Click to Enlarge
There seems to be some confusion in the community as to whom is responsible for running through all our reserves (savings). And if you attended the September 11th city commission meeting, it should have jumped right out at you with the Power Point presentation given by the Finance Director. But it hasn't sunk in with some, even by a few politicos who attended this meeting or one who writes for the local newspaper. We have to wonder why facts have been skewed.
FACTS:
- Expenditures in 2005 exceeded Revenues
- Expenditures in budget year 2007/2008 exceeded Revenues...budget set in Fall of 2007.
- Expenditures in budget year 2008/2009 exceeded Revenues big time. This Budget was set in September 2008
- City Manager Susan Stanton was not hired until April 2009, six months after the Budget started. She worked on the 2009/2010 budget where Revenues exceeded Expenditures for the first time in years.
- Suzanne Mulvehill won her election on November 18, 2008 with 58.79% of the vote which was after the 2008/2009 Budget was already set and voted upon.
It is, however, a new city commission trio that just voted to spend our Reserves for the 2012/2013 Budget to "plug a hole," an excuse that was used years ago when leadership and management was non-existent and millions went "poof" never to be found again. The City admits to taking $424,000 but they totally downplayed all the other cash they grabbed to balance this budget.
I can understand why the bogus chart, prepared by staff, could be so misleading to many people.
ReplyDeleteThese are numbers AFTER THE FACT.
Staff & previous CM's produced bogus Budgets that were approved, with the REQUEST FOR USE OF RESERVES coming not from the Budget, but During THE FISCAL YEAR at Commission Meetings.
It is easy to see how a researcher would come to the wrong conclusion by looking at the chart.
Commissioner mulvehill touts herself as being an expert in the world of business, having written buiness books, spoken internationally on both business and sustainability and as an educator at the local college.
ReplyDeleteHow is then, when she took office in November 2008, just weeks after the budget went into effect, she and her mentor/supporters allowed multi millions to flow through their fingers without ever questioning or attempting to right the fiscal disaster ?
The, upon taking office, the immediate push to spend almost $9 million dollars on the beach casino building...utility dollars!
I find it hard to believe that she takes no accountability for her role in the squandering of millions.
Just sayin.
Well, give us YOUR research, anonymous.
ReplyDeleteAm I going to have to write a blog on that one too? Please post your facts to support your argument before coming over here and slandering someone or jumping to wrong conclusions.
ReplyDeleteADHERE TO POLICY--Don't come over here and be a wise guy
ReplyDeleteEven the skewed chart shows cyclical ratios of blue and red. Your argument is specious at best.
ReplyDeleteStanton came in 6 months into an already initiated budget and automatically she is responsible for it being balanced.
Do you not remember all the budget amendments?
Wool's down a little in front....
At least your competing blog posts unflattering posts about himself to show his lack of bias.
Come up with $12 million in budget amendments. Come up with just one substantial one. Let's have facts.
ReplyDeleteWes never posts my comments. He is very biased.
ReplyDeleteAll the facts are a matter of public record. Commisioner Mulvehill WAS responsible for carrying out the "spend it because we have it attitude". She was elected to office 5 weeks after the Budget was adopted and had plenty of time to curtail the spending since she had the majority of votes to do so.
ReplyDeleteBut no, during the remainder year several approvals were passed which has her name on them. To research the past Budget documentts and meeting minutes it takes several weeks to months to digest and trace the funds. (I might add that tracing the funds is not easy) Its quite alarming when the surplus in the General Fund at the beginning of FY08/09 was approx. $15M and the next year (10/11) that figure was down to $4.5 then in 11/12 $2.5.
Please explain to everyone how you think Mulvehill and McVoy are not part of the out-of-control spending. An example of Mulvehill's spending patterns are evidented with her trips to Canada and Germany which brought little to no direct benefit to Lake Worth.
I am assumming that you have research all of your findings through the past Budget documents and minutes. If so, would you please give everyone your specifics of how they had nothing to do with the out-of-control spending.
You're making the charges. YOU DO THE RESEARCH. TOO FUNNY. You say several approvals were made...WHAT WERE THEY?
ReplyDeleteAs far as trips are concerned, Scott Maxwell has made the most trips. But having said that, they all had a budget for this and all of them stayed within their $5,000.
Knock off your negativity. It is all based on nothing but political swipes. PROVE what you say. You can't.
Oh but I can and when the timing is right, I will. It's not negativity nor political swipes, just facts. The proof is in the documentation which I HAVE done the research on.
ReplyDeletePeggy?
ReplyDeleteLife is a matter of timing isn't it? The commission sets policy. That is it. they are not moving money around on the books.
ReplyDeleteI assume that anonymous is referring to CAFRs? I will make that assumption.
ReplyDelete1. The fiscal year following FY08/09 is FY 09/10, not (10/11). So you're missing a whole year of activity.
2. I commend you for risking brain damage by reviewing CAFR financials to piece together what happened. But don't make the mistake most people make by focusing entirely on the numbers. The real meat is in the notes and the RSI, as well as the audit findings at the very end of 2009. This is when STANTON finally hired a real Finance Director and real auditors. Read the findings for the more interesting numbers.
3. You will find that there were significant accounting deficiencies that had not yet been addressed and required some very large adjusting entries between funds.
4. Did you notice that the ending GF balance in 2008 does not tie to the beginning fund balance in 2009? There's $3.3 of what you're looking for . . .Pop quiz: Why is that?!
5. "At the end of the current fiscal year the General Fund had designated $5.2 million of unreserved
fund balance for emergency purposes only and $1.4 million has been designated for special
projects." from the Sep 30, 2009 CAFR. Meaning: $6.6M of the $7.1 fund balance was not available "reserve". The $5.2 was Hurricane Reserve and was subsequently moved to the Insurance Fund in order to avoid causing the kind of confusion that Anonymous is suffering from presently. There's $6.6M of what you're looking for.
I don't have time to find the rest, but it's surely visible, I found this in 30 minutes. And I can certainly find more. Just because a fund has a balance does not mean it has unrestricted funds available, or that the balance is even funds.
Also please note in 2009 Statement of Revenue (oh, is that a P&L? Why doesn't everyone just call it that so we don't confuse the scientist, too?) Intergovernmental line shows $4.4M, probably offset by Culture & Rec line of $2M, leaving $2.4 fund balance that is probably "earmarked, will disappear from fund balance following year, and set someone's hair ablaze.
I think it's grossly unfair, inaccurate, and downright ignorant to accuse Commissioners Mulvehill and McVoy of being spendthrifts when you can't even figure out the simplest aspects of financial reports. I don't commend you for *that*, and I would post anonymously too, if I were you.
Just sayin at (9;44 this morn,you don't know what you're talking about.You are making up numbers.I know it's just arithmetic but can't you at least get one number right
ReplyDelete