Archives

feature — Comments Off on City budget document pegs 2012 shortfall at $530 million (or less)
02
Aug 11

City budget document pegs 2012 shortfall at $530 million (or less)

$774 million. $744 million. $774 million. That number has loomed ominously over every City of Toronto committee meeting for weeks now. The number is like a scythe. Like a sword. Like a scythe and a sword and a bevy of other sharp objects, swinging back and forth above our collective head, — lower and lower — ready to chop us and our finances to tiny bits.

Councillors have been singular in focus: let’s dig our way out of this budget hole before we do everything else. Yes, we have serious issues with customer service and crumbling infrastructure and a lack of social housing and so on, but, we’re told, we need to toss that aside until we can figure out how to address our $774 million budget shortfall. It’s the top priority — the only priority — and we’re going to have to make tough decisions to do it.

All that said, it really is kind of funny that a strategy to knock that $774 million down to $530 million without service cuts was included in a 2011 budget presentation adopted by both the City’s Budget and Executive Committees this past winter.

Here are the tables, direct from the City’s website, as found on page 63 and 64 of last year’s budget presentation:

What this says: We can reasonably expect, before any service cuts or efficiencies, at least $167 million in revenues that can go toward balancing next year’s budget. An expected TTC fare hike of 10-15 cents would bring in another $30 million, and a 2.2% property tax increase would add $47 million to the pile, making for a total reduction of $244 million off the much-ballyhooed $774 million figure, leaving us at $503 million in realistic opening budget pressure. (And these are low-estimate figures!)

This isn’t new information. Councillor Gord Perks has been saying for weeks that the $774 million figure is trumped up. Ed Keenan wrote a gold standard column for The Grid explaining why Perks is probably right. But it still seems startling to me that Ford and his council allies are continuing to trumpet their three-quarters-of-a-billion-dollars shortfall figure even though they were presented information last winter that showed the expected shortfall numbers for 2012 as significantly less.

This doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem

Two things to keep in mind: for the most part, the left-wing’s skepticism regarding the Ford budget numbers isn’t meant to deny that a) there is a significant budgetary pressure for 2012 that will require some difficult decisions; and b) the city does face a structural annual opening deficit that is, ultimately, unsustainable. Both these things are true.

The issue we’re having is that Ford is leveraging a singular budgetary challenge for 2012 — which could be overcome through similar tactics as has been done to deal with same-size shortfalls in past years (see the above chart, from the same budget document) — to embark on a rushed and extremely flawed process to immediately tackle the city’s systemic budget issues. The only possible outcome to doing things this way involves drastic, sudden cuts to public services.

Which actually makes for the perfect scenario if you’re a politician with an almost fetishistic passion for killing government programs.

link — Comments Off on Manufacturing Toronto’s Budget Crisis
02
Aug 11

Manufacturing Toronto’s Budget Crisis

The Toronto Star’s David Rider put on his columnist hat this weekend and delivered a hell of a piece on the farcical budget process going on at City Hall:

After hearing thousands of words, and seeing some tears, the 13 executive members voted with lightning speed to refer all of KPMG’s suggested cuts to their Sept. 19 meeting. Ford and his policy chief Mark Towhey are weighing what and how much they can cut. The plan will be predetermined.

The challenge for them isn’t erasing the deficit, but convincing councillors and the public they need to keep slicing after it’s gone.

As the Star pointed out, the budget surplus from 2010 and other monies, including an expected 10-cent TTC hike, bring the 2012 operating deficit from $774 million to $443 million. In addition, the administration is looking at forgoing a traditional annual transfer of $200 million from the operating budget to capital. Efficiencies will be found, user fees hiked.

via Toronto News: Shrinking government, not deficit, drives Ford – thestar.com.

About a month into his term of office, Rob Ford changed the boilerplate language that goes out on the bottom of all city-issued press releases. His staff struck out the phrase “Toronto’s government is dedicated to prosperity, opportunity and liveability for all its residents” and replaced it with Toronto’s government is dedicated to delivering customer service excellence, creating a transparent and accountable government, reducing the size and cost of government and building a transportation city.” (Emphasis added.)

For those who doubt that this budget process is driven by anything but a sincere need to balance city services with fiscal realities, take note: the mayor’s agenda to prioritize cuts to government over public services isn’t hidden away somewhere. It’s plainly stated on every city press release.

 

feature — Comments Off on The 22½ hour budget meeting: nothing changed, except maybe everything
29
Jul 11

The 22½ hour budget meeting: nothing changed, except maybe everything

Minutes before 8 a.m. this morning, Mayor Rob Ford hastily wished everyone around him a good weekend and thus put an end to the longest municipal government meeting in the City of Toronto’s history. Attended by Ford’s hand-picked executive committee, plus a gaggle of “visiting councillors” — most of them representing the opposition — and a crowd of hundreds of people, the meeting agenda was all about the ongoing Core Service Review process and the recent KPMG reports which have been the subject of much media attention over the past couple of weeks.

After Ford publicly invited taxpayers to attend the meeting during his interview with CP24’s Stephen LeDrew last week, over 300 individuals signed up to give deputations to the committee on the various budget considerations contained in the KPMG reports. This set the scene for an epic-legth meeting, something that the mayor had previously welcomed. “I don’t care if we have to sit there for three days,” he told LeDrew, citing his need to hear from people as to “what business [they] think the city should be in.”

So there you have it: the vision of a multi-day process involving significant public consultation that will be taken into account as councillors go forward with the Core Service Review process and begin building the 2012 budget.

That was the thought, anyway. Here’s what actually happened:

1. The illusion of consultation proved more important than actual consultation

Just as this administration paid for and circulated an in-depth Core Service Review survey only to immediately dismiss the results once they were tallied up, the events of the past 22½ hours seem to be all about creating the perception that consultations are happening without actually valuing the consultations themselves. The most flagrant insult to those who intended to depute was the decision to continue the meeting overnight and into the morning, taking only short breaks for lunch and dinner.

