Some success for residents and WeACT

Nearly two weeks ago, WeACT sent a press release to the Windsor Star announcing Tax Cut Now Day.  The press release stated:

Given that utility rates are increasing dramatically, especially water and levy rates, rather than attempting to have a tax increase even if  close to zero, WeACT demands that every effort should be made to realize a tax decrease by focusing upon core municipal services.

Then, on Monday, December 10th, WeACT submitted a proclamation request, for January 8th, 2008,  to the City Clerk which read, in part:

Whereas: The overall tax burden on City of Windsor residents is high;

Whereas: The City of Windsor has the highest unemployment rate in Canada’s urban centres;

Whereas:  The sewer surcharge, water consumption and water main replacement levy rates were recently increased a combined 86%;

Whereas:   Lower property taxes will benefit the community hard hit by border delays,  rising Canadian dollar and loss of manufacturing jobs;

Whereas:  Seniors, single parent families, low income families and the unemployed are hardest hit by the decline in the local economy.

WeACT also organised a Tax Cut Now Day rally, handing out hundreds of Tax Cut Now buttons to residents who were somewhat oblivious to the fact that property taxes were going up.  When they were informed of this, they quickly grabbed a button and Market Square became a sea of red and yellow. 

On Saturday, Gord Henderson stated:

Step up and take a bow if you were one of those curmudgeons who spent August and September popping blood vessels over that stunning 86 per cent hike in water rates imposed by the Windsor Utilities Commission.

Now, “curmudgeon” was an interesting word used to describe both the efforts of WeACT and residents furious over conflicting information regarding the WUC rate increases.  Curmudgeon is defined as “a crusty irascible cantankerous old person full of stubborn ideas.”

Well, at 34, I would hardly describe myself or the members of WeACT as a “cantankerous old person.”  But hey, WeACT and residents were successful in getting the tax increase pared down to at least 2% by loudly voicing our opposition.

And I don’t buy Councillor Brister’s sudden conversion when he said to Mr. Henderson that council was primarily driven by recognition that these are difficult times for Windsorites who’ve either lost their jobs or are at risk of being laid off.

Back on November 20th, councillor Brister responded to resident’s comments on the Windsor Star, protesting a tax increase,  by highlighting a 2006 tax comparison of various cities by BMA consulting, which showed that Windsor was slightly below the average – as if to say, we could afford a tax increase.

Henderson also laid the praise on council by comparing Windsor’s tax rate increase (only the .95%) to other cities such as Missassauga. 

While they have increased their tax rate by 8.9%, which includes a 5% levy for infrastructure renewal, their tax increase was the first in a number of years, according to the city’s website.

The City of London also, is facing a proposed increase of 4.4%  – and this is draft – much like our initial 6% increase was.  London also enjoyed lower water and sewer surcharge increases.

The City of Ottawa’s proposed 4.9% increase for 2008 could be even less, after a review of administration services and their branches, according to their city website. 

So yes, while our tax increase is lower, the above mentioned cities also did not face an unprecendented 86% increase in combined water rates. 

But some questions to consider before the budget heads to council for approval: 

1. Whatever happened to the 10% across the board cuts to all departments in the city?  We know transit and the libary were forced to trim their budgets  by 10% – but did the rest?
2. What was the increase/decrease in assessments in the city?  One resident emailed me outlining that their assessment had increased $1,000 over last year, despite the freeze by MPAC.
3. Were cuts made to non-essential advertising, consultant’s fees, ward funds, council meals, legal fees, travel expenses, and conferences?
4. How many jobs were eliminated, if any?  Will the city be facing “Francis Days?”  After all, with all those in-camera budget meetings to discuss “staff issues” I think residents deserve to know.
5. The $900,000 earmarked for branding – can it not wait another year or two?  While the merits of branding are debateable, I don’t think it is a ”need” at this point in time. 
6. Will the review of city services result in a further decrease in tax rates?  Why wasn’t this review conducted earlier as outlined in February 2007 budget discussions?

Also remember, in his State of the City address in 2006, Mayor Francis stated:

And by 2010, our plan will result in dividends of approximately $40 million dollars. Then another $40 million in each and every one of the following years.

That means we can build. We can build better roads. We can build better playgrounds.   We can build great arenas.   We can deliver better service.

Could not some costs, such as branding be deferred until then, much like the deferral of the $10 million communications equipment over a number of years? 

While I congratulate council for keeping the tax increase slightly below the rate of inflation, unless the above questions are answered, I think, based on information thus far available, we can still achieve a lower or zero tax increase.