Philip Mcleod

The McLeod Report - London, Ontario

A regular commentary on civic affairs in London, Canada by journalist Philip McLeod.

Subscribe, It's Free

Anti-Spam Q: Is fire hot or cold?
Name:
Email:

Local Weather

London, Canada

Current Conditions:
Light rain shower
11oC
Light rain shower
Wind Direction Degree: 340
Precip: 0.1 mm

Recent Entries

THURSDAY, MAY 23, 2013

Follow Me On

The Zero Lady calls it quits

BLOG #708: Nancy Branscombe, the councillor for Old North's Ward 6, resigned this week as chairperson and a member of city council's services review committee. She is not convinced council is prepared to do the heavy lifting needed to truly reach zero tax increase, nor ready to endure the political fallout tough decisions brings.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 – London

When a city politician makes good on his or her promise to keep your property taxes at zero for another year, do you ever stop to consider how it really happens?

There are costs and consequences to zero. And if you're not the one doing the paying or suffering, someone somewhere else is.

This week, for example, a dozen middle managers in the city's technology, finance and recreation departments were escorted from the work stations by security, their jobs eliminated. Why? Well in the interest of more efficiency the city has found other ways to get their jobs done.

Efficiency saves money. Money saved keeps costs down. Lowest costs translate into zero budget increases.

Nancy Branscombe, the three-term councillor for Old North's Ward 6, has been the chairperson of a council committee which for the past three years has had the specific assignment to find efficiencies at City Hall.

altOver the course of their mandate, which continues, Ms. Branscombe and her committee colleagues, along with senior civic administration managers, have found millions of dollars’ worth of ways to do things differently and better. The service committee's work has been the principal reason city taxpayers have enjoyed two years of zero tax increases.

Ms. Branscombe, once a candidate for the Reform party, is very much a Conservative. She believes in efficient, no frills government. She believes in zero – but, as she said over and over during the budget debate this past February, not zero at any cost.

She was appalled when council, to get to zero for 2012, shifted $3 million from reserves to make it happen. Several weeks ago, when council began arguing over what the target should be for 2013, she presented a motion that if zero was to be the target it should only be accomplished by making real and permanent budget cuts, not by robbing tomorrow to benefit today.

“The motion was to help me determine whether council would be prepared to do the hard and politically uncomfortable work of permanent operational cuts,” she explains.

The motion was defeated. So she put her council colleagues on notice she would quit the services review committee if zero was approved as the target without a corresponding promise not to use reserves to get there.

To reach zero for 2013 spending must be reduced or revenues increased by about $25 million. That will, warns City Treasurer Martin Hayward, almost certainly mean service cuts or staff layoffs next year.

Tuesday night, on its third try, city council approved a budget target for 2013 of zero. They did so without making any promise not to use reserves. After which Ms. Branscombe resigned both as chairperson and a member of the services review committee.

In a statement she read to council, this is part of how she justified her decision:

“We were the first municipality in Ontario to produce a 'service-based' budget. The reason we moved in this direction was to improve the transparency of how our tax dollars were being used and to be more productive and nimble in setting priorities on behalf of our citizens within a climate of keeping taxes low.

“Getting to zero by raiding and diverting our reserve funds and other 'one time' money, as was done (in 2012), is not sound financial management. . . . The only way to get to zero is via permanent reductions in our operating budget. This can certainly be done, but along with permanent reductions come political pressure and difficult decisions.

“We couldn't do that this past year; raiding reserves was easier. It will happen again (next) year and I won't support it.”

Meantime, Joni Baechler, the councillor for the adjacent north London Ward 5, who is vice-chairperson of the committee and who shares many of Ms. Branscombe's views on how civic government should operate, is considering her options. She, too, may resign.

There may yet be other defections from the committee's membership of Mayor Joe Fontana, Joe Swan (Ward 3), Matt Brown (7), Paul Hubert (8), Dale Henderson (9), Denise Brown (11) and Harold Usher (12).

Stephen Orser (4) and Paul Van Meerbergen (10), two of the most outspoken advocates of zero and two of council's least engaged members, have publicly declared they'd like to join.

One suggestion Wednesday was that Mayor Fontana would take over as chairperson. That would make sense. The reason we're facing year three of zero increases in budgets and taxes – and potentially significant cuts in service – is that the mayor promised us just that during his election campaign.

Seems only fair he should wear whatever glory – and pain – Zero III will bring.

Comments   

 
+1 #15 A Suggested Baby StepK. E. Risler 2012-07-26 19:01
Quoting David Winter:
....what is the solution.... It has to be a sustainable solution....


One durable solution is compact efficient urban planning wherein a higher population density is achieved so that taxes from the populace actually cover city costs. Having ignored this principle in the post WW II era in favor of developer-led expansion, London's long-run costs exceed the taxes levied. Hence higher taxes now masquerading as water charges, etc. Higher-density cost-effective planning covering both real development and long-run costs is a no-brainer first step.
Quote
 
 
#14 What do we doDavid Winter 2012-07-26 17:50
If you look at many parts of the this city, we have buildings in ruin. I am asking this, what is the solution. It has to be a sustainable solution. I am not against raising taxes, but we have also lost jobs Good jobs as well. These were good paying jobs, and the some of the jobs replacing them, are paying just above min wage. We need to sort of think outside the box. BTW, just not having a increase in taxes, does not mean we do not have one. Water went up. We need to rethink how the taxes are calculated and stuff. I am looking at the solution, we should work on a solution together at the end of the day, we are in the same city, and we want this city to do well. What would your solution be?
Quote
 
 
+1 #13 Cheap Shop at DetroitDavid Dimitrie 2012-07-26 17:43
Mr. Winter, Detroit is not in ruins because it has high municipal taxes and it wouldn't join the 0% gang. I lived in Windsor for a good part of my live and I followed its sad decline.

Please Google 1968 riots and suburban flight and you might find out what happened to Detroit.

To add insult to injury some of their top politicians have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

London is not in any way comparable to Detroit. Most government increases are just dumped on us and we just have to pay them at all three levels.

The 0% Fontana mantra has become tiresome and old. It is taking Council and City staff away from other vital work.

Our City staff have lost some top people this year and 15 have just been showed the door in the name of "restructuring" and savings.

Fontana's ship is sinking on this 0% pledge.
Quote
 
 
#12 Misunderstandin gDavid Winter 2012-07-26 15:22
I think you have misunderstood me. I am not against a tax increase. I want to make sure that its sustainable. I do understand that price of goods go up every year, I want to make sure that going forward that we make sure that there is no waste at city hall. All companies are doing that. If at the end of the day, there is no waste, I do not mind paying a tax increase to make sure that the infrastructure is ok. But I want to make sure, that the homeowners, renters, and business can afford it. I just do not want business to leave, because they think its to expensive. I want London to be place where business thrive, and people live here, with Social agencies can be here. I do not want it to be Detroit, where everything is closing.
Quote
 
 
-2 #11 Rent Increases & Property TaxesDavid Dimitrie 2012-07-26 15:11
As K.E. Reisler so aptly explained, tenants pay property taxes in their rent.

2. Their rents also rise each year based on the Consumer Price Index. In 2012 the increase was 3.1%. In 2013 it will be 2.5%. On top of that landlords can always apply to the Landlord Tenant Board for additional increases, usually to cover increased capital costs or excessive utility costs.

3. Mr. Winter's comment was not helpful. 30% of Londoners rent apartments or condominiums. The impression that they are property tax freeloaders persists in most municipalities and amongst many politicians who don't even try to get renters to vote or engage them once in office.

4. In London, I addressed this specific issue with Councillor Swan in Ward 3 whose Ward is full of high density housing. He seems to have lost interest in the issue after the election was over.

Councillor Swan and Orser have let down the tenants in Wards 3/4.
Quote
 
 
+1 #10 BranscombeSteve Shillington 2012-07-26 14:25
My fear is that we'll see more "withdrawal" by Councillors who actually do homework and seem to have some insight because of the fact that the cowboys and nincompoops (and you know who they are) are running roughshod over any sensible planning processes and deviating at every turn from well considered City zoning, budgeting and other processes painstakingly developed over recent years.
Quote
 
 
-2 #9 Everyone pays property taxesK. E. Risler 2012-07-26 14:07
Renters do pay property taxes, David, via rent. This is why tax returns have a rent allowance in Ontario. Rent increases in Ontario are allowed up to the annual Consumer Price Index increase (i.e. inflation) but can go higher if the landlord seeks approval from the Landlord and Tenant Board. Landlords are thus insulated from a tax increase up to the rate of inflation since they can cover it off via rent hikes.

Quoting David Winter:
I was wondering who pays property taxes..."
Quote
 
 
-1 #8 Who pays Taxes Part TwoDavid Winter 2012-07-26 13:38
I know a lot of people that have not gotten a raise in the last year, not for 5 years, but I am seeing government officials and employees keep on getting raises. My Grandfather used to say, if the raise keeps on going up, you get raised right out of the door. That is what is happening now to our economy. You have to make sure that taxes are in line with inflation, as well as how the economy is going. We got to make sure the rate is sustainable, as well as make sure that our infrastructure is good. We also have to see what is waste at city hall and curb it. If not, we are all going broke.
Quote
 
 
-1 #7 Who pays TaxesDavid Winter 2012-07-26 13:32
I was wondering who pays property taxes besides the Homeowners, Property owners, and Business Owners. Sure its covered in Rent, but its Rent can not go up because of the Rent Cap. So its the Homeowners that get stuck with this increase. I am a small business Owner, I have more jobs in the Caribbean, Windsor, and Toronto then in London. We need to make sure that this City is Run right.
Quote
 
 
+2 #6 Civilization has a costK. E. Risler 2012-07-26 12:39
The misguided quest for zero disregards the hard fact that operating even a little corner of civilization involves real costs that must be funded at least at the rate of inflation. London is on the same path now as many American cities went down starting in the 80's, when the zero budgeting chimera presaged the long-run insolvency now taking hold.
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh