The matter of whether Prince Albert should adopt a base tax was raised, even though it wasn't on the agenda, at the last council meeting. It's come up several times over the past nine years that I've been on council, including about eighteen months ago with this current council; once again, it's back.
The idea behind the base tax seems relatively simple - city services cost a certain amount each year, so the fairest thing to do is to divide the cost equally among all residences - that would be fair, right? However, the principle followed in most taxation tends to be more of a sliding scale - assessments consider that, if your home has a higher value, your tax level is higher, because you can probably afford to pay more. It's the same principle behind income tax - you make more money, not only do you pay more tax, but your income is taxed at a higher rate.
In this way, services can be provided to everybody, but at rates that recognize the basic inequities of our lives. About the only tax that I can think of that is applied fairly is sales tax - if you buy something at a certain price, you pay the same tax as someone else who buys the same item, even if they make way more money than you do. And even this is evened out somewhat by the GST rebate for lower income earners - I've never received this, but both my children have, even though I've paid more GST than they have over the course of a year.
I can get pretty passionate about the base tax, because the arguments that are used rely heavily on generalizations, and can start to make some rather cruel assumptions about lower income areas of the city. For example, I've heard (and the claim was made on the local paper's web-site) that people in lower income areas should be paying more, since that's where all the crime occurs. What about the people who live in these areas who aren't criminals? How is this fair to them? I'm pretty sure that police and fire services get called to all areas of the city. I've even called the police a few times myself, for matters ranging from a young kid breaking through the screen on the front door late one night, to a noisy neighbourhood party. I probably could have dealt with these matters myself, but the police are professionals, and, like the rest of the city, I count on and appreciate their help.
I guess that a truly fair system would be to just track police and fire calls, and bill people accordingly. Of course, then people might hesitate before calling, or decide to take matters into their own hands, which could result in even worse problems. And then, our taxes pay for far more than just police and fire services. What about the city's support of institutions such as the golf course, the Rawlinson Centre, the Art Hauser Centre, and the new soccer centre? My guess is that those people who benefit from those subsidies aren't living in lower value homes. If I have no intention of ever using the golf course or soccer centre, can I opt out of paying my share of the taxes for those? And this past winter there was a snow lift in the West Hill - the first ever in a residential area - should people who benefited from that pay more tax?
And if we want fairness, what about those of us who were paying for recycling services that we didn't receive until lately (I have a friend whose home just received a back alley recycling bin in April - several months after the city announced the program was complete, and more than five years after having this service added to the water bill). When I suggested a year ago that homes without this service should receive a rebate on their sanitation fees, more than one member of council said that people without this service were quite happy to subsidize those homes with the service - not true in at least a couple of cases that I'm aware of. And what about the unfairness of the increase in water fees to pay for upgrading - applied only to residential users, and not to commercial businesses? And that's not even getting into the unfairness of the minimum water charge - if you use less water, you still pay that minimum charge, which hardly seems fair, especially for smaller families or seniors. We can get into very murky waters very quickly when we start to talk about being fair to everyone.
A good number of my constituents are seniors, on fixed incomes. They have lived for many years here, paying taxes and being good citizens. For many of them, remaining in their own homes takes a great deal of financial balancing and sacrifice. To suggest that somehow, they owe the city more than they can afford, because of some blinkered vision of "fairness" doesn't seem right to me.
A base tax will put proportionately more tax burden on our poorest citizens. I cannot support that, and I won't.
"Very few people can afford to be poor." George Bernard Shaw
Monday, May 18, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Keeping It Professional
One of the aspects of being on City Council that can prove difficult for some, is the need to keep our decisions and actions professional, rather than personal.
As an individual, I'm free to choose what stores to patronize, for whatever reasons I feel are important, whether it be price, service, or what I think of the owner. When making decisions on council, however, I and the rest of council need to make purchase decisions for the city based on objective facts only, not on personal feelings or biases. One way of making sure that decisions are made that way is to tender major purchases and contracts. This should make the process public, and ensure that reasons for the decisions are open and defensible.
Other guidelines that help to keep actions and decisions professional are in our legislation, bylaws and policies. This means that, for instance, if someone applies for a licence, and meets all the qualifications set out in our licensing bylaws and policies, then approval is given. Our decision cannot be affected by our personal relationship with that individual, be it positive or negative. And we can't let our personal feelings about the type of business cloud the decision either - as an individual, I may not agree with certain activities or the businesses that allow them, but if the activity is allowed under law, and the area proposed for business establishment is zoned accordingly, then I can't vote against it based on my own feelings or intangible factors.
