Wellington Square

Maybe it’s not you, it’s your resolutions?

Hugo Rodrigues - May 24th, 2012

I’ve marked the comments with interest over the past several council and committee meetings from certain councillors — Ward 3 Coun. Dan McCreary and Ward 4 Coun. Richard Carpenter in particular — claiming their resolutions and their work is unfairly being bashed by their colleagues.

“I would hope that politics aren’t going to creep into this and that we’re not going to see resolutions decided here based on who moves them,” McCreary said during debate on improving bylaw enforcement in the city.

The RogersTV clip of the entire discussion is available here— the bylaw discussion starts at 47:30, McCreary starts speaking at about 20:35 and the jab at politicking comes at around 52:15.

This follows another poor reaction at the May 16 finance committee when McCreary bristled at Mayor Chris Friel’s comment that he didn’t like where a resolution McCreary had moved “was coming from.” Friel apologized in open council May 22 for the misinterpretation, clarifying his unease was over the intent behind the resolution, not its source. Friel did do the “non-apology” Monday— you know, the ones starting with “if you were… then I’m sorry,” but having been in the room for both, I think the good councillor’s skin may be softening.

McCreary’s is usually one of the best-behaved people on camera and in non-televised meetings, saving his politicking for behind the scenes, so these statements were surprising.

The bylaw resolution wasn’t his best work— he wanted better enforcement within existing resources. The resolution itself originally called for a dedicated department. Rather vague as to how that would be accomplished, creating the circumstances where staff members writing the requested report would likely not produce the range of options McCreary was actually seeking. After he made his jab (perhaps in reaction?), McCreary accepted several amendments that made his resolution better.

As passed, council now seeks options on how to improve bylaw enforcement— not through a dedicated department but officers.

Carpenter has complained of late the finance committee isn’t being shown the respect it deserves. Not sure I agree based on what I observe as a regular attendee of these things and having read the procedural bylaw that gives the finance committee its mandate. The committee has fumbled its way through how it can both learn more about how individual city departments operate and try and address issues as they arise and that was also a bone of contention on Monday.

I would suggest a taking a deep breath when one’s resolution is criticized and perhaps not taking it quite so personally.

Categories: Brantford, Dissention in the ranks | No comments

Grade your city councillor today!

Hugo Rodrigues - May 22nd, 2012

I must admit I did chuckle reading our letters to the editor column today— specifically the Ken Simmons letter that, unfortunately, has not been posted to our website.

In essence, Simmons “grades” members of council— Ward 3 Coun. Dan McCreary makes it to No. 3, Ward 2 Coun. John Utley makes it to No. 2 and former Ward 2 Coun. John Sless makes it as No. 1. I’m sure wherever Sless is, he tipped his cap to Simmons today.

After Toronto Sun city hall columnist Sue-Ann Levy’s (annual?) council-grading column ran on Dec. 18, we received a written submission (on a tear sheet of that column, no less) asking us why the Expositor doesn’t do the same thing with city council.

I’m not averse to grading our councillors. I certainly, after just nine months here, have a variety of opinions on each of them as I’ve attended meetings, chatted over coffee with some of them, done phone interviews with others and gotten comfortable in this role. Here’s the deal though— for that to happen, the grading system — the rubric as teachers call ‘em — would need to be published and transparent.

Why?

I want you to know why councillor A has been given an F— and why councillor F has been graded an A. We all reserve our right to agree or disagree, but that’s the biggest flaw with Levy’s rankings. What the hell did she base them on, other than her own loud assertions of what’s right is right so everything else must be wrong?

So have at it— poll below, and also feel free to suggest criteria in the comments.

Categories: Brantford | No comments

A few must-read city documents

Hugo Rodrigues - May 17th, 2012

I’ve been pondering this post for too long, however after the mayor’s most recent column published today, the imperative to do so increased. So, first of all, here’s the first set of documents to read:

Intensification Report Feb. 2012

The second set would be the development charges report prepared for the most recent community development committee meeting. It’s embedded in its entirety below, but here are the charts from where Mayor Chris Friel is pulling many of the statistics he quoted in his column.

