Ask Finance

Innovation and Technology

Ask Finance

Welcome to the Finance Department’s questions and answers page. Using the form at this link, you can submit a question to the Finance Department regarding topics such as the City’s outstanding debt, budget, and investments. Following review and research by Finance Department staff, detailed answers to your questions will be sent to you via email and posted to the page below. Answers will also be presented to the City Council’s Finance Committee quarterly. Inquiries regarding the questions and answers process can be directed to Scott Catlett, Assistant Finance Director, at 951-826-5609 or

Submit a Question

Calculation of the Amount of the General Fund Transfer

On January 21, 2015, we received the following question:

“For the purposes of calculating the annual transfer from our utilities to the General Fund, what specifically constitutes, ‘gross operating revenues,’ as found in Section 1204(f) of the Riverside City Charter?  Who decides exactly how much money is actually transferred, and when is this decision made?”

Section 1204(f) of the City Charter says in part that “the revenue of each public utility for each fiscal year shall be kept separate and apart from all other moneys of the City by deposit in the appropriate revenue fund and shall be used…for the annual payment by each utility into the general fund in twelve equal monthly installments during each fiscal year, an amount not to exceed 11.5 percent of the gross operating revenues, exclusive of surcharges, of each specific utility for the last fiscal year ended and reported upon by independent public auditors.”  For purposes of Section 1204, “public utility” includes the City’s electric and water utilities only.  The City Council sets the specific percentage of gross operating revenues to be transferred each year, not to exceed the 11.5 percent cap.  Currently, both the electric and water utilities are transferring 11.5 percent of gross operating revenues to the General Fund.

The computation of gross operating revenues is completed by the accounting staff at Riverside Public Utilities.  This calculation is memorialized in memo form each year and sent to the Finance Department.  The most recent example of this memo is attached.  The transfer is set at the time of adoption of the City’s Annual Budget based on an estimate.  The amount is then adjusted in November of each year once the City’s external audit is complete.  This adjustment is required because the transfer is based on audited revenues, which differ slightly from the estimate used in the adopted budget.  At the time the memo is received, the year-to-date monthly transfers for July through November are adjusted up or down, as required, and then the remaining transfers for December through June are set based on the final numbers contained in the memo.

The specific calculation of the gross operating revenues is set forth in the attachment to the memo.  The revenue numbers utilized in the calculation are taken directly from the City’s accounting records and multiplied by 11.5 percent to determine the amount to be transferred.

Comments Off »

Funding for City Parks

On November 1st we received an inquiry asking the following questions regarding the City’s funding for parks:

  1. How is funding allocated to each park?
  2. How and when will funding be allocated to less developed parks to increase available facilities and/or programming?
  3. Can information be made available to the public regarding how much funding is allocated to each park and how many citizens are served at each park?

The City has adopted a standard for developed park acreage of three acres per one thousand residents. The standard is further broken down to favor neighborhood parks, with two acres of neighborhood park provided per one thousand persons, and one acre of community park land per one thousand persons, for a 2:1 ratio.  Based on adopted classifications and standards, neighborhood parks should be located within a one-half-mile radius of every residence and community parks within a two-mile radius. The Park and Recreation Master Plan identifies shortages of neighborhood park coverage throughout the City.  During the Riverside Renaissance Initiative (2006 through 2011), the City developed, improved, and renovated a number of park sites.  The process for determining which parks received funding involved community input, guidance from planning documents, and direction from the City Council.  From an annual operations perspective, resources are allocated based on the size, location, features, and amenities of each park facility.  Programming levels at the park facilities are adjusted incrementally to meet demand while operating within the constraints of the City’s annual budget.  Future funding, when available, would be allocated by the City Council and those allocations would be made with input from the community.

Comments Off »

Assets Related to Interfund Loan Liabilities

A question was recently asked as to why the “asset” side of the inter-fund loans are not included in the monthly investment report provided to the City Council.  A good question…

The answer involves understanding what the monthly investment report is intended to do.  The City Treasurer is delegated authority from the City Council to make a broad range of investment decisions regarding the investment of City funds within various investment categories, consistent with the City’s Investment Policy.  The monthly investment report communicates how the Treasurer has invested the City’s cash within that delegated authority. Investments outside the policy limits can be made (consistent with the Charter and State law), but require specific authorization by the City Council.  The “asset” component of the inter-fund loans is an investment of City cash the Treasurer does not have delegated authority to make without specific City Council authority.  Thus it, and other ways in which the City “invests” it’s cash with specific City Council authority (inventory purchases, capital asset purchases, etc.) are not required to be reflected in the monthly investment report.  All assets of the City, including inter-fund loan assets, are included in the City’s annual financial report, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (or “CAFR”).

Comments Off »

Monthly Reports of Purchases of $50,000 or Less

On September 18, 2014, we received a question asking us to explain the types of purchases of $50,000 or less that would not be shown on the reports of purchases of $50,000 or less posted on the Finance website monthly.  The $50,000 threshold is the amount delegated through the City Charter and the City’s Purchasing Resolution to the City Manager so that routine, low dollar procurements can proceed without requiring City Council action.

The short answer to the question is that the reports posted on the Finance website capture all purchases procured through a purchase order, but omit those procured through a request for payment.  A purchase order is the standard document that the City generates to memorialize most purchases from vendors.  A request for payment is an administrative form that allows an invoice to be paid when a purchase order has not been generated.  Article 2 of the City’s Purchasing Resolution establishes exceptions to competitive procurement in addition to those authorized by the City Charter.  These exceptions are memorialized in the City’s Administrative Manual, specifically in policy number 07.006.00 “Request for Payment”.  This policy lists the types of “services exempt from competitive bidding” that do not require a purchase order.  These include:

  • Advertising
  • Assessments
  • Claims
  • Payments to other Agencies
  • Insurance Premiums
  • Library Book
  • Membership and Subscriptions
  • Museum Artifacts
  • Petty Cash Reimbursements
  • Postage
  • Refunds
  • Retirement Costs
  • Software License Renewal
  • Software Maintenance
  • Settlements
  • Taxes
  • Utility Services
  • Training/Meeting Registrations
  • Legal Costs


The policy also states that “in situations of uncertainty, the CFO or his designee can determine when a Request for Payment is to be used in lieu of a Purchase Requisition and Purchase Order.”

The report on the Finance Department website of purchases of $50,000 or less was generated at the request of the City Council’s Finance Committee and first presented to them in September of 2010.  At that time, their request was to see agreement-related purchases only with other purchases omitted to cover a period of the previous two fiscal years.  Staff was unable to retroactively narrow the information pulled from the City’s financial system easily, and so the list provided showed all procurements via purchase order regardless of whether they were for agreements or other purchases.  Subsequently, a manual process was undertaken to remove the items that were not agreement-related when future reports were presented to the Finance Committee.  The Committee was fully aware that purchases made under the Request for Payment process would not be included in these reports.

From that point forward, the report was presented to the Finance Committee quarterly until the February 2012 meeting, when the Committee directed staff to discontinue bringing the report to the Committee quarterly and instead publish the report monthly on the Finance website.  The Committee also approved removing the manual component of the report generation process and returning to the automated report that includes non-agreement-related items in order to save staff time in publishing the report.  Appropriate footnotes were added to the Finance website to indicate the types of purchases included in the list.  Since that time, the reports have been posted monthly and the content has remained unchanged.

We hope that this history will be helpful for those who may misunderstand the intent of these reports.  We have added an additional footnote to the Finance website to also indicate the types of purchases that are not included in the reports.

Comments Off »

City Investment and Cash Accounting Inquiries

On August 21, 2014, we received two similar inquiries regarding the City’s accounting practices associated with its pooled investment portfolio and cash.  The questions can be summarized as follows:

  1. When cash is withdrawn from the city’s pooled investment portfolio, how are the expenditures accounted for?
  2. How does the City track the allocation of cash held in the pooled investment portfolio to the City’s various funds (General Fund, Electric Fund, Sewer Fund, etc.)?
  3. When cash enters or leaves the pooled investment portfolio, where did it come from and where does it go?
  4. When revenues are collected that belong to a specific fund (Electric Fund, Parking Fund, etc.), are they all received by the General Fund, and if not, how does the receipt of funds work?

First, it makes sense to discuss the basic concept of a pooled investment portfolio.  The City typically has over $400 million of cash on hand.  This cash belongs to a variety of funds, primarily the City’s enterprise funds (Electric, Water, and Sewer, among others) and the General Fund.  Managing cash in this way is a common practice for large organizations, which allows all of the cash to be combined and invested as a “pool” of funds to increase earnings and enhance flexibility.  The City never needs all $400 million of cash at any one time.  Therefore, the cash is invested in various types of investments as authorized by the City’s investment policy.  The primary investments are in government agency securities, US Treasury notes and bonds, medium term corporate bonds, the State’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), and money market accounts.  The longer term investments represent cash that is not likely to be needed during the next 12-month period, while the funds held in LAIF and money market accounts are intentionally kept liquid to be available for any immediate cash needs.  The decision as to how much cash to invest in the various investments changes over time as interest rates change.  Due to the current low interest rate environment, the City has a larger percentage of its cash held in shorter term investments than is usually the case.  It is also important to mention that the City is advised by a professional external investment advisor who makes recommendations for optimizing earnings in the portfolio on a regular basis.  The City consistently outperforms market benchmarks for comparable portfolios, though the difference is small, as appropriate, given the low-risk, low-yield nature of the investments permitted by the City’s investment policy.

The City has a single banking relationship with Bank of America to address its depository and disbursement requirements – it pays all payroll and accounts payable disbursements through its bank accounts with the bank.  The City’s Treasury Office manages the amount of cash needed for these payments daily as well as processes all cash receipts, which includes recording each receipt to the appropriate revenue account (Electric, Sewer, Water, Business License, etc.).  In this way, the amount of funds not immediately needed is identified and can be invested to earn a higher rate of return.  The City undertakes extensive cash flow analysis to anticipate its need for cash and is therefore able to maximize its investment earnings by not sitting on too much cash at the bank, or by investing too much in longer term securities and possibly having to sell an investment before maturity losing out on a portion of interest it would otherwise have earned.

From an accounting perspective, without getting into too much detail, each fund of the City keeps track of its share of the large cash pool in the City’s accounting system.  Revenues come in and payments go out, and each of these changes causes an increase or a decrease in the related fund’s cash.  Cash is reconciled daily to ensure that all transactions recorded in the accounting records are accurately reflected in the bank’s record of cash activity.  Contrary to the assumption made in one of the inquiries, cash is not “first received” into the General Fund before being recorded into its correct City fund; rather, it is immediately recorded in the appropriate fund based on the accounting provided by the Treasury office at the point of deposit.  It is important to understand that the movement of cash between various investment options does not increase or decrease cash balances in total.  Also, accounting transactions (payments and receipts) do not immediately impact the City’s portfolio of investments/securities – only the cash balance at the bank is affected.  Over time, decrease or increases in the balance of cash at the bank will affect the investment portfolio, as surplus cash will be pulled from the bank and higher yielding securities purchased, or if cash declines, as existing securities mature, that cash may be required to secure the bank balance at that time.  The daily reconciliation and monitoring processes ensure that the two are in sync.

Once one understands these pieces of the puzzle, the natural next question is “What happens to the interest earned on investments and how is it allocated amongst the various City funds?”  Good question!  The City employs a monthly process by which interest is allocated to each of the City’s funds based on the fund’s  average cash balance for the month.  For example, if the General Fund held $10 and the Electric Fund held $20 in average balances over the month, and if $3 of interest was earned, $1 would go to the General Fund and $2 would go to the Electric Fund.

Complicating the matter are instances where funds have a “negative cash” balance recorded in the City’s accounting system.  Grant funds are like this – monies are expended up front for a grant-funded project and the City is made whole on a reimbursement basis at a later date.  In these situations, the cash pool “fronts” the money to cover the required project payments and is reimbursed when the grant revenue is received.  The cash pool is made whole because during the period of negative cash the interest allocation process charges interest to the funds with a deficit cash balance rather than paying them interest.  In the previous example, the General Fund had $10 and the Electric Fund had $20.  If instead the General Fund had $50 and the Electric Fund had negative $20, then the Electric Fund would pay interest to the General Fund to compensate for the fact that the pool really only held $30 ($50 – $20).  If the interest earnings should have been $5, then the General Fund would still receive the $5 due, but $3 would come from investment earnings and $2 would come from the Electric Fund.  The fund with a negative cash balance would record interest expense for the amount “borrowed’ from the cash pool temporarily and the other funds in the pool would record additional interest income.  In this way, all funds are made whole each month whether they have positive or negative cash.  This is a common practice in agencies with pooled investment portfolios.  Both cash activity and the monthly interest allocation process are areas of focus by the City’s independent external auditors each year to ensure that all cash balances and interest income are properly recorded in the City’s financial statements.  The City’s annual financial statements specifically call out any of these negative cash conditions that exist as of June 30 each year as described in Note 12 to the financial statements.  At June 30, 2013, these transactions (referred to as “Due To” or “Due From” transactions) amounted to approximately $22 million due to the General Fund, primarily related to pending grant receipts, and a small amount due to the Electric and Water Funds related to Central Stores inventory.

Comments Off »

Keep Riverside Clean and Beautiful and Shopping Cart Retrieval

On August 21, 2014, we received the following inquiry:

“Why are the keep riverside clean and beautiful and the shopping cart program in the cost of service for refuse collection?”

The City has partnered with the Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce since 1995 through its Keep Riverside Clean and Beautiful (KRCB) program to provide litter prevention, waste reduction, beautification, and community improvement services.  In 2007, the City entered into a professional services agreement with KRCB to formalize and enhance their efforts on behalf of the City.  These efforts are directly related to the City’s Refuse Fund activities and represent tasks that would otherwise fall to City staff at what would likely be a higher cost.  The funds paid to KRCB cover the staff salaries of employees working on KRCB activities and related office expenses and in no way subsidize other activities of the Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce.  Additionally, thousands of volunteer hours per year are coordinated through KRCB, which according to the Point of Light Institute have an estimated value of $22.14 per hour.  These volunteer hours resulted in a value to the City of approximately $660,000 during fiscal year 2013/14.

Fiscal   Year Number of Volunteers Volunteer Hours
2013-14 15,196 29,913
2012-13 26,446 34,430
2011-12 11,880 40,975
2010-11 14,235 33,538
2009-10 13,565 23,091
2008-09 11,139 24,002
2007-08 4,873 11,453
2006-07 3,691 9,972


The cost of the City’s shopping cart retrieval program is almost entirely offset by revenue received from the owners of shopping carts collected by the contractor.  The small deficit created by the program is funded by the General Fund and the contract is budgeted in the General Fund’s non-departmental cost center.

Comments Off »

Water Fountain at Victoria and Mary

On August 27, 2014, we received the following inquiry:

“What was the cost of the water fountain, since stolen, that was put at the corner of Victoria and Mary? Was it donated or was it paid by taxpayer money?   It was obvious from those of us who walk Victoria that it was going to be stolen by someone who wanted the metal. And it was, within weeks of installation.   Considering stolen metal was a subject at a recent council meeting regarding guards in the parks, who decided that it would be safe there, that it was a prudent decision to spend money on such a beautiful fountain that would inevitably have a short life on that corner?”

The fountain in question was installed by Stater Brothers Markets as a result of the adjacent project to expand the shopping center containing one of their grocery stores.  That project resulted in the need to reconfigure the footprint of the park to allow the shopping center to expand, and additional land was added to another area of the park by Stater Brothers to compensate for the loss.  The privately-funded project also added new features to the park, including the water fountain.  The entire fountain was not stolen; rather one of the three bowls of the fountain was stolen and the City’s park maintenance staff then removed the remainder of the damaged fountain.  The City has several other fountains of this type in other parks elsewhere in the City.  The decision was made to utilize the removed fountain for parts to maintain the other fountains and to replace the damaged fountain with a different model given the high visibility location.  The replacement fountain, which is less desirable to thieves but unfortunately also less attractive, will be installed at a cost of $4,135 to be funded from the City’s General Fund park maintenance budget.

Comments Off »

Posting of Interfund Loan Receivable Movement Journal Entries

On August 7, 2014, we received a question regarding the journal entries attached to a previous post that showed movements of interfund loan receivables between funds.  In this post we will illustrate the accounting entries that occur when these loans are moved in an attempt to assist interested members of the public with reading the previously provided accounting records.  These entries do not include any principal and/or interest payments made as of the same date, which are booked in separate journal entries.  These entries, therefore, are limited to the actual movement of the loan receivable.

The movement of an interfund loan receivable for an enterprise fund would look like the following example, which shows a loan made to the Parking Fund moving from the Electric Fund to the Workers Compensation Trust Fund.  This transfer was made as of June 30, 2009, and is reflected in the report attached to our original loan post on page 10 as JE00039832.  You can find that document here.

Description Debit Credit
Electric Claim on Cash $3,000,000
Workers Comp Claim on Cash $3,000,000
Increase and decrease in cash to reflect the transfer of the loan
Workers Comp Advances to Parking Fund 570 $3,000,000
Electric Advances to Parking Fund 570 $3,000,000
Increase and decrease in loan receivable due from Parking Fund
Parking Advances from Electric Fund 510 $3,000,000
Parking Advances from Workers Comp Fund 610 $3,000,000
Decrease and increase in loan payable from Parking Fund


Two things are important to note in this transaction.  First, the cash transfer is making the original lending fund whole because it has now exchanged liquid cash for a receivable, both of which are assets.  The future loan payments, including the principal, will now be paid to the new lending fund and the original lending fund is completely out of the picture.   Second, in accounting, debits and credits can have the opposite effect on account balances depending on the type of account.  For example, a debit to an account such as loans (advances) receivable is an increase while a debit to a liability account such as loans (advances) payable is a decrease.  While there are $9,000,000 of debits and $9,000,000 of credits in the above example, the transaction only results in a $3,000,000 transfer of cash.  The other entries are simply correctly recording the payable and the receivable in the three funds involved in the transaction.

The movement of an interfund loan receivable for a governmental fund would look like the following example, which shows a loan made to the former Redevelopment Agency moving from the Electric Fund to the Sewer Fund.  This transfer was made as of June 30, 2009, and is reflected in the report attached to our original loan post and linked above on page 5 as JE00039827.

Description Debit Credit
Electric Claim on Cash $4,018,391.21
Sewer Claim on Cash $4,018,391.21
Increase and decrease in cash to reflect the transfer of the loan
Sewer Advances to RDA Fund 478 $4,018,391.21
Electric Advances to RDA Fund 478 $4,018,391.21
Increase and decrease in loan receivable due from RDA
RDA Advances from Electric Fund 510 $4,018,391.21
RDA Advances from Sewer Fund 550 $4,018,391.21
Decrease and increase in loan payable from RDA (shown twice)


You will note if you look at the actual journal entry in the report that the only difference between this entry and the one above is that the last set of entries recording the movement of the payable are reflected twice, once in Fund 910 and once in Fund 978.  Fund 910 is a “memo fund” used to record certain obligations of the City’s governmental funds and Fund 978 is a similar “memo fund” used to record certain obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency.  Here, as was the case in the entry above, though there are approximately $16 million of debits and $16 million of credits, the transaction only has a cash impact of approximately $4 million.  The other entries are simply properly recording the transaction as receivable and payable in the various funds involved in the transaction.

While the City’s accounting systems are complex, the accounting above is quite straight forward to those familiar with government accounting.  These are routine entries made in government agencies throughout the United States, whose format is dictated by accounting guidance.  We hope that this post, though complicated, will serve to better educate those with an interest about the City’s recording of interfund loans.

Comments Off »

Structure of Public Utilities

On August 13, 2014, we received the following question regarding the City’s sewer enterprise:

“In many cities, [the] wastewater enterprise is part of the water enterprise/public utilities department. Why is wastewater in Riverside a function under public works?”

Riverside’s structure has been as it is now for the entire history of the City, though department names have changed and some functions have been consolidated over the years.  To answer this question, we solicited input from the Public Works Department as well as Riverside Public Utilities.  The question can be asked of many cities, and each has differing reasons for how their management structure is organized.   Within California, some cities such as Corona combine water and wastewater into a single department, while other cities such as Anaheim, Pasadena, Burbank, Glendale, Los Angeles, and others do not, instead housing the wastewater enterprise under Public Works.  In Riverside, the Public Utilities Department was created by Article XII of the City Charter and includes the water and electrical supplies and other utilities as deemed appropriate by the City Council.

The water and wastewater functions are complex and intrinsically different.  For example, Public Utilities sells commodities of water and electricity to their customers while wastewater is more closely aligned with the street maintenance function of the City as it is a service to the general public and not consumer based.  The current separation of these functions in Riverside is therefore based on a natural demarcation between commodities and services.  However, it is very important that the operators of these systems communicate and coordinate their operations, as they do in Riverside.

Comments Off »

Follow Up: Structure of the City’s Finance Department

In response to our post on August 4, 2014, regarding the structure of the City’s Finance Department, the gentleman asking the original question sent a response indicating that the City’s arrangement with the Treasurer function housed in the Finance Department was unlike the majority of California cities of a similar size.  While we appreciate the comment, it is unfortunately incorrect.  We based our original post on our knowledge of our peers, who we deal with on a regular basis.  However, to be thorough, we conducted a survey of all cities in California with a population over 150,000 to generate an exact list for this post.  Here are the results:

There are 12 cities in California with a population over 300,000, including Riverside, and excluding San Francisco due to its consolidated city/county government structure.  Of those 12 cities, 9 (75%) have the exact same structure as Riverside with the Treasurer reporting to or consolidated with the CFO position (San Diego, San Jose, Fresno, Long Beach, Oakland, Bakersfield, Santa Ana, Riverside, and Stockton), 2 (17%) have appointed treasurers (Sacramento and Anaheim) operating in stand-alone departments, and 1 (8%) has a unique structure with an elected Controller administering a portion of the City’s financial management and an appointed department head administering the remainder including the treasury function (Los Angeles).  Expanding the survey to include the 35 California cities with a population over 150,000, which is less than one half the size of Riverside, the results indicate that 21 (60%) have the same structure as Riverside, 8 (23%) have an elected Treasurer, 4 (11%) have an appointed Treasurer, and 2 (6%) have a unique structure, including Los Angeles, as described above, and Garden Grove, where the head of another department serves as Treasurer and the Finance Director serves as Deputy Treasurer.

As our original post indicated, the structure found in Riverside is by far the typical structure found in large municipal finance departments in California and elsewhere.


Comments Off »
City of Riverside  |  Explore Riverside  |  At Home in Riverside  |  Seizing Our Destiny
Copyright © 2014 City of Riverside | Accessibility Policy | Website Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
Facebook: Like the City of Riverside LinkedIn Twitter YouTube: Subscribe to the City of Riverside RSS: Stay up-to-date with the latest news from the City of Riverside GovDelivery: Receive email alerts from the City of Riverside GTV: City of Riverside's television channel Outlook E-News
Printed from: