Water Dept.

[Guest C.C.]

Capital improvements are bonded for.  That's why it's called a "capital" expense.  Every capital improvement everywhere in the State is  bonded for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But you made it sound as though the dept is in the black and doing repairs without creating debt. Very misleading. And that was your intent. So what is the Dept. doing with the surplus? Or should I say, the profits from water sales.

PS. We are not obligated to bond.

[Guest Guest]

Fiction by Jim Mangin:

And what are we borrowing money for? Well among other things, water meters that were already 6 years old when we took out the loan for them. Those meters, which were installed in 1996 have an average useful life of 10 years. Stay tuned for more bonding for water meters again in 2006!

All of the new water department debt in the last 3 years is for NEW water mains being done as we speak on KING STREET (you certainly remember them when it's in your political interests), SCHUYLER COURT, DEVON TERRACE, WASHINGTON AVENUE among others.  That's some 4,500 linear feet of 8 inch diameter water main pipe, 45 water valves, 90 house service lines and 30 fire hydrants in the past year alone.  There was also the major repair to the water transmission line under the Passaic River.

More fiction by Jim Mangin:

And don't forget the $440,000 that we are still owed from the East Orange Water Commission since 2001. That figure is shown as a receivable, which makes it an asset on the Water Dept's balance sheet.

In the 2005 fiscal year, the Kearny Water Department collected 4,754,008 from water billing, which includes 327,000 from water sales to Cedar Grove.  That's all actual cash that came in. That covered ALL expenses of the water utility, albeit with no room to spare.  The East Orange receivable has NOTHING to do with the revenue actually collected by the Kearny Water Department during 2005.  If East Orange ever pays that obligation, it would go to surplus.

Here's one amazing thought to ponder:  Kearny has the LOWEST water rates in this region AND can operate its water department in the black AND at the same time make improvements to its water system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mang Warp 9! How witty, You my friend are a true kool aid drinker. You must work there sucking up those water sales profits.

[Jim Mangin]

Fiction by Jim Mangin:

And what are we borrowing money for? Well among other things, water meters that were already 6 years old when we took out the loan for them. Those meters, which were installed in 1996 have an average useful life of 10 years. Stay tuned for more bonding for water meters again in 2006!

All of the new water department debt in the last 3 years is for NEW water mains being done as we speak on KING STREET (you certainly remember them when it's in your political interests), SCHUYLER COURT, DEVON TERRACE, WASHINGTON AVENUE among others.  That's some 4,500 linear feet of 8 inch diameter water main pipe, 45 water valves, 90 house service lines and 30 fire hydrants in the past year alone.  There was also the major repair to the water transmission line under the Passaic River.

More fiction by Jim Mangin:

And don't forget the $440,000 that we are still owed from the East Orange Water Commission since 2001. That figure is shown as a receivable, which makes it an asset on the Water Dept's balance sheet.

In the 2005 fiscal year, the Kearny Water Department collected 4,754,008 from water billing, which includes 327,000 from water sales to Cedar Grove.  That's all actual cash that came in. That covered ALL expenses of the water utility, albeit with no room to spare.  The East Orange receivable has NOTHING to do with the revenue actually collected by the Kearny Water Department during 2005.  If East Orange ever pays that obligation, it would go to surplus.

Here's one amazing thought to ponder:  Kearny has the LOWEST water rates in this region AND can operate its water department in the black AND at the same time make improvements to its water system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're going to have to do a lot better than this if you're trying to prove me wrong.

"All of the new water department debt in the last 3 years is for NEW water mains being done as we speak . . ."

First, on the bonding - nice try but everyone knows the water meter bond was in 2002, which makes it more than three years ago. You didn't think anyone notice that slick little trick, did you?

"The East Orange receivable has NOTHING to do with the revenue actually collected by the Kearny Water Department during 2005. If East Orange ever pays that obligation, it would go to surplus."

Wrong again, the East Orange receivable has everything to do with surplus. What is a surplus? A surplus is money left over after you subtract your liabilities (what you owe people) from your assets (what people owe you). In Fiscal 2005 the Water Dept. had $1,128,631 in assets and $961,713 in liabilities - leaving a surplus of $166,918 (see the Water Utility Trial Balance of the Annual Financial Statement if you don't believe me.) The $1,128,631 in assets includes the $440,767 that the EOWC has owed us since 2001. We can't sue East Orange (part of the settlement) so we're never going to receive this money. If you eliminate this bogus receivable that leaves a deficit of $273,849. Like I said, numbers don't lie but people do. Especially people too cowardly to use their real names.

"In the 2005 fiscal year, the Kearny Water Department collected 4,754,008 from water billing, which includes 327,000 from water sales to Cedar Grove. That's all actual cash that came in. That covered ALL expenses of the water utility, albeit with no room to spare."

Again, you're wrong. The figure of $4,754,008 you quoted is the revenue budgeted for Fiscal 2005, not what we actually rec'd. We only rec'd $4,641,371 - leaving a deficit in revenue of $112,636. Now you see why Santos & Co. HAVE to show that bogus East Orange receivable - to prevent the Water Dept. from showing an operating deficit. (see Sheet 44 of the Annual Financial Statement for proof - or e-mail me at jimmangin@aol.com for proof.) Don't use the budget for your information - check the actual figures.

. . . finally

"Here's one amazing thought to ponder: Kearny has the LOWEST water rates in this region . . ."

Wrong again. Check Harrison's water rate - it's lower than the two top tiers of Kearny's water rate, and the same as the third.

Jim Mangin

[Jim Mangin]

But you made it sound as though the dept is in the black and doing repairs without creating debt. Very misleading. And that was your intent. So what is the Dept. doing with the surplus? Or should I say, the profits from water sales.

PS. We are not obligated to bond.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's correct - we are not obligated to bond. Capital Improvements can be budgeted like any other item. Since taking back the Water Dept., the Town of Kearny has budgeted just $15,000 for improvements and bonded the rest.

Jim Mangin

[Guest Follow the thread!]

But you made it sound as though the dept is in the black and doing repairs without creating debt. Very misleading. And that was your intent. So what is the Dept. doing with the surplus? Or should I say, the profits from water sales.

PS. We are not obligated to bond.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Re-read the original thread:

All of the new water department debt in the last 3 years is for NEW water mains being done as we speak on KING STREET (you certainly remember them when it's in your political interests), SCHUYLER COURT, DEVON TERRACE, WASHINGTON AVENUE among others. That's some 4,500 linear feet of 8 inch diameter water main pipe, 45 water valves, 90 house service lines and 30 fire hydrants in the past year alone. There was also the major repair to the water transmission line under the Passaic River.

By the way, there isn't a single municipality that does a capital improvement without bonding. Not even Short Hills.

Is it really that hard to acknowledge a well-run department??

[Guest townsman]

Mang Warp 9!  How witty, You my friend are a true kool aid drinker. You must work there sucking up those water sales profits.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jim Mangin, we should have more of you. You speak the truth, with no smoke and mirrors, like this existing mayor and council. If more people would take interest and speak up this town would not be in a financial tailspin. This town (the taxpayers) can no longer support the operating expenses. The taxpayers can be squeezed no longer, there is nothing left to take. This bubble will burst and when it does this town will be what businesses call going BANKRUPT!!!!!!

[Guest know in]

Jim Mangin, we should have more of you. You speak the truth, with no smoke and mirrors, like this existing mayor and council. If more people would take interest and speak up this town would not be in a financial tailspin. This town (the taxpayers) can no longer support the operating expenses. The taxpayers can be squeezed no longer, there is nothing left to take. This bubble will burst and when it does this town will be what businesses call going BANKRUPT!!!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only people that will be financially solvent will be those working for the county or Water Dept. And guess who they are????

[Guest 4th ward]

RunJimRun

[Guest Guest]

The only people that will be financially solvent will be those working for the county or Water Dept. And guess who they are????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's amazing how much control this guy Ferraioli has. I can't beleive he's on the KMUA how did that happen? If he's involved keep an eye on it cause something is up.

[Guest Mangwarp10]

The fiction by Jim Mangin continues (his broken-record quotes are in italics).

First, on the bonding - nice try but everyone knows the water meter bond was in 2002, which makes it more than three years ago. You didn't think anyone notice that slick little trick, did you?

That was pointing out a fact, Jim. In the past three years ALL the water department debt has been to modernize water mains, water valves, service lines, fire hydrants and repair the Passaic River transmission line. You fail to acknowledge the facts and then Mang-warp it into something else by saying, "Stay tuned for more bonding for water meters in 2006!"

What is a surplus? A surplus is money left over after you subtract your liabilities (what you owe people) from your assets (what people owe you).

Are you kidding me? You just defined balance sheet equity, not surplus. The point that was made referred to the water department's earned surplus for fiscal year 2005. Revenue exceeded costs in 2005. That's a surplus. You know that. But you cling on to the balance sheet liability with East Orange in your increasingly desperate attempts to try to turn good news into bad news.

We only rec'd $4,641,371 - leaving a deficit in revenue of $112,636. Now you see why Santos & Co. HAVE to show that bogus East Orange receivable - to prevent the Water Dept. from showing an operating deficit. (see Sheet 44 of the Annual Financial Statement for proof Don't use the budget for your information - check the actual figures.

Really? Then if you were honest you would have said that the financial statement shows that the total amount the water utility paid or charged in 2005 was 4,478,416.74. Gee, that would mean there was a cash surplus.

Check Harrison's water rate - it's lower than the two top tiers of Kearny's water rate, and the same as the third.

I did check. Harrison is at $1.90 per 100 cubic feet. The rate for residential properties in Kearny is 1.10 per 100 cubic feet up to a 1000 cubic feet, and then 1.84 per 100 cubic feet for anything over 1000 and up to 18,000 cubic feet. Unless you're a large commercial use or a laundromat or the General Kearny apartments, you're not coming close to that 18,000 cubic feet. The higher rates don't kick in until you're over 18,000. Plus, don't forget that the Harrison bill adds on a waste water rate of $26.50 on the top of the water charge.

Jim, why not say the water department is performing well for the town? Does it hurt that much?

[Guest Guest]

It's amazing how much control this guy Ferraioli has. I can't beleive he's on the KMUA how did that happen? If he's involved keep an eye on it cause something is up.

Amen to that both sons on the Water Dept thanks to Ferraioli Sr and a Son-In-Law as Councilman......you can bet something is up

[Guest Bugs]

It's amazing how much control this guy Ferraioli has. I can't beleive he's on the KMUA how did that happen? If he's involved keep an eye on it cause something is up.

Amen to that both sons on the Water Dept thanks to Ferraioli Sr and a Son-In-Law as Councilman......you can bet something is up

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First, the water head (son) is not the same person as the MUA chairman.

Second, 'what's up' is the hardest working department in the town. Go out right now and see for yourself.

[Guest Mangwarp11]

The fiction by Jim Mangin continues (his broken-record quotes are in italics). 

First, on the bonding - nice try but everyone knows the water meter bond was in 2002, which makes it more than three years ago. You didn't think anyone notice that slick little trick, did you?

That was pointing out a fact, Jim.  In the past three years ALL the water department debt has been to modernize water mains, water valves, service lines, fire hydrants and repair the Passaic River transmission line.  You fail to acknowledge the facts and then Mang-warp it into something else by saying, "Stay tuned for more bonding for water meters in 2006!"   

What is a surplus? A surplus is money left over after you subtract your liabilities (what you owe people) from your assets (what people owe you).

Are you kidding me?  You just defined balance sheet equity, not surplus.  The point that was made referred to the water department's earned surplus for fiscal year 2005.  Revenue exceeded costs in 2005.  That's a surplus.  You know that.  But you cling on to the balance sheet liability with East Orange in your increasingly desperate attempts to try to turn good news into bad news.

We only rec'd $4,641,371 - leaving a deficit in revenue of $112,636. Now you see why Santos & Co. HAVE to show that bogus East Orange receivable - to prevent the Water Dept. from showing an operating deficit. (see Sheet 44 of the Annual Financial Statement for proof  Don't use the budget for your information - check the actual figures.

Really?  Then if you were honest you would have said that the financial statement shows that the total amount the water utility paid or charged in 2005 was 4,478,416.74.  Gee, that would mean there was a cash surplus.

Check Harrison's water rate - it's lower than the two top tiers of Kearny's water rate, and the same as the third.

