Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09376RESOLUTION NO. 9376 A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $85,000 TO THE HARP AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS OF THE HISTORIC ARKANSAS RIVERWALK PROJECT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PUEBLO, that: SECTION 1. The disbursement of funds in the amount of $85,000 to the HARP Authority for the operation and maintenance of the Riverwalk is hereby approved. SECTION 2. This payment requires an additional appropriation of $85,000 in "Intergovernmental Expenditures." Funds for this purpose are allocated from General fund Reserves. INTRODUCED: August 27, 2001 LIM APPROVED: We SIDENT OF CITY COUNCIL ATTESTED BY: TY CLERK a Background Paper for Proposed RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM # I q DATE: AUGUST 27, 2001 DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE DAVID GALLI, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER TITLE A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $85,000 TO THE HARP AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS OF THE HISTORIC ARKANSAS RIVERWALK PROJECT ISSUE The HARP Authority approached City Council at the July 16, 2001 Work Session and requested an additional $85,000 in funding from the City. Their request was to cover additional operating and maintenance costs associated with the Riverwalk. RECOMMENDATION See attached memorandum from Lee R. Evett, City Manager. FINANCIAL IMPACT Funds will be disbursed from the General Fund Reserves. Lee R. Evett City Manager o David J. Galli Assistant City Manager MEMORANDUM TO: President and Members of City Council FROM: Lee R. Evett, City Manager DATE: August 16, 2001 SUBJECT: HARP Request for Funds —Staff Recommendation One City Hall Place Pueblo, Colorado 81003 Phone (719) 584 -0800 Fax (719) 584 -0850 Per your request, I have reviewed the tape- recorded July 16 presentation of Gus Sandstrom and his undated letter addressed to the Pueblo City Council. In essence, the HARP Authority is requesting $85,000 from the City of Pueblo outside the normal budget presentation and justification process. The funds are requested in two parts. The first part is for $57,000 and has been justified both in oral presentation and through their letter as follows: 1. The City did not fund in full their last two annual requests. 2. The HARP Executive Director was not permitted or allowed to respond to questions concerning a line item designated as "projects to be determined." 3. The $57,000 variance between their FY 2001 request and the City's appropriation has been expended by the HARP Authority presumably using their reserve funds. According to the HARP letter, these funds were expended on the following items: a) HARP Boat Operations—As you recall, the boat operation was to be provided by a private contractor, and at the last minute, it was necessary for HARP to purchase the boats and undertake the project themselves. b) The elimination of the HARP Commission resulted in the assignment of significant duties imposed on the Authority and the staff. The only expense noted, however, was that a part-time employee had to double their time. 4. The HARP Authority was told during the budget proceedings that if they needed the money, they could reapply as the funds were being "held in reserve." Secondly, an additional $28,000 is being requested from FY 2000 (the previous budget year). Although FY 2000 was, in the opinion of the HARP Authority, also underfunded by an identical $57,000, they have requested only $28,000 to reimburse the Authority for "maintenance President and Members of City Council August 16, 2001 Page 2 problems with fountains, seaweed growth... and vandalism that has caused increased security costs and repairs." Taking the justifications in order, I would discount reasons one and two as immaterial and not worthy of further discussion. Justification number three would perhaps be a viable justification had they made the argument prior to the expenditure of funds. In other words, if HARP had come to the Council and said we now have to spend the $57,000 on the new boat operation because of blank, blank, blank, I believe the Council would be in a much better position to make a judgement as to the appropriateness of the request. Coming to us after the fact provides little justification for the funds since they have obviously been able to afford the monies up to this point. The same can be said for the increased cost allegedly necessitated by dissolving the HARP Commission. There were no costs associated with this justification other than a part-time individual "doubled her time." Assuming the person was employed at a $20,000 annualized salary with $10,000 appearing in the original budget, the "double her time" would account for a maximum of $2,500 in expenditures ($833 per month for three months). Item number four may present a dilemma to the Council if, in fact, Council did indicate that they would reserve funds for HARP since no funds were reserved by the City, and to the contrary, all the funds in this section of the budget were reappropriated to other non - profit organizations. The final justification deals with funds expended on maintenance problems, etc., itemized within their letter. The same situation exists with this as with the previous $57,000, namely that HARP should have come to us prior to the expenditures, or when they realized they were going to exceed their maintenance budget. HARP may have exceeded their maintenance budget but presumably not their reserve budget and are only coming to us now to reimburse us for funds already expended from their reserves. In the final analysis, since the HARP Authority has not alleged a cash flow problem, they are basically asking the City to take money from our reserves to reinvigorate their reserves. In the opinion of the City's professional staff, this is not adequate justification. This is not to say that reserves are bad, and indeed they are necessary for an ongoing activity; however, the creation and maintenance of a reserve at a certain level of appropriations should be clearly stated in a budget request. The City should, in fact, fund a proportionate share of such a reserve (10% of approved appropriations seems appropriate) which would be consistent with the City's policy. ee R. Eve City Manager W1STOW ARRAASAS Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo Authority 200 W. 1 St., Suite 303 Pueblo, Colorado 81003 Telephone (719) 595 -0242 Fax (719) 583 -4696 PUEBLO. COLORADO Pueblo City Council c/o City Manager Pueblo City Hall Members of the City Council: The Board of Directors of the HARP Authority submits this request to complete the funding of our 2001 budget and part of the under funded 2000 budget. As you know, the Intergovernmental Agreement forming the HARP Authority HARP Board contemplates a funding formula for the HARP Budget. Based on that formula, City Council was requested to allocate $244,000 in 2000 and 2001. In 2000, the City allocated $188,000 Mark Hess and this year's allotment was $187,000. Council informed us that if necessary, we could Executive Director submit a request for a supplemental allocation not to exceed the original request. Jill Mattoon This y ear the reduction of our request was based on q uestions related to the $132 Chairperson Y q q , 000 listed in our budget as "project to be determined ". At the time our budget hearing was held, Sandy Gutierrez our Executive Director was not allocated time to respond to all questions and action was taken Vice Chairperson to approve the allocation at the same level as the year 2000. Even that amount, $188,000, was ultimately entered in the budget as $187,000 thus reducing the allocation to HARP by Gus Sandstrom $57,000. Treasurer The $132,000 was spent on the project of initiating our boat operation. Boats were Alan Hamel purchased, as well as supplies, electric motors and safety devices. E quipment Secretary p pP � � y exceeded the q p $132,000 that was designated for this contingency as "project to be determined ". Based on Matt Peulen that expense alone, we ha exc=d= the_ $57,0 reserve that has not been allocated by Visit our website puebloharp.com -, f SUMMARY HARP BUDGET 2000 Budget $488,000.00 2001 $488,000.00 County 195,200.00 Paid 195,200.00 Paid Conservancy 48,800.00 Paid 48,800.00 Paid City 244,000.00 Requested City 187;000.00 244.000.00 Requested Paid City Reserve 57,000 187,000.00 Authorized Undetermined Expenses at time of Budget submitted 57,000.00 - Now Spent Boat Operations Start Up $132,000.00 Security and Utilities 5,100.00 Fountasn Repairs 2,233.11 (estimate on additional repairs not yet billed $5,000.00) Pond Weed 2,000.00 Electrical & Maintenance 12,219.26 TOTAL EXPENSES FROM THE "TO BE DETERMINED PROJECTS" NOT FUNDED: $153,552.37 Request $28,000.00 $57,000.00 TOTAL = $85.000.00 Mark Hess, our new Executive Director, is currently taking steps to reduce our operational expenses. We are reducing our attorney time, modifying our bookkeeping to reduce the time and cost of the accountant, implementing checks and balances on the ticket sales and implementing the use of technology for accounting practices. To hopefully reduce our costs on maintaining fountains, we are aggressively demanding the manuals so our own staff can be trained to make adjustments; we will include demands that any future features include in the contribution a reserve to assist with maintenance and repairs. To allow us to bring our budget into compliance with our planning and budget modifications, we would request that the City allocate the $57,000 of the 2001 request and from the 2000 budget $28,000. This request for $85,000 will allow HARP to complete the business and maintenance responsibilities anticipated in the original budget. Respectfully submitted, us andstrom, HARP Treasurer