Ratepayers Association General Meeting
7pm June 20 at the Bellevue Legion anybody welcome.
Topics
Russell Farmer Associates
Mayor's Corner
FOIP Documentation
Auction of Fire Equipment
Questions and Answers
Note: Keep in mind one very important number $4325
Showing posts with label Crowsnest Pass Ratepayers Association. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crowsnest Pass Ratepayers Association. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Ratepayers letter to Municipal Affairs + Russell Farmer
Crowsnest Pass Ratepayers Association
General Delivery
Hillcrest Mines, Alberta - TOK lCO
May 24, 2013
Tim Morrison, Chief of Staff Department of Municipal Affairs Chris Hutchison, Principal Russell Farmer & Associates Consulting Ltd.
Dear Mr. Morrison and Mr. Hutchison,
Regarding our petition, we did not petition the Minister to remove our sitting Council because our hope was the Municipal Review itself would be enough to bring about better governance. Unfortunately, with the review well under way, it is now clear our hopes have been misplaced.
Our Council and administration keep behaving as if the petition never took place and the concerns of the petitioners are all but ignored. The Municipal Newsletter, copy included,has been used to tell us to, more or less, be quiet while important work is being done.
It appears our sitting Council, and the administration, are of the opinion that the problems in which they find themselves with the voters are mainly due to poor communication. The petitioners, on the other hand, strongly feel that the real problems are not due to poor communication. We are convinced, now more than ever, the real problem is poor municipal governance.
While change is always difficult, change should not be used as an excuse for poor governance. If, as the municipal newsletter claims, our council is developing a policy driven governance,then the proper policies, first and foremost, must be applied to Council work. It appears to us our Council is prepared to bend, or stretch, policies when it comes to its own behaviour.
The criticism most often heard on the street is still about the lack of open debate in council. Decisions were, and are, made without the ratepayers understanding the rationale for these decisions.
Now we learn our Council has been having Secret Meetings, they have conducted these meetings under the name of Administrative Meetings for more than two years. They feel it is alright to have secret meetings and the Privacy Act is the legislation used to support this belief.
There is no provision in our current Procedural By-Law for having secret meetings of the Municipal Council, without minutes taken, and with a quorum of councillors present. There is also no record of a motion being passed to have such Secret Meetings. Using the Privacy Act to justify such secret meetings appears to be taking the Act into an area where it was never meant to go.
A Municipal Council Meeting, with a quorum present, is not a 11Cabinet" or a 11Caucus" or designated committee, or a few public officials debating policy in a relaxed environment.
Our Municipal Council is also our legislative body and it is having Secret Meetings (with a quorum present) outside our Procedural By-Law. This appears to be much the same as if the Alberta Legislature, with a majority of the MLAs present, were having secret meetings at the legislature without anyone keeping minutes. No one would tolerate such behaviour at the Provincial level and the same can be said when it comes down to municipal governance.
Changing the name of the meeting from Administrative Meeting to a CAO Report half way through a Provincial Municipal Audit,with the hope to legitimize these meetings, does not change anything. In fact, if it were not so serious, it would almost be comical.
We feel these Secret Meetings are a serious breach of municipal protocols. The knowledge these meetings taking place also helps us understand why we have witnessed so little debate in open forum. While the CAO claims "he seeks no input, direction nor do we develop strategy," he offers no records to back his claims. If no records are kept, imagination wanders. This is not good governance within a public body.
It is also unfortunate our CAO used the name of George Cuff to legitimize the format of these meetings once questions were raised. We are not sure that a respected and experienced municipal expert like Mr. Cuff would have supported such format if he was given, what looks to us, the full context of how these meetings seem to have come about and how these meetings appear to have been held.
These Secret Meetings involving the quorum of council and the lack oftransparency in the decision making process is at the root of our governance problem.
There are many examples of decisions and actions taking place without a transparent council debate and a proper council resolution. A few examples which underline the problem are:
• Municipal review of our electrical system with a possibility of future sale of our municipal assets to Fortis Alberta. The community has been aware such a review has been taking place. When we contacted our CAO about the review, he acknowledged the review. When we asked him if there was a Council debate and resolution to such effect, he replied that it was not necessary because it is in the Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan is not there to replace processes which normally take place in the administration of a municipality. The Strategic Plan is also very clear about the need for transparency.
• Our community has also been aware that the municipality hired consultants to conduct a forensic audit of our former fire department. While such audits are sometimes required, it is not a common occurrence in a community of our size. These types of audits are very expensive if done right and costs and benefits should be debated. We have enquired of our CAO whether an audit of this type is being undertaken and whether there was a council resolution to that effect. Our CAO replied to us that while such an audit may not be common, there was no council resolution because it was within his administrative purview to order such an audit on his own. It appears that only one part of the municipal operations was singled out for this audit. In the end,we may be faced with expensive and unproductive legal costs. Only a proper debate can bring out both sides to a story.
• Since there was no visible debate on fire department restructuring, we feel that Edmonton may have not been presented with a clear picture of our former fire department. We don't know what was presented, but is not hard to paint an organization in a negative light if enough effort is put into the task. A couple of examples which may have been used were the storage of fireworks in a building constructed for that purpose behind the fire hall or the presence of alcoholic beverages at the fire hall. The alcoholic beverages were kept under lock and key and were mostly leftover from the many charity fund raisers in which the firemen were involved with. Since the liquor store will not take back open case or open bottles, that liquor was being held for future charity events. One can use these two examples to paint a good picture of the fire hall or to paint a bad picture of the fire hall; it all depends on who needs the picture.
• We don't know who called the police about the fireworks being stored in a purpose built building behind the fire hall, but it is clear to the community that the removal of the fireworks could have been affected in a more mature manner by everyone involved. After all, these fireworks were purchased through the joint effort of the municipality and the fire department and were stored on municipal premises with the full knowledge of municipal authorities.
The current forensic audit of the fire department can be viewed through the same lens as the calling of the RCMP to the Fireworks storage building. When an organization as large as our municipality finds problems in only one area of its operations, it seems to us the question should always be asked whether other areas of operations are also a contributing factor to these problems. This is why escalating such issues into the legal arena usually ends up costing a lot of money for legal work.
• We have a recorded instance, as described by Councillor Andrew Saje in his report (attached) where the council discussed something in camera and then subsequently, when they came out of camera, instructed the CAO to take action without an appropriate motion taking place. One can only imagine that the hiring of Calder Batman from Edmonton to give advice on public relations and crisis communications was something that someone wanted to keep off the record; this is really not how things should be done in a small community such as ours. When the news finally came out, the whole affair appeared to us as an unnecessary public relations disaster. Excuses were given why there was no resolution to hire the company, but since there was no budget for this kind of thing, we feel a resolution should have been taken. A policy should not be avoided just because it is inconvenient and appears easy to avoid.
There were many different reasons which led to the petition and we feel our council has failed to address our main concern, which from day one, was a very apparent lack of transparency in council's decision making process. We would like to thank the Minister for granting us the Municipal Inspection. It is still our hope that the review process will allow all of us an opportunity for reflection and, ultimately, lead to better Municipal Governance in the Crowsnest Pass.
Sincerely,
William Kovach, Petitioner's Representative
Cc: Myron Thompson
George Cuff
Pass Herald
Pass Promoter
Municipality of CNP council
Lethbridge Herald
General Delivery
Hillcrest Mines, Alberta - TOK lCO
May 24, 2013
Tim Morrison, Chief of Staff Department of Municipal Affairs Chris Hutchison, Principal Russell Farmer & Associates Consulting Ltd.
Dear Mr. Morrison and Mr. Hutchison,
Regarding our petition, we did not petition the Minister to remove our sitting Council because our hope was the Municipal Review itself would be enough to bring about better governance. Unfortunately, with the review well under way, it is now clear our hopes have been misplaced.
Our Council and administration keep behaving as if the petition never took place and the concerns of the petitioners are all but ignored. The Municipal Newsletter, copy included,has been used to tell us to, more or less, be quiet while important work is being done.
It appears our sitting Council, and the administration, are of the opinion that the problems in which they find themselves with the voters are mainly due to poor communication. The petitioners, on the other hand, strongly feel that the real problems are not due to poor communication. We are convinced, now more than ever, the real problem is poor municipal governance.
While change is always difficult, change should not be used as an excuse for poor governance. If, as the municipal newsletter claims, our council is developing a policy driven governance,then the proper policies, first and foremost, must be applied to Council work. It appears to us our Council is prepared to bend, or stretch, policies when it comes to its own behaviour.
The criticism most often heard on the street is still about the lack of open debate in council. Decisions were, and are, made without the ratepayers understanding the rationale for these decisions.
Now we learn our Council has been having Secret Meetings, they have conducted these meetings under the name of Administrative Meetings for more than two years. They feel it is alright to have secret meetings and the Privacy Act is the legislation used to support this belief.
There is no provision in our current Procedural By-Law for having secret meetings of the Municipal Council, without minutes taken, and with a quorum of councillors present. There is also no record of a motion being passed to have such Secret Meetings. Using the Privacy Act to justify such secret meetings appears to be taking the Act into an area where it was never meant to go.
A Municipal Council Meeting, with a quorum present, is not a 11Cabinet" or a 11Caucus" or designated committee, or a few public officials debating policy in a relaxed environment.
Our Municipal Council is also our legislative body and it is having Secret Meetings (with a quorum present) outside our Procedural By-Law. This appears to be much the same as if the Alberta Legislature, with a majority of the MLAs present, were having secret meetings at the legislature without anyone keeping minutes. No one would tolerate such behaviour at the Provincial level and the same can be said when it comes down to municipal governance.
Changing the name of the meeting from Administrative Meeting to a CAO Report half way through a Provincial Municipal Audit,with the hope to legitimize these meetings, does not change anything. In fact, if it were not so serious, it would almost be comical.
We feel these Secret Meetings are a serious breach of municipal protocols. The knowledge these meetings taking place also helps us understand why we have witnessed so little debate in open forum. While the CAO claims "he seeks no input, direction nor do we develop strategy," he offers no records to back his claims. If no records are kept, imagination wanders. This is not good governance within a public body.
