Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "It's Not The
Deal":
Communities evolve, governments don't
Is it really
overly difficult to understand that town revenues generate just so many dollars,
and we have to live within those amounts?
Capital assets deteriorate over
time and provisions must be made for repair or replacement.
Staff need
to be directed by Council vision, if there is such a thing, and held accountable
for all expenditure.
*************
It sounds authoritative. In terms of budget , it's dead wrong. There are no recognized limits to government spending in Aurora.
According to a published statement, we take money out of your pockets, with something called "cash to capital." and place it in reserve accounts. In following years , we spend it . With a straight face , it's possible to do so "on the basis of need" and not be influenced by questions of "funding issues"
"Funding issues" presumably being affordability.
"Need" being doling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to volunteer groups to spend with no accountability whatsoever.
There's a reserve fund named "Council's Discretionary Fund".
For definition read slush fund
Last I heard it mentioned , $1.3 million were tucked away.
Didn't even know about it.
If a private business fails to keep costs in check, it is no longer competitive.Clients are lost.Business fails and bankruptcy follows.
Public business has a monopoly. If the elected body is not vigilant, there are no checks . No conscience at work. No limits to how high taxes can be increased to pay for whatever wins friends and influences enemies. or for no good purpose whatsoever.
One of a number of items discussed on Monday's budget session was $100,000 for the Arboretum.
An annual payment has been made since 2007 .Last year the request was for "only" $50,000.
This year, the request is apparently "only" $60,000.
The new figure was not proffered until the item was raised for discussion.
I moved the item be deleted from the capital budget.
I pointed out when it was first allocated, we had just sold hydro, interest on the capital was available and the project seemed worthwhile.
Things have changed. The economy took a downturn. Interest on reserve funds is minimal . The funds are now coming from taxes
We have the emerald ash borer and destruction of hundreds of trees in the urban forest to contend with and Council has made a decision to "wean"ourselves from $600,000 a year contributed to general revenues from hydro reserve fund interest.
The fund is actually losing value as a result.
Councillor Gaertner argued the Arboretum is a small group, mostly elderly and hundreds of volunteer hours are contributed. The Councillor invited Leisure Services Director to outline his vision
He cheerfully complied
Several other Councillors agreed to the value of volunteerism.
The motion to delete failed. I'm not sure if it even received a seconder.
The facts are not exactly as stated.
The Arboretum group does not do the heavy lifting indicated by Councillor Gaertner. The parks department does.
First year , a contract was let for weeding flower beds.
Second year,they bought a building to store garden tools.. It cost close to $50,000.
Third year somebody backed a tractor into the door jam of the building.
Nobody acknowledged responsibility.
The next year construction rubble was removed from around the AFLC and replaced with garden soil and massive stone blocks The project cost around $87,000.
Last year the request was for "only" $50,000 . It was used in a contract to plant the beds created the year before at the bottom of a slope.
Not hugely visible.
I moved the motion originally in 2007 to provide the funds.A million dollars over a ten year period seemed enough to make an impact. We were flush with nine hundred thousand dollars a year from interest on the Hydro Reserve.It seemed like a good use.
Half a million has been spent already. I took a drive around the Arboretum on Tuesday to see the progress.
It's like a drop in the bucket.
If the parks department had that money, there would be accountability. . Priorities would be established.
This way no-one is accountable to taxpayers
The Arboretum are a well-meaning handful of volunteers.
I understand the Newsletter does not attribute funding to the town. It's probably an oversight but it contributes nothing to public awareness of where the funds came from.
Councillor Gaertner argues we should not cut the flow of funds. because it would discourage volunteerism.The sentiment was echoed around the table.
It's but a sample of the vision and stewardship your elected body contributes to the budget process
There are others.
If Council s willing to hand out hundreds of thousands of dollars to non-accountable groups to spend willy-nilly, why should we expect the administration who are accountable to the same Council, to exercise restraint.
The word is not in their lexicon.
ReplyDeleteIt is my understanding that the town spent $700,000, being funds that were charged out, only to have this amount reversed by an OMB ruling. Apparently there will be an additional amount that will be back-charged.
It must be nice to spend money that one does not have in hand, on the assumption that one day it will come in.
Accrual accounting, including provisions for development fees to come at a later date, is a dangerous tool.
Some of the provisional or reserve funds are really not worth anything until the cold, hard cash is received.
Yet Council keeps dipping into these reserves that do not yet exist.
And if the reserves are not large enough an accrual is made for a future year or two when development fee monies will be received.
Council should NOT spend what is not in the till.
It would be better to offer debt obligations for sale, bonds, to be retired after a fixed period of time from future revenues.
And the town's fee structure is a joke. Fees, according to the draft document for 2013 have generally not increased at all from 2012. But costs have gone up.
Why are fees not a reflection of actual cost? User fees should be in force and if there has to be an increase of 10% or 20%, so be it.
Why should the majority of residents, who do not make use of town facilities, have to pay for those who do?
To Anonymous 12:12...
ReplyDeleteNo offence sir/madam, but how dare you confuse the argument with facts. That is not fair in an environment of hyperbole.
Our elected official know nothing of accrual accounting. They know nothing of accounting at all, there have been questions about accounting here in the past. They know nothing about encumbrance accounting either.
Look at the "accounting" of the Ribfest for example. What a dog's breakfast that is.
Everything should be user based pricing. I don't use the fields or pools or rinks... why should I pay for them?
ReplyDeleteAnd despite all this SLUSH the town gets a "qualified" clean bill of health from the auditor.
SHAME1
To 10:43 PM
ReplyDeleteThe auditors were only looking to make sure proper procedures are followed. They don't look at the content.
You can shovel S**T into different buckets all day, in the end it's still S**T!
4:02 PM, it's called living in a "community". What you use or don't is your choice, but amenities need to be there for the community as a whole.
ReplyDelete9:24 AM.... why don't you want to pay for a cultural centre then?
ReplyDeleteTo 9:24 AM
ReplyDeleteMay I offer a correction? Only certain amenities need to be there for the community..In tough times, the town must decide which are justified as ' Needs '. Aurora has one enormous amenity that does not fit into the required and needed categories. You can wiggle & argue to your heart's content, but the town would get along quite nicely without it.
3:04 PM, you must be mistaking me for another anonymous commenter. A cultural centre is fine by me, as is the library, the arboretum, and ALL the different sports facilities (indoor & outdoor), plus the seniors centre, as well as a host of other amenities you could name (e.g. the proposed heritage park sounds great).
ReplyDeleteHow many of the above amenities has our family availed ourselves of? Not many, and even less in recent years. But, would I presume that the Town shouldn't provide a wide range of athletic, recreational, and cultural events and facilities because we would only use a few?
No, never, because we live in a community of fifty-five thousand fellow Aurorans and it would be insensitive and arrogant to suggest that others should be denied what we might not want or need.
(p.s. @4:16 PM: "wiggle"? Not a pretty picture...)