Sunday, June 12, 2016

FCM Findings

Along with four other councillors, I spent last weekend in Winnipeg, at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities annual meeting.  These are large meetings, attended by mayors and councillors from towns and cities from across Canada, with multiple concurrent sessions, tours, and a trade show featuring new products and ideas.

This year I found many good ideas at the trade show.  One that I think would be useful as we're rejuvenating Kinsmen Park after years of neglect, is a new type of barbecue surface.  This surface can be fueled by propane, natural gas or electricity, and has many positive aspects.  For one, no wood is required, which means no clean up of coals and ashes.  Because there is no open flame, there is no risk of fire, so these would be usable during fire bans.  I think that this is an option that our parks people should investigate - I know that many families like to barbecue at the park, and this would make it easier and safer.

I saw a couple of examples of rebar that are meant for corrosive environments - one type was made of fibreglass, the other of galvanized material.  Considering the amount of time and expense that have been required to repair the bridge and various overpasses, using products that last longer only makes sense to me.

Since we still have gravel roads, and administration is still oiling them (despite direction from council to stop), seeing non-oil products that control dust without polluting our water system was encouraging.

For all of these products, I'll be passing the information along to administration - I hope that they follow up.

We toured Winnipeg's flood mitigation system, which they've had to make use of.  Interestingly, even with their recent history of serious flooding, their flood plain is based on a 1 in 200 year flood risk, unlike the 1 in 500 year risk that our provincial government thinks that we should follow.  Even at that, their mitigation system cost more that $1 million - a major investment.

We also got to listen to federal politicians, who recognize the importance of city governance in carrying out their various plans.  The prime minister, for example, spoke about the proposed infrastructure program and its priorities, so that we have a better understanding of how to take advantage of funding opportunities.

As I said, this is a large conference, with multiple learning opportunities - far more than could be taken in if only one or two members of council attended.  I always learn at these conferences, and I appreciate any opportunity to learn how to do my job better, whether by saving money, or solving long-term problems.  I'm sure that my fellow attendees feel the same.

"Education is the most powerful weapon we can use to change the world." - Nelson Mandela

Sunday, May 29, 2016

Should Convenience Trump Fairness?

A contingent of seniors came to Executive Committee last week, to bolster a letter that had been sent by one of their representatives.  What prompted the letter was a decision made by Council a few weeks ago about the polls that will be set for this fall's municipal election.

It started when the City Clerk brought a proposal for where polling stations should be to Council several weeks ago.  The proposal removed one polling station from each of Wards One, Three and Four, leaving those wards with just one poll each, and reduced the special polling stations from the high rises in Ward Two from three to two, meaning that Ward Two would have four polls.  The other wards remained the same, at two polling stations each.

This first proposal was discussed at length, with some of us wondering what the criteria are for the special polls in high rises.  It turns out that there aren't any - these polls were set up many years ago, as a convenience for the residents of those buildings, most of whom are seniors.

I want to be clear that we aren't talking about care homes here.  The people who live in the buildings that are used to this convenience are all living independently, able to get about on their own - each building has its own parking lot, which implies a certain mobility.  But there are many buildings like this all over the city, where we expect the seniors to be able to get out to vote - and they do.  And for individuals who still live in their own homes, but aren't mobile enough to get out to a poll, mobile polls can always be arranged - I've helped to arrange such polls in the past for residents of my ward.

So we asked the City Clerk to check what is required by the Cities Act - the legislation that governs how we do things.  And she came back with a proposal that was then approved by Council - no special polls in any ward, two polls in most wards, one poll in each of Wards One and Three.  And that's what Council approved.

For whatever reason, this decision got no media coverage whatsoever.  However, residents of the buildings affected were informed by someone that they were going to be losing the convenience that they have enjoyed for several years, so a letter was written, and several of them came to Executive Committee to try to sway Council.

I'm not sure what they expected - Executive Committee does not pass motions.  What we could have done was voted to move the matter to the next council meeting.  We did not, as the matter had already been discussed at length.

I understand being upset at losing a privilege that you've enjoyed for years.  I can appreciate how pleasant it must be to vote without having to put on a coat, or even shoes.  But I'm also aware that Council needs to be fair to the residents of the city as a whole, and providing this special privilege to the people who live in three buildings (although there were some in the crowd who wanted to add one more building, that is also in Ward Two) is not fair to all city residents.

