#1 2010-08-06 16:17:46
Good afternoon, all.
With all of the commentary in the DOR report on the Sewer Enterprise Fund, I thought that it might be a good idea to extract info on the SEF from the State website. the result is underwhelming.
Sewer Enterprise Fund, Source: DOR
FY2009 FY2008 FY2007 FY2006 FY2005
REVENUE $6,441,541 $8,161,086 $7,760,628 $7,689,110 $5,423,710
EXPENSES $6,195,576 $7,071,178 $13,228,522 $10,140,044 $12,574,197
Excess Rev. over Exp. $(603,571) $40,373 $4,820,958 $699,166 $4,905,375
Beginning Fund Balance $3,316,557 $3,276,184 $(1,544,774) $(2,243,840) $(7,149,210)
Ending Fund Balance $2,712,986 $3,316,557 $3,276,184 $(15,447,740) $(2,243,840)
This little spreadsheet of the DOR figures raises many more questions than it answers.
1. the revenue pattern seems odd. what exactly goes into these numbers? Why is there a sharp increase in the middle years (new users?), but then a rather sharp decline? Admin fee rollback? Lower EDU rates? Seems excessive.
2. And the expenses - high in the early years due to construction? but then lower as construction continues? not clear. One would think that construction costs would create long-term assets to be depreciated over time, rather than expensed in the year incurred. but, I am notanaccountant.
3. XS Rev over Exp. since none of these numbers come close to matching a simple subtraction of one from the other, it must be that there are other inputs, make that MISSING inputs.
The solution is to obtain the Form A-2, which is filed with the Recap sheet in setting the Tax rate. This form, for Enterprise funds of all kinds, has much more detail, and may shed more light on the Wareham Sewer Enterprise fund.
Without the detail, it is hard to reconcile the comments of the DOR in its report. Or to see the actual impact in changes in the rate structure, admin fee, etc.
Offline
#2 2010-08-06 16:19:50
Sorry about the alignment of the columns. It lines up nicely as a Preview, and then bends out-of-shape in the posting. Hope that you all can follow.
Offline
#3 2010-08-06 17:57:41
DOR wrote:
The water pollution control facility enterprise fund is intended to account for all direct, indirect and capital costs associated with the sewerage treatment operation. The selectmen should then set user fees at an appropriate level to recover those costs and to generate a reasonable surplus, which would remain available for use only for enterprise purposes. However, it is clear from historical data that the enterprise fund operates with a structural deficit. Over the preceding three fiscal years, the facility has relied on over $1,263,880 in retained earnings to support ongoing operations as reported to DOR, the bulk of which has been generated from betterment assessments paid in full rather than over the apportioned period. This use of retained earnings is lawful, but not prudent.
"OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS" - Who was running the show for the past three years? THE HYPOCRITE ELITE!!!
The definition of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" or "kicking the can down the road." The strategy - Let's buy some votes to stay in office today and let the future selectmen and town officials worry about it tommorrow when the shit hits the fan and there's no betterment money for betterments.
Everyone who reads that part of the report should be outraged.
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2010-08-06 17:58:41)
Offline
