Council Update: Austerity or Not?

Council’s budget deliberations are well underway at City Hall. February is the busiest time of the year for Councillors as budget meetings fill up several additional days each week. So far, Council has heard from the operational departments (Planning, Parks and Rec, Public Works, Transit) and as of yesterday, we have concluded our review of the safety departments (Fire, Police, Community Safety).

The department-by-department examination is really important because the way that HRM budgets are made is unlike what happens at other orders of government. Federal and Provincial budgets are prepared in secret and are presented fully formed to the public in the legislature. As a result, they only change if there is significant push back on some portion of the budget that causes the government to change its mind. HRM doesn’t operate like that. Our budget is constructed in public, which means that you get to see and hear about both the ideas that go forward and the ones that Council leaves by the wayside. The public has a chance to influence the creation of the budget as it goes forward instead of fighting to make changes after decisions are already made.

This year is proving to be really challenging as Council grapples with the prospect of a 10% increase in the tax bill (combined impact of assessment and tax rate) or, alternatively, major service cuts that people will feel. There is no third option of having stuff and not paying for it.

In preparing their submissions, Council directed staff to identify potential cuts in all departments. Staff returned with some “green” items that are baked into the staff proposal (non-controversial, mostly administrative in nature), some “yellow” items that Council could consider and that staff weren’t offering a recommendation on, and some “red” items that staff identified as options, but aren’t recommending because of potential negative impacts. Yellow items have briefing notes, but red items staff haven’t done the work on just yet, and would need more review before being finalized. Councillors have also identified a number of potential areas where we could spend more on priority programs and projects. Items that Council wants to consider going forward with (yellow or red cuts, or additional spending) are moved to the Budget Adjustment List (BAL) for further review. On March 4 and 5, Council will go over everything on the BAL to decide what items are actually going ahead. BAL review is always one of the most important days on the Council schedule!

So what has happened so far? Well, things took a dramatic turn on Friday afternoon!

Leadership?
Late in the day on Friday, Councillor Cleary threw a curve ball into the whole budget process. He moved a motion to the BAL that asked staff to come back with a proposal to cut $40 million from the budget to achieve a flat tax rate. Council accepted the motion 11 – 4. I tried to defer it till Wednesday morning with an ask that colleagues take a second look at everything we’ve already received from staff so far, but I was unsuccessful.

The result of Councillor Cleary’s motion is staff will now go back and assess what cuts can be made. The big problem here is that staff has already done a major chunk of this work! As each department has presented their budget to Council, they have offered potential cuts to consider (the yellows and reds) and Council has moved a few of them, which if adopted without including any of the extra spending options, would lower the tax bill to 9.2% from the starting 10.9%.

The problem for Councillors that really want to lower the tax bill as their main priority is that not enough cuts have been moved to the BAL. That isn’t staff’s fault, it’s theirs. Basically, what’s happening is Councillors who really don’t like the potential tax bill also don’t want to move unpopular cuts. So instead of Council making choices, Cleary’s motion will blindly have staff fill up the BAL for us. Kicking this to staff will also give the public much, much less time to react to whatever is proposed on March 4 and no advance signal as to how likely Council is to adopt any particular proposal because there will have been no pre-debate on any of the items coming forward. Cleary’s motion gets staff to do Council’s job and it makes the budget process less accountable and harder for the public to understand and influence. To me, it’s a pretty stark abdication of leadership. A poor choice at 4:45 on a Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend.

I really don’t know what the political point of this ultimately is. When staff’s list comes forward as part of the BAL, Councillors will still have to own their choices. I guarantee that Councillors like myself, Morse, and White who lean more towards the protecting city services side of the spectrum will force a debate on lots of individual items. There will be no omnibus adoption of a slate of impactful cuts that folks can hide behind. Administrative Order 1 allows any Councillor to ask for combined motions to be voted on individually. We’re going to end up voting on cuts one by one like we always do. Each of us will have a record of what unpopular cuts we are okay with. There is no ducking the coming moment. Whether it’s now, or in March, each of us on Council will have to decide what we value and publicly stake that position out. What services are important, what we’re prepared to give up, and what level of taxation we’re willing to defend. Staff can’t do that work for us. No one gets to hide from that difficult set of choices and their political consequences… although we can apparently hit snooze on the problem by offloading it onto staff until the BAL.

So what might be on staff’s mystery list? In debate, staff indicated that a lot of the yellow and red items that have already been presented to Council and that no one moved, would likely now come back as part of Cleary’s motion. So if you were breathing a sigh of relief that snow clearing standards were left untouched, that bus and ferry service reductions weren’t moved by anyone, that waste collection wasn’t slashed, the bad news is – SURPRISE! – all of that could now still be in play. Here’s a list of items that were presented to Council that we didn’t vote on, but might now come back on March 4 (staff’s original yellow and red coding included):

Transit

• Eliminate free transit for volunteers at events ($144,500)
• Permanently reduce the Alderney Ferry to 30 minute service ($1,222,100)
• Cancel the lowest performing bus routes ($4,023,000)
• Eliminate Sunday and Holiday service ($5,786,800)
• Eliminate transit service after 10:00 pm ($5,093,300)

Parks

• Reduce Affordable Access Grant funding from 100% of program fees to 95% ($150,000)

Public Works

• Increase the standard for clearing bus stops from 24 to 48 hours ($750,000).
• Eliminate sidewalk snow clearing in residential neighbourhoods and hand that responsibility back to adjacent property owners ($8,000,000).
• Eliminate curbside collection of bulky items, i.e. you would have to drive your old couch to Otter Lake yourself ($333,000).
• Reduce the number of mobile household depots for hazardous waste ($96,000)
• Eliminate seasonal summer positions in enhanced maintenance areas (Downtown Dartmouth, Downtown Halifax) ($460,000)
• Reduce the state of good repair for streets ($1,400,000)
• Cancel the senior snow clearing program ($600.000)

But wait, that’s not all. There’s more. This coming week, Council will hear from the Library and HRM’s administrative departments. What’s identified in their submission as potential cuts is also impactful and could now arrive on the BAL whether Council votes for them this week or not (Council direction on individual items may be redundant since staff get to add whatever they want to the BAL for us). Here’s some of what else might be coming, with red items still unknown since the department presentations where the red cuts are presented, aren’t available yet:

Library

• Cut the Library collection ($290,800)

Fiscal Services

• Raise taxes on non-profits in the tax relief program by 10% ($955,400)
• Eliminate the living wage requirement for HRM contracts ($1,250,000)
• 10% reduction to all grant programs, including: Arts, Community Grants, Special Events, Affordable Housing, Heritage, Museums, Rural Transit, low-income tax relief, Business Improvement Districts, Anti-Black Racism, Councillor District Activity and District Capital ($1,498,300)
• Reduce funding for HRM’s climate change plan, HalifACT, by 1/3 ($6,000,000)

Finance/IT/HR/Legal

• Defer implementing HRM’s risk management program ($193,800)
• Increase HRM fee revenue for everything that HRM charges for through the Finance Department from tax certificates to ballots for area rates ($1,005,100)
• End HRM’s Bridging the Gap program that allows HRM to hire newly graduated students on internship ($870,000)
• End IT’s work towards allowing hybrid participation by Councillors in Regional Council meetings ($225,800)

Plus more unknown red items! Will Council opt for austerity in the end? We’ll have to wait and see what happens on March 4.

What Can You Do?
If you have feedback you want to share with Council, you can write us individually or via clerks@halifax.ca (individual emails are more likely to get read). You’re also able to appear before Council in-person or virtually on February 18 and March 4. Presentations start just after 9:30. Contact clerks@halifax.ca to sign up to present.

So with Council abdicating leadership for a few weeks, what did we actually decide on the rest of the budget? We did move a few items all by ourselves to the BAL. Below is a rundown of the key debates from my perspective

Transit:
Council has had a lot of discussion around transit. Transit is rightfully seen as a Council priority as it, combined with active transportation, are our only options to get people out of their cars and alleviate congestion.

Fares
Probably the most significant item that Council advanced to the BAL is the potential for a fare increase. A fare increase of $0.25 – $0.50 was moved to the BAL in a 9-8 vote (I voted against). This was a staff red item so a detailed analysis hasn’t been completed. In discussing the fare increase staff indicated they had it as a red item because of the fare increase that already occurred in 2023 and a preference for raising fares in concert with future planned service improvements. The 9-8 split on the fare increase is as down the middle as we get so whether this goes forward in the end is very much an open question.

