Last week Council announced that we are going to replace the pool in Blairmore and released the new design.
Historically the last time a new facility was built in the Crowsnest Pass? late 1970"s, the pool itself was built in the early seventies and initially had a life expectancy of 25-30 years.
Why replace now? We had a company come in (2014) and do a review of the deficiencies at the pool http://www.crowsnestpass.com/public/download/documents/9424 it is in bad shape it's 45 years old.
At the same time we put together a ten year capital plan which really shows the challenge financially of maintaining our municipality moving forward. http://www.crowsnestpass.com/public/download/documents/12889
Within that plan Council felt it was not just important to plan for infrastructure needs, but it was also critical to replace the swimming pool and protect our other key facilities. (Coleman Complex, and the MDM). You can see from the plan that there is not a lot of spare money to throw around can we squeeze out a few million dollars for our facilities? yes. $20-30 million? show me where.
Which leads me to the choice of an outdoor pool, I have heard comments from a loud vocal minority over the last week. "Put a roof on it, We can only use it for three months of the year, I can't believe that's all we are getting for $1.5million, I don't mind paying a few extra dollars in taxes a year, find grants, why do our neighbors have an indoor pool" and it goes on.
Let's talk about these issues, yes all our neighbors have indoor pools. I wonder if that would be the case if Sparwood, Elkford, Fernie did not all participate in the Elk Valley Tax Sharing agreement?
http://www.elkford.ca/modules/news/newsitem.php?ItemId=7
Yes these communities share $9 million a year in property taxes from Teck we will collect $7 million total in property taxes this year and 90% of that comes from residents only 10% from commercial. Pincher Creek talk to anybody that's involved with the town the pool is a large burden on them, and they receive $200,000 a year from the MD of Pincher to offset their costs.
Can't believe the cost $1.5 million, in this day and age of liability, you can't just throw up a building that's going to be used by the public, you have to have design's done by architects, stamped by engineers with everything built to code. So I went to see what other communities are doing surprisingly it's not hard to find towns in Alberta that have built outdoor pools in the last few years.
A few examples and please take a look at the costs and what they are getting:
Spirit River (North of Grande Prairie) http://www.dailyheraldtribune.com/2013/08/08/new-spirit-river-pool-officially-opens
Mayerthorpe (North west of Edmonton) http://www.mayerthorpefreelancer.com/2013/06/06/mayerthorpe-swimming-pool-opens
Rimby (West of Ponoka) http://issuu.com/blackpress/docs/i20120713105540549
Blackfalds (North of Red Deer) http://masonmartinhomes.com/blog/2012/07/good-news-for-current-and-future-residents-of-blackfalds/
Then I found a community that is building an Indoor facilities:
Barrhead, below is the borrowing bylaw $13 million dollars just to build an indoor pool with a few extra's, not a full blown indoor facility. They are very fortunate, they are only paying 40% of the cost the county surrounding them is also paying 40% in addition they are fund raising $1.5 million and taking $1.5 million of their grant money. http://www.barrhead.ca/sites/default/files/2015-05-Barrhead%20Regional%20Aquatic%20Centre%20Debenture%20Borrowing.pdf
Now let's look how we would compare to that situation, do I think any of our neighbors will throw in $5 million? MD of Pincher Creek is already contributing to the Town of Pincher Creek facility.
$1.5 million in fund raising can you imagine the task that would be to raise that much money in the Crowsnest Pass with no major corporations?
Then the grants yes all communities get MSI and Gas tax grants, you can look at the Capital plan above we show those dollars every year, if you spend them on a pool you will take those dollars away from some where else, what should we drop. Other grants? we apply for every one just as thousands of other communities do.