I did check.  Harrison is at $1.90 per 100 cubic feet.  The rate for residential properties in Kearny is 1.10 per 100 cubic feet up to a 1000 cubic feet, and then 1.84 per 100 cubic feet for anything over 1000 and up to 18,000 cubic feet.  Unless you're a large commercial use or a laundromat or the General Kearny apartments, you're not coming close to that 18,000 cubic feet.  The higher rates don't kick in until you're over 18,000.  Plus, don't forget that the Harrison bill adds on a waste water rate of $26.50 on the top of the water charge. 

Jim, why not say the water department is performing well for the town?  Does it hurt that much?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A balance sheet has to net out: liabilities equal assets and equity. Accounting 101. If the E. Orange receivable is a liability, there has to be an offsetting asset or equity (equity is what Mangin was calling 'surplus'). I'm not sure why Mangin is mixing a balance sheet and a current statement of operations. Still Accounting 101.

[Guest guest 109]

A balance sheet has to net out:  liabilities equal assets and equity.  Accounting 101.  If the E. Orange receivable is a liability, there has to be an offsetting asset or equity (equity is what Mangin was calling 'surplus').  I'm not sure why Mangin is mixing a balance sheet and a current statement of operations.  Still Accounting 101.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If i'm not mistaken Kearny had to pay E.O. $1,000,000 just to break the deal which was paid about 1 or 2 years ago check it out.

[Guest Guest]

A balance sheet has to net out:  liabilities equal assets and equity.  Accounting 101.  If the E. Orange receivable is a liability, there has to be an offsetting asset or equity (equity is what Mangin was calling 'surplus').  I'm not sure why Mangin is mixing a balance sheet and a current statement of operations.  Still Accounting 101.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Keep cooking the books and keep your balance sheet for your spin on things, But what does that have to do with the fact that Ferraioli sr. has so much say and control over the water Dept. Just a few short years ago this guy was **** ************* and now he sits on the KMUA. My question is why is he so interested in both these utilities, whats the prize? Keep it comming Mangwarp the spin is interesting.

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

[Jim Mangin]

The fiction by Jim Mangin continues (his broken-record quotes are in italics). 

First, on the bonding - nice try but everyone knows the water meter bond was in 2002, which makes it more than three years ago. You didn't think anyone notice that slick little trick, did you?

That was pointing out a fact, Jim.  In the past three years ALL the water department debt has been to modernize water mains, water valves, service lines, fire hydrants and repair the Passaic River transmission line.  You fail to acknowledge the facts and then Mang-warp it into something else by saying, "Stay tuned for more bonding for water meters in 2006!"   

What is a surplus? A surplus is money left over after you subtract your liabilities (what you owe people) from your assets (what people owe you).

Are you kidding me?  You just defined balance sheet equity, not surplus.  The point that was made referred to the water department's earned surplus for fiscal year 2005.  Revenue exceeded costs in 2005.  That's a surplus.  You know that.  But you cling on to the balance sheet liability with East Orange in your increasingly desperate attempts to try to turn good news into bad news.

We only rec'd $4,641,371 - leaving a deficit in revenue of $112,636. Now you see why Santos & Co. HAVE to show that bogus East Orange receivable - to prevent the Water Dept. from showing an operating deficit. (see Sheet 44 of the Annual Financial Statement for proof  Don't use the budget for your information - check the actual figures.

Really?  Then if you were honest you would have said that the financial statement shows that the total amount the water utility paid or charged in 2005 was 4,478,416.74.  Gee, that would mean there was a cash surplus.

Check Harrison's water rate - it's lower than the two top tiers of Kearny's water rate, and the same as the third.

I did check.  Harrison is at $1.90 per 100 cubic feet.  The rate for residential properties in Kearny is 1.10 per 100 cubic feet up to a 1000 cubic feet, and then 1.84 per 100 cubic feet for anything over 1000 and up to 18,000 cubic feet.  Unless you're a large commercial use or a laundromat or the General Kearny apartments, you're not coming close to that 18,000 cubic feet.  The higher rates don't kick in until you're over 18,000.  Plus, don't forget that the Harrison bill adds on a waste water rate of $26.50 on the top of the water charge. 

Jim, why not say the water department is performing well for the town?  Does it hurt that much?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another "cheerleader" heard from. And one not nearly as witty as our recently-silenced A. Realist (or as I like to call him "A. Retreatist"). Oh well, let's get to it.

"Jim. In the past three years ALL the water department debt has been to modernize water mains, water valves, service lines, fire hydrants and repair the Passaic River transmission line. You fail to acknowledge the facts and then Mang-warp it into something else by saying, "Stay tuned for more bonding for water meters in 2006!""

