St. Albert homeowners who were expecting city council to gauge the worth of capping next year’s municipal property tax increase at 1.5 per cent have every reason to be disappointed heading into Monday’s meeting when the 2011 budget is up for approval. Instead of debating a cut from the current — and possibly final — 2.8 per cent municipal hike, council will instead rehash a tired argument about the merits of multi-year budgeting at city hall.
Capping property taxes was a popular promise on the campaign trail leading up to the Oct. 18 election. While some of the candidates who favoured a tax cap of some kind failed to gain office, at least two did, in Len Bracko and Cam MacKay. Of all four newcomers, MacKay has emerged as perhaps the strongest performer during budget deliberations, displaying an attention to fiscal detail largely absent from council for several terms. After rolling out 27 motions in one sitting — budget cuts designed to save $1.1 million, dropping the municipal property tax hike to 2.1 per cent — MacKay proved he is exactly what he was billed as during the campaign: a spendthrift wanting a greater level of fiscal restraint at city hall. While his motions, even if they had all been successful did not equate to the 1.5 per cent cap, tax-weary St. Albert home and business owners should feel comforted knowing he made every effort to keep spending in check.
The same cannot be said of Bracko who, now in his fifth term, produced exactly one motion to cut spending, deleting $350,000 needed to move the AltaLink power line, despite the fact this project never had actual dollars attached. Bracko’s splashiest move, to spend $500,000 on an LRT alignment study at the expense of sidewalk repairs, was defeated by peers who rightly did not see the wisdom in paying for a study decades before anyone expects to see a line through St. Albert. The rest of his motions — both of them — added close to $90,000 in spending and fall short of fulfilling his property tax promise.
Was 1.5 per cent ever feasible? Perhaps not, but Bracko seemed to think so — while campaigning for votes that is. By withdrawing his tax cap motion in favour of a multi-year budgeting debate, Bracko has reneged on an election promise and hurled a red herring at the budget spreadsheets. The previous council was the last group that weighed into this issue, soundly rejecting multi-year operating for single-year versions and three-year capital budgets. At the time council was convinced that multi-year budgets contain too much guesswork with forecasts unable to withstand the type of economic upheaval that started in the fall of 2009, from uncertain grant streams and growth projections to volatile electricity and gasoline prices. Even in a good economic climate, forecasts can be off as early as a year, let alone three, as we saw with inflation escalating with the construction boom. A council also risks public backlash from sticker shock (the 2009-11 budget initially called for tax hikes of 8.4, 8.4 and 7.8 per cent) or unmet expectations if the increase in year two or three is higher than announced. Lastly, multi-year budgets also raise the spectre of one council’s spending priorities spanning more than one term, something that falls outside the three-year mandate only voters can provide.
The last debate on this issue ended with a resounding no, with only Bracko still clinging to the belief the process could actually yield cost savings. If there are indeed cost savings to be had, Mr. Bracko show us. There are still probably some members of the public who will take you at your word.
