Thursday, September 30, 2010

FY 2010-2011 Budget Document Posted on Polk City's Web Page

The Fiscal Year 2010 - 2011 Budget Document that goes into more detail on the actual revenues and expenditures is posted on Polk City's web site now.  Here's the link:  FY 2010-2011 Budget Document

It is quite a long document, but not as long as the similar documents from previous years.  If you compare this one to the earlier ones, you will notice that the explanations of how the revenue figures are estimated, revenue trends, and how external factors may effect them are omitted from this new document.  Other information comparing similar sized municipalities in Polk County on several different factors, explanations of fund appropriations, basis of budgeting, financial policies, and debt service information and summary are also omitted.  I called Pam Lawson, the Financial Administrator, for an explanation.  She stated that this information is not required to be in the budget document and that all required information is there.  That may be the case, but it sure would have been nice to see how they arrived at these figures this year in a little more detail.

I also got clarification that the "Priviledge Fees" under the Sewer and Water categories are the WAC (Water Access Charge) and SAC (Sewer Access Charge) fees.  $169,450 in SAC fees and $83,570 in WAC fee revenues are budgeted.  When I questioned the placement of these estimated revenue sources in the budget when the legality of these fees, according to Vice Mayor / Acting City Manager Block's statement at the County meeting on September 15th, are being questioned and legal council out of Orlando has been retained by the City to look into this issue further.  Ms. Lawson expressed certainty that these fees were legal and that maybe some wording would have to be tweaked, but that these fees will be assessed and collection procedures would be started for those that are not paid.

When I asked about where the money for all the lawsuits was budgeted, Ms. Lawson stated that Department #514 in the budget is for Legal Council.  According to the adopted figures for "Professional Services - Legal Council" and the "Professional Services - Other - Legal Council" categories totals $42,000 combined.  When I questioned that the budgeted amount seemed rather low considering the multiple lawsuits currently against the city and the possibility of future ones, Ms. Lawson stated that this is just a rough estimate and if additional money is needed, then less money will need to be spent in other areas of the budget to help pay for it.  Not very comforting.

I also questioned the line items under Expenditures for "Fund Balances/Reserves/Net Assets" totaling $228,533 that was in the tentatively approved budget prior to the city cutting the $348,799.34 to the county, and was still approved in the final budget later that same week.  Looking at the bank statement, those monies were pretty much depleted by writing that check.  Ms. Lawson stated that the money doesn't need to currently be in those accounts for it to be approved in the budget.  According to her, those monies will accumulate throughout the year to cover these needed expenses.

That appears to be pretty wishful thinking considering that the FY2009 Audit stated on page 33, "The result of our assessment indicates the City is experiencing an overall deterioration in its financial condition.  The general fund's total liabilites exceed the general fund's total assets by $246,728.  The enterprise funds owed the general fund $169,155 as of September 30, 2009, for which resources were not available for current repayment.  Furthermore, the enterprise funds' current liablities of $1,226,507 far exceed its current assets of $393,794.  The two enterprise funds are not generating fund's resources.  Other causes of this deteriorating financial condition included a lack of short-term and long-term financial plans to guide the City, a lack of cash analysis and forecasts and various control deficiencies as reported in prior audits."

I didn't see anywhere in the budget document any explanation as to where the city is going to come up with the outstanding $531,000 in back Impact Fees that the city owes the county from 2007 & 2008, either.

But then again, the City officials keep stating, "The Budget is Balanced."  What do you think??

No comments:

Post a Comment