2007 Capital Improvement Program Flaws
The City has an excellent software program that allows the staff to identify desired capital improvements for the current year and several years to come. It is quite impressive. The City Council prioritizes projects utilizing a whole host of factors and the staff plugs them in for future reference and funding. Unfortunately the program does not lead to results because of an inherent failure in City procedures.
Ask any member of the Council what capital improvements will be constructed in calendar 2007. Ask them to show you a piece of paper with the answer. They will not be able to do so. They might refer you to two pages in the 2007 budget (pages 59 and 60) as a response but they would be in error. They will be only accurate to the extent that the two pages only show the new or modified projects that have been added to the CIP process.
The CIP program for 2007 lists projects amounting to $9.4 million. Here are the projects to be funded out of the General Fund only: Webster lake shoreline rehabilitation $150,000; Irrigation value replacement $20,000; Playground equipment replacement $30,000; Weld County road #11 realignment design $10,000; Traffic signal cabinet replacement $13,500; Remodeling of 1710 Leroy Drive $16,000; Integrated Technology master plan $200,000; Residential street overlays $750,000; Huron St and Croke reconstruction $3,758,705. TOTAL: $4,948,205
Before moving on with the answer I posed earlier, I would like to share the Council’s highest priorities for the General Fund’s CIP with their score for comparison: 105 Traffic signals cabinets; 102 Street painting and thermo replacement; 100 Arterial street overlays; 95 Residential street overlays; 92 Rec. Center HVAC replacement; 92 Street crack sealing; 90 East 112th Ave. widening; 85 Huron St and Croke reconstruction. There are some matches.
The reason the members of the Council cannot tell you what projects will be done in calendar 2007 lies in the supplemental appropriations they make during the year contrary to the CIP plan and the forgotten CIP projects authorized in prior years but not done or done completely. An example of a supplemental is the 104th trail and landscaping project with a price tag of $876,257. Last July council member Rosie Garner pushed the project through the Council even though it was not listed in the CIP even through 2011. There was a great push for the project and the Council agreed to fund it out of 2006 funds. As we can see, it will not be constructed until 2007 so what was the rush? I will discuss the problem caused in the following paragraphs. I am commenting on the CIP/budgeting process; not the value of the project.
In addition to the supplemental appropriations problems the CIP plan does not take into account uncompleted projects from prior years. Money previously authorized is reported as a carryover and accounted in the reserved General Fund year end balance. For example, as of June 30th of this year the 2006 CIP and the leftover projects from prior years had a combined appropriation of $4,516,105 of which $3,770,416 had not been spent.
The money is committed, tied up, unavailable or whatever you want to call it. Some of the projects were cancelled, others were reappropriated this coming year and others did not need the full amount of the appropriation. The Council should immediately evaluate all of the prior commitments and clean up the mess. Much of the money is being sandbagged for no legitimate reason or need.
In addition to clearing and freeing up money in the all of the reserved year-end fund balances, there are some more steps the Council should consider. 1. Amend the CIP budget early in the calendar year to reflect the status of the prior year’s projects. Either delete and/or reappropriate the money for unfinished projects or reschedule the project for future years if its comparative priority has decreased. 2. Limit the “reserved” year-end fund balances to projects which have a contractual encumbrance. Limit the reserved balances of all funds to only what is necessary. 3. In the future divide multi-year projects into yearly components and only appropriate what is necessary each year. Your CIP program will keep track of future obligations. 4. Do a thorough review of the current year’s CIP progress as part of the budgeting process for the ensuing year. 5. Ask Finance to provide an integrated report of all CIP activities in its monthly report. 6. Do not let the staff choose to abandon a CIP project as has happened each year. You should be the one to formally abandon or modify projects just as you do when adding one.
In paragraph three I listed the CIP projects for 2007. You might want to compare them to the 2007 projects as scheduled in the program during last year’s budget process: Street overlays $400,000; Washington St. overlay 104th-112th $200,000; Washington/Muriel signal mast arm replacement $260,000; School flashers/radar $20,000; Police department remodel $200,000; CH fuel station demolition $30,000; M&O building large truck lift $65,000; Section 36 additional land purchase payment $186,700; Communications enhancement $50,000; Skateboard Park $200,000. As I said in the first paragraph the program is excellent but the City’s procedures and application are very wanting.
When the Council becomes involved in municipal operations as part of its oversight obligation rather than just being the staff’s audience, the residents will be far better off.
