Budget Process
Watching the budget process is a bit like watching sausage being made. You don't want to now what goes into it. We are once again in the last minute emergency budget process. Failed council meetings have halted the orderly development of the budget. I don't know much about city budgets. After learning a little, I am not sure I want to learn more. But I will share the few things I have learned.
1) The budget is not rigid, it is merely a guideline. However, council cannot approve a budget which shows a deficit. Administration cannot add any major funds (e.g. admin, library, municipal court, golf, police etc) to the budget without council approval. Council must approve any changes to the budget. Administration has flexibility to juggle line items within each fund for a proposed amendment.
2) It seems to be standard practice to amend the budget at the end of the fiscal year to make the final official "budget" match what actually happened. The audit is completed within four months of the end of the fiscal year and compares the actual revenue and expenses to the "current" budget. Our current budget was approved on October 29, 2005. The city administrator hopes to amend the budget on September 28, 2006 which is almost the last business day of the fiscal year. That will become the "current" budget for 2005-2006.
3) The budget has revenue and expenditures. These are merely suggestions. The actual revenue and expenditures are contained elsewhere. I don't know how hard it is to see the actual data. The budget does not contain enough detail to see where expenses like a $3,000 door might fall.
4) The Marfa budget is approximately 2.5 million dollars. Mr. Sauceda is proposing an amended budget with an additional $200,000 in revenue and $100,000 in expenses for 2005-2006.
5) The budget is divided into the General Fund (administration), Enterprise (public works and water/trash services), Interests, and Grants.
6) The current budget calls for a transfer of $700,000 from Enterprise to General Fund. Without this transfer, Enterprise generates a surplus of a quarter million dollars and the general fund runs a deficit of a quarter million dollars. This transfer is mostly a bookkeeping adjustment and is not real money.
7) The proposed 2006-2007 budget released by city hall on August 29, 2006 includes a column of the "Current" 2005-2006 budget. However, this is not the current budget; it is his proposed amendment. Florencio hopes to have the 2005-2006 budget amended at the same time that the 2006-2007 budget is adopted. So when you compare the current 2005-2006 budget to the proposed 2006-2007 budget in that handout, you are actually looking at the proposed amended 2005-2006 budget and the proposed 2006-2007 budget. To compare the proposed 2006-2007 budget to the 2005-2006 budget that council actually approved, you need to pull out last year's budget. Simple, right? Just like sausage.
Let me give you an example. If you look at the budget handout of 8/29/06 you see that the budget for Professional Services (is this the city attorney?) will increase slightly from $29,914 to $30,000 between this year and next. However, that $29,914 is a proposed amended budget line item. In the budget that council approved last year, the budgeted amount was $12,914. The administrator is proposing a $17,000 increase in the amended budget for this year for professional services. One can only assume that they overspent by $17,000 this year so they are adjusting the budget on the last day to match the money already spent. Simple math.
I was naive to think that the city must adhere to the budget. I expected to see a budget along with a report of actual revenue and expenses that indicated how well they estimated at the beginning of the year. But the city finds more revenue here and there and spends money unexpectedly and then tidies everything up on the last day. It is a tricky job to keep the city running smoothly. I am not critical of the process, just confused. Transparency is a good thing in a process like this.
1) The budget is not rigid, it is merely a guideline. However, council cannot approve a budget which shows a deficit. Administration cannot add any major funds (e.g. admin, library, municipal court, golf, police etc) to the budget without council approval. Council must approve any changes to the budget. Administration has flexibility to juggle line items within each fund for a proposed amendment.
2) It seems to be standard practice to amend the budget at the end of the fiscal year to make the final official "budget" match what actually happened. The audit is completed within four months of the end of the fiscal year and compares the actual revenue and expenses to the "current" budget. Our current budget was approved on October 29, 2005. The city administrator hopes to amend the budget on September 28, 2006 which is almost the last business day of the fiscal year. That will become the "current" budget for 2005-2006.
3) The budget has revenue and expenditures. These are merely suggestions. The actual revenue and expenditures are contained elsewhere. I don't know how hard it is to see the actual data. The budget does not contain enough detail to see where expenses like a $3,000 door might fall.
4) The Marfa budget is approximately 2.5 million dollars. Mr. Sauceda is proposing an amended budget with an additional $200,000 in revenue and $100,000 in expenses for 2005-2006.
5) The budget is divided into the General Fund (administration), Enterprise (public works and water/trash services), Interests, and Grants.
6) The current budget calls for a transfer of $700,000 from Enterprise to General Fund. Without this transfer, Enterprise generates a surplus of a quarter million dollars and the general fund runs a deficit of a quarter million dollars. This transfer is mostly a bookkeeping adjustment and is not real money.
7) The proposed 2006-2007 budget released by city hall on August 29, 2006 includes a column of the "Current" 2005-2006 budget. However, this is not the current budget; it is his proposed amendment. Florencio hopes to have the 2005-2006 budget amended at the same time that the 2006-2007 budget is adopted. So when you compare the current 2005-2006 budget to the proposed 2006-2007 budget in that handout, you are actually looking at the proposed amended 2005-2006 budget and the proposed 2006-2007 budget. To compare the proposed 2006-2007 budget to the 2005-2006 budget that council actually approved, you need to pull out last year's budget. Simple, right? Just like sausage.
Let me give you an example. If you look at the budget handout of 8/29/06 you see that the budget for Professional Services (is this the city attorney?) will increase slightly from $29,914 to $30,000 between this year and next. However, that $29,914 is a proposed amended budget line item. In the budget that council approved last year, the budgeted amount was $12,914. The administrator is proposing a $17,000 increase in the amended budget for this year for professional services. One can only assume that they overspent by $17,000 this year so they are adjusting the budget on the last day to match the money already spent. Simple math.
I was naive to think that the city must adhere to the budget. I expected to see a budget along with a report of actual revenue and expenses that indicated how well they estimated at the beginning of the year. But the city finds more revenue here and there and spends money unexpectedly and then tidies everything up on the last day. It is a tricky job to keep the city running smoothly. I am not critical of the process, just confused. Transparency is a good thing in a process like this.
posted by RobC at 2:49 PM
10 Comments:
The budget process for 2005-06 was more like baloney. I don't think anyone but admin Sauceda knew what was presented or adopted. Not much has been said about Revenues. Wonder where they are getting enough revenue to cover the expenses. The high cost of Professional service has come from the Adminsitrator needing either the advice of Monte Akers and/or the advise of Dan Painter, the auditor to do his job. Anytime there is a question about procedure he needs to consult Akers or Paintrinstead of looking for an answer in Local Govt. Code or asking TML legal counsel for assitance.
"juggle line items within each fund with council approval," Yeah, okay. That will explain how the cards have been shuffled in the proposed budget amendment. But how about the many times money has been plucked from the Library Fund or Parks Fund over the past year and plugged into General Fund for operating expenses WITH NO COUNCIL APPROVAL??? We know this has happened.
No, Rob, you are not confused. You have been flim flammed. I have checked with an impecable source, a local govt. expert. Some cities follow Flo's described process, but if reported, it is illegal. A city CANNOT legally overspend any line budget item within or without that budget fund that was previously approved unless the council approves that amended expenditure BEFORE it is made. So what technically we have here is Flo's process of covering all the overexpenditures that he has made during the year and shuffling of funds outside of what was approved in October 2005.
What a convenient way to cover up the Professional services increase of $17,000. It is so mindboggling to compare the 2005 budget with the "proposed 2005-2006" budget and try to determine where Flo has made changes.
Chapter 102 of the Local Government Code covers the "Municipal Budget."
Section 102.009 part (b) and (c) states:
(b) After final approval of the budget, the governing body may spend municipal funds only in strict compliance with the budget, except in an emergency.
(c) The governing body may authorize an emergency expenditure as an amendment to the original budget only in a case of grave public necessity to meet an unusual and unforeseen condition that could not have been included in the original budget through the use of reasonably diligent thought and attention.
So, exceeding the budget is an offense of state law.
Rob,
The normal course of business is for the city manager/administrator to bring periodically, at least quarterly, budget transfers with a departmental budget for approval and explanation to council and the public for the reason behind the variance.
For budget transfers across departments, approvals must be gained from council before funds transferred.
It is poor management by the city staff and elected officials to allow the kind of fiscal quackery you described to occur.
I believe our town is poorly served by a mayor who has no understanding of his proper role, a council composed of some members who do not have any idea of what is expected of them (like understanding the agenda items before voting upon them) and obviously a city administrator/manager who knows just a tad too much about manipulating uncomprehending council members and an arrogant mayor.
But the ultimate dupes are us, the voters. We put these clowns into office. It's time for a change.
Seems like just yesterday....from the BBS in a galaxy far away...
New mayor questions credit card bills
By JAMES BAE
and ROBERT HALPERN
MARFA – Marfa’s new mayor and its relatively new city administrator locked horns Tuesday night in an accusation-filled regular meeting punctuated by questions about the use of the city’s credit card.
The itemized MasterCard bills were made available by Mayor David Lanman.
The two bills cover April and May transactions. The April bill totaled $1,821, and the May bill amounted to $2,414.
Most itemizations are for purchases of food, fuel, and lodging, ostensibly for employees on sanctioned city trips, as well as purchases of supplies. There also are charges to five Marfa restaurants. As well are two purchases from FTD Knox Mark Flowers in Odessa and the Bath and Body Works in Odessa.
When Lanman questioned Sauceda during the meeting’s accounts payable discussion why Sauceda’s been spending so much on the credit card, Sauceda answered that he was well within his “discretionary means” in how he’s been using the account.
Lanman also accused Sauceda of “buying favor of people” with city funds, alluding to Sauceda taking parties of people out for meals on the city card.
“It’s totally inappropriate,” Lanman said. “The people are offended and I’m offended.”
On Wednesday, Sauceda countered that “city business is transacted during and after regular office hours.”
Sauceda persistently answered Lanman’s allegations of overspending by saying he was within discretionary limits as the city administrator, citing his contract agreement for support. In ‘Section 10’ of Sauceda’s employment agreement, it states to “the extent fiscally possible City agrees to budget and pay for professional dues and subscriptions, reasonable travel and subsistence expenses incurred or used by Employee for participation in local, regional, and state/professional associations and participation in conferences, short courses, seminars and institutes that are deemed necessary for Employee’s professional development and for the good of the City of Marfa.”
When asked if he believes Sauceda has been within ‘reasonable’ limits, Lanman answered “no.”
“What really irks me is he’s trying to buy off employees, city council members, and the people of town,” Lanman said. “I’m really critical of how he uses meals as some kind of political tool.”
What’s wrong with spending city money locally, he added. “Be Marfa proud. Buy Marfa first.”
Previous city administrations have used the credit card in similar manners, Sauceda said. “These are discretionary funds that administrators and policy makers use throughout the country and industry.”
He said he believes that the issue in part is a personnel matter that should be discussed in executive session, and that is the plan, to discuss the matter at the city’s next regular meeting on June 23.
“He’s already trying to micromanage,” Sauceda said of the new mayor.
The rocky tenor of the meeting was set during Lanman’s first mayoral report, dredging to the surface the still sensitive matter of the recent ‘retirement’ of Controller Leo Salgado and the firing of utility billing clerk Gracie Parras.
After Lanman named council member Louis Dobay as mayor pro-tem, the new mayor also moved to name Dobay to the grievance committee to hear Parras’ case, replacing Sauceda.
Lanman said that Sauceda on the committee in this case, would amount to a “conflict of interest.”
Sauceda and council members Oscar Martinez and Dan Petrosky vigorously protested Sauceda’s displacement.
“I strongly object from removing (Sauceda) from the committee,” Petrosky said, citing the grievance manual which says the mayor and city administrator alone constitute the two-member panel. “I’m very worried about the legal ramifications of doing this.”
Petrosky also countered that the public advice given by attorney Rod Ponton, who defended Lanman during Sauceda’s accusation of a death threat earlier this month, was tantamount to conflict of interest on Lanman’s side.
Martinez added the way the grievance manual is written, the mayor and city administrator should handle Parras’ complaint.
Though Sauceda also asked Lanman to “acquiesce” from naming Dobay onto the committee, at least until legal council from Monte Akers, the city’s retained attorney, both Lanman and council member Rudy Garcia were adamant about the ethical dilemma prevalent of keeping Sauceda on the grievance committee since it was Sauceda who terminated Parras.
“You’re telling me there’s no conflict of interest on this matter,” Garcia said. “Long as I’m concerned you (Lanman) have the authority to do it.”
Garcia also took a barb against former Mayor Martinez, citing Martinez’s hiring of former interim City Administrator Henry Moon without full participation of the council essentially setting the precedent for Lanman’s to name Dobay as a member of the grievance committee.
Martinez dismissed Garcia’s comments as comparing “apples to oranges.”
Lanman said that Parras’ grievance hearing will be held at 1 p.m. Friday at City Hall. Lanman added that Sauceda is invited to attend the hearing, but only as a guest.
In other matters, the accounts payable was approved, apart from a $4,822.67 bill from the Austin law firm of Bovery, Akers, and Bojorquez, a bill the city incurred during the canvassing debacle of Marfa’s recent election. The council asked for an itemization of the bill, which arrived on Wednesday.
Check out the reasons the City of Taft fired Mr. Sauceda....sound familiar? (PS he was not rehired and the Mayor was not fired)
By Jaime Powell Caller-Times
November 1, 2003
TAFT - Two Taft city councilmen are seeking the resignation of Mayor Jerry King, claiming that the recent firing of the city manager was racially motivated.
Councilmen Jose Garcia and Bobby Vega held a press conference Friday morning calling for King to step down after he and councilmen Scott Roots and Roy Stegall voted to fire City Manager Florencio Sauceda Oct. 14. Garcia and Vega also are circulating a petition asking for King's job.
King said Friday afternoon that Sauceda's job performance was the reason that he was fired and refused to comment on Garcia's allegation that the termination was racially motivated.
"I will not respond to that," King said. "The community here is pretty quiet, very small, very quiet. We don't have a lot of issues that are not resolved in a business-like manner, either the city council or the school board. I've received a lot of positive comments that we took a stand in regard to his performance."
Garcia said Friday that Sauceda's firing had nothing to do with his job performance and that the "Anglo contingent" of councilmen wanted him out just because he was Hispanic.
"We believe the reasons given were fabricated. We feel it, we see it. They gang up on the two Hispanic members of the council," Garcia said. "Oct. 10, Mayor King asked me to come to his office to discuss an item of concern. When I arrived he asked me to support him in the termination. The mayor showed me a resolution and a list of causes. He said he had already made up his mind and had the votes. That to me meant he had already discussed it with the Anglos and our votes did not count."
Vega agreed.
"The real problem is the mayor's reluctance to work with a Hispanic city manager," he said. "That was the real problem."
Roots was out of town Friday. Stegall and Sauceda did not return phone calls.
The city minutes from Oct. 14 say Sauceda had failed to represent Taft's best interests by:
n Failing to respond to formulating programs to preserve Taft's assets.
n Formulating public policy without consulting the _council.
n Using city property and personnel inefficiently
n Abusing the city's sick leave and vacation policy
King said Sauceda had also been warned repeatedly to relocate to Taft from his home near Robstown.
"We had discussed them (the problems) with him in executive session, I think for the better part of a year," King said.
King said that at one point Sauceda had missed 30 percent of the work year and routinely came to work at 11 a.m. or later and left around 3 p.m.
Garcia said he never had reason to complain about Sauceda's absences.
"People have reasons to be absent. If they have sick leave they can take it," he said.
Sauceda's successor has not been named. City Secretary Molly Topper has assumed management responsibilities until the council can name an interim city manager and begin the search for a replacement Tuesday night.
Contact Jaime Powell at 886-3716 or powellj@caller.com
Have patience and scroll down to the bottom. Mr Sauceda was fired twice from the City of Del Rio (we have this on record from Del Rio natives)Some hanky panky involving the Val Verde County taxing board and City Manager
www.TourTejas.com
for & about the Tejas region/por y de la región Tejas
FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register
Profile Log in to check your private messages LogIn
1998-2000 taxing board
www.TourTejas.com Forum Index -> Val Verde County
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
villadelrio
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 355
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:34 am Post subject: 1998-2000 taxing board
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone out there know who was on the board of directors during 1998-2000? That was the time that Tax Assessor, Buster Vernor skipped town and $200,000 was missing...and employee withholding taxes was not paid to IRS.
According to Jesse Fernandez, the board at that time did not meet and did not audit the accounts...and did not have a two signature policy for the expenditure of our tax money. That makes the board potentially liable as well as Buster Vernor. So while everyone focuses on Buster, no one is focusing on the board. According to the law...that board had the responsibility.
So...many have concluded that the DA is purposely not prosecuting Vernor. That he is intentionally allowing the statute of limitations run out...and let all of these folks walk. That way...he wouldn't have to burden his office with the time and expense of prosecuting "white collar criminals"...while garnering the favor of those board members who he should have to be prosecuting. So...maybe it's political. Maybe it's the way he has stayed in office...unopposed. Maybe that's how he plans on securing the office of judge. Let the criminally neglent go...and get the backing of that same previous board and all of their friends and family...if he does not prosecute Vernor...or them.
Cushy deal for a few!!! Like most who corrupt the law that they are sworn to uphold...they forget that this is a democracy. "We the people" don't even have to wait until election time to make a statement. We can speak out now. We the people can empower one another and those who are elected to represent us in the City, the County and the School. We can use any and all legal means to insure that corruption is dealt with. We can, we have and we will speak out. It is...after all...a government of the people, by the people...and something the DA might have forgotten...FOR the people.
There is a call for a real investigation. There is a call for an indictment. There is a call for prosecution. There is a call for restitution of our money that is missing...money that we had to come up with again.
Last edited by villadelrio on Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Realisticedition
Joined: 23 Feb 2006
Posts: 11
Location: VVPE
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe it was Al Arreola who was serving on the school board. He
barely attended the meetings.
Lupe DeHoyos was also on the board plus serving on the school board.
I am almost 99.99% sure that Joey Garcia also served on the board plus was also serving on the school board.
I think Lalo Calderon also served on the Board. Not on the school board though.
Check it out..it was a circle of FRIENDS.
Back to top
villadelrio
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 355
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:43 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks...
But…the real question is not who was on the school board…but…who was on the taxing board during 1998-2000?
Back to top
Outlaw JW
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 10
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:01 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problems with the appraisal district are more recent than you think. IMO some friends of employees are recieving favorable appraisals and or favors. For example there are two homes in my subdivision of comparable size, materials and built within a year or two of each other. one is appraised in the 130's the other in the 50's. Makes you go Hmmmm. I say a state audit is in order.
Either my theory above holds weight or we have a bunch of incompetent appraisers.
You can checkout your neighborhood here. http://clientdb.trueautomation.com/clientdb/main.asp?id=42
Back to top
Realisticedition
Joined: 23 Feb 2006
Posts: 11
Location: VVPE
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:57 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No you're wrong or I didn't make myself clear.
They were on the taxing board during 1998-2000. It's not a question of if they were.
They also served on the San Felipe Del Rio School Board!!!!!!!!!!!!
Guess who appoints the Taxing Board Members?
The school board, Duh!!
A school board member can appoint another board member or a family member. Nora Escamilla ( a present school board member) her husband was appointed to the Taxing Board and has been serving for the last two or three years.
THAT'S THE WAY THE BALL WAS BOUNCING IN 1998-2000
Back to top
navahawk
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 39
Location: Yankee Country
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:53 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outlaw JW
DOES ONE HAVE TO FILL ALL OF THE BLANKS TO DO A SEARCH?
Back to top
TruBlu
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 17
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:17 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LISTEN TO THE RADIO PROGRAM YESTERDAY. THE D.A. WAS VERY UPSET ABOUT IT AND HE WAS DEMANDING A MEETING WITH THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT IT.
WOULD IT SUPRISE YOU TO KNOW THAT ROBERT CHAVIRRA WAS ON THE TAX ASSESSOR BOARD WHEN THE MONEY WAS EMBEZZELED.
WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU THAT CHAVIRRA WILL BE GETTING THE CONTRACT TO BUILD THE TESORO HILLS PROJECT (CITY PROJECT). WOULD IT SUPRISE YOU TO KNOW THAT FLOENCIO SAUCEDA IS THE OWNER OF THE LAND ON WHICH THE PROJECT WILL BE BUILT?
NO ONE WILL GET VERY FAR ON ADDRESSING THIS EMBEZZELMENT BECAUSE EVERY POLITICAL FIGURE IS INVOLVED. EVERY CITY MANAGER WHO IS NATIVE OF DEL RIO HAS DONE THIS IN COOPERATION WITH THE MAYOR.
AS CITY OFFICIALS THEY HAVE INSIDE INFORMATION ON ANY FEDERAL, STATE OR CITY PROJECTS WIHICH ALLOW THEM TO PURCHASE PROPERTY AT LOW PRICES KNOWING THAT WHEN GOVERNMENT PROJECTS ARE DONE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WILL INCREASE. THAT IS THE REASOIN FLORENCIO SAUCEDA WAS FIRED THE FIRST TIME AS CITY MANAGER. AT THAT TIME DOCTOR GUITERREZ WAS THE MAYOR AND WAS CONTROLLING WHO TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THIS INSIDE KNOWLEDGE. BUT THEN FLORENCIO STARTED GOING AROUND HIM AND HE WAS FIRED.
Let's get whoever hired this guy (past council), and take turns kicking them in their collective arses. I feel for the current members of council (except Martinez ) who have inherited this foul being.
Off the subject but....
As one blogger pointed out, Flo gets paid $15,000 more a year to write and administer grants (he has written one and it is still not being implemented other than buying the "illegal" car-this was the Solid Waste Grant, he didn't apply for the next one that was due September 6) and is now advertising for a grant administrator. I think those proposals were due on August 25 to the city. The architect Tom Greenwood pretty much ran the pool grant and is running the library grant although Tom Nance, whose uncle owns the construction company working on the pool and is on the uncle's payroll, was caught filling out grant paperwork with Flo and the Mayor's knowledge. Big conflict of interest.
In July, the Office of Rural Community Affairs put on a grant application workshop for the Community Development Block Grant program. One workshop (two hour workshop) was scheduled in Clint, one day up and back. Another was scheduled in Three Rivers down by Corpus Christi. The City paid Flo advance money for him to go to that, stay in Corpus for jury duty for two days and come back a total of 10 days later. I guess this is the grant mysteriously referred to on the last agenda although applications at that time were due August 31.
The schedule for ORCA 2007/2008 Colonia Construction Grants is now out. One of the workshops is scheduled for September 21, in Corpus Christi, but I guess Flo can't go. Doesn't he have a budget hearing scheduled?
A meeting of the Texas City Managers Association was scheduled for June 1-4 in Corpus Christi. Thursday through Sunday. As of Friday afternoon, Flo was not registered. He left town with advance dollars, like maybe $800. When challenged by Council member Salgado on his return as to how he paid for the registration(which was $275 after May 11) he replied that he used the city credit card. An open records request for the city credit card bill for that month will reveal something interesting.
Post a Comment
<< Home