My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_0508_Packet_a
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_0508_Packet_a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 2:35:36 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:34:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
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.
/
301
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
City Council Regular Meeting— 04/24/06 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 8 <br />4.a Approve Amendments to 2005 Budget to Conform with <br />Council Spending Decisions (former Consent Item 3.#`� <br />At the request of Mayor K�ausing, City Manager Beets <br />briefly reviewed the request for annual year-end <br />adjustments to the 2005 City Budget for reallocating funds <br />for actual costs that are covered by unbudgeted grants, fees <br />or other revenues. <br />Councilmember Ihlan sought specific information as to <br />why the General Property Tax Revenue received was less <br />than the final budget; as well as why investment income <br />was less than the final budget as adopted. <br />Finance Director Chris Miller clarified that the City was <br />seeing an increase in valuation appeals to Ramsey County; <br />with the County withholding tax payment funds from <br />municipalities for up to three years until the petition is <br />heard and a final settlement reached. Mr. Miller noted that, <br />thus, the City wasn't realizing revenues in the current year <br />on those appealed valuations. <br />As to a reduction in the investment income, Mr. Miller <br />advised that this represented an amortized discount, a non- <br />cash calculation, of what a security would earn today if the <br />City were to sell it prematurely. Mr. Miller noted that this <br />was a common occurrence to see investments drop when <br />interest rates increase and their market value declines; but <br />even though the City was holding the investments, under <br />General Accounting Principals, it still needed to be <br />"booked" as negative interest even though the case <br />remained; representing a market-to-market adjustment. <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned whether reserves were <br />being drawn down to make up for the budget loss. <br />Mr. Miller noted that for cash-related accounts in the <br />General Fund, the City did require an additional draw down <br />from their General Fund reserves. <br />Removed from the <br />Consent Agenda <br />Approve <br />Amendments to <br />2005 Budget to <br />Conform with <br />Council Spending <br />Decisions <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.