Coming Up: Feb 10
Council meets on Monday. The agenda includes:
Delegations: Regarding a Vehicle for Hire Bylaw and a 102 St Pedestrian Crossing
Community Group Funding: A recommendation to reduce it by $250,000
Municipal Elections: a new Bylaw and very concerning provincial changes
Pedestrians Trail Along 132 Ave
Municipal Census: a recommendation to postpone it
Training for Property Assessors
Public Notification Bylaw
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.
Delegations
At every Council meeting, the public is welcome to attend and speak on any matter. To find out more about how to do this, click here.
This week, two delegations have told us they will be attending. They are:
Representatives of a Designated Driving company to make requests regarding the City’s Vehicle for Hire Bylaw
The Avondale School Parent Council requesting intersection improvements at 102 st and 110 Ave
Community Group Funding
Last week, the Community Services Committee discussed the funding given by the City to external groups to deliver community programs. I’d encourage you to click here to read more about what was discussed.
Committee has made a recommendation that will be considered by Council on Monday. That recommendation: to, in 2021, reduce Community Group Funding by $250,000 and to exclude the Grande Prairie Public Library, Peace Library System, Grande Prairie Art Gallery, and South Peace Regional Archives Society from reductions.
I don’t currently intend to support this motion. I have three big objections:
It’s the wrong time to be reducing funding. Many of the groups we fund just saw cuts made by the province, and are expecting more this fall. For them to receive additional cuts by the City could lead to huge consequences for community programs. Additionally, the City is currently undertaking an inventory of many of the community programs delivered in Grande Prairie. I’d like to see the results of this review before we make large changes.
I don’t see the need to reduce funding. A recommendation for funding reduction came out of per capita comparisons of Grande Prairie, St. Albert, Medicine Hat, and Lethbridge. We seem to be funding slightly above other municipalities. However, this isn’t a convincing reason to reduce funding for two reasons: 1) I’m not convinced that the information we looked at gave a full picture of how each municipality is funding community programming, and 2) we’re a northern City where costs are more expensive, attracting labour is more challenging, winter is harsher, and travelling away is more expensive: it’s reasonable to expect us to spend a little more building a vibrant community than cities to the south spend.
I don’t understand the rationale of protecting the groups named in the recommendation. The Libraries, Archives, and Art Gallery are certainly all groups whose contributions I value. They are high priority to me. I don’t want to see their funding reduced (see my last two points). However, IF Council does decide to reduce funding to community groups: the Youth Emergency Shelter and Saint Lawrence Centre would be on the top of my list for having full funding preserved. And there are a few other organisations who I would prioritize equally with the Libraries, Archives, and Art Gallery.
I’m unlikely to support the recommendations regarding Community Group Funding.
At the same time, I’m likely to make a different motion of my own (unless a colleague beats me to it): to setup a meeting with the Library Board and a separate one with the Art Gallery Board to discuss their budgets. These are our two biggest recipients of Community Group Funding. And the Library is an organisation established by provincial legislation and that has a board appointed by Council. I think it is incumbent on Council to have a direct conversation with these organisations about their future budgetary needs.
Worth noting: the Community Services Committee didn’t just make a recommendation about funding levels. It also initiated a review of the policies governing Community Group Funding. Something I intend to bring up during that review: once Council sets a Community Group Funding level that Council finds comfortable, the funding level shouldn’t be left in place indefinitely. It should grow with inflation. It should also grow or contract with population change. We should establish some sort of formula to determine Community Group Funding in future years (ex: have it always be set at a certain percentage of the City’s operating budget).
Municipal Election Bylaw
Council will be debating a new Elections Bylaw. You can see it here.
There are two main intentions of this Bylaw:
To consolidate our rules into a single Bylaw. Previously there were three separate Bylaws.
To bring our rules into conformance with recent changes made by the province
Additionally, this Bylaw will change the number of Nomination Signatures required by a candidate from 5 to 25. This was an idea I brought forward to Council. You can see why I view it as important here.
I do have some questions to ask about this Bylaw in regards to how it would treat minors being brought to the polls by their parents. However, I’m likely to support the Bylaw as presented.
That being said: elections are at the absolute bedrock of everything a government does. Any changes should be made with well considered thought and with plenty of time for public feedback. Often, we pass a Bylaw in a single Council meeting. In this case, I don’t think I’m comfortable with the usual process. I’m likely to force final reading of this Bylaw to be postponed until our next Council meeting.
Provincial Decisions Regarding Municipal Elections
The Province is making a number of decisions that will have dramatic (and I would argue very negative) impacts on municipal elections.
One of those changes: the province intends to add a number of ballot measures to the next municipal election. I am very concerned that this will erode local democracy. When residents and media are discussing big and controversial provincial and federal issues, they will have less time and ability to discuss local issues. They won’t be as capable of holding local Councils to account nor of helping shape the future vision of their community.
Adding ballot measures will also increase the costs of administering municipal elections.
It has been recommended that Council approve asking the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association (AUMA) to make this a point of advocacy. The recommendation is that AUMA advocate to “maintain local elections for local issues.” It is further recommended to advocate that, if the province refuses to keep local elections local, it should share in the costs of administering those elections.
I wholeheartedly support this advocacy recommendation. I am profoundly disturbed by province’s current approach to local elections.
Worth noting: the province is also conducting limited public engagement on further changes to municipal elections. Most concerning is the fact that it appears to be considering introducing more money into our elections. I’d encourage you to read about and provide feedback on potential changes here.
132 Ave Pedestrian Path
In December, the Grande Prairie and District Catholic School Board attended Council to ask for pedestrian network upgrades on the north end of the City.
Out of this discussion, City engineering re-examined pedestrian connectivity around 132nd Ave. It has decided to install a set of Rapid Flashing Beacons at the intersection of 132 Ave and 104A St. This will utilize existing operating funds, so no decision by Council is required.
However, administration is also recommending a more costly improvement: the installation of a path on 132nd Ave between 108 St and 104A St- “Alignment 1” on this map:
This path was already in the City’s plans. However, it was originally going to move forward in 2021. But, in light of the pace of development , it has been recommended to complete this project in 2020. Moving a project of this size into a different fiscal year requires a motion of Council.
The cost of this project is estimated to be $162,000.
The recommended funding source is the Transportation System Levy Reserve. This is reserve that is funded by developers. As a developer builds out new land, they are required to build the roads, sidewalks, and other infrastructure within it. However, it is recognized that new development also requires upgrades elsewhere in the City. Developers pay into the Transportation System Levy Reserve to fund these upgrades.
I intend to support the recommendation to construct this pathway using the Transportation System Levy Reserve.
Municipal Property Assessors Training
The City of Lethbridge is pursuing a grant to explore the creation better training and an online information source for Municipal Property Assessors. It is recommended that Council support this initiative. At this time, there would be no financial impact to the City. I intend to support this recommendation.
Municipal Census
The City has traditionally conducted a Municipal Census. This was important because much of our grant funding is based on per capita numbers, Grande Prairie was growing rapidly, and Statistics Canada only does a census every five years. If we didn’t conduct our own census, we would’ve missed out on significant grant increases while waiting for new federal census data.
Local census data was also more granular than federal numbers. It could help us better understand what was going on in specific communities.
However, there have been two major changes:
The province has decided that it will no longer accept municipal census data when considering grant allocations
The federal government is changing some of its census methodologies, which could return different data than previously was available
In light of these changes, it is recommended that Council postpone the 2020 Census. I’m likely to support this recommendation.
Public Notification Bylaw
The Provincial Municipal Government Act (MGA) sets out requirements for public notification of Council business. Previously, the MGA required notifications to either be delivered to every residence “in the area to which the proposed bylaw, resolution, or other thing relates” or to be advertised in the newspaper.
The MGA was recently updated to allow other means of notification if they are described in a Bylaw. On Monday, Council will be discussing a proposed Public Notification Bylaw that will allow for notification to be given by posting them prominently on the City’s website and social media accounts.
I’ve got some more digging I need to do about this matter. For notifications having to do with business that relates to the entire community, more people will see notification online than will see them in the newspaper. So this new Notification Bylaw makes sense.
However, I’ve got a concern about this Bylaw as it relates to development decisions. When changes to development rules impacting specific properties or areas are considered, I want to be sure that the impacted land owners know. In these cases, a direct mail-out is appropriate. I need to learn about what other laws or policies the City and province have in place that will ensure these direct mails still happen.
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