Where will the Board of Control money go?

In 2010, the former Board of Control cost taxpayers more than a quarter of a million dollars in wages, benefits and expenses. Where will that money go?

Reflections on Budget 2011

Kudos to Mayor Fontana and the councillors: they concluded the 2011 budget deliberations with a final figure that is slightly lower than the 2010 budget.

Open letter on Budget 2011

Last night, Council brought in a budget that will keep property taxes at the same level as in 2010. I will prepare a fuller report on this in a future blog; for now, I want to address one very small but significant cut.

Budget deliberations begin: the capital budget

Lots of questions and suggestions but few changes.

Budget deliberations begin: water and sewer

Council confirmed its commitment to freeze water and wastewater rates, thereby putting on hold an aggressive plan to to rejuvenate our aging infrastructure. But some members remember the sink hole.

Pillar and post (on Twitter)

Who should get city funding? Should those in receipt of city funding be allowed freedom of speech?

Knowing who your Friends are

Why does the library always need new books? What do they do with the old ones?

Paycheques and parking for part-time councillors

Being a councillor carries with it some pains and penalties, but also a few perks and priviledges. Are they enough?

Just make the damn cuts, Joe

Who is responsible for making the cuts for a tax freeze?

Balancing the books

Build it and they will come. But who will pay for it?

A lean, mean transit machine

On Wednesday, members of the London Transit Commission will consider a staff report which provides options for meeting Council’s request to all boards and commissions to reduce their budgets so that a zero tax increase can be realized.

Investing in public transit a smart move

A healthy, vibrant city needs an efficient, modern transportation system. Like the water and wastewater system, failure to maintain and invest in it will mean greater costs in the long run, economically, socially and environmentally.

Have bus pass, will travel

On Monday evening, Londoners will get an opportunity to weigh in on how we can fairly give people access to transit.


This issue has been before council many times before and always the response has been the same: we can’t afford to assist everyone who needs it.

Currently, the city spends just under half a million dollars on subsidizing bus passes for seniors (25%) and the blind (100%). Bus passes are also provided for individuals seeking employment through Ontario Works. There is no subsidy for persons with disabilities or people who are living in poverty.

The cost of a single ticket is $2.75 for adults or 5 for $9.50. There are also monthly passes but the only discounts are for students (grades 7-12), children 5-12 and seniors. Fanshawe and UWO students have the cost of their monthly passes included in their student activity fees.

While these fares may seem to be reasonable and in fact do not cover the actual cost of the service, clearly they will limit the mobility of persons living in poverty.

During the public participation meeting before Board of Control in respect to the 2010 budget, several community groups came forward to urge council to budget for a 50% subsidy for persons living in poverty regardless of their age or disability. Staff has estimated that the cost of such a program would be in excess of $12 million which would mean a 3% increase in the tax levy, something that few of us would relish.

The advocates for the program argue that they don’t expect that a 50% subsidy can be implemented overnight. They do want to see progress.

During the transit strike we learned that London, which prides itself on running a very cost effective transit system, provides almost the lowest level of support compared to other cities of its size and in our region. We want to expand the system to encourage greater ridership, since public transit is very cost effective compared to continuously building and maintaining more roads and serves to reduce traffic congestion and environmental pollution as well as reducing consumption of fossil fuels. Indeed, provincial government grants are tied to increased ridership.

Last fall, with only a brief debate, council approved spending more than half a million dollars for free parking in some of our downtown areas. Surely, if we can provide subsidies for people in private cars, we can give some assistance to those who are in the weakest position to pay and build our transit system at the same time.

What do you think?

On Monday, January 25 at 5:00 p.m. you can weigh in on the debate. Drop in to the public participation before the Community and Protective Services Committee meeting in Committee Rooms 1 and 2 on the second floor of city hall. Your input will be welcome.

For more information on this issue, read the staff report and check the London Transit Commission website.

Water and wastewater rate increases

Last night council confirmed its decision to stick with its infrastructure plan for water and sewer initiated in 2004. That means that rates for water will increase by 8% and for sewer by 9%. For the average homeowner, this will result in an increase in your monthly bill by aproximately $5.13.

Some members attempted to reduce this amount to a 7% and 7.2% increase respectively, arguing that in times of high unemployment savings needed to be found. While I agree that we need to be mindful of the impact on residents' wallets, a savings of 85 pennies per month is symbolic at best, providing virtually no relief to the taxpayer while significantly increasing the city debt which ultimately has to be borne by the taxpayers and their children.

Why do we need to have such high rate increases?

We have an aging system, it's as simple as that. Some of our pipes are more than 100 years old. We need only to look back to Hallowe'en Day in 2007 for a stark reminder of our vulnerability with respect to infrastructure. On that morning, a watermain burst on Wellington Street resulting in power outages, lost business, and traffic disruptions for weeks to come. It was not a pretty picture. For more detail on what happened that day go to this story at LondonTopic.

We have a significant investment in our infrastructure: $1.8 billion in water and $3.6 billion in wastewater. To protect that investment, we have to maintain and replace it as needed. For too long we have taken our infrastructure for granted so that now we are playing catch up. That is why staff have prepared, and council has approved, a plan to invest aggressively until we have eliminated the current infrastructure deficit estimated at more than half a billion dollars. Once we have caught up in 2015 for water and 2011 for wastewater, we can go back to rate increases that simply keep place with inflation.

Can anything be done to assist the rate payer?

There is something, however, that we can do to assist the residential rate payer. It has been acknowledged that the allocation of costs of our water and sewer service and infrastructure maintenance has been unfair to the residential customer. For many years, homeowners have subsidized the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sectors. Two years ago, staff brought forward a recommendation which would have allocated these charges much more fairly and resulted in a significant rate reduction in the homeowners monthly bill. Instead, at the behest of the mayor and deputy mayor, and supported by the very same council members who today are bemoaning the impact of the rate increases on the beleaguered taxpayer, the recommendation to play fair with the residential rate payer was rejected and subsidies to the business, industry and institutions continue. Council was given a second opportunity to level the playing field last year, and again the same members said no. There will be another opportunity this summer, an election year. Will council finally listen to the concerns of the residential rate payer?