HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 Management Report
Management Report
for
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
December 31, 2012
AUDIT SUMMARY
The following is a summary of our audit work, key conclusions, and other information that we consider
important or that is required to be communicated to the City Council, administration, or those charged
with governance of the City.
ORUASGAU
URESPONSIBILITY NDERUDITING TANDARDS ENERALLY CCEPTED IN THE NITED
SA,,U.S.O
GAS
OVERNMENT UDITING TANDARDS
TATES OF MERICA AND THE FFICE OF
MB(OMB)CA-133
ANAGEMENT AND UDGETIRCULAR
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each
major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2012 and the related notes to the financial statements. Professional standards require that
we provide you with information about our responsibilities under auditing standards generally accepted in
the United States of America, Government Auditing Standards, and OMB Circular A-133, as well as
certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such
information to you verbally and in our audit engagement letter. Professional standards also require that
we communicate the following information related to our audit.
PSTA
LANNEDCOPE AND IMING OF THE UDIT
We performed the audit according to the planned scope and timing previously discussed and coordinated
in order to obtain sufficient audit evidence and complete an effective audit.
AOF
UDITPINION AND INDINGS
Based on our audit of the City’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2012:
We have issued an unqualified opinion on the City’s basic financial statements.
We reported no deficiencies in the City’s internal control over financial reporting that we
considered to be material weaknesses.
The results of our testing disclosed no instances of noncompliance required to be reported under
Government Auditing Standards.
We noted that the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards is fairly stated, in all material
respects, in relation to the basic financial statements.
The results of our tests indicate that the City has complied, in all material respects, with the
requirements applicable to each major federal program.
We reported no deficiencies in the internal controls over compliance and its operation that we
consider to be material weaknesses in our testing of major federal programs.
We reported one finding based on our testing of the City’s compliance with Minnesota laws and
regulations. This relates to three invoices that were not paid on a timely basis as further detailed
in the Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs as item 2012-1.
-1-
F-UPYFR
OLLOWP ON RIOREARINDINGS AND ECOMMENDATIONS
As a part of our audit of the City’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2012, we
performed procedures to follow-up on the findings that resulted from our prior year audit. We reported
the following two findings that were corrected by the City in the current year:
1.In our previous audit, we reported that the City did not have sufficient controls in place to ensure
compliance with the cash management requirements relating to the Public Safety Partnership and
Community Policing Grant. As part of our follow-up procedures, we are pleased to report that
the City implemented procedures to ensure the cash management requirements were being met,
and this was not a current year finding.
2.In our previous audit, we also reported that the City did not have sufficient controls in place to
ensure compliance with the federal reporting requirements relating to the Public Safety
Partnership and Community Policing Grant. As part of our follow-up procedures, we are pleased
to report that the City implemented procedures to ensure the reporting requirements were being
met, and this was not a current year finding.
OOR
THERBSERVATIONS AND ECOMMENDATIONS
For the year ended December 31, 2012, a federal audit was performed in accordance OMB Circular
A-133. There was one major federal program that was required to be tested, the Community
Development Block Grants – Entitlement Grants, CFDA No. 14.218, which is passed through Hennepin
County (the County). While performing audit procedures on this grant, it was noted that the City met all
of the requirements noted in the federal compliance supplement but there were additional requirements
noted in the grant agreement between the City and the County that were not met. The additional
requirements between the City and the County that were not met include period of availability, reporting,
and special tests and provisions.
Based on information provided to us by the County, the reasons why the City was not in compliance with
these requirements is due to the fact that the County has not updated the grant agreements to current
federal and county grant requirements. We also understand, based on information provided by the
County, that the City would be fully compliant if these grant agreements had been fully updated to these
federal and county grant requirements. As a result, this was not considered a finding in the City’s audit
reports.
We highly recommend that the City work with the County to approve revised grant agreements between
the City and the County. The agreements should be updated to reflect the current grant requirements of
the federal government and the County.
SAP
IGNIFICANT CCOUNTING OLICIES
Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant
accounting policies used by the City are described in Note 1 of the notes to basic financial statements.
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, the City implemented Governmental Accounting Standards
Board (GASB) Statement No. 63, Financial Reporting of Deferred Outflows of Resources, Deferred
Inflows of Resources, and Net Position. This statement changed how governmental entities present a
statement of net position, adding two new basic financial statement elements, and replacing “net assets”
with “net position” as the terminology used to describe the difference between the other four elements.
The two basic financial statement elements added are “deferred inflows of resources” and “deferred
outflows of resources.” These new elements are differentiated from assets (deferred outflows of
resources) and liabilities (deferred inflows of resources), but have similar effects on net position.
We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative
guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in
the proper period.
-2-
AEMJ
CCOUNTING STIMATES AND ANAGEMENT UDGMENTS
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are
based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about
future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the
financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ
significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the financial statements were:
Depreciation
– Management’s estimates of depreciation expense are based on the estimated
useful lives of the assets.
Net Other Post-Employment Benefit (OPEB) Liabilities
– Actuarial estimates of the net OPEB
obligation is based on eligible participants, estimated future health insurance premiums, and
estimated retirement dates.
Compensated Absences
– Management’s estimate is based on current rates of pay and sick leave
balances.
Land Held for Resale
– Management’s estimates of this asset are based on net realizable value
(lower of cost or estimated sales price).
We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop these accounting estimates in determining
that they are reasonable in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.
The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.
CUM
ORRECTED AND NCORRECTEDISSTATEMENTS
Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the
audit, other than those that are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management.
