[deasine]

City of Vancouver budget $61 million short

Updated: Mon Sep. 28 2009 18:58:09

var byString = "Darcy Wintonyk"; var sourceString = "ctvbc.ca"; if ((sourceString != "") && (byString != "")) { document.write(byString + ", "); } else { document.write(byString); } Darcy Wintonyk, ctvbc.ca
Cuts may soon be on the way at Vancouver City Hall, where officials have announced a staggering budget shortfall.
City Manager Penny Ballem says the budget will be $61 million short next year.
"We are faced with city revenues at historically low levels," she wrote in a statement Monday.
Ballem blames a weak economy and federal and provincial funding cuts for the predicted deficit.
Also, the new city manager says the implementation of the new harmonized sales tax (HST) will hit the city hard in the pocketbook, as well as wage increases promised during 2007 job contracts.
Ballem says the city is taking steps to address the shortfall, including consolidating duplicate services in hopes the city can deliver them in a more streamlined and efficient way.
"We have already identified areas where we can achieve significant savings with minimal impacts on citizens," she said.
Ballem says the measures will not completely cover the money, so the city will work with the city council to "find more savings."
A press conference is scheduled Tuesday morning to outline the cost-cutting measures.


Source: CTVBC

[s211]

The City could solve its deficit in ten seconds if it only had the cohones to enforce bylaw infractions in this city. If I had that racket, I'd be a millionaire a million times over.

[Hed Kandi]

City of Vancouver budget $61 million short

Updated: Mon Sep. 28 2009 18:58:09

var byString = "Darcy Wintonyk"; var sourceString = "ctvbc.ca"; if ((sourceString != "") && (byString != "")) { document.write(byString + ", "); } else { document.write(byString); } Darcy Wintonyk, ctvbc.ca
Cuts may soon be on the way at Vancouver City Hall, where officials have announced a staggering budget shortfall.
City Manager Penny Ballem says the budget will be $61 million short next year.
"We are faced with city revenues at historically low levels," she wrote in a statement Monday.
Ballem blames a weak economy and federal and provincial funding cuts for the predicted deficit.
Also, the new city manager says the implementation of the new harmonized sales tax (HST) will hit the city hard in the pocketbook, as well as wage increases promised during 2007 job contracts.
Ballem says the city is taking steps to address the shortfall, including consolidating duplicate services in hopes the city can deliver them in a more streamlined and efficient way.
"We have already identified areas where we can achieve significant savings with minimal impacts on citizens," she said.
Ballem says the measures will not completely cover the money, so the city will work with the city council to "find more savings."
A press conference is scheduled Tuesday morning to outline the cost-cutting measures.



Perhaps the city would have greater solvency if it stopped injecting hundreds of millions into housing the homeless.

[LeftCoaster]

That's the province Hed...

:no:

[Hed Kandi]

That's the province Hed...

:no:

Funding for the province and its largest city is inextricable. Don't believe the lies on paper.

[deasine]

It is -__-"

[dreambrother808]

So the province should choose to fund the municipal services of the City of Vancouver? :haha:

That would go over well with the rest of the province.

As easy a scapegoat for our frustrations as they may be, we can't blame the homeless for everything. :)

[officedweller]

Wonder how much the Granville Street beautification project is costing?

[flight_from_kamakura]

this seems like as good a place as any to post this:

http://www2.canada.com/vancouvercourier/news/story.html?id=d85110d6-fc71-4028-8342-3c0dc204852a

Lost city parking revenue defies logic
Allen Garr, Vancouver Courier
Published: Wednesday, November 25, 2009

While the Vision council and city manager Penny Ballem have been aggressively pushing city departments to meet their budget targets by laying-off workers, closing library branches and shutting down after-school programs, the city has been forgiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in parking fines.

This practice, called "courtesy cancellations," has been going on since at least 1992, according to the city's parking authority staff. Since then, millions of dollars in revenue have been allowed to slip away. Here's how it works. Anyone who gets a ticket at a meter in the city, which most recently was bumped from $60 to $70, can phone the parking authority and asked to be forgiven. If you are pleasant and it is the first ticket you have had with that particular vehicle, the ticket will be torn up.

In response to a Freedom of Information request, the city estimated the value of that benefit to drivers. It based its estimate on the ticket being paid "early" so the fine was cut in half. In 2008, there were 13,845 courtesy cancellations amounting as lost revenue to the city of $415,350. That would be enough money, for example, to cover all the cuts the park board has had on the table for the past week.

In the first five months of this year, while departments were in the throes of the most severe budget cuts in recent memory, the city gave up $203,956, more than enough to keep the Riley Park branch of the Vancouver Public Library open. The practice of courtesy cancellation is in place, according to one parking authority employee, because "everyone is entitled to be late once" in getting back to their car.

When I tried to find out how and when this practice came about, all I could discover was that the origins are lost in the mists of time; sometime during or before 1992 was as close as I got. Gordon Campbell was mayor then. But it seems the practice is not based on any specific council policy. No one championed this idea; no councillor moved a motion; no council debated this or voted to accept it. So there is no one to point a finger at for some misguided motive.

As far as those on the city payroll knew, what is going on is a matter of discretion exercised by staff within the parking authority. Now, it was my assumption that given it has been going on these past 17 years, even with the increased cost of parking fines as time has passed, I could only conclude millions of dollars in revenue have been passed up.

Putting this in context, you may find it ironic that we are giving some law violators who can afford to drive cars a break on their tickets while others, certainly some of the most impoverished souls in our community who were ticketed in a police blitz of minor offences on the Downtown Eastside, are not being let off the hook and offered the same "courtesy."

There is another point. The latest $203,965 in benefits to drivers took place while we had, and still have, a mayor, "Gregor the Green," and a council that goes on and on about the sanctity of the pedestrian and the cyclist and the need to move people out of their cars.

It defies logic that given these times and the sacrifices of city services and jobs that are now being placed on the altar of restraint, we're still spilling buckets of money that should be used to mitigate the pain about to be inflicted on us all. On the other hand, you may want to move quickly to get a bit of that "courtesy" before someone on council reads this.

[whatnext]

Did I miss it, or has nobody posted about the very possible closure of the Bloedel conservatory due to budget shortfalls? That it would be a shame. I guess there's no way to move it to Van Dusen somehow?

[Yume-sama]

I would hate to see the Bloedel close :(

[mr.x]

It's official:

The park board has voted 4-3 in favour of closing Bloedel Conservatory and the Stanley Park Petting Zoo.

What a shame...

[zivan56]

WTF...I can understand the farmyard, but the Conservatory? QE park is apparently going to go maintainance free as well (no planting/trimming). This is sad...
I hope people join toghther to save it. If millions can be raised to keep an old stump upright in Stanley Park, surly this issues should raise even more money.

[Yume-sama]

Sigh. Too bad they will let QE Park go to ruins. So sad. :(

Green Vancouver, yeah right.

RIP!
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2463/3829306204_97f6fc0a05_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2425/3828469544_eb656c2b25.jpg

[Vancity]

Yeah. This is sad news.

It's unfortunate that it has to come to this :(

Hope something gets resolved.

[mr.x]

Only in Vancouver do we build new yet let the old fall apart....I am absolutely disgusted by this decision.

There goes more of our attractions....what next? The Stanley Park miniature railway?



In Vancouver, City Council has given in to the small yet vocal PC faction while the sensible majority has stood by in total silence. The keys to this once-great city have been handed over to the whiners, complainers, and politically correct activist lunatics. Such a shame for a city that could have been one of the great ones.

[Yume-sama]

Wonder how much the Granville Street beautification project is costing?

Probably about as much as protecting 4 cyclists from boo-boos on Burrard and studying dismantling the viaducts.

But, fiscal policy is never high on the list when far left wing ideologues are in control.

[jlousa]

Solution for the conservatory seemed easy enough, cut the damn trees down even further that block the view of the skyline and replant twice as many trees elsewhere in the park, thus the tour buses would return to QE Park brings thousands and thousands of extra customers to the conservatory. It hasn't always been a money losing pit.
I understand it requires a new roof as well which would require $2Million, perhaps there is some CAC money from a large project in the immediate area that could help...

