Just keep swimming, just keep swimming...

The City just released our latest survey on Aquatics.  I voted to have this survey because it included components that other surveys did not, namely the full range of options available and most importantly, the costs associated with the options.  It's one thing to ask if you want a pool and another to ask if you want a pool, but it will cost you $200/year more in taxes.  It will help Council see where priorities lie.

I thought I'd break the options down in as simplest terms as possible and share some of my initial thoughts and questions.  I would like to receive plenty of feedback in order to make an informed decision.

1. Eastlink Centre upgrades

$1 - 1.5 million for a pneumatic lift to raise/lower the depth of the 50m pool (to allow for smaller children to use the space while allowing for it to continue to be used for lane swimming/competitions).  Also includes sound baffles (to reduce noise in pool area).

3. Bear Creek Pool

$1.5 million to rehabilitate the pool.

$60,000 required on a yearly basis for an operating subsidy.

3. Spray Decks

$0.5 million per spray deck.

$25,000 per year to operate.

2. The Leisure Centre

$9.5 million for capital upgrades to restore the pool, fitness centre and change rooms ($6 million has already been approved).

$1.6 - 3 million required on a yearly basis for an operating subsidy.

 

My initial thoughts:

Eastlink Centre

Let's start with an easy one...the sound baffles are a no-brainer.  It's way too loud at the Eastlink pools and the problem should be addressed...plain and simple.

As for the lift, my thoughts are dependant on the Leisure Centre pool.  If it goes ahead, I don't think the lift is needed.  If not, I think the lift would be beneficial as it would make the space more versatile, to be used for things like swimming lessons and fitness classes.

Bear Creek Pool

The outdoor pool has undergone a number of expensive structural changes over the last few years...and they have all been for nothing.  Our freeze/thaw cycles have again ravaged the pool's basin and have rendered our previous investments obsolete.  It's becoming a bit of a money pit.

The pool is also severely under-utilized.  It's only on the really hot days that we fill the pool up...and we know how many of those we get.  Most days it sits near empty.  While I cherished those few days a year I used the pool when I was a kid, I believe the pool's time has come.  I think the location could be best used as a splash park/wading pool, something like this: 

The pool was mainly used as respite from heat, and I think that a splash park/wading pool would accomplish the same thing, at a fraction of the cost.  It would also make the area more accessible to families with younger children.  I think we could have a lot of fun designing an awesome park with water cannons and dump buckets and all that jazz. 

Spray Decks

If the Bear Creek pool is no longer there to help escape the heat, I would like to see a couple smaller neighbourhood spray parks be installed.  It would be great for every quadrant of the city to eventually have a spray park so that you don't have to drive across town to get to one.  If you've ever been to Lion's Park on a hot day...you know how much they're used!

The Leisure Centre

I do not want to see the Leisure Centre mothballed.  I believe it's important to have a recreational centre in that area of town and it would be a shame to have it disappear.  My thoughts center around what the best use of the space would be.

I do have some questions about whether another pool is warranted at this time.  I had my suspicions that the Eastlink Centre was underutilized.  There are many times where you see the larger tanks with only a few people in them.  My suspicions were confirmed by a consultant's study on aquatics in GP.

The consultant found that the Eastlink Centre pools are currently operating at only 41% capacity and that they will continue to meet the aquatic needs of the community for at least 10 years.  If we added another pool, Grande Prairie would have by far the most aquatics capacity per capita of any city in Canada.

So if capacity is not the problem, what are the reasons for a second pool?

Play space for smaller children, more room for swimming lessons, and having a quieter facility are the three reasons that I've heard most often.  To address these concerns, the report suggested adding the lift to make the Eastlink 50m pool accessible to smaller kids and usable for swimming lessons.  They also suggested the sound attenuation baffles to quiet the Eastlink pools.  I think that these concerns could be allayed with the Eastlink upgrades.

So my initial thoughts are that the demand is not great enough to justify the costs.  Speaking of costs, let's take a look at a few things you need to know:

1. The capital costs of restoring the Leisure Centre pool are $9.5 million.  This is just to get the facility running the way it was.  So what you saw several decades ago is essentially what it's going to look like when it's done.  This is just a basic restoration, no major upgrades.

 2. Costs escalate...especially when restoring old buildings...particularly old pools.  In all reality, the final bill will likely be much higher.

