Friday, October 19, 2012

Communications and Numbers

The municipality as put out a new information titled Public Information Communication in response to the flyer in this weeks papers from the ratepayers: Which is available at the following address.

http://www.town.crowsnestpass.ab.ca/


In response to some of the numbers being thrown around I would provide the following:

 General Municipal Taxes

Rate Payers Interpretation:
TAXES have increased “$387, 331 per year.”

Municipal Fact:
Municipal Tax Levies: Year
Tax Levy
(NET of *ASFF, CNP Senior Housing Requisitions)
Increase from prior year
% increase from prior year
Budget - 2014
$6,951,421
$ 96,045
1.4%
Budget - 2013
$6,855,376
$ 35,224
0.52%
2012
$6,820,152
$264,162
4.0%
2011
$6,555,990
$123,169
1.91%
2010
$6,432,821
$ 72,806
1.14%
2009
$6,360,015
$ 82,326
1.31%
2008
$6,277,689
$802,535
14.65%



Note: In 2010 we paid $6,432,821 in 2012 we will pay $6,820,152 a difference of $387,331, we are now paying in 2012 $387,331 more per year (2012) than we did in 2010.

Utility Bills
   
Utility Rate Summary 2007-2014:
Water
Waste Water
Solid Waste
Recycling
Total
Annual $ increase
Annual % increase
Budget 2014
$1,055,060
$714,777
$640,818
$97,576
$2,508,231
$85,365
3.50%
Budget 2013
$1,008,135
$676,338
$640,818
$97,576
$2,422,867
$70,415
2.90%
Budget 2012
$963,757
$650,301
$640,818
$97,576
$2,352,452
$57,052
2.90%
2011
$937,684
$637,299
$622,841
$97,576
$2,295,400
$133,291
6.16%
2010
$853,273
$590,585
$621,071
$97,180
$2,162,109
$188,078
9.50%
2009
$744,163
$567,529
$565,140
$97,199
$1,974,031
$39,044
2.01%
2008
$742,073
$537,322
$560,209
$95,383
$1,934,987
$75,761
4.0 7%


Note: By the municipalities numbers the cost of utilities will jump $190,343 in 2012 versus 2010.
The utility number presented here for 2012 is also $33,000 lower than a previous number provided  by the municipality.

Municipal Fact:
- Since 2008 the Municipality has increased the Franchise Fees received from ATCO and Fortis from $271,037 to $569,749 to generate revenues and reduce the impact on mill rate increases and as well to establish reserve funds. This is not a fact nowhere on their chart do I see the number $271,037 under Franchise Fees.

Note: The Franchise Fees were $250,000 in 2008 and went to $569,749 in 2012 with a proposed increase to $906,694 in 2013.

Taxes, Utilities and Franchise Fees:
Rate Payers Interpretation:
“Taxes, Utilities and Franchise Fees come to a total of $900,029 per year more. That will transfer $1,400,000 more a year from the Taxpayers pockets to the Municipality versus 2010”.


Municipal Fact:
 
Summary of Revenues Generated from Tax Levy, Utilities and Franchise Fees: Year
Tax Levy
(NET of *ASFF, CNP Senior Housing Requisitions)
Utility Levies
Franchise Fees
Total Revenue
Annual $ Increase
Annual % increase
Budget - 2014
$6,951,421
$2,508,231
$906,694
$10,366,346
$181,409
1.78%
Budget - 2013
$6,855,376
$2,422,867
$906,694
$10.184.937
$442,584
4.34%
2012
$6,820,152
$2,352,452
$569,749
$ 9,742,353
$516,675
5.30%
2011
$6,555,990
$2,295,400
$374,288
$ 9,225,678
$335,197
3.77%
2010
$6,432,821
$2,162,109
$295,551
$ 8,890,481
$260,138
3.01%
2009
$6,360,015
$1,974,031
$296,297
$ 8,630,343
$167,667
1.98%
2008
$6,277,689
$1,934,987
$250,000
$ 8,462,676
$878,296
11.58%







Note:2010 Total Revenue $8,890,481 2013 Total Revenue $10,184,937 a difference of  $1,294,456 that will go from the taxpayers pockets to the municipality. (This number does not include the $33,000 in addition  utility costs shown previously)


Municipal Staffing
Rate Payers Interpretation:
“At the date of the last election there were 19 employees in the Municipal Office (Administrators and Staff) Today that number is 25. “
Municipal Fact:
- Wages for Hourly positions are driven by the negotiations of the Union Collective Agreement while Management wages are set based on surveys assembled and distributed to municipalities by AAMDC (Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties) and AUMA (Alberta Urban Municipalities Association).
- In 2011 a new Corporate structure was established that added one new position to administration. Currently the Municipality’s administrative structure includes a CAO, three Directors and three Managers overseeing the areas of Finance and Corporate Services, Planning, Engineering and Operations and Protective and Community Services. Currently two of the three manager positions are vacant while recruiting for suitable applicants takes place.