The petting zoo has always been badly run as far as marketing, perhaps the city was too worried about getting the animal activists against them. Most of my colleagues had no idea there was a petting zoo in Stanley Park. The kids will still have the raccoons and coyotes to play with in the park.

At least the closures arent immediate and there might be time to find other solutions.

[Stingray2004]

I understand it requires a new roof as well which would require $2Million,

That's not critical since the interior is already humid and moist. Any dripping from the roof just adds to the existing internal climatic conditions.

An unfortunate decision, IMHO.

[whatnext]

Its not too late to protest the short-sighted closing of Bloedel. Despite it being a Parks Board decision you can also express your displeasure to Mayor and Council: mayorandcouncil@vancouver.ca

Or the Parks Board: pbcomment@vancouver.ca

[SpongeG]

both things being shut down are prime candidates for corporate sponsorship

[Zassk]

^ The RBC petting zoo? The TimberWest conservatory at Alcan Park? :laugh:

I am surprised that the aquarium doesn't have a headline sponsor, actually. You would think it would be as lucrative or more lucrative than Science World.

[Yume-sama]

Hmm, but I would think the aquarium is most likely many times busier than Science World and doesn't really NEED a corporate sponsor, they do so well with private.

Plus, Telus has been buying up the rights to Science Centre's around the Country :P Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver...

[Rusty Gull]

The petting zoo is a concept whose time has come and gone. With fears over allergens, bird flu, swine flu, E.coli, etc, there are fewer parents who want to put their little ones in direct contact with goats, sheep, and whatever else is running around in the pen.

Too bad about the conservatory, but the writing was on the wall for many years. Heck, Richard Henriquez' tower would have raised money for the entire park, and brought renewed interest to the conservatory, but the Nimbies killed that project.

Oh well, the Nimbies are finally getting their way, as all they really wanted all along was their own private forest -- tourists be damned.

[WarrenC12]

The petting zoo is a concept whose time has come and gone. With fears over allergens, bird flu, swine flu, E.coli, etc, there are fewer parents who want to put their little ones in direct contact with goats, sheep, and whatever else is running around in the pen.


Are you kidding? :shrug:

Kids and animals mix perfectly. Sure there's some hygiene issues, like anything else, but giving urban kids a chance to interact with nature is great.

[itinerant]

What CAN we do as mere citizens and taxpayers? I feel sick about the potential of losing either attraction, but particularly the Bloedel Conservatory. I've written to the Park Board and the City Council and the Vancouver Sun comments and CBC comments, etc. But ultimately, its a question of where we put our tax dollar as a community. I am loathe to bring up various other projects that remain funded in counterpoint, so I'll refrain. But seems to me we can withstand more than a 2% tax increase for the short term to soften the blow until more permanent maintenance and support structure is setup for individual facilities (endowment perhaps?). Either way, taking a short term re-action on either of these permanent attractions is short sighted IMHO.

[mezzanine]

I'm ok with losing the petting zoo - too many downsides, fewer upsides. (a petting zoo can be set up within a day with fences and a few bales of hay - why dedicate permanent infrastructure to something that is very seasonal? Not to mention potential targeting by whole animal rights groups...)

Although I haven't been to the Blodel conservatory since grade school, I am saddened by its imminent closure. It is historic as vancouver gets, and a unique place. We have hard infrastructure that is already inplace, although needing upgrades. I do think it needs to be saved.

I totally agree with rusty gull:

Heck, Richard Henriquez' tower would have raised money for the entire park, and brought renewed interest to the conservatory, but the Nimbies killed that project.

Oh well, the Nimbies are finally getting their way, as all they really wanted all along was their own private forest -- tourists be damned.

[hollywoodnorth]

Solution for the conservatory seemed easy enough, cut the damn trees down even further that block the view of the skyline and replant twice as many trees elsewhere in the park, thus the tour buses would return to QE Park brings thousands and thousands of extra customers to the conservatory. It hasn't always been a money losing pit.
I understand it requires a new roof as well which would require $2Million, perhaps there is some CAC money from a large project in the immediate area that could help...


and to think someone wanted to use PRIVATE money to build an observation tower up there that would have expanded Bloedel's attendance MAJORLY and probably would have helped in them finding a NAME SPONSOR aka "The Telus Bloedel Conservatory".

but ya let it rot ;)

[djh]

The Bloedel Conservatory is a lovely treasure for the city, but the way it is run is a total TOTAL mess. I've done business with the people there and got to know a few of the people there. It is totally full of negative unionised staff who are against change, against growing the venue and against doing any more work. They (honestly) appeared to prefer the venue closing down than them having to change their benefits, work hours, holiday, etc.

In a casual conversation I asked the park manager and one of the senior staff why they don't advertise the venue, because I didn't even know about it - they had no business answer. But they only have a trickle of visitors per day.

A couple of years back, when there was a proposal to build a view tower there to draw more tourists, they were all so against it I thought there must be a reason. They finally told me why: it would mean too many customers, so they'd have to work more, and hey, they'd have to sell better product because the overpriced stuff they sell now would not sell if a high-quality "competitor" went in next door. Geez, I just wished they'd all be fired and a private operator take the place over.

Ideally, somebody would bulldoze the place, build a bigger and better geodesic dome with a view point from the roof or something, and actually do some marketing for the place. It could draw a LOT Of visitors - especially if the entry ticket gave visitors that prized view of Vancouver.

[Vancity]

Sigh. . . .

What a mismanagement government we have. Closing more attractions to a city that could be managed so much better. Sometimes I wonder whether the people in government are actually sane. Get them out. Get new blood, SANE people who want the best for this city, and not their personal agenda. Vancouver can be a GREAT city - why do we have to have such insane, short-sighted people leading our city?

[Vancity]

The Bloedel Conservatory is a lovely treasure for the city, but the way it is run is a total TOTAL mess. I've done business with the people there and got to know a few of the people there. It is totally full of negative unionised staff who are against change, against growing the venue and against doing any more work. They (honestly) appeared to prefer the venue closing down than them having to change their benefits, work hours, holiday, etc.

In a casual conversation I asked the park manager and one of the senior staff why they don't advertise the venue, because I didn't even know about it - they had no business answer. But they only have a trickle of visitors per day.

A couple of years back, when there was a proposal to build a view tower there to draw more tourists, they were all so against it I thought there must be a reason. They finally told me why: it would mean too many customers, so they'd have to work more, and hey, they'd have to sell better product because the overpriced stuff they sell now would not sell if a high-quality "competitor" went in next door. Geez, I just wished they'd all be fired and a private operator take the place over.

Ideally, somebody would bulldoze the place, build a bigger and better geodesic dome with a view point from the roof or something, and actually do some marketing for the place. It could draw a LOT Of visitors - especially if the entry ticket gave visitors that prized view of Vancouver.

People like that need to be fired. If they don't want to work, then they shouldn't. Give it to the people who appreciate the jobs they have, and the work they do.

[djh]

@Vancity, to both of your posts: I don't think the problem is People -i.e., it's not the wrong "People" who are voted into council, or the wrong "People" who work for a company and ruin it. I think it's the "System" that they have to navigate in their job.

Remember it was only a year or so ago that we voted in a new council because of the complaints you mentioned. After only a few months, the political "System" is what turned those potentially promising people into the same-old same-old. The same often applies for people working in government or non-private jobs where there is no need to compete for business. Status quo sets in, they like their secure positions, their bosses aren't chasing them with sticks to be more productive, but their union is enticing them with carrots to make more money for less work. So the "System" again turns what start as potentially productive new staff members into less than their most productive selves

Answer: Partly-privatize such facilities and have some regulation so that they are mandated to provide a certain level of service to the public. Anything beyond that should be profit for the entrepreneur who took the risk.
A good public/private business model is the Watermark restaurant on Kits beach. Remember before it was built there just used to be a city-run food shack in that spot? No competition, poor quality product, overpriced, and bland. Look at it now. The city makes money as they own the land, the private business makes money because they have a good quality and popular product, and the neighbourhood is happy because they now have more choice and a decent venue.

This model would work perfectly for Bloedel, the Petting Zoo, many other CoV facilities

[flight_from_kamakura]

http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/city-hall-fires-back-with-defence-of-budget/



City hall fires back with defence of budget
December 1st, 2009 · No Comments

This just out from the printing presses at city hall. The criticisms must be getting to them.

Proposed 2010 budget protects homeless, environment, arts programs

Property tax increase limited to 2%

Staff will present the 2010 proposed operating budget to council today, which Mayor Robertson says invests in Council’s priorities despite difficult budget circumstances, and limits overall property taxes to 2%.

“This budget protects our homeless and housing programs, invests in the environment and public safety, and has no cuts to the arts,” said Mayor Robertson. “Despite facing a $60 million shortfall, I’m pleased that we’re able to deliver a progressive, pragmatic budget that invests in our top priorities.”

The 2010 proposed operating budget comes to council following weeks of public consultations, including community forums, telephone polling, and web surveys. Following approval in principle by council, the budget will go to a public hearing on December 3rd.

“The budget process is never easy in the best of times, let alone when we’re facing historic declines in development revenue and are not allowed to run a deficit,” said Mayor Robertson. “Staff have done a great job identifying efficiencies within the City and finding cost savings to close the $60 million gap, and doing it all with just a 2% tax increase.”

Among the key highlights in the 2010 proposed operating budget:

*
o No cuts to programs directed towards homelessness, vulnerable populations, or affordable housing
o Maintained funding for the City’s Sustainability Group, to help continue work on reducing greenhouse gases and implementing curbside composting
o Increased funding for arts and culture
o Police budget increased, and $2.6 million in savings identified within the VPD without laying off any police officers
o Limiting property taxes overall to 2%

The budget report from staff will be presented at today’s 2pm council meeting. A final decision by council will be made on December 18th.

[WarrenC12]

What I don't get is that they are saying the petting zoo for example is short by $100k. That's around 0.15% of the overall budget, if my math is correct. Did they ask people with an average $2,000 tax bill if they wanted to pay an extra $3/year?

I think this is BS politics. They cut the craziest things so people will cry out and they'll just raise taxes a little more.

There's more than enough fat to cut $100k from somewhere else. How about that severance package handed out earlier this year.. would keep the zoo going for 5 years.

[officedweller]

It's actually a good sign that the City can trim its budget.

Remember that municipal budgets work in reverse to other governments' budgets.

Municipalities establish their budgeted spending / costs and then set (increase) the tax rate to raise the required amounts. Other governments estimate tax revenue for the year, base its budget on the revenue projections and then hope the revenue comes in to pay for it all.

Over the past few years we've seen municipalities' budgets inflate well above the rate of inflation because of pet projects and other spending that have resulted in large property tax increases. There was little incentive to conserve.

[EastVanMark]

yet another blatant example of the total ineptness of the city of Vancouver and its backwards priorities. :yuck: :slob:

the revenues generated from the proposed observation platform would all but erase the structures' deficits. But no, God forbid we allow anything different to our city that would help bring in much needed extra cash to help preserve what is a wonderful asset to the city.

Now all that is needed is to complete the classic Vancouver screw-job is to ban all cars and parking lots from the park, and spend millions on a man-made lake and then turn to the ever trusty "lets raise taxes" (again) solution to make up the budget shortfall.:shrug: :koko: :koko:

Now Vancouver will just be that much more boring with even less things to do. For shame!

[djh]

Wasn't there talk to give all staff a 4% payrise, regardless of all of these budget shortfalls?
DUH!?:whip:

[djh]

Just found this petition to save the Bloedel Conservatory:
http://www.petitiononline.com/4bloedel/petition.html

Not sure if online petitions have anywhere as much power as turning up at City Hall (as people did last night) to voice their objection, but I'm sure since this has a lot of momentum behind it, the press might pick it up.

[flight_from_kamakura]

The Vision Vancouver majority on the park board voted this week to seek private operators to take over the Children's Farmyard in Stanley Park and the Bloedel Conservatory in Queen Elizabeth Park.

Both are at risk of closing due to a $2.8 million shortfall in the park board's 2010 operating budget. The time limit for proposals is April 2010.

[Hed Kandi]

When is the Aquarium expansion supposed to be completed?

