Newsletter Signup

Budget 2013: Aiming for increase near 3%

Given the economic climate and the potential increase for necessary items, our budget must reflect priorities and need to haves.
Burlington City Budget 2013

Meetings Feb. 26, 28, 9:30am City Hall

Burlington City Budget 2013Your taxes could go up as much as 6.5% this year, depending on which proposals by members of council are approved. Budget discussions take place Feb. 26. & 28, with March 5 & 7 if needed, for a final vote at council March 18.

My goal is to get us near 3% and no more than 4% – a challenge given the array of new requests.

Other than hospital, infrastructure and roads funding (which can be accommodated under 4%), most of the requests were not predictable in previous years.

A significant driver of increases this year are the requests from the city’s boards and committees, including the Burlington Public Library, Burlington Performing Arts Centre, Burlington Art Centre and Burlington Economic Development Corporation. Boards already get a 2% across the board increase but there are significant requests over and above that.

Several big-ticket items relate to new a new library and community centre being opened in the Alton community. As I’ve written about in the past, when new homes are built tax assessment alone does not cover the full costs of services required by these new residents. That’s why we need to continue to aggressively focus on expanding our Industrial-Commercial-Institutional tax base (as I wrote about recently here. Burlington’s growth has come primarily from the residential sector, which drives up taxes even though these are partially offset by new tax revenue.

Additional big ticket items include investment in transit and economic development, both of which I support (with some suggested modifications).

I’ll be keeping three principles in mind heading into budget week:

1. Economic environment

Our city budget must take into account the current economic environment and the ability of residents to pay.

The provincial, national and global economy is still in a slump, with inflation last year around 1.85%.

According to the January 23 report from the Bank of Canada, the slowdown in the second half of 2012 was more pronounced than the Bank had anticipated, due to weaker business investment and exports. High household debt levels have begun to restrain household spending. The Bank of Canada projects growth in 2013 to be 2%, and 2.7% in 2014. The total Consumer Price Index inflation is expected to remain around 1% in the near term. As a result, the Bank maintained its interest rate at 1%.

To provide an analogy, if the city budget is your household budget, when your income isn’t growing (or worse lose your job) you make spending decisions accordingly. Further, Burlington has a significant number of seniors living on fixed incomes who haven’t had a “pay increase” in years. Any tax increase for them can be significant.

Property taxes don’t take into account your ability to pay – you lose your job you don’t pay income tax, but you still pay property tax at the same rate. So the city must take ability to pay into account in our budget decisions.

Ability to pay is becoming more constrained, looking at the tough (and worsening) job market out there for residents.

Barely half of working adults in the GTA have full-time jobs with benefits and expect to be working for their current employer a year from now, according to a reportreleased last weekend by McMaster University and United Way Toronto. The other half are working either full- or part-time with no benefits or no job security, or in temporary, contract or casual positions. This “precarious” or insecure work in the region has increased by 50 per cent in the past 20 years, notes the report.

Many communities already support the notion of “ability to pay” as a criteria for budget decisions in essential service union negotiations. These unions, primarily fire and police, go to arbitration as members are not allowed to strike. In the past, contract arbitration awards focused on ensuring contracts were the same across communities, rather than considering the ability of each town to pay. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (of which Burlington is a member) has pushed for contract awards to take into account local fiscal conditions.

One of the goals of our budget process this year was base budget increases tied to inflation. It was pegged to the 3yr rolling CPI (Toronto) average, which sat at 2.64%. We need to revisit that in light of Bank of Canada projections and actual growth.

2. Priorities over nice-to-haves

Our city budget must focus on priorities over nice-to-haves.

Priorities for residents include the hospital and infrastructure, including roads, community buildings and transit. These priorities were reaffirmed during public budget consultations at a city-wide meeting and an online survey (report here. In summary 69% support increasing the levy for Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital, to reduce reliance on debt to pay for the city’s share of the redevelopment; 63% support staffing and operating costs for the Alton Community Centre; 60% support staffing and costs for the the Alton Library; and 63% support expanded transit service.

I will be supporting these items during budget discussions.

In addition, the budget includes an increase in infrastructure funding, representing 1.25% of the total tax increase, which I also support.

Regarding the overall tax increase, 54% said they could support 4% tax increase, however 34% also said they would be “very unsatisfied” or “somewhat unsatisfied” (13.5%) with a 4% tax increase.

For a line by line discussion of proposed items in the budget, please see my earlier article on the budget here.

3. Improved budget principles

Our city budget planning process must encourage savings in the base budget and better detail in the business cases.

Last summer, council approved a budget process of base budget increases in line with inflation (“base budget” being services the city already provides), and business cases for items over and above that, for increases or decreases in services.

I supported that process, but seeing it in action this year believe we need to make some changes (and granted there have been some hiccups simply because we’re getting used to this new process).

First, automatic increases to the base budget do not encourage finding efficiencies, or reflect current economic realities. Many organizations have frozen (or reduced) their budgets.

To the city’s credit, staff did find $1.4 million in base budget reductions, however most of these were funded by increased revenues from a variety of sources including transit, planning and building, rental and programming revenue, and engineering rates and fees. Further, the city received additional income from new tax payers and increased tax assessment from property values going up, amounting to .87% of the tax impact.

Halton Region prepares a total all-in budget (with increases and decreases in service) in line with inflation, and then reduces the in-year tax impact with revenues from tax assessment and growth. Though there are some challenges to the Region budget that I’ve outlined publicly before, this is a budget planning a model we can consider for Burlington.

Second, some new services (though nominal in size) were included in the base budget – for example, provision to the Burlington Teen Tour Band annual trip.

This is not the intent of the base budget model which is to address inflationary increases for current activities. The primary inflationary drivers in the base budget are human resources compensation (salary, benefits and pension accounted for 2.17% of the total increase), commodity price increases of 4% (a .26% increase in taxes), general inflationary pressure (a .24% of the tax increase), and increased insurance premiums (a .16% increase in taxes).

Further, fee increases and other new revenue streams should be counted separately from the base budget, as we do at the Region, as offsets to the entire tax impact.

Finally, in many instances, the business cases did not provide either enough data, or the right kind of data, to evaluate their merits. “Outcomes” listed were often outcomes for the organization, as opposed expected benefits for the community being served. Further, the brevity of the reports required much additional research on the part of council, staff and organizations alike and must be improved for next year.

In conclusion

Many (though certainly not all) requests for funding in this year’s budget have merit. They would be supportable in an improved economic climate, or if we were not contemplating a potential 6.5% tax increase. However, given the economic climate and the potential increase for necessary items, our budget must reflect priorities and need to haves. I’ll be voting on that basis.

City budgets are like home budgets: if your kitchen is 20 years old and in poor shape, you may want to replace it for return on investment, enjoyment and improved resale value – all good and worthy reasons. But if the roof is leaky and the furnace is beyond useful life, those take precedence, and you find ways to make do with the old kitchen. In some respects, we’ll need to ask our staff, boards, and ourselves to “make do” for now, while we take care of priority needs.

Your Take: What’s your preferred tax increase (if any) for this year, and what items would you fund (or cut?). Post a comment below‎ or email me at

Receive new post notifications by email

5 thoughts on “Budget 2013: Aiming for increase near 3%”

  1. I would like to see an increase no more than the rate of inflation. The amount to the Hospital is a good expense. However the PAC should be revenue neutral as was stated before it was even built. Let’s not have another Pier disaster.

  2. Taxes: Why do we always start with a high percentage and then when it is settled at half the price we are supposed to feel that we are gettin a bargain. This is a political spin. And then we compare it to higher rates in other municpalities. Another spin. We don’t have to keep up with the Jones. Infrastrucure, Police, and Fire are the important ones. Let the PAC support itself.

  3. I would like to see an increase no more than the rate of inflation…if you have to cut services- so be it. People on fixed incomes are having a hard enough time as it is…

What's your take?

Here are guidelines before you comment, and our expectations before we will post:

  • Be civil. Would you speak this way to a good friend? If not, rewrite.
  • Focus on the issues. Build your argument and make your case in support of your opinion from facts, research or other sources. That way we can all learn. “I disagree with so-and-so because…” is fine; “So-and-so is naïve/stupid  for thinking the way he/she does and here’s why…” is not acceptable.
  • Don’t make personal attacks. Don’t assume motives of those you disagree with, make unfounded allegations, spread rumours, or engage in any other behaviours that would discourage you from participating if someone said this to, or about, you. The Golden Rule applies: Do unto others as you would have done to you. We will edit or not post comments with this type of content.
  • Say it once: When comments from the same individual or individuals become repetitive, going over ground already stated, we reserve the right to close commenting.
  • Use your full, and real, name. If wish to make a comment in public, we expect you will publicly stand behind it with your name. If you don’t want to publicly reveal your name, that’s fine; you are always welcome to share your thoughts with me privately via my email below. I welcome and consider all feedback in making decisions for the community.
  • Have fun, consider and learn. Share your views and read those of others. May we all benefit from a healthy exchange of ideas, and learn a little more about the people in our community, what you think, and what’s important to each of you. You may end up changing your mind about an issue; even if you don’t, we hope everyone will gain a greater understanding of why people have different perspectives.
Marianne Meed Ward

Marianne Meed Ward

I was inspired to seek public office because I believe, like so many of you, “I can do something about that” on the issues we face. As councilor, my role is to take a stand on what’s best for residents and go to bat for it. Pushback is inevitable from those who don’t have the community’s interests at heart. I will stand with you and for you, to achieve the best interests of our city, without caving to unacceptable compromise in the name of consensus.

Newsletter Sign Up

Phone: 905-335-7607

Constituent Assistant: Georgie Gartside
905-335-7600, ext. 7689