Problem 3: Inefficient Service Delivery

I believe the Grande Prairie area could be much more efficient in how it delivers its municipal services.

Perhaps the most glaring example is in regards to fire service.  The region has several fire departments, each which only operate within their boundaries*.  To highlight the ridiculousness of this, we have to look no further than to a fire that happened recently in Silverpointe, just west of the City border, directly south of the Airport.  There is a City fire station literally a few blocks away from this subdivision, yet, because it's located in the County, fire trucks had to come from the Dunes fire station and Wembley.  Just crazy.

In addition to the poor coordination of services this model gives us, it is more expensive.  By not coordinating on the location and number of fire detachments, I believe we have more than are needed for the region.  We also have to have a separate management staff as well as additional fire personnel to man all the stations.  Thus, the region is paying a lot more for fire service than it needs to be.

Another major example is when it comes to development services.  Each municipality has separate land use bylaws and engineering standards for development.  Therefore, developers and builders have to navigate through 7 different sets of policies when building in the GP region.  They also have to coordinate with multiple development authorities as they build.  This can be very time consuming.  In addition to multiple development authorities, they have to deal with different building inspection offices.  All in all, not a very efficient system.

We find another example in our GIS (Geographic Information Systems) departments.  These are the people that map out our municipalities plotting everything from land ownership boundaries to locations of trees.  To get detailed maps of the entire area, you have to go to 7 different municipalities and can end up having to decipher multiple map systems.  Again, not too efficient.  Oh, did I forget to mention the cost of running multiple departments...

Another major example is in transportation.  I think our road networks could be much more efficient if we had better coordination of road systems and looked at them with a regional focus.  For example, I think it would make much more sense to have our truck route coming from the south on Hwy 40, take a turn going west on the correction line and continue north along the County's Range Road 63 which turns into the City's 116 St and then back into RR 63 before hitting the Hwy 43X bypass.  This would alleviate traffic on 108 St. keeping heavy trucks away from major residential and commercial hubs as well as the new hospital.

Before I sound like too much of a downer, I will make note that we do have a number of services that coordinate very well.  Our Disaster and Emergency response systems function well by my estimation.  The Grande Prairie Regional Emergency Partnership (GPREP) brings together the municipalities in the area to have shared plans in case of an emergency.  While not perfect, Aquatera has served well in how it's regionalized water and sewage services. 

So there exists some pretty inefficient service delivery in the region.  You could go through nearly every municipal service and identify areas where it would just make sense to share resources and expertise.  Luckily, there's a few solutions for this.

 
Next post-----> Problem 4: An Unequal Playing Field to Attract Development

 

*There are agreements in place to assist one another in extreme emergencies, but these are very few and far between.

Problem 2: Poor Regional Planning

I believe that there has been some poor planning decisions made in the region due to constraints imposed by the municipal systems.  I'm going to be pretty frank in this post and may step on a few toes.  Remember, it's just my opinion and I welcome being challenged.

I think the Clairmont area is a wreck.  It defies all the best planning practices out there.  In good community planning, you want to try and reduce travel distances between residential areas and places people frequent often (recreational centres, schools, grocery stores, etc.)  You also want to provide pedestrian linkages so that residents can walk or bike to get around.  Connecting residential and commercial hubs together also allows for a more efficient transit system.  Good community planning says that you should locate residential away from major highways and provide sufficient separation from industrial areas.  Clairmont fails on all these fronts.

I think the Clairmont area works great as an industrial park.  Proximity to a major highway being a key factor.  I do not believe it makes sense to have the area as a residential centre.  Residents must compete with heavy industrial traffic daily, are required to take a vehicle to do most of their activities and are often graced by that lovely industrial fog that settles around Clairmont Lake.

Does it really make sense to be encouraging further residential development in this area?

I also think that the County Sportsplex is located in a terrible position.  The vast majority of its users are located in and around the City and must drive needless distances to access the facility.  Also, if anyone wants to access it by biking or walking, they need to cross one of two major highways.  It would have made much more sense to locate it next to a major residential centre.

Grande Prairie sees residential developments building up around the edges of the City's limits.  We have many residential developments sprout up with empty sections of land between them and the nearest residential neighbourhood.  Good planning practices dictate that the empty sections should be filled in first.  Now you have residents needlessly driving further each day.  Also, pedestrian links won't be available until the City develops outward to connect with these areas.  Poor regional planning.

The City has some issues as well.  Under the current system, urban municipalities are encouraged to fill up as much of their land as possible before annexing more.  Mix this with the desire to attract as much development as possible and you can get some poor planning decisions.   For example, the City has very limited land right now for which it can zone for industrial and in effect has to place it in areas that aren't exactly ideal locations.  It would make much more sense to locate all of our industrial in places further away from the City like Clairmont.  However, under current systems, there is very little impetus to have a plan for regional growth and to identify the best places to have various types of development in the region.

