Loading...
2015 Monticello Auditor's Management Letter Management Report for City of Monticello, Minnesota December 31, 2015 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK To the City Council and Management City of Monticello, Minnesota We have prepared this management report in conjunction with our audit of the City of Monticello, Minnesota’s (the City) financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2015. The purpose of this report is to provide comments resulting from our audit process and to communicate information relevant to city finances in Minnesota. We have organized this report into the following sections:  Audit Summary  Governmental Funds Overview  Enterprise Funds Overview  Government-Wide Financial Statements  Legislative Updates  Accounting and Auditing Updates We would be pleased to further discuss any of the information contained in this report or any other concerns that you would like us to address. We would also like to express our thanks for the courtesy and assistance extended to us during the course of our audit. The purpose of this report is solely to provide those charged with governance of the City, management, and those who have responsibility for oversight of the financial reporting process comments resulting from our audit process and information relevant to city finances in Minnesota. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose. Minneapolis, Minnesota June 27, 2016 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -1- AUDIT SUMMARY The following is a summary of our audit work, key conclusions, and other information that we consider important or that is required to be communicated to the City Council, administration, or those charged with governance of the City. OUR RESPONSIBILITY UNDER AUDITING STANDARDS GENERALLY ACCEPTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, and the related notes to the financial statements. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America 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 audit engagement letter. Professional standards also require that we communicate the following information related to our audit. PLANNED SCOPE AND TIMING OF THE AUDIT We performed the audit according to the planned scope and timing previously discussed and coordinated in order to obtain sufficient audit evidence and complete an effective audit. AUDIT OPINION AND FINDINGS Based on our audit of the City’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2015:  We have issued an unmodified opinion on the City’s basic financial statements. Our report included a paragraph emphasizing that the City implemented Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions— an amendment of GASB Statement No. 27, and GASB Statement No. 71, Pension Transition for Contributions Made Subsequent to the Measurement Date—an amendment of GASB Statement No. 68, during the year ended December 31, 2015. Our opinion was not modified with respect to this matter.  We reported no deficiencies in the City’s internal control over financial reporting that we considered to be material weaknesses.  The results of our testing disclosed no instances of noncompliance required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.  We reported no findings based on our testing of the City’s compliance with Minnesota laws and regulations. FOLLOW-UP ON PRIOR YEAR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As a part of our audit of the City’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2015, we performed procedures to follow-up on the findings and recommendations that resulted from our prior year audit. We reported the following findings that were corrected by the City in the current year:  In the prior year, we reported that for 4 of 25 claims for payroll, the City did not receive a signed approval declaration as required by state statute. There was no similar finding in the current year.  In the prior year, we also reported that 1 of 40 disbursements tested was not paid within the 35- day period as required by state statute. There was no similar finding in the current year. -2- SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the City are described in Note 1 of the notes to basic financial statements. The City implemented GASB Statement Nos. 68 and 71 during the year ended December 31, 2015. These statements provide new guidance on accounting and financial reporting for pensions accounted for in the financial statements of plan employers. Implementation of these standards resulted in an adjustment to the beginning equity reported in the City’s government-wide and enterprise fund financial statements, as described in Note 1 of the notes to basic financial statements. The application of remaining policies was not changed during the year ended December 31, 2015. We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period. ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES AND MANAGEMENT JUDGMENTS Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the financial statements were:  Depreciation – Management’s estimates of depreciation expense are based on the estimated useful lives of the assets.  Other Post-Employment Benefit (OPEB) and Pension Liabilities – These obligations are calculated using actuarial methodologies described in GASB Statement Nos. 45 and 68. These actuarial calculations include significant assumptions, including projected changes, healthcare insurance costs, investment returns, retirement ages, proportionate share, and employee turnover.  Land Held for Resale – These assets are stated at the lower of cost or net realizable value based on management’s estimates.  Compensated Absences – Management’s estimate is based on current rates of pay and sick leave balances.  Allowance for Doubtful Accounts – Management’s estimate of the allowance for doubtful accounts is based on historical revenues, historical loss levels, and an analysis of the collectability of individual accounts. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used by management to develop these estimates in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear. CORRECTED AND UNCORRECTED MISSTATEMENTS Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Where applicable, management has corrected all such misstatements. In addition, none of the misstatements detected as a result of audit procedures and corrected by management, when applicable, were material, either individually or in the aggregate, to each opinion unit’s financial statements taken as a whole. -3- DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN PERFORMING THE AUDIT We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit. DISAGREEMENTS WITH MANAGEMENT For purposes of this report, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit. MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIONS We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated June 27, 2016. MANAGEMENT CONSULTATIONS WITH OTHER INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the City’s financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants. OTHER AUDIT FINDINGS OR ISSUES We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City’s auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention. OTHER MATTERS We applied certain limited procedures to Management’s Discussion and Analysis, the budgetary comparison schedules, and the pension and OPEB-related required supplementary information (RSI) that supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI. We were engaged to report on the combining individual fund statements and other supplementary schedules accompanying the financial statements which are not RSI. With respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves. We were not engaged to report on the introductory section and statistical section which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. We did not audit or perform other procedures on this other information and we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it. -4- GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW This section of the report provides you with an overview of the financial trends and activities of the City’s governmental funds, which include the General, special revenue, debt service, and capital project funds. These funds are used to account for the basic services the City provides to all of its citizens, which are financed primarily with property taxes. The governmental fund information in the City’s financial statements focuses on budgetary compliance, and the sufficiency of each governmental fund’s current assets to finance its current liabilities. PROPERTY TAXES Minnesota cities rely heavily on local property tax levies to support their governmental fund activities. For the 2014 fiscal year, local ad valorem property tax levies provided 39.0 percent of the total governmental fund revenues for cities over 2,500 in population, and 35.5 percent for cities under 2,500 in population. Property tax levies certified by Minnesota cities for 2015 increased about 4.0 percent over 2014, compared to an increase of 1.6 percent the prior year. A one-year levy limit imposed on cities over 2,500 in population for the 2014 levy year was lifted for the 2015 levy year. The total market value of property in Minnesota cities increased about 8.5 percent for the 2015 levy year, following a modest increase of 1.1 percent for levy year 2014 and a four-year trend of declining market values for levy years 2010 through 2013. Market values showed increases across all property categories for 2015, with gains in the market values of residential homestead properties (10.0 percent) and non-homestead residential properties (9.7 percent) outpacing the market value gain of commercial/industrial properties (2.2 percent). Because the assessed valuation used for levying property taxes is based on values from the previous fiscal year (e.g., the market value for taxes payable in 2015 is based on estimated values as of January 1, 2014), market value improvement has lagged behind recent upturns in the housing market and the economy in general. The City’s taxable market value decreased 1.5 percent for taxes payable in 2014, but increased 26.0 percent for taxes payable in 2015. The following graph shows the City’s changes in taxable market value over the past 10 years: $– $200,000,000 $400,000,000 $600,000,000 $800,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $1,200,000,000 $1,400,000,000 $1,600,000,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Taxable Market Value -5- Tax capacity is considered the actual base available for taxation. It is calculated by applying the state’s property classification system to each property’s market value. Each property classification, such as commercial or residential, has a different calculation and uses different rates. Consequently, a city’s total tax capacity will change at a different rate than its total market value, as tax capacity is affected by the proportion of the City’s tax base that is in each property classification from year-to-year, as well as legislative changes to tax rates. The City’s tax capacity for taxes payable in 2014 decreased 2.8 percent and increased 29.6 percent in 2015. The following graph shows the City’s change in tax capacities over the past 10 years: $– $2,500,000 $5,000,000 $7,500,000 $10,000,000 $12,500,000 $15,000,000 $17,500,000 $20,000,000 $22,500,000 $25,000,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Local Tax Capacity The improvement in property tax capacities contributed to decreases to the overall state-wide tax rates for 2015. The following table presents the average tax rates applied to city residents for each of the last two levy years, along with comparative state-wide rates. Rates expressed as a percentage of net tax capacity 2014 2015 2014 2015 Average tax rate City 48.8 46.9 44.7 35.7 County 47.6 44.7 43.4 40.6 School 28.9 27.1 28.3 22.9 Special taxing 7.3 6.9 – – Total 132.6 125.6 116.4 99.2 City of Monticello All Cities State-Wide Average tax rates have been below state-wide averages for the last few years as a result of improved market values and tax capacities that began to rise in 2013 and continued in fiscal 2015. The increase in market values and local tax capacity in 2015 is related to significant increases to market values at the Xcel power plant. -6- GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES The following table presents the per capita revenue of the City’s governmental funds for the past three years, along with state-wide averages. We have included the most recent comparative state-wide averages available from the Office of the State Auditor to provide a benchmark for interpreting the City’s data. The amounts received from the typical major sources of governmental fund revenue will naturally vary between cities based on factors such as the City’s stage of development, location, size and density of its population, property values, services it provides, and other attributes. It will also differ from year-to-year due to the effect of inflation and changes in the City’s operation. Also, certain data on these tables may be classified differently than how they appear on the City’s financial statements in order to be more comparable to the state-wide information, particularly in separating capital expenditures from current expenditures. We have designed this section of our management report using per capita data in order to better identify unique or unusual trends and activities of your city. We intend for this type of comparative and trend information to complement, rather than duplicate, information in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis. An inherent difficulty in presenting per capita information is the accuracy of the population count, which for most years is based on estimates. Year 2013 2014 2015 Population 2,500–10,000 10,000–20,000 20,000–100,000 12,964 12,993 13,125 Property taxes 427$ 396$ 427$ 616$ 647$ 658$ Tax increments 26 37 46 75 64 55 Franchise fees and other taxes 32 42 37 25 28 25 Special assessments 59 51 64 159 147 253 Licenses and permits 28 27 41 26 29 35 Intergovernmental revenues 298 264 166 98 56 116 Charges for services 105 82 90 142 131 157 Other 66 72 65 40 91 59 Total revenue 1,041$ 971$ 936$ 1,181$ 1,193$ 1,358$ December 31, 2014 City of Monticello Governmental Funds Revenue per Capita With State-Wide Averages by Population Class State-Wide The City has generated more property tax revenue for its governmental funds revenue compared to the average Minnesota city. The City continues to generate more tax increment revenue per capita than average, as it has made use of this tool to finance commercial development. The City generates more special assessment revenue (typically used for new development) as the City continues to be in a growth phase. The City’s per capita governmental funds revenue for 2015 was $1,358, an increase of about 13.9 percent from the prior year. Special assessments increased $106 per capita as the City received a large amount of assessments from the I-94 Interchange Project in 2015. Intergovernmental revenue increased $60 per capita due to the City receiving increased state highway aid in 2015. Charges for services also increased $26 per capita based on increased rates, more rentals of community spaces, and increased storm sewer trunk charges. These increases were offset by a decrease in other revenues of $32 per capita mainly as a result of a positive market value adjustment in the City’s investment portfolio in the prior year compared to the current year. -7- The expenditures of governmental funds will also vary from state-wide averages and from year-to-year, based on the City’s circumstances. Expenditures are classified into three types as follows:  Current – These are typically the general operating type expenditures occurring on an annual basis, and are primarily funded by general sources such as taxes and intergovernmental revenues.  Capital Outlay and Construction – These expenditures do not occur on a consistent basis, more typically fluctuating significantly from year-to-year. Many of these expenditures are project-oriented, and are often funded by specific sources that have benefited from the expenditure, such as special assessment improvement projects.  