After months of deliberation on this year's budget, Orangeville council, sitting as its Finance and Administration committee, recommended approval Monday of one involving the expenditure of $16,692,400 - a 5.35 per cent increase from 2005 - which they did by a 5-2 vote.

The final tally for the "average" Orangeville homeowner, whose home was assessed at $221,300, is $1,528.90, an increase of $84.02 from last year.

Once you factor in the county portion ($921.55), and the education portion, ($584.23), the "average" resident will be paying $3,034.68 this year in property taxes, up $187.84 from last year's $2,846.84.

The capital portion of this year's budget was the focus of the discussion Monday night and remains the same as last year's at $1,010,000, which disappointed some councillors who would have liked to have seen it increased.

A few cuts were suggested during the meeting.

The first - ultimately voted down - was to decrease the public works resurfacing and patching portion of the budget to $40,000 from $80,000.

Appalled at the idea of simply just deferring costs until next year, Deputy Mayor Jim MacGregor said he couldn't support the motion or any others like it.

"We've been looking very hard to find permanent savings - like the library and permanent savings we just dealt with at the Tony Rose pool. These [the suggested cuts] are not permanent savings, these are penny-wise and poundfoolish because these will all come back to haunt us in a larger fashion next year," he said.

The deputy mayor continued, "If you tweak the capital budget, that means you've reduced the capital budget and then we have $100,000 less next year to put toward capital."

However, Councillor Warren Maycock, chair of the committee, argued if the money came out of the operating budget it would be a deferral, but if it came from the capital portion it would be a reduction.

Councillor Rob Strang agreed with the deputy mayor and said he didn't want to see items just deferred either.

Also in agreement was Councillor Doug Wilcox who said it was more a question of liability, since if potholes aren't repaired the Town may be liable for the damage caused. Councillor Strang added

there are some massive capital projects coming up in the following years and he doesn't think the Town will have the capital budget to do them. He stated they have to maintain the roads to extend their life as long as possible.

A motion to remove $15,000 from the "reduction of small tree pruning" budget and a motion to remove $31,500 from the "sidewalk maintenance and surface" budget were also defeated.

However, a study on senior housing needs for $8,000 was removed from the budget despite a contention by councillors Strang and Ken Manwell that there is a need for more seniors housing in town.

Councillor Manwell said that since the town's populace is aging this study is needed.

Councillor Strang noted there is a need for homes suited to seniors in Orangeville, as most homes now being built are two storeys.

At one point, Councillor Manwell wanted to know what guarantee there is that this year's budget will end up in a deficit like the last few years'. "We need to break even or have a surplus," he said.

Treasurer Wayne Church admitted the Town has had deficits for the last few years, but for a number of different reasons. He said that to try to prevent this happening again, finances will be looked at more closely, on a monthly basis.

Reports from department heads will be given to council that will include how they think the rest of the year will progress.

Deputy Mayor MacGregor suggested they should start on the 2007 budget after having a break from this year's, although they can't pass it because of the upcoming municipal election. "We can manage our affairs in a more proactive manner."

During this final round, councillors started taking shots at each other after a motion was made to reduce the capital budget, to bring the tax increase closer to inflation levels.

The heated debates on one another's reasons for certain actions, such as wanting to increase the capital budget or not approving the budget, were portrayed as occurring merely because it is an election year.

Councillor Maycock said some councillors who in past didn't mind reducing the capital budget were having difficulty doing so this year because of the election.

However, the deputy mayor said Councillor Maycock was just pandering to the electorate and they couldn't artificially reduce the budget.

Councillor Manwell agreed and said instead of deferring items they should be looking at the gasoline tax money to improve on capital allocation.

He added that the capital budget had fallen below the $1 million mark before and they were trying to get it back to where it should be so the streets don't crumble.

Councillor Maycock argued the Mill Street bridge construction had been deferred for 18 years and if it hadn't of been it would be depreciated by 18 years now.

But Councillor Gail Campbell's remark that she's always thought they have to maintain the capital budget or they'll lose it, and that they've now had 18 years of luck with the bridge had residents in the gallery laughing.

She added that it's an overdue project and it doesn't matter that it's an election year because she has always supported the capital budget going up and always will.

Councillor Strang commented that the capital budget is so inadequate that he couldn't support lowering it and has been wanting to increase it all along.

Mayor Drew Brown said he's heard from people who don't want a tax increase, but has heard from more people who are demanding streets be repaired.

The motion to reduce the capital budget was defeated.

The discussion on the priority of capital projects continues to be deferred and will be examined at next Monday's council meeting.