As a city, we've invested in some pretty nice facilities. And we continue to do so, at continually increasing costs.
Our rationale goes something like this - these facilities make Prince Albert a better, more attractive place to live, and thus help attract new residents. New residents equals population growth, which should mean an increased tax base, which should mean that we have more revenue to help pay for these facilities.
There's another line of reasoning that says that we need to have these facilities so that our children will have a place to play a sport, or perform, or learn a craft - you probably remember the refrain of "It's for the children" that was repeatedly chorused during the fund-raising for the Rawlinson Centre, and I certainly remember the horde of youthful soccer players that came to a City Council meeting to bolster the case for our investment in a new indoor soccer facility.
And there are others who will promote the development of new facilities with the idea that such facilities will pay for their own upkeep, because the demand to use such wonderful buildings will be such that the tax-payer won't have to pay anything for keeping the doors open.
I agree that having such facilities is one of the things that makes Prince Albert a good place to live. I agree that the city has to subsidize these facilities to a certain level, to ensure that they remain accessible to all residents. I'm sure that everyone has their own favourite facility which they would favour over others, if cuts were being proposed. A golfer would likely argue for funding to improve the golf course; a voracious reader might protest reduced hours at the library; a pottery person would want continued access to the kilns at the Arts Centre.
None of these individuals is right or wrong - each of these city facilities supports certain valid interests, as do the Art Hauser Centre, the soccer centre, the Rawlinson Centre, the Frank Dunn swimming pool, Little Red River park, and the Rotary Trail. Some city facilities are more accessible to a wider range of the population - all you need is proof of address to get a library card, and you don't need any special equipment to walk along the Rotary Trail. Others are pricier - an evening at the Rawlinson can cost more than $100 for a pair of tickets, and a golf membership is a major financial outlay.
Having such a wealth of facilities has proven to be costly for the city. The Rawlinson Centre, which was promoted as "not going to cost the taxpayer a cent", has actually taken a larger and larger chunk of the budget every year since it was built, and its costs have increased at a rate much higher than inflation. The Art Hauser Centre, although it's been around longer, also requires more and more money each year.
In a sense, we're house-poor when it comes to these facilities. We've underestimated the costs of running, maintaining and repairing them, and the result has been that other, more basic city services, such as road maintenance, have been falling further and further behind. These basic services affect all residents, and are a big factor when assessing the attractiveness of a community.
I think that City Council needs to follow a few standard principles when we're dealing with these facilities. We need to have complete financial reports submitted before we approve a budget item for any facility - we shouldn't bend (or ignore) the rules for anyone. We need to be able to see that the facility is being run as economically as possible, and that basic rules around expenditures are being followed. User fees should be set at levels that reflect the service being provided, and there should also be a fee differentiation between city and non-city residents, because the city resident is already paying for the facility through their taxes.
And the next time that someone comes to us with an idea for a new facility, let's ask a few tough questions before jumping on board. For instance, is the facility a need or a want? Is it just a Cadillac version of what is already available? The Rawlinson Centre is a great facility, but the fact is that it wasn't needed - dance recitals and play performances were going on in other buildings not owned by the city. In fact, the cost of rental has put it out of reach for local theatre groups, who still use school gyms for their performances. Granted, there are more entertainment options available now, but these are not necessities, and the building is dark more evenings than not, so its operational costs aren't being covered. Another question that should be asked - will this facility be accessible to a wide range of residents, or will the cost of getting in make it only available to a fraction of our citizens? We shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing the recreational options of those who can afford to cover the costs themselves.
Like any home buyer, we have to look at the full costs of ownership before we buy what may be more house than we can afford. We make decisions that affect all city residents, and it's not fair to them to keep going back for more and more money, just because we decided that we deserved to have the best of everything, right now.
"A moderate addiction to money may not always be hurtful, but when taken to excess it is nearly always bad for the health." - Clarence Day
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Some Thoughts on a New Pineview Terrace
I attended the meeting on Wednesday evening with the Health Board, and heard the updated financial requirements for a new Pineview Terrace. Not surprisingly, the projected construction costs have increased over the last year, and the Health Board is now proposing that the city's share will be $3 million.
When the new facility was discussed last year, the city's share, not counting the $1.3 million that's supposed to come from the Holy Family Trust Fund, was going to be $1 million, and that's what we committed to. Unfortunately, we didn't put it in our budget, so there is no money set aside at this point.
I suggested last year that we add a specific levy for this purpose to tax bills. Money raised could be kept in reserve until needed. After all, we've had a levy for the soccer centre for the last three years, and that levy will be appearing on your tax bill for the next several years, until 2015, I believe. I think that most taxpayers understand the need (as opposed to a want), of having adequate care facilities for seniors who can no longer live in their own homes. And, as with most things, the sooner that you start saving, the lower the individual payment amounts will be. It's like starting to save for retirement in your twenties rather than in your fifties - it's going to be a much less painful process to come up with the same amount of money.
However, others on council believed that the project wouldn't go ahead quickly, and we wouldn't need to come up with the money until some time in the future. However, the Health Board wants to go ahead now, knowing that costs will only increase in the future, and the need exists now.
I think that the city should commit to a number, and go about the process of raising that money, whether through a levy, or by dedicating the flat tax that was introduced last year to this purpose. There's currently $600,000 from the flat tax that has been set aside for unspecified infrastructure needs - I think that this would qualify as an infrastructure need. If we added that $600,000 to the $1.3 million in the Holy Family Trust Fund, we would only need to find another $1 million. Once we've made and met that commitment, I don't think that it would be fair for the Health Board to keep coming back with higher and higher numbers.
Good facilities for those who can no longer live on their own are essential in every community. At some point, most families face the difficult decision of finding a good home for their parents or grandparents, and City Council needs to remember that these facilities, and their residents, are as much a part of an attractive, healthy community as are athletic and entertainment facilities and their user groups. The difference is that having a good residential facility is a need, not a want, and one needed by those who have already made a lifetime of contributions to a community.
"We put more effort into helping folks reach old age than into helping them enjoy it." - Frank Howard Clark
When the new facility was discussed last year, the city's share, not counting the $1.3 million that's supposed to come from the Holy Family Trust Fund, was going to be $1 million, and that's what we committed to. Unfortunately, we didn't put it in our budget, so there is no money set aside at this point.
I suggested last year that we add a specific levy for this purpose to tax bills. Money raised could be kept in reserve until needed. After all, we've had a levy for the soccer centre for the last three years, and that levy will be appearing on your tax bill for the next several years, until 2015, I believe. I think that most taxpayers understand the need (as opposed to a want), of having adequate care facilities for seniors who can no longer live in their own homes. And, as with most things, the sooner that you start saving, the lower the individual payment amounts will be. It's like starting to save for retirement in your twenties rather than in your fifties - it's going to be a much less painful process to come up with the same amount of money.
However, others on council believed that the project wouldn't go ahead quickly, and we wouldn't need to come up with the money until some time in the future. However, the Health Board wants to go ahead now, knowing that costs will only increase in the future, and the need exists now.
I think that the city should commit to a number, and go about the process of raising that money, whether through a levy, or by dedicating the flat tax that was introduced last year to this purpose. There's currently $600,000 from the flat tax that has been set aside for unspecified infrastructure needs - I think that this would qualify as an infrastructure need. If we added that $600,000 to the $1.3 million in the Holy Family Trust Fund, we would only need to find another $1 million. Once we've made and met that commitment, I don't think that it would be fair for the Health Board to keep coming back with higher and higher numbers.
Good facilities for those who can no longer live on their own are essential in every community. At some point, most families face the difficult decision of finding a good home for their parents or grandparents, and City Council needs to remember that these facilities, and their residents, are as much a part of an attractive, healthy community as are athletic and entertainment facilities and their user groups. The difference is that having a good residential facility is a need, not a want, and one needed by those who have already made a lifetime of contributions to a community.
"We put more effort into helping folks reach old age than into helping them enjoy it." - Frank Howard Clark
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Free Access to the Landfill - Is There a Better Option?
For several years, we have had a policy of having a week when residents can take stuff to the landfill for free. This week was in the spring, and the free access was intended to encourage residents to clean up their yards of the material that tends to build up over the winter.
Five years ago, it was decided to provide this free access during five weeks of the year, rather than one. And it started to be sold as a favour that we were giving residents, saving them money. What was never mentioned was that this meant that revenues from the landfill would be reduced. We don't know by how much - foregone revenue was never tracked, but considering the line-ups that could be expected during those weeks, it was probably considerable.
And, for the first three years of this free service, there was no restriction on who could access the landfill, so non-residents were able to use a city-operated facility for free. For the last two years you were supposed to produce a driver's licence to prove residency, but I have my doubts, based on anecdotal evidence, on how strictly that requirement is enforced.
I have certainly taken advantage of the free access, and had the opportunity to wait in line many times. So I thought, what if we provided the free access, but on a basis that might be more convenient for residents, as well as limiting the free access to those who are already paying for the landfill through city sanitation charges? My thought was that, if we provided a number of passes to city residents, then they could use the pass when they needed it - perhaps if a summer windstorm blew down branches in your yard, after you've built a new fence, or in the fall when you're cleaning out your garden. That way, we would avoid the congestion that occurs during the designated weeks, limit the number of times that free access could be taken advantage of (because right now, there's no limit on the number of times that you can drop things off during the free weeks), and ensure that only city residents could take advantage of the opportunity.
With a pass system, we would know exactly how much this opportunity is used by residents, and figure out what it actually costs the city in lost revenue. We could even colour code the passes according to each ward, so we could see in which areas the access is under-utilized, where perhaps a different incentive for yard clean-up would have to be developed.
When I first suggested a pass system a few years ago, city administration was full of reasons why this wouldn't work, and how much it would cost to put such a system into place. I'm not sure why it would cost an arm and a leg to put free passes in with the water bills, since free advertising for the Raiders had been done that way, but this was what we were told.
However, last year, council voted to try out this new system. Imagine our surprise when this spring, free landfill weeks were announced once again, contrary to council's decision. When I asked why, I was given the rather questionable excuse that "they hadn't had time". So the subject came up again at last week's Executive Committee meeting, and is again being discussed.
Of course, any time you provide a free service, it's not really free. In the case of free access, we're reducing the revenue that we get from landfill fees. The hoped-for benefit to the city is the improved appearance of residential areas, encouraged by providing this free access. It's also encouraging residents to do work that otherwise will be done by city staff, when we have to send out extra trucks to pick up the debris in back alleys that is left because it's too big for the bins or dumpsters.
Obviously, I would like to give the pass system a try. I think that it will result in increased revenues from the landfill, since there would no longer be unlimited access during five weeks of the year, and non-residents would no longer be able to take advantage of a loosely enforced check system. And I think that the flexibility for residents of being able to use their pass when it works for them, would be appreciated.
It's unfortunate that we don't know what the level of use has been during the free weeks - then we could make a good comparison on foregone revenues. But I think that we do need to track the usage better, and I think that using a pass system will do that.
" There's no such thing as a free lunch." - Milton Friedman
Five years ago, it was decided to provide this free access during five weeks of the year, rather than one. And it started to be sold as a favour that we were giving residents, saving them money. What was never mentioned was that this meant that revenues from the landfill would be reduced. We don't know by how much - foregone revenue was never tracked, but considering the line-ups that could be expected during those weeks, it was probably considerable.
And, for the first three years of this free service, there was no restriction on who could access the landfill, so non-residents were able to use a city-operated facility for free. For the last two years you were supposed to produce a driver's licence to prove residency, but I have my doubts, based on anecdotal evidence, on how strictly that requirement is enforced.
I have certainly taken advantage of the free access, and had the opportunity to wait in line many times. So I thought, what if we provided the free access, but on a basis that might be more convenient for residents, as well as limiting the free access to those who are already paying for the landfill through city sanitation charges? My thought was that, if we provided a number of passes to city residents, then they could use the pass when they needed it - perhaps if a summer windstorm blew down branches in your yard, after you've built a new fence, or in the fall when you're cleaning out your garden. That way, we would avoid the congestion that occurs during the designated weeks, limit the number of times that free access could be taken advantage of (because right now, there's no limit on the number of times that you can drop things off during the free weeks), and ensure that only city residents could take advantage of the opportunity.
With a pass system, we would know exactly how much this opportunity is used by residents, and figure out what it actually costs the city in lost revenue. We could even colour code the passes according to each ward, so we could see in which areas the access is under-utilized, where perhaps a different incentive for yard clean-up would have to be developed.
When I first suggested a pass system a few years ago, city administration was full of reasons why this wouldn't work, and how much it would cost to put such a system into place. I'm not sure why it would cost an arm and a leg to put free passes in with the water bills, since free advertising for the Raiders had been done that way, but this was what we were told.
However, last year, council voted to try out this new system. Imagine our surprise when this spring, free landfill weeks were announced once again, contrary to council's decision. When I asked why, I was given the rather questionable excuse that "they hadn't had time". So the subject came up again at last week's Executive Committee meeting, and is again being discussed.
Of course, any time you provide a free service, it's not really free. In the case of free access, we're reducing the revenue that we get from landfill fees. The hoped-for benefit to the city is the improved appearance of residential areas, encouraged by providing this free access. It's also encouraging residents to do work that otherwise will be done by city staff, when we have to send out extra trucks to pick up the debris in back alleys that is left because it's too big for the bins or dumpsters.
