Balanced Budget Baloney
The City Council is proposing a balanced budget for 2008; according to them. Let’s see if you agree using your own household budget for comparison. Perhaps you believe that your budget is balanced on a yearly basis if the money spent is less than or equal to your income. The Council Majority does not.
If you take money from one household set-a-aside and use it for another purpose, are you balanced if the total expenses are still less than your income? Probably so because you made a necessary adjustment. Is it acceptable for the City to take money from say the Storm Water fees to pay for a building to store the winter salt pile supply? They did it in the past and are again. The fees were imposed for a specific purpose; not a public works building.
If you take money from your savings account to meet expenses because your income is less than expected or you had an unanticipated expense, are you balanced. No. The City believes that using money left over from the previous year is acceptable, just because its income won’t cover expenses.
If you need some money from relatives in order to pay your bills, do you believe that you have a balanced budget? Of course not, especially if you are not expected to pay it back. The City believes that having the urban renewal authority ($120K) and a federal CDBG grant ($100K) pay some of its existing salaries expenses don’t unbalance the budget.
Last Thursday I watched some members of the Council quickly jot down the following comment about the 2008 budget, “The budget is balanced and balanced in every fund.” Evidentially, getting a relative to pay some of your bills, digging into your savings account and using money from one fund to subsidize another still means that your household is balanced and in good shape.
Lastly, did you know that the overdue Huron St. project has been cancelled due to a lack of money indefinitely? They will fix the encroachment of Croke reservoir under Huron and then do a bang up job with the area immediately around the reservoir with some grants and city funds. As far as Huron St. goes, it will get fixed only after you approve a tax extension in November of next year.
If you take money from one household set-a-aside and use it for another purpose, are you balanced if the total expenses are still less than your income? Probably so because you made a necessary adjustment. Is it acceptable for the City to take money from say the Storm Water fees to pay for a building to store the winter salt pile supply? They did it in the past and are again. The fees were imposed for a specific purpose; not a public works building.
If you take money from your savings account to meet expenses because your income is less than expected or you had an unanticipated expense, are you balanced. No. The City believes that using money left over from the previous year is acceptable, just because its income won’t cover expenses.
If you need some money from relatives in order to pay your bills, do you believe that you have a balanced budget? Of course not, especially if you are not expected to pay it back. The City believes that having the urban renewal authority ($120K) and a federal CDBG grant ($100K) pay some of its existing salaries expenses don’t unbalance the budget.
Last Thursday I watched some members of the Council quickly jot down the following comment about the 2008 budget, “The budget is balanced and balanced in every fund.” Evidentially, getting a relative to pay some of your bills, digging into your savings account and using money from one fund to subsidize another still means that your household is balanced and in good shape.
Lastly, did you know that the overdue Huron St. project has been cancelled due to a lack of money indefinitely? They will fix the encroachment of Croke reservoir under Huron and then do a bang up job with the area immediately around the reservoir with some grants and city funds. As far as Huron St. goes, it will get fixed only after you approve a tax extension in November of next year.
posted by Gene Wieneke at
5:34 PM
5 Comments:
Let me get this straight. You are criticizing the budget because it uses money to pay expenses? Isn't that what a budget is supposed to do?
You mentioned CDBG funds- as I understand, this is money the City receives from the Federal Government. Isn't the City supposed to use that money?
You mention urban renewal- again, isn't this money supposed to be spent?
Please explain- what's wrong with using this income to pay expenses?
That's what I've always done. In my household.
By
Anonymous, at 1:23 PM
The issue is a claim that the budget is balanced. CDBG funds have a narrow usage requirement.
How about the dangerous crosswalk on Malley by the church? Council promised to do something about it over six months ago. Another alternative would be to provide a program that would allow residents in the approved area to improve their homes with CDBG picking up all the interest on a private loan. Instead it is being used to subsidize existing employee wages.
NURA's money should be used for the intended purposes not to subsidize existing employee wages.
Balancing the general fund by robbing from dedicated funds is not right.
By
Gene Wieneke, at 1:52 PM
The title of your blog entry is "Balanced Budget Baloney", which certainly implies that you dispute the City's claim that they presented a balanced budget.
If you refer to page 12 of the proposed budget, it says "Annual Operating Budgets will be adopted on a balanced basis, where current operating revenues (estimated revenues) are used to fund ongoing operating expenditures/expenses (appropriations)." (This can be found by going to the City of Northglenn home page, and following the link about the Budget Hearing).
When I review the budget, in all funds, I see no fund where operating expenses are greater than operating revenue. Therefore, it appears that the budget is in balance.
I watch all Council meetings and listen to the audio. Several times, City employees have explained how the Community Development Grants are awarded- it sounds like there is a lot of hoops to jump through, and I personally am convinced that it's perfectly fine to use this grant money the way Mr. Krieger proposed.
Are you saying otherwise? If so, I'd really like to hear why you believe it to be against the rules.
The urban renewal authority has control of the urban renewal funds. They approved sharing some of the personnel costs. There were some board members with reservations, but in the end, they all seemed to think it was a good idea.
Are you saying the board didn't have the right to authorize the use of the authority's money? That would be a pretty major accusation- I believe I'd be really interested in hearing your claim. What is "nuras intended purpose"? I believe the board determined that the services provided by city staff helps to further the intended purpose.
Thnk you for responding to my comment the other day, but I'm puzzled. I drive Malley 2 or 3 times a week, and I see the new stripes and the bright flashing light. Are you referring to a different intersection?
You said "Balancing the general fund by robbing from dedicated funds is not right." I don't see any evidence of this. The dedicated funds you mention are obviously being used lawfully. Unless you have evidence otherwise.
I think Mr. Krieger has done a great thing by finding new ways to get the job done, and I congratulate him.
I know you are campaigning, but don't you think you could do it better? Criticizing things that are good and helpful to our city doesn't seem to be very good leadership.
By
Anonymous, at 12:42 PM
Illegal is your word and not mind. Using dedicated funds to pay for general fund expenses is just an admission that You have allowed the overhead costs and expenses to consumed the fund.
By
Gene Wieneke, at 11:20 AM
ngc's says its perfectly fine to borrow from Peter to pay Paul, but when does Paul get paid, or how? According to this council take it from an already budgeted area and then ask the citizens for more money. Vote yes and pay!
We need a better way!
By
Anonymous, at 3:20 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home