Budget Amendment #2: Account for Directed Donation Line Items Individually and Adjust Their Budgeted Income Amounts

[Joe Burnes]

I move the following changes to the budget that was approved on 11/8/25 and am requesting co-sponsors:
Divide the "Directed Donations" income line item (which is set at $4,600) into the specific funds with the following amounts “Directed Donations: Legal Fund” (with an amount of $0), “Directed Donations: Legislative Action Fund” (with an amount of $2000), and “Directed Donations: Campaign Support Fund” (with an amount of $20,500).
See attached file that shows exactly what the new budget will look like with these changes adopted. All changes have been highlighted yellow.

Reasoning: The breakout of the Directed Donations category into 3 categories brings specificity to the budget (that it currently already has) and ties the line items on our budget with the actual chart of accounts line items within our accounting software. The further adjustment of the amounts ties the budgeted income to the budgeted expense totals for those categories (i.e. We budgeted for a total expense of $20,500 for the Campaign Support Department. This would create the corresponding income line item and amount).

This would increase the total budgeted for ALL Directed Donation accounts from $4,600 to $22,500 which is the amount we have budgeted to spend on those accounts, thus budgeting a break even scenario. If this body keeps the budgeted amount as is ($4,600 income and $22,500 expense), we would be operating at a 17,900 deficit for all Directed Donation accounts with no evidence in the budget that we intend to raise the full amount necessary to counter the budgeted expenses. At minimum, we should budget to raise the money we intend to spend. To not do so sets the expectation of an expense without the expectation to raise the necessary funds to cover that expense.

 

[Jocelyn Pantke]

I will cosponsor.

 

[Nolan Schmidt]

I will co-sponsor as well.

 

[AaronRamos]

I'll cosponsor

 

[Christy Ford]

I will cosponsor.

 

[Anastasia Wilford]

The budget, as presented and adopted does propose that we raise the funds we intend to spend. It also takes into account that much of what we raise and spend will be into and out of the general fund and that the special funds (a.k.a. directed donation funds) are restricted as to specifically what types of expenditures can be made from them.

We can increase the overall total for these, but the reasoning that these not being equal means we aren't expressing an interest to cover our expenses with fundraising is flawed as described in my comments on the other motion regarding our special funds.

 

[Joe Burnes]

The budget, as presented and adopted does propose that we raise the funds we intend to spend. It also takes into account that much of what we raise and spend will be into and out of the general fund and that the special funds (a.k.a. directed donation funds) are restricted as to specifically what types of expenditures can be made from them.

We can increase the overall total for these, but the reasoning that these not being equal means we aren't expressing an interest to cover our expenses with fundraising is flawed as described in my comments on the other motion regarding our special funds.

If this budget proposes that we raise the funds we intend to spend, I'd like to see how.

The reality is that it shows a $4,600 raise for all directed donation funds and has those funds spending $22,500. That is projecting a deficit. There is no subjective opinion here, just mathematical facts.

 

[Anastasia Wilford]

As the budget stands right now, there are no expenditures indicated to come from the special funds (Legal, Legislative, Campaign). The expenditures for those departments would then come from the general fund. And the monies being spent from the general fund would be raised in several ways as outlined in the income portion of the budget as it currently stands.

 

[Joe Burnes]

As the budget stands right now, there are no expenditures indicated to come from the special funds (Legal, Legislative, Campaign). The expenditures for those departments would then come from the general fund. And the monies being spent from the general fund would be raised in several ways as outlined in the income portion of the budget as it currently stands.

Now I can see where you would draw that conclusion. But this budget doesn't actually say which fund those new line items are to be drawn from. Looks like without that info, I assumed they'd be paid from the special funds and you are assuming they'd be paid from the general fund. Given that other line items make it clear which account they are to be paid from, I cannot assume that the intent is to have them drawn from the general fund. If that is the case, it needs to reflect that on the budget. Frankly, it leaves the Treasurer with no clear direction....which is exactly why I put forth this motion. I'm happy to entertain any other motion that would provide a more clear direction here.

 

[Anastasia Wilford]

This is what I was basing that statement on

 

[Anastasia Wilford]

What I would like to see is some sort of direction that says something like "drawn from such and such fund so long as funds exist but otherwise drawn from the general fund". Would that serve the purpose you're looking for?

 

[Joe Burnes]

This is what I was basing that statement onView attachment 1053

Right, and as you can see, Volunteer Training, Voter Data..., and Candidate Advertising all have no account tied to them.
I inserted those bank accounts to the budget tracker to assist us in keeping it all straight given how convoluted it has become. But as this body chose to pass it like it is with the new line items having no account tied to them (while others clearly show which account they are to be paid from), there is no clear direction.

 

[Joe Burnes]

What I would like to see is some sort of direction that says something like "drawn from such and such fund so long as funds exist but otherwise drawn from the general fund". Would that serve the purpose you're looking for?

No, it wouldn't. Because then you leave balances open to interpretation like "if this account no longer has enough money, we just draw from the general" and that is very problematic. When you get a low balance, how do you pay an expense then? You'd have to wait a few days to ensure all transactions have cleared, figure out that it has say 23.45 left in it, then pay that much towards the expense, and then pay the rest from the general. It's like that customer trying to buy something from WalMart with 3 different credit cards. lol In this case it is even worse because we don't have cards for the various accounts. If we can't ACH out of an account directly, we have to pay for it out of the general fund, then figure out how much needs to be transferred into the general from the special fund. I'd rather have a line item tied directly to an account if I can get it because that keeps it as simple as possible given the various bank accounts. Then, if that fund needs an injection from the general, we can do that as needed.

 

[Anastasia Wilford]

Ok, so it sounds like there's some refinement that's needed, and as you've pointed out somewhere else, this budget doesn't go into effect until 01/01.

It looks like, to bring everything into alignment, there need to be amendments made to the policies for the individual special funds, as well as the policy on what's required to be included in the establishment of a special fund, and perhaps some adjustment to this budget amendment once all that's said and done.

It should all be doable, and we have time to get it hammered out. However, with holidays coming up before long I'll prioritize the policy stuff sooner rather than later. I'll shoot you a text about finding a time to get on the phone, and then take this project to the policy committee to try to bring everything in line so that our governing documents and our budgets are cooperating.

 

[Joe Burnes]

Ok, so it sounds like there's some refinement that's needed, and as you've pointed out somewhere else, this budget doesn't go into effect until 01/01.

It looks like, to bring everything into alignment, there need to be amendments made to the policies for the individual special funds, as well as the policy on what's required to be included in the establishment of a special fund, and perhaps some adjustment to this budget amendment once all that's said and done.

It should all be doable, and we have time to get it hammered out. However, with holidays coming up before long I'll prioritize the policy stuff sooner rather than later. I'll shoot you a text about finding a time to get on the phone, and then take this project to the policy committee to try to bring everything in line so that our governing documents and our budgets are cooperating.

Sounds good. Thanks.