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