June 8, 2010
Huntington’s Planned Carryover of Only $100,000 Worries Council Members Insco and Williams
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
.jpg)
Huntington, WV (HNN) – What started as a critical meeting of the Finance Committee of Huntington City Council Monday evening , June 7, ended with the mindset of several council members challenging the administration’s budgetary expenditures.
During discussion of various sales tax scenarios, Finance Director Deron Runyon revealed that the “carryover” into the Fiscal 2010-2011 budget could be an estimated $100,000.
Although Council Chairman Jim Insco told City Attorney Scott McClure to , “Let’s get [the sales tax] on the agenda and get moving,” both he and Williams found disturbing that the administration’s apparent plan to utilize $325,000 of contingency for in Runyon’s words “regular expenses.”
Following adjournment of the Finance Committee meeting, committee chair Williams said, “Their numbers don’t add up. You don’t have to do it this way.” He then questioned, “why have not we seen the numbers before so we can weigh in?”
A stern Insco reminded, “council does budget totals and positions. We do not do line items,” referring to a council versus mayor legal case from about 2003.
Subsequently, Insco and council Finance Chairman Steve Williams then huddled on the bench in an intense discussion.
The sales tax discussion had now thrice been overshadowed: First, by a pronouncement of adjustments which yielded preserving of three floodwall jobs that Director of Finance and Administration Brandi Jacob-Jones stating they were necessary to preserve the integrity of the levee, second, by closing the doors of City Hall on Friday, and, finally, by the administration apparently planning utilization of all but $100,000 of the budget contingency fund.
Further, the expressed use of 75% of contingency without prior council knowledge appeared to unravel another band in what remains of a once graceful relationship between the administration and council. Once Runyon spoke of utilization of all but $100,000 of contingency, Insco asked, “What’s the alternative if council says no?”
Ms. Jacobs-Jones told him that would be prepared by Friday, June 11.
The rift between the administration and some council members appears to have been growing since the draft of the occupation tax prepared by Mayor Kim Wolfe was taken off the table due to intense public opposition.
Some communication misunderstandings could be part of in the mix. One or more council members did not know about the plan to close City Hall on Friday. Others have queried about the announced paving put off until Spring 2011. The floodwall related job preservations touched a sensitive area, although council members had received an email from Steve Riggs, floodwall superintendent, concerning Corps. of Engineers concerns with cutting available crews with expertise to run the pumps.
***
Here is a transcript of the inquiry into the use of the contingency fund which had been elaborated upon in a prior letter to council members concerning curtailment of this year’s paving:
INSCO: The first [question] has to deal with contingency. I read your letter Deron, the one your previously gave us about street paving. It seems to me in the current fiscal year that we asked the administration to keep about $400,000 in contingency. The budget we passed, we put in about $600,000, so it’s about one million we are expected to have in contingency as we go into fiscal year 2011.
Now I hear we just have $100,000 in contingency?
Am I mistaken in that thinking? Was that the thinking of council at the time? It concerns me greatly to go into a budget with less than one million dollars in a contingency fund. I know two projects right now that could very easily wipe that out.
RUNYON: The current contingency is $401,000 in the current fiscal year. We expect to need to utilize that based on regular expenses we are going to have that would bring over at least $100,000 carry over. Keep in mind , that the budget that was passed, included about $100,000 carry over, plus $400,000 in encumberances , then you have a contingency in next year’s budget of a little over $250,000. That was the state level budget that was passed.
INSCO: What happened to the $600,000
RUNYON: Keep in mind, it was during the budget process we came in with an insurance line item [for next year] with increases of over $500,000 from when we originally started. We also had over $100,000 of increases in the current fiscal year (that we are in right now) in the insurance line item. There just wasn’t…thought it was…what was wanted and we obviously wanted to do that, just the monies were not there to pass the balanced budget that was passed.
INSCO: So, right now, there is the $400,000 plus in contingency?
RUNYON: Yes
INSCO: But, you plan on using all of it, except $100,000?
RUNYON: It’s expected that all would be used but $100,000.
INSCO: What’s the alternative if council says no?
Ms. Jacobs-Jones: We will provide that information on Friday.
***
Following the meeting, HNN asked Runyon to explain the statements made concerning the contingency fund and its use or non-use that prompted the heighted concerns:
Runyon: At the end of the year, what ever is left over, is the carry over. Contingency goes away, either you used it or you did not use it. At this point, it essentially looks like $100,000 essentially left over. Revenue + Opening Dollars (minus) what you spend, looks like about $100,000.
