City Council Agenda and Packet 2011 03 08 SP BUDGET

Home Browse Search

PAGE TWO SUBJECT: COUNCIL RETREAT /SPECIAL BUDGET MEETING DATE: MARCH 8, 2011 Summary Review of Adopted 2011 -2015 CIP and Unfunded Capital Improvements The adopted 2011 -2015 Five -Year Capital Improvement Program includes over 100 specific capital projects planned over the next five years that will cost over $32 million. Staff also anticipates additional capital projects totaling over $46 million in 2016 and subsequent years. Although staff does not intend to review the individual projects in the CIP until the June budget meeting, we wanted to make Council aware of the relative magnitude of the anticipated impact on the City's various funds to maintain the City's existing infrastructure and level of services. Potential 2011 Budget Amendments And /Or 2012 Budget Priorities In July 2010 when the City Council voted to put the Use Tax question on the November 2010 ballot, staff included in the Council packet a list of potential uses for the use tax revenue. This information was intended to give voters some indication what the new revenue might be used for if approved by the voters. Staff has included this same table in the Council's packet with additional items that Council may want to consider. There is currently not sufficient data to accurately determine how much revenue the new Use Tax will generate. Consequently, staff recommends against adopting any major amendments to the 2011 budget. However, based on comments from the Mayor and Council members during previous meetings, there are some relatively small changes to the 2011 budget —such as approving funding for the 4 of July celebration —that staff wants Council to confirm we should prepare for Council action. Staff would also appreciate Council direction on any additional amendments to the 2011 budget we should prepare and significant actions we should plan to accommodate as we prepare the 2012 budget. Budgeting for Outcomes and Performance Measurement Several cities, counties and states, including Boulder, Fort Collins, and the State of Washington have implemented various approaches to budgeting intended to ensure that funding is allocated to the highest priorities and limited funds are stretched as far as possible. These approaches generally involve (1) establishing a level of funding, or the "Price of Government ", for government services that the governing body —and the community— considers an acceptable burden (in terms of taxes, fees and charges) and which is sustainable given the anticipated economic conditions facing the city, (2) identifying the broad general outcomes that the city desires to achieve, (3) preparing specific proposals — including cost information —that are intended to help achieve those broad general outcomes, and then (4) ranking the proposals so that the highest priorities are funded within the funding that is available. City staff will discuss these approaches, how they compare with the City of Louisville's approach and what advantages and disadvantages the various approaches may have. For reference, slide 16 in the PowerPoint presentation shows the amount and relative percentage of overall funding that the City of Louisville 2011 budget provides for each of the broad program categories of municipal services. The City is currently participating, along with 10 other cities, in the Colorado Performance Measurement Consortium. In 2010 the participating cities compiled data on numerous activities. This data is summarized to highlight each cities' relative performance, identify best practices and areas that might benefit from a different approach. The FY 2009 Data Report is attached. This report reflects data submitted in 2010 for the 2009 fiscal year. City staff is currently submitting the data for the 2010 fiscal year. 4