2003_0728_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Manager's 2004 Budget Recommendations son, are less subsidized with tax funds, are well- attended by Roseville residents, or are high - impact public programs in our community. o Cutting City programs and services where the private or public sector provides a feasible alternative before cutting where there are few or no feasible alternatives to the loss of City programs. Core City services - such as public safety - must be pre - served, and strengthened where possible. City programs offering direct service to Roseville residents have priority over those that serve internal administrative needs. We must continue to build and carry out a financial strategy that is sound in the long -run and avoid the temptation of short -term fixes. As you will see, the cuts I recommend satisfy some of these principles better than others. ) ! 0 t 0 0 TA I OFT � [#I -I't'T M41kM:4 C I I Given this background and these assumptions and principles, here are my recommendations in general. I recommend the City Council reduce City spending by approximately $350,000 in 2004. Thus, you take the zero- increase budget that the City Council directed staff to create and cut $350,000 from it. How would cuts of this size affect our reserve levels? If the Council chooses not to levy -back any of the state funding cuts and chooses not to increase city revenues in any significant way, then about $350,000 in reserves would still be needed in 2004 to balance the budget. Put an- other way, adopting my recommended $350,000 in cuts for 2004 still means about $350,000 in reserves would have to be spent in 2004 to make up for the loss of state funding and to balance our budget. Looping forward, I recommend that when we budget next year for 2005 we re- evaluate the state funding situation. If the state were to return to Roseville in 2005 even half of the state funds they have cut, and the Council has adopted my recommendation and cut $350,000 in City ex- penditures, the City's budget for 2005 would be close to balanced. we would have lost $350,000 annually in state funds and we would have cut $350,000 in city spending. No further cuts would be necessary to bal- a]