Wednesday, March 21, 2012

BUDGET NEWS

Aren't numbers wonderful? In Wednesday's Courier legal notices there is a sumary of the submitted 2012 budget.

Of note in Revenues the anticipated income from TAX revenues jumps from $40,250,231 in FY 2011 to $70,770,748 for 2012! That is a 75% increase. I am wondering how this jives with the ;ess than 3% incease in tax rate announced at the Council 3/9/12 meeting.

Also recepits from delinquent taxes increases from1.0 mil. to 2.5 mil'

To counter the increase phantom to me income , the salary line of expenses has jumped from18.3 mil to 34.4 mil (an 87% increase); other expenses from near 15 mil to 20.9mil!!! a33% increase .

The Dedicated Sewer Utility Budget is included which includes an increase in their debt service of $4,400.00 to near 75.7K. The outstanding balance of PMUA's Debt is $27,370,216.75 and of the sewer utility itself476,768.75 of which $41,766.75 is interest. These numbers if meaningful is disturbing representing at least a 27+ million municipal debt that the taxpayers had no control over. Oh for the forensic audit.

Our Assemblyman is against a Republican State Administration investigating the PMUA (and perhaps extending to the City) for fear that it may be [politically motivated,is it not possible that the concern is more about what might hit the fan?

3 comments:

  1. It is actually TY 2011, meaning the six-month transitional "year." I got tripped up myself trying to deal with what looks like a major discrepancy in figures between the two columns. It is still puzzling how half a year seems to have cost more than half, but at least there are no huge leaps if you recall that it is a six-month budget.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bernice, once again thank you for the clarification. That is an 12.5% cut in the budget.

    I would think that comparison should be done with equals and not with a dissimilar base. What is the comparison with FY2011 not TY2011 which should be modified to represent 12 months.

    Admin istration could have taken actual numbers for Jan1 through June 30 and added to the TY numbers to make a valid comparison. Does not take a Sheldon to figure that out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think maybe it is a requirement of the Division of Local Government Services. But it makes comparisons of costs for divisions and departments very tricky.

    ReplyDelete