Well, I have been pondering the logic of making my wife and I participate in this community's EIT "repayment program."
The logic goes, so I was told by local public officials, is that she and I now benefit from the infrastructure investments that these officials spent the EIT revenue on, so we should help "pay for it." So, under that logic, I think she and I, and any other current resident that was NOT living here during the "EIT Overpayment" years should be able to either get a rebate back from the municipalities in which we WERE living back in, oh, say 2004, 2005, 2006, etc,. Or, we at least should be able to offset our current "burden" here by what we paid to those municipalities years ago. Afterall, we are no longer able to enjoy the "infrastructure" benefits that those other municipalities spent our previous contributions on.
Since our EIT-equivalent contribution to Philly in the last year alone that we lived there exceeded $12,000, I would certainly be ok with our offset...It seems only fair.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Spinning off PA Chautauqua Assets = tossing Chautauqua charm
Snippet from Nov 5 2008 Chautauqua Board meeting:
"John Feather raised a question, as it appears that we're living off the capital improvement funds....we'll run out of [replenishment] funds in about ten years....Allan Feldman added that the finance committee discussed that monies have been added to capital funds over the years that were never used and ended up in the general fund." and, earlier in the meeting, kathy Snavely asked:
"why we didn't transfer the Hall of Philosophy to the Foundation, so we could avoid paying real estate taxes on it."
Aaaahhhh, but don't worry, neighbors. We ARE spending plenty of PA Chautauqua money on that labor sharing bill (or cross-billing, as Mike Bell puts it) we get from Bill Care and his full time crew of 6. We're spending about $400,000 a year on labor and benefits (see previous post).
And this situtation should strike fear in every property owners' soul right now. Why?
Because the unique character of this community--and, hence our property values, are inextricably tied up with the vitality and identity of the PA Chautauqua, its buildings, and its summer programs and artistic events. Its not dependent on our perpetually growing municipal works staff. That situation would make us like every other suburban subdivision, and not the Chautauqua
A local real estate agent recently said that gretna properties hold their value because of the "location" factor. However, you have to ask yourself how long that misperception is going to hold out. After all, I have years worth of meeting notes from the various governing bodies here, and they all present and discuss quality of life issues that have never been resolved. So, its seems fairly obvious that present owners know the truth--that this location has some serious deficiencies and isn't as valuable as it once was, and that it is only getting worse.
But, back to the Board members' comments: we all know that that's what the Chautauqua does with its assets. It spins them off to other entities, creating such bodies as the boro, the foundation, the arts council, etc.. And, they do this under professed justifications usually relating to avoiding some liability or another.
Let's see how that has worked out for them so far. By my calculations:
--They don't have control over our common grounds, our infrastructure, our water, our sewer, our policing, etc.--Bill Care does. We can't even do our own set up in a Chautauqua building--Bill's staff has to, and we pay twice for that. Once when we pay the $100 rental fee, and again when we pay his crew's staffing costs.
--They don't have control over the theater any more. That belongs to the Arts Council.
--They have a parking lot where an historic building used to be.
--They have now have a highway for an scenic byway leading people to our "Wooded Retreat".
--They don't have control over their checkbook, their annual audit, their budgeting, and their number one cash generator (the Art Show receipts)- Boro employees do: Linda Bell, with, of course, Bill Care's assistance. Oh, someone may look over her shoulder by having arranging for annual audits or such--but that someone would be her husband, the treasurer.
It's a wonder we stay afloat at all, isn't it? But that's not what this post is about. It's about how our leaders are failing us by not having a vision for our assets, by not being motivated to protect our assets in order to achieve the Chautauqua brand/image.
It's totally ironic that I came across these comments from the board, as I was just commenting on what a shame it is that we don't have the ingenuity and vision in this community bring our historic buildings with us into the present, to maintain their character and their usefulness and vitality. My neighbor and I were even discussing how nice it would be to have something done with the Hall of Philosphy that was as creative and interesting--and historically repsectful of the architecture, materials, and design, as was done with the carriage house at Alden Place.
Imagine that: instead of wasting time trying to come up with ways to reduce your "maintenance" burdens on old places, spend that energy with local and concerned talent to keep bringing the PA Chautauqua into the future. 'Cause all this style of management is accomplishing now is to parse off bits of it here and there and to leave more and more of the PA Chautauqua behind--and I am talking about its identity, its uniqueness, its entire character, not just its real assets and infrastructure.
And, our brand, by the way, is not "historic." The PA Chautauqua incorporation documents don't say anything about requesting a charter to preserve some historic element of this area's history. It's asks for a charter to pursue artistic and intellectual endeavors. So, the reason for the PA Chautauqua's existence is PRESENT--not future or past, pursuit of the cultural. Therefore, there is no excuse for not having, as our number one priority, the use of our assets to protect our cultural identity. We are not a living museum. If the PA Chautauqua would rather spend more energy on infrastructrure labor costs and on decreasing control of its assets than in pursuing its mission, then we should seriously consider dissolving it, as it has deviated from its allowed mission.
Studies even show that "cultural" tourists spend more money than the average tourist--so why all the myopia?
(See my earlier post on the renovated Alden Carriage house, which has several new business's in it, including a Buzz Cafe, a jewelry/clothing store, and a day spa.)
"John Feather raised a question, as it appears that we're living off the capital improvement funds....we'll run out of [replenishment] funds in about ten years....Allan Feldman added that the finance committee discussed that monies have been added to capital funds over the years that were never used and ended up in the general fund." and, earlier in the meeting, kathy Snavely asked:
"why we didn't transfer the Hall of Philosophy to the Foundation, so we could avoid paying real estate taxes on it."
Aaaahhhh, but don't worry, neighbors. We ARE spending plenty of PA Chautauqua money on that labor sharing bill (or cross-billing, as Mike Bell puts it) we get from Bill Care and his full time crew of 6. We're spending about $400,000 a year on labor and benefits (see previous post).
And this situtation should strike fear in every property owners' soul right now. Why?
Because the unique character of this community--and, hence our property values, are inextricably tied up with the vitality and identity of the PA Chautauqua, its buildings, and its summer programs and artistic events. Its not dependent on our perpetually growing municipal works staff. That situation would make us like every other suburban subdivision, and not the Chautauqua
A local real estate agent recently said that gretna properties hold their value because of the "location" factor. However, you have to ask yourself how long that misperception is going to hold out. After all, I have years worth of meeting notes from the various governing bodies here, and they all present and discuss quality of life issues that have never been resolved. So, its seems fairly obvious that present owners know the truth--that this location has some serious deficiencies and isn't as valuable as it once was, and that it is only getting worse.
But, back to the Board members' comments: we all know that that's what the Chautauqua does with its assets. It spins them off to other entities, creating such bodies as the boro, the foundation, the arts council, etc.. And, they do this under professed justifications usually relating to avoiding some liability or another.
Let's see how that has worked out for them so far. By my calculations:
--They don't have control over our common grounds, our infrastructure, our water, our sewer, our policing, etc.--Bill Care does. We can't even do our own set up in a Chautauqua building--Bill's staff has to, and we pay twice for that. Once when we pay the $100 rental fee, and again when we pay his crew's staffing costs.
--They don't have control over the theater any more. That belongs to the Arts Council.
--They have a parking lot where an historic building used to be.
--They have now have a highway for an scenic byway leading people to our "Wooded Retreat".
--They don't have control over their checkbook, their annual audit, their budgeting, and their number one cash generator (the Art Show receipts)- Boro employees do: Linda Bell, with, of course, Bill Care's assistance. Oh, someone may look over her shoulder by having arranging for annual audits or such--but that someone would be her husband, the treasurer.
It's a wonder we stay afloat at all, isn't it? But that's not what this post is about. It's about how our leaders are failing us by not having a vision for our assets, by not being motivated to protect our assets in order to achieve the Chautauqua brand/image.
It's totally ironic that I came across these comments from the board, as I was just commenting on what a shame it is that we don't have the ingenuity and vision in this community bring our historic buildings with us into the present, to maintain their character and their usefulness and vitality. My neighbor and I were even discussing how nice it would be to have something done with the Hall of Philosphy that was as creative and interesting--and historically repsectful of the architecture, materials, and design, as was done with the carriage house at Alden Place.
Imagine that: instead of wasting time trying to come up with ways to reduce your "maintenance" burdens on old places, spend that energy with local and concerned talent to keep bringing the PA Chautauqua into the future. 'Cause all this style of management is accomplishing now is to parse off bits of it here and there and to leave more and more of the PA Chautauqua behind--and I am talking about its identity, its uniqueness, its entire character, not just its real assets and infrastructure.
And, our brand, by the way, is not "historic." The PA Chautauqua incorporation documents don't say anything about requesting a charter to preserve some historic element of this area's history. It's asks for a charter to pursue artistic and intellectual endeavors. So, the reason for the PA Chautauqua's existence is PRESENT--not future or past, pursuit of the cultural. Therefore, there is no excuse for not having, as our number one priority, the use of our assets to protect our cultural identity. We are not a living museum. If the PA Chautauqua would rather spend more energy on infrastructrure labor costs and on decreasing control of its assets than in pursuing its mission, then we should seriously consider dissolving it, as it has deviated from its allowed mission.
Studies even show that "cultural" tourists spend more money than the average tourist--so why all the myopia?
(See my earlier post on the renovated Alden Carriage house, which has several new business's in it, including a Buzz Cafe, a jewelry/clothing store, and a day spa.)
Budget Analysis: Expenses Wages and Benefits burden of $400,000?!
Why should this figure be a red flag for us? Well, because we are a VERY small municipality, and this figure represents relatively large burdens for us. To compound the problem, because of our staff's pension benefits that we are paying into today, we, our grandchildren, and future residents, will be incurring this burden well into the future while receiving no benefit from this expense. This is another reason why, again, Mt. Gretnans pay so much more per capita annually ($2300+) to our municipality than similarly situated municipalities ($200-1000/year/capita).
And, let's not forget that the boro "shares" this staff with the Chautauqua--an incorporated homeowners association with little oversight or obligation to transparency as compared with a municipality or an authority.
Don't forget to review the Revenue side of things--its posted in the previous post, below. Please remember though, that I had to use a previous actual budget for the Chauatauqua Art Show, and the other data is from the 2010 Proposed Budgets.
2010 Proposed Budgets Analysis: Expenses
TRANSFERS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Chautauqua (Art Show), contribution to boro --15,500 ** (18% of gate receipts)
Chautauqua (Art Show), Contribution to boro-- 2,000 ( cultural grant)
Chautauqua (Art Show), transfer to PA Chaut. B&G -- 1,800
Chautauqua (Art Show), transfer to PA Chaut GenFund -- 5,027
Chautauqua (Art Show), transfer to PA Chautauqua Fdtn --10,000
Chautauqua (GenFund), Transfer to Sewer Fund -- 101,141
Chautauqua (GenFund), Transfer to Garbage Fund --36,170
Chautauqua (GenFund), Allocation to Summer Programs-- 3,000
>>>>>> 174,638 CHAUT TRANSFERS TOTAL
EQUIPMENT/RELATED
Chautauqua (Art Show), shuttle bus -- 8,160
Chautauqua (GenFund), Eqpmt rental -- 6,897
Chautauqua (GenFund), Street lights -- 11,000
Boro, Eqpmt use and maint -- 2,220
Sewer Authority, Eqpmt use and maint. -- 6,990
Water Authority, Eqpmt use and maint -- 4,730
Sewer Authority, Equipmt purchase -- 4,000
Sewer Authority, Cap Eqpmt Allocation -- 20,000
Sewer Authority, Cap Outlay Allocation -- 10,000
Boro, gas -- 3,072
Sewer Authority, gas -- 4,000
Chautauqua (Art Show), food court-water heater -- 3,548
Chautauqua (B&G), capital x-boardroom -- 3,000
Chautauqua (B&G), cap x-gift shop -- 2,500
Boro, Supplies and repairs-boro bldg -- 400
Chautauqua (B&G), Supplies (all bldgs) 3,500
Boro, Repairs to Eqpmt -- 5,000
Sewer Authority, repairs to eqpmt -- 8,000
Water Authority, repairs to eqpmt -- 417
OPERATING
Boro, repairs to roads -- 6,324
Boro, street signs -- 500
Chautauqua (Art Show), application/jury system -- 4,664
Chautauqua (Art Show), entertainment -- 4,900
Chautauqua (Art Show), jury day expenses -- 3,623
Chautauqua (Art Show), reseed park -- 52
Sewer Authority, repairs to Treatment Plant -- 10,000
Sewer Authority, sludge disposal -- 12,000
Boro, Operating supplies -- 400
Chautauqua (Art Show), awards -- 2,199
Chautauqua (Art Show), operating supplies -- 2,543
Sewer Authority, Operating Supplies -- 5,000
Water Authority, operating supplies -- 150
Water Authority, treatment supplies -- 10,000
Boro, Advertising and Printing -- 617
Chautauqua (Art Show), Advertising -- 4,500**
Sewer Authority, Advertising and Printing -- 400
Water Authority, Advertising and PR -- 100
Chautauqua (GenFund), communication -- 1,900
Boro, Office supplies -- 600
Chautauqua (Art Show), admin supplies -- 307
Chautauqua (GenFund), Office Supplies -- 500
Sewer Authority, Office Supplies -- 550
Water Authority, Office supplies -- 500
Sewer Authority, Office equip purchase -- 400
Sewer Authority, Office equip repair -- 600
>>>>>>> 3,457 OFFICE STUFF TOTAL
Boro, Phones and radios -- 2,000
Sewer Authority, Phones and radios -- 900
Water Authority, Phones and radios -- 900
>>>>> 3,800 PHONES & RADIOS TOTAL
But, as far as I can tell, these entities all have the same office and phones and radios…
FACILITY RELATED
Boro, rent-boardroom -- 400
Chautauqua (GenFund), rent-boro bldg -- 3,500
Sewer Authority, rent-boro bldg -- 5,000
Water Authority, rent-boro bldg -- 1,300
Boro, rent-office -- 1,817
Sewer Authority, rent-office -- 1,317
Chautauqua (B&G), Utilities, Boardroom -- 1,480 (381 sewer, 464 water)
>>>>>>>> 13334 RENTS PAID TOTAL
Boro, Utilities-boro building -- 2,221
Chautauqua (GenFund), Utilities-boro bldg -- 1,700 (includes insurance)
Sewer Authority, Utilities-boro bldg -- 1,000
Water Authority, Utilities-boro bldg -- 1,000
>>>>>>> 5921 BORO BLDG UTILITIES TOTAL
Boro, Utilities-Office -- 1,141
Chautauqua (B&G), Office -- 1,649 (127 sewer, 155 water)
Sewer Authority, Utilities-Office -- 500
Water Authority, Utilities-office -- 500
>>>>>>>> 3790 OFFICE UTILITIES TOTAL
Boro, tax collection supplies and fees -- 690
Chautauqua (GenFund), Director’s and Official Insurance -- 2,250
Sewer Authority, Dues and Memberships -- 1,000
Chautauqua (Art Show), Workshop registration -- 395
STAFFING RELATED (“full-time/permanent”) $395,877
Boro, tax collector’s bond -- 144 (L. Bell)
Boro, Financial Secretary’s Bond -- 474 (L. Bell)
Sewer Authority, Financial secretary’s bond-- 200 (L. Bell? or maybe L. Bell's husband, M. Bell?)
Water Authority, Financial Secretary’s bond-- 200(L. Bell? or maybe L. Bell's husband, M. Bell?)
Boro, Financial Secretary’ Salary -- 17,063 (L.Bell)
Chautauqua's Financial Secretary --No figure reported (L. Bell)
Sewer Authority, Financial Secretary’s salary-- 10,250 (L. Bell? or maybe L. Bell's husband, M. Bell?)
Water Authority, Financial Secretary’s salary-- 4,700 (L. Bell? or maybe L. Bell's husband, M. Bell?)
>>>>>>>> 32,013 FINANCIAL SEC. SALARY TOTAL
It is also my understanding that tax and fee collectors get a commission based on the amounts that they collect.
Boro, FICA/Medicare -- 3,928
Chautauqua (GenFund), FICA/Medicare -- 4,851
Sewer Authority, FICA/Medicare -- 8,110
Water Authority, FICA/Medicare -- 3,763
>>>>>> 20,652 FICA/MEDICARE TOTAL
Chautauqua (GenFund), Dental/Vision Ins -- 1,626
Chautauqua (GenFund), Disability ins. -- 1,438
Chautauqua (GenFund), Health America -- 17,375
Boro, Employee Benefits -- 12,260
Sewer Authority, Employee Benefits -- 29,005
Water Authority, Employee Benefits -- 14,799
Chautauqua (GenFund), Pension Buy Back Prgm -- 1,340
>>>>>>> 77,843 BENEFITS TOTAL
Boro, Labor Salaries -- 34,283
Chautauqua (Art Show), labor services -- 1,425
Sewer Authority, Labor salaries -- 95,760
Sewer Authority, Director and Manager fee -- 2,160
Water Authority, Labor salaries -- 44,495
Chautauqua (GenFund), Labor Services -- 63,417
Chautauqua (GenFund), Office of the Secretary -- 600
>>>>>> 242,140 LABOR TOTAL
Boro, Pension -- 4,652
Chautauqua (GenFund), Pension -- 5,787
Sewer Authority, Pension -- 12,290
Water Authority, Pension -- 500
>>>>>> 23,229 PENSION TOTAL
Chautauqua (Art Show), Parking- MG Fire Dept-- 11,409** (13.25% of gate receipts)
Chautauqua (Art Show), Parking-Philhaven -- 2,200
Chautauqua (Art Show), Parking-Lots and Tents -- 11,135
Chautauqua (Art Show), traffic police/Security -- 16,909
(This obviously can't be for two days of art show. Its more like that this money is really spent on parking staff throughout the summer, which can be a couple/three thousand a month and may be "repaid" in "relative portions" by leaseholders with summer businesses, including the Jiggershop, which is owned and operated by the Boro Council President. However, the determination of his portion of that expense is not established via contract--at least not a contract that the Boro showed to me. And, I asked to see them all, including leases--which, are contracts for property interests.)
Chautauqua (GenFund), Temp Force Labor -- 5,000
Sewer Authority, Temp Force labor -- 2,042
Boro, Workman’s Comp -- 2,072
Chautauqua (GenFund), Workman’s Comp -- 2,320
Sewer Authority, Workman’s Comp -- 3,968
Water Authority, Workman’s Comp -- 1,711
Boro, Insurance (gen, car, prop, e&o) -- 4,884
Chautauqua (Art Show), insurance -- 5,018
Chautauqua (GenFund), auto -- 391
Sewer Authority, Insurance (gen, car, prop, e&o)-- 8,035
Water Authority, Insurance (“) -- 3,575
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EXPENSES (“repetitive” and “unique”)
Boro, Police Contract -- 28,467
Chautauqua (Art Show),ems services -- 1,560
Sewer Authority, Engineering Services -- 6000
Boro, solicitor -- 10,500
Chautauqua (GenFund), solicitor -- 3,500 (Kilgore)
Sewer Authority, solicitor -- 2,500 (Kilgore)
Water Authority, solicitor -- 500 (Kilgore)
Chautauqua (GenFund), other legal fees -- 400 (Kilgore)
Boro, Auditing -- 6,200
Chautauqua (Art Show), Auditing -- 2,200
Chautauqua (B&G), Auditing -- 1,560 (unable to confirm professional)
Chautauqua (GenFund), Auditing -- 3,978 (unable to confirm professional)
Sewer Authority, Auditing -- 2,950 (unable to confirm professional)
Water Authority, Auditing -- 3,350 (unable to confirm professional)
OTHER EXPENSES (“uniqueness” to one entity “certain”)
Chautauqua (B&G), Utilities, Phil. Hall -- 5,161 (456 sewer, 614 water, 165 waste)
Chautauqua (B&G), Garages/restrooms -- 1,155 (228 sewer, 307 water)
Chautauqua (B&G), Gift shop -- 1,675
Chautauqua (B&G), Lodge -- 7,996 (456 sewer, 614 water)
Chautauqua (B&G), improved parks -- 12,415 ( gen exp 2k, landscaping 2.5K, tree maint. 5k, tree purchases 0)
Chautauqua (B&G), unimproved parks -- 3,253 (tree maint 2k)
Chautauqua (B&G), Playground -- 8,774 (labor 4300, FICA/Medicare 329)
Chautauqua (B&G), Post Office -- 2,485 (456 sewer, 614 water)
Chautauqua (B&G), Visitor’s Info Center -- 2,193 (228 sewer, 307 water)*
Sewer Authority, Utilities-treatment Plant -- 5,500
Water Authority, Utilities-plant -- 7,100
* Theater not listed in Chautauqua B&G’s budget
**The Mt. Gretna Art Show, which is reported in the PA Chautauqua’s IRS files (990’s), is a serious cash generator as well as a serious expense for us. Therefore, I think it should certainly be considered in this analysis. However, because I only have the Art Show’s 2007 Budget to Actuals, I had to use those figures.
It requires lots of resources to execute the set up and break down within our community—on our grounds. The Boro apparently hires temporary help for this, and our staff is used extensively to set up, break down, and to prepare (i.e. installing permanent power stations throughout our Art Show area), and to repair the damage done to our improved parks. For example, this year, we had to resod a significant area of grassy area that rutted—a “soggy” situation that was certainly exacerbated by the trampling of thousands of people and tons of weight. Our monies and staff accomplished this “repair”. Also, I have not been shown any contract describing such an arrangement (although, again, I did ask the Boro to look at all contracts), it is rather common knowledge that the Art Show “splits” its revenues with at least the Boro, and the Fire dept., but that that “revenue” is not budgeted by them. It seems like it is treated more like a “donation” from another entity within this geo-political boundary ---an entity that claims to be completely independent from all others here even though it uses a significant amount of our monies and resources yet maintains that it is not accountable to us in any way for quality of life concerns we present to them.
Also, it appears as if the theater is not really owned and operated by the PA Chautauqua, but, rather by another non-profit, the Mount Gretna Arts Council. This council, of which one member is Dale Grundon and the contact is listed as Keith Kilgore, appears to be taking depreciation for this building on its own 990’s. Further, there is a PA Chautauqua Foundation, which claims things like the Cicada Festival, and this non-profit has the same officer composition and contact info as the PA Chautauqua, which is the same as the Boro, and the two authorities, as far as I can tell.
If you have any other info clarifying or confirming these comments, please make a comment and let me know what your source is--I am sure that we would all like to see documentation to confirm all this, and not just memory or hearsay. Thanks.
And, let's not forget that the boro "shares" this staff with the Chautauqua--an incorporated homeowners association with little oversight or obligation to transparency as compared with a municipality or an authority.
Don't forget to review the Revenue side of things--its posted in the previous post, below. Please remember though, that I had to use a previous actual budget for the Chauatauqua Art Show, and the other data is from the 2010 Proposed Budgets.
2010 Proposed Budgets Analysis: Expenses
TRANSFERS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Chautauqua (Art Show), contribution to boro --15,500 ** (18% of gate receipts)
Chautauqua (Art Show), Contribution to boro-- 2,000 ( cultural grant)
Chautauqua (Art Show), transfer to PA Chaut. B&G -- 1,800
Chautauqua (Art Show), transfer to PA Chaut GenFund -- 5,027
Chautauqua (Art Show), transfer to PA Chautauqua Fdtn --10,000
Chautauqua (GenFund), Transfer to Sewer Fund -- 101,141
Chautauqua (GenFund), Transfer to Garbage Fund --36,170
Chautauqua (GenFund), Allocation to Summer Programs-- 3,000
>>>>>> 174,638 CHAUT TRANSFERS TOTAL
EQUIPMENT/RELATED
Chautauqua (Art Show), shuttle bus -- 8,160
Chautauqua (GenFund), Eqpmt rental -- 6,897
Chautauqua (GenFund), Street lights -- 11,000
Boro, Eqpmt use and maint -- 2,220
Sewer Authority, Eqpmt use and maint. -- 6,990
Water Authority, Eqpmt use and maint -- 4,730
Sewer Authority, Equipmt purchase -- 4,000
Sewer Authority, Cap Eqpmt Allocation -- 20,000
Sewer Authority, Cap Outlay Allocation -- 10,000
Boro, gas -- 3,072
Sewer Authority, gas -- 4,000
Chautauqua (Art Show), food court-water heater -- 3,548
Chautauqua (B&G), capital x-boardroom -- 3,000
Chautauqua (B&G), cap x-gift shop -- 2,500
Boro, Supplies and repairs-boro bldg -- 400
Chautauqua (B&G), Supplies (all bldgs) 3,500
Boro, Repairs to Eqpmt -- 5,000
Sewer Authority, repairs to eqpmt -- 8,000
Water Authority, repairs to eqpmt -- 417
OPERATING
Boro, repairs to roads -- 6,324
Boro, street signs -- 500
Chautauqua (Art Show), application/jury system -- 4,664
Chautauqua (Art Show), entertainment -- 4,900
Chautauqua (Art Show), jury day expenses -- 3,623
Chautauqua (Art Show), reseed park -- 52
Sewer Authority, repairs to Treatment Plant -- 10,000
Sewer Authority, sludge disposal -- 12,000
Boro, Operating supplies -- 400
Chautauqua (Art Show), awards -- 2,199
Chautauqua (Art Show), operating supplies -- 2,543
Sewer Authority, Operating Supplies -- 5,000
Water Authority, operating supplies -- 150
Water Authority, treatment supplies -- 10,000
Boro, Advertising and Printing -- 617
Chautauqua (Art Show), Advertising -- 4,500**
Sewer Authority, Advertising and Printing -- 400
Water Authority, Advertising and PR -- 100
Chautauqua (GenFund), communication -- 1,900
Boro, Office supplies -- 600
Chautauqua (Art Show), admin supplies -- 307
Chautauqua (GenFund), Office Supplies -- 500
Sewer Authority, Office Supplies -- 550
Water Authority, Office supplies -- 500
Sewer Authority, Office equip purchase -- 400
Sewer Authority, Office equip repair -- 600
>>>>>>> 3,457 OFFICE STUFF TOTAL
Boro, Phones and radios -- 2,000
Sewer Authority, Phones and radios -- 900
Water Authority, Phones and radios -- 900
>>>>> 3,800 PHONES & RADIOS TOTAL
But, as far as I can tell, these entities all have the same office and phones and radios…
FACILITY RELATED
Boro, rent-boardroom -- 400
Chautauqua (GenFund), rent-boro bldg -- 3,500
Sewer Authority, rent-boro bldg -- 5,000
Water Authority, rent-boro bldg -- 1,300
Boro, rent-office -- 1,817
Sewer Authority, rent-office -- 1,317
Chautauqua (B&G), Utilities, Boardroom -- 1,480 (381 sewer, 464 water)
>>>>>>>> 13334 RENTS PAID TOTAL
Boro, Utilities-boro building -- 2,221
Chautauqua (GenFund), Utilities-boro bldg -- 1,700 (includes insurance)
Sewer Authority, Utilities-boro bldg -- 1,000
Water Authority, Utilities-boro bldg -- 1,000
>>>>>>> 5921 BORO BLDG UTILITIES TOTAL
Boro, Utilities-Office -- 1,141
Chautauqua (B&G), Office -- 1,649 (127 sewer, 155 water)
Sewer Authority, Utilities-Office -- 500
Water Authority, Utilities-office -- 500
>>>>>>>> 3790 OFFICE UTILITIES TOTAL
Boro, tax collection supplies and fees -- 690
Chautauqua (GenFund), Director’s and Official Insurance -- 2,250
Sewer Authority, Dues and Memberships -- 1,000
Chautauqua (Art Show), Workshop registration -- 395
STAFFING RELATED (“full-time/permanent”) $395,877
Boro, tax collector’s bond -- 144 (L. Bell)
Boro, Financial Secretary’s Bond -- 474 (L. Bell)
Sewer Authority, Financial secretary’s bond-- 200 (L. Bell? or maybe L. Bell's husband, M. Bell?)
Water Authority, Financial Secretary’s bond-- 200(L. Bell? or maybe L. Bell's husband, M. Bell?)
Boro, Financial Secretary’ Salary -- 17,063 (L.Bell)
Chautauqua's Financial Secretary --No figure reported (L. Bell)
Sewer Authority, Financial Secretary’s salary-- 10,250 (L. Bell? or maybe L. Bell's husband, M. Bell?)
Water Authority, Financial Secretary’s salary-- 4,700 (L. Bell? or maybe L. Bell's husband, M. Bell?)
>>>>>>>> 32,013 FINANCIAL SEC. SALARY TOTAL
It is also my understanding that tax and fee collectors get a commission based on the amounts that they collect.
