HawthorneVillager.com

Hawthorne Village (Milton) Discussion Board
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 10:35 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 703
Location: Ex Milton(ian)
The 2014 Budget Call Report is on the town website as an item for the Monday Council agenda. The report includes the responses from the online survey.

Some highlights:
- 330 responses.
- 48% in favour of enhancing park and sports field maintenance.
- over 30% in favour of reducing transit and arts/cultural expense.
- budget detail includes $350k for part-year velodrome operations.

http://www.milton.ca/MeetingDocuments/C ... Report.pdf


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:12 am
Posts: 4609
Found a typo in the report. It’s indicative of a general bias for “more” that I see this report being slanted towards.

The majority of respondents (48%) rated the value they receive for their tax
dollars to be Fairly Good.

Should read:

A minority of respondents (48%) rated the value they receive for their tax
dollars to be Fairly Good.

Or if you really want majority wording:

The majority of respondents (52%) rated the value they receive for their tax
dollars to be poor.

It’s also interesting that when 30% of people call for cuts to arts and transit, it gets mentioned. But similar numbers called for cuts to libraries, it is ignored.

It’s also interesting that the report says the rate of municipal inflation is 2.7%, and then it calls for a 5% tax increase, despite only 6% of respondents saying that a tax increase above inflation would be acceptable.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:19 pm
Posts: 374
bremer wrote:
Found a typo in the report. It’s indicative of a general bias for “more” that I see this report being slanted towards.

The majority of respondents (48%) rated the value they receive for their tax
dollars to be Fairly Good.

Should read:

A minority of respondents (48%) rated the value they receive for their tax
dollars to be Fairly Good.

Or if you really want majority wording:

The majority of respondents (52%) rated the value they receive for their tax
dollars to be poor.

It’s also interesting that when 30% of people call for cuts to arts and transit, it gets mentioned. But similar numbers called for cuts to libraries, it is ignored.

It’s also interesting that the report says the rate of municipal inflation is 2.7%, and then it calls for a 5% tax increase, despite only 6% of respondents saying that a tax increase above inflation would be acceptable.


Atta boy Bremer! That's the way to dissect and analyze this report. We need you to present yourself as a candidate in the next municipal election because you seem to know how to have the interest at heart of the tax payers of this community.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:17 pm
Posts: 3525
bremer wrote:
Found a typo in the report. It’s indicative of a general bias for “more” that I see this report being slanted towards.

The majority of respondents (48%) rated the value they receive for their tax
dollars to be Fairly Good.

Should read:

A minority of respondents (48%) rated the value they receive for their tax
dollars to be Fairly Good.

Or if you really want majority wording:

The majority of respondents (52%) rated the value they receive for their tax
dollars to be poor.

It’s also interesting that when 30% of people call for cuts to arts and transit, it gets mentioned. But similar numbers called for cuts to libraries, it is ignored.

It’s also interesting that the report says the rate of municipal inflation is 2.7%, and then it calls for a 5% tax increase, despite only 6% of respondents saying that a tax increase above inflation would be acceptable.


Read the report again Bremer.
On the value for tax dollars question this was the full breakdown:
Very Good 10%
Fairly Good 48%
Neutral 25%
Fairly Poor 15%
Very Poor 3%

So your interpretation isn't correct either. It's 58% of respondents who think that they are getting fairly good OR BETTER value for their tax dollars. 25% are on the fence depending on how you interpret neutral, and only 18% of people think they are getting poor value for their money.

The report is also not recommending a tax increase of 5%, they are asking for a budget to be prepared with a range of options BETWEEN 1% and 5%. Then council bounces those options around to determine the final increase. Like previous you'll find they'll come out with an initial budget document on the 5% side and a host of options to get to 1% that council deliberates on to hit an intermediate value.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:20 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:46 am
Posts: 4498
Location: Tothburg, Winter Cres.
330 responses! Woohoo!

That's from 87 responses last year to 330 this year?

I guess I shouldn't cheer since we're now at 100,000 so still less than 0.1% response. But still if we can get around a 400% growth in survey response year over year I think that's good.

I tried to promote the survey this year on the forums here (banner ad), on a Milton Facebook page, and in a local milton magazine. I used different bit.ly links on the different medium's so I have to go back when I have time and see which ones drove more traffic towards the survey. Of course I have no way to tell if they actually finished the survey or not.

Now becomes the real fun part which is to actually read the survey results :-)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 703
Location: Ex Milton(ian)
Rick,

There was also supposed to be a phone survey. Do the 330 responses include the phone survey? If not, where are the phone survey results?

Thanks


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:17 pm
Posts: 3525
Garlis, the phone survey was not part of the budget survey. It was to evaluate programs and services and was being done for the Community Services department.

http://www.milton.ca/en/News/index.aspx ... 0125fa5ca7


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 703
Location: Ex Milton(ian)
freemantrailfamily wrote:
Garlis, the phone survey was not part of the budget survey. It was to evaluate programs and services and was being done for the Community Services department.

http://www.milton.ca/en/News/index.aspx ... 0125fa5ca7

' Residents may receive a call from the Town’s consultants (Miller Dickinson Blais Inc. and Forum Research) asking for their input on the Town’s recreation and transportation programs, the library programs and services and other communication methods used by the Town and library."

I guess you would say it is only coincidence that the timing is the same as the online budget survey, the subject areas overlap, and both are timely to influence the budget preparation. Since I didn't get a call, I don't know what questions were asked in the phone survey or how they compared to the online survey. I did however help pay for it and would like to see the results.

Always interested in your opinions on council matters but would still like to hear from Rick regarding the relationship of the phone survey to the online survey, and where to look for the phone survey results. I am hoping councillors know.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:12 am
Posts: 4609
freemantrailfamily wrote:
Read the report again Bremer.
On the value for tax dollars question this was the full breakdown:
Very Good 10%
Fairly Good 48%
Neutral 25%
Fairly Poor 15%
Very Poor 3%

So your interpretation isn't correct either. It's 58% of respondents who think that they are getting fairly good OR BETTER value for their tax dollars. 25% are on the fence depending on how you interpret neutral, and only 18% of people think they are getting poor value for their money.

The report is also not recommending a tax increase of 5%, they are asking for a budget to be prepared with a range of options BETWEEN 1% and 5%. Then council bounces those options around to determine the final increase. Like previous you'll find they'll come out with an initial budget document on the 5% side and a host of options to get to 1% that council deliberates on to hit an intermediate value.


You know what, I stand corrected. I skimmed that report before posting and I didn't see the breakdown, so your right, a majority are saying fair or better. The statement was still technically incorrect, but did reflect the feeling of the respondents.

I thought I saw in there a recommendation for 5%, not just a proposals for 1-5%. I can't find it now. I shouldn't post before reading these things more carefully. My apologies.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:17 pm
Posts: 3525
garlis wrote:
freemantrailfamily wrote:
Garlis, the phone survey was not part of the budget survey. It was to evaluate programs and services and was being done for the Community Services department.

http://www.milton.ca/en/News/index.aspx ... 0125fa5ca7

' Residents may receive a call from the Town’s consultants (Miller Dickinson Blais Inc. and Forum Research) asking for their input on the Town’s recreation and transportation programs, the library programs and services and other communication methods used by the Town and library."

I guess you would say it is only coincidence that the timing is the same as the online budget survey, the subject areas overlap, and both are timely to influence the budget preparation. Since I didn't get a call, I don't know what questions were asked in the phone survey or how they compared to the online survey. I did however help pay for it and would like to see the results.

Always interested in your opinions on council matters but would still like to hear from Rick regarding the relationship of the phone survey to the online survey, and where to look for the phone survey results. I am hoping councillors know.


Of course. The fact that it's consultants and a different department tells me the two aren't related but no doubt it all feeds back into the budget preparation. There's the Trails and Cycling Master Plan Survey going on too that will also feed into the budget document. Lots of overlap. Rick, I'd be interested too what the relationship is and when/if a summary from the phone survey will be published. It's interesting reading what was asked and the survey responses.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 703
Location: Ex Milton(ian)
bremer wrote:
I thought I saw in there a recommendation for 5%, not just a proposals for 1-5%. I can't find it now.

Page 2. " The analysis forecasts an increase of 5.54% in the tax levy in order to continue current levels of service into 2014. "

Page 12. " In order to provide services at 2013 levels, staff are projecting a tax rate increase of 5.54% in 2014. "

Mebbe not a recommendation but pretty strong statements, and I hope a challenge that our council can handle.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:17 pm
Posts: 3525
garlis wrote:
bremer wrote:
I thought I saw in there a recommendation for 5%, not just a proposals for 1-5%. I can't find it now.

Page 2. " The analysis forecasts an increase of 5.54% in the tax levy in order to continue current levels of service into 2014. "

Page 12. " In order to provide services at 2013 levels, staff are projecting a tax rate increase of 5.54% in 2014. "

Mebbe not a recommendation but pretty strong statements, and I hope a challenge that our council can handle.


Bank on service cuts somewhere. Not following through on Saturday Transit service after the initial trial in Sept at this point in time would come to mind...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:12 am
Posts: 4609
garlis wrote:
bremer wrote:
I thought I saw in there a recommendation for 5%, not just a proposals for 1-5%. I can't find it now.

Page 2. " The analysis forecasts an increase of 5.54% in the tax levy in order to continue current levels of service into 2014. "

Page 12. " In order to provide services at 2013 levels, staff are projecting a tax rate increase of 5.54% in 2014. "

Mebbe not a recommendation but pretty strong statements, and I hope a challenge that our council can handle.



Thanks, that’s what I was going off of.

I don’t understand how the municipal inflation rate can be 2.7%, yet the staff says we need a 5.5% increase to maintain services. Wouldn’t that make the municipal inflation rate 5.5%?

Sounds like a case of Parkinson’s law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law

Quote:
He notes in particular that the total of those employed inside a bureaucracy rose by 5-7% per year "irrespective of any variation in the amount of work (if any) to be done".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:17 pm
Posts: 3525
bremer wrote:
garlis wrote:
bremer wrote:
I thought I saw in there a recommendation for 5%, not just a proposals for 1-5%. I can't find it now.

Page 2. " The analysis forecasts an increase of 5.54% in the tax levy in order to continue current levels of service into 2014. "

Page 12. " In order to provide services at 2013 levels, staff are projecting a tax rate increase of 5.54% in 2014. "

Mebbe not a recommendation but pretty strong statements, and I hope a challenge that our council can handle.



Thanks, that’s what I was going off of.

I don’t understand how the municipal inflation rate can be 2.7%, yet the staff says we need a 5.5% increase to maintain services. Wouldn’t that make the municipal inflation rate 5.5%?

Sounds like a case of Parkinson’s law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law

Quote:
He notes in particular that the total of those employed inside a bureaucracy rose by 5-7% per year "irrespective of any variation in the amount of work (if any) to be done".


I need a councillor to jump in and confirm but from watching these budget deliberations and listening to Linda Leed's explanation if memory serves the Municipal Inflation Rate is a manipulation of the Consumer Price Index that's been adjusted to take out cost increases in items like groceries to better reflect the types of items that are most relevant to products and services municipalities buy as opposed to general consumers.

My interpretation of that statement is that the cost of maintaining the services where they are at now is higher than inflation. Not surprising as the approved operating budget in last year's budget was higher than inflation (5.57% including library services).

The council definition of maintaining services may also not be quite what you think. Parks for example - the cost of cutting grass, inspecting playground equipment, replacing compacted base material, emptying garbage cans (not even touching the dandelion issue) costs X amount. With all the construction there have been about 5 new parks opened (or will be in 2014) that have to be maintained now to. To maintain those same services in the new parks requires an increase in operating expenses of Y%. Last year, the definition of maintaining transit service levels (having access to transit on Monday to Friday at the current hours) meant the addition of 2 new routes into new neighbourhoods. If they had delayed transit addition to the Wilmot neighbourhood behind the hospital and not split the Scott route into Scott north of Derry and Harrison south of Derry it would have been considered a decrease in service level (same service level for neighbourhoods that have transit but no service in the new growth neighbourhoods = decrease in service). Then on top of that they approved a trial of Saturday service that if I recall will start in the fall, which is a service increase. Anything added to go after the weed issue would be a service increase.

So the question you want to ask your councillors is to break down the details on what "maintaining services" means in the various departmental areas. My question is implementing full day Saturday service in 2014 considered part of "maintaining transit at current service levels" or not. As much as I am pro-transit I do not think the timing is right for Saturday service (though I do know some people who would benefit from it and are really looking forward to it) based on the size and population distribution.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 703
Location: Ex Milton(ian)
bremer wrote:
Sounds like a case of Parkinson’s law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law
Quote:
He notes in particular that the total of those employed inside a bureaucracy rose by 5-7% per year "irrespective of any variation in the amount of work (if any) to be done".

I think there is another corollary to this law that says “Staff count will expand to fill the space available”. We have a new town hall and will soon have a velodrome. The Budget Call lists about 28 new positions that staff is considering for 2014.

The report says that a 5.54% tax increase, or $2,125k, is needed to maintain service at 2013 levels. How about:
- Budget surplus (over-taxation) for the past 4 years has averaged $1,426k. Disposition of 2013 surplus must be included in 2014 budget deliberations. Either provide a good forecast on the existing budget timetable, or delay finalizing the budget until a good number is available for 2013 surplus.
- That suggested tax increase includes $350k for a part year of velodrome operation. I thought the PanAm legacy fund was to cover operating cost so not to burden municipal taxpayers.
- The suggested tax increase includes $500k for “new positions” which I assume does not include the new velodrome positions. A little less please.
- There is a $648K item that includes increased contribution to the capital reserve. What is the correct level for this and all other reserve accounts? Who says? It is time for council to review the targets for reserve accounts.
- Slow the growth in transit.
- Anyone dare to consider salary controls?
- Regarding the cost of maintaining infrastructure, maybe the town has too much “stuff” to maintain. Why not sell the Bruce Street property, the building on Industrial Drive, and any other surplus property? Sell the Leisure Centre to a private operator. Maybe someone would even buy the Culture Centre and the velodrome for the right terms.
- Tinker with other cuts to find some room for dandelion maintenance.

Maybe council will suggest some of these items when the Budget Call report comes up at Monday’s meeting.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.014s | 15 Queries | GZIP : Off ]