Positions:
# of Positions on October 2010
# of Positions on October 2012
Administrative Positions
6
7
Municipal Inside (office) Union Positions
10
13
Total Positions in Municipal Office
16
20
Municipal Outside Union Positions
33
37
Total Municipal Administration, Inside (office) and Outside Union Positions
49
57
Non Union Positions:
Library
4
3
Pool Seasonal (May-August)
17 (May-August)
16 (May –August)
Ski Hill (November-April)
42 (39 November-April)
(3 Full Time)
42 (39 November-April)

Note: The ratepayers argued that there was a difference of 6 employees between 2010 and 2012 the municipality now shows an actual staff difference of 8. I wonder in the municipal numbers if they are including positions that have been moved from the office to other locations now placed in the outside (Building Inspector, Commumity Peace Officer/Bylaw). In addition there is a position in the office that as been vacant for at least two months is that being factored in.

Note:Ratepayers Flyer comes out on Tuesday/Wednesday by Friday Municipality realises all kinds of numbers, a lot of this information was requested by the ratepayers back in early August they were not provided until October 9th. 
What's even more amazing is seeing all of these numbers put together virtually over night yet the numbers for one short weekend event in July can not be put together in three months.   

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, I do not believe one thing this administration or Mayor says anymore. They have lost all credibility with me! When you make public statements like; 'there is no truth to the Municipality going to one fire station' to see a signed document by the Mayor Sept. 29, 2011 stating that we are going to one fire station, or lying about the pool board being dismissed and having no prior knowledge of that, to find out that the CAO signed the letter and cc'd it to the Mayor, do they really think we're that gullible? Trust is something you earn and we owe them nothing!

Anonymous said...

Wow, and why are we taking so long to get the Rum Runner Days numbers?

Anonymous said...

Just read the report. This is in the report.
"Suspending Thunder in the Valley has been another very unpopular decision Council made. That decision was made in the interest of public safety, and also due to the financial burden The RCMP made it very clear to Council that major changes were needed as they were extremely concerned for public safety. We took their advice. At this moment we are working on a plan that will make the safety changes required, and allow us to bring back a fireworks event in the future. We will be able to provide more information closer to the end of the year as plans firm up."
Now that just makes me laugh. Whos going to put the show on?
Whos going to pay for the fireworks?
Where are you going to store them?
Where will you find a volunteer?
I could go on and on
TGIF

Anonymous said...

One wonders who is heading their information and public relations department. It’s quite obvious they can put these things together quite quickly. If you can’t confuse the public with words, try to snow them with numbers.

Anonymous said...

"A Message From Your Municipal Council"

So, a resolution was moved at a Council Meeting to issue this message and post it on our publicly owned website, and passed by majority vote?

Anonymous said...

2:30.. It could turn out that the finacial burden could turn out to be a financial fiasco, and that is not including the toll inflicted on our business sector, of which we will never really know.

Anonymous said...

Looking at the Franchise Fees they can not even clarify numbers correctly when they produce them.
Can't wait for Rum Runner Days numbers.
Don't forget Coleman and Bellcrest get $5000 a year for their family orientated weekend.

John Prince said...

At this past week's G&P meeting of council when the RRD's report was suppose to be provided but was not, I found it interesting that the mayor stated he wanted Emile Sainden as chairman of this committee to present the RRD's final report, personally. Which is the right thing to do, but at the same time I got the impression he wants him to be the fall guy for this year's RRD's fiasco, rather than council as a whole.

"It is the blood of the soldier that makes the general great."

JP

Anonymous said...

Why put the item on the agenda three consectitive meetings if you are not ready?
It only creates more questions

Anonymous said...

