Building a Transparent and Responsible Budget for Our Community

I have always advocated that budget meetings should be held in public, not behind closed doors.

In prior years, the practice was to hold budget discussions (workshops) in closed session. I argued then, and still believe today, that openness is not only the law—it’s the cornerstone of public trust. I cited three separate municipal inspection reports, all of which clearly stated that municipal governments must conduct their budget meetings openly, moving into closed session only when alowed by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Since then, our council has made real progress. For the past three years, budget meetings have been open to the public. This hasn’t always been easy—public debates invite criticism—but that criticism is an important part of democracy. Transparency forces council to think harder, defend decisions, and stay focused on fiscal responsibility. The results speak for themselves: in the year when budgets were closed, residents faced the largest tax increase in recent memory. Since opening the process, we’ve worked harder to constrain spending and to recognize the financial challenges facing our community.

Service-Based Budgeting

One of the biggest shifts I, and others, have pushed for is transitioning to a levels-of-service–based budget. Administration is now working to build true cost accounting into our projects and service delivery. This effort has required major upgrades, including new financial software, but the long-term benefits are clear: future councils will know exactly what it costs to cut grass, plow snow, or clean streets at a granular level of detail.

With tools like GPS integrated into our trucks, mowers and grader, we’ll be able to track how our resources are being used in real time and for review and planning. That data will help us decide whether we are delivering services efficiently or whether alternatives—such as subcontracting, leasing, or buy new equipment—might be better.

Administration has done their part, tightening costs wherever possible while maintaining services. Now, it falls to elected officials to make the hard decisions about what level of service our community can afford.

Capital Planning and Infrastructure

While operational budgeting continues to improve, capital planning remains one of our biggest challenges. Our current 5 year capital plan is little more then a rolling wish list of projects and equipment replacements.  Our next council must plan and commit funds to the unglamorous but essential work of maintaining and replacing water lines, sewer pipes, sidewalks and roads.

For example, the centre two lanes of main streets are a provincial highway, but the curb, gutters, sidewalk, sewer line, water lines and even the parking is a municipal responsibility. Council needs to prepare and fund major repairs before the province will commit to repaving main street.  

Funding capital is a challenge for all municipalities, for too long, many municipalities in Alberta relied on provincial dollars for capital projects, and too often municipal council spent that money on new or higher services. Tangible Capital Asset reporting was implemented to make municipalities look at the deprecation of assets and plan for replacements.  

New provincial rules now require municipalities to contribute their share of local tax dollars toward capital spending. With the goal of pushing municipal councillors to properly plan and fund local upgrades without always coming back to provincial coffers. The province is forcing the use of local tax dollars by cutting grants like MSI and replaced it with the new LGFF with 30% less funds flowing to local municipalities.  

The path forward is clear: we must aim to cover at least 30% of the cost of capital replacement through municipal taxes and savings, matched with 70% funding from provincial and federal dollars. It isn’t easy, but it’s the only sustainable way forward.