Residents have been asking questions about the event coming up next Tuesday, December 20th at the Summerwood Second Cup at Lakeland Dr and Cloverbar Road.
I invited all nominees that have declared in the PC party race to come out to get together with residents.
Please understand my intent is not to promote a particular party, and will not use my political position to support any particular candidate or any specific party. I have no wish to influence my residents. I believe in the process - and that residents have minds of their own!!
My goal is to encourage participation in all levels of government and thus I hope encourage a greater turn out at elections of all levels and parties.
Next Tuesday is organized as a fireside chat - an opportunity for residents to have one on one conversation with candidates. We will seat each candidate at separate tables to avoid a forum or debate enviornment. - You see this is not a forum or a debate - this is a way for residents to come and ask their own questions in person.
Some residents have said they want an opportunity to visit with representatives from other parties - so be it. If you like this idea - I certainly will be pleased to organize another one in the New Year when an election is called - so that people can come and chat in person with candidates from other parties.
In the mean time come out on the Dec. 20, 2011 to raise your issues with the canditates who are trying to represent you.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
County’s 2012-2014 Business Plan & 2012 Budget
The budget passed in this weeks Council meeting generally maintains
municipal, utility and library service levels at the 2011 standard. The
municipal tax rate required to support the municipal operating budget of
239.9 million dollars and consolidated capital budget of 101 million
dollars is 4.84%. However, your final total on your tax bill will include
seniors services plus library services plus school taxes.
I had difficulties with several areas of the budget this year and
wanted to explain to you why I voted against two of the budget
recommendations.
The budget theme brought forward by administration was presented as
responsibly delivering quality services while preparing for transition
to sustainability. The goal is balance: quality services with acceptable
taxes.
Council was told of a need for a solid and secure transition to
sustainability. Administration's desire is to develop a methodology in
budget process and mind set to get us there – to achieve a stable
practice of budget in an unstable world market.
Administration pointed out program efficiencies and ways they have
leveraged volume municipal purchases and technology to save tax payers
dollars.
So I had to pose this question to myself: has Council done the best we
can do to provide services that maintain our residents quality of life
while levying acceptable taxes? Is there any fat left in the budget? Is
there a business initiative in there that could be implemented in 2013
or 2014 – or phased in with less revenues allocated in 2012?
Yes there is – the branding initiative is an example of one of
those. Communications put forward a Business Initiative Request for 185,000 in
2012 with another 1.5 million in 2013 and 2014. But the actual branding initiative has not yet come before Council for final approval.
Oddly, during Council deliberations of the budget – Council itself
increased the money allocated to the branding advertising and marketing
budget by $600,000 (three times what administration requested) in the
first year of a program we have not even seen!
This does not fit into my definition of transition toward
sustainability – as administration has named this budget.
Speaking of return on investment and priorities – this Council turned
down my request to bring back a deferred Transit program of $348,000 to
expand and restructure specialized transportation to address inequities
in the current program.
Transition to sustainability requires proper prioritization and
rationale when allocating funds.
These are some of the reasons why I voted against two of the four
budget recommendations.
Other concerns I have with the budget involve the 4 million forecasted
surplus that has not been given back to the tax payer - but allocated to
reserves and capital expenditures. I am hopeful that Council will see
fit to seriously consider additional surpluses that may be found as
being put toward a tax decrease.
Further, given that our Organizational Review is due to be presented to
the public and Council in February, I saw no reason why we could not work
within a status quo budget until that time. We all understand that the
Municipal Price Inflation index at 3.4% has to be considered but I would
have liked to see more of a mind set that says we should work within the
budget until we see what efficiencies can be brought forward to cover
new business initiatives.
Generally, I think it is time economists and politicians talked a
little more - somebody has to start understanding that income and
salaries of the general population are not increasing in increments
large enough to create an unending pool of money for governments to
continue to dip into.
County News Release
municipal, utility and library service levels at the 2011 standard. The
municipal tax rate required to support the municipal operating budget of
239.9 million dollars and consolidated capital budget of 101 million
dollars is 4.84%. However, your final total on your tax bill will include
seniors services plus library services plus school taxes.
I had difficulties with several areas of the budget this year and
wanted to explain to you why I voted against two of the budget
recommendations.
The budget theme brought forward by administration was presented as
responsibly delivering quality services while preparing for transition
to sustainability. The goal is balance: quality services with acceptable
taxes.
Council was told of a need for a solid and secure transition to
sustainability. Administration's desire is to develop a methodology in
budget process and mind set to get us there – to achieve a stable
practice of budget in an unstable world market.
Administration pointed out program efficiencies and ways they have
leveraged volume municipal purchases and technology to save tax payers
dollars.
So I had to pose this question to myself: has Council done the best we
can do to provide services that maintain our residents quality of life
while levying acceptable taxes? Is there any fat left in the budget? Is
there a business initiative in there that could be implemented in 2013
or 2014 – or phased in with less revenues allocated in 2012?
Yes there is – the branding initiative is an example of one of
those. Communications put forward a Business Initiative Request for 185,000 in
2012 with another 1.5 million in 2013 and 2014. But the actual branding initiative has not yet come before Council for final approval.
Oddly, during Council deliberations of the budget – Council itself
increased the money allocated to the branding advertising and marketing
budget by $600,000 (three times what administration requested) in the
first year of a program we have not even seen!
This does not fit into my definition of transition toward
sustainability – as administration has named this budget.
Speaking of return on investment and priorities – this Council turned
down my request to bring back a deferred Transit program of $348,000 to
expand and restructure specialized transportation to address inequities
in the current program.
Transition to sustainability requires proper prioritization and
rationale when allocating funds.
These are some of the reasons why I voted against two of the four
budget recommendations.
Other concerns I have with the budget involve the 4 million forecasted
surplus that has not been given back to the tax payer - but allocated to
reserves and capital expenditures. I am hopeful that Council will see
fit to seriously consider additional surpluses that may be found as
being put toward a tax decrease.
Further, given that our Organizational Review is due to be presented to
the public and Council in February, I saw no reason why we could not work
within a status quo budget until that time. We all understand that the
Municipal Price Inflation index at 3.4% has to be considered but I would
have liked to see more of a mind set that says we should work within the
budget until we see what efficiencies can be brought forward to cover
new business initiatives.
Generally, I think it is time economists and politicians talked a
little more - somebody has to start understanding that income and
salaries of the general population are not increasing in increments
large enough to create an unending pool of money for governments to
continue to dip into.
County News Release
Friday, December 2, 2011
Council Meeting Highlights
Council had a busy month evaluating and discussing next year’s budget, which I will report on next week. The Nov. 29, 2011 Council meeting does have some interesting reports. Background reports and minutes.
Webcast
To get the full flavour of how decisions are made tune into the webcast. The webcast is timed and titled so that you can refer immediately to your topic of interest.
Advisory Committees & Boards
Thanks to all of you who took the time to apply for Strathcona County Advisory Committees and Boards. Twenty committees now have a tremendous pool of talent to draw from to continue to build our municipality. Two of those committees gave presentations: Economic Development & Tourism Committee, the Energy Exploration Report and the Accessibility Committee.
Economic Development & Tourism Committee
Vice Chair John Devin updated Council with the first year of accomplishments. This is a group of proactive professionals who have stepped forward to assist the County as it attempts to better attract new businesses and strengthen existing businesses. Next year’s initiatives include a business ambassador program.
Accessibility Committee
Chair Tracy Zala and Bob Atcheson presented an overview of this new committee’s achievements. Members experienced in issues faced by persons with disabilities advise administration on identifying and resolving program and facility issues. This past year the group visited and evaluated ten municipal buildings. Recommendations ranged from minor to major with several changes made immediately under the existing maintenance budgets.
Energy Exploration Report
Chair Bernie Yakimyshyn reported on the committee’s activities of updating information and protocols on the County website and public brochures. Members will be at the Fort Saskatchewan Trade Fair 2012 to continue to provide information to landowners
Sherwood Park Primary Care Network
General Manager Dave Ludwig and Dr Jim Adams reported on the incredible progress made in four years by our own doctors in addressing wait times, improving resident health and saving health care dollars. Primary Care Network link.
