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.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
New cafe
I found this new cafe just off Rte 72 that is great.
They have the usual array of pastries, savory stuff, and seasonal snacks, as well as a great relaxing location and creative architecture:
its located with a spa and an eclectic jewelry and clothes shop in a renovated carriage house.
The design was done by local architect Kip Kelly, and the building itself is set back off Alden rd., on the entrance to Alden Place. The upstairs is home to the day spa!
They have chai, steamers, teas, and, of course coffee.
Unfortunately, its somewhat of a bittersweet find, because everytime I go there, I ask myself, "Just why is that we don't have something like this in Mt. Gretna?" Maybe I will get some pictures up on this post soon.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Da dee da deee da--here we go again
"stinkin' more than anybody has a right to"
Well, I just can't believe the fodder local political reps provide for the intelligent and inquisitive. Again, Kilgore--OUR solicitor, failed to present any evidence-or logic, justifying Mt. Gretna's participation in this extortion scheme the EIT Bureau and city solicitors are calling the "over/under-payment issue"--strike that, "problem", as Kilgore clarified last night. I now suspect that there is much more "foul play" and intentional covering-up going on. And, here's why.
Again, last night Kilgore tried to shoot the messenger, rather than heed the message. While being asked more questions about the EIT--specifically, what evidence that he has that shows that there is a foundation for any sort of "settlement" agreement on this over/under allegation, he again tried to suggest, in a public forum, that I didn't know the proper facts about the EIT. Don't forget that at the Oct. meeting, he also suggested that I needed to learn about the laws authorizing the EIT by telling me to "go read the EIT laws." As he, and his best buds should certainly know by now--I do my homework. So, with great pleasure, I reminded him that I had just finished my fourth reading of them in the hour before the meeting. And, with great pleasure, I will provide here the documentary evidence that he was, once again, wrong about what's been going on with the EIT here.
But, him being wrong, even multiple times, is not really a problem. Its his willingness to be wrong in public and the triggers that bring out this behavior in him that we should all be worrying about: when challenged substantively on the legal foundation for the allegations, the law, and the "process", he tries to destroy the inquirer's credibility and will even get the law and the facts wrong to do so. In witnessing this pattern of his--his willingness to publicly show his lack of knowledge about the issue and his lack of interest in getting the facts correct, I am beginning to suspect that he is motivated to take these risks because he knows something else is at stake--something other than a settlement. In other words, he is falling on his sword. So, I think that the question that we all should have now is " who is he falling on his sword for?" More about that by the time we get to the bottom of this post.
And, because my time is as valuable as his, and because I am providing the Boro with much needed information that Kilgore is failing to provide, I will send the boro the bill.
First, as to the EIT law, it is called the Local Tax Enabling Act. CapTax provides an easily accessible version of it on their website, but I have linked to it in the Community Info list at the bottom of this blog. Kilgore told me to read it when I asked him what evidence there was indicating that the historic distribution of the EIT in Leb. Co. was incorrect--or, "arbitrary", as the Bureau and the solicitors put it. His response was, to paraphrase, ""Fixed percentages" is just not how it was done. You get 50% of what you paid in. You would know that if you read the EIT laws." Well, Mr. Smarty-Pants. I knew you would say that. So, that's why I re-read them before asking you the question in a public forum--because there is no mandate for receiving 50% of what you paid in. NONE. But, I thought I would check with you. Thanks for that confirmation.
And, that tidbit is what JQ PUblic needs to know about the solicitors' and the Bureau's assertions: there is NO mandate in the laws to distribute EIT revenue the way Kilgore asserts. Further, there is no prohibition, in those laws, against distributing the revenue according to a percentage-allocation pattern fixed within the system--which is the distribution pattern the Bureau admits existed. So, just because we didn't get back 50% of what we paid in, doesn't mean that we didn't get what we were supposed to get. And, they can't prove we didn't get what we were supposed to get.
Second, all the real evidence presented here supports the idea that its the EIT Bureau's fault if anything went missing or misdirected. The EIT laws that Kilgore is refering to also require an annual EIT audit, and require each political subdivision to annually reconcile the EIT numbers and make the necessary adjustments. Here's the text of those laws:
Section 11
…the governing body of each political subdivision which levies and collects or provides for the levying of a tax upon earned income, shall provide for not less than one examination each year of the books, accounts and records of the income tax collector..
and
13.III.B.V.h
…The political subdivisions shall not be required to request the officer to distribute the funds collected but shall at least annually reconcile their receipts with the records of the officer and return to or credit the officer with any overpayment….
