You may have heard last week that a trip is being planned for city council and some administration to check out the new Mosaic Place in Moose Jaw. This trip was suggested by the board of the Raiders, who would like to see a new arena to replace the Art Hauser Centre.
I have a few thoughts about this whole idea. Starting to gather information at early stages, which everyone agrees we're at, is certainly a good idea. And checking with a community of similar size which has recently gone through the process is also a good idea. But there are far more things that we need to consider before we decide that this should be part of a ten year plan for the city - ten years is not a very long time, and we have more urgent, basic needs that have been neglected for too long.
I know that there's a certain excitement and energy to special projects that just doesn't happen with the regular, boring, infrastructure maintenance stuff. The city has an enviable history of residents getting together to fund the construction of such things as the original Comuniplex, the Kinsmen water slides, the Rawlinson Centre, and the soccer centre. And it's less than ten years ago that the Bring Back the Magic campaign put $5 million into upgrades that resulted in the Comuniplex being refurbished and renamed the Art Hauser Centre. These facilities all provide benefits to the city, its residents, and the surrounding area. They also each have added significantly to the city budget, and the costs to the city to keep them operating increase every year.
I think that before we even consider adding yet another city-owned facility to the more than 100 that we already are responsible for, we need to review the current state of all our facilities. We need to know their operating costs, the level of usage, and the revenues. We need to know their projected life span, and what sort of maintenance is required on an ongoing basis. And we need to decide if we can afford all the facilities that we currently own. Some difficult decisions may need to be made, because we have to realize that, even though the city may have carried the costs in the past, it's no longer practical or fair for some facilities to be subsidized to the extent that they have been.
We also need to develop some standard principles around these facilities. I think that the costs for each facility should include all operating costs, including water, which currently is included for some facilities, but not others. I think that all facilities should have to provide a financial report and a budget before their annual funding is approved - again, in the past, this has been required for some facilities but not others. I think that when facilities reach the end of their lifespan, when costs to keep them repaired start to be unreasonable, we need to decide at that point whether we need to maintain the facility, or if the need can be covered in some other way. For example, the Girl Guide Hall needed a new roof. When the repairs began, black mold was revealed, making it a far costlier project. This is the point where we need to ask ourselves why we are maintaining a building for a single organization, when we have several community halls that could probably accommodate their needs. And I'm not meaning to pick on the Girl Guides, whose building costs us far less than some other facilities, and who pay for their own water use, but no group should be considered off-limits or sacred.
This is difficult, I know. We all have our favourite causes that we support. But we have to make decisions that are objective, and not based on the affinities and connections of members of council. Too often we have made decisions that are more emotional than practical, and those decisions have cost the city as a whole. It comes down to balance. I'm not saying that all facilities need to be self-sufficient. I am saying that we need to treat all facilities the same, and look for cost-effective solutions, so that we can afford both the every day necessities of paved and plowed streets and safe drinking water, while being able to enjoy going to a hockey game, a concert, or a walk along the Rotary Trail.
And the place to start, as I've suggested before, is with a total facilities review. Only when we know where we are can we start to figure out what we need to do to get where we want to be.
"Some debts are fun when you are acquiring them, but none are fun when you set about retiring them." - Ogden Nash
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Baby Steps
As I mentioned in last week's blog entry about getting to a new bridge, most of our goals as a city council can only be reached in steps. So much of what we want to accomplish is big, and costly, and will take time - it's really easy to get frustrated by the seeming impossibility of getting to where we want to go. We have to remember the words of Lao-Tzu, the Chinese philosopher - "A journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step."
We need to approach revitalizing the downtown area the same way. It's not going to be done by throwing big bucks at things like new building fronts, or putting in paving stones rather than sidewalks, or putting in a different style of street lights, or putting up banners. None of these things, either individually or together, is going to convince more people to come downtown to shop or dine or get their hair cut. And doing any or all of these things costs money that has to be taken from somewhere else.
But at last week's council meeting we did vote to take a small, inexpensive step to make it easier for those going downtown to spend more time there. We passed a motion to make all of the parking meters on Central Avenue two hour, rather than having the mix of one and two hour meters that is the current situation.
This situation came about a couple of years ago when the city spent $700,000 for new parking meters in the downtown - we'll be paying for those meters for the next three years and ten months ($14,600 per month). The new meters only take loonies and twonies, with the idea that this would increase parking revenues. We also hired another parking meter person, with the theory being that the increased meter revenues would pay for this person's salary. At about the same time, the fine for parking at an expired meter went up to $10 (if you pay right away), to discourage people from parking too long.
On Central Avenue, meters were all set for a maximum of one hour. Even if you put in a twonie, the most time that you could get was one hour. Part of the reason for this limitation came from businesses in the block where the university is located - students were parking on the street, and taking up spaces for the entire day, preventing customers of those businesses from having easy access. The hope was that shorter meter times and higher parking fines would discourage this behaviour.
Unfortunately, one hour isn't very long if you're downtown and want to run a number of errands, or have an appointment that runs overtime. When an accounting firm moved into the Forest Centre, they quickly found that this was a problem for many of their clients, so they made a request to the city to have the allowable time on meters in that block changed to two hours, and this was done.
However, when other businesses on Central made the same request, they were turned down, and told to work through the Business Improvement District, which didn't follow through. Frustrated, they asked me if there was anything that I could do.
Having been in the situation where I've been meeting someone for coffee, and they had to run out to feed the meter, or were ticked because they put in a twonie (since the meter says that it takes twonies and loonies) but only got one hour of parking, I thought that making all meters on Central two hour meters was the simplest solution that would end some confusion and give people some encouragement to stay downtown. So I brought forward a motion at council to do just that, and it was passed last week. One benefit of the new meters is that this will be very easy and low-cost to do, and should be done within a couple of weeks.
Is this the magic bullet for our downtown? Of course not. But it's something that was easy, low-cost, and lessens one of the irritants that people run into when they're considering whether to go downtown or elsewhere.
And it was taking a step, not standing in the same place talking about all the things that we could do, but not actually doing anything. We need to remember that it's the doing, not the talking, that gets things done, even if we're only taking baby steps.
"As I get older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do." - Andrew Carnegie
We need to approach revitalizing the downtown area the same way. It's not going to be done by throwing big bucks at things like new building fronts, or putting in paving stones rather than sidewalks, or putting in a different style of street lights, or putting up banners. None of these things, either individually or together, is going to convince more people to come downtown to shop or dine or get their hair cut. And doing any or all of these things costs money that has to be taken from somewhere else.
But at last week's council meeting we did vote to take a small, inexpensive step to make it easier for those going downtown to spend more time there. We passed a motion to make all of the parking meters on Central Avenue two hour, rather than having the mix of one and two hour meters that is the current situation.
This situation came about a couple of years ago when the city spent $700,000 for new parking meters in the downtown - we'll be paying for those meters for the next three years and ten months ($14,600 per month). The new meters only take loonies and twonies, with the idea that this would increase parking revenues. We also hired another parking meter person, with the theory being that the increased meter revenues would pay for this person's salary. At about the same time, the fine for parking at an expired meter went up to $10 (if you pay right away), to discourage people from parking too long.
On Central Avenue, meters were all set for a maximum of one hour. Even if you put in a twonie, the most time that you could get was one hour. Part of the reason for this limitation came from businesses in the block where the university is located - students were parking on the street, and taking up spaces for the entire day, preventing customers of those businesses from having easy access. The hope was that shorter meter times and higher parking fines would discourage this behaviour.
Unfortunately, one hour isn't very long if you're downtown and want to run a number of errands, or have an appointment that runs overtime. When an accounting firm moved into the Forest Centre, they quickly found that this was a problem for many of their clients, so they made a request to the city to have the allowable time on meters in that block changed to two hours, and this was done.
However, when other businesses on Central made the same request, they were turned down, and told to work through the Business Improvement District, which didn't follow through. Frustrated, they asked me if there was anything that I could do.
Having been in the situation where I've been meeting someone for coffee, and they had to run out to feed the meter, or were ticked because they put in a twonie (since the meter says that it takes twonies and loonies) but only got one hour of parking, I thought that making all meters on Central two hour meters was the simplest solution that would end some confusion and give people some encouragement to stay downtown. So I brought forward a motion at council to do just that, and it was passed last week. One benefit of the new meters is that this will be very easy and low-cost to do, and should be done within a couple of weeks.
Is this the magic bullet for our downtown? Of course not. But it's something that was easy, low-cost, and lessens one of the irritants that people run into when they're considering whether to go downtown or elsewhere.
And it was taking a step, not standing in the same place talking about all the things that we could do, but not actually doing anything. We need to remember that it's the doing, not the talking, that gets things done, even if we're only taking baby steps.
"As I get older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do." - Andrew Carnegie
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Bridge Report - What Next?
As you're probably aware, the well-publicized bridge report did not contain the news that was hoped for - that the province recognizes that a second bridge crossing of the North Saskatchewan River is needed, and that planning for such a project can now begin, with a funding commitment in place.
Instead, it said that the current bridge, if maintained, meets our needs, and should last for another thirty years, considering capacity and projected population growth.
While this news is disappointing, it wasn't a surprise. We have been told before that based on traffic volumes, a second bridge isn't required. Slow going during long weekends, while inconvenient and annoying, is not sufficient reason for the province to cough up several million dollars, no matter how many people sign a petition. In fact, the decision last summer to open all the lanes during the August long weekend so that people coming from the south weren't inconvenienced was probably not the best way of emphasizing to people from outside the Prince Albert area how serious the situation is.
And I don't think that there's a magic population number that if reached, would automatically trigger an opening of the money bags to fund a new bridge - it's just not that simple.
While the vocalized disappointment is understandable, I don't think that there's any ground to be gained in getting angry or political. The report was prepared by independent consultants, and consultants aren't always going to give the answers that are wanted.
I think it is important to figure out how we can move forward, and take at least the first possible step. That's why I will be making a motion at the next council meeting that we endorse the report's proposed location for a future second crossing - east of the airport. Then, that decision will be made - we won't have to have another study at some future date to figure out a location. If we can get the surrounding RMs to come in on the endorsement, so much the better.
Knowing the general location can then be used in long-term planning, and in developing a functional study to identify the best specific site, taking into account such factors as geological bases, land ownership, and other service requirements. That way, we'll be ready for the next infrastructure funding opportunity, be it federal or provincial, and be able to move forward, rather than reworking the same study over and over again, and remaining in the same place that we've been for the last thirty years.
It would also be useful to identify each incremental step in the process to a new bridge. We're unlikely to get a full package of funding to do it all at once - bridge, plus all the highway connectors for the transportation plan. But if we can set the process out in less financially intimidating steps, then we might actually move ahead.
Most change happens in stages anyway. Let's be patient, work with other levels of government rather than pointing fingers, and figure out what we can do, not just complain about what we can't get right now.
"You don't have to see the whole staircase to take the first step." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Instead, it said that the current bridge, if maintained, meets our needs, and should last for another thirty years, considering capacity and projected population growth.
While this news is disappointing, it wasn't a surprise. We have been told before that based on traffic volumes, a second bridge isn't required. Slow going during long weekends, while inconvenient and annoying, is not sufficient reason for the province to cough up several million dollars, no matter how many people sign a petition. In fact, the decision last summer to open all the lanes during the August long weekend so that people coming from the south weren't inconvenienced was probably not the best way of emphasizing to people from outside the Prince Albert area how serious the situation is.
And I don't think that there's a magic population number that if reached, would automatically trigger an opening of the money bags to fund a new bridge - it's just not that simple.
While the vocalized disappointment is understandable, I don't think that there's any ground to be gained in getting angry or political. The report was prepared by independent consultants, and consultants aren't always going to give the answers that are wanted.
I think it is important to figure out how we can move forward, and take at least the first possible step. That's why I will be making a motion at the next council meeting that we endorse the report's proposed location for a future second crossing - east of the airport. Then, that decision will be made - we won't have to have another study at some future date to figure out a location. If we can get the surrounding RMs to come in on the endorsement, so much the better.
Knowing the general location can then be used in long-term planning, and in developing a functional study to identify the best specific site, taking into account such factors as geological bases, land ownership, and other service requirements. That way, we'll be ready for the next infrastructure funding opportunity, be it federal or provincial, and be able to move forward, rather than reworking the same study over and over again, and remaining in the same place that we've been for the last thirty years.
It would also be useful to identify each incremental step in the process to a new bridge. We're unlikely to get a full package of funding to do it all at once - bridge, plus all the highway connectors for the transportation plan. But if we can set the process out in less financially intimidating steps, then we might actually move ahead.
Most change happens in stages anyway. Let's be patient, work with other levels of government rather than pointing fingers, and figure out what we can do, not just complain about what we can't get right now.
"You don't have to see the whole staircase to take the first step." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
And Another Year Begins
Once again, we're looking forward to another year, which I'm sure will be filled with surprises. 2012 was certainly an interesting year. As with most years, there were lots of happenings that no-one would have predicted, both good and bad. That uncertainty about the future is what keeps life interesting. While it's important to remember and learn from the past, I think that it's more important to look ahead, plan as best you can, but accept that there's only a certain amount of life that is actually within our control. And when the unexpected happens, deal with it.
In the area of things that are classified as within our control, I'm hoping that this year, council takes a good look in two areas. I think that we need to look at everywhere that we're spending our money, and how we spend our time, and make sure that we managing both money and time efficiently and economically, because both are limited.
Managing our money is done mainly through the budget process, which I hope will be a longer and more open process this year. There are two components to budgeting - what do we need to spend money on, and where can we cut our spending. It's no problem getting people's ideas on where we need to spend more money - snow removal, street sweeping, infrastructure repair, better management of our urban forest, a new bridge - these are just a few of the areas that have been identified as needing more financial attention. It's harder when it comes to identifying areas where efficiencies could be made to save money that could then be redirected to these higher priorities.
We need to identify services that the city provides that cost more than the benefits received - one example that comes to mind is the way the city recycles residential grass clippings, branches, and other yard waste. Right now, we ask people to place such waste in clear plastic bags, and periodically a city truck carrying three employees cruises the back alleys, looking for these bags, separate from regular garbage and recycling pick-ups. The bags are then taken to the landfill, where they are cut open and added to the organic sludge that is used as ground cover for the cells where garbage is dumped.
This is a service that our family has never used. Andrea is a major proponent of composting - she grew up in a family where it was taken for granted that you dumped your coffee grounds, tea bags, apple cores and orange peels in a bucket that was periodically taken out to the compost pile behind the garden. We currently have three compost bins in the backyard, as well as a worm composter inside. And I know that many families do the same. I think that we first have to question whether we should be offering this as a door to door service, or if we would be better off with having a few centralized locations where people could bring their organic waste.
We could also save a step in the process by requiring that organic matter be put into paper bags, rather than plastic, which isn't recyclable. The last time that we were in Stratford, we noticed that people put out three kinds of garbage for pick-up - regular, blue recycling bins, and large paper bags filled with compostable material.
This is, of course, just one example of a service where we could possibly save money by doing things differently. Everyone at the table, and the city staff who provide us with information, need to start looking at every service provided to see how it can be done more efficiently and effectively, or if it is something that needs to be provided at all.
In the area of spending our time more efficiently, I think that we're taking a step in the right direction by looking at the current plethora of committees that we have, and eliminating some of them. The management committee will be bringing forward to council a list of committees that we see as being no longer necessary, for council to make the final decision. Then council as a whole will decide who will be on which committee. This should result in a lower overall workload, and a more fair distribution of work.
This council is just at the start of its mandate, and I'm sure that we will make plenty of mistakes over the next four years. But I think that if we remember to focus on the areas where we can actually make real differences, and keep ourselves open to new ideas and ways of doing things, we'll be able to see improvements that benefit the city as a whole. And that's a positive way to face our future.
"Look at life through the wind-shield, not the rear-view mirror." - Byrd Baggett
In the area of things that are classified as within our control, I'm hoping that this year, council takes a good look in two areas. I think that we need to look at everywhere that we're spending our money, and how we spend our time, and make sure that we managing both money and time efficiently and economically, because both are limited.
Managing our money is done mainly through the budget process, which I hope will be a longer and more open process this year. There are two components to budgeting - what do we need to spend money on, and where can we cut our spending. It's no problem getting people's ideas on where we need to spend more money - snow removal, street sweeping, infrastructure repair, better management of our urban forest, a new bridge - these are just a few of the areas that have been identified as needing more financial attention. It's harder when it comes to identifying areas where efficiencies could be made to save money that could then be redirected to these higher priorities.
We need to identify services that the city provides that cost more than the benefits received - one example that comes to mind is the way the city recycles residential grass clippings, branches, and other yard waste. Right now, we ask people to place such waste in clear plastic bags, and periodically a city truck carrying three employees cruises the back alleys, looking for these bags, separate from regular garbage and recycling pick-ups. The bags are then taken to the landfill, where they are cut open and added to the organic sludge that is used as ground cover for the cells where garbage is dumped.
This is a service that our family has never used. Andrea is a major proponent of composting - she grew up in a family where it was taken for granted that you dumped your coffee grounds, tea bags, apple cores and orange peels in a bucket that was periodically taken out to the compost pile behind the garden. We currently have three compost bins in the backyard, as well as a worm composter inside. And I know that many families do the same. I think that we first have to question whether we should be offering this as a door to door service, or if we would be better off with having a few centralized locations where people could bring their organic waste.
We could also save a step in the process by requiring that organic matter be put into paper bags, rather than plastic, which isn't recyclable. The last time that we were in Stratford, we noticed that people put out three kinds of garbage for pick-up - regular, blue recycling bins, and large paper bags filled with compostable material.
This is, of course, just one example of a service where we could possibly save money by doing things differently. Everyone at the table, and the city staff who provide us with information, need to start looking at every service provided to see how it can be done more efficiently and effectively, or if it is something that needs to be provided at all.
In the area of spending our time more efficiently, I think that we're taking a step in the right direction by looking at the current plethora of committees that we have, and eliminating some of them. The management committee will be bringing forward to council a list of committees that we see as being no longer necessary, for council to make the final decision. Then council as a whole will decide who will be on which committee. This should result in a lower overall workload, and a more fair distribution of work.
This council is just at the start of its mandate, and I'm sure that we will make plenty of mistakes over the next four years. But I think that if we remember to focus on the areas where we can actually make real differences, and keep ourselves open to new ideas and ways of doing things, we'll be able to see improvements that benefit the city as a whole. And that's a positive way to face our future.
"Look at life through the wind-shield, not the rear-view mirror." - Byrd Baggett
Sunday, December 16, 2012
The Spice of Life
One thing that I'm sure the other members of council would agree on - this is not a job that is ever boring. The scope of topics that fall within the responsibility of council is pretty wide, and we always have multiple options to consider and discuss. In fact, if we don't take the time to consider new and different ways of approaching old problems, we're not going to make any headway on some long-standing problems. As Dr. Phil might say, if you keep doing what you're doing, you're going to keep getting what you're getting.
The scope ranges from the basics of making sure that drinking water is clean, that streets get plowed, and that garbage is picked up, to the longer range concerns about how to encourage economic development and finance big expenditures.
To give a few examples of the variety of topics that we'll be dealing with over the next few months, as we develop the budget:
The airport is one of the topics that I think needs much more public discussion, to figure out how we can make it a more attractive amenity. For instance, the land is owned by the city, and the current users out there have leases. I think that we should discuss the option of selling some of the land, so that businesses that choose to locate out there have some incentive to make capital improvements. Right now, it's almost a lose-lose proposition, with the city not making much money, and businesses out there reluctant to make major investments to improve their properties, and thus the area, making it more attractive to other businesses.
Another topic coming forward is the need to expand our recycling program. Increasing the volume of material that goes for recycling means less going to the landfill, which increases its lifespan, putting off the time when we will have to find more land for our garbage. Our current recycling system relies on people to self-sort out paper and plastic milk jugs, either in individual blue bins, or in communal ones in back alleys. There is also a plastic recycling service, for a reasonable fee of ten dollars a month, which picks up plastics every two weeks.
There has been some discussion about expanding the current system, so that plastics as well as paper and milk jugs, are all tossed into the same bins that we have now. I think that before we go down that path, we need to recognize that the current system isn't working particularly well - garbage is often found in the blue bins, and when that happens, the bin is treated as another garbage bin, and its contents are taken to the landfill. This is extremely discouraging to those of us who try to do the right thing, and it's one reason why my family subscribes to the plastic system - at least we know that the material that we put out every two weeks won't be headed to the landfill.
I think that we need to explore the idea of making recycling optional. If you choose to have a blue bin, you could get a rebate on the sanitation charge that appears on your water bill. If you aren't going to bother with recycling, then you would pay the full rate. And if you took a bin, but put garbage in it, you would lose both the bin and the rebate.
