As you know from the email I sent you a few weeks ago, the budget before us was proposing a 5% tax increase for 2012, with about $140 million in reductions to attain that balance. Administration had been asked to go through all their departments and find cuts and they did exactly what Council asked them to do. Efficiencies were found throughout the city, some work was deferred until later, and cuts were made. Cuts were proposed in areas such as transit, snow clearing, parks maintenance, roads maintenance, police services as well as many other support services throughout the City of Calgary.

Many of the service reductions and cuts that we were facing were directly opposed to what I hear from my constituents and other Calgarians every day of the year. I get asked all the time for more transit service, not less, for increased parks maintenance, for increased policing, particularly community policing. The budget that we started with was reducing the very things that I was hearing Calgarians asking to be increased.

So that was our starting point on Monday the 21st. Over the 7 days, City Council made many amendments to the budget to put some of the cuts back. Policing was restored, half of the transit cuts were restored, parks maintenance was partially restored. As well, funding was increased to Family and Community Support Services (FCSS) which supports the social service sector in our City, funding was improved for the Cycling Strategy for the next 4 years, and low income supports were maintained and strengthened.

We started with a budget that was proposing a 5% tax increase, which worked out to a total of $66 dollars a year to the average home owner (average in Calgary is a house valued at $420,000). The budget contained $140 Million in reductions to get that. After Council made the additions and adjustments, we approved a budget with a 6% tax increase, which works out to $78 a year.

Yes, 6% seems like a lot when we look at inflation being around 3%. When we add that the city grows by about 2% a year (we add close to 25,000 new residents every year), 6% is still more than that. It feels like costs are growing faster than the city, that there is no reduction or efficiencies being found. How can we have cut $130 Million from budget yet it still goes up 6%?

We have many challenges for funding our operating budget. The property taxes we pay all go to the operating budget. Property taxes make up less than half the cities revenue, yet it is the only revenue that we can directly control. That means that as our city grows, as inflation affects us all, including the City of Calgary, property taxes are the only tool the city has to adjust, other than reducing costs. With inflation and growth (5%) being absorbed by less than half the revenue stream, that means, without cuts and reductions, we would be looking at more than a 10% budget increase just to keep up. And that is why budget reductions and cuts of $130 million still results in a tax increase.

I believe there are still many areas that we can be more efficient. I believe there are many services that we can find better ways to deliver to Calgarians. I think we have found some of them, and City Administration has done a good job at bringing the very budget that Council asked for. And I will continue to work to find more efficiencies throughout the organization.

I am committed to making sure that our tax dollars are spent as efficiently and wisely as possible. I am also committed to working towards the kind of city that we want for our children. I believe this is something we all want, and I will work with City administration to reach that very goal.

The budget process is about finding ways to balance citizen demand for protective services, street cleaning, parks maintenance, better transit service, effective waste management and a host of other areas with what can be afforded.

At the end of 50 hours of deliberation, I believe that we, as a Council, have achieved that with this budget. We significantly reduced the proposed tax increase for 2009 down to 5.3% from the 9.6% we were looking at when we began on Monday morning.

The intricacies of municipal budgeting are probably not something that many people are very familiar with, and is a topic that gets simplified to an extreme in the media. One major area of confusion is between operating and capital spending and what items in the budget affect the property tax rate.

Over the last week I often heard about reducing the proposed property tax increase by cutting finding for the pedestrian bridges across the Bow River. The money for these bridges comes from the Provincial MSI Funding, which is specifically for capital infrastructure projects, and has no direct effect on the property tax rate. However, the benefits from this project are numerous: they will encourage the absorption of new population growth into the core, maximizing existing infrastructure; they will decrease the need for additional roads on the periphery; they will help housing affordability by making owning a car a choice and not a necessity; they will enhance community vibrancy and safety by having more people on the streets – all of which has a net positive effect on the property tax rate. Any time a single piece of municipal infrastructure can multitask with so many benefits, it is a cost effective and efficient expenditure.

A second example of an item whose inclusion in the budget does not directly affect the property tax rate increase – but does have a positive impact in reducing future potential increases is the City investment in a fitness facility at the Municipal Building. Again, this is an investment that has no direct impact on the property tax rate. However, this expenditure in the now, will see a return on this investment that will positively impact the tax rate. Investing in employee well-being has been seen repeatedly the private sector as a cost-effective approach to increase employee retention and productivity while reducing sick leave; each of these ‘soft’ benefits lowers operating costs – which do rely on the property tax base.

I am confident that we have a budget and business plan to move forward with building our city in a more affordable and sustainable way. I am confident that Council has examined the budget in detail and found the cuts and efficiencies that reduced the proposed tax increase by 4.3%. I will continue in my role as Alderman and in particular via my seat on the Audit Committee to work to maximize delivery of service to Calgarians in a cost effective manner.

As a Council, all 15 of us, we have worked on this budget for nine months, giving Administration direction, approving proposals (approval means a majority of Council members voted to support), which commit us to items in the budget which we deemed necessary. All 15 of us brought our experience and our constituent’s requests and concerns to each strategic planning meeting. We have, all 15 of us, worked hard to give direction to administration, based on this, as to what we wanted to see reflected in the budget. And, they have delivered to us what we asked for. We could not have this proposed budget before us if we, as a Council, had not given direction to Administration over the past nine months.

Before us is the culmination of what all of those collaborative decisions over several months looks like. It is our turn, all 15 of us, to work on this proposed budget and get it to a final version that we can approve. That is our role. To send it back to administration is not doing our job, and it is not owning up to the direction we have gave. It is trying to get us off the hook of doing the actual hard work of finalizing the budget.

And now, because we have a budget before us that needs work, that we don’t like, that the public doesn’t like – the proposal is to scrap it? What can we take from that? What are we, Calgarians, to think then of the work that we, all 15 Members of Council, did over the previous nine months? Do some
of my colleagues feel they were not representing their priorities when they voted, repeatedly, in favour of the additions and directions for the budget? Do some of my colleagues feel they “didn’t know what they were approving at the time?”

How can scrapping the budget and demanding a ‘re-do’ requiring many months more work from Administration and Council be a cost savings? This proposed budget is for us, all 15 of us, to deal with. Now.

I have heard from you about this proposed budget. I am prepared to take your concerns and work on the budget so that we can craft it into a working plan that will be acceptable.

Throwing it back is not about doing that work. It is about avoiding our responsibility to you, it is about political grandstanding. It certainly isn’t about serving Calgarians.

We are here to do a job, let’s get on with it.

And I realize that budgets are more than just expenditures and revenues. They are also about finding balance, hopefully the right balance, between expectations and realism. They are about finding a balance between all the different services that a city provides to its citizens. They are about finding a balance between dealing with the short term and the long term. They are about finding the balance between what constituents ask for throughout the year.

And now, as we look for possible cuts, do I suggest we pull from Parks? I receive calls throughout the summer with residents unhappy with parks maintenance and wanting the grass mowed more often. Do we pull funds from recreation? Each winter, we hear regularly that we need more rinks. How about Bylaw services? At the same time as there is increased concern about graffiti and demand for greater enforcement. What about reducing transit? Again, another area where my office receives numerous calls about insufficient transit service. Roads? Most of the calls that we get in the office are around road maintenance, repair and upgrades.

I listen to what my constituents tell me, not just the last two weeks, but the preceding 12 months as well. And I am looking for the budget to somehow reflect the often opposing desires of constituents and find the right balance.

That gives you an idea of the lens which I am using to look at the budget. That is the kind of thing that I talked about over a year ago when I was knocking on people’s doors asking them to vote for me. And the right balance is not something that can be declared on the steps of City Hall, and it is not something that we will stop working towards once we pass the budget, in whatever form it finally takes. I will continue that work long after the budget debates are over.

I am appalled at the willingness of some, in the media and elsewhere, to obfuscate issues and mislead the public.

In the media, it seems that overwhelmingly the budget is being presented as a one-shot deal that appeared out of nowhere and is to be forced onto taxpayers – end of discussion. The budget is not a yes or no choice. It is a detailed, multi-layered document (believe me – it’s a huge document)! It reflects direction that all members of Council participated in defining – broken out over many areas of City service delivery. So how can we say “”Yes budget”" or “”No budget?”" We can say – “”this is important keep it in the budget”" or “”this will have to wait for a bit until it can be more readily afforded”" – that’s the debate we’re missing. That’s the debate I want to have!

Screw the taxpayer?! Wait a minute – I’m a taxpayer! I want a thoughtful, considered approach to the allocation of budget dollars – don’t you? When framing the question about the budget as All-Or-Nothing, there is no discussion. Reducing the budget to a blanket yes or no only promotes division and entrenchment. And, a complete distraction from the heart of the issue; that is, the contents of the budget. A “”you’re either with us or against us”" approach sets up a false dichotomy that serves only the very few who are promulgating it.

Public decisions, such as budgets, are not just about black or white decisions. If we shut down discussion about what’s contained in the budget then we lose the invaluable input required to really prioritize the multiple issues that budget allocation addresses.

I, for one, am looking forward to budget discussions, with the public and with my colleagues. Everyday, all year long, I hear from residents – are we addressing those concerns that Calgarians bring to the table everyday (as well as the ones raised in the days immediately leading up to budget deliberations)? Are we addressing the public’s input around Calgary’s liveability and the concern for their quality of life? Does this budget meet that test? Those questions are the real questions we need to be asking – those are the discussions I want to be having.

As I sift through the documents (which are available on the City website www.calgary.ca) the calls and emails are continuing to come in. The volume of correspondence has been formidable – I want to assure you that your comments and concerns are reaching me directly. There will be a public open house being hosted in the Atrium of the Municipal Building on Saturday, November 15th from 10 until 3, a further chance for you to access details on this year’s budget. And yes, I know, the Stamps are playing in the western final that afternoon! So, please, take advantage of the various opportunities to find out about the proposed budget.

As I work my way through the budget documents, I will be looking for efficiencies and opportunities to reduce our expenditures in order to reduce the impact on you, the taxpayer. This is the kind of work that you have asked me to do, and one that I have been doing since I started and will continue to do long after this budget time has passed.

In response to those of you that have been asking after the need for an Auditor General at the City – I wanted to say that The City of Calgary does indeed have a City Auditor’s Office. The Audits done through the City Auditor are reported through Audit Committee – on which I sit. As a member of this Committee, I am committed to ensuring that we maximize our efficiency and the use of your tax dollars.