Cumberland County Early Intervention Program financiaL trend analysis

7/27/2019 Cumberland County Early Intervention Program financiaL trend analysis

1/30

MU LTI -YEAR F I N AN C I AL PLAN C I TY OF BETH LEH EM

Cumberland County EIP:

Financial Trend Analysis

October 30, 2013


2/30

C u m b er l a n d C o u n t y - F i n an c i a l T r en d A n a l y s i s 2

Key financial trends for 2008 - 2012

Please note the trends are notlisted in order of importance. They cover expenditures first, then revenues.

1) The County has done a good job controlling operational spending on non-personnel items. If the spending onutilities, supplies and professional services are combined, the County spentlessin 2012 than in 2008. Spending onprofessional services grew at 0.4 percent per year versus the 2.5 percent growth in inflation and 5.9 percent growth inemployee compensation.

2) On average General Fund spending on employee salariesgrew by 2.6 percent per employee per year, which wasclose to national inflation (2.5 percent). Because the County added positions to the General Fund during this period,total General Fund salary spending grew by 4.2 percent per year. In comparison, total General Fund revenue grew by1.6 percent per year and property tax revenue grew by 2.6 percent per year.

3) The Countys total General Fund contribution for employee medical insurance grew by 10 percent per year and thetotal retirement contribution grew by 20 percent per year. As a result, total compensation per General Fund

employee grew by 4.4 percent per year, which was more than double the growth rate for state and local governmentemployees nationally.

4) General Fund subsidies to other fundshave grown by 30.6 percent (or $1.8 million) since 2008. The E911 subsidyquadrupled during this period and two more large subsidies may be added in the next five years for the ClaremontNursing and Rehabilitation Center and the Solid Waste Authority.

5) The Countys fee revenueshave grown at a modest rate of 1.2 percent per year since 2008. Revenue trends are flator declining in three of the four major categories.

6) Total grant revenuehas declined by 8.0 percent per year since 2009. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)funding, which is the Countys largest source of grant revenue, is down 12.0 percent per year over that period.

7) The Countys property tax revenueshave been historically flat absent tax increases and are projected to remain flatthrough 2018.


3/30


2013-2017 multi-year projections

The graph below shows the Countys actual and projected General Fund spending and revenues for 2010 through2017. The County has raised property taxes to close the gap between expenses and revenues. Even with thesetax increases, the County has a structural chal lenge-- recurring expenses are growing faster than recurringrevenues. This report discusses the trends underlying that structural challenge.

General Fund Financial Results and Projections ($ Millions)

$0.0

$10.0

$20.0

$30.0

$40.0

$50.0

$60.0

$70.0

$80.0

$90.0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Revenues Expenses Fund balance


4/30


#1: Non-personnel operation spending

Compound Annual Growth Rates from 2008 through 2012 (General Fund Only)

The County has done a good job controlling spending on non-personnel items. The County kept GeneralFund spending on professional services flat from 2008 2012 and reduced spending on supplies by$516,000 (28.4 percent). Across the three largest non-personnel operating spending categories, theCounty spentlessin 2012 than it did in 2008. The County projects spending on professional services willincrease by 2.0 per year and on supplies by 2.3 percent per year, so continued cost control will provide

savings relative to that projection.

Total compensation includes salaries, fringe benefits, overtime, premium pay, unemployment and workers compensation.

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

Total comp. Util iti es/ Comm. In flation (C-CPI-W)

Al l revenues Pro fessionalservices

5.8%

4.1%

2.5%

1.6%

0.4%


5/30


Personnel expenses

The next two trends relate to the Countys personnel expenses, which include all forms of employeecompensation (e.g. salaries, overtime, health benefits, retirement contributions). Like most local governments,Cumberland spends the majority of its General Fund budget on personnel. The amounts shown belowunderstate the General Funds full contribution to personnel costs because they do not include the subsidies toother funds ($7.9 million in 2012). Since those funds spend most of their budget on personnel, its reasonable to

assume the General Fund helps support personnel costs in those funds, too.

