AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.1.G. - Page 2 Findinq #8 Confusion as to how governments categorized and interpreted what portion of fund balance was available for discretionary spending led to development of a new GASB 54 standard, effective for all financial statements after June 30, 2011, which provides more structure and clarity around constraints placed on fund balances. San Mateo County implemented GASB 54 early, with the new terminology reflected in its FY 2010 CAFR. No cities in San Mateo County implemented early. Response: The City agrees with this finding in acknowledging that the new GASB 54 standard is in effect for all financial statements beginning after June 15, 2010. As a first step towards implementation of GASB 54 the City Council recently adopted at its June 27, 2011 Council Meeting the classification of certain amounts as "committed" pursuant to the new reporting requirements of GASB 54, along with delegating authority to the City Manager to "assign" amounts to be used for specific purposes. The City will be implementing GASB 54 with the issuance of the 2010-11 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Findinq #11 Ten participating cities are not making their full actuarially determined OPEB payments for retiree health care benefits, with three cities (Atherton, Brisbane, Foster City) having paid at less than an average of 25 percent for the last two years. Response: The City disagrees with this finding as the City began fully funding its actuarially required contribution (ARC) in fiscal year 2009-10 with its payment of the full amount to the California Employer's Retiree Benefits Trust (CERBT). The City continues to make and budget for the full ARC payment in the most recently completed fiscal year 2010-11 and budget year 2011-12. Recommendations Of the eight recommendations, only five were applicable to the City of Redwood City. The City must report one of the following actions for each applicable recommendation: 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. 2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. 3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussions by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation therefore.