And as a final example of our variety, we have the ongoing issues around the downtown area. Those merchants who still remain downtown face a range of frustrating circumstances, such as parking limitations, aging buildings, and the ongoing perception of higher crime in the area. I know that various initiatives have tried to bring more people into the area, with summer street fairs probably being the best and most successful example of these. I was disappointed that this year, nothing was organized for the Christmas season, after one downtown block last year tried a one day fair that was quite enjoyable, and brought many people in. Perhaps it's time to look at the current structure and functioning of the Business Improvement District Association, and see if there is a way for it to become a better advocate of the businesses that it represents, with a focus on more ongoing activities, rather than one or two special events every year.
As I said, these are just three examples of the variety of issues that council deals with, all of them with both short and long term implications. We have to bring energy and ideas to everything that comes before us, and be careful not to fall into the trap of keeping on with what we're doing, because there's always going to be ways of doing it better.
"Two cheers for democracy: one, because it admits variety, and two, because it permits criticism." - E.M. Forster
The scope ranges from the basics of making sure that drinking water is clean, that streets get plowed, and that garbage is picked up, to the longer range concerns about how to encourage economic development and finance big expenditures.
To give a few examples of the variety of topics that we'll be dealing with over the next few months, as we develop the budget:
The airport is one of the topics that I think needs much more public discussion, to figure out how we can make it a more attractive amenity. For instance, the land is owned by the city, and the current users out there have leases. I think that we should discuss the option of selling some of the land, so that businesses that choose to locate out there have some incentive to make capital improvements. Right now, it's almost a lose-lose proposition, with the city not making much money, and businesses out there reluctant to make major investments to improve their properties, and thus the area, making it more attractive to other businesses.
Another topic coming forward is the need to expand our recycling program. Increasing the volume of material that goes for recycling means less going to the landfill, which increases its lifespan, putting off the time when we will have to find more land for our garbage. Our current recycling system relies on people to self-sort out paper and plastic milk jugs, either in individual blue bins, or in communal ones in back alleys. There is also a plastic recycling service, for a reasonable fee of ten dollars a month, which picks up plastics every two weeks.
There has been some discussion about expanding the current system, so that plastics as well as paper and milk jugs, are all tossed into the same bins that we have now. I think that before we go down that path, we need to recognize that the current system isn't working particularly well - garbage is often found in the blue bins, and when that happens, the bin is treated as another garbage bin, and its contents are taken to the landfill. This is extremely discouraging to those of us who try to do the right thing, and it's one reason why my family subscribes to the plastic system - at least we know that the material that we put out every two weeks won't be headed to the landfill.
I think that we need to explore the idea of making recycling optional. If you choose to have a blue bin, you could get a rebate on the sanitation charge that appears on your water bill. If you aren't going to bother with recycling, then you would pay the full rate. And if you took a bin, but put garbage in it, you would lose both the bin and the rebate.
And as a final example of our variety, we have the ongoing issues around the downtown area. Those merchants who still remain downtown face a range of frustrating circumstances, such as parking limitations, aging buildings, and the ongoing perception of higher crime in the area. I know that various initiatives have tried to bring more people into the area, with summer street fairs probably being the best and most successful example of these. I was disappointed that this year, nothing was organized for the Christmas season, after one downtown block last year tried a one day fair that was quite enjoyable, and brought many people in. Perhaps it's time to look at the current structure and functioning of the Business Improvement District Association, and see if there is a way for it to become a better advocate of the businesses that it represents, with a focus on more ongoing activities, rather than one or two special events every year.
As I said, these are just three examples of the variety of issues that council deals with, all of them with both short and long term implications. We have to bring energy and ideas to everything that comes before us, and be careful not to fall into the trap of keeping on with what we're doing, because there's always going to be ways of doing it better.
"Two cheers for democracy: one, because it admits variety, and two, because it permits criticism." - E.M. Forster
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Keeping the Field Unlevel
With the setting of user fees for the golf course at last week's council meeting, we've once again missed the opportunity to level the playing field among city facilities.
The golf course does not pay for the water that it uses, which is considerable. Neither do the Rawlinson Centre, or the soccer centre, or City Hall. However, city-owned facilities like the library and the Girl Guide Hall do pay for the water that they use, and have to include it in their operating budgets. And of course, residents and businesses have to pay for their water use.
What this means is that those facilities, businesses and home owners who do pay for their water are subsidizing the facilities that don't pay, because somebody has to cover the costs. I don't know about you, but I think that it would be a lot fairer if all the costs for a facility are included when setting user fees, and I can't think of a single solid reason why we should exempt certain facilities.
Last year, the last time that fees for the golf course were set, I asked city administration for the water usage and related costs for all city facilities. I know that these are available - there are water meters in all buildings, and they're read regularly. However, like many of my inquiries in previous councils, I have yet to get an answer. I'll be asking again, and now we have the new policy for an answer within 30 days, so I'm more hopeful of a result this time.
The proposed golf course fees, interestingly, are prepared by the Golf Course Advisory Board. The members of this board, all of whom are golfers, say that their main concern is keeping rates low to attract more players (which, coincidentally, also saves them money). I understand the need to attract users, but I believe that they should still have to pay a fair portion of what it costs to keep the place running, and until water rates are included as part of the user fees calculation, that isn't happening.
But this council has voted to accept the rates proposed by the Board. The rationale proposed by some of the councillors who support this is that, by golly, raising the rates might discourage people, particularly those from out of town, from golfing there. Personally, I don't think that adding a buck or two to the rate for what is a recreational activity indulged in by people who have that kind of discretionary money to spend is going to stop too many of them.
The result will be, of course, that the water rates of people on fixed incomes, like seniors, will continue to subsidize people who are participating in a recreational activity, which isn't fair. I'm looking forward to our next discussion on raising residential water rates, which have increased several times over the last six years, and we're still being told that the current ongoing increases aren't going to be enough. The arguments of the five councillors who supported this inequity should be interesting.
In talking to one of those councillors after the meeting, he said that he thought that we should treat all city facilities the same. He's right, of course, but considering that right now, we're not doing that, I'm quite willing to work towards levelling the playing field one facility at a time, whenever the opportunity presents itself.
"Because we tend to be biased in favour of our own viewpoint, it is important to keep the standard of fairness at the forefront of our thinking. This is especially important when the situation may call on us to see things we don't want to see, or give something up that we don't want to." - Linda Eller
The golf course does not pay for the water that it uses, which is considerable. Neither do the Rawlinson Centre, or the soccer centre, or City Hall. However, city-owned facilities like the library and the Girl Guide Hall do pay for the water that they use, and have to include it in their operating budgets. And of course, residents and businesses have to pay for their water use.
What this means is that those facilities, businesses and home owners who do pay for their water are subsidizing the facilities that don't pay, because somebody has to cover the costs. I don't know about you, but I think that it would be a lot fairer if all the costs for a facility are included when setting user fees, and I can't think of a single solid reason why we should exempt certain facilities.
Last year, the last time that fees for the golf course were set, I asked city administration for the water usage and related costs for all city facilities. I know that these are available - there are water meters in all buildings, and they're read regularly. However, like many of my inquiries in previous councils, I have yet to get an answer. I'll be asking again, and now we have the new policy for an answer within 30 days, so I'm more hopeful of a result this time.
The proposed golf course fees, interestingly, are prepared by the Golf Course Advisory Board. The members of this board, all of whom are golfers, say that their main concern is keeping rates low to attract more players (which, coincidentally, also saves them money). I understand the need to attract users, but I believe that they should still have to pay a fair portion of what it costs to keep the place running, and until water rates are included as part of the user fees calculation, that isn't happening.
But this council has voted to accept the rates proposed by the Board. The rationale proposed by some of the councillors who support this is that, by golly, raising the rates might discourage people, particularly those from out of town, from golfing there. Personally, I don't think that adding a buck or two to the rate for what is a recreational activity indulged in by people who have that kind of discretionary money to spend is going to stop too many of them.
The result will be, of course, that the water rates of people on fixed incomes, like seniors, will continue to subsidize people who are participating in a recreational activity, which isn't fair. I'm looking forward to our next discussion on raising residential water rates, which have increased several times over the last six years, and we're still being told that the current ongoing increases aren't going to be enough. The arguments of the five councillors who supported this inequity should be interesting.
In talking to one of those councillors after the meeting, he said that he thought that we should treat all city facilities the same. He's right, of course, but considering that right now, we're not doing that, I'm quite willing to work towards levelling the playing field one facility at a time, whenever the opportunity presents itself.
"Because we tend to be biased in favour of our own viewpoint, it is important to keep the standard of fairness at the forefront of our thinking. This is especially important when the situation may call on us to see things we don't want to see, or give something up that we don't want to." - Linda Eller
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Getting to Work
The election was more than a month ago. Council was sworn in almost two weeks ago. Like the other members of council, I'm sure, I'm getting anxious to get to the real work.
That's part of the problem of changing councils - it takes time for people in new jobs to learn the basics, and in this case, it's going to take some time before we understand the extent of some of the problems that we have to deal with. And even when we know that we want to change how things are done, first we have to get a good understanding of the whole situation before we start to implement change, to avoid unpleasant surprises.
To that end, at our first council meeting, after all the ceremonial stuff was out of the way, the deputy mayor schedule was set, and appointments to just three committees were made. The first two, the police commission and the library board, have to be in place for those institutions to function. On a temporary basis, Councillors Ring and Zurakowski have been appointed to the library board, and, also on a temporary basis, the mayor and Councillor Ring will continue on the police commission.
A third committee, the management committee, has also been set up. This committee is intended to bring policy options and recommendations to council for discussion and final decisions, with a fairly broad scope - a first filter, in a way. I'm currently on this committee, as is the mayor and Councillor Cody. For example, one of the things that we're looking at is the current list of committees to see which are actually needed, and which can be dissolved. The previous council had more than 60 committees, some of which met rarely if ever, and some of which duplicated work already covered by policy (the street-naming committee, for example). I'm hoping that this review will help council to manage our work load more efficiently, although it's certainly going to take some time. So far the management committee has met twice, trying to determine which issues are most pressing, and setting some priorities for bringing them forward to council.
I think what most members of council (and the public) want to know is: where are we at on several issues? What's the status of the second bridge study? What's the status of the water treatment plant repairs? When is the bridge going to be at full capacity again? How serious is our financial situation?
I think that, as a council, we're committed to getting answers to these and other questions to the public as quickly as possible. This is definitely a change in how things were done in the past, but it's one that we're all working towards. However, like a lot of change, it could take some time. I hope that residents see that we're working together to provide answers, not cover things up, and are patient as we work these things through.
"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future." - John F. Kennedy
That's part of the problem of changing councils - it takes time for people in new jobs to learn the basics, and in this case, it's going to take some time before we understand the extent of some of the problems that we have to deal with. And even when we know that we want to change how things are done, first we have to get a good understanding of the whole situation before we start to implement change, to avoid unpleasant surprises.
To that end, at our first council meeting, after all the ceremonial stuff was out of the way, the deputy mayor schedule was set, and appointments to just three committees were made. The first two, the police commission and the library board, have to be in place for those institutions to function. On a temporary basis, Councillors Ring and Zurakowski have been appointed to the library board, and, also on a temporary basis, the mayor and Councillor Ring will continue on the police commission.
A third committee, the management committee, has also been set up. This committee is intended to bring policy options and recommendations to council for discussion and final decisions, with a fairly broad scope - a first filter, in a way. I'm currently on this committee, as is the mayor and Councillor Cody. For example, one of the things that we're looking at is the current list of committees to see which are actually needed, and which can be dissolved. The previous council had more than 60 committees, some of which met rarely if ever, and some of which duplicated work already covered by policy (the street-naming committee, for example). I'm hoping that this review will help council to manage our work load more efficiently, although it's certainly going to take some time. So far the management committee has met twice, trying to determine which issues are most pressing, and setting some priorities for bringing them forward to council.
I think what most members of council (and the public) want to know is: where are we at on several issues? What's the status of the second bridge study? What's the status of the water treatment plant repairs? When is the bridge going to be at full capacity again? How serious is our financial situation?
I think that, as a council, we're committed to getting answers to these and other questions to the public as quickly as possible. This is definitely a change in how things were done in the past, but it's one that we're all working towards. However, like a lot of change, it could take some time. I hope that residents see that we're working together to provide answers, not cover things up, and are patient as we work these things through.
"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future." - John F. Kennedy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)