AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.1.G. - Page 18 (2) no less than one to two rno�ths of z fund operating expenditures. A summary of city policies, evaluated against GASB 34 recommendations, is provided in Attachment �. San Mateo County reserve palicies az clearly listed on page VI of its 2010 CAFR. �n summary, 14 0� the 20 cities (70 percent) and the County have reserves policies approved by elected officials (City Councils or Board of Supervisors, respectiveIy) witY� respect to the level of reserves required to be maintained in their General Fur�ds. Five of the 14 are campliant with CiASB 34 in that the cities' po�icies specified quantitative lizz�its above the minirz�urz� 5 percent. The Grand Jury went another step and eva�uated: l. Did cities and the County maintain Unreserved General Fund Balance levels �onsis�ent �rith GASB 34 recomznendations over the time period from Fzscal Years 2007-2fl10, whether or �ot they �ad policies requiring that? 2. Did cities and the County comply with their own policies with respect to reserves during Fiscal Years 2007-2010, wheth�r ar not those policies complied w�th GASB 34 recommendations? Note: Significantly, the language of same policies specified quantita#ive IeveIs of reserves to be maintained, but was not explicit in applying them to just the unxesex portion. This allows far the possibility of the Couraty or cities including, in their "rese� ves", funds that are legally restricted to their stated purpase and not avai�able to support aperations. As noted previously on page 6, there has been sufficient a�nbiguity in reserve classification and reporting that GASB issued Staternent 54 to attempt to imprave clarity and mak� rep�rting more cansistent. The results of this assessxnent are diagramrned in Attachment 2. Results are summarized as follows: X. A�1 cities and the County maintained levels o�Unreserved Genez Fund Balance consistent with the GASB 34 recommended minimum af 5-15 percent of revenues or on� to two months (8.3-16.6 percent) of expenditures during Fiscal �'ears 2007-2010, except Brisbane (2008 only) and Pacit�ca (2007 only}. 2. AIl cities complied with their own policies during the Fiscal Years 2007-2010 These resuZts suggest that GASB 34 Ievels are reasanable and achievable even in cha�Ienging economic environments. Hawever, it shot�ld be noted that the CPA auditors i�tezviewed stated 4 Governmen#al Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting Using the GASB 3�3 Model, GFOA P�blicatian by Stephen J. Gauthier, p51-52 13