At the Council meeting this week, council voted that the city purchase 250 new water meters, at a cost of $86,000. This was done, despite this cost being $20,000 more than was in the budget, and despite there being several unanswered questions as to the need for this purchase at this time.
These meters will be able to be read remotely, from a vehicle passing by, and thus the reasoning given was that labour costs will be reduced.
So now, the city will have three types of water meters. There's the old-fashioned kind, where the reading has to be made at the meter, written down, and submitted. There's a newer kind, which has the option of being read manually, but it can also be wired to the outside of the house to a pin pad, and thus be read by touching the reading device to the pin, so that access to the inside of the house or business is not required. Less than 50% of the meters currently in the city have this capability. And now there's this newest acquisition.
Now, it doesn't take any stretch of logical thought to figure out that 250 meters isn't very many in a city of this size. Upon being questioned, city administration admitted that these meters will be used in new houses. In other words, we're buying these meters to sit on the shelf for a while.
To me, if the reason was really that we want to reduce labour costs, then we should look at what we currently have, and see if there's a way of reducing the costs of reading those meters. For example, was any thought given to wiring all of the second type of meter so that it could be read from outside the house? I'm thinking that you could hire a summer student to do this for a lot less than $86,000, and the result would be that way more than 250 water meters could then be read more easily. Not as exciting as being read remotely, but remember, those meters aren't going to be read for awhile anyway, and I can't believe that the eventual savings from reading 250 meters will be noticeable at budget time.
I'm also surprised that more of the details of our metering system aren't readily available. For example, when I asked how many residences or businesses had the second type of meter, the best that administration could give me was the "less than 50%" number. I find it hard to believe that we set out to solve problems without having as much information as possible available.
I'm also disappointed, once again, in other members of council who seem to feel that if administration proposes something, then we need to agree to it, without asking questions. Unfortunately, administration hasn't been elected to represent the needs of the residents of the city, members of council have. For instance, I've asked why it isn't possible for water billing to be done monthly, as is done for other utilities, as many residents have mentioned that this would make their financial lives easier. The response is usually a vague questioning look, without a good response.
Council needs to collectively give itself a shake, remember why we're there (and no, acting as an automatic rubber stamp was nowhere in our oath of office), and start asking the tough questions, especially before approving expenditures that aren't necessary, and are outside the approved budget.
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has ... been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice." - Albert Einstein
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Communication (or Lack of Same)
Once again, I've had to neglect the blog for personal reasons. Andrea had to have major surgery in Saskatoon in September, which has disrupted our lives somewhat, and kept me busier than usual. She's home now, and starting to feel more like herself, although she still has a ways to go.
In the meantime, certainly the status of the bridge is the question that I'm still asked most often. There's no question that the slowing of traffic, and the weight limits, have caused problems both for city residents and those just trying to get through.
And of course, it's renewed discussion about the need for a second bridge. It's unfortunate that, throughout this whole process, going back to the initial report more than three years ago, most of us on council are still being kept in the dark on the details of the situation. I don't understand why those who receive the information feel that it should be released in dribs and drabs, and often to the general public before council.
That original report, of course, had been shared with RM councils well before we got to have a look at it, and that was only after making repeated requests. Just think of where we might have been in the construction of a new bridge if it had been brought to council for discussion and endorsement when it was first released. We might actually be on the priority list for the province, rather than now working just to quantify why we should be on the list.
And then came the fortunate observance by a canoeist who alerted both the city and the province to the state of the current bridge. Again, aside from being invited to a press conference on August 30, we weren't kept informed.
For example, there was a meeting with Highways set for September 22. At the council meeting that week, we weren't even informed that this meeting would be happening. One councillor heard the mayor talking about it on the radio the day after the council meeting, and asked when and where it was, since that councillor thought it would be worth attending. The response was that only the mayor and the city manager were invited to the meeting. Then, when it was found out that RM councillors would be attending, we were then told (the day before the meeting) that we could attend. So I attended, as did two other councillors, where Highways officials told us of the rationale that would be needed to justify a second bridge. Big secret, right? And while this is important in the context of the second bridge discussions, it didn't provide any further clarification on what could be done to alleviate the current situation.
When I raised the issue of not being kept informed, one councillor commented that he felt quite informed, since he had heard stuff on the radio. I'm sorry, but I think that members of council should not have to rely on the media to know what's going on at City Hall - that is, if we're trying to make decisions based on the best possible information, not on a twenty second sound bite.
Council has also delegated the authority for decision-making on the bridge repairs to the city manager, saying that in such an emergency situation, decisions shouldn't be slowed by the democratic process. I don't agree with this. While the situation is serious, so far there has been no indication that waiting the 24 hours required to call a council meeting to ratify a decision would have slowed anything down. I find it somewhat ironic that members of council who love to micromanage such things as banner design, street naming and where city crews should be working are quite happy to hand over million dollar decisions to someone who hasn't been elected. Of course, this isn't the first time that we've delegated such authority - we did it for the construction of the field house a couple of years ago.
