Don’t cut for the sake of cutting
Sir: What’s the vision for Chatham-Kent?
At the June 25 meeting council, approved a service sustainability review (SSR) to take at least three years and cost more than $1 million. The SSR would consider what municipal services could be cancelled, reduced, or done more efficiently. The process recommended by staff and adopted by council gives no consideration to what municipal services should be added or expanded.
The staff report points out that there is no clear strategic direction provided by council. The author of the report stated that staff recommendations might in some cases go against what (little) strategy does exist.
Without a coherent vision for the future of Chatham-Kent, no rational decisions can be made on what services should be cancelled, reduced, added, or expanded.
There is a community strategic planning committee of council made up of nine citizens and two councillors. Their reports to council are regularly applauded and then thoroughly ignored.
All staff recommendations to council must state their relevance to the strategic plan, but councillors never challenge these claims. Nobody seems to care whether municipal actions are in fact supportive of the declared strategy.
Chatham-Kent needs a strategic vision developed and fully committed to by council. Most organizations would develop that vision in an offsite two-or-three day workshop.
We’re not starting from scratch. Most councillors have at least a gut feel sense of the kind of “community of communities” Chatham-Kent should be or should strive to become.
Strategy development is often based on what is called a SWOT analysis – a review of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats.
At the June 25 meeting, one councillor summarized the weaknesses – high unemployment, low average earnings, loss of population, crumbling infrastructure, weak tax base, low education levels, etc.
Our understanding of our strengths and opportunities is much less clear. Coun. Sulman has initiated a move towards Chatham-Kent becoming a centre for degree-granting post-secondary education. It’s an idea that has merit.
What other similar strength and opportunity initiatives can council identify in an intensive workshop?
Analysis of the threats factor takes real guts and vision.
Agriculture is the basis of the Chatham-Kent economy, and may be under severe threat from a number of directions
• Corn prices have been supported by its use as input for ethanol production. That use is under severe challenge and may be displaced. How will that affect C-K agriculture?
• Global warming is moving the viable corn-growing region steadily northward. That may favor C-K in an interim period. Will it eventually put us out of the corn-growing business? How will the climate change affect other crops?
In other sectors:
• There is no compelling reason for Union Gas to keep its head office in Chatham. Most of its executive business is Toronto-oriented (the financial and regulatory center) and the ultimate head office is at Duke Power in North Carolina, so what can Chatham-Kent do to cement its relationship with Union Gas and the hundreds of jobs it brings to our communities?
• What are the implications of the current federal downsizing for Chatham-Kent? How many jobs will be lost out of the Judy La Marsh building and the post offices? What can Chatham-Kent do to help affected citizens re-establish viable employment in CK-?
With a strong strategic vision established for Chatham-Kent, the sustainable service review could also be reduced to a two- or three-day workshop instead of the million-dollar, multi-year process now planned.
A few simple questions:
• What are the programs (services) mandated by the federal or provincial governments, and what are the minimum required levels of service under those programs? Are we exceeding those minimums? Why? What would be the savings if we delivered only the mandated minimums? What would be the detrimental effects on our communities? What is the rational level of service and its related cost?
• What programs (services) are discretionary for the municipality? Which ones are fundamental to the quality of life in our communities? Of the others, rank them in terms of importance to the strategic vision. Assign costs.
• What are the funding sources for the desired programs? Federal, provincial, fee for service, property tax?
• What property tax level is needed to fund the strategy?
• What percentage of income for accommodation (property cost plus taxes) is appropriate for a “rejuvenation” investment in our community? Housing costs are very low in Chatham-Kent.
We can afford an increased investment in our communities. Failing that investment puts us in a race to the bottom, and a downward spiral.
Let’s choose a positive vision for Chatham-Kent.