Budget discussions
Well, we had another budget meeting today. It was a bumpy meeting; no real flow or rhythm.
That's to be expected, I guess. All nine of us come at this thing from such different angles. We each have different philosophies, different experiences, different priorities, and different ways of viewing things. We have two things in common: one, we were all elected by the same wise, intelligent constituents (that's you!), and, two, we all love this town.
I sat down with my budget documents over the past few weeks, looked at the 6.5% increase (total, across all the funds), and got to work. I asked staff questions. I met with our finance director and CAO. I pondered. I drove around town looking at several of the budget items.
This morning, with all that information in mind, I made a list of 32 items to cut or defer to next year. It would have brought the budget down to basically the full time firefighters and three new police officers. There were a lot of sacrifices, but I felt it was doable, especially in a year where we are negotiating a new contract with our union staff.
So we went around the council table, talking about the budget. I pulled out my list and starting suggesting cuts. I got through five of them, before other councillors (all of them, incidentally), made it clear that they didn't think line-by-line was the best way to go. They were nice, but firm. Decisions like that belong in the hands of the staff, they said. In fact, the majority of them were clear that they didn't see a problem with the 6.5% figure.
Still, the increase was unacceptable to me. I can't support that. So, I made another effort. I suggested that we defer hiring three RCMP officers this year until we get the Township-City funding formula worked out. This sparked a lenghty debate, and it was clear the majority of council was in no way interested in deferring the police hirings. To be honest, I don't want to freeze the RCMP either. I did, however, want to get the table talking. And I wanted to highlight the funding inequity and put pressure on our RCMP staff to get this thing worked out once and for all. Township taxpayers have subsidized the City police force by anywhere from three to seven officers a year for the past decade. At $100,000+ per officer, that's a big bite of our budget.
I am confident the RCMP senior staff heard the message: get this issue fixed. Fast.
With 6.5% still on the books, and a few councillors leaning toward passing it right then and there, Mayor Alberts suggested a motion to refer the whole budget back to staff to get suggestions for cost reductions. Good idea, I thought, but not quite good enough. So I put in an amendment to give our staff a set of goalposts to aim for--bring the increase down to 4.95%. The referral motion, seconded by Richter, passed 6-3 with Ward, Kositsky and Vickberg opposed.
What does it mean? It means that staff will bring back a recommendation on what could be cut to get us down to 4.95%, an increase that will be mostly eaten up by the fulltime firefighters.
And, yes, I gave my list of suggested reductions to staff. Who knows? Maybe a few of them will show up in their report.
Budget time is tough. I toss and turn at night, thinking about folks on fixed incomes, and young families just starting out, having to pay more for government. I want to make sure every penny is carefully considered, and that we don't take one cent more than we need. That's what I ran for election on, and what my main focus at the table is.
Tonight, I'll sleep well, knowing I stuck to those principles.
E-mail Mayor and Council at mayorandcouncil@tol.bc.ca with your budget priorities.
Previous budget posts:
Budget - Introduction
Budget - New Utilities
Budget - Existing Utilities
Budget - General Fund
Budget - Conclusion
That's to be expected, I guess. All nine of us come at this thing from such different angles. We each have different philosophies, different experiences, different priorities, and different ways of viewing things. We have two things in common: one, we were all elected by the same wise, intelligent constituents (that's you!), and, two, we all love this town.
I sat down with my budget documents over the past few weeks, looked at the 6.5% increase (total, across all the funds), and got to work. I asked staff questions. I met with our finance director and CAO. I pondered. I drove around town looking at several of the budget items.
This morning, with all that information in mind, I made a list of 32 items to cut or defer to next year. It would have brought the budget down to basically the full time firefighters and three new police officers. There were a lot of sacrifices, but I felt it was doable, especially in a year where we are negotiating a new contract with our union staff.
So we went around the council table, talking about the budget. I pulled out my list and starting suggesting cuts. I got through five of them, before other councillors (all of them, incidentally), made it clear that they didn't think line-by-line was the best way to go. They were nice, but firm. Decisions like that belong in the hands of the staff, they said. In fact, the majority of them were clear that they didn't see a problem with the 6.5% figure.
Still, the increase was unacceptable to me. I can't support that. So, I made another effort. I suggested that we defer hiring three RCMP officers this year until we get the Township-City funding formula worked out. This sparked a lenghty debate, and it was clear the majority of council was in no way interested in deferring the police hirings. To be honest, I don't want to freeze the RCMP either. I did, however, want to get the table talking. And I wanted to highlight the funding inequity and put pressure on our RCMP staff to get this thing worked out once and for all. Township taxpayers have subsidized the City police force by anywhere from three to seven officers a year for the past decade. At $100,000+ per officer, that's a big bite of our budget.
I am confident the RCMP senior staff heard the message: get this issue fixed. Fast.
With 6.5% still on the books, and a few councillors leaning toward passing it right then and there, Mayor Alberts suggested a motion to refer the whole budget back to staff to get suggestions for cost reductions. Good idea, I thought, but not quite good enough. So I put in an amendment to give our staff a set of goalposts to aim for--bring the increase down to 4.95%. The referral motion, seconded by Richter, passed 6-3 with Ward, Kositsky and Vickberg opposed.
What does it mean? It means that staff will bring back a recommendation on what could be cut to get us down to 4.95%, an increase that will be mostly eaten up by the fulltime firefighters.
And, yes, I gave my list of suggested reductions to staff. Who knows? Maybe a few of them will show up in their report.
Budget time is tough. I toss and turn at night, thinking about folks on fixed incomes, and young families just starting out, having to pay more for government. I want to make sure every penny is carefully considered, and that we don't take one cent more than we need. That's what I ran for election on, and what my main focus at the table is.
Tonight, I'll sleep well, knowing I stuck to those principles.
E-mail Mayor and Council at mayorandcouncil@tol.bc.ca with your budget priorities.
Previous budget posts:
Budget - Introduction
Budget - New Utilities
Budget - Existing Utilities
Budget - General Fund
Budget - Conclusion