Would you intentionally plan on over spending your annual salary by 23% percent each year just because you had the money in the savings and didn’t want to give up any of your “feel good” activities?  The City of Northglenn has for years.  I’ll finish up with some surprising numbers; but first.

The City Council experienced a change in direction during the first six months of this year.  I hope those of you who follow city activities are pleased with the progress thus far.  There were several five to four and six to three votes early on but the consensus building continues.

There will be more split votes as we face some hard financial decisions.  Individual members, just like residents, have their own set of core values and differences will continue, but we will be professional in our deliberations. Whenever there is change there is generally conflict but we will continue working through it for the good of the residents.

Here are some decisions that I feel are in keeping with your wishes.  Term limits on the members of the appointed, advisory commissions and boards was killed.  Council increased it oversight of expenditures by decreasing the manager’s unilateral spending authority from fifty to twenty-five thousand dollars per purchase.  A ballot issue was authorized for this November which will eliminate further controversial decisions by lame-duck councils as happened last November.

It took some split votes and shocked a few staff members but we’ve saved a few dollars. Three examples:  The prior Council’s $500,000 budget to beautify the soon to be reconstructed 104th Ave. bridge and approaches was cut in half.  By directing that the position of Deputy Manager not be filled, a $100,000 was saved.  Temporarily blocking the staff’s request to purchase Springbrook’s Software until Innoprise Software was fairly evaluated saved $440,000. 

The Council has also taken some major steps to upgrade staff performance in the procurement process.  Last November staff obtained a low bid on a project for $49,000 and asked Council in March to use the bid to award an expanded contract amounting to $180,000.  Council thought it was unethical and sent it back to staff for rebidding.

On another project, the specifications were so loose that one company bid $87,919 using one technique for cleaning and sealing arterial fences and another bid $217,615 using different techniques.  Both met the staff member’s specifications.  Council sent it back to staff for new specifications and bids.

Deficit Spending:  The 2008 budget adopted by the old Council shows general fund revenues of $21,466,156 and expenditures of $26,478,933.  The deficit of $4,932,987 is covered by the year-end fund balance.  At the end of 2001 the fund balance was just over $17.1 million.  At the end of last year it was down to $9.5 million.  If the budget is followed, it will be $4.6 million at the end of this year.  Next year? Help!