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!

Budget 2015-18: The Rationale Part I

 

 

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

 

First some overall thoughts on the budget:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Roads

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

$10.8 million

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

 

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

$5.5 million

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

 

112 Street Extension (over railway tracks) - Supported

$1 million

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

 

Road Rehab & Overlay - Supported

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

 

Traffic Signals - Supported

$4 million

New traffic signals will be put at the following intersections:

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Snow Plow/Sander - 2016 - Supported

$300,000

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

 

Revolution Place Expansion

$50.5 million - Not supported

 

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

 

 

Parks, Trails, and Pathways

 

South Bear Creek upgrades  - Supported

$2.2 million

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

 

Upgrades include:

 

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

 

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

 

Muskoseepi Park Enhancements - Supported

$1.4 million

 

Highlights include:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Parks

A number of investments are being made to Parks. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Pathways

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Transit

Bus Stops & Shelter upgrades - Supported

$125,000

 

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

 

3 New Buses - Supported

$1.1 million

 

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

 

Electronic Fare Collection System - Supported

$153,000

 

 

Contingent on provincial funding of $297,000.

Head on over to Part II!