Christmas comes early.......Crowsnest Pass

Well just seven days before Christmas and we are all blessed with the best gift of all Newsletter #67 (has it been that many already) and my personal highlight “The Mayor’s Corner”.  Well here is my interpretation of what jolly old Saint Bruce has to say.

“Sometimes good leadership means making tough decisions that may make people unhappy and I appreciate that.  Clearly, we must work harder in the community to communicate the rationale behind the decisions we make.  We all want the same thing: a vibrant and prosperous Crowsnest Pass.”

Well maybe they finally are getting the message that people are unhappy, working harder to communicate I have said it before they have done a better job of communicating than any previous council. Maybe it’s what you are saying not the fact that you are saying it.

“Further, we have noted the growing popularity of ‘Shootin’ the Breeze’ and recently, the ‘Fernie Free Press,’ both of which are available in many local outlets free of charge.  The Voice, a web- based newspaper is also available, and in the future we will be considering these media in order to improve our communication”

So does this mean they will continue to communicate in the present local papers, or is this the year end message that Randy, Lindsay and Joni keep reporting the news "accuratly". We do have alternatives.

“The people from Quebec, the hotel developers and the representatives of the heavy industry have all noted the ratepayers petition and the resulting inspection.  I hope the inspection occurs as soon as possible to prevent any reactive concerns from developing on the part of these businesses.”

Sounds like the laying of the groundwork to place the blame just in case things do not work out in any of these area’s, I guess a politically shrewd move.

However that group, this past week determined that due to the ratepayers petition and the resulting inspection that they would decline meeting with us until the situation is clarified.  Depending on the date of the inspection, possibly three to four months away, and a final report,  I suspect we will be putting this major activity “on the shelf”

Why the hell would a municipal affairs petition have any bearing on a “jamboree” being held in Bellevue this summer. Will everything that does or does not happen now in the Crowsnest Pass be blamed on the petition and the ratepayers?

“In closing, I will note that as your Council we have had to undertake some serious planning.  In following these plans we have had to make some difficult and unpleasant decisions for the long term benefit of our community and its citizens.  The “heavy lifting” is almost done and beginning next year we will begin to see the positive results of that planning and those decisions”

So we have got all the really crappy stuff out of the way, now all the good things are going to happen just coincidently in an election year. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

Talk about perfect timing getting the answers in the Crowsnest Pass.

Yesterday I posted the following article http://crowsnestpasshome.blogspot.ca/2012/11/a-community-divided-real-fix-is-eleven.html

Almost ironically, I receive an email this morning from the municipality, it’s the monthly newsletter. I will take a few quotes from the Mayors Corner and contribute my own thought’s.

Quote #1.  “I think it’s safe to say we are all very interested in local politics and hopefully will continue to be. I have to admit I am a bit disappointed in that we have held two budget meetings – with no one in attendance.”

Response #1 Looks like the people are speaking by their absence.

Quote #2  “I understand the current Councils’ “petition” has been delivered to Edmonton. The Minister of Municipal Affairs will ultimately make a decision based on wisdom, expertise, legislation and as a Council we will, as I have indicated on several occasions, abide by his decision.”

Response #2 Did not realize it was the current councils “petition” I had assumed that it was gathered by the ratepayers. Maybe this was an attempt at a little bit of sarcasm.

Quote #3 “On a positive note administration will be rolling out the new Fire Plan probably before Christmas. The plan promises to provide improved service and long term savings. The Director of Protective and Community Services, Mr. Albert Headrick has indicated the plan will provide a cost savings of over one half million dollars over the next two years and ongoing savings thereafter.

Response #3 Are we talking here about the operational budget, capital budget combination of both? The budget for Fire and Rescue (Operational) in 2010 was less than $400,000 if they are going to reduce that by $500,000 in the next two years, it will be very interesting to see what they will do. If it is reducing the capital budget by not going with a $1.3 million Quint and instead buying something for $800,000 that’s just playing with numbers.

Quote #4 “  We are in the process of determining an open house date for our hotel development team to gather input from yourselves regarding the development. I suspect it will be in February. Contrary to rumor no “flag” hotel has yet been determined”

Response #4 Maybe not an “Holiday Inn” looks like we are buying time. I predict that come next September we are going to have all of these “Hot” projects ready to go subject to the developers, manufacturers, corporations maintaining a level of comfort with the direction of the “next” municipal council.

Quote #5 “ The manufacturing company will be flying its executives out from Quebec to view the site again. The hot water situation and environmental regulation is still a problem”  

Response #5 These problems will not get fixed in the short term, probably require another three years see response #4 above.

Quote #6 Your Chief Administrative Officer and I have met with four representatives of a heavy industry once more to discuss further possibilities. They indicated they would make a decision towards the end of the first quarter of 2013 or the beginning of the second quarter. I am amazed at the research and care these companies take to ensure that all environmental and social requirements can be met before they commit. This is a welcome and complete reversal from my experience as a young man. We have come a long way.

Response #6 Love the way all this timing is coming together, see response #4 and #5 above. Does anybody really believe that none of these guys are running in the next election.

Quote #7 “On November 13th Councillors Gail, Gallant, the Chief Administrative Officer and I met with Minister Griffiths to discuss Highway 3 and the MD of Ranchlands. As you are aware the Provincial government has recently indicated it is not adverse to borrowing funds for much needed infrastructure projects – I would like to see our highway at the top of the list. We were able to provide the Minister with a review of the need for a new highway relative to the bright future of the Pass. Our second issue was the need to seriously address the problem of the MD of Ranchlands vis à vis the Crowsnest Pass. There are many complexities involved however we confirmed the obvious inequities and the positive impact on our taxes if an amalgamation could be realized. The Minister indicated he would visit us hopefully early in the New Year for a tour of the Pass and to continue these discussions.”

