|
2. 2010 Budget Process Processus budgÉtaire de 2010 |
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED
That Council:
1. Receive
this report for information;
2. Approve that Standing Committee Chairs be allocated funds of up
to $10,000 each to be used to hire an independent resource to assist each
Standing Committee in the challenge function of their Budget Review; and
That the funds required for this be transferred from the Mayor’s
Budget to the Elected Officials’ Administrative Budget, with the contracts and
invoicing to be administered by the Clerk’s Office;
3. Approve that the Standing Committee Draft Budgets be prepared
on the basis of no new needs, with the new needs indicated separately with a
full rationale provided, to be considered as part of the Standing Committee
Budget Review; and
That the Ottawa Public Library Board and the Ottawa Police Services
Board be requested to submit their budgets with regard to these guidelines; and
4. Approve that the Service Excellence and management efficiency
plans be presented in context with the 2010 Draft Standing Committee Budgets.; and
RecommandationS
modifiÉeS du Comité
Que le Conseil:
1. prenne connaissance du présent rapport à titre informatif;
2. approuve l’attribution de fonds aux
présidents de comités permanents, jusqu’à concurrence de 10 000 $
chacun, pour leur permettre de recruter un intervenant indépendant chargé
d’assister chaque comité permanent dans le mécanisme de contestation de leur
examen budgétaire; et
Qque
les fonds requis à cette fin soient transférés du budget du maire vers le
budget d’administration des représentants élus, les contrats et la facturation
étant administrés par le Bureau du greffier;
3. approuve la préparation des budgets
provisoires des comités permanents sur la base d’une absence de nouveaux
besoins, les nouveaux besoins étant indiqués séparément et accompagnés d’une
analyse détaillée, puis pris en compte dans le cadre de l’examen budgétaire des
comités permanents; et
Qque
le conseil d’administration de la Bibliothèque publique d’Ottawa et la
Commission de services policiers d’Ottawa soient chargés de présenter leur
budget en tenant compte de ces directives;
et
4. approuve la présentation des plans
d’excellence des services et d’efficacité de gestion, dans le contexte des
budgets provisoires de 2010 des comités permanents.; et
DOCUMENTATION
1. City
Treasurer’s report dated 8 September 2009 (ACS2009-CMR-FIN-0043)
2. Extract
of Draft Minutes from 15 September 2009 meeting of ABFC.
and Council / et au Conseil
Submitted by/Soumis par : Marian Simulik, City Treasurer/Trésorière
municipale
Contact
Person/Personne ressource:Mona Monkman, Deputy City Treasurer – Corporate
Finance/ Trésorière municipale adjoint – Contrôleur
Finance
Finance
Department/Service des Finances
(613)
580-2424 x41723, Mona.Monkman@ottawa.ca
|
Ref N°: ACS2009-CMR-FIN-0043 |
SUBJECT:
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
That the
Audit, Budget and Finance Committee recommend Council receive this report for
information.
Que le Comité de la
vérification, du budget et des finances recommande que le Conseil prennent connaissance de ce rapport à titre
d’information.
BACKGROUND
On June 10, 2009, City Council considered the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee’s recommendations on report ACS2009-CMR-FIN-0024 – 2010 Proposed Budget Timetable and Process. Council approved the following recommendations:
“That Council:
1.
Consider and
approve this report on 10 June 2009; and
This report brings forward a summary of the budget process and timetable, as presented in the June 10th report, for information to the new Audit, Budget and Finance Committee, and provides further information on details as to Standing Committee dates and processes for the review of the 2010 budgets.
DISCUSSION
The 2010 Operating and Capital budget process and timetable differs somewhat from prior years.
Significant changes, as outlined in the June 10 report, are:
· The process changes from a staff-led process for the development of budget options (solutions) to one led by members of Council through the Standing Committee structure.
· Standing Committees will review and challenge the budgets for the departments under their responsibility.
· At the conclusion of their review, the Standing Committees would recommend the budget for their service areas, including any reduction options, to the Audit, Budget and Finance Committee.
· The Audit, Budget and Finance Committee will consolidate the work of all the Standing Committees and present a recommended budget to Council.
· Council will sit as Committee of the Whole to consider the proposed draft budget from the Audit, Budget and Finance Committee.
· Public consultation will be incorporated throughout the budget development process. Consultations will be during the Standing Committee review phase and the Committee of the Whole phase. There will be no staff-led ward budget consultations. If councillors wish to hold their own ward meetings, these will be supported by staff.
· The June 10 report indicated that there was no new Budget Directions document this year. Staff is to develop the budgets, for Committee and Council consideration, by taking into account the existing Fiscal Framework and term of Council Priorities.
· Any budget adjustments and/or budget options identified by staff during their budget preparation process will be provided as information to Standing Committees, for purposes of Committee’s consideration and prioritization.
In 2008, Council approved the City Strategic Plan (ACS2008-BTS-EXD-0003), which outlined nine priorities including a priority relating to service delivery. A number of objectives and key activities were identified to support each priority area.
One of the actions in the Strategic Plan is an annual refresh process. The refresh process reports on key accomplishments for each priority area and identifies new Committee and Council directed activities that should be added to the Strategic Plan.
