Anyone up for a swim.....

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Because ...... they're more affordable for a proportion of the population? And they're in demand.

I don't think the city should be in the business of making golf "more affordable".

Tried to get a round on Shaganappi in the summer?

No, but I have played Highland several times and it is clearly lacking in funds; or at least any profits are not going back into the facility.

No, I'm not aware of any private ones. That's my point. They're a public service that runs at a loss.

Libraries lose money therefore they should be cut? Or

Or cut them so they can be privatised. There's no reason why they the service couldn't be fulfilled by the private sector.

Would be a great one way of promiting literacy with all the extra costs.

As I already mentioned; I do believe there are somethings various levels of government should be involved in. Libraries fall into that catagory.

The idea behind rec centres IMO was that they provide a service at an 'affordable' cost for all. To cut them or privatise them = worst idea ever.

And I think if they are going to be run by the city; they should compete with the private sector ones (gyms, etc) in order to be viable financially.

I agree individuals and families should not be prevented from these due to cost; we already have programs for those who suffer financial hardship. Even the province is bringing in a tax credit for fitness.

All I am really saying is that these things should be looked at. I would like to see the financials for some of these.
Are they making money or at least self-supporting? Or are we losing money year after year?

As taxpayers we are shareholders in the city; I am not sure our board of directors have done their due diligence.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by fotze

Off topic post,

Quite alright. My basement water is now water under the bridge, so to speak.

looking through the city finiances last week, I believe I saw that the golf courses actually make more money than they spend, so its not really subsidizing senior golfers. I do agree they don't need to be in that business. The revenues from the initial influx of the money gained from selling them would probably be greater than the profits from the courses currently generate. Probably sell the things for $15 million or something. Generate $750k per year in a simple 5% savings account. Mind you bronco would blow it on some foam finger campaign or something, so may as well keep the things.

Do you remember where you saw the figures? I have been digging and they seem to lump so many things together, it is hard to get a handle on where the shortcomings are.

I also seem to remember reading somewhere that our water / sewage is self sufficient. That is the operations costs are all recouped thru the fees we pay. For the life of me I cannot find that back.

[Suave]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I don't think the city should be in the business of making golf "more affordable".



No, but I have played Highland several times and it is clearly lacking in funds; or at least any profits are not going back into the facility.

Highland is a private course, not city owned.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Suave

Highland is a private course, not city owned.

I stand corrected.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I don't think the city should be in the business of making golf "more affordable".



No, but I have played Highland several times and it is clearly lacking in funds; or at least any profits are not going back into the facility.

Why not. Are you against the idea of health and wellness for all? Or should it be an elite thing? Gets the pensioners out and about.

Highland: You're arguing against yourself now that private courses are "doing a better job".

Originally Posted by First Lady

As I already mentioned; I do believe there are somethings various levels of government should be involved in. Libraries fall into that catagory.

And I think if they are going to be run by the city; they should compete with the private sector ones (gyms, etc) in order to be viable financially.

I agree individuals and families should not be prevented from these due to cost; we already have programs for those who suffer financial hardship. Even the province is bringing in a tax credit for fitness.

And rec centres potentially doesn't?

What is your criteria for deciding what government should be involved in? I'm using demand. If they're white elephants and not being used then fair enough, if they're providing a net benefit to society and the city as a whole then I'm not opposed to my tax dollars going towards them whether I use them or not.

You wanna make rec centres competitive with private gyms? Apples and oranges. One's a fitness centre so to speak, the others a muli-facility, multi-use, multi-age, multi program centre.

Originally Posted by First Lady

Are they making money or at least self-supporting? Or are we losing money year after year?

Is the Foothills Hospital?

Not everything has to be profit making and financially competitive to be considered money well spent or beneficial.

Anyways, glad to hear you got your problem sorted out. Things could be worse.

I paid $50 to the city of Ottawa this summer to have my mains turned off and another $50 for the pleasure of them coming out to turn it on again.

I've since managed to get my hands on my own personal mains key.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Why not. Are you against the idea of health and wellness for all? Or should it be an elite thing? Gets the pensioners out and about.

Highland: You're arguing against yourself now that private courses are "doing a better job".

And rec centres potentially doesn't?

What is your criteria for deciding what government should be involved in? I'm using demand. If they're white elephants and not being used then fair enough, if they're providing a net benefit to society and the city as a whole then I'm not opposed to my tax dollars going towards them whether I use them or not.

You wanna make rec centres competitive with private gyms? Apples and oranges. One's a fitness centre so to speak, the others a muli-facility, multi-use, multi-age, multi program centre.



Is the Foothills Hospital?

Not everything has to be profit making and financially competitive to be considered money well spent or beneficial.

Anyways, glad to hear you got your problem sorted out. Things could be worse.

I paid $50 to the city of Ottawa this summer to have my mains turned off and another $50 for the pleasure of them coming out to turn it on again.

I've since managed to get my hands on my own personal mains key.

I am not against health and wellness, not sure what I said that gave you that impression.

I never said private enterprises always do it better.

All I am trying to do is generate some discussion of things the city "could" look at.

I have also stated, there are things government does have to cover. Taxes are a reality and necessary; that does not mean they should be given free reign to spend willy nilly.

I watched the proceedings today and I heard was excuse after excuse why they couldn't reduce spending.

Everytime they are asked about it by the media they claim "We will lose essential services". I just don't think they have dug deep enough. If a family or business finds themselves short of funds they do not look at cutting "essentials"; they look at frivilous spending and reduce there.

For the city that might mean:

no gym for their employees;

a functional foot bridge instead of "world class tourist attraction";

less money for the "arts";

and so on.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I am not against health and wellness, not sure what I said that gave you that impression.

It was when you suggested "potentially" selling off recreation centres if they weren't making money. Or getting rid of other public leisure facilities (golf courses) for the same reason.

Both IMO contribute to the health and wellness of people. To suggest "potentially' selling one of whilst questioning why the city is even bothering with the other could be construed as being against health and wellness.

Originally Posted by First Lady

I never said private enterprises always do it better.

I never said you did.

Originally Posted by First Lady

All I am trying to do is generate some discussion of things the city "could" look at.

Fair enough. So, again, what is your criteria for deciding whether or not something gets sold off or the city stops spending money on it? I was arguing based on demand.

Just trying to understand your decison making process.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I am still waiting to see the "cuts" you mentioned would be in the budget.

I think they need to cut "in house" costs. They could start with turning off the computers, lights and other non-essential equipment at city hall overnight.

That's a good suggestion. Let's see the private sector follow suit for environmental purposes as well.


Council is piddling down to the nitty-gritty of the budget, and it's slowing going to happen through blood, sweat and tears. Every department has to justify their budget demands, and Council decides what gets axed - and things are getting axed. For example, we have subscriptions to a number of different news sources, and we have decided to save almost half a million dollars by cancelling a number of those subscriptions.

Just because you don't see it on the front page news doesn't mean cost-cutting isn't in full swing.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Fair enough. So, again, what is your criteria for deciding whether or not something gets sold off or the city stops spending money on it? I was arguing based on demand.

Just trying to understand your decison making process.

I agree, demand is part of the equation. As is necessity and viability.

The higher the necessity and lack of it being available through other means (private for example); the more we will have to absorb losing money on it. (Policing for exampe)

If it is of lower necessity and if it is available through other venues; we should be seriously considering whether or not we should be involved.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

That's a good suggestion. Let's see the private sector follow suit for environmental purposes as well.

I agree so far as from the "enviromental" purpose; but from a monetary stance, the city is wasting other peoples money.
(like the city worker who creeped my blog for 24 hrs )
Businesses and individuals are free to waste their own money any way they see fit. (Short of being illegal)

Council is piddling down to the nitty-gritty of the budget, and it's slowing going to happen through blood, sweat and tears. Every department has to justify their budget demands, and Council decides what gets axed - and things are getting axed.

I know, it was painful to watch.

For example, we have subscriptions to a number of different news sources, and we have decided to save almost half a million dollars by cancelling a number of those subscriptions.

Perfect example of how something can go on for years before someone looks at it with new eyes and questions it.

Just because you don't see it on the front page news doesn't mean cost-cutting isn't in full swing.

Well, it should be in the news or minimum posted front and centre on your.... err, I mean their website. They should have a running tally sheet on how much they have saved and how they saved it.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Well, it should be in the news or minimum posted front and centre on your.... err, I mean their website. They should have a running tally sheet on how much they have saved and how they saved it.

How much would maintaining that website/tally cost?

Is the accounting required to keep that webste/news up to date already happening? If so then the cost would depend on how much it needs to be processed?

Would it be worth it? I mean I don't care if they save 45cent per stapler bought in the month of November.

Where would you draw the line?