Are council debates irrelevant?

As I won’t be home this evening, I’m posting this blog for your reading pleasure.   Have a great weekend!

___________________________________________________

If you have ever had the impression that a city council “debate” was a finely scripted showpiece more appropriate for television than the forum of democratic process - Gord Henderson’s column today basically reaffirms my long held suspicion:

Lost amid all the hubbub over Transit Windsor’s acquisition of 18 hybrid buses, to be formally approved by council today, was the real news, the city’s intention to turn public transit inside out over the next year to make it user friendly and put more bums in seats.

To be “formally approved by council today?”  When was it “informally approved” and by whom?  Who is responsible, if what he writes is correct,  for usurping council authority?

Is the Windsor Star columnist trying to tell us that the hybrid deal was already done before the hastily called council meeting scheduled conveniently today at 11 a.m. that very few people could attend? 

If so, what is the point anymore of anyone attending a city council meeting (trust me chewing tinfoil laced with glass shards is sometimes more enjoyable)

Contrary to what Mr. Henderson states, the undertaking of an extensive study of Transit Windsor routes and efficiency was not lost on this blogger or by many of the commentators - and I will agree is long over-due. 

However, what is perplexing is why this study comes after the approval of an $11-million expenditure to simply replace buses rather than determining first the transit needs and whether or not routes should be added or expanded? 

Let’s face it - I can cycle to the University of Windsor faster during peaks times from my home 5 KM away than it takes waiting for and riding Transit Windsor.    And frankly it is far more enjoyable than having to deal with the surly 8:10 a.m. driver on the Crosstown 2 or snot-nosed punks who are incapable of carrying on a conversation without every other word starting in “F” and ending in “G”. 

A quiet cozy ride will not fix this.

In comparison to Ottawa, where you can wait 3 minutes for the next bus and speed down a bus-only transitway making it to the suburbs in under 30 minutes, council would be better off purchasing a herd of turtles before purchasing hybrid buses without conducting a needs assessment first.

What is really most disconcerting is the admission by Transit Chair, Councillor Postma that she does not take Transit Windsor because it is “too time-consuming now.”    If the Transit Chair is unwilling to ride the bus, asking residents to do so is a much harder sell I would think. 

Now I have been following council quite closely at least in the last three years and don’t recall ever hearing the Transit Chair, or any Transit Chair stating this.    As well, Councillor Postma promised seniors at the Seniors Centre debate in October 2006 that she would seriously look into free transit for seniors.

What has our Transit Chair been doing the last few years?  Heck, she praised the Mayor for his “leadership” on this issue - leadership that should have been coming from our Transit Chair.

The major problem I have with the Hybrid bus purchase is two-fold.  The first is the Ontario Bus Replacement Program - a program which can only be used to replace outdated buses, but does not allow for expansion of routes or provide sustainable funding to pay the wages increased route coverage would require.  Increasing ridership would go a long way to improving the bottom line of Transit Windsor.

However, the other major problem is that council in their wisdom has already decided to simply replace buses which will do nothing to attract more riders or increase efficiencies or provide racial sensitivity training to a few rude and ignorant bus drivers.

As I wrote a few days ago, a study should have come first.  But clearly that was in vain since it appears, if Henderson is correct, the issue has already been decided.

But that would make the most sense. 

Purchase a few hybrids as well as additional clean diesel engines to expand some routes or increase capacity of overburdened routes (particularly the Crosstown 2 at peak times) and conduct the necessary transit study.  Council would have a better idea of the long term needs and be better able to assess the requirements and/or issues a hybrid fleet may bring.

However, this cart before the horse mentality is more about optics than presenting a “green” solution.

Does this remind you of anything?

I can’t resist posting this Youtube video a reader sent - it’s absolutely halarious, but so true.  The reader stated it was like a city council meeting - enjoy.  :)

Whining and naysaying at the Star, The Mayor’s Invitation, the Development Commission Plan

Whining and naysaying at the Star

Do my eyes doth deceive me?

Oh my - what would Gord Henderson say if a blogger wrote the following:

Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis and council seem to care more about what strangers and tourists think about this city than you or your family do. They have earmarked significant resources to beautifying streets leading into town while leaving core neighbourhoods — those places where people live rather than drive through — blighted with weeds and garbage.

Ouch - not even some of us alleged ”myopic” “whining” “naysayers” would even say that.   But the Windsor Star Editorial Board did - are the winds of change a blowin’ or is it more of the same, only in disguise? 

Will Councillor Brister lash out at the Windsor Star and say, “There are people in this community who are always going to attempt to knock down anything positive the City of Windsor does. But you just have to go back and connect the dots. In most cases it can be tied to a personal agenda?” 

Or will he cancel his subscription to the paper with a terse email that reads, “Remove my name from your mailing list and find a charity to which you might devote your time.”

Naw - he saves those choice words for the people that actually employ him - the residents of Windsor.

All kidding aside I actually whole-heartedly agree with the first paragraph of today’s editorial.  Afterall on June 29, 2008, I wrote a blog along a similar vein and created a videoof the state of some of the neighbourhoods in our fair city concluding it with “Dougall Avenue is important, but so are our neighbourhoods.”

And today’s editorial highlights exactly, in part, what I have been attempting to get through to our Mayor and council - in particular with the blog “From False Hope to Empowerment.”  It is about concrete action over “optics” and “spin” and finally, “leadership.”

It is ironic really.  Perhaps the Ambassador Bridge Company should buy up every vacant home in the city - then Councillors Postma and Jones are almost guaranteed to jump into action to ensure property standards are met.

Over the last two years we’ve heard build an arena in haste!  Build a peace beacon!  Plants trees and flowers!   And while arguably important for some, they should not supersede the basic needs of those who pay some of the highest taxes in Province - the residents.

The tens of millions of dollars collectively used on these projects, not forgetting to mention the $900,000 extra a year in maintaining those same flowers and tress,  are tens of millions of dollars that are not used on core municipal functions - cleaning our streets; rehabilitating our roads and sewers; enforcing municipal bylaws; investing in our existing parks and bicycle paths; ensuring our libraries are better able to combat illiteracy to name but a few.   It’s about priorities - and as the saying goes, the chickens are coming home to roost.

But within every problem lies an opportunity.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m not letting the City of Windsor off that easily - the annual naturalization project beginning in May of every year, otherwise known as weeds and tall grass overtaking our city parks - is a shining example of priorities literally gone wild.

However, the problem of unkempt properties would be a perfect issue for neighbourhood councils to deal with.  Bound by city bylaws, neighbourhood councils could be granted authority to give notice to home or landowners to clean up their properties.  Failing that, neighbourhood councils could also have the property cleaned up and have the authority to bill the owner.  This could free up resources at the municipal level to focus on enforcing other bylaws or give back some money to residents through tax savings.

Nothing builds community pride better than empowering residents to take control (within reason).

In reading the Star’s editorial, however, I do wonder where they have been.  It was this particular sentence that caused me to laugh out loud:

The issue comes down to priorities. Francis and council have earmarked about $1 million for improvements to “gateway roads” like Dougall and Howard avenues so that people breezing into town get a good first impression. While this is a worthy initiative, it should not be an either/or scenario. If anything, more resources should be devoted to making neighbourhoods more livable and inviting for taxpaying residents.

Priorities?  As stated above, money used for one project is money not available for another.  A certain city treasurer warned council of this in October 2006 when council was deciding whether or not to construct the new community centre, three ice-pad, main-bowl spectator arena at taxpayer expense:

“The $74.9 million of available funds will be adequate to accommodate any scenario, although the more funds that are used for the Arena, the fewer funds remain for other community initiatives.”

Now the cynical side of me is wondering if the Star Editorial Board wrote such a critical opening paragraph because there is some plan in the works that they have been made aware of by the Mayor.    It’s an age old tactic - criticize and then heap praises (another form of political “optics”).  I’m sure the Editorial Board reads the comments in the Windsor Star forum as well as on the blogs critical of the Star coverage.

Mayor Francis gave us this hint in a recent Gord Henderson column praising the $1-million investment in “greening” our city:

Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis said these moves, along with an ongoing airport terminal overhaul, are the first steps in a process designed to alter the way outsiders view the city and address the city’s sometimes debilitating inferiority complex.

Or could it be a slow lead up to justify a potential substantial property tax increase in 2009 as property assessments are re-evaluated down (at least in Windsor) when MPAC adjusts assessments from 2005 to 2008 levels?  Lower assessments equals lower tax revenues for the city.  Couple that with a shrinking tax base and we could be in for quite the shock.  Because, yes dear reader, you demanded it in the Community Strategic planning sessions and the hundreds of complaints flooding 311.

After-all, the editorial stated, “…more resources should be devoted to making neighbourhoods more livable and inviting for taxpaying residents.”

Resources from where exactly?  Depending upon which side of the fence you sit, council either “squandered” or “invested” $65-million (and rising) big ones despite warnings from our Chief Financial Officer.  $65-million big ones that won’t be paid off until after 2010.  If it’s not an either/or scenario, could the Editorial Board be attempting to loosen our grip on our wallets in upcoming budget deliberations?

My overall gut reaction to the Star Editorial was along the lines of a sudden behavioural change in an otherwise unruly child  - what are they up to or what do they want?

Sometimes I wish my gut would take a walk.

Speaking of false hope and empowerment…

Whatever happened to that “discussion” Mayor Francis promised back in November 2007  (Full transcript here) when he said he would be:

“…issuing letters of invitation to individuals from across our community calling on people and individuals from different organizations from the Chamber of Commerce, to the labour and union movement, looking for people of different positions in this community to come together to have a discussion in terms of how the City of Windsor can work together in one direction.”

I know Canada Post can be slow at times, but have those invitations even made it out the doors of the Mayor’s office?

Development Commission to unveil plan

I’m told that the Development Commission, sans a CEO, is set to unveil their newest economic development strategy - but not quite yet for reasons unstated.

Honestly, that’s all I was told.  But if it has to do with economic gardening or gazelles, former CEO Matthew Fischer might have a small problem with that.  After all, one of the reasons we were told his contract was terminated was because:

“Our board took all the advice and experience that he had, and tried to use that to its maximum potential,” said Dr. Albert Schumacher. “We’re ready for other ideas and ready to move in different directions.”

Because the commission has been working on “several” initiatives since May including, “identifying research and development opportunities locally.”

However, if it involves barn-yard animals or references to agriculture I’m running for the hills…

City of Windsor Hybrid Bus Report

After last evening’s council meeting, I requested administration’s report on the topic and was little surprised to receive it today.

The full report can be found here.

First and foremost, the decision to implement the hybrid technology appears to be based upon a subsidy provided by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation of 33% of the cost of the first 9 buses - some $1.8 million.  This is in addition to the gas tax revenue the city receives, some $3.7 million this year, which must be split 50/50 between operational and capital costs; and the one-time grant of $2.3 million to the city (March 1, 2008, Windsor Star) that, “must be spent on the transit system for something beyond the current spending, such as expanded routes.”   This is a total of $7.8 million for 2008. 

But I wonder - would these hybrid buses be eligible to use this $2.3 million grant since hybrid buses were not part of the 2008 budget?

The report highlights the City of Ottawa’s feasibility study as well as the experience of Seattle, Washington, Toronto, Ontario, New York City and Kelowna B.C..

One criticism of the report is that adminstrators fail to inform councillors as to whether or not the comparisons used with other cities were apples to apples. 

By this I mean, in comparing the effectiveness of hybrid-electric buses in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to diesel engines, were they comparing fleets that used ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel or simply, “standard diesel engines” as the report indicates?  New Flyer does not indicate this either in their brochure.  How much have emissions been reduced utilizing ultra-low sulphur diesel in conjunction with catalytic converters?  How many buses of the existing fleet utilize these components?

Transit Windsor acknowledges that hybrid-electric buses are most effective on “stop and go congested” routes.  They claim that Windsor is a “moderate” stop and go environment.  How they came to this conclusion is not clear as documentation was not provided nor cited; nor have any trials been conducted utilizing the hybrid technology in Windsor as other cities have done.

However, perhaps the most concerning aspect of the report were the financial projections - and it is well and good the Councillor Dilkens attempted to defer debate on the issue because councillors should be made aware of what possible financial implications may be down the road to Windsor’s budget.

First is the lifespan of the battery used to power the bus - it is six to eight years - at a replacement cost of $25,000 per battery.  Worst case scenario is that the battery would have to be replaced 3 times in the stated 18 year life-span of the bus for a total additional cost of $75,000.  For 18 buses that would be $1.35 million over 18 years.

With regards to the life-span of the bus, media reports from Chicago, who have been using New Flyer buses and has 150 on order, suggest:

Furthermore, because the newer buses are 20% more fuel efficient than the buses they are replacing, the total savings to the CTA over the anticipated 12-year life span of the buses is nearly $80 million.

This coincides with the statement made by Daimler Buses CCO to USA Today that, “While better mileage saves money over the 12 years that a bus is intended to last, it doesn’t make up the cost of buying the more-expensive hybrids.”

The report warns that, “the potential for higher costs for repair components has not been quantified as yet, since the technology is evolving.  All reports we have reviewed to date have been positive and suggest overall savings.”

If the City of Windsor intends on keeping these buses in operation 6 years beyond their life-span - how much additional maintenance or replacement of the fleet would be required?  How long is the warranty for these new buses?  The report does not address this.

Also of interest was this little statement, which could explain the sudden urgency to Councillor Postma’s Notice of Motion:

At the last moment, the MTO significantly altered the program and increased the subsidy to 33.3% while spreading out the payment to the largest nine transit systems over 18 years.  Transit Windsor’s allocation was $1,828,690 payable in the year of intended delivery.

When did the last moment occur?  It is interesting to note that municipalities were advised in February 2008 that there was a surplus of funds under the Ontario Bus Replacement Program initiated in 2007.

But it appears municipalities were informed of the changes to funding for 2008 at the earliest in May.

Ottawa Mayor Larry O’Brien announced the funding levels on his blog with a press release from the province on May 21, 2008.

Sudbury media reported the 33% cost-sharing on June 13, 2008 announcing the purchase of 5 new buses:

The investment comes from the Ontario Bus Replacement Fund. In 2008, Ontario is investing $50 million in 47 municipal transit systems, providing up to one-third the cost of bus purchases, said Bartolucci.

The question then is, why did the Transit Windsor board wait so long to make this decision in a hastily called 2 minute meeting on July 17, 2008? 

There are many variables that could affect the outcome that would determine whether or not these will achieve a cost savings over the long-term.  The questions would be more easily answered had city council approved a pilot study two years ago, but that hasn’t happened.

In short the benefits:

1. Reduced emissions (though I question the amount based upon the above as well as the even stronger diesel emissions standards)
2. 33% subsidy towards the purchase price
3. Fuel cost savings

The Unknowns:

1. Actual life-span of the bus and terms/length of the warranty
2. Unforeseen mechanical issues and/or costs because of the relatively new technology

Do the savings outweigh the costs?

Councillors would need to determine the life-span of the vehicle since it does not appear it is 18 years - that is a significant amount of potential savings lost should there be problems after 12 years.  Maintenance data is not available for that time period as these buses have not been in long-term operation anywhere.

When it comes to emissions, as I’ve indicated, there are more affordable methods available as well as the benefits received from the mandated ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel already in effect across North America for on-road vehicles.

The New York experience (although dated 2002 under Orion, a different manufacturer) indicates in pilot studies that maintenance costs were 150% higher with hybrids than regular diesel.  Not directly applicable, but a cause for some concern as with any new technology. 

During a two-year study of New Flyers in Seattle, it was concluded that, in conjunction with fuel savings, total operating costs for the hybrid were $1.09 per mile versus $1.25 per mile with diesel for a total savings of $0.16 cents per mile.  However, there is no mention of the impact of capital costs.

Ottawa hybrid feasiblity study; No business case for tunnel and Sarnia Mayor meets with Tory

Update:  Councillor Percy Hatfield claims that Windsor is “leading the way” with the request to purchase hybrid buses and cited an email he received from an Ottawa high school student who hopes Ottawa will follow Windsor’s steps.

Except it is obvious that Councillor Hatfield doesn’t do his homework before speaking on an issue.

According to this press release dated January 3, 2008, the City of Ottawa ordered 202 diesel hybrid buses following an extensive four phase feasibility study (discussed below):

OC Transpo-which provides public transit services in the city of Ottawa, Canada -has ordered 202 buses to be delivered by 2009. The delivery will make OC Transpo the third-largest hybrid bus fleet in Canada, Daimler reported.

Interesting, I emailed councillor Hatfield questions regarding the hybrid buses, but he opts to discuss an email from a non-resident of Windsor.

 Councillor Drew Dilkens asked for deferral of the notice of motion because councillors only received the 10 page report today (which I still can’t find on the city website, unlike the City of Ottawa) which a majority of councillors defeated - so much for having all the information in order to make wise decisions.

Then, Mayor Francis was informed that indeed, council did not receive the report which violated the procedural bylaw’s requirements for Notice of Motion.  Council then passed the request for deferral.

Ottawa conducts hybrid feasibility study

As I wrote yesterday, I found it interesting to say the least, that Transit Windsor will conduct a study of routes and efficiency after the potential purchase of 18 hybrid buses.

So I was curious as to what other municipalities have done before considering such an investment.

The City of Ottawa took 3 years to study the issue:

As part of the City’s Fleet Emission Reduction Strategy approved by Council in 2002, a four-phase program to acquire diesel-electric technology was recommended as the next significant step towards a zero-emission fleet.  Phase 1 of the Hybrid Bus Implementation project (the Hybrid Bus Feasibility Study)  has now been completed. 

The city was hoping to receive a provincial subsidy for the purchase:

Under the existing Ontario Transit Vehicle Program, two thirds of the incremental cost of hybrid buses is eligible for provincial subsidy.  This provincial funding has been announced annually since it was initiated in 2002.  This funding, if continued at present level, would amount to $2.7 million, leaving an unfunded residual of $1.8 million in 2006; and in subsequent years, residuals of $2.1 million in 2007 and $1.6 million in 2008.

As well, route analysis was conducted before authorization given to purchase the buses:

Route testing showed that the bus industry common Central Business District (CBD) drive-cycle (maximum speed of 32 km/h, 14 stops in 10 minutes) closely approximates inter city, stop-and-go routes in Ottawa. 

The report also found that:

Neither of the hybrid systems evaluated in this study provided significant fuel savings on low-stop frequency and high-speed routes, such as test routes #95, 96 or rural express route 232…

…Both systems will achieve fuel economy improvements estimated at between 17% to 26%, if deployed in high-stop frequency and low-speed routes, such as routes 1, 2, 7, 14, 85 and peak service routes.  Comparable percentage reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will be achieved on these same kinds of routes.  

In looking over the City of Windsor website, I could find no such analysis of our own city routes nor any feasibility study, or references to applications for provincial and/or federal subsidies.

Tonight’s council meeting ought to be quite revealing as to what information is shared - particularly the sudden appearance of over $1-million in additional funds for the purchase in 2008.

What study has been conducted to determine which routes could achieve the maximum efficiencies that could be achieved with a hybrid system?  Which routes do not?

No business case for tunnel:  Residents could be liable

I missed this little piece on A-Channel News regarding the Tunnel Deal.  Despite being consumed with the tunnel negotiations in Detroit, Mayor Francis appeared to be quite uninformed as to what is transpiring regarding the negotiations.

WeACT has filed a Freedom of Information requesting all records of communication between Detroit and Windsor; consultants and lawyers; as well as the Province of Ontario.

However, what was revealed was a draft letter of intent received by the City of Windsor on July 17, 2008, that was sent to Mayor Francis from Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.

According to Darryl Newcombe - tunnel tolls could be increased to guarantee the loan from Ontario.

Interesting - were there problems with the loan?  Was the business case not sound?  Did the Province of Ontario reject Windsor’s application?  Because Mayor Kilpatrick’s statement was very curious indeed:

Tunnel tolls shall be maintained or increased…as may be required to obtain financing from Ontario.

But most importantly was this alarming statement absolving Detroit of any financial liability for the loan:

Detroit shall have no liability to Windsor or the Windsor/Detroit Tunnel Corporation with respect to the loan or the Detroit tunnel.

Interesting.  So what happens to the ownership of the tunnel if the border authority defaults on the payment?  Does Windsor take full control/ownership or does the Province of Ontario? 

Almost as if in response to my question (which I also sent to some Detroit City Councillors)  I posed on this blog, the Detroit Mayor refuses to pay any interest exceeding 5.05%.

That is very interesting considering that for a 40 year loan from Infrastructure Ontario, the lending rate is 5.72%  I wonder how the Province of Ontario would feel about that?

The Mayor did respond to the letter, however:

We will not recommend a deal to the City of Windsor unless there is a solid business case for it and unless it meets and protects the objectives that we set out from day one.  Those have been our guiding principles and that’s what guides us through these discussions and will continue to guide us through these discussions.

I do have a question arising from the Mayor’s statement, “We will not recommend a deal with the City of Windsor unless there is a solid business case for it.” 

Does this mean that the Mayor is claiming, even though we’ve spent over $1.2 million on negotiating a deal, that there is NO business case?  Is the Mayor suggesting that an application for a $75-million Infrastructure Loan to the Province has no business case justifying the loan request?

Recall, the Mayor stated on May 22, 2008:

Francis also is unsure as to the status of negotiations, stating that they have been on again, off again, on again.

But both Sutts and Francis cautioned Wednesday no definitive conclusions should be made until negotiations with Detroit are complete and terms of the provincial loan are clearly defined.

“I don’t think Windsor city council will do anything that’s reckless in that respect,” Sutts said.

“It’s my intention to keep them fully informed every step of the way, (that) there are no traps or risks they will assume unless they are fully aware and then are assumed.”

One further question regarding these mysterious negotiations is that if Detroit is not liable; and the Mayor has inferred that the City of Windsor is not liable, who is liable for the loan should there be a default - considering that there seems to be no business plan justifying the deal.

And finally, who assumes control of the tunnel asset should there be a default on the payments?

Sarnia Mayor meets with John Tory

According to the Sarnia Observer:

Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley supports the Progressive Conservative Party’s call on the province to convene an economic summit to address Ontario’s slumping economy — a call Bradley himself made in the beginning of June.

“Given the present economic difficulties Ontario is in . . . we need to start planning before we slide any further,” he said.

Recall, on July 11, 2008, Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis cancelled the meeting, apparently at the last minute, to meet with Ontario Progressive Conservative leader, John Tory.

He was scheduled to meet with Mayor Eddie Francis, but the meeting was called off because the mayor informed Tory he was too busy dealing with the tunnel deal situation with Detroit.

“He seems fully consumed with the tunnel matter which I guess has taken a turn,” Tory said. “I understand. We had a good chat on the phone.”

The Sarnia Mayor did warn that the summit would only be successful if it had a nonpartisan approach.  “This should not be to score political points,” he said. “. . . It’s an excellent chance to engage the province, not just Queen’s Park, but the industries, the First Nations and the farmers in finding a solution.”

Funny how the Tunnel deal, in which there is a lead negotiator, supercedes the importance of finding solutions to deal with rising unemployment in Windsor.

Questions of the hybrid kind

“While better mileage saves money over the 12 years that a bus is intended to last, it doesn’t make up the cost of buying the more-expensive hybrids, said Patrick Scully, Daimler Buses chief commercial officer.”

Patrick Scully, Daimler Buses, CCO to USA Today, Jan 1, 2008

“Webster said the TTC had to go with the more expensive hybrid buses, due to the fact that vehicles that use alternative fuels attract millions in federal and provincial grants to subsidize the bus purchases.”

Mississauga News, March 15, 2008

__________________________________________________________

The City’s efforts to go “green” are commendable and Transit Windsor officials must be acknowledged for their desire to do so.  So too must the provincial government - notably absent in the Mayor’s comments -  who announced a total of $3.7 million for the city of Windsor in November 2007 from the gas tax to go towards both operations and capital expenditures for Transit Windsor.

However, more information is required and hopefully a few of our councillors will undertake due diligence before committing over $11-million for 18 diesel-hybrid buses announced on Friday which Transit Chair Councillor Postma hopes to have on the road by 2009.

Mayor Francis “seriously” began thinking about hybrid buses on a recent trip to Chicago.  Now I am really concerned for our Mayor’s advancing Memoriae amissio and there doesn’t appear to be a cure for his affliction. 

According to Friday’s Star:

Francis said he began seriously thinking about hybrid buses while attending a mayors’ conference in Chicago in April, where the issue of rising fuel costs came up repeatedly.

However, the Mayor didn’t have to travel to Chicago for this.  According to a document on the City’s website entitled, “Transit Ridership Growth and Asset Management Plan“  on page 28, transit officials were seriously considering hybrid buses in 2006:

Subject to operational experience with and the availability of supplementary funding from the federal and provincial governments, hybrid drive technology could be considered for vehicle purchases beginning in 2008.

But I won’t quibble - Memoriae amissio is a serious affliction.

Each hybrid bus is $180,000 more than the clean diesel technology.  Clean diesel technology allows diesel engines to take advantage of the new cleaner diesel mandated by the EPA and Environment Canada.  This is important - more on that later.

Therefore, if 18 buses save $180,000 annually in fuel costs, over the 12 year life of the bus, this purchase will save approximately $2.1 million in fuel.  Not even close to eliminating the projected $1-million per year shortfall. 

Then the argument becomes reducing emissions.  According to the Mayor:

Francis said reducing greenhouse gas emissions can make riders feel better about being on the bus and the hybrids also ride smoother, with gradual acceleration and require less maintenance. They also produce much less noise.

The Star article states:

Cities that use hybrid buses report a 40 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions while other harmful emissions are reduced between 40 and 60 per cent compared to diesel.

However, based upon some research I’ve done, I hope that some councillors will ask for a detailed explanation from administration.  While it is true other cities are switching over to hybrid buses - Hamilton, Ottawa and Toronto have made the switch, what I do not understand is why they are not utilizing existing technology that can more efficiently achieve the same result.

According to The Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering, in a study they concluded in 2005:

Results of the 18-month testing showed that the hybrid buses demonstrated an improvement in fuel economy, compared to the base clean-diesel buses. Averaged over the entire test program, the improvement was about 10%.

Emissions for both the hybrid bus and the compared clean diesel bus were found to about the same; both significantly cleaner than average emissions from older buses in the CTTRANSIT fleet.

 And more importantly - there was no statistical difference between the use of hybrid buses and clean diesel buses using particulate filters:

These results show that the low PM emissions, often considered an advantage of hybrid buses, are attributed entirely to the use of particulate filters, rather than the hybrid powertrain itself. Today, most hybrid diesel-electric buses sold in North America are equipped with DPFs, while most conventional diesel buses are not. All new diesel bus engines in the USA and Canada are expected to be fitted with DPFs from 2007.

The City of Edmonton did just that in 2003 and hoped to see a reduction in particulate emissions, carbon monoxide and and total hydrocarbons up to 90%.  The Region of Waterloo purchased regenerating particulate filters for a cost of $10-12,000 per retrofitted bus.

To outfit Transit Windsor’s entire fleet with particulate filters would cost only $1.2-million.

The answer to the question of realising a 10% reduction in fuel use rests solely on whether or not there is enough stop and go traffic on Windsor bus routes to regenerate the battery hybrids use.  If there is not - no regeneration takes place and the hybrid becomes a regular clean diesel engine.

Toronto Transit Commission, earlier this year was “dissatisfied” with the fuel savings so far:

The TTC says some of New York’s buses save up to 30 per cent on fuel because the hybrid technology is more efficient on congested stop-and-go downtown routes, where the hybrid relies more on its electric motor and the braking system that recharges its batteries.

On more suburban, high-speed routes, where hybrids predominantly use their conventional diesel engines, New York has reported 10-20 per cent fuel savings.

Now one would think a study would be conducted on our transit routes and the amount of stop and go traffic that exists.  Not so - that comes later:

Transit Windsor will also embark on a review of its routes and trip frequency, the first major overhaul since 1977.

So Councillor Postma will be asking her colleagues on Monday to support her motion of purchasing 18 hybrid buses without, as Ken Lewenza Jr. would say, “having all the information in front of us to make wiser decisions.”

I’m all for saving money - if it does that.  Having hybrid buses on some of our transit routes may make sense, such as on the 1A, 1C and Crosstown 2 where there is, especially at peak times, a lot of stop and go traffic.   But if Toronto can only realise a 10% fuel savings - how realistic is it for Windsor to expect the same?

An extensive overhaul of our existing routes to increase ridership and the continued use of clean diesel engines fit with particulate filters as well as examining over-time costs, if any, of Transit Windsor may make better sense to save money and protect the environment.

Because based upon the information I have read, it would make much more sense to use hybrid technology on our garbage and recycling trucks first and invest in particulate filters for our entire transit system. 

$11-million is a big investment.  Let’s make sure we investigate all the options to ensure we are really making a wise one given the information provided above.

What would fDi magazine say?

Of course I cannot speak for the UK Magazine, which ranked Windsor as the number one leading small city of the future in North America last year, but the entire border debacle orchestrated by our municipal politicians does raise this question.

fDi gave special consideration to Windsor in their analysis:

Windsor, in the Canadian province of Ontario, ranks as North America’s leading small City of the Future, scoring well for business-friendly policies and a strong development programme that includes several large-scale projects involving public and private investment. The 2013 date given for completion of a proposed $1bn international border crossing between Windsor and the US city of Detroit, Michigan, would further brighten Windsor’s economic outlook.

Our council’s stance regarding the DRIC’s proposed parkway which includes threats of lawsuits that could derail the process and the complete dismissal of an existing private investor willing to construct a new facility that would pump hundreds of millions of dollars into our local economy stand in stark contrast to what fDi Magazine recognized Windsor for.

But that aside, what would fDi say if they read the headlines in the Detroit media in the last few days regarding the tunnel fiasco?  Especially today’s Click on Detroit lunch-time headline: 

Council May Vote To Rescind Windsor-Tunnel Sale:  Windsor Witholds Financial Info. From Detroit

…Windsor’s government has refused to give Detroit the financial details of the deal, and now some Detroit City Council members said they won’t approve the deal without that information.

I wonder if lead negotiator Cliff Sutts received the Mayoral lecture from on high as did some our downtown merchants who dared speak about their struggles to Detroit media earlier this year?

What message would Sheila Cockrel, Detroit City Councillor, take around the world about Windsor when she said in yesterday’s Detroit Free Press:

But Councilwoman Sheila Cockrel said Windsor’s lead negotiator, Clifford Sutts, told her staff the Detroit council would not receive financing details until after it approves transferring ownership of the tunnel to the authority. Cockrel has said she must have the information for her to support the deal.

More importantly, what kind of message does the headline send to the world, particularly when Mayor Francis, before heading off to Toronto to help launch campaign W.E. Can, said:

“Today is the day that all changes,” said Francis. “By telling our story, we will position ourselves to attract investment and jobs to move this region forward.”

If we’re looking for a story to tell I’m pretty sure this isn’t the Hansel and Gretel we want potential investors to hear about.

It’s ironic really.

Just last November, the Mayor was pleading with residents in Gord Henderson’s column:

“”It’s tough talking to investors in this environment. It’s like having two hands tied behind your back. And yes, absolutely, it has cost us investments.” When outsiders get an earful from local residents about Windsor’s shortcomings, which happens regularly, that confirms longstanding stereotypes. And Windsor negatives, he argues, wind up as ammo for cities competing with us for investments.”

My goodness - if the musings of residents have “cost us investments”, what about the actions of our city government?

Now this isn’t to defend the Tunnel proposal - it’s simply contrasting the message from City Hall to residents and it’s own actions and how they too could be perceived.

What would investors say about witholding pertinent financial information from stakeholders in $75-million negotiations?  Or how about threats of lawsuits against senior levels of government when they want to invest nearly $2-billion into infrastructure - the same infrastructure fDi Magazine highlighted? 

Or how about having two city councillors picket the Ambassador Bridge calling for its expropriation?  Or a multi-national company simply trying to relocate within the city having to deal with some council members who can’t seem to decide whether or not they want a brick wall?

However, enough about those who clearly CAN’T, what about some of those who CAN?

• Rosati Group CAN - with their 160-acre business park plan.
• The Ambassador Bridge Company CAN - with their proposed $1-billion enhancement project.
• The Gourmet Emporium CAN - despite hard economic times, revitalized one of Walkerville’s historic sites into a chic restaurant and retail shop.
• Michigan CAN - with their $260-million investment into the Detroit-Windsor Gateway.
• The Province of Ontario and the Federal Government CAN - with their Windsor-Essex Parkway proposal.

But CAN our municipal representatives?

World of Negotiation, Did councillors learn to stand and New Year’s resolution

Come again?  The wonderful world of negotiation

Can the proposed Windsor Tunnel deal get any more ludicrous?

Consider this for a moment. 

You go to a car lot to purchase one of those brand new fuel efficient vehicles.  You go up to the salesperson and say, “I’d like some more information on that car there,” looking wistfully at the sleek beauty in the corner of the lot.

The salesperson tells you all about it; its leather seats, tinted windows, the sleek lines - “Sure to impress the women,” he says winking.  You cringe.

But you consider it very carefully.  You do a walk around, kick the tires, sit in the driver’s seat, you open the hood and marvel at the workmanship.  Finally you ask, “How much?”

Rather than tell you, the salesperson pulls out a thick contract and asks you sign it first.

“But how much is it?  I’m not sure I can afford this,” you protest.

“Okay, Okay, here’s what I’ll do for you.  Sign this letter of intent to purchase first and then I’ll tell you how much it costs.”

Do you:

1. Stare incredulously at the salesperson and leave the lot fuming?
2. Readily agree thinking, “O.K. It must be a good deal!” and sign away?
3. Tell the saleperson in no uncertain terms where he can shove his letter of intent and tell all your friends what an idiot that salesperson was?
4. 1 and 3 in either order?

Lead tunnel negotiator, Cliff Sutts has essentially given those options to Detroit city council as reported in today’s Detroit’s Free Press, ”Council may rescind tunnel authority”:

But Councilwoman Sheila Cockrel said Windsor’s lead negotiator, Clifford Sutts, told her staff the Detroit council would not receive financing details until after it approves transferring ownership of the tunnel to the authority. Cockrel has said she must have the information for her to support the deal.

Who in their right mind would sign over their city-owned asset without knowing all the details first?  Oh wait…then again, never mind, I’ll leave certain Windsor city councillors alone for a moment. 

Frankly, I’m a little confused.  Or this a case of Detroit blaming Windsor and then Windsor blaming Detroit? 

According to Mr. Sutts in the weekend Detroit news, Windsor city council put the loan on “hold.”  This was also confirmed today by Mr. Anthony Pizans of Infrastructure Ontario in an email to a reader.

I’m also a little confused because on July 5th, 2008, Mr. Sutts claimed he was confused over Detroit council’s indecision on the arrangement:

“When you look at the events taking place, charges that are being made, investigations being conducted and statements by various parties involved, it’s extremely difficult for Windsor to assess where we go from here.”

Here’s a start - give Detroit City Council all the information they require!  And while you’re at it - let Ontario taxpayers know too.

Additionally, what financing details could Mr. Sutts possibly have for Detroit City council, if Infrastructure Ontario has not made a decision yet regarding the loan, let alone the financing arrangements? 

Furthermore, when did this conversation occur?  I thought that council had voted not to proceed with the deal because as reported in the Windsor Star on Friday, “Windsor’s council does not want to proceed and incur further (legal) expense unless Detroit clarifies its position,” lawyer Cliff Sutts, lead negotiator for Windsor, said after a two-hour special council meeting on Thursday.”

Is the good lawyer doing work pro bono now for the city?  Or was Councillor Halberstadt correct?

This is working out perfectly for our Mayor.  He can place any failure to reach an agreement with Detroit squarely on Detroit city councillors - just as another blogger in town predicted - rather than on, what is frankly, given the information we mere citizens have been provided, a half-baked plan. 

Perhaps now the Mayor and council can focus on “jobs” - since they are a “priority”; or on that $100 million investment fund we’ve heard very little about, but announced with much fanfare; or on economic diversification; or on roads, sewers and watermains…

Did council learn to stand? (Up that is)

I was a little surprised that council had a meeting on Thursday (July 10th) regarding the tunnel - even though it was in-camera. 

 I’m surprised because Mr. Sutts stated to the Windsor Star on July 5th that:

Windsor city council will be updated on the latest turn of events in Detroit sometime within the next couple of weeks as soon as he can assemble a report, Sutts said.

Looks like our Mr. Sutts didn’t need a “couple of weeks” but 5 days to assemble a report.

Or did something else prompt our Mayor and Mr. Sutts to meet with councillors sooner rather than later?

I’ve been a little disappointed in the public responses by some of our councillors with their claims that they haven’t been provided information on the tunnel arrangements. 

Disappointed because Section 3.3 of the Procedural Bylaw gives a majority of councillors authority to:

…petition the Clerk to call a special meeting of Council by providing the written petition to the Clerk stating the date, time and purpose for the special meeting.

Now I’ve heard some councillors did just that.   But I wonder why it was never reported? 

You would think councillors, especially a “majority” of them, would be proud of this accomplishment - that they too, like their Detroit counterparts, can stand up on behalf of residents and demand information to make informed decisions.  You know, as Councillor Lewenza stated back on February 4th:

“Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of our city, if we have all the information in front of us first, so that we can make wiser decisions.”

Amazing how quickly information flows when council actually does their job.

However, it’s a double-edged sword for our councillors.  Now that they know, in the true spirit of open and transparent government they are now obligated to share that information with their employers - the residents of Windsor.

Tunnel Break - My News Year’s Resolution update

Changing things up a little bit on Sound Off with Chris Schnurr.

I’m excited.  After a slow start (okay, I didn’t really start until March) I’m well on my way to fulfilling my New’s Year’s resolution and have learned a lot along the way (mostly through years of trial and error).

After being on a path to surely replace Santa Clause, weighing in at 247 pounds - I’m excited to announce I’ve broken the 215 barrier - weighing in officially at 212 so far - 190 is my goal.  And if you’re having difficulty getting rid of that middle-age bulge, take my words of advice - forget the diets.  But I have to write a disclaimer - although this program has worked for me - always consult your doctor first if you have any health problems or have never excercised before starting any weight loss lifestyle.

It’s not a diet - it’s a lifestyle.  Big difference.  You do this for life.  There is no simple solution - I’ve learned the hard way.

So what I have done?

I cut out anything that comes in a can (except for tuna) and the white starches (potatoes, white bread, white rice, white flour etc.); eat only whole grains. At dinner, I fill half my plate withveggies; a little bit of whole grain rice and then have a piece of meat the size of the palm of my hand and always, always have protein with your carbs - especially in the morning.  No grabbing a piece of toast and a coffee or worse, skipping breakfast.  And NO muffins, or fast food egg sandwiches on the way to work either!

Nope - sit down, have an egg or two with turkey bacon or turkey sausage and some whole wheat toast; some juice and/or a small glass of milk.  For lunch?  If can’t fit between two slices of whole grain bread, don’t eat it; or have a salad with grilled chicken strips and finish off with a piece of fruit such as an apple or pear (most fruits are high in sugar - so in moderation).  Home-made clear soups are good too.

And drink plenty of water.  Trust me.  Basically, if you limit your calories to 100 good calories (excluding sugars) per pound of your ideal weight, you’ll get there. 

Also very important - allow yourself to cheat.  Myself - I do once a week - in moderation.  Craving pizza?  Grab two slices.  Cake - indulge in a small sliver.  Ice cream?  Go for it.  Beer - sure - have one.  Want those mashed potatoes?  Have some.  Fast-food?  Okay, not once a week, but allow yourself once a month.

But stay away from anything marked “Low Fat.”  Generally, “Low Fat” means they’ve cut the fat but loaded it up with sugar to give it flavour.  Check it out next time at the grocery store by comparing the labels of “low fat” with the regular item. Trust me - you’ll be as surprised as I was.

I also can’t stress enough - and I hate to say it - but excercise. 

Five times a week with at least 20 minutes of cardiovascular activity per day and 30 minutes of moderate weight training every other day will do the trick.  And break a sweat - this doesn’t include walking on a hot and humid day either.  

For me, I really started shedding the pounds when I increased total cardiovascular activity to between 40-60 minutes a day.  I have the added benefit of biking 5.5 KM to and from work in addition to the gym everyday.

Can’t afford a gym?  Go for a 20 minute jog or fast walk followed by some push ups, sit-ups, pull-ups, rock lifting, cycling, roller blading, playing with your kids etc.

See?  Simple enough.  More updates in the future. 

Mmmm…”Excercising tips with Schnurr” - perhaps I should make a DVD…because now I have to buy new clothes - again.

Councillors must publically discuss tunnel deal now

I have received several emails from readers regarding the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel deal that I wish I could answer - but now considering Councillors had yet another in-camera meeting on Thursday to discuss the details - they should be able to fully divulge all the information since, as lead negotiator Cliff Sutts stated on April 18th that negotiations were, “virtually complete.”

Councillors should now be able to fully answer any questions pertaining to this deal and you, dear reader, will realise this after reading this blog, if you haven’t already.  I expect Councillor Dilkens to be leading the charge since it was he who introduced the motion at council calling for greater openness and transparency of city boards and committees.

The Windsor Star reported on Friday, July 11:

“The distractions of Detroit’s council have left the situation so uncertain. Windsor’s council does not want to proceed and incur further (legal) expense unless Detroit clarifies its position,” lawyer Cliff Sutts, lead negotiator for Windsor, said after a two-hour special council meeting on Thursday.

This was echoed in both the Detroit Free Press and the Detroit News on Saturday.

But then curiously, I read this morning on Councillor Halberstadt’s blog that Councillor Halberstadt, “was the lone Councillor to vote against the in camera resolution last Thursday to keep the $75-million loan deal on the table in the lapsed negotiations with the City of Detroit to secure the American side of the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel in public hands. ” 

How can this be? 

Our million dollar man, Cliff Sutts said council did not want to proceed and according to the Detroit News on Saturday, “Windsor told the Ontario government Friday to put its loan application for the $75 million on hold, said the city’s lead negotiator, Cliff Sutts.”

What exactly is going on?

Why was a vote to keep the $75-million loan deal on the table behind closed doors, particularly when this involves Infrastructure Ontario money - a program funded by Ontario residents designed to assist municipalities in their infrastructure needs such as roads, sewers and watermains or municipal corporations providing such services. 

What reasons were given to justify a closed-door vote on a potentially significant underwriting by residents?

It’s important to note here the only public meetings on this side of the border regarding the tunnel deal was the formation of a municipal corporation over one year ago and the legal arrangements earlier this year - though there is a new question as to whether or not those arrangements are still valid because according to the Windsor Star on May 21, 2008, “But a potential deal has since substantially changed, according to documents viewed by The Star at Detroit city hall.”

It is also important to note that changes to the Municipal Act (section 238) require municipalities to publicly advertise in-camera meetings, to identify the types of issues to be addressed and to record minutes.  Our own meetings investigator recommended this change as well.

According to July 12th Detroit News:

But some Detroit council members are reluctant to sell, saying they haven’t received answers about lingering  financing questions, including the interest rate on the loan. Councilwoman Barbara-Rose Collins, who switched her vote to create the Detroit authority after Kilpatrick wooed her over soul food, has said she still doesn’t like the sale.

Councilwoman Sheila Cockrel said she would review the letter, but remains wary until she can see hard numbers.

“I do not think you make good public policy decisions that are nonreversible based on letters of intent,” Cockrel said.

How much interest, if any, is the City of Windsor charging Detroit for this “deal?”  We know the Province could charge around 5% to the City.   Furthermore, what about Detroit’s ability to pay?

As well, what is the status of the loan request to Infrastructure Ontario?  The Windsor Star reported on April 18th that applications take ”about two months to process.” And a resident informed me on June 2nd that Anthony Pizans from Infrastructure Ontario confirmed in May that an application had been received from the city.  Surely, Infrastructure Ontario has reached a decision by now?

Another issue that could determine whether or not that this is in fact a good deal for the city, is the business case study.  Councillors have surely been presented this since they voted in favour of keeping the loan deal “on the table.”  What are revenue projections; traffic projections, capital needs and estimated costs of the tunnel over the next 40 years?  The terms of an Infrastructure Ontario Loan are up to 40 years.

The next obvious question is how will Detroit pay the interest, principal and any additional interest charged, if any, in 40 years?  It has been reported in the US media that Detroit will use its $700,000 a year in revenue from the tunnel to repay the loan. 

Well, $700,000 a year $65-million does not make.  In fact, to repay the loan plus interest, at least $3.7 million per year would have to be paid based upon annual payments over 40 years for a total cost to Detroit of over $150-million dollars - and you and I could be on the hook for that. 

That’s of lot of potential watermains, roads or sewers.

Considering residents were walloped with an 86% increase in combined watermain/sewer rates - with more to come - this question begs to be answered.

Considering that a good chunk of our Capital Works budget is going towards EC ROW rehabilitation over the next few years this question begs to be answered.

If $75-million can be borrowed to fund this transaction with dubious justifications, why was this option not utilized to offset some of the financial pain to struggling businesses and residents in these times of rising unemployment and business foreclosures?

And where is the Windsor Star editorial board or Gord Henderson demanding answers to these questions as they did with former Mayor Mike Hurst on his financial wheelings and dealings?

Finally, what happens if Infrastructure Ontario denies the loan application, as they should, in my opinion?  Are we legally on the hook to Detroit, particularly if they approve a letter of intent?

Councillors, you clearly now have the answers.  It’s time to share the information with residents.  

Residents will not tolerate any more secret negotiations.

If it’s such a great deal for Windsor, share the great news in special public meeting - we certainly need some.

The Mayor’s Recollection

All is well in my universe.  With 80 gigs of extra hard-drive space and a brand new monitor as well as cool 3.6 gigahertz processor (hey I’m excited about it!) I don’t anticipate any further problems (cross my fingers) with the computer world.

The same can’t be said for city hall’s universe.

If Thursday’s A-Channel news story is any indication of the severity the amnesia problem our Mayor has been struggling with for the last two years, city council has no other alternative but to appoint someone else as the official “spokesperson” on border issues.

While politicians can be forgiven when they “forget” little details such as whether or not confidentiality clauses have been signed, on the much larger issues credibility becomes an issue.

I’ve prepared a short video (see below) outlining our Mayor’s amnesia moment.  For the rest, this is what the Mayor stated:

The Ambassador Bridge has made no requests and not filed no application for demolition of homes and they’ve made no requests and provided no information to myself or to members of city council.

The Mayor’s Recollection - Video

…story continued

Now of course I warned about this in the past when Councillor Postma claimed “a new day is dawning” at city council with respect to the interim control bylaw passed on January 25, 2007.

Remember back in late February when the interim control bylaw was renewed?  Councillor Postma claimed that the Ambassador Bridge homes had to come down.  A short two months later, amidst great fanfare, council approved Norm Wilson’s application to construct a new “warehouse.”

But on April 18th, 2008, City Planner, Tom Hunt (see video above) responds to Councillor Marra’s question as to whether or not applications to demolish homes on Indian Road or Edison Street would be “favourably received” by stating:

Not right now.  We’re not in a position obviously on those two areas.  I think that would have come out in the report had we been able to determine that, but we’re, um, there is a Heritage Conservation District Study that’s going on that affects some of the lands along Indian Road, so clearly we’re not in a position tonight at least to answer that question.

Back on December 21, 2006 Councillor Jones stated in the Windsor Star:

The city can stop demolition only if it involves a heritage building or property designated under a demolition control bylaw.

If you recall,  January 24, 2008 I wrote about the sudden inclusion of the homes on the north-east end of Indian Road in the Heritage Study that were previously excluded.

Now I can fully understand what is going on.

At the February 25 meeting of council there was extensive debate over how long the demolition control bylaw would last and councillors were told “indefinitely” by administration or until council rescinded it.

Councillor Postma was laying the trap by stating, “the homes have to come down” and Mayor Francis set it by making the above ludicrous comments - it’s all an attempt to portray the bridge company of being poor corporate citizens.

Why would the Ambassador Bridge Company apply for demolition when Mr. Hunt made it very clear that such an application would not be, in Councillor Marra’s words, “favourably received?”

Frankly, the Ambassador Bridge Company should call our Mayor’s bluff and apply to have their homes both on Indian Road and Edison Street demolished. 

Here’s a sneak preview of the potential outcome:

1.  Councillor Jones and/or Gignac and/or Valentinis and/or Lewenza may demand to see the plans of the Ambassador Bridge Company to replace the demolished homes.

2.  Councillor Valentinis may not approve of the species of trees or any structure that may be part of the green buffer zone proposal and request that they redraw it and resubmit the plan to council at a later date for debate.

3.  Councillor Jones and/or Postma may demand that each home be evaluated on a “case-by-case basis”, thereby forcing the bridge company to make dozens of presentations before council requesting demolition.

4.  The Heritage Study may reveal that some relatively unknown individual inhabited one of the homes on Indian Road and therefore, the home should be designated as such and be prevented from being demolished.

5.  Chris Schnurr may suffer from a fit of sheer exasperation and proceed to walk around Windsor with his head inside a computer monitor or television.

In all seriousness though, I am concerned for our Mayor’s apparent memory problem and provide this link to the council minutes of June 11, 2007to hopefully refresh his memory and councillors should really rethink their decision to appoint the Mayor as the sole spokesperson on border issues.

As well, the Mayor may wish to contact the City Clerk to review video files - that the city must keep of council meetings - to determine the number of times the Ambassador Bridge Company has appeared before council outlining their plans as well as the Draft Environmental Impact statement, available on the Ambassador Bridge Company’s website since December 2007 for information about their enhancement project.

When it rains it pours

I’m sorry to announce the passing away of my computer monitor.

In a fit of sparks and strange garbled noises, the monitor passed away not-so-peacefully today at 12:14 p.m.  It was 12 years old.

As such, until I can pick up a new monitor, I will be unable to blog.  I anticipate by Monday at the latest.

My apologies.

Technology - the issues never end.