My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
2007-06-25 Regular Meeting and Workshop Meeting (2)
LaPorte
>
City Secretary
>
Minutes
>
City Council
>
2000's
>
2007
>
2007-06-25 Regular Meeting and Workshop Meeting (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2016 12:07:22 PM
Creation date
3/21/2025 2:11:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Meetings
Meeting Body
City Council
Meeting Doc Type
Minutes
Date
6/25/2007
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
268
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
<br />City Council Meeting and Workshop Meeting - June 25, 2007 <br /> <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />Moser: I understand I'm saying if we decide to do it and we fund the trust it's an <br />irrevocable trust. <br /> <br />Dolby: correct. <br /> <br />Clausen: if we don't do the study then we don't know where we stand. <br /> <br />Tom: If you don't do the study, you don't know where you stand. Your going to get <br />blind sided at some point down the road, being a budget person for ten years I know how <br />that health care works, let me talk a little bit about the audit opinion. It will be a dual <br />opinion, you'll get two opinions, one will be either be the opinion on governmental <br />generally acceptable accounting principles or either be qualified opinion, or an adverse <br />opinion depending on the size. If you don't do the study I guess we would have to make <br />a professional judgement as to what that size is the other opinion would be the modified <br />regulatory and that could be everything else being the same that could be qualified or <br />unqualified depending on the outcome now. What I read about and what the rating <br />agencies are saying is it is fairly new. We are just seeing some of the bigger cities <br />coming out with these GASB45 statements. What I am seeing in response to the <br />legislation the state passed, is what they are saying is that if a government chooses not to <br />do the study with everything else being the same, there would be some deducts in the <br />credit ratings based on management weaknesses. <br /> <br />Engelken: you indicated a modeling, if you happen to change the benefits down the road <br />you can model that out with some degree of accuracy. You have one plan and you <br />change another plan you can model that out to some degree of accuracy to see what the <br />long term benefits would be. <br /> <br />Tom: I cannot - the actuaries can, they do that day in and day out. <br /> <br />Engelken: is that an additional cost to 8,000 or is that part of it. <br /> <br />Dolby: its part of it some of it like you said before they'll come in and get a different <br />scenario and they'll run it back to you and tell you what it could be. <br /> <br />Tom: typically the way the contracts run is that it is so much to do a study. They may <br />provide one or two options at no cost if you want anything additional that is usually a <br />very minor cost. <br /> <br />Dolby: he would get back with you on the exact answer. <br /> <br />Engelken: do you actually get the model to plug your numbers in or is that a thing that <br />your provide the numbers and that gives the results. <br /> <br />Tom: I'm not real familiar again with the company that your going through but my <br />understanding was your going to provide them with numbers but you will also have <br />access to their software to do bench marking to see where you stand with other cities. I <br />don't know if you will be able to do what ifs with it though. <br /> <br />Dolby: we'll find out that answer for you. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.