First of two parts. On April 21st I posted some thoughts regarding the MPRB budget planning process that was beginning with a series of focus groups and surveys (links below). I raised several issues and had many questions-- chief of which centered on the self-selected focus groups and why the golf courses and capital budget were off-limits in the overall budget review process. Public budget discussions in the focus groups were strictly limited to the operating budget.
Anyway, Annie Young forwarded my post to staff, and Don Siggelkow kindly sent me a stack of programmatic and budget documents to review: -Playing for Life, MPRB Superintendents Report 2000 -Playing for Life, MPRB Superintendents Report 2001 -Annual Financial Report, Year End 2001 -a MPRB 2003 Budget, undated -summary golf course data, fees, etc. My thanks to both Annie and Don. And, my thanks to other Park Board members who take the time to monitor this list and post their comments... John Erwin and Vivian Mason come to mind. Alas, I've been busy and slow in reviewing the material Don sent, but I've made some notes. Talking with a Park Board member the other day, I found that the budget review process remains ongoing; LGA uncertainty is resolved for the time being, and it's a good time to continue a public discussion of the issues. Staff budget hearings are scheduled June 25-July 25, with Board budget work sessions scheduled for July 16th and Aug. 13th. Hence this post, Park Board Budgets II-a, is intended to add information to the discussion and update earlier issues and questions regarding the MPRB budget process and budgeting priorities. It's not my intent to audit annual reports and budgets-- I don't have the time nor inclination. However, I did look the reports over and I'd hope other list members, park users, taxpayers and voters will pursue some of the issues I highlight and ask further questions of MPRB members regarding the budget planning process, their budgetary priorities and how they were established. ~~~~~~~~~~ As to my original concerns over the operating budgets and exclusion of golf courses (Enterprise Funds) and the capital budget from public discussion, I'll provide some summary financial background material I gleaned from the budget documents: 1. The '01 MPRB balance sheet identified $246 million in assets, including $18 million in total liabilities and $228 million in equity- at year end 2001. However, the Notes to the Financial Statements indicate that data in these 'total' columns is "presented only to facilitate analysis. Data in these columns does not present financial position, results of operation and changes in cash flows in conformity with GAAP. Interfund eliminations have not been made..." Hopefully they are close. What is important to recognize is that a large share of these assets represent real estate-- park land and golf courses, most carried on the books at original acquisition prices (some even donated?). Thus the true value of these assets greatly exceeds the stated book values. I'll return to this. Included in the above balance sheet totals, is $18 million in Enterprise Accounts (w/ 95% as equity) and $12 million in Internal Service Accounts (w/ 40% as debt), both Accounts identified as Proprietary Funds. Enterprise funds account for the self-supporting activities like golf courses, refectories, sports complex, ice arena, etc. While Internal Service Funds account for materials and supplies, purchase/rental of fleet equipment and information technology; and the MPRB Self-Insurance Fund. [Annual Financial Report- Year End '01, Combined Balance Sheet, Exhibit 1] I'll discuss the Enterprise and Internal Service Funds later. 2. The Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Balances For All Government Funds (Gov't. Funds include General Operating Funds, Special Revenue Funds and Capital Project Funds) shows Capital Project Funds accounting for over 27 percent of total Government Funds expenditures in '01, with Total Expenditures ($71 million) exceeding Total Revenues ($60 million) by over $11 million. However, Operating Transfers from other accounts resulted in positive fund balances at year end (General, Special and Total) with a slight negative balance in the Capital Project Account. (Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances- Exhibit 2, Year End 2001; the same 'Notes disclaimer' from above applies to this Total column as well). Since this was the only Annual Financial Report I had available, I couldn't compare '01 data with other years to define any trends, etc.-- and trends are always interesting. But, as I said, I'm not interested in auditing the accounts, so please don't send me more data. ~~~~~~~~~~ While I'm confident all Balance Sheet and Combined Statement entries are accurate and easily explained/documented, the primary point here is to realize the important role capital budgets play in the overall budget process, and to recognize their order of magnitude. By and large, capital expenditures impact operating and maintenance expenses in future years-- hence they are pertinent to any planning-oriented discussion of operating budgets-- i.e. deferring capital repairs can lead to increased operation/maintenance expense, and new buildings must be operated and maintained in the future. Also, assets held should produce acceptable returns in one fashion or another. Holding any given asset involves opportunity costs-- the forgone value of resources used in their 'best' alternative use; a currently available alternative that is sacrificed; the cash flows, or other values, that could be generated from assets owned-- based on market values, not book values. And, I'm NOT suggesting we sell city parklands to the highest bidder; we should, however, be cognizant of the values of assets held, in comparison to other highly valued options that may be available-- the opportunity costs. City residents should have the opportunity to evaluate options available. For instance, what value would city residents place on upper Mississippi River access, potential park lands and trails which the Park Board doesn't own- and may never own for lack of funds- relative to current uses of other assets held, i.e. any of seven golf courses owned, many of which aren't even located in the city? Where are our priorities and how are they defined? The approved MPRB 'tax supported funds' operating budget for 2003 is $50.3 million, while non-tax-supported Enterprise Fund revenues are projected at $12.1 million and Internal Service Funds (including self-insurance) at $7 million, for a total of approximately $69.4 million. There is also a $2.5 million capital budget comprised of $1.9 million in bonded debt and $0.6 million in tax levy funds. (MPRB 2003 Budget, undated) The MPRB is limiting budget planning discussions to the $50 million tax-supported portion of the operating budget, and disallowing discussion of the nearly $20 million in non-tax-supported operating funds. And, by keeping golf courses and other assets off the discussion table, there is no chance for public consideration of the opportunity costs, public priorities and possible trade-offs associated with current uses of MPRB property. What better time, and better reason, to examine overall operations and overall budgets, and evaluate current utilization of resources (assets), given the current budget shortfalls-- which will only be worse next year? The MPL is reviewing operating and capital budget options given the current budget dilemma. The City is reviewing operations and restructuring units of local government in light of both capital and operating budget difficulty. The MPS has been cutting operating budgets for the past several years, and I expect they will soon be looking at asset utilization and operational ramifications of possible capital decision alternatives. Why not the MPRB? The Park Superintendent's Staff Budget Hearings are scheduled from June 25th to July 25th; the Board has a Budget Work Session and gets Survey/Community Input Results on July 16th; then, the Board holds another Budget Work Session on proposed service reductions on August 13th, and again on Sept. 10th. Why aren't Park Board meetings televised? I'll have more after the holidays. Michael Hohmann Linden Hills www.mahohmannbizplans.com Note- my initial post regarding the current MPRB budget planning process-- some issues and questions raised can be found in archives at: http://www.mnforum.org/pipermail/mpls/2003-April/023566.html and my response to some feedback to the above post is at: http://www.mnforum.org/pipermail/mpls/2003-April/023587.html -end- TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
