Are we, the “per capita” class, so irrelevant as Mark Amorosi describes us?

By Gerry Barker

November 14, 2916

The man in charge of our administration finances has gone out of his way to pooh-pooh the documented proof that compared per capita costs with other Ontario cities is irrelevant when it comes to Guelph’s financial situation.

I give Mr. Amorosi the silver tongue award for twisting and manipulating the facts. Here’s an example:

Guelph citizen Pat Fung, CA, CPA presented to council in September referred the statement made by Mr. Amorosi during the 2016 budget talks last December.

“The DCAO (Amorosi) stated the staff budgets has been reduced in successive years.”

Well, what’s Mr. Amorosi’s definition of “budgets?”

Here’s his explanation: Mr. Fung used the city’s official audited statements to show that expenses have increased by 52 per cent since Mr. Amorosi joined the staff in 2008. The chief of city finances claimed that he was referring to “reduced budgets in successive years” as part of the budget preparation. He referenced using data from starting point to presentation to council as evidence to support this – Mr. Fung’s statement disregards this context.”

Welcome to Amorosi-Speak.

The DCAO, responsible for the most important portfolio in the City of Guelph’s Corporate portfolio, shoots down the legitimate analysis prepared by a financial expert, that clearly shows our public finances are not on a “solid financial foundation” as Mr. Amorosi keeps saying.

Is he now telling council that Pat Fung does not understand budgeting? Is he saying he doesn’t understand “context?” For the record, Mr. Fung has done more corporate budgets and analysis including, reducing overhead costs than Mark Amorosi has ever experienced as a Human Resources trained specialist.

So if Mark Amorosi believes that city expenses did not rise by 52 per cent in eight years, why have our citizen’s expenses living in Guelph payable to the city, its subsidiary corporations and cost sharing with outside institutions, have collectively increased by an estimated 80 per cent? It is particularly interesting when the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased by only 16 per cent during the same period.

Let us count the ways of how our Guelph costs have risen during the same eight years. Property taxes have almost doubled; electricity charges have increased by 42 per cent in four years; water bills have increased by more than 83 per cent since 2007; transit subsidy of 15 million a year; bicycle lanes development annual subsidy of $300,000; waste management operational losses of $270,000 a year; now the city is charging residents wanting to deliver trash to the multi-million dollar Waste Management Innovation Resource Centre $5 to use the facility the citizens financed.

The liability nobody in charge wants to talk about

But the biggie current white elephant liability is the cost of the Community Energy Initiative (CEI), managed by Guelph Municipal Holding Inc (GMHI) that has worthless assets. GMHI is bound by legal contracts that must be unwound. Add a debt load estimated to be $90 million including an impaired asset of some $69 million, as stated in the city’s 2015 annual audited financial statement. It’s now sitting on the city books as an impaired asset that GMHI has no financial ability to pay back or even hold tangible underlying assets.

That was originally a loan from Guelph Hydro that GMHI controlled when the former Mayor and her GHMI board folded Guelph Hydro into GMHI. Now the city has moved Guelph Hydro to become a city-controlled department eliminating any former arms length relationship with the utility.

Why did council do this? Because it is paving the way to sell Guelph Hydro to pay off the GMHI debacle and get that impaired asset off the city books. It is possible that the sale could bring in some $150,000.

Do we really want to have Mr. Amorosi get his hands on $150 million after the dubious track record of the previous Farbridge administration and now the Guthrie administration? Is it oblivious of what has occurred to the city’s finances in the past two years?

Mr. Fung’s analysis is dead on. Guelph has serious spending problems that is not going away.

Here’s why. There are the political reasons and there is the cost of operations.

First, let’s consider finances. As Mr. Fung has accurately pointed out, the city has a very high cost of operational overhead. It’s 50 per cent higher than either Kitchener or Cambridge. In his analysis he pointed out that staff costs are eating a large piece of the operating budget. This area is manageable and does not affect services to the public.

Cutting the city administration overhead is not being considered

But Mr. Amorosi refuses to even consider reducing staff. In fact in his first two budgets as chief of finance, he persuaded council to add some 40 additional full-time staff.

Judging from the reports coming out of city hall regarding the 2017 budget, we could be facing a total city tax and user fee increases of 5 per cent. First, there is the staff proposal of 1.96 per cent; then add the proposed .5 per cent, ten-year special levy for infrastructure maintenance; then add the annual assessment increase on property; the storm water levy of $4 a month added to your hydro bill; your water levy that will be increased by 4 per cent starting in January; your hydro bill over which the city now has control; Premier Wynne’s carbon tax will be billed starting in January on your hydro bill; the high cost of just moving around in Guelph, transit, parking, increased traffic congestion.

These are citizens’ pocketbook costs that Mr. Amorosi fails to calculate when the 2017 budget is being presented, not just to city council but to we “per capita citizens” who actually pay the greatest proportion of the approved budget.

According to the city Human Resources department there are some 1.440 city-staff only employees. of which 55.5 per cent do not live in Guelph including Mr. Amorosi and Mr. Thomson. Wonder why some 799 city employees don’t live where they work or don’t pay taxes? Is it possible that Guelph is too expensive in which to reside?

Council still doesn’t get it

It is interesting that council voted 11 to 1 to adopt the ten-year property tax special levy to pay for the infrastructure backlog that eight years of the Farbridge administration failed to address. Failed that is because of investing in other priorities such as bike lanes; vehicle lane reductions; Urbacon lawsuit; overbuilt Waste Management Innovation Resource Centre on Dunlop Drive; the Communality Energy Initiative and focusing on downtown redevelopment.

But the Farbridge administration had no capital to build a south-end recreational centre or a new downtown library. Unless the operational overhead costs are not substantially reduced, don’t expect either of these projects to be built in the next ten years. The Chief Administrative Officer has stated that the nine-year capital spending budget is already $170 million short of capital and it’s only a year old.

It’s more than establishing priorities; it’s about serving the needs of the people, the “per capita citizens” whose needs have been ignored and left behind. Not by just the dedicated Ms. Farbridge loyalists, but present control of the city by James Gordon and the rest of the Bloc of Seven on council.

With thousands of litres of water leaking from municipal pipes why is council talking about Nestle?

And what are they talking about? It’s about the underground aquifer from which Guelph and other communities draw their water. Instead they focus on Nestle drawing water at Aberfoyle urging the province to control bottled water operations.

Yet they say or do nothing about the tremendous leakage of water from the city’s aging pipes. The amount of water taken by Nestle is miniscule compared to the water wasted and leakage problem in Guelph. Their solution? Increase taxes to pay for repairs.

Do we really trust this administration to use our money to be spent on infrastructure repairs with its record of tapping into dedicated reserves over the last ten years to balance the city books?

Sorry that my trust in this administration to work for the people has long vanished.

I am reminded of a motion, I believe it was in the 2015 budget to spend $50,000 to solve the infestation of Canada geese in the city parks, particularly those located adjacent to water. Recently during my wife’s morning walk; sidestepping the goose pooh, she counted 127 geese in Riverside Park.

If council and staff can’t handle the goose problem, how can we expect it to solve the mismanagement of our “per capita” finances?

If you have not read the Fung analysis, it can be obtained from http://www.guelphspeaks



Filed under Between the Lines

11 responses to “Are we, the “per capita” class, so irrelevant as Mark Amorosi describes us?

  1. Glen

    It is becoming abundantly clear that the only thing relating to a goose in Guelph is that what is continuing to be “goosed” is the overtaxed Guelph citizenry. The headcount of Full time Employees ( FTE’s) of the city has outstripped the population growth by multiples. Why would any city employee put forth budget recommendations with any staff cuts? There is no incentive for the DCAO in charge of budgets to control expenses when the CAO espouses that the infrastructure under funding goes back decades as a reason for a tax levy on top of greater than inflation proposed property tax increases. Talk about a wimpy reason for continuing unsustainable tax increases! The near $100 million “frittered” away in the past 10 years by tax and spend members of council would have readily paid for infrastructure maintenance & upgrades.
    Is there no one on council with the guts to put forth a motion directing the CAO to make the Fung proposed operational cuts to provide funding for infrastructure renewal? If there is such a councillor, will the bloc of 8 (yeah its up by 1 since another councillor went over to the “dark side” ) take their usual stance of tax and spend budgeting and refuse any cuts?

