RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2012

A Publication of RubinBrown LLP ‘12 PUBLIC SECTOR STATS

Welcome

RubinBrown is pleased to present the 2012 Public Sector Statistical Analysis, our sixth annual survey of municipal statistical and financial information. This analysis has been created in order to provide a comprehensive report of key government-wide and governmental-fund statistics for the regions we serve so that city governments may compare how they are doing relative to their peers.

If you have questions about this publication, please contact us (see page 13 for contact information).

Contents 1 Executive Summary 4 St. Louis Metropolitan Area 6 Kansas City Metropolitan Area 8 State of Colorado 10 Financial Ratio Interpretations 13 RubinBrown Public Sector Services Group

Executive Summary

As was the case in the five previous editions of the survey, the study includes results for municipalities in the St. Louis and Kansas City metropolitan areas. Additionally, for the second consecutive year, the survey includes results for municipalities in the state of Colorado as well. As a result, the 2012 survey is the first to offer current year and prior year comparative results for all three regions. All cities included in the data have populations greater than 5,000. Additionally, the cities of St. Louis, Kansas City and Denver are excluded from the study due to their size relative to the other municipalities. Finally, for purposes of this study, metropolitan St. Louis includes municipalities in both Missouri and Illinois, metropolitan Kansas City includes municipalities in both Kansas and Missouri and Colorado consists of municipalities in the entire state with emphasis in the greater Denver area.

Methodology The RubinBrown Public Sector Services Group contacted the finance officers from the participating municipalities requesting financial information for their ratio calculations. Financial information was collected from the 2011 fiscal year or calendar year Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), or from the 2011 audited financial statements if no CAFR was prepared. All municipalities included in the study prepare financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Key financial ratios were calculated in three categories: government-wide (governmental activities only), governmental funds, and general fund information. Each participant in the survey received customized financial statistics to use as an analysis tool. Of the 39 St. Louis municipalities participating in this year’s survey, 33 also participated in last year’s survey. Of the 23 Kansas City municipalities participating, 22 also participated in last year’s survey. Of the 31 Colorado municipalities participating, 21 also participated in last year’s survey.

Number of City Participants by Region

50

39

37

37

40

35

34

31

30

30

24

23

23

19

20

22

15

13

10

0

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

St. Louis

Kansas City

Colorado

Format of the Report The ratio results are presented separately for the St. Louis, Kansas City and Colorado regions. The average population of the cities included in the St. Louis region was 22,000. This compares to the average population of 46,900 for cities surveyed in the Kansas City region and 77,600 for those in the Colorado region. For each ratio presented, the report presents information both by quartile and average. The computed values for each ratio were sorted from more favorable to less favorable and quartiles were determined. The quartile information is presented by displaying the ratio value that separates each quartile. For a description and interpretation of the ratios, please refer to pages 10-12. The conclusions reached as to which results are more or less favorable are based upon the judgment of RubinBrown using a financial perspective, taking into consideration what the majority of cities are likely to believe. Each statistic may be viewed differently or may be more or less meaningful based upon each city’s situation. For example, a small city may view a large amount of funding being

RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2012 | 1

Executive Summary

spent on public safety as favorable, whereas our analysis places this in a less favorable quartile. In addition, per capita ratios may be adversely affected if your city serves a large non-resident population due to a significant daily influx of workers. Use of the Study Finance officers may use the study to determine how their cities compare to others of similar size and geographic area in key financial ratio measurements. Both quartile and average ratio values are provided for comparison. The finance officer may wish to share the results of the analysis with the municipality’s chief executive officer and governing body to help key officials understand the impact of decisions on the financial condition of municipality.

Analysis The results of this year’s survey seem to indicate that 2011 was a year of moderate economic recovery. After several years of decreases in tax and grant revenues, these amounts increased slightly as the economy began to rebound. This has resulted in an improvement in net asset growth for municipal governments. Fund balance of the general fund is generally a focal point of a city’s financial health, at least from a short- term perspective. The unrestricted fund balance includes assigned and unassigned fund balance categories as defined in GASB Statement No. 54. Surprisingly, the fund balance as a percent of total revenues in the general fund has remained relatively stable since 2007, in spite of the economic turmoil that has taken place during that timeframe. This indicates a level of disciplined financial management practices put into place to offset the effects of declining revenues. In the analysis that follows, the results for each area are examined, with an emphasis placed on the impact of current economic conditions upon each region.

