HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - May 2, 2017 SSLODI CITY COUNCIL
SHIRTSLEEVE SESSION
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2017
A. Roll Call by City Clerk
An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held
Tuesday, May 2, 2017, commencing at 7:00 a.m.
Present: Council Member Chandler, Council Member Johnson, and Mayor Pro Tempore
Nakanishi
Absent: Council Member Mounce, and Mayor Kuehne
Also Present: City Manager Schwabauer, City Attorney Magdich, and City Clerk Ferraiolo
B. Topic(s)
B-1 Receive Presentation Regarding Fiscal Year 2017/18 General Fund Budget and the Five -
Year General Fund Forecast (CM)
Deputy City Manager Andrew Keys provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding Fiscal Year
2017/18 General Fund budget and the five-year General Fund forecast. Specific topics of
discussion included Fiscal Year (FY) 2017/18 revenues, revenue trends, FY 2017/18 expenses,
new position, key inputs, vehicle replacement fund, five-year General Fund forecast, revenue
assumptions, expense assumptions, California Public Employees Retirement System (Cal -PERS)
rate assumptions, revenues, expenses, fund balance, impact of 1 percent revenue shortfall in
FY 2017/18, impact of new revenue, new revenue with 1 percent revenue shortfall in FY 2017/18,
and risks and opportunities.
Council Member Johnson requested Council be provided with information on expense trends,
similar to the chart on revenue trends, to which Mr. Keys responded he would provide the
information.
In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi, Mr. Keys stated that Lodi's percentage of salaries,
Cal -PERS costs, and other benefits is roughly 75 percent of the entire budget, which is average
for cities. He stated that Elk Grove is around 70 percent and estimated that most cities fall in the
65 to 75 percent range. City Manager Schwabauer added that the major difference between last
year's budget and this one is the Cal -PERS lines and further pointed out that Elk Grove is a
young pension system because it has not been a city for a long time; it hires contractors versus
employees; and it does not have parks or fire in its municipal budget. In further response to
Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi, Mr. Keys stated he would research the percent of personnel
expenses in the San Joaquin County, City of Stockton, and City of Tracy budgets, adding that it
will be based on a comparison of FY 2015/16 actuals, which will not include the Cal -PERS
unfunded actuarial liability (UAL).
In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi, Mr. Keys explained that MOE stands for
"maintenance of effort," which is the required level of funding to receive Measure K funds. If the
MOE was cut from the budget, the City would realize a savings in the General Fund; however, the
City would lose the same amount of Measure K dollars. Mr. Schwabauer explained the line item
in the PowerPoint is to reflect what staff recommends continuing and what it does not. Staff is not
sacrificing the MOE and Measure K funding and is choosing to prioritize the $435,000 capital
contribution over the vehicle replacement program. All of these choices represent the key drivers
and sacrifices made to balance the FY 2017/18 budget.
In response to Council Member Johnson, Police Captain Chris Jacobson stated there are
currently six officers working in field training; several should be in the field soon; and there are
1
currently no officers going through the academy.
In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi, Mr. Keys explained there are two aspects of
property tax: 1) one is the ad valorem tax, which is 1 percent of full cash value; and 2) the
Community Facilities District (CFD), which will be $510 per house next year and includes a
2 percent inflationary increase. Staff estimated 70 units and $35,000 in CFD revenue in next
year's budget, while the forecast projects similar growth. Mr. Keys confirmed the values for the
properties are incorporated into the property tax revenue projections. Mr. Schwabauer further
explained the City receives 16 percent of the 1 percent property tax, which equates to roughly
$700 per household for $50,000 a year in property taxes. Between property taxes and CFD
revenue, the City takes in $75,000 to $80,000 in revenue. Mr. Keys stated there are three ways to
grow with property tax: through the CFD; through the 2 percent change in property tax when an
owner stays in a home and the property value increases; and after the resale of a home.
Council Member Johnson questioned the explanation under the revenue assumption category for
"Intergovernmental - Other" because it appears as if the City is receiving money or a credit for not
funding the Delta Regional Auto Theft Task Force. Mr. Schwabauer responded this category is for
State legislative matters that are funded, such as the Hayden Act that reimburses cities for
housing animals longer than the mandated three days, and are typically for general fund related
mandates. Mr. Keys added this type of revenue is typically inconsistent and differs from budget to
budget; whereas, property tax estimates are based on historical trends. Mr. Schwabauer provided
an example of the inconsistency, stating one year the State funded the City $750,000 for a
mandate and the next year only $40,000.
