I've been part of city council for more than ten years, and the public outcry following the boil water order is the greatest I've seen in that time. Whether we've been shopping at the grocery store, having coffee at the Bison, or talking to friends at church, people have been stopping me to ask questions and let me know how angry they are.
They're angry because they are paying for an essential service that they are not getting.
They're angry because they are having to assume extra costs to ensure that they and their families, or if they run a business, their customers, don't get sick. It's more than inconvenient, it costs money, whether to buy bottled water, or in increased energy costs to boil water for cooking, drinking, and washing.
They're angry because they feel that this council has spent money wastefully, on nice-to-haves, while not taking care of the necessities.
They're angry because nobody from the city has said that they're sorry, or has shown much empathy for what residents are having to do to cope with the situation.
And they're angry because they're being told that their costs for this essential service that they're not currently receiving are going to go up (over and above the annual 7% increase that was put in place a few years back), because this council only looks at one way of solving a problem, and that way is to hit the taxpayer right in the wallet, rather than looking for alternative solutions.
I don't blame them. While some commenters on news media web-sites are quick to call people whiners, because in the olden days people had to haul water, or because in other countries there is no assurance of clean drinking water, they're ignoring the fact that, unlike in those situations, we pay our water bills based on the premise that we should be able to drink the water that comes out of the tap without worrying that we might get sick because of it.
At our house, our lives have been inconvenienced by this. We've bought bottled water, we've boiled water for the prescribed more than a minute, we've put water bottles in the bathroom for teeth brushing purposes, and we've started using the dishwasher rather than Andrea's preferred method of washing by hand. And I consider that we're lucky - we can afford to do all of these things, and we have no small children to consider. But for lower income families, families with infants and small children, seniors, or those who need to be extra cautious for health reasons, this goes beyond mere inconvenience.
And for businesses, who are faced with the double whammy of increased costs coupled with lower revenues after having to close temporarily, and then having fewer customers, the costs are very real.
At least the messages coming out of City Hall are getting clearer. The press conference on Friday was a big improvement over the one that I attended earlier in the week. Colin Innes presented a very clear picture on the steps that need to be followed before the boil water order can be lifted. Rather than trying to paraphrase what he said, because I think that providing this sort of information is best left to the experts, I would suggest that you go to the city's web-site to view the video of the press conference - you can find in in the Boil Water Update section.
That's one of the questions that people want an answer to - "What has to happen before I can drink the water?" The others are "How did this happen?" and "What is the city going to do to make sure that this doesn't happen again?" Beyond discussion of either a broken or a faulty valve causing the problem, complicated by the ongoing upgrades at the water plant, which have taken much of it off-line, I'm not sure that we've been given a clear answer. And I haven't heard anyone say what will be done differently to ensure that, even in this ongoing higher risk time while construction continues, we won't be put back into this situation.
This week's council meeting does give us an opportunity to demonstrate that we now understand the difference between wants and needs. We are scheduled to vote on next year's budget that includes increased spending on wants - floral decorations ($40,000), a new bylaw officer downtown ($30,000 - something that should be part of the police budget, in my opinion), an additional $150,000 to the Arts Board, which is used to run the Rawlinson Centre - their funding now goes to $447,270), and the more than $200,000 that was redirected at the last minute from city maintenance to a number of special interest projects, including the Historical Society, Tourism, the Rotary Trail, and skunk control). That's just a few off the top of my head.
Again, I'm not disputing that, in better times, these aren't worthy projects. My point is that they are not needs, but wants. And when you're short of money, you start by cutting back on the wants.
So at Monday's meeting, we could send the budget back for a serious reworking, instructing administration to look at everything, not just new expenditures. We could delay voting on the increase in water rates until we get a reworked budget that takes money from wants and puts it towards needs. We could delay decisions on other discretionary spending, and put a freeze on hiring and out-of-scope raises. We could stop behaving as though the taxpayers' pockets have infinite depth.
While we're at it, I think that we should stop including a sanitation charge on the water bill. That goes to the landfill and garbage pick-up, and should rightfully be put back into the general budget, where it was taken from a few years back to keep the tax increase down. Let's treat the water utility like a utility, and start billing monthly, but focus it on the provision of water.
I think that we should also look at city facilities that use water without cost. I believe that the rule of thumb used in setting user fees is that they should cover 40% of the total costs. If we don't include the costs of water for facilities such as the golf course or the soccer centre (remember how badly we needed those underground sprinklers?), then we're missing a large portion of the real costs when we calculate user fees, and letting the taxpayer subsidize the users even more.
I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask administration to think outside their usual box of increased tax solutions. It's time that council showed some leadership that demonstrates that we're actually aware of the concerns of the average citizen, and change our direction to help to address those concerns.
"Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink." - Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Sunday, February 5, 2012
It's a Budget Miracle!
One can't help but be amazed by the various miracles that have occurred throughout this year's budgeting process. I'm surprised that no one has leaped to their feet to shout Hallelujah - perhaps that will happen at the next council meeting, when we vote (to use the term loosely, since voting surprises are few and far between with this council) on the proposed budget.
You may recall that in late fall, we were given a much-welcomed financial overview by city administration, which indicated that, just to maintain our current level of spending, a tax increase of 5.5% would be required. This overview also showed that, in the critical area of street maintenance, our current level of expenditure was less than half of what is required. In other words, even with an increase of 5.5%, we would continue to fall behind in keeping our roads repaired.
To me, this very clear message meant that we should be looking at ways of decreasing current expenditures, and raising revenues through other ways, such as increasing user fees. Applying all three tactics - cut back on what you're currently spending, look at other revenue sources, and then figure out what tax increase is required, is the only sensible way to approach setting a budget.
I had, of course, not thought of the "relying on a miracle" solution.
Imagine my surprise when, even after we had been through the financial update with city staff, the mayor sent out an email to all the councillors, asking if we could live with a 3.9% residential tax increase. We did not discuss this as a group at all - the number just appeared.
And then, the budget that is brought forward contains this very same 3.9% increase, with no cuts to services, and only minimal increases to user fees. No credible explanation for the drop in what was required has been provided - in fact, we are now being told that we now have increased revenue from new developments, even though the financial overview that had just been presented indicated that the new developments were not providing any increase in revenue, due to assessment adjustments.
And the miracles continued. At the public meeting on the budget, several community groups came forward to ask for additional money. A concerned citizen came to the last council meeting, asking for more money for skunk control. And lo and behold, on the morning of the budget meeting, we found on our desks information that indicated that we had found exactly enough money to satisfy all of these requests! And where was this money found? Why, by taking it away from various maintenance projects (which weren't specified). Whether this is from building repairs, sidewalk repairs...who knows? Are they less essential than giving the museum more money to hire a full-time curator, or finishing the Rotary Trail? I would think not. But if you don't know what maintenance work has been postponed, you don't know what the costs and risks of postponement are, so you're being asked to make a decision without all of the salient information.
I did suggest that perhaps, if this money really isn't needed for that which it had been budgeted, it could be directed to where we know there is a shortfall - road maintenance. But no, most of council felt that it was better to give money to non-essential interest group projects. It is, after all, an election year (not that anybody said that out loud) - a time to spend money out of voters' pockets to show them how responsive council is.
I did find it rather ironic, at SUMA last week, to find that we consider infrastructure a priority, and expect the province to kick in more money to help. I'd feel better about such requests if we could demonstrate that, as a city, we're doing all that we can to spend your money wisely, before we go to another level of government, expecting them to cough up more of your money.
But that would be another miracle.
"The truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do. The hard part is doing it." - Norman Schwarzkopf
You may recall that in late fall, we were given a much-welcomed financial overview by city administration, which indicated that, just to maintain our current level of spending, a tax increase of 5.5% would be required. This overview also showed that, in the critical area of street maintenance, our current level of expenditure was less than half of what is required. In other words, even with an increase of 5.5%, we would continue to fall behind in keeping our roads repaired.
To me, this very clear message meant that we should be looking at ways of decreasing current expenditures, and raising revenues through other ways, such as increasing user fees. Applying all three tactics - cut back on what you're currently spending, look at other revenue sources, and then figure out what tax increase is required, is the only sensible way to approach setting a budget.
I had, of course, not thought of the "relying on a miracle" solution.
Imagine my surprise when, even after we had been through the financial update with city staff, the mayor sent out an email to all the councillors, asking if we could live with a 3.9% residential tax increase. We did not discuss this as a group at all - the number just appeared.
And then, the budget that is brought forward contains this very same 3.9% increase, with no cuts to services, and only minimal increases to user fees. No credible explanation for the drop in what was required has been provided - in fact, we are now being told that we now have increased revenue from new developments, even though the financial overview that had just been presented indicated that the new developments were not providing any increase in revenue, due to assessment adjustments.
And the miracles continued. At the public meeting on the budget, several community groups came forward to ask for additional money. A concerned citizen came to the last council meeting, asking for more money for skunk control. And lo and behold, on the morning of the budget meeting, we found on our desks information that indicated that we had found exactly enough money to satisfy all of these requests! And where was this money found? Why, by taking it away from various maintenance projects (which weren't specified). Whether this is from building repairs, sidewalk repairs...who knows? Are they less essential than giving the museum more money to hire a full-time curator, or finishing the Rotary Trail? I would think not. But if you don't know what maintenance work has been postponed, you don't know what the costs and risks of postponement are, so you're being asked to make a decision without all of the salient information.
I did suggest that perhaps, if this money really isn't needed for that which it had been budgeted, it could be directed to where we know there is a shortfall - road maintenance. But no, most of council felt that it was better to give money to non-essential interest group projects. It is, after all, an election year (not that anybody said that out loud) - a time to spend money out of voters' pockets to show them how responsive council is.
I did find it rather ironic, at SUMA last week, to find that we consider infrastructure a priority, and expect the province to kick in more money to help. I'd feel better about such requests if we could demonstrate that, as a city, we're doing all that we can to spend your money wisely, before we go to another level of government, expecting them to cough up more of your money.
But that would be another miracle.
"The truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do. The hard part is doing it." - Norman Schwarzkopf
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Pineview Terrace Funding - Why Not Look at All the Options?
The issue of how to fund the city's share of the Pineview Terrace construction costs was raised at last week's executive meeting. Administration brought us a number of options - a levy based on the assessed value of the property (as we're doing for the soccer centre), a levy on residential users only, or another flat tax across the tax base (either residential or one including commercial properties). All would be new hits on the tax payer.
Most members of council seemed to think that the flat tax option would be best. I don't like flat taxes. Because they aren't proportional, they are a heavier burden on low and fixed income earners, many of whom live in my ward. Council appears to recognize that flat taxes are inequitable when it comes to commercial properties, because even the current flat tax is graduated for commercial properties, based on value, but there doesn't seem to be the same recognition for residents.
It appears that we're likely to go with a flat tax of $27 for the next three years for residential properties, plus a graduated rate for commercial. Not much, on the surface, you might think. However, this is a city where some residents felt that a $20 annual licence fee for cats, brought in a year ago, was too much, and I've already had a senior from my ward call to express her concerns about the $27.
I proposed that, instead of dipping our hands once again into the tax payers' pockets, we instead divert some of the money that we're already collecting - a portion of the $60 flat tax that was imposed last year, and supposed to be reserved specifically for infrastructure projects. Although there was some pious talk about not using this money because it's supposed to be saved for infrastructure, it hasn't been. More than $1 million was collected through the flat tax last year - only $600,000 remains, because the remainder was used to balance the city's budget over the last year, not set aside. We could do this for three years, as proposed for the flat tax, and still put more than half of the flat tax revenue aside for other infrastructure reasons.
So why not specify that a portion of the current flat tax be set aside specifically to meet our Pineview Terrace obligation? While not solely a city responsibility, it is being built to meet the needs of the community. As is often the case, I didn't get a clear answer.
I'm afraid that, once again, we're going to go for the simplest, easiest answer. Need more money? The easiest way is just to slap on another tax. If we can keep it off the books as part of the official tax increase, all the better, especially in an election year. But all of these incremental costs, whether it be levies, flat taxes, or increased sanitation charges, add up.
Figuring out how to do things better and more fairly would require some innovative thinking. Not enough members of council seem prepared to take the time or make the effort to do that. And, as usual, the tax payer ends up paying.
"The path of least resistance is what makes rivers run crooked." - Elbert Hubbard
Most members of council seemed to think that the flat tax option would be best. I don't like flat taxes. Because they aren't proportional, they are a heavier burden on low and fixed income earners, many of whom live in my ward. Council appears to recognize that flat taxes are inequitable when it comes to commercial properties, because even the current flat tax is graduated for commercial properties, based on value, but there doesn't seem to be the same recognition for residents.
It appears that we're likely to go with a flat tax of $27 for the next three years for residential properties, plus a graduated rate for commercial. Not much, on the surface, you might think. However, this is a city where some residents felt that a $20 annual licence fee for cats, brought in a year ago, was too much, and I've already had a senior from my ward call to express her concerns about the $27.
