25 Sep OpEd: On Agenda tonight.
We found this hidden in the “crowded agenda”.
Why is this item coming before the Commission as a resolution prior to being brought forward at a workshop for a full discussion? It is a policy decision for the Comm- they should have full details on this. Included on the last page is what the financials would look like- only creating a new category- does not make sense. City only enacted GASB 54 in May 2012- isn’t this early for a change. Another example of trying to ram things through by lil jon with not all of the information available.
Why does lil jon want to do this now? Because he is saying there should be a $1m surplus including the 255k contingency (budget not cash of course) in the General Fund for 2012. Wants to impress with his expertise?
- $-255,00 contingency budgeted
- $745,000 difference
Look at second attachment-
It was pointed out last year by a Commissioner that the 2012 budget was overstated for debt service in the General fund to the tune of 532,000. The remainder of that 200,000 surplus would come from the Suntrust refinancing (moved payment from Oct 1 to Dec 2012). It just delays the payment that is all. And City will be paying more interest in the long run. Commission was misled with 2012 budget-you could have spent that $500k elsewhere, decided to save it on your own, reduced taxes, or whatever since it should have been the Comm decision not JAs to make. He continues to direct policy to the Commission.
Hint, Hint- Look at the 2013 budget- those same debt service payments are missing on the summary sheet again.
Commissioners- trump his efforts to deceive the Comm. Table it and bring back to workshop for full discussion with all information not just what he wants you to see.
Correct the 2013 budget before it gets started.