More Police, Bear Creek Pool, and others - Budget 2016

 Council concluded budget talks for the 2016-18 budget. While the bulk of the budget was set at last year's four-year budget, every November Council reviews the budget and makes changes where desired.

As most of the budget was set last year, you can read my blog on last year's budget decisions here and see what went into my decision to vote against it.

This year was a tougher budget year as growth in tax assessment grew even less than our conservative estimates. A number of difficult decisions were made and in the end the tax increase was reduced to what was planned last year.

We were able to invest in a number of projects that will improve the quality of life of GP residents. Below is a number of the decisions that were made and how I voted:

The Leisure Centre Pool

Council voted to remove the remaining $5 million that was allocated to the Leisure Centre and invest it in other projects this budget year. In the Spring, Council will be presented with a Recreation Master plan that was developed with the County. This plan will advise regional municipalities on when we should begin planning for another indoor aquatics facility.

More Police Resources

$1.1 million - Supported

Given crime trends in the region, local police authorities requested additional resources to compliment the additional 12 officers that were budgeted for last year. In an 8-1 decision, Council voted to have an extra 5 officers budgeted for. These officers will be dedicated to a Drug Enforcement Unit. An additional 5 municipal staff will also be hired for administrative support, data entry, and analytics so that officers can spend more time in the field.

CKC Grandstands

$1.1 million - Not supported

Last year Council budgeted $2 million for the building of bleachers and grandstands (complete with washrooms, dressing rooms, etc.) with the expectation that the remaining amount would be funded with private donations. Fundraising has been a little slower given the economy and so Council was asked whether we wanted to fund the remaining amount. I did not feel that this project was a top priority and was willing to wait until additional sponsorship dollars came in. Defeated 2-7.

Bear Creek Pool

$5 million - Supported

There was unanimous support on Council for the reopening of this facility. There was much debate on which option to choose though. When all the dust settled, the $5 million mark was agreed upon which would give us enough funding for the basic version of Option D (see below) without the waterslide and splash park.

I proposed the motion for this amount because I felt Option D found a good balance between residents wanting to use the pool for fitness as well as having expanded features for younger children. Given the tough budget year, I felt we could reduce overall expenses by not including the waterslide and splash park. However, the water hook-ups for these features could still be added so that these pieces could be added in the future.

While there is a higher upfront capital cost, outdoor pools are quite inexpensive to run (only about 1% of the Eastlink Centre budget).

Please note that we have not approved the final design of the pool yet, so there may still be modifications made.

Downtown Incentives

$500,000/year - Supported

In last year's budget, Council supported the start of a major project to replace the underground infrastructure and streetscape of the downtown core. You can see details of the plan here. With the major investment in public infrastructure, we wanted to encourage private investment in our city's core. Recognizing that it is more difficult and expensive to develop there than other places in the city, we are putting in place a 3-year incentive program that will be used to encourage new development and improve the look of existing buildings. Passed 8-1.

Montrose Concourse

$2 million - Not supported

While I am in complete support of this project, given the tight budget year this was not a priority for me. Passed 7-2.

Museum/Archives Space

$850,000 - Supported

The South Peace Regional Archives, housed in the GP Museum, stores much of the region's history. The Archives have reached maximum capacity in their existing space with archivists and documents filling every nook and cranny available to them. While Council was not in a position to fund a new building, we did recognize the need to build additional space which will extend the usefulness of their current location for the foreseeable future.

The Museum has been renting temporary storage space for some years that has been inadequate for storing old artefacts. I felt it was important to invest in a permanent storage space that will adequately preserve our region's history. These projects were passed 8-1.

QEII Foundation Sponsorship

$250,000/year - Not supported

The QEII Foundation had requested that Council support their capital campaign for equipment at the new hospital to the amount of $350,000/year for 10 years. In a 7-2 decision, Council voted to include $250,000/year for the next 2 years. I was not in favour of this funding. While I am in complete support of the Foundation and will personally be giving to their campaign, I strongly felt that this was not an area that municipal tax dollars should be involved in.