In any case, when concerns were voiced about this delegation, the city manager promised weekly updates, which have been happening. The second week of October we were sent a copy of the Emergency Repair Agreement with Highways, which limits the province's share of costs to $1 million (although there is the possibility of revisiting this number once detailed cost estimates are available), as well as a report on the work that needs to be done to repair the crack in the girder. This past Friday we received another update on the work.
I appreciate these regular updates, but so far, we haven't been informed of what the costs are likely to be. I'd be happy with a ballpark figure for now, but aside from the two reports and the contract, that's all that I've been given.
Again, if communications were more open and transparent, we could make better decisions, councillors would feel less frustration and we'd be able to respond better to questions from the public. After all, whether it's money coming from the city or the province, we're just taking it from different pockets on the same pair of pants.
"What we've got here is a failure to communicate." - Cool Hand Luke
In the meantime, certainly the status of the bridge is the question that I'm still asked most often. There's no question that the slowing of traffic, and the weight limits, have caused problems both for city residents and those just trying to get through.
And of course, it's renewed discussion about the need for a second bridge. It's unfortunate that, throughout this whole process, going back to the initial report more than three years ago, most of us on council are still being kept in the dark on the details of the situation. I don't understand why those who receive the information feel that it should be released in dribs and drabs, and often to the general public before council.
That original report, of course, had been shared with RM councils well before we got to have a look at it, and that was only after making repeated requests. Just think of where we might have been in the construction of a new bridge if it had been brought to council for discussion and endorsement when it was first released. We might actually be on the priority list for the province, rather than now working just to quantify why we should be on the list.
And then came the fortunate observance by a canoeist who alerted both the city and the province to the state of the current bridge. Again, aside from being invited to a press conference on August 30, we weren't kept informed.
For example, there was a meeting with Highways set for September 22. At the council meeting that week, we weren't even informed that this meeting would be happening. One councillor heard the mayor talking about it on the radio the day after the council meeting, and asked when and where it was, since that councillor thought it would be worth attending. The response was that only the mayor and the city manager were invited to the meeting. Then, when it was found out that RM councillors would be attending, we were then told (the day before the meeting) that we could attend. So I attended, as did two other councillors, where Highways officials told us of the rationale that would be needed to justify a second bridge. Big secret, right? And while this is important in the context of the second bridge discussions, it didn't provide any further clarification on what could be done to alleviate the current situation.
When I raised the issue of not being kept informed, one councillor commented that he felt quite informed, since he had heard stuff on the radio. I'm sorry, but I think that members of council should not have to rely on the media to know what's going on at City Hall - that is, if we're trying to make decisions based on the best possible information, not on a twenty second sound bite.
Council has also delegated the authority for decision-making on the bridge repairs to the city manager, saying that in such an emergency situation, decisions shouldn't be slowed by the democratic process. I don't agree with this. While the situation is serious, so far there has been no indication that waiting the 24 hours required to call a council meeting to ratify a decision would have slowed anything down. I find it somewhat ironic that members of council who love to micromanage such things as banner design, street naming and where city crews should be working are quite happy to hand over million dollar decisions to someone who hasn't been elected. Of course, this isn't the first time that we've delegated such authority - we did it for the construction of the field house a couple of years ago.
In any case, when concerns were voiced about this delegation, the city manager promised weekly updates, which have been happening. The second week of October we were sent a copy of the Emergency Repair Agreement with Highways, which limits the province's share of costs to $1 million (although there is the possibility of revisiting this number once detailed cost estimates are available), as well as a report on the work that needs to be done to repair the crack in the girder. This past Friday we received another update on the work.
I appreciate these regular updates, but so far, we haven't been informed of what the costs are likely to be. I'd be happy with a ballpark figure for now, but aside from the two reports and the contract, that's all that I've been given.
Again, if communications were more open and transparent, we could make better decisions, councillors would feel less frustration and we'd be able to respond better to questions from the public. After all, whether it's money coming from the city or the province, we're just taking it from different pockets on the same pair of pants.
"What we've got here is a failure to communicate." - Cool Hand Luke
Monday, September 5, 2011
The Bridge Debacle
Thank goodness for sharp-eyed canoeists. If a local resident hadn't been canoeing under the Diefenbaker Bridge last weekend, and looked up to see a crack in the girder, who knows when it might have been discovered. The bridge is not inspected annually, and I understand that Highways and Infrastructure is behind in their schedule of bridge inspections. Since the bridge is within city limits, it is likely to be considered a city responsibility, even though many of its users, especially on a long weekend like this one, aren't city residents.
Predictably, the most common cry that has come out is the need for a second bridge. While I'm not denying that need, we also need to take care of the current bridge, otherwise the same scenario will play out again, even after a second bridge is built.
Six or seven years ago, when the bridge was resurfaced, it was identified that the steel structure under the bridge needed to be maintained regularly. The recommendation was that the supporting structure should be sandblasted, inspected, and painted, with an estimated price tag of $2 million. Part of the reason for the high cost is that tarps would have to be put up underneath the bridge, to prevent materials from falling into the river.
