Special Council Meeting of March 29,2011
Adoption of Agenda:
No additions
Motion to accept the Agenda was passed unanimously
Adoption of previous minutes: None
Delegations: None
Administrative and Agency Reports: None
Business arising from the Minutes: None
Correspondence: None
Committee Reports: None
Bylaws:
1. Bylaw 820, Mill rate Bylaw.
Director of Finance presented the mill rate bylaw provided information on the breakdown of the bylaw. Discussion began with the following questions and or comments: Does administration have a 5-year projection for linear assessment? Yes it going down
Are assessment values based on market values of June 2010? Yes
How does market values for June 2010 compare to values for June 2009? Pretty well the same.
Are power lines part of linear assessment? Yes
Is school foundation charged on just residential? No but our business sector is so small that the residential is hit with the brunt of any increase.
CPR did their assessment go up when they added the by pass line and upgraded their bridges? Administration to check on this, assessor believes it is based on tonnage that passes through.
Is there any change to the mill rate? No not the municipal portion
How much will tax rates increase? Administration stated on a commercial property worth $1.2 million $118 on a residential anywhere from $8-22.
Is our commercial high compared to other municipalities? Assessor explained that our ratio of non-residential to non-residential is 2-1, where Lethbridge is at 4-1 and Calgary is at 5-1.
Councilor Saindon requested where dollars from jobs not being filled and savings on equipment purchases were going. Administration explained that before those dollars were spent elsewhere information would come back to council.
Motion for first reading passed by a vote of 4-3 (Saje, Gallant, Saindon opposed)
2. Bylaw 823, Discharge of Septage into Municipal Owned Septage Disposable Facility.
Discussion: Mayor Decoux wanted to know why this was brought to a special meeting of council. Administration stated that it is a revenue issue needed to be implemented immediately.
Does this policy fit within the Municipal Environmental Sustainability Plan? Administration stated that this is a service that many municipalities provide we need to have it put in place. Motion to passed second reading passed unanimously. Motion to pass third reading passed unanimously.
Notices of Motion: None
Other Business:
1. Maplevue Hall Demolition: Discussion
Request for a 60-day extension on the demolition from the Crowsnest Heritage Board.
Felt that heritage board had many opportunities to approach council previously; it would not be fair on the contractor to delay now.
Felt that the heritage board should be more pro active and approach the municipality with a list of municipal owned building that they would like to have some input on.
Councilor Saje felt if the roof was good should give the heritage board the time to look at it.
Councilor Londsbury felt that the building is an eyesore and should be dealt with also concerned about the old Cameron school in West Coleman.
Motion to proceed with the demolition passed 6-1 (Saje opposed)
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
G + P Meeting March 29, 2011
G + P Meeting March 29, 2011
Adoption of Agenda:
Councilor Saje added Personnel In Camera
Councilor Saindon added two Land Issues In Camera
Motion to accept agenda with additions passed unanimously
Delegations:
1. Scott Warris, Treasurer-Crowsnest Boys and Girls Club
Presented a lot of information on what the Boys and Girls club have done over the last year. Spoke to the support they have received from the community. Requested that council support them as they attempt to raise $70,000 this spring.
2. Carrie Bahr-Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami.
Spoke about the cultural exchange program with Hokuto City in Japan, she also raised with council that the high school is doing a fund raiser today (March 30) to assist in helping the Japanese recovery. She asked for council to match the funds raised. She also requested that council look into the possibility of becoming a sister city with Hokuto.
Topics for Discussion:
1. Policy Committee Terms of Reference:
Two year term for councilors,
Invitation to other people that can be drawn on for resource information needs to be more strongly worded.
Quorum should be three people two of which must be council members.
Canadian spelling of councilor should have two “l”
Should be an opportunity for public input into significant policies.
CAO stated that the policy could be posted on the municipality web site.
Motion to have administration bring back the policy passed Unanimously.
2. Large item Residential Pickup:
Request from administration to rescind the previous spring cleanup policy.
The mayor asked how and when did the program begin.
Administration stated that it originally began to clean up the community and provide a service for residents who could not get to the landfill.
Is there a limit on household furniture and appliances?
Councilor Saindon questioned the costs of last years cleanup, administration stated it was $66,000 by his calculations he came up with in excess of $120,000.
He also questioned this years budget number felt that doing the cleanup in nine days was optimistic. Felt the municipality could look at the option of contracting out the service.
Most of council felt administration should look at providing the services for the elderly and the handicapped.
Councilor Gail also agree with providing the service for the older folks but realizes that people have got to start looking at cutbacks.
Councilor Saindon asked that the municipality look at a different option, provide a loader, truck and two labours for two weeks and strategically located bins for 60 days.
Mayor Decoux felt that the public should be notified that this is the last year, or that the service will be changed and provided to a selected group, also that the public needs to understand that some services will be reduced or cut.
Motion was made to have administration bring this back to council with the input from councilors considered, Motion was passed 6-1 (Saindon opposed)
3. Equipment Replacement Policy
Motion was made to take this policy back to the Policy Committee on April 20 and bring back to the G+P meeting on April 26th. Passed Unanimously.
4. Snow Clearing and Ice Control Policy
Councilor Mitchell wanted to know how many graders the municipality has on the road, how many in Blairmore. He wants the public to know that we live in the mountains and that they can not expect to have bare pavement.
Councilor Londsbury wanted to know if the School zone definition refers to route or the area in around schools
Councilor Gail stated that there was seven bricks in the paper, felt that the papers needed to get the message out that public needs to have compassion and patience.
Councilor Gallant wanted to know if the policy was drawn up in consultation with the employees and if they were in agreement, Myron Thompson replied that the Leadhands agreed with most aspects but that there was some debate.
Councilor Saindon asked why graders were not running outside of regular hours.
Myron stated that a letter had been sent to the union requesting that double shifting being allowed on the graders for snow plowing, drainage issues etc, administration was waiting for a response.
Motion to recommended this policy to council passed unanimously.
Adoption of Agenda:
Councilor Saje added Personnel In Camera
Councilor Saindon added two Land Issues In Camera
Motion to accept agenda with additions passed unanimously
Delegations:
1. Scott Warris, Treasurer-Crowsnest Boys and Girls Club
Presented a lot of information on what the Boys and Girls club have done over the last year. Spoke to the support they have received from the community. Requested that council support them as they attempt to raise $70,000 this spring.
2. Carrie Bahr-Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami.
Spoke about the cultural exchange program with Hokuto City in Japan, she also raised with council that the high school is doing a fund raiser today (March 30) to assist in helping the Japanese recovery. She asked for council to match the funds raised. She also requested that council look into the possibility of becoming a sister city with Hokuto.
Topics for Discussion:
1. Policy Committee Terms of Reference:
Two year term for councilors,
Invitation to other people that can be drawn on for resource information needs to be more strongly worded.
Quorum should be three people two of which must be council members.
Canadian spelling of councilor should have two “l”
Should be an opportunity for public input into significant policies.
CAO stated that the policy could be posted on the municipality web site.
Motion to have administration bring back the policy passed Unanimously.
2. Large item Residential Pickup:
Request from administration to rescind the previous spring cleanup policy.
The mayor asked how and when did the program begin.
Administration stated that it originally began to clean up the community and provide a service for residents who could not get to the landfill.
Is there a limit on household furniture and appliances?
Councilor Saindon questioned the costs of last years cleanup, administration stated it was $66,000 by his calculations he came up with in excess of $120,000.
He also questioned this years budget number felt that doing the cleanup in nine days was optimistic. Felt the municipality could look at the option of contracting out the service.
Most of council felt administration should look at providing the services for the elderly and the handicapped.
Councilor Gail also agree with providing the service for the older folks but realizes that people have got to start looking at cutbacks.
Councilor Saindon asked that the municipality look at a different option, provide a loader, truck and two labours for two weeks and strategically located bins for 60 days.
Mayor Decoux felt that the public should be notified that this is the last year, or that the service will be changed and provided to a selected group, also that the public needs to understand that some services will be reduced or cut.
Motion was made to have administration bring this back to council with the input from councilors considered, Motion was passed 6-1 (Saindon opposed)
3. Equipment Replacement Policy
Motion was made to take this policy back to the Policy Committee on April 20 and bring back to the G+P meeting on April 26th. Passed Unanimously.
4. Snow Clearing and Ice Control Policy
Councilor Mitchell wanted to know how many graders the municipality has on the road, how many in Blairmore. He wants the public to know that we live in the mountains and that they can not expect to have bare pavement.
Councilor Londsbury wanted to know if the School zone definition refers to route or the area in around schools
Councilor Gail stated that there was seven bricks in the paper, felt that the papers needed to get the message out that public needs to have compassion and patience.
Councilor Gallant wanted to know if the policy was drawn up in consultation with the employees and if they were in agreement, Myron Thompson replied that the Leadhands agreed with most aspects but that there was some debate.
Councilor Saindon asked why graders were not running outside of regular hours.
Myron stated that a letter had been sent to the union requesting that double shifting being allowed on the graders for snow plowing, drainage issues etc, administration was waiting for a response.
Motion to recommended this policy to council passed unanimously.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Teck/Elkview latest update
UPDATE - Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 2:30pm
•TALKS TO RESUME FRIDAY in VANCOUVER!!!
◦The mediator - Mr. Vince Ready - contacted both parties this afternoon by way of letter requesting "that the parties return to the bargaining table for exploratory talks in an attempt to find a resolution to this protracted dispute."
◦The Company contacted our President, Chris Nand this afternoon stating that they will be in Vancouver on Friday to meet. Chris responded that he will be there with our bargaining committee.
•TALKS TO RESUME FRIDAY in VANCOUVER!!!
◦The mediator - Mr. Vince Ready - contacted both parties this afternoon by way of letter requesting "that the parties return to the bargaining table for exploratory talks in an attempt to find a resolution to this protracted dispute."
◦The Company contacted our President, Chris Nand this afternoon stating that they will be in Vancouver on Friday to meet. Chris responded that he will be there with our bargaining committee.
Taxes are going up, Zero per cent tax Increase is fading away fast, who will step up to the plate? Anybody? Nobody?
Zero per cent tax Increase, who will step up to the plate?. Somebody must if that is to become real.
Tonight March 29th there is a special council meeting, one of the agenda items is the (PROPOSED) Mill rate bylaw No.820 for 2011.
Last year in 2010 the Municipality collected $8,984,288 from the taxpayers of the Crowsnest Pass of which,
$6,432,821 was for general municipal taxation.
$2,366,925 was for the Alberta School Foundation Fund.
$ 184,542 was for the Seniors Housing.
The PROPOSED Bylaw for 2011 will collect $9,401,120
$6,555,990 for General Municipal Taxation
$2,542,134 for Alberta School Foundation Fund.
$ 302,996 for Seniors Housing
By my math that's an increase of 4.64%, which is a far cry from a ZERO per cent. An additional $416,832 is going to be collected by our local taxman.
Back to my original question who will step up to the plate to get this down to zero, remember any councilor can make amendments to the bylaw at any of the three readings.
The plan presented by administration calls for first reading tonight and second and third reading on April 5th.
Not a lot of time.
Tonight March 29th there is a special council meeting, one of the agenda items is the (PROPOSED) Mill rate bylaw No.820 for 2011.
Last year in 2010 the Municipality collected $8,984,288 from the taxpayers of the Crowsnest Pass of which,
$6,432,821 was for general municipal taxation.
$2,366,925 was for the Alberta School Foundation Fund.
$ 184,542 was for the Seniors Housing.
The PROPOSED Bylaw for 2011 will collect $9,401,120
$6,555,990 for General Municipal Taxation
$2,542,134 for Alberta School Foundation Fund.
$ 302,996 for Seniors Housing
By my math that's an increase of 4.64%, which is a far cry from a ZERO per cent. An additional $416,832 is going to be collected by our local taxman.
Back to my original question who will step up to the plate to get this down to zero, remember any councilor can make amendments to the bylaw at any of the three readings.
The plan presented by administration calls for first reading tonight and second and third reading on April 5th.
Not a lot of time.
Friday, March 25, 2011
One Liberal's response to latest opinion poll
Good article in today's Calgary Sun regarding the Ipsos opinion poll that came out yesterday.
http://warrenkinsella.com/2011/03/in-todays-sun-if-ipsos-is-right-is-it-1984-all-over-again/
March 24, 2011
Conservatives @ 43% up 3%
Liberals @ 24% down 3%
NDP @ 16% same
Bloc @ 10% same
Greens @ 6% up 1%
The last time there was a 19% lead going into an election was 1984 when Mulroney cleaned house, and the Liberals were left with 40 seats.
Does history always repeat itself?
http://warrenkinsella.com/2011/03/in-todays-sun-if-ipsos-is-right-is-it-1984-all-over-again/
March 24, 2011
Conservatives @ 43% up 3%
Liberals @ 24% down 3%
NDP @ 16% same
Bloc @ 10% same
Greens @ 6% up 1%
The last time there was a 19% lead going into an election was 1984 when Mulroney cleaned house, and the Liberals were left with 40 seats.
Does history always repeat itself?
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Its amazing how one word can change the way people view an issue.
On March 8, the Herald asked the following question:
“Do you support the municipality launching a shuttle bus service to transport Crowsnest Pass residents to indoor pool facilities in neighboring communities?”
The results out of 61 people that voted 49% said Yes, 44% said No and 7% were undecided.
Shortly after the Promoter ran a very similar question except they added that one little word “PAY” would you pay for that same shuttle?
The results were out of 51 people that voted 16% said Yes, 73% said No and 11% were undecided.
It really is amazing out that one-word “PAY” changes everything.
Think about it folks, even if they come up with corporate sponsors to cover the shuttle up front how long do you think that will last, within a year the taxpayers will be paying for a service that only a very small portion of the public will use.
The message that I heard from this poll and around town is we the taxpayers of the Crowsnest Pass do not want to pay for this service.
“Do you support the municipality launching a shuttle bus service to transport Crowsnest Pass residents to indoor pool facilities in neighboring communities?”
The results out of 61 people that voted 49% said Yes, 44% said No and 7% were undecided.
Shortly after the Promoter ran a very similar question except they added that one little word “PAY” would you pay for that same shuttle?
The results were out of 51 people that voted 16% said Yes, 73% said No and 11% were undecided.
It really is amazing out that one-word “PAY” changes everything.
Think about it folks, even if they come up with corporate sponsors to cover the shuttle up front how long do you think that will last, within a year the taxpayers will be paying for a service that only a very small portion of the public will use.
The message that I heard from this poll and around town is we the taxpayers of the Crowsnest Pass do not want to pay for this service.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
It's only garbage, Spring Cleanup in the Crowsnest Pass
Well here, we go again the old issue of Spring Cleanup.
This annual ritual (some years bi annual) where we take our municipal workforce away from jobs that they should be doing and turn them into garbage men (nothing derogatory towards garbage men) for anywhere from two to six months.
Over the last seven years this absolute waste of time as cost the taxpayers anywhere from $100,000 to $400,000 per year in total somewhere around $2 million.
Wow, we could have put in place three new graders, three new loaders and probably a couple of brand new trucks without incurring one dollar of debt in that timeframe.
So new council made up of mostly people that pledged to go after the inefficiencies within the municipality to keep the cost of taxes down takes another look at this issue.
Lo and behold, they have come up with a new plan they are going to remain being one of the few communities in the province that still does this silliness but they are going to do it differently.
We the taxpayers are going to be supplied with a list of items that are eligible to be removed by our public works employees, (temporary garbage men). For two weeks, the taxpayers will have the opportunity to call the municipality to notify them of the need to have their garbage picked up.
Then the municipal employees will come around and pick them up. The dollars allowed in the budget for this Myron Thompson stated $10,000 just for labour.
My response to that is “dream on” at our labour rates that works out to a little under 300 hours of labour over a one month period that “two” employees assigned to this.
Think about a few things:
How hard is it going to be to call the municipal office those two weeks?
We have over 3200 residences in the Crowsnest Pass imagine if only half of them call for a pick up, the logistic nightmare of coordinating that exercise?.
If house number one and four on a block calls to schedule a pick up, number three sees his neighbors putting out material so he just goes ahead and puts his out will the municipal employees just drive by because he did not schedule?
Councilor Saindon stated I believe correctly that this cleanup will cost just as much as the old one. He as also stated on his blog that he is clearly opposed to this, I hope he can convince his colleagues, it is time for the Crowsnest Pass to recognize as so many other communities have this is not a luxury we can afford.
Its time to end the debate on Spring Cleanup.
NOTE: Surprising results on my poll regarding the new cleanup only 2 voters (5%) felt the new idea was good, 11 voters (30%) felt the municipality should stick with the old cleanup. Lastly 23 voters (63%) felt that the municipality doing cleanups should just end.
This annual ritual (some years bi annual) where we take our municipal workforce away from jobs that they should be doing and turn them into garbage men (nothing derogatory towards garbage men) for anywhere from two to six months.
Over the last seven years this absolute waste of time as cost the taxpayers anywhere from $100,000 to $400,000 per year in total somewhere around $2 million.
Wow, we could have put in place three new graders, three new loaders and probably a couple of brand new trucks without incurring one dollar of debt in that timeframe.
So new council made up of mostly people that pledged to go after the inefficiencies within the municipality to keep the cost of taxes down takes another look at this issue.
Lo and behold, they have come up with a new plan they are going to remain being one of the few communities in the province that still does this silliness but they are going to do it differently.
We the taxpayers are going to be supplied with a list of items that are eligible to be removed by our public works employees, (temporary garbage men). For two weeks, the taxpayers will have the opportunity to call the municipality to notify them of the need to have their garbage picked up.
Then the municipal employees will come around and pick them up. The dollars allowed in the budget for this Myron Thompson stated $10,000 just for labour.
My response to that is “dream on” at our labour rates that works out to a little under 300 hours of labour over a one month period that “two” employees assigned to this.
Think about a few things:
How hard is it going to be to call the municipal office those two weeks?
We have over 3200 residences in the Crowsnest Pass imagine if only half of them call for a pick up, the logistic nightmare of coordinating that exercise?.
If house number one and four on a block calls to schedule a pick up, number three sees his neighbors putting out material so he just goes ahead and puts his out will the municipal employees just drive by because he did not schedule?
Councilor Saindon stated I believe correctly that this cleanup will cost just as much as the old one. He as also stated on his blog that he is clearly opposed to this, I hope he can convince his colleagues, it is time for the Crowsnest Pass to recognize as so many other communities have this is not a luxury we can afford.
Its time to end the debate on Spring Cleanup.
NOTE: Surprising results on my poll regarding the new cleanup only 2 voters (5%) felt the new idea was good, 11 voters (30%) felt the municipality should stick with the old cleanup. Lastly 23 voters (63%) felt that the municipality doing cleanups should just end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)