'Twas the Week Before Christmas

In case you were living under a rock this past week, here's what transpired in Alberta politics (some creative license taken):

'Twas the week before Christmas, when all through the House

Every creature was stirring, including many a louse.

The flags were hung by the podiums with care

In hopes that some visitors soon would be there.

Albertans were nestled, all snug in their beds

While visions of good government danced in their heads.

And Martha in her kerchief, and Henry in his cap,

Had just settled their brains for a long winter's nap.

When out in the Leg, there arose such a clatter,

Alberta sprang to Twitter to see what was the matter.

Away to our phones, we flew like a flash,

Ripped open the cases, and uncovered the trash.

Speculation abounded upon the #ableg hashtag,

Something was afoot, but how long would it drag?

Then, what to our wondering eyes should appear,

But a miniature sleigh, and eight tiny reindeer.

With a smiling driver, charming as hell,

I knew in a moment it must be Danielle.

More rapid than eagles her coursers they came,

And she whistled, and shouted, and called them by name!

"Now Wilson! now Bikman! now Fox and Pederson!

On, McAllister! On, Rowe, on Hale and Anderson!

To the top of the chain! To the other side of the hall!

Now dash away! Dash away! Dash away all!"

As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,

When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky.

So to the PCs, the coursers they flew,

With the sleigh full of deceit, and Ms. Smith too.

And then, in a twinkling, we saw the unthinkable,

The downing of a ship, that seemed quite unsinkable.

As we drew back our heads, and turned back around,

Across the aisle, Ms. Smith came with a bound.

She was dressed all in black, from her head to her foot,

And her clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot.

A bundle of betrayal, she had flung on her back,

And she looked like a peddler, selling her smack.

Her eyes how they twinkled!  Her dimples how merry!

Standing next to a PC, who didn't call her scary!

Her droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,

As she proceeded to impart, one final blow.

Prentice stood by, with a Machiavellian grin,

and inside he thought, "It's over, I win."

He had a smug face and butterflies in his belly,

Would his promises stick, like a bowl full of jelly?

He was bubbly and cheerful, a right jolly old elf,

And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself!

A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,

Soon gave me to know, I had much to dread.

He spoke a few words, then went straight to his work,

Dismantling his opposition, then turned with a jerk.

The deed was done, Ms. Smith was pacified,

And giving a nod, they walked away gratified.

They sprang to their sleigh, to their team gave a whistle,

And away they all flew like the down of a thistle,

But I heard them exclaim, as Christmas drew nigh,

Democracy. Who cares? and to integrity, good-bye.

*WHAM*

A punch to the gut.

That's what it felt like hearing the news about the floor crossings at the Alberta Legislature.  I've spent the last few days experiencing a whirlwind of emotions from disbelief to betrayal to anger to infuriation.  The moves by Danielle Smith and her eight colleagues have been the most deceitful, dishonest acts I've ever had the displeasure of experiencing.  Even as I write this, the actions of these MLAs remain unfathomable, incomprehensible.  There has been much hurt inflicted upon Alberta both to me personally and to all citizens. 

Much has been written about what this will do to democracy in the province, the classless acts of the MLAs, and the impacts to Wildrose staffers right before Christmas.  I agree with much of the commentary on what this means for Alberta.

I did want to comment on one of the negative consequences of these moves.  That being the breeding of political cynicism. 

As a political nerd, I spend much time trying to engage people in politics...especially at election time.  I have spent countless hours trying to convince people that their vote counts and that they can choose which people and parties represent them.  I constantly have to fight against political cynicism and apathy that keeps people away from the polls and from engaging with politics in any manner. 

So often I hear the dreaded, "WHY?" Why does it matter?  Why should I even bother?  My vote means nothing.  Nowhere is this sentiment expressed more acutely than within my generation.

Acts like those we witnessed this week only serve to reinforce these notions. 

During the last election, I had a close friend who I begged and pleaded with to vote.  After much convincing, he took the plunge and voted for the first time.  He informed me this week that his vote meant s*%! and that he will never vote again.

What do I tell him?  Well there's only a few bad apples that make everyone else look bad?  Yeah, that one goes far.

This only goes to reinforce to politicians of all stripes at any order of government:  Integrity matters.  And Albertans are watching.  That is, those who haven't already tuned out.

Budget 2015-18: The Rationale Part II

 

And we're back!

 

I failed to mention in the last post that as a reference, every $1 million dollar decision results in roughly a 1% tax increase/decrease.

 

Sports & Recreation

The Leisure Centre Pool Reopening - Not Supported

I've been consistent all along in my belief that it would be financially irresponsible to reopen the Leisure Centre pool.  With the Eastlink Centre pool only operating at 43% capacity, I don't believe there would be sufficient demand to make the operation sustainable.

I believe that the numbers that were presented to us validated my assumptions.  To operate the Leisure Centre pool, an operating taxpayer subsidy of $1.1 million each year will be required which represents 67% of expenses!  To put this in perspective, the Eastlink Centre subsidy only represents 32% of expenses.

I also believe that given the high costs of retrofitting pools, the $11 million price tag for the retrofit will only balloon from there.

However, in the end, Council voted 6-3 in favour of reopening.  It is expected to be opened to the public in 2017.

I would like to note that without the reopening of the pool, we could have seen no tax increases for 2015 and 2016 and reduced increases in the following years.

Eastlink Centre

There were $6.1 million in various projects that Council could have funded to upgrade the Eastlink Centre.  In the end, just under $1 million was approved.  Given this year's deficit, I was not prepared to invest significantly in the facility.

