A Budget Sample

I haven't finished  with my budget cuts but I need to provide a detailed glimpse of an item.

Chances are I won't be allowed to make all my  points.

Three contract positions are recommended to become permanent.Cost difference being benefits.

Employee benefits cost approximately $30,000. Municipal benefits are in a class by themselves.

As I listened to the CAO arguing in support of the recommendation, I visualised three workers working in a hole in freezing muck.. Two with security of employment and all benefits and a third not. I  voted in favour of the recommendation.

A couple of meetings ago, a contract was awarded for repair of water breaks. There are nine in a year.

I have also since read in the budget.the aforesaid contract positions are  in a seasonal recreation facility.

User fees relate to cost of facility operation.

Leisure Services is responsible for calculating user fees. But now not for the cost of operation.

In re-organisation during the last term, management of facilities was transferred  to  Environment and  Infrastructure.That department has no responsibility for user fees. It dips directly into  taxpayers'  pockets.

The recommendation to make contract positions permanent does not refer to impact on user fees. No off-setting revenue is projected.

Readers of this blog are aware because I do repeat,  I did not vote for re-organisation of the administration.

My main concern was newness of the management team. Now known as " Executive Leadership Team".  No time was taken to  determine how the municipality  functioned before the decision was made for wholesale change.

Directors appointed with professional  credentials for specific  responsibilities and compensated commensurately, were stripped of  responsibilities. Directors appointed without credentials for specific  responsibilities received the responsibilities and were commensurately compensated for credentials they did not possess.

Placement on pay grids were changed. Some went up, others with the credentials went down.

Circumstances since then support my initial opposition. Some I can't discuss. This one I can.

The recommendation for contract employees in seasonal occupations  to become permanent makes no sense.

Contract employment opportunity is gladly sought and accepted.  $70,000. savings are realised.

User fees are more affordable because of seasonal contract positions and part-time employment.

It makes facility use affordable.

Without affordability, providing public facilities for recreation cannot be justified.

Taking responsibility for managing facilities from the department responsible for controlling costs made no sense when the decison was made. Herewith, the evidence to prove it.

It makes as much sense as the the Culture Centre Board's agreement.

If facility users are "clients"..."stakeholders"..."investors" or "customers" which they are,who else could they  be.  it sure makes a mockery of the  new "customer service" plan  adopted by this council  last year without a budget or an idea of  projected costs.

$70,000. is another budget cut that can be made without reducing an iota of service provided.

Now back to the budget analysis