Last week, two very different forums solicited public input on the direction of Greater Sudbury. Tuesday, January 20 was the public input session on the 2015 municipal budget. This is an opportunity for citizens and community groups to give recommendations on the direction of the budget, and most commonly, to request funding in the form of ’budget options’ which are later voted on by Council. Sixteen groups presented, but for whatever reason, attendance and participation by the general public was lower than in past years. Thursday, January 22 was “GS2015 meets #GS2025”, billed on the #GS2025 website as “a fast-paced series of presentations and networking opportunities to ignite creative thinking, ideas and a public passion for the future of Greater Sudbury.” It was the first public event of #GS2025, a consultation process for a 10 year economic development strategic plan being led by the Greater Sudbury Development Corporation. In a news release launching the process, the overarching goal is stated to be “to stimulate the creation of a local economic climate that generates significant employment opportunities, attracts education and talent, provides a high quality of life and a higher than average standard of living.” Mayor Bigger stated that this fits well with his plan to develop a broader Vision 2025 for the City, through a consultation process yet to be defined.
At “GS2015 meets #GS2025”, held at Oscar’s Grill, nine ‘thought igniters’ were invited to speak for 5 minutes to share their vision of Greater Sudbury in ten years, and how to get there. Mayor Bigger began with an address about the importance of growth, reiterating points he had made in a guest column a few days earlier that begins, “During the recent election campaign, I said many times that in order to meet the challenges facing this city, we must grow.” In response, local blogger Steve May argued that growth is the wrong starting point for an economic development strategy. “A better starting point - one which allows us to assess and examine the solutions for the challenges we face - would be to focus on sustainability, rather than growth. Let's work with what we have - and with what we're liable to have - rather than pretend that we're going to get all of this growth heading our way. Living within our means only makes sense - especially when our community is often subject to economic and political decisions made elsewhere,” he wrote.
Two of the speakers spoke directly to growth through becoming the ‘world capital’ for the mining technology or “mining intelligence” sector. Local agriculture and food security was also passionately presented. However, the majority of speakers focused on quality of life, touching on a vibrant downtown, community informed design, youth engagement, access to nature and community, diversity, beauty, sustainable transportation, and social equity. Several speakers urged the City, and citizens, to seize the moment and make the choice to realize this quality of life and positive vision.
Although the atmosphere and venue were very different, this resonated with the presentations made at the public budget session two days earlier. In this forum, quality of life also dominated, with many of the same or related themes: better transit and cycling infrastructure, trails, water quality, youth engagement or services, and social equity. A number of presentations requested core funding for groups whose contributions to quality of life are long standing and well recognised, have strong community support, and leverage significant additional funding, in-kind donations, and volunteer time to the benefit of the City. It was striking to see these requests treated as ‘budget options’ – requests for extra spending that have little guarantee of success, especially in a year when a zero tax freeze has been promised.
A number of groups spoke directly to this marginalization, advocating for the items they brought forward to be included in the base budget, as they were not ‘extras’ but rather core services. “Too often we are told that there is no money for social and anti-poverty programs. But there is. The problem is a question of priorities and political will,” stated the Sudbury Coalition Against Poverty in their submission. Friends of Sudbury Transit and the Sudbury Cyclists Union asked that some money within the roads budget be shifted to improve transit and create a minimum grid of safe cycling routes.
Coalition for a Liveable Sudbury (CLS) reiterated these requests, adding annual funding for watershed studies as another line item that should be included in the base budget for ‘roads and drainage’. CLS urged Council to look to areas where ‘business as usual’ was costly and could be replaced with new approaches that were more cost effective and better met community priorities. The capital roads budget was a natural example since it comprises 40% of the city’s capital budget, with a ~ quarter of that for new road construction. They provided information that shifting some of these funds to improve transit and cycling infrastructure would better meet community needs, and also be more financially sustainable for the City.
In past years, recommendations to shift budget dollars to better reflect community priorities have not led to results. That is because the next step in the process is for staff to review and provide recommendations on ‘budget options’ to bring back to the finance committee. This has meant that anything that is not characterized as a budget add-on has fallen out of the process and been lost. Chief Financial Officer Lorella Hayes reiterated this narrow process at the end of the public session. However, in a Sudbury Star article, Mayor Bigger was quoted as saying they would be looking at implications for the base budget as well. What will be brought back by staff, and how Council will respond to that information, remains to be seen.
Greater Sudbury’s 2015 municipal budget process is taking place in the context of a new Council with only two incumbents, and the promise of a tax freeze. During his campaign, Bigger articulated that it would be unfair to increase municipal spending until there was clear direction from the community on their priorities and vision for the future. Vision 2025 is intended to bring that clarity. However, the results will not be available to guide Council until at least the second budget process of their term. In the meantime, the public budget session and ‘GS2015 meets #GS2025” provided a strong indication of what that direction might look like. The question is, will that be reflected in 2015 municipal budget? We will all find out in a few months.
Naomi Grant chairs Coalition for a Liveable Sudbury. She presented on behalf of CLS at the public budget session. She was also invited to speak as a 'thought igniter' at 'GS2015 meets GS2025".
Submissions made at the January 20 public budget session can be viewed here (click 'view' for the January 20 Finance and Administration Committee meeting).
Presentations made at 'GS2015 meets #GS2025" can be viewed here.
