Recommendations to Council short on cuts to spending, size of workforce

After reviewing City Administration’s most recent proposals to curb spending and find savings, the Chamber is renewing its call for a 7% cost reduction across all departments and city-funded agencies to avoid excessive property tax increases through 2024-2025.

“To date, there have been no substantial reductions in budgets or positions, only deferred spending, adjusted inflationary forecasts and modest fee increases,” observes Jason Aebig, CEO. “Without a mandated target for cost-reductions in their departments and budgets, city administrators are struggling to provide options to reduce spending and the size of the City’s workforce.”

Using the Chamber’s proposed 7% spending cut as a target, Aebig worries that options recommended by Administration are falling short of expectations and missing the mark, which will result in large property tax increases for current and future ratepayers. Examples from recent administrative reports include:

Arts, Culture and Events Venues Business Line

7% Spending Cut Target                                    $679,000

Cuts Recommended by Administration         $41,000

Target Missed By                                                $638,000

Environmental Health Business Line

7% Spending Cut Target                                    $1.79 million

Cuts Recommended by Administration         $347,000

Target Missed By                                                $1.44 million

“Every missed target means a tax rate increase,” explains Aebig. “What’s being proposed is only a fraction of what needs to be done to keep our property tax rates fair and competitive. It’s certainly not enough to support needs in other areas, like firefighting and community safety.”

According to the Chamber, a clear and manageable target for cost reductions, mandated by Council, would give city administrators the direction they need to adjust staffing levels, find savings, and propose different ways of delivering programs and services.

“Those closest to departmental and program budgets are best positioned to make these choices,” observes Aebig. “For anyone else, it’s like trying to hit a bullseye from 30,000 feet. City administrators are closest to the board. Set the target and challenge them to hit it.”