The mayor backs off and backs up

BLOG #543: Mayor Joe Fontana might have thought he had a mandate to change London when he won the civic election one year ago. Last night he learned London Hydro isn’t on whatever list there is of things that can be changed.

Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2011 – London

A year ago today, as Joe Fontana reminded us last night, London voters went to the polls and picked the candidate for mayor who promised a four-year tax freeze, 10,000 new jobs and change.

We’ve had one year of tax freezes but there won’t be two in a row; we’re gaining jobs but still losing them faster; and last night a packed and over-flowing public gallery and a surprisingly antagonistic city council reminded his worship some things aren’t open to change.

The sale of London Hydro would be one of those things.

In the face of the onslaught, the mayor backed off and backed up – until there was nothing left on the table about a proposal by EPCOR, a Western Canadian energy giant, to partner with London Hydro in exploring a shared utilities model in London except a thank you card for the visit.

That proposed partnership had many on council – and thousands of citizens – worried it was an under-handed way to sell part of the city-owned power company.

Mayor Fontana denied that, in the process trying to rewrite recent history. “I don’t know how one discussion on how to be more efficient can evolve into a discussion about selling London Hydro,” he said during a debate at city council about the proposal. “It is incumbent on us to set the people straight. All we did was receive information from a company that wanted to talk to us.”

Well that, as they say in some circles, is disingenuous. The minutes of the finance and administration committee, which the mayor chairs, show this motion was passed last Wednesday and recommended to city council for approval:

“That the following actions be taken with respect to the presentation from London Hydro and EPCOR with respect to a hydro shared utilities model:

(a) “The presentation from Peter Johnson, chair, London Hydro Inc. and Don Lowry, president and CEO, EPCOR be received; and

(b) “The City and London Hydro BE AUTHORIZED to enter into a ‘Cooperative Agreement’ with EPCOR, allowing the parties a period of time to explore a partnering arrangement on an exclusive and confidential basis, with the draft agreement to be reviewed by the city solicitor and brought back to the municipal council for approval.”

Does that sound like an innocuous little information dump to you? Nor did it to the crowds who cheered and applauded when Councillor Nancy Branscombe (Ward 6) said bluntly: “I never want to see this kind of presentation coming to council ever again.”

They applauded again when Councillor Joni Baechler (Ward 5) pointed out the City of Edmonton, which owns 100 per cent of EPCOR, has the second highest utility rates in the country. EPCOR, though, returns about $150 million to the city’s operations – money Ms. Baechler suggested was raised from Edmonton consumers in the first place.

Even one of the mayor’s constant supporters turned on him. “This doesn’t sit well with the public, Mr. Mayor, but I guess you’ve figured that out,” said Councillor Sandy White (Ward 14).

By then Mayor Fontana had, more or less. First he watered down the (b) part of the motion to this: “Negotiations with EPCOR be tabled until the civic administration has reported back to the municipal council with respect to the potential for a shared utilities model and the municipal council has made a decision thereon.”

When the clerk ruled that the use of the word ‘tabled’ in the amendment effectively meant the motion wasn’t debatable, there was uproar. “No, no,” the mayor shouted. “My intention in using the word ‘tabled’ was not that it couldn’t be debated. I want it debated. I’m open to another word.”

So the word deferred as substituted. It wouldn’t last the night.

By now the gallery was happily clapping for anyone who opposed the EPCOR. The mayor scolded them to stop. “This is not a basketball game. This is a city council meeting and you need to respect our decorum.” Still the beat went on.

Councillor Harold Usher (Ward 12): “I’m not sure why we’re making this so complicated. I think the EPCOR deal is put in front of us as a distraction.”

Councillor Dale Henderson (Ward 9): “I don’t want to sell any assets. My issue with EPCOR is going after the assets. We want to tell staff right now we don’t want to sell our assets, we want to get information.”

Councillor Paul Hubert (Ward 8) eventually pushed the matter all the way back into the box, proposing a new clause B, that council would reaffirm the principles it outlined earlier this month when it first began talking about a shared utility model. The mayor, essentially conceding defeat, agreed.

The shared utility model could see the city’s water, sewer, garbage and possibly parking operations rolled into a corporate operating model along the lines of London Hydro. Collectively they would raise their own capital and manage their own affairs away from the day-to-day direction of the civic administration or the nagging of city council. This, incidentally, is the model EPCOR uses and was the reason that company got interested in what was going on in London in the first place.

City staff will spend $200,000 over the next six months investigating the shared utility model concept. One of the principles is that ownership would continue with the city.

So in the end that was the clause (b) that stuck: “That the city reaffirms the principles passed previously Oct. 3 with respect to the shared utility model.”

The motion passed 12-2; Councillor Judy Bryant was absent.

Afterward Mayor Fontana explained, “We have reaffirmed our move to a shared utility model.” Called on that, he backtracked one last time: “I’m sorry. We voted for information.”

That might have been the dawn of realization what voters really agreed to last Oct. 25.