Last week council was given a presentation regarding public transportation.
Cam Mertz presented an analysis that showed, a public transportation system running Monday through Friday with 24 stops between West Coleman and the MDM operating 14 hours per day.
Based on the revenue numbers provided there would be $25,200 a year coming in divided by 250 days per year that's $100 per day at $2 per trip 50 passengers a day or 4 per hour or $8 per hour.
On the cost side of the equation the numbers showed that the service would cost $201,600 to set up and $311,950 to operate, divided by 250 days per year that's $1248 per day or $89 per hour.
Plus every year an additional $30,000 would have to be put aside to cover the replacement of the bus every three years, in reality the cost would increase to $1368 per day or $98 per hour.
Cost minus revenue leaves this service being subsidized by the taxpayer to the tune of $90 per hour.
The key questions have to be asked here, first of all is there a need and can we afford it.
Looking at the present town rounder its clientele averages somewhere between 8 and 12 daily.
So is the 50 passengers a day realistic? lets look at our neighbours, the Regional District of East Kootenay offers a daily service that runs between Sparwood/Elkford/Fernie and the South Country (Once a week).
Their budget for 2011 based on having twice the population in the Elk Valley that we do plus having a service that runs between communties not just within their boundaries is 6000 passengers. So yes I feel the 12600 rides here is a little optimistic.
Even if the numbers turn out to be real we are looking at having every home in the Crowsnest Pass pay an additional $100 to fund a service that will be used by 4 people per hour.
How many tmes a day do you think you will see that bus travelling back and forth empty.
Unless of course there is $317,000 per year in inefficiencies in the present budget that can be saved.
If there is that kind of fat in our municipal budget first of all I would like to know where, and second I would want to know why we would not just get a $100 tax reduction.
There was some suggestions about reducing those costs, charge $3 per trip selling advertising on the bus (lets assume $20,000 per year), then the cost would come down to only $81 per hour. Even with all that considered if you reduced the service to three days a week it would still cost the taxpayers $200,000 per year.
The municipality will be sending out a survey with an upcoming utility bill to ask for the public's input. I hope with in that survey it explains the costs of this venture, and the assumptions of how many people will use the service. Too often people will support an idea because it sounds good up front, its one of those things government should be doing. Then they are out raged later when they find out the cost.
I don't mind paying taxes for things we need, schools, hospitals, roads, recreation facilities etc etc. But for a transportation system that will be funded to the tune of $90 per hour for an average of four riders?
But then again maybe just maybe this is one of those old political games, maybe there is no intent to proceed with this idea at all. Maybe its just going through the motions.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Municipal government and transparency in the Crowsnest Pass
After much noise being made about the transparency of municipal politics in the Crowsnest Pass. I have been asked the following question by a number of people. Regarding weather business conducted at retreats is open to the public. My understanding of the MGA is if somebody makes a request under FOIP has long as it does not involve Land, Legal, or Labour the municipality is required to provide that information to any interested taxpayer.
Its not a unreasonable expectation
Below is Councilor Gallants.
"Retreats are common with all municipal governments. In order to reduce expense we have hosted our retreats in council chambers so they may look like a council meeting but they are not. No decisions can be made at a retreat and typically it is just a chance to vet ideas. The results of our retreats will be made public once the information is compiled and written out in a format that makes sense. I believe this is FOIP-able as well as long as it is not one of the three L’s I mentioned above. Anyone is welcome to pursue FOIP action if they feel it is necessary."
Its not a unreasonable expectation
Below is Councilor Gallants.
"Retreats are common with all municipal governments. In order to reduce expense we have hosted our retreats in council chambers so they may look like a council meeting but they are not. No decisions can be made at a retreat and typically it is just a chance to vet ideas. The results of our retreats will be made public once the information is compiled and written out in a format that makes sense. I believe this is FOIP-able as well as long as it is not one of the three L’s I mentioned above. Anyone is welcome to pursue FOIP action if they feel it is necessary."
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Clarification of Council renumeration in the Crowsnest Pass
Got a call from a lady today who had told me that she was reading on a councilors blog that he was receiving around $2.50 per hour for attending council business and was very surprised. I quote the following:
"As for my wages I receive an honorarium that probably works out to about $2.50 an hour, as for benefits there is none from the Municipality.
I maintain a full time job during the day and when I take time off during the day for Municipal issues I take time and pay off my regular job which pays me more than $2.50 an hour. So as a simple fact I lose money every time I attend a meeting during the day."
Note: Not for one minute am I suggesting that Councilors are over paid in 6 years on council I made less than $14,000 per year. In fact when Councilor Mitchell suggested last fall that Council renumeration should be cut by 5% I spoke against it. (Little surprised that Councilor Mitchell did not suggest that with the present council) Maybe it wasn't a real issue, keep in mine that 5% reduction would have decreased a $4.5 million labour bill by $5,000.
