5.10. SR 10-28-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. It looks like we will slightly exceed the building permit budget in 2002 but the 2003 building permit budget is $30,350 more (7.8% more) than the 2002 budget. 2. We do not believe we will reach the 2002 plan check fees budgeted amount of $255,300. The 2003 proposal for plan check fees is $252,300. 3. The court fines revenue for 2002 is going to fall far below the $230,000 budget. The revenue for fines has averaged about $12,500 per month for the last three months. The 2003 budget for court fines is $150,000. With these court fine and growth related revenue concerns, the city will have to be very careful in monitoring 2003 expenditures. Furthermore, in looking at the 2003 budget it appears that the school payment for the little theatre ($112,600 for installment number three in 2003) will have to come from the reserves and not from funds available within the general fund budget. While the above revenue figures for 2002 and the projections for 2003 are not very positive, the "good news" in the story is that expenditures in 2002 are at or slightly below the budgeted amounts. Without making any additional reductions in projected revenues (other than what's noted in the list on the previous page) we are looking at a 2003 budget gap of $86,600. Before commenting on trying to balance the budget, two other issues should be noted regarding 2003 expenditures. First, there is not an approved work plan for GIS. At this time, there are limited funds available within the Engineering budget for GIS activities. Until a GIS work plan is put together and considered, it is difficult to know how much work can be done with city staff, how much equipment should be purchased before the remodeled City Hall is available in 2004, and how much work the city can afford to have our consulting engineering firm complete, The second item to note regarding 2003 expenditures has to do with the Park and Recreation Commission request for a Park and Recreation Director, The city established its own Recreation Department when the Community Recreation joint powers agreement dissolved at the end of 2001 and the City Council has discussed the need for a Park and Recreation Director at a couple meetings in 2002. Earlier in the year, I was not too concerned about the timing for filling this position, but I am beginning to see the urgency. The reason for this issue becoming more time sensitive to me is the increased park work load that is falling on the Director of Planning, who is already very busy with planning responsibilities, and the increasing responsibilities in the recreation area, especially with Lions Park Center and taking over the management of the softball complex (including the concessions). While there is some money in the 2003 budget within the Engineering Department for GIS services, there is not any money in the 2003 budget for a Park and Recreation Director and we may not be able to wait another whole year before this position needs to get established and filled. In trying to address the budget gap of $86,600, there are no additional growth related revenues to help solve this problem. About the only additional revenue to look at is the liquor store funds. The 2003 proposal is already $20,000 more than the 2002 budget (an 18% increase) but I think we need to begin annually receiving another $15,000. Otherwise balancing the budget may get to be too painful and we may end up making cuts that are truly undesirable. If we accept another $15,000 from the liquor store fund, then the budget gap is at $71,600.