by Elissa Yount
Every two years, the city budget time aligns with election time.
The chickens have to come home to roost.
Any way you look at it, this alignment is the best time for the voters to determine if their money has been spent in the best possible way. Making a fair assessment of how well our city government is doing with our money is both our duty and responsibility as good citizens. We all need to take a good hard look at the books.
The job of the city council is to watch the bottom line all year long. Waiting until budget time to get concerned about expenditures, both past and future, is not good leadership. Even though the city has a policy that they will not permit the use of the unrestricted fund balance to fund operational expenses (page 82 of the budget) they allowed “unfunded items and heavy use of undesignated fund balance (to) result in a budgetary gap of $1,990,308” and, consequently, “seriously reduced undesignated fund balance.” (slide presentation 42 of 71).
Henderson now has a projected budget of over $29 million dollars that requires using another $500,000 from the fund balance, yet most services have not improved and many key positions are not filled. We are warned that water, sewer, and possibly sanitation fees may rise. These enterprise ventures are suppose to be self-supporting. In fact, it is illegal to increase these fees and put that money in the general fund for expenses not related to water and sewer. Is enough money being earmarked for future capital expenses? Is Henderson meeting all the standards of the Special Order of Consent for sewer, especially since the money from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund had to be returned to the state?
The costs of moving City Hall to Rose Avenue should be disclosed fully. Lately, there have been projections of additional renovations. Also, unless there is a new arrangement, the county must be paid for their half of the building. The exact costs of this venture must be disclosed so that the taxpayers can judge the soundness of this decision. How much money was put in the fund balance from the $700,000 sale of the old municipal building on Beckford Drive? How much money has gone to renovate and operate the building on Rose Avenue? How much money would have been saved if one facility had been operated (as originally planned) instead of two? These costly decisions need scrutiny.
Bonuses, pay-outs, or settlements paid to Eric Williams, Billy Strickland, and/or Ed Wyatt should be fully exposed so that the taxpayer can determine if this money was spent wisely. There is also the money that had to be paid back to the federal government from the Weed & Seed grant. How about the money that is to be allotted to Economic Development? How about the money that is sent to the non-profit Downtown Development Commission? Has the city government been a good steward of this money? Do the benefits match the costs?
The city government has not addressed the issue of joint funding. Keeping their heads in the sand and not taking a serious position on this is an insult to the taxpayers of Henderson. How much longer is our city government going to expect the taxpayers to bear this unfair burden?
Now the chickens are coming home to roost, and since it is the taxpayer who is feeding the chickens, we need to decide if we can afford to keep these chickens. After all, a budget of $29 million is a lot of chicken feed.
Note: Since I posted this article I have finally found in the manager’s Budget Message on page 50 the following: Most Critical – Positive direction of re-growing fund balance is reversed, balance drops to a dangerous 9%. No margin remains.
On March 6 and 7, 2009 the council met to address key issues in the city. This extremely disturbing fact was glossed over in their Strategic Plan. The Council merely stated in their plan that they would work to increase the fund balance and follow the policy to see that it grew. What is to say they will do this? They already had a policy mandated by the Local Government Commission to grow the fund balance and they did not follow it. “An undesignated fund balance of this reduced amount places the city at risk.” These are not my words, but the words of the manager. This council has failed in their financial responsibility to the citizens.