Posted by Magda
It's budget night -- the night we'll find out just how much we'll be paying this year, and what services councillors decide deserve our funding.
It seems Rogers isn't airing it live -- they have it on channel 20 starting at 9 pm.
Watch this space, and of course tomorrow's newspaper, for more.
Posted by Magda
It's budget night -- the night we'll find out just how much we'll be paying this year, and what services councillors decide deserve our funding.
It seems Rogers isn't airing it live -- they have it on channel 20 starting at 9 pm.
Watch this space, and of course tomorrow's newspaper, for more.
Posted by Magda
Recreation fees could rise between 3 and 7% this year. That means, for instance, that it would cost $197 and hour to rent ice in the evenings, compared to the current $184. Fees for some classes would go up even more -- pilates classes could go for $70 instead of the current $56.
It's all pending approval by council. But it sounds a lot like a recent proposal in Toronto -- one the city was backpedalling on furiously yesterday after huge backlash.
The Toronto proposal has a bigger increase -- 21.5% on average for using rinks, pools and other facilities. The higher rates would mean $5.7 million in city coffers.
Torontonians were already upset about the proposal to increase fees for programs, but the rink and pool increases seem to have put people over the top.
The stakes are bigger in Toronto -- an $8.2 billion budget with council directing staff not to increase spending this year.
Here's wondering whether we'll see a similar reaction here.
Update: I've just heard from city staff that if the rates go up as proposed, it'll mean $250,000 more in city coffers.
Posted by Magda
Blog reader Blain Bovee suggests this: "Perhaps a new thread could be
started addressing the 'need' to make budget cuts. After all, when the
"two-hour free parking" plan was implemented, a cool $500,000 or more
is lost from the city revenues.
Posted by Magda
As our council committed to cap next year's tax hike at 4.5%, Hamilton is talking about a hike of anywhere between 6% and 8.3%. Ouch.
That's largely for service expansions. Maintaining current service would lead to an increase of just 2.5%. (That's different from Guelph, where council decided to allow a 3.5% increase to maintain current service, and 1% to allow for service expansions.)
Even so, Hamilton is saying it'd be hard to commit to a smaller increase, with expansions including things like road maintenance, snow removal and paramedics.
Mississauga, meanwhile, is talking about a 10% increase. Seems we're lucky not to be facing that kind of crunch.
Posted by Magda
South-end residents have long said they pay the most in taxes and get the least services in exchange.
At council yesterday, staff said the tax rate is the same across the city.
But Councillor Karl Wettstein argued that homes in the south end are worth more than homes elsewhere in the city. So while all residents pay the same percentage in taxes, the south end contributes more to the pot, he said.
"Whether you like it or not, taxes on homes in some parts of the city are higher than in others," Wettstein said. "That has divided the city. And, the part with higher taxes has no services."
This surprised me. All areas of the city should have services -- I think most people agree with that. But I'm not sure the level of tax paid should impact that in any way.
Posted by Magda
I did a bit of a double-take yesterday at council during a discussion about the south-end recreation centre. The discussion had eerie echoes of another I've had recently.
South end residents came to the meeting to urge council to go ahead with a feasibility study for the proposed south-end recreation centre. Some councillors were opposed, because the city is also preparing to do a master planning process for all recreation facilities. Councillor Gloria Kovach argued the master plan needed to happen before the detailed planning for the rec centre.
"I can't support the motion (to go ahead with the study in 2008) as it stands because its counterproductive. It's putting the cart before the horse," she said.
Allow me to take you back less than two months.
"I'm concerned that it appears to me that they're getting the cart before the horse," former councillor David Birtwistle said regarding a discussion about composting technologies that could be used in Guelph. "There's a waste management study going on, so what is the big rush to have a look at these technologies?"
It's sometimes necessary to make sure a government isn't so mired in studies that nothing goes ahead. But it's also possible to forge ahead in a piecemeal way, without looking at the big picture. I'm not sure which is happening here, but the similarities are interesting.
(Incidentally, council approved the south-end rec centre study to go ahead before the master planning, and they seem to be on track to pick a compost technology before that master planning process is done.)
Dalton McGuinty’s new Family Day will cost the city $233,000 in wages, councillors heard. That represents one day of salaries for staff who would be eligible to take the day off.
Councillor Leanne Piper expressed concern over the effect that would have on Heritage day, which is the third Monday in February — just like Family Day.
The city has long held heritage presentations in shopping malls and organized special events at the museum on that day, she said. The city can require some employees to work that day so those programs continue, staff said.
Posted by Magda
The city's just finished its preliminary budget meetings, and I'm impressed with the level of discussion at those meetings. Council opted to lengthen the budget process to give councillors a chance to ask questions and possibly direct staff to investigate options and come back to discuss them, all before budget night.
CAO Hans Loewig described it this way: "If there's any areas committee would like staff to pursue, this allows us time to do that and come back to committee if necessary so that we'll have a more thorough undersatnding of the budget in February."
And councillors have directed more investigation on things like upping bus service to every 20 minutes during peak times (from every 40) and increasing the frequency of yard waste pickup.
Seems like a really good way to ensure the budget that comes forward includes council priorities.
Posted by Laura
When it comes to city budgets, it's all about balancing priorities. Not every goal can come to fruition at once. Inevitably certain projects or hires are deferred until the time that money is more plentiful or the need is too great.
I was surprised to learn yesterday that the city's senior management team ranked hiring a new business licensing enforcement officer near the bottom of the list. It's surprising because council is going to be voting on whether to regulate body rub parlours when it revisits the city's business licence bylaw early next year.
There's been a delay in seeing a draft of that bylaw. Council was expected to see it by the end of 2007. Now it's going to be January or February before they get their first peek.
But even if council passes the bylaw, there could be problems enforcing it unless staff are hired.
Right now, Guelph only has one business licensing enforcement officer. And if he's swamped, the current system doesn't allow for someone else to pick up the slack.
Councillor Maggie Laidlaw was the first councillor to raise concern about the growing number of suspected body rub parlours in Guelph. She wants to be sure if the bylaw passes, there's sufficient staff to enforce it.
The city is currently undergoing a bylaw enforcement review. Let's hope there's a way to use the resources we have more efficiently.
If not, council still has the option to add the bylaw officer position to 2008 budget if they see fit. They even have a few months to mull it over. Budget night isn't scheduled until February.
"I still maintain my point about city staff inefficiency posted above, but why is this backwards plan of two-hour free parking in place?"
Thanks for the suggestion, Blain.What do readers think about the need for budget cuts?