I am always very cautious about extending the City's tax dollars into areas that I feel to be outside of our mandate. I believe hospital funding is and should be the responsibility of the provincial government. Taking on a portion of this responsibility, however small it may be, sets a poor precedent in my opinion. There are many community needs in other provincial areas like education, highways, and colleges. I believe we have to be very careful to not overextend ourselves into these areas. Passed 7-2.

Young Offenders Centre - Safety Upgrades

Up to $500,000 - Supported

I was very disappointed with the outcome on this item. When Council accepted the YOC from the provincial government, we knew that there were a number of safety upgrades that were going to be required in order make the facility usable again. Earlier this Fall, an RFP went out to community groups, asking for proposals for the Centre. As part of the RFP, the City indicated that it would cover the costs of the safety upgrades while leasehold improvements would be the responsibility of the organization.

The organization that scored the highest once proposals came in was Rising Above. City administration and Rising Above then began working out a lease agreement. I felt that since we had committed to the community that we would be funding the safety upgrades, we needed to honour our commitment and ensure funding was available in the budget. Unfortunately, this item was defeated 4-5.

Going forward, Rising Above and the City will continue to work out a lease agreement and I anticipate that there will likely be a request for funding of the safety upgrades before the lease is signed.

Cultural Integration Academy

$48,000 - Not supported

This is a fantastic program, funded by the Province, which brought people new to Canada together to learn about Canadian laws and customs, law enforcement, political structures, and to learn about local resources available to them. With the Province no longer providing funding to the program, there was a request to have the City fund it for the next couple of years.

Council decided in a 7-2 decision to fund the program, but only until the end of the program's year.

I did not vote for this funding as I felt this was another area where the City needed to be careful in taking over provincially funded programs.

Concrete Crushing

$500,000/year - Supported reduced amount

This was an item already in the budget that the Mayor flagged as an area we could find some savings for this year. It was determined that some of this budget item could be delayed to future years without any major impact to operations. The Mayor made the motion to reduce this amount to $250,000/year for 2015 and 2016.  I supported this motion. Passed 6-3.

Seniors Property Tax Rebate

$50,000/year - Not supported

 The City has a program which provides a $100/year rebate to low-income seniors. I made a motion to remove funding for this program. There are two main reasons I made this motion:

1. One of the intents of the program is to provide some property tax relief to seniors so that they are able to stay in their homes longer. There's a couple points on this. First of all, I question how effective a $100 rebate on a $3,000 tax bill is in being the deciding factor in whether a senior stays in their home or not. Second, the Province created a program that allows low-income seniors to defer paying their entire property tax bill until they sell their house. I believe this program is much more effective in the aim of keeping low-income seniors in their homes longer.

2. I believe the program is inequitable. There are many property owners who would benefit from some tax relief, in addition to seniors. As such, I feel that any programs to make housing more affordable should be accessible to our entire population.

Given these concerns, I felt that money used for this program would be better used for general tax relief or to be transferred to a more effective program. Motion was defeated 2-7.

Other major projects that were previously budgeted for this year which are going ahead:

68th Ave Twinning - Funds are in place to complete the bridge over the winter with construction on the road twinning beginning in the Spring. Right now there is enough funding to twin from 108 St (Hwy 40) to 100 St. Ideally, we would like to finish twinning right to Poplar Drive. Once the tenders come in early next year, Council will decide whether to proceed with this section.

Upgrade to Pavilion in South Bear Creek Park - $800,000

Additional ball diamond - $400,000

Intersection, sidewalks, and pathway upgrades and renewal - $3.8 million

Road repair, rehab, overlay, and line painting - $8.9 million

Storm line upgrades - $1.5 million

Snow plow - $300,000

So that's Budget 2016! While I still have concerns with the level of operational funding (which I laid out in last year's budget), I was pleased with the number of capital items approved this year that have  very low operating costs. Council will vote on the budget on the 30th, but the budget can still be amended until the mill rate is set in the Spring.

School Bus Stop Signs in City Limits

I have had several parents talk to me about the City's bylaw which does not allow school buses to use their stop signs and red flashing lights in City limits on roads under 80 km/h. With the recent accident of a child being hit by a vehicle while crossing the road, this issue has made headlines again.

Council decided to take a look at this issue again, review the bylaw, and make a decision about what is best for the safety of our children. I want to share some of my thoughts and research on the subject that will be guiding me as I examine the bylaw.

First, our children's safety should be the number one concern. I want to live in a community where decisions are being made to make our streets as safe as possible.

Second, when it comes to bussing our kids, we need to minimize the times where crossing the street is necessary. Our school boards always try to design routes so as to minimize the number of times street crossings are required. Where feasible, they try to accommodate special requests. In this most recent incident, the public school board was able to redesign the route so that the child no longer has to cross the road and is picked up on his side of the street.

Third, there are inevitably going to be times where road crossing has to occur. So the question to ask is: where is the safest place to do so?

It has long been the opinion of transportation departments, enforcement agencies, and road safety advocates that in urban settings, crosswalks and intersections should always be the preferred place to cross streets. They argue that these are designed to have greater visibility so that pedestrians and drivers can more easily see each other. They are usually better lit, have fewer obstacles to be hidden by, and are typically marked for drivers to see. Also, crosswalks are usually permanent and do not change from year to year.

As such, these officials argue that it is less safe to cross a roadway mid-street, even with a temporary stop sign out on a bus. They say that crossing mid-street doesn't always offer the same visibility as crosswalks. There can be large vehicles and/or trailers parked on the street that reduce visibility and block sightlines. Also, there are many residential streets that have sharp curves and vehicles cannot see a bus until they are several metres away. 

In essence, the temporary nature of school bus stops (which can change month to month) gives less predictability to drivers to know when and where to stop. Thus, we would be giving our kids a false sense of security by letting them think it is safe to cross a road just because a stop sign is up.

On the flipside, I have parents who say that while crosswalks and intersections may be the safest way to cross a street, in reality, children will take the shortest distance to the bus which typically involves crossing mid-street. Since this is the case, shouldn't we minimize the risk of kids being hit by having buses put out stop signs?

When it comes to public safety, City Council must make decisions that minimize risks to the greatest extent possible while being feasible. In this case, we need to decide which option minimizes the chance of being hit the most.

Like all policies, the answer may not be black and white. On the whole, studies have shown that in the few cities that have allowed bus stop signs, there has been a higher rate of accidents. However, there are many factors in GP that could affect outcomes differently such as road widths, engineering standards, type of vehicles on roads, amount of daylight, etc. It could be that the stop signs could be allowed under certain conditions. While the vast majority of cities feel it is safer to not allow the stop signs in city limits, there are a couple that do not, like Fort McMurray.

This is why I'm supportive of having the Community Safety committee look at this bylaw again to make sure we are promoting the safest policies for our children.

Some further reading:

Alberta Transportation Report on School Bus Safety

City of Regina

Calgary Herald article

Fort McMurray

City of Lethbridge

La Grande Prairie et Le Réseau Francophone

Bonjour!

Earlier this year, the Mayor of Quebec City reached out to Grande Prairie City Council with an invitation to join the Francophone and Francophile Cities Network. Working with other founding members, Moncton, New Brunswick and Lafayette, Louisiana, Quebec wanted to connect cities across North America with strong ties to the French language and culture.

The purpose of the Network would be to "promote communities that are historically, culturally, and linguistically affiliated with French Canadian culture and showcase their tourist attractions."

Grande Prairie was invited to be part of the network based on its significant ties to French culture and heritage. It's even reflected in our name.  You can find out more about Grande Prairie's French heritage by visiting the Grande Prairie Museum or the South Peace Regional Archives or by reading any of our history books.

Today, there are around 5,000-6,000 people who speak French in the city. We have a Francophone school, a couple thousand students enrolled in French immersion, and have a very active French Association (ACFA Grande Prairie).  One of the city's largest festivals each year is the Cabane à Sucre (Maple Sugar Festival), a celebration of French Canadian culture and heritage which takes place in February each year. Given our strong ties to the French community, Council was interested in becoming a part of the Francophone Cities Network.

Over the last couple of days, I had the privilege of attending the inaugural conference of the Network in Quebec City.  While there, I signed up Grande Prairie as an official member on behalf of Council. There was no cost to becoming a member and there are some great benefits that come with joining:

Information sharing. Being linked to other cities with French heritage gives us access to a wealth of knowledge.  During the conference I was able to learn things such as what other cities are doing to celebrate their French history and culture and what primarily English cities are doing to welcome French migrants and immigrants.  

Economic spinoffs. One of the key objectives of the Network is tourism promotion. The Network is going to be setting up tourism "circuits" that will market groups of cities to tourists looking for French heritage destinations as well as places where tourist attractions are accessible in French. This will give Grande Prairie another avenue to market our region and attractions like the dinosaur museum.

Being a part of the Network will also help showcase the French services our community provides for those seeking employment here.

A website for the Network is being developed and will highlight our city to the world.  You can see what has been developed so far here:

I look forward to continuing to work with the Network as it develops. If you'd like to know, give me a shout!

À plus tard!

A Moveable Floor, the Leisure Centre pool, and a Splash Park: My Vote Explained

On Monday night, Council made a number of decisions in regards to aquatics facilities:

1. To not proceed with renovations to the Leisure Centre pool.
2. To install a moveable floor in the Eastlink Centre.

The previous week, the Community Living committee (which I am a member of) voted to have administration bring back some costing on options for a large splash park to replace the Bear Creek pool (options may include a wading pool, slides, an enhanced spray park, and a covered cookhouse.)

I supported these initiatives and here's why:

Leisure Centre pool

I have not supported this reno from the start. In a previous post I argued that the cost of renovating old pools is extremely expensive and often not cost-effective.  I also mentioned that once the building was inspected further we'd likely see the costs escalate even more.  This turned out to be the case.

Once walls were opened up, it was found that there was a greater scope of work needed.  Renovation cost estimates now exceed $14 million.  To put that in context, administration noted that the cost of building a new same-sized facility would be $13 million.

So why didn't you build a new facility?

My opposition to the project was also based on the business case for the project.  With the Eastlink Centre currently at 47% capacity, it was recommended that it would not be cost-effective to open another aquatics facility until it reached 80%.  As such, a new pool would require an operating subsidy of $1.1 million per year, which translates into a much smaller cost-recovery ratio than the Eastlink Centre.

We are now going to wait until the regional recreation master plan comes out in the Spring which will advise us on the greatest rec needs for the region over the next several years.

The Moveable Floor

*queue the laser lights and techno music*

Sounds space age, don't it?

Before investing in a new pool, I think we need to ensure that the Eastlink Centre is operating at maximum efficiency.

While the Eastlink centre is at 47% capacity overall, there are some areas where we are at much higher capacity and some where we are lower.  One area at greater capacity is our aquatics programming like fitness classes and swimming lessons.  One of the facility's constraints is that there is limited shallow water for these activities.

On the flipside, an underutilized area is the deep 50m pool.

Enter Moveable Floor. It is becoming common practice for pools to put in moveable floors to allow for flexibility in different types of use.  By adding a moveable floor to the 50m pool, we can offer toddler programs in a couple inches of water, elementary swimming lessons in 4 feet, water aerobics at 6 feet, and competition swimming at full depth.

By making the pool more accessible to more people more often, we can increase the level of service we offer.  This will help the facility run more efficiently and will alleviate some of the need for a new pool in the near future.

Splash Park

There has been tremendous community support to have an outdoor aquatics facility that families can escape to in hot weather. As I've mentioned before, I believe that an enhanced splash park, such as the one in Spirit River that everyone raves about, would fill a desired niche in the community.  It is also much more cost effective than having a full depth swimming pool.

I look forward to seeing what the costs are for various components of such a park. There will be report brought to committee in October.

Financial Impact

So how do these decisions shake out financially?

There was $6 million allocated towards the Leisure Centre pool reno over the last few years.  $5 million was slated to be borrowed.

Council made the decision to take $4 million out of the project.

$1 million will go towards the moveable floor.

We've slated up to $3 million for the splash park (for context...the one in Spirit River cost $2.5 million)

$2 million will remain allocated to the Leisure Centre until the recreational master plan is ready at which time we can decide on a course of action.

The $5 million will not be borrowed.

There will also be savings for the Leisure Centre operational costs that would have started in 2017 (approx. $1.1 million subsidy/year).

Overall, there are no additional funds being spent, just reallocated. There will be savings in the borrowing and operational costs.


I look forward to getting your input on what should be included the splash park once we have an idea of what the different components cost.

Why the Census Matters

In case you've been living under a rock , the official results of City of Grande Prairie's municipal census were released today. The results showed that GP has grown an astounding 24% in the last 4 years which gives us a population count of 68,556!

GP remains one of the youngest cities in Canada with 26% of our residents under the age of 20 and 8% under the age of 5. We continue to have more children under the age of 5 than we have seniors 65 and over.

Wow, that's incredible...it's cool to know...but what's the point of a census?

When I brought the idea up of having another municipal census a year ago, there were several reasons for it.  They include:

1. Infrastructure and Program Planning

As the City develops plans for new roads, recreation facilities, playgrounds, etc., the census numbers give us a better idea of how quickly and where to build to better serve our residents.  For example, many of our road plans state that when the population hits "x" then it should be widened, when it hits "y" then it should be twinned, etc.

The neighbourhood breakdown gives our City staff, community groups, businesses and other government bodies a better idea of where to provide services.  For example, if someone is looking to set up an after school drop-in centre, Pinnacle may be an ideal spot because there is a high number of 5-14 year olds (605 to be exact).

These updated numbers also help our school boards to more effectively plan for additional class space and new schools.

2. Increased Grant Funding

Many of provincial and federal grants the City receives have a portion that is given out on a per-capita basis. A population increase of 13,524 translates into an additional $3.1 million entering our city each year (unless grants are cut of course). Pretty good return on the $171,000 census.

3. Attracting Retail Stores

When investing in a market, retail businesses need to know whether there is the population base there to sustain their operations. Some large chains even set hard population thresholds before entering a market (for example, Olive Garden and Red Lobster require 100,000).

Our economic development department has already begun to make sure the retail business community nationwide has the most up to date numbers.

4. Bragging Rights

Move on over St. Albert and Medicine Hat! Alberta has a new number 5! Council will be walking with a new swagger when we meet with our colleagues from across the province next month.

In all seriousness though, this massive increase does send quite the message to the provincial and federal governments about our intensely rapid growth.  When we advocate for projects like more schools and the finishing of the bypass, we now have a lot more clout behind us.

To put our growth in context, we are adding the population equivalent of a Beaverlodge and a Hythe to our numbers each year.

So there you have it...why censuses matter.  If you're planning on using the census data for anything, I'd love to hear what for.

Regulating Driveway Widths: The Why

Council has been looking at a bylaw to limit the widths of driveways in the city.  Is it because we are communist overlords who take pleasure in dictating what people can and can't do on their property?

Not quite.

Each year, Grande Prairie sees more and more property owners expand the length of their driveways. As more and more properties have their driveways extended, a number of issues have arisen that affect the rest of the neighbourhood.  The top 3 include:

1. On-street Parking

The more driveway space there is on a street, the less space there is for vehicles to park. While property owners create more parking space for themselves, they are limiting the public space available for their neighbours.

2. Snow Storage

As more and more driveways are widened, the amount of space that snow can be moved to is reduced.  There are some properties where there is little to no lawn space as driveways have been extended the entire property length.  Thus, to clear the driveway, snow must be pushed onto neighbour's lawns or out onto the street. I get complaints of this nature on a regular basis during the winter.

Quite simply, snow must be put somewhere. As the length of driveways proliferate, the area for snow storage decreases which frustrates neighbours who have to deal with the extra snow and/or slows our snow removal crews down as they contend with extra snow on the road.

