Ward investment system needs fixing
$1.7 million. That’s how much Hamilton councillors in Wards 1 through 8 receive annually through the area rating reserve fund. The money is part of a 2011 council compromise intended to level out tax rates in the old city and suburban wards.
Everything to do with amalgamation, and especially with area rating (who pays how much for which services) has always been contentious. This fund, given to old city wards in place of the tax cut they would have enjoyed otherwise, is no exception.
Critics and cynics charge they’re a slush fund for councillors to dole out as they see fit. That’s not the case, but it’s not hard to make the argument because of, in many cases, inadequate transparency around funding decisions.
Our starting point is that the reserve fund allocations are fine, and in fact offer opportunities to councillors and citizens to engage in participatory and direct democracy. But there’s no doubt some work is required. Another option: Blow up the status quo, and pool that money to invest for infrastructure needs common to those wards. Imagine the potential if council could invest an incremental $13 million in high-priority areas. The HSR comes to mind, as does advancing walkability and smart streets initiatives. But we would argue for fixing the existing system. There should be a common definition of what sort of projects qualify. Initially, the money was to be invested in hard infrastructure — streets, sidewalks, etc. That morphed into a more flexible model. So-called “social infrastructure” projects became in scope. Now it seems there are no hard guidelines or limits. Community groups have received funding, as have privatesector websites. One ward bought a drone. There was a prize for a literary contest.
All these may be fine. Or not. Council needs to discuss and debate what is suitable and not. That decision needs to be applied equitably, and taxpayers need to see it and have input.
All councillors should ensure there is an element of participatory democracy involved in the decisions. In some wards there already is. But it’s not clear how much citizen involvement there is across the board. It should be mandated, and clearly understood.
A part of that $1.7 million per ward really is more like a slush fund. Each councillor has discretion to spend $100,000 on any cause he or she favours. That’s too much, and the mandate too broad.
It’s true that city council signs off on all these decisions, but it’s also true there is little discussion and debate because councillors are reluctant to criticize their colleagues on ward matters.
This is all fixable, and it’s worth fixing, in our view. But if council chooses not to do repairs, the best option would be to end the ward allocations and invest the money strategically across the old city.