Monday the budget and business plan was passed. As adopted, the 2012 Budget & Business Plan, when considered with the Regional and Education components, results in a 3.63% property tax increase. For a home assessed at $607,709 (the average assessment in King Township), this will add $223.77 to the total annual property tax bill.
The Township portion is an increase of 8.9% . With this increase we will begin to address the very serious backlog in capital works (e.g. top course asphalt on King City roads, culverts and more); we will fill some serious gaps in staffing (e.g. a Policy Planner whose work includes updating the zoning bylaw, completing the intensification study and more); we will replace some heavy vehicles which are well past their “expiry date.” We will have the funds to begin implementing actions from our Sustainability Plan. Finally , we made a modest contribution to our seriously depleted capital reserves.
I believe the 8.9% on the Township portion is well justified. York Region’s increase is only 1.8% and Education was neutral; consequently the impact on King residents is 3.63%. We need to make the investments identified in the business plan; this is a good year to do it!
For a full review of the business plan and budget you can read here the press release from our Treasurer. For those who want more detail on the business plan I would refer you to the Staff Report tabled for the January 30 Council meeting. As you will see in this report the opportunity to reduce the increase by $137,000, .75points of the % increase was identified by modifying some of the programme changes originally proposed; we did decide to accept the modifications but opted to put the “savings” into reserve.
The budget was not passed unanimously; it passed 4/3 with the 4 being Councillor Mortelliti, Grandilli, Eek and myself. I have heard from some people a lament that it was not a unanimous decision. I do not feel that way as both the Mayor and Councillor Cober argued clearly against it i.e. they did not see the urgency or the same need to address the gaps. To my mind the split vote is a good indicator that democracy is alive & well and that the elected representatives are thinking and making well thought decisions.
Hi Debbie: I may have been among those who lamented that it wasn’t a unanimous decision; but from my point of view that related to the apparent inability of the Mayor and Councillor Cober to appreciate the gravity of the financial challenges rather than a perceived need for a group hug.
Congratulations to you, Avia, Cleve and Peter for making the tough choice and not just bowing to political doublespeak.
By the way I look forward to the reserve strategy SOONEST. Let’s not let that issue be deferred to some future Council; especially as you have now started the train in the right.direction.
jeff l
Hi Jeff, I do not anticipate the reserve strategy being put on the back burner for “another Council” AND it is on my “watch list.” Debbie
Having attended both the Jan. 10th and 30th Council meetings, I am very disturbed at how the 2012 property tax rate was resolved.
The 2012 budget proposal at the Mayor’s own request had been trimmed to ease the taxpayer’s burden and was to be presented on Jan. 30th.
Neither revisions, one scenerio or in the other worst case scenerio were discussed. Instead in less than 10 minutes into the item, Councillor Grandilli tabled a motion to adopt the “original” budget proposal (with no trimmings) and include a modification that any savings be put in the Reserve. While Councillor Cober and Mayor Pellegrini voiced their objections to the motion for either the benefit of the press in the room or heaven forbid, us taxpayers, the question was with little hesitation called.
The procedure left a distinct impression in my mind and others too, that the motion had been pre-determined and likely decided upon well before Council met. The gloating I observed among several Council members is not what I envisioned as becoming of our new Council. Furthermore, while a split vote might be your analysis of democracy at work I felt having been in the same room, the timing of the motion appeared to be an expression of an abuse of authority. Perhaps, a foreboding that this Council is not much different then the last Council.
Hello Sheila, I am disappointed that your perception of what transpired is as you have indicated as I personally feel very strongly about transparency. As I know it is futile to argue with anyone’s perception there is only a few things that I can say. First, no one registered to make a deputation. Second, “gloating” was certainly not in my mind after the vote was cast; I was relieved that the right choice had been made. I did not hear/see anyone giving “hi5’s” or yahooing at the vote. Yes, I did see one of the Councillors who voted for the increase shaking hands with the Mayor afterwards; this was not shaking hands to seal “a deal” but shaking hands as opposing teams do before a competition; it shows respect and acknowledgment of the results and agreement to work together. Debbie
Debbie
The senoirs and low income voters that live in Township cannot afford the 8.9% that you approved. We as taxpayers only want value for our tax dollars.
Thanks
Brian Weedon
Hello Brian, First, just to ensure no misunderstanding…property tax rate in King is going up 3.63%. The 8.9% you referenced is the Township portion. I agree totally that we want value for our tax dollars. I believe that we are getting value for every tax dollar. If we did nothing new we could actually reduce our portion by 1% as Staff have identified efficiencies. But we cannot “do nothing.” There is work requiring capital dollars as the gas tax is not adequate: two bridges need to be replaced. As we cannot borrow additional money we do not have the means to respond to an emergency such as a sink hole on King Road; hence we need to add money to a reserve. We are woefully behind on our policies such as updating the zoning bylaw. Debbie