An answer based on intuition, not necessarily fact
This question came in yesterday
"Now that this little saga (My experiences with phone companies which obviously bore the heck out one reader at least) has mercifully ended, for Ben and for us, can we talk about something else?
How about the news that the County is charging the County paramedics double rent for their new digs at the old Kraft research building?
This according to a story in Northumberland Today.
Are they not both landlord and tenant here? Whazzup Ben?"
So what's the answer? Unfortunately the question appeared to be a throwaway from the bulldog of County Council, Mayor Bill Finlay. I can imagine one of the reasons Bill is not running again is that he is tired of posing common sense questions, at the County level, when no-one else will, and getting snowed by the bureaucrats. But back to the question, but a bit of background. The County paid $1.5 million for the old research lab and a bit of land on William St. The purchase was justified to the Council and public by claiming that when the price was amortized and the Land Ambulance and the Food-for-all Warehouse was moved into the building the County would be paying less than rent in annual costs. Sounded good, the Council said Yay and the Feds kicked in a whack of money to cenvert the building and now the place is almost ready, but the bills have to be paid. In recent budget discussions the EMS budget was higher than planned. In a report in NToday "The 2010 budget anticipates EMS department rents at about $290,000 compared to actual expenditures on rental facilities of only about $122,000 last year." In fact in the debate about the purchase, last year, Mr Pyatt reported to Council "Presently rent for the EMS, Food 4 All Warehouse and storage trailers is about $85,000 per year, says Pyatt." "These rent expenses would stop and rental income from two unnamed agencies would begin. "
So what has happened here? For the rent to go to a planned budget of $85K (less than that with a planned rental agreement) to an actual of $122K and now a future cost of $290K?
One reason given is that the County appears to have two problems: they have purchased larger ambulances and therefore need a larger garage in Port Hope and the base in Cobourg will be charged back to the County at commercial rates. But hold on here didn't we buy a building to eliminate having to pay rent in Cobourg? So is this a paper transaction or a real one designed to pay off the building?
Either way Mayor Finlay must have been satisfied with this answer as there was no report of a followup question or an answer to his main question, "Alnwick/Haldimand Mayor Bill Finley asked during the county budget session. "Are we getting the benefit of having our own building?"
Sad really I can remember being on County Council when the budget discussions used to be the highlight of the year when every single councillor used the occasion to demonstrate to the folks back home just how much they were protecting the taxpayer by hacking and chopping every single line item. It appears that the major issue for the Council of this day is just how llttle time they can spend on discussions of any kind. After all who cares it's only the County - one step removed from the people!
"Now that this little saga (My experiences with phone companies which obviously bore the heck out one reader at least) has mercifully ended, for Ben and for us, can we talk about something else?
How about the news that the County is charging the County paramedics double rent for their new digs at the old Kraft research building?
This according to a story in Northumberland Today.
Are they not both landlord and tenant here? Whazzup Ben?"
So what's the answer? Unfortunately the question appeared to be a throwaway from the bulldog of County Council, Mayor Bill Finlay. I can imagine one of the reasons Bill is not running again is that he is tired of posing common sense questions, at the County level, when no-one else will, and getting snowed by the bureaucrats. But back to the question, but a bit of background. The County paid $1.5 million for the old research lab and a bit of land on William St. The purchase was justified to the Council and public by claiming that when the price was amortized and the Land Ambulance and the Food-for-all Warehouse was moved into the building the County would be paying less than rent in annual costs. Sounded good, the Council said Yay and the Feds kicked in a whack of money to cenvert the building and now the place is almost ready, but the bills have to be paid. In recent budget discussions the EMS budget was higher than planned. In a report in NToday "The 2010 budget anticipates EMS department rents at about $290,000 compared to actual expenditures on rental facilities of only about $122,000 last year." In fact in the debate about the purchase, last year, Mr Pyatt reported to Council "Presently rent for the EMS, Food 4 All Warehouse and storage trailers is about $85,000 per year, says Pyatt." "These rent expenses would stop and rental income from two unnamed agencies would begin. "
So what has happened here? For the rent to go to a planned budget of $85K (less than that with a planned rental agreement) to an actual of $122K and now a future cost of $290K?
One reason given is that the County appears to have two problems: they have purchased larger ambulances and therefore need a larger garage in Port Hope and the base in Cobourg will be charged back to the County at commercial rates. But hold on here didn't we buy a building to eliminate having to pay rent in Cobourg? So is this a paper transaction or a real one designed to pay off the building?
Either way Mayor Finlay must have been satisfied with this answer as there was no report of a followup question or an answer to his main question, "Alnwick/Haldimand Mayor Bill Finley asked during the county budget session. "Are we getting the benefit of having our own building?"
Sad really I can remember being on County Council when the budget discussions used to be the highlight of the year when every single councillor used the occasion to demonstrate to the folks back home just how much they were protecting the taxpayer by hacking and chopping every single line item. It appears that the major issue for the Council of this day is just how llttle time they can spend on discussions of any kind. After all who cares it's only the County - one step removed from the people!
6 comments:
I hope the heck a lot of people read this piece of writing Ben. It deserves wide distribution.
The only conclusion I can reach is that this is just a way to pad the budget, and thus our tax bill from the County.
If the County, as landlord, gouges the ambulance department as tenant, it does not lose, because they pay the rent to themselves anyway. But, the budget increase costs are borne by us, the stupid taxpayer.
So sad that for our County Councillors, this kind of clever little tax revenue grab is what counts, rather than keeping taxes down. No wonder nobody objected.
Bill Finley will be sadly missed. He is one of the few long time Councillors who won my respect over his years of service. I am sure, as Ben said, that he is just sick and tired of the whole game, which has gotten to be high stakes with the advent of Bill Pyatt's tenure as chief bureaucrat.
Thankfully some people saw through Pyatt's figures on the County policing issue also.
How does the electorate deal with the likes of out-of-control CAOs, CEOs, CFOs, COOs, and any other kind of chief that loves to spend our money? It seems that the rate at which these chiefs climb the corporate ladder is directly proportional to the budgets they produce, the higher the dollars, the higher their rise and the higher their own salary goes. Never mind that the politicians then have to collect all that lovely spending money from the lowly taxpayer. Neat shtick if you can get it.
I get frustrated at how remote and removed County Councillors seem to be from the voters.
At election time, the candidates for mayor and deputy mayor concentrate on their vision for their own municipality, not for the County as a whole. Overall, County issues just don't come up.
Voters don't get many chances to put that issue on the table so we can find out what goals candidates may or may not have for the uppper tier.
The County Councillors have a crucial role in creating and implementing a county wide vision, they are not just there to protect their own municipalities' turf.
Now that the County has responsibility for many more important services, like Housing, ambulance service and Social Services, as well as waste removal, Golden Plough Lodge etc. etc. we need to bring these guys into much better focus.
I don't want to send anybody to County Council unless they have a clear, comprehensive county wide vision, and it is a sustainable one that makes sense.
Suggestions on how to extract that information from candidates at election time are most welcome. It's going to take more than a few hopeful questions at all candidate's debates, where they may not even be asked by the organizers.
Of course doing away with the bottom tier altogether is one solution, but the elected overlords of our little municipal fiefdoms would never vote for that! (Cobourg would, as long as they were assured of dominance over the others, and the others will make sure that doesn't happen).
Hi, as you may already noted I am fresh here.
I will be glad to get any help at the beginning.
Thanks and good luck everyone! ;)
Post a Comment