The following article appeared in the December 25 edition of the Guelph Tribune:
There won’t be any tax relief for city residents in 2008 resulting from extra policing and cleanup costs in the downtown being passed on to bars and other businesses there.
Amid hints that city hall’s enthusiasm for recovering extra downtown policing and cleanup costs is cooling, council passed a motion last week delaying any staff recommendations on the issue until March – too late to have an impact on the city’s 2008 budget.
This disappointed Coun. Bob Bell, who said he’d been hoping for $400,000 worth of property tax relief for city taxpayers.
“We need to use a carrot-and-stick approach” in dealing with the downtown’s late-night woes, “but I don’t see any stick,” Bell told council.
Although recovering the extra police and garbage costs would anger some downtown businesses, there is broad support in the community for doing this, he said.
However, Bell was the only councillor who advocated a hard line at the meeting.
Coun. Ian Findlay, a member of the recently formed Downtown Nightlife Task Force, said the city has to share some of the responsibility for downtown problems.
“We don’t have nearly enough garbage cans,” he said, so they sometimes overflow.
There’s also a problem with lack of public washrooms for people who flock out of bars at closing time, Findlay said. He wants the planned new transit hub on Carden Street and a new main library on the Baker Street parking lot to include 24-hour washrooms.
Vacant buildings have created opportunities in the past for more bars to move into the downtown, but this dynamic might be changing, Findlay said. It’s hoped the planned redevelopment of the fire-damaged adjacent Gummer and Victoria buildings will help improve the downtown climate, he said.
The task force that Findlay is on also includes representatives the University of Guelph, Guelph Police, city staff, the general public and the downtown business community, including bar owners. It was formed to address downtown issues, including ways of reducing extra downtown policing and maintenance.
Bar owners, Findlay commented, “want to be good citizens and they want to do the right thing.”
A new report from city staff puts the annual extra cost of downtown policing at about $125,000 – the cost of four constables on duty from midnight to 4 a.m. on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. It puts the cost of extra downtown garbage collection and cleanup at $279,000 a year, for a grand total of about $400,000 in extra policing and cleanup costs.
In July, council’s finance, administration and corporate services committee passed a resolution directing staff to report back on how to recover extra downtown policing and cleanup costs. Staff were supposed to do this in time for 2008 city budgeting, the committee resolved.
However, the new report says staff haven’t been able to complete this task yet, for a variety of reasons. It asks for an extension to no later than March.
Coun. Lise Burcher said the city is looking at a variety of approaches, not just ones that would shift $400,000 in costs from the general taxpayer to some or all downtown businesses.
“This report does not mean we will necessarily come back with a pocketful of cash,” she said in response to Bell’s comments about tax savings for the public.
Mayor Karen Farbridge sought to confirm her understanding that staff will have the option of recommending that no action be taken on shifting the extra costs to downtown businesses. Peter Cartwright, the city’s general manager of economic development and tourism services, agreed this is the case.
The new staff report says there are questions about how to develop a fair and equitable policy for recovering extra police and cleanup costs from downtown businesses.
“Suggestions have been made that only those establishments that are open after midnight should be subject to a special fee,” the report says. “However, this is problematic as it has been difficult to identify, with any degree of certainty, which business establishments are contributing to the current situation.
“Others feel that all establishments should contribute, while there are groups that feel the implementation of such a recovery is an unfair tax and counter to creating a positive environment for new investment in the downtown.”
As well, it says, “the manner in which costs are to be calculated has been difficult to rationalize. For example, if one were to distribute costs based on the pro-rated number of licensed seats for an establishment, then fast food take-out restaurants may not have to pay such a fee because they do not have licensed seats.”
The report says staff are encouraged by the efforts of the Downtown Nightlife Task Force and see a willingness by most establishments to “become more vigilant and directly involved in reducing the amount of downtown policing and maintenance.
“In fact, staff would comment that there has been unprecedented co-operation on behalf of the bar owners, especially those who are working among themselves and with police to minimize problems with patrons in the public realm.
“This is an approach that has been successful in other communities,” the report says.