Mayor of Ottawa needs a shake!

Hi All,

Procurment!

Why is the senior management hiring a Quebec Firm to audit its procurment system. Has anyone heard about the Corruption Inquiry in Quebec?

Published Blogs have indicated that the City of Ottawa is one of the few municipalities in Ontario that does not publish all contract detail. Well,  I have looked at The City of Ottawa's claim to fame in publishing all contract information. Believe me the information is basically worth ZERO.

Can anyone tell me why a fireman for the City of Ottawa should have an average pay package of salary and benefits of $133,000 per annum and the average police employess cost is $129,000. Is anyone able to tell me why the average Canadian salary is a low $43,000. Something is wrong and I have the answer.

Can anyone tell me how the City of Ottawa paid an increase in salaries and benefits to its employees for over $60,000,000 in one year, (our employees) while the total income of the City declined in that year. Where did the money come from?

I have a lot more for Jim Watson to contimplate. He is not telling, but I am. As for the Council? I have no comment at this moment. It would be a waste of ink.



Bill O'Malley

Ottawa Housing Service 2011 Draft Budget

Ottawa Housing Service 2011 Draft Budget

Jim Watson was the Minister of Housing for Ontario prior to resigning his seat and running for the position of Mayor of Ottawa.

So it is not surprising that the Ottawa Housing Department has been moved from Community and Social Affairs Committee to the Planning Committee. The move doesn’t make any sense and Jim Watson has to be questioned directly about it. There is something sinister going on here.

The 2011 budget calls for 61 FTE  (employees) at an average salary of $102,459.00, up from $76,582.00 in 2005. This is the typical 6 percent annual increase in employment expense experienced in almost every City of Ottawa department since amalgamation. FTE has declined from 67 in 2005 to the current 61 proposed for 2011 in the Ottawa Housing Service Department. So there is clearly something wrong here, but no one wants to talk about it.

The real story! It’s the revenue versus the expenses.

The revenue consists of $146,878,000, all from you, the taxpayer:

 $88 million from the municipal taxpayers of Ottawa

 $29 million from the taxpayers of Ontario

 $29 million from the taxpayers of Canada.

And this is where the money is spent:

2011 Expenses

Manager's Office $577,000 Housing Programs $103,898,000 Family and Emergency Shelter $18,432,000 Affordable Housing $408,000 Domiciliary Housing $9,257,000 Homeless support $7,124,000 National Homeless Initiative $7,352,000 Service Innovation -$170,000
What’s missing from the above numbers? We need to know the breakdown of expenses for each category. I think that is reasonable. If you want to spend  $104 million this year on the Housing Program category,  provide the details please. I am not sure why our municipal tax dollars are being  spent for a National Home Imitative. Councillors  will have to figure this out and report  back to the taxpayer. And that leads to questions about the operations of The  Ottawa Community Housing Corporation, wholly  owned by the City of Ottawa. As noted in my previous writings in 2010, the 2011  Budget for this Corporation must be incorporated into the overall city budget and preferably, within the  Housing Service budget. This our money. The Ottawa Community Housing released its 2011 draft  budget on January 13th, 2011. I wasn’t impressed.  The  Corporation is projecting average manageable costs per  unit at $2,923.00. Manageable costs include administrative and maintenance  salaries and benefits, maintenance overhead, maintenance  materials and services, insurance and bad debts. There are  1044 units. I find the cost per unit extremely high.  and will  research available information on other similar operations  across the Country and report on the results in the coming  weeks. In the meantime, Jim Watson or senior management have  to explain why the Housing Service Department has  moved to the Planning Committee. Bill O’Malley

Ottawa Public Works-Notes.

 

Sometimes, as I am reviewing the data from the operations of the City of Ottawa, my head involuntary moves from side to side. The numbers are that unreasonable.

Take for example numbers from the General Manager’s Office. In 2009, there were 19 authorized FTE (employees) and annual employment expense of $1,490,000 or an average per FTE of $74,421.

For 2011, FTE has decreased to 17 yet employee costs increased to $1,748,000 or $102,823 per FTE. My friends, that is an increase of 38 percent in just 2 years. What is going on?

If we skip over to Traffic, Management and Operational Support,

We find that there has been virtually no change in the number of FTE over the past two years, yet employee expense for 2011 has rocketed by 12.35 percent. Geez!

Bill O’Malley

Transportation Committee-Public Works

Transportation Committee

Public Works

There are 6 sub-departments in this group.

Roads and Traffic Maintenance

Traffic Management and Operational Support

Public Works General Manager’s Office

Transportation Planning

Fleet Services

Parking

We will commence this section with a short overview of the total department.

Overview:

Public Works wants to spend $234 million in 2011. Of this amount, revenue from fees and services and other recoveries will reduce the amount to a net expense of $136 million of your property tax dollars. It will take 1100 employees to run the operation, each employee costing an average of $81,026. Employment costs are projected to increase 10 percent for the years 2010 and 2011. There is no significant increase in employees since 2009. Please take note!

Roads and Traffic Maintenance

This sub-department is projecting Gross Expenses of $131 million, less recoveries and revenues, netting an expense of $116 million. They want to spend $55 million on employee costs, $43 million on material and services and $27 million on fleet services. There are 691 employees each costing the department $80,228 in 2011.

The requested average employee costs are 12 percent higher than 2 years ago (2009).

We should stop here and think about the unreasonable escalation of these expenses. In general, City of Ottawa employee costs have been increasing at an average of 6 percent every year since amalgamation. The employee expense is some 53 percent of the total City of Ottawa budget. That’s translates into an annual increase of some $70 million year. A 2.5 percent property tax increase this year will not cover this expense. There are ways to make up the shortfall, but it won't be from other expense reduction in other categories. It will be from User Fees, fines and penalties, gas tax or other government grants from the provincial and federal governments. It is obvious to all but senior management and councillors that something has to be done to reverse this dangerous trend.

Material costs in this department are “flat”since 2009, but Fleet costs are projected to increase 9 percent for the years 2010 and 2011. How does a sub- department spend $27 million in one year on fleet costs?

Well the answer is that $23 million is attributed to “fleet maintenance costs”. The 2011 costs are 12 percent higher than the close of business of year 2009. Is the rolling stock falling apart or what? Management needs to examine fleet costs soon.

General operations expenses are 11 percent higher than 2009.

These three expenses make up the lion share of the total expenses.

You should not have any difficulty recognizing the problem. You might want to ask your councillor more about the operations in this department.

Bill O’Malley

Ottawa Public Health

 

Ottawa Public Health and Long Term Care

 

Important subjects, right?

Provincial legislation or not, these two departments have no business extracting funds from municipal taxpayers. Health care is a provincial responsibility under federal law.

The province refunds the municipality for the lion’s share of expenses, but the two departments will have a drain on Ottawa resident taxpayers to the tune of some $24 million this year as outlined in the 2011 draft budget.

Back in 2001, these two departments operated as one.

Ottawa Public Health

Responsibilities have expanded over the past 10 years. Still, those responsibilities should not be paid for from your property tax.

This separate department had a gross expenditure of $20,315,000 in 2001. The province paid for $8,334,000 of the expenses and there were recoveries of another $2,800,000 from other areas. It still required $7,975,000 from the Ottawa taxpayer to balance its books.

2001 salaries, wages and benefits for 239 employees consumed 71 percent of the gross expenditures. Average annual salary was $60,414.00.

In 2011, the Department wants to spend $52,828,000. That’s a 150 percent increase since 2001. Of the gross expenditure, The Ottawa property taxpayer is being asked to cover $13,094,000.

The department has grown from 239 employees in 2001 to a projected level of 505 employees in 2011 or a 111 percent increase.

Average annual salaries would be $86,035.00

Even though the province funds a large portion of the expense, it is our tax dollars in either case. Growth in this department is far beyond residential growth and is a symptom of the ills in our total health system.

Long Term Care

On the other hand, growth in this separate department over the same years has been neglected. It is a case of getting your priorities right. The people requiring long term care have been ill served.

In 2001, there were 537 employees in the Long Term Health Department. In 2011, 576 employees will be required.

Everyone knows that the demographics have indicated increasing demand for this type of care, but priorities have been misplaced. The municipality would rather spend more money on advocating non-life-threatening health issues through the Public Health Department than spending money on people that need care in order to survive.

You can see the difference when you compare salaries with the two departments. Long Term Health employees will have an average salary, including benefits, of $51,705.00 in 2011, while the public advocacy group will have an average salary, including benefits of $86,035.00. It really doesn’t make any sense when comparing the number of employees or employee costs.

The new Ottawa Council should really look at the priorities in these departments.

Bill O’Malley

By-Law and Regulatory Services

By-Law and Regulatory Services

Well, well, well!  Surprise, surprise, surprise!

This department is strictly about making money. It has no other mandate. The By-Law department has grown more than any other department at the City of Ottawa. Revenue has grown rapidly every year since amalgamation, and the number of employees in this department has too.

 The revenue is a tax grab against unsuspecting citizens and has nothing to do with maintaining good order in the City of Ottawa, nor protecting anyone.

If you wanted to downsize a City of Ottawa department, this is where you start.

Look at these numbers:

Annual revenue has grown from $3,506,000 in 2001 to a 2011 budget figure of $23,825,000. 

That’s 579 percent!

Ottawa is a city comprised of mostly intelligent and educated citizens with an average annual income above the majority of other Canadians.

Are the citizens of Ottawa so abusive in respecting by-laws issued by Ottawa City Council that would account for this growth in revenue? I don’t think so. What it is, is an aggressive application of by-laws in order to grow the number of employees in this department by continually contributing excess revenue to the general coffers of the City of Ottawa. It is the gravy train for senior management and Council and this department can pretty well do what ever it wants.

Excess revenue (that is money that many unfortunate citizens have to pay) will total some $18 million dollars just for the period 2009-2001.

The Budget for 2011 reflects total revenue at $23, 825,000 and expenses at $18,204,000. Excess revenue is $5,621,000.

So let’s look at some of the expenses.

Employee costs make up 74 percent of the total expense of the department.

Annual employment expense has grown from $3,370,000 in 2001 to $13,427,000 as reflected in the 2011 Budget. That’s a 298 percent increase during the 2001-2011 period. Think about it. Does it make any sense?

Fleet costs (automobiles) will cost this department $1,069,000 in 2011. That’s a lot of money! How many of the vehicles are owned by the city and how many of them are leased?  What a waste of money.

The only other expense of any consequence is that of “material and supplies”. This category has grown from approximately $800,000 in 2001 to an annual expense of $2,815,000 in 2011. Wow! I wonder what they buy annually for $2,815,000? Tickets! They need to print a lot of tickets to issue every day. And maybe a few computers and desks to add up the daily bounty.

It should come as no surprise that the number of department employees has grown since amalgamation. In 2001, 69 FTE was sufficient to effectively enforce the By-Laws of this city.

In 2011, it will take 180 FTE to do the same job. That’s a 161 percent increase in employees.

Now what kind of money do these people make? Well, for the year 2011, the average employee expense will be $74, 594.00. That’s a big cost just to hand out tickets. In 2001, the annual cost per employee was $48,840.That’s a 53 percent increase over the period. Nice if you can get it.

The By-Law and Regulatory Service Department must be downsized. There is just no need for the number of employees in this department. Expenses for material supplies and fleet services are simply too high. The Auditor General should be auditing this department with an aspect to making recommendations to make it more efficient.

Bill O’Malley

Paramedics 2011 Draft Budget

Paramedics 2011 Draft Budget

Transit, Fire, Police protection and Paramedic Services are very important elements in base City services, but at a reasonable cost.

A trend has developed whereby these services are expanding far in excess of the population of the city. Employee costs make up the lion’s share of the total expenditure and the increase in this cost is far in excess of those experienced in the private sector.

That’s the facts!

In 2002, under a different name, the budget for paramedics was $29,307,000. Employee expense was $23,186,000. The number of employees totaled 348.

In 2011, the draft budget for Paramedic Services reflects a gross expenditure of $69,760,000 with $57,303,000 of the amount expended for employee compensation. Total numbers of employees on hand or to be added in 2011 are 600.

So what we have again, and again, is in this situation, the gross expenditures increasing by 138 percent in 8 years and the employee expense increasing by 147 percent, while the number of employees increased by 72 percent.

In 2011, the gross expenses are offset by grants from The Ontario Government of $37,567,000 and various fees of $280,000. But folks, this is our tax money, municipal or provincial. The cost doesn’t change.

Average compensation cost in 2002 was $66,626.00 and in 2011, the draft budget employee cost is $95,505.00. Nice if you can get it.

Bill O’Malley