Not all the debt of the last 3 years has been to modernize. Debt by its very nature is not a one year event - it's continuous until it's paid off. You can try to ignore the 13 years remaining on the water meter bond (again, for soon-to-be-obsolete water meters) but I'm not.

And who (besides me) said we would need water meters in 2006? I got my info from Rich Ferraioli's 2004 Water Capital Plan. (I said he was an excellent planner). You can take up the issue with him if you don't believe me.

"The point that was made referred to the water department's earned surplus for fiscal year 2005. Revenue exceeded costs in 2005. That's a surplus. "

Well there you have it folks - a perfect example of the Santos fiscal strategy. In this overly-simplistic world of Santonomics all you have to do is spend less than you take in. How easy! Poof! Instant surplus! It's great! Just keep spending below revenue and you're fine.

Oh, wait a minute. We forgot something. What about all the money we've borrowed to keep that spending down that resulted in that magical surplus. What about the items that we're now bonding for like paint, Pine Sol, and shirts and pants for the Fire Dept? What about the retro we owe for not settling contracts on time? All these things keep our spending down and help generate a surplus. But the hole we're digging is getting bigger and bigger.

Need more proof of this "spend less by borrowing more" mentality - here it is:

"Really? Then if you were honest you would have said that the financial statement shows that the total amount the water utility paid or charged in 2005 was 4,478,416.74. Gee, that would mean there was a cash surplus."

This comment really makes me sad. Isn't anyone checking up on these people any more? Yes, In Fiscal 2005 we budgeted $4,754,008 for Water Appropriations. And yes we paid or charged $4,478,416.74 (Sheet 44 of the Annual Financial Statement). But NO!!! THIS IS NOT A SURPLUS!!! You "forgot" to add the $150,591.26 that is held in reserve; bringin the figure back up to $4,754,008. A reserve is not a surplus.

I hope you're not connected in any way to the Finance Dept at Town Hall. I'm glad that at least you're now reading the Annual Financial Statement. But you really should learn how to read it first.

By your definition anyone can generate a surplus just by ignoring your liabilities. That's why you need to look at the Balance Sheet. Liabilities won't go away just by ignoring them.

And if anyone ever bothered to look at a balance sheet before 2002 a certain former CFO may not have been able to get away with what he did for so long.

Our fiscal ship is sinking and even the bail-outs from the Meadowland Commission can't save us this time. Do you want me to start pointing out every mistake and red flag that is sceaming out for attention from our Annual Financial Statement? Maybe then you'll learn to take the blinders off, open your eyes wide for the first time and you'll see what a financial mess this Town really is.

Is it any wonder that no single certified Chief Financial Officer would take the job in Kearny? It's been posted for over a year and still no takers. What do they know that we all don't (but should).

Jim Mangin

[A. Realist]

Another "cheerleader" heard from. And one not nearly as witty as our recently-silenced A. Realist (or as I like to call him "A. Retreatist"). Oh well, let's get to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jimbo,

Thank you for recognizing both my absence and my wit. Since I surmise just a hint of gloating, let me assure you that my silence is self-imposed (an intelligent person can absorb just so much "brain crap" before becoming saturated); and certainly not the result of any undertaking of yours or any other contributor to this site.

Contrary to your assessment, I am in neither a state of surrender nor retreat, but simply reconnoitering for another day, while you recycle the same old, worn rhetoric. January 3rd saw "my people" take the oath of office in Kearny for four more years, so as Jeb Bush said after the Florida recount was aborted, "My work here is done!"-----for now, that is! But in the words of General MacArthur, "I shall return!"

Until then, remember, "They also serve who only stand and wait." (John Milton, On His Blindness)

(That's enough for one day, kids. Can't risk you overdosing on intelligence.)

[Jim Mangin]

Jim, why not say the water department is performing well for the town?  Does it hurt that much?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ps - Nope. Doesn't hurt a bit. Didn't even hurt when I said this on Dec 29 (Post #44 in this same thread):

"I can say this. I do believe the Water Dept. is run very well. Rich Ferriaoli knows what he is doing and he is an excellent planner - which is exactly what that department needs."

