Home » Chatham-Kent Local News » Council says ‘no’ to more firefighters; tax impact at 2.64%
Council says ‘no’ to more firefighters; tax impact at 2.64%
Chatham-Kent Council continued to axe lines from the 2012 budget last night (Feb. 2), as $525,000 was cut during the sixth night of budget deliberations.
Council turned down a staff recommendation to hire two full-time firefighters and one fire inspector.
Council discussed maintaining a proper level of reserve funding as well.
Reports say now the budget could be passed as early as Tuesday, when deliberations continue.
The potential tax increase now sits at 2.64 per cent – a number many councillors and the Mayor expected to reach.
As a result of the on-going budget deliberations, the regular meeting scheduled for Monday (Feb. 6), has been cancelled due to ongoing budget activity.
A combined Council business and planning meeting will take place Feb. 13.
Bill Smith
February 3, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Tks: for trying I know it’s tough, I need to make my own personal choices about staying in CK, I contribute around $100k per year in taxes, and if we end up with anything more than a zero, I will more than likely start the process of moving…there are a few other like me…Tks for the efforts I know a few are extremely sincere, and do like the new CAO and others.
Michael Cowtan
February 3, 2012 at 2:26 pm
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02/24/75-threatening-to-move-to-canada/
John Smith
February 3, 2012 at 5:19 pm
I am not getting a 2.64 % net wage increase this year so they have a long way to go. They need to live within the taxpayers means and not continue to hand out wage increases etc.
Fidel Kilpatrick
February 4, 2012 at 2:25 am
Nobody should be talking an increase about anything in the next few years. I mean salaries, pet projects and taxes. Freeze salaries and cut non-essential services. Whichever councillors agree to an increase this budget year, they are surely out of touch and have their heads in the sand. Remember their names and send them packing. I agree with investing in the community when the time is right. That time is not now.
Dan Brown
February 4, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Fidel
I agree. Improving services and doing more does not have to take more money all the time. Private companies that are still around had to do this to survive. Innovation and creativity are closely related to the dedication of the staff. I am sure we have the talent in the municipality to do this and if we don’t that says alot.
Michael Cowtan
February 5, 2012 at 11:04 am
I believe council is going in the right direction with a review of core services. This is not going to be done as part of budget review however, and I accept that we might have to tolerate a small increase, so that we can see improvements at no extra cost next year.
Dave Adams
February 6, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Michael
How can you say we might have to tolerate a small increase when the municipality can afford to give lucrative raises and a pension plan. Please review the following link and tell me of private company in Chatham-Kent that has given raises of this magnitude out.
Until pay cuts or at least freezes take place the taxpayers of C-K are the ones suffering while the municipality lives in a dream world of constant raises and no competitiion.
http://inck.ca/groups/general-discussion-topics/forum/topic/2012-ck-municipal-budget-forum-2?topic_page=3&num=15
Michael Cowtan
February 6, 2012 at 4:40 pm
I got at least 3% PA increase over the past 4 years until I retired last April. I don’t feel it appropriate to name the Company, but it was local, and non unionised. I suspect there are similar situations at other companies.
You might notice that I was actually the first person to post on the thread you mention.
John Tiffin
February 7, 2012 at 2:13 am
Michael
If you look at one of Gerry’s posts you will see the ave household income does not increase at the same rate as your pay or any of the municipal groups.
Michael Cowtan
February 7, 2012 at 6:48 pm
I am not trying to downplay the situation, and I realise that average income is only up about 1%PA over the past five years. But Dave asked me to name one private company that had given out raises of that magnitude given to municipal employees, and whilst I did not feel able to name them, I certainly know of at least one.
There are many people in this area living on reduced incomes compared to what they had been used to, and given that we are largely a blue collar area, it is difficult to see this situation reversing itself over the short term.
The municipality has suggested that a full review of services is required, and I support this idea. Maybe there are services that could be better performed if they were contracted out. I would be prepared to bet that snow clearing could be done cheaper for instance. There may also be other services that could be cancelled or downsized, but expecting the council to review these during budget deliberations is unrealistic.
I think that the INCK thread has been useful in correcting some misconceptions out there about our “bloated” local government, and I know that the budget chair is hoping that any increase can be further whittled down. I believe he is still hoping for zero. I however do not expect the Municipality to institute a wage freeze. Those of us who were around at the time remember what a disaster that was during the NDP Rae years. I believe that Mr Rae even says that if he knew then what he knows now, he would not have done it.
We also know what indiscriminate cutting can do in the long term. It has taken a decade to recover from the health care cuts of the Harris years, and he nearly got his way of doing away with our health care system by starving the beast.
Michael Cowtan
February 7, 2012 at 6:53 pm
A serious review of the police budget would probably pay dividends also.
Henry Santon
February 9, 2012 at 2:56 am
We hand out handsome wage increases and full pensions and look what we get.
“When it comes to declining populations, Chatham-Kent is ranked among the top 10 municipalities in Canada.”
It is time for change.
http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3465466