Of course, for this to work, we on council have to monitor ourselves. When we fail to follow established policy or legislation, whether it's because we feel that we don't have time, or that we needn't follow decisions made by a previous council, we throw all our processes into question. When we raise irrelevant factors in decision-making, we do the same, because that then suggests that all our decisions are affected by irrelevancies. And when we continuously rush through processes, because we have established our own schedules and ideas on how things should be done, rather than following those rules set in legislation, bylaw or policy, and rather than allowing open discussion and providing the public with realistic opportunity for input, then we give the impression that we're an exclusive club that doesn't have to follow the rules.
We need to remember that, in a democracy, we're not just answerable to ourselves; we're answerable to the people that we represent. And we need to be able to tell those people honestly, that every decision that we've made has been based on the best interests of the city, not ourselves.
Speaking of being answerable, I've heard very clearly from people that using taxpayers' dollars to pay for meals at council and committee meetings is not acceptable. I'm sorry that I didn't see it from that aspect earlier, but I am no longer sharing in the meals provided at council or committee meetings. I always try to say what I think, and act accordingly, and this seems to me to be the right thing to do.
"Impatience never commanded success." - Edwin Hubbel Chapin
As an individual, I'm free to choose what stores to patronize, for whatever reasons I feel are important, whether it be price, service, or what I think of the owner. When making decisions on council, however, I and the rest of council need to make purchase decisions for the city based on objective facts only, not on personal feelings or biases. One way of making sure that decisions are made that way is to tender major purchases and contracts. This should make the process public, and ensure that reasons for the decisions are open and defensible.
Other guidelines that help to keep actions and decisions professional are in our legislation, bylaws and policies. This means that, for instance, if someone applies for a licence, and meets all the qualifications set out in our licensing bylaws and policies, then approval is given. Our decision cannot be affected by our personal relationship with that individual, be it positive or negative. And we can't let our personal feelings about the type of business cloud the decision either - as an individual, I may not agree with certain activities or the businesses that allow them, but if the activity is allowed under law, and the area proposed for business establishment is zoned accordingly, then I can't vote against it based on my own feelings or intangible factors.
Of course, for this to work, we on council have to monitor ourselves. When we fail to follow established policy or legislation, whether it's because we feel that we don't have time, or that we needn't follow decisions made by a previous council, we throw all our processes into question. When we raise irrelevant factors in decision-making, we do the same, because that then suggests that all our decisions are affected by irrelevancies. And when we continuously rush through processes, because we have established our own schedules and ideas on how things should be done, rather than following those rules set in legislation, bylaw or policy, and rather than allowing open discussion and providing the public with realistic opportunity for input, then we give the impression that we're an exclusive club that doesn't have to follow the rules.
We need to remember that, in a democracy, we're not just answerable to ourselves; we're answerable to the people that we represent. And we need to be able to tell those people honestly, that every decision that we've made has been based on the best interests of the city, not ourselves.
Speaking of being answerable, I've heard very clearly from people that using taxpayers' dollars to pay for meals at council and committee meetings is not acceptable. I'm sorry that I didn't see it from that aspect earlier, but I am no longer sharing in the meals provided at council or committee meetings. I always try to say what I think, and act accordingly, and this seems to me to be the right thing to do.
"Impatience never commanded success." - Edwin Hubbel Chapin
Sunday, April 12, 2009
The Nuclear Question
Over the past few months, since Bruce Power announced that it might be interested in building a nuclear power facility in Saskatchewan, and especially since the mayor and members of the Chamber of Commerce visited a Bruce Power facility in Ontario, the interest of the public in discussing the possibility of such a facility has grown by leaps and bounds.
This interest took another jump forward after the city commissioned a public opinion survey on the issue, then announced the results just before Bruce Power held open houses here.
You should be aware that the decision to hold the survey was not made by council. We found out about the survey while it was going on. If we had been consulted before the decision was made, I would have suggested that holding such a survey was premature, and that the wording of the questions, particularly including the adjective "green" without defining it, made the results questionable.
However, I am encouraged by the public interest in the issue, and the evident engagement of many thoughtful and committed individuals. The key to effective public involvement is to find an issue that people care about, and this issue is clearly one that people want to discuss and debate, publicly, and would like more information about.
