Change in council benefits package could prove too costly

It was revealed Monday night that council will have to find an extra $16,800, in addition to its current councillor benefit budget, if the amended bylaw that will see them get their health benefits package paid for is passed July 26.
And finding that money may be the difference in whether it’s passed at all.
“If everybody signed on to the plan, the cost would go over the benefits budget and the money would have to be found somewhere,” Mayor Dan Onichuk said Tuesday.
“In the last financial statement to council, it shows council expenditures have been kept down. We’ve really cut back on travel, for instance,” he added.
As such, the mayor said it’s quite possible money could be transferred from other council expenditures budget line items (such as travel and public relations) to the benefits budget line item to make up for the cost of the benefits over and above that budget’s limit.
“As far as the way the vote goes [July 26], we’ll have to wait and see. A lot can happen in two weeks,” he remarked.
Mayor Onichuk noted he did not bring the subject of remuneration back to the table for reconsideration at the June 28 council meeting, but he did tell Coun. Neil Kabel he’d vote in favour of discussing it again at that time.
“When the previous council discussed changing the benefits back around this time last year, I was sympathetic to how that impacted Coun. Gilson and Coun. Kabel,” the mayor said.
“I can understand that there are people who think we’re talking about a 36 percent raise. But that’s not what it is—the councillors are only trying to get back the 36 percent of their salary that was taken away from them,” he stressed.
Coun. Rick Wiedenhoeft said that until Monday night’s council meeting, he wasn’t aware the 2004 benefits budget would not cover benefits that would be granted by the amended bylaw up for vote July 26.
“It’s my opinion that if the money is not in the budget, I will not seek any increase in remuneration,” said Coun. Wiedenhoeft, adding if the bylaw ended up getting passed, council still could agree to delay any increase in remuneration until the 2005 budget.
He added council “shouldn’t be touching other line items in the budget” to shift funds to cover the estimated $25,000 it would cost to cover all members of council’s benefits.
But Coun. Wiedenhoeft also stressed he still felt there was an unfairness between the way benefits were handled for previous councils and the current one—particularly for councillors who’ve been re-elected and sat on both.
While she hopes it doesn’t happen at all, Coun. Tannis Drysdale said that if the majority of council ends up voting in favour of the amended bylaw July 26, they likely will end up drawing the shortfall from another line item in the budget—something that, in this case, should be avoided.
“I think there will always be circumstances that come up, that are out of our control, that could cause us to go over on a line item,” she remarked. “But when the circumstances are in our control, it’s inappropriate.”
The financial situation with regard to benefits was revealed Monday after Coun. Drysdale, who was not at the June 28 meeting when council brought the remuneration issue back to the table for reconsideration, asked the question she said she would have asked had she been there in the first place—is there enough money in the budget to pay for benefits if they were reinstated?
Treasurer Peggy Dupuis answered that council has roughly $15,000 in the 2004 budget for councillor benefits.
About $3,000 of that already has been spent this year in payments to the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS), Canada Pension Plan, Ontario Health Tax, and Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) for the mayor and council, with another $3,000 or so to come out by the end of the year.
Dupuis noted this leaves a balance of about $8,300.
If all six councillors and the mayor were to get benefits packages, with compensation being retroactive to Dec. 1, 2003, it would equal about $25,000, she noted.
“If everybody took it, we would be over-budget by $16,800 and change,” said Dupuis. “If it was for half-a-year [i.e., not retroactive to Dec. 1, 2003], we’d be over by about $5,000.”
Dupuis said yesterday that if council chose to do so, “there’s all sorts of avenues they could go” in finding money to pay for the benefits, but added she’s not yet been approached about providing any of these avenues for councillors.