VANCOUVER'S FINANCIAL DETERIORATION

I just received a package that included a copy of the City of Vancouver Annual Financial Report 2007 with a link to the full report: http://former.vancouver.ca/fs/budgetServices/pdf/AR2007.pdf

Also enclosed was a copy of the 2013 Consolidated Financial Statements with the Link to the full report at http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2013-annual-financial-report.pdf

If the author's analysis is correct, and it seems to be, then, notwithstanding VISION's claims, the following is the true state of affairs for the City of Vancouver.

Assets have been depleted by nearly 5 billion dollars since 2007, when VISION took over.

Liabilities have ballooned by $800 Million dollars.

Long Term Third party debt has increased by $275 Million.

As of 2013 79% of the debt will mature outside of a five year period.

This analysis is consistent with the following one that was published on Vancouver's debt addiction in mid July, 2014.

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/Opinion+Vancouver+city+hall+debt+addiction/10032011/story.html

Below is a slightly edited text that accompanied these documents. I assume it has been distributed to others already. The links were correct and the analysis seems also correct.

Dear Sir:

"The following package contains the audited (See Page 9) financial statements for the City of Vancouver in 2007 as well as in 2013. The purpose of your receipt of this package is an effort to demonstrate the corruption and lies that Vision Vancouver and Gregor Robertson have been placing upon the city for the last 6 years.

The Vision Party's Mayor and Council are responsible for the dramatic deterioration of the financial well being of the City of Vancouver. The audited statement of the City of Vancouver for 2007 was the year before Vision was elected.

Page#               2007                              2013                                  Difference

10 * Assets $10.9 Billion                         $ 6.1 Billion                  ($ 4.8 Billion)

• Note 6 references on page 18 of 2013 audit

Page 10 (see “A") demonstrates that the City has nearly $5 billion dollars fewer in assets. 2007 note 4 vs 2013 note 6, the City has $4.2 billion less in land. These are audited financial statements, where has the money and our city's assets gone?

10     Liabilities    $ 1.05 Billion               $ 1.85 Billion (                  $ 800 Million)

It would be expected that the city should have a slightly greater number in liabilities after 6 years. However these increased liabilities are largely in the form of long-term debt and financing. The party is developing massive and unmanageable levels of debt. (See "B"). The next note demonstrates more clearly.

Pages 17&18 Long Term third party debt $ 514 Million       $ 789 Million    ($ 275 Million)

Note “C” demonstrates the excessive debt that Vision Party has built-up, this debt largely matures after 2018. In 2007 the debt was manageable, and the amount maturing outside of a five-year period was only 37% of the total. In 2013, this climbs to 79% - Gregor Robertson is NOT planning for the future.

Since Vision was elected in 2008 the party has controlled all aspects of the management of the City of Vancouver. After Vision was elected in 2008, the Mayor and Council fired the City's manager and appointed a new City manager. Three hundred department managers of the City of Vancouver were fired or retired due to conflicts with the inept management of Vision. The morale of the City's employees is at an extreme low as Vision's policy is that if an employee does not agree with Vision's policy, they are fired. How does this create an open and democratic situation for the city and citizens?

Vision has been in control of the City of Vancouver for 6 years. The coming election could have Vision in control of the City of Vancouver for another 4 years.

Can the residents of the City of Vancouver cope with another four years of the financial and management wreck that is the Vision party?

On a related matter the Supreme Court of British Columbia has held that a lie told by an elected candidate for municipal office is grounds for immediate removal but the application must be filed promptly after the election. http://caselaw.canada.globe24h.com/0/0/british-columbia/supreme-court-of-british-columbia/2009/05/26/todd-v-coleridge-2009-bcsc-688.shtml