pages: CityCouncil/2011-03-29.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2011-03-29 | 3 | The Controller responded the same level of maintenance expenditures is assumed for the General Fund portion; stated other sources of revenue, such as gas tax and Measure B, can be used for roadway maintenance. The Acting City Manager responded the forecast shows everything remaining static. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether OPEB is being bought down, to which the Acting City Manager responded in the negative; The Controller stated the estimates assume continuation of pay as you go. In response to Councilmember deHaan's comments about next budget cycle, the Acting City Manager stated staff wanted to let everyone know about the problem and give the Council and community time to understand what the City is facing; the City is facing difficult decisions about how to move forward; the presentation assumes that nothing is fixed; solutions for FY 11-12 will bring down future deficits; there are difficult decisions; staff is looking at on-going and one time fixes. Councilmember deHaan noted one time revenue was used in FY 10-11. The Controller stated the sources of one time revenue were $1.9 million from the transfer tax and $2 million from reimbursements from outside funds; nether will reoccur in FY 11-12, which is part of why revenues are forecasted to drop from $73 million in FY 10-11 to $67 million FY 11-12; one time solutions do not help the situation long term. Councilmember Johnson inquired how confident the City is with the State's situation, to which the Acting City Manager responded an upcoming slide addresses redevelopment. In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding gas tax, the Acting City Manager stated staff has not heard the State talking about the gas tax; redevelopment has been the focus; the State is also messing with libraries; the General Fund is impacted if the State takes away redevelopment. In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding the $2 million reimbursement, the Controller stated Alameda Municipal Power owed the City $1.1 million from something like Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT); $850,000 came from the City not billing the assessment districts properly for administrative costs going back 10 years averaging about $80,000 per year; the correct amount will be charged going forward; continued the presentation. Councilmember Tam inquired what portion of the $581,000 in the CIC budget that would be eliminated if the Governor's proposal the eliminate redevelopment is successful is cost reimbursement for public safety. The Controller stated that he would look into the matter and provide information back to Council. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 3 March 29, 2011 | CityCouncil/2011-03-29.pdf |