3. Pools are one of the most expensive pieces of infrastructure that a city can operate.  Utility and staffing costs are much, much greater than other facilities and require a much larger taxpayer subsidy.  Remember, the $1.6 - $3 million yearly operating subsidy is how much we will pay as taxpayers, after all the user fees have been calculated in.

 

4. Unless the Leisure Centre pool will draw in a whole new market, opening another pool will draw Eastlink pool users.  This would mean less user fees for Eastlink, which would in turn increase the operating subsidy that the facility would require. 

So the question is this: are there going to be enough people using the Leisure Centre pool to warrant the costs?  If we're just pulling people who use Eastlink, we would be no further ahead.

 

So what could the space be used for if not a pool?

 

My initial thoughts are that the space would be better utilized as another type of recreation facility.  Every time I go to the Eastlink Centre, I see the field house and squash courts there are just packed.  I think there would easily be demand for another field house, expanded fitness centre, squash courts or some gymnastics and parkour equipment.  Some people have mentioned including some fitness options specially designed for people with disabilities.  You could include an indoor running track or other track and field options.  There are many, many possibilities. 

Any of these options would cost a small fraction of the cost of a pool and I think would serve a great need in the community.

 

One last thing:  the County used to give $200,000 a year to the Leisure Centre to help with operating costs.  This stopped once the Eastlink Centre was opened.  City Council will be asking the County to partner with us again with some yearly operational dollars.  If there was a significant commitment from the County to partner again, it would make the project a little more viable in my eyes.

As I've said, these are just my initial thoughts.  I look forward to seeing what the results of the survey will bring and look forward to discussing the topic further with residents.  Make sure you fill out the survey here.

 

Aquatics play a huge role in the lives of many GP and area residents.  As we plan for the future, I want to ensure that we have amazing facilities that meet our community's needs while ensuring we are being prudent with taxpayer dollars.

 

Should Apartments Be Taxed at a Higher Rate?

Council will decide on Monday night whether we are going to lower the "Other Residential" (ie. mainly apartments) Property Tax rate to be the same as "Low Density Residential". 

How did we get here?

Across North America, apartment buildings  have traditionally been taxed at a higher rate than low density residential (meaning single family houses mainly).  The historical rationale for this is best explained this way:

"Apartments are often classified as commercial real estate, because they are income generating, rather than as housing, and commercial property is taxed at a higher rate than residential real estate in many locales"

            -Jack Goodman

Grande Prairie is no exception.

Currently our mill rate for "Other Residential" sits at 13.8 (per $1000 of assessed value) while our "Low Density Residential" is at 9.9 giving us a ratio of 1.39:1.  So currently apartments are taxed almost directly in between our residential and business tax rates. 

Is this good tax policy?

There are a number of arguments that can be made as to why apartments should be taxed the same as low density residential.

First and foremost, it is in the City's interest to encourage more multi-family dwellings.  If anyone's looked for affordable rental accommodations in the last while, there's not much available.  Apartments are the best way to get large volumes of accommodations into the market.

Apartments also play a key role in smart growth principles.  We can make better use of our land when we increase our population densities.  Distances between commercial and population centres are lessened, reducing travel times.  Transit also becomes more viable with dense population centres.

Also, apartment buildings can be crucial in revitalizing areas such as downtown.  As you get more people living there, the vibrancy of the area increases, encouraging more commercial activity.

By lowering the annual costs of running apartment buildings, it becomes more attractive for builders to invest in this type of housing.  I've heard from a number of builders who note that the higher tax rate is one of the main barriers to investing in apartments over other income properties.

Second, the cost of delivering municipal services to apartment buildings is significantly less than single family residential, mainly in regards to road maintenance costs.  For example, you may have a block of roadway in a low density residential area with 20 houses along it.  Across town you may have an apartment building with 200 units that sits along the same length of roadway.  The maintenance costs of the  roads are the same, yet the City receives a great deal more revenue from the apartment than from the houses.

By equalizing the tax rates, you would more closely align the amount of property taxes paid with level of services received.

Third, apartments are no longer the only income generating housing in the game.  We have scores of single family housing that is being used to generate rental income nowadays.  Thus, we have hundreds of people and companies who are enjoying the lower residential rate for profit.  Shouldn't everyone in the rental market pay the same rate?

Equalizing the tax rates would level the playing field so to speak.

What about other municipalities?

In Alberta, most large towns and cities have moved to equalize their residential tax rates.  Of the 15 largest municipalities in the province, 10 have equalized rates.

