At the end of last week's Council Meeting, I made an inquiry that has set off a bit of a firestorm of public reaction. I asked administration for the traffic volume that crosses the Diefenbaker Bridge every day, and, if there was a toll, what sort of revenues might be generated.
I made the inquiry mainly because this is an idea that occasionally gets mentioned as being a possible solution for our ongoing infrastructure funding woes, and I believe that if we're going to start bringing up ideas, then we need to do so as publicly as possible, so that the public has the chance to let us know their opinions. As a council that has repeatedly said that it is open and accountable, that's what we need to do. And the place to start is with some numbers, to assess the feasibility of the concept.
While the general public response has not been favourable to such an idea (the adjective bone-headed is one of the kinder descriptions that I've heard, for both the idea and me), tolls are used in other places. In Halifax last June, when we were there for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities annual meeting, I was quite surprised when the cab stopped to pay a toll on the bridge between Dartmouth and Halifax. When I asked the cab driver about it, he explained that there was a one dollar toll on both bridges between the two cities, but it was only a loonie, and the money went directly to pay for bridge maintenance. Bridge and expressway tolls are quite common when travelling through the States, as well. And in Toronto, one way of avoiding the congestion of Highway 401, as you bypass Toronto, is to travel the toll route of Highway 407, a privately built and maintained expressway that collects its fees by electronically recording your licence plate as you enter and exit, then sending you a bill. We have found that the fees can be avoided with a Saskatchewan licence plate, but not with a rental car. So the idea has been implemented successfully elsewhere.
We have to face the fact that Prince Albert has an ever-increasing infrastructure repair and maintenance deficit, and our budgets haven't been successful at addressing the issue - we've instead avoided talking about it, probably because such discussions aren't much fun. The reality is that a city council has only two options within its control for raising money - taxes and user fees. This particular council is limited by past decisions that have followed our desires for big city amenities without admitting that we don't have the big city industrial and residential tax base to pay for such facilities. For many of these facilities, the user fees aren't sufficient to cover the ongoing costs, with the result that we raise taxes to make up the difference. And to avoid having high tax increases, we have delayed maintenance and repair of the less glamorous, but still vital, infrastructure requirements like roads and water mains. We can also appeal to higher levels of government for funding assistance, but this is usually limited to certain types of programs, for which they set the criteria. And sadly, it's much easier to get, for example, $2 million from the province to help fund the construction of the soccer centre, than to get assistance with basic infrastructure maintenance.
And it's only going to get worse. About the same time as we were having bridge problems last year, council and the province agreed to our participation in the Urban Connector Program. In this program, highway sections that are within city limits which have been maintained by the provincial Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure, will become the responsibility of the city, after Highways and Infrastructure has brought these sections up to necessary standards. So, at some point in the not too distant future, the city will have to fund maintenance and repair of the highway out to the pulp mill, and the Shellbrook overpass. Our costs are going up, not down. And money has to come from somewhere.
Despite the negative tone of much of the public feedback, I'm glad that people are interested enough to comment, and I've had several good discussions with city residents since last Monday, which is how it should be. I'm also glad to see that many people are coming to the realization that we have to look at many options, including how we're currently spending money, to see where we could cut back on unnecessary expenditures, and that perhaps raising user fees at city facilities, and charging non-city residents a higher fee for accessing these facilities, are ideas that should be considered.
One last thought - people have to remember that, if you want an open and accountable council, the open discussion of ideas has to be encouraged, not jumped upon. There are far too many people on council who are reluctant to talk about things openly, because of the fear of negative public feedback. The result of that is backroom discussions and decisions - not the open, democratic process that would likely produce better results for everyone.
"No idea is so outlandish that it should not be considered with a searching but at the same time a steady eye." - Winston Churchill
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Trying to Plug the Leaks
As well as Executive Meeting last Tuesday (delayed from Monday because of the wrap-up of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference in Saskatoon), we had a Special Council Meeting for the third reading to pass the new water rates.
As I've mentioned before, I voted against the new rates for several reasons, one of which is that I've seen no attempt by administration to deal with increasing water costs by doing anything except raise water rates. In this case, the increase is greater for residential users than for commercial users, another reason why I couldn't support this increase.
One of the more disturbing pieces of information to come from administration is that, since 2006, the amount of water not accounted for, and thus not paid for, has increased by 80% - from 42 million cubic feet to 76 million cubic feet. In the same time, residential use has decreased, probably because people are trying to keep their water bills manageable by reducing their usage. So while those who are paying are trying to conserve, the amount of water that isn't being paid for is increasing, and this increasing waste is being paid for by city residents - no wonder the average residential water bill has increased by 50% over the same time period.
So where does this unaccounted water go? Some of it is in leaks, some is through water main breaks, some is lost through fighting fires, some is due to incorrect water meter readings, and some is used in city-run facilities that don't pay for their water use, like City Hall, the golf course, the soccer centre, the Rawlinson Centre, and the City Yards.
It's time that we took a look at this, to stop pouring money down the drain. To me, it makes sense to reduce the volume of unaccounted and unpaid for water. I made a motion at Tuesday's meeting, asking administration to provide us with the volume of water that is used, but not paid for, at city facilities. Although I was told last year that there were no water meters at these facilities, I've since found out, from a more reliable information source, that not only are there meters at, for example, the golf course, the soccer centre, and the Rawlinson Centre, but they are read on a regular basis.
To me, it only makes sense that these facilities account and pay for their water usage. While there will be those who think that, because they are city facilities, we would only be moving money from one city pocket to another, we should be including these costs when we're calculating user fees, so that the user fees truly reflect the operating costs of the facility. After all, if the library and the Girl Guide Hall can pay for the water they use, why shouldn't golfers?
For facilities like City Hall, where we don't charge user fees, we should be aware of what volume of water we use, and encourage staff to be thoughtful in their use. Greater awareness of how much is being used could lead to reductions, for example, by not watering the grass around City Hall the day after it rains. Or perhaps each department should be paying for their water use, as part of the budgeting process - the taxpayer would still be footing the bill, but through their taxes, not through their water bills.
We should also develop a plan to address the areas where water is lost. For example, we should track water main breaks, and put those streets with high frequency of water main breaks on a priority list for water main replacement. We should be tracking where leaks occur, and fix them. What is being done to improve the accuracy of meter readings? Just like fixing a leaky tap or a running toilet in your home can lower your water bill, the city should be trying to lower its bills, not just pass the increased costs on to residents.
I'm looking forward to the report from administration, and I hope that council will then take meaningful steps to make payment for water use more equitable.
"When the well's dry, we know the worth of water." - Ben Franklin
As I've mentioned before, I voted against the new rates for several reasons, one of which is that I've seen no attempt by administration to deal with increasing water costs by doing anything except raise water rates. In this case, the increase is greater for residential users than for commercial users, another reason why I couldn't support this increase.
One of the more disturbing pieces of information to come from administration is that, since 2006, the amount of water not accounted for, and thus not paid for, has increased by 80% - from 42 million cubic feet to 76 million cubic feet. In the same time, residential use has decreased, probably because people are trying to keep their water bills manageable by reducing their usage. So while those who are paying are trying to conserve, the amount of water that isn't being paid for is increasing, and this increasing waste is being paid for by city residents - no wonder the average residential water bill has increased by 50% over the same time period.
So where does this unaccounted water go? Some of it is in leaks, some is through water main breaks, some is lost through fighting fires, some is due to incorrect water meter readings, and some is used in city-run facilities that don't pay for their water use, like City Hall, the golf course, the soccer centre, the Rawlinson Centre, and the City Yards.
It's time that we took a look at this, to stop pouring money down the drain. To me, it makes sense to reduce the volume of unaccounted and unpaid for water. I made a motion at Tuesday's meeting, asking administration to provide us with the volume of water that is used, but not paid for, at city facilities. Although I was told last year that there were no water meters at these facilities, I've since found out, from a more reliable information source, that not only are there meters at, for example, the golf course, the soccer centre, and the Rawlinson Centre, but they are read on a regular basis.
To me, it only makes sense that these facilities account and pay for their water usage. While there will be those who think that, because they are city facilities, we would only be moving money from one city pocket to another, we should be including these costs when we're calculating user fees, so that the user fees truly reflect the operating costs of the facility. After all, if the library and the Girl Guide Hall can pay for the water they use, why shouldn't golfers?
For facilities like City Hall, where we don't charge user fees, we should be aware of what volume of water we use, and encourage staff to be thoughtful in their use. Greater awareness of how much is being used could lead to reductions, for example, by not watering the grass around City Hall the day after it rains. Or perhaps each department should be paying for their water use, as part of the budgeting process - the taxpayer would still be footing the bill, but through their taxes, not through their water bills.
We should also develop a plan to address the areas where water is lost. For example, we should track water main breaks, and put those streets with high frequency of water main breaks on a priority list for water main replacement. We should be tracking where leaks occur, and fix them. What is being done to improve the accuracy of meter readings? Just like fixing a leaky tap or a running toilet in your home can lower your water bill, the city should be trying to lower its bills, not just pass the increased costs on to residents.
I'm looking forward to the report from administration, and I hope that council will then take meaningful steps to make payment for water use more equitable.
"When the well's dry, we know the worth of water." - Ben Franklin
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Now There's a Thought - Let's Look at Our Spending
The blog has been quiet for a few weeks. Andrea and I took advantage of a Via Rail seat sale which nicely coincided with her return to good health, to go to Ontario for a couple of weeks to visit family and friends.
On the agenda for my first council meeting back, there was a report on various tax tools that we could use to get more money out of tax-payers' pockets. I saw this as an opportunity to suggest that, instead of thinking that our only solution to financial problems is to hit up the taxpayer, we could instead examine how we currently spend money, and see if there are efficiencies to be found there.
I suggest this every year as we're going through the budget process. Every year this suggestion has been ignored by most members of council. The assumption has been that we will continue to spend money as we've always spent it, even though, when times are tough, we might not need to spend $40,000 each year on floral decorations, for example. But we don't even discuss the necessity of such expenditures, or even if we could spend less, or if there are alternatives to having barrels of petunias set out on Memorial Square.
Imagine my surprise, when other members of council thought that this might be a valuable exercise (although a couple were of the opinion that this is already happening), and we have agreed to ask the city manager to prepare a report on how we could do this, and what processes other municipalities have used in such reviews. Coincidentally, this was also the topic of a panel discussion at the pre-Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) meeting that many senior staff attended in Saskatoon this week, so they should already have picked up some valuable ideas that they can use.
I think that for maximum value, we want more than a service review, such as the one that Saskatoon went through this past year. That was more of an evaluation of what areas of expenditure are most valued by residents. I would like to see a review that combined that sort of evaluation with an examination of how expenditures could be made more efficiently.
For example, there's no question that police need to buy new vehicles periodically. However, an examination of how such an expenditure is made could show that other municipalities replace their police vehicles less frequently, or find that less expensive vehicles are adequate for police work - that's where real savings could occur.
Are staff being used most efficiently? Previous mayors managed to share one secretary with the city manager. Now, the mayor has two secretaries, the city manager has one (plus other staff with vague job titles). Are all these support staff really necessary?
I think that all areas of expenditures should be looked at - staffing, capital, operational. For this to really work, there should be no sacred cows.
Along with most members of council, I'll be attending FCM in Saskatoon this weekend. I'll be looking to talk with representatives from other cities to find out, not just how they've done such reviews, but how they've been able to put their findings into practice.
"If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it." - Abraham Lincoln
On the agenda for my first council meeting back, there was a report on various tax tools that we could use to get more money out of tax-payers' pockets. I saw this as an opportunity to suggest that, instead of thinking that our only solution to financial problems is to hit up the taxpayer, we could instead examine how we currently spend money, and see if there are efficiencies to be found there.
I suggest this every year as we're going through the budget process. Every year this suggestion has been ignored by most members of council. The assumption has been that we will continue to spend money as we've always spent it, even though, when times are tough, we might not need to spend $40,000 each year on floral decorations, for example. But we don't even discuss the necessity of such expenditures, or even if we could spend less, or if there are alternatives to having barrels of petunias set out on Memorial Square.
Imagine my surprise, when other members of council thought that this might be a valuable exercise (although a couple were of the opinion that this is already happening), and we have agreed to ask the city manager to prepare a report on how we could do this, and what processes other municipalities have used in such reviews. Coincidentally, this was also the topic of a panel discussion at the pre-Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) meeting that many senior staff attended in Saskatoon this week, so they should already have picked up some valuable ideas that they can use.
I think that for maximum value, we want more than a service review, such as the one that Saskatoon went through this past year. That was more of an evaluation of what areas of expenditure are most valued by residents. I would like to see a review that combined that sort of evaluation with an examination of how expenditures could be made more efficiently.
For example, there's no question that police need to buy new vehicles periodically. However, an examination of how such an expenditure is made could show that other municipalities replace their police vehicles less frequently, or find that less expensive vehicles are adequate for police work - that's where real savings could occur.
Are staff being used most efficiently? Previous mayors managed to share one secretary with the city manager. Now, the mayor has two secretaries, the city manager has one (plus other staff with vague job titles). Are all these support staff really necessary?
I think that all areas of expenditures should be looked at - staffing, capital, operational. For this to really work, there should be no sacred cows.
Along with most members of council, I'll be attending FCM in Saskatoon this weekend. I'll be looking to talk with representatives from other cities to find out, not just how they've done such reviews, but how they've been able to put their findings into practice.
"If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it." - Abraham Lincoln
Sunday, May 6, 2012
The Second Bridge Campaign
No question, Prince Albert needs a second bridge. I've lived here more than thirty years, and people have been talking about the need for at least that long, and no doubt longer than that. Last year's bridge repairs certainly underlined the importance of the bridge for both businesses and the general public, and kicked it to the forefront of discussion once again.
Having said that, I'm not sure of the usefulness of the current Build a Second Bridge campaign. The purpose of this campaign is to encourage surrounding municipalities, businesses, and residents to send a letter to the mayor's office, indicating support for a second bridge. These letters will be collected and presented to the Premier and Cabinet. A budget of almost $12,000 has been identified for what is really just a high-priced petitioning exercise - an exercise that the provincial government has already indicated won't loosen up any more money.
Now, I'm sure there are those that will say that perhaps the powers-that-be in Regina might be swayed by a massive volume of letters dumped onto someone's desk. Even if I believed that, I don't think that we need to spend thousands of tax-payers dollars to do this.
The budget proposes spending $500 on paper and printing, $3,500 on developing the web-site, $1,700 for postage, $1,000 for stickers, and $5,000 on media advertising. I'm a little surprised that city staff couldn't develop the web-site (and it should have been proof-read a little more closely). In this age of email, postage and paper costs shouldn't be necessary - certainly not close to $2,200 worth. If we really want to overwhelm Regina with numbers, why not have petitions available for signing at city hall, and at supporting businesses - people are far more likely to sign a petition than go to the trouble of writing a letter on their own.
The bulk of the money ($4,000 so far) is going to pay for TV and radio advertising to support this effort, and in this day of cable, I doubt that it will be all that effective.
How much more effective it would have been if the province's bridge report had been made available both to all members of council as well as the public, when it was completed in 2008. We could have started discussions with the province on how to make a new bridge a reality, not just an ongoing topic of conversation. Instead, a few individuals chose to ask for changes to the report, apparently because it didn't include a recommendation that a new bridge be within city limits.
More than four years later, the only action that we're taking is to spend money to tell the provincial government something that they're already aware of, to make it look as if we're doing something. And we're spending your money, already in tight supply, to do this.
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
Having said that, I'm not sure of the usefulness of the current Build a Second Bridge campaign. The purpose of this campaign is to encourage surrounding municipalities, businesses, and residents to send a letter to the mayor's office, indicating support for a second bridge. These letters will be collected and presented to the Premier and Cabinet. A budget of almost $12,000 has been identified for what is really just a high-priced petitioning exercise - an exercise that the provincial government has already indicated won't loosen up any more money.
Now, I'm sure there are those that will say that perhaps the powers-that-be in Regina might be swayed by a massive volume of letters dumped onto someone's desk. Even if I believed that, I don't think that we need to spend thousands of tax-payers dollars to do this.
The budget proposes spending $500 on paper and printing, $3,500 on developing the web-site, $1,700 for postage, $1,000 for stickers, and $5,000 on media advertising. I'm a little surprised that city staff couldn't develop the web-site (and it should have been proof-read a little more closely). In this age of email, postage and paper costs shouldn't be necessary - certainly not close to $2,200 worth. If we really want to overwhelm Regina with numbers, why not have petitions available for signing at city hall, and at supporting businesses - people are far more likely to sign a petition than go to the trouble of writing a letter on their own.
The bulk of the money ($4,000 so far) is going to pay for TV and radio advertising to support this effort, and in this day of cable, I doubt that it will be all that effective.
How much more effective it would have been if the province's bridge report had been made available both to all members of council as well as the public, when it was completed in 2008. We could have started discussions with the province on how to make a new bridge a reality, not just an ongoing topic of conversation. Instead, a few individuals chose to ask for changes to the report, apparently because it didn't include a recommendation that a new bridge be within city limits.
More than four years later, the only action that we're taking is to spend money to tell the provincial government something that they're already aware of, to make it look as if we're doing something. And we're spending your money, already in tight supply, to do this.
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
Sunday, April 29, 2012
What I Hope We've Learned from This Year's Budget Process
Well, the budget is now done for another year, after the budget bylaw was passed at a special council meeting last Monday. That it passed wasn't a surprise for anyone involved, despite its defeat through a tie vote at an executive meeting two weeks earlier - we all know that votes at executive aren't the final word, and some council members are known for changing their minds when things come to council, for whatever reason.
But now that the process is over for another year, I hope that all involved, both council and administration, have learned from the experience, and will try to do better next year (or at least, those who are still around after this fall's election). I have a few specific suggestions where we could build on some of the things that happened, both good and bad, in this year's process.
First, having more information helps in making decisions. The financial information that we were given by administration before the budget process even started was quite enlightening, and was more detail than has been provided in the past few years. Of course, once that information is available, it should be used more than it was. I was disappointed that, even though we were given numbers related to the amount that needed to be in the budget to maintain roads, for example, the numbers in the final budget didn't seem to take that into account.
Second, don't make changes at the last minute, without a map showing how the change being proposed will affect the rest of the budget. The way that numbers were being juggled over the last month reminded me of a shell game, as we pulled money from various projects or unspecified maintenance activities, to satisfy the wants of a few special interest groups and make up for unexpected shortfalls. If we decide to make those changes, fine, but we should be able to say exactly what is being sacrificed, and why we feel that other uses, heard from late in the process, should take priority over previously identified needs.
Third, any facility that is supported by taxpayer dollars should have to provide full financial records and budgets to both council and the general public. This year was the first time in six years that council was shown financial records (for 2010) for the Rawlinson Centre, after years of inquiries and requests. However, that information was provided in camera, rather than openly to the public, for reasons that still aren't clear to me. Hopefully we'll see their financial records for 2011 soon, and a budget for the upcoming year, such as is provided by the library, should also be required. All facilities should have to follow the same rules before they get a share of tax revenues - that's fair to the facilities, and it's only fair that the public can see where their money is being spent.
And finally, no-one involved should count chickens before they're hatched. This year, revenue assumptions were made based on population numbers that were not confirmed by the census. As a result, we ended up about $300,000 short, and had to scramble to produce a budget that balanced. It's kind of like when we go ahead with a project assuming that federal funding will be available, then find out that we've been turned down, so have to find the money elsewhere. Far better to make decisions based on a worst-case scenario, then be pleasantly surprised when revenues are higher than planned, or funding comes through.
As I've said before, preparing a budget for the city is like preparing your own household budget, although at a much larger scale. But the same principles apply, and one of those principles is figuring out how to do it better the next time.
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." - Douglas Adams
But now that the process is over for another year, I hope that all involved, both council and administration, have learned from the experience, and will try to do better next year (or at least, those who are still around after this fall's election). I have a few specific suggestions where we could build on some of the things that happened, both good and bad, in this year's process.
First, having more information helps in making decisions. The financial information that we were given by administration before the budget process even started was quite enlightening, and was more detail than has been provided in the past few years. Of course, once that information is available, it should be used more than it was. I was disappointed that, even though we were given numbers related to the amount that needed to be in the budget to maintain roads, for example, the numbers in the final budget didn't seem to take that into account.
Second, don't make changes at the last minute, without a map showing how the change being proposed will affect the rest of the budget. The way that numbers were being juggled over the last month reminded me of a shell game, as we pulled money from various projects or unspecified maintenance activities, to satisfy the wants of a few special interest groups and make up for unexpected shortfalls. If we decide to make those changes, fine, but we should be able to say exactly what is being sacrificed, and why we feel that other uses, heard from late in the process, should take priority over previously identified needs.
Third, any facility that is supported by taxpayer dollars should have to provide full financial records and budgets to both council and the general public. This year was the first time in six years that council was shown financial records (for 2010) for the Rawlinson Centre, after years of inquiries and requests. However, that information was provided in camera, rather than openly to the public, for reasons that still aren't clear to me. Hopefully we'll see their financial records for 2011 soon, and a budget for the upcoming year, such as is provided by the library, should also be required. All facilities should have to follow the same rules before they get a share of tax revenues - that's fair to the facilities, and it's only fair that the public can see where their money is being spent.
And finally, no-one involved should count chickens before they're hatched. This year, revenue assumptions were made based on population numbers that were not confirmed by the census. As a result, we ended up about $300,000 short, and had to scramble to produce a budget that balanced. It's kind of like when we go ahead with a project assuming that federal funding will be available, then find out that we've been turned down, so have to find the money elsewhere. Far better to make decisions based on a worst-case scenario, then be pleasantly surprised when revenues are higher than planned, or funding comes through.
As I've said before, preparing a budget for the city is like preparing your own household budget, although at a much larger scale. But the same principles apply, and one of those principles is figuring out how to do it better the next time.
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." - Douglas Adams
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Popular Misconceptions
One of the difficulties of being on council is trying to refute the misconceptions that seem to pop up everywhere. Sometimes they're the result of a rumour being repeated and exaggerated for effect, sometimes they're put out there by some members of council to defend council decisions, or they may be put forth pseudonymously on electronic news sites by those who try to appear that they're just wondering about stuff, but they're really trying to confuse the issue.
So, since there was no council or executive meeting this past week because of Easter Monday, I thought that I'd use today's blog to talk about a few of these misconceptions, and give my perspective.
First, a few times during and immediately following the boil water order, it was suggested that the defeat of a proposal to increase water rates last summer was part of the reason why the boil water order was put in place, and an editorial in the local paper implied that those of us who voted against the increase (including me) were somehow to blame. Not so. In fact, if you review any of the explanatory material that was provided during the boil water order, lack of funding was not mentioned. It was an unfortunate set of circumstances, complicated by the ongoing upgrading, and an investigation of how it happened would probably be worthwhile, in order to avoid such circumstances in the future, but that's it.
I was open about my reasons for not agreeing with an increase last summer - in the previous five years, water rates had increased four times, including an ongoing 7% increase, compounding annually for the next several years, that this increase will be over and above. I wanted administration to look at decreasing unnecessary expenditures to make up any shortfalls, rather than hitting up the taxpayer yet again. And I specifically disagreed with charging city residents a higher rate for the same volume of water than rural users. To me, this means that city residents are once again subsidizing other users of our services, just like we do with the soccer centre, the golf course, and other facilities that are largely supported through your taxes, and I'd prefer to level the playing field a bit.
Another misconception that floats out, particularly during budget times, is that this council is hampered by decisions of previous councils to not increase taxes. Well, it's only happened once in my time on council, which started in 2000. The only year that any council passed a budget that had a 0% increase was in the year of the last election. I voted against that budget because I felt that it was an extremely short-sighted election goody, but four members of the current council were part of the majority that supported this move.
And finally, probably the most damaging misconception is one held by some members of council, and some members of public - that council decisions are best made without debate and discussion, but instead with all members of council voting in unison, to give the illusion of solidarity. It's unfortunate that, over the last six years, the discussion seems to start with the preferred answer being brought forth from a vacuum, and any questioning of that preferred answer, even asking to see how it was developed, is treated as being somewhat akin to treason. It's as though some members of council are quite happy to be treated as a group rubber stamp, rather than making their own decisions, and providing good reasons for those decisions.
I have been part of councils that believed in setting goals and priorities before the budget was developed, that weren't afraid to send administration back to do further work because their first shot missed the mark, and that didn't mind spending more than the minimal amount of time reviewing the budget before passing it, to ensure that we were making the best decision possible, collectively. I think that some members of council might be surprised at how satisfying the job can be, when the whole process is approached collaboratively.
But how much easier it is to spread rumour and misconception, in an attempt to fool the public, and possibly even ourselves.
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain
So, since there was no council or executive meeting this past week because of Easter Monday, I thought that I'd use today's blog to talk about a few of these misconceptions, and give my perspective.
First, a few times during and immediately following the boil water order, it was suggested that the defeat of a proposal to increase water rates last summer was part of the reason why the boil water order was put in place, and an editorial in the local paper implied that those of us who voted against the increase (including me) were somehow to blame. Not so. In fact, if you review any of the explanatory material that was provided during the boil water order, lack of funding was not mentioned. It was an unfortunate set of circumstances, complicated by the ongoing upgrading, and an investigation of how it happened would probably be worthwhile, in order to avoid such circumstances in the future, but that's it.
I was open about my reasons for not agreeing with an increase last summer - in the previous five years, water rates had increased four times, including an ongoing 7% increase, compounding annually for the next several years, that this increase will be over and above. I wanted administration to look at decreasing unnecessary expenditures to make up any shortfalls, rather than hitting up the taxpayer yet again. And I specifically disagreed with charging city residents a higher rate for the same volume of water than rural users. To me, this means that city residents are once again subsidizing other users of our services, just like we do with the soccer centre, the golf course, and other facilities that are largely supported through your taxes, and I'd prefer to level the playing field a bit.
Another misconception that floats out, particularly during budget times, is that this council is hampered by decisions of previous councils to not increase taxes. Well, it's only happened once in my time on council, which started in 2000. The only year that any council passed a budget that had a 0% increase was in the year of the last election. I voted against that budget because I felt that it was an extremely short-sighted election goody, but four members of the current council were part of the majority that supported this move.
And finally, probably the most damaging misconception is one held by some members of council, and some members of public - that council decisions are best made without debate and discussion, but instead with all members of council voting in unison, to give the illusion of solidarity. It's unfortunate that, over the last six years, the discussion seems to start with the preferred answer being brought forth from a vacuum, and any questioning of that preferred answer, even asking to see how it was developed, is treated as being somewhat akin to treason. It's as though some members of council are quite happy to be treated as a group rubber stamp, rather than making their own decisions, and providing good reasons for those decisions.
I have been part of councils that believed in setting goals and priorities before the budget was developed, that weren't afraid to send administration back to do further work because their first shot missed the mark, and that didn't mind spending more than the minimal amount of time reviewing the budget before passing it, to ensure that we were making the best decision possible, collectively. I think that some members of council might be surprised at how satisfying the job can be, when the whole process is approached collaboratively.
But how much easier it is to spread rumour and misconception, in an attempt to fool the public, and possibly even ourselves.
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain
Sunday, April 8, 2012
And the Budget Process Gets Even More Confusing (if possible)
At last week's Executive Meeting, a bylaw setting the mill rate for this year's tax rate was put forward. This is the bylaw that gives council the authority to tax property, the largest by far funding source for city activities. The vote on the bylaw was tied, as one councillor was absent, and a tie vote is considered to be a defeated vote.
The proposed tax rate increase would still the same one that the mayor floated by council members in an email, asking if we could live with it - 3.96%. I've yet to see any justification beyond that for the number, or any explanation of the difference between that number and the 5.5% increase that we were told was the minimum required to maintain the status quo, let alone catch up on past neglect.
Now, this process may be confusing to those who are aware that the budget was presented at a council meeting in February, as a recommendation from the budget committee (which consists of all council members),and was voted on as a motion of council, although two members of council were missing. The assumption would be that, at the next council meeting, which wasn't until mid-March, the budget would be given the necessary third reading, and passed. But that didn't happen; in fact, nothing about the still unfinished budget process was mentioned over the last six weeks.
That's because, once again, process has been changed, for no apparent reason. In the past, the budget has been presented, along with the bylaw (that's the part that sets the actual mill rate, and makes it legal). This time, there was no mill rate bylaw attached to the budget (or explanation for its absence). I think that the expectation of most members of council was that, as has been the case in the past, a special council meeting would be called, where the whole thing, including the mill rate bylaw, would be voted on. That didn't happen.
So at last week's executive meeting, all that was brought forward was the bylaw to set the mill rate, without any budget attached. It's fair to say that this change in process, without any explanation, is a bit confusing, particularly when one remembers the February vote. However, when the end is used to justify the means, one shouldn't be surprised.
Of course, we've had a couple of unpleasant financial surprises in the time between when the budget was developed and now, and that has only added to my list of reasons for why I can't support this budget.
The first, and most obvious, is the additional costs incurred with the boil water advisory. Things like staff overtime, additional water testing, cleaning all the reservoirs, contracting outside expertise to help through the process - all the costs haven't been accounted for, but initial estimates put it at $300,000 plus.
Another concern that received very little publicity, more or less lost in all of the water crisis excitement, is the effect that the census results will have on the budget. The budget was developed with the assumption that Prince Albert's population would increase considerably after the new census, resulting in additional grant money from the province, which is based on per capita population. The new census number did not increase as expected, and as a result, our budget will be short another $300,000. The result, I suppose, of counting chickens before they're hatched. In hindsight, I'm sure that city administration is regretting not taking some of the additional steps to improve census participation that were suggested by some who were trying to be helpful.
Add those to my original, still valid reasons, for being unable to support this budget (purported savings from delaying maintenance activities that haven't been identified, no attempt to decrease spending on non-essentials like floral decorations and paid radio advertising, a 40% increase in funding to the Rawlinson Centre without adequate financial information being provided...it's a long list, but that's a start), and, to nobody's surprise, I still can't support the budget bylaw.
To me, it doesn't matter that it's late in the day. I've been raising these concerns for months, and they're still valid. Passing a budget that we know will be inadequate is wrong. Other members of council may conform to whatever arguments or pressures are brought to bear, but to me, going along with the majority is not a compelling argument for not doing the right thing.
"The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience." - Harper Lee
The proposed tax rate increase would still the same one that the mayor floated by council members in an email, asking if we could live with it - 3.96%. I've yet to see any justification beyond that for the number, or any explanation of the difference between that number and the 5.5% increase that we were told was the minimum required to maintain the status quo, let alone catch up on past neglect.
Now, this process may be confusing to those who are aware that the budget was presented at a council meeting in February, as a recommendation from the budget committee (which consists of all council members),and was voted on as a motion of council, although two members of council were missing. The assumption would be that, at the next council meeting, which wasn't until mid-March, the budget would be given the necessary third reading, and passed. But that didn't happen; in fact, nothing about the still unfinished budget process was mentioned over the last six weeks.
That's because, once again, process has been changed, for no apparent reason. In the past, the budget has been presented, along with the bylaw (that's the part that sets the actual mill rate, and makes it legal). This time, there was no mill rate bylaw attached to the budget (or explanation for its absence). I think that the expectation of most members of council was that, as has been the case in the past, a special council meeting would be called, where the whole thing, including the mill rate bylaw, would be voted on. That didn't happen.
So at last week's executive meeting, all that was brought forward was the bylaw to set the mill rate, without any budget attached. It's fair to say that this change in process, without any explanation, is a bit confusing, particularly when one remembers the February vote. However, when the end is used to justify the means, one shouldn't be surprised.
Of course, we've had a couple of unpleasant financial surprises in the time between when the budget was developed and now, and that has only added to my list of reasons for why I can't support this budget.
The first, and most obvious, is the additional costs incurred with the boil water advisory. Things like staff overtime, additional water testing, cleaning all the reservoirs, contracting outside expertise to help through the process - all the costs haven't been accounted for, but initial estimates put it at $300,000 plus.
Another concern that received very little publicity, more or less lost in all of the water crisis excitement, is the effect that the census results will have on the budget. The budget was developed with the assumption that Prince Albert's population would increase considerably after the new census, resulting in additional grant money from the province, which is based on per capita population. The new census number did not increase as expected, and as a result, our budget will be short another $300,000. The result, I suppose, of counting chickens before they're hatched. In hindsight, I'm sure that city administration is regretting not taking some of the additional steps to improve census participation that were suggested by some who were trying to be helpful.
Add those to my original, still valid reasons, for being unable to support this budget (purported savings from delaying maintenance activities that haven't been identified, no attempt to decrease spending on non-essentials like floral decorations and paid radio advertising, a 40% increase in funding to the Rawlinson Centre without adequate financial information being provided...it's a long list, but that's a start), and, to nobody's surprise, I still can't support the budget bylaw.
To me, it doesn't matter that it's late in the day. I've been raising these concerns for months, and they're still valid. Passing a budget that we know will be inadequate is wrong. Other members of council may conform to whatever arguments or pressures are brought to bear, but to me, going along with the majority is not a compelling argument for not doing the right thing.
"The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience." - Harper Lee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)