Changing Thunder Bay City Council: What Is The Path Forward?

 

I have already opined on the recent report putting forth options for the reform of Thunder Bay City Council, but the matter is so fundamentally important to the future of local democracy in our city as well as the effectiveness of municipal government that it is worth another post.  This especially requires another post given that the current council will soon move to deliberate and decide on which of the two options – if any – it is going to go with. 

 

To start, there are actually three options: The first, is four east-west wards running parallel from north to south numbered 1 to 4 that basically gives each ward a rural area, urban area as well as some industry and waterfront in the geographic and population composition of the ward.  Each ward would have two ward councillors for a total of eight.  As well, there would be two at-large councillors and a mayor.  This proposal is being recommended by city administration.  The second option is a full at large system with ten at-large councillors – no ward councillors - plus the mayor. One suspects that some type of ward structure will be retained with at large councillors “assigned” ward representation duties but how that might actually work is shrouded in fog. And third – while not explicitly referred to but lurking in the background – is simply the status quo option of seven ward councillors, five at large councillors and one mayor.

 

What remains important in the discussion is what the rationale for creating a new structure is.  First and foremost, whether warranted or not, there appears to be a widespread desire for change in city council’s composition driven by dissatisfaction with assorted aspects of municipal government in Thunder Bay.  A desire for change for the sake of change is never in of itself a good reason to change things but even recent albeit unscientific polls on TBnewswatch suggests that most respondents want change.  Past TBnewswatch  polls have suggested a desire for a smaller council with eight councillors plus a mayor garnering the most support.  When given the two proposed options plus the status quo as choice, the most recent poll finds that over 86 percent want change with only 13 percent supporting the status quo.  Moreover, when it comes to the two proposed options – about 46 percent support the 10 councillors plus mayor all at large option, and 40 percent support the four ward two councillor per ward plus two at large and a mayor format. 

 

 

What type of performance improvements to our municipal governance are these proposals supposed to make?  Anecdotally, observation suggests that Thunder Bay City Council meetings appear to be long and drawn out with detailed discussions and gridlock on minor and major matters alike.  Yet, how changing the composition of city council will address issues of dysfunction are not really obvious.  There is also a desire to save money but reducing council by two members saves at best $100,000 in salaries, benefits, and expenses on a tax funded budget of over $200 million.  Indeed, if cost savings are really what you are after, the savings do not come from the reduction in the size of city council but an improvement in the quality of councillors and decision-making on it.  There is nothing in either of the two proposed options that lend any evidence as to how a smaller council will be a better council when it comes to decision making. 

 

In the end the three options can be interpreted as follows: the status quo, a modified status quo which shrinks the council slightly but still includes a mix of ward and at-large councillors, and the ten councillors at large option which I would term the “mayor plus ten assistant mayors” option.  The attractiveness of an all–at large council to some members of the general public springs from the conviction that such councillors have the interests of the entire city at large while ward councillors are parochial nimbyists who block change.  My observations are that ward councillors seem stuck with the grunt work of dealing with specific ward and neighborhood issues while most  at-large councillors pick and choose what ward issues to advocate for based on the political benefits while behaving as pontificating prima donnas at meetings with speeches that chew up far too much time. 

 

In the end, an all–at large council favours those candidates with a lot of prior popular name exposure (it is like high school all over again) and/or the financial resources or special interest backing to mount a city-wide campaign.  The argument that somehow only at large councillors have the ability to see the whole city’s interests is spurious.  The average municipal politician usually puts their political interests first, and everything else is weighed and slotted towards meeting those interests – whether it is in the city’s interests or not.  Having no ward councillors at all is fundamentally at odds with the purpose of municipal government which is to provide municipal services to rate payers who either reside and/or operate businesses in wards.  Moving to an all–at large system reduces accountability to the mundane needs of ratepayers by creating a council of big picture overlords who will pass the buck on specific local issues when it suits them. 

 

Those that want an all–at large system should consider this analogy.  If at large councillors are really better able to see the “bigger municipal picture” than by extension having all MPs and MPPS elected from an at large list would be better at seeing provincial or national interests as opposed to parochial MPs or MPPs who just look after their ridings.  Perhaps, one might consider this a straw man argument and a deflection from the real issue but think about it carefully.  One may feel comfortable about all at large candidates with no wards because Thunder Bay is a relatively small city and ultimately everyone knows someone who knows someone who is friends with a councillor.  Everyone feels that they can have their voice heard.  And yet, without the institution of direct ward or riding representation, there is no guarantee that you will always have a direct opportunity to be heard.

 

So, what is the solution?  Well, my preferred option – which is of course not up for discussion in the current set of offerings - is eight ward councillors plus a mayor option.  The city would be divided not into four but eight wards thereby ensuring that some dedicated rural ward representation would remain.  It is now 50 years after amalgamation and the city has been united long enough that the average ward councillor should be able to see the forest for the trees.  If they cannot, it is more a function of the quality of the councillor rather than the ward system.  Going down to eight councillors plus a mayor would likely save several hundred thousand dollars – again a small sum compared to a budget in the hundreds of millions – but enough to increase resources available to perhaps attract better candidates. This does not necessarily mean raising salaries for councillors but could even involve providing funds so that they can hire some independent research support so they can better inform themselves on issues.

