HawthorneVillager.com

Fact. The past council ran down the Rate Stabilization Reserve while increasing taxes by about 20% over their term. Inflation was about 2% per year. They did it while maintaining the Milton tradition of Mickey Mouse budget meetings. Most were re-elected.

Fact. Milton has surplus properties at Bruce St., Industrial Dr., Campbellville, etc. and a Leisure Centre that could be privatized. All require annual maintenance expense. Recovered capital could replenish reserves.

Fact. The Reserve Targets may or may not be valid. They were set in 2006 and shouldn’t be used as a basis to argue for tax increases in 2015.

Or take 100% of budget cuts and redirect to reserve stabalazation? Why are you throwing tax cuts into the mix? Nobody is asking for that – especially if what you claim is true and we’re on the edge of a cliff.

Serious, why would this be hard to get counsel on board with if it’s such a looming problem? It sounds perfectly reasonable.

Then garlis pops in, points out a few simple truths, and I’m back to thinking I’m just being misled by a scary chart.

Honestly.. I'd rather see council hash it over the hospital reserve, and whether that levy should be raised. 1% with a $35 million bill coming due in 2017 (out of a total $116 million) doesn't sound like it's going to cut it. And the whole plan with the development charges (a review of the act, with discussion of allowing them to cover hospital expansions/infrastructure), and issuing debentures sounds really risky to me. I realize raising the levy the easy way out, and I'm aware of many councillors' reluctance to do it. But if it has to happen, I'd rather see a smaller hike now, than the forecast 25-50% later. Talking about it would make people aware.

We elected council to save us money yes. But elected officials have to make some tough decisions sometimes, and this may be one of them.

_________________
Follow me on Twitter: @miltonlaura
Check out my blog: http://www.miltonviews.wordpress.com
website: www.laurarsteiner.com

I’d like to see the province stop shafting municipalities and pay for hospitals themselves, but that’s another topic.

Bremer, I've done some reach-outs. I'm not going to get agreement to get 100% of decision package cuts re-routed to stabilization fund. The "lets do nothing and see what happens" or "lets wait for a future staff report" is most likely. It usually takes a couple years of the problem staring you in the face until it becomes more and more evident before there's concrete action.

Garlis, yes I'm guessing that before this decade town properties will go up for sale to help fill some of our financial holes. There are only so many times we can do that. Although I don't support selling recreational facilities like the Leisure Centre (I know that you do). The sale of some town properties will be a likely scenario. There are a few we're not utilizing that well. We're selling town assets to replenish funds that we partially depleted by subsidizing operating costs in previous years. The properties I'm thinking about that we'd likely sell don't have high maintenance costs. So no, selling them is not going to significantly lower the town's operating budget.

I'm also fully aware of the past 4 years we've been depleting those funds, and I've been a councillor each of those years. You can go to previous years to see where I've stood on this, I believe I spoke about this in my closing remarks in last year's budget. I've raised this in previous budgets where we used our reserves to subsidize our operating costs. Each of the past years their has been some extraordinary event occurrence that required us to dip into reserves. How many years until "extraordinary" is actually the norm. Yes extraordinary events occur, what's why we have reserves. But when you pull from them, your supposed to at some time put the money back in. Right now, according to our Finance Department (page 423, second column) "This shortfall leaves the Town in a financially vulnerable position in the event of unforeseen situations".

Also yes, the reserve fund targets will re-evaluated again in the future (look for a 2015 report on the subject). So that means we should just ignore them again? The requirement of our total stabilization reserve target will go up not down.

I find some humour in that Milton Public Library's tax stabilization reserve will be larger than the Town's by 2022 according to the budget document's financial forecasts.

p.s. on things like this, I'm always happy when I'm wrong or things go the other way. I think things will turn around, but it will occur later rather than sooner and we make some decisions like this based on us painting ourselves into a corner. We as a municipality lose flexibility and make decisions reactively because we burn up our options.

Zeeshan posted with some spin on the subjects of past tax increases, surplus properties, and Rate Stabilization Reserve Target. As I was two-finger typing a response, his post seems to have disappeared. Can’t waste my typing so here is my response.

Milton tax increases total about 20% over the past 4 years. Fortunately for Milton taxpayers, the Region showed restraint and had a zero increase over the same period. Same for the education portion of the tax bill. Thus the Milton total tax bill increased less than 20%. No thanks to Milton council.

I grant that Milton has found users/renters for the surplus properties that I mentioned and I am sure those users like the current arrangement. I expect though that any other municipality would consider these properties non-essential or “surplus”.

The Tax Stabilization Reserve Target may adjust annually based on a percentage but if that percentage was set in 2006 it may also be invalid. There are other reserves with targets set in 2006. It is possible that there is fat in other reserves that could be transferred to help the Rate Stabilization Reserve.

Why do you consider the leisure centre surplus properties?

Why would a council that is voted in by residents (a very high proportion with slkd)vote to privatization of the rec facility

If the town runs it and it's profitable, then it's kicking back tax dollars (its not). If its a cost centre then fees will have to increasing or services reduced.

Why would a taxpayer want fees to go up if they have

I'd assume the leisure center's need has been displaced by the newer facilities in town? It's a relic of the days before growth.

Nope, far from it. Pool and gym demand is very high at the Leisure Centre. It's hardly a relic. Garlis (and Rick M) approach the leisure and sports centre as facilities that could be privately operated by the likes of YMCA etc instead of directly by the Town.

The frequency with which you have the answer to my questions is beginning to freak me out.

The Leisure Centre's pool kicks butt. We've held multiple swimming birthday parties there. It's nicer for young kids than the other Milton pools in my opinion

I have a baseless phobia of public pools. You couldn't pay me to go in one. lol

Assuming a program/service is required, I think municipalities should only operate them directly (as opposed to contracting) when
- There is a real need for close control.
- There is no private enterprise alternative.

I think municipalities should NOT operate programs/services that compete with similar programs/services available from the private sector.

If an argument is to keep the Leisure Centre because it is profitable, I won’t believe it without an independent audit. Second, if the town chooses to operate things just because they show a profit they would probably do better with some Tim’s franchises. Silly.

If an argument is to keep it because the services are cheaper than the private sector provides, the town could provide their subsidies directly to those who go to the new private operator.

The 2015 capital budget for the Leisure Centre is $330k. The 10 year budget is $1,965k. I can’t find the staff count or total salaries but they are large. The town does not need the responsibility for building maintenance, staff management or pensions if there is a private operator, like the Y, who would take it on. Staff would not be in favour because empires would be reduced and private salaries/benefits would no doubt be less.

I think council should request an investigation of the privatization of the Leisure Centre and the services it provides. p.s. I would also sell the velodrome for $1 and free use of the centre court.

Why the focus on the Leisure Centre Garlis? What about the Sports Centre or other Town - owned recreational facilities (velodrome aside)?
Do you believe that municipalities should rely on private sector to build these facilities as well? Or would you go for the town building them to provide highly demanded recreational services but then selling them with a contract for operation?

I am not aware of private sector alternatives for arenas, sports fields, or the Culture Centre. If someone did stumble in with an offer, I would certainly listen.

The Leisure Centre is different because it is competing with others in the community who are offering similar services and there are potential buyers.

I don't see opportunities to partner with the private sector on building other recreation facilities, but if the opportunity arose, why not. The town does not have to operate everything. We may even delay an addition to the town hall.