Tag Archives: CAO Derrick Thomson

How personal exploitation leads to mismanagement and higher taxes

By Gerry Barker

April 10, 2017

If you read the story about our taxes going up again this year in the local weekly, you wouldn’t know up from down. That’s when a rewrite of a city press release and an attempt to turn it into English happens.

Bottom line, homeowner’s property taxes under the Guthrie administration have risen 10.56 per cent since his election.

It’s an astounding figure when considering that the senior staff has been in total disarray since Mayor Guthrie took over, but not necessarily because of him. The residue of millions in losses land mismanagement left by his predecessor hangs over him like a cloud burst waiting to happen.

He has tried to work with council but the majority of Councillors, James Gordon, June Hofland, Phil Allt, Mike Salisbury, Leanne Piper, Karl Wettstein and Cathy Downer, have obstructed, denied and pushed the agenda of the previous administration.

It’s as if there never was an election

Then we have Ward four Coun. Mike Salisbury, pontificating that the Mayor has failed to be a leader because he has not been collegial with council. Goodness knows, Mayor Guthrie has tried only to be thwarted when the suggestion of change or reform surfaces. Well, you have to understand the source of the Salisbury whining spectacle.

So, now the new property tax increase is 3.61 due to the impact of assessment by the Municipal Provincial Assessment Corporation (MPAC), an independent body set up by the provincial government to conduct informed and fair assessments of properties across Ontario.

But in most cases, MPAC does what I call, a drive-by calculation based on their own formula and process. In recent years, it has been complicated by a four-year freeze on assessments by the former McGuinty government in the wake of the 2008 global economic crisis.

Starting in 2014, MPAC resumed raising the assessment on a pre-set formula basis with modest increases for four years.

I fail to understand why this 2017 assessment by MPAC was not included during the budget preparation last fall and approved in December with only three councillors voting against the budget. What did they know that the other councillors and staff did not? We received our annual MPAC notice that showed the assessment increase on our property for four years including 2017.

It is important to understand the impact of assessment increase. First of all, they are mandatory. The city takes the revised assessment information, and using the mill rate determines the added cost to property taxpayers. This process occurs during the annual budget deliberations.

What happened to the two-per cent special property tax levy?

The local weekly made reference to the one per cent special levy on property taxes although council approved a two per cent levy on property taxes in the 2017 budget. Also, how did the city determine the average price of a home in Guelph is $333,877? The story claimed that taxes on that average value would go up by $86.04 or 2.61 per cent. That included the one per cent property tax levy for infrastructure maintenance bringing the increase to 3.61 per cent.

And you’re confused?

Didn’t council approve a two per cent property tax levy for 2017? Remember that Coun. Mark MacKinnon moved to add another one per cent tax levy for “City Buildings” that was approved by council and would provide $2.23 million per year for the next five years?

Must have been a typo.

The approved property tax levies, each aimed at specific areas requiring capital spending, just added a $4.46 million extra burden on homeowners. The irony is Coun. MacKinnon has stated that people should be willing to pay taxes for the services they receive. He theorizes that because the value of their home increases, they could refinance through a new or second mortgage or reverse mortgage in order to pay their taxes.

Is the council majority too subjective, ignorant or willful?

This is the kind of beliefs that MacKinnon epitomizes about the majority of his colleagues on council. They don’t care about the impact of their authoritative policies on the very people who elected them. They have the power to access the public ATM machine at will without recourse. This fall the 2018 budget will be prepared.

It is now necessary to hire a Chief Fiancial Officer with the proper financial accreditation and experience. If any department in the city needs capable manage,ent, it’s Finance.

Here are some other examples of decisions made by the majority of council in the past seven years:

Start with the $23 million increased cost of the new City Hall project; the $26.6 million loss by Guelph Municipal Holdings Inc. operation; the inflated cost of the downtown police headquarters of $34 million; employment costs that have been growing exponentially; the retirement settlement amounts paid to former senior managers who have left the city, either forcefully or resigning; the high costs of living in Guelph with electricity, water, taxes, user fees, among the highest in the province; the high cost of managing our waste reported to be the highest among peer group of cities; the costs of overhead that the administration refuses to address and ignores.

These are examples deserving of an indictment of sheer malfeasance mixed with self-serving stupidity.

Stopping Online voting, a precursor of losing an election

One final example: The seven members of council voted recently to cancel electronic voting in the 2018 civic election after listening to delegates and not accepting the staff recommendation to extend the service.

The decision was made during a council committee meeting and will be confirmed or rejected April 24 by council.

Go figure! Every one voting to reject electronoc voting, benefited from this type of voting when they ran successfully in 2014 when some 13,000 citizens used the system.

In my view, this bloc of councillors, are motivated by fear, fear of losing after what happened in 2014.

If this majority continues to oppose Online voting, they will lose in 2018.

If they support the sale/merger of Guelph Hydro, they will lose.

If they continue to raise taxes at rates similar to the past three years, they’ll lose.

If they continue to insult the Mayor, they’ll lose.

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under Between the Lines

Tonight, it’s time to tell the truth about the failure of GMHI and Guelph Hydro

By Gerry Barker

February 15, 2017

Check out guelphspeaks.ca on Facebook and Twitter

Tonight’s meeting, starting at 6 p.m. at city hall, will be a challenge for council and the administration to tell the truth about the huge losses encountered by the Guelph Municipal Holdings Inc. (GMHI) and Guelph Hydro. And include future liabilities to the taxpayers.

It’s time for the administration to level with the people and tell them specifics about the multi-million losses that the Community Energy Initiatives cobbled together by the former mayor. Her agenda was to make Guelph a world-class leader in energy efficiency and its environmental bedfellow.

Here’s what we do know.

On May 16, GMHI CEO and CFO Pankaj Sardana, along with former CAO Ann Pappert revealed that GMHI had accumulated losses of $26,637,244 million. Both officials signed the report tendered to city council. Ms. Pappert resigned 10 days later.

On January 12, it was revealed that the former mayor had even bigger plans. GMHI secured two parcels of land in order to build two Natural Gas-fired generation plants, one in the Hanlon Park and the other downtown. The cost of these plants and the two parcels of land needed to build them have not been disclosed.

Here are the write-offs. The capital cost of the Hanlon District Energy Node of $5.1 million will be written off. With only two customers, it loses a reported $55,000 every year. The Sleeman Centre Node cost was $6.1 million with $3.6 million being written down. The Sleeman Node makes some $127,000 a year.

Next, we are not told the cost of the underground thermal energy system connected to two Tricar condominium buildings, the RiverRun Theatres and the Sleeman Centre. Instead, we are told that the thermal system, powered by the Sleeman Centre District Energy Node will continue to supply hot and cold water for heating and cooling. Again, there are no details of the cost to citizens. What does that commitment accomplish in perpetuating GMHI, at the public expense?

At this point, we should be told of the total and ongoing cost of these misguided projects now and in the future

Here’s what we don’t know.

Because of the operational secrecy employed by GMHI over four years, there are still many questions that need answers. The ultimate hypocrisy employed by GMHI was sending a so-called $1.5 million dividend to the city each year to justify its existence. It was just a return of our money while GMHI in its entire history never made a dime.

In polite circles, that would be described as a “Ponzi” scheme. Paying off the city or the city-owned Guelph Hydro with its own money.

Because the former mayor and chair of GMHI, did not allow public participation in her management of GMHI, we have been handed one of the most serious financial

operating deficits in the city’s history.

Then there is that $65 million borrowed from Guelph Hydro by GMHI. In his May report, Mr. Sardana admitted that neither GMHI nor Envida Community Energy, a subsidiary of Guelph Hydro, had any financial resources to even pay the interest on that loan.

In the 2015 Financial Information Report, the city reported that there was an “impaired” asset outstanding of $69 million. The reason the amount had increased was because there was no money in GMHI to pay the interest. Simply, there are no hard assets underlying this $69 million loan because GMHI is essentially bankrupt.

So, the city takes on this debt and lists it on its books as an asset. As the city has folded Guelph Hydro into its financial orbit, it’s only a matter of time before the “impaired” asset becomes a liability and will have to be written off by fitire councils.

The questions remain, where did the money go? Was it spent? Is it a legitimate asset of the city? Is it no longer on the Hydro books?

Is it possible that the city financial managers have conjured a plan to keep the loan off the hydro books because the council committee is preparing us for the sale/merger of our electric distribution system?

The temptation of getting its hands on the proceeds of a sale on Guelph Hydro that could reap more than $150 million to solve all its wasteful spending problems and mismanagement of our affairs.

We are not the lost tribes of Carden Street. We are all the citizens impacted by this impending bad decision.

Make no mistake. This plan is in a full court press to selloff the jewel of our city assets to right the wrongs of the past.

My advice? Only the people can stop it by pressuring the council by email, telephone, Twitter and Facebook to say no and demand the truth of what has happened to our city.

If you turn up tonight at 6 p.m. in force, council will listen.

If council fails to listen to the people, then they are all in peril in October 2018 of being re-elected.

That I can guarantee.

I know there are some coucillors who understand the ramifications of tonight’s decisions. But the majority of progressives can be defeated by the people.

I don’t know about you, but this is a no-brainer. Stop, tell the truth and lets start the process of returning Guelph to fiscal responsibility and meet those targets that almost all people want that are bring denied.

You know what to do.

 

9 Comments

Filed under Between the Lines

Expose! A trilogy of events by a city administration out of control

By Gerry Barker

February 6, 2017

Note from the Editor: This column is in two parts that covers and comments on recent events that reveal the toxic culture existing in our city administration. What you will learn in Part One, titled Triology, is how three events learned last week, have exposed the underlying weakneses of a management that is out of control.

In Part Two, titled Expose, are the details of some 53,000 emails sent chiefly by former Chief Financial Officer, Al Horsman, revealing the secretive and personal misuse of the city servers by senior staff.

We encourage everyone to pass this column along to let as many people as possible learn the truth about secrecy, closed meetings and communications on the Internet city staff and council. And it has been going on for years behind the public’s back and is our right to know.

There were three events this past week that revealed how our city is being mismanaged by not only senior staff but by an element of city council.

Part One – Trilogy

BREAKING NEWS

CAO Derrick Thomson said Friday, February 3, that the 53,000 emails obtained by Bruce Poole’s counsel were sent in error. Apparently an external drive containing the emails was handed over to Poole’s counsel. When the story broke about the contents Friday morning, the city administration went into panic drill and requested the drive be returned. So far that has not happened. The CAO said if it is not returned the city will ask for a judge’s order to return it.

Sorry sir, that fox is out of the hen house.

The larger question is who handed the drive containing the 53,000 emails over to the Poole Counsel knowing what was in it? More on this in Part Two – Expose.

Here is the list of the three devastating revelations of how our city is being so poorly representative of the people’s rights, interests and concerns.

* We start with the announcement that city Solicitor, Donna Jaques, was leaving this week. She had been with the city since 2011 in charge of all legal matters including contracts, bylaws and litigation.

This development was followed after with 53,000 emails produced mostly by former Chief Financial Officer, Al Horsman. Former Chief Building Inspector Bruce Poole’s lawyer obtained the emails as part of his examination for discovery. You will recall Mr. Poole, a 30-year veteran in the building department, was fired in mid-2015 and sued the city for $1 million for wrongful dismissal. That lawsuit has still to be tried or settled in court.

As a public service, here is the list of witnesses if this case goes to trial: Former CAO Ann Pappert; former City Solicitor, Donna Jaques; former General Manager of Finances and Treasurer, Janice Sheehy; former CFO Al Horsman; current CAO Derrick Thomson; former Executive Director, Derek McCaughan; City Clerk, Stephen O’Brien; and General Manager of Human Resources, David Godwaldt.

Perhaps this is a good time to tell you about a city Bylaw known as the Indemnification Bylaw. This protects any staffer or elected official from being sued by any citizen. If they are, the staff’s legal costs will be paid by the taxpayers. It was signed by former CAO Ann Pappert and Mayor Cam Guthrie in 2015 following the Susan Watson case against Glen Tolhurst regarding receiving a $400 donation from GrassRoots Guelph (GRG). Both Mr. Tolhurst and GRG were cleared of any wrong doing by an independent auditor.

* Then came the report of a committee charged with examining the future of Guelph Hydro. Their findings were essentially flawed and biased. They commenced deliberations last fall and despite overwhelming public comments to not sell or merge the utility, they are seeking permission to sell or merge with another municipally owned Local Distribution Company (LDC).

The report states: “At this stage in the process, a large segment of those who commented want to maintain local control and public ownership, and there is low-level support for a sale, especially with a privately-owned utility.”

“The public engagement done so far also shows “no support for Guelph Hydro to buy other utilities,” the report says. And “if a merger is considered, participants prefer other utilities in the region and those who are ‘like-minded’ with Guelph Hydro.”

This is Important: So why is the committee, after five months of deliberations, recommending that the city dispose of Guelph Hydro? Their recommendation will be voted on at the February15 council meeting. If you want to address council on this matter, your have until February 10 to register, four days from now.

Let’s stop and think about these three developments and how they are linked and not necessarily in favour of the citizens. In my opinion, these developments are part of a conspiracy to misdirect, suppress, and deny the public their right to access this information.

* Ms. Jaques’s departure was not sudden despite appearances. It would take at least three to four months to search and get another job. But she had to know of the existence of those 53,000 emails and most likely was directly involved in the turnover during the examination for discovery in the Poole lawsuit case. She had to know how damaging those emails are when the reputation of her colleague’s ethics and credibility are at stake.

The remaining question is how many thousands of emails were exchanged between senior staff and still out there? Discovering the emails sent by the former CAO, Ann Pappert, would be useful to investigators by an independent audit of city operations

Chalk it up to the way the staff runs the city. They used what they believed were private confidential emails to chatter, gossip and express opinions about fellow staffers. Heck, even look for a job, with our employer in the dark. Manage your personal finances and discuss marital and health matters with other staffers. The sheer volume of those emails, averaging 125 emails sent every day Mr. Horsman was on the job. (He wrote 53,000 emails over a two-year period divided by 422 actual working days over two years).

I don’t know about you, but that’s a ton of emails, most of which concerned the fundamental operation of the city. This info was coming from the CFO, the person who handled the money.

As an aside, Mr. Horsman was the last CFO employed by the city in the past two years and two months. He lost his position in November 2014 and left the city in August 2015 to take over as CAO of Sault Ste Marie.

The evidence now persists that nothing has changed. The city administration operates chiefly in secret. They do it to prevent exposure of self-serving issues reaching the public domain. The proliferation of emails is an indicator of the manipulative strategies employed by both senior management and members of council.

It may explain why so many senior managers have left the city since the October 2014 civic election. Most of those leaving have left a legacy of mismanagement and problems caused by the policies adopted by three administrations. The situation was aided and abetted by inaccurate forecasting of budgets, lawsuits, and off the books major funding of the failed Community Energy Initiative that was controlled by the former mayor.

Here’re some of the former senior managers who have left the city since November 2014: Executive Director Janet Laird; Executive Director, Derek McCaughan; CFO Al Horsman; GM of solid waste management, Dean Wyman; Lawyer Scott Worsfold; GM of Finance and Treasurer, Janice Sheehy; CAO Ann Pappert; City Solicitor Donna Jaques; Acting GM of Finance, Susan Arum; Chief Building Inspector, Bruce Poole.

The tab, so far, is estimated to be more than $96 million misspent by the former Mayor’s Community Energy Initiatives.

This bring us to the proposed recommendation by a five member committee chaired by CAO Derrick Thomson, to dispose of the jewel of the city of Guelph, our hydro electric distribution system.

It is a desperate move to conduct an asset fire sale to cover up the Guelph Municipal Holdings Inc. losses of $96 million and counting.

The book value of Guelph Hydro is estimated to be $150 million. Its value is increasing because there is a great demand to get control of these LDC’s. Hydro One gobbled up more than 89 between 1996 and 2001. You will recall that Hydro One is being gradually sold off to private enterprise. Today there are only 70 remaining LDC’s in the province. You can appreciate the primal urge by the administration to liquidate this asset because they need the money.

I urge everyone to make their feelings heard with their councillors by telephone, emails, snail mail or personal contact to stop this recommendation February 15. Just showing up will help prevent this ill-advised effort to sell off Guelph Hydro.

Personally, I believe the motion, if made, to dispose of the utility should be amended to table the recommendation to allow more measured public input, not just seven business days.

In 2008, former mayor Farbridge attempted to convince council to sell Guelph Hydro because the city did not have sufficient capital to pay its $23 million share of the Federal-Provincial infrastructure grant plan. She was soundly rebuffed by an 8-5 vote. Then she called a $30 million note that Guelph Hydro owed the city to pay the infrastructure bill that grew to $27 million, due to add-ons including bike lanes and a time clock in the Sleeman Centre.

It now appears nothing has changed.

On or before February 15, please exercise your right to object and inform civic leaders of your opinion. We only get one chance to stop this and now is that time.

So, if council does approve selling or merging of Guelph Hydro, what are the alternatives?

Assuming the city receives an estimated $150 million for Guelph Hydro, citizens lose control of the operation, including what they pay for service as set by the new owners.

The proceeds will pay for the GMHI losses. The new owner could claim the $65 million stranded Guelph Hydro loan to GMHI. It currently is on the city books as an impaired asset, is due and payable. That could reduce the net proceeds. Do not be surprised if that loan is not on Guelph Hydro’s books.

The proceeds, I predict, will disappear before the civic election rolls around next year. Suddenly there are funds to build the South End recreation centre, the Wilson Street parking garage and perhaps the Downtown Library.

This will be a bonanza of political good will that could guarantee the re-election of the same council majority we have now.

It’s our choice and it happens next week.

Next: The Bruce Poole story and how it will change Guelph forever.

The day the administration was exposed as running a ship of fools

By Gerry Barker

February 6, 2017

Part Two – Expose

Let’s start by praising Bruce Poole for having the guts to go after the city he served so well and loved for 30 years. They did him dirt by firing him for challenging the administration for failing to follow its own bylaws regarding obtaining building permits for ALL such projects in the city.

The revelation that there were 50 such projects, all conducted by the city administration in which no building permits were requested for approval. It became the genesis of the former Chief Building Inspector’s $1 million lawsuit for wrongful dismissal.

Then, last Friday a report in Guelph Today, written by Tony Saxon, detailed how that, during the examination for discovery, some 53,000 confidential emails, authored by former Chief Financial Officer, Al Horsman, were turned over to Mr. Poole’s lawyer.

A cursory examination of the email-gate reveals a fascinating collection of critical personal opinions, paranoia. petulance and what senior staff thought about their colleagues.

These include performance reviews of city employees; details of legal matters discussed in camera; criticism of city staff members; details of acute city operations; and even discussions about personal marital and health issues.

It’s a sorry cultural soup reflecting how messed up and irresponsible the members of the senior staff and others, including certain members of council.

The bottom line is, these emails, many marked confidential, were sent through City of Guelph servers. This makes those 53,000 documents that the users believed would never be made public, now part of the public record.

