« Burlesque Poetry Reading |
| Pacifica's Gorgeous Coastline »
Creative Accounting or Stonewalling?
Posted at 10:54 AM in Government & Politics | Permalink
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"It's just an accounting rules change." Comment is a bit glib; try using that phrase at the IRS.
Most people don't have time to dig through documents used to screen future liabilities from public view, liabilities an aging population may not be able to afford. Yet not doing so impacts economic viability of the community.
GASB 67 and 68 are a welcome change. Certainly, in personal financial accounting, no one questions being able to pay for future liabilities. Now the public may easily do the same.
Jay Bird |
February 22, 2016 at 09:04 AM
Where the $36M in new CalPERS pension obligations went on paper:
February 21, 2016 at 09:44 PM
Either way, the City of Pacifica should not have waited eight months to make it public.
Here's the auditor's statement on GASBs that are new this year, from page 118 of the City Council agenda for February 22:
February 21, 2016 at 09:35 PM
Not quite. Pacifica adopted GASB 67 in the 2014 CAFR.
GASB 68 & 71 are new this year.
CalSTRS teachers' pensions have a similar pension discount rate crisis, except schools aren't contracting agencies like cities, which opt in to CalPERS, so the CalSTRS liability is not really the responsibility of schools.
February 21, 2016 at 09:32 PM
There is a new GASB rule this year (GASB 67 and 68), which requires the totality of an employer's pension obligations ("Net Pension Liability") to be carried as a liability on its books, where in the past this was not accounting practice.
The yearly payments for these pension liabilities have always appeared in the agencies' budgets, and the overall liability would probably have been noted in the audit report.
So what has happened this year is that suddenly the agency's entire pension liability appears on the balance sheet, and therefore its "net position" has decreased. This doesn't mean that the city "discovered" that it owes new money, or that it owes any more than it did last year, and it doesn't mean that it has any less cash on hand than it did before. It's just an accounting rules change. This same surprise is occurring in every city and school district across the state.
GASB simply wants people reading the financial statements to be able to see the agency's entire pension liability easily, which is the kind of transparency that I think taxpayers want. Audit reports are very confusing, and governmental finances operate very differently from corporate finances, so it is not really possible to translate the way you would read, say, a corporation's quarterly filing with the SEC to reading a city's audit report.
Matthew Levie |
February 21, 2016 at 06:59 PM
Or tightening the budget? Instead of the City of Pacifica providing free childcare, how about helping applicants apply for federal loans, instead of using city money? Or provide low-cost or no-interest-loan childcare.
Take this and other small actions to get the city into a positive cash flow position.
Laurie Soca |
February 21, 2016 at 11:24 AM
@Jay Bird, you quoted accurately and we have since amended slightly.
Instead of $27M in assets disappearing overnight, $27M in liabilities appeared overnight. The net effect is the same.
February 21, 2016 at 09:18 AM
This is all coming to light just weeks after Tinfow got her massive compensation deal, which we can ill afford. Instead of planning for coastal retreat, Pacifica's "leaders" would rather coddle developers who create phantom plans of pie in the sky homes on the coast and up Fassler, whose only interest is to resell ocean views to the greater fool. This is the legacy of Nihart, Stone, O'Neill, and Ervin. Coastal buildout is the dream of Horsley and Speier. Defeating Mary Ann Nihart's re-election would be a powerful signal to them that real estate cronyism is at an end.
Linty Marr |
February 21, 2016 at 05:51 AM
Folks, I think it's time to give some serious consideration toward disincorporation.
Chris Fogel |
February 20, 2016 at 10:03 PM
The city's net cash position (unclear from the table provided) has declined by $30 million. WTF? What exactly is going on here?
The city had no finance director for six+ years. It's not surprising that we have no idea how close to insolvency we are.
February 20, 2016 at 08:31 PM
Item 7 on Consent Calendar is financial report.
According to pacifica.city, "$27M disappeared overnight from city assets when an end of year audit discovered..." Read the story http://www.pacifica.city/
Let's discuss the $27 million and account for it before approving item #7.
Jay Bird |
February 20, 2016 at 07:01 PM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
(URLs automatically linked.)
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address