Dear Editor,
This is in response to your Nov. 7 budget coverage, in which you mention the sheer size and difficulty for the average person to understand this document. The cynics among us assume (usually correctly) that this practice is similar to the small print in a sales contract. If you can’t understand it, it’s harder to question it, and history teaches us that Meaford budgets normally contain plenty of detail that nobody wants us to question.
You also quoted the deputy mayor, that council ‘can’t do very much about it’ (a massive tax increase). There’s plenty that council COULD do, perhaps a more accurate phrase would be ‘council won’t do very much.’ It continues to alarm me to see a council made up almost entirely of former or present business owners and managers turn a blind eye to inefficiencies, lack of productivity, and unnecessary spending. I can’t imagine this sort of behaviour would have been swept under the rug, or worse, defended, in their own businesses. So, as the elected taxpayer representatives, why is it acceptable now?
This budget, like most before it, is missing a couple basic practices: sharp pencils and belt tightening. This council receives an abundance of information from taxpayers, regarding potential savings, and drawing attention to inefficient practices, and none of it receives any discussion or consideration. The survey conducted by the municipality (containing some questions that led the respondent in the desired direction), got little response. This shouldn’t be interpreted as satisfaction among the residents, but more accurately, since input is so vigorously ignored, why bother?
A few glaring examples of wasteful spending in this budget, at a quick glance:
Library: I raised concern about this in the 2024 budget, but 2025 suggests a nearly 12% increase. Averaging out the library budget shows a daily cost of over $2,200 to operate, a frightfully high number for a building that serves a relatively small percentage of the population.
Enterprise: While Meaford is already guilty of possessing double the number of passenger vehicles of comparable municipalities (same number as Grey County), staff (with council blessing) chose to double down on wasting money a few years ago and disposed of all our vehicles and leasing even more. It’s been proven time and again to council that the advertised savings haven’t, or won’t happen. As of 2024, this program cost roughly $35,000 annually more than ownership, set to increase another $38,000 in 2025. Not once has this program come even close to the original quoted budgeted amount. Yet, we’re still stuck with it.
On a lesser point, the roads department would like a new roller for the graders, at $25,000. These units are very low maintenance, with few moving parts, and can last almost forever. We have three graders, which seem to be parked far too often in the summer (travel our gravel roads if you doubt me) and two rollers in good repair. Our existing units won’t need replaced, and with our minimal grader usage, we certainly don’t need one for each machine.
It’s all a matter of perspective. Anyone in business would view an increase such as the 21% suggested for what it is: unacceptable and not an option, and some hard decisions would be made in order to stay afloat (private enterprise doesn’t have the luxury of simply demanding more money). If taxpayers don’t raise the appropriate ruckus, though, I guarantee that after much apologetic hand-wringing, it’ll pass, and the inefficiencies will still survive. This nonsense needs to stop.
Bill Cameron, Bognor
