HomeMy WebLinkAbout10B 2011 Financial ReportManagement Report
for
City of Prior Lake, Minnesota
December 31, 2011
AUDIT SUMMARY
The following is a summary of our audit work, key conclusions, and othe r 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.
O R U A S G A U
UR ESPONSIBILITY NDER UDITING TANDARDS ENERALLY CCEPTED IN THE NITED
S A
G A S
OVERNMENT UDITING TANDARDS
TATES OF MERICA AND
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, business-type activities, each
major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund inform ation of the City as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2011. Professional standards require th at we provide you with information about our
responsibilities under auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and
Government Auditing Standards , 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 a udit engagement letter.
Professional standards also require that we communicat e the following information related to our audit.
P S T A
LANNED COPE AND IMING OF THE UDIT
We performed the audit according to the planned sc ope and timing previously discussed and coordinated
in order to obtain sufficient audit ev idence and complete an effective audit.
A O F
UDIT PINION AND INDINGS
Based on our audit of the City’s financial stat ements for the year ended December 31, 2011:
We have issued an unqualified opinion on the City’s financial statements.
We reported two matters involving the City’s internal control over financial reporting that we
considered to be material weaknesses. These include the following findings:
1. The City recorded a prior period adjustment to fairly state capital assets and net assets at
December 31, 2010.
2. We identified as part of our audit proce dures an adjusting journal entry which was
necessary to make the financial statements fair ly stated. Auditing standards consider the
identification by the auditor of a material mi sstatement that was not initially identified by
the audit entity to be a material weakne ss in the related internal controls.
The results of our testing disclosed no instan ces of noncompliance required to be reported under
Government Auditing Standards .
We reported four findings based on our testing of the City’s compliance with Minnesota laws and
regulations. These include the following:
1. The City is required to obtain a Contractor ’s Withholding Affidavit Certificate before
making final settlement with any contractor under a contract requiring the employment of
employees for wages by said contractor or subcontractors. The City did not obtain the
required certificate for one contract we tested that was completed in 2011.
2. The City is required to make prompt payment of local government bills within a standard
payment period of 35 days from the receipt of goods and services. One disbursement we
tested was not paid within the statutory time limit.
3. Each person claiming payment from the City is required to make the following written
declaration: “I declare under penalties of law that this account, claim, or demand is just
and correct and that no part of it has been paid.” This declaration was not obtained for
disbursements made using checks during 2011.
4. One mutual fund the City invested in during fiscal 2011 was not rated in one of the two
highest rating categories for mutual funds.
-1-
O C R
THER OMMENTS AND ECOMMENDATIONS
Segregation of Duties – Disbursements
During our audit procedures we noted that the City Manager is approving his own P-Card purchases. A
good system of internal controls would require a pproval of all purchases from someone other than the
person that initiated the transaction. During our test ing of these transactions, we did not encounter any
improprieties; however, we believe requiring approval of these purch ases by someone other than the City
Manager would add an element of add itional control over these disbursements.
F -U P Y F R
OLLOW P ON RIOR EAR INDINGS AND ECOMMENDATIONS
As a part of our audit of the City’s financial st atements for the year ended December 31, 2011, we
performed procedures to follow-up on the findings and recommendations that resulted from the prior year
audit. We reported the following findings that were corrected by the City in the current year:
In the fiscal 2010 audit report, the prior audito r reported a significant deficiency due to limited
segregation of duties in the following areas: inv estments, cash disbursements, cash receipts, and
capital assets. As part of our audit for the year ended December 31, 2011, we have noted that the
City has properly addressed the various issues with segregation of duties noted in the prior year,
which has eliminated the need for a finding in these areas.
In the fiscal 2010 audit report, the prior auditor re ported a significant deficiency for having the
independent auditing firm prepare the City’s financ ial statements. As part of our audit for the
year ended December 31, 2011, we have noted that although the independent auditing firm
prepared the draft financial statements, there are additional controls in place to provide reasonable
assurance over the financial reporting process of the C ity. The Finance Director has the ability to
prepare the City’s financial statements and completes a financial statement review of the financial
report prepared by the audit firm. As a result of these added controls this finding was eliminated
in the current year.
S A P
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 not es to basic financial statements.
For the year ended December 31, 2011, the City has implemented Governmental Accounting Standards
Board (GASB) Statement No. 54, “Fund Balance Repor ting and Governmental F und Type Definitions.”
This statement established new fund balance classificati ons that comprise a hierarchy based primarily on
the extent to which a government is bound to observe constraints imposed upon the use of the resources
reported in governmental funds. It also clarifies ex isting governmental fund type definitions to improve
the comparability of governmental fund financial statements.
We noted no transactions entered into by the City duri ng the year for which there is a lack of authoritative
guidance or consensus. All significant transactions ha ve been recognized in the financial statements in
the proper period.
C U M
ORRECTED AND NCORRECTED ISSTATEMENTS
Professional standards require us to accumulate al l known and likely misstateme nts identified during the
audit, other than those that are trivial, and communi cate them to the appropriate level of management.
We proposed one uncorrected audit adjustment to the financial statements for the City not reporting its
liability for other post-employment benefits totali ng $114,433. Management has determined that the
effects of this item are immaterial, both individu ally and taken together, to the government-wide
liabilities.
-2-
A E M J
CCOUNTING STIMATES AND ANAGEMENT UDGMENTS
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the fi nancial 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 partic ularly 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 as follows:
Depreciation
– Management’s estimates of depreciation expense are based on the estimated
useful lives of the assets.
Compensated Absences
– Estimates for compensated absences payable are based on current sick
and vacation leave balances.
Management expects any differenc es between estimates and actual amounts of these estimates to be
insignificant. We evaluated the key factors and a ssumptions used by management to develop these
accounting estimates in determining that they are reasona ble in relation to the basic financial statements
taken as a whole.
The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.
D E P A
IFFICULTIES NCOUNTERED IN ERFORMING THE UDIT
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in perfo rming and completing our
audit.
D W M
ISAGREEMENTS ITH ANAGEMENT
For purposes of this report, professional standards defi ne 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 audito r’s report. We are pleased to report that no such
disagreements arose during the course of our audit.
M R
ANAGEMENT EPRESENTATIONS
We have requested certain representations from ma nagement that are included in the management
representation letter dated May 14, 2012.
M C W O I A
ANAGEMENT ONSULTATIONS ITH THER NDEPENDENT CCOUNTANTS
In some cases, management may decide to consu lt 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 fina ncial statements or a determination of the type of
auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those st atements, 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 cons ultations with other accountants.
O A F I
THER UDIT 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 re tention as the City’s auditors. However, these
discussions occurred in the normal course of our prof essional relationship and our responses were not a
condition to our retention.
-3-
O I D C A F S
THER NFORMATION IN OCUMENTS ONTAINING UDITED INANCIAL TATEMENTS
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opini ons on the financial statements that collectively
comprise the City’s basic financial statements. Th e introductory section, combining and individual fund
statements and schedules, and supplem ental information, are presented for purposes of additional analysis
and are not required parts of the basic financia l statements. The combining and individual fund
statements and schedules are the responsibility of mana gement and were derived from and relate directly
to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. The
information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial
statements and certain additional procedures, in cluding comparing and reconciling such information
directly to the underlying accounting and other records u sed to prepare the basic financial statements or to
the basic financial statements themselves, and ot her additional procedures in accordance with auditing
standards generally accepted in the United States of Am erica. In our opinion, the information is fairly
stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial stat ements as a whole. The introductory
section and supplemental information have not been s ubjected to the auditing procedures applied in the
audit of the basic financial statements and, accord ingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any
assurance on them.
-4-
FUNDING CITIES IN MINNESOTA
L
EGISLATION
The 2011 legislative session began with the state faci ng a projected budget deficit of $6.2 billion (later
revised down to $5.0 billion in the February 2011 Economic Forecast) for the 2012–2013 biennium. In
addition, the 2010 election dramatically changed the st ate’s political landscape. A Democratic Governor
was in power for the first time since 1991, while Re publicans had majority control of both the House and
the Senate for the first time since 1971. Pr edictably, as the session progressed, the Governor and
Legislature had difficulty agreeing on a state budget for the next biennium. Shortly after the 2011 regular
session ended, the Governor vetoed eight major stat e appropriation bills and the omnibus tax bill passed
by the Legislature, which left the majority of state ag encies without a budget for the next fiscal year. This
resulted in a shutdown of “nonessential” state agencies that began July 1, 2011 a nd effectively ended with
the passing of appropriation bills in a speci al session on July 19th and 20th.
The large projected budget deficit facing the 2011 Legi slature was typical of the financial challenges the
state has experienced in recent years. Unfa vorable economic conditions have caused a steady
deterioration of the state’s financial condition, which h as resulted in a series of cuts and holdbacks in state
aids to local governments and other entities. As was the case in the last biennium, the Legislature utilized
several one-time revenue sources, transfers, and accoun ting shifts to minimize the need for tax increases
or state aid cuts to balance the state budget.
The following is a summary of significant legislativ e activity passed in calendar year 2011 affecting the
finances of Minnesota cities:
Local Government Aid (LGA) and Mark et Value Homestead Credit (MVHC)
– One of the
appropriation bills passed in the 2011 special sessi on was the omnibus tax bill, which includes the
appropriations for LGA and MVHC.
The Legislature retroactively reduced the fiscal 2011 appropriation for LGA by approximately
$102 million, leaving a total appropriation of $42 5.3 million for 2011 LGA. Minnesota cities will
receive 2011 LGA equal to the lesser of their final 2010 LGA (after the cuts by the Legislature and
Governor) or their 2011 certified LGA amount. Th e first half LGA payment for 2011 was also
delayed one week to July 27, so the reduced LGA amounts could be recomputed after the government
shutdown. The total LGA appropriation for fi scal 2012 will be $425.2 million, with cities again
receiving the lesser of their 2010 actual or 2011 certif ied amounts. In essence, this bill extended the
LGA cuts originally made in fiscal 2010 for the two subsequent years. For fiscal 2013 and beyond,
the LGA appropriation is set at $426.4 million, to be allocated using the LGA formula.
The omnibus tax bill also extended the 2010 MVHC reductions of approx imately $48 million to
fiscal 2011, with cities to receive the same allocation. Beginning in fiscal 2012, the MVHC
reimbursement program is eliminated. Rather than receiving a property tax credit, qualifying
homeowner taxpayers will have a portion of the market value of their house excluded from their
taxable market value. This new system will pr ovide 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 reimburse ment. While this new homestead exclusion is
calculated in a similar manner to the repealed MVHC, the actual tax relief to individual homeowner
taxpayers may vary significantly depending on th e makeup of the taxing jurisdictions that levy on
their particular property.
The agriculture market value credit, however, will continue as a state-paid tax credit.
-5-
Levy Limitations
– A 2008 law limited general operating prope rty tax levy increases for cities with
populations over 2,500 to an inflationary increase ba sed on the state determined implicit price deflator
(IPD) to a maximum of 3.9 percent annu ally for the next three calendar years. Modifications were
made in subsequent legislative sessions to allow cities subject to levy limitation to declare “special
levies” to replace the LGA and MVHC losses. The 2010 Legislature also established a floor of
zero percent for the inflationary increase, so levi es would not be reduced in the event of IPD
deflation. The 2011 Legislature passed an omnibus tax bill during the regular session that would have
extended levy limits for two years (taxes payable in 2012 and 2013). However, this was among the
bills vetoed by the Governor, and the final omni bus tax bill passed in the special session did not
address levy limits.
Sales and Use Taxes
– A number of changes and clarifications were made to Minnesota sales and use
tax provisions, including:
Made water used directly for public safety purposes (fighting fires) exempt from sales tax.
Expanded the sales tax exemption for the lea se of motor vehicles used as ambulances to the
lease of vehicles used for emergency response.
Added townships to the list of entities exempt from sales tax.
Provided an exemption from sales tax for technol ogy and electricity for qualifying large data
centers as a business incentive.
Clarified the sales tax regulations for online hotel sales.
“Buy American” Provision Repealed
– The “Buy American” provision, enacted in 2010, which
prohibited public employers from purchasing or requiring employees to purchase any uniforms, safety
equipment, or protective accessories not manufactured in the United States, was repealed. Cities may
continue to purchase American-made uniforms and e quipment, but they are not required to do so.
Prohibition of Referendum Spending
– Political subdivisions, including cities, are prohibited from
expending funds to promote a refe rendum to support imposing a local option sales tax. The political
subdivision may only expend funds to conduct the referendum.
Tax Exempt Period for Economic Development Property
– The maximum allowable holding
period for property held by a political subdivision for economic development to be exempt from
property taxes was increased from eight years to nine years.
Concurrent Detachment of Parcels
– State law for the concurrent detachment of property from one
city to another has been changed. In the past, both cities involved had to support the change for it to
be considered. Now, if the property owner and one of the involved cities petition for the detachment,
the proposed boundary adjustment qualifies for consideration.
Civil Immunity for Donated Public Safety Equipment
– Immunity from civil tort claims is
extended to municipalities that donate public safety equipment to another municipality, unless the
claim is a direct result of fraud or intentional misrepresentation. The statute defines “public safety
equipment” as vehicles and equipment used in firefighter, ambulance and emergency medical
treatment services, rescue, and hazardous material response.
-6-
P T
ROPERTY AXES
Minnesota cities rely heavily on local property tax le vies to support their governmental fund activities. In
recent years this dependence has been heightened, as revenue from state aids and fees related to new
development have dwindled due to the struggling economy. This has placed added pressure on local
taxpayers already beset by higher unemployment, lower property values, and tighter credit markets. As a
result, municipalities in general are experiencing increases in tax delinquencies, abatements, and
foreclosures. This instability has led to signifi cant fiscal challenges for many local governments, and
increased the investing public’s concerns about the security of the municipal debt market.
Property values within Minnesota citie s experienced average decreases of 3.0 percent and 5.7 percent for
taxes payable in 2010 and 2011, respectively, re flecting the weak housing market and economic
conditions experienced in recent years. In compar ison, the City’s taxable market value decreased
3.1 percent for taxes payable in 2010 and 4.1 percent for taxes payable in 2011. The market value for
taxes payable in 2011 is based on estimated values as of January 1, 2010.
The following graph shows the City’s changes in taxable market value over the past 5 years:
Taxable Market Value
$3,000,000,000
$2,500,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$1,500,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$500,000,000
$–
20072008200920102011
-7-
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 mark et value. Each property classification, such as
commercial or residential, has a different calculation a nd uses different rates. Consequently, a city’s total
tax capacity will change at a different rate than its tota l 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 2.8 percent and 4.5 percent for taxes
payable in 2010 and 2011, respectively. The followi ng graph shows the City’s change in tax capacities
over the past 5 years:
Local Net Tax Capacity
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$–
20072008200920102011
The following table presents the average tax rates applie d to city residents for each of the last two levy
years, along with comparative state-wide and metro ar ea rates. The general increase in rates reflects both
the increased reliance of local governments on propert y taxes and the recent decline in tax capacities.
Rates expressed as a percentage of net tax capacit
y
All Cities Seven-County
City of
State-Wide Metro Area
Prior Lake
2010201120102011 20102011
Avera e tax rate
g
30.7 29.4
Cit 42.5 39.2 36.0 40.0
y
35.5 33.2
Count 43.7 41.0 36.8 42.1
y
34.0 32.6
School23.0 25.2 24.0 26.8
6.4 6.1
Special taxing5.9 6.4 6.5 8.1
106.6 101.4
Total109.1 117.8103.3117.0
The City’s portion of the total tax rate is below both the state-wide and metro area averages as presented
in the table above. The school rate within the City exceeds the state-wide and the metro area averages.
The average tax rate in total is below these averages.
As seen in the table above, the City’s average tax rate in 2011 is similar to the tax rate for fiscal 2010, but
in total, the average tax rate increased due to in creased rates of the county and the school district.
-8-
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW
This section of the report provides you with an overview of the financial trends a nd activities of the City’s
governmental funds. Governmental funds include th e General Fund, special revenue, debt service, and
capital project funds. We have also included the most recent comparative stat e-wide averages available
from the State Auditor. Th e reader needs to consider the effect of inflation and other known changes or
differences when comparing this data. 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 capita l expenditures from current expenditures.
We have designed this section of our management repor t 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.
G F R
OVERNMENTAL UNDS EVENUE
The amounts received from the typical major sources of revenue will naturally vary between cities based
on their particular situation. This would include the City’s stage of development, location, size and
density of its population, property values, services it provides, and other attributes. The following table
presents the City’s revenue per capita of its governmental funds for the past three years, together with
state-wide averages:
Governmental Funds Revenue per Capita
With State-Wide Averages by Population Class
State-Wide
City of Prior Lake
December 31, 2010
Yea
r 200920102011
Po p ulation2,500–10,00010,000–20,00020,000–100,000 23,33522,79622,796
Property taxes386 $ 359 $ 407 $ $ 439 407 $ 434 $
Tax increments45 52 56 22 25 21
Franchise and other taxes26 34 30 26 25 28
Special assessments74 60 66 37 20 29
Licenses and permits19 22 29
18 16 20
Intergovernmental revenues291 271 149
94 57 61
Charges for services89 83 76
71 58 68
Othe 70 73 57
r 37 38 40
Total revenue1,003 $ 951 $ 870 $ $ 744 646 $ 701 $
In total, the City’s governmental fund revenu es for 2011 were $15,990,875, a decrease of $943,342
(5.6 percent) from the prior year. On a per capita basis, the City received $701 in governmental fund
revenue for 2011, a decrease of $43 from the prior y ear. In general, the City has generated less
governmental fund revenue per capita than the state-wide averages. Most of this relates to lower than
average revenues in many of the development categor ies including tax increment, special assessments,
and licenses and permits. The City received more of its governmental fund revenue from property taxes
than the average Minnesota city, due to the lower than average intergove rnmental revenue, the majority of
which comes from the state of Minnesota.
-9-
G F E
OVERNMENTAL UNDS XPENDITURES
Similar to our discussion of revenues, the expenditur es of governmental funds will vary from state-wide
averages and from year-to-year, based on the City’s circ umstances. 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 sour ces 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 the 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 w ith 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-Wide City of Prior Lake
December 31, 2010 200920102011
Yea r
Po p ulation2,500–10,00010,000–20,00020,000–100,000 23,33522,79622,796
Current
General government $ 91 91 $ 98 $
$ 102 125 $ 85 $
Public safety
223 227 235 177 165 189
Streets and highways
76 82 80
107 108 86
Culture and recreation 71 71 76
93 75 87
All other 2 2 4
81 81 91
$ 417 411 $ 447 $
$ 606 616 $ 584 $
Ca p ital outla y
$ 205 198 $ 171 $
and construction299 $ 321 $ 232 $
Debt service
Principal
$ 181 180 $ 111 $ $ 118 164 $ 124 $
Interest and fiscal charges 70 70 72
53 63 43
$ 188 234 $ 196 $
$ 234 243 $ 154 $
Total expenditures in the City’s governmental f unds for 2011 were $18,548,612, an increase of $79,676
(0.4 percent) from the prior year. On a per capita basis, the City expended a total of $814 in 2011.
Operating expenditures increased $30 per capita. Incr eases were spread across sev eral functions in the
current year, with the largest increase occurring in public safety costs. Capital outlay expenditures for
2011 were $34 less per capita than the prior year due to fewer street construction and equipment
replacement expenditures. Debt service expenditures for 2011 were $8 per capita higher than the prior
year, mainly due to an increase in bond maturities.
-10-
FINANCIAL TRENDS AND CONDITIONS OF SELECTED FUNDS
G F
ENERAL UND
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 inspec tion, streets and highway maintenance, and culture
and recreation.
The graph below illustrates the change in the General F und financial position over the last five years. We
have also included a line representing annual expend itures and operating transfers out to reflect the
change in the size of the General Fund operation over the same period. Fund balance and cash balance
are typically used as indicators of financial health or equity, while annual expenditures are often used to
measure the size of the operation.
General Fund Financial Position
Year Ended December 31,
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$–
20072008200920102011
Fund Balance Cash and Investments Balance Expenditures and Transfers Out
The City’s General Fund cash and investments balance at December 31, 2011 was $8,095,065, an
increase of $592,831. Total fund balance at December 31, 2011 was $7,747,207, which is an increase of
$671,840 from the prior year.
As the graph illustrates, the City has generally been able to maintain healthy cash and fund balance levels
as the volume of financial activity has grown. This is an important factor because a government, like any
organization, requires a certain amount of equity to operate. A health y 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 f unding of services, repairs, and unexpected costs; and is a factor in determining
the City’s bond rating and resulting interest costs. Maintaining an adequate fund balance has become
increasingly important given the fluctuations in state funding for cities in recent years.
As discussed earlier in this report, the City implem ented the provisions of GASB Statement No. 54. As
part of this process the City adopted a fund balance policy in the current year which establishes that the
City will strive to maintain an unrestricted Gene ral Fund balance (which includes committed, assigned,
and unassigned classifications) of 45 percent of the subsequent year’s General Fund budgeted
expenditures. At December 31, 2011, the unrestrict ed fund balance of the General Fund was 61 percent
of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures.
-11-
The following chart reflects the City’s General Fund revenue sources for 2011 compared to budget:
General Fund Revenue
Budget and Actual
All Other
Fines and Forfeits
Charges for Services
Intergovernmental
Licenses and Permits
Taxes
Actual Budget
General Fund revenue for 2011 was $12,494,109, which was $706,779 (6.0 percent) more than budget.
Licenses and permits and charges for services were $155,281 and $92,218, r espectively, over budget
mainly due to the City having more permits issued than projected. Other income was $290,069 more than
budget, mainly due to higher interest revenue on the C ity’s portfolio than projected and insurance rebates
received that are not includ ed in the approved budget.
The following graph presents the City’s General Fund revenue by source for the last five years. The
graph reflects the City’s increased reliance on property tax revenue in recent years.
General Fund Revenue by Source
Year Ended December 31,
$10,000,000
$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
$–
All Other
TaxesLicenses IntergovernmentalCharges Fines
and for and
Permits Services Forfeits
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Total General Fund revenue for 2011 was $179,475 (1.5 percent) higher than last year. Tax revenue
decreased by $118,981, or 1.3 percent, while a ll other revenue sources experienced increases.
-12-
The following graphs illustrate the components of Ge neral Fund spending for 2 011 compared to budget:
General Fund Expenditures
Budget and Actual
General Government
Public Safety
Public Works
Culture and Recreation
All Other
Actual Budget
Total General Fund expenditures for 2011 were $10,397,722, which was only $27,026 (0.3 percent) under
budget. As presented in the budgetary comparison sch edule, expenditure variances were both over and
under within various functions and departments but overall actual expenditures were close to projected
levels.
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,
$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
$–
General Public SafetyPublic WorksCulture and All Other
Government Recreation
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Total General Fund expenditures for 2011 were $578,543 (5.9 percent) higher than the previous year.
