Date: 12/3/09
To: Gerard J. Byrne, Commissioner
From: Joseph J. Lucasey, Deputy Commissioner
(Nutrition Director 1991-2006)
Re: Greenburgh Nutrition Program
The following question has been presented to the Town Supervisor regarding the Greenburgh Nutrition Program:
5. Why does the Town of Greenburgh continue to subsidize the Towns of Eastchester and Mt. Pleasant participation in the nutrition program? (For those not familiar with this, the Town of Greenburgh undercharges these two communities for the full cost of services between $50,000 and $100,000 per year, so over 10 years, this amounts to $500,000 to $1 million.)
In December of 2008 an analysis of the 2007 Nutrition Budget was prepared by the Comptroller’s office that showed the program costing $5.15 per meal to produce. At the time Greenburgh was charging the towns of Mount Pleasant and Eastchester $4.10 and $4.25, respectively, for meals. This analysis is the source of the faulty assumptions made by the questioner.
Using the spreadsheet created by the Comptroller’s office, it was determined that errors were made in the original analysis. Certain line items were included in the food cost that should have been included as a cost of distributing the meals. Also it was discovered that the benefits for the former director were incorrectly being charged to the Nutrition Program. After these miscalculations ($97,000+) were corrected, the true cost of preparing each meal was $4.29.
Although I do not agree with the type of budget analysis that the former Comptroller used, I did plug in 2010 budgeted numbers to his formulas and arrived at a food cost of $4.38 per meal. The towns of Mount. Pleasant and Eastchester will be charged $4.40 and $4.60, respectively, for meals in 2010.
In the 2010 tentative budget, it is projected that the expenditures for the Nutrition Program are $813,969 (updated from tentative budget) and with outside revenues from grants, donations, sale of meals, and resident tax dollars (A Fund), the local tax contribution is projected to be $240,961 (updated from tentative budget). If we no longer sell meals to outside communities and wanted to continue to serve the same amount of meals to our residents, local taxpayer contributions would have to be increased to $302,592.00. This would be an increase of 25.5% over the 2010 budget submission.
An additional question has been raised about whether Greenburgh should continue to produce its own meals or privatize the operation. On June 15, 2009, a RFP was sent out to solicit vendors to prepare meals for the Greenburgh Nutrition Program. Two vendors responded on July 6, 2009, with prices of $4.75 and $4.45 per meal. A budget was prepared that uses the lower price of $4.45 per meal and eliminates four full time kitchen positions along with the benefits. When this budget was calculated it resulted in a local taxpayer contribution of $269,337.00 from the “A” fund. This would be an increase of 11.7% over the 2010 budget submission.
The Nutrition Program has been preparing its own detailed budget for inspection and review by the Comptroller’s office for more than 17 years. During that time the budgets that were presented were considered to be sound fiscally by multiple comptrollers and their deputies. The program is also audited annually by the Town’s auditor.
After analyzing our budget submission and comparing it with different scenarios in 2010, I have concluded it is cost effective to the taxpayer to remain in operation as a regional kitchen, to continue the sale of meals to the towns of Eastchester and Mount Pleasant, and to not privatize at this time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Written comment #4 to 2010 Budget
The Town Clerk, the person (Judith Beville) and the Town Clerk (the office of) is a far-reaching responsibility. However, the position is one that pays a salary and those who run for the office know what the salary is before seeking the Office. Stipends have been granted in the past for these functions but stipends are not permanent additions to the salary and if they were allowed wrongly in the past, there is no justification that they should be continued especially during harsh times. Especially when the function behind the stipend no longer exists.
Thus the Elections Custodian stipend (page 12) of $5500 to the Town Clerk and the $3500 to the Deputy Town Clerk may once have had some basis but no longer exists since the County has taken over the responsibility. This item should never have appeared in the tentative Budget.
Then there is the stipend of $2700 (page 61) for Registrar of Vital Statistics -- a basic responsibility of the Town Clerk and should not be provided like a "tip" to the waitress bring the meal to the table.
Similarly, the "tip" paid for Records Management comprised of $2500 to the Town Clerk and $1500 to the Deputy Town Clerk should similarly be dispensed.
The Registrar and Records stipends are fossils in the age of technology and the function is an essential element of the Office.
Savings from elimination of gratuities, $15,700.
