Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff reports midyear FY24–25 budget shows improved general fund balances; water fund running a cash deficit
Summary
Staff presented a midyear review showing the general fund had a projected surplus and increased fund balance while the water fund showed a cash-basis deficit; council was briefed on revenue and expense variances and one budget adjustment was noted.
City finance staff presented the FY24–25 midyear budget review, reporting a stronger-than-expected general fund position and mixed results across enterprise funds.
Carrie (city finance staff) told council the general fund now shows a projected surplus through January 2025 and an unassigned balance of roughly $13 million; when combined with committed balances, staff reported nearly $14 million on hand. Revenue increases included higher vehicle license fee (VLF) receipts (about $138,000), building permits and in-house plan check fees (about $208,000), developer project revenue (about $31,000) and property tax increases (about $88,000). Staff also noted insurance claim recoveries for two police vehicles totaling about $99,000 and a transfer related to LPRs and vehicle upfitting.
The water fund displayed a projected cash-basis deficit of roughly $767,000 and an overall deficit around $1.27 million after accounting for depreciation and capital reserves; staff attributed the change to energy costs, a change order for Well No. 15 (roughly $271,000 rollover), equipment purchases and SCADA engineering work. The sewer fund showed a projected surplus on a cash basis (about $328,000) driven by project deferrals and reduced transfers; staff said deferred projects reduced anticipated expenditures by about $760,000. Solid-waste showed a modest surplus (about $50,000).
Staff said the city continues to meet a 25-percent reserve policy for utilities and noted that a budget adjustment related to permit fees (diff fees) appears in the packet and requires council approval. No substantive policy changes or new tax proposals were discussed at the meeting.