 

Of course, the other argument that has also been made in favour of an all–at large council is that there is a lack of Indigenous representation on the current city council.  Given that the Indigenous population in Thunder Bay is spread out across the city rather than concentrated in one ward, an all–at large system increases the odds that an indigenous candidate and by extension the growing indigenous population can gain a voice on city council.  However, there is no guarantee that having ten at large councillors will ensure an indigenous candidate gaining office.  Indeed, if having at large councillors is the best way to ensure better odds for an indigenous candidate getting elected to Thunder Bay City Council, then the best thing to do is to retain the current system with seven ward and five at-large councillors plus a mayor.  At least it will be the devil we know best.

 

 

The Shape of Councils to Come

 

The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay’s Council Composition Committee has after a number of months of deliberation and thought settled on two potential options for the reform of Thunder Bay City Council.  This is a topic with a long history and I have done several posts on it over the years the most recent one being in the wake of the decision to form an arm’s length committee to review the composition and structure of council.  The desire to look at the size and composition of council is rooted in the beliefs that there might be cost savings by reducing the size of council given that similar size cities often have fewer councillors or that council’s deliberations might be more efficient or effective if there were fewer councillors.  The current proposals if implemented would not be the first time that City Council has seen changes, but it is the first time in a long while.

 

When Thunder Bay was created in 1970 from amalgamation of the twin cities of Port Arthur and Fort William and the rural municipalities of Neebing and McIntyre, it began with a 12 councillor plus mayor council elected evenly across four wards.  However, interurban rivalry between the Williamites and Arthurites was still intense as was rural dissatisfaction and so in 1976 the four wards were revised to seven.  Then in 1985 there was the further revision that sought to balance north-south neighborhood concerns with the need to take the overall interest of the city into account known as the Larson compromise – after then councillor Rene Larson.  This created the current form of seven ward councillors plus five at large plus the mayor.  After nearly forty years, the proposals seek to change this.

 

There are two proposals.  The first, interestingly enough, seems like a tomorrow is yesterday proposal given that it features four wards.  The proposal puts forth four east-west wards running parallel from north to south numbered 1 to 4 that basically give each ward a rural area, urban area as well as some industry and waterfront in the geographic and population composition of the ward.  Each ward would have two ward councillors for a total of eight. Plus, there would be two at-large councillors and a mayor.  This proposal is apparently also being recommended by city administration and the committee chair and former city councillor Rebecca Johnson feels it is “quite exciting” given that each ward combines all aspects of the community. The other option is a full at large system with ten at-large councillors – no wards - plus the mayor. There will now be public consultations and information sessions that the committee will use to narrow down the options to just one and this will then be submitted to council for approval and then will hopefully be in place for the October 2026 election.

 

 

 

So, what to make of all this.  Well, in terms of cost savings, going from a current council of 13 members to one of 11 under either option is simply a cosmetic cost saving.  While theatre is important in politics, pointless cost saving theatre is a waste of time.  What is more important is whether the new format is an improvement on representation and decision making in terms of having balanced representation of all city interests as well as a more streamlined decision-making process.  Having fewer members on council is again more of a cosmetic streamlining as a council of 11 is as likely to have long winded grand-standers as a council of 13.  The savings on time and committee streamlining is marginal at best.  As for the idea that having wards cutting east west and spanning rural, urban, industrial and waterfront areas, that is actually more interesting and certainly an intriguing change.  Of course, one has to ask if any perceived dysfunctions of council currently are due to having somewhat more homogeneous rather than diverse wards under the present system or simply a function of personalities and issues.

 

One item that seems odd is why a vestige of the hybrid ward/at-large system is still being retained in the recommended proposal?  An all at-large system in a sense would ultimately lead to a lack of democratic representation as the ability to mount a city-wide campaign \would increasingly relegate council positions to higher income individuals or those with support from key interest groups.  However, the purpose of city government is to provide services to ratepayers. Having geographic wards with councillors attached to those wards as focal points and accountable to voters in their ward is superior to at-large councillors who under the pretense of representing the “whole” city – which by the way is the mayor’s job – can essentially dodge neighborhood issues they are not as interested in.  Why have a council with eight ward councillors and two at large plus a mayor?  Why not simply go to eight ward councillors plus a mayor thereby saving another two councillor salaries – as miniscule as those savings are in a $200 million dollar a year operating budget.

 

In the end, the preferred option – like all the council options and changes of the past – is likely going to be a political compromise.  The current council essentially must approve the final option and going from 13 to 11 means some dear colleagues must inevitably be bade farewell come October 2026.  Council voting to reduce its size and create redundancy for some of its members may be a challenge. The fact that the number of ward councillors goes from seven to eight will probably secure the votes of the majority of current seven ward councillors.  While that is a majority, it would leave a bitter taste if all five at-large councillors vote against the new regime so having a couple of at-large councillors in the new arrangement should placate enough of them, even if it makes them an endangered species. 

 

However, what is more interesting will be the public reaction to the recommended proposal especially in the rural wards.  The Neebing and McIntyre wards essentially have two dedicated rural voices on council.  What the proposed four ward structure does is essentially divide the rural areas into four bits and place them in a minority position within each of the largely urban wards.  While the Larson Compromise of 1985 in the end addressed north-south rivalry issues and the need for “Thunder Bay views”, it also dealt with the interests of the two rural municipalities that were once independent.  Essentially what the compromise did was allow for specific ward representation including specific rural interests as well as provide the overarching at-large councillors.  While Thunder Bay has largely come together in the case of the old Port Arthur/Fort William split, the rural-urban differences with respect to taxation and service levels is probably still an issue now.

 

The political mix at the moment is that five of the current seven ward councillors are most likely to support the recommended model.  I would be surprised if the Neebing and McIntyre councillors supported the new model.  As five councillors is not a majority, this leaves the balance of the decision to the five at-large councillors to decide if the proposal becomes reality.  It should make for some interesting Monday night political theatre this winter.

Reforming Thunder Bay City Council: The Journey Begins

 

It appears that Thunder Bay City Council has finally decided to get serious about looking at its size and composition with the move to appoint a six-member citizen committee that will lead a review process over the next year that might actually result in changes in time for the 2026 municipal election.  The committee will have a far-reaching mandate to explore the size of council, their status as full or part-time membership as well as the structure of the current at-large and ward hybrid model that has governed Thunder Bay municipal politics since the 1980s.  When Thunder Bay was created it 1970, it began with a mayor and 12 councillors elected evenly across four wards which was revised to seven wards in 1976 and then took its current form of seven ward and five at large councillors in 1985.

 

This is coming about nearly three years after a previous council began to explore the issue and which ultimately generated this post which concluded: “it would be better if more of an effort was made to commission an independent arm’s length panel to review the situation and present options to council.”  Well, a committee has finally been appointed by City Council and is made up of six members.  The committee is chaired by former councillor Rebecca Johnson and vice-chaired by another former councillor Cody Fraser as well as citizens Riley Burton, Wayne Bahlieda, Heather McLeod and Carlos Santander-Maturana. 

 

The committee will conduct a two-phase consultation with the public.  The first phase includes a survey to ascertain how the public engages and interacts with City Council and examining if they have a desire to see changes to the composition of council. Phase two will include discussion and consultation with the public on potential options that could result in changes to council composition and/or the ward boundaries.  The committee will then take all of this information and “provide a report to City council with recommended changes to the composition of council or the ward system next year”.

 

The wording on the City of Thunder Bay website seems to imply that there will be changes and the chair of the committee in a TBTNewswatch story seemed to say that she believed that this time there were going to be changes made.  Indeed, phase two already says it is about options for change even before phase one has ascertained a desire for change  This is somewhat disconcerting because it suggests that someone or somebody somewhere has already decided that changes will be made, and the only real question is what those changes might be.  When put alongside a less than transparent process for committee member selection that were apparently “carefully chosen” and a survey that requires registration, one begins to wonder if the result is already a foregone conclusion.  Of course, one should be charitable on an issue that has reared its head up numerous times over the years and has only finally resulted in a serious attempt to examine it.  Given the length of time it has taken to get to this point, I suppose one should simply be grateful a committee has been struck even if the process seems akin to foxes guarding the hen house.

 

It is fair to ask what possibly an economist could contribute to a debate on municipal governance?  However, barring the reality that economists are municipal citizens too, it remains that economists are fully capable of examining the costs and benefits of institutional arrangements and their evolution as well as public finance aspects.  It is not an incursion into new territory to be staked out but rather an extension of what many institutional economists and economic historians already do.   In the case of the size, structure, composition and representativeness of the current institutional arrangement, there needs to be a framework for the decision making as well as an examination of what issues need to be addressed with the change.

 

A change in the current arrangements of municipal council represents an institutional change or innovation and such changes should be made if the perceived net benefits of the new arrangement exceed the net benefits of the previous one plus the costs of transitioning to a new arrangement – both social and economic costs.  It requires in the end an analysis of the current system and its benefits and costs not just economically but in terms of effectiveness in democratic representation and decision making as well as community spirit and engagement. 

 

What is not functioning under the current arrangement?  What could be improved?  What are the advantages of the current system of seven ward and five at-large representatives plus a mayor and what are its drawbacks?  In other words, what exactly are we trying to fix or improve.  What is driving the need to make changes to city council?  For example, simply being unable to get a consensus on building a new turf facility is not a reason to change the decision-making mechanism. Similarly, rancorous meetings are also not a reason to reform city council if the debate results in things getting done or poor decisions avoided.

 

Much of the debate in the past has focused on issues like ward councillors being too focused on their wards and not seeing the “bigger picture” when it comes to city issues.  Other times, there have been concerns that at-large councillors by not being tied to a ward and its needs were somehow shirking their duties by picking and choosing what they wanted to focus on.  Indeed, Thunder Bay politics at the municipal level has occasionally seemed like council consisted of a mayor, five mayors in waiting and seven dwarf councillors left to do a lot of the heavy lifting on local issues.  On the other hand, one could also argue that having five at large councillors allowed for citizens to go beyond their immediate ward councillor when lobbying if they felt they had not had their issue addressed.

