1. BUDGET WORKSHOPS Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Village of Port Chester Board of Trustees April 11th, 12th, 14th, & 18th, 28 th, 2016 1

2. 2 Thursday, April 28, 2016 6:00 P.M. 222 Grace Church Street Budget Workshop

3. Summary (Budget at a glance) 3

4. Predictions seem to indicate that assessed values will most likely continue to increase over the next few years. However, our ability to capture any such additional values is still limited by the Tax Cap. For example, our organizational needs for the coming fiscal year equated to about $1.1 to $1.2 million dollars in additional operating requests/expenditures or about 5% in additional taxes. The total needs with additional staffing requests ultimately equates to about $2.4 million. The Tax Cap calculation limited us to about.12% (less than 1%) or about $80,680 in additional tax revenues, so we had to cut or pare down and prioritize our needs and resulting expenditures just in order to maintain our current staffing levels and resulting levels of service. As we have proceeded through these workshops we have identified the need for additional staff in every department due to the challenges we are facing with maintaining service delivery. Once we dug deeper into the apparent $2.4 million need we worked through the detail to arrive at $1.6 million in actual revenue need (after adjusting for projected revenue increases, overtime savings, and reductions in part time and seasonal help). Summary 4

5. Fiscal Year 2013-2014 “…These adopted revenue enhancements successfully increased revenues and lowered any projected tax levy increase down from a projected 4.26% increase to a flat 0% or no levy increase this year…” …”My hopes are to stave off or avoid all together deeper cuts over the next few budget cycles. Trends however are not in our favor and this necessitates a shift in our focus towards maintaining and further enhancing revenues and controlling expenditures within the near future.” Fiscal Year 2014-2015 “… As I mentioned earlier, the realities surrounding the State Tax Cap have essentially put us up against a ceiling in this budget cycle and most likely the next. Predictions seem to indicate that assessed values will most likely increase next year. However our ability to capture any such additional values is in a real way limited by the Tax Cap. For example our organizational needs for the coming fiscal year equated to about $1.7 million dollars in additional expenditures or 7.76% in additional taxes. The Tax Cap calculation limited us to 2.99% so we had to cut our apparent needs and resulting expenditures by about $1 million dollars and increase revenues by about $650,000; just in order to maintain and minimally enhance our current staffing levels and resulting levels of service…” Fiscal Year 2015-2016 “…Now, the realities surrounding the State Tax Cap have again put us up against a ceiling in this budget cycle and most likely the next as well. Predictions seem to indicate that assessed values will most likely continue to increase over the next few years. However, our ability to capture any such additional values is still limited by the Tax Cap. For example our organizational needs for the coming fiscal year equated to about $1.3 million dollars in additional requests/expenditures or 6% in additional taxes…” “…Beyond the afore-mentioned however, more credence also needs to be given to the need for additional human capital. I continue to evaluate the organization as a whole conducting assessments as opportunities to do so arose, and speaking to staff about their workload and the challenges they face therewith. As financial constraints increase the easy response is to reduce staffing through attrition; however we are still at the point of diminishing returns as staffing levels are below apparent minimum needs. My concern is that it remains readily apparent that we are having difficulty managing the service delivery demands that are placed on us on a daily basis...” Summary 5

6. Five Year Operating 6

7. 7

8. Real Property Tax Cap Comparison to Tax Levy 8 Note: when the property tax cap was signed into law on June 24 th, 2011 our tax levy was reduced from $23,187,522.00 down to $21,958,225.00 impacting FY 2011-2012. This reduction resulted in a $1,229,327.00 loss in our available tax levy from FY 2010-2011 to FY 2011-2012. This resulted in our base tax cap calculation becoming $21,958,225.00 instead of the richer $23,187,522.00. Further, the available tax within the cap limit for FY 12’-13’ was 2.66% or $583,488.00; the available tax within the cap limit for FY 13’-14’ was 4.25% or $932,555.00; the available tax within the cap limit for FY 14’-15’ was 2.99% or $654,520.00: The available tax within the cap limit for FY 15’-16’ was 1.61% or $224,952: the available tax revenues for FY 16’-17’ is.12% (less than 1%) or about $80,680 (this Tentative Budget utilizes all of the.12%).

9. Real Property Tax Cap Comparison to Tax Levy 9

10. FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 Average Assessed Value $ 434,397 $ 458,909 Homestead Tax Rate (per $1,000) $ 8.599074 $ 8.108832 Average Village Tax Bill $ 3,735 $ 3,721 Average Tax Bill Decrease $ (14) If the proposed FY 2016-17 tax levy was increased to $1 million, that is from $22,993,840 to $23,993,840, the tax rate would increase from $7.770877 to $8.108832 or increase from minus 9.63% to minus 5.70%. The average home owner would receive a decrease in their tax bill of $14 instead of $169. This would of course require the breaking of the tax cap. The Village Attorney has prepared a memorandum on the required process. Tax Cap Discussion 10

11. Village Manager Budget Changes 11

12. Village Manager Budget Changes 12

13. Workshop Requests 13

14. Workshop Requests 14

15. Workshop Requests 15

16. Workshop Requests 16

17. Workshop Requests 17

18. Workshop Requests 18

19. Workshop Requests 19

20. Five Year Operating 20

21. Five Year Operating 21