|
December 8, 2004 Report
1:50-5:30 p.m. (3:55-5:10 p.m. 'in camera')
Budget COW agenda:
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Dec08%20budget/Agenda.pdf
Changes to the agenda:
Three 'in camera' items:
- The appointment of the General Manager of Public Works, Infrastructure and Environment
- A personnel matter
- Review of report from Christine Silverberg regarding
Attendance at Public Portions of the Meeting:
1:50 - 3:55 Public Session :
- Jackson was absent (funeral).
- Kelly out 1X, 11 minutes
- Ferguson out 1X, 5 minutes
- Morelli, McHattie, and Bratina all left about 15 minutes before the end of this portion (don't know about their attendance in camera)
- McCarthy out 1X, 11 minutes total
- Merulla out 2X, 20 minutes total
- Pearson out 2:31-3:55 (don't know about the in camera, but she was present at the session afterwards)
- Whitehead in late at 3:10
5:10 - 5:30 Public Session :
- Merulla, McCarthy, Kelly and Jackson absent.
- Pearson, Ferguson and Morelli left 5 minutes before the meeting adjourned and the Clerk went out to bring Pearson back to achieve quorum.
Item 3.1 2005 Tax Budget Overview and Pressures Power Point Presentation: (copy not yet posted on the city website):
Introductory Speech by Glen Peace (City Manager). Summary: Things have improved since last year. We've turned the corner, but are still facing significant challenges and so must persuade the Province to become permanent partners with us.
Peace : Projecting a 9.5% property tax impact ($31.5M) unless the Province contributes $19.5M, which would bring the increase down to 5.5%. These figures do not include some of the items referred to the budget process by council during the course of the year (for example tree trimming , extra winter control, adding new economic clusters)
Rinaldo : Every $4.86 million in new expenditures equals a 1% property tax impact.
Current Budget Assumptions:
- Full taxation of all classes except industrial. Opportunity to alter the tax burden from class to class. (Reduce multi-residential taxes for example. Also the Province may change the rules this year again re taxing the industrial class ½ of residential rate)
- No property reassessment by the Province (MPAC) for 2005 taxation year, but with phase-ins 1% growth assumed (although he says verbally that this will be actually closer to 1.5-2%)
- Area rating will continue except for storm services (area rating policy report to come during budget process)
- No service/program reductions (no transit fare increase, no ice rate increase)
- Current Provincial funding continuing or improved (new: gas tax $5M, public health $1.3M)
- Police, library, conservation and other agencies funded at 'board approval' levels
- Budget includes: 158 new childcare spaces, homemakers program, 66 more family shelter beds
Current Budget Cost Drivers : 17 items totaling a $51M increase. (Social Services ODSP and Drugs, Salaries and Benefits, Police, Utilities and Fuel, Boards/Agencies, Decreased Future Fund Interest, Decreased POA Revenue, Positive Assessment Growth, More Supplementary Tax Revenue, Roads/Winter Control, Decrease in Payments in Lieu of Taxes, Capital Levy, Risk Management Claims)
Capital Budget Highlights:
Financing plan: Level of debt is still going up, but at a slower rate than previously (graph). There is an increase in non-tax funding sources. Increase in capital costs for existing projects. New funding for tree p lanting program ($1.5M), Bridgewater housing project ($1M), servicing of industrial business parks ($27M).
Additional cost pressures since approval of 2004 budget ($31.1M): Waste management ($16.1M), Red Hill Valley Project ($10M), Facilities ($3M), Wentworth Lodge ($2M)
Additional funding sources: Development Charges $9.7M for 2005, Hydro Dividend $7M, Provincial and Federal gas tax.
2005 Capital budget options: Option A ($208.0M) or Option B ($162.1). Option B assumes a loan of $37M from the Future Fund. (only with approval of the FF Board)
The budget powerpoint presentation can be viewed at
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Finance/Dec8COWPresentation.pdf
Next Steps - Peace:
Discussion:
Merulla asks what will happen if Hamilton doesn't receive the $19.5million from the province (at all or by a certain point in the year). Rinaldo indicates that the city would have to dip into their reserves, which would impact negatively on the interest received from investments. "We would utilize our corporate position to fund it on a temporary basis". Merulla is interested to know how much interest was lost last year due to the September arrival of the $19.5. Rinaldo indicates that it might be less than $1 million, but "I haven't done that calculation yet". Merulla asks if more detailed information on the details of that possibility for 2005 will be forthcoming, and the Mayor says "we'll talk about that in a second".
Merulla states that he believes that public safety is very important - hence reducing the police budget is "beyond our control", but wonders about how to get the budgets of other boards and agencies "under control". The Mayor says that these decisions will be made during Council's budget deliberations - "that means us". Merulla gives notice that he wants to see the amounts for these organizations stay at 2004 levels.
Merulla asks about the implications for residential taxes if commercial taxes were raised 2%. Rinaldo clarifies that the proposed budget assumes the same tax increase (9.5% or 5.5%) to all classes (except industrial), which would include the commercial class. Merulla wonders if Council could increase the commercial taxes even more, and the Mayor says that it's possible. Merulla talks about his experience as a new business person (restaurant) in relation to the amount of taxes he has to pay, saying he'd be "willing to absorb that (an increase) a little bit more personally, but globally I'd like to take the impact away the residential homeowner and put in on the (couldn't hear this bit)". Confusingly Rinaldo states that "the legislation would not prohibit you to increase the commercial class at a higher rate than the residential, because you would affect the ratios and you are not allowed to do that under the current legislation by the Province", but this explanation is not questioned.
Collins is concerned that any budget discussions in relation to boards and agencies occur sooner rather than later to allow for those groups to "reduce or alter their budgets". Peace says that any time after the budget books are delivered (Dec. 15 th ) the "process is in your hands".
Collins asks for clarification on the $7M one-time dividend (listed in capital revenue) as a result of the merger with St. Catharines Hydro, saying that he thought it was to be $10M. Rinaldo explains that "$3M was built into our operating budget - the resolution came to Council to approve - and anything above that is the amount we use for capital."
Collins brings up the issue of how to assess the impact of certain decisions in terms of generating economic improvements. "How are we measuring the success of some of the programs we've counted on in the past to try to increase - what I believe is the magic number in all of this, and that is - our assessment rate? Our assessment growth rate is the benchmark, I believe, we should be using to compare ourselves to other municipalities - they're our competitors - and if we're being outpaced by other municipalities then something has to change. So whether it's the BTR (business tax reduction). or some of our downtown programs, when is the discussion (going to take place) as to whether those investments are good investments.?" Rinaldo: ".Going to look at (this).in an attempt to quantify this better.." Collins asks about the timing of this information coming in the budget process ("January?"), noting that these programs cost the city millions "if not tens of millions of dollars", and that "you said this morning Joe, . some are really a grey area, we really can't say as to whether we've been successful or not, and I really want to get to the heart of those issues.in light of some of the budget pressures we're facing".
The Mayor suggests that this is a good time to be bringing forward these types of requests. "Make them now".
Morelli needs clarification under 'cost drivers' about the wages and salaries number ($9.2M), asking if it includes all departments (No, police not included). He thinks (and he says that he brought this up last year) that, "from an accounting principal point of view", the police budget should read $3.9M rather than $4.5M so that "where people here are looking to improve the situation they know that there's .5 (million) they can look at - so that it's very clear".
McHattie asks whether the amount under requested budgets for Boards/Agencies ($141.2M) includes the 'big five' arts groups - HPO, Opera Hamilton etc - that Council requested be transferred to that category for funding. Rinaldo confirms that they've been moved, but that the budgeted amount for them has not changed because that was the direction of Council. He also tells us that the major causes of increases in the Boards/Agencies budget line come from the conservation authorities, GO Transit, and MPAC.
McHattie wonders if anything above the 1% assessment growth (built into the budget assumptions) is available for other program enhancements other than mitigating a tax increase and Rinaldo tells him that it's 'entirely up to the will of Council'.
McHattie: ".I am.disappointed that we're not in a position to measure the effects of the BTR - the financial contributions we've made over the last couple of years. .I made those requests, as did others, during the last budget process this time last year, and I understand other Councils have made it, previous to me coming on. So if there's a way that we can get that information together so we can actually show the benefits in a clear way, not just in a sort-of hearsay or information (like) 'we received a phone call and somebody said something good', but if we actually had a way to monitor that. Because if we're going to put additional money into that area, or even industrial business parks, I think that we need to know that what we've been doing is paying off. Hopefully we don't need to have all that discussion in January trying to pry that information away."
Re $27M for servicing industrial business parks McHattie has two questions. Can we fund this from development charges? Rinaldo says funding for some will come from rate budget, some from development charges, some from "that" (capital budget/tax levy?), "so that's not all tax levy dollars, I was just giving you the magnitude of the dollars that we're investing in industrial parks". McHattie seeks, and receives, reassurance that a breakdown on this will be forthcoming.
He's also interested to know if the $27M includes brownfield developments. Rinaldo explains that "significant" amounts of money have been invested in brownfield development through absorbing tax write-offs, and that he "didn't include that in (his) presentation, that's excluded.." McHattie asks about the amounts for brownfields in the '05 budget ( Rinaldo: "Not off the top of my head") and says he's looking for that information because he wants to see brownfield redevelopment given "an equal degree of support.." Neil Everson (Manager, Economic Development): ".We of course have the $500,000 for the pilot project, and we should see a couple of those come this year. In terms of brownfield development, most of the infrastructure is there, so the redevelopment itself will occur through the ERASE program, so there really shouldn't be a significant capital investment on our behalf". McHattie : ".Neil, do we have an inventory of brownfield sites" as a tool for industries looking for sites? "Can we actually say 'here are 100 brownfield sites.and here are all their attributes.'? Everson: ".We have an unofficial record. We were advised by internal and external legal counsel not to establish a formal record (for public distribution) of brownfield sites, in that it could affect adjacent property values.." Three projects are currently in the works, and these will "exhaust" the monies designated for this, and it will be "up to Council whether we replenish it or not.." McHattie declares a strong interest in finding some more money - ".to hear that we only have $500,000 for brownfields as compared to $27M for servicing industrial parks is disappointing, so I'm hoping we can pick up that discussion and hopefully get some more equity on that approach to economic development". Rinaldo wants everyone to know that the amounts of tax write-offs for brownfields is significant - "we're talking about $4-5M to reduce the allowances on the tax arrears, so we have made some significant investments on brownfields over the past few years"
McHattie is also looking for confirmation about whether the budget assumptions include the federal gas tax monies, and is told that the City expects federal gas money at the earliest by '06 and so it's not built into the '05 budget.
Braden questions the statements made about 'debts going down', saying "that's music to my ears". The graph shows that City debt is still rising. Rinaldo: ".we're having a much greater reduction on reliance on debt.than last year.." Braden: "Can you have increasing debt, and less reliance on debt at the same time.?" Rinaldo: "Technically you can, but that's not what I'm saying.." Debt is still going up, but at a lesser rate. ".We're bringing it down to peak levels of $300M. Last year we were getting peak levels of $372M and I was getting a little concerned that we were getting too high.."
Braden wants to know whether the money in this years budget for the Bridgewater housing project will allow it to be completed, and is told by Rinaldo that it will.
Braden asks for confirmation that the $27M for servicing industrial business parks will actually produce "shovel ready land" by next year. Rinaldo says that some will be ready as a result of this year's expenditures, and Everson confirms the location of the sites being targeted (Glanbrook, Stoney Creek, and Ancaster). Braden mentions that North Wentworth arena is for sale, "it's zoned industrial and there are services at the door". He says that he wants to see that "included in the mix" and that he "wouldn't want to see this property lost.." Everson acknowledges that that was a suggestion of Councillor McCarthy's last year, and "Bill Fenwick (Community Services) and myself are trying to address that one".
The Mayor sums things up and thanks people. "If I could find a theme that was going to guide me and hopefully all of us, over the next.several months.it would be that we need to work together as a council, as a community, towards fiscal stability for our city. By fiscal stability I think we all have a similar concept of it; we need to find a way to afford and sustain the programs that we've got. . Ensuring that we have efficient, cost friendly operations, and successful operations. And so the question about the BTR.'does it render results' is a good question and I hope we can get some empirical evidence on that. But I think we need to extend that beyond just that program. That's why we're doing the audits. Council has commissioned an audit of all our operations to arrive at some understanding of what impact our tax investments are making..
.Need to reach out to community partners and stakeholders, .means.the federal and provincial governments. .Already had an indication that they're willing to assist.. Doesn't end there.need to be reaching out to the private sector to be investing in our community as well, and so that's why I'm concerned when I hear suggestions like Councillor Merulla's that maybe we need ratchet up one part of the taxes so we can diminish the other part. We're talking about tax fairness.accepted in our strategy session.tax fairness for all, and we need to be reaching out to people to convince them that we have tax fairness within our sights.that doesn't exclude anybody.. As well we need to be reaching out to the non-profit organizations.to help us.deliver programs.. And that means communicating effectively with our staff groups as well..
Sustainability is within our grasp.we've seen improvements over where we thought we'd be since last year, not enough, we've got lots of work to do, but we have seen some of that. And we're going to be helped this year by some of the things Joe Rinaldo talked about. We don't have property re-assessment.this year to weigh down, or increase taxes for our residents. And that's a tremendous boost as well as a tremendous pressure for us. It's a boost in the sense that whatever we do (raise taxes) isn't augmented by the re-assessment shift. But the pressure is on us because whatever we do is going to (directly) impact on our ratepayers and property tax payers as well. Phasing (in) is being eliminated as well. That was an irritant that confused people tremendously. And we have reached some parity around the competitiveness around commercial and multi-residential taxes. We have a way to go with industrial and as Joe indicated by legislation we need to attend to that issue, and we should want to attend to that issue, because that will attract business and industrial activity - employment activity. It's not the only factor but it's certainly one of the factors. We've seen the gas tax money.. I'm optimistically hoping it will come before ('06), because there is a budget in February.if that happens.it's kind of a bonus. We can't rely on it..
We're turning the corner as a committee.we have a more accountable committee structure.not perfect.let's improve on it..
Programs.have some affordable housing projects.. Done some great things.the waterfront trail.the Marine Discovery Centre.the Haida. New businesses.we are getting inquiries.are attracted to the waterfront because of the infrastructure.. Building the Quad Pad Arena.need to be doing more of that.. Reasons to feel optimistic.have challenges no doubt..
$19.5 million is a lot of money and the Province gave it to us because we basically pressured them to do it. .Community stood behind us.people wrote letters.a social services group weighed in on the issue.. On the one hand we need to be grateful, not skeptical.. Need to make sustainable.problems not gone away.. As recent as yesterday we had someone from the Minister's staff in our offices.they understand our situation and they're looking for a way to address it, so it can be a sustainable way of addressing it rather than a one time, one-off situation - that's what we want.and so we're going to work with them to find a way. .I wish I could say to you that the money's in the bag - that it's been promised. It hasn't. There's interest, there's genuine concern, and there's understanding, but at this point there's not a way to make it sustainable, and I think that staff were responsible in not including it (in the budget).. Want to ask all of you to help.not necessarily in the same ways..
The threat of Pickering to our airport. Think about that. .Will be working with other mayors on that threat.. $7billion of federal money. Imagine what we could do with $7billion!
Downtown revitalization.had conversations.glad you're all interested in that.really encouraged by that. There's another side to the downtown, and that's the safety and security side as well. .That's an issue for them (James St. merchant association)..
Waterfront is an opportunity but also a challenge. .Remediation a challenge. The RAP (remedial action plan for the harbour) targets are very aggressive in terms of what we have to do.about the environmental pollution that's there. Looking for federal and provincial help.large amount of money (needed) - about $300M.we could be de-listed (as a pollution hotspot) if we get it, which would be great".
Merulla says he thinks the $19.5 came because of (election due to) the death of Dominic Agostino and the Mayor responds that he "wants to give our dear departed Dominic all the credit in the world. I hope can do it again".
McHattie is concerned about the approx. 1/5 of the population living below the poverty line ("we could perhaps blame a lot of that on the Province, you know, the Harris years."), and wonders how Council can build this into their thinking at budget time. He wonders about the implications of 1/5 of Hamiltonians not participating in the local economy. "We're doing lots of positive things but that number continues to stay there".
He suggests perhaps setting specific targets "like we target tax fairness" or other goals. Targets could be the actual number of people in poverty reduced by next year, or a percentage lowering in a certain number of years. The Mayor says he had some comments in his notes that he skipped over, but would like to make now about this issue. He says that he's become aware of the movement to create a Poverty Task Force and encourages the Public and Social Services Committee to endorse it. "We do need some thinking, some focus on that issue". McHattie says he's read the report going to committee on this and in it, it is suggested that it's because of lack of funding that this initiative is slow in getting off the ground. "We need to look at that funding commitment.."
"The other thing I just want to mention quickly - it's not a special interest I don't think - it's really the changing face of Hamilton from a multi-cultural perspective. We know that in the 30 years a great deal of immigration to Hamilton will be from other countries, and there's a huge opportunity there from an economic development perspective. Council's focus is economic development - as it should be - but I'm just trying to look for things that are in the budget, and we will be looking for things over the next two months that speak to that prevailing systems change that's occurring in Hamilton. Other cities as well, but Hamilton's number three in Canada now for that. So, I know some of the folks at SISO (Settlement and Integration Services Organization) have talked to some of us and they don't see that at the City. They don't see that commitment to developing a welcome centre or - settlement's fine, we're doing a great job on settlement, but the next step, instead of going on Ontario Works, (is) making use of all the incredible skills - artistic, carpentry, or whatever the skills might be - professionals that are coming, to plug them into jobs and deal with all the problems and challenges and that. SISO's going to be asking us to get involved in some sort of a welcome centre or a civic centre - they haven't found a word for it yet. I don't really see that in the budget this year. We're going to have to talk about that - maybe not tons of money this year, but recognizing that for '06, '07, towards 2010". The Mayor says he agrees with McHattie, and that his office is in discussions with SISO. He mentions that he's had his eyes opened to the actual degree that Hamilton is a centre for immigration by recently attending a meeting sponsored by upper level government immigration ministers. The project is in the idea stage, but he welcomes everyone's comments, and thinks that it's a very worthwhile idea for "all the reasons that (McHattie) stated".
Mitchell notes that the budget presentation stated that recent increased development charges are having a positive revenue generating effect, but he feels that they need to be increased even more, noting that in some of Hamilton's former municipalities development charges have actually gone down. If the city is to experience substantial population growth in the near future, as is predicted, then further increases in development charges should be instituted, he says. He'd like to see the city staff make suggestions to the province regarding changes to the development charges act.
He's also frustrated about the inequity of provincial funding. ".If you have 3 million people in Toronto and ½ million people in Hamilton.then why aren't we getting 1/6 of the money that they're getting? It would be pretty simple. If we had fair to fair."
Mitchell reminds the Mayor that he campaigned on tax fairness for all, saying he thinks a lot more work needs to be done about taxes and rural/urban service level differences, acknowledging that "some of that's coming forward in regards to waste management and area rating and so forth". Rinaldo comments that he forgot to mention in his presentation that the city has been communicating to the province this past year about needed changes to the development charges act, and the province is now in the process of setting up a task force to look at this legislation. There are 4 areas that will be addressed, and he mentions "the 10%", hospitals, and GO Transit. This means that Hamilton may be able to look at its development charges again "in the near future". Mitchell says that's "all good, but it's the level of service - if we're trying to stay comparable to areas around us, as far as population ratios to arenas, population ratios to social services, to police, to fire stations - we have to have that looked at and be able to increase those service levels to go forward". He reiterates that some of the pre-amalgamated areas in Hamilton previously had better services because they had higher development charges to pay for them. "And newer, younger cities don't have that dilemma and they're leaving us behind every day. Every home that gets built, every business that goes in they're getting farther and farther away from us, because they're allowed to charge a lot higher in the first place".
Whitehead wonders if it's possible to determine what the tax increase 'threshold' is -what the community "can handle" - and if so, would like the staff to come back with a report on it. Also he questions the per capita formulas used for funding transfers from higher levels of government, and would like to see Hamilton lead the charge in terms of having a needs based formula used to "target the real needs". Whitehead makes comments that in "our quest to centralize power, centralize administration, and centralize operations ", saying "we're actually creating inflexibilities and losing efficiencies". He says he's heard examples in Flamborough and Glanbrook in terms of arena operations being less efficient now than before. ".My caution would be let's not be too quick to create a corporate structure that's inflexible".
Item 3.2 Appendices A-E of Capital Budget Variance Report as of August 31, 2004 referred by the Strategic Planning and Budgets Committee of November 17, 2004.
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Dec08%20budget/FCS04127%20Capital
%20Variance%20Report-August%2031%202004.pdf
This is a budget status report for all the City's capital projects. It lists the year the project was approved, the budgeted amount, how much has been spent so far, how much is owed, the 'available' balance, the financing required to complete the project (if any), the percentage the project is complete, and sometimes an explanation for the variance and/or the expected completion date. Of note is that there are many projects accounts that have had no monies withdrawn - in other words some projects haven't been started yet despite approval dates ranging from last year to 2000. The implications of this are two fold: Expenditures were approved for projects deemed necessary in any given year, and thus revenues were generated within that year (or years) to support those projects, almost always by raising taxes among other methods, perhaps unnecessarily. Also, when Council is looking for sources of funding for the next years budget they look for an up-to-date variance list to tell them what monies are 'available', so as not to have to raise taxes any more than necessary, and if this list is not up-to-date by the time budget deliberations begin then they are handicapped.
Discussion:
Collins : ".I've had the opportunity over the past several weeks to forward a number of my questions to a some of our staff, especially in Public Works. But I have some questions today in light of the discussion we've had today about brownfields and the downtown. When I look through the WIP projects (works in progress) that are before us, I found that - especially in the downtown area - we literally have millions of dollars that we've allocated to downtown initiatives in the past that have yet to be . utilized for those purposes. .For instance, Downtown Initiatives from 2000 still has $284,000 left, Downtown Hamilton improvement Phase 2 still has $294,000. And so when you start going through all of the calendar years.there are a number of accounts that are still open, and in my mind when you look at the projects, or the original intent, a number of these projects are completed. . So, for those projects, can we look at - for the purposes of going through our exercises next week - utilizing some of those dollars? Walnut Street laneway is another example $150,000. Can we use some of those dollars for our 2005 budget process?" DiIanni, Rinaldo and Lee Ann Coveyduck (Manager, Planning and Development) talk and agree that Collins will send his list of downtown projects to Planning for an update on where the project stands to date.
The Mayor asks for a motion to go in camera, saying that the Clerk wants him to inform everyone that "we're dealing with a number of personnel matters, we're also dealing with the Christine Silverberg issue and report that identifies a number of individuals and has some legal issues with it that's why we're going in camera. We might be able to talk about some of the things that we can out of camera as well". A councillor questions the need to go in camera for this (mic not on, tape didn't pick up who), but DiIanni says they have to go in camera. (CATCH has learned that during the in camera session the Clerk repeatedly warned Council that some of the comments being made should be made in public session)
In camera 3:55 - 5:10 p.m.
In open session:
Whitehead informs the public that during the in camera session the Acting Manager of Public Works, Scott Stewart, was unanimously approved to be appointed the General Manager, Public Works, Infrastructure and Environment.
DiIanni : "The second issue is the payment for consulting services to Christine Silverberg, and I think we're going to release the report on that, but we need a motion. Moved by Councillor Braden , and seconded by Councillor Whitehead , all in favour? That's CARRIED. Any comments on that? Councillor Braden you've been waiting a long time".
Braden "Just to start off with, at the beginning of this in camera session. Just to - right on here, it says 'this is subject to solicitor-client privilege'. This isn't from our lawyer, so why would this be in camera to begin with? This document, about the Red Hill Valley, subject to client-solicitor privilege, and I don't think that's what it is at all". Barkwell : "The consultant was retained through our outside counsel in this matter, and until counsel votes to waive the privilege, which it has just done, everything in that report was subject to the solicitor-client privilege." Braden : "For the record Mr. Mayor, I don't think any of our discussion was confidential or private or should have been, but that's just for the record. I just want to ask a couple of questions. . There are about three. It appears that there was a concern from this corporation about the idea of either violence or unrest, illegal activity. Why is it when our staff, in particular the now deputy chief who's with us now, was really doing such a good job at keeping everybody level-headed and avoiding even the idea of unrest, why would we hire a consultant? And I'd like to know the answer and then make a comment." DiIanni : "Unfortunately the deputy chief is not here any longer and" Braden : "So I asked if you can bring him back." DiIanni : "We thought you meant our staff or maybe he thought you meant our staff but he's not here, but our chief, Mr. Peace, might be able to."
Peace : "I certainly won't be presumptuous enough to speak for deputy chief Leederntse. I think everyone's acknowledged that he did an outstanding job. And he did a job within the context of what their role was and I think Chief Mullan and Chief Robertson at the time have both spoken to that. And as a police service they had a role to be, neutral, if you will, and represent both parties equally, and the city clearly supports that position. But there was other issues that had to be done as far as contingency planning and information gathering. And it was for those reasons that the lawyer from Gowlings made that recommendation and staff, faced with the information at the moment, not looking backwards but at the moment, certainly agreed with that decision and that's why it went forward." Braden : "I just think it's a slap in the face to the police, and I am not in favour of all of what we did because I think that our police probably deserve some international recognition. They really were outstanding and they've got their kudos for it, but I think hiring an outside person actually reduced the kind of respect that our police deserve for that. So" interrupted by Peace : "I want to assure the councillor that it wasn't a slap. I don't believe the police have ever taken that. It's been open and communicative and I have spoken to certainly Chief Mullan about that issue." DiIanni : "The police services chairman"
Morelli : "Certainly we didn't see this as a slap. I can tell you that. I think what's said earlier today, I appreciate both Glen and the Chief being on the same wavelength. The police service is a law enforcement agency, and no way wanted to be here. You're in a position of . and enforce the law, and work on that basis. And what was required, and what was decided on was to get something beyond that, in terms of developing communications strategy from the city's perspective. And though the police were part of that from a law enforcement perspective, that's their sole function. And so . I know we did an excellent job . I just wanted to make sure that position was very clear." DiIanni : "And in fact the chief pointed that out when we had our in camera, but councillor continue."
Braden : "Secondly, we hear that in fact a number of the people who knew about the contract we had with a particular consultant are no longer with us. And if anybody in this room was aware that the contract was resulting in bills that are deserving of particular attention because they seem to be high. I'm simply asking if you sir, or the mayor, or anybody else in staff were aware that bills were coming in at a particularly high level? I need to know that, because it appears in the report that the ONLY people that knew are the people that are not with us today. I need to know if that was true." Peace : "I'm not absolutely clear, but are you asking me was there somebody other than the persons that are mentioned in this report that have now left, were authorized?" Braden : "No, not authorized, KNEW that this city was writing cheques for example in the range of $50,000 for a limited amount of time period. And I want to know if anybody knew that those cheques were being written." Peace : "I think the only way I can respond to that is that the budgets were approved by the council. I don't know if the specifics were there. I'm not clear about that issue." Braden : "Let me ask a straightforward question. Did Chris Murray know that this corporation was writing cheques to the consultant that we're talking about for the amount of money that we have now seen here in this report?" Peace : "I think I've made it clear in this report that Mr. Murray had no signing authority and" interrupted by Braden : "That's not the answer to the question sir, with respect. I'm asking did he know that those cheques were going out. Nothing to do with signing authority. And for the record, I've asked questions here before and I really would urge you to just come forward and answer the question, rather than giving the appearance that we had to sort of decipher this. Just a straightforward question, and I'd like an answer."
Chris Murray : "Through you Mr. Mayor, I never have any problems answering your questions. Was I aware that the consultant was being paid? Yes." Interrupted by Braden : "What she was being paid at?" Murray : "Uh, the specific hourly or daily?" Braden : "No, no, just the amount of the bills." Murray : "I don't know. I did not know the specific amount of each cheque." Braden : "But were you aware that the cheque wasn't for 3000 but might have been 15 or 20 or 50,000?" DiIanni intervenes: "I think that. First of all I think that the question has been asked, and secondly I honestly. You're trying to single out a staff member who was trying to do his job and trying to somehow pin on this staff member the responsibility that we gave, that we as a council" interrupted by Braden : "Not at all." DiIanni : "the responsibility that we as a council gave the lawyer to do. So."
Braden : "The issue I'm trying to get at is look, if any of you on staff see that we're going to be embarrassed, it is obvious to me that you come here before a member of the public goes through the Freedom of Information process to find out. That's not how I, nor anybody else at this table, wants to find out about these things. And I'm just using the word embarrassing because it's the politest word I can use. And if none of you did, fine. But I need to know, because I want to trust what's going on. That's why I want an answer to the question. It's not the staff's fault. It's the council's fault that we hired her. And if anybody from previous questions think that I was trying to disparage you, let me apologize. I think it was council that approved this open-ended system that allowed somebody to prosper very well. So let me make that perfectly clear. But the point I was trying to get at was look staff, if you see something like this coming down the pipe, you've got to tell us in advance. And I wasn't told in advance, and I would like to get to the bottom of that. I'll leave that with the city manager."
Peace : "May I respond? I think Chris answered the question. But again, approvals were in place. If you want to change the purchasing or approval policy, that would be your direction. There was no reason, and you used the word embarrassed, there was no reason for staff to make any speculation around those bills. And at the end of the day you asked me three questions. And one of those was around value, and I've clearly said here that as staff we cannot answer that. That is a decision that you must make as council. So there would have been no reason for us to make that assumption at any level during the course of 2002 or 2003."
DiIanni : "Sorry, can I just point out some councillors are leaving and I'm afraid of losing quorum. And I don't want to short circuit debate. We did have a long discussion but I just want people here to have" interrupted by Braden : "I appreciate that. I mean I don't really enjoy asking these questions, but I do want to trust the system. My view on the project is clear. But I want to trust that I get answers when I ask for them. It's fundamental to me, and I'm sure it's fundamental to everybody else here - To whoever on staff. When we talk about the Red Hill project, and not in a negative way because I was involved in dealing with the natives. I can remember very clearly, Mr Murray saying this isn't a road - this is before we had the more than a road little jingle - this was economic development, this was a dream, this is a creek realignment, this is a storm sewer. All of those things, right. So I think we're buying into that. We're getting it away from a nasty road, right, into a very positive project. When somebody asks a question about the billings for the Red Hill Valley project or whatever was asked for, why wouldn't we just give that individual the total billings rather than pretend there's two projects - the CSO tank on this one and the Red Hill Valley? In other words, why create this attitude that we're trying to hide something? And I know we're going to deny the hiding. Why don't you come forward straightforwardly, and try to be the transparent government that we all want to be? Is that a clear question?" Peace : "I can answer that. There is a process that was followed. Staff didn't make assumptions in the FOI. They responded to exactly what was asked. Again, I don't think anything was hidden. You have it before you. You asked us to report back. We've brought everything out. That's the issue for me now. The only thing for me, that report's very clear. You asked for a report in 2003 and early 2003 from my predecessor. I have no way of acknowledging whether you got any information, if you ever received it, or whether a report was done. I have no way of knowing it."
Braden ".that's an issue. Certainly going back about a year - my memory is bad - I got some assurance from Mr. Robertson and from Mr. Rinaldo that they thought the way things had been done before, we were going to look - and I'll use my word - through a fine tooth comb or through the microscope, and make sure that things were done better. It isn't Joe's [Rinaldo] fault. It's nothing to do with staff. It's the council that opened this thing up. My anger is that I get caught with my pants down because nobody told me that this was coming. If we want to give this money to the consultant, that's our problem. That's not yours. And again I apologize again. It's not being told about what the impact of this was. That's really makes us look foolish. There's a couple more questions. They're simple ones. Under summary number five word starts with the word M S for Ms - was that paragraph copied or almost copied from somewhere else?" Peace is off mic and they go back and forth to identify the location Braden is referring to. "Basically is that paragraph lifted from somewhere else?" Peace: "Lifted from somewhere else. This is a report from the consultants. This is an original." Braden : "I want to make sure whoever wrote the report, and if you're speaking for the writer, but I'm asking the writer who wrote the report." Peace : "Well I have to make an assumption there. We gathered this information from the consultants. We can't answer you whether Christine Silverberg wrote this herself or one of the associates or a secretary. I don't have that answer. This is not part of the staff report, other than this is an attachment, sir."
Braden : "Okay. I think that'll do. No, no I said that'll do for THAT answer. Mr Mayor I think it's good to let go. There's just no winners here. No wins for me, no wins for the project, no. So I'm not interested in putting any spin on this, but we need to be more careful - we the council need to be more careful about the trust we provide and the controls we put on people that are killing us. That seems to be the mistake that I have made." DiIanni : "I don't see any other. Oh, we do have another. Yes go ahead." (16:10)
Whitehead : .Now that I've listened to councillor Braden, I don't have the . view [laughter] . I wasn't here on the council of the day who made the decision . thing of the past. I see what took place as a circumvention of the purchasing policies. I can't understand for the life of me how a protest, or concerns about a protest, falls under LEGAL advice. And I don't see how Ms. Silverberg, as a sub contractor, would fall, would be charged with the responsibility of preplans for and mitigating the concerns of the protestors, should fall under an outside lawyer. This doesn't make sense to me. If what were the concerns the city needed somebody to manage that process, why that didn't go through a purchasing process, and in fact the person be hired by staff and city council. So I'm having trouble understanding the distinction between having a person who's charged with . addressing concerns around protest, versus Estrin who's charged with providing legal advice. There's no manager. To me it appears as a way of circumventing a policy that was in place for the city at the time by having Estrin hire Silverberg as opposed to the city while we paid the invoices. The other concern I have is that I believe we have the expertise in the police department. We have what is called, we have individuals responsible for strikes, in the police department, and they go there to ensure there's peace on the strike lines. And they do a damned good job at it. I don't understand why we hire a former chief, or a former police officer, who had already . through the police association, as the person who is going to quell the issues around the protest, and suggest we don't have the expertise in house. $375,000 is what we spent. $375,000 in my opinion, my humble opinion, was way too much for the . that we provided."
Collins : "Mr Mayor to reiterate my comments from before. I think this has less to do with the project that it does our purchasing policies. And I said this weeks ago when we were discussing this at a council meeting, Councillor Braden used the term open-ended system. CEO Peace has referred to our purchasing policies and changes that might come from this, and I think that this is a clear example as to why we should have changed our policies when we debated them twice before. And in my mind, I know that we've had certain individuals, through our budget process, pushing the envelope in relation to consulting and contractual and delegated authority level. And so when I look at the information here, I don't dispute the fact that council was made aware of how much money we were spending on external legal resources. And we can't dispute the fact that the recommendation was made that we hire the firm or individual that's noted in the report. What has become clear is that the services which were provided, at least in my mind as a taxpayer - let me take off my councillor hat - I really don't believe that I received services, or the quality of services for the money that was expended for this. I really don't believe that we received value for it. And so in looking at that process, we have a situation where, when I open up the paper and I hear comments from councillors saying 'well I don't know what the money was allocated for' or 'I'm not sure' or 'I will find out', it shows me there's a lack of communication within our bureaucracy and council, first and foremost, but secondly, as councillor Braden noted, our purchasing policy allows for this to happen, and shouldn't. And so CEO Peace has committed today, at Corporate Services for those who were there, to come back with alternatives for the purchasing policy and with limited delegated authority. Second to that, I think it's of the utmost importance that we continue to look at consulting and contractual. And not to steal councillor Merulla's thunder, but he was the same person who sought support from council to start our consulting budget at zero January first. And any time consulting or contractual services are needed or required by the city, they would come to committee and then to council. And I think if those checks and balances were in place, we wouldn't be debating or arguing about the contents of the report that's before us."
DiIanni : "And just a couple of comments from me. And I will certainly agree that we need to look at our practices and oversights in terms of how we spend money. We need to get more details perhaps that spell out what the expenditures are, rather than just a global budget with just an indication of the firm or firms that are being hired. But I can say to you, though, that some of the councillors around here terms of the value for money spent, and you'll have to make up your own minds whether to you its valuable or not, the context within which the decision was made is very well defined in the report. The activities, the concerns, the dangers, the threats - give them what level of severity you want - but they were real, and they were experienced within this council chamber. They were experienced in phone calls made to individuals that work for us. They were experienced in a number of ways. They were experienced in the valley, and therefore justified some response, in terms of looking for some assistance. I said earlier as well that there was a suggestion made by one of the councillors that it would be some POLITICAL oversight of the protest. None of the councillors nor the committee came that direction to politically oversee the protest. They feel this was a wise decision. But the result of that is that we had to rely on staff, the expert people, to manage the situation as it was evolving. I can also say to you that despite how you sit on the project, and there's clearly a difference of opinion, all of us, or almost all of us, I would hope all of us, had in common was to ensure that nobody would get hurt, that there wouldn't be any great embarrassment to the city, and that violence would be prevented. And from that perspective I think we were very successful. The police had a role to play. They made it very clear as councillor Morelli has indicated and the chief told us earlier, that their job was not to report to the city. Their job was to enforce the law. And they wanted, and they assured us they were there and we know they were there and they wanted an arms length relationship from the city in terms of how things were evolving. And therefore the city needed to ready for some things as well, and again the report outlines that very, very clearly. So, having said all that, we've released the report and I'll recognize councillor Bratina if he wishes to speak."
Bratina : "Mr Mayor, all through the time of the protest, individual police officers walked in unescorted to communicate with the protestors. It would have been very easy, if there was a potential for violence for that officer to be held as a hostage, and it never crossed anyone's mind including our police service that that would ever happen. That notwithstanding, Ms Silverberg was apparently still on the payroll at the end of November. Was she present when the decision was made to go in November 6 and end the protest and begin the tree removal? On November 6 the SWAT team came in and took the people out of the valley and then the destruction of the trees took place. Was Ms Silverberg part of the process to make that decision? Was she in the room when the decision was made that on November 6 this process would take place?" Murray : "The decision for the police to go in and end the situation at Greenhill was the police decision. That wasn't up to us to decide when to go in." Bratina : "The police decided on November 6 after visiting the valley day after day throughout that whole fall period, that that was the best day to go in and end the process?" Murray : "We don't direct the police for any action that they're going to undertake." Bratina: "Thank you." DiIanni : "All right, the question then is we've already voted on releasing the report to the public. Do we need anything else with regards to this part? We've done that. Councillor Collins?"
Collins : "We dealt with the delegated authority issue through Glen Peace and I would ask that the consulting issues again - councillor Merulla is carrying this torch - I would ask that somehow we need to come to some resolve as to how we hire contractual consulting services in the future and I would put a motion here again that included with the delegated authority report, CEO Peace comes back with options related to expenditures related to consulting fees." DiIanni : "Seconded by councillor Morelli. All in favour? That's carried. Mr. Clerk, we haven't convened the special council yet have we. Can I do that now, very quickly?" receives advice off mic from clerk then recognizes councillor Whitehead.
Whitehead : "You know what? We should just be respectful of each other, and stop the moaning. The question I have specifically on this, is I'm a little confused when looking at how Silverberg billed us in two different sort of accounts. We have what is called the Greenhill CSO project and the Red Hill Creek Expressway, and I understand was all part and parcel of the same thing relative to the concerns. The concerns were the same in whether it was at the Greenhill area. So I'm wondering how. Is this a manoeuvre for deception or is this" Interrupted by DiIanni : "That's strong language". Whitehead : "Well" DiIanni : "Well, no but be careful. But ask the question without making attributions about an individual who's not even here and could potentially get us into serious, serious trouble. Can we have a response to the question?" Rinaldo : "The allocation of costs is based on projects. Ms Silverberg worked on the Greenhill project for a period of time as it was identified in the report. So the costs related to the time she spent working on the Greenhill project was allocated to the Greenhill project. The costs that she did on Red Hill Valley was allocated to that. That is a standard reporting practice for this municipality." Whitehead : ".I understand how you assigned the billing so it can be paid out of different accounts. What I need to understand is she was doing the same work. Is that correct?" Rinaldo : "No she was not." Whitehead : "So she wasn't dealing with plans for dealing with protests?" Rinaldo : "She was dealing with some matters that related directly to the Greenhill project. And I don't know the specifics." Whitehead : "Well what was.". Peace : "With the Greenhill project? As the result of discovery of bones." Whitehead : "So she was an expert in bones? Well I need to understand what her qualifications are for dealing with bones." DiIanni : "Then councillor I suggest that you read the report again because it spells out what she did." Interrupted by Whitehead : ".and therefore we got charged for that."
At this point the Committee meeting ends and the councillors move into special session of City Council to consider the report of the Committee of the Whole.
Council officially votes to approve the appointment of the General Manager of Public Works, the release of the Red Hill Valley report, and to receive the Council of the Whole report.
Meeting adjourns at 5:30 p.m.
|
