If the original budget portrayed a 100% reimbursment of the operating deficit, how did we save money when the percentage was recently increased from 68% to only 79%?
Original budget presentation, page 14 did not include the airport deficit.
WRRB/Telegram District City Council Forum 10/18
-
This forum is for all district council candidates; all candidates are here
today. Format: 14 total questions, 4 questions across districts (for all
candida...
6 months ago
6 comments:
Bill, I have to double check this, but I was under the impression that the budget had funded the airport fully--in other words, with no reimbursement. If this money came through in any way, therefore, it was newly up for grabs.
But I need to double check that one.
The City Manager initial budget proposed that we would be out of the airport business and MassPort would pick up 100% of the operating budget, versus the current 68%.
I just added to the post..
I just looked at the airport budget....pages 137 to 144 of proposed 2009 budget. There is certainly much to digest .
Many things popped out at me with just a quick perusal of it and taking it apart surely will take some time and may raise more questions that need to be answered
That said, I was FLOORED when I read that other IN KIND incentives ( Pp. 137, last para.) totalling $1.3 M come from:
a. City of Worc.
b. C of C
c. Convention & Vis. Bureau
d. & Others
This says to me that other city depts and other city funded ventures are contibuting their labor to the Airport............yet no where in the budget is there a line item(s) to indicate this.
Example:
Bill & Paulie & I each manage a corporate owned Burger King in the area. Bill & I have to send our manpower over to Paulie's deficit ridden BK , b/c Paulies BK is unable to stand on its own...........yet the manpower that Bill & I send over To Paulies BK is charged to the BK stores that Bill & I manage.
Bottom line: Paulies BK is really operating at a much greater deficit than his books show b/c Bill & I are forced to subsidize his labor costs with our employees.......and the worse part of it all is that in BK annual budget report our donated labor is euphemized as: In Kind Incentives. WTH?
Surely the budget writers jest?
Any labor paid by the city that works at the airport s/b charged to the airport. In the interst of full disclosure, I'd be very curious to know what City of Worc labor was used at the airport yet charged off elsewhere.
More fuzzy math & subterfuge.
Shut the dam place down tomorrow.
Also, I guess we lost the airport accountant. I have questioned the need for a fulltime beancounter up there in the past. Guess someone must be paying atttention to our posts on here?? Wonder where they moved him to? The Budget office or MassPort or is that person no longer on city payroll?
Bill, you've posted a link to FY08. We're talking about FY09.
I double-checked it tonight at city council, and the money is there. We'd be regaining more if Massport were funding 100%, but, unlike last year, the city didn't plan on getting 100% from Massport this year, so any increase was a bonus back to city coffers.
Cascading:
Quickly & off the cuff, I "think" I agree ( subject to more review) that any increase in Massport funding to the airport is "a bonus" back to the city......
BUT
I think you're using the same tunnel vision the city council uses, b/c if Massport increases their funding to the airport by say $100,000....and then the airport expenses go up by say $125,000K.........what will be the result then as far as add'l monies availabel to the city?
Cascading Waters:
Thanks--you are good and right in this case. I thought the City had budgeted for 100% reimbursement of the operating deficit. They did not for fiscal 09, you are correct.
This was, in fact, a bonus.
Post a Comment