By Mark Ruff
The term “structural imbalance” conjures up images of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Even today, we hear about buildings that are damaged because they are built with foundations in unstable soils. Like a building that is improperly designed and constructed, a city’s finances can be structurally imbalanced.
These imbalances may not be easily detectable and may cause a city to tip financially, year by year, until it becomes difficult and expensive to correct. Like a slowly tilting building, the impact of a city’s financial imbalances may take years to recognize and fix.
According to the Government Finance Officers Association, “A true structurally balanced budget is one that supports financial sustainability for multiple years into the future. A government needs to make sure that it is aware of the distinction between satisfying the statutory definition [of a balanced budget] and achieving a true structurally balanced budget.”
Causes of Structural Imbalance
So how does a city know if it has a structural imbalance hidden in its finances? The first place to evaluate the financial health of a city is during the budget process. Structural imbalances can start to occur in two ways: by intentional actions, or by the gradual degradation of financial performance.
Intentional structural imbalance occurs most often when a city council is intent on lowering taxes or fees without offsetting reductions in expenses. For example, let’s assume a city council wants to lower its tax rate for 2017. During the budget process, the city council may direct staff to lower the tax levy by 10 percent by using cash in the general fund reserve to pay for ongoing staff costs.
The budget is legally balanced because there are enough revenues to pay for expenses. But the longer-term prognosis could be grim. What happens when a few years of using reserves to pay operating costs depletes the general fund balance? A future city council will need to increase its levy dramatically in one or two years, or cut 10 percent or more of the staff. Or worse, the city may need to issue bonds to cover costs between property tax settlements.
Proper Use of Reserves
Occasional use of reserves to balance a budget hole is not in itself an inherently bad thing. A city may have a temporary crisis or end up with more reserves than it needs. But persistent use of reserves to balance a budget could pose problems for future councils if the decision to use the reserves is not in the context of a five- or 10-year financial forecast that shows how long the cash will last and how the council plans to eventually end the use of reserves or repay the reserves.
Plugging a hole in the budget with reserves is also reasonable when it is used for capital costs that do not occur annually. Structural imbalances can occur in a city’s general fund, or they can occur in a special revenue fund or enterprise fund.
For example, many cities build up reserves in a water fund with the plan to pay for a major plant expansion with cash. Or a city may save for a firetruck over a decade and pay most of it with cash. This use of reserves is very logical and financially sound when the capital expenses come up once every five or 10 years. In Minneapolis, for example, there has been a long tradition of using one-time revenues for one-time expenses.
Structural imbalances could occur if reserves are used to pay for annual or biannual capital costs—unless the city has a longer-term plan. For example, in early 2016, the City of Minneapolis approved a doubling of funding for annual street improvements and park capital improvements for the next 20 years.
A portion of the increased cost will be paid with reserves, which are being used in the next few years until a large tax increment financing district is decertified and the levy will be increased. This use of reserves is in the context of a 20-year financial plan that the mayor and City Council endorsed in the ordinance approving the program. A detailed financial plan was embedded in the ordinance.
Poor Financial Performance
Structural imbalances can also be caused by overly optimistic revenue forecasts or underestimating expenses. This is often the case for cities with new or expanded recreational facilities. Every year, a council may approve a balanced budget without any planned use of reserves for its community center or golf course. But each year something may come up that impairs financial performance. Maybe a bad weather year reduces revenues by 25 percent or pool maintenance costs are higher than usual, resulting in a deficit.
These events are bound to occur. However, two or three of these bad years will result in structural imbalance. These shortfalls may not appear to be a concern in small increments. They can often been hidden, unintentionally, by a loan from another city fund or account to cover the shortfalls.
Recognizing the Signs
How can a council or staff recognize the signs of an imbalance in these situations? Most of us are not accountants. We stumble when we are asked to explain the difference between fund balance and cash balance. But all of us know how to ask good questions.
Here are a few ways you can stay on top of budget issues and avoid a structural imbalance:
Fixing Structural Imbalances
Like steering a barge on a river, changing the course of a general or other city fund will take more than a few months or even a few years. In some cases, there are deliberate actions you can take to start turning things around. For example, one metro-area city has reduced the number of holes in its golf operation in recent years while increasing the size of its more profitable driving range. And an outstate city reduced its expenses for health care benefits to retirees through negotiations and a court case.
The first step to correcting an imbalance is creating a long-term financial plan for all funds. These plans do not need to be complicated multi-page spreadsheets. A simple summary should be available, but there should also be an explanation behind each of the assumptions. In addition, it should include projected cash balances in each fund.
A good second step is to approve financial policies for all funds. These policies should address procedures for inter-fund loans, mid-year reporting to elected officials, and minimum and maximum fund balances.
Over 20 years ago, a Greater Minnesota city had to ask the Public Facilities Authority (PFA) to restructure its debt because it could not meet its obligations for its water and sewer fund. Although restructuring debt can help solve a structural imbalance, it should typically be done only as a last resort. And when it is done, other actions should go along with it. Since this city restructured its PFA debt, the city has been very disciplined about following its financial policies in the context of long-term planning.
For example, the city has set priorities for any annual surplus in a fund. These surpluses are primarily used to either pay off existing debt early or to pay for the general fund portion of its street projects to avoid issuing debt in future years. As a result, the city’s bond rating has increased five times over the past several years.
The third and perhaps most import- ant step in fixing a structural imbalance is making sure that the staff and council “own” their financial plans and policies. Consultants may be helpful in jumpstarting the process or doing the math, but only staff and council can make plans become reality.
We all need to plan for the future and be prepared to handle the occasional financial surprises. A good financial foundation is established for cities when the staff and council engage in regular and honest dialogue about financial challenges and find ways to mitigate them.
Mark Ruff is the chief financial officer with the City of Minneapolis. Contact: mark.ruff @minneapolismn.gov or (612) 673-3554.
Read the Nov-Dec issue of Minnesota Cities magazine
* By posting you are agreeing to the LMC Comment Policy.