My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2020_0921_CCPacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2020
>
2020_0921_CCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2022 1:59:47 PM
Creation date
1/10/2022 1:59:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
9/21/2020
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.
/
218
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 H <br />Finance Commission Minutes <br />September 8, 2020 Î Draft Minutes <br />Page 3 of 10 <br />91 Commissioner Bester indicated he was a little confused about the Communications budget <br />92 concerns. He explained he went back to the audited financial statements to find there was a loss <br />93 in the Communications program but there were transfers out of one hundred forty-one thousand <br />94 and he wondered what that amount was for. <br />95 <br />96 Ms. Pietrick explained the transfer was done because the capital for 2020 was moved out of the <br />97 Communication budget and over to the Facilities budget and as a result the Communication Fund <br />98 exceeded its fund balance targets. Based on excess Fund Balance Policy, that money was <br />99 transferred into the Cash Reserve Fund. <br />100 <br />101 Commissioner Bester explained on page 49, the Cash Balance on the chart is not the same as the <br />102 numerical data in the IT Support Equipment. <br />103 <br />104 Ms. Pietrick indicated she would check on that because it might be a typo. <br />105 <br />106 Chair Murray invited Ms. Cynthia White to speak. <br />107 <br />108 Ms. Cynthia White wondered if there is ever a confidence analysis done on the CIP projections. <br />109 If she went back five years to see what is projected now, how close would the projections be to <br />110 actual. <br />111 <br />112 Ms. Pietrick indicated she did not have an answer for that. <br />113 <br />114 Chair Murray indicated he was not aware of any sort of analysis. <br />115 <br />116 Ms. White thought twenty to thirty years out was hard to project so assumed the normal look <br />117 ahead is two to three years. <br />118 <br />119 Ms. Pietrick indicated the normal look is three to five years. <br />120 <br />121 Commissioner Bester moved, seconded by Commissioner Davies to recommend approval of the <br />122 2021-2040 Capital Improvement Plan & Tentative Funding Strategies. The motion carried <br />123 unanimously. <br />124 <br />125 <br />126 Establish a Recommendation on the 2021 City Manager Recommended Budget and Tax <br />127 Levy <br />128 <br />129 Finance Director Pietrick stated the 2021 City Manager Recommended Budget and Tax Levy <br />130 was presented at the August 10, 2020 City Council meeting. No formal Commission action is <br />131 required; however, the Commission may want to submit guidance or recommendations to the <br />132 City Council regarding the City ManagerÓs recommended budget and tax levy. <br />133 <br />134 Chair Murray explained he had a discussion with the City Manager regarding the new position <br />135 and forwarded an email to the Commission on this item. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.