Need for Alternate Revenues
Two months ago I wrote about the District's need to find alternative revenues. The issue came up at Commission, as we were discussing our budget for the upcoming year. It made the paper, but the future is not as dreary as the article title implied ('Forest district deficit looms in five years' Daily Herald 6/7/06). Since I had several people ask me about this article, I thought I would take some time to write a bit about it.
First of all, how many other municipalities have a plan in place to insure a balanced budget five years into the future? None that I know of. Our plan has very conservative assumptions. That is, we assume a constant level of services without counting all of our current revenue streams. On a practical level, as we get closer to the time when our expenses exceed the interest from the landfill funds, we can reduce expenses by delaying some capital improvements, lengthening maintenance schedules, utilizing volunteer services, etc. The financial plan also does not consider staff efficiencies gained from a website that automates registrations and more. It does not consider gas to energy royalties past the current year. It does not recognize revenues already accrued for wetland mitigation. Finally, it does not take into consideration any efforts by the District to raise funds by securing other revenues, grants, donations, and sponsorships. Which is why this topic came up, when President Pierotti appointed a committee to look at alternate revenues. I am convinced that we can roll back the day of reckoning significantly.
As I said before, there will come a day when we might need to ask the public for an increase in the tax rate levy. That is because the tax cap in Illinois does not allow the District to increase its rate equal to the rise in expenses for a fast growing community. Add to that the fact that the operating budget from which the inflation rate is calculated is from the early 90's, which was for several thousand acres less land, miles less of trails, and fewer facilities overall. But the request should come after we have put our house in order and do what we can to find additional funds.
First of all, how many other municipalities have a plan in place to insure a balanced budget five years into the future? None that I know of. Our plan has very conservative assumptions. That is, we assume a constant level of services without counting all of our current revenue streams. On a practical level, as we get closer to the time when our expenses exceed the interest from the landfill funds, we can reduce expenses by delaying some capital improvements, lengthening maintenance schedules, utilizing volunteer services, etc. The financial plan also does not consider staff efficiencies gained from a website that automates registrations and more. It does not consider gas to energy royalties past the current year. It does not recognize revenues already accrued for wetland mitigation. Finally, it does not take into consideration any efforts by the District to raise funds by securing other revenues, grants, donations, and sponsorships. Which is why this topic came up, when President Pierotti appointed a committee to look at alternate revenues. I am convinced that we can roll back the day of reckoning significantly.
As I said before, there will come a day when we might need to ask the public for an increase in the tax rate levy. That is because the tax cap in Illinois does not allow the District to increase its rate equal to the rise in expenses for a fast growing community. Add to that the fact that the operating budget from which the inflation rate is calculated is from the early 90's, which was for several thousand acres less land, miles less of trails, and fewer facilities overall. But the request should come after we have put our house in order and do what we can to find additional funds.
posted by Carl at 2:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home