My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2019_0318_CCPacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2019
>
2019_0318_CCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2019 1:50:04 PM
Creation date
4/4/2019 12:43:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
3/8/2019
Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
297
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment B <br />Commissioner McRoberts stated the budget should be closer to the actual spend and there should <br />not be large surpluses generated. <br />Commissioner Bachhuber stated the IT Fund does look like they are budgeting more than their <br />needs consistently and this is something that could be looked at. <br />Finance Director Miller stated the IT Fund is the large surpluses resulted from vacant positions. <br />The City also sets aside approximately $150,000 to $300,000 for capital replacements and this is <br />based on the CIP schedule. There are times the City does not spend these CIP funds because <br />there is not a need yet because the items that are scheduled to be replaced are still working. <br />Commissioner McRoberts stated there should be some priority in the CIP because the <br />replacement schedule should not be that discretionary. <br />Finance Director Miller stated this is a business model that may change but currently the City set <br />up the IT Fund to be separate and the monies in this fund stay in this fund. One of the reasons <br />the City set this up this way was to allow discretion to not replace assets until you had to. This <br />means the funds are there when the asset does need to be replaced. <br />Chair Schroeder asked why some funds or departments did not have a separate CIP Fund. <br />Finance Director Miller stated the IT Fund, Parks and Recreation Fund, and License Center Fund <br />had been established as a separately managed function. The idea behind this was to isolate costs <br />and decision-making. <br />Chair Schroeder stated it makes things confusing when some areas have their CIP in their <br />operating budget and there is not clear way to know what funds are set up this way. <br />Commissioner Zeller stated there are CIP processes and a specific fund set up for capital <br />improvements. There is a Parks and Recreation CIP fund but they also have CIP items built into <br />their operating budget. <br />Finance Director Miller stated the Parks and Recreation fund the Commission is reviewing at this <br />time only operations and does not include CIP items. <br />Commissioner Bachhuber stated what Chair Schroeder and Commission Zeller are <br />recommending is to pull the CIP items from the operating budgets and look at these items and <br />prioritize them. He would not have the Park and Recreation fund separate because it does not <br />generate enough revenue to operate as a separate business. <br />Chair Schroeder stated the License Center transfers funds to other departments throughout the <br />year. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.