Its amazing how politicians positions change before and after an election!
During the campaign there was several candidates that stated they would not support a tax increase, one candidate stated on his literature that he would never support a tax increase, another stated that he would vote as close as possible to zero.
Then the first budget comes along and to our surprise it includes a tax increase, yes I sat in those council meeting and there was three people that voted against that increase but to his credit (Saindon) was the only one that spoke against it, very easy to vote against something and not say a word because its going through anyway.
Now the heat turns up a little bit because there was a tax increase, and because of the wonderful part of the equation called market assessment I have heard of some people being as high as 10%.
Then as I have raised a number of times we all know that during the budget process a number of new positions were created, with the old trick of building in the wages for 12 months knowing full well that the budget does not get passed before April, they are just filling those jobs now so there was at least four months of wages not used, the Foreman's job is still being advertised so that is not going to be filled for at least two more months.
So now the politicians are blaming the province for a tax increase, due to the ASFF and the Seniors Housing increasing their requisitions. Well everybody that been on or around council knows that happens every year. Councilor Mitchell saw that the last three years, I stressed during the election that it was important to have some experienced councilors on the next council for this very type of reason. But one of the present councilors basically stated that, that was nonsense experience was not such a important factor.
Never the less when the ASFF went up by $175,000 and the seniors went up by $18,000 the council had an option they could have taken the dollars saved on wages above and offset those increases, they choice to on the seniors side which will save the average tax payer a whopping $5 this year. But the real issue the ASFF they choose to ignore.
Anyway back to the tax increase they wish to now say the dollars they pick up from Joe Blow taxpayer did not increase this year that its all the provinces (ASFF) fault, its their portion that went up.
Well lets give them some slack here and compare apples to apples lets look at the number of dollars raised by General Municipal Taxation lets put aside the ASFF and the Seniors housing. Where do we find that information? Go to the Mill rate bylaw on the municipal web site. Below is an example from 2009 Bylaw 777 under the whereas you will see a line like the one below it shows the amount of dollars collected by General Municipal Taxation.
"Example 2009 Bylaw 777
WHEREAS, the estimated municipal revenues and transfers from all sources other than taxation is
estimated at $14,354,981, and the balance of $6,360,015 is to be raised by general municipal taxation;
In 2008 the number was $6,277,689
In 2009 the number was $6,360,015
In 2010 the number was $6,432,821
In 2011 the number is $6,555,990
So lets do the math 2009 increased by $82,326.
2010 increased by $72,806.
2011 increased by $123,169
Wow the general taxation went up this year by almost $50,000 more than the previous year, I hope we don't see zero tax increases like this every year. Based on the above numbers previous council did not do so bad.
Then other questions come up, a lot of which have already been pointed out by the commenter's on my blog.
Despite only increasing general taxation last year by $72,806 council managed to do the following:
$450,000 back into reserves
$350,000 surplus
$250,000 equipment purchase out of the municipal budget.
This year despite increasing general taxation by a whopping $123,169 council will manage to do the following:
$100,000 into reserves
Virtually zero surplus except what will be created by putting all those new wages in the budget that will only be used for a portion of the year.
$530,000 in debt taken on to purchase new equipment.
One last point I have heard comments being thrown around regarding reserves and the way they were previously and abused, I have stated before I did not always agree with every Infrastructure project the municipality did, but I would challenge any of the present council to point out a project we should not have spent those reserves on which projects were unnecessary.
Bringing you information, opinions and views on the political scene in the Crowsnest Pass since 2008
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
Municipal Reserves the sequel.
It is with great interest today that I read Councilor Gallants blog regarding the issue of Municipal Reserves. It makes me very excited to see that one councilor is obviously not going to lose focus on this very important issue, my only hope is that the policy for this issue is dealt with a little faster than the advertising policy. It is now been almost six months since that issue was raised at council and the policy is still not in place. I would hope something as important as the “municipal reserve policy” would not be tangled up so long that it would not be in place for the next budget.
Councilor Gallant comments to the use of reserves as a slush fund by previous councils I guess that resonates well with an audience over a couple of latte’s but the truth is a little bit different than that. I did not always agree with some of the previous council’s decisions on infrastructure, but over the last nine years, the $1.9 million that was taken out of reserves was used in combination with various government grants to get us $30 million in Infrastructure projects completed.
But never the less I always was one Councilor (not the only one) to emphasize the importance of building reserves, that’s why last year the majority of Council agreed that it was time to start rebuilding the reserves, which led to a budget that required a $450,000 contribution to the reserve fund. I am happy to hear that thanks to the prudent financial decisions of the majority of that previous council that there appears to be a $350,000 surplus for 2010. Some may not see that as much of an achievement but looking back over the last 10 years most Irwin led councils ran in the red.
Anyway, the issue of reserves how do you know what is enough. Well first thing I do is compare ourselves to other municipalities they can’t all be wrong, where do you find that information Municipal Affairs, their most recent figures to the end of 2008.
Reviewing 108 towns in the province with a population of 441,647, those towns had reserves between them of $474,622,492 or in simple terms $1075 per person, how does the Pass compare to that? $231 per person.
Should plans be in place for reserves? Absolutely (I caught the comment about lack of planning) but anybody who predicted eight years ago that there was going to be a recession in 2007 for a couple of years and that the federal/provincial governments were going to come forth with a stimulus program for municipalities, I want that individual picking numbers for me for Wednesday night.
Also, keep in mind every year previous councils were provided by administration both long term Infrastructure and equipment replacement programs. Did we always get sound advice, well its not that long ago administration was leading down the path of building a new town shop in Coleman that started out as a $300,000 venture, three years later it was up to $1.3 million if the majority of council had not saw fit to put a stop to that you would have no reserves today. The only point of that statement is to state that long-term plans are only as good as the information being provided to you.
Should taxes be raised to build reserves? Previous council managed to place $450,000 into reserves, and create a $350,000 surplus by increasing taxes 3.2% (Including ASFF and Seniors Housing) this year taxes including those outside requisitions went up 2% not a whole lot of difference 1.2% to be exact which in dollar terms is roughly a difference of only $80,000. However, the only money that was placed into reserves was the $100,000 for the lodge, versus the $450,000 put aside last year.
Let us also not lose sight of the requirement to borrow $530,000 to purchase new equipment this year.
Now let us talk about the issue of needs for reserves how much money should be put aside? I agree with Councilor Gallant the municipality does need to determine what the needs are for the long term. To this end, and yes I know it is only preliminary at this point but Myron Thompson the Director of Public Works reviewed with council a few meetings back the long term Infrastructure plan and the equipment replacement program. He stated that the municipality would need to put aside $430,000 per year for infrastructure and $410,000 for equipment replacement Add that to the $100,000 a year for the lodge gives you a total of $940,000 per year.
How will that amount be raised? If that number is even remotely close that equates to a tax increase of 14% next year (remember that would not include ASFF or Seniors Housing). At this point, nobody as even spoke about putting aside dollars for new recreation facilities. Wow, there better be many inefficiencies out there.
One more thought on the issue of policy, I keep hearing the need for policy because councils and administrations change every few years. I recognize also the importance of policy but let us not lose sight of the cold hard facts on policy. As this council spends a lot of time and energy on creating policy, first, it is only as good as the people enforcing it and second it can be changed by the political whims of future council just as quickly as it can be created.
