St John's City Council Business - Lionel West

Budget 2012

2011-12-13T10:30:00.001-03:30

So, no new property tax increase for 2012!!

The city delivered its 2012 budget on Monday 12 December and while there is no property tax increase, there will be an annual water tax increase of $35.00. Water tax will now be $615 per year.

This water tax increase was expected as the city laid out a plan several years ago indicating the increase to cover costs associated with the various water and wastewater-related projects. Permit fees will also increase.

The city budget is now $236 million.

The one question I do have for the city is this:-

What is the impact of the 2011 $3.4 million surplus on the 2012 budget?

Is it being used to offset some expenditures for 2012 and if so, which ones?

If it is being used, does this mean the 2013 budget is in a "structural deficit"?

I await a response from the city and will keep you informed.

UPDATE: I have been informed the surplus is not funding activity within the 2012 budget. Councillor Breen, chair of the Finance committee advised -

"We are holding that for the time being to be used for such contingencies as emergency capital (water and sewer issue, etc) or possible pension fund payments needed in 2013 as that is a valuation year (and we all know how the markets have been). Whatever the use it will be for one time uses as opposed to funding ongoing programs".

Amalgamation - Where to now?

2011-10-18T13:47:00.000-02:30

As reported in media, the City of St. John's has received a consultant's report on amalgamation. It has had this report for a couple of months and the City Manager, Bob Smart, has sent a memo to Council on his analysis of the report.

In a nutshell, his report is summed up with the comment - "The report does not present a compelling case for amalgamation and may in fact offer reinforcement for opponents of amalgamation".

While acknowledging the citizens of St. John's may receive a reduction in their taxes, residents of Mount Pearl and Paradise would receive an increase in their taxes.

Long term, there may be advantages to amalgamation but the short and medium term are not as promising.

Smart goes on to suggest the city has to re-think its strategy on amalgamation and awaits direction from council.

Council may discusss this issue within the next couple of weeks.

As to when we get to see the report, no decision has been made.

I have always been a proponent of regional co-operation rather than amalgamation as I believe, for now, this is the most cost-effective means of sharing resources within the North-East Avalon.

New Financial Arrangement With The Province

2011-09-26T14:10:00.007-02:30

The City has put forward a paper titled: "Towards a Balanced Provincial-Municipal Fiscal Relationship and Municipal Sustainability"

It is an interesting read.

As the title suggests, the city is putting forward a proposal for improved fiscal relationship with the province. There are three key areas:-

Intergovernmental Relations

Provincial Government as a User of Municipal Services

Long-term Sustainable Support to Municipalities

Essentially the city would like the Provincial Government to waive the provincial HST on goods and services the city purchases and to eliminate payroll and gas tax it charges the city.

Another proposal is for the province to pay a payment-in-lieu-of-tax to the city while the city would eliminate the Municipal Operating Grant it currently receives.

The city would also like the provincial government to obtain building permits and adhere to the city's development regulations.

In return, the city is willing to alter the infrastructure funding formula to 50/50 from its current 70/30 ratio.

The city would see a net gain of approximtely $20 - 25 million in revenue should the proposal be accepted.

No word from any of the three provincial party leaders yet, but it will be interesting to see what they have to say on the proposals.

Stay tuned!

This is the link to the report on the city's website.

Discretion

2011-09-26T13:43:00.001-02:30

The Telegram (Monday September 26) is reporting Deputy Mayor Shannie Duff wants city council to put some guidelines around its discretionary power.

I agree.

I've longed been critical of council and its use of discretionary power. Most troublesome about this power is the inconsistent application of it. Council approves a particular project yet when a similar proposal comes along, approval is not given. Recent examples of this inconsistency are the "drive-thru" applications. Some have been approved - some not. Another example is development on unserviced land.

I'm in favour of not having discretionary powers applied to any development within the city. The Municipal Plan should be designed so we all know what is allowed within certain zones. However, if discretionary power is avaialble, guidelines should be in place.

It will be interesting to see where Duff's proposal goes. I believe it to be a positive step and one long overdue at City Hall.

Illegal Dumping!

2011-09-13T11:03:00.000-02:30

Once again, the issue of illegal dumping has surfaced at city council. This complaint arises every year and as yet, no solution has been found.

I offer the following as possible solutions...

a) Modify the Robin Hood Bay operating hours. Can Sunday be included and/or adjust the summer hours to extend later into the evenings?

b) Large Dumpster Bins be placed at strategic points within city limits to encourage citizens to dump their garbage into these.

While the above may cost the city money, it may be less than the illegal dumping clean-up costs currently being incurred by the city.

Priorities?...It's Not a Municipal Responsibility

2011-08-24T19:46:00.001-02:30

Is St. John’s City Council’s decision not to fund the school crossing guard programme an indication of its priorities and principles for the city’s 2012 budget?

We can only hope.

The principle behind the school crossing guard programme is “it’s not a municipal responsibility”.

Council should inform us of other activities it will apply this principle to.

I can think of a couple.

Tourism is a provincial responsibility, yet not only does the city give Destination St. John’s an annual grant, it has it’s own tourism department! Savings of 2 – 3 million dollars available here.

There is also the city’s grant ($100,000) for the Aquarena.

Upcoming there will be the $1 million in annual maintenance costs for the (provincial) Gushue Highway extension.

I’m sure there are others.

It is interesting this argument is being applied to a service that is budgeted at $125,000 for the year. This is $125,000 of a $225 million budget!

Surely there are ways to have this service funded. Can there be a three-way cost share between Eastern School District, Provincial Government and the City? What about sponsorship? Or maybe the city can redirect some of the surplus subsidy it provides to St. John’s Sports and Entertainment (SJSE). For the past two years, SJSE has declared surplus funding of at least $500,000. Take $125,000 of this and direct it to the school crossing guard programme.

Priorities? Principles?

One can certainly argue the city should not be involved in the entertainment business. Let me see…concerts and entertainment or children’s safety?

I applaud the principle of “it’s not a municipal responsibility”, but it has to be applied consistently and fairly. It is not an optional principle.

The city should re-consider its decision not to continue the funding of the school crossing guard programme. Why not provide funding until another solution is found to ensure this valuable safety initiative is maintained for the children of St. John’s?

George Street Concerts - Why?

2011-08-10T20:53:00.001-02:30

Why do we have concerts on George Street?

This is the question I never hear asked, when issues arise, concerning crowd control and safety at these concerts.

The City currently has a George Street re-development plan accumulating dust on some shelf or desk in City Hall. Part of this plan is to realign the street and move the location of the bandshell to provide better viewing and improve safety for concertgoers.

But is this necessary?

I assume the major reason for holding concerts on George Street is to attract patrons to the bars and improve revenues for bar owners. Can this aim be achieved in other ways?

Why not hold the concerts at Mile One? I'm sure the City would be willing to work with the George Street festival organisers and come to suitable financial arrangements for the hire of the facility.

After the concerts many of the concert attendees will wander down to George Street and patronise the bars.

The same aim (people in bars) achieved, but in a different and safer manner.

If this were to happen, the re-development plan for George Street could be reviewed and probable savings found.

Worth a discussion and debate isn't it?

Parking Development Questions

2011-08-02T15:57:00.000-02:30

I hope St. John’s City Council will, in the near future, divulge more information to us concerning two downtown developments.

The two (Eastport Properties on Water Street and Henry Bell Developments on Duckworth Street), involve the City contributing money to create public parking spaces.

There are many questions surrounding this initiative of trading off development regulations for parking spaces with taxpayers’ dollars. Especially when, each developer was willing to work within the development guidelines.

How much money? We do not know yet, as the City is still negotiating with the developers.

Who will be responsible for the ongoing operational expenses attached to the public parking spaces? What of liability issues?

Will the city receive the parking fees? What is the estimated return on investment?

Is this the most efficient and effective use of taxpayers’ dollars for downtown parking? Would a stand-alone city-owned parking building be more cost effective?

Are these two initiatives a sign of the future development process within the city?

These are some of the questions. I’m sure there are others.

I hope the city enlightens us all very soon.

Time to Sell Mile One?

2011-05-25T09:02:00.001-02:30

With all the buzz of the imminent arrival of an AHL team arriving in St. John's, is it time for the City of St. John's to consider selling Mile One?

Can the franchise owners of the AHL team be persuaded to not only bring a team here, but to also own the stadium it will play in?

Has anyone in City Hall considered this?

Can a prospectus be put together?

Over the last couple of years, St. John's Sports and Entertainment (SJSE) have improved their financial health and with the Conference Centre breaking into the positive side of the ledger, market conditions may be just right.

Who knows?

Worth a shot, isn't it?

Hockey Subsidy?

2011-05-25T09:00:00.000-02:30

When is a subsidy not a subsidy?

Let's not be fooled by the City of St. John's saying it will not subsidise a hockey team that operates out of Mile One.

It will.

And it doesn't even have to increase the current subsidy it provides to St. John's Sports and Entertainment (SJSE).

If, as Councillor Danny Breen says, the City will leave SJSE's subsidy at $1.25 million, it will be providing a subsidy between $500,000 - $750,000 for hockey operations.

In it's last financial year results, SJSE declared a "surplus" of nearly $1 million. The city's subsidy for that year was $1.5 million, meaning SJSE required only $500,000 of its subsidy to reach break-even point for its operations. Therefore, with similar ongoing financial results, SJSE will be able to use the majority of its city subsidy to support a hockey team.

For the City to be genuine with its stated intention of not subsidising a hockey team at Mile One, it should reduce SJSE's current subsidy to an amount that provides SJSE with an opportunity to break-even financially. Based on financial results over the past couple of years, this subsidy should be no more than $750,000.

So what is it to be - An inflated subsidy that subsidises hockey operations at Mile One or a reduced subsidy that would free up taxpayers' dollars for other city initiatives such as road and sidewalk maintenance, environmental initiatives, affordable housing, parks and recreation facilities?

A clarification is required from St. John's City Council.

Change the Corporate Goal!!!

2011-04-19T12:04:00.001-02:30

Did someone switch on the regional co-operation light bulb at City Hall?

At Monday's council meeting, Counc. Tom Hann commented on the recent Harris Centre's presentation of regional co-operation for the North-East Avalon.

Hann endorsed the main thrust of the presentation - municipalities co-operating with each other to achieve similar aims for the region. He noted the city already co-operates with such things as fire, water and waste services but other services such as recreational facilities and transportation services could be included. I would throw in such things as bulk purchasing of supplies and equipment as well as tendering options.

It was enlightening to hear Hann endorse this idea of regional co-operation, but I could not help chuckling to myself because of the stand the city has taken with amalagamation.

Amalgamation is one of the three strategic directions (fiscal responsibility and informing and engaging citizens are the other two) in the city's strategic plan!

And then to top it all off, Hann pronounces he does not see "amalgamation happening in his or the deputy mayor's lifetime". The deputy mayor agreed with this statement.

Which leads to the obvious question...Why is amalgamation one of the three stategic directions this council wants to pursue? Surely the city would be better off pursuing regional co-operation.

I recommend council review its own strategic goals and replace amalgamation with regional co-operation.

This is an achievable goal, in all of our lifetimes!

Metrobus Purchase - More Details Required

2011-03-25T10:38:00.000-02:30

Citizens of St. John’s deserve a fuller explanation on City Council’s approval to borrow $15 million for the purchase of 30 new buses for Metrobus.

Metrobus decided to purchase standard buses, not the environmentally friendly hybrid buses because they each cost $300,000 more than standard buses. Or at least, this is what we have been led to believe, because no other explanation was provided by Metrobus or Council.

There was no full debate on the borrowing approval other than a comment that the purchase is “essential”. We received no financial details on the benefits of leasing versus buying. Where are the details on the difference between the operational costs of a standard bus versus a hybrid bus? Is a hybrid bus cheaper to run? Does it have a longer life span?

And what of the environmental debate? What is the environmental impact of the standard bus against the environmental impact of a hybrid bus? The city has spent millions of dollars protecting the environment through such projects as the harbour clean up, curbside re-cycling and improved water treatment yet public transportation is given a miss. Why?

Perhaps we did not hear this debate in chambers because councillors themselves do not know the answers. Were councillors provided with information to answer these questions, or did any of them ask Metrobus these questions? And if they know the answers, why did they not share them with us in council chambers? What did they base their approval on?

If we are to be investing $15 million, we need to be provided with more details on our large investment.

Council should be more forthcoming with this information and we should not be required to keep on asking for it!

Han-ling a tricky situation!!

2011-03-09T11:08:00.000-03:30

What do you get when one St. John’s city councillor asks for a job evaluation?

Nine irritated and bemused councillors and one councillor not available for comment!

Councillor Debbie Hanlon asked her fellow councillors for a job evaluation. Now this request may have come in a rather muddled and uncertain manner and, despite her repeated clarifications, appeared to be a request for more salary, her fellow councillors, amid indignant cries of “you’ve humiliated us” and “we look like money-grabbing scoundrels” turned her down.

I believe Hanlon did make some mistakes with her approach to this issue, but the issue should not be turned downed just because a few politicians feel diminished and upset with her.

The last job evaluation for councillors was carried out in 2004. That is seven years ago and we have a councillor who wants to review her position. This is not an unusual request from an employee. In fact, the city has a job evaluation system in place for its staff. After the initial evaluation of a position, an employee has the right to ask for a review should they feel their duties have changed. An internal panel carries out the review and a decision rendered. Why can’t this apply to councillors? It is a fair request and one worthy of more consideration than it received at the council meeting.

The Mayor and other councillors who claim that a review will cost $40,000 -$50,000 should explain where they get this figure from and provide an explanation for us. Members of a committee of council completed the 2004 review at no cost!

There are issues that should be tabled and discussed such as: - a councillor only has to attend one council meeting per year to retain their councillor status; workload; attendance at committee meetings.

Remuneration should certainly be considered. Should councillors be paid on an attendance basis of council and committee meetings? What of the tax-free salary allowance? Let alone their non-contributory pension scheme.

Equal arguments can be made for part-time versus full-time councillors. I can certainly challenge the notion of part-time providing “representation of the community” on council. What does “representation of the community” mean? Are we talking gender, diversity, trades, professions, age etc? Does this mean that because there are two former teachers on council that one of them should step down? In fact, one could argue that the teaching profession has had too much representation on council in recent years. It should be noted that full-time representation doesn’t appear to dissuade citizens from running for federal or provincial politics. Many people set aside their careers to satisfy their desire to become a politician in Ottawa or St. John’s.

And may I suggest that while the city is performing a councillor’s job evaluation it also carry out a council meeting review. There are many things that need addressing with council meetings. Not just the process and the skimming through of agenda items but the use of modern media – live Internet streaming, visual presentations and a community forum. By the last I mean providing an opportunity for citizens to ask councillors questions directly on the floor of the council chambers. Even the scheduled time of council should be reviewed. Currently it is 4:30 p.m. on a Monday. This time appears to be more suitable for councillors and staff than the citizens of St. John’s.

In the city’s 2010 – 2013 Corporate Plan under “Strategic Directions”, the third item is “Advance initiatives that more effectively inform and engage citizens on strategic issues that impact the City.”

Council should begin this informing and engaging by conducting a job evaluation for councillors and undertaking a council meeting review.

Needless to say, the citizens of St. John’s should be invited along and be members of the review panels.

Councillor's Job Description - A Flash From the Past!

2011-03-02T14:06:00.003-03:30

With the Debbie Hanlon inspired discussion on the need for a review of councillor's workload and whether the city should have full-time councillors, I thought I would post a blog/letter I had published in June 2008.

In the past, I have called for a review of the terms and conditions of employment for St. John’s city councillors.

I once again make this call.

With a new council in place, an ideal opportunity has arisen to proceed with a review. The city should hold a public meeting to both share and gather information from citizens. Once information has been collected and reviewed, council should then debate and approve a new set of terms and conditions that would apply for the council elected in the September 2009 election.

Terms and conditions to be reviewed should include, remuneration including benefits, attendance, committee participation and the number of councillors.

I believe many of the current councillors would agree they are rewarded fairly. However, I would suggest a change to their pension and benefits. Currently they participate in a non-contributing pension scheme, which, if they qualify, leaves a commitment for the city once they become eligible for the pension. I suggest councillors should receive a payment in-lieu of pension and benefits thus leaving it to each individual councillor to look after their own pension plan and benefits which would result in no commitment for the citizens of St. John’s once they leave office.

Attendance is another issue. Some councillors attend nearly every council meeting while others are absent for several. Currently a councillor only has to attend one council meeting per year to retain their councillor status. This very condition should be changed if no other is. Consideration should be given to giving councillors the equivalent of 3 weeks annual leave or even tying their remuneration to the number of council meetings attended.

Committee participation is an example of disproportionate workload. Some councillors are active on many committees while others basically attend only those they chair. There should be consistency. It is my belief, that all councillors should attend all committee meetings. This would ensure they are better informed on the issues and also be able to question city staff in a more informed manner.

The city has to take a serious look at the number of councillors it requires and whether these councillors should be part-time or full-time members – or a combination. With a population base of 100,000 and a budget of $170 million and responsibilities that reach out to the province as the capital city, a councillor’s workload has to be evaluated and a determination made to ensure the city’s requirements are being met. The current number of councillors could be reduced if there were full-time councillors thus solving some of the issues mentioned above. Chances are, that whatever the outcome of such a review there would be very little impact on the costs associated with the employment of councillors.

I look forward to the city accepting the need for a review and public consultations commencing as soon as possible

Full Time Councillors

2011-02-28T13:24:00.003-03:30

Lately, there has been talk of St. John's need for full-time councillors. This talk has come from councillors as well as observers of City Council.

I have been a proponent of full-time councillors for many years.

Under the City of St. John's Act, Council itself, can change the employment status and number of councillors it has. Section 5 reads:-

(1) The control and management of the affairs of the city shall be vested in a board to be known as "The St. John's Municipal Council".

(2) The council shall consist of a mayor, deputy mayor and 9 councillors but the council may, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, by by-law carried by a 2/3 vote of the council, decrease the number of councillors to 7.

I am in favour of full-time councillors because I believe councillors would be more efficient and effective. They would have to attend ALL committee meetings thus being better informed on issues facing council. Currently other than the committee(s) they chair, a councillor does not have to attend a committee meeting.

I would reduce the number of councillors to seven. This would help offset the increase in costs of full-time salaries.

Opponents of the full-time councillor idea often quote the deterrent to potential candidates who would not be willing to "give up" their career for the uncertainty of political life. It doesn't appear to distract people from becoming Members of Parliament or Members of the Provincial Legislature. The same argument could be applied to the part-time position. Are people put off submitting themselves for council because the job is part-time and the workload too great?

Hopefully citizens will become involved in this discussion and council will debate the issue in Council.

The time is right.

Metrobus Labour Dispute Settlement

2011-01-30T13:42:00.011-03:30

It appears Metrobus has the same attitude as the St. John's City Council, when it comes to the city's taxpayers. They settled their union dispute by digging into the pockets of the citizens of St. John's.

The major issue in this dispute was the cost of the employees' benefits package. Metrobus wanted it's new employees to share the costs on a 50/50 basis. The union disagreed, and wanted to retain the status quo (15% contribution rate) for all it's members.

The anticipated financial savings for Metrobus over the 4 year term of the proposed contract in benefits expenses was approximately $50,000.

However, to settle the dispute, Metrobus added another year to the Union's contact and gave them a 5% salary increase for the fifth and final year. This will add approximately $200,000 to Metrobus' salary expenses. In exchange for this, Metrobus will reduce it's benefits expenses by approximately $75,000. This is a net increase to Metrobus' employment expenses of $125,000!

It would have been financially better for Metrobus to have taken it's pre-strike demand of equal cost sharing for benefits off the table and settled the contract without the 12 week long strike. It may have "lost" $50,000 (the 50/50 total from new employees) but this would have been better than what they have achieved with their settlement.

One of the aims of achieving the equal cost sharing of benefits was to save Metrobus money. It has actually cost them money - and more! It has also cost Metrobus it's riderships' faith. Many citizens lost their access to public transportation and in some cases, their employment or educational opportunities.

This leads one to question Metrobus management's strategy and tactics. Was the demand for employee-benefits' equal sharing so important, that Metrobus could afford to risk it's fragile relationship with their ridership? It already struggles to retain ridership and is faced with an expanding city which creates route planning issues.

Metrobus is now faced with the monumental task of wooing citizens back on their buses and convincing citizens that their public transportation system is effective and efficient.

St. John's City Council should be concerned with the issues surrounding this strike, including it's own role within it. It should clearly state where public transportation fits within the city's corporate strategy and what role Metrobus plays within this strategy.

The citizens of St. John's deserve some explanations because, once again, just like the city's 2011 budget, it's the tax payers who have been asked to dig into their pockets to fund salary increases for city employees.

The 2011 Budget - Citizens Can Pay (So says the City)

2010-12-16T16:35:00.004-03:30

Apparently, the citizens and businesses of St. John's can afford an increase in their municipal taxes!

This is the message I receive from the City's 2011 budget.

Councillors decided to present a budget that increased expenditure by 8.9%, knowing they would have to reach out to their citizens to balance the budget.

The key words for me when assessing this budget are Affordability and Responsibility. Unfortunately council has not accepted either.

In presenting the budget, Deputy Mayor, Shannie Duff, at no time accepted council's responsibility for the increase in employment expenses for city staff. Duff's claim the salary increases for city staff are similar to provincial employees is not a fair comparison. The province has different revenue streams with a different affordability threshold. And besides, didn't the province give citizens a tax cut?!

As far as I know, not one councillor voted against the salary increases for city staff. Where did they think the funds were going to come from to pay for these increases? Did they consider the revenue projections for the coming years?

If the city had considered affordability, it would have informed its employees that a 15% pay increase was not responsible and a lower increase was all that could be afforded. A balanced budget would have been met without increasing taxes and all other elements of the 2011 budget would still be there.

Another refrain we hear from councillors is the costs associated with the city's expansion, an example being the increase in city streets of 15%. But who has allowed the city to expand its footprint? And why is council delaying the review of the Municipal Plan? Where is its acceptance of responsibility for this aspect of its mandate?

Council could have and should have done much better.

One Small Step...

2010-12-05T13:34:00.005-03:30

City Councillors are going to share the cost of their group insurance plan 50-50.

They currently contribute only 4%!

Apparently this decision was made about a month ago at one of council's private meetings. Why no public announcement was made on this change is interesting.

Mayor Dennis O'Keefe is quoted in The Telegram saying "...we should be on the same playing field as the other groups (city employees)when it comes to health benefits. Unanimously, council agreed to do it on a 50-50 cost-sharing basis and do it as part of our budget process."

It interesting to note O'Keefe only applies this level playing field to health benefits. What about the other major benefit councillors enjoy - pension?

As part of their budget exercise, council should include their own pensions as a cost saving measure. Currently they contribute nothing to their pension scheme yet council pays out approximately $120,000 annually to former councillors who qualify for a pension.

There is an alternative for council to consider and this measure will save council money in the long term. It is the concept of a payment in-lieu of pension to councillors. Currently city employees contribute 7.5% of their base salary to their pension scheme. The City's contribution to their employees pension scheme is also 7.5%. Because of issues associated with Canada's pension legislation, some councillors can not join the city's employees pension scheme. Therefore, instead of providing a pension scheme to councillors that seeks no contribution from them,the city should make an in-lieu pension payment of 7.5% to councillors.

Based on current salaries this would cost the city approximately $23,000 per year. In the long term, the city would save approximately $100,000 each year and would have no further pension liability to councillors once they left office.

I challenge O'Keefe and his fellow councillors to now even the pension playing field and show us how serious they are at being efficient and effective with our taxpayers dollars!

Metrobus - Council's Decision

2010-11-30T14:49:00.003-03:30

According to local media, Mayor Dennis O'Keefe is quoted as saying: "The [St. John's] Transportation Commission has the mandate from council to operate Metrobus. We support them 100 per cent in this labour dispute and will not be getting involved."

Well they are involved! The above comment clearly indicates their involvement. Council has sided with management.

Did Council try to use its influence and work behind the scenes in an endeavour to resolve the issue? O'Keefe should have called the two parties together and facilitated a meeting with them.

These comments have effectively ended any positive role Council may have played in this dispute.

Unfortunately, this is the leadership we receive from Council.

Metrobus Strike - Is There Not A Compromise?

2010-11-15T11:50:00.002-03:30

What is going on with the Metrobus strike?

It must be one of the strangest strikes ever. We have a union striking, even though its current members are not affected by the “striking issue” (equal cost sharing of group insurance plan) and we have an employer who is adhering to a principle that may save it up to $50,000 over four years within a multi-million dollar budget!

It just doesn’t make sense!

Metrobus management acknowledge their proposal of a 50/50 cost share for the group insurance plan premiums may only affect 15 people over the next four years. The impact for Metrobus will be approximately $1200 per year, per employee. If they average 4 new hires each year, Metrobus’ saving is minimal at best. In fact, it could even be nil, if no new employees are hired in the next four years. At most, it may save $50,000.

While the principle of equal sharing has its merits, and probably should be pursued, is it one that should create a strike and confront a union with having two-tier membership? Especially with such a small saving for the employer and an acknowledgement from them that their city subsidy will increase in 2011.

As for the union, their current members are only losing income and will gain nothing monetarily by striking. I understand their viewpoint of two-tier membership but is it necessary to strike?

Surely, compromise can be met in this situation.

For management, are they willing to accept a letter of intent from the union, that the cost-sharing option will be a necessary concession in the next round of bargaining, four years hence, and that the cost sharing will apply to all members?

For the union, if not the above option, are they willing to accept the cost sharing programme within this round of bargaining, applied to all members, with the cost sharing being applied on an incremental basis? For example, a 5% increase in the first year and 10% increase in each of the following years?

These are only a couple of ideas that may solve the issue. I’m sure there are others.

The two parties in this dispute should get back to the bargaining table and resolve their differences.

I’m sure the Metrobus users will be delighted, for it is them who are losing the most in this dispute.

Budget Process 2011

2010-11-09T15:13:00.001-03:30

I applaud the City of St. John’s for involving the public in its budget process.

However, the city should review this process. To invite input from the public, four weeks before the budget is submitted to council, is far too late. The public input should be sought much earlier in the piece, say, July/August. This would enable the public to set the priorities for the councillors and city staff, rather than having city staff tell us what our priorities should be.

By the time the public is involved, most of the budget is outlined and citizens are being “told” the issues.

This year’s process, for example, informs us of a $5 million shortfall. The question is then put to us, “what action should we take?” Is it to be tax increases or service cuts or both? By this time in the process it is far too late to put forward ideas that the city could implement.

Deputy-Mayor, Shannie Duff, likes to tell us the city can’t change negotiated contracts. This is true, but councillors certainly could have ensured that such “generous” contracts were not approved in the first place. The budgetary control should be enacted before negotiations and settlement not afterwards!

I wonder if council will show leadership and restrict management’s and their own salaries and benefits increases to inflation rate, or better still, impose a wage freeze on them for the remainder of this council’s term. Let’s not forget these are councillors who do not contribute to their generous pension scheme and only pay 4% of their health insurance benefits.

Council has allowed expenditures to outgrow revenue on a consistent basis and it is citizens who are being called upon to finance its activities. They are still allowing the city to sprawl, yet are aware of the increased costs this brings to the city. We have political decisions made, such as the one by Mayor O’Keefe to finance the maintenance costs of the Gushue Highway extension that will add approximately $1 million to the city’s budget.

Each year, new initiatives are brought in thus adding more to the city’s costs. Such things as curbside recycling, recreational plan and the cycling plan are meritorious endeavours but where is the financial accountability for the annual costs associated with such projects?

On the revenue side, how much lobbying has council done of the Provincial government? The provincial government use to provide the city with $11 million. Now they contribute approximately $3 million. The mayor should be leading the public debate on this issue and explain to us why there appears to be no success on this front.

Unfortunately, the impression council gives, when it comes to its budget, is one of having its fingers in taxpayers’ pockets, forever searching for the last cent it can find.
Why can’t we have a councillor stand at council as the 2011 budget is tabled and put forward a proposal that for the balance of the current term of this council, the city’s expenditure will be limited to the inflation index?

Now that would be leadership!

Development Issue

2010-10-27T12:06:00.000-02:30

The current debate concerning the proposed development of an assisted seniors home in Kilbride is an example of what awaits this city in terms of planning.

It is the second example (in recent weeks) of the city being asked to rezone land in established residential neighbourhoods. (Portugal Cove Road, being the other)

We need a public debate on this issue.

I believe it is called a review of the Municipal Plan!

Residential areas that are currently zoned for certain type of housing may be faced with alternate zoning requests as property development grows within the city. No neighbourhood may be safe from an incursion of re-zoning requests.

The city can not continue to sprawl. It is too costly and inefficient. This means the city has to consolidate and build up. The question becomes: "Where do we want this build-up to take place?"

This is why we need the public debate. Citizens deserve to know what kind of city our civic leaders have planned for us.

Let the debate begin....

Board of Trade Submission - Height Restriction

2010-09-08T19:44:00.007-02:30

The Chairman of St. John's Board of Trade, Derek Sullivan, submitted an article to The Telegram titled "Building up St. John's". It appeared in the Business Section on September 4.

Mr. Sullivan, on behalf of the Board of Trade, submits an argument that it is not economically feasible for a new Class A building to be built in downtown St. John's under current heritage guidelines, with a height restriction of 15 metres.

He also states he wants to provide "facts and make sure we have good information available".

The scenario presented estimated the cost to build at $14 million, but the estimated market value for the building (once completed)to be $11.5 million thus incurring a loss of $2.5 million. Based on these figures he argues the city has to change its height restriction of 15 metres.

As always with these "hypothetical" examples from special interest groups, not all facts are revealed or alternatives provided. The article does not quote any long-term investment returns or any data on the acceptable market rate for such an investment.

The hypothetical building contains Class A office space and provides parking. We do not know if the parking spaces provided in this particular example adhere to the city's requirements. Are there too many? Not enough? Just right?

We are also not provided with any example of costs if a "lesser" Class of office space is provided. We are told Class A office space is desperately required in St. John's yet those promoting the concept have not provided evidence of this. Will they present us with a list of the businesses that are lining up for this space? Their argument reminds me of the cry we heard a few years back on the need for Hotel space in the city. Council has approved at least 3 major hotel developments in the last 5 years yet not one of them has entered the construction stage. In fact, one has been abandoned all together.

The Board of Trade is probably aware of the city's proposal to trade-off parking spaces for cash if a developer does not provide enough parking in relation to the building being developed. We should have been provided with the cost of this option. If the same building is built without the parking spaces, does the project become economically viable even with the city's "parking fine"?

The Board of Trade presents its hypothetical case for the downtown. We know the downtown is not the only location within St. John's for Class A office space. Also with zoning changes being made to the West end of Water Street that allows additional building height and parking, the city may already be on its way to providing enough Class A office space and parking spaces to meet the Board's aim of a "vibrant, progressive downtown".

I agree it is essential we have "facts and make sure we have good information available" to discuss the issue of development in St. John's. This article promotes one aspect of downtown development and one side of that argument. There are alternatives.

These should be discussed.

Property Values

2010-08-17T13:51:00.003-02:30

Why do city councillors cite an increase in property value to justify a nearby development?

It is a line many councillors have used recently when they wish to promote a new development within the city.

The increase in property value only benefits residents when they sell their property.

In the meantime, the city will rake in extra tax revenue and the owner has gained nothing from the increased assessment!

Councillors should think carefully before they bandy about the "increase property value" line.

There are negatives to it!!!!!

SJSE - Hockey Expedition

2010-08-12T15:25:00.003-02:30

Recent media excitement concerning St. John's Sports and Entertainment (SJSE) heading to Montreal for hockey discussions with the Quebec Major Junior League is just that - Excitement.

I had an exchange of notes with Councillor Danny Breen (who represents council on the board of SJSE) and he said:-

"... We have had discussions with several groups over the past couple of years who are interested in locating a team at Mile One. The meeting with the Commissioner of the QMJHL yesterday was really a courtesy call to make sure that he is aware that we are interested in having a hockey team at Mile One. We are not looking to buy a team, and we are definitely not interested in subsidizing a team. We are interested if a group comes forward with a solid business and marketing plan and are interested in negotiating a lease. We want to make sure that if we enter a lease agreement with a group that it is financially sound, viable and sustainable in the future."

This certainly clarifies things and places a different slant on the media hype.

The Value of Heritage

2010-07-27T15:27:00.004-02:30

Council's majority decision to approve the demolition of The Star of The Sea building on Henry Street is interesting.

This building, as well as the site, was given the heritage designation on August 14, 1991. Deputy Mayor Duff did provide an explanation for the designation but this was largely ignored when it came to debating the options for the building. Most councillors only wanted to discuss the economics of the proposal rather than the essence of the original designation and its current validity.

Given this, council's decision leads to a greater concern.

The city currently has 129 "heritage buildings" within its boundaries. For a list of the buildings visit the website (stjohns.ca/cityservices/planning/pdfs/HeritageBldgs2008-05-01.pdf.)

What state of repair are they in and will the economic argument be brought in again, to have other heritage buildings demolished within the city?

What process does the city have to ensure that all of these, now, 128 buildings, are being well maintained and are in a state of good repair? Can it, will it, enforce its regulations?

Will this decision by council mean an owner of a building designated "heritage" can let it fall into such a state that the cost argument will win out and St. John's will gradually lose some of its heritage buildings?

What is the magical dollar amount that will determine whether a building is maintained or demolished?

I ask the city to provide an update on the conditions of these designated heritage buildings and are any of them in jeopardy of being demolished because of their conditions?

The heritage designation should be given to a building that the city and its citizens value and intend to keep. It should not be a title that is subject to the whims of a council that views it as a disposable tag.

NEAR or Plan

2010-06-30T15:15:00.002-02:30

Just about every week at St. John's City Council meetings, council is discussing planning proposals. Proposals such as the Water Street Woolworths' site, Fortis development, Corpus Christi development and Temperance Street hotel/condominium project. For good measure, they threw in the George Street re-development at its last meeting.

Yet the majority of councillors still want to wait for the Regional Development Plan (NEAR) to be completed before they proceed with the city's own Municipal Plan. Why? At their latest meeting, two councillors, Deputy Mayor Shannie Duff and Councillor Tom Hann, alluded to NEAR proceeding at a desperately slow pace with no deadline in place. One only has to visit NEAR's website to see that they are still advertising "visioning sessions" for Fall 2009! Their timetable indicates they have not begun phase 2 of a 5 phase process and the proposed timetables in the plan for these phases commence at the same time - TBA! (To be Announced)

Meanwhile, city council proceeds with planning and development decisions based on a municipal plan that it agrees should be reviewed, a review that is already 2 years overdue.

It is not only the residential and commercial developments that affect the municipal plan. The city is also pursuing other issues such as a cycling plan, a recreational plan and public transport services. Councillor Hann, when presenting Metrobus' 2009 financial results, talked about urban sprawl and the negative consequences this is having on the Metrobus finances.

The only positive coming out of all of this, is council's decision to proceed with a process to see what process it should follow when it gets around to beginning the review of the municipal plan.

This review should be completed as quickly as possible and followed immediately with the commencement of the municipal plan review - whether NEAR has been completed or not.

Planning decisions being made now, by this council, may be in conflict with the results of a new municipal plan.

The time has come for council to rescind its motion to defer its own municipal plan review until the NEAR plan has been completed.

Let's get on with planning our city rather than hiding behind another organisation's (NEAR) inertia.

It is time for planning leadership.

Temperance Street Hotel/Condominium

2010-06-23T15:59:00.003-02:30

Council has approved the proposed hotel/condominium development for Temperance Street. It was an unanimous decision. Not a surprising one, considering the development met city planning regulations.

The interesting point of the discussion is the mayor's comment applauding the developer for staying within the city's height restrictions.

"That makes developments much more palatable and easier to get across the line, and this is evidence of it," O'Keefe said.

Now if only he would advise other developers of this and listen to it himself, perhaps we would not have the kerfuffle surrounding developments such as the Fortis proposal.

Consistency is what is required and if we can convince council to adhere to its regulations, all should be well.

Private Meetings

2010-06-02T14:42:00.003-02:30

Section 40 of the City of St. John's Act states:

"Special or privileged meetings of the council may be called at the times that the mayor may consider necessary, or on the written request of 3 members of the council."

As can be seen, the above clause is wide open to interpretation and does not define what issues should be discussed at a private meeting.

The mayor used this clause to allow councillors to discuss their pension scheme, meaning citizens did not hear the debate.

When I challenged the mayor on this, he claimed it was a "personnel issue" therefore could be discussed in a private meeting.

I certainly do not agree with the mayor. The councillor's pension scheme should be a public discussion. After all, the councillors are our employees and to say that the employer can not hear this debate is an insult to the citizens of St. John's.

I was advised by the city, that if I desired, I could appeal to the Supreme Court and challenge the (private meeting) decision.

Annual Property Assessments

2010-06-02T14:31:00.002-02:30

City council is mulling over the possibility of introducing annual property assessments.

This was something I originally noticed during the last municipal election, when the Chief Financial Officer for the city raised the issue in a memo to council at the time the 2009 assessments were issued.

The subject was raised again at the May 31 council meeting. Council is still studying the issue but seven provinces already have annual assessments.

For the citizens, annual assessments would mean, generally, no huge jump in property assessment compared to what happens with the 3-year assessment cycle. On the other hand it may mean annual increases in taxes. The tax is determined by the mil rate so obviously, if your assessment increases and the mil rate stays the same, then your taxes are going to increase. Even a drop in the mil rate may mean additional tax.

So citizens may have to get use to the idea of annual tax increases.

I favour the annual assessment but still think the city should look at raising taxes through the personal income system and dropping the property tax assessment.

I will be following this initiative with interest.

Strategic Economic Roadmap

2010-05-21T12:22:00.003-02:30

On Monday, May 17, city council announced the formation of a voluntary board whose mandate is to create a "Strategic Economic Roadmap" for St. John's.

"The Roadmap will set the direction for St. John's to become a magnet for people, business, investment and visitors and will reflect the intelligence and dynamism of our people. It will take a collaborative and inclusive approach. The Roadmap will be developed with the guidance of a volunteer advisory committee composed of private and public community representatives, chaired by City Councillor Debbie Hanlon." This from a press release issued by the city.

I applaud the initiative but do wonder if the city is putting the cart before the horse. I say this because I believe the city should finalise its municipal plan first before embarking on such an endeavour.

How can the committee pursue an economic plan if they do not know the impact of changes to the municipal plan? Only recently, we had speculation of a casino for the city. Will this be allowed under new zoning by-laws? What about urban sprawl or even the zoning of downtown?

These are issues that will impact on any economic development and I believe the city should fast track its municipal plan or delay the economic roadmap.

The report is due March 2011.

The Pension Cover-up

2010-05-04T13:18:00.001-02:30

For a city council that likes to boast about its openness and transparency, St. John's city councillors are being awfully muted when it comes to discussing their pension scheme.

A few weeks ago, in a council meeting, Coun. Sheilagh O'Leary said she wanted information on the scheme. Her major concern was one of fairness. Surprisingly, councillors do not contribute to their pension scheme and she wanted to know why. O'Leary wanted councillors to be treated in the same manner as city employees, who pay into a pension scheme.

A private meeting was held with councillors to discuss the issue. This in itself is a concern considering I was able to receive all the information relating to councillors' pension scheme from city managers. What information deemed to be confidential for their discussions, I can not fathom. Did some councillors want to place pressure on others to leave their "sweet pot of honey" alone? Or are there some councillors willing to contribute but hide behind the cost factor?

On Monday 3 May, O'Leary stood in council chambers to announce she is now satisfied with the explanation provided to her for councillors' non-contribution to their pension scheme. She said it is the less costly alternative because if councillors contribute to a scheme, the scheme would have to be registered and the city would incur more costs.

While this is true, O'Leary did not explain to citizens the alternatives. Whether these were discussed at their private meeting I do not know, but I do know I have sent information to all councillors explaining alternatives that are cheaper and do not incur the financial liability their current scheme does.

There are three alternatives. First they could not have a scheme. We are yet to hear from any councillor the reasons they feel they should be the only councillors in Canada to have a scheme, let alone a non-contributory scheme. Secondly, they could join the employees scheme. Finally, there is the "in-lieu" scheme. This would see councillors receive a percentage of their base pay in-lieu of a pension payment. An in-lieu percentage of 7.5 would currently cost the city approximately $23,000 annually. This scheme does not have to be registered and incurs no additional costs. The other big plus with this scheme is the no liability factor. Once the councillor has left office, no further pension payments are required.

Currently the city is paying $116,945 annually for former councillors' pensions and have a liability of approximately $2.6 million.

Now let me see...$23,000 versus $116,945. Oh yeah, we'll take the $116,945 model please!

One wonders whose interests councillors were really considering when they made this decision.

O'Leary was either being disingenuous with her comments on May 3rd or deliberately mislead citizens. But it is not only O'Leary who has some explaining to do. All councillors do. Not one of them stood to discuss the topic when invited by the chair at the meeting. All councillors decided not to say anything even though they know their current pension scheme is not the cheapest alternative for the city.

Citizens should ask all councillors to bring this pension discussion to the floor of the chamber so we can hear each of them explain why they do not want to change their pension scheme to ensure we, the citizens, receive the best value for our money.

A Prescription to Better Fiscal Health

2010-04-15T15:48:00.002-02:30

Once again, St. John’s city council is experiencing budgetary pains. This is no surprise because councillors do not take the required action to relieve these pains.

Each year, council has a habit of ignoring the symptoms of their pain. It continues to let the city expand, borrows money for infrastructure needs and continues to venture into activities outside its core responsibilities.

The expansion of the city adds costs to such things as road maintenance, water and sewer services, snow clearing, street cleaning and possibly Metrobus services. The borrowing of money for infrastructure adds to the city’s debt servicing costs plus creates operational costs like those now needed for the recycling programme and sewer treatment plant. Together the recycling and sewer treatment have added approximately $9 million a year to the city’s budget.

The time has come for the city to take its medicine.

A prescription could be as follows:-

Take a large dose of humility and get out of the fringe activities such as economic development and tourism. Currently this costs the city some $2 million annually. There are organisations within the city that do these things and if the city has a desire to be involved, it should form partnerships with these organisations and provide grants to them. There is no need for the city to be directly involved in this type of activity.

Next take an inhibitor that will stop the city from sprawling. Do this by commencing a review of the municipal plan and restrict urban sprawl.

A tablespoon of workflow analysis is required to check the efficiencies of all services provided. Councillors should not sit in an office at budget time and listen to departmental heads defending their patch. They should be visiting work sites, talking to staff, receiving employee’s opinions on operational efficiencies, including administrative processes within the city.

Most importantly, councillors should take a healthy dose of self-restraint and freeze their compensation package for their current term of office. They’ll feel much better!

An alternate medicine is to assess the operating grant provided to St. John’s Sports and Entertainment (SJSE), currently at $1.5 million annually. It should be reduced to $1 million. SJSE has just presented financial documents that showed an operating loss of $798,300 for 2009. Why do they need $1.5 million when, they themselves, are expecting an improved financial picture for the coming years. This reduction of $500,000 to the operating grant is 16.67 % of the city’s projected 2011 budget shortfall.

If council is really concerned about its financial health, the above actions will help alleviate some of the financial pains. A continuing practice of self-examination is always advisable with a preventative and holistic approach to what ails.

Let’s hope our council has the political willpower to improve its fiscal shape and takes action that will see the city’s financial health on the road to recovery. This may mean taking medication that may not taste good, but is good for all of us!

This is only one prescription the council could follow. I invite other citizens to submit their prescription to council.

Did You Know???

2010-04-15T10:52:00.001-02:30

The city of St. John's has contributed $300,000 to the JUNO celebrations.

$250,000 for the Awards ceremony and $50,000 for the George Street party.

SJSE 2009 Financial Results

2010-04-13T11:44:00.002-02:30

St. John's Sports and Entertainment Limited (SJSE) presented their 2009 financial results to the public at last night's council meeting.

The financial picture is improving and this is good news for the citizens of St. John's. Management has tackled the inefficiencies that were within the organisation and chased revenue generating activities to improve the bottom line.

The loss reported for 2009 is $798,300. This is before the $1.5 million subsidy they received from council is factored in.

The 2010 subsidy is set at $1.5 million but I do wonder why. If their loss is under $1 million for 2009 why do they need the additional $500,000? I say this because the chairman of the SJSE board (Gerry Smith) and council representative (Danny Breen) both indicated they were expecting similar, if not better financial results for 2010.

This $500,000 should be transferred to other activities within the city or help offset the forecast deficit the city is facing.

Budget Deficits

2010-04-12T14:16:00.004-02:30

News that the city is headed for a $3 million deficit in 2011 and a $4 million deficit for 2012 should not be a surprise.

During the last election, candidates (and citizens) were made aware of the upcoming budgets for the city. However discussion mostly centred around the mil rate.

When the budget was set for 2010, figures submitted indicated the city would be in deficit for 2011 and 2012. At the time the current mil rate was approved, Shannie Duff indicated she thought the rate should be higher while some councillors voted against the budget. These councillors, Breen, Hann and Tilley offered no alternatives other than to say the city should reduce its expenditures.

The 2011/12 budget indicates the major increases are in the engineering and public works' departments. My guess is that this is because of the ongoing operational costs for the Riverside Treatment Plant, water treatment facilities and curbside re-cycling and organic re-cycling initiatives. The treatment plant and curbside recycling (hopefully) will be reflecting a full year of operational costs while the other initiatives will not show their full costs until 2012.

I do not know what allowance the city has made for the current union negotiations that may have an financial impact on the budget.

The city has to make priority decisions and I believe it is time for the city to seriously consider its current role in Tourism and Economic Development. There are other agencies within the city that can handle these portfolios and partnerships should be formed with them.

Development issues have been to the fore lately, mostly due to the Fortis proposal. Developments will bring in revenue but, for example, the Fortis proposal would not fully impact the city's revenue for another 3 - 4 years. So this budget shortfall would have been faced for 2011/12. The city has approved three hotel developments in the last 5 years and not one of those developments has started. So anticipating revenue from development projects can be a little risky.

Finally, the provincial government use to provide the city with $11 million in operating grants. That total is now $3 million! More lobbying of the provincial government may be required.

So Where Do They Stand?

2010-04-06T14:12:00.001-02:30

St. John's city councillors took the opportunity this past council meeting to debate the withdrawal by Fortis, of their proposed downtown office development.

Unfortunately citizens did not learn too much from the discussion. We still do not know what kind of city and especially, downtown our council envisions.

None of the councillors declared their support for the submitted Fortis proposal. Councillor Bruce Tilley and councillor Tom Hann
appeared to favour the proposal but did they too, want modifications? According to Mayor Dennis O'Keefe, in an earlier media interview, there was unanimous rejection among councillors for the project as submitted. If this is the case, what was it about the proposal, councillors did not like? Were there issues with streetscape, height, density, heritage, traffic, wind?

The argument about the need for class A office space in St. John's needs further elaboration. It wasn't that long ago, citizens were told St. John's was in desperate need of accommodation space. City council has approved three hotel developments in the past five years and not one of them has commenced construction. In fact, one has been abandoned altogether. Are we being spun a similar line about class A office space?

And where did the idea of an "Arts Centre" come from? Both O'Keefe and Tilley made mention of an arts centre for this development. Is this a new planning initiative the city is undertaking? The city will barter building regulations against city initiatives such as parking and arts centres? Maybe there will be a downtown library thrown into the mix as well! While the idea may have merit, it would be appropriate for the city to have a public debate with its citizens to assess their feelings on these matters.

Did the city lose anything by Fortis withdrawing their proposal? That, we may never know, because, how do you lose something if you never had it? Should Fortis decide to submit another proposal and it is accepted by council, then an argument could be made that the city lost the difference between the original proposal and the accepted one. But to lament a "loss" and to list "lost" opportunities such as hours of work, floor area and tax revenue adds nothing to the debate and is emotional reasoning.

What we really needed to hear from each councillor was their vision for downtown St. John's and the reasons they would have rejected or accepted the Fortis proposal as submitted. Councillor Wally Collins was the only councillor who came close to doing this.

The only "slamming of doors" heard in this debate, were the ones councillors shut in the faces of citizens because they, the councillors, did not inform us of the type of city they would like to see St. John's become.

Fortis Building Proposal Withdrawn

2010-04-01T10:37:00.003-02:30

Fortis has decided to withdraw their building development proposal for downtown St. John's. The reason they give is they felt they did not have the support of council and therefore could not get it approved. They do not say what influence public opinion played in their decision.

Mayor O'Keefe, in the media after the announcement, indicated all councillors had some kind of issue with the proposal, anything from street-scape to height. It was hard to figure out what the mayor wanted in terms of an "acceptable" proposal but he did say something about an "arts facility" and retaining street frontage on Water Street. No mention if the height was acceptable.

The lesson from all of this, for me, is once again, there has to be a municipal plan review undertaken as soon as possible. The current plan allows for councillors' discretion and this is confusing and frustrating for developers and citizens alike.

Each councillor should publicly state what they liked or disliked about the Fortis proposal (apparently they told Fortis) so that we know what kind of city they envision for us.

Let's begin the municipal plan review so that we can all determine what we would like St. John's to look like in the coming years.

Delayed Recycling Programme

2010-03-26T11:00:00.002-02:30

The city has announced a delay to the curbside recycling plan.

Due to start May 17, the plan is now to take effect in October 2010. The reason given by the city is costs. Apparently the tender process only attracted one bidder and the submitted bid is "some hundreds of thousands" over the budgeted amount the city had in mind.

The city is to re-tender the project.

I understand where the city is coming from but by going back to tender they may not save money (other than what has been saved by the delayed start). It will be interesting to see if the new tender call attracts more than one bidder - or any bidder - for that matter. Especially since the mayor said, in response to a query about new bids being of a similar amount, "if we do, then that's the figure we have to live with".

Now if you are placing a tender wouldn't you put in a similar amount? The city, through the mayor, has basically given the go ahead with his comment.

We wait and see where we go with this long awaited curbside recycling plan.

More Info on Councillors' Pension Scheme

2010-03-10T14:09:00.001-03:30

I have further information on the councillors' pension scheme...

This is the non-contributory pension scheme councillors have for themselves and, apparently, are the only municipal councillors in Canada who have their own pension scheme!

The city's Human Resource Director, Kevin Breen, told a radio audience that councillors did not contribute to their pension scheme because of the costs associated with setting up a scheme. This is only part of the reason. There are other factors the city has considered.

If councillors had a separate contributory pension plan, the plan would have to be registered and fall under federal and provincial regulations. A registered plan would have to treat all members (councillors) the same. However, some councillors are already members of other registered pension plans and some, because of their age, may not be allowed to contribute to a pension scheme because they are already receiving pension income. The current councillors' pension scheme is able to circumvent these issues.

The city is also carrying a current liability of $2,618,900 for the councillors' pension scheme. This liability is a calculation of the present value of paying qualifying ex-councillors their pensions to which they are entitled.

I have been advised by city staff, that a payment in-lieu of pension to councillors, would incur no additional costs and there would be no need to register such a plan.

If councillors deem they should continue to receive a pension (and publicly tell us why), they should cease their current scheme and institute a payment in-lieu of pension, equivalent to the same amount the city contributes to its employees' plan. This would result in the city no longer adding councillors to the liability for the councillors' pension scheme and ultimately lead to savings for the citizens of St. John's.

Surely councillors want to save money for the taxpayers of St. John's!

Disaster Relief Policy

2010-03-05T11:35:00.003-03:30

I would like to know what the City of St. John's disaster relief policy is.

Council approved $50,000 for disaster relief in Haiti. These funds will be targeted to a, yet un-named, project in Haiti.

While I do not disagree with the intent behind this donation, on the night this was approved by council, no mention was made of Chile and its disaster.

Is the city going to donate funds to Chile? Chile has told the world what it needs - water filtrators, hospital tents, generators - so funds could easily be targetted to one of these items.

What is the city's policy?

We should know.

The Municipal Plan

2010-02-28T07:55:00.003-03:30

Council's majority decision to not begin a review of the Municipal Plan is shortsighted.

The naysayers quoted two reasons, 1) wait for the completion of the regional plan and 2) Cost.

I believe the Municipal Plan process should begin now. The city has admitted the regional plan does not affect zoning within the city and with all the controversy over planning within the the city, especially the downtown area, there is no need to wait for the regional plan.

The regional plan is for the region as a whole - North East Avalon, and will be a "big picture" look. Other municipalities (CBS and Paradise) have decided to proceed with their plans, and St. John's should too.

The city has ceded their planning rights to the region and this is not necessary. St. John's can proceed with creating a new plan for the city. And should!

As for cost, this is a bit of a red-herring. By the time the city got its act together, and begin the process, costs for the 2010 fiscal year would be rather minimal and well within the range of contingency for a $200 million budget. It is amazing how this argument of cost is so flexible. Don't be surprised if a $100,000 unfunded budgetary item is approved by council in the coming months.

With the city ceding to the regional plan, the city should also, to be logical with their reasoning, stop all developments within the city, until the regional plan is finished. Which by the way, may not be to 2011 or possibly 2012.

It appears that the majority of council have chosen to hide behind the regional plan, rather that be leaders of the city, and move on with their own planning process.

Pension Questions To Councillors

2010-02-17T12:56:00.002-03:30

After hearing an item on CBC Radio this morning concerning councillors' pension scheme, I sent this email to council members...

Councillors:

This morning on CBC Radio I heard that you are awaiting a report from staff on the costs of your pension scheme to be discussed at an upcoming Finance committee.

I submit the following questions to you for this meeting and hope that when the item is discussed in public chambers these questions will be answered.

1) Why do you receive a pension and is it true St. John's is the only municipality in the country that gives its councillors a pension scheme, let alone, a non-contributory scheme?

2) What is the intent of the pension scheme, considering councillors' overall compensation package that includes the 1/3 tax-free salary?

3) Why do you receive 1/3 tax-free salary allowance?

4) How can you justify receiving a pension, when you make no contribution to it? What ethical or moral right do you have?

5) What is the cost of maintaining a tracking system for your pension scheme, what are the current costs to monitor your scheme?

6) What would it cost the city to maintain a system if you are paid an allowance in-lieu of pension?

7) Why should the cost of maintaining a tracking system outweigh the ethics of you not contributing to your pension scheme?

8) Other than not having a pension scheme, is being paid an allowance in-lieu of pension, not the cheapest option for the taxpayers of St. John's?

9) Why should councillors be treated differently to staff when it comes to pension schemes?

I hope these questions provoke thought for you and maybe you will have some questions of your own to challenge staff and each other.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing your responses in the public chamber.

Councillors' Pension - Update

2010-02-09T13:50:00.002-03:30

At last night's council meeting, Councillor Sheilagh O'Leary raised the issue of councillors' pension.

O'Leary would like to have the finance committee look into why councillors' do not contribute to their pension scheme.

Mayor O'Keefe passed a comment of having talked to Bob Bishop (Finance Director) and Ron Penney (City Manager) on this issue but did not disclose the outcome of these discussions.

As you know, I have been endeavouring to have this issue looked into and changed so that at the very least, councillors contribute to their pension scheme.

It shall be interesting to see where this goes...

Plans For Woolworths Property

2010-02-09T13:33:00.002-03:30

The recent disclosure of the proposed development for the Woolworths site on Water Street is interesting.

First up, it appears most, if not all, councillors are in favour of it. This, despite the fact that it will be an 11-storey building. Compare this response to the Fortis Building proposal (previous blog).

The "convincing point" appears to be the additional parking spaces the project is proposing. Approximately 280 public parking spaces will be available. There is a caveat to all of this because the city would be providing approximately $10 million to the project for the parking. Income from the parking meters would be collected by the city.

This location is also considered to be "non-heritage".

There is still a long way to go on this project and negotiations to be held with the city on the financing of the parking.

I must say, I'm not against the project, although I would like to see some more details, especially on the city's participation in the project.

As I've said before, I envisage this city with a preserved heritage area with height restriction on the east end of Water Street. From the Scotia Tower west until George Street a slightly higher height of up to 8 storeys, then have the 12-15 storey buildings west of this. This would provide a smooth transition within the downtown core, preserving the heritage of the city as well as providing an opportunity for modern architecture.

A thought though...Wouldn't it be great if a developer would submit a proposal that would present the city with a "Signature Building". One that would become the identity of the city. A unique building that would reflect the heritage of this place but also be modern and creative in its approach.

Does anyone know someone who could do this?

Perhaps the city could hold a competition?

Funding Community Groups

2010-01-26T11:19:00.002-03:30

The majority decision by city council to stop funding the purchase of tables for fundraisers or participate in charity golf tournaments should be applauded.

While in the grand scheme of things the money saved is minor (some $25,000) it is the principle of the issue that is important. Why should taxpayers' money get spent on these things? As Councillor Wally Collins said "taxpayers' dollars shouldn't go for councillors playing golf or cards".

Deputy Mayor Shannie Duff echoed my thoughts on the matter when she said, if councillors want to support charitable golf tournaments or dinners, each councillor can individually dig into their own pockets to participate.

I raised this issue in my budget submission to the city last year.

However, I find a sweet irony in all of this.

Isn't it amazing how city councillors want to save these dollars, yet, for a similar amount of savings to the taxpayers, they do not contribute to their own pension scheme! Or better still, change their scheme so that they receive a payment in-lieu of pension.

Is there a sense of entitlement here?

Fortis Building Proposal

2010-01-20T10:40:00.005-03:30

Fortis have finally submitted their proposal for a 15-storey building on Water Street. This building will be situated next to their current building which will also receive a retrofit.

It will be interesting to see how this development progresses through the approval phases. Will the city approve "as is" or will there be a compromise and we end up with a 12-storey building? Or will the city adhere to their zoning requirements and only approve a 4-storey building?

Councillors should not be surprised by Fortis' application. The council's history on development approvals has been inconsistent at best. They approved the excess height for Water/Prescott Hotel development yet turned down an excess height request for the old CBC Radio Building on Duckworth. It has been rather hit and miss when dealing with council and this has created both opportunities and frustrations for developers, and left citizens a little bemused.

I believe we should have a moratorium on all downtown development until the city re-opens the Municipal Plan and public consultations take place on the future of downtown development.

This development submission is a turning point for the future of St. John's. If approved, the floodgates will open and we can look forward to a city with taller buildings being built along Water Street and Harbour Drive.

Interesting times and I hope citizens involve themselves in this process.

The Pension Scheme - Mayor's Million Dollars

2010-01-17T15:58:00.001-03:30

A copy of a letter printed in The Telegram January 16, 2010

Are you having sleepless nights worrying about your retirement?

Here is an offer that sounds too good to be true - but it is isn't!

Become a St. John's city councillor!

Councillors have themselves a very generous retirement package.

Based on November 2009 salaries, a 4-term councillor, who retires as mayor, will receive over $1,000,000 (ONE MILLION) after 23 years of retirement income. Yes that's right. One million dollars of tax-payers' money. This is based on an annual pension of $39,039 indexed annually at 1.25%. Let's remember, the mayor occupies a full-time position and receives a third of his $97,597 annual salary tax-free.

If you are not interested in being mayor, you can still receive a good pension as councillor. Remember, this is a part-time position.

A four-term councillor will receive a retirement pension total of $316,107 over twenty years. Annual pension will be $14,010 with a similar 1.25% indexing. But if you feel four-terms is not for you, as long as you serve six years plus a day, you'll be entitled to a pension. Minimum pension is $105,369 over 20 years.

This is very generous considering councillors do not contribute a cent towards their pension scheme.

Councillors become eligible for their pension at age 55. They also receive a fully-paid health insurance policy when they retire if they have been an active member of the plan while a councillor.

It is time for this pension scheme to be reviewed and changed. At a minimum, councillors must contribute to their scheme. City employees contribute 7.5% of their base salary to their pension scheme. So should councillors.

My solution is for councillors to receive an in-lieu pension payment of 7.5% of their pensionable salary. Currently, this would cost the city $22,903 per year, and leave it with no liability once a councillor leaves office. The current commitment to retired councillors is $116,945 per year. This figure will grow in the coming years with recent departures from council yet to be added, and the current council has at least four councillors who qualify for the maximim pension allowance within their category.

Which councillor is going to take the initative and bring in a fairer pension scheme and save money for the taxpayers of St. John's?

I encourage citizens to contact city councillors and challenge them on the generosity of their own pension scheme. And if we get no change, tell them we are all going to run for council next election!

After all, this is an offer too good to be true!

Budget 2010

2009-12-16T05:39:00.002-03:30

So, the 2010 budget has been delivered.

The good news - Senior citizen tax break has increased to 20%, curbside re-cycling will commence.

The mil rate dropped 0.09. It is now 10.1 for residential tax. Most of us will be faced with a tax increase!!

Three councillors voted against the budget - Hann, Tilley and Breen. They echoed a similar theme - mil rate should have decreased more. Hann insists the city has to find alternate revenue sources and the only one is development. Tilley campaigned on voting against tax increases and Breen felt the city didn't dig deep enough in finding efficiencies.

Breen's comment is interesting when considering Mayor O'Keefe's assertion that a fine tooth comb was used to set the budget!

The 3 dissenters sounded like they were setting up their arguments for 15-story developments in the downtown.

Yes, the city does have to find revenue sources and development is one of them but it also has to be more efficient. As I have mentioned before, the Economic Development and Tourism department is one place to look as is the operations of the 3-1-1 call centre.

And of course, from what I've seen and heard so far, councillors did nothing to adjust their own pension scheme.

Overall, the budget is a disappointing document and the city could have and should have done much better.

Affordable St. John's?

2009-11-25T14:09:00.005-03:30

St. John’s city councillors are currently in the process of setting the city’s budget for 2010.

They have invited input from citizens and organisations from within the city. I applaud them for this.

The city’s budget has almost doubled since 2000, from a budget of approximately $105 million to an anticipated 2010 budget of at least $200 million. The 2010 budget will have an expenditure increase of 10%. During these years the city has invested in infrastructure projects. This has enabled the city to create the Riverhead Waste Treatment plant and clean water initiatives such as Bay Bulls Big Pond.

We are experiencing the impact of operational costs for these major projects - $4.6 million for the Riverhead plant and increasing water taxes. It is anticipated we will face a $50 increase in our annual water tax next year. Add to this the cost of curbside re-cycling ($2.2 million) and increased employment expenses ($4.1 million), it is easy to see how the city’s budget is growing.

However the time has come for the city to take a closer look at this growth and begin to reduce the rate of expenditure growth to a level that is more akin with the inflation rate of the province. Capital projects that incur on-going operational costs have to be planned to have a minimal impact on the budget. (Next year’s budget is hit with $6.7 million from sewage treatment and re-cycling). While these initiatives are essential for the city, having them come into operation in the same year has a significant financial impact on citizens.

We are not an endless supply of income for the city. Affordability is a key issue for many citizens, especially those on low or fixed incomes. St. John’s is becoming too expensive for them. The city has to look at ways to ease the financial impact on these people. This may mean increasing the Seniors’ discount tax allowance and/or having a means-tested tax allowance that provides a rebate on their tax bill.

It may also mean the city has to look at suspending or cancelling some of their own programmes and services. The city should concentrate on its core services and review their non-core services. Non-core services such as the department of Tourism, Economic Development and Culture will cost the city approximately $2.4 million in 2010. Are there ways of achieving this department’s mandate in a more cost effective manner? A possible solution is to pass the responsibility on to Destination St. John’s and provide a operating grant to assist them with any additional resources required.

Collective Agreements with various unions are due for renewal in 2010. The city will have to keep expectations low and even ask its employees to accept no salary increases for a couple of years. Councillors can lead the way on this issue by declaring no further salary increases for themselves during the current term. City Managers should also adhere to a no salary increase policy. Is it time for a hiring freeze?

The city must also review the Municipal Plan as soon as possible. The ever-expanding city is costing more and we need a public discussion on urban sprawl versus urban density.

Most, if not all taxpayers are going to pay more taxes in 2010 than they did this year. This is because the average increase in assessments is 23%. Together with the expenditure commitments for 2010, we will be fortunate to see the mill rate drop from its current 11.0 to 10.5. And the water tax will increase.

It is time to get back to the basics. To take a deep breath and reflect on where the city has come from and where we want it to go.

We need to know how sustainable our city is. We need to set the city’s priorities.

No Toll Road

2009-11-22T15:04:00.002-03:30

Because of the agreement between the province and federal government on building and extending Gushue Highway, the city will not be able to toll the road.

Mayor O'Keefe had floated the toll idea earlier (see previous post), so the citizens of St. John's will now have to bear the maintenance costs of the highway.

Estimated annual costs is $700,000.

The road is expected to be completed in 2011.

Another impact on our taxes here in the city.

Gushue Highway Maintenance

2009-11-17T13:39:00.002-03:30

Mayor O'Keefe is threatening to charge a toll on the extension to Gushue Highway and charge the residents of Mt. Pearl for using the road. This comment emanates because Mt. Pearl has, once again, informed the city it will not contribute towards the maintenance costs of the road.

O'Keefe has successfully directed the public's attention away from the key issue here.

Why does St. John's want to pay for the maintenance of a provincial highway?

From day one, St. John's knew Mt. Pearl would not contribute to this highway. It appears St. John's has been outsmarted by the provincial government on this. The city should have paid the $10 million they initially offered as a contibution to build the highway (even this gesture is generous) and left the maintenance issue to the province. This way the city would have had a one-time cost and not the annual cost it is going to be faced with.

This orchestrated debate is an attempt by the city to deflect our attention away from the committment the council has burdened us with.

If we follow O'Keefe's logic, those of us who do not use the Gushue Highway will be able to request a rebate on our taxes - if, as he says, St. John's residents who use the road will not have to pay a toll.

This stance by the city of pitting one city against another displays a lack of leadership and does nothing to contribute to the argument of regional co-operation.

If it is to be a toll road, it will have to be a toll road for all who use it and not for selective users. Where do non-Mt. Pearl residents fit in this scenario or tourists?

O'Keefe and co. should have placed the Gushue Highway options before us and had a public discussion on the issue. An inclusive approach to the issue is much better rather than creating an "us" vs."them" scenario.

If nothing else, O'Keefe has certainly deflected the public attention away from the core issue of his decision to commit the city to the maintenance costs of Gushue Highway.

SJSEL - Subsidy Request and Approval

2009-11-10T12:23:00.002-03:30

St. John's city council approved St. John's Sports and Entertainment Limited (SJSEL) request for a $1.5 million subsidy for 2010.

In relative terms this is good news for the citizens of St. John's. The subsidy is being reduced!

However, will this be the size of the subsidy for the forseeable future? What does SJSE have planned for the future operations of Mile One and the Conference Centre?

Remember, this is the organisation that had a corporate plan that would see it "debt free and subsidy free by 2010". Here we are with a 2010 plan for a subsidy of $1.5 million and a debt of $7.3 million.

Since 2002, citizens of St. John's have contributed $13 million (Subsidy plus Operating Loss) towards the operations of Mile One and the Conference Centre.

Will SJSE advise us what the long term plans are for the Centre and what options the city could consider for the place - Sell it? Lease it?

It is currently one very expensive hockey-designed concert venue requiring taxpayers' funding - funding that could be used for more essential city operations.

Councillors Receive Pay Increase

2009-11-06T09:44:00.001-03:30

Did you know St. John's city councillors received a 1% pay increase on October 12?

This increase was originally tabled by council at their April 13th, 2009 meeting when they approved a 2% salary increase effective October 13th, 2008 and the above increase scheduled for this year.

In the spirit of openness and transparency, council should have announced receipt of this latest increase at their October 12 council meeting. Public announcement of this latest salary increase is eerily similar to how we found out about the provincial MHA's receiving their 8% increase.

Council has to improve its communication with citizens.

I look forward to Mayor O'Keefe acknowledging this salary increase at the next council meeting.

Council Members Compensation

2009-11-04T13:34:00.004-03:30

The following is the compensation package for city councillors:-

Salary

Mayor...................$97,597
Deputy Mayor .......$45,253
Councillor..............$35,024

All the above attract 1/3 Tax Free Allowance

Each member also receives the following Group Insurance Benefits

- Life Insurance coverage of $100,000

- Accidental Death and Disability coverage of $100,000

- Health Insurance including private hospital, 80% prescription drugs, 80% extended health, $200 Vision care every 2 years, $35 eye exam every 2 years and travel insurance

The first two are paid by the city while councillors have to contribute 4% of the cost of the Health Insurance Plan.

Pension Benefits

Eligibilty: Served two terms and at least aged 55 years.

Benefit: Percentage of base salary as follows:

Two Terms............20% of Base Annual Salary

Three Terms..........40% of Base Annual Salary

Four+ Terms..........60% of Base Annual Salary

Base Annual Salary for pension is 2/3 of salary noted above. Mayor's Salary is $65,065, Deputy Mayor $30,169 and Councillor $23,349

The pension has an annual index of 1.25%

Health Insurance will continue for a councillor upon retirement as long as he/she is a member of the group plan at time of retirement and is an active member of council immediately prior to date of retirement. The city pays 100% of the health premium for those councillors who qualify.

Citizens make Mayor a Millionaire!!!!!

2009-11-03T12:33:00.003-03:30

Further to my previous blog I now provide some statistics to explain how generous the councillors'pension plan is.

Based on November 1 salaries a 4-term councillor who retires as mayor will receive a total of over $1,000,000 (ONE MILLION)after 23 years of retirement income. The annual pension is $39,039 and is indexed annually at 1.25%.

A two-term councillor will receive a total of $105,369 for a twenty year period. Annual pension will be $4,670 with a similar 1.25% indexing.

This is very generous considering councillors will not have contributed a cent towards their pension scheme.

Councillors become eligible for their pension at age 55. They also receive a fully-paid health insurance policy when they retire if they have been an active member of the plan while a councillor.

I suggest council should review this plan and my solution is for councillors to receive an in-lieu payment for pension - meaning councillors become responsible for their own plan and the city is not left with a pension liability.

I have sent an e-mail to all councillors asking them how they justify their pension plan and I await their response.

Councillors' Pension Plan

2009-10-13T15:38:00.002-02:30

St. John’s city councillor, Bruce Tilley’s decision not to accept his city pension (earned from his previous stint as a councillor), while serving his current term as a councillor, is correct.

City commissioner, Ron Penney, is quoted as saying the city will amend its by-law to ensure a councillor will not be able to receive a councillor’s pension while serving as a councillor. Will this policy be extended to include pension earned as a city staff employee?

While the city is planning to update this by-law, councillors should take this opportunity to review the entire pension by-law. Changes are needed.

First, consideration should be given to the need of a pension scheme, especially one that is a non-contributory scheme. Councillors should be making a contribution to their scheme. Either that, or the city makes a payment in-lieu of pension as part of a councillor's remuneration package and individual councillors look after their own retirement plans. The benefit of the latter approach is the city not having a continuing liability for councillors’ pension. Currently this liability is approximately $100,000 per year.

It is interesting to note that the city’s own employees make a contribution of 7.5% of their salary, to their pension scheme. This includes staff with the employee status of “permanent part-time”. Why is it city employees contribute to their pension scheme, yet councillors, including a full-time mayor, do not?

The time has come for council to explain why it should continue with its current pension plan and why, they, at the very least, should not be contributing to their pension scheme.

Election Results

2009-09-30T11:00:00.009-02:30

The citizens of St. John's have had their say.

Unfortunately, for me, the citizens of Ward 3 have decided to have someone else represent them at the council table. Congratulations to Bruce Tilley on his return to council.

The democratic process has taken place and the new council will see, besides Tilley, Danny Breen (Ward 1) and Sheilagh O'Leary (at-large) as new councillors. Former deputy-mayor Ron Ellsworth, and councillors, Keith Coombs and Art Puddister depart from the council chambers.

The new council will be sworn in, in a couple of weeks.

I would like to thank the citizens of Ward 3 for considering me and while not successful, I will still keep a close eye on the happenings of city hall and continue my activism.

Full election results can be found on the city's website

lionelwest.com

2009-07-27T10:42:00.003-02:30

I have just set up a new website for my election campaign.

The web address is lionelwest.com

I have addressed issues and provided information on the election and key dates.

I am a candidate for Ward 3

2009-06-28T11:26:00.007-02:30

I am pleased to announce that I will be a candidate in the 2009 St. John's municipal election.

I will run again in Ward 3.

The following is part of my press release issued on Monday 29 June, 2009.

"I have maintained and pursued my interest in civic matters since the last election. I attend council meetings on a regular basis and follow the issues by attending public meetings to keep myself informed.

The city needs new voices and new perspectives. I am able to provide both. Citizens have been asking for change and I want to be part of this change.

Major issues facing the city include planning, infrastructure needs, recreational facilities and budgetary priorities. Within the ward I will encourage the formation of neighbourhood committees and assist residents with their concerns on such things as traffic speed, recreational facilities and infrastructure maintenance.

I also want to have the employment terms and conditions of councillors reviewed and updated. I would also seek council support for a citizens’ forum at each council meeting.

Finally, I want to raise awareness of the long-term economic planning for the city and encourage citizens’ participation in civic matters."

Ellsworth in the Running

2009-06-25T15:10:00.003-02:30

To no one's surprise, Deputy Mayor Ron Ellsworth, declared his intention to run in the mayoralty race this September.

This is good, as he will provide an alternative to encumbent Dennis O'Keefe, and citizens will have a choice to make.

Let's hope issues are discussed and both candidates put forward a compelling platform that will indicate their vision and plan for our city.

There is still a possibility that this will be more than a two person race, but if it isn't, we certainly have two distinct options before us.

To Spend or not to Spend

2009-06-16T16:32:00.002-02:30

An interesting highlight of last night's council meeting was the discussion on Festival Grants.

Given an initial budget of $100,000 the council has $11,800 left after distributing funds earlier in the year.

The Arts committee recommended to council that these funds be distributed to the festivals who had already received money on a pro-rata basis. Councillors Duff, Coombs and Hickman were in favour of this notion.

I agree with the councillors who did not support this motion.

Why should money be spent for the sake of spending it?!

The original distribution of funds was based upon a set of criteria. Leave it at that. What other government gives MORE money to those who apply for a particular programme, if they have some funds left in the budget?

Let's not spend money for the sake of it! Fortunately there were enough councillors who saw it this way and the money will now go back into the pot and be allocated to other city expenses.

Downtown Development

2009-06-16T16:21:00.003-02:30

The council approved two downtown developments last night.

The Prescott/Water Street hotel and the revitalisation of the former CBC Radio building on Duckworth Street.

This is good news for the city.

The CBC building will become condo units with some retail space included and will bring more people to the core of the downtown. It has to stay within the height restriction (15 metres) and the developers hope to start on this project by year's end.

The hotel will be six storys on Water Street and be of similar height to King George V Building a few feet away. While this exceeds the height restriction, the argument of the 15 metre rule, was somewhat lost because of the height of King GeorgeV. However, this project is a good example of the city and developer working together (with public input) to achieve a positive result.

There was no time frame provided for the start of this project. Hopefully it will be soon, as the city already has a couple of major projects that, though approve a couple of years ago, have not started - Bell Street Hotel, Steele Hotel

Access to City's Facilities

2009-06-03T14:57:00.002-02:30

I believe the city has made the correct decision in implementing a one-week advance registration period for St. John's city facilities.

This will enable citizens of St. John's to be "first in line" for access to recreational facilities and courses.

It must be remembered that this policy does not mean non-St. John's citizens will be denied access - just that they will have to wait a week to register.

This policy was implemented because St. John's citizens were claiming they did not get an opportunity to enrol in certain activities because non-residents were occupying spaces.

This is to begin in the Fall.

So let's monitor how it works and if it is found to be unnecessary or creating "barriers" as opponents of the proposal suggests, the policy can be reviewed and modified.

Temperance Street Development

2009-05-26T13:04:00.002-02:30

City council has given approval in principle for the Temperance Street Hotel/Condominium development.

I agree with this decision.

The argument used by those councillors who spoke on the issue last night was that the development adhered to the zoning designation for this particular plot of land.

It will be interesting to hear what argument councillors use for the proposed Prescott/Water Street hotel development that will be before them in a few weeks. If they use the above (adhering to zoning requirements) then it should be turned down because the current revised plan still does not meet the zoning regulations.

Perhaps the discretionary clause will be used!

Infrastructure Funding

2009-05-12T15:50:00.007-02:30

The city of St. John's received good news on Monday 11 May. The federal and provincial governments announced "economic stimulus" funding for various infrastructure projects. Chief amongst these are water and sewer services. The following is the list of projects:

Kelley/Edward Sewer Replacement................................$600,000
Forest Road Watermain................................................$2,450,000
Municipal Depot Renovations.........................................$7,640,000
Northeast Land Storm Sewer.........................................$2,770,000
Bay Bulls Big Pond Water TreatmentUpgrades.................$35,000,000
Petty Harbour/Long Pond Water Treatment Plant.............$37,300,000
Team Gushue Highway Extension..................................$40,000,000
Quidi Vidi Weir.............................................................$3,000,000
Bay Bulls Road Upgrade...............................................$1,640,000
Blackmarsh Road Upgrade............................................$2,656,000
Brookfield Road Upgrade..............................................$1,400,000

Total $134,456,000

Originally, the city was going to contribute $80,878,000 to these projects. Now the city will only have to contribute $24,426,668 thus creating a saving to the city of $56,451,332 in capital expenditure costs.

This is extremely good news for the citizens of St. John's as this will mean money can be re-directed to other capital expenditure projects thus speeding up the commencement of these projects. There will also be a positive impact on water taxes. A savings of approximately $60.00 per year per household.

I have asked for clarification on the final point as I'm not sure if it is a "future saving" meaning it is $60 we will not have to spend or is it a saving that will mean our current rate of $520 per year will be reduced.

Oh the irony of an economic slump to provide economic stimulus to help the citizens!

The Cost of doing business

2009-04-23T11:18:00.002-02:30

With the presentation of the city's 10-year parks and recreation plan, another cost for the citizens of St. John's is being proposed.

The anticipated cost of $2 million per year for the parks and recreation plan is in addition to the proposed curbside re-cycling cost of $3 million per year, costs for the cycling trail, overuns for the harbour clean-up project. Then we also have the proposed increase in water taxes for 2010, taking the current amount of $520.00 to between $565.92 - $606.51. This increase depends on what levels of government are contributing to the harbour's cost overruns and the recently announced higher costs for this project.

The obvious question is "How is the city going to pay for these initiatives?"

Are taxpayers facing a significant increase in their taxes or will current services be reduced?

2009 is assessment year, so the city will earn additional income because the real estate market has done very well since the last assessment year. Increase assessment means increased taxes (unless the city reduces the mil. rate).

It is also election year so we will have to challenge our current council on the issue of new programmes and the paying of them.

St. John's Sports & Entertainment

2009-04-14T20:10:00.004-02:30

St. John's Sports & Entertainment(SJSE) tabled its financial results for the period ended December 31, 2008 in council chambers on April 13. This is for the 7 month period of June - December 2008.

The result is "earnings from operations " of $661,193. Note the word "profit" is not used.

This is good news. However a perspective is required.

The above result includes a city subsidy or "operating grant" of $1,200,000! Therefore without the subsidy SJSE would be reporting a loss of approximately $500,000. A half-million dollars.

Because of this "surplus" SJSE debt is reduced to $7,327,434 but once again, this is a meaningless figure as it is the citizens of St. John's who are funding this debt. By this I mean, if the 2008 subsidy had only been $500,000, SJSE's debt would not have reduced at all. The debt only reduced because the city's subsidy was so high.

If it wasn't for the city's subsidy, SJSE would have a debt that would now be approaching $16,000,000 ( 16 million).

It is heartening that SJSE has made a concerted effort to attract non-hockey events into Mile One Centre and we can only hope this trend continues. Concert promotions have aided the bottom line as did action to reduce operating costs (including staff).

It appears SJSE does need a hockey franchise within Mile One Centre before a city subsidy is no longer required - or reduced.

I do congratulate the staff and board of SJSE for achieving the above financial position and improving their operating efficiency. However there is still a way to go and other costs, such as capital expenditures for the stadium and maintenance of the building may change the financial picture rather quickly.

Building Permit - Enforceable?

2009-04-07T14:27:00.005-02:30

At Monday's council meeting the Heritage Committee report was tabled. Included was:-

Item 4 - 317 Water Street - Application to Replace Windows (already installed)

The Heritage Officer advised that an application had been received from the owner of 317 Water Street to replace the windows on the second and third levels of this building. A permit was issued by the city with the condition that the windows match those already existing in the adjacent building to the west (#319).....The applicant did not comply with the conditions of the permit and installed casement style windows instead of vertical sliders.

The committee recommends that the applicant be made to comply with the original conditions of the building permit issued, and that the windows be replaced with windows the same building situated to the west at civic # 319.

The above recommendation was DEFEATED by the majority of councillors with only O'Keefe, Duff and Galgay voting in favour of the recommendation. (Ellsworth and Hickman were absent).

After council meeting on Monday, I wrote an email to all councillors asking them of the implications of this decision. As of now - Wednesday at noon - I have not received a response from any of them.

What does this vote mean? Can citizens now ignore building permits and conditions attached to them? Do we need building permits? Does this mean council is powerless to enforce building permits?

Are there legal ramifications for the city?

What of other permits the city issues? Can we ignore them? Do we need them?

In voting against the recommendation, Puddister said it would be too expensive for the owner to replace the windows. But is this the issue? This conveniently overlooks the fact that the owner did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the permit. If Puddister (and others) have issues with the original permit, that is one thing, but not one of them mentioned this in the "debate" on this issue.

I'll keep you informed if I receive a response from any councillor.

Potholes and Road Painting

2009-03-31T11:52:00.005-02:30

Our conversations are turning to the annual concern of the state and safety of St. John's roads because of the ever increasing number of potholes and the lack of road markings.

This issue has been raised in council chambers as well. Councillor Sandy Hickman is the leading proponent on this issue while the other councillors acknowledge the issue with a nod of the head and a "what do you expect with our climate?"

However there is something council could do, but they chose not to.

For this year's budget, city staff requested the following equipment to assist with the maintenance of city streets:

Additional paint machine, 3 pavement printers and 1 truck.........$324,500

Additional pothole patcher with two operators...........................$393,730

Total: $718,230

So, for an additional $718,230 city councillors (unanimously) decided not to contribute to a solution related to safety issues on our roads. Even half of this amount would have helped alleviate some of the safety concerns.

Councillors determined this aspect of road safety was a low priority for this year's budget. So low in fact, that it was one of several requests eliminated from the 2009 budget.

So as you dodge the city's potholes and drive in the incorrect lane or do not see the pedestrian crossing this Spring, remember, council did have a solution offered to them, and they chose not to accept it.

To Vote or not to Vote...That is the Conflict!

2009-03-10T13:51:00.002-02:30

St. John’s city council’s decision to change its conflict of interest provisions is interesting.

Reasoning behind this change is to ensure the city is in compliance with the Municipalities Act. The proposed change will mean that a member of council cannot abstain from voting unless there is a conflict of interest or is permitted by a majority vote of council.

While I understand the principle behind the proposed amendment, I hope the new provision will be applied fairly and not be used as a political weapon to “corner” a fellow councillor. It is unfortunate members of council do not have enough trust in each other that, when a fellow councillor declares a conflict (as long as this conflict comes with a public explanation), council then has to have a vote to indicate whether it believes a conflict exists. Surely, if a councillor believes they have either a real or a perceived conflict, this is reason enough for the councillor not to vote on the issue. What perception is created for us should council overrule the individual councillor and, in effect, “force” a vote from the councillor? If a councillor is deemed to be taking advantage of this conflict provision (by not voting on issues), I’m sure fellow councillors will raise the point and citizens will have an opportunity to apply their own opinion either by contacting the councillor or through the ballot box.

Another issue this provision does highlight is the role of the mayor and his voting within council meetings. A perusal of council minutes will show that on split votes, there are many occasions the mayor’s vote is not recorded. An example of this is shown in the February 23 minutes. The vote on the hotel development for Water/Prescott Street records a 6-3 split. Councillors who voted for and against the motion are named and the deputy mayor is recorded as having abstained due to a conflict of interest. The mayor’s name is not listed. We do not know the mayor’s stance on this issue because, not only did he not vote on the issue, he did not debate the issue. The mayor abstained from voting.

My question to council is: As a councillor, will the mayor have to abide by the Municipalities Act and vote on all issues other than those where he is declared to be in conflict?

No Go Juno!!!

2009-03-03T09:29:00.002-03:30

Mayor Dennis O'Keefe announced he is not going to attend the Juno Awards in Vancouver. He has learned there will be no participatory role for him in Vancouver thus feels he can not justify the trip.

I say "Well Done!"

It is pleasing to see this decision made but it does make one wonder why council approved this trip in the first place.

Questions that spring to mind...

What was council's approval based on?

What did the mayor know about this trip when he asked council for travel approval?

Just wondering...

More Comments on Hotel Development

2009-02-24T13:55:00.003-03:30

This is a copy of a letter I sent to The Telegram...

St. John’s city council made the right decision in rejecting the proposed downtown hotel development at the corner of Water and Prescott Street.

Adherence to the city’s Municipal Plan is vital in ensuring both developers and citizens know the rules when it comes to building projects within the city and especially within the designated heritage area. These rules must be applied consistently and fairly and not be subject to the whims of councillors’ discretion.

However, I do wonder how city council got to be in the position of having to vote on this project at this stage of the planning process. Council had an earlier opportunity to turn this project down. It came with the request from city staff to ask the developer for a Land Use Assessment Report (LUAR). Council unanimously approved this request, knowing that the submitted application exceeded the Municipal Plan regulations. So we have the scenario of councillors who approved the LUAR, not approving the development, based on the same facts they had at their disposal when they approved the LUAR! The city should review its planning process and see if there is a method that will ensure this sort of thing does not happen again. Not only is councillors’ and city staff time wasted, so are the resources of a developer. Also approval of the LUAR sends a message – intended or not – that this is tentative approval for the project.

It is also disappointing that citizens did not get to hear what Mayor O’Keefe had to say on this project. Whether it had something to do with the rules of debate or he did not wish to be seen on the wrong side of the issue, we heard nothing from him on this issue other than to call the question at the end of the debate. Surely on an issue of this importance, we are entitled to hear from our mayor. Where is his leadership? Deputy Mayor Ellsworth also did not speak due to a declared conflict of interest. However it would have been interesting to hear from him after the council meeting had ended. This means citizens have not heard the opinions of their two leading municipal leaders on a vital city issue.

The city has been inconsistent with their planning process. It was only last week, they informed another developer that he could not exceed height restrictions on the old CBC Radio Building but would consider his proposal if he stayed within the height regulations. It is this inconsistency that is frustrating to citizens and developers alike. We need a clear statement from the city that their planning rules will be applied in a fair and consistent manner.

The city should initiate a public process to update the current Municipal Plan so that a new template can be set for the development of St. John’s.

Hotel Development Vote

2009-02-24T08:39:00.002-03:30

By a margin of 6-3, city councillors voted to reject the hotel development destined for the site on the corner of Water Street and Prestcott Street.

Voting to reject were councillors, Galgay, Duff, Collins, Hanlon, Colbert and Puddister.

Voting not to reject were councillors, Hann, Hickman and Coombs.

Deputy Mayor Ellsworth had already declared a conflict of interest and Mayor O'Keefe did not vote or for that matter, made no comment during the debate.

I agree with council's decision.

Like those voting to reject, the issue for me, was centred around the city's municipal plan and the consequence of precedence should approval be given.

The municipal plan should be adhered to and as I have said many times, if councillors don't agree with the plan, then hold a public meeting to review and update the plan. My question has always been: "What do you want St. John's to be?"

Other concerns from this process are:-

- Why does the city's planning process allow for a Land Use Assessment Report, when it is known the project application exceeds the city's regulations? Council's approval of the LUAR, sends a mesage to the developer that there is a strong likelihood of approval. Surely, councillors should reject the request for a LUAR if they intend to vote against the deveopment.

- Citizens did not hear from the mayor on this issue. What is his opinion on the matter? He should have made a statement during the debate. I will speculate that he was in favour of the project, because during the mayoral by-election, when asked directly if he was in favour of exceeding height restrictions for this site, his response was "yes".

It was heartening to see the majority of councillors listening to citizens and adhering to their municipal plan.

Traffic Studies

2009-02-03T13:30:00.005-03:30

Councillor Shannie Duff's comments concerning traffic implications for the Tiffany Lane seniors' development raises an issue I have been wondering about for some time. The comments have inspired me to send an email to Councillor Art Puddister, chair of the city's Police and Traffic committee.

I have asked if the city follows-up on traffic studies that have been commissioned as part of the application process for developments within the city. e.g. Dominion Store on Quidi Vidi Lake, Pleasantville development.

I am interested in this because we never become aware of the accuracy of the traffic study. Was the study accurate and is this confirmed by an actual traffic study, say, 12 months after the completion of the project?

The answer from the city will be interesting as it will provide some perspective for the use of traffic studies and their value when assessing development projects within the city.

UPDATE

The city does work with the developer to ensure the appropriate action is taken as a result of the traffic study, but does not follow-up at any time to assess the traffic count. Therefore there is no reconciliation of traffic study to ACTUAL traffic.

Disclosure - JUNO Awards

2009-01-27T11:23:00.004-03:30

At last night's council meeting, Mayor Dennis O'Keefe, announced he had asked staff to provide him with the costs of certain aspects of the city's snow clearing activities. He wants to share this information with the citizens of St. John's so that we may have a perspective of the costs of this activity.

This is a positive move by the mayor. However, it is unfortunate he does not apply it to all activities of the city.

Sometime in the past few weeks, the council, in a private meeting, committed up to $250,000 for the 2010 JUNO Awards. While I accept this committment may have to be kept secret until the official announcement, there is no reason for council not to explain their decision at the next council meeting.

There certainly was an opportunity for any one of our 11 councillors to comment on their JUNO committment as they unanimously approved the mayor's travel application for a trip to Vancouver to attend the 2009 JUNO Awards. The necessity for this trip was not explained.

Should the mayor wish to keep citizens informed, he should not be selective in his information- sharing. He should now explain to us why the city committed the $250,000 and how this money is going to be spent on the 2010 JUNO Awards.

This will provide some perspective for us.

Proposed Hotel Development - 123 Water Street

2009-01-23T14:59:00.003-03:30

The following is a copy of an e-mail I sent to the city's planning department concerning the proposed development at 123 Water Street - Corner of Prestcott Street and Water Street.

Once again the city of St. John’s is proposing to amend its development regulations to satisfy a development within the city’s boundaries.

For me, this is the main issue of the proposed development. Why is the city accepting this proposal in the first place? The municipal plan requires buildings to be no more than 15 metres in height for this site. Why was this written into the municipal plan? What is the city’s reasoning for this? Is it because it had a desire to develop a certain template for the city?

Currently the city’s plan is to preserve the heritage value of the east end of Water Street by imposing height and density restrictions on developments. This proposed development does not enhance the heritage aspect of the municipal plan. It is a building that reaches a height of 27.3 metres above Harbour Drive. This is approximately 82% above the zoning’s maximum building height. (Why is the city advertising the lesser height of 17.8 metres?) It will create a wall of indiscretion on a corner that should entice a welcoming to preservation and heritage.

For some reason, the applicant was not asked to provide a traffic study for this development. There should be one. There may be sightline issues associated with exiting from Water Street and Harbour Drive. The hotel also has only one customer vehicle access point and this is from Water Street. What is the traffic impact, especially as the entrance is close to traffic lights and turning traffic?

There is also no comment on infrastructure impacts. Are there any impacts to the water and sewer infrastructure?

And what of snow-clearing?

Another issue the city should consider is the need for another hotel development in St. John’s. Currently I am aware of two approved developments (Bell Street and opposite The Delta). In a 2007 economic report submitted to city council, the occupancy rate for the city’s hotels was 67.4%. This does not indicate a desperate need for hotel accommodation within the city. Has the city carried out any research into the future needs of hotel accommodation within the city? This should be done.

The city should give serious thought to the impact of approving this development proposal. If this is approved, the city may as well throw out its current municipal plan and do away with height and density restrictions and allow developers to build what they wish. For approval of this development sends a message to developers that the city’s municipal and development regulations are only guidelines and not accepted policy.

Sidewalk Snow-clearing - Is it working?

2009-01-21T12:57:00.003-03:30

Comments from some St. John's city councillors provide an insight into the wisdom of the current sidewalk snow-clearing practice.

With an eye on election year, council decided to expand the programme for sidewalk snow-clearing this winter. Some additional $175,000 was found to "enhance" the programme.

The question is "Is it working?"

My experience is - "No"

The recent temperature changes have highlighted the problem associated with snow clearing. It is no use clearing the sidewalk of snow if you are not going to apply salt to the cleared sidewalk. The cleared sidewalks become sheets of ice and pedestrians have no other choice but to walk on the road. Exactly what they would do if the sidewalk had not been cleared!

I agree sidewalks should be cleared but only if salt is to be applied as part of the maintenance programme.

Unfortunately, council did not give this too much consideration and preferred the optics of "doing something" in this election year.

It can be argued that council is, in fact, wasting money and would be better off clearing fewer sidewalks AND applying salt to them - OR remove the snow from the sidewalks altogether!

2009 - Election Year Begins

2009-01-14T14:57:00.004-03:30

Welcome to 2009 - Election Year

A little late but I have been out of province.

A couple of comments on issues that were featured at the first two council meetings of this year.

Drive-thrus

A sensible idea to place a moratorium on new applications. The city should look at the appropriate provincial act to help it form a policy on this issue. Obviously, safety has to come first and this is not an "anti-business" move as some have noted in the media.

Councillors' Pension

I have been calling for the city to conduct a review of councillors' compensation for some time now. For me, councillors should not be partaking in a non-contributory pension scheme. Should a pension scheme be deemed necessary, I would favour a payment-in-lieu of pension be made and leave it to each individual councillor to look after their own pension scheme. This would also mean no liability for the city or citizens once the councillor is no longer on council.

Redmond Road Impound Lot

Councillor Coombs missed the boat on this one. He is the ward councillor and was not at the council meeting when this issue was tabled and voted on. He rose in council the following week to announce he was at another meeting and would not have voted for the proposal. My question is this: "Why did he not attempt to have the issue deferred until he brought in representatives of local residents who are opposed to the idea to lobby council?" To now garner media attention with such comments as "total travesty" and "shameful exhibition" is rather lame. The outcome may have still been the same but his constituents may have felt they at least received fair representation from their councillor.

The $9 Million List

2008-12-17T12:42:00.005-03:30

The city has provided me with a list of the items eliminated from the 2009 budget. This is the $9 million list that Mayor Dennis O'Keefe referred to:

Curbside Re-cycling Programme Sep - Dec 2009 - $3,163,800
2 Truck Plow Sanders & 6 Operators for 2 new routes - $614,890
Paint Machine, 3 pavement printers & truck - $324,500
Pothole Patcher (2 Operators) - $393,730
Sweeper and Operator for 8 months - $286,230
New Staffing - $1,246,540
Winter Trail Maintenance - $93,680
Reduction in Contribution to Capital from Revenue Fund - $2,671,456
Others - $275,820

The total of the above is $9,173,436

I'll leave it for you to make what you will with the list but the obvious impact is the curbside re-cycling programme, road maintenance, and the capital funds reduction. And what is the $1.25 million additional staff request for? Is this impacting the services the city should be providing?

Water Taxes

2008-12-16T11:33:00.011-03:30

Okay!

So the city did not defer the water tax increase!

Here is a perspective on the just announced water tax increase for the city of St. John's

City Treasurer and Director of Finance, Bob Bishop, in a document dated April 10, 2008, provided council with information concerning the city's water tax rate.

This document was provided because council wanted to know the costs of providing the city with water and sewage treatment - including the cost overruns associated with the Riverhead treatment plant.

Two scenarios were presented:

A Best Case Scenario - The city would only have to pay its share of a third of the overrun because both the provincial and federal government would chip in for their share

And

A Worst Case Scenario - The city would have to pay its share of the entire overrun because the provincial and federal government refused to contribute.

The 2008 water tax rate is 440.00

Comparisons for the following years are:-

2009 - $528.68 versus $528.68...yes the same under both scenarios.

2010 - $565.92 versus $606.51

2011 - $620.46 versus $661.04

2012 - $650.97 versus $691.56

Obviously, best case scenario is first, but clearly we are headed for annual increases over the next few years, no matter what scenario is used.

Budget 2009 - The politics of an election year budget

2008-12-02T11:56:00.000-03:30

There must be a municipal election in St. John’s next year.

Mayor Dennis O’Keefe, from the mayoralty chair, proudly announced city council has unanimously agreed on a 2009 budget.

According to the mayor, there will be no property tax increase. No drop from the 2008 service level. Money - $180,000 is set aside for sidewalk snow clearing. (We can only hope there is very little snow). Wasn’t sidewalk snow clearing a big issue for councillors this past winter?

Surely, the above measures weren’t agreed to because council is to face the electorate in September 2009? Who knows, next they will announce there will be a deferral in the proposed water tax increase for 2009.

This would be really good news if it wasn’t for what lies behind the figures and for what we have not been told about the funding of deferred initiatives.

O’Keefe, at one stage, informed citizens that the city’s 2009 “wish-list” was $9 million over anticipated revenue. Of the known wish-list items, curbside re-cycling and renovations to the West End Fire Station, are deferred until 2010. Also included in this list is the purchase of snow-clearing equipment. We are yet to be informed of other initiatives that were deferred or cancelled.

The obvious question from all of this is, “If the city can not afford the wish-list items in 2009, how is it going to afford them in 2010?”

What is the city going to do? Does the answer lie in the fact that 2009 is property assessment year? Or that any tax increase required in 2010 will be at the beginning of a new four-year term for city councillors?

New assessments for the city will most likely lead to increased revenues from property taxes because the St. John’s housing market has been rather robust since the last assessment year. For the city of St. John’s to raise $1 million through their current tax regime, a house assessed at $200,000 will have to contribute an annual tax amount of $25.80. Therefore, if the city has to raise an additional $3 million to pay for the curbside re-cycling, the annual impact on the $200,000 household will be $77.40

Is this how the curbside re-cycling programme and other deferred initiatives are to be funded? Council should inform us.

The smugness of an achieved 2009 election year budget without any tax increase is a self-serving disguise for city councillors who have chosen to place their own concerns ahead of the interests of the citizens they serve.

Curbside Re-cycling Costs

2008-11-24T11:25:00.004-03:30

I have received information from the City of St. John’s concerning curbside re-cycling costs.

For a house assessed at $100,000, the impact on city taxes will be $40 - $50 per annum. Obviously, for a $200,000 house, the impact will be $80 - $100.

This is information we have not heard from any councillor, including Mayor O’Keefe. It should be discussed and debated in council chambers. Why are councillors not asking citizens, “are you prepared to pay this cost in 2009 and accept an increase in your city tax?”

For no matter what, unless the city cut backs on services or finds efficiencies within their current structure, citizens are going to have to pay for curbside re-cycling. This will be done through a higher mil rate or increased assessment values. Or is the city hoping another level of government will come along and provide on-going funds?

Another question to ask is: "If the city can't afford the re-cycling costs in 2009 how is it going to afford them in 2010?"

The above figures are based on the cost of operating the MRF (Materials Re-cycling Faciltiy), bi-weekly curbside pick-up, “Blue Bag” starter kits, and collection from narrow streets plus overtime costs.

Ask your councillor for their opinion on this matter and let’s hope they don’t re-cycle the line they are spinning to us now - "the city can’t afford it".

UPDATE:

I have received further information from the city and to raise $1 million via residential and business taxes, a house valued at $200,000 would have to contribute an annual amount of $25.80. Therefore the contibution for the $3 million curbside re-cycling programme for this household would be $77.40 The above figure was for an increase in residential taxes only.

SJSE - The Convention Centre

2008-11-11T15:21:00.003-03:30

It is interesting what Gerry Smith, chairperson of St. John's Sports & Entertainment (SJSE), had to say on the activities at the city's convention centre for the year 2009.

He is quoted in The Telegram (11/11/08) that, despite a forecast loss of approximately $120,000, he is expecting 2009 to be the busiest year ever for the centre. This caught me by surprise. For the financial year ending May 2008, the convention centre had a loss of $63,212. In fact, the 2009 forecast loss is the worse since 2004 when a loss of $181,023 was declared.

So, if the convention centre is about to embark on its "busiest year ever", why is it incurring such a loss? Does this mean we are going to be faced with larger losses the busier the convention centre gets? I hope not. Or does this indicate something is amiss with the centre and it is not suitable for the convention marketplace?

An explanation is required from Smith or deputy mayor Ron Ellsworth, who sits on the board of SJSE, as our representative.

The Politics of the Re-cycling Deferral

2008-11-11T12:50:00.001-03:30

Politics is getting in the way of St. John’s curbside re-cycling plan.

How else to explain the deferral of the re-cycling programme until 2010? Citing the $3 million cost of the programme the city says it is unable to meet this cost within its’ 2009 budget.

This leads to the obvious question – Why was 2009 set as the implementation date? Did the city not cost the programme and apply these costs to its budget process? Why did the city print and display promotional material about the re-cycling programme that included timelines with a 2009 start date?

Could the deferral have something to do with the fact that 2009 is election year? Does our city council not have the integrity and honesty to face us and tell us that the re-cycling programme will mean an increase in our taxes or a reduction in other services?

How else was council planning to cover the costs of the re-cycling programme? Coincidentally, 2009 is also tax assessment year. Is there a hope assessment values will increase sufficiently to generate enough tax revenue to cover the re-cycling costs?

Instead of council trying to defend itself by using the insufficient funds story or advising us that re-cycling is a minor aspect of climate change, it should tell us how it got to this position in the first place. And they can tell us what costs they have incurred because of the delay.

How Suite it is!!!!

2008-10-15T14:20:00.002-02:30

The city of St. John’s should terminate its rental agreement with St. John’s Sports and Entertainment (SJSE) for the corporate box it has at Mile One Centre.

There is no need for the city to rent the box. It is a perk for some councillors. Coun. Keith Coombs’ explanation that it enables city councillors to see “what’s happening at Mile One and see the events” is disingenuous and self-serving. If he or other councillors wish to see what’s happening then all they have to do is pay for their own ticket and enter the stadium. Or they could ask their representative on the SJSE board (Deputy Mayor Ron Ellsworth) to provide them with relevant information. I wonder if Coombs applies the same logic to other activities of the city such as Metrobus, snow-clearing, garbage collection and recreational centres. When was the last time he visited these departments to see “what’s happening”?

Coombs’ other justification for the city having the corporate box is also questionable. He says the city is helping SJSE to balance their books by paying for the box. This assumes the city needs the box. Yes, they should pay for a box if they need it, but it is the need, that is the issue. The city already helps SJSE balance their books by giving an annual subsidy of $2 million.

The annual fee of $18,500 for the rental of the box should be reallocated within the city’s budget to enhance the recreational programmes of the city. An example of this would be the R.E.A.L. (Recreational Experiences and Leisure) programme. This would see the funds benefit children and youth rather than cater to the entertainment pleasure of a few councillors.

Ellsworth should put forward a motion at an upcoming council meeting to cancel the rental on the corporate box at Mile One and have the funds reallocated for next year’s budget. It will be interesting to hear what councillors have to say about this perk they enjoy at citizens' expense.

What properties do we own?

2008-10-10T10:46:00.003-02:30

A point on the issue of garbage being strewn along a walking track in Airport Heights.

The city is cited as saying the delay in cleaning up the mess was because they did not know who owned the land.

The garbage was first noticed in the Spring of this year and it has taken until now for the city to realise they own the land.

Why did it take them this long to discover the fact?

Is there other land the city owns that it is not aware of?

What records does the city keep on property it owns?

The good news is the site will now be cleared of all the garbage.

Being Political

2008-09-30T11:50:00.003-02:30

Mayor Dennis O'Keefe's claim that he is trying to keep his comments about the Liberal's Green Shift policy non-political, is hard to take with a straight face.

He raised the issue as Mayor of the city. Not as an individual. And he tabled documents on the issue at a council meeting. This politicises the issue. He also indicated in an article in The Telegram (Saturday September 27), that as a voter, he would be factoring this issue into his considerations.

He raises a valid concern about the impact of the "carbon tax" on the city's operating costs but he is only providing part of the story. He would garner more credibility if he also noted the Liberal's plan to offset the increase in costs by introducing and enhancing various infrastructure programmes for cities.

Councillor Tom Hann did present the Liberal's side of the story at council on Monday 29 September enabling a more balanced discussion for citizens, and while Hann may have been a touch partisan, O'Keefe's credibility is strained by his comment of "I'm trying to keep this non-political..."

It is political and if the mayor wishes to wade into the Federal Election, then do so, and not hide behind the "non-political" comments.

Bar Closing Hours

2008-09-18T11:07:00.002-02:30

I attended last night's public meeting, held by the City, to discuss St. John's bar closing hours.

No surprises...the opinions were what I expected. Bar owners wanted no change; Residents wanted an earlier closing time.

I put forward the idea of having different closing times, especially where bars are in close proximity to residential areas. e.g. Water Street

Upon reflection it would appear we are talking about human behaviour. How does one legislate human behaviour?

Closing the bars earlier will probably only bring the problem forward an hour if nothing else is done. The extra policing the RNC had during this past summer appeared to work but obviously this needs to be a continuous commitment from the RNC to be a success story. If there was this commitment from the RNC would there be a need to close earlier?

An obvious impediment is also provincial legislation and the sooner the RNC and government remedy this issue the better.

A rather radical approach would be to have no closing time imposed upon bars. Owners would close when they wanted to and this would alleviate the problem of everyone spilling onto George Street at the same time. There would be a staggered (or is that staggering) exodus and this may in turn alleviate the bravado and misbehaviour that is associated with a "mob mentality".

The purpose of last night's meeting was to provide input to the City as they prepare to submit a paper to the provincial government on the issue. There was a rather small crowd in attendance and this issue obviously affects residents of nearby downtown streets and certain business owners who have tenants above their stores.

It will be interesting to see what the city's recommendations will be.

SJSE Financial Results - May 31, 2008

2008-09-17T12:25:00.002-02:30

The financial results for the year ending May 31, 2008 for St. John's Sports & Entertainment Limited (SJSE) were tabled at city council a few weeks back.

I've now had a chance to read this document and make the following comments:-

For the first time in its exisitence, SJSE provided a surplus ($109,994) for their shareholders - the citizens of St. John's!

We must be careful when interpreting this surplus. Note I do not use the word "profit". I find it very difficult to justify the use of this word when the organisation in question receives a $2 million subsidy (or as SJSE like to call it "an operating grant") from their shareholders.

This subsidy was increased by $500,000 for the just completed financial year, meaning that their overall performance was only $30,000 better than their 2007 financial result - a loss of $639,596.

The results include the final year of operations with the Fog Devils.

I know efforts have been made by SJSE to become more efficient and to promote themselves as an "Entertainment Centre", so they must receive some acknowledgement of these endeavours.
The challenge for them is to create an operation where Mile One Centre is utilised for as many days as possible while keeping their costs in check. They have become a little more pro active in seeking out concert promoters (about 17 dates booked for this current financial year) and trying to create other activities for the Centre. More has to be done and citizens require an update by the new year as to the actual running costs of the facility and what size of subsidy is required. The current $2 million subsidy was requested as a one-time payment but was renewed by council at the same level for the 2008/09 year.

Also not to be overlooked is the fact that the Convention Centre is still making a loss. This year it is $63,212. This continues the trend of the facility not covering its costs since its inception. This centre's operations has to be reviewed and, I believe, the current management contract that is in the hands of the same people who operate the Delta Hotel has to end. SJSE should operate the facility themselves. The Centre also need to be refurbished and redesigned to provide a more flexible facility thus enabling more conferences and conventions to be held within it.

The 2008 surplus is a welcome result but SJSE still have a way to go before the citizens of St. John's can feel they know the true costs of running Mile One Centre and the Convention Centre.

By the way...SJSE's deficit is now $7,988,627...that is, nearly $8 million dollars.

City Auditor's Dismissal

2008-08-09T17:45:00.000-02:30

The dismissal of Debbie Reid from her position as the City of St. John’s Internal Auditor should not overshadow the contents of her final report to the city’s audit committee.

It appears Reid has written a carefully considered report offering insight into the budgetary process the city currently uses with recommendations to address the problems within this process.

According to media reports, Reid consulted with key stakeholders who are involved in the budgetary process, including directors, senior management and councillors. Her report is based upon these discussions.

As a keen observer of St. John’s civic politics, I must say I concur with many of Reid’s reported observations. There have been many financial reports approved by council with little or no public debate. An example of this was the quarterly report presented to council in May that included a forecast for by-election expenses of $233,314. Citizens had been informed that the expenses would be approximately $400,000. When questioned by the media on this discrepancy, City Clerk, Neil Martin, confirmed that the expenses would be the larger figure. Yet no councillor publicly questioned this item when it was presented to them, and city staff did not explain the cause of the discrepancy. There are several examples of St. John’s Sports and Entertainment (SJSE) budgets being approved with few or no questions being asked. These include the “debt free and subsidy free by 2010” budget and most recently when the 2008 SJSE budget was approved with not one question asked by councillors. This, despite the fact, that the budget clearly included a $2 million subsidy that council had previously been told, would only be required for the previous year.

The question now is: “What is the city going to do with the report?”

I hope it is given careful consideration by the audit committee. This is a report that should be used as a valuable resource for the accountability and reporting of the city’s finances. It should not be ignored - or filed away to collect dust.

Tourists and Traffic Tickets

2008-07-30T11:26:00.003-02:30

I was somewhat bemused by Mayor O'Keefe's comments on CBC TV last night. He stated that tourists will be looked upon very favourably should they receive a parking ticket from the city.

His reasoning is that tourists spend a lot of money here while visiting so the city can excuse a minor infraction.

Why?

Who is a tourist? A non-resident of St. John's?

This could lead to all sorts of opportunities for "tourists" to ignore parking regulations and declare in their defence that they are "tourists".

Why is a resident of St. John's treated differently? The regulations concerning parking infringements should apply to EVERYONE.

I'm not sure if O'Keefe was reflecting the city's policy or his own personal view, but there must be fairness in the regulations.

I have written to O'Keefe for clarification and will let you know his response.

UPDATE:

Mayor O'Keefe informs me that what he said about tourists, applies to residents as well. If I may say so, that certainly was not the impression from the TV news item!

Downtown Development - Hotel Proposal

2008-07-21T19:26:00.001-02:30

Councillor Shannie Duff says “the St. John’s city council will have some serious thinking to do” with regards to the recent application by Southwest Properties to build an 11-storey hotel on the corner of Water and Prescott streets.

The citizens of St. John’s “will have some serious thinking to do” as well. We will have to let councillors know our thoughts on this issue. Do we want our city to adhere to its current municipal plan, that designates certain areas of downtown to height and density restrictions, or do we want the municipal plan ignored and allow an open planning approach to the downtown core?

This is a very important issue and will define the essence and character of St. John’s.

I, for one, believe the city should preserve its current municipal plan for the downtown core. It is the European style of the city that makes it unique among North American cities and is one of the reasons both residents and tourists are drawn to the city.

If the majority of councillors do not agree with the current municipal plan they should consult with citizens to assess the need for a revision of the plan. The current practice, when faced with similar submissions, is to use their “discretionary power” to circumvent planning guidelines. On many of these occasions the arguments put forward are tax revenues and job creation. Surely these aspects do not disappear if the proposed development is located in a different area of the city.

Another issue associated with this development is hotel accommodation. Does the city need another hotel? There are at least two hotel developments already approved by council with another accommodation development approved for Duckworth Street. In an economic report submitted to council earlier this year, the 2007 occupancy rate for hotels within the city was cited at 67.4%. This does not indicate that the city is in desperate need of more hotel accommodation. Is St. John’s to become a city of half-full hotels and/or disused hotel buildings? There certainly needs to be consideration given to this argument within the approval process.

The approval of this development as submitted or non-adherence to the current municipal plan in any way, will open the opportunity for other developments within the downtown core that could lead to a totally different architectural picture of St. John’s.

Citizens should let their councillors know what kind of the city they want. Are we to preserve the current heritage integrity of the city or do we want to shape it in a different way?

Review of Terms and Conditions of Employment for Councillors

2008-06-18T13:17:00.002-02:30

In the past, I have called for a review of the terms and conditions of employment for St. John’s city councillors.

I once again make this call.

With a new council in place, an ideal opportunity has arisen to proceed with a review. The city should hold a public meeting to both share and gather information from citizens. Once information has been collected and reviewed, council should then debate and approve a new set of terms and conditions that would apply for the council elected in the September 2009 election.

Terms and conditions to be reviewed should include, remuneration including benefits, attendance, committee participation and the number of councillors.

I believe many of the current councillors would agree they are rewarded fairly. However, I would suggest a change to their pension and benefits. Currently, they participate in a non-contributing pension scheme, which, if they qualify, leaves a commitment for the city once they become eligible for the pension. I suggest councillors should receive a payment in-lieu of pension and benefits, thus leaving it to each individual councillor to look after their own pension plan and benefits. This would result in no commitment for the citizens of St. John’s once they leave office.

Attendance is another issue. Some councillors attend nearly every council meeting, while others are absent for several. A councillor only has to attend one council meeting per year to retain their councillor status. This condition should be changed. Councillors could be given the equivalent of three weeks annual leave, or their remuneration could be tied to the number of meetings attended.

Committee participation is an example of disproportionate workload. Some councillors are active on many committees, while others basically attend only those they chair. There should be consistency. It is my belief all councillors should attend all committee meetings. This would ensure they're better informed on the issues and also able to question city staff in a more informed manner.

The city has to take a serious look at the number of councillors it requires and whether these councillors should be part-time or full-time members, or a combination. With a population base of 100,000, and a budget of $170 million and responsibilities that reach out to the province as the capital city, a councillor’s workload has to be evaluated and a determination made to ensure the city’s requirements are being met. The current number of councillors could be reduced, if there were full-time councillors, thereby solving some of the issues mentioned above. Chances are, that whatever the outcome of such a review there would be very little impact on the costs associated with the employment of councillors.

I look forward to the city accepting the need for a review and public consultations commencing as soon as possible.

Election Results

2008-06-04T10:42:00.004-02:30

No surprises!

The St. John's municipal by-election results went according to plan. The favourites securing their seats in all three vacancies. If there was a surprise it was in the deputy mayor's race, with the margin of victory. The desire of some citizens to seek change never came to fruition.

Mayor

Dennis O'Keefe has been given the privilege of leading the city for the next 16 months. Garnering 58% of the vote, he has a clear mandate and beat his rival, Marie White, handily. O'Keefe was always favourite to win this race and he played the campaign in the typical front-runner style - say little and don't make mistakes. White has said this will be her last campaign but hopefully she will still lobby the city on issues and make her voice heard through different avenues.

Deputy Mayor

A convincing win by Ron Ellsworth. He won by nearly 12,000 votes over Paul Sears with Fred Winsor a further 1300 votes back. I thought this may have been a closer race but obviously the majority of citizens were impressed by Ellsworth to give him this ringing endorsement. It will be interesting to see how Ellsworth approaches the "back to the basics" ideals within council. He may have a challenge on his hands and it will also be worthwhile keeping any eye on Tom Hann and Sandy Hickman, who both publicly endorsed Ellsworth. Another interesting dynamic will be between Ellsworth and O'Keefe. It is well known Ellsworth would like the mayoralty job and will he and his supporters spend the next 16 months campaigning for the job?

As for Sears, it may be time for him to consider leaving civic politics and serving the people in a different way. In this by-election he received fewer votes than he did in 2005 as a councillor-at-large candidate.

Fred Winsor, considers his participation as a success and has already indicated he will be in the race for 2009. He is pleased issues he brought forward, were on the agenda and were discussed in the campaign. He certainly did have new and thoughtful ideas .

Ward 4

Debbie Hanlon won this race by approximately 600 votes over Bernard Davis. Sam Kelly was able to receive 1000 votes and has indicated he will not run for office again. Davis may have a taste of things now and we may see him back in 2009. As for Hanlon, it will be interesting to see where she goes as a councillor. Her campaign seemed to be based on setting up committees on every issue and she has a lot to learn about civic politics. Her best approach will be to sit back, learn and listen. One opportunity brought about by her election is that there will be another woman on council. Shannie Duff will be pleased!!

Overall though, I'm not expecting too much change around the council table and it will be pretty much "business as usual" in the city of St. John's.

Cost of Byelection

2008-05-28T13:45:00.003-02:30

How much is the by-election going to cost?

Depends who you talk to.

A couple of weeks back, the city's director of finance Bob Bishop, tabled financial documents at a city council meeting indicating the cost of the election to be $233,314. In a Telegram article dated Wednesday, May 28, the city clerk, Neil Martin is quoted as saying the cost will be closer to $350,000 - $400,000.

Why the discrepancy?

According to Martin, it is to do with the fact that Bishop did not include costs such as paying returning officers and printing special ballots. Of course this leads to the obvious question - why not?

Martin claims part of this is because the finance department saw a figure of approximately $35,000 spent for the election as of March 31 and projected the costs for an annual basis. Besides being mathematically incorrect (total would be $140,000 based on this formula), the election is not something that should be calculated in this manner.

This is a one-time event. Costs should be known. Obviously Martin was able to project the costs earlier in the year. So why did Martin not provide this figure to Bishop to enable the correct figure to appear in financial documents? Or did he?

The Telegram article gives the impression that the city clerk and director of finance do not inform each other. Martin is able to quote other expenses that are not included in the finance figures such as electronic scanning of the ballots and mailing costs.

So where did the finance department get their figure from?

Unfortunately this example places the credibility of the tabled financial reports into question. Are there other examples where the figures aren't right or is this the only one?

An explanation from both senior managers is required to clarify the costing of the by-election

Big Brother is Watching...Have you voted Yet??

2008-05-25T09:18:00.003-02:30

Have you voted yet?

Actually, I don't need to ask you. I could try to get the answer from a candidate in the current by-election. Although I'm sure the candidates have signed a confidentiality agreement.

Yes, that's right!

Each candidate receives a list of residences (civic addresses) that have returned ballot(s) to the city. This obviously is of great assistance to the candidates. They know whose door to knock on - and whose not to, as they continue their campaign. Now I admit, it is a little difficult to campaign with the mail-in ballot process because once the ballots are in the hands of citizens, it is difficult to know whose door to knock on. I discovered this while campaigning in 2005. Once the ballots have been sent out by the city, you could be knocking on the doors of citizens who have already voted.

The city did not provide a similar list to candidates in 2005.

While I can see advantages for the candidates, what of the issues for the citizens?

What are the privacy issues here?

Whose business is it whether a residence has voted or not?

What is the city going to do with this list after the election?

I know voters' list are provided in the provincial/federal elections, but they are used on the day of the election, to ensure you haven't voted twice and can be used by a party to call a voter to encourage participation in the election.

In theory, candidates have many days to monitor voters and keep reminding them to return their ballot.

There is something that makes me feel a little uncomfortable about this process.

I'll wait and see what citizens have to say about this but in the meantime I will send my concerns to the City Clerk.

Harbour Clean-up Committment or Not?

2008-05-24T13:32:00.003-02:30

Paul Sears’ request for Ron Ellsworth to clarify his comments made during the televised deputy mayoralty debate is justified.

During the debate Ellsworth said “… Minister Loyola Hearn has already committed to help cost-share the increase, so we already know what’s going to happen” in response to a question on the harbour cleanup overrun.

This is news! No one knew that Hearn had made this commitment. And he hasn’t.

In response, Ellsworth is reported on the Telegram’s website as saying:

“…Ellsworth said he was trying to reiterate Hearn’s comments during the debate. “It wasn’t an announcement. It was a 30-second response to a question in a half hour debate,” Ellsworth said. “These questions are coming at you, they’re not pre-planned. “All I was doing was reiterating what the minister had said on April 3 ... The bottom line is we have three partners here in this project. We appreciate the attempt of the federal government to assist.””

In an email response to me, because I had also queried Ellsworth’s comments a day earlier, Team Ellsworth (It appears Ellsworth did not pen the response) responded:

Regarding Ron's response at the debate pertaining to the cost shared increases. It was a 30-second response out of an 1/2 hr debate & all Ron was doing was reiterating what was announced in Telegram April 3rd by the minister.

The quote from The Telegram reads: "... but government may be able to help fund other projects like the Team Gushue Highway in order to free up some money. It is this freed-up money that will be able to allow us to reduce out (sic) costs on the project."

Are they the same thing?

I don’t think so.

Surely “…has already committed…” is not the same as “…but government may be …”

Hearn only indicated federal money MAY be forthcoming for another project. In fact, Hearn has clearly stated on several occasions that the federal government does not fund cost overruns on capital projects.

And we do not know what is going to happen. The third partner, the provincial government, has given no indication as to what role they will play with the cost overruns. Even if a project is found that federal monies would go to, it does not mean any “savings” would go toward the harbour clean-up overruns. This would be a decision of council. Who knows? Depending on the city’s priorities, council may decide to proceed with water tax increases and redirect the funds to another project. The difference in water tax between the “worse case” scenario and “best case” scenario is $40.59 per year by 2012 according to Bob Bishop, the city’s Director of Finance, in a document dated April 10, 2008 tabled at a council meeting.

For me, Ellsworth had clearly left an impression that the federal government had committed to cost-share the overrun and that the city already knew how the cost overruns were going to be covered.

A clarification was needed and it is unfortunate that in providing clarification, he has not acknowledged that his comments may have lead citizens into believing the federal government had made a commitment to help fund the cost overruns and the city had basically resolved the issue.

Mayoralty TV Debate

2008-05-22T22:02:00.002-02:30

The final candidates debate was held on Rogers TV, Thursday, with Dennis O'Keefe and Marie White facing each other for the mayoralty seat.

An even debate with both candidates appearing a little nervous at times and getting points across in a reasonably clear manner.

O'Keefe highlighted his role as former acting mayor and what he was able to achieve in this role and also talked about his conciliatory approach.

White highlighted her decisiveness and more direct approach.

No major differences on the issues other than amalgamation - O'Keefe says wait, White says let's go!

Both talked about the need to reach out to provincial and federal governments for funding.

The decision is now up to the voting citizens of St. John's.

Remember to vote!!!

Deputy Mayor TV Debate

2008-05-22T08:57:00.002-02:30

Did you tune in to last night's deputy mayors debate? Broadcast on Rogers' "Out of the Fog", candidates, Ron Ellsworth, Paul Sears and Fred Winsor answered nine questions and gave brief opening and closing remarks.

Like the earlier debate at "The Hub" there was no clear winner with each candidate giving informed answers to the questions. Winsor, at times, seemed a little unsure on some details.

Ellsworth continued his "back to the basics" theme while Sears highlighted his "clarity and accountability" theme. Winsor's themes are environment, small business and affordable housing.

Citizens have a more difficult choice here and this may be a very close race.