I proposed that, instead of dipping our hands once again into the tax payers' pockets, we instead divert some of the money that we're already collecting - a portion of the $60 flat tax that was imposed last year, and supposed to be reserved specifically for infrastructure projects. Although there was some pious talk about not using this money because it's supposed to be saved for infrastructure, it hasn't been. More than $1 million was collected through the flat tax last year - only $600,000 remains, because the remainder was used to balance the city's budget over the last year, not set aside. We could do this for three years, as proposed for the flat tax, and still put more than half of the flat tax revenue aside for other infrastructure reasons.
So why not specify that a portion of the current flat tax be set aside specifically to meet our Pineview Terrace obligation? While not solely a city responsibility, it is being built to meet the needs of the community. As is often the case, I didn't get a clear answer.
I'm afraid that, once again, we're going to go for the simplest, easiest answer. Need more money? The easiest way is just to slap on another tax. If we can keep it off the books as part of the official tax increase, all the better, especially in an election year. But all of these incremental costs, whether it be levies, flat taxes, or increased sanitation charges, add up.
Figuring out how to do things better and more fairly would require some innovative thinking. Not enough members of council seem prepared to take the time or make the effort to do that. And, as usual, the tax payer ends up paying.
"The path of least resistance is what makes rivers run crooked." - Elbert Hubbard
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Looking Back, Looking Forward
The end of one year and the start of the next is a time of reflection for most people. Part of it is the changing of the date that is a definitive indication of the passing of time; part of it may be that the quiet time between Christmas and New Year's provides more time for thinking.
Looking back, on the personal side, the past year was more challenging than most for me, with the passing of my mother, and dealing with Andrea's health issues. As is usually the case, these difficult times were made a lot easier by the support and kindness shown by friends. I really don't know how we would have gotten through these events without that support, and I'm truly grateful to have such a network that we can rely on.
Working as part of council also had its share of challenges this past year, as always. A highlight was the relatively early financial information that we were given by adminstration, although I don't think that we spent enough time discussing and using that information to provide direction to administration on budget development. In fact, I'm looking forward to the budget discussions this month to find out how they made the leap from needing a minimum increase of 5.5% just to maintain current levels of activity, to a budget that only requires a 3.9% increase - and that change came barely a month after we got the initial information.
On the positive side, I'm looking forward to the implementation of the landfill pass system, so that we can get an accurate idea of how much providing "free" access to residents actually costs. Since council originally approved taking this action in the fall of 2010, but administration did not follow this direction in 2011, this has been a change somewhat overdue.
2012 will be an election year. Election years are always interesting, although at least we won't be trying the 0% tax increase that was passed three years ago - I think that most members of council have realized that costs deferred merely become increased costs, and nobody benefits. This is the time to start asking your councillor the tough questions about how they have voted in the past, whether they would vote differently now, and how they stand on some of the ideas that are being noised about for the future, such as a new arena or an Olympic-sized swimming pool.
This is also the time that those who think that they would like to try a run for council should take a test run. Review the budget, come to the public meeting, think of where you would make cuts or propose different ways of doing things. Read over council agendas, come to some meetings to see how things work. Read up on parliamentary procedures (something that I wish some current members of council would do), so that you know what you should and shouldn't do when it's your turn to chair part of the meeting. As I'm sure every member of council would tell you, it's a lot harder than it looks from the outside.
And this time, the council that is elected will be in place for four years, rather than three. That's an extra year for council to try to work to improve all facets of the city, and achieve various goals. Let's hope that the council that is next elected sets as one of its goals becoming more fiscally open and responsible.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead
Looking back, on the personal side, the past year was more challenging than most for me, with the passing of my mother, and dealing with Andrea's health issues. As is usually the case, these difficult times were made a lot easier by the support and kindness shown by friends. I really don't know how we would have gotten through these events without that support, and I'm truly grateful to have such a network that we can rely on.
Working as part of council also had its share of challenges this past year, as always. A highlight was the relatively early financial information that we were given by adminstration, although I don't think that we spent enough time discussing and using that information to provide direction to administration on budget development. In fact, I'm looking forward to the budget discussions this month to find out how they made the leap from needing a minimum increase of 5.5% just to maintain current levels of activity, to a budget that only requires a 3.9% increase - and that change came barely a month after we got the initial information.
