Skip to content

Sechelt councillors start to trim budget

Councillors in Sechelt are making some adjustments to the budget in an effort to lower the projected tax increase. Heading into the March 13 committee of the whole meeting the proposed budget would have required a tax increase of 12.95 per cent.
Sechelt Logo

Councillors in Sechelt are making some adjustments to the budget in an effort to lower the projected tax increase.

Heading into the March 13 committee of the whole meeting the proposed budget would have required a tax increase of 12.95 per cent.

Director of finance Doug Stewart said staff heard several concerns during public consultations. “Most of it centred around this property tax increase just being too large, and to do something about it, with very little concrete examples of what to do.”

He also noted in his written report that similar concerns have come “directly from many members of council.”

Stewart presented a revised budget that lowers the tax increase for operating expenses to 5.82 per cent, for a total increase of 8.82 per cent when the three per cent for capital asset renewal is included.

Stewart told the committee a lower tax increase could be achieved by reducing the budget requests for new spending, including the elimination of a proposed procurement clerk position, and by drawing $289,243 from reserves.

Stewart said he’s comfortable drawing from reserves because, among other reasons, the amount in reserves increased by around $200,000 during the last fiscal year and the district has seen an increase in revenue from building inspections.

Some of the reserve money would be used to bring down the cost of adding two other new employees: a development engineer and a building inspector.

The estimated $127,353 for the development engineer position will be reduced by holding off on filling the job until July 1 and then covering half of the 2019 cost by drawing $31,838 from reserves. The position would then be funded through a combination of reserves and taxation over a three-year “phase-in” period.

Coun. Matt McLean said he’d rather “bite the bullet” and fund new positions from taxation if they’re going to be permanent, arguing the phase-in approach isn’t transparent.

“Part of my job as a councillor is to explain to the public why their tax rates are going up… I’d much rather bite the bullet and say we need this position, we’re going to increase your taxes, and we’re increasing your taxes to fund this position. If we do it over three years, we’re making the decision now to increase people’s taxes in three years.”

Coun. Brenda Rowe said the proposal clearly shows the need to add a tax increase over three years. “To me that’s transparency… A development engineer could bring us value over three years that would offset that increase, potentially.”

For the building inspector position, Stewart proposed using $75,000 from reserves to hire a part-time inspector and a part-time clerical support person.

“Staff propose funding these two part-time positions from reserves for two years. If the demand for building inspections remains high after two years, staff will consider requesting permanent funding,” Stewart’s report said.

The committee agreed with that idea.

Councillors were divided, however, about the need for a facilities coordinator at an annual cost of $65,230, which would all come through a tax increase. The job would involved handling bookings for the district, something that’s done now under contract, and do support work of the communications department.

“The public has said to us they don’t want us to raise taxes as much… Do we really need this? Is it worth that much of an increase for our district? Hearing from the public, I’m not sure that we actually need [that position],” said Coun. Janice Kuester.

The committee voted to keep that position in the budget, with McLean, Kuester and Coun. Tom Lamb opposed.

The committee also asked staff to come back with more information on the proposal to hire a development engineer

There was also a brief discussion about the sewer operating fund.

Stewart said due to a combination of a new argreement with the Sechelt Indian Government District (SGID) that will lead to an additional $34,006 in sewer levies for servicing SIGD households and an expected increase in septage fee revenue, there will be no need to increase sewer levies.

The budget is expected to be adopted by early May.