I voiced my concern in January and April 2010 that the 2010 Ottawa Budget numbers for salaries, wages and benefits did not balance with the relative numbers in the 2008 audited financial statements.
This revelation raised much concern at City Hall. After denials and insults from the City, Staff finally explained that the 2010 salaries, wages and benefits budget did not include employee expense associated with the Rate Supported water and sewer operations, our local boards and agencies, such as Ottawa Community Housing Corporation, and adjustments for post retirement and post employment expenses.
This is all well and good, but the annual city budget must include “all” consolidated revenue and expenses. Otherwise, what is the use of having a partial budget?
I told you so.
My prediction was that the 2009 audited financial statements would reflect employee expense at $1.3 Billion Dollars or so. Well, the recently released 2009 audited financial statements reflect this expense at $1,258,000,000. So my projection was off slightly, but certainly not off the point that the 2010 Budget and 2009 audited financial statements for employee expense did not add up.
In the adopted 2010 Ottawa Budget, the “Actual” figure for 2009 employee expense, including overtime, was $1,185,650,000. The audited 2009 audited financial statements reflect $1,258,000,000 in employee expense.
Now, that really makes my point!
There is a difference of $72 Million dollars between the 2009 budget figure and the 2009 audited financial statements, and Ottawa residents want the difference identified.
Ottawa Council must present an annual budget that includes all operations of the City and operations owned by the city, including all boards. This is a democracy for heavens sake and it is an absolute insult that this critical information must be dragged out of Council.
Or, were Council Members aware of this?
Bill O’Malley
Monday, August 9, 2010
Saturday, August 7, 2010
The Party at City Hall is Over
Anyone running in the Ottawa
Also to Blame:
-Not the current Mayor. He spoke out about union wages and benefits and paid the price.
-Senior Management for incompetence and inefficiency
-Greedy Greedy Public Sector Unions
-And, the McGuinty government for allowing outrageous wage and benefit settlements in the Ontario public sector that filtered down to Ontario
The following financial figures do not include the extremely generous “unfunded future employee benefits” which will keep the taxpayers in the poor house for years to come.
The financial figures represent a summary of the position of the City of Ottawa Ottawa
Take a hard look at the numbers and ask yourself the questions: Think about low interest rates, low inflation and the efficiencies that were promised by Bob Chiarelli.
The Highlights:
Annual Revenue in 2009 is $953 million higher that in the year 2000
The Category: Salary, wages and benefits is $593 million higher than in the year 2000
The Category: Contracted Services is $116 million higher than in the year 2000 (2000 is estimated at $60 million)
These two expense categories accounted for 75% of the expenditure of the additional revenue generated.
Please note:
Financial figures are compared from the day of Amalgamation (Dec 31 2000) to December 31 2009 unless otherwise indicated by *. Some classes of revenue and expenses have been reclassified as demanded by the Province of Ontario
Comments to wmomalley@gmail.com
Municipalities Out Of Control
Source: Audited Financial Statements
| |||||||
City of
| |||||||
As at Dec 31st
|
%
| ||||||
000’S
|
Amalgamation
|
Increase
| |||||
Date
| |||||||
Revenues
|
2000
|
2004
|
2009
| ||||
Net taxes available for
municipal purposes
|
$934,243
|
$1,059,355
|
$1,286,044
|
37.66
| |||
Fees and User Charges
|
$375,232
|
$467,690
|
$623,350
|
66.12
| |||
Government Grants
|
$276,127
|
$363,975
|
$471,419
|
70.73
| |||
Investment Income
|
$45,158
|
$40,448
|
$26,071
|
-42.27
| |||
Contributed Tangible
Capital Assets
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
$145,296
|
N/A
| |||
Interest from Ottawa Holding Inc.
|
N/A
|
$16,455
|
N/A
|
N/A
| |||
Equity in earnings of government
business enterprises
|
N/A
|
$19,659
|
$29,414 *
|
49.62
| |||
Fines and Penalties
|
N/A
|
$18,767
|
$23,567 *
|
25.58
| |||
Development Charges
|
$11,144
|
$47,052
|
$81,392
|
630.37
| |||
Other Revenue
|
$101,365
|
$30,321
|
$10,369
|
-89.77
| |||
Total Operating Revenue
|
$1,743,269
|
$2,044,063
|
$2,696,922
|
54.70
| |||
Operating expenditures by object
|
%
| ||||||
2000
|
2004
|
2009
|
Increase
| ||||
Salaries, wages and employee benefits
|
$665,004
|
$922,292
|
$1,258,156
|
89.20
| |||
Contracted and general services
|
$0
|
$86,219
|
$176,315 *
|
104.50
| |||
Materials, equipment and supplies
|
$329,343
|
$296,878
|
$500,698
|
52.03
| |||
Interest charges
|
$55,164
|
$61,462
|
$64,594
|
17.09
| |||
Rents and financial expenses
|
N/A
|
$35,537
|
$51,634 *
|
45.30
| |||
Third-party social, cultural and
recreation programs
|
N/A
|
$313,153
|
N/A
|
N/A
| |||
Capital Expenditures
|
$311,963
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
| |||
Other
|
$356,047
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
| |||
External Transfers
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
$335,185 *
|
N/A
| |||
Amortization
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
$208,205 *
|
N/A
| |||
Expenditures recovered from capital
|
N/A
|
-$28,855
|
N/A
|
N/A
| |||
Total Operating Expenses
|
$1,717,521
|
$1,686,686
|
$2,594,787
|
51.08
| |||
Saturday, July 24, 2010
The Great Canadian Census Debate
Canadian Census Blog
Munir Sheikh, the chief statistician of Statistics Canada abruptly quit, resigned, retired or was fired from his government job this past week. It appears that he actually quit in protest to the government’s position in abolishing the mandatory long-form census questionnaire. Sheikh issued a statement on leaving his position indicating that a mandatory long form census questionnaire was necessary to obtain accurate census data.
Number one is that Mr. Sheikh politicized his government job by issuing that statement. Government employees cannot play partisan politics with their government position. They must follow the wishes of the government of the day or pay the penalty. Mr. Sheikh deserves to be penalized for his very public opposition to the change in government policy over the long-form census questionnaire.
Number two is that Mr. Sheikh played willfully into the hands of the partisan media like the Globe and Mail, CBC and other elitist groups in Canada that consider themselves Royalty. Dam the people.
While other countries are moving to abolish any kind of a census, the media and elitist groups, unrepresentative of the people of Canada, are bulldozing their way to manipulating census opinion by half truths and outright lies.
All of the citizens of Canada should be educated as to the questions asked in the long-form census questionnaire. A good start for the media is to publish the questions asked in the last long-form census and then let the people decide if the questions deserved to be answered.
The last long-form basically asks you to reveal every financial detail about your household and your employment history and even goes further by asking your permission to access your income tax return. The media is purposely leaving this aspect of the long-form from their discussion of the pros and cons of the value of the information.
Rather, the media is misleading the public by referring to unimportant questions on the long-form that ask for information about how many rooms you have in your house and what time do you leave for work in the morning.
The elitist groups in Canada and the media have to level with the public. The provincial and municipal governments already have more than sufficient information in their hands to make informed and enlightened decisions on various aspects of local development without financial information from the long-form census.
Further, we are equal under the laws of this country and if 20 % of the population was required to answer questions in the previous long-form census, than in the up and coming census, 100% of the population must answer the long-form. Otherwise, this becomes a Charter Issue.
And Statistics Canada have stated that your in-depth revelation of financial data is secure in the hands of 6000 Stats Can Employees and to the elitists that buy the information from Stats Can.
Bull:
Bill O’Malley
Friday, April 16, 2010
Ottawa Annual Budget Contents
Declaration of annual budget content is necessary!
City of Ottawa
April 16th, 2010
The controversy over the recently adopted City of Ottawa 2010 Budget (Jan 2010) is still unresolved.
The “partial” budget increased property taxes by 3.9 percent.
A few days ago (April 2010) Council adopted the 2010 Water and Wastewater Budget with a rate increase of 9 percent.
Have you had a chance to comment on the Water Budget before it was adopted? Where are the detailed comparative annual numbers for the Water Budget? I haven't seen a production of the information yet. The 9 percent increase is despite the fact that water consumption has decreased due to family taxpayer's great conservation attitude. The result for you. You conserved too much water so the city is going to go for a minimum charge and then soak you for anything above that. You pay more because you used less water.
The combined Property and Water TAX increase is somewhere around 6%, and totally ridiculous. Councillors just didn't want you to know the real percentage increase in taxes that you were facing.
Now, I don't know about you, but if you are preparing a budget all relevant categories must be addressed in that budget. A budget is not a budget if the budget is only part of a budget.
Councillor Peter Hume seems to think that having one budget, but really having two budgets, without informing the taxpayer, is just fine. Too bad he will not be running for Mayor in the upcoming 2010 municipal election. If he did, he would finally have to look for a real job.
Without notifying the resident taxpayers, Council and Senior City Staff separated the budgets into what is called (1) a “Taxpayer Support” Budget and (2) a “Rate Supported” Budget. Isn't a taxpayer and a ratepayer in the City of Ottawa the same person? The cost of city operations come from the same pocket. Your pocket!
If you are a resident taxpayer, renting rather than owning your property, you pay 1.7 times the tax rate of property owners. And you don't think you have a voice! You use less space, use fewer costly city services and you are privileged to pay a premium for your conservation. This is becoming a trend. You can add water and electricity to this trend. Then you can add property taxes. The more you conserve, the more you pay.
Two or even three separate budgets would be appropriate only if all of the separate budgets are consolidated into ONE OVERALL BUDGET, to be voted on at the same council meeting once each year. This would reflect some respect for the taxpayer.
The budget questions arose in Jan 2010 when I indicated in my Blog that the 2010 Budget for salaries, wages and benefits (employee expense) was reflected at $1,221,997,000 while the 2008 audited financial statements stated employee expense at $1,176,349,000 in that year. As employee expense is rising at approximately $60 TO $70 million a year (can you imagine) at the City of Ottawa, the 2010 budget figure did not make any sense. Do the math. The 2010 Budget should have reflected total employee expense at approximately $1.3 Billion dollars or approximately $78 million dollars higher than budgeted. That's a lot of money!
During the controversy, OTAG (Ottawa Taxpayer Advocacy Group) and our local CFRA radio asked city staff and/or councillors to clarify the matter and this is what was offered. Again, it was Councillor Wilkinson that took the “bull” by the horns and dragged the answer from City Staff. She has the right attitude which is important, but I am continually surprised by what City Councillors do not know. She has my vote.
City Staff responded as follows to the difference in numbers between the audited financial statements and the annual Budget:
2. The audited financial statements include the expenses of our local boards and agencies, such as Ottawa Community Housing Corporation
3. The audited financial statements include numerous accounting adjustments for post retirement and post employment expenses which are required under the Public Sector Accounting Board reporting requirements.
It is unfortunate that Council did not inform the taxpayers of Ottawa of these facts prior to discussions of the 2010 Budget.
Therefore, be it resolved that, the 2011 Budget must include the following and be so declared by Council prior to 2011 Budget discussions:
Tax Supported Budget projections
Rate Supported Budget Projections
All Local Boards and Agencies budget projections
Projections for retirement and post employee expenses.
This means that all departments, agencies, boards and rate supported programs submit and incorporate their individual budget projections in the annual BUDGET DISCUSSIONS. Further, that requires a directive to these groups by Council. As a result, the information will be there for all to see, question, agree with or dispute. This is democracy.
Council must also require all other organizations, held by investment or otherwise that changes in fiscal year ending and Budget submission dates must compliment that of the City of Ottawa. Those Organizations or Investments must also make their financial data available to the taxpayer.
Bill O'Malley
Saturday, January 23, 2010
City of Ottawa 2010 Budget
January 21, 2010
City of Ottawa 2010 Draft Budget
“in a Nutshell”
City Council will be meeting next week (Jan 26th,2010) to discuss the 2010 Budget.
The following information will provide the resident taxpayers of Ottawa with "all they need to know" about the 2010 draft budget.
Revenue from all sources, including property taxes, is expected to increase by $96 million dollars for the 2009/2010 period. $64 million of that new revenue will be used for additional employee expense. Almost all of the remaining new revenue ($32 million) will only cover inflationary costs for the balance of “other City budget expenses”.
Nothing has changed at city hall over the years other than employee and inflationary costs. Councillors can easily adopt the budget next week in one day as they did last year.
The resident taxpayer will pay an additional 3.9 percent more property tax than last year ( not including the increase in your property value) while commercial/industrial and “in lieu of “ taxes remain flat. The weight of the tax increase is on your shoulders only.
_______________________________________________
Senior City staff presented the 2010 Operating and Capital Budget dated December 9th, 2009.
Of the total 2010 projected operating revenue, employee expense is $1,221,997,000 ($1 billion $221 million $997 thousand dollars)
Now, the 2010 budget is projecting $93 million dollars in new revenue over 2009 from all sources including grants etc.
Of the total 2010 projected new revenue of $93 million, $64 million will be utilized for employee salary, wages and benefits.
Employee Expense is devouring 69 percent of the new projected revenue.
The majority of the balance of new revenue ($29 million) will only cover annual inflationary expenses on the remaining city operating costs of $1,096,748,000 ($1 billion $96 million $748 thousand dollars). This is no different than prior years. The city is at an economic standstill and has been for the past decade while employees reap outrageous salaries and benefits gains and the property taxpayers are driven into the poor house because of the lack of participation in the democratic process by many resident taxpayers.
Of the projected 2010 new employee expense of $64 million, almost $23 million of that amount is designated for OC transport employee expense, or 36 percent of the total.
The last time I looked, OC transport has approximately 14 percent of total City employee FTE (full time equivalent) positions at the City.
The transport Committee should be happy with this, especially Alex Cullen. I projected last September at a city hall meeting that this would be the case in 2010. Alex Cullen was not happy with my projection. Well, now he has no choice, but to acknowledge it.
The other thing about "employee expense" that is mysterious:
In 2010, total employee costs are projected at $1,221,997,000 ($1 billion $221 million $997 thousand dollars). This represents 53 percent of the total budget. Employee expense as a percentage compared to revenue is the highest of any municipality in Ontario.
The 2008 City of Ottawa audited financial statements certify total employee expenses in that year of $1,176,349,000 ($1 billion $176 million $349 thousand).
Now, the difference between the 2010 employee expense projection and the 2008 figure is $45,997,000 ($45 million $997 thousand) for the two years.
That is simply impossible.
2008 Audited Financial Statements: Employee Expense $1,176,349,000
2010 Draft Budget: Employee Expense $1,221,997,000
The Difference: $ 45,997,000
The increase in employee costs as per the 2010 budget between 2008 and 2009 is $65 million and the increase between 2009 and 2010 as stated above is $64 million. (rounded numbers)
The draft budget reflects the total increase in employee costs from 2008 to 2010 of $130 million.
One cannot have a difference of $45 million for employee expense between the most reliable source for financial data as the 2008 audited financial statement and the 2010 projected budget, when the 2010 budget itself totals the difference as $130 million for the same period.
Therefore my conclusion is that employee expense will be recorded in the future 2010 audited financial statements as $1,304,997,000. In other words, Senior Staff are knowingly underestimating 2010 employee expense by $83,000,000 ($83 million dollars). Can you imagine?
It is clear that something has to change at the City of Ottawa this municipal election year for the good of democracy and the pocketbooks of the taxpayer.
*This means a total change in councillors at election time
*a change in senior staff
*a reduction in employee salaries and benefits through employee layoffs
*or an employee cost freeze and/or salary and expense rollback
*and more residents of the City of Ottawa to embrace democracy by direct participation in the municipal process before it is lost for good.
Bill O'Malley
Comments are welcome at wmomalley@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)