|
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND FINANCE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET SUMMARY
MISSION: To ensure the prudent use of County
resources.
The Department of Management and
Finance (DMF) provides sound, accurate and timely financial services that will
ensure the prudent use of county resources and enable the delivery of high
quality services.
Specific services provided
include: financial management,
innovative problem-solving and policy support, analytical services, annual real
property assessments, project finance assistance, economic analysis, purchasing,
accounting and auditing assistance, and financial information to the County
Board, the public, the County Manager, and County departments.
The overall goal of the
Department is to provide a solid fiscal foundation for the County government
and Schools. DMF is responsible for
seeking the most efficient and effective use of County funds and is an active
participant in areas of Countywide priorities, such as state tax and budget
legislation, reengineering of County programs, economic development,
multi-family housing finance, regional transit finances, federal tax and
regulatory policies, and implementation of national Governmental Accounting
Standards Board regulations.
FY 2004 PRIORITIES: The FY 2004
priorities of the Department of Management and Finance are:
-
To continue to develop and deploy a comprehensive Departmental
strategic plan that will include:
- Creating an environment where each employee has the
opportunity to add value and participate in meaningful work.
- Proactively managing all DMF processes, while ensuring
that all stakeholders are kept informed.
- Maximizing the use of technology.
- Strengthening relationships with user departments.
-
To expand
the FY 2003 Budget Division customer satisfaction survey to include all
components of the Management and Finance Department in FY 2004.
-
To ensure
that the County complies with the new Governmental Accounting Standards Board
(GASB) requirements.
-
To continue Countywide deployment of the Balanced
Scorecard for performance measures to provide an integrated and accessible data
and analysis tool to measure performance.
It will take several years to fully deploy the new system.
-
To work on refining the new process developed in FY
2003 for development of the Capital Improvement Plan for both developing and
monitoring implementation progress against the Capital Improvement Plan.
-
To partner with other Departments in researching and
developing recommendations to replace the current automated finance and accounting system which will no longer be
supported by its vendor within the next eighteen months.
PRINCIPAL PROGRAMS:
-
Administration/Tax
Policy Coordination
SIGNIFICANT BUDGET CHANGES: The FY 2004
proposed budget for DMF is $4,144,126, which is a two percent increase over the
FY 2003 adopted budget. Forecasted
expenditures are in compliance with FY 2004 budgetary guidelines.
Expenditures reflect:
-
Non-personnel expenditures increased by 4 percent, primarily
due to adding funding to conduct assessment ratio studies on an annual basis
($10,000).
Revenues reflect:
-
Fees increased primarily due to an increase of $30,000
in interest received from the Industrial Development Authority which partly
offsets a slight decrease in fees charged for bid packages, from $15,000 to
$10,000. The reduction is due to two
process improvements that have benefited customers. The first process improvement was to raise the minimum amount
for bids, and the second improvement was the posting of bid packages on the
Internet which can be downloaded free of charge.
-
In FY 2002, non-personnel expenditures were
disproportionately higher than the FY 2003 adopted and FY 2004 proposed budgets due to the
increased need for contract personnel to support the Department's mission.
DEPARTMENT FINANCIAL SUMMARY
|
|
FY 2002
|
FY 2003
|
FY 2004
|
% Change:
|
|
Actual
|
Adopted
|
Proposed
|
'03 to '04
|
|
Personnel
|
$3,436,143
|
$3,779,780
|
$3,849,858
|
2%
|
|
Non-Personnel
|
466,790
|
332,691
|
347,268
|
4%
|
|
Subtotal
|
3,902,933
|
4,112,471
|
4,197,126
|
2%
|
|
Intra-County Charges
|
(52,885)
|
(53,000)
|
(53,000)
|
-
|
|
Total Expenditures
|
3,850,048
|
4,059,471
|
4,144,126
|
2%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fees
|
31,968
|
68,500
|
93,000
|
36%
|
|
Grants
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Total Revenues
|
31,968
|
68,500
|
93,000
|
36%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Tax Support
|
$3,818,079
|
$3,990,971
|
$4,051,126
|
2%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Authorized FTEs
|
55.0
|
54.0
|
54.0
|
-
|
|
Frozen FTEs
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
Funded FTEs
|
55.0
|
54.0
|
54.0
|
-
|
PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
|
|
FY 2001
|
FY 2002
|
FY 2003
|
FY 2004
|
FY 2004
|
|
Actual
|
Actual
|
Estimate
|
Estimate
|
Target
|
|
Mission
Outcome Measures
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bond Rating:
S&P
Moody's
Fitch
|
AAA
Aaa
AAA
|
AAA
Aaa
AAA
|
AAA
Aaa
AAA
|
AAA
Aaa
AAA
|
AAA
Aaa
AAA
|
|
Average family total tax and fee costs
compared to region
|
$3,446
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
At
or below benchmarked jurisdictions
|
At
or below benchmarked jurisdictions
|
|
Ratio of County employees to 100 residents
|
1.8
|
1.8
|
1.8
|
1.8
|
1.8
|
|
Ratio of County employees to 100 daytime population
|
1.23
|
1.23
|
1.23
|
1.23
|
1.23
|
|
Customer satisfaction index
|
N/A
|
73.9
|
75.0
|
76.0
|
80.0
|
|
Number of substantial errors in published
reports
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
-
|
-
|
|
Percent of major projects completed on time
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
100%
|
100%
|
-
Some of the outcome measures above are new and no
historical data is available at this time.
Data collection will commence in FY 2004.
-
Customer Satisfaction index is based on survey results
from customers of the Management and Budget Division. An expanded Department wide survey will be
conducted in FY 2004 to solicit feedback on all DMF products and services. The index is based on a 100-point
scale. The target benchmark of 80 is
established utilizing the American Customer Satisfaction Index through comparisons
with other public and private sector organizations providing similar services.
-
The information provided in the previous chart
illustrates the fact that the total for taxes and fees for Arlington County is
one of the lowest in the region, illustrating at a macro level the prudent use
of County resources. Data from City
of Falls Church, Prince William County and Loudoun County prior to CY 2000 is
not currently available.
-
This chart shows the relationship between County Full
Time Equivalent (FTE) positions and populations served. There has been very little fluctuation in
the ratio between FTEs and populations served (both for residents as well as
daytime populations) over the past ten years, demonstrating at a macro level the
prudent use of County resources.
FUTURE BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
-
The County will face the need to upgrade its financial
management information systems software (accounting, budget and purchasing) to
increase the system's usefulness to end users, to gain substantial efficiencies
Countywide in processing purchase orders, payment vouchers and other
information, as well as to gain synergies with some or all of the parallel
School financial management and County human resource information systems.
-
Expenditures for consultants have risen greatly. There are increasing consultation services
required to supplement and support our mission.
|
