My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2011-08-22
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
AgdaPkt 2011-08-22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2012 12:02:59 PM
Creation date
8/18/2011 4:39:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Redevelopment Agency
Date
8/22/2011
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.
/
456
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
6.1. G. - Page 41 <br /> Recommendation A.3. <br /> The City Council, by July 1, 2012 should direct their City Manager to formally <br /> evaluate the value of a clearly defined Running Liquidity metric as an additional <br /> measure of the City's fiscal health with specific target minimums, and make a <br /> specific recommendation back to the City Council for action. <br /> Response <br /> This recommendation will not be implemented as the City does not agree <br /> that development of an additional calculated metric will provide added <br /> value in measuring the City's fiscal health unless the metric is understood <br /> fully by the users of the financial statements. As noted in the Grand Jury's <br /> report, a Running Liquidity metric could be defined and calculated in a <br /> variety of ways, whereas the GFOA clearly outlines minimum unreserved <br /> general fund balances at 1) no less than 5-15 percent of regular general <br /> fund operating revenues, or 2) no less than one to two months of regular <br /> fund operating expenditures. The City already calculates and maintains <br /> its minimum general fund unappropriated fund balance at 15 — 20% of <br /> estimated general fund revenues, in line with the GFOA recommended <br /> policy. <br /> Recommendation D.1. <br /> The City Councils of Atherton, Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster City, <br /> Millbrae, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Mateo, and South San Francisco by <br /> July 2012 explain in CAFR Management Notes, Annual Budget, or other <br /> appropriate document available to the public why full annual required OPEB <br /> payments are not being made. <br /> Response <br /> This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. <br /> The City of Redwood City was erroneously included on this list, as <br /> beginning with fiscal year 2009-10 the City entered into a trust agreement <br /> with CERBT and has made its full annual required OPEB payment (ARC) <br /> in fiscal years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The City continues to budget the full <br /> annual required OPEB payment in future years as well. <br /> Recommendation D.2. <br /> The City Councils of Atherton, Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster City, <br /> Millbrae, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Mateo, and South San Francisco by <br /> July 2012 explain in CAFR Management Notes, Annual Budget, or other <br /> appropriate document available to the public the city's planned strategy for <br /> addressing accumulated unfunded OPEB retiree healthcare obligations. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.