Councilor Gallant comments to the use of reserves as a slush fund by previous councils I guess that resonates well with an audience over a couple of latte’s but the truth is a little bit different than that. I did not always agree with some of the previous council’s decisions on infrastructure, but over the last nine years, the $1.9 million that was taken out of reserves was used in combination with various government grants to get us $30 million in Infrastructure projects completed.
But never the less I always was one Councilor (not the only one) to emphasize the importance of building reserves, that’s why last year the majority of Council agreed that it was time to start rebuilding the reserves, which led to a budget that required a $450,000 contribution to the reserve fund. I am happy to hear that thanks to the prudent financial decisions of the majority of that previous council that there appears to be a $350,000 surplus for 2010. Some may not see that as much of an achievement but looking back over the last 10 years most Irwin led councils ran in the red.
Anyway, the issue of reserves how do you know what is enough. Well first thing I do is compare ourselves to other municipalities they can’t all be wrong, where do you find that information Municipal Affairs, their most recent figures to the end of 2008.
Reviewing 108 towns in the province with a population of 441,647, those towns had reserves between them of $474,622,492 or in simple terms $1075 per person, how does the Pass compare to that? $231 per person.
Should plans be in place for reserves? Absolutely (I caught the comment about lack of planning) but anybody who predicted eight years ago that there was going to be a recession in 2007 for a couple of years and that the federal/provincial governments were going to come forth with a stimulus program for municipalities, I want that individual picking numbers for me for Wednesday night.
Also, keep in mind every year previous councils were provided by administration both long term Infrastructure and equipment replacement programs. Did we always get sound advice, well its not that long ago administration was leading down the path of building a new town shop in Coleman that started out as a $300,000 venture, three years later it was up to $1.3 million if the majority of council had not saw fit to put a stop to that you would have no reserves today. The only point of that statement is to state that long-term plans are only as good as the information being provided to you.
Should taxes be raised to build reserves? Previous council managed to place $450,000 into reserves, and create a $350,000 surplus by increasing taxes 3.2% (Including ASFF and Seniors Housing) this year taxes including those outside requisitions went up 2% not a whole lot of difference 1.2% to be exact which in dollar terms is roughly a difference of only $80,000. However, the only money that was placed into reserves was the $100,000 for the lodge, versus the $450,000 put aside last year.
Let us also not lose sight of the requirement to borrow $530,000 to purchase new equipment this year.
Now let us talk about the issue of needs for reserves how much money should be put aside? I agree with Councilor Gallant the municipality does need to determine what the needs are for the long term. To this end, and yes I know it is only preliminary at this point but Myron Thompson the Director of Public Works reviewed with council a few meetings back the long term Infrastructure plan and the equipment replacement program. He stated that the municipality would need to put aside $430,000 per year for infrastructure and $410,000 for equipment replacement Add that to the $100,000 a year for the lodge gives you a total of $940,000 per year.
How will that amount be raised? If that number is even remotely close that equates to a tax increase of 14% next year (remember that would not include ASFF or Seniors Housing). At this point, nobody as even spoke about putting aside dollars for new recreation facilities. Wow, there better be many inefficiencies out there.
One more thought on the issue of policy, I keep hearing the need for policy because councils and administrations change every few years. I recognize also the importance of policy but let us not lose sight of the cold hard facts on policy. As this council spends a lot of time and energy on creating policy, first, it is only as good as the people enforcing it and second it can be changed by the political whims of future council just as quickly as it can be created.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Council Meeting April 19 2011
Adoption of Agenda
Councilor Gallant added a Land under In Camera
Mayor Decoux also requested that the Delegation be moved to Land In Camera
Motion to accept agenda as amended passed Unanimously
Adoption of previous minutes
Minutes of the regular meeting of April 5, 2011, passed unanimously
Delegations
Shane Stewart development discussion, originally scheduled here council moved In camera
Administrative and Agency Reports: None
Business Arising from the minutes:
1. Budget Appropriation to accommodate the 10% increase in the 2011 Senior Housing Requisition.
Reductions in spending in various areas to offset the $18,500 in additional requisition to finance the seniors housing.
Correspondence:
1. Letter from Hon Hector Goudreau regarding Municipal consultation process, after reaching consensus that it did not really answer councils concerns Motion to file the letter as information passed unanimously
2. Letter from John Pundyk requesting that council look at the possibility of putting in place a moratorium on off site levies for the next fifty homes built in the Crowsnest Pass. Council agreed to table this until the next meeting. To allow administration to come back with information on the issue.
Committee Reports
1. Minutes of the March 29 G+P meeting motion to accept passed unanimously
2. Minutes of the March 8 G+P meeting motion to accept passed unanimously
3. Minutes of the March 10 Heritage Board meeting motion to accept passed unanimously. Councilor Londsbury also made a motion to approach Community Futures to request a copy of their list of historical buildings, passed unanimously.
Bylaws
1. Bylaw 826 Green Mountain Land Use Bylaw Amendment (First Readings)
This is to rezone land in west Coleman to build fourplexs, First reading passed unanimously
Notices of Motion: None
Other Business:
1. Endorsement Policy Councilor Mitchell brought forth a Motion to rescind this policy, Councilor Gallant spoke strongly in support of the policy, concern raised about the Mayor having the ability to welcome new businesses to the community. Councilor Mitchell moved to table his motion passed unanimously, Councilor Londsbury moved to send it to the policy committee passed unanimously.
2. Community Services Website, Administration brought forth the idea of creating a web site for the Community Services department, Councilors spoke about wanting to look at the entire municipal web site, also to look at the possibility of doing something in conjunction with the recommendations of the Economic Task Force, Councilor Saje felt that the report will be looking at the issue of branding the community. Motion to accept Administrations recommendation was defeated 2-5 with Councilors Londsbury and Mitchell in support.
3. Snow and Ice Control Policy, No suggestions from the public were received, Motion to accept the policy as presented was passed unanimously.
4. Temporary Road Closure Request for Bellevue passed unanimously.
5. Encroachment Agreement, Councilors Saje and Saindon asked to be excused due to reasons of conflict. Motion to accept was passed unanimously by remaining members of council.
6. Boulevard Parking, this issue was brought forth by a member of the public previously, requesting the community standards bylaw be amended to allow this. Councilor Saindon made it very clear that people did not want to be seeing other peoples garbage on their boulevard and strongly felt the bylaw was good and clear and its time for the municipality to enforce it, Councilor Gail agreed very much with that position, a motion was made to Maintain and enforce Bylaw 798, 2010 as passed by the previous council this was supported unanimously.
7. Municipal Historical Resource Designation Process, Motion to accept the process was passed unanimously, a request to meet with the group was tabled until September which also passed unanimously.
8. Approval of the request for the Orpheum Theatre as a Municipal Historical Resource and Notice to designate, was passed unanimously.
9. Appointments to the Crowsnest Pass Library Board, Motion to accept administrations recommendations passed unanimously.
10, Cancellation of the April 26 G+P meeting motion to cancel passed unanimously.
