Tag Archives: Austin City Budget

Guest Editorial – City Budget Slaps Taxpayers; Reforms Needed

2 Replies

Oakey: New council needs to look at budgeting overhaul

Posted: 6:00 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2014

By Bill Oakey – Special to the American-Statesman

It’s as if somehow the City Council never got the message, even though the message has been echoed loud and clear across the city. The taxpayers need relief. Austin has an affordability problem.

The budget that the City Council adopted has landed with a thud. Taxes are going up again. Oh, they heard the message from the taxpayers all right. But the sad fact is that they just don’t care. This City Council simply never met a spending opportunity that it didn’t like. If 50 people split up and walked into each of their offices tomorrow with 50 new spending proposals, council members would put all of them on the next agenda and then add a few more of their own. Affordability is apparently just a word to them, something to repeat when they are out in the community but to completely ignore while they are on the dais.

I have had the opportunity to meet with many of the candidates running in the 10 new council districts, as well as for mayor. I have recommended some crucial financial accountability and transparency reforms. To start with, the city should stop playing games with budget surpluses and inflated departmental budgets padded with unfilled staff vacancies. We need quarterly reports with budgeted versus actual revenues and expenditures posted to the city’s website. And we need to limit unfilled vacancies to no more than 5 percent of the workforce as Portland, Ore., does, instead of the 9.7 percent that is currently allowed in Austin.

The existing policy on budget surpluses is to wait until February to announce the amount of any budget surplus from the previous fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. For two years in a row, we have had surpluses of $14 million. In 2013 the council blew through that amount in a few minutes with no public input or anything else resembling normal budget scrutiny. Council members were about to do the same thing this year when outraged citizens, including myself, bombarded them with emails begging them not to spend the surplus. This time they held off on spending the $14.2 million, but only temporarily.

That surplus was quietly tucked away, and the council never mentioned it again. When I contacted them and asked about it last week, I was told that all but a few million of it “was absorbed into the new budget.” My specific suggestion during the spring to transfer the money to hold down the water rate increase was ignored. The loud chorus of citizen appeals to use the surplus for tax relief was also ignored. When I asked council members to revise the written policy on spending budget surpluses to include taxpayer relief as a specific option, the request was denied.

Throughout the year the potential exists for the city to run up a budget surplus. Current rules allow departments to spend money from staff vacancies on other projects. We definitely need serious reforms, such as the Honolulu policy that places funds for unfilled vacancies under the control of a central office, to be disbursed only as needed.

We need a new City Council that listens to the people and takes affordability seriously. There is more to serving in that job than generating costly new plans for every spending opportunity under the sun. If you went online and downloaded all the corridor gentrification plans, forestry and trail plans, etc., you would get dizzy trying to add up all the costs. If city leaders don’t find some way out of business as usual, the people who live here and our local economy will suffer. Let’s hope that the new council not only hears the affordability message but acts on it as well.

Oakey is a retired accountant and writer of the blog AustinAffordability.com

What Happened To Austin’s Budget Surplus – And Why Is Nobody Talking About It?

4 Replies

By Bill Oakey – August 1, 2014

Back in March, readers of this blog launched a successful email campaign to stop the City Council from spending a $14.2 million budget surplus.  But since then we have heard nothing from City Hall about what has been done with that money.  This week the City Council began discussing the budget in earnest during a two-day work session.  But there are several critical questions that have not been brought to light:

How Much Has the Budget Surplus Grown Since February?

It was at a March City Council work session that they made the decision not to spend the $14.2 million surplus.  So, if that money went into a reserve account, how much is it worth today?  We were told that the announced February surplus came from a combination of increased sales tax revenues, vacant staff positions, increased permit fees, and other revenue increases from an improving local economy.  Now we deserve to know how much the surplus has grown since February?

I have repeatedly recommended that the City Council ask for detailed quarterly reports on the budget versus actual spending numbers.  These reports should be presented to the City Council’s Audit and Finance Committee.  This simple, common sense reform should have been in place already.  And we should not have to wait for the new City Council to enact full transparency for our taxpayer dollars.  Especially when two long term incumbents are asking voters to elect one of them as our next mayor!

How Much Money Is Left Over From All Those Vacant Staff Positions?

As of last December 31st, the City Manager reported that 9.7% of the City’s workforce existed only on paper as unfilled vacancies.  Every month that has gone by since then with unfilled vacancies presents the potential for increases to the budget surplus.  When I researched this issue back in May, I learned something quite disturbing from Council Members Mike Martinez and Bill Spelman.  They both informed me that the vacant positions are fully funded in the budget, and that the affected City departments can transfer the money and spend it on other items!  We are talking about millions of dollars of taxpayer money that is repeatedly and consistently allowed to slip down into a black hole.

Despite my meetings with both Mr. Martinez and Mr. Spelman, no action has been taken to improve the accountability or the transparency of these surplus budget funds.  Even at a time when affordability has risen to the top among the issues in the current City Council campaign.

In previous postings to this blog, I have recommended that the City limit the funding of vacant staff positions to the 5% level that has been adopted by Portland, Oregon.  And I suggested that the City Council enact the Honolulu model for controlling funds for vacant staff positions.  In Honolulu, these funds are held in a provisional account in a central office.  They are restricted for use only to hire new employees, and the funds are distributed on an as-needed basis.  It is long past time that the taxpayers of Austin be given the same accountability standards that other prudent American cities enjoy.  And we should only elect City Council candidates who commit to adhering to these logical and reasonable standards.

To learn more, you can read one of my previous blog postings on this topic here.

10,000 Page Views – And It’s Time To Ask For Accountability!

1 Reply

By Bill Oakey – July 22, 2014

This blog has now passed the 10,000 mark for page views.  That’s because here in Austin, 2014 has become the tipping point for affordability.  We can no longer afford to stand by while public officials spend our money without serious accountability reforms.  We need bold initiatives to steer us away from business as usual.

Nobody Will Tell Us How Much Money Is Left In the City Budget!

Year after year, the Austin City Council pads the City Budget with surplus funds, yet does not provide transparency for the taxpayers.  Even the Council does not track the running surplus balance because they have yet to adopt my proposal to ask the City Manager to present quarterly reports on the breakdown of surplus funds to the Audit and Finance Committee.  This blog and its followers were able to halt the spending of a $14 million surplus that was declared back in February.  And with unfilled staff vacancies representing nearly 10% of the workforce still on the books, plus sales tax and permitting fees on the rise, we have no inkling of how much surplus funds could be used to lower taxes and reduce a water rate increase.  It is time for all of us to hold them accountable!

What Can You Do to Help?

On August 5th, the City Council will hold their first work session on the budget.  Now is the time for all of us and our friends to contact them and ask for full accountability on the surplus funds in the budget.  If we leave it to the City Manager, the surplus will be quickly and quietly absorbed into new spending projects.  Let’s ask for the detailed quarterly reports on the budget surplus, and insist that the full amount be applied to lower taxes and utility rate relief.  You can contact all 7 City Council members with one click, using this link.

How to Get the Most Out of This Blog

Use these handy tools in the right hand column:

Search:  Enter a topic into this box, such as taxes, budget, City Council, etc.

Follow:  Enter your email address to receive automatic affordability updates

Vote for These City Council Candidates!:  Visit the candidate websites endorsed by this blog

Recent Posts:  Click on any of these for recent news

Categories:  Pick one of these to see all the posts in that category.  Check out “Humor” for a good laugh or stress reliever

Don’t Let Your Friends, Neighbors, and Co-Workers Miss Out on Affordability Updates

Be sure to email, tweet, and Facebook everyone on your contact lists with a link to this blog. Stay up to date on the upcoming City Council races, affordability reforms, and the need to defeat the incredibly wasteful urban rail bonds that will be on the ballot in November.

Huge Rate Increase Could Cripple Austin’s Water Utility

1 Reply

By Bill Oakey – May 21, 2014

If you have been recently stunned by the tax appraisal notice on your house, how would you feel about a 30% increase in your water rates next year?  And then, how about a new “drought fee” on top of that base rate increase?  As hard as that sounds to swallow, it is actually possible unless the City Council listens to citizen appeals to take other measures to help the Water Utility.

On May 7th, the Austin American-Statesman published a sobering article that details the scenarios for what seems like unimaginable rate shock coming to City water customers.

“The utility plans to increase its base water rates next year, resulting in a monthly bill of $49.12 for the typical homeowner, up from $38.35 this year — a 30 percent jump.”

And that’s just the beginning.  While you are reading this, a new committee is reviewing options for calculating the new “drought fee” that would accompany the base rate increase.  Below are the five options being considered.  Be sure to keep reading to the end, because there are some ways that the City can avoid clobbering the ratepayers with such punitive and onerous rates.

Options for the Proposed Drought Fee

Option 1

Fee of $1 (Stage 3) or $2.75 (Stage 4) for every 1,000 gallons that any customer (a home or business) uses.

Fee for typical homeowner (who uses 7,000 gallons a month): $7 (Stage 3) or $19.25 (Stage 4)

Total water bill: $56.12 (Stage 3) or $68.37 (Stage 4)

Option 2

Different fees for each type of customer (single-family homes, apartment complexes, smaller businesses and larger companies/agencies) for every 1,000 gallons used.

Fee for typical homeowner: $5.18 (Stage 3) or $18.41 (Stage 4)

Total water bill: $54.30 (Stage 3) or $67.53 (Stage 4)

Option 3

Similar to Dallas’ program. For residential customers, fee would kick in only if they use more than 11,000 gallons per month. All nonresidential customers would pay a fee regardless of how much water they use.

Fee for typical homeowner: $0 (Stage 3 or Stage 4)

Total water bill: $49.12 (Stage 3 or Stage 4)

Option 4

Different fees for homes and businesses; fees also based on amount of water used.

Fee for typical homeowner: $5 (Stage 3) or $22.50 (Stage 4)

Total water bill: $54.12 (Stage 3) or $71.62 (Stage 4)

Option 5

Different, flat fee for each type of customer (single-family homes, apartment complexes, smaller businesses and larger companies/agencies).

Fee for typical homeowner in Stage 3: $4 (Stage 3) or $12 (Stage 4)

Total water bill: $53.12 (Stage 3) or $61.12 (Stage 4)

How Can the City Help the Water Utility and Avoid the Devastating Rate Shock?

Earlier this year, the City announced that there was a $14.2 million budget surplus in the General Fund.  Readers of this blog rallied to the defense of taxpayers and convinced the City Council not to spend this surplus.  I have made a proposal to the City Council, asking them to transfer the budget surplus to the Water Utility to help hold down any forthcoming rate increase.  (See the previous blog entry, “A Possible Breakthrough for the City’s $14.2 Million Budget Surplus.”)

In addition, the budget surplus should be even higher by the time the City Council begins budget deliberations early next month.  I have asked the Council to itemize the large amount of leftover funds from 900 unfilled staff positions that were funded in the current year’s budget.  Unless most of those positions have been filled since early January, then the City should have an additional surplus that could be transferred to the Water Utility.  For long-term accountability to the taxpayers, I have recommended that the City follow the policies of other cities, such as Honolulu and Portland.  These cities do not allow individual departments to stockpile large amounts of money from unfilled positions.  The danger is that the money can easily be spent for other projects.  We need better oversight of taxpayer money, and the City Council needs to exercise its authority over the budget process.

The final option that the City can use to help the Water Utility is to sell some unused and unneeded land that the was purchased by the utility.  Why should ratepayers be saddled with huge rate increases, while the hot summer wind blows over many acres of unused property that the City could sell for a handsome profit?

How Does the Fitch Bond Rating Service Feel About Our Water Rates?

The Fitch Bond Rating Service has made their position clear in their May 19th review of the Water Utility’s bonds.  Below is an excerpt from their report:

DECLINING RATE AFFORDABILITY

“Fitch considers AWU’s combined water and wastewater rates somewhat high relative to income levels of city residents, and in comparison to other large urban systems. Although rate hikes on a combined percentage basis have been fairly modest over the last several years, the city’s total monthly residential bill currently amounts to about $88, equal to an above average 2.1% of median household income.”

“The Rating Outlook for the series 2014 bonds and outstanding parity water and wastewater revenue bonds is revised to Negative from Stable.”

Now, we just have to wonder…Is anybody down there at City Hall listening…?

The Big Set Of Numbers That Don’t Add Up – City Projects 33.6% Property Tax Revenue Increase!

2 Replies

By Bill Oakey – May 19, 2014

The City of Austin has released a very strange set of numbers.  Maybe you can help me figure them out.  if it’s just me who’s crazy, then the rest of you can breathe easier and I’ll go find something else to do.

On April 24th, the City’s financial staff released a Five Year Financial Forecast for all City departments.  The strange phenomenon that I discovered involves the number of new employees projected to be added annually for each department.

Let’s Look at How the City Introduces the Numbers

Here is a brief introduction to the staffing projections, taken from Page 7 of the report:

Staffing Projections

“Staffing costs represent the single largest component of the City’s Budget, and an accurate projection of future staffing levels is essential to forecasting expenditure growth. This section details existing positions and projected changes in the City’s Financial Forecast. ”

My comment:  Take careful note of the portion that I underlined in the first sentence.  You will want to come back later and read it again.

Now Let’s Look at Their Description of the Numbers

From Page 7, Third Paragraph:

“Staffing projections for General Fund departments do not include any positions required to implement new programs or enhance service levels. However positions have been included to address service demands arising from newly annexed areas, a growing population, and the opening of new facilities.”

My comment:  Those sentences sound a little fuzzy.  But not nearly as fuzzy as the numbers.

Now Let’s Take a Look at the Numbers…Click each link below:

Five Year Staffing Projections – Page 8

Five Year Staffing Projections – Page 9

Here Comes the Brain-Twister…Do These Numbers Make Any Sense?

The following City departments are projected to see no change at all in staffing levels for six years in a row, including this year:

Animal Services, Fire (Non-Sworn), Health & Human Services, Parks & Recreation, Planning & Development Review…(Really?), Police (Non-Sworn), Austin Convention Center, Economic Development, Juvenile Case Manager Fund, Neighborhood Housing & Community Development, Parks & Recreation – Golf, Traffic Safety Fund

These City departments are projected to see no change in staffing levels over the five years from 2015 – 2019:

EMS (Non-Sworn), EMS (Sworn), Austin Transportation –  Parking Management, Austin Transportation – Transportation Fund, Aviation, Child Safety, Public Works – Capital Projects Management, Public Works – Transportation Fund. (Note: The last two departments each lose staff from 2014 to 2015)

Of course, there are several departments that are projected to see increased staffing levels. These include the new downtown library, police and fire, Austin Energy and the Water Utility. The Water Utility’s staffing numbers look pretty disturbing, considering the fact that Austinites have heeded the call for conservation and are using less water.  Even further usage reductions are forecast over the next five years.  And yet, the Water Utility plans to add 136.75 new positions, second only to the 187 for new police officers.  The forecast suggests that the drought will continue, but it blindly assumes that water restrictions will remain at Stage 2.  For an explanation of the projections for the Water Utility, see Pages 29 – 31 in the City report.

What’s the Bottom Line for You As a Taxpayer?

How About a 33.6% Increase in City Property Tax Revenue…

The official projections for tax, utility and fee increases do not look good.  On Page 17 of the report, you will see that home appraisals are forecast to increase by at least 5% each year.  You can see the ominous progression of increasing taxes here:

Five Years of Escalating Tax Increases

The most shocking thing about this chart is that it shows Austin’s total property tax revenue increasing a staggering 33.6%, from $355.3 million to $474.8 million!  The tax rate, which would cost you more even if it stayed the same, is projected to steadily increase. Then you have to pile on utility rate increases, a parade of add-on fee increases, and all the other area taxes that you pay.  As scary as that sounds, the stark reality is probably much worse.  If anyone believes the projections that all those City staff positions will remain flat for five to six consecutive years, can we talk about that bridge that I have for sale?

The best solution to this strange conundrum of numbers that don’t look reliable is to work with our new City Council candidates and ask them to commit to much better transparency and accountability in the whole process of budget, planning, audit and finance.  The oversight role of the City Council and their authority over the budget is crucial.

Beyond that, the current City Council should take a good hard look at whether they should continue to rely on the current City Manager, or send him on his way and appoint an interim manager to take his place.  A six month internal transition before the new City Council takes office might be the best first step to getting the City’s fiscal house in order.

Could Austin Be Headed For Another Budget Surplus?

Leave a reply

By Bill Oakey – May 14, 2014

Just two months ago, Austin taxpayers narrowly escaped a stance by some City Council members to dip into a $14.2 million budget surplus.  Thanks in part to the efforts of readers of this blog, citizens spoke out and the money did not get spent.

Now it appears possible that we could see an additional budget surplus, just in time for the annual budget discussions that will commence early next month.  The new surplus could arise from stepped up efforts to reduce the high number of staff vacancies still remaining in the current fiscal year’s budget.

