"Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.
Alexander Hamilton

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Carroll County MS 46 Amended...Again

The Carroll County Commissioners and County Administrator Ken Robichoud continue their tour of Carroll County towns to meet with Selectboars and answer any questions they may have. On December 16th, they met with the Wolfeboro BoS and they had a number of questions in regard to the MS46. It seems more errors were found on the amended form and it would need to again be amended. The amended MS 46 can be found here on the County website. Of concern is that basic data entry mistakes are continuing to be made or worse, they are not sure what the correct numbers may be. Considering that the Commissioners and Administrator are trying to build up the public trust, one would expect that they would be well armed with accurate information and real answers.

This is from the Wolfeboro BoS meeting minutes of 12/16/15: "Carroll County Administrator and Commissioners The new County Administrator, Ken Robichaud, and two County Commissioners, David Babson and Chris Ahlgren, were on hand to address the board with any questions they had. Ken stated that they have been on the road visiting a lot of towns and he believed this was the seventh town they have visited. We are here to answer any questions that the board may have. Linda Murray questioned the costs in the County’s Form MS 46 line 4150, Financial Administration that went from $6,267 to $849,432 and Legal cost went from $33,300 to $719,800. She asked why line 3509 Misc. & supplies went from $14,431,922 to $1,166,905. Ken Robichaud doesn’t have an answer on why this cost is so much. He stated that they have a new finance director. He is sure it is a mistake and will email us the correct information. Linda Murray states that this may need to be amended and will you send another revised MS -46? Ken Robichaud states that if it’s a mistake, we need the correct numbers. Chairman Senecal asks if there are any other questions? Linda Murray asks if there are any other changes? She also asks if there is anything else we should know."


Anonymous said...

So when do they come to Moultonborough, since we are the largest "funder" of their out of control operation?

Joseph Cormier said...

Comparing this MS-46 to the MS-46 that we challenged at the County Delegation/Commissioners meeting:
No changes in Appropriations. Changes are on the Revenue side
Column 1:
Line 3110 went from $14,334,920 to 0
Line 3509 went from $14,431,922 to 0

Line 3110: The memo states that only column 1,” Estimated Revenue Previous Fiscal Year” was adjusted, is not accurate. Column 2 “Actual Previous Fiscal Year” went from $14,334,930 to 0, as well.

Top of page 8:
Total Estimated Revenues:
Previous year estimated … Actual … Estimated Ensuing year:
From: $42,338,632 ---- $27,168,734 --- $12,259,444
To: $13,571,790 --- $12,883,804 … $12,259,944

Colunm 1:
$42,338,632 less $14,334,920 (line 3110) less $14,431,922 (line 3509) =
$13,571,790 = revised "previous estimated revenue"

Column 2:
Previous was $27,168,734 less $14,334,930 (line 3110) = revised actual $12,883,804. This change is more worrisome, as actuals weren't confirmed the first time.

The appropriations side (expenses) didn’t change, nor did the “tax” to MoBo.

The Budget Summary did not change @ page 8 of 9.

The county finance folks had already mentioned at the County meeting that balances would be moved to other accounts. That doesn’t mean errors were made. I had interpreted the comments as an attempt at clearer audit trails.

Kind-a-like MoBo BoS talking about Rec. Revolving funds, when “revenue-in” from those accounts should be scrutinized.

Anonymous said...

" Ken Robichaud doesn’t have an answer on why this cost is so much. He stated that they have a new finance director. He is sure it is a mistake and will email us the correct information"
Sure sounds like an error. If it walks like a duck...

Joseph Cormier said...

2015 MS-42 Statement of County Appropriations and Revenues as Voted
(not MS-46)

4150 Financial Administration … $110,688. The Ms-46 shows $849,432
4153 Other legal costs … $165,999 . The MS-46 shows, has shown, $719,800
4194 Maintenance of Gov't Buildings … $363,814. The MS-46 shows “actuals” of $410,235 with proposed budget of $157,781, and supposwedly, the previous year budget of $160,422.
4302 Operating expense $150,316 . The MS-46 shows 0 proposed budget, but spent $116,684 last year.

3509 isn't too difficult to explain. It's called incompetence of the previous financial folks, and the lack of oversight from the Commissioners and Delegation.

The MS-42 3509 line shows $9,000 for Misc. revenue from unincorporated places. That's Hale's Location, I believe.

The MS-46 3509 line shows revenue From Misc.& Surplus of $14,431,922. Have you all forgotten about the “typo” discussed on this blog some time back?

By the way, the MS-46 3509 being discussed did not go from:

“She asked why line 3509 Misc. & supplies went from $14,431,922 to $1,166,905.”
It went from $14,431,922 to $4,000, which was probably more accurate, presuming that was the money from Hale's Location. Select-board member Murray was not reading the MS-46 correctly. The $1,166,905 was the “actuals” for last year, not the proposed budget.

The new county administrator should calm down a bit, and not make statements that there's an error till he consults with those responsible for the report.

“He is sure it is a mistake and will email us the correct information.”

I've had enough fun.

Going to the BoS meeting tonight and need go move some more snow … a different kind of snow-job!