Budget 2009: controlling costs vs. protecting services

In this year’s budget there is a $45 million gap to be closed. This is after this year’s portion of the $113 million in efficiency savings approved for 2008 to 2010. Details can be found here.

Staff have put forward a variety of proposals ranging from user fee increases to cuts to services. There are some cuts that can be made without harming basic services. Other cuts leave me concerned about the impact on Kanata families and the City as a whole. During the budget debate I will be working to achieve a balance between controlling costs and protecting services people value.

The list of cuts and fee increases proposed in the draft budget can be found here on pages 29 to 53.

Why are the proposed cuts and free increases so drastic?

One question that comes up a lot is why in a $2.2 billion budget are we seeing proposals for cuts or fee increases that will severely impact services people use.

The reason is that when staff are looking for places to cut, half of the budget is off limits to them.

$651.2 million (29.6% of the budget) is for services the City is required by provincial legislation to provide. This includes social assistance, public health, social housing, long-term care, childcare, and the City payment towards the cost of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

Another $433.9 million (19.7% of the budget) is for emergency service: police; fire; and paramedics. The direction from council is that service levels for emergency services not be reduced.

Of the remainder $122.3 million (5.6% of the budget) is the contribution for renewing city infrastructure like roads, sewers and water pipes. While council did not provide a specific direction, the concerns expressed by the auditor general about the need to address the gap in infrastructure maintenance, mean cuts to this area are effectively impossible.

The remaining 45.1% covers all remaining city services ranging from recreation to garbage collection to development approvals to transit to road maintenance.

So what can be done to control costs?

Many of the decisions that have the greatest impact on the budget are not made during budget debates. For example, during the Official Plan review whether council decides to expand the urban boundary will have a significant impact on the budget –expanding the urban boundary by more than is needed will push up the cost of city services.

I am continuing to look for ways to keep costs down. In the discussion on the Transportation Master Plan a motion I put forward asking staff to look at using temporary bus lanes instead of building a new $40 million bridge that would only be needed by buses during conversion of the transitway was adopted.

Council also needs to be willing to say no to plans that create unnecessary duplication. For example, when funds for transit and roads are limited, it does not make sense to spend millions or hundreds of millions on roads that parallel a rapid transit route.