2015-16 Budget Approved in 7-4 Vote

April 14 2015

Low growth in the County of Kings residential property assessment and a substantial decrease in commercial property assessment leaves our municipality, for the first time, with less tax revenue than needed to keep pace with base expenses. These base expenses are often referred to as mandatory expenses by administrative staff. However, these could be decreased over time with appropriate notice and planning to realize savings.

This year, under the direction of a reconstituted Budget and Finance Committee, council also approved a new process for approval of grants to organizations and service partners.

It is notable that in 2010 independent management consultants recommended the Finance and Budget committee of that day be immediately abolished. The report stated the opinion that: “detailed discussion of finance and budget matters” are “important issues which should be discussed by council as a whole.” (Page 5, HR Management Group Organizational Review Report, April 2010).

The new Budget and Finance Committee appears to show at least some of the traits cited in 2010 as reasons why the prior committee ran amuck:

• several hand picked councillors serving on the committee
• (potential for) intrusion on what is normally the responsibility of administration
• micromanagement of the day-to-day affairs of the municipality... consultants question... “what expertise, if any, does any member of the Committee have that the CAO, the Finance Department and the Municipality's Auditor do not?” (Page 5)
• taking over a normal function of Committee of the whole, in terms of detailed discussion of finance and budget matters and making recommendations to council
• councillor lobbying (behind scenes for funding during this year's budget process) in open disregard for the duly accepted process that is open to the taxpayer

It's notable that on March 16 the operational draft budget, prepared for council under the guidance and motions of the Budget and Finance Committee had several troubling characteristics. These included deep board cuts to external organizations but little in the way of internal operational adjustments. Despite the attempts of non-budget-finance-committee-member councillors to amend some of the most troubling aspects, no changes proved possible. Nor was there any appetite to challenge the administration to sharpen their pencils and find internal savings. Eventually, the operational and capital budgets moved forward undisturbed by debate in chambers. Here is the result of the 2015-16 budget approval:

1. A process brought into play that removed all operational grants related to community-based service provision from the base budget and requiring 50 organizations to present detailed budgets. Yet, the Budget and Finance Committee, did not take into consideration these details or the disparate needs of each organization. Instead B&F applied and recommended three categories of “across the board cuts.
2. Seven organizations with a wide reach in every district of the county, previously funded for part of their operations, denied in this budget. These were:

• Coastarts Association
• Eastern Kings Chamber of Commerce (visitors centre, promotions)
• Echo Kings Action Team
• Halls Harbour Community Development Association
• Kings Volunteer Resource Centre
• Senior Safety Program of Kings County
• Valley Child Development

3. Zero increase over the prior year for all 13 fire departments. Many were looking for relatively small amounts of additional funds to equip and train new volunteers. As well, valuable data generated by the Manager of Protective Services (subsequently demoted to a Supervisor of Protective Services) was set aside. That data challenged council to examine factors related to the costs of fire protection that were escalating dramatically at several departments.

• Five of 13 asked for increases of 20 percent or more.
• Two asked for an increase of more than 50 percent.
• One requested an increase of 90 percent.

Without the courage to treat departments according to their needs, or to rationalize services council is not ensuring effective and efficient use of our tax dollars nor are we ensuring that the risk to our volunteer firefighters and our residents is minimized.

4. Zero percent increase over prior years for grants to support community halls, parks and recreation; and community economic development.
5. 20% decrease in previously allotted funds that were to be paid over several subsequent years. This impacted 13 organizations that council or previous councils had committed capital or operational funds to as follows:

Capital

• Kings Mutual Centre
• Glooscap Arena
• District 1 Multicomplex
• New Minas Recreation Facility
• New Minas Splash Park
• Royal Canadian Legion Kingston
• L'Arche Homefires
• Hantsport Library
• Valley Hospice

Operational

• Valley Search and Rescue
• Kings Point to Point
• Trans County Transportation Society
• Landscape of Grand Pre

Interestingly, the county's commitment to two of these organizations is conditional on both federal and provincial governments committing funding. This commitment has not materialized, but an appeal to skip a year of placing funds in reserves to address pressing needs was denied.

The 2015-16 budget should have been a time of reckoning for this council. Changes in revenue certainly provided a loud warning to stop coasting and to start getting our operations in order in preparation for the lean years that all reports say are ahead. We are seeing signs of a decline... Decreased development... businesses closing... out-migration of youth and young families evidenced by significant decreases in school enrolment... the greying of those of us who stay.

Has council, as a whole, put its head in the sand? There is evidence that it has:

1. The Budget and Finance Committee set aside three full days for its committee members to delve into all the details related to the applications made by organizations and other operational expenses. Delving didn't happen. Before 3 PM of the first day the committee had approved the budget prepared under the direction of the Budget and Finance Committee by staff.
2. When the operational budget was brought forward for deliberation by Committee of the Whole every amendment tabled was defeated... Even an amendment to add a CPI increase to the small grants available to community halls and parks. The cost would have been about $3,000.

The result of the speedy passing of the operational and capital budgets at the committee level is indicative of the budget delivered up to council for a speedy approval. The budgets are on time and as drafted. The dye was cast at Budget and Finance and it coasted to a pre-determined end result.

The blunt strategy of balancing the budget was done on the backs of outside organizations that are best understood as service partners providing valuable services at a fraction of the true cost.

The start of a proactive plan to help us move from these times to better, more sustainable times needs to be initiated. Good times, we have been told will only come if we act now versus later or never.

It is with regret and deep disappointment that I woke this morning knowing that I would have to enter chambers to oppose the passing of this budget versus coming in to celebrate a job well done on behalf of Kings County residents. We've used unsustainable practices to gain a balanced budget for one more year. It's my firm belief this budget represents a dereliction of duties to our service partners and to the communities and people councillors were elected to serve.

In the months ahead will we see some of the community organizations that this budget has treated most poorly compete within small grant envelopes. These organizations, important as they are to this county's social and economic well-being, will be queued alongside scores of others looking for dollars to help their communities thrive.

Pauline Raven, Councillor District 3, Municipality of the County of Kings

902.670.2949