To: Mayor Meed Ward, Councillor Galbraith, Councillor Kearns, Councillor Nisan, Councillor Stolte, Councillor Sharman, Councillor Bentivegna, Mr. Hassaan Basit, CAO, Mr. Craig Millar, CFO
From: Burlington Residents’ Action Group
I am writing to you on behalf of the Burlington Residents’ Action Group (“BRAG”) . Several members of our group and other Burlington residents are working together reviewing the City budget. Considering its length (615+ pages) and the short time-frame with which residents have been given to study the document, this is onerous and time-consuming. Also, considering the Mayor’s “public budget meetings” all occurred before the budget was released, the opportunity for feedback on the actual details of the budget can really only be given by email to council/staff or by delegating on a weekday morning. We do not consider the upcoming “telephone town hall” to be a credible engagement opportunity.
We are choosing to email you today – because we’d like to ask questions (not allowed in delegations) and we would like our request to be on the record, and your response to be in writing. We are writing to draw your attention to the fact that several errors have been found in the budget document as follows:
Page 17 shows that the “Net City Tax Levy” is increasing by 8.3%.
Page 27 shows that Burlington’s portion of our tax bill is increasing by 7.5%.
Why is spending increasing 8.3 % and property taxes 7.5 %? We believe the difference is being made up for by property tax revenue from the new homes and condos that will start paying taxes in 2025. So far, we have not been able to find an explanation for this difference in the budget document.
Some of the calculations on this page have errors.
Looking at the first box on the right, the numbers shown add up to 142,457 not 140,514,298. Residents should not have to make assumptions about the numbers in the budget but, if we assume the city meant 140,514, meaning they simply forgot to convert the number to thousands, there is still a difference of $1,943,000 when dealing with the actual numbers ($142,457,000 – $140,514,298).
Looking at the middle box on the right. The numbers add up to 37,695, not the 37,191,580 shown. If we again assume the number should be in thousands at 37,191, the difference is still $504,000 (in real terms).
The bottom box is in the other benefits and allowances section. The numbers add up to 1,325. At least the difference, after making assumptions, is only about $7,050.
When you add up the numbers, from the city, in the total budget column the total comes to $179,023,828 not the $181,476,000 shown in the chart. The incorrectly stated numbers in the city’s chart do not add up to the total shown in the city’s chart.
Page 24
Reserve and Reserve Funds
This chart shows the total, uncommitted, and committed reserve funds by year. Read BRAG’s comment in the blue box. Based on the information in this graph it is impossible to tell how much money is in the reserve funds.
The fact that these errors exist is troubling to say the least. Other expenditures and details are spread over hundreds of pages; are residents expected to check and verify all calculations? People are now questioning the accuracy of the rest of the budget, and there is a real risk that the public will not trust the information you are releasing.
We request that the City clarify and correct these errors immediately, re-release the budget with the corrections noted, and confirm that the rest of the budget numbers are accurate.
We expect, as we continue to review the Budget, that we may well have further comments/questions. If so, we will submit that feedback by email, written and/or oral delegation. Engagement is a two-way process: please let us know when the items above will be clarified, not just to us, but to all Burlington residents. This is, after all, our money you are spending.
Lynn Crosby
On behalf of Burlington Residents’ Action Group
—-
Craig Millar, MBA, CPA, CGA, Burlington’s Chief Financial Officer responded with “My apologies for the errors on pages 21 and pages 24. They have been corrected and reposted on the City’s web page.”