So there's the arguments for equalization.  Now the real question:

What's it Going to Cost?

Okay Rory, lowering taxes is great and all, but what's it going to cost us?

Aye, there's the rub. 

If we were to equalize the tax rates immediately, there would roughly be an additional 1% tax increase added to our low density residential and business tax rates bringing 2014's tax increase from 2.4% to 3.4%...

BUT,

We had a piece of fortunate news come to us this year.  The Province, who sets the education portion of the property tax rate, reduced the amount they required this year leaving us with an additional $1.2 million if we collect at the already decided upon 2.4% increase.  Coincidently, this amount is roughly equivalent to what would be lost by lowering the apartment rate.

In other words, we could get away with equalizing rates this year without an additional tax increase.

So now I turn it to you.  Are the arguments in favour of equalization enough to justify the change? 

 

My Thoughts on Aquatera's Recent Acquisition

Aquatera recently acquired the private company, Watchhorn Rentals, through a subsidiary company (see press release).  As a shareholder of Aquatera, the City was able to cast a vote on the deal.  There was a majority of support on Council, so Mayor Given cast our vote in favour of the deal.  I was opposed and thought I'd share why:

First of all, I was not opposed because I thought it was a bad business deal.  The fundamentals of the acquired company are solid and the leadership of Aquatera did their due diligence in ensuring the acquisition was not going to expose ratepayers to much risk.  I think that going forward Watchorn Rentals will continue to succeed and be a valuable asset to Aquatera.  It will provide Aquatera with an additional revenue stream that will translate into higher dividends for shareholders.

So why the heck was I opposed then?

I was opposed to the deal on a matter of principle.  I believe there are only a few instances where governments should be competing openly in private markets.  While Aquatera is not a government entity, it is wholly-owned by municipalities and has a government-granted monopoly over several public utility services.  As such, my rationale applies to them as well.

Why?

I believe the government's role in the economy is to set the rules by which the market will function and then regulate and enforce those rules.  It is often unfair when governments enter the market as a player as they have powers, resources, and revenue streams that are not accessible to private companies.  In the case of Aquatera, the company has revenue from municipal ratepayers that could be used to finance expansion of their acquisition.  Watchorn's competitor's do not.

There are times when I believe it is justifiable for governments to enter the private market as opposed to just regulating it.  For example, sometimes the market is failing to provide a certain product or service or is unable to meet demand.  Sometimes there are overarching health and safety reasons.  However, in this case, the goal is to provide additional revenue to Aquatera.  The rationale is that this revenue stream will moderate utility rates while providing greater dividends to shareholders.

While this is a laudable goal on the surface, it does raise a major philosophical question: Should governments compete in the private market as a way to obtain additional revenue?

For example, the City could turn each of its departments into municipal corporations and we could have Parks out bidding for private mowing contracts or Transportation competing to paint lines in private parking lots.  This would provide the City with additional revenue, but at what cost?  An undermining of our robust business environment, in my view.

While this is an extreme example (which I doubt would ever receive ministerial approval), the underlying principles are the same. 

I will continue to be opposed to governments and/or municipally controlled corporations competing in the private sector unless there are justifiable reasons which do not include "additional revenue" alone.

How are others in northern Alberta/BC dealing with this snow?

I'm sure by now you've heard how this has been a record-breaking year for snow across much of northern Alberta/BC.  I thought it would be useful to look at how other cities are doing on residential snow removal to put our efforts in context and to look for best practices as it relates to policy. 

My research is based on searches of newspaper articles, Facebook/Twitter feeds, press releases and info on municipal websites in addition to anecdotal accounts from people I know in some of the cities.  Please let me know if there's another city I should be looking at or if you can add anything to what's been written.

Grande Prairie

Snowfall this winter: 192 cms

Residential rotations: 2 complete, 3 in some areas. Removal of windrows has commenced. 

Driveway windrow clearing: Council decided to move to the "blitz" method of plowing streets on Dec. 17th which left residents responsible for clearing windrows left at ends of driveways.

Fort St. John

Snowfall this winter: 202 cms

Residential rotations: 1 in mid-December, 1 ongoing

Driveway windrow clearing: Yes

I found an interesting post by FSJ's mayor who was responding to comments that snow removal was taking too long.  She reposted the article in the DHT which talks about GP's switch of policies and suggested that FSJ may want to look at going that route to speed things up.

Dawson Creek

Snowfall this winter: N/A

Residential rotations: 2 complete, Crews are now working on removing snow piles.