We proposed one uncorrected audit adjustment to the financial statements for the reporting of
governmental activities and business-type activities unamortized discounts on bond proceeds totaling
$164,650 and $49,779, respectively. Management has determined that the effects of these items are
immaterial, both individually and taken together, to each opinion unit’s financial statements taken as a
whole.
DEPA
IFFICULTIES NCOUNTERED IN ERFORMING THE UDIT
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our
audit.
DWM
ISAGREEMENTSITHANAGEMENT
For purposes of this report, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a financial
accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be
significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report that no such
disagreements arose during the course of our audit.
MR
ANAGEMENTEPRESENTATIONS
We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management
representation letter dated April 29, 2013.
-3-
MCWOIA
ANAGEMENTONSULTATIONS ITH THERNDEPENDENTCCOUNTANTS
In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting
matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves
application of an accounting principle to the City’s financial statements or a determination of the type of
auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the
consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our
knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants.
OAFI
THERUDIT INDINGS OR SSUES
We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing
standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City’s auditors. However, these
discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a
condition to our retention.
OIDCAFS
THERNFORMATION IN OCUMENTSONTAININGUDITEDINANCIAL TATEMENTS
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively
comprise the City’s basic financial statements. Other information, including the introductory section,
combining and individual fund statements and schedules, and the statistical section accompanying the
basic financial statements are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not required parts of
the basic financial statements.
With respect to the combining and individual fund statements and schedules accompanying the financial
statements, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of
preparing the information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior
period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements.
We compared and reconciled the combining and individual fund statements and schedules to the
underlying accounting records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial
statements themselves.
With respect to the introductory section and statistical section accompanying the financial statements, our
procedures were limited to reading this other information, and in doing so we did not identify any
material inconsistencies with the audited financial statements.
-4-
FUNDING CITIES IN MINNESOTA
L
EGISLATION
The 2011 Legislative Session was very long and difficult. It featured a large budget deficit and a very
contentious battle between the Democratic Governor and the Republican-led House and Senate; and
resulted in numerous vetoes, a special session, and the longest shutdown of non-essential state
government services in Minnesota history.
The outlook going into the 2012 Legislative Session was brightened somewhat by positive economic
news. The November 2011 financial forecast projected a surplus of $876 million in the state general fund
for the biennium ending June 30, 2013, later revised to a surplus of almost $1.2 billion in the
February 2012 forecast. This meant that the Legislature would not have to pass a “supplemental budget”
to deal with projected shortfalls for the second half of the biennium, as was the case in the previous short
session.
The positive feeling was short-lived, however, as the 2012 Legislative Session quickly degenerated into
more partisan squabbling. Once again, the Governor exercised his veto power a number of times to block
Republican legislative initiatives. The Republican Legislature reacted by introducing several potential
amendments to the state constitution, which once passed would be subject to a public vote and could not
be vetoed by the Governor. Two potential amendments, addressing voter identification and the legal
definition of marriage, made it on the ballot for the November 2012 election and were voted down by the
public. In the end, the main accomplishment of the session was a hard-fought compromise on partial
public funding for a Vikings stadium.
The 2012 Legislature did pass a state bonding bill, a technical tax bill (after two omnibus tax bills were
vetoed), and a few other bills that impacted Minnesota cities. The following is a summary of recent
legislative activity affecting the finances of Minnesota cities in 2012 and into the future:
Local Government Aid (LGA)
– The state-wide LGA appropriation for fiscal 2012 was
$425.2 million. For fiscal 2012, cities received the lesser of their 2010 actual or 2011 certified
LGA allocations. For fiscal 2013 and beyond, the state-wide LGA appropriation had been set to
increase to $426.4 million; however, the 2012 Legislature made some changes. LGA payments for
2013 are frozen at 2012 levels for cities with a population of 5,000 or more. For cities with
populations below 5,000, 2013 LGA will be the greater of their 2012 aid or the amount they would
have received for 2013 under existing law. The Legislature also froze the base for calculating the
maximum increases and decreases for a city’s 2013 and 2014 LGA to their 2012 aid. Beginning in
2015, the previous year’s LGA payment will be used to calculate the minimum and maximum
increases.
Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) –
The 2011 Legislature eliminated the MVHC
reimbursement program beginning in fiscal 2012. Rather than receiving a property tax credit,
qualifying homeowner taxpayers had a portion of the market value of their house excluded from their
taxable market value. This new system provides homeowners property tax relief by shifting a portion
of their potential tax burden to other property classifications, rather than directly reducing their taxes
through a state paid tax credit reimbursement. While this new homestead exclusion is calculated in a
similar manner to the repealed MVHC, the actual tax relief to individual homeowner taxpayers varies
depending on the makeup of the taxing jurisdictions that levy on their particular property.
Depositories Authorized to Redeposit City Funds
– Banks designated as depositories of city funds
are authorized to redeposit the funds in another bank, savings and loan, or credit union located within
the United States, provide the redeposited funds are fully covered by federal depository insurance
(FDIC or NCUA). This law change was enacted to make additional federal depository insurance
available to cover municipal deposits in anticipation of the December 31, 2012 sunset of the
temporary unlimited coverage for non-interest bearing municipal accounts provisions of the
Dodd-Frank Act.