Recap:
#1 elimination of Arts "Council", $54,530
#2 reduction in Police Department 'guesstimate" GG&O increase, $20,000+
#3 elimination of Tennis-related line items (net after fees), $45,000+
#4 elimination of Town Clerk stipends, $15,700
Written Comment #5
This must be a joke albeit year in year out. Town wide Taxpayers are not laughing however.
Please explain why the Purchasing Department is among the top offenders in the line iterm 486.0, page 7 which shows only $4100 for conferences vs. $4765 in 2009.
Whereas the field of Purchasing must be a dynamic, fast-changing environment and Greenburgh no doubt wants to be a leader in the field, somehow I suspect that in harsh times this line could be changed to $0 without any undue harm to the Town.
Recap:
#1 Arts Council, $54,530
#2 Police GG&0, $20,000+
#3 Town Park (Tennis), $45,000+
#4 Town Clerk stipends, $15,700
#5 Purchasing conferences $4100
so for 15 years there was no analysis and its clear that greenburgh was subsidizing other towns. and the person who asked the hard questions about this was fired by the town.
the town's analysis of the program appears to not take into account any capital costs of running the nutrition program. have these been factored in?
or do we have yet again the farce of government by press release where the hard task of governing is ignored and the superficial gloss poses as the final answer.
Written comment #6
With the required addition of the Court Administrator @$75,000, is it not possible that 1 of the 7 assistant clerks (page 2, line 100.3) earning $44,000 average (plus benefits) be eliminated? Town entire taxpayers would be so grateful.
Since they were not doing such a great job before the new hire, I cannot believe that the absence of 1 would be missed.
Recap:
#1 Arts Council, $54,530
#2 Police GG&O, $20,000+
#3 Town Park Tennis, net $45,000+
#4 Town Clerk stipends, $15,700
#5 Purchasing conferences, $4100
#6 Assistant court clerk, $44,000+
Written comment #7
Here's an item that looks like a disguised gift-"horse". And you know how townwide taxpayers love to give gifts at this time of year.
Apparently the Town has a "contract" with the Nature Center to shelter captured "wild animals" (just the "wild" ones, the more domesticated are the subject of another contract. In any case, page 28, line 480.1 comes to $32,300.
Now, for what other purpose does the Nature Center exist other than to be home to "wild" animals. It is not the place where beloved family member "Fido" is sent when he runs off. Whereas the Nature Center may well be a worthy recipient of Town largesse, I object to this line item which is not only a "gift" to the Nature Center but a service which the Nature Center should be paying the Town to provide: restocking the nature preserve with all those "wild" animals.
Does anyone have any idea of how many "wild" animals are sent to the Nature Center by Animal Control over the course of a year?
And by "wild", I'm certain that Animal Control is not talking about: "lions and tigers and bears".
In less harsh times, concern over "where the wild things are" might be rationalized. In 2010, let the Nature Center deal with its budget (and they must be doing well since they are seeking an expansion) but let them deal without the Town's disguised contribution.
Recap:
#1 Arts "Council", $54,530
#2 Police GG&0, $20,000+
#3 Town Park tennis net $45,000+
#4 Town Clerk stipends, $15,700
#5 Purchasing conferences, $4100
#6 Town Court, 1 assistant clerk, $44,000+
#7 Animal control, wild animal contract, $32,300
Samis made a boo-boo.
Written comment #5, Purchasing conferences is $0.
I apologize to the Town Board and Mr. McCrum for misreading the empty space and posting the department total for the "400" lines instead.
Going forward, the recap will exclude this comment.
Written comment #10
Needless to say, the Library Advocacy sheet (available at your Library) is full of lies and misrepresentations.
However, insofar as what appears in the tentative Town Budget book...
The Library Trustees saw fit to add during 2009 (while claiming not filling a Librarian departure) a new position: Special Events Coordinator, page 137, line 190.2.
For 2010, the position will pay $25,945 (plus benefits?) for this part-time function.
So going forward for 2010, the Library wants taxpayers to believe that despite reduced hours of operation, including being closed on Sunday, that this special events coordination a necessary and vital function.
At the same time that having a special events coordinator is deemed necessary, the Library Budget for program activities, line 409.0, shows a decrease from $8879 in 2009 to $5000 in 2010.
Does this make any sense?
And in full disclosure, the part-time special events coordinator is, I believe, the husband of the children's area librarian.
And at the same time, on the Library Fund page 139, under miscellaneous income line 27.2770.00, I note that this has declined from $3173 in 2008 (when the Library was in Town Hall) to $2000 budgeted for 2009 (doubled in size building) to $615 for 9/30/09 to $0 estimated for 12/31/09. What can be the explanation for this? (After my mistake on Purchasing Conferences, you can be sure that I used a ruler to make sure I was reading the same line) I bring this up here because the Library Trustees were so proud to initiate a meeting room rental policy, claimed income from this (as a defense for hiring the Special Events Coordinator) and I can find no other line item to explain this declining, if not disappearing income.
Understand that my more complete analysis of the Library Advocacy handout re Budget decline = reduced services equation is forthcoming. However, despite your fears of throwing oil on the fire, this new payroll addition is an insult to taxpayers.
Wouldn't this $26,000 be better used on keeping the Library open more hours so that all residents would get the benefit?
Hint of forthcoming analysis: Library justifies closing Sunday because "Sunday has the lowest circulation". Not only is only Sunday circulation noted but also there is no basis for comparison with the other days of the week. Existing Sundays the Library is open but 4 hours while, say Tuesday, the Library is open 11 hours.
What the new plan calls for is the Library to be open two nights to 9:00, open Saturday and closed Sunday. That means extremely limited availability for residents who must work to pay taxes. But wait for my complete biopsy.
elimination of the position = savings of $26,000.
Now for written comment #9
Using the Tentative Town Budget in conjunction with the handout at the Library, I have some questions.
The L Fund per the tentative Budget book (page 139 under line 15.2082) Library Fines (income) shows: in 2008, $23,806 taken in.
In the larger building of 2009 with full services, Library Fines were only budgeted at $20,200 which survived "modification". The actual 9/30/09 shows $47,065 while 12/31/09 is estimated at $55,000. This no doubt justifies the 2010 projection at $50,000.
However, per the handout "What the Reduced 2010 Library Budget Means to You"
I learn that in 2008, the Library Material Budget was $351,000 which was sharply reduced to $152,130 in 2009 and again to be reduced to but $82,152 in 2010.
However the Trustees "are willing to supplement the 2010 Budget with $86,000 from the unreserved fund balance, maintaining $100,000 in that account. The Board feels that use of 100% of this fund balance is financially irresponsible."
What this means is the way to increase revenue at the Library is to be open fewer hours and order less materials. The correlation above says that when the Library spent the most on materials, fines were way down. And now that the Library is spending less on materials, fines have increased.
Of course, whether the Library is actually collecting these fines is unknown. I do know that the Library has engaged on a free trial basis an outside collection agency to collect the $44,000 or so of aged overdue fines and unreturned items.
I don't have a clue as to where these Fund Balance numbers come from. However, while the Trustees are being so cautious/generous with taxpayers' money, they can perhaps do so using the $23,641 Contigency Fund, line 499.0, that is being given the Library in 2010, this in turn substantially higher than the $919 of 2009. It's nice to be able to huff and puff and blow smoke in everyone's eyes.
I, however, recommend that the Town Board reduce the contingency line to $641 and put $23,000 back in taxpayers' pockets. This, in turn, will mean that next year the Library will just have to limp along with $100,641 in case of a Library "emergency". What constitutes a Library emergency? Items that the Trustees have asked the Friends of the Greenburgh Library for Christmas. Like $25,000 for a flagpole. Like $10,000 to buy books in Spanish. Like $5000 for programming and $1000 for hospitality for food at these programs. All for a Library that will be open fewer hours; not money to remain open.
How about running that up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes.
In the meanwhile, let's trim their tree by $23,000 in 2010.
Written comment #11
In this age of advanced technology with all sorts of "on-the-go" devices and voice messaging, is there any justification for keeping a "confidential" secretary on a town payroll? Especially one who is of senior status and enjoying all the expensive perks of Town employment. Mind you I am not talking about a low paid clerk/typist but one who earns $66,190 plus the Town benefits.
Now I am mindful that the Supervisor's secretary should not be discarded like...leaf pick-up but that given that the Town Supervisor is not in his office that much during the day and that all his secretary really does is put callers in his voice mail while he does most of his own online typing, something needs to be done to justify her high pay level which makes her vulnerable through perhaps no fault of her own.
What I suggest is that she be trained and transferred to a new position with the knowledge that, if she resists, her current position will be eliminated. Certainly there are departments in need of some assistance on a permanent basis -- the Comptroller's Office comes to mind. Or even a transfer to the Receiver of Taxes which appears to be in need of someone to track down those who may have overpaid their property taxes.
