Well so far local politics have been fairly mellow and laid back since the election. I don't say that in a critical way because that's normal, new councilors getting familiar with the job, what administration does, the various programs and services the municipality provides it all takes time.
Ultimately unless you are going to have seven people sit in a room for three years and just play follow the leader, debate will come its bound to. Take any group of seven people you are going to have different goals, objectives, agendas etc. If you are not going to have debate over various issues then you may as well leave six people at home and let one person make all the decisions.
So anyway to the point of my post, I feel that debate is coming especially after reading Councilor Saindon's blog. Then refreshing my memory with what the various councilors had to say during the election campaign, this leads me to believe that their are indeed some issues that are going to create quite a lot of debate over the next month or so, in both council chambers, and out in the public.
Three issues I would like to discuss at this point that I feel are very pressing and relevant based on the various positions taken during the election.
1. Duplication of services.
Previous council had to deal with this issue regarding the duplication of Community centres and arenas. Maybe this council will take a different position than we did and restart the Crowsnest Centre, or put ice back in the Albert Stella? We shall see.
But if they are going to deal with this issue, they will at some point have to look at Town Shops, Fire Departments, Equipment Fleets, even arms lengths groups. Everyone of them very political contentious issues.
2. Water Meters, tough issue 560 meters a year for the next five years. Is the municipality going to charge two rates for water based on having a meter or not? Would that be fair, somebody that wastes water with a meter pays extra, somebody without a meter could waste water for free for up to the next five years. What about commercial users, will they be metered? tough on a business like a car wash? etc.
Cost $500 a meter paid by the owner of the residence over one year, half our taxpayers are seniors, administration as already proposed to increase utility bills. Now seniors are going to have to pay an additional $80 on every utility bill that's tough on a fixed income.
There is no question that we use a lot of water in the Pass, three times the provincial average.
Something as to be done from a conservation point of view, but I believe that by the time this issue makes it through the local coffee shops it will become too hot of a political potato and probably put aside for future review.
3. Spring cleanup, I read with much interest Councilor Saindon's comments on this issue, from what I have seen over the last six years, he is right this is the kind of luxury service this community can not afford. What will be interesting is to see where the rest of council stands on this issue, especially Councilor Mitchell every time this debate came up in the last three years he supported our former Mayor in maintaining this service, in fact if my memory is serving me well he even supported maintaining two cleanups. (Spring and Fall).
Three things that I hope are considered during the debate on the cleanup, Public Works are requesting an additional 1.5 positions in the workforce. If you took the man hours that are used on cleanup it would come to more than those 1.5 positions even in the most efficient years.
Second in the last six years on I was on council I would estimate that well in excess of a million dollars as been spent on cleanups, money that should have been used to buy new equipment that administration is now recommending that the municipality go $550,000 in debt for.
Third how many other jobs were put aside while our public works crew was busy on cleanup, and how much overtime was incurred to get those jobs completed in a timely fashion.
Anyway I think budget will spur some lively debate, lets keep in mind these are only the tip of the iceberg.
8 comments:
Dean Once water meters are in they will become a cash cow for the municipality.
Maybe help finance advertising.
Jack
you are absolutely right tough decisions will have to be made or taxes will continue to rise. It may take another term of councillers for the public to see that just maybe they should stick with a council that will make those decisions. The trend has been if you step on any toes they want to run you out of town. Lets hope we dont have too many fence sitters on this council. A final note the water usage may be more about poor infrastrucure and leaking systems than actual ussage.
Dean, you may recall during the Public Forum, there was a big cheer of approval when a member of the audience asked a question about what Council would do on "environmental" and "green" issues. At the time I chuckled to myself, because 1) in terms of jurisdictional matters, there's not much that can be done at the Municipal level, and 2) just about all "environmental" solutions cost money and changes in lifestyle. Paying more and changing lifestyle are two things most people won't buy into -- cheering for "environmental" issues is easy, paying the price is not.
So here we are talking about water meters -- clearly an "environmental" issue. Installing meters is something that should have been dealt with 20 years ago, but in usual Crowsnest Pass style, people are coming up with no end of reasons why we're different, and should not have to pay for water like people in just about every other community in the country. The simple fact is that we are out of water in this valley and we're wasting most of what we do have (useage at 3 times the provincial average -- how bad is that?). If we're going to see the economic growth that brings jobs, there better be water available for new businesses and new communities. So suck it up people, the free water thing has to end.
so we use 3 times the average water and 40% of homes are weekenders that aren't here every weekend? How much water do we week-rounders actualy use? and will the meter make us pay the disproportional/actual cost?
Fred
There certainly is some truth to the infrastructure issue raised by
Mr Rosner. Previous council was told by member after member of the management team that the community loses a lot of money from leaking pipes.
What that number is I do not believe anybody really knows.
I also agree at some point the provincial government will force communities to put meters in place. How do they do that by reducing grants for communities that are not efficient with water usage.
The most significant issue I have is you are going to nail the taxpayers with an increase of $80 on their utility bill to pay for the meters in one year.
I am real anxious to see which direction these guys go on the duplication of services.
Remember everybody that as lived here for more than two years. Will have either a relative or friend on a fire department.
Dave
Anonymous 12/30 7:50 AM said:
"there was a big cheer of approval when a member of the audience asked a question about what Council would do on 'environmental' and 'green' issues.
...
'environmental' solutions cost money and changes in lifestyle".
Were we at the same meeting? I remember dead silence from 100% of the candidates.
I think we should have well planned, phased development that blends into the scenery and respects the environment.
What we have, IHMO, is "anything goes" development: bulldoze a wildlife corridor, put up for sale signs, let the blueweed and lemon orchards blossom, and when it doesn't sell, repeat. How many of these eyesores blight our once beautiful valleys?
The Muni seems to hand out a lot of benefits to outside organizations. Often they are in the form of fee waivers or free (or below market) rent or services.
1) Could there be arrangements made years ago that continue without council being aware of them?
2) Are they made on an ad hoc, one-off basis with no consistent policy?
3) Are waivers and freebies hidden in department budgets?
4) How much do we spend or forgo per year?
5) How does this compare with other munis as a percentage of budget?
6) Is there any transparency, accountability or review of cost effectiveness?
Anyone feel free to pass on these questions and add their own.
Post a Comment