AgdaPkt 2009-12-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

ATTACHMENT 1 General Fund Revenue Comparison (FY 2007/08 to FY 2008/09) FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 Actual Revenue Actual Revenue Chan e -$ - Chan e - % - $84,487,452 $82,194,918 $2,296,534 2.7% The revenue decrease this fiscal year is primarily due to a decrease in sales, other taxes, and fees and charges. Some of the general fund revenue highlights are: • Property taxes exceeded budget by $1.3 million primarily due to the receipt of a $3 million payment from the County of San Mateo due to the over-deduction of Education Revenue Augmentation Fund amounts from the City in prior years, which exceeded the estimated amount by $1.6 million. • Sales and other taxes were below budget by $3.2 million mostly due to an unanticipated decline in sales tax revenue ($3.8 million). The negative variance in sales taxes resulted primarily from a $1.2 mil(ion decline in vehicle sales, a $600,00� decline in sales of retailers, and a decline of $250,000 in building and construction materials. Transient occupancy taxes (-$811,000) and property transfer taxes (- $330,�40) were also less than budgeted. Utility users' taxes were $1.6 million higher than budgeted - $10 million actual vs. $8.4 million budgeted. • Licenses and permits were less than budget by $518,000 due to lower construction activity during the year. • Charges for services were $197,000 less than budgeted primarily due to plan checking and planning services revenue related to an unanticipated decrease in construction activity. The City continues to rely very heavily upon property and sales taxes (exclusive of proposition 172 sales tax revenue) as over 61% of the general fund revenue is derived from these two sources. Sales taxes provided 19°/Q of general fund revenue while property taxes accounted for 42% of general fund revenue. Utility Users' Ta�c/Communication Users' Tax Revenues Pursuant to section 32.621 of the City's municipal code, the following information must be conveyed to the City Council. Of the total $10 million utility users' tax revenue, $4.8 million was communication users' tax. By Council policy utility users' tax is used to pay debt service ($2.2 million) on Public Financing Authority Bonds, with the remaining balance transferred to the Capital Outlay Fund for the City's general capita[ improvement program. In FY 2008/09 there were no exemptions granted for communication users' tax. Expenditures Budgeted Actual Expenditures Ex enditures & Encumbrances Variance - $ - Variance -% - $82,759,fi91 $81,289,243 $1,470,448 1.8°/a