I did support several smaller items and was pleased to see them go through:

• Child Mind children's room improvements
• On-deck washroom in pool area
• Sound baffles to reduce noise in aquatics area

Operationally, Council chose to not increase the $4 million subsidy that the Eastlink Centre has been receiving.  Expenses will be curtailed and increased user revenues will put the Centre back on track.

CKC Field

Grandstands  - $2,315,250

Scoreboard - $398,000

This project would add a grandstands (with bleachers, washrooms, changing rooms) and a scoreboard to the artificial turf fields at Charles Spencer school.  Council felt that this project could be cost shared with private donors, but there was debate as to what that amount should be. 

I was comfortable with us funding 70% of the projects.  Once the votes were cast, $2 million was decided on for the grandstands in 2016.  I did not vote for this amount.

$200,000 was decided on for the scoreboard in 2015 which I supported.

Plug: we are currently looking for Corporate/Private donations to fund the rest of these projects!

SCORES Partnerships

$2 million

There has been strong pressure put on the City by the Province to partner with school boards to fund recreational facilities that are attached to new schools.  I am supportive of these types of partnerships when there is a community need for a facility.  However, when there is no identified need, I think that it is an unfair expectation to have us partner with every new school that comes online (and with GP's growth...that can add up!)

Therefore, I made the motion that we honour our commitment to the Catholic School District to partner with them for $1 million, but that we not include the other unallocated $1 million.  The motion passed 6-3.

Community Group Funding

$17.4 million

I like to break community group funding into four areas: FCSS, Culture & Heritage, Recreation & Sport, and the Library.  Grande Prairie is very fortunate to have so many community groups that enhance our quality of life in so many ways.  I was very pleased to support many of the groups who applied. 

However, I did raise some concerns with our overall spending amounts.  Community group funding for 2015 was increased by 26%, or almost $1 million (now at $4.8 million).  This will increase at around 5% each year after meaning that approximately $17.4 million will be given to community groups over the next four years.  I felt that the increase in this budget line was too great and I made some difficult decisions as a result.

FCSS (Family & Community Support Services)

$1.2 million

I was very pleased to support 16 different local agencies who provide such valuable services to our community:

John Howard Society

Big Brothers Big Sisters

Catholic Family Services

PARDS

Cool Aid Society

HIV North Society

Suicide Prevention Resource Centre

PACE

GP & Area Council on Aging

GP Hospice

Volunteer Services Bureau

Circle of Life

Odyssey House

Sunrise House

Pregnant & Parenting Teens

GP Council for Lifelong Learning

The FCSS program was established by the Province a number of years ago to support a variety of community groups based on social needs in the community.  The program was established with a 80/20 funding split meaning the Province would fund 80% while municipalities funded 20%. 

Over the years, some municipalities have chosen to spend over and above the 20% as is the case in Grande Prairie.  In 2014, our share represented 43% to the Province's 57%.  With the increases this year, we've moved our share to 50% in 2015.  In comparison, cities double our size, like Red Deer and Lethbridge, have remained at the 20% share level.

One of the constraints that the Province has put on municipalities is that they have not increased FCSS funding since 2009...it has remained flatlined.  I believe this is shameful on behalf of the Province.  With the Province's plethora of revenue generating abilities, I believe it is contingent upon them to assist in these valuable programs.  If they insist on having municipalities fund these programs, they should relinquish some of the revenue generating tools they have to the municipalities.

As this doesn't appear to be happening any time soon, I think we should be more prudent with our spending in this area so that there is greater pressure on the Province to act.  As such, I made the motion to increase FCSS funding by 5% this year, an amount that I felt represented an increase in line with inflation and population growth.  The motion did not pass.  FCSS funding in 2015 will now be $1.2 million representing a 63% increase.

GP Library

$1.5 million

I supported the Library's request for a 5% increase in funding which I thought was reasonable.

Culture & Heritage

$550,000

I was very pleased to support a number of our culture and heritage groups which add so much to our city's vibrancy! 

Centre for Creative Arts

GP Boys’ Choir

GP International Street Performers Festival

GP Live Theatre

GP Performing Arts Guild

Prairie Gallery Society

South Peace Regional Archives Society

Reel Shorts Festival

Peace Regional Independent Media Arts

There was one concern I had within this budget.  The Art Gallery asked for an increase of funding of 39% this year bringing its total to $286,000.  The reason for the large increase was a significant drop in provincial grant money.  I again felt that this was another area in which we couldn't let the Province off the hook by filling in the gap they left.  As such, I proposed a more modest increase which did not pass.

Recreation & Sport

$380,000

This area saw the following organizations funded:

Wolverine Wheelchair Sports Association

Canadian Paraplegic Association (Alberta)

Peace Wapiti Speed Skating

Wapiti Striders Track Club o/a Wolves

GP Sports Council

This budget area saw a major increase in funding this year (183%).  This was largely due to some significant requests from the Nitehawk Ski Hill.

Nitehawk was asking for $50,000/year in operational funding and $300,000 for capital purchases split over two years.  In the past, Nitehawk has received funding from the MD of Greenview (which it is located in), from the County, and the City based on a 50/25/25 cost share.  This was also the request this year.

I really struggled with this one.  Nitehawk provides such an incredible recreational option in our region and is well used by City residents.  However, I wrestled with whether the City should be providing funding to the society. 

My hesitation to fund Nitehawk is based on two reasons:

1. The MD of Greenview could easily fund the entire operation.

The MD of Greenview (pop. 5000) receives $65 million in bonus money each year mostly from the oil and gas sector.  The City receives $1 million by comparison.  The MD has so much money coming in, it literally cannot spend it all and ends up saving it (they have $90 million in reserves) or giving it away to other municipalities like Valleyview, Fox Creek, and Grande Cache ($6 million/year).

My belief is that since the MD overwhelmingly has the financial capacity to assist, it should be responsible for helping Nitehawk along. 

2. The City has limited dollars to spend and must make tough decisions as to which recreational options it funds.

I'm in favour of providing public dollars to support recreational options that will encourage the health and wellness of our population.  To that end, I support putting money into programs which are lower cost and can be accessed by a wide range of people.  This is why I am so passionate about our parks and trails.  They are relatively inexpensive to operate and can be freely accessed by the young, old, rich and poor in any season of the year.

While ski hills do provide great recreational opportunities, they are not very accessible to a wide range of users.  There is the transportation to get to the hill and then there is the high cost of participating that makes downhill skiing not accessible to many people.  I would rather see that money spent in areas which provide more value to a greater number of residents.

With these reasons in mind, I moved that this item be unfunded.  The motion was defeated.

RCMP Officers

Addition of 12 Officers - Supported

$1.7 million

Very pleased to support the addition of 12 new officers over the next four years.  Our 80 current officers have very high caseloads and the addition of new officers is sorely needed.

Downtown

Montrose Greenway project - Not Supported

$2.1 million

 

This project would create a greenway with trees, benches, fountain, etc. on the south side of the Montrose Cultural Centre.

While I'm in support of landscaping this area, my lack of support for this project was based on timing. First, with all the other constraints we have on us, this was not a priority for me right now.  Second, we are currently working on a plan for what we want to see on the entire Montrose site. I thought that funding the previously designed greenway was premature as it may not fit into our overall vision for the site. 

The project will proceed in 2016 however based on the 5-4 vote in favour.

Rehabilitation and Streetscape Upgrades - Supported

$20 million

One of Council's focuses in our Strategic Plan was a commitment to build up and enhance our core.  One of the limiting factors to growth in the downtown is that our water and wastewater infrastructure is so old...some of it dating back to the 1930s.  There are a number of developments that we could not physically support because of inadequate underground infrastructure.

If you make the decision to tear up roads to fix the stuff underneath, it gives you the opportunity to redesign the stuff on the surface when it's all put back together.  As such, we have an opportunity to completely reimagine the downtown core and it excites me to see what the community can come up with!

We engaged a consultant to give us an estimate of what a rehabilitation and redesign of this magnitude would cost.  The results came in showing that we're looking at a $100 million project. Ouch. But how do you eat an elephant?

Council has made the decision to invest in this project block by block.  We will be putting $5 million towards the project each year, for the next four years at least.

I was a supporter of this project as I see a lot of potential for downtown. Revitalization efforts in other communities have livened up the core of the city and provided ample opportunities for economic development.  I can't wait to see the end result!

 

 

And there you have it!  My decisions for Budget 2015-2018.  There were a number of other items discussed, so if you'd like to know where I stood on those, just let me know.  I don't know if it's reached the "cheesy" level yet, but here it goes anyway:

 

Let's Thrive, GP!

Budget 2015-18: The Rationale Part I

 

 

After five full days of discussions, Council budget deliberations have come to a close (although there still can be tweaks until it's ultimately voted on).  I'd like to give an account of which projects I voted for and the rationale behind them.

 

First some overall thoughts on the budget:

 

I was very pleased that Council supported a wide range of low cost/high usership projects such as significant upgrades to the South Bear Creek and Muskoseepi parks, upgrades to paths and trails, support for the Community Mobility Plan and playgrounds.  I was also pleased that key roadway projects were included in the budget.  I am excited for our commitment to downtown and to see the positive spin-offs that our infrastructure investments will have.  I think the city's "thrive" factor will be increased immeasurably! 

 

I was disappointed in the overall level of spending though.  I believe that there were a number of projects and initiatives passed that are very high cost for a small number of users.  As a result, what I believe to be significant tax increases are planned for the next four years (between 4-5% increase each year meaning an average household will be paying $500-600 more per year by 2018). 

 

These increases could have been averted with more prudent spending decisions.  I made my budget decisions based on keeping tax increases at under 1% over the next four years and this indeed could have been attainable with the choices outlined below.

 

With growth in assessment alone, the City conservatively expects to collect an additional $2.5 million each year for the next four years.  This means that Council has an extra $2.5 million to spend each year without raising taxes.  Any tax increases we see are over and above that amount.

 

But without further ado, here is the rationale behind my decisions on the major projects:

 

Roads

68th Ave Twinning (from Poplar Drive to 108 St) - Supported

$10.8 million

Not much explanation needed here.  This was the number one project I heard was wanted from the community and I was pleased that we included it in the budget.  Construction on the bridge will start next year with the road twinning to be completed the year after.

 

92nd Street Twinning (from 116 Ave to 100 Ave) - Supported

$5.5 million

Another sorely needed project that I'm pleased went through. Construction will begin next Spring and be complete by the Fall.

 

112 Street Extension (over railway tracks) - Supported

$1 million

This roadway extension will provide an important linkage within Richmond Industrial Park.  It will allow traffic to cross between the north and south side of the park without having to go around to 108 or 116 St.  This project will be completed in 2018.

 

Road Rehab & Overlay - Supported

Over $32 million will be spent over the next four years to fix up existing roads.  I can already hear every suspension system in the region breathing a sigh of relief. 

 

Traffic Signals - Supported

$4 million

New traffic signals will be put at the following intersections:

• 105 St. & 116 Ave (on bypass) - 2015 (contingent on provincial funding)
• 92 St. & 108 Ave - 2015
• 92 St. & 111 Ave - 2015
• 110 St. & 104 Ave (behind Walmart) - 2016
• 97 St. & 132 Ave - 2016
• 68 Ave & CKC East (by St. Joes) - 2017
• 97 St. & 116 Ave - 2017
• 108 St. & 132 Ave - 2018

 

There were two additional signals that were passed which I did not support:

• 110 St. & 107 Ave - 2016
• 92 St. & 132 Ave - 2018

 

At $500,000 a piece, I didn't feel these were high enough priority intersections for me to support over this budget cycle.

 

Snow Plow/Sander - 2016 - Supported

$300,000

It snows here. Our road network continues to expand. Need to keep up. Plain and simple.

 

Revolution Place Expansion

$50.5 million - Not supported

 

This was a biggie. I voted on this item consistent with my stance during the election. You can read the blog I wrote here.  I was relieved to see this item not funded after a 2-7 vote.

 

 

Parks, Trails, and Pathways

 

South Bear Creek upgrades  - Supported

$2.2 million

One of the biggest commitments I supported in this budget was significant upgrades to South Bear Creek Park.  This park is truly one of GP's gems and I felt we needed to really invest in its infrastructure.

 

Upgrades include:

 

• Ball diamond renewal - 2015-18
• Washrooms for beach volleyball - 2015
• Campground upgrades - 2015
• Sani-dump expansion and upgrade - 2015
• Pavilion upgrade - 2016
• BMX track upgrades - 2016
• Additional ball diamond - 2016
• Dugout rehab - 2017

 

In addition, $340,000 was added to refurbish the Wee Links pitch and putt course.  I did not support this amount as I would like to have seen a cost share with a private operator.

 

Muskoseepi Park Enhancements - Supported

$1.4 million

 

Highlights include:

• Jr. Playground Replacement & Resurfacing - 2015
• Infrastructure replacement & renewal (includes updating benches, garbage cans, and signage, much of which haven't been renewed since the park was opened many decades ago; new signage will include kilometre markers for trail users to measure distances) - 2015-18
• Prowler equipment purchase (to groom tobogganing hills) - 2015
• Sr. Playground Replacement & Resurfacing - 2018

 

In addition, I supported the replacement of all the old single lane yellow bridges found within the park.  One will be replaced each year.  Also, in 2017, a new pedestrian bridge will be built to link the trails at the new hospital to the Muskoseepi trails.

 

Another major investment that will affect park users are upgrades to the Reservoir.  Over the years, much sediment has accumulated here and has started to affect its drainage capabilities which could pose a flood risk if not addressed.  In 2016, we hope to dredge the Reservoir (contingent on some funds from Province/Feds). 

 

While the focus of this project is a matter of safety, there will be benefits to park users as odours coming from the water will be drastically reduced and the Reservoir will be more accessible to kayaks/canoes.

 

Parks

A number of investments are being made to Parks. 

 

We've invested in some additional staff and equipment to improve the quality of our turf throughout all our parks.  Having higher quality turf will greatly reduce the number of weeds that find a home in our city as well as improve residents enjoyment of parks.

 

I was pleased to support our skateboarding/BMX community with the  inclusion of $475,000 for a skateboard park expansion/addition in 2017.  I look forward to working with the GP Skateboard Park Association as we plan this project.

 

We will be investing $1.8 million over the next four years to finish replacing all the old wooden playground structures in the city.  A new playground will also be installed at Dave Barr in 2015.

 

Pathways

 

A main focus of this Council was the implementation of our Community Mobility Plan.  A number of significant commitments came out of that plan.

 

• Pathway/sidewalks - $13.5 million will be spent over the next four years to put in new and replace existing pedestrian pathways and sidewalks.
• Sidewalk & Trails plow - to be purchased to improve clearing of pathways in winter
• Benches, garbage cans, doggy poop bag dispensers - $200,000 will be spent to add these items to our pathways along main roads over next four years.

 

One project I was a big supporter of was to connect the Muskoseepi trails in the south to the trails the County built in the Dunes area.  Unfortunately, it was defeated 4-5.

 

Transit

Bus Stops & Shelter upgrades - Supported

$125,000

 

These improvements would add some new shelters, upgrade shelters with heaters, and add pathways to bus stops to improve accessibility.

 

3 New Buses - Supported

$1.1 million

 

Contingent on provincial funding of $2.2 million.  If provincial funding is approved, these buses would facilitate additional bus routes being added.

 

Electronic Fare Collection System - Supported

$153,000

 

 

Contingent on provincial funding of $297,000.

Head on over to Part II!

Budget 2015-2018: Ingoing Thoughts

Council begins budget deliberations tomorrow where we'll develop a budget plan for the next four years.  There are several thoughts that will be guiding my decisions this budget cycle:

1. Let's Thrive! Here's where campaign slogans come to life. I will be supporting a number of quality of life items that will make GP an even better place to live. In particular, I will be focusing on items that have lower operating costs and are accessible and affordable to a wide range of people such as our park and trail systems.  Of course, the priorities laid out in Council's strategic plan will play a key role in identifying budget priorities.

2. We have among the highest property taxes in the province.  This reality will be influencing my decisions regarding the overall budget impact.  I believe we need to keep our spending in line with inflation and population growth.

3. I will be focusing much attention on economic development.  By making strategic infrastructure investments now, we can enable further growth within the city. 

4. There are a number of areas where I believe we have extended our mandate and are paying for items that should be paid for by the provincial or federal governments.  By allowing this mandate creep, we normalize the practice and set up an expectation that we'll continue to fund certain programs that should be paid for by another order of government.  Given the limited taxation powers cities have (essentially property tax), we need to ensure we are only funding items within our purview. 

Tomorrow and Friday we'll be discussing the capital plan.  Throughout the year, Council has referred a number of items to budget and administration has taken all those items and produced a draft budget for us to dissect.  Here is a list of all the major projects (above $1 million) we will be discussing.  The "recommended" items have a funding source attached to them, while the "not recommended" items do not.  Of course, it is at Council's discretion to move items around.  These items are spread out over the next four years.  You can find the full documents here.

Recommended

68th Ave Twinning from 108 St. to Poplar Drive - $10.8 million
Pedestrian links - Sidewalks/pathways - $13.5 million
92 St. Twinning - $5.5 million
Leisure Centre Upgrade - $11 million ($6 million already allocated in previous budgets)
South Bear Creek upgrades (Ball diamond renewal, building upgrades, sani dump, campground upgrades, BMX track upgrade) - $1.8 million
Parks upgrades - $2.7 million
Transit bus purchases - $2.2 million
Transit Terminal - $3.4 million
Grandstands for new artificial turf field - $2.3 million
Downtown infrastructure upgrades (water, sewer lines) and Streetscape renovation - $20 million
Road rehab & overlay program - $32 million
Bear Creek Reservoir upgrades - $4 million
Traffic Signals - $9.8 million
Service Centre Expansion - $5 million
Storm Line & Pond upgrades - $4.75 million

Not Recommended

Revolution Place (formally Crystal Centre) Expansions - $56 million
CKC West Side Soccer Field - $1.8 million
Dave Barr Field House addition - $8.8 million
Pedestrian Overpass - $2 million
108 St. upgrade to 6 lanes - $5.6 million
116 Ave & 84 St. road construction - $10.1 million

Accountability with the Eastlink Centre Deficit

budget approved by council are reported to council.*"

While there is no reason to suspect that the City Manager was complicit in any "cover-up" or other malfeasance, he is ultimately responsible for the financial accounts of the organization. As such, Council will be watching closely how this crisis is handled by the City Manager and will evaluate his response and decisions during his performance evaluation in January.

City Council has also asked that we and the public be given updates every two weeks from now until the ship is righted so that everyone is informed about the progress being made.

City Administration
There have been several accountability steps taken by administration. While the employee who was originally responsible for the accounting system set in place at the Leisure Centre is no longer with the City, not all fault can be put squarely on their shoulders.  It was recognized that there were gaps in some accounting functions and Finance has been given orders to review these functions to ensure consistency in each department. 

The Eastlink Centre is undergoing an internal operational review where management is being made to streamline their operations in order to "stop the bleeding" as it were.

There was also a recognition that the entire operational model needs to be reviewed, particularly in regards to staffing.  An external firm is being hired to carry out this review.


I understand that to some people these actions will never be enough and those sentiments are valid.  I just ask that you judge how the situation is handled once all the dust has settled.  We continue to learn more about the scope of this issue as the weeks progress and we won't stop asking questions until every rock is unturned. 

*taken from Part 6 of the Municipal Government Act of Alberta

 
 

Eastlink Centre Operational Deficit

Like many of you, I was shocked and angered to find out about the large operational deficit at the Eastlink Centre.  I thought it'd be helpful to share the full picture of where we're at, share some personal thoughts, and inform you on what is being done about it.

The Eastlink Centre had a budget this year of $12 million.  On the expense side, the Eastlink Centre is on budget.  The issue arises on the revenue side.  This year there was $7 million budgeted in revenue from user fees and $5 million in revenue from taxpayer subsidy. 

Due to an accounting error, Eastlink Centre revenues were overstated by over $2 million. This meant we were only on track to have $10 million in revenues, leaving us with the large deficit.  Some immediate actions were taken to address the issue. A number of temporary and casual staff had their contracts ended.  Even by scaling down the operations, a $1.75 million deficit will be left. Other departments have been instructed to rein in discretionary funding to minimize the impact.  We also have a financial stabilization fund that can come into play should we need it.

This situation brought two major questions that needed to be asked:

1. What is being done so that this error doesn't happen again?

and second, perhaps more importantly,

2.  Why are revenues down so significantly?

To answer these questions, there are a number of things happening:

An internal review of accounting practices is taking place to ensure conformity with standard City practices.  Council has asked for financial training systems to be reviewed to provide an assurance that our staff have all the relevant knowledge pertaining to our financial systems and to eliminate errors like this from happening in the future.

In regards to the revenue situation, there is going to be an external operational review completed on facility.  There have been ongoing service reviews of City departments and the Eastlink Centre was on the list.  The review has been pushed up and we hope it will be completed before the end of the year.

The review will do a thorough breakdown of all Eastlink Centre's services.  It will determine appropriate staffing levels, look at operating models, provide input on revenue generating capabilities and suggest areas where expenses could be reduced.

The revenue situation concerns me greatly.  If we don't bring in more revenue with user fees or find areas to reduce expenses, increased taxpayer subsidies may be required, which I'm not hearing much of an appetite for in the community.

On a related note, I am even more convinced that re-opening the Leisure Centre pool is going to be a much costlier proposition than expected.  If we're struggling with revenues for our flagship rec centre, I fail to see how we're going to generate enough revenue to keep TLC sustainable.

Summer/Early Fall Update

Here's some of what I've been up to for the past couple months:

 

Personal Vaycay

Cally and I spent the first part of the summer fulfilling a dream of ours to go to Europe.  We toured around seven countries for five weeks and were able to really experience a number of different cultures.  It was also an excellent learning opportunity as I got to see how cities operate over there.  We kept up a travel blog if that piques your interest.

Tourism Strategy

Council has been working on City-specific tourism strategy to compliment our position within the Grande Prairie Regional Tourism Association.  Several discussion points included how we can capitalize on the opening of the dinosaur museum, what we can do with signage and boulevards to beautify the city, and whether there is a need for a big attraction (possibly world's largest something??).

Downtown Enhancement

Council has had a couple of visioning sessions where we've discussed what we'd like downtown to be.  We will be engaging the public for feedback in the coming months.  We are currently waiting on a report that will identify all the sewer/waterline/storm water infrastructure upgrades that will be needed should we decide to encourage higher density development.

Montrose Site

In conjunction with the downtown enhancement project, we have began making plans for the empty Montrose site to the south of Montrose Cultural Centre. While nothing has been written in stone, there seems to be much support for a performing arts/multimedia centre and a town square/green space. 

Seven Generations Tour

Several Council members took part in a tour of a number of Seven Generations wellsites.  It was valuable to see firsthand the level of oil and gas activity in the area.  It's good for Council to have an ear to the ground with regards to economic activity as we can be better informed as to the anticipated pressure that will be put on the City's infrastructure and services.

Deputy Mayor/Community Events

I served my first term as Deputy Mayor and had the chance to run my first Council meeting (fyi--everyone survived).  I was able to attend several events put on community groups including:  Youth Emergency Shelter, Ronald McDonald House, Big Brother/Big Sisters, Free the Children, PACE, CSD Homeless Initiatives, Suicide Prevention Resource Centre, and the Mission Heights Neighbourhood Association. 

Wapiti Corridor Planning Society

We are currently working with residents of Grovedale who have had some concerns with the plan.  The Society will be working with Sustainable Resource Development to incorporate our recommendations into their Land Use Framework.  Consultations on the Framework begin in the new year.  You can find out more about the plan here.

Joint municipal meetings

We have held a couple meetings with our municipal neighbours to discuss a number of topics ranging from regional transportation priorities to water lines to advocacy efforts.  It's always great to connect with other Councillors in the region to hear their perspectives.

Municipal Symposium on Regional Governance

At the beginning of September we hosted a symposium where we brought together advocates and critics regional municipal governments.  The information that was provided was highly valuable.  You can watch clips of the symposium here.

Special Olympics

I was appointed to the 2015 Alberta Special Olympics board earlier this year where I've taken on the responsibility of making sure each of the 850 athletes and coaches are fed during their 3 days here.  I've been able to meet a lot of new people and am having a lot of fun with it!

AUMA

Council attended the yearly meeting of the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association.  It was a great time to meet with colleagues across the province and to meet with provincial cabinet ministers.  There has been a strong push for significant changes to municipal systems as the Municipal Government Act is reviewed.

Budget

City Council and staff have been gearing up for budget in one month's time.  Starting Nov. 13th, we begin deliberations for the upcoming 4-year budget cycle.  We are going to be using some new engagement tools to get public input on the budget...so stay tuned!

Swimming Pools and All That Jazz

The results are in. The results of the Aquatics survey that is.  Council will now decide on Monday which items they are going to send to budget deliberations in the Fall.

I want to thank everyone who participated in the survey and who have engaged with me in one of the many conversations I've had on the subject.

By taking into account the survey results, the consultant's report on aquatics, discussions I've had with our Facilities department, and the engagement I've had with residents, I have several thoughts going into Monday's vote.

Here they are:

1. Bear Creek Pool

It is very obvious that many GP residents want an outdoor aquatics option.  65% of survey respondents indicated they wanted to see it re-opened.  I would like to see the re-opening of the pool. 

To me, it is not a question of "if" it should be re-opened but rather "how" it should. I still think that a wading pool with a splash park would be of greater value to the community and would be cheaper and more accessible to a greater number of residents.  The pool is over 50 years old and I think it's time to look at how an outdoor pool can best serve a population that has grown by 700% over that time.

Example of wading pool in Lethbridge, AB

2. Eastlink Centre Upgrades

This one was a bit tricky to read.  I think the survey should have separated the sound baffles and the movable floor into separate questions.  While 70% of respondents did not want the upgrades, in the 53 pages of comments, there seemed to be lots of support for the sound baffling.  As the noise level is the number one concern I hear from Eastlink visitors, I will likely be supporting the sound baffle expense.

I think we could have done a much better job of explaining what the purpose of a movable floor would be.  In any case, there hasn't been much support for this option and I don't see it as a high priority at this time.  Depending on the outcome of the Leisure Centre pool, it may be something we want to look at in the future.

3. The Leisure Centre pool

There was no clear consensus on what should be done with the Leisure Centre pool.  Nearly a third of respondents wanted it opened strictly as an 8 hour a day programmed facility (swimming lessons, fitness classes, user groups).  A third did not want it re-opened.  And just over a third wanted it opened for a full 16 hours to include programming and public swim times.

It's clear that there is an appetite for a smaller aquatics centre.  It is also clear that residents are concerned with our high taxation levels and want to ensure our service levels are appropriate for the population we support.

I agree that a smaller aquatics centre would be a benefit to our community.  For me, it is a question of timing and the most responsible use of taxpayers dollars.

With that said, I think that refurbishing the Leisure Centre pool would be an irresponsible use of taxpayers dollars.  Our Facilities department has indicated that the $10 million rehab cost will likely balloon to between $12-15 million once all the dust settles.  Old pools are highly expensive to restore and maintain and it is estimated that the capital and maintenance costs will be in the $30-35 million range over the next 10 years. 

This is just for a basic rehab to get the facility running again...no significant upgrades.

To put this in context, Beaverlodge just built a brand new facility for $11.6 million which includes a swimming pool, leisure pool with therapeutic uses, a fitness centre, a multi-use space and an indoor walking track.

I also believe that there is still a great deal of swimming capacity left at the Eastlink Centre (see last post for more on the details).  In fact, if the Leisure Centre pool were to reopen, we would have the greatest level of pool capacity per capita in Canada.

As this is the case, I think that the Leisure Centre should be re-purposed for other uses.  I mentioned in my last post that there are variety of ways in which the space could be used (field house, track & field training, squash/racquetball courts, indoor skate park, specialized fitness facilities for seniors and people with disabilities, and so on.)  Any of these options would cost a small fraction of the cost of re-opening the pool.

I believe this option would give a greater number of residents more choice in the recreational options they can pursue.  It would also be more affordable for people as users fees would only be a fraction of those at the Eastlink.

The consultant's report on aquatics mentioned that GP would be able to viably support a smaller pool in 10 years time.  I think that the growth projections used in the study were very conservative though and we could likely support a smaller pool sooner than that.  I feel that it would be a wise course of action to plan for a new facility in several years time.  This would provide better long-term value for taxpayers and would better align the City's service levels with the population we support.

On Monday night I will likely be voting to re-purpose the Leisure Centre for other recreational uses.

4. Spray Parks

 55% of respondents were happy with current spray parks.  45% wanted either 1, 2 or 3 more.  I think we're well served for the immediate future.  I would like to see one or two added to our 10-year capital plan though to meet the demands of our growing population.


Again, thank you to everyone for your input.  It was awesome to see so many people engaged on these issues! 

Solution 8: Specialized Municipality (Part 2)

I've found the opposition to this solution has three general areas:

• Values
• Taxes
• The "Black Hole" Effect

Values

The premise of all of my arguments in these blog posts has been that we are one big community who all use each other's services.

Some people do not see it that way.  The farmer out in the Goodfare area may not feel very connected to the folks in the City.  Her values may very well be different.  She might not care about her taxes funding a new park in the City, but she cares very much about drainage problems in her ditches.  The tow truck driver in the City may not value having a seniors home in Hythe.  Often this debate is formed around urban vs. rural values.

A couple things to say to this:

First, I don't believe municipalities should be formed around values.  If we did, we would have to have millions of them.  We don't create a "downtown" municipality for the urbanites or a "parks & playgrounds" municipality for young families.  Municipalities should be formed around communities of people that interact with each other on a regular basis, regardless of the diversity of values.  Even the farmer from Goodfare commutes to the City regularly for supplies and the tow truck driver has to serve customers in Hythe.

Within communities there are many values.  In a regional municipality you would want to ensure that everyone's values are reflected at the Council table.  This is why it would be crucial to have representation from all over, so that issues like ditch drainage are not passed over.  In the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (which includes Fort McMurray and 9 smaller communities), Fort McMurray elects 6 councillors and the remaining areas are divided into wards which elect 4 councillors between them.  The mayor is elected at large by everyone.  I could see the RM of GP having a similar setup.

Second, a large portion of the people in the County right now are essentially living an urban lifestyle.  Living on a one-acre lot in Carriage Lane doesn't quite qualify as "country living" in my books.  Even the subdivision with 3-acre lots I grew up on 20 minutes from the city could hardly be called "rural".  Thus, I think that the belief that the County has a unique rural identity and can better serve rural interests is greatly mistaken.

Third, you don't have to give up your lifestyle as part of a specialized municipality.  Some people love living in small towns.  Some people love living on acreages.  Some love living in downtown condos.  A specialized municipality recognizes that there are these different values and helps ensure everyone can live together no matter what their lifestyle is.

Taxes

Reason 2: I don't want my taxes to go up. 

Neither do I.

There are many scenarios which could play out with tax rates.  One scenario would be to equalize all rates completely; it would look something like this:

There would be almost no change in farmland taxes.  County businesses would only see a minimal increase in their rates.  County residences would see their taxes raised by a couple points.  With that said, in an amalgamation deal you would likely have a phase in period so that all affected taxpayers would gradually move to new regional rates over a period of say, 10 years.

As for the towns and village, there would only be minimal changes as their current rates are in between the City's and County's right now and are already close to what a regional rate would likely be.  All City taxpayers, residential and business, would see a decrease in their taxes as new regional mil rates would be a point or two lower than current City rates. 

But Rory, why should I have to pay more taxes if the costs of delivery services to my acreage are less?

Good point.  There are some developments in the region that use much cheaper storm water management systems (ie. ditches) and have lower transportation costs (ex. snow removal costs are lower).  To address this, you could have a Rural Low Density tax rate for properties "x" distance from the city that would be lower to address these differences.

Also, it's important to note that if a portion of the MD's oil and gas revenues were included in the mix, there would be downward pressure on everybody's taxes.  With only 1/4 of the MD's linear and M&E revenue, we could all enjoy the rates being paid by County residents now.  No one's taxes would have to increase.

So there are many different scenarios which could play out in a regional municipality.  I believe the best scenario would have to align the level of service a resident gets with the amount of taxes they pay.  It's all a question of fairness.

The "Black Hole" Effect

Reason 3: If we're a regional municipality, the bigger urban centres would have the greatest level of representation, would dominate the agenda, and get most the resources at the expense of outlying areas.

This is a legitimate concern in any merger.  That the big partner ignores the little partners.

My response:

There are a number of ways you would ensure this doesn't happen.

Again, you would have representation from all areas, so all areas would have a voice at the Council table.

You could also set up a system of discretionary funds whereby each population centre would be ensured a certain amount of funding each year.

In Strathcona County (which includes Sherwood Park, 8 hamlets, and lots of farmland), they make sure their committee structure reflects the diversity of the municipality.  For example, it has an Agriculture Service Board to ensure the County's rural policies do not escape Council's attention.  Strathcona also has a Governance Advisory Committee which ensures bylaws and policies are working for both urban and rural residents. 

Strathcona has been an excellent model of what a regional municipality could look like.  And it hasn't been Sherwood Park-centric.  For example, the tiny hamlet of Ardrossan (population: 434) just had a $21 million dollar recreational facility built there to serve residents in the central part of the municipality. 

My personal viewpoint is that this wouldn't be much of an issue.  Most people in GP are connected to other people in the area through business, family, history, etc.  In my experience, people want the whole region to thrive.  They want the best camping facilities, the best biking trails, the best roads, the best cultural facilities.  We truly function as one community and I believe elected officials would support this vision.

There would certainly be many challenges in the creation and operation of a regional municipality.  However, there are many creative minds in our region who would come up with innovative solutions to each challenge. 

Okay Rory...I think I know where you stand...but let's hear it...what's the best solution?

Specialized Municipality.

If we want the region to grow sustainably and equitably, I believe it is the ultimate solution.  Financially it makes sense, planning-wise it makes sense, and in terms of fairness, there is no other solution that works as well.

My hope is that the other municipalities in the region would see the value in combining our strengths to grow the region as one municipal unit.  We truly function as one community.  We shouldn't have to take from one area to give to another and constantly be fighting over who gets what.  It just makes sense for our municipal systems to be aligned with reality. 

Our region is already aligned as one in many ways.  Our Chamber of Commerce serves the region, we have one Homebuilders Association, the GP Regional College, the GP Regional Hospital, and the Community Foundation of Northwestern Alberta which recently changed to reflect its service to the region. 

While a specialized municipality would be ideal in my view, in the absence of a willingness from neighbouring municipalities or the Province to explore the idea, I think a revenue sharing deal and regional planning reform would be the next ideal solutions.

And now your turn...

Which solution or solutions do you feel will best address the region's problems? What municipal system is going to best allow the region to thrive?

Solution 8: Specialized Municipality (Part 1)

Still with me?  Good.  The best is yet to come...

The Regional Municipality of Grande Prairie.  Nice ring to it eh?

The final solution I'll be looking at is becoming a specialized municipality.  Becoming a specialized municipality would mean that all 6 municipalities (and perhaps part of the MD as well) would shed their corporate identities and create a single unit.  The new Council would be formed with representatives from the whole area.

Let's look at how this could be a solution to each of problems I've listed:

Problem 1: Inequalities in who pays for services.

Wouldn't exist anymore.  All linear and M&E revenues would now flow to the new municipality to benefit all.  Everyone would be paying tax rates that reflected the services they have access to.  We wouldn't have to compete for provincial grants against one another.  Everyone would be contributing equally to the costs of the area.  Plain and simple.

Problem 2: Poor Regional Planning Decisions

Would be much better.  Without the drive to get as much development as you can so that the other guy doesn't get it, you can make much more rational planning decisions.  It would be in everyone's interest to have a coherent regional plan which identifies the best places to develop various land uses.

Problem 3: Inefficient Service Delivery

Would be greatly improved.  One Fire Department.  One Development Department.  One GIS department.  And so on.  Multiple sets of regulations condensed into one.  One set of bylaws to follow.  And service efficiencies would in the long-run lead to cost savings for everyone. 

Problem 4: An unequal playing field for development.

The playing field has been erased.  Done.

Other benefits:

Everyone would have a say in how the region grows

Everyone would have a vote in matters that concern them.  Right now I have no vote on campground funding or development in Clairmont, even though they directly affect my life.  Someone living in Whispering Ridge may own a business in downtown GP but is not able to vote in people who would support their views on downtown development.  A specialized municipality would correct that.

Economic Development

Local governments should be actively working together on attracting businesses to the region.  However, right now there is competition between municipalities to get development to reduce the tax burden on residents.  Because of this, it's not in each municipality's interest to work together on economic development, as we each want to grab the biggest piece of the pie.  Being one municipality would change that. 

Other efficiencies

A spin-off of amalgamation would be that you wouldn't necessarily need to have the Public and Peace Wapiti school boards.  If they were to combine, there could be efficiencies found there too.  For example, does it make sense to bus students living in Wedgewood across town to PWA when they could go to a public high school on the south end?

Essentially, a specialized municipality would align local governance with how people are actually living their lives.

Wow Rory...that sounds perfect!  Why isn't everyone screaming for amalgamation??

Because, it's not perfect.

Oh.

Head on over to my next post to see what the challenges are and how I feel they could be overcome.

 

Next post ----> Specialized Municipality (Part 2)

Solution 7: Dissolution

Sounds foreboding doesn't it?

Dissolution is the process by which a municipality, well, ceases to exist (not the technical definition...but it works).

There is always the option for the City, Towns and Village to choose to "dissolve".  This means that we would cease to exist as corporate identities and would become hamlets in the County.

I believe there are many positive things that could become of being one municipality, as we will see in the next post.  However, I don't believe dissolution would be the best way to do it.

By dissolving, we would be completely at the County's mercy.  The County could choose to give us a voice at the Council table, or not.  It could decide that all future development would be in Clairmont and shut Sexsmith's growth potential down, or not.  It could...you get the picture.  Essentially, there would be no negotiation...we just would no longer be there.

Of course, this option is really quite fanciful...for the City at least.  The provincial government would never approve of a municipality that's Grande Prairie's size to just dissolve.  But you could always start the process for leverage.  The City of Cold Lake asked the Province to dissolve a few years ago.  While they said no, the issue was the impetus for the Province to give the $16 million yearly tax revenue from the Air Force base from Lac La Biche County to the City.

I don't believe that this is a desirable course of action though.  To me, dissolution is the "we just give up" approach.  Besides, there is a much better way to get to the one municipality solution...

Next post -----> Solution 8: Specialized Municipality