nyamaimule 3-4 hours

ANALYSIS OF A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY’S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

City Of Gaithersburg, MD

FY 2012

For The Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012

By

Kahmandin W. Daiga

University Of MD – Eastern Shore

ACCT 405

May 2, 2013

Title of Contents

1. Transmittal letter…………………………………………………Page 3

2. Executive Summary………………………………………………Page 5

3. General Information………………………………………….......Page 5

4. Governmental Entity’s Funds............................................................Page 7

5. Evaluation of Financial Conditions...................................................Page 8

6. Illustrations/References/Other material.........................................Page 13

7. Governmental-wide financial statements........................................Page 14

8. General Fund financial statements...................................................Page 16

May 2, 2013

To the Mayor and the City Council

To the Residents of the City of Gaithersburg, Maryland;

Our state law requires that, within four months of the close of each fiscal year, all general purpose local governments publish a complete set of financial statements presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Also it should be audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards by a firm of licensed certified public accountants. Adhering to the requirements, we hereby issue the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the city of Gaithersburg, Maryland, for June 30, 2012.

Management assumes full responsibility for the completeness and reliability of all the information presented in this report. As management, we assert that, to the best of our knowledge and belief, this financial report is complete and reliable in all material respects.

McGladrey LLP, a firm of licensed certified public accountants, audited the City of Gaithersburg’s financial statements. The goal of the independent audit was to provide reasonable assurance that the basic financial statements are free of material misstatement. The independent auditor concluded, based upon the audit, that there was a reasonable basis for rendering an unqualified opinion that the City of Gaithersburg financial statements for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2012 are fairly presented in conformity with GAAP.

REPORTING ENTITY

The City’s financial statements include Casey Community Center operations, Aquatic Facility operations, Senior Center operations, and all departments and funds operated by the City of Gaithersburg. Additionally, the Employees’ Retirement Plan is included as a component unit of the reporting entity.

The financial activities of the Montgomery County Board of Education and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission are not considered part of the City’s reporting entity.

ECONOMIC CONDITION AND OUTLOOK

Gaithersburg is centrally located in the heart of Montgomery County. It occupies approximately 10.33 square miles, with population of 62,848 as of July 2012. In 2012, CNN/Money Magazine ranked Gaithersburg #23 on a national list of Best Places to Live. The current economic condition of the City is excellent, and we are confident that this can be maintained.

MedImmune, one of 10 largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, is headquartered in Gaithersburg. Some other firms/companies include Digene, GenVec, Antex, Gene Logic, IBM and Lockheed Martin. We were recently involved that Adventist HealthCare will move its corporate headquarters to Gaithersburg, and Novavax will be relocating to the City as well.

Expansion Management magazine concludes that Gaithersburg possesses many attributes these technology firms seek, including a superior work force, good transportation infrastructure, a pro=business government, competitive operating costs, and quality of life.

Due to the current economy, real property tax revenue posted a moderate increase, resulting in an overall increase to total revenues for fiscal year 2012.

MAJOR INITIATIVES

Through a strategic planning process, the City of Gaithersburg identified several major programs needed to meet resident requirements, in conformity with applicable federal and state standards. Some of these programs include, naming a few: - Implementing traffic and transportation management strategies to improve the safety, structure and function of streets, transit, bikeways and sidewalks within the City. - Implementing the Master Plan for Parks, Recreation, cultural, and Leisure Activities. - Maintaining support of neighborhood Community Policing Programs. – Actively pursue the Olde Towne Blue print.

The largest capital projects are Technology Projects, one of which is Planning, Code Enforcement and Inspection package ($700k); the renovation of the Water Park at Bohrer Park at Summit Hall Farm ($1.4mm); major street reconstructions projects and street resurfacing projects ($1.3mm). The figures in parenthesis represent FY 2012 appropriations.

CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING AND DISTINGUISED BUDGET PRESENTATION

A Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting was awarded to the City of Gaithersburg by the Government Finance Officers Association of United States and Canada (GFOA) for its CAFR for the year that ended June 30, 2011. This certificate is a prestigious national award recognizing conformance with the highest standards for preparation of state and local government financial reports. Gaithersburg has received the certificate for 34 consecutive years (1978-2011). A certificate is only valid for a period of one year only.

