Editor’s note: Revelstoke resident Bob Melnyk was a member of the special working group formed to work alongside council as they went through the budget process this year. The group submitted their own report prior to the finalization of the draft budget, but Melnyk also drafted his own individual report and submitted them to the city during the budget comment period. We thought his submission was an interesting read, so we’ve included it ‘as is’ in our opinion section for your review. There are many assertions of fact in the document; some appear correct at first glance, but we certainly haven’t checked them all — we’re treating this one as an opinion piece. Here is Melnyk’s take on the budget process:
March 15th, 2011
BUDGET 2011 PUBLIC RESPONSE
The Fire protection budget has increased 66% between 2006-2010. Correspondingly, the RCMP budget has only seen an increase of 24% in the same time frame. The RCMP complement has been static during this period. The Fire Dept. has continued to grow and now stands at 7 full time firefighting positions. In 2010 there was a budgeted amount of $27,500.00 for overtime. The actual amount spent was $108,681.00 which represents more than 1 additional firefighter. The 7th position was filled with the understanding that it was to eliminate a significant amount of the overtime. In reality, this has not occurred. As per the Fire Chief’s stand that the First Responder Program is costing less than $24,000.00 per year, does not account for the other $84,000.00 of this problem. One of the main reasons given was an increase in the number of calls. The RCMP dealt with 4127 files resulting in 2210 criminal investigations in 2010 and worked within a budgeted amount of $60,000.00 for overtime. The Fire Dept. dealt with 648 incidents and incurred $108,681.00 in overtime. It would appear that call volume does not explain the disparity but perhaps the type of scheduling presently being used needs to be changed to help reduce these costs. The Fire Dept. did not exceed its total budget, but it raises the question of where was the surplus in the budget to accommodate this amount? The costs of this Dept. continue to skyrocket without apparent justification. There has not been a population increase of any major amount nor has there been a large increase in homes/businesses either. Council needs to have an external audit done to determine what needs to be done. Other communities close by have a much lower Fire Underwriters Survey rating and provide fire protection to their citizens much cheaper. The present system cost is not sustainable and it needs to be resolved before another tax year is upon us.
Park & Rec.
While this budget has increased 32% between 2006-2010 with the inclusion of staffing requirements for the pool. this puts it within comparison with the 24% RCMP budget increase. There are areas in the outside component that are in need of change. In the Organizational Chart, the Parks Foreman, Gardeners, Ground Maintenance, and Cemetery personnel fall under the Public Works Operations Managers jurisdiction but are funded by Parks & Recs’ budget. This arrangement was a
Bryant YeomanAlan Chell deal that has never made sense. Why involve two Dept.s, when only one is required, a much more efficient way of doing business. In the summer season virtually all planted areas have been changed to flowers from a majority of shrubs. While the flowers bring a more colorful impact, the costs of maintaining this are very high because of the intensity of labour required. I feel that there can be a balance achieved at a much lower cost. There are large flower tubs added to the Victoria Rd. brick sign base areas that could be eliminated saving both capital cost and labour. There is a full time Arborist during the summer months. While there has been a significant amount of work done, it needs to be considered as to whether or not this activity is affordable in these tight fiscal times. Council needs to consider the ongoing expense (line 363) of new irrigation as well, a potential savings of $30,000.00yr. The length of season is not long and the unserviced areas are surviving. While this can be construed as infrastructure, it pales by comparison to other more necessary needs. The Queen Elizabeth pathway (line 371) could be dropped this year, a savings of $12,000.00. It would make more sense to wait until the School project is completed giving a much better picture of what may be done to complement and enhance Queen Elizabeth Park.
The Public Works budget has increased an astonishing 109% between 2006-2010. This is not far off of the combined totals of Parks & Rec, Fire Dept., RCMP. In this time frame there has been no appreciable increase in the infrastructure that this Dept. maintains. There has been a substantial increase in manpower however. This Dept. is in desperate need of an audit of its structure, practices and the number of positions there are. Some examples are:
1. Why does the Organizational Chart show 2 positions for a 1 man Waste Collection truck?
2. The number of supervisory positions continues to grow and I question what/whom are they actually supervising.
There are large inefficiencies in how some activities are done. Snow removal is the largest. The process being used is reactive not proactive. Snow removal is a grid oriented repetitive process. I have been involved in snow removal as an operator, shift foreman and manager of large crews in this activity. In my 25 plus years of doing so, this has involved Provincial Highways as well as municipal road systems all within the Revelstoke area. While there is no doubt that this winter was going to cost more, the practices used have lead to large cost overruns. The following in point form are the most costly overruns.
1. The problem started with the first snowfall. Graders need to be used to define the edge of the paved surface and use their wing (in a raised 10”-12” position so as not to do unnecessary damage to lawn areas) to push the snow back to maximize snow storage. This was not done consistently.
2. The 4th Street snow dump capacity was not maximized. Without this facility any trucks needing to dump when clearing the 4th Street, Edward Street, and Downie Street area have to travel back to Centennial Park dump. This decreases the production between 25-30% and at a cost in excess of $1500.00/ hr. for the blower show. This adds up very quickly. Even if there is a need to use a hired excavator to pile the snow, its’ costs will be recouped quickly in increased productivity.
3. The over use of the blower and trucks on streets outside of the normal area that is picked up (mostly resulting from snow not being pushed back properly with graders) costs 6-7 times the cost of normal snow clearing.
4. The City has a by-law in regards to sidewalk clearing, but does not enforce it at all. Sidewalk clearing is not tracked independently so its true cost is not readily visible.
5. There is an evident lack of supervision of the methods and performance of individual operators municipal and private as well. This results in continuous uncompleted work and poor performance causing areas to have to be repeatedly revisited.
6. While statistically true, the $1700.00/cm cost that is being used as a gauge of performance of snow removal is deceptive. For every snowfall of a minimal nature that occurs where by the City does little (some minor plowing or sanding) distorts the true cost of major snow events. I do not make this statement to imply that this is being done intensionally, but to show this is not a good gauge of performance.
The levels of service provided are not consistent, to the point in some cases of differing drastically from block to block. I have a large collection of examples (photos) if Council is interested. The area that is normally serviced by the blower and trucks should be paying a frontage surcharge. The cost of this method is at least 6-7 times the cost of conventional snow service. It is not equitable to the rest of the taxpayers to have to subsidize this while enduring a much lesser standard for their respective areas.
The use of Dayton & Knight as Engineering Consultants needs a through review. With the exception of the Water Treatment Plant project, each proceeding project has had significant negative issues attached. The following of which are:
1. Arrow Heights Reservoir project – the project was designed, overseen and commissioned by Dayton & Knight. It resulted in the need to add an entire pressure reducing system to feed into Upper Arrow Heights. This issue was a simple case of hydraulic grade line, something that is very basic in the world of water pressure. The City yet again paid more for more design and commissioning which would not have happened if the simple issue would have been addressed during the initial stage. For an Engineering firm this is not an acceptable level of service.
2. Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrades, design, oversee, commission project. The second year the concrete in the head works had disintegrated so badly it had to be removed and redone at the Citys’ expense. The previous headworks was over 30 yrs. old and had comparatively little degradation.
3. RMR infrastructure – The City paid Dayton & Knight to oversee the plans that RMR were proposing for their project. They also inspected and were involved in the commissioning of this infrastructure. In 2011 the City now has to spend $100,000.00 to correct a pump cycling issue. Again the City pays to correct an issue which should have been identified by the experts at Dayton & Knight in the first place.
The City spent over $500,000.00 in 2010 with Dayton & Knight and I question whether we are receiving fair value. In the 2011 Capital budget (line 519) there is a debt funded 1million dollar project. I seriously question the process by which this came to pass. It is my understanding that when the new Downie Lift Station was being tied in the existing force main, the piping which is located literally outside the old lift station was found to show signs of wear and coated with debris. It is to be expected to see this at such close proximity to the lift station. The force main is over 2km in length and if this is the only checking that was done, it is concerning that such a major expenditure can proceed. The City needs to move the Lagoon outfall to the Columbia River. Has it been looked into as to the possibility of running both a new force main and the new discharge line in the same trench to the Downie Lift Station? From that point the Columbia River is over 2km closer and the remaining distance does not require repaving of any streets a huge potential savings.
By not replacing the force main at this time, there could be a concentrated effort to remove the large storm water flows into the sanitary sewer that occur in the City core. The City is paying a considerable sum of money to pump and treat the hundreds of thousands liters of rain water that enter during rain/snow events.
The City continues to use Dayton & Knight for IT work. The costs include air travel costs to Kelowna, car rental, plus the labour rates. The City has had a much longer and successful relationship with a company located in Kelowna (Interior Instrument Tech) who has only to drive up from Kelowna, a much more efficient choice.
It appears that Dayton & Knights’ bottom line is driving the Citys’ infrastructure plans and I question is Revelstokes’ best interests being met?
Red Devil Hill (line 198). This project needs to be halted until such time as the outer lane is stabilized. The City has continued to band aid this area paving and repaving to cover up the ongoing settling that continues to occur. We have had to relocate the water main to the inside of the road because the settling pulled the piping apart to the point it was leaking. There is no sense in replacing the no post barrier until the road is dealt with.