-5-
Municipal State Aid (MSA) Eligibility
– Three changes were made that protect the MSA of cities
dropping below a population of 5,000, which is the eligibility threshold for receiving MSA for street
maintenance. Under previous law, if a city that formerly had a population of 5,000 or more fell below
a 5,000 population at the 2010 decennial census, it would have been ineligible for MSA beginning in
fiscal 2012. The first change enacted allows previously eligible cities falling below 5,000 population
at a decennial census to continue to be considered to have a population of 5,000 for purposes of
calculating MSA, thereby remaining eligible, until the end of the fourth year of the decade. The
second change enacted states that for purposes of calculating MSA, which is based 50 percent on
population, a city is deemed to have a population equal to the greater of 5,000 or as otherwise
determined by statute. The final change requires that, for 2013 MSA only, the aid be allocated in a
manner that backfills the MSA cities lost in 2012 due to population drops.
Contractor Bond Threshold
– The threshold at which a municipality is required to obtain contractor
performance and payment bonds for public construction contracts was increased from $75,000 to
match the current competitive bid law threshold of $100,000.
Municipal Detachment of Parcels
– A number of corrections and clarifications were made related to
petitions for the detachment of parcels from a municipality. The changes affect petition requirements,
the hearing process, and the sharing of associated hearing and mediation costs with the landowners.
Tort Liability Limits for Cities Contracting With Certain Nonprofits
– The liability limit on
claims against cities involving nonprofit organizations that are engaged in or administer outdoor
recreational activities that are funded or authorized by a municipality were lowered from $1.5 million
to $1.0 million.
-6-
PT
ROPERTYAXES
Minnesota cities rely heavily on local property tax levies to support their governmental fund activities. In
recent years this dependence has been heightened due to reductions in state aids and fees from new
development due to the struggling economy. As a result, many cities have repeatedly been faced with the
difficult choice of either reducing services or increasing taxes on their already overburdened constituents.
Property values within Minnesota cities experienced average decreases of 5.7 percent and 8.8 percent for
taxes payable in 2011 and 2012, respectively, as market values have continued to slide despite recent
signs of improvement in other areas of the economy. In comparison, the City’s estimated market value
decreased 11.3 percent for taxes payable in 2011 and 2.0 percent for taxes payable in 2012. The market
value for taxes payable in 2012 is based on estimated values as of January 1, 2011.
The following graph shows the City’s changes in estimated market value over the past 10 years:
Estimated Market Value
$2,500,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$1,500,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$500,000,000
$–
2003200420052006200720082009201020112012
Tax capacity is considered the actual base available for taxation. It is calculated by applying the state’s
property classification system to each property’s market value. Each property classification, such as
commercial or residential, has a different calculation and uses different rates. Consequently, a city’s total
tax capacity will change at a different rate than its total market value, as tax capacity is affected by the
proportion of the City’s tax base that is in each property classification from year-to-year, as well as
legislative changes to tax rates. The City’s tax capacity decreased 4.4 percent and 11.6 percent for taxes
payable in 2011 and 2012, respectively.
-7-
The following graph shows the City’s change in tax capacities over the past 10 years:
Tax Capacity
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$–
2003200420052006200720082009201020112012
The following table presents the average tax rates applied to city residents for each of the last two levy
years, along with comparative state-wide and metro area rates. The general increase in rates reflects both
the increased reliance of local governments on property taxes and the recent decline in tax capacities.
Rates expressed as a percentage of net tax capacit
y
All CitiesSeven-CountyCity of
State-WideMetro AreaBrooklyn Center
20112012
2011201220112012
Averae tax rate
g
64.457.2
Cit 46.342.5 40.0 43.4
y
48.245.8
Count 46.843.7 42.1 45.0
y
34.734.2
School25.2 27.3 26.8 28.5
11.010.9
Special taxing6.4 6.8 8.1 8.7
158.3148.1
Total117.8 127.2117.0125.6
Both the City’s portion and the total tax capacity rates for Brooklyn Center residents are significantly
higher than the state-wide and metro area averages the last two years. These rates are higher than average
due to a combination of factors, including lower than average property values, makeup of residential
properties, and the use of tax increments within the City.
-8-
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW
This section of the report provides you with an overview of the financial trends and activities of the City’s
governmental funds, which includes the General, special revenue, debt service, and capital project funds.
These funds are used to account for the basic services the City provides to all of its citizens, which are
financed primarily with property taxes. The governmental fund information in the City’s financial
statements focuses on budgetary compliance, and the sufficiency of each governmental fund’s current
assets to finance its current liabilities.
GFB
OVERNMENTAL UNDALANCES
The following table summarizes the changes in the fund balances of the City’s governmental funds during
the year ended December 31, 2012, presented both by fund balance classification and by fund:
Governmental Funds Change in Fund Balance
Fund Balance
as of December 31,
Increase
20122011(Decrease)
Fund balances of overnmental funds
g
Total b classification
y
Nonspendable88,952$ 32,308$ 56,644$
(419,348)
Restricted 13,331,70512,912,357
Committed 3,021,3183,651,995 630,677
(2,614)
Assigned 2,614–
(7,917)
Unassigned7,172,943 7,180,860
$ 23,568,80523,826,247$ 257,442$
Total – governmental funds
fund
Total by
General10,686,896$ 9,730,835$ 956,061$
145,040
Tax Increment District No. 32,530,103 2,385,063
(223,636)
Tax Increment District No. 22,853,309 3,076,945
(1,408,438)
Tax Increment District No. 5 (1,419,205) (10,767)
G.O. Improvement Bonds2,358,707 2,577,901 (219,194)
(2,005,796) (2,504,286) 498,490
Infrastructure Construction
509,119
Nonmajor funds8,822,233 8,313,114
$ 23,568,80523,826,247$ 257,442$
Total – governmental funds
In total, the fund balances of the City’s governmental funds increased by $257,442 during the year ended
December 31, 2012. The majority of the increase was in committed fund balances which was offset by
the decrease in restricted fund balances. Fund balances committed for street reconstruction increased
$685,467 in the current year as approved by City Council resolution. Fund balances restricted for
statutory housing obligations and debt service decreased $288,330 and $233,071, respectively.
-9-
GFRAE
OVERNMENTAL UNDS EVENUENDXPENDITURES
The following table presents the per capita revenue of the City’s governmental funds for the past three
years, along with state-wide averages.
We have included the most recent comparative state-wide averages available from the Office of the State
Auditor to provide a benchmark for interpreting your City’s data. The amounts received from the typical
major sources of governmental fund revenue will naturally vary between cities based on factors such as
the City’s stage of development, location, size and density of its population, property values, services it
provides, and other attributes. It will also differ from year-to-year due to the effect of inflation and
changes in the City’s operation. Also, certain data on these tables may be classified differently than how
they appear on the City’s financial statements in order to be more comparable to the state-wide
information, particularly in separating capital expenditures from current expenditures.
We have designed this section of our management report using per capita data in order to better identify
unique or unusual trends and activities of your city. We intend for this type of comparative and trend
information to complement, rather than duplicate, information in the Management’s Discussion and
Analysis. An inherent difficulty in presenting per capita information is the accuracy of the population
count, which for most years is based on estimates.
Governmental Funds Revenue per Capita
With State-Wide Averages by Population Class
State-WideCity of Brooklyn Center
December 31, 2011
Year201020112012
20,000–100,00030,10430,20430,204
Population2,500–10,00010,000–20,000
Property taxes390$ 363$ $ 432406$ 444$ 476$
10351 84 89
Tax increments40 48
Franchise fees and other taxes27 36 4530 50 51
5056 65 43
Special assessments70 56
3531 32 28
Licenses and permits23 21
228152 163 119
Intergovernmental revenues283 263
3378 37 35
Charges for services95 79
Other65 75 2265 26 36
$ 948869$ 901$ 877$
Total revenue993$ 941$
The City relies more on property tax revenue for its governmental funds revenue compared to the average
Minnesota city. The City continues to generate significantly more tax increment revenue per capita than
average, as it has made extensive use of this tool to finance commercial development.
The City’s per capita governmental funds revenue for 2012 was $877, a decrease of about 2.7 percent
from the prior year. This was primarily due to a decrease in special assessment revenue and
intergovernmental revenue in the current year. The decrease in special assessment revenue, which
decreased $22 per capita, was mainly due to a reduction in street and storm projects in the current year
compared to prior year. Intergovernmental revenue decreased $44 per capita due to the City receiving
grants for the Dupont Avenue project in the prior year.
-10-
The expenditures of governmental funds will also vary from state-wide averages and from year-to-year,
based on the City’s circumstances. Expenditures are classified into three types as follows:
Current
– These are typically the general operating type expenditures occurring on an annual
basis, and are primarily funded by general sources such as taxes and intergovernmental revenues.
Capital Outlay and Construction
– These expenditures do not occur on a consistent basis, more
typically fluctuating significantly from year-to-year. Many of these expenditures are
project-oriented, and are often funded by specific sources that have benefited from the
expenditure, such as special assessment improvement projects.
Debt Service
– Although the expenditures for debt service may be relatively consistent over the
term of the respective debt, the funding source is the important factor. Some debt may be repaid
through specific sources such as special assessments or redevelopment funding, while other debt
may be repaid with general property taxes.
The City’s expenditures per capita of its governmental funds for the past three years, together with
state-wide averages, are presented in the following table:
Governmental Funds Expenditures per Capita
With State-Wide Averages by Population Class
State-WideCity of Brooklyn Center
December 31, 2011
Year201020112012
Population2,500–10,00010,000–20,00020,000–100,00030,10430,20430,204
Current
General government126$ 99$ $ 12882$ 114$ 117$
283238 287 301
Public safet 225231
y
Street maintenance114 108 7289 79 70
8187 80 84
Parks and recreation79 96
8082 62 164
All other 8174
$ 644578$ 622$ 736$
$ 609624$
Capital outlay
$ 284233$ 184$ 23$
and construction258$ 272$
Debt service
Principal186$ 148$ $ 155109$ 98$ 88$
Interest and fiscal60 48 3541 30 27
$ 190150$ 128$ 115$
$ 196246$
The City’s governmental funds current per capita expenditures are higher than state-wide averages for
cities in the same population class. The City’s current operating costs are higher than average due to
above average general government, public safety, and economic development costs. The City’s per capita
current expenditures increased $114 per capita in 2012 as a result of the developer note receivable in Tax
Increment District No. 5 being forgiven in the current year. Capital outlay costs per capita decreased
$161 as a result of the Palmer Lake Project that was completed in the prior year. Debt service costs per
capita decreased $13 as a result of scheduled bond payments.
-11-
GF
ENERALUND
The City’s General Fund accounts for the financial activity of the basic services provided to the
community. The primary services included within this fund are the administration of the municipal
operation, police and fire protection, building inspection, streets and highway maintenance, and parks and
recreation.
The graph below illustrates the change in the General Fund financial position over the last six years. We
have also included an expenditure line to reflect the change in the size of the General Fund operation over
the same period.
General Fund Financial Position
Year Ended December 31,
$18,000,000
$16,000,000
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$–
200720082009201020112012
Fund Balance
Cash Balance (Net of Interfund Borrowing)
Expenditures
The City’s General Fund cash and investments balance (net of interfund borrowing) at December 31,
2012 was $11,147,313, which increased $809,725 from 2011. Total fund balance at December 31, 2012
was $10,686,896, up $956,061 from the prior year.
