Just one hour ago The Editorial Board of The Langley Record received confirmation of the discussions today at a Township Council Priorities Committee (CPC) meeting on the 2010 budget. We can confirm the following:1. No members of the press were present.
2. Staff presented on Sustainability and Asset Maintenance.
3. The presentation talked of staff, mayor and council's responsibilities to maintain Township
assets (roads, sidewalks, parks, etc.).
4. Staff presented a realistic look at a Township in fairly good financial shape that will require
roughly a 5% tax increase in order to maintain current service levels, adding just one new
police constable per year and minimal additions elsewhere for items sent to budget by Council
in the past few weeks.
5. The reality is that there has been more downloading that includes higher water and other
GVRD rates to municipalities and a requirement to pay for the RCMP Provincial Police
database system known as PRIME. Costs that used to be covered by the provincial
government will now cost the Township about $1,000 per police officer, we are told.
6. The collective bargaining agreement and a full-time fire hall in Murrayville by August 2010
figure into the mix. Tax increases projected at 2.50% would be needed in other years of the 5
year projection.
We are told that Councillor Kim Richter asked Township Administrator Mark Bakken if a ZERO tax increase budget was possible. Bakken responded that anything is possible and that in order to get to 0%, council would need to cut some $7-10Million dollars out of the budget.
Editor Comment: Of course cuts like that would lead to compounding costs in future years as roads and other infrastructure deteriorate and crumble to bits.
Cllr. Richter then commented that perhaps the Township needs to look at not hiring an additional police officer each year (a cost of $144K per officer) and perhaps the ToL needs to look at water metering and charging for water use in the urban areas where GVRD water is supplied, but not any private wells in the rural areas.
Editor Comment: After checking official ToL recordings of the last ToL Council meeting The Langley Record learned that Cllr. Kim Richter once again made a distinction between urban Langley and Rural Langley, when a staff report regarding a recommended sidewalk inspection program was presented to council. This report addressed types of sidewalks and usage (lower in rural and of a different type material), the report suggested inspecting the small amount of rural sidewalks every 5 years and the larger amount of urban every 3 years. Richter suggested that rural receive the same treatment of inspection every 3 years for the rural Langley. Apparently now this rural service could be paid for at the expense of taxpayers in the urban areas through water metering?
We wish to point out that Cllr. Richter has never voted to approve any Township budget and was absent from the final Finance Committee meeting in 2009, as well as when the 2009 budget vote came before council. Will thee be repeat absences during the 2010 process given the bitter pill that was floated by Township staff today?
We must stress that the budget battle has only just begun and all that all comments made at the CPC are very preliminary. But certainly the comments made at the CPC meeting today will set the stage for fireworks in early 2010. The next CPC meeting takes place on January 14 & 28, 2010 at 3:30pm. Stay tuned.
Although not present for the CPC meeting, you can now expect the local rags to read this blog and dispatch the usual lazy reporters forthwith to produce a lame story or two for your consumption. But remember that you read it here first folks!
2 comments:
Putting off the staffing of Fire Hall 6, is this council yet again going back on a promise. Who is to say it will not be put off inevitably? Full time fire should not even be able to be up for consideration, our community should have been brought in line with other communities and safety standards years ago!!
Lets not forget we are still trying to catch up to other neighboring communities, we are not a proactive community, we are reactive. Not something to be proud of!! The citizens of this community need to make their voices heard, our safety is not a way for politicians to save money!!
The letter to the editor this past week shows how it can affect us if are Fire Department is not there to assist us, they are not just there to put out fires as some may foolishly believe!
And for those who are still in the clouds and believe we are just fine with a paid on call system, I suggest Jordan Bateman, ask the Chief for this past years stats and posts them for the pubic to view.
We would be very interested to see, response time for the paid on call truck vs the career truck- how many paid on call members were on that first truck, how long they had to wait for more manpower- and how many times does the call go unanswered at the paid on call halls before someone is there to respond.
You are kidding yourself if you think the numbers don't matter, something that would be all to real, if it was your loved one who was in need of help.
Read the paper again. The call with the slow response time was a result of BC Ambulance not requesting a fire department response. This was not a department issue.
That said......someone needs to crunch the numbers with regards to the full time fire department. This move is costing more that the benefits. Figure out the salaries, benefits against the actual number of hours that the full time members are working on calls. We are paying too much for a service that the highly trained and dedicated paid call members were doing.
Drive by Hall #8 and see you tax dollars at work....BBQ is always on at the back bay door, TV on every time you drive by the window on 96th Avenue, expensive firetrucks parked in the lot at the IGA but no call in progress.
It's costing taxpayers too much for a service that is less efficient than the paid call system.
Post a Comment