Kudo’s go to Bruce Poole’s legal counsel for obtaining these emails from the city ensuring the public’s right to know.

Across Ontario can you hear the shredders humming and emails being deleted?

(Suggest it would be better to use an expert for that process).

The source of these emails came from the former Chief Financial Officer of Guelph, Al Horsman. He left the city in August 2015 to become Chief Administrative Officer of Sault Ste Marie.

Email-Gate shows he used the city’s Internet servers to apply for another job. It even included preparing a power point presentation to the Sault’s selection committee. Using Guelph’s resources, Horsman landed his new job.

It makes one wonder how senior employees across the province are properly vetted when seeking new jobs. Is the process flawed? Are questions not asked? Why is the person leaving? Are references requested?

This applies to our former Chief Administrative Officer, Ann Pappert who left the city to be appointed an Assistant Deputy Minister of Culture, Tourism and Sport for the province.

Let’s review her leaving May 26, 2016. She was awarded an increase of $37,501 in a closed meeting December 10, 2015. So the question is, why did she leave a $257,501 job for one that probably pays much less?

She should be Bruce Poole’s most important witness as his case proceeds. The evidence is pointing to her as the fox among the chickens. In case you are wondering who are the chickens? They are us! These bureaucrats have suborned their responsibilities to the people by communicating by emails and conducting the public business in closed sessions.

I am astonished about the volume of Al Horseman’s emails for the two years he was a senior member of the administration totaled 53,000. The man is on the job 211 days a year reduced by weekends, vacation, statutory holidays and city shutdown periods

Just doing the math, Mr. Horsman wrote 125 emails a day. Further, that’s an average of 15.6 every hour for his eight-hour workday.

But it should come as no surprise because this is the way our city managers have operated, far from the public view or access for the past ten years.

Here are some examples of the email content delivered to Mr. Poole and his lawyer:

  • 30 individual staff performance reviews
  • Who were these employees and who conducted the reviews?
  • A calendar entry titled “Linamar – foregoing and/or deferring property taxes or development charges on future Linamar properties.

            It would appear that Linamar is getting a tax break on its property taxes. What are the details?

  • Confidential and private information in regard to the Urbacon action and settlement details” “Confidential and private information in regard to the Dolime legal action and settlement details.
  • What did Mr. Horsman know about the Urbacon situation and what was his role in the settlement?
  • Confidential emails between Horsman and his bank regarding personal investments.
  • Not a good idea to use your business computer for such private information or to seek another job.
  •  
  • Confidential email exchange between Horsman and CAO Anne Pappert regarding concerns about the performance of a senior city manager still with the city.

Well now, we are getting to the meat of the email exchange. Who is this senior manager and his/her job responsibilities? Did that person receive an increase in remuneration in 2015?

  • Confidential email exchange between senior management staff members in regard to “Terraview complaint re: Development charges @ 72 York Road.

Isn’t this public information? Where are the details? We have 13 employees in the  city engaged in communications. Why weren’t the details reported?

  • Several “corporate communications watch list” reports, including one item listed as “investigation of bacteria incident at City Well (Membro) – information protected under client-solicitor privilege.
  • And the people were never told?”

Nothing today in a public corporation is confidential. The exceptions are in the provisions as outlined in the Ontario Municipal Act to conduct closed sessions. With this revelation, it is apparent that cyber communication between senior staff often bypasses the OMA closed session regulations.

  • “Numerous occurrences where Al Horsman was using the City of Guelph’s computer system to seek and respond to several new and alternative job opportunities.”

Earning $182,000 a year does not include using your city computer to get another  job.

  • Negative comments (via email) about Mayor Cam Guthrie from a current member of council that was shared with others

No! Say it isn’t true. The Mayor thought all you senior staffers and council were  his friends.

  • Several emails detailing confidential terms of settlements in several legal matters.

This is not good but as CFO he was within his right. Legal cases are touchy and  the former mayor became known for her litigious bent. Now the city solicitor has left for greener opportunities in North Bay. Her leaving coincides with the  revelation of the 53,000 emails.

  • Confidential email exchanges between senior staff members in regard to concerns about a senior city manager who is still with the city.

            Yikes, if the senior staff had reservations, why is this person still with the city?

  • Private and personal emails between Horsman and other executive staff members in regard to personal matters such as marriage and health. 

Was this on city time?

  • Copies of confidential information shared by Horsman with former city staff.

This smacks of the existence of an elitis city staff club. Why would Horsman seek  conversation with former staffers?

  • “Confidential email exchange between Corporate Finance staff and senior management staff in regard to DGBA (financial concerns with the Downtown Guelph Board Association).”

It must be noted again that emails on the city servers are not confidential, as many have been titled. They are in the public domain.

There is indication that people are enquiring about obtaining the details of all those emails through the Freedom of Information Act (FIA).

7 Comments

Filed under Between the Lines

Wynne Government degrades space for homeowners with its high-density housing policies

By Gerry Barker

December 26, 2016

Former Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion reported to Premier Kathleen Wynne that the Province’s rules of urban development were imposing anti “sprawl” restrictions on builders and citizens. The government is engaged in forcing urban municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area to build high-density housing (HDH) – strip-linked homes, low rise condos and town houses.

These policies are frustrating the human desire for space where they live. I call it government degradation of personal space.

There is a basic human desire to have a home where there is freedom of movement and a place for families to grow. The latest demands of the pointy-headed planners in downtown Toronto, is to increase the number of households and jobs per hectare from 50 to 80. In already urbanized areas, the increase rises from 40 residences per hectare to 60.

There are two terrible long-term caveats to consider in this provincial decision. One is affordability of single-family homes. The cost of these homes will rise exponentially as builders of those homes either flee to other distant jurisdictions or switch to build HDH homes. As the number of single-family homes decreases, the cost of housing in Metropolitan areas in the province will explode. It is already happening in Toronto.

Those municipal leaders who are in favour of high-density homes dismiss this argument. Mostly because it’s about revenue. Those HDH developments deliver millions in added revenue because the increased number of residences deliver more revenue per hectare than single-family development. The HDH residences are taxed not only for operating and capital spending by the city but provide increased assessment, contributing to the municipality’s bottom line.

The Province’s experts say this is greater use of land and less strain on civic services. But every time your assessment increases, your taxes go up.

The story of HDH in Guelph

You do not have to travel far in Guelph to see the high-density developments that were planned and approved by the Farbridge administration in her eight years as mayor. She saw the value in boosting revenue from these developments south of Arkel to Clair Road east of Victoria and Gordon Street.

