Dec. 9, 2010
Transparent Paving, Slip Repair Expenditures Posted by City of Huntington; Slip Repair Denoted as Not Funded by Service Fee
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – City Council’s Finance Committee begins debate on a line item to dedicate $600,000 for paving of Huntington streets at Thursday’s 5:15 p.m. meeting. However, the “other” than paving expenditures from the city service fee for July/Aug 2010 total less than 20,000, according to a report on the city’s web site.
Paving/Slip & Bridge Repairs of $19,325 are listed from the “new fiscal year 2011” budget, leaving about $580,000 in the paving column. http://www.cityofhuntington.com/pages/pdfs/ ServiceFee-1010b.pdf
The City Service Fee Revenue/Expense through May 31, 2010 did not have any encroaching repair items in the service fee expenditures. Paving, which became a part of the service fee increase from $2.00 to $3.00, showed $861,322 for paving /asphalt (actual FYTD). http://www.cityofhuntington.com/pages/pdfs/ServiceFeeMay2010.pdf
Last year, though, new traffic and street equipment had a yearend total of $111,000 with $18,500 incurred in the final two months of the fiscal year.
However, the City Service Fee Milestones of FY2010 (as of June 30, 2010) denoted that the North Edgemont Drive Hillside Slip Repair was “completed” as “additional street department work not funded with City Service Fee.”)
The bulk of the $3.00 per week service fee goes to the Huntington Police Department. The fee’s projected revenues are just over $4.5 million for fiscal 2011 with HPD receiving nearly $3 million for special units, about $233,000 for equipment and training, and carryovers from fiscal 2010 include new police officers ($551,000) and new cruisers ($72,000).
What has spurred dissatisfaction among some council members occurred in Spring and Summer when paving was put on hold due to lower user fee collections and a slight carry over from Fiscal year 2010, which prevented the administration from up-fronting user fee collections for pot hole repair.
In late July 2010, Brandi Jacobs-Jones, director of finance and administration, told council, “We have to wait until the money is in the bank.”
Mayor Wolfe affirmed that constituents “WILL get the paving.”
But, the lack of street paving pricked watchful council members a second time. On December 1, the administration told council at a finance committee session that some of the $600,000 had been used for bridge and street repairs and for addressing a road slippage.
To say the least, “a little disappointing” expressed by Mark Bates, vice chairman of council, nicely informed the administration of the disapproval of using paving monies for street repairs. In a separate interview , Bates stated that fixing potholes and paving are two significant ways in which constituents visibly “see” the use of their fee money.
At the December meeting , councilman Jim Ritter joined Bates before adjournment in supporting all of the $600,000 for paving streets. Chairman Jim Insco has suggested that paving be given its own separate line item, rather than remaining as a portion of the street department budget.
As a separate line item , the amount set aside by council for paving would be administered by the mayor’s office. Leaving asphalt in the broader departmental budget of the Street Department permits adjustments without council approval.
Despite the debate, the street “repairs” may qualify as appropriate fee usage, except that most council members and the public “hear” paving, not emergency repairs to streets or other traffic maintenance , when they refer to the use of the $600,000.
The Wolfe administration has regularly posted user fee revenue and expenditures on the city’s web site, but the user fee itself retains some of the challenges from the prior administration, which had been accused of expending at least a portion as unencumbered general fund revenue.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
Transparent Paving, Slip Repair Expenditures Posted by City of Huntington; Slip Repair Denoted as Not Funded by Service Fee
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – City Council’s Finance Committee begins debate on a line item to dedicate $600,000 for paving of Huntington streets at Thursday’s 5:15 p.m. meeting. However, the “other” than paving expenditures from the city service fee for July/Aug 2010 total less than 20,000, according to a report on the city’s web site.
Paving/Slip & Bridge Repairs of $19,325 are listed from the “new fiscal year 2011” budget, leaving about $580,000 in the paving column. http://www.cityofhuntington.com/pages/pdfs/ ServiceFee-1010b.pdf
The City Service Fee Revenue/Expense through May 31, 2010 did not have any encroaching repair items in the service fee expenditures. Paving, which became a part of the service fee increase from $2.00 to $3.00, showed $861,322 for paving /asphalt (actual FYTD). http://www.cityofhuntington.com/pages/pdfs/ServiceFeeMay2010.pdf
Last year, though, new traffic and street equipment had a yearend total of $111,000 with $18,500 incurred in the final two months of the fiscal year.
However, the City Service Fee Milestones of FY2010 (as of June 30, 2010) denoted that the North Edgemont Drive Hillside Slip Repair was “completed” as “additional street department work not funded with City Service Fee.”)
The bulk of the $3.00 per week service fee goes to the Huntington Police Department. The fee’s projected revenues are just over $4.5 million for fiscal 2011 with HPD receiving nearly $3 million for special units, about $233,000 for equipment and training, and carryovers from fiscal 2010 include new police officers ($551,000) and new cruisers ($72,000).
What has spurred dissatisfaction among some council members occurred in Spring and Summer when paving was put on hold due to lower user fee collections and a slight carry over from Fiscal year 2010, which prevented the administration from up-fronting user fee collections for pot hole repair.
In late July 2010, Brandi Jacobs-Jones, director of finance and administration, told council, “We have to wait until the money is in the bank.”
Mayor Wolfe affirmed that constituents “WILL get the paving.”
But, the lack of street paving pricked watchful council members a second time. On December 1, the administration told council at a finance committee session that some of the $600,000 had been used for bridge and street repairs and for addressing a road slippage.
To say the least, “a little disappointing” expressed by Mark Bates, vice chairman of council, nicely informed the administration of the disapproval of using paving monies for street repairs. In a separate interview , Bates stated that fixing potholes and paving are two significant ways in which constituents visibly “see” the use of their fee money.
At the December meeting , councilman Jim Ritter joined Bates before adjournment in supporting all of the $600,000 for paving streets. Chairman Jim Insco has suggested that paving be given its own separate line item, rather than remaining as a portion of the street department budget.
As a separate line item , the amount set aside by council for paving would be administered by the mayor’s office. Leaving asphalt in the broader departmental budget of the Street Department permits adjustments without council approval.
Despite the debate, the street “repairs” may qualify as appropriate fee usage, except that most council members and the public “hear” paving, not emergency repairs to streets or other traffic maintenance , when they refer to the use of the $600,000.
The Wolfe administration has regularly posted user fee revenue and expenditures on the city’s web site, but the user fee itself retains some of the challenges from the prior administration, which had been accused of expending at least a portion as unencumbered general fund revenue.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
