3. Evaluation of 2024 Budget Performance

It is obvious that 2024 held a number of surprises, when compared with ingoing assumptions.  This was particularly true with regard to Town Revenues.  The 2024 budget projected $18.9 million in revenues, but will only reach about $15.6 million.

A large part of the shortfall related to the Planning department fees generation, assumed to be reflective of the dramatic drop in new residential construction.

The 2025 budget show Town Revenues getting back to the 2024 budgeted number – is that realistic?  It is also not clear how the anticipated revenue from the new Municipal Accommodation Tax is to be applied, and against what initiatives.

4. The Seeming View of “Core Services” as Being Untouchable

The KPMG Study helped with the definition of those services that are seen as “Core”, and those that are “Non-Core”.  The intent is to ensure that program spending is directed at those services considered most important to Town residents.

That is positive as far as it goes, but we would argue that even for Core Services, the Town should still be looking at ways to deliver them more efficiently and cost effectively.

This would constitute applying some form of a Zero Based Budgeting approach in evaluating those service categories.  It is not apparent that such opportunities to improve the cost effectiveness of Town service delivery have been explored.  If they have been, that information will assumed to be shared through the Council budget review process. We also ask whether Council has thoroughly reviewed, and bought off on the list of services defined as “Core” and “Non-Core”.

5. Analysis of the Town’s Capital Reserves

The introduction of a fulsome summary of the Town’s capital reserves was appreciated, given their importance to the Town’s financial future.

Still to come, but committed to, is a five year projection of the adequacy of our reserves - which the BMRA has been requesting for the past few years.

The concerning aspect of the reserves summary is that the total was $77 million in 2023, estimated to be $62 million at 2024 year end, and budgeted at just $32 million for 2025.  That declining trend is obviously quite worrying, which is why the promised five year forecast is so important.

6. Capital Spend Estimate

The 2025 capital budget projects capital spending of about $107 million.  That is reflective of the infrastructure demands being generated through our last decade of growth.

Our question is whether it is realistic to expect that the level of spending is achievable – we believe it is much higher than has been realized in past years, although that is difficult to ascertain through the 2025 budget document.  What seems clear is that if there are not improvements made to the way that Staff and Council jointly manage and move capital projects forward, delivering the identified 2025 projects will likely not occur.

7.Consulting Fees

Another spending line that is somewhat difficult to dissect is Consulting Services.  The 2025 budget is about $2.5 million, while just about $400,000 has been spent on Consulting Assignments in 2024 (vs a budget of $1.1 million).

Even if we assume that some of the 2025 budget could contain funds for projects not completed in 2024, the absolute number for Consultant Services is still eye popping.  Among other things, it includes $500,000 for a “Long Term Financial Plan and User-Fee Study”.

We don’t argue those aren’t important financial activities, but that cost seems excessive.

8. Requests Above Base Could Add Significantly to the Tax Levy Increase

If all the extra requests are approved, they would add almost 8% to the proposed 10% tax increase.

The most substantial program is Urban Forestry, starting at $500K in 2025, growing to $1.7 million in 2027.  While we all agree that sustaining our environment is of critical importance, we question whether that level of spend is justified, or could a scaled back approach still deliver desired benefits without adding such a substantial tax hike.

There are also some new part time roles in the Recreation category, with suggested opportunities to increase fee revenue, but with no projections of what the cost – benefit would look like.

There is a proposal to fund Physician Recruitment at a cost of $100,000.  Concern regarding the lack of family health providers was very strongly registered in the Town’s recent Resident Satisfaction survey.  It would be ideal if Municipalities lacking enough physicians to meet demand, such as is the case for TBM, didn’t have to spend our tax dollars in the effort to attract new family health practitioners.  That is however not the reality in which we live, and the BMRA is therefore supportive of this spend.  

We would hope that if some of these over and above requests are endorsed, there would be corresponding offsets in other areas to avoid further increases in our tax levy.