I'll say it again - the Water Dept. is run very well. But this entire thread isn't about that. Is the Water Dept. profitable? Obviously you believe it is. Me, I guess I need more proof.

Jim Mangin

[Jim Mangin]

A balance sheet has to net out:  liabilities equal assets and equity.  Accounting 101.  If the E. Orange receivable is a liability, there has to be an offsetting asset or equity (equity is what Mangin was calling 'surplus').  I'm not sure why Mangin is mixing a balance sheet and a current statement of operations.  Still Accounting 101.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't often respond with personal attacks, but this time I can't help myself. You are an idiot!. Did you read what you wrote? It makes no sense.

"A balance sheet has to net out: liabilities equal assets and equity. Accounting 101. "

Obviously you failed Accounting 101. Assets equal liabilities and fund balance (surplus). I don't know what "equity" is as you use it.

"If the E. Orange receivable is a liability, . . ."

Huh? A receivable (what people owe you) is the opposite of a liability (what you owe people). Common Sense 101. Does anyone still wonder why the Town is in such a fiscal mess with math whizzes like this checking the books?

" . . . there has to be an offsetting asset or equity"

No, a receivable (such as the $440,000 East Orange receivable) must have an offsetting reserve (it doesn't) in order to be able to spend against it (we can't). For example, check the Trial Balance Sheet again and you'll see we ended Fiscal 2005 with a $495,172.64 Consumer Accounts Receivable (an asset). You'll also see an offsetting Reserve for $495,172.64 (a liability). What you won't see is an offsetting reserve for the East Orange receivable.

My point is this, the Consumer Accounts Receivable is a genuine receivable that we can spend against. The East Orange receivable is just a figure on a piece of paper that's being used to prevent the debit side of the equation from equalling less than the credit side - resulting in a deficit.

"I'm not sure why Mangin is mixing a balance sheet and a current statement of operations."

Because the Balance Sheet represents a snapshot of the fiscal state of the entire Water Dept. while a statement of operations only shows what money was spent and what money came in. It'd be like going to the movies, leaving after the opening credits and saying, "Wow, that movie was pretty good!" Sorry, that's not me. I need to see the whole picture.

Jim Mangin

ps - I have to thank you for your post. You proved my arguement that the people checking the financial conditions of the Water Dept. don't have a clue as to what they're supposed to be looking for. Thanks again.

[Guest MangWarps 12, 13 and 14]

As Jim sinks, the blathering and spin gets worse.

Not all the debt of the last 3 years has been to modernize. Debt by its very nature is not a one year event - it's continuous until it's paid off.

Huh? I guess that's Jimmy-speak for admitting that all debt issued in the last three years was to modernize the water department. His after-thought fall-back is the worn out cry "Remember the Water Meters from 2001 which we're still paying off blah blah blah."

More Jimmyism-Mangwarp:

Oh, wait a minute. We forgot something. What about all the money we've borrowed to keep that spending down that resulted in that magical surplus. What about the items that we're now bonding for like paint, Pine Sol, and shirts and pants for the Fire Dept? What about the retro we owe for not settling contracts on time? All these things keep our spending down and help generate a surplus. But the hole we're digging is getting bigger and bigger.

Hey, I thought we were talking about the Water Department! So like when the argument on the water deficit is torpedoed you shift the attack to non-Water Department items. I guess that's another admission by the MangWarpster.

Here he goes again:

Yes, In Fiscal 2005 we budgeted $4,754,008 for Water Appropriations. And yes we paid or charged $4,478,416.74 (Sheet 44 of the Annual Financial Statement). But NO!!! THIS IS NOT A SURPLUS!!! You "forgot" to add the $150,591.26 that is held in reserve; bringin the figure back up to $4,754,008. A reserve is not a surplus.

Yo, are you yelling because someone checked the numbers on you? Yelling and crying doesn't make you right! A reserve is set aside funds for contingencies or late bills. Do us all a favor and go ask if that $150,591.26 has been charged against before yelling what is or isn't a surplus.

Here's denial of the accounting 101 concept that a balance sheet is distinct and separate from an annual budget:

By your definition anyone can generate a surplus just by ignoring your liabilities. That's why you need to look at the Balance Sheet. Liabilities won't go away just by ignoring them.

Liabilities on a balance sheet have offsetting assets.

