My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9.1. SR 01-21-2014
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2011 - 2020
>
2014
>
01-21-2014
>
9.1. SR 01-21-2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2014 3:34:42 PM
Creation date
1/16/2014 2:37:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
1/21/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
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
Criteria I Governments I U.S. Public Finance: U.S. Local Governments General Obligation Ratings:Methodology <br /> And Assumptions <br /> to the fiscal year. In some jurisdictions,this results in the accounting creation of low fund balances in a small number <br /> of credits that in reality have substantial resources. On the other hand,high fund balances as a percentage of <br /> expenditures may overestimate flexibility if the quality of receivables recognized is suspect.The Available Fund <br /> Balance measure will be net of any Available Fund Balance that includes questionable receivables that we do not <br /> expect to be collected,but if receivables are unable to be projected with confidence,the negative"questionable <br /> receivables"score adjustment is used instead of making an adjustment to the data(see table 10). For entities that <br /> report on a cash basis,the criteria use cash balances instead of fund balances.The score is worsened by one,however, <br /> to compensate for the lack of clarity on what funds are truly available.The maintenance of a consistently high fund <br /> balance--exceeding twice the level associated with the top score--that we expect to continue represents a positive <br /> adjustment that may offset a negative adjustment when both conditions exist. <br /> 63. Other forms of flexibility primarily include the ability to raise additional revenues or reduce expenditures.These tools <br /> are at least equal in power to the use of existing balances,but qualitative adjustments better suit their complexity due <br /> to the various forms they can take.With regard to tax caps,the institutional framework score incorporates the extent <br /> to which statewide tax caps exist,but the budgetary flexibility score differentiates those credits that retain flexibility <br /> despite the tax caps.The criteria separately assess local political support for increases,including cases where there are <br /> self-imposed limitations as a result of local charter initiatives or referenda. <br /> 64. The option to use fund balance in the near term can provide fiscal flexibility although fund balance drawdowns may <br /> impair future fiscal flexibility.Likewise,increasing fund balances can enhance fiscal flexibility. Our forward-looking <br /> analysis evaluates the budget performance for the current and next fiscal year. If our projections result in a score <br /> change, either up or down,the score is adjusted by one point in the relevant direction. <br /> G. Budgetary Performance Score <br /> 65. The budgetary performance score measures the current fiscal balance of the government,both from a general fund <br /> and total governmental funds perspective.Table 11 details the scoring for this measure. <br /> WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT SEPTEMBER 12,2013 23 <br /> 1190266 1300881696 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.