This work hasn't been done. It's been identified in city budgets, but both the last council, and the current council, have deferred this work. Other bridges in the city, such as the Central Avenue and Sixth Avenue viaducts, also require maintenance work that has been postponed. When we put our priorities on other projects, both large and small (and I'll leave you to pick out your favourite example of non-essential spending by city council), it shouldn't be a surprise when basic structures start to show serious signs of damage.
We also could have sustained the city's fiscal stabilization fund, which would be able to provide the money to take care of this sort of emergency action. Six years ago there was $2 million in this fund; it has since been depleted for various projects, although this year's budget, for the first time in five years, put $200,000 back. Not much, when we start talking about unscheduled bridge repairs.
However, this has definitely put the bridge report back on to council's radar. Completed in 2008, it was reviewed at that time by the mayor and one councillor, one city staff member, and RM councils, as well as the Ministry of Highways. No report was made to council at that time. Apparently, the original report just showed a bridge outside city limits; the report was then modified to show an option of having a bridge inside the city.
In 2010, a public meeting was held at City Hall, at which the route options were presented. The report itself didn't come to council until this year, when I made a motion in January to bring the report to council for discussion. I thought that, with the twinning of Highway 11, as well as various discussions about annexation of lands south of the city, we should endorse a route option, and we could then consider this route option as part of a coordinated planning approach. When the report was brought forward, it was set aside as a topic for a strategic planning meeting of council, but no bridge discussions have happened yet.
But effectively closing half the bridge has apparently proved to be the incentive to starting serious discussions with Highways about a new bridge. I was rather amused to read in the media that the city now supports a bridge outside city limits (although it's never been discussed at council), which means that the province will pick up the tab. To me that's been the sensible option all along, and we could have made that decision three years ago, when the report was first issued, instead of not talking about it at all.
And perhaps this demonstration of why it's important to spend money preventatively will help in future budget discussions. I know that there aren't nearly the photo ops attached with doing regular maintenance as with opening new facilities, but just as with your car, regular maintenance can save money, and structures, in the long run. Not to mention insanely long line-ups on a long weekend.
"For want of a battle, the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail." - old nursery rhyme, supposedly based on Richard III's loss in Bosworth Field)
Predictably, the most common cry that has come out is the need for a second bridge. While I'm not denying that need, we also need to take care of the current bridge, otherwise the same scenario will play out again, even after a second bridge is built.
Six or seven years ago, when the bridge was resurfaced, it was identified that the steel structure under the bridge needed to be maintained regularly. The recommendation was that the supporting structure should be sandblasted, inspected, and painted, with an estimated price tag of $2 million. Part of the reason for the high cost is that tarps would have to be put up underneath the bridge, to prevent materials from falling into the river.
This work hasn't been done. It's been identified in city budgets, but both the last council, and the current council, have deferred this work. Other bridges in the city, such as the Central Avenue and Sixth Avenue viaducts, also require maintenance work that has been postponed. When we put our priorities on other projects, both large and small (and I'll leave you to pick out your favourite example of non-essential spending by city council), it shouldn't be a surprise when basic structures start to show serious signs of damage.
We also could have sustained the city's fiscal stabilization fund, which would be able to provide the money to take care of this sort of emergency action. Six years ago there was $2 million in this fund; it has since been depleted for various projects, although this year's budget, for the first time in five years, put $200,000 back. Not much, when we start talking about unscheduled bridge repairs.
However, this has definitely put the bridge report back on to council's radar. Completed in 2008, it was reviewed at that time by the mayor and one councillor, one city staff member, and RM councils, as well as the Ministry of Highways. No report was made to council at that time. Apparently, the original report just showed a bridge outside city limits; the report was then modified to show an option of having a bridge inside the city.
In 2010, a public meeting was held at City Hall, at which the route options were presented. The report itself didn't come to council until this year, when I made a motion in January to bring the report to council for discussion. I thought that, with the twinning of Highway 11, as well as various discussions about annexation of lands south of the city, we should endorse a route option, and we could then consider this route option as part of a coordinated planning approach. When the report was brought forward, it was set aside as a topic for a strategic planning meeting of council, but no bridge discussions have happened yet.
But effectively closing half the bridge has apparently proved to be the incentive to starting serious discussions with Highways about a new bridge. I was rather amused to read in the media that the city now supports a bridge outside city limits (although it's never been discussed at council), which means that the province will pick up the tab. To me that's been the sensible option all along, and we could have made that decision three years ago, when the report was first issued, instead of not talking about it at all.
And perhaps this demonstration of why it's important to spend money preventatively will help in future budget discussions. I know that there aren't nearly the photo ops attached with doing regular maintenance as with opening new facilities, but just as with your car, regular maintenance can save money, and structures, in the long run. Not to mention insanely long line-ups on a long weekend.
"For want of a battle, the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail." - old nursery rhyme, supposedly based on Richard III's loss in Bosworth Field)
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Failing to Plan is Planning to Fail
As has become the pattern for the last few years, summer time is an extremely quiet time for Prince Albert City Council. Only two scheduled council meetings, and two executive meetings, one in July, one in August, although there was a special council meeting last Monday, for no apparently urgent reason.
While the reason for this slowdown has never been discussed (neither has the meeting schedule, which is set in December for the following year), I'm sure it's because some people like having the summer off. Doesn't work for me, particularly, since we prefer to take holidays in the fall, but for those who own cottages, I suppose that it makes sense.
However, if you look about, other city councils use this time to actually plan for the future. Yes, they hold scheduled, public meetings, that aren't regular council meetings, but are used to discuss how their upcoming budgets should be developed.
You may have noticed that Saskatoon City Council has had several meetings over the summer, reviewing in detail how they spend their money, and where current spending could be trimmed. They've talked about everything from reducing the number of times that garbage has been picked up, to how much they spend on putting up Christmas decorations.
Of course, to do this, they have to have a detailed city budget. Rather than dismissing this as more detail than they want to be bothered with (something some of my fellow councillors have professed), they see having the details as being an invaluable tool in decision-making. While so far they have found little to trim, they are looking, and the public can see, and comment, on some of the potential cuts. And they're doing it far in advance of the actual budget development, so that administration can take direction from their decisions.
That seems to me to be far preferable to being handed a document without much detail, then spending a single day going through said document without time for discussion or comment. In our city's budget process, it's more of an all or nothing decision - either we approve the entire budget, or we vote against it - we have neither the time, nor the detail, to make detailed decisions.
When I was in Ontario in July, the same sort of thing was going on in Toronto's City Hall. While I don't agree with much of what Toronto Mayor Rob Ford says, I do have to give him a great deal of credit for looking to make drastic spending cuts before raising taxes, and for making decisions in the open, even having one meeting where members of the public could make presentations. So many people wanted to speak that the meeting went on until the early hours of the morning. Now there's a council that takes being open and accountable seriously.
That's what I don't get about how this council operates - we don't seem to be willing to spend the time reviewing how we do things, or thinking about whether we're spending money wisely, or looking at ways of spending less, whether through reducing services or just working smarter. Being on council shouldn't be about cutting ribbons, or making speeches at various public functions - it should be about thinking about what we want for our city, having open and civil discussions about all the options, and then putting the structures in place to allow the future that we want to happen. When we don't do that, when we leave the detailed discussion up to administration, we're not doing our jobs, and we're leaving the future of the city to people who haven't been elected to do that job.
"If you don't know where you're going, you'll probably end up somewhere else." - Yogi Berra
While the reason for this slowdown has never been discussed (neither has the meeting schedule, which is set in December for the following year), I'm sure it's because some people like having the summer off. Doesn't work for me, particularly, since we prefer to take holidays in the fall, but for those who own cottages, I suppose that it makes sense.
However, if you look about, other city councils use this time to actually plan for the future. Yes, they hold scheduled, public meetings, that aren't regular council meetings, but are used to discuss how their upcoming budgets should be developed.
You may have noticed that Saskatoon City Council has had several meetings over the summer, reviewing in detail how they spend their money, and where current spending could be trimmed. They've talked about everything from reducing the number of times that garbage has been picked up, to how much they spend on putting up Christmas decorations.
Of course, to do this, they have to have a detailed city budget. Rather than dismissing this as more detail than they want to be bothered with (something some of my fellow councillors have professed), they see having the details as being an invaluable tool in decision-making. While so far they have found little to trim, they are looking, and the public can see, and comment, on some of the potential cuts. And they're doing it far in advance of the actual budget development, so that administration can take direction from their decisions.
That seems to me to be far preferable to being handed a document without much detail, then spending a single day going through said document without time for discussion or comment. In our city's budget process, it's more of an all or nothing decision - either we approve the entire budget, or we vote against it - we have neither the time, nor the detail, to make detailed decisions.
When I was in Ontario in July, the same sort of thing was going on in Toronto's City Hall. While I don't agree with much of what Toronto Mayor Rob Ford says, I do have to give him a great deal of credit for looking to make drastic spending cuts before raising taxes, and for making decisions in the open, even having one meeting where members of the public could make presentations. So many people wanted to speak that the meeting went on until the early hours of the morning. Now there's a council that takes being open and accountable seriously.
That's what I don't get about how this council operates - we don't seem to be willing to spend the time reviewing how we do things, or thinking about whether we're spending money wisely, or looking at ways of spending less, whether through reducing services or just working smarter. Being on council shouldn't be about cutting ribbons, or making speeches at various public functions - it should be about thinking about what we want for our city, having open and civil discussions about all the options, and then putting the structures in place to allow the future that we want to happen. When we don't do that, when we leave the detailed discussion up to administration, we're not doing our jobs, and we're leaving the future of the city to people who haven't been elected to do that job.
"If you don't know where you're going, you'll probably end up somewhere else." - Yogi Berra
Sunday, August 14, 2011
What Happens When Council Says No
First, an explanation for my absence from this blog for the past few weeks. In June, my mother was diagnosed with stomach cancer. The prognosis wasn't good, and in early July, we were told that she had only four to six weeks left. I left for southwestern Ontario after the July council meeting, and was able to spend a bit of time with her before she slipped into a coma, and then, a few days later, passed away, several weeks earlier than predicted. Not an easy time for any of us, and I appreciate the many calls and cards of support and condolence that I've received.
