Following a successful motion by Ward 5 Coun. Mike Parent at the Oct. 10 city council meeting, city administrators have been again asked to cut $10.5 million from the city’s base budget.
The cuts are to help achieve city council’s maximum desired tax levy increase of 4.7 per cent.
Parent’s motion, supported by a vote of 10-3, directs staff to find cuts “that would not impact service levels or introduce new user fees,” and to focus on finding “operational efficiencies.”
The motion itself is somewhat redundant as city administrators have already been charged with cutting $10.5 million from the city’s base budget, as affirmed in a report tabled with city council in September.
After the Oct. 10 meeting, Sudbury.com asked city CAO Ed Archer whether Parent’s motion would in any way affect how city administration approaches 2024-25 budget preparations.
“I don’t believe that it does,” he said, adding that city administration has already been directed to exhaust all opportunities before they take any actions that might affect service levels.
“We do our best to facilitate service expectations with the funding we have,” he said, citing last year’s budget preparations as an example.
Similar to this year’s budget preparations, the city’s 2023 budget process included city council direction for staff to limit the tax levy increase requirement within the base budget, which was in that case to be capped at 3.7 per cent. (Following budget deliberations, city council went on to approve a final budget which included a 4.6 per cent municipal tax increase.)
Limiting the tax levy increase in the 2023 budget required administrators to cut $17.8 million from the base budget, which they did in a manner outlined in a report presented to city council in January of this year.
The budget adjustments were mainly baked into financial controls, creating less wiggle room in the city’s budget for things such as winter control and reserve funds.
The full list of proposed budgetary adjustments were provided to city council prior to 2023 budget deliberations, which is the same process also slated to take place for 2024-25 budget talks.
The Oct. 10 motion was presented by Parent alongside Ward 1 Coun. Mark Signoretti, Ward 4 Coun. Pauline Fortin, Ward 7 Coun. Natalie Labbée and Ward 3 Coun. Gerry Montpellier.
In the search for efficiencies, Labbée said she’d like to hear from front-line city staff, “the ones who are there getting their hands dirty and doing the work day in and day out …" because “they are the ones that know best.”
Archer later affirmed the city has an employee suggestion program, which recognizes employees whose ideas produce positive outcomes.
Fortin said there’s a “culture of spending” at the city and that within their more than $700-million operating budget there must be efficiencies to be found.
“I’m sure there are efficiencies,” Ward 6 Coun. René Lapierre said, clarifying that finding them will be a challenge, with past reports failing to find “a pot of money just sitting there hoping to be used. ... Our reserves are actually going down because we have no choice but to dip into them.”
Ward 9 Coun. Deb McIntosh noted that city council members have already asked the city’s auditor general to conduct zero-based budget reviews of municipal departments, aimed at finding operational efficiencies, and that staff are mandated to continually seek efficiencies.
Calling the motion as “an affront to our staff,” Ward 8 Coun. Al Sizer reiterated the fact city staff are already doing what the motion asks of them.
“If they aren't doing it now, as part of their job, then they should be looking for work elsewhere,” he said.
“This isn’t new,” Ward 12 Coun. Joscelyne Landry-Altmann said. “It seems it’s a repeated exercise.”
Called upon to share his insight, Archer told city council that this sentiment is accurate, and that staff is already doing what the motion requests them to do.
“This is no different than in prior periods, and we’ve always met your budget direction,” he said. “We absolutely address your service expectations as best we can, with the resources we have available.”
With expectations exceeding the funds available to pay for things, he said there are “many gaps we’re trying to close ... and they are all important to someone.”
Regardless of Parent’s motion, Archer told city council that work to prepare a budget document with a 4.7-per-cent tax levy increase is ongoing, and remains on track to be tabled by Nov. 15.
The city’s elected officials will then debate the document and settle on a final budget by the end of the year. The city’s operations budget is anticipated to encompass 2024-25, and the capital budget will cover 2024-27.
The following elected officials voted yes to the motion:
- Ward 12 Coun. Joscelyne Landry-Altmann
- Ward 1 Coun. Mark Signoretti
- Ward 2 Coun. Michael Vagnini
- Ward 3 Coun. Gerry Montpellier
- Ward 4 Coun. Pauline Fortin
- Ward 5 Coun. Mike Parent
- Ward 6 Coun. René Lapierre
- Ward 7 Coun. Natalie Labbée
- Ward 10 Coun. Fern Cormier
- Mayor Paul Lefebvre
The following elected officials voted no to the motion:
- Ward 11 Coun. Bill Leduc
- Ward 8 Coun. Al Sizer
- Ward 9 Coun. Deb McIntosh
When called on to vote, Lapierre’s initial response was “yeah...” followed by an affirmative “Yes.”
After the meeting, he clarified his reluctant-sounding vote to Sudbury.com as being a result of the fact city staff is already doing the work.
“I support the concept, but this is work expected to be done all of the time,” he said.
The motion still has merit, he added, as it will help the public better understand how budgets are put together.
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.
