Opinion: The 2012 Municipal Budget
By Brian Cleeve
About 100 residents budgeted their time on Jan. 19, to get the skinny on the proposed 2012 Chatham-Kent operating budget.
I found it strange being in the audience at the Adult Lifestyle Centre for the open house and presentation since in my former life as a reporter I would have had to take notes and talk to a bunch of people. Instead, I took a few notes and talked to a few people.
I commend everyone of the people who took almost three hours out of their hectic schedules to show up, listen to the proposals and ask questions or make comments. I don’t know how many of them are the same people who daily solve all the problems of the municipality, dare I say the world, while ensconced comfortably at tables in coffee shops around Chatham-Kent.
The first draft of the estimated $258 million budget provides for a 7.6 per cent tax hike. Coun. Art Stirling, the budget chair, told the audience that council knows that such a hike is “unacceptable” and is working to whittle it down, ultimately to zero if possible.
“In order to accomplish that goal, we would have to cut services and we want to know what services you want cut,” Stirling said. And there, my friends, is the rub.
Gerry Wolting, the municipality’s manager of corporate services, explained that the 7.6 per cent is broken down into 4.1 per cent for existing services, two per cent for infrastructure phase in and another 1.5 per cent for various initiatives.
Wolting and the rest of municipal staff were tasked with providing council with options to getting a zero budget increase. That could be achieved by changing service levels (three per cent) delaying infrastructure phase in (two per cent) scaling back initiatives (1.5 per cent) and closed session provisions( 1.1 per cent.) A one per cent increase in taxes accounts for about $1.2 million in revenue.
Wolting presented a number of scenarios in which the tax hike could be lowered to five, one 1.5 etc, from the 7.6. Some of those included eliminating or curtailing some emergency services in Blenheim.
Cutting out council meals was one of the potential savings and it brought howls of agreement from most of the crowd.
One person questioned the fact that 44 per cent of the budget is dedicated to employee costs and another 21 per cent is for outside contractors. But I did not hear any person stand up and say “yes, I’m willing to have services cut ” to achieve the zero per cent saving.
The average home owner with a property assessed at about $147,000 paid almost $2,500 in municipal taxes last year and $352 to school boards.
In Chatham, with a one per cent increase in taxes, that person would pay an extra $23 per year. The 7.6 hike would amount to about $175 per year or about $15 per month, far less than the aforementioned coffee shop denizens spend in one month on coffee, I suspect.
I’m not saying that a 7.6 per cent tax hike is a good idea. Of course I don’t want to pay any more taxes through my rent than absolutely necessary. Still, I don’t know what an appropriate tax hike would be.
One of the options suggested was cutting off grants to organizations such as seniors. One person pointed out that provincial grants are contingent upon the municipal grants and so the loss of such grants could spell the end for some groups. Other proposals involved closing a couple of museums and libraries and there were objections raised there. Another audience member pointed out that if we want to attract new blood to Chatham-Kent, we had better be willing to supply services and amenities that help bring in those new people.
I wish Stirling and council good luck in determining a budget. I don’t even do my own income tax so I can’t offer any financial advice. Of course I don’t want to see money wasted, but I also don’t want the budget cut so badly that services are slashed to the point where they may not exist at all.
Anyway, council will press on and maybe I’ll head over to one of those coffee shops; I’m dying to find out what’s up and how much my taxes should go up!
South Kent Voter
January 22, 2012 at 10:18 pm
Every year it’s the same thing. Cut this, slash that, gotta get zero percent. Maybe that’s why our population growth is at zero percent too, maybe nobody wants to move here because we’re so obsessed with cutbacks. So I’ve been wondering, what COULD we do as a community IF we took a one-time 10% tax increase and spent the extra on projects to benefit everyone? No new staff hired, just community-building projects. Maybe kids’ splashpads in every town? Maybe install free internet hotspots in every downtown? Maybe buy national advertising to promote C-K like it’s never been promoted before? If 1% is $23 then 10% is $230 and that’s three tanks of gas — spread over a year. I can afford that. We need to ask ourselves if we’re better off as a community due to our relentless pursuit of zero percent. Or if it’s time we invested in our children, our future, and ourselves.
Rob
January 23, 2012 at 1:24 am
When I read the numbers I actually asked myself out loud.. “So what could I get for $500?”
I’m not opposed to investing in CK.