Average Change in Net Assets (All Regions)

15%

7.9%

10%

5.8%

5.2%

4.6%

5%

1.6%

0%

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Unrestricted General Fund Balance as a Percent of Revenues

70%

58.1%

60%

50.5% 51.7%

50.0%

50%

44.1%

40%

36.2%

35.4% 34.8%

39.5%

32.2%

30%

33.0%

30.9%

20%

10%

0%

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

St. Louis

Kansas City

Colorado

2 | RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2012

St. Louis Metropolitan Area

The 2011 results for the St. Louis area reflect the modest economic recovery. The average increase in net assets for St. Louis municipalities was 8.6% in 2011, as compared with 0.2% in 2010 and 6.9% in 2009. Furthermore, only two of the 39 St. Louis municipalities (or 5%) reported a decrease in government-wide net assets in 2011, as compared with 29% in 2010. The cause of this improvement in net assets is evident when tax revenue per capita and expenses per capita are examined. As indicated in the below chart, tax revenue per capita for St. Louis municipalities increased from $722 in 2009, to $853 in 2010, to $924 in 2011. This is caused primarily by growth in sales tax revenue due to increased economic activity.

Meanwhile, per capita expenses for St. Louis municipalities have declined, as the below chart indicates. Per capita expenses decreased from $1,130 in 2010 to $1,075 in 2011. Expenses for municipalities have decreased in part due to more conservative budgeting practices resulting from a decreased revenue base over the past few years. Additionally, in spite of the economic environment, St. Louis municipalities have managed to maintain sufficient liquidity to meet their ongoing financial needs. The average liquidity ratio for St. Louis municipalities in 2011 was 3.93, an increase from the 2010 average of 3.79. This certainly is a positive indicator for the region, as it demonstrates that area municipalities are well positioned to withstand short-term cash shortfalls. Indeed, 29 of the 39 participating St. Louis municipalities had a liquidity ratio of 2.0 or greater.

Tax Revenues Per Capita

Expenses Per Capita

$1,100 $1,200 $1,300

$1,100 $1,200 $1,300

$1,130

$1,075

$1,000

$1,000

$924

$917

$895

$885

$853

$600 $700 $800 $900 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100

$600 $700 $800 $900 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100

$751

$722

$697

$0

$0

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

4 | RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2012

Financial Ratio Study for St. Louis Metropolitan Area Municipalities Fiscal Years Ending in 2011

INTO WHICH QUARTILE DOES YOUR MUNICIPALITY FALL? ◀ More Favorable Less Favorable ▶

First Quartile

Quartile Breakpoint

Second Quartile

Third Quartile

Quartile Breakpoint

Fourth Quartile

2011 Average

2010 Average

Median

GOVERNMENT-WIDE RATIOS

General Ratios

Change in net assets as a percent of net assets (%)

12.0%

6.6%

2.7%

8.6%

0.2%

Revenue coverage ratio (times)

1.24

1.15

1.05

1.23

1.08

Unrestricted net assets as a percent of total current year revenue (%) Accumulated depreciation as a percent of depreciable capital assets (%)

64.3%

26.4%

-32.7%

-0.2%

1.6%

31.4%

44.8%

48.8%

42.2%

41.5%

Liquidity Ratio

Liquidity ratio (times)

5.39

3.20

1.98

3.93

3.79

Debt Ratios

Debt to assets leverage ratio (times)

0.10

0.25

0.41

0.34

0.36

Total debt per capita ($ per citizen)

$249.33

$738.22

$1,633.12

$1,348.89

$1,295.51

Revenue Ratios

Tax revenue per capita ($ per citizen)

$582.35

$733.92

$1,007.66

$924.32

$852.67

Total grants, contributions and intergovernmental revenue as a percent of total revenue (%)

4.7%

7.7%

16.8%

11.5%

10.5%

Expense Ratios

Total expense per capita ($ per citizen)

$757.20

$923.12

$1,202.22

$1,074.86

$1,130.49

Total general government (administration) expense per capita ($ per citizen) Total public safety expense per capita ($ per citizen) Total interest expense per capita ($ per citizen)

$86.18

$133.84

$208.58

$164.43

$163.22

$233.85

$355.12

$547.94

$410.25

$408.80

$13.46

$37.33

$95.74

$78.11

$68.40

GOVERNMENTAL FUND RATIOS

Expenditure Ratios

Debt service expenditures as a percent of total revenue (%) Capital outlay expenditures as a percent of total expenditures (%)

5.1%

13.0%

19.3%

14.8%

12.8%

24.8%

13.8%

9.9%

15.6%

18.1%

GENERAL FUND RATIOS

Financial Position Ratio

Unrestricted fund balance as a percent of total revenue (%)

76.5%

52.4%

33.3%

58.1%

50.0%

Revenue Ratios

Intergovernmental revenue as a percent of total revenue (%) Transfers in as a percent of total revenue and transfers in (%)

0.0%

1.9%

8.0%

5.6%

6.2%

0.0%

0.1%

2.0%

1.4%

1.6%

RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2012 | 5

Kansas City Metropolitan Area

The 2011 results for the Kansas City area also reflect a slight economic improvement. The average increase in net assets for Kansas City municipalities was 2.2% in 2011, as compared with 1.9% in 2010. Of the 23 municipalities surveyed, only six (or 26%) reported a decrease in net assets in 2011, as compared with 38% in 2010. As illustrated in the tax revenue per capita chart, tax revenue for Kansas City municipalities increased from $765 per capita in 2010 to $773 per capita in 2011. Meanwhile, as illustrated by the expenses per capita chart below, expenses per capita for Kansas City municipalities decreased from $1,184 in 2010 to $1,156 in 2011. This combination of increasing revenue and decreasing expenses resulted in the favorable net asset increases noted above.

Finally, the Kansas City municipalities have maintained the same degree of liquidity as they did in 2010 and it remains strong. The average liquidity ratio for Kansas City municipalities was 1.95 in 2011, which is roughly equal to the average liquidity of 2.00 in 2010. Furthermore, seven of the 23 Kansas City municipalities reported a liquidity ratio of 2.0 or greater, and 16 reported 1.0 or greater.

Tax Revenues Per Capita

Expenses Per Capita

$1,100 $1,200 $1,300

$1,100 $1,200 $1,300

$1,184

$1,156

$999

$982

$1,000

$929

$1,000

$600 $700 $800 $900 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100

$600 $700 $800 $900 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100

$773

$765

$688

$660

$649

$0

$0

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

6 | RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2012

Financial Ratio Study for Kansas City Metropolitan Area Municipalities Fiscal Years Ending in 2011

INTO WHICH QUARTILE DOES YOUR MUNICIPALITY FALL? ◀ More Favorable Less Favorable ▶

First Quartile

Quartile Breakpoint

Second Quartile

Third Quartile

Quartile Breakpoint

Fourth Quartile

2011 Average

2010 Average

Median

GOVERNMENT-WIDE RATIOS

General Ratios

Change in net assets as a percent of net assets (%)

6.0%

2.0%

-0.6%

2.2%

1.9%

Revenue coverage ratio (times)

1.14

1.04

0.95

1.05

0.01

Unrestricted net assets as a percent of total current year revenue (%) Accumulated depreciation as a percent of depreciable capital assets (%)

37.8%

21.8%

-33.1%

7.0%

9.7%

31.6%

39.0%

50.6%

41.7%

39.8%

Liquidity Ratio

Liquidity ratio (times)

2.34

1.32

0.92

1.95

2.00

Debt Ratios

Debt to assets leverage ratio (times)

0.14

0.31

0.43

0.31

0.32

Total debt per capita ($ per citizen)

$833.63

$1,257.59

$1,949.66

$1,419.85

$1,516.37

Revenue Ratios

Tax revenue per capita ($ per citizen)

$539.79

$637.17

$802.79

$773.19

$765.11

Total grants, contributions and intergovernmental revenue as a percent of total revenue (%)

6.1%

11.0%

16.7%

12.4%

14.2%

Expense Ratios

Total expense per capita ($ per citizen)

$794.95

$936.36

$1,181.65

$1,155.80

$1,184.19

Total general government (administration) expense per capita ($ per citizen) Total public safety expense per capita ($ per citizen) Total interest expense per capita ($ per citizen)

$115.18

$153.99

$199.37

$184.72 $174.85

$279.40

$324.45

$411.24

$429.83

$426.33

$30.56

$54.10

$71.20

$55.97

$65.30

GOVERNMENTAL FUND RATIOS

Expenditure Ratios

Debt service expenditures as a percent of total revenue (%) Capital outlay expenditures as a percent of total expenditures (%)

12.4%

16.9%

25.7%

18.3%

21.4%

24.1%

17.0%

14.5%

17.9%

21.9%

GENERAL FUND RATIOS

Financial Position Ratio

Unrestricted fund balance as a percent of total revenue (%)

41.4%

31.2%

17.4%

30.9%

36.2%

Revenue Ratios

Intergovernmental revenue as a percent of total revenue (%) Transfers in as a percent of total revenue and transfers in (%)

0.2%

1.6%

9.9%

5.7%

4.8%

0.8%

2.6%

6.9%

4.6%

4.2%

RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2012 | 7

State of Colorado

As with the St. Louis and Kansas City regions, the 2011 results for the municipalities surveyed in the state of Colorado indicate that economic conditions may be improving. The average increase in net assets for these municipalities was 3.1% in 2011, as compared with 2.9% in 2010. Of the 31 municipalities surveyed, only four (or 13%) reported a decrease in net assets in 2011. This is roughly consistent with the 9% of Colorado municipalities that reported a decrease in 2010.

Unlike the other regions, tax revenue per capita for Colorado municipalities fell during the past year, from $951 per capita in 2010 to $872 per capita in 2011. However, this decrease

is more than offset by a substantial decrease in expenses per capita for Colorado municipalities, from $1,248 in 2010 to $1,141 in 2011. This decline in expenses is the primary driver of the favorable net asset increases as noted above. Municipalities in the state of Colorado also have managed to maintain strong liquidity positions. The average liquidity ratio for Colorado municipalities was 2.67 in 2011, an improvement over the average liquidity of 2.36 in 2010. Furthermore, 18 of the 31 Colorado municipalities reported a liquidity ratio of 2.0 or greater, and 27 reported a liquidity ratio of 1.0 or greater.

Tax Revenues Per Capita

Expenses Per Capita

$1,248

$1,100 $1,200 $1,300

$1,000 $600 $700 $800 $900 $1,100 $1,200 $1,300

$1,141

$951

$1,000

$872

$600 $700 $800 $900 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100

$500 $400 $300 $200 $100

$0

$0

2010

2011

2010

2011

8 | RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2012

Financial Ratio Study for State of Colorado Municipalities Fiscal Years Ending in 2011

INTO WHICH QUARTILE DOES YOUR MUNICIPALITY FALL? ◀ More Favorable Less Favorable ▶

First Quartile

Quartile Breakpoint

Second Quartile

Third Quartile

Quartile Breakpoint

Fourth Quartile

2011 Average

2010 Average

Median

GOVERNMENT-WIDE RATIOS

General Ratios

Change in net assets as a percent of net assets (%)

4.9%

2.3%

1.0%

3.1%

2.9%

Revenue coverage ratio (times)

1.15

1.09

1.04

1.11

1.08

Unrestricted net assets as a percent of total current year revenue (%) Accumulated depreciation as a percent of depreciable capital assets (%)

81.2%

46.0%

27.6%

54.7%

52.3%

32.8%

40.7%

50.8%

40.2%

42.6%

Liquidity Ratio

Liquidity ratio (times)

3.55

2.63

1.58

2.67

2.36

Debt Ratios

Debt to assets leverage ratio (times)

0.02

0.09

0.16

0.12

0.15

Total debt per capita ($ per citizen)

$154.00

$387.56

$1,222.30

$844.41

$965.56

Revenue Ratios

Tax revenue per capita ($ per citizen)

$569.34

$759.96

$1,053.62

$872.41

$950.76

Total grants, contributions and intergovernmental revenue as a percent of total revenue (%)

7.8%

13.4%

18.5%

14.9%

14.2%

Expense Ratios

Total expense per capita ($ per citizen)

