from Ron
There are very limited revenue streams for the town based on this town being largely farm based. The Fair is a unique event for Woodstock.
Ken’s math is a little weak – 250,000 is the attendance for the entire weekend on good years. There have been declines in the total attendance numbers when the fair has raised prices. Even if we did find a way to sure-charge $1 or maybe $2 dollars a head, that would put $250k to $500k into the town’s coffers every year. I have problems when money at this level is put into a general fund and is not obligated to something in particular.
The fair has spent what I think is a large amount money to improve it’s property in the last few years. The costs of building those new barns is not trivial and I am thinking that they have a mortgage to pay for these new additions. Also if you watch closely there is always some kind of movement of large amounts of soil/sand and gravel within the boundaries of the fair to make it better.
One comment that I want folks to think about is that within your travels around the rural regions of New England – have you seen any farmer put up new barns in last 15 years? Unless that farmer came up with some large money (think sale of land, or inheritance ) I have not seen any farmers build barns. These are large expenses to someone who is mostly loosing money on their sales of Milk and other produce. We have two farms that are besides the fair grounds that have put up new large buildings in that time frame. My thinking is that these folks raised the money needed to perform this work via their ability to park cars for a fee during the fair. I have no direct knowledge but this is my simple minded conclusion.
The fair has been and looks to be one of the few revenue streams that the town can count on if approached correctly. There are some who generate an income from the fair both internal to the Woodstock Agricultural Society (employees, suppliers, etc…) and as a vendors working the fair. (Example: WA groups – Athletic Boosters, Music, Student Government, etc… gets a large chunk of money from selling products.)
The interweaving of our town politicians and the fair is something that should be viewed if a group of concerned citizens should open up discussions about how to get money into the town’s coffers from the fair. This topic is a political bomb and from what history I can gather is something that no one wants to fully address.
Yes – the fair has had a large increase to it’s spending for mandated protection since 9-11. But those costs have been passed along to both the vendors wishing to be exhibiting at the fair and the increased to the admissions. (Many of the local small business people no longer use the fair and I have spoken to some of them about why – costs increases by the Fair without a substantial increase in sales from being at the event!) So I don’t think the fair is swallowing the increased costs.
Also look at our new lighting ordinances and you will see that the fair has been considered in continue use of their lights without violating any of the new laws… Some people think ahead and put people in correct positions to head off troubles…
My thoughts are that the Fair should not be thought of as a sacred cow, but something that can be used to help offset some of the long terms costs to the town for infrastructure costs…
There are very limited revenue streams for the town based on this town being largely farm based. The Fair is a unique event for Woodstock.
Ken’s math is a little weak – 250,000 is the attendance for the entire weekend on good years. There have been declines in the total attendance numbers when the fair has raised prices. Even if we did find a way to sure-charge $1 or maybe $2 dollars a head, that would put $250k to $500k into the town’s coffers every year. I have problems when money at this level is put into a general fund and is not obligated to something in particular.
The fair has spent what I think is a large amount money to improve it’s property in the last few years. The costs of building those new barns is not trivial and I am thinking that they have a mortgage to pay for these new additions. Also if you watch closely there is always some kind of movement of large amounts of soil/sand and gravel within the boundaries of the fair to make it better.
One comment that I want folks to think about is that within your travels around the rural regions of New England – have you seen any farmer put up new barns in last 15 years? Unless that farmer came up with some large money (think sale of land, or inheritance ) I have not seen any farmers build barns. These are large expenses to someone who is mostly loosing money on their sales of Milk and other produce. We have two farms that are besides the fair grounds that have put up new large buildings in that time frame. My thinking is that these folks raised the money needed to perform this work via their ability to park cars for a fee during the fair. I have no direct knowledge but this is my simple minded conclusion.
The fair has been and looks to be one of the few revenue streams that the town can count on if approached correctly. There are some who generate an income from the fair both internal to the Woodstock Agricultural Society (employees, suppliers, etc…) and as a vendors working the fair. (Example: WA groups – Athletic Boosters, Music, Student Government, etc… gets a large chunk of money from selling products.)
