County mayor?

[cakadu]

Cowman, I can believe what the councillor in division 1 is saying as we experience it to some degree out here. I have no idea about what happens out in that division, but if it is anything like here, then I have no reason to doubt his statements and my post wasn't implying that I did.

It is interesting to watch what unfolds in an election year and I am sure that when it comes to the new mayor's position, it will be most interesting as this is the first time.

The other thing that is interesting is to see the "small town" dynamics that happen in different areas. Out here, you pretty much are the "new people" until you've had at least 3 or 4 generations living here. The dynamics between the various hamlets out here are also interesting in that instead of working together for the good of the area, they compete and wonder why it doesn't turn out well for everyone. There are some things that are s-l-o-w-l-y changing, but it is a tedious process. Good heavens, there are still some that the school got relocated in 1959. Time to move on don't you think?

[coppertop]

cowman, it depends on the dynamics around the council table. Councils that work well together and respect each others opinions usually don't engage in bickering either in camera or in public. However, in camera like in caucus where there are various individuals vying for budget funding for their area, and others that will do anything to see that they get the big bucks, it can get pretty hot and heavy.

If the Reeve or Mayor has any intestinal fortitude and respect around the table, he or she will provide leadership that will get folks working together through any differences.

Some councillors will use in camera sessions to slander others, hiding behind the fact that no action can be taken against them for comments or actions in camera.

[cakadu]

Hmm, wonder which ours are?

[coppertop]

firstly, counicllors like everyone else lose effectiveness the minute they stoop to name calling or childlike behavior, and secondly, the in camera sessions are only to be used when dealing with legal, monetary or staffing matters, so there should be no need to engage in warlike conduct.
Many municipalities use in camera for budget discussions to discuss the pros and cons of various budget items before discussing them in public, which I feel is sensible. No point in getting the public's hopes or hackles up over proposed projects until council can be sure they are feasible and make sense.

[cowman]

Linda: I think his biggest complaint was he never got two road projects done in 2006 that were supposed to be done? Therefore he wouldn't vote for the "expanded" budget for 2007? His exact words were his constituents were tired of being treated like second class citizens!I think he is pretty scared he is going to be gone with redistribution?
Incidently have you seen the projected numbers for the 2007 budget? $19.7 million in operating costs and a total budget of $45 million! Now the operating budget last year was $15.7 million...so a $4 million increase? 25% increase in one year...well maybe the city isn't the only ones out of control!
I notice they are also borrowing $7 million? The stated reasons were "to complete the transfer station" and "finish Levitra Ave(gasoline alley)"!
Hmmmm...I thought the transfer site was already budgetted for last year...and Levitra Ave.! The latest rumor is the transfer site is approaching $6 million...quite impressive since the original budget was $2 million last spring! Sounds like another county office fiasco?

[coppertop]

cowman, I wonder how much of that is cost overruns ?

[cowman]

coppertop: Not sure how much in cost over runs, but have a hard time seeing a tripling as a cost over run?
I suspect they ran out a number they thought they could sell to the citizens and then just keep adding to it? They did the same thing with the county office? Started out at $2 million...ran it up to $6.5 million!
The transfer site was supposed to be finished by Dec. 2006. They started putting up the building two weeks ago and the old boy at the site tells me they will be lucky if they are done by July?
I did the seeding on this site. What they had budgetted for seeding was a joke! Probably slightly half of the actual cost! They insisted on a certain seed blend that cost over $3/lb. when a simple fescue/bluegrass mix would have cost $1.42/lb.! Shortly after seeding they planted $267,000 worth of trees in the mud...thus creating the need to reseed a large portion...not to mention more landscaping! I fully expect to get more for the reseeding than the original seeding! I tried to tell the project manager to wait until the trees were in, but one thing I have learned is you can't tell these guys anything! They don't care about costs and that is okay...I'll take their money!

[cowman]

coppertop:Just to show how inept the management is in some municipalities I give you this example:
This county had rebuilt a road on a very steep hill. They seeded what they could with a hydro seeder but couldn't seed the burrow pit and two laneways, so I got the call! I met the foreman and the engineer and right away I could see they didn't have a clue!
I pointed out with the steep slope their hydro mulch was just going to wash off and that they needed to control the run off/drainage in the ditch. But they knew it all, so don't confuse them with facts! The next year the areas I had seeded and harrowed in were like a carpet...but the hydro seeded area was mostly thistles and dandelions amid the bald spots! There was a four foot channel cut down the ditch right into a farmers field! Their solution was to dump about ten loads of black dirt into the chasm! Next year...the same thing! Finally they laid some netting down on the slopes and filled the crack with rocks! It is still a real mess five years later...nothing like those "professionals" who know everything!

[coppertop]

One thing that I have seen in this municipality over the years is the lack of really working the roads when they are graded. We had a graderman who used to spend a lot of time on the road I live on, it's the old original highway, a lot of corduroy still under it. He would work out the pot holes and get it in excellent condition. In 1992 a new council was elected and the direction to all departments was to cut their budgets by 20%. Of course the grading was easy to cut, spend less time, use less graderblades etc., and it looked like the department was extremely efficient.

When I was elected, I questioned the road maintenance, as did some other councillors. We were told it was an administration decision, and the grading done was adequate. In the mean time citizens drive over washboard, pot holes etc. All for the sake of efficiency.

One of the current council members told me that he had started getting calls about a road being built through the bush to provide access to someone's new acreage. Those roads used to be put on a road request list and council would review it annually, with public works having the final decision on priority. Now, it seems that the current administration just does these roads and the area councillor finds out later. I would suspect that much of the issues you have with seeding, transfer station etc. are the result of decisions made by administration. Council's role is to approve the budget, then turn it over to administration, but I feel that sometimes those who are in an administrative role could use a crash course in common sense.

[cowman]

coppertop: I agree with you on this one! Quite often(usually?) it is an inept manager!...we seem to have a lot of them down here!
Unfortunately...the buck has to stop somewhere...and it is the councillor?
Personally I think the infrastructure is the most important thing, but I realize others might think differently? Just lately the county is trying to float the idea of a "County Recreational facility"...I shudder at what this little dream might cost us!

[coppertop]

cowman, not only the initial cost, but the ongoing maintenance and operating costs of huge recreation facilities are astronomical. The fact is that residents who live close to the facility get the most out of these facilities but in counties like Red Deer, the outlying areas usually use facilities in the nearest urban municipality, but their tax dollars go to build and operate the huge structures.

In our community the people wanting facilities built, used the adage that there was NOTHING for the youth to do unless millions of dollars were spent on state of the art facilities.. Our community built a huge facility, the county and ag society etc. put millions into the construction cost and ongoing operation costs, but it seems as though there are many more of our youth in some sort of crisis as each year goes by. I feel that recreation has got to be within the reach of all families, and once the huge facilities are built either the municipal taxpayer has to subsidize useage or the costs are passed down to the user, and in many cases this puts taking advantage of what the facility has to offer out of reach of families living on lower or fixed incomes.