Audit Cttee minutes II

Here are some other interesting excerpts from the Audit Committee Minutes.

Responding to a question from Councillor MacKay, Mr. Duffett provided a breakdown of the total amount of cash in the amount of $2,295,115 and where it was located in the various funds. As an example $1,299,221 can be found in reserves.
Mr. Duffett further noted that the cash represented approximately ten percent of the total assets of the Town, and that was a good position to be in.

An understatement? Good for who? And the other $1,000,000?

Responding to a further question, Mr. Duffett acknowledged that Protective Services increased
from $1,871,491 to $2,531,477 because the Town booked the acquisition of a major fire
apparatus
which arrived in early May of this year.

That must be the ~$400,000 fire truck we heard about that the fire dept. had NO trouble getting a cheque for. A little further on we see this:

Mr. Duffett noted that for members who seek details on the disposition of reserve funds, that information is available in Note 11, on page 14 and 15. He further informed members that there was one major subsequent event showing in Note 12. The Town received debenture funding of $493,000 payable over ten years. Funds are going towards a fire truck $398,000, sidewalk improvements $9,000, and parking improvements $50,000

There’s that fire truck again. They/we borrowed money to pay for it. Was this expenditure discussed at Council? We couldn’t find it.

Parking improvements? Where, at Railtown?

PS – we note they have turned off the comments at the ToW website.

The Town is currently performing upgrades to the public website. During this upgrade process it is necessary to disable the commenting tool while we perform these upgrades. This function will be restored as soon a possible.

We hadn’t noticed anybody commenting,  had you? Anybody? Wimps.

Advertisements

2 responses to “Audit Cttee minutes II

  1. Robert G. Holmes

    I don’t quite understand why Wolfville is subject to this tax, and the county has been able to ‘opt out’.

    This seems to encourage urban sprawl, (potential home owners gravitating to the lower taxed lands). This is detrimental to Wolfville’s growth and prosper plan.

    Would it not be prudent for the new council to seek a single tax regime with its neighbors, for the common preservation of sustainability goals?

    Also, what local infrastructure priorities exist to take advantage of the supposed Fed/Prov bump in job creation projects, discussed in PM’s conference yesterday?

    Robert

  2. Wolfville is not “subject” to this tax. This is not a tax imposed by anyone other than our own Town Council. Although the province has “allowed” municipalities to charge it ( to a maximum rate of 1.5%) the ToW can decide to charge it or decide not to charge it. Kings County has decided not to charge it. It is entirely within the ToW’s power to decide not to charge it.
    It does put us at a disadvantage presently with our neighbouring communities who either don’t charge it or charge it at a lower rate. But if all the regions levied the same tax at any level would it be any less pernicious? It discourages mobility, or punishes those willing to move (for example to get a job elsewhere), it encourages schemes to get around it, it is unstable (municipalities can’t count on it). We can’t think of one good thing about this tax – except that it allows municipalities not to keep a keen eye and a sharp knife on their budgets, which from Our point of view is also not a good thing!

    PS we saw your letter in the paper yesterday on the cost of coal fired generation. Good question.