Financial Indicators

Performance Audit

July 2010


Analyzing financial indicators helps identify significant existing or emerging financial problems, puts the city’s finances in context, and encourages discussion of the city’s finances. The analysis of indicators for 2009 suggests the city’s financial condition is mixed. Taken as a whole, governmental activities’ finances weakened compared to the previous year, while business-type activities’ indicators improved.

  1. Letter to the City Commission
  2. Results in Brief
  3. Financial indicators help understand Lawrence's financial condition
  4. Government activities ratio analysis
  5. Debt, revenue and expenditure trends
  6. Business-type activities ratio analysis
  7. Recommendations
  8. Scope, methods and objectives
  9. Management's response

Click on a section to expand the report or view the downloadable version (PDF, 221 KB) by right-clicking and selecting "Save Target As" to download the file to your computer.

Letter to the City Commission

July 1, 2010

Members of the City Commission

This performance audit of financial indicators for Lawrence is intended to identify significant existing or emerging financial problems, put the city’s finances in context, and encourage discussion of the city’s finances.

The financial indicators analysis for 2009 suggests that the city’s financial condition is mixed.  Governmental activities’ indicators weakened compared to the previous year, while business-type activities’ indicators improved.

The analysis in this report compares financial indicators for Lawrence over time (2003-2009) and with medians based on 16 similar cities.  An important limitation to this analysis include that it doesn’t directly measure the quality of government services.

I make one recommendation in this report. I provided the City Manager with a draft of the report on June 21.  His written response is included.

Michael Eglinski
City Auditor

Results in Brief

This analysis of financial indicators for Lawrence is intended to identify significant existing or emerging financial problems, put the city’s finances in context, and encourage discussion of the city’s finances.

The financial indicators analysis for 2009 suggests that the city’s financial condition is mixed.  Governmental activities’ indicators weakened compared to the previous year, while business-type activities’ indicators improved.  The measures of Lawrence’s ability to maintain the provision of services in both governmental and business-type activities remain relatively b compared to a 16-city median.

Indicators of the relative age of the city’s infrastructure, buildings, and other capital assets, show that the assets are aging but remain favorable compared to a 16-city median.

The financial performance of the city’s business-type activities weakened and remains below a 16-city median.  The city’s business-type activities include water and sewer, solid waste, parking, stormwater and golf.  Transfers from the business-type activities remain significant.  The city should develop a policy to guide such transfers.

The analysis of governmental funds shows that per capita revenue and expenditures increased, while per capita debt decreased.  The increase in revenue reflects sales taxes that went into effect in April 2009.  Despite the increases, both revenues and expenditures for the period of 2007-2009 were generally lower than the preceding years.

I make one recommendation related to policy guidance on transfers. I provided the City Manager with a draft of the report on June 18.  His written response is included.

Financial indicators help understand Lawrence's financial condition

This performance audit, which analyzes financial ratios, provides the City Commission and city management with an assessment of Lawrence’s finances.  The performance audit is intended to encourage discussion of the city’s finances and to:

  • identify significant existing or emerging financial problems
  • put the city’s finances in context by compiling data for seven years and comparing to the median of 16 cities

Financial ratios are presented as graphs throughout the report.  To evaluate the ratios, consider both the trend and the level compared to the median (see Figure 1).  1Trends can be characterized as more favorable, less favorable, or unclear.  Likewise, levels can be characterized as more favorable, less favorable, or neutral.  Characterizing each indicator using this method allows for overall conclusions about relative strengths and weaknesses of the city’s finances.

figure 1

The City Auditor selected ratios to include in the performance audit.  Most of the ratios come from The New Governmental Financial Model: What it Means for Analyzing Government Financial Condition.1

This report includes 7 years of data for Lawrence (2003-2009), and compares data for Lawrence with medians based on an analysis of similar cities.  Medians are based on 16 cities – Lawrence and 15 similar cities.  Comprehensive annual financial reports provide most of the data.  Information from the annual financial reports provides consistent, reliable data because it conforms to generally accepted accounting principles and is audited under generally accepted government auditing standards.

What is the source of the financial information in this report?

Comprehensive annual financial reports from Lawrence and the similar cities provide the financial data used in this performance audit.  Nearly all of the information comes from the government-wide financial statements.  Those statements rely on “full accrual” accounting.  That means that the financial statements include capital assets and long-term liabilities as well as current assets and liabilities.  The government-wide financial statements report all revenues and costs of providing government services, not just those received or paid in the current year or soon after.

The government-wide financial statements provide information about the cost of government services, including the cost of consumption of capital as well as financial resources.  Capital resources include buildings, machinery, roads, and other assets.

The cities used for comparison have characteristics similar to Lawrence.  Based on 2006 data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the areas have similar:

  • urban area population;
  • portion of population under the age of 18;
  • per capita income;
  • median age of housing.

See the Scope, Method and Objectives section for more detailed information on the similar cities.

Analyzing financial ratios provides an assessment of Lawrence’s financial condition, but it is important to recognize strengths and limitations to this sort of analysis.  Figure 2 highlights some strengths and limitations of the ratio analysis.

Figure 2

Strengths

Limitations

 

Lawrence data compiled under consistent accounting principles and audited under Government Auditing Standards

Ratios developed independent of city management and provides a new view of Lawrence finances

Comparative data compiled under consistent accounting principles and audited under Government Auditing Standards

 

Analysis provides a broad overview rather than detailed analysis

Excludes information on level and quality of services and infrastructure

Excludes external factors, such as demographic and economic trends, that may affect city finances

Provides historical analysis rather than projections of future condition

 

 

Government Fiscal Outlook a National Challenge

The Government Accountability Office recently updated Congress on the fiscal outlook of state and local governments:

Fiscal sustainability presents a national challenge shared by all levels of government.  Recent economic events and state and local government efforts to maintain balance during the current recession have called attention to the immediate challenges facing these governments.  The recession has substantially reduced states’ and local governments’ combined tax revenues.  These immediate challenges exist alongside the daunting long-term fiscal challenges for all levels of government.

Source: State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook March 2010 Update, U.S. Government Accountability Office, March 2010

 

 


1. Barbara A. Chaney, Dean Michael Mead, and Kenneth R. Scherman, “The New Governmental Financial Reporting Model: What it Means for Analyzing Government Financial Condition,” Journal of Government Financial Management, Spring 2002.

Government activities ratio analysis

Analyzing financial indicators helps identify significant existing or emerging financial problems, puts the city’s finances in context, and encourages discussion of the city’s finances. The analysis of indicators for 2009 suggests the city’s financial condition is mixed. Taken as a whole, governmental activities’ finances weakened compared to the previous year, while business-type activities’ indicators improved.

Figure 3

 

Indicator

Compared to prior year

ber measures

Reliance on taxes to pay expenses (Figure 6)

Remained the same

 

Ability to maintain services (Figure 4)

Remained the same

 

Age of capital assets relative to comparison communities (Figure 10)

New measure

 

Resources to meet immediate needs (Figure 7)

Improved

Weaker measures

Debt burden (Figure 8)

Remained the same

 

Rate resources grow (Figure 5)

Weakened

 

Interest payment effect on flexibility (Figure 9)

Weakened

Financial position: ability to maintain services
Lawrence’s financial position shows no clear trend and the level are very near the median (see Figure 4).  The measure indicates that the city’s ability to maintain the provision of services.

Figure 4

Financial performance: rate resources grow

Lawrence’s financial performance ratio shows a negative trend and the level is below the median (see Figure 5).  Compared to the median of similar cities, Lawrence’s net resources grew more slowly.

Figure 5

Most cities faced declines in financial performance in the most recent year, probably reflecting economic conditions.  All things being equal, tax revenues which decrease or grow slower than costs will reduce financial performance. 

General support: reliance on taxes to pay expenses

Lawrence’s general support for governmental activities shows a gradually increase over the last several years and is near the median (see Figure 6).  General support level reflects the extent to which the city relies on general taxes and transfers from enterprise operations rather than service charges and grants.  In evaluating the general support level, focus on unexpected substantial changes more than the level.

Figure 6

Liquidity: resources to meet immediate needs
Lawrence’s liquidity ratio shows no clear trend and is above the average value for Lawrence for the period of 2003-2009 (see Figure 7).  The indicator is interpreted in relation to Lawrence’s average rather than the 16 city median and the level is considered favorable because it is above that average.1  The measure indicates the city’s access to resources to meet immediate needs.

Figure 7

Long-term liabilities: debt burden
Lawrence’s long-term liabilities measure shows no clear trend and is above the median (see Figure 8).  The ratio measures debt burden and suggests’ that Lawrence’s debt burden is higher than the median of similar cities.

Figure 8

 

Moody’s recalibrated Lawrence’s credit rating

Moody’s Investor Services recently recalibrated credit ratings for municipal credit in the U.S.  As a result, Moody’s changed Lawrence’s general obligation and revenue bonds to Aa1 and Aa2.  The change involved moving to a different rating scale and was not an upgrade

Interest coverage: interest payment effect on flexibility

Lawrence’s interest coverage ratio shows a declining trend and is below the median (see Figure 9).  Lower levels indicate that the city has less near term flexibility because resources are devoted to making interest payments.  The impact of interest payments in Lawrence is greater than the median of similar cities, which is consistent with the long-term liability ratio.

Figure 9

Capital assets: relative age of capital assets

The capital asset measure shows a less favorable trend and a more favorable level than the median (see Figure 10).  For this ratio, a lower level is more favorable.  The ratio measures the relative age of capital assets – primarily infrastructure and buildings.  A lower level is more favorable and suggests the city will not face significant replacement needs in the near future.

 


1. The ratio for Lawrence includes $14.4 million in temporary notes payable, which is unique among the similar cities.  Lawrence initially finances projects with temporary notes during construction and then refinances with bonds once the project is complete.  Because the comparison cities don’t use temporary notes to the same extent, the ratio is interpreted in relation to the trend and the average level over the period of 2003-2009.  That average is 3.1 and the level for Lawrence in 2009 is 3.3.  The 16 city median is included in the graph, but is not the basis of the ratio’s evaluation.

Debt, revenue and expenditure trends

Debt, revenue and expenditures trends for governmental funds provide information on financial flexibility and sustainability.  The graphs show data for all governmental funds on a per capita basis and adjusted for inflation.  In this analysis, the governmental fund indicators aren’t compared to medians.

Long-term debt per capita decreased in the last two years (see Figure 11).

Figure 11

Revenue per capita increased in 2009 (see Figure 12).  The increase includes a new sales tax that began to be collected in April 2009.

Figure 12

Expenditures per capita increased in 2009 but remained relatively low (see Figure 13).  Expenditures in 2009 were lower than expenditures in the period of 2003-2006. 

Figure 13

 

Business-type activities ratio analysis

Business-type activities include water and sewer, solid waste, parking, stormwater, and golf, and are mostly supported by user fees and charges. Figure 14 summarizes the analysis of ratios for business-type activities.

Figure 14

 

Indicator

Compared to prior year

ber measures

Ability to maintain services (Figure 16)

Improved

 

Resources to meet immediate needs (Figure 24)

Improved

 

Age of capital assets relative to comparison communities (Figure 26)

New measure

Weaker measures

Mix of funding (Figure 21)

Remained the same

 

Debt burden (Figure 25)

Remained the same

 

Rate resources grow (Figure 17)

Remained the same

The city provides five business-type activities.  Water and sewer and solid waste make up most of the business type activities.  The other services – parking, stormwater, and golf course – are much smaller.  Figure 15 summarizes the different activities.

Figure 15

Activity

Services provided

Expenses 2009

Water and sewer

Water and sewer services for commercial, residential, and wholesale customers

25,862,716

Solid waste

Solid waste collection and recycling services to commercial and residential customers

9,686,799

Parking

Downtown parking and parking enforcement services
 

1,299,618

Stormwater

Maintain and improve stormwater infrastructure

1,867,219

Golf course

Operates the Eagle Bend Golf Course

1,016,011

Financial position: ability to maintain services

The financial position for business-type activities shows no clear trend and is above the median (see Figure 16).  Financial position measures the ability to maintain the provision of services.

Figure 16

Financial performance: rate resources grow
The financial performance for business-type activities weakened and is well below the median (see Figure 17).  Financial performance measures the rate at which resources grow.

Figure 17

Several factors caused the decline in the financial performance ratio.  Program revenues – primarily charges for service – began growing at a slower rate in 2007.  Last year’s Financial Indicators analysis noted that water sales had declined in 2007 and 2008, consistent with wetter summers.  The decline in program revenues may also relate to the general decline in economic conditions.  Program expenses other than capital grew faster than revenues in 2007 and 2008.  Expenses related to interest costs also increased.  Transfers from the business-type activities increased sharply in 2007.  Investment earnings declined sharply in 2008 and 2009.

Comparing the revenue that business-type activities bring in with their expenses helps understand the extent to which the user fees and charges cover the costs of providing the services.  Figure 18 shows the difference between revenue and expenses for each activity, referred to as net revenue.  If net revenue is negative, then the revenues for the activity haven’t covered the expenses.1  

Figure 18

Service

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Water sewer

6,226,612

6,694,331

4,124,858

3,419,804

3,237,253

Solid waste

-45,666

-322,906

-595,396

-746,555

-30,954

Parking

-90,799

20,457

-233,451

-236,315

-286,022

Stormwater

1,301,282

1,085,129

1,058,478

1,115,533

1,051,813

Golf

-56,584

82,828

-2,301

-83,312

-96,595

Over the last 5-years, solid waste, parking, and golf have generated less revenue than expense (see Figure 19).  Cost recovery goals vary from activity to activity.  Ideally, the results would be compared to formal policy on cost recovery.  An alternative is to compare cost recovery to similar activities in other communities.

Figure 19

Service

Net revenue

Solid waste

-1,741,477

Parking

-826,130

Golf

-155,801

In aggregate, solid waste and parking activities break even in other communities, though golf does not (see Figure 20).  Aggregating the revenues and expenses for solid waste, parking, and golf operations from Lawrence and the similar cities, shows that solid waste and parking generate somewhat more revenue than expense.  Golf operations do not.    Lawrence’s solid waste and parking performed worse, while golf performed somewhat better.

Figure 20

Service

Aggregate based on  16 cities

Lawrence

Solid waste

105%

100%

Parking

108%

78%

Golf

87%

90%

If solid waste, parking and golf in Lawrence performed at the aggregate rate shown in Figure 20, then these activities would have generated net revenue of $865,000 more than they did in 2009.  Closing the gap could involve reducing expenses or increasing revenues.

 

Cost Cutting Recommendations from Solid Waste Performance Audit

The performance audit of solid waste services (January 2010) included a number of recommendations intended to reduce costs and reduce the gap between revenue and expenses. 

  • Tracking and reporting on hours worked by employees could help evaluate workload and assess the impact of operational changes.

 

  • Preparing and presenting additional performance measure information could help the public and City Commission evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the division.
  • Developing policy guidelines for free services and charging enterprise operations for services could increase revenue with minimal increase in expenses.

 

  • Strengthening controls for overtime could reduce expenses.
  • Analyzing the cost/benefit and feasibility of implementing good solid waste practices which could reduce costs: increasing automated collection; using routing and vehicle performance monitoring technologies; and providing residential volume-based collection.

 

Follow-up in June 2010 indicated that the city has made progress in implementing many of the recommendations that could reduce costs.

 

General support: mix of funding

The level of general support for business-type activities shows a declining trend in recent years and is below the median (see Figure 21).  General support measures the extent to which taxes, rather than service charges, support business-type activities.  In evaluating the general support level, focus on unexpected substantial changes more than the level.  Lawrence has a negative level, which means that the business-type activities, taken as a whole, support governmental activities.

Figure 21

Transfers from the business-type activities totaled $4.3 million in 2009. The level remained comparable to the prior two years, but well above transfers for the years of 2003-2006 (see Figure 22).

Figure 22

Year

transfers

2003

1,288,000

2004

1,441,718

2005

1,892,038

2006

2,102,194

2007

4,269,392

2008

3,890,984

2009

4,297,080

Transfers from the business-type operations went primarily to the general and workers comp funds (see Figure 23). 

Figure 23

Service

Transfers to general fund

Transfers to workers comp fund

water sewer

2,744,858

290,000

Solid waste

161,025

225,000

Parking

0

0

Stormwater

400,000

50,000

Golf

0

0

Lawrence business-type activities transfer a relatively high portion of their charges for services to the governmental activities.  Lawrence’s ratio of transfers out to charges for services is the highest among all of the cities in the most recent year.  Four cities – Lawrence, Gainesville, Charlottesville, Columbia – transferred between 3.8 and 9.9 percent of their charges for service and at least $1 million to general government.

Gainesville, Charlottesville, and Columbia base the amount of transfers on specific formulas.  For example, Columbia bases the transfers on a percent of gross receipts that is consistent with the rate established for private utilities.  Gainesville has more complicated formulas based on audited revenues with adjustments for revenues related to the university and surcharges paid by customers.

 

Enterprise Support to General Government in Wichita

Enterprise operations in Wichita contribute to the general fund through a public safety fee and, in the case of the utilities, a payment in lieu of franchise fees.

The city calculates the public safety fee by estimating the portion of the general operating mil levy that provides public safety services, and then applying that levy to an estimate of the assessed valuation of the enterprise operations.

The city estimates assessed valuation based on data from the audited financial statements.  The city calculates payments in lieu of franchise fees by applying the franchise fee level for non-city utilities to revenues generated by the city utilities. 

All of Wichita’s enterprise operations – water and sewer, stormwater, golf, transit, and airport – contribute the public safety fee.  Only the water and sewer utility contribute payments in lieu of franchise fees.

While the city has not established a policy to guide the transfers, the City Manager’s Office described transfers as predominantly to assist with administrative overhead for specific services provided by the general fund and as payments in lieu of franchise fees or taxes charged to private utilities for similar services.

In response to a 2008 audit recommendation to document the method for allocating overhead and the basis of interfund transfers, the City Manager’s Office wrote that:

Staff has been reviewing practices in other Kansas communities to determine best practices in development of a recommended policy to bring before the City Commission.  We believe the best policy is to document significant alterations in future enterprise interfund transfers.  This documentation would include the rationale for proposed alterations (e.g. increased general overhead expenditures, significant use of City maintained right-of-way, etc).  Transfers are part of the annual budget decision-making process, and documentation of any significant alterations for these transfers will accompany any staff recommendations to make such alterations.2

The City Manager should bring a recommended policy to the City Commission for discussion and consideration.

Liquidity: resources to meet immediate needs
The business-type liquidity measure shows no clear trend and is above the median (see Figure 24).  Liquidity measures access to resources to meet immediate needs. 

Figure 24

Long-term liabilities: debt burden

The business-type measure of long-term liabilities shows no clear trend and is above the median (see Figure 25).  The ratio addresses debt burden.

Figure 25

Capital assets: relative age of capital assets

The capital asset ratio measure shows a less favorable trend and a more favorable level than the median (see Figure 26).  For this ratio, a level below the median is more favorable.  The ratio measures the relative age of capital assets – primarily infrastructure and buildings.  A lower level is more favorable and suggests the city will not face significant replacement needs in the near future.

Figure 26

 

1. These expenses include the costs of using up capital assets to provide services.  Capital assets include buildings, vehicles, and infrastructure.  The city estimates the depreciation of capital assets using straight-line depreciation.  That means, for example, that if a vehicle was bought in 2005 for $50,000 and is expected to last 5 years, it would be included as a $10,000 expense in each year from 2005 to 2009. 

2. Response to Financial indicators Performance Audit, memo from Cynthia Boecker, Assistant City Manager, to Dave Corliss, City Manager, February 11, 2009.

Recommendations

The City Auditor recommends the City Manager:

  1. Present for the City Commission a recommended policy on interfund transfers for enterprise operations.

The approved performance audit plan for 2010 includes a project to address fees and charges.  That project could address issues related to the financial performance of enterprise operations such as golf, parking, and solid waste.

Scope, methods and objectives

Analyzing financial ratios provides the City Commission and city management with an assessment of Lawrence’s financial condition.  The analysis is intended to encourage discussion of the city’s financial condition and to:

  • identify significant existing or emerging financial problems
  • put the city’s financial condition in context of the seven year period of 2003-2009 and through comparisons to medians of cities similar to Lawrence

The City Auditor updated the analysis done in Performance Audit: Financial Indicators (July 2009).   The auditor compiled information from Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for Lawrence and 15 similar cities; evaluated ratios for Lawrence by looking at trends and comparing Lawrence to medians; and discussed the analysis with city staff.  Chaney, Mead and Scherman developed most of the indicators in this performance audit.1

The Planning and Development Services Department provided estimates for Lawrence population.  Those estimates were used to calculate per capita debt, revenue, and expenditure trends.  The trends were adjusted for inflation using American City County Magazine’s municipal cost index and a base year of 2003.

The City Auditor conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require planning and performing the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for the findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives.  The City Auditor believes that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for the findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives.

The City Auditor provided the City Manager with a draft of the report on June 21, 2010. 

Comparable cities

To identify comparable cities, the City Auditor reviewed data from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey for 2006.  Data on 352 urban areas were used to identify those most similar to Lawrence on four measures:

  • Population of the urban area
  • Portion of residents under the age of 18
  • Per capita income
  • Median year of construction of housing

Figure 27

Urbanized Area

Population  urbanized area

Percent under the age of 18

Per capita income

Median year housing built

Lawrence, KS

84,899

18.1

21,026

1978

Norman, OK

86,535

17.8

22,234

1977

Missoula, MT

73,659

18.1

20,150

1976

Bellingham, WA

94,988

17.9

23,653

1978

Athens-Clarke County, GA

120,444

18.5

18,809

1979

St. Cloud, MN

96,630

20.0

21,735

1979

Champaign, IL

127,577

17.3

21,306

1975

Johnson City, TN

102,652

19.8

19,835

1974

Chico, CA

98,804

20.6

21,946

1978

Grand Junction, CO

103,932

20.6

21,666

1979

Charlottesville, VA

86,630

18.1

25,180

1977

Gainesville, FL

159,944

17.4

21,927

1982

Iowa City, IA

87,686

18.1

25,717

1977

Bloomington, IN

90,000

14.9

21,981

1976

Davis, CA

69,913

17.5

26,193

1978

Columbia, MO

104,334

20.7

23,040

1982


Source:  U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2006.

Urbanized Areas are central place(s) and adjacent territory with a general population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile of land area that together have a minimum population of at least 65,000 people.

The urbanized area of Leesburg-Eustis, Florida, fits the criteria used to identify places similar to Lawrence.  However, because Leesburg and Eustis are two separate cities, with populations under 20,000, the urbanized area was considered significantly different from Lawrence and excluded from the comparison and the table. 

Key Terms

City finances cover both governmental activities and business-type activities.  Governmental activities include services like police and fire, public works, and administration.  Business-type activities include services paid for largely by charges for service, such as trash collection and water and sewer utilities.

City assets are resources the city can use to provide services and operate the government.  Among other things, assets include cash, investments, land, buildings, streets and water mains.

City liabilities are obligations the city has to turn over resources to other organizations or individuals.  Liabilities include things like money the city has to pay to companies that provide services to the city and repayments for money the city borrowed.

Subtract liabilities from assets and the result is net assets.  A portion of the city’s assets may be used to meet ongoing obligations and this is referred to as unresetricted net assets.

The city collects taxes, such as sales taxes and property taxes, as general revenues.  In addition to general revenues, transfers from other governmental activities can provide resources.

Expenses include costs incurred regardless of whether or not cash has actually changed hands.  Expenses include depreciation of capital assets.  These “accrual-basis” expenses provide a comprehensive measure of the cost of providing services.

Source of Financial Data

Comprehensive annual financial reports from Lawrence and the similar cities provide the financial data used in this performance audit.  Nearly all of the information comes from the government-wide financial statements.  Those statements rely on “full accrual” accounting.  That means that the financial statements include capital assets and long-term liabilities as well as current assets and liabilities.  The government-wide financial statements report all revenues and costs of providing government services, not just those received or paid in the current year or soon after.

The City Auditor calculated ratios using the most recent available comprehensive annual financial report.  Most of the annual reports from other cities cover a 2009 fiscal year.  However, in four of the other cities, the most recent annual report covered fiscal years that ended in 2008.

1. Barbara A. Chaney, Dean Michael Mead, and Kenneth R. Scherman, “The New Governmental Financial Reporting Model: What it Means for Analyzing Government Financial Condition,” Journal of Government Financial Management, Spring 2002.

Management's response

City Manager's Response (PDF, 131 KB)

Share this page

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • E-mail