Grand Opening and a New Era for LSAC
By Chris Yeoman LSARA President
On September 13th , the County of Lac Ste Anne held its official grand opening inviting in the Public with a ribbon cutting ceremony and a BBQ. Although I did not have an opportunity to attend the actual ribbon cutting ceremony, I did have an opportunity to go on a guided tour of the new $12 million dollar facility.
As a refresher for those not familiar with what has taken place here, I will try to summarize how we got to where we are today.
Going back roughly three years, council and administration put through a motion on proposed location of a new administration building. An advertisement in the paper, a 1/8 page ad followed by a meeting that only one ratepayer and one reporter attended. This was on no ones radar as it had not been publicized to any degree. How many of you noticed an 1/8th of a page ad?
Immediately thereafter, it was put to a vote for location with two of the seven councilors stating their objection so it was carried. This is how the building site without any real public input was determined.
Shortly thereafter, Bylaw 08-2014 was motioned. This was to borrow $7,507,042.00 and add the just over 2 million that was set aside for a new building. The result was that the Ratepayers got together, formulated a petition and forced a public vote.
This vote was only speaking to whether or not Ratepayers wanted to borrow over 7 million dollars for a new Administration building. The location could not be appealed as the deadline was not understood for appealing that aspect and it was missed. Just over 1000 people voted in that Plebiscite that resulted from the petition and the answer was no. The ratepayers did not want to be on the hook for over 7 million dollars. We wanted much more research.
Fast forward a few months and council and administration purchased a piece of land just outside of Sangudo for record dollars, $240,000 for 90 acres+-. In the time just prior to the plebiscite, the residents of Sangudo and area were led to believe that the building would be in Sangudo, would maybe offer a reason for the town to grow and prosper. When the land was purchased, they realized that they had been duped.
They continued even after the people had spoken. Within a few months, another borrowing bylaw was introduced 26-2015. The ask for the borrow had increased to $9,239,847, pushing the buildings cost to over 11 million. The group once again rallied and got together a petition. This time all seven divisions of the county were in unison. Over 1600 people signed the petition once again telling Administration and council that they did not wish to borrow this kind of money.
People were losing their jobs, losing their homes. Linear assessments were dropping considerably due to oil and gas shutting down facilities. The county of Lac Ste Anne alone lost over a million dollars in taxes due to these shut ins. Oil and gas sectors were hit, a severely tumbling dollar, all had impact on families in our County.
We asked for fiscal responsibility in a time of recession. What we got instead was a council and administration that was prepared to forge forward regardless of what the Ratepayers wanted. The petition was presented, accepted as sufficient and immediately the Bylaw was rescinded with a short term borrowing bylaw voted on in its place. Short term borrowing is not petitionable.
By doing this, they took away all of our rights to decide what we wanted and what we were prepared to pay for. Notice not once in any of this did we say that we did not want a new building. What we wanted was to be fiscally responsible in recession and look at options.
There was land that was GIVEN to the County that they refused. Services were already in place. The County owns many parcels of land that they could have utilized and not had to put in a fire suppression pond with a pump! This was not in the costs of the bid as it was missed even though they knew that there was not enough water pressure bringing water that far or certainly ought to have known.
Did we need a building that has dozens of offices? Did we need to have the size of this building that we are now going to be forced to pay for? With little population growth since the last census ( just over 600 in 5 years) virtually no new businesses, still 1500 empty subdivided lots did we need this size of building? Did everyone including the Beaver control officer ( must have other duties) need their own office with cherry wood office furniture?
Really begs the question where the logic is in this. This county cannot grow an organization chart to fill the office space. We simply do not require it and cannot afford it. We also cannot continue to sub let work to all the companies that we currently do.
The volunteers that had already completed 2 petitions called to action once again and collected 2543 signatures from the Ratepayers. Over 50 % of the voting population of the County of Lac Ste Anne asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs to conduct an inspection into the affairs of the County. They also let us down by taking just about 6 months to respond which gave the Council and Administration ample time to begin construction on THEIR new building.
The short term borrowing that created the debenture to build this building was for over 9 million dollars. Short term is 5 years or less. So how are we going to pay back that kind of money in 5 years or less?
The volunteers that had already completed 2 petitions called to action once again and collected 2543 signatures from the Ratepayers. Over 50 % of the voting population of the County of Lac Ste Anne asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs to conduct an inspection into the affairs of the County. They also let us down by taking just about 6 months to respond which gave the Council and Administration ample time to begin construction on THEIR new building.
The short term borrowing that created the debenture to build this building was for over 9 million dollars. Short term is 5 years or less. So how are we going to pay back that kind of money in 5 years or less?
Hmmm... council and administration would like you to believe that they can do this without any tax increases. Remember they told you that there was a zero percent increase? Well we suggest you have a really good look at your taxes this year vs last and compare them. For many their assessment went down resulting in a decrease. Some also had a decrease due to the fact that the landfill user fees have now been introduced.
Post " County Advances Zero per cent Tax Increase 2017 or Do They " the following caution was brought up.
"However, there could be a long-term cost to a zero tax increase this year." Mike Primeau, the county manager, cautioned that a zero tax increase this year could make a larger tax increase in 2018 necessary.
“The fear is, if you do a zero (increase) this year, next year when we get another million less in linear (taxation), about a million less in grants, then you’re at a 10 per cent increase just to sustain yourself,” Primeau said. “If you do a small increase this year, then next year is a smaller increase than it would have been — if that happens.”
Primeau also said the county had to make it clear that municipal taxes could still change overall, as there are other items that can increase that are out of county control — INCLUDING PROPERTY ASSESSMENT.
“It’s not going to be identical to 2016. As long as you can get that out there to the public, because there’s a lot of moving parts within a tax bill,” he said.
What they have done is put in their budget that they are going to use MSI (Municipal Sustainability Initiative) Grant funds to Pay for their Building!
From the Alberta Municipal Affairs website, this explanation "This has meant communities across Alberta have been able to build and rehabilitate their roadways and bridges, water and wastewater systems, public transit facilities, and recreation and sport facilities, and address other key local priorities."
So, yes the funds are earmarked for "THEIR" priority, not necessarily ours. You see, the County gets different amounts every year from this fund. It was first introduced in 2007. How much debt do you think the Provincial government can handle before this program ceases? Their revenues have also taken a hit in this economy. All of our eggs are now in one basket. These funds have been earmarked for the short term loan payment.
There have been other debentures since the one for the new administration building that add to the severity of this. One for the east end station (that was brought about by eroding agreements between the county and towns, villages) wild water, paving, communication towers to name but a few.
When the County published their recent communications they call "Straight Talk" with the accusation that there are rumors floating that they are looking to dispel, what they haven't done is given you, the Ratepayer all the colors of the rainbow.
They did not tell you that there is no money for roads, for bridges, for equipment, for recreation or any other facilities as it has been allocated to the new building. Even if one half of the MSI funding was allocated, it would be too much. Grants are just that, grants. They are not guarantees.
On to the open house. What was observed in this open house and what was heard is that this new building would be paid for by 2019. The Province was thanked for 80% of the funding for the building. Straight talk? I think not. The MSI funding is indeed being utilized to pay for this building, which is government funds.
On to the open house. What was observed in this open house and what was heard is that this new building would be paid for by 2019. The Province was thanked for 80% of the funding for the building. Straight talk? I think not. The MSI funding is indeed being utilized to pay for this building, which is government funds.
THERE IS A SHORT TERM DEBENTURE ASSOCIATED TO THIS!!!!!
They borrowed against this grant remember? So, if you accept that the building is being paid for, 80% by the government, it would suggest that you will be just fine with no road maintenance, closure of roads because the funds are not available to repair the bridges, no money for the waste treatment facilities and on and on.
The only solution to all of this is to increase your taxes.
The visual component of this building, what did we expect? For 12 million dollars we expected grandeur, we expected a well thought out , well designed building. Instead what we saw was what they WANTED. Our tour guide stated, "There was input from just about everyone in this building what they WANTED TO SEE" They indicated there was a group that toured different administration buildings and put together what they thought they liked and discarded what they didn't like.
There was additionally a group at large that was part of this. When they put forward their recommendations, it must not have been what they "WANTED" to hear as they immediately disbanded them. So, you have what they "WANT" rather than what they "NEED".
There are several offices that have furniture, but no occupant. There are hallway after hallway with an open area in the middle of the building that is windows all the way around. Can you say heat loss? What does it cost to insure such a grandeur building? The natural light is a very nice want to have, however it too should have its limits.
The walls have visible cracks that are both horizontal as well as vertically. They would like you to believe that this is normal. Cracks in the doorways at the corners. They would also like you to believe that the heaving of the floors that is still evident is normal.
None of this is normal. That is why they are in "Talks" with the contractor. It is also why the contractor has a lien of over 1.3 million dollars on your building. Am I endeared to the new building with all the structural issues I see coming, with the flat faced design that has no eaves that will force the water down the sides of the building? With a building that they have already had water issues with? This is not a generational building as it is a wood structure and has a life span. This is a generational debt.
So was I impressed with the council chambers that look like we are seating the City of Edmonton? Did I think that this was a huge waste of our tax, grant dollars? You bet I do. We are simple people in this County with very simple needs.
What we NEED is for our council and administration to act in our best interest. Be forthcoming, be vested in the communities and be present in the moment. Being present means that understanding when we need to pull the reigns in, that maybe sometimes we have to live with a little less, that we can't have two new trucks, we can live with one.
In my opinion, current council and administration have acted in contempt of the Ratepayers, are not transparent and are not acting in our best interest.
It would behoove all of us to be very careful in our selection in the upcoming October election. We already have some major issues that the next council is going to have to work with. I don't envy them but I would sure like to support them and work with them.
See you at the Candidate Forums Sept 26th in Darwell at 7 pm and Onoway Sept 28th at 7 pm.
CALL ANY OR ALL COUNCILLORS TO DEMAND THE ANSWERS AND MAKE SURE THEY KNOW HOW YOU FEEL - ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
- Phone: (780) 937-5360
- Phone: (780) 967-3073
- Phone: (780) 786-4290
- Phone: (780) 785-2095
PLEASE SHARE THIS POST
0 comments:
Post a Comment