Budget 2020 presentations

At January 13 Council meetings, there were informative presentations about the 2020 budget.  Looking at a powerpoint, alone at home , never is as good as looking at it while the presenter talks; but, if you missed the meetings the powerpoints alone are better than nothing.    The Working Session presentation provided strong evidence that our financial profile is in good shape:  our debit is declining and we are far below the maximum borrowing capacity; we are making steady annual contributions to the infrastructure reserves.  Given that our budget is for $79.6 million ($44.8 for operating expenses and $34.8 for capital) its very satisfying to have this assurance.  In addition the draft net tax levies of the other York Region municipalities was provided:  the draft one for King is 2.89% whereas only Markham and Richmond Hill have lower ones.  (note:  these rates are NOT the blended rates.)

The presentations at Committee by the various Department Leaders gave a quick overview of priorities in each area and background to program change requests.  The details of the program changes are in the budget binder.

You can find links to both the above powerpoints and the budget binder here.

Target is to approve the budget at January 27 Council meeting.  Staff report for it (and the rest of the agenda for that evening will be published, as always, by close of business on January 23.

Public Meeting: for Keele south of King Road

At January 27 Council meeting there is a public meeting regarding the application to build a 4 storey mixed use building including 23 apartments and commercial spaces at grade on west side of Keele south of King Road.  The public meeting is the opportunity for the public to identify questions and to express their point of view about the proposal.  The Staff report on the application will be posted on kings.ca on January 23rd.  Here is the formal notice for the meeting with a few more details.

Budget Review

The 2020 draft operating budget and draft 2020-2022 capital budget has been tabled.  They have been prepared per the direction given by Council that the annual tax levy is not to be greater than 2.9%.  The draft budget proposes 2.89% for 2020 and forecast 2.88% for 2021 and 2.85% for 2022.  On January 17th Council will receiving the budgets and will begin the process of understanding and discussing.  Intent is to approve a budget January 27.  Below I have identified how public can review the budget; public are invited to provide comment either at the Committe of Whole (COW) meetings or to provide feedback to me and/or other members of Council.

Council meetings January 17 are very much focussed on budget.  At 5 pm there is a Committee of Whole (COW) Working Session at which Finance will review in detail the budget; public is able to listen.  At 6 the regular Council and COW will begin; in the latter the sole agenda item is the draft budget.   Here is the Staff report. To see the schedules identified in the Staff report, click here and scroll down.  Staff have also digitized the budget binder which is very comprehensive:  full review of business plans and program changes.   As always public can make deputations during the COW.

At time of writing I have not had adequate time to make comment. I welcome your comments.

 

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah

I wish everyone a joyful and safe time over the next couple weeks when there is more time being spent with family and dear friends.  May your hearts and homes be filled with laughter, joy and love.

 

 

 

Energy Management & Conservation Plan again

In Council December 2nd agenda there is a revised summary report for a corporate energy management and conservation plan; the background data/statistics and the specific proposed actions are in appendix A.   (It is a revision to the report presented at an earlier Council meeting which was referred back to Staff.)  I am very disappointed that Staff is recommending that we reduce our target of a 45% reduction in GHG by 2030 which Council unanimously adopted  5 months ago.  I am opposed as there is no rationale except that we don’t know exactly how we will achieve it and we know that it will be difficult to accomplish.  45 % is a bodacious target and its based on science.  The new proposed lower one is neither. I totally agree that any changes in service levels needs to carefully considered with community consultation which was erroneously not defined in the original report.  Page 46 of Appendix A identifies possible projects over next 3 years for reducing GHG and energy consumption; actual execution will be a function of budget deliberations and identifying other funding sources.  We need to have a 10 year plan identifying the possibilities for achieving 45%.

(more…)