In response to Council Member Chandler, Mr. Keys stated that the category of "Other Taxes"
includes the Transient Occupancy Tax, which has steadily increased and continues to grow;
however, he pointed out that at some point there will be saturation once the maximum number of
rooms is rented. He stated staff will revisit the forecast once new hotels start coming on line but
there needs to be planning/construction activity before revenue can be projected.
Mr. Schwabauer pointed out that the five-year projection for expenses does not represent staffs
assumption on what Council will, or will not, do with salaries; instead, it is the minimum case
scenario. Mr. Keys added that labor negotiations on employee contracts are unknown and any
adjustments will require the forecast to be revisited.
In response to Council Member Johnson, Mr. Keys stated the next debt refinancing opportunity
will be 2022, the savings from which would be minimal. Because rates are an unknown at this
time, debt refinancing was not incorporated in the five-year budget assumptions.
Mr. Schwabauer summarized that the Cal -PERS rate assumption is not adjusted for
compounding interest and pointed out that the Safety plan will cost the City 106 to 150 percent
more than it does today.
In response to Council Member Johnson, Mr. Schwabauer stated that Cal -PERS, if asked, will
assume a 6.2 percent return on investments; however, Cal -PERS is facing negative equity for the
foreseeable future by paying more in Cal -PERS benefits than it is receiving in combined interest
and payments from cities and employees. Because it is paying more than it is taking in, Cal -
PERS continues to draw down its principle. Lodi is in the same situation because it most recently
paid $16 million in benefits to retirees and paid in and earned $14 million, which brought down the
principle by $2 million that year. In further response, Mr. Schwabauer stated that Cal -PERS
makes poor investments, however it is required to play by a different set of rules. Mr. Keys added
that Cal -PERS has missed out on investment opportunities because its investments are
hampered by legislation.
Mr. Schwabauer explained the UAL growth is projected for five years but not for year six and
beyond because there is no actuarial going out that far. He stated the Cal -PERS bill continues to
climb and, in the hypothetical exercise of adding sales tax revenue to the five-year projection, that
new revenue would still not cover the Cal -PERS bill after that period of time.
2
Council Member Chandler asked Lodi Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Pat Patrick to
comment on the five-year revenue projection that assumes a half -cent sales tax in 2018.
Mr. Schwabauer stressed that staff is not recommending a sales tax measure; it was solely to
demonstrate the effect a new revenue source would have on the five-year projection.
Mr. Patrick stated it was premature for the Chamber to comment on the concept, but he
recognized that the City is in long-term dire straits. He reminded Council of its goal of economic
development and stated the vacant lots east of Highway 99 still have no infrastructure to entice
new businesses. He recognized Lodi does not own those properties but stated he believes the
City needs to be more competitive and prepared for economic development opportunities.
Mr. Patrick invited Mr. Keys to meet to discuss issues effecting the community, adding that the
Chamber's number one purpose is to help the business community thrive. He pointed out that
Lodi's population is aging and many are choosing to leave California, which will negatively effect
future sales and property tax revenues.
Mr. Keys welcomed the opportunity to meet with Mr. Patrick, stating he would like to form a
relationship with the Chamber and the business community. He too stressed that staff did not
recommend a sales tax option; instead, it was presented as one revenue enhancement solution
for the financial problem facing Lodi. He stated that, absent major changes on the expenditure
side of the budget, the City will have a challenging time balancing the budget. Mr. Keys stated
that, if the tax option is pursued, the City will involve the business community and interested
parties to develop a solution together.
C. Comments by Public on Non -Agenda Items
None.
D. Adjournment
No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 8:09 a.m.
ATTEST:
Jennifer M. Ferraiolo
City Clerk
3
CITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA ITEM
BI
AGENDA TITLE: Receive Presentation Regarding Fiscal Year 2017/18 General Fund Budget and
the 5 -Year General Fund Forecast
MEETING DATE: May 2, 2017
PREPARED BY: Andrew Keys, Deputy City Manager
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive presentation regarding Fiscal Year 2017/18 General Fund
budget and the 5 -Year General Fund forecast.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff has planned a presentation series to provide Council and the
public opportunity to review and comment on basic assumptions
within the budget to be proposed to Council later this month. The
budget will be released and made available for public review at City Hall and online once a draft is
finalized. This session is designed to provide information on the general economic circumstances facing
City Staff and Council in allocating resources to most effectively deliver services, with particular focus on
the General Fund.
