Council tasted the Frosting and mostly liked it. When do they discuss the Cake?
Ron Bolin: March 8, 2014
On Wednesday and Thursday of this week, Council spent some six hours each day trying out the taste of some 400+ varieties of frosting with which the cake of the 2014 budget is to be covered. These items represent the additions of tasks above and beyond those of the cake, i.e. the budget necessities which Staff seems to believe are either already committed or preordained. While a final concordance of the frosted items should soon be released, it seems that there were some alterations as projects or hirings were modified or postponed to a later period. I could not be present for the entire event and as there is no audio or video record of these “Special Council Meetings”, the final tally must await public release. The original table of these frosting factors was contained in the meeting agenda which can be found on the City’s web site.]
In general the items could be placed into four descriptive categories: New, Upgrades, Asset Management (maintenance) or Base Service Level Increases. They could also be categorized by Department, Project, or recommended year(s) of expenditures. If this information were available digitally, the recommendations could be examined from various perspectives, but my request for digital information was denied. More about this later.
Councillor Pattje early started the meeting by suggesting that a tax increase of 2.2% be chosen without going over matters item by item. Staff responded that 2.2% would approve items 1 through 364 on the list and that if all items were approved as presented this would bring the 2014 tax increase to 2.8%, with subsequent years (2015-2018) set at 6.1%,3.1%,8.1% and 1.6%. This motion was defeated. Following some hard slogging Councillor Kipp noted that dealing with some 400+ items at this level of detail smacked very much of micro-management….but the ordeal continued to the bitter end. The final result of the few cuts, additions and time shifts made remain to be seen in a final report from Staff.
Having spent most of the time looking at the circa 411 individual items on the 2014-2018 Decision Package list, let’s now take an overview. 2014 budget expenditures are shown as starting at a pre-commitment position of items which have already been approved or are works-in-progress of $38,133,463 before the add-ons that were discussed. These allocations were not itemized. A couple of questions concerning the 2014 part of the package remain in my mind: costs associated with the Colliery Dams are not shown, even though it is known that some $7 million was originally allocated for this purpose. The costliest proposal in the Decision Package for 2014 by far was the construction of a new fire hall for an estimated $2.4 million, which would be followed by an even costlier need for the personnel to man it. It is my understanding that this item was postponed to a later year.
Further, in each year from 2014 to 2018 an allocation to an asset management (maintenance) fund of 1% of total property tax revenues has been recommended and accepted. This amount, as it compounds, starts at $907,601 in 2014 and increases to $5,001,968 in 2018 for a total of $14,561,630 over this period. It may be recalled that this practice was established during the last budget cycle and therefore that today’s 1% actually amounts in 2014 to 2% of the 2013 allocation, etc. This mechanism should allow Nanaimo to gradually crawl out from under the serious deficiency in funds needed to maintain the assets which the City already has, not to mention those pricy additions which are either in progress or are proposed, but will put increasing pressure on discretionary spending. Following is an extract from the March 5 agenda for the Special Meeting of Council which opened the two day discussion and includes the entire Decision package table from that event: This agenda also contains the entire table of Decision packages discussed and a brief description of the cake.
“In order to meet deadlines for tendering projects and to meet operational staffing needs, Council was asked to provide early approval of a number of expenditures. This was done at the meeting on 2014-JAN-22, with one additional purchase being approved at the meeting on 2014-JAN-30.
Staff do not propose to have any further discussion on the base operating budget unless Council wishes to discuss reducing or increasing service levels. The base may be adjusted if new information is received that would impact revenue or cost assumptions, such as a revised estimate of new construction revenue.
The base budget tor 2014 that is funded from property taxation (excluding the Vancouver Island Regional Library) is approximately $78.3 million, down about $1. 3 million (1.7%) from 2013. This is largely due to the reduction in the number of management staff as part of the recent reorganization. Adding the Library and the tax impact of the early approval projects brings the total to $84.0 million. If no further decision packages are approved for 2014, there would be a 6.1 % property tax decrease.
However, not approving any further decision packages would have serious consequences for the City. By far the majority of projects funded from taxation (and water and sewer user fees) are for the maintenance and renewal of City infrastructure. Reducing funding for these asset management projects can impact service levels and increase maintenance costs. New projects are generally funded from other sources, such as Development Cost Charges. Although they may not have an immediate impact on taxes, there is a long term impact for maintenance and replacement. Some projects also have a more immediate increase in operating cost; e.g., the capital cost of constructing a new fire station is smaller than the cost of staffing and operating the station.”
Note that the only reference to the cake onto which this frosting was to be spread is reference relative to other Special Council meetings in January.
This entire package is baked into the cake and was not up for discussion, apparently due to prior acceptance by Council. The Agenda of Jan. 22, mentioned above which includes pre-approval of some $11,763,764 of projects can be found at:
The minutes of that meeting show that the motion to approve was unanimous.
The Special Council meeting of Jan. 30 referred to above apparently added a “crane truck” to the pre-approved 2014 budget but I could not find an estimated cost for this addition. The agenda for that meeting can be found at:
As of this date, no minutes are shown for this meeting.
A revelation of the $7,363,628 in wholly discretionary grants and tax exemptions for 2013 which appear to be baked into the cake can be found at:
A request for the digital data on Grants and Exemptions which was handed out and which showed all recipients and the amounts which they received was refused. It is summarized in the presentation indicated above, but this data would be most useful in slicing and dicing these discretionary gifts to various agencies and the services which they provide, whether by way of culture, sport, community, miscellaneous, travel, social service, operating, volunteer fire, etc. if the data were provided to Council and the public in a convenient format. It is possible, after all, to scan or re-enter this data from paper handouts, but it is a needless hardship which can only be interpreted as either callous or representative of a questionable conscience.
In view of all the protestations of their earnest desire for increased transparency which were made by candidates during the last election, it should be noted that the many “Special” Council meetings which have taken place on the budget have been set for early mornings on work days in a relatively small board room well out of the way of any prying cameras or microphones which could allow the public to understand the proceedings or the positions which various Councillors have made on various budget items.
As a wrap up of this topic (notwithstanding the correction of any errors presented her or the addition of supplementary material), I do wish, despite some criticisms, to thank Staff and Council for this effort. I am sure that it has proved to be a learning experience for all involved and the next time around, which will be with a new Council next year, will be even better. In the meantime this year, I still look forward to an explicit discussion of the cake, rather than having to try to deduce it from the shape of the frosting.
P.S.:
I must mention that in requesting these data tables in digital form, I was told that in all the years of these budget hearings, I was the only one who requested such data. I am not sure what to make of this as I am quite aware that there a many out in ratepayer land who are as interested as I am in the public data which has been prepared by public funding and for which there appears to be no excuse for not making that data available in digital form. This entire issue is in serious need of prompt attention as the study on the reorganization of the City’s web site is currently proceeding. And to go with this we are in even more serious need of a public information policy. As it stands, the City’s policy on Information is as follows in our Records Management Procedures Bylaw, See:
http://www.nanaimo.ca/UploadedFilesPath/Bylaws/B7150.pdf
Which cryptically states that: ”The records management system currently used by the city is authorized” while in no way describing this system.” This, in a city as large and complex as Nanaimo, is a serious travesty.
If you want to see this change, call and write your Councillors about making information paid for by the public available to the public in a form which permits the data to used efficiently by those who have paid the bills for it. Also please feel free to comment here….
PPS: The top recipients of grants and exemptions are:
| 2013 Grants and Exemptions ; Top 20, ie. >$50,000 | |
| Port Theatre Society | $ 1,961,857.35 |
| Nanaimo Economic Dev Corp | $ 1,389,612.08 |
| Nanaimo Museum Society | $ 653,834.25 |
| McGirr Sports Society | $ 457,029.20 |
| Nature Trust of BC | $ 161,451.04 |
| Nanaimo Recycling Exchange | $ 129,479.20 |
| Nan. Sen. Cit. Housing Dev Soc | $ 115,436.50 |
| DNBIA | $ 115,101.71 |
| Pacifica Housing Advisory Assc. | $ 101,277.12 |
| Good Samaritan Canada | $ 98,616.63 |
| CVI Centre for the ARTS | $ 93,399.95 |
| VI Symphony | $ 88,157.75 |
| VI Raiders Football Club | $ 87,095.00 |
| Nanaimo Art Gallery | $ 71,987.47 |
| Nanaimo Affordable Housing | $ 65,239.84 |
| United Way C &N VI | $ 63,279.31 |
| Loaves and Fishes | $ 63,034.15 |
| Nanaio Community Archives | $ 61,204.07 |
| First Unitarian Fellowship | $ 58,958.00 |
| BC SPCA | $ 51,190.53 |
| $ 5,887,241.15 | |
| Total G&E | $ 7,363,628.46 |
| Top 20 as a percent of total | 80 |
| Top 2 as a percent of total | 46 |
| dollars per capita annual cost | $ 84.64 |
| dollars per household annual cost | $ 228.53 |
Posts and Comments on Nanaimo Governance 
PPPS: Has anyone noticed that at tomorrow’s Council meeting Councillor Pattje will bring forward the following on behalf of Arts and Culture in Nanaimo:
“Annual Budget Process
• Increase annual per capita Cultural Operating Grant funding to cultural organizations
from $2.25 to $3 over the next five years ($66k over five years).
• Improve way-finding to cultural destinations and the downtown Arts District ($1 Ok).
• Develop a festivals and events strategy in collaboration with Tourism Nanaimo and
DNBIA ($10-15k).
• Use our cultural assets and resources to celebrate our city’s unique and distinctive
cultural identity and work with NEDC and Tourism Nanaimo to develop a “Pride of Place”
campaign ($10k).”
Don’t look now, but the ratepayers are already contributing several Million dollars for Arts and Culture (see the top 20 list above), far beyond the $3 dollars per capita noted.
PPPPS: It will be noted that the VICC is not included among these charitable works by Council. It seems that there is a contractual fine point which separates the VICC and the Port Theatre in some manner. Given the large amount of public money which goes to VICC this seems an area which calls out for clarification. It also leads one to wonder whether there are other such publicly funded, but fine point shrouded elements out there which are not reported.
At the end of this two day exercise, I asked if city council had asked city staff to consider the impact that staffing levels and wages would have on the budget. The answer was NO. If council is not willing to deal with the $70,000,000.00 cost centre vis a vis levels of staffing and wages, they can tinker around the edges all they want and nothing will change.
In the six years I have been watching council, I can’t think of one time council has ever been serious about controlling spending. How many times have you heard, it’s only $30,000 it’s only $200,000??? Staff and council would seem to think they do in fact only exist to spend money.
Jim: I couldn’t agree with you more. I continue to believe that the reason why they don’t control spending is that it might demonstrate that they do not understand it. And when in doubt, they defer to Staff. Under the circumstances, probably not the worst strategy. But certainly not the best. If we again allow this shallow pan to hold all our hopes, not just for reduced spending, but rationally understood and considered spending, then we had better come up with a plan to get around the way in which the pan, such as it is, is filled, and how we could add some depth. As you are aware, I continue to believe that the only means for changing the situation is to have at least one party which can provide some organization to our discontent.
The Transparency Party of Nanaimo:
· Transparency in Governance
· Transparency in Public Information
· Transparency in Budgets and Finance
Why a Party?
· A party has a leader chosen by party members;
· Instead of a long list of self-appointed who may have no shared vision, candidates are selected from those who put themselves forward by the party membership;
· There is strength in numbers;
· Parties have some discipline, though iif necessary anyone can vote independently;
· Small Contributions can accumulate to compete with the big guys who currently fund campaigns:
Funds raised can be used for elections and then between elections for research, legal opinions or, if needed, a legal case;
· A Party is a brand and can appear on the ballot next to candidate names for identification. Brands are important in recognition;
· Party meetings offer a mechanism for meaningful discussions of issues with party members and with elected representatives outside the confines of Council Chambers where time is limited;
· A party can provide a memory of what has happened previously so that each new electee doesn’t have to start learning from scratch and is thus less susceptible to convenenient influence;
· Electees can get help from the party in understanding issues. The current system of isolation has led to a number of hasty, poorly thought out and costly decisions.
Please forgive the preliminary nature of this list. My head is full of unmentionable flotsam ( I have a very trying head cold).
I am sure there are more ideas out there. I would like to hear them.
When did the Port Theatre blossom into nearly $2 million, I thought they were in the $500,000 area?
Jim: I thought, when I asked, that you indicated that you had a copy of the 14 page table of 2013 Grants and Exemptions. For the Port Theatre Society it documents the following:Operating Grant: $498,983.66; Capital Grant: $75,000.00; Value of the Property Tax Exemption: $284,053.69; and a Market License reduction of $1,103,820.00. The latter is described as the difference between the amount charged for the facility and a market rate lease for it.
It should be available on line, but I haven’t found it though there is a report based on it. I am trying to get it as an EXCEL table so that the data can be sliced and diced. Until now I have been told that I can’t have it and that I am the only person who ever requested such data in digital form. Hope I can count on you and other readers here to request access to the digital data which we have paid for and was used to generate the paper printout. Citizens should not be unnecessarily burdened to have to reenter data from paper in order to be able to examine its implications.
The same request and reasoning, of course, goes for all the other tables that have been produced for the budget which is, of course, by far the most important document that the City produces. Why can we read them on paper, but in a day and age when computers are ubiquitous and the city has millions in computer equipment and software should citizens be required to be data entry clerks in order to examine the business of their City?
No Ron, that’s fine it is the $500,000 operating grant that I’m remembering. Not really sure how to value the property tax exemption or the market license reduction, as the building is owned by the city not the society. If we can find someone to pay market rate….. let ’em step up.
The property tax exemption is easy. It is what would be paid in property tax if the property were not owned by the City. The Market license may not be so easy, but I am sure there are methods which capture the significance of non-arms-length transactions. If I sell my home to my cousin for half price, what is it now worth?. It looks at intrinsic value rather than cash value.
Both the property tax exemption and market license are based on an entirely different entity owning the property. On the same basis what is the tax exemption for the VICC or the market license?? Just around the corner we have 20+ acres of waterfront we are willing to let Seaspan and ICF have rent free, as long as they pay taxes, except ICF doesn’t do that either…..Civic owned properties are intended to be a liability for the general taxpayer I think.
…..Civic owned properties are intended to be a liability for the general taxpayer I think.
Hence the saying .
Socialism for the capitalists & capitalism for the Socialists!
I think this thread is far too kind to the powers that be.
Is it time to go for the jugular?
Bring them ,councillors, down one by one??
Call their bluff?
Call a spade a spade?
Last nite, Wednesday March 26, I tuned in to a repeat of your Monday discussion on culture.
God you were painful to watch!
You were discussing, as you remember, that delightful little venue on 25 Victoria Road.
My last foray unto Nanaimo’s theater was to see my son’s company (he’s their sound man) perform Good Timber at, the ugliest of all theaters, that ass-backward Port. I say ass-backward because a sentient planner would have oriented its main entrance to the plaza (are you listening Clr Johnstone?, its never too late!), for sound urban design reasons.
So last nite, Wednesday, I endured hours of your deliberations hoping to see some evidence of cultural awareness: NOT!
Last time I was in the UK, winter 2010, my grandson and I did the culture thing in London: dinner at the Kemble’s head pub on Kemble street and on to The Tempest with Derek Jacobi playing Malvolio at the Shaftsbury Avenue. Seated below us, appropriately, was UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer!
Some months earlier I had attended a Nanaimo Oliver Wood cultural event at which I stood transfixed listening to a delightful lady tell me of her golf handicap!
Golf handicap/culture/Nanaimo! Shakespeare would have appreciated the irony!
Clearly you on Nanaimo Council do not appreciate what a treasure you have on Victoria Road, it beats a garbage incinerator, and if you did you would do all in your power to wean Nanaimo’s suburban retirees away from the telly and into its hard seats.
“Just around the corner we have 20+ acres of waterfront we are willing to let Seaspan and ICF” Good point Jim. What happened to the four visions . . .
Click to access SouthDowntownTechnicalReport1.pdf
. . . of incoherent scribbles and the man who talks too much? That must have cost a penny or two!
Roger: I take it that this discussion is aimed at City Council, as I did not speak on Monday. In fact I am still trying to fully comprehend that evenings entrails.
At the same time, I must note that the outcome could have been a definitive NO to any further support. I believe that the problem lies in the fact that after five years, the operators have not undertaken any funding efforts on their own behalf.
I must severly temper this nod to Council’s attempt at parsimony, however, after finding that, in spite of a Staff report to the contrary, seven of nine determined to spend an extra million to a probable million and a half dollars to keep 911 call centre services in house.
What happened to the Wellcox thing anyway? Is it and the hotel awaiting that massive influx of money launderers and drug dealers like what happened in Vancouver. Except the bloom is off the rose there ergo a glut of empties . . .
25 Victoria Road, Ron, is a treasure. As for that leaking wall! Well culture is a money sink on one level but if it is done right a bonanza.
But in the end it isn’t the physical plant it’s the artists that make it culture and I would suggest judging by council’s cross-fire the other nite it has a long way to go.
nine determined to spend an extra million to a probable million and a half dollars to keep 911 call centre services in house.
Could it be argued that it is better to monitor emergency calls here in Nanaimo by locals rather than by someone in Victoria,Vancouver or Istanbul?
As for ‘The Arts”
My wife & I spent a wonderful evening enjoying a performance of Caberet at the Bailey theatre.
I believe that all shows were sold out ,the performace was good & the sense of community was priceless.
Perhaps we are better served , in Nanaimo, by smaller venues by amateur players?
The Port Theatre is a money pit & for what! Elvis impersonaters?