those
people from outside the City limits who benefit from our facilities, programs
and resources.
This message is a reeom~mendation for the future. If we want to insure our abi-
lity to grow and thrive, we have to look to new solutions. M~ challenge is to
position the City of Roanoke for long-term, as well as short-term success, by
providin~ the quality of life and continuing quality of services that our citi-
zens demand and expect.
12
Thank you for this opportunity to address you on these vitai concerns. I pledge
to you my full cooperation as we move through our upcoming budget deliberations.
-30-
c,~ o~ ~^No~, v^.
April 20, 1987
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Joel M. Schlanger
Estimated Revenue Presentation for Fiscal Year 1988
I stated last summer that there were inadequate funds
available to finance the City Manager's capital program, and since
then I have periodically reported to you the sluggish economic
conditions of our City finances. I felt this would be the best
time to recap what has been said and what effect it will have on
us in the future.
As the United States struggles to maintain its economic
leadership role in the world, the City of Roanoke is also
struggling -- we are at a crossroad -- do we continue to go
forward, to build, to renew, to be the leader in this Valley, or
do we slide into stagnation and watch our physical assets begin to
decay.
We are fortunate that we are a young city in relationship to
the New York's, Cleveland's, and Boston's. Our problems are not
as many, but the relative solutions are just as difficult. Across
this country more than 8,000 miles of the interstate highway
system and 13% of its bridges are now beyond their designed
service life and must be replaced. It will cost $42 billion to
replace or repair the more than 200,000 deficient bridges, two out
of every five, in the nation. To meet existing water pollution
control standards, more than $31 billion in sewer systems and
waste water treatment plants has to be spent, and 756 urban areas
with populations over 50,000 will have to spend up to $110 billion
just to maintain their present water systems. The lack of annual
maintenance has inflicted severe damage on the roads, bridges, and
mass transit systems that form the lifeline of this nation's
business. Bad roads and bridges will keep some 25% of America's
communities out of the growth business, just when growth is so
vitally needed.
The City of Roanoke is no different than most cities our size
across this great nation. Financial fiscal stress is facing all
cities. But our solutions to this stress will determine the
future of our City.
Not just one change has
series of drastic changes.
Roanoke had positioned itself
news is -- not for all
unforeseeable.
Let us take some time to
caused this fiscal stress, but a
The good news is that the City of
for some of the changes, and the bad
of them, since some were just
look at this chain of events.
Federal Government Changes
I cormnend the Federal government on its long overdue effort
to bring forward a balanced budget and eliminate deficits so large
it is difficult to comprehend. This City has always prided
itself on balanced budgets, fair and balanced taxing authority,
and a high level of quality services to the 100,000+ owners of
this corporation.
2
So now the Federal
did from its very start,
towards a balanced budget
Although
approximately
area to be its
government realizes what this great City
and in order to set forth their program
-- have unbalanced ours.
grants to cities and states only represent
14% of the federal budget, they have chosen this
biggest target for budget reductions.
Revenue Sharing
Beginning in fiscal year 1973 and coming to a quick end in
the federal fiscal year ending September 30, 1986, this city has
enjoyed the use of over $37 million. The $2.6 million of annual
revenue sharing was equivalent to 13¢ on our real estate tax rate,
or approximately 25% of our annual total collections from personal
property taxes.
Community Development Block Grant Entitlements
Better known to us as CDBG, the lifeboard of our
neighborhoods and economic development programs has been reduced
from $2.6 million in fiscal 1978 to an estimated $1.5 million in
fiscal 1988. ~ile our demands have increased we have had to face
a 42% reduction in annual entitlements. (See Exhibit I)
Urban Development Action Grants
Better known to us as UDAG, has all but been eliminated to
the City of Roanoke -- used as a vital tool for economic
development -- these funds have been used as matching money to
build parking garages in downtown, utilized for site preparation
3
in support of Cooper Industries and as an equipment loan to
Coca-Cola for expansion of their bottling plant, a total of $10.6
million. (See Exhibit II)
In addition to these three major cuts in Federal support, we
are also feeling the effects in the area of social services,
income maintenance and health programs, including food stamps,
child nutrition, medicaid, and Aid-to-Families with Dependent
Children. And you saw the fiscal distress shown by the Fifth
District Consortium program in a report before City Council on
April 13 as a result of the Federal government cutting over $7
billion in programs for education, training and employment, such
as the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. These types of
cuts also effect many of the approximately 30 agencies that we
partially fund through the City Council's appointed Citizen's
Services Committee.