The interweaving of our town politicians and the fair is something that should be viewed if a group of concerned citizens should open up discussions about how to get money into the town’s coffers from the fair. This topic is a political bomb and from what history I can gather is something that no one wants to fully address.
Yes – the fair has had a large increase to it’s spending for mandated protection since 9-11. But those costs have been passed along to both the vendors wishing to be exhibiting at the fair and the increased to the admissions. (Many of the local small business people no longer use the fair and I have spoken to some of them about why – costs increases by the Fair without a substantial increase in sales from being at the event!) So I don’t think the fair is swallowing the increased costs.
Also look at our new lighting ordinances and you will see that the fair has been considered in continue use of their lights without violating any of the new laws… Some people think ahead and put people in correct positions to head off troubles…
My thoughts are that the Fair should not be thought of as a sacred cow, but something that can be used to help offset some of the long terms costs to the town for infrastructure costs…
After reading all comments, I’m surprised to see so little based on FACT.
After all, without bona fide Financial Statements (current and historical) it seems every ‘theory’ is a form of Opinion, which is of limited usefulness and reliability. Meaningful financial discussion regarding ANY going concern ought to be based on the actual Financial Statements of the Enterprise.
Are such Financial Statements available? If not, should they be? Are there compelling reasons aside from vague principle they are not literally published each and every year as well as Audited by independent auditors?
This perennial discussion would certainly advance a great deal of The Audited Financial Statements of The Woodstock Fair were made public and published in a regular, systematic fashion. The arguments on both sides OUGHT to be well-served by such action; that is, if such arguments are, in fact, as they are meant to be interpreted and not forms of interpretation and persuasion regarding these numbers…
Good points Ron. Interesting to see how much reaction my intial comments have generated.
Couple of other interesting points about the “weaving” between the agricultural society and vendors. I understand that many of the companies providing services such as insurance, ice,,fiesta shows etc. are esentially closely held monopolies (but certainly privately-held companies without the need to disclose financials)- creating a situation where possibility the Woodstock Non-Profit Agricultural Society sees “LESS” profits each year- and that these “third” party “arms-length” entities (think Enron used the term – Raptor- to name its closely affiliated entity?!)potentially pocket “MORE”.
I do agree that this money should be allocated for certain purposes- and simply not a slush fund.
I would suggest my math wasn’t necessarily “weak”- but was an effort to recognize a complete surcharge- for the vendors, entertainers, fiesta shows(rides), etc
I certainly believe few people walk out of the fair without spending at least $100 dollars. Asking for $4 does’t seem excessive. Family of 4 might cost $200. 4 dollars per adult seems small!
As far as the Fair still being at its core an agricultural event, that ship sailed a while ago. It is much more a modern carnival now, and that is all the more reason the town should get value for us all suffering through its inconvenience and cost every year.
Con,
If you are interested in seeing the fair’s tax returns you can use this site:
http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990finder/
Look up the Woodstock Agricultural Society in CT. They have 2002-2010 online. Inside you will find a high level income statement and Balance Sheet. I didn’t bother to calculate a statement of cash flows but from a quick scrubbing of the income statement and balance sheet they are pulling in several hundred thousand a year above their expenses for several years now. As of 2010 they had paid off all mortgages and don’t have any debt to speak of.
Thanks,
Kevin
A few other ideas we should visit to raise revenue ; a poll tax, motorcycle road tax (to control the out of state no helmet riders) , student meters to put surcharge on students using more of teachers time,bicycle tax for out of towners who pedal our roads.we should tax people on owned personal property not just homes; art, antiques, jewelry,electronics, etc. We can hire a town official to come into every home and assign a total value and levy a tax. Relay for life surcharge should also be started. ;og for judy surcharge should be started, what is an extra dollar from motorcycles, bikers, joggers, fund raisers, students and the millions of untaxe property in the homes of the wealthy across our town. Tax and spend, tax and spend
Ron,
There is no new Lighting Ordinance in town. Town Planner, Delia Fey, put together a proposed Lighting Ordinance. Also, a local engineer submitted a proposed Model Lighting Ordinance developed by professionals in the field. It is both fair and easy to implement.
