3C, 2012 Budget Parameters - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo 2012 Budget Memo z DISCUSSION: Preliminarily, sta��has identiiied a number of factors that will influence the 2D12 Budget. Some are identified as follows: • Taa� Levy — what is the Council's comfort level? Last year it was a 0.81 % increase. A 1% l�vy increase translates to approximately $30,000. • Overall budget change� — preferences/limits? • Persor�nel — Staff does not see a change in personnel under current conditions, however, if the Vikings �tadium proposal would pickup and witi� the website ar�d communications needs that have been identified through the Council goal setting sessions, there could be additianal needs in the Community Development department and/or the Administration department. • Salaries and Benefiis. The Council did a market study and updated our pay scales in December of 2007. We did �ot have a COLA increase in 2010 for non-union employees and the Council has given a 1% increase so far in 2011. The union employees did have a COLA increase of 3% for 2010 and the current contracfi has a 0% increase for 2011 and 2D 12. The council has requested staff to do some research ir� camparing Arden Hills to other cammunities which will be presented to the City Council in 3une or July. Would the Council like staff to rlui various alierr�atives dwrzng the budget proc�ss this year? • Increase in employee benefits costs {health and dental}. We do not have preliminary nurnbers for these costs yet, but will be getting these in the next few months. O�r insurance pool went out for bids and rates in 2009 for 2010 and we received a 1% increase in 2009 and a 13% decrease in 2010 so our insurance costs renr�ained flat in 2011. We did go aut for various bids with other �'irms in 2009 and we did not experience favorable rates. Sta.ff recammends staying with the current insurance provider at this tim�. Until we get the actual numbers, a 1 S% increase wzXl be used. The current City car�tribution towards health and dental is $fi80.21 per rrzanth which was no change from 2010. Over the past few years, the Council had approved budgeting for SO% of the increase in prernium. In other words, ihe City equally shared the xate increase with �Iie ezx�p�oyees. Would this be an appropriate formula to continue to use for budget pur�oses? • Update the fz�e year CIP. Attached is the current 2011-2015 CIP. Staff is current�y in the process o�updating this to disc�zss with the City Council a� the June worksession. Does the City Counczl have any feedback or direction they would like to provide sta�� with respect to the CIP? • An area where staff sees a neec� is ir� park funding. Pa�ric dedication fees are generally limited to capiial irr�provements nat general repair and maintenance items ar�d there is not a steady stream of income. In looking ai the fina�ncial plan, staff se�s a need to set up a reserve for pa�rk izxxpravements. This fund would then be a funding source for itenns which are incl�ded in the CI�. • As a step in creating a quality budgei documeni, perfozxz�an.ce measut'eslservice indicators need to be established for each department. Some o� these rnay come about as a resuit of tl�e cor�rnunity survey (if one is done) as areas that the Couzacil would lik� to improve. Goals and objectives also need to be established for each department. These would need to be established in 2012, then in subsequent years actual performance can be tracked to