Like many residents, I'm looking for more information. While I grew up in Ontario, where nuclear energy is a fact of life, I still think that there are many questions that should be answered before I can form an opinion about whether this would be a positive step for Prince Albert. With that in mind, I've been taking advantage of the opportunities for learning - I attended an interesting debate on the tar sands at the library, where the nuclear question came up; I went to the Bruce Power open house; I was able to catch the end of a renewable energy options forum at Wesley United Church after a council meeting, and I went outside to listen to the people who gathered at City Hall before last week's council meeting. All of these provided useful information, and raised more questions.
What I would find useful is a straight-forward comparision of all the options out there, answering all the questions, from cost of start-up (and how this would be funded), through ongoing costs, to environmental impact (including impacts on air, water, wildlife, etc), to reliability, to life span of any facility, through to waste disposal. Right now I find that many of the arguments get angry very quickly, without providing that sort of side-by-side comparison that might help people avoid getting caught up in the emotions of the moment. And I'm willing to accept that no solution is perfect, but this way the least risky options could be identified.
I also think that a decision of this magnitude is one that belongs directly to the people who will be affected. We have plenty of time to develop a clear, unambiguous question about whether a nuclear facility should be built in or near Prince Albert, and include it in this year's election.
A side benefit? Having such a question to answer might motivate more people to actually get out and vote, and democratically, that would be a good thing.
"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it." - Joseph Joubert
This interest took another jump forward after the city commissioned a public opinion survey on the issue, then announced the results just before Bruce Power held open houses here.
You should be aware that the decision to hold the survey was not made by council. We found out about the survey while it was going on. If we had been consulted before the decision was made, I would have suggested that holding such a survey was premature, and that the wording of the questions, particularly including the adjective "green" without defining it, made the results questionable.
However, I am encouraged by the public interest in the issue, and the evident engagement of many thoughtful and committed individuals. The key to effective public involvement is to find an issue that people care about, and this issue is clearly one that people want to discuss and debate, publicly, and would like more information about.
Like many residents, I'm looking for more information. While I grew up in Ontario, where nuclear energy is a fact of life, I still think that there are many questions that should be answered before I can form an opinion about whether this would be a positive step for Prince Albert. With that in mind, I've been taking advantage of the opportunities for learning - I attended an interesting debate on the tar sands at the library, where the nuclear question came up; I went to the Bruce Power open house; I was able to catch the end of a renewable energy options forum at Wesley United Church after a council meeting, and I went outside to listen to the people who gathered at City Hall before last week's council meeting. All of these provided useful information, and raised more questions.
What I would find useful is a straight-forward comparision of all the options out there, answering all the questions, from cost of start-up (and how this would be funded), through ongoing costs, to environmental impact (including impacts on air, water, wildlife, etc), to reliability, to life span of any facility, through to waste disposal. Right now I find that many of the arguments get angry very quickly, without providing that sort of side-by-side comparison that might help people avoid getting caught up in the emotions of the moment. And I'm willing to accept that no solution is perfect, but this way the least risky options could be identified.
I also think that a decision of this magnitude is one that belongs directly to the people who will be affected. We have plenty of time to develop a clear, unambiguous question about whether a nuclear facility should be built in or near Prince Albert, and include it in this year's election.
A side benefit? Having such a question to answer might motivate more people to actually get out and vote, and democratically, that would be a good thing.
"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it." - Joseph Joubert
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The Third Vote Tango
A proposed bylaw must have three separate readings and votes before it takes effect, according to Section 77 of the Cities Act. The first two readings may happen in a single meeting, but for the third to happen, there must be unanimous consent of all members of council present for that to occur.
Why the wait? I believe it’s there to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on any proposed change that will affect them, before the final vote is made. It also gives an opportunity for sober second thought by members of council.
Most times bylaw passing is a mere formality, and I have no problem with consenting to three votes in one meeting. But if it’s something that I feel will affect the public, and I don’t think that there has been adequate time for public input, then I won’t consent. It’s that simple. It’s the process that is laid out in our governing law, and I have to assume that it’s there for good reason.
Several years ago, before I was a member of council, a family came to council one night with a proposal to paint a mural on the wall of City Hall, to honour their father, who had recently passed away. Ignoring the fact that City Hall does not belong to council, that painting over the Tyndall stone probably wasn’t the best thing to do, and that it marred the architectural appearance of a lovely building, the council of the day had three votes in one night, and the painting started the next day. I was appalled, as were many people I spoke to, and that memory has remained with me, reminding me how the public may have a different view than council, and should have the opportunity to provide that view before it's too late.
