A Critique: The Unfunctional 132nd Ave

I have been fairly supportive of this past Council.  I believe they have made a number of great forward-thinking decisions while keeping tax increases at the lowest they've been in years.  I know as a newcomer, it's not politically in my interests to say that, but I'm not one to go negative just for political gain.  I like to speak my mind.

With that said, I do have one major critique of this past Council.  It has to do with how the 132nd Ave. Functional Study was handled. 

132nd Ave. and 100 St. has become one of the busiest intersections in town.  It has also become the intersection with one of the highest collision rates.  Much of this has to do with the design.

A Functional Study of 132nd Ave. was completed in October 2012.  The study proposed three stages of road expansion once City populations reached 65,000, 78,000, and 90,000.  The study also proposed several changes that could be implemented right away within existing conditions to improve traffic flow and to make the 132nd Ave/100 St. intersection safer.

These changes included either cutting off the 100 St. service roads from 132 Ave or making them right in/right out.  A raised median extending from 99th St. to 101 St. was also proposed.

All these proposals obviously upset business owners in the area as they would hinder access to and from their businesses.  Without getting into too much detail, the previous Council decided not to accept any of the study's proposals and asked for another report taking into account more consultation with business owners.  The report came back in September and now there is going to be another one-day facilitated "Charrette" to consult with businesses again and come up with possible solutions.

My thoughts:

This process has taken way too long.  There are serious safety and traffic flow issues that needed to be addressed yesterday.  I would have like to have seen Council adopt one or more of the immediate fixes.  I understand that there are access concerns.  As a regular customer of several of the businesses affected, I get how accessing them would be a little more difficult.

However, these changes are to be expected when located next to a major arterial road.  We are not a one-horse town anymore.  We need to make decisions recognizing that we cannot retain the same traffic designs when intersection traffic flows have doubled over the past 20 years to 22,000+ vehicles per day. 

And customers adapt.  The changes will be annoying at first, but over time you get used to them.  I also don't believe that they would adversely affect business viability.

Let's put safety first and get this intersection fixed.

In Support of the Annexation Proposal

I am in complete favour of the City's annexation proposal.

Here's why:

We need land for industrial development. Plain and simple.  We need to rebalance the ratio of our residential to industrial tax base.  In order to begin work on our Industrial Attraction Strategy, we need to secure the land for where all the magic will happen.

I haven't heard many people question the need to annex land, but some have questioned how much land we're taking.  Here's a couple reasons why I believe Council made a good decision in proposing to annex the full 6500 hectares:

1. The new highway bypass will be going right through the annexed area.  Industry likes to develop near high traffic corridors.  Just look to the north to see this in action.  We need to be in a position to capitalize on lands surrounding the new bypass when it comes through.
2. Annexations cost time, money, and political capital.  I do not believe it's in our interests to continually annex small chunks of land.  Annexation negotiations take a considerable amount of the time of our City staff and our elected officials.  To go through the process every decade would not be cost effective and detracts from efforts elsewhere.
3. It will help with long-term planning.  If we want to have future-focused planning in place, it is desirable to have land supply for quite a few decades.

One of the main sources of opposition to the large annexation area, is that it's going to cost the City too much to service it thereby adversely affecting City services in current City boundaries. 

My reply:

Throughout the annexation negotiations, it was determined that it will cost about $1 million to service the area.  We will also be generating $1 million more in revenue from the annexed lands, thus making the annexation cost neutral.  These numbers were developed and reviewed by professional City and County staff as well as independent consultants.  I have faith in these numbers and nothing has caused me to question their validity.

Some people are saying that the service costs are much more than $1 million.  If this is the case, I am all ears.  Show me some facts and analysis to back up your theory and I will diligently review them.  Until then, I don't want to hear empty rhetoric. 

In conclusion, I believe Council made a good decision in annexing the full 6500 hectares.  I just hope the Municipal Government Board finds our proposal acceptable and processes it quickly. 

Let's Thrive, Grande Prairie!
 

The Elephant in the Room

I've felt that there hasn't been as much discussion as there should be about a major decision that will face the next Council.  It's an elephant in the room if you will...and a large elephant at that!

I'm talking about the Crystal Centre expansion of course.

The latest expansion study proposed a $44 million upgrade to the facility.  The project would see the CGA seat count increase to 5000.  It also included a retrofit of the north side of the building to be made into a conference centre.  The intent of the project is to attract more shows to GP, open possibilities for a WHL team, and provide an avenue for economic stimulus with conferences.

The next Council will have to decide what to do with this study.

To expand or not to expand...

To be completely blunt, I am not in favour of expansion, at least for the next few years.  I feel there are other priorities that need to be addressed first, such as the twinning of 92nd St. and 68th Ave.  A project of this magnitude, which would have to be largely financed, would push us near if not over our debt limit and I don't want to move in that direction.

When the city is in a more favourable financial position, I would reconsider my stance.  However, there are a number of concerns I have regarding the expansion at any rate.

First, I am unsure of whether there is enough public support for the project to warrant the expenditure.  I believe people do want more entertainment opportunities in the city, as do I, but is the Crystal Centre the best option for this?  Many people have suggested that a Performing Arts centre would provide better value for residents as it could bring in a greater number of smaller acts and provide a facility to be used for youth programs and arts groups throughout the year. 

Others have suggested that building a new arena would be more cost effective in the long-run as it would address many of the deficiencies of the Crystal Centre.  I'm not definitively saying that the Crystal Centre isn't the best option, I'm saying there needs to be a lot more thought and consultation as we proceed.

Second, I am not sold on the value of the conference centre addition.  We would be going head to head with the Entrac (TEC) Centre and a number of private facilities, thus splitting the market putting into question the economic viability of the project.  It has been suggested that we could grow the market with a premier facility like this.  I realize that the conference hosting market is lucrative and could be a huge economic stimulus for the city, especially the downtown core.  Let's just say that at this point I'm not convinced we could grow the market big enough to justify the expenditure.

Third, there's the issue of ongoing costs.  In Dawson Creek they guarantee shows meaning that taxpayers are on the hook if a show flops.  The EnCana Centre is also subsidized at four times the rate per capita as the Crystal Centre.  In order to compete with EnCana, it will take a lot more than a big fancy building.  There would have to be significant operational dollars added.  The city would have to have a serious discussion on whether these costs are justifiable.

With all this said, there may be a "third option" I would entertain in the short-term.  The Crystal Centre has lost shows just because it cannot structurally support the light and sound equipment that the bigger acts are using.  I've been told that the promoters of the Carrie Underwood show came to us first, but had to go EnCana after finding out we couldn't support their equipment.  For a $1 million dollar upgrade, I've been told we could address this deficiency.  This would be a cost-effective solution that I would consider in the short-term.

In conclusion, I am not in favour of a large-scale Crystal Centre expansion for the immediate future.  As we plan for the future, I believe a larger performing venue should be in our minds.  There are a number of options for what this venue should be.  I would love to hear your thoughts!

Do True Leaders Follow No One?

I heard a radio ad the other day that said, "A leader follows no one."

I believe nothing can be farther from the truth.  A true leader should not only follow other leaders, but should model themselves after the leaders they most respect and admire.

I have been fortunate in my life to have had numerous people who have taught and modeled invaluable leadership skills to me.  There are several individuals in particular who have a great influence on the type of leader I am and who I aspire to be.

When I was President of the GPRC Students' Association, I had the privilege of working with GPRC President, Don Gnatiuk, on a regular basis.  Don introduced me to the concept of the triple bottom line: money, people and environment.  And Don walked the talk.  Every decision that I saw him make, he ensured that it was financially responsible, people-centred, and addressed the impact to the College and community environment.  I also appreciated Don's openness. He ALWAYS made time to hear my thoughts and concerns and would pro-actively seek me out to hear what I was hearing from fellow students. 

During my time at the University of Lethbridge, I had the privilege of being taught a Local Government course by Jeffrey Coffman, a former Alderman with the City of Lethbridge.  He taught me to always look beyond conventional wisdom in politics, to challenge the status-quo, and to seek innovative solutions to issues. 

Jeff went on to run again and was successful in a by-election.  While on Council I got to see him put these words of wisdom into practice.  I also greatly appreciated how open and transparent he was with citizens as he would blog his perspective on every major issue.  You always knew where Jeff stood on an issue and he would give well reasoned arguments for his stance.

Throughout my internship with the City of Grande Prairie I had the opportunity to attend many committee and Council meetings.  This gave me to chance to observe the conduct of our previous Council on a regular basis.  While I appreciated the dedication of each Councillor and what they brought to the table, there were two in particular who I found really went over and above in their commitment.

Lorne Radbourne and Dan Wong are leaders on steroids.  Each one was always prepared for meetings, coming armed with marked up agenda packages and a quiver full of questions.  They would always steer conversations to the larger picture, thinking of the long-term effect a decision would have on our community.  Lorne and Dan would question the financial impact of projects and explore additional options to ensure the maximum benefit for taxpayers.  They pressed for decisions not to be made unless all affected parties were consulted.  In sum, I can strongly attest to Lorne's "Proven Leadership" and would suggest the label fits Dan very nicely as well.

These individuals have been sources of inspiration and wisdom to me.  Whether on Council or in other aspects of my life, it is always my intent to aspire to the ideals laid out here.

True leaders do follow other leaders.

City Budget Deliberations: WHO, WHAT, WHY!

I've had a number of people and organizations ask which projects I would support in the November budget deliberations.  I have not given an outright commitment of funding support to any particular project as I believe budget deliberations need to be looked at holistically, taking into account all the funding requests as well as having a clearer picture of our financial situation as the numbers become available.

 

With that said, I have developed two sets of questions that I would use to prioritize budget requests should I be elected:

The first set is for core City infrastructure such as roads, bridges, street lights, sidewalks, stormwater management, etc.:

1. Are there significant community safety concerns that the project would address?
2. Have the proper engineering reports/traffic impact studies/etc. been carried out?
3. Does our population warrant the project going ahead at this time?
4. Will the infrastructure assist the City in attracting industrial development?

The second set of questions are for the social/recreational/cultural projects that are proposed by City admin or community groups:

1. Will the funding help the city thrive socially or economically?
2. Is there significant public support for the project in terms of volunteers, general awareness, and private funding?
3. Are other municipal governments in the region supporting the project? Or is there a willingness to if the City does?
4. Is there a commitment from other levels of government to fund the project?
5. Has a sustainable operational plan been developed?
6. Have similar projects had success (outcomes achieved, financial sustainability, etc.)?

Of course, these are just the broad questions that would guide my decision making.  Every project is different and more detailed questions would have to be asked.

Now's the time for your thoughts.  Which questions would you ask?  Which projects are priorities for you?

The Truth About Wind in Grande Prairie

 

I grew up thinking that Grande Prairie was one of the windiest places on earth.  Then I moved to Lethbridge.  Upon returning to GP, my perspective has changed dramatically!  Now, when I hear people talk about how windy it is here, I get a little perturbed.  So I thought I'd do a little digging to see how windy Grande Prairie really is...empirically.  Here's what I've found:

 

When you look at Environment Canada's data on the windiest cities in Canada (out of the 82 most populous cities), Grande Prairie is ranked 67th with an average daily wind speed of only 11.25 km/h.  Every other city in Alberta, other than Fort MacMurray, is windier than us according to this measure.  Average wind speed is only one measure though, so let's look at another.

 

If you look at the number of days a city gets with wind speeds of 5 km/h or less, Grande Prairie ranks 11th with an astounding 318 days (87% of the year!)  Out of Alberta cities, only Fort Mac gets more of these peaceful days (only 0.63 of a day more though!)  Lethbridge only gets 243 of these days (67% of year) while poor old Gander, Nfld gets a measly 124 (34% of year).

 

So by these two measures Grande Prairie is looking pretty good.  So where does this idea come from that Grande Prairie is so windy?  I think the answer lies in one final stat:

 

Looking at the number of days with wind speeds of over 40 km/h, Grande Prairie ranks 31st with an average of 33 days per year.  So while GP is generally a pretty calm place, when the wind does blow, it blows hard.  As an aside, I've heard that this is one of the reasons that we don't have any commercial wind farms up here.  Wind farms operate best with constant, steady winds and Grande Prairie's wind spikes are not conducive to their operations.

 

In any case, I guess you could say GP is windy in the sense that we get bouts of really windy days.  However, in comparing to other places in Alberta, we aren't quite that bad.  While we double Edmonton's 15 days of 40+ km/h winds, we have only half as many as Calgary (66 days) and pale in comparison to Lethbridge who has a whopping 115 days.

 

In sum, I think we can safely say that Grande Prairie is not the wind magnet it's often made out to be.  Personally, I would rather have lots of calm days with a few really windy ones than to have windy days all year long.

 

I hope this was somewhat informative, even if it just informed you that Rory is a major nerd who has no qualms with blogging about the weather.  I would appreciate any comments you may have!

 

All stats can be found on Environment Canada's site here: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/winners/intro_e.html.

Candidate Campaign Expenses (2012 Alberta Election): By the Numbers

The candidate campaign expenses were just released for the 2012 Alberta Election.  Unfortunately, Elections Alberta didn't release the data in the most user friendly form.  So, being the Poli Sci nerd I am, I took the liberty of transcribing the info into a more workable format (aka. Excel). 

After crunching the numbers, I've come up with the following stats.  

Just a note: these expenses only represent half the picture; once the parties' expenses are released we'll have a more accurate picture of what was spent overall. 