Obviously, I would like to give the pass system a try. I think that it will result in increased revenues from the landfill, since there would no longer be unlimited access during five weeks of the year, and non-residents would no longer be able to take advantage of a loosely enforced check system. And I think that the flexibility for residents of being able to use their pass when it works for them, would be appreciated.
It's unfortunate that we don't know what the level of use has been during the free weeks - then we could make a good comparison on foregone revenues. But I think that we do need to track the usage better, and I think that using a pass system will do that.
" There's no such thing as a free lunch." - Milton Friedman
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Budget Talks Before the Budget - What a Great Idea
On Thursday, council members spent the afternoon with city staff for some early talks about the budget. This is the first time in several years that we've talked about what some city services actually cost, and it was good to see more detailed numbers than we've had in the past. I appreciate the effort that staff put into developing this year's budget binders - it's good to have the additional information, and I know that some of the details were eye-opening for some of the newer members of council.
Having this information available led to the most open budget discussion that I can recall with the current council, and as I've said in the past, the more ideas that are put on the table, the better direction we are able to give city staff, and the better decisions we'll be able to make.
For some services, we were given costs going back a few years, for others, it was just last year's cost, with the projected cost for this year. Having costs going back a few years shows, for example, that our spending on floral decorations has more than doubled, to $38,000, over the last five years. If that kind of detail had been available for last year's budget talks, perhaps we could have identified that we would rather have put the money towards another, less optional, service.
Interestingly, costs for some of the more basic services, such as paving, haven't increased over the past few years. The result is that the gap between what needs to be done and what is actually done is increasing - and roads don't improve with age. This is what has put us into an infrastructure deficit.
And despite all the new construction, both residential and commercial, that has been happening, it was surprising to find out that our tax revenues haven't increased, because assessment decisions have been reversed through appeals processes.
City staff have projected that to maintain the current level of services, a tax increase of 5.5% would be required. This increase takes into account projected increases in staff costs, but doesn't include likely increases for capital and other expenses, such as fuel and utility costs. And as we all know, those costs go up, not down. And remember, the current level of some services is not enough to keep up with the work that should be done; it's just putting us further behind in keeping things functional. I'm sure we all remember what an unpleasant surprise resulted from deferring bridge maintenance work.
I was glad to hear from staff that they have been considering other ways of funding city operations besides tax revenues, such as looking at increasing costs to those who actually use the facilities. For example, those who use the soccer centre should have to pay for maintaining its parking lot. This is a good direction to go in, and I would go further, such as requiring that non-city residents pay higher user fees.
I think that we should also look at the total cost of running city buildings. Did you know that the only city building that pays for its water use is the library? Other buildings - City Hall, the Rawlinson Centre, the golf course, the soccer centre - don't even have water meters. This means that you, as a city resident, subsidize the water used in these buildings. Wouldn't it be a more fair approach if those who use those buildings had to pay for their share of the water? It also might lead to better water conservation initiatives. Perhaps the new water meters that we've decided to pay $86,000 for could be put into existing city buildings, so we can start to get a handle on the real costs.
As I said, this was the most open and informative budget-related meeting that we've had in several years. It revealed some problems, certainly, but only by getting a fuller picture of the actual situation can we develop solutions to these problems.
The meeting was also open to the media, which was a positive thing. I would have taken it further, and made it open to the public, since budget discussions affect the public most directly. It also would have been better if we had been given details on some significant areas of spending - we were given no details on police, fire, sanitation or water costs.
But it was certainly an improvement, and for those members of council who spent the whole afternoon there, it was well worth the time.
"A budget tells us what we can't afford, but it doesn't keep us from buying it." - William Feather
Having this information available led to the most open budget discussion that I can recall with the current council, and as I've said in the past, the more ideas that are put on the table, the better direction we are able to give city staff, and the better decisions we'll be able to make.
For some services, we were given costs going back a few years, for others, it was just last year's cost, with the projected cost for this year. Having costs going back a few years shows, for example, that our spending on floral decorations has more than doubled, to $38,000, over the last five years. If that kind of detail had been available for last year's budget talks, perhaps we could have identified that we would rather have put the money towards another, less optional, service.
Interestingly, costs for some of the more basic services, such as paving, haven't increased over the past few years. The result is that the gap between what needs to be done and what is actually done is increasing - and roads don't improve with age. This is what has put us into an infrastructure deficit.
And despite all the new construction, both residential and commercial, that has been happening, it was surprising to find out that our tax revenues haven't increased, because assessment decisions have been reversed through appeals processes.
City staff have projected that to maintain the current level of services, a tax increase of 5.5% would be required. This increase takes into account projected increases in staff costs, but doesn't include likely increases for capital and other expenses, such as fuel and utility costs. And as we all know, those costs go up, not down. And remember, the current level of some services is not enough to keep up with the work that should be done; it's just putting us further behind in keeping things functional. I'm sure we all remember what an unpleasant surprise resulted from deferring bridge maintenance work.
I was glad to hear from staff that they have been considering other ways of funding city operations besides tax revenues, such as looking at increasing costs to those who actually use the facilities. For example, those who use the soccer centre should have to pay for maintaining its parking lot. This is a good direction to go in, and I would go further, such as requiring that non-city residents pay higher user fees.
I think that we should also look at the total cost of running city buildings. Did you know that the only city building that pays for its water use is the library? Other buildings - City Hall, the Rawlinson Centre, the golf course, the soccer centre - don't even have water meters. This means that you, as a city resident, subsidize the water used in these buildings. Wouldn't it be a more fair approach if those who use those buildings had to pay for their share of the water? It also might lead to better water conservation initiatives. Perhaps the new water meters that we've decided to pay $86,000 for could be put into existing city buildings, so we can start to get a handle on the real costs.
As I said, this was the most open and informative budget-related meeting that we've had in several years. It revealed some problems, certainly, but only by getting a fuller picture of the actual situation can we develop solutions to these problems.
The meeting was also open to the media, which was a positive thing. I would have taken it further, and made it open to the public, since budget discussions affect the public most directly. It also would have been better if we had been given details on some significant areas of spending - we were given no details on police, fire, sanitation or water costs.
But it was certainly an improvement, and for those members of council who spent the whole afternoon there, it was well worth the time.
"A budget tells us what we can't afford, but it doesn't keep us from buying it." - William Feather
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Communication - It Needs to be a Two-Way Street
One of the topics brought forward at last week's Executive Committee meeting was a request to approve in principle a new communication strategy. I'm not sure where the impetus for this came from - the need for a new strategy has not been discussed or requested by council. Two of the proposed elements particularly caught my eye - the professed need for a new city logo, and the suggestion that we purchase a flat screen TV, to be mounted outside the city clerk's office, where various updates could be shown.
I find that somewhat ironic - I've often described this council's approach to budgeting as being similar to someone who buys a flat screen TV before fixing the holes in the roof, and now city administration is proposing that we do exactly that.
Now. don't get me wrong - I think that more communication from city council is a good thing. That's one of the reasons that I started this blog - to let city residents, particularly those in Ward Three, know my thoughts on various decisions and dilemmas facing the city. But a lot of what I communicate about is based on questions and comments that I've heard from residents, what is important to them.
That's the essence of communication - it's the act of conveying meaningful information. It requires both a sender and a recipient, and there should be some effort made by the sender to provide information that the recipient wants. I find that what is considered communication by some members of council is more like advertising, which is a form of communication, true, but a form that is used to persuade an audience - in other words, we tend to tell you what we want you to hear, but we may avoid telling you what you're actually interested in. It's like the flyers that come with the newspaper - those that we look at are those for stores we actually shop in, the rest go directly to recycling.
I haven't heard anyone ask for a new city logo. I haven't heard anyone say that they're interested in going up to the second floor of City Hall to look at a new flat screen TV (bought with their tax dollars) to see the latest council meeting schedule.
What I have heard repeatedly are questions like where are the Rawlinson Centre financial reports, or what are the actual operating costs for the soccer centre, or what are the options and costs for repairing the bridge, or what can be done about all the needles on the streets.
Instead of answering these questions, we seem to think that if we only tell people how wonderful Prince Albert is, they won't care about the ongoing problems that are a part of living in any city. If we tell people often enough that Prince Albert is beautiful, maybe they'll ignore unpaved streets, lead water service connections, or boarded up buildings.
Most people aren't stupid. They know that Prince Albert, while a good place to live, is not Utopia. The people that I talk to would rather have the whole picture, including the problems, and then they would really like to hear what our plans are for solving the problems. They know that money is tight, and the vast majority of them would prefer that we spend their tax dollars solving the real problems, rather on new signs, or banners, or weekly infomercials on the local radio station, where the same artificial sunshine is pumped out over and over.
I say let's start improving our communication by answering the questions that are being asked.
"Any problem, big or small...always seems to start with bad communication. Someone isn't listening." - Emma Thompson
I find that somewhat ironic - I've often described this council's approach to budgeting as being similar to someone who buys a flat screen TV before fixing the holes in the roof, and now city administration is proposing that we do exactly that.
Now. don't get me wrong - I think that more communication from city council is a good thing. That's one of the reasons that I started this blog - to let city residents, particularly those in Ward Three, know my thoughts on various decisions and dilemmas facing the city. But a lot of what I communicate about is based on questions and comments that I've heard from residents, what is important to them.
That's the essence of communication - it's the act of conveying meaningful information. It requires both a sender and a recipient, and there should be some effort made by the sender to provide information that the recipient wants. I find that what is considered communication by some members of council is more like advertising, which is a form of communication, true, but a form that is used to persuade an audience - in other words, we tend to tell you what we want you to hear, but we may avoid telling you what you're actually interested in. It's like the flyers that come with the newspaper - those that we look at are those for stores we actually shop in, the rest go directly to recycling.
I haven't heard anyone ask for a new city logo. I haven't heard anyone say that they're interested in going up to the second floor of City Hall to look at a new flat screen TV (bought with their tax dollars) to see the latest council meeting schedule.
What I have heard repeatedly are questions like where are the Rawlinson Centre financial reports, or what are the actual operating costs for the soccer centre, or what are the options and costs for repairing the bridge, or what can be done about all the needles on the streets.
Instead of answering these questions, we seem to think that if we only tell people how wonderful Prince Albert is, they won't care about the ongoing problems that are a part of living in any city. If we tell people often enough that Prince Albert is beautiful, maybe they'll ignore unpaved streets, lead water service connections, or boarded up buildings.
Most people aren't stupid. They know that Prince Albert, while a good place to live, is not Utopia. The people that I talk to would rather have the whole picture, including the problems, and then they would really like to hear what our plans are for solving the problems. They know that money is tight, and the vast majority of them would prefer that we spend their tax dollars solving the real problems, rather on new signs, or banners, or weekly infomercials on the local radio station, where the same artificial sunshine is pumped out over and over.
I say let's start improving our communication by answering the questions that are being asked.
"Any problem, big or small...always seems to start with bad communication. Someone isn't listening." - Emma Thompson
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Remote Water Meters - Our Latest New Thing
At the Council meeting this week, council voted that the city purchase 250 new water meters, at a cost of $86,000. This was done, despite this cost being $20,000 more than was in the budget, and despite there being several unanswered questions as to the need for this purchase at this time.
These meters will be able to be read remotely, from a vehicle passing by, and thus the reasoning given was that labour costs will be reduced.
So now, the city will have three types of water meters. There's the old-fashioned kind, where the reading has to be made at the meter, written down, and submitted. There's a newer kind, which has the option of being read manually, but it can also be wired to the outside of the house to a pin pad, and thus be read by touching the reading device to the pin, so that access to the inside of the house or business is not required. Less than 50% of the meters currently in the city have this capability. And now there's this newest acquisition.
Now, it doesn't take any stretch of logical thought to figure out that 250 meters isn't very many in a city of this size. Upon being questioned, city administration admitted that these meters will be used in new houses. In other words, we're buying these meters to sit on the shelf for a while.
To me, if the reason was really that we want to reduce labour costs, then we should look at what we currently have, and see if there's a way of reducing the costs of reading those meters. For example, was any thought given to wiring all of the second type of meter so that it could be read from outside the house? I'm thinking that you could hire a summer student to do this for a lot less than $86,000, and the result would be that way more than 250 water meters could then be read more easily. Not as exciting as being read remotely, but remember, those meters aren't going to be read for awhile anyway, and I can't believe that the eventual savings from reading 250 meters will be noticeable at budget time.
I'm also surprised that more of the details of our metering system aren't readily available. For example, when I asked how many residences or businesses had the second type of meter, the best that administration could give me was the "less than 50%" number. I find it hard to believe that we set out to solve problems without having as much information as possible available.
I'm also disappointed, once again, in other members of council who seem to feel that if administration proposes something, then we need to agree to it, without asking questions. Unfortunately, administration hasn't been elected to represent the needs of the residents of the city, members of council have. For instance, I've asked why it isn't possible for water billing to be done monthly, as is done for other utilities, as many residents have mentioned that this would make their financial lives easier. The response is usually a vague questioning look, without a good response.
Council needs to collectively give itself a shake, remember why we're there (and no, acting as an automatic rubber stamp was nowhere in our oath of office), and start asking the tough questions, especially before approving expenditures that aren't necessary, and are outside the approved budget.
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has ... been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice." - Albert Einstein
These meters will be able to be read remotely, from a vehicle passing by, and thus the reasoning given was that labour costs will be reduced.
So now, the city will have three types of water meters. There's the old-fashioned kind, where the reading has to be made at the meter, written down, and submitted. There's a newer kind, which has the option of being read manually, but it can also be wired to the outside of the house to a pin pad, and thus be read by touching the reading device to the pin, so that access to the inside of the house or business is not required. Less than 50% of the meters currently in the city have this capability. And now there's this newest acquisition.
Now, it doesn't take any stretch of logical thought to figure out that 250 meters isn't very many in a city of this size. Upon being questioned, city administration admitted that these meters will be used in new houses. In other words, we're buying these meters to sit on the shelf for a while.
To me, if the reason was really that we want to reduce labour costs, then we should look at what we currently have, and see if there's a way of reducing the costs of reading those meters. For example, was any thought given to wiring all of the second type of meter so that it could be read from outside the house? I'm thinking that you could hire a summer student to do this for a lot less than $86,000, and the result would be that way more than 250 water meters could then be read more easily. Not as exciting as being read remotely, but remember, those meters aren't going to be read for awhile anyway, and I can't believe that the eventual savings from reading 250 meters will be noticeable at budget time.
I'm also surprised that more of the details of our metering system aren't readily available. For example, when I asked how many residences or businesses had the second type of meter, the best that administration could give me was the "less than 50%" number. I find it hard to believe that we set out to solve problems without having as much information as possible available.
I'm also disappointed, once again, in other members of council who seem to feel that if administration proposes something, then we need to agree to it, without asking questions. Unfortunately, administration hasn't been elected to represent the needs of the residents of the city, members of council have. For instance, I've asked why it isn't possible for water billing to be done monthly, as is done for other utilities, as many residents have mentioned that this would make their financial lives easier. The response is usually a vague questioning look, without a good response.
Council needs to collectively give itself a shake, remember why we're there (and no, acting as an automatic rubber stamp was nowhere in our oath of office), and start asking the tough questions, especially before approving expenditures that aren't necessary, and are outside the approved budget.
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has ... been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice." - Albert Einstein
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Communication (or Lack of Same)
Once again, I've had to neglect the blog for personal reasons. Andrea had to have major surgery in Saskatoon in September, which has disrupted our lives somewhat, and kept me busier than usual. She's home now, and starting to feel more like herself, although she still has a ways to go.
In the meantime, certainly the status of the bridge is the question that I'm still asked most often. There's no question that the slowing of traffic, and the weight limits, have caused problems both for city residents and those just trying to get through.
And of course, it's renewed discussion about the need for a second bridge. It's unfortunate that, throughout this whole process, going back to the initial report more than three years ago, most of us on council are still being kept in the dark on the details of the situation. I don't understand why those who receive the information feel that it should be released in dribs and drabs, and often to the general public before council.
That original report, of course, had been shared with RM councils well before we got to have a look at it, and that was only after making repeated requests. Just think of where we might have been in the construction of a new bridge if it had been brought to council for discussion and endorsement when it was first released. We might actually be on the priority list for the province, rather than now working just to quantify why we should be on the list.
And then came the fortunate observance by a canoeist who alerted both the city and the province to the state of the current bridge. Again, aside from being invited to a press conference on August 30, we weren't kept informed.
For example, there was a meeting with Highways set for September 22. At the council meeting that week, we weren't even informed that this meeting would be happening. One councillor heard the mayor talking about it on the radio the day after the council meeting, and asked when and where it was, since that councillor thought it would be worth attending. The response was that only the mayor and the city manager were invited to the meeting. Then, when it was found out that RM councillors would be attending, we were then told (the day before the meeting) that we could attend. So I attended, as did two other councillors, where Highways officials told us of the rationale that would be needed to justify a second bridge. Big secret, right? And while this is important in the context of the second bridge discussions, it didn't provide any further clarification on what could be done to alleviate the current situation.
When I raised the issue of not being kept informed, one councillor commented that he felt quite informed, since he had heard stuff on the radio. I'm sorry, but I think that members of council should not have to rely on the media to know what's going on at City Hall - that is, if we're trying to make decisions based on the best possible information, not on a twenty second sound bite.
Council has also delegated the authority for decision-making on the bridge repairs to the city manager, saying that in such an emergency situation, decisions shouldn't be slowed by the democratic process. I don't agree with this. While the situation is serious, so far there has been no indication that waiting the 24 hours required to call a council meeting to ratify a decision would have slowed anything down. I find it somewhat ironic that members of council who love to micromanage such things as banner design, street naming and where city crews should be working are quite happy to hand over million dollar decisions to someone who hasn't been elected. Of course, this isn't the first time that we've delegated such authority - we did it for the construction of the field house a couple of years ago.
In any case, when concerns were voiced about this delegation, the city manager promised weekly updates, which have been happening. The second week of October we were sent a copy of the Emergency Repair Agreement with Highways, which limits the province's share of costs to $1 million (although there is the possibility of revisiting this number once detailed cost estimates are available), as well as a report on the work that needs to be done to repair the crack in the girder. This past Friday we received another update on the work.
I appreciate these regular updates, but so far, we haven't been informed of what the costs are likely to be. I'd be happy with a ballpark figure for now, but aside from the two reports and the contract, that's all that I've been given.
Again, if communications were more open and transparent, we could make better decisions, councillors would feel less frustration and we'd be able to respond better to questions from the public. After all, whether it's money coming from the city or the province, we're just taking it from different pockets on the same pair of pants.
"What we've got here is a failure to communicate." - Cool Hand Luke
In the meantime, certainly the status of the bridge is the question that I'm still asked most often. There's no question that the slowing of traffic, and the weight limits, have caused problems both for city residents and those just trying to get through.
And of course, it's renewed discussion about the need for a second bridge. It's unfortunate that, throughout this whole process, going back to the initial report more than three years ago, most of us on council are still being kept in the dark on the details of the situation. I don't understand why those who receive the information feel that it should be released in dribs and drabs, and often to the general public before council.
That original report, of course, had been shared with RM councils well before we got to have a look at it, and that was only after making repeated requests. Just think of where we might have been in the construction of a new bridge if it had been brought to council for discussion and endorsement when it was first released. We might actually be on the priority list for the province, rather than now working just to quantify why we should be on the list.
And then came the fortunate observance by a canoeist who alerted both the city and the province to the state of the current bridge. Again, aside from being invited to a press conference on August 30, we weren't kept informed.
For example, there was a meeting with Highways set for September 22. At the council meeting that week, we weren't even informed that this meeting would be happening. One councillor heard the mayor talking about it on the radio the day after the council meeting, and asked when and where it was, since that councillor thought it would be worth attending. The response was that only the mayor and the city manager were invited to the meeting. Then, when it was found out that RM councillors would be attending, we were then told (the day before the meeting) that we could attend. So I attended, as did two other councillors, where Highways officials told us of the rationale that would be needed to justify a second bridge. Big secret, right? And while this is important in the context of the second bridge discussions, it didn't provide any further clarification on what could be done to alleviate the current situation.
When I raised the issue of not being kept informed, one councillor commented that he felt quite informed, since he had heard stuff on the radio. I'm sorry, but I think that members of council should not have to rely on the media to know what's going on at City Hall - that is, if we're trying to make decisions based on the best possible information, not on a twenty second sound bite.
Council has also delegated the authority for decision-making on the bridge repairs to the city manager, saying that in such an emergency situation, decisions shouldn't be slowed by the democratic process. I don't agree with this. While the situation is serious, so far there has been no indication that waiting the 24 hours required to call a council meeting to ratify a decision would have slowed anything down. I find it somewhat ironic that members of council who love to micromanage such things as banner design, street naming and where city crews should be working are quite happy to hand over million dollar decisions to someone who hasn't been elected. Of course, this isn't the first time that we've delegated such authority - we did it for the construction of the field house a couple of years ago.
In any case, when concerns were voiced about this delegation, the city manager promised weekly updates, which have been happening. The second week of October we were sent a copy of the Emergency Repair Agreement with Highways, which limits the province's share of costs to $1 million (although there is the possibility of revisiting this number once detailed cost estimates are available), as well as a report on the work that needs to be done to repair the crack in the girder. This past Friday we received another update on the work.
I appreciate these regular updates, but so far, we haven't been informed of what the costs are likely to be. I'd be happy with a ballpark figure for now, but aside from the two reports and the contract, that's all that I've been given.
Again, if communications were more open and transparent, we could make better decisions, councillors would feel less frustration and we'd be able to respond better to questions from the public. After all, whether it's money coming from the city or the province, we're just taking it from different pockets on the same pair of pants.
"What we've got here is a failure to communicate." - Cool Hand Luke
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)