With that in mind, I don’t always consent to that third vote. In previous councils, when consent wasn’t granted, the third vote would happen two weeks later, at the next council meeting. Once I can remember the mayor of the day, and another councillor, getting a bit cranky with me because I wouldn’t give consent, but they had enough respect for the process not to try to bulldoze through it.
This council doesn’t operate that way – if something doesn’t pass according to plan, then a special meeting is scheduled for as soon as possible, without considering the opportunity for the public to comment.
So on Monday evening, the budget bylaw was read twice, and we voted twice. While there are some things that are good in this budget, there are more things that I can’t agree to support. And I believe that the process was far too rushed, unnecessarily so. Council didn’t have adequate time to review or discuss this massive document; neither did the public. I have yet to hear a good reason for the hurry, since the mill rate, based on this budget as well as other factors, won’t be set until late May. So I voted against the budget, although most of council supported it. When it came time to consent to a third reading, I didn’t consent, so the third vote didn’t happen.
I suppose some people might wonder why I bother, since it’s going to pass anyway. Why not consent, why hold things up?
The answer is easy: voting for what I believe is right is a commitment that I have made to the people of Ward Three, and a commitment that I have kept for the past nine years. If I start voting for things that I don’t believe in, just because I’m not going to win, then I’ve betrayed the trust of the people of my ward. Nowhere in the oath of office does it commit me to voting against my principles just so council can appear to be one voice; nowhere does it say that before every vote I should look to the front of the room to see when to raise my hand; nowhere does it say that a successful council is one on which everyone agrees on everything, all the time.
So I’ll be voting according to my principles once again, at tomorrow’s special meeting, scheduled because this council believes that whatever the majority wants, the majority should have, as soon as they want it, and to hell with the process.
"Strength of numbers is the delight of the timid." – Mahatma Gandhi
Why the wait? I believe it’s there to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on any proposed change that will affect them, before the final vote is made. It also gives an opportunity for sober second thought by members of council.
Most times bylaw passing is a mere formality, and I have no problem with consenting to three votes in one meeting. But if it’s something that I feel will affect the public, and I don’t think that there has been adequate time for public input, then I won’t consent. It’s that simple. It’s the process that is laid out in our governing law, and I have to assume that it’s there for good reason.
Several years ago, before I was a member of council, a family came to council one night with a proposal to paint a mural on the wall of City Hall, to honour their father, who had recently passed away. Ignoring the fact that City Hall does not belong to council, that painting over the Tyndall stone probably wasn’t the best thing to do, and that it marred the architectural appearance of a lovely building, the council of the day had three votes in one night, and the painting started the next day. I was appalled, as were many people I spoke to, and that memory has remained with me, reminding me how the public may have a different view than council, and should have the opportunity to provide that view before it's too late.
With that in mind, I don’t always consent to that third vote. In previous councils, when consent wasn’t granted, the third vote would happen two weeks later, at the next council meeting. Once I can remember the mayor of the day, and another councillor, getting a bit cranky with me because I wouldn’t give consent, but they had enough respect for the process not to try to bulldoze through it.
This council doesn’t operate that way – if something doesn’t pass according to plan, then a special meeting is scheduled for as soon as possible, without considering the opportunity for the public to comment.
So on Monday evening, the budget bylaw was read twice, and we voted twice. While there are some things that are good in this budget, there are more things that I can’t agree to support. And I believe that the process was far too rushed, unnecessarily so. Council didn’t have adequate time to review or discuss this massive document; neither did the public. I have yet to hear a good reason for the hurry, since the mill rate, based on this budget as well as other factors, won’t be set until late May. So I voted against the budget, although most of council supported it. When it came time to consent to a third reading, I didn’t consent, so the third vote didn’t happen.
I suppose some people might wonder why I bother, since it’s going to pass anyway. Why not consent, why hold things up?
The answer is easy: voting for what I believe is right is a commitment that I have made to the people of Ward Three, and a commitment that I have kept for the past nine years. If I start voting for things that I don’t believe in, just because I’m not going to win, then I’ve betrayed the trust of the people of my ward. Nowhere in the oath of office does it commit me to voting against my principles just so council can appear to be one voice; nowhere does it say that before every vote I should look to the front of the room to see when to raise my hand; nowhere does it say that a successful council is one on which everyone agrees on everything, all the time.
So I’ll be voting according to my principles once again, at tomorrow’s special meeting, scheduled because this council believes that whatever the majority wants, the majority should have, as soon as they want it, and to hell with the process.
"Strength of numbers is the delight of the timid." – Mahatma Gandhi
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Surviving the Budget Process Whirlwind
Except for the formalities of the final vote which will happen at the next council meeting on April 6, Council has finished with this year's budget process, setting a new speed record in the process.
We received our budget documents last Monday evening, March 23. The documents were available to the public on the city website at the same time. The public meeting to discuss the budget was on Thursday evening. Friday morning we started budget discussions at about 9 a.m., and finished at 12:45 p.m. This time included a half hour lunch break.
This is a budget of approximately $35 million dollars. It comes in two separate binders, one for capital expenditures and the other for operating expenditures. The paper in each binder is about two inches thick.
To meaningfully discuss and ask questions about that size of document in only a little over three hours is beyond my capabilities, especially since we had only three days to review it all. I thought that last year's process, when we spent a very long day in review was too rushed - in comparison, it was a leisurely stroll through the pages. This year any sort of discussion or questioning was cut off quite quickly.
I'm sure that many members of council hope that people will just focus on the fact that the tax rate increase will be 0%, the target that the mayor set in his State of the City address. After two successive years of 6% increases, plus the ongoing increases in water bills and sanitation fees, citizens deserve a tax break.
But how, with various expenditures already approved, and an increase to the police budget of 7%, far above inflation, did we accomplish this? And what is the real cost?
Well, part of it was done by the province, in its commitment to municipalities of a portion of the sales tax, as well as the one-time infrastructure funding that is headed our way. That's the good part. The other part of it was done by putting things off. Some future council will have to deal with the procrastination of this council.
What are some of these deferred expenditures? In the capital projects area, here are a few examples. An intersection upgrade for the proposed (but on hold) Home Depot, saved $150,000 by being postponed for a year. Not doing any sidewalk rehabilitation saved $200,000, also now targeted for 2010. Putting off parking lot rehabilitation for a year cut $50,000. The Arts Centre, where maintaining key building elements is a requirement of its Heritage Building status, is having some of its basic repair work deferred, for a savings of $32,000. The normal roofing repair budget of $200,000 has been slashed for this year to $14,000. A Zamboni already overdue for replacement and costing a fair amount in repairs is going to have to hang on for another year, to save us $100,000. Several police, fire and city vehicles well past their prime won't be replaced just yet. Bridge maintenance on the Diefenbaker Bridge is on hold for another couple of years, saving this budget more than $1 million - we hear a lot of talk about needing a second bridge, but apparently it's not a priority to do the basic maintenance on the one we have.
For many of these deferred expenditures, two things will happen. Structures such as sidewalks will degrade even further, so that eventual repairs will be more expensive. Delaying maintenance to buildings and roofs can cause more serious damage (and higher costs) in the long run. And future councils will have to make up for the delays of this council by asking for higher tax increases. I find that ironic, since some members of this current council have been pretty quick to blame previous councils, claiming that their lack of action is the reason for this council's budget increases. I hope that they're as quick to accept the blame in the future.
On the spending side, this budget has managed to find room for such non-essentials as golf course upgrades, new banners, and $48,000 for the Golf and Curling Club to have a party and host a tournament, in honour of its hundredth anniversary. To put it in perspective, that's more than we gave the SPCA last year to take care of abandoned animals. At least this year, one of the positive things in the budget is a $30,000 increase to the SPCA. Given the choice, I think that most taxpayers would rather fund the SPCA than a party for relatively few people who can probably afford to buy their own beer and meals.
The budget also puts $100,000 back into the fiscal stabilization reserve fund. This is a fund started by previous councils to ensure that money was available to deal with unexpected expenditures - extra snow-plowing in a bad winter, for example. When this money is available, we don't have to go into debt to pay for these little surprises that are hard to predict.
When this council took office, this fund had $1.2 million in it. This budget is the first time that this council has contributed to the fund rather than dipped into it - the current level, after two years of this council, is $239,804.61. At this rate of contribution, we'll get back up to the previous level in ten years, assuming, of course, that we don't dip into it again.
A final thought on this budget - this council will only have to deal with it for six months. In October, a new council will be elected, and they will be the ones to deal with any shortfalls this year. Hardly the kind of legacy that we should want to be leaving. But we didn't have time to discuss any of this - we were setting a record.
"Doing more things faster is not a substitute for doing the right things." - Stephen Covey
We received our budget documents last Monday evening, March 23. The documents were available to the public on the city website at the same time. The public meeting to discuss the budget was on Thursday evening. Friday morning we started budget discussions at about 9 a.m., and finished at 12:45 p.m. This time included a half hour lunch break.
This is a budget of approximately $35 million dollars. It comes in two separate binders, one for capital expenditures and the other for operating expenditures. The paper in each binder is about two inches thick.
To meaningfully discuss and ask questions about that size of document in only a little over three hours is beyond my capabilities, especially since we had only three days to review it all. I thought that last year's process, when we spent a very long day in review was too rushed - in comparison, it was a leisurely stroll through the pages. This year any sort of discussion or questioning was cut off quite quickly.
I'm sure that many members of council hope that people will just focus on the fact that the tax rate increase will be 0%, the target that the mayor set in his State of the City address. After two successive years of 6% increases, plus the ongoing increases in water bills and sanitation fees, citizens deserve a tax break.
But how, with various expenditures already approved, and an increase to the police budget of 7%, far above inflation, did we accomplish this? And what is the real cost?
Well, part of it was done by the province, in its commitment to municipalities of a portion of the sales tax, as well as the one-time infrastructure funding that is headed our way. That's the good part. The other part of it was done by putting things off. Some future council will have to deal with the procrastination of this council.
What are some of these deferred expenditures? In the capital projects area, here are a few examples. An intersection upgrade for the proposed (but on hold) Home Depot, saved $150,000 by being postponed for a year. Not doing any sidewalk rehabilitation saved $200,000, also now targeted for 2010. Putting off parking lot rehabilitation for a year cut $50,000. The Arts Centre, where maintaining key building elements is a requirement of its Heritage Building status, is having some of its basic repair work deferred, for a savings of $32,000. The normal roofing repair budget of $200,000 has been slashed for this year to $14,000. A Zamboni already overdue for replacement and costing a fair amount in repairs is going to have to hang on for another year, to save us $100,000. Several police, fire and city vehicles well past their prime won't be replaced just yet. Bridge maintenance on the Diefenbaker Bridge is on hold for another couple of years, saving this budget more than $1 million - we hear a lot of talk about needing a second bridge, but apparently it's not a priority to do the basic maintenance on the one we have.
For many of these deferred expenditures, two things will happen. Structures such as sidewalks will degrade even further, so that eventual repairs will be more expensive. Delaying maintenance to buildings and roofs can cause more serious damage (and higher costs) in the long run. And future councils will have to make up for the delays of this council by asking for higher tax increases. I find that ironic, since some members of this current council have been pretty quick to blame previous councils, claiming that their lack of action is the reason for this council's budget increases. I hope that they're as quick to accept the blame in the future.
On the spending side, this budget has managed to find room for such non-essentials as golf course upgrades, new banners, and $48,000 for the Golf and Curling Club to have a party and host a tournament, in honour of its hundredth anniversary. To put it in perspective, that's more than we gave the SPCA last year to take care of abandoned animals. At least this year, one of the positive things in the budget is a $30,000 increase to the SPCA. Given the choice, I think that most taxpayers would rather fund the SPCA than a party for relatively few people who can probably afford to buy their own beer and meals.
The budget also puts $100,000 back into the fiscal stabilization reserve fund. This is a fund started by previous councils to ensure that money was available to deal with unexpected expenditures - extra snow-plowing in a bad winter, for example. When this money is available, we don't have to go into debt to pay for these little surprises that are hard to predict.
When this council took office, this fund had $1.2 million in it. This budget is the first time that this council has contributed to the fund rather than dipped into it - the current level, after two years of this council, is $239,804.61. At this rate of contribution, we'll get back up to the previous level in ten years, assuming, of course, that we don't dip into it again.
A final thought on this budget - this council will only have to deal with it for six months. In October, a new council will be elected, and they will be the ones to deal with any shortfalls this year. Hardly the kind of legacy that we should want to be leaving. But we didn't have time to discuss any of this - we were setting a record.
"Doing more things faster is not a substitute for doing the right things." - Stephen Covey
Friday, March 6, 2009
The Issue of Meals - Who Should Pay?
An article in the local paper this week followed up on a comment that I had raised in a previous posting, when I suggested that perhaps one way of reducing costs at City Hall would be to stop providing a meal to councillors and administrative staff during the break between our internal meeting, which starts at 4 p.m., and council meeting, which starts at 7 p.m. Thanks to the research of the reporter, who once again had to go through the hoops of Freedom of Information, we now know that the price of feeding us before council meetings is about $5,000 annually. Almost as much is spent on meals for committees and for meetings in the mayor’s office.