This had the immediate effect of putting deputants in a very tough spot. Given the variable speed at which the meeting moved forward, the only way people who intended to speak could be sure they’d be in the Committee Room when Rob Ford called their name was to  stay put for hours on end. No one had any idea if they’d be called at midnight, 4 a.m., or even noon the next day. Even worse, the Mayor made only a token effort to give suitable time for those in the building to approach the microphone. At times he barrelled through the speaker list so fast that those who were unfortunate to be visiting the overflow committee room — set up so those who couldn’t fit in the packed main room could still follow the meeting — would miss their chance.

While an impressive number did stick things out and make their deputation, 176 of the 344 people who had signed up missed their spot. And even those who did make it to the microphone — all 168 of them — were forced to deal with an abbreviated speaking time, something the committee voted to adopt early on Thursday.

2. The Core Service Review process remained woefully inadequate and self-serving

One of the more interesting things to see when you watch the Executive Committee in action is that there is a clear division between hard-line true-believer types that will always rally around the mayor and those that, while still supportive of the mayor’s fiscal responsibility mandate, express subtle reservations about certain parts of his agenda. The former group includes councillors like Giorgio Mammoliti, David Shiner and Doug Holyday while the latter includes, amongst others, Peter Milczyn, Michelle Berardinetti and Jaye Robinson.

In this case, the more cautious group seems sincere in their belief that council is embarking on a legitimate service review process that will help us make tough decisions and balance the 2012 budget. This is in contrast to the mayor and his inner circle, who seemingly already have a broad set of program cuts and reductions mapped out and are now just looking to produce a set of reports that justify what they’ve already decided they want to do.

3. We may have seen a grassroots political game-changer

Procedurally, this meeting isn’t notable for much. Things wrapped up with a series of motions from Councillor Paul Ainslie that essentially left all options on the table and punted major decisions to September.

But beyond that, something definitely changed last night. Somewhere in between the moment when 60-year-old deputant Marilyn Wilcoxen triumphantly held up a $50 cheque and a $5 bill — to pay for a voluntary property tax increase and her monthly instalment of the vehicle registration tax — and the heartbreaking scene at 2 a.m. wherein 14-year-old Anika Tabovaradan tried to defend the importance of her local library branch while crying her eyes out, Toronto came into focus again as a city with real people with real values.

And those people? Those values? They’re great.

You can call the sentiment overly schmaltzy or optimistic or — probably rightly — altogether too soon to judge, but the general feeling, watching person after person head to the microphone after waiting ten, 15 or 20 hours for their chance to speak for three minutes, was one of a renewed hope. It was as if, all of the sudden, the more progressive side of Toronto got its voice back. After seven years of living in complacency with a mayor that was never terrible but also rarely came close to the potential voters saw in him, and after coasting through a dour election where no one came close to inspirational, Toronto’s left was finally speaking again last night.

And their collective voice was almost exclusively passionate, creative, endearing and — most critically — diametrically opposed to the idea of Rob Ford’s Toronto.

Which brings me to the other notable part of last night: Ford supporters were a no-show. Only three of the 168 deputants advocated service cuts and, of those, only one seemed to hold views at all congruous to the so-called “Ford Nation.”

This marks twice now where Rob Ford has made a direct appeal to supporters to attend a consultation session, and both times very few in attendance ended up showing themselves as members of the Rob Ford crowd. The defence in social media circles is that Ford Nation represents a “silent majority” of important business types that don’t have time nor the inclination to attend consultations or fill out surveys.

And I guess that’s fair enough — for any government, it’s easier to draw out protestors than it is supporters — , but you’d think that with an open process like last night’s it would be reasonable to expect a 5% or so minority of Ford supporters to make an appearance and support his policies. Instead, almost no one showed. Considering that Ford’s electoral win was primarily due to grassroots populism, it seems conspicuous that the mayor can’t even rustle up a half-dozen members of Ford Nation to wave the flag and talk about their continued desire to stop the gravy train.

feature — Comments Off on Cutting through 2012: Ten places the Fords might look for savings
28
Jul 11

Cutting through 2012: Ten places the Fords might look for savings

There are 194 budget considerations — not recommendations — in the KPMG Core Service Review reports, commissioned by Council to help us fix our budget shortfall. A shortfall that, we’re told again and again, totals $774 million this year. Though it’s impossible to get an accurate estimate of how much would be saved if all of KPMG’s considerations were taken and implemented, some shoddy-guesswork-mixed-with-math puts the total at more than $2 billion.

So, problem solved, right?

That figure really is nonsense, of course. In fact, any attempt to put a dollar value on these budget considerations will inevitably be complete nonsense. Because KPMG lists “detailed articulation of cost savings” as out of scope. They weren’t hired to tell us how much money we could save. Instead, all they’ve done is taken a stab at guessing whether each of their considerations will yield small (5% or less), medium (20% or less) or large (more than 20%) reductions in overall department budgets.

But I don’t want to dismiss the study process outright. KPMG’s work would actually have value if it was presented as only a first step in a long line of studies and planning that will, over many years, yield efficiencies in government. Looking at it like that, this is good data. But, unfortunately, we’re supposed to believe that these documents will serve as the shining star that leads all of us through the 2012 budget crisis and into the promised land.

So let’s look at 2012 — and only 2012 –, because that’s what the mayor seems to be doing. Let’s throw out the 109 KPMG budget considerations that won’t produce savings in the 2012 fiscal year, and instead focus only on the remaining 85 that could possibly produce results within the next year. Of those, only about a dozen look like they could yield savings amounting to more than a few million dollars off the gross budget. (On the net budget, once user fees are other revenues are accounted for, the savings are even smaller.)

The small stuff for 2012 — Riverdale Farm and the Centreville Petting Zoo at $1.4m; Heritage Toronto at $900K; Community Enviroment Days at $500K, and so on —  is important, of course, and may still face the axe of the overzealous administration at City Hall, but it’s not going to amount to much in the face of that $774 million figure we keep hearing about.

So let’s stick with the big stuff. Below are ten of the biggest cuts or “efficiencies” for 2012, as identified for consideration by KPMG.

10. TTC & Other Agencies: Integrate administrative services with the City

This is a good one to start with, because it’s one of the many places where KPMG has actually identified something kind of reasonable. They say there might be duplication of administrative services across the City’s departments and its boards and agencies. Finding a way to share administrative staff might provide a cost savings without impacting services. This is a legit efficiency that’s worth pursuing.

Service Cut or Efficiency? Efficiency.

How much could it save? Just looking at the TTC as an example, KPMG projects up to 5% savings off a gross budget of $264m, which works out to $13.6m in the best case. In actuality, though, given the administrative needs of the TTC — one of the largest transit corporations in the world — and the complexity of integrating things with the City, it’s unlikely you could just flip a switch and see immediate savings at that level.

Will Council go for it? This isn’t an angle that’s gotten much press throughout this process — it’s kind of boring when compared to, for example, selling the zoo — but it may well come up. Administrative, HR, Payroll and other such functions probably could stand to be better integrated and shared. It’s an idea worth considering.

9. Community Development & Recreation: Cut some Recreational Programs

The City offers a variety of recreational programs, including arts programs, summer camps and fitness & wellness programs. They also offer subsidized access — some based on income — to athletic facilities, including pools, rinks and golf courses. Offering these programs costs $68.2 million gross, though when user fees are taken into accounts, the net cost drops to $38.8 million.

KPMG is detailed in their analysis of this item, asking that we consider questions like, “Should taxpayers pay $2 an hour to have a child figure skate or play hockey? How about an adult? Should it provide extra support for children who can’t afford fees? For adults? Can clear targets be set, and used to evaluate programs, supporting those that provide good value, and changing or terminating those that cost more than they are worth?”

Service Cut or Efficiency: Service Cut.

How much could it save? KPMG says it could be a Low-to-Medium savings, putting it somewhere between 5 and 20%. If we work off their high estimate, that’d be about $13 million.

Will Council go for it? The Ford administration cut access to recreational programs in the 2011 budget, when they removed free access to community centres in the city’s priority neighbourhoods. Odds are good that we’ll see continued cuts to subsidies through an increase in user fees for these programs. Eliminating some programs outright would also be a way to quickly slash the operating budget.

8. Childcare: Reduce funding & subsidies

The goal here would be to reduce the childcare spaces that are funded 100% by the City. Most of the cost behind childcare spaces in Toronto are shared at an 80/20 split with the Provincial and Municipal Governments. But there are some 2,000 such spaces this year — with another 700 set to be added next year — that the province doesn’t provide funding for. These spaces, and maybe even others, could be eliminated.

Keep in mind that there are almost 20,000 children on the waiting list for subsidized childcare in Toronto.

Service Cut or Efficiency? Service Cut. Anything that means a net reduction in the number of childcare spaces has to be considered a service cut.

How much could it save? KPMG pegs this as a ‘Medium’ cost-saver. Childcare costs the City $78 million on its gross budget, but a lot of that is balanced by provincial funding, with the net cost coming out to only $11 million.

Will City Council go for it? I don’t think a reduction in the number of childcare spaces is workable. Even the most cold-hearted councillor will have balk at putting “eliminated spaces for children” on their political résumé. Still, though, the mayor has appointed Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti to head up a task force on childcare in the City, which means we’ll probably get some kind of ridiculous suggestion on this file as part of the overall 2012 budget discussion.

7. Library: Reduce hours & days of operation

KPMG points out that the Toronto Public Library has the highest number of library holdings per capita of all the comparable municipalities they looked at, along with a “high rate of library use.” Our cost-per-library-use is only slightly above the median figure, despite much higher usage.

If this sounds like an efficient service that probably doesn’t need to be cut, too bad. Cuts to library service hours is an easy cost-saver that doesn’t require a lot of administrative upheaval. Even David Miller once tried to close some libraries on Sunday as a cost-saving gambit.

Service Cut or Efficiency: By definition, less hours of operation means less service. A Service Cut.

How much could it save? TPL’s budget for collection use is $87 million gross, which levels out to $78 million net when you account for revenues from late fees, etc. KPMG identifies reduction in service hours as a low-to-medium savings, which pegs it around $17 million at the extreme high end.

Will Council go for it? Cuts to libraries are politically challenging, but we could see a scenario similar to last year’s closing of the Urban Affairs library, where suburban councillors argued that the downtown facility was redundant given its proximity to other branches. No one wants to vote to close or reduce hours at branches in their own ward, but targeting branches in places that are decidedly not part of ‘Ford Nation’ is a possibility. If councillors can deal with the public outcry and the hurdles posed by the existing collective agreement, library cuts are surely on the table for next year.

6. Toronto Fire: Reduce the number of calls

The National Post’s Megan O’Toole has a very well-done look at the ongoing turf war between Fire Services and EMS in this city, which explains the issue better than I ever could. But, in short: the number of fires is down, yet Fire Services is often sent out on calls that they are not fully equipped to deal with. They often then just have to wait until EMS arrives. Changing the system such that Fire doesn’t so often show up at medical calls could result in efficiencies and cost savings.

Service Cut or Efficiency? As long as overall response time doesn’t take a hit, this would be an Efficiency.

How much could it save? KPMG says it’d be a small savings (5%) off the Fire Department’s very large operating budget of $335 million. Though I have to wonder if some or all of the projected savings would be offset by a necessary increase in funding for EMS. (KPMG also has floated the idea of merging EMS and Fire Services, but that couldn’t happen until 2014.)

Will Council go for it? Maybe, but it’s a delicate operation. No councillor wants to open the door to the bad press storm that would arise should a serious incident happen shortly after they’ve voted to make a cut to Emergency Services. Merging EMS and Fire in 2014 probably has a better chance of happening, if the political will is there.

5. Toronto Zoo: Get other levels of government to help

This one’s easy. KPMG says the City could off-load some of its costs for managing the zoo to other levels of government. But we all know that other levels of government are unlikely to go for it, so this isn’t going to happen.

Selling the zoo, something the mayor brought up in his infamous CP24 interview last week, is a move that KPMG says probably could not happen until 2014.

Service Cut or Efficiency? If they could get a government to provide funding that would maintain service levels, this would be an Efficiency.

How much could it save? If another government were to pick up, say, half of the Zoo’s operating budget, that would take $23 million off the city’s gross operating budget. Though when you consider that the Zoo only requires a $12 million subsidy when revenues are factored in, the numbers start to look substantially smaller.

Will Council go for it? They would, sure, but other levels of government are unlikely to come running.

4. TTC: Reduce or eliminate service

TTC ridership is at an all-time-high following the Ridership Growth Strategy introduced in 2003. Therefore, I guess, it’s as good a time as any to cut back on service. Cuts to bus service in 2012 would likely come paired with a fare increase for a double whammy of suck.

Service Cut or Efficiency? Service Cut.

How much would it save? KPMG pegs reductions in the amount of service as bring in ‘Small’ savings, but even 5% of the TTC’s $573 million budget for operating conventional transit is significant.

Will Council go for it? I’d bet heavily that we’ll see a reduction of TTC service in 2012. The Mayor’s Office showed their hand with their push to eliminate late-night and Sunday service on several bus routes in the 2011 budget. It’s worth noting, however, that they had to sell these service cuts as ‘reallocations’, meant to improve transit service on other routes. Even then, they met with enough resistance that they had to publicly revise their plan.

3. Police Service: Eliminate Paid Duty

This cut would target the practice — widely decried — of posting uniformed police officers at construction sites and special events. Council has already taken some steps to reform the policy, voting unanimously to develop “more effective criteria in delineating the need for paid duty policing in traffic control.”

Service Cut or Efficiency? Efficiency, mostly.

How much could it save? KPMG pegs it as a small saving — 5% or less — off the  Police Service’s $716 million gross operating budget. But when the item was debated at committee earlier this year, it was noted that the direct costs incurred by the city due to this program — from hiring police officers to stand guard at city-funded construction projects — stands at between $5 million and $8 million per year.

Will Council go for it? They seemingly already have, though it remains to be seen what the revised policy will look like.

2. Community Grants: Eliminate the Community Partnership & Investment Program

Rob Ford made direct reference to this $47 million program in his interview with Stephen LeDrew last week, indicating that he is unable to justify grants during a time when the city faces a budget shortfall. He has consistently voted against most of the grants covered by CPIP as a councillor, and continues to do so as mayor.

The program covers a variety of grants, from small amounts of money given to local artists under the Mural Program to funding for major events like Pride and Caribana.

Service Cut or Efficiency? Service Cut.

How much could it save? If the whole program was cut in 2012, it would save $47.4 million.

Will Council go for it? Cutting all grants would be challenging — though Rob Ford would seemingly support such a move, he did not find many allies when he voted against a round of community grants at the July Council meeting — but a significant reduction in the amount of grants given is a real possibility. The economic value of community grants is hard to quantify, but it’s generally acknowledged that they provide an economic benefit several times their cost. KPMG notes that every city they researched as part of this study also operates a community grant program.

1. Police Service: Reduce the number of officers and staff

Not much to explain here, as this is both a simple budget consideration and one that is very unlikely to go anywhere. The Toronto Police Service continues to add officers to its ranks despite a declining crime rate. KPMG points out that Toronto has a low arrests-per-officer ratio, but also notes that other cities — especially American cities — have more officers per capita.

Service Cut or Efficiency? It depends on how reductions in staff are achieved. If various crime rate indicators don’t rise as officers/staff are removed, this would probably be an Efficiency.

How much could it save? There’s a lot at play here, especially because the mayor recently inked a new deal with the Toronto Police Union that guarantees them substantial pay increases. Regardless, the Police Service is the biggest cost by far on Toronto residents’ property tax bill, costing nearly twice as much as the next biggest item, the TTC.

Will Council go for it? Layoffs seem very unlikely but the mayor did show a willingness to — quietly — reduce the number of police officers with his 2011 budget. That budget slowed hiring of new officers to replace those that retire. Still, any chance at achieving significant near-term savings on the police budget seem to have flown out the window when the new collective agreement was signed.

Total savings: not much

Let’s imagine a scenario: a new mayor gets elected in Toronto, swept into office on popular support calling for an era of smart fiscal management at City Hall. He’s said he can run a more efficient city, one that still delivers all the same services but with less bureaucratic bloat.

Due to low fuel costs, a mostly snow-free winter and a combination of various other pieces of good luck mixed with some decent planning on the part of the new mayor’s predecessor, the new council is blessed with a significant surplus going into their first budget. They opt to sock most of that surplus away, instead balancing the 2011 budget with a modest property tax increase — in line with inflation. They do cut the vehicle registration tax to $40-per-year, with an eye toward eliminating it completely when the books are in order.

With the 2011 books balanced and 2012 in decent shape due to the retained surplus and revenues, Council is now able to embark on a three-part Core Service Review aided by a consulting firm. First, they’ll identify which programs are mandatory and which are discretionary. Then, they’ll evaluate the value of all programs: both in terms of efficiency and economic/social benefit. Finally, they’ll detail a list of ways the city could save money, with a focus on savings that won’t significantly affect service levels.

Decent, right? But it didn’t happen. Instead, this administration is forcing us to look at a $774 million hole that they helped dig and telling us that we’ve got to throw libraries, community grants, recreational programs and transit service into the abyss to help fill the gap.

But the truth is there, in the very same reports the Fords and their allies keep telling us to look at: there aren’t enough potential cuts available to significantly reduce the 2012 budget shortfall.

feature — Comments Off on Toronto’s looming library cuts: what could happen, and how to stop it
25
Jul 11

Toronto’s looming library cuts: what could happen, and how to stop it

Everyone had a lot of fun last week when Councillor Doug Ford did that thing he does where he says something completely stupid and wrong. This time, it was about libraries. There are too many of them, he said: “We have more libraries per person than any other city in the world. I’ve got more libraries in my area than I have Tim Hortons.”

None of this, of course, turned out to be anywhere close to even kind of a little bit true. Toronto doesn’t even have more libraries per person than other cities in Canada. And the ratio of Tim Hortons to library branches in Etobicoke is somewhere in the neighbourhood of three-to-one. (At BlogTO, Derek Flack actually mapped things out.)

Response to Ford’s comments was swift — and kind of bizarre, honestly — as the Toronto Public Library Workers Union launched a campaign to stop the privatization of Toronto’s library system with a very well-done new website called ourpubliclibrary.to. (The Tonga top-level domain is a nice touch.)