And now the President wants to repeal the long-standing and
just renewed exemption for state and local government vehicles
from the federal highway gas and excise taxes, and if passed, will
cost the City of Roanoke another $60,000 annually.
Because we are an urban city, our dependence on federal
program funds has been high. In a report published by the Auditor
of Public Accounts based on FY1985 data, it revealed that out of
the 41 cities in Virginia, the City of Roanoke ranked number 5 in
local dependency on Federal funds -- the highest ranking for a
City with a population over 100,000. While our sister locality of
Salem ranked 39 out of 41, even more interesting was that out of
the 95 counties, the County of Roanoke ranked number 95. (See
Exhibits III and IV)
~at does this show? It shows that this City has always had
a big heart --:a provider of many services to its citizens such as
our disadvantaged, our poor, our elderly. Now you can see why the
reduction of federal funds means so much to so many in this City.
If the overall state of the economy was looking upward, some
of the induced federal problems could be overcome, but we are
facing our third year of a sluggish economy and all the experts
predict the next two years will be the same. The only good thing
that might happen is inflation is estimated to increase 4 - 4~%
over the next year -- good for our local tax structure, but not
good for our citizens.
We have reached a point in the economic cycle where the
consumer is "bought out". Since interest rates have fallen, more
and more citizens have been able to purchase new homes, new cars,
and other big ticket items. That results in a large decrease in
their disposable income and our businesses have felt that -- and
that relates to less sales tax and less business and occupational
license fees.
Most economists recognize the importance of both mortgage
debt and consumer installment credit in assessing the outlook for
future consumption. It was recently published in "Business Week"
that the ratio of outstanding installment credit plus mortgage
debt in relationship to disposable income stood at 58% in 1975,
and now it stands at 75%.
Perhaps even more important is that previous peaks in
consumer borrowing almost always coincided with sharply rising
5
interest rates. You have seen the proof of that in the upward
movement of interest rates during the past three weeks.
Another.extremely important issue that remains a problem for
the City of Roanoke is the mobility of our citizens. As more and
more families could afford new homes as interest rates dropped,
more and more of these families left our city. There is virtually
little new construction
construction is occurring
a vicious circle as the home
filled with a family that can
requires more city related
substantiated by the fact that
within our closed boundaries, but new
in our neighboring jurisdictions. It is
that family
only afford
services.
since 1980
leaves is most likely
that older home which
This statement is
there has been dramatic
shifts of the numbers of the student body coming from economically
deprived homes. This figure has almost doubled.
And last but not least, last year the Federal government
enacted what has been characterized as the most comprehensive
revisions to the federal income tax system since its creation.
Included in the so-called Tax Reform Act were dramatic changes
affecting the way local governments finance public improvements.
The new law limits our ability to issue tax exempt debt,
complicates the tax-exempt borrowing process, and affects the
markets for a governmental entity's debt issuance.
Local governments traditionally have raised tax-exempt money
and earned money investing it before spending the money on the
approved projects. The interest earnings were then used to either
borrow less or produce additional revenue for projects.
6
field have said we may be better off
The City of Roanoke has used "arbitrage" as it is called to
its finest and within past existing laws, we have completed many
other projects with over $3 million in interest money for economic
development. That gun has now also been removed from our
financial arsenal.
Some experts in the
year.
The category of General Property taxes (which includes real
estate) has increased only 1.42% over last year and the category
of Other Local Taxes (which includes sales tax, business and
occupational license fees, utility tax, etc.) has only increased
using foreign markets to finance our projects, a sad epitah to our
American way -- and because the new law will drastically reduce
our ability to undertake tax-exempt financing to benefit
non-governmental entities, Standard & Poor's, our bond rating
firm, has stated they will closely scrutinize municipalities
ability to encourage economic development and expansion. We will
face the challenge to creatively continue economic development
programs -- not just to maintain previous gains but also to expand
in an ever-increasing competitive environment.
A long story, but one I felt had to be told as we begin a
very challenging budget year.
