Stuff happens. And strange stuff always seems to tumble out of muni hall during budget discussions.
Earlier this year former district manager of operations Gord Prescott asked council to approve up to $10,000 so a registered biologist could assess the local "beaver problem." Apparently the hired hand would devise strategies to halt the encroachment of the saw-toothed rodents.
Council voted unanimously to support the recommendation, without discussion.
In a climate of budgetary restraint, the district seemed to have no problem coming up with the bucks to outsource a study that could easily be undertaken in-house by the Community Development Department, the Environmental Department, the Operations Department, or the Planning Department.
Surely somewhere in that labyrinth of muni operatives somebody has the capacity, or the mandate, to handle wildlife "events."
Recently more than 20 local organizations applied for just over $200,000 in grants-in-aid. According to Rob Kirkham, it was tough to decide who should get funded since "there's no criteria to base these decisions on."
A number of long-time council watchdogs wondered why no standards were established earlier, given that this tradition of cap-in-hand grant applications dates back to the days when Pat Brennan ran the show in the '60s.
Corinne Lonsdale was leaning in the direction of denying all grant requests. She believed that tapping into the district's skimpy budget to replace provincial government cutbacks was not an option.
Some of her council colleagues had no such cash flow scruples back in January of this year when the 樱桃视频Climate Action Network applied for a $30,000 grant to explore locally grown produce opportunities.
Greg Gardner was hesitant about letting an advocacy group steer a project that has district land use implications. Doug Race concluded that district funds should not be committed without going through the proper budgetary planning process first.
To further cast doubt on these proceedings, during the grant allocation discussion Bryan Raiser, by his own admission, appeared confused.
"I'm still kind of getting my brain around what should and shouldn't qualify for grant-in aid If we go with the recommendation, is that going to work?" he wondered.
Notwithstanding these misgivings, the motion was passed by a vote of three to two, supported by councillors Lalli, Heintzman and Raiser, with councilors Lonsdale and Kirkham absent.
So in effect, a minority of council voted to shell out $30,000 of taxpayers' money to study local farming alternatives.
To Raiser's credit, in an ensuing meeting he seemed to have a better handle on the situation when he motioned to prioritize subsidization for the most essential "safety net" fund seekers, such as the Hospice Society, the Food Bank and the Women's Centre.
Now miraculously council has discovered a $400,000 surplus. That fortuitous slush fund will go towards debt and district departments in need of a cash infusion, as well as tax breaks for various industrial properties.
Although this sudden fiscal largess makes good economic sense, the optics are bad. None of the money appears to be earmarked for the "non-essential" grant-in-aid petitioners who were left to fend for themselves.
