Dear God I don't even know where to start with the proposed civic budget for 2012 other than to say it is faint hope document to save this sorry council's butts next October. When you back out the police budget increase it doesn't even cover the cost of inflation, much less the proposed capital spending and subsequent operating/maintenance costs.
When they speak of taking money out of the land sales, I sincerely hope that doesn't mean pillaging the Land Bank , which was self-sustaining and intended for use of future land development as the city expanded.
The civic report that required a huge injection of cash for road repair and maintenance is not being dealt with - at least not for the 2012 taxation year. Where is the money for all the approved capital projects? What about the Traffic Bridge? A reserve for future operating costs of the Art Gallery and the new police station? Just how much toes Council project these costs to be and shouldn't operating costs be dealt with in the annual budget - the reserve won't last forever. How will we pay for the wind turbine capital cost? I expect our monthly levy on the light and water bill to go up.
We are building pricey leisure facilities and pricing public use out of the range of the average citizen. Previously we heard that reducing transit fares would increase ridership and now we have Council increasing discounted bus passes. Saskatoon has been known for its urban forest and beautiful parks - but park maintenance is being cut, although money is being poured into park renewal in the form of Kinsmen Park. Gordie Howe Bowl was approved, but no money is budgeted for the plan. This just goes on and on.
While I'm at it, how many homes in Saskatoon are assessed at $200,000? The entry level housing in Saskatoon is well above that sum, and assessment on newer housing will see far more than $70 hike in taxes. Add to this the new monthly recycling fee that is separate and apart from the tax bill. Then there is the plan for the new Library and I haven't heard about the Library budget and its increases.
I would like just one Councillor to stand up and come clean - we are in a financial mess. The only hope they have is that Brad Wall will come to their aid with a huge payola for cities in his budget and that still won't bail us out of this deep hole - it just may keep the hole from getting any deeper.
And remember we still have the issue of the pension liabilities that were flagged in the Standard & Poors credit report.
Worse yet, is Council got themselves an expanded term of office which means after 2012 we will not get the benefit of a "hold the line" budget every three years but rather every four years.
I'm beginning to think the s... has finally hit the fan.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I haven't finished sifting through the entire document yet, but the one clear thing is that this Council is sacrificing the City in order to try to save their jobs.
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing the stuff they have intentionally ignored or left out. It's almost like they took an out of sight out of mind philosophy.
Council has been looking to ram the recycling down our throats and yet it is not even mentioned in the current budget, despite the goal to have it up and running by next summer. This leads me to believe that the citizens will be picking up the entire tab on this project, which means all those 'greenie' friends of Council will have not motivation to keep bids low. As costs is just passed on and this Council clearly has shown they are incompetent when it comes to budgeting.
The most glaring of the omissions is the road budget. Have we not learned anything from the Traffic Bridge? That allowing infrastructure to decay is not a wise move and costly down the road. The City's own report said we need over 100 million just to maintain, they put in 3 million????
My god, the worst part is trying to convince us they are being responsible with our tax dollars. When is reality they are neglecting our needs and spending our money funding their individual causes.
Back in 2003 we were promised that the growth would pay for itself.
ReplyDeleteNow we are told:
“Saskatoon is changing and it’s changing quickly,” said city manager Murray Totland, who during a news conference at City Hall painted a picture of a rapidly growing city in which civic services are being stretched to keep up.
“We’re in a new era and it looks like we’re going to be in an era of sustained prosperity. This is not a blip on the radar. There is no suggestion this is slowing down.”
Seems like the city has made poor choices with respect to its growth, among many other poor choices.
I've only been in the city 5 years so maybe I missed something but hasn't it been made quite clear that they will pay for the recycling by spinning off a waste utility and charging residents for this service separately from the property tax?
ReplyDeleteBy turning waste management and recycling into a fee based service, they can hit our wallets whenever they like while 'holding the line' on property taxes.
Funny, I thought that garbage was one of the core functions of a city like police, fire, roads and water.
You won't ever see one penny of 'savings' from kerbside recycling show up in city taxpayers pockets.
We've had kerbside in England for decades and there are only costs and no savings. It's terrible to see this city heading in the same direction.
The recycling dilemma is an interesting ones. Basically it comes down to the advocates claiming that we all need to pay for a service we already do for free simply so the ones who don't already recycle may start.
ReplyDeleteThe entire premise is built on charging every household in Saskatoon for a service in hopes that people who don't already do service themselves may start recycling because they are paying for it anyway?
What a load of crap. Meanwhile every other aspect of the city is failing and fast.
My real big question for the City on this is what is the plan for growth in terms of infrastructure that provides utilities?
ReplyDeleteWith the rate we are growing we are going to need to expand the water treatment plant or build a new one. The City has collected (falsely) a capital projects charge on each utility bill. This money, from what I've read, has been drained to fund operational costs. So basically the capital funds the city has been collecting are being used to subsidize the operation.
Last summer we had a severe water ration for weeks when capacity had to be lowered (not even shut down, just lowered). The out cry was noticeable. Now add on further strain from a growing city with more residents and more businesses and what happens if we encounter a similar problem? What happens if the next problem is not easily fixable?
What will the City say when questioned about the capital projects fund with no money in it? What will citizens say when told the money being collected for just such a day has been looted for other projects?
We are facing a real dilemma here that the residents of Saskatoon need to become aware of. This Council is sending us to the poor house. We had a bridge breakdown a year ago that we have no money to fix or replace it. So now it sits fenced up and decaying next to the prime piece of real estate they want developed (it makes for quite the eyesore to any developers). What happens when the next major item break? Say the Broadway Bridge? or the Water plant?
The reality is there is absolutely no money to pay for anything and our city's credit is on the brink of being maxed out.
The citizens better start praying for a run of 20 years of good luck because if not we are looking at a major tax hike just to provide a core service.
To anon 2:06
ReplyDelete"The citizens better start praying for a run of 20 years of good luck because if not we are looking at a major tax hike just to provide a core service."
You hit the problem right on the head. PROVIDE CORE SERVICES!! That is what our city needs to get back too. Quit theses handouts to special interest groups.
I woke up this morning to a power outage. Not from someone hitting a power pole or the cold weather, it was an equipment problem. One that should have been fixed years ago but there isn't enough money to do so.
This council has tried to be everything to everyone and has stretched the meaning of what civic governments should be paying for. I ask everyone to make a list of "CORE" services and ask their councilor to stick to the basics and get rid of extras.
Here are mine.
Police
Fire
Garbage
Roads includes maintenance
Water
Electricity
Parks
IMHO everything else is a negotiable.
There are other areas such as Civic facilities for leisure, Civic Centers, Rinks, Soccer Centers,that should be operated at a cost recovery for operational dollars.
My stumbling point on Civic facilities are things like the Public Library, Museum, Public Transit.
If I have to pay a recovery cost for swimming in a pool why does someone else get to walk into a museum or library for $0.
So the sooner this city gets out of using my property tax for things other than the core the better we all will be.
I use to love living in this city but now I have to question why I do it. I could live outside the city use all these services and pay minimal property tax. No wonder there are so many acreages popping up around.
"If I have to pay a recovery cost for swimming in a pool why does someone else get to walk into a museum or library for $0."
ReplyDeleteHow DARE we supply the public with information and learning opportunities, and promote literacy with no cost barriers for access. We must be NUTS as a society to allow people to read regardless of income.
"How DARE we supply the public with information and learning opportunities, and promote literacy with no cost barriers for access. We must be NUTS as a society to allow people to read regardless of income."
ReplyDeleteAnd how DARE we question any social program. I mean if the City believes that buying an aquarium and filing it with dolphins because it is a human right that people be able to swim with dolphins then so be it. We should never questions spending of any kind as long as it is for the public. YEAH.
Yes - public access to information is the same fundamental human right in a democracy as a fish tank.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant comparison.
"How DARE we supply the public with information and learning opportunities, and promote literacy with no cost barriers for access. We must be NUTS as a society to allow people to read regardless of income."
ReplyDeleteAnon 2:42 here.
I didn't say that there shouldn't be public access to books and paintings but to assume that the only and most efficient system is the one we have in place is acting like an ostrich. I thought every school in the city has books for their students as well there are many book stores these days that will allow people to come in and read a book without purchasing it. There are also many other organizations that offer books to those that can't afford it. Your assumption that everyone that enters a library is poor is asinine. Most are just too cheap to pay for it.
"Your assumption that everyone that enters a library is poor is asinine. Most are just too cheap to pay for it"
ReplyDeleteWhat you just wrote evidences that your knowledge of what constitutes the public sphere is asinine.
Libraries are foundationally meant to prevent the commodification of information and deliver it in a public space. Equal access for all, period.
As for your premise of people being "cheap" who go to the library, that's just ridiculous. I challenge you to find empirical evidence of that statement.
Besides, we have a means test for public services based on ability to pay: it's called income tax.
"Besides, we have a means test for public services based on ability to pay: it's called income tax."
ReplyDeleteTherein lies the problem, those that contribute the least expect the most back (don't construe that to mean I don't support social services). My point is mainly, those dreaming up the 'public services' to provide are usually not the ones who are going to be hit hardest by increased pressure of funding.
With an infinite budget I'm all for every public service under the sky. However, attitudes such as your convey the attitude that no one is able to question the current system of delivery of any public service, the amount of public services we should offer, or how we should design and fund a service.
Why in public libraries should we be allowed to peruse for free when we are asking people who are living in poverty to subsidize the bus they use in -40 temperatures.
A big problem with Saskatoon right now is that the current council is extending themselves into spheres of public services that are not the responsibility of the municipal government. The abundance of random programs (ie subsidizing housing) is putting a heavy strain on our city finances.
The solution is either jack taxes up higher and higher or else review the array of public services provided. Depending on who you talk to will depend on what those core services are. You believe that libraries are one of them, I'm sure there are other who'd say free public transport is far more beneficial to those in need than library downtown (which they can't even afford to get to).
Out of curiosity, besides housing, what else should the city remove itself?
ReplyDeleteDo you really have the time to go through the budget piece by piece?
ReplyDeleteYou support the City being involved in housing?
"Why in public libraries should we be allowed to peruse for free when we are asking people who are living in poverty to subsidize the bus they use in -40 temperatures."
ReplyDeleteAgain - you show absolutely no understanding of the foundational reason that underpins public libraries across the democratic world.
(It also happens we massively subsidize bus use for those with low income. But this is another debate.)
Perhaps you should go to the Library (maybe take the bus) and read a few books. I'll give you a hint to start: Jurgen Habermaa. Then come back and re-vist your opinion.
Until you make the critical distinction about the foundational reason for public access to information as a key to a functioning democratic society, there is no point even entering into a debate that is premised on such stupidity as "many book stores these days that will allow people to come in and read a book without purchasing it."
Anon 10:02,
ReplyDeleteThe foundation of your argument is premised on the point that libraries are required and a integral part of a functioning democracy (correct?). Accordingly, in your view libraries should remain at the top or near the top of funding from governments.
The problem with high-horsed view of things is that each and every public service has someone such as yourself perched atop the cause extolling the virtues of said service.
We can all sit around and argue over which public service is the most important, which is 2nd most important, etc... The end result is we'll never come to consensus. Advocates of the housing shelters and food banks would tell you that feeding and housing people are top priorities, even before libraries.
Your stance on the importance of libraries may or may not be shared by all citizens (judging by some of the responses above I'll lean to may not be shared).
The reality of the matter is that libraries being a foundation of democracy across the democratic world is an opinion not a fact. Jurgen Habermaa shares that opinion, him presenting arguments does not make it a fact. It remains an OPINION.
Your attitude is much like current Council, that your opinion is fact. You are not open for debate on the matter and no matter what argument is conveyed to you, you are unlikely to ever alter your opinion on the matter from what it is. I've seen you reference the foundation of democracy point, but you have yet to clearly demonstrate how it is a foundation of democracy (I can loosely see where you are going with it). I don't necessarily disagree with your points either, I personally have libraries very high on my list of necessary public services. However, I can at least acknowledge that is an opinion and not a fact and that others are free to have their own opinions on the matter.
