Last week, when my street was cleared shortly after our last big snowfall, I thought back to a letter to the editor I sent to the Promoter in January 2010. Click the thumbnail for the full image:

My sentiments are still largely the same three years later. We have many good people who give it their all to bring exceptional service to our residents and we should be thankful for everything they do. Obviously every organization has room to improve but that is an ongoing process and it is happening every day.

Once again – thank you to our municipal employees for your hard work.

Devon Press Release

I said previously in my post about the plant closure that I see Devon as an outstanding corporate citizen. To me this is just proof of their dedication to the community, even with their imminent departure. As mentioned in the press release, Devon is hosting a community BBQ on Saturday, February 2 from 11:00am to 2:00pm at Pass Powderkeg. I hope everyone can come and show their support. I intend to be there to thank their representatives in person.

Press Release Issued by Riversdale Resources Ltd.

That’s right – a new operation is planned on the old Grassy Mountain mine site, just north of Crowsnest Pass. Riversdale Resources Ltd. has purchased the mine holdings of Devon and Consol Energy in our area. Mayor Decoux has been hinting about the entry of a heavy industry in the region for several months now and I am so pleased that the announcement has finally been made. This had been kept in confidence at the request of all interested parties as the acquisition was still being finalized. Late last week, Consol Energy released statements to the media citing the sale so the time is ripe for the announcement.

While the mine is not located within our municipality, most of the materials and labour will be moving through our community while it makes its way to port in BC. This will undoubtedly be a financial boost to Crowsnest Pass and the long-term benefits can only be speculated at this point.

Council was made aware of this potential mine several months ago when company representative approached Mayor Decoux. On behalf of council, the Mayor and CAO both extended open arms to Riversdale and assured the company that they would do everything they could to assist them in setting up operations here. At subsequent meetings Mayor Decoux inquired regarding environmental impact, the impact on our potential tourism industry, and the longevity of the operation. The representatives assured us that they were already working with Alberta Environment to meet all requirements, that the mine would be extraordinarily clean and well run, and that the operation is here to stay. The municipality has assisted the management of Riversdale in seeking office space and a residence for the first employee, who will be arriving soon. Further to that, our administration has been assisting Riversdale in getting to know our community so that we can help make the process move as smoothly as possible. I appreciate the hard work that has been done to ensure we have a good relationship with our newest corporate citizen.

There are a few issues that will come up locally, which I want to talk about. The first is potential opposition to this project. I’m under no illusion that, to some, a new mine is not a desirable industry to reintroduce on our doorstep. Personally, I am confident in Riversdale’s intentions and that they will take the needs of our community seriously. I believe that we are faced with two choices. The first is to welcome this project, be involved, work alongside the company to make it the best operation possible, and reap the mutual, long-term benefits.  The second choice is to oppose it or essentially turn our backs on it but then we would also be likely to lose out on many of the benefits when the operation does start up. I know my choice will be to work with the new owners to so that we can see it grow into the best operation it can be, as well as a vital component of our ecomomy.

The second issue is the fact that this site is not going to be located in Crowsnest Pass. While we will still reap the benefits of local employment and materials moving through the community, we will not be getting this mine as a part of our assessment base. It is critical that we come together as a community and champion the annexation of at least a portion of the MD of Ranchlands so that we can bring this new project into our community. Crowsnest Pass has the biggest stake in the project and we should be the service area for this mine, so it makes sense that we have it in our municipality. We have discussed this annexation for several months and hopefully everyone can now fully understand why it is so important. We must continue engaging the province on this issue and we will need the support of all Crowsnest Pass residents to make it happen. If we do not annex at least this portion of Ranchlands, we are losing out. It would be similar to how Fort McMurry did not get any assessment from much of the oil sands operations before they became the RM of Wood Buffalo.

A third issue is that of economic diversity. While I am ecstatic about this announcement, I want to stress that this is not a panacea for our community. For many years I have said that our success will not come from attracting one big industry, but from economic diversity. This mine is only one piece of what we need to see our town grow. Communities that do not invest in diversity inevitably fail. We have already started on this path with the initiatives we developed in the Strategic Plan and it is important to not lose site of where we need to go.

I want to point out one other thing. Please note that this press release is from Riversdale Resources Ltd., not the municipal council or administration. There are already naysayers out there who doubt the veracity of what is said in the press release, so if you have concerns about anything stated therein, it would be a good idea to ask Riversdale to verify. Their contact information is at the end of the document.

We have already rolled out the red carpet for the representatives from Riversdale and I look forward to working with them in the near future to ensure our mutual prosperity. We will have other important economic development announcements toward the end of January and I look forward to sharing them when the time comes.

The Honourable Doug Griffiths, Minister of Municipal Affairs, has indicated to Crowsnest Pass’s council and administration that his office will conduct an inspection in response to the recent petition. Minister Griffiths has made it clear that this is not meant as a criticism of council and he states, “The objective of the inspection process is to support the role of council and administration in providing local government services in the community”. This is meant to help, not hinder, the work of council and administration.

As stated in the press release above, the council is happy to work with the Minister’s office to make the inspection run smoothly. Personally I have absolutely no concerns about an inspection and I look forward to the final report as this will help resolve some of the innuendo that has been clouding local politics the last few months. If the inspection shows that we are lacking in some areas, we can continue to improve them. If the inspection shows that we are doing the right things, then hopefully it will finally clear the air with the Ratepayers Association. Sometimes you need that outside influence to put things in perspective and that is very welcome, in my opinion. The inspection will focus on governance practices, financial practices, and the relevance of bylaws and policies.

In the meantime, council and administration intend to carry on implementing the strategic plan that we outlined last year. The Minister previously stated that he applauds our efforts in bringing forward the three year Strategic Plan and a Fire Services Master Plan. For my part, I will continue to champion the long-term planning process so that we can set realistic goals for the community and get away from the “hand-to-mouth” approach of doing business.

I would like to point out that this is the second evaluation done in four years; the one previous to this was conducted by George Cuff and Associates during the term of the last council. A number of the recommendations from the Cuff Report have already been implemented and I am committed to following any new recommendations that may be given.

I am concerned about this petition that is going around, but not for the reasons most people would think. I have, at times, been a protester, a petitioner, and a bit of an activist so I respect that petitions are a part of a democratic process. They can play an important role in giving leaders a chance to hear the concerns of the people the represent. In this case the petition is to have an inquiry into the conduct and/or spending of council, although I have not seen it and I cannot find it online so I am not exactly sure what it is asking. That seems a bit vague to me but I welcome any sort of investigation because there is nothing to hide. Obviously the volume of names on the petition, assuming they are all valid, shows that a number of people are unhappy with the current state of affairs. In some cases residents have told me they signed the petition just to get their neighbours off their backs. In others it was because they think council did nothing wrong and they want an inquiry to exonerate their leaders. I am not downplaying the scope of this petition as it definitely shows that the community is polarized and there is a lot of discontent. It is definitely a big reminder that we have to try harder, if nothing else, to engage the public at large. I am not suggesting that people should not question council. I believe strongly in government scrutiny but I think all of this energy could have been put into something more productive. Instead of working with council, this group has chosen to try and circumvent the local government. I am not psychic but I will offer an educated guess that Municipal Affairs will look at all of this and say that there is nothing wrong with what this council and administration has done, and that the organizers of the petition just do not like some of the choices that were made. Regardless, I take this petition seriously and I am carefully considering how we move forward from here.