 

And the hybrid system itself with two types of councillors is rather unique – why is it that Thunder Bay cannot have either a system of all ward councillors or all at large councillors?  What was the original purpose of going to a hybrid model and have those reasons shifted?  Then, there is the issue of the total number of councillors given the population size as on a per capita basis Thunder Bay probably has more councillors than many other cities in Ontario.  Burlington, for example, with a population nearly double that of Thunder Bay, has six ward councillors plus a mayor.  Kingston, on the other hand, which is one and a half times Thunder Bay’s population, has a mayor representing “the city as a whole” and twelve district councillors.

 

Perhaps fewer councillors but all full-time rather than the current part-time might make for better decision making.  However, that would likely mean a higher stipend and part of the argument for reducing the size of council is a belief that somehow there are going to be cost savings.  If you are indeed looking at cost savings in municipal government, reducing the number and salaries of councillors is merely symbolic as the real savings lie elsewhere. On the other hand, one can argue that being a councillor is about community service and the money should not matter.

 

Would having all councillors as ward councillors make the council too parochial as each seeks only to look after neighborhood concerns?  Or will having all at-large councillors undermine the position of mayor as all councillors can claim to have a city-wide mandate from the electorate?  Indeed, if all the councillors are at large, why elect a separate mayor at all?  Make the mayor the at-large councillor with the most votes.  Or, if we move to an all-at-large approach, will only high-profile individuals and financially better off individuals being able to run for council given that ward races can favour ward residents with close neighborhood ties while city wide campaigns are more expensive to mount? 

 

And all of this of course is intertwined with the issue about whether we need to or should redesign our ward system given the current imbalances in population across wards as populations in the city have shifted.  Should we go to eight or ten numbered as opposed to named wards with approximately equivalent populations, as well as a mayor?  Should the councillors be all at-large or all ward based or some new type of hybrid?  What should the borders of the new wards be?  Will changing the number of wards and councillors as well as redesigning borders lead to better democratic accountability?  More citizen involvement? And on top of all of this – do we want a first past the post system electing our councillors?  Ranked or weighted ballots – especially for at-large candidates?

 

 

 

As mentioned before, all of this is really not new territory for an economist.  Institutions and their quality are fundamental to successfully functioning economies.  Has Thunder Bay been hurt economically by its current municipal institutions? Indeed, one could in a moment of introspection go further and ask if amalgamation was responsible for the economic slowdown after 1970 given a monopoly one-city government replaced what were a set of competitive municipalities.  There can be a lot at stake here as change for the sake of change without understanding the reasons for change as well as the long-term ramifications can leave us worse off.  Borrowing from the words of our outgoing City Manager, if you “don’t know what you don’t know”, then how can you know that what you are doing is the best decision possible?  The committee indeed has its work cut out for it and one hopes that they are independently minded enough to be able to know what questions to ask, when to ask them and more importantly, when to suggest to do something and when to do nothing.

Your Next Thunder Bay City Council …According to TBNewswatch Polling

 

With the candidacy window closed as of August 19^th, the race for the October 24^th municipal election is now on and there is no shortage of candidates in Thunder Bay.  Every Ward has a race and the At-Large race has the usual bounty of candidates.  There are five candidates for Mayor, 24 for the At-Large race, three in Current River, two in McIntyre, four in McKellar, six in Neebing, five in Northwood, six in Red River and four in Westfort – a total of 59 candidates.  That pretty much matches the last time despite the lamentations of woe early on that there were no candidates.

 

The more interesting question in light of such a magnificent display of civic interest and spirit is who is going to win in each of the races.  TBNewswatch provides a valuable public service with its polls on various issues and it has over the period August 20 to 27 run polls for each of the races. Of course, this is not an unbiased random sampling procedure and one suspects the technologically savvy can affect the results but if these polls are accurate, this is what your next council may look like (percentage of votes cast in brackets)

 

Mayor                                      Ken Boschoff  (51.90 %)

At-Large Councillors                Mark Bentz (15.96%)

                                                Shane Judge (13.22%)

                                                Stephen Margarit (11.64%)

                                                Shelby Ch’ng (11.06%)

                                                Kasey Etreni (8.86%)

Red River                                 Martin Rukavina (28.83%)

McIntyre                                  Albert Aiello (50.16%)

Westfort                                 Kristen Oliver (49.27%)

Northwood                             Dominic Pasqualino (50.16%)

McKellar                                  Brian Hamilton (43.42%)

Current River                          Andrew Foulds (60.61%)

Neebing                                  Shaun Kennedy (39.22%)

 

Some of these wards appear to have closer races based on the TBNewswatch poll – namely Red River where Jason Veltri (24.45%)  is a close second, McIntyre where Brent Boyko is a very close (49.84%) second and McKellar where Lori Paras is close (39.95%).   This is not a scientific poll and even if it was, the only poll that counts is of course the one on election day.  Still, if these trends are on the mark, there may be substantial turnover on city council.  Change and new viewpoints can be very positive and many of these front runners are relatively known quantities while others are relative unknowns depending on what social circles you move in.

 

 It is worth googling these candidates and checking out their self-provided bios which provide an eclectic mix of entertaining and informative reading.  Some are quite informative and impressive, listing a series of career and community accomplishments. Some mention family relationships or their deep community connections to Thunder Bay. Some mention what they want to accomplish with an explicitness that may lose them as many votes as they may win, and some are vague to the point of not really saying anything at all by providing an endless string of platitudes.  The other thing worth noting is if one were to plot the candidates who seem to be leading the “poll” on a left/right or progressivist/passivist continuum, Thunder Bay is probably about to elect a council that is even less concerned about taxpayers and tax rates than the previous one. On the other hand, they may surprise us all with their fiscal astuteness.  Still, on voting day, choices must be made and if they turn out to be good ones, so much the better.

 

The next council inherits a lot of issues: crime and policing, social issues and homelessness and addiction, crumbling infrastructure, expensive lawsuits mainly linked to water and of course the still flat economy which has been masked by the generous amounts of government money that has flowed into Thunder Bay on both a private and public level.  New councillors will come in with pet projects and agendas but will quickly find that they must deal with resource constraints, a bureaucracy which generally has more information than they do and their own vested interests, and issues that will pop in from out of the blue.  New councillors will need to be quick learners, multi-talented, adaptable, patient and open to criticism both warranted and unwarranted and take it all in with a smile.  However, they will probably be spared from feeling like having to do windows on a skyscraper while perched on a precarious and narrow wooden seat. 

 

Requiem for City Council

 

Thunder Bay City Council this week began to move into its “lame duck” period - which officially starts August 8^th - with its decision to hold off on advancing the Turf Facility project and essentially kicking it down the road to the next city council which will be elected in October.  While they still might revisit the project before the 8^th, it is unlikely and signals acceptance that this legacy project will not be the current council’s legacy.  Of course, key to the problem is the cost of the project and the lack of external funding which has made the project controversial in part because early on Council rejected a private plan for a bubble type project. And the failure to attract federal funding which instead has gone to the Art Gallery project and a new Science north Facility suggests there will not be any federal funding soon making the project reliant on municipal borrowing.

 

As to whether the next council will support another go at a municipal Turf Facility is a good question given there is going to likely be a major change in its composition given that several incumbents including the current mayor have decided not to seek re-election.  What seemed to be a dearth of candidates earlier on is now dissipating as there are quite a few candidates starting to declare.  There are now four candidates for mayor and nine candidates for the five At Large seats.  There are two candidates each in Red River, Westfort, and McKellar Wards and four in Northwood.  Current River is likely on the road towards acclamation as only the Incumbent has declared to date. Neebing Ward has three candidates.  Only McIntyre still has no declared candidates but that will likely change.  So, with the filing deadline being August 19^th, sufficient choice is on its way.

 

The more interesting question is why some of the incumbents have decided not to run – at least four so far and maybe more given that some still have not declared.  Part of the issue may be fatigue given the length of time many of these incumbents have served in local politics especially when combined with the events of the last four years.  Thunder Bay has been beset with numerous controversial issues – poverty crime, the opioid crisis, racism and of course the entire police department which essentially has come under external direction and scrutiny.  There is also the dismal state of road infrastructure and sinkholes popping up where they should not be.  All these issues have had to be dealt with during an unprecedented pandemic which along with the disruption also complicated the conduct of council business.  This conjunction of events would have taxed the stamina and patience of anyone.  Of course, add to this the presence of several class action lawsuits all dealing with municipal water issues including the leaky pipe fiasco and one can see the possibility of a lot of trouble coming down the pipeline over the next couple years on a wide range of issues – not least of which will be the police service.

 

And the kicker was of course that the current council signed off on pay increases of up to 12 percent for senior staff  - something that is definitely going to eat into the popularity of some of the more vocal incumbents. That this salary increase came on the heels of the announcement of a record budget surplus of 10.9 million dollars for 2021 did not help and neither did pronouncements by at least one incumbent that future tax increases should be kept in line with the rate of inflation -which incidentally is at about 8 percent.  And interestingly enough, the projection for 2022 is now that after years of surplus, there is a 5.3 million dollar deficit being forecast for 2022.  Who could have foreseen such a thing especially in the wake of the salary adjustment for staff?

 

And so, there is likely going to be quite a bit of turnover on Thunder Bay City Council this time around – perhaps a generational change – after which you can expect the same faces to remain in place for a decade or so as that is the nature of municipal politics.  Retiring incumbents already worn down by the pandemic have decided that they have run out of the political capital needed to easily gain re-election.  New candidates with political aspirations have decided now is the time to strike. Hope springs eternal in fresh candidates that with their skill set they will be able to make a difference in a role which is a difficult and thankless task.  The old city council is dead.  Long live city council.  Once again, the drama begins. 

 

 

 

Dealing with Homelessness

 

Among the growing problems of affordability in cities across Canada including Thunder Bay, is the specific issue of homelessness.  The latest point-in-time survey by the District of the Thunder Bay Social Services Administration Board that was published in January of 2022 of 221 participants documented that 43 percent used emergency shelters.  Indeed, the Board estimates that there are closer to 700 people experiencing homelessness in the 103,000-square-kilometre district of about 146,000 people and about 70 percent of them identify as Indigenous.  Finding solutions to this complicated set of issues is an on-going process and into it has stepped the City of Thunder Bay.

 

Thunder Bay City Council has decided to move ahead on a recommendation to establish a $1 million fund to support local capital projects addressing poverty and homelessness in Thunder Bay.  The fund is not intended as a stand-alone source of financing and is expected to leverage additional support from the federal and provincial government as well as other funders that could include private sector sources, philanthropic organizations as well as First Nations organizations.  The projects are designed to be in the area of transitional or affordable housing and grant applications will be reviewed by a committee of senior city staff.   The idea, initially proposed by Councillor Bentz, is innovative and perhaps one of the first in Canada and comes in the wake of the 2022 federal budget which has committed more funds for homelessness as well as a commitment to the redesign of federal housing strategies.

 

This program represents a start to fixing problems in a community that has received its share of bad press in the national media lately when it comes top homelessness, poverty and racism.  City council approved the recommendation though there was one dissenting vote from Mayor Mauro.  Mayor Mauro argued that such a fund would replace federal dollars and that the City is going to pour resources into projects that would have occurred with federal funding anyway. The Mayor is technically correct that funding to end homelessness is likely going to flow in greater amounts from the federal government anyway.  Moreover, the housing crisis is a federal and provincial responsibility to solve even if its effects are felt largely at the local level.  However, that does not mean a municipality should sit back and wait for someone else to start solving the problem.

 

At the same time, providing the municipal resources represents a way to kick start some aspects of the process in a cooperative manner given that the funds are expected from federal and provincial governments as well as other partners.  In some respects, it represents an action in tune with basic principles of subsidiarity in fiscal federalism by signalling change from the grassroots.  Rather than replace federal dollars, the Community Partnership Fund Thunder Bay is creating may actually attract more funding and give the option to the other levels of government, as well as private agencies, First Nations Organizations and philanthropy groups of an opportunity to accompany their verbal pronouncements with more effective actions.  And besides, the political optics for Thunder Bay with this fund are positive even if the marginal impact is ultimately small.  Change requires first steps to be taken and that is what this is.

 

Thunder Bay City Council has done some boneheaded things in the past but this is not one of them.

 

 

 

IT's Back....Again! The Turf Facility Project

 

Like a zombie that keeps coming back to life, the multi-use indoor turf facility project is back on the agenda at Thunder Bay City Council this evening as a report is received on the eight outside proposals that were commissioned.  And in an apparently blatant disregard for transparency, the details of the discussion will not be shared with the public.  However, the decision has been further complicated by a new application for federal funding on which the City awaits an answer with the funding apparently tied to building a facility that conforms to green and inclusive community building conditions.  This of course raises the question as to what the actual price tag for such a facility will ultimately really be.

 

This application is for approximately $22 million dollars and that is expected to cover about half of the costs so we are looking for a total price tag of about $44 million of which half would supposedly come from federal funding.  And yet, the question is whether the costs of the new building will now change substantially given that it must conform to the requirements of the federal funding program.  City council rejected the proposal to build the facility when it was $39 million so getting it for substantially less in terms of City dollars may be attractive to those on council who like to pay lip service to the Zeller's Rule - the lowest price is the law. 

 

At the same time, the application process for the new funds is competitive and Fort William First Nation has also asked for $25 million from the fund to build a long-term care home.  As elastic as the federal budget constraint seems to be these days one suspects it is unlikely Thunder Bay’s cabinet representative is going to be able to swing both projects.  After all, Minister Hajdu’s star seems on the wane given what some might interpret as a demotion from Health. 

 

The minister was not even able to use her clout to secure a return to international flight status for Thunder Bay’s airport for the coming winter getaway travel season meaning no return to direct flights to places like Cuba and the Dominican Republic in January and February.  And as Indigenous Services Minister, it would be awkward to say the least to have funding for the turf facility approved in her hometown while the needs of indigenous long-term care are neglected. 

 

So, Thunder Bay seems to be about to embark on another divisive and argumentative round of talks over a project that many in the community are now opposed to in the wake of numerous other city issues with good odds that nothing is going to happen.  Even if a project is approved, often it does not happen as those waiting for the transitional housing project on Junot Avenue have discovered. 

 

Still, the fact that this project still resurfaces and has its proponents begs the question of why so many members of council are so devoted to seeing it go ahead and staking so much political capital on the project considering the other problems this city faces.  There is a lot going on here. There are homeless encampments in the city, there are homeless people wandering the streets of major thoroughfares at peak traffic times soliciting funds at intersections, there are hundreds showing up for meals at the local soup kitchens.  Homes are still having their front lawns dug up in the wake of the sodium hydroxide leaky pipes fiasco that has affected thousands of homeowners.  And tax rates having been rising over the last few years well in excess of the amounts necessary to fund City services.

 

With so much on its plate and an election coming soon, who benefits from continuing this discussion?  Good question.

 

 

Reforming Thunder Bay City Council

 

This evening’s Thunder Bay city council meeting is going to feature yet another scintillating debate on the size and composition of City Council.  This is another one of those Thunder Bay issues that has gone on for decades and rears its head usually as a vehicle for individual councilors to garner media attention and sell themselves as either reform minded or committed to safeguarding taxpayer dollars. In the end, the talk is as circular as the yet to be fully opened new roundabout at the intersection of Redwood and Edward.

 

 In this current iteration, councilor Peng You has put forward a notice of motion to reverse a decision made nearly a year ago to start work in 2023 reviewing municipal representation and council composition with an aim for a new system – if accepted - to be implemented for the 2026 municipal election.  If this decision is reversed by a two-thirds majority of council, then council would also be asked to consider a potential plebiscite question on the 2022 municipal ballot.  What exactly that question should be would no doubt then consume hours of debate.

 

To start, one suspects the motion will fall flat quickly. Most councilors are quite happy with the status quo of 12 councilors plus a mayor with 7 ward councilors and 5 at-large councilors.  After all, it has gotten them where they currently sit, and a smaller council will mean more competition for the remaining spots.  However, even a defeat of Councillor You’s motion will be useful to him as he will then be able to complain that his desire to save taxpayers money by advocating for a council of 8 at-large councilors plus one mayor has been thwarted by spendthrifts resistant to change – a useful mantra when one has plans for running for higher office.

 

The problem is that changing the system of municipal representation in Thunder Bay – an institutional compromise devised nearly 50 years ago to balance the north-south population division of the city – needs to be done thoughtfully. It is true that there are more councilors per capita in Thunder Bay than is the case in quite a few other cities.  At the same time, that is what happens when you devise a hybrid model of representation to combine ward specific interests with at large viewpoints designed to represent the whole.  Simply reducing the number of councilors is not going to save a meaningful sum of money – the total cost of all the councilors in terms of their stipends and expenses is currently well under one million dollars on an operating budget close to $200 million – under one half of one percent. Indeed, one can even make the case that they should use the meager savings from reducing the size of council to pay the remainder more to attract a better quality of candidate – which in the end really would not save any money on representation though it might lead to better civic decision making in the long run.

 

And then there is the issue of representation.  Should we have only at-large councilors who could all end up being from more affluent parts of the city as can sometimes be the case?  If we go to a smaller council, can we ensure that it will make better decisions or will the reduction in representation simply reduce the number of viewpoints. And then there is the fundamental issue of at-large or ward representation.  If we go totally to ward representation, what will the boundaries of a new ward system be?  Can we design some north-south ward boundaries given the geographic population distribution which still resembles that of 50 years ago? 

 

The case decades ago for at-large councilors was that in the wake of amalgamation and the Fort William-Port Arthur split, having purely ward representation would lead to parochial decision making and deadlock.  However, fifty years after amalgamation, is that division still as important in how municipal politicians approach issues? Surely, ward councilors can be just as capable as at-large councilors of taking the entire city’s interests into mind.  And then, it remains that much of what the city does is local service provision and ward councilors are the best located as the focal points of concerns in specific neighborhoods rather than at-large politicians using their councilor positions to prepare for higher office.

 

In the end, the councilors should leave the issue as it was decided a year ago and let the city clerk’s office review the boundaries of wards and provide options for composition of City Council.  Better yet, given that city administration ultimately has an interest in the design of any council, it would be better if more of an effort was  made to commission an independent arm’s length panel to review the situation and present options to council.  Whatever happens, one can rest assured that there is not going to be any radical changes in the size and composition of council decided by council and city administration as it is akin to asking predatory foxes to provide policy on the hen house. Any radical institutional change will occur as it did prior to amalgamation in 1970 – by provincial fiat or decree. Quite frankly, I don’t think the province is interested this time around.

 

 

The Zaniness Continues at Thunder Bay City Council

 

Canada’s longest running combination of basic income for politicians experiment and situation comedy continues with the weekly meetings of Thunder Bay City Council as they wrap up their budget reviews and deal with their usual business at hand.  For those of us of a certain vintage, the online meetings do look like a continually shifting combination of the Brady Bunch intro and Hollywood Squares and during the long meetings one can draw some amusement from deciding which councillor or administrator is playing the role of Paul Lynde, or perhaps Gladys, Marcia or Peter. 

 

Nevertheless, even the councillors themselves seem to be increasingly exasperated by the meetings with last week seeing one councillor complain out loud about accomplishing nothing after several hours of debate on the presence of hockey nets at city skating surfaces produced no solution.  Several weeks ago, the chair of the budget committee’s facial expression was priceless as one councillor for whatever reason went on a bit of a rant that the city budget was so complicated that it made him dizzy.  It would appear that fiscal vertigo is one of the job hazards of being a Thunder Bay City Councillor.