The campaign was effective enough to engage 20,000 people to state their opposition to library privatization, and got author Margaret Atwood all fired up. Less positively, they also seem to catch the attention of corporate library privatizer Library Systems & Services Inc., which led to some articles touting the potential of outsourcing branch management.

Taken altogether, however, it’s a good campaign. But, as mentioned, also a little bizarre. Why jump to the spectre of privatization so quickly? Are these well-intentioned literary-lovers — and, okay, sure, union members — overreaching? Is privatization really the clear and present threat they seem to think it is? And is a dumb Doug Ford exaggeration really the thing you want to point to as a motivating factor?

What KPMG says about libraries

KPMG’s budget considerations for the Toronto Public Library are limited to the following: sharing administrative services with the City; consolidating Toronto Archives with TPL; closing some branches completely; reducing or eliminating some educational and outreach programs; and reducing the hours and days of operation at some branches.

Of all the TPL items, only three are noted as items that could bring potential savings for 2012. And of those, only the latter two above — killing educational/outreach programs and reducing branch hours — are workable as suggestions that will shave significant dollars off the 2012 operating budget. Notably, alternative delivery models — consultant-speak for ‘privatization’ — are not floated as a consideration for TPL.

The real threat isn’t privatization. It’s cuts. Cuts are easier and more immediate. Privatization of library services has never been done on a Toronto-size scale before. So while that threat is probably real — in a Doug Ford “we’re going to privatize everything!” sort of way — it’s not real in the sense that this is something anyone has actively floated or brought up as an option. The real immediate threat to libraries is simpler: drastic and deep service cuts.

How to cut libraries

Putting on my small-government conservative hat for a second — it’s an animal-skin fedora with a condor feather in the brim — here’s how I’d rationalize support for reducing service hours or activities at libraries. First, I’d ask leading questions that refer to technology and the internet: in this era of computers and gizmos and video games, are libraries even still relevant?

Then, I’d talk about youth, and the differences between youth today and youth when I was a youth. (And, since I’m playing conservative, it’s safe to assume that childhood was eighty years ago.) Kids today are different, I’d say, and maybe we need to take an innovative — politicians love to be innovative — approach to the kind of services libraries provide. Are we really providing the best bang for our buck with an outdated model?

Then I’d cut. I’d support closing a few branches, rolling back hours, eliminating a bunch of programs that teach immigrants how to read or seniors how to use computers. I’d say that we’re not shutting down the library or cutting service — just re-adjusting it to fit the new social and fiscal realities. I’d balance this with enthusiastic support for convening a task force or a committee to hold public consultations about new strategies for delivering the kinds of services libraries have traditionally delivered.

“e-Learning! Cutting Edge! Smart City!” I would say these things for no real reason, then I would make a long and rambling half-speech where I make vague references to how much I like the iPad I just got.

The consultations I enthusiastically support would inevitably go nowhere, of course, and the end result would be that the city spends less money and provides less service. But it will feel like a victory for the reasonable middle, who — in supporting the move — will have embraced both innovation and efficiency while demonstrating their commitment to youth.

The end. A bit conspiracy theory-ish? Sure. It’s highly speculative. But just google “Are libraries still relevant?” — the seeds are there.

How to fight that

The Toronto Public Library is one of the busiest and largest systems in the world. Its recognized internationally for its activities. It’s incredibly well-used across the city, with 18 million visits and 32 million items borrowed in 2010 alone. Last year was also the library’s busiest ever, indicating that our libraries are far from forgotten relics.

TPL has also embraced new technologies, letting people borrow eBooks with popular tablet devices and providing computer access and training to visitors. This is not a musty organization dedicated only to paper books.

Most critically, our libraries are public spaces. Just as City parks provide free access to recreation activities, our libraries provide free access to learning and community connectivity. Real cities — thriving cities — value public spaces.

TPL is a cost-effective, well-used organization that provides value for Toronto residents. On an average property tax bill, the Library represents about a $114 per year cost, or $9.50 per month. After sales tax, this is about the same as you’d pay for a Netflix subscription. It is one of the few city agencies taxpayers should feel proud of. It is unequivocally not a place where City Hall should look for significant cuts.

Yet here we are.

feature — Comments Off on The annotated Rob Ford: notes on the mayor’s interview with CP24 (VIDEO)
25
Jul 11

The annotated Rob Ford: notes on the mayor’s interview with CP24 (VIDEO)

The mayor was on CP24 this past Friday for a rare sit-down interview. Unfortunately, the journalist sitting down with Rob Ford was one-time mayoral candidate and aspiring softball pitcher Stephen LeDrew, who didn’t give the mayor much in the way of challenging questions.

Still, Ford’s statements on a variety of important issues are notable for the number of outright falsehoods and misperceptions they contain. Standing on the shoulders of giants like The Grid’s Edward Keenan, who ran a Fact Check column relating to this interview on Friday afternoon, I’ve put together an edited version of the mayor’s interview, pointing out the moments where he departed from the truth.

I call it the annotated Rob Ford. You can watch it below.

Some notes:

First, this is a six-minute edit of a twenty-minute interview. The editing process by its very nature removes context. To be objective, readers should also watch the full version of the interview at CP24 before they make any conclusions.

00:00:35 — The top three priorities identified by Toronto residents comes from Page 4 of KPMG’s summary of the Core Service Review Public Consultation process. Note also that the item given the least priority was “Fair and affordable taxes.”

00:00:55 — The KMPG report lists “Detailed analysis of services to identify efficiency and effectiveness opportunities” as “Out of Scope” on page four of the introductory document. The report does note that an efficiency study could take place at a later date, as a separate report.

00:01:22 — The KPMG report to the Public Works & Infrastructure Committee lists Solid Waste Management Services as having a net budget of 0 on page 12.

00:01:25 — Council voted to send an RFQ out to tender for solid waste collection (and a few other services) west of Yonge Street at the May Council meeting. The quotations will come back to Council for approval, probably early next year.

00:01:29 — Edward Keenan, writing for The Grid: “The right to strike in Canada is considered a constitutionally protected right (as it is in every other large democracy in the world), and contracting out garbage collection does not take away anyone’s right to form a union, bargain collectively or go on strike.”

00:01:42 — See note for 00:00:35.

00:02:17 — Quote is from the Toronto Star. David Rider recently dredged up the quote and discussed its ramifications.

00:02:43 — In fact, most of the grants Ford dismisses as unjustifiable are for programs that help needy people. They include organizations like the Rexdale Women’s Centre, the Crime Prevention Association of Toronto and the New Canadian Community Centre. The Toronto Star’s Daniel Dale has a partial list.

00:03:00 — The City of Toronto’s own website for the Toronto Atmospheric Fund is probably the best resource for information on the fund, its history and the benefits it brings to Toronto.

00:03:28 — Per KPMG’s report to the Public Works & Infrastrucutre Committee on page 39: “Consider reducing snow plowing and snow removal standards on residential streets.”

00:03:48 — The only scenario in which Ford’s claim makes sense is if we include some of the new off-road recreational paths that are to be added as part of the plan, but those serve an entirely different purpose than on-road bike lanes. The Agenda Item History for the 2011 Bike Plan is available online and details which lanes were added and which were removed. The Plan does float the idea of new lanes, notably on Richmond or Adelaide Street, but those are only being studied at this point.

00:04:09 – See page 17 of the 2011 Bike Plan Staff Report for details on traffic levels on Jarvis Street before and after installation of the bike lanes. You can also read my FAQ on Jarvis Street.

00:04:33 — It’s not true at the moment, at least. If Ford enthusiastically supports separated bike lanes on Richmond Street, for example, his statement would have more weight.

00:04:44 — It really isn’t true. See note for 00:03:48.

00:04:55 — As per “Mayor Ford votes against all community grants” in the Toronto Star.

00:05:15 — Ford skipped both the traditional Pride flag-raising kicking off the event, which took place steps from his office. He was touring the Air Canada Centre at the time. He also skipped an earlier flag-raising held by the Parents & Friends of Lesbians & Gays, which was presided over by Leafs GM Brian Burke.

00:05:40 — Per the Toronto Star’s “Ford expected to plow surplus into 2011 budget” by Robyn Doolittle: “Mayor Rob Ford is planning to use the city’s one-time surplus to help balance his 2011 budget, avoiding unpopular service cuts and delivering on a property tax freeze, say members of the executive and budget committees.”

 

feature — Comments Off on No recommendations in KPMG reports
21
Jul 11

No recommendations in KPMG reports

We’re nearly two weeks into the slow roll-out of the KPMG-produced Core Service Review reports. All in all, it’s been a process both maddening and mundane. Each report contains something that very clearly should be considered pretty damn sacred — Heritage Grants, Community Investment Programs, childcare spaces, libraries — but, at the same time, neither the mayor nor council has actually endorsed any of these prospective cuts, so getting all worked up about loss of service seems premature. Nothing’s been recommended yet.

Let’s repeat that last bit: nothing has been recommended yet.

For real, despite some media outlets who have continued to report that the KPMG reports lay out a series of recommendations that will save the city cash off its bottom line, what they actually do is far less sexy. The consultants make no recommendations, no suggestions, point out no defined ‘waste’ or specific opportunities for significant efficiencies. Instead, all they do is list and categorize city services, identifying those that are mandatory (ie. bound to exist through provincial/federal legislation), those that are essential (ie. those that without which the city would catch on fire or sink into the lake) and those that are traditional (ie. those that are commonly-accepted municipal responsibilities). The consultants also “grade” the quality of service provided by each function, and identify places where service could be scaled back to be more in line with comparable cities across the globe.

That’s it and that’s all.  The introduction to the reports lays it out pretty clearly. Here’s what they say they’re going to do: “review and analyze all City of Toronto services, activities and service levels provided by divisions and agencies and to apply a core service filter to assist Council’s decision-making. The filter identifies services that are not core, or that are provided at higher than standard service levels.”

Even more telling is what they say  they say they aren’t going to do:  there will be no “detailed analysis of services to identify efficiency and effectiveness opportunities.” Also no “detailed articulation of cost savings potential to be achieved through service changes.” And, lastly, they’re not going to make “management decisions on what actions to pursue with respect to City services.” Or, in other words, this is just a list of items filtered through a framework. These are not recommendations.

And that only makes sense, because they don’t read like recommendations. Why else would things like the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, City-owned parking lots or the Pet Licensing program appear on the list? These programs have a good track record of actually generating revenues for the city. Yes, they’re activities that go beyond the “core” services the City of Toronto should provide, but they’re relative success stories — there’s no business case to recommend cutting them.

The mayor may not understand this

The Toronto Sun really doesn’t seem to grasp this. They’ve used the words “recommend” or “recommended” across most of their stories relating this process. But that’s forgivable: long-winded explanations like the one above don’t just take up valuable column space, they also bore the hell out of people.

More troubling are comments from Mayor Rob Ford, who told the Toronto Sun on Wednesday that, “The report shows there are millions of dollars to be saved by getting rid of waste and duplication.” Well, not really. The report mostly shows that there’s some money to be saved if the City stops doing some of the things it has been doing.

Real efficiency — the kind that doesn’t result in massive service cuts — requires a long-term, measured approach. The KPMG report does vaguely point to some potential avenues that might result in real efficiencies: things like combining HR functions, contracting out cleaning services or outsourcing printing and design work. But those kinds of rejiggerings-of-bureaucracy are slow-movers. They’re not going to provide the same kind of immediate budget-saving impact as would, for example, selling Exhibition Place, shutting down all-night bus service or immediately eliminating all funding for community events like Pride or Caribana.

No focus on improving customer service

One of the things that so endeared then-Councillor Rob Ford to his constituents was his focus on customer service. He was known for visiting residents with city staff in tow, making sure that complaints were dealt with in a timely manner. It’s one of those things that marks the Mayor — despite the political rhetoric and divisiveness — as an ultimately decent and compassionate guy.

That’s why it’s so sad that this Core Service Review process has essentially turned its back on the notion of improving customer service for residents. In fact, it’s been outright hostile to customer service, identifying places where the city ranks too highly and placing them into consideration for potential cutbacks. KPMG’s report introduction states outright that “Services that appeared to have elevated service levels were considered for opportunities for service level reductions, alternate service delivery, or reengineering.”

A few months into this council term, Ford described customer service as his “number one priority.” That priority seems to have been lost in this process.

feature — Comments Off on The incredible shrinking budget gap
19
Jul 11

The incredible shrinking budget gap

Here’s the story, as advanced by Councillor Gord Perks and reported this weekend by the Toronto Star: That $774 million budget gap we’re all freaking out about? The one that has us talking sincerely about de-flouridinating our drinking water and shutting down parks? The one that’s so severe that it’s led to the City’s Budget Chief carrying around a plastic State Farm-branded piggy bank that he pulls out and shakes whenever one of his colleagues starts talking about programs that might potentially require more City spending? Turns out it might not be a real figure.

In actuality, the real budget pressure for 2012 — thanks to remaining, recently-discovered 2010 surplus dollars and an anticipated surplus for 2011 — might be significantly less. Like $331 million less.

But if we’re not actually looking at three-quarters-of-a-billion-dollars of “budget pressure,” why does that figure keep coming up? The Star’s Paul Moloney explains:

Critics accuse the Ford administration of exaggerating the city’s money woes to cow citizens into going along with serious cuts.

“I think the mayor is trying to create a political climate that suggests that the City of Toronto government is broken,” said Councillor Gord Perks, a key budget figure in the old David Miller administration.

“The kind of damage that Rob Ford wants to do to services Torontonians rely on can only be achieved if he terrorizes the public into believing we need to do it,” Perks said.

via City budget gap exaggerated, critics say | Toronto Star.

At Toronto Life, John Michael McGrath links this kind of  manufactured-crisis strategy to Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine, a sentiment backed up by blogger Sol Chrom, who writes, “Whose interests are served by all this manufactured hysteria around the budget? Apocalyptic numbers and phrases get thrown around and amplified by the transmitters in the media, and soon the sense of crisis is so acute that the stage is set for extraordinary measures.”

Extraordinary measures. Like library closures. Like transit cuts. Like service cuts. You might remember that the Mayor’s Office actually justified their use of previous-term surplus funds to close the 2011 budget gap because it would  mean they had “unmasked the true financial condition for all to see. The 2012 budget forecast reflects the true gap between the city’s revenues and spending habits.”

At The Grid, Ed Keenan contributes a great primer on how the city’s budget process works, and underscores that this year’s budget gap isn’t unique: the previous council dealt with initial shortfalls that were even larger and dealt with them without slash-and-burn service cuts:

[G]oing into the 2010 budget season, David Miller faced a projected budget shortfall of more than $800 million, and he managed not only to balance the budget without cutting any services at all, but to eventually show a huge surplus. So why is the somewhat smaller shortfall that Ford faces an emergency? Why would this, lesser crisis, require considering slashing whole government departments?

via From $350 million surplus to $774 million deficit in one Ford year? | The Grid TO.

But so what? Even if the budget gap is only the $443 million Perks says it could be, that’s still a huge number. And isn’t it time that we got our fiscal house in order and stop with these annual budget games? Shouldn’t Council’s left-wingers know better than to suggest we get through 2012 with yet another short-term, unsustainable fix?

John Lorinc is asking for a more proactive approach from Council’s Left. In his Spacing column this week, he calls on opposition councillors to lay out a “Plan B” budget, proposing an alternative to spending cuts instead of just criticizing the mayor and his allies. It’s not a bad sentiment, but he also adds this: “By the way, if a Plan B hinges on an unspecified Provincial bail-out, it automatically fails the smell test.”

Okay, yeah, it’s not likely that the McGuinty government — much less a prospective Hudak government in the fall — will be willing to cough up new subsidies to the City of Toronto when they’re facing a giant-sized debt and deficit all their own, but to ignore the role the province must play in righting amalgamated Toronto’s financial ship is not realistic. The City’s annual deficit became structural the day Mike Harris cut the provincial TTC operating and capital subsidies. Without a return to a fairer funding model — which will require strong intergovernmental advocacy efforts from the Mayor and Council — the only workable long-term Plan B-type solutions will have to involve politically toxic revenue drivers like a return to something like the Vehicle Registration Fee or even — horror! — a Municipal Sales Tax.

feature — Comments Off on Rob Ford misinformed on critical budget issues
18
Jul 11

Rob Ford misinformed on critical budget issues

The media outlets were maybe a bit too charitable with our mayor on Friday, as, in an interview with John Oakley on AM640, Rob Ford claimed that labour costs made up 80% of the city’s operating budget. In actual fact, that figure is about 48%. The disparity between the two percentages seems too large to be the result of a simple mental lapse or an exaggerated rounding error — it would seem, in this case, Ford was simply misinformed.

The discrepancy — paragraph six in the Star; paragraph eight in The Globe; paragraph eight in The Post; unmentioned in the Toronto Sun — is alarming because Ford was using his understanding of the city’s spending on labour to justify potentially laying off thousands of public sector workers.

The Globe & Mail’s Elizabeth Church and Jill Mahoney:

On the radio Friday, the mayor lamented that the city is spending 80 per cent of its budget on labour costs and vowed to bring that number down.

“In business, the first thing you look at is the labour and your labour should be making up, you know, maximum 20 per cent,” he said. “We’re at 80 per cent. It’s just unheard of. So I think that [we’re] taking a serious look at non-union and union employees and exactly what they’re doing and taking it from there.”

via Ford talks layoffs, suggests labour costs are four times too high — The Globe & Mail.

Cutting 75% of the City’s public workforce — about 50,000 strong — would mean laying off approximately 37,5000 people. Even assuming only half that number actually live within the borders of the City of Toronto, that still works out to an estimated 1.3% rise in Toronto’s unemployment rate. Regardless of whether these workers are providing necessary or efficient services, dumping that many people into unemployment would have disastrous impact on the regional economy.

Also alarming, and from the same interview, was the mayor’s seemingly sincere attempt to equate revenue cuts with spending cuts.

The Toronto Star’s David Rider:

Despite the layoff threat, Ford made balancing the 2012 budget sound positively easy.“We’ve saved over $70 million in the first six months so if we can find $70 million I’m sure we can save $700 million, that’s for sure,” Ford said.“So many great ideas are coming forward and then it’s for us to implement it. There’s tonnes of gravy,” he said, Ford’s pet word for waste.

via Ford makes layoffs sound like a certainty – thestar.com.

Many, including The Globe & Mail’s Marcus Gee, have pointed out that the $70 million in savings the mayor refers to is probably the same $70 million his office touted as “savings to the taxpayer” shortly after his first month in office. That figure included the roughly $64 million in revenue the City now must do without following the elimination of the Vehicle Registration Fee. Rob Ford, apparently, believes that eliminating government revenue counts as a “saving.”

To put it another way: this is the equivalent of taking a $100 bill, setting it on fire, and then calling that a “savings” on your monthly budget. Because now, I guess, you don’t have to worry about spending it.

The mayor was spinning these weird numbers — 80% and $70 million — as part of an attempt to to tiptoe around the idea of a 3% property tax increase for 2012. A reasonable property tax increase for the next year is actually the first sensible thing the mayor’s office has proposed in quite some time, so of course the Toronto Sun and others are already hammering him for it. Joe Warmington, in his column this weekend, accused Ford of replacing the Gravy Train with a Tax Train. (Seriously, enough with the damned trains.)

Which brings me back to this familiar refrain: property taxes don’t work like other taxes, in that they don’t grow automatically with inflation. A 3% property tax increase this year is in line with inflation — especially considering the freeze last year –, and really shouldn’t be seen as any kind of tax grab. Favouring layoffs over a fiscally-responsible move to keep the city’s property tax revenues in line with inflation is dangerous and short-sighted fiscal policy.

feature — Comments Off on Searching for Council’s conservatives
14
Jul 11

Searching for Council’s conservatives

Yesterday, Toronto City Council endorsed spending approximately $400,000 removing cycling infrastructure downtown and in Scarborough, despite staff reports that indicated the bike lanes had no substantive impact on traffic flow. They followed this up hours later by voting to uphold an earlier decision by the Executive Committee that, due to concerns that maybe someday the funding might be removed, Council not accept provincial money that would add two new public health nurse positions to the City’s payroll.

Let’s phrase that another way: over the course of one summer afternoon, councillors decided both to recklessly spend $400,000 for no clear reason and to play it safe, eschewing needed resources at public health because they might, one day — but probably not –, get stuck with a $200,000 per year bill for their trouble.

The same Council then had the relative gall to pass a motion calling for the province to step in and fund a greater percentage of the operating and capital budgets for the TTC. And so Council both rejected provincial money and asked for more of it on the same day.

Meanwhile, outside Council chambers, consulting group KPMG has spent the week releasing delightfully concise Core Service Review reports that all follow a similar template. First, they point out that the department they’ve examined has very little waste. Then, they drop a bundle of ‘considerations’ — not recommendations — that range from things like eliminating water fluoridation to selling the city’s stable of barnyard animals.

The consultants — who already have a checkered history with this kind of thing, having once produced a report arguing amalgamation would save the Toronto municipalities a significant amount of money — are clear that they aren’t even really looking at efficiencies as much as they’re laying out a list of things that could legally be cut from the city’s portfolio of public services. That this stands contrary to an election promise made by the mayor seems to have been tossed to the curb.

Also on that curb? The results of the city’s exhaustive consultation sessions regarding the Core Service Review. A full 60% of people who attended indicated they would accept increased taxes to pay for existing service levels. Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, who’s had a fun week, said Monday that that group was irrelevant. “Self-selecting,” he said. Okay.

For the record, Toronto — you know, the city that we continue to hear is suffering from near-fatal fiscal wounds that can only be treated by deep government cuts — has some of the lowest property taxes in the GTA and recently voluntarily reduced its annual revenues by $60 million.

I’m not sure what you call the ideology that drives these decisions, but it can’t be conservatism, can it? Certainly not principled conservatism. A conservative would demand to see a business case before spending public money modifying infrastructure. In the case of Jarvis, Birchmount and Pharmacy, there wasn’t one. A conservative wouldn’t turn away provincial money — which the city has said it needs –, especially if there was a guarantee in place that the new positions could be eliminated should the funding ever be removed. (Which was the case.)  A conservative wouldn’t call on the provincial government for funding only months removed from electing to decrease the city’s own revenues, and hours removed from opting out of committed, ongoing provincial money for public health.

Our Conservative Mayor

Early in the day on Tuesday — before Council had really started rolling with the big items of the week — Mayor Rob Ford rose and asked to be recorded in the negative on four items relating to grant funding for community groups, including Etobicoke Services for Seniors, the Crime Prevention Association of Toronto and Variety Village. (The latter is interesting, as it comes only a couple of months after Ford made a rare media appearance announcing a new bus stop implemented to serve visitors to the organization, which supports disabled children.) The Mayor also stated his intention to vote against grants for heritage buildings. Late in the day on Wednesday, the Mayor added to this bizarre tally, lodging a vote against the 2011 AIDs Prevention Community Investment Program. This vote marked a milestone for the councillor-turned-mayor: he’s now voted against AIDS funding five years in a row.

The bottom line: If the Mayor of Toronto could have his way, it would appear that the city would cease most community grants, end some of its heritage protection programs and drastically cut back on public health funding.

My kingdom for a conservative

I don’t lean even slightly to the right politically, but I would like to think I understand the merits of conservative thinking. It’s about mitigating government risk, off-loading ambition to the private sector and, in times of economic hardship, turning to austerity as opposed to reinvestment. That’s fine. As much as I disagree with that line of thinking on an ideological level, I respect it. I can hold it in my hands and argue against it. It feels firm.

But what we’re seeing at Council these days isn’t that. It’s a weird mishmash of spite-based decision making and conservatism-when-convenient, held up by the enthusiastic wishes of a “silent majority” that only communicate through the cellphones of the mayor and his brother. It’s all glazed over with a slapdash of pseudo-libertarianism, the kind that exists in the minds of high school students who are like halfway through reading Atlas Shrugged.

Rob Ford is Rob Ford. I can’t fault him for that. He’s maddeningly consistent in his anti-government views and has been for years. What disappoints me — and continuously surprises me — is that he has commanded the support of a cabal of once-sensible Liberals and conservatives on Council, and has driven them to this point where Toronto is now governed by a Council with no consistent guiding ideology, principles, or direction.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →