The cost of Burlington’s unfinished pier is escalating, the “total budget” is a moving target and city documents contain contradictory and misleading information that masks the scale of the increases. Those are the findings of my recent investigation into the cost of the pier.

More than 130 of you have written to me to add your name to a list of residents seeking transparency from the city on costs and options to finish the pier, now two years behind schedule with no completion date in sight. City officials claim they can’t provide those answers for confidential legal reasons, and yet all this information is readily available in public documents – if you know where to look.

We can’t let the city shirk its duty to be accountable and transparent to residents any longer.

A week ago, city council unanimously approved in principle the recommendations of the citizen’s report, Shape Burlington, which called for more transparency, and early public involvement in decision-making.

There’s no time like the present. Councillors can put their words into action by coming clean on the costs and options to finish the pier.

Transparency on taxes

They can also explain why our city taxes have increased at triple the rate of inflation – almost 6% per year for the last 10 years. But you won’t know that from reading city press releases, which downplay the increases. Those details are below.

Other issues

You’ll also find a summary of other issues in our city, including details of two public meetings on Freeman Station (May 16 and 18), the first meeting of the new waterfront advisory committee (May 14), and an opportunity to speak out on accident victims being charged for fire truck calls (June 1).

As always, communication here is two-way – leave a comment below, or email me at mariannemeedward@bell.net to comment or add your name to the list of residents seeking transparency on the pier.

Pier costs balloon – for what?

Since the pier project was approved in 2006, the budget has ballooned from $6.2 million to $9.2 million. The city’s share of these costs has tripled, from $712K to $2.2 million, with the remainder coming from federal, provincial and regional partners. On top of that are legal fees and potential “litigation exposure” from the ongoing dispute over the pier design between the city, contractor and engineer.

What happened? Based on my research, there have been three increases in the pier budget, the biggest occurring just a few months ago. We’re being told the latest increase comes from contingency funds, previously confidential and now being made public. (1) But this information contradicts every staff report up to July 2009 – just when public pressure on the pier was heating up.

Contingency included in budget….

The contingency fund was clearly included in the original 2006 budget, and the amount of the fund was even made public at that time: $900K.

The only reported increases to the budget since then came after the project was tendered and construction bids were higher than expected, and a few weeks later when council extended the pier length and approved enhanced lighting. That upped the total budget to $8.1 million, where it has remained since 2006.

Staff reports up to January 2009 clearly state that the “total gross amount” of the pier project is $8.1 million, and further that the confidential contingency allowance is “within the total approved amount.” (See chart with supporting public documents below).

…then contingency over and above the budget

But those sentences mysteriously disappear from subsequent staff reports. At a public meeting last Sept. 1, we are told for the first time that a confidential contingency is on top of the “total” budget of $8.1 million.

A staff report on Sept. 25 reveals the amount of the contingency. It’s the same as it was in 2006: $900K. But instead of being included in the budget, this amount is now counted as over and above the budget.

Budget jumps $1 million in a few months

After the contingency is added, the budget increases to $9 million. On Oct. 19, council approves a request for an additional $250K in contingency funds, bringing the most recent budget to $9.2 million.

Trust is compromised

This turn of events raises serious questions about transparency and accountability. How can we trust our government if in one report they’re telling us that the contingency amount – though confidential – is included in the budget, and the next report they’re telling us the contingency is over and above the budget? It’s this kind of doublespeak and misuse of the English language that contributes to the need “to improve public trust and confidence in City government,” identified in the Shape Burlington report on civic engagement.

Problem is lack of transparency

Burlington residents don’t have a problem with the city maintaining a confidential contingency budget. We do have a problem when the story changes over time about whether or not contingencies are included in the budget.

We do have a problem when the pier budget continues to escalate without a good reason why – and will continue to climb as long as this project is delayed.

There are serious questions here that demand answers: Where did the $900K go that was included in the original budget for contingencies? Is the contingency being double counted to mask the true increases to the pier project? Is $9.2 million the “total” budget, or are there additional “confidential” fees in the background the city hasn’t disclosed?

Burlington residents deserve straight answers on the total cost of this project, what’s in and what’s out of the budget, and where the money for contingencies has gone and will go.

Council not seeking solutions

Burlington residents also expect a solution on the pier. Though the project was started by a previous council (4 of 7 of whom are still on council) the delays and cost increases have occurred on this term of council. This council’s actions have delayed completion of the project, rather than found solutions:

• This council rejected questions about the pier design, raised by the contractor two years ago after the first concrete pour failed.

• This council is siding with AECOM, the design engineer who is also supposed to provide “impartial oversight” of the project. AECOM can’t possibly impartially moderate a dispute over their own design, given that they’ll be liable if they admit their design is faulty. The city is paying AECOM a whopping $1.9 million to oversee construction of the pier. That’s 20% of the total budget; usually design and oversight are 5-10%. What are we getting for this premium? A still unfinished pier.

• This council rejected an offer from the contractor Harm Schilthuis to redesign the pier and build it by next spring. Why – because it was more than budgeted? How much more? The city won’t say, but we’ll likely spend that same amount in legal fees if this dispute drags on – and the pier still won’t get built.

• This council called the contractor’s insurance bond in January to finish the pier, a move trumpeted by the city as decisive action to protect taxpayers and move the project forward. In fact, it will likely do the opposite: delay the project, and put tax dollars at risk. We all know insurance companies don’t simply hand out money without an investigation. The bonding company is likely asking the city tough questions about the design concerns raised by the contractor. If the design is proven faulty, they may refuse to pay the claim, leaving taxpayers on the hook.

• This council voted to cut off negotiations with the contractor to pursue legal action, instead of trying to find a solution. But no legal documents have been filed in any court. So was that just posturing? Meanwhile, the sides aren’t talking. How does this get the pier built?

Delaying a solution may benefit politicians who don’t want to answer for cost overruns in an election year. But delays certainly don’t benefit us taxpayers, who will continue to pay more the longer this project drags on. Whose needs is council putting first?

The city needs to come clean with residents on the true costs and options to finish the pier, and residents must be given an opportunity to provide input on those options – election year or not.

My investigation continues. In coming weeks, I’ll provide updates on other aspects of the pier including what we’re spending on legal fees, the design problems, the contractor’s offer, and how other levels of government feel about their money being spent on the pier that isn’t.

Contingency funds being double-counted?

(1) March 23, 2010 Q&A

Transparency needed on tax increases

Last week city council approved the tax levy increase for this year. The city portion of the tax increase is 5.2%, but you wouldn’t know it reading the city’s press release, which lists the total tax increase as $2.1%.

That figures reflects the blended tax rate, which includes city, regional and educational taxes. Because regional and educational taxes have remained flat or gone down, they reduce the overall tax increase – and disguise the true amount of city tax increases.

Our taxes have increased on average 5.8% for the last 10 years, at a time when inflation was less than half that. So if you paid $1000 in taxes in 2000, you’re now paying $1,752. That’s a huge hit to take for seniors on a fixed income, laid-off workers, or employees who’ve seen their pay frozen in that same period.

By contrast, if city tax rates had kept pace with inflation, your taxes would only be $1,224.  This is  a $528 gap that’s widening every year.

It’s time for the city to be fully transparent on our tax increases, explain why they’re going up, and seek public input on how to rein in spending and expenses.

How are tax increases affecting you? Email me, or leave a comment below.

Source of city tax rates: City Treasurer Joan Ford (with thanks)

Members of waterfront advisory group selected; first meeting May 14

City council has approved the members of the new Burlington Waterfront Access and Protection Advisory committee. They include include eight men, two women, three members of Save Our Waterfront, a property owner in Old Lakeshore Road, two real estate agents, a citizen-member of Tourism Burlington, a heritage preservation advocate and a corporate lawyer. There are two representatives from each area, with two spots unfilled for Ward 3.

Save Our Waterfront asked for this citizen-led group last fall to provide public input and transparency on future waterfront development. We’re an official stakeholder to the group and will provide input on development in the Old Lakeshore Road area.

Meetings of the new committee are public. The first is:
*Friday, May 14, 9-11:30, Room 246, City Hall

Members list:

• Les Armstrong – Ward 1,
• Ken Harris – Ward 1,
• Mohammad Alizadeh – Ward 2,
• Sarah Banks – Ward 2,
• Michael O’Sullivan – Ward 4,
• Nicholas Leblovic – Ward 4,
• Grahame Richards – Ward 5,
• Craig Lewis – Ward 5,
• Donna Mae Ankrett – Ward 6,
• Brian Jones – Ward 6.

The city is still conducting interviews to fill the Ward 3 vacancies. Application forms are available through the clerk’s department at 905-335-7600, by email at city@burlington.ca or online here.

Freeman Station Meetings May 16 & 18

There are two upcoming public meetings to seek additional input on where to locate Freeman Station:

Sunday, May 16, 2-4 pm, Burlington Art Centre, 1333 Lakeshore Road
Tuesday, May 18, 7-9 pm, Ireland House, 1287 Guelph Line

I’m hoping the choice of meeting locales doesn’t reflect that these are the only spots being considered for Freeman Station. Many residents have suggested revisiting putting the station along Beachway Park where the old rail line used to be. That’s always been my first choice.

Have your say at the meetings, or leave a comment below.

Speak out on $350 “collision-response” fee June 1

Council recently voted to let the Burlington Fire Department charge residents a flat fee of $350 for responding to car collisions. Residents are expected to seek reimbursement from their insurance provider. Many won’t, fearing their auto premiums will go up. A recent staff survey of more than 80 Ontario fire departments found that 75% did not bill this fee to residents.

The fee can only be reconsidered by a 5-2 vote. Ward 3 councillor John Taylor is hoping to bring a motion to reconsider the fee to the next Budget and Corporate Services Committee, 9:30 am June 1. Residents can delegate or provide written feedback – or leave a comment below.

Marianne Meed Ward is Chair of Save Our Waterfront, an initiative of A Better Burlington community website. She is running for Ward 2 city council in the Oct. 25 municipal election.

 Email This Article  Print This Article