Here's an example of Jim's alternate reality issues:

And if anyone ever bothered to look at a balance sheet before 2002 a certain former CFO may not have been able to get away with what he did for so long.

Jim became councilman on Jan 1, 2001. His cry then was "Remember the Water Meters" while voting FOR the settlement with East Orange. Not a peep about the CFO until the Administrator and Mayor fired him. But that doesn't stop Jim from creating his own personal reality.

Is it any wonder that no single certified Chief Financial Officer would take the job in Kearny?

Let's hope it's not you.

[Guest Guest]

ouch...go Jim!

[Guest Guest]

Jimmy Mangin. My hero!

[Jim Mangin]

As Jim sinks, the blathering and spin gets worse.

Not all the debt of the last 3 years has been to modernize. Debt by its very nature is not a one year event - it's continuous until it's paid off.

Huh?  I guess that's Jimmy-speak for admitting that all debt issued in the last three years was to modernize the water department.  His after-thought fall-back is the worn out cry "Remember the Water Meters from 2001 which we're still paying off blah blah blah."

More Jimmyism-Mangwarp:

Oh, wait a minute. We forgot something. What about all the money we've borrowed to keep that spending down that resulted in that magical surplus. What about the items that we're now bonding for like paint, Pine Sol, and shirts and pants for the Fire Dept? What about the retro we owe for not settling contracts on time? All these things keep our spending down and help generate a surplus. But the hole we're digging is getting bigger and bigger.

Hey, I thought we were talking about the Water Department!  So like when the argument on the water deficit is torpedoed you shift the attack to non-Water Department items.  I guess that's another admission by the MangWarpster.

Here he goes again: 

Yes, In Fiscal 2005 we budgeted $4,754,008 for Water Appropriations. And yes we paid or charged $4,478,416.74 (Sheet 44 of the Annual Financial Statement). But NO!!! THIS IS NOT A SURPLUS!!! You "forgot" to add the $150,591.26 that is held in reserve; bringin the figure back up to $4,754,008. A reserve is not a surplus.

Yo, are you yelling because someone checked the numbers on you?  Yelling and crying doesn't make you right!  A reserve is set aside funds for contingencies or late bills.  Do us all a favor and go ask if that $150,591.26 has been charged against before yelling what is or isn't a surplus.

Here's denial of the accounting 101 concept that a balance sheet is distinct and separate from an annual budget:

By your definition anyone can generate a surplus just by ignoring your liabilities. That's why you need to look at the Balance Sheet. Liabilities won't go away just by ignoring them.

Liabilities on a balance sheet have offsetting assets.

Here's an example of Jim's alternate reality issues: 

And if anyone ever bothered to look at a balance sheet before 2002 a certain former CFO may not have been able to get away with what he did for so long.

Jim became councilman on Jan 1, 2001.  His cry then was "Remember the Water Meters" while voting FOR the settlement with East Orange.  Not a peep about the CFO until the Administrator and Mayor fired him.  But that doesn't stop Jim from creating his own personal reality.

Is it any wonder that no single certified Chief Financial Officer would take the job in Kearny?

Let's hope it's not you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An awful lot of words in this post . . . but you're not saying anything.

Let's go back to square one. The Water Dept can only show a surplus by listing the $440,000 that East Orange owes us as a receivable. That's a fact. If East Orange pays us - surplus. If they don't pay us - deficit. Spin all you want, but that's a fact. The question is - we've been waiting 5 years to get paid. Is this money coming or not?

The $440,000 didn't show until Aug. 2002 we closed the books for Fiscal 2001 - five months after the East Orange settlement, which I voted for.

I became a councilman on Jan 1, 2001 but didn't start bitching about the bogus water meter bond until early 2003. Why would I "cry" about water meters two years before the bond ordinance. You do realize how badly you're losing this one, don't you.

Now, just answer this and everyone will be happy. Is there a surplus in the Water Dept without the $440,000 from East Orange? I say no. What do you say? I'd be very interested in the opinion of someone who thinks a receivable and liability are the same thing.

Jim Mangin

ps - Your serve.

[Guest Townsman]

Another "cheerleader" heard from. And one not nearly as witty as our recently-silenced A. Realist (or as I like to call him "A. Retreatist"). Oh well, let's get to it.

