By REID TUCKER
Line-itemized budget data regarding over- and under-expenditures and exact revenue figures showed that the city of Paxton turned a $74,626.79 profit in Fiscal Year 2011 (at least as far as the general fund budget is concerned).
This information, based on up-to-date profit/loss data, was presented when the Paxton Town Council held a special meeting on the last day of FY2011, Friday, Sept. 30, to vote on over-expenditures in last year’s budgets and to approve the proposed budgets for FY2012. Councilman Travis McMillian was not present at the meeting but all other members of the board were in attendance. The Council members unanimously approved all the budget-related items up for a vote.
Over-expenditures in the FY2011 general fund budget included $1,070.23 more than projected for electricity, $3,613.19 more in operating supplies and $6,728.21 more than expected in capital expenses (due to the purchase and installation of tile for the city’s Agricultural Center and a new air conditioning unit for Town Hall). Overages on those and other individual line items came in at $12,345.59, but this does not reflect the budget’s total expenditures, which, at $329,720.72, was $51,233.28 less than the total projected amount. Those overall savings, combined with $23,293.51 in unlooked-for income resulted in the nearly $75,000 net profit.
While the FY2011 general fund budget was in the black, the FY2011 water fund and sewer fund budgets did not fare as well, though each for different reasons.
The FY2011 water fund budget contained several line items, such as a $6,958 over-expenditure in operating supplies (mainly new road signs and safety cones mandated by the Florida Department of Transportation), that pushed actual expenses to $105,413, which is $27,591 more than projected. However, the fund’s actual income of $256,914 was $21,314 more than projected. The over-expenditures were partially recouped by a $12,000 grant, counted under miscellaneous revenues, and a combined $6,157 left over in capital outlays and the contingency fund, which dropped total net overages to $944.
The FY2011 sewer fund budget faced a different problem, as total revenues were $17,259 less than the $109,977 projected. The reason for the shortfall is that the ordinance to increase sewer rates, which was supposed to be adopted in October of 2010, was not actually passed until February 2011, meaning a full six months of Fiscal Year 2011 were not supported in the original sewer budget. However, despite individual line-itemized over-expenditures totaling $4,391, (including $1,500 for accounting and auditing services, an expense usually absorbed by the general fund budget), total operating expenses were $5,397 less than projected.
Having approved the over-expenditures of FY2011, the Council also unanimously voted in favor of adopting the proposed FY2012 general fund budget and water and sewer budgets.
The general fund budget lists a total projected income of $364,454 (4.33 percent less than last year’s $380,954) and a matching figure for projected expenditures, which includes $22,254 in contingency funds. The water fund budget has projected revenues jump from $228,800 last year to $243,800 for FY2012, as approved by the passage of Ordinance 11-01, and the sewer fund budget’s projected revenues are up roughly 8 percent over FY2011 at $117,777. Both the water and sewer budgets are projected to balance revenues with expenditures.