In advance of the coming civic elections and as a public service, I'd thought I would post the Operational/Capital Budget numbers for years 2009 - 2011 and remind everyone who voted which way
Update:
One individual has asked me to post the budgets for 2004 -2008 for comparison sakes (2004 is the earliest budget document that is online) and the blog post has been amended to reflect years 2004-2011
2004:
Operations - $12,155,875.00
Capital - $7,761,055.00
Total Budget - $19,916,930
No member of Council opposed with a 0% tax increase
2005:
Operations - $12,804,257
Capital - $8,224,497
Total Budget - $21,028,754.00
No member of Council opposed with a 0% tax increase
2006:
Operations - $13,672,127
Capital - $10,857,623
Total Budget - $24,529,750
No member of Council opposed with a 2.1% tax increase
2007:
Operations - $13,986,922
Capital - $15,748,347
Total Budget - $29,735,269.00
No member of Council opposed with a 3.9% tax increase
2008:
Operations - $15,428,908
Capital - $12,838,746
Total Budget - $28,267,654
No member of Council opposed with a 3.9% tax increase
2009:
Operations - $16,358,353
Capital - $13,990,034
Total Budget of $30,348,387.00
Property Tax Increase of 2.5% which was supported by all WL Council members but Councillor SPS Rathor
2010:
Operations - $17,589,150
Capital - $13,850,235
Total Budget - $31,439,385.00
Property Tax Increase of 3.5% which was supported by all WL Council members but Councillor SPS Rathor
2011:
Operations - $18,327,640
Capital - $3,672,180
Total Budget - $21,999,820.00
Property Tax Increase of 3.0% which was supported by all WL Council members but Councillor SPS Rathor
5 comments:
How about as a further public service you give us the numbers for the two terms before that?
Would be interesting to see # of city residents correlated to these. hmm..
Hi Tyler:
Here's the City population by year
2004 - 11,301
2005 - 11,140
2006 - 11,082
2007 - 11,107
2008 - 11,144
2009 - 11,104
2010 - 11,002
2011 - 10,744
Hope this helps
Steve
Thanks for the stats! So 5 out of the last 7 years saw a DECREASE in population base? Obviously existing taxpayers are going to be carrying an increased burden from that aspect alone, but increased spending makes it even worse. I'm going to need coffee before trying to process this. (Especially on a day I learn we are planning to spend new money on an indoor turf facility...)
Hi Tyler:
Thanks for your comment...
I should point out that the money for the indoor turf facility (business/concept plan) is not new money but already budgeting for
However - if the question you are asking is - should we be doing this planning at a time of decreasing population numbers - then the answer is clearly no especially with a high long term debt load of $17.6 million in the City and any new long term debt invoked by the Regional District for recreation facilities like an Indoor Turf Facility/local Recreation Complex will be borne by both City Taxpayers and taxpayers living in fringe areas (bordering the City of WL) of CRD Electoral Areas D, E,F
Post a Comment