I would hope by now that the members of city council realize that the greatest problem facing the city is the rate of spending and the resultant tax increases. For the 8th year in a row those tax increases have exceeded the rate of inflation. The increase in 2008 of 4.5% brings the total compounded increase since we purchased our house in 2001 to 36.4%. If the proposed increases given by the city’s financial department of 6.5% for 2009, 5.15% for 2010, 5.73% for 2011 and 7.2% for 2012 are implemented without change that compounded increase will be 73.1% for 11 years. Personally we can afford this increase for now but we are moving into our retirement years and these increases mean we have to make choices and eliminate things or keep working. We are more fortunate that many and perhaps most of the citizens of Guelph. Those at the most vulnerable ends; i.e. seniors who are retired on fixed incomes and poorer people who are renting will have to pay increases they can not afford. I currently own a metal stamping business in London and have looked at buying businesses in Guelph with my partners. Given the current and proposed tax regime in the city of Guelph I would not consider locating a business here. Your economic development department is concerned about attracting business and down the hall from them they have a group who seems to be working hard to make it impossible for them to do so.
Municipal governments were meant to look after a number of mostly mundane functions on behalf of the citizens who elect them; Fire and Police services, municipal infrastructure such as roads, sewage and water treatment, snow removal and garbage collection. Anything beyond that depends on the amount of money that is available. Certainly there are a number of things we have come to expect as part of the responsibilities of a municipal government and they should rightly be so, such as libraries, universal recreation programs and parks. I also recognize that there are certain items such as some social services that were downloaded from the provincial government when they took 100% responsibility for school funding a number of years ago. The current provincial government has indicated they will be uploading those costs over the next 5 years which should ease the burden on municipalities.
It would seem to me that the current and previous councils have concentrated more on new programs where they could spend money than learning to live within our means. The comment from councilor Laidlaw that if council was to accept that there was a shortage of money then what was the point of looking at new programs is a good one if she means that you as a council will not be able to look at any new programs and will in fact have to cut some. Councilor Salisbury indicated for 2008 that the difference between 4.98% and 4.5% was only $12 per taxpayer per year and that was not much. Well it is as it gets compounded every year with future tax increases.
As some suggestions where you could look for savings here are some suggestions. Sidewalk ploughing is one area. When there are freeze thaw cycles like we have every winter the skim of snow on the sidewalk that the plow leaves so the plow an sidewalk are not damaged, turns to ice such that this past winter most sidewalks were too icy to walk on for a month or two. Why not go where other municipalities have gone. Plow only common sidewalks and have residents clean there own sidewalks (most in my area do so already anyways) and plow only for those residents who have an age or infirmity impediment that prevents them from cleaning their section of sidewalk. The garbage inspector should be cancelled. The logic that this would save $155,000 per year is deeply flawed. Assuming the inspector can actually inspect 2 or 3 residences an hour 5 or 6 hours per day then at the most he or she will inspect an average of 15 to 20 homes per day approx 200 days per year. This means it would take the person a minimum of 3 to 4 years to visit every home. How would this reduce unwanted materials in the recyclable bins? How would they communicate the defects? This is a bad and silly idea and should be cancelled saving $85,000. The $895,000 to improve the bus service to 20 minutes all day is also deeply flawed on both the economic count and environmentally. I have made it a point to observe buses in the northwest area of Guelph where I live. I have never seen a bus more than ½ full at any time and in at least 75% of the cases there are 3 or less people on these buses and in many cases this was before the 20 minute service started. A diesel bus is a much more polluting vehicle than the personal automobile and is only environmentally responsible if it takes cars off the road. Clearly this is not the case. At the very least 20 minute service should be confined to high use routes at rush hours. To compound this with a $250,000 study on transit use is idiotic. It is almost like you want to do a study to justify your decision. I see where many in city government are talking about a light rail system. If Toronto a city of over 2.5 million can not justify this economically what makes you think Guelph can? You are also spending too much on capital programs. We can not afford the rich capital budget for parkades, new library, museum, city hall, etc. No matter how much they seem to be needed they are not essential and will have to be cancelled or at least postponed. You are building infrastructure for a city of more than 250,000 but the water in the Guelph are has shown a limit on Guelph of 169,000 residents and that is the highest number with the probably actual number being lower. Other areas you should not be spending in no matter how needed you think they may be are $1 million for the MRI, $1 million for hospice Wellington, money to provide financial support to the Guelph Storm and the hockey rink at Quebec Street and any other program that is not included in the core needs of the city residents. I like others appreciate some of the things that are provided such as the River Run centre, parks like Riverside and the library but we can not continue to spend money we do not have on services that are not essential to maintaining the infrastructure and security of Guelph. If these things are needed we will have to find other ways of funding them such as service fees or fund raising for the library or River Run.
The city of Guelph is faced with a financial crisis and I am shocked to see that city staff as well as council does not seem to understand that. As I mentioned I own a manufacturing business. Cash flow is essential to our survival. There are lots of things we would like to have and could justify but we need to keep spending within limits we can cover with cash inflow. Governments have found over the years there is a limit to how much you can tax citizens. While Guelph is not the worst municipality in terms of taxes it is a long way from the best and you are making it worse faster than other jurisdictions.
I have voiced my concerns previously about the increase in taxes. At one time I was told that I should be happy that my house value had gone up so much for such a small investment as the tax increase that year. That of course is a fallacy and I would hope such arguments will not be used. Please look very carefully at spending and start eliminating what we can not afford. DS