County’s 2012-2014 Business Plan & 2012 Budget

The budget passed in this weeks Council meeting generally maintains
municipal, utility and library service levels at the 2011 standard. The
municipal tax rate required to support the municipal operating budget of
239.9 million dollars and consolidated capital budget of 101 million
dollars is 4.84%. However, your final total on your tax bill will include
seniors services plus library services plus school taxes.

I had difficulties with several areas of the budget this year and
wanted to explain to you why I voted against two of the budget
recommendations.

The budget theme brought forward by administration was presented as
responsibly delivering quality services while preparing for transition
to sustainability. The goal is balance: quality services with acceptable
taxes.

Council was told of a need for a solid and secure transition to
sustainability. Administration's desire is to develop a methodology in
budget process and mind set to get us there – to achieve a stable
practice of budget in an unstable world market.

Administration pointed out program efficiencies and ways they have
leveraged volume municipal purchases and technology to save tax payers
dollars.

So I had to pose this question to myself: has Council done the best we
can do to provide services that maintain our residents quality of life
while levying acceptable taxes? Is there any fat left in the budget? Is
there a business initiative in there that could be implemented in 2013
or 2014 – or phased in with less revenues allocated in 2012?

Yes there is – the branding initiative is an example of one of
those. Communications put forward a Business Initiative Request for 185,000 in
2012 with another 1.5 million in 2013 and 2014. But the actual branding initiative has not yet come before Council for final approval.

Oddly, during Council deliberations of the budget – Council itself
increased the money allocated to the branding advertising and marketing
budget by $600,000 (three times what administration requested) in the
first year of a program we have not even seen!

This does not fit into my definition of transition toward
sustainability – as administration has named this budget.

Speaking of return on investment and priorities – this Council turned
down my request to bring back a deferred Transit program of $348,000 to
expand and restructure specialized transportation to address inequities
in the current program.

Transition to sustainability requires proper prioritization and
rationale when allocating funds.

These are some of the reasons why I voted against two of the four
budget recommendations.

Other concerns I have with the budget involve the 4 million forecasted
surplus that has not been given back to the tax payer - but allocated to
reserves and capital expenditures. I am hopeful that Council will see
fit to seriously consider additional surpluses that may be found as
being put toward a tax decrease.

Further, given that our Organizational Review is due to be presented to
the public and Council in February, I saw no reason why we could not work
within a status quo budget until that time. We all understand that the
Municipal Price Inflation index at 3.4% has to be considered but I would
have liked to see more of a mind set that says we should work within the
budget until we see what efficiencies can be brought forward to cover
new business initiatives.

Generally, I think it is time economists and politicians talked a
little more - somebody has to start understanding that income and
salaries of the general population are not increasing in increments
large enough to create an unending pool of money for governments to
continue to dip into.

County News Release