Any hope that this year’s budget process in the Town of Orangeville would be any different than the disaster that was 2015 were quashed fairly quickly at Monday night’s budget session. From constant interrupting and an inability to agree, to name-calling, excessive repetitiveness and more, the first meeting of Council, sitting as its Finance and Administration Committee, didn’t even complete half their agenda.

Last year, one of the biggest complaints from local residents was Council’s inability to cooperate and come to a conclusion that was in the best interests of taxpayers.

While they eventually compromised on a number, it took over four months for them to co-operate, and judging by last night’s discussions, we could be looking at another long haul.
The budget process opened with a proposed tax impact of 1.82 per cent – down from the 2.22 per cent in Town staff’s initial draft.

The meeting opened with a speech from the committee chair Councillor Nick Garisto, who commended staff on their work, but added that he felt there was more work to be done.

“I would like to remind the committee that staff has done the best they can with this budget based on the direction of myself, Council, and the Mayor,” said Councillor Garisto. “I think it is our due diligence to see if we can minimize the budget from this point.”

But it didn’t take long before that ‘due diligence’ turned into less than that – with one councillor answering questions directed to staff and interrupting other councillors, which led into inappropriate name-calling from another council member.

That situation arose during a discussion of cost of living allowances (COLA) for staff, where Councillor Garisto had submitted a motion contrary to the staff proposal, suggesting that COLA allowances be divided based on pay grade, with those who are in the higher grade receiving a lower increase.

The motion was not well-received by members of Council, who felt that were it motion to pass, it would reflect poorly on how Council views their senior staff.

“The cost of living is the same cost of living for everyone,” said Councillor Sylvia Bradley. “Whether they earn more or less, they are still affected by it; the cost of living doesn’t vary based on earnings, it is two percent for everyone. I don’t want to start discriminating on staff based on their earnings. To me this is very disrespectful to those in a higher pay grade.”

Following the patterns of last year’s budget discussions, Councillor Garisto immediately brought up Councillor Bradley’s election platform in an attempt to show that her dissent was contrary to her promise to the taxpayers.

“I find it interesting that you don’t support my motion, as before the last election you stood there and said that you hoped the next council would do something about pay grades, because we could not afford a two-percent increase each year,” said Councillor Garisto.

However, Councillor Bradley’s position during the election had not been based on a 2% increase, but rather any increases above the cost of living increases that had been doled out annually.

“We were giving out greater increases than the cost of living; when the cost of living was 2%, we were giving staff 3% increases,” she said. “Two percent is the [increased] cost of living. I don’t have a problem with giving staff the cost of living, I have a problem with giving more than that. That’s what I stood for and I still stand on that.”

Councillor Kidd asked for a clarification on what the average taxpayer would get back if they didn’t approve a 2% increase for all staff, and Acting Treasurer Karen Mills confirmed it would be a total of $4.77 a year, or just under 50 cents a month.

“Where will I spend my 50 cents a month?” asked Councillor Kidd.

But Councillor Garisto felt that members of Council, particularly Councillor Kidd, were missing the point of the decision.

He said $52,000 “is a chunk of the budget that can be altered to give a zero-percent increase to the taxpayers in this town.

“I am a taxpayer and I need a break. The taxpayers in this town need a break. You can do whatever you want, but I am here to do my job for everyone. I wish I could give staff 10 percent increases, but it’s very unreasonable to do it. They deserve it, I don’t deny that.”

When Councillor Kidd began to reply, Councillor Garisto cut him off. When he began to repeat the point, Councillor Garisto cut him off once again, stating that he had already heard what he had to say, and didn’t want to hear it again.

“Mr. Putin, you’re allowed to speak twice, but I am not!” fired Councillor Kidd, who was then prompted with the option of giving an apology or being booted from the meeting.

Following that, Councillor Bradley added that while Councillor Kidd’s comment was quite inappropriate, his point was fair, as the Chair had continuously repeated his points and comments throughout the entire meeting.

At that point, a vote was called on Councillor Garisto’s motion, which was defeated. The original proposal to provide a two percent COLA increase to all staff was put back on the table by Councillor Scott Wilson, and all but Councillor Garisto voted in favour.

Another moment of deja-vu from last year’s patterns was the full-circle conversations around reserves. A motion had been submitted by staff for approval of an annual one percent contribution to reserves, equalling $298,693. The motion failed, and was replaced by a motion by Councillor Wilson to see a one-time contribution of $600,000 to the reserves, which also failed. After one more failed motion, a final motion was placed to make a one-time contribution of $300,000, which was passed by Council.

Despite the hindrances, drama and some lack of co-operation, a number of items were passed, including approval of $7500 for a tree sculpture and plaque in honour of the late Terry Sanderson. Some items included full approval of the motions from staff, while others included reductions or total cuts.

Based on all decisions made throughout the three-hour budget meeting, the updated tax impact would be an increase of 1.71 percent, or an average of $48.89 for the year, based on the current average assessment of $344,907.

The budget debate ended at 10 p.m., but would have continued had there not been an in-camera session which had to be held following a special meeting of Council.

The Finance Committee will meet again on January 25 to continue 2016 budget deliberations.