A good news budget?

[cowman]

Red Deer County announced their "good news" budget this week. $15.7 million dollars operating costs plus another $7 million(and change) for infrastructure! An increase from $14.3 million in operating costs last year! But fear not they tell us...the oil and gas revenue is flooding in and there will be no tax increases or maybe "minimal" tax increases. I guess they've never heard of a tax cut? I guess we'd better hope that old oil and gas last forever, or we will be in for some serious pain?

[melvill]

Don't forget the operating budget includes wages, benefits etc. for staff and the increase in salaries usually follows whatever the province has decided upon as a cost of living. Operating costs will have gone up in part due to the increase in utilities and also fuel prices for any county owned equipment. Contracted equipment will likely cost more as well, as companies factor in the increased fuel prices into their fees.
Costs for capital projects ill have increased due to the above as well. Contractors that bid on capital projects all have to factor in their costs and items such as asphalt will have risen as well.
Don't worry, the increase isn't going in the councillors pockets !!!

[Horse]

emeral lets see barley at $1.80 factor in the rising costs of fuel , labor , trucking ,wage increase[ha ha] that should get me an increase of -35 cents woops why dont that kind of figuring work for the country boys and girls.

[les]

emrald1 What are the Red Deer county councilors geting for a flat rate per year? And what are they getting for a perdiem?

[cakadu]

They get $30,000 per year and that includes whether they attend at council meetings or not, and includes regular council duties as well as presumably attending the functions in your division. Some charge for everything they do, others don't. If they attend conferences, seminars and other meetings, it is $150/day, plus mileage at $0.50/km.

Emrald, if I read the synopsis of what the budget will be correctly, then the reserve fund is anticipated to be down by this time next year and they have also set aside some $200 K for further studies etc. in terms of land use, policies and other things to deal with the anticipated growth in the county.

The County has been good at relieving the pressure for the producer when it comes to paying property taxes over the last several years. I don't know how much of a difference that made for producers by delaying when the taxes had to be paid, but it probably made a difference for some.

[cakadu]

I don't live in Red Deer County but I am well aware of the pressure for development there so setting aside $200,000 for future studies regarding land use planning is a smart move in my opinion.
I am sure that the procedural by-law has a proviso for the number of council meetings that a councillor can miss, so I doubt if they could get paid indefinitely if they didn't attend council meetings on a regular basis.
In my county the Reeve was paid over $400 per day whenever he was on county business, plus meals, hotel rooms, mileage etc. His world tours took him from one end of Canada to the other at our expense, and he ate at some pretty fancy places. But the taxpayers clipped his wings by giving him the boot in the election. The new council has decided to lower the Reeve's pay rate !!!!
I would think that the average mileage rate across the province for municipal councillors would be in the ,40 cent range. The Province pays .38 for the use of personal vehicles for business reasons.

[cowman]

Well I really wasn't knocking the councillors pay...hey its a dirty job that few want!
And while I do understand how fuel, machinery, utilities have gone up I have to wonder if any level of government really understands that the people paying the bills also have these added costs...and they can't pass that on? Hey if I had my way I'd tell IBP/Cargill that this year I'm afraid I'm going to need some more money for my calves due to the high cost of living...I'm sure they would be just happy as could be to give me another 10 cents a pound?
If the county is making money hand over fist from all the oil activity then they should be giving it back to the people who actually own the infrastructure...the ratepayers of the county!
As far as the planners go....well I'd better not go there.

[cowman]

cowman, municipalities need to put some of the tax dollars into reserves for a rainy day when they don't have the great assessment. You are right, being a municipal councillor is a thankless job, but those that want it have got to be accountable and fiscally responsible.
When I was involved in municipal politics I always encouraged residents to attend a few budget meetings so they could better understand where their tax dollars went.

[cakadu]

I don't disagree that the planning money might be dollars well spent. It depends on what they are going to spend it on, what the intended outcomes are and the actual results achieved with the studies that does concern me.

They have 2 studies now, both relating to land use, that are at odds with one another and they have their ratepayers telling them what they would like done as well, so it will be interesting to see which way the council goes over the next while.

I did note that they had recently approved 100 more lots at Glennifer Lake. Now, talk about what pressures those are going to bring with respect to environmental concerns on the lake, the adjacent land owners and the new lake dwellers. Will the tax revenues generated by the new lots offset the costs of getting the services in there? Who knows? How far do you let the lake lots come out into the adjacent agricultural land? How much more agricultural land is going to be used to develop the lake and what concessions are going to be made in order to allow it?

The policies that we establish today must include a Natural Capital component, otherwise we are going to loose it and never be able to get it back.

[cakadu]

sometimes the cost of doing an area structure plan by the municipality is offset by charges to developers to recoup those dollars when areas are developed. I imagine the Glenifer Lake prject is being done to comply with a demand for that sort of use of the area.

[cowman]

Well hopefully Red Deer County has learned from its past mistakes and will assure that it doesn't get screwed, again, by some slick developer...ie. the federal government and the airbase!
Linda what is this Natural Capital Component? What does that mean?

[cakadu]

Natural capital is basically preserving and creating value in the land - grasslands and functioning watersheds. When establishing policies that affect agriculture, the value of natural capital should be calculated into whatever is being planned i.e. urban growth. It would mean that land use decisions would take into consideration the concept and value of natural capital, with the resulting outcomes being more closely aligned with the public good.

This isn't a really new concept - it has been around for many years. What makes it different now is that many of the decision and policy makers are starting to take notice of it, so it may actually have some value in future decision making. The public may start to watch more carefully the things that land managers are doing. If you do things that take the value of natural capital into consideration, then you are rewarded and if you don't, well you bear the consequences of it.

The Canada West Foundation has a fairly substantial project going on it right now and you can find out more about it at
www.cwf.ca

Personally, I believe the concept has merit and have also believed for a very long time now that it should be a public policy issue and is not a cost that is borne solely by the landowner - which in most cases is the producer.

We have to start attaching a value to what we all want to see preserved for future generations. If something doesn't have value attached to it, then we are less likely to look after it. None of us want to see anything happen to the National Parks, so what kind of value would you put on those?

It is maybe an idea whose time has come.

[cakadu]

Emrald - if that is the case with respect to the lake development then how can the County possibly justify chopping up agricultural land to satisfy making those lots, when on the other, some of the councillors are taking a no more first parcel out stance? Seems to me that something isn't quite cricket there.

On another matter, what do you feel is the responsibility of a councillor who attends various and sundry conferences and gets paid to be at them? Should the councillor just report back to Council, or should there be some mechanism whereby the councillor shares the outcomes of the conference with the ratepayers? I feel that we should be seeing some sort of value for councillors attending these things - I don't have a problem with them doing it - but it should somehow be related to what they are doing and they should be accountable to us in some fashion, particularly if we are footing the bill for them to go so to speak. One pet peeve of mine is when they register to go and then don't show up. It is a waste of the fees. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it, please.

[cakadu]

AS an elected official I used to provide a written report on any conferences I attended, and also brought back any applicable information from the conference. All this information was available to the public upon request. I used to hold meetings twice a year in each of the community halls in my division and provide written reports on the most significant conferences and seminars I had attended as their councillor.
I members of the public don't feel that they are getting adequate feedback from councillors who attend conferences, conventions etc. I would suggest that a group arrange an appointment on a council agenda and suggest that such information be included in the county news letter.