It is also unfortunate our CAO used the name of George Cuff to legitimize the format of these meetings once questions were raised. We are not sure that a respected and experienced municipal expert like Mr. Cuff would have supported such format if he was given, what looks to us, the full context of how these meetings seem to have come about and how these meetings appear to have been held.
These Secret Meetings involving the quorum of council and the lack oftransparency in the decision making process is at the root of our governance problem.
There are many examples of decisions and actions taking place without a transparent council debate and a proper council resolution. A few examples which underline the problem are:
• Municipal review of our electrical system with a possibility of future sale of our municipal assets to Fortis Alberta. The community has been aware such a review has been taking place. When we contacted our CAO about the review, he acknowledged the review. When we asked him if there was a Council debate and resolution to such effect, he replied that it was not necessary because it is in the Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan is not there to replace processes which normally take place in the administration of a municipality. The Strategic Plan is also very clear about the need for transparency.
• Our community has also been aware that the municipality hired consultants to conduct a forensic audit of our former fire department. While such audits are sometimes required, it is not a common occurrence in a community of our size. These types of audits are very expensive if done right and costs and benefits should be debated. We have enquired of our CAO whether an audit of this type is being undertaken and whether there was a council resolution to that effect. Our CAO replied to us that while such an audit may not be common, there was no council resolution because it was within his administrative purview to order such an audit on his own. It appears that only one part of the municipal operations was singled out for this audit. In the end,we may be faced with expensive and unproductive legal costs. Only a proper debate can bring out both sides to a story.
• Since there was no visible debate on fire department restructuring, we feel that Edmonton may have not been presented with a clear picture of our former fire department. We don't know what was presented, but is not hard to paint an organization in a negative light if enough effort is put into the task. A couple of examples which may have been used were the storage of fireworks in a building constructed for that purpose behind the fire hall or the presence of alcoholic beverages at the fire hall. The alcoholic beverages were kept under lock and key and were mostly leftover from the many charity fund raisers in which the firemen were involved with. Since the liquor store will not take back open case or open bottles, that liquor was being held for future charity events. One can use these two examples to paint a good picture of the fire hall or to paint a bad picture of the fire hall; it all depends on who needs the picture.
• We don't know who called the police about the fireworks being stored in a purpose built building behind the fire hall, but it is clear to the community that the removal of the fireworks could have been affected in a more mature manner by everyone involved. After all, these fireworks were purchased through the joint effort of the municipality and the fire department and were stored on municipal premises with the full knowledge of municipal authorities.
The current forensic audit of the fire department can be viewed through the same lens as the calling of the RCMP to the Fireworks storage building. When an organization as large as our municipality finds problems in only one area of its operations, it seems to us the question should always be asked whether other areas of operations are also a contributing factor to these problems. This is why escalating such issues into the legal arena usually ends up costing a lot of money for legal work.
• We have a recorded instance, as described by Councillor Andrew Saje in his report (attached) where the council discussed something in camera and then subsequently, when they came out of camera, instructed the CAO to take action without an appropriate motion taking place. One can only imagine that the hiring of Calder Batman from Edmonton to give advice on public relations and crisis communications was something that someone wanted to keep off the record; this is really not how things should be done in a small community such as ours. When the news finally came out, the whole affair appeared to us as an unnecessary public relations disaster. Excuses were given why there was no resolution to hire the company, but since there was no budget for this kind of thing, we feel a resolution should have been taken. A policy should not be avoided just because it is inconvenient and appears easy to avoid.
There were many different reasons which led to the petition and we feel our council has failed to address our main concern, which from day one, was a very apparent lack of transparency in council's decision making process. We would like to thank the Minister for granting us the Municipal Inspection. It is still our hope that the review process will allow all of us an opportunity for reflection and, ultimately, lead to better Municipal Governance in the Crowsnest Pass.
Sincerely,
William Kovach, Petitioner's Representative
Cc: Myron Thompson
George Cuff
Pass Herald
Pass Promoter
Municipality of CNP council
Lethbridge Herald
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Crowsnest Pass Ratepayers Letter to the Editor
Here is the letter from this weeks letter to the editor also check out the ratepayers Facebook page for other information on the organization.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/crowsnest-pass-ratepayers-association/other-side-of-the-story/538457979539095
http://www.facebook.com/notes/crowsnest-pass-ratepayers-association/other-side-of-the-story/538457979539095
Other side of the story
The Ratepayers do not have access to the taxpayer funded municipal communications system. It becomes very expensive to advertise on radio, in the papers, mail inserts.
It leaves the ratepayers association seeking other alternatives to getting out our concerns, comments and questions.
In response to the Mayor’s latest newsletter. It is good to see that our restructured administrative staff is working well as a team with our staff.
Maybe the talk of morale at the municipality being at an all time low is not accurate.
The Mayor addresses the issue of differences of opinion in a healthy organization is he referring to Councillor Saje recent statements? Were those the only times that process was not followed? Is Councillor Saje the only one that has concerns?
The hotel development, the selling price of the property was $1.1 million.
The municipality actually only receives $300,000 in cash with $100,000 of that used to put in a playground at the site. The developer was given an allowance of $800,000 to remove the building by August 30. There was a request for proposals, last year were there bids for less than $800,000?
Medican is a company that has had serious financial problems, they are now
in the process of coming out of CCAA court protection.