In my message to the City Council on Monday, I urged them to cut back and regulate the number of unfilled positions.  Since then, even more information has come into focus on that issue.  The City Manager and his top budget staff have been very inconsistent in their handling of vacancies, and in their response to Council Members’ attempts to cut taxes by reducing them.

Last Summer’s Battle of the Bulge In the Budget

A great boxing match took place late last summer, when Council Member Mike Martinez took center stage on the issue.  See the Austin Chronicle article, “City Budget: Open Season On Vacancies,” from last August 23rd.  Martinez stepped into the ring, gunning for victory in one of the final rounds in the annual face-off with the staff.   But it may not have been an even fight.  Martinez was outnumbered and out-maneuvered, or so it seemed.  One by one, budget staff came out swinging, and they parsed the 930 citywide vacancies into categories.  Blow after blow was struck at the heart of any attempt to reduce the cost of the unfilled jobs.

The math that was used in that hot summer standoff conflicts with a new spin on essentially the same set of numbers, just five months later.  The official line from last August was that the City’s overall average vacancy rate was 5% to 8%.  On January 10th of this year, the same City Manager (Marc Ott) cited a vacancy level of 900 positions and labeled that number “quite frankly, far too high.”  This time a new kind of math pegged the vacancy level at 9.7%.  (A relevant paragraph from the City Manager’s January memo will be attached to the end of this posting).

But here’s what’s interesting.  When you peel back the surface coating of the numbers and look a little deeper, suddenly you see a whole new picture.  Between October 1st when the new budget took effect and January 10th, the needle had barely moved on the total number of vacancies.  So, at that point, a little over 25% of the fiscal year had passed without any of those staff funds needing to be spent.   Even if all of the vacancies were filled by February 1st, only two-thirds of the fiscal year would be left by then.  So, what happens to the leftover budgeted funds?

A hint can be found in the January City Manager’s memo…

“Long-term vacancies not approved to be filled will be eliminated or repurposed in the upcoming budget process to meet other priorities.”

We can only wonder how much money is actually left over and “repurposed” each year.  Other cities have established reasonable levels of staff vacancies.  Portland’s is about 5%, according to this article in the Portland Oregonian.

What Will It Take to Finally Fix the Problem?

What will it take for all of this money that is being juggled around to be accounted for in a more transparent manner?  The answer can be summed up in one simple statement:

The City Council must exercise its authority over the budgeting process, and not concede another inch on a prudent set of fiscal directives to the City Manager.

Here are a few friendly suggestions on how they might go about doing that:

1. Ask for a full accounting of all unspent funds from vacant positions from all City Departments.  Consider asking for regular updates on a quarterly basis.

2. Label those funds and post them to the City’s website on a chart that the citizens can see.

3. Include in the same chart a listing of surplus funds from the previous budget from increased sales taxes and user fees.

4. Establish a clear policy on how leftover funds from vacant positions can be allocated.  The Council may decide that some departments have backlogs and should receive additional funding.  Or that some funds should be transferred to one of the utilities to hold down a rate increase.  Or set aside to reduce taxes in the next budget.  But, however the process is set, it should be much less fuzzy and squiggly than the system we have today.

The bottom line now is that we should be in line for a budget surplus in excess of the $14.2 million that was announced in March.  Hopefully, we will be allowed to see exactly how much it is and where it ends up.

The City Manager’s January Budget Memo

Below is the key paragraph on staff vacancies from City Manager, Marc Ott’s January 10th memo to Department Directors.  The subject of the memo was “FY 2015 Budget Planning.”

“Another area that we must closely examine in the months ahead is how we manage and budget for our vacant positions. As of the end of December, there were more than 900 vacant non-uniformed positions across City departments. This represents a City-wide civilian vacancy rate of 9.7%, which, quite frankly, is far too high. Nearly 400 new positions were approved by Council back in September with the adoption of the fiscal year 2014 Budget. It is imperative that these new positions be filled as soon as qualified candidates can be identified so that we can fulfill the many new initiatives and service enhancements to which we have committed. With respect to longer term vacancies, effective immediately, all positions vacant more than 180 days will be frozen and will require both ACM and City Manager approval to fill. This review process will remain in place at least through the end of June, when it will be reevaluated. Long-term vacancies not approved to be filled will be eliminated or repurposed in the upcoming budget process to meet other priorities. Moreover, I have directed budget staff to reassess how we budget for vacancies with an eye towards better aligning budgeted vacancy savings with actual long-term trends.”

Something Doesn’t Smell Right At City Hall – And We Need To Get To The Bottom Of It!

1 Reply

By Bill Oakey – May 13, 2014

I was enjoying the gentle breeze while waiting at a table outside Jo’s on Second Street last week when City Council Member Mike Martinez showed up for our meeting.   He introduced two new critical words into the Austin affordability discussion…

Vacant Positions

Mr. Martinez said he was concerned that City Manager, Marc Ott, had left too many vacant positions in the City Budget.  How many is too many?  Well, how about 900 of them?

As I mentioned in my recent blog posting, the City Council has a big problem on its hands, going into the new budget cycle that begins in earnest within a couple of weeks.  They need to double down on affordability if they expect to gain any hope of confidence among beleaguered taxpayers.  So, what are they doing with 900 vacant positions on the books?

Such a large number of vacancies can add up to quite a bit of money.  And once it’s in the budget, those funds can easily be shifted to other purposes by the individual departments.  As it turns out, this very same issue began brewing in the City of Honolulu in 2010.  In their case, it was 1,000 vacant positions that added up to almost $40 million.  See “City Budgets $38.8 Million for 1,000 Vacant Positions” in the Honolulu City Beat.

There was great debate in between the luaus, and it took their city three years to resolve the issue.  Questions were asked about why that much money was “borrowed” from the taxpayers, and whether some of it was being used as a slush fund.  After all, once money finds its way into the budget, people can always find a way to spend it on something other than what it was originally intended for.  As a veteran accountant, I can tell you that one can accomplish such a switch by changing an object code, a cost center, or some other designated code.

Last year Honolulu abandoned the practice of allowing individual departments to “manage” large sums of money budgeted for vacant positions.  Those duties were assigned to a centralized staff person, who now disburses unused funds for approved hiring purposes.  The funds are held in a provisional account.  And they don’t keep $40 million on hand.

While at Austin City Hall yesterday, I asked City Council Member Kathie Tovo to please look into this issue.  I also asked her one important question.  Can departments spend money allocated for vacant positions on other things?  Her answer was simply…

“Yes.”

I have also learned that some members of the City Council attempted to address this problem during last year’s budget deliberations.  As of last August 1st, there were 934 unfilled staff vacancies, with only 76 of them posted for applicants to apply, according to the Austin Business Journal.  So, in September the City Council approved the new fiscal year 2014 budget.  Some of them thought they had fixed the problem with the huge pile of taxpayer money being posted to the books as “unfilled positions.”

Come January 10th, City Manager Marc Ott sent a memo addressed to all departments heads.  In it, he states that there were no less than 900 vacant positions, and he concedes that is “quite frankly, far too high.”  What happened to the “fix” that the City Council thought they had done?

I concur with the Honolulu Council Member who had this to say about huge piles of taxpayer money being stacked up for vacant positions and potentially being spent for other purposes:

“In essence, it’s a no interest loan in favor of the city,” said Anderson. “The city is saying, ‘We took your money this year, no we didn’t use it, thanks a lot for letting us borrow it, and no you can’t have it back.”

As of today, we do not know what has happened to the extra money that was bottled up at Austin City Hall in early January.   But we do know that we paid for it in the property tax bills that we sent to the Travis County Tax Office.

I have asked the City Council for a full accounting from every department on the status of all funds originally allocated for vacant positions since the beginning of this fiscal year last October 1st.  And I have also asked them to consider adopting the Honolulu model of assigning the duties of disbursing vacant position funds from a centralized office.  That office should report the status of these funds to the regular meetings of the City Council’s Audit and Finance Committee.

I am reminded of the fishing trip that my parents took us on when I was a young child.  As we were about to leave the driveway, my mom asked me to do something.

“Billy, please run back in and grab the thermos bottle.  And rinse it out first.”  When I pulled the thermos bottle out of the cupboard and popped the cork off, I gagged and took a few steps back.  Somebody had put it away the last time when it was still full of milk.  Needless to say, it didn’t smell very good.

Something doesn’t smell right today down at City Hall.  And somebody needs to do something about it.