Driveway windrow clearing: No

Their website quite bluntly explains why driveway entrances are not cleared:

FAQ: When the snowplow goes by and clears the road, he also blocks my driveway with snow. Will the City clear my driveway?

Unfortunately, the answer is no. Clearing individual driveways is extremely expensive and places a huge strain on City resources.

Prince George

Snowfall this winter: N/A

Residential rotations: 1 completed in mid-December, 1 began over the last week

Driveway windrow clearing: Yes

I had the most trouble finding information on PG.  There were no news releases on their website, they don't have a Facebook/Twitter account and there were only a couple articles in the PG Citizen.According to multiple letters to the editor over the last couple of days, there are still many impassable roads with deep ruts being a major concern.

PG does do residential plowing through the night.  When they do this, vehicles are allowed to be parked on the street, but only on the odd side.  Could be something to look at for some areas in GP.

While PG's snow removal website lacks information on when crews are going to be around, it does provide a host of other information that I think would be useful for GP to have as well. You can check it out here.

Edmonton

Snowfall this winter: 82 cms

Residential rotations: 2 completed

Driveway windrow clearing: No

Residential roads in Edmonton are only plowed to a 5cm snow pack.  No windrows are removed from residential areas.  Residents are responsible for clearing out windrows at driveways. 

Interesting part of Edmonton policy: any windrows that are over 30cms in front of driveways, the City will come by and clear out.  I'd like to find out more about how this policy works and see if something could be instituted like this if we continue with this policy.

Here's an easy-to-read breakdown on Edmonton & Calgary's snow removal policies.

Strathcona County (Sherwood Park)

Snowfall this winter: 82 cms

Residential rotations: 1 completed in early December, 1 begins tomorrow (the 13th)

Driveway windrow clearing: N/A

Website says it takes 12 days to complete a full rotation.  Snow policy says that snow is plowed to middle of road and windrowed to be removed later.  This must mean all of Sherwood Park's roads are wide enough to accommodate this.  I haven't spent much time in SP, so let me know if my assumptions are correct.

Red Deer

Snowfall this winter: 112 cms

Residential rotations: 2 surface plows completed, 1 full plow to begin this week

Driveway windrow clearing: No

Red Deer went through a very similar situation to us this year.  They decided in early December that they would initiate surface plowing (or the "blitz" method as we called it) in residential areas where the goal was to create windrows not higher than 16".  They initiated another round of this type of plowing on Jan. 1st and completed plowing on the 10th.  The goal is to now begin a full plow of residential roads with removal of windrows and clearing to pavement.  The estimated time to complete this is 40 days.

St. Albert

Snowfall this winter: 90 cms

Residential rotations: 1 completed in early December

Driveway windrow clearing: Yes

St. Albert is considering doing a second round, but no decision has been made yet.  It takes 2-3 weeks to plow through residential areas.

Observations

Not surprisingly, the cities with the "blitz" method have progressed much quicker with their residential snow removal.

There are a number of things we can learn from other cities to improve our policies and I look forward to studying them more as we decide whether to adopt this policy permanently.

I have to give props to all our staff who have been involved with communication.  Our daily updates which span all media types is above par and staff should be commended greatly for this.


Please let me know your thoughts!

Who are the "Morons" That Approved this Snow Plan?

Who are the morons, idiots, losers, [insert other pejorative term here] that approved this new snow plan?  Well, I'm one of them.  And I'm going to vote to continue this plan on Tuesday.  This post will tell you why.

Let me start by saying thank you to everyone who gave feedback on our snow removal plans.  I received many Facebook posts, emails, tweets and phone calls with your input.  It was also the hot topic at holiday parties this year and I spent many a moment conversing about the intricacies of snow removal. 

After taking this input into account and evaluating the data from our Transportation department, I have decided that I will be supporting the new "blitz" snow removal policy for the rest of the season.  Here are the reasons why:

1. Speed

Under the blitz method of snow removal, we are able to have every residential street done in 5 days.  Under the old plan, it takes anywhere from 36 to 48 days with this much snow.  Quite frankly, clearing out the driveway of every one of the 22,000+ dwellings in GP is a tedious, slow going process.  Additionally, the longer the snow sits and gets compacted, the longer it takes to remove, thus compounding the problem.

Having roads impassable for weeks on end is unacceptable. People need to get to work, ambulances need to get to homes, and garbage needs to be removed.  Simply put, the new plan allows for us to be much quicker with making the roads passable.

2. Predictability

The new plan allows for us to more accurately say where crews are going to be on any given day.  We can develop a 5 day schedule which could say that on Day 1 of residential snow removal, our crews will be in x, y, and z neighbourhoods.  Day 2 we'll be in a, b, and c.  And so on.  This will help with getting vehicles off the road as there will be a predictable schedule.

3. Cost

The cost of one complete residential snow removal rotation under the old plan is between $500,000-$700,000.

The cost of one rotation under the blitz method is around $130,000.

In other words, we could do 5 rotations under the new plan for the same cost as 1 under the old.

What are the Cons?

The main con under this new plan is that residents are responsible for clearing out the windrows in front of their driveways.  This can create serious challenges for seniors or residents with disabilities.  This is why we've set up a hotline (780-538-0354 ext. 3) for residents to call should they require assistance with clearing.  We will have to develop a policy to establish the program more formally.

I understand there are people who think I'm a "moron" or any other number of names that have come my way because of my support for this plan.  Hopefully this post gives insight into my rationale for supporting it.  There's always room for improvement though, so please continue sharing your thoughts with me.

I've found the people who have shown the greatest support for this new plan are those from out east where they experience much greater snowfalls and where this type of snow removal is the norm.  I've researched dozens of snow removal policies over the last few weeks and have come to the conclusion that our current policy is highly inefficient when it comes to dealing with the great snowfalls we've been receiving.

While GP's long-term annual average snowfall is 158 cms, our average over the last 5 years has been 212 cms.  I'm no weather expert, but it seems to me that we should be adjusting our policies to account for snowfalls more akin to what is received out east.  On that note, I believe now is the time to change our policies and as such I will be voting in favour at Tuesday's meeting.

You can read Transportation manager Robert Carroll's report on the two plans here.


Odds and Ends

Several people have shared this video of a gate attachment for graders that could hold back snow over driveways.  The City bought a couple of these a while ago and found that they work great in rural areas, but that they do not work very good in residential streets with driveways fairly close to one another.  Apparently the gate gets clogged with snow way too often slowing down the process dramatically.

The Lowdown on Snow, Yo

In case you hadn't noticed, there's been a lot of talk about snow removal lately.

I thought I'd take some time to share some info on the subject and explore a few options.  Councillor Kevin O'Toole also has a good post on the subject that you can find here. 

To begin: this snow sucks...big time.  My fellow Councillors and I, as well as administration, know quite well how terrible the residential roads are.  I have dug out my fair share of vehicles, helped pull out a school bus, and have gotten my one ton dually stuck a few times.  I admit that even I had a few choice words to say to the City as my bumper was dislocated from my car trying to get out of a snow rut.  I get it.

So how did we get here? 

The simple answer is that we got an ungodly amount of snow in a very short timespan.  140 cms in 3 weeks to be precise.  That's 87% of the average snowfall we get in an ENTIRE winter.  That's half of what the snowiest city in Canada (St. John's, Nfld) gets in an ENTIRE winter.  That's a heck of a lot of snow by any measure.

What 's been even worse about this particular snowfall is that it has been continuous.  This means that we have had to have most of our crews continuously on Priority I and II routes slowing down residential street removal.

What has the City's response been? 

We have had every available piece of City equipment working round the clock to clear the roads.  Our staff are tirelessly working as long as labour laws allow...and the overtime is stacking up.  In addition to City crews, we have contracted as many private companies to help with removal as there are available.  If there were more, we'd have them.  We're now spending $40,000 a day on contracted services alone. 

What's the problem then? 

The problem is that there are an estimated 12,000 to 14,000 loads of snow left to be moved and there is just not the capacity in the region to deal with it in a timely fashion.

How can we speed things up?

1. GET PARKED CARS OFF THE STREET!!  The thing that slows our crews down the most is having to deal with parked cars.  If every street they came to had no parked cars, the whole city could be done in a fraction of the time. 

How do we achieve this?  The City can tow vehicles that are parked on the street...and they try.  However, there has been a several hour wait for tow trucks over the last couple weeks, so it's faster to just ticket the vehicle and plow around it.  You can help by ensuring your vehicle is off the road when asked and encouraging your neighbours to do the same. 