This is not a first for the economy though it may be a first for Greenburgh. Thousands of workers have found their jobs to be functionally obsolescent through technology. The problem lies with the Supervisor who, by not anticipating that his confidential secretary should be subject to the same course of events, has tolerated her reduced utility. Was it not last year? that the Town Attorney also surrendered his confidential secretary?
In conclusion, the age of the private, confidential secretary is over. Even for Wall Street bankers. There is no justification that the Town Supervisor earning $127,618 should be abetted by a secretary costing $66,190. Enough is enough; moreso in these harsh economic times. Cachet and luxury no longer have a place on the Town payroll. Find her another more useful job, on the Town payroll or elsewhere. That way, I'm sure that what she is really being paid to do -- keep her mouth shut -- will continue in whatever employment capacity she is offered.
Potential savings: maybe $0. Reason to do so: Get $66,000 worth of human resource and not have to pay additional money to someone else to fill a needed position.
Written comment #12
Reasons to be mindful; hopefully there are and help is on the way.
As I understand it the Town moves significant overnight balances around to obtain the highest money market yields, although current returns are not especially something to write home about.
By not keeping money with a financial institution, the Town forgoes many privileges that would be accorded a desireable "customer".
By not maintaining balances with a financial institution(s), the Town finds itself obligated to pay "banking fees" to the 2010 tune of $119,000 which is the total of the line items in Central Services from both townwide and town outside origins.
Is it not possible to find a balance point between obtaining the highest yield (albeit miniscule currently) and satisfying minimum balance requirements to be considered a "customer" and thus eliminate banking charges (substantial)? Surely with the amounts of discretionary money being moved, that there is some better way to eliminate or reduce these fees without incurring any major decline in interest income or, at least, to achieve this balance and reduce the man hours spent in pursuit of interest yield.
From the original post -
"Certain line items were included in the food cost that should have been included as a cost of distributing the meals. Also it was discovered that the benefits for the former director were incorrectly being charged to the Nutrition Program. After these miscalculations ($97,000+) were corrected, the true cost of preparing each meal was $4.29."
Arent distribution costs and benefits also costs? So the Greenburgh taxpayer has to foot all of those costs. I think the original methodology was correct.
Here's #13.
Now here's an annual complaint, the Xposure after school program.
Why are we sponsoring it or any after school program continues to confound.
But if we're stuck with it, how much does it cost?
Instead of turning to the videotape, let's look at page 70.
Here we see under 190.2, part time payroll for education programs increasing from 2009's $122,734 to 2010's $162,000; that's a $40,000 bump.
Under 409.8 we see a decrease from 2009's $150,000 down to $115,000 in 2010, also a big decrease $35,000.
But what is the Town paying in total for Xposure? $277,000 which is still more, not less, in 2010 than in 2009. And this is just for the portion that the Lanza Foundation doesn't fund.
My feeling is that the Town should, not could, be saving $277,000 by getting out of the after school business. It does not hinge upon whether Xposure is a good or a bad program; the expense pivots solely on whether the Town needs to be in the after school business and whether the program is truly open to all of unincorporated children or, as can reasonably be inferred, just to Fairview parents.
I vote for saving the $277,000 and lowering taxes accordingly.
Let's quit with lucky thirteen and see what taxpayers have got to be concerned about.
#1 the Arts "Council"
an opportunity to save $54,500 without sacrificing culture -- by hanging up student artwork and read poetry at the Library.
#2 the Police, voracious users of GG&O, but let's get a grip here and hold the increase down to $15,000 and save the extra $20,000 for a day when the Police actually capture a perp, not ride someone else's horse.
#3 Town Park, tennis directors and instructors are unnecessary in harsh times. Cut the positions for a net savings of $45,000 (after factoring in instruction fees as revenue) and let the staff go out on their own. Instructors can use the Town's courts for free; they just will profit by charging fees from pupils, not by drawing a Town paycheck.
#4 Town Clerk stipends. Ridiculous, eliminate and save $15,700. Since the County now handles the voting machines, why should the Clerk be paid for work no longer performed?
#5 (withdrawn due to my error)
#6 Town Court, eliminate one assistant court clerk (new position of administrator) and save $44,000+.
#7 Animal Control, stop the practice of paying the Nature Center for the privilege of supplying them with "wild animals".
This saves $32,300.
#8 Highways, road repairs. INCREASE the total from an unacceptable $100,000 funding. Roads are essential whereas the Arts Council and private tennis lessons are not.
#9 Library contingency fund of $23,000, totally unnecessary as even the Library Trustees admit to a remaining fund balance of $100,000 which is enough contingency as the Library shrinks in everything but building size.
#10 Library, special events coordinator (new) $26,000. In 2010the Library will not be open on Sunday and shorter hours during the week. Does this present a good case for special events in lieu of restoring what was once known as "regular events", or the Library being open for patrons.
#11 Supervisor's confidential secretary. She knows too much so she'll never be fired. Instead give her some work to do, i.e. working for the Receiver of Taxes to contact residents who overpaid their property taxes.
#12 Central Service, bank charges
Find a way to reduce the $119,000 in bank fees, maybe even finding the point where lower interest on SOME portion of the "float" makes up for being charged fees.
#13 TDYCC, the Xposure program. Now costing the taxpayers $277,000 for what should be handled by the School Districts as it is everywhere but in Central 7.
And the bottom line is:
a savings of $537,500 without any benefits in cost reduction due to retaining the Supervisor's confidential secretary or from reduced bank fees. From these savings, transfer some of the gain to repairing roads.
Anyone want to run book on the outcome?
hal
the town's press release machine is unable to announce cuts of non-essential or duplicative services.
Part 1
Town of Greenburgh Nutrition Program
This is going to be a somewhat lengthy response to the Supervisor’s / Joe Lucasey memo on the Town of Greenburgh Nutrition Program, so if you are not interested, please stop and skip now.
First, let me be perfectly clear that I am not opposed in any way to what I believe the objectives of a Town run Nutrition program, which is to provide meals to certain members of the community who for the most part do not share in the economic bounty that many of the residents of the Town enjoy, but two aspects: (A) the program should be run as cost effectively as possible and if that means outsourcing any or all of the program because an outside vendor can provide the same or similar service levels, that should be done, and (B) the taxpayers of the Town of Greenburgh should not be subsidizing the taxpayers of the Towns of Eastchester and Mt. Pleasant or any other municipality outside of the Town. That’s not our responsibility.
Background
I first came across this issue in the summer of 2005 when I undertook a somewhat “topside” review of the Town Entire or “A” budget when I was a Trustee of the Village of Ardsley. I became more interested in the entire “A” budget following the release of the SCOBA report in the early Fall of 2005 and was one of the two Ardsley members of the then newly formed Village Officials Committee (“VOC”). During the Town’s public hearing process on the 2006 budget, I went to Town Hall and raised questions about this activity based upon the limited information that was and continues to be included in the budget document. I did not receive the kind of in depth response that answered my questions or addressed my concerns.
2008
Following my appointment as Town Comptroller in March 2008, Gerry Byrne graciously invited me to visit AFV park and meet members of the parks and rec staff. During that first visit, Gerry mentioned that he was aware of my previous concerns about the cost effectiveness of the Nutrition activity and indicated that he would have some analyses in the future. I indicated that while I did indeed have some unanswered questions, I would not be addressing them in the “near” term due to other priorities and we left it at that. During the Town’s budget hearing process for 2009 that started in November 2008, Mr. Robert Bernstein raised questions and concerns very similar to those I had raised some years earlier. Given that there was now another “interested” party, I undertook a detailed analysis of the Nutrition program’s costs, something that to the best of my knowledge had not been undertaken before in the manner that I approached. I received some data from Mr. Lucasey as to volumes and amounts charged per meal to Eastchester and Mt. Pleasant. Because I had access to the Town’s financial records, I was able to prepare a detailed financial analysis of the activities of the Nutrition fund based upon what was recorded in the Town’s financial system for 2007.
Part 2
The Nutrition activities in my view could be broken down into three principal activities, namely the acquisition of raw materials (food and related items) and subsequent preparation of meals, the distribution of meals and the administrative oversight / management of the program. The Town’s existing financial systems and limited Comptroller’s staff does not permit routine analyses of virtually all of the activities of the Town to attempt to gauge and measure their total costs and related revenues. The analysis that I prepared in November / December 2008 was no exception, but in my view was a credible start. As an aside, the Town still has not released to me this analysis, even though I had submitted a FOIL for it along with other analyses and documents back on March 27, 2009, so I am operating at somewhat of a handicap in responding at this specific time.