One of the strongest influences on the FY1988 budget is what
is happening to us in FY1987. We have completed 9 1/2 months of
this fiscal year and our local tax structure has limped along.
For the nine months ending March 31, 1987, we have collected
only .68% more than we had for the same period of time last fiscal
.44% due to the poor performance of the sales tax and business and
occupational license fees. The biggest decrease, of course, is
Grants-in-Aid Federal Government which reflects the two quarters'
loss of revenue sharing funds. (See Exhibit V)
We have received this month's payment of state sales tax
which reveals a very disappointing month of an increase of only
3.64% over the previous same month of last year resulting in a
total nine months collection of only 1.33% over last year. This
emphasizes even stronger our estimate of a $500,000 shortfall in
revenue in this category alone. (See Exhibit VI)
Although business and occupational license revenues have
shown unusual collection patterns, the end result is the fact that
for the year we have collected only 2.12% more than last year,
further strengthening our position of a $700,000 shortfall of
General Fund revenue in this category. (See Exhibit VII)
For those who do not know, the budget process began last
November. As for the revenue side, I prepare a preliminary
revenue figure for the City Manager in mid-January to be used as
guidance for the development of departmental budgets and the
School administration's budget. A second revenue estimate was
prepared on March 19 and a third will be prepared just prior to
City Council passage of a balanced budget in mid-May. This is
done to ensure we have the latest and most complete data
available.
Already due to the sluggish economy, I had to revise the
second estimate downward by $600,000 because of the performance of
our sales tax and business and occupational license fees actually
collected.
The budget presented to you today shows estimated General
Fund revenue ~f $123.7 million, an increase of 4.86% over the
original adopted FY87 budget. However, if you take out the
increases in dedicated revenues for the E-911 telephone tax, new
school revenues, reimbursement for constitutional offices which
are up significantly due to the opening of the new jail pod, and
increased social service funds (which we do not receive unless it
is spent), our General Fund is up 2.42%. Taking out the increase
of real estate tax income at the recommended $1.27 tax rate, this
would mean that all other sources of revenue to the General Fund
is up only 1/2 of 1%. (See Exhibit VIII)
Let us take a moment to look at our tax rate. We have just
received the State Department of Taxation's sales ratio study.
This study reviews all cities' and counties' assessment process,
and develops a ratio of "how close" that community is to assessing
property to 100%.
The City of Roanoke's sales ratio was 87.4%. When you
compare that to our tax rate it produces what is called the true
tax rate and our
was 94.1%,
Also
is $1.10. In comparison, Roanoke County's ratio
producing a true tax rate of $1.08 -- 2¢ difference.
listed for your information is the true rate for
personal property taxes revealing that our true rate is 23C per
$100 less than the County of Roanoke and only lc more than the
City of Salem.
9
Personal Property
Rate Ratio Method
True Rat~
Roanoke City
$3.45 69.76% Red Book $2.41
Roanoke County $3.50 75.12% NADA
$2.63
City of Salem
$3.20 75.12% NADA $2.40
The details of specific revenue categories are outlined to
you on pages XV - XXIII in your recommended budget. I am sure we
will be discussing these in detail during budget study.
Before I close, I must say that after 22 years in government
service, there is no finer governmental structure than City
government where democracy shows its finest face -- the citizens
of this community can determine through their elected officials
the quality of life they wish to enjoy by the level of services
they demand and the level of income they will provide to pay for
those services.
I will be
information you
you will be
to be made
steer.
most happy to provide Council with any detailed
require throughout this entire budget process so
able to make the very tough decisions that will have
to set the course of the City ship you wish us to
JMS:dp
10
Exhibit I
FY 1977-78
FY 1978-79
FY 1979-80
FY 1980-8!