$811.82

$1,041.17

$1,279.78

$1,140.93

$1,248.06

Total general government (administration) expense per capita ($ per citizen) Total public safety expense per capita ($ per citizen) Total interest expense per capita ($ per citizen)

$137.14

$201.28

$322.52

$242.41

$253.91

$250.71

$354.19

$444.25

$369.72

$397.18

$5.57

$18.41

$63.40

$34.84

$42.19

GOVERNMENTAL FUND RATIOS

Expenditure Ratios

Debt service expenditures as a percent of total revenue (%) Capital outlay expenditures as a percent of total expenditures (%)

3.3%

6.4%

11.1%

6.7%

8.7%

20.0%

13.7%

9.5%

14.0%

12.2%

GENERAL FUND RATIOS

Financial Position Ratio

Unrestricted fund balance as a percent of total revenue (%)

42.3%

29.4%

20.2%

32.2%

33.0%

Revenue Ratios

Intergovernmental revenue as a percent of total revenue (%) Transfers in as a percent of total revenue and transfers in (%)

4.5%

6.8%

11.2%

11.5%

8.1%

0.4%

1.6%

4.9%

5.3%

7.7%

RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2012 | 9

Financial Ratio Interpretations

Key financial ratios are calculated for three major categories: government-wide (governmental activities only), governmental funds, and general fund.

GOVERNMENT-WIDE RATIOS Government-wide financial statements report information on all of the non-fiduciary activity of the government and its component units. The study focuses on governmental activities that are normally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues. The government-wide financial statements utilize the economic measurement flow and accrual basis of accounting. The measurement and timing of recognition is similar to that of a business entity.

General Ratios Change in net assets as a percent of net assets (%) Formula: Increase (decrease) in governmental activities net assets Governmental activities net assets, beginning of year Interpretation: The ratio measures the change in the municipality’s financial condition for the year. A positive ratio indicates that the financial condition has improved; a negative ratio indicates a deteriorating financial condition.

Unrestricted net assets as a percent of total current year revenue (%)

Formula: Governmental activities unrestricted net assets Governmental activities current year revenue *

*Current revenue includes both program and general revenue but excludes gains, losses, contributions, special and extraordinary gains or losses and transfers. Interpretation: The ratio measures the ability of the municipality to operate if its normal revenue stream is temporarily interrupted or significantly impaired. The ratio is the measure of the cushion that the municipality has for bad years. Municipalities may set a target minimum value for this ratio. A higher ratio is usually considered favorable. However, an extremely high ratio may indicate that the municipality is not providing appropriate current services for its constituents based on its recurring revenue stream.

Revenue coverage ratio (times)

Formula: Governmental activities current year revenue * Governmental activities current year expense

*Current revenue includes both program and general revenue but excludes gains, losses, contributions, special and extraordinary gains or losses and transfers. Interpretation: The ratio measures inter-period equity – whether current year revenue covers the cost including depreciation of providing current year services. A ratio greater than 1.00 indicates positive inter-period equity; current year taxpayers are providing adequately for current year services. When the ratio falls below 1.00, either prior year revenues were used to fund a portion of current year services or future citizens are being burdened with some of the cost for providing services consumed currently. A higher value for the ratio is usually considered favorable. However, an extremely high ratio may indicate that the municipality is not providing services commensurate with the current revenues being generated from its tax base.

Liquidity Ratio Liquidity ratio (times)

Formula: Governmental activities liquid assets * Governmental activities current liabilities

*Cash and short-term investments, excluding any restricted assets. Interpretation: The ratio measures the municipality’s ability to meet current obligations from existing cash and short-term investment balances. A higher ratio is considered favorable indicating that the municipality will be able to pay current liabilities as they become due.

Accumulated depreciation as a percent of depreciable capital assets (%)

Formula: Governmental activities accumulated depreciation, end of year Governmental activities depreciable capital assets, end of year

Interpretation: The ratio is a measure of the relative age of depreciable capital assets compared to the assets’ economic lives. Lower ratios are considered to be more favorable; the municipality will not face significant replacement cost in the near future.

10 | RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2012

Debt Ratios Debt to assets leverage ratio (times)

Expense Ratios Expense ratios measure the current-period cost of providing services to citizens or current-period financing cost. Functional expense categories include depreciation measuring the cost of using capital assets to provide current year services. Low ratios are depicted as favorable. However, the amount of expense incurred is not necessarily commensurate with the quality, efficiency or effectiveness of the service provided.

Formula: Governmental activities total debt * Governmental activities total assets

* Total long-term liabilities excluding operating liabilities such as accrued compensated absences, claims and judgments payable, and pension obligations. Short-term operating debt is also not included. Interpretation: The ratio is a measure of the degree to which the municipality’s total assets have been funded with debt. A lower ratio is considered favorable indicating that the government does not have significant creditor claims against its assets and has less risk of default on debt.

Total expense per capita ($ per citizen)

Formula: Government-wide total expense Population

Interpretation : The ratio is a measure of the expense necessary on average to provide services to a given citizen. A lower ratio is considered favorable indicating that a municipality is providing services to citizens at a comparatively lower cost. However, when comparing the results of this ratio between two different municipalities, one must consider whether the two municipalities provide comparable levels of police, fire, waste management, parks and recreation, and similar services. In addition, the amount of expense incurred is not necessarily commensurate with the quality, efficiency or effectiveness of the services provided.

Total debt per capita ($ per citizen)

Formula: Governmental activities total debt * Population

* Total long-term liabilities excluding operating liabilities such as accrued compensated absences, claims and judgments payable, and pension obligations. Interpretation: The ratio is a measure of the debt burden to citizens. A lower ratio is considered favorable indicating that the citizens are less heavily burdened. The municipality has the ability issue future debt at a lower cost.

Total general government (administration) expense per capita ($ per citizen)

Formula: Government-wide general government (administration) expense Population

Revenue Ratios Tax revenue per capita ($ per citizen)

Formula: Governmental activities tax revenue Population

Interpretation: See previous comments.

Total public safety expense per capita ($ per citizen)

Formula: Government-wide public safety expense Population

Interpretation: The ratio is a measure of the tax burden to citizens. A lower ratio is considered favorable indicating that current citizens are paying lower taxes. Therefore the municipality has greater ability to increase taxes to meet future needs.

Interpretation: See previous comments.

Total grants, contributions and intergovernmental revenue as a percent of total revenue (%)

Total interest expense per capita ($ per citizen)

Formula: (Governmental activities total operating grants and contributions + total capital grants and contributions + other intergovernmental revenue) Governmental activities total revenue *

Formula: Government-wide interest expense Population

Interpretation: The ratio is a measure of the interest expense incurred per citizen. A lower ratio is considered favorable, indicating that a municipality has minimized its debt obligations, and reduced the strain that debt service payments can place on current municipal resources.

*Current revenue includes both program and general revenue but excludes gains, losses, contributions, special and extraordinary gains or losses and transfers. Interpretation: The ratio measures the municipality’s reliance on grants, contributions and other intergovernmental revenue. A lower ratio is considered favorable indicating that the municipality is less reliant on external sources that are beyond its control.

RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2012 | 11

Financial Ratio Interpretation

GOVERNMENTAL FUND RATIOS Governmental funds are used to account for the basic activities of the municipality that are not supported by user charges or characterized by the municipality acting in a fiduciary capacity. Governmental funds account for operations, acquisition of capital assets related to basic operations, and the debt service requirements for related debt. Primary resources are taxes, intergovernmental revenues and for capital asset acquisition long-term debt proceeds. Governmental funds report using the current financial resource measurement flow and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Expenditures are often controlled by annual budgets.

Expenditure Ratios Debt service expenditures as a percent of total revenue (%)

Capital outlay expenditures as a percent of total expenditures (%)

Formula: Governmental fund debt service expenditures Governmental fund total revenues

Formula: Governmental fund capital outlay expenditures Governmental fund total expenditures

Interpretation: This ratio measures the amount of current revenue that is devoted to meeting the year’s debt service requirements. Significant debt service requirements potentially lower the amount that can be used for providing current services. A low ratio is considered favorable.

Interpretation: The ratio measures whether the municipality is adequately providing for capital asset additions and improvements. A high ratio is considered favorable indicating that the municipality is providing adequately for its capital asset needs.

