9. Parks and Recreation Executive Summary The Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation and the Los Angeles

Recommendations 5

• R1

  Page 85
  The City of Glendale obtain an independent legal opinion from outside legal counsel specializing in municipal tax law regarding its compliance with Propositions 218 and 26.
• R2

  Page 85
  The City of Glendale hold a special election and obtain the authorization by two thirds of those voting approving the utility rates charged by Glendale Water & Power and the transfer of funds from Glendale Water & Power to the City’s general fund.
• R3

  Page 86
  The City of Glendale consider alternate sources of revenue if it is unable or unwilling to obtain the requisite authorization of the City’s voters as suggested in 2 above.
• R4

  Page 130
  All cities should adopt a method and practice of saving into a reserve or “rainy day” fund to supplement operating revenue in years of short fall. See Exhibit 12 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 130 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT GOVERNANCE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT BEST PRACTICES The current fiscal health of cities is largely due to the economic downturn that began in 2008 and continues. However, the overall governance and management practices of each city contributed to how well each city was prepared for this downturn, and how effectively each has responded. The following sections of this report present information on best practices for local governments in the areas of governance and financial management. Current practices by the cities are compared to these best practices and recommendations made for improvements. These best practices and recommendations should be useful to the cities in addressing their current financial challenges, and preparing for the future. The Grand Jury identified best practices for local governments in the areas of governance and financial management to be used as a basis for comparison with the practice of cities. A questionnaire was developed and administered to identify the current practice of cities in each of these areas. As part of this questionnaire cities were requested to provide specific documentation in each of these areas and to provide comments or explanations regarding their responses and policies. In the following sections, the Grand Jury provides information on the best practices identified, and compares the current practices of cities with these best practices. A copy of the questionnaire is provided in
• R12

  Page 93
  More information on each of these fiscal health criteria, and the results of the comparison, is contained within the sections following this exhibit. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 98 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 City Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Agoura Hills 79 (41.5%) 24 (.3%) 29 3.82 24 7.54 45 0.8% 70 (2.6%) 36 3.5% 16 8.1% 1 285.1% 74 (78.3%) 14 80.3% 9 85.5% Alhambra 12 3.9% 5 6.0% 52 2.48 52 3.77 6 8.1% 34 14.6% 44 1.5% 51 (2.3%) 13 24.3% 47 (5.2%) 67 4.7% 64 0.7% Arcadia 63 (15.3%) 37 (4.2%) 23 4.31 28 6.92 70 (3.5%) 74 (5.7%) 52 0.0% 58 (5.0%) 34 6.1% 42 (3.5%) 50 19.0% 45 20.3% Artesia 52 (8.4%) 70 (17.1%) 67 1.77 39 5.05 44 0.8% 37 8.8% 20 8.3% 54 (3.5%) 11 25.3% 51 (7.1%) 31 44.9% 32 35.0% Azusa 68 (19.8%) NA 0.0% 71 1.69 NA 0.00 73 (4.8%) NA 0.0% 30 4.7% NA 0.0% 3 68.8% NA 0.0% 83 (15.3%) 67 0.0% Baldwin Park 16 2.2% 33 (2.8%) 56 2.28 48 4.48 28 2.4% 15 39.9% 23 7.1% 35 3.8% 64 (9.7%) 49 (5.8%) 56 15.3% 56 8.1% Bell Gardens 33 (2.4%) 46 (7.3%) 41 2.93 25 7.25 72 (4.5%) 10 63.6% 15 10.0% 40 1.7% 36 5.0% 36 (1.9%) 18 73.2% 67 0.0% Bellflower 25 (.8%) 12 4.1% 36 3.29 46 4.64 5 8.2% 31 15.6% 29 4.7% 44 1.0% 41 2.3% 30 1.5% 20 70.0% 15 63.0% Beverly Hills 6 5.7% 3 8.5% 51 2.55 63 2.83 8 6.6% 38 8.2% 11 11.8% 9 11.1% 44 0.4% 11 9.4% 33 43.7% 24 45.5% Bradbury 82 (108.2%) NA 0.0% 2 49.28 NA 0.00 80 (10.1%) NA 0.0% 83 (59.2%) NA 0.0% 76 (23.9%) NA 0.0% 6 187.6% 67 0.0% Burbank 54 (1.5%) 69 (16.6%) 32 3.52 40 4.98 56 (.6%) 40 7.9% 74 (15.0%) 68 (13.0%) 61 (7.0%) 58 (14.2%) 43 31.1% 67 0.0% Calabasas 39 (4.0%) 22 0.2% 35 3.48 57 3.52 15 5.2% 59 (.0%) 33 4.3% 34 3.9% 52 (3.6%) 20 4.5% 13 86.8% 7 94.1% Carson 58 (11.7%) 74 (24.5%) 48 2.65 74 1.96 78 (9.5%) 73 (4.4%) 24 7.1% 18 7.6% 10 29.3% 4 26.0% 51 18.4% 38 26.4% Cerritos 55 (10.1%) 35 (3.2%) 45 2.83 6 39.19 61 (1.0%) 12 51.7% 72 (14.1%) 76 (44.0%) 53 (4.2%) 61 (16.1%) 9 103.1% 11 77.9% Claremont 5 8.5% 9 4.9% 22 4.45 41 4.93 21 3.1% 60 (.2%) 21 8.0% 14 8.7% 17 15.1% 10 14.4% 44 30.9% 34 31.7% Commerce 61 (12.1%) 31 (2.0%) 72 1.69 76 1.61 74 (5.0%) 42 6.6% 45 1.5% 20 6.6% 47 0.1% 19 5.3% 19 71.8% 12 77.1% Covina 66 (17.8%) 63 (13.7%) 49 2.61 53 3.69 76 (5.8%) 76 (8.2%) 42 1.9% 59 (5.0%) 23 9.4% 56 (9.2%) 39 36.3% 35 31.1% Cudahy 84 (170.3%) 58 (12.0%) 82 1.29 14 15.61 84 (72.8%) 1 260.9% 69 (9.8%) 67 (11.9%) 73 (15.6%) 55 (9.2%) 10 103.0% 8 88.5% Culver City 17 2.1% 68 (15.5%) 69 1.73 38 5.08 34 2.0% 7 80.9% 6 16.4% 53 (3.3%) 9 29.4% 39 (2.6%) 24 61.4% 17 58.4% Diamond Bar 76 (32.0%) 76 (65.8%) 4 24.92 8 25.49 63 (1.3%) 64 (1.3%) 82 (55.5%) 71 (24.1%) 78 (31.1%) 66 (19.4%) 25 60.2% 18 56.7% Downey 65 (17.8%) 62 (13.5%) 30 3.76 44 4.74 75 (5.1%) 44 5.7% 70 (10.9%) 62 (8.5%) 66 (9.9%) 60 (14.4%) 57 14.8% 55 8.8% Duarte 31 (1.6%) 19 1.0% 21 4.46 7 34.15 16 5.1% 22 27.0% 1 42.6% 19 6.7% 4 58.3% 21 3.8% 11 97.4% 6 109.0% El Monte 56 (10.4%) 28 (1.3%) 19 4.77 33 5.44 43 1.0% 49 4.1% 56 (1.9%) 56 (4.9%) 33 6.2% 32 0.8% 55 16.9% 48 16.3% El Segundo 35 (3.1%) 61 (13.5%) 16 5.47 47 4.49 65 (1.5%) 72 (3.4%) 60 (4.1%) 60 (7.0%) 51 (3.1%) 67 (19.5%) 62 9.8% 52 14.6% Gardena 8 4.8% 13 4.1% 42 2.89 62 2.91 55 (.4%) 66 (1.9%) 19 8.5% 31 5.2% 29 7.1% 16 7.5% 70 0.7% 66 0.5% Glendale 53 (9.1%) 56 (11.2%) 27 3.90 42 4.89 50 0.1% 62 (1.0%) 73 (14.8%) 70 (16.7%) 19 11.3% 70 (55.6%) 36 38.7% 40 23.3% Glendora 44 (5.6%) 36 (3.9%) 33 3.50 37 5.08 48 0.3% 47 4.7% 28 5.9% 52 (2.6%) 37 4.2% 57 (9.6%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% Hawaiian Gardens 32 (2.3%) NA 0.0% 75 1.52 NA 0.00 52 0.0% NA 0.0% 59 (3.5%) NA 0.0% 54 (4.5%) NA 0.0% 7 120.3% 67 0.0% Hawthorne 20 1.4% 16 3.4% 79 1.38 67 2.51 13 5.7% 5 118.4% 10 14.0% 7 11.3% 15 19.4% 71 (59.0%) 41 33.1% 37 28.8% Hermosa Beach 13 3.7% 2 10.7% 12 7.44 31 5.89 39 1.5% 69 (2.4%) 14 10.6% 5 13.6% 18 11.7% 22 3.5% 49 23.2% 41 23.3% Hidden Hills 70 (23.3%) 8 5.6% 10 10.54 16 12.22 40 1.5% 57 0.2% 79 (32.0%) 21 6.5% 65 (9.8%) 25 2.3% 3 207.2% 2 291.9% Huntington Park 40 (4.5%) NA 0.0% 84 0.62 NA 0.00 83 (13.0%) NA 0.0% 39 2.4% NA 0.0% 38 3.5% NA 0.0% 45 30.7% 67 0.0% Industry 60 (12.0%) 51 (9.6%) 66 1.85 72 2.12 14 5.7% 75 (6.2%) 2 30.0% 41 1.4% 30 6.9% 48 (5.3%) 1 607.2% 1 454.7% Inglewood 9 4.7% NA 0.0% 74 1.60 NA 0.00 67 (2.8%) NA 0.0% 57 (2.7%) NA 0.0% 68 (12.5%) NA 0.0% 52 18.3% 67 0.0% Irwindale 7 5.3% 52 (9.8%) 58 2.25 5 40.08 3 8.5% 14 40.3% 37 3.1% 63 (9.1%) 2 143.7% 63 (17.0%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% La Canada Flintridge 3 11.6% 26 (.8%) 50 2.60 65 2.66 10 6.0% 51 1.9% 5 16.6% 11 10.4% 28 7.3% 38 (2.1%) 8 119.3% 5 116.3% La Habra Heights 1 25.4% NA 0.0% 8 11.75 NA 0.00 60 (1.0%) NA 0.0% 49 0.6% NA 0.0% 48 (.6%) NA 0.0% 5 195.2% 67 0.0% La Mirada 27 (1.0%) 29 (1.3%) 65 1.85 17 11.38 2 11.8% 4 128.7% 16 9.6% 2 23.3% 42 2.0% 15 7.6% 17 73.2% 10 85.1% La Puente 50 (7.7%) 45 (7.0%) 59 2.23 64 2.82 38 1.5% 35 10.4% 63 (5.6%) 6 11.4% 50 (2.8%) 72 (59.6%) 28 54.8% 22 50.6% La Verne 11 4.3% 25 (.6%) 15 5.48 27 6.94 27 2.4% 54 1.3% 67 (7.7%) 50 (2.3%) 35 6.0% 6 19.3% 72 0.0% 67 0.0% 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 99 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 City Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Lakewood 15 2.4% 21 0.7% 11 8.85 11 17.97 24 2.8% 24 24.5% 27 6.2% 29 5.7% 26 7.6% 17 6.7% 68 3.2% 59 6.5% Lancaster 69 (21.8%) 49 (9.2%) 28 3.88 10 18.04 64 (1.4%) 23 25.2% 76 (23.3%) 47 (.9%) 74 (17.0%) 69 (38.6%) 46 30.2% 43 21.5% Lawndale 77 (39.1%) NA 0.0% 44 2.85 NA 0.00 46 0.5% NA 0.0% 81 (36.5%) NA 0.0% 57 (5.6%) NA 0.0% 16 74.9% 67 0.0% Lomita 42 (5.1%) 48 (7.8%) 17 4.99 34 5.33 66 (1.7%) 65 (1.5%) 40 2.1% 33 4.0% 69 (13.0%) 24 2.5% 64 8.5% 60 5.1% Long Beach 26 (.9%) 75 (25.2%) 57 2.25 69 2.39 11 5.9% 53 1.5% 53 (.2%) 38 2.3% 82 (59.1%) 9 15.1% 71 0.2% 62 1.3% Los Angeles 43 (5.3%) 44 (6.6%) 68 1.74 75 1.77 26 2.7% 48 4.5% 25 6.4% 26 6.1% 16 19.1% 12 9.2% 66 6.5% 58 6.7% Lynwood 57 (11.5%) 40 (4.9%) 53 2.47 58 3.42 35 1.8% 63 (1.2%) 64 (5.7%) 48 (1.0%) 75 (21.2%) 59 (14.3%) 53 18.2% 47 18.5% Malibu 73 (29.2%) 55 (11.1%) 38 3.01 61 2.95 49 0.2% 71 (3.3%) 61 (4.2%) 57 (4.9%) 77 (23.9%) 54 (8.7%) 42 31.2% 28 36.2% Manhattan Beach 10 4.3% 17 3.2% 24 4.12 50 4.07 29 2.4% 45 5.3% 32 4.3% 28 5.7% 24 9.1% 33 (.2%) 37 36.7% 29 35.6% Monrovia 78 (40.3%) 53 (10.0%) 80 1.30 66 2.65 81 (10.8%) 3 163.7% 78 (31.8%) 72 (27.2%) 71 (14.0%) 76 (374.5%) 84 (27.1%) 76 (27.7%) Montebello 34 (2.5%) 27 (.9%) 77 1.51 68 2.43 9 6.3% 18 37.5% 77 (25.4%) 74 (31.8%) 83 (174.5%) 2 43.8% 61 10.5% 49 15.9% Monterey Park 36 (3.2%) 50 (9.4%) 70 1.72 60 3.01 25 2.7% 16 39.6% 58 (3.1%) 45 0.6% 55 (4.5%) 7 18.1% 65 8.3% 57 7.8% Norwalk 47 (6.9%) 10 4.6% 60 2.20 32 5.70 53 (.1%) 19 33.6% 4 17.6% 17 7.8% 8 36.0% 65 (19.0%) 48 25.4% 36 29.9% Palmdale 19 1.4% 41 (5.6%) 31 3.73 26 7.13 51 0.1% 32 15.3% 9 14.4% 39 1.8% 12 24.7% 52 (7.1%) 38 36.5% 33 34.6% Palos Verdes Estates 28 (1.0%) 39 (4.8%) 1 50.47 3 44.98 62 (1.1%) 68 (2.4%) 41 2.1% 32 4.9% 22 9.4% 44 (4.7%) 60 10.7% 50 15.7% Paramount 62 (12.5%) 38 (4.7%) 61 2.13 22 9.94 77 (6.3%) 17 39.5% 51 0.2% 42 1.4% 5 42.6% 29 1.6% 30 49.9% 23 49.6% Pasadena 51 (8.3%) 72 (18.0%) 63 2.01 73 2.04 23 3.0% 26 20.7% 22 7.3% 8 11.2% 67 (12.4%) 14 7.7% 78 (.8%) 75 (23.1%) Pico Rivera 64 (17.1%) 59 (12.4%) 54 2.32 54 3.67 20 3.2% 8 80.9% 68 (8.6%) 49 (1.7%) 60 (6.8%) 31 1.2% 59 11.5% 67 0.0% Pomona 48 (7.0%) 57 (11.2%) 78 1.48 71 2.22 57 (.7%) 13 41.0% 48 0.9% 24 6.2% 70 (13.0%) 73 (62.2%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% Rancho Palos Verdes 4 10.4% 1 11.8% 7 12.25 4 41.90 22 3.0% 29 16.4% 3 25.5% 1 26.2% 49 (2.4%) 18 5.6% 22 66.7% 14 71.4% Redondo Beach 23 (.0%) 34 (3.0%) 20 4.57 36 5.13 32 2.2% 36 10.0% 34 4.1% 37 2.4% 6 38.0% 37 (1.9%) 72 0.0% 65 0.6% Rolling Hills 80 (45.6%) 66 (14.3%) 3 36.59 2 45.56 82 (12.9%) 52 1.5% 38 2.6% 69 (16.0%) 39 3.1% 50 (6.4%) 4 206.8% 3 177.0% Rolling Hills Estates 30 (1.6%) 11 4.5% 9 10.57 19 10.72 31 2.4% 39 8.1% 65 (7.3%) 22 6.3% 72 (15.1%) 8 17.0% 47 28.5% 30 35.2% Rosemead 71 (26.4%) 71 (17.3%) 64 1.98 15 15.41 4 8.4% 11 56.2% 66 (7.6%) 46 0.4% 63 (9.6%) 41 (3.3%) 26 57.6% 20 56.0% San Dimas 75 (30.5%) 6 5.9% 25 4.11 20 10.30 33 2.1% 20 33.2% 46 1.3% 36 2.5% 43 1.6% 35 (.9%) 27 55.2% 19 56.1% San Fernando 49 (7.5%) 30 (1.6%) 39 2.98 43 4.81 58 (.7%) 50 3.0% 80 (32.0%) 73 (30.0%) 84 (704.9%) 75 (99.7%) 81 (4.4%) 74 (10.0%) San Gabriel 45 (5.8%) 47 (7.7%) 18 4.81 45 4.70 69 (3.4%) 67 (2.2%) 75 (22.2%) 75 (33.4%) 46 0.2% 68 (25.9%) 79 (2.1%) 61 3.5% San Marino 72 (27.2%) 67 (15.0%) 5 15.44 9 21.50 47 0.4% 58 0.2% 18 9.1% 15 8.7% 62 (8.9%) 64 (18.1%) 15 79.8% 13 72.6% Santa Clarita 67 (19.7%) 32 (2.4%) 14 6.22 21 10.14 36 1.7% 43 6.1% 7 15.5% 61 (8.0%) 25 7.6% 62 (16.4%) 21 69.7% 16 58.4% Santa Fe Springs 24 (.7%) 73 (19.0%) 73 1.66 29 6.27 19 3.7% 9 72.8% 71 (11.4%) 65 (11.4%) 31 6.7% 5 25.4% 40 35.4% 25 43.1% Santa Monica 46 (6.7%) 42 (5.9%) 26 3.98 35 5.28 30 2.4% 30 16.3% 55 (1.7%) 3 23.2% 7 37.0% 3 41.0% 34 40.0% 31 35.1% Sierra Madre 37 (3.3%) 64 (13.7%) 6 12.97 12 16.57 59 (.8%) 61 (.4%) 12 11.3% 10 10.5% 27 7.5% 53 (7.4%) 23 65.2% 54 12.2% Signal Hill 81 (64.0%) 65 (14.2%) 76 1.52 18 11.31 41 1.3% 6 101.5% 31 4.5% 25 6.1% 20 9.8% 23 2.5% 35 39.1% 27 41.7% South El Monte 21 0.2% 15 3.5% 83 1.13 23 9.38 1 100.0% 2 237.1% 50 0.4% 12 9.6% 80 (51.7%) 1 59.7% 69 2.0% 53 13.2% South Gate 14 2.4% 14 3.6% 47 2.68 56 3.56 7 6.8% 33 14.6% 54 (1.0%) 43 1.2% 32 6.5% 26 2.0% 58 13.2% 46 19.5% South Pasadena 38 (3.9%) 4 7.7% 55 2.31 70 2.32 17 4.0% 55 0.9% 13 11.2% 30 5.5% 14 20.8% 13 9.0% 29 53.9% 21 55.6% Temple City 2 12.0% 18 2.2% 13 7.19 13 16.34 12 5.7% 41 7.7% 26 6.3% 27 5.8% 40 2.5% 45 (5.0%) 2 236.1% 42 22.5% Torrance 18 2.0% 7 5.8% 43 2.88 55 3.66 42 1.2% 27 18.6% 43 1.9% 23 6.2% 58 (6.0%) 27 1.9% 63 9.7% 44 21.4% Vernon 83 (110.4%) 77 (83.9%) 81 1.29 77 1.14 79 (9.7%) 77 (51.4%) 84 (100.3%) 77 (108.1%) 81 (58.5%) 77 (455.0%) 82 (8.2%) 77 (47.4%) Walnut 74 (29.3%) 23 (.0%) 34 3.49 1 48.92 54 (.2%) 21 31.7% 35 3.5% 64 (10.3%) 79 (31.7%) 46 (5.2%) 72 0.0% 63 0.7% West Covina 29 (1.2%) 43 (6.3%) 62 2.07 51 4.00 71 (3.9%) 25 21.8% 62 (5.5%) 66 (11.7%) 59 (6.2%) 40 (2.9%) 54 17.0% 39 24.4% 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 100 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 City Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent West Hollywood 59 (11.8%) 20 1.0% 46 2.78 49 4.23 18 3.9% 46 5.0% 8 14.7% 4 17.4% 21 9.6% 28 1.7% 80 (2.2%) 51 15.6% Westlake Village 41 (4.6%) 54 (10.9%) 37 3.13 59 3.16 68 (3.3%) 56 0.3% 47 1.2% 13 9.4% 56 (5.4%) 34 (.9%) 12 92.7% 4 139.3% Whittier 22 (.0%) 60 (12.6%) 40 2.94 30 6.23 37 1.5% 28 18.2% 17 9.3% 55 (4.3%) 45 0.2% 43 (4.4%) 32 43.7% 26 42.0% Average - All Cities (12.5%) (6.2%) 5.45 8.92 0.8% 24.0% (1.7%) (1.5%) (3.8%) (14.5%) 51.4% 38.3% Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) or Basic Financial Statements obtained from each City. Financial information for FY 2010-11 or FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Avalon, Bell, Compton, and Maywood as of April 25, 2013. Financial information for FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Azusa, Bradbury, Hawaiian Gardens, Huntington Park, Inglewood, La Habra Heights, and Lawndale as of April 25, 2013. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 101 CITIES OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 102 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Net Revenue Percent – All Funds Net Revenue Percent is the percent of all revenues remaining after all city expenditures. Revenues are the amount received by a city from taxes, fees, permits, licenses, interest, intergovernmental sources, and other sources during the fiscal year. Expenditures are the actual spending of governmental funds by each city. If a city spends less than received the net revenues and percentage would be positive. If a city spends more than received in revenues the net revenues and percentage would be negative. The net revenue percent is calculated by dividing net revenues by total revenues. All Funds include each city’s general fund as well as any other funds for proprietary or business- type activities which could include operating public utilities (power, water, parking, refuse collection, etc.) or other non-governmental type activities. As the following Exhibit shows, only 21 of the 84 cities spent less on all activities (governmental and business) during Fiscal 2010-11 than revenue received. The remaining 61 cities spent more than they received in revenue. Both the cities of Vernon and Bradbury spent more than twice what was received in revenues. On average, cities expended 12.5% more than they received in revenue during FY 2010-11. The exhibit also shows that only 22 of the 77 cities spent less on all activities (governmental and business) during Fiscal 2011-12 than revenue received. The remaining 55 cities spent more than they received in revenue. The City of Vernon spent nearly 84% more than it received in revenue. On average, cities expended 6.2% more than they received in revenue during FY 2011-