[Stingray2004]

The Vision Vancouver majority on the park board voted this week to seek private operators to take over the Children's Farmyard in Stanley Park and the Bloedel Conservatory in Queen Elizabeth Park.

All is not well with Vision Vancouver though inclusive of the current antics of the seemingly dysfunctional Parks Board.

Paul Faoro, president of CUPE Local 15 is furious:

“This council has just endorsed the privatization of the farmyard,” Faoro rapid-fired.
“This council has just endorsed the privatization of the conservatory.
This council has just endorsed the cutting of library hours.
This council has just endorsed the cutting of community-centre hours across our city.
This council has just endorsed cuts to services that the public demand, like inspection services.”

According to Faoro, the equivalent of 177 full-time positions will have to be cut, meaning staff are facing layoffs.

http://straight.com/article-275925/vancouver/vision-vancouvercontrolled-council-okays-job-and-service-cuts-226-percent-tax-hike

BTW, according to Vision Vancouver's 2008 campaign financial disclosure document, CUPE Local 15 gave $80,000 to Vision Vancouver's election campaign, and president Paul Faoro himself personally donated about $700.

Oh, the politics of it all.

[whatnext]

:previous: Looks like Vision's going to find out in a hurry what its like to govern and try to get re-elected without union support. I foresee a COPE candidate for mayor next time around.

[whatnext]

Surprised nobody picked up on this, citycaucus pointing out that the tax increase for residents is actually 4.26%, not 2.26%:

Now that the dust is settling from what felt like months of budget debate, Vision Vancouver has now passed their 4.26% tax increase. As a result, homeowners will have experienced a 12% tax increase over two years under this administration, while business taxes remain frozen.

Let me first say that I applaud a number of media outlets who actually got the 4.26% tax increase number correct in their coverage of the budget. Unfortunately, a number of folks were still inaccurately reporting the increase was only 2.26%. The fact remains when you add 2% from the taxes that businesses should have paid, residents end up footing the total 4.26% bill in 2010...
http://www.citycaucus.com/

[Yume-sama]

Lovely. Let's keep making home ownership more "affordable", Gregor.

[WarrenC12]

NDP-Vision Gregor cutting business taxes? It's more likely than you think. :D

[jlousa]

I don't have an issue with the business to resident shift that has been ongoing for a few years now. Not sure most people know this but residential property taxes in Vancouver don't even come close to covering the cost of services they consume. In fact the they only cover ~26% of the costs, business taxes on the other hand not only cover their share they greatly subsidize the residents as well.

That said you are correct they should advertise the correct figure of 4.26% as that is what people will be seeing when they pay their taxes.

[johnjimbc]

So how does this work? The city already sent out bills showing half the amount of last year's property taxes prior to this council meeting decision. It therefore didn't include the increase. So does that mean the bills they send out for the second half will be more to account for the 4.6% increase for the full year?

[flight_from_kamakura]

someone should inform the citycaucus nitwits that the city bureaucrats/business types who've been pushing the tax-shift for all these years captured the npa long before they got meggs/louie on-side. it's a bit rich to hear susan anton going on about using reserve funds to avoid cuts or tax increases one day, and to hear her voice her concern about the city's credit rating the next.

[WBC]

I don't have an issue with the business to resident shift that has been ongoing for a few years now. Not sure most people know this but residential property taxes in Vancouver don't even come close to covering the cost of services they consume. In fact the they only cover ~26% of the costs, business taxes on the other hand not only cover their share they greatly subsidize the residents as well.

That said you are correct they should advertise the correct figure of 4.26% as that is what people will be seeing when they pay their taxes.

The Vancouver homeowners should be prepared for more of this to come. With industry and business leaving for the cheaper suburbs the tax burden for the residents will only continue to increase. And its a double whammy - not only that you lose your industrial/commercial tax base, but all those new residents want/need more services to be provided to them (i.e industry does not need schools, hospitals, community centers, libraries, perks, etc). That is one of the reasons why long term GVRD needs to be made into a single city - if for nothing else to balance the the tax revenue. The pro-density, anti-business climate that Vancouver likes so much (because it makes Vancouver look pretty) is all nice and well until you get to pay the bill for it.