 

And last week’s meeting also dealt with the free transit fare proposal and produced a suggestion that given the cost of implementing a completely free fare system, that perhaps there should be one free day a month.  One is surprised that the more progressive minded members of council did not use this opportune juncture to  borrow from the collective wisdom of our current Prime Minister and recently departed Governor General to state that we all experience reality differently and that transit patrons should simply decide when boarding the bus if they thought it was a fare free day.  In the end, Council simply decided to freeze transit fares saving riders $68,000 as it would appear that the $115,000 cost of one free day a month was better spent on a new Thunder Bay waterfront sign.

 

There are of course more serious issues to be discussed but councillors in Thunder Bay prefer spending time on these digressions to avoid the more serious business at hand.  To use yet another colorful marine metaphor, it would appear they are simply a school of freshwater smelts who rather than swim upstream to perform their reproductive duty as nature and need mandate, prefer to linger in the shallows, dally around the shore and even go in the opposite direction by joining the flow downstream.   In the end, they do not accomplish what they should and all they manage is entangling themselves on hockey nets and other debris. 

 

Among the more serious issues are two in particular.  First, there is the matter of the 2021 budget which after several review meetings has done little to further reduce the levy.  Apparently, the few hundred thousand dollars in savings that have been generated by the ponderous line by line review is seen as sufficient given that the starting levy increase came in at about two percent.  Suggestions of making more substantial reductions were rejected by most councillors and the Mayor, because they have apparently already made so many and they have been keeping levy rate increases after assessment growth at an average of 2.39 percent since 2012. 

The selective mathematical analysis leaves out the point that the total levy increase since 2012 has actually averaged just over 3 percent annually.  Moreover, one wonders how they can continually say they have made reductions when the total tax levy continues to grow faster than the rates of population growth and inflation combined.  It remains that the councillors have yet to seriously deal with the spending and staffing reform necessary to reduce the tax levy to more sustainable levels.  As stated previously on Northern Economist, given that nearly 60-70 percent of the municipal tax levy is spending on wages, salaries and benefits, there needs to be a policy of reducing the staffing footprint via attrition with reallocation to priority services and functions. 

 

The hard work of making more lasting structural changes in spending, given that Thunder Bay spends substantially more than other municipalities particularly on protection services and administration, is too much for our councillors to handle.  Instead, as shown in last week’s meetings, the councillors prefer the parry, thrust, dodge, spin approach to policy debate with several councillors shedding crocodile tears for the taxpayer’s burden and then calling for tax reform at the federal and provincial level to reduce the reliance of municipalities on property taxation.  No doubt, they will next send a delegation to Belgium requesting Pfizer speed up vaccine deliveries to Thunder Bay because the High Council of the Lakehead has decreed it.  Of course, there is a certain irony in the fact that external powers often respond to our City councillors and administration with the same casual indifference that Thunder Bay ratepayers have come to know.

 

And speaking of casual indifference when responding to constituents, secondly, there is the perpetually pesky matter of the pinhole leaks in the wake of the addition of sodium hydroxide to the water supply.  Thunder Bay City Council and Administration have delivered their reply in court.  In response to the lawsuit filed by St. Joseph’s Care Group (SJCG), they simply deny any responsibility for the problem.  Indeed, their position is summarized by:

 

·       the city reasonably and in good faith exercised its power resulting from policy decisions concerning the management, maintenance and modification of the water system

·       the city denies that its acts or submissions caused or contributed to the presence of pinhole leaks in copper water pipes

·       the city lawfully carried on its responsibilities for the general benefit of the community at large

·       the city at no time made non-natural use of its water supply or infrastructure

 

None of this is surprising as the City has basically denied any responsibility all along, nor has it offered any assistance given the hardship thousands of homeowners and institutions have suffered in Thunder Bay.  Indeed, the real problem with the pinhole leaks issue is not only whether they followed an approved process but also the City’s reaction of doing absolutely nothing to assist property owners once the problems became apparent. 

 

What is more surprising is the assertion that: “The plaintiff knew that its pipes were old and beyond their reasonable life expectancy, yet they took no steps to replace them, nor did they install water leak detection systems.” What they are essentially saying is that if your house in Thunder Bay is more than 30-40 years old, you should go probably go out and replace all of your piping as preventive maintenance.  The building codes in Thunder Bay are so high quality that houses have a forty-year expiry date.  That should be an interesting addition to Thunder Bay’s marketing as a destination for prospective businesses and immigrant seeking to come and set up shop in Thunder Bay.

 

Moreover, while the SJCG is represented by Cheadles LLP of Thunder Bay, the city has used the tax dollars of the affected parties to hire the Toronto Law Firm of Theall Group thereby ensuring the leakage of water pipes is being supported by the leakage of spending power out of the local economy.  But then, the hiring of Toronto law firms to deal with local residents whether it is litigation or labour bargaining has become a feature of publicly funded institutions in Thunder Bay.  No doubt, councillors will assuage their consciences by intoning the importance of shopping local in Thunder Bay and asking for the rest of us to support local business as we select companies to replace our copper pipes.  If that does not stimulate the economy, then having your housing stock expire every forty-years should do the trick in generating new housing construction projects for a non-growing and aging population.

 

The zaniness continues and we are all paying for it.