Cookie
January 23, 2012 at 12:04 am
I agree with South Kent voter – when we did have low unemployment in Chatham-Kent, nothing was ever done in the area of community improvement. Memorial Arena is definitely one of the older arenas in Canada and Council persists in dumping more money into it. And that $230 we’re talking about is approximately $4.50 week, probably much less than what the members of the “Timmy’s municipal council” spend on their coffee while they, in their infinite wisdom, debate and deliberate about how C-K should be run!
Fidel Kilpatrick
January 23, 2012 at 2:58 am
I wouldn’t oppose the increase if it were used for community building-projects. The problem is that this council would eat it up with each “study” for said project, not to mention expensive staff snafus where no heads roll. Still, I try to stay positive.
Marlee
January 23, 2012 at 3:19 pm
If we do not maintain and expand our quality of life facilities – libraries, museums, sports facilities, parks – as well as support our schools, physician recruitment and tourist attractions the efforts to attract new businesses, young people and immigrants will be wasted. The families which would come with the jobs all want something to do when they get here.
Quality of life should be the top priority in budget deliberations – and that is what Council agreed when they did their strategic visioning at the beginning of this term.
There are some “pot hole fillers” on Council. They need to learn that the higher the quality of life, the more pot holes can be filled – not the other way around.
South Kent Voter is right – NOW is the time to invest in our community for the future.
By the way – this does not mean hiring more staff. I worry about all the in camera items. I think the public should be told how many new staff are being considered and in which departments, at what salary.
Question
January 23, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Agree and disagree Marlee.
Disagree: For the most part, speaking of the masses. No young people are going to be interested in things like our libraries and museums. Possibly once they have kids, but new graduates from outside CK and those who left CK and we hope to get back don’t care about these things.
Quality of life is defined in many different ways to many different people. You are a person who enjoys the arts and culture, most young people are worried about a nightlife, not involving theatre at the Kiwanis or Capitol (I’ve been to both but it’s not the ideal night out), and the potential to meet young people, particularly singles.
Our arenas although old, are not used to capacity now.
The top priority needs to be, in my opinion as a young person, stimulating and diversifying our economy in sustainabile industries (no I don’t mean wind turbines when I say sustainable). We need to build our information and technology sector, because this is where we are losing our young people. And I am aware we have businesses like TekSavvy, SelectCore, and Scribendi, but that arguement is invalid because the industry is niche here, not widespread.
This is no an “if you build it they will come” situation. Building a twinpad arena, revamping the Capitol, fixing up and promoting our libraries and museums will not bring businesses.
Bringing businesses will drive these improvements. Bringing new, educational opportunities and tech jobs will drive a nightlife and the revitilization of our ammenities.
The rest is just throwing our money in a hole.
Agree: Yes improving these things will improve quality of life, there is no way to argue that, but it’s the order we do them in. We are turning into a service town and that is not sustainable.
My two cents. I’m pessimistic though. Ideas come and go and our leader say “that’s interesting,” and then pay for a study, and then hire a company from London or Toronto that screws us and our money and stimulus and chance to grow goes flush.
Common Sense
January 24, 2012 at 11:05 am
OK I have to disagree with Marlee on this, and with many of the arts and culture community. This idea that has been spoon fed by council and the local CATs that people will leave the community and their jobs because they have nothing to do is just not based on any facts at all. Why do thousands of people move out west every year, and away from CK – one thing – jobs. People will uproot their families, move away from everything familiar, learn a new language and almost anything else for a good paying job. I have never heard of someone leaving a great job in CK because they had limited access to a library or because the art and culture scene was better somewhere else. The absolute focus of council should be in the recruitment of companies to Chatham-Kent. If there were 1000′s of job openings we would have 1000′s of people who would have a reason to locate to CK. Once they are here we can worry about keeping them, until then our population will continue to decline and our taxes will increase every year. Let’s give arts and culture a bit of rest and focus on what is really important to the average person.
marlee
January 27, 2012 at 5:19 pm
to Common Sense
i am not suggesting that people will leave good jobs because of lack of cultural amenities. I am, however, saying that some companies here are having trouble recuiting top quality people for good jobs because of the perception of a low quality of life. In fact, I have been told that specifically by one expanding company.
Note by the way, the “perception” of low quality of life. If you look at my occasional lists of cultural activities you will see a wide range of events – some free – available across the municipality.
One other fact related to culture. Following a recent cross-Ontario survey, the respected Ivey School of Business reported that for every dollar spent on culture/heritage $27 was earned in the community. Not a bad investment!!
Jim in Wallaceburg
January 23, 2012 at 6:50 pm
Municipalities, like households or any size business, need to live within their means. We are going to feel financial austerity at both the provincial and federal levels of government this year and municipal governments are not exempt. No more that a 2% tax increase with any delays to phased to infrastructure to be the last to see the axe.