This topic will be discussed at tomorrow night’s Planning and Zoning meeting – 7:30, Town Hall.
To learn more, attend the meeting.
Proposed Lightinf regulations that the Woodstock Ag Society would nix:
http://www.woodstockctcafe.com/2011/03/01/proposed-lighting-regulations-for-woodstock/
Con – someone else has gotten the tax filings. What is you comment now about the revenue that the Fair takes in?
Nary – Sorry that I miss spoke; Usually when an ordinance is at this stage of review I am pretty sure it will be passed and implemented. This is my assumption. I understand the reasons for the Ordinance, but was concerned about who can object and halt the adding of lights. I am thinking about WA and the need for their new fields to have lights added. Will the Hill People prevent WA from adding them when the new field that will be closer to Roseland Park road than route 169? – That is another topic…
The point of my comments are about the Fair and the long history of the people who work/run the fair within the town’s political structures. Those that have a reason get involved (skin in the game is the modern saying) are the only ones that seemed to take on many of the roles within our towns committees.
Someone else said it very clearly – follow the money. For years the ability to view funds was restricted to those that knew where to find the forms and under what names – Freedom of Information laws and the internet have opened many books to the light of day. What is at issue is that there are people in town that make money from the fair and this seems to be a limited circle of people. I am not against people from making money – that is part of being an American! But the points that I was trying to raise is that town should be looking to also tap into this very stable revenue stream. The people who have been running and working the fair are to be commended because they are working to get their money.
Now how does the town’s people work to get some revenue from the crowds that attend the fair?
To raise the money is not enough – we as town folks need to make sure that the money is spent correctly and wisely so that we can cover items that are not being handled within our yearly budgets. Example – Maintenance is not being done at a level on town properties that we as home owners would be doing on our own homes!
The fair should not viewed as off limits to the town. And we are thinking out side of the box to decrease our property tax burdens.
To Mary Mapes: If you are that naive to think that those types of taxes are not already in place – you need to take a hard look at what is done in other state. I have folks in NC and they do get taxed on all of their personal property, not just their house and cars. Also the burden of paying for services is disproportionally put upon the lower and middle income people of the US. Take a hard look at the percentages of tax levels since the 40′s to see the changing of the tax bases. Parents of school children are now being hit with purchasing supplies for their kid’s class rooms (not their individual kids), they are being asked to do fund raising for things that where covered for years (decades) by the school budgets.
Ken asked a good question; Should the town be looking at the Fair as a potential resource for town income or not? I believe that is should. And to make sure everyone knows; Yes I go to enjoy the fair yearly, and I have worked booths for the fund raising during the fair. If I have a choice I purchase from the locals vendors/fund raising booths at the fair. So I get what is being done and what can be done.
I have no idea how successful any efforts to add a surcharge to fair tickets would be, but wouldn’t it also be prudent for a group of residents to join together to develop and publicize/promote for potential referendum some type of economic development plan? This way, the townspeople could consider and decide on what types of tax-paying businesses it wants to attract that wouldn’t tarnish the rural character. So, if we want to attract cyclists and kayakers and other outdoorsy types of tourism, devise a plan to host bike paths and sponsor races and events to attract tourism. Maybe time those with a big shopping event day around town with a shuttle service provided for the event so local businesses in other corners of town could be more easily accessed by tourists who don’t know their way around? If we decide we want to attract more home-based businesses like doctor, lawyer, accountant practices, maybe design a plan to attract them. What about something like offering such professionals a reduced tax rate for the first 2-3 years they purchase a property in town. This would give them some time to get a practice and client base established and up and running before they pay a higher business tax rate. I know that others have said here before that our location doesn’t make us a prime locale for attracting the usual commercial development. I think most of us who live here feel that’s a good thing in some ways because we don’t want to stare at big chain stores rather than farmland and we also don’t want the traffic hassle. By the same token, it hurts us to have a primarily residential tax base. But there are plenty of other ideas that we could be entertaining and hashing out. We aren’t. Why?
Ron and Kevin,
What I really mean: comments I’ve read so far seem to rely more on assumption, prejudice and speculation and not on fact that it surprises me to find there actually IS limited financial information publicly available – though, importantly, mere Tax Returns are simply not comprehensive, what IS comprehensive is a full set of Financial Statements set forth strictly in accordance with GAAP, unless they use cash accrual methods, etc.
SO – when I read a given comment that does not back up a given, strong assertion with actual numbers and examples, I tend to hear it more as opinion and less as researched, fact-based conclusions.
Even with Public Companies whose Audited Financial Statements are publicly available, we have all seen that it’s still possible for smart adversaries (usually competitors or politicians, I admit) to ‘cherry pick’ and use such numbers as ammunition against the given enterprise.
When I, as a reader, am asked to simply believe a given assumption as basis for the larger point AND that larger point turns out to be both a strong criticism on the enterprise and advocation for methods which we must admit in fairness is rather partisan and almost political, THEN those assumptions must first be proven to me by rigorous methodology.
I still do not see such rigorous methodology here – Tax Returns are NOT Financial Statements; Financial Statements that are NOT Audited are much weaker than Audited Statements; GAAP Statements are far more easily utilized.
GAAP Standards are highly standardized, allow little ability for any manipulation and due to recent and other events have tightened up to an enormous extent; ‘Cash Accrual’ Accounting methods are, to be fair, allow greater opportunity for all manner of manipulation and loose interpretation shaped to fit an argument rather than the opposite.
Ron,I am not a spokesperson for people who live in the Hill neighborhood. But, I would like to ask you and Cafe readers this.
Presuming that most of you are like us in that we work very hard. When we’re not working, we are working for our family or friends and when we are not doing that – we’re working hard on maintaining our property.
If YOU were suddenly confronted with a huge athletic complex a football field’s length away from your home by a school that has the approval to rent the facility out to whomever they want and for unlimited numbers of events — how would you feel? Do you think your quality of life would diminish? Do you think your property value would plunge southward?
If you can’t honestly say that you wouldn’t mind the excessive noise from a loud PA system or the lack of privacy from tailgaters or the sulfurous stadium lighting that sends a Speilburg like glow over every square inch of your life at home and will do this for a possible 7 nights a week — then I say great, find yourself a seat on PZC and flip that switch on us.
Apparently there are plenty of people in town who would love to do that although I doubt that they’d like it very much if it was being done to them.
Con-
Tax returns, and the data in them, are quite a bit better than financial statements because the penalties for misstatements are greater.
Con,
I hear what you are saying and you are correct that the financial information on the tax returns is not as detailed as you might find on the 10-Ks from a public company. However, they are a reasonable way to get financial information on a non-public company. While they are at a high level, the information in corporate tax returns is commonly used for financial purposes such as valuations, competitive analysis, etc. You can use this information to get a reasonable picture of a company’s year over year cash flows and the change in major balance sheet categories (cash and cash equivalents, ST/LT debt, fixed assets, etc.).
To the extent that they are different from GAAP statements, at this level of analysis it probably isn’t material to the type of information people are looking for. You are also right that I haven’t seen anyone really go through the financial statements on the returns but I wouldn’t say that information is not useful. If it wasn’t useful, a whole slew of entities trying to do M&A with private firms with potentially questionable/unaudited/non-existent financial statements are in trouble.
Thanks,
Kevin
Con-
Rigorous methodology would be nice, …(see Pro-ed’s new article. Admin).
Kevin paints a nice picture of what the returns do show. The topic that I tried to paint is that there is a larger cash flow in/out of the fair year in and year out. There are some slower years as far as growth, but there are usually reasons that explain this. The point is that the revenue is not shrinking for the fair, and it has been growing year after year.
My concern is that if the town does find a way to harness this income stream, it should be mapped out to be used for specific items and not left up to our board of finance to use as they see fit based on short term pressures. This also includes the School Board’s discretion.
Nary;
I do understand your point of view. I also fully understand that once that plot of land was sold to WA and they explained it was going to be used as athletic fields that impacted the folks on the hill. If this is the problem then the Hill Folks needed to act when the property was sold not now to try and close the barn door after the horses have left.
I live within ear shot of the fair and I get the traffic and the sounds and the lights every year – so Yes I do fully understand your point of view with noise and lights impacting my standard of living.
The issues with the Bentley Complex are not going to become smaller or quieter for those living near that facility. There was an article in the Norwich Paper about WA going after it’s financing for the expansion of the fields. I am surprised that this did not excite a lot of noise here at the Cafe. I have lost the link, otherwise I would post it for others to read. Those that live on the hill area and over look the land that WA owns and will be expanding will have to make some choices about where/what they want to do with their homes. I have tried to explain that the only way Woodstock or any of the other sending towns can get control over the WA board is to get a hold of money as a block. Since this has not happened, I am not sure there is much that will prevent WA from doing what they want within reason with their land. When you live next to a region High School with a student population of 1100 to 1200 there are going to be impacts on the immediate neighbors and it’s not always going to be nice for either side.
Also as an example, the Fair Grounds facilities are used a lot more in recent years and the horse area’s use has also increased. Did any of the immediate neighbors really get asked about this?
Doubtful,
I don’t know where you got that information (where did you?), but your statement is simply not true, most especially when it comes to Audited Financial Statements. Further, even unaudited statements are far, far more likely to be vetted (like an IRS Audit) because shareholders have that right quite often AND it is their money at stake.
The percentage of tax returns that are ever audited is minuscule compared to the scrutiny financial statements involving/affecting a large number of people will receive. Imagine hundreds of affected stockholders and others simply letting an enterprise publish their financial statements without a single word, challenge or other means of vetting those numbers, questioning the assumptions, challenging the ‘Notes thereto’.
THAT is what happens to millions of tax returns. They get filed, period.
Kevin,
Your comment STILL presupposes the existence of financial statements in, say, an M&A situation. I have never even heard of an M&A transaction without financial statements and done on the basis of simple tax returns alone. They are simply inadequate.
Valuation? Sure, maybe they show income and year over year growth, which is one method, but don’t show so very many other necessary data used by I-Bankers valuing an enterprise.
I didn’t say it was not useful – but that it was not adequately complete and, therefore, could mask or otherwise allow the assumption that ‘we have it all’ when in fact much is not known and cannot be by tax returns alone.
Con,
I’ll certainly acknowledge you likely have a much higher level of practical experience in this area; sure approaching mid-market M&A you are absolutely correct. No bank or sophisticated investor is going to back any sizable deal without audited financials. However, when buying or selling small businesses the type of financial information you are talking about in many cases simply doesn’t exist. Multiples analysis is unreliable at that level, DCF unreliable as well; you are stuck working with imperfect information and marking assets to market. If you’re lucky you can find some decent compatibles.
Having said that, despite that lack of information small business deals can and do get financed through personal guarantees and assets, the using the assets of the purchased company and even seller financing (not to mention the three F’s; friends, family and fools… um unsophisticated investors I mean). While riskier, the information is adequate for people buying a small business to move forward.
I completely agree that information can get masked on these high level statements so you have to be aware what you have. Look at the expenses for 2010 for the Agricultural Society, they have a line titled “All Other Expenses” in the amount of $764k (over 50% of their expenses for the year); just about anything could be shoved in there. You could use these statements to get a rough idea of their cash flows, investing activities, etc. But as you point out, any type of detailed analysis of their cost structure is not possible with this information.
