DON QUIXOTE AT THE ANNUAL REPORT PUBLIC INPUT SESSION (PART 1 of 2)

Well, I tilted at windmills again and presented a 5 page series of questions and observations about the 2005 annual financial statements to the city council at Monday's meeting. Rather than bore you with all the details (which are part of the public record of this session and will be posted by the City at their website in 2 weeks) I will briefly highlight my concerns and some of the answers I managed to get immediately and the ones that I got no answer to YET. Not all of my concerns were seeking answers but some were merely advising Council of actions that they should consider in the future. (city's responses or my version of them in red below)

1. My question about the $28,000 to a local Pizza retailer was well answered when it was revealed that this money was a refund of a performance deposit etc. and not for pizzas etc
2. The $587,000 spent on the City's Master Card Program (which is used to streamline purchasing of goods from merchants) was questioned and whether there was a possible list of suppliers within this amount whose account would have reached the reportable level of $25,000. The city will check if it a legal requirement to have these amounts broken out or just a decision of council to have them listed in future reports. They acknowledged that there could be accounts in excess of $25,ooo.
3. I questioned the 4 or 5 obvious consultants on the list and asked if there was a public report available detailing the Consultants involved, their charges and the study or service they performed. (I asked the same question about lawyers and their fees.)The indications are that consultants list will be a subject on the agenda for the next finance committee meeting on Thursday. The lawyer list seemed to receive little comment yet.
4. AIRPORT: My first question about the discrepancy between the financial statements and the suppliers list was answered by the comment that the suppliers list is on a cash basis and the other reports are on an accrual basis. A check of 2004 did seem to confirm this. My next question about the $500,000 already in the Airports hands and the $250,000 to be sent in 2006 and whether that should stay in the City's hands in an Airport Runway Extension account was not answered yet. My next minor question about the $5800 earned by the airport on interest contrasted to the $25,000 interest earned in a city trust account with a $500,000 was explained by the timing of when the city gave the money to the Airport etc. (Since the 2004 monies from the suppliers list is on a cash basis then the Airport was holding the $250,000 from 2004 allocation at the start of 2005 and the interest earned is still relatively low.)( Put this one off as a beancounters beer topic.) My final point on whether the City covers the Accumulated Airport Deficit of $63,855 in 2005 and the deficit of $34,643 by a cash transfer was not addressed.