Boro, FICA/Medicare -- 3,928
Chautauqua (GenFund), FICA/Medicare -- 4,851
Sewer Authority, FICA/Medicare -- 8,110
Water Authority, FICA/Medicare -- 3,763
>>>>>> 20,652 FICA/MEDICARE TOTAL
Chautauqua (GenFund), Dental/Vision Ins -- 1,626
Chautauqua (GenFund), Disability ins. -- 1,438
Chautauqua (GenFund), Health America -- 17,375
Boro, Employee Benefits -- 12,260
Sewer Authority, Employee Benefits -- 29,005
Water Authority, Employee Benefits -- 14,799
Chautauqua (GenFund), Pension Buy Back Prgm -- 1,340
>>>>>>> 77,843 BENEFITS TOTAL
Boro, Labor Salaries -- 34,283
Chautauqua (Art Show), labor services -- 1,425
Sewer Authority, Labor salaries -- 95,760
Sewer Authority, Director and Manager fee -- 2,160
Water Authority, Labor salaries -- 44,495
Chautauqua (GenFund), Labor Services -- 63,417
Chautauqua (GenFund), Office of the Secretary -- 600
>>>>>> 242,140 LABOR TOTAL
Boro, Pension -- 4,652
Chautauqua (GenFund), Pension -- 5,787
Sewer Authority, Pension -- 12,290
Water Authority, Pension -- 500
>>>>>> 23,229 PENSION TOTAL
Chautauqua (Art Show), Parking- MG Fire Dept-- 11,409** (13.25% of gate receipts)
Chautauqua (Art Show), Parking-Philhaven -- 2,200
Chautauqua (Art Show), Parking-Lots and Tents -- 11,135
Chautauqua (Art Show), traffic police/Security -- 16,909
(This obviously can't be for two days of art show. Its more like that this money is really spent on parking staff throughout the summer, which can be a couple/three thousand a month and may be "repaid" in "relative portions" by leaseholders with summer businesses, including the Jiggershop, which is owned and operated by the Boro Council President. However, the determination of his portion of that expense is not established via contract--at least not a contract that the Boro showed to me. And, I asked to see them all, including leases--which, are contracts for property interests.)
Chautauqua (GenFund), Temp Force Labor -- 5,000
Sewer Authority, Temp Force labor -- 2,042
Boro, Workman’s Comp -- 2,072
Chautauqua (GenFund), Workman’s Comp -- 2,320
Sewer Authority, Workman’s Comp -- 3,968
Water Authority, Workman’s Comp -- 1,711
Boro, Insurance (gen, car, prop, e&o) -- 4,884
Chautauqua (Art Show), insurance -- 5,018
Chautauqua (GenFund), auto -- 391
Sewer Authority, Insurance (gen, car, prop, e&o)-- 8,035
Water Authority, Insurance (“) -- 3,575
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EXPENSES (“repetitive” and “unique”)
Boro, Police Contract -- 28,467
Chautauqua (Art Show),ems services -- 1,560
Sewer Authority, Engineering Services -- 6000
Boro, solicitor -- 10,500
Chautauqua (GenFund), solicitor -- 3,500 (Kilgore)
Sewer Authority, solicitor -- 2,500 (Kilgore)
Water Authority, solicitor -- 500 (Kilgore)
Chautauqua (GenFund), other legal fees -- 400 (Kilgore)
Boro, Auditing -- 6,200
Chautauqua (Art Show), Auditing -- 2,200
Chautauqua (B&G), Auditing -- 1,560 (unable to confirm professional)
Chautauqua (GenFund), Auditing -- 3,978 (unable to confirm professional)
Sewer Authority, Auditing -- 2,950 (unable to confirm professional)
Water Authority, Auditing -- 3,350 (unable to confirm professional)
OTHER EXPENSES (“uniqueness” to one entity “certain”)
Chautauqua (B&G), Utilities, Phil. Hall -- 5,161 (456 sewer, 614 water, 165 waste)
Chautauqua (B&G), Garages/restrooms -- 1,155 (228 sewer, 307 water)
Chautauqua (B&G), Gift shop -- 1,675
Chautauqua (B&G), Lodge -- 7,996 (456 sewer, 614 water)
Chautauqua (B&G), improved parks -- 12,415 ( gen exp 2k, landscaping 2.5K, tree maint. 5k, tree purchases 0)
Chautauqua (B&G), unimproved parks -- 3,253 (tree maint 2k)
Chautauqua (B&G), Playground -- 8,774 (labor 4300, FICA/Medicare 329)
Chautauqua (B&G), Post Office -- 2,485 (456 sewer, 614 water)
Chautauqua (B&G), Visitor’s Info Center -- 2,193 (228 sewer, 307 water)*
Sewer Authority, Utilities-treatment Plant -- 5,500
Water Authority, Utilities-plant -- 7,100
* Theater not listed in Chautauqua B&G’s budget
**The Mt. Gretna Art Show, which is reported in the PA Chautauqua’s IRS files (990’s), is a serious cash generator as well as a serious expense for us. Therefore, I think it should certainly be considered in this analysis. However, because I only have the Art Show’s 2007 Budget to Actuals, I had to use those figures.
It requires lots of resources to execute the set up and break down within our community—on our grounds. The Boro apparently hires temporary help for this, and our staff is used extensively to set up, break down, and to prepare (i.e. installing permanent power stations throughout our Art Show area), and to repair the damage done to our improved parks. For example, this year, we had to resod a significant area of grassy area that rutted—a “soggy” situation that was certainly exacerbated by the trampling of thousands of people and tons of weight. Our monies and staff accomplished this “repair”. Also, I have not been shown any contract describing such an arrangement (although, again, I did ask the Boro to look at all contracts), it is rather common knowledge that the Art Show “splits” its revenues with at least the Boro, and the Fire dept., but that that “revenue” is not budgeted by them. It seems like it is treated more like a “donation” from another entity within this geo-political boundary ---an entity that claims to be completely independent from all others here even though it uses a significant amount of our monies and resources yet maintains that it is not accountable to us in any way for quality of life concerns we present to them.
Also, it appears as if the theater is not really owned and operated by the PA Chautauqua, but, rather by another non-profit, the Mount Gretna Arts Council. This council, of which one member is Dale Grundon and the contact is listed as Keith Kilgore, appears to be taking depreciation for this building on its own 990’s. Further, there is a PA Chautauqua Foundation, which claims things like the Cicada Festival, and this non-profit has the same officer composition and contact info as the PA Chautauqua, which is the same as the Boro, and the two authorities, as far as I can tell.
If you have any other info clarifying or confirming these comments, please make a comment and let me know what your source is--I am sure that we would all like to see documentation to confirm all this, and not just memory or hearsay. Thanks.
Budget Analysis: Revenue of a Million Bucks for Mt. Gretna?!
Ok, so the Chautauqua, the Boro, and the Water Authority and the Sewer Authority have published their proposed budgets for 2010. As, for example, the Boro's budget indicates that it is around $150,000, and that I was told that the Boro is engaged only in 5 contracts (1 police and 4 snow removal), AND that the Boro's public works director answered at the last council meeting that we only have 5 fulltime staff (not six, as the new guy we have been seeing since, oh AUgust, is a TempForce guy) a $150,000 Boro budget seemed a little "short" for me. The glaring but unspoken fact must be that there is some "cost sharing" "plant sharing" and maybe even "revenue sharing" going on between these entities.
So, I looked at all the budgets for these four entities. This post will include the revenues analysis. The next includes the Expenses Analysis. Please remember though, that I had to use a previous actual budget for the Chauatauqua Art Show, and the other data is from the 2010 Proposed Budgets.
Our 87 acres takes in almost a Million Bucks a year, which is one reason why our municipal "efficiency" numbers are through the roof, relatively speaking. Where our neighbors and similarly sized municipalities never receive more than $1000 per capita, we are at $2300+.
Where our neighbors--also participants in our water and sewer authority pay $1100 for five services (water, sewer, trash/leave/snow removal), we in Mt. Gretna pay close to $1900.And, in addition to paying the "fee" for water and sewer, we are also responsible for the salary and benefits paid to the same staff who are all on our payrolls: the Chaut, the Boro, the Water Authority, and the Sewer Authority Compared to rates in big cities, like Philadelphia, it still looks bad: for a full-time resident in Philadelphia, the water AND sewer bill averages about $450 a year.
Don't be fooled--there is no gold in our drinking water and our sewer pipes don't sing happy jingles to us when we flush. (Note that "infrastructure" work or improvements is a different assessment, so those figures don't effect these comments.)
Have a look for yourself:
2010 Proposed Budgets Analysis: REVENUE
Revenue
Chautauqua Art Show receipts -- 187,362 (2007 data)
Chautauqua HOA fees (1275 x 221) -- 280,000 (approx)*
Chautauqua Bldgs and Grounds, Leases -- 52,305
Chautauqua (B&G), allocation from capital project -- 8500
Boro, Intergovernmental Transfers -- Not in budget
Boro, snow removal contracts -- 8,600
Boro, tax revenues -- 87,488
Boro, Cable -- 4600
Boro, Liquid Fuels -- not in budget
Sewer Authority, Assessments** -- 188,000 (289,750 – Chaut transfer)
Water Authority, Assessments** -- 106,340
>>>>>>>>>>> 923,195 Rough total of Income
OTHER INCOME (“certain/sole” source)
Chautauqua, State Pension Aid -- 3,819
Sewer Authority, State Pension Aid -- 6,500
Water Authority, State Pension Aid -- 3,000
Boro, Art show admissions -- 16,000
OTHER INCOME (“uncertain/shared” source)
Boro, rental of boro building -- 9800
Boro, rental of equipmt -- 13511
Sewer Authority, rental of equipment -- 7327
Boro, Labor Services, MG Playhouse -- 5,956
Notes:
1. Neither the theater nor the Art Show are in the budget. The theater may be operated by another entity, but the art show is all PA Chautauqua, thus is included in the Chautauqua data. (See expense analysis notes in next post). As the Art Show generates nearly 250K in revenue annually, and has significant expenses that are often either directly or indirectly passed on to the budgets of the boro, tranparency requires that the Art Show numbers be included.
2. Now what does the Chaut. do with those assessments collected:
They pass 101K on to the Sewer Fund, leaving about 150K for maintenance of our infrastructure. However, the budget shows that that seems to be a piecemeal endeavor, at best. A lot of it seems to be operating expenses, rather than maintenance. See the expense analysis in next post.
3. Sewer and water fees appear to be egregiously inflated. First, neighboring municipalities that are also on our systems pay a flat out fee of about 1100 a year for sewer, water, snow removal, leave removal, etc. Adding all our fees up gets us to about 1800 bucks a year. Second, when we were using metered water, we were paying about 400 a year—and that was living in the house full time, which a lot of our homeowners around here do not do.
4. Before going on to the Expense Analysis, take note of which entity is claiming rental revenue (as opposed to lease revenue)--in other words, who is renting what building/space to whom here, where the "rentor's" office is located. Also, look at phone numbers, who is listed as "in charge," office supplies and equipment expenses, etc. A couple of months ago, I asked to see all the Boro's contracts and was presented with only police and snow removal. From this, I can only conclude that there is no "agreement" between these entities to "share" office space, office equipment, comunications equipment, and, especially, to share staffing. So how do we know who's clock or use paperclip anyone is on around here?
* From the 2010 proposed budget break down:
Chautauqua, Sewer Assessments -- 84,391
Chautauqua, Sewer Main replacement fee -- 16,200
Chautauqua, Home Waste Assessment -- 35,970
Chautauqua, Maintenance Assessment -- 146,970
>>>>>>Total: 283,531
**I assumed that these assessments include more than assessments from the residents of MGB.
It is also unclear to me why the Chautauqua’s sewer, garbage, and maintenance revenue streams are in their General Funds budget, and not in their Buildings and Grounds Budget.
So, I looked at all the budgets for these four entities. This post will include the revenues analysis. The next includes the Expenses Analysis. Please remember though, that I had to use a previous actual budget for the Chauatauqua Art Show, and the other data is from the 2010 Proposed Budgets.
Our 87 acres takes in almost a Million Bucks a year, which is one reason why our municipal "efficiency" numbers are through the roof, relatively speaking. Where our neighbors and similarly sized municipalities never receive more than $1000 per capita, we are at $2300+.
Where our neighbors--also participants in our water and sewer authority pay $1100 for five services (water, sewer, trash/leave/snow removal), we in Mt. Gretna pay close to $1900.And, in addition to paying the "fee" for water and sewer, we are also responsible for the salary and benefits paid to the same staff who are all on our payrolls: the Chaut, the Boro, the Water Authority, and the Sewer Authority Compared to rates in big cities, like Philadelphia, it still looks bad: for a full-time resident in Philadelphia, the water AND sewer bill averages about $450 a year.
Don't be fooled--there is no gold in our drinking water and our sewer pipes don't sing happy jingles to us when we flush. (Note that "infrastructure" work or improvements is a different assessment, so those figures don't effect these comments.)
Have a look for yourself:
2010 Proposed Budgets Analysis: REVENUE
Revenue
Chautauqua Art Show receipts -- 187,362 (2007 data)
Chautauqua HOA fees (1275 x 221) -- 280,000 (approx)*
Chautauqua Bldgs and Grounds, Leases -- 52,305
Chautauqua (B&G), allocation from capital project -- 8500
Boro, Intergovernmental Transfers -- Not in budget
Boro, snow removal contracts -- 8,600
Boro, tax revenues -- 87,488
Boro, Cable -- 4600
Boro, Liquid Fuels -- not in budget
Sewer Authority, Assessments** -- 188,000 (289,750 – Chaut transfer)
Water Authority, Assessments** -- 106,340
>>>>>>>>>>> 923,195 Rough total of Income
OTHER INCOME (“certain/sole” source)
Chautauqua, State Pension Aid -- 3,819
Sewer Authority, State Pension Aid -- 6,500
Water Authority, State Pension Aid -- 3,000
Boro, Art show admissions -- 16,000
OTHER INCOME (“uncertain/shared” source)
Boro, rental of boro building -- 9800
Boro, rental of equipmt -- 13511
Sewer Authority, rental of equipment -- 7327
Boro, Labor Services, MG Playhouse -- 5,956
Notes:
1. Neither the theater nor the Art Show are in the budget. The theater may be operated by another entity, but the art show is all PA Chautauqua, thus is included in the Chautauqua data. (See expense analysis notes in next post). As the Art Show generates nearly 250K in revenue annually, and has significant expenses that are often either directly or indirectly passed on to the budgets of the boro, tranparency requires that the Art Show numbers be included.
2. Now what does the Chaut. do with those assessments collected:
They pass 101K on to the Sewer Fund, leaving about 150K for maintenance of our infrastructure. However, the budget shows that that seems to be a piecemeal endeavor, at best. A lot of it seems to be operating expenses, rather than maintenance. See the expense analysis in next post.
3. Sewer and water fees appear to be egregiously inflated. First, neighboring municipalities that are also on our systems pay a flat out fee of about 1100 a year for sewer, water, snow removal, leave removal, etc. Adding all our fees up gets us to about 1800 bucks a year. Second, when we were using metered water, we were paying about 400 a year—and that was living in the house full time, which a lot of our homeowners around here do not do.
4. Before going on to the Expense Analysis, take note of which entity is claiming rental revenue (as opposed to lease revenue)--in other words, who is renting what building/space to whom here, where the "rentor's" office is located. Also, look at phone numbers, who is listed as "in charge," office supplies and equipment expenses, etc. A couple of months ago, I asked to see all the Boro's contracts and was presented with only police and snow removal. From this, I can only conclude that there is no "agreement" between these entities to "share" office space, office equipment, comunications equipment, and, especially, to share staffing. So how do we know who's clock or use paperclip anyone is on around here?
* From the 2010 proposed budget break down:
Chautauqua, Sewer Assessments -- 84,391
Chautauqua, Sewer Main replacement fee -- 16,200
Chautauqua, Home Waste Assessment -- 35,970
Chautauqua, Maintenance Assessment -- 146,970
>>>>>>Total: 283,531
**I assumed that these assessments include more than assessments from the residents of MGB.
It is also unclear to me why the Chautauqua’s sewer, garbage, and maintenance revenue streams are in their General Funds budget, and not in their Buildings and Grounds Budget.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
New cafe
I found this new cafe just off Rte 72 that is great.
They have the usual array of pastries, savory stuff, and seasonal snacks, as well as a great relaxing location and creative architecture:
its located with a spa and an eclectic jewelry and clothes shop in a renovated carriage house.
The design was done by local architect Kip Kelly, and the building itself is set back off Alden rd., on the entrance to Alden Place. The upstairs is home to the day spa!
They have chai, steamers, teas, and, of course coffee.
Unfortunately, its somewhat of a bittersweet find, because everytime I go there, I ask myself, "Just why is that we don't have something like this in Mt. Gretna?" Maybe I will get some pictures up on this post soon.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Da dee da deee da--here we go again
"stinkin' more than anybody has a right to"
Well, I just can't believe the fodder local political reps provide for the intelligent and inquisitive. Again, Kilgore--OUR solicitor, failed to present any evidence-or logic, justifying Mt. Gretna's participation in this extortion scheme the EIT Bureau and city solicitors are calling the "over/under-payment issue"--strike that, "problem", as Kilgore clarified last night. I now suspect that there is much more "foul play" and intentional covering-up going on. And, here's why.
Again, last night Kilgore tried to shoot the messenger, rather than heed the message. While being asked more questions about the EIT--specifically, what evidence that he has that shows that there is a foundation for any sort of "settlement" agreement on this over/under allegation, he again tried to suggest, in a public forum, that I didn't know the proper facts about the EIT. Don't forget that at the Oct. meeting, he also suggested that I needed to learn about the laws authorizing the EIT by telling me to "go read the EIT laws." As he, and his best buds should certainly know by now--I do my homework. So, with great pleasure, I reminded him that I had just finished my fourth reading of them in the hour before the meeting. And, with great pleasure, I will provide here the documentary evidence that he was, once again, wrong about what's been going on with the EIT here.
But, him being wrong, even multiple times, is not really a problem. Its his willingness to be wrong in public and the triggers that bring out this behavior in him that we should all be worrying about: when challenged substantively on the legal foundation for the allegations, the law, and the "process", he tries to destroy the inquirer's credibility and will even get the law and the facts wrong to do so. In witnessing this pattern of his--his willingness to publicly show his lack of knowledge about the issue and his lack of interest in getting the facts correct, I am beginning to suspect that he is motivated to take these risks because he knows something else is at stake--something other than a settlement. In other words, he is falling on his sword. So, I think that the question that we all should have now is " who is he falling on his sword for?" More about that by the time we get to the bottom of this post.
And, because my time is as valuable as his, and because I am providing the Boro with much needed information that Kilgore is failing to provide, I will send the boro the bill.
First, as to the EIT law, it is called the Local Tax Enabling Act. CapTax provides an easily accessible version of it on their website, but I have linked to it in the Community Info list at the bottom of this blog. Kilgore told me to read it when I asked him what evidence there was indicating that the historic distribution of the EIT in Leb. Co. was incorrect--or, "arbitrary", as the Bureau and the solicitors put it. His response was, to paraphrase, ""Fixed percentages" is just not how it was done. You get 50% of what you paid in. You would know that if you read the EIT laws." Well, Mr. Smarty-Pants. I knew you would say that. So, that's why I re-read them before asking you the question in a public forum--because there is no mandate for receiving 50% of what you paid in. NONE. But, I thought I would check with you. Thanks for that confirmation.
