The Amnesia Files
Archives With Perspective2003: City Hall Is Told Its General Fund Created A "False Impression Of Solvency"
(June 8, 2008) -- LBReport.com today initiates a series we call "The Amnesia Files." In this series, we present archival data with perspective, revisiting actions by LB City Hall that taxpayers may have forgotten...and some officials would like taxpayers to forget.
These actions have become inconvenient civic truths, past actions that continue to have present-day consequences.
LBReport.com presents "The Amnesia Files" because, as George Santayana wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Len Wood's 2003 Report On LB's General Fund: "A False Impression Of Solvency"
In 2003, the City Council received a report on LB's General Fund from Len Wood, an expert in municipal finance...who wasn't part of LB City Hall management. He was retained by the City Council to provide an evaluation of City Hall's financial condition.
LBReport.com provides salient extended portions of Mr. Wood's report below with links to the entire document. Mr. Wood's report speaks for itself.
LBReport.com also recaps below salient actions that led up to Mr. Wood's report...and what City Hall said and did in response.
Sept. 2001: In a budget covering the April/June 2002 election cycle when Mayor Beverly O'Neill and Council incumbents Bonnie Lowenthal, Frank Colonna and Jackie Kell sought reelection, the Council increased spending (while other cities curtailed spending after the 9/11 terrorist attacks). The Council action came despite publicly agendized memoranda from then-city management advising that the budget was "balanced" using one-time resources. At about the same time, the Council also approved (8-1, Grabinski dissenting) a Tidelands Trust swap to facilitate what's now called the "Pike @ Rainbow Harbor." A number of local residents called the project a "shopping center by the sea" but the LB Area Chamber of Commerce and Press-Telegram urged approval. A few months earlier, the Council restructured Aquarium debt (which taxpayers were told in 1995 wouldn't likely tap public money) to minimize payments from City Hall's Tidelands Fund in 2002, shifting larger payments to future years (when supporters claimed the Pike project would boost the Aquarium).
April/June 2002: Mayor O'Neill and Councilmembers B. Lowenthal, Colonna and Kell were reelected, with the Chamber of Commerce and Press-Telegram) variously assuring voters that Mayor O'Neill had LB on the right track. New Councilmembers-elect Tonia Reyes Uranga and Val Lerch prepared to take office in mid-July, succeeding term-limited Councilmembers Ray Grabinski and Jerry Shultz.
July 2002: A new contract significantly boosting pensions for non-public-safety city employees was quietly agendized for the last day of the outgoing Council and the first day for incoming Councilmembers. This is a period when media often focus on ceremonies, not substance. (LBReport.com spotted and reported the pension spike story). The Council voted 9-0 at two successive meetings to implement the pension spiking contract. Voting "yes" both times were Councilmembers Bonnie Lowenthal, Dan Baker, Frank Colonna, Dennis Carroll, Jackie Kell, Laura Richardson and Rob Webb. Outgoing Councilmembers Grabinski and Shultz voted "yes" on their last day; Reyes Uranga and Lerch voted "yes" on their first day.
August 2002: Just weeks after voters heard her endorsers say she had the city "on the right track," Mayor O'Neill appears alongside then-City Manager Taboada and announces that City Hall actually faces a financial crisis, possibly the worst in its history.
Sept. 2002: The City Council removes City Manager Henry Taboada and approves a FY 03 budget with an acknowledged structural deficit (ongoing spending exceeding ongoing income).
Fall 2002-Early 2003: The Council directs newly named (interim at first) City Manager Jerry Miller to figure out a way to deal with the deficit. He proposes a plan that over three years cuts over $100k in spending...and tells taxpayers that after the changes LB City Hall will be stronger and healthier. During this period, Councilmember Laura Richardson urges retaining civic fiscal expert Len Woods, who impressed her at a governmental confab, to present a report on LB City Hall's financial condition.
July 2003: After Mr. Wood gave the Council a brief public preview of his report in March 2003, his final report was agendized for July 1, heading into a low news visibility holiday weekend as a City Council "consent calendar" item (no public discussion planned unless the Mayor or a Councilmember requests it). LBReport.com obtained a copy, reported it in detail and made it accessible online.
Excerpts of:
City of Long Beach
Evaluation of Financial Condition
by Len Wood and Associates
Agendized as Consent Calendar Item
Long Beach City Council July 1, 2003 meeting
[City Mgt. Recommended action: Refer to City Council Budget Oversight Committee]
This report addresses the City's financial condition...The City of Long Beach General Fund has a major structural imbalance. Simply stated, ongoing revenues are insufficient to provide the dollars needed to support ongoing programs. For several years, this problem has been masked by the use of one-time revenues to close the gap. This has created a false impression of solvency.
Favorable financial condition requires solvency--the ability of the City to meet its
financial obligations. Solvency, however, has at least three facets.
- 1. Cash Solvency. The City has enough cash on hand to meet its current
obligations without having to borrow.
- 2. Budgetary Solvency. The City generates sufficient resources to pay
obligations without incurring a deficit during the fiscal year.
- 3. Long-Term Solvency. The City has a favorable relationship between ongoing revenues and ongoing expenditures and can meet existing and future obligations without relying upon - one-time sources.
During the recent years, Long Beach has maintained cash and to some degree, budgetary solvency. Cash solvency has been maintained due to the City's healthy cash flow. This has enabled it to meet current obligations without borrowing. Unfortunately, while budgetary solvency has been achieved, it has been done through the use of one-time financial sources. Long-term solvency, however, has not been attained for several years.
Findings
There are a number of findings that highlight the City of Long Beach General Fund financial problem. They include:
- During 10 of the 11 years between 1993 and 2003, the City adopted a
structurally unbalanced budget.
- Between the period from 1993 to 2003 the City appropriated $86,589,000
more in expenditures than it appropriated in current revenues.
- In 2003, the City appropriated and approved, $368,163,055 in expenditures. On the revenue side, the City budgeted $361,336,443. The budget was out of balance by $6,826,612.
- Over these years, the City has balanced the budget by using carryovers
(unspent monies and unanticipated revenues), reserve funds and other one-
time financing sources.
- New and increased revenues were used to enhance existing programs as well
as funding new programs rather than applying these monies to reduce the
structural deficit.
- From 1996-97 through 2002, General Fund expenditures were increased
between the proposed budget and final budget. This trend was halted in 2003,
when the adopted budget was $368,964 lower than the proposed budget.
- While the cost of programs have increased, General Fund expenditures and revenues have decreased when adjusted for population and inflation.
...
Expenditure Growth
Expenditures provide a rough measure of a city's service output. Monitoring a
city's expenditures can help identify whether expenditures are growing excessively;
whether ineffective budgetary controls exist or whether there is growth in programs
that create future expenditure liabilities...
Comment: General Fund expenditures increased every year between 1997 and 2003. However, in most years the rate of growth was moderate, except in 2002 when $36 million was added to the budget. This represented a 11.1% expenditure increase.
Revenue Growth
Revenues set the limits on a 1ocal"government's capacity to provide services. Important issues to consider in revenue analysis are growth, elasticity, flexibility,
dependability, diversity and administration. Monitoring revenues helps a city
determine whether the revenue base is increasing or deteriorating; whether revenues
are estimated properly; and whether revenues are sufficient to cover the costs of
service...
Comment: General fund revenues increased every year from 1997-2003 except for
2000. In that year, revenues decreased approximately $2 million or just under one
percent. Significant revenue increases were budgeted during the years 2002 and
2003. However, the revenue increase in 2002 was not sufficient to cover the additional budgeted expenses in 2002.
Balanced Budget
A city can have a balanced budget yet be headed for fiscal problems. Budgets can
be balanced by using inadvisable one-time sources such as carryovers, reserves,
grants and even debt. An important follow-up question is, "Is it a structurally
balanced budget in which ongoing revenues equal or exceed ongoing expenditures?"...
Comment: From 1997 to 2003 the City adopted a structurally unbalanced budget.
In 2002 the gap between revenues and expenditures was over $24 million. Looked
at another way, current revenues only funded 93% of the adopted budget. Adopting
a structurally unbalanced budget was a practice established several years before
1997...
Additions to the Proposed Budget
The City Manager is charged with preparing the proposed budget. The City
Manager compiles what is termed a unified budget, in that he reviews all
departmental requests, approves or denies them and publishes them in the Proposed
Budget (In Long Beach the Proposed Resource Allocation Plan). This budget is
transmitted to the City Council for consideration and adoption. Once adopted it is
printed and referred to as the Adopted Budget (In Long Beach's case the Adopted
Resource Allocation Plan)...
...The biggest increase occurred in 2002 when an additional $5.5 million was added by the City Council. This is somewhat unusual in that proposed budgets are usually kept at the same level or reduced by the City Council. Modifications and additions costing more money are usually offset by reductions in other areas (especially when a structural deficit exists)...
...Examining per capita revenues shows changes in revenues relative to changes in
population... As population increases, it is expected that revenues and the need for services would increase proportionately. If per capita revenues are decreasing, the City may be unable to maintain existing services at the same level unless it finds new revenue sources or ways to economize...This [chart in report] indicates that revenues per capita dropped from $661.64 to $618.39 or by $43.25 between 1997 and 2002. This represents a 6.5% decrease over this
period.
Expenditures per Capita
...As population increases, it is expected that expenditures and the need for services would increase proportionately. If per capita expenditures are decreasing, the City may not be providing services at the same level as in the past...
Comment: Per capita expenditures followed the same general trend as per capita revenues decreasing from $682.59 to $663.51 or $19.08 during the period 1997 to 2002. However, per capita expenditures increased $28.53 in 2002...
Comparison of Adopted Expenditures to Actual Expenditures
A budget is a plan of action for the organization. Once the budget is adopted,
however, it establishes limits on spending which must be adhered to by staff when
implementing the budget. Unanticipated issues and problems will come up during
the year that change the original assumptions and allocations. Some of these
unanticipated items require additional funding. In these cases, the budget should be
amended to reflect these new costs. A good budget practice is to retain the original
budget amount as the benchmark to see how much the original adopted budget has
changed from the actual expenditures...
In five of the six years displayed [on the chart in text], the estimated actual expenditures exceeded the adopted budget. In 1998 and 2002 actual expenditures exceeded the
adopted budget by over 4%. This chart will be important when monitoring compliance to the Three-Year Strategic Financial Plan targets. For every doIlar that is added to the adopted budget, an equal amount must be found to offset these additional charges...
Resolving the Fiscal Problem
...The main goal of the Three-Year Financial Strategic Plan is to Balance the General
Fund so that recurring revenues exceed or at least equal recurring expenditures...The Long Beach City Council has adopted the Three-Year Financial Strategic Plan and the implementation phase is in progress. There are several issues which should be considered in the implementation phase of the Plan.
Credibility
The biggest challenge the City faces is to establish and maintain credibility. The City
must convince employees, residents, businesses and community organizations that
the problem is truly a crisis. For the past several years, money has been found and
the spending level has been maintained and even increased. To get everyone to
share in the burden, they must be convinced that money isn't hidden or obscured in
some account. "Why should we make the sacrifice? They will find a way to get us
out of it."
The Interim [now permanent] City Manager [Jerry Miller] has used the word "transparency" to describe his policy of shedding light on the budget process. This is an admirable approach. Credibility will be increased by allowing all parties to observe the inner workings of the budget process.
Pressure
Experiences in other cities indicate the Long Beach City Council and staff will endure three very trying years of budget workshops and hearings. In order to bring
the budget back into structural balance, it will be necessary to make hundreds of
painful decisions. There are no easy remedies and each decision will infuriate one or
more interest groups. At each decision point, the council chambers will be filled by
individuals and groups that will bring intense pressure to preserve their interests.
Pleas, tears, requests and threats will be used and the pressure will be unrelenting.
The Council can also expect letter writing campaigns, e-mail flurries, phone calls,
petitions and protest marches. Notwithstanding the pressure, the City Council must
remain steadfast in order to bring the City's finances back into structural balance.
Let's Get Through One More Year
There will be continuous pressure to use one-time monies to "get through one more
year." Experience shows that the more the problem is deferred, the more drastic
the eventual remedy must be. The gap is cumulative. It includes last year's gap plus
any additional gap that is created.
Make An Exception For Us
The City Council will be asked to make specific exceptions to the Three-Year
Strategic Financial Plan. "Our group is different; you can't jeopardize the safety of
the community; don't make seniors solve your problems in their golden years; don't
balance the budget on the backs of employees or you can't devastate the arts," are
just some of the pleas the Council will be confronted with.
Unfortunately, it's a zero sum problem. If City Councilmembers decide to exempt a
particular program, group or cause, it must find offsetting costs in other areas.
The Three-Year Financial Strategic Plan presents a balanced approach to the
problem. Exceptions throw the Plan out of balance. The City Council should
consider developing criteria allowing exceptions only when:
1. They disagree with the Plan's targeted reductions.
2. They come up with offsetting cuts or new revenues (The revenues should be
new and not already planned revenue increases).
3. The City cannot achieve the planned cuts in a particular category...
...
