Laserfiche WebLink
Attachment B <br />Commissioner Harold stated removing the capital from these funds would be a prerequisite <br />before the Commission could make any recommendations on how the excess operating monies <br />should be carried forward. <br />Finance Director Miller stated there are also restricted funds that contain an operating and capital <br />component. He stated the funds the Commission’s referring to were established to capture funds <br />for a specific function and it was meant to include both operating and capital pieces for these <br />particular funds. <br />Commissioner Bachhuber asked if there was a way to account for the future need within an <br />account. <br />Finance Director Miller stated the CIP was setup to track and identify those needs. He stated the <br />Council was looking for a recommendation from the Commission on establishing a cash carry <br />forward fund for excess funds that could be used for future initiatives. <br />Commissioner McRoberts stated the Commissioner has expressed concerns regarding those <br />departments that consistently under spending or overachieving revenue. If the excess funds are <br />just moved to another fund then this would just be a mechanism for building up another fund. <br />Commissioner Zeller stated the City should not be building up excess funds unless they are <br />needed because this means the citizens are being over taxed. Taking the capital component out <br />of these funds would provide a better picture of the true operating costs. <br />Chair Schroeder asked if it was still useful to keep the capital costs in these particular funds. <br />Commissioner Bachhuber stated having all of the capital needs together would make it more <br />efficient for the City to determinewhere the needs are and how best to meet the capital needs of <br />the City. Departments could ask for more capital because it is not included in their budgets. <br />Commissioner McRoberts stated in the IT fund there is a budget surplus from an operating point <br />of view, which is designed to cover a capital expenditure. But then the department under <br />achieves in the capital expenditures so there is a greater than expected budget surplus. Yet there <br />is no prioritization of that capital expenditure with everything else. This seems that an <br />operational over or under which is essentially a source of funding and there is a capital <br />expenditure and that sort of funding should be considered with other sources of funding and the <br />capital expenditures should be prioritized with everything else. Otherwise those that are capable <br />of generating their own revenue get to write their own check for capital and there is no point in <br />prioritizing. <br />Commissioner Zeller stated the original staff recommendation had been to exclude the funds that <br />have capital built included in their budgets and only look at the general fund. <br />Commissioner Harold stated he still felt that all operating funds should be included. The general <br />fund already has a reserve fund and it did not make sense to move these same funds into a <br /> <br />