THUNDER BAY – Although there isn’t consensus among city council members as to how hard the wind is blowing, austerity is in the air.
City administration will introduce the 2017 budget’s starting point to city council on Monday, including a 5.4 per cent increase in spending and zero tax-supported revenue growth.
Administration will pledge to find $1.8 million in operational savings to wrestle the tax levy increase down to 4.4 per cent.
Budget chairman and Coun. Frank Pullia approves of those figures as a starting point, considering half the city’s industrial tax base is expected to disappear this year in appealed property assessment. Although he’s aware citizens don’t want to see program cuts, he’s also confident taxpayers will support the city if they have faith they are receiving value for their money.
“There’s a lot of investment going on,” Pullia said.
“We’re not just providing core services. We’re providing services way above the size of our city. The question is, can we continue to do that?”
Coun. Larry Hebert said $1.8 million in cuts is the equivalent of the salary and benefits of 18 positions. Although he suspects those savings could be found among the city’s 2,000 employees, he suggested cuts would likely have an impact on operations.
“I want to see for sure the details and to know where we’re going to make cuts if we’re going to make them before I make up my mind,” he said.
“I’d be willing to go with a fairly high rate if it’s realistic and it makes sense. I don’t want to do anything this year we might consider frills or pet projects.”
Coun. Rebecca Johnson believes the proposed levy is enough to push those living on pension or other fixed incomes out of their homes. She urged anyone that finds a 5.4 per cent spending increase to be impalpable to notify his or her councillor of services the city should cease offering.
She suggested reducing garbage pickup to once every two weeks in the winter and reconsidering the volume of snow on city streets before it needs removal. Ultimately, she believes “major cuts” need to be made.
“I think the nitpicking, we’re past that now,” Johnson said.
“I don’t envy administration coming in with a $1.8 million cut. I think it’s now at the point of what are we not going to provide in the future or what are we going to provide in a different way? Do we go out to more user fees? I have a concern about that as well because that’s just another tax in a different way. We have to look at what we’re going to be able to afford.”
Coun. Iain Angus agrees with Johnson only insofar as believing the effort to lean the municipality will be fruitless when there’s “nothing left to come out of the stone.” He supports the proposed levy but believes recovering an additional $1.8 million within administration will compromise the city’s integrity.
“I know some of my colleagues will push to nickel and dime reductions but as we’ve seen just this last week, be careful what you ask for,” Angus said.
“We’ve squeezed the police, we’ve squeezed legal, we’re now having to find over $3 million to deal with that shortfall, which means projects we agreed were important are not going to happen in the year we wanted them to happen. That’s a backdoor way of cutting services people want.”
Angus echoed comments he made in Monday’s council meeting regarding decreasing infrastructure investments to increase spending on quality of life matters like recreation.
“Everybody wants a nice smooth road so they can drive faster,” he said.
“Well, maybe it’s time to slow down and avoid the bumps because you can see them easier and let us get on with dealing with the human side of the services we provide.”
Although Coun. Aldo Ruberto will insist on further spending reductions, he’s the most confident the process will produce the right result among councillors at large.
Ruberto suggested 2.5 to three per cent is a reasonable levy increase and is confident $1.8 million can be cut from operations through temporary attrition and succession training.
“We’re not here to cut jobs or fire people. We might want to reposition jobs, we might want to retire people but we’re not here to fire people, especially if we’re going to encourage growth, the economy and jobs,” he said.
“It’s a starting point. It’s fair. Let’s look at it, let’s fine-tune it, and at the end of the day, if there’s no possibility that anything can be done, you have to do what you have to do. I know we’ll find a way to make it palpable to people. I know we’ll find a balance."
