Well, it was great to meet my team at breakfast this morning. They have a wonderful sense of humor about this but appear very professional. They all look just like an attendees and one middle aged woman even brought her kids and her sister. They all fit right in with their tan shorts or blue jeans, summer shirts, canvas bags and sunglasses.
I especially encourage you to say "hello" to them and to try to throw them off their game. I put a bonus on the table for the ones stay the steady course and don't reveal their hands.
So if any of you can get any one of them to admit who they are, just respond here with a description of the person, along with a description of what they are wearing, and, if you are right, I will give YOU a "bonus" too.
But, for now, I am off to get more pumpkin and squash for tomorrow's breakfast--squash pancakes were a big hit!
Showing posts with label Accountability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Accountability. Show all posts
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
More Obfuscation with Our Money
I recently finished that book on "revaluing" markets/economies. The author presented discussion of the historical "bureaurocratic" response to social movements that challenged the political status quo, a status quo that is always characterized by the concentration of power and resources into the hands of a very small number of the overall group. He also discussed how those power groups have responded to requests and movements for a more transparent and truly democratic community with hostility and manipulation. As examples, he pointed to the "recharacterization" and even criminalization of vocal women as "witches" in New England around the 1700's, of indigineous peoples as "savages" during periods of colonization, and of indigineous Africans as "possessed by spirits", as we see proselytizing Christians doing even today.
In short, no political cabal grows, changes, or goes down without engaging in acts of scapegoating, witchhunting, and demonizing those they perceive as the social group's weak link and most able "to-be-silenced".
Granted it is possible to think that the author's comments have no relevance to Mt. Gretna Borough or to the PA Chautauqua. Certainly, those with the concentration of power here have gone to great measure to make it seem as if all is well here, and that all their conduct is above any sort of reproach.
However, do not forget that we are indeed a democracy, and that any one of us has the right to know our public officials' actions and to criticize it. Indeed, in order for the democracy to work, we must ask, research, and know what our public officials are doing. Most importantly, for a democracy to work, each member of the group must participate--at a minimum, each member must express a responsibility to protect the right of the individual to participate in their government unit. For those in this community that have sat idly by on the sidelines while our own community's cabal have denigrated, defamed, and worked with County officials to attack and harass those who are asking for transparency and accountability from our public officials, know that the day will come for your voice to be heard too. Just pray that you do not speak too late to have anyone standing beside you.
Now, on to the next installment in the series, "All the Ways They Screw with Our Money." (And, for any Fat Mac's that may be following this blog, let this entry be an example to you of how real lawyering is done. You know, where you take a set of facts, research them, and then research the law to make an argument--based on a real concept of probable cause, that a law has been violated, rather than to manipulate the resources associated with your position in order to promote and protect you and your friends' political and personal ambitions, however corrupt those ambitions may be. )
If one were to research the Pennsylvania Chautauqua's financial documents, especially their tax and budget documents, you may find some very disconcerning issues. Today, in this post, we will only discuss one of those issues, and, unfortunately for those laymen in the audience, it will take on the tone of a legal document (without all the citations, of course).
Today's issue analysizes the legality, in terms of compliance with IRS Code, of PA Chautuaqua Treasurer, Michael Bell's representations on the Chaut.'s IRS Form 990's. In those filings, he consistently and repeatedly fails to report that the Chaut. transfers compensation to one of its own officers. Under IRS Code, apparently any amount of compensation to an officer must be reported--there is no triggering threshold of, say, $100,000.
Also, because this transaction also seems to fail several of the IRS tests regarding the determination of whether her compensation is reasonable, it is very likely that he must be reporting it on the Form 990 as an excess benefit transaction. Under these circumstances, both he and his wife must pay a 25% tax on the excess benefit, and, if they do not correct the "excess", the tax rate bumps to 200%. That presents a pretty significant motivation to intentionally misreport transactions. And, a pretty significant motivation to try to "disparage" the messenger--if successful, then no one will really look into the message.