Included in the presentation will be discussion of the City's 5 -year General Fund forecast. The forecast is
a critical planning tool for staff and Council use to anticipate future resource or service level adjustment
needs. The forecast presented will include a baseline scenario that keeps normal operations with no
change in service levels. It will also provide some basic sensitivity analysis that shows the impact of
potential additional resources as well as the impact a negative turn in the economy might have on the
City's financial health.
Future Council budget presentations will focus on other aspects of the City's budget beyond the General
Fund. The first opportunity for the City Council to adopt the Fiscal Year 2017/18 budget will be at its
regular meeting on June 7, 2017.
FISCAL IMPACT:
FUNDING AVAILABLE:
There is no impact from this informational presentation.
The General Fund for Fiscal Year 2017/18 is balanced with a total of
$48,369,550 in projected revenue and the same in expenses. Staff
continues to research the impacts of assessing cost of services to those
departments who have traditionally not paid such charges. If these charges are levied to these
departments in Fiscal Year 2017/18, staff recommends investing these funds in the City's Pension
Stabilization Reserve account with Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS). This investment would
provide some cash flow relief as the City's Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) to the CaIPERS system
increases.
07,47-4,„„ )6_
Andrew Keys, Deputy Ciy Manager
APPROVED:
tephen 1"" abauer, City Manager
Fiscal Year 2017/18 Budget
General Fund Forecast
Presented by: Andrew Keys, Deputy City Manager
Agenda
• Fiscal Year 2017-18 General Fund
— Assumptions
— Revenues
— Expenses by Department
— Expenses by Type
• New Position
• Key Inputs
• Five Year Forecast
— Assumptions
— Projection
— Risks/Known Challenges
— Opportunities
FY 17-18 Revenues
$48,369,550
33% 2,1:1}}
4.13} 3,3}}
■ Property Tax
• 5ales Tax
Fara prat Occupancy Tax
Burins Taxes
• Franchise Fees
1 Lodi Electric PILOT
roperty Tax in Lieu
Rent it & nvest rnent
Cost of Services
=I7= '2E= 'or Servi€ s& Perm its
Fines and Penalties
rel Esc Revenue and Grants
Revenue Trends
Revenue Trends
FY 17-18 Expenses
$48,369,550
FY 17-18 F Expenditures by Function
2.6
5,8}} 4,3}}
4.8E:49.3% ��
M
24.2%
• Go.'t and Adm in
• Internal Services
• Police Depart me nt
• Fire Delsarkrrie rit
• Pu 1;c 'y\' crI S
• PRCS
• Library
• N on -De par tni enta
FY 17-18 Expenses
$48,369,550
FY 17-18 General Fund Expenditures by
Type
■ Salary
■ PERS Norm al Cost
■ PERS LSML
■ Either Benefits
■ Operations
■ Debt Service
■ Transfers
FY 17-18 New Position
• Accountant
— Funded by transfers in from the utility funds
— Will provide accounting support for utility billing
and utility functions
— Will free up existing resources to focus on all
aspects of accounting and internal controls
Key Inputs FY 17-18
• Fire Engine 1 browned out 70%
• Two police officers unfunded until Mid Year
• Fire $100,000 to Vehicle Replacement
• Police not contributing Vehicle Replacement
• Continued $1.3 M MOE for Measure K
• $435,000 Capital Contribution
• Admin Secretary in Library is eliminated
— Employee was moved to Fire to fill a vacated
Senior Admin Clerk position.
Vehicle
Replacement
Funds
PW - GF
PRCS
Police Dept.
Fire Dept.
FY 15-16
YE Fund
Balance
YE Est.
Rev.
FY 16-17
YE Est.
Exp.
FY 16-17
YE Est.
FY 16-17
Fund
Target
Over/
(Under)
Target
Comm. Dev
Vehicle Replacement Fund
Grand Total
$21,694
$864,013
$660,672
$380,638
$115,379
$2,042,395
$21,000
$0
$358,717
$55,300
$3,980
$438,997
$0
$624,881
$177,193
$64,000
$30,000
$896,074
$42,694
$239,131
$842,196
$371,938
$89,359
$1,585,318
$15,025
$2,206,862
$1,444,016
$919,189
$155,503
$4,740,594
$27,669
($1,967,731)
($601,819)
($547,251)
($66,144)
($3,155,277)
5 -YEAR GENERAL FUND FORECAST
Revenue Assumptions
Revenue Category
FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23
Property Taxes - Secured
Property Taxes - CFD [1]
Property Taxes - Other
Sales & Use Taxes [2]
Other Taxes
EU Pilot
Fees & Permits [3]
Property Tax in Lieu VLF
Intergovernmental - Other [4]
Services Charges [5]
Fines & Forfeitures [6]
Use of Money
Other Revenues
Transfer In
4.0% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7%
N/A N/A 51.6% 25.8% 26.4% 17.6%
5.3% 2.1% 1.8% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9%
-0.2% 2.3% 1.8% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9%
3.7% 1.8% 2.1% 1.7% 1.8% 1.6%
0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
8.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
2.3% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
-11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
23.1% -29.9% -20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
27.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1%
4.9% 4.6% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4%
7.4% 4.2% 4.2% 2.6% 1.2% 1.2%
[1] Some revenue may be received in Fiscal Year 2017/18. Future year's growth accounts for projected growth
and 2% CPI.
[2] The decrease in Fiscal Year 2017-18 is due to adjustments to the City's share of the County Pool as a result
of historical misallocations. Actual economic activity is projected to increase approximately 3.5%.
[3] FY 17/18 increase due to anticipated continued strong economic growth.
[4] FY 17/18 decrease is due to the elimination of Delta RATT and state mandate reimbursements.
[5] FY 17/18 Public Work fee revenue is anticipated to increase with the growing demand for development
related engineering services. A gradual reduction to more normal collection rate is projected.
[6] The FY 17/18 increase due to reduced utility late fee collections in FY 16/17 caused by the Munis conversion.
Expense Assumptions
Expense Category
FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23
Salaries [1]
PERS Normal Cost [1] [2]
PERS UAL [2]
Other Benefits [1]
Operations
Debt [3]
Transfers
0.7%
N/A
N/A
4.4%
-8.0%
0.0%
0.1%
1.5%
9.0%
22.0%
2.5%
4.5%
0.0%
0.5%
0.7%
7.8%
20.0%
2.5%
4.5%
-0.2%
0.5%
0.5%
13.2%
17.5%
2.5%
4.5%
0.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
12.7%
2.5%
4.5%
0.3%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
10.0%
2.5%
4.5%
-0.4%
0.5%
[1] FY 2017-18 based on current employee salaries with allowance for step increases to eligible employees. No
allowance is made for benefit changes, employee benefit choices or salary scale adjustments.
[2] PERS rates will be assessed differently in FY 17-18 with normal cost separated from UAL. Growth in PERS
outpaces salary growth due to UAL. Estimates are based on the high end of the cost increase range
provided by CaIPERS. More information is not available until the City's actuarial is completed in August.
[3] Based on actual debt service schedules for existing debt. Does not assume any refinancing opportunity.
CaIPERS Rate Assumptions
• Rate changes with three 5 year Ramp Up.
Valuation Date
Fiscal Year
for Required Contribution
Discount Rate
June 30, 2016
2018-19
7.375%
June 30, 2017
2019-20
7.25%
June 30, 2018
2020-21
7.00%
• Estimated impacts compared to 6/30/2015
valuation.
Normal Cost
UAL Payments
Valuation Date
Fiscal Year
Impact
Misc.
Plans
Safety
Plans
Misc.
Plans
Safety
Plans
6/30/2016
6/30/2017
6/30/2018
6/30/2019
6/30/2020
2018-19
2019-20
2020-21
2021-22
2022-23
0.25% - 0.75%
0.5% - 1.5%
1.0% - 3.0%
1.0% - 3.0%
1.0% - 3.0%
0.5% - 1.25%
1.0% - 2.5%
2.0% - 5.0%
2.0% - 5.0%
2.0% - 5.0%
2% - 3%
4% - 6%
10% - 15%
15% - 20%
20% - 25%
2% - 3%
4% - 6%
10% - 15%
15% - 20%
20% - 25%
6/30/2021
6/30/2022
2023-24
2024-25
1.0% - 3.0%
1.0% - 3.0%
2.0% - 5.0%
2.0% - 5.0%
25% - 30%
30% - 40%
25% - 30%
30% - 40%
Revenues
General Fund Five Year Forecast - Revenues
Revenue
Budget
FY 16/17 E FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23
Property Taxes - Secured
Property Taxes - CFD
Property Taxes - Other
Sales & Use Taxes
Other Taxes
EU Pilot
Fees & Permits
Property Tax in Lieu VLF
Intergovernmental - Other
Services Charges
Fines & Forfeitures
Use of Money
Other Revenues
Transfer In
9,505,250
0
355,290
11, 517, 970
4,402, 000
7,131, 330
91,080
4,903,500
680,830
1,218,980
1,136, 500
1,521,000
366,620
4,000,000
9,885,200
0
374,000
11,490,830
4,564,000
7,158, 850
98,820
5,018,600
600,410
1,500,330
1,445,000
1,553,370
384,500
4,295,640
10, 251, 000
244,300
382,000
11, 755, 000
4,646,000
7,195, 000
101,000
5,119, 000
601,000
1,051,000
1,445,000
1,587,000
403,000
4,477,000
10,631,000
370,400
389,000
11, 971, 000
4,744,000
7,231,000
103,000
5,222,000
601,000
841,000
1,445,000
1,621,000
409,000
4,668,000
11, 025, 000
466,100
397,000
12,196, 000
4,826,000
7,268,000
105,000
5,327,000
601,000
841,000
1,445,000
1,656,000
415,000
4,788,000
11, 433, 000
589,200
405,000
12, 432, 000
4,911,000
7,305,000
107,000
5,434,000
601,000
841,000
1,445,000
1,692,000
421,000
4,846,000
11, 857, 000
692,900
413,000
12, 669, 000
4,990,000
7,342,000
109,000
5,543,000
601,000
841,000
1,445,000
1,729,000
427,000
4,905,000
Total Revenue
46, 830, 350 48, 369, 550 49, 257, 300 50, 246, 400 51, 356,100 52, 462, 200 53, 563, 900
Revenue Growth
N/A
3.3% 1.8%
2.0% 2.2%
2.2% 2.1%
Expenses
General Fund Five Year Forecast
Cate • or
Budget
FY 16/17 E FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22
FY 22/23
Salaries
PERS Normal Cost
PERS UAL
Other Benefits
Operations
Debt
Transfers
Pension Stabilization (PARS)
20,731,010
6,681,790
0
6,688,340
10, 700, 690
1,001,850
2,302,090
2,830,210
20, 866, 650
2,708,300
4,660,130
6,984,450
9,844,550
1,002,070
2,303,400
0
21,180,000
2,953,000
5,686,000
7,160,000
10, 288, 000
1,002,250
2,315,000
0
21, 329, 000
3,184, 000
6,824,000
7,339,000
10, 751, 000
999,760
2,327,000
0
21, 436, 000
3,605,000
8,019,000
7,523,000
11, 235, 000
999,310
2,339,000
0
21, 544, 000
3,624,000
9,038,000
7,712,000
11,741,000
1,002,560
2,351,000
0
21, 652, 000
3,643,000
9,942,000
7,905,000
12, 270, 000
998,250
2,363,000
0
Total Ex • enditure
50, 935, 980 48, 369, 550 50, 584, 250 52, 753, 760 55,156, 310 57, 012, 560
58, 773, 250
Ex•enditure Growth
N/A
-5.0% 4.6% 4.3% 4.6%
3.4%
3.1
evenue - Ex•enditure
4,105, 630
0 1,326,950 2,507,360 3,800,210 4,550,360
5,209,350
Total Fund Balance 1
8 769 858 8 769 858 7 442,908 4 935 548 1,135 338 3 415 022 8 624,372
[1] Fund balance details inluded in a later slide.
Fund Balance
Cate • o
Budget
FY 16/17 E FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23
DIVCA [1]
Catastrophic Reserve [2]
Economic Reserve [2]
Unassigned Reserve
465,127 481,127 481,127 481,127 481,127 481,127 481,127
3,746,428 3,869,564 4,048,180 4,223,501 531,211
3,746,428 3,869,564 2,895,601 172,920 0
811,875 549,603 0 0
0
0
0
0
0 (4,113,149) (9,448,499)
Total Fund Balance 8,769,858 8,769,858 7,424,908 4,877,548 1,012,338 3,632,022 8,967,372
[1] DIVCA is a reserved fund balance from revenues that are restricted to a limited purpose.
[2] Per policy, this is set at 8% of revenue, catostrophic reserves are prioritize, then economic reserves, then unassigned.
