Fiscal Year 2013 Recommended Budget Discussion: Council Member Fimbres Questions Dated 5/7/12 with Staff Responses

in Bold

1. General Fund Restricted: Doesnt Mayor and Council have discretion over the General Fund portion of the budget and if so, how then can funds be restricted for specific programs? Mayor and Council have discretion over General Fund Unrestricted. Certain restrictions exist on General Fund Restricted expenditures due to state law (e.g. impound fees, special duty funds, forfeiture funds) and Mayor and Council direction (e.g., Southwest Gas franchise fees that are used to fund Transportation projects related to utility work). 2. Departments with a Projected Increase over their Requested Budgets: Can the following be explained in further detail? Requested Recommended Number of Employees (Change) City Attorney $8,512.650 $9,019,500 (-2) 97 City Court $9,839,770 $12,022,030 (0) 139 City Manager $7,412,400 $9,684,870 (2) 32* Environmental Services $46,922,160 $50,752,160 (0) 237** Finance $8,287,780**** $16,798,190 (4) 111*** Housing & Comm. Devel. $6,170,850**** $13,263,000 (-12.5)189.25 Information Technology $15,878,630**** $18,660,810 (1) 112.5 Transportation***** $960,980 $4,192,550 (-9.75)267 TCC****** $1,886,280 $2,340.580 (-3.5) 43.5 *Lists $2,272,470 in Grant Capacity. ** Lists $3,830,000 in Capital Improvement ***Lists 107 in Requested, but has 109 for FY 2012 and 111 for FY 2013 in Recommended. ****Has a quarterly projection only *****Unrestricted General Fund ******Adopted FY 2012 and Actual for Salaries differs $560,660 and the Requested and Recommended is for $2,340,580 and yet the number of employees is down by 3.5. The Recommended Budgets include all funds, including grants and capital projects. Line-item budgets reviewed by the City Manager (i.e. requests) did not include all funding sources or capital improvement projects. Personnel resource changes between fiscal years (i.e., both increases and decreases) are based on funding availability, dedication of resources to critical areas, and the managed attrition plans developed by the department heads in the fall of 2011. Increases in salary/benefit funding exist due to elimination of furloughs and pension and medical increases.

3. Fleet Services: The following question was posted by Councilmember Fimbres: Can the operating loss for Fleet Services be explained in more detail? The reply was the following: In Fiscal Year 2011, their revenues did not cover the depreciation expense. In previous fiscal years, the Fleet Services Fund collected specific revenues to fund vehicle replacement for its customer departments, except for Enterprise Funds. Those vehicles were assets entered into Fleet's asset account and subsequently depreciated annually. Revenue collections offset depreciation and enabled vehicle replacement. When the Citys vehicle replacement program was suspended in Fiscal Year 2008, Fleet Services was left with the depreciation with no method for offsetting the expense. That situation will continue until the City is once again able to establish a vehicle replacement program. 4. For Fiscal Year 2013, the anticipated interdepartmental charges of $25.8 million are projected to increase by $1.3 million from estimated Fiscal Year 2012 of $24.5 million primarily due to the anticipated increase to future fuel costs. Can it be explained since it has been stated that Fleet Services, on page C-31, lists a $2,500,000 surplus from FY 2012? C-31 shows "previous year surplus" of $2,400,000. This is a Fund Balance, balance sheet, item. To provide for a balanced FY 2013 budget, Fleet budgets customer charges equal to projected expenses. Fuel cost expenses are anticipated to increase for Fiscal Year 2013; therefore, we projected increased charges which will result in revenues to Fleet that will offset the actual fuel expenses. Actual charges to customers will equal actual expenses. The fund balance, which has accumulated over multiple fiscal years, is available for necessary capital purchases, such as new fuel system software. 5. Parks and Recreation: Explain in more detail the $2,387,150 listed for Grant Capacity in the Recommended Budget? Explain in more detail the $12,253,200 listed for Capital and the proposed increase of more than $2,100,000 in FY 2012? See page D-128 regarding grant capacity. Expenditure capacity has been set up that would potentially be funded by restricted revenues, civic contributions fund, and miscellaneous federal and non-federal grants. These funds would be used to leverage recreational opportunities and community support services. Grant funding is being explored and capacity is budgeted in the event it is received; however, please note actual funding received in FY 2012 is projected to be significantly lower than budgeted. 6. Parkwise: What is the $1,432,700 in debt service for, as listed in the requested budget? On D-79, explain the tripling of parking revenues from FY 2012 of $629,504 to projected $1,869,430 for FY 2013? The debt service is to make principal and interest payments on City garages: Pennington and Plaza Centro. See page C-16 for parking revenues which are projected to increase from an estimated $1,754,380 in Fiscal Year 2012 to $1,869,930 in Fiscal Year 2013.