The realignment of the management structure in March 2009 focussed the organization on the City-wide implementation of Council’s Service Delivery priority. Each Department developed new business models that focus on improving citizens’ experience and interaction with City services. A corporate service excellence strategy and technology roadmap have also been developed to transform the way the City delivers its services. The recommendations made by the Task force on eGovernment and Information Technology have been addressed by this strategy.
A Strategic Plan Refresh report and a Service Excellence Report, which includes a technology roadmap, have been included in the budget timetable as they will outline significant initiatives that inform the budget process.
Each standing committee will be asked to review the activities in the Strategic Plan that are within the scope of their committee mandate and approve any new activities and associated budget impacts through the budget process. The Technology Roadmap will be reviewed by the newly established Information Technology Sub-committee.
Once the budget is approved, a refreshed City Strategic Plan for the remaining term of Council will be published.
The High Level Budget Timetable, in accordance with the budget review timetable previously approved by Council, is as follows:
|
Date |
Committee/ Council |
Item |
|
Sept 29 |
Audit, Budget and Finance |
|
|
Oct 6 to Nov 6 |
Committees of Council |
|
|
Nov 17 |
Audit, Budget and Finance |
2010 Budget Strategic Plan Refresh Report Service Excellence Report |
|
Nov 20 |
Audit, Budget and Finance |
2010 Budget |
|
Nov 27 |
Audit, Budget and Finance |
2010 Budget (if required) |
|
Dec 9 |
Council |
Tabling of the following reports at ABFC:
|
|
Jan 25 - 27 |
Committee of the Whole |
Public delegations |
|
Jan 28 - 29 |
Council |
Budget deliberations by City Council |
During the month of October, the Standing Committees will begin the process of the review of the budgets. Staff will present the proposed budgets to Committee and the 2010 budget pressures (changes). For information, staff will also present a list of options for deferrals and/or reductions to budget items, as information for Standing Committee members.
The Standing Committee would question and challenge the budget assumptions and debate policy implications around the budget such as revenue recovery for various programs, etc.
Following their review of the budgets, the Standing Committees will recommend a budget for their respective areas to the Audit, Budget and Finance Committee meeting of November 17, including any recommended options. The process for Committee to accept these options, or add alternative recommendations, could be made by moving motions at the Committee level.
Beginning on November 17, the Audit Budget and Finance Committee will consider the recommendations from the various standing committees, along with any budget options that Committees have rejected. At that meeting, the Standing Committee Chairs (or their designate) could present their recommended budgets to the Audit, Budget and Finance Committee. City staff will also provide a corporate summary.
The Audit, Budget and Finance Committee will then table their recommended budget with Council on December 9, for public consultation and consideration in January 2010.
The Ottawa Police Services Board and Ottawa Public Library Board will prepare their own budgets for submission to Council. They will undertake their own budget review challenge and will table their budget on December 9th.
In January, Council will consider the recommendations of the Audit, Budget and Finance Committee, after having heard public delegations.
Staff has developed a more detailed timetable for the Standing Committee review of the departmental budgets, as shown in Table 2.
Committee of Council Budget and Strategic Plan Review
Calendar (Table 2)
|
Committee |
Departmental Budget Tabled on: |
Budget Considered by Committee on: |
|
Corporate Services and Economic Development |
Tuesday Oct 6 |
Friday Oct 16 |
|
Transportation |
Wednesday Oct 7 |
Friday Oct 23 |
|
Planning and Environment |
Tuesday Oct 13 |
Monday Nov 2 |
|
Community and Protective Services |
Thursday Oct 15 |
Thurs Oct 29; Friday Oct 30 |
|
Transit |
Wednesday Oct 21 |
Friday Nov 6 |
|
Agriculture and Rural Affairs |
|
Thursday Oct 22 |
|
Audit, Budget and Finance Committee |
|
Tues Nov 17 Friday Nov 20 Friday Nov 27 (if required) |
The intention is to provide budget information similar to that used during the 2009 process.
Budget Changes (pressures) will be identified. In terms of understanding the nature and restrictions regarding these pressures, the budget documents will categorize these. Categories being developed include the following: Maintain Existing Services; Provincial/Legislated; Growth; New Operating Needs; Efficiencies; User Fees/New Revenues; One Time requirements. Any ability to restrict, reduce or eliminate the pressures identified under New Operating Needs and Growth categories would be included in the list of options provided by staff. Standing Committees can amend, accept, reject or create new options for consideration as they progress through their detailed review.
Existing
baseline budget information will be presented in a format similar to that
provided to the 2009 Budget Working Groups.
This information will provide service levels, program descriptions and
other data that is required for purposes of a detailed budget review.
Public delegations for this report will be held at the Audit, Budget and Finance Committee meeting on September 15, 2009.
There are no legal or risk management impediments to implementing the recommendations in this report.
This report is administrative in nature. There are no financial implications.
The City will proceed with development of the 2010 draft operating and capital budgets for consideration by standing committees, in accordance with the timetable and process outlined in the report and in accordance with Council’s approval at their meeting of June 10, 2009, of the recommendations in report ACS2009-CMR-FIN-0024 – 2010 Proposed Budget Timetable and Process, as modified by Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee.
2010 Budget Process
Processus
budgÉtaire de 2010
ACS2009-CMR-FIN-0043 city-wide
/ À l’Échelle de la ville
Ms. Marian Simulik, City Treasurer, introduced Ms. Mona Monkman, Deputy City Treasurer of Corporate Finance. Ms. Monkman then spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which served to provide Committee with a detailed overview of the report. A copy of her presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
Councillor Deans referenced the proposed process and timetable and asked when members of Council could expect to see the 2010 budget pressures. Ms. Monkman indicated the budget pressures would be included in the materials provided to the respective Standing Committees and that staff would be on hand to highlight where there might be some options for dealing with these pressures.
The Councillor submitted that some pressures were city-wide and therefore may not be reflected at the Committee-level. She felt it was important for members of Council to get an overall document identifying pressures and a target. As an example, she asked what impact the harmonized sales tax would have on the City. Ms. Simulik reported that the harmonized sales tax was supposed to be revenue neutral for the municipality. She explained that it was being implemented in mid-2010 and that so far, the Province has indicated that any increase experienced by local government would be rebated. Therefore, until such time as the Province said otherwise, it would not be reported as a budget pressure.
Councillor Deans maintained that she would like to see a document outlining all of the 2010 budget pressures in one place and she wondered if it would be possible to fit this into the proposed process. Ms. Monkman confirmed that it would be possible to fit into the process in terms of a consolidated view of the budget pressures that staff could foresee. However, she explained staff hesitancy stemmed from the fact that Committees themselves may accept those as budget pressures or not or may indicate that they have strategic plans they want to enforce, which staff may not have put forward. She submitted that because the budget was to be developed by the Committees and led by the Committees, staff’s concern around an overall budget picture was that if they put out such a document, Committees may have different spending plans and proposals.
Responding to a follow-up comment from Councillor Deans, Ms. Simulik stated that if it was the will of Committee, staff would take it as direction.
Mayor O’Brien suggested hearing the views of other Committee members before moving forward with such a direction.
Councillor Deans advised that she would put forward a motion because she felt it was important to have a full picture before starting the budget process.
Responding to questions from Councillor El-Chantiry with respect to the proposed calendar and rollout of information, Mr. Kanellakos explained that the intent was to table the Strategic Plan Refresh report and the Service Excellent report at a special meeting of the Audit, Budget and Finance Committee on September 29. This would be the first release of information about where the City was pre-budget. He indicated the referenced documents would be released on September 22, when the agenda for the aforementioned meeting would go public, and that at the same time there would be a briefing for Council, the media and whomever else wanted to attend. He added that at the September 29 meeting, staff would do a full presentation around the service excellence efficiency improvements and after that, with the budget approval process, members of Council would see the complete corporate refresh and the rest of the service excellence components. Speaking to the Service Excellence report, he explained it contained the components of work staff had been doing with IBM around efficiency savings and service improvements. Therefore, the first step in introducing the budget process was to provide a picture of the City’s current position insofar as the efficiency savings target previously directed by Council.
Mayor O’Brien clarified that should Council approve the proposed calendar, as outlined in the current report, a special meeting of the Audit, Budget and Finance Committee would be called for September 29 to essentially launch the budget process and that the agenda for this meeting would be distributed to members of Council on September 22, as described by Mr. Kanellakos, but would be publicly available on September 23.
Speaking to the proposed process for Standing Committee’s review of departmental budgets, Ms. Monkman explained that based on the calendar outlined at Table 2 in the report, the intent was to table budget documents a the respective Committee meetings and to receive public delegations and debate those budget documents at a subsequent Committee meeting approximately 2 weeks later. Using the example of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee, budget documents would be tabled at the October 6 meeting and public delegations would be received and debate would take place at a special meeting of that Committee on October 16. She confirmed that dates had also been set aside to receive public delegations as Committee of the Whole in January, though she indicated that she expected most of the delegations would occur at the Committee level when Committees did their work of reviewing the respective departmental budgets.
Councillor El-Chantiry felt the proposed process and timetable was confusing and he asked that it be clarified as much as possible when posting this information to the website or otherwise making it available to the public. Ms. Monkman reported that staff would be releasing a full public communications plan to provide the dates when members of the public could speak at Committee.
Speaking to
Councillor Deans’ request for a document outlining the budget pressures,
Councillor Holmes indicated she did not want to see such a document come
forward without an accompanying document outlining the City’s efficiency
savings and its service excellence report so that there would be a balanced
presentation. She hoped that this year,
there would not be the hysteria around the budget as there had been in previous
years. She wanted balanced information
given to Council, not one picture of some of the City’s biggest problems
without some comment about how it was going to solve those big problems. She maintained the intent in this budget
process was to have measured discussions, to get the public in early to talk
about their needs and to try and have a budget that was not dealing with only
one side of the picture. Therefore, she
indicated she would not support the motion coming forward to see all the
biggest pressures without accompanying documentation about solving those
issues.
Mayor O’Brien felt the Councillor made a good point and he believed the intent in this budget process was for the Committee Chairs to focus on the operations of the departments reporting to their respective Committees and give them an intense review in order to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in those particular departments or services. He believed that when it all came together later in the process, some of the big pressures would become clear but that this would be in the context of the work already done by the Committees.
Responding to questions from Councillor Wilkinson with respect to the Service Excellent report, Mr. Kanellakos confirmed that it included a lot of technology in order to achieve efficiencies. In particular, he referenced service improvement opportunities where staff had been working with IBM, an integrated technology strategy plan, a people plan and other initiatives related to the service excellence framework. He explained the plan was to have the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee (CSEDC) receive the report and refer any IT components to the IT Sub-Committee, which would then make recommendations back to the CSEDC. Further, he advised that, for budget purposes, the ITS department reported through the CSEDC so anything having to do with IT would be referred to the Sub-Committee to review. He indicated the big component was going to be the investment the City would make around service improvements and efficiencies and then all regular IT business needs.
Councillor Wilkinson inquired about staff support for Councillor-led budget consultation sessions. Although she had not mentioned it in her presentation, Ms. Monkman confirmed that, if required by the Council members, ward budget consultation sessions would be supported by staff.
Councillor Deans
introduced a motion calling for Standing Committee draft budgets to be prepared
using the target of a 2.9% tax increase as a guideline and that any increase
beyond 2.9% be accompanied by a full rationale for the increase. Speaking to her motion, she noted that
Council had always had a debate about what the budget directions should be and
what the target should be in preparing the budget. She recalled that the previous year, the budget had been prepared
using a 2.9% tax increase as the target.
Therefore, she was suggesting that the operating budgets be prepared
with the same guideline. She remarked
that this was a little bit above the rate of inflation, though it was closer to
the inflation experienced by the municipality given its labour costs. Further, she noted that there was some
wiggle room in the motion in that if a budget could not come in at 2.9%, an
explanation would be needed to explain the additional pressures having led to
the larger increase. She maintained
that if Council wanted a frugal budget, it had to provide some realistic
guidelines towards which the Committees could work.
Councillor Holmes referenced past budget processes where staff had been directed to come in with zero increases, leading to hysteria around the City when all kinds of cuts were proposed in order to meet that target. She felt 2.9% was an arbitrary number and she maintained that the whole point of the new process was for Committees to work with the public and with staff. She acknowledged that everyone involved would need to work to get efficiencies and try to come in as low as possible. However, she believed it was too soon to tell whether 2.9% was an appropriate figure. In closing, she stated that she was not in favour of another arbitrary number this year.
Councillor Cullen referred to the previous report approved by Committee, which indicated the City was running ahead of its budget in the area of compensation because Council had built in a 1% increase whereas settlements had come in at an average increase of 2.5%. Ms. Monkman confirmed this.
The Councillor then talked about legislated programs such as social assistance rates, childcare subsidies and social housing where cost changes were beyond the City’s control and he believed such costs were likely to go up. Ms. Monkman responded affirmatively.
Councillor
Cullen thought Councillor Holmes had identified a problem with using a target
as suggested in the motion. He felt it
was not fair to residents to bring in a number that did not reflect the fiscal
reality faced by the City. He remarked
that compensation was a significant part of the operating budget and he
submitted that it was going to be beyond 2.5%.
Further, he maintained that the City would be facing other inflationary
pressures aside from compensation and he again referenced the legislated
programs. He did not want to be in a
position of having to provide a rationale to maintain outdoor rinks because
everything else had been eaten up trying to meet an arbitrary 2.9% target. He noted that the City could be going
through a very transparent budget process; that each Standing Committee would
be going through a budget challenge exercise to look at efficiencies. He indicated he was of the school of thought
that said “you build a budget to meet community needs”. He talked about the fact that Council had no
legislative authority to pick and choose within the Police budget and the fact
that Council had already set a target for transit fare increases and he
questioned why members would shackle themselves to a useless debate about the
remnants. He suggested allowing
Committees to do their work and come back with their budget proposals.
Responding to a question from Councillor McRae, Ms. Simulik advised that inflation in Ottawa was reported by Statistics Canada on a twelve month rolling average and that it was 1.6%.
When asked whether she thought 2.9% would be enough to cover the bare bones for 2010 without any cuts, the City Treasurer indicated she would reserve her opinion on this because of things Council had approved in the past, which staff were planning to implement in the coming year, and which would make that 2.9% target insufficient. As an example, she referenced the organics program, which was slated to start in 2010.
Councillor McRae referenced the unknown in terms of options for coming up with the money needed for the light rail settlement. Ms. Simulik confirmed that Council had directed her to come back, as part of the 2010 budget process, with options. She further confirmed that if the decision was to go with a tax increase to cover the cost, it would be beyond the proposed 2.9% target.
In response to a question from Councillor McRae, Councillor Deans confirmed that the intent of her motion was that the 2.9% target would not contemplate the 2% capital levy previously approved by Council.
Councillor McRae referenced the City Treasurer’s earlier response with respect to items Council had already approved as well as unknown factors such as the source of funding for the light rail lawsuit and she speculated that the City could be facing a tax increase well above 4.9% if the capital levy was added. Ms. Simulik submitted that it was too early to say. However, she noted that the direction proposed in the motion would allow Standing Committees to have items identified that when beyond the 2.9%.
In light of the City Treasurer’s responses, Councillor McRae indicated she would not support the motion because it was too early to know whether or not 2.9% was a realistic target. Further, she argued that if the intent was to have an inflationary budget, then the target should be moved down to the rate of inflation, which was 1.6%. She felt members needed to learn their lessons from the past and make sure they were doing everything they could to be efficient.
Councillor Jellett reported being of two minds on this issue. He recognized that the point was to try and show some fiscal restraint in developing the budget, which he felt was a valid point needing to be made, and that setting a target of 2.9% did this. At the same time, he – I’m of two minds on this. I look at this as a target and I zero in on that word within clause A. The point is to try and show some fiscal restraint as we develop the budget through our various committees and I think that’s a valid point that needs to be made and setting a target of 2.9%, it does that, its perhaps a little higher than the inflation rate and therefore it may not be as good a target of fiscal restraint as it could be but the intent is there. At the same time he indicated he had listened carefully to his colleagues’ arguments and he felt they had made some good points in that 2.9% was an arbitrary figure the City may or may not be able to achieve rather than working through the budget based on needs and seeing what the end result was from that. He looked forward to hearing the rest of the debate as he was unsure how he would vote on the motion.
Councillor Harder stated that at first blush, she liked the notion. However, she was disappointed that Council would not see the budget pressures of which staff were aware. She indicated that as Chair of the Library Board, she knew what the challenges were in terms of new contracts, aging infrastructure, etc. She maintained that before working with colleagues, she wanted to have an understanding of the overall picture.
Mayor O’Brien remarked that a motion would be coming forward on that topic and he suggesting keeping the debate to the motion currently before Committee.
Councillor Harder advised that her comments were leading up to the proposed 2.9% target. She re-iterated that at first blush, she felt 2.9% made sense. She referenced last year’s end result, which was 4.9% including the 2% capital levy. Therefore, she suggested a 2.9% was not far off the mark. However, she agreed that Council needed to have a bigger picture overview and since Council had changed its budget structure this year, she felt there was room to do this. She referenced the efficiency targets and submitted that she would like to know which departments missed them. In closing, she indicated she would not support the motion because she would prefer to wait until the next meeting, when members would have more information.
Councillor
Feltmate advised that she was leaning towards not supporting the motion. She referenced the fiscal framework and the
new budget process. She talked about
wanting to look at the community’s needs and hear what services people thought
were important to them. She maintained
the objective of the new process was for Committees to challenge the various
programs and services. She felt Council
needed to give this new process a try with an openness to see where it would
lead because if a target was set, that would become the goal instead of really
looking at all of the possibilities.
She submitted that members all knew the kinds of pressures they would be
facing in terms of the tolerance for a budget increase therefore she did not
believe the proposed process meant Committees would go hog wild. However, she believed the end result would
be a truer reflection of what is important to the community.
Councillor Deans
argued her proposal was not about setting the tax rate. It was about setting a goal for
Committees. She believed that if the
City was going to achieve a level of taxation that was in the public’s
interest, the Standing Committees all had to be on the same page from the
beginning of the process. She
maintained that her motion did not say the target was carved in stone. It stated that if a Standing Committee came
in with a budget that exceeded the target, Council would expect a full
explanation of the rationale behind it.
She feared that without giving any direction, the city would end up with
a much higher tax rate. Speaking to the
issue of a 2% levy, she expressed her view that in light of the stimulus
funding received from upper levels of government, the City did not need the
capital levy in 2010. She explained
that she chose the figure of 2.9% because it reflected what was done last
year. She did not think that suggesting
the loss of outdoor rinks was useful and assured members that if the Community
and Protective Services Committee was given a target of 2.9%, they would not
propose outdoor rink closures. She remarked
that Council had taken the reigns of the budget process in order to try to
better reflect community expectations.
Having said that, she did not think this new process should be without
restraint. She believed residents
expected Council to exercise restraint, to find savings and to contain a tax
increase to some form of inflationary level.
Further, she felt it was in the community’s interest for Council to set
some reasonable guidelines upon which to start. She noted that the wording of her motion provided lots of wiggle
room and that she would not be happy if Committees came back with 7%, 8% or 9%
tax increase recommendations because of new programs. She felt that if something was important, then Standing Committees
could provide an explanation. She
re-iterated her belief that residents expected restraint and some belt
tightening at the City. She reminded
Committee that 2010 was the second year of a four-year MPAC phase-in and that
because of it, many residents would be getting tax increases well beyond what
the City set locally. She suggested
that setting a target would send a signal to residents that the new budget
process was not a license to write a blank cheque and that there would be
restraint, though the budget ultimately developed should better reflect the
community’s priorities.
Mayor O’Brien
reported being impressed by the debate and the range of arguments put
forward. He indicated he was persuaded
that the Committee Chairs needed to go through a process first before jumping
ahead and setting a specific target.
Whereas he was originally in favour of the motion, after listening to
the debate he felt it would be wise to wait until the various Standing
Committees had looked at the budgets, gone through the challenge exercise and
discussed the options with staff before setting such a target. Therefore, he advised that with some
hesitation, he was recommending that Committee not vote in support of the
motion because he felt it was premature.
At this junction, Committee voted on the motion.
Moved by Councillor D. Deans
WHEREAS the
2010 Budget process has changed to allow for a more in-depth review of
departmental budgets by City Council and the public through the Standing
Committees; and
WHEREAS City
Council recognizes that, without a change in how municipalities in Canada are
funded or in the unique responsibilities Ontario municipalities have in terms
of funding and delivering health and social services programs typically
delivered by provincial governments elsewhere in Canada, there are significant
budget pressures facing the City of Ottawa for 2010 and beyond; and
WHEREAS City
Council is committed to ensuring that City services are delivered as
cost-effectively as possible in order to keep property taxes as low as possible
while maintaining services that citizens count on;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that
Standing Committee Draft Budgets be prepared under the following guidelines:
a. That
each Standing Committee use the target of a 2.9% tax increase for their
services when approving their Standing Committee Draft Budget; and
b. That,
should a Standing Committee recommend an increase beyond 2.9%, a full rationale
for the increase be provided to the Audit, Budget and Finance Committee prior
to their review of the consolidated 2010 Draft Budget;
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED that each Standing Committee Chair works with City staff in advance of
the tabling of the Draft Standing Committee Budgets to ensure that staff
provide Committee and Council with enough information to allow Council to meet
the guidelines above; and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED that the Ottawa Public Library Board and the Ottawa Police Services
Board be requested to submit their budgets with regard to these guidelines.
LOST
YEAS (1): D. Deans
NAYS (9): A. Cullen, E. El-Chantiry, P. Feltmate, J. Harder, D. Holmes, P. Hume, R. Jellett, M. McRae, L. O’Brien
Councillor Hume introduced a motion calling on the Standing Committee Chairs to work with staff to determine a schedule for the release of budget documents and briefings on same. He explained the notion was to create a schedule and be able to release it to the public in a timely fashion.
A brief discussion ensued with respect to an appropriate release date for the calendar referenced in Councillor Hume’s motion. In the end, Committee settled on September 29 and Councillor Hume finalized his motion accordingly.
Given how difficult it could be for members of Council to schedule City Hall meetings and briefings as well as ward activities and obligations, Councillor McRae suggested that if Standing Committee Chairs wanted to combine some of the briefings, this should be permissible as it would allow them to be more efficient and to get information out to the public and the media.
Following these exchanges, Committee voted on the motion.
Moved by Councillor P. Hume
WHEREAS
the 2010 Budget Process report establishes specific dates for both the tabling
of the Standing Committee Draft Budgets and the consideration of those budgets;
and
WHEREAS
the Clerk’s office has indicated that the legislative agenda is very heavy for
those meetings currently recommended, and that there is very limited room for
‘spillover’ days for Committees; and
WHEREAS
the Standing Committee Draft Budgets can be released in advance of the formal,
7-day Committee agenda process; and
WHEREAS a
release of each of the Standing Committee Draft Budgets in a briefing session
for Councillors and the media and interested members of the public, accompanied
by a release of the documents on ottawa.ca and in print, could provide more
opportunity for a dialogue on the Draft Budgets at the beginning;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Audit, Budget and Finance Committee direct that the
calendar and process for the tabling of the Standing Committee Draft Budgets be
amended so that the release of the Draft Budgets take place in a briefing
session; and
That each Standing
Committee Chair work with City staff to determine a schedule, which will be
consolidated by Clerk’s staff, for each Standing Committee’s Draft Budget release
and briefing session and that the schedule be released by 29 September 2009.
CARRIED
Mayor O’Brien indicated the next motion was coming from Councillor Jellett. However, as an introductory comment, he informed Committee that the referenced motion had been prepared with his office’s full consent and support.
Councillor
Jellett then introduced a motion calling for funds to be allocated, from the
Mayor’s office budget, to each Standing Committee Chairs to be used to hire an
independent resource to assist with the respective Standing Committees’ budget
challenge function. Speaking to his
motion, the Councillor referenced last year’s budget challenge exercise, which
was done with the help of Mr. Plamondon.
He noted that the motion did not mention Mr. Plamondon and he assumed
Committee Chairs would be able to get whomever they wanted. However, he believed it was a good idea to
get an independent, outside look and he remarked that because of the Mayor’s
generosity, it would not cost any extra money.
Councillor McRae echoed Councillor Jellett’s comments and also thanked Mayor O’Brien for his generosity. She noted that the motion specifically referenced Standing Committees and therefore she assumed it would not apply to outside Boards. Mayor O’Brien responded affirmatively.
Moved by Councillor R. Jellett
WHEREAS
the 2010 Budget process has changed to allow for a more in-depth review of
departmental budgets by City Council and the public through the Standing
Committees; and
WHEREAS
the 2009 Budget process incorporated both a budget challenge function and an
independent resource to assist Council with the budget challenge; and
WHEREAS
the Mayor believes that having an independent challenge function is critical to
helping Council keep taxes as low as possible; and
WHEREAS
the Mayor has surplus funds in his office budget that he is willing to transfer
to fund an independent challenge function for Standing Committees;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that Standing Committee Chairs be allocated funds of up to
$10,000 each to be used to hire an independent resource to assist each Standing
Committee in the challenge function of their Budget Review; and
BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED that the funds required for this be transferred from the
Mayor’s Budget to the Elected Officials’ Administrative Budget, with the
contracts and invoicing to be administered by the Clerk’s office.
CARRIED
Councillor Deans
introduced a motion directing that Standing Committee budgets be prepared on
the basis of no new needs, with the new needs indicated separately with a full
rationale, and that the Public Library Board and the Police Services Board be
requested to submit their budgets with regard to these guidelines. She submitted this was consistent with the
budget directions Council gave staff each year in preparing the budget and it
was intended to ensure that before there were cuts to any new programs, Council
looked at all the add-ons in light of the budget pressures. In closing, she asked the City Manager to
reflect on the motion. Mr. Kent
Kirkpatrick, City Manager, agreed with what the Councillor had outlined in
terms of context. He confirmed that in
the past, part of the budget directions was that any new programming be
considered as an option to offset budget pressures prior to any proposal to cut
existing programming. Therefore, he
agreed that this was consistent with past practices.
Councillor
Holmes remarked that the world was changing and the City was trying to green
itself and bring in new greening programs.
Therefore, she wondered, if a Standing Committee wanted to delete an
older program and replace it with a new greener program, whether this motion
would prevent it. Based on his
understanding of the motion, Mr. Kirkpatrick suggested the motion would not
prevent this because what the Councillor described was the potential addition
of a new program and the potential deletion of an old one. He believed the intent of the motion was a
conscious consideration by Committee before adding any new programs.
Councillor Holmes saw the motion as binding Committees’ hands and she felt it was somewhat simplistic. She maintained that cities were always changing and the faster the City changed, the better it was. She hoped the City would try to implement more green initiatives to deal with climate change, therefore she expected the motion would not binding Council’s hands in this regard. She asked whether this would bind Council’s hands in trying to green the City. Mr. Kirkpatrick indicated his assessment of the motion was that it would not bind Council’s hands. However, it would place a framework around new initiatives in terms of priority given the existing programming. He submitted the important part of the motion suggested that Standing Committees be prepared to provide a full rationale, which would bring focus to that priority setting perspective.
Responding to a follow-up question from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Kirkpatrick advised that the new green bin program would not fall in this category because the contract had been signed and the City was committed to the program.
Councillor Jellett requested confirmation with respect to the intent of the motion: that new programming be looked at first if Standing Committees had to do any cuts and that it did not obstruct the City’s ability to adapt to changing needs. Mr. Kirkpatrick and Councillor Deans both responded affirmatively.
Councillor Cullen submitted that in any budget debate, Council looked at existing programs, service levels and needs. He requested clarification on the motion in order to understand its intent. He referenced cycling as an example. He noted that the City had gone through a re-organization where it changed its ability to support its Cycling Plan. He said that he expected to have Transportation Committee debate a new facility, a new resource opportunity to support the Cycling Plan. He remarked that the City of Montreal had thirty people working on its cycling system, which was very extensive. He reported visiting Montreal frequently and being pleasantly surprised with how much the city had changed. He submitted that this would be a new need and he would expect it to be treated differently than something Council approved earlier this year that had budget implications and would be debated anyway. He wondered how these things would be separated. Mr. Kirkpatrick indicated staff normally focused on decisions that had been made by Council. He remarked that reports coming forward for Committee consideration typically contained a section with respect to financial implications, which provided a budgetary context – whether there was an approved budget for an initiative or whether it was “subject to budget deliberations. He assured members that staff would ensure all such programs were brought to the attention of the respective Standing Committees and identified either as options to be funded or not.
Councillor Cullen maintained that the City continued to evolve and new needs appeared. He believed the motion would lead to new programs and initiatives being the first ones rejected or cancelled. He did not feel this was an appropriate way of dealing with them. Therefore, he advised that he would not support the motion.
Responding to questions from Councillor McRae, Ms. Simulik noted that the second clause of the motion directed that new needs be indicated separately with a full rationale provided. Therefore, she did not think it would actually mean no new needs would be included. She believed there would be a discussion: new needs would be segregated and Standing Committees would have a complete discussion about which ones they would support to advance as recommendations to the Audit, Budget and Finance Committee for inclusion in the budget. She then distinguished between necessities in order to continue to provide services and new needs in terms of expansion or brand new services.
In response to a question from Councillor McRae with respect to requesting that the Public Library Board and the Police Services Board submit their business with regard to these guidelines, Mr. Carey Thomson, Deputy City Solicitor, advised that if the motion was approved by Committee and Council, a letter would be sent to the Chairs of the referenced Boards advising them of the Council decision and requesting that they follow these guidelines in preparing their budgets.