FY 1981-82
FY 1982-83
FY 1983-84
FY 1984-85
FY 1985-86
FY 1986-87
FY 1987-88
(est)
CDBG ENTITLEMENTS
$2,629 000
$2,308 000
$2,581 000
$2,443 000
$2,018 000
$1,999,000
$1.792,000
$1.816,000
$1.547,000
$1,545,000
(maybe $1,356,000)
The current Congress is considering proposals to maintain
CDBG appropriations at $3 Billion nationwide. This would
probably mean a stable entitlement for Roanoke for the next
two or three years. However other factors enter in to how
much money we receive: 1) The number of entitlement
jurisdictions is increasing, making the allocation divided
among a larger number of users 2) Congress and the President
continue to "consolidate" programs, making additional
activities eligible for CDBG funding and eliminating the
funding source which originally funded those activities, 3)
there has been a move recently to revise the formula for
allocating entitlement funds, making "more deserving" cities
get a larger share. It is unknown how this will affect
Roanoke. At present we receive an average amount of funds per
capita (some cities receive more per person, some cities
receive less per person)
Exhibit II
The City of Roanoke has received three UDAGs (Urban
Development Action Grants)
Downtown ~
conjunction with private
downtown)
1980 (two parking garages in
investment and improvements
UDAG $ 4,211,700
Private money $23,701,224
Other federal money $ 618,i62
State/Local $ 299,999
Jobs created 527
Centr~ for Industry UDAG 1982 (site preparation work in
support of Cooper Industries - Gardner Denver)
UDAO $ 2,412,684
Private money $13,795,000
Other federal money $ 360,000
State/Local $ 156,464
Jobs created 570
Coca-Cola UDAO 1983 (loan to Coca-Cola for expansion of
bottling plant)
UDAG
Private money
Other federal money
State/Local
$ 4,000.000
$!1,957,840
$ 4,618,701
$ 297,140
JoDs created 86
SUMMARY
UDAGs
Private money
Other federal money
State/Local
$10,625,684
$49,454,064
$ 5,596,863
$ 753,603
Jobs Created 1,183
Exhibit III
Exhibit IV
Exhibit V
SAI,ES TAX REVENUE ( LOCAL OPTION) bit v:
CI'IT OP ROANOKB
0~ 0.~5
CITY OF flOANOKE, VlflSINiA
It SALES TAX HISTOPY flECAP
FYIP34-1P67
NONTH
t PPOJECTEP ~ TOT
FYIS84 FY1383 FYI386 FYI967 FY1987 YTP COLLECTION6 ~ VARIANCE BUDGET
JUL P48,003.ig 750,315.06 783,047.93 874,036.83 874,056.89 814,903.74 7.26t 7.873
AU6 720,631.73 768,187.73 881,PtT.3P 868,g98.67 1,743,055.$6 1,742,875.82 O.Ol~ tS.TO~
SEP 701,696.8P 776,723.84 933,283.62 862,234.37 2,625,309.93 2,711,339.12 -3.17~ 23.65~
OCT 653,556.33 786,433.35 817~488.32 823,887.89 3,449,197.82 3,396,031.72 -4.08% 31.07~
NOV 739,735.23 734,857.67 878,420.66 836,~73.22 4,305,77304 4,540,626.37 -5.17~ 36.733
DEC 757,838.0t 781,178.$7 861,094.69 925,988.13 $,231,761.t7 3,480,326.23 -4.54% 47.133
JAN 896,302.62 1,0t3,451.14 902,957.t9 764,342.51 5,P36,103.68 6,381,568.62 -8.90~ 34.02~
FEB 683,723.26 640,20536 767,550.35 361,106.35 6,357,212.63 7,400,431.89 -5.PPS 62.683
NAR 653,963.38 626,005.21 917,686.40 951,294.80 7,908,507.43 8,260,943.92 -4.27~ 71.2PS
APR 630,185.54 740,tOP.OP 834,746.15 9,13g,927.34 -13.47%
NAY 726,122.03 779,834.83 844,186.01 10,060,847.68 -21.3PS
JUN 787,83Z.t6 870,692.80 995,300.21 11,100,00P.08 -28.75~ 71.23~
TOTALS 8,523,720.68 P,327,$94.03 10,43P,473.36 7,906,307.43 7,906,307.43 lt,tOO,OOO.O0 -8.27~ 71.23~
(TO PATE) (TO PATE)
(TO OATE)
Projected Colleetiofls ire based on previous three years data.
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIOOINIA
I! SALEO TAX HISTORY DETAIL
Exhibit VI
(Cont,)
MONTH
,JUL
AU6
8ER
OCT
NOV
DEC
,lAN
FEB
NAR
APR
NAY
`JUN
FY87 MONTHLY FY87 YTD
NONTHLY ~ CONULATIVE
INC(OEC) INC(OEC)
874,056.89 874,0SA.Kg II.K2% Il.ill
.KKR,KgB.87 1,743,055.$K -I.408 4.73%
882,254.37 2,625,309.93 -11.38%
823,887.89 3,440,197.82 0.78%
856,575.22 4,305,773.04 -2.49%
925,988.13 5,231,761.17 7.54% 0.29%
764,342.51 8,988,103.6R -15.35%
R81,1OA.R$ 6,657,212.68 25.22% 1.02%
g51~294.80 7,908,507.43 3.64% 1.33%
7,R08,$07,43
NONTH
iJUL
AU6
8ER
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
NAn
MAY
`JUN
FY86 MONTHLY FY88 YTD
M0NTHLY % CUMULATIVE
iNC(REC) INC(OEC)
783,047.98 783,047.88 4.36% 4.36%
881,317.38 1,664,365.36 14.73~
905,283.82 2,65R,648.18 28.14% 15.88%
817,488.32 3,477,137.50 3.95~ 12.83%
878,420.86 R,355,556.18 10.57% 12.37%
8RI,OR4.0! 5,216,852.25
902,957.19 6,t19,A08.44 -10.90%
767,530.35 6,887,159.7R 19.86%
917,886.40 7,805,048.19
854,740.15 8,659,788.34 15.46%
844,189.01 9,503,975.35 8.25% 12.38%
905,500.21 10,469,475.58 14.33% 12.86%
10,RRg,175.KK
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIR61NIA
tS SALES TAX HISTORY DETAIL
FYIS84-Igs7
Pigs 2
Exhibit VI
(Cont.)
NONTS
JUL
AU6
HEP
OCT
NOV
SEC
,JAN
FEB
NAR
NAY
,JUN
FYR5 NONT#LY FYSS YTD
NONTHLY I CUNULATIVE
INC(DEC) INC(DEC)
750,315.06 750,3l$.06 36.92S 36.02~
768,167.75 1,318,502.81 6.601 ti. SS~
776,723.84 2,295,226.65 10.691 16.49~
786,433.35 3,081,660.00 }9.961 17.361
794,457.67 3,876,t17.67 7.401 i5.171
781,178.57 4,657,296.24 3.081 12.H5~
1,013,451.14 3,676,747.38 13.071 12 HT~
H4O,2OS.TH 6,310,953.14 -H.SH! 10.651
626,005.2l 6,936,958.35 -4.2RS S.It~
740,108.05 T,677,0HH.40 13.H31 9.551
779,834.83 8,456,90t.23 7.tO1 9.321
870,692.80 9,327,594.08 10.$01 9.431
R,327,594.03
#ONTfl
,JUL
AU6
HEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
NAn
APR
NAY
,JSN
FY84 NONTSLY FY84 YTD
NONTHLY ! CUNULATIVE
1NC(DEC) tHC(SEC)
548,003.19 548,003.19 o6.3il -6.311
720,651.79 1,268,654.98 1H.25~ 5.301
701,666.60 t,gTo,35i.58 34.781 14.191
635,5RR.33 2,HZS,HIT.S1 IO.14~ 13.161
739,735.23 3,365,653.14 Ig.gH! 14.591
757,838.01 4,123,4RI.t5 20.261 15.3HS
HH6,302.62 5,0lH,763.77 t2.741 15.071
683,723.26 5,703,517.03 IR.IHS 15.431
653,963.88 6,357,480.91 17.401 15.H5~
T28,122.05 7,735,788.50 22.691 16.011
787,H32.t8 8,523,720.68 22.621 IH.SH%
8,523,720.68
BUSINESS I.ICENSE REVENUE Exhibit VII
CITY OF RO.~OKR
4
3.5
-0.5
J-t~L ~G DRP OCT N~ DEC J~ ~B MAR ~R MA~
MOtH
[] 16~87 + FY86
C}TY OF
HISTORY O~ B~GINE$$ AND OCCUPATIONAL LIGENSE 9EYENUE
~YIg$4-1g~7
NONTH
