Woolwich’s largely rookie council – only the mayor returned from the previous term, while Coun. Bonnie Bryant served previously – got a crash course in budget-ease Monday night, the first in a series of deliberations around the 2023 budget.

Just weeks into the position, they’ve had a large, sometimes convoluted document dumped in their laps, full of language justifying ever-increasing expenditures and tax hikes. Nowhere in the document is spelled out the dangers of exponential spending and the impacts of compounding. There’s also no mention of the “just say no” option.

Also missing is any case for zero-based budgeting, forcing bureaucrats and their ostensive bosses (councillors) to justify every penny. Assume the budget is zero dollars, and then add from there. That’s not going to happen. Instead, we’ll get tax increases, with rationales about maintaining services. The argument that people want services has already been trotted out, as it always is, with little backing to support that assertion.

We’re certain to hear more dubious justifications such as pointing to other municipalities eyeing large tax hikes. In Woolwich, as with other jurisdictions in the region, there’s no talk of cuts to administrative costs, payroll cuts and management layoffs to reflect both the pandemic-led downturn, skyrocketing inflation and overall fiscal reality, the latter long absent from government considerations.

What we did hear a great deal about Monday night was the infrastructure deficit, with runaway costs for road and bridge projects. A longstanding infrastructure levy makes up 1.5 percentage points of a proposed 8.5 per cent increase in property taxes.

Woolwich has been setting aside more money for a rainy day – i.e. the coming infrastructure storm. It’s been allocating some surplus funds to reserves, and has in place a special infrastructure levy: it’s another tax, but with the money allocated for a real need rather than being flushed away. In that vein, however, the township has done little to rein in its operating budget in order to make a real dent in the deficit rather than taxpayers’ wallets. The extra funds set aside are a good start, but they have not kept up with the growing list of projects. Even at today’s estimates – real costs are likely to be much higher, as there’s a history of being well off the mark with forecasts – the township is losing ground.

Woolwich is not alone in that regard. Despite plenty of lip service, governments continue to do very little in the way of long-term planning, let alone actual follow-through. The township is somewhat ahead of the curve, even if progress is limited.

At the municipal level there’s always been an expectation that senior levels of government would come through with the money to pay for the bulk of infrastructure projects. Now, with budget woes of their own – exacerbated by the pandemic – the province and the federal government have empty coffers, though Ottawa in particular has not been averse to massive borrowing, forcing future taxpayers to cover the costs of today’s spending.

In that light, now is the time for municipalities to rein in spending, cutting that which doesn’t directly benefit the public. It’s a needs-versus-wants situation, with councillors having to be particularly aware of real versus stated needs.

Rising capital costs can be offset by cuts to operations – if it’s not essential, it should be on the chopping block. That doesn’t mean it goes, but it needs to be justified. History shows that there’s been little in the way of earnest justification for spending decisions.

What’s really important at this stage is that councillors know they call the shots. Setting the tone early in this term of council will help ensure the people – i.e. those that the elected officials actually represent – see better governance.