Yorkton Council has made it clear they intend to go through a process of reviewing all areas of operation looking for ways to save money, streamline service, or do things in more efficient ways.
It’s an admirable undertaking, but when the first review report was unveiled at the last regular meeting of Council, it showed something of a flaw in the process.
When you do a wide-ranging review of something such as the Fire Protective Services, you are likely to find as many things lacking, as areas you can trim. The report contained five options, four which would actually increase the cost of the services.
That would seem to run counter to one of the key impetuses for the reviews in the first place, City Budgets stretched to the max today, and facing a slower economy ahead, at least in the short term.
And budgets are going to get tighter, if the city is to stay ahead of the growing age of infrastructure, not that Yorkton is unique in this.
“Nearly a quarter of municipal buildings in Canada are more than 50 years old and cities aren’t spending enough to maintain their assets, according to a sweeping review of the state of local infrastructure,” stated a recent story at www.theglobeandmail.com
“The Canadian Infrastructure Report Card, which will be released on Monday, is based on detailed surveys of municipalities from across the country.
“It says about 12 per cent of municipal infrastructure is in poor or very poor condition and those assets would cost $141-billion to replace. A further $247-billion in assets are in fair condition.”
The review was a focus to reduce costs.
There are two ways to accomplish that.
The first is to find efficiencies, which actually should be near impossible at this point. If a City service has not trimmed the ‘fat’, and are not running at peak efficiency now, taxpayers are owed an apology, since that should be a priority without a review needed to accomplish.
The second is to cut programs, or services.
That is never popular, but may ultimately be required, and that is where a discussion with the public should take place.
It was not so long ago then Mayor James Wilson hosted a brainstorming session with members of the community to get a picture of the city that was wanted into the future.
Today the discussion might be about what we are willing to live without as costs rise and the ability of taxpayers to take year-over-year hikes disappears.
Would the community accept few snow removals in winter? Less grass cutting in summer? Higher costs to recoup recreation facility costs?
Cost savings would be the goal of any such process.
Or, do we need more radical thinking, such as resident cards. The idea has been floated before. The card would mean a lower cost as a facility such as the aquatic centre, where those from outside the city would pay a bit extra since they do not contribute tax dollars to the facility like a resident. It would essentially be a ‘membership’ card providing the holder with some benefits, and creating added revenues from non-residents.
Again while perhaps not the path we would want to go down, it is at least an option to discuss, much as are the reviews, albeit with a more focused goal of raising revenues.
Thinking about what we can do without, or where new money can be generated will be paramount moving forward in times of a slower economy and ever growing needs, especially in terms of infrastructure renewal and maintenance.