I first reviewed the analysis with then Deputy Comptroller, Bart Talamini and then with another CPA who happens to be a resident of Mt. Pleasant. There were no glaring errors in the underlying approach. A meeting was then set to review the analysis with Gerry Byrne, Joe Lucasey, Lynda Maranino, Bart Talamini and myself at the parks and rec offices. The meeting occurred on either Thursday December 4th or Friday, December 5th and lasted from 9:30 AM until approximately 12:30 PM.
At that meeting some corrections were discussed and subsequently made (as I recall, but again not having access to my spreadsheets, I can’t be 100% certain) with respect to food service helpers who were reclassified from cost of meals to distribution. The “excess” fringe benefit costs that were alluded to were always included in “Admin” and thus did not impact any cost per meal calculations. However, it should be noted that as far as I know, no mention of this “error” had been made, which highlights the lack of internal controls over departments’ review of their financial statements / costs.
No attempt was made to allocate the Admin costs to the operating activities of meal preparation and distribution, although I am sure if I were in a room of other financial professionals, there would be a lively discussion about this. In addition, as I recall, the costs did not include any allocation of such real costs as payroll processing, purchasing, accounts payable, insurance, cost of the space used by this operation, wear and tear on equipment (i.e. depreciation) and most importantly, the energy costs consumed to prepare the food. Clearly, a fair estimate of the true cost of this operation would be higher than that which I arrived at.
If the Town of Greenburgh is truly interested in being an open and transparent government, they would make the details and supporting calculations readily available to anyone who requests them. I would also point out that in the past, the amounts charged to Eastchester, Mt. Pleasant and the City of White Plains, were substantially lower. You see, after I presented my analysis to the Nutrition team, they realized that they were undercharging these entities and have attempted to close the gap. Since I do not have access to the details, I am not convinced that the Town is there yet.
so at best the towns of eastchester and mt pleasant will be paying the cost of the meals without any allowance for energy costs, refrigeration, storage, payroll, and all other associated costs town taxpayers incur. and there will be no compensation for the subsidy in all the years past when no one looked at the books (they just cooked them)
i guess ill just have to eat my 10% tax increase as my reward for the town's fiscal largesse.
On the slip sheet prepared by the Town Comptroller, the cost of the Nutrition fund for 2010 increased by $ 10,630. We're moving in the "right" direction - NOT
FOR OVER 18 YEARS I WAS THE DIRECTOR OF PURCHASING & IN FACT STARTED & AUTOMATED THE DEPARTMENT.
NOT ONCE DID I ATTEND A PAID CONFERENCE OR SEMINAR-THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO BE GAINED FROM ATTENDANCE OTHER THAT A PAID VACATION!!--REVIEW OF WRITTEN NEWSLETTERS, JOURNALS & MONTHLY REPORTS FROM THE VARIOUS PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR WHAT GREENBURGH NEEDS TO DEAL WITH ON A DAILY BASIS!!
STEVE SCHOENGOLD
From page 88 of the tentative budget:
"The kitchen produces approximately 132,500 meals per year for central Westchester seniors. Approximately 61,500 meals are served to seniors that reside in the Town of Greenburgh."
We therefore conclude that a majority of the meals are produced for Eastchester and Mt. Pleasant (132,500 less 61,500 or 71,000) Mr. Lucasey (whose partial compensation is no longer charged to the Nutrition fund, maybe to reduce the true cost of this operation, but who apparently oversees the budget) notes that the minimum amount to be charged to Mt. Pleasant for 2010 will be $4.40 per meal. Now multiply $4.40 times 71,000 and the expected revenue is $312,400. On page 90, revenue from sale of meals is indicated at $251,762 (CN.15.2003.02) HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM !!!
mike
sounds like in addition to cooking meals they are cooking the books.
feiner and company are just playing the old duck, dodge and weave game.
unfortunately the culture of apathy here in greenburgh lets them get away with it.
the A budget just keeps exploding with all of the sacred cows that the town board refuses to touch,
I had a discussion with Joe Lucasey earlier and he correctly pointed out that the information about the number of meals has not changed since 2006 and that I as Comptroller last year didn't fix it. He's right on that point.
As to the essence of my analysis, we'll just have to agree to disagree although I stand behind my comments about what real components of cost have been omitted from the various analyses and that therefore, the town is in my view not making the best decision. I understand that a resident has FOILed for the details behind the RFP's that were issued and I suspect that at some point I may get to see them, so I'll hold off on additional comments until then.
Post a Comment