My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
65B - FINANCIAL REVIEW
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2017
>
06/06/2017
>
65B - FINANCIAL REVIEW
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/1/2017 5:13:24 PM
Creation date
6/1/2017 5:05:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Finance & Management Services
Item #
65B
Date
6/6/2017
Destruction Year
2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
Analysis of City of Santa Ana Reserve Funds <br />Page 3 <br />KAMG also reviewed the City Council approved budgets for fiscal years 2013-14 through 2016-17. Each <br />City Council budget was approved as a balanced budget. Each budget document approved by the City <br />Council contain a detailed discussion about the Fiscal and Budget Policy. <br />KAMG also reviewed the budgeting philosophies used by staff in preparing the budgets submitted to the <br />City Council for their adoption. Budget concepts and assumptions were reviewed for reasonableness <br />and accuracy. <br />Fiscal and Budget Policy <br />The City Council adopted a Fiscal and Budget Policy on June 4, 2012. This policy follows Government <br />Finance Officers Association ("GFOA") recommended Best Practices by establishing two distinct reserve <br />amounts. The first one is the Operating Reserve Account. It is accounted for in the Unassigned Reserve <br />Account Section of the City's financial statements. This also follow's GFOA's recommended Best <br />Practices. <br />The Operating Reserve Policy established a minimum of 15% of General Fund operating expenditures be <br />used as the target goal. The City Council set an additional goal for the Operating Reserve Account. <br />Upon attaining the 15% benchmark, the City would strive to reach an operating reserve of 20% of <br />operating expenditures. <br />Any funds allocated to the Operating Reserve would not be used to fund/pay for any type of operating <br />expenditures or to cover any budgetary shortfall other than to preserve ongoing cash flow needs of the <br />City. In other words, these funds should not be used to balance a proposed budget, whether it is a <br />structural unbalanced budget, or a budget that needs one time funds to balance it. <br />The City of Santa Ana was able to reach the 15% benchmark goal by the end of the 2013-14 fiscal year. <br />The City was also able to reach the 20% reserve goal during this period as well. (Not a mandated goal <br />per the policy, but a goal for the City to strive for.) <br />It is a GFOA recommendation that at least two months of operating expenditures be kept to ensure that <br />the liquidity needs of the city are met. The two months benchmark is approximately 16.67% of <br />expenditures. <br />Since the 2013-14 fiscal year, the City has maintained the 20% reserve level. Based on the 2015-16 <br />actual General Fund expenditures, the current reserve level should be close to $43 million. Currently <br />the reserves are at $42.4 million. This is an acceptable amount. <br />The City Council also established an Economic Uncertainty Reserve Account. This account was <br />established to maintain a minimum reserve level of 1% to 10% of recurring General Fund revenues, with <br />a goal of attaining the maximum 10%. Funds in this account should only be used to offset negative <br />variations in projected revenues from the largest revenues sources in the City. It is common for this <br />reserve account to be used of offset negative fluctuations in expenditure accounts. A downturn in the <br />economy will usually effect revenues first, but can cause expenditures to increase as markets constrict. <br />An example of this is the increase in cities PERS rates over the last few years, which have been due in <br />part to CALPERS generating lower investment earnings than they had projected. <br />LIRW <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.