Few things say summer in Tumbler Ridge like the sight of young people in PPE, out mowing the ditches or watering flowers.
Historically, these positions have been funded by a Canada Summer Jobs (CSJ) Grant.
However, this year the district has not applied for funding.
According to a report before council, this decision was made for four main reasons.
Firstly, writes Lisa MacKenzie in her report, the Summer Jobs Grant program does not align with the district’s needs. “This misalignment makes it challenging to effectively utilize the CSJ program’s resources, as they do not cater adequately to our specific requirements,” she says.
Secondly, says MacKenzie, “the financial support offered by the program covers only a portion of the total expenses associated with employing summer staff. Specifically, the funding provides $8.70 per hour for a maximum of 35 hours weekly, up to eight weeks.” Previously, the average funding received amounts to approximately $22,201 annually. “When balanced against the administrative efforts required, the return on investment has not proven sufficient to justify continued participation.”
Along with that, the cost of administrating the program is significant. “The program imposes significant reporting obligations and administrative overhead,” she says. “The effort required to comply with these requirements detracts from our ability to focus on other critical tasks and projects within the district, thus impacting overall productivity and resource allocation.”
Finally, the program has restrictions on who can apply. “The CSJ program’s restrictions on eligible applicants limit our ability to recruit individuals ideally suited to meet our community’s specific needs. This limitation further reduces the program’s effectiveness as a community development and service tool. Given these factors, we have concluded that the CSJ program, in its current format, does not meet our strategic goals, nor does it provide sufficient economic or operational benefits to warrant participation this year. We believe that reallocating the resources typically directed toward this program can yield better outcomes when applied to other initiatives more closely aligned with our community’s needs.”
Council was split on the concept. Councillor Norbury started the discussion by proposing to cut the budget in half. “I don’t think we need four people out there with weed whackers. Why don’t we have three? Two. So the ditches only get mowed once every couple of weeks.”
He was opposed by Councillor Hofman and Gulick, who want to see the service levels remain the same, and by Councillor Noksana, who wanted to see 25 percent reduction to the parks department.
When the motion was put on the table, Councillor Norbury chose to move Councillor Noksana’s number to reduce service by 25 percent, which was supported by Councillor Hofman.
Councillor Gulick doesn’t believe that all avenues have been pursued for funding this. “We’re making decisions based on assumptions. I think there’s other ways to do this, and I don’t think this is the year to do it….I want to make sure when we’re making statements, we’re careful about how we’re making our choices. I believe we’d be going backwards. Tourism is the secondary industry in our community. It’s the one that happens for us when the mines shut down. Do I think some long grass is going to make a difference? Not necessarily. Do I think that playground equipment not being maintained will make a difference? Yes.” She says that the District should look at using some of the reserve funding to cover at least part of the shortfall. “Bottom line for me is that nothing that has been said so far that makes me think taking a million dollars away from the reserve is that big of a hit.”
Councillor Norbury argues that utilizing reserves for operational processes is bad business. “We’ll take from it and take from it. We need to look at reductions in operational so we can sustain over the long term. There’s been talk about how if we kept up with inflation with our tax rates, we’d be in a better state financially. Yes, we would be. But taking reserves to pay for operational? It takes away from tomorrow. It’s our duty to look at cost reductions or increase taxation, and where I’m at is to look at cost reductions. It feels like we would be taking from tomorrow to pay for today.”
Councillor Noksana agrees with Norbury. She says this is 25 percent of the budget taken away from seasonal workers, not from the whole district. “This is what we as a community can afford this year.”
While council was split on the motion, with Councillors Klikach and Gulick and Mayor Krakowka opposed, the motion passed. According to staff, the reduction will net the district about $35,000 in savings towards the $1,335,151.50 deficit the district was facing at the start of budget discussions.
Council chose to keep the summer students earmarked for the Roads Department, Protective Services and down at the golf course at 100 percent.
For the summer day camp, council reduced hours from 6.5 hours to four hours daily, with a motion to discuss in September on how the summer program worked.
As always, these numbers are not final until the budget is passed. Council has until May 15 to pass the budget.
Above photo, from the archives: Summer students repairing the roads last year in this file photo. While council cut portions of the summer student positions, they kept road maintenance levels at full.
Trent is the publisher of Tumbler RidgeLines.
