Survey says

First draft of County budget points to a 10. 6 per cent tax increase, yet survey of council members yields no direction to begin paring this down

Sadly, hope is a commodity extinguished daily at Shire Hall. Merlin Dewing had hoped that by now council had gained a firm grasp of the financial challenges that threaten the municipality’s future. The County’s still-new chief administrative officer had hoped, too, that a survey of council members would have begun to define ways in which it might slim down the organization. Both aspirations were dashed utterly last week.

Today council begins to deliberate its 2012 budget. Not only did council fail to articulate a consensus of where to begin cutting; some aren’t yet convinced it has a problem—at least not one that can’t be fixed with a good stiff tax increase.

This “problem” may come into clearer focus today as council digests a proposed tax levy increase of 10.6 per cent for 2012. If adopted this increase would mean a hike in taxes since amalgamation of more than 250 per cent—an average of 7.7 per cent per year, every year, since 1998. Few County residents have seen their incomes rise at anything near this rate. Therefore, for most folks in Prince Edward County, property taxes are gobbling up more of their disposable income each and every year. For some, taxes in Prince Edward County have simply become unaffordable.

Yet there is little reason to hope that council will provide relief as it begins to haggle over how it intends to spend your money this year.

NO CONSENSUS
Originally Dewing had planned to put the question of County priorities to residents by way of a public survey. From experience he had learned that what often emerged was a fairly clear image of what the community valued most and in which respects it felt satisfied. The results sometimes differed with the views of the elected representatives—enabling them to reconsider entrenched positions from a fresh perspective.

But a majority of council vetoed the public survey proposal. Some were unwilling to spend the money to gather this input. Others argued they had been elected to make such decisions—they would complete the survey on their constituents’ behalf.

The plan began to fall apart almost immediately as some councillors felt the survey was poorly compiled— failing to distinguish between services council manages directly and those over which it wields little or no control, yet is required to fund to prescribed levels.

Others felt the survey was rigged to deliver specific outcomes—that it was unfair and unreasonable to pit fire and police services against museums and libraries.

Still others complained that rural councillors had vastly different priorities than those living in Picton, Wellington, Bloomfield. Whatever their misgivings, council’s survey results produced no clear direction for its senior administrators.

“The intent was to gather some information that would point to some obviousness about which services might be outside your needs and which needed improvement,” said Dewing. “Unfortunately that obviousness didn’t emerge.”

He underlined the problem in stark terms.

“The municipality has more than 250 properties— a property for every 100 residents. We are not recapitalizing them, instead we are watching them deteriorate. Meanwhile we are not generating enough revenue to meet current operational needs.”

Councillor Diane O’Brien called the survey flawed. Councillor Alec Lunn called it misleading. Councillor Brian Marisett found it so problematic he questioned whether council should invest any more time considering its findings.

But Dewing defended the survey and the process, noting it was intended as a tool to encourage council to begin thinking about the choices it will face during this and future budget discussions.

“In the absence of this kind of guidance, we are just guessing,” cautioned Dewing.

Not all councillors thought it a wasted effort. Councillor Terry Shortt suggested that items on the list receiving fewer than five “very important” votes were candidates for cuts or elimination. Dewing welcomed this direction. But few councillors embraced Shortt’s prescription of what should or shouldn’t be considered negotiable based upon its ranking on the survey.

Shortt edged away from his suggestion.

“I think it was a good survey,” said Shortt, “but I think we are going in the wrong direction.”

Dewing repeated that the survey was meant as a tool to assist councillors in working toward a consensus view.

“It was not created to help us, but to help you organize your thoughts and priorities,” said Dewing.

Perhaps not hearing the CAO, Councillor Kevin Gale pushed on—asking the five County’s top senior managers if the results offered them any insight. All five said it hadn’t.

The meeting ended with some councillors wanting the County’s financial challenges spelled out in greater detail.

“What kind of dire straits are we in?” asked Shortt.