68,471 docs · 699,671 pages · 89,501 facts · as of 2026-07-31

Record D-4529 · staff_report

Fiscal Year 2013-2015 Special Budget Meeting

legistar · 1.6 MB · 94 pages extracted · 0 facts cite this document · retrieved 2026-07-17 · original location · open the PDF

Informational ReportFiled under council matter 12-0351 introduced 2013-03-07
Subject: Fiscal Year 2013-2015 Special Budget Meeting From: City Administrator's Office Recommendation: Receive A Presentation And Hold Discussion On The Mayor's Proposed Budget For Fiscal Year 2013-2015

Extracted text

· page 20 of 94 · · see this page in the PDF

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Subject: Proposed FY 13-15 Proposed Policy Budget Date: May 13,2013 • • Page 19 support for the Library has steadily declined. Under the proposed FY 2013-15 Budget, the General Purpose Fund support for the Library is 34% compared to Measure Q funding at 66%. Assuming the City continues to hold General Purpose Fund support for the Library at the same level provided in FY 2000/2001 - $9,059 million (Measure Q minimum), annual Measure Q revenues will be $3.0 - $4.0 M less than budgeted expenditures based on current service levels and models in FY 2013-14. The Proposed Budget indicates that the available Measure Q fund balance would be depleted by the end of FY 2014-15. Historically, the Library has spent less than the approved budget and a modest Measure Q fund balance may remain at the end of FY 2015. During the next fiscal year library staff will conduct a study and implement altemative service models to deliver services within available funding sources. Public Works 1) With respect to the Financial Summaries section of the Proposed Budget, is it accurate that there are no General Purpose Fund (GPF) expenses in Public Works? No, it is not accurate—Public Works does receive General Purpose Funds. As noted in the Proposed Budget, Public Works receives a relatively small allocation from the General Purpose Fund at approximately $1.2M yearly, see pg. E-53. To clarify, in the Financial Summaries portion of the Proposed Budget (see page D-10), it states that there are no GPF changes for Public Works. 2) What is the rational for ehminating the 1 FTE clean community supervisor? (Pg. D-16) The elimination of the 1.00 FTE Clean Community Supervisor was a budgetary clean-up item resulting from a reclassification in which the new position was added but the position it replaced remained in the budget There will be no service impacts. 3) What are the costs, including signage, maintenance, enforcement and stafHng, to administer the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) program? What would the cost per permit be to be fully cost-covering? In the below table, the following costs and calculated values represent preliminary estimates from departments. Before pursuing a fee increase, staff would need to undertake additional analysis to verify the precision of these values. FY 2011-12 Permits Revenue Permits Issued in FY 2011-12 10,311 Average per Permit Revenue FY 2011-12 $ 19