March 23, 2004 Report
Budget Deliberations

Councillors Present:

• Mayor Di Ianni
• Chad Collins
• Maria Pearson
• Sam Merulla
• Margaret McCarthy
• Dave Braden
• Russ Powers
• Brian McHattie
• Andrea Horvath
• Dave Mitchell
• Bernie Morelli
• Phil Bruckler
• Terry Whitehead
• Murray Ferguson
• Bill Kelly
• Tom Jackson

Members of the Media present:

Hamilton Spectator  - Eric McGuinness, Chinta Puxley, Andrew Dreschel;
View / CFMU 93.3 - Maggie Hughes, Brabant - Kevin Werner, 2 other media people

Staff present that answered questions through the Mayor:

• Kevin Christenson, City Clerk (and some other staff from that office)
• Glen Peace - Acting City Manager
• Joe Rinaldo - General Manager, Finance & Corporate Services
• Joe-Anne Priel  - General Manager, Public Health and Community Services Department
• Peter Crockett - General Manager, Public Works
• Lee Ann Coveyduck, General Manager, Planning and Development
• Neil Everson - Executive Director,  Economic Development
• (a number of other staff people)

The meeting was to begin at 9:30 but was delayed by the late arrival of some councillors, and the subsequent wait for quorum. Actual start time was 9:40 am.

Changes to the Agenda:

a. Presentation re Vision 20/20
b. Categorized list of Budget Issues/Concerns

Discussion/Questions Re Agenda Additions:
Mayor DiIanni explained that he had drawn up the list, categorizing the key budget issues, and wished to add a 5th point, Organizational Structure, under the first category.

McHattie asked that the presentation on Vision 20/20 be listed on paper as part of the budget discussion.  Whitehead wanted to discuss the Sudbury approach to the split on funding (?) and adopt a similar motion.  He also wanted to add purchasing / tendering to the list.  Merulla wanted to discuss the smoking bylaw and restaurant inspections.  Braden suggested that they try to deal with issues that are on people's minds, not just councillors' minds.."Get user fees and bus fares on the table first." Horvath commented that they should be prepared to put some issues on hold, if questions couldn't be answered because staff wasn't present.."It's important that we do our homework."  DiIanni remarked that this was a good suggestion, and it made sense, but that most staff should be present to handle questions.  Bruckler asked about Municipal Act requirements respecting Public Works and West Nile Virus.  DiIanni suggested that they deal with corporate issues first then have a discussion on the capital budget.  Horvath declared a conflict of interest re restaurant inspections.

(There was a part in here I missed re a motion by Merulla (seconded by Kelly) to set up a subcommittee on ?)

Vision 20/20 Presentation 

Linda Harvey had given council an overview previously, but presented a power-point summary.  She stated that there were difficult issues and pressures to deal with, and stressed the need for new thinking and long-term holistic planning.  "Sustainability is the foundation for effective local government," and "Hamilton's commitment to sustainability is Vision 20/20."  "Council's strategic plan sets policy."  "Council leadership + staff understanding = buy in.  She said that when we look at air quality issues; transit use is going down, car use is going up, and hospitalization for respiratory illnesses is increasing, however, "Trends are not destiny."  Some of the missing pieces in achieving this vision are a) incomplete authority to make decisions, b) limited human and fiscal resources and c) limited knowledge.  "The biggest tool in the whole kit is the budget."...whole purpose of the indicator's report is to give you good information for good decisions...without innovation, we're really not going to go anywhere..GRIDS is going to give us the physical form of our city...next year when we've got an opportunity to build sustainability into the entire budget process..we'll create a real sustainable community and a better future for our grandchildren

Mitchell: need for more partnerships, and I think the city's realizing that ...(with regard to urban sprawl), "we do a lot of things for this city, for the downtown core, but we're losing agricultural land...the ag community is not a profitable community, and that puts a lot of pressure on things...one strategy used in Michigan was a programme to pay farmers for their development rates...farmer still owned land, but money was given back to the farmer to invest in trees, crops etc..."we need to have a 30 to 40 year planning boundary, and do not apply to go outside of that, because that will not be granted"..that will give security back to agriculture.." our agricultural community is not healthy...no wonder the pressure for development is there ".."I had to spit that out"

McHattie: "how do we see sustainability in Hamilton?".."are we now at the point where every project has to be good for all 3 components (all 3 legs of the stool)?..it's about balance withing programmes ...economic development is critical, but "projects that don't fit all 3 shouldn't happen"   Harvey:  with the triple bottom line (the environmental, social and fiscal) the balance is not always an equal balance...this is probably the most difficult task to do... but the thought process should occur in all decision-making  McHattie referred to the 4 points in her presentation (fairness and equity, long term perspective, open and participatory government and interconnectivity)  and asked if it were possible to filter each decision through these 4 principles..I strongly recommend this as then we'd be on solid ground Harvey:  you look at them altogether

Horvath:   good to have a broader, conceptual discussion before we delve into specifics ..glad her colleague (Mitchell, who had left the chamber) raised points about loss of agriculture lands..."the buck stops here when it comes to issues like urban boundary expansion..."my passion for the downtown has been equally reflected in the perspective that I take on those decisions, because I don't believe that those kinds of decisions are the right decisions, if we're really serious about having a holistic and a balanced and a sustainable community ..." It's not downtown versus agriculture, it's sprawl versus both!"

Braden:  one of the best presentations he's ever seen.."clearly I'm biased, but that's the kind of thinking that we all ought to endorse"..we have Vision 20/20 coming one way, but in the strategic plan coming the other way, we have a little bit of the right wing thing (silos) of we've got to get jobs...I belong in the integrated thing, but I think that jobs are the way we need to go...how to sort out the fact that one document is about diversity, integration and balance, and the other is saying that we've got a weakness, drive that angle..how do we bring those two things together? Peace:  Guy Paparella is doing an inventory of all strategic initiatives.. will relate them back to Vision 20/20 and do a presentation

DiIanni:  apparently Melbourne is using our process, even though document may not be perfect, and citing it as one of the good examples of triple bottom line

Braden: asked if the silo approach made any sense..can you deal with isolated things...like if we're weak in social services, we'll just dump some money there  Harvey:  won't get into specifics, because that's your job...if you think sustainably you bring to bear all of the assets you have to solve problems..for economic development we've got rich diversity in citizens, "our arts and culture that we're not even considering as part of our economic development plan", and the quality of the environment DiIanni: how do federal policies mirror this sort of holistic process, and then I'm going to move us along  Harvey:  federal policy clearly articulated at conference in Ottawa...they deal at the core of their decision-making with sustainable development, the province deals with smart growth and sustainability with their greenbelt protection act..."the planets are aligned"..to get money flowing back it's good that we're on the same agenda

Staff Overtime

Peace:  very complicated ...not sure what some of the driver issues are (last year it might have been SARS, blackout, snowstorms)...overtime has been used as a bridging between staff shortages, recruitment problems...we ran over $800,000 in overtime, but if you take that away from the actual personnel costs, there wasn't any overexpenditure at all...there were recruiting issues in getting paramedics, and in planning and development...there are some funding issues that need to be addressed

Whitehead: benchmarking exercises give us a starting point...don't know if they could be applied here...would love to see comparisons with other communities...we should be able to put controls/criteria in place that supervisors could look at before approving overtime...how can we tighten up?  Peace: we're driven by programmes rather than the criteria for overtime...we could bring forth a policy before council for debate

Horvath:  to what extent did our gapping policies affect overtime?...is it more cost-effective to have overtime or full time hires?

Peace:  I suspect that gapping did contribute somewhat to the overtime costs...council cut overtime budget by 10% last year..we did do some hiring last year..less than 3% of our budget goes to overtime

Horvath:   I get concerned if we see gapping as an overall tool..in adding up the cost of overtime, are we tracking issues re staff morale, "which we have a huge problem with in this organization already", health and safety, stress on families, issues around family-friendly workplace?..should we be hiring more staff?  Peace:  all of these things have to be addressed in policy discussions

Horvath:  just around the issue of employee incentive programmes, bonuses..if we set benchmarks, is there a management bonus tie-in?  Peace:  yes there is an expectation that staff manage within their budget, but it's based on the whole budget, not line by line specifics

Collins:  I'm trying to figure out the root cause of why the numbers are what they are..in '99 we started at $ 6.4 m, and in 2003-04 we're up to $10 m..we budgeted for $5.3m..we came in at double that..same number of employees now as the time of amalgamation, and we're asking people to do more with less, what value are we getting from those overtime $$?  Peace:  overtime has actually been fairly consistent for 2001,02,03.. Collins:  when I look at a $5m approved budget coming in at $10m, there's a problem..there's an issue re how those dollars are expended when there is a variance..I think we should budget for maybe half of what it is today..I'm hard-pressed to find a number

DiIanni:  we don't know whether all departments use similar criteria..should there be some consistency?

Priel:  the total and net cost of overtime for Social and Public Health and Community Services was appr. $214,000, some of which could not have been guessed at..some $ could be lieu time $

Collins:  I think though that there are chronic offenders on the list and those are the ones I want to get at..it's not the blips on the radar..how do I pull a number out of there that's doable in reducing overtime, but still delivering services?  Peace:  one of the largest drivers of OT is winter control..it may not be funded at the appropriate level  Rinaldo:  salary gapping has offset OT in some cases..turnover created additional work  Collins:  "is staff saying there are no savings to be had?"..personally I think everyone should come back to committee with their overtime over a certain amount..there's definitely a problem that needs to be addressed

Mitchell:  need for human resources issues to be dealt with..one example, HSR has a wind-down programme (calling back retirees for a 20 hour week)..it's a good plan..why can't we pull all the different union people together, and ask for their ideas?..I don't think it's ever been done..Gus Oliveira has good ideas, and they haven't been shared, or we haven't used them, or "we haven't appeared to work together"..1 man on snowplow in rural area, and 2 men in urban area

Jackson:  if we could find $1m in OT savings, that would cover off the unnecessary nickel increase on the HSR and $20 on the seniors' bus pass..we heard Linda Harvey say about sustainability..we're trying to increase the use of public transit..and the proposed $20 increase on the ice users again..do the general managers just spend $ they don't have when it comes to OT ? Rinaldo:  if a general manager spends an additional amount in OT, and it's offset by gapping, that's O.K...if it increases the overall budget, we are required to report that to council..departments with negative variances are indentified in reports

Bruckler:  excellent points made..it would be helpful if we could see on a monthly basis reports that deal with OT of an emergency nature..could we have information on intentional and non-intentional gapping on a quarterly basis? 

Merulla:  if we were functioning to our full capacity, how much would that cost compared to OT

McCarthy:  Is there a list of names?..Who gets OT and why? 

Pearce:  likely tracked by department..endless number of reasons..not sure we could figure this out for all 6,700 employees..if that was the direction, we certainly could try

McCarthy:  probably most accurate way to determine what's happening within the corporation..you have to categorize.. start with the names, then come back to the factors.."We can agree that the costs of overtime are out of whack"

DiIanni:  Is there an industry or municipal standard, and are we indeed out of whack?..a good thing to include in report

Braden:  taling about winter control..can you help me to understand why OT is or should be a good deal..I'm interested in value for the buck..tell me how we're going to get better

Crockett:  re winter control, there's a significant amount of planned OT..all staff put into two, eight-hour shifts..if snow, ice etc. happens, each shift can work up to 12 hours..on weekends we rely entirely on OT..no scheduled shifts..OT saves $$

Braden:  "Some overtime is simply abuse"..you'd think that when there is excessive OT, and it becomes public knowledge, that problem would end..hopefully by just mentioning that, the problem of abuse will go away fast

Ferguson:  OT can be split into two branches, emergencies and personnel-driven..with reduced staff, residual staff work OT to get work done..this increases stress on staff, and results in further sick leave and absenteeism and it feeds on itself..many staff work more than their alloted hours and they're not paid OT.."OT is not a cause, it's a symptom".."All this results in increased anxiety and decreased morale"..council has to ask what is the acceptable level of OT..I suggest that the amount budgeted for this last year is appropriate..maybe some areas are underfunded

Whitehead:  Is lieu time agreed on with the contracts?..Does OT reflect lieu time?..if not then OT is in excess of $ 8-9 m

Priel:  I can only answer as it relates to my department..if staff take lieu time rather than cash, the budget forecast will be changed to reflect that..out of $60,000 net cost of OT, about $22,000 is accrued because we don't yet know if people are going to take lieu time

Whitehead:  if staff decides to take lieu time, how is that reflected in  the subsequent budgets or reports?

Peace:  it's not reflected anywhere..it's compounded when you think that managerial staff do not get paid OT, they get 5 days in lieu

Whitehead:  It's safe to say that the $9m that we're looking at is not actually reflecting the amount of OT..this concerns me..we're not getting an accurate picture..would like to see that reflected in the report..Would job-sharing have an impact?..has been trying to track amount of absenteeism since amalgamation, WSIB claims and people leaving..Have 12 hour shifts been considered?..

Peace:  hours of work and job-sharing part of the collective agreement..we do have these policies (Mark ?)

Morelli:  concerned about things like Fleet and Transit..don't have as good a feel about them..Does management get a report by the month with respect to OT?

Peace:  this year variance reports more regular than in past..variance report defines operating budget line by line..flags where you are in comparison to budgeted OT

Morelli:  Do we have a variance report for the first quarter? (answer- don't have variance report, because budget not set yet)..Is there some feel about whether OT is out of whack already?..most in private sector receive these reports very quickly.. with respect to management staff, many senior managers overworked, but don't say much because they love their work

DiIanni:  good discussion and better understanding..we need a detailed report

Ferguson:  For budget purposes can we set the 2004 OT budget at $ 5m and ask for monthly variance reports?

(moved by Ferguson, seconded by Whitehead)

Merulla:  How do we derive $ 5M?..Is that number acceptable?

Rinaldo:  proposed budget is $ 6.9 m..bulk of increases in Public Works and Emergency Services

Merulla:  Wouldn't it be more feasible to ask for a report to determine where we could potentially cut?..I'm not sure I can support the motion

Peace:  The councillor's suggestion has some merit..allow us an opportunity to report back on areas we believe we could find..this would be more productive

Collins:  I'd like to see the committee deal with the root problems..we've put off the employee bonuses programme..no savings there..would staff come back with an explanation of what service impacts there would be if we reduce certain parts of the organization before the budget's set?

(Ferguson contemplates taking motion off the floor, but there is further discussion)

Jackson:  I want to support Councillor Ferguson's motion..what are the realized savings we could use from that motion towards this year's budget?

Rinaldo:  about $ 1.5 m

Jackson:  Those are the kinds of savings I'm looking for

Peace:  There will be service reductions

Whitehead:  If we start doing this with every piece of the pie, we'll be waiting for reports until next March.. i'd like to set the target, then ask what services would be affected.. 9asked colleagues to support motion  

Mitchell:  would support this as well, but issue won't go away

Ferguson:  If there was an outbreak of chicken flu in Carluke, what position would you be in to react to it?

Priel:  We budget as tight as we can..no room for surge..I'm down to about $ 5,000

Pearson:  We have to set a timeline for this report..Friday?

Whitehead:  I can support the report, but with reluctance..I can respect Joanne's challenges, but they're not necessarily the same challenges faced by other departments..I think staff can find the savings, and I don't think the impacts will be that severe..I'll back off on the motion, but I'd like the report to come sooner rather than later

Merulla:  ideal situation would be to have 0 overtime and fill vacancies, rather than set an artificial target

DiIanni:  We're looking at 2 reports..one is being handled through CAC, and the other is where we set the OT budget at $ 5m and find out what the impacts of that will be

Hiring of Consultants

Merulla suggested cutting this budget by $5m, but Peace felt that a 25% cut was unrealistic.  A large percentage of consulting costs are attributed to capital expenditures..this has to do with a lot of labour issues as well.  Merulla stated that they have been waiting for a report on consulting issues for 1 year, actually 4 years in total, and they can't really move forward on this issue, and significantly reduce the budget.  DiIanni said that they have the information on what the impacts would be, but they would have to go through both the operating and capital budgets.  Any decision on a reduction in the consulting budget would be council's decision, based on staff input.  Horvath suggested a practical approach, noticing that since amalgamation there has been a tendency to hire consultants rather than rely on in-house knowledge.  She has personally watched a particular capital project double because of hiring out for the survey, the general plan, the detailed plan, (it's a park).  In the private sector there has been a trend to doing things more in-house, and she suggested that it was time to get back to this, not only because of costs, but because of time frames.  "I'll support finding interim savings, but what is our corporate strategy?"  Peace said that they would take direction from council, while Crockett's comments were that contracting out was not so much a philosophy, but trying to find the optimum balance.  He gave examples of having to go outside for expertise in waste water treatment plant design, but looking in-house for the design of water and sewer replacement programmes.  His guess is that they are in a 50/50 split between in-house design and contracting out.  The Red Hill Valley project is probably delivered by about 90% from a consultant perspective, and another thing that drives the percentage is the increase in the capital programmes.  

Horvath:  "When projects are taking four years to complete...your credibility as a deliverer of service is reduced.  I don't think that that is a staffing issue, I think it's a systemic issue.  High reliance on consultants drags out the timing of a project, and bumps up the cost."  She moved that staff do a complete analysis of that aspect of consulting.

Bruckler:  recognizes the diversity and complexity of municipal services, and supports the strategic utilization of consultants as they bring experience and creativity

Whitehead:  suggested that they have a snapshot, categorizing consultants..that it should be broken down more than just into operating and capital..knows of a former staff member who's making more money in the outside world doing consulting, and he certainly had the expertise when he was at the City.."Some good staff have left City Hall."..What are we paying a good consultant on average an hour? (Answer: it varies, but as a general rule, consulting charges are 2x those of staff)..We contract lawyers left, right and centre.  "That wasn't always the operation here at City Hall."

Mitchell:  "I'd like to be reincarnated into a consultant when I come back the next time."..he had to do an RFP to get the company write the RFP (on a project for energy conservation for the city)..commented on the talent of the staff, but feels that the philosophy has to be changed

Collins:  wanted to know how they could determine the need for consultants for 2004, department by department..we need to know whether we spent money wisely..we have to have a good understanding of priorities

McHattie:  spoke in support of Horvath's concerns ie. the cut in employees and use of outside expertise..do we want to continue to go down this road..I have concerns from a sustainablility perspective.."Can we control our own destiny?'..let's look at other cities and find out if other approaches are working..council has a responsibility for choices..Red Hill is a perfect example of how consultants' costs have been driven up

Horvath made the motion that staff be directed to provide a report which outlines a complete analysis of the use of consultants to determine cost-effectiveness of outsourcing consulting work versus performing work in-house and that this report further differentiate routine project consultants versus extraordinary or highly specialized consultants and cost differentials by these categories.  McHattie seconded the motion and it was passed.

From here on is from about 2:30pm onto the end of the meeting, which was about 3:50 pm

McCarthy:  " . . .to carry that charge on the municipal level?"

Staff:  "I believe there's a report approved during 2003 which laid out the parameters from which the City would be responsible for certain infrastructure in a sub-division."

Rinaldo:  "That is common for these kind of developments.  There's some over-sizing.  And, that is not attributable to that particular development.  So, you tend to fund it that way.  Well, I think most municipalities do it that way, as well."

Staff (different again from before Rinaldo I think) :  "If I could add to that, Mr. Chairman.  This was, Councillor McCarthy, this was part of the financial  [speaker corrected] new financial policies for development approved by Council last year. And it dealt with he City's share of park frontages, for example, over-sizing of arterial roads, greater depth of pavement for transit routes . . .half the cost of park fencing if we wanted.  So, it's really . . .and it's basically D.C. [development charges] funded.  So, it's the City's share of sub-divisions.  But, you're right, the primary costs are paid for out of [speaker's correction] by the developers."

Horwath:  ". . .It's just regarding the City's Solid Waste Master Plan
(http://www.hamilton.ca/public-works/
Waste-Management/SWMMP/Documents.asp) issues and in the discussion, it's become evident that we're hopeful that the Federal government and perhaps the Provincial government with be opening up their pocket books for municipalities - particularly around infrastructure dollars.  And that's good news.  But, I guess one of the things that I'm concerned about, and, it's come to my attention through a couple of meetings I've had with people in our local community around how we as a municipality pitch our projects to the other levels of government- particularly the Federal government.  And, it harkens back to the discussion earlier today around the way that our municipal goals and objectives reflect those being set by other levels of government.  And, specifically the initial discussion we had this morning with Linda Harvey around 'Vision 2020' and around sustainability issues and she had spoken . . .about how we align or how we are perceived to be aligned with the objectives of other levels of government.  So, particularly with the Federal level of government, things like Kyoto, but also their commitments . . . to the sustainability of our country.  And, one of the things that was brought to my attention by a local community organization is the extent to which, or that lack of extent to which we have a relationship or an established opportunity, or established connection with the bureaucrats.  So, bureaucrat to bureaucrat; staff to staff at the Federal level that create the policy and create the accountability for that policy being implemented in their program funding.  So, it's an issue I think we need to address, I think.  And, it's a way that we can start working towards making sure that the Federal Government knows that we are similarly aligned and that their bureaucrats are supporting our projects when it comes to recommendations because they see the synergies or they see the way that their policies are being implemented at our local level.  And, so I'm putting it out there . . .First of all do we have those connections and if we do, that's great; if we don't, can we put together a plan of how  to get that happening to make sure that we are taking advantage of every opportunity possible? And, again, I don't know where that lands.  But, I don't want to end up where we ended up with the initial Superbuild fiasco, where we didn't apply for the money and we didn't get what we needed.  And, I guess there's opportunities,  probably, that have existed over the last couple of years, that if you know who to talk to and if you know how to pitch, and if you're pitching in the right way - you're getting the money.  And, I think we need to focus more on that and particularly in light of some of the things that Linda was saying this morning in regards to the other levels of government and their plans.  So, Mr. Chairman, I don't know if there's any response to that from staff, but I think it's important, we can't miss that."  

Collins (acting Chair): " I think a lot of that applies internally as well."

DiIanni:  "And, I'm sorry, I didn't catch the beginning, Councillor Horwath, of your comments, but part of the of the observation is around the connection between our order of government and the other two orders of government as well.  And, the relationships can certainly always be improved.  But, I can tell you, just talking at the political level, I'm not sure about at the staff level, but I can tell you at the political level that the various representatives are certainly at this point, saying the right thing.  What we don't have in terms of wanting to help the municipality, in terms of wanting to come forward with programs that are of assistance.  What we don't have is an institutionalized process for surfacing priorities that all of us can agree with.  And, we're working at that.  And, by that I mean, how do we connect with our MPPs and our MPs on a regular basis rather than ad hoc in order to talk about the issues that are of importance to us other than through the media or through incidental meetings or through phone calls that we might have.  And, I think that that's where the secret is, if we can align ourselves up in an institutional way so that we can create what Tony Valeri called the 'Team Hamilton' approach that really involved this Council, that not only at the political level, but also at the staff level.  With the corresponding partners at the political and staff levels, we can move agendas forward.  The proof of the pudding, of course, will be not in just the rhetoric and the nice words that are said, but in the actions that follow those words.  And, you know there's going to be a Federal budget tabled in an hour.  We'll see whether municipalities, like ours, are assisted.  We'll see what the Province is able to do in terms of the request that we've made around some budget assistance, as well.  So, I just don't want to leave it there that there is a total disconnect.  In fact, in my estimation, we have a greater connection, right now, than we've had in the last three years, certainly."

Horwath:  - "Mr. Chairman, I don't disagree that at the political level there probably are a lot of great possibilities.  But, the bottom line is, and we know that from where we sit at this table, our staff develop the policies.  They do the research, they have the passion, they're the experts.  They develop the policies; they bring them to us for review and debate.  Sometimes we generate ideas and they go off and develop the policies.  But, for the most part, they're the people that are passionate about the various areas.  And so, at the Federal level and at the Provincial level there are also groups of bureaucrats that do that same kind of work.  And, they have an interest to see their visions and their projects and their policies bear fruit.  And, I just believe, notwithstanding some of the political stuff, that . . . our bureaucrats need to work closely with the Federal and Provincial bureaucrats so that we can show them what we're doing and how our initiatives, and how our projects and how our vision aligns with theirs because then they can help us make sure our proposals are meeting the requirements of their programs.  And, I think that's actually more bureaucratic than it is political.  Then we don't have to be spinning it in the media or doing a big political pout if we don't get what we want.  We can actually make sure that we're at the top of the list because we're following the Kyoto protocols or we're in line with the sustainable principles of Federal Green Funds and I think . . . it's definitely both and I think that the political stuff is being taken care of through the kinds of processes that the Mayor outlines.  But I think there's a big piece that we really do need to get at in terms of working very closely at the bureaucratic level.  Thanks, Mr. Chairman."

Collins:  "Thank you. Councillor Whitehead . . ."

Whitehead:  "Thank you, Mr. Chair.  The comment was made: 'The Team Hamilton Approach.'  And, it's not very original because I was involved in the 'team Hamilton approach' back in the Bob Rae days and, in fact that was when the MPs met and the MPPs met on a regular basis with not only the Mayor, but with the Council.  And, I haven't seen that taking place, yet.  But, it'd be comforting to have that opportunity to sit down as a collective group to have open dialogue and discussions about issues that impact on municipalities.  So, it's not new; it's not original.  The reality is, is that we did have a team Hamilton - and I remember the phrase, the whole bit, back in the '90s - So, having said that . . .further to Councillor Horwath's comments.  I had the experience working at both the Provincial and Federal government levels.  And, I got to see a lot of programs that municipalities . . . were participating in that, in fact, Hamilton wasn't.  And, whether it was lack of resources, lack of knowledge, lack of expertise.  I'm not clear what the . . .  causal issues were, but the reality is were losing out on opportunity.  And, in fact, I'm actually moving along trying to access some pilot programs at different levels of government - but my point is, that maybe we should take a look at, within the bureaucracy, how we can identify maybe, an individual that [can] work with the municipal and provincial level that would develop the expertise in all programs, through the municipal and provincial level, because I don't think we're taking advantage of those programs to the level of other municipalities.  I know that from my own experience.  And, I think that we need to show focus, because I think that position would pay for itself, quite frankly, if we had an individual that had that kind of expertise.  So, I would certainly suggest that we take a look at that so that we can access programs over and above the standard programs of Superbuild and Infrastructure."

- "The second point that I was going to make is that over a number of years, we know, and this is through to Joe, through the Chair.  The last number of years, we know that there's been a level of participation from both the Provincial and Federal levels of government in respect to Superbuild or Infrastructure - or whatever they want to name the program - there was an amount of dollars for capital that came into the community.  I don't know what the percentage is, but . . . as long as the municipality's been around, there's been a percentage of dollars in capital that came from both levels of government - year in, year out.  The problem is that we never know what the level's going to be.  I think there's been a commitment, or at least a suggestions, that the Federal government, at least, will put out, lay out some kind of a stable program that municipalities will realize the amounts of dollars they'll have or at least an idea of the ballpark from year to year to year for budget purposes.  And, of course that doesn't exist to day - be certainly helpful in this exercise.  The question through to Joe, is in fact, since we know what, well, we should be able to know, determine the low, the medium and the high end of what we received in funding in respect to capital in the past years.  Could we not, somehow, incorporate in brackets or hyphen, what [the] number would be so that we can sort of incorporate it, or at least have in in the back of our minds as we go through this process in respect to budget and capital."

Joe Rinaldo:  "Through you, Mr. Chairman, in the past, the Province and the senior levels of government, used to give us sustainable funding on program[s] -  a good example is the road program.  At one time, the municipalities used to get 50% funding on the road programs.  And, you knew that was a program.  It was subject to a maximum allocation you could rely on it.  The problem you have today, is that they are special announcements every time.  And for us to be able to build that into the budget, I think is, is, well, I'd be cautious of doing it, because you don't know whether you'll get 'em or not.  I'm optimistic, obviously, that maybe this afternoon, and all that, and if they do that, we obviously would revise the budgets accordingly.  But, because they don't have a sustainable funding level for various types of programs, like they did in the past, most municipalities, including Hamilton, don't include those numbers in the budgets until they know that they actually got the allocation."

Whitehead:  "That's fair, I would suggest, strongly, Mr. Mayor, through the political level and certainly though the bureaucratic level, civil service level, that we encourage the level[s] of government to provide the security and the sustainability in regards to projecting our budget needs.  So, from year to year that we have some idea of the areas that they're going to focus on - I think this is consistent with what Councillor Horwath had indicated - the areas that they'll be focussed on so that . . . would help us and assist us in our budget deliberations.  We're not there yet.  I think they've been talking about it, but I think we need to push 'em a little harder so that we can do it from a planning perspective.  Thank you."

DiIanni:  " . . . I don't disagree with that, I mean, I think, I think the alignment at the various levels, the civil service level and the political level is extremely important and the connection between ourselves and our own staff in pushing projects ahead is extremely important.  I wouldn't  want to leave the impression out there, though, that it, that there's nothing, that that isn't happening at all.  I can tell you that our staff consistently responds to either Federal or Provincial initiatives in terms of infrastructure programs.  And, you know with the last government, we went through the Superbuild program and they had a whole series of applications around that and with this current government, they've got a different way of doing the whole application process, but it's a process that at the bureaucratic level, we're well in tune with.  What's missing, though, and again not to repeat . . . and you know, Councillor Whitehead mentioned the passed successes of the previous team Hamiltons - fine; well and good.  We need a Team Hamilton Approach going forward.  We just can't say, just 'cause it's been done once, it shouldn't be done again or that it's not new, it's not as worthwhile - it absolutely it is.  What we need from the other orders of government - and everybody around this table has talked about this - is the predictability, rather than the one shot deals.  What we need is the constant funding levels for targeted programs that come in year in and year out.  And, hopefully we'll get there.  I think we're going to get there with the Federal government.  I have some hopes in terms of the budget that's being tabled this afternoon.  I don't know - maybe my hopes are bigger that they should be - but I do have some hopes that there will be something there for us.  And, we haven't seen anything from the Provincial government.  I hope that they do that, as well.  So that it's sustainable, predictable and we can actually plan.  'Cause, at the bureaucratic level, until they get their marching orders from the political side, what planning are they able to do.  And, similarly with our own staff, here.  So that's part of the alignment that needs to happen.  And, hopefully, it will, Mr. Chairman."

Collins:  " I have Councillor[s] Bruckler, Ferguson and Jackson for a second time."

Bruckler:  "Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Some quick points, with respect to what's been said by Mayor DiIanni and . . . about a  Team Hamilton - or even an approach by and individual.  I think earlier in the budget process I'd asked who among staff were sort of responsible for grant applications ("like I see"? - not sure what Bruckler said)  the departments had that.  And, I do too think that in addition to the political lobbying or political Team Hamilton approach, that I think there can be funds realized that come back to this municipality - not just the high profile grant projects, but some of the other projects.  And, not even, not even perhaps just at the governmental levels.  But there are other funds.  There are philanthropic organizations, then there are other community organizations that can give money back to the municipalities or other organizations.  So, I too think that by designating an individual, whose responsibility is nothing but to search out and to liaise with the various departments and trying to maximize the amount of money that we bring in to this City would be crucial because . . . we're often looking at where we can save, but I think another way of doing it is where we can acquire additional funds to make some of our projects actually become realized."

- "One of the things that's always concerned me with respect to other levels of government for a good number of years is that because the projects seem to be down-loaded  . . . either  to the provincial level or to the municipal level and I think a dollar that starts off in Ottawa, by the time it gets down to the local level is not a dollar anymore.  So, perhaps, that's one of the messages that the Mayor can take with the Team Hamilton and with the Federal individuals, how can we reduce the amount of administration related to the various projects that ultimately end up at the local level, without spending it at the higher levels of . . . government.  And, l guess, involvement in the past on many occasions, I know that there's an awful lot of money spent with respect to the administration of those projects and not enough with the actual delivery of the product of those intended projects.  So, that's perhaps one of the other messages."

-  ". . .Just going back to this individual - perhaps that's something that C.M.T. (Corporate Management Team) could take under advisement to look at, if it is viable, in order to create a position that could liaise with the various departments and report through whatever department to determine whether or not it is, in fact, feasible for this municipality to assign one individual to take on that responsibility of funding specific projects for the corporation."

Collins:  "Thank you Councillor.  Councillor Ferguson . . ."

Ferguson:  "[Mr.] Chairman, I'd like to move 4.1"

Collins:  "I have one other speaker, Councillor.  I have Councilor Jackson after you.  Do you want to hold your motion? . . .I take that as a yes."

[I'm not sure if there was a visual from Ferguson to Collins.  I heard a "yep" and a "'kay"  I think the yep came from Collins, and the 'kay came from Ferguson, but I'm not sure,it may have come from Jackson who may have said 'kay as an acknowledgement that it was okay for him to begin speaking.]

Jackson:  "Am I on? . . . Thanks, Mr. Deputy Mayor.  I had a couple of questions under Transit, Mr. Deputy Mayor.  I noticed that the capital plan over the next 10 years is about a $70 million gross vehicle replacement program for transit and DARTS - starting with about four and a half million net this year and I presume that is part of the presentation that Joe gave then - that four and half million net would be part of that.  Mr. Deputy Mayor, 10 years ago, if I recall, when I was here on regional council, we embarked on a program of compressed natural gas buses.  We were told that was the greatest thing since sliced bread and we did our best to acquire more and more natural gas busses.  I remember at the presentation  - the first presentation budget, by Mr. Crockett about a month, month and a half ago, at your committee, Mr. Deputy Mayor, that I asked some questions after he and Don Hall had presented that they might need an overhaul of vehicle transit. . . you know, fuel was an issue, that it wasn't years ago and exorbitant costs, and this thing.  Before I even think of embarking down a new road, a new plan, I thought that staff were going to come back to your committee Mr. Deputy Mayor, with a report, outlining what's been good and bad in the last 10 years, with our current inventory, and then for committee in council to make a decision.  But, I see already, four and a half million is, is included here in 204.  So, can somebody please, through you Mr. Deputy Mayor, to Mr. Crockett, give me an explanation on that, please."

Crockett:  "Through you, Mr. Chairman,  The capital program, takes into account, exactly what we've been doing for the last number of years, in terms of the 18-year replacement cycle on our conventional transit fleet.  I believe it's a 12-year replacement cycle on the DARTS vehicles and the natural gas vehicles.  So all that stuff is built exactly the way council policy is today. Before we buy the next series of busses, we will be reporting to you on the 18-year life cycle and on the natural gas versus the 2007 diesel - or 2006 diesel, I'm sorry, the California diesel standard, so that Council can give us some direction in terms of where we should go with those policies, before we embark on our next purchase of any of that fleet."

Jackson:  "So, Peter, then when I'm looking at the chart, here, over the news 10 years with the gross amount of 70 mil[lion], that's just a current continuation of council's existing policy and plan, without presupposing that we might be going in a different direction, which would be presupposing your report coming back to committee.  Through you Mr. Deputy Mayor."

Crockett:  "Yes. Through you Mr. Chairman, we're not presupposing anything.  That's . . . what we built is simply based on the current policies.  We'll be  reporting back to get direction before we make any purchases in the event that policy needs to change."

Jackson:  "All right, Peter, thanks very much.  Thanks, Mr. Deputy Mayor."

Collins:  "Thank you, I have no further speakers on the report.  Moved to receive the information that has been presented.  Councillor Ferguson, you were moving that, seconded by Councillor Bruckler.  All those in favour - carries.  Thank you."

DiIanni:  "Thank you Councillor Collins for [your] good work, Councillor Ferguson."

Ferguson:  "Mr. Mayor, I moved 4.1 and the Chairman restated it saying it's received.  I moved it."

DiIanni:  "Oh . . . um, okay, so you moved approval of the Capital 4.1 report.  Do you have a seconder for that?  Councillor Bruckler.  Questions or comments? Um, we'll wait for him to sit down and . . . go ahead, Councillor Braden. . .Councillor Collins, the motion was to approve 4.1 not to receive it.  So, that's what we're talking about.  Councillor Braden, go ahead."

Braden:  (didn't turn on his microphone right away). . . "in fact I thought receipt was the appropriate motion.  So . . .you know, if we want to start this whole debate all over again, then we can do that.  I don't think that's what we really want to do.  If we want to receive this and sort of send on a budget or something . . .

DiIanni: "Well, this is the budget.  That's the thing.  But, where are we procedurally?  I understand your point.  Where are we procedurally"

Kevin Christenson (City Clerk):   "Through you, Mr. Mayor, you have your list, of the budget list of issues and concerns that we had amended the agenda to proceed with those initially.  We haven't got into the agenda itself, yet, for Committee of the Whole on March 23rd and the 26th here where we had adoption of the minutes and the budget discussion.  However, you have had the presentation from Mr. Rinaldo on the Capital.  The issues that were identified underneath that:  the Red Hill Creek Expressway;  Immediate servicing of industrial parks; Capital budget; Internal and external debts; and Reserves if you feel that that debate has been sufficient, then the motion is in order, as put by Councillor Ferguson."

DiIanni:  "The fact that we moved to receive and actually voted on that, procedurally, where are we with that?  But, Councillor Ferguson is saying that that's not the motion he made.  But, we voted on that motion."

Ferguson:  "The motion I made was to approve 4.1."

DiIanni:  "All right . . . help us out procedurally."

Kevin Christenson:  "Procedurally, Mr. Mayor, I think it's appropriate for the mover to ask that Council reconsider what it's already done based on what is the intent of his motion was.  So, I think it's in order to have that motion put in front of Council appropriately, right now as is what the intent of the mover was."

DiIanni:  "All right, so, and Councillor Ferguson has done that, seconded by Councillor Bruckler.  So, we do have a motion to approve 4.1.  I'll take debate on that.  Councillor Braden."

Braden:  "We're following this outline that, in fact, you sir, in fact, I think, suggested.  And, we put suggestions in.  So we went through the first five, this morning.  Then we went to Capital and Capital says refer to 4.1.  So, I think what we did, I think what we did is, well, we talked a lot about the expressway and we talked a some about the Capital budgets.  I don't think we talked much about internal or external debt or reserves - much about it, but we glanced over it.  So, I'm not, I'm not sure if we're sort of following this schedule that we're following this morning, or if we're taking in isolation, then the Budget and just dealing with 4.1"

DiIanni:  "Okay, . . . well, I was asked the question - and then I'll take the point of order, if that's okay, Councillor Whitehead - the speaking, or at least the issues list didn't preclude anybody from making recommendations or motions on any of those points and in fact, we had a couple that were made.  And so, with 4.1 we could have left it as a discussion.  But, it's been duly moved and seconded that we actually approve it.  So, it's entirely appropriate in my estimation as chair that we entertain that motion.  Now, whether we pass it or not, depends on the will of this group, right?  So, on the order, on the point of order, though."

Whitehead:  "Mr. Mayor, we were going through your list.  We weren't going through the agenda per se.  So, I think it's in order - or, it's not in order, in fact, at this point to be passing a, a, because we'll be dealing with that when we get into the formal agenda.  So, I think for the sake of the discussion issues that you put forward that's exactly what they are and that's how we should be going through them.  And then, we will have time and opportunity, once we get into the formal agenda to pass those resolutions at that time."

DiIanni:  "Okay, uh, but, but, procedurally, it's okay for a Member of Council to say they want to approve an agenda.  What that might do is lead us into an intensive examination of that report, more than you've had over the last while.  Which is totally understandable.  But, I'm saying procedurally, we have a motion that is quite acceptable.  Councillor Horwath."

Horwath:  " . . . It was just on a similar procedural issue, Mr. Mayor, as to whether or not the appropriate amount of debate has occurred on the issues that were listed on the chart.  In fact, we only got into the capital discussion because we didn't want to go in camera and clear out the chamber the minute we got back here.  So, we didn't even finish off, all the corporate issues.  We started talking . . . our initial discussion around the list of capital issues was the Capital Budget Presentation.  We had a discussion about some of the items that Joe brought forward in his audio-visual presentation.  We haven't even started ticking off any of the items on this list.  So, we have about three different things going on at once.  And, it's a bit, I think, awkward.  And so, I believe, that we . . . if we made a commitment at the beginning of this meeting to deal with these issues as they were listed out, then we should at least bring them up.  But, if nobody wants to talk about Red Hill Creek Expressway (native treaties); and nobody wants to talk about Immediate servicing of industrial parks; and nobody wants to talk about Capital budget - I guess we already talked about that a lot - do you know what I'm saying, Mr. Mayor, then, then, I think it's appropriate to say, okay, well we've really dealt with all that through Joe's presentation and now we should go to 4.1.  I just think there's too many different things going on at once.  And, I just get the sense that we should decide if we're going off the blue agenda [formal list included with original agenda -
http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Mar23%20and%2026/Agenda.pdf]
or if we are going off he white agenda [list of issues handed out that day - not on the City's website yet as far as I can tell] and move on from there."

DiIanni:  "Gee I, and I didn't mean to confuse the issue.  Councillor Collins, do you want to come back to the Chair, (DiIanni smiling, in jest)  No?  The issue, and the Clerk just helped.  In terms of the process of talking about each of those things, we're varying from it, because now we're into a report per se.  All I'm saying as Chair, is that it's appropriate for a member of this group to make the kind of motion that Councillor Ferguson made - whether we agree to the motion or not, is up to the group.  And, the group may wish to say, look, let's go back, just to simply receiving.  We're talking about them.  Or, indeed, the group may say, look, we know enough; we've heard enough;  I want to approve the Capital Report.  And then, as we approve the rest of the budget, there's nothing to stop us from going back into some individual items as well, before everything is put to rest.  So, it's entirely up to the group.  But, procedurally, it's a motion that's appropriately on the floor unless it's removed.  Councillor Ferguson."

Ferguson:  "Mr. Mayor, that's fine.  I see the bullets under 'Capital' on the white paper and in my opinion, they're all addressed in recommendations (1) through (i)  [I think Councillor Ferguson meant to say (a) through (i) - see page 2 of the agenda for March 23 & 26, 2004, Item 4.1 '2004 City of Hamilton Capital Program - revised OPTION D 2004-2013 Capital Forecast (FCS04049)', and on page 1 & 2 under Recommendations on the actual Forecast website:
http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Mar23%20and%2026/
FCS04049%202004%20CAPITAL%20BUDGET%20-
%20REVISED%20OPTION%20D.pdf]
  That's why I made the motion to approve recommendation 4.1"

DiIanni:  " . . .Let's focus, then, on that recommendation.  And, if people want to speak to it, they certainly may . . ." (audio tape stopped.)

Braden:   " . . . You get pretty strongly the warning from Finance Department, that we need to be careful.  And, I've got them all high-lighted in yellow.  If you would like to see a couple, then I'm happy to bring them to your attention.  But, you've read the report, right?  There's a pretty strong warning here that's been pretty consistent for about 2 or 3 years.  My interest . . .I hear the argument made that this is going to be for economic development reasons.  And really, if you could make that argument with me, you know, I'd probably go for it.  But, we've now extinguished that whole argument.  We've had the Hemson guy here who said, said in his words, 'If you don't build the road and you don't service the parks, you don't get any jobs.'  If you hear what I asked Joe: where is that $30 or $40 or $50 or $100 million for the parks, with one exception in Stoney Creek, we really don't have any money for future jobs.  We have zero.  This project by itself - we want to look holistically - but by itself, this project - just ask Neil Everson or anybody else in the front line there - doesn't provide any jobs.  It does provide a lot of green field development.  You need to decide if that's good or bad.  It's a huge whack of money.  But, there's a part - and I want to go through this and I know I'll lose you, if it's . . .let me, let me just try anyway, 'cause it's important and all I can do is do my best.  I talked to the Mayor last week and gave him the best book on the future of energy supplies.  I'm not giving him a, you know, a cross examination now if he's read it or what's in it (DiIanni in background:  "Don't give me a test just yet.")  No, no, no.  But, very clearly, the whole world economy, in the next 10 years, is going to turn.  And, it's going to turn rapidly.  And, that's what the people that are really knowledgeable think.  I think it's also what they know.  And, the concept of fossil fuels when we can't afford them is so scary, that no one wants to address it.  I suggest to you those people that are optimistic, or positive that we can change our technology as fast as the Chinese and Indian economies grow, is very risky and in my words, just simply stupid.  Within a few years, and we have a consultant. The IBI group (this group is referenced under the City Wide Transportation Master Plan site, with the actual person being Brian Hollingworth  - 
http://www.hamilton.ca/public-works/capital-planning/
city-wide-tmp/default.asp,
and the website of IBI is:  http://www.ibigroup.com) came and I don't think many people were here.  But, the city sponsored a meeting at LIUNA Station, at which IBI - and that's a very, very well-known international consulting group said, you know, the energy crunch is coming (hear talking in the background) - I don't want to talk about the energy crunch, I just need a couple of minutes . . . I, I don't mean to bore anybody (hear more talking in the background - someone, Councillor Whitehead, I think says: "that's not on a Point of Order") Okay, I can be interrupted, but, I'm trying to be reasonable, here."

DiIanni:  "Well, it's, it's a point of order but should I recognize Points of Order in the middle of somebody's debate?"  (In the background, again, I think it was Councillor Whitehead in the background:  "I don't know if that's appropriate")

Braden:  "Pardon me?" DiIanni:  "All right, let me recognize the Point of Order." Braden:  "Okay."

DiIanni:  "Go ahead."

Whitehead:  "I don't think this debate is appropriate until we determine exactly where we're at.  And, I'm not sure where we're at, at this point.  My understanding is that a motion was approved by Council to receive.  Now, I think we heard from the Clerk, that the mover of the motion, could, in fact, change the motion after Council supported the received motion.  I'd like to dispute that.  I hate to do that with the Clerk, but it's my understanding of due process, that if a motion is put and approved by the majority of Council and if, in fact, the mover of the motion wants to change that motion - or at least, [if] it was misinterpreted - then we need a new motion, or we need two thirds vote or something.  I mean I don't, I think we need to resolve this issue."

DiIanni:  "Let's, let's, okay - I thought we had resolved it, but let's get clarification on it."

Kevin Christenson:  "Through you, Mr. Mayor, it was clearly the intent of the mover.  And, the mover asked for a point of order and questioned the Acting or, the Deputy Mayor at the time, as to what he had presented to Council to vote on.  And, we asked for clarification from Councillor Ferguson as to the intent of his motion.  And, he clearly indicated that it was simply that he wanted to have it accepted as 4.1 be approved.  And the motion that was put to Council by the Acting, or Deputy Mayor was that it be received.  So, that's where we were getting clarification and the intent of the mover was in writing, or it is intended to be in writing - we haven't got that yet - but that was clearly what Councillor Ferguson had intended."

DiIanni:  "So, so did we vote on his intention; or, did we vote on his words?  Mr. Clerk?" Kevin Christenson:  "I'm sorry?" DiIanni:  "Did we vote on the intention; or, did we vote on the words?" Kevin Christenson:  "What you voted on was what the Acting Chairman had put forward to the Committee at the time, was to receive." DiIanni:  "So, given that we voted on that and that was not the intention, how do we fix that, now?" Kevin Christenson:  "Well, that's, that's where you have this Point of Order and the Point of Order by Councillor Ferguson was to clarify what his intent to put before Council was." DiIanni:  "And now that we've got that clarified." Kevin Christenson:  "And that's, that has been agreed upon by the Chairman, that that is correctly what the Council should have voted on at the time.  So, that's what you're debating." DiIanni:  "And, so now we're debating the approval motion." Kevin Christenson:  "Correct, Correct."

DiIanni:  "Okay, Councillor Whitehead, (somebody speaking in background to the Mayor - I'm not certain who) right? sorry, you were in mid-sentence (to Braden)."

Whitehead:  "No it's not, because regardless of the position put forward by the Councillor, the majority of this Council voted for the, the, the . . ." DiIanni:  "Now, but hang on for a sec, I'm just going to interrupt you because . . " Whitehead:  ". . .the wording of . . ." DiIanni:  " . . .I understand that.  But, according to what the Clerk. . . Whitehead:  "It doesn't matter . . ." DiIanni:  "the Clerk looks to the Chair to make a call, to make an interpretation and my interpretation, based on the recommendation I've heard, is that the approval motion is in order.  So, I recognize that that's the debate that we're having.  If you disagree, if you disagree with that, then I guess, what, the Chair has to be challenged?"

Kevin Christenson:  "Ya, there's a couple of issues here.  One, I don't think Council was clear on what it was voting on, and that's, that's, that's the issue here.  And, there was not a motion before Council based on the mover and the seconder for what you voted on.  That's, that's the issue that I'm bringing forward, is there, there was not that motion that was intended by the mover was not before Council, okay, it was the interpretation of the Chair.  If Council doesn't agree - and, I've given advice to the Mayor - if you don't agree with the advice and the direction that the Chairman has taken in this regard, then you challenge the Chair."

DiIanni:  "Thank you.  So, you were in mid-sentence."

Braden:  "Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I'm not sure where that sentence was, but let me just, you gotta just, only you can do your best, right?  So, let me just, bear with me, and I won't keep you too long.  And the reason I'm talking about this is cause I'm basically trying to make the case that this project is well beyond obsolete before it starts.  And, I want you to make the case, all I'm doing is providing information.  Heard about the argument this morning about things need to be sustainable.  Right?  Motherhood.  We buy in.  In the strategic plan of the City, where this community's really deficient, this municipality is in jobs for the future.  That's what a lot of people, including myself and the Mayor have been working on.  I think we were misinformed; or misunderstood the fact that this expressway isn't going to give us the jobs that we need.  Many people have been voting (?) this for 10 or 15 or 20 years or however long they want to pretend that this was going to do the trick.  We now know - and I don't really want to point to staff, up there, but, we've heard that staff are somewhat I think even embarrassed might be the right word.  That we really don't have the money; we don't have the services; there's really no program - with one exception, in Stoney Creek.  We look to the airport, we don't have a program there.  Hemson agrees in three references that we've had no effective job program for 20 years and in one case, he says, none for 40 years.  I and you drive around this municipality and we see the economic development going on in, in places like Brantford - that we used to laugh at - that are flying right by us.  If there's anything we need now, it's jobs.  And, we might need image.  But we need jobs.  My contention is, that if you build the expressway, we're not going to be able to find the money to get the jobs.  If you twist it around - and this isn't just about making choices - instead of putting off the industrial parks and the airport, you service them now and you put off the expressway for 2 or 3 years to see if there's any market; to check whether or not all these assumptions that we're making; to see if they'll come true.  That's the prudent thing to do, and much less risky.  And, it fits all of the stuff about sustainable development:  living within your means; hitting the nail on the head.  The expressway doesn't hit the nail on the head.  Hemson report (staff recommendation:
http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/Mar02/ECO03020.pdf,
and the actual report is:
  http://www.hamilton.ca/public-works/capital-planning/
Red-Hill-Valley-Program/reports/Final-Reports/
One-File-Reports/Ec-Dev-Implications.PDF) and the person that was here, was completely wrong on one issue, when in his report he said it doesn't help any particular group.  Right? That's what the report says.  He's dead wrong.  It helps the land developers, as an identifiable group; and it helps people that commute.  Very clear people, groups, that get a tremendous benefit out of it.  The fact is, you and I have to pay for it.  I'm just suggesting you, in terms of the black and white economic development, this road, will in fact, set us back jobs, rather than move forward.  If you use 10% of the money of the expressway, in Ancaster or Flamborough, or the North Glanbrook Park, or around the airport, we may get real jobs, now.  Keep in mind and remember, that when Neil [Everson - Executive Director, Economic Development] said, you know we got an economic cycle that's going to last about 10 years - forgive me for pointing, and I'm not meaning to point - and then we heard the guy [Ray] Simpson from Hemson say his idea about this economic cycle - and these are sort of crystal balls - might last 15 years.  If you build the expressway, I think the economic cycle's going to be over before you get the jobs.  And, I'm no crystal baller, but I'm an investor and you gotta get the thing in the right order.  I am so sorry if this municipality goes ahead and builds a road, before it builds jobs.  And, I think it's that simple.  That's the only part of the debate I wanted to have, Mr. Mayor."

DiIanni:  "Thank you.  Councillor McCarthy."

McCarthy: "Thank you, Mr. Mayor.  I'm going to request that the items from (a) to (e) be voted, or (a) to (i) be voted on separately.  I think it's fairly predictable where we sit around this table in terms of Capital Projects - specifically, the Red Hill Creek Expressway - and that, myself, Councillor McHattie, Councillor Braden and Councillor Powers and Councillor Horwath are all opposed to the Red Hill Creek Expressway.  But, what I'm requesting, by asking for this item - for these items to be dealt with separately - is nothing more than, really, a stay of execution on the Red Hill Creek Expressway, pending the information that comes from the Province.  I think that that's, that's a reasonable request given that we've made a pitch for Social Service pooling and if, in fact, that money doesn't come through, we're left holding the bag on that.  And, I think at the very least - it might be by as much as the end of the week that we have a better financial picture on where we stand in terms of finances through other layers of government - that to proceed at least with the debate that has taken place today, and allow the staff to get on with what we've accomplished so far, we can go through those items.  But, I will request that - and make another pitch, again - that item (g) (which reads as follows from the recommendations of the Capital Programs report:
http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/
Mar23%20and%2026/FCS04049%202004%20CAPITAL
%20BUDGET%20-%20REVISED%20OPTION%20D.pdf 
- " g) That the 2004 Tax Supported Capital Budget and Financing Plan for the Expressway in the amount $32,909,000 including additional debenture financing in the amount of $17,661,000 as per Appendix 1-14 of Book 1 to Report FCS04011, be approved. " ) be deferred temporarily until we get a clearer picture of where we stand financially with the other two layers of government.  We've heard very clearly what it's going to do to us.  We're literally pulling a rabbit out of our hat trying to finance this, this year - this year, probably more than any year, utilizing and being told that we need all the money in the [Hamilton] Future Fund, doesn't make sense to me.   But, that said, it might be a reasonable suggestion to find out where we are financially with the Province and the Federal government before we go on with such a major financial under-taking."

DiIanni:  "So, Mr. Clerk, did I hear a deferral motion for item (g) then, from Councillor McCarthy?" McCarthy: "Yes." DiIanni: "uhm . . ." McCarthy:  "I'll wait for that deferral motion.  I won't present it right now, but I would like everything voted on separately.  And, if you could come back . . . DiIanni:  "All right." McCarthy:   . . .to me with a deferral on item (g), that would be appreciated." DiIanni:  "Councillor Horwath - not here.  Councillor Powers."

Powers:  "Mr. Mayor, could you give me clarity as to what we're going to vote on, 'cause if it's a motion to, if indeed, clearly what Councillor Ferguson wanted us, was to deal with all of the elements and approve 4.1, then I'll be opposed to it, because I've got about a half an hour of items in there, following your leadership, sir, about a week ago, you talked about,  we looked at Capital Projects, and we had to determine what's affordable and what's unaffordable from that standpoint.  So, I myself, like some of my colleagues here, had gone back and tried to find ways of cutting the capital costs associated with it, the corresponding debt components with them, in order to try to, you know, to reduce this debt this City's burdened with.  So, please just give some instruction . . ."

DiIanni:  "All right, well . . ."

Powers:  "And, I'll support a motion to receive the staff presentation and allow us in the next set to get into it, along with all the other items that we were going to deal with this morning on the sheet that you provided for our discussions.  So, I just need some clarity."

DiIanni:  "Well, I was going to turn to the mover of the motion, but he's, he's bailed on us.  But, from my understanding of the motion, uh, however (in the background someone - I'm not exactly who - says "Councillor Collins is here.")  No, no, the Councillor Ferguson, I meant . . . on this point (to Councillor Collins)?

Collins:  "When we were dealing with this issue, this is the agenda that we were working from.  And, I think that's where the confusion is - we were working from this piece of paper which says 'refer to [Report] 4.1' and then, and I think that's where Councillor Ferguson was referring to the larger Blue Book, but we had been working from this [the sheet of paper] all day.  So, we received a presentation from staff, which is not - I mean technically the information is in 4.1 - but we weren't dealing with specifically the recommendations with 4.1, and I think that's where the confusion lies.  So, in dealing with this second agenda that we have, that's where, we've received the report which - and I understand maybe the intent was something different [than] 4.1 - but the motion was to receive Joe's report that was presented here this morning - I didn't think we were going to actually pass the Capital budget - seeing as how, there are 5, 6, 7 issues related to Capital that we haven't been through on this list.  So, I don't know how . . ."

DiIanni:  "No, I, no, I understand, I understand that.  All I, just to answer your question, all I did was recognize a duly moved and seconded motion." Collins:  "Right." DiIanni:  "Right, and so we're debating that.  Now, the complication and the problem is that people may vote against the motion because they think it's too premature to pass it right now . . ." Collins:  "Fair enough." DiIanni:  " . . . which is a problem.  On the other hand, you know, I'm in your hands, in terms of having moved a motion and seconded it, and recognize . . ."

(not sure who asked this) "Who seconded it"

DiIanni:  "Councillor Bruckler, recognizing that it's legitimate to debate it. Right?  So, on the motion - that's what we're debating right?  Does that clarify it, Councillor Powers?

Powers:  "So, 4.1 (not sure of his reference here, as Power's either didn't have is microphone on or wasn't speaking into it and Mayor DiIanni was also speaking, saying "it's 4.1, that's right, it's essentially" then could hear Councillor Powers go on) what we are voting on for approval."

DiIanni:  "That was the intent of your motion.  Right, Councillor Ferguson?"

Ferguson:  "Ya, could somebody outline what we didn't cover in (1) through (i) (I think Councillor Ferguson meant (a) through (i))  . . .I mean, how long have we kicked this can?"

DiIanni:  "Councillor Morelli."

Morelli:  (Councillor' microphone was off at first, but could hear his voice in another open mic.)  Mr. Mayor, I think the confusion comes, the second we're referring to 4.1 I have (Morelli's microphone comes on) "difficulty, the items outlined in 4.1 from (a) to (i).  I can't picture Murray (referring to Councillor Ferguson) reading each one of these, but I think the fact that he's referring to 4.1 may be confusing the issue.  I'm prepared to accept his motion if he said, 'I'll move this, this , this, this and this," without any reference to 4.1, we should have the flexibility to do that.  And so, let's take 4.1 off the table.  These are the things we want to pass that are outlined in 4.1.

DiIanni:  "I got that from Councillor McCarthy's motion that she'd like us to vote on these individually and we can do that (shuts microphone off, then turns back on). . . uh, yes (I think Mayor is acknowledging Whitehead to speak)."

Whitehead:  "I want to call the question on the motion so we can have the vote, then"

DiIanni:  "Okay, we've called the question on the motion.  All in favour . . ."

Kelly (I think - specific mic. was off) :   "In deference to Councillor McCarthy's suggestion, were you going to do these one by one?"

DiIanni:  "No, he's , yes, absolutely, I was going to, if, well the question is to take a vote on them, and then we take a vote on them one by one, as per Councillor McCarthy's suggestion, right?

McCarthy (I think - mic. was off) :   "Mr. Mayor, you need a seconder"

DiIanni:  "I need a seconder for calling the question - seconded by Councillor Kelly.  All in favour of calling the question - that's carried . . . uh, opposed?"

(Somebody, I'm not sure who - maybe Councillor Mitchell - mic. was off) "don't want to call the question right now, we haven't talked about it enough."

DiIanni:  "All right, all in favour, hang on, all in favour of calling the question?"

Whitehead:   On the new motion (I'm not sure if the preceding is what Councillor Whitehead said, as it was a bit garbled), "can I clarify why we're moving this motion?"

DiIanni:  "Well, no, you, it's a motion to call the question.  That's all it is, right?"

Whitehead:  "the question, sorry, the question,  the question."

DiIanni:  "Let's keep it simple.  It's getting late and we're getting a bit punchy.  Let's keep it simple - all in favour of calling the question raise your hands (DiIanni counts aloud):  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 So, that's, that's carried.  Now, the motion is to - moved and seconded - to approve the items - and we'll do this individually - in report 4.1.  And so, questions, comments on that.  Councillor Ferguson, then Councillor Collins."

Ferguson:  "Could we vote on 'em all, except (g) and vote on (g) separately?'"

DiIanni:  "No, I'm gonna go through them individually, Councillor Collins."

Collins:  "I'd like to include then a, the Capital related to consulting and some of the other issues that we've talked about - we pass this today - we're passing all Capital."

Rinaldo:  "The Capital related to consultants there as I indicated to the Mayor, you know, even if you passed the budgets today, if you ask for additional information, until you actually adopt the budget, you can still do it later.  But, yes, it does include the, the total Capital program."

DiIanni:  "Okay, I'm sensing that, even though, it's the minority of people, they want to be able to discuss before they approve, right.  I mean, I will call the vote on each of these items individually.  But, if there are some items that people really want to talk about, I think it's short circuiting at least that discussion, before we take the vote.  So, so I wonder if, and again, it's your motion, Councillor Ferguson, I wonder if either we can go through and pass those items that we think we can pass and hold in abeyance those that people still want to talk about, if we can ferret that out from these recommendations.  Or,  we simply receive the report and come back at it on Friday."

Ferguson:  "Okay . . ."

DiIanni:  "Councillor Ferguson."

Ferguson:  "Are we receiving this (holds up one document - either the white sheet of paper or blue document 4.1 - not sure which one), or are we receiving this (holds up another document - either the white sheet of paper or blue document 4.1  - not sure which one), or are we receiving the presentation (a copy of the presentation done by Mr. Rinaldo)  - this - what are we receiving?"

DiIanni:  "We're receiving the staff presentation on the Capital Budget."

Ferguson:  "Not to be confused with 4.1"

DiIanni:  "Mr. Rinaldo, how does 4.1 relate to your presentation, which I missed."

Rinaldo:  "The uh, 4.1, my presentation was on 4.1, you can do either or.  You can, quite frankly if you want to receive the presentation, that's fine.  If you want to not deal with 4.1 at this time, that's entirely up to Council

DiIanni:  "Councillor Ferguson"

Ferguson:  "Well, I think 4.1 was covered by this (I'm not sure to which document Councillor Ferguson was referring, but I am thinking it is to the white sheet)  My motion was to approve recommendation 4.1.  We can kick this can for another couple days, I guess, but are we going to, [is] anything going to change . . .No, I'm going to let it stand, I mean . . ."

DiIanni:  "All right, okay, you have every right to do that.  Councillor Mitchell."

Mitchell:  "Can I ask a question on this 4.1, Mr. Mayor?  I've heard a lot of concerns about the debt of this program and so on and so forth, and I guess that's what it's all about.  Then, on page 7 of 9, it talked about the fact that the City's going to have $372 million worth of debt.  And, the province says under the provincial guidelines, we're allowed to have $1.7 billion, which $372 million compared to $1.7 billion is a pretty good ratio - compared to business factors - and then I look at the presentation on page 4 - of the presentation that we had on the screen - it talked about the new development charges review, that we're going to be charging for revenue coming into this city.  And, it listed a bunch of them here.  So, here they are.  But, on another slide, they aren't in the projection past 2005 yet, because we don't know exactly what those figures are going to be.  So, they're not in here, which would make this whole presentation of $372 [million] look somewhat lower if they were and make that ratio even better in the future and then I'm not so sure - and I chair this committee, Mr. Mayor - I'm not so sure that all of the development charge issues are even listed in here, yet.  I know they are going up daily.  Storm drainage is not in here, which can be a couple million dollars added in, as well.  So, to be looking at some of these figures, I'm just a little bit,  there's my question, I'm a little confused on the debt 'cause if you add in those development charges, it lowers that $372 [million]; makes it look a whole lot better and may our rating, bond rating or what knot in the future will be every bit as good as it is today.  And we can accomplish things that we want to do and go forward in a very good and positive fashion.  Wouldn't that be nice?"

DiIanni:  "All right, just procedurally, I was just reminded that we did take a motion on calling the question, And, therefore, I have to call the question.  And so, I'm going to do it, based on the report 4.1 and I'm going to go down the list, as indicated in this particular report and no, there's no debate because I've been asked to call the question, right?

Whitehead:  "I called the question on the motion.  Now, you're making a determination that we go (a) to (z).  What I want to do, is actually defeat this particular motion so that we can go back to receiving the actual report and then getting into the whole issue.

DiIanni:  "The um, the motion was to approve 4.1 - 4.1, if you are approving it, you are approving the recommendations in 4.1.  I've been asked further, but a Member of Council, to take each of those recommendations separately.  So, it's not a question of defeating 4.1, but still having. . . If you defect 4.1, you're defeating those recommendations.  That's  essentially what we're doing.  So, be very careful about the vote, here.  And, I've been asked to do that, it's been approved by Council.  So, I'm going to do that.  So, unless there's a question on process, I'm going to now take the vote on this, Yep, on process."

Jackson:  "Mr. Mayor, can you then help me, explain to me, pre-lunch, we had a discussion on the hiring of consultants, which included capital costs for consultants.  We've asked for information to come back on that.  If that is now part of 4.1, then one's at odds with the other, because pre-lunch we, if you will, put that aside, until we got more information  back,  Mr. Mayor.  So, help me with that, please."

DiIanni:  "Sure, I will.  That motion, put forward by Councillor Horwath, ask us to look at the whole way of doing business, whether hiring consultants; whether doing things in house.  That's a report that's going to govern the way we do business going forward.    I specifically said that it won't affect this particular budget, in terms of the report that was requested, unless - the only way it can affect this particular budget - is if we go to an individual item around constancy and change it in some way.  That report is going to help us going forward, not with this budget.  It was not going to come back to us in time for this budget.  Right?

Jackson:  "Mr. Mayor, that's fair, but if there's dollars included in 4.1 for outside consultants for Capital Projects then doesn't that fly in the face of the future of Councillor Horwath's motion, if were presuming dollars in the 2004 already for capital costs and projects for consultants.

DiIanni:  "Not really, because that motion is  post 2004 budget

Jackson:  "It's beyond, 2004?"

DiIanni:  "That's right - post"

Jackson:  "All right."

DiIanni:  'Okay, no, I've got to call the question because you ordered me to, right?  And, the clerks are looking at me and saying, ' why aren't you getting on with it.  Right?'"

Ferguson:  "I want to change [my - I'm not exactly sure what word(s) Councillor Ferguson used)] motion to a notice of motion."

DiIanni:  "So, you're withdrawing the motion.  Mr. Clerk, what's he done to us now?  (laughter) What's he done?"

Kevin Christenson:  "You're asking me?" (a lot of laughter)

DiIanni:  "I'm afraid to ask him."

Kevin Christenson:  "Mr. Mayor, we do have a motion before Council.  If, I would suggest that, right now, the motion that you are dealing with right now is that you called the question, and it was appropriately approved by Council to do so.  If someone would like to move reconsideration of calling the question, and I know this is going to be a little convoluted and backing up, but I think it's the appropriate thing to do."

DiIanni:  "All right, I think Councillor Ferguson is moving that reconsideration, right? (Ferguson in background.  "No, I moved a notice of motion, no I will move, ya, sure" - (more laughter))  - back to DiIanni:  "And what that does to us is what . . . (repeating from clerk?)  It gives people an opportunity to dig into some of the specific items, which is what I sense they want.  And, it's probably the better way to go at this point, so" (Councillor Ferguson quips in background:  " . . .and, I'd also like to put $20 bucks on" (there'll be another change? - or something like that - more laughter)  DiIanni says "Well, that's a different story, that's a different story.  So, if we reconsider that, now do I need a seconder for that?  (Clerk:  "yes you do.")

"Right, who would like to second that? - Councillor Merulla actually already seconded that.  Point of [Order]"

Whitehead:  "I moved the question.  Can I not just withdraw that? Or, because it was voted on . . ."

DiIanni:  "We're going to get there, hang on, work with me."

Kevin Christenson:  "Mr. Mayor, it's already in the possession of the Committee of the Whole, you've already voted on it.  That's why you're . . "

DiIanni:  So, all in favour of reconsideration for that motion [it must have carried even though the Mayor didn't verbalize it because he when on with the next motion] Right, now I need a motion to receive the staff presentation - Moved by Powers, seconded by Merulla.  All in favour?  That's carried.  Motion to . . .ya let's adjourn.  Motion to adjourn.  Moved by Powers, seconded by McHattie . . . no? Yep.  No, hang on, I have a motion to adjourn.  Hold it, thank you, now."

McHattie:  "Earlier on this morning, Mr. Mayor, we spoke about a motion that I wanted to bring forward.  So, I'd like to do that now, before we shut it down for the day."

DiIanni:  "Please."

McHattie:  "  . . . as we know, public health costs to local municipalities across Canada are not funded by property taxes, but are funded under the income tax source of revenue.  Ontario is the only place where public health costs are funded by the property tax.  Council, as people know, also acts as the Board of Health . . . so we're responsible for all the public health decisions that are made here and if funding is in question, or we're in bad shape financially, that really affects the way this Board of Health can do its job.  It is my understanding that the Province is currently in discussions internally to look at how"

DiIanni:  "Councillor, let's get this on the table officially and appropriately first, before we do the discussion.  Is this a motion, or a notice of motion?"

McHattie:  "This is a motion."

DiIanni:  "In that case I would need, and who's it seconded by?

McHattie:  "Seconded by Councillor McCarthy."

DiIanni:  "Okay, thank you, so firstly, I would need, because it's not on the agenda, I need a motion to introduce this" (tape stopped, didn't catch the names of the mover/seconder introducing the motion)

McHattie:  started to read his motion (not on the web, yet, so, I typed it out from the hand out) 

(Moved by McHattie/ Seconded by McCarthy) CARRIED : 

"(a) That Council write to the Premier of Ontario, Ontario Minister of Health and Long Term Care and Ontario Minister of Finance to request that the provincial portion of board of health budgets be increased to 100% to offset the expenses incurred by municipalities and ensure full compliance in the provision of the Mandatory Health Programs and Sevices Guidelines."

"(b) That a copy of this letter be forwarded to our local Members of Provincial Parliament, the Management Board of Cabinet, the Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Association of Local Public Health Agencies, and all Ontario Boards of Health for information."

DiIanni:  "The question's been called.  Was there any debate?"  All in favour?  Yeas?  That's Carried.  Thank you.  Now a motion to adjourn - Braden . . .  Councillor Mitchell?

Mitchell:  "Under the Deputy Mayor's leadership, we did have a couple of in camera sessions that we were leaving to the end of this meeting.  Are we not going to deal with those?"

DiIanni:  "I think there's some anxiousness to maybe terminate for this afternoon.  We'll pick those up first thing Friday morning.

Mitchell:  "Okay, 'cause it's only ten to four, like we've got lots of time.  I'd like to accomplish something, you know, at least get one of those off the list."

DiIanni:  Well, well I've got a motion to adjourn and it's been seconded by, moved by Councillor Braden, motion to adjourn, seconded by Councillor Jackson.  All in favour?  Against?  That's carried.  We'll pick it up Friday morning."

Adjournment