And, that tidbit is what JQ PUblic needs to know about the solicitors' and the Bureau's assertions: there is NO mandate in the laws to distribute EIT revenue the way Kilgore asserts. Further, there is no prohibition, in those laws, against distributing the revenue according to a percentage-allocation pattern fixed within the system--which is the distribution pattern the Bureau admits existed. So, just because we didn't get back 50% of what we paid in, doesn't mean that we didn't get what we were supposed to get. And, they can't prove we didn't get what we were supposed to get.
Second, all the real evidence presented here supports the idea that its the EIT Bureau's fault if anything went missing or misdirected. The EIT laws that Kilgore is refering to also require an annual EIT audit, and require each political subdivision to annually reconcile the EIT numbers and make the necessary adjustments. Here's the text of those laws:
Section 11
…the governing body of each political subdivision which levies and collects or provides for the levying of a tax upon earned income, shall provide for not less than one examination each year of the books, accounts and records of the income tax collector..
and
13.III.B.V.h
…The political subdivisions shall not be required to request the officer to distribute the funds collected but shall at least annually reconcile their receipts with the records of the officer and return to or credit the officer with any overpayment….
Ok, so, now we at the logical point where we need to know if Kilgore or the Bureau has any evidence that Mt. Gretna did NOT do the annual reconciliation and make the necessary credits or returns. Why is it important to know this? Its important because if all evidence shows that an annual reconciliation was done, then the most we could ever "owe" is the current year's possible overpayment.
So, last night I told Kilgore that I found evidence that Mt. Gretna had indeed did some type of reconciliation one year (1969)and requested--and received, a corrective payment. I then asked him if he knew of any OTHER evidence that suggests that the legally mandated annual reconciliations were not done. Again, he told me that the system was run in such a disorganized fashion, that laws like that don't mean anything--essentially, that I shouldn't and can't rely on the LAW to figure out what, if anything, we owe. But, then he just had to end his response by saying "That [corrective payment] could not have happened. Mt. Gretna wasn't even in the EIT until the 70's."
Well, folks, also in the links list below, you will find Cornwall-Lebanon School District meeting minutes from November 3, 1969, where the school board discusses Mt.Gretna's EIT-correction request and decides to issue them a check. Further, the C-L School District EIT was adopted in 1967, and Mt. Gretna was one of the first, if not the first, municipality to return their "acceptance" to participate in the intended EIT system. I also posted a link to those meeting minutes below. Now who, again, doesn't know what they are talking about---and getting paid for their ignorance....But, I suspect that there is a reason why he is not motivated to know his "legal" stuff about this issue.
So, in short, my research, which has been confirmed by EIT Bureau statements and by solicitor statements, suggests very clearly that:
1. there is no reasonable or legally sufficient evidence of arbitrary distribution.
2. There is no reasonable or legally sufficient evidence of mis-distribution.
3. There IS evidence of missing money--a lot of it, that can't be attributed to Foltz's activities. And,
4. our solicitors are acting more like the Bureau's front man than our legal representatives.
The story line here could go something like this: "
EIT Bureau and Solicitors, not wanting to shine spotlight on clients and long-time friends involved with the collection of EIT in Lebanon County, intentionally pursued--via threats of "crushing" financial and legal entanglements, settlement of allegations for which they knew there was grossly insufficient evidence to pursue properly."
I mean, really, we need to start asking loudly, "Could it be that both of these parties have a good suspicion where to look for the missing money, or that the "missing" part happened at levels lower than Foltz--like at the municipal EIT collector level?" That would explain a lot about their curious behavior and their lack of inquisitiveness, now wouldn't it?
Well, I just can't believe the fodder local political reps provide for the intelligent and inquisitive. Again, Kilgore--OUR solicitor, failed to present any evidence-or logic, justifying Mt. Gretna's participation in this extortion scheme the EIT Bureau and city solicitors are calling the "over/under-payment issue"--strike that, "problem", as Kilgore clarified last night. I now suspect that there is much more "foul play" and intentional covering-up going on. And, here's why.
Again, last night Kilgore tried to shoot the messenger, rather than heed the message. While being asked more questions about the EIT--specifically, what evidence that he has that shows that there is a foundation for any sort of "settlement" agreement on this over/under allegation, he again tried to suggest, in a public forum, that I didn't know the proper facts about the EIT. Don't forget that at the Oct. meeting, he also suggested that I needed to learn about the laws authorizing the EIT by telling me to "go read the EIT laws." As he, and his best buds should certainly know by now--I do my homework. So, with great pleasure, I reminded him that I had just finished my fourth reading of them in the hour before the meeting. And, with great pleasure, I will provide here the documentary evidence that he was, once again, wrong about what's been going on with the EIT here.
But, him being wrong, even multiple times, is not really a problem. Its his willingness to be wrong in public and the triggers that bring out this behavior in him that we should all be worrying about: when challenged substantively on the legal foundation for the allegations, the law, and the "process", he tries to destroy the inquirer's credibility and will even get the law and the facts wrong to do so. In witnessing this pattern of his--his willingness to publicly show his lack of knowledge about the issue and his lack of interest in getting the facts correct, I am beginning to suspect that he is motivated to take these risks because he knows something else is at stake--something other than a settlement. In other words, he is falling on his sword. So, I think that the question that we all should have now is " who is he falling on his sword for?" More about that by the time we get to the bottom of this post.
And, because my time is as valuable as his, and because I am providing the Boro with much needed information that Kilgore is failing to provide, I will send the boro the bill.
First, as to the EIT law, it is called the Local Tax Enabling Act. CapTax provides an easily accessible version of it on their website, but I have linked to it in the Community Info list at the bottom of this blog. Kilgore told me to read it when I asked him what evidence there was indicating that the historic distribution of the EIT in Leb. Co. was incorrect--or, "arbitrary", as the Bureau and the solicitors put it. His response was, to paraphrase, ""Fixed percentages" is just not how it was done. You get 50% of what you paid in. You would know that if you read the EIT laws." Well, Mr. Smarty-Pants. I knew you would say that. So, that's why I re-read them before asking you the question in a public forum--because there is no mandate for receiving 50% of what you paid in. NONE. But, I thought I would check with you. Thanks for that confirmation.
And, that tidbit is what JQ PUblic needs to know about the solicitors' and the Bureau's assertions: there is NO mandate in the laws to distribute EIT revenue the way Kilgore asserts. Further, there is no prohibition, in those laws, against distributing the revenue according to a percentage-allocation pattern fixed within the system--which is the distribution pattern the Bureau admits existed. So, just because we didn't get back 50% of what we paid in, doesn't mean that we didn't get what we were supposed to get. And, they can't prove we didn't get what we were supposed to get.
Second, all the real evidence presented here supports the idea that its the EIT Bureau's fault if anything went missing or misdirected. The EIT laws that Kilgore is refering to also require an annual EIT audit, and require each political subdivision to annually reconcile the EIT numbers and make the necessary adjustments. Here's the text of those laws:
Section 11
…the governing body of each political subdivision which levies and collects or provides for the levying of a tax upon earned income, shall provide for not less than one examination each year of the books, accounts and records of the income tax collector..
and
13.III.B.V.h
…The political subdivisions shall not be required to request the officer to distribute the funds collected but shall at least annually reconcile their receipts with the records of the officer and return to or credit the officer with any overpayment….
Ok, so, now we at the logical point where we need to know if Kilgore or the Bureau has any evidence that Mt. Gretna did NOT do the annual reconciliation and make the necessary credits or returns. Why is it important to know this? Its important because if all evidence shows that an annual reconciliation was done, then the most we could ever "owe" is the current year's possible overpayment.
So, last night I told Kilgore that I found evidence that Mt. Gretna had indeed did some type of reconciliation one year (1969)and requested--and received, a corrective payment. I then asked him if he knew of any OTHER evidence that suggests that the legally mandated annual reconciliations were not done. Again, he told me that the system was run in such a disorganized fashion, that laws like that don't mean anything--essentially, that I shouldn't and can't rely on the LAW to figure out what, if anything, we owe. But, then he just had to end his response by saying "That [corrective payment] could not have happened. Mt. Gretna wasn't even in the EIT until the 70's."
Well, folks, also in the links list below, you will find Cornwall-Lebanon School District meeting minutes from November 3, 1969, where the school board discusses Mt.Gretna's EIT-correction request and decides to issue them a check. Further, the C-L School District EIT was adopted in 1967, and Mt. Gretna was one of the first, if not the first, municipality to return their "acceptance" to participate in the intended EIT system. I also posted a link to those meeting minutes below. Now who, again, doesn't know what they are talking about---and getting paid for their ignorance....But, I suspect that there is a reason why he is not motivated to know his "legal" stuff about this issue.
So, in short, my research, which has been confirmed by EIT Bureau statements and by solicitor statements, suggests very clearly that:
1. there is no reasonable or legally sufficient evidence of arbitrary distribution.
2. There is no reasonable or legally sufficient evidence of mis-distribution.
3. There IS evidence of missing money--a lot of it, that can't be attributed to Foltz's activities. And,
4. our solicitors are acting more like the Bureau's front man than our legal representatives.
The story line here could go something like this: "
EIT Bureau and Solicitors, not wanting to shine spotlight on clients and long-time friends involved with the collection of EIT in Lebanon County, intentionally pursued--via threats of "crushing" financial and legal entanglements, settlement of allegations for which they knew there was grossly insufficient evidence to pursue properly."
I mean, really, we need to start asking loudly, "Could it be that both of these parties have a good suspicion where to look for the missing money, or that the "missing" part happened at levels lower than Foltz--like at the municipal EIT collector level?" That would explain a lot about their curious behavior and their lack of inquisitiveness, now wouldn't it?
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Election Results
Well, even though detailed election results are not available yet (the write-in votes are not specific as to what name may have been written in), the LebCo website posted enough results data to make interesting observations and comments.
First, the Mt. Gretna position that received the most votes was for the Inspector of Election--with a total of 71 votes cast between two candidates. From this, we can assume that at least 71 MG voters turned out on Tuesday.
