Here are a few things to think about while Vancouver city staff grinds down the last $20 million "gap" in next year's budget.

A budget is the most important political statement a government makes. It's an outline of its priorities. And this particular budget is the one the Vision council will have as it heads into the 2011 election.

So for starters: You may be surprised to know that homeowners will get a two per cent tax increase even if the hardworking bean counters in the finance department manage to nibble that $20 million gap down to zero. And if that happens, commercial property owners will get a tax cut.

Check Appendix 1 of the city's preliminary estimates. The "tax shift," as this is referred to, shifts the tax burden from commercial properties to residential at a rate of "one per cent of the overall tax levy per year." This translates as a two per cent increase for homeowners.

The shift has been going on in an irregular fashion over the past several administrations.

It was a notable point of disagreement between Mayor Gregor Robertson (pro-shift) and Raymond Louie (anti-shift) when they campaigned to be Vision's mayoral candidate. Robertson won that argument when he won the nomination. And it's an issue in which COPE chooses to differentiate itself.

But that's only one contentious issue in the coming year's budget.

This council intends to do more with less. By that I mean they are intent on reducing the size of the city staff while still promising the same essential services. (Don't hold your breath for that though.)

For a number of years up to 2009, the number of city workers increased, as Vision Coun. Geoff Meggs pointed out, probably faster than the rate of the city's population growth. That "flattened" in 2009. And in 2010 it took a turn downward thanks to a hiring freeze, a cut to contract and part-time workers and a handful of layoffs.

That trend will continue. As the city's Chief Financial Officer Patrice Impey notes, over the next five years about 1,000 of the city's approximately 6,500 full-time workers will head into retirement.

This will present the city with an "opportunity" to possibly eliminate those jobs and re-organize the work done by those folks. There will also continue to be limitations of contracting out and part-time work.

You should also know the Vancouver Services Review, the program that raised a ruckus as city manager Penny Ballem set about centralizing power and eliminating duplication across the system, has so far failed to meet its targets.

For all the grunting and groaning that went on to cut $10 million from operations, they didn't even get halfway there. Ballem says they hope to make up the difference this year.

Where significant savings were made was in what is called "supply chain strategic sourcing." Basically, this means that instead of each department placing an order for desks and chairs all the ordering was consolidated. That saved more than $8 million. But most of that was a savings in the capital budget, not operations.

One other headache with which the city is struggling with some success is the chronically high absentee rate. It costs the city about $21 million a year. "It is higher," says Impey, "than the public service average." At the outset of this exercise last year, it was an average of 15.7 days per employee per year which includes employees on long-term disability as well as those who may take a day off here or there to run personal errands. It has been lowered to 15.1. That saves the city about $800,000 a year. Plans are to decrease that absentee number.

Yet as interesting as those budget details may be, it comes down to this: Are we getting the government we can afford, one that meets our needs and one we are willing to re-elect?

agarr@vancourier.com