I returned in time for last week's council meeting, at which council said no to administration's proposed increase to water rates - a proposed increase that would be on top of the seven-year compounding increase that was put onto residential water users only a few years ago, which was supposed to take care of funding water-related infrastructure. We weren't provided with any explanation from administration as to why the current increases aren't enough, only that the tax payer is expected to pay, once again.
And according to an article in Friday's Daily Herald, some staff just aren't sure how they should proceed at this point, although they do seem to have grasped the concept that perhaps cutting expenditures is a good place to start. Unfortunately, it appears that they can only think of cutting essentials, and they haven't stepped outside their usual box to see if there are other places that revenues could be realized.
There is the potential for something positive to come out of this, of course. If administration realizes that this sort of thinking should happen before the budget is prepared, not halfway through the year, perhaps the next budget process will be better. If they realize that starting from status quo, and just adding whatever increases are needed or wanted, is the lazy way of budgeting, rather than examining how we spend tax payers' money at every step of the process, that would certainly be an improvement. And perhaps they'll put a little more effort into providing a budget with details that members of council can actually examine, and decide what are unnecessary frills (say, putting in a sprinkler system at the soccer centre that wasn't part of the budget), so that the money is there when needed to, as was quoted, "replace the shingles on the roof", because the money hasn't been frittered away on a metaphorical big screen TV.
And I'll even give them some places that they could start to find money in the existing budget, and a couple of places that they could go besides tax payers' pockets to find more money, just to help kick-start their thinking.
Let's start with unnecessary expenditures - let's cut the $35,000 that goes to floral decorations. Personally, I don't think that those pots of petunias in Memorial Square are particularly aesthetic, nor do I think that they attract anyone downtown. In fact, the downtown merchants who have chosen to have flowers outside their businesses are going about it the right way - those arrangements fit better with the environment, are well-maintained, and don't cost the tax payer a cent. The beds at City Hall? How about asking the Horticultural Society to take them on, and provide them with access to water connections? In Andrea's home town of North Bay, that's exactly how the city handles the extensive flower beds along the waterfront that was reclaimed from old rail yards over the last twenty-five years. Andrea's mother used to be one of the volunteer gardeners, who were divided into small groups of six, each group responsible for a bed. And the truly neat thing about using these gardeners was that they populated the flower beds with cuttings and transplants from their own gardens, so there was very little outlay required for plants. I'm sure that you can still see Andrea's mother's rudbeckia blooming away every summer.
Other unnecessary costs? Let's see if the mayor and city manager can get by with sharing one administrative assistant, as previous mayors and city managers did, rather than each of them having two. Let's have a serious look at city staffing, and before any vacant position is filled, make sure that the work can't be handled by someone already there.
Let's look at better coordinating the work that is done, so that we no longer have roads dug up, then filled in because the pipes that were supposed to be put in weren't available. That's just poor planning, and there's really no excuse for that kind of sloppiness.
Let's eliminate Christmas cards for council members, and get rid of the idea that there should be a stash of gifts in the mayor's office for him to hand out to visitors. These sorts of frills can't be justified in any way. Let's stop having bottled water available for staff - city drinking water is safe, and if staff want bottled water, let them buy it themselves.
There's a few ideas for cost-cutting - what about bringing in more revenues from new sources? Well, that compounding increase from a few years back was only put on residential users. How about we apply that increase to commercial users? Not only am I pretty sure that a car wash uses more water than a fixed income senior trying to stay in their own home, I'm also sure that the car wash can pass on any increased cost to their customers.
And what about city facilities that get to use water freely, like the golf course or soccer centre. How about we figure out what their share of the cost is for maintaining the water infrastructure, and start charging the users of those facilities the true cost of having green grass.
And proposed improvements like paving the Art Hauser parking lot? How about putting a small surcharge on each ticket, putting that surcharge into an improvements fund, and then using that fund for such projects. To me it makes more sense to make the users of facilities pay for their improvements, rather than all tax payers.
So, there's a few ideas for administration to look at. I hope that whatever report we get from them shows that they're trying to look at things differently. Unfortunately, I fear that what will happen is that we will get the same thing back, similar to what happened when we asked for improvements to the budget. But a new vote will be called for, and a few of the more flexible members of council will have changed their minds, and their votes. And once again, the tax payer will be footing the bill for the collective laziness at City Hall.
"Thrift comes too late when you find it at the bottom of your purse." - Seneca
I returned in time for last week's council meeting, at which council said no to administration's proposed increase to water rates - a proposed increase that would be on top of the seven-year compounding increase that was put onto residential water users only a few years ago, which was supposed to take care of funding water-related infrastructure. We weren't provided with any explanation from administration as to why the current increases aren't enough, only that the tax payer is expected to pay, once again.
And according to an article in Friday's Daily Herald, some staff just aren't sure how they should proceed at this point, although they do seem to have grasped the concept that perhaps cutting expenditures is a good place to start. Unfortunately, it appears that they can only think of cutting essentials, and they haven't stepped outside their usual box to see if there are other places that revenues could be realized.