I PBOdECTEB G TOT
FY1684 ;YlgBB FYI986 ;YlgB7 FTIB87 YTB COLLEGIIOND ~ VARIANCE BUDGET
JUL 13,743.4g 21,397.49 78,044.30 9,8B0~69 9,U6O.g9 42,940.08 -77.044 0.~51
AUG ~0,183.4U 14,338.20 46,234.99 37,B550B 47,7t6.08 BB,TBB.B2 -3~.B2~ 0.74~
SEP B,6~0.03 9,37~.42 1,782 3~ 20,073.99 67,790.07 77,660.94 ol2.?1~ h055
OCT II,456.18 14,658.52 6,920.48 13,BPt. II BI,3D! 18 gO,Ig3.?g -B.77S
NOV 7,006.62 22,978.44 8,763.31 (37,172.53) 44,208.65 104,Bg2.0U -57.B54
DEC 6,592.47 48,757.3! 5,883.56 82,455.30 56,663.95 12S,t22.B2 -55.77S O.BBt
dAN 2,~28,677.g0 2,tgB,OOB.22 (,94B,267.54 568,tBO.84 624,854.79 2,507,947.27 -75.06S 9.694
FEB 2,058,12D.08 2,275,384.25 2,393,651.19 3,673,074.74 4,297,B2B.53 5,060,088.6B -T5.0Dt
NAB 59,437.01 92,190.10 HB,B1B.B6 405,672.92 4,703,B02.45 5,161,438.42 -8.87~ 72.B5~
APR 53,B?g.18 42,313.67 91,34t.93 5,232,B23.05 -I0.11% 72.B5~
NAY 924,B37.41 774,867.99 582,222.4B 6,098,223.93 -22.B7~ 72.954
dUN 174,683.79 301,150.22 44B,136.BO 6,44B,BOD.O0 -2?654 72.65~
TOTALD 5,45B,O21.BD 5,812,415.83 5,725,768.53 4,703,602 45 4,703,602.45 B,448,000.00 -8.87~ 72.B5~
(TO OATE) (TO GATE)
5tNCflEASE 2.38% B.49~ -f.4g~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
(TO DATE)
~ Projected Collections ire bised off previous three veers dire.
CiTY OF ROANOKE, VINUINIA
HISTORY OF BUUINE$S AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE REVENUE
FYIg84-1987
Exhibit VII
(Cont.)
MONTH FY87 NONTHLY FYU7 YTO #ONT#LY S CUMULATIVE
INC(DEC} ;NC(DEC)
JUL 9,OUR.R9 U,UUO.RS -R7.3US -87.3US
AU6 37,855.09 47,716.08 -18.12S -Ut.Uti
OEP 20,073.98 67,790.07 102U.29S -4U.23S
OCT 13,591.11 81,381.18 96.39S -38.80S
NOV (37,172.$3) 44,208.65 -$24.18S -68.81S
DEC 12,455.30 $6,663.95 111.70S -61.U2S
JAN SUU, lRO.U4 624,854.79 -70.85S o7U.20S
FEB 3,673,074.74 4,297,U29.53 53.456 -4.28S
NAR 405,672.92 4~703,602.45 251.17S 3.12S
APR
MAY
JUN
4,703,U02.45
MONTH FY86 MONTHLY FYUU TTD MONTHLY % CUMULATIVE
INC(OEC) INC(OEC)
JUL 78,044.30 78,044.30 264.74S 264.74S
AUO 4U,234.89 124,276.29 222.4US 247.77S
OEP 1,782.31 126,061.60 -80.98S
OCT 6,920.48 132,g82.0R
NOV 8,763.31 141,745.39 -81.8US 71.31~
DEC 3,883.56 147,623.95 -87.93S 12.26~
JAN 1,949,267.54 2,09U,896.4R -11.20S -g.87S
F~9 2,393,USl.19 4,4ROr547.U3 5.20S -2.42S
MAR tt~,slg.su ¢,60U,OUT.2A 25.3tS -t.SS~
APR 91,341.93 4,697,409.17 II3.87S -O.S2~
NAY 582,222.48 5,279,631.U3 -24.SUN
JUN 44U,~35.90 5,725,76R.53 48.14S -I.4RS
5,72LTSR.53
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
#ISYORY OF BUSINESS AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE REVENUE
PYiRU4-1gU?
PaRe 2
Exhibit VII
(O~nt.)