"Blood of the solider" Just like when they set Gallant up at the town Hall meeting, to tell us how stupid we were for believing that they had paid $800+ a day to have someone come and shoot our gophers.

It appears his worship, feels these two bad boys, need to be taught a lesson. Wonder what they did or tried to do?

Anonymous said...

John Prince 10:38 said...

"Which is the right thing to do"

I think the right thing would be for whoever was signing the cheques and contracts to be accountable.

Searching MGA for "cheque" ...

"213(4) Agreements and cheques and other negotiable instruments must be signed or authorized
___(a) by the chief elected official or by another person authorized by council to sign them, and
___(b) by a designated officer,
or by a designated officer acting alone if so authorized by council."


I guess a new Council would pass a resolution to make new authorizations/designations and cancel old ones? I haven't looked for that motion.

Anonymous said...

Anybody out there know how many signatures on the petition?

Anonymous said...

Not everything this council is doing should be, or can be, criticized. However, the way this council is doing business can be, and should be, criticized. It appears that this council, early on, decided that our community is backward and RESISTANT TO CHANGE and they are going to the RIGHT THING, come hell or high water. One wonders how Larry felt when told all the previous councils had all, or most, of our municipal POLICIES ALL WRONG. There is no meaningful evidence that there was a serious debate, on the contrary, once this initial premise was accepted, consultants were hired to prove the point. When a consultant brought forward a plan which did not fit with the original plan, he was dismissed, like with the original consultant on the fire department restructuring. All we have seen so far is bureaucratic stumbling in the dark, higher taxes, higher franchise fees, which are simply back door tax increases. How many new houses are being built and why is that? Is it because the policies are still bad? As long as the council hears only one side of an argument and all others are kept at a distance, like happened with the original fire hall consultant, this will continue to go on. This is why external supervision of how our council’s work is being conducted is necessary. Again, not all is their fault, we had mostly a new council, one strong personality, and a total vacuum at the top of our administration, and this is why we are where we are today. Now, after two years, it is time for our council to find its voice.

Anonymous said...

They got around to this on Nov. 16, 2010 (after ordering themselves high back executive chairs on Nov 2):

M#5802-10: Mayor Decoux moved to approve:
1. the following designated officers as signing authorities for the Municipality of
Crowsnest Pass:
Chief Administrative Officer – Tully Clifford
Director of Finance & Systems – Marion Vanoni
And
2. The following Municipal Corporation Directors as signing authorities for the
Municipality of Crowsnest Pass:
Chief Elected Officer – Bruce Vernon Decoux
Councillor – Siegbert Gail
Councillor – Brian Gallant
Councillor – Jerry Lonsbury
Councillor – Larry Mitchell
Councillor – Emile Saindon
Councillor – Andrew Saje


Dean, JP, anyone - can you figure out from this and MGA 213 who can sign cheques?

"designated officer" seems to mean admin positions created by bylaw (MGA 210), not councillors. I would think these officers can only sign cheques on their departmental budgets.

The motion seems to qualify a councillor as "another person authorized by council to sign".

Anonymous said...

It's hard to believe that a group of unelected citizens, namely the Ratepayer's Association, feels that they have the absolute right to stick their noses into the business of duly elected Council.(The very one that they voted in, by the way.) In any case, all that they seem to have accomplished is to make a laughing stock of our Community, throughout the province and the country. They are sending the message that.... "We happily voted in this Council, now we have changed our minds because they are not doing things our way and we want to get rid of them". How childish is that? If any of them think that they can do a better job, then they should do things the proper way, and run for Council in the next election. As it stands now, they are doing more harm than good to our Community.

Anonymous said...

Alberta Municipal Government Act governs the conduct of local governments throughout the province, and has a mechanism for the citizens to ask the Minister of the Municipal Affairs to intervene, if certain very stringent conditions for this intervention are met. The conditions for approaching the minister are set high, so it does not happen often, but the mechanism is there for a good reason. On the more ”laughing stock” note, imagine a council calling the police on our own volunteers, as happened with the excess fireworks, which were not used because the fireworks show was cancelled. Was there no more amicable way to solve something like this? These kinds of high handed decisions raise more eyebrows among reasonable people than looking at the Crowsnest Pass citizens asking the Minister to look into their own affairs, as laid out in the AMGA. Someone spelled out our problem correctly by pointing out that it does not matter how lofty our plans are, if we are unable to engage the community with these great plans. Crowsnest Pass is not resistant to change - Crowsnest Pass is resistant to foolishness.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:52 wrote:

"right to stick their noses into the business of duly elected Council."

