Coming Up: April 6
Council meets on Monday. We’ll be meeting over video conference. The agenda includes:
Downtown business taxes
Large Scale Tourism Event Grants
Borrowing for a property tax deferral
Inter-Municipal Collaboration Frameworks
Social housing definitions
School sites
Following is more information and my take on agenda items.
As always, any mistakes or opinions belong to me and me alone, not to Council or City staff.
While I express my current views below, I work hard to go into meetings ready to listen and with an open mind. I learn new information and participate in debate. This always informs, and sometimes changes, how I vote on issues.
If you would like to watch the meeting or read any of its supporting material for yourself, you can do so by clicking here. The City will post the highlights of Council’s decisions here.
LARGE SCALE TOURISM EVENT FUNDING
The City has a Large Scale Tourism Event grant program. It is meant to support events which draw 2000 or more people and which have at least 35% of attendees come from 100km or further away.
In previous years, this Fund had a $200,000 budget. This year, Council reduced that budget by 50% to $100,000.
On Monday, we will be discussing a recommendation to grant $75,000 to the Bear Creek Folk Festival and $25,000 to Buck Wild Pro Bull Riding. You can see the Folk Fest’s application here and Buck Wild’s application here.
I’ve got a number of questions I need answered at our meeting. However, I’m likely to support this recommendation. There large events greatly improve the quality of life for many of our residents. They create local social connection. But most importantly: they are important to our economy.
I know some will have questions about these events in light of COVID-19. A few questions I expect to hear:
Will these events happen in 2020? I honestly don’t know. But I’m confident that the City and Grande Prairie Regional Emergency Management Partnership (GPREP) will be working closely with these events and acting on the advice of the province. These events won’t happen if they will present a significant risk to public safety.
What happens to the City’s money if these events don’t happen in 2020? It is my expectation that, if these events don’t happen in 2020, money would be returned to the City or applied to a 2021 event. Most of the questions I have going into Monday night concern ensuring that this will be the case. I’ll only be supporting this funding if I am confident it will go to a future event.
Is this the best use of money right now? This fund’s budget has been reduced by 50%, which is appropriate this year. However, we’re in a time where we need social connection and when many people will be unable to afford their usual summer trips: stopping all investment in local events would not be good for our residents. We also have a hospitality industry which is important to our economy and which is suffering greatly: bringing in people to spend money at hotels, restaurants, and stores
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS TAXES
We have a Business Improvement Area (BIA) downtown. It exists to support the Grande Prairie Downtown Association which provides marketing and other support for businesses in our City Centre.
The Downtown Association is funded by a special tax on all properties within the BIA. This tax is collected by the City and forwarded onto the Association. It is based on the Association’s annual budget, which is created by its board and approved at its AGM. This year’s budget is $360 263, which is the same as it was in 2019.
On Monday, Council will be debating the bylaw needed to collect this BIA tax. There might be some who will question if we should be levying this tax while businesses are struggling to deal with COVID-19. I think we should.
If Council doesn’t levy this tax, I only see two alternatives:
Subsidize the Downtown Association from general tax revenue. This would lead to lower taxes downtown, but higher taxes elsewhere. Most businesses in our community are suffering due to COVID-19: it is not localized to our City Centre. Any new supports the City creates should be available to businesses throughout the community. While I could potentially support COVID-19 business subsidies, I don’t currently see reason to create a subsidy that only benefits downtown businesses.
Decrease the Association’s budget to lower the BIA tax. Council was very open to this idea. This week, we reached out to the Association to see if it would like to change its budget. We received correspondence stating that the Association sees a need for increased marketing, and therefore does not wish to see a decrease. The Association Board was elected by downtown businesses- it would not be appropriate for City Council to override its decision.
Worth noting: taxes are typically due to June 30th, and many people pay monthly installments. Council has deferred taxes until August 31, and has made it easy for property owners to stop monthly payments.
BORROWING FOR TAX DEFERRAL
At our last Council meeting, Council voted to defer property taxes until August 31st.
This will create a lack of cash flow for the City. Even while taxes are deferred, significant expenses are still being incurred.
Reserves may not be capable of covering the City’s cash flow need. Furthermore, reserves are currently invested and generating a higher rate of return than the City’s cost to borrow. Therefore, administration is recommending opening a line of credit to fund the tax deferral.
On Monday, Council will be debating a Borrowing Bylaw. This Bylaw would enable administration to borrow up to $35,000,000. All money borrowed would be paid back by December 31, 2020. Interest rates would be at the institutions prime borrowing rate -0.25% per annum (right now, that would be 2.2%).
I currently intend to vote in favour of this Bylaw.
Worth noting: a tax deferral is the right thing to do. It will alleviate cash flow challenges for businesses and families struggling to cope with the impact of COVID-19. However, it comes with interest costs to the City. Council is trusting that those who are able to pay their taxes by the usual deadline of June 30 will still do so to minimize the expenses passed onto other taxpayers.
INTER-MUNICIPAL COLLABORATION FRAMEWORKS
The province is requiring municipalities to negotiate Intermunicipal Collaboration Frameworks (ICFs) with their municipal neighbours. An ICF is a series of agreements laying out how municipalities will share in the costs and work of services that bring joint benefits to their residents.
Municipalities were directed to have their ICF negotiations completed by April 1, 2020. If this deadline was not met, they would be forced into arbitration which would be completed by April 1, 2021.
The City has been working hard to meet these deadlines. It has put a lot of work, time, and taxpayer dollars into its negotiations with the County. I had no concerns about us meeting these deadlines.
This made me very surprised and disappointed by a decision by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Last week, he extended all deadlines by one year. This means that, if arbitration is needed, it doesn’t need to start until 2021 and it doesn’t need to be concluded until 2022.
The Minister made this change with no advance notice and with no consultation that I am aware of. And it wasn’t a good change.
From my perspective, there are three big problems with waiting an extra year:
ICFs have the potential to make services in our region better and more efficient while more equitably distributing the costs to taxpayers. Our residents shouldn’t have to wait more time than is necessary to have them completed.
When it comes to municipal services, a lot can change in the next year. This could cause significant re-work to have to be done to setup further ICF discussions. This is a waste of taxpayer resources.
This leaves the potential to have the ICF process continue until April, 2022 which is very early in the next Council term. Without knowing the results of ICFs, voters will be unable to hold our Council to account going into elections. And it is going to be very tough for newly elected Councillors to get up to speed and help shepherd ICFs through their very late stages.
On Monday, Council will debating a motion to direct the Mayor to write a letter to the County of Grande Prairie and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It will outline a request to proceed with mediation in June, 2020 and our intention to complete ICFs by March 31, 2021.
I fully intend to support this motion, and I suspect it will pass. If it does, I hope that the County and the Minister will support this direction. There is no good reason for our ICF process to be extended by a year.
RE-ZONING IN RIVERSTONE
At it’s meeting on March 9, Council debated a request to rezone land in Riverstone. This re-zoning would allow farming to happen on land that is not developed but that is currently zone as residential.
Council voted against this re-zoning definition. However, on Monday, Councillor Minhas has notified Council that he will be making a motion to reconsider that decision.
Councillor Minhas will likely be explaining to Council why he wants this to be reconsidered. If there is substantial new information to consider or if a mis-vote was made, I’m likely to support this motion to reconsider. I’m likely to be ok with Council continuing debate and having a second vote.
However, I voted against the re-zoning originally. And I’m likely to vote against it again.
There are a few advantages to farming, including the control of weeds. However, my understanding of the main reason to re-zone: farm land pays significantly less taxes than non-farm land. I think this is primarily a tax strategy.
I’m open to the idea of lowering the taxes we charge on non-developed land. We want a good inventory of ready-to-develop land when the economy starts picking up. Dramatically increasing the taxes on land when it is re-zoned from farmland (but before it is built on) doesn’t help with this. It also helps drive development out to the County. And from an equity perspective, it could make sense to charge non-developed land a lower tax rate than other land due to it consuming less municipal services.
So I could support the intent of this request. However, zoning should be based on good land use planning, not based on taxation. The problem with re-zoning: provincial legislation requires it to always be a decision made by Council. Politicians should be setting the policies that apply to taxpayers in general, but should not be meddling in decisions pertaining to the taxes individual property owners pay. If we are going to provide tax relief to non-developed land, that should be through policy that applies to ALL landowners with that type of land, not just to those who convince Council to endorse a re-zoning.
SOCIAL HOUSING DEFINITIONS
As the City deals with various types of social housing development, our Land Use Bylaw often proves to be inadequate. Some of the definitions that appear in it are outdated or too imprecise. There are also some types of development which don’t fit into any existing definitions.
It is being proposed that Council change the following definitions in the Land Use Bylaw:
Community Outreach Facility
Dwelling Unit, Supported
Group Home
Residential Care Facility
Residential Support Home- Type 1
Residential Support Home- Type 2
It is also being proposed that Council add the following definitions
Emergency Shelter
Permanent Supported Housing
To see the new definitions (and the reasoning behind them), you can read this summary prepared by staff.
I’m likely to support these proposals. They appear to be thoughtful and needed changes.
NEW SCHOOL SITES
Land use planning in the City is guided by a Municipal Development Plan. This provides a high level expectation of development standards and neighbourhood design.
One Monday, Council will be debating proposed additions to the plan. These additions would provide guidelines for the construction of new schools. Some highlights:
Schools should be centrally located in neighbourhoods and have pedestrian access from all four directions
School sites should front at least two streets, ideally on a corner lot
Off-street and separate bus loops and passenger drop off areas should be provided
Houses should not have driveway access directly across from a school
You can see all the proposed guidelines here.
I’m excited to see these guidelines being proposed. My understanding is that our staff already advocate for these design guidelines to be built into school sites. However, it is worthwhile to give them the backing of a Council created statutory plan.
That’s what is on our agenda for Monday. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
You can comment below. Or, you can contact me at dbressey@cityofgp.com or 780-402-4166. I'm happy to talk online or over the phone. I'm also always willing to setup a time to meet for coffee.
We also always have great conversation in the GP Round Table group on Facebook.
After Council meeting, you will be able to find highlights posted by the City here.
Thanks for reading!
-Dylan