Having an appropriate fund balance is an important factor in assessing the City’s financial health because
a government, like any organization, requires a certain amount of equity to operate. Generally, the
amount of equity required typically increases as the size of the operation increases. A healthy financial
position allows the City to avoid volatility in tax rates; helps minimize the impact of state funding
changes; allows for the adequate and consistent funding of services, repairs, and unexpected costs; and
can be a factor in determining the City’s bond rating and resulting interest costs.
The City has an approved fund balance policy that states the General Fund will manage its cash flow by
having a year-end target unassigned fund balance of between 50 percent and 52 percent of next year’s
General Fund budgeted expenditures. At December 31, 2012, the City’s General Fund had a fund balance
of 61 percent of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures.
-12-
The following graph reflects the City’s General Fund revenue sources for 2012 compared to budget:
General Fund Revenue
Taxes
Licenses and Permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for Services
Other
BudgetActual
Total General Fund revenues for 2012 were $17,871,577, which was $931,409 (5.5 percent) over the final
budget. The majority of this variance was from taxes, licenses and permits, and other revenue. Tax
revenue was $258,658 over budget mainly due to the excess tax increments that were recognized in the
current year and not included in the budget. Licenses and permits were over budget by $223,026 from
more than anticipated building-related activities. Other revenues were over budget by $289,767 due to
workers’ compensation dividends and insurance reimbursements received in the current year that were
not included in the budget.
The following graph presents the City’s General Fund revenues by source for the last five years. The
graph reflects the City’s reliance on property taxes and other local sources of revenue, and shows the
decline in general state-aid revenue in recent years.
General Fund Revenue by Source
Year Ended December 31,
$15,000,000
$13,500,000
$12,000,000
$10,500,000
$9,000,000
$7,500,000
$6,000,000
$4,500,000
$3,000,000
$1,500,000
$–
TaxesIntergovernmentalOther
20082009201020112012
Overall, General Fund revenues increased $998,543 (5.9 percent) from the previous year. Tax revenue
increased about $1,000,000 due to a reduction in state aid that reduced property tax revenue in 2011, an
increase in the tax levy in the current year, and an increase in excess tax increments received.
-13-
The following graphs illustrate the components of General Fund spending for 2012 compared to budget:
General Fund Expenditures
General Government
Public Safety
Public Works
Parks and Recreation
Other
BudgetActual
Total General Fund expenditures for 2012 were $17,443,364, which was $373,927 (2.1 percent) less than
budget. The largest areas that were under budgeted amounts were public safety, public works, and other
expenditures totaling $98,018, $125,533, and $107,330, respectively. Public safety expenditures were
under budget in the protective inspection department. Public works expenditures were under budget
mainly in the street department and engineering department. The other expenditure area was under
budget in nondepartmental expenditures due to an unspent budget for contingencies.
The following graph presents the City’s General Fund expenditures by function for the last five years.
General Fund Expenditures by Function
Year Ended December 31,
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$–
GeneralPublic SafetyPublic WorksParks andOther
GovernmentRecreation
20082009201020112012
General Fund expenditures increased by $504,134, or 3.0 percent, from the prior year, mainly due to the
$340,000 increase in the public safety function and the approximately $79,000 increase in parks and
recreation expenditures. The increase in public safety expenditures is due to increased personal services
in the police protection and fire protection departments. Parks and recreation increased mainly due to the
increased expenditures of $98,741 in the park maintenance department.
-14-
ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW
The City maintains a number of enterprise funds to account for services the City provides that are
financed primarily through fees charged to those utilizing the service. This section of the report provides
you with an overview of the financial trends and activities of the City’s enterprise funds, which includes
the Municipal Liquor, Golf Course, Earle Brown Heritage Center, Water Utility, Sanitary Sewer Utility,
Storm Drainage Utility, Recycling, and Street Light Utility Funds.
The utility funds comprise a considerable portion of the City’s activities. These funds significantly help
to defray overhead and administrative costs and provide additional support to general government
operations by way of annual transfers. We understand that the City is proactive in reviewing these
activities on an ongoing basis and we want to reiterate the importance of continually monitoring these
operations. Over the years, we have emphasized to our city clients the importance of these utility
operations being self-sustaining, preventing additional burdens on general government funds. This would
include the accumulation of net assets for future capital improvements and to provide a cushion in the
event of a negative trend in operations.
EFFP
NTERPRISEUNDSINANCIAL OSITION
The following table summarizes the changes in the financial position of the City’s enterprise funds during
the year ended December 31, 2012, presented both by classification and by fund:
Enterprise Funds Change in Financial Position
Net Position
as of December 31,
Increase
20122011(Decrease)
Net position of enterprise funds
Total by classification
Net investment in capital assets42,406,210$ 45,051,128$ $ (2,644,918)
Unrestricted12,202,397 8,626,745 3,575,652
$ 53,677,87354,608,607$ 930,734$
Total – enterprise funds
Total by fund
Municipal Liquor$ 2,300,1642,490,774$ 190,610$
Golf Course753,672 617,927 135,745
Earle Brown Heritage Center 7,067,3716,604,837 (462,534)
Water Utility 10,909,45511,386,122 476,667
Sanitary Sewer Utility 12,626,81812,909,163 282,345
Storm Drainage Utility 19,645,35419,816,537 171,183
Recycling 49,99154,890 4,899
Street Light Utility 460,793592,612 131,819
$ 53,677,87354,608,607$ 930,734$
Total – enterprise funds
In total, the net position of the City’s enterprise funds increased by $930,734 during the year ended
December 31, 2012. As noted above, all of the City’s enterprise funds had positive operating results with
the exception of the Earle Brown Heritage Center Fund.
