Real budget fight starts next Monday

There were no fireworks during tonight's council budget workshop, but it might be a different picture next Monday.

While staff are recommending council set a tax increase target of 3 per cent, no decision was made tonight. Rather, staff will formally seek such direction after presenting a staff report to council next Monday night.

Some councillors have already hinted what they will bring to the table.

Not surprisingly, Maggie Laidlaw thinks the starting point should be about 8.5 per cent and go down from there, while Cam Guthrie wanted to know why staff couldn't recommend something lower than 3 per cent.

We'll have the story in tomorrow's paper.

Comments

[Craig Chamberlain]

8.5% increase on the table?!

ARE YOU SERIOUS, COUNCILLOR?!

[jayner]

8.5% as a starting point? This is frivolous use of the taxpayer dollar at a period of time when people cannot afford the yearly increase. I like Guthrie's suggestion? Why not under 3%? These are difficult economic times.

[jayner]

We really need to begin taking a hard look at the people on council and where they vote in regards to spending tax money/ raising taxes. The disconnect between their view of what is reasonable spending and economic challenges regular people face is totally not understood by several on this council.

[Gord]

This Laidlaw is a real piece of work. I imagine she has all kinds of money to spend. Instead of thinking of how to spend the taxpayers money -- she should be thinking of ways to SAVE money. Do your job for the people of Guelph - not just yourself.

[Karl Morant]

Maggie is out of touch here. We are all vulnerable here. Vulnerable to higher taxes and wasteful spending!

We all need to email Maggie maggie.laidlaw@guelph.ca and let her know our thoughts.

Be sure to include your address. >:-)

[R&J]

You can do all the e-mailing you want to Maggie, all you get back (if she lowers heself to reply) is a superior arrogance that knows no bounds.
R&J

[Paul]

Karl:
All ML will do is google your residence to see what kind of a house you live in, car you drive and whether you have a boat in your driveway. What do you expect of her, between her husband and herself I suspect that their income is in excess of $200k. Canada has been good to the lass from Glasgie!
Remember this for the next Municipal election

[Dis-a-Ray Antiques]

How come no one is asking why spending is going up 8.5% next year? My guess is that it ties in somewhat with growth, but you would think that there would be some kind of explanations out there, not just acceptance of the inevitable.

[Karl Morant]

HA! No kidding guys, I was just saying it to get a laugh. We should still email her to let her know. It's elitist well offs like her who think we should all pay more taxes.

What she really wants is her new library (which we don't need). That's what all the tax stuff is all about with her.

And as for the next election, she's not in my ward , but if she runs again I'll do everything I can to make sure she loses!!!

[D C]

8.5%? Stunningly irresponsible. Gosh, why not 30% Maggie ... so we can pay for London's, Hamilton's and Toronto's garbage too.

If it's OK with everyone, I'd like to offer the use of my boat to send her back to Glasgie ... because she sure has no understanding of how folks actually live here in Guelph.

[Laura]

"It is expected Al Horsman, the city’s executive director of finance and enterprise, will tell councillors the city needs $15 million more next year. This includes a $4.5 million increase in staffing costs, a $3.2 million increase in capital financing, $2.2 million in additional growth-related costs and a $2.9 million increase in local boards such as Police, Library and Public Health."

Does anyone really believe that the the $4.5million increase in staffing costs and the $2.9 million cost increases to Police, Fire and Public Health are not related to growth? Oh please how much more can the numbers dance?

If I am incorrect then the city should provide a breakdown of the staffing, police, public health and fire budgets to indicate how the increases are not related to growth. Tell the taxpayers that these dollars are not related to growth in population over the last 10 years?

[Edward Pickersgill]

LOL.... lighten up folks... obviously Maggie is just "having you on" as they say on the other side of the big pond....

[Jerry]

All i know is the reserve funds are going to
take another beating for the 6th year in a
row.

But then the mayor and council does nor mind
since by the next election the times thy will
be changing.
The mayor will have her nice big shiny plaque
hanging nice and pretty in the library and everything will be great in farbridgeland.

[j dimontino]

Hahahaha, yup Edward, Maggie's quite the jokester! A laugh a minute... and it keeps getting funnier! Actually, it might be fun to have two Councils: the "Real" one, and the "Just 'avin you on" one. Then we can all lighten up! Or wait... do we have that already?

[Jonathan]

Vitriole and venom. What a pit of Adders this hole is.

Construe your Criticism to be Constructive, or Clamp your Clap Trap.

oh - and the smattering of anti-foreigner rhetoric is very un-becoming.

[D C]

glad you joined us in the pit, Johnathan. careful where you step. for what its worth though, Googlicious Maggie has played the frugal british upbringing, know the value of a dollar, walked uphill in barefeet to school in the depth of winter cards a few times, so tit for tat and all that, mate. cheerio.

[Ward2Constituent]

Is that you Maggie....? ;)

[geo]

I posted this on the ward 2 blog but I'll say it here too. It seems to me the majority of councillors are sitting around that pompous ass table looking out for the interest of someone other then their constituents!

[Doug]

Don't fall for the bait and switch again this year.
Last year it was 9% and we got it down and patted our backs.
This year it's 8.5% down to 3.
Let's all be proud of what we did in council.
I know when I'm being had.
Just tell me why city hall gets to tell me how much money I get to keep.
This is legal theft and nothing less.

[Ghost of John Galt]

Laidlaw's statement was presented wholly out of context by Scott. Perhaps a focus on facts, reasoning, and rationale thought should be considered above sensationalism and trying to create a storyline out of nothing.

Staff presented the 8.5% as the rate required to maintain the status quo. To achieve something in the neighbourhood of 3% or less is going to require sacrifice. Suggesting that staff have prepared their initial asks and that Council should determine what comes off of that to get down to a more politically palatable rate is not unreasonable. It makes the entire process of what stays and what goes a little more transparent, something that you all should be pleased about. This is not to say that 8.5% will be passed, it is informing Council at what the picture could look like unless some hard decisions are made such as the cutting of services, the increase of user fees, the depletion of reserves, etc.

You are all so quick to judge, yet so slow to independent thought. Look beyond the words as they appear and consider the context, the implications, and the reasoning for why they're there and what they mean.

[Sean]

They need a whole audit of all servcies for both perspectives, staff and a 3rd party. let's see what they each have to say. I bet you any money staff will want to spend more and the 3rd party will find millions in savings.

[Craig Chamberlain]

Ghost, on that note, what independant thought have you brought to the phrase, "maintain the status quo" -- i.e., please, what services among those that make up the status quo will be the "same" but are projected to cost a lot more money to provide, and why?

[D C]

"Staff presented the 8.5% as the rate required to maintain the status quo. To achieve something in the neighbourhood of 3% or less is going to require sacrifice."

If this is true, then this city is being very poorly run. If indeed costs have risen such that an 8.5% increase is necessary then some very bad, and expensive, decisions have been made. I can think of a few, as Im sure you can too "Ghost of John Galt" ... LMAO@that name, by the way.

Funny that you use the term "sacrifice" there too, Ghosty. Good fiscal management never requires sacrifice. It requires prudent and intelligent budgetary decision-making ... something we simply do not have here in Guelph.

I wonder Ghosty, do you believe, like Googlicious Maggie, that those of us in town who might be fortunate enough to be in a financial positon to actually afford these sorts of large tax increase should just shut up and pay? Hmmmmm. Rather less than cordial attitude from a city councilor, no? But please, feel free to pop in to chastise those of us who criticize the idiots in power in our city - both staff and council. Personally, I stand by my statements that our leaders are doing a very bad job running this city and Im grateful for you providing more evidence to support that.

[Situation solved]

Well Hello Kathy Downer.

[Craig Chamberlain]

(That did cross my mind as well.)

[johny]

So rather than bitching about everything, how about we be somewhat productive. What city services are you willing to get rid of to reduce the tax rate? And how will you defend those decisions?

[Craig Chamberlain]

Interesting burden of proof.

Http://www.craigchamberlainonline.com

[Mayor George Sleeman]

hey need to do like toronto, have KPMG do a aduit and say what should be cut and where new revenue can be found. Also have staff do the same thing. I want to see boths sides of this/ I bet you $100 bucks that City Staff will want to spend more and KPMG would find millions in savings. Just do it.

[geo]

Hey johny
For starters how about putting an end to buses rolling around empty on Sundays and holidays, or any other day for that matter.

[geo]

Hey ghost
I thought independent thought made you a negative nellie in the eyes of her Royal Highness?
You better be careful if you want to keep your job.

[Jim]

I have to question where/how/why an 8.5% increase has to happen just to maintain services. We talk about transparency but there seems to be a real lack of numbers to support this up front claim. How can I believe anything this council says when the story is always a moving target. How many times do people have to get hit over the head before they realize this transparency thing is a moving target as to definition. I know some of you may claim a natural increase due to growth. That's fine, but what about the increase revenue due to this growth. Someone else said earlier and I think that is more the story. Get everyone upset with an increase and then come under, still an increase, and say how great we are. Stop defending that which can't be defended.

[John@hotmail.com]

How abput a change in council? A concerted effort to politically engage people in neighbourhoods who have tax and spend councillors, and lobby against these members of council. Until people become engaged and actually look at the tax increases, the expenditures, we will have the same situation-- a council gridlocked with a few working hard to be more frugal during these challenging economic times, and a larger number of council committed to the tax and spend policies which have wreaked havoc on most economies in the world. I will admit, I do not know much about municipal politics, but I intend to become more engaged. I think it is ridiculous that we are in a situation where we start at an increase of 8.5% to simply maintain services. People who run their household like that end up divorced and needing credit counselling. I realize the final number will not be 8.5%, but why are we talking about increases when most people have their wages frozen. Seriously, I like nice roads, streetlights, gardens as much as the next person-- but enough with tax increases right now.

[Steve]

Yay...another misleading tax story from the Merc that tries to use simple arithmetic to explain a complex situation. What does a 3% budget increase mean to each taxpayer's share? 3%? Not likely.
What's the population growth rate this year or next? What is the inflation rate this year or next? What costs have the provincial and federal governments downloaded to municipalities this year or next?
What are the details of the staff recommendations? What services will be cut or user fees added if we try for a lower increase?
If you don't have answers to these questions then it's too soon for your vitriolic overreactions.

[T.M.]

Budgeting for 3% seems about right. Some municipalities use a "municipal price index" instead of CPI because the costs impacts are different for city operations, such as fuel. Milton I believe has it above 3% for 2013. In addition, external boards and downloading can run havoc over budget projections. And often hidden in any city budget is the fact that many departments actually come out even or even lower. It's usually a handful of one-time or one-off hits that push the costs up. And then there are investments, such as activation grants, where the revenue won't show up for a while.

"Penny wise but pound foolish"-- putting off decisions, kicking the can down the road, burdening our grandchildren-- I see the United States caught in that quagmire, where ideology runs wild (can't say the new health law is a "tax" for political reasons-- it's a "mandate" or "penalty" that ironically originally came from a conservative think tank but let that not stop the smear games while real U.S. health costs are way out of whack with the rest of the world because government and taxes are deemed bad).

I see Guelph as sensible, average, and generally getting it right many more times than not.

[Craig Chamberlain]

Steve, you have to ask yourself why maintaining the same level of service IN THE COMING FISCAL YEAR (and what that actually means in terms of not just what but how services are provided) will require a 8.5% tax increase if there is no other changes.

Btw, Scott, what about the court cases we were going to have mediated? Are we projecting large payouts to towards getting them off the table ahead of an election? What are the projected costs of that sort of housekeeping?

[Craig Chamberlain]

Practically speaking, what is the real number: is it 8.5% or is it 3%? What are the REAL NUMBERS for what we spend, what we get in as income -- ALL SOURCES -- and what is the City projecting in terms of both, in a fragile global economy.

You have to admit, Steve, that is some gap!

[Laura]

The average Joe property tax owner is ? going to be asked make choices a) increased property taxes or b) reductions or cuts in service c) pay more users fees (read this as an increase in the indirect form of taxation).
then don't forget to add d) your increased hydro rates used to generate the in the $1.5 million hydro dividends which will be used to artificially lower your property taxes (another indirect form of taxation)

All these are occurring while the taxpayers are once againbeing asked to subsidize the Downtown in the form of activation grants.