There is the potential for something positive to come out of this, of course. If administration realizes that this sort of thinking should happen before the budget is prepared, not halfway through the year, perhaps the next budget process will be better. If they realize that starting from status quo, and just adding whatever increases are needed or wanted, is the lazy way of budgeting, rather than examining how we spend tax payers' money at every step of the process, that would certainly be an improvement. And perhaps they'll put a little more effort into providing a budget with details that members of council can actually examine, and decide what are unnecessary frills (say, putting in a sprinkler system at the soccer centre that wasn't part of the budget), so that the money is there when needed to, as was quoted, "replace the shingles on the roof", because the money hasn't been frittered away on a metaphorical big screen TV.
And I'll even give them some places that they could start to find money in the existing budget, and a couple of places that they could go besides tax payers' pockets to find more money, just to help kick-start their thinking.
Let's start with unnecessary expenditures - let's cut the $35,000 that goes to floral decorations. Personally, I don't think that those pots of petunias in Memorial Square are particularly aesthetic, nor do I think that they attract anyone downtown. In fact, the downtown merchants who have chosen to have flowers outside their businesses are going about it the right way - those arrangements fit better with the environment, are well-maintained, and don't cost the tax payer a cent. The beds at City Hall? How about asking the Horticultural Society to take them on, and provide them with access to water connections? In Andrea's home town of North Bay, that's exactly how the city handles the extensive flower beds along the waterfront that was reclaimed from old rail yards over the last twenty-five years. Andrea's mother used to be one of the volunteer gardeners, who were divided into small groups of six, each group responsible for a bed. And the truly neat thing about using these gardeners was that they populated the flower beds with cuttings and transplants from their own gardens, so there was very little outlay required for plants. I'm sure that you can still see Andrea's mother's rudbeckia blooming away every summer.
Other unnecessary costs? Let's see if the mayor and city manager can get by with sharing one administrative assistant, as previous mayors and city managers did, rather than each of them having two. Let's have a serious look at city staffing, and before any vacant position is filled, make sure that the work can't be handled by someone already there.
Let's look at better coordinating the work that is done, so that we no longer have roads dug up, then filled in because the pipes that were supposed to be put in weren't available. That's just poor planning, and there's really no excuse for that kind of sloppiness.
Let's eliminate Christmas cards for council members, and get rid of the idea that there should be a stash of gifts in the mayor's office for him to hand out to visitors. These sorts of frills can't be justified in any way. Let's stop having bottled water available for staff - city drinking water is safe, and if staff want bottled water, let them buy it themselves.
There's a few ideas for cost-cutting - what about bringing in more revenues from new sources? Well, that compounding increase from a few years back was only put on residential users. How about we apply that increase to commercial users? Not only am I pretty sure that a car wash uses more water than a fixed income senior trying to stay in their own home, I'm also sure that the car wash can pass on any increased cost to their customers.
And what about city facilities that get to use water freely, like the golf course or soccer centre. How about we figure out what their share of the cost is for maintaining the water infrastructure, and start charging the users of those facilities the true cost of having green grass.
And proposed improvements like paving the Art Hauser parking lot? How about putting a small surcharge on each ticket, putting that surcharge into an improvements fund, and then using that fund for such projects. To me it makes more sense to make the users of facilities pay for their improvements, rather than all tax payers.
So, there's a few ideas for administration to look at. I hope that whatever report we get from them shows that they're trying to look at things differently. Unfortunately, I fear that what will happen is that we will get the same thing back, similar to what happened when we asked for improvements to the budget. But a new vote will be called for, and a few of the more flexible members of council will have changed their minds, and their votes. And once again, the tax payer will be footing the bill for the collective laziness at City Hall.
"Thrift comes too late when you find it at the bottom of your purse." - Seneca
Sunday, July 10, 2011
A Few Questions About the Proposed New Water Rates
If there's one thing this council and its immediate predecessor know how to do, it's raising your water rates. It seems to be an almost annual exercise - four times in the last five years. The last time was about a year ago, maybe less, and apparently the calculations at that time were out of whack, so we're back to hit up city residents again.
A few questions that I'll be asking at council tomorrow afternoon:
Why do city residents have to pay more for 100 cubic feet of water than someone who lives outside the city? A city resident will be paying $2.89 for every 100 cubic feet, someone outside the city will pay $2.62 for the same volume of water. A city resident's increase is $0.47 for that volume, the rural resident's increase is $0.34. The rationale in the report is that the rural resident shouldn't have to pay for some operating costs - valve maintenance, fire hydrant maintenance, water crane, meter reading, meter maintenance and water service connection maintenance. To me, we are providing a service to rural residents that would be much costlier to them if they had to operate their own system - having them pay the same rate as city residents would recognize that they're saving money by not having to develop their own system. In that way, the city rate would be lower, the non-resident rate would be higher, but both rates would be lower than the current proposed city rate.
Last year's bylaw set capital fixed service charges for three years. Since the truly costly issues happen on the capital side of things, why can these rates be set for three years, but not the consumption rates?
Administratively, why can't water be billed monthly, like power and energy rates? It would make budgeting much easier for most people, especially now that rates are leaping at 7% each year for residential users (this change was set two years ago, and will continue for another 5 years, although it's hard to keep track, since the changes to the system appear to be continual). I'm half expecting administration to tell me that to do this would cost $85,000 - that seems to be their standard estimate for making any kind of administrative change that might help make citizens' lives easier, like providing passes for free access to the dump, instead of having free weeks.
And finally, what genius suggested that a good spin to put on this would be to tell residents that we're helping them save money by doing this? It's insulting to people - we're suggesting that they all have wasteful water habits, and we're ignoring the fact that water is a necessity of life, and we are increasing its cost. If we were really concerned about reducing consumption, we would provide rebates to people for purchasing water saving shower heads, or low or dual flush toilets. But we're not interested in that, we're interested in getting more money from tax-payers, but in a way that doesn't have to be labeled as a tax increase. We ignore that we're just picking a different pocket on the same pair of pants.
Wouldn't it be nice if, instead of just going back to the same well (sorry for the water-related pun), we tried different ways of raising money instead. This council doesn't give much thought to generating revenues, whether it's through charging adequate direct user fees for city facilities, or doing things like selling advertising on city buses. Our approach is unimaginative and unsustainable, and the people of Prince Albert deserve better.
"In an ocean or in a glass, cool water is such a gas." - The Beach Boys
A few questions that I'll be asking at council tomorrow afternoon:
Why do city residents have to pay more for 100 cubic feet of water than someone who lives outside the city? A city resident will be paying $2.89 for every 100 cubic feet, someone outside the city will pay $2.62 for the same volume of water. A city resident's increase is $0.47 for that volume, the rural resident's increase is $0.34. The rationale in the report is that the rural resident shouldn't have to pay for some operating costs - valve maintenance, fire hydrant maintenance, water crane, meter reading, meter maintenance and water service connection maintenance. To me, we are providing a service to rural residents that would be much costlier to them if they had to operate their own system - having them pay the same rate as city residents would recognize that they're saving money by not having to develop their own system. In that way, the city rate would be lower, the non-resident rate would be higher, but both rates would be lower than the current proposed city rate.
Last year's bylaw set capital fixed service charges for three years. Since the truly costly issues happen on the capital side of things, why can these rates be set for three years, but not the consumption rates?
Administratively, why can't water be billed monthly, like power and energy rates? It would make budgeting much easier for most people, especially now that rates are leaping at 7% each year for residential users (this change was set two years ago, and will continue for another 5 years, although it's hard to keep track, since the changes to the system appear to be continual). I'm half expecting administration to tell me that to do this would cost $85,000 - that seems to be their standard estimate for making any kind of administrative change that might help make citizens' lives easier, like providing passes for free access to the dump, instead of having free weeks.
And finally, what genius suggested that a good spin to put on this would be to tell residents that we're helping them save money by doing this? It's insulting to people - we're suggesting that they all have wasteful water habits, and we're ignoring the fact that water is a necessity of life, and we are increasing its cost. If we were really concerned about reducing consumption, we would provide rebates to people for purchasing water saving shower heads, or low or dual flush toilets. But we're not interested in that, we're interested in getting more money from tax-payers, but in a way that doesn't have to be labeled as a tax increase. We ignore that we're just picking a different pocket on the same pair of pants.
Wouldn't it be nice if, instead of just going back to the same well (sorry for the water-related pun), we tried different ways of raising money instead. This council doesn't give much thought to generating revenues, whether it's through charging adequate direct user fees for city facilities, or doing things like selling advertising on city buses. Our approach is unimaginative and unsustainable, and the people of Prince Albert deserve better.
"In an ocean or in a glass, cool water is such a gas." - The Beach Boys
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Demonstrating Respect - or the Lack of It
You may have caught the story in Monday's Daily Herald about the annual Gay Pride Parade, which was on the previous Saturday. Unfortunately, the focus on the story was that, despite having been invited, nobody from City Council was present to deliver greetings on behalf of the city, and the security staff that had been promised weren't there, so the flag could not be raised.
I got a call from the Herald on Sunday afternoon, asking how this happened. I'm not sure why I was called; perhaps it was because at the previous three parades, I had been asked to represent the city, since the mayor wasn't available, nor was whoever the deputy mayor was at the time. With this mayor, all requests for a member of council to attend an event are funneled through the mayor's office, and he decides who will represent the city. The rest of us usually aren't even informed as to what events are happening. But this year, I didn't receive an email, or phone call, or anything. In fact, it was only the day before that Andrea told me that she had seen a public service announcement that the parade was the next day, but she wasn't sure what time, and she wondered who from the city would be there, since I hadn't been asked, and it hasn't been the sort of event that other members of council rush to be at.
It was bad enough that nobody representing the city bothered to show up, or sent their regrets, but the security that had been promised and paid for wasn't there either.
In my mind, this is totally disrespectful. It's easy to sign a proclamation declaring Gay Pride Week, but a proclamation means nothing if the only public event celebrating this is not supported, and worse if commitments were made and not kept. And, of course, the final disrespectful action was to not apologize for the non-appearance - it wasn't even mentioned at Monday's council meeting.
I realize that the whole gay issue is a sensitive one for some people, but as members of council, we have to remember that we are elected to represent all of our constituents, not just the ones that we feel match our values. And as council, we set an example for the rest of the city. This was the fourth annual Gay Pride Parade - none of the others had caused any problems. It's just a relatively small group of people who believe that gays and lesbians need to be supported in their ongoing attempts to overcome long-standing discriminatory actions from society - a brief parade, a few speeches, the raising of a flag - that's it. But I know that for the participants, it's an important and meaningful ceremony, one which indicates that the city, among others, supports their efforts to be free to be as they are, without fear of recrimination, discrimination, and worse.
I'm not going to say that I know gay people and they're all fabulous. Like any group, they are widely divergent in their interests, their activities, their personalities. But they do tend to be a group that some people feel are an acceptable target for discrimination.
At the first Parade, I spoke about how, a few centuries back, left-handed people were considered dangerous, working on the side of evil, and we still have the adjectives sinister and gauche as hangovers of that now out-moded discrimination. And lefties still have a harder time of it - our son is left-handed, and Andrea still remembers his joy when she got him a pair of lefty scissors when he was about three - finally, he could cut paper. So he is part of a minority - thank goodness, nobody ever suggested that he could be trained out of it, or that this was some sort of choice that he made. And I look forward to the day when being gay is considered the same sort of thing - something that is just as much a part of an individual as their hair colour, or handed-ness, or height, but not something that is considered an acceptable reason to make fun of someone, or beat them up, or that they should be ashamed of.
And I'm afraid that not showing up for the flag-raising ceremony demonstrates that for some members of council, the gay community is less deserving of respect than other groups. It isn't. In one way or another, each of us is part of a minority - whether it be age, race, gender, handicapped - the list is endless. When we allow others to be discriminated against, we increase the likelihood that at some point, we will suffer as well.
"Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoller
I got a call from the Herald on Sunday afternoon, asking how this happened. I'm not sure why I was called; perhaps it was because at the previous three parades, I had been asked to represent the city, since the mayor wasn't available, nor was whoever the deputy mayor was at the time. With this mayor, all requests for a member of council to attend an event are funneled through the mayor's office, and he decides who will represent the city. The rest of us usually aren't even informed as to what events are happening. But this year, I didn't receive an email, or phone call, or anything. In fact, it was only the day before that Andrea told me that she had seen a public service announcement that the parade was the next day, but she wasn't sure what time, and she wondered who from the city would be there, since I hadn't been asked, and it hasn't been the sort of event that other members of council rush to be at.
It was bad enough that nobody representing the city bothered to show up, or sent their regrets, but the security that had been promised and paid for wasn't there either.
In my mind, this is totally disrespectful. It's easy to sign a proclamation declaring Gay Pride Week, but a proclamation means nothing if the only public event celebrating this is not supported, and worse if commitments were made and not kept. And, of course, the final disrespectful action was to not apologize for the non-appearance - it wasn't even mentioned at Monday's council meeting.
I realize that the whole gay issue is a sensitive one for some people, but as members of council, we have to remember that we are elected to represent all of our constituents, not just the ones that we feel match our values. And as council, we set an example for the rest of the city. This was the fourth annual Gay Pride Parade - none of the others had caused any problems. It's just a relatively small group of people who believe that gays and lesbians need to be supported in their ongoing attempts to overcome long-standing discriminatory actions from society - a brief parade, a few speeches, the raising of a flag - that's it. But I know that for the participants, it's an important and meaningful ceremony, one which indicates that the city, among others, supports their efforts to be free to be as they are, without fear of recrimination, discrimination, and worse.
I'm not going to say that I know gay people and they're all fabulous. Like any group, they are widely divergent in their interests, their activities, their personalities. But they do tend to be a group that some people feel are an acceptable target for discrimination.
At the first Parade, I spoke about how, a few centuries back, left-handed people were considered dangerous, working on the side of evil, and we still have the adjectives sinister and gauche as hangovers of that now out-moded discrimination. And lefties still have a harder time of it - our son is left-handed, and Andrea still remembers his joy when she got him a pair of lefty scissors when he was about three - finally, he could cut paper. So he is part of a minority - thank goodness, nobody ever suggested that he could be trained out of it, or that this was some sort of choice that he made. And I look forward to the day when being gay is considered the same sort of thing - something that is just as much a part of an individual as their hair colour, or handed-ness, or height, but not something that is considered an acceptable reason to make fun of someone, or beat them up, or that they should be ashamed of.
And I'm afraid that not showing up for the flag-raising ceremony demonstrates that for some members of council, the gay community is less deserving of respect than other groups. It isn't. In one way or another, each of us is part of a minority - whether it be age, race, gender, handicapped - the list is endless. When we allow others to be discriminated against, we increase the likelihood that at some point, we will suffer as well.
"Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoller
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)