Council Member Reports:
Of note Councilor Saje made the comment that council should expect to see a Notice of Motion coming shortly on renovating the Elks Hall
Mayor Decoux informed council that the Province had reduced substantially funding to the South west Rockies organization
Councilor Gail spoke about a publication called 13 ways to kill a community, highly recommended it and after reading it realized he himself was guilty of doing many things in the book.
Public Input:
John Pundyk spoke about development concerns, felt that due to a previous bad experience with developers that the community as to be careful in the development of future policy in that in a desire to do the right thing it does not create policy that as the opposite effect of pushing away development.
Motion to go into Camera passed unanimously.
Councilor Gallant added a Land under In Camera
Mayor Decoux also requested that the Delegation be moved to Land In Camera
Motion to accept agenda as amended passed Unanimously
Adoption of previous minutes
Minutes of the regular meeting of April 5, 2011, passed unanimously
Delegations
Shane Stewart development discussion, originally scheduled here council moved In camera
Administrative and Agency Reports: None
Business Arising from the minutes:
1. Budget Appropriation to accommodate the 10% increase in the 2011 Senior Housing Requisition.
Reductions in spending in various areas to offset the $18,500 in additional requisition to finance the seniors housing.
Correspondence:
1. Letter from Hon Hector Goudreau regarding Municipal consultation process, after reaching consensus that it did not really answer councils concerns Motion to file the letter as information passed unanimously
2. Letter from John Pundyk requesting that council look at the possibility of putting in place a moratorium on off site levies for the next fifty homes built in the Crowsnest Pass. Council agreed to table this until the next meeting. To allow administration to come back with information on the issue.
Committee Reports
1. Minutes of the March 29 G+P meeting motion to accept passed unanimously
2. Minutes of the March 8 G+P meeting motion to accept passed unanimously
3. Minutes of the March 10 Heritage Board meeting motion to accept passed unanimously. Councilor Londsbury also made a motion to approach Community Futures to request a copy of their list of historical buildings, passed unanimously.
Bylaws
1. Bylaw 826 Green Mountain Land Use Bylaw Amendment (First Readings)
This is to rezone land in west Coleman to build fourplexs, First reading passed unanimously
Notices of Motion: None
Other Business:
1. Endorsement Policy Councilor Mitchell brought forth a Motion to rescind this policy, Councilor Gallant spoke strongly in support of the policy, concern raised about the Mayor having the ability to welcome new businesses to the community. Councilor Mitchell moved to table his motion passed unanimously, Councilor Londsbury moved to send it to the policy committee passed unanimously.
2. Community Services Website, Administration brought forth the idea of creating a web site for the Community Services department, Councilors spoke about wanting to look at the entire municipal web site, also to look at the possibility of doing something in conjunction with the recommendations of the Economic Task Force, Councilor Saje felt that the report will be looking at the issue of branding the community. Motion to accept Administrations recommendation was defeated 2-5 with Councilors Londsbury and Mitchell in support.
3. Snow and Ice Control Policy, No suggestions from the public were received, Motion to accept the policy as presented was passed unanimously.
4. Temporary Road Closure Request for Bellevue passed unanimously.
5. Encroachment Agreement, Councilors Saje and Saindon asked to be excused due to reasons of conflict. Motion to accept was passed unanimously by remaining members of council.
6. Boulevard Parking, this issue was brought forth by a member of the public previously, requesting the community standards bylaw be amended to allow this. Councilor Saindon made it very clear that people did not want to be seeing other peoples garbage on their boulevard and strongly felt the bylaw was good and clear and its time for the municipality to enforce it, Councilor Gail agreed very much with that position, a motion was made to Maintain and enforce Bylaw 798, 2010 as passed by the previous council this was supported unanimously.
7. Municipal Historical Resource Designation Process, Motion to accept the process was passed unanimously, a request to meet with the group was tabled until September which also passed unanimously.
8. Approval of the request for the Orpheum Theatre as a Municipal Historical Resource and Notice to designate, was passed unanimously.
9. Appointments to the Crowsnest Pass Library Board, Motion to accept administrations recommendations passed unanimously.
10, Cancellation of the April 26 G+P meeting motion to cancel passed unanimously.
Council Member Reports:
Of note Councilor Saje made the comment that council should expect to see a Notice of Motion coming shortly on renovating the Elks Hall
Mayor Decoux informed council that the Province had reduced substantially funding to the South west Rockies organization
Councilor Gail spoke about a publication called 13 ways to kill a community, highly recommended it and after reading it realized he himself was guilty of doing many things in the book.
Public Input:
John Pundyk spoke about development concerns, felt that due to a previous bad experience with developers that the community as to be careful in the development of future policy in that in a desire to do the right thing it does not create policy that as the opposite effect of pushing away development.
Motion to go into Camera passed unanimously.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Site of Interest
Under interesting site I have changed the address for the Discover Crowsnest Heritage site.
You can access this groups newsletters. Plus a ton more information, pay special attention to the links there are all kinds of good stuff you can check out.
You can access this groups newsletters. Plus a ton more information, pay special attention to the links there are all kinds of good stuff you can check out.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Tax Notices are in your mail boxes
They are in the mail boxes today.
Curious to see how other folks did, my taxes went up almost 2% looking forward to any comments.
Curious to see how other folks did, my taxes went up almost 2% looking forward to any comments.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Bridgecreek Video
http://crowsnestpasshome.blogspot.com/2010/10/bridgecreekpromovideo2007-copy.html
If you can't stomach the whole video the former Mayor kicks in at the 5 minute mark
CAN YOU LET ME KNOW IF THIS WAS THE SAME ONE USED AT THE SALES SEMINARS?
If you can't stomach the whole video the former Mayor kicks in at the 5 minute mark
CAN YOU LET ME KNOW IF THIS WAS THE SAME ONE USED AT THE SALES SEMINARS?
Crowsnest Pass Doctor speaks out (Dr Garbutt)
My fellow blogger John Prince beat me to this story, but I think the more people that get this story out the better.
Crowsnest Pass doctor feared lawsuit after criticizing health system
Read more:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/jobs/Crowsnest+Pass+doctor+feared+lawsuit+after+criticizing+health+system/4611678/story.html
Stelmach and his group are going to be the end of the Conservatives in Alberta, Danielle Smith must be getting very excited about an election.
Crowsnest Pass doctor feared lawsuit after criticizing health system
Read more:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/jobs/Crowsnest+Pass+doctor+feared+lawsuit+after+criticizing+health+system/4611678/story.html
Stelmach and his group are going to be the end of the Conservatives in Alberta, Danielle Smith must be getting very excited about an election.
Labels:
Dr Garbutt,
Ed Stelmach,
Health Care,
Wildrose Party
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Shocked in the Crowsnest Pass
Why am I shocked? Well after all this community went through with the promises of Billion dollar projects, and all the glitz and glamour that came with them.
Last night at the G+P meeting Councilor Mitchell brought forth the following Notice of Motion.
“Whereas the council of the Mun of Crowsnest Pass passed a policy motion CL.013 in the fall of 2010, regarding endorsement policy for member of the council.
And whereas this policy may affect the goodwill of the community towards new endeavours of commercial or industrial ventures and instill the feelings that the community wishes to discourage new development.
