Council rethinking casino cash
Councillor wants to see“more definitive parameters”
Council should consider setting “tighter parameters” around how it funds projects through its casino-hosting reserve, says Coun. Victor Pietrangelo.
At its recent meeting, council approved a motion brought forward by Pietrangelo that staff come back with “more definitive parameters” when it comes to how much the municipality allocates to priorities.
For example, council allocated $526,638 as part of its annual contribution to a reserve fund to help fund a new hospital in Niagara Falls.
“Council has went out and purchased land that cost us $11 million and I would imagine that once the shovel is ready to go in the ground that the province is going to be asking this council for anywhere between $20 million and $30 million and I really don’t want to go to the taxpayer at that point, nor do I want to take out a large debenture or a large debt on the city,” said Pietrangelo.
“I think it would be prudent of us to be putting more money aside for the hospital right now and then the monies that are left over because I’m sure that the tax deferment, the police and the hospital, they can be set number wise — we can set a ratio and we’ll use 90 per cent of the remaining money for infrastructure, or 95 per cent of the remaining money on infrastructure and five or 10 per cent for economic development.”
Since 2013 under a new Ontario Lottery and Gaming contribution agreement, council established priorities for where it would use the more than $20 million it receives annually for hosting two casinos.
The priorities included tax relief/subsidy; hospital investment; economic development initiatives; policing fee-for-service for casino; and capital infrastructure improvements.
Historically, council has allocated $5.9 million (9.7 per cent) to tax relief/subsidy.
Staff said so far for 2017-18, $13.1 million is being allocated to capital budget projects; $5.9 million to tax levy relief/subsidy; $4.2 million to pay for Fallsview Casino policing; $579,131 for economic development; and $526,600 for annual contribution to the reserve for a new hospital.
Pietrangelo said council made a “very wise” decision when it identified the five “pillars” for funding, and is not asking for those priorities to be changed.
But, he said, council has not set strict parameters for how much money should go to each priority.
“As long as we set a certain amount of the OLG funds for economic development, then we can refer to that without feeling like we’re making that choice between someone’s flooding basement and using the money for economic development,” said Pietrangelo.
“If we set up stronger parameters in a sense that we have actual ratios attached to the money, then we’re putting a designated amount in one silo and a designated amount in (another silo).”
He said the city’s list of unfunded priority one capital projects has risen from about $13 million in 2016 to $45.7 million this year.
“I really don’t think that it is council’s job to be political when we come to choosing infrastructure projects. I really would like to pass that back to our (chief administrative officer) and our director of finance to come with something that would be deemed more critical in the sense that we cannot have $50-million worth of projects that are priority one and can’t distinguish among them.
“I would like to see a list that actually has critically important infrastructure projects at the top of it, and then sort of priority one wish list projects more toward the bottom. I think it would be easier and more helpful for us to make decisions.”