Excess Revenues Budgeted to Preclude Tax Decreases?

by Ron West

	For some time I have been seeking answers to why $4.8 Million was budgeted to 

two non-departments in the current year city budget and further why another $10 Million 

had been budgeted to the same two departments in the past two years.  Why were questions

not asked by our council?  Why was this huge amount of money that represented over 20% 

of gross property tax revenues to the city not questioned by the City Council?  Why is it so 

hard for them to come up with any answers as to where this money is being spent?

	I asked a person with years of corporate accounting experience his opinion based on the current known facts

and got an answer that makes sense that I had not considered.  He said that he believed that these two accounts

represent holding accounts for projected revenue that is otherwise unbudgeted.  Is he right or wrong?  Only the 

City Manager seems to know.  Recent open records requests seeking where he got his authority to transfer monies in

excess of the budget out of these two departments yielded a reference to the following ordinance as published 

on the last pages of the city budget.

	Notice in the above ordinance that in Section 2, the City manager is given 

blanket authority to transfer monies between "inter-departmental" and "inter-

fund" accounts as deemed necessary in order to avoid over-expenditure of particular

accounts.   Notice too, that there is no requirement for council approval of such

over transfers.

	As you should be aware, I am not a lawyer but upon further research, I found that

state law contains the following requirements for the spending of taxpayer money.  The following

is copied verbatim from State law that is available on line.  (Highlighting added.)

§ 102.009.  LEVY OF TAXES AND EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS UNDER 
BUDGET[0];  EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE.  (a)  The governing body of the 
municipality may levy taxes only in accordance with the budget[0].
	(b)  After final approval of the budget[0], the governing body 
may spend municipal funds only in strict compliance with the 
budget[0], except in an emergency.
	(c)  The governing body may authorize an emergency 
expenditure as an amendment to the original budget[0] only in a case of 
grave public necessity to meet an unusual and unforeseen condition 
that could not have been included in the original budget[0] through the 
use of reasonably diligent thought and attention.  If the governing 
body amends the original budget[0] to meet an emergency, the governing 
body shall file a copy of its order or resolution amending the 
budget[0] with the municipal clerk, and the clerk shall attach the copy 
to the original budget[0].
	(d)  After the adoption of the budget[0] or a budget[0] amendment, 
the budget[0] officer shall provide for the filing of a true copy of 
the approved budget[0] or amendment in the office of the county clerk 
of the county in which the municipality is located.

Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.   

	Now I am asking myself, is our city in compliance with State law as regards expenditures 

since other open records requests indicate that City Manager Cunningham can make transfers of

funds from any accounts at will to avoid "over spending" of other accounts?  Is there other law 

that allows them to ignore the above requirements?  If all of what our city has provided as facts so 

far is accurate, how does our City Attorney reconcile their actions with the law?  Does the budget 

mean anything at all or can the City Manager move money around to meet anything he deems 

prudent?  Where is oversight of the budget by the council if such transfers are not first submitted 

to the council for approval?  Where is the emergency required by state law that permits such 

transfers or "over- spending"?

	The responses provided to date by our city government regarding the huge

slush funds or holding accounts are inadequate and incomplete answers.  I continue to pursue

the real answers but I believe that the above information may indicate that this is just one more 

area that our city government either ignores or bends the laws to do whatever they want.  There is

no accountability and no oversight from any other governmental agencies and individual citizens

cannot afford to pay the legal costs required for a challenge to such abuses.

	The only possible recourse is for enough citizens to begin asking the tough questions of

our elected officials so that they actually begin to perform the task of oversight as required by us

as citizens and by state law.  All members of the Council wanted their jobs - now it is time for them

to do the job properly as required by law.

	It is also time for complete disclosure of all funds spent from these two "slush fund" accounts!