You hold no enlightened view on society that is above that of anyone else, you simply have an opinion. Quit sitting on your high horse and talking down to anyone who may have a different opinion on public services than you.
Therein lies the big problem we face today, the champion of every cause believes theirs to be the most noble. As a result we have a wide array of poorly funded public services trying to promise the world to everyone and delivering it to no one.
For the record, what does this even mean? What distinction are you asking one to make?
ReplyDelete"Until you make the critical distinction about the foundational reason for public access to information as a key to a functioning democratic society"
What are you asking the reader to distinguish between?
What is sounds like you are really saying should read, "until you realize the foundational...."
In which case, your argument is essentially premised on the fact that you are saying there is no debate to be had until you concede that my opinion is a fact on this matter.
“The foundation of your argument is premised on the point that libraries are required and a integral part of a functioning democracy (correct?). Accordingly, in your view libraries should remain at the top or near the top of funding from governments.”
ReplyDeleteCompletely False. The prior argument put forth was that libraries should charge users, because they are “too cheap to pay for it” and “many book stores will allow people to come in and read a book without paying for it.” The level of funding is certainly up for debate.
“The problem with high-horsed view of things is that each and every public service has someone such as yourself perched atop the cause extolling the virtues of said service.”
And the problem with garbage views such as the “free reading at Chapters” view is that they pander to simpleton rationale with no evidence of critical thought.
“The reality of the matter is that libraries being a foundation of democracy across the democratic world is an opinion not a fact. Jurgen Habermaa shares that opinion, him presenting arguments does not make it a fact. It remains an OPINION.”
This is certainly true to a degree, but opinions qualified through years of research such as Habermas (only cited as a starting point) are far more valid than the arguments put forth in this string, comparing libraries to fish tanks to validate a stance.
Your attitude is much like current Council, that your opinion is fact. You are not open for debate on the matter and no matter what argument is conveyed to you, you are unlikely to ever alter your opinion on the matter from what it is.
Some opinions are more fact-based than others. See above. When the facts change, I'm willing to change my opinion. "Fish tank" tripe arguments don't cut the mustard.
“I've seen you reference the foundation of democracy point, but you have yet to clearly demonstrate how it is a foundation of democracy (I can loosely see where you are going with it). I don't necessarily disagree with your points either, I personally have libraries very high on my list of necessary public services. However, I can at least acknowledge that is an opinion and not a fact and that others are free to have their own opinions on the matter.”
Then there is a fundamental disconnect if you are concurrently validating garbage arguments above based on fish tanks and free bus rides. If each person in a democratic society is a moral equivalent (which is what you seem to be saying and an opinion I share), then commodifying access to information creates a quandary with regard to supplying citizens with the tools to learn, understand, and refute claims of authority. In the case of information access, the moral equivalence is lost and replaced by tiered economic stratification.
Quite frankly, I appreciate your post above because it is a piece of rationale discourse. However, the massive majority of what has been posted is anything but and reeks of embarrassing ignorance.
One last point re:
ReplyDelete"Some opinions are more fact-based than others. See above. When the facts change, I'm willing to change my opinion."
What opinion of yours is more fact based than an opinion to the contrary (please don't revert back to the 'fish tank' defence either). The opinion that libraries are not a core public service that should be required vs. they are a core public service.
What facts are you relying on to support the opinion that "libraries are a core service in democracies" to make it a more fact based opinion?
you are weighing in one the blog of a woman that sunk the school board budget by saddling them downtown! Elaine was the friggin chair that set up this disaster! You know how much less your head office would cost n the north end? HALF YOUR PROPERT TAX!!!
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how this morphed into a discussion of the merits of library services, but it would be a good one to have all on its own - if responders could stay on topic.
ReplyDeleteAs for Anon 1:55 comments on the School Board building (coming out of left field,) you couldn't be more wrong. The building came in at less than half the cost of the North end proposal, it was a heritage building with a sound engineering report and it is a central location for all schools with good access via buses - necessary since the building contained computer labs and a media centre which, at that time, individual schools did not have.
As for education property tax, if you believe that half the tax you pay goes into maintaning head office then clearly you are a student of remedial simple math - nor are you familiar with school budgets.