On March 12, Council got together to discuss the proposed 2024 Capital and Special Projects items.
Moving into the budget discussions, there was $5,529,076 in special projects proposed for 2024, about $1.8 of that covered by PRA funding and grants.
Staff broke down projects into three categories: high priority, medium priority and low priority.
All the high priority items—which included sixteen items, from removing vegetation at the industrial park lagoon at a cost of $14,000 to a trails master plan for $200,000—were approved.
But not all projects were so lucky.
For instance, council removed $42,000 from the budget by removing a new golf course beverage cart.
Staff had included this project as a medium priority.
Also down at the Golf Course, a line item for Golf Cart Storage Planning was removed from the 2024 projects list, a $25,000 item.
“While I can appreciate that folks want someplace to store their carts, and in a year where we’re watching what we’re spending, I’m not in favour of spending tax dollars on this,” says Councillor Gulick.
“It’s hard to justify $25,000 just to look at it,” says Councillor Hofman. “I need to see a business case for something like this. There has to be a revenue source for justifying something like this.”
A proposal to spend $20,000 to build a dog park was also not passed. That would have seen a purpose built dog park down in the Chamberlain park, though a second option would see ball diamond #3 converted to a dog park.
Mayor Krakowka says he’s concerned that he went for a walk in that area and was “astonished” at the amount of dog poop that wasn’t picked up, even though the district already provides bags down there. “I worry about the liability. Pet owners need to be responsible for their pet. The issue is that the space is not being upkept by the pet owner. Is there any liability to the district around issues like Parvo if we build a dog park or repair a space. It now becomes a district asset.”
Councillor Gulick says she’s not in favour of this because there are some pet owners in the community that show that there’s not the level of responsibility in the community. “There’s some people who want to socialize their dogs. I go walking my dog, and three dogs come running at me. They yell ‘my dogs are okay,’ and I reply ‘my dog is not.’ That’s what ends up happening here. I don’t see the benefit of a dog park. Are we going to be sure that everyone that goes and uses a dog park are aware of those nuances? We’ve seen that pet owners are not responsible. I see poop bags hanging in the trees. I’m not in favour of this.”
Councillor Noksana says she’s in favour of it. “I see this as a solution to the loose dog issue. People with reactive dogs aren’t going to a dog park. The people who want their dogs to socialize, to be off leash, they can go to the dog park. The uncollected poop would be in one area. It’s a solution for many of our issues. Yes, I want to see what insurance is needed. I know it’s been done successfully in other communities: Dawson Creek has a dog park. I believe Chetwynd does, too.”
Mayor Krakowka says when the issue came up a few years ago, the idea was to have a group take on the responsibility for the dog park. “There was no desire from the pet owners then to take it on. The concern I have is just staff having to clean up dog feces. I don’t want to see staff having to clean up after pet owners. Maybe a group has to come forward. Staff is already at its limits, now we are going to add cleaning up dog feces.”
Councillor Dusseault, Councillor Noksana and Councillor Hofman were opposed to removing the idea from a dog park, but it was ultimately removed, though, says Councillor Dusseault, “if we had a group come forward and say they want to work with council, that would be better.”
Councillor Norbury says he is in favour of dog parks, but believes there needs to be some more discussion before one goes ahead in Tumbler Ridge. “I think we’re jumping in with two feet and we need to slow this process down.”
Also removed from the capital and special project list is the idea of extending the gym into the racquetball court area. As this item might need to go out to a Request for Proposal, there was no actual amount given. This item was considered a low priority.
Not everything that did not go ahead was completely kyboshed. For instance, a medium-priority proposal for Trailer-Mounted Traffic Control Lights ($60,000) to replace district staff who currently have to stand around to flag was put on hold “until staff can bring information on life expectancy, warranty, and cost-saving in labour.” The item returned at the March 27 meeting, and remains in the budget.
A low priority item—a shed to cover the sand and gravel at the golf course to keep it from getting wet in winter—was also put on hold until a report on the costs of the materials that is being covered and the amount that is asked for the budget. That information came back at the March 27 meeting of council and the item was removed from the budget. “I can’t justify spending $25,000 to save $700 a year,” says Councillor Hofman.
At the end of the day, Council removed $112,000 from the Capital and Special Projects Budget, reducing the total spend to about $5.42 million.
Trent is the publisher of Tumbler RidgeLines.
