Council Meeting of June 7, 2011
Mayor Decoux prior to the meeting commencing said some kind words about former Mayor Irwin’s years of service to the municipality and requested everybody present to take a moments silence.
Public Hearing: None
Agenda: Mayor Decoux added Emergent Land Issue in Camera. He also changed Item #5 under Bylaws to come after delegations. He deleted the following items correspondence #2 letter from Hon. Luke Ouellette regarding Federal Gas Tax Fund. He also deleted under other business, Drum Creek Flooding, Draft Budget Policy, and Municipal Office. He added Gifts for members of the task force under other business. Motion to accept the Agenda as amended was passed unanimously
Adoption of previous minutes:
1. Minutes of the Council Meeting of May 17, 2011, with minor corrections. Motion to accept was passed unanimously
2. Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of May 11, 2011, with minor corrections. Motion to accept was passed unanimously
Delegations:
1. Mark Murphy Emergency Management Field Officer for Southern Alberta reviewed the Emergency Management planning process with council and administration.
2. Larry Simpson, Director Strategic Philanthropy and Conservation for the Nature Conservancy gave an over view of what they do and stated that they own 1600 acres in the Pass and have conservation easements on 400 more acres.
Bylaws: 826 Land Use Bylaw third reading (Green Mountain Company in West Coleman)
Mayor Decoux gave the public the option to present anything new on this issue, no response either for or against.
Comments from council: Councilor Saindon needs to be convinced that the developer will address the public’s concerns.
Councilor Gallant felt that those issues would be covered off in the development agreement.
Councilor Gail had concerns about old mines workings, underground creeks, and the highway and really could not see this area being used for development. Motion for third reading passed 5-2 (Saindon/Saje opposed)
Administrative and Agency Reports: None
Business arising from the Minutes: None
Correspondence:
1. Municipality of Crowsnest Pass Library Board-Pat Korble-Closure of the Bellevue Library. Mayor Decoux asked for comments or questions none provided.
Committee Reports:
1. Minutes of May 24, 2011 G+P committee meeting, no discussion. Motion to accept passed unanimously.
2. Minutes of May 10, 2011 G+P committee meeting, no discussion. Motion to accept passed unanimously
Bylaws:
1. Bylaw 805,2011- Road Closure Frank Industrial Park (2nd & 3rd reading) No discussion. Motion passed 2nd reading 6-1 (Saje) 3rd reading passed 6-1 (Saje)
2. Bylaw 816, 2011 – Walking Trail Bylaw given (2nd & 3rd Reading). No discussion 2nd reading passed Unanimously, 3rd reading passed unanimously
3. Bylaw 821, 2011 – Property Tax Penalties Bylaw given (1st Reading) No discussion 1st reading passed unanimously
4. Bylaw 825, 2011 – Agricultural Services Board Bylaw given (2nd & 3rd Reading). No discussion 2nd reading passed unanimously 3rd reading passed unanimously.
5. Bylaw 826, 2011 – Land Use Bylaw Amendment given (3rd Reading) - (Green Mtn. Company) Dealt with previously after delegations.
6. Bylaw 828, 2011 – Traffic Bylaw Amendment given (1st Reading) No discussion passed 1st reading unanimously.
7. Bylaw 829, 1011 – Noise Bylaw Amendment given (1st Reading) No discussion passed 1st reading unanimously.
8. Bylaw 830, 2011 – Long Grass Bylaw Amendment given (1st Reading) No discussion passed 1st reading unanimously.
9. Bylaw 831, 2011 – Community Standards Bylaw Amendment given (1st Reading) No discussion passed 1st reading unanimously.
10. Bylaw 832, 2011 – Land Use Bylaw Amendment – Sign Standards given (1st Reading) – now has a Public Hearing No discussion passed 1st reading unanimously.
11. Bylaw 833, 2011 – Land Use Bylaw Amendment - Rezoning - given (1st Reading Tartal in Frank) – now has a Public Hearing No discussion passed 1st reading unanimously.
Notices of Motion: None
Other Business:
1. Rescind Endorsement Policy: Councilor Mitchell as been opposed to this policy from its concept, the intent of the policy was to have any council member inform council and seek its approval before appearing in any promotional material for business, developers etc. Motion to rescind passed 5-2 (Saindon/Gallant opposed)
2. Code of conduct for Council and Council committees: Motion to send this to the Policy committee passed 6-1 (Saindon opposed)
3. Council summer schedule: Motion to cancel July 26 G+P, August 2 Council and August 9 G+P, with an additional council to be added August 30. Motion passed 6-1 (Gallant opposed)
4. Draft reserve policy: Motion to accept passed unanimously.
5. Purchase gifts for task force: Mayor Decoux explained that the task force gave their time for free for five meeting since February, felt it reasonable to present the committee members with gifts up to a value of $2250. Motion passed unanimously
6. Draft Budget Policy: Motion to defer to the June 21st meeting passed unanimously.
7. Request for enhanced policing for Rum Runner Days: The municipality to pay $10,000 for 178 of policing, question of administration is this sufficient CAO stated that the RCMP felt not. Councilor Saje felt that moving forward this whole weekend needs to be dealt with more as a business plan, to get away from the huge costs the municipality incurs. Councilor Gail asked if administration had received a revenue report from the fire department yet for the weekend, administration stated they were still working on this. Motion to incur the $10,000 cost passed unanimously.
