Capital contribution 56,115$ 57,682$ 128,484$ 2,500$ Fleet Facilities
Information
Technology
General Equipment
Replacement
Governmental Activities - Internal Service Funds
168
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
Cash Flows from Operating Activities:
Cash received from customers and users
Cash paid to suppliers for goods and services
Cash paid to employees for services
Claims paid
Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities
Cash Flows from Non-Capital
Financing Activities:
Cash transfers out
Cash transfers in
Payment made to other funds
Advance to other funds
Subventions and grants
Net Cash Provided (Used) by
Non-Capital Financing Activities
Cash Flows from Capital
and Related Financing Activities:
Acquisition and construction of capital assets
Proceeds from sale of capital assets
Net Cash Provided (Used) by
Capital and Related Financing Activities
Cash Flows from Investing Activities:
Interest received
Net Cash Provided (Used) by
Investing Activities
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash
and Cash Equivalents
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Year
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Year
Reconciliation of Operating Income to Net Cash
Provided (Used) by Operating Activities:
Operating income (loss)
Adjustments to Reconcile Operating Income (Loss)
Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities:
Depreciation
(Increase) decrease in receivables
(Increase) decrease in inventory
(Increase) decrease in prepaid expense
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable
Increase (decrease) in accrued liabilities
Increase (decrease) in claims and judgments
Increase (decrease) in net pension liability
Increase (decrease) in net OPEB liability
(Increase) decrease in deferred pension related items
(Increase) decrease in deferred OPEB related items
Increase (decrease) in compensated absences
Total Adjustments
Net Cash Provided (Used) by
Operating Activities
Non-Cash Investing, Capital, and Financing Activities:
Capital contribution
Totals
5,151,270$ 2,112,624$ 675,696$ 2,034,881$ 45,420,596$ (540,557) (2,208,238) (572,595) 146,337 (22,532,877) (564,470) (223,448) - - (6,984,995) (4,480,193) (1,136,018) (662,407) (2,201,457) (8,480,075) (433,950) (1,455,080) (559,306) (20,239) 7,422,649 - - - - (46,434) - - - - 57,666 - - - - (16,955) - - - - 593,804 - 2,243 - - 2,243 - 2,243 - - 590,324 - - - - (11,473,203) - - - - 2,557 - - - - (11,470,646) (12,898) (26,521) (5,584) 6,059 144,576 (12,898) (26,521) (5,584) 6,059 144,576 (446,848) (1,479,358) (564,890) (14,180) (3,313,097) 11,232,910 5,336,958 1,003,433 1,334,529 59,587,287 10,786,062$ 3,857,600$ 438,543$ 1,320,349$ 56,274,190$ (659,053)$ (1,645,549)$ 3,471$ (336,620)$ (13,433,720)$ - - - - 11,184,981 14,453 2,561 489 1,789 (146,927) - - - - (134,410) - - - 233,063 267,312 1,978 (14,258) (563,266) 81,529 (941,466) 699 1,798 - - 60,235 606,661 151,276 - - 757,937 (81,960) 44,730 - - 630,471 - - - - (145,000) (318,411) 1,510 - - 2,760,104 - - - - 6,505,000 1,683 2,852 - - 58,132 225,103 190,469 (562,777) 316,381 20,856,369 (433,950)$ (1,455,080)$ (559,306)$ (20,239)$ 7,422,649$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 244,781$ Worker's
Compensation General Liability
Unemployment
Reserve General Benefits
Governmental Activities - Internal Service Funds
169
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
170
PRIVATE PURPOSE TRUST FUNDS
Private-Purpose Trust funds are used to account for trust arrangements under which principal and income benefit private organizations or other governments.
Endowment Private-Purpose Trust Fund. To accoun t for trust arrangements under which principal and income benefit private organizations.
Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency Private-Purpose Trust Fund. Established to account for the activities of the Successor Agency to the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of Roseville. 171
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
COMBINING STATEMENT OF FIDUCIARY NET POSITION
PRIVATE-PURPOSE TRUST FUNDS
JUNE 30, 2021
Assets:
Cash and investments in City Treasury 1,942,739$ 3,959,196$ 5,901,935$ Receivables:
Accounts 3,644 110,777 114,421 Notes and loans - 2,313,965 2,313,965 Restricted assets:
Cash and investments with fiscal agents - 251,938 251,938 Total Assets 1,946,383 6,635,876 8,582,259 Liabilities:
Accounts payable - 643 643 Accrued liabilities - 804,612 804,612 Long-term liabilities:
Bonds due in one year - 2,424,328 2,424,328 Bonds due in more than one year - 41,487,924 41,487,924 Total Liabilities - 44,717,507 44,717,507 Net Position (Deficit):
1,946,383 (38,081,631) (36,135,248) Total Net Position (Deficit) 1,946,383$ (38,081,631)$ (36,135,248)$ Total
Held in trust for private purposes, organizations and other governments
Endowment
Private-Purpose
Trust
Successor
Agency to the
Redevelopment
Agency Private-
Purpose Trust
172
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FIDUCIARY NET POSITION
PRIVATE-PURPOSE TRUST FUNDS
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
Additions:
Property taxes, net of pass through payments -$ 3,220,763$ 3,220,763$ Investment income (10,968) 59,747 48,779 Total Additions (10,968) 3,280,510 3,269,542 Deductions:
Administrative expenses - 2,041,780 2,041,780 Contractual services 10,447 4,353 14,800 Interest and fiscal charges - 1,031,688 1,031,688 Contributions to other governments - 74,369 74,369 Total Deductions 10,447 3,152,190 3,162,637 Changes in Net Position (21,415) 128,320 106,905 Net Position - Beginning of the Year 1,967,798 (38,209,951) (36,242,153) Net Position - End of the Year 1,946,383$ (38,081,631)$ (36,135,248)$ Endowment
Private-Purpose
Trust
Successor
Agency to the
Redevelopment
Agency Private-
Purpose Trust Total
173
CUSTODIAL FUNDS
Custodial Funds account for assets held by the City as an agent for individuals, governmental entities, and non- public organizations. These funds include the following:
Special Assessments/Community Services Districts (CSDs). These funds account for the monies collected and disbursed for land-based debt, where the City is not obligated for the debt.
North Roseville – Rocklin Sewer Refunding District. To account for debt service related to bonds issued to finance the construction of sewer infrastructure in North Roseville and Rocklin.
Foothills Boulevard Extension Assessment. To collect fees from new development to finance the extension of Foothills Boulevard.
Highway 65 JPA (Bizz Johnson JPA). This JPA, which consists of the City, City of Rocklin and Placer County, was formed to fund interchanges off of Highway 65. The City acts as lead agency and treasurer. The fees are collected via building permits.
Dry Creek Drainage Basin. Fees are collected via building permits for the Dry Creek area and submitted quarterly to Placer County for drainage mitigation.
County Capital Facilities Fee. This fee was established by the County to fund future county capital facilities from development. It is collected via building per mits and submitted quarterly to the County.
South Placer Wastewater Authority (SPWA). SPWA is a Joint Powers Authority comprised of the City, Placer County and South Placer Public Utilities District. The City is acting as the treasurer and construction manager. This JPA was formed to issue debt to facilitate the construction of the regional wastewater infrastructure. The agencies collect regional wastewater connection fees and submit them to SPWA which is used for debt service payments and for the future expansion of facilities.
Special Sewer Benefit Areas. The Sewer Special B enefit Areas were established to reimburse from properties benefiting from certain sewer infrastructure and oversized pipelines in portions of the City. The reimbursements are made to various project participants.
South Placer County Tourism Business Improvement Di strict (SPCTBID). All hotels in the region are assessed fees for the purpose of promoting tourism in the area. These fees are forwarded to the City quarterly and then submitted quarterly to the SPCTBID.
South Placer County Safe Kids Coalition. The fees are collected for and submitted to an organization in Placer County for child safety programs.
External Traffic Mitigation Fees. These fees are co llected via building permits and submitted quarterly to Placer County and Placer County Transportation Author ity to fund regional traffic mitigation due to new developments.
174
CUSTODIAL FUNDS
Placer County Air Pollution Control Fund. The fee is collected to contribute towards construction of a future animal shelter in South Placer County.
Sierra College Boulevard Fund. To account for contributions to provide maintenance of bike trails and open space.
Special Assessment Collection Fees. To account for fees collected for Placer County's administration of the City's Special Assessments.
Developer Reimbursements. To account for developer reimbursements. 175
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
COMBINING STATEMENT OF FIDUCIARY NET POSITION
CUSTODIAL FUNDS
JUNE 30, 2021
Assets:
Cash and investments in City Treasury 24,648,350$ 3,508$ 1,423$ 252,811$ Receivables:
Accounts 1,658,567 - - 294,892 Restricted assets:
Cash and investments with fiscal agents 31,224,997 - - - Total Assets 57,531,914 3,508 1,423 547,703 Deferred Outflows of Resources:
Deferred charge on refunding 18,919,471 - - - Total Deferred Outflows of Resources 18,919,471 - - - Liabilities:
Accounts payable 481 9 4 649 Accrued liabilities 5,598,463 - - - Unearned revenues 82,648 - - - Deposits payable - - - - Due to other government agencies - - - 8,428,220 Long-term liabilities:
Bonds due in one year 14,094,500 - - - Bonds due in more than one year 407,185,938 - - - Total Liabilities 426,962,030 9 4 8,428,869 Net Position (Deficit):
(350,510,645) 3,499 1,419 (7,881,166) Total Net Position (Deficit) (350,510,645)$ 3,499 $ 1,419 $ (7,881,166)$ Held in trust for private purposes, organizations and other governments
Special
Assessments/Com
munity Services
Districts (CSDs)
North Roseville -
Rocklin Sewer
Refunding District
Foothills
Boulevard
Extension
Assessment
Highway 65 JPA
(Bizz Johnson
JPA)
176
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
COMBINING STATEMENT OF FIDUCIARY NET POSITION
CUSTODIAL FUNDS
JUNE 30, 2021
Assets:
Cash and investments in City Treasury
Receivables:
Accounts
Restricted assets:
Cash and investments with fiscal agents
Total Assets
Deferred Outflows of Resources:
Deferred charge on refunding
Total Deferred Outflows of Resources
Liabilities:
Accounts payable
Accrued liabilities
Unearned revenues
Deposits payable
Due to other government agencies
Long-term liabilities:
Bonds due in one year
Bonds due in more than one year
Total Liabilities
Net Position (Deficit):
Total Net Position (Deficit)
Held in trust for private purposes, organizations and other governments
(CONTINUED)
1,232$ 1,299,544$ 101,673,359$ 201,515$ 37 - 1,146,092 527 - - 43,174,922 - 1,269 1,299,544 145,994,373 202,042 - - - - - - - - - 1,270,757 10,474,273 - - - 1,011,221 - - - - - 4,810 - - 147,272 20 9,211 - - - - 5,400,000 - - - 149,414,243 - 4,830 1,279,968 166,299,737 147,272 (3,561) 19,576 (20,305,364) 54,770 (3,561)$ 19,576 $ (20,305,364)$ 54,770 $ County Capital
Facilities
South Placer
Wastewater
Authority (SPWA)
Special Sewer
Benefit Areas
Dry Creek
Drainage Basin
177
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
COMBINING STATEMENT OF FIDUCIARY NET POSITION
CUSTODIAL FUNDS
JUNE 30, 2021
Assets:
Cash and investments in City Treasury
Receivables:
Accounts
Restricted assets:
Cash and investments with fiscal agents
Total Assets
Deferred Outflows of Resources:
Deferred charge on refunding
Total Deferred Outflows of Resources
Liabilities:
Accounts payable
Accrued liabilities
Unearned revenues
Deposits payable
Due to other government agencies
Long-term liabilities:
Bonds due in one year
Bonds due in more than one year
Total Liabilities
Net Position (Deficit):
Total Net Position (Deficit)
Held in trust for private purposes, organizations and other governments
26,682$ 7$ 2,046,995$ 45,549$ 1,357,363 15 4,845,388 - 514,964 - - - 1,899,009 22 6,892,383 45,549 - - - - - - - - 841,550 - 2,007,112 44 148,869 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13,121 44,119 1,096,000 - - - 31,063,000 - - - 33,149,419 - 2,020,233 44,163 (31,250,410) 22 4,872,150 1,386 (31,250,410)$ 22 $ 4,872,150 $ 1,386 $ Placer County Air
Pollution Control
Fund
South Placer County
Tourism Business
Improvement District
(SPCTBID)
South Placer
County Safe Kids
Coalition
External Traffic
Mitigation Fees
178
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
COMBINING STATEMENT OF FIDUCIARY NET POSITION
CUSTODIAL FUNDS
JUNE 30, 2021
Assets:
Cash and investments in City Treasury
Receivables:
Accounts
Restricted assets:
Cash and investments with fiscal agents
Total Assets
Deferred Outflows of Resources:
Deferred charge on refunding
Total Deferred Outflows of Resources
Liabilities:
Accounts payable
Accrued liabilities
Unearned revenues
Deposits payable
Due to other government agencies
Long-term liabilities:
Bonds due in one year
Bonds due in more than one year
Total Liabilities
Net Position (Deficit):
Total Net Position (Deficit)
Held in trust for private purposes, organizations and other governments
Totals
25,681$ 13,595$ 1,538,674$ 131,778,925$ - - 3,958 9,306,839 - - - 74,914,883 25,681 13,595 1,542,632 216,000,647 - - - 18,919,471 - - - 18,919,471 24 34 1,444,892 16,039,829 - - - 6,758,553 - - - 82,648 - - - 152,082 24,900 13,122 - 8,532,713 - - - 20,590,500 - - - 587,663,181 24,924 13,156 1,444,892 639,819,506 757 439 97,740 (404,899,388) 757 $ 439 $ 97,740 $ (404,899,388)$ Sierra College
Boulevard Fund
Special
Assessment
Collection Fees
Developer
Reimbursements
179
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
COMBINING STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FIDUCIARY NET POSITION
CUSTODIAL FUNDS
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
Additions:
Property taxes, net of pass through payments 32,122,497$ -$ -$ -$ Intergovernmental - - - - Investment income 88,327 (2) (3) 998 Contributions from City 163,061 - - - Contributions from members - - - - Miscellaneous 3,000 - - 1,380,235 Total Additions 32,376,885 (2) (3) 1,381,233 Deductions:
Administrative expenses 1,127,732 - - - Interest and fiscal charges 19,595,737 - - - Contributions to other governments 76,572,565 - - 9,633 Total Deductions 97,296,034 - - 9,633 Changes in Net Position (64,919,149) (2) (3) 1,371,600 Net Position - Beginning of the Year - - - - Restatements (285,591,496) 3,501 1,422 (9,252,766) Net Position - Beginning of the Year, as Restated (285,591,496) 3,501 1,422 (9,252,766) Net Position - End of the Year (350,510,645)$ 3,499$ 1,419$ (7,881,166)$ Special
Assessments/Com
munity Services
Districts (CSDs)
North Roseville -
Rocklin Sewer
Refunding District
Foothills
Boulevard
Extension
Assessment
Highway 65 JPA
(Bizz Johnson
JPA)
180
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
COMBINING STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FIDUCIARY NET POSITION
CUSTODIAL FUNDS
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
Additions:
Property taxes, net of pass through payments
Intergovernmental
Investment income
Contributions from City
Contributions from members
Miscellaneous
Total Additions
Deductions:
Administrative expenses
Interest and fiscal charges
Contributions to other governments
Total Deductions
Changes in Net Position
Net Position - Beginning of the Year
Restatements
Net Position - Beginning of the Year, as Restated
Net Position - End of the Year
(CONTINUED)
-$ -$ -$ -$ - - 2,258,586 - (2) (2,660) 401,081 (69) - - - - - - 22,590,272 - - 4,057,233 - - (2) 4,054,573 25,249,939 (69) - - - - - - 4,346,699 - 20 4,057,413 53,018,751 - 20 4,057,413 57,365,450 - (22) (2,840) (32,115,511) (69) - - - - (3,539) 22,416 11,810,147 54,839 (3,539) 22,416 11,810,147 54,839 (3,561)$ 19,576$ (20,305,364)$ 54,770$ Special Sewer
Benefit Areas
Dry Creek
Drainage Basin
County Capital
Facilities
South Placer
Wastewater
Authority (SPWA)
181
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
COMBINING STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FIDUCIARY NET POSITION
CUSTODIAL FUNDS
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
Additions:
Property taxes, net of pass through payments
Intergovernmental
Investment income
Contributions from City
Contributions from members
Miscellaneous
Total Additions
Deductions:
Administrative expenses
Interest and fiscal charges
Contributions to other governments
Total Deductions
Changes in Net Position
Net Position - Beginning of the Year
Restatements
Net Position - Beginning of the Year, as Restated
Net Position - End of the Year
4,193,931$ -$ -$ -$ - - - - (16) (8) 485 461 - - - - - - - - - - 9,580,702 76,168 4,193,915 (8) 9,581,187 76,629 2,350 - - - 989,720 - - - 9,686,802 4,595 6,002,668 75,632 10,678,872 4,595 6,002,668 75,632 (6,484,957) (4,603) 3,578,519 997 - - - - (24,765,453) 4,625 1,293,631 389 (24,765,453) 4,625 1,293,631 389 (31,250,410)$ 22$ 4,872,150$ 1,386$ South Placer County
Tourism Business
Improvement District
(SPCTBID)
South Placer
County Safe Kids
Coalition
External Traffic
Mitigation Fees
Placer County Air
Pollution Control
Fund
182
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
COMBINING STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FIDUCIARY NET POSITION
CUSTODIAL FUNDS
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
Additions:
Property taxes, net of pass through payments
Intergovernmental
Investment income
Contributions from City
Contributions from members
Miscellaneous
Total Additions
Deductions:
Administrative expenses
Interest and fiscal charges
Contributions to other governments
Total Deductions
Changes in Net Position
Net Position - Beginning of the Year
Restatements
Net Position - Beginning of the Year, as Restated
Net Position - End of the Year
-$ -$ -$ 36,316,428$ - - - 2,258,586 256 3 (21,502) 467,349 - - - 163,061 - - - 22,590,272 42,900 - - 15,140,238 43,156 3 (21,502) 76,935,934 - - - 1,130,082 - - - 24,932,156 42,600 - - 149,470,679 42,600 - - 175,532,917 556 3 (21,502) (98,596,983) - - - - 201 436 119,242 (306,302,405) 201 436 119,242 (306,302,405) 757$ 439$ 97,740$ (404,899,388)$ Totals
Sierra College
Boulevard Fund
Special
Assessment
Collection Fees
Developer
Reimbursements
183
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
184
STATISTICAL SECTION
185
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
186
STATISTICAL SECTION
This part of the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report presents detailed information as a context for understanding what the information in the fin ancial statements, note disclosures, and required supplementary information says about the City’s overall financial health. In contrast to the financial section, the statistical section information is not subject to independent audit.
Financial Trends
These schedules contain trend information to hel p the reader understand how the City’s financial performance and financial condition have changed over time:
Net Position by Component Changes in Net Position
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
Revenue Capacity
These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the City’s most significant local reve nue sources, the sales tax, property tax, and electric revenue:
Sales Tax Revenue
Assessed Value and Estimated Value of Taxable Property Property Tax Rates, All Direct and Overlapping Governments Principal Property Tax Payers
Property Tax Levies and Collections Electric Customers and Revenues Residential Energy Prices Business Energy Prices
Debt Capacity
These schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordability of the City’s current levels of outstanding debt and the City’s ability to issue additional debt in the future:
Ratio of Outstanding Debt by Type
Revenue Bond Coverage – 2011 Refunding Fixed Rate Wa stewater Revenue Bonds – Series C Revenue Bond Cove rage – 2020 Wastewater Refunding Revenue Bonds Revenue Bond Coverage – 2017 Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bonds Bonded Debt Pledged Revenue Coverage –2014 Redev elopment Tax Allocation Bonds Bonded Debt Pledged Revenue Co verage –2016 Redevelopment Tax A llocation Bonds Computation of Direct and Overlapping Debt
Computation of Legal Bonded Debt Margin
Demographic and Economic Information
These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the environment within which the City’s financial activities take place:
Demographic and Economic Statistics Principal Employers 187
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
188
2012 2013 (a/b) 2014 2015 (c) 2016 2017 2018 (d) 2019 2020 2021 Governmental activities
Net investment in capital assets $834,840,748 $837,323,692 $828,800,273 $844,036,089 $874,967,712 $963,416,426 $930,356,095 $938,614,328 $1,013,822,662 $1,052,418,279 Restricted 140,299,702 131,372,528 123,592,373 139,686,598 171,581,599 128,500,453 130,786,912 155,247,564 166,271,014 248,827,815 Unrestricted 94,429,280 90,617,991 75,908,251 (94,115,158) (93,575,847) (42,897,806) (125,570,328) (101,759,015) (132,007,818) (101,767,672) Total governmental activities net position $1,069,569,730 $1,059,314,211 $1,028,300,897 $889,607,529 $952,973,464 $1,049,019,073 $935,572,679 $992,102,877 $1,048,085,858 $1,199,478,422 Business-type activities
Net investment in capital assets $1,053,701,396 $1,036,619,532 $1,084,782,351 $1,137,488,311 1,156,762,308 1,164,442,267 1,174,477,350 1,231,485,112 1,350,027,938 1,630,310,774 Restricted 28,837,472 27,217,358 31,557,118 33,974,831 33,300,330 35,568,403 48,717,018 45,469,335 53,658,787 47,518,162 Unrestricted 241,020,358 243,176,781 270,348,547 214,253,723 255,100,345 298,014,583 294,622,023 345,923,257 333,608,421 251,876,197 Total business-type activities net position $1,323,559,226 $1,307,013,671 $1,386,688,016 $1,385,716,865 $1,445,162,983 $1,498,025,253 $1,517,816,391 $1,622,877,704 $1,737,295,146 $1,929,705,133 Primary government
Net investment in capital assets $1,888,542,144 $1,873,943,224 $1,913,582,624 $1,981,524,400 $2,031,730,020 $2,127,858,693 $2,104,833,445 $2,170,099,440 $2,363,850,600 $2,682,729,053 Restricted 169,137,174 158,589,886 155,149,491 173,661,429 204,881,929 164,068,856 179,503,930 200,716,899 219,929,801 288,172,012 Unrestricted 335,449,638 333,794,772 346,256,798 120,138,565 161,524,498 255,116,777 169,051,695 244,164,242 201,600,603 158,282,490 Total primary government net position $2,393,128,956 $2,366,327,882 $2,414,988,913 $2,275,324,394 $2,398,136,447 $2,547,044,326 $2,453,389,070 $2,614,980,581 $2,785,381,004 $3,129,183,555 (a) The City implemented the provisions of GASB Statement 63 in fiscal year 2013, which replaced the term "net assets" with the term "net position." (b) The City restated certain balances in fiscal year 2014; the statistics prior to 2014 have not been restated. (c) The City implemented the provisions of GASB Statements 68 and 71 in fiscal year 2015; the statistics prior to 2015 have not been restated. (d) The City implemented the provisions of GASB Statements 75 in fiscal year 2018 and restated certain balances.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
NET POSITION BY COMPONENT
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting)
Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
$-
$500,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$1,500,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$2,500,000,000
$3,000,000,000
2012 2013 (a/b) 2014 2015 (c) 2016 2017 2018 (d) 2019 2020 2021 Net investment in capital assets Restricted Unrestricted Source: City of Roseville's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report 189
2012 2013 (a) 2014 2015 (b) 2016 2017 2018 (c) 2019 2020 2021 Expenses
Governmental Activities:
General Government $35,564,864 $36,146,055 $42,359,074 $33,259,988 $24,156,228 $23,477,949 $19,793,110 $16,000,782 $20,144,744 $18,900,319 Development and Operations (e) 11,625,120 6,070,940 14,194,087 20,677,108 21,661,632 22,387,337 25,227,066 28,999,967 57,985,840 - Development Services (e) - - - - - - - - - 4,177,122 Economic Development (e) - - - - - - - - - 32,782,151 Public Works 32,524,417 42,655,128 26,482,643 17,191,405 12,786,495 15,499,737 21,316,464 10,732,197 17,390,714 3,801,296 Police 31,262,454 33,163,354 34,443,258 33,815,163 34,215,809 27,989,234 46,653,023 51,686,063 47,310,738 50,161,215 Fire 25,282,596 26,611,217 28,183,501 28,710,164 28,336,652 21,870,763 38,336,994 42,893,789 36,861,715 36,101,836 Library 4,631,691 4,537,528 4,634,502 4,728,411 4,675,146 3,356,937 5,888,252 6,095,245 4,756,588 5,960,578 Parks and recreation 20,209,935 22,032,310 13,939,153 21,676,006 21,289,788 19,273,481 28,848,599 29,543,138 31,791,977 34,984,176 Annexation Payments (e) 7,494,258
Housing assistance payments 4,232,695 4,049,279 3,858,070 4,046,250 4,077,451 4,216,417 4,248,895 4,673,530 7,386,919 5,706,057 Interest on long-term debt 999,436 1,274,294 740,975 543,336 1,170,785 4,285,329 4,798,427 1,304,195 1,484,120 1,549,203 Total Governmental Activities Expenses $166,333,208 $176,540,105 $168,835,263 $164,647,830 $152,369,986 $142,357,184 $195,110,830 $191,928,906 $225,113,355 $201,618,211 Business-Type Activities:
Electric $144,985,608 $144,141,500 $144,616,552 $139,307,833 $141,831,457 $150,984,130 $149,337,786 d $140,049,539 $139,578,420 $154,771,931 Water 24,311,517 24,569,405 25,300,949 25,123,587 26,723,627 30,074,999 32,296,706 31,518,663 37,477,974 39,906,556 Wastewater 34,587,583 33,820,510 36,129,357 34,558,191 34,569,588 40,370,531 45,984,028 57,655,228 45,807,920 74,288,202 Solid Waste 15,855,280 16,173,643 16,113,470 17,028,218 17,778,385 18,307,460 22,628,907 24,131,176 26,489,550 25,082,857 Natural Gas 26,792,658 26,383,130 25,984,715 25,574,327 25,179,279 24,685,497 24,217,677 23,711,730 23,226,521 22,649,501 Golf Course 2,487,080 2,617,733 2,501,897 2,598,524 2,502,782 2,466,928 - - - - Local Transportation 6,727,985 7,909,058 7,482,689 8,918,391 7,985,912 8,195,699 9,895,357 10,441,459 10,790,475 9,544,110 School-age Child Care 4,461,275 4,691,235 4,496,871 3,664,376 5,251,976 5,794,022 7,866,178 7,027,545 9,732,622 5,965,804 Total Business-Type Activities Expenses 260,208,986 260,306,214 262,626,500 256,773,447 261,823,007 280,879,266 292,226,639 294,535,340 293,103,482 332,208,961 Total Primary Government Expenses $426,542,194 $436,846,319 $431,461,763 $421,421,277 $414,192,993 $423,236,450 $487,337,469 $486,464,246 $518,216,837 $533,827,172 Program Revenues
Governmental Activities:
Charges for Services:
General Government $2,778,080 $2,650,873 $2,519,443 $4,151,967 $4,097,453 $5,153,373 $5,688,733 $4,426,702 $4,405,118 $8,023,303 Development and Operations (e) 1,983,989 1,691,318 7,131,093 9,016,571 8,941,215 10,370,206 12,440,599 12,124,757 15,847,685 - Development Services (e) - - - - - - - - - 27,002,711 Economic Development (e) - - - - - - - - - 35,903 Public Works 2,919,180 3,124,557 224,389 207,635 30,618 518,117 158,610 222,332 1,459,973 5,271,802 Police 1,319,271 1,504,357 1,541,641 1,384,407 1,354,837 1,322,994 1,473,504 1,535,265 1,020,556 2,836,860 Fire 1,009,954 821,543 1,326,015 1,525,539 1,704,523 2,377,309 2,138,165 2,619,760 1,271,615 933,148 Library 339,589 297,467 332,387 137,575 128,689 24,085 18,561 15,069 94,298 134,472 Parks and recreation 10,242,291 12,574,853 11,391,414 13,361,020 13,093,192 14,657,957 17,469,661 18,747,740 6,445,595 16,731,091 Operating Grants and Contributions 2,984,979 9,609,400 10,996,049 12,420,283 18,730,677 21,033,377 17,220,739 16,951,285 18,652,630 28,456,130 Capital Grants and Contributions 19,862,713 21,787,386 22,489,470 29,838,252 38,641,052 35,523,510 27,774,425 40,652,774 69,325,319 85,770,557 Total Government Activities Program Revenues 43,440,046 54,061,754 57,951,901 72,043,249 86,722,256 90,980,928 84,382,997 97,295,684 118,522,789 175,195,977 Business-Type Activities:
Charges for Services:
Electric 160,141,372 159,002,035 162,182,048 168,349,951 167,160,777 166,006,839 168,559,762 168,047,418 162,547,979 $165,995,197 Water 19,954,068 22,899,867 23,212,495 23,511,499 22,960,518 27,983,419 31,624,951 32,851,109 34,797,988 36,887,506 Wastewater 28,088,503 27,693,272 30,398,896 31,786,319 34,411,404 39,000,990 37,426,508 43,389,397 42,065,481 43,609,275 Solid Waste 20,903,993 21,437,536 21,806,830 22,002,869 22,403,352 23,111,497 24,257,746 25,227,177 26,859,636 28,638,281 Natural Gas 16,563,722 16,530,605 16,529,666 16,528,513 16,572,034 16,528,513 16,528,513 16,738,649 16,563,725 14,568,504 Golf Course 2,702,741 2,460,509 2,392,702 2,386,188 2,216,692 1,931,550 - - - - Local Transportation 974,344 1,075,864 1,141,354 1,201,224 1,177,935 1,396,957 1,138,726 1,114,798 923,491 268,884 School-age Child Care 4,047,021 4,475,225 4,780,848 4,273,030 5,475,945 5,680,237 6,396,920 6,867,594 5,431,246 2,986,556 Operating Grants and Contributions 13,729,467 7,175,122 13,286,509 14,272,710 5,878,612 10,640,845 12,614,825 24,255,105 11,478,132 13,954,837 Capital Grants and Contributions 12,323,429 17,501,234 43,539,243 50,670,825 55,809,279 61,026,801 78,824,553 74,948,559 97,350,203 215,581,626 Total Business-Type Activities Program Revenue 279,428,660 280,251,269 319,270,591 334,983,128 334,066,548 353,307,648 377,372,504 393,439,806 398,017,881 522,490,666 Total Primary Government Program Revenues $322,868,706 $334,313,023 $377,222,492 $407,026,377 $420,788,804 $444,288,576 $461,755,501 $490,735,490 $516,540,670 $697,686,643 Net (Expense)/Revenue
Governmental Activities ($122,893,162) ($122,478,351) ($110,883,362) ($92,604,581) ($65,647,730) ($51,376,256) ($110,727,833) ($94,633,222) ($106,590,566) ($26,422,234) Business-Type Activities 19,219,674 19,945,055 56,644,091 78,209,681 72,243,541 72,428,382 85,145,865 d 98,904,466 d 104,914,399 d 190,281,705 Total Primary Government Net Expense ($103,673,488) ($102,533,296) ($54,239,271) ($14,394,900) $6,595,811 $21,052,126 ($25,581,968) $4,271,244 ($1,676,167) $163,859,471 (Continued)
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CHANGES IN NET POSITION
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Accrual Basis of Accounting)
Source: City of Roseville's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. 190
2012 2013 (a) 2014 2015 (b) 2016 2017 2018 (c) 2019 2020 2021
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CHANGES IN NET POSITION
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Accrual Basis of Accounting)
General Revenues and Other Changes in Net Position
Governmental Activities:
Taxes:
Sales taxes $38,129,931 $43,002,643 $46,591,961 $48,094,824 $52,993,394 $51,646,625 $50,710,102 $60,574,316 $72,369,119 $89,504,214 Property taxes 31,758,352 31,075,967 31,930,656 34,728,281 37,998,872 40,689,765 44,646,475 48,647,608 52,375,495 69,084,347 Motor vehicle in lieu (Intergovernmental- unrestricted) 122,230 - - - - - - - - - Transient occupancy taxes - - - - - - 3,534,479 3,632,822 3,528,221 2,383,853 Business license taxes - - - - - - - - - 858,637 Other Taxes 6,626,071 6,465,560 7,465,472 7,186,709 7,745,155 7,104,703 4,854,967 4,725,497 15,357,338 1,899,611 Franchise fees 1,822,869 1,874,700 2,037,189 2,057,707 2,168,413 2,310,192 2,363,377 2,280,503 2,023,411 2,401,009 Use of money and property 3,243,932 533,505 2,414,976 1,763,604 3,058,420 674,516 2,008,801 10,844,582 5,667,846 2,650,187 Miscellaneous revenues 1,511,125 2,113,638 420,959 414,279 191,255 18,688,013 10,143,729 2,823,273 128,480 351,002 Transfers 30,374,582 25,212,344 (11,480,648) 27,704,787 24,853,427 20,662,506 16,710,815 16,110,901 10,223,786 8,681,939 Extraordinary item:
Gain/(Loss) from sales of capital assets - - 43,992 1,699,847 4,729 25,137 3,522 1,523,918 899,851 - Assets transferred to/liabilities assumed by
Successor Agency 34,223,315 - 7,107,581 - - - - - - - Cancellation of loans receivable from
Successor Agency - - (5,847,668) - - - - - - - Restructuring of interest on loans receivable from
Successor Agency - - (814,422) 0 - - - - - - Total Government Activities 147,812,407 110,278,357 79,870,048 123,650,038 129,013,665 141,801,457 134,976,267 151,163,420 162,573,547 177,814,799 Business-Type Activities:
Use of money and property 12,662,821 11,245,022 11,499,354 11,274,851 12,056,004 8,940,537 8,829,420 d 22,202,296 19,716,829 8,341,902 Miscellaneous revenues - 150,119 0 - - - - - - 2,750,278 Transfers (30,374,582) (25,212,344) 11,480,648 (27,704,787) (24,853,427) (20,662,506) (16,710,815) (16,110,901) (10,223,786) (8,681,939) Gain/(Loss) from sales of capital assets - - 50,252 (2,028,306) - - (548,308) 65,452 - (466,792) Special Item - (22,715,022) - - - - - - - - Total Business-Type Activities (17,711,761) (36,532,225) 23,030,254 (18,458,242) (12,797,423) (11,721,969) (8,429,703) 6,156,847 9,493,043 1,943,449 Total Primary Government $130,100,646 $73,746,132 $102,900,302 $105,191,796 $116,216,242 $130,079,488 $126,546,564 $157,320,267 $172,066,590 $179,758,248 Change in Net Position
Governmental Activities $24,919,245 ($12,199,994) ($31,013,314) $31,045,457 $63,365,935 $90,425,201 $24,248,434 $56,530,198 $55,982,981 $151,392,565 Business-Type Activities 1,507,913 (16,587,170) 79,674,345 59,751,439 59,446,118 60,706,413 76,716,162 105,061,313 114,407,442 192,225,154 Total Primary Government $26,427,158 ($28,787,164) $48,661,031 $90,796,896 $122,812,053 $151,131,614 $100,964,596 $161,591,511 $170,390,423 $343,617,719 (a) The City implemented the provisions of GASB Statement 63 in fiscal year 2013, which replaced the term "net assets" with the term "net position." (b) The City implemented the provisions of GASB Statements 68 and 71 in fiscal year 2015; the statistics prior to 2015 have not been restated. (c) The City implemented the provisions of GASB Statements 75 in fiscal year 2018 and restated certain balances. (d) Net (Expense)/Revenue and Use of money and Property for Business type activities for fiscal year 2018 have been updated to match with ACFR Statement of activities. (e) Beginning in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, the City began reporting development and operations as separate lines named Development Services, Economic Development, and Annexation Payments Source: City of Roseville's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. 191
2012 2013 (b) 2014 2015 (c) 2016 2017 2018 (d) 2019 2020 2021 General Fund
Nonspendable $17,036,815 $24,350,331 $12,700,881 $12,547,564 $12,089,564 $14,222,845 $13,181,664 $12,301,005 $11,883,886 $17,140,698 Committed - - - - - 727,155 - 14,092,262 31,781,588 31,946,376 Assigned 2,944,900 3,002,686 2,685,359 4,510,098 3,129,479 4,510,525 3,925,021 4,018,080 1,876,105 1,651,026 Unassigned 44,796,255 31,488,665 38,187,768 35,469,686 45,358,414 41,115,763 38,352,989 38,041,602 35,841,056 67,910,699 Total General Fund $64,777,970 $58,841,682 $53,574,008 $52,527,348 $60,577,457 $60,576,288 $55,459,674 $68,452,949 $81,382,635 $118,648,799 (a) All Other Governmental Funds
Nonspendable $17,503,760 $17,691,169 $16,940,290 $16,964,800 $16,964,800 $16,964,800 $16,916,061 $17,782,400 $17,797,906 $17,287,404 Restricted 113,465,925 109,656,487 104,437,932 122,721,798 148,224,236 147,157,295 144,792,470 178,080,236 148,473,108 196,437,769 Committed 2,248,644 2,290,938 2,280,996 2,362,738 794,928 147,222 - - - - Assigned 14,472,182 12,625,416 11,304,133 11,483,003 10,525,153 16,369,206 13,236,513 9,255,262 11,161,681 9,249,174 Unassigned (925,077) (1,333,659) (1,290,629) (150,757) (116,035) (2,079,194) (5,728,089) (4,307,209) (4,425,312) (3,212,589) Total all other governmental funds $146,765,434 $140,930,351 $133,672,722 $153,381,582 $176,393,082 $178,559,329 $169,216,955 $200,810,689 $173,007,383 $219,761,758 (a) (a) The change in total fund balance for the General Fund and other governmental funds is explained in Management's Discussion and Analysis. (b) The City restated certain balances in fiscal year 2014; the statistics prior to 2014 have not been restated. (c) The City implemented GASB Statements 68 and 71 in fiscal year 2015; years prior to 2015 have not been restated to conform with the new presentation. (d) The City implemented the provisions of GASB Statements 75 in fiscal year 2018 and restated certain balances.
Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENAL FUNDS
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting)
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
2012 2013
(b)
2014 2015
(c)
2016 2017 2018
(d)
2019 2020 2021
Millions
Total General Fund Total all other governmental funds
Source: City of Roseville's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report 192
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Revenues
Taxes $80,584,812 $85,621,989 $90,692,294 $96,055,076 $106,209,940 $106,882,600 $111,838,688 $127,146,378 $142,385,091 $166,131,671 Licenses and permits 1,756,255 1,805,452 2,066,744 2,684,169 2,723,234 3,268,160 3,001,719 3,009,035 3,325,365 4,668,439 Charges for services 17,222,182 20,613,195 23,145,058 27,624,928 28,398,884 36,270,061 44,541,860 34,187,231 40,356,582 55,355,261 Subventions and grants 11,835,085 17,307,222 14,081,767 15,082,197 10,662,888 17,814,381 12,925,977 11,936,638 10,018,531 30,258,509 Use of money and property 3,271,208 1,892,467 2,237,778 2,273,687 3,608,140 8,063,026 13,580,949 13,263,366 8,981,599 1,424,915 Fine, forfeitures and penalties 1,502,408 1,447,757 1,265,026 1,226,611 1,192,435 1,231,989 1,399,287 1,265,762 960,400 229,578 Contributions from developers and others 2,900,578 3,673,089 1,721,409 15,321,286 4,847,097 2,256,674 2,260,841 29,979,263 562,934 3,907,958 Miscellaneous revenues 2,458,788 3,409,782 4,247,829 8,323,382 24,820,495 24,799,603 6,022,224 9,449,575 4,738,808 2,382,049 Revenues from other agencies - - - - - - - - 42,792,416 79,824,452 Total Revenues 121,531,316 135,770,953 139,457,905 168,591,336 182,463,113 200,586,494 195,571,545 230,237,248 254,121,726 344,182,832 Expenditures
Current:
General government 23,676,727 25,215,600 23,438,473 25,135,288 26,308,369 31,494,060 15,296,075 8,137,625 19,257,171 19,760,855 Development and Operations (a) 7,303,223 6,095,964 11,300,917 14,979,353 16,042,793 21,992,856 16,435,711 18,745,408 50,790,267 - Development Services (a) - - - - - - - - - 34,739,488 Economic Development (a) - - - - - - - - - 4,090,181 Public works 10,597,421 10,746,489 6,698,390 5,972,942 6,069,793 7,060,201 8,138,529 8,326,467 13,663,550 13,112,941 Public safety:
Police 28,650,241 29,638,540 30,695,155 31,917,720 34,565,899 35,785,791 39,817,024 41,422,622 46,233,948 48,827,743 Fire 23,573,792 25,041,187 25,530,503 27,328,554 28,792,370 30,357,023 32,689,465 34,056,248 36,192,976 35,706,906 Library 3,560,396 3,726,160 3,689,914 3,979,158 4,120,111 4,155,157 5,224,590 5,039,164 5,017,004 5,241,683 Parks and recreation 18,320,063 19,671,070 19,276,779 20,854,408 21,111,520 21,451,673 25,483,508 26,124,783 27,726,357 29,493,997 Housing assistance payments 4,232,695 4,049,279 3,858,070 4,046,250 4,077,451 4,216,417 4,248,895 4,673,530 5,155,267 5,706,057 Capital outlay 19,529,120 34,879,208 30,170,149 30,433,990 37,821,774 59,258,478 49,553,074 39,316,183 65,792,166 68,814,087 Payments under development agreements 880,852 567,619 567,619 567,619 567,619 - - - - - Annexation payments 2,228,371 2,302,077 2,932,924 3,596,777 4,076,406 4,734,193 5,775,035 6,140,795 7,083,307 7,494,258 Debt service:
Principal retirement 2,694,645 802,821 2,125,278 844,490 863,892 1,098,509 1,532,317 1,561,381 2,072,817 1,613,400 Interest and fiscal charges 1,612,858 1,217,231 607,872 393,375 1,079,183 4,221,646 4,948,323 1,510,734 1,524,178 1,590,708 Total Expenditures 146,860,404 163,953,245 160,892,043 170,049,924 185,497,180 225,826,004 209,142,546 195,054,940 280,509,008 276,192,304 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over
(under) expenditures (25,329,088) (28,182,292) (21,434,138) (1,458,588) (3,034,067) (25,239,510) (13,571,001) 35,182,308 (26,387,282) 67,990,528 Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Proceeds from capital lease - - 43,992 104,580 - - - - - - Debt issued - - - - 14,425,000 - - - - - Premium on debt issued - - - - 862,056 - - - - - Proceeds from sale of property - 159,482 - 516,821 - - - - - - Proceeds from disposition of assets - - - - - - - 1,521,727 880,994 7,312,878 Transfers in 43,818,402 38,821,810 41,542,969 38,238,578 53,202,949 43,364,097 28,539,336 30,941,685 28,265,421 20,712,442 Transfers out (18,447,291) (19,147,016) (24,688,897) (18,739,191) (34,394,329) (23,201,601) (24,102,321) (23,058,711) (17,632,753) (11,995,309) Issuance of debt - 11,549,031 - - - - - - - - Payment to bond escrow agent - (12,756,326) - - - - - - - - Total other financing sources (uses) 25,371,111 18,626,981 16,898,064 20,120,788 34,095,676 20,162,496 4,437,015 9,404,701 11,513,662 16,030,011 Net Change in fund balances before special
and extraordinary items 42,023 (9,555,311) (4,536,074) 18,662,200 31,061,609 (5,077,014) (9,133,986) 44,587,009 (14,873,620) 84,020,539 Special and Extraordinary items
Assets transferred to/liabilities assumed by
Successor Agency/Housing Successor 4,727,309 - - - - - - - - - Increase in loan to the Successor Agency - (7,304,420) - - - - - - - - Change in classification of assets - - (2,141,561) - - - - - - - Cancellation of loans receivable from
Successor Agency - - (5,847,668) - - - - - - - Net Change in fund balances $4,769,332 ($16,859,731) ($12,525,303) $18,662,200 $31,061,609 ($5,077,014) ($9,133,986) $44,587,009 ($14,873,620) $84,020,539 Debt service as a percentage of
noncapital expenditures 1.6% 2.1% * 0.9% * 1.3% * 3.2% * 4.1% * 2.0% 2.0% 1.7% 1.5% * In FY2018, the City recalculated these percentages.
(a) Beginning in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, the City began reporting development and operations as separate lines named Development Services, Economic Development, and Annexation Payments
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting)
Source: City of Roseville's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report 193
Fiscal Year Amount
2012 38,129,931
2013 43,002,643
2014 46,591,961
2015 48,094,824
2016 (a) 52,993,394
2017 51,646,625
2018 (b) 50,710,102
2019 (c) 60,574,316
2020 72,369,119
2021 89,504,214
TOTAL 553,617,131$
(a)This amount includes a one-time payment for final quarter of the State Triple Flip. (b)The sales tax decrease is due to a one-time delay in State processing sales tax payments as a result of implementation of a new tax collection system. (c)The sales tax increase is due to an increase in sales tax rate from 7.25% to 7.75%, effective April 1, 2019.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
SALES TAX REVENUE
Last Ten Fiscal Years
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
80 85
90 95
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 (a) 2017 2018 (b) 2019 (c) 2020 2021 Millions
Source: City of Roseville's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report 194
2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 Secured
Land 4,138,902,907$ 4,139,152,114$ 4,416,998,220$ 4,811,588,559$ 5,038,592,302$ 5,343,255,434$ 5,619,414,445$ 5,929,903,660$ 6,340,278,943$ 6,679,852,992$ Structure 10,859,970,035 10,942,930,883 11,732,698,206 12,621,412,601 13,670,305,499 14,619,778,326 15,565,619,635 16,427,163,485 18,093,106,729 19,204,141,847 Fixtures 86,539,606 86,949,612 85,175,780 86,169,588 72,381,116 54,816,121 71,994,553 71,059,765 72,781,190 52,101,460 Personal Property 195,128,458 185,441,743 197,939,682 199,577,920 176,564,870 173,880,661 128,012,551 146,059,048 185,265,472 240,746,236 Gross 15,280,541,006 15,354,474,352 16,432,811,888 17,718,748,668 18,957,843,787 20,191,730,542 21,385,041,184 22,574,185,958 24,691,432,334$ 26,176,842,535$ Exemptions (1,183,664,559) (1,216,280,788) (1,189,126,642) (1,235,144,897) (1,196,368,326) (1,240,797,255) (1,287,075,877) (1,010,838,236) (1,586,206,981) (1,693,401,545) Net Value 14,096,876,447 14,138,193,564 15,243,685,246 16,483,603,771 17,761,475,461 18,950,933,287 20,097,965,307 21,563,347,722 23,105,225,353 24,483,440,990 Unsecured
Land 10,652,978 15,107,515 14,275,896 14,209,597 14,751,078 15,636,657 16,035,546 16,244,979 16,533,626 17,169,271 Structure 19,198,391 40,452,068 39,978,372 40,065,250 40,572,958 41,034,119 41,858,259 42,756,495 43,960,455 45,727,053 Fixtures 278,372,656 204,335,331 201,618,605 200,634,374 210,899,452 219,812,361 232,332,616 211,812,302 209,973,531 209,539,891 Personal Property 456,724,821 440,681,012 497,756,921 478,575,784 508,561,032 586,873,115 568,397,250 569,809,275 625,422,860 675,077,829 Gross 764,948,846 700,575,926 753,629,794 733,485,005 774,784,520 863,356,252 858,623,671 840,623,051 895,890,472 947,514,044 Exemptions (88,790,688) (92,879,612) (86,500,375) (61,105,400) (93,563,794) (114,427,098) (112,467,389) (109,637,206) (104,116,407) (99,538,096) Net Value 676,158,158 607,696,314 667,129,419 672,379,605 681,220,726 748,929,154 746,156,282 730,985,845 791,774,065 847,975,948 Total Net
Assessed Value (a) 14,773,034,605$ 14,745,889,878$ 15,910,814,665$ 17,155,983,376$ 18,442,696,187$ 19,699,862,441$ 20,844,121,589$ 22,294,333,567$ 23,896,999,418$ 25,331,416,938$ Direct Tax Rate (b) 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% (a) Article XIIIA, added to the California Constitution by Proposition 13 in 1978 fixed the base for valuation of property subject to taxes at the full cash value which appeared on the Assessor's 1975/76 assessment roll. Thereafter, full cash value can be increased to reflect:
- annual inflation up to 2%; or
- market value at the time of ownership change; or
- market value for new construction.
(b) California cities do not set their own direct tax rate. The state constitution establishes the rate at 1% and allocates a portion of that amount, by an annual calculation, to all the taxing entities within a tax rate area.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
ASSESSMENT ROLL VALUES
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Source: Placer County Property Assessment Roll Values
https://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/assessor/roll-values 195
Direct Rate
Basic Eureka Dry Creek Roseville
Fiscal County School School Elementary High
Year Wide Levy District District Schools Schools Total (a) 2012 1.0000 0.0353 0.0671 0.0467 0.0420 1.0917
2013 1.0000 0.0370 0.0741 0.0535 0.0446 1.0995
2014 1.0000 0.0381 0.0706 0.0441 0.0514 1.1023
2015 1.0000 0.0379 0.0677 0.0457 0.0485 1.0989
2016 1.0000 0.0362 0.0666 0.0434 0.0454 1.0941
2017 1.0000 0.0376 0.0651 0.0436 0.0500 1.0988
2018 1.0000 0.0397 0.0701 0.0115 0.0521 1.0925
2019 1.0000 0.0190 0.0720 0.0101 0.0437 1.0774
2020 1.0000 0.0183 0.0712 0.0103 0.0477 1.0810
2021 1.0000 0.0053 0.0710 0.0098 0.0418 1.0706
(a) Total Overlapping Rates uses an average of Eureka School District, Dry Creek School District and Roseville Elementary School Overlapping Rates
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
PROPERTY TAX RATES
DIRECT & OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTS
Last Ten Fiscal Years
$0.000
$0.010
$0.020
$0.030
$0.040
$0.050
$0.060
$0.070
$0.080
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Per Hundred $
Eureka School District Dry Creek School District Roseville Elementary Schools High Schools Source: Placer County Property Tax Information
https://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/auditor/property-tax 196
Percent of Percent of
Total City Total City
Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable
Assessed Assessed Assessed Assessed
Property Owner Primary Land Use Rank Value Value Rank Value Value Roseville Shoppingtown LLC Shopping Center 1 458,716,261$ 1.86% 1 324,378,648$ 2.17% BREIT Wave MF SC Owner LLC Apartments 2 154,820,684 0.63% DDR Creekside LP Commercial 3 96,987,929 0.39% Rosemeade Residential Holdings LLC Apartments 4 88,070,887 0.36% W2005 Fargo Hotels Pool C Realty LP Hotel 5 84,979,830 0.34% 4 85,110,617 0.57% PPF AHP OFF Parkway Corporate Plaza Owner Office Building 6 80,580,000 0.33% Roseville Fountains LP Shopping Center 7 74,071,550 0.30% 5 61,960,863 0.41% CW FBI Sacramento LLC Industrial 8 70,626,926 0.29% Oakmont Properties – Creekside LLC Apartments 9 70,284,038 0.28% CPT Creekside Town Center LLC Shopping Center 10 70,082,380 0.28% 6 58,945,000 0.39% Southall Group Holdings LLC Industrial 11 63,829,565 0.26% BRE Sierra View Owner LLC Industrial 12 60,960,300 0.25% DC Roseville Owner LLC Office Building 13 59,278,896 0.24% Safeway Inc. Commercial 14 54,816,090 0.22% 14 39,762,272 0.27% Walmart Stores Inc. Commercial 15 53,808,360 0.22% 9 46,902,004 0.31% Mourier Land Investment Corporation Office Building 16 51,848,924 0.21% Homarose LP Industrial 17 48,448,195 0.20%
Forest Cove 388 LLC Apartments 18 48,358,240 0.20% John L. Sullivan Family LP Auto Dealership 19 47,681,105 0.19% 11 43,031,192 0.29% Terraces At Highland Property Owner LLC Apartments 20 46,615,916 0.19% Hewlett Packard Co. Industrial 2 229,428,122 1.53% NEC Electronics USA Inc. Industrial 3 85,437,082 0.57% Slate Creek Roseville LLC Apartments 7 54,673,862 0.37% UCM Caiprosemeade LLC Apartments 8 49,840,960 0.33% NNN Parkway Corporate Plaza LLC Office Building 10 43,340,000 0.29% Wells Fargo Bank NA Commercial and Residential 12 42,852,014 0.29% Stone Point Properties LLC Office Building 13 40,089,495 0.27% PL Roseville LLC Shopping Center 15 35,701,990 0.24% Hines Douglas Corporate Center LP Office Building 16 35,525,000 0.24% Rreef America REIT II Corp. Office Building 17 35,100,000 0.23% Hines Summit at Douglas LP Office Building 18 33,500,000 0.22% Property Reserve Inc. Office Building 19 32,750,000 0.22% JB Management LP Shopping Center 20 32,742,941 0.22% Total 1,784,866,076 7.24% 1,411,072,062 9.44% Fiscal Year: 2020-2021 2011-2012
Local Secured Assessed Valuation: 24,666,360,790 14,955,658,458 2021 2012
PRINCIPAL PROPERTY TAX PAYERS
Current Year and Nine Years Ago
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
197
Fiscal Year Total Tax
Ended Levy for
June 30 Fiscal Year Amount Percentage of Levy
2012 21,991,913 21,585,063 98.15%
2013 22,044,604 21,749,207 98.66%
2014 24,170,809 23,943,603 99.06%
2015 26,562,322 26,328,574 99.12%
2016 28,692,626 28,454,477 99.17%
2017 30,888,183 30,650,344 99.23%
2018 33,112,938 32,881,148 99.30%
2019 35,949,987 35,709,122 99.33%
2020 39,271,409 38,729,463 98.62%
2021 42,188,818 41,859,745 99.22%
Notes:
Current tax collections beginning in 1993 have been reduced by a mandatory tax reallocation imposed by the State of California.
Placer County uses an estimate for the delinquency rate and compiles delinquency as a lump sum.
Subsequent collections are not broken out by fiscal year from the County. This information is not available.
Collected within the
Fiscal Year of the Levy
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS
Last Ten Fiscal Years
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
$40,000,000
$45,000,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Total Tax Levy Total Tax Collections
Source: Placer County
198
Rank Business Type (a) kWh
Percent Total
kWh Revenue
Percent to Total
Revenue
1 Manufacturing 75,760,000 6.54% $7,605,728 4.68%
2 Government and Utilities 40,606,211 3.50% $5,265,960 3.24% 3 Medical Care 34,045,176 2.94% $4,126,228 2.54%
4 Admin/Office/R&D 32,376,000 2.79% $3,367,165 2.07% 5 Medical Care 27,487,673 2.37% $3,184,103 1.96%
6 Retail and Property Management 12,289,074 1.06% $1,654,563 1.02% 7 Retail 11,008,000 0.95% $1,159,227 0.71%
8 Grocery 9,837,740 0.85% $1,273,066 0.78%
9 Information Technology and Services 8,009,697 0.69% $932,899 0.57% 10 Grocery 6,991,401 0.60% $812,806 0.50%
Electric Sales Revenue as of June 30, 2021
Residential 78,475,000$
Commercial 84,172,000
Total 162,647,000$
(a) Customer's name not shown to follow the City's Administrative Regulation regarding confidentiality of customers.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
ELECTRIC CUSTOMERS AND REVENUES
Ten Largest Electric Customers as of June 30, 2021
Source: City of Rosevile Electric Department
199
Residential
Basic Service Charge (per meter, per month)
Energy Charge ($/kWh)
Tier 1- up to 500 kWh/month
Tier 2- greater than 500 kWh/month
Renewable Energy Surcharge ($/kWh)
Greenhouse Gas Surcharge ($/kWh)
Hydroelectric Adjustment ($/kWh) (1)
State Energy Surcharge ($/kWh)
Rates are prorated.
Solar Customer Buyback Rate
Net Energy Metering (2)
Surplus Energy Compensation Rate ($/kWh)
Roseville Solar 2.0 (3)
Surplus Energy Compensation Rate ($/kWh)
Special Residential Rates
Electric Rate Assistance Program
Residents meeting certain income criteria may be eligible for a 15% discount on electric service.
Medical Rate Assistance Program
Residents Meeting certain income and medican device use criteria may be eligible for a 50% discount on the first 500 kWh and 15% on all other kWh electric usage.
Medical Notification Program
Residents can notify the City of Roseville of the residential use of essential medical support equipment.
This program allows the City to comply with the California Public Utility code 10010.
NOTES
1) There is a hydroelectric adjustment in effect from October 2020 through June 2021 2) Rate closed October 1, 2018. Surplus energy compensation rates are subject to revision by City Council as energy prices and system requirements change.
3) The State of California allows electric utilities to implement a new solar buyback rate once solar exceeds 5% of the utility’s system peak. Roseville Electric Utility now exceeds 5% solar. Per the City of Roseville Municipal Code, beginning October 1, 2018 customers will be enrolled in Roseville Solar 2.0. This change will not affect customers who installed solar before October 1, 2018 until 2028. Net Energy Metering customers will continue with net energy metering for up to 20 years (10 minimum) from the date of system interconnection. Surplus energy compensation rates are subject to revision by City Council as energy prices and system requirements change.
$0.0931
$0.0598
$0.0931
$0.1435
$0.0056
$0.0002
$0.00274
$0.00030
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY PRICES
Effective October 1, 2020
$26.00
Source: City of Roseville Electric Department
200
Small General Service (GS-1) Summer
(Demand < 20 kW)
Basic Service Charge (per meter, per month) $38.00 $38.00 Energy Charge ($/kWh) $0.0974 $0.1131
Renewable Energy Surcharge ($/kWh) $0.0056 $0.0056
Greenhouse Gas Surcharge ($/kWh) $0.0002 $0.0002
Hydroelectric Adjustment ($/kWh) $0.00274 $0.00274
State Energy Surcharge ($/kWh) $0.00030 $0.00030
Medium General Service (GS-2) Summer
(20 kW < Demand ≤ 500 kW)
Basic Service Charge (per meter, per month) $65.00 $65.00 Demand Charge($/kW-month) $6.16 $6.16
Energy Charge ($/kWh) $0.1028 $0.1235
Renewable Energy Surcharge ($/kWh) $0.0056 $0.0056
Greenhouse Gas Surcharge ($/kWh) $0.0002 $0.0002
Hydroelectric Adjustment ($/kWh) $0.00274 $0.00274
State Energy Surcharge ($/kWh) $0.00030 $0.00030
Optional GS-2 TOU Medium General Service
Large General Service (GS-3) Summer
(500 kW < Demand ≤ 1000 kW)
Basic Service Charge (per meter, per month) $521.00 $521.00 Demand Charge ($/kW-month) $6.60 $11.57
Energy Charge
Off Peak ($/kWh) $0.0682 $0.0890
On Peak ($/kWh) $0.0890 $0.1098
Super Peak ($/kWh) $0.0890 $0.1408
Renewable Energy Surcharge ($/kWh) $0.0056 $0.0056
Greenhouse Gas Surcharge ($/kWh) $0.0002 $0.0002
Hydroelectric Adjustment ($/kWh) $0.00274 $0.00274
State Energy Surcharge ($/kWh) $0.00030 $0.00030
Very Large General Service (GS-4) Summer
(Demand > 1000 kW)
Basic Service Charge (per meter, per month) $591.00 $591.00 Demand Charge ($/kW-month) $6.71 $11.51
Energy Charge
Off Peak ($/kWh) $0.0674 $0.0879
On Peak ($/kWh) $0.0862 $0.1067
Super Peak ($/kWh) $0.0862 $0.1397
Renewable Energy Surcharge ($/kWh) $0.0056 $0.0056
Greenhouse Gas Surcharge ($/kWh) $0.0002 $0.0002
Hydroelectric Adjustment ($/kWh) $0.00274 $0.00274
State Energy Surcharge ($/kWh) $0.00030 $0.00030
Time of Use (TOU) seasons, days, hours, holidays:
Winter - October through May // Summer - June through September Off Peak: 10:00pm to 7:00am Monday through Friday (Except Holidays) All Day Saturday, Sunday, and Holidays
On Peak: 7:00am to 4:00pm AND 7:00pm to 10:00pm Monday through Friday (Except Holidays)
Super Peak: 4:00pm to 7:00pm Monday through Friday (Except Holidays) Holidays are defined as: New Years Day, Martin Luther King Day, Presidents' Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans' Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day.
There is a hydroelectric adjustment in effect from October 2020 through June 2021 The California State Energy Surcharge may change from time to time as specified in State law.
A 2% discount is available for primary service customers.
Rates are prorated.
Winter
Note: General Service Customers include all commercial, industrial, governmental and other non-residential customers.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
BUSINESS ENERGY PRICES
Effective October 1, 2020
Winter
Winter
Winter
Source: City of Roseville Electric Department
201
Percentage of
Certificates of Tax Installment Total Certificates Total Total Placer County Debt Fiscal of Allocation Purchase Capital Governmental of Revenue Business-Type Primary Total Personal Per Year Participation [d] Bonds [c] Obligations Lease Lease Loans Activities Participation Bonds Lease Loans Activities Government [e] Income [a] Capita [a] 2012 13,190,000 - 125,785 - - - 13,315,785 250,082,864 337,284,692 - - 587,367,556 600,683,341 3.16% 4,921 2013 - - 1,234,286 - 11,549,031 - 12,783,317 237,460,076 337,680,087 4,775,578 - 579,915,741 592,699,058 2.94% 4,770 2014 - - - - 10,670,247 4,059,175 14,729,422 175,923,926 380,082,084 4,344,960 - 560,350,970 575,080,392 2.71% 4,530 2015 - - - 69,007 9,874,685 4,045,820 13,989,512 150,053,467 385,334,824 3,945,831 - 539,334,122 553,323,634 2.61% 4,295 2016 - - - 34,928 24,347,067 4,030,681 28,412,676 152,649,025 368,091,795 3,538,160 - 524,278,980 552,691,656 2.43% 4,122 2017 - - - - 23,272,775 4,013,624 27,286,399 138,472,975 363,175,852 3,123,170 - 504,771,997 532,058,396 2.17% 3,916 2018 - - - - 24,823,067 3,981,145 28,804,212 133,923,531 363,838,283 - - 497,761,814 526,566,026 2.01% 3,838 2019 14,455,822 - - - 8,795,122 3,964,079 27,215,023 129,546,859 347,567,126 - - 477,113,985 504,329,008 [b] 3,612 2020 14,163,014 - - - 7,482,335 3,469,049 25,114,398 88,959,644 [f] 327,768,646 - - 416,728,292 441,842,690 [b] 3,044 2021 13,860,206 - - - 6,143,935 3,469,049 23,743,190 85,802,679 206,045,926 - 4,344,362 296,192,967 319,936,157 [b] 2,178 [a] These ratios are calculated using personal income and population as shown on the Demographics and Economic Statistics schedule. [b] Total personal income information is not available. [c] The Redevelopment Agency was dissolved effective January 31, 2012 and its liabilities were assumed by the Successor Agency. [d] In 2013 the Certificates of Participation were refunded by the 2013 Public Facilities Refunding lease. [e] Long term debt was restated in fiscal year 2014; statistics prior to 2014 have not been restated. [f] Decrease mostly caused by electric fund debt paydown of $36 million and wastewater debt refunding of $38.3 million with revenue bonds.
Sources: The City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports State of California, Department of Finance (population) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis - Local Data (personal income)
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
RATIO OF OUTSTANDING DEBT BY TYPE
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities
202
Fiscal Tax Increment Total
Year Revenue (2) Principal Interest Debt Service Coverage 2015 3,566,262$ -$ 132,646$ 132,646$ 26.89 2016 2,692,154 (3) 435,000 390,688 825,688 3.26 2017 5,263,766 435,000 378,363 813,363 6.47
2018 3,534,361 445,000 365,063 810,063 4.36
2019 3,723,819 465,000 343,463 808,463 4.61
2020 3,959,041 485,000 319,379 804,379 4.92
2021 3,280,510 505,000 302,713 807,713 4.06
Notes: (1) Ten years of data are not available due to the bonds being issued on September 9, 2014 (2) Amounts reported include tax revenue and debt service of the Successor Agency. (3) Restated
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
2014 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TAX ALLOCATION BONDS
Last Seven Fiscal Years(1)
Debt Service Requirements
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Tax Increment Revenue (2) Total Debt Service
Source: City of Roseville's Annual Financial Statments 203
Fiscal Tax Increment Total
Year Revenue (2) Principal Interest Debt Service Coverage 2017 5,263,766$ -$ 703,884$ 703,884$ 7.48 2018 3,534,361 340,000 738,037 1,078,037 3.28 2019 3,723,819 395,000 733,439 1,128,439 3.30 2020 3,959,041 410,000 727,603 1,137,603 3.48 2021 3,280,510 415,000 721,408 1,136,408 2.89 Notes: (1) Ten years of data are not available due to the bonds being issued on July 19, 2016 (2) Amounts reported include tax revenue and debt service of the Successor Agency.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
2016 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TAX ALLOCATION BONDS
Last Five Fiscal Years (1)
Debt Service Requirements
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Tax Increment Revenue (2) Total Debt Service
Source: City of Roseville's Annual Financial Statements 204
2020-2021 Assessed Valuation: $25,517,271,041
City's Share
Total Debt of Debt
06/30/2021 % Applicable (1) 06/30/2021
OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT:
Sierra Joint Community College District SFID No. 4 $167,570,000 34.535% $57,870,300 Roseville Joint Union High School District 127,884,202 76.165% 97,403,002 Roseville Joint Union High School District SFID No. 1 64,539,730 98.537% 63,595,514 Center Joint Unified School District 37,422,322 4.690% 1,755,107 Rocklin Unified School District 40,022,813 0.410% 164,094 Dry Creek Joint School District 28,912,807 56.332% 16,287,162 Eureka Union School District 213,644 35.332% 75,485
Roseville City School District 11,916,509 97.241% 11,587,733 City of Roseville Community Facilities Districts 400,157,500 100.000% 400,157,500 City of Roseville Placer Valley Sports Complex & Tourism Marketing - Assessment District 32,159,000 100.000% 32,159,000
California Statewide Communities Development Authority - Assessment Districts 19,095,305 100.000% 19,095,305
TOTAL OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT $700,150,202
DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND DEBT:
Placer County General Fund Obligations $19,355,000 30.036% $5,813,468 Placer County Office of Education Certificates of Participation 480,000 30.036% 144,173 Sierra Joint Community College District Certificates of Participation 1,566,000 22.888% 358,426 Roseville Joint Union High School District Certificates of Participation 61,150,000 76.165% 46,574,898 Rocklin Unified School District General Fund Obligations 20,615,000 0.410% 84,522 Eureka Union School District Certificates of Participation 2,590,000 35.332% 915,099 Roseville City School District General Fund Obligations 3,550,000 97.241% 3,452,056 Placer Mosquito and Vector Control District General Fund Obligations 2,402,000 30.036% 721,465 City of Roseville General Fund Obligation 19,308,936 100.000% 19,308,936 City of Roseville Debt Premium 695,206 100.000% 695,206 City of Roseville Successor Agency Loan 3,469,049 100.000% 3,469,049 TOTAL DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND DEBT $81,537,298 OVERLAPPING TAX INCREMENT DEBT (Successor Agency): $27,930,000 100.000% $27,930,000 TOTAL DIRECT DEBT $23,500,999
TOTAL OVERLAPPING DEBT 786,144,309
COMBINED TOTAL DEBT $809,617,500
(1) The percentage of overlapping debt applicable to the city is estimated using taxable assessed property value.
Applicable percentages were estimated by determining the portion of the overlapping district's assessed value that is within the boundaries of the city divided by the district's total taxable assessed value. (2) Excludes tax and revenue anticipation notes, enterprise revenue, mortgage revenue and non-bonded capital lease obligations.
Ratios to 2020-2021 Assessed Valuation:
Total Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt 2.74%
Total Direct Debt ($23,500,999) 0.09%
Combined Total Debt 3.17%
Ratios to Redevelopment Successor Agency Incremental Valuation ($1,106,861,332):
Total Overlapping Tax Increment Debt 2.52%
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
COMPUTATION OF DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING DEBT
June 30, 2021
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
205
ASSESSED VALUATION:
Secured property assessed value, net of
exempt real property $24,666,360,790
BONDED DEBT LIMIT (3.75% OF ASSESSED VALUE) (a) $924,988,530 AMOUNT OF DEBT SUBJECT TO LIMIT:
Total Bonded Debt $438,373,641
Less bonded debt not subject to limit (438,373,641)
Amount of debt subject to limit -
LEGAL BONDED DEBT MARGIN $924,988,530
Total net debt
Total Net Debt Legal applicable to the limit
Fiscal Debt Applicable to Debt as a percentage
Year Limit Limit Margin of debt limit
2012 560,837,192 - 560,837,192 0.00% 2013 536,758,408 - 536,758,408 0.00% 2014 578,172,662 - 578,172,662 0.00% 2015 624,626,766 - 624,626,766 0.00% 2016 672,531,992 - 672,531,992 0.00% 2017 717,170,366 - 717,170,366 0.00% 2018 760,269,304 - 760,269,304 0.00% 2019 815,306,847 - 815,306,847 0.00% 2020 873,200,181 - 873,200,181 0.00% 2021 924,988,530 - 924,988,530 0.00% (a) California Government Code, Section 43605 sets the debt limit at 15%.
The Code section was enacted prior to the change in basing assessed value to full market value when it was previously 25% of market value. Thus, the limit shown as 3.75% is one-fourth the limit to account for the adjustment of showing assessed valuation at full cash value.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
COMPUTATION OF LEGAL BONDED DEBT MARGIN
June 30, 2021
Source: City of Roseville Finance Department
206
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS
Last Ten Fiscal Years
County
Total County City of
City of Personal Per Capita Roseville Placer City
Fiscal Roseville Income Personal Unemployment County Population Year Population (in thousands) Income Rate (%) Population % of County 2012 122,060 19,004,105 52,544 10.0% 355,328 34.35% 2013 124,255 20,174,068 54,924 7.5% 357,463 34.76% 2014 126,956 21,182,771 55,000 6.5% 366,000 34.69% 2015 128,832 21,240,299 57,000 5.3% 369,454 34.87% 2016 134,073 22,741,453 59,000 4.5% 373,796 35.87% 2017 135,868 24,527,289 63,000 3.8% 382,837 35.49% 2018 137,213 26,223,081 67,000 3.0% 389,532 35.23% 2019 139,643 27,459,330 69,000 3.5% 396,691 35.20% 2020 145,163 (a) (a) 3.0% 403,711 35.96%
2021 146,875 (a) (a) 5.5% 404,994 36.27%
(a) Information no
t available
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
City Population Placer County Population
Source: Estimates obtained from the California Department of Finance and the estimates from Placer County ACFR 207
Employer
Number of
Employees Rank
Percentage of
Total City
Employees
Number of
Employees Rank
The Permanente Medical Group &
Foundation Group 5,200 1 5.63% 4,430 1 Hewlett-Packard 100 2 0.11% 3,200 2 Sutter Roseville Medical Group 2,202 3 2.39% 1,654 4 Union Pacific Railroad Company 1,150 4 1.25% 1,118 6 Roseville City School District 1,133 5 1.23%
Roseville Joint Union High School 1,005 6 1.09% 1,299 5 City of Roseville 1,896 7 2.05% 1,227 3 PRIDE Industries 1,062 8 1.15% 661 9 Adventist Health 1,320 9 1.43%
Top Golf 450 10 0.49%
Roseville Elementary School District 929 7
Walmart (2 Stores) 790 8
Telefunken Semiconductors America 640 10
Subtotal 15,518 16.82% 15,948
Total Employment 92,281 (a) 71,067
(a) Total Employment as used above represents the estimated total employment of all employees located within the City limits.
2021 2012
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
PRINCIPAL EMPLOYERS
Current Year and Nine Years Ago
Source: Roseville Chamber of Commerce and Self reported by employers 208
2012 2013 2014 2015 (b) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Function
General government 179.09 190.14 180.10 179.81 183.11 187.98 150.23 158.73 168.23 169.73 Public Safety 313.78 324.59 327.42 313.00 316.00 317.00 315.50 317.00 321.00 327.00 Public Works 107.33 105.17 73.18 67.50 71.50 71.50 110.75 108.75 110.25 112.25 Development and Operations (a) 21.00 14.00 70.26 71.00 72.00 74.00 75.00 82.00 83.00 83.75 Park, Recreation & Libraries 253.43 262.00 274.61 121.50 122.50 124.50 122.50 114.50 114.50 116.50 Environmental Utilities 215.32 217.82 219.14 207.50 222.25 223.75 227.75 226.75 244.75 255.00 Electric 137.39 140.36 141.09 142.00 149.00 150.00 149.00 153.00 154.00 156.00 Total 1,227.34 1,254.08 1,285.80 1,102.31 1,136.36 1,148.73 1,150.73 1,160.73 1,195.73 1,220.23 (a) Community Development was renamed to Development and Operations in fiscal year 2014. (b) Decrease in FTE for FY14-15 is due to no longer including FTEs attributable to temporary part-time staff.
Adopted for Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT CITY EMPLOYEES BY FUNCTION
Last Ten Fiscal Years
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2012 2013 2014 2015 (b) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
General government Public Safety Public Works
Development and Operations (a) Park, Recreation & Libraries Environmental Utilities Electric
Source: City of Roseville Annual Budget
209
Fiscal Year
Function/Program 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Public safety:
Fire:
Number of Haz-Mat alarms responded 199 201 214 228 204 224 239 278 232 218 Number of medical emergencies responded 8,429 9,045 9,995 11,015 10,694 10,545 10,993 11,078 10,835 11,124 Total calls for service 10,006 10,936 12,163 13,286 12,828 16,756 16,553 17,109 17,010 17,311 Police:
Law violations: (Note 4)
Physical arrests (adult and juvenile) 4,264 4,647 4,321 3,295 4,057 3,734 4,554 4,061 4,417 4,297 Traffic citations 4,826 4,470 2,207 1,839 2,702 3,036 4,187 3,180 4,024 3,386 Public works (Note 6):
Total building permits issued 4,338 4,131 5,796 5,715 5,854 6,226 6,387 6,621 5,744 7,277 Total square feet of street maintenance performed 3,375,318 4,275,981 4,452,658 1,971,986 3,468,666 12,190,840 1,564,362 2,866,227 2,713,778 880,033 Park and recreation (Note 5):
Community services:
Total attendance in Youth/Adult/Senior programs 265,736 224,339 233,598 240,576 246,331 209,619 213,916 210,091 133,900 70,215 Total attendance to aquatic facilities (Note 1) 306,455 291,407 324,918 357,064 316,994 428,744 451,127 467,324 276,413 163,447 Library (Note 5):
Number of materials checked out (Note 2) 1,058,434 1,194,909 1,273,880 1,252,039 1,306,844 1,339,684 1,221,101 1,149,134 975,554 948,772 Water:
Average daily consumption (in million gallons) 28.60 30.20 28.00
23.01 20.70 23.25 25.77 25.40 26.96 29.28
Number of backflow devices tested 4,558 3,862 4,520 4,854 5,093 5,183 5,200 5,054 4,999 5,053 Number of meters sold 555 770 569 824 848 1,044 1,100 914 1,432 1,222 Wastewater:
Number of miles of sewer mains flushed 277 271 335 284 266 294 283 273 264 296 % of preventative work orders hours (Note 3) n/a 0 35.8% 41.3% 38.4% 46.4% 45.7% 48.1% 47.9% 43.5% Solid waste:
Tons of solid waste collected 87,336 87,946 92,101 94,308 101,794 117,594 115,548 139,501 139,061 139,683 Notes:
1 - Roseville Aquatics Center closed for pool repairs November 2007-January 2008. 2 - The Library totals include Downtown Library, Maidu Library and Riley Library. The Bookmobile was retired during winter 2008 and was replaced in April 2015.
FY18 was the first year the Libraries were closed on Fridays. 3 - Data not available for FY11-12 due to change in software (Maximo) used by the City. 4 - The City restated Police Law Violations number for FY16 and FY17.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
OPERATING INDICATORS BY FUNCTION/PROGRAM
Last Ten Fiscal Years
5 - FY21 numbers impacted by COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and resulting staffing shortages in Parks & Rec aquatic facilities and Source: City of Roseville Department Staff
210
Fiscal Year
Function/Program 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Public safety:
Fire stations 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Police stations 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Number of Police patrol vehicles (Note 1) 58 61 64 67 77 91 88 93 97 99 Public works:
Miles of streets 438 440 440 458 465 470 478 480 485 498 Number of traffic signals 167 167 167 171 175 180 183 187 191 191 Park and recreation: (Note 2)
Community services:
Golf courses (18 holes) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Parks 61 63 66 66 66 68 71 72 76 79
Open Spaces/Preserves 3,703 3,720 3,730 3,801 3,801 3,895 3,910 3,910 3,910 3,910 Recreation Facilities (Community Centers and Pools) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Libraries 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Adventure Clubs 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 19 19
Water:
Miles of water mains 569 570 570 583 592 608 621 635 650 681 Fire hydrants 4,542 4,545 4,545 4,654 4,735 4,763 5,007 5,087 5,212 5,443 Wastewater:
Miles of sanitary sewers 487 487 491 497 505 517 529 542 552 577 Miles of storm drain 349 351 344 353 366 372 381 390 401 421 Solid waste:
Number of new residential
refuse customers 537 768 475 601 787 822 1,068 926 859 1,054 Electric:
Number of residential customers 47,611 48,387 49,013 49,851 50,784 51,638 52,789 53,868 54,687 56,549 Number of commercial customers 6,505 6,561 6,666 6,673 6,700 6,759 6,812 6,884 6,975 7,059 2 - In FY20-21 Parks, Recreation, & Libraries Department changed the line items to be more relevant. Parks were separated from Recreation Facilities (Community
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CAPITAL ASSET STATISTICS BY FUNCTION/PROGRAM
Last Ten Fiscal Years
1 - Prior to FY16-17, the City only reported active patrol cars. In FY16-17 the City began reporting active patrol vehicles, which includes all police department vehicles that are patrolling the streets in one fashion or another, whether undercover, a community services officer, an animal control officer, or a citizen on patrol volunteer. No additional cars were purchased in FY16-17.
Notes:
Source: City of Roseville Department Staff
211
December 30, 2021
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Roseville, California
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 of Roseville, California (the City) for the year ended June 30, 2021. Profes sional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards and the Uniform Guidance, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit.
We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated June 21, 2021. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit.
Significant Audit Findings and Other Issues
Qualitative Aspects of Significant Accounting Practices
Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the City are described in the notes to the financial statements. As described in Note 1 to the financial statements, the City changes accounting policies related to fiduciary fund reporting by adopting Statement of Governmental Acc ounting Standards (GASB Statement) No. 84, Fiduciary Activities, in fiscal year 2020-2021. Accord ingly, the cumulative effect of the accounting change as of the beginning of the year is reported in the Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position. 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 tr ansactions have been recognized in t he financial statements in the proper period.
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statemen ts 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 bec ause 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 City’s financial statements were:
Management’s estimates of its net pension liability, net other post-employment benefits liability, and self-insurance liability are based on actuarial valuation specialist assumptions.
We evaluated the key factors and assumption s used to develop the net pension liability, net other post-employment benef its liability, and self-insuran ce liability determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.
The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.
Significant Unusual Transactions
Management is responsible for the policies and practices used to account for significant unusual transactions. No significant unusual transactions have occurred during fiscal year 2020-2021.
2151 River Plaza Dr., Suite 150
Sacramento , CA 95833 Phone: 916.503.9691 Lance, Soll & Lunghard, LLP
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Roseville, California
Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in deali ng with management in performing and completing our audit.
Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements
Professional standards require us to accumulate al l known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are trivial, and communica te them to the appropriate level of management.
These differences are described below. In addition, we detected misstatements as a result of audit procedures which were material, and were subsequ ently corrected by management. The details of these misstatements are described in a separate letter dated December 30, 2021.
Unadjusted Audit Differences
Portion of investments recorded at amortized cost rather than fair market value (336,871) $
Unreconciled difference between accounts receivable
subledger and general ledger 125,355
Cumulative effect (before effect of prior year differences) (211,516) Effect of unadjusted audit difference - prior year -
Cumulative effect (after effect of prior year differences) (211,516) $ Current Year Over (Under)
Revenues and
Expenditures/Expenses
and Changes in Fund
Balance/Equity
Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, t hat could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreem ents arose during the course of our audit.
Circumstances that Affect the Form and Content of the Auditor’s Report
New auditing standards were implemented in fiscal year 2020-2021 related to Statement of Auditing Standards 134, Auditor Reporting and Amendments, Including Amendments Addressing Disclosures in the Audit of Financial Statements , through Statement of Auditing Standards 140, Supplementary Information in Relation to the Financial Statements as a Whole. These standards updated the form and content of the financial statement auditor’s report. The purpose of the change was to present an easier format for users to understand the results of the audit and management’s responsibilities.
Management Representations
We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated December 30, 2021.
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Roseville, California
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 t he consultant has all the relevant fa cts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants.
Other Audit Findings or Issues Discussed with Management
We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the significant events or transactions that occurred during the year, business conditions affecting the Ci ty and business plans and strategies that may affect the risks of material misstatement s, the application of ac counting 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 the management’s discussion and analysis, the budgetary comparison schedules for the general fund, the modified approach for the City’s infrastructure assets, the schedules of changes in net pension liability and re lated ratios, the schedules of contributions - pensions, the schedule of changes in net OPEB liability and related ratios, and the schedule of contributions – OPEB, which are required supplementary information (RSI) t hat 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 and individual nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. With respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of managem ent and evaluated the form , content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the inform ation 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 re lation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary informat ion to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves.
We were not engaged to report on introductory and st atistical sections, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. Such information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and accord ingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it.
The following new Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) pronouncements were effective for fiscal year 2020-2021 audit:
GASB Statement No. 84, Fiduciary Activities.
GASB Statement No. 90, Majority Equity Interests - an Am endment of GASB St atement Nos. 14 and 61.
GASB Statement No. 98, Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Roseville, California
The following GASB pronounce ments are effective in the following fi scal years’ audits and should be reviewed for proper implementation by management:
Fiscal year 2022
GASB Statement No. 87, Leases.
GASB Statement No. 89, Accounting for Interest Cost Incurr ed before the End of a Construction Period.
GASB Statement No. 97, Certain Component Unit Criteria, and Accounting and Financial Reporting for Internal Revenue Code Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plans.
Fiscal year 2023
GASB Statement No. 91, Conduit Debt Obligations.
GASB Statement No. 94, Public-Private and Public-Public Part nerships and Availability Payment Arrangement.
GASB Statement No. 96, Subscription-Based Information Technology Arrangements.
Restriction on Use
This information is intended solely for the use of City Council and management of the City of Roseville and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Very truly yours,
Sacramento, California
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL
OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS
BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Roseville, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accept ed in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Roseville, California, (the City) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2021, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s bas ic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated December 22, 2021.
Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial stat ements, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the fi nancial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material mi sstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficienc ies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that were not identified. Giv en these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified. We did identify the following deficiencies in internal control, described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs, that we consider to be significant deficiencies:
2021-001, 2021-002, 2021-003.
2151 River Plaza Dr., Suite 150
Sacramento , CA 95833 Phone: 916.503.9691 Lance, Soll & Lunghard, LLP
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Roseville, California
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whet her the City’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its complia nce with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on financial statements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matte rs that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.
City’s Response to Findings
The City’s response to the findings identified in our audit was not subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
Sacramento, California
December 30, 2021
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Roseville, California
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
Year-end Close – Significant deficiency
Reference Number: 2021-001
Condition:
Significant adjusting entries were received throughout the duration of the audit to correct errors in account balances identified by LSL and/or the City.
Criteria:
The trial balance received at the beginning of audit fi eldwork is expected to be reconciled and free from material errors.
Cause of Condition:
During fiscal year 2021, there were a new activi ties, including GASB 84 implementation, refunding bond issuance, new fee program and COVID related grant programs that required additional review and consideration. In addition, the City has had increased turnover and a vacant Accounting Supervisor position for approximately 2 years. Due to these circumstances, the City did not have enough time or resources to reconcile all account balances before the scheduled audit fieldwork.
Effect or Potential Effect of Condition:
Unreconciled account balances could result in a material misstatement in the City’s Financial Statements.
Recommendation:
We recommend the City implement controls and positions to ensure that all account balances are properly and timely reconciled prior to providing a final trial balance for the audit.
Management’s Response and Corrective Action:
The City is in the process of recrui ting for all of its vacant positions and anticipates that it will be able to properly and timely reconcile all account balances prior to providing a trial balance for the audit in future years.
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Roseville, California
Bank Reconciliations – Significant deficiency
Reference Number: 2021-002
Condition:
Bank statements in some instances were accumulated for several months before they were reconciled to the appropriate general ledger controls.
Criteria:
Bank statements are expected to be reconciled to the general ledger on a monthly basis.
Cause of Condition:
The employee responsible for reconc iling the bank statements left the Ci ty during fiscal year 2021. As a result, a new employee was trained to perform the bank reconciliations, which resulted in a delay in the reconciliation of bank statements to the general ledger.
Effect or Potential Effect of Condition:
Not reconciling the accounts on a monthly basis m eans that errors or other problems might not be recognized and resolved on a timely basis. Also, it is generally easier and less time-consuming to reconcile accounts while transactions are fresh in mind.
Recommendation:
We recommend that all bank accounts be reconciled each month prior to preparation of the annual financial statements.
Management’s Response and Corrective Action:
The delay in bank reconciliation was an issue with an issue with the timing of the retirement of a key employee within the finance department. Bank reconciliations are now being performed timely.
Interest Payable – RNGFA – Significant deficiency
Reference Number: 2021-003
Condition:
We made certain journal entries as the result of the account analyses we performed during the audit. These journal entries were to correct t he recording of accrued in terest payable in the Roseville Natural Gas Financing Authority major enterprise fund.
Criteria:
Per GAAP, enterprise funds should be recorded on a full accrual basis of accounting.
Cause of Condition:
During our recalculation of the accrued interest payable balance, we noted that the City did not reverse the prior year accrued interest accrual.
Effect or Potential Effect of Condition:
As a result of the error, the interest payable and related expense account were overstated by $2,037,656.
Recommendation:
We recommend that the ending balance of accrued in terest payable is reviewed to ensure all necessary entries have been posted.
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Roseville, California
Management’s Response and Corrective Action:
The City is in the process of recrui ting for all of its vacant positions and anticipates that it will be able to properly and timely reconcile all account balances prior to providing a trial balance for the audit in future years.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
(AN ENTERPRISE FUND OF THE CITY OF
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA
)
JUNE 30, 2021 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
(AN ENTERPRISE FUND OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA)
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
JUNE 30, 2021
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
(AN ENTERPRISE FUND OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA)
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
JUNE 30, 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Independent Auditors’ Report ....................................................................................................................... 1
Basic Financial Statements
Statement of Net Position ....................................................................................................................... 4 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position ........................................................ 5 Statement of Cash Flows ....................................................................................................................... 6 Notes to Financial Statements ............................................................................................................... 7
Required Supplementary Information
Schedule of the Program’s Proportionate Share of the City’s Net Pension Liability (Miscellaneous Plan) ................................................................................... 22 Schedule of the Program’s Pension Contributions .............................................................................. 24 Schedule of the Program’s Proportionate Share of the City’s Net OPEB Liability .............................. 26 Schedule of the Program’s OPEB Contributions ................................................................................. 27
Supplementary Information
Schedule of Expenditures of State and Federal Awards ..................................................................... 29 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position .................................... 30 Schedule of Expenditures by State Categories ................................................................................... 31 Schedule of Reimbursable Equipment Expenditures .......................................................................... 32 Schedule of Reimbursable Equipment Expenditures for Renovation and Repairs ............................. 33 Schedule of Reimbursable Administrative Costs ................................................................................. 34 Audited Attendance and Fiscal Reports/Audited Fiscal Reports:
CCTR-0169 – School Age Child Care Program ..............................................................................35 Audited Reserve Account Activity Report ...................................................................................... 43
Compliance Reports
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards .................................................. 44
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs ....................................................................................... 46 Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings ......................................................................................... 47
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Roseville, California
Report on the Financial Statements
Opinions
We have audited the accompanying financial statement s of the City of Roseville School-Age Child Care Program (Program), an enterprise fund of the City of Roseville, California (City) , as of and for the year ended June 30, 2021, and the related notes to the finan cial statements, which collectively comprise the School-Age Child Care Program’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to abov e present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the Program, as of June 30, 2021, and the respective changes in financial position thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Basis for Opinions
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accept ed in the United States of America (GAAS) and the standards applicable to fi nancial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller G eneral of the United States. Our responsibilitie s under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be indep endent of the City and Progr am and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordan ce with the relevant ethical requi rements relating to our audits. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion.
Responsibilities of Management for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principl es generally accepted in the Unit ed States of America; and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
In preparing the financial statements, management is required to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the Program’s ability to continue as a going concern for twelve months beyond the date of the financial statements.
2151 River Plaza Dr., Suite 150
Sacramento , CA 95833 Phone: 916.503.9691 Lance, Soll & Lunghard, LLP
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Roseville, California
Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conduct ed in accordance with the GAAS and Government Auditing Standards will always detect a material misst atement when it exists. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepr esentations, or the override of in ternal control. Misstatements are considered material if, there is a substantial likelih ood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements.
In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards, we:
Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Program’s internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed. Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements.
Conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the Program’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.
We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit findings, and certain internal control-related matters that we identified during the audit.
Other Reporting Responsibilities
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the pension and other post-employment benefits schedules as listed on the t able of contents be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such in formation is the responsibility of management and, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic fi nancial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about 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 do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. 2 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Roseville, California
Management has omitted the management’s discussion and analysis that accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requir e to be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such missing information, although not a part of the basic fi nancial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic fi nancial statements in an appropriate oper ational, economic, or historical context. Our opinion on the basic financial statements is not affected by this missing information.
Supplementary Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opi nions on the financial st atements of the Program.
The accompanying supplementary information, as listed in the table of contents, is presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the supplementary information, as listed in the table of c ontents, are fairly stated, in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards , we have also issued our report dated December 14, 2021, on our consideration of the School-Age Child Care Program’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to de scribe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that te sting, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the Program’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance.
Sacramento, California
December 14, 2021
3 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
JUNE 30, 2021
Assets:
Current:
Cash and investments in City Treasury 395 $
Accounts receivable 214,470
Accrued interest 5,693
Total Current Assets 220,558
Noncurrent:
Depreciable capital assets 3,675,739
Less: Accumulated depreciation (1,118,379)
Total Noncurrent Assets 2,557,360
Total Assets 2,777,918
Deferred Outflows of Resources:
Deferred outflows related to pensions 1,402,790
Deferred outflows related to OPEB 484,000
Total Deferred Outflows of Resources 1,886,790
Liabilities:
Current:
Accounts payable 72,749
Accrued liabilities 142,055
Deposits payable 87,573
Due to the City 2,452,396
Compensated absences 216,068
Total Current Liabilities 2,970,841
Noncurrent:
Compensated absences 77,726
Advances from the City 890,000
Net OPEB liability 4,265,000
Net pension liability 8,933,574
Total Noncurrent Liabilities 14,166,300
Total Liabilities 17,137,141
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Deferred inflows related to pensions 51,666
Deferred inflows related to OPEB 2,023,000
Total Deferred Inflows of Resources 2,074,666
Net Position (Deficit):
Investment in capital assets 2,557,360
Unrestricted (17,104,459)
Total Net Position (14,547,099)$
See Notes to Financial Statement.
4 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES
AND CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
Operating Revenues:
Department of Education grants 481,168$
Local grants and other revenues 387,213
Parent fees - certified children 19,990
Parent fees - noncertified children 2,843,580
Total Operating Revenues 3,731,951
Operating Expenses:
Salaries 3,622,515
Employee benefits 1,229,377
Books and supplies 236,925
Services and other operating expenses 742,499
Depreciation 113,988
Total Operating Expenses 5,945,304
Operating Loss (2,213,353)
Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses):
Use of money and property (15,034)
Interest and fiscal charges (20,500)
Total Nonoperating
Revenues (Expenses) (35,534)
Loss Before Transfers (2,248,887)
Transfers from the City 70,081
Changes in Net Position (2,178,806)
Net Position (Deficit):
Beginning of Year (12,368,293)
End of Fiscal Year (14,547,099)$
See Notes to Financial Statement.
5 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
Cash Flows from Operating Activities:
Receipts from customers 3,274,868$
Receipts from grants 493,578
Cash paid to employees (5,231,240)
Cash paid to suppliers (967,932)
Net Cash Used by Operating Activities (2,430,726)
Cash Flows from Non-Capital
Financing Activities:
Transfers from the City 70,081
Receipts from the City for short-term borrowings 2,397,396 Payments to the City on long-term borrowings (55,000)
Net Cash Provided by
Non-Capital Financing Activities 2,412,477
Cash Flows from Capital
and Related Financing Activities:
Acquisition and construction of capital assets (380,439) Interest paid on capital debt (20,500)
Net Cash Used by
Capital and Related Financing Activities (400,939)
Cash Flows from Investing Activities:
Loss on investments (15,034)
Net Cash Used by
Investing Activities (15,034)
Net Decrease in Cash
and Cash Equivalents (434,222)
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Year 434,617
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Year 395$
Reconciliation of Operating Loss to Net Cash
Used by Operating Activities:
Operating loss (2,213,353)
Adjustments to Reconcile Operating Loss
Net Cash Used by Operating Activities:
Depreciation 113,988
Increase (decrease) in net pension related amounts 411,415 Increase (decrease) in OPEB related amounts (770,000)
(Increase) decrease in accounts receivable 38,922
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable 11,492
Increase (decrease) in accrued liabilities 36,029
Increase (decrease) in deposits payable (2,427)
Increase (decrease) in compensated absences (56,792)
Total Adjustments (217,373)
Net Cash Provided (Used) by
Operating Activities (2,430,726)$
See Notes to Financial Statement.
6 CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
JUNE 30, 2021
Note 1: Organization
The City of Roseville (City) operates the School-Age Child Care Program (Program) encompassing 20 childcare centers within the Ci ty. Three of these centers provide day care services to subsidized families under t he Child Development Program funded by the California Department of Education. The City is financially accountable for the activities of the Program. The program reimburses the City for costs incurred while operating the Program, including costs for salaries and benefits.
These basic financial statement s present only the activities of the Program and are not intended to present the financial position of the City, or the results of its operations. The financial statements of the Program are included as an enterprise fund in the City's financial statements.
Note 2: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
a. Basis of Accounting
The School-Age Child Care Program Enterprise Fund is reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting . Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded at the time liabilities are incurred, regardless of when the related cash flows take place.
The principal operating revenues of the Progr am are federal, state and local grants, and parent fees. Operating expenses include cost of services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses.
b. Net Position
Net Position is the excess of all the Progra m's assets and deferred outflows of resources over its liabilities and deferred inflows of resources. As of J une 30, 2021, the Program’s Net Position is divided into the two classifications described below:
Investment in capital assets describes the portion of net pos ition which is represented by the net book value of the Program's capital assets. The program does not currently have an outstanding balance of debt issued to finance these assets.
Unrestricted describes the portion of net position which is not restricted to use.
c. Fair Value Measurement
The Program categorizes the fair value m easurements of its investments based on the hierarchy established by generally accepted accounting principles. The fair value hierarchy, which has three levels, is bas ed on the valuation inputs used to measure an asset’s fair value: Level 1 inputs are quoted prices in active markets for identical assets; Level 2 inputs are significant other observ able inputs; Level 3 inputs are significant unobservable inputs. The Program held no invest ments outside of the City Pool as of June 30, 2021.
7 CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
JUNE 30, 2021
Note 2: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
d. Pensions
For purposes of measuring the net pensi on liability and deferred outflows/inflows of resources related to pensions, and pension expense, information about the Program’s fiduciary net position in the City’s California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) miscellaneous plan (Plan) and additions to/deductions from the Plan’s fiduciary net position have been determined on t he same basis as they are reported by CalPERS. For this purpose, benefit paym ents (including refunds of employee contributions) are recognized when due and pay able in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value.
e. Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB)
For purposes of measuring the net OPEB liabi lity, deferred outflows/deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB, and OPEB expens e, information about the fiduciary net position of the City’s OPEB Plan (Plan) and additions to/deductions from the Plan’s fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by the Plan. For this purpose, the Plan recognizes benefit payments when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investm ents are reported at fair value, except for money market investments and participating inte rest-earning investment contracts that have a maturity at the time of purchase of one year or less, which are reported at cost.
f. Deferred Inflows of Resources and Deferred Outflows of Resources
In addition to assets, the statement of net position will report a separate section for deferred outflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred outflows of resources, represents a consumption of net position that applies to a future period and so will not be recognized as an outflow of resources (expense) until then.
In addition to liabilities, t he statement of net position w ill report a separate section for deferred inflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred inflows of resources, represents an acquisition of net positio n that applies to a future period and so will not be recognized as an inflow of resources (revenue) until that time.
The Program has two items that are reported in each of these categories relating to the net pension liability and net OPEB liability. These are described in Notes 8 and 9, respectively.
g. Cash and Investments
The Program’s cash and investments are incl uded in the City’s investment pool (City Pool), which is described in the City’s Annual Comprehensive Fi nancial Report (ACFR).
The City, as a charter city, has adopted its own investment guidelines, which are consistent with the requirements of the Ca lifornia Government Code. The City Council and the City’s Assistant Manager/Chief Financial Officer provide oversight of the City Pool and reaffirm its investment policy on an annual basis. The City Pool is not rated and is not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
8 CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
JUNE 30, 2021
Note 2: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
The Program’s position in the City Pool at June 30, 2021 is stated at fair value. The value of the pool shares that may be withdrawn at any time is determined on an amortized cost basis, which is different than the fair value of the Program’s position in the pool. The City Pool values participant shares on an amortized cost basis during the year and adjusts to fair value at year-end. The fair value adjustment at June 30, 2021 increased the Program’s investment income by $7,463. For further information regarding the City Pool, refer to the City’s ACFR on the internet at www.roseville.ca.us.
For the purposes of the statem ent of cash flows, the Progr am considers cash and cash equivalents to include all pooled cash and invest ments, including restricted assets, as these pooled balances have the general characteristics of a demand deposit.
h. Capital Assets
Capital assets are defined as assets with an initial, individual cost of more than $5,000, and an estimated useful life greater than one year. Capital assets are recorded at historical cost. Contributions are recorded at acquisition cost. Depreciation of capital assets is provided on the straight-line method over estimated useful lives between 5 and 40 years.
i. Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial st atements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes.
Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Note 3: Cash and Investments
The Program's cash and investments are included in a City Pool, the details of which is presented in the City's ACFR. The Program pools cash from all sources with the City so that it can be invested at the maximum yield, consist ent with safety and liquidity, while individual funds can make expenditures at any time. The City's investment policy and the California Government Code permit investments in the City’s Bonds, Securities of the Government or its agencies, Certificates of Deposi t, Negotiable Certificates of Deposit, Banker's Acceptances, Commercial Paper, the State of California Local Authority Investment Fund (LAIF Pool), Repurchase Agreements, Passbook Savings Account Demand Deposits, and Interest Rate Swaps.
The Program’s participation in the City Pool at June 30, 2021 was $395, which was measured based on uncategorized inputs not defined as a Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3 input. 9 CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
JUNE 30, 2021
Note 4: Advance from the City and Due to the City
The Program borrowed $300,000 and $205,000 from the City in fiscal years 2012 and 2014, respectively. The program borrowed an addi tional $300,000 in fiscal year 2018 for the purpose of funding an additional site. The program borrowed an additional $340,000 in fiscal year 2019 for the purpose of funding an additional site. The total balance due to the City as of June 30, 2021 is $945,000. Interest on outstanding amounts accrued is based upon the City’s prior year average annual pooled interest rate of return.
The Program recorded a due to the City of $55,000 that represents the am ount that will be paid in the next fiscal year. The total balance of $945,000 will be repaid in accor dance with the below payment schedule:
Principal Interest Total
2022 55,000$ 13,495$ 68,495$
2023 55,000 12,709 67,709
2024 55,000 11,924 66,924
2025 55,000 11,138 66,138
2026 55,000 10,353 65,353
2027-2031 275,000 39,984 314,984
2032-2036 327,000 19,235 346,235
2037 68,000 971 68,971
Total 945,000$ 119,809$ 1,064,809
Year Ending June 30,
The program additionally, borrowed $2,397,396 to cover temporary cash shortfalls in this fund.
This balance is expected to be repaid shortly after the fiscal year upon receipt of grant or other reimbursements.
Note 5: Capital Assets
Capital assets activity is summarized below for the year ended June 30, 2021:
Balance at
June 30, 2020 CIP Transfers Additions
Balance at
June 30, 2021
Capital assets, not being depreciated
Work in progress 3,352 $ (383,791) $ 380,439 $ - $ Subtotal 3,352 (383,791) 380,439 - Capital assets, being depreciated
Building and improvements 3,110,995 383,791 - 3,494,786$ Machinery and equipment 11,644 - - 11,644 Computer equipment 169,309 - - 169,309 Subtotal 3,291,948 383,791 - 3,675,739 Accumulated depreciation
Building and Improvements (964,529) - (85,770) (1,050,299) $ Machinery and equipment (11,644) - - (11,644) Computer equipment (28,218) - (28,218) (56,436) Total accumulated depreciation (1,004,391) - (113,988) (1,118,379) Net capital assets being depreciated 2,287,557 383,791 (113,988) 2,557,360 Capital assets, net 2,290,909 $ - $ 266,451$ 2,557,360 $
10 CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
JUNE 30, 2021
Note 6: Compensated Absences
Compensated absences comprise unused vacation leave, sick pay, and certain compensated time off, which are accrued as earned. Unused vacation time and personal holiday may be accumulated up to a specified maximum and are paid at the time of termination from Commission employment. Non-probationary employees in the classified service and unclassified service, whose separation is not caused by dismissal, shall be entitled to payment for sick leave accrued up to their date of separation. The changes in compensated absence balances were as follows:
Balance
Beginning of
Year Increases Decreases
Balance End
of Year
Amount Due
Within One
Year
Compensated Absences 350,586$ 81,913 $ 138,705 $ 293,794 $ 216,068 $
Note 7: Contingencies
The Program participates in State grant programs which are subject to the provisions of applicable State requirements. Management is not aware of any cost differences; however, these programs are still subject to further examination by the grantors and the amount, if any, of expenses which may be disallowed by the granting agencies cannot be determined at this time. The Program expects such amounts, if any, to be immaterial.
Note 8: Defined Benefit Pension Plan
Plan Description – Substantially all full-time Program employees are eligible to participate in the City’s Miscellaneous Plan, an agent mult iple-employer defined benefit pension plan, administered by CalPERS, which acts as a common investment and administrative agent for its participating member employers. Benefit provisions under the Plan are established by State statute and may be amended by City resolution. CalPERS issues publicly available reports that include a full description of the pension plans regarding benefit provisions, assumptions and membership information that can be found on the CalPERS website. For financial reporting purposes, the Program repor ts a proportionate share of the City’s net pension liability. Accordingly, the discl osures and required supplementary information (RSI) has been reported for the Program as a cost-sharing participant.
Benefits Provided – CalPERS provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost of living adjustments and death benefits to plan memb ers, who must be public employees and beneficiaries. Benefits are based on years of credite d service, equal to one year of full time employment. Members with five years of total service are eligible to retire at age 50 with statutorily reduced benefit s. All members are eligible for non-duty dis ability benefits after 10 years of service. The death benefit is one of the following: the Basic Death benefit, the 1957 Survivor Benefit, or the Optional Settlement 2W Death Benefit. The cost of living adjustments for each plan are applied as specified by the Public Employees’ Retirement Law. 11 CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
JUNE 30, 2021
Note 8: Defined Benefit Pension Plan (Continued)
The Plan’s provisions and benefits in effect at June 30, 2021, are summarized as follows:
Classic PEPRA
Hire date Prior to January 1, 2013 After to January 1, 2013 Benefit vesting schedule 5 years service 5 years service Benefit payments monthly for life monthly for life
Retirement age 50-55 52-67
Monthly benefits, as a % of annual salary 2.0-2.7% 1.0-2.5% Required employee contribution rates 8.000% 6.250%
Required employer contribution rates* 10.847% 12.500%
*There was an additional contribution amount related to the payment of the Unfunded Actuarial Liability (UAL). This amount is allocated by the City to the City's various funds.
Contributions – Section 20814(c) of the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law requires that the employer contribution rates for all public employers are determi ned on an annual basis by the actuary and shall be effective on the July 1 following notice of a change in rate. Funding contributions for the Plan are determined annually on an actuarial basis as of June 30 by CalPERS. The actuarially determined rate is the estimated amount necessary to finance the costs of benefits earned by employees during the year, with an additional amount to finance any unfunded accrued liability. The Progr am is required to contribute the difference between the actuarially determined rate and the contribution rates of employees.
Employer contribution rates as of the m easurement date were 10.847 percent for the Classic Plan Members and 12.500 percent for the PEPRA Plan members. The Program’s proportionate share of the City’s contributions to the Miscellaneous Plan was $918,967 for the year ended June 30, 2021.
Pension Liability, Pension Expense and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to Pensions
As of June 30, 2021, the Program reported a net pension liability of $8,933,574 for its proportionate share of the City’s Miscellaneous Plan’s net pension liability.
The net pension liability of the Plan was measured as of June 30, 2020, and the total pension liability used to calculate the net pension liabilit y was determined by an actuarial valuation as of June 30, 2019 rolled forward to June 30, 2020. The Program’s proportion of the City’s Miscellaneous Plan’s net pension liability was based on the Program’s fiscal year 2020 contributions to the City’s Miscellaneous Plan relative to the total contributions of the City as a whole. The Program’s proportionate share of the City’s Miscellaneous Plan net pension liability, measured as of June 30, 2020, was 3.38 percent, which was an increase of
0.08 percent from its proportion measured as of June 30, 2019.
12 CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
JUNE 30, 2021
Note 8: Defined Benefit Pension Plan (Continued)
For the year ended June 30, 2021, the Program recognized pension expense of $411,416. At June 30, 2021, the Program reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pension from the following sources:
Deferred Outflows
of Resources
Deferred Inflows of
Resources
Contributions paid by the
Program subsequent to measurement date 918,967 $ - $ Changes in assumptions - 51,666 Changes in proportion and difference between the Program's contributions and proportionate share of contributions 365,987 - Difference between expected and actual experience
Net differences between projected and actual earnings on - - pension plan investments 117,836 -
Total 1,402,790 $ 51,666 $
The amount of $918,967 reported in the fund as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions, resulting from the Program’s contribut ions to the City’s plan subsequent to the measurement date, will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended June 30, 2022. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized as a reduction to pension expense as follows:
2022 79,941$
2023 162,874
2024 124,313
2025 65,030
Total 432,157$
Year Ending June 30,
Actuarial Assumptions – The Program’s proportion of the City’s total pension liability in the June 30, 2019, actuarial valuation was determined using the following actuarial assumptions:
Valuation Date
Measurement Date
Actuarial Cost Method
Actuarial Assumptions:
Discount Rate
Inflation
Payroll Growth
Projected Salary Increase
Inv etment Rate of Return
Mortality
(1) Depending on age, service and type of employment
Miscellaneous
Entry-Age Normal Cost Method
Derived using CalPERS membership data
7.150%
3.3-14.2% (1)
3.00%
2.50%
7.15%
June 30, 2020
June 30, 2019
The mortality table used was developed based on CalPERS-specific data. For more details on this table, please refer to the December 2017 experience study report (based on CalPERS demographic data from 1997 to 2015) that can be found on the CalPERS website. 13 CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
JUNE 30, 2021
Note 8: Defined Benefit Pension Plan (Continued)
Changes of assumptions – The investment rate of return was changed from 7.375% to
7.150% between valuation periods ended June 30, 2018 and 2019, respectively.
The long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was determined using a building block method in which best-estimate r anges of expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of pension plan inve stment expense an inflation) are developed for each major asset class.
In determining the long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments, CalPERS took into account both short and long-term market return expectations as well as the expected pension fund cash flows. Such cash flows were devel oped assuming that both members and employers will make their requir ed contributions on time and as scheduled in all future years. Using historical returns of all the funds’ asset classes, expected compound (geometric) returns were calculated over the short-term (first 10 years) and the long-term (11-60 years) using a building-block approach. Using the expected nominal returns for both short-term and long-term, the present value of benefits was calculat ed for each fund. The expected rate of return was set by calculat ing the single equivalent expected return that arrived at the same present value of benefits for cash flows as the one calculated using both short-term and long-term returns. The expected rate of return was then set equivalent to the single equivalent rate calculated above and rounded down to the nearest one quarter of one percent.
The table below reflects long-term expected real rate of return by asset class. The rate of return was calculated using the capital market assumptions applied to determine the discount rate and asset allocation. The target allocation shown was adopted by the Pension Board effective on July 1, 2015.
Assumed Asset
Allocation
Real Return
Years 1-101
Real Return
Years 11+2
Global Equity 50% 4.80% 5.98%
Fixed Income 28% 1.00% 2.62%
Inflation Assets 0% 0.77% 1.81%
Private Equity 8% 6.30% 7.23%
Real Assets 13% 3.75% 4.93%
Liquidity 1% 0.00% -0.92%
Total 100%
1- An expected inflation of 2.0% used for this period.
2- An expected inflation of 2.92% used for this period.
Asset Class
Discount Rate – The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability was
7.15 percent. The projection of cash flows us ed to determine the discount rate assumed that employee contributions will be made at the curre nt contribution rate and that the Program’s contributions will be made at rates equal to the difference between actuarially determined contributions rates and the employee rate. Based on those assumptions, each pension plan’s fiduciary net position was projected to be available to make all projected future benefit payments of current active and inactive employee s. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total pension liability.
14 CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
JUNE 30, 2021
Note 8: Defined Benefit Pension Plan (Continued)
Subsequent Events – Discount Rate – On November 15, 2021, the CalPERS Board of Administration selected a new asset allocation mi x that will guide the fund’s investment portfolio for the next four years, while at the same time retaining the current target rate of return. The Board also approved adding 5 per cent leverage to increase investment diversification. The new asset allocation takes effect July 1, 2022 and is expected to decrease employer contribution rates from less than 1 per cent to a decrease of more than 2 percent depending on the plan type. Employees in the PEPR A plans will likely s ee increases in their contribution rates. Contribution changes will take effect in fiscal year 2023-24.
Sensitivity of the Program’s Proportionate Share of the City’s Miscellaneous Plan’s Net Pension Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate – The following presents the Program’s proportionate share of the net pension liability of the City’s Miscellaneous Plan’s net pension liability, calculated using the discount rate fo r the Plan, as well as what the Program’s proportionate share of the net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is 1-percentage point lower or 1-percentage point higher than the current rate:
Miscellaneous
1% Decrease 6.15%
Net Pension Liability 12,347,520 $
Current Discount Rate 7.15%
Net Pension Liability 8,933,574 $
1% Increase 8.15%
Net Pension Liability 6,112,630 $
Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position – Detailed information about the City’s collective net pension liability is available in the City’s sepa rately issued ACFR. The City’s ACFR may be obtained on the internet at www.roseville.ca.us.
Note 9: Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB)
Plan Description – The City provides medical benefits to substantially all retirees under the City of Roseville Other Post Employment B enefit Plan (Plan), a single-employer defined benefit healthcare plan. The City is respons ible for establishing and amending the funding policy of the Plan. Benefit provisions under the Plan are established by agreements between the City and its labor units. The plan financia l statements can be obtained by contacting the City of Roseville Finance Department at 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, California 95678. For financial reporting purposes, the Program reports a proportionate share of the City’s net OPEB liability. Accordingly, the disclosures and required supplementary information (RSI) have been reported for the Program as a cost-sharing participant.
Benefits Provided – The Plan provides medical, dental, and vision insurance benefits to eligible retirees and their dependent s. Benefits are provided through a third-party insurer, and the full cost of the benefits are covered by the Plan.
Contributions – Contribution requirements of t he Program are established and may be amended by the City Council. The Council es tablishes rates based on an actuarially determined rate. For the year ended June 30, 2021, the Program contributed $600,494. 15 CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
JUNE 30, 2021
Note 9: Other Post-Employmen t Benefits (OPEB) (Continued)
OPEB Liability, OPEB Expense and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to OPEB
As of June 30, 2021, the Program reported a net OPEB liability of $4,265,000 for its proportionate share of the City’s net OPEB liability.
The net OPEB liability of the Plan was measured as of June 30, 2021, and the total OPEB liability used to calculate the net OPEB liability wa s determined by an actuarial valuation as of June 30, 2019 rolled forward to June 30, 2021. The Program’s proportion of the Plan’s net OPEB liability was based on the Program’s fiscal year 2021 contributions to the Plan relative to the total contributions of the City as a whole. The Program’s proportionate share of the Plan’s net OPEB liability, measured as of June 30, 2021, was 4.28 percent, which was an increase of 2.35 percent from its proportion measured as of June 30, 2020.
For the year ended June 30, 2021, the Program recognized an OPEB expense of $212,000. At June 30, 2021, the Program reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB from the following sources:
Deferred Outflows
of Resources
Deferred Inflows of
Resources
Changes in assumptions 484,000 $ 176,351 $
Changes in proportion - -
Difference between expected and actual experience - 1,095,909 Net differences between projected and actual earnings on OPEB plan inv estments - 750,740 Total 484,000 $ 2,023,000 $
Amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB will be recognized as a reduction to pension expense/credit as follows:
2022 (407,436)$
2023 (398,873)
2024 (360,512)
2025 (273,001)
2026 (89,265)
Thereafter (9,913)
Total (1,539,000)$
Year Ending June 30,
16 CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
JUNE 30, 2021
Note 9: Other Post-Employmen t Benefits (OPEB) (Continued)
Actuarial Assumptions – The Program’s proportion of the City’s total OPEB liability in the June 30, 2019 actuarial valuation was determined using the following actuarial assumptions.
Valuation Date June 30, 2019
Measurement Date June 30, 2021
Actuarial Cost Method Entry-Age Normal Cost Method
Actuarial Assumptions
Discount Rate 6.00%
Inflation 2.75%
Payroll Growth 3.00%
Projected Salary Increase 3.00%
Investment Rate of Return 6.25%
Healthcare cost trend rate
Mortality CalPERS 1997-2015 Experience Study
Non-Medicare - 7.5%, decreasing to an ultimate rate of
4.0% in 2076
Medicare - 6.5%, decreasing to an ultimate rate of 4.0% in 2076
The underlying mortality assumptions and all other actuarial assumptions used in the June 30, 2019 valuation were based on the result s of an actuarial experience study for the period of 1997 to 2015. Further details of the Experience Study can be found on the CalPERS website.
The long-term expected rate of return on OPEB plan investments was determined using a building block method in which best-estimate ranges of expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of pension plan inve stment expense an inflation) are developed for each major asset class. These ranges are comb ined to produce the long-term expected rate of return by weighting the expected future real rates of return by the target asset allocation percentage and by adding expected inflation.
The table below reflects long-term expected real rate of return by asset class. The rate of return was calculated using the capital market assumptions applied to determine the discount rate and asset allocation. The target allocation shown was adopted by the City effective on July 1, 2019.
Target
Allocation
Expected
Real Return
Equity 60% 4.65%
Fixed Income 40% 0.78%
Total 100%
Assumed Long-Term Rate of Inflation is 2.75%
Asset Class
Discount Rate – The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability was
6.00 percent. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that contributions w ill be m ade at the current contribution rate. Based on those assumptions,
17 CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
JUNE 30, 2021
Note 9: Other Post-Employmen t Benefits (OPEB) (Continued)
the Plan’s fiduciary net position was projected to be available to make all projected future benefit payments of current active and inactive employees. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total pension liability.
Sensitivity of the Program’s Proportionate Share of the Plan’s Net OPEB Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate – The following presents the Program’s proportionate share of the net OPEB liability, calculated using the disc ount rate for the Plan, as well as what the Program’s proportionate share of the net OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is 1-percentage point lowe r or 1-percentage point higher than the current rate:
1% Decrease
(5.00%)
Discount Rate
(6.00%)
1% Increase
(7.00%)
Program's net OPEB Liability 5,783,424$ 4,265,000 $ 3,034,942 $ Discount Rate
Sensitivity of the Program’s Proportionate Share of the Plan’s Net OPEB Liability to Changes in the Healthcare Cost Trend Rates – The following presents the Program’s proportionate share of the net O PEB liability, as well as w hat the Program’s proportionate share of the net OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using healthcare cost trend rates that are 1-percentage-point lower or 1-percentage-point higher than the current healthcare cost trend rates:
1% Decrease
Current Trend
Rate 1% Increase
Program's net OPEB Liability 3,115,249$ 4,265,000 $ 5,400,786 $ Healthcare Cost
OPEB Plan Fiduciary Net Position – Detailed information about the City’s collective net OPEB liability is available in the City’s separately issued ACFR. The City’s ACFR may be obtained on the internet at www.roseville.ca.us.
Note 10: New and Future Accounting Pronouncements
Future Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Pronouncements
GASB Statement No. 87 – In June 2017, GASB iss ued Statement No. 87, Leases. The objective of this Statement is to better meet the information needs of financial statement users by improving accounting and financial repo rting for leases; enhancing the comparability of financial statements between governments; and also enhancing the relevance, reliability (representational faithfulness), and consistency of information about the leasing activities of governments. This Statement is effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2021.
The City has not determined the effect on the Program’s financial statements.
18 CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
JUNE 30, 2021
Note 10: New and Future Accounting Pronouncements (Continued)
GASB Statement No. 89 – In June 2018, the GASB issued Statement No. 89, Accounting for Interest Cost Incurred Before the End of a Construction Period. The objectives of this Statement are (a) to enhance the relevance and comparability of information about capital assets and the cost of borrowing for a reporting period and (b) to simplify acc ounting for certain interest costs. This Statement is effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2020. The City has not determi ned the effect on the Program’s financial statements.
GASB Statement No. 91 – In May 2019, the GASB issued Statement No. 91, Conduit Debt Obligations. The objective of this Statement is to provide a single method of reporting conduit debt obligations by issues and eliminate diversit y in practice. The Statement is effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2021. The City has not determined the effect on the Program’s financial statements.
GASB Statement No. 92 – In January 2020, the GASB issued Statement No. 92, Omnibus 2020. The objectives of this Statement ar e to enhance comparability in accounting and financial reporting to improve the consistenc y of authoritative liter ature by addressing practices issues that have been identified dur ing implementation and application of certain GASB Statements. The Statement is effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2021. The City has not determined the effect on the Program’s financial statements.
GASB Statement No. 93 – In March 2020, the GASB issued Statement No. 93, Replacement of Interbank Offered Rates . The objective of this Statement is to address the accounting and financial reporting implications that result from the replacement of an interbank offered rate (IBOR). The Statement is effective for repor ting periods beginning after June 15, 2021. The City has not determined the effect on the Program’s financial statements.
GASB Statement No. 94– In March 2020, the GASB issued Statement No. 94, Public-Private and Public-Public Partnerships and Av ailability Payment Arrangements. The objective of this Statement is improve financial reporting by addressing issues related to public-private and public-public partnership arrangements (PPPs). The Statement is effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2022. The Ci ty has not determined the effect on the Program’s financial statements.
GASB Statement No. 96 – In May 2020, the GASB iss ued Statement No. 96, Subscription-based Information Technology Arrangements . The objective of this Statement is to provide guidance on the accounting and fi nancial reporting for subscription-based information technology arrangements (SBITAs) for governm ent end users (governments).
The Statement is effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2022. The City has not determined the effect on the Program’s financial statements.
GASB Statement No. 97 – In June 2020, the GASB iss ued Statement No. 97, Certain Component Unit Criteria, and A ccounting and Financial Reporting for Internal Revenue Code Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plans – An Amendment of GASB Statement No.14 and No.84 and A Supersession of GASB Statement No.32. The objective of this Statement is (1) increase consistency and comparability related to the reporting of fiduciary component units in circumstances in which a potential component unit does not have a governing board and the primary government performs the duties that a governing board typically would perform; (2) mitigate costs associated with the reporting of certain defined contribution pension plans, defined contri bution other postemployment benefit (OPEB) plans, and
19 CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
JUNE 30, 2021
Note 10: New and Future Accounting Pronouncements (Continued)
employee benefit plans other than pension plans or OPEB plans (other employee benefit plans) as fiduciary component units in fiduciary fund financial statements; and (3) enhance the relevance, consistency, and comparability of the accounting and financial reporting for Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 457 deferred com pensation plans (Section 457 plans) that meet the definition of a pension plan and for benefits provided through those plans. The Statement is effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2021. The City has not determined the effect on the Program’s financial statements.
20 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
21 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
SCHEDULE OF THE PROGRAM'S PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE CITY'S NET PENSION LIABILITY (MISCELLANEOUS PLAN) LAST TEN YEARS**
2015 2016 2017 2018
Measurement date June 30, 2014 June 30, 2015 June 30, 2016 June 30, 2017 Program's proportion of the City's
Net Pension Liability (Miscellaneous Plan) 2.28% 2.45% 2.88% 3.91% Program's proportionate share of the City's
Net Pension Liability (Miscellaneous Plan) 3,788,219$ 4,166,408$ 5,879,509$ 8,934,765$ Covered Payroll 1,968,152$ 2,053,457$ 2,157,033$ 2,385,506$ Program's proportionate share of net pension liability
as a percentage of covered payroll 192.48% 202.90% 272.57% 374.54% Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage
of the Total Pension Liability 67.62% 66.97% 63.89% 63.85% (1) Fiscal Year 2015 was the first year of implementation, therefore only seven years are shown. 22 2019 2020 2021
June 30, 2018 June 30, 2019 June 30, 2020
3.18% 3.29% 3.38%
7,556,336$ 8,227,212$ 8,933,574$
2,457,071$ 2,400,674$ 2,603,909$
307.53% 342.70% 343.08%
65.21% 65.09% 64.55%
(1) Fiscal Year 2015 was the first year of implementation, therefore only seven years are shown. 23 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
SCHEDULE OF THE PROGRAM'S PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS
LAST TEN YEARS**
2015 2016 2017 2018
Miscellaneous Rate Plan
Actuarially Determined Contribution 361,740$ 506,156$ 588,625$ 723,026$ Contribution in Relation to the Actuarially Determined Contribution (361,740) (506,156) (588,625) (723,026) Contribution Deficiency (Excess) -$ -$ -$ -$ Covered Payroll 2,053,457$ 2,157,033$ 2,385,506$ 2,457,071$ Contributions as a Percentage of Covered Payroll 17.62% 23.47% 24.68% 29.43% Notes to Schedule:
Methods and assumptions used to determine contribution rates:
Actuarial cost method
Amortization method
Asset valuation method
Inflation
Salary increases
Payroll growth
Investment rate of return
Retirement age
Mortality
All other actuarial assumptions used in the June 30, 2018 valuation were based on the results of an actuarial experience study for the period from 1997 to 2015, including updates to salary increase, mortality and retirement rates. The Experience Study report may be accessed on the CalPERS website at www.calpers.ca.gov under Forms and Publications.
The mortality table used was developed based on CalPERS’ specific data. The table includes 15 years of mortality improvements using 90 percent of Society of Actuaries' Scale 2016. For more details on this table, please refer to the 2017 experience study report. **Historical information is required only for measurement periods for which GASB 68 is applicable. Fiscal Year 2015 was the first year of implementation, therefore only seven years are shown.
Market Value
2.50%
Varies by Entry Age and Service
2.75%
7.00%, net of pension plan investment expenses, including inflation.
Entry age normal cost method
Level percentage of pay, a summary of the current policy is provided in the table below:
24 2019 2020 2021
677,313$ 765,391$ 918,967$
(677,313) (765,391) (918,967) -$ -$ -$ 2,400,674$ 2,603,909$ 2,497,228$
28.21% 29.39% 36.80%
Market Value
2.50%
Varies by Entry Age and Service
2.75%
7.00%, net of pension plan investment expenses, including inflation.
Entry age normal cost method
Level percentage of pay, a summary of the current policy is provided in the table below:
25 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
SCHEDULE OF THE PROGRAM'S PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE CITY'S NET OPEB LIABILITY LAST TEN YEARS**
2018 2019 2020 2021
Measurement date June 30, 2018 June 30, 2019 June 30, 2020 June 30, 2021 Program's proportion of the City's net OPEB liability 3.22000% 2.21000% 2.35000% 0.57125% Program's proportionate share of the City's net OPEB liability 4,589,000$ 3,257,000$ 4,349,000$ 4,265,000$ Program's covered-employee payroll 1,523,361$ 2,400,674$ 2,603,909$ 2,497,228$ Program's proportionate share of net OPEB liability
as a percentage of covered-employee payroll 301.24% 135.67% 167.02% 170.79% Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage
of the Total Pension Liability 31.28% 37.07% 48.58% 58.95% (1) Fiscal Year 2018 was the first year of implementation, therefore only four years are shown. 26 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
SCHEDULE OF THE PROGRAM'S OPEB CONTRIBUTIONS
LAST TEN YEARS**
2018 2019 2020 2021
Valuation Date June 30, 2017 June 30, 2017 June 30, 2019 June 30, 2019 Actuarially Determined Contribution 287,000$ 336,000$ 387,000$ 600,494$ Contribution in Relation to the Actuarially Determined Contribution (287,000) (336,000) (387,000) (600,494) Contribution Deficiency (Excess) -$ -$ -$ -$ Covered-Employee Payroll 1,523,361$ 2,400,674$ 2,603,909$ 2,497,228$
18.84% 14.00% 14.86% 24.05%
(1) Fiscal Year 2015 was the first year of implementation, therefore only seven years are shown.
Contributions as a Percentage of Covered-Employee Payroll 27 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
28 SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
CFDA
Number Grantor's Number
Award
Amount Revenue Expenses
State Awards
Passed through State of California, Department of Education Child Development Division
General Child Care and Development Program N/A CCTR-0169 284,635$ 284,635$ 284,635$ General Child Care and Development Program N/A CCTR-9165* - 26,069 - Federal Awards
Department of Health and Human Services
Passed through State of California, Department of Education Child Development Division
General Child Care and Development Program
93.575 /
93.596 CCTR-0169 156,635 156,635 156,635
General Child Care and Development Program
93.575 /
93.596 CCTR-9165* - 13,829 -
441,270$ 481,168$ 441,270$
*Includes prior year contract revenue carryover of $38,898.
Footnote 1. Basis of Presentation
Total Federal and State Awards
CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AND STATE AWARDS
Grantor/Program Title
The Schedule of Expenditures of State and Federal Awards includes the expenditures of federal awards of the City.
Expenditures are presented on the accrual basis of accounting. The federal information in this schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of Uniform Guidance, 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F. Thus, some amounts presented in this schedule may differ from amounts presented in, or used in the preparation of the financial statements. 29 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET POSITION YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
Total CDE Non-CDE
CCTR-0169* Contracts Programs Total
Operating Revenues:
Department of Education grants 481,168$ 481,168$ -$ 481,168$ Local grants and other revenues - - 387,213 387,213 Parent fees - certified children 19,990 19,990 - 19,990 Parent fees - noncertified children 80,762 80,762 2,762,818 2,843,580 Total Operating Revenues 581,920 581,920 3,150,031 3,731,951 Operating Expenses:
Salaries 439,227 439,227 3,183,288 3,622,515 Employee benefits 202,941 202,941 1,026,436 1,229,377 Books and supplies 12,853 12,853 224,072 236,925 Services and other operating expenses 118,546 118,546 623,953 742,499 Depreciation - - 113,988 113,988 Total Operating Expenses 773,567 773,567 5,171,737 5,945,304 Operating Loss (191,647) (191,647) (2,021,706) (2,213,353) Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses):
Use of money and property - - (15,034) (15,034) Interest and fiscal charges - - (20,500) (20,500) Total Nonoperating
Revenues (Expenses) - - (35,534) (35,534) Loss Before Transfers (191,647) (191,647) (2,057,240) (2,248,887) Transfers from the City - 70,081 70,081 Changes in Net Position (191,647) (191,647) (2,021,706) (2,178,806) Net Position:
Beginning of Year (12,368,293)
End of Fiscal Year (14,547,099)$
*Includes prior year contract revenue carryover of $38,898.
See Notes to Financial Statement.
30 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES BY STATE CATEGORIES
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
CDE Contract
CCTR-0169
Expenditure Codes
2000 Classified Salaries 439,227$
3000 Employee Benefits 202,941
4000 Books and Supplies 12,853
5000 Services and Other Operating Expenses 118,546
6000 Capital Outlay -
Total Expenditures 773,567$
31 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
SCHEDULE OF REIMBURSABLE EQUIPMENT EXPENDITURES
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
Cost Item Cost Item Cost Item
-$ None -$ None -$ None $7,500 Unit Cost With CCD Approval Without CCD Approval Expenditures Over Expenditures Over
Expenditures Under $7,500 Unit Cost $7,500 Unit Cost
32 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
SCHEDULE OF REIMBURSABLE EQUIPMENT EXPENDITURES FOR RENOVATION AND REPAIRS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
Cost Item Cost Item Cost Item
-$ None -$ None -$ None $10,000 Unit Cost With CCD Approval Without CCD Approval Expenditures Over Expenditures Over
Expenditures Under $10,000 Unit Cost $10,000 Unit Cost
33 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
SCHEDULE OF REIMBURSABLE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
CDE Contract
CCTR-0169
Administrative Salaries and Benefits 257,777$
Toal Administrative Costs 257,777$
34 California Department of Social Services
Audited Attendance and Fiscal Report
for Child Development Programs
A U D 9500 v2 Page 1 of 8
Fiscal Year Ending
Contract Number
Vendor Code
Full Name of Contractor
Section 1 - Days of Enrollment Certified Children
Column A
Cumulative
CDNFS 9500
Column B
Audit
Adjustments
Column C
Cumulative
per Audit
Column D
Adjustment
Factor
Column E
Adjusted Days
per Audit
Infants (up to 18 months) Full-time-plus
Infants (up to 18 months) Full-time
Infants (up to 18 months) Three-quarters-time
Infants (up to 18 months) One-half-time
Toddlers (18 up to 36 months) Full-time-plus
Toddlers (18 up to 36 months) Full-time
Toddlers (18 up to 36 months) Three-quarters-time
Toddlers (18 up to 36 months) One-half-time
Three Years and Older Full-time-plus
Three Years and Older Full-time
Three Years and Older Three-quarters-time 0.7500
Three Years and Older One-half-time 0.5500
Exceptional Needs Full-time-plus 1.8172
Exceptional Needs Full-time 1.5400
Exceptional Needs Three-quarters-time 1.1550
Exceptional Needs One-half-time 0.8470
Audit Report Page
June 30, 2021
CCTR-0169
2191
Cit
y of Roseville School-Age Child Care Program
2.8792 0
2.4400 0
1.8300 0
1.3420 0
2.1240 0
1.8000 0
1.3500 0
0.9900 0
642 168 810 1.1800 955.8
2,567 895 3,462 1.0000 3,462
1,676 766 2,442 1,831.5
551 260 811 446.05
0 0
0 0
1 35
A U D 9500 Page 2 of 8 Contract Number
Full Name of Contractor
Section 1 - Days of Enrollment Certified Children (continued) Column A
Cumulative
CDNFS 9500
Column B
Audit
Adjustments
Column C
Cumulative
per Audit
Column D
Adjustment
Factor
Column E
Adjusted Days
per Audit
Limited and Non-English Proficient Full-time-plus 1.2980 Limited and Non-English Proficient Full-time 1.1000
Limited and Non-English Proficient Three-quarters-time 0.8250 Limited and Non-English Proficient One-half-time 0.6050 At Risk of Abuse or Neglect Full-time-plus 1.2980
At Risk of Abuse or Neglect Full-time 1.1000
At Risk of Abuse or Neglect Three-quarters-time 0.8250
At Risk of Abuse or Neglect One-half-time 0.6050
Severely Disabled Full-time-plus 2.2774
Severely Disabled Full-time 1.9300
Severely Disabled Three-quarters-time 1.4475
Severely Disabled One-half-time 1.0615
TOTAL CERTIFIED DAYS OF ENROLLMENT N/A
DAYS OF OPERATION N/A N/A
DAYS OF ATTENDANCE N/A N/A
NO NON-CERTIFIED CHILDREN Check this box (omit pages 3-4) and continue to Revenue Section on page 5.
Audit Report Page
CCTR-0169
City of Roseville School-Age Child Care Program
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
5,436 2,089 7,525 6,695.35
185 63 248
5,436 2,089 7,525
2 36
A U D 9500 Page 3 of 8 Contract Number
Full Name of Contractor
Section 2 - Days of Enrollment Non-Certified Children
Column A
Cumulative
CDNFS 9500
Column B
Audit
Adjustments
Column C
Cumulative
per Audit
Column D
Adjustment
Factor
Column E
Adjusted Days
per Audit
Infants (up to 18 months) Full-time-plus 2.8792
Infants (up to 18 months) Full-time 2.4400
Infants (up to 18 months) Three-quarters-time 1.8300
Infants (up to 18 months) One-half-time 1.3420
Toddlers (18 up to 36 months) Full-time-plus 2.1240
Toddlers (18 up to 36 months) Full-time 1.8000
Toddlers (18 up to 36 months) Three-quarters-time 1.3500 Toddlers (18 up to 36 months) One-half-time 0.9900
Three Years and Older Full-time-plus 1.1800
Three Years and Older Full-time 1.0000
Three Years and Older Three-quarters-time 0.7500
Three Years and Older One-half-time 0.5500
Exceptional Needs Full-time-plus 1.8172
Exceptional Needs Full-time 1.5400
Exceptional Needs Three-quarters-time 1.1550
Exceptional Needs One-half-time 0.8470
Audit Report Page
CCTR-0169
City of Roseville School-Age Child Care Program
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1,060 522 1,582 1,582
380 187 567 425.25
165 60 225 123.75
0 0
0 0
3 37
A U D 9500 Page 4 of 8 Contract Number
Full Name of Contractor
Section 2 - Days of Enrollment Non-Certified Children (continued) Column A
Cumulative
CDNFS 9500
Column B
Audit
Adjustments
Column C
Cumulative
per Audit
Column D
Adjustment
Factor
Column E
Adjusted Days
per Audit
Limited and Non-English Proficient Full-time-plus 1.2980 Limited and Non-English Proficient Full-time 1.1000
Limited and Non-English Proficient Three-quarters-time 0.8250 Limited and Non-English Proficient One-half-time 0.6050 At Risk of Abuse or Neglect Full-time-plus 1.2980
At Risk of Abuse or Neglect Full-time 1.1000
At Risk of Abuse or Neglect Three-quarters-time 0.8250
At Risk of Abuse or Neglect One-half-time 0.6050
Severely Disabled Full-time-plus 2.2774
Severely Disabled Full-time 1.9300
Severely Disabled Three-quarters-time 1.4475
Severely Disabled One-half-time 1.0615
TOTAL NON-CERTIFIED DAYS OF ENROLLMENT N/A
Audit Report Page
CCTR-0169
City of Roseville School-Age Child Care Program
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1,605 769 2,374 2,131
4 38
A U D 9500 Page 5 of 8 Contract Number
Full Name of Contractor
Section 3 - Revenue
Column A
Cumulative
CDNFS 9500
Column B
Audit
Adjustments
Column C
Cumulative
per Audit
Restricted Income - Child Nutrition Programs
Restricted Income - County Maintenance of Effort (EC Section 8279) Restricted Income - Other:
Restricted Income - Subtotal
Transfer From Reserve
Waived Family Fees for Certified Children (July and August) Family Fees Collected for Certified Children (September - June) Waived Family Fees for Certified Children (September - June) Family Fees (September - June) - Subtotal
Interest Earned on Child Development Apportionment Payments Unrestricted Income - Fees for Non-Certified Children
Unrestricted Income - Head Start
Unrestricted Income - Other:
Total Revenue
Comments:
Audit Report Page
CCTR-0169
City of Roseville School-Age Child Care Program
5,615 5,615
13,623 6,367 19,990
13,623 6,367 19,990
49,834 30,928 80,762
63,457 37,295 100,752
5 39
A U D 9500 Page 6 of 8 Contract Number
Full Name of Contractor
Section 4 - Reimbursable Expenses
Column A
Cumulative
CDNFS 9500
Column B
Audit
Adjustments
Column C
Cumulative
per Audit
Direct Payments to Providers (FCCH only)
1000 Certificated Salaries
2000 Classified Salaries
3000 Employee Benefits
4000 Books and Supplies
5000 Services and Other Operating Expenses
6100/6200 Other Approved Capital Outlay
6400 New Equipment (program-related)
6500 Equipment Replacement (program-related)
Depreciation or Use Allowance
Start-up Expenses (service level exemption)
Budget Impasse Credit
Indirect Costs (include in Total Administrative Cost)
Non-Reimbursable (State use only)
Total Reimbursable Expenses
Total Administrative Cost (included in Section 4 above) Total Staff Training Cost (included in Section 4 above) Approved Indirect Cost Rate:
NO SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE / EXPENSES Check this box and omit page 7.
Audit Report Page
CCTR-0169
City of Roseville School-Age Child Care Program
331,653 107,574 439,227
166,549 36,392 202,941
7,444 5,409 12,853
93,886 24,660 118,546
599,532 174,035 773,567
192,540 65,237 257,777
6 40
A U D 9500 Page 7 of 8 Contract Number
Full Name of Contractor
Section 5 - Supplemental Revenue
Column A
Cumulative
CDNFS 9500
Column B
Audit
Adjustments
Column C
Cumulative
per Audit
Enhancement Funding
Other:
Other:
Total Supplemental Revenue
Section 6 - Supplemental Expenses
Column A
Cumulative
CDNFS 9500
Column B
Audit
Adjustments
Column C
Cumulative
per Audit
1000 Certificated Salaries
2000 Classified Salaries
3000 Employee Benefits
4000 Books and Supplies
5000 Services and Other Operating Expenses
6000 Equipment / Capital Outlay
Depreciation or Use Allowance
Indirect Costs
Non-Reimbursable Supplemental Expenses
Total Supplemental Expenses
Audit Report Page
CCTR-0169
City of Roseville School-Age Child Care Program
41 A U D 9500 Page 8 of 8 Contract Number
Full Name of Contractor
Section 7 - Summary
Column A
Cumulative
CDNFS 9500
Column B
Audit
Adjustments
Column C
Cumulative
per Audit
Total Certified Days of Enrollment
Days of Operation
Days of Attendance
Restricted Program Income
Transfer from Reserve
Family Fees for Certified Children (September - June)
Interest Earned on Child Development Apportionment Payments Direct Payments to Providers
Start-up Expenses (service level exemption)
Total Reimbursable Expenses
Total Administrative Cost
Total Staff Training Cost
Total Certified Adjusted Days of Enrollment Total Non-Certified Adjusted Days of Enrollment Independent auditor's assurances on agency's compliance with contract funding terms and conditions and program requirements of the California Department of Education, Early Learning and Care Division:
Eligibility, enrollment and attendance records are being maintained as required (select YES or NO from the drop-down box):
Reimbursable expenses claimed on page 6 are eligible for reimbursement, reasonable, necessary, and adequately supported (select YES or NO from the drop-down box):
Include any comments in the comments box on page 5. If necessary, attach additional sheets to explain adjustments.
Audit Report Page
CCTR-0169
City of Roseville School-Age Child Care Program
5,436 2,089 7,525
185 63 248
5,436 2,089 7,525
13,623 6,367 19,990
599,532 174,035 773,567
192,540 65,237 257,777
6,695.35 2,131
YES
YES
8 42
California Department of Education
Audited Reserve Account Activity Report
A U D 9530A Page 1 of 1
Fiscal Year End
Reserve Account Type
Vendor Code
Full Name of Contractor
Section 1 - Prior Year Reserve Account Activity
1. Beginning Balance (2019-20 AUD 9530A Ending Balance)
2. Plus Transfers to Reserve Account: Per 2019–20 Post-Audit CDNFS 9530 Contract No.
Contract No.
Contract No.
Contract No.
Contract No.
Contract No.
Total Transferred from 2019–20 Contracts to Reserve
3. Less Excess Reserve to be Billed
4. Ending Balance per 2019–20 Post-Audit CDNFS 9530
Section 2 - Current Year (2020-21) Reserve Account Activity Column A
CDNFS
9530A
Column B
Audit
Adjustments
Column C
per Audit
5. Plus Interest Earned This Year on Reserve
6. Less Transfers to Contracts from Reserve:
CSPP General-Contract No.
CSPP General-Contract No.
CSPP Professional Development-Contract No.
CSPP Professional Development-Contract No.
Subtotal CSPP Transfers
Other Contract No.
Other Contract No.
Other Contract No.
Other Contract No.
Other Contract No.
Subtotal Other Contract Transfers
Total Transferred to Contracts from Reserve Account
7. Ending Balance on June 30, 2021
COMMENTS - If necessary, attach additional sheets to explain adjustments.
Audit Report Page
June 30, 2021
Center-Based
312191
City of Roseville
115
115
115 115
43 INDEPENDENT AUD
ITORS’ REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE
REQUIREMENTS AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Roseville, California
Opinions
We have audited the City of Roseville’s (the City) School-Age Child Care Program’s (the Program) compliance with the requirements described in the CDE Audit Guide (the Guide) issued by the California Department of Education, August 2021, for the year ended June 30, 2021.
In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects with the compliance requirements referred to above that are applicable to the Program for the year ended June 30, 2021.
Basis for Opinion
We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS); and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and the Guide.
Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section of our report. We are required to be independent of the City and the Program and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of the City's compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above.
Responsibilities of Management for Compliance
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements referred to above and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, statutes, regulations, rules, and provisions of contracts or grant agreements applicable to the City’s government programs.
Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance
Our responsibility is to express opinions on compliance with the requirements described in the Guide based on our audit. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in the Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and the Guide.
Those standards and the Guide require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a material effect on the City’s School-Age Child Care Program. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the City’s compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Misstatements are considered material if, there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements.
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
School-Age Child Care Program
City of Roseville, California
In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the Guide, we:
Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.
Identify and assess the risks of material noncompliance, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the City's compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Obtain an understanding of the City's internal control over compliance relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the Guide, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.
We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, and any significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in internal control over compliance that we identified during the audit.
Report on Internal Control Over Compliance
A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a compliance requirement will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined abo ve. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance may exist that have not been identified.
Our audit was not designed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the CDE Audit Guide issued by the California Department of Education, August 2021. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
Sacramento, California
December 14, 2021
45 CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
None noted.
46 CITY OF ROSEVILLE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ROSEVILLE SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF PRIOR YEAR FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2020
None noted.
47 2151 River Plaza Dr., Suite 150
Sacramento , CA 95833 Phone: 916.503.9691 Lance, Soll & Lunghard, LLP
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON AGREED-UPON
PROCEDURES APPLIED TO APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT WORKSHEETS
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Roseville, California
We have performed the procedures enumerated below to the accompanying Appropriations Limit Worksheet No. 6 (or other alternative computation) of the City of Roseville, California, for the year ended June 30, 2022. These procedures, which were agreed to by the Ci ty of Roseville and the League of California Cities (as presented in the publication entitled Agr eed-Upon Procedures Applied to the Appropriations Limitation Prescribed by Article XIII-B of the California Constitution), were performed solely to assist the City of Roseville i n meeting the requirements of Section 1.5 of Article XIII-B of the California Constitution. The City of Roseville's management is responsible for the Appropriations Limit Worksheet No. 6 (or other alternative computation).
This agreed-upon procedures engagement was conducted in accorda nce with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of those parties specified in this report. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures desc ribed below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose.
The procedures performed and our findings were as follows:
1. We obtained the completed Worksheets No. 1 through No. 7 (or other alternative computations) and compared the limit and annual adjustment factors included i n those worksheets to the limit and annual adjustment factors that were adopted by resolution o f the City Council. We also compared the population and inflation options included in the a forementioned worksheets to those that were selected by a recorded vote of the City Council.
Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.
2. For the accompanying Appropriations Limit Worksheet No. 6, we multiplied line A, last year's limit, by line D, ratio of change, and agreed the resulting amount to line E, this year's limit.
Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.
3. We compared the current year information presented in the ac companying Appropriations Limit Worksheet No. 6 to the other worksheets described in No. 1 above.
Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.
4. We compared the prior year appropriations limit presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit Worksheet No. 6 to the prior year appropriations limit ad opted by the City Council for the prior year.
Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Roseville, California
We were not engaged to and did not perform an audit, the object ive of which would be the expression of an opinion on the accompanying Appr opriations Limit Worksheet N o. 6. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. No procedures have been performed with respect to the determination of the appropriations limit for the base year, as defined by the League publication entitled Article XIIIB Appropriations Limitation Uniform Guidelines.
This report is intended solely for the use of the City of Rosev ille, California and should not be used by those who have not agreed to the procedures and taken responsib ility for the sufficiency of the procedures for their purposes. However, this report is a matte r of public record and it s distribution is not limited.
Sacramento, California
July 13, 2021
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
2021-2022
APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT CALCULATION
A. 2020-2021 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT: $186,943,868
B. 2021-2022 CHANGE IN PER CAPITA
PERSONAL INCOME: 1.0573%
C. 2021-2022 CHANGE IN POPULATION: 1.0236%
D. RATIO OF CHANGE (1.05 73 X 1.0236): 1.0822
E. 2021-2022 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT: $202,314,319
($186,943,868 X 1.0822)
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1899
File #:
0103-32-02
Title:
2022 Legislative and Regulatory Platform for State and Federal Advocacy Contact:
Mark Wolinski 916-774-5179 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 2/2/2022
Item #: 7.10.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Adopt the attached Legislative Platform, which includes a set of priorities, legislative principles and platforms to guide the City's State and Federal legislative and judicial advocacy programs through 2022. (Attachment A)
BACKGROUND
The State and Federal priorities and legislative platform defined within the document are the result of the City Council’s articulation of its goals and priorities during legislative updates and the City Council’s Legislative Platform Workshop held December 15, 2021.
The Legislative Platform
conveys the Council’s positions on issues that are currently, or are anticipated to be, the focus of future legislation by the State and Federal governments.
Council’s adoption of this platform authorizes the City's active participation to influence State and Federal decision-making on legislative, administrative, regulatory and funding issues and to support judicial advocacy consistent with the City's priorities. Using this document as a guide, the City will adopt positions on specific legislation, regulations and budget proposals, and respond to requests for amicus curiae support when the outcome of a pending lawsuit is likely to significantly affect a priority concern of the City. The Mayor will sign letters based on the City's identified interests; the Mayor and other Council Members will advance City interests through individual and regional advocacy efforts; and the Mayor will act on requests from the City Attorney to join in friend-of-the-court briefs.
Staff recommends that the Legislative Platform be updated annually to be responsive to changes to the State and Federal legislative and regulatory environments and to reflect the interests unique to Roseville, the region and interests that may also be common to cities throughout the State.
Effective Platform Implementation
An assortment of internal and external resources is used to effectively administer the City’s legislative platform, they include:
• The City Council Law and Regulation Committee is a standing, advisory committee of the City Council with review and recommendation authority. The Committee provides a forum to introduce, discuss and more thoroughly analyze selected proposed State and Federal legislation, policies and regulations that have the potential to impact City departments, the community and the region. • Staff works collaboratively with the City’s Federal and State lobbyists to understand and develop strategies for influencing legislation.
The City’s Federal lobbyist also works closely with staff to help identify funding resources for departmental projects and will review grant applications before they are submitted.
• In addition to the City’s lobbyists, staff interacts and participates with organizations such as The League of California Cities, Sacramento Area Council of Governments, North State Water Alliance, Northern California Power Agency, California Municipal Utilities Association and the Roseville Chamber of Commerce to advocate on issues that are important to the City. • Internally, government relations staff works with staff from each department on legislation, regulations, and project funding opportunities that are important to their departments.
During the
course of the legislative year staff monitors introduced legislation, develops priority lists of legislation for each department and makes recommendations on letters of support/opposition as the bills progress through the legislative process.
• Government relations staff works closely with the staff of the City’s State and Federal representatives to ensure the City’s position on legislation is clearly understood by Roseville’s representatives.
The development of this relationship and exchange of information with the City’s representatives is an effort that continues throughout the entire year.
Working collaboratively with the Council’s Law and Regulation Committee and the City’s internal and external partners ensures that the City’s advocacy strategy has the greatest ability to influence legislation and policies that are crucial to the City.
The City has successfully demonstrated the
ability to work with this process and to develop coalitions that take positions on legislation in a manner that is beneficial and supportive of the adopted platform.
Platform Modifications
Modifications were made throughout the platform to ensure the City is well positioned to effectively advocate for or against legislation, policies and regulations introduced during the 2022 legislative and congressional sessions. These modifications were reviewed and discussed with the City Council during the Council’s Legislative Platform workshop.
All additions/edits that were provided for Council’s review at the Legislative Platform workshop have been incorporated into the 2022 Legislative and Regulatory Platform for State and Federal Advocacy. In addition, based on comments provided by City Council the following statement was modified in the platform in the described section:
Environmental Utilities Platform
• Roseville’s Environmental Utilities (EU) Department operates water, wastewater, and waste services (formerly solid waste) delivering critical public health and sanitation services.
EU’s
services include management of groundwater, recycled water, and stormwater programs for the dual benefit of Roseville’s residential and business customers and the environment.
There are
many external factors that influence how EU operates, what it charges for utility services, and the kinds and quality of services provided to its customers.
FISCAL IMPACT
The costs to implement the legislative advocacy program are included in the City’s approved budget.
The Legislative Platform has no direct fiscal impact to the City’s budget; the platform provides policy direction only.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) only applies to projects which have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3)).
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal B - Support community engagement and advocacy
Respectfully Submitted,
Mark Wolinski, Government Relations Administrator
Megan Scheid, Deputy City Manager
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Legislative Platform 2022 - Attachment A
1 City of Roseville
2022 Legislative and Regulatory Platform
for State and Federal Advocacy
Attachment A
Roseville City Council
From left to right: Councilmember Pauline Roccucci, Councilmember Scott Alvord, Mayor Krista Bernasconi, Councilmember Tracy Mendonsa, Vice Mayor Bruce Houdesheldt Roseville City Council Goals 2020-2024
Goal A - Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world Goal B - Support community engagement and advocacy
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal D - Enhance economic vitality
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Contents
Background ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1 Strategies for Effective Platform Implementation ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������2 City of Roseville Priorities for 2022 ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������4 Administrative Services Goal������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������6 Community Development Goal ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������8 Public Safety Goal ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������11 Economic Development Goal �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������12 Electric and Environmental Utilities Goals �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������14 Critical Concerns for the Upcoming Legislative/Congressional Session �������������������������������������������������������������20 Background
1 Background
The positions defined within this legislative and regulatory platform reflect the City Council’s goals and priorities as well as its position on issues that are currently, or are anticipated to be, the focus of future legislation and regulation at the state and federal levels� Council’s adoption of this platform authorizes the City’s active participation to affect state and federal decision-making on legislative, administrative, regulatory and funding issues and to support judicial advocacy consistent with the City’s priorities� The platform was revised to incorporate the City’s critical needs taking into account impacts associated with the novel Corona Virus COVID-19�
Using this document as a guide, the City will adopt positions on specific legislation, regulations and budget proposals, and respond to requests for amicus curiae support when the outcome of a pending lawsuit is likely to significantly affect a City priority� The Mayor will sign letters of support or opposition based on the City’s identified interests, the Mayor and other Council Members will advance City interests through individual and regional advocacy efforts, and the Mayor will act on requests from the City Attorney to join in friend-of-the-court briefs�
Staff recommends that the Legislative and Regulatory Platform be updated annually to be responsive to changes to the state and federal legislative and regulatory environments and to reflect the interests unique to Roseville and interests that may also be common to cities throughout the state� Strategies for Effective Platform Implementation
2 Strategies for Effective Platform Implementation
• City staff works collaboratively with our federal and state lobbyists to understand and develop strategies to respond to pending legislation and regulations� The City’s federal lobbyist also works closely with staff to help identify funding resources for projects and reviews grant applications before they are submitted� Staff will scrutinize grant requirements for matching funds, environmental review, or for new requirements required to ensure they have a reasonable correlation to the value of the funding and the benefit being derived from the grant�
• Council members and staff participate in stakeholder organizations such as The League of California Cities, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), Placer County Transportation and Planning Agency (PCTPA), Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, North State Water Alliance, Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA), Municipal Information Systems Association of California (MISAC), California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA), National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) and the Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce to advocate on issues that are important to the City� This allows the City to have a stronger voice and a greater potential to influence key policy and legislative matters�
• Government relations staff works with staff from each department to develop awareness of and understanding of legislation, regulations, and project funding opportunities� During the course of the legislative year, staff monitors legislation, develops priority lists of legislation for each department, and makes recommendations on letters of support or opposition as bills progress through the legislative process�
• Government relations staff strategizes and coordinates with other jurisdictions, special districts and organizations on key issues of common interest to ensure a stronger voice on legislation, regulatory and policy matters�
• City advocacy letters are signed by the Mayor� In the event the Mayor is not available to sign an advocacy letter, the responsibility will reside with the Vice-Mayor� • Government relations staff works closely with state and federal legislative staff to ensure Roseville’s elected representatives clearly understand the City’s position on legislation and critical concerns are clearly understood� The development of this relationship and exchange of information with the City’s representatives continues throughout the year� • Proposed City advocacy positions on bills that would result in the issuance of or a vote for a new state bond will be brought to the full Council for its consideration and direction� Working collaboratively with the Council’s Law and Regulation Committee and the City’s internal and external partners ensures that the City has the greatest ability to influence legislation and policies that are important to the City� The City has successfully used this process of proactive advocacy and coalition development to take positions on legislation to effectively advance the legislative platform� Strategies for Effective Platform Implementation
3 Funding Opportunities
To develop outside state and federal funding opportunities for Roseville projects and programs� We take the following approach to accomplish this:
1� Develop relationships and funding opportunities by actively promoting Roseville projects that provide a mutual benefit for our funding partners� 2� Advocating with local and regional partners for projects and programs worthy of state and federal funding that deliver value to the Roseville community� State and Federal Funding Requests
Projects (not in order of priority):
1� Cybersecurity technology and IT infrastructure improvements needed to comply with state and federally mandated regulations and laws�
2� Regional road and highway improvements such as I-80/Hwy-65 Interchange, Hwy-65 Widening, Baseline Road widening, and Placer Parkway�
3� Fleet electrification including vehicles, charging facilities, tools, and training� 4� Emerging energy- and water-use efficiency technologies 5� Water supply reliability improvements such as increased conjunctive use capacity, diversification of water supplies as it pertains to implementation of the Roseville Groundwater Strategic Plan, and recommended in other long-range resource planning documents�
6� Technologies and projects that ensure water treatment and conveyance is resilient to climate and other natural disaster impacts, including power disruptions and other threats� 7� Expansion of wastewater digestion capacity to provide organics recycling and generate renewable energy supply�
8� Pursue federal infrastructure funding under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Build Back Better Act�
Initiatives: Promoting economic stimulus and infrastructure investment a� Projects that provide jobs especially in the areas of energy, water, transportation, public safety and community development�
b� Assistance for business attraction, expansion, retention, and formation� City of Roseville Priorities for 2022
4 City of Roseville Priorities for 2022
Citywide Legislative Principles
1� The City of Roseville believes in local control and the ability of the City Council to make decisions that address the needs of residents and businesses within its jurisdiction� In general, the City of Roseville will oppose legislation that erodes local control and will support legislation that increases local control�
2� The City of Roseville also believes in fiscal responsibility and requires financial flexibility to carry out its mission and objectives for the community� The City will oppose legislation that hinders financial flexibility while supporting legislation that encourages financial flexibility� 3� Oppose unfunded mandates from legislation and regulations that requires the City to provide a service or benefit without appropriate and full funding� 4� Oppose legislation that would negatively impact City revenues including but not limited to sales tax, property tax, other General Fund revenues and enterprise fund revenues and support legislation that protects and maintains City sales tax revenue� 5� Support legislation that protects and maintains City sales tax revenue and oppose legislation that erodes this revenue� Any advocacy on sales tax or state bond legislation beyond these guidelines will be brought to the full Council for consideration and direction� 6� Support sponsoring or co-sponsoring legislation that meets the objectives of the City’s legislative principles and platform�
7� Support legislation and provide leadership in crafting a regional vision and agenda that leverages regional assets in delivering a better economic and social environment and reinforces the value and versatility of regionalism to address complex regional issues including transportation, economic development, education, land use policy, water supply reliability, environmental concerns, and intraregional inequities in housing and education� City’s Federal and State Legislative Platform
1� Oppose state and federal actions that would lead to incompatible consequences and/or have an adverse impact on the City’s ability to comply with state and federal regulations and/or legislation�
2� Support legislation that would further the stated missions of the City’s departments and oppose legislation that would impede the ability of each department to effectively meet its operational objectives�
3� Support legislation and regulations that protect City investments in infrastructure and other projects and enhances financial sustainability of City assets� 4� Support legislation and policies that protect our residents and businesses from inconsistent, unnecessary and costly regulations and guidance, mitigation requirements, and permitting mandates
5� Oppose legislation and regulations that would adversely affect or divert City revenues to the state or any other entity�
City of Roseville Priorities for 2022
5 6� Support legislation that would require the state or federal governments to pay for unfunded mandates�
7� Oppose legislation that would impose significant compliance costs to the City and where a public benefit has not been identified to justify the costs� 8� Oppose legislation that would eliminate or curtail local control over City owned property, physical assets and infrastructure�
City of Roseville Priorities for 2022
6 Administrative Services Goal
To protect the ability of the City to make decisions unencumbered by onerous policies and regulations that are costly and/or restrictive in how they must be implemented regarding areas of finance, human resources, city clerk, information technology and purchasing; to ensure the City’s positions regarding pension reform are clearly articulated by providing input and expertise in response to future legislative efforts�
We take the following approaches to accomplish this:
Administrative Services Platform
1� Support legislation and measures that protect the City’s rights in the collective bargaining process�
2� Support legislation, policies and regulations that simplify the administration of public records, election code and Brown Act provisions�
3� Oppose legislation that diminishes enacted workers’ compensation reforms and cost controls�
4� Support efforts that engage and include local government in future pension reform discussions and legislation�
5� Oppose legislation and regulations that place new environmental requirements on local agencies that would inhibit the City’s ability to fulfill its mission and are not accompanied by funding necessary for implementation�
6� Support legislation, policies and regulations that simplify public procurement and contracting�
7� Oppose legislation that restricts or diminishes the City’s ability to procure goods and services efficiently and effectively�
8� Oppose legislation that alters the tax treatment of municipal bonds such as proposals that would cap or eliminate the current tax-exempt status�
9� Support reasonable and common-sense legislation and regulations that clarify conflict-of- interest rules�
10� Support legislation and policies that encourage streamlining of business processes for responding to open records requests and that provide funding for these activities� 11� Support legislation that includes operational expenses as an acceptable use of public, educational, government access (PEG) funds collected from cable-franchise agreements per the Federal Communications Commission for government-access stations� 12� Support legislation that restores the federal tax exemption for advance refunding bonds as a critical cost-savings tool for local governments�
City of Roseville Priorities for 2022
7 Information Technology Platform
1� Support legislation that promotes and provides funding for increased ability to manage technology, assistance in adhering to regulatory compliance requirements and reducing the risk of cyber-attacks�
2� Oppose legislation that would require public agencies to share information in public settings that could be used by groups or individuals with malicious intent to compromise the systems, services or private information of public employees or citizen 3� Support legislation and regulations that ensure emergency communication capabilities and interoperability for information technology and public safety departments and agencies� 4� Support legislation that would clearly maintain local authority as it applies to platforms like cable, telecommunications, broadband, video, cellular, and Net Neutrality for all current and future development and deployment�
5� Support legislation that promotes artificial intelligence that is human-centric and socially beneficial, fair, explainable and transparent, secure and safe, and accountable� 6� Support legislation for cost-effective environmental technology initiatives� 7� Oppose legislation that would restrict procurement practices or impact vendor interaction� City of Roseville Priorities for 2022
8 Community Development Goal
To act on legislation that would affect our ability to amend and implement our General Plan policies and/or restrict local control over development or impose new regulations that will increase development costs and place greater demands on the City’s General Fund� The intent of our General Plan policies is to create an attractive, vibrant, well-planned city, demonstrated by balanced land uses with desirable neighborhoods, prosperous businesses, excellent schools, convenient public services and open space and recreation amenities all linked by superior transportation systems that include well-maintained streets, sidewalks, bike paths and transit in a cost- effective and financially sustainable manner�
We take the following approaches to accomplish this:
Public Works Platform
1� Support continued reauthorization of the nation’s highway and transit funding bills� 2� Oppose legislation that reduces, restricts or eliminates transportation revenues for transportation purposes or creates new unfunded state and federal mandates on transportation projects�
3� Support legislation that provides additional funding for local roadway maintenance, transportation and infrastructure�
4� Oppose legislation that would increase traffic congestion and/or reduce roadway vehicle capacity as a means of reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled and/or greenhouse gases (GHG)� 5� Support legislation that allows local governments to determine local roadway Level of Service (LOS) policy�
6� Oppose legislation that places new restrictive burdens or oversights on local transit� 7� Oppose legislation that reduces the ability to use high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes by transit, paratransit and other high-occupancy use vehicles� 8� Support legislation, policies and regulations that allow the use of Medi-Cal funds for transportation purposes and support Medi-Cal policies that promote the use of transit/ paratransit as Medicaid providers�
9� Support legislation that provides tax incentives for people who use public transit and other alternatives to driving a single-occupant personal vehicle� 10� Support legislation that provides funding for cities to comply with state and federal mandates regarding flood-protection level�
Development Services Platform
1� Support legislation that strengthens local control in the areas of transportation and land-use policies and assists local governments in integrating new growth� 2� Support legislation, policies and regulations that ensure local governments maintain local land-use control and maintain the ability to address local constituents’ concerns� City of Roseville Priorities for 2022
9 3� Support legislation that ensures local control and flexibility in determining reduction measures for greenhouse gas requirements�
4� Support legislation and regulations that streamline state and federal permitting processes and require agencies to consider the economic impacts and equities of mitigation measures regarding permits for water supply, flood control, air quality, water quality and sustainability� (This list is representative and not intended to be exhaustive)� 5� Oppose legislation for new wetlands regulations that duplicates similar requirements at the federal level�
6� Support legislation for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reform that streamlines the environmental review process and reduces opportunities for ”green mail” lawsuits� 7� Support legislation that would purge laws and regulations that are redundant and/or no longer applicable or necessary�
8� Advocate for appropriate federal resource agency staffing levels to ensure Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultations are completed within statutory time frames (in particular, for the National Marine Fisheries Service)� 9� Support legislation that ensures the rules governing representation of a city on a Board, Committee, or Commission with regional authority allow for meaningful and continual participation by the most populous cities on that Board, Committee, or Commission� 10� Support legislation that more narrowly defines the California Department of Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction under California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code Section 1600 (Streambed Alteration Agreement)�
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Platform
1� Support legislation and measures that fund recreation, fitness, and wellness, and prevention programs for youth and adults�
2� Support legislation that protects funding for the State Library Fund� 3� Support legislation and new measures for park, recreation, and library programs, services, and special events�
4� Support new initiatives that provide funding for park and public facilities development, rehabilitation, and operations�
5� Support full funding of state parks, recreation, bike trails, open space, and library grants; including, but not limited to, the Land and Water Conservation Fund� 6� Support legislation and budgets that fund development of capital park and open space improvements or rehabilitation�
7� Support legislation that funds ongoing operational values for recreation and library programming, including fitness, wellness, enrichment, maintenance, and books/technology for youth and adults�
8� Support legislation that would further fair and appropriate access to park and library resources for all persons; including, but not limited to, homeless persons� City of Roseville Priorities for 2022
10 9� Support legislation that defines appropriate penalties for incidents of vandalism and property theft�
10� Support legislation that assists local agencies including parks departments with funding and/or resources for addressing clean-up and hauling of items from homeless encampments�
