My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012-09-15_PR_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Parks & Recreation
>
Parks & Recreation Commission
>
Packets
>
2012
>
2012-09-15_PR_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/14/2012 9:17:37 AM
Creation date
9/14/2012 9:13:06 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br /> Date: 08/13/12 <br /> Item No.: 10.c <br /> Department Approval City Manager Approval <br /> Item Description: Receive the 2013 City Manager Recommended Budget <br /> 1 BACKGROUND <br /> Aga Last year,the City Council adopted a 2-year budget for the 2012 and 2013 fiscal years. At that time,it was <br /> 3 noted that State Statute requires cities to formally adopt a budget on an annual basis. As a result the 2013 <br /> portion of the Budget adopted by the Council last year essentially serves as a preliminary budget and <br /> 5 planning tool in conjunction with other long-term goal setting and strategic planning processes. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Over the past several weeks, City Staff has been reviewing current budget inputs, financial trends and <br /> 8 service-level requirements to determine whether the preliminary 2013 Budget requires any modifications. <br /> 9 The current 2012/2013 Budget by Major Program is included in Attachments A and B. <br /> 1 <br /> 11 It should be noted that the preliminary 2013 Budget included a number of assumptions. They include: <br /> 12 <br /> 13 •:* 2% cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) for all employees <br /> 1 ❖ 5% increase in the healthcare premiums paid by the City <br /> 15 •:* 2.0% - 2.5% increase in supplies, maintenance, professional services, and most other expense <br /> 16 categories <br /> 1 7 •:* Non-tax revenues for the property tax-supported programs were expected to remain stagnant or,as <br /> 18 in the case of interest earnings, to decline. <br /> 1 <br /> 20 It was further assumed that the presence of a 2-year budget allowed added flexibility when it comes to <br /> Aga 1 capitalizing on favorable purchasing environments, or responding to unforeseen circumstances. For <br /> 22 example, operational savings in year 1 could be used to fund higher-than-expected costs in year 2. <br /> 23 Similarly, if the City experienced higher-than-expected costs in year 1, it would then forgo some <br /> 24 discretionary items in year 2 to make up for it. <br /> 26 The preliminary 2013 Budget for the property tax-supported programs called for an overall increase of <br /> Z7 2.3%. Based on the assumptions noted above,the vast majority of the program budgets adopted last year <br /> 28 will be sufficient to meet 2013 operational needs. However, there are a few areas that will require an <br /> 29 adjustment. Those adjustments are shown below. <br /> 30 <br /> Page 1 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.