Glenarden council presses staff over apparent double-counting in budget, questions about staffing lines

Glenarden City Council members pressed city staff on June 4 to clarify the presentation of the draft budget after members said a $563,169 general-fund surplus also appears under capital projects, a placement several council members characterized as misleading and effectively double-counting reserves.

Councilman Williams urged clearer presentation, saying the capital budget "should be a zero balance" when projects are fully funded. Council members repeatedly asked whether the surplus was being counted twice — once in general operations and again in capital — and asked staff to remove or re-present numbers that created that impression so residents would not be confused about actual reserves.

Mr. Stewart, a city staff member who reported on the adjusted draft budget, told the council that the media communications assistant position "was removed" and that in the adjusted budget the line now shows zero. He described the practice of running general-fund surpluses through the capital account as a way to "show the flow of funds from the general operations" into reserves, but acknowledged the council’s desire for a clearer presentation.

Councilwoman Cross raised questions about the city’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) accounting, saying the city received $4 million and that roughly $3.6 million appears expensed; she asked staff to reconcile the ARPA totals and to provide an updated budget document showing the edits discussed during recent sessions.

Council members also debated whether a part-time deputy clerk line should remain in the budget. Councilwoman Jones said the current council clerk is preparing standard operating procedures and questioned whether a deputy is necessary; Councilman Williams said keeping the position in the budget provides backup in case of absences and, given the reported surplus, it was prudent to retain the authorization.

Staff explained that funds designated as "restricted" (for example, state highway–user revenues) are shown in capital revenue sections to track how those receipts will flow into reserves or specific projects. One staff explanation cited a state-highway reserve amount of about $286,000 as matching known restricted receipts; council members asked for the capital project pages to be adjusted so the capital ending balances better reflect the year’s planned outlays rather than an apparent surplus.

Council members requested that staff revise the budget pages to remove items that create the impression of double-counting, to show clear fund-line explanations (including which line funds any interim contracts), and to circulate an updated budget document ahead of final adoption. The council did not take a final vote on the full budget during the June 4 session; members said they would follow up to clarify presentation, ARPA reconciliation and staffing justifications.