  2. guelphspeaks reader

    Selling off Guelph Hydro, a public asset, to cover the DE/CEI mismanagement of public funds, is abhorrent. The staff and council at City Hall simply do not care. The people who got the tens and tens of millions spent obviously don’t care about accountability or where the money came from.They all just keep collecting, and watching their publicly funded, privately managed pension funds grow, as others face increased hardship because of their actions.

  3. geo

    Lying elite Council

  4. guelphspeaks reader

    r4a: you and other Liberal elites, even in the wake of the Trump win, still can’t seem to stop yourselves from talking down to people who don’t agree with you, or call the actions and policies of the politicians and systems you support into question. While the vast majority of liberals are excusing themselves from responsibility for Hillary’s loss by blaming it on race, the smart ones-the unafraid to rock the boat ones-are citing class, economic elitism, and a hypocritical candidate who showed that Democrats are no longer the Party of the People. You make a huge stink about Trump not paying taxes, while neglecting to mention, he did so legally under the Democrat-run tax system. As for your statement that, “Comparing local problems to Trumpism has missed the richness and at the same time the depravity of real life.”, you are the one missing the boat. While the Farbridge administration spent tens and tens of millions on a vanity program, (according to the line now being fed to Guelph ratepayers) infrastructure went unattended. All that money was spent in secret. Sitting councillors who were being paid to sit on the GMHI board refuse to speak to what happened. The tender process was, as I understand it. was suspended for I’m not sure what reason. Now, the City (aka taxpayers) are now bound to honour contracts the now-worthless GMHI awarded. And not only are ratepayers being stuck with increase after increase, as Gerry writes about above, they face the sell-off of Guelph Hydro to pay not for anything new, but for the huge losses from the GMHI scheme. Disliking that scenario has zero to do with race, mocking the disabled, or Senator J McCarthy. But it does echo one of the main reasons Trump won. Tired of watching the establishment take care of themselves and stick you with the bill.

    Or, in short…..what Geo said.

  5. guelphspeaks reader

    “Comparing local problems to Trumpism has missed the richness and at the same time the depravity of real life.”
    Dunno about anyone else, but I am still trying to wrap my head around this statement written in defense of the status quo!

  6. guelphspeaks reader

    r4a: I cannot remember your exact words, or speak to why your post was deleted, unless it was due to you saying that Brent or anyone else in what you called the (derogatory word) “Guelphspeaks Rebellion” was aligned with Trump’s racism, sexual assault, and that Trump was mentored by counsel for Sen J McCarthy, who you said Brent had probably never heard of, thus should read a wiki about. That’s all very off-topic, and one rule very common to online commenting is to be on-topic, and not insulting. This typical tack of deriding people as uneducated and directing them to ‘read up’ is so demeaning….almost as demeaning as dismissing and ridiculing a statement and the person who made it because it contains a grammatical error. I have seen and heard this SO MUCH from Guelph “progressives”! I think that is as prejudiced and bigoted as any form of racism. Any progressives wanna own doing that? Or condoning it? I’ve even heard people doing it on the radio! Come on! Is that the best you’ve got?

    As far as being labelled as “The Trump Way” by you, I’ll just clarify: I think he’s a frightening problem. What I said, that you may be interpreting as support for him, was that many Liberals, [including Bernie Sanders] have said the reason for Trump’s win is Liberal Elitism.

  7. guelphspeaks reader

    r4a: PS. in a wealthy country like Canada, is poverty and homelessness not all about selfishness?

  8. geo

    You should post your comment and then get high.

  9. Brent

    Well randomness I’m all for directing more money to fight poverty and homelessness…( and getting the geese and their droppings out of our parks) ..but in this city dominated by so called progressive councillors driven by pathological environmental ideologies serving a fraction of the residents, a preponderance of our tax dollars have been misdirected to other unproductive /questionable priorities and misadventures. ..not to speak of stuffing more money into the pockets of already generously paid senior managers with performance concerns under a shroud of secrecy. Yes there is plenty of reason to be ticked by what has happened in this city since Farbridge and her entourage took the helm .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s