IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cdh/commen/496.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fuzzy Finances: Grading the Financial Reports of Canada’s Municipalities

Author

Listed:
  • William B.P. Robson

    (C.D. Howe Institute)

  • Benjamin Dachis

    (C.D. Howe Institute)

  • Farah Omran

    (C.D. Howe Institute)

Abstract

In nearly all larger Canadian municipalities, obscure financial reports – notably inconsistent presentations of key numbers in budgets and end-of-year financial statements – hamper city councillors, ratepayers and voters seeking to hold their municipal governments to account. Simple questions like, “How much does your municipal government plan to spend this year?” or “How does what it plans to spend this year compare to what it spent last year?” are hard or impossible for a non-expert citizen or councillor to answer. The differences between budget accounting methods and presentations of financial results have realworld consequences. For example, by presenting net rather than gross budget figures, municipalities obscure key activities and understate both their revenue and spending. By using cash rather than accrual accounting, they exaggerate infrastructure investment costs, hide the cost of pension obligations and make it hard to match the costs and benefits of municipal activities. Moreover, many municipalities approve their budgets after significant money has already been committed or spent in the fiscal year, do not publish their financial results in a timely way, and bury key numbers deep in their statements. This report card grades the financial presentations of major Canadian municipalities in their most recent budgets and financial statements. Calgary registered the largest year-over-year decline in budget clarity: like Durham Region, it provides little information in reader-friendly form. More happily, Vancouver, Surrey, B.C., and Peel and Niagara Regions in Ontario garnered the highest marks for clarity of financial presentation. Our key recommendations are: (1) that municipal governments should present their annual budgets on the same accounting basis as their year-end financial statements and (2) that budgets should show gross, not net, revenue and spending figures. Budgets should use accrual accounting, recording revenues and expenses as the relevant activities occur. For their part, provincial governments that impede the use of accrual-based budgets – by mandating that cities present separate operating and capital budgets, for example – should stop doing so. Indeed, provinces should mandate cities to present accrual budgets so the fiscal picture of municipalities and the province use the same transparent standard. Even in cases where a province is an impediment, municipalities could release the relevant information on their own – and they should.

Suggested Citation

  • William B.P. Robson & Benjamin Dachis & Farah Omran, 2017. "Fuzzy Finances: Grading the Financial Reports of Canada’s Municipalities," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 496, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdh:commen:496
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cdhowe.org/sites/default/files/attachments/research_papers/mixed/Commentary_496_0.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin Dachis & William Robson & Jennifer Tsao, 2016. "Two Sets of Books at City Hall? Grading the Financial Reports of Canada’s Cities," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 460, November.
    2. Benjamin Dachis & William B.P. Robson, 2011. "Holding Canada's Cities to Account: an Assessment of Municipal Fiscal Management," C.D. Howe Institute Backgrounder, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 145, November.
    3. William B.P. Robson & Alex Laurin, 2016. "Worse Than It Looks: The True Burden and Risks of Federal Employee Pension Plans," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 449, May.
    4. William B.P. Robson & Colin Busby, 2017. "Numbers You can Trust? The Fiscal Accountability of Canada’s Senior Governments, 2017," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 476, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jean-Philippe Meloche & François Vaillancourt, 2021. "Municipal Financing Opportunities: How Do Cities Use Their Fiscal Space?," IMFG Papers 52, University of Toronto, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.
    2. Benjamin Dachis, 2018. "Fiscal Soundness and Economic Growth: An Economic Program for Ontario," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 505, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benjamin Dachis, 2018. "Hosing Homebuyers: Why Cities Should Not Pay for Water and Wastewater Infrastructure with Development Charges," e-briefs 281, C.D. Howe Institute.
    2. Andrew Feltenstein & Nour Abdul-Razzak & Jeffrey Condon & Biplab Kumar Datta, 2015. "Tax Evasion, the Provision of Public Infrastructure and Growth: A General Equilibrium Approach to Two Very Different Countries, Egypt and Mauritius," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 24(suppl_2), pages 43-72.
    3. William B.P. Robson & Alexandre Laurin, 2017. "Premium Compensation: The Ballooning Cost of Federal Government Employees," e-briefs 258, C.D. Howe Institute.
    4. Bev Dahlby & Kevin Milligan, 2017. "From theory to practice: Canadian economists’ contributions to public finance," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(5), pages 1324-1347, December.
    5. Christopher Ragan, 2012. "Financial Stability: The Next Frontier for Canadian Monetary Policy," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 338, January.
    6. Joseph Doucet, 2012. "Unclogging the Pipes: Pipeline Reviews and Energy Policy," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 342, February.
    7. William B.P. Robson & Colin Busby, 2015. "By the Numbers: The Fiscal Accountability of Canada's Senior Governments, 2015," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 424, April.
    8. Adam Aptowitzer & Benjamin Dachis, 2012. "At the Crossroads: New Ideas for Charity Finance in Canada," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 343, March.
    9. Colin Busby & William Robson, 2013. "Canada's 2012 Fiscal Accountability Rankings," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 373, February.
    10. David R. Percy, 2012. "Resolving Water-use Conflicts: Insights from the Prairie Experience for the MacKenzie River Basin," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 341, February.
    11. Benjamin Dachis & William B.P. Robson, 2014. "Baffling Budgets: The Sorry State of Municipal Fiscal Accountability in Canada," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 397, January.
    12. William B. P. Robson & Alexandre Laurin & Rosalie Wyonch, 2017. "Getting Real: A Shadow Federal Budget for 2017," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 470, February.
    13. William B.P. Robson & Colin Busby, 2017. "Numbers You can Trust? The Fiscal Accountability of Canada’s Senior Governments, 2017," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 476, April.
    14. William B.P. Robson & Colin Busby, 2016. "Controlling the Public Purse: The Fiscal Accountability of Canada’s Senior Governments," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 448, April.
    15. Ake Blomqvist & Colin Busby, 2012. "Better Value for Money in Healthcare: European Lessons for Canada," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 339, January.
    16. William Robson & Colin Busby, 2014. "Credibility on the (Bottom) Line: The Fiscal Accountability of Canada's Senior Governments, 2013," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 404, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Fiscal and Tax Policy;

    JEL classification:

    • H72 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - State and Local Budget and Expenditures
    • R50 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - General
    • R51 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Finance in Urban and Rural Economies

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdh:commen:496. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kristine Gray (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cdhowca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.