On the positive side, I'm looking forward to the implementation of the landfill pass system, so that we can get an accurate idea of how much providing "free" access to residents actually costs. Since council originally approved taking this action in the fall of 2010, but administration did not follow this direction in 2011, this has been a change somewhat overdue.
2012 will be an election year. Election years are always interesting, although at least we won't be trying the 0% tax increase that was passed three years ago - I think that most members of council have realized that costs deferred merely become increased costs, and nobody benefits. This is the time to start asking your councillor the tough questions about how they have voted in the past, whether they would vote differently now, and how they stand on some of the ideas that are being noised about for the future, such as a new arena or an Olympic-sized swimming pool.
This is also the time that those who think that they would like to try a run for council should take a test run. Review the budget, come to the public meeting, think of where you would make cuts or propose different ways of doing things. Read over council agendas, come to some meetings to see how things work. Read up on parliamentary procedures (something that I wish some current members of council would do), so that you know what you should and shouldn't do when it's your turn to chair part of the meeting. As I'm sure every member of council would tell you, it's a lot harder than it looks from the outside.
And this time, the council that is elected will be in place for four years, rather than three. That's an extra year for council to try to work to improve all facets of the city, and achieve various goals. Let's hope that the council that is next elected sets as one of its goals becoming more fiscally open and responsible.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead
Sunday, December 18, 2011
My Reasons for Blogging
Next month will mark my fourth anniversary of blogging. Four years is not a terribly long time, except in the blogosphere. I read somewhere that the average blogger only lasts about three entries, so my 150+ over the last four years isn't too shabby.
This past year, I was approached by both of the local electronic media sites, PA Today and PANow, asking for permission to put access to the blog on their web-sites. PA Today has put in a direct link to the blog; PANow uploads each blog entry to their site, rather than linking. In both cases I agreed, because one of the main reasons why I started blogging was to improve communication about what goes on at city council, from my perspective. The more people that have this available as one of their reading options, the better.
My very first blog entry in January 2008 was titled "Why Blog - Why Now?", which set out my reasons for making this effort. Since there are some newer readers who may not have gone back into the archives, I thought that I'd repeat some of that now, as well as some of the things that I've learned about participating in this particular form of communication.
As I said, my main reason for starting this blog was to improve communication about what goes on at city council. The local media does what it can, but a typical council agenda is hundreds of pages long, and reporters can only fit so much into a few columns of type or a sound bite. Not everyone can watch council meetings on cable, particularly now that meetings start at 5 p.m., when most people are getting home from work or starting supper. I figure that voters deserve to get as much information as they can about the issues that affect them directly.
Now, obviously, I'm not going to go through each agenda item and the resulting discussion verbatim, (it's bad enough to have to live through some of these meetings) but I thought that it might be worthwhile to highlight a topic or two, and present my viewpoint on it, particularly when my viewpoint differs from the majority. And since I'm often seen to be voting against the majority, I think that it's useful to explain to people why I vote the way that I do, to give them a better understanding of the various perspectives on issues. Council is made up of nine individuals, and it's ludicrous to think that we all share the same opinions or values on any issue.
I don't claim to have the only "correct" viewpoint - what goes in this space are my opinions, my viewpoints, and my values. When you vote for someone for city council, you can't expect to agree with that individual on every vote, but I think that you should be able to expect an explanation for why they voted the way that they did.
The blog has turned out to be a good conversation starter - people often come up to me with a comment on something that I've written. Sometimes I've brought something up that has struck a chord with the public. When I wrote that one place we could save costs was to stop providing a meal to councillors and city staff at council meetings, I was surprised to find out that many people didn't realize that this was happening, and they were offended by the idea that they were footing the bill. The result - we no longer get fed at most meetings, which is good. Unfortunately, the same entry suggested that we stop producing custom-made Christmas cards for members of council - that still goes on, although I still don't take these cards when offered.
I think that the blog has also provided a way for people who have never met me in person, to get to know me a little better. Personal stuff does get in here - I sometimes think that it's these personal details about people that help you to realize that we have more in common than might originally be thought.
The main disadvantage to being part of the new electronic media, in my opinion, is the way commenters sometimes take advantage of their anonymity to post comments that are much ruder than they would be to your face, or in public, I hope. People are also free to post things that aren't true, or they may use the opportunity to raise past grudges that have nothing to do with the topic presented. On my own blog, I have some control; on the other sites, less so. I will say that some commenters do try to raise the bar, providing thoughtful debate, but sadly, these are in the minority.
Still, the advantage of providing people with additional information outweighs the minor inconvenience of being a target for somewhat unimaginative name-calling or inaccurate revisionist history. I see part of my responsibility of being on city council as keeping the lines of communication open. Having the blog is just one of many ways of keeping in touch. Agree or disagree, read or ignore - that part is up to you.
I understand that PANow has offered to all members of council the opportunity to provide a column of their views and opinions. I'll be interested to see how many take advantage of this - it would be good to hear the rationale behind some of the decisions of my colleagues. And it's an election year - a good time to put ideas and opinions out for public consumption.
"There's more than one way to look at a problem, and they all may be right." - Norman Schwarzkopf
This past year, I was approached by both of the local electronic media sites, PA Today and PANow, asking for permission to put access to the blog on their web-sites. PA Today has put in a direct link to the blog; PANow uploads each blog entry to their site, rather than linking. In both cases I agreed, because one of the main reasons why I started blogging was to improve communication about what goes on at city council, from my perspective. The more people that have this available as one of their reading options, the better.
My very first blog entry in January 2008 was titled "Why Blog - Why Now?", which set out my reasons for making this effort. Since there are some newer readers who may not have gone back into the archives, I thought that I'd repeat some of that now, as well as some of the things that I've learned about participating in this particular form of communication.
As I said, my main reason for starting this blog was to improve communication about what goes on at city council. The local media does what it can, but a typical council agenda is hundreds of pages long, and reporters can only fit so much into a few columns of type or a sound bite. Not everyone can watch council meetings on cable, particularly now that meetings start at 5 p.m., when most people are getting home from work or starting supper. I figure that voters deserve to get as much information as they can about the issues that affect them directly.
Now, obviously, I'm not going to go through each agenda item and the resulting discussion verbatim, (it's bad enough to have to live through some of these meetings) but I thought that it might be worthwhile to highlight a topic or two, and present my viewpoint on it, particularly when my viewpoint differs from the majority. And since I'm often seen to be voting against the majority, I think that it's useful to explain to people why I vote the way that I do, to give them a better understanding of the various perspectives on issues. Council is made up of nine individuals, and it's ludicrous to think that we all share the same opinions or values on any issue.
I don't claim to have the only "correct" viewpoint - what goes in this space are my opinions, my viewpoints, and my values. When you vote for someone for city council, you can't expect to agree with that individual on every vote, but I think that you should be able to expect an explanation for why they voted the way that they did.
The blog has turned out to be a good conversation starter - people often come up to me with a comment on something that I've written. Sometimes I've brought something up that has struck a chord with the public. When I wrote that one place we could save costs was to stop providing a meal to councillors and city staff at council meetings, I was surprised to find out that many people didn't realize that this was happening, and they were offended by the idea that they were footing the bill. The result - we no longer get fed at most meetings, which is good. Unfortunately, the same entry suggested that we stop producing custom-made Christmas cards for members of council - that still goes on, although I still don't take these cards when offered.
I think that the blog has also provided a way for people who have never met me in person, to get to know me a little better. Personal stuff does get in here - I sometimes think that it's these personal details about people that help you to realize that we have more in common than might originally be thought.
The main disadvantage to being part of the new electronic media, in my opinion, is the way commenters sometimes take advantage of their anonymity to post comments that are much ruder than they would be to your face, or in public, I hope. People are also free to post things that aren't true, or they may use the opportunity to raise past grudges that have nothing to do with the topic presented. On my own blog, I have some control; on the other sites, less so. I will say that some commenters do try to raise the bar, providing thoughtful debate, but sadly, these are in the minority.
Still, the advantage of providing people with additional information outweighs the minor inconvenience of being a target for somewhat unimaginative name-calling or inaccurate revisionist history. I see part of my responsibility of being on city council as keeping the lines of communication open. Having the blog is just one of many ways of keeping in touch. Agree or disagree, read or ignore - that part is up to you.
I understand that PANow has offered to all members of council the opportunity to provide a column of their views and opinions. I'll be interested to see how many take advantage of this - it would be good to hear the rationale behind some of the decisions of my colleagues. And it's an election year - a good time to put ideas and opinions out for public consumption.
"There's more than one way to look at a problem, and they all may be right." - Norman Schwarzkopf
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Are Our Facilities Making Us House-Poor?
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
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 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)