Last year at budget time, I set out with what I thought was a simple goal. I wanted the City of Richardson to adopt a balanced budget. I was disappointed. The city adopted a budget in which expenditures exceeded revenues. The city insisted the budget was nevertheless balanced. That's because the city feels free to use "reserved fund balance" to make up for a shortfall in revenues and still call the budget balanced.
I figured OK, maybe it's at least a cyclically balanced budget. Some years there's a reserved fund balance to draw down. Other years, the city runs a surplus and restores that reserved fund balance. An adamant reader insisted that I was wrong, that the reserved fund balance is drawn down each and every year, and replenished not by budget surpluses, but by increasing debt.
I never did get to the bottom of the conundrum. You can read the conclusion of last year's whole ugly mess if you want.
Now, they're ba-a-a-a-ck! The City Council is holding another of its annual so-called budget retreats this week. After the jump, my firm resolution.
This is a conversation in which no one speaks English. Some people are speaking gobbledygook. Some are speaking gibberish. Some say we're bankrupt and don't know it. Others say, are you crazy, nothing to see here, move along. Both sides think I'm dimwitted because I can't quite put two and two together to get either three or five like they do.
I firmly resolve not to revisit the topic again this year. Or not so firmly resolve. I know already that I won't be able to resist sneaking a peek at those bottom line revenue and expenditure numbers. I admit it. I'm weak. What I really want to see this year is if any council members have the gumption to question the (new) city manager why expenditures have to exceed revenues ... again.
7 comments:
Welcome to the club, Mark. We all think the language of the common man should be the language spoken by local government when it comes to distributing information regarding public business.
As you have correctly discovered and stated, you may as well be asking for the moon.
I guess I wasn't clear myself. In finance as in quantum physics, the language of the common man is inadequate to express the complexity of the subject matter. If local government is speaking gobbledygook, its critics are speaking gibberish.
I am referring to the use of nebulous terms and phrases for the purpose of plausible flexibility in meaning. Most disciplines have well-defined terms so that those who speak the language have a common understanding. It would seem that we get a lesson in creative use of common language and vocabulary on a regular basis. Construed non-standard meanings often differ from the implications of the spirit in the literal text. If we are not critical with our language, we are liberal and its meaning becomes questionable. When is a spade not a spade?
Mark, please clarify what you mean when you say that the expenditures will be larger than the revenues...again.
Are you referring to the General Fund or all Funds or what? In the General Fund, the budget - as presented to the Council at the retreat - has revenues exceeding expenditures by nearly $10,000. Please see page 39 of the budget at http://www.cor.net/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=4709
Of course, there are numbers and then there are numbers...please clarify which numbers you mean...
Bill
I was referring to the proposed consolidated budget for 2011-2012, in which expenditures ($188.6 million) exceeded revenues ($186.9 million). The 2012-2013 budget isn't finalized yet, but that's the number that I will be watching.
Oh, you meant "IF the expenditures exceed the revenues again this year, that you'll be watching to see if anyone questions it", not that you've seen a budget document that showed this to be the case, right? The way you phrased it ("What I really want to see this year is if any council members have the gumption to question the (new) city manager why expenditures have to exceed revenues ... again.
"), I had the impression that you had seen something the rest of us hadn't...
Bill
Right. If...
Post a Comment