26
Oct 11

Council Scorecard Special: How your councillor voted on sharks & elephants

After months of squabbling, divisiveness and nail-bitingly close votes, Council found some consensus yesterday with a couple of items relating to sharks and elephants. The overwhelming margins on both votes prove that, while councillors stand divided on things like whether residents should have libraries to visit or late night buses to ride, they’re pretty damn united when it comes to animal protection.

The vote on banning the sale of shark fin was the bigger story, and the one that attracted more detractors from council’s libertarianish wing. (A wing that includes Rob Ford.) I enjoyed Corey Mintz’s photos and commentary from the vote. I’d also like to highlight the speech given by Mike Del Grande — I’ll try to grab video –, which came as a passionate defence of laws and policies that protect endangered animals and showed a side of the councillor we tend not to see much of these days in Ford-dominated news cycles.

The elephant vote was a long time coming — read this Toronto Life article if you haven’t already–, and it’s heartening that it passed so swiftly. Aside from the obvious good-news-for-elephants angle, the only other story to emerge from the vote is an indication from Councillor Paul Ainslie that he may resign from the Zoo Board, as he feels the board was overruled and blindsided by this decision. No word yet on whether the other members of the board will be able to carry on without all the talent and knowledge Ainslie brings to the table.

Neither vote fits the parameters for inclusion on the City Council Scorecard — they don’t really relate to the mayor’s agenda in any meaningful way, and neither vote was whipped –, but I had enough people ask if I was going to include them that I decided to make a special chart for posterity’s sake. As a bonus, you get to see which councillors stuck it out until 11 p.m. last night to vote on the elephant item.

 

 


26
Oct 11

What contracted out garbage means — and doesn’t mean

The Toronto Star’s Paul Moloney:

Starting next August, a private company will be collecting household garbage from 165,000 homes west of Yonge St. to the Humber River and from Lake Ontario to Steeles Ave.

The campaign promise of Mayor Rob Ford was fulfilled when city council voted 26-16 Monday to award the job to GFL Environmental East Corporation, of Pickering.

The company, which collects garbage in Hamilton and Oshawa-Whitby, beat out other competitors by offering to do the work for seven years at a $78.4 million saving, or about $11.2 million a year less than unionized city workers.

via City approves private garbage pickup | Toronto Star.

I don’t have a ton to write on this, as it is a relatively minor shift when compared to some of the other policy this administration has their collective eye on. But, given that the mayor is likely to highlight this “victory” in every speech he’ll make from now until the Leafs win the Stanley Cup, let’s spend a little bit of time talking about what contracted out garbage in District 2 means — and more importantly, doesn’t mean — to the city of Toronto.

  • It means risk: I wrote about this last week as well, but I don’t think council or staff did anywhere near their due diligence when it came time to vet this bid. It is such a suspiciously lowball bid that even GFL’s competitors were wondering how they managed to make their numbers work. And that’s where the risk comes in, because it’s entirely possible that the numbers won’t work, and the city will be left holding the bag — or bin — when GFL either goes bankrupt or simply decides they want out of the deal.
  • It doesn’t mean better service: Service quality is a bit of a question mark going forward. When he appeared with Josh Matlow on NewsTalk 1010, Public Works Chair Denzil Minnan-Wong would only commit to service bring provided at the same level as it is currently.
  • It doesn’t mean budgetary savings that can be used on things like libraries and transit: This is the point that will continuously get overlooked again and again, and it’s so critical. Waste collection falls under the city’s rate-based budget, which is separate from the operating budget. Homeowners cover their costs for trash collection through a user fee they pay on their City-issued utility bill. As a result, cheaper waste collection won’t ever mean that there extra funds for the city services that are currently being menaced by men with large knives. It also won’t mean lower property taxes, if that’s the kind of thing that makes you salivate. As far as the all-important taxpayer is concerned, the only fiscal impact as a result of this change might be a freeze or slight decrease in the annual cost of a garbage bin. A medium-sized bin costs less than $50 per year at current rates.

So what happens next? Hopefully very little of interest. Now that council has made this decision, I hope GFL does have a workable business plan that allows them to maintain current service levels at their proposed costs, and that, come next August, those west of Yonge Street don’t even realize that their waste is now being hauled away by people in different trucks, which I assume will be green in colour.

Ford often claims to have a mandate for various things stemming from his one-year-ago-yesterday mayoral win, and often I find such claims pretty damn dubious. On transit, for example — an issue that was shamefully kicked to the back of the bus during most debates so Ford and opponent George Smitherman could rant about waste — I find it hard to buy the notion that the mayor had a real mandate to immediately kill Transit City. But on this issue, his claim was more legitimate.

Setting aside ideology and academic notions about the role of public workers delivering public services, the 2009 garbage strike made a lot of voters really mad, and they channeled that anger into support for a mayoral candidate who continuously promised that his plan to contract out would help avoid future lapses in service.

He’s done that now, at least partially, and expressed a desire to continue with the other districts. We’ll see how it goes.


21
Oct 11

Police Budget 2012: How Bill Blair beat Rob Ford

2012 Police Budget: Requested vs. Delivered

Are you ready for some totally ridiculous math?

Check this out: The mayor has rather famously asked all departments to cut 10% from their operating budgets for 2012. This is a neat trick that, I guess, is supposed to let him deflect some of the blame for the inevitable service cuts that come from such a huge target. The request has made a lot of people unhappy.

For the police services — with a budget approaching a billion dollars per year — this request worked out to about $90 million in cost reductions. We know this is the case, because a report, the 2011 Environmental Scan, presented at this week’s police board meeting — the very same meeting at which the budget was passed — included this unambiguous sentence: “The city recommended 2012 operating budget target for the Toronto Police Service reflected an overall decrease of $84 million, about 10%, from the total 2011 approved budget.” (See Agenda Item 5; a straight-up 10% reduction totals $93 million, but the city probably accounted for some — but clearly not all — mitigating factors in its original request, to knock that down to $84 million.)

Okay, so the mayor wanted the chief to cut 10%. But the chief said he couldn’t do it. And of course he couldn’t: it was only a few months back that the mayor approved a giant pay increase for officers in this city. The police budget is more than 80% labour. You’re not going to make a  dent in that without taking cops off the street.

Here’s where things get ridiculous: at this week’s meeting, the chief came forward with a budget request for $936 million. This is $5.9 million more than the 2011 budget, a 0.6% increase year-over-year. There is no reasonable way to present this as any kind of reduction, let alone 10%.

And yet, as the Toronto Star’s Daniel Dale tells us:

The 2011 police budget was $930 million. Blair’s “starting budget” added the $23 million in salary increases produced by this year’s collective agreement with officers, then added $26 million in other “pressures identified during 2011,” for a total of $979 million.

Using this figure, two Ford allies on the board, Thompson and council speaker Frances Nunziata, joined Blair in arguing that his $936 million budget request amounts to a $43 million cut — about 4.6 percentage points of the requested 10.

“It’s a huge reduction,” Nunziata said.

via Blair wins: Ford poised to accept police budget hike | Toronto Star.

So, through the power of imagination — and uncompetent thinking — a 0.6% budgetary increase is now being touted as a 4.6% budgetary decrease.

I guess the lesson to be learned here for all city departments is to start high. Come in with a huge budgetary request for 2012. Then whittle it down a tad and claim mega savings. With imaginary money on the table, we can all be fiscal conservatives.

Why Blair’s strategy worked

Other departments are unlikely to get away with so blatantly side-stepping the mayor’s request for cost reductions, even though that request will undoubtedly mean major service cuts. Blair was able to pull this off because he put the mayor in a position where he would have to publicly endorse a reduction in the number of police officers in Toronto to achieve his target. There is no way that Ford was going to do that.

Still, it’s worth noting that this is a mayor who campaigned on adding one hundred officers but will likely end his term having taken many times that number off the streets through attrition and hiring freezes.

A caveat

There’s still a conversation that needs to be had about the cost of policing in this city relative to declining crime rates. There might be a better way forward. But that is not a conversation this administration seems capable of having.

Further reading

Over at The Clamshell, David Hains has a very nice analysis of the police budget and all the steps that got us here.


19
Oct 11

“Bargain basement” garbage contract smells a bit fishy

Solid Waste Collection: Current Cost Per District Versus GFL Proposal

The Globe & Mail’s John Lorinc:

A Pickering firm run by a former minor hockey league goalie has emerged as the recommended winning bidder on the city’s controversial garbage out-sourcing deal, city hall sources have confirmed.

An announcement is expected at a news conference scheduled for noon.