What are services are you willing to lose or have reduced so the downtown developers can get back up to 30% of their construction costs?

Look at what we have already subsidized:
-store front improvements and renovations for bar owners and other business owners
-the downtown arena - taken over by the city from the the private developer what are the costs associated with this?
-the River Run Center
-downtown parking
-the Civic museum
-the grandiose Civic Square
-Old Quebec Street Mall when Eaton's left
-purchase and demolition of downtown buildings

Please someone at city hall add up all the taxpayers funds that have paid/ subsidized these items in the downtown for the last 10-20 years. That would be real transparency - to have those numbers in black and white

-then use this amount to figure out how much our taxes have gone up and how much revenue we have actually made in increased property taxes after all these "improvements" to the downtown.

[geo]

T.M.
If this is getting it right then please, please don't ever get it wrong!

[Steve]

Craig, those are precisely the questions that need to be asked. My point is: let's ask them (or better yet, have the reporters at the Merc ask them and report back what they find) before we complain about the injustice of it all.
If these are truly difficult financial times then that's all the more reason to maintain vital services for those who rely on them.

[Craig Chamberlain]

Ghost of John Galt, it was suggested you are former City Councillor Cathy Downer. Is that correct?

Steve, I know you follow your own counsel, which I respect -- but perhaps, could you be overstating how inflammatory Scott's post entry actually is re: your July 21/12 comment? I've looked at it and really don't see it. (See you tomorrow night?)

[Craig Chamberlain]

"The average Joe property tax owner is ? going to be asked make choices a) increased property taxes or b) reductions or cuts in service c) pay more users fees (read this as an increase in the indirect form of taxation).
then don't forget to add d) your increased hydro rates used to generate the in the $1.5 million hydro dividends which will be used to artificially lower your property taxes (another indirect form of taxation)"

Laura, likely all of the above in some form or another. Watch for choices about the above becoming less available to us. The question is, what is applied to our debt in all of that. A perpetual tax-borrow-spend cycle. We'll pay down enough debt to allow us to borrow for Round Two.

[Steve]

To answer your question, Craig, I think that presenting the overall budget percent increase to the total revenue from taxation as a "tax increase" of the same percentage gives the impression that this is the amount each taxpayer's taxes will increase next year. Sometimes this is explicitly stated in articles as a dollar value increase to the "typical" taxpayer. This is incorrect and fails to take into account population growth, which is a substantial portion of the total increase and will lessen each taxpayer's share, among other smaller factors. It also ignores inflation as a legitimate cause for budget increase. All of this makes for a somewhat misleading headline. I'm sure it's not intentional, and apologize to Scott if I suggested otherwise, but it still needs to be addressed.
I suspect the 3% figure being floated doesn't even cover inflation and growth, and actually represents a slight service and spending decrease, and more dipping into reserves to cover the shortfall.

I was hoping to come watch the fun tomorrow, but now have other commitments. Maybe next time.

[Doug]

There is only one question that needs to be asked of the Wizzards of smart at city hall.
Only one question that has any real import or meaning to the people of the city.
Only one question that the mayor and her coven are unwilling to consider.
WHERE ARE WE, THE TAXPAYERS, GOING TO FIND THIS MONEY?
I, for one, am pretty much tapped out.
3%, 8.5% it might as well be 300%.
And if this mayor and her gang voted for an increase of 25%, what would you do?
Well, it's been far more than 25% over the last few years if you do the math including compounding and we did nothing.

[geo]

Give a guy $10,000 plus to read an article and recommend no action be taken.
Seek out and pay Terry Bradshaw and company for a video and then claim he came to us over any other community in Canada.
Then sit and watch the majority of council sit around that giant table and puzzle over citizens who say they are tired of being lied to and GOUGED by the city!
I don't know what these people are doing on council but their not representing us!

