My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012_0910_Packet as amended
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2012
>
2012_0910_Packet as amended
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/11/2012 4:19:23 PM
Creation date
9/10/2012 9:16:48 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
158
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment D <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />Date:08/27/12 <br />Item No.: <br />Department ApprovalCity Manager Approval <br />Item Description:Conduct a Hearing to Solicit Comment on the 2013 City Manager Recommended <br />Budget <br />B <br />ACKGROUND <br />1 <br />Last year, the City Council adopted a 2-year budget for the 2012 and 2013 fiscal years. At that time, it was <br />2 <br />noted that State Statute requires cities to formally adopt a budget on an annual basis. As a result the 2013 <br />3 <br />portion of the Budget adopted by the Council last year essentially servesas a preliminary budgetand <br />4 <br />planning tool in conjunction with other long-term goal setting and strategic planning processes. <br />5 <br />6 <br />Over the past several weeks, City Staff has been reviewing current budget inputs,financial trends and <br />7 <br />service-level requirements to determine whether the preliminary 2013 Budget requires any modifications. <br />8 <br />The current 2012/2013 Budget by Major Program is included in AttachmentsAand B.A Fund-by-Fund <br />9 <br />comparison is included in Attachment C. <br />10 <br />11 <br />It should be noted that the preliminary 2013 Budget included a number of assumptions. They include: <br />12 <br />13 <br />2% cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) for all employees <br />14 <br />5% increase in the healthcare premiums paid by the City <br />15 <br />2.0% -2.5% increase in supplies, maintenance, professional services, and most other expense <br />16 <br />categories <br />17 <br />Non-tax revenues for the property tax-supported programs were expected to remain stagnantor, as <br />18 <br />in the case of interest earnings, to decline. <br />19 <br />20 <br />It was further assumed that the presence of a 2-year budget allowedadded flexibility when it comes to <br />21 <br />capitalizing on favorable purchasing environments, or responding to unforeseen circumstances. For <br />22 <br />example, operational savings in year 1 could be used to fund higher-than-expected costs in year 2. <br />23 <br />Similarly, if the City experienced higher-than-expected costs in year 1, it would then forgo some <br />24 <br />discretionary items in year 2 to make up for it. <br />25 <br />26 <br />The preliminary 2013 Budget for the property tax-supported programs called for an overall increase of <br />27 <br />2.3%. Based on the assumptionsnoted above, the vast majority of the program budgets adopted last year <br />28 <br />will be sufficient to meet 2013 operational needs. However, there are a few areas that will require an <br />29 <br />adjustment. Those adjustments are shown below. <br />30 <br />31 <br />Page 1of 4 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.