AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.1.G. - Page 9 One specia� case involved the city of Brisbane. Srisbane has a limited amount af financial data on its website. {See details in Section A. below}. The Grand Jury thercfore relied on statistical trend data in the city's 200� CAFR, the only one available on line, for its analysis. As fQr other cities and the County, #�iose data were sent to a city finance off�cial for verification hefo�e report coznpletion. Un�ike for other cities, however, fhere were signi�`icant differences in Unreserved General Fund Ba�ances for all years in the "corrected" data returned. Follow-u� communications led to the explanation that certain Internal Service Funds, specifically the "Rainy Day Fund" and tk�e "Fringe Benefts Fund" have unxestricted net assets that the city cansiders to be part of its General Fund �Jnrestricted Generai fund Balance, even thougn it hasn't reparted them Ehere. The histary and rational� for these funds was provided. It was also noted that their Auditors in 2010 requir�d the city ta combine the Rainy Day Fund with the General Fund. The city's 2010 CAFR is sti�l not available on the city's website to review. Incorporating tlie changes provided would have irnpacted all c�arts and #ables tnat depend an UGFB in this report. Given the fact that the docurnents needed to confirm the "canections" are not available on the city's website, as well as a concern for accepting information that �s nat reported in the sarne standard sou�rce used for the data :For all other cities and the Cou�ty (�'he Ba�ance Sheet £ar Gove�unentaT Funds), the Grane� 7ury decided �o not change the charts and text to accommodate the Brisbane revisions. The eff�ct a�this is tl�at Brisbane may choose to recalculate its resuits and positioning in the vaz charts and tables using its rriethod of deterraiining reserves and make those available to its elected officials and citizens. The Grand Jury believes all funds considered as General Fund Reserves should be reportEd as GenEral Fu�d Reserves in the financial statements intended for that p�rpose, Discussion A. Availability af Ir�formation Thez are sigz�i#icant differences in tY�e annount of inform�tion governmental entities choose to make conveniently available to interested cit�zens. The Grand �ury foeused on two specific documen�s, the CAFRs and the Budgets, as those were rnost relevant for this investigatian. Chart I below shows the docunnents posted to caty and Caunty websites on Nlarch 10, 2D11, Results ranged from a minimurn of the current year's budget {Portola Valley) to the last ten years afboth CAFRS and Approved Budgets (San Mateo County and Redwaod City). Bnsb�ne, Calma, Pacifica�, and Fartala Valley stil� had not pasted 2010 CAFRs or equivalez�t audited year-end reports as af that date. As � resuit, tIaeir 201 � data is not included in the provided tables or analyszs. � Pacifica posted its 2Q10 CAFR sramekime between 4114111 and 519 D111, too late for aEl of its data #o be ir�du�ded in fhis investigaiion repart. 4