04/06/2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Gordon Heitke om: MICHAEL TREHUS [mtreehugger ©msn.com] nt: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 12:07 PM . o: Gordon Heitke Subject: RE: City Budget I have to question whether the city auditor had accurate facts on which to base his opinion. The "cost center" of the expense in question is most definately not the Charter Commission. Therefore the expenditure in question has not been allocated to related cost center, which then makes the opinion that the accounting of this expenditure was appropriate erroneous. Utilizing a CATEGORY for "staff initiated charter related costs" for 2004 would resolve the above discrepancy. Otherwise, I'm afraid this issue will continue to remain on the Charter Commission's agenda. I'd much rather put it to rest now. Regarding a "staff initiated charter related costs" as a separate line item, I am concerned that this means that staff costs will still be recorded under the heading "Charter Commission." If what what I surmise is accurate, I think we still have a potential problem. I'm sure you'd agree that keeping charter commission expenses accounted separately is more clear, and therefore the appropriate practice. I strongly recommend a separate CATEGORY for expenses directed by the commission or incurred directly by the commission. Anything relating merely to the charter itself needs to be somewhere else. Regarding the potential educational workshop on April 14: 4is you may know from reading the meeting minutes, the Charter Commission Manned in January to have its own educational workshop, a presentation to ne provided to us in the July meeting. So what you have suggested appears duplicative to some extent. It is appropriate for the commission to discuss your option for alternative /additional training if it is still open. You may present it to us in the meeting on the 14th, or I can present it for you. If you need to hold the educational workshop sooner, I don't see this as a bad thing, given the timing, the duplication involved, and the drawbacks that come along with having a very large group of people (well over 20 people with staff, Council and our group), so please feel free to do so if you feel so inclined. >From: "Gordon Heitke" <gheitke @ci.lino- lakes.mn.us> >To: "MICHAEL TREHUS" <mtreehugger @msn.com> >Subject: RE: City Budget >Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:28:57 -0600 > >City staff has consulted with the city auditor regarding the 2004 >allocation of the cost of bond counsel's interpretation of charter >requirements. From a technical accounting and reporting perspective, it is >his opinion that the accounting of this expenditure was appropriate as it >is the proper accounting practice to allocate expenditures to the related >cost center. Since the accounting of the expenditure was technically >proper, the concerns of the Charter commission is one of policy. The City >Council approved the payment of the bill as a charter related expense, >therefore it is the Council that must decide as to whether they wish to >make an adjustment of the record. I will place your request to change the >2004 financial records to remove this expenditure from the charter area of >the city budget on the April 6 Council work session agenda. >It is the intention of staff to account for "staff initiated" charter >related costs as a separate line item from the Charter Commission initiated 1