"Jim.  In the past three years ALL the water department debt has been to modernize water mains, water valves, service lines, fire hydrants and repair the Passaic River transmission line.  You fail to acknowledge the facts and then Mang-warp it into something else by saying, "Stay tuned for more bonding for water meters in 2006!"" 

Not all the debt of the last 3 years has been to modernize. Debt by its very nature is not a one year event - it's continuous until it's paid off. You can try to ignore the 13 years remaining on the water meter bond (again, for soon-to-be-obsolete water meters) but I'm not.

And who (besides me) said we would need water meters in 2006? I got my info from Rich Ferraioli's 2004 Water Capital Plan. (I said he was an excellent planner). You can take up the issue with him if you don't believe me.

"The point that was made referred to the water department's earned surplus for fiscal year 2005.  Revenue exceeded costs in 2005.  That's a surplus. "

Well there you have it folks - a perfect example of the Santos fiscal strategy. In this overly-simplistic world of Santonomics all you have to do is spend less than you take in. How easy! Poof! Instant surplus! It's great! Just keep spending below revenue and you're fine.

Oh, wait a minute. We forgot something. What about all the money we've borrowed to keep that spending down that resulted in that magical surplus. What about the items that we're now bonding for like paint, Pine Sol, and shirts and pants for the Fire Dept? What about the retro we owe for not settling contracts on time? All these things keep our spending down and help generate a surplus. But the hole we're digging is getting bigger and bigger.

Need more proof of this "spend less by borrowing more" mentality - here it is:

"Really?  Then if you were honest you would have said that the financial statement shows that the total amount the water utility paid or charged in 2005 was 4,478,416.74.  Gee, that would mean there was a cash surplus."

This comment really makes me sad. Isn't anyone checking up on these people any more? Yes, In Fiscal 2005 we budgeted $4,754,008 for Water Appropriations. And yes we paid or charged $4,478,416.74 (Sheet 44 of the Annual Financial Statement). But NO!!! THIS IS NOT A SURPLUS!!! You "forgot" to add the $150,591.26 that is held in reserve; bringin the figure back up to $4,754,008. A reserve is not a surplus.

I hope you're not connected in any way to the Finance Dept at Town Hall. I'm glad that at least you're now reading the Annual Financial Statement. But you really should learn how to read it first.

By your definition anyone can generate a surplus just by ignoring your liabilities. That's why you need to look at the Balance Sheet. Liabilities won't go away just by ignoring them.

And if anyone ever bothered to look at a balance sheet before 2002 a certain former CFO may not have been able to get away with what he did for so long.

Our fiscal ship is sinking and even the bail-outs from the Meadowland Commission can't save us this time. Do you want me to start pointing out every mistake and red flag that is sceaming out for attention from our Annual Financial Statement? Maybe then you'll learn to take the blinders off, open your eyes wide for the first time and you'll see what a financial mess this Town really is.

Is it any wonder that no single certified Chief Financial Officer would take the job in Kearny? It's been posted for over a year and still no takers. What do they know that we all don't (but should).

Jim Mangin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jim, I said it before and I'll say it again. We need more people like you involved. I hope you stick with it. These people you have to constantly oppose can wear you down. Sooner or later they will all go. HOPEFULLY SOONER!!!!!

More people have to take an interest, ask questions, vote!!!! Unless these things happen things will stay business as usual!!!!

Kearny is in very bad financial shape and that is only on the surface. There are way too many hidden and covered up finacial problems that are kept hush!!! The problem is when this next tax increase hits and all the Town residents are called to arms, heads will roll!!! The only thing is we are so far gone , even with a good mayor and council this burden will take decades to ease!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest Guest]

Jim, I said it before and I'll say it again. We need more people like you involved. I hope you stick with it. These people you have to constantly oppose can wear you down. Sooner or later they will all go. HOPEFULLY SOONER!!!!!

More people have to take an interest, ask questions, vote!!!! Unless these things happen things will stay business as usual!!!!

Kearny is in very bad financial shape and that is only on the surface. There are way too many hidden and covered up finacial problems that are kept hush!!! The problem is when this next tax increase hits and all the Town residents are called to arms, heads will roll!!! The only thing is we are so far gone , even with a good mayor and council this burden will take decades to ease!!!!!!!!!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How right you are Townsman, to many thing are kept hush hush and if the people only knew they would be at the town hall with ropes.