3. Drainage

Our storm water management systems are designed to handle a flow of water based on a set amount of hard surfaces in a neighbourhood.  Calculations are made with the assumption that a certain volume of water will be absorbed by permeable surfaces (ie. lawns).

If the area of permeable surfaces is reduced, there is an increase in the runoff that makes its way into our storm water system. As more pavement and concrete is added to a neighbourhood, there is greater strain on the system during heavy rains and the chance of flooding is increased.


As these issues have become more prevalent in recent years, Council decided to look at regulating driveway widths. (BTW...we're one of the only cities in Alberta without a driveway width bylaw).

There are a couple of ways to regulate driveway widths. You could set a maximum width for each driveway (ex. 20 ft). You can also set the maximum to be a percentage of lot width. This is the route that the Community Growth committee went with. They are recommending to Council that driveway widths be limited to 60% of lot widths. For example, if a lot is 40 ft wide, the driveway could be a maximum of 24 ft wide leaving at least 16 ft of grass, flower beds, etc.

One of the concerns that was raised by the building community was that the 60% rule would really limit the number of houses with 3-car garages that would be built.  Committee is recommending that for homes with 3-car garages, the driveway width could be 70% of lot width (with min. 44 ft. lots).

I have some concerns with the equability of this change. Should someone with a 3-car garage be subject to different rules than someone with a 2-car garage who wants to put an RV pad in? It is not sitting right with me and I intend to look further into the implications of this change.

Council will be voting on this bylaw amendment on June 29th. I look forward to hearing your comments and thoughts on the issue.

Studying the Secondary Suite Situation

The topic of secondary suites elicits strong responses from the community. Council has undertaken a review of our secondary suite regulations in order to address a number of the concerns that have arisen with them. Here's what's being proposed and some of my thoughts surrounding the issue:

What are they?
A Secondary Suite (SS) is a dwelling located within, and accessory to, a Single Detached Dwelling.

Should we allow them?
The creation of secondary suites has been heralded as an efficient way to address the housing needs in cities, particularly in places with high growth rates and a transient population. Adding more space for people in existing housing is a cost effective method of meeting housing needs. Not surprisingly, many Albertan cities have embraced their development.

There are a number of pros and cons that come with the proliferation of secondary suites:

Pros
More housing is available at lower costs
Slows the rate of urban sprawl
Allows smaller investors to access housing rental market
Utilizes excess home space more efficiently

Cons
Can change the character of established neighbourhoods
Higher population densities lead to congestion issues with parking and traffic flow
Reduces demand for higher density housing options (ie. apartments)

There are a range of options on this topic ranging from allowing suites wherever and however to banning them completely to finding a middle ground in between.

Personally, I am supportive of having secondary suites as part of our housing mix. However, there needs to be a balance between giving homeowners and builders the ability to meet housing needs with this type of development with the development standards the community is asking for.

In a survey we put out a few months ago, there was overwhelming support for SS, but there were definitely concerns raised with their development (see results here).

Council has recognized that current regulations have allowed some developments to occur that have produced highly congested areas which have major parking and traffic flow issues.  The quality of some neighbourhoods have been lessened due to these issues.

City administration have proposed a number of changes to address the problems which you can read in full here.

To address the congestion problem, Council set a goal of limiting secondary suites in a neighbourhood to 15%. There are quite a few options that were looked at to do this.  For example, we could only allow every 4th or 5th lot to have a SS or we could identify certain lots with increased parking (such as corner lots) and only allow SS in them.

After looking at all the options, administration is proposing that we limit SS to only 3 per 50 metre radius and no more than 2 in a row.  This option would give more flexibility to those looking to build SS.  Also, SS would also be limited to lots that have minimum width of 12.2m (40ft) and minimum area of 403m2 (4337 sq ft.)

These proposals would limit the number of SS in a neighbourhood to roughly 15%.

I feel that these proposals found an appropriate balance, however I look forward to further discussion on the topic and to hearing more from interested community members.

After some concerns were raised with these proposals at the last City Council meeting, they were referred back to the Community Growth committee which will discuss the proposed changes further on Tuesday at 10:00am. The meeting is open to all. You can find the report that will be coming to committee here.