They just don’t get it……… or are they?

Now both Councilors that blog have spoken plus the Mayor’s press release from last week, it appears to me that they and the rest of council are not getting the message about the petition. (See links below)

They are all welcoming Municipal Affairs, they all have nothing to hide, and the people have been misled or intimidated. I have this vision in my mind of the Mayor and Council waving their arms and telling the Minister to “bring it on”.

Personally, I do not and I think most people would agree expect Municipal Affairs to send somebody in here that is going to find massive incidents of fraud or other criminal activity.

We all know that we have had petitions in the Crowsnest Pass before; they failed for one reason or another. From the research, I have done other communities that have been involved in petitions some succeeded some failed. I cannot find one other community where such a high percentage of the population signed a petition so fast. In less than twenty days, every second voter in this community signed the petition.

Does that not say something? The message Council and administration should be getting, is that the taxpayers are not happy. Rome was not built in a day and yes people will accept “change” it always a matter of how much and how fast.

Some people say to me that this Council due to some of their member’s arrogance, naivety, or just plain state of denial will never get the taxpayers message. We should not lose sight of the fact that since the petition was presented to Municipal Affairs, the municipality has changed course on a number of issues, removing the Swimming Pool Authority, The Quint Ladder truck, Franchise Fees. What is next? May be we will all be seduced with the ultimate in vote buying a smaller tax increase.   

Weather they are getting the message or not one thing they will not be able to beat is time. All politicians find out that the same people that put them in power can remove them just has fast. Come October 22, 2013 people will analysis the results, some people will be very happy and some will claim the voters were misled, intimidated or any other excuse that makes the speaker feel better.    

http://emilesaindon.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/its-been-awhile-2/#comments

http://briangallant.ca/wordpress/2012/11/03/the-other-side-of-the-petition/

A victory for the taxpayers of the Crowsnest Pass, standing up and making a difference.

Finally 2500 names on a petition, taxpayers standing up all over the Crowsnest Pass is making a difference. 

One of the most controversial methods of picking the tax payers pockets next year was going to be a $336,000 increase to the amount of Franchise Fees that we the residents of the Crowsnest Pass have no choice to pay unless you can live without Gas or Power. Even when the Municipality presented their “Fact Sheet” at an approximate cost of $10,000 in the local media back in November, they had the Franchise Fees rising from 20% to 35% for gas and from 14% to 20% for power. This on top of the fact that the revenue being generated by these Franchise Fees had already jumped from $295,000 in 2010 to $570,000 in 2012, the further increases would have taken that number to $907,000 next year.

To my shock the “Facts” have changed up on opening the local paper last night, I see that the Municipality is now advertising the Franchise Fees are only increasing from 20% to 25% for gas and from 14% to 16% for power. This means instead of the Franchise Fee Revenue jumping from $295,000 in 2010 to $907,000 in 2013 it will only jump to $682,000 next year an increase of  231% in three years instead of the 308% previously proposed. I know we should not be dancing in the streets over this but it is a partial victory in that $225,000 less will be taken out of our pockets next year.

On top of that at last week’s G+P meeting the CAO clarified that there will be, has the Mayor stated in his last newsletter a $500,000 savings in the Fire Departments. This savings will come about by them not taking that money and purchasing the much-discussed Quint Ladder Truck. Now I know some people may look at this skeptically and think games are being played with numbers here, somebody said to me yesterday so if I propose to buy a $150,000 Hummer that I don’t need then I come to my senses and back off on buying it did I really save $150,000?

Two things here first of all Council/administration are going to look heroes here with the 2012 budget, $250,000 not spent on the Quint this year, $600,000 not spent on demolishing the Crowsnest Centre and all the savings they have incurred by not filling various positions in a timely fashion. (We will talk about this more in a future post)

Second, do I think this would have happened without the petition without people finally speaking up? Not a chance.

You would almost think Municipal  Affairs was coming in to do an investigation!  

     

Do you really believe or are we making excuses?

We are now well past the two-thirds point of this council term. A strange thing started to happen during the petition process and now I am hearing it more around town, and I expect it will happen more and more as we get closer to the next election.

I do not know if people just want to believe this or maybe there really is something to it.

Getting to my point during the petition process, I heard from people we have spoke to a “councilor” or knows somebody that has spoken to a “councilor” who does not agree with council’s direction on some of the issues. I see and hear  comments on blogs and around town about us having some good people on council who have lived here all their life’s who got caught up in some bad decisions but just don’t know how to get out.

Well maybe there is something to that, or maybe people just want to believe or they are making excuses.

What can a councilor do if he does not agree with the position the council has taken on an issue? Lots.

First, when the issue comes up on the agenda he needs to speak to it, to make arguments against the issue, to disagree with administration or the rest of council to vote against the item.

If it is an issue that has been gone through all ready or an issue that is being brought up in the public forum repeatedly. There is no reason that a councilor cannot add that item to the next agenda, raise it again, and express either his or the public’s concerns.

If a councilor feels that, the Mayor is jamming an issue through or not giving council enough time to deal with an issue. Councilors have the authority to challenge the Chair, it is very simple (I did it a number of times during my two terms on council) you make a motion to challenge the chair the councilor that made the motion then gets to argue his point, the Mayor gets to respond. Which is then followed by a vote amongst council where a simple majority can over ride the Mayor’s position on that item. No, I am not talking about launching a coup here or getting rude, ignorant, or disrespectful of the process, I am talking about a simple procedure that allows a member of council to stand up and say I do not agree with the ways things are being done here.  

With the present council it is more that likely that any of the steps above would probably fail, but that’s ok at the minimum it would send a message to the public that there is some dissent on council that there are some councilors that don’t agree with the issues and directions that this council has taken. It is strange that at all levels of government except municipal you have opposition.

Do I think any of this will happen? No, not really with the possible exception of a few months before the next election somebody may wish to prove to the public (voters) that they are their own man.

   

Its amazing how one word can change the way people view an issue.

On March 8, the Herald asked the following question:

“Do you support the municipality launching a shuttle bus service to transport Crowsnest Pass residents to indoor pool facilities in neighboring communities?”

The results out of 61 people that voted 49% said Yes, 44% said No and 7% were undecided.

Shortly after the Promoter ran a very similar question except they added that one little word “PAY” would you pay for that same shuttle?

The results were out of 51 people that voted 16% said Yes, 73% said No and 11% were undecided.

It really is amazing out that one-word “PAY” changes everything.

Think about it folks, even if they come up with corporate sponsors to cover the shuttle up front how long do you think that will last, within a year the taxpayers will be paying for a service that only a very small portion of the public will use.

The message that I heard from this poll and around town is we the taxpayers of the Crowsnest Pass do not want to pay for this service.

Crowsnest Centre Bylaw Amended and Passed by Council on July 22, 2008

Below is the bylaw that was passed on July 22, 2008 by the Council at their meeting. This is what the taxpayers will be voting on Sept 8 (Advance) and Sept 22 (Regular Poll).
Controversy at the meeting because some of council wish to keep the bylaw as vague as possible. We all know that I have been strongly opposed to maintaining the Centre and unlike some people I do not flip flop on issues to satisfy the vocal minority. But a group went out with a petition, the petition was ruled valid, so even though I disagree with that petition I respect it. So the bylaw was designed to determine if the Crowsnest Centre should be maintained for the next ten years, by the taxpayers of the Crowsnest Pass.
Logic behind the bylaw I shall explain;
Part 1 represents the wishes of the petition to maintain the land in question "for public and community purposes as a Community and Learning Centre and for providing other municipal services".
Part 2 further enhances and ensures the continuing existence of the above, how?
2a For years I have heard that we have put too much pressure and burden on a unpaid volunteer board to run the Crowsnest Centre, I agree volunteers come and go what would happen if the board resigned tomorrow it happened prior to the last referendum, it would jeopardize the future of the centre as a Community Learning Centre.
The employees, I have heard many times over the years that other municipal facilities are maintained by our employees that the Centre is at a distinct disadvantage by having to hire employees for budgetary reasons at lower wages. As the building becomes older to ensure its survival as a Community Learning Centre we need to provide adequate labour to maintain it.
We should not be counting on volunteers to clean up mold, that should be done by paid employees.

2b In October 2007 council received a report from Hirano Heaton regarding the state of the Crowsnest Centre, the report outlined many problems with the Centre it also gave Council four options to maintain the Centre moving into the future. If the taxpayers decide to keep the centre then we need to move forward on these options, that should happen, that is how we ensure the long term future of the Centre as a Community Learning Centre.

2c On December 5 2007 I asked the question of the head of the Crowsnest Centre Board "Do you feel over the years the Centre as been underfunded?" The response I received was "Yes Grossly" If the taxpayers of the Crowsnest Pass choose to maintain the Centre as a Community Learning Centre, then I say we must pay for it. Do not allow the politicians an easy way out by allowing it to be properly funded somewhere down the road. If you go out and buy a house the bank will tell you what it will cost you and when you will start paying for it. You don't get to have the house and pay for it when you like.

If the taxpayers want and support the Crowsnest Centre why would they have a problem with the above. The measures above will if the taxpayers so choose ensure the continuing existence and operation of the Crowsnest Centre Property as a Community and Learning Centre and for providing other municipal services.

Once again I would like to say that I "will not" be supporting this bylaw, I have consistently argued that we as a community, one don't need two community centres and two can't afford them.
And that is exactly why the opposition to this bylaw is so opposed, because they know if the public knows the real cost of maintaining this site the majority will vote against it to. Lets give the public all of the information available and allow them to make a "informed" decision.



MUNICIPALITY OF CROWSNEST PASS

BY-LAW NO. 766, 2008


A BY-LAW OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CROWSNEST PASS, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, TO HOLD A PLEBISCITE AS REQUESTED BY A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF ELECTORS ON THE MATTER OF THE ONGOING OPERATION OF THE CROWSNEST CENTRE AS A LEARNING AND COMMUNITY CENTRE.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Part 7 of the Municipal Government Act, being Chapter M-26 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta, 2000 and any amendments thereto, the electors of the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass, on May 23, 2008 presented a petition to the Municipality requesting Council to bring to a public vote a Bylaw ensuring the continuing existence and operation of the Crowsnest Centre property (Plan 731227, Block H, containing 3.51 hectares) to be used for public and community purposes as a Community and Learning Centre, and for providing other municipal services;

AND WHEREAS, on June 19, 2008 the Chief Administrative Officer of the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass declared the petition sufficient and presented his declaration to the next regularly scheduled Municipal Council meeting on June 24, 2008;

NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CROWSNEST PASS DULY ASSEMBLED ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass ensure the continuing existence and operation of Crowsnest Centre property (Plan 731227, Block H, containing 3.51 hectares), be used for public and community purposes as a Community and Learning Centre and for providing other municipal services.
2. To enhance and further ensure the continuing existence and operation of the Crowsnest Centre as a learning and Community Centre, and to have the ability to provide other municipal services the following steps must be taken;
a) The operation of the entire facility will be administrated directly by the municipality, and will be maintained and operated by municipal employees.
b) To provide the citizens of the Crowsnest Pass with a facility functionally able to provide municipal services such as a Community and Learning Centre and any other municipal services deemed necessary. Administration shall determine and report back to Municipal Council by no later than December 31, 2008 the most viable option outlined in the Hirano and Heaton report of October 2007.
c) Municipal council will place into the 2009 budget all funds required to upgrade the facility as per the Hirano and Heaton Report of October 2007.




This Bylaw shall come into effect upon final reading.





Read a first time this day of , 2008.



Mayor




Chief Administrative Officer


Read a second time this day of , 2008.





Read a third time and finally passed this day of , 2008.




Mayor



Chief Administrative Officer