Councillor Hume wondered if the motion effectively eliminated the ability to present a consolidated budget to the Standing Committees. Ms. Simulik clarified that staff would provide a consolidated budget and within it, each category of pressure would be identified separately, including new needs and past practice.
Councillor Hume requested and received further clarifications on how budgets would be presented and how the current motion would affect such presentation. In the end, he submitted that Standing Committees would have done exactly what the motion directs, regardless of whether the motion had come forward or not.
Responding to a question from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Kirkpatrick indicated he believed the motion added value. Although it was not binding, it provided general guidelines for new needs and if this Committee recommended it to Council, it would mean two things: direction to the Standing Committees to give special regard to new programming prior to cutting existing programming in terms of a balancing act in putting together a comprehensive budget; and how to present new needs in the budget.
Moved by Councillor D. Deans
WHEREAS
City Council is committed to ensuring that City services are delivered as
cost-effectively as possible in order to keep property taxes as low as possible
while maintaining services that citizens count on; and
WHEREAS
citizens count on those services that they are currently receiving and that
they value; and
WHEREAS
the 2010 Budget is expected to be challenging and introducing new needs at this
time could raise taxes beyond what is affordable;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Standing Committee Draft Budgets be prepared on the
basis of no new needs, with the new needs indicated separately with a full
rationale provided, to be considered as part of the Standing Committee Budget
Review; and
BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Ottawa Public Library Board and the Ottawa Police
Services Board be requested to submit their budgets with regard to these
guidelines.
CARRIED
YEAS (8): D. Deans, E. El-Chantiry, P. Feltmate, J. Harder, P. Hume, R. Jellett, M. McRae, L. O’Brien
NAYS (2): A. Cullen, D. Holmes
Councillor Deans introduced a motion directing that staff provide Council with a document detailing all the budget pressures presented as part of the Standing Committee budgets. She expressed her view that Council needed to have a global picture of what the overall budget pressures were for 2010. She wondered when the best time would be to insert this into the process. Mr. Kirkpatrick suggested November 17.
Councillor Deans indicated she would amend her motion accordingly.
Councillor Holmes referenced a motion circulated by Councillor El-Chantiry asking for the Services Excellence and Management Efficiency reports to be presented in the context of the 2010 Standing Committees’ budgets. She wondered if this would also include the pressures. Mr. Kirkpatrick responded affirmatively.
Responding to a follow-up question from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Kirkpatrick clarified that Councillor El-Chantiry’s motion focused on the service excellence report, which would mean no longer dealing with it separately in advance of the overall budget picture.
Mayor O’Brien suggested the intent was for each Standing Committee to see their own pressures and their own efficiencies in terms of the debates that would be had at each Committee. Mr. Kirkpatrick confirmed this, adding that this would include information and discussions on the service excellence initiative.
A brief discussion ensued with respect to the proposed process and the intent of the current motion.
Councillor Deans stated that when she asked her questions earlier, she was left with the impression that members of Council were never going to see the global budget pressures in this process. Therefore, she introduced the current motion to ensure Council understood the overall context rather than just silos.
Mayor O’Brien wondered if the Councillor was satisfied that, at its meeting of November 17, the Audit, Budget and Finance Committee would see the global pressures, based on the current plan.
After receiving confirmation from the City Manager that this was the intent, Councillor Deans withdrew her motion.
Councillor El-Chantiry introduced a motion calling for the Service Excellence and Management Efficiency reports to be presented in the context of the draft Standing Committee budgets.
Moved by Councillor E. El-Chantiry
WHEREAS it
is important for Standing Committees to have a complete understanding of the
2010 Draft Budget inclusive of proposed efficiencies and services excellence
initiatives;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Service Excellence and management efficiency plans be
presented in context with the 2010 Draft Standing Committee Budgets.
CARRIED
Committee then approved the item as amended.
1. That
the Audit, Budget and Finance Committee recommend Council:
a) Receive
this report for information;
b) Approve that Standing Committee Chairs be allocated funds of up
to $10,000 each to be used to hire an independent resource to assist each
Standing Committee in the challenge function of their Budget Review; and
That the funds required for this be transferred from the Mayor’s
Budget to the Elected Officials’ Administrative Budget, with the contracts and
invoicing to be administered by the Clerk’s Office;
c) Approve that the Standing Committee Draft Budgets be prepared
on the basis of no new needs, with the new needs indicated separately with a
full rationale provided, to be considered as part of the Standing Committee
Budget Review; and
That the Ottawa Public Library Board and the Ottawa Police Services
Board be requested to submit their budgets with regard to these guidelines; and
d) Approve that the Service Excellence and management efficiency
plans be presented in context with the 2010 Draft Standing Committee Budgets;
and
2. That
the Audit, Budget and Finance Committee direct that the calendar and process
for the tabling of the Standing Committee Draft Budgets be amended so that the
release of the Draft Budgets take place in a briefing session; and
That each Standing
Committee Chair work with City staff to determine a schedule which will be
consolidated by Clerk’s staff for each Standing Committee’s Draft Budget
release and briefing session and that the schedule be released by 29 September
2009.
CARRIED as amended