本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Council Highlights for the Toronto City Council Meeting on July 31, 2009

The Council Highlights are provided as a service to residents of Ward 25. The following is a brief summary of Council's meeting held on July 31, 2009

1. Settlement with City's Inside and Outside Workers (CC39.1)
Council adopted, on a 21-17 vote, Mayor Miller's recommended settlement of the 38-day municipal workers' strike. The new contract is for three years, from Jan 1, 2009 to Dec 31, 2011. The City did not achieve its two original objectives: (1) match salary increments for unionized staff to those previously awarded non-union staff (0% and 1% in years 1 and 2); and (2) eliminate the Sick Leave Bank (SLB). Instead, the unions won annual salary increments of 1.75%, 2% and 2.25%. The City conceded on the SLB - permitting it to exist for perhaps 30 years or more - by allowing current employees the option of continuing to accumulate sick leave days in the bank. However, new hires will be enrolled in the Short Term Disability (STD) plan. The Mayor describes this latter provision as "elimination of the SLB" - quite an overstatement in my view. In an attempt to entice current employees to voluntarily move to the STD plan, the City is offering discounted "buyouts" of their accumulated SLB. However, one union has already advised its members against accepting the buyout.

I voted AGAINST the settlement - because it is simply unfair to taxpayers (whether they pay taxes directly or through rent). The current recession is hammering taxpayers - through job losses and salary freezes/decreases. Their ability to pay increased taxes and other municipal fees is significantly reduced. Those on the public payroll, including Councillors, City workers and union leaders, can not blithely ignore economic realities. Despite that, many left-of-centre Councillors clearly wished to settle by matching previous settlements with other unions. In my view, it is long overdue for Council to recognize and acknowledge the difficulties faced by our taxpayers. Further, the SLB is a uniquely generous benefit that most public sector employers can no longer afford. Instead, the STD plan more appropriately and more cost-effectively addresses the need for illness protection. However, the Mayor's settlement now allows the City's securely-employed workers to retain a unique perk and to continue to forge financially ahead of the people who have reduced ability to pay these generously increased wages.

Since the settlement includes an optional buyout, it is difficult to calculate its exact cost to taxpayers. However, Finance Department staff report the 3-year incremental wage cost at $75.6 million and the buyout cost is estimated to be $47 million. Strangely, at least one member of the Mayor's team is now making claims of savings in the settlement. He claims $39 million in wage "savings" - without disclosing the following bizarre logic:
(a) Had the wage settlement been 3% per year, then the 3-year incremental wages would have been $114.6 million.
(b) Instead, the actual wage settlement of 1.75%, 2% and 2.25% over 3 years will result in incremental wages of $75.6 million.
(c) Hence the City achieved wage "savings" of $114.6 - $75.6 = $39 million.


With that kind of bizarre logic by the City's leadership, it's no wonder the City's finances are in such bad shape!

Ward 25 Residents have written to me extensively on the strike and the settlement. To summarize briefly the prevailing collective opinion: it is one of betrayal. We endured significant hardships during the strike in order to obtain a settlement that is fair to those who have to foot the bill. But, in the end, the Mayor caved in and accepted a bad deal - one that poorly serves the people of Toronto. I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment.

Looking to the future, the City is in dire financial circumstances - and this settlement will not help. For next year's budget, the Mayor's team will probably look to its usual methods - raiding reserve funds, increasing taxes, increasing fees (possibly including the Land Transfer Tax and the Personal Vehicle Tax and the green bin fee), introducing new fees and/or increasing debt. You also should anticipate an additional tactic from the Mayor's team - selling City assets (primarily real estate) to generate cash. That, however, is like burning furniture to keep the house warm - it is not a long term sustainable strategy. In my view, we require new sustainable approaches that restrain the City's extraordinary spending growth and respect our taxpayers.

Upcoming Council Meeting: The July Council meeting was postponed to August 5 and 6. It will include several hundred items, including the following two from the Mayor's Executive Committee:

1. EX33.6 "Indemnification Policy for Members of Council and Defamation" may be the most interesting (and outrageous) item. If adopted, it would provide for Members of Council to be indemnified in some circumstances for legal fees involving defamation actions they may launch against members of the public, companies or other Councillors. In my view, accepting criticism is part of the job of being a Councillor. Sometimes it is very unpleasant. But flurries of lawsuits, paid for by taxpayers, will not contribute positively to this environment. The possibility of two Councillors cross-suing each other with taxpayer money is simply ridiculous.

2. EX33.17 "Draft Terms of Reference for the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard Reconfiguration EA Study". If adopted, Council will ask the Minister of the Environment to approve the Study. If approved, the Environmental Assessment would likely begin in early 2010 and cost about $10 million. Of greater concern is the ultimate $200 - $300 million cost of tearing down the Gardiner. Its likely effects: increased travel times for personal and commercial traffic; and significant financial benefits to the adjacent private landowners who, in the course of creating new structures with improved vistas, would achieve greatly increased values for their properties.


Your Feedback
I welcome your comments, questions and suggestions on this newsletter. My volume of e-mail has increased significantly. As a result, I've asked my staff to respond on my behalf, whenever possible. For policy matters and other items that require my personal attention, I will endeavour to respond as quickly as possible. If you wish to speak to me directly please call 416-395-6408 to arrange a (telephone or face-to-face) appointment.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net