Blog: Tredyffrin's 2012 Preliminary Budget Indicates 6.9% Increase but . . . Numbers Don't Add Up!

At this week's Board of Supervisors meeting, Tredyffrin's township manager Mimi Gleason presented the 2012 preliminary budget.  As she does each year, Gleason presented a budget summary, which was designed as an overview of the township’s current financial picture. Her budget summary indicates that a 6.9% millage real estate increase would be required to balance the budget.

Included in Gleason's summary are 2011 budget and forecasted revenue and expenditures through the end of the year plus the 2012 preliminary budget. Two summary tables marked ‘General Fund Revenue’ and ‘General Fund Expenditures’ are part of the township manager’s report dated November 10, 2011.

I do not know about you, but when I review financial data, I look at the totals, the ‘bottom line’ – just assuming that the math is correct.  Laying no claim as a financial expert, when I reviewed the township’s budget memorandum, I accepted Ms. Gleason’s summary information as correct and her math as accurate.  As the hired professional and chief executive officer of the township, I am of the opinion that she is the expert . . . and I had no reason to question the accuracy of the information provided.

Resident and former township supervisor John Petersen reviewed Ms. Gleason’s budget summary (which is public and available on the township's website) and found multiple mathematical errors in the report. I learned of the mistakes in the budget information when I was copied on emails to Gleason, along with township supervisor John DiBuonaventuro and resident Ray Clarke.

In review of Gleason’s budget summary, the totals for the General Fund revenue and expenditure summary tables are incorrect.  The 2012 budget revenue should be $16,467,175, and the difference vs. the 2011 Forecast is ($141,748).  On the expenditure summary table totals, the 2011 Forecast should be $16,916,736 the 2012 Budget should be $16,926,204, and the difference vs. the 2011 Forecast should be $9,468. 

If you use these corrected totals from the revenue and expenditure tables, similar errors are now contained in Gleason’s budget summary narrative.  In referring to 2011, Gleason states, “the year is forecast to end $377,000 under budget.”  Due to mathematical error, this information is incorrect; the year is forecast to end $355,160 under budget, not $377,000. 

Gleason states the “General fund revenue is projected to decrease another $130,000 in 2012, for a total decrease of $330,000 versus the 2011 budget.”  If you correct Gleason's math, the 2012 general fund revenue is projected to be $255,950 less than the 2011 budget, not $330,000.

With declining revenues and increasing costs of our current economic climate, it is more important than ever to account for every dollar. What does all this mean to us the taxpayer and to the budget process?   As taxpayers, we trust that the financial information from the township is accurate and expect that the information is checked and re-checked.

I would have expected that the township manager's budget information would have had multiple in-house reviews before it goes public. In addition to Gleason, the township has a Finance Director plus there's a Supervisor Finance Committee and ultimately oversight from the Board of Supervisors.  I would have assumed that some of these folks would have reviewed the budget prior to its release.

Are these kinds of mathematical 'mistakes' OK if it is only the preliminary budget and summary? Again, I lay no claim myself as a financial expert . . . but as a taxpayer, I am troubled by this situation and question if it is possible that there are additional errors contained in the budget.

With the challenging economic times of declining revenues and increasing costs, we need to know that our government's financial 'house' is in order.  I am hopeful that there will be a correction to Tredyffrin's 2012 budget summary.

Full Story and comments.