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?
Showing posts with label Sewer Authority. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sewer Authority. Show all posts
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Who is really watching where our money goes?
Does anyone know who the financial secretary and the treasurer is for the Sewer and Water Authority?
and for the Mt. Gretna Borough?
and for the Chautauqua?
and for the Art Show?
And who writes the checks that pays the bills for each of these entities?
Does anyone know how much revenue these bodies take in a year, combined?
and, do you know what their combined expenses are, annually and how much of a difference there is in those two numbers?
Does anyone know exactly how many staff the Borough has?
the water authority?
the sewer authority?
the Chautauqua?
More importantly, does anyone know exactly how many times we pay Bill Care for public works work here in our 87 acres? and how much is he paid for work in other locations, like at our neighbors...? Is he the Boro's public works director, and a director or consultant for a neighbor, for the Sewer Authority, for the Water Authority, for the Chautauqua? Just how many roles do he and Linda Bell have and how many times are they getting paid?
and how do we know that these entities are really separated when their contact information, leadership, and office location are all the same and the monies and checkbook are all controlled by the same persons? How do we know where our money is going--who can tell us with any sort of certainty and transparency?
Please feel free to make your anonymous responses to these questions.
But know that, according to my research, I can only find that three persons control the largest flow of money in and out of these 87 acres and that no one is really looking over their work. I also found that we have almost a MILLION bucks coming through here and only around $700,000 of it is accounted for in the budgets (when combined). Further, I have found no verification process for the tickets sold and cash received for the Art Show, which generates hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. I also have not been able to confirm what any entity has for staff (at council meetings, Care says the boro has 5 full time staff, on state documents, he says that the Sewer Authority has 5, just as an example), and thereby can not confirm labor expenses, benefits expenses, and "cost-sharing" arrangements--and I don't see how the auditor general--in determining public entities compliance with laws related to receipt of state funds, can really decipher these apparently undocumented "cost-sharing" arrangements, especially where the arrangements involve a private corporation like the Chautauqua.
I further can not imagine why a public official that handles almost a million dollars a year in public money--and who was the one handling taxes/revenue that the "borough" is accused of taking too much of, would take out well over $600,000 in mortgages since 2003, all secured by a house not nearly worth that amount, and from the same bank---AND pay $575,000 of those mortgages back in less than 18 months, as a routine, with the largest one taken and repaid that way being for $350,000. And, why would that official, or their spouse urge any of these entities to transfer the
entity's own accounts to this bank that has supplied them with mortgages exceeding the value of their home and that never exist longer than 18 months--especially when that bank does not provide FDIC depositor's insurance? If that official has a family member or friend working there, shouldn't that have been disclosed?
And, with all this sharing of costs and revenues, office space, staff and leadership that exists between allegedly separate entities, doesn't the legal distinction (and liability protection) fade away like piss in the katrina wind? Isn't this where someone shouts out, "Its like "piercing the corporate veil", or like getting a divorce judgment, and then moving back in with each other and comingling funds long enough to be judged common law spouses anyway?
To me, it strongly appears that all these separate entities within the 87 acres here really are intended to be a "paperwork" sham to cloud the money trail and to allow certain persons to benefit personally beyond their one full-time salary. Ergo, I can see why any one of these "gatekeepers", like Bill Care, would get nervous when I started poking around and asking questions back in January about our political infrastructure and money. I can also see, if there was misconduct involved, why they would want to try to scare or harass my partner and I into leaving Mt. Gretna. For those with lots to hide, it makes apparent sense that my persistence triggered a very serious tightening of the anal sphincter.
But, like with other residents requests, mine were also essentially ignored as if they never existed. Perhaps these officials think that if they create this dysfunctional denial pattern where they treat our inquiries as if they never happened, we all will carry on as if they never existed. This "false reality" gives explanation as to why somebody like Bill Care is shocked speechless by my partner's directness the day she went to him face to face and asked to know why the Cornwall Police refused to take our report on the off-duty Middletown police officer that "patrolled" our home and eventually came to our property to threaten and harass us. You see, Care responded to her by threatening us further, and she--being strongly aware that the conversation was really about his intent to harass us into leaving Mt. Gretna and our awareness of his intent, jumped right to replying that we would be more than happy to just sell our home to him--he doesn't have to threaten us, and that the Borough should just make an offer.
You see, its likely that he couldn't respond to that because, in his mind, he also knew the real context of his statements and he really had to think before saying something that confirmed the real context that was just admitted. Normally, if a person's underlying context of a conversation is innocent, they can respond almost immediately to apparent non-sequitors like that, saying something like, "What?"
See how simple that was. But, when you know your context is subversive or could get you into trouble, a statement by the other party that calls out your hidden context catches you like a sinkhole in your path. Thus, this behavior of his (along with statements made by other residents describing his conduct) shows me that he was committed--before my partner even showed up in his office, to a context of making her--and me, out to be criminals and threatening her based on that context. And this is the most likely reason why he wasn't ready to talk frankly about how to get rid of my inquisitiveness into his conduct as a public official.
But, even if he knows that I know what misconduct might be going on, he doesn't know the extent of my knowledge and therefore he can't risk offending me so much that he can't feign interested and innocent conversations with me--which he has done even after threatening my partner. He can also try to discover more information about me--information with which to further harass me and my family, through these conversations, and through soliciting information from other residents, the police, and even from me. Again, we may have a very naive and pure expectation of our community leaders, but we are smart enough to know about fishing and to know about about retaliation--and, having studied interview techniques and from representing alleged criminals, I certainly know how "guilty" people react and how they try to subversively protect and defend themselves.
One tactic is to try to tarnish the credibility of the "accuser" or the discoverer of misconduct. I mean really, public officials like Care don't accept how guilty it looks to organize, or even to participate in, throwing a whole slew of criminal allegations at perfectly upstanding middle-aged citizens with hardly a traffic ticket to their names--and to do so just as one of those citizen's research into those officials' public conduct has uncovered some very serious questions and concerns. And, don't they know that the more you do to cover your trail of misconduct and bad intentions, the more you give yourself away--and that certainly is true when you engage others in your retaliation towards the innocent citizen.
You see, for me, Care's behavior pretty much confirms that there is something very wrong going on here--and by targeting two upstanding middle-aged professional women who give in in-numerous ways to their community, he has let his "cat" out of the bag. I mean, really, what is the point--just show us where the money goes, show us all your own sources of income and possible conflicts, and make our lives safer by having traffic laws enforced. It is crystal clear to me that he is asking you and I to believe that it is easier and more appropriate for him to threaten and to engage in a pattern of conduct with the intent of running two responsible and contributing residents out of town than it is to respond to any of the concerned residents of this community who just want their community made more transparent and safer.
But, for the time being, I am still here, and the information I uncover about our public officials' behavior and use of our money only leads to more and more questions--not answers. I just hope that if something happens to me--like a speeding car nails me coming out of my driveway, or if I am "accidently" shot by a "hunter," that someone will keep looking for the answers and hold public officials accountable for their conduct. I also welcome your comments if you can clarify or add transparency or accountability to the questions first presented in this post.
and for the Mt. Gretna Borough?
and for the Chautauqua?
and for the Art Show?
And who writes the checks that pays the bills for each of these entities?
Does anyone know how much revenue these bodies take in a year, combined?
and, do you know what their combined expenses are, annually and how much of a difference there is in those two numbers?
Does anyone know exactly how many staff the Borough has?
the water authority?
the sewer authority?
the Chautauqua?
More importantly, does anyone know exactly how many times we pay Bill Care for public works work here in our 87 acres? and how much is he paid for work in other locations, like at our neighbors...? Is he the Boro's public works director, and a director or consultant for a neighbor, for the Sewer Authority, for the Water Authority, for the Chautauqua? Just how many roles do he and Linda Bell have and how many times are they getting paid?
and how do we know that these entities are really separated when their contact information, leadership, and office location are all the same and the monies and checkbook are all controlled by the same persons? How do we know where our money is going--who can tell us with any sort of certainty and transparency?
Please feel free to make your anonymous responses to these questions.
But know that, according to my research, I can only find that three persons control the largest flow of money in and out of these 87 acres and that no one is really looking over their work. I also found that we have almost a MILLION bucks coming through here and only around $700,000 of it is accounted for in the budgets (when combined). Further, I have found no verification process for the tickets sold and cash received for the Art Show, which generates hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. I also have not been able to confirm what any entity has for staff (at council meetings, Care says the boro has 5 full time staff, on state documents, he says that the Sewer Authority has 5, just as an example), and thereby can not confirm labor expenses, benefits expenses, and "cost-sharing" arrangements--and I don't see how the auditor general--in determining public entities compliance with laws related to receipt of state funds, can really decipher these apparently undocumented "cost-sharing" arrangements, especially where the arrangements involve a private corporation like the Chautauqua.
I further can not imagine why a public official that handles almost a million dollars a year in public money--and who was the one handling taxes/revenue that the "borough" is accused of taking too much of, would take out well over $600,000 in mortgages since 2003, all secured by a house not nearly worth that amount, and from the same bank---AND pay $575,000 of those mortgages back in less than 18 months, as a routine, with the largest one taken and repaid that way being for $350,000. And, why would that official, or their spouse urge any of these entities to transfer the
entity's own accounts to this bank that has supplied them with mortgages exceeding the value of their home and that never exist longer than 18 months--especially when that bank does not provide FDIC depositor's insurance? If that official has a family member or friend working there, shouldn't that have been disclosed?
And, with all this sharing of costs and revenues, office space, staff and leadership that exists between allegedly separate entities, doesn't the legal distinction (and liability protection) fade away like piss in the katrina wind? Isn't this where someone shouts out, "Its like "piercing the corporate veil", or like getting a divorce judgment, and then moving back in with each other and comingling funds long enough to be judged common law spouses anyway?
To me, it strongly appears that all these separate entities within the 87 acres here really are intended to be a "paperwork" sham to cloud the money trail and to allow certain persons to benefit personally beyond their one full-time salary. Ergo, I can see why any one of these "gatekeepers", like Bill Care, would get nervous when I started poking around and asking questions back in January about our political infrastructure and money. I can also see, if there was misconduct involved, why they would want to try to scare or harass my partner and I into leaving Mt. Gretna. For those with lots to hide, it makes apparent sense that my persistence triggered a very serious tightening of the anal sphincter.
But, like with other residents requests, mine were also essentially ignored as if they never existed. Perhaps these officials think that if they create this dysfunctional denial pattern where they treat our inquiries as if they never happened, we all will carry on as if they never existed. This "false reality" gives explanation as to why somebody like Bill Care is shocked speechless by my partner's directness the day she went to him face to face and asked to know why the Cornwall Police refused to take our report on the off-duty Middletown police officer that "patrolled" our home and eventually came to our property to threaten and harass us. You see, Care responded to her by threatening us further, and she--being strongly aware that the conversation was really about his intent to harass us into leaving Mt. Gretna and our awareness of his intent, jumped right to replying that we would be more than happy to just sell our home to him--he doesn't have to threaten us, and that the Borough should just make an offer.
You see, its likely that he couldn't respond to that because, in his mind, he also knew the real context of his statements and he really had to think before saying something that confirmed the real context that was just admitted. Normally, if a person's underlying context of a conversation is innocent, they can respond almost immediately to apparent non-sequitors like that, saying something like, "What?"
See how simple that was. But, when you know your context is subversive or could get you into trouble, a statement by the other party that calls out your hidden context catches you like a sinkhole in your path. Thus, this behavior of his (along with statements made by other residents describing his conduct) shows me that he was committed--before my partner even showed up in his office, to a context of making her--and me, out to be criminals and threatening her based on that context. And this is the most likely reason why he wasn't ready to talk frankly about how to get rid of my inquisitiveness into his conduct as a public official.
But, even if he knows that I know what misconduct might be going on, he doesn't know the extent of my knowledge and therefore he can't risk offending me so much that he can't feign interested and innocent conversations with me--which he has done even after threatening my partner. He can also try to discover more information about me--information with which to further harass me and my family, through these conversations, and through soliciting information from other residents, the police, and even from me. Again, we may have a very naive and pure expectation of our community leaders, but we are smart enough to know about fishing and to know about about retaliation--and, having studied interview techniques and from representing alleged criminals, I certainly know how "guilty" people react and how they try to subversively protect and defend themselves.
One tactic is to try to tarnish the credibility of the "accuser" or the discoverer of misconduct. I mean really, public officials like Care don't accept how guilty it looks to organize, or even to participate in, throwing a whole slew of criminal allegations at perfectly upstanding middle-aged citizens with hardly a traffic ticket to their names--and to do so just as one of those citizen's research into those officials' public conduct has uncovered some very serious questions and concerns. And, don't they know that the more you do to cover your trail of misconduct and bad intentions, the more you give yourself away--and that certainly is true when you engage others in your retaliation towards the innocent citizen.
You see, for me, Care's behavior pretty much confirms that there is something very wrong going on here--and by targeting two upstanding middle-aged professional women who give in in-numerous ways to their community, he has let his "cat" out of the bag. I mean, really, what is the point--just show us where the money goes, show us all your own sources of income and possible conflicts, and make our lives safer by having traffic laws enforced. It is crystal clear to me that he is asking you and I to believe that it is easier and more appropriate for him to threaten and to engage in a pattern of conduct with the intent of running two responsible and contributing residents out of town than it is to respond to any of the concerned residents of this community who just want their community made more transparent and safer.
But, for the time being, I am still here, and the information I uncover about our public officials' behavior and use of our money only leads to more and more questions--not answers. I just hope that if something happens to me--like a speeding car nails me coming out of my driveway, or if I am "accidently" shot by a "hunter," that someone will keep looking for the answers and hold public officials accountable for their conduct. I also welcome your comments if you can clarify or add transparency or accountability to the questions first presented in this post.
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
