The Pending Budget Draft Meetings in 2009
Section A. of the article covered my critical comments on MPS DRAFT issues while section B. was titled THE TOWN BUDGET.
Although, this is old stuff or history, we are about to go through a new budget process 2009 again and it might prove interesting to compare its draft-meeting discussions, its progress and outcome with my comments of 2008. I recall that Mr. Brideau had promised last year that the whole budget process will become more transparent to the public in the future while presenting it and its content in a much more comprehensible format and different from the format required by government regulations.
Let’s find out!
Hereafter, you will find the relevant part of my last year’s comments regarding the Budget-finding process as a snap-shot of the situation I saw it at the end of April beginning of May 2008:
B. THE TOWN BUDGET
Parallel to the recent PSPAC meetings the proposed Budget 2008/2009 became introduced to the public. The fired-up tension experienced during PSPAC meetings carried over to the first public budget meeting when the CAO, Mr. Brideau, presented a tax rate increase and an increased budget total of $7,402,078.
The first public budget meeting showed a lot of confusion in the audience. Mr. Brideau presented dollar figures of “wish lists” of rounded up estimates provided by his departmental directors. The audience had no or not enough background information to really question the listed about 500 or more money figures in regards to what has to be done in 2008/2009, with what priority, with what level of depth/commitment and thereafter with what attached money amounts.
Mr. Brideau would do at least part of his job well in presenting relevant budget figures (especially expenditures) to the public in a different, more simplified but understandable way by having them at least labelled correctly. From his point of view it may be necessary to have the budget figures departmentalized. But I would like to see defined and understandable “key figures” totaled for the entire Administration of the Town as well and to be able to compare them with the ones from previous budget years.
The audience could only argue why certain items were included in the budget while others were not. The audience learned as well that putting pressure on Mr. Brideau and the Council resulted in presentations of “missing” items (School playground) at the next Council meeting with the outcome, that the School-playground-Phase 1 all of a sudden was given a green light.
For me it was outrageous to learn that the Town’s administration had committed itself to certain new expenditures already with the intent to honour them prior to having the Budget 2008/2009 settled. My recommendation would be: Have all these “early” committed expenditures up for public discussion again (Acadia Field, Acadia Cinema, etc.).
Focusing just on one item, the Acadia Cinema Grant in the amount of $20,000, I have a major problem to understand why the Town has to subsidize this cinema. Even as a Co-op and a non-profit organization it has to be run as a business and to survive without the Town pumping money into it a second time ($5,000 for a sign beforehand). I was told that the Wolfville Business Development Corporation Ltd. has or will provide some money for the planned new digital projector as well. In general, I like the cinema with their sometimes very special movies and - despite the fact that not very many residents will go to see those - it even may be regarded as an attraction for the Town, but its business should not rely on grants from the Town. The $20,000 could be placed somewhere else, where a lot more residents or all could really benefit.
Councilman Zimmerman, who is on the board of directors of the Acadia Cinema as well, brought the request for the $20,000 grant to the Council table but had left the room when the other Councillors voted in favour of this motion. I expect him to do the same during the final voting for the 2008/2009 budget.
Only Councilman MacKay had questioned the amount of $20,000 and had suggested half of it. Additional questions running through my mind are:
- Why does it have to be a grant and can’t be loan?
- Had the Council seen assuring financial statements that the cinema will be around in the years to come (without additional subsidies)?
- Has the Council checked the relevance of the quoted price and the size for a digital projector in the $70,000 bracket?
- What is the value of the trade-in for the current projector?
- What concrete benefits should the Town demand for all its residents prior to providing the grant (maybe an installation of a microphone system for some free-of-charge Town meetings)?
- Could the grant be avoided by increasing the ticket price?
- What financial relationship is established between the Cinema and the space renting “just us!” Café, another Co-op co-founded by Councilman Mangle?
- Does the “just us!” Café pay a fair market rent, a fair share for power, heat, taxes, frontage fees etc.?
These are at least some of the questions all voting Councillors should be able to understand and answer fully beforehand unless they just would like to do Councilman Zimmerman a favour in his other role as a board member of the Cinema.
And in a similar way I would like to have all the other items analyzed, where the Town is giving money away for really nothing in return that will benefit all its residents.
The uproar in the audience culminated in regards to two issues, the tax rate increase to 1.49 and the expanded budget to a total as above of $7,402,078. There were demands from the audience to limit the budget total to $7,000,000. Councilman MacKay seemed to be supportive to a cap like this as well.
I firmly believe that having the Council cap the 2008/2009 budget at $7,000,000 will not be felt anywhere as a decline in services to Wolfville’s residents. There still will be a lot of “safety” built into the presented and rounded amounts of the departmental directors. To cap the total to $7,000,000 should be at least a little challenge to the CAO, Mr. Brideau, and his directors.
Personally, and for the sake of all residential taxpayers, I would like to see measures established and published for control of all members of the Administration doing a good, an average or a poor job within given budget boundaries and responsibilities. There is no control like this at all.
Towards the end of the first budget meeting Mr. Wrye had played “Mr. Nice Guy” again - probably and possibly driven by his political ambitions in the election year - asking for a revised budget draft before the end of April. His suggestions were to stay with the current tax rate or below and to try to get the budget total down significantly.
Very interesting was the content of an “emotional” speech of Councilwoman Segado stating that she needs help and that she doesn’t’t really know how to decide on the Budget 2008/2009 when it will come to the Council table for the final approval. Is she really up for the job requirements and responsibilities invested in her as a Councillor? Wait and see how she will vote finally.
On April 28, 2008 Mr. Brideau came back with a revised budget. The tax rate was proposed to stay at last year’s rate (1.44) and not below it and the budget total became reduced by 4.325% to $7,081,967.
This will be still too easy to work with and in my opinion will not present any real challenge to Mr. Brideau and his departmental directors. The tension in the audience felt drastically reduced during this meeting. Obviously, most of the rebellious ones had just opposed the previously proposed tax rate hike despite the fact that the assessment value on the properties in total had gone up at least 2.3% anyhow.
Lutz E. Becker / Jan. 19, 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment