Answer Me This

[Wrinkle]

1.) How does one appropriate "unencumbered and unexpended funds" from an account with a negative balance?

and 2.) Why are we buying cars with Stormwater Management Funds that aren't there?

[Neptune]

Ok, I'll play.  Answer me this!

Does a chicken really have a reason, when it crosses a road?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

Ok, I'll play.  Answer me this!

Does a chicken really have a reason, when it crosses a road?

Not if its an existentialist.

[DowntownNow]

Great question to ask Councilor Martinson, he's the accountant on the Council.  I'm wondering if someone made a clerical booboo...could there be both a Stormwater Management Enterprise Fund and a Stormwater Management Operations Fund?  Perhaps the typo lies in the Fund Number as well?

[Neptune]

quote:Great question to ask Councilor Martinson, he's the accountant on the Council. I'm wondering if someone made a clerical booboo...

Or maybe, just maybe, it means what it says.

Here you go Wrinkle.

The amendment appropriates it.  It doesn't fund it.  Until they fund it, its technically a deficit.  Notice, they're adding it to a Zero balance.

It other words, the amendment authorizes the expenditure of that amount; $264,700.  It's a budget, not an actual transfer of money.  I'm sure all those "funds" are balanced to zero by the time the fiscal year ends.  Normal, run of the mill stuff.

I personally run a budget on my finances, complete with separate "funds".  I can, and on occasion have run deficits on an individual "fund".  It's all zeroed out at the end of the year.  Condensed/simplified.

[Wrinkle]

I can go along with it being "appropriated" rather than "funded". However, it certainly isn't unexpended and, by definition, not unencumbered.

Also, we're 4 months from the end of the fiscal year. I don't think there's any mechanism which replenishes this account prior to a new budget year. The projected budget was based on anticipated revenues from water bills, which already appears to have fallen short.

Then, there's the question of the "vehicles" themselves. It would be nice if the documentation of this item included information about just what vehicles are planned to be purchased. It is a dump truck or Vettes for the division chiefs? For that matter, are these vehicles for use for/by Stormwater Management at all? None of that is delineated.

As another issue entirely, why is this operating fund being handled by TMUA? That's a regional organization when the Stormwater Tax on City of Tulsa water bills would indicate it a City function.

[Double A]

Wouldn't it be ironic if the vehicle purchases were the notorious naked police cruisers that are sitting idle?

Tulsa... A New Kind of Energy

We're Bulls*#t powered.

Tulsa's own blend of bio-diesel. Go Green!

[Neptune]

Actually it's both unexpended and unencumbered.  Here's why.  

It must be unexpended if it's not spent.  They're designating that amount "to be spent", but it isn't spent yet.  Notice, the zero balance.  They haven't spent any of it yet.

And it's unencumbered because it would be "free and clear".  They aren't borrowing money specifically for that.  

On TMUA, from the website...
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Water/TMUA.asp

Sounds like TMUA services the City of Tulsa exclusively.  "Metropolitan", may be somewhat misleading.  Not saying its entirely inaccurate, since the City of Tulsa gets its water from far away places in the metro.  Just somewhat misleading.

[Neptune]

Another way to look at "unencumbered", is that the City of Tulsa can't borrow from the City of Tulsa.  Yes, money is transferred from "fund" to "fund", but it's all the same money.  Stormwater Management can not take out a loan.  

The City of Tulsa itself could borrow money from another entity and give it to Stormwater.  That "encumbered" balance would show up in the books for the City of Tulsa, but not in the books of Stormwater Management.  Why?  Because Stormwater Management can not take out a loan.

Pretty sure TMUA can't spend past the appropriation, or take out any debt of any kind.  If they run into trouble, they have to come back to the City for another appropriation.

[Wrinkle]

It was TMUA which built the 36" water line north to Owasso on Tulsa's dimes. It is a "regional" Authority, formally. I can see if Tulsa contracts certain services to TMUA, but to turn over wholesale budgets would seem inappropriate. Just another lesser end of the stick Tulsa seems to perpetually receive.

Besides, TMUA can indeed borrow money, just as TARE did a few years ago for $7 million. Can't for the life of me figure out how an Authority which had a $12+ million cash reserve from trash bills (remember 2008 Ice Storm, when Miss Kitty took $11M from them for cleanup?) needed to borrow $7 million.

IAC, Authorities are supposed to be covering their own overhead and operations. That's ostensibly the only reason they exist.

Vehicles aside, co-mingling City budget funds and stand-alone authorities would be merging of a great dichotomy.

It appears to have become pretty routine misoperations in this City to treat Authorities as just another department of the City, when they are not.

I should add the County is just as devient in this regard. I'm guessing politicians don't really understand the concept, and the business-type 'volunteers' who sit on these boards do, quite well.

But, I digress.

[Neptune]

Oh ok.  You're talking about major suburban water pipe-lines.  Yeah, City of Tulsa sells water to a lot of burbs, and gets paid for it.  Don't know all the details on construction of pipelines, who paid for them, etc.

Here's another way to think about the loans:  TMUA was created by a City of Tulsa ordinance.  What would happen if TMUA took out 5 million in loans, and the City of Tulsa disbanded TMUA?  Do the banks simply lose?  

Well no, that's impossible, because TMUA can't take out loans.  The CoT takes out a loan "for use by" TMUA.  The News might report it as "loan for TMUA," or "TMUA takes loan", but that's not entirely correct.  CoT takes the loan, technically speaking.  Makes the budget a lot cleaner that way too.

Check 110A and B
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Ordinances/ordinances/21661.pdf

http://www.tulsacouncil.org/backup/05-1324-1.pdf

If you really want to know the facts around loans and TMUA etc, a city lawyer is your best bet.  In most cases, Councilors don't know squat.  And what they do know, isn't right.  If you have to ask Councilors, ask at least 3 that hate each other.  You'll probably get different answers.

[Wrinkle]

Pretty sure you're wrong about the loan deal. But, that doesn't necessarily mean the City isn't in a position of liability in most cases when an Authority fails its' responsibilities (i.e., Great Plains/TAA/TAIT/TIA). The City is "the Benefactor" of the Authority. The ballpark trust is supposed to be different in this respect as well, while still naming the City as the benefactor.

But, most authorities which get loans have dedicate revenue resources to collateralize the loan. In TARE's case, that apparently was a $12M+ cash account. Now, I wonder if the Mayor didn't dismiss that collateral lien when withdrawing those funds for cleanup. And, I've not yet heard of those funds being repaid, even after the Feds reimbursed most of it.

As for TMUA, the doc 21661 you cite doesn't even mention them. I'll refer to Section 103B.
The only regional aspect of the services was a "coordination" with other interests.

Of course, the City is free to contract with TMUA for almost anything, but, as I stated previously, the wholesale turning of the budget/account to TMUA would seem inappropriate.

Thought I'd add how odd it seems that the City is the originator of a regional authority. That would be the County's domain, or State's. At least, funding for such should also be regional.