Rhino's Ramblings - Murky Backroom Waters

By Robert Thomas Opinion/Commentary

When the water system runs without breaks and corrosion the water pours out clear with pressure when it breaks though the water usually turns grey, black and murky. Something you would not want to drink.

The same was true of last night's budget discussions. The clarity and transparency you expect in spending your hard earned property tax dollars suddenly disappeared. And for the distracted duo they likely missed it drinking the murky punch.

It was suppose to be an evening where the report about the eight percent reduction in the Operating Budget was discussed but nowhere was it on the public agenda.

You know the report where it was all predicted to be doom and gloom as well as seriously holding up the budget process by some much more inexperienced. But in reality it was not even close to those dire predictions.

In fact in an unrelated matter City Manager Jim Puffalt stated there was still at least a month or two if necessary to prepare and discuss a report on reducing the Five Year Capital Budget.

Although Budget Committee never discussed all of the three in-camera items on their agenda they did come out and take a vote on one of them.

The first issue dealt with raising the water rates for 15 Wing because the City is out shaking the bushes for every dime this year – and like other rural customers getting water from the City – your rates are going up.

But what happened to the report looking at the ramifications of an eight percent across the board cut to the Operating Budget?

Well it appears it was received and discussed in-camera.

There were four key clues to this happening.

The first being Mayor Frasier Tolmie who after the Committee returned from their in-camera discussions said they had a “couple” of items to vote on. Then they voted on only one.

Later in the meeting Mayor Tolmie said he did not understand Councilor Brian Swanson’s stance on making the Five Year Capital Budget more sustainable as Budget Committee had a discussion on the eight percent reduction.

The second clue came later when Councilor Dawn Luhning made a statement after Councilor Chris Warren's motion effectively cutting $42 million from the the $242 million Five Year Capital Budget.

In her statement Councilor Luhning stated “to be fair to the motion that was passed, we received tonight (a report) with the eight percent reduction and I cannot understand this.”

What she was referring to was the fact all members of Council had ran to see something done about getting infrastructure repaired.

And when the opportunity came the majority of Budget Committee apparently balked from cutting from the Operating Budget or services and putting the money into the Capital Budget, if you read between the lines about what was said. My guess behind closed doors - given the discussion around cuts to the Five Year Capital Budget - it was a 5 opposed to 2 in favour of making serious cuts to the Operating Budget.

Just prior to this a third clue came from Councilor Brian Swanson when he spoke about advocating for reductions in the Operating Budget and moving the money to the Capital Budget. He spoke about a lack of will which points to the issue bring discussed in-camera.

Although I never asked them about the reasons for apparently discussing the eight percent cut behind closed doors, last year Council did finalize their budget discussions behind closed doors stating they did so due to personnel issues.

The reasoning was they did not want to discuss potential job cuts and needlessly stress out City employees.

An eight percent cut straight across the board would have been much deeper than what Budget Committee looked at last year behind closed doors.

But was it all personnel related issues discussed? My best guess was it was not as there is, in all likelihood, something in there about cutting funding to the new Airport Authority as last year cutting funding to the Municipal Airport was on a list of things Administration presented which could be cut without affecting the City’s operations.

It is something, if indeed it was on the eight percent across the board reduction report, the media should have been allowed to sit in on.

Here are two of the things which are troubling about holding the discussions behind closed doors and ironically it came out at last night's meeting.

First off it came from Councilor Chris Warren spoke about the proposed water increases to rural customers.

“My intentions in a perfect world we would have reviewed this outside (Moose Jaw) water rate last year,” he said.

Then in further discussion Budget Committee mentioned with the moving of last year’s proposed 15 percent increase to nine per cent had simply transferred the proposed water rate increase to a two percent increase in property taxes.

At the time I wrote about it calling it an Odessa Bargain. Read related.

What happened last year was a trade off where one side got what they wanted. The other side saved face while there was in reality nothing really changed. It was a shell game and nothing more.

Now it raises a question about all of this and that is HOW is such a trade off personnel related?

Why couldn’t the media last year sit through at least these discussions when it came to the discussions on establishing the water and tax rate increases?

And could the media not have say through at least some of the in-camera discussions last night? And not just if the Airport Authority came up.

I think about last year and wonder was Budget Committee at the time embarrassed at actually what went on? I was told by a good source on this it was a very heated discussion.

People need to realize what was done last year behind closed doors regarding the water rates and taxes was done largely on affordability and to ease the strain on the poorer and fixed income home owners.

Would it not be nice as a voter to know who said what and supported what on this issue come the next election? Or are we going to hear I supported or did not support this issue without any way to find out?

With the rush to do things behind closed doors last year what is now becoming apparent to this scribe it inadvertently allowed out of town water customers a massive rate holiday.

Some place in the entire process it was missed that the residents of Moose Jaw were in fact subsidizing out of town water user's rates as they are tied to what is charged for city water users.

The rate increase this year is to insure the out of town users pay their fair share of the capital costs - such as new water lines, pumps and other infrastructure. But it was missed last year and because of it the Waterworks Utility did not collect desperately needed funds.

Funds in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Ironically it is something Budget Committee has corrected this year. But last year as they hashed things out in the murky world behind a closed door in-camera meeting there was no accountability.

The waters might seem clear and fresh in Budget 2019 but a closer look shows just like a cast iron water main break just down the street you might not want to drink the water.

moose jawJanuary 22, 2019