Yeah, it's outrageous that mere taxpayers and voters should stick their grubby noses into the private business of elected representatives. Even worse, they have the temerity to demand transparency in the decision making process and accountability for spending.

peter rosner said...

2000 citizens and growing say otherwise and that is what democracy is all about. Maybe next time the voters will wisen up they still dont know that absolute power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely.

Anonymous said...

BTW, the Ratepayers and others are making a big mistake asking for answers to questions.

We have a FOIP law that gives us the right to any DOCUMENT that is not legitimately confidential (e.g., containing personal info).

FOIP does not require the government to answer questions. This makes sense when you think about it - anything they tell you must be from some DOCUMENT, or else they are just making it up.

So when they tell us stuff, we should be asking the name of the DOCUMENT it comes from and then asking for a copy of the DOCUMENT.

Dean & JP - when you were on Council you had the detailed "line item budget". This is public information - what is the official name of this DOCUMENT so I can ask for it?

Anonymous said...

Somewhat offtopic:

From Sept 20 2011 Page 10

Abiocon Strategies Inc. Contract
M#6246 -11: Councillor B. Gallant moved to accept the contract with Abiocon Strategies Inc.
relative to the completion and formalization of the Municipal Strategic Plan.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY


That was the mysterious $19,000. Did you already know that?

Anonymous said...

t's hard to believe that a group of unelected citizens, namely the Ratepayer's Association, feels that they have the absolute right to stick their noses into the business of duly elected Council.(The very one that they voted in, by the way.) In any case, all that they seem to have accomplished is to make a laughing stock of our Community, throughout the province and the country. They are sending the message that.... "We happily voted in this Council, now we have changed our minds because they are not doing things our way and we want to get rid of them". How childish is that? If any of them think that they can do a better job, then they should do things the proper way, and run for Council in the next election. As it stands now, they are doing more harm than good to our Community.

Mon Oct 22, 04:52:00 PM 2012

I agree. But even among the Ratepayers they are already fighting. And what happens next election - 2 years into it we don't like them. Can't keep operating that way. That is why we have elections. Don't like them, vote them out. By the time everything gets supposedly done like the Ratepayers think they should, it will be election time anyways. Better pay better attention this time.

Anonymous said...

heard in the grapevine, some members in the ratepayers group are running in the next election,No wonder they want this council to look bad, to make themselves look good.

Anonymous said...

We have voted for this council and most of us now admit, we have made a mistake. The petition is important for several reasons. The main reason is that our council is labouring under a mistaken assumption that their hard work of changing a “change resistant community” is supported by the so called “silent majority.” Everyone agrees that our community needs changing, but there is also a general agreement that the “foundations” on which our community is supported are very sound, otherwise we would not be here. The foundations which support our community are called “volunteerism.” With regard to our “foundations” our council has completely come off the rails. Is there a group, association or a board left in our community which did not have a stick stuck into their “collective eye?” I apologize for a clumsy metaphor, but one can say something much stronger and not very nice when thinking about it. Our council thinks that all this uproar is about poor communications and rumors, this kind of thinking just goes to prove how out of touch they have become from the community they were elected to represent. This is why signing the petition is very important. We need our councillors to ask themselves why all this is happening?

Anonymous said...

Anon.5; 30 Do you really think that anyone could add anything to make this council look bad?

peter rosner said...

ANON 6:48 you got that sumed up fairly well and that is coming from a former volunteer. ANON 5:30 that is no grapevine rumour some of these individuals have been in bed with council and the ratepayers they will flip and flop monitoring public opinion tring to get themselves noticed. There is no secret they will run in the next election but they will not get my vote i can see through their bullshit.

Jose said...

Interesting string of emails above. The Mayor and Council are there to represent the people, and not to push their personal agendas. The citizens have every right to question them, and if answers are not forthcoming, also have every right to take the action that the Ratepayers have. Trashing the Ratepayers shows that there is substance to the questions being raised.

The Council Meetings are non informative and eveything is rubber stamped at the wishes of the Mayor. Participatory democracy this is not.

Jose

Anonymous said...

"Jose" is really odd. Nobody is trashing the ratepayers. Just saying that they might not be all that they say. And, until the end of earth there will always be officials that we do not agree with. That is why we have elections in Canada so the majority gets to have a say. Not a handfull of hopefuls....
Stay in touch.

Anonymous said...

Our Mayor, (and the council by extension by not reigning him in), has a bit of an issue with public delegations to council. Well, they should view the coming petition simply as ONE BIG PUBLIC DELEGATION to council, nothing more.

Anonymous said...

Yes we have regular elections.
Yes we have to live with democracy.
But for those rare occasions where the public feels they have made a mistake. Or feels that the politicians are totally disrespecting the wishes of a significant portion of the public.
The province offers the opportunity in the MGA for the public to challenge their leaders. It is not easy to do, 120 people can't get together and go to municipal affairs. It's a significant number the best proof that the system actually works is how many successful petitions have there been in the Crowsnest Pass or any where else for that matter. I would expect the number to be low. If nothing else the petition will demonstrate that the "Taxpayers" are "not" satisfied with the ways things are being done. Town hall meeting and monthly propaganda letters where a bully is allowed to belittle the people that disagree with him is "not good communications".


Gary

Anonymous said...

On John's site, someone said they heard that people under 18 were signing the petition. I would hope that each person signing must show ID and proof of residency. Otherwiese...huum.

Anonymous said...

Someone is just trying to make trouble. The petition will have many more signatures than required, but you can bet your boots those on the receiving end of the petition will try to make trouble. This is why the enumerators were sworn in.

Anonymous said...

It has been obvious from the get-go, that certain members of the Ratepayer's Association will be running for Council in the next election. I wonder how, if elected, they would feel about being treated with the same lack of respect and courtesy that they themselves are showing our current Council. It will happen, because they have now set the standard. None of them will have my vote, that is a certainty.

Anonymous said...

Yes, what goes around comes around. The lack of respect and courtesy is alarming to me. They also will not have my vote.

Anonymous said...

or mine

Anonymous said...

The lack of respect has been alarming from "get go," but it got worse during the past year. If it was not for this lack of respect, we would not have the petition. No one on the right mind is happy about the petition, but it is necessary.

Jose said...

Anon Oct 24 08:51AM -yes I may be odd, but the following statement from Anon 4:52 PM Oct 22 :

" It's hard to believe that a group of unelected citizens, namely the Ratepayer's Association, feels that they have the absolute right to stick their noses into the business of duly elected Council." is just as odd.

Guess that means if one's elected, one has carte blanche, while an unelected citizen should just sit back and keep his/her mouth shut. Not going to happen..

Jose

Anonymous said...

Yes Jose, you and several others should keep your mouths shut, until you enter the polling booth for the next election. Will you be running for Mayor or Council? This group mentality of the" Association" borders on the ridiculous. I have been following this blog for a while, and I always assumed you were a smart person. Was I wrong?

peter rosner said...

ANON 9:27 why would you tell "Jose" and others or the "Association" as you put it to keep their mouths shut. This (Deans Blog) is an open forum where people are allowed to express their opinion. Each side of the debate is allowed to give their opinion on a range of topics dont you think its wise to filter the nonsense and get a perspective of what is going on here right now. And the fact is its not looking good for this group of councilers.

Anonymous said...

Hey 9:27, assaulting someone like this does not reveal a lot of " smarts.". If you have been following this blog, and can follow an argument,you would know that the root of our current problem is lack of respect. This lack of respect started with the Mayor, spread through the council, and then infected the rest of us. When all is said and done, we will still need to get along and work together. If you need clues, just read the Mayor's corner, all he needed to say " we agreed to disagree," but he could not help himself from elaborating too much.

Jose said...

Anon. 9:27 PM - assume what you want, say what you want and do what you want - matters not to me. I certainly do not need your approval to voice my opinion, or to support or comment on any group.

Are you the front for the local "Thought Police". Haven't seen that position in the Municipality roster - yet.

Jose

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:27 Council represents the people.I hope we can agree on this.
The people are letting council know that they disagree with their decisions.At what stage should council listen to the people they represent? More people have signed this petition than voted for the Mayor who won by a landslide.
It does not matter if council beleives it is in the right!What matters is the people they represent.Why would council not try and find some common ground instead of being arrogant and doing as they please.
Also do not worry about the next election, it is about a year away.I have to think that no one on this council wishes to be reelected and we will still have a long list of choices for the next term.