Roger Varley has been in the news business almost 40 years with The Canadian Press/Broadcast News, Uxbnridge Times-Journal, Richmond Hill Liberal and Uxbridge Cosmos. Co-winner with two others of CCNA national feature writing award. In Scout movement over 30 years, almost 25 as a leader. Took Uxbridge youths to World Jamboree in Holland. Involved in community theatre for 20 years as actor, director, playwright, stage manager etc. Born in England, came to Canada at 16, lived most of life north and east of Toronto with a five-year period in B.C.
Department heads need to get the message
Maybe it was something in the coffee or maybe it was the almost spring-like weather outside, but something affected councillors Tuesday as they continued their budget discussions. There was a definite air of joviality, with more laughs than a night at Yuk Yuk's.
Nevertheless, they were engaged in serious business: the ongoing attempt to trim the budgets presented by the various township departments. Whatever they finally come up with, there will almost certainly be an increase in property taxes. There is no way to avoid it. Increased costs, lower funding in grants from seniors levels of government, unavoidable large expenditures: all things beyond the control of council.
Despite their efforts to make the increase as small as possible, however, when the budget finally is passed, no doubt there will be a number of residents who will - pardon the expression - bitch and complain. But before anyone aims their ire at their elected representatives, they should maybe take a look at the department heads and the budget proposals they submit.
It is perhaps understandable that department heads see everything they propose as necessary, but I would venture that, unlike councillors who always have their eyes on the next election and don't want to be seen by their constituents as spendthrifts, they don't always consider the people who have to pay for their proposals.
An example: as of this writing, council has yet to look at the bylaw office's operating budget, but when they do they will see $3,500 has been budgeted in 2013 for uniforms. That, as I understand it, is for a staff of 2 1/2. This despite the fact that $1,330 was spent on uniforms in 2012 and $1,465 in 2011. It would appear the bylaw department is buying extremely expensive uniforms that don't wear well. And consider that proposed $3,500 for uniforms against the fire department's proposed uniform budget of $10,000 for more than 30 men. Now, I know $3,500 is probably peanuts when considering a budget that will approach $15m, but add up all those small amounts and they can come to a sizeable total.
The major spender of taxpayers' money is the public works department. No one suggests for a moment that Public Works Director Ben Kester has an easy job and it is doubtful anyone knows better than Ben just what's involved in keeping our roads in as good shape as possible and our bridges and culverts in a state of good repair. But at the urging of councillors on Tuesday, he managed to cut the 2013 capital budget by about $650,000 - and finance committee chair Pat Molloy figures that could possibly reach $1 million, noting there are a couple of items "to be discussed".
When it comes to public works, some of the councillors are staggered by the cost of some items. Mayor Gerri Lynn O'Connor was particularly astonished at the $500,000 price tag put on a culvert which Mr. Kester says is needed for Meyers Road sometime in the future. Mr. Kester has been around for a good many years and is an old hand at this budget thing and always appears to have a reasonable explanation for why things cost what they do and why they are necessary. When it comes to roads, for instance, he always reminds council of the Township's vulnerability to lawsuits should roads not be in good shape. But even Mr. Molloy wondered, although he expressed it with humour, why the replacement of culverts should cost so much. It's the kind of question many taxpayers would ask.
Mr. Molloy also noted that for 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, public works had budgeted $20,000 a year for gravel and yet spent only $14,500 in 2011 and $13,800 in 2012. He wondered why Mr. Kester, despite the lower spending, kept asking for $20,000 for gravel.
And there are other examples where the spending was far less than budgeted for in the past and yet departments keep asking for more. As Mr. Molloy said, he's asked the departments to keep the "fluff" out of their budgets.
It seems to me that residents should be thankful that their councillors are so diligently trying to keep their property taxes as low as possible. After all, they pay property taxes themselves.
Tell me, am I wrong?
