Rosedale reveal budget details

Banner Staff

Neepawa Banner & Press

The Rural Municipality (RM) of Rosedale has released the details to its financial plan for 2023. Council went over the preliminary budget at a public hearing at the Beautiful Plains County Court House in Neepawa on Friday, May 5.

This year’s document sees a proposed budget of $3,049,358 being considered to cover the general operating fund. That’s an increase from the $2,162,232 initially budgeted for last year’s basic expenditures, and the $2,516,432 in actual spending.

The R.M’s projected mill rate for the year has been set at 11.081, an increase of around 3.5 per cent overall. The mill rate is a figure representing the amount per $1,000 of the assessed value of the property, which is used to calculate the amount of property tax.

From a financial standpoint, this means that the average property owner will pay $1,108 per $100,000 of their assessed property value.

Questions from the ratepayers

After the numbers were presented, there were several R.M. ratepayers who commented on the document and asked for clarification on a few items. The first speaker expressed concern related to some recent changes in the budget numbers, citing an addition of $500,000 to the final proposal. The CAO noted that the revised financial estimates are due to working off of the auditors financial statement, which were not assessable during the initial deliberation on the numbers.

Another R.M. resident spoke, and asked about spending related to the purchase of a Fire Department Pumper Truck, and whether it was a 2022 or 2023 budget expenditure. That purchase is listed in the 2023 numbers, as the R.M. only recently received possession of the vehicle. The total cost of the Pumper Truck purchase in the 2023 document is $90,000. The CAO reviewed that capital expenditure, as well as others, with the most notable of those including:

• Motor Grader - $415,000;

• Road 84N construction$120,000; and

•Landfill upgrades$90,000.

There are 12 total capital expenditures listed at a combined cost of $940,000. $530,000 of that cost will be borne by the general fund, and $410,000 by the reserves.

Another question brought up was related to the amount that’s been set aside for legal services for the R.M., as the person asked if that number shouldn’t be higher. The R.M. could not comment on whether or not that particular budget line should be more this year.

A few final comments were raised connected to the recent dismissal of the Public Works Supervisor. Council stated it cannot comment on dismissals as it is confidential, though one council member did indicated that it was not unanimous decision.