Toronto city hall’s “core service review” has produced few significant savings to balance the city’s books. But it has been a revelation in other, troubling ways.

It has exposed a mayor, Rob Ford, who lacks a basic grasp of the city’s finances. It confirms how off-base he was with his claims of rampant gravy. And it could end up being more about downsizing municipal government than prudent stewardship of ratepayer dollars.

In a radio interview on the John Oakley Show last week Ford made the astonishing claim that salaries and benefits represent 80 per cent of the city’s operating budget. In fact, they represent about 48 per cent. One would think the chief executive of the $9.4 billion enterprise that is the City of Toronto would have at least a basic grasp of the city’s key numbers. In Ford’s case, one would be wrong.

Again and again, Ford’s thinking has been at odds with reality. Unable to find the buckets of bureaucratic “gravy” that he had expected, Ford budgeted $3 million to have outside consultants pore over the city’s books and find easy savings. Few observers, at this point, would deem that a success.

Many of the city’s operations — including 96 per cent of its public works — can’t be cut because they’re deemed mandatory under provincial law, or otherwise essential. Some of the remaining services could be eliminated, but their loss would trigger a public backlash, leaving such options politically impractical. Reduced snow plowing on residential streets? Few councillors want their name attached to that.

Other suggestions, like having Toronto residents bring unwanted pets to a local animal shelter rather than have a city employee collect them, would result in picayune savings — a far cry from the $100 million Ford expects from this review process.

The consultant KPMG has even identified programs that are earning money for Toronto as possible targets for elimination, by way of reducing “red tape.” Cancelling dog and cat licensing, and eliminating certain business licenses, are examples. Dog and cat licences net the city about $600,000 yearly, while the relevant business licensing generates about $6 million. Cutting such services looks more like downsizing government, than plugging holes in the budget.

All this has left Ford has suddenly floating the idea that Toronto’s property tax could rise by up to 3 per cent next year. That’s got to be an eye-opener for “Ford Nation.” Whatever happened to the waste that was to be cut first? But facts aren’t proving to be the mayor’s long suit.

Can Toronto provide some services in a more cost-effective manner? No doubt. But the KPMG review confirms that it won’t be a cakewalk.

Was it only last year that Ford ran a successful election campaign insisting that balancing Toronto’s books would be easy? That it could be done without service cuts, without layoffs, and while reducing taxes? That seems almost laughable now with the mayor talking of a tax hike and raising the spectre of public sector layoffs, while consultants struggle to identify marginal savings.

Grim days lie ahead. Ford’s misconceptions before winning Toronto’s top job, and his mismanagement after attaining it, will result in some service reductions. Those cuts may well weigh heaviest on the city’s poor, disenfranchised and others who rely the most on public programs. If that’s the result of this service review, our community will be the poorer for it.