Thanks,
Kevin
Ron,
As to traditional stadium lighting at the expanded fields – if this is passed by PZC and installed by the Academy there will be many people in town who will be adversely affected, not just the few who live near the fields. The glow, like the Fair glow and noise, will be seen up and down the valley and from all positions above it. AND, it won’t be confined to 5 days a year. It has the potential to shine brightly any night the school wants to turn it on either for its own use or its tenants’ use.
This is a town-wide issue not a localized one. Approval of traditional stadium Lighting will signify that this type of Lighting can be installed anywhere in town.
PZC meeting is tonight at Town Hall at 7:30. This topic will be discussed. Boards and Commissions do listen to citizen comments.
If you care – be there to let them know how you feel.
Nary,
I can not make the meetings based on my schedule. The town’s web site is not making meeting minutes on the web site easy to access or they are not adequately detailed enough to be of any value. I am not sure if this is caused by a lack of funding or people who don’t think it’s important enough to do the job well…
But the Fair has their lights on all night for more than 5 days. I know because at that time of year I am leaving my house between 3:45 and 4:10 am and the lights are on for the week leading up to the event and days after for the workers to handle the equipment. If you drive from Putnam into Woodstock after dusk the glow from the fair is evident – so yes I do understand what the lights for the Bentley complex would mean.
I bet that those who live 1 mile or more north and west of the fair never see the glow because of the tree cover. There is impact, but as a local resident of the event you are going to be impacted by the lights. But this will not be a town wide effect as you state.
You do make some valid points about the Bentley complex being run/controlled by a group that has no chain of command to the town. This group will have to cover the costs of the operations of the lights and that will not be inexpensive.
To be very blunt, Nary you live next to a regional High School that has sports and football in particular. This usually means that you will be seeing lights on their fields in the late fall/early winter. I know that the sights and sounds of the Fair where going to impact my house when I moved there. WA has been there for a long time and if you thought that the school was going to stay a small (400 students) and not need more resources you where not keeping up on events. Take a walk/drive behind the church where the students park during a school day! I bet you would be shocked at the amount of number of cars as well as the space they take up. You are lucky that the church is allowing this because the other options based on the limited land at the school would require the use of some of the space at Bentley to be an active parking lot every day!
The impact of a large operation that needs to be active after dark means because of modern safety requirements that parking and walk ways need to be lit.
Ron,
I referred to “town-wide” in terms of the Lighting Ordinance that is ONLY proposed at this point. Whatever Lighting Ordinance is approved by Woodstock’s PZC, this will be a town-wide ordinance for non-residences only. So, my understanding is that whatever is approved for the fields is also approved elsewhere.
If PZC chooses to approve forms for lighting taken from the Model Lighting Ordinance that is submitted and posted on the Cafe, poles will be no higher than 20 feet with lighting kept under a certain level of Lumins. Included is care given to shielding off-site Lighting. Wouldn’t you prefer this at the Fair grounds for your own home life? This type of exterior lighting along with other green technologies are the way of the future. Traditional Stadium Lights are expensive to install, to run and they create Light pollution — all of that is discouraged now in any new construction.
Just so you know, we moved here when the current athletic fields were in place and available classroom space at the school was already maxed out with 1150 students. The Academy had not purchased the parcel of land for this use nor could we have known that they would, especially since they purchased it quietly. Obviously, we would not have purchased this property had we known. Have you ever looked at the houses that surround high school playing fields? They are neglected and run down due to their use as rentals for who would want to own in such a location?
What we’ve watched over the past ten years is a tremendous amount of energy, time and our tax money be put forth for this complex by a school that still neglects a much needed piece of infrastructure (sewer). We now witness a K-8 grade school system that is suffering from budget cuts while the WA plans a 2.5 million development that, frankly, will cost twice that once it’s done.
In addition, we’ll all watch a large wetland habitat above an important watershed be obliterated in the process. Even if we didn’t live next to it — there would be NO way we’d support this expenditure on any level. I really hope this complex doesn’t become the Academy’s folly but I think it has a good chance of becoming so. Everyone is hurting badly in this economy; it is baffling that the school chooses to strap us with this now.