In My Humble Opinions

2018 Budget Passes – Monday, November 6th, 2017

by 14 Comments

The 2018 budget was passed at Monday’s meeting with an increase of almost 5%. Once the estimated growth of 1% is factored in, taxpayers in Orangeville can expect to see an almost 4% increase on the Town portion of their tax bill.

By now you have probably heard that the reason for the increase is that a motion to hire 8 full-time Firefighters was passed on Monday. And I am sure you are confused by this because as you know, the motion to hire 8 new Firefighters failed at a meeting in October. According to the Rules of Reconsideration, this motion SHOULD have only been allowed to come back to Council if one of the members on the winning side (Mayor Williams, Councillor Kidd, Councillor Garisto or Deputy Mayor Maycock) wanted to bring it back for reconsideration. This motion should not have been allowed to come back to Council at this point, in my humble opinion.

Here is how it all began. Councillor Garisto wanted to introduce a motion to remove an item for the Operating Budget ($210,000 for a Compensation Review), but a motion for this item in particular had already been voted on at a prior meeting. Councillor Wilson called for a ‘Point of Order’ to let the Mayor know that this motion should not be allowed based on the Rules of Reconsideration. Mayor Williams replied “I try to keep the budget a little less formal. I try to make it more like a committee than Council as a whole to allow a little bit more discussion.” Councillor Wilson replied with, “We act as Council and I think we have to adhere to our own rules.” Mayor Williams disagreed, “As Chair, I am taking this as a valid motion. If you wish to challenge the chair, you can certainly do that.” and they proceeded to call the vote on this repetitive motion.

After that vote happened (which failed again by the way), Councillor Wilson said “Since we are not adhering to Rules of Reconsideration, I would like to make a motion that we hire 8 Full-Time Firefighters in 2018.” His motion was seconded by Councillor Campbell. Deputy Mayor Maycock, who had initially voted against the hiring of the firefighters, suggested that $300,000 of the cost come from the Rate Stabilization Fund so that the full $800,000 wouldn’t impact the taxpayers in the first year. Maycock stated that he would happily support the support the motion if that amendment would be made. Once that amendment was made, the vote was called and Councillors Wilson, Bradley and Campbell as well as the Deputy Mayor voted in support of hiring the Firefighters.

So here is the first problem – There are RULES to regulate how Council Meetings are run for a REASON. The rules should create efficiency and eliminate repetition in motions. Without a Rule of Reconsideration, every Council Member would be able to bring up any motion they want to at ANY time. And this is EXACTLY what happened at Monday’s Meeting. FOLLOW THE RULES!!!!! Had the proper rules regulating Council Meetings been followed, this item wouldn’t not have come back to Council at all until 2019 Budget talks.

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for investing in our Fire Department and other Emergency Services – The Fire Master Plan has told us that our response times in the evenings DO NOT meet provincial standards. This is something we need….HOWEVER….My big problem with all of this is that as a Council, you have known for 3 YEARS that this was a NEED…..the consultant that you paid good money for told you so….and rather than finding ways to budget properly for this item so that it wouldn’t impact the taxpayer to this degree, it was turned into a political disaster (as everything seems to be).

Let me give you an example – If I, as a home owner, know that I am going to have to replace my roof next year, I probably won’t go on vacation. The logic here should be the same. It is not ok to ignore the NEEDS of the community to add in the WANTS. Of course I would rather go on vacation than replace my roof, but the reality is that I can’t have both. When our Council is requesting recommendations from experts (at a substantial cost) and then ignoring the recommendations, it truly is a waste. I am glad that they decided to invest in the Fire Department, but I am not happy that the cost of it was just an afterthought. This should have been planned into the budget long before November 2017. They should have removed some of the “vacation money” to ensure that they had “roof money” ready to spend.

What do you think?

Transit

Another item that was up on the table for discussion on Monday was the $425,000 for a new bus in 2018 to expand the transit system to include a 4th route. Councillor Bradley made an interesting suggestion – She suggested to remove the cost of $425,000 (which would have pretty much paid for the rest of the first year of Firefighters) and instead use one of the small buses to do a pilot project of sorts of the fourth route to assess the ridership and then decide after those results were in whether it would be appropriate to spend the money on another large bus. She was not able to garner enough support for this motion with only Councillor Kidd giving her motion support. Councillors Wilson, Campbell, Garisto along with Mayor Williams and Deputy Mayor Maycock all voted to keep the $425,000 for the new bus in the budget.

What Now?

Well here we are….the budget has passed – The only thing left is to pass the bylaw to move forward. Town Treasurer, Mr. Villeneuve suggested that it would likely come to Council in December as he is waiting for final growth figures.

I want to hear from you – What do you think of how Monday’s Meeting unfolded? How are you feeling about the CRAZY increase this year?

The next meeting of Council is scheduled for Monday, November 13th at 7pm in Council Chambers

 

Comments

  1. I am totally appalled at Orangeville Town Council, as they have no respect for the taxpayers and residence of this community. Yes we need more firemen according to a recent study but the way in which it was implemented makes you wonder about proper procedure. Seeing some councelors didn’t get their way the first time around they ran it through for a second vote the following week and presto more taxes! Too bad we did not do this with the police dept we might have saved a few million dollars so in order to pay for the fire fighters. So now we are getting more fire fighters I guess we will need a new fire station. Yes maybe they should have looked at the bus situation and gone the economical way but no……stand fast it’s only tax payers money. You say 5% increase? what about the add on of value of the home that also increases every year I wonder what that will make the increase for the year.

    Reply

    • You are absolutely correct. And that 5% is just the Town portion…who knows what the County and Education portions will be?!?! And then as you said, the increase in assessment value….GAH! I am afraid to see that first 2018 Tax Bill come in. I just can’t wrap my head around the logic, or lack there of, of the budget process when there is really no forward thinking. Of course we will need enhancements to service – we are growing. But knowing that, why is there no planning??

      Reply

  3. Just my personal opinion. This Council has been disfuctional from the day of their swearing in ceramony. Council has done very little to control the monitary expenditures in its annual budget deliberations for the past four years due to this pettyness resulting in a lack of respect for the constiuents that elected them.The taxpaying residents of Orangeville have paid the price in unreasonable tax hikes annually for the past four years. The addition of eight fire fighters may be warranted at some point in the future but the timelines for calls you refer to are recommended not mandatory and the existing staffing levels between full time and volunteer fire fighters has been doing a great job. We are a Town of approximently 30,000 residents living in four square miles with very limited future growth potential. Staff and Council should have entered into discussions with the surrounding municipalities that contract this service to see if there was any interest by them for this increased level of service as these new costs should be impacting their service agreements as well. This would have helped in the desision as to whether these eight additional fire fighters were required at this time. Due diligance was not done and now we the taxpayers in the Town of Orangeville get to overpay for fire services and subsidize municipalities contracting these services.

    Reply

  4. Only having lived here for a short time, I have been quick to defend council on taxes because they are the price of living …. having said that. This council has completely ruined this town on so many different levels, and now this tax increase?

    I agree with Warren Maycock – they ALL should have quit when they were asked Lisa – (bravely by you) – This town would have run better solely by staff, than this group of individuals who have put their personal agendas, and feelings ahead of anything this town really needs.

    It almost seems like some on council are thinking “so we have been an utter disaster during this time, some of our feelings are hurt, and people have been calling us names …. so let’s REALLY SCREW THEM on this last budget” …. but ofcourse, I am sure they would never be so vindictive …….

    Reply

  6. Some of us had a plan to pay for the extra firefighters and firehall and closing the infrastructure gap and stablizing taxes. It was called the OPP. It would have saved us $350K in the first year and later by $4.5M annually. But many citizens voiced their support for OPS and stated they didn’t mind paying twice the price for police to the tune of approx. $500/household/year. The additional firefighters cost approx. $50/household/year. A small price to pay for security. It was the only significant expense that could have been cut by 50% and not decrease services. Hopefully the next council will see the light.

    Reply

    • That was your problem! You assumed that the OPP vote would go your way. I still would like to see where the guaranteed savings were “signed to” from the OPP? They could not guarantee anything, because you cannot do that with a pay per use service. And for the record, when you utilize algorithms, as a source of output, you are playing a serious gamble game. I suppose that is why no-one wanted to be responsible, or accountable for the potential of the savings not being actualized. You can jump up and down all you want Sylvia, your excuses are tiresome, when it comes to the OPP vs.OPS record. If that is all you have to blame the short comings of this council on, then it just goes to show you, and others, how inadequate you are in your role. Find a new record to play, this town is sick of your OPP rhetoric.

      Reply

  7. Hi Lisa. we are having same problems with Council in Algoma Mills Ontario. We have a petition about to be presented and would very much like to chat with you in preparation for that. Can you respond to my email with a phone number? Or respond and request my number. Would be great to talk today or tomorrow.

    Thanks

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Norm Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *