I have always been amazed at the volunteer spirit in this town. It seems nothing is beyond our grasp when we have these amazing people leading the way. Our world class volunteers are fundraising for a women’s shelter, regularly provide services to those in need, lead us with environmental initiatives and even have international success. Simply amazing! Our volunteers are one of the key pieces of ‘social infrastructure’ that helps make Cochrane such an amazing community. I was cautiously optimistic then to hear about council seeking to ensure a more equitable method of obtaining and/or continuing funding for things like the Boys and Girls Club, Senior’s on the Bow (SOTB), Family & Community Support Services (FCSS), the library etc. I am very impressed with council’s courage to enter into what could be an emotionally charged subject. I’m a big believer in the saying, ‘put your money where your mouth is’ or more succinctly, provide stable and predictable funding instead of just talking about it. I’m not suggesting council and/or administration does not care, I’m just talking about ensuring we give equal consideration to social infrastructure as we do with other budgetary items. To ensure this prioritization takes place, my suggestion is to set in policy that a certain percentage of the annual budget is automatically put towards our social infrastructure. I would further divide this funding into two categories, one for ongoing support and another to form a contingency fund. By setting social infrastructure into policy council will have demonstrated a commitment to the social infrastructure of the town. With stable and predictable funding, agencies and initiatives would be able to better focus on doing the work instead of simply fighting for survival. By making contingency funding available, the town will be better positioned to take advantage of opportunities to support our volunteer’s and/or initiatives when they come up. Lastly, by ensuring the funding is present within the budgetary process, council and/or administration would make a fundamental step in removing one of the key issues point that comes with having to ‘pick and choose’ one agency or initiative over another simply because of a lack of funding. I will acknowledge that this suggestion does not address all the problems but I believe it is a crucial first step and I hope it could be part of the discussion. Dan Cunin