Linda and Michael Bell apparently are Disqualified Persons Under the Code
On the Chaut’s Form 990’s filed annually, Mr. Bell repeatedly and consistently reports his wife as a Director-member of the governing board. As a Director, she is a voting member of the Chaut’s governing body. Michael Bell also consistently and repeatedly reports himself as the Chaut's Treasurer and as Linda Bell’s husband. Therefore, both Michael Bell and Linda Bell are likely considered “Disqualified Persons” according to the IRS in determination of excess benefit transactions.
All evidence discovered thus far strongly suggests that the economic benefit that Ms. Bell received for services rendered to the Chaut. greatly exceeds the value of the services actually rendered.
The Chaut. compensates Ms. Bell for “services rendered” throughout the year. Board meeting minutes show that it agrees to let Ms. Bell (along with her husband, Michael Bell, and a person unrelated to the Chaut., William Care) determine the amount that is transferred to her each year. In 2008, for example, that amount was 31% of her Borough salary, or approximately $22,400, according to Borough Invoices. In addition, the Chaut. apparently agrees to pay that percentage of her Borough employee benefits, including health insurance, PA Municipal Retirement/Pension, etc. This adds to her monetary gain significantly.
However, there is no evidence that the compensation is comparable or was properly decided. For example, compensation paid by other nearby and similarly sized HOA’s for such services suggests that Ms. Bell is overcompensated by well over $25,000 a year.
No evidence is apparently provided to demonstrate or confirm her actual work performed during any pay-period in which she bills the Chaut. for services rendered.
In fact, the “Labor Services Rates” chart that she provides to the public clearly demonstrates that the Chaut. is automatically billed set percentages of Borough’s full-time staff member’s salaries, regardless of whether the Chaut. needed services rendered for that pay period, and regardless of what services were actually rendered during that pay period. [And, she even "charges" the Chaut. during the weeks of set-up and break-down for the annual art show. This will be particularly relevant to those out there that know that the Borough is supposed to be providing these services for "free", according to the arrangement that was agreed upon a couple decades ago when the Borough approached the Chautauqua claiming that its budget shortfall could be rectified that year if it were allowed to share in the art show profits.Well, today, "free" is no longer the fact. Care and Bell charge the Chaut. for straight time during this period (which is another apparent farce perpetuated upon us, but we will save that for later, too), and the rest charge straight time and ample overtime to the Chaut during these periods. So, now, on top of this compensation for labor that was supposed to be free, the Borough takes its set portion of the gate receipts.]
Ms. Bell’s compensation likely does not meet the IRS’s test for determination of “reasonable compensation.”
First, as evidenced by Ms. Bell’s repeated responses to information requests that NO documentation describing the arrangement exists, the Chaut. has NOT clearly indicated, in writing, its intent to treat the benefit(s) as compensation. This expression of intent is required under IRS Code.
It is not enough to say that the Chaut's intent is clearly indicated by Ms. Bell’s possible inclusion of the compensation in her 1040. The basis of that reporting would solely and entirely originate from her Form W-2’s from the Borough, thus providing no indication as to the Chaut's compensation paid to her, much less as to its intent. This is especially unclear where there is no written documentation of the agreement.
Second, they have presented no evidence showing that the compensation enjoys a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness, as may be provided under IRS Code. There is apparently no evidence tending to show that persons without conflicts voted to approve the compensation; nor evidence tending to show that an “approving” body obtained and relied upon appropriate data as to comparability of the compensation; or evidence tending to show that an approving body adequately documented the basis for its determination concurrently with making the determination. Each of these is required under the Code for the Chaut to enjoy a rebuttable presumption of reasonable compensation. Therefore, the Chaut. has not, and likely cannot, show that Ms. Bell’s compensation is reasonable and not excessive.
In conclusion, given that no actual services need to be delivered for the Chaut. to be invoiced, and that no documentation of actual services is ever offered, and that Ms. Bell appears to be unreasonably and over-compensated--even if she is performing the services alleged, the arrangement appears to be an excess benefit transaction. If so, as per the Code, her husband, also an officer of the Chaut., would be deemed to have indirectly benefited from her receipt of the excess benefit.