What about other buildings in the city who also are home to seniors?  It's interesting to note that some of those who purport to speak for seniors are actually only speaking for the seniors in these particular buildings in Ward Two.  Nobody is advocating for this privilege for the seniors who live in the Molstad Homes, or Abbeyfield Place, or Connaught Village, or others.

And of course, having a poll doesn't happen for free.  According to the City Clerk's office, the cost of having a poll ranges between $2,500 and $3,000, depending on the number of staff required.  If we gave the seniors who came to the meeting to protest what they asked for, that's $10,000 minimum added cost to the election, which is, of course, paid for by all tax-payers.  Not a lot in a multi-million dollar budget, I agree, but I've spent most of my time on council trying to get rid of the unfair subsidies that seem to be part of a way of life in this city, and I'm not about to close my eyes to $10,000.

It gets even costlier if you try to accommodate all seniors living in similar situations.  I estimate that there are about twenty buildings that would meet the same criteria as the current buildings.  Now we're up to $50,000 minimum.  Is it starting to look ridiculous yet?

The senior who wrote the letter seems to feel that a valid reason for continuing the subsidy is because it's been the practice for so long.  Her logic seems to be that if you have a leaky pipe, you might as well just let it keep on leaking.  Unfortunately, I know that there are some members of council who feel that you're treading on dangerous  ground if you take away something that people have enjoyed.  Sadly, they're thinking about what might affect them politically, not what is the best thing to do for the city.  And I can think of plenty of examples where we no longer provide services that we used to - we no longer mow boulevards, but expect residents to do that.  We no longer pick up residents's garbage from individual cans, often carrying them from back yards to the street in front, but instead expect residents to roll out their own garbage bins (and don't pick them up if they contain something that they shouldn't).  We've done those things to save money, and removing polls where they're not required is just another one of those cost-saving measures.

I do know that the removal of the poll from East End Hall is taking away a poll that has been there probably for longer than the high rise polls have been in place, and that it will be an added inconvenience for those in my ward who now have to travel further to vote.  But I respect Council's decision, and I know that we're meeting our legal requirements.

Perhaps this is a sign that we should be looking at ways to make voting more convenient for everybody.  I'm specifically thinking of on-line voting.  If the census can be filled out on-line (and we got the long form, which threw Andrea for a bit, but she managed to do it within the required time frame), we should be able to figure out a way to vote securely on-line.  That would make it more convenient for everybody, and also might attract the demographic that is currently under-represented - young people.  Fair and cost-effective - that's what we should be looking for, not continuing special privileges for a few people, paid for by the rest of us.

"What is right is often forgotten by what is convenient." - Bodie Thoene

Sunday, May 15, 2016

When is Flying a Flag Appropriate?

The biggest news around City Hall this past week was the attention drawn to the flag that was raised on Monday, for Celebrate Life Week.  The week is intended to call attention to the pro-life side of the ongoing abortion debate.  To say that this is a contentious issue, with strong emotions on both sides, is understating things.

The policy for flags to be flown in Memorial Square is pretty straight-forward - proclamations like this one, that are divisive or politically contentious, or that have a religious basis, are supposed to come to council for a decision.  This didn't happen for this situation, perhaps because the flag has been flown for several years, without ever receiving approval from council.

Personally, I don't think that most people are aware of what flags may or not fly in front of City Hall on any given day.  But this one, this year, caught the eye of a couple of young women, who wondered, rightly, why the city would consider it the right thing to do to endorse one side or the other of such an emotional debate.  So in the rain, they stood, holding signs in protest, planning a larger protest later in the week.  When we saw the picture in the paper, we realized that one of the people is a friend of our daughter's - not really a surprise, as her friends are young people who are not afraid to stand up for what they believe in.

The arguments coming out of City Hall in defence have been rather pathetic.  First, there's the old excuse of we've done this for years.  At one point, the blame was placed on newcomers to town - almost how dare people come here and point out the folly of our ways.  There was the popular defence of freedom of speech. But the weakest was probably that flying the flag doesn't mean support, we just fly the flag of anyone who asks.

That last argument is ridiculous.  Flags are symbols of support.  It's easy to come to the conclusion that a flag flown in front of City Hall, along with the Canadian, Saskatchewan and Prince Albert flags, means that the city supports the pro-life side of the debate.

On Thursday, there was a noon-hour rally at Memorial Square that I attended, for a couple of reasons.  I support the young ladies who were brave enough to bring this to public attention, and I agree with them.  I think that abortion is a matter of personal choice, and I don't think that it's anyone's right to tell anyone else what to do in such a difficult situation.  Legislative changes made it a legal option more than thirty years ago, and it's not appropriate for City Hall to enter the debate.