Well unless this policy got changed since I left council the above statement is not really true. Councilors receive an honorarium of $500 per month which at $2.50 per hour would work out to 200 hours put month, I doubt any councilor is putting in 50 hours per week.
In addition Councilors also receive $70 per meeting with the average meeting running about 3 hours so $23.33 per hour, if the meeting turns into a full day (retreats etc) they receive $160 for an average of 8 hours or $20 per hour.
"As for my wages I receive an honorarium that probably works out to about $2.50 an hour, as for benefits there is none from the Municipality.
I maintain a full time job during the day and when I take time off during the day for Municipal issues I take time and pay off my regular job which pays me more than $2.50 an hour. So as a simple fact I lose money every time I attend a meeting during the day."
Note: Not for one minute am I suggesting that Councilors are over paid in 6 years on council I made less than $14,000 per year. In fact when Councilor Mitchell suggested last fall that Council renumeration should be cut by 5% I spoke against it. (Little surprised that Councilor Mitchell did not suggest that with the present council) Maybe it wasn't a real issue, keep in mine that 5% reduction would have decreased a $4.5 million labour bill by $5,000.
Well unless this policy got changed since I left council the above statement is not really true. Councilors receive an honorarium of $500 per month which at $2.50 per hour would work out to 200 hours put month, I doubt any councilor is putting in 50 hours per week.
In addition Councilors also receive $70 per meeting with the average meeting running about 3 hours so $23.33 per hour, if the meeting turns into a full day (retreats etc) they receive $160 for an average of 8 hours or $20 per hour.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
G + P Meeting May 24, 2011
Adoption of Agenda:
Mayor Decoux made the following changesUnder Topics of Discussion deleted Item #6, and added under In Camera Personnel CAO Recruitment
Motion to accept agenda with additions passed unanimously
Delegations:
Neil Chalmers-Replaced Andrew Rusynyk-Regarding the Ed Gregor Memorial Stewardship Day-June 4, 2011. Spoke to all the hard work that is done by volunteers and invited Mayor and Council to attend.
Topics for Discussion:
1. Bylaw No. 821-Property Tax Penalties:. Administration pointed out this will not apply to local improvements. Motion to recommended this bylaw to council passed unanimously
2. Draft Budget Policy:
No discussion, Motion to recommend this policy to council passed unanimously.
3. Draft Reserve Policy: Councilor Saindon asked administration if actual numbers would be added to the policy at budget time. Yes. Motion to recommended this policy to council passed unanimously
4. Bylaw Revisions:
• Long Grass Bylaw
• Traffic Bylaw
• Noise Bylaw
• Community Standards Bylaw
Discussion spoke to definitions and penalties would now be clear, and that yard sale signs must be removed within seven days. Motion to recommended this bylaw to council passed unanimously
5. Land Use Bylaw Amendment-Section 11-Sign standards: Motion to recommended this bylaw to council passed unanimously
6. Deleted
7. Notice of Motion-Transportation:
This issue relates back to Councilor Saje request for administration to come up with an alternative transportation system for the Crowsnest Pass. Administration will be bringing back at a later date the information to provide transportation outside the municipality.
Cam Mertz presented a report that included the following points:
• Service based on 5 days per week 14 hours per day
• Starting at the Volker Sevin yard in Coleman and ending at the MDM with 22 additional stops in between, with a 30 second stop at each location
• Would require new bus and two operators.
• Revenue based on 15 riders per shift cost of $2 per trip $35,000 per year.
• Cost would be $312,000 to operate and an additional $30,000 for capital costs.
• Capital Outlay would be $201,000 up front due to the amount of mileage placed on the Bus it would require replacing every three years.
• Funding Mertz indicated that there would possibly be some Federal or provincial funding to buy the bus, but the only funding that could be used is the MSI operational funding that presently is used else where in the municipal budget.
• Alternatives (1) Look at combining with the present town rounder, very difficult due to the scheduling requirements of the present clients, (2) Contract out the service or, (3) Look at the same service on a reduced basis.
Following issues were raised by Council:
- Any time built into the schedule for breakdowns? No
- Is going Diesel instead of gas an Option? Yes
- Could we approach business to support this service? Yes
- BC provides a regional service have we looked at that? Yes but we are not in BC
- Have we compared to the rates that taxi’s charge? No
- Councilor Gallant pointed out that since the election only one person as raised this as being an issue with him, he is not convinced that a need as been established.
- What would be the issue of combining with the present service? Hard to work around present clients schedules, the community as made it very clear that they do not want the present service disrupted in any way.
- Prices elsewhere show an average of $3 per trip, why did we not use that number here? The present cost per trip is $2.
- Have we considered running a half-day on Saturdays? Administration will consider anything that council requests.
- Can we sell advertising on the bus to raise money? Yes
- How would other service providers feel about the municipality competing with them? They would not be thrilled with a heavily subsidized municipal service competing with them.
- Would there be an option to work with the school boards? Administration believes that could be a possibility.
8. Discussion of Bylaw #826,2011 (Green Mountain Company rezoning in West Coleman):
Randy Tucker spoke for the local residents emphasized the importance of the following issues:
Appearance of the buildings
Safety concern with Highway 3
Density of proposed buildings
Parking volumes
In Camera: Motion to go In Camera passed unanimously.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Crowsnest Pass CAO Update
On John Prince's blog there is a further update on this situation.
http://blog.johnprince.ca/2011/05/councillor-gallant-appeals-to-residents.html
http://blog.johnprince.ca/2011/05/councillor-gallant-appeals-to-residents.html
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Change in the Crowsnest Pass, CAO is leaving Wow
Resignation
Note: Check out the following article pointed out to me by one of my readers.
www.crowsnestpasspromoter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=2860758
There is more available from this reader/commenter just go down to the right side of my blog and click on the Miners Journey.
The purpose of this email is to let you know I’ve submitted my resignation to Council, my last day of work in Crowsnest Pass will be June 15, 2011. Though my time here has been short I’ve really enjoyed working with all employees. It’s difficult working for local government as we are criticized often and praised seldom. Please know that I appreciate your efforts and acknowledge that Crowsnest Pass could not survive without the fine work of the employees of the Municipality. I’m glad that so many of you recognize that we’re working for our friends and neighbours and that you come to work each day to perform your duties to the best of your ability. Because of your efforts the Municipality offers a very wide range of services and programs to our residents and businesses. Though Council speaks of change you should be proud of your day-to-day work and all your accomplishments and not view change as a negative. Change is difficult and is often seen as a criticism. I challenge you instead to look at change as an opportunity to make a good organization even better. Through change it is hoped that additional opportunities for growth and advancement will be made available to employees and that Crowsnest Pass will continue to evolve as a fantastic place to live and visit. Thank you for working with me during my short time here.
Tully
Note: Check out the following article pointed out to me by one of my readers.
www.crowsnestpasspromoter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=2860758
There is more available from this reader/commenter just go down to the right side of my blog and click on the Miners Journey.
The purpose of this email is to let you know I’ve submitted my resignation to Council, my last day of work in Crowsnest Pass will be June 15, 2011. Though my time here has been short I’ve really enjoyed working with all employees. It’s difficult working for local government as we are criticized often and praised seldom. Please know that I appreciate your efforts and acknowledge that Crowsnest Pass could not survive without the fine work of the employees of the Municipality. I’m glad that so many of you recognize that we’re working for our friends and neighbours and that you come to work each day to perform your duties to the best of your ability. Because of your efforts the Municipality offers a very wide range of services and programs to our residents and businesses. Though Council speaks of change you should be proud of your day-to-day work and all your accomplishments and not view change as a negative. Change is difficult and is often seen as a criticism. I challenge you instead to look at change as an opportunity to make a good organization even better. Through change it is hoped that additional opportunities for growth and advancement will be made available to employees and that Crowsnest Pass will continue to evolve as a fantastic place to live and visit. Thank you for working with me during my short time here.
Tully
Crowsnest Pass Municipal Office Does it need to grow?
Recently a number of people have asked me about the municipal office. There appears to be a controversy brewing about relocating some office staff to a different location. A little background to give the reader a better sense of what is causing the problem.
Right now you have twenty people in the office, the CAO, four department heads a contract assessor, safety officer, bylaw officer, and twelve ladies looking after the various functions covered by those departments.
Again that’s twenty people, this last budget council added a number of full time positions, a Foreman, one person in HR, one person in the recreational department a weed control person, and a half time position in finance.
Anybody that reads my blog understands how I feel about the additional positions, but that was the council’s decision. Validated by an argument that to find more inefficiency and determine where job duties could be changed or combined, it took those additional people to make that happen, briefly short-term growth that will eventually shrink the work force. Well I still do not buy that argument I have never seen at any level (municipal, provincial or federal) where government has shrunk.
Back to the issue at hand, for a while rumors having been floating around the community about the Recreation Department moving to the MDM, due to the shortage of space in the present office.
First is the lack of space has big an issue as it first appears to be? There is a vacant Foreman’s office downstairs so that position is looked after. The weed control person has worked out of the MDM for the last couple of years as a seasonal position, nothing as changed there. The part time position for finance as been accommodated in the finance department for the last three years. Realistically the additional space is required for two people HR and Recreation.
Can the office be reconfigured to cover off those positions? Council believes so at the last G+P they directed administration to come back with a plan that allows for that. From what I have heard administration is coming back to the next G+P meeting still looking at moving to the MDM. Obviously if this is the case communications are breaking down some where I was at that last meeting Council’s direction was very clear.
More arguments for maintaining all the staff in one building;
Costs I do not care what argument you make there will be a cost, to set up at the MDM is it $10,000, $20,000 I have no idea but there will be a cost, so where does that money come from? Is that dollars that could have gone into reserves.
One stop shopping, presently the taxpayer can go into the office pay a utility bill, check on a development permit, talk to the bylaw office and check out a recreation program, basically take care of all your municipal business in one stop.
Redundancy, present council’s position that they are going to reduce the workforce over time by attrition, due to improved efficiency at all levels. If this proves to be true, the office at the MDM would be redundant in a couple of years anyway due to additional space being created in the Coleman office.
Better utilization of MDM space, prior to leaving council we were told that all the space at the MDM was leased out. To maximize cost recovery at the MDM why would you not rent every foot of space you can, that space that is being saved for the administration at the MDM could be rented out to a group which would lessen the burden on the taxpayers to operate that building.
Efficient utilization of staff, during vacation periods there are times where there is very minimal staff in the municipal office which occasionally requires staff to assist in other areas than there own. This would become a bigger issue if staff were spread out over various locations.
Supervision of staff, we all recognize that administration receives vacation during those timeframes being in one building if there is an issue and the department head is away there would be other administrators in the office that could deal with that particular issue.
Smaller issues, maintain two sets of office supplies, extra photocopier, and additional costs for people to run back and forth between the two locations. Co-ordination between departments you can have all the technology in the world but there are going to be times when a person needs to talk face to face with another person in a different department.
Right now you have twenty people in the office, the CAO, four department heads a contract assessor, safety officer, bylaw officer, and twelve ladies looking after the various functions covered by those departments.
Again that’s twenty people, this last budget council added a number of full time positions, a Foreman, one person in HR, one person in the recreational department a weed control person, and a half time position in finance.
Anybody that reads my blog understands how I feel about the additional positions, but that was the council’s decision. Validated by an argument that to find more inefficiency and determine where job duties could be changed or combined, it took those additional people to make that happen, briefly short-term growth that will eventually shrink the work force. Well I still do not buy that argument I have never seen at any level (municipal, provincial or federal) where government has shrunk.
Back to the issue at hand, for a while rumors having been floating around the community about the Recreation Department moving to the MDM, due to the shortage of space in the present office.
First is the lack of space has big an issue as it first appears to be? There is a vacant Foreman’s office downstairs so that position is looked after. The weed control person has worked out of the MDM for the last couple of years as a seasonal position, nothing as changed there. The part time position for finance as been accommodated in the finance department for the last three years. Realistically the additional space is required for two people HR and Recreation.
Can the office be reconfigured to cover off those positions? Council believes so at the last G+P they directed administration to come back with a plan that allows for that. From what I have heard administration is coming back to the next G+P meeting still looking at moving to the MDM. Obviously if this is the case communications are breaking down some where I was at that last meeting Council’s direction was very clear.
More arguments for maintaining all the staff in one building;
Costs I do not care what argument you make there will be a cost, to set up at the MDM is it $10,000, $20,000 I have no idea but there will be a cost, so where does that money come from? Is that dollars that could have gone into reserves.
One stop shopping, presently the taxpayer can go into the office pay a utility bill, check on a development permit, talk to the bylaw office and check out a recreation program, basically take care of all your municipal business in one stop.
Redundancy, present council’s position that they are going to reduce the workforce over time by attrition, due to improved efficiency at all levels. If this proves to be true, the office at the MDM would be redundant in a couple of years anyway due to additional space being created in the Coleman office.
Better utilization of MDM space, prior to leaving council we were told that all the space at the MDM was leased out. To maximize cost recovery at the MDM why would you not rent every foot of space you can, that space that is being saved for the administration at the MDM could be rented out to a group which would lessen the burden on the taxpayers to operate that building.
Efficient utilization of staff, during vacation periods there are times where there is very minimal staff in the municipal office which occasionally requires staff to assist in other areas than there own. This would become a bigger issue if staff were spread out over various locations.
Supervision of staff, we all recognize that administration receives vacation during those timeframes being in one building if there is an issue and the department head is away there would be other administrators in the office that could deal with that particular issue.
Smaller issues, maintain two sets of office supplies, extra photocopier, and additional costs for people to run back and forth between the two locations. Co-ordination between departments you can have all the technology in the world but there are going to be times when a person needs to talk face to face with another person in a different department.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)