8. Independent Trucking Enterprise Parking Request: Request to park the coal haul trucks at the old Crowsnest Centre parking lot. Numerous concerns raised by council motion to defer to the next meeting passed 6-1 (Saindon opposed)
9. Municipal Auction Fund Disbursement: Administration recommended that the proceeds from the auction held on the weekend ($2700 approximately) be donated to the Town of Slave Lake. Councilor Mitchell strongly disagreed felt the money should be placed into reserves. Motion passed 5-2 (Saindon/Mitchell opposed)
10. Notice of Motion Transportation: Motion to have a needs assessment conducted and bring back to council on September 6th passed unanimously.
Council Member reports: Comments about various groups sending condolences regarding former Mayor Irwin.
Public Input: None
Motion to go In Camera: Passed Unanimously
****Additional information from last nights meeting****
The package from last nights meeting was just posted on the municipal web site. As noted previously Mayor Decoux deleted several issues from the agenda one of which was the Municipal Office.
Now reading the package I was expecting administration to come back with a reconfiguration as directed by Council a number of weeks ago.
Instead it again raises the issue of moving to the MDM which I have expressed my opinion on previouly. One of my concerns was the cost, especially when council has made it clear that they will improve inefficiencies by reducing the number of staff over time which would make the space issue in the office a non issue.
In the package it shows that $15,000 will be used to facilitate that move, with that money to come from savings by the delayed hiring of staff.
That raises a number of concerns with me first of all how necessary were those positions here we are almost half way through the year and they are still not filled.
Second of all its an old fiscal management trick to make one look good down the road by building additional costs in the budget and then showing savings at the end of the year.
Third it becomes a slush fund for ideas like these that should have been dealt with in the budget process and given a yes or no at that time, or did we not know that the proposed positions would require a place to be?
Fourth does this mean that administration does not believe Councils position that the work force will be reduced in time by the means that council has previously discussed.
Fifth these delays in hiring should provide the opportunity to save a few dollars that could be used to lessen the burden on the taxpayer next year.
Showing posts with label Mayor Irwin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mayor Irwin. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Monday, October 4, 2010
Politicians endorsing private ventures.
At council we are debating the merits of putting in place a policy that Mayor or councillors should have council approval before they endorse a private venture.
Where this began is the Mayor participation in the Bridgecreek video below.
Some people will argue that just appearing in the video as the Mayor of the Crowsnest Pass is an endorsement unto its self.
Take a look at the video, if you do not want to watch it all the Mayor appears just over five minutes in.
Then take a moment on the right and vote, on whether you feel this is something a politician should or should not be doing.
Where this began is the Mayor participation in the Bridgecreek video below.
Some people will argue that just appearing in the video as the Mayor of the Crowsnest Pass is an endorsement unto its self.
Take a look at the video, if you do not want to watch it all the Mayor appears just over five minutes in.
Then take a moment on the right and vote, on whether you feel this is something a politician should or should not be doing.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Throw the bums out!
On Mr Prince's Blog this morning is a post regarding the rising discontent over incumbent politicians and how local incumbent politicians should be very afraid.
I would like to speak to some of the comments he refers to.
http://blog.johnprince.ca/search?updated-min=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-07%3A00&updated-max=2011-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=25
I know this is a case on the International and provincial side of things but the article he refers to does not talk at any point about municipal politics, but lets assume it will flow to that level.
Anyway let's talk about the rest of the post I will take some quotes and address them with my comments :
"According to the above story people in general are angry. Very Angry! They feel their politicians are elitist, arrogant and oblivious to their pain and suffering, and as such doing little to nothing to address their issues and concerns. As a result, it's a very, very bad time to be an incumbent."
Most of us on the present council are simple folks six of us have lived here for ten years or more.
Do we have some members of our council that are elitist, arrogant and oblivious to the residents pain and suffering, yes I think we have some of that do you really think taht applies to the whole of council? should they all be painted with that same brush?
Then we go to:
"With this in mind, I wonder how our own incumbents are feeling about their chances of getting back in, considering the mood of our residents towards the on-going, never ending, three year long battle between the two waring camps on our council?"
John you really do not buy into the 4-3 Irwin propaganda do you? we all know that council spilt over the Crowsnest Centre issue and a some budgetary related issues. We also all recognize that 95% of Council Motions pass by something other than 4-3.
Would this be the first council accused of being 4-3?
But as you have said many times yourself this council did a lot of things well and did not receive enough credit for the good things they did.
"The never ending battle between the waring camps" isn't that exactly how the media, Irwin and his cronies portrayed the council from 1998-2001? Was that all accurate?.
"All the while, apparently, oblivious to the fact there is a good chance none of them will be getting back in because of their past actions".
If none of us are to get back in due to our "past" actions then I suspect the voters will go back further than just this last council, because very few of us that have sat on council previously have not had our names tarnished by one part of the media or the other and Irwin's cronies.
"and understand from this that what is needed and wanted is democracy in action where councillors actually work together as a team for the greater common good and get things done, by applying some good old-fashioned basic common-sense while leaving the grandstanding and 'gotcha' politics behind"
Democracy isn't that about taking a position, debating it and voting? 4-3, 5-2, 6-1, 7-0 which one of them is not democracy.
"Can one blame them? After all, this council treated us like we were mushrooms i.e. kept us in the dark and fed us BS. We never had public forums to discuss any of the important issues, such as Bridgecreek/River Run and the lack of security deposits and long-term taxpayer liabilities, CLC (legal costs), the 4-3 voter split, etc., etc. and still know little to nothing on who, what, when and why with respect to these matters? They acted like they were above us and need not bother or trouble themselves with such matters as accountability and due diligence. Transparency went out the door as did fiscal responsibility. Thoughtful people believe one side was as bad as the other with respect to these matters, and therefore neither side is deserving of getting back in."
Couple of comments:
The Bridgecreek/River Run this is a private deal no different than any other development, we as a council can approve development agreements, zoning etc. No different than if I owned a piece of private land the municipality can not force me a built on it. There are people here that have owned land for 50 years and never done anything with it. That is a right allowed to us in a democratic country.
The mistakes the council made here was when the first council sold this property back in the mid 90's with no conditions attached to it.
Then this council made a large error, when we did not force them to put up security, I also feel that the Mayor made a big mistake when he appeared in their promotional video.
CLC legal costs those were not caused by council if you go back to the report in the spring that we were given by our financial officer after a request by Councillor Mitchell if memory serves me right those costs were about $80,000. Approximately $30,000 of that was due to the plebiscite that was forced on the municipality, which the public eventually sent a clear message on. The rest was as a result of the legal action taken due to the leases signed by the CLC Society.
The 4-3 I give Irwin credit here, he created an issue to blind as many people as possible to the real issues.
What amazes me is that some really smart people have brought into this issue, unless of course they are just using it for political advantage!
Another point if we are going to label this council as the 4-3 council what would we label previous councils, I hope I get this right:
1998-2001 4-3
2001-2004 5-2
2004-2007 4-3
2007-2010 4-3
Help me out folks let me know if I'm wrong.
"Fiscal Responsibility out the door".
Really over the last ten years can anybody point to a council that as done more to become more efficient, to reduce costs, than this one? sometime in the next two weeks I will list them all.
Anyway back to the question on the post, should incumbents be afraid? I guess depending on which side of the issues the voters side with, obviously some incumbents should be afraid.
But I believe that some of the councillors on this last council stood for what they truly believed in despite the fact that they were lambasted in parts of the media week after week.
They could have had it easy, they could have sat back and agreed with Irwin and his cronies, caused no controversy, had wonderful things said about them by those same hacks.
And today those same people would be blasting them for being a 7-0 council, a bunch of mindless sheep, Irwinites, that stood for nothing.
Anyway I believe that the people of the Crowsnest Pass are smart enough to cut through the crap that parts of the local media and Irwin and his cronies, have put out about members of this council and previous ones.
Finally yes I agree some what in that a few of the incumbents do not deserve to come back.
Change will happen in the Crowsnest Pass.
I would like to speak to some of the comments he refers to.
http://blog.johnprince.ca/search?updated-min=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-07%3A00&updated-max=2011-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=25
I know this is a case on the International and provincial side of things but the article he refers to does not talk at any point about municipal politics, but lets assume it will flow to that level.
Anyway let's talk about the rest of the post I will take some quotes and address them with my comments :
"According to the above story people in general are angry. Very Angry! They feel their politicians are elitist, arrogant and oblivious to their pain and suffering, and as such doing little to nothing to address their issues and concerns. As a result, it's a very, very bad time to be an incumbent."
Most of us on the present council are simple folks six of us have lived here for ten years or more.
Do we have some members of our council that are elitist, arrogant and oblivious to the residents pain and suffering, yes I think we have some of that do you really think taht applies to the whole of council? should they all be painted with that same brush?
Then we go to:
"With this in mind, I wonder how our own incumbents are feeling about their chances of getting back in, considering the mood of our residents towards the on-going, never ending, three year long battle between the two waring camps on our council?"
John you really do not buy into the 4-3 Irwin propaganda do you? we all know that council spilt over the Crowsnest Centre issue and a some budgetary related issues. We also all recognize that 95% of Council Motions pass by something other than 4-3.
Would this be the first council accused of being 4-3?
But as you have said many times yourself this council did a lot of things well and did not receive enough credit for the good things they did.
"The never ending battle between the waring camps" isn't that exactly how the media, Irwin and his cronies portrayed the council from 1998-2001? Was that all accurate?.
"All the while, apparently, oblivious to the fact there is a good chance none of them will be getting back in because of their past actions".
If none of us are to get back in due to our "past" actions then I suspect the voters will go back further than just this last council, because very few of us that have sat on council previously have not had our names tarnished by one part of the media or the other and Irwin's cronies.
"and understand from this that what is needed and wanted is democracy in action where councillors actually work together as a team for the greater common good and get things done, by applying some good old-fashioned basic common-sense while leaving the grandstanding and 'gotcha' politics behind"
Democracy isn't that about taking a position, debating it and voting? 4-3, 5-2, 6-1, 7-0 which one of them is not democracy.
"Can one blame them? After all, this council treated us like we were mushrooms i.e. kept us in the dark and fed us BS. We never had public forums to discuss any of the important issues, such as Bridgecreek/River Run and the lack of security deposits and long-term taxpayer liabilities, CLC (legal costs), the 4-3 voter split, etc., etc. and still know little to nothing on who, what, when and why with respect to these matters? They acted like they were above us and need not bother or trouble themselves with such matters as accountability and due diligence. Transparency went out the door as did fiscal responsibility. Thoughtful people believe one side was as bad as the other with respect to these matters, and therefore neither side is deserving of getting back in."
Couple of comments:
The Bridgecreek/River Run this is a private deal no different than any other development, we as a council can approve development agreements, zoning etc. No different than if I owned a piece of private land the municipality can not force me a built on it. There are people here that have owned land for 50 years and never done anything with it. That is a right allowed to us in a democratic country.
The mistakes the council made here was when the first council sold this property back in the mid 90's with no conditions attached to it.
Then this council made a large error, when we did not force them to put up security, I also feel that the Mayor made a big mistake when he appeared in their promotional video.
CLC legal costs those were not caused by council if you go back to the report in the spring that we were given by our financial officer after a request by Councillor Mitchell if memory serves me right those costs were about $80,000. Approximately $30,000 of that was due to the plebiscite that was forced on the municipality, which the public eventually sent a clear message on. The rest was as a result of the legal action taken due to the leases signed by the CLC Society.
The 4-3 I give Irwin credit here, he created an issue to blind as many people as possible to the real issues.
What amazes me is that some really smart people have brought into this issue, unless of course they are just using it for political advantage!
Another point if we are going to label this council as the 4-3 council what would we label previous councils, I hope I get this right:
1998-2001 4-3
2001-2004 5-2
2004-2007 4-3
2007-2010 4-3
Help me out folks let me know if I'm wrong.
"Fiscal Responsibility out the door".
Really over the last ten years can anybody point to a council that as done more to become more efficient, to reduce costs, than this one? sometime in the next two weeks I will list them all.
Anyway back to the question on the post, should incumbents be afraid? I guess depending on which side of the issues the voters side with, obviously some incumbents should be afraid.
But I believe that some of the councillors on this last council stood for what they truly believed in despite the fact that they were lambasted in parts of the media week after week.
They could have had it easy, they could have sat back and agreed with Irwin and his cronies, caused no controversy, had wonderful things said about them by those same hacks.
And today those same people would be blasting them for being a 7-0 council, a bunch of mindless sheep, Irwinites, that stood for nothing.
Anyway I believe that the people of the Crowsnest Pass are smart enough to cut through the crap that parts of the local media and Irwin and his cronies, have put out about members of this council and previous ones.
Finally yes I agree some what in that a few of the incumbents do not deserve to come back.
Change will happen in the Crowsnest Pass.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Crowsnest Pass politics Mayor Irwin major annoucement.
Mayor Irwin tonight announced his intentions for the coming election.
Stated tonight because of his age and number of years of service, he will not be running for the position of Mayor, but to allow the municipality to maintain access to his wealth of knowledge he will run for the position of Councilor.
Does this really mean that he is looking to lighten his load, or his he looking to install a puppet in the Mayors position and pull the strings in the background.
If the latter is the case who's the puppet?
Stated tonight because of his age and number of years of service, he will not be running for the position of Mayor, but to allow the municipality to maintain access to his wealth of knowledge he will run for the position of Councilor.
Does this really mean that he is looking to lighten his load, or his he looking to install a puppet in the Mayors position and pull the strings in the background.
If the latter is the case who's the puppet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)