Taxpayers dollars at work in the Crowsnest Pass

If you have not had the chance check out the Crowsnest Pass Ratepayers Associations Facebook page at the following address. Some very interesting information regarding the use of consultants/contractors from April 1 to early December 2012.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Crowsnest-Pass-RatePayers-Association/441790612539166?fref=ts

Picking out a few of the highlights:

Sure Call----After hours on call service----$3,400 (despite the fact that we pay municipal employees to be on call after hours.)

Friesen Tokar----Administration building renovations architecultural services---$22,904.91----(carpets and a security wall so the public can not see in)

Studio Group-----Branding Project----$23,325----(was Mountain Freedom that bad?)

Dave Mitchell & Associates------Fire Hall location study-----$9,500 (with a Director of Protective Services with ??? of knowledge and a Full time fire chief)

Inferno Safety-----Contract Firemen to Nov 30^th-----$66,800-----(The mess that just keeps getting worse)  

Transitional Services-----Interim Manager of Enforcement----$69,957 (How did the municipality get by without this position for it’s first 30 years of existence)

Animal Damage Control-----Rodent Control----$7,992.25----(Remember the councilor at the public forum talking about the silly rumors gopher hunters)

Zorro Fencing------Fencing-----$15,379.48---(Part of this was the fence at the swimming pool is there any of my readers that sat at the pool this summer and thought that fence really needed replacing)

Ed D’Antoni------Contract Operations Manger-----$43,170----(Another part of the revolving door process of administrators, the second of three Operations managers in 2012)

Crow Lock and Key----Mtce repairs doors and locks-----$6,069.56----(Must have replaced a lot of locks in 2012

Park Enterprises-----Safety codes inspection fees-----$86,382.96-----(Didn’t the municipality hire a Building Inspector at the start of 2012?)

Sonny’s Lock and Key----Lock and door repairs----$1,165.28-----(Wow over $7200 of locks changed last year)

Before anybody tells me I realize that some of these costs were cover by grants from Edmonton, let us not lose site that it is all taxpayers money.

Last week Albert Headrick informed council that the Peace Officers were well on their way to being self sufficient, when CAO Myron Thompson met with the Ratepayers prior to Christmas he informed them that the cost of the program to date was $343,555, and that the municipality had received $70,000 of revenue in that same timeframe (80% of which it keeps)  

Fort Macleod police training centre

Another example of why Alberta is in trouble financially.


Fort Macleod gets $10M for loss of police college

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2013/01/10/calgary-macleod-college.html

Looking for Firemen in the Crowsnest Pass

I think the Municipality is making it clear how they intend to resolve this issue.



Crowsnest Pass Fire Rescue
Fire Fighter Recruitment
The Municipality of Crowsnest Pass is recruiting volunteer Fire Fighters. Be part of a progressive and dynamic team that is working for the safety of our residents and protection of our community. We offer competitive training, wages and benefits. Please submit your resume with cover letter to: Steve Munshaw, Fire Chief
Municipality of Crowsnest Pass
PO Box 600
Crowsnest Pass, Ab. T0K 0M0


Or check it out your self @  http://www.town.crowsnestpass.ab.ca/finance-a-administration/employment


I wonder what they mean by competitive training, wages and benefits?

Branding/Economic Development (Doing things backwards)

From different people I have spoke to, the branding session that 98.9% of the population didn't know about was done very well.
Couple of concerns first of all there was a process done less than four years ago paid for by community futures and the province which involved municipal council, administration, local businesses, the Chamber of commerce, various hospitality groups, I even remember one of the present councilors being there. That was  dealing with the issue of branding, focusing on the theme of "Mountain Freedom".
Now maybe that was not implemented as well as it should have been, maybe there was some expertise missing. Now it's been determined by council and administration that we need to spend up to ($80,000) on a new brand.
On September 18 Mayor Decoux states at the G+P meeting that the municipality will have an Economic Development officer in place by Christmas. That's good as one person said to me that should have been the first person they hired, where I have difficulty and think we are doing things backwards. Would it not have made sense to go out and hire the individual (Probably at a cost of $150-$200,000 per year) prior to determining that we needed a new brand, prior to determining what the new brand is going to be.
After all aren't we going to be expecting this person to sell this "brand" seems to me like a pretty key individual not to have involved in this process.    

Gopher Hunting in the Crowsnest Pass

Anybody else remember the attitude that was taken at the town hall meeting regarding stupid rumours? Remember that little speech?

How the idea of a gopher hunter being paid $850 a day was laughed off?

Well read the front page of today's Promoter.
Next thing you know somebody will try and tell us that the Peace Officers will pay for themselves.

Consultants-Is this the price we pay?

Crowsnest Pass-Money is tight?

I like a lot of my readers have been asking the question for months, what are we spending on Consultants.

We all know they do not come cheap and when you look at what CEO’s, Celebrities and athletes are making now days it is getting crazy, but in their defence they can only make it if somebody is prepared to pay it.  

At the last council meeting Councilor Saje asked if Council could be supplied with the amount of dollars spent on consultants, administration answered that they would and in fact they could post the information on the web site, as of today I have not seen anything yet.

Obviously it is not confidential information protected by FOIP rules because the information below is posted on a public site.

It's great for council to see that information but what about us the taxpayers, I have been trying to research what kind of money is paid to the type of consultants we have been using without a lot of success.

Until today I received an email from a very astute follower of my blog and told to check out the following address    http://www.mountainviewcounty.com/specialagendas and to read the minutes from the Nov 5 and Nov 10, 2010 meetings.

To my great interest I found the following which I have copied and pasted from the November 5, 2010 minutes:

Moved by Councillor Good

                                SC10-183      That Council approve entering into a Memorandum of Agreement with Transitional Solutions Inc. for the period from November 8, 2010 to April 29, 2011 and that the funding be allocated from the Tax Rate Stabilization Reserve as follows:

                                                    -     Twelve hundred ($1200.00) dollars per day (plus GST) for each day worked by Kevin Robins

                                                    -     Twelve hundred ($1200.00) dollars per day (plus GST) for each day worked by Donna Tona

                                                    -     A flat rate of fifteen hundred ($1500.00) dollars per month for accommodation and meals

                                                    -     Fifty cents ($0.50) per kilometer for all kilometers travelled from Transitional’s office to Mountain View’s County office

                                                    -     Subject to articles 13 and 14, any time in a twenty-four (24) hour day worked by Robins or Tona beyond seven (7) hours shall be banked until the banked hours total seven (7), at which time Transitional shall invoice Mountain View for an additional day pursuant to articles 16 or 17 of this Agreement, whichever applies;

                                                          and further, that the total contract amount be to a maximum of $194,000 (not including GST);

                                                          and, that the Agreement include amendments as provided by County Legal Counsel. 

Now I know full well the Council of the Crowsnest Pass may have negotiated a better deal! I hope but if its even close to what was proposed above think of the following. 

$1200 per day for a seven hour day,  not bad $171.43 per hour plus $1500 per month for accommodation and meals. Once again nothing against the consultants we would all make this kind of money if we could. But the question is can we the taxpayers of the Crowsnest Pass afford it.  

Lies and truths in the Crowsnest Pass

Issue of advertisng: Very interested to read the editiorial in the Pass Herald this week I will quote "For example, stating that it was costing taxpayers in the Crowsnest Pass $50,000 a year for advertising is a blatant lie"

Well folks lets set the record straight first of all the issue of advertising was on the G+P meeting agenda last night which was discussed by council for almost a half hour. Within that discussion is was pointed out by administration that the sum of between $6-700,000 as been spent in the last seven years on advertising. I have trouble with my math but that comes out to close to $100,000 per year.

Second of all I would like to point out the following:  http://www.town.crowsnestpass.ab.ca/council  go to November 2, 2010 Council Meeting Minutes on page 2 is a report on Ms Lisa Syguteks presentation to council regarding advertising it states the following regarding 2008 advertising costs  (remember it was tendered out for 2009 and 2010).

• 2008 advertising in the Crowsnest Pass Herald – approximately $30,000
• 2008 advertising in the competitor– approximately $35,000

For those of you that don't know Ms Sygutek is the publisher of the Pass Herald. If anybody requires further information I have the numbers for at least two years prior to 2008 just have to spend a little time digging them up.

But you don't have to take my word for it check with the municipality $700,000 for the last seven years and check the minutes from Nov 2,2010

More to follow:

Always intrigued me to watch a politician attempt to play both sides of an issue, the MGA does not require municipalities to advertise everything they do, the legal requirement calls for just a few issues to be advertised.
So last night within the debate about advertsing administration states that $6-700,000 as been spent in the last seven years. One of the councilors asks the question what would that number have been if we had only advertised what we were legally required to. Administration states that it would have been approximatly a $100,000.
Then Councilor Gallant speaks up he states the following "You know I supported us advertising in both papers it was important to communicate with the public to get our message out, but I also believe that we should only be advertising what the MGA requires us to do"
Well you can't have it both ways the CAO as just told you that if the municipality had advertised what it was legally required to do the advertising would have been cut by 85%. But on the other hand you stated it was important to advertise in both papers to communicate with the public!

Crowsnest Pass Public Transit Survey

In the last few days you should have received your utility bill, included with it is a survey on public transit.

For more information on public transportation and the costs associated with it take a look at the following post: http://crowsnestpasshome.blogspot.com/2011/05/public-transportation-in-crowsnest-pass.html


I know most people take those surveys and throw them in the garbage typically out of 3500 surveys mailed out the municipality will be lucky if they get 200 back which represents less than 6% of the population.
The problem with that of course is that all politicians have an agenda, things that they would like to see happen over the course of their term.
For example these surveys are usually filled out by people that passionately care about the issue at hand.
So I expect that the vast majority of the surveys the municipality receives will support public transit.

How will the politicians react? well those that are against spending $300,000 a year of taxpayers money will argue that the response represents such a small percentage of the taxpayers that its recommendations are irrelevant.
The politicians that support spending $300,000 a year of taxpayers money will argue that the over whelming response of the public was in support of this. Obviously the 90% that did not respond would have if they really cared about this issue.

The bottom line here is which ever side of this issue you stand on if you do not respond a very small percentage of the voters will have a much larger say in how this issue is decided. 


Note:

I noticed the absence of one key question on the survey "Would you be willing to have your taxes increase to provide a public transit system?"

 

Is this the way business should be conducted?

On Tuesday August 16, an  item titled “Enforcement Services Audit” appeared on the agenda, with a recommendation coming forth from Administration stating the following.


“That council direct administration to engage Transitional Solutions Inc. to undertake an Enforcement Services Audit to examine the existing Municipal enforcement practices in reference to the enforcement of Provincial statutes and Municipal Bylaws. The Audit is not to exceed $7,000 and will be assumed within the Municipal Enforcement Budget.

The argument was made by the Interim CAO Kevin Robins about concerns in this area that required clarification. Administration also stated that the Municipality did not have the expertise internally to conduct this audit.

This recommendation was voted on by Council, which subsequently passed by a vote of 6-1 with only Councilor Saje opposed.

What appears at first impression has just another study to clear up an area of confusion and answer questions raised by council and the residents of the community due to frustrations in the area of the Municipality’s enforcement program.

Upon further study this recommendation raises other questions? the Interim CAO who is also the CEO of the Transitional Solutions is recommending that the municipality conduct an audit on our Enforcement Services using an outside contractor that just happens to be “Transitional Solutions”.

I know its only $7,000 but no tendering process no opportunity for any other company to take a look at this?????
Does anybody else have concerns regarding even the perception of a conflict of interest?

“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?

Update on municipal advertising (Crowsnest Pass)

Note: Council Meeting of Dec 21,2010.
After reviewing my notes I realized I missed some critical information on the advertising issue.

During the discussion on the draft advertising policy Lynne Cox the Director of Legislative services and Human Resources. Mentioned that the dollars in the proposed budget for advertising presented to council were based on providing one page of advertising in each paper at the rates set forth in the present contract $180 per page.
She also stated that she only had one quote from a local paper at that point, that would provide advertising at a 30% reduction of their regular rates.
The last time I checked the local papers were charging somewhere between $7-800 per full page at a 30% discount that would put them somewhere between $490-$560 per page. At a minimum a 270% increase over what the municipality is presently paying and then double it, based on duplicating the advertising in two papers.

Never Ending story-Advertising in the Crowsnest Pass

It really is a never ending story.

Some facts to think about:

Some councilors can not understand why the advertising budget dropped so drastically from 2008 to 2010.

I will answer it again and hopefully it gets through, in 2008 the municipality was paying up to $800 a page two times a week. Simply put 2 x $800 (1 page each paper) equals $1600 per week.
Thanks to a competitive tendering process 2010 $180 per page, one paper equals $180 per week.

Certainly explains to me the drop from 2008-$66111 to 2010-$8444 does it not?

Why did previous council not focus on radio? first of all we only have one local radio station if we were going to allow non local radio stations in to the bidding process should we also have allowed the Prairie Post in to the paper process?
Second of all the advertising budget in 2008 was $87057 of that amount $13158 was radio or 15% of the overall expense. The local papers were 76% of the total cost, paper advertising took five times as much taxpayers dollars as radio.

Several members of council talk about enhancing the flow of communications to the public!
That's nonsense anybody that's looking for announcements on bylaws, public hearing etc will check the municipal web site or the paper that has the contract for the year, or contact the office.

In the last year and a half the number of complaints the municipality, or council received about having difficulties finding out municipal information due to the fact that it was only advertised in one paper? Zero

Council members this week spoke about other ways of getting out information to the public, Facebook, Twitter, Municipal web site, etc. (Maybe the taxpayers would be glad to advertise on blogs?)
Silly question, if these suggestions work, would it not make even less sense to advertise in both papers?

You can make all the arguments you want but this advertising in both papers as been done for one reason and one reason only, because some people are feared by the flack previous councilors took in the local media over the last couple of years.

Interesting to hear one of the councilors refer to how he heard at the convention, the importance of maintaining good relationships with the local media.

Dec 7th they did.

At least thats the way I see it!

Crowsnest Pass Budget 2011, Tough choices begin.

Before you know it Budget time will be here and believe me the choices will not be easy ones.

One of the toughest issues to deal with his the hiring of additional employees, on one hand you have the public perception that there is more than an ample number of employees.
Then on the other hand you have the workforce and administration that are faced with an ever changing working environment, attempting to cater to the demands of certain sectors of the public that wishes to see the Municipality provide additional services.

Previous council took the position that a hiring freeze was put into place, and instructed administration in the last budget process to get by with what they had.

What most people do not understand is that the Municipality collects approximately $6.5 million in property taxes.
Last year the municipality paid out approximately $4.6 million in wages.
On January 1st 2011 the employees are entitled to a wage increase of 4% on a payroll of the municipalities size that is an increase in cost of $184,000.

Last year the Public works dept requested an additional sewer plant operator, extra Linesman, the HR department had requested an half time assistant position.
Prior to the budget I sat on the FCSS committee where there was much discussion about hiring an additional person to handle the FCSS department.

The previous council also took the position that through better scheduling, the public works department could get by with two less casual positions.

I'm sure that administration will attempt to bring forth at least some of these positions again, if not all of them.
Cost to the budget $250,000 for the Sewer plant operator, Linesman, Assistant, and two Casual positions.
Additional person for the FCSS position $50,000.
Wage Increase approximately $184,000

Total additional cost of employees $484,000.

Keeping in mind that total taxes collected were approximately $6.5 million, which means each additional $65,000 spent results in a 1% increase in taxes.

$484,000 divided by $65,000 equals a 7.45% tax increase.

Now are there ways to avoid this tax increase? absolutely.

You can not do the positions, or you can find equivalent cuts in other areas of the operational budget.
Maybe there are services that can be cut, or inefficiences elimanated or a combination of both.

Lets not forget the $484,000 figure does not include any additional costs for the rest of the budget.

One example:
Lets think about marketing of the community, the municipality used to participate in what was know as the Marketing Consortium we placed $20,000 a year into a fund that marketed the community, well when we looked at the marketing that was being done for that money it was to say the least, very unimpressive.
Previous council stopped providing that $20,000. Now we have new councilors that are advocating better marketing of the community which I agree with, but you are not going to do anything effective for the previous dollars.
I was told by a person in another community that does a fair amount of marketing to allow at least a $100,000 per year, if you want to do a real job.
Add that to the above another 1.54%

What does that mean to the average taxpayer in the Crowsnest Pass? at $2000 a year in taxes a further 9%=$180 a year.

Just something to think about.

Presentation to Crowsnest Pass Council Regarding Advertising

After a number of requests and to further the opportunity for debate I am posting the presentation given to Council on November 2 by the Pass Herald regarding the issue of advertising in the local papers.

Pass Herald Presentation

Pg 1 History
1930 first issue
Celebrated 80th anniversary
3rd oldest business in the Crowsnest Pass
100% locally owned and operated
Designed and constructed entirely local
Printing alone is outside community
7 full time and 4 part time employees

Pg 2 Historic Costing

Date CJPR----Promot-- Herald----- Ext-- Ski Hill--- Billbo-Hospit-- Total
2007 $9719---$31,278-- $25,973--$0------ $2,328-- $0-----$205-- $69,503
2008 $13,158-$35,278-- $30,833- $6,630-- $973----$0-----$205-- $87,057
2009 $7,552-- $7,817--- $15,683--$7,808-- $930----$0-----$205-- $39,994
2010 $5,294-- $7,772--- $672-----$222---- $6,736--$3,439-$205-- $24,339


Pg 3 2008 Cost Detail

2008 advertising to Pass Herald $30,833
Notice of Public Hearing are paid by Development Fees
Then there is a pie chart that breaks that number down to:
True Advertising Cost $19,006, Notice of Public Hearings, $11,827

Pg 4 Development Permits
· Municipalities should strive to be revenue neutral
· Development Permit Fee $750 each
· Paid to municipality by developers
· Presently only advertising “Notices of public Hearings” in single paper
· ½ page advertising cost $80
· Must run in two issues $160
· Net Profit $590

Pg 5 Comparison with Alberta
7 communties
Similar Infrastructure and population
3 previous employers of current CAO

Communities listed with 2009 actuals and 2010 Budget
BarHead 2010 $17,700 Pincher Creek 2009 $32,800 2010 $52,050Community A 2010 $45,000 Okotoks 2010 $70,000 High Level 2010 $37,698 Peace River 2010 $61,679
Fort Macleod 2009 $39,545 2010 $40,800
Pg 6 Two Paper Comparison

Canmore Outlook/Leader
2009 $64,347
2010 $95,937

Majority goes to Outlook because:
“Majority of advertising goes to Outlook as they are considered the more reputable newspaper, with higher circulation and produced in community. Notice of Public Hearings specifically go to each newspaper… as is paid by developer”

Pg 7 Two Paper Comparison

· Banff Craig + Canyon/Outlook
· 2009 $51,000
· Craig + Canyon $42,000
· Outlook $9,000

· Vermilion Standard/Voice
· 2009 $39,000
· Majority in standard because local
· Both papers get Notices of Public Hearings

Pg 8 Two Paper Comparison

Is just a graph that reflects the numbers above and shows a 2009 average of $51,500 spent in each of the three communities

Pg 9 Value to Community

Annual Budget $18,000,000
Total advertising $40,000
Based on 2008 both papers equal
Public Hearings removed
Total % of budget 0.2%
Cost per voter $6.95

Pg 10 Government

Evan Burger MLA “when there are two newspapers serving a community such as Crowsnest Pass we try to give equal value to each… government musy be fiscally responsible while recognizing the impact on small business”
Ted Menzies MP “I choose to advertise in as many of the local papers in my riding as possible to ensure that the entire riding receives a copy of my adds”

Pg 11 Equality

Has administration required external advertising to bid?
Calgary Herald, Winnipeg Post, Lethbridge Herald
Has administration evaluated the circulation of the written vs verbal?
Radio is exclusive
More money spent on highway billboard and ski hill web page than local information

Pg 12 Present Proposal

2011 RFP is due Nov 26, 2010
Resolution is to be bid annually
“The opportunity to provide this service will be offered to any business that provides newsprint coverage in the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass, with the intent to tender from now to the end of the year. In the following year the service will be tendered on a calendar year basis.” M#3901-09
Administration asked for 3 year proposal
Why contradiction to resolution?

Pg 13 Conclusion
What is the value of an open and honest government?
Then there is a graph presented that review the dollars spent by all the communities listed above for 2009 and 2010

The Crowsnest Centre closes but my taxes didn't go down!

I received a comment today, somebody attacking me become the Centre closed but their Taxes did not go down.
Also they accused me of being hell bent on shutting everything down.

I will answer both of these issues:

First of all the Centre as only been closed for a short time, so obviously most of the costs to run the place would still be there until the consortium moved.
Then there were additional costs to relocate various groups.

Next you have never heard Dean Ward state that taxes will go down.
The costs of operating the municipality goes up every year, wages, utilities, fuel, maintenance etc, etc.
We have several options we can just raise taxes to generate enough income, we can shut down facilities and or services, or we can do a combination of both by becoming more efficient.
That is why the Cuff report states again and again that we have too much duplication of services and facilities.
Now I do not advocate for a second that we should go on a rampage and shut every thing down, but what we need to do his look at all of our facilities and services (kind of in line with Cuff's assessment) and determine if we can do things smarter.
Look at the example of the arena's we used to have two arena's with ice in them both, with 70 kids in minor hockey and 30 in figure skating each arena was running less than 30% of the time.
Now we have one arena with ice, running 60% of the time, and a second arena being utilized to develop other forms of recreation (Lacrosse, Indoor Soccer etc) and costs us a $100,000 a year less to run.
That's $100,000 less a year that the municipality as to come up with or the equivalent of a 1.7% tax increase.
Garbage cleanups we used to do two a year during my first term the cost got as high as $370,000 a year, we went to one cleanup and had our administration put more focus on the process and now we were down to a little over a $100,000 last year or the equivalent of a 4% increase in our taxes.
Nobody is talking about us shutting every thing down we talking about being smarter and even though taxes do not go down they should go up a lot less if we become more efficient.

Tendering of Municipal Engineering in the Crowsnest Pass

Over the weekend I spoke to a number of people about my letter to the editor regarding the "Sentinel Bridge", which is really about a much larger issue that of the lack of tendering of Municipal Engineering for the Crowsnest Pass Infrastructure projects.
Below is the letter I sent to the paper, I would like to reinforce once again this is not about questioning the quality of work provided by Stantec. Its only about ensuring that we have the best possible deal we has a Municipality can receive for our engineering.

Dear Editor

I would like to respond to a recent article in the local media. Intriguing to see it titled “On a Baffling Council Issue”, I read articles and columns every week that at first glance appear to discuss a local issue and then very quickly become a political tool for certain parts of the media to paint an impression of an issue, or the person involved that is what’s “baffling”.
Lets talk about the article, first of all clarification Council was discussing the Engineering for the bridge out at Sentinel, not the actual building of the bridge itself. The province as only offered to cover the cost of the engineering at this time; the article implies that the province as committed to build the bridge that is not correct. Once the engineering is done, we would enter the line up of projects seeking provincial funding, we all no, how fast that works look at the progress on the Highway 3 issue.
The bridge engineering was brought to Council’s attention on July 20, at that point, we had a debate about the issue and yes, I had concerns. I am a strong believer that every dollar of taxpayer’s money should be used to receive the maximum value. How do we do that? One of the ways is by tendering out for services that the municipality requires, a very large cost we have incurred over the years is engineering.
All of this engineering as been performed by the firm of Stantec for at least the last seven years. Now I have no issue with Stantec they appear to be providing us with whatever we need from an engineering point of view, are they charging us a competitive rate? Maybe, neither I nor the rest of the Council knows because we have not tendered out for that service.
This issue has been raised on various occasions over the last three years, Council was told that we could not look at other engineering firms because all of the various projects that the municipality was working on were already started by Stantec as part of our long term Infrastructure plan and that to bring in another firm would duplicate work and costs.
So along comes the Sentinel Bridge project, which is a totally separate project from any of our present Infrastructure and presents a good opportunity to see if other companies are interested in bidding on our engineering work, for whatever reason the Mayor decided not to call for a vote on the issue at that time. So yes, when it was raised on August 10 there was not that much debate that had already happened
It also astounds me that people that are often critical about the ways the Municipal government spends their tax dollars, make comments about not understanding why council would be concerned because the engineering was fully funded by the province.
(Are those not tax dollars)
In conclusion my issue was not the Sentinel Bridge Engineering, it is the fact that we have for at least the last seven years, handed over millions of dollars in taxpayers money to one company to do all of our engineering with no competition to see if we are getting the best deal.

Dean Ward

Thunder in the Valley

Great weekend that draws lots of people in to the Valley, and is a boon for most of our businesses, every year I am asked what does it cost us the taxpayers. So here are the budget numbers for 2010.

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 the weekend.

If you say it is true enough times, will people really believe you?

If you say it is true enough times, will people really believe you?

Over the last number of years the debate as raged in the Crowsnest Pass over the Crowsnest Centre.
My position as always been that we do not need and cannot afford two community centres. My position was confirmed numerous times in the recent corporate review, which talks about us needing to rationalize services and facilities, that we have numerous areas of duplication.
Well the supporters of the centre have stated over the last two years that the place as gone through a massive turn around and that the place is profitable and paying its own way. In fact, at a Council Meeting held on Dec 16, 2008 the Chairperson of the board stated “we do not need financial assistance from the municipality for 2009”. All of this despite the fact that the place as been heavily subsidized by taxpayer’s dollars for twenty years, and as had more failed business plans than GMC. Over the last ten months every time the issue as been raised the “Block of three on Council” that supports the centre as cried shame on anybody that dares to challenge the Centre, how dare we challenge this facility when it is doing so well and making money?
Last night November 24,2009 council is presented a bill from Nexen for $12,000 told that it was not up to date its now more like $18,000, a Telus bill for $3,700 and a Epcor bill for $6,700 with these balances only being to the end of September. It was only back on June 2 of this year that we were presented a Nexen bill that the Mayor claimed was only a problem because it had been sent to the wrong address.
So much for being profitable, when I questioned the Council member who used to be on the board, who as spent the last ten months telling us the Centre is profitable, as to why the bills have not been paid he tells me that he was removed from that board and can not explain why.
In the Crowsnest Pass we have to change the way we do business we can not (as indicated by our Corporate Review) continue doing business the way we have. The taxpayers of this community have to make a decision if we continue on this path we will have to accept that we are going to pay a lot more in Taxes. If we are going to maintain everything we have, and then we must adequately support all of these facilities, both from an operational point of view and investing the dollars we need to upkeep these facilities. The Corporate review talks about us needing to spend $7.8million a year for the next ninety years just to replace what we have today, let alone doing anything new.

Budget Process in the Crowsnest Pass Update Dec 11

Well after five nights of reviewing our budget line by line, and giving our CAO and department heads the opportunity to defend their individual departments requests.
After making some huge steps to get our budget under control such as spending a half of a hour debating about whether we are going to charge or not charge our individual residents to remove deep freezes ($4300 this year).
We recognized that council is not going to resolve the almost $1.7 million dollar shortfall we have. So Council directed administration to bring us back a budget with an tax increase of no more than 6% for Jan 21.
Concern raised by administration that some of our service levels may be affected by restricting our tax increase to 6% I am sure that taxpayers will not lose sight of the fact that we increased taxes by 11.2% last year.
It looks like we are going to have to make some difficult choices or raise taxes by 6% or more!
The scary part is 86% of our tax base is residential, and after getting a update from our assessor commercial property as virtually increased by nothing in the last year so all of the tax burden is going to fall back on the residential home owner.

Where does my Tax dollars go in the Crowsnest Pass

For 2008 the following groups received the listed amounts from the taxpayers;

Allied Arts $25000
Anpass Exchange $5000
Bellcrest Community Association $5000
CCHS/Hakusu-Cho Exchange Program $2500
Citizens on Patrol $8338
Museum $20000
Municipal Library $81247
Crowsnow Riders Association $8000
Ecomuseum Trust $20000
CNP Marketing Consortium $15000
CNP Community Events Assoc $20000
Thunder in the Valley Fireworks $5000
Thunder in the Valley Policing $6000
Thunder in the Valley Traffic Control $6183
Thunder in the Valley Garbage + Toilets $4816
SPCA $ 35600
Economic Development $20000