Councillors want set rules for ward budgets

Some councillors under fire for spending infrastructure cash on everything from movie nights to minor hockey trips

City councillors are asking for hard-and-fast spending rules for controversial ward infrastructure budgets that are paying for everything from neighbourhood movie nights to minor hockey trips to office expenses.

The request comes amid growing public scrutiny and a Spectator series on how “area rating” infrastructure cash is spent. That special levy funding gives each councillor in wards 1 through 8 about $1.7 million annually to spend on infrastructure — including a yearly $100,000 budget that is spent without oversight.

A new city staff report says close to $500,000 of that discretionary cash has been spent on councillor office expenses, sponsorships and community grants since 2014. It recommended better public reporting as well council votes on all future proposed discretionary spending on grants or sponsorships above $350. The city’s finance committee endorsed those recommendations Monday — but also asked staff to report back with “clear criteria” for how councillors spend various discretionary budgets.

Coun. Aidan Johnson said discretionary councillor spending without oversight “needs to go if we value transparency.” But he also lamented the “confusion” created by council’s past endorsement of what he labelled the “unwritten rules” around area rating spending. The firstterm Ward 1 representative pointed out past councils have repeatedly voted to support nontraditional infrastructure spending in the past, including nutrition programs and other “social infrastructure” proposed by his predecessor, Brian McHattie.

Coun. Brenda Johnson, a suburban councillor not eligible for the old city infrastructure cash, said the perception some dedicated infrastructure cash is spent inappropriately sets ups an “angry situation, us versus them.”

“When I see things comes forward for foosball tables and scout trips and hockey ventures … this isn’t helping (our infrastructure.)”

Council newcomer Donna Skelly, the only old city councillor that has not used any discretionary infrastructure cash for community grants, sponsorships or office expenses, said it’s up to council to “push back” against proposed spending that doesn’t qualify as infrastructure repairs.

Few, if any, area rating infrastructure spending proposals have ever been rejected by vote at city council.

“We know the rules and I don’t think they are that difficult,” she said.

The Ward 7 councillor also asked staff to specifically report back on whether it is appropriate to spend area rating cash on property not owned by the city.

For example, some councillors have spent infrastructure cash on school playgrounds, reasoning the equipment becomes a shared community amenity. Other spending includes the purchasing of closed schools with an eye to creating future parks, as well as the expropriation of the former City Motor Hotel.

The committee did not address a request from resident Viv Saunders for an audit of past area rating and discretionary spending, which the council critic has characterized in the past as “slush fund.” Council will be asked to ratify the committee’s recommendations Wednesday.