This budget debate could be fun

BLOG #562: The city of London’s budget for 2012 was tabled last night. Funding it would cost the average property owner 2. 3 per cent more than last year – unless, that is, there are some cuts, perhaps serious cuts. Or better still, maybe some off the wall ideas. Anything could happen this year.

Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2011 – London

Unless you’re a policy wonk, a political junky or a professional information gatherer, observing the annual civic budget debates can be about as exciting as watching paint dry. This year, however, could be different.

Oh yes, there’s the surface tension of whether Mayor Joe can muster the political will, and possibly courage, to drive the tax increase back down to zero for a second year. On that front city council must cut between $10.6 and $16 million off the total of $744.1 million tabled in the 2012 budget last night. And with some semi-fancy sleight of hand about $6 million had theoretically been found before a meeting of the brand new Strategic Priorities and Policies Committee even adjourned.

The remainder, it was warned, could result in “drastic” service cuts.

But that stuff is not so much interesting, at least not until they get to the point sometime in late January or early February when the chain saw is fired up.

What has the potential to make this year’s budget debate worth following is the attitude of several participants.

Let’s start with Dale Henderson, the councillor for Byron’s Ward 9 but who actually lives out-of-town on the other side of the city. Until he ran for council last October he’d never been to a council meeting, never even watched one of TV, is his whole life. Last year’s budget debate was a blur, he admits. But this year he’s going to have fun.

This is what he means by that.

Moments after Paul Hubert, councillor for Ward 8, proclaimed that the choices were “either add costs or cut services – there’s no rabbit out of the hat here,” Mr. Henderson stood up.

“I think I have a way to do this,” he said – this meaning make the cuts to get to zero. “I have a four-point plan.” First, he wants to “reduce all budgets by 3.75 per cent, what would that look like?” Second, “take a look at the surpluses, put all that money in a pool and let the boards and commissions make a case for getting some of it back.” Third, “we need more money from London Hydro.” And fourth, “take a look at the administration and see where there are some efficiencies – for example can we get our streets plowed cheaper if we contract them out? I’m looking for innovative ideas.”

Then there’s Jeff Fielding, the city’s manager credited with pushing council toward better fiscal strategies and his own staff to more efficiencies, who announced last Friday he’s leaving Jan. 29 for a comparable job with the City of Burlington. Mr. Fielding now has the closest thing to a book of free passes in the budget debate and he used his first one on Mr. Henderson.

“One of the things that is crucial in this debate is that council speaks up for what has actually transpired,” he said, and then proceeded to give Mr. Henderson a short, sharp history lesson. “Departments have been at zero or below for the last three years. We have the best CUPE settlement in the province. We cut $12.5 million last year without touching service. It was a very measured approach. So I’m going to push that right back to you. (The administration has) been very creative, you’re being rewarded by that and I don’t understand why that doesn’t get recognized.”

Ouch.

Mr. Henderson was not deterred. Later, discovering $23 million remains on the debt incurred by the city to build the John Labatt Centre, which costs taxpayers $4 million a year in payments, he proposed a fifth idea. Sell the building for $23 million and bank the $4 million saved for an economic development fund. “We need to switch our assets around. Then we wouldn’t have to go out (to the public) for any more money.”

Or, added the mayor laconically, “we could just charge a 1 per cent levy.”

The tax levy, which would raise $4.6 million a year, would be used for economic development. It would ensure, said the mayor, London has some cash on hand should opportunity come knocking – this being the city where that is supposed to happen. It will be debated once more by council tonight.

As for Mr. Henderson’s ideas, well there probably isn’t much support for selling the JLC but his idea of getting a bigger dividend from city owned London Hydro or assessing the financial performance and potential of all its above-ground assets are good ones. Had the rookie councillor been paying attention for the past year he would have known Mr. Fielding’s people were already working on both of them.