THE CITY'S BUDGET PROCESS - WHY AREN'T WE INCLUDED?


The city of St. John’s has approved the property tax rates for 2008. The majority of citizens will most likely be pleased that the mill rate did not increase. We now await the impact of this decision. According to media reports, the city has a shortfall of $5.6 million for it’s 2008 budget.

I say, “according to media reports” because this is where citizens have received their information. No discussions pertaining to this shortfall have been held in council chambers. The city has not engaged their citizens in the budgetary process. Unlike the provincial and federal governments, whose finance ministers conduct pre-budget public meetings, St. John’s carries out its budget discussions behind closed doors. Citizens have to rely on snippets of news that they may hear or read in the media.

The Monday, Nov. 26 council meeting was a great example of how the city says very little to citizens. The mill rate motion was put forward and approved with minimal discussion. We heard nothing as to why the mill rate is to remain the same, what the city is doing about their financial shortfall and when a public announcement will be made to advise us of their decisions.

Even the announcement of the $40 per annum increase in water tax was not explained. Why the 10 per cent increase? How was this increase derived? Why weren’t we presented with a financial progress report on the harbour clean up? After all, this is, so we are told, what some of the water tax funds are used for. Is this the cause of the tax increase and will there be more water tax increases in the coming years because of the harbour clean up?

Now, back to the $5.6 million shortfall.

An article in The Telegram on Nov. 23 reported “the city plans to transfer approximately $4 million worth of capital budget to multi-year, shared cost, capital-works program with government.” Once again there was no discussion in the council chamber about this. What projects are affected? What is the impact of this decision? In the same article, a list of some of the 30 programmes and services that could potentially be affected was identified to help cover the balance of $1.6 million. It was interesting to see that of the 12 items listed, 6 were related to the environment. And is the city really considering abandoning the sidewalk clearing pilot project? If so, why?

If these are the priorities of city council, we should be informed and be invited into the discussion. It is not too late. We may even find out what cuts Mayor Andy Wells would make - after all he says he knows where he would make them, but won't tell us.

The city should hold a public meeting so that we can hear their side of the story and we can give ours.

SJSE - POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES?


St. John’s Sports and Entertainment’s (SJSE) recent announcement of management restructuring at Mile One Centre highlights the lack of political consequences for the operation of this business over the past few years.

While the new board has seen fit to solve some of their operational issues through a change in management personnel, thus creating the impression that they are holding some of the management staff accountable, what of the political masters who sat on the SJSE board in previous years? How are they being held accountable?

The previous SJSE board had at least four councilors as members, one of whom – Coun. Keith Coombs – was chairman. During their reign, they accumulated a deficit of $8 million (includes the 2006/07 year) and the city’s subsidy increased from $1 million to $1.5 million. These councilors were members of a board that endorsed the infamous “be debt free and subsidy free by 2010” corporate aim and then had the audacity to tell citizens that they may have been “optimistic” with this aim!

Deputy mayor Dennis O’Keefe also tried to assure citizens that the deficit was only a loan and that SJSE would be able to pay the loan back. Coun. Shannie Duff and Coun. Art Puddister were the other board members. It was only after Coun. Tom Hann’s brief foray on the board that council decided to restructure and reduce the number of councilors on the board.

Citizens should remember these councilor’s term on the SJSE board and factor in their performance as they make their voting decisions in the 2009 election. This is a way for the councilors to be held accountable.

What citizens need to know is what political interference was there in the operations of Mile One? What decisions were imposed upon management to ensure a better political picture? As there are some current board members, including the chairman, Gerry Smith, who were on the previous board, they should provide answers.

It can only be hoped that when SJSE presents its 2006/07 financial reports to city council in the coming weeks they will also present a new five-year corporate plan that will reflect the realities of operating Mile One and be exempt of all political rhetoric that previous corporate plans included. Council will then be able to have a full and open debate on the future of Mile One instead of being the “rubber stamp” council they were when the SJSE board was dominated by councilors.