Westlock County’s open house to review the 2016 audited financial statements turned out to be less about the documents and more of an opportunity for ratepayers to express their ire to councillors face-to-face.
At the July 27 event held at the Westlock and District Community Hall, where about two-dozen people came out, Division 6 resident Pauline Bitz said her concern is the lack of communication between the community-at-large and her councillor.
“One of the biggest issues is what has he done in his four-year term? Nothing,” she said. “I finally got a phone number for him so we’ll see how easily he is to get a hold of. He claims he answers his calls but I’ve talked to other people and they say, ‘no, never been able to get a hold of him.’”
She also noted that the roads are in bad shape and while the weather hasn’t co-operated the last two summers, grader operators were also responsible. She also thought the computer tablets sitting in the county basement were wasteful and should be sold off.
“I think we’re really being mismanaged with the funds being taken,” she said. “There has been $20,000 that was paid to the previous CAO, he’s now in (Nova Scotia), which was not authorized by council that I know of and that is a definite no-no. That’s misappropriation of funds.”
Pibroch-area resident Garold Adams said the hamlet has had drainage issues for the last 19 years and despite approaching his councillor several times, nothing has been done.
“It’s a farce,” he said of the open house. “It’s a wasted evening and what did this cost us to rent this room, and for what?”
Bevin McNelly, a resident of Division 1, said he came to see what the councillors’ views were on the roads and the Tawatinaw ski hill.
“They’re concerns for me but there’s a lot of concerns here that I’m not happy with,” McNelly said. “I feel our councillors have given up all their power in the last 10, 12 years and they’ve got no power left anymore and somehow we have to get that back.
“We voted them in so they should have a say. Unfortunately when I have a problem now, I have to talk to someone in the office and I don’t agree with that. I need to talk with the councillor and he needs to talk to the person I have a problem with.”
Not everyone had complaints, however, like Martin Meindertsma who was new to the area and came to observe. “If you don’t know too much, it’s easy to be critical,” he said.
Councillor feedback
Coun. Dennis Primeau asked the attendees on their view of the Tawatinaw ski hill and the airport and he said the views were consistent.
“They’re for the plebiscite, they want to get an opportunity to make a decision on Oct. 16, and on the airport we need to collect our taxes. The tax holiday there has to end. Basically that’s the message I got here,” Primeau said.
Coun. Ron Zadunayski said ratepayers he spoke with took issue with councillor salaries, which are roughly $42,000 with benefits.
“Several ratepayers brought that to my attention that our salaries are totally ridiculous,” he said. “It’s way too large a part of our budget.”
Asked whether he would take a cut, he said he “definitely” would but wondered if staff would be willing to. Coun. Bud Massey added that if leadership took a cut then everyone else should.
On the other hand, Coun. Albert St. Louis said he wouldn’t take a cut with the way things are structured, but would if divisions were allocated individual budgets. Most of the councillors who were present — with the exception of Coun. Ray Marquette who did not attend — were displeased with the format, having expected more of a meeting set-up with the auditor presenting the financial statements with highlights, followed by a Q&A.
St. Louis said the meeting should have been held earlier in the year but did note that the councillors, not administration, passed the resolution approving the open house.
“I expected something different where they could express their disappointments and they didn’t have the opportunity,” Zadunayski said.
Reeve Don Savage said he wouldn’t want this format to happen again.
“I don’t like it. It’s nice to have more of a structure. Put some chairs out and let people ask questions to Tina, and that’s why Tina is here.”
Auditor Tina Viney was on hand to explain the documents and also agreed the format should have included a presentation portion.
However, a handful of ratepayers did take the opportunity to speak with her one-on-one, where she pointed out the councillor and administrator salaries, the net asset position of the county at the end of December and where to find that information.
“There was a fellow that asked about taxes and linear assessments, which is oil wells and things like that,” she said.
“He had some questions about that because the county doesn’t have as much revenue as they once did. That’s been a struggle.”
County manager Leo Ludwig noted that the financial statements featured asset depreciation, which shows what the county paid for its assets, such as land, utilities, buildings, equipment, bridges and vehicles, and what those assets are worth today. That depreciation is based on the original cost divided by the expected life of the asset.
Due to age, county roads showed the greatest depreciation and were valued at two per cent of the original $94.5 million investment.
“What that shows is we need to ramp up our reinvestment in that infrastructure,” Ludwig said.
“That’s something, as municipalities, we didn’t used to do that financial exercise. When we had our assets on our balance sheets, they were always recorded at cost and we, as municipalities, didn’t do depreciation. So a 60-year-old road was still on the balance sheet at the same value as what it cost us to build it.”
A few attendees did say they intended to look over the audited statements more closely at home. The audited financial statements package is available at the county office.