Second, two MGBoro positions were essentially totally ignored by even those 71 voters who did show up on Tuesday. The Assessor's position received one vote only--and that was for a write-in. Congrats to that person...And, the MG Boro Tax Collector position received only 6 votes--again, all cast for a write-in. The question now is, "How will those offices be filled?"
It is possible that there is a "majority" within the write-in, so would that person be "elected?" Or will the boro council "appoint" two persons to these two offices? If the incumbents for both positions did not run as candidates during this election, and if almost all of MG voters rejected the opportunity to cast their votes for the incumbents as a write-in, wouldn't that be a clear message to the council that the incumbents do not want the position anymore AND that the MG voters don't want the incumbents anymore? So, it will be interesting to see who the council appoints...
Third, if only 71 voters turned out on Tuesday, and more than a third of those votes were cast for write-ins, is that a sign of anything? I mean, I assume that a voter is not allowed to cast the same name as a write-in three times on the same ballot. So, that would mean that one voter's repetition of the same name would only count once, and that there were 25 distinct votes cast for someone other than a council incumbent. Or, to look at it another way, even if each voter could write-in "no confidence" in all three of their slots for boro council and the vote counters counted all three as three separate write-in votes, that means at least 9 people had the courage to cast a write-in vote.
Since it should be fairly obvious that I didn't vote 9 times (or 25 times) on Tuesday, I find comfort in knowing that there are at least 8 (and maybe 25) others out there with this kind of courage. That said, I hope the numbers provide our local elected officials with the motivation to also use their votes and decision-making powers with thoughtfulness and courage to "buck the trend." After-all, it is apparent now that there are allies out there that they can rely on when it comes to considering certain issues.
See the results at
http://www.lebcounty.org/lebanon/lib/lebanon/UnofficialFinalResults110309_0951p.HTM
First, the Mt. Gretna position that received the most votes was for the Inspector of Election--with a total of 71 votes cast between two candidates. From this, we can assume that at least 71 MG voters turned out on Tuesday.
Second, two MGBoro positions were essentially totally ignored by even those 71 voters who did show up on Tuesday. The Assessor's position received one vote only--and that was for a write-in. Congrats to that person...And, the MG Boro Tax Collector position received only 6 votes--again, all cast for a write-in. The question now is, "How will those offices be filled?"
It is possible that there is a "majority" within the write-in, so would that person be "elected?" Or will the boro council "appoint" two persons to these two offices? If the incumbents for both positions did not run as candidates during this election, and if almost all of MG voters rejected the opportunity to cast their votes for the incumbents as a write-in, wouldn't that be a clear message to the council that the incumbents do not want the position anymore AND that the MG voters don't want the incumbents anymore? So, it will be interesting to see who the council appoints...
Third, if only 71 voters turned out on Tuesday, and more than a third of those votes were cast for write-ins, is that a sign of anything? I mean, I assume that a voter is not allowed to cast the same name as a write-in three times on the same ballot. So, that would mean that one voter's repetition of the same name would only count once, and that there were 25 distinct votes cast for someone other than a council incumbent. Or, to look at it another way, even if each voter could write-in "no confidence" in all three of their slots for boro council and the vote counters counted all three as three separate write-in votes, that means at least 9 people had the courage to cast a write-in vote.
Since it should be fairly obvious that I didn't vote 9 times (or 25 times) on Tuesday, I find comfort in knowing that there are at least 8 (and maybe 25) others out there with this kind of courage. That said, I hope the numbers provide our local elected officials with the motivation to also use their votes and decision-making powers with thoughtfulness and courage to "buck the trend." After-all, it is apparent now that there are allies out there that they can rely on when it comes to considering certain issues.
See the results at
http://www.lebcounty.org/lebanon/lib/lebanon/UnofficialFinalResults110309_0951p.HTM
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Transparent and Communicative Chautauqua is Possible
The Sidewalk to No Where debate has generated some comments and concerns on both sides of the project--yea and nea. But, I still can't help but ponder why we even have to have this debate on this blog--or why we even need this blog. All this discussion and analysis should be occurring within the structure organized and responsible for guiding this community: the PA Chautauqua.
Several years ago, I discovered the New York Chautauqua, who's website can be found at:
http://chautauqua.squarespace.com/about-chautauqua/
Granted, they have more resources than the PA Chautauqua--but there is no excuse why our Board is not posting more details, meeting minutes, committee compositions, contact info, etc at our website. They even post their homeowners association material with what seems to be complete transparency, when compared to us. So, you can even find their rules, meeting dates, etc. right online, at:
http://www.cpoa.ws/webhelp/cpoa.htm
Now, a quick look at their manual, and you find statements like:
"The Chautauqua Property Owners Association serves as a communication link between the property owners and the administration, advocating for the interests and needs of the owners, and, in turn, conveying to the owners the concerns of the Institution."
and, in comparison, here is how they would start to approach this whole safety, sidewalk to Princeton issue:
"Chautauqua was created as a walking community long before the advent of the automobile. Its streets are narrow, not designed for cars. Its lots are small with little or no space for parking cars.
When cars began to appear, it was understood they would be parked outside the fence. Today, cars, trucks, bicycles and golf carts appear everywhere often in violation of existing regulations. This creates three concerns: primarily safety, loss of ambiance and a loss of beauty.
The community would be safer for all community members, including young children and the elderly, the ambiance and quality of life would be enhanced, and beauty could be restored and preserved if all Chautauquans followed the driving and parking rules.
Chautauqua has always prided itself on being a walking community where pedestrians have the right of way. Bicycles are the preferred form of vehicular transportation and even bicycles must follow all of the N.Y. state laws which apply to automobiles.
Driving a car on the grounds is a privilege intended only for the necessities of loading or unloading baggage or other essentials. (Special provisions with a doctor’s certificate are made for the handicapped). The car driving privilege is intended for you to go directly from the entry gate designated on your pass to your place of residence to unload your groceries or other goods and then to return directly to the parking space assigned. The driving privilege is not intended for driving to:
The post office to pick up mail or a newspaper,
The Cinema,
The Plaza for a little shopping, or
To pick up or visit a friend, or to make such a visit a preliminary to a shopping trip off the grounds.
Please designate a meeting place at your exit gate.
The Institution has provided free busses and trams to take people from almost anywhere on the grounds to the major places of program or activity in a very efficient way. This shuttle service is reevaluated and improved every year.
Limited use of commercial vehicles is also an essential need for which special
provision is made. A property owner who schedules all but immediate need deliveries before or after the season is being a good neighbor and making a difference in the atmosphere of the community.
Parking of cars on the grounds is permitted only in the specifically designated parking place indicated on the parking permit issued to a ticket holder. This is usually a private home or an Institution lot.
If each resident makes the effort to adhere to these rules, although sometimes a bit
inconvenient, Chautauqua will truly be a pedestrian community and the unparalleled beauty and ambience of an atmosphere without cars and trucks will be our legacy to future generations."
A legacy for future generations--what a concept! I suppose that means that we can't just let ourselves deteriorate into just another subdivision...
It seems as if many of us here really want the subdivision amenities and aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to keep the unique and tranquil character of the Chautauqua. That is a tragedy, and it is unfair to those of us who chose to own property in the Chautauqua simply for that professed unique character. While you may have had that 30 years ago--you certainly are losing it rapidly now. So, its deceptive to maintain and solicit that that character still remains or will be protected.
Several years ago, I discovered the New York Chautauqua, who's website can be found at:
http://chautauqua.squarespace.com/about-chautauqua/
Granted, they have more resources than the PA Chautauqua--but there is no excuse why our Board is not posting more details, meeting minutes, committee compositions, contact info, etc at our website. They even post their homeowners association material with what seems to be complete transparency, when compared to us. So, you can even find their rules, meeting dates, etc. right online, at:
http://www.cpoa.ws/webhelp/cpoa.htm
Now, a quick look at their manual, and you find statements like:
"The Chautauqua Property Owners Association serves as a communication link between the property owners and the administration, advocating for the interests and needs of the owners, and, in turn, conveying to the owners the concerns of the Institution."
and, in comparison, here is how they would start to approach this whole safety, sidewalk to Princeton issue:
"Chautauqua was created as a walking community long before the advent of the automobile. Its streets are narrow, not designed for cars. Its lots are small with little or no space for parking cars.
When cars began to appear, it was understood they would be parked outside the fence. Today, cars, trucks, bicycles and golf carts appear everywhere often in violation of existing regulations. This creates three concerns: primarily safety, loss of ambiance and a loss of beauty.
The community would be safer for all community members, including young children and the elderly, the ambiance and quality of life would be enhanced, and beauty could be restored and preserved if all Chautauquans followed the driving and parking rules.
Chautauqua has always prided itself on being a walking community where pedestrians have the right of way. Bicycles are the preferred form of vehicular transportation and even bicycles must follow all of the N.Y. state laws which apply to automobiles.
Driving a car on the grounds is a privilege intended only for the necessities of loading or unloading baggage or other essentials. (Special provisions with a doctor’s certificate are made for the handicapped). The car driving privilege is intended for you to go directly from the entry gate designated on your pass to your place of residence to unload your groceries or other goods and then to return directly to the parking space assigned. The driving privilege is not intended for driving to:
The post office to pick up mail or a newspaper,
The Cinema,
The Plaza for a little shopping, or
To pick up or visit a friend, or to make such a visit a preliminary to a shopping trip off the grounds.
Please designate a meeting place at your exit gate.
The Institution has provided free busses and trams to take people from almost anywhere on the grounds to the major places of program or activity in a very efficient way. This shuttle service is reevaluated and improved every year.
Limited use of commercial vehicles is also an essential need for which special
provision is made. A property owner who schedules all but immediate need deliveries before or after the season is being a good neighbor and making a difference in the atmosphere of the community.
Parking of cars on the grounds is permitted only in the specifically designated parking place indicated on the parking permit issued to a ticket holder. This is usually a private home or an Institution lot.
If each resident makes the effort to adhere to these rules, although sometimes a bit
inconvenient, Chautauqua will truly be a pedestrian community and the unparalleled beauty and ambience of an atmosphere without cars and trucks will be our legacy to future generations."
A legacy for future generations--what a concept! I suppose that means that we can't just let ourselves deteriorate into just another subdivision...
It seems as if many of us here really want the subdivision amenities and aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to keep the unique and tranquil character of the Chautauqua. That is a tragedy, and it is unfair to those of us who chose to own property in the Chautauqua simply for that professed unique character. While you may have had that 30 years ago--you certainly are losing it rapidly now. So, its deceptive to maintain and solicit that that character still remains or will be protected.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Historic Preservation: Windows
We have, right under our noses here in Mt. Gretna, a great source of information on caring for our older homes. The City of Lancaster publishes a series of concise, yet very helpful, brochures on various aspects older homes, from painting to masonry to windows. Here, I will share with you a taste of the information from the "Caring for Wood Windows" brochure.
The author starts by reminding us that a home's windows and trim add significantly to a homes value, yet are often shortchanged by thoses with other motives. For example, window maufacturers benefit only when you replace your home's windows, rather than do routine maintenance or repairs.
The brochure then debunks several misconceptions. First, older materials are much more durable than modern materials--older windows, if properly maintained, can last hundreds of years. Modern windows, on the other hand, don't last any where close to that long, no matter how much you do to maintain them. Oh, the vinyl is around forever, but not the functioning window--the vinyl breaks down and distorts with exposure to the elements and there is no way to fix the "broken" element of the vinyl. The entire window has to be replaced. Second, roofs, walls, floors, and chimneys are the primary source of energy loss (80%), as opposed to windows (20%). And, of that 20%, the energy is lost because of unfilled gaps around the window, rather than through the window itself.
The tips that they give include:
1. Routine inspection of panes, glazing, paint, frame, etc.
2. Timely repair or replacement of the individual parts that need attention.
3. Use of proper splicing techniques or materials (like the Dutchman technique or wood epoxy)
4. Replacement only as a last resort and with same dimensions, design, and material of the original window.
5. Avoid contractors that do not have experience or a desire to save existing windows.
I can tell you from experience--we have hands on experience with all 5 tips, that that last one is really the toughest tip of all to follow. On one 100 year old house that we rehabbed, we had no choice but to replace the deteriorated windows in a bay. To preserve the historic/architectural details of the house, we had to order custom windows with a wood finish. Even though the manufacturer came out to measure the opening, he still sent us standard sized windows that would have required that we actually take the frame of the bay apart to install the windows that he sent, which were an inch too short in one dimension and an inch too long in the other dimension. Of course the manufacturer told us that he would give us a "rebate" and that his installers could certainly get these windows to fit if we let them do it. Thank goodness that we had time to let him come to the correct decision, and never stopped insisting that he deliver the custom sized windows that we ordered and paid for. Lots of times, it just doesn't work out that way, and you are stuck with what they decide you want.
Just write Lancaster and request the brochures, at:
City of Lancaster
120 North Duke Street
POBox 1599
Lancaster, PA 17608-1599
The author starts by reminding us that a home's windows and trim add significantly to a homes value, yet are often shortchanged by thoses with other motives. For example, window maufacturers benefit only when you replace your home's windows, rather than do routine maintenance or repairs.
The brochure then debunks several misconceptions. First, older materials are much more durable than modern materials--older windows, if properly maintained, can last hundreds of years. Modern windows, on the other hand, don't last any where close to that long, no matter how much you do to maintain them. Oh, the vinyl is around forever, but not the functioning window--the vinyl breaks down and distorts with exposure to the elements and there is no way to fix the "broken" element of the vinyl. The entire window has to be replaced. Second, roofs, walls, floors, and chimneys are the primary source of energy loss (80%), as opposed to windows (20%). And, of that 20%, the energy is lost because of unfilled gaps around the window, rather than through the window itself.
The tips that they give include:
1. Routine inspection of panes, glazing, paint, frame, etc.
2. Timely repair or replacement of the individual parts that need attention.
3. Use of proper splicing techniques or materials (like the Dutchman technique or wood epoxy)
4. Replacement only as a last resort and with same dimensions, design, and material of the original window.
5. Avoid contractors that do not have experience or a desire to save existing windows.
I can tell you from experience--we have hands on experience with all 5 tips, that that last one is really the toughest tip of all to follow. On one 100 year old house that we rehabbed, we had no choice but to replace the deteriorated windows in a bay. To preserve the historic/architectural details of the house, we had to order custom windows with a wood finish. Even though the manufacturer came out to measure the opening, he still sent us standard sized windows that would have required that we actually take the frame of the bay apart to install the windows that he sent, which were an inch too short in one dimension and an inch too long in the other dimension. Of course the manufacturer told us that he would give us a "rebate" and that his installers could certainly get these windows to fit if we let them do it. Thank goodness that we had time to let him come to the correct decision, and never stopped insisting that he deliver the custom sized windows that we ordered and paid for. Lots of times, it just doesn't work out that way, and you are stuck with what they decide you want.
Just write Lancaster and request the brochures, at:
City of Lancaster
120 North Duke Street
POBox 1599
Lancaster, PA 17608-1599
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Kathy Snavely and moral and financial bankruptcy
With great humor I read this email conversation that I had earlier this year with Kathy Snavely.
Her comments are in black, and my responses to her comments are in blue.
Even she, as far back as March of this year, can't shake the Mt. Gretna Myopia and see the reality of what kind of community the Chautauqua Board and the Borough Council have created for us and for themselves.
The best line from her is the p.s. (having the smallest Boro in the state). EXACTLY--listen, I am making these bumber stickers that say "3/87/170" That means: 3.2 miles of paved road, 87 acres of land, and 170 registered voters. Yet we have a public works crew, a fleet of public works machinery, vehicles, and equipment, pension plans and obligations that our grandchildren will be paying on, police service contracts that add no policing value to the community and automatically increase at 6% a year, 2 administrative boards, and a summer programs schedule that often attracts more of the coordinator's groupies than real audience members.
I met a guy the other day who said he was on the board in a neighboring town, where he dropped two staff, lowered taxes, and still closed his budget while also giving out raises. He was quick to say "just file bankruptcy." While I was laughing at the impossibility of our boro council thoroughly considering ALL possibilities, let alone this one, he jumped right in and said "I bet you even have a police contract. Bankruptcy will get you out of that contract, too." I said, "well, I don't see how it can hurt our credit rating." To which he replied, "Well, at least you ought to let two staff go and dump the police contract. That oughtta about make up for your $50,000 deficit, right?" Right. Who does the boro serve, anyway? Me or our employees...?
Anyway, the conversation between Snavely and I is posted at this link:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZATkbVJQ0FiZGZzMnd4Y2tfNGNoODd2NGhn&hl=en
And, for those of you who have been following the inside scoop, where Snavely has recently admitted to me, in writing, that she has been reporting my conversations to police, politicians, etc, note my explicit request to keep our conversation confidential, to which she agreed later in the conversation. Please also note who, of the two of us keeps trying to divert from my real concern--which is the deteriorating quality of life here, by mischaracterizing my concerns as much more specific than they really are.
Somebody's gonna be doin' some 'splainin'.... I only hope that we get back to part where some of the humor comes back into the dialogue...
Her comments are in black, and my responses to her comments are in blue.
Even she, as far back as March of this year, can't shake the Mt. Gretna Myopia and see the reality of what kind of community the Chautauqua Board and the Borough Council have created for us and for themselves.
The best line from her is the p.s. (having the smallest Boro in the state). EXACTLY--listen, I am making these bumber stickers that say "3/87/170" That means: 3.2 miles of paved road, 87 acres of land, and 170 registered voters. Yet we have a public works crew, a fleet of public works machinery, vehicles, and equipment, pension plans and obligations that our grandchildren will be paying on, police service contracts that add no policing value to the community and automatically increase at 6% a year, 2 administrative boards, and a summer programs schedule that often attracts more of the coordinator's groupies than real audience members.
I met a guy the other day who said he was on the board in a neighboring town, where he dropped two staff, lowered taxes, and still closed his budget while also giving out raises. He was quick to say "just file bankruptcy." While I was laughing at the impossibility of our boro council thoroughly considering ALL possibilities, let alone this one, he jumped right in and said "I bet you even have a police contract. Bankruptcy will get you out of that contract, too." I said, "well, I don't see how it can hurt our credit rating." To which he replied, "Well, at least you ought to let two staff go and dump the police contract. That oughtta about make up for your $50,000 deficit, right?" Right. Who does the boro serve, anyway? Me or our employees...?
Anyway, the conversation between Snavely and I is posted at this link:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZATkbVJQ0FiZGZzMnd4Y2tfNGNoODd2NGhn&hl=en
And, for those of you who have been following the inside scoop, where Snavely has recently admitted to me, in writing, that she has been reporting my conversations to police, politicians, etc, note my explicit request to keep our conversation confidential, to which she agreed later in the conversation. Please also note who, of the two of us keeps trying to divert from my real concern--which is the deteriorating quality of life here, by mischaracterizing my concerns as much more specific than they really are.
Somebody's gonna be doin' some 'splainin'.... I only hope that we get back to part where some of the humor comes back into the dialogue...
PA Chautauqua By Laws
L. Bell provided me with this copy of the PA Chautauqua By Laws.
You can see it at this website:
http://picasaweb.google.com/viragogretna
A link to them is also posted in the Our Community Links List at the bottom of this blog page.
You can see it at this website:
http://picasaweb.google.com/viragogretna
A link to them is also posted in the Our Community Links List at the bottom of this blog page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