More news in the Mayor’s newsletter at the open house with Riversdale Mining, there spokesman clearly stated that every thing going perfect the mine would be starting up in 2017, the Mayor now suspects the mine will be in place sooner than anticipated.
The Mayor is also excited about the branding project, that cost the taxpayers $47,000 don’t we all feel “naturally rewarded”. The Mayor’s task force report in May of 2011 clearly recommended the use of the “Mountain
Freedom” brand, that would have cost us nothing. That same report also stated a top priority would be the hiring of an Economic Development Officer
by Sept 2011, the job is finally now being advertised, will it be in place prior to the election?
Ranchlands is going to meet with our council, it would be great news for the taxpayers of the Crowsnest Pass to know when we will be reducing our high tax rates, franchise fees and other various charges with the additional income that Ranchlands will provide. The Mayor should provide us with examples of other municipalities where this process has taken place, we can only find examples where communities anticipating tremendous population growth were allowed to annex their neighbors.
Finally, the Mayor basks in the glory of the Emergency Services Open House, it was great that it brought back memories of a cardboard helmet from his early childhood. What about the memories of the individuals that put 20-40 years of there lives into those organizations.
This will be the first letter to the editor from the Ratepayers Association, we have many more issues to raise, we ask all residents to take the time to think about these prior to October 21. (This letter was written without the assistance of any Public Relations firm)
Friday, March 15, 2013
Crowsnest Pass Ratepayers Next Public Meeting
THE
CROWSNEST PASS
IS HOLDING A GENERAL MEETING
IN
THE COLEMAN LEGION (UPSTAIRS)
ON THURSDAY MARCH 21
@
7:00 P.M
TOPICS
v Medican
v Logo
Issue
v P/R
people
v Fire
Plan
v Inspection
update
v Open Discussion
EVERYONE
WELCOME
Friday, February 15, 2013
Press Release by the Crowsnest Pass Ratepayers Association
Press Release by the Crowsnest Pass Ratepayers Association – Feb 14, 2013
2012 was a very busy year for the Ratepayers Association of the Crowsnest Pass. Concerns of how our community was being governed were presented to council but fell on deaf ears. On October 4th and again on the 11th, 2012 we informed the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Doug Griffiths of these concerns and that the electorate wanted to petition the Minister to intervene.
We informed the Minister of the bullying that went on with our volunteer fire departments, the miss-information council was giving out regarding Thunder in the Valley, that our community wasn’t enjoying the Alberta Advantage and that we couldn’t continue to absorb increases in fees, spending and hiring. We informed the Minister a petition from the people was forthcoming.
On November 1st, 2012 we delivered a petition signed by 2510 voters here in the Pass. Since the petition was delivered it’s been three and half months and now we understand why those of us that delivered the petition were treated so poorly at the Legislative Building in Edmonton. The Department of Municipal Affairs continues to drag their feet in picking an inspection team and the Minister’s Chief of Staff indicated it would probably be summer time before the inspection takes place. At that point I informed the Minister’s Chief of Staff that wasn’t satisfactory. The damage being done to this community has to stop and the disrespect council is showing toward the electorate that signed the petition has to be addressed.
To add to our many concerns the Department of Municipal Affairs is giving a Regional Collaboration Project grant to our municipality. This $257,000.00 grant will cover communication upgrades, training of fireman and paying of personnel. We had four volunteer fire departments that in total cost us $285,000.00, now we have one fire/rescue department that needs training and from the Community and Protective Services Director down to the Fire Chief, Deputy and three paid firemen that will cost the taxpayer $500,000.00. The best part of this grant is retroactive to last year and it doesn’t even include the present volunteer fireman or the cost of fighting a fire.
The citizens if the Crowsnest Pass don’t deserve this type of bullying from our council and especially not from the Department of Municipal Affairs.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/crowsnest-pass-ratepayers-association/press-release-by-the-crowsnest-pass-ratepayers-association-feb-14-2013/521541187897441
https://www.facebook.com/notes/crowsnest-pass-ratepayers-association/press-release-by-the-crowsnest-pass-ratepayers-association-feb-14-2013/521541187897441
Ratepayers Meeting Reminder
There will be a Ratepayers meeting Wednesday night Feb 20, 7pm at the Hillcrest Miners club, everybody is welcome.
Monday, January 21, 2013
G+P meeting update on Fire Master plan, Riversdale and Annexation
For those that have the time and the interest tomorrow afternoon at 2pm the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass Fire and Rescue Service Master Plan, will be presented by Albert Headrick, Director of Protective and Community Services to council. It will be very interesting to see what the results are of the mess that was created in this community in 2012, and all the taxpayers dollars (whether they be Municipal or Provincial they are all tax payers money) that was spent.
Back in the Fall, Bill Kovach President of the Ratepayers Association requested information regarding the Fire Departments he was told at that time by the Mayor that the questions would be answered by the Fire and Rescue Master Plan that administration would be bringing forth prior to Christmas. Well it was on the agenda for today in a surprising turn of events the CAO asked that it be moved to "In Camera" due to some sensitive issues that had to be talked about, he also informed council that it would be coming back to the G+P on Feb 19.
The Mayor also informed Council that Riversdale Resources will be coming to the Pass on Feb 6, to meet with council, media, business leaders and finally the public. I was a little surprised when he asked the rest of council if they have met Riversdale all responded "No".
In other news council was informed that Municipal Affairs will be coming down to meet with them on Feb 13 regarding the road map for annexation, Mayor Decoux suggested that the MD of Ranchlands be invited, then in a very neighborly type fashion he suggested that all the other MD's bordering the MD of Ranchlands be invited. After all he stated we don't want to gobble up all of Ranchlands, I wonder how the MD of Ranchlands will feel about being invited to an all you can eat buffet where they are the main course.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Councillor Gallant's response to the Ratepayers Petition
On Councillors Gallant's Blog is his opinion regarding the Ratepayers Petition
Take the time to read it if you can, looking forward to my reader's comments. Remember I will not censor any comments has long as they are not personnel or slanderous.
http://briangallant.ca/wordpress/2012/11/03/the-other-side-of-the-petition/
Dean's Comments
A couple of points that come to mind after a quick review of
Councilor Gallant's comments.
Take the time to read it if you can, looking forward to my reader's comments. Remember I will not censor any comments has long as they are not personnel or slanderous.
http://briangallant.ca/wordpress/2012/11/03/the-other-side-of-the-petition/
Dean's Comments
First of all his comments regarding people/businesses being
intimidated or mislead. If that is true a simple call to municipal affairs from
enough people will get that departments attention, there is a toll free number
in the phone book and your call is confidential.
Mislead, there are 2500 people on that petition in less than
three weeks. The group that went around in late 2008 had 1201 names. Does he
really believe that an additional 1300 people can be "misled" maybe
he is thinking we have a lot of dumb people here (I don't think so).
Mr. Gallant made the following comment: "Has anyone else out there realized that
there was a petition against council, which ended in a consultant hired by
council to conduct an inquiry, almost exactly three years ago?"
This was not true, when the budget process began in October
of 2008 a number of councilors requested that a corporate review take place.
The majority recognized we had problems in the municipality, and that we needed
an unbiased source to help us identify those problems.
September of 2008 the plebiscite on the Crowsnest Centre
took place. Obviously, there were some people that disagreed with that decision
and the group "Citizens to save the Crowsnest
Pass May 5,
2009 council meeting stating that the petition was invalid.
The minister stated the following: "However, I suggest that the
municipality consider engaging a third party to conduct a review of the
administrative and governance processes in place. The review presents an
opportunity to evaluate the municipality's strengths and identify potentials
for improvement."
At that point, the motion was made to approach George Cuff
to conduct a corporate review.
The whole issue of a corporate review was a political battle
within the council of the day, the minister's comments only reconfirmed the
position the majority of council had taken seven months prior to the petition
failing and three months prior to it even beginning. Prior to the petition even
being conceived the majority of council had publicly taken a position that a
corporate review was necessary and would have happened even without a petition.
Therefore, to try to tie the two together is "misleading"
Then he states the following: "I will also say that I
have received dozens and dozens of phone calls, emails, and face-to-face
endorsements from residents that council should stick to its path because we
are doing the right thing"
That sounds like the "silent majority thing
again".
Picture this Calgary has roughly 900,000 eligible voters,
what do you think the council in Calgary would say if a citizens group went out
and signed up 475,000 names on a petition in less than three weeks. "The
silent majority support us"?
He also states the following:
"Other residents told me that the petitioners said, “We
need to get rid of all these newcomers” because it’s obviously the “newcomers”
that are to blame for everything, not 30+ years of poor management".
First, you want to talk about a divisive comment, I have sat
at ratepayers meeting and have seen people that have been here all their lives
and other that have only been here for a few years. Same with the people going
around with petitions.
This 30+ years of poor management crap is getting on my
nerves, no question there has been some councils and administrations that have
been stronger and done a better job than others do. Do I think there has been
30+ years of poor management? No
Friday, November 2, 2012
Petition Presented - CTV Lethbridge - Nov.02/12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY-RvMhHNaM
Will the municipal affairs give any consideration to 2500 signatures or 53% of the voting public.
The silent majority are no longer silent.
This from Global TV in Lethbridge
It appears a group of southwest Albertans aren't getting the answer they wanted from the provincial government.
The Crowsnest Pass Ratepayers Association delivered a petition to the Alberta Legislature this week, calling for an intervention into the municipality's council and administration.
"Our petition is 2,500 strong," said Bill Kovach, president of the association, in Edmonton on Thursday. "It's a pretty healthy petition, people have said enough is enough."
Enough of poor expenditures, says the group.
The petition dates back to July, but organizers say it has gained strength since the Blairmore fire chief was dismissed in early October.
Minister Doug Griffiths has already responded to at least one individual. In a letter provided to Global News, Griffiths writes, "I respect the work that the Crowsnest Pass council and administration has done," adding he will, "continue to support their efforts to carry out their legislated responsibilities."
"That sounds very encouraging," said Bruce Decoux, the Crowsnest Pass mayor. "We trust the Minister to make the appropriate decision, and whatever decision he does make, we'll certainly abide by it."
Decoux says the petition concerns him, noting council has to re-clarify its vision. But he adds there is a large "silent majority" of residents in the Pass who support the municipality's work.
"We are, on a daily basis, encouraged by people that have written us private letters," said Decoux. "As far as we're concerned, we have received an immense amount of support."
The Crowsnest Pass Ratepayers Association worries that spending by the municipality can't be sustained in a community where the population is shrinking.
"It makes it very difficult for those of us left to pick up the costs," said Kovach.
Under the Municipal Government Act, Griffiths has 30 days to respond, at which point he can choose whether or not to intervene.
Read it on Global News: Global Lethbridge | Letter from Minister supports Crowsnest Pass council
Will the municipal affairs give any consideration to 2500 signatures or 53% of the voting public.
The silent majority are no longer silent.
This from Global TV in Lethbridge
It appears a group of southwest Albertans aren't getting the answer they wanted from the provincial government.
The Crowsnest Pass Ratepayers Association delivered a petition to the Alberta Legislature this week, calling for an intervention into the municipality's council and administration.
"Our petition is 2,500 strong," said Bill Kovach, president of the association, in Edmonton on Thursday. "It's a pretty healthy petition, people have said enough is enough."
Enough of poor expenditures, says the group.
The petition dates back to July, but organizers say it has gained strength since the Blairmore fire chief was dismissed in early October.
Minister Doug Griffiths has already responded to at least one individual. In a letter provided to Global News, Griffiths writes, "I respect the work that the Crowsnest Pass council and administration has done," adding he will, "continue to support their efforts to carry out their legislated responsibilities."
"That sounds very encouraging," said Bruce Decoux, the Crowsnest Pass mayor. "We trust the Minister to make the appropriate decision, and whatever decision he does make, we'll certainly abide by it."
Decoux says the petition concerns him, noting council has to re-clarify its vision. But he adds there is a large "silent majority" of residents in the Pass who support the municipality's work.
"We are, on a daily basis, encouraged by people that have written us private letters," said Decoux. "As far as we're concerned, we have received an immense amount of support."
The Crowsnest Pass Ratepayers Association worries that spending by the municipality can't be sustained in a community where the population is shrinking.
"It makes it very difficult for those of us left to pick up the costs," said Kovach.
Under the Municipal Government Act, Griffiths has 30 days to respond, at which point he can choose whether or not to intervene.
Read it on Global News: Global Lethbridge | Letter from Minister supports Crowsnest Pass council
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Ratepayers Petition Give the process a chance.
I am sure by now most people have read the response from
municipal affairs to a friend of John’s after that individual had wrote a
letter to Municipal affairs regarding the present situation in the Crowsnest
Pass.
How will Municipal affairs respond to the concerns raised by
residents of the Crowsnest Pass
On an individual basis I expected nothing less than what you
see in the letter on Mr Prince’s Blog. From my reading of the MGA
there is no legal requirement for the minister to do anything unless the
threshold of 20% is reached.
There is a difference between an individual complaint to
Municipal Affairs and the petition that will be delivered to the minister’s
office. First of all if Municipal affairs looked at what was going on in a
community every time somebody complained they would need a staff of hundreds. That
is why there is a process in place that requires a substantial number of voters
to speak up before they do take a look at a municipality. Let’s face it even if
one hundred individual complaints came from the Crowsnest
Pass
We all recognize that municipal politicians have to face the
test of the public every three years, for the most part that process should be
respected and it is. There are very rare occasions where governments do not
represent the wishes or direction of the people that put them in office, at
provincial and federal levels you have official oppositions to keep government
accountable and to point out when they are misleading the voters.
In Alberta Municipal politics you do not have official
oppositions to make government accountable, councils are made up of seven
individuals that are suppose to have their own minds, be willing to speak up
and represent all the members of their communities. Again for the most part
this takes place but for when the system fails or a substantial part of public
has a clear disagreement with the direction their community is being led, then
under the MGA you have the right to start a
petition. It is not an easy feat you must collect 20% of the populations
signatures on a piece of paper in 30 days maximum.
Only then will you get municipal affairs to look at what’s
going on in our community, first of all they will validate that you have 20% of
the population, we all remember a petition failed previously because it could
not reach that number. There will not be a problem there, with over 40% of the population signed in just 20 days.
It would be hard to believe that just this fact alone would not catch the
attention of Municipal Affairs. Then I believe they will take a closer look at
what is going on here, I think they will talk to the Council, administration
and the Ratepayers executive.
Will anything happen from there? That’s the million dollar
question that only municipal affairs can answer. Is there any guarantee’s that
Municipal affairs will do anything? None at all. I do know for sure that
they will not look at our issues based on one or even a hundred taxpayers
letters, complaints or phone calls.
If the petition fails, we could have done nothing but the people of the Crowsnest Pass choose to use part of the democratic process provided to them by the Alberta government under the MGA. "53% of the eligible voters choice to exercise that right"
At a minimum to have 2500 people sign
a petition in less than three weeks should send a message to somebody.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Petition Numbers telling a story
Well as of 11 am this morning the petition is standing at 2440.
Despite all the euphoria of the Holiday Inn coming to town this still indicates that the taxpayers obviously have concerns, that's now a clear majority of all the eligible voters in the Crowsnest Pass, 51.8 to be exact.
Let's not lose sight of two other factors, one being that this is only the 19th day and two that the municipality launched a massive and expensive advertising campaign last week, which from the people I have spoken to back fired on them.
Despite all the euphoria of the Holiday Inn coming to town this still indicates that the taxpayers obviously have concerns, that's now a clear majority of all the eligible voters in the Crowsnest Pass, 51.8 to be exact.
Let's not lose sight of two other factors, one being that this is only the 19th day and two that the municipality launched a massive and expensive advertising campaign last week, which from the people I have spoken to back fired on them.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Municipal Spending-Ratepayers Petition-Ignoring the Numbers
Well a whole smorgasbord of comments I am hearing this week
in the Crowsnest Pass on my blog, around town regarding the ongoing issues in
our community. First of all how many people were impressed with the Municipal
advertising, I was flabbergasted, the
costs between both papers and the radio I suspect they were in the range of
$8-10,000 of our taxpayers money spent on this blitz of information. I was
surprised the initial reaction I have gotten from the people that I have spoken
to was one of either, did not read it and do not care what it said, or couldn’t
understand it.
What amazed me more than the fact that we had $10,000 of
spare money available was the response time of the municipality?
The ratepayer’s flyer hit the paper on Tuesday; I believe
the papers go to press by the weekend. So in three days that package was put
together approved by Council, (my impression was that it came from council and
administration so I’m sure all of that team had their input and at least a
majority supported this document).
That timing is incredible when you look at the context of
other requests for information personally I requested information on the amount
of dollars spent on Consultants it took me three months to get that information.
The ratepayers requested a lot of the information that was released this week
back on August 2, did not receive it until October 9. The one the public is
waiting for the Rum Runner Days financial report, the event took place on the
weekend of July 19, now everybody understands that it takes a few weeks for the
bills to roll in and sort everything out. So I do not think anybody would have
been bothered having to wait until the end of August. But folks it’s now not
being released until Nov 6, and what’s made it look even worse is, its been on
the Council agenda three times and three times its been deferred. Everybody understands
the sensitivity of this issue so why would you do that?
The Petition last night it was announced at the Ratepayers
meeting that they have close to 2100 signatures on the petition, with 30 plus
people out in the community still signing names. It is not unrealistic to think
that the final number could be in the range of 2500. Now keep in mind tonight
Oct 25 will be two weeks since the petition started, we have a population of
5565 (2011 census) of which 855 are under the age of 18. So that means out of a
potential 4710 voters 45% have signed a petition in “two weeks”, municipal,
provincial even federal, elections are lucky if they get that kind of turnout
after a two-month election campaign, with polling stations in place.
The message here should be not “that people are getting led
down the garden path with mis-information” that argument could be made about
every candidate that has run in every election campaign in the history of
politics. The message that should be coming out of this process unless you have
totally lost touch with the public is that something is seriously wrong here,
unless of course the leadership here just chooses to totally ignore the
numbers.
Yes, we all understand that the public voted for change in
2010, and change does need to and will happen. Look at what as transpired over
the last little while, not just the petition, volunteers do we have any left,
in yesterday’s paper there was at least eight boards listed that are short of
members despite being advertised for months. The issue with the Firemen is
there one person out there that felt that was handled well. The swimming pool
society, the Bellevue Library. Obviously,
the public is not buying into what has been happening in our community.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Communications and Numbers
The municipality as put out a new information titled Public Information Communication in response to the flyer in this weeks papers from the ratepayers: Which is available at the following address.
http://www.town.crowsnestpass.ab.ca/
In response to some of the numbers being thrown around I would provide the following:
General Municipal Taxes
http://www.town.crowsnestpass.ab.ca/
In response to some of the numbers being thrown around I would provide the following:
General Municipal Taxes
Rate Payers Interpretation:
TAXES have increased “$387, 331 per year.”
Municipal Fact:
Municipal Tax Levies: Year
|
Tax Levy
(
|
Increase from prior year
|
% increase from prior year
|
Budget - 2014
|
$6,951,421
|
$ 96,045
|
1.4%
|
Budget - 2013
|
$6,855,376
|
$ 35,224
|
0.52%
|
2012
|
$6,820,152
|
$264,162
|
4.0%
|
2011
|
$6,555,990
|
$123,169
|
1.91%
|
2010
|
$6,432,821
|
$ 72,806
|
1.14%
|
2009
|
$6,360,015
|
$ 82,326
|
1.31%
|
2008
|
$6,277,689
|
$802,535
|
14.65%
|
Note: In 2010 we paid $6,432,821 in 2012 we will pay $6,820,152 a difference of $387,331, we are now paying in 2012 $387,331 more per year (2012) than we did in 2010.
Utility Bills
Utility Rate Summary 2007-2014:
| |||||||||||||
Water
|
Waste Water
|
Solid Waste
|
Recycling
|
Total
|
Annual $ increase
|
Annual % increase
| |||||||
Budget 2014
|
$1,055,060
|
$714,777
|
$640,818
|
$97,576
|
$2,508,231
|
$85,365
|
3.50%
| ||||||
Budget 2013
|
$1,008,135
|
$676,338
|
$640,818
|
$97,576
|
$2,422,867
|
$70,415
|
2.90%
| ||||||
Budget 2012
|
$963,757
|
$650,301
|
$640,818
|
$97,576
|
$2,352,452
|
$57,052
|
2.90%
| ||||||
2011
|
$937,684
|
$637,299
|
$622,841
|
$97,576
|
$2,295,400
|
$133,291
|
6.16%
| ||||||
2010
|
$853,273
|
$590,585
|
$621,071
|
$97,180
|
$2,162,109
|
$188,078
|
9.50%
| ||||||
2009
|
$744,163
|
$567,529
|
$565,140
|
$97,199
|
$1,974,031
|
$39,044
|
2.01%
| ||||||
2008
|
$742,073
|
$537,322
|
$560,209
|
$95,383
|
$1,934,987
|
$75,761
|
4.0 7%
| ||||||
Note: By the municipalities numbers the cost of utilities will jump $190,343 in 2012 versus 2010.
The utility number presented here for 2012 is also $33,000 lower than a previous number provided by the municipality.
The utility number presented here for 2012 is also $33,000 lower than a previous number provided by the municipality.
Municipal Fact:
- Since 2008 the Municipality has increased the Franchise Fees received from
|
Note: The Franchise Fees were $250,000 in 2008 and went to $569,749 in 2012 with a proposed increase to $906,694 in 2013.
|
Taxes, Utilities and Franchise Fees:
Rate Payers Interpretation:
“Taxes, Utilities and Franchise Fees come to a total of $900,029 per year more. That will transfer $1,400,000 more a year from the Taxpayers pockets to the Municipality versus 2010”.
Municipal Fact:
Summary of Revenues Generated from Tax Levy, Utilities and Franchise Fees: Year
|
Tax Levy
(
|
Utility Levies
|
Franchise Fees
|
Total Revenue
|
Annual $ Increase
|
Annual % increase
| ||||
Budget - 2014
|
$6,951,421
|
$2,508,231
|
$906,694
|
$10,366,346
|
$181,409
|
1.78%
| ||||
Budget - 2013
|
$6,855,376
|
$2,422,867
|
$906,694
|
$10.184.937
|
$442,584
|
4.34%
| ||||
2012
|
$6,820,152
|
$2,352,452
|
$569,749
|
$ 9,742,353
|
$516,675
|
5.30%
| ||||
2011
|
$6,555,990
|
$2,295,400
|
$374,288
|
$ 9,225,678
|
$335,197
|
3.77%
| ||||
2010
|
$6,432,821
|
$2,162,109
|
$295,551
|
$ 8,890,481
|
$260,138
|
3.01%
| ||||
2009
|
$6,360,015
|
$1,974,031
|
$296,297
|
$ 8,630,343
|
$167,667
|
1.98%
| ||||
2008
|
$6,277,689
|
$1,934,987
|
$250,000
|
$ 8,462,676
|
$878,296
|
11.58%
| ||||
Note:2010 Total Revenue $8,890,481 2013 Total Revenue $10,184,937 a difference of $1,294,456 that will go from the taxpayers pockets to the municipality. (This number does not include the $33,000 in addition utility costs shown previously)
Municipal Staffing
Rate Payers Interpretation:
“At the date of the last election there were 19 employees in the Municipal Office (Administrators and Staff) Today that number is 25. “
Municipal Fact:
- Wages for Hourly positions are driven by the negotiations of the Union Collective Agreement while Management wages are set based on surveys assembled and distributed to municipalities by AAMDC (Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties) and AUMA (Alberta Urban Municipalities Association).
- In 2011 a new Corporate structure was established that added one new position to administration. Currently the Municipality’s administrative structure includes a CAO , three Directors and three Managers overseeing the areas of Finance and Corporate Services, Planning, Engineering and Operations and Protective and Community Services. Currently two of the three manager positions are vacant while recruiting for suitable applicants takes place.
Positions:
|
# of Positions on October 2010
|
# of Positions on October 2012
|
Administrative Positions
|
6
|
7
|
Municipal Inside (office)
|
10
|
13
|
Total Positions in Municipal Office
|
16
|
20
|
Municipal Outside Union Positions
|
33
|
37
|
Total Municipal Administration, Inside (office) and Outside Union Positions
|
49
|
57
|
Non Union Positions:
| ||
Library
|
4
|
3
|
Pool Seasonal (May-August)
|
17 (May-August)
|
16 (May –August)
|
Ski Hill (November-April)
|
42 (39 November-April)
(3 Full Time)
|
42 (39 November-April)
|
Note: The ratepayers argued that there was a difference of 6 employees between 2010 and 2012 the municipality now shows an actual staff difference of 8. I wonder in the municipal numbers if they are including positions that have been moved from the office to other locations now placed in the outside (Building Inspector, Commumity Peace Officer/Bylaw). In addition there is a position in the office that as been vacant for at least two months is that being factored in.
Note:Ratepayers Flyer comes out on Tuesday/Wednesday by Friday Municipality realises all kinds of numbers, a lot of this information was requested by the ratepayers back in early August they were not provided until October 9th.
What's even more amazing is seeing all of these numbers put together virtually over night yet the numbers for one short weekend event in July can not be put together in three months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)