Ok, so, now we at the logical point where we need to know if Kilgore or the Bureau has any evidence that Mt. Gretna did NOT do the annual reconciliation and make the necessary credits or returns. Why is it important to know this? Its important because if all evidence shows that an annual reconciliation was done, then the most we could ever "owe" is the current year's possible overpayment.
So, last night I told Kilgore that I found evidence that Mt. Gretna had indeed did some type of reconciliation one year (1969)and requested--and received, a corrective payment. I then asked him if he knew of any OTHER evidence that suggests that the legally mandated annual reconciliations were not done. Again, he told me that the system was run in such a disorganized fashion, that laws like that don't mean anything--essentially, that I shouldn't and can't rely on the LAW to figure out what, if anything, we owe. But, then he just had to end his response by saying "That [corrective payment] could not have happened. Mt. Gretna wasn't even in the EIT until the 70's."
Well, folks, also in the links list below, you will find Cornwall-Lebanon School District meeting minutes from November 3, 1969, where the school board discusses Mt.Gretna's EIT-correction request and decides to issue them a check. Further, the C-L School District EIT was adopted in 1967, and Mt. Gretna was one of the first, if not the first, municipality to return their "acceptance" to participate in the intended EIT system. I also posted a link to those meeting minutes below. Now who, again, doesn't know what they are talking about---and getting paid for their ignorance....But, I suspect that there is a reason why he is not motivated to know his "legal" stuff about this issue.
So, in short, my research, which has been confirmed by EIT Bureau statements and by solicitor statements, suggests very clearly that:
1. there is no reasonable or legally sufficient evidence of arbitrary distribution.
2. There is no reasonable or legally sufficient evidence of mis-distribution.
3. There IS evidence of missing money--a lot of it, that can't be attributed to Foltz's activities. And,
4. our solicitors are acting more like the Bureau's front man than our legal representatives.
The story line here could go something like this: "
EIT Bureau and Solicitors, not wanting to shine spotlight on clients and long-time friends involved with the collection of EIT in Lebanon County, intentionally pursued--via threats of "crushing" financial and legal entanglements, settlement of allegations for which they knew there was grossly insufficient evidence to pursue properly."
I mean, really, we need to start asking loudly, "Could it be that both of these parties have a good suspicion where to look for the missing money, or that the "missing" part happened at levels lower than Foltz--like at the municipal EIT collector level?" That would explain a lot about their curious behavior and their lack of inquisitiveness, now wouldn't it?
Well, I just can't believe the fodder local political reps provide for the intelligent and inquisitive. Again, Kilgore--OUR solicitor, failed to present any evidence-or logic, justifying Mt. Gretna's participation in this extortion scheme the EIT Bureau and city solicitors are calling the "over/under-payment issue"--strike that, "problem", as Kilgore clarified last night. I now suspect that there is much more "foul play" and intentional covering-up going on. And, here's why.
Again, last night Kilgore tried to shoot the messenger, rather than heed the message. While being asked more questions about the EIT--specifically, what evidence that he has that shows that there is a foundation for any sort of "settlement" agreement on this over/under allegation, he again tried to suggest, in a public forum, that I didn't know the proper facts about the EIT. Don't forget that at the Oct. meeting, he also suggested that I needed to learn about the laws authorizing the EIT by telling me to "go read the EIT laws." As he, and his best buds should certainly know by now--I do my homework. So, with great pleasure, I reminded him that I had just finished my fourth reading of them in the hour before the meeting. And, with great pleasure, I will provide here the documentary evidence that he was, once again, wrong about what's been going on with the EIT here.
But, him being wrong, even multiple times, is not really a problem. Its his willingness to be wrong in public and the triggers that bring out this behavior in him that we should all be worrying about: when challenged substantively on the legal foundation for the allegations, the law, and the "process", he tries to destroy the inquirer's credibility and will even get the law and the facts wrong to do so. In witnessing this pattern of his--his willingness to publicly show his lack of knowledge about the issue and his lack of interest in getting the facts correct, I am beginning to suspect that he is motivated to take these risks because he knows something else is at stake--something other than a settlement. In other words, he is falling on his sword. So, I think that the question that we all should have now is " who is he falling on his sword for?" More about that by the time we get to the bottom of this post.
And, because my time is as valuable as his, and because I am providing the Boro with much needed information that Kilgore is failing to provide, I will send the boro the bill.
First, as to the EIT law, it is called the Local Tax Enabling Act. CapTax provides an easily accessible version of it on their website, but I have linked to it in the Community Info list at the bottom of this blog. Kilgore told me to read it when I asked him what evidence there was indicating that the historic distribution of the EIT in Leb. Co. was incorrect--or, "arbitrary", as the Bureau and the solicitors put it. His response was, to paraphrase, ""Fixed percentages" is just not how it was done. You get 50% of what you paid in. You would know that if you read the EIT laws." Well, Mr. Smarty-Pants. I knew you would say that. So, that's why I re-read them before asking you the question in a public forum--because there is no mandate for receiving 50% of what you paid in. NONE. But, I thought I would check with you. Thanks for that confirmation.
And, that tidbit is what JQ PUblic needs to know about the solicitors' and the Bureau's assertions: there is NO mandate in the laws to distribute EIT revenue the way Kilgore asserts. Further, there is no prohibition, in those laws, against distributing the revenue according to a percentage-allocation pattern fixed within the system--which is the distribution pattern the Bureau admits existed. So, just because we didn't get back 50% of what we paid in, doesn't mean that we didn't get what we were supposed to get. And, they can't prove we didn't get what we were supposed to get.
Second, all the real evidence presented here supports the idea that its the EIT Bureau's fault if anything went missing or misdirected. The EIT laws that Kilgore is refering to also require an annual EIT audit, and require each political subdivision to annually reconcile the EIT numbers and make the necessary adjustments. Here's the text of those laws:
Section 11
…the governing body of each political subdivision which levies and collects or provides for the levying of a tax upon earned income, shall provide for not less than one examination each year of the books, accounts and records of the income tax collector..
and
13.III.B.V.h
…The political subdivisions shall not be required to request the officer to distribute the funds collected but shall at least annually reconcile their receipts with the records of the officer and return to or credit the officer with any overpayment….
Ok, so, now we at the logical point where we need to know if Kilgore or the Bureau has any evidence that Mt. Gretna did NOT do the annual reconciliation and make the necessary credits or returns. Why is it important to know this? Its important because if all evidence shows that an annual reconciliation was done, then the most we could ever "owe" is the current year's possible overpayment.
So, last night I told Kilgore that I found evidence that Mt. Gretna had indeed did some type of reconciliation one year (1969)and requested--and received, a corrective payment. I then asked him if he knew of any OTHER evidence that suggests that the legally mandated annual reconciliations were not done. Again, he told me that the system was run in such a disorganized fashion, that laws like that don't mean anything--essentially, that I shouldn't and can't rely on the LAW to figure out what, if anything, we owe. But, then he just had to end his response by saying "That [corrective payment] could not have happened. Mt. Gretna wasn't even in the EIT until the 70's."
Well, folks, also in the links list below, you will find Cornwall-Lebanon School District meeting minutes from November 3, 1969, where the school board discusses Mt.Gretna's EIT-correction request and decides to issue them a check. Further, the C-L School District EIT was adopted in 1967, and Mt. Gretna was one of the first, if not the first, municipality to return their "acceptance" to participate in the intended EIT system. I also posted a link to those meeting minutes below. Now who, again, doesn't know what they are talking about---and getting paid for their ignorance....But, I suspect that there is a reason why he is not motivated to know his "legal" stuff about this issue.
So, in short, my research, which has been confirmed by EIT Bureau statements and by solicitor statements, suggests very clearly that:
1. there is no reasonable or legally sufficient evidence of arbitrary distribution.
2. There is no reasonable or legally sufficient evidence of mis-distribution.
3. There IS evidence of missing money--a lot of it, that can't be attributed to Foltz's activities. And,
4. our solicitors are acting more like the Bureau's front man than our legal representatives.
The story line here could go something like this: "
EIT Bureau and Solicitors, not wanting to shine spotlight on clients and long-time friends involved with the collection of EIT in Lebanon County, intentionally pursued--via threats of "crushing" financial and legal entanglements, settlement of allegations for which they knew there was grossly insufficient evidence to pursue properly."
I mean, really, we need to start asking loudly, "Could it be that both of these parties have a good suspicion where to look for the missing money, or that the "missing" part happened at levels lower than Foltz--like at the municipal EIT collector level?" That would explain a lot about their curious behavior and their lack of inquisitiveness, now wouldn't it?
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Election Results
Well, even though detailed election results are not available yet (the write-in votes are not specific as to what name may have been written in), the LebCo website posted enough results data to make interesting observations and comments.
First, the Mt. Gretna position that received the most votes was for the Inspector of Election--with a total of 71 votes cast between two candidates. From this, we can assume that at least 71 MG voters turned out on Tuesday.
Second, two MGBoro positions were essentially totally ignored by even those 71 voters who did show up on Tuesday. The Assessor's position received one vote only--and that was for a write-in. Congrats to that person...And, the MG Boro Tax Collector position received only 6 votes--again, all cast for a write-in. The question now is, "How will those offices be filled?"
It is possible that there is a "majority" within the write-in, so would that person be "elected?" Or will the boro council "appoint" two persons to these two offices? If the incumbents for both positions did not run as candidates during this election, and if almost all of MG voters rejected the opportunity to cast their votes for the incumbents as a write-in, wouldn't that be a clear message to the council that the incumbents do not want the position anymore AND that the MG voters don't want the incumbents anymore? So, it will be interesting to see who the council appoints...
Third, if only 71 voters turned out on Tuesday, and more than a third of those votes were cast for write-ins, is that a sign of anything? I mean, I assume that a voter is not allowed to cast the same name as a write-in three times on the same ballot. So, that would mean that one voter's repetition of the same name would only count once, and that there were 25 distinct votes cast for someone other than a council incumbent. Or, to look at it another way, even if each voter could write-in "no confidence" in all three of their slots for boro council and the vote counters counted all three as three separate write-in votes, that means at least 9 people had the courage to cast a write-in vote.
Since it should be fairly obvious that I didn't vote 9 times (or 25 times) on Tuesday, I find comfort in knowing that there are at least 8 (and maybe 25) others out there with this kind of courage. That said, I hope the numbers provide our local elected officials with the motivation to also use their votes and decision-making powers with thoughtfulness and courage to "buck the trend." After-all, it is apparent now that there are allies out there that they can rely on when it comes to considering certain issues.
See the results at
http://www.lebcounty.org/lebanon/lib/lebanon/UnofficialFinalResults110309_0951p.HTM
First, the Mt. Gretna position that received the most votes was for the Inspector of Election--with a total of 71 votes cast between two candidates. From this, we can assume that at least 71 MG voters turned out on Tuesday.
Second, two MGBoro positions were essentially totally ignored by even those 71 voters who did show up on Tuesday. The Assessor's position received one vote only--and that was for a write-in. Congrats to that person...And, the MG Boro Tax Collector position received only 6 votes--again, all cast for a write-in. The question now is, "How will those offices be filled?"
It is possible that there is a "majority" within the write-in, so would that person be "elected?" Or will the boro council "appoint" two persons to these two offices? If the incumbents for both positions did not run as candidates during this election, and if almost all of MG voters rejected the opportunity to cast their votes for the incumbents as a write-in, wouldn't that be a clear message to the council that the incumbents do not want the position anymore AND that the MG voters don't want the incumbents anymore? So, it will be interesting to see who the council appoints...
Third, if only 71 voters turned out on Tuesday, and more than a third of those votes were cast for write-ins, is that a sign of anything? I mean, I assume that a voter is not allowed to cast the same name as a write-in three times on the same ballot. So, that would mean that one voter's repetition of the same name would only count once, and that there were 25 distinct votes cast for someone other than a council incumbent. Or, to look at it another way, even if each voter could write-in "no confidence" in all three of their slots for boro council and the vote counters counted all three as three separate write-in votes, that means at least 9 people had the courage to cast a write-in vote.
Since it should be fairly obvious that I didn't vote 9 times (or 25 times) on Tuesday, I find comfort in knowing that there are at least 8 (and maybe 25) others out there with this kind of courage. That said, I hope the numbers provide our local elected officials with the motivation to also use their votes and decision-making powers with thoughtfulness and courage to "buck the trend." After-all, it is apparent now that there are allies out there that they can rely on when it comes to considering certain issues.
See the results at
http://www.lebcounty.org/lebanon/lib/lebanon/UnofficialFinalResults110309_0951p.HTM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
