Rhino's Ramblings - And The Survey Says...
By Robert Thomas Opinion/Commentary
It is the talk of the town and more than a few people are angry with the City about it. It has more than a few people perplexed and saying they wanted to be part of it. But they never knew about it.
So what is the it which has so many residents unhappy with the City?
Well the ‘it' are the public consultations on the upcoming 2020 budget or rather how the public’s input was obtained or not obtained. And yes many are saying they do not agree with it.
The City was hoping people would pay attention to the ‘Moose War's and a major marketing award won from it, but it was not to be.
On Monday night the results of the Budget and City Services Survey was presented to Council. You can check out the results here.
There are a couple of results in the survey rural residents might want to make note of when it comes to paying a fair share for services and recreation programs in Moose Jaw.
Conducted August 16 – September 6 the on-line survey found support for a modest tax increase as well as the direction the City is headed budget wise. The 12 survey questions were written by city manager Jim Puffalt and finance director Brian Acker.
Many residents I have spoken to are upset with the survey.
But it is not just the results they are angry with but the feeling their one opportunity to seemingly participate and have their say was “robbed” from them.
Many are feeling cheated that they either could not access the survey (as they have no computer and Internet) or they were unaware of the survey's existence.
And with only 212 people out of 22,000 eligible voters responding many who spoke to me over the past week felt that less than one percent does not a true public consensus make.
Councillor Swanson started off his attack with bit of Shaw Channel 10 showmanship by asking if Council had input to the questions.
With a response from communications manager Craig Hemingway of “no” what Councillor Swanson did was drive a wedge – albeit a small one – to show a disconnect between the elected officials (Council) and the unelected officials (Administration).
A wedge which subtly seemingly places Administration not only pushing policy without Council's consent but perhaps even an agenda of their own.
An agenda, Councillor Swanson projected in one question, that is seemingly out of tune with what Council and most residents want.
If you do not believe me the report to Council specifically states who wrote the questions. An always well prepared Councillor Swanson would know this but would want those watching – including the media – to take note of this.
So what is behind all of this?
In order to explain the underlying factors you need to take a brief detour from the survey discussion to the actual budget process itself.
The City has officially shifted gears in how it budgets from status quo to priority based budgeting.
Priority based budgeting is a budget of where you live within your means.
Priorities are set and given a score and depending on the score some things previously funded may receive more money while others may receive less or none at all. Theoretically what gets funding and how much all depends upon the score assigned based on priorities.
Services could be increased in certain areas and decreased or even cut in other areas based upon the priority score it receives.
The big thing in the City of Moose Jaw's case it is not being applied across the entire Operating Budget and Five Year Capital Budget in a uniform manner. What we have in reality is a hybrid budget using both approaches.
City services are not seeing a loss of funding in many ways the Operating Budget is a status quo budget.
A status quo budget is a budget where all services are maintained and/or expanded.
In order to accomplish this you need to increase funding on an annual basis to not just keep up with inflation but often also higher than inflationary costs on things like negotiated contracts and the prices of items used.
To do this you need to increase funding and in the City of Moose Jaw's case that means increasing property taxes and utility fees – water, garbage or solid waste and recycling plus user fees for such things as recreation.
The move to find efficiencies within the budget and cut back at City Hall are issues championed by Councillors Brian Swanson, Dawn Luhning and to some extent Scott McMann.
Councillor Luhning has stated more than once there needs to be efficiencies found within the existing budget and those funds transferred to priorities. That means lay offs and tons of ink from not so Luhning friendly left leaning scribblers.
Councillor Swanson has more than once offered to vote for tax increases for cast iron water main replacement so long as the same amount is cut from city services and applied to that program.
In Councillor McMann's case it is not an ideological one but rather if things can be done better and more efficiently he will support it. If we need a service it stays put.
Where the priority based budgeting is happening is in the Five Year Capital Budget.
The cap on funding and assigning priorities to it are real. Real because there is so much legacy infrastructure a mature city like Moose Jaw needs to repair and replace.
Moose Jaw is in many ways an aged oak sailing ship where the crew is slapping on patches to repair leaks, bailing out water and replacing whole sections of planking below the waterline all while under sail somewhere in the north Atlantic.
We do not have the finances – in the hundreds of millions of dollars - to put the city into dry dock to conduct repairs in a logical manner.
But how does this all tie into Monday night and how many people feel about the survey and it’s results?
The thing is the timing of what is looking to be a double wallop coming on your property tax bill.
The first wallop is the proposed modest three percent property tax increase to maintain the level of services the respondents to the on-line survey want to keep.
The second wallop is the levy or flat tax of $100 now being floated around as an Infrastructure Levy.
It is something Councillor Swanson masterfully put together on a percentage basis at a previous Council meeting and by doing so stopped the local chatter of “It's just a hundred bucks it’s no big deal.”
Now when I am out and about in the City what I am hearing is “what the hell is this about an eight percent tax increase, when is it all going to end?”
And no I am not hearing this from the regular Council watchers but the business community. A community which is feeling the effects of the sluggish local economy.
Others are outright questioning the actually validity of the survey itself and if the questions were laid out in a neutral fashion.
The question is being asked of me – “Robert do you think these questions are being worded in such a way the City gets the answers they want?”
When I reply “I have no proof of that” the response is “bullshit give your head a shake you're a smart person just think.”
It’s a subject too lengthy to get into for an on-line reader but better suited laid out in a newspaper. Oh Times-Herald we need you now.
Then there is the Survey's timing in mid-August to the first week of September. Many are saying it was done then as nobody is paying attention in the Summer.
Rightfully or wrongly at the end of the day the entire consultation process the City has been working on through the new and improved Communications Policy seems to have stumbled.
A good portion of residents feel left out and their views are not being heard and it is business as usual at City Hall….