If an excess benefit transaction would be determined to exist by the IRS, this also means that Ms. Bell, and her husband would be jointly and severally liable for the tax on these excess benefit transactions, and the tax rates are:
25% on the excess benefit,
200% on the excess benefit if it is not corrected with in the specified time frame.
An alleged non-profit's tax-exempt status is a very serious issue, and my experience has shown that the IRS simply does not allow this "loosy-goosy" sort of reporting, where they ask you four or five times to report an officer's compensation and you just "work around" the fact that an officer of the exempt organization is indeed receiving compensation--ergo, benefiting, from the organization, an organization that is alleging that its primary purpose is to provide a social benefit to the community at large.
For a taste of the Code on this issue, See “Tax on Disqualified Persons” in Section 4958 of the IRS Code.
Let me close out this post by reminding readers that these questions are being asked and these issues are being analyzed not because I have any sort of agenda. They are being presented here because our community leaders are putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. These community leaders demand our acquiesence and approval of their behavior before we even know the true details about their conduct.
For example, in discussing the Chaut's tax exempt status, or in discussing the Borough's work for private corporations, the issue is not whether I think the actions or status should or shouldn't be terminated. Its about us taxpayers and shareholders being able to make decisions and to participate in our community based on transparent, truthful, and accurate information.
Why is this truthfulness and accuracy important? Its important because many of these activities present legality issues, as well as ethics issues, that, quite frankly, someone-someone who doesn't deserve it, always gets the short end of the stick on.
Here's another way to explain why demanding truthfulness and accuracy from community leaders is so important: Its one thing when your pastor asks you for money to support the summer boys camp, buts its another when you learn that the its likely that the pastor is doing something unethical or illegal either with that money or with those boys...And, if presented with inquiries, would you expect an errant pastor to simply roll over and say, "Oh, well, you caught me. Let's just skip straight to the punishment." Or, would you expect him to say something like, "We have a great congregation here; you have all enjoyed the benefits of my diligent and worthy spiritual guidance and will continue to do so, regardless of what that troubled boy says about me or my actions. That boy has been troubled since he came here. Let's pray for him and call it a day. In fact, let's have a party to celebrate my service to this community. We'll just pay for it out of the "Parent Fund.""
On the other hand, if he truly had his community as his first priority, he would say, "Look, the success of this program and its participants is the priority here--not whether or not the books or the "organizers" activities should be kept secret. Pick a representative or two, let's meet, review all relevant documents, answer all your questions, work together to make a plan to move forward with, and then move forward. Let's learn and grow from this."
In short, no political cabal grows, changes, or goes down without engaging in acts of scapegoating, witchhunting, and demonizing those they perceive as the social group's weak link and most able "to-be-silenced".
Granted it is possible to think that the author's comments have no relevance to Mt. Gretna Borough or to the PA Chautauqua. Certainly, those with the concentration of power here have gone to great measure to make it seem as if all is well here, and that all their conduct is above any sort of reproach.
However, do not forget that we are indeed a democracy, and that any one of us has the right to know our public officials' actions and to criticize it. Indeed, in order for the democracy to work, we must ask, research, and know what our public officials are doing. Most importantly, for a democracy to work, each member of the group must participate--at a minimum, each member must express a responsibility to protect the right of the individual to participate in their government unit. For those in this community that have sat idly by on the sidelines while our own community's cabal have denigrated, defamed, and worked with County officials to attack and harass those who are asking for transparency and accountability from our public officials, know that the day will come for your voice to be heard too. Just pray that you do not speak too late to have anyone standing beside you.
Now, on to the next installment in the series, "All the Ways They Screw with Our Money." (And, for any Fat Mac's that may be following this blog, let this entry be an example to you of how real lawyering is done. You know, where you take a set of facts, research them, and then research the law to make an argument--based on a real concept of probable cause, that a law has been violated, rather than to manipulate the resources associated with your position in order to promote and protect you and your friends' political and personal ambitions, however corrupt those ambitions may be. )
If one were to research the Pennsylvania Chautauqua's financial documents, especially their tax and budget documents, you may find some very disconcerning issues. Today, in this post, we will only discuss one of those issues, and, unfortunately for those laymen in the audience, it will take on the tone of a legal document (without all the citations, of course).
Today's issue analysizes the legality, in terms of compliance with IRS Code, of PA Chautuaqua Treasurer, Michael Bell's representations on the Chaut.'s IRS Form 990's. In those filings, he consistently and repeatedly fails to report that the Chaut. transfers compensation to one of its own officers. Under IRS Code, apparently any amount of compensation to an officer must be reported--there is no triggering threshold of, say, $100,000.
Also, because this transaction also seems to fail several of the IRS tests regarding the determination of whether her compensation is reasonable, it is very likely that he must be reporting it on the Form 990 as an excess benefit transaction. Under these circumstances, both he and his wife must pay a 25% tax on the excess benefit, and, if they do not correct the "excess", the tax rate bumps to 200%. That presents a pretty significant motivation to intentionally misreport transactions. And, a pretty significant motivation to try to "disparage" the messenger--if successful, then no one will really look into the message.
Linda and Michael Bell apparently are Disqualified Persons Under the Code
On the Chaut’s Form 990’s filed annually, Mr. Bell repeatedly and consistently reports his wife as a Director-member of the governing board. As a Director, she is a voting member of the Chaut’s governing body. Michael Bell also consistently and repeatedly reports himself as the Chaut's Treasurer and as Linda Bell’s husband. Therefore, both Michael Bell and Linda Bell are likely considered “Disqualified Persons” according to the IRS in determination of excess benefit transactions.
All evidence discovered thus far strongly suggests that the economic benefit that Ms. Bell received for services rendered to the Chaut. greatly exceeds the value of the services actually rendered.
The Chaut. compensates Ms. Bell for “services rendered” throughout the year. Board meeting minutes show that it agrees to let Ms. Bell (along with her husband, Michael Bell, and a person unrelated to the Chaut., William Care) determine the amount that is transferred to her each year. In 2008, for example, that amount was 31% of her Borough salary, or approximately $22,400, according to Borough Invoices. In addition, the Chaut. apparently agrees to pay that percentage of her Borough employee benefits, including health insurance, PA Municipal Retirement/Pension, etc. This adds to her monetary gain significantly.
However, there is no evidence that the compensation is comparable or was properly decided. For example, compensation paid by other nearby and similarly sized HOA’s for such services suggests that Ms. Bell is overcompensated by well over $25,000 a year.
No evidence is apparently provided to demonstrate or confirm her actual work performed during any pay-period in which she bills the Chaut. for services rendered.
In fact, the “Labor Services Rates” chart that she provides to the public clearly demonstrates that the Chaut. is automatically billed set percentages of Borough’s full-time staff member’s salaries, regardless of whether the Chaut. needed services rendered for that pay period, and regardless of what services were actually rendered during that pay period. [And, she even "charges" the Chaut. during the weeks of set-up and break-down for the annual art show. This will be particularly relevant to those out there that know that the Borough is supposed to be providing these services for "free", according to the arrangement that was agreed upon a couple decades ago when the Borough approached the Chautauqua claiming that its budget shortfall could be rectified that year if it were allowed to share in the art show profits.Well, today, "free" is no longer the fact. Care and Bell charge the Chaut. for straight time during this period (which is another apparent farce perpetuated upon us, but we will save that for later, too), and the rest charge straight time and ample overtime to the Chaut during these periods. So, now, on top of this compensation for labor that was supposed to be free, the Borough takes its set portion of the gate receipts.]
Ms. Bell’s compensation likely does not meet the IRS’s test for determination of “reasonable compensation.”
First, as evidenced by Ms. Bell’s repeated responses to information requests that NO documentation describing the arrangement exists, the Chaut. has NOT clearly indicated, in writing, its intent to treat the benefit(s) as compensation. This expression of intent is required under IRS Code.
It is not enough to say that the Chaut's intent is clearly indicated by Ms. Bell’s possible inclusion of the compensation in her 1040. The basis of that reporting would solely and entirely originate from her Form W-2’s from the Borough, thus providing no indication as to the Chaut's compensation paid to her, much less as to its intent. This is especially unclear where there is no written documentation of the agreement.
Second, they have presented no evidence showing that the compensation enjoys a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness, as may be provided under IRS Code. There is apparently no evidence tending to show that persons without conflicts voted to approve the compensation; nor evidence tending to show that an “approving” body obtained and relied upon appropriate data as to comparability of the compensation; or evidence tending to show that an approving body adequately documented the basis for its determination concurrently with making the determination. Each of these is required under the Code for the Chaut to enjoy a rebuttable presumption of reasonable compensation. Therefore, the Chaut. has not, and likely cannot, show that Ms. Bell’s compensation is reasonable and not excessive.
In conclusion, given that no actual services need to be delivered for the Chaut. to be invoiced, and that no documentation of actual services is ever offered, and that Ms. Bell appears to be unreasonably and over-compensated--even if she is performing the services alleged, the arrangement appears to be an excess benefit transaction. If so, as per the Code, her husband, also an officer of the Chaut., would be deemed to have indirectly benefited from her receipt of the excess benefit.
If an excess benefit transaction would be determined to exist by the IRS, this also means that Ms. Bell, and her husband would be jointly and severally liable for the tax on these excess benefit transactions, and the tax rates are:
25% on the excess benefit,
200% on the excess benefit if it is not corrected with in the specified time frame.
An alleged non-profit's tax-exempt status is a very serious issue, and my experience has shown that the IRS simply does not allow this "loosy-goosy" sort of reporting, where they ask you four or five times to report an officer's compensation and you just "work around" the fact that an officer of the exempt organization is indeed receiving compensation--ergo, benefiting, from the organization, an organization that is alleging that its primary purpose is to provide a social benefit to the community at large.
For a taste of the Code on this issue, See “Tax on Disqualified Persons” in Section 4958 of the IRS Code.
Let me close out this post by reminding readers that these questions are being asked and these issues are being analyzed not because I have any sort of agenda. They are being presented here because our community leaders are putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. These community leaders demand our acquiesence and approval of their behavior before we even know the true details about their conduct.
For example, in discussing the Chaut's tax exempt status, or in discussing the Borough's work for private corporations, the issue is not whether I think the actions or status should or shouldn't be terminated. Its about us taxpayers and shareholders being able to make decisions and to participate in our community based on transparent, truthful, and accurate information.
Why is this truthfulness and accuracy important? Its important because many of these activities present legality issues, as well as ethics issues, that, quite frankly, someone-someone who doesn't deserve it, always gets the short end of the stick on.
Here's another way to explain why demanding truthfulness and accuracy from community leaders is so important: Its one thing when your pastor asks you for money to support the summer boys camp, buts its another when you learn that the its likely that the pastor is doing something unethical or illegal either with that money or with those boys...And, if presented with inquiries, would you expect an errant pastor to simply roll over and say, "Oh, well, you caught me. Let's just skip straight to the punishment." Or, would you expect him to say something like, "We have a great congregation here; you have all enjoyed the benefits of my diligent and worthy spiritual guidance and will continue to do so, regardless of what that troubled boy says about me or my actions. That boy has been troubled since he came here. Let's pray for him and call it a day. In fact, let's have a party to celebrate my service to this community. We'll just pay for it out of the "Parent Fund.""
On the other hand, if he truly had his community as his first priority, he would say, "Look, the success of this program and its participants is the priority here--not whether or not the books or the "organizers" activities should be kept secret. Pick a representative or two, let's meet, review all relevant documents, answer all your questions, work together to make a plan to move forward with, and then move forward. Let's learn and grow from this."
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Mr. Treasurer, a question for you...
Are you asking us to believe that the audits are being done without the use of digital templates, and that you are not able to provide the public with a digital copy--perhaps for the price of a CD/DVD? Or even just provide a link to it on the entity's website?
Jeese, are we really in the stone age here still?
Jeese, are we really in the stone age here still?
Monday, November 16, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
