CC_Minutes_2002_0506 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Chris Miller's Overview-Attachment A paragraph. Mr. .3 to $7.8 the $9.1 of funds to $8.5 spending on designated permitted uses". Therefore, we had a surplus of $600,000 of receipts over expenditures. BUT WAIT! He says we actually had $3.9 of receipts over expenditures, an additional $3.3 million, as of 12/31/99. How could this be? Mr. Miller attributes it to the receipt ("transfer") from various TIF districts, "as permitted by state law". In the absence of a better explanation, I can only interpret this to mean that when an MSA road was constructed within an existing TIF district, the city not only got reimbursed for that project from the state aids, but "double dipped", by also getting reimbursed by the benefited TIF district. The city must have gotten paid from MSA state aids, and also from TIF funds for the same road. Iftbis is what happened, I consider it unethical behavior. The City is only entitled to recover its costs once. Page 2, par. 2. Mr. Miller tells you how much MSA funds was transferred to the newly devised street infrastructure endowment fund, but he did not disclose that the total transfers into that fund at December 31, 1999 was $10,848, 334. At the end of2000, it was over $12,000,000, and as of now it must be around $13,000,000 due to interest earnings accumulations. I know of no other city that is so rich and has so much available that it can set aside close to $11 million in an endowment type fund. The intent is keep the principal intact, and only use the earnings to fund mill overlays, now that all our streets have been brought up to Roseville standards, (curbs, etc.) through the Pavement Management program that went on for years. I personally object to the city maintaining such reserves. Any excess funds that are not used, should be used to reduce future levies. 3