Transcription

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 Memo DATE: November 20, 2007 TO: Martha Bennett FROM: Lee Tuneberg DEPT: Administrative Services RE: Council Goals 2007 Develop plan to establish fiscal responsibility, manage costs, prioritize services, and insure key revenue streams. The City of Ashland has many things in place that support this goal. A specific goal for a concerted effort to review and update existing standards and processes as well as establishing meaningful new ones is ideal. We should note that the City annually goes through an extensive budget process, audit and financial reporting that not only meet State requirements but earn national awards. The City also has established and followed for many years a set of financial management policies and accounting methods that are intended to aid in much of this goal on an ongoing basis. Additionally, many of the studies that rates & fees, operations and capital improvements are based upon are reviewed on a rolling basis to remain current and provide needed data for the budget and reporting processes. However, the City does not have an accepted set of measurements or benchmarks for most services provided. There probably are many reasons contributing to this absence but the primary one is its level of (comparative) priority for allocation of sufficient resources. Establishing as many of those that can feasibly be done should be a part of this goal. My assessment of the goal is that Council would like to: Establish fiscal responsibility. Whether it is establish, re-establish or better define it, we must work to agree on what it is, how far we are from it, how we will know when we arrive and what roles each of us will play to meet the goal as well as the respective roles after it is met. It is likely that considerable time will be spent reaching consensus among ourselves and with members of the public. Insure key revenue streams. The community enjoys its diversity of citizens, opportunities and natural resources. The City should recognize the diversity of resources used to fund all activities is a strength that many other municipalities do not have. Prior elected, appointed and hired individuals should be congratulated on the work they did to achieve this. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT D. L. Tuneberg, Director Tel: East Main Street Fax: Ashland, Oregon TTY:

10 Memo Even so, the economy, operations and reliability of revenue streams can, have and will change. Some revenue streams will change y our own design. External influences will affect others. Identifying major and minor revenue streams, evaluating susceptibility to change and addressing such changes by developing action steps is an important part of this goal. Manage costs. Managing costs is the other side of the ledger sheet to evaluating revenue streams and remains a significant part of the internal work done annually as part of the budget process. Balancing the two will play a basic role in the fourth point of this Council goal. Today there are too few existing tools to help the City formally evaluate how well we do this. The City s own business experts can address individual activities that they control (by activity, division, department or fund) but comparative analysis across departments and City-wide is needed at higher levels. Agreeing on meaningful measures and benchmarks, and processes to keep them current, must be part of the goal. Prioritize services. This portion of the goal has nuances that go beyond the accounting and managerial perspectives included in the other three. Because of this, agreeing on what is the priority of services, what levels of service are necessary or desired, and how they are funded will require significant amounts of analysis and discussion. For informed decisions it will require significant progress in the prior three elements to be effective. Steps & Timing: The City will have difficulty in doing this on its own. This goal demands an intense focus that requires more resources, and probably a greater skill set, than the City has had to offer for some time. Even outsourcing this to a consultant will require staff support for development and ongoing management that is not available today given the day-to-day workload, scheduled projects (some of which will feed information into this) and breaks in staffing endured in the last five years, today and into the near future. Also, there may be insufficient appropriations budgeted in FY to completely do this even if it were feasible. Be that as it may, progress on this goal is imperative for the decisions that will come to Council and the Budget Committee in this and the next fiscal year(s). With that in mind I would propose the following process: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT D. L. Tuneberg, Director Tel: East Main Street Fax: Ashland, Oregon TTY:

11 Memo 1. Identify the internal resources (appropriations and staff) available to support the goal. This will impact proposed changes in the budget this year and next. January - February Develop a solicitation process (Request For Qualifications and Project Proposals) to perform this goal and provide additional support not available within the City. March June Create a timeline for gathering input from stakeholders and identifying deliverables. July - August Perform the work including evaluation of existing, and the development of new, measures, benchmarks and systems for monitoring. September November Report on work to date to Council and subsequent revisions to the project. December Implementation, staff training and incorporation into City budget, operational and reporting processes. January March Complete integration into the FY budget process. April June 2009 Benefits yielded from the goal and supporting project steps will be realized immediately and will positively impact City decision making and the budget process in this (FY ) fiscal year even though the work on the goal is likely to extend through June All of the steps and dates presented are subject to change based upon Council input and what is learned from the proposals received in calendar year ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT D. L. Tuneberg, Director Tel: East Main Street Fax: Ashland, Oregon TTY:

12 Council Communication Study Session - Discussion of Long-term Revenue Planning Meeting Date: November 9, 2006 Department: Administrative Services Contributing Departments: NA Approval: Martha Bennett Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg tuneberl@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: NA Estimated Time: 60 minutes Staff Recommendation: Staff requests that Council review the information provided and be prepared to identify the areas of concern and information they would like to receive in subsequent meetings to adequately prepare for the upcoming budget process. Statement: This study session was requested in order to look at the next fiscal year. It is an opportunity for Council and staff to begin to discuss anticipated trends and the potential impact on City services. This discussion will help the City prepare for the budget preparation process and establish guidelines and goals to aid in developing an operations and financial plan for the next year and beyond. Likely areas for discussion are: 1. What disconnects do we see between services provided and related revenue streams? 2. Will the City need to discontinue any services in FY due to: Excessive increased costs Diminishing or disrupted revenue streams Other needs or services of a higher priority 3. What capital projects are in the near future and how will they be funded? 4. What can be done now to plan for future projects and significant changes in revenue? 5. Besides the AFN debt, what other obligations and commitments are there and how are they paid. Items 3 5 should be the subject of discussion at the December 4, 2006, study session. Background: There are many ways to view the budget, some are: By fund By service type By revenue streams By expenditure categories

13 For informational purposes, examples of the budget by these different perspectives are attached and each can be telling in their own way and the subject of lengthy discussion. In part, that is what happens during the budget process so many things you see in the budget document and staff presentations are included here. To provide focus on this initial discussion and to set the path for future meetings, this report is based on a few assumptions. Primary areas of concern are: 1. The General Fund s balance between revenue streams and services (and levels of service) provided. 2. City-wide debt and its impact or limitation on daily operations or future improvements. In order to focus on these two in the time allowed in this meeting we will set the following items aside and only refer to them as needed. A. Service provided through enterprise funds are ongoing and generally pay for themselves through charges to customers who use or benefit from the service. B. Other funds like Street, Insurance Services, Capital improvements, etc. may require a separate discussion on what is included in their operations and funding mechanisms. C. Internal services are support functions (sometimes steering functions) necessary for operations and appropriately paid for by line departments and divisions. D. Parks Commission will continue to require property taxes to fund at least 75% of their activities and 100% of the Youth Activity Levy if continued. E. Miscellaneous services are provided as needed in the community and require a variety of funding mechanisms to be sustainable. There probably are many more areas for discussion and they will be addressed as raised but efficient use of time may require them to be held until a later meeting. THE GENERAL FUND All agencies have a general fund even though they may have a different name. A general fund is the place where any activity that does not fit well into some other category is included. The revenues and reserves captured in this fund are the least restricted giving the agency necessary flexibility to provide the general health, safety and welfare services expected by the community. Generally speaking, many of these activities (services) are such that a fee for service cannot be charged or may not cover the total cost of providing the service. Ashland s general fund includes Police, Fire, Community Development, Municipal Court, Cemetery and other activities that meet this description. In order to balance this fund, the shortfall between the amounts that are charged (if any) for a service and the cost to provide it is funded through indirect revenues and taxes. A comparison of revenues and cost follows:

14 General Fund Revenue Comparison $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $ Actual 2006 Actual 2007 Adopted Other $97,536 $550,892 $186,000 Fines $133,170 $137,460 $157,000 Charges for Serv ices $1,650,211 $1,517,574 $1,654,456 Intergov ernmental $467,227 $810,908 $863,994 Licenses and Permits $1,489,379 $1,106,317 $1,713,541 Taxes $8,069,464 $8,517,028 $9,742,360 General Fund Expense Comparison $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $ Actual 2006 Actual 2007 Adopted Other $258,833 $25,451 $500 Community Development $1,482,363 $1,773,135 $2,115,347 Public Works $240,279 $277,497 $355,375 Fire and Rescue $4,230,616 $4,632,526 $5,262,372 Police $4,233,855 $4,606,337 $5,325,774 Administrative Services $909,950 $1,024,549 $1,083,599 Administration $212,845 $104,838 $253,780 * $1,000,000 was budgeted in Community Development for land purchase, which is not shown in this table.

15 Resources and revenues The General Fund revenue structure is fairly complex so a little explanation is appropriate. Taxes - The tax category makes up 67% of the total revenues. Taxes include property taxes, Electric Utility Users tax, Hotel/Motel taxes and franchise fees. Property taxes for the city are also distributed to the Parks and Recreation Fund, Ashland Youth Activity Fund (Parks) and other funds for debt service. GENERAL FUND Description 2004 Actual 2005 Actual 2006 Actual 2007 Adopted Taxes Property Taxes Current 2,071,096 2,180,490 2,595,000 2,887,760 Prior 98,938 85,064 80,000 97,800 Electric Utility User Tax 2,102,550 2,277,178 2,323,390 2,648,800 Franchises 1,985,361 1,982,757 2,104,177 2,417,800 License 162, , , ,100 Hotel/Motel Tax 1,309,013 1,390,212 1,414,218 1,514,100 Total Taxes 7,729,315 8,069,462 8,722,005 9,742,360 Projections show that this level of property tax may not be sufficient to meet operational needs for ongoing service levels in the near future of the General Fund. Tax rate comparisons can be seen later in this document. Charges intended to recognize the use of, and the impact on, right-of-ways are called franchise fees. The city s enterprise activities and private companies all pay franchise fees with most of the proceeds going to the General Fund in recognition of general ownership and the value added by the activities managed there. However, the other fund that is significantly impacted by the utilities having access to the right-of-way is the Street Fund and a portion of the total franchise fees is allocated there. Below is a table that shows the franchise fee revenue distribution. City of Ashland Franchise Revenue Actual FY Actual Rate 2006 General Fund Street Fund Cable Television 5% $ 346,319 $ 193,824 $ 152,496 Electric Utility 10% 1,110,989 1,110,989 Natural Gas 5% 258, ,105 Sanitary Service 5% 76,596 76,596 Telecommunications 7% 137, ,264 Water Utility 7% 276, ,528 79,011 Wastewater Utility 7% 181, ,871 51,948 $ 2,387,632 $ 2,104,177 $ 283,456 Charges for service- Charges for services account for 12% and examples of services charged for are ambulance, building, planning, cemetery and court fees.

16 GENERAL FUND Estimate Description 2004 Actual 2005 Actual 2006 Actual 2007 Adopted Charges for Services Police 172, , , ,000 Court 376, , , ,150 Fire and Rescue 798, , , ,800 Cemetery 45,959 37,969 60,000 52,656 Planning Division Services 80,217 97, , ,000 Building Division Services 114,848 25,679 25,000 25,000 Rent 1,124 1,033 1, Total Charges for Services 1,590,164 1,650,210 1,524,020 1,654,456 Each year the city must evaluate the appropriate level of its fees and charges. Licenses and permits- Other revenues- Other Resources- Licenses and permit fees for plan review, building and fire inspections represent 12% of the revenue in the General Fund. Interest, fines, intergovernmental revenues, transfers and grants comprise a final other category. In total they represent 3% of the current budget and that percentage varies greatly depending upon annual activities. These revenue streams are difficult to predict. Fund balance carried forward from the prior year is a significant portion of the ongoing budget and primarily represents unreserved monies to ensure financial stability of the fund during economic or seasonal variations. Requirements and expenditures Personal services- Personal services costs represent 63% of the total General Fund budget and 37.7% of the total city-wide operational budget. The increase of 6.7% includes a 4.2% growth in general compensation and benefits, 1.1% more in health care premiums, 0.8% more for two new positions. Materials and services- This category represents 31.9% of the total General Fund budget and is budgeted to increase 9.1% primarily due to petroleum based products (like fuel and asphalt) increases and internal charges for shared services including administration, legal, finance, information technology, building maintenance equipment and insurances services. Capital outlay- Other requirements- Ending Fund Balance- Capital expenditures are a very small portion of the General Fund. Quite often, most of the expended amount in this category is significantly offset by a grant. Things like transfers to other funds (Cemetery Trust) are budgeted here and usually are nominal. Fund balance to be carried forward represents the estimated amount set aside for the coming year. The estimated amount cannot be appropriated in the current year except under emergencies.

17 MATCHING RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS As can be seen above, the General Fund is reliant on a variety of taxes to balance. Without those taxes, services would probably cease or be curtailed. Annually the city develops assumptions meant to help guide the creation of the next year s budget and to estimate the impact extending five more years into the future. Some of those assumptions are: Revenues Planning fees will fund approximately 75% of division activities. Building permits will fund division activities at 100%. Property tax rate will be held to $1.72 City, $2.09 Parks, approximately $3.81 combined. Property tax assessed valuation growth will be 3% under Measure 50 and new construction will be 2% for a total assessed valuation growth of 5% Expenses Health care premiums will increase 7-9%. Inflation for general Materials & Services will be 3.0% for (Exceptions for industry trends where appropriate and fuel at 50%) When modeling the General Fund financial picture it becomes important to consider the growth of revenues as compared to the rise in costs. If we assume the following: o Assessed property values will increase 3% and a 2% growth o All other taxes and revenue streams will grow at 3% o Staff costs will grow at 7% o General materials & services will increase at 3% o Petroleum based materials will rise 10% o Internal charges will increase 5% Other costs and expenses remain constant, the projection from FY for the General Fund would look like this: Projected Revenues and Expenditures GENERAL FUND Actual Projected Projected Projected Revenues Property Taxes 2,436,234 2,558,045 2,685,948 2,820,245 All Other Taxes 6,080,805 6,263,229 6,451,126 6,644,660 All Other Revenue* 4,148,593 4,273,051 4,401,242 4,533,280 Subtotal 12,665,632 13,094,325 13,538,316 13,998,184 Expenditures Personal Services 7,873,693 8,424,851 9,014,591 9,645,612 Materials & Services- General 2,688,264 2,768,912 2,851,980 2,937,539 Materials & Services- Fuel 102, , , ,174 Materials & Services- Internal Charges 1,453,757 1,526,444 1,602,767 1,682,905 Capital Outlay 300, , , ,858 Subtotal 12,418,882 13,133,607 13,893,990 14,703,089 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over expenditures 246,750 (39,282) (355,675) (704,905) *Includes Transfer In from Cemetery Trust

18 The trend shows a disconnect between revenues and expenditures may occur within two years, if the assumptions are correct. Please note that assumptions are seldom 100% accurate, departments strive to spend less than the amount budgeted, revenue streams fluctuate due to many variables and a fund balance is used to smooth out these variations. This is a potential disconnect. Departments strive to under-spend their budgets without compromising services. Five years ago most departments were using 90% to 95% of their annual budget. In the last few years many departments have recorded in the 95% to 97% range because of tighter budgets, rapidly rising costs and unanticipated program or projects requiring resources. This has increased the need and use of Contingency each year. Thus, in the scenario above, if departments spent only 97% of the budget in 2008, the resulted would be a $416,820 offset to the negative $355,675 for a balance of a positive $61,145 (all other things being equal). The cumulative effect of such savings from 2006 through 2009 would be an increase in fund balance of $337,663 for all years combined. This scenario relies upon continued, stable revenue streams. As mentioned above, Council has the ability to change revenue streams to affect the outcome. The end goal is to maintain an ending fund balance sufficient in size to minimize the impact of sudden disruptions or annual shifts in resources or requirements. A short history of fund balances is shown below. For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, Fund Balances Actual Actual Actual Actual City Component General Fund $ 1,715,220 $ 1,755,145 $ 2,093,388 $ 2,326,936 Community Development Block Grant Fund (32,433) 33,018 (8,492) 4,599 Street Fund 2,528, ,846 1,186,028 1,464,044 Airport Fund 32, , ,942 54,874 Capital Improvements Fund 67, , , ,171 Debt Service Fund 282, , , ,095 Water Fund 4,662,028 5,002,748 6,458,230 6,179,246 Wastewater Fund 2,356,054 1,541,125 5,664,182 5,301,598 Electric Fund 1,497,827 1,539,766 2,527,430 2,116,269 Telecommunications Fund 388,018 62, , ,687 Central Services Fund 947, , , ,010 Insurance Services Fund 145, ,499 1,036,331 1,060,790 Equipment Fund 1,121,598 1,224,311 1,489,055 1,510,170 Cemetery Trust Fund 679, , , ,429 Total City Component 16,392,650 14,711,092 23,704,006 22,957,918 Parks Component Parks and Recreation Fund 1,403,171 1,558,332 1,621,679 1,507,367 Youth Activities Levy Fund 36, , ,733 35,374 Parks Capital Improvements Fund 367, , , ,326 Total Parks Component 1,807,307 1,981,251 1,932,787 1,708,067 Total Budget $ 18,199,957 $ 16,692,343 $ 25,636,793 $ 24,665,985 Finally, beyond the ability to curtail spending (minimize or discontinue some services) and increase some revenues or create others to help with balancing, Ashland is levying less than the permanent rate of $ An estimated $500,000 in additional property tax revenue could be generated annually. However, although this additional amount provides a cushion it is likely that General Fund operating costs will continue to increase at a faster rate than property tax revenue. Below is a table four years of history on property taxes.

19 City of Ashland Property Tax Rate and Revenue Property Tax Rate General Fund Debt Service Fund Parks Total Permanent Rate Limit Rate not levied Property Tax Revenue General Fund $ 2,170,033 $ 2,265,556 $ 2,436,234 $ 2,985,560 Current 2,071,095 2,180,492 2,307,930 2,887,760 Prior 98,938 85, ,304 97,800 Dollar amount not levied $ 1,064,554 $ 1,110,998 $ 858,893 $ 545,373 Assessed Valuation $ 1,511,835,569 $ 1,593,607,600 $ 1,677,271,999 $ 1,761,135,599 The city is in the enviable position of having room left in available property tax revenue and still maintaining a reasonable fund balance in the General Fund. At the same time, the cost for providing services has been increasing, often outside the city s control. As explained in the budget message over the last several years, the city should continue evaluating the services provided, the quality of those services and how they are to be funded. DEBT AND DEBT SERVICE There is no direct debt service funded by the General Fund. To discuss debt we will segregate the types of debt, where they are located in the city-wide budget and how the debt service is paid. Debt service - The budget includes the payment of all current debt obligations of the city. These obligations include bonds, loans from the state and banks, notes with private parties and sometimes internal borrowing. In general, we separate enterprise related debt from general debt but sometimes they overlap. Years ago, bonds that were issued for enterprise infrastructure were sometimes backed by the general tax authority of the city and were often referred to as double barrel bonds. That meant there were two separate ways to pay for them. This is not done very often today. The city did choose to back the refinancing of the Ashland Fiber Network debt with the ability to pay from other general revenues since the telecommunications system could not demonstrate a sufficient ability to pay the debt service totally through operating revenue.

20 The table below shows General Obligation bonds found in the Debt Service Fund: DEBT SERVICE Date Due 2004 Actual 2005 Actual 2006 Amended 2007 Adopted Debt Service Fund 1997 Flood Restoration Bonds - Principal Payment December 1 $ 65,000 $ 65,000 $ 70,000 $ 75, Flood Restoration Bonds - Interest Payment December 1 16,409 15,552 13,871 3, Flood Restoration Bonds - Interest Payment June 1 15,253 13,870 12,366 1, Flood & Fire Station Bonds - Principal Payment June 1 120, , , , Flood & Fire Station Bonds - Interest Payment December 1 18,061 14, Flood & Fire Station Bonds - Interest Payment June 1 164, ,483 18,061 14, Refunding Series - Principal Payment NA NA 2005 Refunding Series - Interest Payment December 1 59,879 56, Refunding Series - Interest Payment June 1 56,363 56,363 Telecommunications Fund 2004 Revenue Bonds - Interest Payment* July 15 NA NA 802, ,227 January , ,227 Total General Obligation Debt Service $ 381,145 $ 372,905 $ 1,607,849 $ 1,217,016 *These Revenue Bonds are also backed by the Full Faith and Credit of the City of Ashland General Obligation debt is limited by the state to 3% of the assessed value of property in the city s boundaries but the city is well under that cap. CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON COMPUTATION OF LEGAL DEBT MARGIN True cash value $ 3,266,109,773 3% of the true cash value 0.03 $ 97,983,293 NET BONDED DEBT: Gross bonded debt 19,780,000 Less amounts exempted: Water (60,000) Water Refunding (940,000) Total debt applicable to margin 18,780,000 LEGAL DEBT MARGIN $79,203,293 Most all of Ashland s other outstanding debt is either Revenue bonds or General Obligation debt backed by the city s ability to tax. Except for the refinancing of the AFN debt, most all other enterprise debt is revenue based thus accounted for and paid out of the corresponding utility fund. The AFN debt did not greatly reduce the city s ability to finance other improvements via general obligation debt but the annual debt service of $1.4 million does require allocating resources to make the payments. All other debt of the city has identified revenue streams to pay the annual service amounts whether it is through approved property taxes, rate revenues or other fees designed to generate sufficient amounts. Council has discussed this debt on many occasions but a long term solution has not been adopted. In the current budget the debt service of $865,000 in interest only is scheduled to be paid from a reserve transfer of $570,000 from the Capital Improvement Fund and $295,000 from property tax levied at $.175/$1000 within the city s permanent rate. Next year s debt service will be $1.1 million and will