Bear proof garbage cans (line 184). The decision to allocate $55,000.00/yr. for 5 yrs. is baffling. How does the Council rationalize that this is a core function of the City. To accept that the City is in some way responsible for peoples inattentiveness or choices of how they choose to deal with there own garbage is puzzling. With the ongoing struggle for finances this Gas Tax money could be put to better uses freeing up the equivalent dollar value from general taxation in other areas.
The City pays the managers of Parks & Rec., Public Works/Engineering, Fire Dept. a combined total in excess of $350,000.00 per year. Council asked them to come up with two scenarios, 5% and a 10% reduction over 2yrs. Not one of these managers offered a single pro-active solution. The resulting display of offerings were nothing short of political hot buttons.
Public Works cut sweeping by 40% – does nothing but raise the ire of the public when in fact the sweeper is already being used to much. Once the main sweeping is done the flush truck can quickly and effectively wash the fine dust to the curb.
Reduce equipment maintenance – absurd, it will cost more.
Parks & Rec. – Reduction of facility hours. This one has already played itself out.
No mention of cutting outside labour costs by reducing the amount of flowers planted and to reintroduce more shrubbery which is less labour intensive. Cutting out the full time Arborist for a season.
Fire Dept. – cutting fire hydrant maintenance by 45%. This is much like shooting yourself in the foot and wondering why it hurts. This could very well lower our Fire Underwriters Survey rating which has dropped significantly. Where will the money come from for the snow removal for the hydrants as this is what it was funded from.
No mention of looking to find a different style of operation that may save overtime and other hours.
Line item 21. There should be a moratorium placed on spending on City Hall beyond required maintenance. This building has seen many renovations and Council needs to determine if it is time to sell it and move elsewhere. The City purchased the Courthouse, which was not a bad idea for the reasons at that time. As the City will continue to maintain this building, it should be studied to see if this building can be used to house the Citys’ operation. The Ministry of Transportation & Highways ran 300 plus km’s of roads, two satellite camps, a ferry system, plus related support network from the 3rd floor. Surely the City can run its affairs out of here. Plus tourism wise, it’s a historical sight much like Parliament Buildings in Victoria, Ottawa, etc. The City is in direct competition with its commercial taxpayers by renting space to businesses. With the sale of City Hall it would generate +/- $25,000.00 of additional taxes, not a lot but something.
The purchase of the old Century Valen building was a good move to amalgamate the land with the Rec. Center/Firehall. This building should be torn down before there is any money spent on it. It was the land that was a good move not the building. For now, turn it into a parking lot.
I have watched Council micro-manage the budget line by line for endless hours. Council needs to determine the dollar value that each Dept. will receive. Make the respective managers layout their budget for Council approval. They are being well paid and should be held accountable to manage….. it’s their job.
Having been employed with the City since this project was evolving from a co-generation plant, to the realization there was not enough capital, to
bio-mass heating only has raised many concerns. The City has held 1 million in preferred shares since 2006. The agreement was for RCEC to pay 7% interest when it could do so. As this has not come to pass, the City has not received any return on a million dollars, a loss of $350,000.00 in the first 5 yrs. It now holds 1.2 million in shares and now is losing $84,000.00/year at this rate. This coupled with the never ending repairs and electrical upgrades required by Worksafe BC, continue to degrade the possibility of this project ever seeing the light of day. Living within eye sight of the plant, it is very evident that this plant cannot sustain its’ heating load below -5 Celsius and requires costly propane to meet its demand, further negates any positive results. It is time for Council to look at selling this plant to a company needing carbon offsets. While in the initial stages of proposed co-gen, that had potential merit, the resulting compromise has not lived up to expectations and Council needs to measure this Plant as to whether it falls into a core responsibility/function of the City.
This entity has been one of the most static and consistent operations in the City. Its’ percentage increases are reasonable and justifiable. It is my understanding that there was a request for the 12th member 3 yrs. ago. At that time it was approved by the Council of the day and the paper trail was initiated. After a year or so it was realized that the approval process had not reached the Federal Gov’t. level. It was then furthered and as I understand, the approval to fund the 30% was given. It now is back in the Councils’ hands and that the answer is now no. The request for an Officer to target Revelstokes’ growing drug problem is a very proactive move. Council has not committed any new resources to policing for over 14 years and with all the issues that come with the resort I find this troubling. How long a process will it be or when will the Federal Gov’t. approve the expenditure of 30% funding again if this offer is turned down. This is no different than turning down infrastructure funding a very unwise move. I do not understand how Council can allocate funds for bear proof garbage cans or fund beyond its commitment to the Chamber of Commerce or continue to fund RCEC and many other issues, but refuse this request. We are a resort town whether we like it or not. While drugs are not a new issue, their presence is much more prominent now and Council needs to be proactive on this. Policing has to be one of the most basic core responsibilities that the City supports and I feel that this is not portrayed by the actions of Council.