Another issue with regional planning right now is that one municipality can approve developments next to another without having to ask how it's going to affect another municipality.  For example, the dinosaur museum will have a major impact on the Town of Wembley.  While the Town's councillors got to have their thoughts heard on the proposed development, they had to watch as County councillors debated and then voted on it.  Wembley voters didn't have the chance to vote in councillors that would support/oppose the museum based on their views even though the development could have a major impact on their lives.  Since the Clairmont area is not in the City/County IDP, we have no control over how it develops even though it has direct impacts on City planning.

In sum, I believe there are some serious problems with planning in our region.  I'm sure there are dozens of examples you could list as well.  Fortunately, there are many solutions to fix it.

Next post ----> Problem 3: Inefficient Service Delivery

Problem 1: Inequality in Who Pays For Infrastructure and Services

As mentioned before, we are one big community who all use services offered by all the municipalities in our area.  Residents from Hythe use the Beaverlodge pool beside Beaverlodge residents, County residents from Clairmont quad in the Dunes area along with City residents.  When I install siding in Sexsmith, I use all of Sexsmith's streets to get around; farmers from LaGlace use City streets to pick up supplies...the list goes on.

If everyone in the area gets to regularly use the infrastructure and services on an equal basis, shouldn't everyone also equally contribute towards the costs as well?

Unfortunately this is not the case right now.

There are a number of ways that we can analyze who is paying what costs.  The first way is to look at how much the municipalities are paying for the cost of delivering services in the area.  Between 2009 and 2012, $789 million was spent on municipal services in the GP region.  Here's how it was broken down:

Municipality	Total Expenses	% of Regional Expenses	% of Population
City of GP	$515,621,098	65.4%	66.8%
County of GP	$227,081,101	28.8%	24.7%
Town of Beaverlodge	$18,835,413	2.4%	2.9%
Town of Sexsmith	$14,923,435	1.9%	2.9%
Town of Wembley	$7,007,001	0.9%	1.7%
Village of Hythe	$5,121,503	0.6%	1.0%

As we can see, each municipality is paying a share of municipal services that is roughly equivalent to their population share, although the County does pay a slightly larger piece.  While in some spending areas, some municipalities pay more, it generally balances out overall.  For example, the City covers around 82% of the region's Recreation & Culture costs, but this is offset by the County who pick up about 37% of the region's Transportation costs.

Great! What's the issue then?

The issue arises when we look at how much each residential taxpayer is paying based on which municipality they live in:

Municipality	Residential Taxes Paid	Average Res. Tax per Dwelling	% of Regional Residential Taxes	% of Population
City of GP	$63,772,526	$2,702	75.30%	66.80%
County of GP	$15,674,556	$1,854	18.50%	24.70%
Town of Beaverlodge	$1,832,191	$1,868	2.20%	2.90%
Town of Sexsmith	$1,799,160	$2,004	2.10%	2.90%
Town of Wembley	$901,989	$1,572	1.10%	1.70%
Village of Hythe	$699,000	$2,118	0.80%	1.00%

*See note on calculations at bottom of post

Here we see that City residents are paying a much greater share of all the residential taxes that are collected in the area.  In fact, the average dwelling in the City paid $2,702 in taxes in 2012 compared to an average of $1,854 in the County...an $850 difference.

But Rory, this doesn't make any sense.  If the municipalities are paying an equal share, but residents aren't, what's the deal?

Good question.  Here are the answers:

1. Some municipalities have additional revenue streams that help keep their residential taxes low. 

2. Some municipalities have the provincial government pick up the tab for a number of their services.

Let's look at each:

1. Revenues

In Alberta, there are two main sources of property tax that the provincial government assesses and collects: Linear assessment and Machinery & Equipment (M&E)

Linear assessment includes things like pipelines, oil & gas wells, electrical transmission lines, and telecommunication towers. M&E is the assessment class that includes industrial complexes like the Weyerhaeuser and Canfor mills and large equipment like compressors and storage tanks.  Municipalities get "rent" essentially for having all this within their jurisdiction.

So who gets this money?  Let's take a look at 2012 numbers:

Municipality	Linear Revenues	Linear Revenue per capita	Share of Regional Linear Revenues	% of Population
City of GP	$1,876,031	$34	7%	67%
County of GP	$23,565,319	$1,158	92%	25%
Town of Beaverlodge	$75,200	$32	0.30%	2.90%
Town of Sexsmith	$140,971	$58	0.50%	2.90%
Town of Wembley	$21,738	$16	0.10%	1.70%
Village of Hythe	$0	$0	0%	1.00%

Municipality	M&E Revenues	M&E Revenues Per Capita	Share of Regional M&E Revenues	% of Population
City of GP	$670,662	$12	5%	67%
County of GP	$12,450,744	$612	94%	25%
Town of Beaverlodge	$9,126	$4	0.10%	2.90%
Town of Sexsmith	$45,911	$19	0.30%	2.90%
Town of Wembley	$1,599	$1	0%	1.70%
Village of Hythe	$0	$0	0%	1.00%

Municipality	M&E/Linear Revenues Combined	M&E/Linear Revenues Per Capita	Share of Regional M&E/Linear Revenues	% of Population
City of GP	$2,546,693	$46	7%	67%
County of GP	$36,016,063	$1,770	93%	25%
Town of Beaverlodge	$84,326	$36	0.20%	2.90%
Town of Sexsmith	$186,882	$77	0.50%	2.90%
Town of Wembley	$23,337	$17	0.10%	1.70%
Village of Hythe	$0	$0	0%	1.00%

I don't really need to provide much commentary here.  The inequality is quite mind blowing.

In addition to the Linear and M&E, municipalities receive grants from the provincial government.  Again we see some major inequalities in how the grants have been dolled out between 2009 and 2012:

Municipality	Provincial Grants Total	Provincial Grants Per Capita	Share of Regional Provincial Grants	% of Population
City of GP	$104,377,975	$1,897	61%	67%
County of GP	$53,473,296	$2,628	31%	25%
Town of Beaverlodge	$3,697,644	$1,563	2.10%	2.90%
Town of Sexsmith	$6,068,235	$2,510	3.50%	2.90%

Is it fair that one municipality receives nearly a third of the provincial grants while having one quarter of the population?

As we can see, there are some major inequalities that exist on the revenue side, leading to a greater residential tax burden for urban taxpayers.

2. Expenses

We also need to look at the expense side where inequalities also exist.  The biggest inequality right now is in regards to policing.

In Alberta, municipalities under 5000 people and all MDs and Counties are not required to pay for policing; the expense is paid for by the Province.  In contrast, the City paid $13.6 million for policing in 2013.

In other words, the City spent about $250 on policing for every person living in the City, while our neighbours were required to spend almost nothing (I say "almost" because the County does pay for 3 RCMP officers to enhance what is given to them).

To conclude, there are some major inequalities that exist in who pays for municipal services in the region.  Now, I do realize that this whole issue is not as cut and dry as I've laid it out.  For example, grants that come to one municipality do benefit others.  Although the County received the grant for the Dinosaur museum, the City and Towns will benefit from increased tourism in the area. 

Also, I recognize that to support the pipelines and industrial complexes, the County does have a little extra burden on its transportation infrastructure.  However, objective evidence has shown that the extra revenues many rural municipalities receive far exceeds the additional infrastructure costs.  So while I don't think the goal should be perfect equality, the scales are heavily tipped in the rural municipalities' direction and changes are needed.  I look forward to sharing what those changes could be.

 Next post ----> Problem 2: Poor Regional Planning

*I've included all the residential property taxes that are paid in the given year for simplicity sake.  If you look at just the portion that goes to the municipalities and not the province, you find City residents are actually paying 79% of residential taxes vs. 15% in the County.  This goes to show that there are inequalities in who is paying for the education and seniors lodging portion of our property taxes as well.  This can be another discussion for another day though...

Grande Prairie, We Have Some Problems

Yes, we really do.

The problems of which I speak deal with the mess we have in municipal systems that exist in the area and across the province.  In this series of blog posts, I will show how the Grande Prairie region is negatively affected by the models of municipal governance and funding that we live under.  I will show that these systems are inadequate, unfair and do not reflect modern reality. 

I will explore reasons for why I believe this is so and then conclude with a discussion on possible solutions.

As you read the posts, it may come across that I'm being fairly critical of the County.  I want to impress that my concern is with the systems in place which favour the County and not with the County itself.  I have very good relationships with County Councillors and work with them on a regular basis, even as we navigate through these imperfect systems.

A big thank you to Mayor Given and former Town of Peace River Councillor, Don Good, for sharing their insights on these topics with me, many of which have found their way to this blog.  Also, a big thanks to City admin who helped with some of the technical information found here.

What is the Grande Prairie region?

Before we get into the issues, let's look at what the GP region is.  To me, the GP region is the area in which people commute for work, recreation, entertainment, etc. on a regular basis.  With this in mind, I believe the Grande Prairie region exists roughly from Hythe to Debolt and from Grovedale to an area north of Sexsmith.

Where are we at?

We're really one big community.  People from Sexsmith work in the City daily, people in the City work in Elmworth daily.  Clairmont residents use City recreational facilities regularly, City residents make use of campgrounds in the County regularly.  Residents of Grovedale visit friends in Bezanson...I think you get the picture.  I've found most people in the area couldn't tell you where one boundary starts and another one begins.  This area of over 90,000 residents is truly one big community.

Right now this area is governed by 7 municipalities: 1 City, 1 County, 3 Towns, 1 Village and 1 Municipal District (MD).  While we all try to get along the best we can under current systems, we often come into conflict with one another.  I see that there are four main problems caused by these systems which naturally lead us to conflict.  These problems are:

1. Inequality in who pays for infrastructure and services.

2. Poor regional land planning.

3. Inefficient service delivery.

4. An unequal playing field to attract development.

Throughout this series of blog posts, I will share what these problems are and why they exist.  I will then post a series of possible solutions.  So without further to do, let's begin this little journey...

 Next post ----->  Problem 1: Inequality in who pays for infrastructure and services.

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.