This is what Sharon Urton's email to Suzanne Anton communicates loud and clear.

In spite of never signing up to receive her updates, I am a willing member of lone NPA Councillor Suzanne Anton’s mailing list, and thoroughly enjoy her gramatically creative opinions about “the country’s most greenest” community or her kind invites to exciting events like the NPA’s AGM, where my participation alone could have ensured a 2 per cent increase in attendance.

Not everyone, however, is as enamoured with these emails.

Sharon Urton was an NPA Park Board candidate in the 2008 last election whose main campaign thrust was her firm belief in “[e]qual access and equal opportunities to enjoy our Public parks and recreation services.”

On December 13, both Sharon and I received an Anton email that began with the following:

“1. Budget

How much do you value city services? Should council cut library hours or community centre budgets? Active communities program? Graffiti management? Should the park board have axed the Farmyard and Bloedel Conservatory on 10 days notice?

This Mayor ran for Vancouver council on a platform of solving provincial issues (shelters, mental health) with city taxes. People accept that (he was elected with a strong majority after all), but should council should then cut core city services and beloved local institutions? The process has been so hasty and so much a product of the back room that citizens have had very little time to react.

I believe there are adjustments which can be made so that core threatened programs can be kept with minimal tax impact and will try to persuade my colleagues to see it that way.

You can tell council what you think in person this Monday night (14 Dec) in the continuing public meeting. Call 604-871-6353 to sign up to speak. Or, of course, you can send me an email directly – I would love to know your opinion.”

I was too busy trying to find the “back room” that was amazingly able to incorporate dozens of citizens’ testimony and presentations into Council deliberations to actually take Anton up on her request.

Sharon, however, was not, and provided the following feedback (presented in excerpts) to her former running mate:

“I beg to differ:) To me your chess move is a tad out of line and a tad disrespectful of the strategic planning process by Park Board..and the strategic leadership underway to bring the core services of Park Board under our in house staff and management team.”

Anton having no institutional memory of the history or the infrastructure behind the Park Board?  No way…couldn’t be.  But please continue, Sharon:

“We do not live in la la land…basic services, demographics, common sense, avoiding duplication, efficiencies…all matter of considerations are being taken into account and trust between various entities is being restored with our VPB Acting GM and some newer management hires like Thomas Soulierre…it is like a breath of fresh air..good work is being done by professionals trained in this field Suzanne…this chess move is not helpful in getting us all moving together across the board.”

The Park Board, like all other entities within City Hall, took part in the shared services review, where services and staffing was looked at to create greater efficiencies and savings.  Sharon seems to disagree with Anton’s assessment that “core threatened programs can be kept with minimal tax impact.”  She obviously would rather look internally first before turning to the NPA’s default of raising taxes.

“Increasing taxes, even a minimal amount, is not an option for many people on this City. It also will not get to the excellent work that has been done to capture good economic management of our VPB resources (human and fiscal)..it may not be the Cadillac service but like universal health care covering the basics with equity factored in for equal access, equal affordability and equal opportunity in our 23 communities is a good starting point…right now is about the meat and potatoes…similar arguments to “at what price Medicare” because public Medicare could usurp our entire GNP and public recreation “for health”…”

The Bloedel Conservatory and petting zoo are not core services, as Urton correctly points out, particularly when compared to maintiaining accessibility within our community centres, for example.  So, maintaining them at any cost to taxpayers is not something that the Park Board or Council should really be considering.

“I know your chess move is just politics and Michael Geller sent out a similar “message” but there is evidence-based planning and decision making that holds up the Vision and Mission of the Park Board with respect to mandated core services…as I see it ……

• Remember Active Communities was a challenge that grew out of the Olympic bid ..”20%more active by 2010″..this initiative will be sustained within the Vancouver Sport for Life Strategy by our VPB recreation programmers on staff..not grants..working in 23 communities..so the initiative becomes systematized…of course there is upset..there always is when the time for an imitative runs out but this one will be sustained ..it just had to disappear as a budget line item before things could be realigned with the Vancouver Sport Network (VSN) strategic planning and leadership to be launched in January 2010.
• Look at the weekend news about problems zoos are having…welfare issues of all kinds increasingly emerging..this is not a core service for VPB
• Imagine what could happen at Bloedel ..with Van Dusen ..like Kew Gardens for botanical research, tourism..something spectacular could develop …this is well beyond the scope of “public services” ..this is not a core service of VPB”

These were far from decisions that can be considered as “hasty,” as those attractions that didn’t have the numbers, appeal or cost effectiveness to fit into the budget were specifically targeted.

“Look Suzanne…this is not a time to be playing politics…it is a time to be supporting our VPB staff and management who have been sharpening their pencils, collaborating in entirely authentic ways and moving through this process in an entirely direct, honest, above board and genuine way….and you know this has not always been the case.”

The final statement is telling, and seemingly in reference to the previous NPA administration who never bothered to try and rein in costs and save taxpayers money.

This kind of an email (from a former NPA candidate no less) should be of great concern to the once mighty political entity.  Vision Vancouver’s fiscal responsbility is quickly winning over a good percentage of the NPA’s traditional base of support, making the association’s recovery less and less likely with each passing day of the Vision administration’s run in office.

Rest assured that this development will be unlikely to stop Anton from continuing to play empty politics for the rest of that duration.

This is the kind of public reaction that Vision Vancouver critics would have you believe the party is facing after the just-completed budget process. Nothing could be further from the truth, however.

What do you get with:

• The previous NPA dominated council increasing spending by 15.65 per cent (from $771 to $894 million) over three years – 2006-2008
• A salary negotiation achieved under the era of Sam Sullivan’s “leadership” to break a three-month old strike ensured a $26.7 million jump in salaries for the coming fiscal year
• A tax increase to Vancouver homeowners in 2006 of 6.4 per cent, including a tax shift from business to residential of 1 per cent
• A tax increase to Vancouver homeowners in 2007 of 8 per cent, including a tax shift from business to residential of 2 per cent
• A tax increase to Vancouver homeowners in 2008 of 2.13 per cent, including a tax shift from business to residential of 1 per cent (lower due to City Council directing staff in June 2007 “to use savings resulting from the 2007 work stoppage to reduce property taxes for City taxpayers in 2008 on a one-time basis.  An analysis of the 12-week work stoppage identified $11.8 million in savings which translated to a property tax reduction of 2.32 per cent.”  This was a work stoppage that didn’t need to paralyze the city for three months, making the “savings” a reflection of incompetence rather than solid management).
• A drop in development and building permit revenues by about 50 per cent (slide 5) due to the global recession

Well, you get the budget that the City of Vancouver just completed.  And, all in all, you get a pretty reasonable process that took the needs of the collective into consideration above the loud voices of the minority.

In 2006, as an example, there was a similar deficit situation looming over the Council of the day.  So, instead of looking internally on how to achieve savings, they dumped a 6.4 per cent tax increase on Vancouver homeowners, which funded things like the hiring of 127 new police and city workers and additional spending for programs.

In October 2006, this is what Peter Ladner said about the looming tax increase:

“We can’t have taxes going up by 6.3 per cent. So we’re going to have to find some cuts to make, and we’ll have to make some difficult choices.”

So even then, the NPA thought that cuts needed to be made so that citizens didn’t have to bare the burden of Council’s additional spending decisions.

And in the end, Ladner, Sullivan and crew didn’t have the guts or the personnel (City Manager Judy Rogers was never inclined to chip away at her little fiefdoms throughout City Hall) to make those “difficult choices.”  They just went ahead with the 6.4 per cent tax increase, and called it a day.

On the other hand, what you have from Vision Vancouver is consistency.  Listen to Councillor Raymond Louie from that time frame:

“We’ve already increased taxes substantially. We’re looking at another one. It’s due to their mismanagement.  Taxes did not have to rise over the four per cent range that it did last year.”

So unlike some critics that claim that Vision is trying to out-NPA the NPA, this is far from a reflection of reality.  Vision has advocated for proper fiscal management for several years, and with the economic crisis that was encountered over this past year, something had to give.

Council and the new City Manager decided to look internally – workers, spending, programs – to see where we could reduce.  And, simultaneously, Council gave direction to city staff to limit the tax increase to 1.5% to 2.0% while maintaining all necessary public health & safety standards across all agencies and protecting services to vulnerable populations and funding to arts and culture.

That is what you call making “difficult choices.”

In conclusion, to Paul Faoro, who thinks his membership’s 26.7 per cent wage increase shouldn’t have been touched in addition no workers being laid off , or to Daniel Fontaine, whose selective memory about the regime he presided over in the Mayor’s office is very convenient, I say give up your mock anger.

This is a budget that is reasonable, that maintains the policy priorities of Council’s majority, and that looks to rein in irresponsible spending and services over burdening taxpayers.

No matter how much mud is thrown at the tough and resolute decisions that Council just made, it is something that will be supported by Vancouverites in the long run.

Mark my words.

Final budget protects homelessness and environment programs; restores library funding

Vancouver City Council approved the 2010 operating budget today, which protects key priority areas like homelessness and the environment, as well as ensures that library services are maintained.

Council approved the City’s Corporate Management Team recommendation that exempt staff give up 1% of their 4% salary increase slated for 2010, a move that will save the City $650,000.

“This budget protects our top priorities: homelessness, the environment, public safety, and the arts,” said Mayor Gregor Robertson. “The recommendation from the CMT for exempt staff to scale back their pay increase by 1% provides us with some more flexibility in a challenging budget to reduce the impact on staff, and recognizes the difficult financial situation we are in.”

“After hearing from the public, it is clear to me that the best use of these savings is to help our libraries cope during these challenging times. Libraries serve some of our most vulnerable populations and it is crucial that we support them. I’m very pleased that this budget will make sure we minimize the impact on library hours, and that there will be no early closure of the Riley Park branch.”

Specific adjustments to the 2010 budget included:

• • Increased funding for the retention of the Riley Park Library Branch by $153,000
  • Increased funding to VPL branches serving vulnerable populations by $192,000
  • Increased funding to the VPL Central Library to retain current operating hours by $419,0000
  • Allocation of $500,000 to fund the City’s emergency shelter program on an ongoing basis

The final budget approved includes increases to the Vancouver Public Library, Parks and Recreation, and the Vancouver Police Department. Funding for affordable housing, homelessness, environmental programs and arts and culture are all being maintained or increased.

“We started out with a $60 million shortfall, and staff have done a great job finding savings and efficiencies across every department to close that gap. We’ve been able to bring in a budget that protects key areas like homelessness and the environment, while still keeping property taxes to just 2.26%.

“This budget strikes a careful balance between managing spending and protecting city services, and reflects the priorities of people across the city.”

• Increase funding for retention of Riley Park by $153,000

• Increase funding for VPL branches serving vulnerable populations by $192,000

• Increase funding to the VPL central library to retain current operating hours $419,000

I will continue to update throughout the morning should anything else of significance arise.