Response #7 It seems a long time ago since the provincial election remember all that talk from the PC’s about balance budgets, surpluses in fairly short order. Remember the opposition parties stating that the PC’s were basing their numbers on overly optimistic oil and gas prices. Now we find out that they were only talking about operational budgets, HWY 3 may be a priority for this community but it is not for Edmonton.

The MD of Ranchlands good luck I went to meetings with ministers to, met with the Council and CAO of Ranchlands, seen many letters go back and forth. I have not met many neighbors that are willing to share there good fortunes with the poor guy down the street. Which way do you think the MD of Pincher Creek and every other wealthy municipality are lobbying on this issue.

Quote #8    “In conclusion, Ralph Waldo Emerson once said “You will always find those who think they know what is your duty better than you.” Please make no mistake. Your elected Council knows its duty well and is committed to fulfilling that duty to the citizens of Crowsnest Pass.”

Response #8 No matter what we the taxpayers think or care about the path they have chosen. 

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 

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.

http://www.johnprince.ca/documents/Doug%20Griffiths.pdf

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 to the government that sounds like a lot but it’s less than two percent of the population.  

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.

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.

Crowsnest Pass Rate Payers Petition

If you are looking to sign the Rate payers petition call any one of the following:

William Kovach 564-4709
Gail Montgomery 564-4077

Troy Clark 563-0381                 

Sasha JaegerBaird 563-6073

Ed Strembecki 564-0184        

Marilyn Milley 562-2719

Marlene Anctil 562-8180 

Larry Ruzek 564 4384

Rudy Pagnucco 562-8147

Or you can stop by Marlene's store on main street Blairmore, you can't miss the signs just a block down from the swimming pool during business hours. 

If you can't leave your home for any reason give myself Dean Ward a call at 563-4128 (leave a message) or email me at deanward4@msn.com. I would be glad to drop by.

Crowsnest Centre, the Process as Begun

On Tuesday night June 24 the results of the petition were presented to council, well sort of, we were told that the petition was successful. The number of signatures on the petition? Who knows, the number of names that were valid or invalid? Who knows? Despite numerous requests for this information, the response council received was “the petition was sufficient” Should we be surprised? it happens again and again whenever requests for information are made about the Crowsnest Centre the wall of silence comes up, we can’t tell you because of firstly FOIP, then PIPA. Anyway, what does this mean? Sept 22nd we will be having a public vote on a bylaw that will determine what? The Statement on the petition was “bring to a public vote a by-law ensuring that the continuing existence and operation of the Crowsnest Centre Property (Plan 731227 Block H, containing 3.51 hectares) be used for public and community purposes as a Community and Learning Centre, and for providing other municipal services” what does all that mean? Well there will be many questions asked and many statements made over the next three months, some will be true and some will be “slightly” exaggerated. This is sure to be a fully charged, interesting political debate.
Cost to the taxpayers of the Crowsnest Pass $13-14000.

Crowsnest Centre Petition, What's happening?

Received a number of calls about the Crowsnest Centre Petition.
Questions I'm being asked!
When will council know the status of the petition?
We has council do not have the answers yet, the petition was presented to the CAO several weeks ago, according to the MGA he has 30 days to get back to council on the validity of the petition.
When will that be? Council is usually the first and third Tuesday of the month, for the month of June the second council meeting was rescheduled to June 24th.
What is required for the petition to be valid?
Putting it in layman terms;
According to Section 223 (2) (a) of the MGA 10% of the Population must sign, based on the last census we had 5756 people which means 576 signatures.
What constitutes a petition? Section 224 (1) one or more pages each of which must contain an identical statement of the purpose of the petition.
What is a valid petitioner? Section 224 (2) (a-d) must contain printed surname and given name, the petitioners signature, street address of the petitioner or the legal description of the land on which the petitioner lives, and the date on which the petitioner signs the petition.
What else is required? Section 224 (3) (a-b) Each signature must be witnessed by an adult person who must sign opposite the signature of the petitioner, and take an affidavit that the signatures witnessed are those of the persons entitled to sign the petition.
Is there enough signatures on the petition? We don't know yet, but if you read the local media a person is led to believe that there are 700 signatures on the petition.
Are there enough valid signatures on the petition? If the 700 signature number is real I would have a tough time believing that they are not valid, I would suspect that the organizers of the petition went over it with a fine tooth comb before they handed it in.
What if there is enough valid signatures? Then my understanding is that we have to hold a plebiscite within 90 days, of the petition being presented to council.
Do you believe that everybody that signed the petition supports the Centre? No I don't but I'm sure some people would disagree with me.

These are all the questions I have been asked so far, I hope the above is informative, if you have any comments or further questions, please place them on here, or email me at deanward4@msn.com

Crowsnest Centre Petition Requests to Remove Names

Regarding the Petition on the Crowsnest Centre, I have now received a number of calls, and several emails from people wishing to remove their name from the petition. According to the MGA (Municipal Government Act of Alberta) Section 225(2) "No name may be added to or removed from a petition after it has been filed with the chief administrative officer". So unfortunatly if you signed your name for whatever reason and didn't want it on the petition, there is nothing you can do except learn a lesson and don't sign something you disagree with in the future.
I was also asked what this would cost the only thing I have to compare it to is the last election which cost the taxpayers roughly $23,000.