An award of Distinguished Presentation for its annual budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2011 was presented to the City of Gaithersburg by GFOA. Gaithersburg is proud to be the recipient of the award for the ninth consecutive year (FY 2003-2011).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Preparing this report in a timely manner could not have been accomplished without the professional, efficient, and dedicated services of the entire staff of the Department of Finance and Administration, along with the various City staff that contributed to its preparation. We also acknowledge the cooperation and help of the City’s departments throughout the year. Finally, we would like to thank the Mayor and the members of the City Council for their interest and support.

Respectfully Submitted,

Kahmandin W. Daiga, CGFM

Director of Finance and Administration

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

During the accounting cycle, Gaithersburg’s government-wide net assets increased by 5.5 million. The General Fund reported an excess of revenues over expenditures and other financing sources and uses of $8.9 million after making $5.4 million transfer to the Capital Projects Fund. The city’s financial position improved over the past year: total governmental funds’ fund balance increased by 11% to $80.8 million. Interest income decreased from $91K to $54K, as a result of financial market conditions.

The City of Gaithersburg seems to be in a strong financial condition, with great financial strengths and just a few red flags and financial strains, based on my interpretations of the ratios calculated in Illustration 10-3, Illustration 10-4, and Illustration 10-7.

I compared my performance measures with another governmental entity - The City of Annapolis, Maryland which was computed by Mr. Spencer Harris. Unfortunately for my city, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) did not provide me with as much information on its financial statements to help me compute all the ratios. I only computed 11 out of 18 ratios and Annapolis’s CAFR gave Spencer enough information to compute 16 out of 18 ratios. That alone portrays how different the two cities are; how detailed or less detailed they can be on the CAFR; and how differently they choose to operate their cities.

GENERAL INFORMATION

The Introductory section of the City of Gaithersburg’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report was very well structured. Most importantly it was written in a manner where anybody who understands the basic English can read and comprehend. It provided background and context of the CAFR which were not included in the scope audit. The contents of the introductory sections was; the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in financial Reporting for the prior years; List of Principal Officials; Letter of Transmittal; and an Organizational Chart. The transmittal letter went into great detail of four pages in length.

From the introductory, it is safe to conclude that the City of Gaithersburg deserves the great recognition it gets, especially the fact that it was ranked #23 on a national list of Best Places to Live. Gaithersburg is my hometown, so I am very proud of it and can attest to its recognized attributes such as family purchasing power, median home price sales, student test scores, hob growth, air quality, commute crimes, and great access to arts and leisure activities. I too believe that the City of Gaithersburg’s consistent strategy to attract biotechnology firms continues to reap substantial benefits! I hope they continue winning certificates from GFOA!

The City’s Financial Section comprised of and Independent Auditors’ Report, Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A), Basic Financial Statements, Required Supplementary Information (other than MD&A), and Notes to Financial Statements. Apparently the MD&A is best understood if read in conjunction with the transmittal letter and the City’s basic financial statements. I never understood that logic until I read the three sections back and forth…and it made perfect sense and made it easier to understand Gaithersburg’s CAFR.

The Independent Auditors’ Report, which was McGladrey LLP, provided its opinion on the fair presentation of the basic financial statements. The MD&A provided a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis. The Government-Wide Financial Statements provided information on governmental and business type activities of Gaithersburg. The Fund Financial Statements provided information on the financial position of specific funds of the City of Gaithersburg. Then Notes to Financial Statements gave a summary of significant accounting policies and related disclosures, i.e. Encumbrances, Investments, Inventory, Receivables etc.

During the accounting cycle, Gaithersburg’s government-wide net assets increased by 5.5 million. The General Fund reported an excess of revenues over expenditures and other financing sources and uses of $8.9 million after making $5.4 million transfer to the Capital Projects Fund. The city’s financial position improved over the past year: total governmental funds’ fund balance increased by 11% to $80.8 million. Interest income decreased from $91K to $54K, as a result of financial market conditions.

The city’s assets exceeded its liabilities at the close of FY 2012 by $171.6 million. Its total revenues were $53.3 million. Local property taxes funding amounted to $24.6 million; intergovernmental funding, $10 million; charges for services, $13.1 million; operating grants and contributions, $.8 million; and capital grants and contributions, $1.3 million. The remaining $3.5 million primarily came from admission and amusements and hotel and motel taxes, and franchise fees.

The City of Gaithersburg is a strong proponent of the “pay-as-you-go” methodology, and proud of the fact that the city has no outstanding debt obligations. The City’s debt consists only of compensated absences payable and other post-employment benefits liabilities.

The Statistical Section of the City outlined information in great detail to help for understanding what the information in the financial statements, note disclosures, and required supplementary information said about Gaithersburg’s overall financial health or well-being. This section demonstrated the City’s Financial Trends, Revenue Capacity, Debt Capacity, Economic and Demographic Information, and Operating Information.

The financial trend contained trend information to help me understand how the City’s financial performance and well-being have changed over time. The revenue capacity helped me assess the City’s most significant local revenue sources, the property tax and the room tax. The debt capacity presented information to help analyze the affordability of the City’s current levels of outstanding debt and its ability to issue additional debt in the future. Economic and demographic information showed economic and demographic indicators to understand the environment within which the City’s financial activities take place. The operating information contained service and infrastructure data to help me understand how the information in the Gaithersburg’s financial report relates to the services the City provides and the activities it performs.

Amount of Full-Time City Government employees in Gaithersburg in 2012 was 366.2. The number increased by four from 2011, but it has actually decreased a lot as compared to other previous years. In 2012, Most of the City’s residents are employed at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (.42%). Real Property tax rates increased from 1.208 in 2011 to 1.270 in 2012. It seems that a great chunk of Gaithersburg’s source of tax revenue throughout the years is from Property taxes.

GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY’S FUND

Governmental Funds: Governmental fund reporting focuses on the sources, uses, and balances of current financial resources. The City of Gaithersburg maintains only two governmental funds.

The General Fund is the general operating fund of the City. Many of the more important activities of the City, including operation of the City’s general service departments, street and highway maintenance, public safety, parks and recreation programs are accounted for in this fund. The general fund had less expenditure than revenues in 2012, thereby increasing total fund balance to $52.1 million. It is important to note that the net change in fund balance is $8.9 million. This figure is calculated on the modified accrual basis and is slightly different from the $8.2 million budgetary basis surplus. This difference is due to the treatment of prior and current year encumbrances. The largest revenue source for the General Fund is City property tax.

The Capital Projects Fund is used to account for financial resources to be used for the acquisition or construction of capital facilities. CPF showed a $0.9 million decrease in fund balance. The CPF’s total fund balance of $28.6 million represents authorized and funded projects that are not complete. The General Fund made a $5.4 million transfer to the Capital Projects Fund. Capital Projects Fund expenditures of $6.3 million included the Senior Center renovation and equipment replacement, acquisition and renovation of the historical Budd Carr into museum space, City wide emergency efficiency upgrades, water park expansion, public safety cameras installed in Olde Towne and storm water management projects, street reconstruction and resurfacing.

Fiduciary Funds: They are statements that provide information about the financial relationships where the City acts solely as a trustee or agent for the benefit of others.

The Agency Funds is like a clearing mechanism for cash resources, which are collected, held as such for a brief period, and then disbursed to authorized recipients. Gaithersburg’s Forest Conservation Fund is included as such and accounts for monies held on behalf of developers for reforestation. On the statement of fiduciary net assets, AF amounted to deposits of $153,341.

Gaithersburg’s Pension Trust Fund accounts for the contributions made by the City and its employees to finance future pension payments. Net assets held in trust for pension benefits under PTF summed up to $44,672,453. The pension plan is maintained as a PTF.

The City of Gaithersburg’s Retiree Benefit Trust Fund accounts for contributions made by the City and its employees to finance future other postemployment benefit payments. The plan was and is normally administered by a committee appointed by the City. The total RBTF for Gaithersburg was $3,537,105.

It is observed that Private-Purpose Trust Funds are used in the City to report all other trust arrangements under which principal and income benefit individuals, private organizations, or other governments. PPTF’s certificate of deposit equals $13,552, but its total asset is $15,552 because $2000 was due from other funds. The City’s Sam and Claire Rosen Trust Fund is included too and accounts for recreational sports scholarships financed by the interest earnings of the fund.

EVALUATION OF FINANCIAL CONDITIONS

ILLUSTRATION 10-3:

City of Gaithersburg

Governmental Funds Financial Ratios

Indicator	Calculation (see Ill. 10-3 for definition of ratios)	2012
1. Revenues Per Capita:	53,304,767	848.15
	62,848
2. One-time revenues:	751,938 + 1,312,834 + 5,437,130	0.14
	53,304,767
3. Expenditures per capita:	39,709,150	631.83
	62,848
4. Employees per capita:	366.2	0.01
	62,848
5. Operating surplus/deficit:	53,304,767 - 39,709,150	0.26
	53,304,767
6. Fund balances:	3,266,162 + 40,627,029 + 11,081,062	1.03
	53,304,767
7. Liquidity:	605,288 + 84,719,757-(77,621,029)	1.19
	6,466,944
8. Long-term debt:	10,737,220	0.0012
	9,198,377,481
9. Postemployment benefits:	8,618,050	23533.7
	366.2
10. Capital Outlay:	4,347,937	0.11
	39,709,150

ILLUSTRATION 10-4:

City of Gaithersburg

Government-wide Financial Performance Measures

	Performance Measures	Calculation (see Ill. 10-4 for definition of ratios)	2012 ($ or % or number of times)
1	Unrestricted net position:	72,126,415 53,304,767	135%
2	General Fund budgetary fund balance:	11,081,062 + 40,627,029 53,943,944 - 5,437,130	107%
3	Debt to assets:	17,204,164 188,787,473	9%
4	Current ratio:	89,330,579 6,466,944	13.81 times
5	Quick ratio:	89,330,579 - 350,595 - 65,972 6,466,944	13.75 times
6	Change in net position:	171,583,309 - 166,074,871	$5,508,438
7	Interperiod equity:	38,169,652 + 13,070,343 + 751,938 + 1,312,834 47,796,329	1.12 times
8	Sales tax growth:	36,450,228 - 35,344,265 35,344,265	0.03 times
9	Revenue dispersion:	13,070,343 + 751,938 + 1,312,834 + 9,986,624 + 54,191 38,169,652 + 13,070,343 + 751,938 + 1,312,834	30%
10	Bonded debt per capita:	0 62,848	$0.00
11	Property taxes per capita:	24,575,499* 62,848	$391.03

* Actual property tax levy information was not provided; property tax revenue was used instead.

ILLUSTRATION 10-7: The Performeter® analysis for 2012 is as follows:

City of Gaithersburg, Maryland - Performeter® Analysis – 2012

Performance Measures	2012 Computation	Rating	Weight	Score
Financial Position:
1	Unrestricted net position	135%	10	3	30
2	GF budgetary fund balance	107%	10	2	20
3	Debt to assets	9%	10	1	10
4	Current ratio	13.81	10	3	30
5	Quick ratio	13.75	10	2	20
Financial Position Score				10
Financial Performance:
6	Change in net position	5.50%	8	3	24
7	Interperiod equity	112%	10	2	20
8	Sales tax growth	3%	3	2	6
Financial Performance Score				7.14
Financial Capability:
9	Revenue dispersion	30%	3	1	3
10	Bonded debt per capita	$0.00	10	1	10
11	Property taxes per capita	$391.03	1	1	1
Financial Capability Score				4.67
	Total suggested weight and score for items 1-11			21	174
Overall Financial Performance Score			7.27

INTERPRETATIONS OF CALCULATIONS

The City of Gaithersburg seems to be in a strong financial condition, with great financial strengths and just a few red flags and financial strains, based on the following interpretations of the ratios calculated in Illustration 10-3, Illustration 10-4, and Illustration 10-7:

· Gaithersburg’s unrestricted net position (assets) of 135% proofs that it has a high level of reserves that it may draw from, if it needs to, to meet future needs. Its budgetary carryover position looks excellent with a percentage above 100. The debt to assets ratio of 9% shows that the degree to which the City’s total assets have been funded with debt in FY 2012 is extremely low. Which is a very good thing because it means it is not funded by borrowed assets. The current and quick ratios indicate that the City is very liquid and can pay its current liabilities with ease.

· The change in net position (assets) ratio portrays that the City of Gaithersburg’s overall financial condition improved by 5.5% or $5,508,438 from the previous years, rather than declining or being stagnant. Interperiod equity was 112% proves that the City has lived within its means for the fiscal year. Basically, Gaithersburg’s current revenues paid for its cost of operating the City. It did not rely on past or future revenues. The sales tax growth of 3% shows the state of the City’s local economy. The ratio was not an exemplary percentage. The sales tax growth poses a red flag for the City and it should be monitored. As a side note, neither state law nor the City Charter mandates a limit on the amount of municipal debt that may be issued

· Looking at the computations, the City of Gaithersburg’s revenue dispersion was 30%. The ratio falls a lot below the acceptable percentage, therefore it poses a second red flag for the City. It implies that only 30% of Gaithersburg’s revenue is beyond its direct control. As far as calculating the bonded debt per capita, keep in mind that All bonds are used to fund the acquisition, construction, and equipping of an assisted living facility at Asbury Methodist Village ,a specific third party that is not part of the City’s financial reporting entity. An agreement was executed between Asbury Methodist Village, Incorporated and the City concurrently with the issuance of the bonds. The full faith and credit of the City have not been pledged in support of the bonds, and in the event of default, the City cannot be held liable. Hence, the reason I used $0.00 for general bonded debt (bond payable). So with a bonded debt per capita of $0.00, Gaithersburg has no long-term general obligation debt burden on its taxpayers. Property taxes per capita came up to $391, which indicates the City’s property tax burden on its tax payers. It is not a good number at all; in fact it is extremely high.

· Looking specifically at Illustration 10-7: The Gaithersburg’s 2012 overall performance of 7.27 appears to be a little above acceptable, considering that a score of 5 is deemed acceptable. Its financial position is very strong and it is at its maximum of 10, with individual scores at the highest rates. It is a perfect score and a perfect rate! Financial performance is 7.14, which is above acceptable. What really brought down the financial performance score was the sales tax growth score. Financial capability was the weakest with 4.67, scoring below the mid-point/acceptable point of 5.

Lawton will need to remain vigilant in the forthcoming years if it wants to stay at an acceptable capability level:

· It needs to increase its revenue dispersion by increasing its non-tax revenue sources.

· Secondly, it needs to decrease its property taxes per capita by about $344 in order to become at least acceptable with a score of 5.5. It can do that by decreasing the property tax levy or the only other way is to increase its population (population increase is a little unrealistic and a little beyond its control).

Additionally an increase in sales tax growth will bring Gaithersburg’s financial performance close to the highest score of 10.

· The solution is to decrease its change in sales and use tax revenue. That is the difference between the current and prior year. There are no major signs of fiscal stress yet.

Comparison: City of Gaithersburg vs. City of Annapolis

I compared my performance measures with another governmental entity - The City of Annapolis, Maryland which was computed by Mr. Spencer Harris. Unfortunately for my city, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) did not provide me with as much information on its financial statements to help me compute all the ratios. I only computed 11 out of 18 ratios and Annapolis’s CAFR gave Spencer enough information to compute 16 out of 18 ratios. That alone portrays how different the two cities are; how detailed or less detailed they can be on the CAFR; and how differently they choose to operate their cities.

Ultimately, the City of Gaithersburg’s overall financial performance (7.27) was slightly above Annapolis’s (5.7) by 1.57. Gaithersburg’s financial position (10) was higher than Annapolis’s (6.7) by 3.3. However Gaithersburg lacked the computations for capital asset condition and pension plan funding, so maybe its score would have been a little lower if I had found calculated them. Annapolis’s financial performance was 6.3, which is less than mine by just .84. Gaithersburg does not operate using business-type activities (BTA), but Annapolis does. So maybe my score would have been affected negatively because BTA affected Annapolis negatively. Lastly, Gaithersburg’s financial capability was 4.67 and Annapolis’ was 3.9.

In conclusion, Gaithersburg seems to be at a better financial position than Annapolis. Again, I will put in perspective that both cities operate very differently and that ultimately affected the differences between our scores. It appears that both cities are straining when it comes to Property taxes per capita. Although we both have a score of 1, Annapolis is straining more with $566 more than Gaithersburg. Gaithersburg could use a little advice from Annapolis on how to get a good score on Revenue dispersion.

Illustrations/References/Other materials

Illustration 10-3…………………………………………………..Page 8

Illustration 10-4…………………………………………………..Page 9

Illustration 10-5…………………………………………………..Page 10

Statement of Net Assets…………………………………………....Page 14

Statement of Activities…………………………………………….Page 15

Balance Sheet - Governmental Funds…………………………….Page 16

REFERENCES

The Department of Finance and Administration, Harold Belton, Director. (October 26, 2012). Www.gaithersburgmd.gov. In Gaithersburg, Maryland. Retrieved March 28, 2013, http://www.gaithersburgmd.gov/Documents/finance/12_Gaithersburg_CAFR_Final.pdf .

Jacqueline L. Reck, Suzanne L. Lowensohn, Earl R. Wilson. (January 6, 2012). Accounting for Governmental and Nonprofit Entities . In McGraw-Hill.

Analysis of a Governmental Entity's Financial Statement City of Annapolis For Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 201, by Spencer Harris.

City Of Gaithersburg, Maryland

Statement of Net Assets

June 30, 2012

Governmental

Activities

Assets

Cash and cash equivalents $ 605,288

Investments 84,114,469

Receivables:

Due from other governments 3,621,172

Other, net 573,083

Inventory 65,972

Prepaid 350,595

Capital assets:

Land 37,616,909

Buildings 33,656,767

Improvements other than buildings 10,490,788

Machinery and equipment 12,771,312

Infrastructure 65,165,695

Construction-in-progress 2,013,730

Less: accumulated depreciation (62,258,307)

Total assets 188,787,473

Liabilities

Accounts payable 2,109,392

Due to other governments 56,423

Accrued liabilities 789,551

Deposits 2,317,519

Unearned revenue 1,194,059

Non-current liabilities:

Due within one year:

Accumulated unused compensated absences 590,410

Due in more than one year:

Accumulated unused compensated absences 1,528,760

Other postemployment benefit liability 8,618,050

Total liabilities 17,204,164

Net Assets

Invested in capital assets 99,456,894

Unrestricted 72,126,415

Total net assets $ 171,583,309

City of Gaithersburg, MD

Statement of Activities

Year Ended June 30, 2012

		Net (Expense) Revenue And Changes In Net Assets
		Program Revenues
Functions/Programs	Expenses	Charges For Services	Operating Grants And Contributions	Capital Grants And Contributions	Primary Government Governmental Activities
Governmental activities: General government $ 16,369,822 $ 2,731,495 $ 59,662 $ 345,774 $ (13,232,891) Public safety 10,538,639 4,295,957 377,729 168,888 (5,696,065) Public works 13,138,836 2,630,871 - 480,693 (10,027,272) Parks and recreation 5,659,702 3,412,020 108,000 - (2,139,682) Community services and development 2,089,330 - 206,547 317,479 (1,565,304)
Total governmental activities $ 47,796,329 $ 13,070,343 $ 751,938 $ 1,312,834 $ (32,661,214)
		General revenues: Property tax 24,575,499 Franchise fees 689,385 Admissions, amusement, and hotel taxes 2,395,490 Intergovernmental not restricted to specific programs 9,986,624 Investment earnings 54,191 Miscellaneous revenues 468,463 Total general revenues 38,169,652 Change in net assets 5,508,438 Net assets: Beginning 166,074,871 Ending $ 171,583,309

City Of Gaithersburg, Maryland

Balance Sheet – Governmental Funds

June 30, 2012

	General Fund	Capital Projects Fund	Total Governmental Funds
Assets Cash $ 605,288 $ - $ 605,288 Investments 84,114,469 - 84,114,469 prepaid 350,595 - 350,595 Inventory 65,972 - 65,972 Due from other funds - 29,256,130 29,256,130 Due from other governments 3,621,172 - 3,621,172 Other receivables 573,083 - 573,083
Total assets	$ 89,330,579 $ 29,256,130 $ 118,586,709
Liabilities And Fund Balances Liabilities: Accounts payable $ 1,069,795 $ 485,342 $ 1,555,137 Accrued liabilities 662,427 127,124 789,551 Deposits 2,317,519 - 2,317,519 Deferred revenue 3,289,372 - 3,289,372 Due to other governments 56,423 - 56,423 Due to other funds 29,810,385 - 29,810,385
Total Liabilities:	37,205,921 612,466 37,818,387
Fund balances: Non-spendable 416,567 - 416,567 Committed - 3,266,162 3,266,162 Assigned 11,081,062 25,377,502 36,458,564 Unassigned 40,627,029 - 40,627,029
Total fund balances	52,124,658 28,643,664 80,768,322
Total liabilities and fund balances	$ 89,330,579 $ 29,256,130 $ 118,586,709