The column by Bryan Alary, ‘Leave budget talking points at home,’ Nov. 17 Gazette, on the city budget is right on the money!
The comparisons among “comparable” cities are meaningless without knowing the context of all the numbers. The budget is a promotional sales pitch by administration. Is the satisfaction survey statistically sound or a biased representation? It gets excessive mileage in the budget. Let’s look at what was not in the budget.
The city has about 600 full-time employees (FTEs) in 2010, up from about 350 in 2002. This increase of 71 per cent occurred while the city population increased by about 10.4 per cent.
In the past five years (2005 to 2010), salary costs have compounded annually by 3.1 per cent to 7.0 per cent. Compounding means that salaries of FTEs have increased 21 per cent to 29 per cent (firefighters). Meanwhile, the cost of living index (inflation) increased 8.6 per cent over those five years.
Clearly, the increase in FTEs and their wages in the past five to eight years has far outstripped growth in population and the cost of living. Administration proposes the addition of 13 FTEs in 2011 funded in part by tax hikes of 3.6 per cent (residential) and 3.68 per cent (non-residential) with another 17.56 FTEs in their ‘unfunded’ wish list. Such increases are not justified, nor sustainable. This looks like empire building to me — an affliction common to all public services.
A large budget saving can be achieved by capping FTEs for two to three years and reducing salary increases. Even if FTEs are capped, the budget will increase 1.76 per cent annually to pay for salaries (assuming salary increases average four per cent annually and 44 per cent of the operating budget is made up of salaries). Council must cap administrative excesses or taxpayers can face average increases of five per cent annually for the indefinite future. The city has to quit viewing property owners as ATM machines.
Don C. Thomas, St. Albert
