The View from Ward Three

Any time council proposes doing things differently, we're guaranteed to get emails or phone calls from residents or other interested parties about how we shouldn't make changes, because the change will cost more. The most recent example is our decision to move to monthly water billing in January 2014, rather than the current quarterly billing. The immediate reaction from some has been that our costs for the actual billing will now be triple, and certainly, for paper billing, mailing a bill every month rather than quarterly will cost three times as much.

Considering the high waters that have been making headlines lately, it's rather topical that water was also part of a couple of agenda items at last Monday's council meeting. Both are issues that I've raised in the past, and finally other members of council are starting to seriously consider and debate the options.

For a bit of a change of pace this week, I thought that I would give an overview of the work that I did last week as a member of council. It was a pretty typical week since this new council began, and you may be surprised at the number of meetings involved, and the range of topics covered.

Flat taxes are not fair. For someone living in a home with a lower assessed value, the proposed $189 flat tax will be a higher proportional tax increase than for someone in a home with a higher assessed value. If your current tax bill is $1000, it represents an almost 20% increase. If your current tax bill is $4000, it represents only 5%.

At the end of our two days of budget review meetings, I asked where in the budget was the $40,000 that previous councils had allocated each year for the last six years for floral decorations. I was told that it was in the base budget – in other words, administration had assumed that past expenditures were to continue, without any kind of review, so had left it in there, while claiming that a 3.6% increase in the base budget was necessary.

Council spent all day Friday and Saturday, from nine in the morning until five in the afternoon both days, going through the budget line by line. We went through two thick binders of budget material - one for capital expenditures, which includes things like equipment purchases, and the other for general operating expenditures, which includes things like labour costs and contracts.

This year's budget process is turning out to be much more open and thoughtful than it's been the last few years, which is a welcome change.

City staff have prepared a draft budget, which is posted on the city website. This is basically just the status quo, based on past years' budgets. It indicates a 3.6 per cent increase, presumably for wage increases. However, council hasn't even started looking at this document.

At the last council meeting, a bare majority of council members (5-4) voted to increase your utility rates every year for the next four years. This was in spite of a motion that I put forward that we only set the new rates for one year, which would give us the opportunity to rethink things next year.

This new council is looking at city committees, and how committee appointments are made, in a whole new way. We're hoping that the result is a set of committees that are functional, with defined work objectives, and that produce ideas that council can use in making decisions.

I spent from Sunday until Wednesday last week in Saskatoon at the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association annual meeting, along with several of my council colleagues and the city manager. Like most conferences, SUMA provides a good mix of formal and informal educational opportunities to learn about how various municipal councils function, and could function better.

Syndicate content