So what is this costing the residents of Barrhead?, their taxes on a home worth $100,000 $59 per year on a home worth $300,000 $177 per year(See link below). But keep in mind that's just on $5 million if they had to finance the full $13 million like we would. Those numbers change to $153 on a $100,000 home and $460 on a $300,000 home, that's every year for 25 years.
http://www.barrhead.ca/proposed-aquatic-centre
We have not even spoke about operating costs, our pool costs us about $120,000 a year to operate. Our neighbors anywhere from $600,000 to $800,000, lets be optimistic and say we can do it better than anybody else and come in at $500,000. That's $380,000 more than we are spending today, to pay for that we would have to increase our taxes 5% so that $100,000 home would pay an extra $50 a year the $300,000 home $150 per year. For the guy that told me he would gladly pay an extra $100 a year for an indoor facility, if that was only the case.
Bottom line in my opinion I believe that council as made a good choice, to replace an aging facility that's way past it's end date. With a facility that we can afford both now and moving forward.
Showing posts with label Costs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Costs. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Notes from 2014 Budget Process Crowsnest Pass
Budget Update for 2014 from Saturday March 22
2014 Salaries and Wages 3% Increase
Employee Benefits 5% Increase
Insurance Costs 12% Increase
Assessment Base total 2.1% drop
Market values actually dropped 3.6%
But there was 1.5% of new growth
Taxes and Fees
Franchise Fees Zero Increase
Property Tax 3% Increase
Utilities 5% Increase
Positions
CPO reduced to one position as of May 1
New position of Manager of Corporate Affairs
(Primary duties HR)
Equipment
Equipment Purchases (3) Light duty Trucks $96,000
Wheel Loader (1) $175,000
Sidewalk Maintenance Machine (1) $141,000
Infrastructure Upgrades
Frank Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade-New Clarifier
Cost $5,000,000 Grants $3,327,500 Debt $1,672,500
Sentinel Water Treatment Plant Operational Upgrade
Cost $495,000 Grants $152,000 Debt $343,000
SCADA Upgrades Cost $797,500 Grants $797,500
Bellevue Hillcrest Lagoons-Swamp Drain Restoration
Cost $575,000 Grants $575,000
Wastewater Collection Systems Video Inspection
Cost $39,500 Grants $39,500
Next Budget Meeting March 28 1 pm in Council Chambers
2014 Salaries and Wages 3% Increase
Employee Benefits 5% Increase
Insurance Costs 12% Increase
Assessment Base total 2.1% drop
Market values actually dropped 3.6%
But there was 1.5% of new growth
Taxes and Fees
Franchise Fees Zero Increase
Property Tax 3% Increase
Utilities 5% Increase
Positions
CPO reduced to one position as of May 1
New position of Manager of Corporate Affairs
(Primary duties HR)
Equipment
Equipment Purchases (3) Light duty Trucks $96,000
Wheel Loader (1) $175,000
Sidewalk Maintenance Machine (1) $141,000
Infrastructure Upgrades
Frank Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade-New Clarifier
Cost $5,000,000 Grants $3,327,500 Debt $1,672,500
Sentinel Water Treatment Plant Operational Upgrade
Cost $495,000 Grants $152,000 Debt $343,000
SCADA Upgrades Cost $797,500 Grants $797,500
Bellevue Hillcrest Lagoons-Swamp Drain Restoration
Cost $575,000 Grants $575,000
Wastewater Collection Systems Video Inspection
Cost $39,500 Grants $39,500
Next Budget Meeting March 28 1 pm in Council Chambers
Friday, January 31, 2014
Recreation in the Crowsnest Pass
Tuesday night Council and your Recreation committee met with RC strategies, a company out of Edmonton that is preparing a plan for our future recreational needs. http://www.crowsnestpass.com/media-center/press-releases this study was commissioned by the previous council at a cost of $90,000.
They began the process by mailing out surveys to all our residents and meeting with various user groups throughout the community. Tuesday night was all about telling us the results they found during that process.
The highlights:
Almost 3000 surveys were sent out and 86 community groups were given the opportunity to provide their input of which 23 did, they contacted 36 stakeholder groups of which 33 met with them.
Almost 600 surveys came back which the consultants told us is one of the higher rates of return they have seen.
Most respondents want to see the following (Top 5):
Indoor
66% Aquatic Center
42% Fitness/Wellness
34% Walking/Running track
26% Community Hall/Banquet
23% Performing Arts Spaces
Outdoor
48% Walking/Hiking trail system
29% Ski Hill
26% Picnic areas
26% Dogs off leash area
25% Access to the river
Paying for more recreational needs (How much additional taxes would you pay per year?):
38% zero
32% up to $100
16% $101 to $150
8% $151 to $200
7% over $200
Obviously with a lot of interest the conversation turned to the issue of an Indoor multi use facility the consultants were asked the cost and the opportunity for fund raising and grants.
Minimum $20 million for a facility with a aquatic center, minimum $15 million for a facility without an aquatic center.
The consultants advised us there was a time when "some" of these facilities were funded on a one third basis each by the Federal, provincial and local level. They told us those days are long gone their advice having working on a lot of these types of facilities over the years that the best case scenario would be to raise 15% of the cost by a combination of fundraising and grants.
Cost of operating an indoor facility? they advised us a minimum of $750,000 per year. Dependent on how many programs we offered and the number of hours the facility would be open.
They told us that typically a community needs to have a population of 15,000 or more to successfully operate a facility of this type.
Based on the survey results only 31% of our population supported a tax increase of more than $100 if we did that it would bring in an additional $300,000 per year not even half of the operating cost of this type of facility. (Keep in mind we would save $150,000 a year by not running the out door pool).
The payments on a $20 million facility (assuming we were successful in fund raising and grants to the tune of the 15%) $17 million over 20 years at 3% $1,130,000 a year.
We will be receiving the full report prior to summer, that will provide us with a lot of statistical information and hopefully address some of the concerns with our present facilities.
They began the process by mailing out surveys to all our residents and meeting with various user groups throughout the community. Tuesday night was all about telling us the results they found during that process.
The highlights:
Almost 3000 surveys were sent out and 86 community groups were given the opportunity to provide their input of which 23 did, they contacted 36 stakeholder groups of which 33 met with them.
Almost 600 surveys came back which the consultants told us is one of the higher rates of return they have seen.
Most respondents want to see the following (Top 5):
Indoor
66% Aquatic Center
42% Fitness/Wellness
34% Walking/Running track
26% Community Hall/Banquet
23% Performing Arts Spaces
Outdoor
48% Walking/Hiking trail system
29% Ski Hill
26% Picnic areas
26% Dogs off leash area
25% Access to the river
Paying for more recreational needs (How much additional taxes would you pay per year?):
38% zero
32% up to $100
16% $101 to $150
8% $151 to $200
7% over $200
Obviously with a lot of interest the conversation turned to the issue of an Indoor multi use facility the consultants were asked the cost and the opportunity for fund raising and grants.
Minimum $20 million for a facility with a aquatic center, minimum $15 million for a facility without an aquatic center.
The consultants advised us there was a time when "some" of these facilities were funded on a one third basis each by the Federal, provincial and local level. They told us those days are long gone their advice having working on a lot of these types of facilities over the years that the best case scenario would be to raise 15% of the cost by a combination of fundraising and grants.
Cost of operating an indoor facility? they advised us a minimum of $750,000 per year. Dependent on how many programs we offered and the number of hours the facility would be open.
They told us that typically a community needs to have a population of 15,000 or more to successfully operate a facility of this type.
Based on the survey results only 31% of our population supported a tax increase of more than $100 if we did that it would bring in an additional $300,000 per year not even half of the operating cost of this type of facility. (Keep in mind we would save $150,000 a year by not running the out door pool).
The payments on a $20 million facility (assuming we were successful in fund raising and grants to the tune of the 15%) $17 million over 20 years at 3% $1,130,000 a year.
We will be receiving the full report prior to summer, that will provide us with a lot of statistical information and hopefully address some of the concerns with our present facilities.
Friday, August 12, 2011
“Convention policy receives thrashing”
This was the title of an article posted in the local paper a few weeks back, available at the address below.
http://www.crowsnestpasspromoter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=3233128
Previous council put in place a policy that no more than three members of council could attend conventions at any one time, with each councilor being allowed to attend at least once during their term. The municipality belongs to three organizations that hold conventions every year the FCM, AUMA, and the AAMDC.
Mayor Decoux in a very strong tone referred to this as “an archaic defeatist type of policy” the acting CAO addressed the importance of the AUMA convention, with it being an excellent opportunity for council to network with peers in other municipalities, to attend valuable education sessions, to deal with the business of the association and their resolutions. He also mentioned that they would be trying to line up meetings with various provincial ministers.
Sounds good in theory?
When I was first elected to council in 2004 I went to a couple of conventions, in both Edmonton and Calgary. I find out going through my first budget process that $30-40,000 of the taxpayers money was being spent a year attending these conventions. Nothing to sneeze at but with an open mind I felt maybe it was money well spent. Let’s look at the different aspects of these conventions:
Meeting peers from other municipalities, true no question about it you get to meet a lot of people, keep in mind council attends regional meetings on an annual basis where they get to meet all of their fellow councilors from both this corner of the province and the Elk Valley municipalities with issues similar to ours. Outside of the immediate area how many municipalities really care about what’s going on in the Crowsnest Pass they have their own issues to deal with.
There also is the opportunity to find out what other municipalities are doing, let’s keep in mind that with the invention of the Internet you can find out what anybody is doing in the few strokes of the keyboard. If you really want to be “archaic” you could pick up the phone and call other communties.
Valuable education sessions, some are really good some are like watching paint dry, the one’s that are good, lots of people attend and the others very few attend. Most of the sessions provide literature which a councilor could bring back and copy for his fellow councilors. Also we asked that councilors bring back a report on the valuable information they heard, and share it with all of council. No different than went you send a councilor to the Oldman watershed committee, or any other meeting you don’t send all of them you ask for a report back.
Business of the association, there are 3000 people in a big room voting on resolutions that for the most part are decided by substantial margins one way or the other, the fact that Crowsnest Pass as three votes or seven does it really matter?
Meetings with ministers, two types first of all you have a session with ministers where they answer questions from the room then they go out on the floor to speak to the delegates. Its really builds your ego up when a politician looks at your name tag and says “Dean good to see you again, I hear things are going really well in Canmore! Oops sorry Crowsnest Pass” I sat and counted one time a minister speak to 25 delegates in thirty minutes, I questioned how many of there comments he would remember two days from now.
Second there are the scheduled meetings with ministers in a private room, you get 20-30 minutes to meet with a minister and his assistant. Most councils have a spokesmen either the Mayor or the CAO who will do 90% of the speaking for your group lets be realistic you are not going to have eight people yapping of in a short meeting with a minister. Do you really need all seven members of council there?
A few things that were missed by the Mayor and the CAO:
Hospitality rooms. these are meeting rooms in various hotels where delegates are staying. Set up by vendors that deal with municipalities: engineering firms, law firms, and suppliers. You get to go eat free food and all the booze you can drink, certainly saw a lot more enthusiastic councilors in these rooms than I did at the education sessions. These are the types of people that municipal administrators should be dealing with, not politicians.
Costs: $30-40,000 a year you may ask how can that be. Well remember each member of council gets a $160 per day times 7 that’s $1120 per day times at minimum 4 days per convention. Hotel rooms are going to cost at least $200 per day times 8 (Including CAO) that’s $1600 per day. Mileage most councilors take their spouse which means you will have a minimum of 4 people charging mileage $2000 to Edmonton.
Keep in mind the FCM is usually held outside Alberta in places like Quebec City, Whistler, Halifax etc. Even more costly when you factor in plane fares.
Stephen Mandel Mayor of Edmonton did not attend this year he stated “the FCM group hasn't been effective in pushing civic concerns in Ottawa”
Back to the issues are there a value to these conventions?
I believe there is some, there is no question that occasionally some good information is picked up, and some of the right hands are shaken. But nothing that one or two individuals couldn’t share with a larger group.
Should all seven members of council attend? I don’t believe so it’s a luxury that a community with our lack of financial strength cannot afford.
When you are closing libraries and consolidating shops to be more efficient and cut costs why does every member of council need to go to a convention?
http://www.crowsnestpasspromoter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=3233128
Previous council put in place a policy that no more than three members of council could attend conventions at any one time, with each councilor being allowed to attend at least once during their term. The municipality belongs to three organizations that hold conventions every year the FCM, AUMA, and the AAMDC.
Mayor Decoux in a very strong tone referred to this as “an archaic defeatist type of policy” the acting CAO addressed the importance of the AUMA convention, with it being an excellent opportunity for council to network with peers in other municipalities, to attend valuable education sessions, to deal with the business of the association and their resolutions. He also mentioned that they would be trying to line up meetings with various provincial ministers.
Sounds good in theory?
When I was first elected to council in 2004 I went to a couple of conventions, in both Edmonton and Calgary. I find out going through my first budget process that $30-40,000 of the taxpayers money was being spent a year attending these conventions. Nothing to sneeze at but with an open mind I felt maybe it was money well spent. Let’s look at the different aspects of these conventions:
Meeting peers from other municipalities, true no question about it you get to meet a lot of people, keep in mind council attends regional meetings on an annual basis where they get to meet all of their fellow councilors from both this corner of the province and the Elk Valley municipalities with issues similar to ours. Outside of the immediate area how many municipalities really care about what’s going on in the Crowsnest Pass they have their own issues to deal with.
There also is the opportunity to find out what other municipalities are doing, let’s keep in mind that with the invention of the Internet you can find out what anybody is doing in the few strokes of the keyboard. If you really want to be “archaic” you could pick up the phone and call other communties.
Valuable education sessions, some are really good some are like watching paint dry, the one’s that are good, lots of people attend and the others very few attend. Most of the sessions provide literature which a councilor could bring back and copy for his fellow councilors. Also we asked that councilors bring back a report on the valuable information they heard, and share it with all of council. No different than went you send a councilor to the Oldman watershed committee, or any other meeting you don’t send all of them you ask for a report back.
Business of the association, there are 3000 people in a big room voting on resolutions that for the most part are decided by substantial margins one way or the other, the fact that Crowsnest Pass as three votes or seven does it really matter?
Meetings with ministers, two types first of all you have a session with ministers where they answer questions from the room then they go out on the floor to speak to the delegates. Its really builds your ego up when a politician looks at your name tag and says “Dean good to see you again, I hear things are going really well in Canmore! Oops sorry Crowsnest Pass” I sat and counted one time a minister speak to 25 delegates in thirty minutes, I questioned how many of there comments he would remember two days from now.
Second there are the scheduled meetings with ministers in a private room, you get 20-30 minutes to meet with a minister and his assistant. Most councils have a spokesmen either the Mayor or the CAO who will do 90% of the speaking for your group lets be realistic you are not going to have eight people yapping of in a short meeting with a minister. Do you really need all seven members of council there?
A few things that were missed by the Mayor and the CAO:
Hospitality rooms. these are meeting rooms in various hotels where delegates are staying. Set up by vendors that deal with municipalities: engineering firms, law firms, and suppliers. You get to go eat free food and all the booze you can drink, certainly saw a lot more enthusiastic councilors in these rooms than I did at the education sessions. These are the types of people that municipal administrators should be dealing with, not politicians.
Costs: $30-40,000 a year you may ask how can that be. Well remember each member of council gets a $160 per day times 7 that’s $1120 per day times at minimum 4 days per convention. Hotel rooms are going to cost at least $200 per day times 8 (Including CAO) that’s $1600 per day. Mileage most councilors take their spouse which means you will have a minimum of 4 people charging mileage $2000 to Edmonton.
Keep in mind the FCM is usually held outside Alberta in places like Quebec City, Whistler, Halifax etc. Even more costly when you factor in plane fares.
Stephen Mandel Mayor of Edmonton did not attend this year he stated “the FCM group hasn't been effective in pushing civic concerns in Ottawa”
Back to the issues are there a value to these conventions?
I believe there is some, there is no question that occasionally some good information is picked up, and some of the right hands are shaken. But nothing that one or two individuals couldn’t share with a larger group.
Should all seven members of council attend? I don’t believe so it’s a luxury that a community with our lack of financial strength cannot afford.
When you are closing libraries and consolidating shops to be more efficient and cut costs why does every member of council need to go to a convention?
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Rum Runner Days weekend
First of all I got hammered last year because I referred to the costs for "Thunder in the Valley".
I clarified that it should have been the costs for the Rum Runner weekend, with Thunder in the Valley being just one of the events held that weekend. This is often a very contentious issue, but there is no question this is probably the largest single weekend for revenue for most Crowsnest Pass Businesses, certainly in the tourism industry. Anyway after a number of requests this is what the previous council budgeted for the 2010 “Rum runner days weekend”.
If you wish to check the numbers for 2011 you will have to contact either one of the present members of council or the municipal office.
Donation for Fireworks $4500
Traffic Control $6200
Policing $10000
Garbage + Toilets $11500
Activties + Entertainers $18000
Total $50200
This number does not allow for any municipal wages that go into preparation for the weekend. Which in my humble opinion would probably add another $20-30,000 to the weekend.
Why am I raising this now? two reasons, one I have been requested to by a number of my readers and two if you read Fridays Promoter there was an article about this weekend and the discussion that took place at last council meeting. Councilor Saje clearly indicated in his comments that in future years the weekend should be ran more has a business, and Councilor Gail requested of administration has to when the revenue numbers for the weekend would be made available by the fire department.
Any way due to my readers and the two fore mentioned councilors raising this issue the debate is open again regarding the “Rum Runner Weekend”.
Note: I have already refused one comment due to the fact that it made a derogatory comment regarding a fire department, keep your comments to the debate if you wish to have them published.
I clarified that it should have been the costs for the Rum Runner weekend, with Thunder in the Valley being just one of the events held that weekend. This is often a very contentious issue, but there is no question this is probably the largest single weekend for revenue for most Crowsnest Pass Businesses, certainly in the tourism industry. Anyway after a number of requests this is what the previous council budgeted for the 2010 “Rum runner days weekend”.
If you wish to check the numbers for 2011 you will have to contact either one of the present members of council or the municipal office.
Donation for Fireworks $4500
Traffic Control $6200
Policing $10000
Garbage + Toilets $11500
Activties + Entertainers $18000
Total $50200
This number does not allow for any municipal wages that go into preparation for the weekend. Which in my humble opinion would probably add another $20-30,000 to the weekend.
Why am I raising this now? two reasons, one I have been requested to by a number of my readers and two if you read Fridays Promoter there was an article about this weekend and the discussion that took place at last council meeting. Councilor Saje clearly indicated in his comments that in future years the weekend should be ran more has a business, and Councilor Gail requested of administration has to when the revenue numbers for the weekend would be made available by the fire department.
Any way due to my readers and the two fore mentioned councilors raising this issue the debate is open again regarding the “Rum Runner Weekend”.
Note: I have already refused one comment due to the fact that it made a derogatory comment regarding a fire department, keep your comments to the debate if you wish to have them published.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
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)