CR 92-63 Approve Contingency Transfers
February 27, 1992
'I y
., 0
~
-s- '"
o P K \ ~
Council Repart #92-63
APPROVE 1991 CONTINGENCY TRANSFERS
ProDosed Action.
staff recammends adoptian of the fallowing mation: Move that
Resolution #92-21 "Approving 1991 Cantingencv Transfers" be adopted.
Annually it is requested the City make a transfer af budgets for
unanticipated expenditure decisicns from the cantingency accaunt to
the departments where the need arase. Far 1991 a transfer of $92,100
will be needed. Under spending by several departments ($44,400) and
the .balahce .in the ccntingency ($74,541) will mcrethan offset the
unanticipated expenditures.
Overview.
I have made a detailed review and prajectian of all departments
thraugh December, 1991.
Explanation of each requested transfer is cantained an the attached
detailed backgraund repcrt.
Primarvlssues To Consider.
o The transfers are an arderly annual reallocatian of budgets
without increasing the autharized tatal budget for the General
Fund.
a Recarding expense by the department which incurred the increase
rather than directly to the cantingency account allows fcr more
meaningful cost history.
su~porting Information.
o Resolution #92-21
J~C~ed~~e Director
Approve 1991 Contingency Transfers
Report 92-63
Page 2
Detailed Backqround.
Planned overaqes:
1. Police $24,800
The amaunt exceeding budget was mare than aff.set by
unbudgeted revenues fram Eddie Bauer far sale security.
This procedure is allawed by Charter.
2. Tree Service $5,000
A grant not anticipated in the 1991 budget was received
offsetting extra tree planting.
3. Assessing $14,000
4. Inspections $16,000
These two items are far camputers that were budgeted in
1989 and the funds were nat spent but carried over in
the reserve until 1991.
Unantici~ated expenditures:
5. Activity Center $4,800
Persannel services - increased hours of staff.
6. Community Develapment Administratian $21,600
Illness, retirement .and training replacements for the
secretarial position. Three different permanent
employees plus interim tempcrary help were needed.
7.
Public Works $46,300
Administration
Search far new P.W. oirectcr
Engineering planning
Streets - labar to. repair equipment
Insurance deductible
Parks
Repairs, parts, garage labar
Trees
Disposal, repairs, rental
3,200
3,000
2,300
7,500
20,000
10,300
8. Recreation $19,400
Increased activity in jaint recreation program. Also.
in 1991, the first year seniar activities provided by
Minnetonka Cammunity Center were billed separately, but
this change was nct cammunicated and thus nat in 1991
budget
Seniar Groups $5,949
seniar Newsletter $5,250
i
"
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin Caunty, Minnesata
RESOLUTION NO. 92-21
RESOLUTION APPROVING 1991 CONTINGENCY TRANSFERS
WHEREAS, the Hopkins City Cauncil includes a contingency
appropriation within the annual operating budget to
cover unanticipated expenditures, and,
WHEREAS, the City Council and City Manager make numerous
expenditure decisions during each year that exceed line
item appropriations, and
WHEREAS, the City council has determined that it is
appropriate to. provide for major unanticipated
expenditures by transferring funds frcm the ccntingency
accaunt to. the expenditure accaunts that were exceeded,
then,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the fallawing transfers
be adopted:
Additions to. the fallowing,budgets:
1. Pal ice
2. Tree Service
3. Assessing
4. Inspectian
5. Activity Center
6. Community Develapment
7. Public Works
8. Recreatian
$24,800
5,000
14,000
16,000
4,800
21,600
46,300
19,400
Transfer to budgets far abave departments to come fram
the contingency budget which has a sufficient balance
to cover these transfers.
Passed and adopted by the City Council af the city cf
Hapkins, Minnesata at a regular meeting held the 2nd day af
March, 1992.
By
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
c
r y
o F
HOP K
N S
MEMO
Date; ~ebruary 20, 1992
To: Tom Anderson
From: Jerre M~ller
Re: Truth In Housing
'r have received a February 19, 1992 memo from Tom aarmenlng
about the Truth In Housing Ordinanoe commented on by the
Council and members of the audience. In referenoe to
Paragraph A. and unless shown otherwise, I am unimpressed
wi th a cloak of confic:'Ientiali,ty surrounding Tr'uth In Hous1ng
Reports. There ,are a number Of people who have access to
them besides the City such as the seller, buyer, various
realtors and probably homeowner association representatives.
For this reason, it is hard for me to see how this could be
within the Data Privacy Act.
1n addition, 1 don't have any immediate objection to a condo
or townhouse association receiving upon request a copy of the
Report in order to assist them in determining compliance with
their own 1nternal requirements.
Regarding his comments in Paragraph B'I I would leave the
purpose . clause alone and I received no impression from the
Council to encourage a change.
I think the comment in Paragraph C. about the hazardous
definition reoeived more favorable comments than not and I
would leave this alone. There was favorable oomment on the
effort/of the City to define what hazardous oonditions are
and I would also leave the last pa~agraph allowing an
evaluator to report on something deemed to be hazardous he
discovers that ia not covered in the definitions.
For all of these reasons, 1 see no purpose to redrawing the
. agreement other then to oorrec't a oouple typogt~aphical errors
discovered during the Council discussion.
Let me know if this office is to do that.
JAM
1010 First Street South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
Phone: 612-935-8474 Fax: 612-935-1834
An EquOI.I Op!>orlunl1y Employet'