City Hall: Good, bad and ugly

The Good: The Executive Committee has the capital budget variance report for the first four months of 2007 before it today. The report says that the City is on pace to complete 89 percent of its 2007 capital budget. This is great news given that completion rates for the City’s capital program have been under 70 percent every year since amalgamation.

The tide started to turn on this in 2005, when City Council re-jigged the budget approval process. Prior to that point, Council had always considered the capital budget along with the far more labourious operating budget. Delaying approval of the capital budget until operating was ready prevented City staff from tendering contracts until spring. In turn, there was little time to get projects done before December 31, the end of the fiscal year.

Now the Miller Administration has the capital program to Council for approval in February while operating is done in March or April.

Budget Chief Shelley Carroll has made increasing the capital program completion rate a priority, so kudos to her for getting results on this front.

The Bad: City Council made a political decision during the last term to levy residential development charges at 18 percent below the highest level allowed under the provincial Development Charges Act. If the City were to increase development charges by that 18 percent, it could add $20 million to its capital budget annually. Given the rate of condo construction and the City’s financial position, I see little reason for giving residential developers a break.

Even though provincial law dictates development charges can only be used for specific types of capital projects (i.e., they can’t be used to close the gap in the City’s operating budget), every penny counts if you can make room for other capital expenditures.

The Ugly: According to Auditor General Jeffery Griffiths, 29 of the 45 Members of Council had at least one irregularity in their 2006 election campaign financial statements. Though some seem legitimately explained away (for example, a couple of councillors who have spouses with different last names than their own received donations from their spouses that totalled more than the legal limit for non-spousal donations), others look a little suspicious to me.

Take, for example, Councillor Cesar Palacio. Auditor General Griffiths notes, “The Councillor declared a surplus as of January 2, 2007. A contribution of $750 was accepted on Jan 24, 2007. Acceptance of contributions is not allowed after a surplus is declared.” Although similar to the responses of many other observations made by Griffiths, Palacio’s office informed the AG that the “Councillor has advised the City Clerk.” (Whatever that means.)

Overall, however, the flags raised by Griffiths simply show lazy accounting practices and confusion over election rules. Whatever the 29 Members of Council noted in the report have to say for themselves, it’s still ugly.

Photo courtesy StarbucksGuy.