Letter: Should city councillors be full-time positions?

Given city council is in the process of the 2016 budget deliberations, I believe it’s appropriate that the taxpayers of the City of Greater Sudbury be aware that at least one of our councillors believes that a councillor’s position should be a full-time position with an annual remuneration of a minimum of $80,000.

A second councillor questioned whether the need is there for the City of Greater Sudbury council model to be based on full-time councillors. We are creeping up on that paradigm, but he/she didn’t feel we’re there yet.

One councillor has publicly stated he/she is going to ask council to hire a consultant to recommend a salary level for the next term. By my calculations, a salary increase to $80,000 for 12 councillors would cost the taxpayers some $540,000 annually, plus, of course, the costly one-time consultant fees.

Council changed the definition of an older adult from 55 to 65 years of age, effective Jan. 1.

By raising the age of eligibility by 10 years, the city expects to bring in an extra $175,000 in revenue, which will be added to the 2016 budget — about $130,000 from transit fares, $20,000 from increased user fees related to leisure services, as well as $25,000 from parking fees (seniors get a discount at certain municipal lots).

This change alone will increase costs for the group of citizens aged 55 to 65 years in the amount of $350,000 annually. This amount would still not cover councillors’ increased annual salaries load of some $540,000.

Where would the funding shortfall come from?

Should a councillor’s position be full time? Do we need 12 full-time councillors? Should the number of councillors be reduced if the position is changed to full time? It’s never too early to ask yourself these questions.

Bernie Beland
Greater Sudbury