GFL Waste & Recycling Solutions was founded by Patrick Dovigi, a one-time Edmonton Oiler draft pick who formed the company in 2007 out of three smaller firms – Direct Line Environmental, National Waste Services and Enviro West — that run several transfer stations and hauling operations.

The firm bid $17.5-million on a contract to provide residential waste collection west of Yonge Street, significantly undercutting three other large competitors, including Emterra Environmental ($23.9-million), Miller Waste Systems ($20.98-million) and Waste Management of Canada ($23.8-million and an alternate bid of $25.6-million).

via GFL winning bidder for Toronto garbage contract | Globe & Mail.

Via Twitter, the Toronto Sun’s Don Peat has reported that Councillor Gord Perks has expressed “serious concerns” about this contract, saying it represents a “below bargain basement price.”

A comparison between the announced figure and the numbers provided by staff (in the April report that kicked off this process) sure seem to back that assertion up. Green For Life is claiming they can pick up solid waste in District 2 — bordered by Etobicoke in the west and Yonge Street in the east — for $105 per household, or $95 per tonne. That’s comparatively less than what the current private contractor charges to pick up trash in Etobicoke. There, the costs work out to $119 per household and $103 per tonne. You can see the full comparison in the chart above.

I’m hardly an expert on solid waste collection, but I think it’s a safe assumption that solid waste collection in Etobicoke — with wide, suburban streets and leafy culs-de-sac — is a hell of a lot easier than it is in District 2, which includes a wide swath of downtown.

In another fun note, Lorinc also reports that the “the city’s recommended seven year contract offer to GFL is actually about $8-million more than what GFL initially bid, due to contingencies, HST recovery and cost of living allowances.” Those extra fees result in a contract that totals about $25.5 million a year, would seem to put the actual year-to-year savings of garbage privatization in District 2 at just under two million dollars.

So, some lingering questions to discuss:

  • Is GFL’s bid so low that it’s suspicious?
  • What is the city giving up — in terms of control and/or quality of service — to achieve potential overall savings that, reportedly, could only amount to $2 million per year in District 2?

17
Oct 11

City Council Scorecard: How many library service hours will your councillor cut?

Update: The Library Board has decided to consider these reductions at their November meeting, which should allow time for both some kind of consultation process and, of course, a bunch of angry emails from residents.

At Torontoist, Steve Kupferman has got his hands on a document detailing proposed cuts to library service. Staff prepared the document as a response to Mayor Ford’s push to have all departments cut their budgets by 10% for 2012.

Rob Ford once claimed that closing a library on a Sunday would constitute a major service cut. To that end, it would sure seem crazy to try to pass off a reduction of 382 service hours a week as an “efficiency” or “adjustment.”

These cuts are being considered as I write this by an all-new library board, now chaired by steadfast Ford ally Paul Ainslie. If approved, they’ll ultimately go before council as part of the 2012 budget debate.

TPL staff were kind enough to group the proposed reductions by ward and councillor, which let me make this:

The full list, separated by branch, is available over at Torontoist.


17
Oct 11

What they’re saying about Rob Ford in other municipalities

Come with me on a whirlwind tour of smallish Ontario community newspapers, as we look at their many and varied references to Toronto Mayor Rob Ford over the past month.

Ray Martin, Cambridge Times:

[Cambridge Mayor Doug] Craig said he will also report on the fiscal health of the city as it rolls out of the recession.
“I want people to know that we are in strong shape and our focus now is on creating jobs and building our economy,” he said.

Unlike Toronto, where Mayor Rob Ford is seeking to cut 10 per cent from his budget, Craig said Cambridge has already been there and done that thanks in large part due to the work of senior city staff.

via Mayor looks to big picture for city | Cambridge Times.

Chip Martin, London Free Press:

[London Mayor Joe Fontana] said an ongoing review is better and more comprehensive than the one-month quickie review of the budget last year before it was passed.

“And it’s better than what’s going on in Toronto,” he said, referring to the proposals for budget cuts there by the Rob Ford administration that is producing public outcry.

“We intend to engage the public once we’ve decided on a cut- and-add list,” Fontana promised.

via It’s open season | London Free Press.

Brian Holstein, Guelph Mercury:

We have seen it before: voters believed Rob Ford and his Toronto gravy train; Guelphites were led by mayoral hopeful Kate Quarrie to believe the deliberate mismanagement of the city budget. There was no mismanagement, and the only thing deliberate was unfounded fear. But the people believed, only to quickly find they had been duped.

via Smart meter-era bills can bring validation | Guelph Mercury.

Editorial Board, Simcoe.com:

Rob Ford’s campaign for Mayor of Toronto is an example of a taxpayer-first tactic at work.
Ford promised ‘taxpayers’ that he would derail Toronto’s gravy train, ending wasteful spending at city hall.

What Ford discovered once in the mayor’s chair, however, was libraries, community grants, grass-cutting in parks, snow-plowing, neighbourhood zoos and child-care subsidies were not considered superfluous spending by citizens.

via Be a citizen | Simcoe.com.

John Kastner, Stratford Beacon-Herald:

Why is it when we talk cuts it’s always the things we hold most near and dear that are the first things rushed up to the sacrificial altar?

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has said the first tasks of his new financial regime will be to sell off theatres and zoos and cut back on snow-clearing and transit service.

Not sure how much that will save, but people will sure notice — and you almost get the impression that’s the plan.

Politicians aren’t really interested in cutting spending. The real goal is just to give that impression by picking the most visible targets possible.

via Hitting beloved services the unkindest cut of all | Stratford Beacon-Herald.

Mike Norris, Kingston Whig-Standard:

Madeleine Ross stands directly in front of [PC Candidate Rodger] James and expresses concern that the governments of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, a Conservative supporter, are making decisions with little public consultation. How can Ontarians be assured that Tim Hudak won’t do the same if elected, she asks.

via He’s all business | Kingston Whig-Standard.

Editorial Board, King Township-Sentinel:

It’s been wisely stated over the centuries that people should be careful when it comes for what they wish for, because they may get it.

We believe voters in the City of Toronto are getting a good lesson in that, and we hope it resonates as far as possible.

Mayor Rob Ford and company have called for an across-the-board 10 per cent budget cut from all departments at the City of Toronto. That includes police and fire (Toronto residents might want to bear that in mind the next time they have the urge to call 9- 1-1). There’s no doubt that has a certain political appeal, but it sounds very simplistic to us. It could also result in a big mess that no one has yet thought through.

via Be careful about cutting programs | King Township Sentinel.

Geoff Zochodne, Oshawa Express:

The largest reaction of the night came when [PC Candidate Jerry] Ouellette made a jab about the NDP and their association with former Toronto Mayor David Miller. [NDP Candidate Mike] Shields fired back that he’d rather be associated with Miller than with Rob Ford to raucous cheers.

via Candidates square off on the eve of an election | Oshawa Express.

Ronald Zajac, Brockville Recorder & Times:

[Brockville Councillor Mary Jean] McFall stressed she is not interested in a broad service-cutting exercise such as the one proposed by Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, but rather in looking for ways to deliver the same level of service – or almost the same – at less cost.

via Council gives lukewarm OK to service review | Brockville Recorder & Times.

Rob Ford was elected with more than 47% of the popular vote last year. Recent polls have put his approval rating at very low levels. He chose not to endorse any of the candidates in the recent provincial election. He has not said why.


17
Oct 11

Catching Up: Provincial Election Fallout, TTC Customer Service, Library Cuts & Budget Blues

After nine months of episodic thrills — Public Housing Chicanery! Disappearing Bike Lanes! Marathon Meetings! A Waterfront Under Attack! — the loud political drama that has surrounded Mayor Rob Ford since he took office last year seemed to finally quiet down last week. The only thing to really come out of City Hall was a committee decision to ban the sale of Shark Fin. Which, sure, is a good thing, from what I can tell, but it’s hardly an issue rich with intrigue or nuance. It’s simply good news for sharks.

So I decided to take last week off from blogging.

But just because shark fins were the only major thing up for debate at City Hall doesn’t mean there weren’t rumblings of larger stories to come. Here are a few jumbled thoughts on the bigger stories from the past seven days.

Provincial Election Fallout

Ford did a mini media-tour on the morning after the provincial election, going so far as to stop by the CBC studios to speak to Metro Morning’s Matt Galloway. The results of the provincial election — a complete Tory shutout in Toronto — can realistically only be seen as a major defeat for the Fords and their agenda, but the mayor still came out with his own spin on things.

The National Post’s Natalie Alcoba:

Mr. Ford met with the three major party leaders during the campaign but did not endorse anyone. During the radio interview, the Mayor dismissed any suggestion the Progressive Conservatives’ inability to crack through the 416 may have been a repudiation of his approach to balancing the books.

“Not at all. Last time I checked, we never had a seat, Tories never had a seat, my name was never on the ballot… I’m getting a lot of support, people are saying stay the course,” said Mr. Ford. “I’ve worked well with Mr. McGuinty. He helped us make the TTC an essential service and we’re not going to have strikes anymore…we have a great working relationship.”

via Liberal minority government ‘excellent’ for Toronto: Rob Ford | National Post.

The spin is, of course, kind of lame, but there’s actually a bit of truth to what Ford’s saying: his October 2010 victory did hinge on the support he got from voters who wouldn’t describe themselves as conservative or even right-leaning.

He got that support because his major platform plank wasn’t conservative or right-leaning.

Here’s the thing about all that stop-the-gravy-train, spending-problem-not-a-revenue-problem stuff: it all rested on the premise that there wouldn’t be service cuts. Ford wasn’t preaching good, right-wing austerity and the elimination of social programs. He was calling for the status quo, only cheaper. People believed in that. They voted for that. But, in return, they got the same conservative, let’s-cut-everything governance they had roundly rejected in the past.

And that’s why the mayor is unpopular.

Improving customer service while cutting actual service

TTC Chair Karen Stintz announced a “customer service liaison panel” and an upcoming Town Hall meeting as the first step toward improving customer service on the TTC. This is incredibly boring news.

Steve Munro points out that trying to improve customer service while cuts are moving forward that would increase overcrowding on transit vehicles — thus providing worse service in general — seems kind of ridiculous:

What nobody mentioned is that most of these recommendations address problems of communication in a broad sense, but the report is silent about system management and service quality.

There has been no discussion of the service implications of the budget cuts beyond the general policy change in loading standards — we don’t yet know which routes and time periods will be affected, or how much more crowded they will be.  Chair Stintz stated that the proposed cuts, in detail, would be part of the budget process at the TTC and Council.

via More Icing, Less Cake (Updated) | Steve Munro.

I don’t think you need to have a big discussion to determine that riders don’t like it when their bus driver is rude, and that they especially don’t like when their bus driver is rude and their bus is late. Customer service suffers on the TTC when service itself suffers.

Major cuts to Library Service

While Ford took branch closures off the table — finally –, library cuts are still very much on the table for the 2012 budget. And they’re significant.

The Toronto Star’s Raveena Aulakh:

Closing libraries was suggested by consultant KPMG some months ago. Ford backed down after an unprecedented public outcry led by Canadian author Margaret Atwood. But the mayor left the door open to a reduction in operating hours and other cuts.

Now the cuts are here:

•An almost 30 per cent reduction in the number of hours that neighbourhood branches will be open on Sundays.

•At least 25 neighbourhood branches losing some morning service from Monday to Saturday.

•Nearly 20,000 fewer open hours from Monday to Saturday.

•Two research and reference libraries will lose two mornings each.

•A reduced acquisition budget, meaning more than 106,000 library items won’t now be bought.

via Toronto library services face cutbacks | Toronto Star.

In an edition of the National Post Political Panel from earlier this year, Post columnist Chris Selley noted that “Ford told the Post in a sit-down interview that closing a library on a Sunday, never mind entirely, constituted a major service cut in his mind.”

So: this would be a major service cut. Do you think Rob Ford will oppose these staff recommendations, which were made to meet his edict that departments reduce their budgets by 10%?

$774 million is wrong. So wrong. Incredibly wrong.

That $774 million figure — the purported budget shortfall for 2012 that leads us to apocalyptic budget scenarios and 35 per cent tax hikes — was always BS. This is continuously confirmed by reports coming from city staff, who can’t help but point out that there are significant revenues that have come in or will come in from the 2010 and 2011 budget years.

Here’s the latest, via The Star’s Paul Moloney:

In a report to the budget committee, finance staff project the tax windfall and cost cuts mean there will be a $139.3 million surplus left over at the end of this year. That’s money that will make it easier to balance the 2012 budget.

The large surplus results in part from a hiring freeze and other cost-saving measures, but most comes from the higher tax haul.

via City headed for $140M surplus thanks to tax Ford wants to scrap | Toronto Star.

“City headed for $140M surplus thanks to tax Ford wants to scrap” is a great headline.

Ford’s allies were quick to dismiss this news, arguing that we shouldn’t use one-time funds to plug systemic budget issues. Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday told a group of his constituents that “We’ve got to make balancing the budget repeatable and accountable every single year without a provincial bailout or pulling a rabbit out of a magic hat.” The budget chief echoed that: “You should use one-time surplus money for one-time expenses. The problem for the city for a long time has been the use of one-time monies to balance the budget. We can’t get back into that trap.”

And, yes, I suppose, in a perfect world we’d have budgets that balanced without prior-year surplus dollars, which would allow us to put the surplus dollars in reserves and save them for a rainy day. But we don’t live in that world. And the only alternative we’ve been shown so far to using these one-time funds to get us through 2012 is to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from programs that people seem to value a lot.


03
Oct 11

City Council Scorecard Update: Team Ford looks shaky with Port Lands & Service Review votes

Toronto Council Scorecard

October 2, 2011: Download (PDF) - Download (PNG) - Google Docs

This one’s big. I’ve added new votes to the City Council Scorecard, covering items from the regular city council meeting on September 21 and the special meeting related to the Core Service Review on September 26. Of the ten votes added, the mayor came out on the losing end of five of them. One councillor, Gloria Lindsay Luby, saw her Ford Nation percentage — the metric that tells us how often councillors vote with the mayor on major items — drop from 87.5% to 68% over these two council meetings. Most councillors also saw their Fordiness level drop, with two members of Ford’s Executive Committee — Michael Thompson and David Shiner — dropping out of the 100% loyalist club on votes relating to the Christmas Bureau and Community Environment Days, respectively.

It’s possible to both overstate and understate the impact of these numbers.

New Votes



The votes added:

  • EX9.6 — The item relating to the revitalization of the Lower Don Lands & Port Lands. What a saga this was. A more charitable blogger would describe this “consensus” outcome as a win for all involved, but that blogger isn’t me. This was a huge, resounding loss for the mayor, his brother and the strategists working behind the scenes who are doing what they can to come up with a list of publicly-owned assets to sell. Because the mayor’s side blinked before this item could go to council in its original form, I’ve scored the result differently than other votes, using a snazzy purple. It doesn’t count either way toward the overall Ford Nation percentages.
  • PW7.9, Motion 2 — Earlier this month, as part of what would appear to be a thorough quest to rid Toronto of the pedestrian and cycling infrastructure that bothers him on his drive to work, Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong called for a review of the scramble intersection at Yonge & Dundas. The request for a study was tacked on to Minnan-Wong’s downtown traffic study — something worth being wary of — and was made without consulting the local councillor beforehand. This is becoming a pattern. Motion 2 was an amendment by Councillor Gord Perks that asked  that the city not bother with a study of the pedestrian scramble. It failed.
  • EX10.1, Motion 3A — Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby had a public break-up with the Ford administration last week, voting against several items relating to the Core Service Review. She also moved several amendments that resulted in some of the mayor’s most significant losses yet. This motion by Luby exempted any consideration of privatizing the Toronto Parking Authority — a revenue-generating asset — from this year’s budget process. Her motion carried, despite an attempt to whip the vote down by the mayor’s staff, and the TPA is saved. Hard to say whether the outcome was borne out of a desire to maintain TPA revenues or simply because councillors know how much their residents value cheap parking.
  • EX10.1, Motion 3B — Another Luby motion, this reversed a KPMG recommendation that would see the elimination of the Public Realm Neighbourhood Improvement Program. The program is a big hit with local businesses and neighbourhood groups, and little analysis was done to measure the potential economic drawbacks from killing the program. A very closed vote — once again whipped by the mayor — that saw Team Ford lose due to renegade runs by James Pasternak and Frank Di Giorgio.
  • EX10.1, Motion 6A — It’s not easy to get politicians to vote against seniors or kids. This motion by Josh Matlow preserved the Toronto Youth Cabinet and the Toronto Seniors Forum, both of which had been targeted for cuts. They’re both committees that allow underrepresented populations to engage themselves further in policy and politics. It’s worth noting that the initial wording of Matlow’s motion was stronger — it stipulated that the two committees should be saved outright — but was later made softer, so that now the future of both groups will be considered by the budget committee. This was also a whipped vote, with the mayor overturned thanks to rebel button pushes by Gary Crawford, Michelle Berardinetti and Frank Di Giorgio.
  • EX10.1, Motion 7A — This Ana Bailão motion saved Community Environment Days from the chopping block. They were identified as non-core by the KPMG study, and have been criticized in the past for being forums for councillors to promote themselves in their community. But they also bring in tonnes of recyclables and hazardous waste, which might otherwise get dumped on the street somewhere. As above, the vote was whipped, but Pasternak and — surprisingly — David Shiner went against the cheat sheet.
  • EX10.1, Motion 11 — Councillor Mary Fragedakis’ attempt to save Christmas — or, at least, the publicly-funded bureau that distributes gifts to the needy in December — failed on a 25-20 vote, despite a somewhat-surprising show of support from Ford ally Michael Thompson. Apparently the city will seek to continue the work of the Christmas bureau through partnerships with not-for-profit groups.
  • EX10.1, Motion 16A — This amendment by Councillor Maria Augimeri would have protected the Hardship Fund — a set of social supports available to low-income residents, created in the face of provincial cutbacks to welfare and other social programs in the Harris era — from further consideration as a 2012 budget cut. It barely passed, 23-22, with Councillor Jaye Robinson in dissent.
  • EX10.1, Recommendation 2B — KPMG recommend the city look at selling off — or closing — the three theatres it owns. Council opted to move forward with that recommendation in a close vote. Councillor Gary Crawford was later unveiled as the new chair of a task force dedicated to determining the future of these theatres.
  • EX10.1, Recommendation 7 — In another KPMG recommendation, the consulting firmed suggested that the city stop planting so many damn trees. (We’ve been told they don’t employ anybody.) The city had a rather ambitious plan to expand the tree canopy across the city — something that not only can work to make people happier but can also reduce the risk of illness — but councillors opted to pare it back with this recommendation in a close vote. (Note: Based on a previous vote relating to this item, I’m pretty sure Councillor Raymond Cho’s vote on this item was a mistake. If anyone can confirm, let me know and I’ll add a footnote.)

Trend Watch

The big news is the general downward trend, as the mayor’s council support gets nibbled away. As mentioned, Councillor Lindsay Luby dropped 19.5 points, falling below the arbitrary 70% threshold, so I’ve switched her from the blue team to the orange team. Middle Councillor Josh Matlow dropped 12%, while Mary-Margaret McMahon dropped 14%. Ana Bailão dropped eight points. While Rob Ford, all in all, still seems pretty effective at marshalling support amongst right-leaning councillors, the centrist bloc — which started the term sympathetic to the mayor’s agenda — has rapidly jumped off the bandwagon.

How to overstate this: Rob Ford is totally screwed. There’s no way he can maintain control of council going forward. A day of reckoning is at hand.

How to understate this: Nothing really changed. Rob Ford still got the most critical parts of the service review past council, not to mention the new user fee policy and voluntary separation program. They’ve still got the votes when they need them.

The pivotal change we’re likely to see coming out of this is a note of caution coming from the mayor’s office. Whereas the last few months have been marked by a series of chest-beating displays of power, they’d be smart to tread more softly from here on out, as they’re really only one wavering ally away from losing votes on key items.

Batting Average

For those who love baseball — or are even vaguely familiar with the idea of baseball — I’ve added a ‘batting average’ stat to the full version of the scorecard. This lays out, as a percentage, how successful the mayor has been at winning major votes. The mayor’s batting average stands at 70%. (Or, if you’re so inclined, .700.) Prior to the September council meetings, it was 80%.

Questions

Questions about the Council Scorecard? Read my notes on methodology. Also, you can email me.


28
Sep 11

Six Years of Budget Balancing Strategies: Rob Ford’s 2012 approach presents false choice

For the last six years, City Council has dealt with each budget shortfall with a mixture of surplus funds, new revenue projections, property tax increases, investment income and spending cuts/efficiencies. The 2012 approach under Mayor Rob Ford has been different.

Update: I’ve made a minor edit to the chart above to clarify how the implementation of the Land Transfer Tax & Vehicle Registration Tax changed the city’s financial situation. Quick summary: in 2008, both new taxes combined to take about $175 million in budget pressure off the city’s books. That new money was folded into expected revenues for future years, but LTT revenues tend to surpass staff estimates, resulting in extra cash in 2009, 2010 and especially 2011.

Through this Core Service Review process, the (growing) group of councillors opposed to Mayor Rob Ford’s fiscal strategy has continuously complained about a lack of information. While Budget Chief Mike Del Grande and assorted hangers-on have been quick to cite a figure of $774 million as the opening “pressure” for 2012, they’ve been less forthcoming with revenue figures that will significantly reduce that pressure.

Increased revenues from the Land Transfer Tax in 2011 alone look to total almost $80 million. And remaining surplus dollars from the 2010 and 2011 budget years could total another $100 million or more. Add in potential investment revenues, dividends from Toronto Hydro, assessment growth and other miscellaneous revenue lines and that big scary $774 million figure looks to drop down to something a lot more manageable.

The chart above reveals why this revenue information is so critical: each year, that opening pressure figure — which, it should be noted, was bigger in 2010 than it is this year — is brought down through a variety of strategies. Yes, there are spending cuts and efficiencies — Rob Ford’s favourite things — but also other revenues. Each year — until this one — the budget has been balanced without apocalyptic talk of slashing childcare, closing libraries and decimating public services or else raising property taxes by 35%.

That’s a false choice. It’s one that ignores the balancing strategies used over the past five years that have kept the city moving forward.

A note on sustainability

Critics would point to the chart above and say that the budget balancing strategies employed by Mayor David Miller, Budget Chief Shelley Carroll and the rest of the the left on council were largely unsustainable, short-term fixes, relying too heavily on reserves and other one-time funding sources.

And, for the most part, that’s true.

That said, if you believe — as even right-leaning councillors like Giorgio Mammoliti and Doug Ford seem to these days — that the city’s structural deficit is due in part to the province, who reneged on its responsibilities for supporting things like transit, child care and welfare, then one-time strategies tend to be the best Toronto can hope for these days. Unless the province comes to the table and commits to uploading more transit costs, a truly sustainable 2012 budget — one that doesn’t completely destroy the kind of public services that contribute to the economic viability of our city — is nearly impossible to achieve.

An Alternate Path

That doesn’t mean, however, that there aren’t paths Toronto can take toward fiscal independence.

  • A service review process and efficiency study — like the one we’ve just been through — was a good idea, but the timeline needed to be longer. Set annual goals to increase across-the-board efficiency and work with management to achieve them. You’ll save more money this way than you will with layoffs.
  • Set a long-term path forward for residential and commercial property tax rates. A multi-year strategy to put the average residential tax levy on par with, say, Markham would bring in vastly more revenue. Commercial rates should continue to decrease relative to residential. Review tax increase deferral and cancellation policies for seniors and disabled residents to ensure we’re not kicking anyone out on the street.
  • Consult with Metrolinx on their upcoming revenue strategy to ensure that a fair percentage of revenue from road tolls — an inevitability in this province — go toward transit operating costs, in addition to capital.
  • Review parking rates and increase them in downtown, high demand areas. Think like the private sector.
  • Look at new revenue sources, including a City of Toronto sales tax. Big cities across the world have one, and they’re not dying because of it. We keep hearing about the necessity of hard choices: here’s one.

The key is to think long-term and not to rush toward slash-and-burn fixes. More than any other level of government, municipal public services are directly tied to economic success. We can’t afford to risk that.


27
Sep 11

Special City Council Scorecard: Core Service Review votes reveal growing council opposition

Votes Rob Ford's Team Lost at the September 27, 2011 special meeting of City Council. Click for bigger.

At today’s special City Council meeting on the Core Service Review, the mayor’s team was on the losing end of seven votes. Though it’s not fair to call it a staggering rebuke, it stands as more evidence that Rob Ford is losing his grip on City Council and will continue to have trouble getting controversial policies approved without compromise.

Today’s scorecard is particularly interesting because we also have copies of the “cheat sheets” that were distributed to friendly councillors by members of the mayor’s staff prior to the vote. (All credit to City Hall journalist Jonathan Goldsbie for posting copies of the sheet: here’s part one & part two.) Of the cheat sheet items that weren’t left ‘open’ — meaning councillors could vote with their hearts — seven of them were defeated after several of the mayor’s traditional supporters went against him. Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby in particular has distanced herself from the mayor over the past couple of days, disparaging the entire Service Review process for forcing councillors to vote for cuts without relevant information in front of them.

I’ll have more commentary on this later, but for now, the data.

Special City Council Scorecard: Motions on Amendments Relating to the Core Service Review Recommendations

Disclaimer: There are a TON of votes here and I may have made mistakes. All apologies in advance for any small errors.