Impact of 1% Revenue Shortfall in
FY 17/18
Cate • or
Budget
FY 16/17 E FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23
Revenues
Expenses
46, 830, 350 47, 885, 855 48, 764, 727 49, 743, 936 50, 842, 539 51, 937, 578 53, 028, 261
50, 935, 980 48, 369, 550 50, 602, 250 52, 793, 760 55, 221, 310 57,106, 560 58, 899, 250
Revenue - Ex•enditure 4,105,630 483,696 1,837,523 3,049,824 4,378,771 5,168,982 5,870,989
Total Fund Blance
8 769 858 8 286 163 6 448 640 3 398 816 979 955 6 148 937 12 019 927
DIVCA
Catstrophic Reserves
Economic Reserves
Unassigned Reserve
465,127 481,127 481,127 481,127 481,127 481,127 481,127
3,746,428 3,830,868 3,901,178 2,917,689 0 0 0
3,746,428 3,830,868 2,066,334
811,875 143,299 0
0 0 0 0
0 (1,461,082) (6,630,064) (12,501,054)
Total Fund Balance
8 769 858 8 286 163 6 448 640 3 398 816 979 955 6 148 937 12 019 927
Cumulative Fund
Balance Im •act
N/A
483 696 976 269 1 478 732 1 992 293 2 516 915 3 052 554
Impact of New Revenue
Cate • o
Budget
FY 16/17 E FY 17/18
FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23
Revenues
Potential New Revenue[1]
Expenses
46, 830, 350 48, 369, 550 49, 257, 300 50, 246, 400 51, 356,100 52, 462, 200 53, 563, 900
N/A N/A 2,644,875 5,386,950 5,488, 200 5,594,400 5,701,050
50, 935, 980 48, 369, 550 50, 602, 250 52, 793, 760 55, 221, 310 57,106, 560 58, 899, 250
Revenue - Ex•enditure
4,105,630
0 1,299,925 2,839,590 1,622,990 950,040 365,700
Total Fund Blance
8,769,858 8,769,858 10, 069, 783 12, 909, 373 14, 532, 363 15, 482, 403 15, 848,103
D I VCA
Catstrophic Reserves
Economic Reserves
Unassigned Reserve
465,127
3,746,428
3,746,428
811,875
481,127
3,869,564
3,869,564
549,603
481,127
3,940,584
3,940,584
1,707,488
481,127
4,019,712
4,019,712
4,388,822
481,127
4,108,488
4,108,488
5,834,260
481,127
4,196, 976
4,196, 976
6,607,324
481,127
4,285,112
4,285,112
6,796,752
Total Fund Balance
8,769,858 8,769,858 10, 069, 783 12, 909, 373 14, 532, 363 15, 482, 403 15, 848,103
Cumulative Fund
Balance Im • act
N/A
0 2,644,875 8,031,825 13,520,025 19,114,425 24,815,475
[1] Based on estimated Local Sales Tax measure at half -cent approved in November 2018.
New Revenue with 1% Revenue
Shortfall in FY 17/18
Cate • or
Budget
FY 16/17 E FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23
Revenues
Potential New Revenue[1]
Expenses
46, 830, 350 47, 885, 855 48, 764, 727 49, 743, 936 50, 842, 539 51, 937, 578 53, 028, 261
N/A N/A 2,618,426 5,333,081 5,433,318 5,538,456 5,644,040
50,935,980 48,369,550 50,602,250 52,793,760 55,221,310 57,106,560 58,899,250
Revenue - Ex•enditure 4,105,630 483,696 780,903 2,283,257 1,054,547 369,474 226,949
Total Fund Blance
8,769,858 8,286,163 9,067,066 11, 350, 322 12, 404, 869 12, 774, 343 12, 547, 394
DIVCA
Catstrophic Reserves
Economic Reserves
Unassigned Reserve
465,127
3,746,428
3,746,428
811,875
481,127
3,830,868
3,830,868
143,299
481,127
3,901,178
3,901,178
783,582
481,127
3,979,515
3,979,515
2,910,165
481,127
4,067,403
4,067,403
3,788,936
481,127
4,155, 006
4,155, 006
3,983,204
481,127
4,242,261
4,242,261
3,581,745
Total Fund Balance
8,769,858 8,286,163 9,067,066 11, 350, 322 12, 404, 869 12, 774, 343 12,547, 394
Cumulative Fund
Balance Im •act
N/A
483,696 1,642,158 6,472,774 11, 392, 531 16, 406, 365 21, 514, 766
[1] Based on estimated Local Sales Tax measure at half -cent approved in November 2018. Assumes 1% less new revenue in
FY 18/19 and beyond.
Risks and Opportunities
Risks
Opportunities
PERS UAL/Other changes
Recession
Economic Development
Revenue Enhancement
Labor agreements
Cost of Services
Cost recovery studies