And whereas this type of policy is covered under the Mun. Government Act in sections 172 and 173 (pecuniary interests) as quoted when this policy was brought forward in 2010.
With the above in mind, I Larry Mitchell, councilor of the Mun. of Crowsnest Pass will move or cause to be moved a motion to rescind this policy CL.013 2010 at our regular council meeting on April 19,2011.”
This policy came about because the former Mayor of the Crowsnest Pass appeared in a promotional video for a developer that created a lot of noise in the area over the last five years.
Councilor Mitchell understands as full well as I do that sections 172 and 173 of the MGA refers to pecuniary interests, (which in lay mans terms means no member of council shall participate in any council duty that they may gain financially from personally). That’s why we had a councilor for eighteen months who left the chambers every time an issue with this company came up, because he did have a pecuniary interest. He collected a paycheck from this company.
When this policy came forth it was explained in great detail to Councilor Mitchell that there was a perception real or not that when a municipal politician appears in a developers promotional material, it lends credibility to that project.
Nobody wants to discourage new ventures and it may be appropriate at some point for the community and its leaders to assist in the promotion of new development, marketing plan, economical initiative etc.
But prior to our Mayor appearing in this video was there a discussion in council? No
Was council as a whole given the opportunity to discuss if this was a good idea? No.
Now this is what the policy states “No member of council shall be permitted to endorse any project, appear in any promotional video, pamphlet, or publication of any type, or attend shareholders meetings acting as a member of Council without first presenting to Council the reasons for such involvement and receiving Council’s approval”
SHOCKING isn’t it? in simply terms it states that for a member of council to do this he/she would have to bring it to council first and receive approval. As a member of the council at that time I found out about this video months after it was released when a local real estate agent emailed it to me.
I would like to hear Councillor Mitchell or any other politician explain to the public how this policy, “discourages new development”
Last night at the G+P meeting Councilor Mitchell brought forth the following Notice of Motion.
“Whereas the council of the Mun of Crowsnest Pass passed a policy motion CL.013 in the fall of 2010, regarding endorsement policy for member of the council.
And whereas this policy may affect the goodwill of the community towards new endeavours of commercial or industrial ventures and instill the feelings that the community wishes to discourage new development.
And whereas this type of policy is covered under the Mun. Government Act in sections 172 and 173 (pecuniary interests) as quoted when this policy was brought forward in 2010.
With the above in mind, I Larry Mitchell, councilor of the Mun. of Crowsnest Pass will move or cause to be moved a motion to rescind this policy CL.013 2010 at our regular council meeting on April 19,2011.”
This policy came about because the former Mayor of the Crowsnest Pass appeared in a promotional video for a developer that created a lot of noise in the area over the last five years.
Councilor Mitchell understands as full well as I do that sections 172 and 173 of the MGA refers to pecuniary interests, (which in lay mans terms means no member of council shall participate in any council duty that they may gain financially from personally). That’s why we had a councilor for eighteen months who left the chambers every time an issue with this company came up, because he did have a pecuniary interest. He collected a paycheck from this company.
When this policy came forth it was explained in great detail to Councilor Mitchell that there was a perception real or not that when a municipal politician appears in a developers promotional material, it lends credibility to that project.
Nobody wants to discourage new ventures and it may be appropriate at some point for the community and its leaders to assist in the promotion of new development, marketing plan, economical initiative etc.
But prior to our Mayor appearing in this video was there a discussion in council? No
Was council as a whole given the opportunity to discuss if this was a good idea? No.
Now this is what the policy states “No member of council shall be permitted to endorse any project, appear in any promotional video, pamphlet, or publication of any type, or attend shareholders meetings acting as a member of Council without first presenting to Council the reasons for such involvement and receiving Council’s approval”
SHOCKING isn’t it? in simply terms it states that for a member of council to do this he/she would have to bring it to council first and receive approval. As a member of the council at that time I found out about this video months after it was released when a local real estate agent emailed it to me.
I would like to hear Councillor Mitchell or any other politician explain to the public how this policy, “discourages new development”
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Teck/Elkview reach deal with Steelworkers
Latest update
Membership of USWA 9346 voted 58.7% in favour of accepting the latest agreement.
612 Ballots cast
359 In favour
252 Opposed
1 spoiled
Membership of USWA 9346 voted 58.7% in favour of accepting the latest agreement.
612 Ballots cast
359 In favour
252 Opposed
1 spoiled
Labels:
Elkview,
Labour Dispute,
Teck Corp,
USWA 9346
Tax Increase and Spring Cleanup
Here is the best answer to "Is the municipality going to be collecting more taxes than it did last year"
2010
General Municipal Taxation $6,432,821
ASFF------------------------$2,366,925
Seniors Housing------------$ 184,542
Total-----------------------$8,984,288
2011
General Municipal Taxation $6,555,990
ASFF------------------------$2,542,134
Seniors Housing------------$ 184,542
Total-----------------------$9,282,666
An Increase of $298,378 or 3.3% that's not 0%
Spring Cleanup
Will now be called "Large Item Residential Pickup"
Taxpayers that meet the following criteria will be provided with this service.
Sixty five (65) years or older and those with disabilities (This was not defined at this point)
Will have three items to be picked up.
You will be required to go into the Municipal Office between May 9 to May 20th, you will be required to specify the three items you are having picked up.
Items will be picked up between May 24 to June 3.
2010
General Municipal Taxation $6,432,821
ASFF------------------------$2,366,925
Seniors Housing------------$ 184,542
Total-----------------------$8,984,288
2011
General Municipal Taxation $6,555,990
ASFF------------------------$2,542,134
Seniors Housing------------$ 184,542
Total-----------------------$9,282,666
An Increase of $298,378 or 3.3% that's not 0%
Spring Cleanup
Will now be called "Large Item Residential Pickup"
Taxpayers that meet the following criteria will be provided with this service.
Sixty five (65) years or older and those with disabilities (This was not defined at this point)
Will have three items to be picked up.
You will be required to go into the Municipal Office between May 9 to May 20th, you will be required to specify the three items you are having picked up.
Items will be picked up between May 24 to June 3.
2011 Tax Increase, Surprising twist
Well taxes are not going up as much as we were led to believe at the first reading of the 2011 millrate.
As I pointed out in a previous post there was an avenue available to council to decrease the impact of the ASFF and the Seniors requisition.
http://crowsnestpasshome.blogspot.com/2011/03/tax-increase-maybe-not.html
The new positions that this Council felt were very necessary and saw fit to approve, based on the fact that none of those positions have been filled yet it produced some spare dollars in the budget. Which I had argued should be used to offset the additional taxation burdens placed on our residents.
On Tuesday night the majority of council partially agreed by using those budgetted dollars to offset the increased requirements of the senior board.
Councilor Saindon brought forth a motion to have the $100,000 capital requisition for the York Creek lodge and the $18,454 taken out of the operational budget, instead of increasing the tax burden on the residents.
He used my same arguement that there should be dollars available in the budget from the jobs not being filled yet.
Surprisingly despite there being no disagreement to that statement by administration or any of council, three members of council voted against it (Mayor Decoux, Councilors Londsbury and Mitchell) the question that only they can answer is why?