1 of 110,000 Sake Holdera
January 23, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Municipally of Chatham- Kent need to take a lead and ask all employees to take a immediate wage frees or even a 2% wage reduction from Mayor Hope down. This devise reasoning and other restraints proposed would bring the former County of Kent and all its Agra-Urban parts in a more positive read investment region.
To add we need to retain services on all levels and at the same time tighten our belts a little making this Chatham Kent responsive to the larger community the 110, 000 Stake Holding Residents
There are no plans for change
January 24, 2012 at 8:13 am
I dont think the municipality has any plans to change day to day opperations. When a department or council is actually serious about change the first thing they do is hire an out of town consultant to justify their actions. When they want to appear to be doing their due diligence, without the intention of changing a thing, they hold public meetings.
Every citizen is saying a wage freeze or roll back is needed by municipal employees. It is like someone tapping on a microphone saying ” hello is thing on?”. Can you hear us council and upper management? We don’t want a lot of services cut we just want you not to get a raise, take a hit just like most of the residents of CK have taken.
This is one time an out of town consultant won’t be hired, because the ones involved in the decision making process will never put a wage freeze or rollback on the table. Let’s be realistic – another raise for municipal employees is just not justifiable in these economic times. The single action of rolling back all non-union municipal wages 5% would equal a 0% increase in taxes and no services cut. But this won’t happen because those non-union municipal employees are the ones that are actually preparing the budget reccomendations.
John
January 25, 2012 at 1:40 am
Well does anyone even know if council members or those non-union employees even read these comments or even take any of theses things into concideration.. We are probably talking to ourselves again.
But council might want to dig deep and get creative otherwise the community may pick different people to do the job next time.
Hey I like the idea of Municipal Employees using their own vehicle to get back and forth to work and using their own gas and wearing out their own tires.
I do understand some people are on call for emergency reasons but c-mon not all Municipal Employees are on call every night. I say park’em at the end of the day.
Sorry if this offends anyone but my taxes being increased and getting less services is offensive also.
Just my 2 cents!
Good Luck guys! Not an easy job for sure..
John
Art Stirling
January 25, 2012 at 4:29 pm
John and Everyone,
As Chair of Council’s Budget Committee, I listen to or read every comment. Here on inck.ca, facebook comments on the news sites, comments on media web pages, emails, texts, phone calls, comments at public openhouses, etc. etc. There are many good suggestions. There are also many that cannot be implemented for a wide variety of reasons. As councillors, we have an obligation to listen, sort through people’s thoughts, seek opinions or professional expertise, analyze reports from staff, reflect, and make the most informed, most responsible decision we can. It’s not an exact science, but it is democracy.
Regards,
Councillor Art Stirling
Listen Again
January 25, 2012 at 6:53 pm
Art. Thanks for responding. Your presence here and communication is appreciated.
A few months back I sent an email to all councillors with a question. That’s 17 councillors. I heard back from 4. Two who know me personally. One told me they were not surprised other councillors didn’t respond as it’s the same 3 councillors who respond to every inquiry, and that most don’t know how to use their email, and if they do, they will not respond to any question or inquiry. This councillor also said even when he tries to email council, it’s only the same few who respond.
I ask you then, as one who is listening, to listen again, and take all of these comments to council and ask them to listen again, or for the first time.
You called it an “obligation to listen.” I challenge that and say that another councillor told me that our council does not listen, even to each other.
Art Stirling
January 25, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Well, what I said is it is our obligation to listen. In all honesty, if I responded to absolutely everything, that would be a full-time job in itself.
I’m not sure what the specific topic of your email was so I’m not even sure if I was one of the four that responded or not. I won’t defend those councillors that pay little or no attention to anything. I can only speak for myself.
Part of the challenge is understanding the expectations of the letter or email writer. Some ‘expect’ 18 responses, some ‘expect’ their own ward councillors to respond, some ‘expect’ a response from a member of the municipal staff who is an expert in the area they are writing about. That expecation is not always clear.
What often does happen is this … If someone in Wallaceburg, for example, sends a note to all of Council and the Wallaceburg councillors respond to that person and copy all of Council, other councillors will not respond, especially if the Wallaceburg councillors asked members of staff to respond or intervene somehow. Councillors are respectful of not meddling in the affairs of a ward that is not their own. We like to give the ward councillors the opportunity to solve problems first.
I don’t know if this helps, I’m just trying to explain what happens. We can always do better, for certain.
Art