You must read Chris Schurr's BLOG today that absolutely destroys the praise beign poured on Eddie for making the tough decisions respecting water mains. Chris points out the problem was known as far back as 1994 http://chrisschnurr.wordpress.com/
I know no one ran off to Brazil with water main funds to enjoy the rest of their life on the beaches of Rio. That was not the diversion that anyone was talking about. Although the use of the word "diversion" was an interesting one. It could be considered a "Fraudian" slip couldn't it!
You will have to excuse me but I was always slow in math and Eddie did the numbers so quickly on Monday on the Whiteboard. I just wished he did not rub off things from the Whiteboard since it was so hard to copy it as he spoke. Good thing I videotaped what he said so I have a record of it.
The question is not: did we take in a levy amount and spend more than that on water mains. Obviously we did for heaven's sake. The levy was to provide additional funds. That was the diversionary question Eddie answered not the real one.
I am shocked. Even Gord Henderson fell for that one in his column. Well, not really. He knows better than that. He too was helping out Eddie and not asking the real question that Eddie never answered.
At first, the Mayor, the Acting GM and the WUC Chair all said yes there was diversion of funds to the Operating Account because of politics. Literally the next day they all said they were wrong and there was no diversion.
No denial of that was ever given by the Mayor other than the bald statement that there was no diversion.
Even if Eddie is right in what he said at Council, gosh I am concerned. These people give out totally incorrect information that caused a major brouhaha. I have little confidence in them I am afraid when they cannot get their facts correct. After all, they are running a multi-million dollar corporation that gives us water for showers, drinking and flushing toilets never mind providing water to fight fires so people won't die. I am nervous about giving them Junior's $1 per day to let them drip it away drop by drop.
I wonder why no one asked the WUC Finance Director the real question. Actually she already answered it in the 2004 Annual Report:
- "NET INCOME
The net income for the Commission in 2004 was $282,000, an improvement over the loss in 2003 of $48,000. The most significant factor was increased revenues from the water main replacement levy."
But let's try the Mayor's math.
In 2004, he said the levy was $2.8M and the capital spending for watermains was $9.5M. But the annual report sated that
- "On November 26, 2003, the Commission approved an increase of the water main replacement levy from 5% to 13% to become effective January 1, 2004. This provided additional water revenues of $1.8 million."
It is not clear if the levy total was $1.8M or an amount of $1.8M on top of the 5% amount. I think it may be the latter.
WUC originally was going to spend $5M per year on watermain replacement, then needed the 5% levy to get it to $6.5M. Then the business plan said $40M for 5 years or about $8M per year.
So if we look at 2004, if the budgetted amount was $8M and there was $2.8M for the levy, that meant that $10.8M in total was available for the capital project. Eddie and the 2004 Annual Report said $9.5 M was spent.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BALANCE OF $1.3M?
In 2005, everything seemed fine. The budgetted amount must have been $8M again and the Mayor said that the levy was $2.9 million meaning a total of $10.9M. However only $8.3M was spent [Interestingly, the 2005 Annual Report said "To ensure the quality and reliability of Windsor’s water, we placed a high priority on infrastructure projects during 2005, spending $7.5 million on watermain replacement and improving the system."]
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BALANCE OF $2.6M or $3.4M?
In 2006, the budgetted amount must have been $8M again and the Mayor said that the levy was $2.8 million meaning a total of $10.8M. However only $9M was spent
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BALANCE OF $1.8M?
Want to read something that makes no sense to me in the 2005 Report:
- "we’ve spent less money on capital build programs, giving us greater cash flow and allowing us to meet key debt reduction targets. Our focus on debt reduction will help us to sustain financial stability and will allow us to continue to reinvest in our infrastructure and operational programs."
So there is another admission that capital projects were cut to decrease debt so we would have money to do capital programs. HUH!!!! What a circle!
That was the crucial political decision that helped make a mess out of WUC. Cut debt to look good for the election and then sock it to the taxpayers afterwards and blame it on the need to replace watermains, a need known since 1994!
Now I have no idea if my budgetted numbers are correct and were actually budgetted to be spent or not since there is nothing in the financial reports to give me that figure. Maybe I am all wrong and everything is OK. Who knows? If the $8M was NOT budgetted and less was, then we know that politics really was at play don't we and the revenues were needed for WUC sustainability.
If I could do this basic math, then a Councillor could too and then ask the question I am.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BALANCE
Since that would have been too embarrassing to all it seems, instead, they wussed out!
Someone needs to answer this question. If the City and WUC will not, then a Provincial Inquiry must. Sandra and Dwight have to be supportive of this or else. After all, citizens will vote for or against them in October.
Are there 49 others who will sign a petition with me asking the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to get involved?
No comments:
Post a Comment