Even with a $4 million debt for new firehalls, Coldstream is sitting pretty financially, according to the books for 2007.
“We’re sitting pretty good, really, compared to a lot of other municipalities,” said Catherine Lord, director of financial administration.
While debt capacity is $19 million, Coldstream’s long-term debt is sitting at $4.2 million.
Lord presented the annual financial report for 2007 at Monday’s council meeting, where she highlighted some of the projects, priorities and development.
While the entire report was available to the public, one key aspect was missing during the public process, said Gyula Kiss, Coldstream Ratepayers Association president.
“Once a year I think the whole citizenry should be able to ask questions of the auditor,” said Kiss, as an auditor was not available at the meeting.
An audit was performed and the report is available, but typically the auditor has been present at such meetings. Following the auditor’s report, which found the financial statements to be presented fairly, council agreed there was not a need for the auditor to attend.
Annual audits are performed, and recently an additional audit was performed on Coldstream.
The special audit, which Kiss had requested, related to sewer extensions. He disagrees with how funds were collected and used to fund sewer extensions.
That audit cost taxpayers $9,424. The 2007 financial audit cost $10,568 while the 2006 audit cost $8,172.
The sewer extension audit concluded that Coldstream acted within its authority.
Lord explains that Coldstream’s policy is to save and build up some funds for projects, rather than carry an entire project’s cost in debt. But Kiss does not agree with that theory.
He says the existing sewer users shouldn’t have paid for previous sewer extensions and shouldn’t be squeezed for any future sewer extensions either.
“I don’t think the sewer users should be treated as a bank,” said Gyula.
Aside from its sewer woes, 2007 was a productive year in Coldstream.
“A lot of development was happening in 2007,” said Lord, pointing to such developments as the Inverness/Aberdeen Village of 73 residences.
Capital projects included aeration of the Kalavista Lagoon to improve odours and upgrades to both the Kinloch and Lisheen lift stations. A major road condition review was also launched to create a plan on when to repair or refurbish roads.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
During my nine years on Council it was always customary to have the Auditor present his/her audit and answer questions from the floor. This year this opportunity was not provided. Was it due to the fact that I requested a special audit with respect to the irregularities relating to the sewer expenditure? It's anyone's guess. I have never seen the confidential report provided to Council and I was hoping to question the Auditor on that subject. After all, according to the Organizational Chart the taxpayers are the boss.
I wanted to find out how the Auditor could explain the fact that the Director of Finance started out with an erroneous set of assumptions yet her final conclusion was acceptable.
It is a mystery how Council and staff could rationalize the provision of a new sewer line for a developer at taxpayers' expense.
The financing formula developed by staff is even more mysterious. However, let's not worry about those items for a moment. Let's just look at the way it was designed.
The assumption was that there will be no grants from other levels of governments. Thus, $93 of every $100 spent was taken out of the utility reserve which utility users had to replace (and did it in three years).
In the meantime Council did receive a grant from the Okanagan Basin Water Board. which paid $18 of each $100 spent. This money should not have been taken out of the utility as the the OBWB is financing it through a 20 year term. As it is utility users are used as bankers.
What's wrong with that you may ask? We had to replace the whole some removed from reserves now and it will dribble back into the account over the next 20 years. Many of us will not be here for the final payment. An MFA loan would be the right mean of financing this 18%. We are not talking about peanuts it amounts to $120,000 or about $60 per household.
Added to this is the $250,000 that was removed from the operating reserves of the utility. That is a further $45,000 or $22 per household.
I would have liked to find out what the explanation for these anomalies were.
I would have also liked to find out which other community would provide an assist factor of 50% for new growth in advance and only from a small segment of the population.
Sewer customers do not get any benefit from this investment. If Council is hell-bent on sticking it to the taxpayers then they should do it to ALL taxpayers and explain it to them why it is beneficial.
A face-to-face debate with the Auditor might have cleared the air. Unfortunately, Council did not provide this opportunity.
*************************************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment