Every city is triple-A!

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 10/01/2012 (5043 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

In trying to tamp down all the hullabaloo about the city of Brandon’s proposed budget, newly hired analyst Nathan Peto presented a few graphs and charts at Monday’s city council meeting.

You can take a look at a slideshow of his numbers here.

From his numbers, we are led to conclude that Brandon’s municipal budget is decidedly middle-of-the-road, that it is eminently reasonable, and that we aren’t doing anything that should raise alarm.

Part of the city’s job is, of course, to do exactly that — to come up with the best possible use of city tax dollars, and since every other city in the world is trying to do the same thing, it’s likely that they’ll all kind of look the same.

But the other part of the city’s job is to try and convince its citizenry that we are doing better than other cities — which means different — and that just because we are different, doesn’t mean we are worse.

So, of course, when comparing Brandon to the hundreds of other cities across Canada, the city likes to pick cities that are both fair comparisons but also make us look good.

As a journalist, I’m supposed to be suspicious of information handed to me in neat little packages.

I mean, take a look at this slide that Peto presented:

What a snoozer, am I right? So all these people shouting online that wages and salaries are forcing a huge increase in the city’s budget, what are they all going on about?

Well, here’s another take on the same data — same numbers, but zoomed in on the relevant portion of the y-axis:

Look a little spikier? Look a little less like a boring old flatline? Remember, this is the same data — the same numbers — just presented in a different fashion. And, if that line happened to tick way down in the final year, I suspect the city would be highlighting the numbers this way, not the boring way.

So, after doing that, I perused the rest of Peto’s presentation, and then I did some digging of my own. After spending a few hours looking through city budgets from across the country, I was reminded why I like to work with words and not numbers, but I also found some interesting things.

First of all, every city is in the same situation that Brandon is in — trying to sell a budget to taxpayers. They obsess over tax rates, population growth and staff salaries, and cross-compare them as much as they can to other cities.

But, it doesn’t matter whether cities end up paying more, paying less, or paying about the same amount to their staff. They’ve come up with what I’m christening the Triple-A Approach. Cities are all presenting themselves as one of the following:

• Average – "Nothing to see here, move along," is the mantra in these cities, which take pride in not poking their heads up anywhere that other cities haven’t.
• Affordable – Also known as "below average", these cities like to portray themselves as places that are more financially prudent than cities that spend more.
• Aspirational – These cities proudly proclaim that their higher-than-average costs are valuable selling points, bringing the best and brightest to settle in and stay.

There’s nothing wrong with any of these labels, of course — I just find it amusing that no matter where a city’s budget falls among its peers, it can portray itself as doing better than anyone else. It’s like if you came in last in a race, but you awarded yourself first place for sightseeing.

Now, let’s talk more about those peer cities we get compared to.

Depending on which numbers Peto’s presentation focused on, he compared Brandon to a slightly different group of cities. He compared us to places like Medicine Hat, Moose Jaw and Red Deer, but he also threw in places like Calgary, Winnipeg and Regina.

I can’t say for sure why those cities were picked, but some of them have populations that are reasonably similar to Brandon’s, with reasonably similar trading areas, and they are places that you could say we "compete" with to both attract citizens and employees.

Here’s a look at the populations of the cities that Brandon is compared to by the city:

The inclusion of Winnipeg and Calgary really throws the scale for a loop, so here’s another look at the chart with those two cities removed:

Again, Brandon looks pretty average here. There are comparisons to cities that are a little bigger, and a little smaller, and even the cities that are a lot bigger are, I think, valid comparisons because they’re near to us.

But they aren’t the only other cities in Canada. In fact, Brandon is only compared to other prairie cities. Couldn’t we learn from cities in other areas of the country?

So I did my own comparisons. And I looked a little further afield, Here’s a look at the populations of the cities I picked (Grand Prairie, Alta.; Lethbridge, Alta.; Vernon, BC; Kelowna, BC; Mission, BC; Kamloops, BC; Fredricton, NB; Moncton, NB; Cornwall, Ont.; North Bay, Ont.).

Once again, I’ve picked cities that are either a little bigger or a little smaller than Brandon, but I’ve gone to both coasts and into Ontario, too.

Picking which cities to compare yourself to is important. I’m not claiming that the cities I picked are better — they’re just different. I think they’re equally comparable to Brandon as the cities that were in Peto’s presentation, and they were the ones that I had the easiest time finding budget numbers for.

The item I really focused on was the size of the budget, and the amount of the budget that goes to wages. That was a lot easier than tracking down individual salary ranges for specific city employees, especially where the job titles and responsibilies can vary wildly.

So, as a refresher, this is how Brandon came off, when compared to other cities in the presentation that city council saw Monday night:

Once again, Brandon comes off as decidedly middle-of-the-pack. Not at the bottom end, although kind of close. And reassuringly nowhere near the high end. I almost feel like slapping Prince Albert on the wrist, from this graph — you profligates!

But see what you think when you compare Brandon to a few other cities across Canada:

Hey, wait a minute, Brandon — what are you doing, leading the pack? The difference isn’t necessarily Brandon, it’s who you’re choosing as a pack. Do you want to lose in a race with fast competitors, or win in a race against slowpokes?

You’ll notice, however, that my number for Brandon is higher than the city’s number. What gives?

Well, simply put, I don’t know where the city got its 50.7 per cent figure, but I got mine from this city presentation, from Dec. 19. I didn’t think any changes had been made since then, but it doesn’t really alter the fact that, based on a different basket of cities, Brandon’s salary costs are on the high end, not the average end.

(Caveat: the numbers for the other cities I’ve cited come from a variety of financial statements posted on those cities’ websites. Kudos to Vernon for pulling comparison data from elsewhere in BC for me. The budgets aren’t all from the same year; they range from 2009-11.)

Now, my graphs and numbers and such aren’t a criticism, necessarily, of the city’s budget. I don’t mind the tax hike, personally. Although I do hate that the new council, elected to throw out those waffling bums, isn’t willing to take a stand on it — this is turning into the firehall of budgets.

Rather, I’m always interested in more information, not less. And, like I said, I’m suspicious of neat and tidy little packages.

Also, I wish the city would sell itself as "Aspirational" — a destination that people would choose to live in for the quality of life, not for the low, low prices.

But the only way to do that is to invest in the future, and wait for that to pay dividends. Unfortunately, it feels like a vocal minority of citizens put "investing" squarely on the "expenses" side of the ledger.

To our community’s detriment, I believe.