Some of the bravely anonymous comments on various web-sites have likened this flag to the flag that we fly every year during Gay Pride week.  After all, there are people who have difficulty with the idea of extending equal rights to people with different sexual orientations.  However, it is different, because in that case, we're speaking out against discrimination, and saying that, as a city, we don't believe in that kind of discrimination.  As well, the Gay Pride flag isn't trying to get anyone to change their sexual orientation - those supporters are just asking that people be more aware of the discrimination that they face in living their lives, and do what they can to change that.

So what should the city do when a group approaches us to fly their flag?  Well, I think that following our policy would be a good start.  I also think that we should identify when a flag is likely to give the impression that something has broad endorsement when it doesn't.  Some flags will be easy to agree to - Anti-Racism Week, Heart and Stroke Month, the Cancer Society's Daffodil flag during April - those are causes that the city supports.

And also, when someone points out that what we're doing is offensive, stop making excuses.  There's nothing wrong with admitting that a mistake has been made, and taking action to fix that mistake.  That on its own would have prevented some embarrassing headlines this past week.

"The endorsement process is an evolution.  You endorse someone that you believe in, whose ideas and solutions align with yours." - Herman Cain

Sunday, May 8, 2016

Putting the Golf Cart Before the Horse

At Executive Committee last Monday we were asked to approve a proposal for a ten-year Asset Management Plan for repairs and upgrades at the golf course, including $2 million to replace the irrigation system.  Once approved, this would be followed by a financial plan for how this all would be paid for.

You might have thought, as I did, that this is the sort of thing that should have been raised during budget proceedings, rather than being brought for approval in the middle of the year.  I mean, we're not talking insignificant amounts, and these needs should have been known last year.  Putting it before Council now, and claiming that it's now urgent, is poor planning, in my opinion.

I was also amazed by the statement by one member of council - that the golf course makes money for the city.  For the record, it returns no money to city revenues.  It does claim to be self-sufficient, but its financial tracking is murky - I know that in the past Parks would buy equipment that would later turn out to be used exclusively by the golf course.  This kind of convoluted financial figuring makes one suspicious.  And, of course, like other civic facilities, it doesn't pay for its water usage, which means that $90,000 yearly is spent watering the greens with drinkable water, and this plan didn't include anything that indicated that they were intending to change this wasteful practice.

And to be quite  honest, a golf course is not something that only the city can provide.  I do not golf myself, but Guthrie occasionally golfs with his buddies, and they don't go to Cooke - they go to one of the private golf courses just outside the city.  This tells me that a golf course doesn't need to rely on taxpayers' money to survive.  Now I can just hear golfers getting worked up - those smaller courses don't provide the level of golfing that they like.  I don't dispute that; I just think that they should not expect the taxpayer to subsidize the minority of city residents that golf at Cooke.

And golfing at Cooke is not for lower income residents.  The basic green fee, according to the city website (which still was using 2015 rates) was $51.00 - no wonder Guthrie goes elsewhere.  Annual memberships can run into the thousands.  But that seems to be how we do things - we want to provide residents with "world class" facilities, but we don't expect them to pay full freight.

And then to expect us to approve this plan, before we have any idea how it will be financed - well, that's the corner we're too often backed into - we approve something before we know all the costs, then have to go to the taxpayer afterward to pay the bills.  Let's start acting responsibly, try living within our means, and stop subsidizing those who can afford to pay for their own recreational preferences.

"You'll  never out-earn your bad habits and stupidity.  You have to change your habits and get smart with your money." - Mary Hunt

Sunday, May 1, 2016

Another Levy with No Clear Purpose

Last Monday, council approved a new bylaw that will allow the city to charge hotels a Destination Marketing Levy, with the levy varying based on the value of the property.  This is not to be confused with the former voluntary destination marketing fee that had no connection to the city, but which was paid to the Destination Marketing Board, which was intertwined with the Tourism Board and the Borealis Music Festival in ways that were never made completely public - that voluntary fee no longer exists, and of course, the money in that fund is long gone.

This levy is, of course, just a new tax with a different name.  I have a few problems with this new tax.  For one thing, I don't think that adequate consultation was done, either with the businesses affected or with council as a whole.  If we're as transparent as we said we were going to be four years ago, then there should have been much more open discussion about the options before it came to council for a decision.

