My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 04/27/1993
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1993
>
Agenda - Council - 04/27/1993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/4/2025 3:50:38 PM
Creation date
4/9/2004 11:20:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
04/27/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
126
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
Observations: <br /> <br />42% of the funding. 25% of the vote <br /> <br />The Joint Powers Agreement to Establish the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization was <br />adopted and executed by the four cities in 1985; it is this Agrexxnent that assigns one vote to each member city. A <br />change in the assessment formula or assignment of votes would require a change in this Agreement. The <br />LRRWMO 92/93 budget included funds to update this Agreement, but no action was taken. Funds for updating <br />m'e again included in the 93/94 budget and Council may want to provide direction to staff or appoint one of their <br />members to participate in this update process, <br /> <br />#2 - LRRWMO fund balance <br /> <br />Generally accepted working capital requirements for Minnesota local governments is six months of the next year's <br />budgeted expenditures. These funds become a designated part of the fund balance and are intended to allow the <br />unit to meet cash flow requirements until the first settlement of property taxes and state transfer payments are <br />received. In the absence of sufficient working capital, the governmental unit may be subjected to borrowing to <br />meet their payroll and bill payments with a resulting interest expense. <br /> <br />The LRRWMO has structured the due dates for member city contributions to be one half of the annual contribution <br />due on the first day of the new year and the remainder on the tn'st day of the second half of the year. Theoretically, <br />if all members paid promptly, no working capital designation of fund balance would be required. But this would <br />leave the organization somewhat at risk in meeting their cash requirements ff contributions are not received timely <br />or a significant expenditure occurs in the first half of the year. Therefore, working capital requirements should be <br />established and specifically provided for. A fund balance beyond working capital should not be necessary for this <br />Organization. In the event an expenditure of non-budgeted funds is deemed essential by the LRRWMO, the <br />Organization has the ability to assess member cities for an additional contribution. But with this ability comes an <br />obligation to f~rst discuss the needs with the contributors. <br /> <br />If the LRRWMO established a six month working capital rule, the required fund balance at January 31, 1993 <br />would be $9,100. The actual fund balance is $14,213 or $5,113 more than the six-month rule. <br /> <br />#3 - LRRWMO Annual O~rmixt~ Budget <br /> <br />As our City Engineer has discussed previously, liability insurance budgeted at $3,000 beginning in the 92/93 year <br />has contributed to the increased.operating budgets. But it is also true that the budget increases have not been <br />re. alived in actual expenditures; yet, the Cities are assessed at this new level. Th/s is not to say the dollars should <br />be spent as they are budgeted, but rather, the budget should more closely reflect the actual administrative projects <br />or tasks to be undertaken. <br /> <br />It is recognized the Organization has little historical data to assist in financial planning, but there are several <br />projects that were funded in 92/93 and for lack of action again funded in 1993. These projects include updating the <br />Joint Powers, engineering studies and surveys, a management plan and developing/pubhshing a newsletter for a <br />funding allocation of $7,800 plus a contingency of $1,000. These sine projects are again included in the 93/94 <br />budget at $7,800 plus a contingency of $1,000. Basically this means the member cities have been assessed twice <br />for the same projects and the unspent portion of the 92/93 assessment served to increase the Organization's fund <br />balance. <br /> <br />The City of Ramsey has not yet paid the 93/94 assessment bill. Challenging the budget at th. is time may cause <br />misunderstandings with the other cities that have paid their assessment. But it is reasonable for Ramsey to reduce <br />the 93/94 contribution by Ramsey's share of the excess fund balance; this would reduce Ramsey's contribution <br />from $7,666 to $5,512. ff the City pays the first half as billed by the LRRWMO and notifies them of our intent to <br />reduce the second half payment by our share of the fund balance surplus, the Organization would have sufficient <br />time to review and react before the second payment is due on August 1, 1993. <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation: <br /> <br />Concern #1 and #3 <br />It is recommended the Council initiate discussion regarding the LRRWMO with the Anoka City Council at the <br />upcoming joint meeting. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.