Friday, Feb. 24, 2012 – London

It’s both disappointing and discouraging to witness the zeal with which some members of city council, the mayor in particular, seek to run roughshod over public attitudes in their enthusiasm to press their own ideas.

The regularity in which this occurs is causing considerable alarm to many in the community, not the least those who spent nine months creating – at city council’s behest – a new citizen engagement policy for London.

The most recent example came earlier this week, at the city council meeting preceding the long, long budget night. On the table was a rather obscure recommendation from the community services committee to do another study on raising noise levels and extending hours for summer music festivals downtown, in particular Rock the Park held in Harris Park along the Thames River beside Museum London.

Now on the surface it doesn’t seem like such a big deal. Many people – the mayor is one and I confess to being one too – wish these outdoor events didn’t have to shut down at 11 p.m. and didn’t have to worry so much about going over the 90 decibel noise level. Toronto, Windsor and Sarnia are among nearby cities said to have a more adult concept of outdoor music, all three allowing both later and louder.

But this isn’t about what the mayor wants or what I want. The salient fact here is the city’s noise and hours regulations as they pertain to summer festivals are tied to a yearly public participation meeting.

When changes are contemplated, usually in November, a public meeting is held to discuss the issue. Before this, meetings are held with organizers of the various festivals, during which they can request changes to the bylaw.

This past year no requests were made and no changes contemplated, a fact communicated to the committee when it met Feb. 13. But at that meeting, up popped a representative of Rock the Park asking for a 15 decibel increase in the noise levels.

(The way decibel levels are calculated, each increase of 10 decibel points means the noise level has increased by a whopping 10 times. Read this Wikipedia entry for an explanation. Also interesting is this chart comparing the various common sounds.)

As you might imagine, those most concerned about these regulations are the folks who live in the immediate area around Victoria and Harris Parks. It should be noted this group includes neither me nor the mayor, who actually lives outside the city in Arva.

Now there are valid arguments to be made – and were made at city council this week by the mayor among others – that the economic and entertainment value of our big summer festivals transcends the concerns of neighbours.

Maybe that’s true. But the rules say those arguments are to be made at the public participation meeting when all and sundry can debate them. Want to change the rules? Fine, go explain it first to the folks and get their feedback. Then make whatever changes you feel, in good conscience, are appropriate.

Some members of council, however, don’t like the idea of divesting back to the public any of the power we gave them in the first place. They don’t like waiting for due process to play out either, even though this policy is one of their own creation.

As Joe Swan put it this week with a certain crude eloquence: “Just because you can get 50 or 100 people in a room doesn’t mean it’s the view of everyone in the city. We have to make decisions in the interests of the whole community.”

(One might counter, impolitely I suppose, that just because you can get 15 people in a semi-circle in council chambers on a Tuesday night doesn’t make their decisions in the best interests of the whole community either.)

Best interests notwithstanding, might we remind Councillor Swan, the mayor and their colleagues Bud Polhill, Stephen Orser, Matt Brown, Dale Henderson, Paul Van Meerbergen, Denise Brown, Harold Usher and Sandy White – the group which voted to allow Rock the Park, in effect, to sneak in through the back door – there is a public process in place. Isn’t that in the interests of the whole community?

A month ago city council accepted, with all sorts of encouraging words from the mayor, the recommendations for a new citizen engagement policy, one that provides for public participation in far more meaningful ways than the very simple procedure used for the annual festival sound level discussion.

But seeing how easily they brushed the latter aside, you can see why there are many skeptics about how much attention council will pay the new policy.

Disappointed and discouraged? No, make that disturbed and disgusted.

Thursday, Feb. 23, 2012

The mind wanders during an 8-1/2-hour budget debate, and eventually comes down on the notion there’s considerable myth-making in the process. To wit:

Myth #1: New investors are almost here.

In the final minutes early Wednesday morning, after pretty much everything was done and mostly said, Mayor Joe Fontana tried to put another zero tax increase budget into perspective – a perspective, one should acknowledge, that is quite possibly considerably different from yours or mine.

He talked about the next two years of his mandate and of his confidence good times were just over the horizon.

“In years three and four how are we going to do it? By growing the city,” the mayor expounded with enthusiasm. “If you look at the possibilities over the next couple of years there’s $500 million in private sector investments just waiting to go ahead.”

He talked about all the things council has done to get ready for this boom – servicing new industrial land, building the overpasses on the 401 to provide better access, creating a $100 million investment fund to attract investors with deep pockets. And you’re sitting there, listening and thinking, wow – what is this man smoking?

None of those things have been done.

London hasn’t yet purchased any new industrial land – although it is said to be in negotiations for property in southwest London – and it certainly hasn’t serviced anything lately. The overpasses, hugely promised by London West MPP Chris Bentley during the recent Ontario election, are now said to be on the back end of some kind of five-year plan. The $100 million investment fund continues to be mostly the dream of the mayor and Councillor Joe Swan. The investors with $500 million? Well the mayor keeps saying they are coming, they are coming – but they haven’t yet.

As part of his election campaign in 2010, Mayor Fontana promised 10,000 new jobs. Certainly there have been, will continue to be, new jobs created even as we steadily shed the big steel manufacturing jobs over the next couple of years. But very little of what he sees as necessary ingredients to a better future will be in place in time to help fulfill his promise.

London is unlikely to grow any more quickly than its current one per cent during the remainder of the mayor’s term. He’d be better off to admit that and argue instead his council is putting in place the ingredients we will need to grow in the future.

Myth #2: London is putting in place the ingredients to grow in the future.

Lots of good work is going on in this city to build its future. London Economic Development Corp. has the specific mandate to attract new business and has a successful track record. Western University is beginning to spawn new enterprises. Our medical, tech and food clusters are getting larger and more robust, a few jobs at a time. Pretty much all of that is happening away from City Hall.

In this budget surprisingly little attention is paid to what the mayor often calls his Job One, growing the city’s economy.

Economic prosperity is covered in just 26 pages out of 755 with a total taxpayer supported budget of $8.4 million, up 29 per cent from last year. But the money also covers operational expenses of LECD, London Convention Centre and Tourism London.

The city does have an economic prosperity reserve fund, established by the previous council. At the end of last year it had a balance of $22.8 million and the city will contribute $10.2 million in cash and $4.2 in interest to the fund this year. About $19.8 million will be spent, some of it on projects initiated by the previous council. At year end the balance will be $17.3 million, of which about $14 million is available for civic and economic projects.

Early in the term of this council it was agreed London needed at least a $100 million economic fund. Creating it, however, has been difficult, partly because of confusion in the public’s mind about the purpose of investment funds, questions over how the money will be raised and spent, and the property tax implications of those decisions.

None of those questions have yet been answered.

Myth #3: New growth will keep taxes frozen.

That’s what Mayor Fontana claimed as the budget battle ended, inferring for the next two years growth would replace reserves as the preferred means of keeping taxes frozen.

Each year the city grows a little bigger, currently pushing assessment up about one per cent annually. The mayor’s goal is two per cent – at least. A portion of that assessment – each percentage point is worth about $4.8 million – is supposed to be used to pay for projects and services to which new areas of the city are entitled through their taxes, although Mayor Fontana is inclined just to grab it all to get to zero.

But here’s the reality check. To cover the money taken from reserves this year in next year’s budget will require virtually all of the assessment increase even in the unlikely event we accelerate to two per cent growth in the next 10 months.

Not to mention perhaps another $10 – 20 million in budget pressures from inflation alone that must either be paid by the taxpayer or cut from the budget. And since the argument is we hit bone in this year’s $12 million chop to operational expenses, it will probably take service cuts and significant layoffs to reach zero in 2012 even if we grow twice as fast.

Myth #4: Londoners don’t mind paying tax increases.

At the start of the budget debate Tuesday night, a motion was passed to accept the survey by Paul Hubert that showed 54 per cent of Londoners apparently don’t mind paying more each year in taxes. And given a choice between service cuts and tax hikes, an astonishing 74 per cent were ready to open their wallets.

Full disclosure, I live in Councillor Hubert’s ward, I voted for him twice, I’ve publicly called him one of the best members of council. But I’m also wondering what he is smoking.

Maybe in Ward 8, or Ward 7, 6 or 5 – the more affluent and better educated northwestern corner of this city – property taxes are a relatively small portion of family expenses. But tax increases don’t sell very well east of Adelaide and it should be no surprise the councillors in Wards 1, 2, 3, 4 and 14 all sided with the mayor in finding ways, however potentially damaging in the long run, to keep the tax rate frozen for another year to help Londoners right now.

That east London is hurting, that east London is skeptical about the fancy-talk threats of economic time bombs, that east London believes (and can make a reasonably good case) it is not treated equitably, does seem lost on the councillors who provide the most articulate and rational commentaries on what we should be doing – or not – to move forward.

This is a council of Two Solitudes, an 8-7 split along income levels and job security delineated by growing mistrust and animosity. Unless and until there is more understanding and acceptance on both sides this council is not going to make much forward progress on anything.

And that would put far more than another year of a tax freeze at risk.

Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012

A decade from now, whether Londoners believe what city council created early this morning is a multi-million-dollar time bomb, as Matt Brown believes, or a beautiful moment on the road to the city’s economic recovery, as Joe Fontana insists, remains to be seen.

For the moment what we know is that this council has approved its second budget in a row with no tax increase, fulfilling 50 per cent of the mayor’s election promise of four years of zeros.

But when the back-slapping and back-biting subsides – and there was a fair bit of both during the eight-and-a-half-hour budget debate that concluded at 1:17 this a.m. – at least some members of the group will realize what they accomplished was pretty lazy.

Not that zero isn’t an accomplishment. It’s how it was accomplished that is the legacy for 2012.

Instead of making tough, unpopular but necessary decisions, essentially council rode $18 million in expense reductions generated by staff and donations from the province, and then rattled the proverbial cookie jar for about $8 million more to achieve a budget of $462,727,252 that doesn’t ask a penny more from taxpayers than the year before.

For all the angst and anger and long-winded speeches – sometimes you wonder if council members think they are paid by the word – what they accomplished in setting this year’s tax levy wasn’t much more than a trained gerbil might have done. Well, at least one that had Martin Hayward, the city’s treasurer and chief financial officer, and Larry Palarchio, the city’s director of financial planning and policy, as its advisors. They and their colleagues in the financial department are the architects of this year’s frozen tax rate – and more’s the glory since it’s pretty clear neither of them really believed in it.

Mayor Fontana, of course, got the praise. “Without the direction coming from that chair,” said Paul Van Meerbergen, gesturing towards the mayor, “it would not have happened.”

Whether the councillor for Ward 10 was being generous or crafty in pointing the finger we won’t know for some years to come. But good or bad, there will be a consequence – which brings us back to the beauty and the bombshell.

A couple of key close votes both separated the council and delivered the zero. One, decided 8-7, reduced this year’s taxpayer contribution to a reserve fund for affordable housing to $1 million, a cut of 50 per cent. This may, or may not, have an immediate impact on how numbers of less fortunate citizens are sheltered this year. Long-range, though, it will reduce the amount of money the city has to spend on dealing with housing those Londoners who desperately want a more permanent address.

The other, decided 9-6, used a further $1.298 million reduction in other reserve funds to balance the budget – or as Paul Hubert put it: “I feel like this is a choice between long-term fiscal prudence vs. short-term expediency.”

Those two decisions, piled on top of the heavy lifting from the administration, got you zero. The gerbil wouldn’t have taken two hours to debate it; a smart gerbil might not have done it either.

Councillor Brown, who represents the burgeoning Ward 7 suburbs in northwest London, described this way of getting zero as “counter intuitive if we want to maintain the quality of life in London. To get down to zero at all costs isn’t visionary, it’s short-sighted.”

And because $8.2 million total in reserves was used to paper over cuts that weren’t made, council has created “a multi-million-dollar time bomb that will go off sometime in the future. Did we really get to zero? I don’t think so.”

For his part, Mayor Fontana asked, “is the public going to be hurt by what we’ve done tonight? Absolutely not. We’ve all achieved a great goal. Let’s not worry about a million-dollar-time bomb out there. We’ve got a triple A credit rating, all kinds of money in reserves (about $207 million in total, including $32 million added in this budget). Let’s start talking about how good we are.”

Zero, he said, sends a signal that London has its finances under control that will help loosen “$500 million in private sector investments” over the next two years.

There were, by rough count, about 10,000 more words expressed by almost all and sundry that simply added to the arguments on each side. We’ll spare you the agony.

A couple of memorable moments amidst the dreary drone. A middle-aged gentleman with a protest sign wandered into the council chambers shortly after the meeting began. Accosted verbally to remove himself he sat down in the centre of the room, apparently defying authority. But when no security arrived to drag him out, he got up quietly and left. Later a few protesters, carrying an Occupy London banner, chanted “Human need, not corporate greed,” to little effect.

Sandy White supported the mayor on the two critical motions, both times extracting a promise the money would be put back into next year’s budget in return for her vote. Both times Nancy Branscombe asked the obvious question, “Where does the money come from?”

Later Councillor White insisted, “I did not make the choices I made just to get to zero. I will not be accused of getting to zero for the sake of getting to zero.”

And Stephen Orser, who contributed not a discernible nickel’s worth of ideas to realistically cut the budget, nevertheless blamed council’s lack of initiative on the fact most members don’t work full-time at the job. “We’re getting part-time results. It’s time this council became full-time.” Mind you he didn’t promise he’d do the job for the same pay.

It’s work done on budgets for this year, council now begins to shift its focus to generating economic investment for the city. Lurking, however, are $8.2 million in unfunded expenses from this year’s budget that now drag into 2013, plus upwards of $10 to $20 million in inflationary costs.

Sooner or later either the chainsaw gets fired up, or council accepts that zero is a mug’s game.

THE KEY VOTES

     -- To cut affordable housing contribution to $1 million – Yes (8): Mayor Joe Fontana, Bud Pohill (Ward 1), Joe Swan (Ward 3), Stephen Orser (Ward 4), Dale Henderson (Ward 9), Paul Van Meerbergen (Ward 10), Denise Brown (Ward 11), Sandy White (Ward 14). No (7): Bill Armstrong (Ward 2), Joni Baechler (Ward 5), Nancy Branscombe (Ward 6), Matt Brown (Ward 7), Paul Hubert (Ward 8), Harold Usher (Ward 12), Judy Bryant (Ward 13).

     -- To use $1.298 million from reserves to balance budget – Yes (9): Mayor Joe Fontana, Bud Pohill (Ward 1), Bill Armstrong (Ward 2) Joe Swan (Ward 3), Stephen Orser (Ward 4), Dale Henderson (Ward 9), Paul Van Meerbergen (Ward 10), Denise Brown (Ward 11), Sandy White (Ward 14). No (6): Joni Baechler (Ward 5), Nancy Branscombe (Ward 6), Matt Brown (Ward 7), Paul Hubert (Ward 8), Harold Usher (Ward 12), Judy Bryant (Ward 13).

Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2012 – London

Paul Hubert, the councillor for Ward 8, has performed a semi-useful service for Londoners on the eve of today’s final budget debate by city council.

On the weekend he published the results of his ‘Budget Cut Survey’ in which 1,327 residents answered a series of questions about what could or should or should not be trimmed in the city’s 2012 budget.

As you probably know, city council meeting in committee almost two weeks ago gave tentative approval to a budget with a zero tax increase for the second year in a row. But the freeze was accomplished by diverting about $3 million intended for various reserve funds into operations.

And that has angered a lot of people, not the least Councillor Hubert himself.

In his survey almost 54 per cent said they did not support a tax freeze, almost 74 per cent were opposed if a freeze caused service cuts, and almost 81 per cent opposed use of reserve funds to accomplish a freeze.

Wow, you might think, what a repudiation of Mayor Joe Fontana’s successful election campaign on this very issue – to freeze taxes for all four years of his mandate. Well maybe, but maybe not too.

Councillor’s Hubert’s survey, while interesting, is not what is described as a scientific poll which selects respondents randomly, rather than by invitation over Twitter or Facebook and heavily weighted towards the more affluent wards of 5, 6, 7 and 13. So you can’t count on this survey to be anything close to an accurate reflection of public opinion. It might be, or it might be hugely wrong.

Unfortunately we don’t have any valid opinion poll to gauge where the public stands on the various elements of the budget going into tonight’s crucial decision. All we have that matters tonight is the election result, which Mayor Fontana won with his tax freeze platform even though he received only 47.3 per cent of the ballots marked by 39.9 per cent of the eligible voters.

On that basis, Mayor Fontana’s election victory was hardly an endorsement for tax freezes.

That’s probably why there were so many 8-7 votes at council during the budget debates last year and this year. While there is widespread support on council, and one suspects in the community, for careful and efficient spending of public tax dollars, there’s also a wide range of opinion on how to do it.

That’s reflected in Councillor Hubert’s survey. Asked about daytime closing of arenas, 51 per cent said no but 49 per cent said fine. How about reducing bylaw and licensing service in the summertime – 57 per cent yes, 43 per cent no. Close wading pools – 79 per cent no, 21 per cent yes. Eliminate improvements to Veterans Memorial Parkway – 73 per cent yes, 27 per cent no. Reduce street sweeping – 54 per cent no, 46 per cent yes. Reduce road patching – 91 per cent no, 9 per cent yes.

There are more questions and answers, which you’ll find on Councillor Hubert’s website.

So what should council make of all this? Because this isn’t a valid public opinion poll, probably not much. Just as valid to individual councillors – and no more accurate, however – are the emails or phone calls received. Each ward might have 20,000 or more voters but it takes surprisingly few complaints to scare them off a point of view.

We’ve seen that in the media over the past few days as various council members worried they might waver come the final vote tonight. We’ll see.

It could be a long meeting and the budget debate won’t start until sometime after 6 p.m. You’ll find the agenda here. The budget could be passed in a single all-encompassing motion (very unlikely) or each of the several hundred recommendations from committee could be decided individually (all too possible).

If everything was put back into the budget that proved contentious at the end, it would cost you about $7 more. But for Mayor Fontana, there’s a promise at stake – and quite possibly his ability to get much else done by this council for the rest of his term.

Friday, Feb. 17, 2012 – London

Of all the decisions city council made last week on the road toward another zero tax increase, the one that has been roasted and toasted with heat and hostility was the $1 million reduction in the annual taxpayer contribution to a fund for affordable housing.

Nancy Branscombe, who did not support the move, called it “disheartening.” Fellow progressive Joni Baechler said it was “folly.” Harold Usher described it as “disappointing.”

That reaction, of course, certainly depends on your point of view and probably on whether you were a member or supporter of previous councils which have enthusiastically supported this particular tax in the past. And full disclosure here: In the past I’ve been one of them.

However it should be agreed by everyone on all sides of the debate that there’s considerable confusion and misinformation about the consequences of council’s decision last week. Uninformed emotion is not the way to decide.

Myth #1, the affordable housing program has been cut in half.

No true. What has been cut in half is the city’s contribution for 2012, taken from taxes, to its bank account for affordable housing projects. Since 2001 London has put $2 million aside each year to take advantage of federal and provincial housing programs when they are offered.

Over that 10-year period, 1,194 affordable housing units have been built in London. The money London contributed leveraged $65 million in federal and provincial funding and $74 million in private equity and mortgages.

At present the city’s affordable housing bank account stands at $5.4 million. It will stand at $6.4 million if council agrees next week to contribute only $1 million to the fund, instead of $7.4 million.

That is very definitely not a 50 per cent cut in the housing program.

It should also be noted that when London began creating a housing fund it trailed many Canadian cities. Now we are considered among the leaders – because we had the funds on hand to participate in federal and provincial programs. Can we afford to coast a bit now? Perhaps.

Myth #2, we need to be ready for federal-provincial programs.

Yes we do. However, we’re already fully funded for the current program which lasts until 2014. And, given the dire financial straits forecast for Ontario and claimed by Ottawa, another housing program is uncertain for several years after that.

The current program earmarks $11.46 million in federal and provincial funds to London, irrespective of how much the city contributes, explains Ross Fair, the city’s executive director of community services. In fact, the federal and provincial funds would be there if we put in nothing.

What the reserve fund reduction causes, says Louise Stevens, the city’s director of municipal housing, “is a strategic shift from creation of a maximum number of permanent units to an emphasis on creating shorter term temporary housing measures.” And in the current economy, with many Londoners in real danger of losing their homes, that is not necessarily a bad strategy.

Here are the numbers:

     -- $2 million annual contribution through 2014 would: create 190 new permanent rental units for 25 years; convert 29 units to rent; create a short-term rental supplement program to assist 45 families for 3 years; create 438 jobs; leave a $123,000 balance in the housing fund at the end.

     -- $1 million annual contribution through 2014 would: create 115 new permanent rental units for 25 years; convert 68 units to rent; create a short-term rent supplement program to assist 100 families for 3 years; create 366 jobs; leave a balance of $107,000 in the housing fund at the end.

So it’s a different strategy, assisting people on the cusp of disaster in the short-term ahead of those who desperately want to get out of public housing. Either way there are attractive outcomes. That’s what we should be debating.

Myth #3, those who favour the cut are stomping on the poor.

Well, not really.  Social housing is very expensive and takes a significant bite out of the tax revenues. This year we will spent almost $13 million to subsidize various housing programs. Add a $2 million contribution to savings fund would bring that to $15 million; add $1 million and its $14 million. Either way, it’s serious money.

On the other hand, one could easily argue a city as well-off as London can afford what amounts to a $7 per household additional contribution to help the less fortunate, some of whom live in appalling conditions.

Conversely, one could argue there were alternatives.

Myth #4, there was no other way to get to zero but rob reserves.

This claim, to put it bluntly, smells. Council had – still has, since the budget decision is not yet final – opportunities to cut costs without significant damage.

Let’s start with the two golf courses that lose money, in total about $200,000 a year. Why should taxpayers subsidize golf?

We could raise rents at the London Convention Centre 10 per cent and eliminate a $600,000 deficit. Why should taxpayers subsidize conventioneers?

We could take the $600,000 tentatively planned for the World Figure Skating Championships – to be paid by surplus funds – and apply it to tax reduction. Why should taxpayers subsidize a party?

The economic development reserve fund jumped 54 per cent for 2012. We could carve $500,000 out of that budget and still leave it with $1.3 million more than last year.

Animal control services cost Londoners $1 million more than we recover in fees. Increase dog and cat licenses by 10 per cent and raise $120,000. Why should we subsidize pet owners?

Bylaw enforcement will cost taxpayers $729,000 more than we will recover in fees. Really? Either we should raise the fees to cover our costs, or stop enforcing the bylaws. Either way, there’s $729,000 on a low-hanging branch.

As a token gesture the mayor and councillors could offer a 10 per cent reduction in their costs, which this year will hit $1.7 million. There’s another $170,000 that would just mean fewer T-shirts and pins.

So that’s $2.9 million that could have been carved with no impact on services, more than enough to restore the $1 million to the housing fund and the second $1.3 million stripped from another reserve fund.

Yes, there are probably reasonable arguments why each of the above suggestions shouldn’t happen. No more or less reasonable, one would bet, than what actually happened.

That’s the debate we should be having too.

Thursday, Feb. 16, 2012 – London

It is perhaps fortuitous city council is holding the final discussion on London’s 2012 budget next Tuesday – that is, after we’ve all had a chance to digest the Drummond Report on the state of Ontario’s public services.

Now we know that instead of arguing whether to put $23,000 back into the budget to keep wading pools open this summer, we should instead be trying to figure out how we can cut a further $1.5 million in spending so we don’t have to use reserves to make up the different.

Seems we might well need those reserves in the future as the provincial government starts what will obviously be a massive cost-cutting and servicing reducing – and, dare we say, totally traumatic – overhaul of its budget.

An aside on the wading pools, apparently the source of a few organized campaigns to guilt councillors into changing their vote next Tuesday. City staff, although they won’t admit this publicly, has been trying to close the wading pools for years because they are under-used and too expensive to operate.

While they are at it, city council could start practicing for the real, ugly world ahead by at least gassing the money-losing golf course at River Road, and why not the money-losing golf course at Fanshawe too. That would save us about $600,000, almost halfway to the $1.3 million that didn’t get covered last week.

There are more than two dozen golf courses in or closely around London, offering rounds at a wide-range of prices. There’s no long need for the city to be in this business, especially if it is costing taxpayers’ money.

That’s essentially the stark message from the Drummond Report. Ontario’s economic troubles are just beginning. Governments at all levels must learn to do less, especially if others are already doing it; and for the rest of it, to do more with less.

What will be a particular difficult for politicians to learn – well, in truth, for the rest of us to accept – is that government can’t do it all which clearly means government shouldn’t do some of it at all.

Emotions will run high along wherever that line is drawn.

To be clear, civic government of the now and future isn’t necessarily about zero tax increases. That may well be a by-product of an honest evaluation of what the city should be (or not) doing for us. Note this is different than an honest evaluation of how the city does what it does, a process that is just about finished at City Hall. Being efficient in doing something that didn’t need to be done by the city in the first place won’t be worth points in the new Ontario Don Drummond is predicting.

How should London approach that? To his credit, Premier Dalton McGuinty didn’t create another task force of present or past MPs. He went to a small group of outsiders, pretty much gave them a blank canvas to propose the changes necessary to deal with the economic future.

So should London. And not one of those thumb-sucking groups with a rep from the Chamber of Commerce, one from the London and District Labour Council and one from the Urban League of London. They are all fine groups for what they do, but they all have a view of civic government that hasn’t changed a lot in the past several decades.

Then we need to pick half a dozen subjects and ask bluntly and without preconceived notions: If we were starting this program tomorrow how would we do it? Here are some suggested areas: Housing programs, recreation programs, environmental programs, emergency services, transportation programs divided between road construction  and maintenance operations, and public transit.

For example, a recurring question about public transit is why half of the routes go through downtown London. So if we were starting again, how would we organize public transit routes? What difference would that make? How do we get there from here?

Clearly the biggest obstacle to changing the way civic government works is our abiding fear of change itself. We’ve gotten so focused on trying to protect what we do that we lost sight in many cases of why we’re doing it, who we’re actually doing it for and what better or different alternatives are available.

We saw a perfect example of that last week in the chorus is dismay and abuse raised over the reduction of $1 million in the funds added to city reserves – from your taxes – for affordable housing. There’s another way of looking at that whole question that shows it to be not nearly as draconian as some on council have tried to paint it.

So we’ll look at that issue in this space tomorrow as another example of how change is not necessarily the bogeyman in the budget.

Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2012 – London

Whatever you may think of the way London Transit operates – and every customer and many non-customers, it seems, has an opinion – it's not likely to get much better unless city council makes it a priority.

A recommendation in this direction is expected to be a cornerstone of the new transportation master plan to be tabled in June. That plan, which looks ahead 20 years, has been shaped, although certainly not dictated, by a series of community meetings top-heavy with London Transit users or, at least, people who believe public transportation must be a primary way of moving people in the future.

But how we get to the future, of course, is very much the consequence of how we deal with the present. And yesterday's civic works committee meeting offered a glimpse of the city council debate just ahead about getting ready for the future. It is quite likely to be top-heavy with folks who drive cars today and think that's the primary way they'll get around in the future.

“We know this is a car city first,” Paul Van Meerbergen told the committee. “The bus is secondary. This is a city where we already have inadequate road transportation. We don’t have a freeway system. Yet somehow we feel the bus will save us all.

Councillor Van Meerbergen doesn't speak for every motorist, of course. Some of them, given public transportation choices that were more agreeable, might well switch. In fact, Larry Ducharme, general manager of London Transit, points to the fact the bus system had a seven per cent share mode of all people in transit in 2004. By 2009 that had risen to 11 per cent.

Transportation share mode covers every person who is mobile, whether by motor vehicle, bus, bicycle, scooter or walking. And the good councillor from Ward 10 is correct, this is a car city. Cars and trucks have a share mode slightly over 70 per cent.

What are we to do about that?

“We can’t force people to get out of their cars and onto a bus,” Councillor Van Meerbergen said.

Well, yes, in a way we could. One way to change habits is to force it. Council could begin to affect change in the share mode ratio by shifting more money into public transit to allow it to expand.

Both current and would-be riders of London Transit agree on its number one issue – it doesn’t go far enough or fast enough. Mr. Ducharme, in a recent report to council, noted the current hours of transit service are the same as they were 20 years ago.

John Lucas, the city’s manager of transportation engineering, is shepherding the transportation master plan through the final stages of public participation and the full reveal in June. The plan, he said, “embraces all modes of transportation with strong linkages to land use and compatibility between them.”

Translated, what that means is tomorrow’s London will, probably by necessity and almost certainly by provincial statute, be more compact and densely populated than the sprawling land hog we all currently call home. And that will be a city where our elected leaders, perhaps starting with this bunch, will make decisions that give far more consideration to public transit as the mode of choice.

Obviously there will continue to be roads in our future. And cars and trucks too, undoubtedly. But every full London Transit bus that crosses the city means 40 or 50 cars still in the garage. And fewer cars on the road means we need fewer expensive road upgrades and expansions.

We could begin to accomplish that without necessarily spending more money, but shifting some of the $265.4 million we’ll spend this year on building and upgrading roads, bridges and associated infrastructure to buy public transport equipment, on which we’ll only spend $76.9 million in 2012.

That would be making public transit a priority. Councillor Van Meerbergen might not like it, but if predictions are correct he probably won’t like paying $5 a litre or more for gasoline 20 years from now either.

By the way the committee did endorse Transit Vision 2040 strategy that sets a target for medium-sized cities such as London of 85 public transit trips per person per year by 2024, about 40 per cent higher than our current average of 61 trips. Councillor Van Meerbergen voted no.

Monday, Feb. 13, 2012 – London

In this year’s budget London Transit didn’t fare too badly. Where city departments actually were held to no increase or less and most boards and commissions were limited to two per cent, our public transportation system was granted 6.1 per cent more.

So you might think the general manager of London Transit, Larry Ducharme, is either cheeky or greedy when he visits city council’s civic works committee this afternoon to ask, howbeit indirectly, for more cash.

Mr. Ducharme will be urging the committee to endorse something called the Transit Vision 2040 strategy developed by the Canadian Urban Transit Association, a sort of lobby group on behalf of public transit in this country.

The association, by turn, wants Canadian cities to set targets for increased use of public transit. For medium-sized cities such as London, the goal is 85 trips per person per year by 2024, almost double the current average of 49.

That would be a stretch for every public transit company, although not as much for London. Last year Londoners took about 61 trips per person.

To get to the goal of 85 trips, though, would require accelerated financial contributions from taxpayers to London Transit or a corresponding hefty hike at the fare box. Hefty fare box increases, as we know from experience, tend to work the opposite of increasing ridership.

So Mr. Ducharme would describe himself as neither cheeky nor greedy, but simply as a passionate believer in the merits of public transit as the better alternative for moving people around this city in the years to come.

And in truth, he isn’t actually asking for money this afternoon; that’s my extrapolation. All he wants is for the city to sign on to the goal. Then he hopes guilt takes care of the money issue.

This is going to be an interesting, dare one say watershed, year for London Transit. In the next few months the 2030 Transportation Master Plan will be released, a document which sets out what we need to do starting now to ensure we’re able to efficiently get around this growing city in the next 20 years.

Public transit is expected to loom large in those plans, starting with an express bus system – known as bus rapid transit or BRT – and evolving over time to light rail transit or LRT. Expanding public transit, the master plan is expected to argue, will be less expensive by far than widening arterial roads; healthier too. Mr. Ducharme has been talking up BRT for the past six years. So far about all the support council has provided is that it hasn’t said no.

For years London has been among the lowest per capita contributors to public transit, although the overall performance of the system ranks among the best. This year taxpayers will cover 36.4 per cent of London Transit’s total costs of about $57 million, up from 34.6 per cent in 2011.The extra funds granted this year will permit 4,100 additional hours of service. To put that into perspective, it represents about one-tenth of what customers have been clamouring for.

Meanwhile, that other mid-sized city up the 401, Kitchener-Waterloo, is investing about $900 million in its rapid transit system.

So is London up for the task?

Friday, Feb. 10, 2012 – London

We now know how much extra we’ll be paying this year in property taxes. Zero.

What we don’t know, probably won’t know for some time, is how much this will cost us, perhaps not in dollars but maybe in angst and anger.

Over eight hours yesterday city council found a final $7.6 million in savings and expenditure reductions to ensure there will not be a property increase for the second year in a row.

It wasn’t pretty, it certainly wasn’t popular with some members at various times and for various reasons, and it might have hedged a principle or two, but it’s done.

And yes, there was a little magic involved. At predicted last December, council pulled two rabbits from the hat to balance the books for 2012.

The first rabbit was $2.994 million savings in labour costs and related items. This was accomplished after a two hour, 20 minute in camera session about which everyone refused to talk. Only a series of numbers was released when the public session resumed.

Will this mean layoffs? Mayor Joe Fontana at first refused to rule out that possibility, then he said wait until the end of the meeting to see, and at the end he offered a prepared paragraph of bureaucratic doublespeak which he explained meant probably not, that mostly it would mean unfilled jobs would be eliminated, which in turn would create cost savings and efficiencies.

Others weren’t so sure. While every council member is required to remain silent on the subject of in camera discussions, Councillor Joni Baechler did make a suggestive reference to “talk about losing jobs in London, standing with our Electro-Motive friends. I find it disingenuous.”

Certainly there will be some nervous folks around City Hall today as they parse out the unknowns. The lack of information undoubtedly will generate all kinds of speculation and angst.

City Clerk Cathy Saunders said council is not required to explain personnel decisions made in camera, only to report monies spent or saved. Somehow that seems wrong, given it’s our money.

The second rabbit was a reduction of $2.972 million in contributions to reserve funds, including $1.372 million pulled out of the hat at the last minute to cover the hole of unfound savings elsewhere.

London, like virtually all Canadian cities, has various reserve funds, described by City Treasurer Martin Hayward as savings accounts for future projects anticipated by the city or its boards and commissions, or to pay for unexpected emergencies. In total we have about $208 million in the bank now, with originally $34 million in the budget to be added this year. But it was argued the economic pressures many Londoners are now facing requires, as Councillor Joe Swan put it, “that the city save less so its citizens can save more.”

“Reserves are supposed to be used for rainy days,” said the mayor. “Ladies and gentlemen, it’s hailing out there.”

But it was far from a unanimous point of view. Councillor Joni Baechler charged the move would undermine “those strong principles which got this community back on a sound financial basis” and could increase costs in the future if reserves were found to inadequate and borrowing was required.

And Councillor Nancy Branscombe described it as imprudent fiscal management. “We can still get to zero but it has to be permanent cost containment.”

Later, after council approved the spending 9-6, she sent a Tweet to friends: “This is the icing on this disheartening night.”

There were other angry moments, in particular the decision to cut $1 million from a reserve fund for affordable housing, a move which surfaced a new housing policy crafted by the mayor. Said Councillor Paul Hubert, “I’m not comfortable making significant policy changes on the fly.” Nevertheless it passed 8-7.

That wasn’t the only close vote on the night on what was labelled The B List, altogether 43 different suggestions for cuts to get to zero prepared by Mr. Hayward and his staff. The list, among other things,  included a $73,000 reduction in the fire department vehicle repairs because its fleet is newer (approved); a $90,000 reduction in roadside grass cutting (rejected); a $120,000 saving by closing most skating arenas in the daytime (rejected); a $23,000 saving in outdoor aquatics, including closing of park site wading pools (approved); a $70,000 reducing in downtown street sweeping (rejected); a $100,000 reduction in pothole repairs (rejected); a $250,000 cut in culture grants (rejected on a tie vote); and a $40,000 increase in licensing fees for businesses, taxis and limos (approved).

As was the case last year, the mayor’s original coalition of tax fighters held pretty steady, led by Councillor Paul Van Meerbergen who voted yes on only one contentious item – to save pothole repairs. He was joined on most occasions by Councillors Denise Brown, Dale Henderson, Bud Polhill, Stephen Orser, Joe Swan and Sandy White.

On the final vote to use reserve funds to plug the hole, they were unexpectedly joined by Councillor Bill Armstrong to make it 9-6.

Afterwards, though, the mayor said zero wasn’t about him, election promises notwithstanding, but “the people of London have told you they want to get good value for their tax dollars, to do things differently and save us a little bit of money. We’re not compromising our principles. We’re not causing the city to fall apart.”

While not every nickel required to keep the tax rate unchanged was a permanent nickel saved, a huge percentage was. And that, certainly, is a credible achievement.

Thursday, Feb.9, 2012 – London

On the city council meeting calendar, today's gathering to discuss the 2012 budget is listed as 'if needed'. Turns out, as events have unfolded over the past few weeks, this meeting now is crucial.

By now, or so the budget plan went, council working as the strategic priorities and policies committee should have passed the $93.7 million capital budget and most, if not all, of the $478 million tax-supported operating budget, leaving routine final approval for Feb. 21.

Instead, virtually none of that has yet been accomplished. The discussion on the capital budget two weeks ago was adjourned abruptly and in some confusion after Councillor Joe Swan demanded a line-by-line examination to ferret out capital projects paid with operating cash that could be either delayed or funded in some other way.

His goal, he said, was to find a painless way of reaching the target of a second year of no property tax increase. As it turned out, delaying the first item on the list – repaving a parking lot at Museum London – was a perfect example of ‘painless'. His council colleagues balked at continuing the exercise, aware one example does not necessarily a good idea make.

The agreed solution to a looming stalemate was to ask the senior civic administration to prepare what is now called The B List of permanent cuts to services that would add up to at least the $5.5 million still required to get the 2012 budget down to a zero tax hike.

Because The B List will also impact the operating budget, last week's discussion on this hefty document ended early too.

So here we are today, at 2 p.m., in city council chambers. For want of a better description, call it B-Day.

We won't necessary know when time runs late tonight what the tax levy for this year will be. Further quick studies may be required on the implications of possible decisions. What we should know, however, is the likely pathway council has chosen to a budget solution.

There are several combinations, not the least of which is a determination to accept a small tax increase after all. It would be about 1.44 per cent if council did nothing today but approve the current budget.

Instead of, or perhaps as well as, cutting some of all of The B List, council has at least two other options; both push costs into the future. One would be to follow Mr. Swan's suggestion. There are $17 million in capital projects paid from the operating budget – chopping $5.5 million seems possible, but even parking lots eventually must be repaired and probably at higher cost.  Or cash reserves could be tapped to fund the difference – sort of robbing Peter Junior to pay Paul since that money must be repaid later, some of it by people who didn’t benefit from zero this year.

Getting to zero, it should be remembered, isn't a fight over nothing. Four years of no property tax increases was the cornerstone of Joe Fontana's 2010 campaign. Breaking a promise one year in would be more than just personally embarrassing for him. It would suggest he no longer has any control over council.

If you're betting, however, go with zero. It can be done, whatever the long-term consequences. Amidst the very tough economic times for London there’s not much will on council to lumber taxpayers with even a small increase.

And what of the long-term consequences? Well the last time London had two years of zero – back in 1990 and 2000 – this is what happened in the five years that followed: 2.5%, 4.6%, 3.9%, 8.3% and 6.6%, an average of 5.2%. As the mechanic in the motor oil ad used to say, you can pay me now or pay me (more) later.

Or – and this is the option that city council's services review committee will keep banging on for the rest of 2012 – are there acceptable ways in which the city should or can permanent cut services or reduce costs?