Debt Service – Although the expenditures for debt service may be relatively consistent over the term of the respective debt, the funding source is the important factor. Some debt may be repaid through specific sources such as special assessments or redevelopment funding, while other debt may be repaid with general property taxes. The City’s expenditures per capita of its governmental funds for the past three years, together with state-wide averages, are presented in the following table: Year 2013 2014 2015 Population 2,500–10,000 10,000–20,000 20,000–100,000 12,964 12,993 13,125 Current 131$ 104$ 87$ 122$ 112$ 112$ 248 237 254 139 142 150 121 119 114 132 138 132 86 101 92 191 184 200 69 89 98 117 124 140 655 650 645 701 700 734 Capital outlay and construction 357 278 276 105 171 171 Debt service 180 163 115 408 416 383 54 40 34 72 51 49 234 203 149 480 467 432 Total expenditures 1,246$ 1,131$ 1,070$ 1,286$ 1,338$ 1,337$ Interest and fiscal charges General government Public safety Street maintenance and lighting Recreation and culture All other Governmental Funds Expenditures per Capita With State-Wide Averages by Population Class City of Monticello Principal December 31, 2014 State-Wide The City’s governmental funds current per capita expenditures are higher than state-wide averages for cities in the same population class. The City’s per capita expenditures for capital outlay and construction will vary on a yearly basis depending on current, ongoing capital projects. Debt service costs are significantly higher than other cities state-wide due to the stage of development of the City. -8- GOVERNMENTAL FUND BALANCES The following table summarizes the changes in the fund balances of the City’s governmental funds during the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2015, presented both by fund balance classification and by fund: Increase 2014 2015 (Decrease) Fund balances of governmental funds Total by classification Nonspendable 1,941,414$ 4,373,045$ 2,431,631$ Restricted 10,453,449 8,619,905 (1,833,544) Assigned 7,321,744 11,109,806 3,788,062 Unassigned 4,204,731 4,873,494 668,763 Total governmental funds 23,921,338$ 28,976,250$ 5,054,912$ Total by fund Major funds General 4,331,058$ 4,986,796$ 655,738$ Community Center 440,824 629,442 188,618 Economic Development Authority 6,911,674 6,562,865 (348,809) Debt Service 3,919,070 5,382,214 1,463,144 Capital Projects 2,895,619 5,392,213 2,496,594 Nonmajor funds 5,423,093 6,022,720 599,627 Total governmental funds 23,921,338$ 28,976,250$ 5,054,912$ Governmental Fund Changes in Fund Balance Fund Balance as of December 31, As reflected in the table above, total governmental fund balance increased by $5,054,912. The increase was largely due to the increase in fund balance in the Capital Projects Fund from unspent bond proceeds and Debt Service Fund, mainly from transfers to these funds from enterprise funds. -9- GENERAL FUND 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 operations, police and fire protection, building inspection, streets and highway maintenance, and recreation and culture. The following graph displays the City’s General Fund trends of financial position and changes in the volume of financial activity. 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. $– $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 $5,500,000 $6,000,000 $6,500,000 $7,000,000 $7,500,000 $8,000,000 $8,500,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 General Fund Financial Position Year Ended December 31, Fund Balance Cash Balance Expenditures The City’s General Fund cash and investments balance at December 31, 2015 was $5,649,254, which increased $1,010,048 from 2014. Total fund balance at December 31, 2015 was $4,986,796, up $655,738. This fund balance level represents approximately 74.3 percent of the City’s annual General Fund expenditures, based on 2015 expenditure levels. The City’s adopted fund balance policy requires that the City set aside fund balance to represent 45 percent of expenditures for working capital and contingencies. Having an appropriate fund balance is an important factor because a government, like any organization, requires a certain amount of equity to operate. Generally, the amount of equity required typically increases as the size of the operation increases. A healthy financial position also allows the City to avoid volatility in tax rates; helps minimize the impact of state funding changes; allows for the adequate and consistent funding of services, repairs, and unexpected costs; and can be a factor in determining the City’s bond rating and resulting interest costs. -10- The following illustrations provide you with the components of the City’s General Fund revenue compared to budget for 2015: Other Charges for Services Intergovernmental Licenses and Permits Property Taxes General Fund Revenue Budget to Actual Budget Actual Total General Fund revenues for 2015 were $7,637,646, which was $391,646 (5.4 percent) over the final budget. As reflected in the table above, other revenues were over budget by $109,680, which was mainly due to small amounts over budget spread across many categories. Licenses and permits revenue also exceeded budgeted amounts by $139,869 as a result of conservative budgeting in the revenue category. The following graph presents the City’s General Fund revenue sources for the last five years. $– $400,000 $800,000 $1,200,000 $1,600,000 $2,000,000 $2,400,000 $2,800,000 $3,200,000 $3,600,000 $4,000,000 $4,400,000 $4,800,000 $5,200,000 $5,600,000 $6,000,000 Taxes Intergovernmental Other General Fund Revenue by Source Year Ended December 31, 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 The graph reflects the City’s increasing reliance on taxes to finance its General Fund operations. Overall, General Fund revenues increased $518,644 (7.3 percent) from the previous year. Property taxes increased $378,297 due to an increase in the General Fund tax levy. Other revenues increased $106,359, mainly due to an increased dividend received from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust in 2015. -11- The following graphs illustrate the components of General Fund spending for 2015 compared to budget: General Governmental Public Safety Public Works Recreation and Culture Other General Fund Expenditures Budget to Actual Budget Actual Total General Fund expenditures for 2015 were $6,715,369, which was $366,561 (5.2 percent) under budget. The public works area was under budget by $314,949, mainly in street repairs. Recreation and culture was under budget by $73,552, mainly within park operations. The following illustrations provide you with the components of the City’s General Fund spending by function for the past five years: $– $250,000 $500,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 $1,250,000 $1,500,000 $1,750,000 $2,000,000 General Governmental Public Safety Public Works Recreation and Culture Other General Fund Expenditures by Function Year Ended December 31, 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Overall, General Fund expenditures increased $305,862 (4.8 percent) from the prior year. Recreation and culture expenditures increased $171,707, which was mainly due to increased spending for trail repairs. Additionally, public safety expenditures increased $127,913 due to an increase in the monthly charge for police services. -12- ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW The City maintains several enterprise funds to account for services the City provides that are financed primarily through fees charged to those utilizing the service. This section of the report provides you with an overview of the financial trends and activities of the City’s enterprise funds, which includes the Water Utility, Sewage Utility, Liquor Operations, Fiber Optics, and Deputy Registrar Funds. ENTERPRISE FUNDS FINANCIAL POSITION The following table summarizes the changes in the financial position of the City’s enterprise funds during the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2015, presented both by classification and by fund: Increase 2014 2015 (Decrease) Net position of enterprise funds Total by classification Net investment in capital assets 42,117,264$ 40,722,087$ (1,395,177)$ Unrestricted 9,112,037 8,136,000 (976,037) Total enterprise funds 51,229,301$ 48,858,087$ (2,371,214)$ Total by fund Water 14,901,305$ 14,328,760$ (572,545)$ Sewage 20,761,130 19,813,546 (947,584) Liquor 987,433 905,806 (81,627) Fiber Optics 14,198,557 13,400,141 (798,416) Deputy Registrar 380,876 409,834 28,958 Total enterprise funds 51,229,301$ 48,858,087$ (2,371,214)$ Enterprise Funds Change in Financial Position Net Position as of December 31, In total, the net position of the City’s enterprise funds decreased by $2,371,214 during the year ended