My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015_0323_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2015
>
2015_0323_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/16/2015 2:27:38 PM
Creation date
3/19/2015 2:01:19 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
205
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: 03/23/15 <br /> Item No.: 8.f <br />Department Approval City Manager Approval <br />Item Description: Approve Amendments to the 2014 Budget <br />B <br />ACKGROUND <br />1 <br />The City annually adopts budgets on the basis set forth by State Statute, and generally accepted accounting <br />2 <br />principles. Although the City adopts a single all-encompassing budget, additional measures are necessary <br />3 <br />to show that all expenditures within the General Fund and certain Special Purpose Funds are within budget <br />4 <br />appropriations when presented in the annual financial statements. <br />5 <br />6 <br />The legal level of budgetary control (i.e. the level at which expenditures may not legally exceed <br />7 <br />appropriations) has been established at the fund level as opposed to individual programs or line-items. It is <br />8 <br />recognized that the City’s Department Heads, under the approval of the City Manager, may make transfers <br />9 <br />of appropriations within the department. However, if the expenditures exceed the total fund budget a <br />10 <br />budget amendment must be shown. <br />11 <br />12 <br />It’s worth noting, that these types of year-end adjustments are typical for local governments like Roseville <br />13 <br />given the size and scope of our operations and staffing levels. Rather than make numerous budget <br />14 <br />adjustments throughout the year and incur the administrative costs of monitoring the budget on a regular <br />15 <br />basis, it is customary to reflect the changes in one all-encompassing adjustment. The year-end budget <br />16 <br />adjustments typically reflect reallocated or additional costs that are offset by unbudgeted grants or <br />17 <br />donations, fees, or other revenues. <br />18 <br />19 <br />The following amendments to the 2014 Budget are submitted for Council consideration: <br />20 <br />21 <br />FundExpenseAmountDescription <br />Communications Personal Services (a) 4,000 Budget estimate was too low <br />Community Development Personal Services (b) 99,000 Costs reimbursed by the HRA <br />22 <br />Comments: <br />23 <br />a)The original budget estimate for personnel costs was too low. The additional expense was <br />24 <br />offset by higher-than projected cable franchise fees. <br />25 <br />b)The HRA contracts with the Community Development Office to provide staffing to support the <br />26 <br />HRA’s programs. These staffing costs were not originally included in the Community <br />27 <br />Development budget because they were subject to reimbursement. <br />28 <br />29 <br />Page 1 of 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.