HNN: Would that be less than the budget passed?
Runyon: No, that’s what was in the budget this [council] body passed.
***
FRIDAY CITY HALL CLOSURE
Williams strongly queried Runyon for an estimate of “how much money is saved by closing City Hall (the physical plant) one day a week (i.e. on Friday).
Runyon gave a “conservative estimate” of $10,000 (a year). “It’s an estimate based on utilities and motor fuel. This building along [uses] around $7,000 for gas, electricity and water.
On Friday, June 4, the Mayor had announced at a press conference that City Hall would be closed on Fridays beginning July 2 and that compressed four day work weeks would begin Saturday, July 3. Unless an employees’ salary comes from somewhere other than the ‘general fund’ (police and fire departments are exempt), work weeks are compressed to four days (Monday through Thursday) and work hours will be 36 for full time employees. This will reflect a 10% pay cut imposed by the budget. In addition, furloughs are possible, but, council and the administration are working on the sales tax , which will not see its first revenue until the second quarter of 2011, to remove the staggered four week furloughs.
Williams asked Runyon and Ms. Jacobs-Jones whether “staggering” of the work schedules so as to keep City Hall would be open Friday and services provided on Friday.
COMPRESSED WORK WEEK
Jacobs-Jones responded: “It’s beyond the $10,000 in savings in utilities, gasoline and parking vehicles. It’s not only saving at City Hall [the building] . it’s the floodwall and traffic engineering building. Several of our offices have [only] one or two individuals. We sat down as a management team with the respective divisions. We are looking at 20 day furloughs. How can we function? How can we run a day-to-day operation where you are able to support your work team as well as provide a level of services that our citizens demand and require.
Is it better for us to go to a compressed work week ? [ This would be four ten hour days for non-general fund offices such as Development/Planning, HMDA, Huntington Municipal Parking Board] But, then, having a reduced work week --- four nine hour days --- for other administrative and public works offices. After debating, the Mayor asked, “What is best for your division?” It was [a] collective [decision] by the management team that it would work better for us to do four days. You are not seeing one or two persons gone. You are not seeing work teams cut in half.
In traffic engineering (five employees), we send out two work teams and have someone working in the sign shop. Let’s take [city attorney] Scott McClure’s office when we begin temporarily laying off individuals for a week here and a week there. That’s going to stifle what they are doing.
By extending the hours of service, citizens would see a minimum of an hour additional service Monday through Thursday. We would see a higher level of service [by saving time] to get the teams together, to get their equipment, get their work orders, they will go out in the field for a longer amount of time.
If we did the rolling furloughs as originally proposed, we realized we would not be able to function appropriately. For example, if we close this office down and another person is off sick, many of these offices and divisions are support services so if [one’s] not functioning appropriately that stifles what you need in the motor pool, what you need from purchasing, so it effects the entire city in the way we do business.
Although city hall would not be open on Friday, we would advertise that,” Ms. Jacobs-Jones explained.
Following her statement, councilman Jim Ritter expressed disdain from both himself and constituents regarding pushing further paving back until Spring 2011:
GOVERNMENTAL TRUST
“After coming back home this weekend, people asked, “why would you take money out of paving? You guys said you were going to be transparent. I don’t know if it was council that took the money out of there. How can we trust government, when you tell us one thing… as far as I know, council did NOT take that [paving money] out of there. I guess if the administration took it out of there [service fee] some questions come up when you are trying to pass a tax increase. You’re saying you will doing things one way . but you do it another way. That’s why I can’t trust government,” Ritter said.
However, council woman Sandra Clements supported Jacobs-Jones:
“All of us have seen where we have to lay people off and not hire somebody . At the institution where I work, there are places where one person in the office is the only one who can do anything. If I am unaware of that, I’m wasting my time if that’s the only person who can do that. Once they tell me that, then, I can structure my time to come back on Monday. If I know that City Hall is closed on Friday, I can adjust my time and do my business at another time,” Clements stressed.
MAINTAINING THE LEVEE
Council chair Insco, then, asked about the restoration of three positions at the floodwall, which had been eliminated in the 2010-2011 budget, that the administration now RECOMMENDED funding partly due to Corps of Engineer levee concerns for the expertise of employees to keep the ancient pumping stations working in the event of a major flood.
“It takes about the $100,000 for three [restored] positions . Are those the three positions council voted to eliminate.” Insco asked? “Under the question of how much would be saved, originally we were talking about 20 days furloughs, now we are going to 26 days furloughs. We are keeping three positions that council understood we were removing. What are those three positions?”
Ms. Jacobs-Jones: After further review, we did NOT add additional funds for contracted services ($26,000). There was discussion of volunteer service for the floodwall and levies, but after research and looking at other [aspects] with the Sanitary Board and other entities , we found it cost prohibitive for us to layoff those three persons who are experts. Aside from trimming lawns, they are experts in the pump station. When we have a flood phase where all pumps must be up and running, you are looking at calling in 15 or 20 AFSCME individuals called in from other divisions, and those currently employed [at the floodwall] are the experts at pump station function. We had talked about ‘why are you paying those individuals to cut grass’ in the summer, aside from that, you are retaining their expertise. Those persons function as team leaders, where other employees are called in from other divisions from public works or even finance. It becomes multitasking at its finest, when we are at high flood stage.
Our RECOMMENDATION is to fund those positions because of their expertise. We are [also] anticipating a report from the Corps of Engineers after their exhaustive study of our stations. We don’t know [yet] how they are expressing their concerns. Outside of that, the Corps has concerns about reducing our staff.
INSCO: I understand that. I’m okay with that. But explain this to me. The nine hour days will save $100,000. (or a total of $425,000). The $100,000 savings will be used to keep the three positions set for elimination. So, it’s really not $325,000, not $425,000. So, we’re going to a four day work week to save an extra $100,000 to keep three positions on the floodwall?
Ms. Jacobs-Jones: We are going to a four day work week, if I may interject , sir, to ensure that we provide continuity to our citizens, while at the same time maintain the expertise because we did NOT have the funding appropriated. We did not have [enough] money in contracted services for us to maintain a levy.
WILLIAMS NOT A BELIEVER
Still, Steve Williams, for one, remains unconvinced:
“I’ve sat in their seat and I know they have looked at this from every angle. There’s a value though in having a fresh set of eyes look at something. Personally, I don’t think it has to be done the way they say. There might be a cash flow problem, but I think there’s a better way. I appreciate what Ms. Jacobs-Jones was saying, but I’m still not a believer. “
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
Huntington’s Planned Carryover of Only $100,000 Worries Council Members Insco and Williams
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – What started as a critical meeting of the Finance Committee of Huntington City Council Monday evening , June 7, ended with the mindset of several council members challenging the administration’s budgetary expenditures.
During discussion of various sales tax scenarios, Finance Director Deron Runyon revealed that the “carryover” into the Fiscal 2010-2011 budget could be an estimated $100,000.
Although Council Chairman Jim Insco told City Attorney Scott McClure to , “Let’s get [the sales tax] on the agenda and get moving,” both he and Williams found disturbing that the administration’s apparent plan to utilize $325,000 of contingency for in Runyon’s words “regular expenses.”
Following adjournment of the Finance Committee meeting, committee chair Williams said, “Their numbers don’t add up. You don’t have to do it this way.” He then questioned, “why have not we seen the numbers before so we can weigh in?”
A stern Insco reminded, “council does budget totals and positions. We do not do line items,” referring to a council versus mayor legal case from about 2003.
Subsequently, Insco and council Finance Chairman Steve Williams then huddled on the bench in an intense discussion.
The sales tax discussion had now thrice been overshadowed: First, by a pronouncement of adjustments which yielded preserving of three floodwall jobs that Director of Finance and Administration Brandi Jacob-Jones stating they were necessary to preserve the integrity of the levee, second, by closing the doors of City Hall on Friday, and, finally, by the administration apparently planning utilization of all but $100,000 of the budget contingency fund.
Further, the expressed use of 75% of contingency without prior council knowledge appeared to unravel another band in what remains of a once graceful relationship between the administration and council. Once Runyon spoke of utilization of all but $100,000 of contingency, Insco asked, “What’s the alternative if council says no?”
Ms. Jacobs-Jones told him that would be prepared by Friday, June 11.
The rift between the administration and some council members appears to have been growing since the draft of the occupation tax prepared by Mayor Kim Wolfe was taken off the table due to intense public opposition.
Some communication misunderstandings could be part of in the mix. One or more council members did not know about the plan to close City Hall on Friday. Others have queried about the announced paving put off until Spring 2011. The floodwall related job preservations touched a sensitive area, although council members had received an email from Steve Riggs, floodwall superintendent, concerning Corps. of Engineers concerns with cutting available crews with expertise to run the pumps.