December 31, 2015. This change was a combination of a decline in net position of $1,168,932 in the current year and the recording of a change in accounting principle as described in other areas of this report that decreased beginning net position by $1,202,282. The Sewage Fund and Fiber Optics Fund operated at net losses as expenses exceeded revenues, while the City continues to push these funds to be sustainable on their own. -13- WATER ENTERPRISE FUND The following graph presents 10 years of comparative operating results for the City’s Water Enterprise Fund: $– $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 $900,000 $1,000,000 $1,100,000 $1,200,000 $1,300,000 $1,400,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Water Enterprise Fund Year Ended December 31, Operating Revenue Operating Expense Operating Income Before Depreciation At December 31, 2015, the Water Enterprise Fund had a cash balance of $4,406,268 and a net position balance of $14,328,760. Net position consisted of $9,662,761 in net investment in capital assets and $4,665,999 in unrestricted net position. Operating revenue in the Water Enterprise Fund is $1,126,718, an increase of $9,492 from the prior year while operating expenses for 2015 were $1,105,230, an increase of $19,224. It is important that this fund continue to have positive operating results so as not to place an additional burden on other city funds. It is also important that the City continue to monitor water rates so that they are designed to also provide for future repairs and replacement of the infrastructure assets. -14- SEWAGE ENTERPRISE FUND The following graph presents 10 years of comparative operating results for the City’s Sewage Enterprise Fund: $(200,000) $– $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 $2,000,000 $2,200,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $2,800,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Sewage Enterprise Fund Year Ended December 31, Operating Revenue Operating Expense Operating Income (Loss) Before Depreciation At December 31, 2015, the Sewage Enterprise Fund had a cash balance of $2,200,605 and a net position balance of $19,813,546. Net position consisted of $17,321,768 in net investment in capital assets and $2,491,778 of unrestricted net position. Sewage Enterprise Fund operating revenues for 2015 were $2,083,122, which is $1,462 more than the previous year. Operating expenses for 2015 were $2,582,554, which decreased $94,175 from 2014. This decrease is due to less spending for waste water treatment plant services compared to those in the previous year. It is important that this fund have positive operating results so as not to place an additional burden on other city funds. It is also important that the City continue to monitor sewage rates so they are designed to also provide for future repairs and replacement of infrastructure assets. -15- LIQUOR ENTERPRISE FUND The following graph presents 10 years of comparative operating results for the Liquor Enterprise Fund: $– $400,000 $800,000 $1,200,000 $1,600,000 $2,000,000 $2,400,000 $2,800,000 $3,200,000 $3,600,000 $4,000,000 $4,400,000 $4,800,000 $5,200,000 $5,600,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Liquor Enterprise Fund Year Ended December 31, Sales Cost of Sales Operating Expenses Operating Income (Loss) The Liquor Enterprise Fund ended 2015 with a net position balance of $905,806, an increase of $275,808 from the prior year. Of the net position balance, $217,867 represents the investment in liquor capital assets, leaving $687,939 of unrestricted net position. Liquor sales for 2015 were $5,489,430, an increase of $323,693 (6.3 percent) from last year. Sales have steadily increased over the last several years, increasing by about 51.7 percent since 2006. The Liquor Enterprise Fund generated a gross profit of $1,519,843 in 2015, or about 27.7 percent, of gross sales. The Liquor Enterprise Fund’s gross profit margin increased significantly when compared to prior years. Operating expenses for 2015 were $801,545, an increase of $106,978 from last year due to increased personal services and materials and supplies to meet the demand of consumers. -16- FIBER OPTICS ENTERPRISE FUND The following graph presents six years of comparative operating results for the Fiber Optics Enterprise Fund: $(1,500,000) $(1,000,000) $(500,000) $– $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Fiber Optics Enterprise Fund Year Ended December 31, Operating Revenue Operating Expense Operating Income (Loss) Before Depreciation At December 31, 2015, the Fiber Optics Enterprise Fund had a cash balance of $341,721 and a net position balance of $13,400,141. Net position consisted of $13,475,112 in net investment in capital assets and a deficit of $74,971 as unrestricted net position. Operating revenue in this fund was $1,642,403, a decrease of $119,575, or 6.8 percent, in 2015. Operating expenses declined $381,292 in fiscal 2015. This was mainly due to no bond settlement charges in fiscal 2015 as there was in 2014 for the extinguishment of debt. The operating loss before depreciation in this fund during this year was $367,607. This was an improvement of $238,569 in the current year, mostly related to decreased operating expenses as previously discussed. As a result of improved but still poor operating results, we recommend the City continue to monitor the financial results of this fund. The continued monitoring of this fund would include a discussion on how the current financial results compare to the future strategic plan for this fund. Most importantly, the future strategic plan should continue to include a discussion on the impact this fund is having on the overall financial health of the City, including what impact the changes made to the plan are expected to have on the City as a whole in the short-term but also over the long-term. -17- DEPUTY REGISTRAR ENTERPRISE FUND The following graph presents eight years of comparative operating results for the City’s Deputy Registrar Enterprise Fund: $– $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 $450,000 $500,000 $550,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Deputy Registrar Fund Year Ended December 31, Operating Revenue Operating Expense Operating Income (Loss) before depreciation At December 31, 2015, the Deputy Registrar Enterprise Fund had a cash balance of $598,017 and a net position balance of $409,834. Net position consisted of $44,579 in net investment in capital assets and $365,255 of unrestricted net position. Deputy Registrar Enterprise Fund operating revenues for 2015 were $535,931, which is $38,133 more than the previous year, mostly due to an increase in charges for services. Operating expenses for 2015 were $318,686, which is $15,977 higher than 2014. As shown in the above graph, operating income before depreciation has been steadily increasing over the past several years. -18- GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS In addition to fund-based information, the current reporting model for governmental entities also requires the inclusion of two government-wide financial statements designed to present a clear picture of the City as a single, unified entity. These government-wide statements provide information on the total cost of delivering services, including capital assets and long-term liabilities. STATEMENT OF NET POSITION The Statement of Net Position essentially tells you what your city owns and owes at a given point in time, the last day of the fiscal year. Theoretically, net position represents the resources the City has leftover to use for providing services after its debts are settled. However, those resources are not always in spendable form, or there may be restrictions on how some of those resources can be used. Therefore, net position is divided into three components: net investment in capital assets, restricted, and unrestricted. The following table presents the components of the City’s net position as of December 31, 2014 and 2015, for governmental activities and business-type activities: Increase 2014 2015 (Decrease) Net position Governmental activities Net investment in capital assets 48,253,810$ 38,099,568$ (10,154,242)$ Restricted 10,453,449 12,633,770 2,180,321 Unrestricted 14,792,521 18,144,067 3,351,546 Total governmental activities 73,499,780 68,877,405 (4,622,375) Business-type