HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/2010, B 3 - 2009-10 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW 1
1
council Mmrin,D.a
2-23-10
j ac Enda aepoat
CITY OF SAN L U IS O B I S P O
FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Bill Statler, Director of Finance & Information Technology
Debbie Malicoat,Finance Manager
SUBJECT: 2009-10 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review and discuss the City's financial condition and status of City goals at the mid-point of
2009-10.
2. Approve revenue and expenditure changes presented in the accompanying Mid-Year Budget
Review document.
3. Authorize implementing Fiscal Health Contingency Plan short-term actions as outlined in the
accompanying Mid-Year Budget Review
DISCUSSION
The accompanying Mid-Year Budget Review for 2009-10 provides a comprehensive overview of
the City's fiscal condition at the mid-point of the fiscal year. The Transmittal Memorandum
(starting on page A-1) sets forth a concise summary of key General Fund revenue and expenditure
trends since adoption of the 2009-11 Financial Plan in June 2009. The report also includes
supporting documentation for the recommended mid-year budget appropriations and provides a
comprehensive report on the status of major City goals, capital improvement plan (CIP) projects
and other important objectives.
Background: Purpose of the Mid-Year Budget Review
The City's two-year Financial Plan provides for the submittal of a report on our financial status to
the Council every six months. For fiscal monitoring purposes, on-line access to up-to-date
information is available to all departments; financial reports are issued monthly to key staff
members; and quarterly financial reports are distributed to the Council and staff on an ongoing
basis. Additionally, we issue focused reports to the Council and staff on key revenues such as sales
tax,transient occupancy tax and investments, as well as ad hoc reports as needed.
However, the formal submittal of a review at the mid-point of the fiscal year provides an.
opportunity to take a broader look at the City's financial picture, including:
1. Updating beginning fund balance projections based on actual results for the prior fiscal year.
2. Analyzing revenue trends since adoption of the Financial Plan, and revising revenues and
ending fund balance projections accordingly.
03 -/
2009-10 Mid-Year Budget Review Page 2
3. Identifying and presenting any fiscal problem areas to the Council, and recommending
corrective action or additional funding if required.
4. Presenting the status of major City goals, CIP projects and other important objectives.
Report Organization
The accompanying Mid-Year Budget Review is organized into five main sections:
Section A: Transmittal Memorandum, which provides a concise review and analysis of the
City's financial position and summarizes requested mid-year budget adjustments.
Section B: Comprehensive presentations of projected revenues, expenditures and changes in
fund balance/working capital for each of the City's funds for 2009-10 compared
with original budget estimates and actual results from 2008-09.
Section C. Detailed supporting documentation for the requested mid-year budget adjustments.
Section D: Recent financial and revenue reports: Quarterly Financial Newsletter, Sales Tax
Newsletter and Monthly TOT Report.
Section E. Status reports on major City goals, other important objectives and major CIP
projects. This includes recommended "Action Plan" revisions as discussed in the
report.
ENCLOSURE
Mid-Year Budget Review for 2009-10
G:\Budget Folders\C.Mid-Year Budget Reviews\Mid-Year Budget Review-2009-10\Council Agenda Report,2009-10.doc
63 - �
council memomnbum
February 23, 2010
TO: City Council RECEIVE®
FROM: Jay Walter, Public Works Director FEB 2 3 2010
VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager SLO CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: Red File: Upper Monterey Street Project estions
Council Member Carter had questions about the sidewalks proposed for this project. Staff
prepared this response for the benefit of all Council Members.
Ql: Were sidewalk improvements part of the original project? If so,what$ amount?
In the original project, only handicapped ramps were to be replaced, and the estimate was
$55,000.No wholesale upgrade to Mission Style sidewalk was being considered.
Q2: What is the cost difference between mission sidewalks and regular sidewalks?
Based on a recent project where both types were used, the cost differential was about 14% higher
for Mission Style.
Q3: Are there other options for use of the ARRA money if this money isn't used for mission
sidewalks?
The current estimate for the Mission Style work on this project is $625,000, which is a
significant amount of money. The decision to move the ARRA funding to this project was based
on the phase of the project and the ability to "federalize" it quickly. No other project was as
ready as this one at the time (early December) we needed to make the decision. Supplementing
the project funding with the ARRA contribution allowed staff to include sidewalk replacement,
which as Council is,aware, is in poor shape along this stretch of street.
If council Members have further questions, please direct them to Public Works Director Jay
Walter.
PAen �P5 E-nr
74-COUNCIL CDD DIR
2-CA&C41 M4t- a%IN DIR
O- "mllt 2-FIRE CHIEF
RED FILE R O-ATTORNEY M-Pw DIR
R`CLERK/ORIG e150LICE CHF
MEETING AGENDA. " l DEeTHEADS O'REC DIR
DAT62162*3 ITEM #l5 V C'UTIL DIR
DIR
� A.�fCk7�g7ES ��u lJL°a L
� B�Tk 11'IQZ