City Reports Issues
Our city generates so much paperwork that most citizens never read or even hear about. This paperwork should be written in plain and clear language. Financial reporting should be straight forward so taxpayers can easily see where money is saved and spent. Of course, this is not the case and things are getting more convoluted over time. Money is taken out of this pocket and put into that pocket. Long financial terms are put into play which further confuse where money is heading.
Simple questions elude our City Administration. Questions like the obvious – “What was the final total cost for the Remai Modern?” are not answered even three years after completion of the project. Do they really not want us to know how much was spent there?
I started pulling apart the basics of the 2019 Annual Report from the City of Saskatoon. I am sure there will be spin for this or that, but in basic terms that any resident of Saskatoon should understand, take a look at these items below and you decide for yourself. Is this open and honest, or is it very misleading?
Transit
Relating to bus ridership, note the target is set by the City as 62 or better rides per capita. Even before the pandemic, notice the long-term ridership trend which never gets better than 57% of the target. While there was a slight improvement between 2018 and 2019, which is correctly shown in the year-over-year progress, it is the long-term progress which is falsely shown in my view.
As in other areas of this same report, when the target is not met, if it is close you get a “neutral” response, and obvious shortfalls are indicated with “needs improvement”. I wonder how many meetings relating to the BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) proposals reflected that ridership volumes were already on track? Truth is that they are currently pitiful according to their own benchmark.
Spending more than a hundred million dollars on a scheme to try and improve this seems like a massive stretch. My view is that obvious things need to be done first to actually improve the ridership experience for what we currently have. Show that you are coming very close to reaching these existing goals, then we can talk about spending a debt-ridden sum to refabricate a new system.
I believe that a lean predictive modelling project in collaboration with our own U of S Computer Science department could show the best improvement of service for the Saskatoon Transit Service. A low cost but high value development project which starts with our own capability and then builds on this success with our own locally based people to carry us into the future.
Fire
Let’s look at the Representative Workforce reporting for the Saskatoon Fire Services. Look at each one of their own targets and then the yearly numbers since 2016. Do you think that the “on track” is a fair representation of this or should it be similar to the “needs improvement” shown in the item above? And on that Fire Response Time item, perhaps the reason the response time is declining is that the City of Saskatoon keeps pushing outwards and increasing the distance away from resources like fire stations. Another clear consequence of short-sighted outward development courtesy of the City themselves.
I sincerely believe that Fire and Police are doing the best they can to attract diverse groups of citizens from all backgrounds. My issue is with the manner in which the City Administration feels compelled to represent this performance. This current reporting method provides a misleading talking point to say that Representative Workforce goals for the Fire Services are “on track” instead of “needs improvement”!
Police
Take a look at exactly the same types of targets and their yearly outcomes for the Saskatoon Police Service. At best you might be fair to say that the hiring of Women is close to the target so the overall indicator would read “neutral”. But with all other categories showing a sharp deficiency, the best that should be fairly represented for the entire group is “needs improvement”!
Again, the City themselves set these targets. If the City Administration won’t fairly represent the yearly status of this effort, what good is that reporting and why is it then released into the public realm if not accurate?
Attainable and Infill Housing
I have to tell you that these two performance reports upset me greatly. Our social issues in our city need strong responses. The performance targets for the Community Support and the Urban Planning and Development departments are different for the same measure. If the Number of New Attainable Housing Units is set at a target of 500 or better for the Community Support group, why is the target set at 200 for the Urban Planning and Development group? How will the Community Support group ever attain their goal if the Urban Planning and Development group fail to strive for the same target?
Instead, the Urban Planning establishment have set themselves a goal less than half of the Community Support group and then they failed to even achieve that in the last years of recording. The Community Support group feels that 145 units, where 500 is the goal, is a ‘neutral’ report card.
What world does this actually work in because it fails to meet my standard for such a documented outcome?
Every average taxpayer in this city will understand the basics of this numerical system and the long-term progress indicator. It will greatly surprise me if these same people don’t find fault with the manner in which their City is giving them feedback on year-over-year activities.