Options for the Sale of the Old Firehall

Old Downtown Firehall

Equity Rental Ltd.'s proposal 

Design Works/Grain Bin's proposal

So I’ve heard quite a bit of chatter about the City’s sale of the old downtown firehall.

There seems to be some misunderstandings about the RFP process and where Council can take it from here. I thought it’d be worthwhile to get some facts out there.

Here’s the background in a nutshell:

The previous Council decided to sell the old downtown firehall last summer, of which I was supportive. Council chose to put this out in the form of a request for proposals (RFP) as opposed to a straight out bid process where the highest value bid would get to buy the property. An RFP process allows for considerations other than purchase price to be taken into consideration in selecting a buyer. The Community Growth committee was then asked to give input on what considerations should factor into the RFP. These considerations and their weighting were made available to those interested in submitting a proposal. The RFP was then sent out asking interested bidders to submit proposals for what they would do with the space. Two valid proposals were received and graded.

Equity Rentals Ltd. proposed converting part of the building into a restaurant and adding an additional story on the office tower portion for additional office space. They proposed a buying price of $855,000 and indicated that the value of their renovations would create a net economic impact of $5.5 million.

Design Works Engineering & Inspections and Grain Bin Brewing Company proposed locating their brewery there along with a taproom and retail space. They proposed a buying price of $900,000 and indicated that the value of their renovations would create a net economic impact of $1.8 million.

I was very pleased to see the companies who submitted the proposals. Each one has a wealth of experience in the local construction industry and I believe each would do an excellent job of revitalizing the old building and that area of downtown.

The report indicates that Equity Rentals Ltd. received the highest score and administration is recommending that the City enter into negotiations with them for the sale of the property.

While a breakdown of the scores is not made public, I suspect that the much greater proposed net economic impact of Equity’s bid was a significant factor in their greater score.

So big deal, can’t Council just choose which proposal they like better?

Not quite.

An RFP is a legally binding process.  All potential bidders knew the weightings before they submitted. All proposals were evaluated against those weightings and scores were derived. Council had influence over the decision when the weightings were developed and then gave administration its marching orders. If Council were to award the RFP to a bidder with a lower score, they would be opening themselves up to a legal challenge by other parties who submitted. And those parties would likely be successful.

So what are Council’s options at this point?

        1. Accept the recommendation and enter into negotiations with Equity Rentals Ltd.

If Council goes with this option, they still have the ability to influence the negotiations of the property sale. As Council did with the York/Germain site, there would like likely be a condition that work has to be completed in ‘x’ amount of years. There would also likely be some verification of the proposed $5.5 million economic impact.

2     2.  Reject the recommendation and cancel the RFP

If Council entertains this option, there are three directions Council could then go if it wants to continue down the path of selling the firehall (probably more, but these are the ones I’m most familiar with)

        a. Substantially change the RFP and re-issue

If Council feels that what was put in the RFP does not reflect this Council’s values and priorities, they could choose to substantially change the criteria in the RFP, re-issue it, and accept new proposals. The risk with this option is that Council can open themselves up to accusations of bid shopping. If they re-issued and the new weightings were to heavily favour a lower-scored bid from the first RFP, there would be grounds for a legal challenge from other bidders. Also, if a bidder felt that the RFP wasn’t changed substantially, but only tweaked to get a certain outcome that differs from the first RFP, Council could again open themselves up to legal action.

        b. Wait a year and re-issue

Council can always choose to wait a year and re-issue. This is normally done when Council is not impressed with any bids or if market conditions produced bids out of line with Council’s expectations. By waiting a year, the risk of being accused of bid shopping is significantly reduced. However, you do run the risk (as you do in option a. and c.) of turning away potential bidders. There is a significant amount of work that is put into developing these proposals and to just cancel the process and make everyone start over can be quite frustrating. If this becomes a pattern, potential bidders may simply choose to skip on bidding in the future.

        c. Choose another method selling the property

Council could list the building at an appraised price and entertain offers. Or Council could set up a bid process by which the highest bidder gets the property. The advantage with these methods is that there is less subjectivity and could generate a higher purchase price for the property. However, Council would not have as much ability to influence the future development of the property once it is out of their hands. This includes evaluating future economic impact of any development.

   

So there you have it.

Personally, I was very excited to see the quality of proposals. If only the City had two downtown firehalls to sell…

Our Beloved Hillside

Council passed an Area Revitalization Plan (ARP) for the Hillside neighbourhood today. There’s been some misinformation and half truths shared about the plan, so I thought I’d give little more context here as well as my reason for voting in favour.

First off, take a read of the plan yourself here. You can find out about the development of the plan here.

Over the last several years, there has been an interest from our homebuilding community in tearing down old homes in Hillside and replacing them with new developments, particularly multi-family units like duplexes and three-plexes. As the number of these units started to proliferate, Council thought it would be wise to put a pause on these developments and create a plan to better guide the future development of this community.

Hillside is a bit of an odd duck (my apologies Hillsiders!). When the neighbourhood was zoned decades ago, most of it was zoned “RT” or “Residential Transition” which allows for more multi-unit buildings than “RG” or “Residential General” zoning. One of the main discussions during the ARP process was whether we should change the zoning to block all multi-family from being built or just put greater controls on how and where it’s built.

There was quite a bit of interest from the community in creating the ARP. I attended the first open house where I was surprised to see the Hillside school gym filled by local residents. Residents were told there was going to be a steering committee formed to guide the plan. Eight residents signed up to be on the committee and for the next year volunteered countless hours as they worked with the Planning department to create the plan.

Throughout the year, there were several open houses planned to give updates and receive more feedback on the plan. Last month Council was presented with the plan that struck a balance between allowing some multi-family in certain locations, putting greater design and parking standards on new developments, and prioritizing areas for infrastructure investments.

The plan also did address areas of concern such as park and trail redevelopments, hospital parking, and giving Hillside a more visible identity. However, most of the disagreements hinged on the character of the neighbourhood and what to do about multi-family developments.

Why did I support the plan?

I felt that the steering committee (¾ composed of residents) did an excellent job of balancing competing interests. On the one hand, the plan identified certain areas that would be more ideal for multi-family developments (such as along 100 Ave) and put the most stringent design standards on new multi-family developments in the city. On the other hand, the committee recognized that there is a need for reinvestment so that old derelict homes are torn down and that the area doesn’t become even more of a haven for squatters and illicit activity.

Why not only rezone for single-family homes then?

The reality is that there was nothing stopping residents from tearing down houses and replacing them with new single-family homes. But we just weren’t seeing this type of reinvestment. If we were to completely not allow any multi-family, I don’t see how this would have changed the situation. I believe Council would have stifled reinvestment for many years to come and we would have seen the number of derelict properties continue to grow. This plan will ensure that there is an appropriate mix of single and multi-family housing and that any development coming forward will meet the highest design standards in the city.

What about the petition?

There was a petition circulated that had 130 of Hillside’s 2,500 residents opposed to the plan. Several of them came to speak to Council. I understand their frustration. Prior zoning allowed developments to occur haphazardly without any coordinated plan and that produced some questionable results. So I get why there would be fear of the ARP.

But the plan also found a lot support. It was fully endorsed by the steering committee who worked on it for a year. I also received many messages of support from residents who were pleased that Council is addressing many of the issues they have seen in their community.

As a City Councillor, I have to weigh all these competing interests and make a decision based on what I believe will be best for the City now and in decades to come. Hillside has such an important place in Grande Prairie’s history and I believe this plan will help ensure Hillside attracts a balance of reinvestment that all residents can be proud of in years to come.

Frustrations With the Eastlink Centre

Over the last week I've received a great deal of feedback on the scheduling changes for the aquatic area of the Eastlink Centre. As a user of this facility with my wife and son, we have also been negatively impacted by these changes.  The community is frustrated and rightfully so.

So why the reason for these changes?

By now, most people have heard that there has been a shortage of lifeguards at the Centre. Between sickness and resignations, it has been difficult to have the proper compliment of staff required at all times under the previous model.

This model of "spontaneous use" meant that most areas of the Centre were open and available for public use on a drop in basis for most of the day. This created quite a bit of flexibility for users.  However, this model can be challenging for staffing requirements, particularly when there is a staffing shortage.

Pools have strict requirements for the number of lifeguards required to be on duty based on type of amenities, pool depth, sightlines, number of users in pool, etc. With a spontaneous use policy that has all the aquatics areas open, a minimum number of lifeguards is required, no matter the number of users in the facility. As more users enter the pool, more lifeguards are needed.

This creates a challenge when you are in a position of having limited staff. Areas have to be shut down to reflect available staffing levels. This was really frustrating for people accessing the pool, because you would show up and some areas would be open, some wouldn't. Sometimes you would be turned away because the pool was at capacity based on the number of lifeguards available.

The uncertainty this caused was a huge headache for users. This uncertainty was somewhat mitigated with the incessant stream of updates on social media. However, I think this frustrated users even more.

So why the change?

To address this uncertainty, it was decided to move away from a spontaneous use policy to more of a programmed schedule like the Leisure Centre used to have. This would allow Eastlink Centre staff to direct the limited staff resources more efficiently. This would also give users more certainty that when you show up for public swim, you won't be turned away.

As more lifeguards are trained and hired and staffing levels normalize, this policy change will be reviewed. This is a temporary change to address an unfortunate situation.

But how did we get in this position in the first place?

Eastlink Centre in crisis again. Seen that headline a few times in the last few years.

I don't want to play the blame game about how and why we found ourselves in this situation. As a City Councillor, it is one of my responsibilities to hold our City Administration (through our City Manager) to account for how they respond to a crisis and to evaluate their response from a community perspective.

Our new City Manager and Senior Administration have made righting the Eastlink Centre ship a top priority and have directed much time and resources into creating this temporary fix.  More importantly, they are working on addressing the longer term structural issues that have given rise to a number of issues at Eastlink Centre.

To that end, there are significant steps being made in the training and recruitment of lifeguards. There is also going to be a larger role for shallow water attendants who can patrol certain areas of the facility. Going forward, a nation-wide search for a top calibre General Manager has commenced.

The Eastlink Centre is one of the  premier attractions and rec facilities in Northwestern Alberta. I often hear from out-of-towners how lucky we are to have such an incredible facility. This is why it has been a Council priority to make sure this multi-million dollar investment is delivering the service residents and user groups expect.

I greatly appreciate all the feedback I've gotten from residents on this topic and I encourage you to keep Council and Eastlink Centre staff informed on what your expectations of the facility are.

Red Light Cameras, Photo Radar, and the City

Talk about a love-hate relationship!

I find this topic evokes a lot of strong emotions. Some people love 'em and want to see the city crawling with patrols, some people hate 'em and want to see them banned altogether.

Nothing ruins your day more than coming home, opening your mail, and finding a big, hefty fine smacking you in the face (with a nice little photo that says "Ha! Argue with this!")

Been there, done that. More often than I care to admit. Cally and I often joke that we spent more money on photo radar tickets during our university years than we did on tuition (you're welcome City of Lethbridge).

Then Rory, why would you support these no-good, money-grabbin', worthless pieces of...you get the picture. We've all heard it.

Well here's why:

When the contract for red light cameras expired early in 2014, I was determined to never allow them in the city ever again. Same with photo radar. I thought they were all a money grab, ineffective at changing driver behaviour, punished too many "good" drivers, etc. I'm sure you could add a few reasons of your own.

Then I was confronted with a harsh reality from our Enforcement department: Collision stats. In 2014 we had 640 collisions that resulted in serious injuries plus 4 that involved fatalities. This was more than double the provincial average. It wasn't a one year blip either. Over the past four years, traffic collisions in the city had increased by 102% while they had decreased by 18% provincially over the same time.

It became obvious that something had to be done. But what?

Enforcement embarked on creating a strategic plan that including a wide range of measures including education, engineering changes, better coordination with the RCMP, and you guessed it...stricter enforcement including photo radar, red light, and speed-on-green cameras.

I didn't like it.

I needed to prove how ineffective these contraptions were. 

So I read. And read. And read some more. And wasn't too please with what I found.

On red light/speed on green cameras, study after study confirms the effectiveness of these devices as a means to change driver behaviour. These studies look at collision rates at intersections where there has been no enforcement and then at areas where there is enforcement. And the conclusions are similar no matter the city, province, or country.

All these studies find that with once a red light/speed-on-green camera is installed and people start getting ticketed, drivers become much more cautious when approaching intersections and will stop sooner. Because of this red light/speed-on-green cameras actually lead to a slight increase in rear end collisions. However, this is overshadowed by a massive decrease in serious injury collisions (anywhere from 30 - 45%) as there are much fewer people speeding through reds causing T-bone collisions. 

With mobile photo radar, the results are not as conclusive, but generally studies show that photo radar can be an effective tool IF used in combination with other tools used to affect driver behaviour. There needs to be holistic approach that includes education, engineering solutions, and enforcement. My read of the literature is that relying on photo radar alone will generally not lead to slowing driving speeds and preventing collisions, but if used in combination with other methods, it can help reinforce the message and over time change driver behaviour.

Studies can be found at bottom of post.

Confronted with this knowledge, I begrudgingly begin to change my mind on allowing these devices. The fact of the matter is that in urban areas, the chance of getting in a collision doubles every 5 km/h someone goes over the speed limit. Too many lives have needlessly been lost or severely impacted in our city and with this being the case, I came to believe that we should use all available tools to make our streets safer.

I eventually supported Enforcement's holistic, integrated plan to address the high collision rate. These included:

For education we do things like run ads reminding people of school zones, putting "how fast are you going" signs up, and supporting education programs like Safety City.

For engineering we are constantly looking at ways to improve road configurations, intersection visibility, and crossings. This past budget we specifically put money in for intersection improvements with safety being a motivating factor. We also regularly review speed limits and increase and decrease them where warranted based on a variety of factors. We recently did this a few months ago (see here, Report 1.7, Appendix A)

For enforcement, we have a mixture of RCMP and Peace Officer patrols and automated systems (red light, speed-on-green, and photo radar) that work in sync to target high collision/high risk areas.

But come on Rory, we all know this is just a money grab.

If online comment sections are to be believed, you would think that City Council sits hunched over, finger-tips twitching, brooding over how we can extort more money out of our unsuspecting residents. 

Not quite the case. It's about safety. That's why administration came up with a plan that identified the worst roads and intersections for collisions and we're focusing on those. You can see the list here. Only 4 intersections have the cameras installed. If this was really a tax grab, we could install cameras on every set of traffic lights and set up permanent photo radar machines on every street (as some cities do) and literally have tens of millions of dollars rolling in. Also, if it was about money, why would we let the program lapse for almost 2 years? Wouldn't be the smartest financial decision.

So is the program perfect?

No program ever is.

One of my pet peeves is when you find photo radar set up at "fishing holes". There are a number of streets that have had very few collisions but are easy pickings on the ticket front. When I see these, I send my concerns over to Bylaw. Sometimes I get a response giving some justification (usually residents in the area were concerned with high volume of speeders, sometimes it is a high collision area that you wouldn't suspect.) Sometimes there's no good rationale and management can talk to officers or contractors and steer them back to the areas they should be targeting.  I encourage you to give Bylaw and/or Council a shout with your concerns so that we're aware of what's happening.

One of the sad realities is that there are people who choose to consistently speed excessively and flaunt traffic laws egregiously. Photo radar/red light cameras are usually not effective in changing the behaviour of these individuals which is why we need to continue to have traditional officers who are able to catch and bring the full weight of the law to bear (fines, suspension, jail).

So there's where I stand...for now. So far the stats have shown that through a combination of tools, we've been able to curb the number of collisions.  Council will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the program and make changes where needed. I welcome any feedback you have on this topic.

Rory



Selection of Studies
Alberta Transportation
City of Winnipeg
City of Medicine Hat
Texas Transportation Institute

Blogs/Articles of Interest
City of Edmonton
Global on Red Light Cameras
Article on US Red Light Cameras

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.

'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!