HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Questions from Robert Goldberg21
Gloria Harper
From:Robert Goldberg <rgoldberg@live.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2020 12:01 PM
To:Thomas Moore; Schelly Sustarsic; Mike Varipapa; Sandra Massa-Lavitt; Joe Kalmick
Cc:Jill Ingram; Gloria Harper; Steve Myrter; Kelly Telford; Charles M. Kelly; Jeannette
Andruss
Subject:External Email : Questions and Comments for Today's Budget Workshop-- Part 2
Attachments:Budget Questions.Part 2.Pre WS.doc
Dear Council and Staff,
Please find attached "Part 2" of my questions and comments for budget pages 116 through 134.
Thank you for your consideration and service,
Robert Goldberg
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
1
Comments & Questions from Robert Goldberg, 5/28/20
[Part 2]
Public Works Department
P.121
Fund: Sewer Operations: The proposed budget for Part-Time is $92,000 vs. an estimated
$54,200 for FY 19-20. Of note is that my comparison of the proposed Position Allocation
Plan on page 232 to the one from FY 19-20 does not show any proposed increase in
fractional part-time positions (full-time equivalents) in Public Works.
Please explain why $92,000 is being requested for Part-Time employees?
Why is this increase not reflected in the Position Allocation Plan?
The proposed budget for Equipment and Materials is $85,000 vs. an estimated $55,500
for FY 19-20 and an actual for FY18-19 of $33,057.
Why is this large increase necessary?
The listing of Contract Professionals on page 122 is unchanged from last year. However,
the proposed budget for Contract Professionals on page 121 is $222,400 vs an estimated
$152,300 for FY 19-20 and an actual for FY18-19 of $119,751.
Why is this large increase necessary?
P.123
Fund: Sewer Capital: The Estimated Actual FY 19-20 for Transfer Out –Operation is $3.4
million vs an amended FY 19-20 amount of only $765,500. This budgeted transfer was
intended to make up for an equivalent revenue short-fall in the Sewer Operation Fund.
However, the $3.4 M transfer is over 2.5X the total estimated spent by Sewer Operations
in FY 19-20.
Is the $3.4 M Estimated Actual FY 19-20 for Transfer Out –Operation an error?
If not, where did most of this money go?
FY 19-20’s budget included a “Fund Balance and Cash Analysis” at the bottom of the
page. Given that much of the Fund Balance was due to capital investments (pipes,
pumps), it was very informative to see the cash balances on the budget appropriation
page. The new “Summary of Projected Fund Balance s” on pages 14-15 shows the total of
capital + cash. Thus, cash balance information has been dropped out of the budget.
Please restore at least the “Remaining Cash Balance” analysis to this page.
2
P.126
Fund: City-Wide Grants: There are two new grants that I have not seen in the previous
budget: 080-300-49605 for $50,000 and 080-368-49605 for $200,000.
Who are these from?
Community Services
P.129
Program: Senior Bus: The new contract with Yellow Cab approved last Tuesday was not
expected to increase the net costs for this program. However, the proposed budget for
Contract Professionals is $228,800 vs an actual for FY18-19 of $202,869 (pre-COVID).
Why is staff requesting about $25,000 (13%) more than our pre-COVID
expenditures?
P.130
Program: Park Maintenance: The listing of Contract Professionals is unchanged from last
year. However, the proposed budget for Contract Professionals is $190,000 vs an
estimated $138,400 for FY 19-20 and an actual for FY18-19 of $134,198.
Why is this large increase necessary?
P.133
Program: Leisure Classes: The proposed budget for Printing (of Rec Guide) is only
$10,000 vs. an estimated $48,000 for FY 19-20.
Are mailing out only one Rec Guide in FY 20-21 vs. our normal four?