I’m not suggesting that this is a massive amount of money, in the full scheme of things. But I am an advocate of being able to justify and account for every thing that the city pays for, both big and small, and for not spending more than we have to, because it isn’t our money.
A couple of principles need to be established here. Is it appropriate for taxpayers to be paying for the meals of council, and of staff who are required, as part of their jobs, to attend council or committee meetings, or other meetings in the mayor’s office?
If it is, then we need to establish some policy and budgeting rules around when this happens. Right now, there is no budget line for these meals – I don’t know how the payment for meals for committees can be approved if there is no budget allocated to this expenditure. And there should be some guidelines for when meals are provided, and when they aren’t.
Checking out how other cities and governments do this might provide some guidance. My wife works for the provincial government – if she has to travel to a meeting, and is gone over certain times of the day, she gets a meal allowance. If she is attending a meeting in Prince Albert, which is her headquarters, she doesn’t. For example, a couple of weeks ago she had to attend training which was held in a hotel in Prince Albert. At lunch, some co-workers went to the hotel restaurant, and paid for their own meals. A couple of co-workers went home for lunch; a couple more went back to the office because they had brought their lunches from home. Those are the rules, and they have been communicated to everyone, along with the rationalization.
The practice of providing meals to council has been going on for as long as I’ve been a councillor, and no doubt long before that. Just because we’ve always done it that way doesn’t mean that we can’t review the practice, and decide if it is still the best way to go, particularly considering our tight financial situation. If we do decide that it’s still appropriate, let’s set out the ground rules and be open about why we’ve decided to continue to do this. That way, everyone, including the taxpayers who are footing the bill, will know what’s going on – once again, it’s part of being open and accountable.
"When more of the people’s sustenance is exacted through the form of taxation than is necessary to meet the just obligations of government and expenses of its economical administration, such exaction becomes ruthless extortion and a violation of the fundamental principles of a free government." – Grover Cleveland
I’m not suggesting that this is a massive amount of money, in the full scheme of things. But I am an advocate of being able to justify and account for every thing that the city pays for, both big and small, and for not spending more than we have to, because it isn’t our money.
A couple of principles need to be established here. Is it appropriate for taxpayers to be paying for the meals of council, and of staff who are required, as part of their jobs, to attend council or committee meetings, or other meetings in the mayor’s office?
If it is, then we need to establish some policy and budgeting rules around when this happens. Right now, there is no budget line for these meals – I don’t know how the payment for meals for committees can be approved if there is no budget allocated to this expenditure. And there should be some guidelines for when meals are provided, and when they aren’t.
Checking out how other cities and governments do this might provide some guidance. My wife works for the provincial government – if she has to travel to a meeting, and is gone over certain times of the day, she gets a meal allowance. If she is attending a meeting in Prince Albert, which is her headquarters, she doesn’t. For example, a couple of weeks ago she had to attend training which was held in a hotel in Prince Albert. At lunch, some co-workers went to the hotel restaurant, and paid for their own meals. A couple of co-workers went home for lunch; a couple more went back to the office because they had brought their lunches from home. Those are the rules, and they have been communicated to everyone, along with the rationalization.
The practice of providing meals to council has been going on for as long as I’ve been a councillor, and no doubt long before that. Just because we’ve always done it that way doesn’t mean that we can’t review the practice, and decide if it is still the best way to go, particularly considering our tight financial situation. If we do decide that it’s still appropriate, let’s set out the ground rules and be open about why we’ve decided to continue to do this. That way, everyone, including the taxpayers who are footing the bill, will know what’s going on – once again, it’s part of being open and accountable.
"When more of the people’s sustenance is exacted through the form of taxation than is necessary to meet the just obligations of government and expenses of its economical administration, such exaction becomes ruthless extortion and a violation of the fundamental principles of a free government." – Grover Cleveland
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Just What Can $45,000 Worth of Cameras Do?
An item of note at last week's council meeting was the proposal that we spend $45,000 of general budget money to buy cameras to watch the Diefenbaker Bridge. The output from this camera would be watched by police, who would then, theoretically, be able to respond more quickly when an accident on the bridge occurred. Should this accident be one that blocks traffic completely, then the idea is that the police would be able to get there more quickly, and the disruption to the traffic flow would not last as long. In theory, this sounds like a good thing.
However, even when somebody tells me that something is a good thing, part of my job is to question, and to find out how much of a good thing it could be. When assessing a potential purchase using tax payers' money, I try to look at two things - how serious is the risk, and how much improvement to the current situation will be made.
How serious is the risk? Well, over the last ten years, the average number of times in a year that traffic is stopped on the bridge, is six. Once every second month. And this stoppage isn't always caused by an accident - sometimes it's material dropped off a load headed to the land fill that blocks traffic, sometimes it's been large buildings being moved across the bridge, and those responsible haven't bothered to get the required permit from police. New cameras will not help either of those situations.
And how much improvement will cameras bring to the situation? The improvement is so small, that I wonder how it could be measured. Improvement in police response time, if these cameras will be installed, is 0.1%. That means, that if the current police response time to an accident on the bridge is ten minutes (just an example for sake of argument), then the improvement would be 0.1% of ten minutes. With 600 seconds in ten minutes, the improvement would be .6 of a second - six-tenths of a second. If the current response time is less, then the improvement is correspondingly less. If I was waiting in a car stuck behind such an accident, I'm not sure that the difference would be perceptible.
And that is just for the police getting there. This will not clear the bridge any faster - police don't do that, tow trucks do. It won't remove the injured any faster - ambulances do that.
What happens when an accident occurs on the bridge now? Usually, someone on the scene uses a cell phone to call 911, who then call everyone who has to be there to help out the situation. More serious accidents, of course, take longer to clear up. Getting the police there less than a second quicker will not change this.
To me, it seemed only sensible that this expenditure isn't the best use of $45,000 of general budget money. If the police think that this expenditure is that important, why wasn't it part of their budget? (Although if it was, I still wouldn't think that it was a good use of tax payers' money.) And at last week's executive meeting, all those present agreed. However, when it came to council this week, although no additional information had been presented, and the facts remain as they were the week before, some councillors changed their minds, and the matter has now been approved by council and put into the budget.
In the total city budget, $45,000 is not a lot of money. But as I've said repeatedly, we have to look at every expenditure, large and small, and avoid spending any amount of money foolishly, because it's not our money that we're spending. And we have to look at the whole budget, not just bits and pieces ahead of time, because that just limits our options when it gets to the actual budgeting process.
I keep saying it, and hoping that at some point, I'll be heard.
I can accept failure, but I can't accept not trying." - Michael Jordan
However, even when somebody tells me that something is a good thing, part of my job is to question, and to find out how much of a good thing it could be. When assessing a potential purchase using tax payers' money, I try to look at two things - how serious is the risk, and how much improvement to the current situation will be made.
How serious is the risk? Well, over the last ten years, the average number of times in a year that traffic is stopped on the bridge, is six. Once every second month. And this stoppage isn't always caused by an accident - sometimes it's material dropped off a load headed to the land fill that blocks traffic, sometimes it's been large buildings being moved across the bridge, and those responsible haven't bothered to get the required permit from police. New cameras will not help either of those situations.
And how much improvement will cameras bring to the situation? The improvement is so small, that I wonder how it could be measured. Improvement in police response time, if these cameras will be installed, is 0.1%. That means, that if the current police response time to an accident on the bridge is ten minutes (just an example for sake of argument), then the improvement would be 0.1% of ten minutes. With 600 seconds in ten minutes, the improvement would be .6 of a second - six-tenths of a second. If the current response time is less, then the improvement is correspondingly less. If I was waiting in a car stuck behind such an accident, I'm not sure that the difference would be perceptible.
And that is just for the police getting there. This will not clear the bridge any faster - police don't do that, tow trucks do. It won't remove the injured any faster - ambulances do that.
What happens when an accident occurs on the bridge now? Usually, someone on the scene uses a cell phone to call 911, who then call everyone who has to be there to help out the situation. More serious accidents, of course, take longer to clear up. Getting the police there less than a second quicker will not change this.
To me, it seemed only sensible that this expenditure isn't the best use of $45,000 of general budget money. If the police think that this expenditure is that important, why wasn't it part of their budget? (Although if it was, I still wouldn't think that it was a good use of tax payers' money.) And at last week's executive meeting, all those present agreed. However, when it came to council this week, although no additional information had been presented, and the facts remain as they were the week before, some councillors changed their minds, and the matter has now been approved by council and put into the budget.
In the total city budget, $45,000 is not a lot of money. But as I've said repeatedly, we have to look at every expenditure, large and small, and avoid spending any amount of money foolishly, because it's not our money that we're spending. And we have to look at the whole budget, not just bits and pieces ahead of time, because that just limits our options when it gets to the actual budgeting process.
I keep saying it, and hoping that at some point, I'll be heard.
I can accept failure, but I can't accept not trying." - Michael Jordan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)