Budget Consultation Presentation

Intersection crosswalks - NO (never)
Golf - YES (always - and do you want more?)


[This is a verbatim transcript of my presentation to the March 26, 2009 budget meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to hear public comments on the city’s capital and operating budgets. Several explanations have been added, in blue ink. A log of the entire meeting will appear in a subsequent blog post. Most of the relevant budget documents (14, out of a total of 23) were not posted on the city’s web site until March 23, 2009 - see http://www.citypa.ca/CityHall/BudgetInformation/tabid/359/Default.aspx The public had until 4:45 PM on March 24, 2009, to read them and submit speaking notes. Five presentations were given at the March 26 meeting.]


You’ve had my comments now for 51 hours, so I’m going to go really quickly.

I mentioned the categories of expenditures because it’s really important to keep those in mind. [There are eight.] The three most important categories are number 3, maintaining service, where the finance minister [sic - Finance Director] notes in his 19th of March memo to you, on page 8, that there does exist discretion with respect to those expenditures. Category 4 is new services. Category six is “not recommended.” And category 7 is “external agency” expenditures. Keep those numbers in mind.

I’d like to point out that there is one “not recommended” item that I think should be recommended, and that’s fifty-nine-ninety to digitize building plans for the city.

You’ll note my reference there. What do you do with SaskPower and SaskEnergy money? We’re talking about a total of 3.7 million coming from 2008 that SaskPower and SaskEnergy bills give to the city as a result of, literally, the fact that the city gave them franchises - SaskEnergy and SaskPower - in 1954. [Confuses the facts: in 1954, SaskEnergy did not exist. It was hived off the older Crown corporation in 1988.] And that money just goes into the “general” [revenue] pool. I think, fifty-five years later, it might be a good idea to start allocating that money to specific expenditures that relate to the consumption - or non-consumption - of renewable energy. And that’s why I’ve suggested conservation measures and fuel reduction [strategies].

But I also want to point out that there’s one expenditure that’s not necessarily related to energy conservation that I’ve been asking for now for two-and-a-half years, and that’s painting the signalized [intersection] crosswalks. There are forty-one of them. This is my fifth request. It would have cost fifty-one-twenty-five in 2007. It’s probably up to about 6000 now. And I think you should compare that cost - because you’ve got to say, “Well, where is that money coming from, that 6000-dollar cost?” - and I do think you have to look at the lane marking costs, which, in 2008, were up 21,000 dollars compared to 2006-seven, and there’s 12,000 more being asked for this in 2009; that’s a category 6 expenditure, however. And I’d also point out that the thing that came up, within the last three months, specifically [from] Councillor Zurakowski with respect to painting “SCHOOL” [on the pavement] at all of the schools - that’s a category 6 expenditure that would cost 23,400. My fifty-one-twenty-five has never been in any category - except for “not in this decade,” “not in this century.”

Now specific suggestions.

I’m kind of curious (always), about the street banners. I mentioned it last year, when I stood here. They’re “summer,” fifty of them, and it’s a ten-thousand-dollar, category 4 expenditure. It’s a “new service,” but there were banners last year, and I’d like to point out that the ones that were put up last year didn’t last very long. The ones that are put up this year - I’m not sure if these “summer” banners went up last weekend [in other words, before being approved by council . . .] because there are new banners up on 2nd Avenue. I think it’s a dubious expenditure when it has to occur every year.

I want to talk about the police briefly. The police are exempt from the three-and-a-half per cent cap [that council asked “external agencies,” such as the library, SPCA, and Community Service Centre to adhere to in setting their budgets]. There are actually three other external agencies that are above that three-and-a-half percent cap, but their total [increased funding request, compared to 2008] is 79,000 dollars. The 7% that the police are asking for represents 651,000 dollars. The bridge camera expenditure [$41,800], and you remember me talking about that as a category 1 expenditure [in the speaking notes I faxed on March 24], is considered a “legal requirement” - I don’t see how it’s a “legal requirement” - but the funding source is said to be “from insurance.” There’s another expenditure - 50,000 dollars - “from insurance,” that is bridge, sorry, “bridge examination” [actually, bridge inspection]. So there’s essentially 91,800 coming from some kind of insurance proceeds that has to do with the bridge. I assume when you have an insurance claim you use the money to actually fix what was damaged - as opposed to a capital expenditure, and that’s what these [three] cameras are for forty-one eight.

The fuel at the police department: you’ll note that there’s only 96 dollars for one small part of the police department [CFSEU - the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit]. The 2009 budget for fuel at the police department is “zero.” I recall you, as well, to take a look at the Fleet Manager report that you looked at [at] the [regular council] meeting on
Monday. He recommended anti-idling [policy], flushing fuel systems, and [adopting] others’ best practices [from other cities], but did not recommend something I’ve suggested from this podium at least three times, and that’s tracking consumption. Nowhere in this budget is there any reference to fuel consumption, except for this 96 dollars [expended in 2008], and then there’s zero dollars [requested for this item in 2009]. If you don’t track your fuel, what is the point in flushing fuel systems and having an anti-idling regulation for city vehicles?

Now the golf course. In 2008, and you see the numbers there, the 11th hole cost 15,000 dollars to repair, there was 12,000 for cart paths, there was 20,000 for tee boxes, there was an additional 25,000 [for potential capital improvements ?!?!] - 72 thousand total for, literally, 2008.

In 2009 that amount is 195,520 [in fact, it's only 194,520, which includes 72,000 for two greens mowers, Category 3; 12,000 more for cart paths (a firm amount for every year from 2008 to 2012), Category 4; 25,000 (again) for potential capital improvements, Category 4 (another recurring expense for each year from 2008 to 2012, in spite of the City Manager’s assertion on page 5 of his March 20 memo that there is no 5-year plan for operating and capital expenditures); a $34,000 Category 3 increase for greenskeeping that includes $7000 more for greenskeeping fuel charges (compared to a $4800 increase in the budget for 2009 fuel used by the 8 Community Service Centre vehicles, only one of which is less than 5 years old, and each of which travelled an average of 21,600 km last year); 50,000 for the golf course’s 100th anniversary celebrations and “Mid-Amateur Canadian” tournament, Category 7; and 1520 for golf course advertising, Category 3; never mind the 200,000 in capital expenditures on the building’s roof, boiler room, and 7th hole concession sink] and the categories of expenditure in 2009 are 3, 4, and 7. The golf course as “external agency?” [There’s no budget for it among the 2009 documents from “external agencies” - see document 5 under the General Fund documents.] I thought it was taken over [property and operation] by the city on May 13, 1935.

Anyway, all of that detail about the golf course, no detail whatsoever for “transit infrastructure” for a 200,000 category 4 expenditure.