Monday, May 7, 2012

City playing shell games with financial accounts?

Saturday, the Union-Tribune published a clarification on its city reserve data that showed Encinitas to be second-worst in the county.

The clarification notes that the U-T used the Standard & Poor's methodology of counting uncommitted reserves.  Encinitas has some accounts that are "committed" but not "restricted," which, to this layman's ear, sounds like money that is planned and designated for a specific purpose but not legally restricted to that purpose.  So if you count all the money that is committed but not restricted, Encinitas' reserves look better.

Jerome Stocks commented on the article:
In fact the City of Encinitas has three reserve funds amounting to nearly 40% of our operating budget. A contingency reserve $9.3 (20%) a $2.6 million Budget Stabilization Reserve (4%) and a $5.0 million Future Project reserve. And in reality none of that money is "restricted" in any way.
Leave aside the fact that all cities were measured by the same standards, and other cities measured up far better than we did. And leave aside the fact that whatever "reserves" we do have are not funded out of savings but by debt. The city still owes millions on the Hall Park, the library, and the fire castles; in fact, the city owes far more than any supposed "reserves" we hold.

City Hall-watchers know that the city has been struggling to come up with money to build the Hall Park. Insiders say the city has scratched together some $8 or $10 million, but the cost of just the first phase of the park will cost somewhere around $15 million.

Does the "Future Project" account include money they plan to spend on the Hall Park this year? If so, how is that a reserve? Are they counting the same money as both a "reserve" and capital for the long-overdue Hall Park? Inquiring minds want to know.

Knowing how Jerome Stocks loves to engage his constituents in web comments, I asked him about it. I'll let you know when he responds.

6 comments:

  1. Jerome,
    If I count the money I'm going to inherit when my parents die, my reserves are higheralso. Funny though my banker won't let me do that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great to see the BUMS return to Leucadia.
    They have been missed.
    The urine, the feces. The human filth.
    Welcome home boys!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. The figures that Jerome quotes come from City Manager Gus Vina. I'm most suspicious of the $5 million "Future Project Reserve." This has to be money that has been allocated for projects. It can't count as "reserves" unless the projects go off the budget.

    What's in the Future Projects Reserve? Money for the Hall property park construction, Moonlight Beach renovation, the next MacMansion fire station? There's not enough transparency in the budget to know.

    It's part of the shell game the city plays by shifting money around in the budget. If I'm saving money in a "New Car Reserve," I suppose I could use it as an emergency fund, but once tapped, there goes my new car.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The city is BROKE. The only thing they should be funding is the Leucadia Streetscape as it will return tax revenues vs monies spent. The Hall property won't return a nickel nor the fire stations. As for the $10 million spend for the underground walkway to water the pumpkins for SRF...I guess we know who really controls this town.

      Delete
  4. The Gann Limit and the city's contingency fund.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Below is part of what I posted on the UT blog, which is through Facebook, which cuts off part of our comments. However, the reader can click on "see more," and view the entire post.

    While operating expenses, including unfunded pension liabilities are increasing, monies are decreasing for capital improvements, here in Encinitas. For Jerome Stocks to claim "and in reality none of that money is `restricted' in any way," is patently false. Perhaps you feel unrestricted by the constraints of using S&P methodology as a common basis of comparison, Mr. Stocks, but your rationalizations and attempts to confuse the facts of our comparative financial health to the contrary, I find your using your influence to cloud the issue and to challenge the Watchdog's findings to be disingenuous and politically self-serving, when you are running for re-election this year. Many citizens will NOT be voting for you, Mr. Stocks, because of what we see to be your bullying tactics.

    ReplyDelete