Town council approves 2023 budget

By Ron Giofu

Town council has approved the 2023 budget, but it wasn’t unanimous.

Council members voted 6-1 to approve this year’s budget, with the motion stating the 2023 Operating Budget was to be adopted with the 2023 total own purposes tax levy being $28,344,970 including $26,974,122 general levy and $1,370,849 special capital levy.

The 2023 five-year capital budget was also adopted with $27,863,400 in capital projects for 2023 with expenditures in years 2024 to 2027 approved in principle.

The lone vote against was made by Councillor Diane Pouget, who listed several reasons for her opposition. The first reason Pouget listed was related to the audit and finance committee, a body she said was still working under the terms of reference from four years ago.

“They didn’t appear before council to advise or answer any questions,” said Pouget.

Pouget also pointed out she voted against hiring a financial analyst, a project manager and IT support “that were hired anyway.” She added she voted against more money for the tourism department “but it passed anyway.”

Having up-to-date actuals during the budget deliberations was a concern Pouget also listed.

“Regular and special council meeting minutes are not being brought forward in a timely manner for approval. The delay is up to five months,” she said. “That is an abuse of taxpayers’ money.”

A financial analyst trainer was brought in from British Columbia Feb. 14, Pouget continued, and she believed someone would have been local. She also cited concerns with an in-camera meeting that was later voted to be released with distorted video and audio. Cutting of trees was another concern for Pouget.

Pouget said there was “a total neglect of former residents regarding Open Air” was cited by Pouget as was the removal of playground and tennis courts in Malden Centre and possibly a fire hall. Pouget added barriers were being erected for those with disability issues.

Councillor Don McArthur asked about the Feb. 14 in-camera meeting referenced by

Pouget, noting he wasn’t at that meeting due to work commitments. He said he didn’t understand how a vote was made in favour of going in-camera but also a desire to make the meeting’s content public.

“Why did you vote to go in-camera?” said McArthur.

Pouget said she was told they were going to an asset management meeting “and I didn’t think I was doing anything wrong.” Upon arrival, she said they had to go in-camera because there was no advertising for the meeting.

“If we went in-camera to protect the town, as soon as we came out of in-camera, we were going to make the audio and video public,” she said, adding there were audio and video issues. “The agreement was we were going to come out of in-camera, we would release the video so everyone could see our learning session.”

Mayor Michael Prue said the clerk said because it wasn’t advertised and because it was training, “it was more appropriate to go in-camera.” He said Pouget asked if it could be released publicly and he said “absolutely,” and council voted to release it publicly.

As for quality, the presenter could not be seen for the first portion due a screen being put up but “later on, there was more give and take not so much of council but of all the slides. That’s what we heard.”

McArthur said it was “strange” to go in-camera and later release it. If council wanted it public, he said council members should have voted against going in-camera.

“We had scheduled a training date and in the interest of absolute transparency, we wanted to make sure there was a recording, there would be minutes,” said clerk Kevin Fox. “That’s why we decided to make it a meeting and there was a motion to go in-camera. It was discussed that if council wished, they could vote to release the information and that’s what council did.”

Fox said if there was issues regarding quality, they can be addressed, but sometimes people don’t use microphones in-camera. He said the intent was to promote accountability and transparency. The exemption used to go in-camera was for training, something which he said is permissible under legislation.