Ross: GRU’s claims of excess GFT are false
Letter to the editor
GRU BOARD claims the City owes it $68M for 2018-2021 – – this claim is false
Based on the details of GRU and City of Gainesville Audited Financial Statements (AFS) for 2018–2023 (1), I prepared an analysis of the Excess of General Funds Transfer over Income (EGFT) paid by GRU to the City and compared it to the info provided by Ed Bielarski. Both calculations use the General Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) method, except Bielarski ignores three important factors that would negatively impact his position. In checking Bielarski’s calculations, I followed his method, although I don’t necessarily agree with it. Bielarski calculated the EGFT to be $67.6M and rounded it up to $68M, and my analysis found his number should be no more than $34.6M, roughly half.
The GRU Board adopted Bielarski’s faulty calculations and is budgeting to recover an inflated sum from the City by resolution directly to reduce General Fund Transfers (GFT) from GRU to the City by $6.8M per year over the next 10 years.
I advised the GRU Board that their numbers are not correct and provided the Board with my analysis and supporting backup on more than one occasion. Most recently, at the GRU meeting on August 7, I concluded my public comment urging the Board to “Use the correct numbers.”
Thus far, the Board has not acknowledged that the numbers they rely on are erroneous. Rather, the GRU Board continues to use inflated numbers on the GRU website under the CEO corner to argue against the upcoming November ballot measure on GRU oversight.
My analysis is based on the GRU and City of Gainesville (AFS) from 2018 – 2023:
- Bielarski/GRU Board amount for 2018 is wrong by $13M: One factor in the calculation, Net Income, originally reported at $17M, was restated in 2019, revised upwards by the auditors to $30M. The Bielarski worksheet incorrectly uses the original amount of $17M, ignoring the auditors’ corrected restatement of the 2018 AFS. There can be no dispute that the 2018 AFS restated Net Income is $30M.
- Next, Bielarski/GRU Board numbers for 2018 – 2021 are wrong by $17M: Bielarski refuses to recognize revenues generated by capital contributions. GAAP and the AFS require that these revenues be recognized because they are offset by related expenses in the same period. The Auditors’ AFS Note (quoted below) is very clear. Bielarski’ s worksheets ignore the revenue while factoring in offsetting expenses and make GRU’s claim appear more substantial by $17M.
Direct quote from the most recent Notes to GRU AFS:
“Contributions in Aid of Construction GRU recognizes capital contributions to the electric and gas systems as revenues which are subsequently expensed in the same period. Depreciation on these assets is recorded on a straight-line basis over the estimated lives of the assets.
“GRU recognizes capital contributions to the water, wastewater, and telecommunications systems as revenues in the period received. Depreciation on these assets is recorded on a straight-line basis over the estimated lives of the assets.”
3) Further, Bielarski/GRU Board numbers are wrong by additional $3M: Bielarski worksheets stop at 2021, ignoring AFS reported income for 2022 income after GFT of $20M, and 2023 that shows a loss after GFT of $17M – a net $3M excess income over GFT. The Bielarski worksheets disregard these years because they further decreased the claimed loss by $3M.
So that’s $13M +$17M +$3 = $33M, these factors ignored in the Bielarski worksheets reduce the GRU Board claim from $68M, actually $67.6M, to roughly $34.6M.
Bielarski/GRU Board deliberately ignore that the losses are overstated by $33M, currently a $68M claim against the city is listed on GRU’s web site under CEO corner as of this writing. (2)
To conclude, Bielarski has distorted the claim of excess losses as documented above, what else has he presented to the board that is distorted, including the info to terminate Tony Cunningham the former GRU GM. This action led directly to Bielarski being hired to replace Cunningham.
Charles Alan Ross, CPA, Gainesville
I have been licensed to practice Public Accounting in Florida for over 40 years. Recently retired and living in Gainesville, FL. My practice included Auditing Financials Statements, Income Tax advice and Preparation, and numerous Forensic Accounting Engagements over those years.
FOOTNOTES:
- The Bielarski analysis uses info from the years 2018 to 2021, my analysis updates the numbers based on AFS through 2023.
- Direct quote from the GRU web site–CEO Corner: “Why has GRU reduced the amount it pays to the city’s general fund through the Government Services Contribution? GRU paid $68 million more than what it made between 2018 and 2021, ……..”
The opinions expressed by letter or opinion writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AlachuaChronicle.com. Assertions of facts in letters are similarly the responsibility of the author. Letters may be submitted to info@alachuachronicle.com and are published at the discretion of the editor.
Since you also claim the city took unearned money from GRU ratepayers, why aren’t you demanding its return and supporting separating GRU from the clutches of the greedy city thieves?
Excellent point. Even if the number were wrong (it’s not), where is the demand to require to pay it back?
Explain why Ross’s numbers are wrong.
The issue raised are the numbers which you have presented as requiring draconian measures. If you’re off by approximately 50%, how, why, and who’s interests – other than Republicans unelected by the owners of GRU – are you promoting? Saying it doesn’t matter is BS.
Thanks Jazzman, The correct numbers do matter, because using the wrong numbers raises an issue of credibility and that’s the heart of the matter.
I did not suggest funds be returned or not, I suggested that correct numbers be used to calculate what amount we are talking about in the first place. I used Bielarski’s method with corrected numbers.
So Charles….how exactly did we end up getting the highest utility rates in the state of Florida??
THANK YOU, LOU!! Anyone moving into Alachua County should be informed about the utility rates, the property taxes, the school system, etc. DO NOT sign away your retirement income to be near family.
They’re not the highest…Duke and FPU have that honor. https://assets.noviams.com/novi-file-uploads/fmea/Rates/2024/2024_July_Rates.pdf
Bullshit i just moved the 1st of june him from hills of santa fe to Branford in Suwannee County my last GRU bill in may was 456.00 my july Duke bill was 344.00 and the house in Suwannee is about 400 sq feet bigger both of them other wise are about equal
There could be huge differences in usage in similar homes. You have to compare the usage and price per kW-H at the old place and the new. Also remember that your GRU utility bill includes water and wastewater service, I don’t know if the other do or not.
For the record, my calculation of a $68 million excess GFT from Fiscal Year 2018 thru 2021 were confirmed by GRU finance group.
The biggest mistake Mr. Ross makes is thinking that developer utility infrastructure turned over to GRU adds to a businesses profit which can be converted to dividends. It can’t.
Mr. Ross might be a fine accountant but he doesn’t understand investments or how you would measure capacity to offer dividends.
GRU’s profits before those developer system turn overs was $68 million lower than it’s transfers to the city from 2018 to 2021.
Sorry.
Who is “GRU finance group”?
If I follow, Ross says “Contributions in Aid of Construction GRU recognizes capital contributions to the electric and gas systems as revenues which are subsequently expensed in the same period. Depreciation on these assets is recorded on a straight-line basis over the estimated lives of the assets.” Is this what you call: “developer utility infrastructure”? If so, why aren’t those assets counted against expenses?
You don’t address what Ross calls a $13M mistake based on not acknowledging the auditors corrections.
Thanks Jazzman.
Ed,
Thanks for acknowledging that you prepared these numbers, throwing your finance people under the bus only reflects badly on you. I heard the CFO say that she checked your numbers, and apparently, she missed the restatement in 2018.
I balanced my analysis to the ending fund balances on the audited financial statements (AFS) through 2023. Your analysis, which I had to obtain through a Public Records Request (PRR), didn’t balance out to anything.
I will again bring you the 2019 AFS showing the restatement for 2018 to the next GRU meeting or you can look it up on the web site before then.
If you refuse to add back the revenues from capital contributions, then remove the expenses from the books. You can’t have it both ways.
Thank you, Jazzman, you hit my points on the head.
Mr. Ross ignores SLA losses this year of AT LEAST $ 6 million this year and possibly much more, and the number would be higher for last year.
I’m not ignoring them, please read my response to your comment below. If you would identify the details of the $6M it would be most helpful and know that I am very interested in the SLA matter.
Glad to see you’re willing to continue this discussion out front here on the Alachua Chronicle. Hopefully Mr Beilarski will also respond here.
Absolutely willing to do so!
Bielarski (EB) left and never returned for good reason, he’s wrong and he knows it. I reiterated my position at general comment at the 9/4 meeting, particularly since EB uses the figure of $68M in his CEO Corner post on the GRU website, that takes a position biased against the referendum to abolition the GRU Authority Board. I added that this info on the website might be a violation of election laws. EB and the Board had no response to my comments.
I’m still curious as to all the “extra” pay and benefits Ed wanted, and received, for his new employment opportunity. It seems as if he didn’t mind the excessive budget expenditure for his services.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but this may be the only peep we’ve heard from him since his new hiring at GRU.
Ed negotiated a contract for $332K per year plus benefits effective 6/13/24. The contract was approved by the board on 8/7/24 despite numerous concerns voiced by the public including yours truly. He will receive 104 hours of PTO and 20 weeks of severance pay (Combined that is approx. $155K) effective with the signing of the contract if he is terminated without cause. This is in addition to future accrued, sick leave, PTO etc.
Originally the contract was on the consent agenda. Comment is allowed at the meeting before the board approves the agenda. A number of us suggested that the public should have the ability to comment on the contract and that the public would like to hear the board have discussion about the contract. After public comment, the board’s attorney weighed and suggested it as well. I think if the attorney had not chimed in, the contract would have stayed on the consent agenda, with no public discussion, but it was pulled at that point. The board approved the contract with no changes.
Most of the public comment was opposed to the contract. I recommended 6 months probation before these benefits kick in, I also suggested he initially work for $1 per year like Lee Iacocca.
Hope this is what you were interested in.
I guess we can “presume” where the profit savings will be going now instead of the City.
Ed, I agree with your assessment. Lots of folks do not know that when a project is developed the developer is responsible to pay for the infrastructure improvements, water, sewer, lift stations, electrical infrastructure, GRUCom conduits accessories are all paid for by the developers and the assets then turned over to GRU who owns those assets from then on. Occasionally GRU will fund oversizing a utility on a development to allow for adjacent properties to be developed in the future without requiring a retrofit of the facilities. If the claim is that these infrastructure turnovers should be accounted for as a profit, I guess I should also believe that growth does not pay for itself. While it is a tangible asset that increases bonding capacity, it is certainly not profit. If it is to be claimed as profit the GRU fees developer fees pay should be eliminated since they would be essentially double dipping.
To my simple minded low level economics – good enough to keep me out of trouble and still in business after 40+ years – the value of the infrastructure, if it will incur expenses, would count as revenue put toward capital improvements.
Please read the auditors note pasted below that indicates how the infrastructure improvements are treated in the financial statements. They are expensed and the revenues are shown separately to offset each other. The bottom line is in order to be consistent you can’t pick apart what standards you wish to use and when and be in accordance with GAAP.
In this case Ed has ignored the revenue portion, he is ignoring the standards applied by the auditors of the financial statements. The result is the losses are exaggerated by $17M for the years 2018 to 2021. Not my numbers, this is straight off the Audited financial Statements.
“Contributions in Aid of Construction GRU recognizes capital contributions to the electric and gas systems as revenues which are subsequently expensed in the same period. Depreciation on these assets is recorded on a straight-line basis over the estimated lives of the assets.
“GRU recognizes capital contributions to the water, wastewater, and telecommunications systems as revenues in the period received. Depreciation on these assets is recorded on a straight-line basis over the estimated lives of the assets.”
How much of this $ is actually generated by County residents who have zero say in the “city” elections, who oversee GRU? Where is the Public Service Commission?
The FPSC is based in Tally I think. Yes, that is who oversees rates. If you don’t own stock in FPL or Duke Energy, you have no say in their affairs based on buying electricty from them.
You also don’t vote them in or fund services you will never receive.
Transfers should me made to GRU customers not the damn city
GRU customers don’t own GRU, Duke, or FPL.
Mr. Ross, please shift your political focus to real accounting. Excess transfers are excess transfers and just underscores the need for oversight outside of city hall. Perhaps you should try to explain what the city did with all that grift, like the millions to Richert House and the other “non-profit” expenditures that we don’t have any real information on. Go get the books and really dig in if you want to be a helpful citizen.
All of the detail and infighting overshadows a critical point: Utility bills should be used to pay for utility services, full stop. My opinion and you’re welcome to your own.
The unaddressed matter of Service Level Agreement (SLA) Losses is neither included in Bielarski’s nor Ross’s calculations and both numbers are understated to that extent.
Jim, You point is well taken, it is a valid concern, it wasn’t the subject of my letter. However, I would like to review the SLA issue, I have yet to see a summary of the agreements, and related charges for those between GRU and the City. If you have info and wish to share please let me know and I will try to address that issue. I know it is of great concern to you.
GRU has politely ignored my Public Records requests for months regarding these matters. Former Authority members were also denied this information. There often are no “agreements” just winks and nods as Carter would say. IT, streetlights, City Attorney, and free collection of utility and sales tax is easily $ 5 million.
I was wondering if I missed something, I guess not. I seem to remember there was a list included with the budget presentation included as backup for the 6/10/24 meeting.
It was what I would call a macro view, with few details, let see if I can locate that. I’ll get back to you.
Did they at least provide the agreement for part of the City of Alachua power?
You’re an attorney, you know there are qualifications for public records requests.
If you’ve meet those requirements, file a suit.
The BU to the 6/10/24 meeting includes the budget presentation Pgs 144 to 148 and Pgs 164 to 168 that have info regarding the SLA agreements. It’s far from complete. $2M has been identified for services that are no longer used by GRU. Many more details are required to understand the support and amount of payments back and forth between GRU and the City.
Does any of this dialogue change the fact that the GCC took money from GRU that they should not have?
Good Grief numbers matter!
Thanks I think so.
Well, Mr. Beilarski has left the building. Hopefully he’ll reappear at the next GRU “authority” meeting and hopefully Mr. Ross will attend and raise these questions.
Too bad Mr. Beilarski couldn’t find time to put these questions to rest when he had an audience, an expert questioner, and place to present his argument.
Thanks again, I plan to go to the meeting, I think I only missed one meeting when I was out of town.