It is not very accurate to look at just these candidate expenditures because each party transfers money between candidates and party differently.  Also, the parties differ in which expenses they expect their candidates to absorb and which ones they'll cover.  So without further ado:

Total Spending by Candidates

PC - $5,237,510

WR - $2,376,387

Lib - $815,705

NDP - $560,985

AP - $164,786

Total: $9,155,373

Dollars Spent Per Vote Received

AP - $9.28

PC - $9.23

Lib - $6.39

WR - $5.37

NDP - $4.43

Top 5 Campaign Spenders - Calgary
 

1. Alison Redford (PC) - $154,346

2. Manmeet Bhullar (PC) - $133,295

3. Donna Kennedy-Glans (PC) - $125,723

4. James Cole (WR) - $123,647

5. Ken Hughes (PC) - $111,797

 

Top 5 Campaign Spenders - Edmonton
 

1. Dave Hancock (PC) - $121,233

2. Fred Horne (PC) - $108,327

3. Naresh Bhardwaj (PC) - $96,433

4. Peter Sandhu (PC) - $82,671

5. Gene Zwozdesky (PC) - $78,367

 

Top 5 Campaign Spenders - ROA

 

1. Ted Morton (PC) - $159,619

2. Don Scott (PC) - $110,955

3. Ray Danyluk (PC) - $109,344

4. George Vanderburg (PC) - $103,044

5. Doug Horner (PC) - $95,852
 

Highest Dollars Spent Per Vote Received (Successful Candidates)

1. Don Scott (PC) - $42.63

2. Pearl Calahasen (PC) - $22.09

3. Darshan Kang (Lib) - $21.31

4. Manmeet Bhullar (PC) - $20.40

5. Mike Allen (PC) - $19.89

Highest Dollars Spent Per Vote Received (Unsuccessful Candidates)

1. Rasheed Muhammad (PC) - $28.07

2. Ted Morton (PC) - $25.85

3. Vern Hardman (Lib) -$25.14

4. Kelly Norm (AP) - $23.18

5. Kevin McLean (Lib) - $22.91

Lowest Dollars Spent Per Vote Received (Successful Candidates)

1. Joe Anglin (WR) - $1.62

2. Jeff Wilson (WR) - $2.02

3. Jason Hale (WR) - $2.34

4. Gary Bikman (WR) - $2.36

5. Pat Stier (WR) - $2.39

Lowest Dollars Spent on Successful Campaigns ROA

1. Joe Anglin (WR) - $12,850

2. Gary Bikman (WR) - $14,913

3. Jason Hale (WR) - $19,557

4. Pat Stier (WR) - $20,983

5. Blake Pedersen (WR) - $21,279

Lowest Dollars Spent on Successful Campaigns Calgary

1. Jeff Wilson (WR) - $15,358

2. Sandra Jansen (PC) - $25,186

3. Rick Fraser (PC) - $26,329

4. Moe Amery (PC) - $27,149

5. Kyle Fawcett (PC) - $32,272

Lowest Dollars Spent on Successful Campaigns Edmonton

1. Janice Sarich (PC) - $17,283

2. Brian Mason (NDP) - $34,611

3. Deron Bilous (NDP) - $38,367

4. Laurie Blakeman (Lib) - $39,999

5. David Eggen (NDP) - $40,779

Ridings With Highest Total Campaign Expenditures (All Parties Expenses Combined)

1. Calgary-Elbow - $294,382

2. Edmonton-Rutherford - $210,413

3. Chestermere-Rockyview - $208,682

4. Lac La Biche-St. Paul-Two Hills - $198,210

5. Calgary-McCall - $198,152

Average Spending by All Candidates

	Liberal	NDP	Alberta	PC	Wildrose
Calgary	$13,801	$1,878	$1,390	$59,300	$37,501
Edmonton	$15,768	$20,460	$4,031	$62,976	$9,922
ROA	$4,557	$3,567	$707	$63,974	$30,775
Provincial	$9,211	$6,100	$3,691	$59,701	$26,815

Average Spending by Successful Candidates

Liberal	NDP	PC	Wildrose
$55,406	$47,930	$64,101	$36,165

Average Spending by Successful Candidates by Region

Calgary - $60,437

Edmonton - $65,804

ROA - $53,172

Average Dollars Spent Per Vote Received for Successful Candidates

Liberal	NDP	PC	Wildrose
$11.50	$6.87	$9.90	$4.59

Number of Ridings where the candidate who spent the most won: 65 (75%)

I was going to follow these numbers up with a bit of an analysis, but I think Dave Cournoyer hit on the most interesting parts.  Once the party numbers come out and we can combine total election expenses, we'll have a much fuller picture from which I can analyse spending in its entirety.

If you'd like to have a copy of the data in Excel, just e-mail me at shortrory@hotmail.com.