Council this week looked for more clarification on a few issues, that they appear to be going around and around on.
Administration has given them the opportunity to have a 0% increase on the tax rate.
This is good in the sense that are taxes are high enough, I agree with Councilor Gallant that taxes are a deterrent to attracting people and businesses to the Pass.
Hard enough to say to a coal miner we want you to travel an extra hour a day to work, plus we will charge you an additional $700 a year in taxes to live here.
The bad side to this budget is there is absolutely no allowance for dollars into the reserves for a number of years those reserves were depleted to catch up on infrastructure projects. Two years ago the majority of council put an end to a proposed new shop in Coleman that started out at a cost of less than $400,000 and grew to $1,300,000 which would have virtually wiped out almost all the reserves we had.
Council last year budgeted for $450,000 to be put back into reserves which would have allowed them to grow for the first time in many years. To allow for that same amount to be put in reserves with the present proposed budget you would be looking at a 7% tax increase.
The issue of borrowing money to buy equipment, for the last six years council set aside $250,000 per year for purchasing new equipment. This year that $250,000 is not being put aside its being borrowed in addition to another $300,000 to buy a grader and a track hoe. If that $250,000 was put into the budget for equipment you would now be looking at a 4% tax increase, instead the municipality is taking on $550,000 of debt.
Number of councilors have raised the concern about the justification of the track hoe, administration stated that they are spending $10-13,000 a year to rent a machine. Those numbers by any financial formula do not justify borrowing $250,000 the saving will not even cover the payment on a machine, let alone depreciation.
The issue of hiring, one I struggled with personally for years. I agree with Councilor Saje do an organizational review before you hire more people. Much wiser approach than Councilor Mitchell standard position of “if administration feels we need these positions,then we should fill them”
Administration argues that they have to grow to find the inefficiencies in the organization, with positions being deleted down the road as attrition takes place.
Government positions seldom disappear once they are put in place, work is found to
justify them. In addition you run into labor relations issues with your employees, I have never yet heard of a CUPE local that stated we don’t need that position any more.
Water Meters are going to be sent to the purgatory known as further study.
Administration is also counting on the sale of municipal land to the tune of $125,000 to balance the budget, the current market is almost making the sale of land impossible unless you are prepared to give it away. Should the municipality do that with the taxpayers assets? Should they be in competition with private sellers forcing land values even lower?
Where will the process go from here? A number of councilors have already expressed the willingness to increase taxes by a smaller number than 5.3%.
They will chop at least a couple of the full time positions, placing those savings into reserves, they will increase taxes by 1-2% with the cash like wise going to reserves. The fiscally conservative councilors will get to vote against the increase, which will pass any way.
The track hoe will also go the same direction as the water meters, to be re evaluated when further inefficiencies are found.
Finally Councilor Saje raised the issue of the lack of dollars (zero) for the New Strategic Direction of council, I also have not heard of any dollars for marketing or promoting the community. Likewise for new recreation facilities, affordable housing the only reference that as been mentioned in that regard is Councilor’s Gail idea to put a tax on weekenders that own more than one home in the Pass, which some how will encourage those people to provide those home’s to lower income families.
6 comments:
A couple of thoughts. Considring the municapality does not run its equipment any where near full time, and considering that equipment depreciates as it gets older, would they not be better off buying equipment that was 2 or3 years old.I buy my cars this way and it save me at least half the cost of new.
Things like the shed for the Hillcrest fire department, though small, drive me nuts.10,000 bucks for a shed? Why not tell the department that you will pay for the material and you guys build it.
Overall I like this council, I do not like the Mayors bully attitude, Mitchell well he is out there,Londsburys comments seem to be out of touch also.3 guys fighting for change and Sig Gail on the fence, the swing vote.4 -3 but which way.Hoping for the best, fearing the worst.
Its so easy to spend taxpayers money.
I think some of these councillors have a good business sense, but some of them would go broke in a month running their own business.
Dean
What do you think about the prospect of increased user fees.
I have looked at the poll on the Herald site, very surprised with the numbers.
Sports Mom
Good comments Dean. I appreciate your common sense on the numbers as well as your insights and speculations on the “politics” involved in this very important job of querying then debating the budget. Unfortunately your comment on John Prince’s Blog is true, “…for some people fiscal responsibility is just something they hope to wake up in the morning and find”. It is a lot of hard work to dig into the under laying issues and sort out facts which taking time and a lot of back and forth debate. It is progress to see a little of this going on. We are no where near having a full picture of what is needed yet but it looks like a start. There are huge unfunded liabilities in our infrustructure which will take quite a while to quantify and figure out how we are going to pay for them.
I have to say after the way council jumped on board with Lisa’s presentation, I am happy with the amount of debate we are having. For the newer people in the Pass this may not seem like much but they have to realize where we have come from. The former mayor was not much interested in any independent thought much less debate.
The water meter issue is just a small part of the big puzzle, but meters are something that is long overdue, and as a matter of principle, they should not be deferred any longer. I don't know why meters have to be a "cost" to the Municipality. Why not come up with a program where people have the option of paying the full cost up front or paying for them over say four years -- in which case, the cost per month might be around $10. The financing of the payback option need not be done by the Municipality, which is all that has been discussed so far. Could they not work something out with a financial institution to deal with that option?
When politicians feel pressured between the choice of doing what needs to be done, even when it is very unpopular.
They often refer to further study, or looking at various options.
Irwin's favourite escape route was "lets table for further information".
Water Meters are not going away, the province will force them on municipalities sooner or later.
Post a Comment