For That 10% Cut At City Hall Let’s Start With the Salaries of the Mayor and Council
Monday, January 9, 2012 @ 3:45 AM
Each month that we move closer to finally setting a budget for the year 2012 it is easy to see just how impossible it will be fix the taxes at last year’s rate much less the, “up to 10%” reduction in spending that was promised in the past civic election.
Ah but alas, memories are short and by the time that you reach into your pocket to pay for the city services this year, most will have forgotten just what that those promises were.
As for the core review, which is pegged to cost the taxpayers about one half of one mill increase in taxes to achieve, the review will not cover the two largest expenditures in the City; police and fire.
They account for roughly 42% of every tax dollar and unless you want to throw them into the mix, that “up to” 10% reduction in spending just becomes another pipe dream.
Five of the nine people who occupy the round table at city hall were there heading into the budget debates over the past three years. That speaks volumes about the cuts that have been promised.
As for a cut in taxes, how about starting off by postponing the Councillors’ salary increases and how about Mayor Green taking a “10%” cut in her pay to send a message to the public that this review has at least the very basic of teeth in it.
I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.
Comments
Common sense, not in our town! One can throw a rock and find where you could cut city expenditures, and yet we still wait. If we can drive around and see where savings could happen, why can’t city council?
Because its far beneath them to do anything that would look like they are actually serious about what they say. I say take all the city administrators and cut their pay 10% as well. Then next year cut it another 10% if things aren’t greatly improved.
Just for starts the City could forget about the $3Million for new offices at 18th and Ospika. They have facilities at the East End of 4th Avenue that could be used for a few more years.
In addition they should look at a reduction in pay for all City Managers, thats where the big money is spent. You wont save a hell of a lot by foregoing the increase to the Councillors, however the City Manager, and all other Managers need a reduction, or at the very minimum, no increases for the next 5 years.
In addition, we need to hold the line on payments for the Police, Fireman, and all Union jobs for 5 years. Its not like these people are under paid, and they have better benefits than most of us.
IPG of course is a huge drag on revenue from City Hall, and gives very little if anything in return. You dont need 7 or 8 people to tell you what is going to take place in this City in the next 10 years. Especially if the last 10/20 years are an example,.
No more Capital projects for at least 10 years. Put the Performing Arts Centre and its attendent cost to City taxpayers of $15/20 Million on the shelf where it belongs. This facility will cost $50 Million in total tax dollars, Federal, Provincial, Regional, and Municipal, and will cost a minimum of $300,000.00 a year in maintenance.
The City is being less than honest about our total debt. Before the election they were saying it was somewhere around $100 Million. The question is does this include all the money they will borrow this year for the Police Station, Community Energy System, Office building, etc; They have approval for this money but have they actually borrowed it?? That is the question. If not, then our debt would be closer to $140 Million.
In any event debt servicing runs around $12 Million per year, and we should definitly stop borrowing money.
The cost to run all our recreational facilitys runs around $12 Million a year and that needs to be looked at.
The Library and Art Centre is a huge cost to taxpayers. These facilitys are under used, and we need to find a way to reduce cost while still providing the service.
In any event there is no shortage of where we can save a dollar.
Recently the public attention was focused on the huge salary and compensation packages that are given (from taxpayers’ money) to heads and admistrators of government departments and crown corporations, like 500k a year to run a large hospital, 600k a year plus to run a ferry system, etc.
Here is a suggestion: If the entity that is being administered by a CEO and his/her team is run lean, mean, efficiently, saving the taxpayer money and so forth – the compensation is earned and deserved.
If the opposite is true and it has budget overruns, endless borrowing, easily identified waste, etc – the compensation is neither earned nor deserved!
In private industry these persons are given the axe.
With governments this is obviously not possible or practical – these people have huge compensation clauses in their contracts and if fired end up laughing all the way to the bank – with the taxpayers’ money.
Comments for this article are closed.