There is an old joke about universities that goes as
follows: When it comes to spending money, Department Chairs like new hires,
Deans like new programs and Presidents like new buildings.
We can extend this to municipal
governments.
Municipal Administrators
like new staff hires, City Councilors like new programs for their neighborhoods
and Mayors like new buildings.
Indeed, with
the proposed multi-million dollar
Indoor
Turf Facility our current Mayor Mauro is continuing the practice of seeking
a legacy build that marked previous Mayor Keith Hobbs’ terms as he sought and
ultimately failed to bring about a new Events Center.
There is nothing wrong with building a new events center or
a new indoor turf facility.
They are
both projects that will find users and will bring about benefits to the community.
The indoor turf facility will no doubt find
many users in the Thunder Bay’s growing soccer community.
Indeed, there are private developers quite
eager to provide these facilities – which incidentally would add to the tax
base – and yet their plans seem to face
a
lot of obstacles from the City.
For
whatever reason, the City does not seem to like competition from the private
sector even if it enables them to save money.
As much as city councilors and administrators hate to hear it, it is ultimately about economics and financial sustainability.
The
Thunder
Bay Chamber of Commerce is correct in wanting more detail on the finances
as well as a financial plan given that the facility was going to cost $30
million, now costs $33 million and given the proposed new $15 million debenture
(should federal and provincial support not materialize) will add a further $8
million in interest costs bringing the total to $42 million.
Given the history of construction projects in
Thunder Bay, the final bill will probably not end there and I would not be
surprised to see the costs of the facility exceed $60 million when all is said
and done.
And then of course, there are
the annual operating costs.
Given the
City has been closing pools and considering other closures as part of its
expenditure review, it is odd to see them happily adding new potential operating costs.
This whole business is also about process and one begins to
think that despite the talk about deliberation and consultation and
consideration of this project, this is probably a done deal.
The August 24
th meeting will be
one of feigned concern about city finances followed by approval of the
project.
Only one councilor appears to
have raised any reservations at the
last
council meeting.
Stantec
Architecture has been retained
to
design the facility and they have provided a glowing public presentation.
In lieu of public meetings given COVID-19, public input is
being accepted via a
comment
form requiring registration until August 3
rd.
The form simply asks one question – ‘Please provide
your comments”.
In that sense, it is
free form enough for people to provide whatever comments they want.
Yet, it is still not sufficient for a full
public debate and the survey does not provide any type of costing options.
If you are opposed, your comments will likely
receive a smaller weighting in Council’s deliberations as they will be very free
form and judged “inconsistent” or “not focused” while supportive comments will
be “passionate” and “effective.”
Indeed, the impact of COVID-19 on public meetings and public
debate is I think secretly welcomed by many politicians – including our
municipal councilors. After all, no
more pesky face to face meetings with unhappy constituents. You can receive input electronically and the
beauty of that is you can choose to respond to what you want and ignore the
rest. After all, expert consulting advice
is being provided to Thunder Bay City Council
on this matter and experts know what they are talking about. Except, the only expert
advice that City Council usually wishes to hear is from paid international experts who bid for a
project with parameters that essentially result in them presenting how to do what
City Council wants to do as opposed to whether the project should be done in
the first place.
Local experts with differing points of view and local knowledge are
avoided and if too vocal are essentially derided – sometimes during council meetings
themselves. As Councillor Aldo Ruberto remarked
about yours truly during a 2015 council meeting on the proposed events center –
"You want to listen to
economists? They record history. They don't make history." For the record,
I supported a downtown events center as long as Federal and provincial funding
could be secured for the project but such support was not forthcoming. When the funding or circumstances change and new information becomes avilable, I change my mind. Such nuances are lost on “passionate” politicians.
Thunder Bay City Councilors
do not like to talk about history much – unless it is a celebration of their
own glories – because it reminds them of mistakes that have been made. Indeed, Thunder Bay City Council continues to
make history as it approves decisions that add more and more spending with the
buck being passed on to residential ratepayers who are now paying 70 percent of
the tax levy and face rising user fees.
There are certainly a lot of potential bills coming due with past
decisions made on the city’s water supply.
The City has been remarkably silent on pinhole leaks in the wake of the
sodium hydroxide experiment to reduce lead even in the wake of direct queries.
So, should we
turf the turf facility? The city has
earmarked funds out of reserves for this project. For it to go ahead in a responsible fiscal
manner, the project requires that upper tiers of government provide at least half
of the upfront capital costs with the remainder coming out reserves – not a
debenture. Yet, the talk of a debenture means Thunder Bay City Council and
Mayor already suspect there is not going to be federal or provincial grant
support so they are making alternate plans.
After all, why would the federal government or province commit to yet
another northern Ontario construction project that is not essential
infrastructure and seems to have such flexible and changing construction costs? Moreover, given Thunder Bay is lamenting their $13
million COVID-19 budgetary shortfall should not reserves also be used for
this rather than have a steep tax increase in 2021? The
decision is pretty obvious. In the absence of upper tier grant support, you
turf the turf facility and go with the private sector individuals who were
ready to build and hope they are still interested.
