A Pox On The Joint Facility

The comment about  contracted town services is to the point. We need more observations like that.

The town contracts out out snow plowing , street maintenance , street lighting and sundry other services.

Logic dictates  savings  from flexibility of manpower and equipment .

Vacations,statutory holidays, sickdays , funerals, time off in lieu ,charity golf tournaments , week-ends, sleep, create significant down-time for space, equipment,light,heat and washroom facilities  in town  facilities .  The more  facilities you have multiplies down time.

The same principle applies for ice rinks , baseball diamonds, soccer pitches, tennis courts, schools, parks, and swimming pools, to name but a few.

So the question about  needing  more facilities and manpower ,while contracting out services is valid.

Contracts should mean reduced requirements for facilities.  Manpower contracts mean considerably less overhead  and greater control.

It should  mean reduced work load  due to less building and subdivision development leading to  less revenue should be offset by less expenditures.

It  doesn't always.

Last year , in the budget approval was given for two contract employees  in the works department to become full-time because they weren't getting benefits other employees were and  that wasn't fair..

Service  contractors are provided  free space for vehicles and equipment because well I guess because the space is there.

But if we have  surplus space for contractors to use,  why are we in such desperate  need for new space at a cost of $26 million dollars , built on a shelf , jutting out into a ravine, edging into  a flood plain.

We collect heritage architecture salvage. It was stored in the yard of the  former hydro facility.

When  the  parks department was evicted to make room for the federal department of national defense to use for the week-end soldiers, we paid to transport the "salvage " to the works yard.

The new joint facility  will accommodate "heritage salvage", otherwise known as construction debris. We don't need it . It's there for anyone who might.

Accommodation  cost.... $181,000.

In a heavy snowfall, accumulated snow  is removed from downtown streets. A snow "dump " previously identified as a snow melt treatment facility , at a cost  close to $900,000  was included in the new facility. It's removal from the $24 million  helped to bring the price to $19 million.

Council  deferred the project a couple of times but agreed  to include it in the new facility
Snow melting equipment would cost a fraction of the cost of removing snow from the  core and  require only enough space to park it.

Council  agreed we should have  a green roof on the facility and a platinum standard of construction We should "lead the way."  So that's in the cost.

Saints  preserve us...even the Conservation Authority  couldn't afford that extravagance.

For me to introduce these pesky little details into a discussion about the "desperately needed "
new facility would lead to an accusation of micro-managing ,don't you know. Councillor Abel tossed out the term again last night,

Along with  a comment  about how easy it is to criticize  while we never hear anything positive or constructive while looking sidewise  in my direction.

The Taj Mahal of a works building will be debt financed. Money costs money, It's not a factor in the estimate.

Last night, discretion was the better part of wisdom. Council agreed to defer  for a month while throwing out the challenge for options.

It's time for  observations like the comment received this morning.

It's time for councillors to consider rent from the federal government for the hydro  property, cost of maintenance, loss of tax revenue, and  measures  against the cost of  new space for works and parks.

Because you know... if we took back our property from the feds, there would be no need to move from our present location to incur twenty-six million dollar debt for a joint facility for parks and
works.

Parks could move out of their space  and works could take it over.
A new building  could be constructed at a fraction of the cost.

That's a fact and an option, my friends.

Council has not sought an opportunity to drill down to real cost.

A "workshop"  was arranged ,with  architect and  engineer on hand to help glide over  the bumps and Councillor Thompson thoroughly briefed.

The vote to recommend  was split , with the Mayor breaking the tie.

On a project of this dimension ,that's political suicide.

There's no passion  in the community about a public  works and parks facility.

No  appeal to social needs of the community to justify the investment