Download: Mid-Year Budget Report

Date:  March 15, 2010

Subject:  Questions presented at the Mid-Year Budget Review Meeting for FY2009-2010, during public comments by, Joe Arnett.

Please provide the written documentation and back-up material for the flowing 4 questions as required by California Government Code Section 54950-54963.  Commonly referred to as the Brown Act.

1) I requested the back up information detail on 255 M dollars of expenditures, identified on the blue page titled, FY2009-2010 SUMMARY OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND TRANSFERS.  A 1.6 M dollar projected shortfall is a very small percentage of overall expenditures.  This request is for a higher level of transparency regarding taxpayer-funded expenditures and closer securitization of the detail to achieve further expenditure saving measures.

2) Regarding the Single Family Rental Inspection Program:  The staff report states on pg. 3 the program is projected to have revenues fall short of estimates by approximately 312 K.  It goes on to say the program will off set the revenue shortage by a corresponding expenditure savings.   I requested to get the back up detail that shows how the expenditure savings will be achieved.  Is the program being scaled back significantly or eliminated?

3) Regarding revenue line item, Charges for Services, identified on the pink page titled, ESTIMATED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 MID-YEAR GENERAL FUND:  The city has been unable to collect 1.38 M in projected revenue.  The staff report on pg. 3 identifies significant reasons for the projected revenue loss totaling 754 K.  I requested the back up material on the other 635 K of projected revenue loss, which was deemed less significant and not reported.  Option would be to work aggressively, collect 635 K of revenue and apply it to the Fire Department currently projected to be over budget by 669 K due to joint co-operative agreements and other contractual factors.  Options would be to seek higher funding reimbursement levels for co-operative assignments and/or faster reimbursement from partner agencies.

4) Regarding revenue line item, Miscellaneous, identified on the pink page titled, ESTIMATED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 MID-YEAR GENERAL FUND.  The staff report on pg. 4 describes having recently conducted an audit-review of departmental trust accounts.   This process revealed approximately 2 M dollars having been improperly booked.  This effectively amounts to a clerical error.  I asked the question, what assurances will the taxpayers get that these audits have been conducted accurately and effectively across all city departments and what measures have been enacted to prevent improper record keeping by the Finance Department in the future, outside of what was described as a new permits plus system.

a. The fact that the city audit process revealed a 2 M dollar correction should raise red flags regarding internal financial operations.  Someone or group should be held accountable for this error, especially given recent city layoffs and service reductions to the public.  This type of careless record keeping should be inexcusable.  

b. San Bernardino City Tax Payers DESERVE BETTER!