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.