Another more recent HDH development is on Eastview Road adjacent to the former Guelph landfill site.

In eight years, the Farbridge administration did not approve any single-family home development in the city. It is a city with hundreds of acres of undeveloped land, much of it owned by the University of Guelph.

This is what I call cramming people into a residence that has no street parking, waste removal, with many forced to use private contractors because the city collection vehicles cannot maneuver. Yet, many residents in these HDH developments still pay for waste collection through their taxes.

The former mayor and her council supporters, were well ahead of the curve ten years ago when they launched the HDH development program while explaining it was part of the Provincial government’s “Places to Grow,” policy.

Farbridge campaigned in 2006 that the city had to stop urban sprawl (read that single family homes). I remember a column written by Tony Leighton in the Mercury at the time, complaining that the single-family homes built in Guelph were all the same with little design or panache (my word). I recall the term “cookie-cutter development” used.

That was the beginning of planning a city without including single-family home development. The basic planning principle of mixed-use development was thrust aside by the Farbridge Administration for all the wrong reasons. The most glaring was the abandonment of develeoping affordable housing in Guelph by the administration for eight years.

City angles for getting something for nothing

Today, ten years later, we have a city council determined to (a) gain control of the 549 acres of the Reformatory lands without paying the Province, and (b) sending the mayor to consult with Premier Kathleen Wynne, MPP Liz Sandals and MP Lloyd Longfield. The inclusion of Longfield escapes me as the lands are totally out of his jurisdiction.

The administration is proposing a “collaborative accommodation” with the Province. This would justify the estimated thousands of dollars already spent by city employees to plan a bucolic “Vision,” a Euro-style, ground efficient complex, that is self-contained with shopping, work sites and bicycles. Perhaps a few electric motorized scooters.

Now the Provincial Liberals are anxious to overcome their revenue deficits by next year, according to Finance Minister Charles Sousa. Do you believe that the city administration, is sending our mayor to persuade lending us the rights to plan the lands without paying for it? The Wynne government can be blamed for a lot of mistakes but I don’t believe this will be one of them.

Think about it. If the Province allowed this modern version of lend lease, can you imagine the rest of Ontario’s 445 municipalities will demand a similar deal to gain ownership of provincial lands?

It then brings up the question: If the working agreement between the city and Province regarding the reformatory lands expired in 2014, why is the staff bringing it up now? Who is pushing this? Is it the staff or the majority of Council who support another failed Farbridge initiative?

The staff admits there is no money to purchase the property. This is self-evident, as the administration cannot afford to build the Wilson Street Parkade, South End recreation centre or a new downtown library.

These are all long term, capital projects that former and present administrations have failed to fulfill.

Where did the money go?

Taxes and user fees have increased steadily.

The answer is that our money has been spent with irresponsible abandon on building monuments to self aggrandizement such as the Waste Resources Innovation Centre on Dunlop Road; and increasing city staff to a point that is unsustainable when compared to similar sized cities; the multi-million dollar losses Guelph Municipal Holdings Inc endured that was personally chaired by the former mayor and Chief Executive officer, Ann Pappert; The $23 million loss building the new City Hall complex.

These are some of the reasons why there is a capital funding deficit of $170 million, according to Chief Administrative Officer Derrick Thomson.

If the city cannot afford to purchase the lands, how does the administration sell the idea of putting a large-scale development on lands they do not own? Doesn’t the owner of the lands have to approve the plan of subdivision and go through the long approval process? How is the public, the Ontario Municipal Board that would have to adjudicate any objections to the plan and, interested parties become involved in the process?

On a slightly different topic, a release by a Guelph radio station last week declared the salary for CAO Thomson was $230,000 fixed for three years. What was new information is that his contract includes six weeks vacation plus an extra week in lieu of overtime. It is difficult to comprehend why the CAO should be rewarded for working overtime. This means that the CAO will be off the job 13.4 per cent of his time in office each year of the contract.

Then there is the car allowance of $800 a week or $9,600 per year. That is a taxable benefit. When he was Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, his car allowance was $6,300 a year.

It appears Mr. Thomson’s annual remuneration totals $239,600 or $4,607 a week.

What the release didn’t mention was the effect of the cost of Mr. Thomson’s pension or the other perks of his office.

Mayor Guthrie felt it was a fair arrangement and praised Mr. Thomsom for revealing some of the details of his executive pay.

Now, if only the mayor would reveal the details of the $98,202 increases that went to former CAO Ann Pappert, DCAO’s Mark Amorosi and Derrick Thomson for 2015. It would reinforce his dedication to open government and his fiduciary responsibility to the people.

 

 

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Between the Lines

We face a looming management crisis preparing the 2017 budget

By Gerry Barker

August 10, 2016

I had the opportunity this past weekend to speak with a seasoned Canadian economist and retired senior banker.

I wanted some independent feedback about the way our city is being managed and why it appears that there is little attempt to seriously curtail runaway operating costs. We have been consumed by a culture that has wasted millions of dollars without measurable success.

The road to recovery lies only with cutting operational costs. The fact that two neighbouring cities, Kitchener and Cambridge, whose operating and capital costs are 50 per cent lower that Guelph’s, points to the need for reduction of those costs.

That includes, reduction of staff and realignment of responsibilities; chopping funding of special interest projects and lobbyists; capping salary and wages and benefits for two years; kill the CEI and District Energy project; reduce operating subsidies to Guelph Transit, the Sleeman Centre and RiverRun theatre; cease the bicycle-lane expansion allocation; resolve to challange the unfair University of Guelph’s property tax deal that pays $75 per student per year. It even fails to reflect the effect of inflation since inauguration in 1987.

After outlining what I saw as a city in a management and financial crisis, I was asked to give a summary of events that have caused expenses to exceed revenues on a sustained basis for nine years.

So here goes:

The Guelph Civic Museum

* The first occurred in 2007 when council voted to spend $12.7 million to renovate a convent that had been written off by the Diocese of Hamilton in 1997. It was located next door to the Church of Our Lady and not on public land. Senior government grants of $6 million were sought and approved. It was five years before the building was reopened. The final cost, according the city, was $16.7 million, $4 million over the original estimated cost. Touted as a tourist attraction, the administration has not revealed the operating costs or attendance figures for five years.

Explosive growth of city employees’ numbers

* Next came that growth of staff from some 1,250 full-time equivalent employees in 2006 to more than 2,100 today. The staff is the greatest expense to the city costing in 2014 more that $159 million. The 2015 Sun Shine List reveals the senior staff is in the top 95 to 99 percentile of salaries paid to employees with similar or the same job in other cities. In fact, Mark Amorosi is listed as the highest paid Deputy Chief Administration Officer (DCAO) in Ontario. The numbers include generous taxable benefits.

The 2015 city financial figures have not been revealed as the Financial Information Report, as required by provincial law, has yet to be completed by the city’s finance department. This report is normally available by mid-June each year. Keep in mind that we have not had a General Manager of Finance and Treasurer since last March. DCAO Mark Amorosi announced recenrly that financial analyst, Tara Baker, has been named Chief Financial Officer but is currently on maternity leave and will not take over until next year. Apparently a job search was conducted by a head hunter but the decision was made to promote Ms. Baker from within. This decision means the city has been without a CFO since November 2014. The man responsible for this is DCAO Amorosi who took over managing the city finances in November 2014 when the last CFO, Al Horsman, was transferred to Waste Management and Environmental services.

The Waste Management Innovation Centre

* Then, The Farbridge council voted, in closed session, to build a $34 million organic waste processing facility. It was part of a multi-million dollar rebuild of the waste disposal centre on Dunlop Road. Again, capital costs and operational costs were not announced. A recent internal audit revealed there was a $270,000 annual operating loss of the waste management facility. The organics facility was overbuilt and the city had to seek raw materials from the Region of Waterloo and others to fully utilize the facility’s capacity. The finished compost product distribution and revenue remains a secret.

To this day, it is unknown about the contract details of Maple Reinders, that built and operates the organic plant.

City doesn’t pick-up your garbage but charges it on the tax bill

* Then there are the estimated 6,000 residences and businesses, because of their location and access, who don’t have their waste picked up. The city spent $15.5 million buying a bin system that requires special trucks costing $150,000 each to pick up the bins. It costs up to $7,000 each to repair these vehicles that frequently break down. The public was never consulted and it remains a coffee-shop discussion of who really benefited?

The claims, by waste management, of a 68 per cent diversion of waste materials to the landfill are exaggerated and untrue. Remember all those homes and businesses that pay private contractors to remove their waste, where does it go? It is shipped to the landfill. Indeed, it is indicative of the bad communication optics of a secretive and fact-twisting waste management administration to justify the means.

The Detroit connection

* A deal was struck to import recyclable material from Detroit for processing. Additional staff was hired to handle the increased volume but the deal blew up because the quality of the Detroit recyclables failed to meet specifications. The General Manager of Solid Waste Management, who negotiated the deal with out a business plan or contract, left the city. The loss of this operation was more than $5 million.

If you build an underpass, duck!

* The city decided to rebuild the area of Wyndham Street under the CNR mainline overpass. Once completed, it was discovered the clearance failed to allow commercial trucks with trailers to go under because the trailer height would hit the underside of the bridge. Today nothing has been done to correct this and the engineer in charge has left the city.

The Urbacon fiasco

* In 2008, the city fired the general contractor of the new city hall project. The result was a long, drawn out legal battle culminating in 2014 won by Urbacon Buildings Group Inc. The final tab for this was $65 million, some $23 million over the original contract price. The mayor was defeated along with some of her council. Our reserves took a $5.7 million hit.

Salary-Gate

* In 2015, four senior staff members awarded themselves with salary increases ranging from 14 to 19 per cent. The CAO, Ann Pappert, received a $37,000 increase making her the highest paid CAO in cities of comparable size in Ontario. DCAO’s Al Horsman, Derrick Thomson and Mark Amorosi also received large increases. Council, in closed session, approved the increases Dec. 9. The only way the increases were discovered was when the Ontario Sun shine List of employees making more than $100,000 revealed the huge increases. The man who engineered these increases was Corporate Services DCAO Mark Amorosi, who controlled Human Resources and city Finances. Two of the four senior management employees, Al Horsman and Ann Pappert have left the staff. DCAO Derrick Thomson, received a 19.4 increase in 2015. He was in the process of leaving the staff after accepting a job with the Town of Caledon when he accepted the CAO position in Guelph. His previous experience as CAO was in the town of West Lincoln in the Niagara wine country.

The Guelph Storm deal

* This recent development revealed that the city was a partner with the privately- owned Guelph Storm Hockey Club. The new deal guaranteed the Storm use of the Sleeman Centre for ten years. This was a deal that was made despite the past four years of the Sleeman Centre losing $249,000 a year. Ms. Clack in her previous position as General Manager of Culture and Tourism, was responsible for the Sleeman Centre. It is incomprehensible why the city would negotiate a new ten-year agreement with the Storm that would result in even higher losses. The question remains is why the city is subsidizing a public facility for a private corporation’s exclusive use?

We the public have no idea about the terms of the old Storm contract or details of the new one. We can tell you that three individuals own the team with the chairman, Rick Gaetz, who also is chairman of the Ontario Hockey League (OHL) executive committee.

It would appear that newly minted DCAO Colleen Clack, as lead negotiator for the city, agreed to lower the percentage of the city’s share of receipts. This was because the team owners said that the financial arrangement with the city was one of the costliest in the 20-team OHL. Was this a case of the lambs being led to the slaughter?

Again, no figures were produced to confirm this claim. There was no business plan presented to council, just a request to lower the city’s share of the revenues. Council approved the new deal. Again, the public was not informed of the details that were their right to know.

Community Energy debacle

* In five years, this secretive operation has spent an estimated $37.1 million on two District Energy Nodes to supply power to the grid and hot and cold water to a small number of clients near the Sleeman Centre Node pump and the Hanlon Creek Business Park Node. It is losing money each year in operation. Just to repay the $8.7 million it cost to install the Nodes will take an estimated 70 years to complete.

Yet the Bloc of Seven on council voted to extend the system until next March. This is due in part to the Bloc’s steadfast support of the former mayor’s pet project. The consultant’s fee alone is estimated to be between $130,000 and $160,000. The operator of this broken scheme is Guelph Municipal Holdings Inc. (GMHI) who, along with Envida Community Energy, has no financial capacity to continue the project for another nine months. Did I mention the $68.5 million being carried on the city’s books as an impaired asset? It will become a liability as the value of the note drops. This was an accountant’s way of dressing up a liability developed over the past five years. It involves GMHI and Guelph Hydro and is a manipulation of funding off the books, financing this part of the Community Energy Initiative.

For details, check out the July 18 Guelph Speaks post on the city staff report.

Firing the Building Inspector

* When Chief Building Inspector Bruce Poole complained to senior management that the city was not applying for building permits on more than 50 city projects, he was fired after 30 years of service. He has sued the city for wrongful dismissal and $1 million compensation.

 

A brief analysis of a rogue corporation

After I outlined what I believed to be the inter-connection of Guelph’s problems, my friend shook his head and said there is a serious management problem in the city’s administration. He spent the next hour going over the points I raised and said it appears the city is being either run by incompetents or accountants. Possibly both. There is, he went on, an apparent dearth of senior management skills and seasoned judgment.

Further, he pointed out, the Guelph governance is poisoned by politics, those who have a point of view that is tainted when applied to the municipal level. Some of these projects should have never been financed using the municipal tax base. He pointed out, because the revenue stream cannot handle ambitious, expensive projects when the city relies chiefly on property taxes. Some of the initiatives undertaken require senior government action because of greater sources of revenue not available to municipalities.

Here we are ten years later, dealing with a civic government that is experimenting with environmental and energy issues that have cost citizens dearly and were not successful.

My friend and expert says the city needs new, independent senior staff to effect real change and bring costs under control through best management practices.

It is now apparent that we are getting the same kind of service from the same people who created this crisis of management and misguided financial actions starting some nine years ago.

It is aided and abetted by a majority of Leftists, members of council who have disregard for the interests of the public but regard only their own self-serving interests.

Two members of the Bloc, Councillors June Hofland and Karl Wettstein, should resign for their abject failure to report the aspects of the GMHI operations while sitting as directors of GMHI. They were there for four years and, to this day, have never acknowledged or have been interviewed as to what went on or the role they played. They received a special payment for their service on GMHI.

So much for loyalty to their constituents, transparency and accountability.

 

 

 

 

 

11 Comments

Filed under Between the Lines

The looming crisis in funding city operations in 2017

By Gerry Barker

July 7, 2016

If you haven’t already, you should be receiving a revised assessment of the value of your home for property tax purposes. The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) that adjusts your assessment every four years establishes commercial and residential assessments.

This is the year of adjustment. The notices are determined as of January 1st, 2016, and reflect how much has changed since January 1, 2012. MPAC assesses 5 million residential and commercial properties in Ontario. To establish the current valuation in terms of assessment, MPAC assembles data on the properties using sales, building permits,, location, living area, age of the property and lot size.

If you are unhappy with the evaluation, you may request /reconsideration. Go to the MPAC website and register aboutmyproperty.ca.

In 2008, former Premier Dalton McGuinty’s government imposed a moratorium of assessment increases for four years. This ended in 2011 and MPAC was instructed to limit increased assessments for four years 2012 to 2015 inclusive.

In case you haven’t noticed, your assessment has been increasing in the past four years. They were not big increases designed to play catch-up from the McGuinty assessment moratorium, invoked during the 2008 global financial crisis.

However, we are now in another four-year cycle of MPAC assessments that will first, impact the city’s 2017 operating budget. The 2016 assessment increase will provide additional funding in planning the budget next November.

But here is where things go off the financial rails.

Last December 9, council, in which there was no public participation, ratified the 2016 budget. A staff recommendation regarding a 10-year, two per cent special tax levy on all properties to pay for infrastructure-rebuilding was tabled in a closed-door session before the public meeting. At the outset of the public meeting, it was immediately moved by council finance chair, June Hofland to push the levy to the 2017 budget. Carried.

Now we have a new Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Derrick Thomson, who is responsible for approving all staff budget recommendations before sending it to council for approval. His former position as Deputy Chief Administrative Officer (DCAO) of Operations has been assumed by Coleen Clack who used to report to Mr. Thomson as manager of Culture and Tourism.

But the recent sudden death of Rodney Keller, General Manager of Operations, has placed Ms. Clack in an unexpected difficult assignment with the loss of two key top managers in Operations within a few weeks.

The search is on for a new Chief Financial officer (CFO) and the task of integrating the chosen candidate will add to the turmoil that lies ahead when the 2017 budget is being considered. The 2017 budget talks will begin right after Labour Day.

Adding to the task is how to restore reserve funds that have been used to balance five previous city budget variances and the Urbacon lawsuit settlement of $8.96 million.

The greatest task for the administration is cleaning up the Community Energy Initiative (CEI) that has cost, so far, an estimated $40 million. Under management of the city-owned corporation, Guelph Municipal Holdings Inc (GMHI), the operation lost $9.4 million in 2015. There is absolutely no opportunity to continue this disastrous plan because of the future high demand for capital to make the system to even function.

GuelpSpeaks originally published the following April 8, 2015

When looking at other cities’ 2015 property tax increases compared to Guelph, we have the dubious distinction of having the highest rate in the 14-city sample. There are several reasons for this as Guelph council continues to ignore the growth of its staff, in numbers and pay and benefits. The future liabilities associated with these increases will affect future councils for years to come as pensions are indexed to the Consumer Price Index.

To meet these staff obligations will result in Guelph taxpayers facing increased property taxes paying the costs of employees, active and future obligations to those retired. Today, 85 percent of all property taxes received by the city are used to pay staff payroll costs.

The research on this report employed a common benchmark of dollars per $100,000 of assessment. This allowed equalized comparisons with two-tier municipalities such as Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge, part of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

The report was researched from official public sources.

Here is the list in descending order:

City                                    2015 tax increase              Ranking             Difference

Guelph Budget                             3.55%                                    39

Guelph revised                             3.96%                                    44

Hamilton                                       2.70%                                    35                      Minus 1.26 %

London                                          2.50%                                    30                      Minus 1.46 %

Brampton                                      2.54%                                   24                       Minus 1.42 %

Brantford                                      1.88%                                    22                      Minus 2.08 %

Port Colborne                              1.10%                                    18                       Minus 2.86 %

Burlington                                    2.06%                                   18                       Minus 1.90 %

Oakville                                        1.70%                                    15                        Minus 2.26 %

Mississauga                                 2.20%                                   12                        Minus 1.76 %

Cambridge                                   2.72%                                   10                        Minus 1.25 %

Toronto                                        3.20%                                  10                         Minus .76 %

Waterloo                                      1.53%                                     7                         Minus 2.43 %

Kitchener                                      1.9%                                     7                          Minus 2.06 %

Windsor                                        0%                                        0                         Minus 3.96 %

Consumer Price Index 2014   2.1%

Comparing the Guelph revised rate of 3.96 per cent to the next highest on the list, Hamilton, at 2.70 per cent, the difference is an astounding 31.8 per cent!

Back to today

This is why more research has revealed that Kitchener’s and Cambridge’s operational and capital costs are 50 per cent lower than the City of Guelph.

This reflects the undue influence of a rump majority of council who slavishly follow the policies of the previous administration led by former mayor Karen Farbridge.

These policies and special self-serving rules of governance, have led to unacceptable high property taxes and user fees, special deals with developers granting tax relief and delayed payment of development fees.

The bleeding of the public purse will continue until there is real reform of spending.

It’s reflected in one factor: In five years, the administration has failed to meet the budget creating multi-million dollar negative variances.

Think about that. Can you run your life and personal finances by failing to meet your budgets? The difference is the city administration dips into its reserves to balance its books annually as required by provincial law,

Now the reserves have been steadily drained with little replenishment.

I don’t know about you, but I didn’t vote for this.

 

 

 

 

 

9 Comments

Filed under Between the Lines

Goodbye Farbridge culture, hello open governance culture accountable to the people

By Gerry Barker

June 8, 2916

For her eight years in office, former mayor Karen Farbridge imposed a culture that restricted access to public information and spent millions on policies that attempted to change Guelph forever.

Well, we now know that she didn’t fulfill her dream of turning Guelph into a world-class leader in eco environment policies. They were replete with a system of sustainable waste disposal, downtown development, and reducing climate warming by restricting carbon emissions.

They were actions that divided the people by favouring those who supported her plans. Her record delivered her stunning defeat by the people in the 2014 election

Ms. Farbridge was so determined to impose her plans re climate change, she commented in a recent post on her blog: “It’s the low-carbon economy, stupid.” It appears that anyone who doesn’t like her low carbon policies is, well: Stupid.

Statistically, Canada’s affect on global warming is 1 per cent. To create an island of isolated radical restrictions and policies by our political masters was folly and expensive. Now, what do we have to show for it, aside from the millions spent by her administration to indulge her climate change principles?

Creating traffic congestion on busy arterial roads, despite former Councillor Maggie Laidlaw’s prediction that fossil-fueled cars would be off Guelph’s roads in 20 years. That was seven years ago.

Contracting vehicle lanes to allow for dedicated bicycle lanes has increased vehicle congestion, not reducing it. Millions have been spent on creating bicycle lanes in Guelph that are used by a tiny minority of the 130,000 residents.

Sustaining a heavily subsidized transit system that is barely used by full-time residents. The system is primarily designed to serve the 20,000 students of the University of Guelph who, between September and April. Each student is charged a flat fee of $75 per semester to use Guelph Transit.

Maintaining a tight relationship with the University of Guelph, the city administration has done little to change the grossly unfair property tax system for post secondary institutions. It was imposed in 1987 by the province and the rate has not changed in 29 years. It allows the university to pay $75 a head in lieu of property taxes. The University of Guelph is the largest landowner in the city. The primary source of revenue for the city comes from property taxes.

Have your property taxes remained frozen since 1987?

Here’s more, mismanaging capital projects such as the new city hall, failing to fulfill a promised new downtown library and south end recreation centre.

Just before the 2014 election, the mayor and Coun. Leanne Piper, convinced council to approve a $34 million police headquarters renovation when the police only requested $13 million.

Police Chief Brian Larkin pushed that deal and then left Guelph to become Chief of Police in the Region of Waterloo. In the space of just 14 months, Guelph lost its Fire Chief to Kingston and Chief of Police.

In 2009, the Farbridge administration allowed a group of anarchists to shut down development of the city-owned Hanlon Business Park. It cost more than $1.5 million in damages to construction equipment and delayed development of the project. The police did not intervene to remove the trespassers.

Coun. Mike Salisbury, warmly greeted representatives of the occupiers when they came to city hall to demand a work stoppage on the Hanlon Park. Their argument was based on the existence of the rare Jefferson salamander. Further investigation by the provincial Natural Resources Ministry said there was no evidence of the salamander in the park. The project was delayed for a year and a half.

The Mayor changed the governance of the city to accommodate her tight control over the administration and council. She personally approved all senior management personnel of which only one remains, Mark Amorosi, hired in 2008 to head up Human Resources.

Under the former mayor’s control most public business was conducted in closed-session prior to an open council meeting. She created a 13-person communications department to control the message, even to reporters covering city hall.

The result was a neutering of any opposition to her policies.

With other staff defections the house of Farbridge is tumbling down. What did those managerial employees know as they took their leave? The staff of the city has a lame-duck leader in the office of the Chief Administrative Officer, but no senior finance officer, operations chief, engineering or planning leaders. The organizational chart is in a shambles.

To suggest at this point that Mr. Amorosi should take charge in rebuilding the corporate structure is ludicrous and a mistake.

Having said that, council last Monday appointed Derrick Thomson the new CAO of the city. Mr. Thomson recently gave notice that he was accepting a position with the Town of Caledon. He has extensive experience in senior management positions notably with the City of Brampton. Before joining Guelph in September 2013, he was the CAO of the Township of West Lincoln. This is a first step in rebuilding the tainted culture that has enveloped the city’s administration for nine years.

A first step should be revising the governance system imposed by the previous administration to make it more transparent and accountable to city council and the citizens.

Mayor Cam Guthrie has an opportunity here to turn the Good Ship Guelph around. To do so, he should appoint a special committee to examine all applicants for the Chief Financial Officer and Operations positions.

This would be the beginning of changing the culture of the city administration by bringing in senior qualified candidates without political ties or bias. Their mandate is to get the staff on board with new directions and create the necessary changes needed to restart the city administration.

For the Mayor, it will give him elbowroom to fulfill his election promises.

Of course there is some concern in recruiting top people to run the city. This is because of the city’s reputation for high staff turnover and perceived serious cultural problems that have led to a dysfunction of the administration.

The Farbridge loyalist Group of Seven has lost the support of the key staff and its power has been reduced. Their role now is to play along to get along. There is talent among them if they contribute responsibly.

It’s up to them.

The dog days of council dysfunction must cease.

Lets work together to make the Royal City a place in which to live within its means and enjoy the treasured opportunities of lifestyle in a well-managed city.

Coming up, reporting on the 274-page staff report on the Guelph Municipal Holding Inc. operations.

 

6 Comments

Filed under Between the Lines