Wolfville’s Political Climate in the Spring of 2008
In one of her recently published articles Wendy Elliott referred to the napping of Wolfville’s residents in regards to how the Town has been administered itself for very many years.
A. THE MPS DRAFT
It was the unbelievable try to superimpose ideas of the MPS draft on to the residents suggesting drastic changes to the Town’s current Land Use By-Law with potential very negative outcome and deteriorations to the residents’ chosen lives and lifestyles. A presented dreamy vision of Gregg Morrison, Director Planning, that the Town - within its boundaries and given limitations - would grow over time from about 3,800 inhabitants (without students) to about 14,500 created some outrage. The MPS draft was somehow based on this dreamy vision proposing “higher and increased density” in general, additional uses in the existing R1 Zone, the creation of “Flag Lots” and the designation of large lots for “Bonus Density” developments. Some less important and non-critical parts of the draft may even be a change for the better of the current Land Use By-Law and to be forwarded to Council for a final decision.
All of the MPS was drafted under some idealistic guidelines of “sustainability” copied from somewhere else over a time period of many, many months by the Town’s Sustainability Community Planning Task Force (SCPTF) under its chairman, Robert Wrye. The Declaration of Sustainability (Section 2.2 of the MPS draft) states “… sustainable development requires a constant and equitable balance of environmental, social, cultural and economic factors in all decision making …. to provide the highest possible quality of life for all its residents”.
This reads very well on paper and seems to fool its reader by sounding to be too good, but nowhere in the draft are there any additional references or practical advice on how to achieve (maybe in small steps) the “constant and equitable balance of environmental, social, cultural and economic factors in all decision making”.
To me the long and never ending path to an idealistic sustainability in this Town - with all its limitations - is and will be directly related to its biggest employer, the Acadia University. Should the student population for whatever reason decline even further and - hypothetically - the University would have to close its doors, the Town would turn into a sleepy little village with no importance at all. And nowhere the draft shows this direct dependence and/or actions to be taken to avoid any possible “disaster”.
Furthermore, I question the contradiction of at least some of the proposed idealistic sustainability pointers to be put into a practical planning document – a revised Land Use By-Law.
The SCPTF drafted the first version of the MPS at the end of an almost two-year period of “input and work” and handed it over to the Planning Services Planning Advisory Committee (PSPAC). The PSPAC was chaired again by the Deputy Mayor, Robert Wrye. Personally, I have a major problem to see the Mayor and Councilmen as final decision makers (Wrye, Mangle, Stead) sitting in and acting as members of the PSPAC as well. The problem has to be seen in my distrust in people who pretend to be able to change their hats and maybe opinions, depending on what role they have to play in changing circumstances. This is not my understanding of a democratic and fair handling of Wolfville’s debatable issues.
When Mr. Wrye was asked during the public meeting (Apr. 08, 2008) on how many R-1 property owners he had consulted prior to the proposed R-1 changes, his answer was “zero”. This created laughter in the audience. Laughter was there as well when the issue of Development Agreements was covered shortly and Mr. Wrye exclaimed in this context: “Trust me”! Obviously, there seems to be a very low level of trust in this Administration in relation to Development Agreements or Mr. Wrye seems to be the Deputy Mayor of a different town on a different planet chairing important committees without asking or preparing for any feed-back on what the residents - he is supposed to serve - really want.
Thinking of all the time and money ill spent (about $160,000 so far), I can easily relate to people feeling sick about it and starting to wake up and rebel. Mayor Stead, who is automatically a member on all committees, was quoted to call this rebellion a “verbal stoning”.
From a strategic point of view and due to the fact that it is ELECTION YEAR, it may turn out to be a big mistake to have what turned out to be the controversial MPS draft presented and argued about in this year as well. It might have been a lot smarter if all this “turmoil” would have happened last year. For sure, there was enough time to do it then. On the other hand, I believe that the Town’s Administration had not expected such a strong opposition and was caught by surprise. For the about past 10 years the Administration was able to do what it wanted to do without any real questioning from the public. That hopefully will change now and the Town will have to learn about it and adapt to the new and changing situation fast.
It has to be regarded as a deliberate try to get rid of most or all the tension and calm down the “significant and vocal opposition” ( original tone Wrye), when Chair Wrye brought his written proposal to the table at the beginning of the public PSPAC meeting on Apr. 22, 2008 and got it passed entirely detrimental in the outcome to the defeated motion during the prior public meeting. Had a miracle happened? Obviously, Chair Wrye had either brainwashed himself and the majority of the Committee members or PSPAC members had changed their opinions and decisions with the change of wind directions, weather and/or temperature. With his proposal and the then passing motion Chair Wrye abandoned his “baby” he had directed, controlled and nurtured for about two years, by responding to public pressure. As mentioned above already: All the ill spent time and money!
Some overheard voices explained Chair Wrye’s sudden reconciliation with the public pressure as a first and maybe important step to enhance his reputation in the eyes of the residents as a potential runner-up for mayor in the election this year. Hopefully, those voices were wrong entirely.
At this stage of the discussion of the proposed MPS draft it seems to be really questionable to go on with the PSPAC’s review of amended versions of the draft. All the really controversial parts are taken out or are postponed and only minor and less controversial changes, suggestions and/or maybe improvements of the current Land Use By-Law will make it to the Council table. The big idealistic umbrella of sustainability should be taken out of the MPS draft and put into a different document guiding and governing the Town in all its future activities, actions and maybe visions.
Congratulation at least to the non-napping residents of Wolfville for standing up a first time for what they want and think is right!
B. THE TOWN BUDGET
Parallel to the recent PSPAC meetings the proposed Budget 2008/2009 became introduced to the public. The fired-up tension experienced during PSPAC meetings carried over to the first public budget meeting when the CAO, Mr. Brideau, presented a tax rate increase and an increased budget total of $7,402,078. In his written Introductory Notes Mr. Brideau stated: “This proposed budget at the suggested rates is only possible due to unusually significant new assessment growth in the past year. Given average years of growth, it will become increasingly difficult for the Town to balance future budgets due to costs increasing over and above limited assessment growth.” This statement of the CAO could be interpreted as an excellent and advanced general excuse for doing a bad or insufficient job in the near future.
The first public budget meeting showed a lot of confusion in the audience. Mr. Brideau presented dollar figures of “wish lists” of rounded up estimates provided by his departmental directors. The audience had no or not enough background information to really question the quoted about 500 or more money figures in regards to what has to be done, with what priority, with what level of depth/commitment and thereafter with what attached money amounts. Mr. Brideau would do at least part of his job well in presenting relevant budget figures (especially expenditures) to the public in a different, more simplified but understandable way by having them labelled correctly. From his point of view it may be necessary to have the budget figures departmentalized. I would like to see defined and understandable “key figures” totalled for the entire Administration of the Town and to be able to compare them with the ones from previous budget years. As an example, this means that I don’t want to search on 37 or 38 pages of the budget drafts for parts of salaries and salary add-ons of different departments; I would like to see the number of employees and the total of their budgeted salaries. The same should go for other “key figures” for example computer expenditures, consultant services, telephone, bureau supplies, water, heat, travel, grants, insurances, interest, debts, savings, specific projects etc..
The audience could only argue why certain items were included in the budget while others were not. The audience learned as well that putting pressure on Mr. Brideau and the Town would result in suggested opportunities to present “missing” items (School playground) during the next Council meeting with the outcome, that the School playground- Phase 1 was given there a green light.
For me it was outrageous to learn that the Town’s administration had committed itself to certain new expenditures already with the intent to honour them prior to having the Budget 2008/2009 settled. My recommendation would be: Have all these “early” committed expenditures up for public discussion again (Acadia Field, Acadia Cinema, ….).
Focusing just on one item, the Acadia Cinema Grant in the amount of $20,000, I have a major problem to understand why the Town has to subsidize this cinema. Even as a Co-op and a non-profit organization it has to be run as a business and to survive without the Town pumping money into it a second time ($5,000 for the sign). I was told that the Wolfville Business Development Corporation Ltd. has or will provide some money for the planned new digital projector as well. In general, I like the cinema with their sometimes very special movies and - despite the fact that not very many residents will go to see those - it even may be an attraction for the Town, but its business should not rely on grants from the Town. The $20,000 could be placed somewhere else, where a lot more residents or all could really benefit.
Councilman Zimmerman, who is on the board of directors of the Acadia Cinema as well, brought the request for the $20,000 grant to the Council table but had left the room when the other Councillors voted in favour of this motion. I expect him to do the same during the voting for the 2008/2009 budget.
Only Councilman MacKay had questioned the amount of $20,000 before and had suggested half of it.
- Why does it have to be a grant and can’t be a loan?
- Had the Council seen assuring financial statements that the cinema will be around in the years to come (without additional subsidies)?
- Has the Council checked the relevance of the quoted price and the size for a digital projector in the $70,000 bracket?
- What is the value of the trade-in for the current projector?
- What concrete benefits should the Town demand for all its residents prior to providing the grant (maybe an installation of a microphone system for some free-of-charge Town meetings)?
- Could the grant be avoided by increasing the ticket price?
- What financial relationship is established between the Cinema and the space renting “just us!” Café, another Co-op co-founded by Councilman Mangle?
- Does the “just us!” Café pay a fair market rent, a fair share on power, heat, taxes, frontage fees etc.?
These are at least some of the questions all voting Councillors should be able to understand and answer fully unless they just would like to do Councilman Zimmerman a favour in his other role as a board member of the cinema. And in a similar way I would like to have all the other items analyzed, where the Town is giving money away for really nothing in return that will benefit all its residents.
The uproar in the audience culminated in regards to two issues, the tax rate increase to 1.49 and the expanded budget to a total as above of $7,402,078. There were demands from the audience to limit the budget total to $7,000,000. Councilman MacKay seemed to be supportive to a cap like this as well.
I firmly believe that having the Council cap the 2008/2009 budget at $7,000,000 will not be felt anywhere as a decline in services to Wolfville’s residents. There still will be a lot of “safety” built into the presented and rounded amounts of the departmental directors. To cap the total to $7,000,000 should be at least a little challenge to the CAO, Mr. Brideau, and his directors. Personally and for the sake of all residential taxpayers, I would like to see measures established and published to control all of the Administration doing a good, average or bad job within their budget boundaries and responsibilities.
Towards the end of the first budget meeting Mr. Wrye played “Mr. Nice Guy” again - probably and possibly driven by his political ambitions in the election year - and asked for a revised budget draft before the end of April. His suggestions were to stay with the current tax rate or below and to try to get the budget total down significantly.
Very interesting was the content of an “emotional” speech of Councilwoman Segado telling that she needs help and that she doesn’t’t really know how to decide on the Budget 2008/2009 when it will come to the Council table for the final approval. Is she really up for the job requirements and responsibilities invested in her as a Councillor? Wait and see how she will vote finally.
On April 28, 2008 Mr. Brideau came back with a revised budget. The tax rate was proposed to stay at last year’s rate (1.44) and not below it and the budget total became reduced by 4.325% to $7,081,967. This will be still too easy to work with and in my opinion will not present any real challenge to Mr. Brideau and his departmental directors. The tension in the audience felt drastically reduced during this meeting. Obviously, most of the rebellious ones had just opposed the previously proposed tax rate hike despite the fact that the assessment had gone up at least 2.3% anyhow.
C. THE RESIDENTS’ SUMMARY
The Town’s non-napping residents would be very well advised not to let go and to put permanent pressure on the Administration by attending the public meetings and by always questioning measurable benefits to all residents in relation to all actions and activities undertaken by the Administration. The outcome should reverse the previous practice entirely that way that the residents play the Administration and not the other way around.
There is an excellent chance for change this year. If the Mayor was quoted correctly in a recent article in The Chronicle Herald (“Wolfville’s growing pains”) where he partly contradicted some key messages of the MPS draft he had worked on for about two years as a member of the two committees, SCPFT and PSPAC, he is not going to run for Mayor again. Though, Wolfville will need a new face, a new Mayor with new ideas and the ambition to really serve “to provide the highest possible quality of life for all its residents” (original tone MPS draft).
As I have said and written before, I would like to see a new Deputy Mayor in place as well due to the fact that about ten years of administrative services are more than enough and new ideas and maybe new directives can only favour Wolfville and its residents.
Furthermore, the Town needs at least four Councillors with no other and/or conflicting responsibilities, interests, influences, conflicts etc. but the ones to serve Wolfville’s residents only and exclusively and to represent and stay in for feasible, common requests of the majority of the population.
All this doesn’t’t seem to be a set of difficult tasks. There is so much brain power and intelligence available in Wolfville. I would be very happy to act as a relay station for your input of suitable names and would not mind to help check thereafter level of interest and availability of potential candidates. My email reads leb.3999@yahoo.ca.
Let’s get started before the summer period will slow everything down.
Good luck to all of us!
Lutz E. Becker / May 18, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment