LARRY'S CORNER- Hamilton's Former Mayor Speaks

The Recurring City Hall Debate: And It's Not Even Ground Hog Day Yet!

By Larry Di Ianni
(posted December 8, 2008)

Once again some on Council want to re-open the City Hall debate. After reportedly already spending $20M in renovations; and after having let some contracts out which, if cancelled, would incur additional financial penalties, why would Council want to circle back to square one? According to downtown Councillor Bob Bratina the rationale for beginning anew is to save the city and Councillors great expenditures by forging ahead with their current plans.

Let's look at Councillor Bratina's reasons for re-opening the debate. On his website under an article entitled "Wasteful Spending at City Hall", the Councillor makes the case for abandoning the Main street building, selling it to the private sector, and staying put in the current location at the City Center on James St. Bob points out that this plan would save approximately $50 to $80M if Council were to pursue it. That is not chump change.

So why is Council resisting his overture? Part of it has to be City Hall ennui. How many times do decisions have to be made before they are deemed to be decisions? Surely, once you already spend $20M should be a pretty good indicator that a decision has been made. And yet, if the Councillor's numbers are valid, spending more money just because you have spent a huge amount really is like throwing good money after bad.

The other reason for hesitating must concern the validity of the savings being proposed by the Councillor. Is the business case written on the back of a napkin? Or are the numbers well thought out? Certainly at first blush the finances Bob proposes seem to make sense. Council is spending the money Bob alludes to. There are also savings to concentrating most of staff in one location. So what is the problem? Is the downside to reversing course steeper than the Councillor assumes? Are the savings to be realized not quite as lucrative as he is suggesting? These questions can only be definitively answered if the finance people at City Hall delve into the assumptions being made with a finely sharpened pencil. This is an exercise that normally would be considered even before making any decisions to shift gears. Why isn't it being done? Why didn't Councillor Bratina run his ideas past staff quietly before going public with his notions?

I think that part of the answer to the push-back the Councillor is experiencing has to do with the way he is presenting the idea. The very article on his web-site containing his proposal is framed in a very combative way. "Wasteful Spending at City Hall" is the way Councillor Bratina chooses to engage us in his ideas. This tactic will garner interest, but it may anger his Councillor colleagues as well as staff. And he needs both to see his proposals realized.

On the other hand, the Councillor's criticism may be accurate, but the rationale is framed in such a way as to point fingers at others, rather than to acknowledge that the Councillor is also part of the wasteful collective, if that is what it is. It is for this reason that we have seen staff and others on Council, including the Mayor, taking shots at Bob's suggestions in the local paper. It is never wise to negotiate or debate in the media. It is absolutely devastating to morale, and corrosive of relationships to engage in the public flogging of each other. For certain, it is a strange strategy being adopted by a Councillor who wants to convince his colleagues.

And yet, if one reads the content of Bob Bratina's argument, he does make some very valid points. If one detaches from the style or combativeness of his ideas, and looks purely at the argument he makes for saving dollars, he must be taken seriously. Firstly, his observation that a renovated City Hall is still many hundreds of thousands of square feet short of the space the city needs to accommodate its entire staff is indisputable. Secondly, the current space at the renovated City Center is comfortable, bright and efficient. My own very first visit to the fourth floor last week demonstrated to me the veracity of these conclusions. I took the time to ask staff how they liked their new digs; and the 3 or 4 people I spoke with were very enthusiastic about being at this location. Staff morale counts a lot, but these employees also pointed to the customer ease of finding assistance, on the same floor, as a huge bonus for citizens.

The most intriguing point the Councillor makes relates to the sale of the Main Street location to private users. This is a fascinating point because the real estate on Main is quite lucrative and the millions gained in the sale of the property could offset the one-time capital costs of many of the projects being undertaken. Depending on the use of the building on Main and the corollary uses, additional assessment dollars would flow into Hamilton's coffers in perpetuity. Assessment growth is the long term solution to Hamilton balancing its yearly budgets.

The Councillor mentions some possible uses for the property: hotel, residential, institutional, McMaster U. I think all of these are quite viable. In fact, the land is big enough to accommodate a variety of uses, including the Education Square/Medical Center concept that is currently in limbo at the Board of Ed's property across the street. I began the discussions with the Board and Mac on this project when I was the Mayor, and I know progress has been made slowly on the exiting plans mainly because of the Board's legal obligations to the Ministry of Education's processes, among other reasons. The City Hall property may be the answer to this specific project.

The downside to selling this land is in abandoning a civic building that Hamiltonians have become accustomed to. Pushing it out of public ownership may be a harder political fight than some councillors are willing to undertake.

However, as one can see, Councillor Bratina's proposal does have merit, at least as a notion to be explored. And this exploration need not take an interminable length of time. The information for assessing the financial case is at hand. It just needs to be pulled together by some competent staff.

I hope that Council can tone down the rhetoric on this issue; and direct staff to do the necessary analysis to demonstrate whether Bob's idea deserves to have legs or, conversely, to have its already teetering balance completely toppled. Maybe Bob can demonstrate some collegial good will towards the rest of Council and staff by changing the title of his web site's message on the topic!

BACK TO LARRY'S CORNER

HOME