Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Council Meeting Highlights of August 30th


Time of Council Meetings
Most of Council saw the need for a consistent start time and supported my motion with a request that meetings start at 2 p.m. While this is not perfect at least our residents can rely on knowing when public meetings start. I hope this motion results in fewer errors in publicizing the information.  More of a concern to me is the volume and type of information being discussed ‘in camera’ (out of the public eye) and I look forward to Councillor Riddell’s requests for clarifications and recommendations being brought to Council in future months.

Pioneer Housing Foundation (PHF)
A borrowing bylaw was approved by the majority of Council to enable PHF to move forward with a major affordable housing project. In 2008, a Council requested Affordable Housing study was brought forward in order to evaluate the needs of our municipality in the future. 

The results of this plan were used to form guidelines and a committee. Subsequently, provincial funding designated for affordable housing was given to Robin Hood Foundation, Habitat for Humanity and PHF to create projects in our municipality.

Housing foundations throughout Alberta utilize a borrowing vehicle within the MGA to access loans from lending companies like Alberta Capital Finance Authority through their municipalities. Municipalities benefit by thus having some ‘control ‘ over  projects and align agency’s plans with municipal needs and objectives.

PHF has a solid borrowing and repayment record with the County. They will pay back the principal and interest over 25 years, (the industry norm for this type of project). The repayment will come from operational revenues – not the taxpayers’ pocket. The only pause for thought for me on making this decision was how much would this 7 million dollar loan impact our borrowing capacity. Strathcona County total debt as of Dec. 31, 2010 Annual Report is 172.8 million. The Province of Alberta and the County have regulated debt limit at 1.5 times the annual operating revenues. So our current debt is well below the limit of 391.8 million.

Integrated Regional Transportation Plan
This plan for future increased transportation links in our municipality and the region will be brought forward to the Capital Region Board next week. It was debated and passed with an amendment and secondary motion at Council. 

In response to residents issues with the plan that included the impact on environment and wildlife as well as increased local traffic, Councillor Fenske brought forward an amendment “that the east/west bridge crossing be identified as Twp. Rd 540”. The approved amendment hopefully will result in the upgraded road being moved away from residential areas and the Strathcona County growth node.

A further motion was that the Capital Region be urged to identify the North-South connector road after the adoption of the Hwy 16 Functional study east of Rng Rd 222 is passed. In other words, it is only logical that this major intersection be designated to a specific location before the North- South Road is named. These may seem like logical moves to you and I – but we have seen examples in the past where logic and common sense have not prevailed. I hope that our Mayor and the Mayor appointed alternate Councillor Bidzinski will proactively lobby to have the County’s needs accepted by our sister municipalities.

Community Partnership Projects
Administration brought forward a policy and guideline on partnership opportunities
This could have extremely positive impacts on our community and open up opportunities for corporations, all community sports and arts and culture organizations to contribute in P3 type partnerships to build facilities and provide more amenities. 

This will be a vehicle that can help this community get the synthetic turf field, destination Spray Park or next musical cultural centre – because budgets will tighten and taxpayers money cannot build what the public wants and expects in these uncertain economic times. 

By working together with other stakeholders with working capital – well that truly does open new doors. The policy deals with the hoped for mega projects as well as smaller community projects such as feature area entry signs and small park revitalizations.

Webcast
I urge residents to attend the occasional Council meeting or tune into the webcast. The webcast is timed and titled so that you can refer immediately to your topic of interest  

Three times a month 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 have your name put on this list by sending me your e mail address.

Monday, August 29, 2011

Municipal Elected Officials - To Publicly Endorse or Not to Endorse


Decidedly not , is my personal opinion and one I apply as my own rule of thumb.
As I stated on a recent tweet...for a municipal representative to endorse a candidate for provincial leadership is akin to venturing into some very deep and dark waters – with no life jacket.

As an elected official – I have to put my personal views aside in all matters public. It is our duty as elected officials to work on citizens behalf with the province. Why would I criticize the government in power instead of working with them and offering positive options to change?  Why would I promote one capable, hard working leadership hopeful over another?
Endorsing a leadership candidate is like betting at the track. Good Luck. And by the way if your ‘horse’ does not come in, it will have an impact on the future. The currency here is possibly money long term – but definitely good will and respect in the short term.
Why not instead urge residents to examine the promises and attributes of all candidates – help them find the information on all candidates. I want my residents to make their own decisions based on facts – not on my personal opinion.

I believe in building relationships with fellow elected officials. You don’t build good will by publicly waving the flag for one or the other candidate.

Now here is the real moral to the story: while I will not publicly champion one candidate over the other I will urge every single person to go buy a membership in this and every other leadership race. Why? Because it is a democratic privilege. Most importantly it is an opportunity for each one of us to be a part in picking the person  who will provide much needed leadership skills and fortitude in the coming years of challenge and change for Alberta.  

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Council Priority Funding

While a draft policy for Council Priority Funding is being reviewed in legislation and legal at this time, there has been discussion on Council about Priority Funding every year since I have been on Council.
Traditionally, the process has been very 'loose' with not even paperwork required. Only one Councillor Priority Fund Request has been denied in my time on Council. The last Council did require that a written request from the applicant be attached to the Councillor Request in Council.

I have been concerned with Priority Funds in respect to accountability. In my first year on Council, I asked residents to put together a framework that could be used to provide recommendations for me in allocating this pot of taxpayers money in a responsible way. The result was the Ward 2 Building Strong Communities Committee that meets several times a year to review and evaluate applications. Guidelines were created and approved by that group.






Monday, August 22, 2011

Council Meeting Highlights


The Aug. 16, 2011 meeting covered a broad scope of issues with both public presentations and Council debate on train whistles and the Capital Regional Transportation Plan. Other topics touched on included parking issues and a report on a recent Alberta’s Industrial Heartland trip to Wood Buffalo. I recommend that you refer to the reports and minutes.

Train Whistles
Councillor Jacquie Fenske gave an impassioned presentation on the need to listen to residents and collect comprehensive information from our own and other municipalities to ensure that we make the wisest decision on whether Strathcona County should prepare a train whistle minimizing policy. 

Residents and Councillors alike have been expressing opinions ranging from ‘but the residents knew the tracks were there when they purchased the property’ to ‘train traffic will continue to increase significantly now and into the near future’. Other arguments are based on allowing whistles based on the need for safety compared to minimizing whistles while upgrading that location with barriers, lights and adjacent fencing.  Councillor Fenske did report that 61 residents responded to 250 letters sent out.

75% of respondents supported whistle cessation or limiting train whistles at night.
Included in the information to come back to Council will be positions from Alberta Transport, legal opinion on risk liability, statistics, costs and recommendation on locations.
The motion that Strathcona County should prepare a train whistle minimizing policy was passed.

Governance Issue
During the train whistle motion, Councillor Fenske’s presentation was cut short by the Mayor. The Mayor interrupted her motion and told her that a ‘five minute rule’ applies. I questioned the existence of  such a rule in our meeting policy or bylaws but was told it did exist. 

At the end of the meeting Councillors brought forward proof that our Meeting Procedures Bylaw is indeed silent on length of debate. It follows that Roberts Rules of Order would then take precedence. 

The Municipal Government Act lays out the expectation that Councils operate under the principles of democracy and respect for all individuals. I will continue to request that all Council members are treated respectfully and that existing meeting procedures are adhered to until Council debates and changes those procedures.

Integrated Regional Transportation Plan
The motion that Council support this plan was postponed until the Aug. 30, 2011. Residents and Councillors alike lodged concerns over this plan. It is a report well worth reading.

I would like to have seen more vision, given it is supposed to address transportation into the next 35 years. Why channel traffic through Strathcona County areas of growth, environment and tourism? I did not see enough options. In fairness:  our engineering department and I’m told, the Alberta government support the plan. 

I’m also given to understand that this plan lays out broad policy framework so local concerns would be addressed closer to implementation – hmmm where have I heard that before? I did hear Councillor Fenske talk to an option of upgrading 540 instead of 542. I am looking forward to hearing more information in the Aug. 30, 2011 discussion.


I urge residents to attend the occasional Council meeting or tune in to the webcast. The webcast is timed and titled so that you can refer immediately to your topic of interest. 

Friday, August 5, 2011

Destination Spray Park or Community Splash Deck


In late 2009,  the Cloverbar Neighbourhood Association and area residents were excited to learn that the Council of the day had approved the community splash deck concept in keeping with the walkable community and a greenspace in every neighbourhood theme. I supported the concept of revitalizing what we have – as opposed to building new; expanding upon existing proven facilities instead of launching into the multi million dollar projects. 

This meant a budget allocation for a local neighbourhood splash deck amenity adjacent to Clover Bar Ranch and Charlton Heights. I fully supported this notion of a small ten feature Splash Pad next to a moderate size playground with a new community garden. Limited parking and no washroom amenities seemed to be not huge barriers for this local neighbourhood attraction.

Since then, local residents have been concerned with traffic safety, lack of washrooms, and County administration's desire to promote the tiny Splash Pad as a regional attraction – owing to the closing of the Kinsmen Centre for renovations. 

Further resident input on outdoor aquatic opportunities has been collected as a part of developing the Aquatic Strategy. To date, residents surveyed are indicating that the majority prefer a much larger regional-sized spray park, with the associated support amenities such as bathrooms, parking, picnic tables and shaded areas.

Significant operational efficiencies can be realized if an outdoor amenity can be located immediately adjacent to an indoor recreation facility or building, with public input indicating that co-location with a large playground is also strongly preferred.

Further resident and user group feedback, as well as administrative expertise and Council input, is necessary. A large destination Spray Park needs to address:
- Aging neighbourhood spray decks
- Funding
- Innovative sustainable design
- Water conservation
- Parking
- Parks Master Plans
- Distance from population density

Make no mistake about this – our taxpayers need to think long and hard about just where Strathcona County is at right now. The latest administration report indicated that we are facing a 16 million dollar deficit. We cannot expect a multibillion dollar oil industry to open up in the Heartland for the next five years and provide our municipality with a bonus in tax revenue. Correspondingly local field sports are proposing a four million dollar plus new synthetic turf field. Residents seem to be saying: Give us a multimillion dollar water park.

Don’t get me wrong – I want the very best for our children. But I would also like to be able to live in this community and afford the taxes. I need to hear what this community wants before this is brought to Council for feedback in the fall. Please contact me at carr@strathcona.ab.ca.carr@strathcona.ab.ca