-15-
Water Fund
The following graph presents six years of operating results for the Water Fund:
Water Fund
Year Ended December 31,
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$–
200720082009201020112012
Operating Revenue
Operating Expenses
Project Costs
Operating Income (Loss), Excluding Project Costs
The Water Fund ended 2012 with a net position of $11,386,122, an increase of $476,667 from the prior
year. Of this, $9,263,109 represents the investment in utility distribution system capital assets, leaving
$2,123,013 of unrestricted net position.
Water Fund operating revenue was $2,297,340 for 2012, an increase of $349,273 (17.9 percent) over the
prior year due to a combination of a rate increase and higher usage due to a dry summer. Operating
expenses of $1,789,216 were $31,782 (1.8 percent) more than last year.
-16-
Sanitary Sewer Fund
The following graph presents six years of operating results for the Sanitary Sewer Fund:
Sanitary Sewer Fund
Year Ended December 31,
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$–
200720082009201020112012
Operating Revenue
Operating Expenses
Project Costs
Operating Income (Loss), Excluding Project Costs
The Sanitary Sewer Fund ended 2012 with a net position of $12,909,163, an increase of $282,345 from
the prior year. Of this, $10,388,351 represents the investment in the sanitary sewer capital assets, leaving
$2,520,812 of unrestricted net position.
Sanitary Sewer Fund operating revenues for 2012 were $3,592,429, which was an increase of $118,817
(3.4 percent) from the prior year, primarily due to an approved rate increase.
Operating expenses for 2012 were $3,294,796, which was an increase of $40,455 (1.2 percent) from the
prior year.
-17-
Storm Drainage Fund
The following graph presents six years of operating results for the Storm Drainage Fund:
Storm Drainage Fund
Year Ended December 31,
$1,800,000
$1,600,000
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$–
200720082009201020112012
Operating Revenue
Operating Expenses
Operating Income (Loss)
The Storm Drainage Fund ended 2012 with a net position of $19,816,537, an increase of $171,183 from
the prior year. Of this, $15,583,336 represents the investment in capital assets, leaving $4,233,201 of
unrestricted net position.
Storm Drainage Fund operating revenues for 2012 were $1,637,486, which was a slight increase of
$16,516 from the prior year.
Operating expenses for 2012 were $1,500,135, which was $93,792 higher than the prior year. The
increased expenditures relate to a storm water pond maintenance project that started in 2012.
-18-
OEF
THERNTERPRISE UNDS
Liquor Fund
The following graph presents six years of operating results for the Liquor Fund:
Liquor Fund
Year Ended December 31,
$6,500,000
$6,000,000
$5,500,000
$5,000,000
$4,500,000
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$–
200720082009201020112012
Sales
Cost of Sales
Operating Expenses
Operating Income (Loss)
The Liquor Fund ended 2012 with a net position of $2,490,774, an increase of $190,610 from the prior
year. Of the net position balance, $159,045 represents the investment in liquor capital assets, leaving
$2,331,729 of unrestricted net position.
Liquor sales for 2012 were $5,963,908, about $174,562 (3.0 percent) higher than the prior year. Other
than the slight decrease in 2010, sales have steadily increased over the last several years, increasing by
about 8.9 percent since 2007. The Liquor Fund generated operating income of $376,030 in 2012, or
about 6.3 percent of gross sales, which is a slight decrease from the 6.9 percent of gross sales in fiscal
2011.
The Liquor Fund gross profit margin was 27.62 in fiscal 2012 compared to a similar amount of 27.87 in
fiscal 2011.
-19-
Earle Brown Heritage Center Fund
The following graph presents six years of operating results for the Earle Brown Heritage Center Fund:
Earle Brown Heritage Center Fund
Year Ended December 31,
$4,500,000
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$–
$(500,000)
$(1,000,000)
200720082009201020112012
Sales and User Fees
Operating Expenses
Cost of Sales
Operating Income (Loss)
The Earle Brown Heritage Center Fund ended 2012 with a net position of $6,604,837, a decrease of
$462,534 from the prior year. Of the net position balance, $5,048,463 represents investments in Earle
Brown Heritage Center capital assets, leaving $1,556,374 of unrestricted net position.
Earle Brown Heritage Center Fund sales and user fees for 2012 were $4,458,072, which is $409,333
(10.1 percent) more than last year. The increase is due to the increased number of wedding-related events
held at the facility in 2012 compared to the prior year. Operating expenses for 2012 were $2,761,200, an
increase of $167,641 from the prior year. The increase in operating expenses is directly related to the
increased revenues in the current year.
-20-
Golf Course Fund
The following graph presents six years of operating results for the Golf Course Fund:
Golf Course Fund
Year Ended December 31,
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$–
$(50,000)
$(100,000)
200720082009201020112012
Operating Revenue
Operating Expenses
Operating Income (Loss)
The Golf Course Fund ended 2012 with a net position of $753,672, an increase of $135,745 from the
prior year. Of this, $1,548,042 represents the investment in golf course land and capital assets, leaving a
deficit of ($794,370) in unrestricted net position.
Golf Course Fund operating revenues for 2012 were $207,827, which is $16,832 more than last year.
Operating expenses for 2012 were $272,282, down $10,915 from the prior year. On an annual basis, this
fund has had to borrow from other funds to fund cash flow needs. This interfund borrowing was a total of
$792,488 at December 31, 2012.
We recommend that the City continue to monitor the financial results in this fund. We also recommend
that the City continue to update the long-range financial plan for this fund, including considering alternate
plans for financing the payback of the interfund borrowing in this fund.
