0
The contentious budget
22 January 2010
[indent]
Collingwood's budget process has started and, as usual, the smallest amounts have proven the most contentious. Most of the larger items we'll breeze through because things like infrastructure are necessary expenses we'll usually agree on, collectively. But spending on community groups, charities, helping nonprofit agencies and community groups with small amounts seems to bring out the parsimonious in some people.
Let's start with the first bone of contention: council's own budget. Most of council's budget goes to wages, benefits and some money for "professional development" - attending conferences and events. But more than 11% - $35,500 - has been allocated this year for Councillors Sandberg and Jeffrey who are, respectively, on the AMO and FCM boards*. While I have been supportive of their efforts on these agencies, I questioned how much the average taxpayer go back for that money. **
I don't question our participation in those groups - I support membership - but I do question our increasing financial support for two councillors who have taken roles on their boards. After all, this council won't give a nickel to the United Way, rejects several small requests from charities, and fights aggressively against spending money for the humane society - but seems happy to spend more than that for our two councillors (and of their personal political ambitions). I think that's wrong and more than a little self-serving.
AMO and FCM do a lot of good work on behalf of municipalities, and I understand that. But what does the average taxpayer know of that? I asked for a report outlining the benefits of AMO and FCM so people would understand them and perhaps then we could justify spending money on outside agencies when we short-changed our own community groups. But council rejected that request. I wanted to wait until we had dealt with the community's requests before we tackled the council funding. But
in a recorded vote, only I voted against the council budget.
Next up were the council grants (AMFAP) - money allocated after groups and organizations submit a formal request. These are in two roughly equal parts - grants and donations recommended by the Leisure Services Committee, and those addressed by council. Usually I am very supportive of helping not-for-profit community groups and agencies because they get so little funding for their good work and most of what they do benefits the community at large.
Those recommended by the LSC were accepted without argument, or even comment. They represent $70,000 of your tax dollars, although in fairness quite a few requests are not financial, but rather in-kind services (for example, the Optimist Club gets the Curling Club rental for free to host the annual Mother of All Yard Sales). These have to be entered into the books, however, as expenses even if no money really changes hands.
Quite often the committee reduces a request. Theatre Collingwood, for example, asked for $29,782 for new software and training. They got $4,000. The Collingwood Jazz and Blues Society asked for $10,000 to develop a new program for schools. They got $5,000. But sometimes they get passed as is - the Collingwood Sailing School got its $3,000 for a new dinghy and the CCI Marching Band got its $5,000 for new uniforms. Most requests were, I'd say, reasonable and deserving of their funding.
The requests that don't comfortably fit the recreation or cultural mandates of the committee come to council for assessment, and debate. And that's where council starts pinching pennies.
These applications included a request by the United Way for $12,500 to develop a volunteer centre. I wanted to give them at least some of that, because I felt we need a focal point for our many volunteers. Council disagreed: they got zero. Councillor Jeffrey argued that she didn't want to give to the United Way because their 'administration costs" were too high (Councillor Jeffrey is getting $10,500 of your tax money in the budget for her role at FCM, however).
The Collingwood & District Historical Society asked for $2,000 to develop and promoted a tour of local historical buildings. After lengthy debate about it, they got $1,000. The Door Youth Centre asked for $20,000 to continue operating its downtown youth drop-in centre . They got $10,000 (this is not bad, considering that last term we had to fight to get them anything at all). Employment and Resource Services wanted $5,400 for a youth-based venture capital program to encourage and reward young entrepreneurs. They got zero.
Others like My Friend's House, Hospice and Crimestoppers got the amounts they requested. In general,however, groups got less than what they requested.
Georgian Bay Animal Rescue asked for $25,000 for its spay-neuter and vaccination programs. That got Councillor McNabb up in arms demanding to see a business plan (which he never asks for from any other agency). He commented disparagingly on the group's policies (which he misrepresented in his comments) and then wondered why the group was adopting animals with "communicable diseases.' Councillor Edwards, too, didn't want to spend the money.
In the end the group got $7,500 with a request to bring back a business plan for further consideration of funding (the same thing happened last year and still their request was rejected by council, so I wonder why anyone would bother).
It seems we can spend $35,000 to keep our councillors in executive roles in AMO and FCM, but we can't spend two-thirds of that to help the local humane society prevent the problem of unwanted litters. Council approved our own budget with $10,000 allocated for "receptions," $3,000 for promotional products, $1,000 for public relations and $1,000 for 'strategic planning.' To me there's something very wrong in our priorities. Which do you think is more important to the overall good of the community?
It took hours to argue over what amounted to a tiny fraction of our overall budget - less than $100,000 in requests***. In the end, it said a lot more about the outlook of certain members of council towards specific community groups - and to their view on their own spending - than it said about the budget process in general. I'm sure in an election year, some of their comments will be remembered by those groups.
More to come. We resume budget talks at 2 p.m., Monday.
~~~~~
* AMO = Association of Municipalities of Ontario. FCM = Federation of Canadian Municipalities. These groups act as, respectively, provincial and federal advocates and lobbyists for legislation, funding, and support. I cannot recall council ever being asked to comment on or vote on AMO or FCM initiatives, policies or directions by our representatives. The only time I recall we did ask Councillor Jeffrey to vote a certain way on an FCM policy, she voted the other way. So it's hard to quantify what these roles mean to council, aside from some thin patina of prestige that accrues to the participants.
** These aren't new expenses, but they been growing steadily. In 2007, the budget for these two items was $17,500 total. In 2008 it was over $22,000. In 2009 it grew to $34,000 (of which about $30,000 was spent). Now it's up to $35,000. That could fund both the United Way and humane society requests.
*** One member of the media quipped it was the 'Bataan Death March" of budget deliberations.
[/indent]
Let's start with the first bone of contention: council's own budget. Most of council's budget goes to wages, benefits and some money for "professional development" - attending conferences and events. But more than 11% - $35,500 - has been allocated this year for Councillors Sandberg and Jeffrey who are, respectively, on the AMO and FCM boards*. While I have been supportive of their efforts on these agencies, I questioned how much the average taxpayer go back for that money. **
I don't question our participation in those groups - I support membership - but I do question our increasing financial support for two councillors who have taken roles on their boards. After all, this council won't give a nickel to the United Way, rejects several small requests from charities, and fights aggressively against spending money for the humane society - but seems happy to spend more than that for our two councillors (and of their personal political ambitions). I think that's wrong and more than a little self-serving.
AMO and FCM do a lot of good work on behalf of municipalities, and I understand that. But what does the average taxpayer know of that? I asked for a report outlining the benefits of AMO and FCM so people would understand them and perhaps then we could justify spending money on outside agencies when we short-changed our own community groups. But council rejected that request. I wanted to wait until we had dealt with the community's requests before we tackled the council funding. But
in a recorded vote, only I voted against the council budget.
Next up were the council grants (AMFAP) - money allocated after groups and organizations submit a formal request. These are in two roughly equal parts - grants and donations recommended by the Leisure Services Committee, and those addressed by council. Usually I am very supportive of helping not-for-profit community groups and agencies because they get so little funding for their good work and most of what they do benefits the community at large.
Those recommended by the LSC were accepted without argument, or even comment. They represent $70,000 of your tax dollars, although in fairness quite a few requests are not financial, but rather in-kind services (for example, the Optimist Club gets the Curling Club rental for free to host the annual Mother of All Yard Sales). These have to be entered into the books, however, as expenses even if no money really changes hands.
Quite often the committee reduces a request. Theatre Collingwood, for example, asked for $29,782 for new software and training. They got $4,000. The Collingwood Jazz and Blues Society asked for $10,000 to develop a new program for schools. They got $5,000. But sometimes they get passed as is - the Collingwood Sailing School got its $3,000 for a new dinghy and the CCI Marching Band got its $5,000 for new uniforms. Most requests were, I'd say, reasonable and deserving of their funding.
The requests that don't comfortably fit the recreation or cultural mandates of the committee come to council for assessment, and debate. And that's where council starts pinching pennies.
These applications included a request by the United Way for $12,500 to develop a volunteer centre. I wanted to give them at least some of that, because I felt we need a focal point for our many volunteers. Council disagreed: they got zero. Councillor Jeffrey argued that she didn't want to give to the United Way because their 'administration costs" were too high (Councillor Jeffrey is getting $10,500 of your tax money in the budget for her role at FCM, however).
The Collingwood & District Historical Society asked for $2,000 to develop and promoted a tour of local historical buildings. After lengthy debate about it, they got $1,000. The Door Youth Centre asked for $20,000 to continue operating its downtown youth drop-in centre . They got $10,000 (this is not bad, considering that last term we had to fight to get them anything at all). Employment and Resource Services wanted $5,400 for a youth-based venture capital program to encourage and reward young entrepreneurs. They got zero.
Others like My Friend's House, Hospice and Crimestoppers got the amounts they requested. In general,however, groups got less than what they requested.
Georgian Bay Animal Rescue asked for $25,000 for its spay-neuter and vaccination programs. That got Councillor McNabb up in arms demanding to see a business plan (which he never asks for from any other agency). He commented disparagingly on the group's policies (which he misrepresented in his comments) and then wondered why the group was adopting animals with "communicable diseases.' Councillor Edwards, too, didn't want to spend the money.
In the end the group got $7,500 with a request to bring back a business plan for further consideration of funding (the same thing happened last year and still their request was rejected by council, so I wonder why anyone would bother).
It seems we can spend $35,000 to keep our councillors in executive roles in AMO and FCM, but we can't spend two-thirds of that to help the local humane society prevent the problem of unwanted litters. Council approved our own budget with $10,000 allocated for "receptions," $3,000 for promotional products, $1,000 for public relations and $1,000 for 'strategic planning.' To me there's something very wrong in our priorities. Which do you think is more important to the overall good of the community?
It took hours to argue over what amounted to a tiny fraction of our overall budget - less than $100,000 in requests***. In the end, it said a lot more about the outlook of certain members of council towards specific community groups - and to their view on their own spending - than it said about the budget process in general. I'm sure in an election year, some of their comments will be remembered by those groups.
More to come. We resume budget talks at 2 p.m., Monday.
~~~~~
* AMO = Association of Municipalities of Ontario. FCM = Federation of Canadian Municipalities. These groups act as, respectively, provincial and federal advocates and lobbyists for legislation, funding, and support. I cannot recall council ever being asked to comment on or vote on AMO or FCM initiatives, policies or directions by our representatives. The only time I recall we did ask Councillor Jeffrey to vote a certain way on an FCM policy, she voted the other way. So it's hard to quantify what these roles mean to council, aside from some thin patina of prestige that accrues to the participants.
** These aren't new expenses, but they been growing steadily. In 2007, the budget for these two items was $17,500 total. In 2008 it was over $22,000. In 2009 it grew to $34,000 (of which about $30,000 was spent). Now it's up to $35,000. That could fund both the United Way and humane society requests.
*** One member of the media quipped it was the 'Bataan Death March" of budget deliberations.
[/indent]
