0
Budget points to ponder
03 February 2010
[indent]Collingwood's budget process changed in 2010 after a recommendation from staff who found the budget committee the mayor had created arbitrarily at the start of his term to be cumbersome. The fragmented presentation of the budget at regular evening council meetings that resulted from his change was inefficient. The process went back to the previous all-council committee and daytime meetings.
During the recent budget discussions, however, I've noted a few discrepancies in policy and process - not necessarily those of the chair, but from other members of council.
Why was the budget so late in arriving at council when staff had draft budgets prepared in November? I seem to recall the mayor campaigned on changing the budget process and getting it presented in the fall of the year, not after the year had already started, as happened in the past. But now it's gone backwards.
Why did councillor McNabb demand a business plan from Georgian Bay Animal Rescue before considering their funding request, but did not demand a business plan form any other agency or organization, some asking for much more money - even asking for their funding to become an annual line item. Why this seeming bias against the humane society?
Why did Councillor Jeffrey comment that she did not want to fund a United Way request to create a volunteer centre, because she disapproved of their administrative costs, but she did not comment similarly when approving funding for any other charity, group or organization? *
Why did Councillor Jeffrey argue against funding for affordable housing resources on the grounds that housing should be paid for by the province, yet not comment similarly in about funding for the G&M Foundation when health care is clearly also a provincial mandate? Or comment about the Children's Aid Society request when it too is a provincial mandate? Both requests she supported, by the way.
Why, when it is normal process that delegations do not get decisions that meeting, was the G&M's request granted that night but the Children's Aid Society's request deferred a week? Both requests were made well past the deadline for funding requests every other community group has to obey, and well into the budget debate (after funding to other community groups had been finalized). Why was that permitted?
Those midstream requests prompted Councillor Edwards to demand a staff review of the process - I supported that request. We should treat every request fairly and not appear to show favouritism to any group. But surely that's how it must have appeared to some - especially CAS, which got their request for the same amount of money turned down the next week (Councillor Edwards moved that it be refused). I would have preferred it be deferred until the rest of the budget was debated, to see if we had any money left.
Why did so many councillors argue against hiring new firefighters - which would increase the safety and security of this community and create more efficient response teams? Most of those arguing against the expense voted in the past towaste spend $428,000 on the mayor's legal challenge over educational development charges (we lost). Many of them voted to fund the entire costs of the downtown improvements ($10M) without any government funding. Many voted to upgrade Heritage Park ($-43M) without any funding. Why are so many councillors opposed to improving fire services but are eager to spend $1M or even much more to put a roof over the outdoor ice rink?**
What are the priorities here? To me, fire and police are two essential services. I don't think any resident will praise council for penny pinching if his or her house burns down because it took too long to assemble the required firefighters and get them to the scene. I don't want to read about someone losing his or her life because there weren't enough firefighters to safely enter a burning building without risking their own lives in the process.
Councillors Sandberg and McNabb were the most vocal opponents to hiring new firefighters, and the mayor made his opposition to the hiring known, too.
Why was Councillor Sandberg's request for $25,000 to fund his AMO ambitions deferred to next week when the main opponent to it (me) will be away? Who will challenge that expense in my absence? How can anyone on council justify spending $25,000 courting AMO and another $10,000 on FCM expenses, when we have turned down or drastically reduced funding to local charities and community groups? How can we spend $35,000 on expenses that don't serve the local taxpayer, but tell the Children's Aid Society they can't have $10,000? That's a little too much 'let-them-eat-cake' for my tastes. (I support belonging to both AMO and FCM, and have supported our representative sin the past, but not at the expense of community organizations or for such a high amount).
Why did the Treasurer, in her opening remarks, charge council to stop construction on the already-in-progress Heritage Park upgrades? While I personally didn't support that expense, I would not vote to stop in in mid-construction because I do not believe that council should go back on previous approvals (unlike, for example, the five who voted to repeal the Admiral Collingwood development approvals earlier this term). That statement caused some consternation among staff, too, and suggests to council watchers a rift between Leisure Services and Finance departments. And if council agrees with her, will we be left with a rubble-strewn, muddy pit at Heritage Park (curiously reminiscent of the rubble-strewn pit where the Admiral Collingwood development should have been built)? ***
Unfortunately (for me anyway), I am away from the table, Monday, so I will not be able to engage in the continuing debate until a later meeting.