***
Here is a transcript of the inquiry into the use of the contingency fund which had been elaborated upon in a prior letter to council members concerning curtailment of this year’s paving:
INSCO: The first [question] has to deal with contingency. I read your letter Deron, the one your previously gave us about street paving. It seems to me in the current fiscal year that we asked the administration to keep about $400,000 in contingency. The budget we passed, we put in about $600,000, so it’s about one million we are expected to have in contingency as we go into fiscal year 2011.
Now I hear we just have $100,000 in contingency?
Am I mistaken in that thinking? Was that the thinking of council at the time? It concerns me greatly to go into a budget with less than one million dollars in a contingency fund. I know two projects right now that could very easily wipe that out.
RUNYON: The current contingency is $401,000 in the current fiscal year. We expect to need to utilize that based on regular expenses we are going to have that would bring over at least $100,000 carry over. Keep in mind , that the budget that was passed, included about $100,000 carry over, plus $400,000 in encumberances , then you have a contingency in next year’s budget of a little over $250,000. That was the state level budget that was passed.
INSCO: What happened to the $600,000
RUNYON: Keep in mind, it was during the budget process we came in with an insurance line item [for next year] with increases of over $500,000 from when we originally started. We also had over $100,000 of increases in the current fiscal year (that we are in right now) in the insurance line item. There just wasn’t…thought it was…what was wanted and we obviously wanted to do that, just the monies were not there to pass the balanced budget that was passed.
INSCO: So, right now, there is the $400,000 plus in contingency?
RUNYON: Yes
INSCO: But, you plan on using all of it, except $100,000?
RUNYON: It’s expected that all would be used but $100,000.
INSCO: What’s the alternative if council says no?
Ms. Jacobs-Jones: We will provide that information on Friday.
***
Following the meeting, HNN asked Runyon to explain the statements made concerning the contingency fund and its use or non-use that prompted the heighted concerns:
Runyon: At the end of the year, what ever is left over, is the carry over. Contingency goes away, either you used it or you did not use it. At this point, it essentially looks like $100,000 essentially left over. Revenue + Opening Dollars (minus) what you spend, looks like about $100,000.
HNN: Would that be less than the budget passed?
Runyon: No, that’s what was in the budget this [council] body passed.
***
FRIDAY CITY HALL CLOSURE
Williams strongly queried Runyon for an estimate of “how much money is saved by closing City Hall (the physical plant) one day a week (i.e. on Friday).
Runyon gave a “conservative estimate” of $10,000 (a year). “It’s an estimate based on utilities and motor fuel. This building along [uses] around $7,000 for gas, electricity and water.
On Friday, June 4, the Mayor had announced at a press conference that City Hall would be closed on Fridays beginning July 2 and that compressed four day work weeks would begin Saturday, July 3. Unless an employees’ salary comes from somewhere other than the ‘general fund’ (police and fire departments are exempt), work weeks are compressed to four days (Monday through Thursday) and work hours will be 36 for full time employees. This will reflect a 10% pay cut imposed by the budget. In addition, furloughs are possible, but, council and the administration are working on the sales tax , which will not see its first revenue until the second quarter of 2011, to remove the staggered four week furloughs.
Williams asked Runyon and Ms. Jacobs-Jones whether “staggering” of the work schedules so as to keep City Hall would be open Friday and services provided on Friday.
COMPRESSED WORK WEEK
Jacobs-Jones responded: “It’s beyond the $10,000 in savings in utilities, gasoline and parking vehicles. It’s not only saving at City Hall [the building] . it’s the floodwall and traffic engineering building. Several of our offices have [only] one or two individuals. We sat down as a management team with the respective divisions. We are looking at 20 day furloughs. How can we function? How can we run a day-to-day operation where you are able to support your work team as well as provide a level of services that our citizens demand and require.
Is it better for us to go to a compressed work week ? [ This would be four ten hour days for non-general fund offices such as Development/Planning, HMDA, Huntington Municipal Parking Board] But, then, having a reduced work week --- four nine hour days --- for other administrative and public works offices. After debating, the Mayor asked, “What is best for your division?” It was [a] collective [decision] by the management team that it would work better for us to do four days. You are not seeing one or two persons gone. You are not seeing work teams cut in half.
In traffic engineering (five employees), we send out two work teams and have someone working in the sign shop. Let’s take [city attorney] Scott McClure’s office when we begin temporarily laying off individuals for a week here and a week there. That’s going to stifle what they are doing.
By extending the hours of service, citizens would see a minimum of an hour additional service Monday through Thursday. We would see a higher level of service [by saving time] to get the teams together, to get their equipment, get their work orders, they will go out in the field for a longer amount of time.
If we did the rolling furloughs as originally proposed, we realized we would not be able to function appropriately. For example, if we close this office down and another person is off sick, many of these offices and divisions are support services so if [one’s] not functioning appropriately that stifles what you need in the motor pool, what you need from purchasing, so it effects the entire city in the way we do business.
Although city hall would not be open on Friday, we would advertise that,” Ms. Jacobs-Jones explained.
Following her statement, councilman Jim Ritter expressed disdain from both himself and constituents regarding pushing further paving back until Spring 2011:
GOVERNMENTAL TRUST
“After coming back home this weekend, people asked, “why would you take money out of paving? You guys said you were going to be transparent. I don’t know if it was council that took the money out of there. How can we trust government, when you tell us one thing… as far as I know, council did NOT take that [paving money] out of there. I guess if the administration took it out of there [service fee] some questions come up when you are trying to pass a tax increase. You’re saying you will doing things one way . but you do it another way. That’s why I can’t trust government,” Ritter said.
However, council woman Sandra Clements supported Jacobs-Jones:
“All of us have seen where we have to lay people off and not hire somebody . At the institution where I work, there are places where one person in the office is the only one who can do anything. If I am unaware of that, I’m wasting my time if that’s the only person who can do that. Once they tell me that, then, I can structure my time to come back on Monday. If I know that City Hall is closed on Friday, I can adjust my time and do my business at another time,” Clements stressed.
MAINTAINING THE LEVEE
Council chair Insco, then, asked about the restoration of three positions at the floodwall, which had been eliminated in the 2010-2011 budget, that the administration now RECOMMENDED funding partly due to Corps of Engineer levee concerns for the expertise of employees to keep the ancient pumping stations working in the event of a major flood.
“It takes about the $100,000 for three [restored] positions . Are those the three positions council voted to eliminate.” Insco asked? “Under the question of how much would be saved, originally we were talking about 20 days furloughs, now we are going to 26 days furloughs. We are keeping three positions that council understood we were removing. What are those three positions?”
Ms. Jacobs-Jones: After further review, we did NOT add additional funds for contracted services ($26,000). There was discussion of volunteer service for the floodwall and levies, but after research and looking at other [aspects] with the Sanitary Board and other entities , we found it cost prohibitive for us to layoff those three persons who are experts. Aside from trimming lawns, they are experts in the pump station. When we have a flood phase where all pumps must be up and running, you are looking at calling in 15 or 20 AFSCME individuals called in from other divisions, and those currently employed [at the floodwall] are the experts at pump station function. We had talked about ‘why are you paying those individuals to cut grass’ in the summer, aside from that, you are retaining their expertise. Those persons function as team leaders, where other employees are called in from other divisions from public works or even finance. It becomes multitasking at its finest, when we are at high flood stage.
Our RECOMMENDATION is to fund those positions because of their expertise. We are [also] anticipating a report from the Corps of Engineers after their exhaustive study of our stations. We don’t know [yet] how they are expressing their concerns. Outside of that, the Corps has concerns about reducing our staff.
INSCO: I understand that. I’m okay with that. But explain this to me. The nine hour days will save $100,000. (or a total of $425,000). The $100,000 savings will be used to keep the three positions set for elimination. So, it’s really not $325,000, not $425,000. So, we’re going to a four day work week to save an extra $100,000 to keep three positions on the floodwall?
Ms. Jacobs-Jones: We are going to a four day work week, if I may interject , sir, to ensure that we provide continuity to our citizens, while at the same time maintain the expertise because we did NOT have the funding appropriated. We did not have [enough] money in contracted services for us to maintain a levy.
WILLIAMS NOT A BELIEVER
Still, Steve Williams, for one, remains unconvinced:
“I’ve sat in their seat and I know they have looked at this from every angle. There’s a value though in having a fresh set of eyes look at something. Personally, I don’t think it has to be done the way they say. There might be a cash flow problem, but I think there’s a better way. I appreciate what Ms. Jacobs-Jones was saying, but I’m still not a believer. “
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
