AUSTINTOWN FINANCES Overstated revenue leads to confusion

The revenue estimates were filed nine months late, the auditor says.
By IAN HILL
VINDICATOR STAFF WRITER
AUSTINTOWN -- Township officials say they overstated the township's estimated revenue to the county this year by about $3.7 million in the spirit of "full disclosure."
The overstatement, however, has caused confusion among some township residents and officials. A dispute over township revenue led to a heated debate between Township Trustee David Ditzler and Trustee-elect Lisa Oles after a recent trustees meeting.
Ditzler and other township officials have said they have $11 million to spend this year and are facing a deficit; Oles asked why the township's estimate of revenue filed with the county auditor showed that the township had $14.7 million to spend.
Township Clerk Michael Kurish said the $14.7 million estimate given to the county auditor includes about $3.7 million in transfers among township funds. That money isn't revenue, however; it's cash taken from one fund and put into another fund.
Counted twice
The document filed with the auditor does not take into account that the money was taken out of a fund for the transfer. It essentially counts transfer money twice: once in its original fund, and again in the fund where it ends up.
The result is that total revenue is overstated by $3.7 million.
Kurish said the township believes it had to report money at both ends of a transfer so it can account for all township revenue.
"I want to give full disclosure," he said. "You have to account for every dollar."
Kurish added that the township has been reporting revenue in a similar manner for 12 years and that there has never been a question about the process.
Mahoning County Auditor George Tablack's office, however, was not told about the transfers. Nothing in the documents filed with the auditor by the township mentions the transfers.
Not required by law
State law does not require the township to report transfers from its general fund to the county auditor. Some township clerks do report the transfers to avoid confusion, however. Transfers also are kept separate from revenue in state audits.
Eric Hardgrove, a spokesman for the state auditor's office, said any problems with Austintown's transfers will be noted in the township's next audit, set to be issued early next year. The township's last audit did not show any problems with transfers.
Kurish said he will most likely amend the documents filed with the county auditor to show the transfers in the future. He added that residents with doubts about how much revenue the township collects can consult the 2002 state audit, which is posted on the state auditor's Internet site.
The audit shows that the township had about $9.8 million in revenue and $1.8 million in transfers last year.
Reason for deficit
Township officials have said they're facing a deficit this year because of increases in the cost of insurance, workers' compensation and wages and decreases in revenue. Trustees have laid off two police officers and chosen not to replace four officers who retired.
Oles has said she believes other budget cuts can be made to free up money to rehire safety forces.
Tablack noted that he believes some of the disagreement over the budget can be resolved if township officials meet with Oles and hold a "civil discussion." He said he would be willing to be a part of that discussion.
"If there's some way I can help four elected officials in Austintown work for the residents, I'm obligated to do it," Tablack said.
Trustees had said they would ask Tablack to attend their meeting at 7 p.m. Monday at the township building to help resolve the confusion. Tablack, however, said he has not received a request to be at the meeting
Asked for source
Ditzler and Trustee Rich Edwards sent a letter Tuesday to Tablack asking if the information provided to Oles had come from the auditor's office, and if it was "an official county assessment of the Austintown Township budget."
In a response Thursday, Tablack wrote that the numbers were compiled using county records and information supplied by Kurish.
The auditor's office hasn't approved the township's revenue estimates yet because the township still has to repay $39,749 in advances from 2002. An advance is a loan from one township fund to another township fund.
Tablack said the township's revenue estimate wasn't filed until September. State law requires townships to file the information with the county around the first of the year.
Kurish said he thought he had answered the auditor's questions about the estimates at a recent meeting with county officials. He said the township expects to repay the advances before the end of this year.
hill@vindy.com