-21-
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
In addition to fund-based information, the current reporting model for governmental entities also requires
the inclusion of two government-wide financial statements designed to present a clear picture of the City
as a single, unified entity. These government-wide statements provide information on the total cost of
delivering services, including capital assets and long-term liabilities.
Statement of Net Position
The Statement of Net Position essentially tells you what your city owns and owes at a given point in time,
the last day of the fiscal year. Theoretically, net position represents the resources the City has leftover to
use for providing services after its debts are settled. However, those resources are not always in
spendable form, or there may be restrictions on how some of those resources can be used. Therefore, the
Statement of Net Position divides the net position into three components:
Net Investment in Capital Assets
– The portion of net position reflecting equity in capital assets
(i.e. capital assets minus related debt).
Restricted Net Position
– The portion of net position equal to resources whose use is legally
restricted minus any non-capital-related liabilities payable from those same resources.
Unrestricted Net Position
– The residual balance of net position after the elimination of net
investment in capital assets and restricted net position.
The following table presents the components of City’s net position as of December 31, 2012 and 2011,
for governmental activities and business-type activities:
As of December 31,
Increase
(Decrease)
20122011
Net position
Governmental activities
pital assets45,261,629$ 45,761,042$ $ (499,413)
Net investment in ca
Restricted24,259,292 24,847,507 (588,215)
Unrestricted5,875,289 4,376,334 1,498,955
Total governmental activities75,396,210 74,984,883 411,327
Business-type activities
pital assets42,406,210 45,051,128 (2,644,918)
Net investment in ca
Unrestricted11,856,924 8,300,659 3,556,265
Total business-type activities54,263,134 53,351,787 911,347
$ 128,336,670129,659,344$ 1,322,674$
Total net position
The City’s total net position at December 31, 2012 was $1,322,674 higher than previous year-end. Of the
increase, $411,327 came from governmental activities and $911,347 came from business-type activities.
-22-
Statement of Activities
The Statement of Activities tracks the City’s yearly revenues and expenses, as well as any other
transactions that increase or reduce total net positions. These amounts represent the full cost of providing
services. The Statement of Activities provides a more comprehensive measure than just the amount of
cash that changed hands, as reflected in the fund-based financial statements. This statement includes the
cost of supplies used, depreciation of long-lived capital assets, and other accrual-based expenses.
The following table presents the change in the net position of the City for the years ended December 31,
2012 and 2011:
2012
2011
ProgramNet (Expense)Net (Expense)
ExpensesRevenuesRevenueRevenue
Net (expense) revenue
Governmental activities
General government$ 1,082,7413,246,015$ (2,163,274)$ (2,094,877)$
Public safety 2,285,2029,604,521 (7,319,319) (6,914,546)
Public works
863,0163,561,914 (2,698,898) 2,551,240
Community service
–141,505 (141,505) (100,849)
Parks and recreation 910,0922,796,561 (1,886,469) (2,047,852)
Economic development 2,188,8925,438,372 (3,249,480) (1,799,480)
Interest on long-term debt –768,241 (768,241) (865,799)
Business-type activities
Municipal liquor
1,656,1251,274,375 381,750 401,916
Golf course 208,027273,023 (64,996) (93,448)
Earle Brown Heritage Center 2,293,3862,768,719 (475,333) (526,445)
Recycling 290,737285,853 4,884 5,579
Street light utility 354,821222,835 131,986 64,624
Water utility
2,321,5391,855,345 466,194 165,106
Sanitary sewer utility
3,592,5303,317,427 275,103 217,049
y
Storm drainage utilit 1,660,8491,501,652 159,197 223,677
$ 19,707,95737,056,358$ (17,348,401) (10,814,105)
Total net (expense) revenue
General revenues
13,336,05614,307,993
Property taxes
2,525,0572,751,249
Tax increments
852,302882,620
Lodging taxes
Grants and contributions not
549,649496,679
restricted to specific programs
270,526118,558
Unrestricted investment earnings
111,530113,976
Gain on disposal of capital asset
Total general revenues18,671,075 17,645,120
$ 6,831,0151,322,674$
Change in net position
One of the goals of this statement is to provide a side-by-side comparison to illustrate the difference in the
way the City’s governmental and business-type operations are financed. The table clearly illustrates the
dependence of the City’s governmental operations on general revenues, such as property taxes and
unrestricted grants. It also shows that, for the most part, the City’s business-type activities are generating
sufficient program revenues (service charges and program-specific grants) to cover expenses. This is
critical given the current downward pressures on the general revenue sources.
-23-
ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING UPDATES
GASBSN.61–TFRE:O
TATEMENT OHEINANCIALEPORTING NTITYMNIBUS
This statement amends the current guidance in GASB Statement No. 14, The Financial Reporting Entity,
for identifying and presenting component units. Potential component units that meet the fiscal
dependency criterion for inclusion in the financial reporting entity under existing guidance will only be
included if there is also “financial interdependency” (an ongoing relationship of potential financial benefit
or burden) with the primary government. This statement also clarifies the types of relationships that are
considered to meet the “misleading to exclude” criterion for inclusion as a component unit; changes the
criteria for blending component units; gives direction for the determination and disclosure of major
component units; and adds a requirement to report an explicit, measurable equity interest in a discretely
presented component unit in a statement of position prepared using the economic resources measurement
focus. The requirements of this statement must be implemented for periods beginning after June 15,
2012, with earlier implementation encouraged.
