9/12/1984 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M M M however, he pointed out that we will see expenditures at the same time. Staff is just taking a very conservative approach, and any massive new projects will be brought to the Commission at a later date rather than speculating on them in the budget. He emphasized that we are trying to offset our capital expansion and handle 80% of it through impact fees. Commissioner Lyons raised the question as to why we should adopt any budget at all as this is similar to the Sheriff's confiscated funds in that there is a very limited place where the monies can be used. Administrator Wright noted that it is really unanticipated monies, and Chairman Scurlock felt that what we actually are doing in the Impact Fees is anticipating and planning for the normal planned growth of our system and not special projects. We have no way of knowing when special projects may arise and how fast they will come in. Commissioner Bird noted that in all of our other budgets the cash carry forward is an accurate figures; yet in this -.one, we don't show one and he did not understand why. Administrator Wright agreed that we do have $1,071,000 cash carry forward, and Commissioner Bird stated that if we have it on hand, let's show it. Why not? Administrator Wright directed OMB Director Barton to show the one million, or whatever is on hand, in the budget. The OMB Director again pointed out that there is a differ- ence between how you anticipate and budget for enterprise funds and every other fund. There is a different set of standards you adopt their budgets by. Question continued as to where the one million actually shows up under the new set of standards. Financial Administrator Nason explained that an enterprise is considered "non -year" money; consequently the cash carry forward is not considered an item. If you look at it that way, it is very much like looking at the General Fund and only looking 30 SEP 12 1984 BOOK 8 Fn,,F 3l9