City’s problem is with spending
Dear Editor: Penticton’s CAO did the right thing slowing down the budget process. It takes time to look at Penticton’s historical financial performance so let’s ask some questions.
Should we keep expenses in line with revenue? What has the city of Penticton actually done since 2008 based on available, independently audited, financial statements (see chart at the bottom of this page.)
Since October 2016, staff has said near zero percent tax increases justify an increase that’s now about 5 per cent for 2017. I looked over the budget carefully and could find nothing like the above.
Revealing actual financial performance sure tells a different story.
Why wasn’t this information presented to council and the public to start the budget process?
Since 2008 annual revenues are up a whopping $17 million and expenses $14 million. And, if you look at the difference between revenues and expenses, consecutive surpluses add up to almost $80 million.
Look at the audited financial statements for 2015 and you will also find the City has almost $72 million in term deposits with Valley First Credit Union and the Municipal Finance Authority. So what’s the problem? Isn’t it a good idea to know what all of your revenues and expenses will be and how much you have in the bank before making major financial commitments?
Everyone should ask for the numbers and no one should have to wait until 2018.
Isn’t it interesting that despite revenue fluctuations, expenditures consistently rise?
I believe there’s a spending problem more than a revenue problem.
The current council’s first budget in 2015 had a decline in revenue of 2.6 per cent but they chose to increase expenditures by almost triple at 7.07 per cent. What can we learn from that?
Each year about $2 million is thrown at “tourism” with negligible impacts on increasing the property tax or population base. The planners have told council Economic Incentive Zones, costing more than $1.1 million in tax abatements, are still a good idea. The finance people have presented further reduction in the Business Tax Multiplier.
No wonder the CAO wanted more time to consider alternatives. I would too. Wayne Llewellyn Penticton