General Fund Personnel Spending versus Property Taxes ($ Millions)

$29.6 $30.5$33.4

$35.8 $37.2$37.7$39.2

$41.2 $41.8 $42.1 $42.4

$47.7

$0.0

$10.0

$20.0

$30.0

$40.0

$50.0

$60.0

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Total Personnel Spending Property tax revenue


6/30


#2: Growth in employee salaries

Changes in General Fund Headcount and Salary Per Employee

From 2008 to 2012, the Countys employee headcount increased by 31 positions in the General Fund (or 5.7percent). The prison had the largest change with 27 added positions. Half of those positions were related toCentral Booking where the positions moved into the General Fund from a separate fund. Estimated salaryspending per General Fund employee increased from $38,907 to $43,196 over this period, which is equal to2.6 percent annual increases. That doesnt mean that all employees received 2.6 percent salary increases

every year, but that was the change across all employees on average.

$38,907

$43,196

541 572

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

$-

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

2008 2012

Salary/employee Headcount


7/30


Growth in salary spending per employee


The Countys average salary spending per employee increased by 2.6 percent per year from 2008 2012. That wasclose to the 2.5 percent annual increases in the major national inflationary index. The US Bureau of Labor Statisticsconducts a national compensation survey that tracks employers costs for employee compensation (ECEC). During thisperiod, employers hourly cost for civilian salaries grew by 1.5 percent per year and the hourly cost for state and localgovernment employee salaries grew by 1.4 percent per year. So County employees on average received a little highersalary increase than civilian or state/local government employees nationally during this period.

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

CumberlandSalary/Employee

Inflation(C-CPI-W)

ECEC - All Civilians ECEC - State/Localgovt

2.6%

2.5%

1.5% 1.4%


8/30


Higher growth in total salary spending


While the Countys salary spending per employee was close to inflation, the total spending across all GeneralFund employees grew at a higher rate (4.1 percent annually) because positions were added to the GeneralFund. In comparison, total General Fund revenue grew by 1.6 percent per year and property tax revenue grewby 2.6 percent per year.

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

CumberlandSalaries

PropertyTax revenues

CumberlandRevenues

4.1%

2.6%

1.6%


9/30


Projected salary increases

Hypothetical Salary Progression

The Countys multi-year projections assume 3.0 3.5 percent annual increases in total full-time salary costs,which is a reasonable growth rate given the existing salary structure. That structure is set up to provideemployees with a base wage increase that functions as a cost-of-living adjustment (horizontal movement inthe chart below) and a step increase that functions as a tenure-based adjustment (vertical movement).

The projected 3.0 3.5 percent annual increase is equivalent to a 1.0 percent base wage increase and a step

increase each year. The chart below shows the net impact of receiving both increases each year. Since theCOLA and step increase rarely both take effect on January 1st, the Countys total annual spending on eachemployees salary would rise by less than shown below.

The problem is that total revenues only are projected to grow by 1.0 percent per year, so this rate of salarygrowth will eventually drive expenditures out of balance with revenues, holding other factors constant.

Source: Non-Union Employee Salary Schedule, Grade 13, Assumed 1.0 percent annual COLA

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Step 5 26.22$ 26.48$ 26.75$ 27.01$ 27.28$

Step 4 25.63$ 25.89$ 26.15$ 26.41$ 26.67$

Step 3 25.03$ 25.28$ 25.53$ 25.79$ 26.05$

Step 2 24.45$ 24.69$ 24.94$ 25.19$ 25.44$

Step 1 23.84$ 24.08$ 24.32$ 24.56$ 24.81$

+3.6%+3.4%

+3.4%

+3.3%


10/30

C u m b e r l a n d C o u n t y - F i n a n c i a l T r en d A n a l y s i s 10

#3: Growth in total compensation

Changes in General Fund Headcount and Compensation Per Employee

For a full view of the Countys personnel spending, we need to include the cost of benefits. From 2008 to2012, the Countys General Fund total contribution for employee medical insurance increased by 46percent (or 10 percent per year) and the total pension contribution more than doubled (or 20 percent peryear). On average, total compensation spending per General Fund employeeincreased from $54,200 to$64,363, or 4.4 percent per year. In 2012 base salary ($43,196) accounts for two-thirds of total compensation

($64,363).

$54,200

$64,363

541 572

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

$-

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

2008 2012

Comp/employee Headcount


11/30


Total compensation per employee


The Countys total compensation spending per employee increased by 4.4 percent per year from 2008 2012.The aforementioned national compensation survey tracks employers total costs for employee compensation(ECEC). During this period, employers hourly cost for total civilian compensation grew by 1.7 percent per year andthe hourly cost for total state and local government employee compensation grew by 1.8 percent per year. So theCountys growth in total compensation per employee was more than double these national indices.

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

CumberlandComp./Employee

CumberlandSalary/Employee

ECEC -State/Local Govt

ECEC - Al lCivilians

4.4%

2.6%

1.8% 1.7%


12/30


Higher growth in total compensation spending


Total compensation includes salaries, fringe benefits, overtime, premium pay, unemployment and workers compensation.

The Countys total compensation spending across all General Fund employees grew at a higher rate (5.9percent annually) than the spending per employee (4.1 percent) because positions were added to the GeneralFund during this period. Total spending on General Fund employee compensation grew by 5.9 percent peryear versus 1.6 percent annual growth in revenues.

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

CumberlandTotal comp.

CumberlandSalaries

Property Taxrevenues

CumberlandRevenues

5.9%

4.1%

2.6%

1.6%


13/30


#4: Growing General Fund subsidies

General Fund Subsidies to Other Funds ($ Millions)

The County funds several operations outside the General Fund. Some operations generate their own programrevenues to cover part of their expenses. But they still need a General Fund subsidy to cover the rest.Historically Children and Youth Services receive the largest subsidy ($3.0 million in 2012), though the E911system subsidy has grown to a comparable size ($2.9 million in 2013). The County projects that subsidies willincrease from $7.9 million in 2013 to $9.1 million in 2014 mostly due to large increases in these two items.

$0.0

$2.0

$4.0

$6.0

$8.0

$10.0

2008Actual

2009Actual

2010Actual

2011Actual

2012Actual

2013Proj.

2014Proj.

2015Proj.

2016Proj.

2017Proj.

2018Proj.

Total Transportation Other E911 Other CJ Other HHS Domestic Relations Children's Services


14/30


E911: Declining surcharge revenue

E911 Surcharge Revenues ($ Millions)*

* The E911 Fund was an enterprise fund through 2013. Revenues are tracked on a full accrual basis and do not reflect revenuescollected during the calendar year.

Like other Pennsylvania Counties, Cumberlands E911 system is supported by surcharges on phone lines,wireless devices and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services. The VoIP surcharge was added during thisperiod, but total surcharge revenues have still dropped $0.7 million (or 14.4 percent) since 2008.

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

$5.0

$6.0

2008Actual

2009Actual

2010Actual

2011Actual

2012Actual

VoIP surcharge 911 surcharge Wireless surcharge


15/30


Two more potential subsidies

The Claremont Nursing and Rehabilitation Center is a $26 millionoperation. Most of its revenues are Medical Assistance reimbursementsand direct payments for resident care and are intended to cover itsexpenses. The Center does not receive General fund money at thistime and it pays for some services provided by the General Fund (e.g.

information technology).

The Center used part of its reserves to cover operating deficits in 2011and 2012 and will likely do so again in 2013. The County is addingrehabilitation services at the Center with the hopes of increasingoperating revenues and eliminating the deficit. Finance is concernedthat, absent the successful completion of this project, the Center may

need a General Fund operating subsidy as soon as 2015.

The Recycling and Waste Authoritycollects and disposes hazardoushousehold waste, provides equipment for yard waste disposal andmaintains the Countys Waste Management Plan. Its activities werepreviously funded by a fee that has since been ruled unallowable. The

Authoritys budget in 2013 has $648,000 in expenses versus $213,000in revenue for a $435,000 operating deficit. The Authority expects itsoperating deficit will be closer to $200,000 in 2013 with $1.0 million inreserves to start this year.


16/30


#5: Modest fee revenue growth

Governments use fees, licenses and other service charges to help cover the cost of providing servicesthat benefit a specific set of people. For example, the person who benefits from having a documentnotarized by the Register of Deeds pays a fee for that service, instead of the service getting funded bythe general population through a property tax. Fees are the Countys second largest revenue source at$6 million per year (10 percent of General Fund). Total fee revenue grew by 1.2 percent per year from

2008 2013.

$5.8 $6.0$6.2 $6.1 $6.0 $6.2

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

$5.00

$5.50

$6.00$6.50

$7.00

$7.50

$8.00

2008Actual

2009Actual

2010Actual

2011Actual

2012Actual

2013Proj.

2014Proj.

2015Proj.

2016Proj.

2017Proj.

2018Proj.

Total Fee Revenue ($ Mil lions)


17/30


Projections assume higher growth rate

Across all categories, fee revenue grew by 1.2 percent per year from 2008 2013. The Countys multi-year projections assume total fee revenue will grow by 3.7 percent per year, or three times as fast asrecent performance. That will only happen if the County takes deliberate actions to increase feerevenues.

Total Fee Revenue ($ Millions)

$5.8 $6.0 $6.2 $6.1 $6.0 $6.2

$6.4 $6.6

$6.8$7.1

$7.4

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

$5.00

$5.50

$6.00$6.50

$7.00

$7.50

$8.00

2008Actual

2009Actual

2010Actual

2011Actual

2012Actual

2013Proj.

2014Proj.

2015Proj.

2016Proj.

2017Proj.

2018Proj.


18/30


Major fee generators

The largest fee generators are the Magisterial District Justices, Courts, Recorder of Deeds and Prison. Theyhave different fee revenue trends that can inform specific actions:

Fee revenues for MDJ and Prison are generally declining. What are the options for reversing that? Court fee revenues have been flat, except from 2009 to 2010. Can that jump be duplicated? Recorder of Deed revenue has increased since 2011. Can that be sustained?

Fee Revenue ($ Millions)

$0.00

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

$1.40

$1.60

2008Actual

2009Actual

2010Actual

2011Actual

2012Actual

2013Proj.

2014Proj.

2015Proj.

2016Proj.

2017Proj.

2018Proj.

Court MDJ Recorder of Deeds Prison


19/30


#6: Declining grant revenues

Grant Revenues by Department ($ Millions)

$0.00

$0.50$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

$5.00

2008Actual

2009Actual

2010Actual

2011Actual

2012Actual

2013Proj.

2014Proj.

2015Proj.

2016Proj.

2017Proj.

2018Proj.

Total Prison Juvenile Probation Adult Probation Courts Other Urban Developent

The County will receive $3.1 million in General Fund grant revenue in 2013, which is 28.4 percent lessthan the recent peak in 2009. Grant revenue has dropped by 8.0 percent per year since 2009 with a 12percent annual drop in the largest category, urban development. The majority of urban developmentgrant revenue comes from the federal government (CDBG, HOME).


20/30


Use of grant funding

Largest General Fund Grants in 2012 (Over $170,000)

Grant 2012

Amount2013

Amount

CDBG - Urban County $1,273,757 $1,126,728

Court of Common Pleas Reimbursement $334,095 $295,531

Probation Salary Reimbursement $237,885 $210,426

PUC - Marcellus Shale $199,719 $176,665

Specialized (Juvenile) Probation Service Grant $190,196 $168,241

Centralized DUI Court Grant $182,431 $161,373

HOME - Urban County $178,017 $157,469

Subtotal $2,596,099 $2,296,433

The County has little direct control over the amount of grant funding it receives. Reduced grant funding may not have anegative financial impact if the County reduces expenses by a corresponding amount. But the County does control whichgrants it pursues and how it uses the money. Key questions include:

Which grants fund ongoing operations? Which grants fund one-time expenses that have ongoing expenses after thegrant ends? Which grants fund activities or positions that are grant-dependent?

For grant-dependent activities, does the grant cover all expenses, including employee benefits, administrativeoverhead, etc.?

For grant-dependent activities/positions, when the grant money drops, do the associated expenses also drop?


21/30


General Fund Personnel Spending versus Property Taxes ($ Millions)

$0.0

$10.0

$20.0

$30.0

$40.0

$50.0

$60.0

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Total Personnel Spending Property tax revenue

#7: Flat property tax revenue growth

Actual Annual Growth:

1.0% from 2009 - 2012

Projected Annual Growth

0.7% from 2013 - 2018

Two-thirds of General Fund revenue comes from the property tax. Absent tax increases in2009 and 2013, those revenues have had modest growth since 2008. The Countys multi-yearprojections assume a similarly low growth rate through 2018, absent any tax increases.


22/30


Elements of Tax Revenue Growth

Factor No. 1: Development activity

Development is one factor that drives property tax revenue growth. New properties are added to the taxrolls and their owners begin paying taxes, assumedly at a higher rate than when the land was not used.

As two measures of that growth, the County added 920 residential units per year and issued 915residential building permits per year from 2004 to 20012. By these measures, growth has slowed since2008, but there is still growth.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Residential Building Permits New Residential Dwellings


23/30



Factor No. 2: Added assessed value

There is a lag between when a permit is issued to build a new property when that property starts generatingnew tax revenue. Once the property is on the assessment rolls, the owners start paying taxes to the County,the host municipality and the associated school district. In the chart below notice that development activitydrops after 2008 (black lines) and growth-related revenue follows after 2009 (green bars).

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

$5.00

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Growth-related revenue Residential Building Permits New Residential Dwellings


24/30



Factor No. 3: Assessment appeals

The County had reassessments in 2004 leading into 2005 and 2010 leading into 2011. They are revenueneutral, so the assessments alone shouldnt increase tax revenue. However, they lead to assessmentappeals that, in turn, lead to lower assessments. The green bars in the graph are lower to reflect therevenue lost through successful assessment.

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

$4.0

$4.5

$5.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Revenue lost by appeals Net growth-related revenue

Residential Building Permits New Residential Dwellings


25/30


Factor No. 4: Tax rate increases

The County increased property tax rates each year from 2004 through 2007 and in 2009. Higher tax ratesgenerally increase tax revenue, holding other variables constant. During this period the County gained$687,000 a year from growth-related changes (green bars) and $1.0 million a year from tax-rate relatedchanges (blue bars). When development activity was at its highest in 2005 and 2007, it generated revenueequivalent to 3.4 percent annual tax increase.

$0.0

$0.5$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

$4.0

$4.5

$5.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Tax increase revenue Net growth-related revenueResidential Building Permits New Residential Dwellings



26/30


How much growth does the County need?

The multi-year projections for 2013 2017 assume total General Fund expenses will grow by $3.5 million(or 5 percent) per year. That projected level of spending growth (red line) is more than twice the largestchange in development-related revenue since 2004 (green bars). So tax base growth alone will not closethe gap, even with recovery from the recession.

$0.0

$0.5$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

$4.0

$4.5

$5.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Tax increase revenue Net growth-related revenueResidential Building Permits New Residential Dwellings


Projected:$3.5 M/year


27/30


Key trends revisited: So what?

1) The County has done a good job controlling operational spending on non-personnel items. If thespending on utilities, supplies and professional services are combined, the County spent less in2012 than in 2008. Spending on professional services grew at 0.4 percent per year versus the 2.5percent growth in inflation and 5.9 percent growth in employee compensation.

2) On average General Fund spending on employee salaries grew by 2.6 percent per employee peryear, which was close to national inflation (2.5 percent). Because the County added positions to the

General Fund during this period, total salary spending grew by 4.2 percent per year. Incomparison, total General Fund revenue grew by 1.6 percent per year and property tax revenuegrew by 2.6 percent per year.

SoThe slow growth in non-personnel spending indicates the County is successfully managing itsspending in these areas. With continued success, the County will save money relative to its multi-year projections that assume 2-3 percent annual growth in these areas.

SoThe two main elements of total salary spending are spending per employee and the numberof employees. The County is projecting that total salary spending will increase by 3.0 3.5

percent per year through 2017. That is not unreasonable but it is higher than the projected growthin the resources available to fund salaries. To bring these trends in line without relying exclusivelyon tax increases, the County could change the frequency of salary increases (base or step) ormake targeted head count reductions to address the projected deficits and provide more money toincrease salaries for remaining employees.


28/30



3) The Countys total General Fund contribution for employee medical insurance grew by 10 percentper year and the total retirement contribution grew by 20 percent per year. As a result, totalcompensation per General Fund employee grew by 4.4 percent per year, which was more thandouble the growth rate for state and local government employees nationally.

4) General Fund subsidies to other funds have grown by 30.6 percent (or $1.8 million) since 2008.

The E911 subsidy quadrupled during this period and two more large subsidies may be added in thenext five years for the Claremont Nursing and Rehabilitation Center and the Solid Waste Authority.

SoAny discussion related to personnel costs (contract negotiations, hiring decisions, salary

increases) should focus on the total cost of employee compensation. Reducing the projectedgrowth in medical insurance spending and the Countys pension contribution will provide moremoney for other purposes, including base salary increases.

SoThe General Fund pays for services that are valuable, but not mandatory at the levelscurrently provided. This applies to services budgeted in the General Fund and those that receivesubsidies from it. The County should review these programs to determine if they continue to be a

good use of limited resources. The County should reduce growth in E911 spending whereverpossible, though it may still need a higher property tax to fund those services given the decline in911 surcharge revenue.


29/30



5) The Countys fee revenues have grown at a modest rate of 1.2 percent per year since 2008.Revenue trends are flat or declining in three of the four major categories.

6) Total grant revenue has declined by 8.0 percent per year since 2009. Community DevelopmentBlock Grant (CDBG) funding, which is the Countys largest source of grant revenue, is down 12.0

percent per year over that period.

SoThe County will have to take deliberate action to realize the 3.7 percent annual growth in itsmulti-year projections. In cases where fees are capped by Commonwealth law, the County should

focus on improved collection. In cases where the County has discretion to change fees, it shouldmake regular adjustments to maintain cost recovery, along with any improvements in collections.

SoIts unlikely that grant funding will remain level unless forces beyond the Countys control takea favorable turn or the County improves its success rate in securing grants. In cases where grantsare intended to support grant-dependent activities, the County should review whether they arecovering all costs and whether spending drops when grant funding does. In pursuing future

grants, the County should review whether a one-time grant-funded activity or purchase has anongoing cost.


30/30



7) Property tax revenues have been historically flat absent tax increases and are projected to remainflat through 2018.

So

If the County does not take corrective action to address the earlier trends, the County will have tosupport a growing level of expenses with its relatively flat property tax base. Therefore, theCountys strategy to address the structural deficit should include:

Continued diligence monitoring non-personnel spending on operations

Providing predictable, fair cost-of-living adjustments to base salaries and some movement to

tie additional payments to something other than tenure

Mitigating fringe benefit growth wherever possible

Reviewing non-mandated services to determine if they continue to be a good use of limitedresources

Deliberate efforts to improve fee collections and update fee levels to maintain cost recovery

Adjusting grant funded spending to match reductions in grant funding where possible andcareful pursuit of additional grants to avoid creating one-time revenue for ongoing expenses

Our next presentation will discuss the fourth bullet in more detail and the presentation the followingweek will touch on the others.

Cumberland County Early Intervention Program financiaL trend analysis

Documents