As I pointed out in a previous post there was an avenue available to council to decrease the impact of the ASFF and the Seniors requisition.
http://crowsnestpasshome.blogspot.com/2011/03/tax-increase-maybe-not.html
The new positions that this Council felt were very necessary and saw fit to approve, based on the fact that none of those positions have been filled yet it produced some spare dollars in the budget. Which I had argued should be used to offset the additional taxation burdens placed on our residents.
On Tuesday night the majority of council partially agreed by using those budgetted dollars to offset the increased requirements of the senior board.
Councilor Saindon brought forth a motion to have the $100,000 capital requisition for the York Creek lodge and the $18,454 taken out of the operational budget, instead of increasing the tax burden on the residents.
He used my same arguement that there should be dollars available in the budget from the jobs not being filled yet.
Surprisingly despite there being no disagreement to that statement by administration or any of council, three members of council voted against it (Mayor Decoux, Councilors Londsbury and Mitchell) the question that only they can answer is why?
Council Meeting of April 5, 2011
Council Meeting of April 5, 2011
Adoption of Agenda:
Mayor Decoux requested that Item #3 under other business (Flooding Concern-Crowsnest River) be moved to In Camera
Motion to accept the Agenda as amended was passed unanimously
Adoption of previous minutes:
Minutes of the Council Meeting of March 15,2011, Motion to accept was passed unanimously
Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of March 29,2011, Motion to accept was passed unanimously
Delegations: None
Administrative and Agency Reports: None
Business arising from the Minutes:
1. Oldman Watershed Council Update, Motion was made to send a Councilor to the meeting in June passed unanimously.
Correspondence:
1. Letter from Hon. Hector Goudreau regarding 2011 MSI minimum Threshold, Motion to accept passed unanimously
2. Letter from Hon. Hector Goudreau regarding payment of $180,000 for the ski hill groomer. Motion to accept passed unanimously
3. Letter from Hon. Luke Ouellette regarding Transportation Grant programs Motion to accept passed unanimously
4. Letter from Hon Ron Liepert in response to Councils request to define critical transmission Infrastructure Projects, council felt their questions were not answered so a Motion was made to table until public hearing are held on this issue motion passed unanimously
5. Volunteer Recognition Dinner. Councilor Saje requested information on a Volunteer database; administration informed that Cam Mertz would be bringing this information forward shortly. Motion to accept this was passed unanimously.
Committee Reports:
1. Minutes of January 10, 2011 Protective Services Committee, Motion to accept passed unanimously.
2. Minutes of January 14, 2011 Municipal Heritage Board, Motion to accept passed unanimously.
3. Minutes of February 23, 2011 Subdivision and Development Authority, Motion to accept passed unanimously.
Bylaws:
1. Bylaw 819, Short term borrowing 2nd and 3rd reading. ($530,000 to purchase new equipment) second reading passed unanimously, third reading passed unanimously.
2. Bylaw 820, Millrate Bylaw 2nd and 3rd reading. At the 2nd reading Councilor Saindon brought forth a motion to have the $100,000 requisition for the Senior’s Housing Capital Upgrade and the $18,454 increase in the operating costs for the Seniors Housing to be absorbed by the 2011 municipal operating budget.
This reading was passed by a vote of 4-3 with Mayor Decoux, Councilors Londsbury and Mitchell opposed.
Third reading was passed by a vote of 5-2 with Councilors Gallant and Mitchell opposed.
3. Bylaw 822, Operating Line of Credit 2nd and 3rd reading. Second reading was passed unanimously, third reading also passed unanimously.
Notices of Motion:
1. Way-finding Signage, Motion to bring back to council on September 13,2011 passed unanimously
2. Visitor Welcome Kiosks, Motion to bring back to council on September 13,2011 passed unanimously
Other Business:
1. Chamber of Commerce Trade Show May 6-7, Councilors volunteered to attend the show, Motion to accept passed unanimously
2. Policy Committee Terms of Reference, Motion to accept with minimal changes passed unanimously
3. Japan Earthquake and Tsunami and the Crowsnest Pass Connection, Motion to send a letter of support to the City of Hokuto, to match up to $2500 the fundraising done by the high school, and to work on the sister city agreement, passed unanimously
4. Large Item Equipment Pickup (Spring Cleanup) Councilor Saindon brought forth a motion to rescind the previous spring cleanup and that the municipal not spend any funds to clean up resident’s properties. This motion was defeated 6-1 with only Councilor Saindon supporting it. A further motion was made to rescind the previous Spring Cleanup this was passed by a vote of 6-1 (Saindon opposed)
A further motion to accept administrations recommendation to proceed with a three-item cleanup for residents 65 and over and those with disabilities. In addition, to bring back a report with all the costs provided prior to the 2012 budget. Was passed by a vote of 6-1 (Saindon opposed).
Council Member reports: None
Public Input: None
Motion to go In Camera: Passed Unanimously
Adoption of Agenda:
Mayor Decoux requested that Item #3 under other business (Flooding Concern-Crowsnest River) be moved to In Camera
Motion to accept the Agenda as amended was passed unanimously
Adoption of previous minutes:
Minutes of the Council Meeting of March 15,2011, Motion to accept was passed unanimously
Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of March 29,2011, Motion to accept was passed unanimously
Delegations: None
Administrative and Agency Reports: None
Business arising from the Minutes:
1. Oldman Watershed Council Update, Motion was made to send a Councilor to the meeting in June passed unanimously.
Correspondence:
1. Letter from Hon. Hector Goudreau regarding 2011 MSI minimum Threshold, Motion to accept passed unanimously
2. Letter from Hon. Hector Goudreau regarding payment of $180,000 for the ski hill groomer. Motion to accept passed unanimously
3. Letter from Hon. Luke Ouellette regarding Transportation Grant programs Motion to accept passed unanimously
4. Letter from Hon Ron Liepert in response to Councils request to define critical transmission Infrastructure Projects, council felt their questions were not answered so a Motion was made to table until public hearing are held on this issue motion passed unanimously
5. Volunteer Recognition Dinner. Councilor Saje requested information on a Volunteer database; administration informed that Cam Mertz would be bringing this information forward shortly. Motion to accept this was passed unanimously.
Committee Reports:
1. Minutes of January 10, 2011 Protective Services Committee, Motion to accept passed unanimously.
2. Minutes of January 14, 2011 Municipal Heritage Board, Motion to accept passed unanimously.
3. Minutes of February 23, 2011 Subdivision and Development Authority, Motion to accept passed unanimously.
Bylaws:
1. Bylaw 819, Short term borrowing 2nd and 3rd reading. ($530,000 to purchase new equipment) second reading passed unanimously, third reading passed unanimously.
2. Bylaw 820, Millrate Bylaw 2nd and 3rd reading. At the 2nd reading Councilor Saindon brought forth a motion to have the $100,000 requisition for the Senior’s Housing Capital Upgrade and the $18,454 increase in the operating costs for the Seniors Housing to be absorbed by the 2011 municipal operating budget.
This reading was passed by a vote of 4-3 with Mayor Decoux, Councilors Londsbury and Mitchell opposed.
Third reading was passed by a vote of 5-2 with Councilors Gallant and Mitchell opposed.
3. Bylaw 822, Operating Line of Credit 2nd and 3rd reading. Second reading was passed unanimously, third reading also passed unanimously.
Notices of Motion:
1. Way-finding Signage, Motion to bring back to council on September 13,2011 passed unanimously
2. Visitor Welcome Kiosks, Motion to bring back to council on September 13,2011 passed unanimously
Other Business:
1. Chamber of Commerce Trade Show May 6-7, Councilors volunteered to attend the show, Motion to accept passed unanimously
2. Policy Committee Terms of Reference, Motion to accept with minimal changes passed unanimously
3. Japan Earthquake and Tsunami and the Crowsnest Pass Connection, Motion to send a letter of support to the City of Hokuto, to match up to $2500 the fundraising done by the high school, and to work on the sister city agreement, passed unanimously
4. Large Item Equipment Pickup (Spring Cleanup) Councilor Saindon brought forth a motion to rescind the previous spring cleanup and that the municipal not spend any funds to clean up resident’s properties. This motion was defeated 6-1 with only Councilor Saindon supporting it. A further motion was made to rescind the previous Spring Cleanup this was passed by a vote of 6-1 (Saindon opposed)
A further motion to accept administrations recommendation to proceed with a three-item cleanup for residents 65 and over and those with disabilities. In addition, to bring back a report with all the costs provided prior to the 2012 budget. Was passed by a vote of 6-1 (Saindon opposed).
Council Member reports: None
Public Input: None
Motion to go In Camera: Passed Unanimously
Monday, April 4, 2011
Reading from the same script, where have we heard this story before?
The following article appeared in the Desert Sun-Palm Springs April 4, 2008.
Villa Resort will be bigger and will look much different by May
The Cathedral City Sun
The Villa Resort in Cathedral City, which has new owners, is going through extensive renovations and an expansion.
Two Canadians, Bill Bradley and Colin Becker, won the property in an Oct. 2 auction for $4.7 million, according to Braun Co., the agent and listing broker.
The name Villa Resort stays, but those familiar with the compound will find it very different come May. It is expected to reopen for business by then.
In an interview with the Cathedral City Sun, Mark Van Laanen, one of two business partners joining the new owners, revealed new plans for the storied vacation spot at 67670 Carey Road.
The compound - which boasts 45 rooms, two bars, a pool, Jacuzzi, restaurant and lounge, fitness center, fully equipped kitchen, and more - was on the market for nearly a year before its owners put it up for auction.
Van Laanen, a Wisconsin native and restaurateur of 28 years, said two more pools will be added and at least 100 more condominiums as time shares.
QUESTION: What was your motivation for going into business at the Villa Resort?
ANSWER: It was Bill and Colin's idea to do a total remake. It caught my attention and I said, "Let's talk." There's major reconstruction going on at the property, and we're trying to go as green as possible to keep it environmentally friendly.
It's actually a very exciting project and we're going to town on it right now. It's going to be a lot more upscale than what the property was.
What can lodgers expect to see at the property?
It's going to be a clean, well-manicured place. It will be a very high energy place with an eclectic menu. I did European country food and it will have that edge with a California twist.
What are your long-term goals?
To get the whole property developed. Condos, a luxurious upscale spa, poolside dining, cocktails by the pool. Just to watch this whole area be developed and grow.
What is planned for the lots next door that the Villa Resort has acquired?
Fractional condominiums will be built. The hedges behind us will be ripped down and that will open the property up. We will be putting in pools with the condos being built.
For years the resort has been associated with gay tourism. Will it still serve that enclave or target a new demographic?
We're shooting for all demographics, regardless of gay or straight. We don't want it to be exclusively a gay resort. It will be comfortable for everyone to come. We're going to be advertising in all venues.
The compound - which boasts 45 rooms, two bars, a pool, Jacuzzi, restaurant and lounge, fitness center, fully equipped kitchen, and more - was on the market for nearly a year before its owners put it up for auction.
The following article appeared in the Desert Sun-Palm Springs Sept 7, 2009.
The Desert Sun
The owner of the former Villa Resort in Cathedral City says he intends to seek financing next week to expand and transform the site into a luxury hotspot.
Bridgecreek Development owner Bill Bradley of Calgary, Alberta, Canada said the now-dilapidated, two-and-a-half-acre site on a short street behind Target Stores will expand to seven and a half acres after purchasing adjacent land. The resort is to be renamed Resort Blue Palm Springs and would offer 240 luxury units, three pools and spas, two tennis courts and an entertainment venue.
"We now have a plan in place to seek project financing to continue developing the site that will cost more than $30 million," Bradley said.
His plan to continue the development comes despite a long delay in construction.
Bradley purchased the site in a bankruptcy auction in October 2007 with grand plans to transform the property at 67-670 Carey Road.
But he got off to a shaky start by spring 2008, when Cathedral City officials halted work at the site, citing a lack of permits.
"Regarding the contractors, that is really the business of the developer, but we did indeed stop construction and gave them the information on what they needed to do to obtain the appropriate permits," said Cathedral City spokesman Allen Howe.
Howe said an interior demolition permit was taken out in August 2008 but contractors never acted on it.
The economic downturn further delayed the project, Bradley said.
"Here we are sitting on seven and a half acres and the economy isn't good," Bradley said. He said his company committed $10 million of its own money to buy the land and hire contractors. The project's delay was not attributed to a loss of financing, he said.
"The only funding we put in was our own private investment and we have not lost any funding," Bradley said.
Bradley anticipates resuming construction next year, with the resort opening in 2011.
Villa Resort timeline
October 2007: Bridgecreek Development of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, purchased the resort for $4.7 million with plans to expand and rename the site Resort Blue Palm Springs.
October 2003: Bob Grinchuk and Reuel Olin of San Diego purchased the resort for $2 million as an anniversary gift. The couple invested $3.5 million into renovations. The resort was billed as the "finest full-service gay resort in the world."
1951: The Elizabeth Arden Corp. turned the resort into a beauty farm.
Late 1850s: The site was a Butterfield Overland Stagecoach stop
The resort is to be renamed Resort Blue Palm Springs and would offer 240 luxury units, three pools and spas, two tennis courts and an entertainment venue.
This appeared Sept 11-2009 in the same paper
After a long delay the owner of the former Villa Resort in Cathedral City planned to seek financing this week to expand and transform the site into a luxury hotspot.
Bridgecreek Development owner Bill Bradley of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, said the now-dilapidated, two-and-a-half-acre site on a short street behind Target Stores will expand to seven and a half acres after purchasing adjacent land. The resort is to be renamed Resort Blue Palm Springs and would offer 240 luxury units, three pools and spas, two tennis courts and an entertainment venue.
"We now have a plan in place to seek project financing to continue developing the site that will cost more than $30 million," Bradley said.
His plan to continue the development comes despite a long delay in construction.
Bradley purchased the site in a bankruptcy auction in October 2007 with grand plans to transform the property at 67-670 Carey Road.
But he got off to a shaky start by spring 2008, when Cathedral City officials halted work at the site, citing a lack of permits.
"Regarding the contractors, that is really the business of the developer, but we did indeed stop construction and gave them the information on what they needed to do to obtain the appropriate permits," said Cathedral City spokesman Allen Howe.
Howe said an interior demolition permit was taken out in August 2008 but contractors never acted on it.
The economic downturn further delayed the project, Bradley said.
"Here we are sitting on seven and a half acres and the economy isn't good," Bradley said. He said his company committed $10 million of its own money to buy the land and hire contractors. The project's delay was not attributed to a loss of financing, he said.
"The only funding we put in was our own private investment and we have not lost any funding," Bradley said.
Bradley anticipates resuming construction next year, with the resort opening in 2011.
Villa Resort will be bigger and will look much different by May
The Cathedral City Sun
The Villa Resort in Cathedral City, which has new owners, is going through extensive renovations and an expansion.
Two Canadians, Bill Bradley and Colin Becker, won the property in an Oct. 2 auction for $4.7 million, according to Braun Co., the agent and listing broker.
The name Villa Resort stays, but those familiar with the compound will find it very different come May. It is expected to reopen for business by then.
In an interview with the Cathedral City Sun, Mark Van Laanen, one of two business partners joining the new owners, revealed new plans for the storied vacation spot at 67670 Carey Road.
The compound - which boasts 45 rooms, two bars, a pool, Jacuzzi, restaurant and lounge, fitness center, fully equipped kitchen, and more - was on the market for nearly a year before its owners put it up for auction.
Van Laanen, a Wisconsin native and restaurateur of 28 years, said two more pools will be added and at least 100 more condominiums as time shares.
QUESTION: What was your motivation for going into business at the Villa Resort?
ANSWER: It was Bill and Colin's idea to do a total remake. It caught my attention and I said, "Let's talk." There's major reconstruction going on at the property, and we're trying to go as green as possible to keep it environmentally friendly.
It's actually a very exciting project and we're going to town on it right now. It's going to be a lot more upscale than what the property was.
What can lodgers expect to see at the property?
It's going to be a clean, well-manicured place. It will be a very high energy place with an eclectic menu. I did European country food and it will have that edge with a California twist.
What are your long-term goals?
To get the whole property developed. Condos, a luxurious upscale spa, poolside dining, cocktails by the pool. Just to watch this whole area be developed and grow.
What is planned for the lots next door that the Villa Resort has acquired?
Fractional condominiums will be built. The hedges behind us will be ripped down and that will open the property up. We will be putting in pools with the condos being built.
For years the resort has been associated with gay tourism. Will it still serve that enclave or target a new demographic?
We're shooting for all demographics, regardless of gay or straight. We don't want it to be exclusively a gay resort. It will be comfortable for everyone to come. We're going to be advertising in all venues.
The compound - which boasts 45 rooms, two bars, a pool, Jacuzzi, restaurant and lounge, fitness center, fully equipped kitchen, and more - was on the market for nearly a year before its owners put it up for auction.
The following article appeared in the Desert Sun-Palm Springs Sept 7, 2009.
Villa Resort owner sees new life for site
The Desert Sun
The owner of the former Villa Resort in Cathedral City says he intends to seek financing next week to expand and transform the site into a luxury hotspot.
Bridgecreek Development owner Bill Bradley of Calgary, Alberta, Canada said the now-dilapidated, two-and-a-half-acre site on a short street behind Target Stores will expand to seven and a half acres after purchasing adjacent land. The resort is to be renamed Resort Blue Palm Springs and would offer 240 luxury units, three pools and spas, two tennis courts and an entertainment venue.
"We now have a plan in place to seek project financing to continue developing the site that will cost more than $30 million," Bradley said.
His plan to continue the development comes despite a long delay in construction.
Bradley purchased the site in a bankruptcy auction in October 2007 with grand plans to transform the property at 67-670 Carey Road.
But he got off to a shaky start by spring 2008, when Cathedral City officials halted work at the site, citing a lack of permits.
"Regarding the contractors, that is really the business of the developer, but we did indeed stop construction and gave them the information on what they needed to do to obtain the appropriate permits," said Cathedral City spokesman Allen Howe.
Howe said an interior demolition permit was taken out in August 2008 but contractors never acted on it.
The economic downturn further delayed the project, Bradley said.
"Here we are sitting on seven and a half acres and the economy isn't good," Bradley said. He said his company committed $10 million of its own money to buy the land and hire contractors. The project's delay was not attributed to a loss of financing, he said.
"The only funding we put in was our own private investment and we have not lost any funding," Bradley said.
Bradley anticipates resuming construction next year, with the resort opening in 2011.
Villa Resort timeline
October 2007: Bridgecreek Development of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, purchased the resort for $4.7 million with plans to expand and rename the site Resort Blue Palm Springs.
October 2003: Bob Grinchuk and Reuel Olin of San Diego purchased the resort for $2 million as an anniversary gift. The couple invested $3.5 million into renovations. The resort was billed as the "finest full-service gay resort in the world."
1951: The Elizabeth Arden Corp. turned the resort into a beauty farm.
Late 1850s: The site was a Butterfield Overland Stagecoach stop
The resort is to be renamed Resort Blue Palm Springs and would offer 240 luxury units, three pools and spas, two tennis courts and an entertainment venue.
This appeared Sept 11-2009 in the same paper
Resort owner to start up construction again
After a long delay the owner of the former Villa Resort in Cathedral City planned to seek financing this week to expand and transform the site into a luxury hotspot.
Bridgecreek Development owner Bill Bradley of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, said the now-dilapidated, two-and-a-half-acre site on a short street behind Target Stores will expand to seven and a half acres after purchasing adjacent land. The resort is to be renamed Resort Blue Palm Springs and would offer 240 luxury units, three pools and spas, two tennis courts and an entertainment venue.
"We now have a plan in place to seek project financing to continue developing the site that will cost more than $30 million," Bradley said.
His plan to continue the development comes despite a long delay in construction.
Bradley purchased the site in a bankruptcy auction in October 2007 with grand plans to transform the property at 67-670 Carey Road.
But he got off to a shaky start by spring 2008, when Cathedral City officials halted work at the site, citing a lack of permits.
"Regarding the contractors, that is really the business of the developer, but we did indeed stop construction and gave them the information on what they needed to do to obtain the appropriate permits," said Cathedral City spokesman Allen Howe.
Howe said an interior demolition permit was taken out in August 2008 but contractors never acted on it.
The economic downturn further delayed the project, Bradley said.
"Here we are sitting on seven and a half acres and the economy isn't good," Bradley said. He said his company committed $10 million of its own money to buy the land and hire contractors. The project's delay was not attributed to a loss of financing, he said.
"The only funding we put in was our own private investment and we have not lost any funding," Bradley said.
Bradley anticipates resuming construction next year, with the resort opening in 2011.
The resort is to be renamed Resort Blue Palm Springs and would offer 240 luxury units, three pools and spas, two tennis courts and an entertainment venue.
New Blog of Interest
Under my heading of Interesting Blog and Websites you will see a new listing, "The Miners Journey" which belongs to long time Pass resident Peter Rosner, this will give readers one more perspective on life in the Crowsnest Pass. Would be good for anybody that's got the time to check it out.
Note: Also under Interesting blogs you will not see "The Pass" any more that blog is now under the author's name "John Prince", like Peter above another long term resident of the Crowsnest Pass, please check out when you can
Note: Also under Interesting blogs you will not see "The Pass" any more that blog is now under the author's name "John Prince", like Peter above another long term resident of the Crowsnest Pass, please check out when you can
Labels:
John Prince,
Miners Journey,
Peter Rosner
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Pandora's Box is opened
Coming Tuesday night on the Council Agenda is this years version of Spring Cleanup.
Support or oppose that's your choice but after the discussion of last week's G+P meeting nothing but confusion reigning now.
First of all Council and administration can't agree on the numbers for last year's cost administration brings forth a total of $66,000, Councilor Saindon who manages the Land fill and receives all of the cleanup materials believes the cost are in excess of $120,000 he claims it cost us $409 a tonne to bring that material in.
Next the debate turns to the issue of time frame, Administration claims nine days will be sufficient, some members of council are very skeptical to say the least. History in the last six years as shown cleanups takes anywhere up to six months.
Then we go back to cost for this year, administration is allowing $25,000 based on the nine days Councilor Saindon's math comes up with at least $35,000 who's right more confusion.
Now back to the debate on who gets garbage picked up, after much debate from the picking up of three items, to there is a private business that will pick it up, to the original intent was to help out people who can't get to the landfill themselves. (Who really remembers when, why or how this started)
The confusion (debate) seems to end with maybe we look at doing it or not doing it. Maybe we do it for the handicapped, maybe we do it for the elderly? those that are retired, maybe we do it for everybody for one more year.
Lets add to the confusion how does the municipality determine handicapped or the elderly?:
The handicapped would that be the municipality requiring you to provide a Doctor's note, would you have to be on AISH, maybe CPP Disability.
The elderly what criteria will be used, over 55, 60, 65?
Retired maybe that's the answer must one be on CPP because that can be anywhere from 60-70. I know residents that are in their late fifties and retired other residents that are in their late sixties and still working.
Maybe the municipality will look at income levels, qualify for the Alberta Seniors assistance you get three items picked up.
Then lets look at the numbers (2006 census) out of our population of 5745, the number of people over the age of 19 are 4615 of those 2115 are over 55. Assuming that another 5% of the adult population are on either AISH or CPP that's another 231 people add them together there is a total of 2346 or in simple terms 50% of our population.
If you are going to pick up 50% why would you not just do a 100%.
The point I am trying to make here is this whole (proposed) cleanup besides the confusion above is going to be a logistical nightmare, for two weeks the office is going to be inundated with phone calls. When you phone you have to book your three items, so as I stated previously the crew is coming up my street do they ignore the third house that didn't call but puts stuff out because everybody else is? What happens when they get to my neighbours house and see that he's put out a rocking chair, that was not on his list.
If we go with the route of only picking up the handicapped and the elderly will the municipality be expecting all of these good folks to becoming into the municipality to prove their eligibility? Wow
Maybe its time to take Councilor Londsbury approach, "we are all responsible for the mess we make maybe we should all be responsible for cleaning it up ourselves, there is a local business available that will take it away for you".
Support or oppose that's your choice but after the discussion of last week's G+P meeting nothing but confusion reigning now.
First of all Council and administration can't agree on the numbers for last year's cost administration brings forth a total of $66,000, Councilor Saindon who manages the Land fill and receives all of the cleanup materials believes the cost are in excess of $120,000 he claims it cost us $409 a tonne to bring that material in.
Next the debate turns to the issue of time frame, Administration claims nine days will be sufficient, some members of council are very skeptical to say the least. History in the last six years as shown cleanups takes anywhere up to six months.
Then we go back to cost for this year, administration is allowing $25,000 based on the nine days Councilor Saindon's math comes up with at least $35,000 who's right more confusion.
Now back to the debate on who gets garbage picked up, after much debate from the picking up of three items, to there is a private business that will pick it up, to the original intent was to help out people who can't get to the landfill themselves. (Who really remembers when, why or how this started)
The confusion (debate) seems to end with maybe we look at doing it or not doing it. Maybe we do it for the handicapped, maybe we do it for the elderly? those that are retired, maybe we do it for everybody for one more year.
Lets add to the confusion how does the municipality determine handicapped or the elderly?:
The handicapped would that be the municipality requiring you to provide a Doctor's note, would you have to be on AISH, maybe CPP Disability.
The elderly what criteria will be used, over 55, 60, 65?
Retired maybe that's the answer must one be on CPP because that can be anywhere from 60-70. I know residents that are in their late fifties and retired other residents that are in their late sixties and still working.
Maybe the municipality will look at income levels, qualify for the Alberta Seniors assistance you get three items picked up.
Then lets look at the numbers (2006 census) out of our population of 5745, the number of people over the age of 19 are 4615 of those 2115 are over 55. Assuming that another 5% of the adult population are on either AISH or CPP that's another 231 people add them together there is a total of 2346 or in simple terms 50% of our population.
If you are going to pick up 50% why would you not just do a 100%.
The point I am trying to make here is this whole (proposed) cleanup besides the confusion above is going to be a logistical nightmare, for two weeks the office is going to be inundated with phone calls. When you phone you have to book your three items, so as I stated previously the crew is coming up my street do they ignore the third house that didn't call but puts stuff out because everybody else is? What happens when they get to my neighbours house and see that he's put out a rocking chair, that was not on his list.
If we go with the route of only picking up the handicapped and the elderly will the municipality be expecting all of these good folks to becoming into the municipality to prove their eligibility? Wow
Maybe its time to take Councilor Londsbury approach, "we are all responsible for the mess we make maybe we should all be responsible for cleaning it up ourselves, there is a local business available that will take it away for you".
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Teck/Elkview Latest Update
UPDATE - Saturday, April 2, 2011 - 11:55am
•We just received a call from the Bargaining Committee in Vancouver. A TENTATIVE DEAL WAS REACHED EARLY THIS MORNING.
◦The Company and the Union Bargaining Committee's have agreed to recommend the Memorandum of Settlement.
◦The Memo of Settlement is subject to ratification by the Membership in a secret ballot vote no later than April 7, 2011.
◦There will be an information meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday this coming week. Time and place to be announced on Monday.
◦Voting will start Tuesday after the meeting and will be held Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Ballots will be counted Thursday, April 7, 2011 after the polls close.
◦MONDAY'S SOLIDARITY MARCH HAS BEEN CANCELLED!!!!!!!!!!!
•We just received a call from the Bargaining Committee in Vancouver. A TENTATIVE DEAL WAS REACHED EARLY THIS MORNING.
◦The Company and the Union Bargaining Committee's have agreed to recommend the Memorandum of Settlement.
◦The Memo of Settlement is subject to ratification by the Membership in a secret ballot vote no later than April 7, 2011.
◦There will be an information meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday this coming week. Time and place to be announced on Monday.
◦Voting will start Tuesday after the meeting and will be held Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Ballots will be counted Thursday, April 7, 2011 after the polls close.
◦MONDAY'S SOLIDARITY MARCH HAS BEEN CANCELLED!!!!!!!!!!!
Labels:
Elkview,
Teck Corp,
Tenative Agreement,
USWA 9346
Friday, April 1, 2011
Bridgecreek
I understand from a good source that May's edition of Alberta Venture Magazine will have an article on the Bridgecreek coming and goings in the Crowsnest Pass.
Labels:
Bridgecreek,
River Run Development,
Trouts Landing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)