Service Cuts
Councillor Hendsbee put forward scrapping the free ferry service on Canada Day and Natal Day. I didn’t support this. It would save some money ($0.47 on the tax bill for the average home), but I think there is value in providing free holiday service in promoting transit, and in reducing drinking and driving. On Canada Day and Natal Day, the atmosphere at the Ferry is joyful. There is some value in providing those experiences and for the small amount of money it costs, I think it’s worthwhile. Council agreed voting down cutting the two free ferry days 4 – 11. Whether this comes back or not via Cleary’s motion or stays off as something that we’ve already voted on I don’t know. Procedurally it should require 2/3rds as it was already voted on, but I’m not sure how that might play out. Any of the cuts that Council already gave direction on might reappear now via staff’s mystery list.

Council also considered eliminating the program to provide free shuttles to support special events ($129,400). This idea was voted down 12 – 3 (I voted in favour). This too, may or may not come back.

Transit Improvements
Council also deviated from staff’s suggestions to consider some potential transit improvements. It has been before the Transportation Standing Committee, but hasn’t been to Regional Council yet, but staff have prepared a new core service plan for transit that would see a number of improvements to transit service over the next several years. The plan will require buying more buses and adding more staff. Due to budget limitations, staff proposed to delay improvements that will cost more money till next year. Budget wise, next year isn’t likely to be any easier than this year in terms of HRM’s finances. Councillor Morse proposed that rather than waiting, that Council should consider advancing the first year of the new transit plan now. The cost is considerable though at $13,000,000 for new buses and $1,500,000 in staffing. Council voted 11 – 6 (I voted in favour) to add this to the BAL for further review in March. This has a lot of value, but it also might be much more than we can afford right now.

Public Works:
Public Works is one of HRM’s bigger departments whose work is very visible to residents. Public Works manages roads, parking, and waste collection. Parking dominated much of Public Work’s time before Council.

Parking
The main subjects of debate for the Public Works budget turned out to be parking. Staff identified increasing parking rates at Metro Park ($150,000) and increasing street parking rates ($2,020,000) as potential options for Council to consider to raise additional revenue without impacting the tax rate.

The Metro Park rate increase was a relatively easy one for Council as Metro Park’s rates are currently priced below those of other Downtown parking garages including Scotia Square, Queen’s Marquee, Nova Centre, Prince George, and the Harbourfront. The only parking garages with lower rates are Purdy’s Wharf and the Casino. The Metro Park increase was advanced to the BAL unanimously.

The streetside parking is a bit more complicated. Within the $2,020,000 increase were a bunch of sub options, which included:

• Adding paid parking to weekday evenings (increasing the cutoff time from 6:00 to 8:00)
• Adding paid parking on Saturday and Sundays
• Increase parking rates by 25%
• Increase commuter parking passes by $20

Council did some picking and choosing of what to advance to the BAL on street parking. We advanced increasing the cost of commuter parking passes 12 – 4 (I voted in favour). A jurisdictional scan of other cities in Canada revealed that few charge for evening parking and few charge on Sundays and so Council relied on that in voting both of those options down. Sunday parking failed 6 – 10 and evening parking failed in a tie 8 – 8 (I voted against both). Most other Canadian cities do charge on Saturdays though and so that was moved to the BAL 15 – 1 (I voted in favour). The Mayor did amend the Saturday motion to allow for the first hour to be free (Winnipeg allows similar with the first two hours free). I’m not sure that Saturday parking is worth the bother with the first hour being free, but we’ll see what comes back on that. Commuter parking and Saturday parking will be back to Council as part of the BAL. The parking options not chosen might reappear as part of the staff mystery list.

The increase in paid parking was a bit more divisive. There was a lot of interest in raising rates, but it wasn’t something I could support at this time. Councillor White made a motion around parking benefit districts a few months back and that work is scheduled to come back to Council this year. The idea of parking benefit districts is that a portion of parking revenues collected in an area would be used to reinvest in that area. This is basically how the Halifax Waterfront was built over the years as parking was a major part of the Waterfront Development Corporations revenues. I think increasing parking rates should happen as part of the implementation of benefit districts so that folks in Downtown Halifax and Downtown Dartmouth can directly see some portion of parking revenues coming back to their communities. This would change the current situation where many folks Downtown just see it as a tax that their customers have to pay that their competitors in the business parks and suburbs don’t have to contend with. Parking rates was moved to the BAL 9 – 7 (I voted against).

Finally on parking, Council opted to build directly into the budget the addition of four new parking officers and one supervisor to enhance HRM’s enforcement. This is kind of a no brainer as HRM will be better able to enforce parking rules and respond to complaints and, through fines, the additional staff will pay for themselves. HRM projects that the additional staff will generate a surplus over their salaries of $62,000 in 2026 rising to $168,000 in 2027. The parking officer vote passed unanimously and since the motion was to build it in, it won’t come back for further consideration on the BAL. It’s done.

Additions (Road Safety)
Council also coloured outside the lines with an addition of a motion around gravel road paving, which has been a point of contention for some of my rural colleagues for several years. Council approved a briefing note, so gravel roads will be considered further as part of the BAL.

The more significant potential addition was in response to a motion I made around road safety. With an increasing (not decreasing) number of people being injured and killed on HRM’s streets, HRM’s Road Safety Plan is going in the wrong direction.

When the Plan’s annual report was before Council in the fall, I moved an amendment requesting both short and long-term options to speed up implementation. What staff came back with was some additional capital spending that could be implemented this year and some additional staffing to enable HRM to permanently scale-up the program. The total cost for 2026 is $960,000. The additional measures HRM could take are:

• 10 additional crosswalk upgrades to rapid flashing beacons ($70,000)
• 5 additional crosswalk signal upgrades ($150,000)
• 5 additional intersection upgrades to accessible signals ($100,000)
• More durable pavement parkings for crosswalks (exact number unknown as this is contracted) ($300,000)
• Accelerate design improvements at problematic intersections by hiring more consultants ($200,000)
• Add two additional staff to the Road Safety Team to enable scaling up the program over the long-term ($140,000 in 2026, $281,000 for full year salaries in 2027 along with a potential increase in capital funding of $3,000,000 in 2027)

I think this is very much worth doing. Beside it being just the right thing to do, there is a real cost to all the injuries and deaths that occur on HRM’s streets every year. The trend lines around Road Safety clearly indicate that what HRM is doing right now isn’t adequate and we have to find ways to do better. Council voted to add the additional Road Safety measures to the BAL 10 – 4.

Parks and Rec
Parks and Rec is another HRM department that has a very direct impact on people’s day-to-day lives. Parks and Rec manages parkland, programming in community facilities, and a number of community partnerships. Council already built into the budget back into the fall some modest enhancements to the Parks and Rec department in the form of funding for port-a-potties, security, lifeguards at rural beaches, advancing the museum strategy, and preparing the Dartmouth collection for relocation from the current warehouse location in Burnside.

Parks and Rec Fees
The points of contention in the Parks and Rec budget were around rec fees. Parks and Rec went through a detailed fee review a few years ago to reset Parks and Rec fees on a cost-recovery basis with specific subsidies for youth, non-profits and low-income residents. Under HRM’s fee bylaw, Parks and Rec fees rise at 2% a year, which hasn’t kept up with rising costs. Parks and Rec identified an option for Council to consider that would raise fees by 3% for most programs, with ice rentals rising by 11%. The larger increase in ice rentals is because costs for ice have risen much more sharply and need a more stark reset. I didn’t support the rise in ice fees because I think it should be staggered over 2-3 years rather than pushing this cost onto sports organizations all at once. Council disagreed though and the ice rental increase went to the BAL 11 – 4 (I voted against) while the 3% increase was moved 11 – 3 (I voted in favour).

Contribution Agreements
Council also voted to add funding reductions to Discover Halifax, the Discovery Centre, and the Lake District Recreation Association, which total potentially $90,000. I supported adding the reductions to the Discovery Centre and Lake District to the BAL, but voted against reductions to Discover Halifax. Discover Halifax is funded jointly through HRM and through the marketing levy (a tax on hotel rooms). In recent years, the marketing levy was raised and that increase was supported by HRM’s hotels. Key for the industry’s agreement to increase the marketing levy was an understanding that HRM would increase municipal funding as well. Reducing HRM’s funding now, to me, feels like HRM not living up to our side of the agreement. Staff indicated that the reduction would be for this year only, which means that whatever we cut here will return as a cost pressure next year. Cutting this for 2026 with an expectation that we would put the funding back next year just seems silly. It’s not a sustainable ongoing reduction. It’s a relatively small amount, $70,000, and, to me, HRM’s integrity as a credible partner is worth at least that. The Discover Halifax reduction moved to the BAL 10 – 6, while the Discovery Centre passed 13 – 3 and Lake District 14 – 2.

Public Safety:
HRM’s public safety department takes in Police, Fire, and the Community Safety. From back in the fall, Council already added additional firefighters in Sackville and additional RCMP officers for a community policing office in Eastern Passage to the BAL. Council hadn’t really had a chance to look under the hood of the Community Safety Division though.

Community Safety
The Community Safety group takes in HRM’s non-police, non-fire responses, to community safety. This is where work on alternative approaches to safety happens and includes HRM’s response to homelessness, advancing work on food security, emergency management, bylaw enforcement, crossing guards, and policy work.

The main items for discussion in the Community Safety budget concerned two proposed projects: a stabilization centre, and a day centre. The stabilization centre, aka sobering centre, was envisioned as a facility where intoxicated individuals could sober up in a healthcare setting rather than a police holding cell (recall that a resident died in police custody wearing a spit hood a few years ago). The day centre is meant to be a facility where the homeless can go during the day when many shelters close their doors to access supports and programs. Both projects were planned to be cost-shared with the Province.

Unfortunately, it has been struggle over the last two years to get them both launched because of a lack of space. The reality is that the private sector will pretty much not rent to government if the use involves marginalized folks. The only private-sector spaces that HRM and the Province have been able to secure for these types of uses have been spaces owned by developers who don’t have a short-term use for their property and don’t really care what happens to it because their eventual goal is to redevelop. This is the story behind the Bridge, St. Paul’s Church, the Waverley Inn etc. It has been impossible to get other spaces. So staff offered a budget option to cancel both projects.

I’m really concerned about this, particularly as it relates to the day centre. HRM has been able to divert a lot of intoxication calls and staff, therefore assess the need for a stablization centre has decreased. The same can’t be said for a day centre. The number of homeless people living outside has gone down this year, but the overall number of homeless continues to grow. More people are living in shelters and many shelter spaces close during the day. The need for a place for the homeless to go hasn’t gone away. For goodness sakes, just this week a woman was found dead in her tent at the Barrington Street Greenway (her obit here is absolutely worth a read). We have had people die outside every winter. This social crisis is changing, but it isn’t over!

Rather than giving up on the day centre, staff should have returned to Council with a report indicating that the original plan wasn’t going to work. A good staff report would have identified alternatives, such as boosting programming at libraries (our defacto day centres), or expanding street outreach, or accepting that leasing space from the private-sector wasn’t going to ever work and that we should instead buy property, or going into actual detail as to what the potential alternative arrangements might be with the Province. We didn’t get anything like that, all that was available was a one paragraph briefing note with no options or alternatives. This is terrible governance and what was more shocking to me was Council was apparently totally fine with it! Councillor Cuttell moved to cancel the project and Council voted to put it on the BAL 14 – 3 (Hinch, Morse, and myself voted no). The funds will instead likely go towards reducing the tax bill.

I find it difficult to imagine Council canceling other projects or programs with so little information or so little care for finding alternative approaches. It’s hard not to see this as being let go of so easily with so little due diligence or examination because it involves services to the homeless. I find it very hard to imagine HRM walking away from anything else in such a cavalier manner. The day centre is on the BAL and based on the strong vote against it, it is almost certainly dead even though there is no alternative plan to meet the needs that the facility was going to fill (or at least no plan for Council to consider). The burden of trying to paper over this gap, therefore, will keep falling on our Libraries, police will keep getting calls to deal with the problems that are caused by people in survival mode who have nowhere to go, and impacts to the wider community will continue.

Food Security
Forgot this one in my first draft! The Mayor moved that HRM ends its partnership with the Ecology Action Centre, which would end the Halifax Food Council. How devastating this would be for the JustFood program and the non-profits that have been working on this I don’t know, but suffice it to say it won’t be good. HRM’s funding goes to the Indigenous and African Nova Scotian food councils so from staff’s response the impact would be disproportionately felt by this historically marginalized communities. There will be a briefing note to come. Council voted to add this cut to the BAL 9 – 8.