BUDGET CONSULTATION: LOTS OF QUESTIONS, BUT NOT MANY GOOD ANSWERS

For the first time in my years in Burlington, I participated in the city’s budget consultation process. Actually, it wasn’t just once, but four times: three in person, once virtually. Admittedly, in the past, the thought of sitting in a room for two hours with a bunch of accounting and finance types quibbling over “reserves” and “capital expenditures” filled me with dread. However, as I reviewed my tax bill for the past two years, I chafed at the prospect of meekly acquiescing to yet another exorbitant rate increase without actually taking an opportunity to share feedback.

I fully expected I would be spending the evening with 50 or 60 other engaged citizens. While the first two in-person sessions had around twenty or so residents, in the case of the Ward 5 meeting it would have been difficult to field a baseball team with the number of attendees.

For those who didn’t attend one of these sessions, let me share with you my impressions.

1. It’s the mayor’s Budget.

The mayor introduced the event, and to her credit, she did a good job welcoming attendees. I fully expected her to introduce her council colleagues, and then hand the meeting over to a finance official to review the budget materials.

Such was not the case.

The mayor made it clear, not once, not twice, but on several occasions, that this was her budget. Several times in the half-hour presentation she referred to it as “my budget”.

The PowerPoint showed the city’s budget is expected to grow by 8.04%.

She clearly owns this…..lock, stock and barrel!

2. Our Invisible finance department.

I kept half expecting someone from the city’s finance department to chime in at different times in these meetings to clarify a point or explain a detail. Crickets. Usually, that task was assumed by Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman. Evidently, finance officials are missing in action.

3. The Ever-Shifting Financial Narrative.

Every presentation was slightly different. There was either a new slide, additional details, or a new graph. There’s something to be said for “reading the room”, and providing additional clarification. However, consistency is important too.

4. Priming the Pump.

On several occasions, the mayor referred to the challenges the city is facing. Upgrades to old infrastructure, the need for more flood abatement measures, depleted reserves, inflation, etc., were all cited as significant challenges that the city is facing, and that may/will require additional funding (translation: higher municipal taxes). Perhaps so, but aren’t all municipalities facing these same issues? What makes Burlington so extraordinary? I never did hear a clear answer to that question.

5. Preventative maintenance.

At one point, Councillor Sharman referenced the old computers from the 1990’s that City employees were apparently working with. He asked attendees how many of us still had thirty-year-old computers at home. Perhaps the question that someone should have asked was: with all the finance staff, internal and external auditors, why did it take until recently to highlight the need for replacement? My understanding is that cities set aside money, every year, into reserve funds to pay for major upgrades. What has happened to Burlington’s reserves?

6. Revenue Generation.

The city, according to the mayor, is heavily dependent upon property tax revenues. Naively, I asked a question about the potential tax revenue that would accrue from adopting a Vacant Home Tax, and was told that the city wasn’t adopting this measure because it was too complicated and cumbersome to administer.

Ostensibly, it would require 12 additional staff to manage this program. Citizens would balk at completing the survey form. One of my BRAG colleagues pointed out that the city could just tap into electricity rates to identify residences with unusually low hydro usage, and then go after residents and developers who are leaving their properties vacant. My counter-point,  which no one really answered, was why are Ottawa, Toronto and Hamilton adopting this measure, and not Burlington? Why is it that the British Columbia government has raised over $120 million in two years from this program?

Then there is the issue of user pay. Shouldn’t the people who use the service actually be paying for it? The mayor is promoting the idea of free bus fares for all riders 24/7. As some attendees mentioned, there is no such thing as “free” because ultimately, someone has to pay. The potential lost revenue, according to one article, is $2 – 6 million. I guess money really does grow on trees.

7. Frivolous Expenditures.

A number of attendees cited examples of programs or initiatives the city had pursued that were, to put it diplomatically, a less than prudent use of municipal revenue. Perhaps the most blatant example of this is the “Love Your Neighbour” campaign. For those who may be unaware, this is a program the city provides which allows residents to apply for a $500 grant to host a neighbourhood party. Presumably, the creation of engagement and connectedness can be enhanced by closing down a residential street, getting a bouncy castle for the kids to play on, and then having a couple of brews with your neighbours from down the road. Why the city is paying residents to host parties when we have unfilled potholes, homeless people and traffic congestion is a complete mystery to me.

I also heard multiple questions raised around speed bumps (why do we require more?), bike lanes (many are infrequently used), the Bateman renovation (what are the actual costs?), the new Skyway Arena (much too large), Service Burlington (ineffective, duplicative), etc.

The mayor, during the Ward 1 meeting, made the point that the city needed to generate $4 million in cost savings in order to shave one percent off the proposed tax rate hike. However, if the city actively pursued the identification of multiple unnecessary expenditures wouldn’t all these cost savings add up? Probably not, so why bother? It feels like cost savings are of interest to the taxpayers but not the people who work on the budget.

8. Not Everything is baked In.

Evidently, the Report on the July 2024 flood, and its measures to improve the City’s flood abatement infrastructure, are not fully known. Consequently, the budget does not include all these potential costs. Then there are the costs associated with the Bateman renovation. I’m still unclear whether these are in or out. Finally, there is the consultant’s report regarding the proposal to extend free bus service to all riders.

I’m not a budget expert, but it seems to me if there are multiple unknowns how can you responsibly or accurately craft a credible budget?

9. A Missed Engagement Opportunity.

Perhaps the thing that perplexed me the most was the multiple expressions of assistance from members of the audience. I recall, during the Ward 1 meeting that a gentleman in the audience offered his assistance in reviewing certain Information Technology operating systems and procedures to help identify economies and savings. He got a perfunctory response, something like “don’t call us, we’ll call you”. Evidently, this individual had considerable background and expertise from his working career. Leveraging his insights might be helpful. Whether he gets a follow-up call remains to be seen, but I wouldn’t bet money

on it.

Wait and See:

Now that the one-sided consultation phase of the Budget Review process is over, the mayor, the council and city officials will pull all the details and feedback together, put them into a big black pot, stir it around, and whatever strange elixir is created becomes the city’s budget for the coming year.  October 25h is the big day.

I thought participating in this budget process would be enlightening and informative. Sadly, I came away with more questions than answers. However, if one positive theme emerged from this experience it might be that it has galvanized residents across this city, and raised significant questions about how our finances are being managed.  Residents are slowly realizing our council is not representing our interests and we are becoming more engaged while vocally demanding more answers. And to think we didn’t have to apply for a Love Your Neighbourhood grant, rent a bouncy castle, or buy a case of beer!

The image associated with this article is Sherry Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Engagement