11� Support legislation that provides increased funding for arts and culture for the benefits it would provide to the residents, schools, and nonprofits regarding arts and culture� Building Inspection Platform
1� Promote public health and safety in building construction through responsible legislation that adopts building codes through the regulatory process and allows for local control of enforcement�
2� Support legislation that enhances code enforcement through a uniform approach at the state level with input from the local authority by going through the regulatory process� 3� Oppose legislation that mandates specific enforcement requirements through the legislative process�
4� Protect the ability to adopt local amendments to fire and building codes� 5� Oppose legislation that places additional burdens of enforcement on local officials but is not directly related to issues of health and safety�
City of Roseville Priorities for 2022
11 Public Safety Goal
To act on legislation that hinders our ability to protect and enhance the safety and quality of life for our residents, businesses, customers and partners by providing effective responses to all service requests; to promote programs that minimize risk and maximize the safety for our entire community; and to deliver community risk-reduction programs and exceptional solutions as a cohesive team and in a collaborative manner�
We take the following approaches to accomplish this:
1� Support legislation and funding that would provide police body-worn cameras for state and local policing agencies�
2� Oppose legislation and regulatory policies that negatively affect the funding and operations of the police or fire departments�
3� Oppose legislation that would decrease state and federal funding for programs and services including Homeland Security�
4� Oppose reductions to the levels of state and federal funding opportunities for public safety programs and/or services�
5� Support legislation that ensures flexibility for and local control of all grant resources and funding for public safety technology and mandatory reporting systems� 6� Protect the ability to adopt local amendments to fire and building codes� 7� Oppose legislation that would reduce or eliminate funding for disaster mitigation� 8� Oppose legislation that reduces or eliminates local law enforcement flexibility or otherwise enacts broad sentencing reforms that reduce sentences for non-violent crimes in a general fashion�
9� Support legislation that provides municipalities with local control to provide para-transport, community para-medicine services and illness-prevention practices and programs� 10� Support legislation that provides adequate funding to cities for realignment services and oppose legislation that reduces or eliminates funding for those services� 11� Support legislation that results in regionalization of public safety functions and local control of regionalization of fire services�
12� Support legislation that requires the state to pay for unfunded mandates related to new public safety training requirements�
13� Support legislation that provides new and/or increased funding for mental health programs, services, and substance abuse treatment�
City of Roseville Priorities for 2022
12 Economic Development Goal
To act on legislation that affects the City of Roseville’s ability to create a vibrant business and community environment that enhances the quality of life for our residents, promotes employment opportunities, provides outstanding potential for our businesses and partners to flourish� To provide exceptional facilities, programs, services, affordable housing, and economic opportunities in a safe environment by supporting, activating, and maintaining neighborhoods and commercial districts� To create a vibrant economic development environment by forming effective partnerships for the purposes of acting on legislation that encourages and assists with the development of jobs, businesses and industry sectors and maximizes social and economic opportunities� We take the following approaches to accomplish this:
Housing and Community Investment Platform
1� Support legislation and appropriations that fully fund assistance for affordable housing, prevention and solutions to homelessness, and community investment funding, including the federal Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)/Section 8, Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs�
2� Support legislation and measures that create new state incentives for affordable housing and infill development�
3� Support legislation that increases flexibility and local control in the state housing element / Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process and streamlines environmental statutes� 4� Support streamlining of the requirements for the types of projects that can be funded with state and federal funding�
5� Support legislation and advocacy efforts to protect existing and expand options for housing and community investment funding that will support goals for the City’s core area and provide support for community assets�
6� Support legislation that provides funding, accountability, and program resources that address the primary causes of homelessness and address the needs of the homeless population�
7� Oppose legislation that revamps the current RHNA process by reducing local control and/ or giving greater authority to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to oversee and enforce regional housing goals and in determining a methodology for allocating housing needs to regions and local jurisdictions; and, that links housing element certification to non-housing grant sources�
8� Support legislation that expands the local construction workforce through economic development training programs in an effort to reduce the cost of housing and promote economic opportunity for low-income households
City of Roseville Priorities for 2022
13 Economic Development Platform
1� Oppose legislation and measures that create competitive disadvantages for businesses at local and state levels�
2� Support legislation and measures that allow the City to grow the current economic base by providing the tools and resources needed for businesses to expand and flourish� 3� Support legislation, funding and policies that promote Regional Occupation Programs, trade and skills training, innovation and entrepreneurship, investment in research and development technology, and tax incentives for key industry sectors including manufacturing�
4� Support legislation, policies, and regulations that require economic analysis and/or scientific validation of changes to state policies or regulations before modifications can be enacted� 5� Oppose legislation that negatively impacts the City as it relates to the dissolution and wind- down of the Redevelopment Agency�
6� Support legislation that promotes, enhances and provides incentives for business retention and expansion, while ensuring California’s business environment remains an economically viable and competitive destination with national and international markets� 7� Support legislation that supports the development and expansion of higher education institutions including new private institutions and satellite campuses of national universities as an important segment of growth, workforce and economic development throughout the state�
8� Support legislation that creates a new tax increment program that will assist cities and counties with revitalizing their communities through the elimination of physical and economic blight and by providing assistance to building owners, tenants and businesses in their efforts to be successful�
9� Oppose legislation that restricts the City’s ability to dispose of real property or retain control over how the property is used�
10� Support legislation, funding, and policies that promote and retain job growth in the City, increase talent pipelines, expand employment opportunities at all levels and support employment opportunities that provide broad public benefits within the City� City of Roseville Priorities for 2022
14 Electric and Environmental Utilities Goals
To protect local control over how utilities provide services to our customers; to protect our customers from state and federal legislation, policies, and regulations that have no clear benefit relative to cost; and to oppose legislation, policies, and regulations that create unfunded mandates and compliance requirements that negatively impact the utilities’ ability to provide their services and products in the most safe, reliable and cost-effective manner�
Electric Utility Platform
Roseville Electric Utility’s mission is to improve the quality of life in our community and to provide customers with safe, reliable electricity at competitive prices and with exceptional service� As technological advancements in the electric utility industry evolve, and new legislative and regulatory mandates emerge, the electric utility will continue to transform its business model to best serve its customers in the most efficient, reliable and cost-effective way� We take the following approaches to accomplish this:
1� Support legislative efforts that retain local decision-making authority over programs, services, resources and rates�
2� Support legislation that maintains flexibility to comply with regulations in the way that best reflects community priorities�
3� Support legislation that enables meeting the state’s energy and environmental policies in a cost-effective and reliable manner�
4� Support measures that promote affordability for our customers� 5� Support legislation that preserves public tax-exempt financing and advanced refunding� 6� Support future transmission system improvements and requirements which ensure that cost allocation is born by the parties that impact and/or stand to benefit from those improvements�
7� Support legislation that provides greater flexibility to meet the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program; and, oppose legislation that would reduce current flexibility in complying with the RPS program�
8� Support legislation and regulations that streamline permitting for new and existing generating facilities�
9� Support legislation that fosters the utility’s role in local and regional economic development efforts including business retention and expansion�
10� Support technology advancements and efficiencies that benefit our customers in a cost- effective and reliable manner�
11� Oppose measures that would decrease our ability to make financial decisions that protect the financial health of the utility�
12� Oppose legislation that creates new jurisdictional review over Publicly Owned Utilities (POU)� City of Roseville Priorities for 2022
15 13� Oppose legislation that mandates power purchases from specific projects and/or specific resources that do not fit the needs of our community or do not serve our customers in a reliable, affordable manner�
14� Oppose legislation that would reduce funding for existing energy programs and mandates� 15� Oppose legislation that will increase utility operating costs without commensurate funding� 16� Collaborate with neighboring utilities on legislative issues that impact the electric utility industry as a whole�
As part of the legislative and regulatory platform Roseville Electric Utility also takes advocacy positions to promote the City’s position before the applicable regulatory agencies� Environmental Utilities Platform
Roseville’s Environmental Utilities (EU) Department operates water, wastewater, and waste services (formerly solid waste) delivering critical public health and sanitation services� EU’s services include management of groundwater, recycled water, and stormwater programs for the dual benefit of Roseville’s residential and business customers and the environment� There are many external factors that influence how EU operates, what it charges for utility services, and the kinds and quality of services provided to its customers�
We take the following approaches to accomplish this:
Resiliency, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and Sustainability:
1� Support efforts that reduce GHG emissions where the benefits of the GHG-reduction measures are balanced with costs�
2� Support efforts that allow local governments to develop practical, local solutions to reduce and manage locally generated GHG emissions�
3� Support only those statewide and federal GHG emission estimating, monitoring, and reporting mandates that provide demonstrated benefits to the environment and rate payers� 4� Advocate for policies that provide assistance to address utility resiliency needs, including planning, deployment of technologies, provide redundancy, and improve the environment and other actions�
5� Advocate for policies and funding that will support Roseville and the Sacramento Region address anticipated impacts from climate change with a focus on drought and atmospheric rivers as projected in region-specific modeling in the American River Basin Study by the U�S� Bureau of Reclamation�
6� Identify and pursue funding opportunities to improve the resilience of Roseville’s utilities from climate related impacts�
City of Roseville Priorities for 2022
16 Recycling and Product Stewardship:
1� Advocate for the development of the recycling market by the state and federal governmental entities for recyclables, green waste, food waste, biosolids, plastics, and other organics�
2� Oppose mandated material-disposal bans or restrictions when there is insufficient capacity or available technology within the private recycling market to handle these materials in a more beneficial way besides landfilling�
3� Support cost-effective efforts to reuse waste in a beneficial way if cost-effective� 4� Support efforts to enact a comprehensive statewide Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law that allocates end-of-life disposal costs with the producer of the product consistent with Council direction as outlined in Council Resolution 10-278� 5� Support product-by-product EPR laws as a second alternative to a statewide comprehensive EPR law consistent with Council direction as outlined in Council Resolution 10-278� 6� Oppose efforts to increase recycling diversion rates if determined not to be cost-effective relative to the benefits that could be achieved�
7� Oppose efforts to increase statewide tipping fees where there is no clear benefit to Environmental Utilities ratepayers�
Water Supply and Delivery:
1� Continue to safeguard Roseville’s water supply contracts – both the City of Roseville’s non-CVP water service contracts with neighboring agencies, as well as the City of Roseville’s Repayment Water Service Contract executed by the Bureau of Reclamation on February 28, 2020�
2� Support and advocate at the local, regional, state and federal levels to develop, diversify, and fund the city and region’s water supply portfolio and achieve a regional water supply that is reliable for generations to come�
3� Support efforts that allocate the costs for Delta and statewide water infrastructure improvements to the parties that either impact the Delta and/or stand to benefit from those improvements, known as the “Beneficiary Pays Principle”� 4� Support Delta and statewide solutions that are based upon sound science and up to date data�
5� Oppose efforts that impose arbitrary flow requirements on the American River that are inconsistent and incompatible with responsible water-supply management and undermine the locally developed flow-management principles under the Water Forum Agreement� 6� Support efforts to implement a locally developed Modified Flow Management Standard on the lower American River that supports the Water Forum effort and its successor effort and provides for appropriate carryover storage at Folsom Reservoir� 7� Support proactive and participatory approaches to developing Delta and statewide solutions�
City of Roseville Priorities for 2022
17 8� Protect primacy of Roseville’s (and the region’s) ability to manage its groundwater resources� 9� Protect the City’s land-use authority and its right to make land-use decisions with respect to water supply�
10� Oppose efforts to standardize water-supply contingency actions� Drought and Water Use Efficiency:
1� Support efforts that maintain local control over drought-related decisions that are consistent with the City of Roseville’s most recent Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan�
2� Support efforts that help local governments maintain water-efficiency programs that meet state objectives, are cost-effective, and make sense for the local conditions� 3� Support state and federal efforts to increase water-efficiency ratings for common consumer products that use water, including tax credits similar to those provided to energy use technologies�
4� Oppose efforts by the State of California to impose additional unrealistic water efficiency targets beyond those being implemented via Assembly Bill 1668 and Senate Bill 606� 5� Oppose proposed water use efficiency standards or water loss standards that do not recognize previous water-supply reliability and water efficiency investments and achievements by the region and local community�
6� Support water efficiency policies that enhance key City investments such as undeveloped and developed park lands the City’s urban forest, and oppose policy that would diminish or impair investments�
7� Support efforts that allow local agencies to develop and implement practical and locally controlled water-use efficiency programs and solutions� Stormwater and Green Infrastructure:
1� Oppose efforts to impose additional state-mandated stormwater program requirements without commensurate funding for those programs�
2� Identify and pursue funding opportunities to support stormwater infrastructure (including green infrastructure) investments that protect Roseville’s public health and safety, water quality, and economic development�
3� Support policies that reduce the cost of compliance for stormwater dischargers� 4� Support legislative efforts to reduce the potential of third-party lawsuits pertaining to stormwater quality issues�
5� Support legislation that revises the state Constitution to allow for stormwater programs to establish a funding mechanism that is similar to that of other water utilities under the Proposition 218 reforms�
City of Roseville Priorities for 2022
18 6� Support efforts to require pesticide manufacturers to produce products that are less harmful to the environment�
7� Support efforts to implement statewide Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) principles so that manufacturers design their products in a way that has less of an environmental impact upon local waterways (example: car brake pads)�
Biosolids, Recycled Water and Energy:
1� Support continued availability and expansion of biosolids beneficial use and disposal options�
2� Support exemption of biosolids from Superfund liability� 3� Support state and federal funding programs for any potential City waste-to- energy projects� 4� Participate in Basin Plan Amendments to address proposed changes in the requirements� Worker Safety, Recruitment and Training:
1� Support efforts that protect solid waste, water, wastewater and recycled waterworker safety� 2� Support efforts and programs that promote utility workers as great careers 3� Support efforts that require manufacturers to provide training on the servicing of their products� Example: as the state is pushing for the electrification of our fleets we would like to see requirements on the manufacturers of those vehicles to provide training to our technicians so they can provide routine maintenance�
Legislation, Regulations and Permitting:
1� Support legislative reform efforts that require a cost/benefit analysis for new regulations and amendments to permits�
2� Support legislative efforts to reduce the potential of third-party lawsuits pertaining to water quality issues�
3� Oppose efforts to impose a tax or fees where revenue is collected from local ratepayers or agencies and are allocated for statewide projects that have no direct benefit to Roseville’s ratepayers�
4� Support legislative and regulatory efforts that increase development and use of available recycled water supplies and create a policy environment that supports the development of emerging advanced treatment technologies�
5� Oppose regulation or other limits on biosolids management options without validated scientific findings on need for new limitations�
6� Advocate for Advanced Clean Fleet regulations that takes into account state legislation and regulations on reducing and mitigating the impacts of short-lived climate pollutants� City of Roseville Priorities for 2022
19 7� Oppose efforts to increase whole effluent toxicity testing for recycled water, stormwater and wastewater when it is not cost-effective, has no clear benefit and/or is not based on sound science�
8� Ensure efforts to add testing or regulation for contaminants of emerging concern in recycled water, stormwater, and wastewater are cost-effective, have a demonstrated health benefit and/or is based on peer reviewed, sound science�
9� Actively track, comment, and advocate on proposed regulatory activities to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances�
10� Support policies or regulations that streamline environmental compliance while protective of public health�
11� Monitor and advocate for laboratory standards that are reasonable, cost-effective, and ensure data quality for the City’s water quality laboratory which supports the core mission of protecting human health, the environment and safety�
12� Support modernization of permitting processes, including extended permit terms of up to ten years to address the lifecycle of technologies and construction schedules� 13� Support efforts to streamline permitting, construction, and funding of facilities that allow the City to transform waste into energy or useful products� 14� Actively track, comment, and advocate on proposed changes in National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System Permits and Waste Discharge Requirements from the State Water Board and Regional Water Boards�
15� Support policies that reduce the cost of compliance for wastewater dischargers� Critical Concerns for the Upcoming Legislative/Congressional Session 20 Critical Concerns for the Upcoming Legislative/Congressional Session • Tax or Fees – The City has concerns regarding the Legislature’s desires to establish effective constraints on the ability of local agencies to impose fees and charges to mitigate housing impacts� We will advocate for local control and the ability to impose fees and charges to mitigate the impact of new development on current residents and businesses� • Accessible, Affordable, and Safe Drinking Water – While the customers of the City of Roseville enjoy access to safe, reliable, and affordable drinking water, there are many in California that do not� Roseville is supportive of innovative statewide policies to help bridge that gap, so long as the financial burden is not carried by our customers� • Additional Water Efficiency Requirements while Water Agencies implement AB 1668 and SB 606 – The City of Roseville is actively implementing AB 1668 and SB 606� During droughts, there is a tendency for new legislative concepts to be introduced as a reactive response to drought conditions� Often such actions do not add value, place a local financial burden and get in the way of implementation of new water efficiency laws already in place� It is the City of Roseville’s belief that the State Legislature should allow for implementation of these new water efficiency laws first, evaluate the effectiveness of such laws and then determine whether additional legislative actions are needed� • Existing Investments in Roseville’s Circular Economy – The City is concerned with proposed policies related to short-lived climate pollutants and the state’s efforts to require zero-emission vehicles including heavy-duty fleet vehicles such as our refuse trucks� We will work to educate state and federal policy makers about the unique role that full-service cities can play in meeting climate goals�
• Cost-Effective Utilities – The ability to provide reliable and cost-effective utilities to the residents and businesses of Roseville continues to be a central concern as new state and federal mandates are proposed that would increase the utilities operational costs� We will continue to advocate to maintain local control of utility rate setting and oppose any state or federal efforts to reduce local control�
• Federal and State Funding for Water, Transportation and other Infrastructure Projects – Maintaining or increasing funding for these types of projects and improvements is critical for the City’s ability to maintain a robust economy, providing high paying jobs, upgrading and maintaining roadways, and meeting future infrastructure and transportation demands� Federal assistance in the form of grants, highly subsidized loans, Build America Bonds, and Advanced Refunding are examples of federal assistance that should be part of any federal assistance program�
• Cybersecurity – Future state and federal laws regarding cybersecurity will continue to affect the City and the community� Implementing new cybersecurity requirements will add significant expense to the operation of the City’s information technology systems� Support legislation and state and federal budget requests that would provide funding for upgrades to the information technology systems that are needed to meet new mandates and requirements�
• Changes to Tax-Exempt Status of Municipal Bonds – Any proposals that would cap or eliminate the tax exemption on municipal bonds would significantly reduce the City’s ability to finance major projects� This would negatively and severely impact the City’s budget, increase rates for utility customers, and have a damaging effect on the community at large� Critical Concerns for the Upcoming Legislative/Congressional Session 21 • Modifications to Government-Operated Mortgage Programs – The City will remain active in understanding the changes being considered at the federal level to modify government- operated mortgage programs, tax deductions, and to write new banking regulations regarding mortgage-related lending programs�
• Challenges with State and Federal Permitting Processes – The City has concerns with various permitting processes at both state and federal regulatory agencies, that hinder the ability of private and public projects to obtain approval within a reasonable amount of time� Of current concern are the stringent new permit requirements for development projects adopted by the State Water Board in April 2019, effective May 2020� The new requirements significantly broaden the definition of regulated wetlands and waters of the State, which add new and complex requirements to the permitting process� The changes will subject projects to considerable increased time and cost delays�
• Changing Economy – The City is interested in discussions regarding local tax systems including the fundamental shift from purchasing taxable commodities to purchasing non- taxable services and ultimately how these changes will affect the City’s ability to fund basic services�
• Sales Tax – The City is concerned with the uncertainty over potential changes to the sales tax allocation structure that would result in a loss of revenue to the City� The City will actively monitor the ever-changing discussions and will remain engaged to ensure the City’s best interests are represented regarding any future changes to the sales tax structure� • Housing and Homelessness – The City will remain active in addressing the needs of the City’s homeless population with a primary focus on preventing and reducing the population of chronically homeless individuals by providing solutions that address the fundamental causes of homelessness and by supporting solutions that provide permanent housing options and required supportive services�
• Redistricting Process – Municipal and Regional Electoral Boundaries – The City has concerns regarding any actions or proposed legislation that dictates the local re-districting process which happens every 10 years and after every U�S� decennial Census� Furthermore, we are concerned with any changes to regional electoral boundaries that would dilute or segregate the City’s communities of interest and that would disrupt the shared common social and economic interests that should be included within the same district(s) for purposes of the City’s effective and fair representation�
• CalPERS Investment Policy – The City has concerns with actions taken or proposed by the CalPERS Board and the State Legislature to divest from certain companies or industries to be “socially responsible”� These policy decisions come at the price of reduced market rates of return on pension plan investments� The pension funding requirement not covered by investment returns will be borne by the state and local governments, and ultimately California taxpayers�
• Federal and State Funding for Parks and Library Projects – The City is interested in efforts to maintain or increase funding for these types of projects and improvements� The funding is critical for the City’s ability to upgrade and ensure access to the City’s parks, recreation, and library facilities�
Critical Concerns for the Upcoming Legislative/Congressional Session 22 • Substance and Opioid Abuse Funding – The City supports legislation that increases funding levels for substance and opioid abuse programs and services that will help those who are addicted or abusing substances with overcoming their addiction� The addiction/abuse cycle has negative implications for our community and use of public safety resources� • Procurement Mandates – The City is concerned with any efforts that would create new procurement mandates for resources that do not fit the needs of our community or do not serve our customers in a reliable and affordable manner� • Affordability – As more state policies are adopted and included as a component of electric rates, the City is concerned that it will become increasingly challenging to keep electric rates low� The City will continue to advocate for local control when approaching new policies that may result in rate increases�
• Electric Vehicles – The Governor’s Executive Order N-79-20 set a goal for 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks to be zero-emission by 2035� This policy will create new, increased demand for electric vehicles in the foreseeable future and will call for electric utilities to be instrumental in electrifying the transportation sector� The City will continue to evaluate the electric system infrastructure and capacity needs to accommodate these targets on an ongoing basis while coordinating efforts related to transportation electrification among City departments� The City supports electric vehicle deployment as a means to foster safe and healthy communities and economic growth� • Funding/Grant Opportunities – The City supports efforts to bring new technology online in Roseville� The City will continue to watch for grant and other funding opportunities that could be used for new technology demonstration and deployment in the City of Roseville, especially as the state transitions to new requirements in the electric and transportation sectors� • Jurisdictional Concerns – Following recent wildfires, heatwaves and power supply shortages, the City is concerned that a statewide effort to address these events could lead to new oversight over publicly owned utilities and additional limits to local control� The City will oppose legislation that creates new jurisdictional review over POUs or imposes new limits on our ability to make decisions at the local level�
• Wildfire Prevention, Preparedness and Response – The City has been proactive in developing a wildfire mitigation plan to ensure a safe and reliable electric grid for our community� In response to the growing concern over wildfires statewide, the City is concerned with a one-size-fits-all approach to addressing wildfires, which may not be well-suited for cities like Roseville that are not located in a high fire risk area� • Acceleration or Alteration of Existing Clean Energy Targets – As the electric department moves forward in meeting the existing Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission reduction targets that are currently in place in the electric sector, there is some concern that these targets could move or change in ways that may complicate the existing planning environment� The City is concerned about an acceleration of the existing targets or a change to the rules mid-course that could be costly and impractical to implement� Critical Concerns for the Upcoming Legislative/Congressional Session 23 • Back-up Power, Distributed Energy Resources and Microgrids – In response to the recent public safety power shutoffs that have been implemented across the state, Roseville Electric is concerned that there may be new requirements to add redundancy to the system through procurement mandates for specified back-up power applications, distributed energy resources and microgrids� Resiliency and redundancy are already embedded in the operation of our electric system and creating additional mandates in this regard may add unwarranted costs to our customers�
• Transportation Development Act – Continue to monitor Transportation Development Act legislation to ensure local control and funding use is not restricted further� • Challenges with Legislation Mandating How Housing is Developed – The City has significant concerns with the continuing onslaught of legislation that is mandating how housing is developed in the state� This includes the elimination of control local governments have over land use, zoning, and permitting approvals� The sheer volume and breadth of legislation has required significant staff time and expense to track and implement� Moreover, while legislation continues to focus the responsibility for solving the State’s housing crisis on local governments, it neglects to provide the necessary tools to do so� Since the loss of redevelopment in California, local governments have been challenged to assist housing development in our communities� It is imperative that the state provide municipalities with new tools they can employ to meet the countless new housing requirements being imposed on them by the state�
• Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 – City departments will stay actively engaged in discussions at the state and federal level regarding changes to Section 230 and will provide input that would support actionable changes to the framework to ensure resulting standards meet the needs of public safety, current and forthcoming technology� • Information Technology Engagement in the Regulatory Process – Support the inclusion of language in legislation that ensures the participation of local governments in the process of developing new regulations and/or the process for implementing new state and federal requirements�
• Federal Funding for Transit – Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grants require approval from the United States Department of Labor (USDOL)� USDOL recently determined that California’s Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) restricts agencies from bargaining in good faith with transit employees� As a result, FTA plans to withhold grant funds from Roseville Transit and other California transit agencies� This could impact over $3,600,000 in FTA COVID-19 relief funding programmed for Roseville Transit in FY22 and FY23� The City of Roseville will support efforts to overturn the USDOL and FTA decisions while maintaining PEPRA as an important tool to control local agency pension costs� Critical Concerns for the Upcoming Legislative/Congressional Session 24 • Federal Funding for Active Transportation and Streets – The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans recently requested changes to the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and Regional Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (RSTBGP) funding processes� Per regional funding agreements, CMAQ and RSTBGP are passed through to Placer County Transportation Planning Agency and distributed to local agencies by formula based upon population and (for RSTBGP only) maintained road miles� CMAQ funds average $1,300,000 annually and are used for qualifying bicycle, pedestrian and other projects that reduce emissions such as roundabouts� RSTBGP averages $1,500,000 annually and is one of the most flexible federal transportation funding programs as nearly all types of transportation projects are eligible, and in Roseville have been used for arterial road resurfacing� The City of Roseville does not support the proposal because we would lose local control and be required to participate in the Sacramento Area Council of Governments competitive funding program� • National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) updates and Community Rating System (CRS) program changes – The NFIP is insolvent, and with the increasing effort to make federal programs socially equitable and create environmental justice, FEMA is at crossroads with their NFIP and CRS programs� FEMA recently released the “Risk Rating 2�0 - Equity in Action” flood insurance program in hopes of bringing greater solvency and stability; however, there are concerns that its complexity will frustrate policyholders, which historically leads to Congressional redirectives of the NFIP� The City has concerns that ongoing NFIP instability may lead to Congress terminating the NFIP and its subordinate CRS program, both of which have great value to Roseville residents, especially with Risk Rating 2�0 applying Roseville’s 45% CRS discount in all flood zones, as opposed to the previously applied discount only in high hazard zones�
• Pole Attachments/Communications Equipment – The City opposes any legislation that would further diminish local control over attachments on publicly-owned infrastructure and that would go beyond the current requirements or that would create alternative requirements that would conflict with exemptions granted to public providers under the Communications Act or would have negative implications on revenue recovery, aesthetics and most importantly, safety�
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1906
File #:
0201 & 0201-01
Title:
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Year-End Report and Fiscal Year 2021-22 - Budget Adjustment Contact:
Scott Pettingell 916-746-1306
[email protected]
Meeting Date: 2/2/2022
Item #: 8.1.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends City Council receive a report and presentation regarding the year-end results for fiscal year (FY) 2020-21 and adopt an ordinance to approve the attached FY2021-22 budget adjustment.
BACKGROUND
FY2020-21 Year-End Results
This communication includes a year-end version of the quarterly report that provides the Council with information regarding the City of Roseville’s operational financial performance from July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021 (FY2020-21) (Attached). The attached report includes a series of tables and charts displaying financial data for FY2020-21 for (1) the General Fund, (2) the enterprise operating funds, and (3) revenues in other selected funds. It also includes an explanation of significant variances. Following is a summary of the financial information provided in the year-end report:
General Fund
The City's FY2020-21 General Fund year-end results (operating and non-operating) are summarized in the table below. The City ended FY2020-21 with a $28.5 million surplus consisting of approximately $21 million in operating revenues received over budget, $7 million in expenditure savings primarily associated with materials, service and supply and salary savings from vacant positions, and $500,000 in unspent non-operating funds. The primary factors contributing to the surplus were expenditure controls put in place due to uncertainty regarding the impact of the pandemic on the local economy, salary savings due to vacant positions, and conservative budgeting of sales and property tax revenues due to the pandemic. These positive results offset the $2.5 million shortfall in Parks, Recreation, and Library (PR&L) program revenues caused by the pandemic limiting PR&L programming.
Expenditure savings within the PR&L Department offset the shortfall in PR&L revenue.
FY2020-21 Year-End General Fund
Variance ($)
Year-End Results
Sales Tax - Bradley-Burns
$ 13,690,000
Sales Tax - Measure B
5,987,000
Property Tax
3,355,000
Parks, Recreation and Library Programs
(2,548,000)
Other Revenues
481,000
Operating Revenues
20,965,000
Operating Expenditures
6,966,000
Non-Operating
563,000
Total General Fund Year-End Results
$ 28,494,000
Recommended Appropriations
Street Resurfacing
4,400,000
Replacement Tractor Drawn Aerial Fire
Truck
700,000
General Fund Contingency
300,000
Total
$ 5,400,000
Remaining General Fund Year-End
Results
$ 23,094,000
Enterprise Operating Funds
Revenues in the Electric Fund exceeded estimates by approximately $14 million due to increased retail sales associated with stronger than expected customer usage and new development. Electric Fund expenditures ended the year roughly $7.8 million under budget primarily due to the cost of purchased power in the emergency market being lower than anticipated.
Environmental Utilities (Water, Wastewater, and Waste Services) funds exceeded revenues estimates by $3.8 million, $1.6 million, and $1.8 million, respectively, due to stronger than anticipated customer usage and new development. Expenditures in all of the Environmental Utility funds ended the year under budget estimates by 9 percent due to remaining COVID- related limitations on operational plans, including travel and training, and savings from vacant positions.
Revenues in the Transit Fund ended the year 17 percent, or $1.1 million, under budget due to reduced services and losses in passenger fares resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
This shortfall was partially offset by approximately $700,000 in expenditure savings due to vacancies, contract services, and fuel spending reductions. Staff plans to utilize federal stimulus funds in FY2021-22 and FY2022-23 to help address the ongoing impact of COVID- 19 on the Transit Fund.
Transportation Fund revenues ended approximately $114,000 or 7% under budget. This revenue shortfall was offset by $180,000 in expenditure savings due to vacancies and crossing guards not working because of pandemic-related school closures.
Revenues in the Youth Development were significantly impacted in FY2020-21 ending the year $4.3 million under budget. Factors contributing to the reduced revenues include guidelines established for childcare services that require attendance limitations due to cohort restrictions by licensing, hybrid and modified school schedules, parents continuing to work from home, temporary part-time staff shortages, and school closures. This revenue shortfall was partially offset by $1.6 million in expenditure savings realized by modifying staffing plans, holding positions vacant, and cost-sharing with the Roseville School District. Staff continues to evaluate potential resources, including federal stimulus funding, to offset the financial impacts the pandemic has had on this fund.
Other Funds
Revenues in the Fire Facilities, Public Facilities, and the Strategic Improvement Funds exceeded estimates by $1.3 million, $3.4 million, and $1.3 million, respectfully. When developing the FY2020-21 budget, staff reduced the revenue estimates in these funds based on the anticipated impacts of COVID-19 on development. However, development activity in the City during FY2020-21 was much stronger than anticipated.
Budget Adjustment
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the appropriation of $5.4 million of the FY2020- 21 General Fund surplus for the following projects:
Street Resurfacing ($4.4 Million) - Maintaining the City’s billion dollars of roads requires regular upkeep to preserve the City’s quality of life. Roads should be treated every 7 to 10 years to keep them from developing severe cracks and potholes. The primary funding source for this maintenance comes from state and federal gas tax paid at the pump. Until the passage of Senate Bill 1, the the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, the gas tax had not seen any meaningful increase in revenue sufficient to keep up with the inflating costs of maintaining city roads. Even with the passage of Senate Bill 1, the City only has about two-thirds of the funding needed to keep its roads from eventually failing. The reality is that the City needs an additional $3 million to $4 million every year to keep roads in an acceptable condition. This funding gap has brought several arterial roads to the edge of failure. Portions of Cirby Way, Old Auburn, Rocky Ridge, Douglas, and Pleasant Grove will no longer be repairable. These roads will require a significantly more expensive complete replacement if something is not done immediately.
Therefore, staff recommends that $4.4 million of General Fund surplus funds be appropriated in a multi-year project to repair these roads and prevent them from failing. A map of the recommended street resurfacing plan is attached to this communication.
Tractor Drawn Aerial Fire Truck ($700,000) - The Fire department has one tractor drawn aerial truck that needs to be replaced in FY2022-23. This vehicle serves as a front-line apparatus used for structural firefighting, hazardous materials incidents, vehicle accidents, high and low angle rescues, and emergency medical response. The current apparatus will have been in service over 17 years once the replacement arrives, well past the expected life of 13 years. The City has accumulated approximately $1 million of the $1.7 million needed to replace this apparatus, leaving a funding shortfall of $700,000. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the appropriation of $700,000 in surplus General Fund resources to fund this replacement vehicle fully. This recommended budget adjustment also includes the authority to move the General Fund resources to the Fleet Replacement Fund to purchase the replacement vehicle.
General Fund Contingency ($300,000) - During the current fiscal year, $300,000 in General Fund contingency funds were used to complete the Roseville Aquatics Center slide and water play structure replacement project. These improvements were necessary to replace the aging and deteriorating infrastructure, which are over 25 years old. Bids for the project came in over the original project budget due to labor shortages, increased cost of materials, manufacturing delays and tariffs. Staff recommends replenishing the General Fund contingency by $300,000 to address any unanticipated requirements during the remainder of the fiscal year.
FISCAL IMPACT
The year-end financial report attached to this communication is for informational purposes only.
Also included in this communication is a recommendation to approve a budget adjustment utilizing $5.4 million of the $28.5 million in surplus FY2020-21 General Fund resources for street resurfacing ($4.4 million), the replacement of a tractor drawn aerial fire truck ($700,000), and replenishing the General Fund contingency ($300,000). Staff plans to seek City Council’s direction on developing a spending plan for the $23.1 million in remaining General Fund surplus funds at the February City Council Priorities Workshop.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378.
The budget adjustment meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A - Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world
Respectfully Submitted,
Scott Pettingell, Budget Manager
Dennis Kauffman, Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
FY2020-21 Fourth Quarter Report
Ordinance 6447
Budget Adjustment
Street Resurfacing Plan Detail
Downtown Bridges and Trails Project
Fourth Quarter Report
Fiscal Year 2020-21
1 Overview
This financial report provides an overview of the City’s financial position through the fourth quarter of the fiscal year (FY) 2020-21 (July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021) for:
(1) the General Fund;
(2) the major enterprise operating funds; and
(3) revenues in other selected funds.
Financial Highlights and Considerations
COVID-19 - The COVID-19 pandemic continued to have wide-ranging impacts on the economy during the FY2020-21, including unemployment and reduced hotel occupancy compared to pre-pandemic levels due to business closures, capacity restrictions, and stay-at-home orders. As detailed in this report, the pandemic’s impact on some City revenue streams, such as the City’s sales tax, has not been as significant as initially anticipated. However, the pandemic continued to affect revenue and expenses of some City programs, including the utilities, transit, recreation, and childcare, through the end of the fourth quarter of FY2020-21.
Additional details on the impact of COVID-19 on the FY2020-21 budget are included later in this report.
Federal Stimulus - The City received $1.8 million in CARES Act funding passed through from the state earlier in FY2020-21. Although the City incurred a wide range of eligible costs, the City budgeted this revenue consistent with eligible public safety payroll costs within the Police Department for administrative convenience. In addition, in March 2021, the City was allocated $17.6 million in American Rescue Plan Funds to bolster the City’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic impacts. In May, the City received its first half of this funding, or $8.8 million. The second half is expected in May 2022. Staff is working on a recommended spending plan for these funds.
General Fund - The City closed out FY2020-21 with a $28.5 million surplus consisting of approximately $21 million in operating revenues received over budget, $7 million in expenditure savings primarily associated with materials, service and supply and salary savings from vacant positions, and $500,000 in unspent non- operating funds. The primary factors contributing to the surplus were expenditure controls put in place due to uncertainty regarding the impact of the pandemic on the local economy, salary savings due to vacant positions, and conservative budgeting of sales and property tax revenues due to the pandemic. Parks, Recreation, and Library (PR&L) program revenues experienced a $2.5 million shortfall caused by the Fourth Quarter Report
Fiscal Year 2020-21
2 pandemic limiting PR&L programming. Expenditure savings within the PR&L Department offset the shortfall in PR&L revenue.
Staff recommends that the City Council consider appropriating $5.4 million of the General Fund surplus in FY2021-22 for critical street resurfacing requirements ($4.4 million), purchase of a replacement fire apparatus (Tractor Drawn Aerial Fire Truck ($700,000)), and to replenish the General Fund contingency ($300,000).
Staff plans to seek City Council’s direction on developing a spending plan for the $23.1 million in remaining General Fund surplus funds at the February City Council Priorities Workshop.
Youth Development Fund – The pandemic significantly impacted revenues in the Youth Development in FY2020-21 ending the $4.3 million under budget. This revenue shortfall was partially offset by $1.6 million in expenditure savings due to spending controls. Staff continues to evaluate potential resources, including federal stimulus funding, to offset the financial impacts the pandemic has had on this fund. Additional details on the Youth Development Fund are available later in this report.
General Fund: Operating Revenues
The following table includes cumulative General Fund operating revenue through the fourth quarter and a revenue budget to actual comparison for FY2020-21.
Budget to Cumulative Revenue Comparison
(July 1 – June 30)
Revenue Type
Amended
Budget Cumulative
Revenues Balance
Remaining
% of
Budget
Sales and Use Tax - Bradley Burns $ 50,010,000 $ 63,700,772 $ 13,690,772 127% Sales and Use Tax - Measure B 18,522,600 24,509,762 5,987,162 132% Sales and Use Tax - State Aid for Public
Safety 1,122,950 1,293,680 170,730 115% Property Tax 52,939,300 56,294,356 3,355,056 106% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) 2,265,000 2,383,853 118,853 105% Parks, Recreation & Library Programs 3,996,275 1,448,667 (2,547,608) 36% Building Permits 2,400,000 3,903,134 1,503,134 163% Plan Check Fees 2,606,322 2,432,615 (173,707) 93% Engineering Inspection Fees 368,000 490,634 122,634 133% Grants 2,148,213 2,101,689 (46,524) 98% Other Revenues 12,486,504 13,391,298 904,794 107% Transfers 15,349,634 13,229,572 (2,120,062) 86% Total $ 164,214,798 $ 185,180,032 $ 20,965,234 113%
3 General Fund operating revenues ended the fiscal year $21 million or 13 percent higher than estimates. The following is an explanation of the notable variances:
• Bradley Burns and Measure B Sales Tax – The
City's Bradley Burns and Measure B Sales Tax
revenues ended the year at $63.7 and $24.9
million, respectively. Bradley Burns Sales Tax
revenues exceeded budget estimates by 27
percent or $13.7 million, and Measure B Sales Tax
revenues exceeded budget estimates by 32
percent or approximately $6 million. These positive
results were primarily due to two factors. First, the
FY2020-21 budget, developed in the spring of 2020
at the beginning of the pandemic when little was
known about how the pandemic would impact the
economy, assumed a significant reduction in sales
tax revenues due to reduced consumer spending.
Second, sales tax revenues were much more
substantial than anticipated during FY2020-21,
primarily driven by strong vehicles and general
retail sales, which shifted significantly from brick-
and-motor establishments to the Internet. The
provided graphs show Bradley Burns and Measure
B Sales and Use Tax revenues over the last three
fiscal years and by business category.
127%
132%
115%
106%
105%
36%
163%
93%
133%
98%
107%
$ 50.01 M
$ 18.52 M
$ 1.12 M
$ 52.94 M
$ 2.27 M
$ 4.00 M
$ 2.40 M
$ 2.61 M
$ .37 M
$ 2.15 M
$ 12.49 M
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160%
Sales and Use Tax - Bradley Burns
Sales and Use Tax - Measure B
Sales and Use Tax - State Aid for Public Safety
Property Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
Parks, Recreation & Library Programs
Building Permits
Plan Check Fees
Engineering Inspection Fees
Grants
Other Revenues
General Fund Operating Revenues
Cumulative Percentage of Revenue Collected
(July 1 - June 30)
% of Revenue Collected Amended Budget
$4.2
$19.7
$24.5
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
Total
Millions
Measure B Sales & Use Tax Revenues
FY2018-19 FY2019-20 FY2020-21
$57.4
$52.7
$63.7
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
Total
Millions
Bradley Burns Sales & Use Tax Revenues
FY2018-19 FY2019-20 FY2020-21
4 Additional Sales Tax Information: The City's sales tax consultant has prepared a detailed report of sales tax and business activity. This report provides a list of the top 25 sales tax remitters, a summary of cash receipts, and sales tax data by economic category. The report is attached to the end of this report.
• Secured, Unsecured and Supplemental Property Tax
– The city’s property tax revenues (included in the
Property Tax category in the charts above) exceeded
estimates by $3.4 million, at $56.3 million compared to the budgeted amount of $52.9 million, and were not
significantly impacted by the pandemic. Based on the
assessed value of the property as of January 1 of each
year, property tax revenues continued to increase based on ongoing development activity and rising assessed
property values. The provided graph shows property tax
revenues over the last three years.
$0
$10
$20
General Retail Food Products Transportation Construction Business To Business
Miscellaneous County Pool
Millions
Bradley Burns Sales & Use Tax by Category
FY2018-19 FY2019-20 FY2020-21
$0
$5
$10
General Retail Food Products Transportation Construction Business To Business
Miscellaneous
Millions
Measure B Sales & Use Tax by Category
FY2018-19 FY2019-20 FY2020-21
$48.3 $53.4 $56.3
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
Total
Millions
Property Tax Revenues
FY2018-19 FY2019-20 FY2020-21
5 • Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - The City's TOT revenues exceeded estimates by approximately $119,000, at $2.27 million compared to the budgeted amount of $2.38 million. The TOT revenue estimate of $2.27 million was significantly reduced compared to pre-pandemic budget estimates of $3.9 million because the pandemic greatly impacted the hotel industry because of reduced occupancy and lower room rates.
• Parks, Recreation & Library (PR&L) Programs - Parks, Recreation & Libraries (PRL) program revenues ended the year at 32 percent of revenue estimates, at $1.4 million compared to the budgeted amount of $3.9 million. This revenue shortage is due to halting adult and senior sports and programs, closing facilities and fields, canceling events, as well as limiting the capacity at youth, fitness, and aquatics programs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The PRL Department offset a portion of the shortfall with expenditure savings from materials, services, supplies, and vacancies. • Building Permits, Plan Check Fees, Engineering Inspection Fees – Building permit revenues and engineering fees exceeded budgeted estimates by 63 percent and 33 percent, respectively.
These results reflect the City's strong level of development activity during the fiscal year. Building plan check revenues ended the year under budget estimates due to a few multi-family dwelling projects planned for this fiscal year that were not submitted. • Grants - Grant revenues ended the year slightly under budget at 98 percent of the budget. This revenue category includes $1.8 million in federal Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding approved by the City Council on November 11, 2020. This funding reimburses the City for eligible public safety payroll costs incurred in FY2019-20 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Other Revenues – Other revenues include reimbursements from the State, development reimbursement activity, property transfer tax, business license tax, rental payments, animal licensing, passport and LiveScan background, permit, franchise, and other expenses fees. As of the end of the fourth quarter, revenues in this category exceeded estimates by approximately $900,000.
Although some revenues in this category ended the year below estimates, such as passport center fees, which ended the year $300,000 below estimates, other types offset those reductions, such as property transfer tax, which exceeded estimates by $1.3 million. • Transfers – The FY2020-21 budget was adopted with a $2.1 million transfer from the City’s General Fund Stabilization Reserve in order to balance the budget. As a result of the strong sales tax revenues, despite the pandemic, the transfer from the reserve was not necessary.
6 General Fund: Operating Expenditures
The following table includes cumulative fourth quarter expenditure comparisons for General Fund departments for FY2020-21.
Budget to Cumulative Expenditure Comparison
(July 1 – June 30)
Department
Amended
Budget Cumulative
Expenditures Balance
Remaining
% of
Budget
Police $ 47,401,604 $ 47,362,391 $ 39,213 100% Fire 35,928,405 35,749,545 178,860 100% Parks, Recreation & Libraries 26,259,723 23,636,250 2,623,473 90% General Government* 12,838,546 11,798,903 1,039,643 92% Development Services 10,001,716 8,405,565 1,596,151 84% Public Works 8,034,420 7,199,485 834,935 90% Economic Development & Housing 1,072,070 1,033,176 38,894 96% Annexation Payments 8,236,000 7,494,258 741,742 91% Other 6,903,386 6,854,847 48,539 99% Transfers Out 10,137,197 9,860,301 276,896 97% Total $ 166,813,067 $ 159,394,721 $ 7,418,346 96% Encumbrance Reserve * (452,250) - (452,250) Total $ 166,360,817 $ 159,394,721 $ 6,966,096
(1) General Government includes the following departments: City Council, City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office, City Clerk, Finance, Public Affairs and Communications, and Human Resources.
*Reserve for unspent FY2020-21 encumbrances. This amount has been re-appropriated in the FY2021-22 budget.
100%
100%
90%
92%
84%
90%
96%
$ 47.40 M
$ 35.93 M
$ 26.26 M
$ 12.84 M
$ 10.00 M
$ 8.03 M
$ 1.07 M
75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Police
Fire
Parks, Recreation & Libraries
General Government
Development Services
Public Works
Economic Development & Housing
General Fund Department Operating Expenditures
Percentage of Budget Expended
(July 1 - June 30)
% of Budget Expended Amended Budget
7 General Fund expenditures closed the year at 96 percent of the budget target primarily due to cost savings from reduced operations during the pandemic and vacancies in the Parks, Recreation and Libraries, Development Services, Public Works, and other General Fund departments. The expenditure budget consumption for the Police and Fire Departments ended the year close to 100 percent of the budget target for FY2020-21. PRL expenditures ended the year at 90 percent of budget due to cost controls in materials, services, supplies, and temporary and full-time position vacancies. As mentioned in the revenue section of this report, the $2.6 million in expenditure savings offset the revenue shortages from limited PRL programming due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
After considering unspent encumbrances that have been re-appropriated into the FY2021-22 budget, General Fund operating expenditures ended the year approximately $7 million under budget.
Enterprise Funds: Operating Revenues and Expenditures
Revenues
Operating revenues in the
utility funds (Electric, Water,
Wastewater, and Waste
Services) ended the fiscal
year above budget target,
primarily due to increased
retail sales associated with
stronger than expected customer usage and new development. The Electric utility operating revenues are $14.1 million higher than budget primarily due to increased retail sales totaling $10.2 million, of which $5.2 million is associated with stronger than expected customer usage and $5.0 million associated with warmer temperatures last summer. Wholesale revenue is $2.9 million higher than budget, which is attributed to unbudgeted wholesale revenues. Other operating revenues are $1.0 million more than budget due to $0.5 million of unplanned Mutual Aid Support provided to SMUD, $0.1 million in unbudgeted customer late fees, and $0.1 of lease revenue, with all other revenue variances totaling $0.3 million. Operating revenues for the Water utility ended the year 11 percent above budget at $3.8 million due to continuing increased residential consumption and new development. Similarly, Wastewater and Waste Services revenues are higher than anticipated by 4 and 6 percent at $1.6 million and $1.8 million, respectively, due to new development and increased usage by industrial customers.
Transit operating revenues ended the fiscal year lower than budget by 17 percent, at $5.3 million compared to the budgeted amount of $6.4 million. The main drivers of these results were reduced services and losses in passenger fares due to low ridership resulting from COVID-19. Savings in contracts and fuel costs partially offset the revenue shortage. During FY2020-21, Roseville Transit received $2.67 million in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) CARES Act funds to help offset the impact of reduced passenger fares. Two
8 additional federal stimulus bills were approved to provide continued support to transit agencies across the country during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 provided an additional $3.6 million in FTA funding to support Roseville Transit operations. These funds will be allocated within the FY2021-22 and FY2022-23 budget years. The Transportation fund ended the year with a revenue shortfall of 7 percent or $0.1 million. Expenditure savings offset the lower than expected revenue.
Revenues in the Youth Development were significantly impacted during FY2020-21 ending the year at 47 percent of the budget. Factors contributing to the reduced revenues include guidelines established for childcare services that require attendance limitations due to cohort restrictions by licensing, hybrid and modified school schedules, parents continuing to work from home, and temporary part-time staff shortages.
In addition, the Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District and the Roseville City School District did not return to regular school schedules until more than half of the school year was in progress. Staff are exploring potential resources available to offset the financial impacts, including federal stimulus funding, and will continue to keep the City Council apprised of the available options.
Expenditures
Operating expenditures for the
Enterprise Funds ended the year
under budget due to reduced
operating costs, vacancies, and
expense controls on materials,
services, and supplies.
Electric expenditures are $7.9
million lower than budget
primarily due to the cost of purchase power in the energy market being $3.8 million lower. Other contributing factors include customer program rebates coming short by $2.4 million due to the pandemic slowing the economy, leading to fewer commercial energy efficiency projects and lower residential energy efficiency program participation, salary savings totaling $0.7 million, and reduced training/travel expenditures of $0.7 million.
Expenditures in the Environmental Utilities ended the year under budget estimates by 9 percent due to remaining COVID-related limitations on operational plans, including travel and training and vacancies.
Additionally, Wastewater and Waste Services did not need to use their operational contingency budgets in FY2020-21. Similarly, expenditures in the Transportation Fund ended the year at 90 percent of target due to vacancies and crossing guards not working due to COVID-related school closures. Cost savings in the Transit Fund are due to vacancies and reduced contracts and fuel costs from COVID-related operational adjustments.
9 Youth Development Fund expenditures ended the year $1.6 million under budget due to the measures taken to reduce operational costs to mitigate the effects of the pandemic on this fund, including modified staffing plans, vacancies, and cost-sharing with Roseville School District. These savings have partially offset the impact of the $4.3 million revenue shortfall in this fund.
Other Revenue
The provided table shows
revenues in the Fire
Facilities, Public Facilities,
and the Strategic
Improvement Funds through
the fourth quarter of FY2019-
20 and FY2020-21.
The revenue estimates for these three funds are generally based on a multi-year trend analysis of forecasted single-family, multi-family, commercial development, and prior-year revenue collections. When developing the FY2020-21 budget, staff reduced the revenue estimates in these funds based on the anticipated impacts of COVID-19 on development. However, development activity in the City during FY2020- 21 has been much stronger than anticipated, and revenues in the Fire Facilities, Public Facilities, and Strategic Improvement Funds exceeded budget estimates. After the approval of the FY2020-21 budget, the revenue estimate in the Strategic Improvement Fund was increased by $7 million to $8.2 million due to the sale of surplus property, which included three properties located at 7400 Galilee Road, 324 Vernon Street (Post Office) and 290 Conference Center Drive.
California sales tax cash receipts increased by 32.3% from the same quarter last year. In this jurisdiction sales tax cash receipts increased by 45.1% from the same quarter last year E due to a increase of $563,740,000 in Taxable Sales.
Cash Receipts Quarter Annual
Roseville 45.1% 20.9%
Placer Countywide Pool 5.0% 36.7%
Placer Countywide 34.0% 18.5%
Sacramento Valley Region 28.0% 16.1%
Statewide 32.3% 12.9%
Annualized Percent Change in Sales Tax Cash Receipts
Top 25 Sales Tax Remitters
ARCO AM/PM MINI MARTS
AUTONATION CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM ROSEVIL LE
AUTONATION HONDA
BMW OF ROSEVILLE
CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES
COSTCO WHOLESALE
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR
FUTURE FORD
FUTURE NISSAN
GMC RELIABLE
HOME DEPOT
JOHN L SULLIVAN CHEVROLET
JOHN L. SULLIVAN'S ROSEVILLE KIA
LEXUS OF ROSEVILLE
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS
MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORE
MCKESSON MEDICAL -SURGICAL
NIELLO ACURA
NORDSTROM DEPARTMENT STORE
ROSEVILLE HYUNDAI
ROSEVILLE TOYOTA & SCION
SAM'S CLUB
TARGET STORES
VANDERBEEK MOTORS
WAL MART STORES
Business Activity Quarter Annual Quarter Annual Quarter Annual
80.2% 11.4% 78.3% 24.2% 53.5% 3.5%
43.1% 5.3% 38.2% -0.8% 42.8% -14.0%
40.6% 21.8% 41.8% 14.2% 37.2% -0.7%
2.9% 12.7% 25.5% 14.8% 7.9% 2.2%
General Retail (e.g., dept. stores, misc. retail)
Food Products (e.g., markets and restaurants)
Transportation (e.g., new & used autos, gas stations)
Construction (e.g., retail & wholesale construction)
Business To Business (e.g., IT, industrial equip. etc.) 28.6% 4.2% 22.0% 3.5% 11.2% -8.0% TOTAL LOCAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY 45.6% 13.8% 43.9% 12.4% 32.9% -3.5% COUNTYWIDE POOL ACTIVITY 13.7% 39.7% 4.5% 27.4% 7.4% 25.0% City of Roseville
Roseville Sacramento Valley California
Quarterly Report on Sales Tax and Business Activity
2nd Quarter 2021 in Review
-12.0%
-6.0%
0.0%
6.0%
12.0%
18.0%
24.0%
Roseville Placer Countywide Statewide