I am concerned that a lot of people are being mislead by the organizers of this petition. Like I said, I have no issue with an inquiry but what will it solve? Regardless of what the Ratepayers Association tells people, there is nothing wrong with the financial conduct of this council and administration. I may not agree with every decision council has made, but I do know that the planning has been well considered and the approach has been very conservative. I saw the president of the Ratepayers Association on the news saying they want some sort of intervention – at least an order to stop spending. So we should suspend all services or just those deemed non-essential, like funding to community groups, funding to CSS, weed/pest control, and any sort of projects we are putting in place to bring this community into the 21st century? Just as an example, this same group said they do not want to see the municipality close any facilities yet they demand that we take steps to lower costs. We have a number of buildings that are poorly utilized and falling to pieces – should’t we consider amalgamating the services into other facilities? They talk about the woes of the Peace Officer program but the initiative is already nearing the point where it pays for itself without unduly penalizing residents – something the bylaw enforcement program never even came close to achieving. They talk about getting rid of the Fire Chief yet he is already doing what needed to happen ten years ago by rationalizing the vast array of equipment we have so that we can save money in the future. They demand that council get rid of the three year budget, which I find mind-boggling. To me the three year budget, along with the ten year capital plan and the equipment replacement plan, are the first steps any council has taken toward understanding the longterm costs of running this municipality. We should back away from all of this? I could go on and I have several pages of notes on misleading and contradictory statements by the Ratepayers Association but that will be the topic of another post.

I am concerned that there seems to be some confusion amongst this group, and the public, as to what is called for in this petition. I understand the original intent was to petition Municipal Affairs to remove council but now it is for an inquiry. Some of the petitioners still think, and are telling the public, that this is a petition to get rid of council. A few people have relayed to me that when they asked the petitioners, “who will be in charge if the council is removed?” the response was, “the Ratepayers Association”. I find it hard to believe that anyone would be so naive as to think that Municipal Affairs would insert an unelected group as a new municipal council. If the government were to remove an elected council, they would put in a trustee to run the operation and make all decisions on behalf of the community until at least the next election. This would be a consultant from outside the community with complete control over all spending and practices without input from pretty much anyone. It’s all done by the book at that point.

My biggest concern is that the way this petition is being conducted is causing an even greater rift in our community. A number of business owners said to me that when they did not sign the petition and did not want posters in their windows, they were told that “the group” would be boycotting their business. I’ve had several other residents tell me that when they did not sign the petition, they were loudly intimidated by the petitioners. In some cases these individuals went back several times to try and convince them, sometimes ending in shouting matches. Other residents told me that the petitioners said, “we need to get rid of all these newcomers” because it’s obviously the “newcomers” that are to blame for everything, not 30+ years of poor management. Is this what the Ratepayers Association wants? Neighbours pitted against neighbours and people boycotting businesses because they do not agree with the Ratepayers Association? Isn’t that counterproductive to the ultimate goal of seeing our community grow and thrive? Everyone should be able to have their opinion and participate, or not, without fear of reprisals. This is bullying, plain and simple, and I am extraordinarily dismayed to hear that these tactics are being used by residents in our community.

I do have to say that there is some irony in all of this in that the Ratepayers are complaining about consultants and expenses yet if the Province calls an inquiry, they will force the municipality to hire a consultant, similar to George Cuff during the last term, and our town will pay for it, not the province. Has anyone else out there realized that there was a petition against council, which ended in a consultant hired by council to conduct an inquiry, almost exactly three years ago? Another inquiry will cost the taxpayers another $40,000 to $60,000. It would seem to me that this current petition is largely orchestrated by the same people that started the last one. I was talking with a few seniors who pointed out to me that there have been at least four petitions against different councils in the past 20 years. What sort of message does this send? It seems to say that if you make a decision that some people don’t like, they rally against council and go to the Province to intervene. These are the same people that say we hire too many people from outside the community. I find this an unproductive way to advance a community – intimidate and circumvent your council if you don’t like a decision or the direction. In addition to being organized by some of the same people as last time, residents have observed and mentioned to me on several occasions that this whole thing is being spurred on by a number of unsuccessful candidates from the last few elections. It’s great that people get involved in causes but in some cases the involvement seems to be more for personal political gain than the benefit of the community. For some of them, they have done a complete 180 degree turn from previous statements and actions to the point where the hypocrisy of what they are saying is astounding. I do not, however, use this forum to badmouth individuals, nor was that the point of this post, so I’ll leave it there. Just consider the source of what you are hearing.

In closing, I would like to make one thing clear. I am not quitting. I was elected through a fair process and I will see this through. Leaders sometimes have to make tough, unpopular, and controversial decisions but I will stand by everything I have done. I was looking over my election platform and I feel that I have stuck very closely to the vision I put forth. Obviously other things come up, which you need to contend with, but I have continually plugged away at these issues I have championed. I’m not always successful but that’s democracy; you agree to disagree, you pick yourself up, and you march on. Out of all of this, I hope we can find a way to return to good community dialogue – a situation where we can agree, or disagree, but still move forward as a community. I will also say that I have received dozens and dozens of phone calls, emails, and face-to-face endorsements from residents that council should stick to its path because we are doing the right thing. I am always ready to sit down with those who disagree and talk about their concerns so that we can all try and work together to make Crowsnest Pass a better community for the future.

I have heard some anxiety in the community over what is described as a move to hire a whole lot of new, expensive staff to expand the ranks of the municipality. This is not accurate so I would like to take a moment to give you some facts. Much of what has gone on is a reorganization of positions. What I will do is describe the staff hires and consultant contracts that we have seen since the budget was introduced in early 2011 (ie: the beginning of the current council term). In that time the organization has been realigned from four into three departments: Corporate Services, Operation, Community and Protective Services. The joint role of HR and Legislative Services has been eliminated and brought under Corporate Services.

2011 Changes
Let me note first that during budget deliberations I spoke out very strongly against most of the new positions because I did not feel there was enough data to justify them. Also note that not all of the vacant jobs in the municipality were full throughout the year so we were actually fairly understaffed in 2011.

New – 1 Recreation Programmer (FT); this full time role was recommended in the previous council’s strategic plan. The goal of the position was to help separate the FCSS and Recreation support roles. Additionally, it was meant to promote better utilization of our facilities.

New – 1 Legislative Clerk (FT); assistant to the head of HR & Legislative Services. This role has since changed since the Director of HR and Legislative Services position no longer exists and is more to do with support for Council and the CAO. In retrospect, even though I opposed the creation of this position at the time, it is much better to have a staff member doing legislative work rather than a Director, which is what was happening before.

New – 1/2 Finance Clerk (PT); This part time role was created to help in Finance and is shared with another position.

Moved – Manager of Operations; This role bridges the gap between a director, who is working on policy, budgets, and programming in the office, and the need to have someone overseeing the outside operations.  You need someone in amongst the troops. The previous council eliminated a similar foreman position. Because of this, some people will see this as a new position but it is simply a changed role that is necessary to the operation of the municipality.

Vacant – Director of HR and Legislative Services; This position was not filled after the departure of the director in June. I describe the changes to the position in 2012.

Replacement – CAO (term contract); After the sudden departure of our former CAO, council was left with an important role to fill on short notice. Transitional Solutions (represented by Kevin Robins), a company specializing in restructuring municipalities and providing interim management solutions, was contracted to take over. As a contractor the amount paid was a bit higher than having a permanent CAO in place, however we needed to have someone at the helm and the company took on additional restructuring work in the time period so it was a good fit for the May to November period of the contract. It is important to note that when this company is contracted, they have a representative in place but they have a network of people working for them that do background work so there is a lot of additional value here.

Replacement – CAO (permanent); The permanent replacement for the CAO position. If there is any doubt as to the necessity of this position – yes, we need a Chief Administrative Officer. This is the person that is charged with managing all of the directors and reports directly to the council.

Vacant – Director of Community Services; The director was dismissed August (I stand to be corrected on the date) and the position was not filled because of the reorganization that was occurring in the Fall.

Contract – Peace Officer Program / Director of Community and Protective Services (term contract); Transitional Solutions was hired to create a Peace Officer Program as part of the Community Strategic Action Plan. Ms. Tona has also been working as the interim Director of Community and Protective Services. This cost of this contract is partially displaced by the August to April vacancy I mentioned above.

New – Manager of Protective Services / Fire Chief; This role was created in October but not hired until December, and that was only on a contract basis. This is one role I supported, as did the rest of council. The reason is that it was recommended in the Task Force on the Economy, the Cuff Report, and other studies dating back to 2000. It was also alluded to in the previous Council’s strategic plan. This role is not just Fire Chief, mind you. It will have many other functions with the new Peace Officer Program. The Fire Chief will have other expanding duties, such as inspecting buildings for fire code compliance.

2012 Changes
Replacement – Director of Operations; This position was vacant from November until February when the previous director moved into the CAO role.

Moved – Manager of Corporate Services; This used to be the Director of HR and Legislative Services but that position was removed and put under Corporate Services in the October organization realignment. It is important to note that this position was vacant from approximately June to February so that salary was NOT PAID FOR EIGHT MONTHS. This role now serves an HR management function under Corporate Services, with a portion of the time dealing with managing the staff assigned to finance. Dealing with HR and Legislative issues was really two separate, and almost full time jobs  and it was extremely difficult to find people who had director level experience in both. I will say that I was not in favour of having a combined HR/finance role but I also promised to not micromanage our administration.

Moved – Director of Community and Protective Services; This role has assumed the responsibility of managing both community programming and protective services. Our Bylaw Officer currently reports directly to the CAO and this will simply change the reporting structure so that the CAO is not trying to manage a specific department while focusing on the entire organization. I did express concern about this combined role but, like I said above, I promised to not micromanage our administration.

Moved – 1 Peace Officer (FT); The existing Bylaw Officer position is being changed into a Peace Officer. The salary is virtually the same so it is not what I have heard described as “an expensive” staff position.

Pending – 1 Peace Officer (TBD); This second PO role is not a given. There is still a lot of discussion around how and if we will implement this role. I am personally in favour of having it as a contract position until we are confident we need two positions. There is a lot of work to be done in this area, which I describe in a previous post. It is really important to note that POs are actually a revenue generator. I’m not talking about chasing after bylaw infractions either. If a PO gives three traffic tickets a day, they can bring in more than their annual expenditure.

Replacement – 1 Building Codes Officer (FT); This is an existing position that was vacated in 2010 through retirement. The position was contracted out to a private company but, after arbitration with CUPE, it was determined that this position needed to be filled. The Collective Agreement sets out very clear criteria as to when a position needs to be filled and we abide by that.

We also have a few other CUPE positions that are currently vacant. Some of them may ore may not be filled but that will depend on further discussions with our union.

The idea of a whole lot of expensive new staff is innuendo and speculation so I hope this helps clarify some of what is going on. When an organization is going through a lot of changes, I can understand that there may be confusion.

The Devon plant in Sentinel is over 50 years old and requires ongoing, costly maintenance. I am told that the maintenance has become prohibitively expensive. Apparently the quality of the natural gas in this area is not as high as they see at other refining centers, which means it costs more to produce the finished product out of this location. Combine that with the extremely low price of natural gas and continuing with this plant becomes a losing proposition for Devon. It would be too expensive to replace the plant and it is also too expensive to keep running.

Initially I hoped that this would be a temporary closure but that is not the case. The closure is permanent and the plant will be disassembled. After that the land will be reclaimed. The plant will continue running until October and then it will take approximately six months to complete the demolition.

This will have two negative effects on our local economy. First is the loss of 31 jobs. I truly feel for these people and I hope they can find work elsewhere in the Crowsnest Pass or the area. The mines are definitely looking for qualified people so that may be a ray of hope. The second negative effect will be on the taxation of the site. Once the building is gone, the amount of tax levy taken on the bare land will be greatly reduced. This is definitely a blow when we already need all of the help we can get.

I do have to say that Devon has always been an outstanding corporate citizen in Crowsnest Pass. They have put a great deal into the community over the years and their contributions have not gone unnoticed or unappreciated. While I am not happy about the closure, I can completely understand their decision and I am sure they made it only after a great deal of planning. If I find out any further facts, I will post them here.

The RFP was written in such a way that it allows for a great deal of collaboration. If the developer wants to do more of the upfront work that is required, we can consider that. If they want the Municipality to do more of that initial investment and we recoup the cost through the land sale, we can do that as well. The point is that it will be a process where we work closely with the developer to ensure mutual benefit to both the community and their business. This all follows on the heels of a feasibility study that council commissioned, which turned up very positive results. The study indicates that there is a high demand for hotel as large as 60 rooms on this site.

There are many things to consider about this property. Obviously there is a rather large building on the site and that will be one of the first things we have to address. I will repeat what I said previously on the subject, for which I was quoted in the Promoter: I don’t want to see us putting out money until we have a commitment from a developer. I understand that the site will be more appealing for developers if it is ready to go but I feel it is too risky right now to put $700,000 on the line in hopes of finding a suitor. A good developer will be able to see the potential of the site, with or without the building. Once we have commitment, we can either find the money for demolition or we can partner with the developer. We will have to see what the proposals. say.

I keep using the word “commitment”. This is important. We have seen too many times in our community where agreements were not well thought out, collateral was returned before the development was finished, or collateral was not taken at all. A quality developer on a project this size will be able to bring the financial resources to get the project rolling. It shouldn’t even be a question. Any development of this size has to have that mutual benefit I mentioned. I am excited to see the ideas developers send in for our review.

This is still in the early stages but if a hotel development goes ahead on this site, it will be a real game changer for Crowsnest Pass. Turning untaxed land into new commercial tax rolls is just one part. There will be dozens of construction jobs created for a number of years. Even thought I am certain that much of the material will be brought in from large suppliers, there will still be benefits to local suppliers when the workers need something in a hurry that they do not have on the site. A less tangible benefit will be the way people view our community. You cannot underestimate the value of having a new building of this scale going up on highway frontage. It speaks of change and growth and a new hotel in this location will be a real drawing card to our community.

I want to stress that this is not a guarantee that a new building project will begin any time soon. There are still many, many things that need to happen but I am optimistic that we are turning a page and that this will be a successful project.

This statement from Mayor Decoux sums up a great deal of what was discussed over the last several months.

The Thunder in Valley show staged during the annual Rum Runner Days has become extremely successful and has exceeded the capabilities of the Municipality and allied agencies to plan and stage a safe and successful event.  Visitors estimated in the range of 30,000 have prompted the RCMP to notify the Municipality that they can no longer guarantee the safety of the public or its members.

A Steering Committee was struck to plan and organize the various event functions with an overall objective of guaranteeing public safety and consideration of three components of concern; that being risk and liability to the Municipality, financial implications, and economic benefits to the community. Through the various processes of the committee it was determined that serious planning gaps existed including that of a requirement for an updated traffic plan, creation of an Emergency Operational Plan with the inclusion of a crowd threat assessment component.  Financial implications were also a consideration in their decision for deferment.  Estimated costs to stage this event are anticipated to be in the range of $160,000.

The Municipality appreciates the effort of the Rum Runner Steering Committee  and looks forward to their recommendations pertaining to the re-styling of this year’s edition of the Rum Runner Days and the possible re-introduction in future years of the Thunder in the Valley.

I would like to add that all of the volunteers who have made, and will continue to make Rum Runner Days a success should be congratulated on what they have achieved. This includes the organizers of the Thunder in the Valley portion of the event.

I cannot stress enough that this is not primarily about money. Even with the approximately $150,000 to $160,000 outlay from our taxpayers, the RCMP still say that they cannot guarantee the safety of our public. There have been many complaints over the years and we cannot ignore the concerns of our residents, or our partners in Law Enforcement. When we can get solid traffic management, emergency operations, and financial plans in place, it is plausible that Thunder in the Valley can return. These plans should have been implemented a long time ago but we play with the cards we are dealt. I hope Thunder in the Valley does return as it is a vibrant part of the event but, in the meantime, we have to be realistic about what we can achieve in our small community.

For my part, I volunteer on the Rum Runner Days Committee and I am committed to making this event a success. I hope many of you will consider stepping up to help out. This is not the end of the road, it is just a curve. I am looking forward to summer and Rum Runner Days more than ever. The Show ‘n’ Shine is on, there will be more entertainment, the midway will be hopping, and it will be a really great event so invite your family and friends for some fun in the mountains.

As described in the Community Strategic Plan, the municipality is on its way to a Peace Officer Program. I am concerned about some comments I have heard recently and I think there are misconceptions about what is happening so here is a bit of background.

The previous council embarked on an ambitious Community Standards program part way through their term. It set forth basic standards that are expected in the community, and I was a very vocal supporter of this initiative. I thought that the issue had largely been laid to rest but after becoming a councillor I was still getting the question, “we have these community standards, we have a trained bylaw officer, why is the town still a mess”? After months of digging by council and administration, several issue came to light. One of the biggest concerns is that many of our bylaws are difficult to enforce, if they can be enforced at all. This frustration has been expressed by both our bylaw officer and residents. While important steps were taken to create these community standards, it turns out there are a lot of loopholes and several important supporting bylaws are missing. Programs of this depth often have to go through a period of change and development; you do not necessarily come up with all of the solutions at once and you refine with experience. To me, what we are doing with this Peace Officer Program is simply refining the important work that was started a few years ago. I have read several important studies that all recommend we do more to ensure our community is cleaned up and that our standards are upheld.

The question comes up, “why a Peace Officer when we have a bylaw officer”? POs have much greater ability to enforce both our bylaws and provincial statues than a bylaw officer, and they have far more tools at their disposal. Right now our bylaw officer cannot even have a car towed. There is no sense in enacting bylaws if the person in charge of enforcing them has no real authority to see it through. In addition to enforcing municipal bylaws, POs can deal with traffic infractions more extensively than a bylaw officer. In general, moving to a peace officer program will allow us to reach our enforcement goals more easily while covering a greater number of public complaints and safety concerns at the same time. The way it was described to council is that the program will be 30% responding to complaints, 30% investigating infractions (not called in), 30% community engagement and education, and 10% flexible time to respond to issues that arise.

I read a comment in the letter to the editor that said we are going to become “a police state”. The need to enforce our bylaws does not make us a police state; it means we care enough about the quality of life here in Crowsnest Pass that we are willing to set rules and stick with them. This is critical to our future success. Nobody wants to invest in a community that does not show a sense of civic pride. The majority of residents do have that sense of responsibility but for those who flaunt the rules, there will be consequences. It is not draconian to expect people to follow a basic set of community guidelines. Not doing so compromises the quality of life for other residents. In most every case, the regulations are just common sense and the majority of people will not have any issues. There was another concern in that same letter about the officers carrying shotguns. At the outset, they may not have them and, if they do, they are only to be used to euthanize dangerous or distressed animals under very distinct conditions. We are not going to have gun totin’ Rambo types working for us.

Another question is, “why two, not one officer”? That actually has not been formally decided, although I believe we need to have two. With only one officer, it does not allow us any flexibility for night shifts, or weekends. Problems do not only arise 9-5 on weekdays. There is, of course, the question of costs. In every municipality that has a similar program, these officers pay for themselves. I do not want to give the impression that we are conspiring to prey upon residents in the hope of making extra money. There will be a period of education to start. In some cases, fines may be given in egregious circumstances. The bulk of of fines given by the officer(s) will likely be traffic related. Let’s face it – we have traffic problems. An RCMP officer could sit on Hwy 3 in Coleman and give traffic tickets all day long without end. If you look at Longview, their Peace Officer Program has done wonders to decrease the number of speeders through town; anyone who travels Hwy 22 on a regular basis knows this to be true. These programs work.

We are years, if not decades, behind in the development and application of our community standards. This program will make the Crowsnest Pass a better place. It will take time but I believe this is what the majority of our residents want, and I am committed to help making this happen. As always, my number and email are on the right side of the page so feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this or any other issue.