Screen shot 2012-05-17 at 4

So, the problem is being framed entirely the wrong way. While yes, surrounding municipalities own more serviced land than the city, ask them how long that land has been for sale and how much of it has been sold recently. Based on my daily commute, there’s a lot of municipal industrial land out there because it’s not selling. Massive greenfield developments are not our reality. A nimble and adaptive city and economic development department would stop trying to amass land to hook a line on a big fish, and instead put more effort into scooping up the minnows.

The city, in reality, is not in the land game. It owns 23.7 hectares (58.7 acres) of serviced land compared to 129 hectares (319 acres) of serviced land in private-sector ownership. There are a further 266.7 hectares (659 acres) of zoned land for industrial/commercial development in private hands waiting for municipal servicing. Why does the city need to expand its boundaries to keep itself in the land-sale game? How about shifting from a priority of selling municipally owned land towards becoming an enabler? Facilitating the sale of privately held parcels? The ensuing investment, assessment and jobs will look the same on the tax roll.

Add to the equation the likelihood Brantford would need to buy land from whoever has been speculatively holding onto it, and what’s the point of moving the boundary? Intensification targets can be met within existing boundaries for the time being. It requires a different kind of wake up call than the mayor is calling for.

So instead of appearing to in any way compete with private-sector landowners, help them. You can’t “bonus” them, but maybe you make sure any clients they shop around town get a nice welcome. Make sure they know the right people in the development and building departments and at Brantford Power who can quickly and efficiently answer questions.

Whether you agree or not with everything I’ve said, you should still read the intensification studies above and the development charges study below.

Development Charges complete report, May 7, 2012

Categories: Brantford | No comments

Get meaningfully engaged

Hugo Rodrigues - May 14th, 2012

I’ve been reporting recently on the City of Brantford’s attempts to move into its 2013 budget with a “Budget 101″ approach.

This comes out of the mayor’s taxpayers’ bill of rights and the so-called intelligent service delivery review. Both ideas, despite how critics and skeptics may view them as more hot air or a distraction, are worthy of attention.

The city if hoping to lead its ratepayers through a series of conversations about what services if offers, how those services are funded and run. At a critical point in that conversation, people will be asked to tell the city what services they want to pay for and which ones they would rather see the city get out of entirely.

The importance of broad public participation in this process cannot be overemphasized. Come budget time, the typical engagement with the broader public usually falls into one of the following categories:

My taxes are too high.
Why am I paying for things I never use?
Why are you cutting a service that I rely on?
Can I please have some money?

In the reality of stagnant or next-to-zero growth in taxable assessment and ever-rising costs, this conversation is a needed one. As city treasurer Catherine Brubacher rightly pointed out at a recent meeting, the days of trimming percentages off of every department and business unit’s budgets must come to an end. Having trimmed $5.6 million out of budgets in this fashion over the past five years, there is little left to find using this method.

As of the 2012 budget, council and the city have also depleted all discretionary reserve funds— those pots of money the city keeps for discretionary use are not to be confused with the reserve funds that are mandated by city policy or provincial legislation and regulation (see: Development-charge reserve funds).

If significant savings are going to be found, an all-out discussion in the city needs to take place asking what services must continue (by mandate), which should continue because they’re valued and which should be cut. This can include a conversation on whether any and all of the above could continue but with a drastic change in the level of service.

I have my own thoughts on this based on what I’ve learned elsewhere and as opportunity allows I’ll share them in this space or in print/web through my Wellington Square column.

For those who keep coming back to the barricades over the unsustainable nature of municipal budgeting and taxation, you need to participate in this process. If you don’t, then you really have no one else to blame but yourselves.

Categories: Brantford, Money | No comments