GENERAL FUND RATIOS The General Fund is the primary operating fund of a municipality. It accounts for the revenues that are not restricted for specific purposes and activities. Most of the basic operations of the municipality are accounted for in the General Fund. The General Fund, a governmental fund, reports using the current financial resource measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting.

Financial Position Ratio Unrestricted fund balance as a percent of total revenue (%)

Revenue Ratios Intergovernmental revenue as a percent of total revenue (%)

Formula: General Fund unrestricted fund balance * General Fund revenues

Formula: General Fund intergovernmental revenue General Fund total revenue

Interpretation: The ratio measures the General Fund’s reliance on revenues from external sources to finance current operations. A low ratio is considered favorable indicating that the General Fund is not overly reliant on revenue sources that are beyond its control.

* Includes both assigned and unassigned fund balance. Interpretation: The ratio measures the ability of the General Fund to continue operations if its revenue is temporarily interrupted or declines. This is a measure of the General Fund operating cushion. Municipalities may set a target for this ratio. A higher ratio is usually considered favorable. However, an extremely high ratio may indicate that the municipality is not providing the level of services commensurate with its revenue stream. Unrestricted fund balance includes assigned and unassigned categories.

Transfers in as a percent of total revenue and transfers in (%)

Formula: General Fund transfers in General Fund total revenues and transfers in

Interpretation: The ratio measures the reliance of the General Fund on transfers from other funds. To the extent the transfers are from enterprise funds, the users of enterprise services may be subsidizing General Fund operations. A low ratio is considered favorable indicating that the General Fund is not dependent on transfers.

12 | RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2012

RubinBrown Public Sector Services Group

Consulting Services • Internal Auditing • Operational Reviews/Efficiency Analysis • Policy and Procedure Manuals • Strategic & Long-Range Planning • Capital Improvement Programs • Financial Analysis and Review • Benchmarking • Technology Analysis and Implementation

Through our extensive list of clients we serve as well as our involvement in associations and professional organizations at the local, regional and national levels, we understand the issues unique to the public sector. RubinBrown’s commitment to quality is demonstrated through our membership in the AICPA Governmental Audit Quality Center. This firm-based voluntary membership center is designed to help CPAs meet the challenges of performing quality audits in the unique and complex public sector industry. The Public Sector Services Group of RubinBrown provides services to a broad spectrum of government organizations, including municipal governments, institutions of higher education, local public school districts, state governments, and political districts such as; public libraries and municipal utility districts. Our public sector team includes experienced professionals all of whom are well trained in the financial reporting and audit requirements as promulgated in: • Government Accounting Standards Board • Government Audit Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, • Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, and Local Governments, and Nonprofit Organizations. Industry Involvement RubinBrown is committed to staying active within the industry, which helps us remain current on all new issues. We are active members of our regional and state Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) chapters. Many team members are associate members of the national GFOA, including the Special Review Committee of the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Program, the Association of Government Accountants, and special industry related committees of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Public Sector Specialized Services Assurance and Accounting Services • Financial Statement Audits • Single Audits of Federal Financial Assistance Under OMB Circular A-133 • GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Program Expertise • Program and Performance Audits • Agreed-Upon Procedures • Forensic Auditing

RubinBrown also is equipped to help public sector clients with technology consulting; fringe benefit consulting and retirement plan administration; bookkeeping services; and placement of temporary and permanent accounting, bookkeeping, and financial personnel.

Jeff Winter, CPA Partner-In-Charge 314.290.3408 jeff.winter@rubinbrown.com

Bert Bondi, CPA Partner 303.952.1213 bert.bondi@rubinbrown.com

Kaleb Lilly, CPA Partner 913.491.4417 kaleb.lilly@rubinbrown.com

RubinBrown Public Sector Stats 2012 | 13

Denver Office 1900 16th Street Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80202

Kansas City Office 10975 Grandview Drive Building 27, Suite 600 Overland Park, Kansas 66210

Saint Louis Office One North Brentwood Suite 1100 Saint Louis, Missouri 63105

ph: 303.698.1883 fax: 303.777.4458

ph: 913.491.4144 fax: 913.491.6821

ph: 314.290.3300 fax: 314.290.3400

For more information, visit www.rubinbrown.com