Some cities put parking bans on entire neighbourhoods over a several day period to make it easier to know when to remove your vehicle.  Or some have parking bans on the neighbourhood's garbage day.  Some cities even have citywide parking bans (although I highly doubt that'd fly in GP!)  Do you think there is a better method than just having a sign out 24 hrs in advance as we do now?  Or in other words, why are people still leaving vehicles on the street and what can we do to fix that?

The real root of the problem is that we have many residents who have no place to park but the street.  While we could talk for hours about decisions made in the past regarding parking available in new developments, I prefer to look to the future.  The City has become much more cognizant of the issue and are now requiring additional parking stalls, particularly in regards to multi-family dwellings and secondary suites.  We need to continue this practice.

2. Clearing out the entrance to residents' driveways takes up a considerable amount of time.  If we didn't do this during these crazy freak storms, we could get to more streets faster.  We could come back to finish them later or have residents responsible for them themselves.  Would you be okay with this?

3. We currently don't do snow removal in residential areas at night between 10pm and 7am.  Would you be okay with the noise associated with the graders/loaders in the middle of the night if it meant faster snow removal?

This option would be difficult to achieve as we get back to the parking issue.  There are more vehicles parked on the road at night and it is harder to contact owners at 2am.

4. As we go into 2015-2018 budget planning, we will have to examine whether additional staff and/or equipment will be needed.  This is always a tricky decision as there are some years where we get very little snow and we don't want to have a massive snow removal fleet just sitting around.  There's definitely a balance that needs to be found.

So there you have it folks...the lowdown on the snowdown (my new word).

As always, feedback appreciated.

Cheers,
Rory

AUMA Recap

Most of City Council attended the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association (AUMA) convention over the last few days.

The AUMA is an organization that represents 272 urban municipalities in the province and advocates the interests of its members to both the provincial and federal governments as well as other provincial and federal organizations.

AUMA holds a yearly convention where there are learning sessions, policy discussions, meetings with provincial officials and cabinet ministers, advocacy resolutions are passed and networking opportunities abound.

I thought I'd give a little recap of my experience this year:

Asset Management
I went to an informative session on Asset Management.  There was an excellent presentation from the Town of Hinton, who leads Albertan municipalities in this field.  In a nutshell, Asset Management is the process of analysing infrastructure to get an accurate accounting of lifespans, upgrades required, etc.  While the City does do this to a certain extent now, there are a number of best practices that could be adopted to give Council and Admin a fuller picture of the health and longevity of our tangible capital assets.

MGA Review
The Municipal Government Act is the piece of legislation that governs almost everything that municipalities do in Alberta.  The government announced last year that the MGA would be undergoing an extensive review that would culminate in an updated version going to the Legislature by Spring 2015.  The City, through its involvement with AUMA, will be able to contribute to these discussions in a number of areas.

One of the sessions I went to on the review spoke about revenue streams.  Some municipalities have asked for the power to diversify their revenue streams in the belief that there is an over-reliance on property taxes.  The presentation examined all the possible revenue streams available and gave pros and cons on each one.  I plan on doing a blog post on the topic in the future.

Municipal Governance
There was a fascinating panel discussion on different municipal governance models.  Regional governments, regional planning boards, and multi-lateral partnerships were all discussed.  There seemed to be a consensus in the room that much of the current system is imperfect, although there was less consensus on what the answers are.

Resolutions
Each year, members of AUMA debate and pass resolutions which direct AUMA's advocacy efforts.  This year we talked about topics ranging from municipal funding to wetlands to amalgamations to pensions plans to the introduction of a provincial combative sports commission.  The AUMA board will now take the policies that were passed and incorporate them into their advocacy efforts.

Dialogue with Ministers
There were a number of Q & A sessions with members of the provincial cabinet.  While sometimes Ministers use this time to announce new policies or additional funding, there were no surprises from what I could tell.  Everything seems pretty status-quo.

Trade Show
Every year the AUMA has a trade show which showcases everything from new street lighting systems to educational opportunities to paving equipment.  It was great to see what types of products and services are out there for municipalities.  I particularly enjoyed having the chance to test out some outdoor fitness equipment.

One of the great things about these conventions is the networking opportunities.  I got to meet many people from around the province and was able to learn from their experiences on a number of topics.
 
Overall, the convention was of great value to me.  I believe the AUMA provides tremendous value to Albertan municipalities and Grande Prairie is no exception.  I look forward to working with them as they advance municipal objectives in the province, especially with Councillor Rice as the new President!

PS. This blog could have been a dozen pages if I expanded on everything...so if you want more details...just give me a shout!