Sudbury 'slush fund' critics want to take a tip from Hamilton on spending
City council hears some want the Healthy Community Initiative funds turned over to voters
People in Sudbury are calling on the city to turn over control of the controversial Healthy Community Initiative (HCI) funds — often called "slush funds" — to taxpayer hands.
In a process called "participatory budgeting", citizens would vote on what to do with the $600,000 allotted to the funds controlled by the city's 12 ward councillors.
Currently, each councillor has discretion to use $50,000 in their wards, following certain rules, which were tightened up in 2012.
But critics have slammed the program, arguing that the money might be unfairly used to curry favour with certain voters, or be otherwise misspent.
One idea involves turning the ward funds over to city staff. But some people are looking to cities like Hamilton for ideas — and some of Hamilton's wards are experimenting with participatory budgeting.
Former Sudbury journalist Sébastien Perth pitched participatory budgeting to Sudbury city council at a public meeting this week.
"This is where we can help take the load off, and allow citizens to have input into how the money is used ... This is bringing democracy to a street level," he said.
Apples to apples?
Hamilton is much bigger than Greater Sudbury with well over double the population. But, it's similar in that it's an amalgamated census metropolitan area that now includes formerly outlying suburban and rural communities.
Like Greater Sudbury, residents of Hamilton's core pay a higher tax rate than outlying areas. To make up for the disparity in tax spending, the urban wards receive $1.6 million to spend on community improvements.
Hamilton's councillors then draw up a list of projects to potentially pay for with that money. That discussion generally happens in consultation with city staff, and then it's voted on by the rest of council.
But, in a couple of Hamilton wards, councillors have decided to let citizens vote on where that money should go.
'People are competent'
"It's very difficult for elected officials and city staff, who, for many years, have been the ones in power to make the tough decisions, and who have experience ... to surrender, " he said.
"People are competent to govern themselves when supported ... If people in your community are saying they want more direct control over their tax money, how can you say no?"
Kearney said $1 million was put into the hands of people in downtown Hamilton. Each of the six neighbourhood associations elected delegates, who in turn selected 21 projects to put on the ballot. Then, some 40,000 residents were allowed to vote —including people over the age 14 and non-citizens. The next year, people who worked downtown got to have a vote, too.
Kearney said only about a thousand people cast a ballot in that vote. But, those who did vote chose park improvements like upgraded play structures and solar-powered compacting garbage cans.
Build community, not infrastructure
In the second year of the participatory budgeting experiment, the City of Hamilton made the process about infrastructure projects exclusively. Voter turnout dropped to about 500, and Kearney said he thinks the focus on sewers, sidewalks and roads was part of the reason for that.
"Asking people to determine people which roads should be repaired can actually be counter-productive, because we all have those types of fundamental needs, " he said.
"If now we're going to compete around them, we might actually be destroying community rather than building it. It might be better to leave those sorts of decisions to staff who can draw up a long-term plan that's fair and balanced."
Some of Hamilton's councillors point to some wrinkles in participatory budgeting — and question whether results should be considered binding or just public consultation.
Jason Farr said he thinks if the process focuses on small, local projects rather than infrastructure funding, more people might become involved.
Back in Greater Sudbury, a report on the ward funds funds is expected to be debated by city council in the coming weeks, and this year's dollars are frozen until council sets a new policy.