Some of the city’s savings claims are questionable

The City of Saskatoon’s administration deserves credit for efforts to cut costs and find savings at city hall.

The Greater Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce applauds the city’s so-called continuous improvement initiative, which the chamber pushed the city to undertake.

The community’s economic situation makes these efforts more important. Mayor Charlie Clark said as much at a news conference called last week to outline how much money the city is saving.

He also said it’s not enough and the search for savings must continue because residents keep pushing for the city to spend less.

If people remain unconvinced of the city’s determination to spend fewer of their dollars, city hall can assume some of the blame.

A pamphlet handed out at Clark’s news conference said since 2009 the city had saved $145 million “through operational efficiencies and technology improvements.” In the same time period, cost-cutting yielded $144 million “through creative infrastructure solutions.”

For context, this $289 million in savings over eight years still represents a fraction of the city’s $1 billion total budget in 2017. It’s also below the city’s debt load of $318 million.

Are the city’s savings numbers dubious? Clark’s news conference suggests people need convincing as city council and residents stare down a preliminary property tax increase of 5.77 per cent for 2018.

This year, as the economy recovers and municipalities struggle with less money from the province, the perception that cities are operating as efficiently as possible seems important.

Some of the city’s well-worn savings calculations seem questionable, though.

The city has repeatedly included revenues from its land development branch in its annual report on savings. Certainly the revenue from land sales is welcomed by those crafting the budget and taxpayers seeking relief, but it’s not the result of city hall seeking savings.

Land sale revenue rolls in because, unlike many municipalities, the City of Saskatoon has historically been involved in the land development business.

The market determines how much the city makes off land sales. That number has been high during boom years and has dropped off precipitously as the housing market cooled.

Among the other claims of savings is $650,000 in annual operating costs in 2016 because the new police station was built to use less power and heating. That’s positive, but many might weigh it against the $122-million cost to construct the building, not to mention the $27-million price tag to extend 25th Street to accommodate traffic to the station.

It’s not like Saskatoon did not need a new police station, but maybe the $149 million spent to build it and extend 25th Street should be paid off before the city starts crowing about operational savings.

Similarly, the city says it saves $500,000 a year in leasing costs because it spent $13.4 million in 2013 to buy the former post office building on Fourth Avenue.

Some might suggest the city isn’t really saving money for 27 years; in theory, at least, that’s when the $500,000 saved per year will finally add up to the $13.4 million spent to buy the former post office.

Homeowners know that just because they are not paying rent after buying a house, that doesn’t mean their housing costs magically disappear. They shift to mortgage payments.

That does not mean buying property ranks as a bad move for either residents or the city, but to chalk it up as immediate savings undermines the city’s legitimate efforts to reduce spending.

Clark felt compelled to call a news conference to assure taxpayers that city hall is handling their money prudently.

He also revealed the city plans to approach the province for increased taxation powers through the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association. That seem unlikely.

Alberta’s government just outlined its plans for big-city charters for Edmonton and Calgary, minus the new taxation powers the cities wanted.

Saskatoon city hall will need to focus on reducing spending to reduce the 2018 property tax hike. Questionable claims of savings serve little purpose in this pursuit.