The increase was spread across all functions as disp layed in the graph above. Some of the larger
increases were in legal services ($101,099) and police personal costs ($144,581). Consistent with other
cities we audit, public safety costs have continued to increase steadily over the last five years. Public
safety costs experienced an increase of $588,479, or 15.8 percent, over this time.
-13-
S F
I
NTERNAL ERVICE UND
During the year ended December 31, 2011, the City established a Compensated Absences Internal Service
Fund to finance the compensated absence obligations of the governmental funds of the City. This fund
was partially financed with a transfer from the Severance Compensation Special Revenue Fund which
was closed during the year. At December 31, 2011, this fund had assets totaling $562,395 while
liabilities totaled $871,282, leaving a deficit net asset balance of ($308,887). We recommend that the
City continue to include the financing of these oblig ations as part of its long range financial plans.
W E F
ATER NTERPRISE UND
The following graph presents two years of compara tive operating results for the City’s Water Fund:
Water Enterprise Fund
Year Ended December 31,
$2,750,000
$2,500,000
$2,250,000
$2,000,000
$1,750,000
$1,500,000
$1,250,000
$1,000,000
$750,000
$500,000
$250,000
$–
20102011
Operating Revenue Operating Expenses
Operating Income (Loss) Income Before Depreciation
The City’s water and sewer utility services were account ed for in the same ente rprise fund until 2009. In
2010, the water and sewer services were separated and each reported in their own fund. As a result, we
have only reflected the past two years in the above graph.
The Water Fund ended 2011 with net assets of $30,0 67,707, a decrease of $801,203 from the prior year.
Of this, $27,571,463 represents the investment in cap ital assets, leaving $2,496,244 in unrestricted net
assets. The beginning of year balances are presented as restated as the City reported a prior period
adjustment in the financial reporting of capital assets. The net effect was understated capital assets of
$227,827 in the Water Fund in fiscal 2010.
The Water Fund had transfers out totaling $1,396,451 in fiscal 2011 to support other funds, pay debt
service, and provide for construction projects. The overall decrease in net assets of $801,203 was mainly
the result of these transfers. We recommend that th e City continue to monitor the future need for
transfers from this fund, its financial projections to ensu re the future financial stab ility of this fund, and to
ensure that the decline in net assets is not expected to continue in the future.
Operating revenue in the Water F und was $2,504,401, an increase of 6.2 percent from the prior year.
This increase was due to an increase in water consum ption in fiscal 2011of approximately 6.2 percent.
Water Fund operating expenses for 2011 were $2,126,921, a decrease of $120,038 (5.3 percent) from the
previous year. The largest factor contributing to th e change was a decrease in repairs and maintenance of
$134,551.
-14-
S E F
EWER NTERPRISE UND
The following graph presents two years of compara tive operating results for the City’s Sewer Fund:
Sewer Enterprise Fund
Year Ended December 31,
$2,500,000
$2,250,000
$2,000,000
$1,750,000
$1,500,000
$1,250,000
$1,000,000
$750,000
$500,000
$250,000
$–
$(250,000)
$(500,000)
20102011
Operating Revenue Operating Expenses
Operating Income (Loss) Income Before Depreciation
The City’s water and sewer utility services were account ed for in the same ente rprise fund until 2009. In
2010, the water and sewer services were separated and each reported in their own fund. As a result, we
have only reflected the past two years in the above graph.
The Sewer Fund ended 2011 with net assets of $19,8 82,718, a decrease of $659,483 from the prior year.
Of this, $17,408,335 represents the City’s investment in capital assets, leaving $2,474,383 in unrestricted
net assets.
The Sewer Fund had transfers out totaling $540,700 in fiscal 2011 to support other funds, pay debt
service, and provide for construction projects. The overall decrease in net assets of $659,483 was mainly
the result of these transfers. We recommend that th e City continue to monitor the future need for
transfers from this fund, its financial projections to ensu re the future financial stab ility of this fund, and to
ensure that the decline in net asset s in this fund is not expected to continue in the future.
Operating revenue in the Sewer Fund was $2,228,948, a decrease of $69,821, or 3.0 percent, from the
prior year, mainly related to decreased consump tion. Sewer Fund operating expenses for 2011 were
$2,416,499, an increase of $31,706, or 1. 3 percent, from the previous year.
It is also important that sewer rates be designed to provide operating income but also for future repairs
and replacement of the infrastructure assets. As se en in the above graph with the line labeled Income
Before Depreciation, the revenues of the fund did not fund any future repairs in fiscal 2011, which were at
least partially funded in fiscal 2010. We recommend that the City continue to monitor the sewer rates in
its financial projections, to ensure the rates being charged are sufficient to provide for future repair and
replacement needs of this fund.
-15-
W Q E F
ATER UALITY NTERPRISE UND
The following graph presents five years of compara tive operating results for the City’s Water Quality
Fund:
Water Quality Enterprise Fund
Year Ended December 31,
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$–
$(100,000)
$(200,000)
20072008200920102011
Operating Revenue Operating Expenses
Income Before Depreciation Operating Income (Loss)
The Water Quality Fund ended 2011 with net assets of $771,146, a decrease of $58,365 from the prior
year. Of this, $455,355 represents the investment in capital assets, leaving $315,791 in unrestricted net
assets.
Operating revenue in the Water Quality Fund was $438 ,638, an increase of 0.9 percent from the prior
year. Water Quality Fund operating expenses for 2011 were $527,928, an increase of $97,102, or
22.5 percent, from the previous year. The majority of this increase was due to increased repair and
maintenance costs of $48,479 for the Upper Prior La ke storm water project and increases to personal
costs of $46,756.
State and federal grant income, which is not included in the table above, totaled $194,713 in fiscal 2011.
After including this revenue, the Water Qua lity Fund reflected net income of $122,410.
The Water Quality Fund had transfers out totaling $160,775 in fiscal 2011 to provide for construction
projects. The overall decrease in net assets of $58,365 was mainly the result of these transfers. We
recommend that the City continue to monitor the future need for transfers from this fund, its financial
projections to ensure the future financial stability of this fund, and to ensure the decline in net assets in
this fund is not expected to continue in the future.
-16-
T F
RANSIT UND
The following graph presents operating revenues over th e last five years for the City’s Transit Fund:
Transit Fund
Year Ended December 31,
$1,000,000
$750,000
$500,000
$250,000
$–
$(250,000)
$(500,000)
$(750,000)
20072008200920102011
Operating Revenue Operating Expenses
Operating Income (Loss)
The Transit Fund ended 2011 with net assets of $1,694, 491, an increase of $5,428 from the prior year.
The entire amount represents unrestricted net assets.
Operating revenue in the Transit Fund was $219,305, an increase of $92,438 from the prior year. This
reflects increased bus fares from the new Jobs Acce ss Reverse Commute (JARC) bus placed into service
at the beginning of 2011. Transit Fund opera ting expenses for 2011 were $833,573, an increase of
$186,887 from the previous year.
Most of the funding for the transit services comes fro m other governmental units and their revenue is
reported in the non-operating revenue category. Stat e and federal grant income totaled $215,193 in fiscal
2011. After including this revenue, the Transit Fund reflected an increase in net assets of $5,428.
-17-
G -W F S
OVERNMENT IDE INANCIAL TATEMENTS
The City’s financial statements include fund-based information that focuses on budgetary compliance,
and the sufficiency of the City’s current assets to finance its current liabilities. The GASB Statement
No. 34 reporting model also requires the inclusion of two government-wide financ ial 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 Assets
The Statement of Net Assets essentially tells you what your city owns and owes at a given point in time,
the last day of the fiscal year. Theoretically, net asset s represent the resources the City has leftover to use
for providing services after its debts are settled. Ho wever, 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 Assets divides the net assets into three components:
Invested in Capital Assets, Net of Related Debt
– The portion of net assets reflecting equity in
capital assets (i.e. capital assets minus related debt).
Restricted Net Assets
– The portion of net assets equal to resources whose use is legally
restricted minus any non-capital-related liabilities payable from those same resources.
Unrestricted Net Assets
– The residual balance of net assets after the elimination of invested in
capital assets, net of related debt and restricted net assets .
The following table presents the City’s net assets as of December 31, 2011 for governmental activities
and business-type activities:
As of December 31, Increase
(Decrease)
20112010
Net assets
Governmental activities
ital assets, net of related deb $ 71,587,158 65,588,493 $ $ 5,998,665
Invested in ca p t ( )
Restricted11,050,676 3,587,960 7,462,716
Unrestricted13,872,720 12,935,968 936,752
88,111,086 90,511,889 2,400,803
Total overnmental activities
g
Business-type activities
Invested in ca ital assets, net of related deb 45,619,471 45,435,153 184,318
p t ( )
Unrestricted6,980,909 8,082,387 1,101,478
( )
53,701,858 52,416,062 (1,285,796)
Total business-t e activities
yp
$ 141,812,944 142,927,951 $ 1,115,007 $
Total net assets
The City’s total net assets at December 31, 2011 were $1,115,007 higher than the total net assets reported
at the previous year-end.
At the end of the current fiscal year, the City is able to present positive balances in all three categories of
net assets, both for the government as a whole, as we ll as for its separate governmental and business-type
activities. The same situation held true for the prior year.
-18-
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 assets. 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 cap ital assets, and other accrual-based expenses.
The following table presents the chan ge in net assets of the City for the years ended December 31, 2011
and 2010:
2011
2010
Pro g ra m
Ex p ensesRevenues N et Chan g e N et Chan g e
Net (expense) revenue
Governmental activities
$ 931,791 2,731,402 $ $ ( 1,799,611 ) $ ( 1,663,885 )
General g overnmen t
y 1,624,507 4,700,282 ( 3,075,775 ) ( 2,945,828 )
Public safet
5,163,247 ( 2,308,642 )
2,262,221 4,570,863
Public works
248,740 2,161,125 ( 1,912,385 ) ( 1,818,013 )
Culture and recreatio n
628,884 – ( 628,884 ) ( 459,010 )
Economic develo p ment
1,603,642 – ( 1,603,642 ) ( 1,604,027 )
Interest on lon g -term deb t
Business-t yp e activities
2,505,633 2,126,921 378,712 43,513
Water
2,238,217 2,416,499 ( 178,282 ) ( 86,024 )
Sewer
633,351 527,928 105,423 53,221
Water q ualit y
770,962 833,573 ( 62,611 ) ( 24,587 )
Transit
$ 11,215,422 22,301,119 $ (11,085,697) (3,341,393)
Total net (expense) revenue
General revenues
10,958,111 10,896,173
Taxes
g rants and contributions 64,438 16,831
Unrestricted
860,168 891,574
Investment earnin g s
3,778,762 –
Develo p er contributions
58,264 168,299
Other revenues
Total general revenues
15,719,743 11,972,877
$ 12,378,350 887,180 $
Change in net assets
One of the goals of this statement is to provide a si de-by-side comparison to illustrate the difference in the
way the City’s governmental and business-type operati ons 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 pr essures on the general revenue sources.
-19-
ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING UPDATES
GASB S N . 60 – A F R S C
TATEMENT O CCOUNTING AND INANCIAL EPORTING FOR ERVICE ONCESSION
A
RRANGEMENTS
This statement provides accounting and financial re porting guidance for governments that participate as
either a transferor or an operator in a service concession arrangement (SCA). SCAs are arrangements
whereby a government transfers the rights to operate one of its capital assets to a third party operator
(either a private party or another government) fo r consideration, with the operator then being
compensated from the fees or charg es collected in connection with the operation of the asset. To qualify
as an SCA, an arrangement must meet all of the following criteria: 1) the transferor must convey to the
operator both the right and the obligation to use one of its capital assets to provide services to the public;
2) the operator must provide significant considera tion to the transferor; 3) the operator must be
compensated from the fees or charges it collects from third parties; 4) the transferor must have the ability
to either determine, modify, or approve what servic es are to be provided to whom at what price; and
5) the transferor must retain a significant residual inte rest in the service utility of the asset. This statement
provides guidance to governments that are party to an SCA for reporting the assets, obligations, and flow
of revenues that result from the arrangement; along with the required financial statement disclosures. The
requirements of this statement must be implemented for periods beginning after December 15, 2011, with
earlier implementation encouraged.
GASB S N . 61 – T F R E : O
TATEMENT O HE INANCIAL EPORTING NTITY MNIBUS
This statement amends the current guidance in GASB Statement No. 14, “The Financial Reporting
Entity,” for identifying and presenting component units . This statement changes the fiscal dependency
criterion for determining component units. Potential component units that meet the fiscal dependency
criterion for inclusion in the financial reporting en tity 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 clar ifies the types of relationships that are considered
to meet the “misleading to exclude” criterion for in clusion as a component unit; changes the criteria for
blending component units; gives direction for the de termination and disclosure of major component units;
and adds a requirement to report an explicit, me asurable 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 implem ented for periods beginning after June 15, 2012, with
earlier implementation encouraged.
GASB S N . 63 – F R D O R ,
TATEMENT O INANCIAL EPORTING OF EFERRED UTFLOWS OF ESOURCES
D I R , N P
EFERRED NFLOWS OF ESOURCES AND ET OSITION
This statement provides financial reporting guidanc e for deferred outflows of resources and deferred
inflows of resources; which are defined as the consum ption or acquisition of net assets, respectively,
applicable to a future reporting period. The st atement amends certain reporting requirements in GASB
Statement No. 34 and related pronoun cements, providing a format for a new Statement of Net Position,
which reports deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources separately from assets and
liabilities. It also renames the r esidual of assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred
inflows of resources as net position, rather than net assets. The requirements of this statement must be
implemented for periods beginning after December 15, 2011, with earlier implementation encouraged.
-20-
GASB P E D
ENSION XPOSURE RAFTS
In June 2011, GASB issued two exposure drafts on accounting and reporting for pensions, one for the
reporting of pension benefits within the financial statements of participating employers and the other for
pension plan financial reporting. These two exposure drafts are intended to update or replace the current
guidance for pension reporting in GASB Statement Nos. 25 and 27.
The exposure drafts propose a variety of changes in financial statement presentation, measurement, and
required disclosures relating to pensio n benefits. Included are proposed major changes in how employers
that participate in cost-sharing defined benefit pension plans, such as TRA and PERA, account for
pension benefit expenses and liabilities. Currently , employers participating in such plans recognize
pension expenses and liabilities only to the extent of their contractually required annual contributions to
the plan. The exposure draft proposes that those em ployers recognize their proportionate share of the
collective net pension liability and co llective pension expense for all participating employers. If adopted,
this guidance could have a significant impact on the fi nancial statements of the participating employers,
as participants in plans with a substantial unf unded liability would be required to report their
proportionate share of the unfunded liability in their government-wide financial statements.
The proposed effective dates for both exposure drafts are for periods beginning after June 15, 2012, if
certain conditions are met, otherwise for periods beginning after June 30, 2013.
F F A T A (T A )
EDERAL UNDING CCOUNTABILITY AND RANSPARENCY CT RANSPARENCY CT
Effective October 1, 2010, the Transparency Act requi res federal award recipients to report specific data,
including compensation data in certain circumstances, related to subawards. One of the key requirements
of the Transparency Act was the creation of a single, searchable website that provides the public with
greater access to information on fe deral spending. The Transparency Act requires recipients to report
first-tier subaward and executive compensation data fo r new federal grants as of October 1, 2010, if the
initial award is equal to or over $25, 000. Pass through entities (primary recipients) must report subaward
data through the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Subaward Reporting System (FSRS)
by the end of the month following the month in whic h the subaward obligation is made. For a more
detailed discussion of the Transparency Act see Part 3, Section L of the 2011 U.S. Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb. The
OMB has issued several documents that provide guidance on the Transparency Act, including Open
Government Directive – Federal Spending Transparency and Subaward and Compensation Data
Reporting , available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/open.
-21-
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2011
As the management of the City of Prior Lake, Minn esota (the City), we offer readers of the City’s
financial statements this narrative overview and analys is of the financial activities of the City for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
The assets of the City exceeded its liabilities at the close of th e most recent fiscal year by
$142,927,951 ( net assets ). Of this amount, $20,853,629 ( unrestricted net assets ) may be used to
meet the government’s ongoing oblig ations to citizens and creditors.
The City’s total net assets increased by $1,115,007.
As of the close of the current fiscal year, th e City’s governmental funds reported combined
ending fund balances of $22,734,825, an increase of $7,363,350 in comparison with the prior
year. The City issued crossover refunding bonds in August and December 2011. The proceeds of
approximately $3,755,000 will be used to call outst anding debt in December 2012 and December
2014. Additionally, the City issued $2,280,000 in bonds in December 2011 for the 2012
reconstruction project and the 2012 CR2 1/Arcadia intersection signal project.
At the end of the current fiscal year, the un assigned fund balance for the General Fund was
$7,011,612, or 55.1 percent, of budgeted 2012 expenditures and transfers ($12,729,968). The
unrestricted fund balance of $7,747,207 reflects an increase of $671,840, which is primarily due
to surplus revenues.
OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
This discussion and analysis is intended to serve as an introduction to the City’s basic financial
statements. The City’s basic financial statemen ts include three components: 1) government-wide
financial statements, 2) fund financia l statements, and 3) notes to basic financial statements. This report
also contains supplemental information in additio n to the basic financial statements themselves.
Government-Wide Financial Statements
– The government-wide financial statements are designed to
provide readers with a broad overview of the City’s finances, in a manner similar to a private sector
business.
The Statement of Net Assets presents information on all of the C ity’s assets and liabilities, with the
difference between the two reported as net assets . Over time, increases or decreases in net assets may
serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City is improving or deteriorating.
The Statement of Activities presents information showing how th e City’s net assets changed during the
most recent fiscal year. All changes in net assets ar e reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise
to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Thus, revenues and expenses are
reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal periods (e.g.
uncollected taxes and earned, but unused, vacation leave).
-4-
Both of the government-wide financial statements dis tinguish functions of the City that are principally
supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues ( governmental activities ) from other functions that are
intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges ( business-type
activities ). The governmental activities of the City incl ude general government, public safety, public
works, culture and recreation, and economic devel opment. The business-type activities of the City
include water, sewer, storm wa ter, and transit operations.
The government-wide financial statements can be fo und in the financial section following this report.
Fund Financial Statements
– A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control
over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City, like other state
and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensu re and demonstrate compliance with finance-related
legal requirements. All of the funds of the City can be divided into two categories: governmental funds
and proprietary funds.
Governmental Funds
– Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions
reported as governmental activities in the government-w ide financial statements. However, unlike the
government-wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near-term
inflows and outflows of spendable resources, as well as on balances of spendable resources available at
the end of the fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a City’s near-term financing
requirements.
Because the focus of governmental funds is narro wer than that of the government-wide financial
statements, it is useful to compare the inform ation presented for governmental funds with similar
information presented for governmental activities in th e government-wide financial statements. By doing
so, readers may better understand the long-term impact of the City’s near-term financing decisions. Both
the governmental fund Balance Sheet and the governme ntal fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
and Changes in Fund Balances provide a reconc iliation to facilitate this comparison between
governmental funds and governmental activities.
The City maintains numerous individual governmental funds. Information is presented separately in the
governmental fund Balance Sheet and in the governme ntal fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
and Changes in Fund Balances for the General, Debt Service, and Construction Funds, all of which are
considered major funds. Data from the other governme ntal funds are combined into a single, aggregated
presentation. Individual fund data for each of thes e nonmajor governmental funds are provided in the
form of combining statements elsewhere in this report.
The City adopts an annual appropriated budget for it s General Fund. A budgetary comparison statement
has been provided for this fund to de monstrate compliance with this budget.
The basic governmental fund financial statements ca n be found in the financial section of this report
immediately following the government-wide financial statements.
Proprietary Funds
– The City maintains two types of proprietary funds. Enterprise funds are used to
report the same functions presented as business-type activities in the government-wide financial
statements. The City uses enterprise funds to account for its water, sewer, storm water, and transit
operations.
Proprietary funds provide the same type of information as the governme nt-wide financial statements, only
in more detail.
-5-
Internal service funds are an accounting device used to accumulate and allocate costs internally among
the City’s various functions. The City uses intern al service funds to account for severance compensation.
Because these internal service fund activities predom inantly benefit governmental rather than
business-type functions, they have been included wi thin governmental activities in the government-wide
financial statements.
The Internal Service Fund is presented separately in the proprietary fund financial statements.
The basic proprietary fund financial statements ca n be found in the financ ial section of this report
immediately following the governmental fund statements.
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
– The notes to basic financial statements provide additional
information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in th e government-wide and fund
financial statements. The notes to basic financial st atements can be found following the proprietary fund
statements within the financ ial section of this report.
Other Information
– The combining statements referred to earlier in connection with nonmajor
governmental funds are presented immediately foll owing the required supplementary information.
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
As noted earlier, net assets may serve over time as a useful indicator of a City’s financial position. In the
case of the City, assets exceeded liab ilities by $142,927,951 at the close of the most recent fiscal year.
The City’s investment in capital asset (e.g. land, buildings, machinery and equipment), less any related
debt used to acquire those assets that are still outsta nding totaled 78 percent of total net assets. The City
uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for
future spending. Although the City’s investment in its capital assets is reporte d net of related debt, it
should be noted that the resources needed to repay th is debt must be provided from other sources, since
the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities.
-6-
The following table provides the City’s Summary of Net Assets:
Table 1
Summary of Net Assets
as of December 31, 2011 and 2010
GovernmentalBusiness-Type
ActivitiesActivitiesTotal
201120102011201020112010
Assets
Current and other assets27,575,348 $ 19,600,420 $ 7,393,393 $ 8,470,321 $ 34,968,741 $ 28,070,741 $
Ca p ital assets106,710,701 106,961,104 45,435,153 45,619,471 152,145,854 152,580,575
Total assets
$ 126,561,524 134,286,049 $52,828,546 $ 54,089,792 $ 187,114,595 $180,651,316 $
Liabilities
Lon g -term liabilities 42,523,888 $ 36,991,656 $ 146,092 $ 193,466 $ 42,669,980 $ 37,185,122 $
Other liabilities1,250,272 1,458,782 266,392 194,468 1,516,664 1,653,250
Total liabilities
$ 38,450,438 43,774,160 $ 412,484 $ 387,934 $ 44,186,644 $ 38,838,372 $
Net assets
Invested in capital assets,
net of related deb t $ 71,587,158 65,588,493 $ 45,435,153 $ 45,619,471 $ 111,023,646 $117,206,629 $
Restricted11,050,676 3,587,960 – 11,050,676 – 3,587,960
Unrestricted13,872,720 12,935,968 6,980,909 8,082,387 20,853,629 21,018,355
Total net assets $ 88,111,086 90,511,889 $ 52,416,062 $ 53,701,858 $ 142,927,951 $141,812,944 $
An additional portion of the City’s net assets ($11,05 0,676 or 7.7 percent) represents resources that are
subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. The remaining balance of unrestricted net assets
$20,853,629 may be used to meet the government’s ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors.