Multi Tenant Residential Waste Management Strategy
Council was updated on the implementation of the green routine in condos, apartments and other multi-family residential properties. As a follow through to the Waste Management Bylaw of 2008, all private collectors will conform to this bylaw in order to maximize waste diversion. This means that if you live in a condo or apartment style complex – you will be obligated to divert organics and recycling from the landfill by December 2012. Property managers and condo boards will be receiving letters of information in the first half of next year. More information.
AUC Review & Stay
Council authorized a further $70,000 from reserves to be used in the application to the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) to review and vary its decision on the approving of power lines to be built above ground, and for a stay of that decision pending resolution of the application. Taxpayers dollars used to date in fighting this legal battle are about 540,000 dollars.
Now is the time to pause and reflect. It is my hope members of the legislature will join us in looking at options to bury the lines in a cost effective manner.
Sidewalk Snow Clearing Bylaw
Thank you to the four presenters and 18 people who wrote e mails and letters. Council will be debating the merits of passing a bylaw on Dec. 13, 2011. If you have not voted on my CouncillorCarr.com website – please do so – and continue to send your comments to council
E-News Bulletin
I send out an E-News Bulletins about four times a month to residents. It is an opportunity for me to inform you of events and matters of interest to your family and neighbours in a timely manner. These electronic news flashes also help me to get your input and touch base with you. You are welcome to sign up at carr@strathcona.ab.ca
Monday, November 14, 2011
Council Meeting Highlights
Webcast
To get the full flavour of how decisions are made tune into the webcast. The webcast is timed and titled so that you can refer immediately to your topic of interest.
Affordable Housing
Strathcona County’s Affordable Housing Implementation Committee delivered its final report to Council on Nov. 8, 2011. This committee was made up of public stakeholders and staff and successfully allocated over 12 million dollars of provincial funding to three major housing gaps in our community: entry level ownership, affordable market rental and special needs.
Ten low income families now own their first homes thanks to Habitat for Humanity and this program. Pioneer Housing was able to construct 60 self contained units for seniors and they plan to build 69 housing units for older non seniors on AISH and single parent families. Strathcona Schizophrenia Foundation (two condo units) and the Robin Hood Association both met the criteria (38 housing units).
This process has been a example of public, non profits, the province and the County working together to utilize tax dollars in the most efficient way to ensure that our community cares for its own residents and has a diverse population.
The recommendations are thought provoking and merit further discussion and analysis.
One recommendation requires more explanation. The committee urged Council to review their level of commitment to address future affordability. “The AHIC feels that although the responsibility for housing should remain the responsibility of the Province, where it makes sense to benefit Strathcona County, on the whole, affordable housing subsidization should be considered as an opportunity that needs to be explored”. Direct substitution with County residents’ tax payer dollars would be double dipping as our residents’ dollars are already being used through the provincial mandate to subsidize affordable housing. There is, after all, only one tax payer. However – there are ways for the County to support provincial leadership and leverage developer and nonprofit relationships. I look forward to a more detailed report from administration for discussion.
Advisory Housing Committee - Motion
I made a motion requesting Council to direct administration to put forward the merits of an advisory committee to council that would examine current and future housing needs in both urban and rural Strathcona County. This would encompass all types and density of housing and supplement the only report we have to date which focuses on seniors affordable housing. Industry stakeholders and the public would work together to identify what the best type of housing development is for Strathcona County. Additionally, they would make recommendations to change standards of service delivery to ensure increased competitiveness with other municipalities. Issues of clarity and effectiveness of current bylaws would be reviewed and recommendations come to Council. An element of education and relationship building would be inherent in the committee process. Council tabled this until May.
Traffic Bylaw
Council passed first reading of the new traffic bylaw, with the proviso that much work needed to be done. this bylaw is an amassing of eight bylaws into one. Residents should be aware that there is a 36 hour parking limit for RVs on public roadways with a maximum of twice in a seven day period. RV’s parked on private property cannot extend over the top of the curb or sidewalk. I receive numerous complaints throughout the year because RV owners show a lack of respect for their neighbours and do not realize they create a safety hazard by blocking visibility.
The proposed bylaw requires rubber driveway mats to be removed by November 1 of each year. I did request a date change to December 1, closer to actual road clearing times.
I noted concern over issues that condo associations have been experiencing with parking and asked for clarification on sign standards and support in parking enforcement.
Sidewalk Snow Clearing Bylaw
Please comment to Council before or at the Nov. 29, 2011 public input session.
Budget
I urge residents to go to this link to look up the webcasts of our budget meetings. Council will meet to review administration recommendations on November 25, 30 and December 2. I am concerned with annual requests for dozens of new hires, the number and type of new Business Initiatives when I see over 180 capital projects from years past. I focused on this last year and will be highlighting the merits of a catch up year again this Council session. Your comments would be greatly appreciated.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Council Meeting Highlights
After most Council meetings, I pick out specific issues that I want to comment on – especially to give residents a little behind the scenes insight as to why I vote the way I do. Information on the background reports and minutes
Webcast
To get the full flavour of how decisions are made tune into the webcast. The webcast is timed and titled so that you can refer immediately to your topic of interest.
Organizational Meeting
On Oct. 25, 2011 Council started with an organizational meeting that left some Councillors wanting to see the Mayor move forward with her promised change in committee selection. Currently the Mayor picks Councillors to serve on the dozen or so committees and boards. Immediately after the election, the Mayor indicated that her preference would be to have Council’s input. This did not occur. I for one look to aligning the interview process with the one the public goes through. I would like to see Council examine one another’s resumes and past experiences to determine who the best fit is for each committee. An open and honest discussion would be a relationship builder.
I also requested discussion on whether or not elected officials should take the position of Chair or Vice Chair on a public Advisory Committee to Council. I do not mind Councillors being on the committee, but do not see the need for them to be in a position of influence on a public committee which acts in an advisory capacity - it defeats the purpose.
As to changes: I was disappointed to see Councillor Brian Botterill removed from the Capital Region Board Transit Committee after he proved himself as a clear thinking, mature member who brought issues back to Council where warranted and always gave excellent reports.
Perimeter Fencing Along Arterial Roads
As residents and visitors travel into and through the urban area of Strathcona County they are greeted with a welcoming landscape of trees, shrubs and flowers with a background fence on major arteries. The fence creates a consistent and orderly backdrop, as well as providing some sound and visual protection for homeowners. If benefits accrue to both the community and homeowner - who should pay for the repair, replacement and upkeep of these fences?
Historically, on County property, arterial road fences are maintained and replaced by the County. These fences are not the issue. At a certain point in our urban history, developers were told to put fences on private property. The fence became the property of the owner to maintain and replace.
Most residents I have talked to bring forward the good neighbour policy. It is the responsibility of land owners to maintain fences on their own property; having said that, a good neighbour will contribute to upkeep. As a balance between fiscal accountability to the taxpayers on the whole – and as a contribution to upkeep – I made a recommendation that the County look at the possibility of staining or painting the public side of the fence. This will be considered by Council in the budget process. Council did approve a motion to enforce the Nuisance and Unsightly Premises bylaw under which property owners along arterial roads must maintain, repair and replace those fences.
Has Council fully addressed the issue? Not in my opinion. The track record of developers/builders in putting up high standard durable fences is not impressive. Anyone having bought a new home on Lakeland Drive can attest to this. Why are we getting flimsy single board fences on major arterial roadways? Because our County standards and regulations do not ask for double boarded or cement sound attenuation fences. This needs to be addressed by administration and Council.
Canadian National Railway Crossing at Range Rd 221 north of Hwy 16
CN and Transport Canada has funded the majority of a $316,400 capital project required on the ‘at grade’ railway crossing warning system that the Canadian Transport Commission ordered upgraded. As the road authority, Strathcona County was responsible for a portion of $70,914 – which Council approved to come from the Future Municipal Operating Reserve.
Social Inclusion
Council passed a new municipal policy that will reduce barriers to community participation and ensure that residents are able to engage in the social, economic and cultural life of our community to a greater extent. Social inclusion is fostered by this policy and will be promoted in municipal services, programs and facilities. The Policy is ground breaking in that it uses a baseline of LICO (Statscan low income threshold) plus 10% in many of its subsidy guidelines. We are the first municipality in Alberta to adopt the higher threshold in recognition of the higher cost of living in our area.
I send out an E-News Bulletin to residents on community information and issues. It gives me an opportunity to ‘touch base’ with you on a regular basis. You can obtain your copy by sending me your e mail address.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Council Meeting Highlights of October 11
The October 11th Council was an interesting one with both EMS and the RCMP reporting their semi annual reports. NRCaer made a very informative presentation. In our public session thirty five local residents brought forward a critical piece on fencing and the effect of construction on the Cloverbar/Baseline intersection on their homes. Mr Gary Burns brought forward valuable comments on BBQ gas line installation permits that enlightened Council...and Lily Kleinke represented the Lions Club with an informative presentation on guide dogs. My questions brought forward a disturbing fact that Lily and her dog had been asked to leave a local convenience store – and even had trouble on a few Transit buses. Of course, we know that the law prohibits bias against our service animals....I ask my residents to speak up for those who are in a difficult situation.
Sidewalk Snow Clearing Bylaw
In Council, I opposed an immediate debate and reading on the bylaw brought forward to Council on a sidewalk snow clearing bylaw. I was supported – after great discussion to have public input slated for Nov. 29, 2011 and followed by debate Dec. 13, 2011.
Why would I want to delay such a debate and fight for you to have your say in a public input session? Three of your current Councillors are brand new. They have not had the benefit that I have had of hearing your concerns every winter. Interestingly enough, my files indicate a nearly even split of residents in the pro versus anti sidewalk clearing bylaw. Beyond that, the information that was given to Council was lacking. Sidewalk clearing is critical for mobility and accessibility. The stakeholders in this bylaw are businesses and you and I – the residents. So – why did Council not receive information on the number and content of winter complaints from residents – you did call didn’t you? I know many of you did! I did not get a comment from the Chamber. I did not get a statement from the Accessibility Advisory Committee to Council. What about schools? Are they happy with current standards? Did anyone ask them?
I believe strongly that a municipality has an obligation to dialogue with and listen to its residents. Two years ago Council approved about $60,000 to bring in consultants to help us create a public engagement policy. The policy now exists – but does it permeate all departments? Not yet. We created a position for a public engagement professional.
Back to the snow clearing bylaw – I had a problem with the lack clarity and user friendly terms in the bylaw.
Those of us that use the sidewalks in winter – and that would be about six months of the year, for recreation, getting to stores, school or work want walkways to be safe and passable within reason. So when a bylaw states “keep sidewalk clear of ice and snow” we are going to have to remember, our expectations of property owners should be reasonable. We cannot expect dry pavement after a 13cm snow storm in February. We can expect easily passable walks that have sand or kitty litter on them to prevent a fall.
I am asking our administration do a comprehensive review of other municipalities’ policies and procedures to come up with some clear and user friendly wording. I ask you to join Council on Nov. 29, 2011 at the Chamber or send in your comments to Transportation with a copy to Council.
Further I have requested that Council look closely at a program that exists in a couple of municipalities that provides for snow clearing for those who cannot do it for themselves. I was key in initiating Snow Busters and am proud of the volunteers and staff that makes Snow Busters work. I just do not like the financial strings attached. Let’s not make people crawl through red tape. Let’s just take care of our neighbours in need – in whatever way we can. Here’s how some easterners make it work.
Winter Maintenance: Roads, Sidewalks and Parking Lots
Kudos to our Transportation Department for refining the winter maintenance program with credit to our previous Council who pressed hard, while working within budget to improve road clearance in urban and rural areas – to a standard I believe we should be proud of.
New this year, thanks to residents’ comments...Transportation and all other departments will be working much closer together to ensure faster clearing of parking lots and bus stops.
Also, coming up Nov. 8, 2011 is a bylaw on removal of vehicles during snow clearance. It promises to be a lively debate, so please contact me on your thoughts. I have to say I am leaning toward user pays on this one. If you make us tow you to keep the street clean. Tax dollars should not be spent, as they have been for so many years.
Councillor Inquiries & Report
I reported to administration that our Glen Allan residents truly deserve a community entrance sign. I do not want tax payers to pay. We have one landscaper willing to help. We just need a few more residents and administration support to make this happen. Call me if you are willing to support this project.
I reported that I attended a Calgary conference on community collaboration and engagement. I was pleased with the high calibre of speakers and the fact that two of our staff attended and made significant contributions.
Webcast
I invite residents to go to the webcast to get the full flavour of how decisions are made tune into the webcast. The webcast is timed and titled so that you can refer immediately to your topic of interest.
An E-News Bulletin is sent out from me to residents on community information and issues. It gives me an opportunity to ‘touch base’ with you on a regular basis. You can obtain your copy by sending me your e mail address.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Council Meeting Highlights - Sept. 27, 2011
The Sept. 27, 2011 meeting felt like the shortest Council meeting this term. Council approved the design and construction of a full pressure water distribution and & STEP wastewater collection system for Campbelltown Heights subdivision through a local Improvement tax levy. Residents had been requesting this for a number of years. Administration provided reports on a National Work-Life and Family Study to be conducted with staff in the final quarter of 2011.
Webcast
I invite residents to go to the webcast to get the full flavour of how decisions are made tune into the webcast. The webcast is timed and titled so that you can refer immediately to your topic of interest.
Organizational Review
I have lobbied Council since 2007 to initiate a corporate wide review of our municipal functions at the highest levels. Administration has set out terms of reference and hired firms to look at departmental operations. In the past few years - reviews were broadened to include two departments. Now it is time for a broader efficiency review that looks at best practises of other successful municipalities in the delivery of services to our residents and stakeholders. A clear and focused examination of Council, senior management and our way of doing business will, I believe, lead to the implementation of better guidelines and processes to provide direction for an even higher level of customer service at greater efficiency than now exists.
Proclamations
Urged by public requests, I have been asking Council and Administration to post Proclamations (Policy GOV-001-015) for a specific time period. Councillors seem to want to look at other ways of heightening the profile of proclamations generally so I am discontinuing that request for now.
Second Quarter Management Report
Chief Financial Officer George Huybregts summed up the report on the health of the organization by indicating that the mandate of Administration and Council is to manage and monitor closely public funds based on the Business Plan. There were no surprises in the second quarter report, and the municipality is going into the budget season in a solid position. The first budget Council meeting is Oct. 4, 2011 at 1 p.m.
Strathcona County Environmental Advisory Council
Council heard an impressive presentation from public member Chair Cathy Wrightson. She reviewed what is I believe a first. This committee developed a three level decision matrix for use as an aid in selecting appropriate initiatives to pursue for this and future committees. This group of highly qualified professionals has spent the last several months in refining its ambitions, weighing its strengths and clearly identify ways of carrying out its mandate.
Haunted Hike
While there was no discussion on this decision, I did have many residents contact me prior to the Council meeting. As I told them, this could be viewed as a precedent setting decision as Strathcona County Transit does not have the provision of transportation as a core service. My decision was based on the proposal being a cost recovery one with attendance numbers solid enough to make this a feasible attendee pay event. Strathcona County Transit has undertaken to develop a guideline for responding to similar requests in the future. I commend the organizers and volunteers of this great local tourism event to be offered the last three Friday/Saturday nights in October
Council Open Houses
Mr Doug Kroetsch represented his family and all residents who drive Hwy 628 and Township Road 522. Intersections of Range Roads 231, 232, and 233 are presenting a traffic safety issue. From the provincial perspective: local land owners are resisting land sales at market value, according to Alberta Transportation. Another time consuming factor is the province’s focus on roundabouts as a solution. The province has committed to scheduling further discussions with the County as soon as the roundabout review is completed. As of Aug. 26, 2011 the status of the roundabout project was “underway and nearing completion”. I am hopeful – for the sake of all travellers in our County - that the review will be completed this year.