GASBSN.65–IPRAL
TATEMENT OTEMSREVIOUSLY EPORTED AS SSETS AND IABILITIES
This statement establishes accounting and financial reporting standards that reclassify, as deferred
outflows of resources or deferred inflows of resources, certain items previously reported as assets and
liabilities; and recognizes, as outflows or inflows of resources, certain items previously reported as assets
and liabilities. This statement also provides financial reporting guidance related to the impact of the
financial statement elements deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources, such as
changes in the determination of the major fund calculations and limiting the use of the term deferredin
financial statement presentations. The provisions of this statement are effective for financial statements
for periods beginning after December 15, 2012. Earlier application is encouraged.
GASBSN.67–FRPP–A
TATEMENT OINANCIAL EPORTING FOR ENSION LANS AN MENDMENT OF
GASBSN.2550
TATEMENTOS AND
The primary objective of this statement is to improve financial reporting by state and local government
pension plans. GASB Statement No. 67 replaces the requirements of GASB Statement Nos. 25 and 50
for pension plans that are administered through trusts or equivalent arrangements that meet the following
criteria: contributions from employers and nonemployer contributing entities to the pension plan and
earnings on those contributions are irrevocable; pension plan assets are dedicated to providing pensions to
plan members in accordance with the benefit terms; and pension plan assets are legally protected from the
creditors of employers, nonemployer contributing entities, and the pension plan administrator. If the plan
is a defined benefit pension plan, plan assets also are legally protected from creditors of the plan
members. The requirements of GASB Statement Nos. 25 and 50 remain applicable to pension plans that
are not administered through trusts covered by the scope of this statement and to defined contribution
plans that provide post-employment benefits other than pensions. The statement makes a number of
changes in the financial statement presentation, measurement, and required disclosures relating to the
reporting of these types of pension plans. This statement is effective for financial statements for fiscal
years beginning after June 15, 2013. Earlier application is encouraged.
GASBSN.68–AFRP–
TATEMENT OCCOUNTING AND INANCIAL EPORTING FOR ENSIONS AN
AGASBSN.2750
MENDMENT OF TATEMENTOS AND
The primary objective of this statement is to improve accounting and financial reporting by state and local
governments for pensions. This statement replaces the requirements of GASB Statement Nos. 27 and 50,
as they relate to pensions that are provided through pension plans administered as trusts or equivalent
arrangements that meet certain criteria (as described earlier for GASB Statement No. 67). The
requirements of GASB Statement Nos. 27 and 50 remain applicable for pensions that are not covered by
the scope of this statement.
-24-
This statement establishes standards for measuring and recognizing liabilities, deferred outflows of
resources, deferred inflows of resources, and expense/expenditures. In addition, this statement details the
recognition and disclosure requirements for employers with liabilities (payables) to a defined benefit
pension plan and for employers whose employees are provided with defined contribution pensions. This
statement also addresses circumstances in which a nonemployer entity has a legal requirement to make
contributions directly to a pension plan. This statement is effective for financial statements for fiscal
years beginning after June 15, 2014. Earlier application is encouraged.
Included in this statement are major changes in how employers that participate in cost-sharing pension
plans, such as TRA and PERA, account for pension benefit expenses and liabilities. In financial
statements prepared using the economic resources measurement focus and accrual basis of accounting
(government-wide and proprietary funds), a cost-sharing employer that does not have a special funding
situation is required to recognize a liability for its proportionate share of the net pension liability of all
employers with benefits provided through the pension plan. A cost-sharing employer is required to
recognize pension expense and report deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources
related to pensions for its proportionate share of collective pension expense and collective deferred
outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions. In addition, the effects of
(1) a change in the employer’s proportion of the collective net pension liability and (2) differences during
the measurement period between the employer’s contributions and its proportionate share of the total of
contributions from employers included in the collective net pension liability are required to be
determined. These effects are required to be recognized in the employer’s pension expense in a
systematic and rational manner over a closed period equal to the average of the expected remaining
service lives of all active and inactive employees that are provided with pensions through the pension
plan.
GASBSN.69–GCDG
TATEMENT OOVERNMENTOMBINATIONS AND ISPOSALS OF OVERNMENT
O
PERATIONS
This statement provides accounting and financial reporting guidance, including disclosure requirements,
for government combinations and disposals of government operations. Government combinations
include mergers, acquisitions, and transfers of operations. Included within the scope of this statement are
combinations of governmental entities or combinations of governmental entities, with nongovernmental
entities (such as a nonprofit entity) as long as the new or continuing organization is a government. This
statement does not apply to combinations in which a government acquires an organization that continues
to exist as a separate entity, or acquires an equity interest in an organization that remains legally separate
from the acquiring government. A disposal of operations occurs when a government either transfers or
sells specific operations. The provisions of this statement are effective for financial statements for
periods beginning after December 15, 2013. Earlier application is encouraged.
PCRFG
ROPOSEDHANGES TO EQUIREMENTS FOR EDERALRANTS
The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has issued for comment Proposed OMB Uniform
Guidance: Cost Principles, Audit, and Administrative Requirements for Federal Awards, which proposes
broad revisions to OMB Circular A-133 and other key grant reforms. The proposed guidance includes a
number of significant changes to the federal Single Audit process, including; an increase in dollar
threshold for requiring a Single Audit, changes to the process for determining major programs, a
reduction in the percentage of expenditures required to be covered by a Single Audit, revised criteria for
determining low-risk auditees, a reduction in the types of compliance requirements to be tested, and an
increase in the threshold for reporting questioned costs. The proposed guidance would also consolidate
OMB circulars and cost principles; and change certain federal requirements related to indirect costs, time
and effort reporting, and grant administration.
-25-