At the end of the current fiscal year, the City is able to report positive balances in all three categories of
net assets, both for the government as a whole, as we ll as for its separate governmental and business-type
activities. The same situation held true for the prior fiscal year.
-7-
Table 2
Changes in Net Assets
for the Years Ended December 31, 2011 and 2010
GovernmentalBusiness-Type
ActivitiesActivitiesTotal
201120102011201020112010
Revenues
Program revenues
Charges for services1,681,740 $ 1,612,656 $ 5,391,292 $ 4,982,505 $ 7,073,032 $ 6,595,161 $
Operating grants and contributions1,097,958 1,071,439 562,158 513,403 1,660,116 1,584,842
Capital grants and contributions2,287,561 9,085,058 194,713 4,045,259 2,482,274 13,130,317
General revenues
10,308,666 10,410,669
Property taxes10,308,666 10,410,669 – –
Franchise taxes587,507 547,442 587,507 547,442
– –
Grants and contributions not
restricted to specific programs16,831 64,438 16,831 64,438
– –
Other757,952 587,893 301,921 330,539 1,059,873 918,432
Total revenues16,738,215 23,379,595 6,450,084 9,871,706 23,188,299 33,251,301
Expenses
2,731,402 2,598,576
General government2,731,402 2,598,576 – –
Public safet 4,505,765 4,700,282 4,700,282 4,505,765
y – –
4,570,863 3,759,548
Public works4,570,863 3,759,548 – –
Culture and recreation2,161,125 2,169,743 2,161,125 2,169,743
– –
628,884 459,010
Economic development628,884 459,010 – –
Interest on long-term deb 1,604,027 1,603,642 1,603,642 1,604,027
t – –
2,126,921 2,313,977 2,126,921 2,313,977
Water – –
Sewer 2,416,499 2,384,793 2,416,499 2,384,793
– –
527,928 430,826 527,928 430,826
Water qualit y – –
Transi 833,573 646,686 833,573 646,686
t – –
Total expenses16,396,198 15,096,669 5,904,921 5,776,282 22,301,119 20,872,951
Increase in net assets
before transfers342,017 8,282,926 545,163 4,095,424 887,180 12,378,350
Transfers2,058,786 (526,922) (2,058,786) 526,922
– –
Increase in net assets2,400,803 7,756,004 (1,513,623) 4,622,346 887,180 12,378,350
Net assets – beginning88,111,086 80,355,082 53,701,858 49,079,512 141,812,944 129,434,594
Prior period adjustment – 227,827 – 227,827 – –
Net assets – restated88,111,086 80,355,082 53,929,685 49,079,512 142,040,771 129,434,594
Net assets – ending90,511,889 $ 88,111,086 $ 52,416,062 $ 53,701,858 $ 142,927,951 $ 141,812,944 $
Governmental Activities
– Governmental activities increased the City’s net assets by $2,400,803, or
2.7 percent. Key elements of this increase are seen in the table above. The increase is a combination of
many surpluses and deficits across the governmental funds.
-8-
Below are specific graphs that provide comparisons of the governmental activities program revenues and
expenses:
$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
$–
General Public SafetyPublic WorksCulture and Economic Interest on
Government Recreation Development Long-Term
Debt
Expenses Program Revenues
Governmental Activities – Revenue by Program
Other
Charges for Services
5%
10%
Franchise Taxes
Operating Grants
4%
and Contributions
6%
Capital Grants and
Contributions
14%
Property Taxes
61%
-9-
Business-Type Activities
– For the most part, increases in expenses closely paralleled inflation and
growth in the demand for services. Below are graphs showing the business-type activities program
revenues and expense comparisons:
$2,600,000
$2,400,000
$2,200,000
$2,000,000
$1,800,000
$1,600,000
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$–
WaterSewerWater QualityTransit
Expenses Program Revenues
Business-Type Activities – Revenue by Source
Capital Grants and
Contributions
Other
3%
5%
Operating Grants and
Contributions
9%
Charges for Services
83%
-10-
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S FUNDS
As noted earlier, the City uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with
finance-related legal requirements.
Governmental Funds
– The focus of the City’s governmental funds is to provide information on
near-term inflows, outflows, and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing
the City’s financing requirements. In particular, unassigned fund balance may serve as a useful measure
of a government’s net resources available for spending at the end of the fiscal year.
As of the end of the current fiscal year, the City ’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund
balances of $22,734,825, an increase of $7,363, 350 in comparison with the prior year.
The General Fund is the chief operating fund of the City . At the end of the recent fiscal year, unassigned
fund balance of the General Fund was $7,011,612, wh ile total fund balance reached $7,747,207. As a
measure of the General Fund’s liquidity, it may be u seful to compare the unassigned fund balance to total
fund expenditures. Unassigned fund balance represents about 55.1 percent of total 2012 General Fund
budgeted expenditures ($12,729,968).
Total fund balance for the City’s General Fund incr eased by $671,840 during 2011. The increase in the
General Fund was due to an increase in revenues. Expenditures also increased; however, the amount of
transfers to other funds decreased slightly.
The Debt Service Fund balance increased by $3,810,160. The City manages cash flow in all debt service
funds and ensures adequate resources exist to fund futu re obligations. This increase is mainly due to the
City issuing two new bonds in the current year which included the refunding of three existing bonds.
The Construction Fund balance increased by $2,689,282. This increase is mainly due to the City issuing
two new bonds in the current year which included f unding for three improvement projects, as well as
transfers in from other funds.
GENERAL FUND BUDGETARY HIGHLIGHTS
Actual revenues were $706,779 over budget in 2011. Th is is primarily due to taxes, interest income,
licenses and permits revenue, intergovernmental reve nue and charges for services revenue collections
being higher than anticipated.
Actual expenditures were $27,026 less than budget in 2011. The largest variances from budget were
general governmental and public safet y, both being under budget by $35,298 and $48,237, respectively.
Savings from lower insurance prem iums and open positions were offset by higher costs for fuel,
equipment repairs, and prosecution fees.
The City’s General Fund balance increased by a net amount of $671,840 to an audited position of
$7.75 million. This General Fund amount represe nts a reserve of 60.9 percent based upon the 2012
annual budget ($12,729,968).
-11-
CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEBT ADMINISTRATION
Capital Assets
– The City’s investment in capital assets for its governmental and business-type activities
as of December 31, 2011 amounts to $152,145,854 (net of accumulated depreciation). This investment in
capital assets includes items such as land, buildings and improvements, machinery and equipment, park
facilities, roads, highways, and bridges.
Table 3
Capital Assets
(Net of Depreciation)
Governmental Business-Type
Activities Activities Total
201120102011201020112010
$ – $ 30,509,967 – $ 30,509,967 $
Land30,509,967 $ 30,509,967 $
Easements27,151,185 26,292,258 75,300 75,300 27,226,485 26,367,558
Construction in progress4,468,954 3,315,062 102,308 – 4,468,954 3,417,370
Land improvements862,238 921,687 58,802 62,261 921,040 983,948
Machiner y and e q ui p ment2,428,157 2,250,171 224,504 234,324 2,652,661 2,484,495
Vehicles1,563,875 1,725,278 – 1,563,875 – 1,725,278
Infrastructure39,726,325 41,946,681 45,076,547 45,373,105 84,802,872 87,319,786
Total106,710,701 $ 106,961,104 $ 45,435,153 $ 45,847,298 $ 152,145,854 $ 152,808,402 $
The beginning of year balances are presented as restat ed as the City reported a prior period adjustment
related to business-type activities capital assets. The net effect was understated capital assets of $227,827
in the Water Fund. More detailed in formation about this prior period adju stment is presented in the notes
to basic financial statements. Additional informati on on the City’s capital assets can be found in Note 3
of the notes to basic financial statements.
-12-
Long-Term Debt
– At the end of the current fiscal year, th e City had total bonded debt outstanding of
$41,440,000. Of this amount, $32,370,000 comprises debt backed by the full faith and credit of the City.
The remainder of the City’s bonded debt represents bonds secured solely by specified revenue sources.
The City’s total debt increased during the current fis cal year due to the issuance of two new bonds which
included two crossover refunding bonds.
Table 4
Long-Term liabilities
GovernmentalBusiness-Type
ActivitiesActivities Total
201120102011201020112010
G.O. bonds
$ 10,460,000 13,010,000 $ – $ – $ 13,010,000 $ 10,460,000 $
G.O. special assessment bonds
7,180,000 10,230,000 – – 10,230,000 7,180,000
G.O. tax increment bonds
310,000 585,000 – – 585,000 310,000
G.O. revenue bonds
8,835,000 8,545,000 – – 8,545,000 8,835,000
Revenue bonds
9,280,000 9,070,000 – – 9,070,000 9,280,000
Premium (discount) on bonds payable
68,707 212,606 – – 212,606 68,707
Other post-employment benefit payable
54,979 – – – – 54,979
Compensated absences payable
871,677 871,282 146,092 193,466 1,017,374 1,065,143
Total42,523,888 $ 37,060,363 $ 146,092 $ 193,466 $ 42,669,980 $ 37,253,829 $
In April 2010, Moody’s Investor Services recalibrated the City’s bond rating to the global rating scale
and, therefore, changed the City’s bond rating from Aa3 to an Aa2. The Aa2 bond rating was reaffirmed
with the two 2011 bond issuances.
The City’s statutory debt limit is equal to three pe rcent of estimated taxable market value of property
located within the City. The taxable market valu e totals $2,640,986,500, which calculates to a debt
margin of $79,229,595. Debt finance partially or en tirely by special assessments is not applied against
the City’s debt limit, nor is debt financed by Proprietary Fund revenues. Currently, the City has
$13,010,000 of general obligation debt outstanding leaving a debt margin of $66,219,595.
Additional information on the City’s long-term debt ca n be found in Note 5 of the notes to basic financial
statements.
ECONOMIC FACTORS AND NEXT YEAR’S BUDGETS AND RATES
The City adopted a general operating budget of $12,729,968 for fiscal 2012, an increase of
$541,655, or 4.4 percent, over the 2011 budget.
The City approved a $700,000, or 6.9 percent, prope rty tax levy decrease for 2012. This includes
the levy required to meet the debt service ob ligations on infrastructure improvements and major
capital assets.
The 2012 budget for the enterprise funds is $8,0 56,262, a decrease of $36,641, or 0.5 percent,
over the 2011 budget.
2012 budgets were adopted for the Debt Se rvice Funds, Revolving Equipment Fund, and
Economic Development Authority Fund in the amounts of $4,558,609, $504,864 and $137,923,
respectively.
-13-
Continued staged development of land with th e 2,000 acres annexed in 2004 from Spring Lake
Township will provide the majority of the City’s anticipated market value growth over the course
of the next 10–15 years.
Building permit revenues were adjusted to reflect an increase to an anticipated 85 single-family
home construction starts in 2012.
Improvements scheduled for 2012, including Boudins Phase II neighborhood reconstruction and
the County Road 21/Arcadia intersection were fi nanced with bonds issued in December 2011.
Financial Management Policies
The City has set a goal to establish “Financial Perform ance Standards” to measure the financial health of
the City. These standards serve multiple purposes:
a) To serve as best practice measures to strengthen the City’s financial position and maximize the
return of the taxpayer dollar.
b) To communicate the fiscal performance and conditi on of the City to residents in a consistent
manner.
c) To facilitate the setting of policy and financial direction by the Council with resident input.
The financial management policies are to be reviewed by City Council and additional
objectives/performance measures considered in 2012.
Objective 1: Aa2 Bond Rating
Achieve an Aa2 Bond Rating – Strong credit rating by Moody’s, Inc. provides low cost financing for the
City’s general obligation bonds. In April 2010, Moody ’s Investor Services recalibrated the City’s bond
rating to the global rating scale and, therefore, change d the City’s bond rating from Aa3 to an Aa2. The
Aa2 bond rating was reaffirmed with the two 2011 bond issuances:
2007Aa3
2008Aa3
2009Aa3
2010Aa2
2011Aa2
-14-
Objective 2: 45 Percent General Fund Reserve Balance
Maintain a 45 Percent General Fund Reserve Bala nce – The Office of the State Auditor (OSA)
recommended reserve to provide adequate cash flow , offset revenue shortfalls, and insurance for
unforeseen catastrophic events. In April 2011, the City Council adopted the Comprehensive Financial
Management Policy which established a 45 percent target ed level for the General Fund unrestricted fund
balance based on sound rationale and defined intended uses.
$14,000,000
61%
58%
$13,500,000
50%
$13,000,000
$12,729,968
44%
41%
$12,500,000
$12,188,313
$12,120,546
$12,476,974
$12,426,431
$12,000,000
$11,500,000
$11,000,000
$10,500,000
20072008200920102011
Subsequent Year’s Budget
Actual Fund Balance
-15-
Objective 3: Lowest City Property Tax Rank in Scott County
Achieve the Lowest City Property Tax Rank in Scott County – The favorable tax rate provides stimulus
for growth of residential and commercial property tax b ase. This data reflects the tax capacity rate, which
is based on the levies approved by the City Council to fund general services, such as police, fire, street
maintenance, parks, recreation, finance, and general administration. The table does not reflect the market
value rate, which is a tax based on market referenda approved by the City’s voters to finance the
construction of two fire stations and im provements to the City parks and library.
Cities20072008200920102011
Belle Plaine56.929 55.137 54.023 63.338 67.320
Elko New Market35.687 37.161 36.967 39.580 43.912
Jordan47.287 51.039 52.736 60.840 60.660
New Prague50.934 51.402 52.677 58.692 64.080
Prior Lake28.435 28.064 27.647 29.442 30.710
Savage50.155 48.356 46.013 47.335 48.278
Shakopee31.939 31.925 32.630 33.710 34.731
Source: Scott County Department of Taxation
Property Tax Rate –Scott County Cities
70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
–
20072008200920102011
Belle Plaine Jordan New Prague
Prior Lake Savage Shakopee
Elko New Market
-16-
Objective 4: 100 Percent Funded Fire Relief Association Pension
Assure 100 Percent Funded Fire Relief Association Pension – This reduces reliance upon future property
rate increases. The last year of reported in formation is 2010. The 2012 budget includes a $78,368
contribution to address a portion of the pension deficit.
Objective 5: 98 Percent General Fund Budget Outcome
Limit Expenditures Level to a 98 Percent Genera l Fund Budget Outcome – This ensures fiscal
accountability at the highest level.
Actual Expenditures to Budget
110%
101%
100%
95%
100%
90%
91%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
–
20072008200920102011
-17-
Objective 6: 97 Percent Investment Position of All City Funds
Manage a 97 Percent Investment Position of All City Funds – Active investment realizes best possible
return and fund stewardship.
Objective 7: 60/40 Percent Property Tax Ratio
Target a 60/40 Percent Property Tax Ratio – A prope r balance between property tax and non-property tax
revenues provides relief to the citizen in the form of lower property taxes.
Non-Property Revenue to Total Revenue
50%
44%
45%
45%
40%
42%
41%
35%
36%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
20072008200920102011
-18-
REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the City’s finances for all those with an
interest in the City’s finances. Questions concerni ng any of the information pr ovided in this report or
requests for additional financial information should be addressed to the office of the Finance Director,
City of Prior Lake, 4646 Dakota Street Southeast, Prior Lake , MN 55372-1714.
-19-