The estimated property tax increase in St. Albert will be 2.3 per cent for municipal purposes, assuming council gives final approval to its budget this Monday.
City council has tentatively approved the capital and operating budgets, after a half-dozen budget meetings spread out over the course of November.
Councillors reduced the expected property-tax increase from 3.1 per cent to 2.3 per cent after debate at a standing committee of the whole meeting on Nov. 29.
The committee voted to forward the budget to the Dec. 12 council meeting for approval. The actual amount of the property tax increase could be higher, however, depending on whether there’s an increase from local school boards and the seniors housing foundation, both of which are also paid through tax increases.
On the operating side of the municipal budget, councillors debated dozens of motions to fund or defund specific business case requests. In the end council approved 27 business cases costing just over $2 million for 2017 and comprising 18.3 full-time equivalent positions.
Those business cases are funded through a combination of property tax increases the money resulting from increased assessment values, and are divided into base business cases that are required to maintain service levels and meet regulatory obligations.
The base business cases include hiring new staff members to handle increased freedom of information requests, provide IT services and work on the city’s various natural areas plans. Non-staff-related expenses include increased transfers to reserves, and money for environmental remediation at public works sites.
In total those account for $628,200, or roughly 0.7 per cent of the proposed tax increase. The remainder of the tax increases comprise increased expenses for things like salaries and utilities.
The remainder of the business cases are funded through the growth in assessment, and don’t have a direct impact on the property tax increases.
In accordance with city policy, 30 per cent of the $2.8 million in assessment growth is earmarked to go directly to reducing the potential tax increase, while 70 per cent is used to fund growth business cases.
Of the nearly $2 million available for growth business cases, council voted to spend three quarters of it and put the rest in reserves.
During budget debates councillors voted against funding several positions administration had recommended.
For example, council approved Coun. Sheena Hughes’ motion that denied funding for a full-time sustainable building coordinator to oversee the city’s sustainable building policy. She said the same goal could be achieved by putting an environmental building standard requirement into a tender.
“If we need a building to be LEED certified, we don’t need someone to watch over that,” she said.
Likewise city council denied funding for a second neighbourhood co-ordinator that would have helped expand the city’s block-party program. Coun. Cam MacKay’s, who made the motion, said hiring someone to go door-to-door to help connect neighbours with each other wasn’t crucial right now.
MacKay also brought forward a motion to decrease the property-tax increase by increasing the city’s fine revenue estimate by $300,000 to $5.1 million. He said that repeated budget surpluses in the area showed the estimate was too low.
Several councillors also proposed successful motions to add money into the operating budget for various projects.
Council approved Coun. Tim Osborne’s motion to increase the hours for an intake specialist at The Collective. Council heard the existing part-time intake worker is at capacity. The worker provides a variety of services including supports for mental-health, addictions and family violence.
“My bigger concern is they come in and no one’s there,” Osborne said. “I want someone to be there when kids in our community need help.”
Coun. Cathy Heron’s motion to put $100,000 per year for eight years into a capital reserve for a new food bank building was amended to $50,000 per year, and then was approved.
