HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution-1972-0176
Introduced by Alderman
Paul Abramson
RESOLUTION NO. 176
Series of 1972
WHEREAS, there exists an Annual Appropriation Resolution,
and,
WHEREAS, needs have arisen which require changes to be
made within that Appropriation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: the following Accounts
be changed as follows:
Current Net Revised
Account No. Appropriation Change Appropriation
415.41 Personnel Administration $24,761.00 - $ 8,808.00 $15,953.00
415.49 Director of Administrative
Services -0- + $ 8,808.00 $ 8,808.00
419.11 Planning and Zoning $43,274.00 - $13,812.00 $29,462.00
419.19 Director of Planning -0- + $13,812.00 $13,812.00
421.11 Police Administration $27,862.00 - $14,052.00 $13,810.00
421.19 Chief of Police -0- + $14,052.00 $14,052.00
424.11 Protective Inspection $31,524.00 - $11,700.00 $19,824.00
424.19 Chief Building Inspector -0- + $11,700.00 $11,700.00
431.81 Public Works Administra-
tion $24,407.00 - $13,812.00 $10,595.00
431.89 Director of Public Works -0- + $13,812.00 $13,812.00
452.11 Parks Personal Services $49,960.00 - $ 9,300.00 $40,660.00
452.19 Parks Superintendent
(with extra duties) -0- + $ 9,300.00 $ 9,300.00
$201,788.00
-0-
$201,788.00
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: None of the changes mentioned
above shall be construed to change the total appropriation as filed
with the Division of Local Government.
DONE AND RESOLVED this
A. D., 1972 by a vote of
5
6th
to
day of
July
1
Albert E. Anderson
Mayor
ATTEST:
1 i"
1
J ~- ,-
I ~
it T
"
"
1 J , ~
i I
, J
j'.)
,. ,
I I
Louise F. Turner
City Clerk
,.-:::-)
"'""'"> , ....~ f-,,/"
I l- - J l /.... j.:., ~ /:.;- ~ -""
~ 1 T 1 i ~T ~ ;T~---', ~, J
-) .. -
r I. I. [ '.
il
\f--'!i I"
i:
'11 '
DISAPPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 175
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
July 13, 1972
Resolution No. l76 is returned to Council because of my
disapproval of the RBsolution. There are a number of defects with-
in the Resolution as passed by the Council. In my opinion, these
defects are vital to the Resolution and would cause the disruption
of the stable financial management that this City has been noted
for. Inadequate attention to certain details has been afforded
this matter: specifically, several account classifications will
have insufficient funds to pay staff that are not of the Director
level if the Resolution passes. The Resolution makes no account
for expenditures made to date within the changed budget accounts.
As an example, in Account No. 421.11 Police Administration, remov-
ing $14,052. from the original appropriation of $27,862. leaves
$13,8l0. However, expenses contained in operations of the first
six months may well have already over-expended that account.
Certainly, if there is any money left in that account, it is insuf-
ficient to fund salaries for the two staff people funded from that
account.
The descriptive phrases following the account number
are not proper. For instance, the accounts being changed relate
to personal services, not the entire departmental account, as the
Resolution would indicate. Within the personal services account,
thB following items havB been paid in a routine fashion in the
past:
1. Salaries and wages
2. Retirement benefits
3. Insurance
4. Training
5. Mileage reimbursements
6. Overtime
7. Uniforms
8. Workmens Compensation
9. Miscellaneous costs directly related to the
area of personal services.
It shoulj be noted that the money removed from the accounts that
were apparently personal services accounts and placed in accounts
that appear to be Director's accounts do not provide for anything
but salaries and wages. No provision has been made for the fringe
benefits accruing all City employees, including Directors.
A further defect is that many of the wages stated in the
changes that appear to be salary amounts are inaccurate, not Bven
considering the points mentioned above that pBrsonal services
accounts have always before included moneys for the total personal
sBrvice package. The amount funded for Director of Administrative
DISAPPROV
OF RESOLUTION NO. 176
-2-
July 13, 1
Services reflects the sum being paid that Director as his salary.
The Director of Planning account does reflect the salary being
paid the Director of Planning. However, the amount budgeted for
the Chief of Police, who supposedly makes the same salary as the
DirBctor of Planning, is a different and incorrect amount. The
amount being paid the Chief Building Inspector is properly reflected.
The amount set out for the Director of Public Works is incorrect as
to salary and wages, as there was no Director of Public Works in
office during the first portion of this year. The Parks Superin-
tendent salary as set out appears to be insufficient to even cover
the salary of this Director at the present anticipated pay that he
is now receiving. Further, the apparent attempt to reduce the Park
Superintendent salary is in direct contradiction with the Merit
system of this City and cannot be tolerated. In the area of
Personnel Administration, it would appear that there is probably
enough money left to pay the staff for the next three months. It
would appear in Planning and Zoning, there is enough money to pay
the staff for another four months if this Resolution becomes effect-
ive. The Police Department's administration area may be over-expended
at this time, and I think it is questionable that there is money to
pay the two employees in the Chief's office if the Resolution passes.
In the Building Department, there would appear to be enough money to
pay the employees for the next three months. In the Public Works
DepartmBnt, it is questionable that there is sufficient money under
this Resolution to pay the employees that work under the Public Works
Administration accounts. The Parks Department probably has sufficient
funds to pay its salaries, but a cutback would be needed to comply
with this budget directive. The actual effect, looking at this
Appropriation Resolution today, and considering the money spent in
the past six months, and estimating the needs in the next six months,
lead to the conclusion that about a dozen employees will not have
salary money to pay their wages within the next three or four months.
As the Administrator of the City, I have a duty to protect these
employees. I am sure this wasn't the intent of the Resolution, but
bBcause the figures were not worked out in a manner consistent with
our past practices, that is exactly the result.
It would appear to me that the only way that this Resolu-
tion can be corrected would be to put in the correct figures to
reflect sound financial practice and stable past policies pursued
in the financial administration of this City, or to remain quiet
and simply juggle the books to make the City's records artificially
linB up with the revised appropriations. BecausB this must be
prevented, and because of the implications of allowing qUBstionable
financial practices to take place within this governmental entity,
I cannot approve this Resolution by signing it. I must return it
to the City Council without my approval which is necessary for the
i
Resolution to become effective.. I J'
I,) !
( i I
!\' U
ALBERT E. ANDERSON
(
I
\~
I'~ ;
I,
;) ./"'
MAYOR