Results may vary

Numbers don’t lie. They can, however, tell a story. Some of these stories are riveting, some scary, others uplifting. This story is a mostly a good one—albeit with some disappointing bits. Most importantly this story casts a light where shadows have claimed domain for too long.

The County Treasurer’s report on the financial condition of the County is out.Though it is not yet flying off Books & Company shelves, it is nevertheless a must read for anyone interested in the business of local government. That should include, I humbly suggest, everyone who pays property taxes to this municipality. For this report has been prepared and written for you—to explain how the municipality is spending your money.

Last summer, in a quiet month of sober lucidity, County council approved a financial management policy that requires the treasurer to prepare a financial report thrice yearly—to the end of June, September and December. The latest report is the second of these reports. The full report is just 61 pages long—though the meat of the report is captured in the first 13 pages.

It is well written and concise. It provides a very good and easy-to-follow overview of the organization’s financial condition and systematically explains the bits that went off track. Actual results are compared to budget amounts. This might be the single most significant improvement in transparency of County finances since amalgamation. For the first time in a decade, folks can see what was spent and/or received next to the amount anticipated when the budget was prepared. Though a seemingly modest step, this is a key test of management—ensuring each of those we have entrusted with public money has a grip on their business.

Until recently this information simply was n’t available. We were asked to have faith that finances were being managed well. For many this faith drained away a long time ago.

Among the report highlights, some good things:

– overall the County spent $151,000 less than it planned in 2010 on a $23.7 million dollar Budget

– the Planning department spent about $113,000 less than expected—revenues were down significantly, but so too were wages and benefit costs, as reduced activity enabled the department to put off filling staffing vacancies;

– Waterworks results were much better than expected due primarily to a sharp rise in revenue ($142,800 higher than budget), the byproduct of a new user fee structure introduced last year (of course this is only a good thing if you happen not to be a user of the County’s waterworks system).

Then there are the bad things:

– the Public Works department overspent its transportation overhead budget by $146,000, mostly because staff wages that belonged in the operating business had been budgeted in capital, likely a legacy of old habits;

– similarly, the department’s maintenance overhead budget was overspent by about $181,000:

– the Waste Management department fell well short ($57,100) of its revenue target, collecting less-than-expected bag tag and transfer fees. Expenses were lower but not enough to offset the loss of revenue.

There were significant challenges with the County’s Recreation, Parks and Culture department.

– the department spent $87,000 in three weeks of operation of the new Wellington and District Community Centre in 2010; it had planned to spend just $12,000. One-time startup costs account for part of the increase, but the report is silent on where more than half the in creased expenditures was spent;

– the department seemingly lost control of the old DukeDome in 2010 as well—spending $32,000 more than planned. The report cites, among other things, an electrical metering problem dating back to 2009, as well as a stuck valve that resulted in increased water usage in the facility;

– at the community centre in Picton, planned renovations to the hall led to unanticipated loss of revenue and increased water and energy costs during the modifications. The department spent fully $78,563 more than it planned in this single facility in 2010;

– just as some had predicted when the municipality got into the business of specialty transit a few years ago—at the encouragement and nudging of the province—provincial funding was substantially less than projected in 2010. The Recreation, Parks and Culture department expected $75,000; they received $48,000. Planned service improvements were canned and the department forced to dip into reserves to fund the province’s shortfall.

The list of course, is incomplete. For the full report, contact County Treasurer James Hepburn or download it by clicking here.

Though tough reading at times, it is nevertheless one of the most important advances in the way the County upholds its responsibility to you, the ratepayers.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca