Every posting on this blogspot is done after extensive research via the BW&S website, Public Records Request, and attending the BW&S Board meetings. We are presenting facts. Read and form your own conclusions.
"February
26, 2018
Mr.
Richard Doney, Chairman
Bayview
Water and Sewer District
P.O.
Box 637
Bayview,
ID 83803
Dear
Mr. Doney,
I
would like to thank you for your letter of February 1st in response
to my letter regarding concern for the district’s rampant
deficit spending. While I appreciate your response, I found some of it posed
more questions than answers. I would
like to ask for further clarification of some of the information you provided.
You
state that the fiscal year loss is totally due to the $73,445 vacation payouts
and severance package to former operators when you made the decision to go to
contract operations. I recall that the
board made a press release to the Shorelines publication at the time the
decision was made to make this change and publicized an $82,000 savings you
would realize by this move. Am I now to
understand that this $82,000 savings did not include the $73,445 payout? You knew of the payouts when you made the
decision to go to contract operations. This is very confusing to the district’s
consumers. I know that requests have
been made to the board to furnish us with the cost benefit analysis that you
performed and used as a basis to make this decision, but you refuse to release
that information. If this analysis were
made public, it would, perhaps, help us understand the fiscal year operations
loss and the losses we have experience in December, 2017 and January,
2018. This is our money. Why and how it
is being spent is our concern.
I
find it interesting that the usual, normal and on-going expenses for repair and
maintenance are now being labeled “neglected issues”, “poor installation” and
“lack of routine maintenance”. However,
we won’t find answers by defining the problem incorrectly.
You
stated in your response that you pay the contractors that Mr. Kuchenski hires
to do the maintenance and repairs a flat rate and are not charged for two
people even if two are sent. Following the meeting on February 15th,
I furnished you with the invoices from Lincoln Excavating that I referenced in
my original letter to you.
-2-
Both
invoices show that the district was charged $125 an hour for each of two people
in one instance ($250 hourly) and $100 an hour for each of 2 people in another
instance ($200 hourly). You and Ms.
Meyer assured me you would look into that apparent departure from your fee
structure. It is a lot of money, given
the fact that our former employee that did a large portion of this work was
paid $30 an hour. Our local excavating company used by our employee based
operators, when needed, was much less expensive.
Mr.
Doney, you failed to address the major issue in my original letter, to curb
spending until such time as a budget is implemented that realistically projects
costs, based on what you are spending under the contract operations management.
You
have budgeted $5,667 per month for water and sewer repairs and
maintenance. Here are the actual
expenditures for the last 3 months:
) November $19,604.
) December 20,347.
) January
4,387.
$44,338. An average of $14,779 per month.
Since
I know your fiscal year budget begins December 1st, if we adjust the
figures for just the first two months of your fiscal year—the average is $12,367,
that’s still 118% over your monthly budgeted figure, with all the repairs and
maintenance that is required in spring fast approaching.
I
fail to comprehend how you can manage the district’s finances, measuring performance
by a budget that is 118% off on just one line item. This immense disparity effects the budget in
its entirety—especially the bottom line and it appears we may have the same
issue in Professional Fees. The fiscal responsibility to get at the heart of
the problem and revisit and adjust the budget based on empirical spending rests
on this board.
In
addition, Mr. Kuchenski indicated he had a bid for $8,500 to convert the sewage
treatment site from the current manual operations to automatic. The previous
board continued with the manual operations to save the district money. If someone has to turn a couple switches to
continue the manual operations to save the district $8500, it needs to be given
serious consideration. I realize that
the contract operator wants to convert everything to auto so he does not have
to go on-site, however, is it cost effective?
What happens if the auto system fails?
With the continued deficit spending the district is experiencing in the
water-sewer maintenance category, we do not have $8,500 to spend for this
unnecessary expense.
-3-
How
do you intend to fund this deficit spending?
Your January 31st balance sheet shows that you transferred
$10,000 from the MWB Sewer Savings #8307 and
$10,000
from the MWB Water Savings #8299 into the General Checking #7564 to fund the
$23,439 loss in the month of December, which Mr. May’s financial report
at
the February 15th meeting failed to note—he gave the balance of
these accounts as if the transfers had not taken place?
This
board continues to fund deficit, over budget spending from the savings of the
prior board and employee operators. These
funds will be extinguished in a short time if this spending pattern is not
curbed. We see no attempt to adopt and
live by a budget that will protect the district’s assets.
Mr.
Doney, I come to you with these genuine concerns. I do not have a personal ax to grind. I realize we have an old system that needs
some attention, however, I firmly believe it should be addressed on an “as
needed” basis—not on an “as wanted” basis.
To experience a rate increase for failure to operate within the budget and
curb over-budget spending would be a violation of fiscal responsibility.
None
of us want to see that happen.
Again,
thank you for your time and consideration, I know many other users share these
same concerns.
Sincerely,
Colleen
Dahlseid
P.O.
Box 642
Bayview,
ID 83803
No comments:
Post a Comment