21 climb to $1.43 million by 2010 as payment of principal increases. Funding solutions for these bonds are part of another agenda item. Reserves and surpluses cannot be relied upon to pay ongoing debt service. The City needs to identify a permanent solution to finance these debt payments. We can then permanently plan for the additional revenues or reduced services needed to meet this obligation. Related City Policies: Financial Management Policies Accounting Methods Council Options: Accept the information provided, request additional information and/or schedule additional meetings for discussion. Potential Motions: This is a study session so there are no formal decisions to be made. Attachments: Revenue and Expense Pie Charts

22 Council Communication Study Session Policy Discussion Regarding Fund Balances Meeting Date: March 1, 2005 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg, Department: Finance Contributing Depart: Police, Fire, Electric, Public Works, Com Dev Approval: Gino Grimaldi Statement: The City established a fund balance policy for most funds in 1995 and has used the calculated amounts as targets to aid in assuring the public that adequate funds will be maintained to carry city operations from one year to the next. This report is to update Council on the policy and performance of staff in managing to those targets. Background: The City established target fund balances to help ensure that adequate funds were held in reserve between years. This is a most critical practice for any agency that relies heavily on property tax so that ample cash is maintained to carry the agency into November when the majority of property tax revenues are normally received. The City has a diverse revenue funding system so that it is not as important to rely on a larger fund balance awaiting November s distribution from the County. However, the City does have many activities whose operations are dramatically impacted by weather, consumption or use, tourism and activities controlled by others that make it equally important to have sufficient fund balances in case of a downturn in predicted revenue streams. Each year staff prepares the budget and looks to the fund balance target as revenues and expenses are balanced. Predictions of fund balances for the current, ensuing and future years are presented in the long-term section of the budget document as well as the policy in narrative format for each fund in the Appendix. Please note that the timing of construction and financing activities can dramatically impact the actual performance as compared to the target. An example is issuing bonds in March to construct infrastructure for the next 2 to 3 years will artificially inflate the fund balance for a year or two. Also, target fund balances should be considered as minimums since there are no inherent problems with exceeding them, even for an extended time, but there may be operational short falls and possible reductions in bond ratings if the financial viability is jeopardized. A budgetary tool that assists the City in carry over is Contingency. Most funds have a Contingency budgeted each year that helps to avoid budget law violations and is primarily there 1

23 for unforeseen changes. The important point with Contingency is that any unused amount results in a larger fund balance carry forward to the next year. The city has been fairly successful in NOT using all of its Contingency budgeted however, as staff budgets more closely to the proposed activities and/or revenues outside our control fall short, more contingency is used and there is a greater chance that less will flow to the bottom line and carried forward. Attached are a series of tables that show recent trends in the targeted and actual fund balances Related City Policies The established Fund Balance Policy may have direct or indirect impacts on City activities and other policies given that a fee charged or a service rendered may affect the fund balance and vice versa however, there are no related policies dependent upon the fund balance policy. Council Options: No action is required since this is a staff report. If Council would like a change in the existing policy and/or targets, staff can bring a recommendation to a regular Council meeting. Staff Recommendation: No change recommended at this time. Potential Motions: None, this is an update and does not require Council action at this time. Attachments: Tables and Charts 2