[Jim]

Steve - It seems every year you come back with the same thing. What is a 3% or 8.5% increase in actual dollars to the tax payer and how is this fair or unfair. Always the question which is fine. You tend to paint it natural and required most times and I would agree except for one thing that never gets answered. That would be these increases are realistic if and only if the previous budget was. There in is my dilemma. Nobody seems to be able to justify the previous budget going back who knows how many years. So we just keep adding to it year after year saying this increase is justified. Maybe the increase is, but is the actual budget? Yes I have a problem with administration costs, legal costs, operations costs. unless you are prepared to decipher and analyze these costs guess we are stuck with what ever city hall wants to do. I certainly wont support though any percentage increase as being fair, required or otherwise. I think that is hiding your head in the sand.

[Craig Chamberlain]

Jim, good to have you back at 59. When the process is using the current year as a baseline and you're lacking confidence in the quality of that baseline, it's more difficult to buy into that process. I think the approaching zero target is absolutely attainable and while that can seem scary to staff a lot of good can come from it. Wouldn't the work environment for you be better if we had our debt under control -- how would it feel working for an organization with better financials?

[Steve]

The problem is that every expense is justifiable, just as every expense is frivolous. It depends who you ask. That's the basic nature of politics.
People with cars think the transit system is wasteful. People who don't read or people who regularly buy books at Chapters think the library system is wasteful. And of course many believe that city employees are overpaid and underworked.
So how do we determine if the previous year's budget is realistic and justified. Who do we ask?
The best we can do is compare Guelph's budget to a variety of other municipalities. Where are we out of line with the norm? Are we overtaxed compared to our neighbours? Compared to other similarly sized cities? We've done that exercise before and the answer always comes back as "no, not really".

[Doug]

Steve,
It couldn't be more simple!
All departments start with 0 dollars and prepares a budget.
Each expenditure must be justified, both in ammount and reason for it's requirement.
A budget review board is established to review and approve or deny each expenditure. Then passes off to council for final approval.
This board is made up of a cross section of the population,but excludes senior staff and department heads, who would only want to protect the empire.
It's called 0 based budgetting and it works in cities all over the world.
At least the ones who aren't going broke.

[D C]

Steve, I would suggest that it is misleading to compare budgets across municipalities. How much is spent is not as important as what it is spent on. When we compare nearby Cambridge's new City Hall to our new City Hall, we look like fools. Cost over-runs, lawsuits, a fired general contractor, lengthy delays and a decimated retail strip across the street. Cambridge seems to have actually completed their City Hall on time and on budget without killing surrounding businesses.

When we look at our decision to hire and pay an "integrity commissioner" over $10,000 to read a newspaper article and then interview a limited number of city employees from only one side of the dispute (arguably, the guilty side), we look like fools.

When we look at our decision to pay Terry Bradshaw $25,000 for a questionable promotional video that other cities rejected matter of factly, we look a bit foolish.

When we look at our decision to build a $30M+ compost facility three times the size required for our own waste and then rent it out to our neighbours without incorporating infrastructure costs into the fees we charge them, we look like fools.

So yes, while it may very well be the case that the tax increases being proposed here in town are "not really" that different from our neighbours, they aren't spending their money foolishly.

[geo]

If this council had the required anatomy the process would be quite simple.
Council tells staff, not asks staff, not suggests to staff, council tells staff that a zero per cent increase is required for the 2013 budget. Then staff can go about preparing it knowing exactly how much money they have to work with.

[Jim]

I think if we can have more people questioning why, as DC has above then maybe we could all feel a little more at ease with our financial situation. I also agree with DC in that this city has spent money, for whatever justification they may have had, that was foolish or inappropriate. The downtown is a good example of money spent that has not given any return.

[D C]

At the risk of being accused of being insensitive ... does anyone know if the City conducted a cost analysis for modifying to make safe the washroom where Isabel Warren was killed?

Was the decision announced today to tear down the building based primarily on the emotional issue highlighted in the Merc's editorial about providing closure or did the City decide it was too expensive to rebuild the washroom?

Does anyone know if there are plans to build a new washroom there or nearby? And at what cost?

[geo]

Hey Johny
How about putting those state of the art parking meters back in place downtown. There's a user fee the whole city can support.