NONTN FYU5 NONTHLY FYA5 YTO #ONTNLY % CU#ULATIVE
INC(OEC) INC(OEC)
JUL 21,397.49 21,3RT.4U 55.59%
AUG 14,338.20 35,735.66 4R.$0% 49.35%
SEP 9,371.42 45,107.11 -2.48% 34.56%
NOV 22,97U.R4 82,744.07 228.21% 59.14%
UEC 48,757.31 131,501.3U 63R.59% 124.45%
JAN 2,185,008.22 2,326,509.60 3.12% 6.37%
FEB 2,275,384.25 4,601,893.85 IO.$U~ 8.40%
NAR U2,190.10 4,694,083.95 55.11%
APR 42,313.67 4,736,397.62 -2t.61% 8.66%
NAY 774,867.99 5,511,265.U1 -IR.IU% 431%
JUN 30f,150.22 5,812,415.83 73.40% 6.49%
5,812,415.83
NONTH FY84 NONTHLY FY84 YTD NONTHLY % CUNULKTiVE
I#C(DEC) INC(DEC)
JUL 13,743.49 13,743.49 -42.78% -42 78%
AUG 10,183.40 23,926.89 4.02% -2U.23%
SEP 9,UlO.03 33,536.92 -25.86% -28.30%
OCT 11,456.18 44,993.10 17.00% -20.45%
NOV 7,001.12 51,994.22 -72.P7% -3K.O5%
DEC 6,592.47 58,58669 -45.82% -35.09%
JAN 2,128,U77.90 2,187,264.59 -20.64% -21.23%
FEB 2,058,126.08 4,245,3U0.67 38.83% -0.33%
NAR 59,437.01 4,304,827.UU -T4.39% -0.55~
APfi 53,97R.18 4,358,80R.86 91.77% 0.04%
NAY 924,537.41 5,283,344.27 23.46% 3.72%
JUN 174,683.7R 5,458,028.0U o26.33% 2.38%
5,458,028.06
Exhibit VIII
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
ANALYSIS OF GENERAL FUND REVENUE ESTIMATES
FISCAL YEAR 1987-88
Total Revenue Estimate Increase for FY87-88
Over Adopted Revenue Estimate for FY86-87
$123,701,749
117~964~797
Oven FY86-87
Total Increase in Revenue Estimates
5~736~952
4.86%
Less: E-911 Telephone Tax
Less: New School Revenue
Constitutional Offices
Social Services
Flexible Revenue
$1,657,290
458,738
511~688
( 255;600)
5~481~352
(2~627~716)
2)853~636
2.42%
Less Real Estate Increase @ $1.27
( 2 ~188~387)
$ G65~249
0.56%
Dept. of Finance
4/6/87
D-26
Aq NUMBER - 32513193
PUBLISHER'S FEE -
CITY OF ROANOKE
C/C MARY F PARKER
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
RCOM 456 MUNICIPAL BLDG
ROANCKE VA 2q, Ol I
CITY
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF ROANOKE
AFFIDAVIT OF
PUBLICATION
I, ITHE UNDEESIGNED! AN OFFICER OF
TIMES-WORLD CORPORATION, WHICH COR-
PORATION IS PUBLISHER OF THE F, OANOKE
TIMES & WORLL)-NEWS, fi DAILY NEWSPAPER
PUBLISHED lIN ROANOKE, IN THE STATE OF
VIRGINIA, DO CERTIFY THAT THE ANNEXED
NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED IN SAID NEWSPAPERS
ON THE FOLLOWING DATES
03/27/87 MORNING
g4/03/87 MORNING
04/10/87 MOPNING
04/17/87 MORNING
WITNESS,
THI~TH DAY OF APFIL 1987
OFFICER'S SIGNATURE --~
INTHE COUNCIL OF ~tE CITy OF RO~NOKE,
The 13th day of April, 1987.
No. 28610.
VIRGINIA
A RESOLUTION establishing the date of a special meeting of
the Council of the City of Roanoke.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that a
special meeting of Council be held on the 20th day of April,
1987, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council chambers of the Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W. in said City for the purpose
of receiving the City Manager's presentation of his FY87 - 88
budget message and budget and receiving the Director of Finanee's
presentation of his revenue message and projections.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.