03 Nov The Lauderdale Lakes 2011 Financial Statements
This post goes out to that nitwit gossip columnist :JL: who believes our “supposed investigative reporting” is poorly sourced, rambles, and kinda sucks.
Well suck on this Hose-B.
Teaser Alert: It is about to get really f***ing wonky.
This is a tale about the 2013 City of Lauderdale Lakes Budget, or as we have termed it around here, “Bullshitshannanigans“.
We’ll start off with an executive overview, then really deep dive into the data.
Ready? Set? Lets go!
In previous posts, MAOS has pointed out to the State, County, County OIG a vast number of problems with the 2011 HCT audited financial statements. As we identified, it was simply impossible for the City to have $1.6M in special assessments cash and another $2.9M shown in other uses when the city’s of Public Records indicated $1.4M.
So what gives Homey?
Through our painful research (blow me Jose), we have uncovered the truth. Just as I thought, the statements were not correctly presented.
We have the proof.
Attached is our rework (took us about a week) that shows the proper cash position. To support our argument, we’ve included the HCT generated L’ Lakes 2010 financial statements and for another HCT client.
As properly shown, the City did use, er “borrow”, $1.6M in cash from the special assessments (Stormwater and Solid Waste Fees).
:JA: and :ME: also used cash from restricted funds. Given this, MAOS has corrected the cash position for the following:
- Law Enforcement Trust
- The beleaguered Fire Fund with 1.7m fund Balance deficit
- Cash from the 2005 GO Bond restricted for dedicated projects
- Cash from the CDBG Minor Home Repair Grant Fund
- Dedicated Gas Tax funds
The General Fund, an unrestricted fund, is required to to support any other type fund in a deficit. In the case of Lauderdale Lakes, the General Fund is a borrower.
Draw your own conclusions here. As for us, we figured the OIG and SAO need to be made aware.
The Deep Dive into the Data
We have done an in-depth analysis of the 2011 L Lakes financial statements. Since they were released, we have been concerned with the presentation of cash balances and the lack of information.
MAOS has updated (“corrected”) several of the main statements.
Pg 15 – Statement of Net Assets:
We believe that it should show the use of $1.6M in cash by the General Fund (Governmental Funds) now owed to the Business Funds (Special Assessments).
Pgs 17 and 51:
We changed the following amounts of cash in the restricted funds as the General Fund is the only unrestricted fund in the City and is responsible for supporting restricted funds.
- Fire Fund- the $511,490 in cash should not be loaned out. It is a restricted special assessment related to fire service and the fund already has a $1.7M deficit.
- The 2005 GO Bond Construction- again the $646,128 in cash is restricted and only allowed to be used for projects authorized in the bond when passed in 2004.
- Law Enforcement ($25,444) and Code Enforcement ($10,000) Trust Funds- again restricted cash dedicated for certain allowed purposes only.
- Minor Home Repair Fund ($206,987)- this is restricted CDBG MHR funds as authorized for the annual MHR programs only.
- Transportation Gas Tax ($88,698)- this is restricted gas tax money that can only be used for transportation projects.
All of these cash balances in the Governmental Funds are restricted by law or purpose. As such, they are not available for any other use. The General Fund as the only unrestricted type of fund is responsible for support of any Governmental Fund in a cash deficit- even if the GF has to “borrow”.
We beleive that this is the correct presentation of cash for the Proprietary (Special Assessments) Funds- $1.6M loaned to the General Fund for deficits and $352K loaned to the Bldg Fund. As such, the Funds should only show $10,904 not is use.
We totally redid this Note to show the correct amounts.
We added the ending pooled cash balance to this note so the reader will know.
We’ve attached the MUNIS prinotout showing the $1.4M pooled cash ending balance in the City.
Last page of attachment:
Shows the rework of Note 6A and that the City did borrow cash of 1.6m in cash from special assessments.
Includes another nearby City audited by HCT and the correct way to show these balances. Notice how deficit cash balances in the governmental funds are supported by the General Fund. Also see Note on page 41 and that it shows ending pooled cash balances for the City. Also see Note 5 on the correct way to show due to/froms.
Although the City is responsible for preparing financial statements, HCT must audit for accuracy, compliance, etc.
What happened between 2010 and 2011? ME came on board? JA/EH took so much heat on use of cash that they changed things? Again point back to the relationship between JA/EH and Harvey. Harvey look the other way on this?