~~~~~
* According to various sources, the United Way's administrative costs are 15% of the money they collect. According to the General and Marine Hospital Foundation's financial statement for 2007 (the most recent statement posted on their Web site), the Foundation raised $1.88 million in 2007 (including the Foundation, Dr. A.R. Stephen Capital Fund and Education Endowment Fund), but their expenses, including salaries and advertising, were $543,153. Salaries alone were $282,398. By my calculations, the Foundation's total admin costs in 2007 were more than 28% of their income (salaries and benefits alone were 15%). The Foundation's admin costs in 2006 were almost 18% - not a lot higher than the United Way's - but there was a lot more money raised by the Foundation that year ($2.39M). I do not have the GMHF's figures for 2008, but I hope that it shows a lower percentage versus higher income - and that 2007 was simply a bad year for fundraising efforts.
I'm not questioning how any charity decides to run its operation or disburse its funds (that should be an issue for its board to debate), but why would Councillor Jeffrey choose to comment on one local charity's admin costs and not another's? To me, if we are going to question any charity's admin costs publicly, then in fairness we should question them all - or better yet, not comment on any of them. I have personally donated to the G&M Foundation and United Way, and hold both in high esteem. I think the debate should be over the intent of any group's request, and how it benefits the community, not over administration issues.
I would support both requests, as I have supported most of the other requests by charities. But to be fair to all the other applicants, the GMHF and CAS requests should have come in under the usual funding request process, not inserted into the middle of the budget discussion. I have argued in the past that late requests be considered, but should be held off until the rest of the budget discussion is completed so we understand the financial implications of our spending before we entertain further requests for money.
** My solution to the ice rink issue was to lease a bubble to put over it - a 10-year lease at approx. $60,000 a year. That would give it the protection required for stable, scheduled use and also allow the pad to be used for summer events - the Elvis Festival, for example. Then the town could put aside a reserve fund to build something more permanent at a later date. The cost of leasing the bubble could be borne by reducing the ice-time subsidies the town grants to user groups by 20% (to $120,000). This would translate into a $60,000 item in the budget ($30,000 off subsidies, $30,000 more in revenue as a result), thus the lease would have no impact on the general taxpayer and the hockey folks would get their second ice surface. The additional cost to parents and user groups would likely be balanced by not having to drive to Creemore and Feversham as often for ice time - time and gas alone would probably more than equal the extra ice-time cost here.
*** Will the mayor use the budget discussions to revisit the Heritage Park debate? It's one of the few where he and I voted the same way. But where we differ is that I don't support going backwards on previous council decisions. His potential for reopening the debate outside the usual procedural bylaw rules is the intent of Councillor Jeffrey's attempt to tighten the bylaw with an upcoming amendment.[/indent]
During the recent budget discussions, however, I've noted a few discrepancies in policy and process - not necessarily those of the chair, but from other members of council.
Why was the budget so late in arriving at council when staff had draft budgets prepared in November? I seem to recall the mayor campaigned on changing the budget process and getting it presented in the fall of the year, not after the year had already started, as happened in the past. But now it's gone backwards.
Why did councillor McNabb demand a business plan from Georgian Bay Animal Rescue before considering their funding request, but did not demand a business plan form any other agency or organization, some asking for much more money - even asking for their funding to become an annual line item. Why this seeming bias against the humane society?
Why did Councillor Jeffrey comment that she did not want to fund a United Way request to create a volunteer centre, because she disapproved of their administrative costs, but she did not comment similarly when approving funding for any other charity, group or organization? *
Why did Councillor Jeffrey argue against funding for affordable housing resources on the grounds that housing should be paid for by the province, yet not comment similarly in about funding for the G&M Foundation when health care is clearly also a provincial mandate? Or comment about the Children's Aid Society request when it too is a provincial mandate? Both requests she supported, by the way.
Why, when it is normal process that delegations do not get decisions that meeting, was the G&M's request granted that night but the Children's Aid Society's request deferred a week? Both requests were made well past the deadline for funding requests every other community group has to obey, and well into the budget debate (after funding to other community groups had been finalized). Why was that permitted?
Those midstream requests prompted Councillor Edwards to demand a staff review of the process - I supported that request. We should treat every request fairly and not appear to show favouritism to any group. But surely that's how it must have appeared to some - especially CAS, which got their request for the same amount of money turned down the next week (Councillor Edwards moved that it be refused). I would have preferred it be deferred until the rest of the budget was debated, to see if we had any money left.
Why did so many councillors argue against hiring new firefighters - which would increase the safety and security of this community and create more efficient response teams? Most of those arguing against the expense voted in the past to
What are the priorities here? To me, fire and police are two essential services. I don't think any resident will praise council for penny pinching if his or her house burns down because it took too long to assemble the required firefighters and get them to the scene. I don't want to read about someone losing his or her life because there weren't enough firefighters to safely enter a burning building without risking their own lives in the process.
Councillors Sandberg and McNabb were the most vocal opponents to hiring new firefighters, and the mayor made his opposition to the hiring known, too.
Why was Councillor Sandberg's request for $25,000 to fund his AMO ambitions deferred to next week when the main opponent to it (me) will be away? Who will challenge that expense in my absence? How can anyone on council justify spending $25,000 courting AMO and another $10,000 on FCM expenses, when we have turned down or drastically reduced funding to local charities and community groups? How can we spend $35,000 on expenses that don't serve the local taxpayer, but tell the Children's Aid Society they can't have $10,000? That's a little too much 'let-them-eat-cake' for my tastes. (I support belonging to both AMO and FCM, and have supported our representative sin the past, but not at the expense of community organizations or for such a high amount).
Why did the Treasurer, in her opening remarks, charge council to stop construction on the already-in-progress Heritage Park upgrades? While I personally didn't support that expense, I would not vote to stop in in mid-construction because I do not believe that council should go back on previous approvals (unlike, for example, the five who voted to repeal the Admiral Collingwood development approvals earlier this term). That statement caused some consternation among staff, too, and suggests to council watchers a rift between Leisure Services and Finance departments. And if council agrees with her, will we be left with a rubble-strewn, muddy pit at Heritage Park (curiously reminiscent of the rubble-strewn pit where the Admiral Collingwood development should have been built)? ***
Unfortunately (for me anyway), I am away from the table, Monday, so I will not be able to engage in the continuing debate until a later meeting.
~~~~~
* According to various sources, the United Way's administrative costs are 15% of the money they collect. According to the General and Marine Hospital Foundation's financial statement for 2007 (the most recent statement posted on their Web site), the Foundation raised $1.88 million in 2007 (including the Foundation, Dr. A.R. Stephen Capital Fund and Education Endowment Fund), but their expenses, including salaries and advertising, were $543,153. Salaries alone were $282,398. By my calculations, the Foundation's total admin costs in 2007 were more than 28% of their income (salaries and benefits alone were 15%). The Foundation's admin costs in 2006 were almost 18% - not a lot higher than the United Way's - but there was a lot more money raised by the Foundation that year ($2.39M). I do not have the GMHF's figures for 2008, but I hope that it shows a lower percentage versus higher income - and that 2007 was simply a bad year for fundraising efforts.
I'm not questioning how any charity decides to run its operation or disburse its funds (that should be an issue for its board to debate), but why would Councillor Jeffrey choose to comment on one local charity's admin costs and not another's? To me, if we are going to question any charity's admin costs publicly, then in fairness we should question them all - or better yet, not comment on any of them. I have personally donated to the G&M Foundation and United Way, and hold both in high esteem. I think the debate should be over the intent of any group's request, and how it benefits the community, not over administration issues.
I would support both requests, as I have supported most of the other requests by charities. But to be fair to all the other applicants, the GMHF and CAS requests should have come in under the usual funding request process, not inserted into the middle of the budget discussion. I have argued in the past that late requests be considered, but should be held off until the rest of the budget discussion is completed so we understand the financial implications of our spending before we entertain further requests for money.
** My solution to the ice rink issue was to lease a bubble to put over it - a 10-year lease at approx. $60,000 a year. That would give it the protection required for stable, scheduled use and also allow the pad to be used for summer events - the Elvis Festival, for example. Then the town could put aside a reserve fund to build something more permanent at a later date. The cost of leasing the bubble could be borne by reducing the ice-time subsidies the town grants to user groups by 20% (to $120,000). This would translate into a $60,000 item in the budget ($30,000 off subsidies, $30,000 more in revenue as a result), thus the lease would have no impact on the general taxpayer and the hockey folks would get their second ice surface. The additional cost to parents and user groups would likely be balanced by not having to drive to Creemore and Feversham as often for ice time - time and gas alone would probably more than equal the extra ice-time cost here.
*** Will the mayor use the budget discussions to revisit the Heritage Park debate? It's one of the few where he and I voted the same way. But where we differ is that I don't support going backwards on previous council decisions. His potential for reopening the debate outside the usual procedural bylaw rules is the intent of Councillor Jeffrey's attempt to tighten the bylaw with an upcoming amendment.[/indent]
