My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2011_0418
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
CC_Minutes_2011_0418
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/5/2011 2:28:30 PM
Creation date
5/5/2011 2:28:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
4/18/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,April 18, 2011 <br /> Page 12 <br /> Mr. Miller advised that he was unable to offer a comment on norms for other <br /> communities, as each looked at their specific cash flow and operational needs be- <br /> tween revenue collections cycles from differing perspectives. Mr. Miller noted <br /> that the City collected revenue through Ramsey County property taxes on a six (6) <br /> month cycle, thus the rationale in creating the 50% reserve policy to assure oper- <br /> ating needs in the interim. However, Mr. Miller advised that, budget cycles over <br /> the last seven to eight (7-8) years were closer to 35-40% reserves in the General <br /> Fund, with additional funds borrowed on an interim basis internally from other <br /> funds, a normal operating procedure not only for Roseville but other cities as <br /> well; and that borrowing was usually from the City's most stable reserve fund, the <br /> Pavement Management Plan (PMP); typically for only 30-60 days. Mr. Miller <br /> advised that the City Council may wish to have discussion on whether or not that <br /> was an appropriate practice to continue. <br /> Councilmember Johnson questioned if reducing the reserve policy from 50% to <br /> 35%would preclude the necessity of borrowing from other internal funds. <br /> Mr. Miller responded affirmatively;however, he noted that to get from the 35%to <br /> 50% funding level, it would require a sizable infusion of cash from some source. <br /> Councilmember Willmus opined that that specific policy needed further review <br /> and discussion. <br /> Mayor Roe concurred, noting that policy had been one of his proposed discussion <br /> points as well. <br /> Mayor Roe clarified with Mr. Miller total General Fund budget versus levy- <br /> supported General Fund budget ($13 million versus $18 million); the portion of <br /> property tax levy going toward principle and interest and whether it made sense to <br /> have a policy related to tax-supported portion of the General Fund, or the whole <br /> fund; and whether there would be any significant changes to the numbers accor- <br /> dingly. <br /> Mr. Miller advised that consideration should be given on the lack of uniformity of <br /> non-cash tax flows through the year; noting that most cities used General Fund, <br /> rather than property tax-based reserve percentages. <br /> Mayor Roe questioned if it made sense to provide a minimum range rather than a <br /> fixed percentage for reserves as a future policy discussion if supported by the City <br /> Council majority. <br /> Mr. Miller opined that such a policy could be considered. <br /> Mayor Roe noted the inclusion over many years at the end of the budget docu- <br /> ment of a list of funds by type and category, as well as a description for the City's <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.