Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: <br /> <br />~ <br />~ <br /> <br />REQUEST FOR <br />COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br />CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: <br /> <br />JUNE 6, 2005 <br />TITLE: <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING - FISCAL YEAR <br />2005-06 CITY BUDGET <br /> <br />APPROVED <br /> <br />o As Recommended <br />o As Amended <br />o Ordinance on 15t Reading <br />o Ordinance on 2nd Reading <br />o Implementing Resolution <br />o Set Public Hearing For <br /> <br />.~' <br />"\ <br /> <br />/d <br />//// <br />(~/iL~ </l~,<--~/ <br /> <br />CITY MANAGER <br /> <br />CONTINUED TO <br /> <br />FILE NUMBER <br /> <br />RECOMMENDED ACTION <br /> <br />1. Adopt an ordinance appropriating monies for the fiscal year <br />commencing July 1, 2005. <br /> <br />2. Adopt a resolution amending City's Basic Management Classification <br />and Compensation plan (Resolution No. 91-066) to delete one <br />classification title. <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br /> <br />The 2005-2006 fiscal year budget will enable the City to fulfill its <br />purpose of providing quality service to enhance the safety, livability <br />and prosperity of our community. In light of this purpose, this budget <br />emphasizes public safety, quality development standards, effective <br />community-driven code enforcement, and a positive partnership with the <br />business and educational communi ties as its external priori ties; while <br />quality customer service and sound internal systems serve as internal <br />priorities. Given these objectives, the total annual proposed budget for <br />Fiscal Year 2005-2006 is $404,220,000. <br /> <br />The City continues to address the challenge of meeting demands that exceed <br />resources in a financial environment that has been dominated by the <br />actions of the State in two major areas: increasing retirement costs and <br />diverting local government revenues. In an effort to resolve a projected <br />$17 billion structural budget deficit in 2004-2005, the State again <br />targeted City revenues as a part of the solution to its problem. In <br />response, the councils and staffs of cities throughout the State worked <br />together with the League of California Cities to take the actions <br />necessary to place a measure on the November ballot that would protect <br />local government revenues from being diverted by the State. During the <br />course of a number of months, a compromise proposal was reached and <br />endorsed by the Governor. As a result, Proposition 1A was placed on the <br />ballot and approved by the voters in November 2004. Although the passage <br /> <br />75A1-1 <br />