Agenda for Thursday 6/28/07
The agenda for Thursday's regular meeting of council was posted at the city a couple of days ago and was just posted here.
First item of business is action on the curfew resulting from the public hearing preceding the regular meeting at 5PM.
New business starts with three agenda items related to the library grant to consider administrative services, a checking account, and authorized signatures on that account. Next is an agenda item for administrative and engineering services for a water well improvement grant from ORCA.
Council will appoint members to the Parks & Rec Board and pick a retail electric provider; we are currently not under a contract and paying month to month since somebody forgot to renew the contract in May. Then council will hopefully adopt a resolution opposing the closing of Marfa's Farm Service Agency office.
Next up are two action items on a favorite topic of mine, the 2005-2006 budget! About a million years and 150 posts ago, I described the Budget Process and the first anonymous comment (why is everybody anon in this town?) said, "The budget process for 2005-06 was more like baloney. I don't think anyone but admin Sauceda knew what was presented or adopted." I am happy to report that council will finally be shown what was presented and adopted back on October 19, 2005. Now you might be wondering what the big deal is all about; that was almost two years ago. Yes, BUT, the audit that covered that fiscal year was just presented and adopted last month. I looked at that audit, asked some questions, and determined that the budget vs. actual part of the audit was not based on the actual budget! It was based completely on the proposed budget without council's changes!!!
Council will review the situation Thursday night. The first action item is to ratify a true and accurate copy of the budget based on research done by myself, the Mayor, councilmember Garcia with help from Ann Dunlap and a reporter that covered some meetings back then. The second action item is to consider having the auditor correct the audit with the true budget.
That budget process was truly a disaster as I described in Budget Process, Part 2. The city started with the proposed budget formally presented two days before the deadline. At the end of the 2005-2006 fiscal year, there was a proposed amendment to make the budget reflect the actuals after the fact. Council wisely rejected that idea as recommended by Susan Combs, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. In between the proposed budget and the proposed amendment, I have identified FOUR different versions of the budget that vary by almost $200,000. These include:
1. What council approved by voice vote on October 19, 2005.
2. What Sauceda entered into the computer the next day.
3. What Sauceda published as the "Adopted Annual" budget ten months later.
4. What was actually in the computer at the end of the fiscal year.
Mayor Dunlap found a printout of the second budget in that list. That version included all of council's changes to the proposed budget except for $96,000 in revenue that Sauceda chose not to enter. Nobody ever saw that copy of the budget. Nothing was shared with council until August 2006 with the famous whiteout budget containing math errors on 15 out of 20 pages and many many unauthorized changes and convenient omissions.
Curiously, if Sauceda had documented the actual budget as council approved, it would have shown a $120,000 surplus. Sauceda described a 3% employee one-time bonus (instead of an appropriate raise) at that meeting which would have cost the city $23,206. He recommended against putting it in the budget saying, "but that is not included in the document (budget) because we want to be conservative with this tonight and wait and see for the first quarter." He had the nerve to tell council, "I believe that I am an employee manager, and I want something for the employees for the first quarter of the year." He had the money in the budget! But he chose not to properly compensate our underpaid employees. On Thursday, Sauceda will collect the second of his ten severance payments of $2,700 each.
That is water under the bridge now. I am glad that a true copy of the budget has been found. It is the printout from October 20, 2005 with changes to only two revenue line items to reflect what council approved the night before. The budget is the city's contract with the taxpayers. It tells the citizens how much money the city needs and how it will spend that money. It is a serious document. As we enter another budget cycle, council should show the citizens that they take this seriously and ratify the true budget from that year and have the auditor update the audit with the true numbers.
The last agenda item is a presentation from the gas company about the interlocal agreement.
First item of business is action on the curfew resulting from the public hearing preceding the regular meeting at 5PM.
New business starts with three agenda items related to the library grant to consider administrative services, a checking account, and authorized signatures on that account. Next is an agenda item for administrative and engineering services for a water well improvement grant from ORCA.
Council will appoint members to the Parks & Rec Board and pick a retail electric provider; we are currently not under a contract and paying month to month since somebody forgot to renew the contract in May. Then council will hopefully adopt a resolution opposing the closing of Marfa's Farm Service Agency office.
Next up are two action items on a favorite topic of mine, the 2005-2006 budget! About a million years and 150 posts ago, I described the Budget Process and the first anonymous comment (why is everybody anon in this town?) said, "The budget process for 2005-06 was more like baloney. I don't think anyone but admin Sauceda knew what was presented or adopted." I am happy to report that council will finally be shown what was presented and adopted back on October 19, 2005. Now you might be wondering what the big deal is all about; that was almost two years ago. Yes, BUT, the audit that covered that fiscal year was just presented and adopted last month. I looked at that audit, asked some questions, and determined that the budget vs. actual part of the audit was not based on the actual budget! It was based completely on the proposed budget without council's changes!!!
Council will review the situation Thursday night. The first action item is to ratify a true and accurate copy of the budget based on research done by myself, the Mayor, councilmember Garcia with help from Ann Dunlap and a reporter that covered some meetings back then. The second action item is to consider having the auditor correct the audit with the true budget.
That budget process was truly a disaster as I described in Budget Process, Part 2. The city started with the proposed budget formally presented two days before the deadline. At the end of the 2005-2006 fiscal year, there was a proposed amendment to make the budget reflect the actuals after the fact. Council wisely rejected that idea as recommended by Susan Combs, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. In between the proposed budget and the proposed amendment, I have identified FOUR different versions of the budget that vary by almost $200,000. These include:
1. What council approved by voice vote on October 19, 2005.
2. What Sauceda entered into the computer the next day.
3. What Sauceda published as the "Adopted Annual" budget ten months later.
4. What was actually in the computer at the end of the fiscal year.
Mayor Dunlap found a printout of the second budget in that list. That version included all of council's changes to the proposed budget except for $96,000 in revenue that Sauceda chose not to enter. Nobody ever saw that copy of the budget. Nothing was shared with council until August 2006 with the famous whiteout budget containing math errors on 15 out of 20 pages and many many unauthorized changes and convenient omissions.
Curiously, if Sauceda had documented the actual budget as council approved, it would have shown a $120,000 surplus. Sauceda described a 3% employee one-time bonus (instead of an appropriate raise) at that meeting which would have cost the city $23,206. He recommended against putting it in the budget saying, "but that is not included in the document (budget) because we want to be conservative with this tonight and wait and see for the first quarter." He had the nerve to tell council, "I believe that I am an employee manager, and I want something for the employees for the first quarter of the year." He had the money in the budget! But he chose not to properly compensate our underpaid employees. On Thursday, Sauceda will collect the second of his ten severance payments of $2,700 each.
That is water under the bridge now. I am glad that a true copy of the budget has been found. It is the printout from October 20, 2005 with changes to only two revenue line items to reflect what council approved the night before. The budget is the city's contract with the taxpayers. It tells the citizens how much money the city needs and how it will spend that money. It is a serious document. As we enter another budget cycle, council should show the citizens that they take this seriously and ratify the true budget from that year and have the auditor update the audit with the true numbers.
The last agenda item is a presentation from the gas company about the interlocal agreement.
posted by RobC at 12:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home