Moose Jaw Forum

Many of the realist around here have professed for quite some time that this multimess would jeopardize the cities financial well being long into the future. Well the reality of that is starting to become more apparent according to our city admin. City admin states in the 10 Year Unfunded Capitol Budget that; “The only way to address the Unfunded Capitol Budget is to find additional sources of funding for these necessary expenditures. If the City is required to get this funding from the municipal tax base, it would require a municipal tax increase of 92%”.
http://www.moosejaw.ca/council/pdf/dec19council.pdf

Welcome to reality everyone!

Or another tactic that has worked well in the past is to artifically minimize tax increases, just don`t fix anything, and sell off your assets.

But I gotta tell you, the line that is too old is ``we aren`t getting our fair share from other levels of Governement.`` Give that one a rest already.

And if you think you`re gonna sell your house and get out of town before everyone else gets wind of the pending increase, you can always sell it to one of the many out-of-towners standing in line to buy a house in the town who spent too much!

Looking at the unfunded capitol budget I think it is high time this community started putting its fiscal house in order. They can start by sending all third party boards back to their budgets to come up with cuts to them; enough of these year after year increases. In fact, knowing full well this multimess was going to put a drain on these operating and capitol budgets, they should have made it clear before asking for these third party budgets that they wanted to see cuts to them. Other levels of government have found ways in the past to cut costs when needed and it is high time this municipal government showed some financial responsibility and did the same.

Why is the city supporting the multimess and fieldhouse in the first place? It seems to me that when all this was beginning it was quoted that these buildings would increase our economy, not be a drain on it. So no operating costs should be passed over to them....if they can not be self supporting, the close the doors. That money saved could then be put back into infrastructure.

On Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:56 am, zephyrn posted:

Why is the city supporting the multimess and fieldhouse in the first place? It seems to me that when all this was beginning it was quoted that these buildings would increase our economy, not be a drain on it. So no operating costs should be passed over to them....if they can not be self supporting, the close the doors. That money saved could then be put back into infrastructure.

This seems to make sense, but why limit it strictly to Mosaic Place and the Fieldhouse? After all, on a percentage basis they provide a better return on their subsidization than any other City of Moose Jaw facilities, so if they must be self-supporting why not hold the Kinsmen Pool and Arena, the Wally Boschuk and Bert Hunt Arenas, the Phyllis Dewar Pool, and the library to the same standard? Additionally, continuing this avenue of fiscal responsibility, City parks should also be self-supporting - put fences around them and charge an entry fee to recover operating and maintenance costs. Let those who use these facilities pay fees sufficient to balance the books; why should those who do not use City parks have to subsidize them? All of these savings could be put back into infrastructure; however, some of the money may have to be diverted to the police and fire departments to take care of the problems that would arise because those who use the types of facilities closed due to fiscal prudence would find some other ways to fill their spare time. Then again, if they cannot live within the constraints of the laws of the land, we could always use the judicial system to take care of them and everyone knows it is the epitome of responsible budget use with its lawyers, judges, courthouses, prisons, guards, etc.

The next savings we can go after (although not a municipal expense) is to make those who have children pay the full cost of their progenies’ education; after all, why should those of us who do not have offspring be forced to pay the price for those who made the decision to procreate? I am sure there are many other frills we can eliminate because not every single taxpayer uses them; I have no doubt other Forum members will provide some ideas.

Then why don't we subsidize kids who bowl- they might be out committing crimes instead of paying 100% of their recreation costs. What about the gym club that pays ALL its own bills- no subsidized somersaults there. But hockey- let the taxpayer largesse kick into gear. And any assertion that subsidization rates at the new facilities are better than elsewhere will probably remain an unsubstantiated claim.

At 10:35 am, Mon Dec 19, 2011, old fart posted:

Then why don't we subsidize kids who bowl- they might be out committing crimes instead of paying 100% of their recreation costs. What about the gym club that pays ALL its own bills- no subsidized somersaults there. But hockey- let the taxpayer largesse kick into gear. And any assertion that subsidization rates at the new facilities are better than elsewhere will probably remain an unsubstantiated claim.

Good question, why do we subsidize some activities and sports and not others? I do not know the answer, but I doubt that hockey is the most subsidized activity in the City, that honour would undoubtedly go to swimming. There are also numerous other sports and activities that take advantage of the taxpayers' largesse by using City facilities; why are they not required to fully cover all costs? Then again, many of the contributors to the Forum are talking about this as if it was a policy limited to Moose Jaw - this is anything but the case; is there a City in Canada that does not likewise subsidize certain sports and activities and not others? As for the claim that the comparison of subsidization rates may be unsubstantiated, look at the annual budget of each, compare its expenses to its earnings, and do the math.

It`s one thing to subsidies recreation but it is totally incompetent to do it to a point as to jeopardize the financial responsibilities to cover basic necessities of a community like water, hospital, safety etc.

Next thing you know One Standard will be trying to tell the taxpayer that spending $61,000,000.00 on the Multi-mess (Field house & Mosaic Place) - hockey rink & walking track - was a good investment for taxpayers. And that roughly $2,100,000.00 for 18 months of operations to support a small narcissistic group is good value! Considering the infrastructure investment that is needed for core services this could not be further from the truth! If we had strong leaders that were willing to make the tough fiscal decisions and put taxpayer money into core issues that serve the majority of people then we would not be in the current fiscal situation that will likely lead to more pain for the taxpayer to support a frivolous venture!

At 11:38 am, Mon Dec 19, 2011, jty posted:

It`s one thing to subsidies recreation but it is totally incompetent to do it to a point as to jeopardize the financial responsibilities to cover basic necessities of a community like water, hospital, safety etc.

This makes sense; does the City have a list of priorities with necessities ahead of non-necessities? I understand that, although a certain number of amenities may be required to sway new people to decide to locate in Moose Jaw instead of another town or city, these types of facilities and services should still be second to necessities. If I were a prospective resident, I would certainly look at the availability of recreation programs and facilities for my family, but I would be more concerned about the condition of City streets and sidewalks, a safe water supply and access to top-quality medical care. I still have to wonder how much use the indoor track at the Fieldhouse would see if the City kept its streets and sidewalks in good condition and free of snow and ice in the winter, a practice that would go a long way toward improving road safety. As for the recreational facilities the City already has, the goal of running them in the most financially prudent manner possible while providing maximum access at a reasonable rate to the user seems to be the national standard across Canada. The question then becomes what amount of subsidization is acceptable and what sports and activities should be subsidized? The answer to this is going to be based upon each individual’s opinion and, as the saying goes, “opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one and everyone thinks their’s is the only one that doesn’t stink.”