YORKTON - After several closed door meetings the operating and capital budgets were finally on the agenda of a regular meeting of Yorkton Council Monday.
The process of preparing the budgets included several Strategic Planning meetings, explained Ashley Stradeski – Director of Finance with the city introducing the proposed budgets Monday.
“During these meetings, departmental budgets were reviewed, discussed, and service levels were considered in conjunction with budget. All queries and additional details were brought back to Council for consideration, as well as in depth discussion on topics and areas where Council thought important,” detailed the report to Council.
The budget as presented but not approved Monday included a 2.65 per cent increase for operating and one per cent for capital, or 3.65 per cent overall.
Adding one per cent to our capital budget was already planned and approved in the 2023 / 2024 Capital Budget earlier this year, which adds approximately $280,000 to our capital budget. This actually increases our annual capital budget by six per cent, which helps us cover unprecedented increases in construction costs, said Stradeski.
On the operating side, the increase is under inflation, he added.
This would work out to approximately $1.03 million in additional taxation revenues.
The impact to the average residential homeowner would be roughly $6.45 a month.
It was the recommendation of administration that the city publish the 2024 Operating and 2024/2025 Capital Budget report in its entirety on the City’s website for public review, and further that Administration bring a subsequent budget report and summary of feedback to the January 29, 2024 Council Meeting for adoption.
While the recommendation was moved by Council it quickly became apparent that there remained concerns with the operating side of things.
Councillor Chris Wyatt noted that during a recent non-public meeting as part of the budget process a position within public works has been identified that he noted had been vacant for five years and that taxpayers had been paying $120,000 annually for what was terms a ‘placeholder position’.
The unused dollars were ultimately placed into reserves as surplus.
“How do we budget $120,000 for a position not filled?” asked Wyatt.
City Manager Lonnie Kaal said she was not ready to talk about a personnel item in an open meeting of Council – even though there would be no specific employee mentioned with the position unfilled for years.
Kaal did add, “none of us like surprises,” which was the ‘placeholder position’. She said the position had remained on the book because “we thought we would need it again.” She also noted as part of a streamlining the position in question is now in the waterworks department.
Kaal also suggested the dollar amount was $103,000 but added when benefits attached to a wage were factored in it might reach $120,000.
The amount, in terms of the overall budget was also not great, said Kaal, adding if completely removed it would mean only about 0.2 per cent of the increase proposed.
Wyatt said that in his business world paying years for a vacant position would not go over well, and it was something Council left the December budget meeting expecting would be addressed before the budgets were ever presented in open Council.
As a result of the placeholder position issue it became apparent at least some of Council wanted the budget put on hold before being posted for public consumption.
Mayor Mich Hippsley said he was not ready for the budget to be released.
“I’m not satisfied. I don’t know why we’d sent it out if we’re not ready to approve it,” he said.
Hippsley said he felt Council needed another budget meeting before the budgets “go out for public consumption.”
Councillor Dustin Brears said the position, and the money set aside over a number of years was discussed, and he too thought it would be specifically addressed before the budget was brought to Council.
“I am surprised looking at the budget tonight,” he said, adding he was not ready to vote on it as presented.
Administration did point out Council could post the budget for public feedback without voting to approve it or not, pending feedback.
Coun. Randy Goulden suggested the public could see the document now even if some fine tuning was yet required.
“I believe our public is open to seeing what we’re doing around the Council table,” she said.
Kaal too was ready to let the public take a look, adding “I was of the impression Council was OK with the budget.” She said she was hesitant to hold up the entire budget approval process for the single ($120K) item.
Ultimately a motion to post the budgets – without approval – was lost on a tie three/three vote with Coun. Darcy Zaharia not in attendance.
The budgets are expected to be back before Council at its regular meeting Jan. 29, following more budgetary discussions.