activities Net investment in capital assets 42,117,264 40,722,087 (1,395,177) Unrestricted 9,121,952 8,163,982 (957,970) Total business-type activities 51,239,216 48,886,069 (2,353,147) Total net position 124,738,996$ 117,763,474$ (6,975,522)$ December 31, The City’s total net position at December 31, 2015 was $6,975,522 lower than the prior year. Of the decrease, $4,622,375 came from governmental activities and $2,353,147 from business-type activities. The change in the table above is a combination of a decline in net position of $3,753,844 in fiscal 2015 and a change in accounting principle for reporting the City’s participation in the Public Employees Retirement Association and the Monticello Fire Relief Association pension plan that reduced beginning unrestricted net position by $3,221,678. During the year ended December 31, 2015, the City also recorded a contribution of land to Wright County around the Bertram Chain of Lakes totaling $5,511,547. -19- STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES The Statement of Activities tracks the City’s yearly revenues and expenses, as well as any other transactions that increase or reduce total net positions. These amounts represent the full cost of providing services. The Statement of Activities provides a more comprehensive measure than just the amount of cash that changed hands, as reflected in the fund-based financial statements. This statement includes the cost of supplies used, depreciation of long-lived capital assets, and other accrual-based expenses. The following table presents the change in net position of the City for the years ended December 31, 2015 (including the change in accounting principle discussed previously) and 2014: 2014 2015 Net (expense) revenue Governmental activities General government (1,308,098)$ (1,233,638)$ Public safety (1,531,029) (1,284,810) Public works (3,335,479) (2,456,534) Sanitation (469,571) (563,477) Transit (10,000) (40,000) Recreation and culture (1,180,833) (1,645,565) Economic development (1,084,620) (1,533,222) Interest on long-term debt (649,854) (688,855) Business-type activities Water 113,635 292,437 Sewer (273,360) 607,783 Liquor 596,393 725,707 Fiber optic (1,157,192) (894,058) Deputy registrar 197,562 221,963 (10,092,446) (8,492,269) General revenues Property taxes 8,393,374 8,683,585 Tax increments 826,363 727,617 Franchise taxes 357,409 333,484 General aids and grants 27,502 – Investment earnings 1,184,104 386,656 Other general revenues 217,643 – Gain on sale of capital assets – 118,630 Special item – gain on extinguishment of debt 20,990,451 – Special item – contribution of land to Wright County – (5,511,547) 31,996,846 4,738,425 21,904,400 (3,753,844) Net position – beginning of year, as previously reported 102,834,596 124,738,996 Change in accounting principle – (3,221,678) Net position – beginning of year, as restated 102,834,596 121,517,318 Net position – end of year 124,738,996$ 117,763,474$ Total net (expense) revenue Total general revenues Change in net position Net Change One of the goals of this statement is to provide a side-by-side comparison to illustrate the difference in the way the City’s governmental and business-type operations are financed. The table clearly illustrates the dependence of the City’s governmental operations on general revenues, such as property taxes and unrestricted grants. It also shows if the City’s business-type activities are generating sufficient program revenues (service charges and program-specific grants) to cover expenses. This is critical given the current downward pressures on the general revenue sources. -20- LEGISLATIVE UPDATES Despite the 2015 legislative session beginning with a projected budget excess of $1.87 billion for the 2016–2017 biennium, the most favorable budget forecast in over a decade, little was accomplished during the regular legislative session due to partisan disagreement. The regular session adjourned without the Legislature bringing forth a number of significant funding bills, including the Omnibus Legacy Bill (funding for outdoor heritage, clean water, parks and trails, arts, and cultural heritage) and a bonding bill for capital projects. The Governor subsequently vetoed a number of other funding bills, including the Omnibus E–12 Education Bill due to the Legislature not addressing his demand for a universal preschool provision. Eventually, a one-day special session produced funding bills for E–12 education, jobs and energy, Legacy programs, environment and agriculture, and capital investment. The following is a summary of recent legislation affecting Minnesota cities in 2015 and into the future: Local Government Aid (LGA) – The Legislature completely overhauled the LGA formula for fiscal year 2014 and thereafter, creating a three-tiered formula that includes separate “need factor” calculations for cities with populations under 2,500, between 2,500 and 10,000, or over 10,000. The new formula simplified the LGA calculation, and reduced the volatility of the LGA distribution by limiting the amount it may decline in a given year. Beginning in 2015, any reduction to a city’s calculated LGA distribution will be limited to the lesser of $10 per capita, or 5 percent of their previous year net tax levy. For cities that gain under the new formula, the increases will be distributed proportionate to their unmet need, as determined by the new “need factor” calculations. The state-wide LGA appropriation was $516.9 million for fiscal 2015, and is $519.4 million for fiscal 2016 and thereafter. Sales Tax Exemption – Cities (both home-rule and statutory) were exempted from paying sales tax on qualifying purchases, effective for purchases made on or after January 1, 2014. Purchases of goods or services by an exempt local government for a publicly-provided liquor store, gas or electric utility, golf course, marina, campground, café, laundromat, solid waste hauling or recycling operation, or landfill will remain taxable. The 2014 Legislature extended the definition of tax exempt local government to include all special district; city, county, or township instrumentalities; economic development authorities; housing and redevelopment authorities; and all joint power boards or organizations. However, the effective date of this expanded exemption list was delayed until January 1, 2017 by the 2015 Legislature. Omnibus Bonding Bill – The Legislature approved a scaled-down Omnibus Bonding Bill during the special session, authorizing approximately $370 million in capital improvements. Included in the funding approved was $172.5 million for transportation infrastructure, $23.5 million for flood hazard mitigation, $10 million for Public Financing Agency (PFA) grants to municipalities for wastewater infrastructure, and $1.5 million to the Metropolitan Council for inflow and infiltration improvement grants to metro area cities. Legacy Funding – The Legacy bill included $9.25 million annually to finance grants for city water infrastructure improvements through the PFA. It also included $17.25 million annually to fund “SCORE” block grants to counties for recycling and waste reduction (a portion of which is passed through to cities) and $1 million of annual funding for a new grant program to establish or improve recycling programs in non-metro area cities. Broadband Initiative – The Omnibus Jobs and Energy Bill passed in the special session included $10.6 million to finance the Border-to-Border Broadband Grant Program, a one-time appropriation available until June 30, 2017. -21- Municipal State-Aid Streets – Included in the Omnibus Transportation Bill were annual funding allocations for municipal state-aid streets of $107.7 million for fiscal 2016 and $178.1 million for fiscal 2017, which represents an increase of approximately $41 million over the previous biennium. Small Cities Assistance Account – A one-time appropriation of $12.5 million was provided to create a new Small Cities Assistance Account to assist with construction and maintenance of roads located within eligible cities, defined as a statutory or home-rule charter city that does not receive municipal state aid street financing (generally those with a population under 5,000). The aid will be distributed to eligible cities biannually in each year funds are available based on the following formula: 5 percent equally to all eligible cities; 35 percent allocated proportionately on each city’s share of lane miles to the total for all eligible cities; 35 percent allocated proportionately on each city’s population to the total for all eligible cities; and 25 percent allocated proportionately on each city’s state-aid adjustment factor to the total for all eligible cities. Workforce Housing Grant Program – The Omnibus Jobs and Energy Bill included annual funding of $2 million for fiscal 2016 and 2017 for a new Workforce Housing Grant Program. Eligible cities can use the grants to develop “market rate residential rental property” to serve employees of businesses located in the eligible project areas. The maximum grant award may not exceed 25 percent of the rental housing development project cost; and awards must be matched by a local unit of government, business, or nonprofit organization with $1 for each $2 of grant funding. Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Policy – Law enforcement agencies that utilize ALPRs are required to establish policies governing their use that are consistent with statutory guidelines. The Legislature placed limitations on the type of data that can be collected using ALPRs, and clarified the circumstances under which that data is considered public or private. A limitation of 60 days was established for the retention of data collected by ALPR not related to an active criminal investigation. Standards were established for the sharing of ALPR data between law enforcement agencies. Elections – The Elections Omnibus Bill made numerous changes to elections administration laws, including requirements for filing fees for statutory cities, ballot formatting and marking, absentee ballots, and election recounts. Energy Conservation Measures – The Uniform Municipal Contracting Law was amended to add water metering devices that increase efficiency to the definition of energy conservation measures, enabling municipalities to enter into guaranteed energy savings contracts for the use of water metering devices. Responsible Contractor Requirement – The “responsible contractor” law enacted by the 2014 Legislature became effective on January 1, 2015. Contractors who bid on public contracts in excess of $50,000 are now required to certify that they are a “responsible bidder” in order to be awarded a contract as the lowest responsible bidder or best value alternative. The 2015 Legislature made several clarifications and modifications to the law, including: exempting design professionals and materials suppliers from the requirements; making motor carriers subject to the requirements and establishing a separate verification standard for them; excluding tax increment financing revenue from the value of a construction contract under the law; and allowing general contractors to submit bids without obtaining verification from all subcontractors that bid on the project (the successful prime contractor must submit a supplemental verification under oath prior to the execution of the contract). Appraisal Requirements for Eminent Domain – Effective July 1, 2015, the appraisal requirements for the acquisition of property by eminent domain are changed to require the acquiring entity to obtain at least one appraisal for the property proposed to be acquired only if the acquisition value is greater than $25,000. For acquisitions less than $25,000, the acquiring entity may obtain a minimum damage acquisition report in lieu of an appraisal. -22- Firefighter Employment Provisions and Volunteer Benefits – The Omnibus Public Safety Finance and Policy Bill made a number of changes related to firefighters, including: allowing relief association dues as a voluntarily payroll deduction, allowing volunteer firefighters to be paid less frequently than every 31 days, requiring the licensure of all full-time firefighters by the State Board of Firefighter Training and Education, and expanding “continued employer health insurance benefits” to include dependents of volunteer firefighters killed in the line of duty. Police and Firefighter Retirement Supplemental State Aid – The volunteer firefighter portion of the Police and Firefighter Retirement Supplemental State Aid Program was made permanent. The minimum obligation of municipalities to an associated relief association special fund is now reduced by the amount of both fire state aid and police and firefighter retirement supplemental state aid. Police and firefighter retirement supplemental state aid is also added to the calculation of the exception to municipal ratification requirement for lump-sum plans. Pensions – A number of changes to the pension plans administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) were adopted, effective June 30, 2015, including:  The future interest rate actuarial assumption for the PERA General Plan and PERA Police and Fire Plan are changed from 8.5 percent to 8.0 percent for actuarial valuations prepared after June 30, 2015.  The refund repayment interest rate and prior service credit purchase payment determination rate for the PERA General Plan and PERA Police and Fire Plan are also changed from 8.5 percent to 8.0 percent.  The CPI-based post-retirement adjustment mechanism for the PERA Police and Fire Plan is replaced with a flat 2.5 percent increase when the plan reaches a 90 percent funding level.  The contribution stabilizer mechanisms applicable to the PERA General Plan are revised, broadening the factors the plan’s Board of Trustees may consider before recommending an increase in the plan contribution rates.  Definitions of salary, termination of service, allowable service, retirement, and volunteer firefighter were revised for all applicable PERA plans.  Changes in eligibility, service pension levels, ancillary benefits, and service time calculations were made to the PERA Statewide Volunteer Firefighter Plan, lump sum retirement division. A change was also made to create a “monthly benefit retirement division” within this plan to facilitate the transfer of individual volunteer firefighter association monthly benefit plans to the statewide plan.  A number of administrative language changes were made to complete the merger of the Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund into the PERA General Plan, which was effective January 1, 2015. -23- ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING UPDATES GASB STATEMENT NO. 72, FAIR VALUE MEASURE AND APPLICATION The primary objective of this statement is to address accounting and financial reporting issues related to fair value measurements. Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. This statement provides guidance for determining a fair value measurement for financial reporting purposes. It also provides guidance for applying fair value to certain investments and disclosures related to all fair value measurements. This statement generally requires investments to be measured at fair value. An investment is defined as a security or other asset that (a) a government holds primarily for the purpose of income or profit and (b) has a present service capacity based solely on its ability to generate cash or to be sold to generate cash. This statement is effective for financial statements for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2015. Earlier application is encouraged. GASB STATEMENT NO. 73, ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING FOR PENSIONS AND RELATED ASSETS THAT ARE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF GASB STATEMENT 68, AND AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF GASB STATEMENTS 67 AND 68 The objective of this statement is to improve the usefulness of information about pensions included in financial statements of state and local governments for making decisions and assessing accountability. This statement also clarifies the application of certain provisions of GASB Statement Nos. 67 and 68 regarding 10-year schedules of required supplementary information (RSI) and other recognition issues pertaining to employers and nonemployer contributing entities. These changes will improve financial reporting by establishing a single framework for the presentation of information about pensions, enhancing comparability for similar information reported by employers and nonemployer contributing entities. The requirements of this statement that address