County councillors have one more month to find some savings in the 2008 budget.
Council made that decision despite some opposition. The budget prepared for county council on Jan. 31 contained a total tax levy of $64.9-million, which was slightly lower than projected in the five-year plan, but it still offered a proposed tax rate increase of 5.2% and a tax impact of $96 on an average residence assessed at $253,000.
Councillor Brad Whitcombe objected to the proposal to ask each committee to go through its own budgets one more time to find some savings to lower the projected tax increase.
Whitcombe said that proposal goes against the method of budgeting that the county has been using since 2001, when it hired a new treasurer.
“We have a process,” Whitcombe said, adding that he does not want to see it “jeopardized by up and down” changes. He said the budget as written delivers needed services to people who expect them.
“We’ve already made decisions and taken directions on these things,” Whitcombe said. “I find this motion upsets all the good work we’ve done since 2001. It upsets that, and I’m not going to support it.”
Councillor Walter Trachsel disagreed. He pointed out that there is serious talk about a coming recession, and he wondered what is wrong with going through the budget one more time to find some spending cuts.
“I see this as fiscal responsibility,” Trachsel said.
Councillor Chris White pointed out that solid waste services is up hundreds of thousands of dollars, and reserves are fundamental, and not up for debate.
He said the proposal is “simply a review” to take some of the pressure off the rate.
Councillor Lou Maieron said the county’s vision is good, but “There’s no reason not to periodically go back and take a look at where we’re going.”
Councillor Mike Broomhead, the county finance committee chairman, said he thinks it is important to send the budget back to each committee. He said every other committee wants its minutes accepted, and he wondered why councillors never want to accept the finance committee’s recommendations.
“We didn’t just pick this out of the air,” he said of the one month review.
He noted that Warden John Green has suggested in the past the county’s five year plan needs to be spread over seven years.
Broomhead said his committee simply gets the totals of the other committees, and, “If you don’t want this, tell us.”
But Whitcombe said if the county cuts its required 5.2% increase this year, next year it will need a 7% increase to make up for it.
Finance committee member Joanne Ross-Zuj said the committee felt if there are some things that can be delayed, the committees should point them out.
“Use this month wisely,” she said.
Councillor Carl Hall said cuts this year mean more spending next year, and, “There’s got to be some leeway.” He noted the county has opportunities to do such things as buy land, but, “I don’t think we can cut it back to 4%.”
Councillor David Anderson cited county grants, and wondered if that is what the county should be doing. “Is that a need?” he asked. “That’s a reason to go back. We maybe have to look at some of our waste in our committees without cutting services. We have an extra month.”
Council then voted to send the budget back to committee, with only Whitcombe opposed.
