My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015_0723_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2015
>
2015_0723_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/7/2015 9:01:10 AM
Creation date
7/16/2015 3:28:54 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.
/
224
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
Department Approval <br />�. �: � <br />Item Description <br />�� <br />.r— <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />Receive 2015 2nd Quarter Financial Report <br />Date: 7/20/15 <br />Item No.: 8.h <br />City Manager Approval <br />BACKGROUND <br />In an effort to keep the Council informed on the City's fiscal condition, a comparison of the 2015 <br />revenues and expenditures for the period ending June 30, 2015 (unaudited) is shown below. This <br />comparison is presented in accordance with the City's Operating Budget Policy, which reads (in part) <br />as follows: <br />The Finance Department will prepare regular reports comparing actual expenditures to <br />budgeted amounts as part of the budgetary control system. These reports shall be <br />distributed to the City Council on a periodic basis. <br />� The comparison shown below includes those programs and services that constitute the City's core <br />functions and for which changes in financial trends can have a near-term impact on the ability to <br />maintain current service levels. Programs such as debt service and tax increment financing which are <br />governed by pre-existing obligations and restricted revenues are not shown. In addition, expenditures <br />in the City's vehicle and equipment replacement programs are not shown as these expenditures are <br />specifically tied to pre-established sinlcing funds. Unlike some of the City's operating budgets, these <br />� sinking funds are not susceptible to year-to-year fluctuations. In these instances, annual reviews are <br />considered sufficient. <br />The information is presented strictly on a cash basis which measures only the actual revenues that have <br />been deposited and the actual expenditures that have been paid. This is in contrast with the City's <br />audited year-end iinancial report which attempts to measure revenues earned but not collected, as well <br />as costs incurred but not yet paid. <br />It should be noted that many of the City's revenue streams such as property taxes, are non-recurring or <br />are received intermittently throughout the year. This can result in wide revenue fluctuations from <br />month to month. In addition, some of the City's expenditures such as capital replacements are also <br />non-recurring and subject to wide fluctuations. To accommodate these differences, a comparison is <br />made to historical results to identify whether any new trends exist. <br />Ji <br />Page 1 of 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.