accounting and financial reporting by employers and governmental nonemployer contributing entities for pensions not within the scope of GASB Statement No. 68 are effective for financial statements for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2016, and the requirements of this statement that address financial reporting for assets accumulated for purposes of providing those pensions are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2015. The requirements of this statement for pension plans that are within the scope of GASB Statement No. 67 or for pensions that are within the scope of GASB Statement No. 68 are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2015. Earlier application is encouraged. GASB STATEMENT NO. 74, FINANCIAL REPORTING FOR POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PLANS OTHER THAN PENSION PLANS The objective of this statement is to improve the usefulness of information about post-employment benefits other than pensions (other post-employment benefits [OPEB]). This statement replaces GASB Statement Nos. 43 and 57. It also includes requirements for defined contribution OPEB plans that replace the requirements for those OPEB plans in GASB Statement Nos. 25, 43, and 50. GASB Statement No. 75, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions, establishes new accounting and financial reporting requirements for governments whose employees are provided with OPEB, as well as for certain nonemployer governments that have a legal obligation to provide financial support for OPEB provided to the employees of other entities. -24- This statement will improve financial reporting primarily through enhanced note disclosures and schedules of RSI that will be presented by OPEB plans administered through trusts meeting the specified criteria. The new information will enhance the decision-usefulness of the financial reports of those OPEB plans, their value for assessing accountability, and their transparency by providing information about measures of net OPEB liabilities and explanations of how and why those liabilities changed from year-to-year. The net OPEB liability information, including ratios, will offer an up-to-date indication of the extent to which the total OPEB liability is covered by the fiduciary net position of the OPEB plan. The comparability of the reported information for similar types of OPEB plans will be improved by the changes related to the attribution method used to determine the total OPEB liability. The contribution schedule will provide measures to evaluate decisions related to the assessment of contribution rates in comparison with actuarially determined rates, if such rates are determined. In addition, new information about rates of return on OPEB plan investments will inform financial report users about the effects of market conditions on the OPEB plan’s assets over time and provide information for users to assess the relative success of the OPEB plan’s investment strategy and the relative contribution that investment earnings provide to the OPEB plan’s ability to pay benefits to plan members when they come due. This statement is effective for financial statements for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2016. Earlier application is encouraged. GASB STATEMENT NO. 75, ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING FOR POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS OTHER THAN PENSIONS The primary objective of this statement is to improve accounting and financial reporting by state and local governments for post-employment benefits other than pensions (OPEB). It also improves information provided by state and local governmental employers about financial support for OPEB that is provided by other entities. This statement replaces the requirements of GASB Statement Nos. 45 and 57. GASB Statement No. 74 establishes new accounting and financial reporting requirements for OPEB plans. This statement establishes standards for recognizing and measuring liabilities, deferred outflows of resources, deferred inflows of resources, and expense/expenditures. For defined benefit OPEB, this statement identifies the methods and assumptions that are required to be used to project benefit payments, discount projected benefit payments to their actuarial present value, and attribute that present value to periods of employee service. Note disclosure and RSI requirements about defined benefit OPEB also are addressed. This statement is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2017. Earlier application is encouraged. Similar to changes implemented for pensions, this statement requires the liability of employers and nonemployer contributing entities to employees for defined benefit OPEB (net OPEB liability) to be measured as the portion of the present value of projected benefit payments to be provided to current active and inactive employees that is attributed to those employees’ past periods of service (total OPEB liability), less the amount of the OPEB plan’s fiduciary net position. GASB STATEMENT NO. 77, TAX ABATEMENT DISCLOSURES This statement requires disclosure of tax abatement information about (1) a reporting government’s own tax abatement agreements, and (2) those that are entered into by other governments and that reduce the reporting government’s tax revenues. Tax abatements are widely used by state and local governments, particularly to encourage economic development. For financial reporting purposes, this statement defines a tax abatement as resulting from an agreement between a government and an individual or entity in which the government promises to forgo tax revenues and the individual or entity promises to subsequently take a specific action that contributes to economic development or otherwise benefits the government or its citizens. -25- The requirements of this statement improve financial reporting by giving users of financial statements essential information that is not consistently or comprehensively reported to the public at present. Disclosure of information about the nature and magnitude of tax abatements will make these transactions more transparent to financial statement users. As a result, users will be better equipped to understand (1) how tax abatements affect a government’s future ability to raise resources and meet its financial obligations, and (2) the impact those abatements have on a government’s financial position and economic condition. The requirements of this statement are effective for financial statements for periods beginning after December 15, 2015. Earlier application is encouraged. GASB STATEMENT NO. 78, PENSIONS PROVIDED THROUGH CERTAIN MULTIPLE-EMPLOYER DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS The objective of this statement is to address a practice issue regarding the scope and applicability of GASB Statement No. 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions—an amendment of GASB Statement No. 27. This issue is associated with pensions provided through certain multiple-employer defined benefit pension plans and to state or local governmental employers whose employees are provided with such pensions. Prior to the issuance of this statement, the requirements of GASB Statement No. 68 applied to the financial statements of all state and local governmental employers whose employees are provided with pensions through pension plans that are administered through trusts that meet the criteria in paragraph 4 of GASB Statement No. 68. This statement amends the scope and applicability of GASB Statement No. 68 to exclude pensions provided to employees of state or local governmental employers through a cost-sharing, multiple-employer defined benefit pension plan that (1) is not a state or local governmental pension plan, (2) is used to provide defined benefit pensions both to employees of state or local governmental employers and to employees of employers that are not state or local governmental employers, and (3) has no predominant state or local governmental employer (either individually or collectively with other state or local governmental employers that provide pensions through the pension plan). This statement establishes requirements for recognition and measurement of pension expense, expenditures, and liabilities; note disclosures; and RSI for pensions that have the characteristics described above. The requirements of this statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2015. Early application is encouraged. GASB STATEMENT NO. 79, CERTAIN EXTERNAL INVESTMENT POOLS AND POOL PARTICIPANTS This statement establishes criteria for an external investment pool to qualify for making the election to measure all of its investments at amortized cost for financial reporting purposes. An external investment pool qualifies for that reporting if it meets all of the applicable criteria established in this statement. The specific criteria address (1) how the external investment pool transacts with participants; (2) requirements for portfolio maturity, quality, diversification, and liquidity; and (3) calculation and requirements of a shadow price. Significant noncompliance prevents the external investment pool from measuring all of its investments at amortized cost for financial reporting purposes. If an external investment pool meets the criteria in this statement and measures all of its investments at amortized cost, the pool’s participants also should measure their investments in that external investment pool at amortized cost for financial reporting purposes. If an external investment pool does not meet the criteria in this statement, the pool’s participants should measure their investments in that pool at fair value. This statement establishes additional note disclosure requirements for qualifying external investment pools that measure all of their investments at amortized cost for financial reporting purposes and for governments that participate in those pools. Those disclosures for both the qualifying external investment pools and their participants include information about any limitations or restrictions on participant withdrawals. The requirements of this statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2015, except for certain provisions on portfolio quality, custodial credit risk, and shadow pricing. Those provisions are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2015. Earlier application is encouraged. -26- GASB STATEMENT NO. 80, BLENDING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN COMPONENT UNITS—AN AMENDMENT OF GASB STATEMENT NO. 14 The objective of this statement is to clarify the financial statement presentation requirements for certain component units. This statement amends the blending requirements for the financial statement presentation of component units of all state and local governments. The additional criterion requires blending of a component unit incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation in which the primary government is the sole corporate member. The additional criterion does not apply to component units included in the financial reporting entity pursuant to the provisions of GASB Statement No. 39, Determining Whether Certain Organizations Are Component Units—an amendment of GASB Statement No. 14. The requirements of this statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2016. Earlier application is encouraged. CHANGES TO REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL GRANTS In December 2013, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular released final guidance on administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements for federal awards. The final guidance, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (“Uniform Guidance”), supersedes and streamlines eight existing OMB Circulars into one document that includes OMB Circulars A-21, A-87, A-89, A-102, A-110, A-122, A-133, and the guidance in OMB Circular A-50 on Single Audit Act follow-up. The Uniform Guidance, which is located in Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), consolidates previous guidance into a streamlined format that aims to improve both its clarity and accessibility, lessen administrative burdens for federal award recipients, and reduce the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse. The Following is a Summary of Significant Changes for Grant Recipients:  Changes time and effort documentation requirements by providing possibilities for alternative methods of accounting for salaries and wages based on achievement of performance outcomes.  Non-federal entities must have a financial management system that includes, but is not limited to: a comparison of expenditures with budget amounts for each federal award, written procedures to implement the requirements of cash management, and written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with Subpart E – Cost Principles.  Governments must comply with the new general procurement standards which include, but are not limited to: written standards covering conflicts of interest of employees engaged in the selection, award, and administration of contracts and documented procurement procedures that include an analysis of lease versus purchase alternatives when appropriate.  Governments will now be required to follow the five procurement methods which include, at times, more restrictive compliance requirements than Minnesota Statutes. For example: small purchases (over $3,000 prior to October 1, 2015 and over $3,500 after October 1, 2015) will require quotes.  There are new requirements for governments with subrecipients (or those making subawards), which include, but are not limited to: a required written risk assessment of each subrecipient, which may require you to provide training and on-site reviews of their program operations.  For governments with subrecipients or those that operate as a fiscal host of a federal grant award and thus provide subawards, payments must be made in advance to the subrecipients, unless certain requirements are not met, then the reimbursement method can be used. -27- Among Other Matters Specifically Applicable to Auditors, Changes to the Uniform Guidance Include:  Raising both the threshold that triggers a Single Audit and the threshold for Type A/B program determination to $750,000.  Changing the high-risk program criteria for Type A programs.  Reducing the number of high-risk Type B programs that must be tested as major programs.  Revising the Type B small program floor.  Reducing the percentage of coverage requirement to 40 percent for normal auditees and 20 percent for low-risk auditees.  Revising the criteria for low-risk auditee status.  Increasing the threshold for reporting findings to $25,000 in questioned costs and requiring more detailed information to be reported. Effective Dates: Year beginning January 1, 2015 –  All administrative requirements and cost principles will apply to new awards made after December 26, 2014.  Governmental entities are required to comply with the Uniform Guidance once the new regulations are in effect at the Federal government level (December 26, 2014).  Any funding drawdowns made after January 1, 2015 must comply with the Uniform Guidance.  Must document whether the entity is in compliance with the old or new procurement standards listed in Subpart D, Sections 200.317–200.326. The federal government has provided a two-year grace period for implementing the new procurement standards. Year beginning January 1, 2016 –  All administrative requirements and cost principles will apply to new awards made after December 26, 2014.  Subpart F – Audit Requirements are applicable. Year beginning January 1, 2017 –  Must have implemented the new procurement standards of the Uniform Guidance, if the government initially elected the two-year grace beginning January 1, 2015.  At this point, all of the new Uniform Guidance at Title 2 CFR 200 is applicable. Recommended Action Items: We recommend that award recipients familiarize themselves with the new requirements contained in the Uniform Guidance and develop a plan to become compliant with the new regulations. Consider the following –  Attend training on the new uniform administrative requirements.  Identify needed policy and procedure changes, especially in the areas of: o Financial management o Payment o Procurement o Compensation o Travel costs  Identify internal controls that might need to be established or modified.  Determine who within your organization is responsible for each action item.  Determine the timing of each action item.  Determine when you will implement the new procurement standards and document in writing. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK