The Building is in great shape.
Judge for your self in 2007 the municipality had Hirano Heaton conduct a study of the centre. There report is available at the Municipal Office and on the municipal web site at http://www.town.crowsnestpass.ab.ca/
It provides four options for moving forward on the building.
Option 1 Carry doing what we have been doing, with costly replacements required in the next 5 to 10 years.
Option 2 Complete renovation of the entire building. Cost to the taxpayer $3-4 million or $554,851 per year for the next 10 years @ 7%.
Option 3 Demolish the old hospital, replace the building and renovate the Nursing Home side. Cost to the Taxpayer $7-8 million or $1,109,702 per year for ten years.
Option 4 Replace both buildings. Cost to the taxpayer $10-14 million or $1,941,972 per year for ten years.
Where will all the present Tenants go?
We have numerous facilities that have space available, the MDM, the Elks Hall, Blairmore Seniors building, Blairmore Curling Rink. The taxpayer is required to pay for those facilities anyway why not fill them up.
Tenants having to move will leave the Pass.
As one tenant come forth yet and said that, they will leave the Pass if they are forced to move. Many tenants have stated that they do not have the money to relocate. In true hardship cases there may be a one-time requirement for the taxpayers to assist with relocation. That would not be an unreasonable request and expense to the taxpayers would be minimal.
The Centre will eventually pay for itself.
Past experience has shown that the Centre cannot pay for itself. There was the Nokomis Report of June 1989, which said it would be self-sufficient within three years. The Crowsnest Centre Learning Centre Corporation Marketing Strategy of 1991 that said it would be self-sufficient by 1993. The three-year business plan of 1997-1999 that showed a net income of $144,580 in 1999. The Marketing Plan of 2002, the Marketing Plan of 2003, the New Beginning plan for 1999-2004 that all showed a potential net income. Finally the latest Business Plan that shows the Centre not requiring any tax dollars by 2010.
Instead of showing any profits, the Centre received a loan for $131,000 from the Municipality in 1990. This was written off in 1996. In 1996 a Line of Credit of $150,000 was authorized. This had to be written off by the municipality in 1999, (the same year the Centre was expected to have net income of $144,580). In 2006 the municipality authorized a Line of Credit of $35,000. The Municipality was forced to pay this in 2008.
The municipality is in great shape financially
Not true in 2001 we had almost $3,000,000 in the bank and zero debt. At the end of 2007, we had debt of $2,700,000, if we maintain our 2008 budget commitments by the end of this year our reserves will be down to less than $360,000 at the end of the year. Taxes went up this year 12% on average with little relief in sight.
Why would the Municipality take over the Administration and operation of the Centre?
Check out the financial report for 2007 that we just received on August 19, below is a quote from the report.
“For a significant portion of the year, the accounting records of the Society were not adequate to support the recorded revenues and expenditures. In addition, our examination indicated deficiencies in internal controls over certain revenues and expenditures. Therefore, we were unable to satisfy ourselves that all revenues and expenditures of the Society had been recorded nor were we able to satisfy ourselves that the recorded transactions were proper. As a result, we were unable to determine whether adjustments were required in respect of recorded or unrecorded assets, revenue, net assets and cash flows”.
The words above are very clear, it’s important to read the rest of the letter that goes with the audit. (Page 3, 8)
The issue of accountability to your elected municipal council there have been numerous times when various members of council have requested information on Centre operations and finances. These requests have been ignored or council was told that we can not receive them for privacy reasons. Other municipal facilities provide this type of information on request.
At the time of authorizing the latest $35,000 Line of credit, concerns were raised about giving the centre the money. Conditions were placed in the bylaw that the Centre would provide council with monthly financial information. In fourteen month’s council never received that information.
The municipality set rental rates at the MDM facility of $4 per month per square foot for non-profit groups. Despite numerous requests we have never received the Centre’s rates. We recently calculated that the Chinook Education Consortium is paying 49 cents per square foot per month.
In past years Council requested information on the agreement between the Centre and the Westcastle Ski Hill, this we were never provided. New information recently received shows that we as the taxpayers are providing very cheap accommodation for the employees of a company that does not even pay taxes in the Pass. Rooms are rented to this group at $12.50 per person per night.
The Plebiscite
Was not an initiative of council. The majority of council was of the position that the old hospital was to be no longer used, the petitioners came forth and forced a plebiscite on the entire property.
Issues with the Plebiscite
If the Plebiscite is passed, council will be forced to maintain the Crowsnest Centre site for ten years. Passage of the plebiscite bylaw will require Council to commit funds to the detriment of all other municipal facilities. (Complex, Pool, Ski Hill etc) In essence your elected officials hands will be tied for the next ten years.
Why the changes to the Bylaw
What the petitioners brought forth has not been changed it constitutes the first part of the bylaw. The second part of the bylaw was added by the majority of council in an effort to:
(1) fix the problems with the above concerns, and make the Centre accountable to your elected officials and the tax paying public
(2) to show the public exactly what keeping the Centre open will cost them. This will allow the public to make a clear informed decision.
Why would anybody be afraid of providing the public with that information?
On Sept 22th vote “NO” to Bylaw #766
Judge for your self in 2007 the municipality had Hirano Heaton conduct a study of the centre. There report is available at the Municipal Office and on the municipal web site at http://www.town.crowsnestpass.ab.ca/
It provides four options for moving forward on the building.
Option 1 Carry doing what we have been doing, with costly replacements required in the next 5 to 10 years.
Option 2 Complete renovation of the entire building. Cost to the taxpayer $3-4 million or $554,851 per year for the next 10 years @ 7%.
Option 3 Demolish the old hospital, replace the building and renovate the Nursing Home side. Cost to the Taxpayer $7-8 million or $1,109,702 per year for ten years.
Option 4 Replace both buildings. Cost to the taxpayer $10-14 million or $1,941,972 per year for ten years.
Where will all the present Tenants go?
We have numerous facilities that have space available, the MDM, the Elks Hall, Blairmore Seniors building, Blairmore Curling Rink. The taxpayer is required to pay for those facilities anyway why not fill them up.
Tenants having to move will leave the Pass.
As one tenant come forth yet and said that, they will leave the Pass if they are forced to move. Many tenants have stated that they do not have the money to relocate. In true hardship cases there may be a one-time requirement for the taxpayers to assist with relocation. That would not be an unreasonable request and expense to the taxpayers would be minimal.
The Centre will eventually pay for itself.
Past experience has shown that the Centre cannot pay for itself. There was the Nokomis Report of June 1989, which said it would be self-sufficient within three years. The Crowsnest Centre Learning Centre Corporation Marketing Strategy of 1991 that said it would be self-sufficient by 1993. The three-year business plan of 1997-1999 that showed a net income of $144,580 in 1999. The Marketing Plan of 2002, the Marketing Plan of 2003, the New Beginning plan for 1999-2004 that all showed a potential net income. Finally the latest Business Plan that shows the Centre not requiring any tax dollars by 2010.
Instead of showing any profits, the Centre received a loan for $131,000 from the Municipality in 1990. This was written off in 1996. In 1996 a Line of Credit of $150,000 was authorized. This had to be written off by the municipality in 1999, (the same year the Centre was expected to have net income of $144,580). In 2006 the municipality authorized a Line of Credit of $35,000. The Municipality was forced to pay this in 2008.
The municipality is in great shape financially
Not true in 2001 we had almost $3,000,000 in the bank and zero debt. At the end of 2007, we had debt of $2,700,000, if we maintain our 2008 budget commitments by the end of this year our reserves will be down to less than $360,000 at the end of the year. Taxes went up this year 12% on average with little relief in sight.
Why would the Municipality take over the Administration and operation of the Centre?
Check out the financial report for 2007 that we just received on August 19, below is a quote from the report.
“For a significant portion of the year, the accounting records of the Society were not adequate to support the recorded revenues and expenditures. In addition, our examination indicated deficiencies in internal controls over certain revenues and expenditures. Therefore, we were unable to satisfy ourselves that all revenues and expenditures of the Society had been recorded nor were we able to satisfy ourselves that the recorded transactions were proper. As a result, we were unable to determine whether adjustments were required in respect of recorded or unrecorded assets, revenue, net assets and cash flows”.
The words above are very clear, it’s important to read the rest of the letter that goes with the audit. (Page 3, 8)
The issue of accountability to your elected municipal council there have been numerous times when various members of council have requested information on Centre operations and finances. These requests have been ignored or council was told that we can not receive them for privacy reasons. Other municipal facilities provide this type of information on request.
At the time of authorizing the latest $35,000 Line of credit, concerns were raised about giving the centre the money. Conditions were placed in the bylaw that the Centre would provide council with monthly financial information. In fourteen month’s council never received that information.
The municipality set rental rates at the MDM facility of $4 per month per square foot for non-profit groups. Despite numerous requests we have never received the Centre’s rates. We recently calculated that the Chinook Education Consortium is paying 49 cents per square foot per month.
In past years Council requested information on the agreement between the Centre and the Westcastle Ski Hill, this we were never provided. New information recently received shows that we as the taxpayers are providing very cheap accommodation for the employees of a company that does not even pay taxes in the Pass. Rooms are rented to this group at $12.50 per person per night.
The Plebiscite
Was not an initiative of council. The majority of council was of the position that the old hospital was to be no longer used, the petitioners came forth and forced a plebiscite on the entire property.
Issues with the Plebiscite
If the Plebiscite is passed, council will be forced to maintain the Crowsnest Centre site for ten years. Passage of the plebiscite bylaw will require Council to commit funds to the detriment of all other municipal facilities. (Complex, Pool, Ski Hill etc) In essence your elected officials hands will be tied for the next ten years.
Why the changes to the Bylaw
What the petitioners brought forth has not been changed it constitutes the first part of the bylaw. The second part of the bylaw was added by the majority of council in an effort to:
(1) fix the problems with the above concerns, and make the Centre accountable to your elected officials and the tax paying public
(2) to show the public exactly what keeping the Centre open will cost them. This will allow the public to make a clear informed decision.
Why would anybody be afraid of providing the public with that information?
On Sept 22th vote “NO” to Bylaw #766
No comments:
Post a Comment