Mr Doug Bowes represented his 170 Sherwood Park Archery members well in an informative discussion on the request for letters of support from Council as they seek funding from other government levels to expand their current facilities. The Club also requested that Strathcona County transfer other leased lands to the Club. I look for both public comment and administrative information on the merits and possible negative impacts to taxpayers of such a move.
Public Transit Input Requested
At the last Council meeting, Transit announced that it was entering into its second phase of public engagement. Residents are invited to comment on draft recommendations for a Transit Master Plan that addresses six key aspects of Strathcona County transit service: specialized transit and accessibility, inter-municipal transit, local transit, Park and Ride, rural transit and fares.
I send out an E-News Bulletin to residents on community information and issues. It gives me an opportunity to touch base with you on a regular basis. You can obtain your copy by sending me your e-mail address.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Council Meeting Highlights - Sept. 13, 2011
The Sept. 13, 2011 Council meeting was an interesting look at Council process and leadership. Administration provided an update on the Capital Regional Transportation Plan and Council engaged on a lengthy debate on photo radar. Other matters brought to Council were the announcement of the public engagement for Public Transit, River Valley Alliance project funding and a report on the updated Apiculture bylaw. I recommend that you refer to the reports and minutes.
Webcast
Residents will have to go to the webcast to get the full flavour of how decisions are made tune into the webcast. The webcast is timed and titled so that you can refer immediately to your topic of interest.
Photo Radar – Mobile Speed Cameras
Council supported Councillor Botterill’s motion to cease operation of the mobile speed cameras.
I did not support the motion. My residents are asking why I took the stand that I did.
This is a complex issue. Each side can produce “highly credible” studies speaking for or against. This is a hotly debated topic in jurisdictions throughout North America. There may actually be no right or wrong answer.
Here is the problem, as I see it, with the process your Council went through:
Two weeks ago a notice of motion was presented to Council. Last Thursday Council received a rudimentary 8 page report from RCMP Traffic Services. One hour prior to Council, we received a nine slide power point presentation. Neither the Traffic Safety Office nor the RCMP Traffic Services were required to prepare and bring forward a presentation. I do not agree with moving forward on such a significant decision without requiring our administration to bring forward a comprehensive report and recommendation on the implication to road safety and budget.
Councillor Gariepy did force the issue and insisted that the RCMP representatives come forward and answer questions of Council. RCMP Superintendent Steinke and Traffic Sgt. Narbonne both spoke of the current statistics of an all-time low of fatalities and injuries and the need to move forward but not at the cost of systems and tools that have proven their effectiveness. RCMP representatives stated that officers are more effective than photo radar – but the cost to tax payers is significant – that is why they use a variety of enforcement tools.
I stand by my belief that inadequate research and debate went into this decision. I put forward a motion to have administration bring in an external firm to prepare a report on the merits and challenges of:
- ceasing operation of mobile cameras
- increasing the complement of officers
- looking at speed limits throughout the county.
I called for public engagement. Both requests were defeated.
Subsequent motions and debate were required as Council members came to a sudden realization that it took 6 to 12 months to hire officers...but they had just passed a motion to cease all mobile camera speed vans.
So here we are. Within the next 12 months, five Safety Enforcement Officers will be hired to replace the photo radar mobile vans. (RCMP stated that 11 Officers would be required). When five are hired and trained, the photo radar will be discontinued. Safety Enforcement Officers can issue demerit points; they cannot act on criminal code offences such as impaired driving and outstanding warrants.
Was the system perfect? No. Was it abused? At times it was. Could it have been improved? Yes. But your Council chose to throw it out entirely. My issue is not with the final outcome, it is with the way in which we got there. Don’t get me wrong, the elimination of mobile speed vans has worked in other jurisdictions. It can work here. I will be putting my efforts into supporting this and other subsequent suggestions that will improve road safety in a fiscally responsible manner.
On Sept. 8, 2011 the Integrated Regional Transportation Plan and our requested amendments were accepted by the Capital Region Board. Their acceptance of the changes to identify Twp Rd 540 (rather than 542) as the East /West road slated for expansion is a relief to those residents affected. It is also a credit to their persistence and the unflagging support of their Councillor.
Public Transit Report
The public engagement section of the second phase of transit restructuring will begin on Sept. 25, 2011 and will continue for five weeks. I urge you to review the document and attend at least one of the upcoming open houses. Council needs you as the public users and non users to give your comments and opinions on proposed changes to SCAT, route structures and scheduling.
River Valley Alliance
Council approved $306,280 dollars to be allocated to trail expansion in the parklands adjacent to the North
Saskatchewan River Valley. Funding will be matched by federal funding.
Apiculture By Law
Bylaw 43-2011 received two readings from Council. The intent is to define the geographical area where apiculture is allowed in our municipality. All bee keepers are regulated by the provincial government. They must have a provincial registration and premise ID number. Our County regulations are now clearer. Agriculture producers on Agriculture lands may have hives without permits. However RA and Country residential zoned lands must apply to the Transportation and Agriculture Department for a permit. Basically that permit is a way for the County to ensure that people living within a 1 km area all know about the hives and can express any concerns they may have.
Administration has chosen not to address the changing trends in urban land use due to previous concerns raised in 1996 and a lack of interest shown in this go round. I have asked that apiculture be defined in our land use bylaws as they are refined in the next several months.
I send out an E-News Bulletin to residents on community information and issues. It gives me an opportunity to ‘touch base’ with you on a regular basis. You can obtain your copy by sending me your e mail address.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Your Fences
Is your home (or a new home you may be looking at) adjacent to a multi-lane arterial roadway? Does your perimeter fencing face public or common property (ie the roadway)? Then you should be aware that Strathcona County requires fencing between residential areas
and arterial roads, trails, storm water ponds, schools and park sites.
There is a total of 45,000 meters of fencing in urban service areas along arterial roadways.
Some of that fencing was built by the County on County land (24%) and private land (6%) along arterial roads such as Wye Rd, Baseline Rd, Cloverbar Road, Sherwood Drive Broadmoore Blvd, Brentwood Blvd, Granada Blvd, Lakeland Drive. County built fences are the responsibility of the County to replace and maintain as required. Adjacent property owners need only to maintain their ‘private’ side.
Seventy percent of arterial fencing was built on private land, facing these same arterial roadways, and is the responsibility of the private property owner to maintain and replace. How did this come to be?
As the County grew from a small bedroom community of hundreds to a large urban centre of tens of thousands, the municipality realized that fence building and repair of fencing on arterial roadways would soon become an onerous burden on tax payers. Private owners constructed arterial fencing on their own lands and are responsible for maintenance and replacement. The remaining 63% of arterial fences were built by developers and then became the responsibility of the owner by a restrictive covenant upon purchase of the lot from the developer.
As these original fences lay in disrepair, with boards gone and entire stretches of fencing down, causing both unsightly and liability issues - our municipality is at a decision point. Do individual taxpayers take up the responsibility for their perimeter fencing?
If they do – should the County maintain (stain or paint) it’s side?
Do all taxpayers ante up?
To what extent does the fact that these properties are on major public roadways factor in?
If the municipality feels obligated to do a major replacement (at the taxpayers’ expense), then what about those condos and residents that have already replaced their fencing? Do taxpayers then have to pay retroactively?
The above mixed bag of arterial fencing comes from the evolution of the relationship between the municipality, homeowners and developers. There is much work to be done - but it is on the front burner with County administration giving both this and last Council information sessions. Council has requested viable recommendations to come forward to the Oct. 25, 2011 Council meeting.
Residents should expect their Council to make a decision on this issue that will be both fair and equitable to homeowners and minimize the burden on the taxpayer.
I welcome your comments at any time.
If you would like to be more fully informed – sign up for my e-news bulletin at carr@strathcona.ab.ca
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)