Sir: I have encountered a longstanding issue of incomplete and subjective reports to council unnecessarily contributing to costing Chatham-Kent millions of dollars in failed capital projects, while creating unnecessary tax hikes to an already fragile municipal economy.
The Bradley Centre report to council described only a $91,000 annual loss, so let’s build it. We now find a $1.4 million to $1.5 million annual gross cost with at least $1 million in annual losses.
Our company spent a number of hours attempting to show city hall the Bradley project would lose at least 10 times the amount suggested in the report. Like many recommendations from the private sector to not proceed with some capital projects, our municipal team forged ahead wearing the proverbial blinders, only to realize, yet another oops. Problem is the oops come out of the taxpayer bank account not the municipality’s.
Similar to a number of incomplete and subject reports to council over the years, do you think council would have voted to build the Bradley centre if the report responsibly and accurately showed a $1 million to $1.7 million annual costing? The Kinsmen Auditorium proved to only lose $83,000 annually.
A more recent issue is in regard to the fire department and the hiring of a new fire inspector. During budget discussions, council and administration initially removed an additional hire from the fire budget, a decision I would assume was based accurate and complete information. Another budget meeting in open council placed the added hire back.
A budget presentation was then presented to council, showing that the added hire would cost $121,554, while generating nearly $50,000 annually in revenue, having a one-time cost of $6,000 for PPE (personal protective equipment).
Information I obtained from city hall confirmed the new hire wage was based on a 2012 and not a 2016 negotiated salary, which significantly increases the annual base salary. When adding a 29 per cent employee burden, tax-dollar funded, plus associated costs, raises the presented wage of $121,000 to $161,000. Over the term of employment for the added hire adds about $5.6M to our already $130M annual wage, benefit and perks taxpayers have to shell out.
Additionally, the revenues generated in the report of about $50,000 annually, was not only based on speculation but will be an added charge to taxpayers for Fire Department services. These are the actions causing increased taxes with fewer services, making Chatham-Kent a less attractive place to invest and live.
It appears the information provided council and the public was not based on facts but hype, colour and “feel good.” The comparator figures in the report to Windsor’s balance of fire inspectors to Chatham-Kent was not mentioned in relationship to population, housing and business density. In comparison, Chatham-Kent already had many more inspectors per square kilometre in this regard than Windsor.
The fire department earlier hired five additional part-time people to reduce overtime costs. Additional fire inspector workload could easily be covered with existing fire personnel. We once again add unnecessary costs to an already fragile Chatham-Kent economy.
John Cryderman
Chatham
