Friday, February 4, 2011

Where do numbers come from?

The municipalities financial statements.
We can debate all night long about weather new positions are just old positions being reincarnated, or a full time position is not really new because it was half time before. Or we will get a grant for a position for the next three years so it does not really count or we can take FCSS money and spend it on additional staff instead of going to programs. So it really does not count either.
But at the end of the day the numbers never lie so when I get them I will print them and then we will all get to read them together.

All of these numbers appear on the municipalities web site under the financial statements.

2000 Total cost of Salaries/Wages/Benefits $2,693,585

2005 Total cost of Salaries/Wages/Benefits $3,593,322

2009 Total cost of Salaries/Wages/Benefits $4,572,803

2010 Total cost of Salaries/Wages/Benefits ??????????

2011 Total cost of Salaries/Wages/Benefits ??????????

The number grew from 2000 to 2009 at an average of 7% a year is that sustainable?, how much will 2010's number grow by? What will be the projection for 2011 will the public see that?

10 comments:

peter rosner said...

i am a union man so i do not begrudge anyone making a decent living what i do not support is abuse.I checked out the financial statements you refered to and i will use the 2009 year as an example . Line 14 Salary and benefits disclosure for Councillers,The Mayor,CAO and three designated officers was a hanful of cash. What really fascinated me was line 4 Employee Benefits Obligations. The employees accumulate two days of sick leave for each month of employment up to a total of 120 working days. 50% of the acccumulated sick pay not used will be payed out upon retirement if you have at least 10 years of service. The 2009 year showed that the municipality paid out $330,117 in sick pay. This could have been a combination of actual sick pay and payouts regardless it is excessive. To think you could miss 24 days of work a year and be paid is above any industry standard. Am i correct in my thinking

John Prince said...

If my mempory serves me right 10 years ago the CAO was getting approximately $72,000 annually. Now I understand our latest one is getting almost double that. This is way out of line for a municipality of our size. Don't you think?

I wonder what the wage increases for our other department heads over this 10 years period are? (that btw saw our property taxes increase by 57%?) If they are similar to the CAO's, then I say, it is time to reign the pigs in at the trough, from top to bottom. Failing that, I say make them start producing (and forget hiring more people to make their jobs even more cushier) and thereby start getting our money's worth i.e. if we are not already getting our monies worth? Otherwise, we are nothing more than a gravy train for the over fed in our community, during a time of famine for many.

John Prince said...

Further to my comment above:

Some 15 years ago, or so, when we had a population of approximately 12,000 people, we had 42 employees. Today, with a population of less than half that we have 52-54?

It would seem municipal governance here has become bloated, over paid and self-serving. Wages and benefits make up the biggest expense to the municipality (1/3) followed by debt servicing. Therefore, until we address the real reasoning for the 57% increase in property taxes over the last 10 years, we will continue to have more of the same.

This Mayor and council needs to do what Dean and the last council were trying to do i.e. bring fiscal responsibility (and accountability) back to the table by way of due dilligence. Its time to pull the purse strings tight and stop being free and easy with taxpayer money.

peter rosner said...

The vacation and sick time liablity is comprised of the vacation and sick time that employees are deferring to future years. Employees have either earned the benefits(and they are vested)or are entitled to these benefits within the next budgetary year. AT this time i will apologize to any municipal worker reviewing this site as i dont believe the municipality paid out the amount i had originally thought. I do not know that figure. That would be interesting to know as the amount vested changes from year to year

Anonymous said...

Population of 12,000? Get the facts right, we have never been this big or anywhere near.In 1998 we had 6400, thats 13 years ago.The rest I agree with.
There seems to be a lot of harping, but when was the last time we had a 0% tax increse.I am happy with that. Maybe a year from now I will not be, but for now this is great.

John Prince said...

I stand corrected. I guess the point I was trying to make is that in the past, when we had a much bigger population, it took much fewer employees to run this place than it does now. Why is that?

Besides the 0% tax increase what else got accomplished? ... towing the line? That's not much of an accomplishment. Why are you satisfied with that this year knowing full well nothing has changed to ensure the cycle doesn't start all over again next year, or the next... Unless structural changes are made it is fooling yourself to think endemic problems are going to magically go away. Hard decisions have to be made and I didn't see any made by this Mayor and council on this budget. Not real hard decisions. Hopefully, we'll see it by the next one?

Anonymous said...

Thank you Anon. 11:21 for correcting the population miss statement and Peter Rosner for your correction. While we are at I do not think the figure of 57 percent tax increase in the past years is correct. The information on Dean’s post “Holding the Line” shows the taxes went up 47 percent in nine years. Over stating a point is not helpful in understanding what is going on.

I know most people feel we are over staffed but it is not a simple job figuring out what can be streamlined. After all you have to remember we have had 30 years of councils with little to no business understanding running things. I think we have a couple of councilors working to understand how things can be done better. The others, well the jury is out with me.

Anonymous said...

John, New council with 4 months under their belts and they deliver a 0% tax increase.I think we have to give them credit for this.Only time will tell what they deliver in the future.

peter rosner said...

it is good to hear things from another point of view. And i fully understand this is not a fair arena for municipal employees.I am not an accountant but like many taxpayers am just trying to get an understanding of where the tax dollars go. We have all seen the white elephants over the years and projects not completed hopefully this council has the answers. I believe the previous council was attempting to do just that and the public didnt give them the chance to go any further.

John Prince said...

Boy, I tell ya, taking my cough medicine before posting my earlier comment on our population being 100% larger 15 years ago, rather than 50%, as well as stating we've seen a 57% increase to 'property taxes', must have affected my memory cells? :-) I stand corrected again, in that I should have said there has been a 57% increase in 'total operating and capital costs' instead, as the following spreadsheet clearly shows...

Budget comparison

Anon @5:52
You are right, it is a good start. Let’s hope they can do even better next time around. But until the majority on council start thinking and working like businessmen/women instead of like those we have been used to, who too have grown accustomed to being pampered and spoiled feeding at the public tit like our municipal workforce, with their automatic annual 'generous' increases/payments to their wages, benefits and pensions, such as what doctors and teachers have enjoyed over the years, I have my concerns whether the tough decisions that need to be made will be? Considering we have at least two former teachers at the council table, one of whom just happens to be our new Mayor?