Current Issues -  Council Priorities Recent Councils have pursued policies that have resulted in high spending and high property taxes for residents and businesses. This must change if St. Albert is to become a sustainable community. St. Albert Taxpayers believe that Council  must change their focus to reduce the size, and limit future growth of government, stop catering to special interest groups, focus spending on priorities, reduce wasteful spending and take time to consult with St. Albert taxpayers. Reduce the Size of City Hall Dramatic increases in St. Albert property and business taxes are being driven by large increases in municipal spending. Growth of City Hall is a significant contributor to this problem. Between 2002 and 2009 the number of full time equivalent (FTE) positions at City Hall has grown from 351 to 536, or 53%. In addition, the City of St. Albert has up to 500 casual employees  that represent the equvalent of 121 FTE’s on City payroll. As a result, St. Albert's salary cost has risen from $24.8 million to $51.9 million or 109%. Salary cost represents 45% of the City's total operating costs. While there has been little or no improvement to service levels provided by the municipality, costs of providing services have more than doubled. City Council must take a long hard look at options to reduce, and better manage the growth of City staff levels. For example, Alberta Health Services recently assumed responsibility for emergency medical services (20 EMS positions), and yet there has been no decrease in staffing levels in the Community and Protective Services department. Stop Catering to Special Interests In its last 3 terms, Council's spending decisions have benefitted special interest groups including developers, and recreation and cultural organizations. A significant portion of capital spending has been directed at promoters of sports facilities and arts and heritage initiatives. While such expenditures help promote healthy and vibrant communities, recreation and culture are generally not considered municipality's core expenditure functions. Based on a recent report, St. Albert's 2007 per capita spending on recreation and culture was 54% higher than the average for large to mid-size municipalities in the Province. On a per household basis, St. Albert spends more than twice as much on recreation and culture as Edmonton! St. Albert's high recreation and culture spending is surprising since St. Albert has what many other Alberta municipalities do not! St. Albert is located next door to a major municipality and in a region that offers many choices in recreation and cultural resources. While this is one of our competitive advantages and should have led reduced spending and lower taxes, St. Albert Council seems to be trying to create lesser substitutes for existing area parks and museums like Fort Edmonton Park, the Alberta Railway Museum and the Reynolds Museum. Over the next 3 years plans call for spending over $30 million on projects like the Heritage Park, Children's Cultural Facility and a Museum Expansion. With the Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village located ½ hour drive east of Edmonton, and Fort Edmonton Park struggling to increase attendance, why is St. Albert's City Council intent on spending over $15 million on a new historic park and a working farm adjacent to the existing Grain Elevator Park? On top of that, millions more are earmarked for sports and recreation projects. In the face of anticipated cuts in Provincial and Federal Government grants and already high property taxes, these and other projects must be re-evaluated and postponed until such time when St. Albert property taxes are more in line with other municipalities, and taxpayers can absorb further tax increases. Priority Focused Capital Spending From 2002 to 2009 St. Albert's long term debt level quadrupled from $17.7 million to $71 million! Not surprising, future interest costs rose from $7.7 million to $28.5 million. The bulk of this debt stems from construction of Ray Gibbon Drive and construction of Servus Place. Constructed prior to being required, the cost of Ray Gibbon was funded with debt financing. While the Province has indicated that it will, at some point, repay a portion of the cost of this roadway, in light of the provincial budget deficit, the Province is more likely to focus spending on higher priorities. In the meantime, each year, taxpayers are on the hook for millions of dollars in financing costs. Servus Place, built and operated totally at taxpayer expense, will continue to be drain on taxpayer pocketbooks for the next 20 years. St. Albert Taxpayers Association would like to see City Council and the Administration prioritize to all future capital spending, with spending focused on core needs. Furthermore, discretionary capital projects must be subjected to a comprehensive and detailed business case analysis that includes consideration of funding sources and the impact of the project on taxes. Projects which are not economically feasible without taxpayer subsidies must be abandoned, or deferred until such time when the taxpayers can afford the increased tax burden. In addition decisions to proceed with such projects must have the support of the majority of St. Albert taxpayers. The Gold Standard How many times have we heard the phrases "world class" or "gold standard" spoken by promoters of new facilities, and by members of City Council? This phrase has brought St. Albert taxpayers Servus Place, which continues to lose millions annually, as well as a $7.7 million artificial turf football field to serve high school football teams. Next on the list is the re-built BMX track which is being included as part of the Riel Park Redevelopment. The original cost estimate for redeveloping Riel Park was $8.4 million. Latest estimates put the final cost of the project at in excess of $30 million. A significant portion of the cost over-run can be attributed to elaborate enhancements of the original facilities. This type of wasteful spending must stop! Rethink Recurring Themes Attracting business and downtown redevelopment have been recurring themes in Council deliberations. Old time residents of St. Albert recall previous studies to promote downtown development, and lengthy debates on attracting more businesses to reduce the long standing disparity in the residential/non-residential tax split. Attracting more businesses has been a favourite topic prior to every election. While downtown population has grown, little has changed by way of attracting small businesses to St. Albert's downtown. Some businesses that opened shops after the last stage of development have packed up and left. Today, St. Albert's core shopping district spans the length of St. Albert Trail. Perhaps St. Albert's Downtown should be allowed to become the community's professional services centre? Looking back, there has been little progress in attracting more new businesses to boost St. Albert's non-residential tax base. In the absence of a Business Tax, St. Albert should have relatively little trouble attracting new businesses. Reality is that insufficient numbers of new businesses are setting up shop in St. Albert to tip the large disparity in the residential/non- residential assessments. Does Council and the Administration understand the reasons why St. Albert has been unable to attract more businesses to St. Albert? Unless there is a plan to rectify the obstacles that stand in the way of new business development, and the commitment to facilitate new business development, nothing is likely to change. Rather than spending more money on additional studies, perhaps we should cut our losses and come to terms with the fact that St. Albert will always be a bedroom community to its much larger next door neighbour! Input from Taxpayers Many of St. Albert's residents feel there is a lack of meaningful dialogue with Council and the Administration when proposing major new developments that impact the community. Whether it's the Smart Growth initiative or the Arlington Drive proposal Council does not take the time to discuss with residents what is needed and why, listen to what residents want, and discuss what changes will result from the initiatives. In cases where new initiatives result in additional costs, taxpayers are not given opportunities to comment on what they might be prepared to pay. Although some might argue that it's impossible to reach out and engage the broad community in this type of dialogue, there is room for improvement. While the Administration does not hesitate hiring consultants to conduct self serving, annual taxpayer surveys to gauge the level of satisfaction with municipal services, little time or effort is put into obtaining public input on significant issues affecting residents. Your Membership is Your VOICE