2002COS008 Attachment 6

Notes from the Special Meeting of the Infrastructure Technical Advisory Committee, June 4, 2002

Special Meeting of the

Infrastructure Technical Advisory Committee

June 4, 2002

Attendees

ITAC City of Edmonton

Jack McMahon, Chair Theresa Cloake, Office of Infrastructure

Simaan AbouRizk Harvey Crone, Corporate Services

Greg Christenson Gastone Monai, Corporate Services

Herb Kuehne Roger Rosychuk, Corporate Services

Beverly Levis Konrad Siu, Office of Infrastructure

Dan McCosh

Andy McCready Torque (ITAC Secretariat)

Perry Nishiyama Michael Evans

Keith Nunas Lee Funke

Allan Warrack Parker Hogan

Konrad delivered opening remarks to participants. Corporate Services asked to meet with ITAC to solicit input to the Corporate Business Plan and Long Range Financial Plan (LRDP). Both plans were initially presented to Council on May 28. Council instructed city administration to get additional input from the public. In addition to the special ITAC meeting, Corporate Services is also convening two “general public” focus groups. Council will debate the Corporate Business Plan and the Long Range Financial Plan and issues arising on June 18.

Harvey Crone prefaced his presentation with the observation that his office has been pleased with the recent infrastructure advocacy from other institutions (TD Bank, Canada West Foundation, etc.) and resulting media attention, which corroborates the City’s concern over municipal issues.

ITAC members’ response to Corporate Business Plan strategies

NOTE: The initial strategic direction for both the Corporate Business Plan and the LRFP is provided by Plan Edmonton. The presentation given to ITAC was essentially the same as that given to Council.

Harvey invited comments/suggestions to help the City identify appropriate performance measures.

  1. The Infrastructure Strategy is “buried” beneath the category of Environmental challenges (slides 3 and 7). The implications of infrastructure requirements, as identified in capital projections of the LRFP (slide 17), have an impact on virtually all areas of the City’s operations, including all the other challenges listed: Growth, Relationships, Public Security, Smart City and, indirectly, Organizational Excellence.
  2. The strategies make provisions for growth but do not identify the upgrading of existing infrastructure. None of the plans for growth – or the other strategies, such as addressing Environmental issues or Public Security – can be achieved without maintaining or upgrading existing infrastructure.
  3. Issues of governance remain significant, particularly with the federal government. The issue is not restricted to the flow of money through initiatives such as the Infrastructure Canada-Alberta Project. For example, does the City really want a declared federal “Urban Strategy” through which another level of government might insert itself into City business? The matter is not simply accessing new funds that have become scarce in the wake of fiscal restraint measures. And the same question needs to be asked with respect to the province.
  4. The current ward system creates problems in that councillors represent only a small part of the City and may choose to ignore the concerns of another ward, or even the City as a whole (slide 6).
  5. The strategy does not prioritize issues, some of which are urgent, such as the “hollowing out” of the downtown core.
  6. The Smart City concept is too limited if it addresses only the adoption of new technologies. It needs to be a more strategic “philosophy” that includes attracting top-notch people, too (slide 9).
  7. Development and rehabilitation are currently accounted on an “average cost” basis within the tax structure, which effectively means that Norwood subsidizes south Edmonton. Consequently, development occurs in the most expensive places, which benefit most from averaging. The economic signals point in the wrong direction. If you’re going to have a “smart” delivery system, you cannot implement a “one size fits all” approach.

ITAC members’ response to the Corporate Fiscal Framework

  1. Suggest that a slide, or slides, be prepared to show the service reductions required to achieve a 0% tax increase (slide 16).
  2. Suggested that services that identify savings be permitted to keep those dollars and apply them elsewhere within their own priorities.
  3. ITAC members asked for a brief discussion over the proportional share of the annual budget allocated to programs and authorities. Changes to allocations in this area are difficult because the City Manager has no authority in this area (slide 16).
  4. Clarification requested concerning CPI versus the Municipal Cost Index once proposed.
  5. Match costs with benefits. There are “cost avoidance” savings to be realized, as articulated by the risk assessment protocols being developed in support of the Infrastructure Strategy.
  6. Need to acknowledge that if the City is asking other levels of government for more money, we are asking them to slow their debt repayment. The City wants to reverse a long-standing inequity but that may involve changing responsibility for the delivery of certain services.
  7. The 10-year capital plan should separate the allocations between growth and rehabilitation to help crystallize the issue. One of the penalties associated with leveraged capital is that operating costs increase. For example, a consequence of “uncosted” rehabilitation should be increased operating costs related to that infrastructure element that is allowed to deteriorate. This link needs to be better illustrated (slide 17).
  8. It’s not appropriate to allocate the unfunded infrastructure costs to roadways (60% as shown). The Combined Sewer Overflow project would dwarf the road expenditure except that it is a self-funded utility. Transportation is not the only problem. The analysis needs to capture all components of the City’s liability and represent them accurately. The transportation “shortfall” suggests that, in this case, users are not paying their full share – whereas the utilities capture use and generate revenue accordingly (slide 17).
  9. Is the City exploring other revenue options since the tax base is not keeping pace with demand? Perhaps growth should finance itself. If the people at the edges are paying full freight, then the core might be a better investment (slide 18).
  10. Suggestion that borrowing $50 million annually over five years is too low. The infrastructure gap over 10 years amounts to $3.2 billion. $250 million is almost inconsequential – less than eight percent of the projected shortfall (slide 22).
  11. How does the City enforce a standard on developers if it’s own infrastructure is falling down? Why should the private sector be required to maintain a standard that does not apply to the City?
  12. American cities are also considering incentives that reduce costs, in addition to looking for new sources of revenues. They give credits for car pools, for example, because they presumably reduce wear and tear on road infrastructures.
  13. If you look at the proposed Yellowhead developments, all the interchanges would amount to approximately $1 billion. But the chief beneficiary is the province, in that Yellowhead creates an east-west commodity transport network. Then the City could concentrate on the ring road.
  14. Has an analysis of expenditures been done? What is the City paying for that it could move to the private sector – infrastructure such as recreation facilities and golf courses?
  15. The real issue is motivation beyond the “logic” of the financial plan. The strategic plan involves investment with ROI that is 30, 50, even 100 years out. Communications must be improved to support the long view.
  16. Is there sufficient political will to confront the unions and other stakeholders by doing a service review?

FIN

Attachment 6 - Page 1 of 1