TO:
MEMBERS OF THE 2011-12
BUDGET COMMITTEE
FROM:
GREG HANSEN, BUDGET OFFICER
DATE:
MAY 16, 2011
SUBJECT:
2011-12 BUDGET MESSAGE
INTRODUCTION
2011-12 Budget Overview
The 2011-12 Polk County 4-H, Master Gardener, Agriculture, Forestry, Extension District
Proposed Budget is the inaugural budget for the District. Due to its late creation on May 18,
2010, by a vote of the people, the District has operated without a formal operating budget this
current year. The budget document before you today, is the first formal budget document for the
new District. The proposed budget sets out the funding/expenditure philosophy for the new
District for the upcoming fiscal year. Major components of the budget include the funding for
OSU Extension, the Fairgrounds rental charge, internal charges associated with the Polk County
and the operating contingency for the District. All of these major components will be discussed
in greater detail throughout this budgetary process.
Prior Years’ Budget History
Because this is a brand new District budget there is little history available. However, I am able
to outline previous years funding for Extension Services by Polk County for the past ten years.
The 2002-03 Polk County budget included a $73,541 contribution to OSU.
The 2003-04 Polk County budget included a $77,500 contribution to OSU.
The 2004-05 Polk County budget included a $78,500 contribution to OSU.
1
The 2005-06 Polk County budget included a $81,082 contribution to OSU.
The 2006-07 Polk County budget included a $87,300 contribution to OSU.
The 2007-08 Polk County budget included a $87,000 contribution to OSU.
The 2008-09 Polk County budget included a $89,620 contribution to OSU.
The 2009-10 Polk County budget included a $64,000 contribution to OSU.
The 2010-11 Polk County budget had no contributions for either the Extension and Fairgrounds.
It was believed by the Polk County budget committee and Board of Commissioners that the new
District funding would address both of these issues for the programs.
PROPERTY TAX LEVY
I am proposing that the budget committee set a tax rate of $0.075 / $1,000 in the General Fund
for the District. This is the maximum rate that the District can levy to the voters.
PROGRAM CHANGES / UPDATES:
With the proposed budget there will be a lot of program changes/enhancements occurring. With
new funding comes an expansion of services being provided by OSU-Extension.
REVENUES:
General Fund revenues for fiscal year 2011-12 are proposed at $413,500. A majority of the
revenue comes from two sources: Beginning Fund Balance and Property Taxes. Also, included
in the budget are some interest income and charges for services.
The property tax revenue is somewhat less than what was anticipated when the District was
formed. This is due to flat line growth in new construction and assessed value in the County.
EXPENDITURES/APPROPRIATIONS:
PROPOSED STAFFING LEVELS:
There are no positions with the proposed budget of the District. However, the appropriation
which is sent down to OSU includes staffing. Staffing makes up approximately 75%-80% of the
costs associated with the funding request from OSU.
MATERIALS & SERVICES:
The two largest expenditures within this area of the budget are the appropriations for OSUExtension (proposed at $250,000) and appropriation for Rentals – Fair/Fairgrounds Facilities
(proposed at $60,000).
Both of the proposed amounts are less than what each entity requested. OSU-Extension
requested $275,000 in funding and the Fairgrounds requested $75,000 in funding.
2
INTERNAL CHARGES:
Included in the District budget are a flat overhead fee of $12,000 paid to Polk County and rental
cost of $24,000 for leased space at the Academy Building. The leased space cost is well below
market value and is seen as a partial in-kind contribution from the County.
PROPOSED CAPITAL OUTLAY:
There is no proposed capital outlay in this budget.
TRANSFERS:
There are no transfers in this proposed budget.
CONTINGENCY:
The proposed budget has a $50,000 contingency figure. This allows for two things, addressing
any unknown expenditures during the fiscal year and provides for some beginning balance for
next fiscal year.
CONCLUSION:
It was my goal as Budget Officer for the District to propose a budget which met the needs of both
OSU-Extension and the Fairgrounds, because without one or the other functioning at a high level
the ability to provide a quality product to our citizens and youth does not exist.
Are the amounts of funding contained in my proposed budget the ideal amounts for all of the
partners involved? The answer to that question is no. Do the funding amounts allow all of the
partners provide an enhanced product in the future? The answer to that question is yes.
The bottom line is, we were given an opportunity by the voters of this County to address/enhance
a program which provides great benefit to many youth and adults. It is the job of the Board of
Commissioners, the budget committee, staff and volunteers to provide that end product the most
effective and best we can.
3