Another problem that I have is that we have no real plan for the money.  It will just go into a special fund, allegedly for attracting large events.  As if this wasn't vague enough, the actual use will be decided, according to the city manager, by a special committee established for that purpose.  Who will be on that committee, and what its parameters will be, has not been determined, or if it has, it hasn't been shared with council as a whole.  It joins another levy, this one paid for by all residents through their taxes, that started out to pay for the construction of the soccer centre.  That use is done, but the money is still being collected and saved, for no apparent purpose.

My preference would be, when we set up these special funds, that they're identified as being for a specific purpose, and when that purpose is met, we stop collecting the money.  My fear is that, once a significant amount has accumulated in one of these special funds, one or more special interest groups will come to council, crowd the chambers, and we'll end up putting the money towards another facility that in the long run, will cost the city far more in ongoing operating and maintenance costs, whether it be a new arena, swimming pool, golf course improvement, or some other structure that some people think will be the magic bullet that will attract new businesses and residents to the city, but will just be added to the list of facilities that can't pay their own way, and that the city is expected to make up any shortfalls.

You would think that we would learn from past mistakes.  But it seems that every time, we go down the same path, and are surprised when taxpayers are annoyed by our inability to change our ways.  As well they should, since it's their money that we're so fast to find different ways of collecting and spending.

"When a new source of taxation is found, it never means, in practice, that the old source is abandoned.  It merely means that the politicians have two ways of milking the taxpayer where they had one before." - H. L. Mencken

Sunday, April 17, 2016

What's Missing in the Alcohol Strategy

After a couple of years of meetings, the alcohol strategy was released this past week.  Unfortunately, it's missing a rather crucial part - the strategy part.

You see, a strategy isn't just a list of every idea that came up during a brainstorming session.  I understand the value of brainstorming - of getting out ideas without being too concerned as to the practicality of such ideas.  But a strategy sets priorities for action, and recognizes that it isn't a single problem, but there are separate facets that may require different actions.  A strategy should set targets as well, otherwise there is no way to assess its success or lack of same.

It is a discussion document that includes some interesting statistics with regard to the cost of public intoxication, the proportion of high school students with binge-drinking experience, and the average amount of money that Prince Albert residents spend on alcohol compared to other communities in the province.  In all of these areas, Prince Albert scores considerably higher than elsewhere, and figuring out why is difficult.

And of course, part of the problem is that alcohol in and of itself is not the problem.  A glass or two of wine with dinner or a beer enjoyed on the deck on a hot summer afternoon is not a problem.  The problem is the misuse of alcohol, sometimes in a way that negatively affects others (public intoxication, drunk driving), and sometimes in the impact on individuals, and how it may affect them and their future relationship with alcohol.  A high school kid who binge drinks is probably going to suffer the most from his or her foolishness (as long as they don't get behind the wheel of a vehicle), but if that's seen to be the normal way of drinking, it's likely to lead to more serious problems in the future.  And of course, there are those individuals for whom a single drink is too much.

Also missing is an assessment of how some of our current initiatives are working.  For example, much was made a few years back about the setting up of a detox centre, so that rather than taking people who were found drunk to the cells, they could be taken to detox.  But it's not clear if this is working as a true detox centre, or just as a place where people can sleep it off, and then are put back on the street without any further support.  A couple of months ago, someone passed out in one of the chairs in the atrium of the Forest Centre.  When the security guard came back from his rounds, he wasn't able to wake the guy up, so he called the police.  When the police arrived, one officer said "Oh, Darrell.  And  you just got out of detox yesterday."  Anecdotes like that tell me that the detox centre has provided another place for drunks to sleep, but it hasn't done anything to solve the problem of public intoxication.

And I'm surprised that, with all the concern about high rates of teenage drinking, nobody proposed that the practice of having a "safe" grad, where grads drink with parental approval, is sending the wrong message.  After all, if teens who were surveyed said that they would like to see events where alcohol isn't allowed, and that they would like to get away from the idea that alcohol is not necessary to have a good time, this would seem to be the perfect opportunity for schools to lead the way.  But it's almost as though there are some traditions that are considered sacred, and we don't want to examine too closely any possible connection between that sort of condoned activity and the acceptance of binge drinking in high schools.

The strategy needs to include both actions to prevent problems in the future, as well as actions to address current problems.  Some organization to set priorities and identify first steps would be a good next step for the committee.  And why the report bothers to list ideas that are not within the power of anyone in the city to implement (legalizing marijuana has nothing to do with alcohol) only distracts from any realistic recommendations that may be in the report.

I sympathize with the committee - I'm sure that they felt pressured to come up with something after being in existence for almost four years.  But rather than make an announcement about what is at best a preliminary discussion document, they might have better spent their time actually setting some priorities and recommendations for actions that could actually be implemented - narrowing the scope of a huge problem.  As they say, the way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time - and there's no doubt that alcohol misuse in our community is a huge elephant.

"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results." - Winston Churchill

Sunday, April 10, 2016

The Borealis Bailout

The outstanding debt of the Borealis Music Festival came before council on Monday, with a request that we pay it off.  Now, this was not a city function.  It was nominally run by the Tourism Board, although they said at the time that was only a stop-gap measure, as the intent was to set up the festival itself as a non-profit organization.  As far as I know, that has yet to happen, although they certainly demonstrated that they know how not to make a profit.

The city funds the Tourism Board through a grant, similar to how the museum is funded, but it is not a city board, and none of the board employees are city employees.  This was their show from start to finish.

The only funding that the city provided was $15,000 from the special event reserve of $50,000 that is set in every budget.  This money is supposed to go to events of provincial or national scope, and be applied for a year in advance.  The application failed on both counts, but when it came to council a year ago, only two of us voted against it, not just because it didn't meet the criteria, but also because it was obviously not well thought out, and highly over-optimistic.  They were projecting attendance of 15,000 over three days; they had fewer than 700 paying attendees.  In fact, more people attended on free passes than paid to get in.  If I was one of the people who actually paid for my pass, I'd be ticked.

The city also provided $15,000 in in-kind services - trimming trees, that sort of thing - and blocked off a good part of Kinsmen Park for the August long weekend from city residents - you know, the ones who pay for its upkeep.

I voiced my concerns at the time, and was told by one councillor that my questions were ridiculous.  Apparently, we're just supposed to believe whatever we're told, no matter how far-fetched it may appear (and prove to be).

And now most of my colleagues have decided that we should pay the festival's outstanding bills.  Their logic on several counts is faulty.

First, one councillor said that this was just like the tax reduction we provided to Humpty's last month.  Not so.  The tax reduction was in recognition that a city project, which could have been more efficiently managed, made this business inaccessible to the public for almost four months, during their busiest season.  Had we had crews working long days from the start of the project, rather than doing that in the last few weeks when we were afraid of winter coming early, we would likely have been done a month earlier.  The city was responsible for that mismanagement, and as such felt that a small concession was appropriate.  We also put some boundaries in place so that this will only be an option when work continues for more than 100 days.  And if you want to look at magnitude of assistance, the tax reduction was $8,000 - less than one-tenth of the Borealis Bailout.

Another councillor said that it was just like the subsidy we provide to the Rawlinson Centre.  Again, not the same - we own that facility.  Now, I think that it could be run more efficiently, but so far most of the rest of council has not seen the potential value of actually tendering out the contract, rather than just renewing it, or having contract payments based on performance targets.  But it is a city facility, and we are ultimately responsible for paying the bills, just as we are for the soccer centre or the Art Hauser Centre.  I think that for all of these we could improve the funding models, but they are our facilities.

Some at council are trying to make it sound like this isn't really spending tax payers' money, because it comes from what is euphemistically called positive variances, money that was budgeted for other things but hasn't been spent (like snow removal, because it was such an unusual winter).  But it is tax payers' money, and it annoys me when I think of how we pare down potential expenditures during the budget process, only to hand money over to bail this group out, without any conditions attached.  If other councillors don't think that isn't a dangerous precedent, well, they probably believe that you can attract 15,000 people to an ill-defined music festival on the August long weekend.

There was much contrition from some council members, about how the original grant shouldn't have been approved because it didn't meet the criteria.  They knew it at the time, but still did it, and in fact have done it again, granting $25,000 to an arts festival that applied for the money six months ago, for an event next month, that doesn't meet the provincial/national scope either.  Let's hope that it doesn't lose money.

I know that it's hard to say no, but we keep forgetting that it's not our money.  Council has so little control over factors that cost us money - weather can increase your costs for snow plowing or removing damaged trees, dropping oil prices reduce some residents' disposable income to spend in city businesses, causing some to close, and we lose some of our tax base.  But how we spend our money on discretionary things is totally within our control, and I get angry when I see us doing this just to be nice.  And judging by the people that I've talked to, tax payers get angry about this wastefulness too.

"Nothing is easier than spending public money.  It does not appear to belong to anybody.  The temptation is to bestow it on somebody." - Calvin Coolidge