Whenever positive events occur, pressure will be generated to use the money for a
special group or problem. The temptation to spend the proceeds from a positive
gain should be resisted until the structural gap is eliminated. At the very least,
adjustments to the Plan should be made only when all positive and negative impacts
are consider and when the entire plan is reviewed.
When reporting. on the progress in implementing the Strategic Financial Plan, a
summary of positive and negative variances to the Plan should be included...
To view the evaluation in pdf form, click:
Len Wood General Fund Evaluation (pp. 1-19).
Len Wood General Fund Evaluation (pp. 20-34) [added July 5]
A little over sixty days later, having had time to digest Mr. Wood's evaluation and consider City Management's proposed three-year deficit reduction plan, the Council met to discuss its FY 04 budget. On September 9, 2003, then-City Auditor Gary Burroughs engaged in the following colloquy with Councilmembers:
...
Vice Mayor Frank Colonna: ...I like the objective of a three year overview in looking at what we could do to get our house in order. But I think it's going to be important also that we hear a lot from you in terms of what we see in terms of our forecasting in this next coming three year period in order to get a better sense of incoming revenue versus the outgo, especially if what I hear up at the state level may actually happen where they could be some potential spending freezes at the state level.
City Auditor Burroughs: Well you've opened the door so I don't want to make a long speech here, but this is the key thing that has to be looked at [in] the next few months.
I am in 100% support of the proposed budget plan put together and submitted by the City Manager, Jerry Miller, and his staff. But I can't emphasize, and I don't know how to make this stronger: it is critically important that step by step, week by week, month by month, that the comparison between what that plan has projected and what actual results are, that those two comparisons be made ongoing.
We all know that plans are plans, and actual results are always different than what plans are. And as well intended as our plan is, and as well intended as the City Manager and his staff is, and you are as a policy board, on a go-forward basis for us -- because of the critical nature that we're in today financially -- for us to pay attention to where we are at on a go-forward basis I hope is at the front of everybody's mind, at least on a month to month basis. And I hope, Mr. Miller would you concur with that? [apparently receives agreement]
And nobody should have anything to hide. This should all be out in the open for the citizens to see, for policymakers to see, for management to see. I really hope you approve the City Manager's budget plan for next week or whenever you're going to do it. But the key is on a go-forward basis to track and maintain a direct vigilance, observation of what's going on week to week, month to month, in relation to what that plan is because it's critical, Frank, that we stay on track.
And if we get derailed because something else happens in Sacramento or other surprises, we're going to have to react to that and deal with that...I hope that what I'm saying to us is, I've tried to say this bluntly, and here's my concern.
My concern is that if we really don't deal with this budget, if we don't get the financial house in order then, you know, Charter Committees won't mean very much. Nothin' else'll mean
anything because there'll be some judge down here and he'll be making the decisions, and what I have to say, or what you have to say, or what Mr. Miller has to say, won't matter. That will be determined by a judge and I don't want to get us into that position. So I would appreciate your diligence...
...So the way this budget's going to get reduced, if we're gonna get to the numbers that has be there, we're going to have to either reduce what we pay people or reduce the number of people we make payments to, and there's just no getting around that. When it's [personnel costs] 74% of our total budget and we're trying to cut $64 or $67 million out of this thing in the next 24 months, those kind of cost savings are going to have to be realized.
And whether it's done in contracting out, or whether it's done in...the Departments of this city...being willing to cut their budgets but also elected officials like myself and other appointed offices...
When cuts have to be made, management people, policy makers as yourself, you guys draw the line and ask management to manage according to that line. And I think that kind of action's going to have to be taken here...
...This City Hall is in a position today where we're going to have to be able to do more with less, and it's probably with less people, because 74% of our cost is people...
...We can cut other things like smaller kinds of items, some small contracts or some supplies and we can get better prices, we can reduce the number of cell telephones, and we can do those kind of things, but that will not get us to the number that we're trying to get to, and to get to that number we're gonna have to deal with the number of people we have here and how much we pay them.
Councilman Lerch: Mr. Miller, Mr. Burroughs, do you both feel at the end of the Three Year Plan that we've weaned ourselves from one time resources, revenues I mean?
City Manager Miller: ...I would guess that we would have less dependence on one time [revenue sources] and as long as you have a policy that anticipates that and then directs staff as to how your going to use those one times, I think we're going to be OK. But I'm trying to get us past the dependency on the one times and living on basically our doing magic.
Further to follow.
Return To Front Page
Contact us: mail@LBReport.com
|