In a pre-publication review by an expert, it was pointed out that the carryover procedure used by the City for the last few years is in violation of the City Charter. It appears that my previous suggestions may be of some value in rectifying the problem.
Ask any member of the Council what capital improvements will be constructed in calendar 2007. Ask them to show you a piece of paper with the answer. They will not be able to do so. They might refer you to two pages in the 2007 budget (pages 59 and 60) as a response but they would be in error. They will be only accurate to the extent that the two pages only show the new or modified projects that have been added to the CIP process.
The CIP program for 2007 lists projects amounting to $9.4 million. Here are the projects to be funded out of the General Fund only: Webster lake shoreline rehabilitation $150,000; Irrigation value replacement $20,000; Playground equipment replacement $30,000; Weld County road #11 realignment design $10,000; Traffic signal cabinet replacement $13,500; Remodeling of 1710 Leroy Drive $16,000; Integrated Technology master plan $200,000; Residential street overlays $750,000; Huron St and Croke reconstruction $3,758,705. TOTAL: $4,948,205
Before moving on with the answer I posed earlier, I would like to share the Council’s highest priorities for the General Fund’s CIP with their score for comparison: 105 Traffic signals cabinets; 102 Street painting and thermo replacement; 100 Arterial street overlays; 95 Residential street overlays; 92 Rec. Center HVAC replacement; 92 Street crack sealing; 90 East 112th Ave. widening; 85 Huron St and Croke reconstruction. There are some matches.
The reason the members of the Council cannot tell you what projects will be done in calendar 2007 lies in the supplemental appropriations they make during the year contrary to the CIP plan and the forgotten CIP projects authorized in prior years but not done or done completely. An example of a supplemental is the 104th trail and landscaping project with a price tag of $876,257. Last July council member Rosie Garner pushed the project through the Council even though it was not listed in the CIP even through 2011. There was a great push for the project and the Council agreed to fund it out of 2006 funds. As we can see, it will not be constructed until 2007 so what was the rush? I will discuss the problem caused in the following paragraphs. I am commenting on the CIP/budgeting process; not the value of the project.
In addition to the supplemental appropriations problems the CIP plan does not take into account uncompleted projects from prior years. Money previously authorized is reported as a carryover and accounted in the reserved General Fund year end balance. For example, as of June 30th of this year the 2006 CIP and the leftover projects from prior years had a combined appropriation of $4,516,105 of which $3,770,416 had not been spent.
The money is committed, tied up, unavailable or whatever you want to call it. Some of the projects were cancelled, others were reappropriated this coming year and others did not need the full amount of the appropriation. The Council should immediately evaluate all of the prior commitments and clean up the mess. Much of the money is being sandbagged for no legitimate reason or need.
In addition to clearing and freeing up money in the all of the reserved year-end fund balances, there are some more steps the Council should consider. 1. Amend the CIP budget early in the calendar year to reflect the status of the prior year’s projects. Either delete and/or reappropriate the money for unfinished projects or reschedule the project for future years if its comparative priority has decreased. 2. Limit the “reserved” year-end fund balances to projects which have a contractual encumbrance. Limit the reserved balances of all funds to only what is necessary. 3. In the future divide multi-year projects into yearly components and only appropriate what is necessary each year. Your CIP program will keep track of future obligations. 4. Do a thorough review of the current year’s CIP progress as part of the budgeting process for the ensuing year. 5. Ask Finance to provide an integrated report of all CIP activities in its monthly report. 6. Do not let the staff choose to abandon a CIP project as has happened each year. You should be the one to formally abandon or modify projects just as you do when adding one.
In paragraph three I listed the CIP projects for 2007. You might want to compare them to the 2007 projects as scheduled in the program during last year’s budget process: Street overlays $400,000; Washington St. overlay 104th-112th $200,000; Washington/Muriel signal mast arm replacement $260,000; School flashers/radar $20,000; Police department remodel $200,000; CH fuel station demolition $30,000; M&O building large truck lift $65,000; Section 36 additional land purchase payment $186,700; Communications enhancement $50,000; Skateboard Park $200,000. As I said in the first paragraph the program is excellent but the City’s procedures and application are very wanting.
When the Council becomes involved in municipal operations as part of its oversight obligation rather than just being the staff’s audience, the residents will be far better off.
In a pre-publication review by an expert, it was pointed out that the carryover procedure used by the City for the last few years is in violation of the City Charter. It appears that my previous suggestions may be of some value in rectifying the problem.
Labels: Northglenn
posted by Gene Wieneke at
10:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home