Coming Up: July 13 & 15
Council meets on Tuesday. There is also a Council Committee of the Whole meeting on Wednesday.
We’ll be meeting over video conference. The agendas include:
Bandaged Paws
Local doctors concerned about provincial changes
Council remuneration
Mental health and policing
Safe school openings
Revolution Place Renovations
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
During all Council meetings, members of the public are welcome to come address Council. More information about how to do that can be found here.
This week, the following delegations have told us they’ll be attending:
Bandaged Paws: requesting financial assistance and an agreement of financial support for the animals taken from the regional pound to rehome
Dr. Brianne Hudson: Updating Council on the impact of provincial government actions on health care, and requesting advocacy from the City for binding arbitration to be carried out between the province and the Alberta Medical Association
Council Remuneration Review Committee: Presenting its findings and recommendations to Council (more on this below)
Council Remuneration
Council sets its own salary. This is certainly an awkward situation, and many have big objections to politicians setting their own salaries. However, provincial legislation doesn’t allow Council to delegate this task to other parties.
To get around the potential problems with this arrangement, the City of Grande Prairie has a standing practice that I think is very sensible.
A Council Remuneration Review Committee is formed. This Committee is made up of public members. No Councillors sit on this committee, and Council does not receive any minutes or agendas from this Committee: we only get its final public report.
Council sets Remuneration amounts and policies based on this Committee’s work. However, changes don’t come into effect until after the next election: an outgoing Council sets the pay for the incoming Council. This allows potential candidates to know what type of remuneration to expect. And if voters don’t like how Council set remuneration, they have the ability to hold Councillors accountable during the election before they can benefit from any changes.
The Remuneration Committee for this term has concluded its work. It will be presenting its report and recommendations to Council on Monday. You can see its report here, and the complete Council Remuneration Policy it is proposing here.
The goal of Council Remuneration should be to set compensation that is fair for both taxpayers and Councillors. If Remuneration is too high, then taxpayer money is not being respected. But if Remuneration is too low, there is a high risk of not attracting enough qualified candidates, or of only attracting candidates of significant financial means. In the words of the Remuneration Committee, “the diversity of the City means that it should ideally be represented by an equally diverse City Council. It is important that compensation figures be set at a fair and reasonable level since it is a factor that may influence the type of people that will run for an elected position.”
The Committee’s recommendations shape what it views as “fair and reasonable” remuneration. I need to give these a closer read later in the weekend, but the notable changes I notice so far:
The consolidation of a number of Policies and Procedures into a single Policy
Increase the Mayor’s base salary to $109,917 (from $106,716) to be in line with other surveyed municipalities. Leave Councillors’ base salaries at $58,438.
Increase Per Diem rates to $150 half-days, and $300 full-days. Currently, Councillors receive $100 half-day and $300 full-day Per Diems for attending out of town meetings and events.
Provide Councillors with a $200/month vehicle allowance and $40/month cellular phone allowance. Currently, Councillors receive no reimbursement for in-town vehicle mileage and they use their personal cellphones with no remuneration provided for the use of their phones for City business.
A transition subsidy of 12.5% of their base salary for elected officials leaving office after serving for 2 or more terms
My general view is that Council should support the Committee’s recommendations. Politicians setting their own salaries is problematic to me. And the best way that Council can de-politicize these salaries is to follow third party recommendations. Council should only be altering these recommendations if they go far outside the scope of what Council sees as reasonable.
For the most part, I think these recommendations are reasonable. I’m likely to support most of them. I’m especially grateful to the Committee for forming a single Policy to govern Council Remuneration. This will give potential candidates a much clearer picture of what to expect, and will increase public transparency.
However, I do have troubles accepting one recommendation. I find the transition subsidy problematic.
To me, it might (and that is a big “might” to me) make sense to provide a transition subsidy to an official who loses an election. That is somewhat equivalent of being dismissed “without cause,” and in many other professions that entitles someone to severance. But I don’t see the need to provide a transition subsidy for an official who did not run for re-election. That’s the equivalent of resigning from a job, which isn’t usually entitled to severance.
When it comes to voting on transition subsidies, I’ll be weighing my personal dislike of them with my wish to de-politicize Council salaries by following the Remuneration Committee recommendations. I don’t know where I’ll land on this. So I would love to hear your thoughts!
Police Budget
There has been a lot of conversation in our community about policing. Most people I talk to see problems with our policing model. Even if they (as I do) appreciate our individual officers, they see challenges with the overall system those officers work within. They may have very different (and at times contradictory) concerns, but most people agree that policing can be significantly better than it is right now. And that’s concerning to me: policing is the City’s most expensive programs, and to many residents it is our most important program.
I’ve listed a number of challenges I see with our policing model here. Some of the biggest issues with policing have to do with mental health responses. Rather than having appropriate professional support for people struggling with mental health, we have the police respond to crises. Some police involvement is often necessary, especially when someone is in a crisis that poses a danger to themselves or others. However, having more non-police resources would create better outcomes, improve the working environment for police, and make better use of taxpayer dollars.
On Monday, I’m going to be making a series of motions relating to police budgets and mental health. I don’t think we should be cutting our police budget. However, we have millions of dollars of increases budgeted over the next few years. My intention is to initiate a discussion as to whether those increases would have the best possible impact for our community, or if we should be looking at alternative investments in mental health.
You can read more about my motions in this blog post.
Safe School Openings
There is a recommendation that Council to:
“direct the Mayor to write a letter to the Premier of Alberta, Cabinet and local regional superintendents identifying the City of Grande Prairie’s support for increased funding to school boards to enable the development of a plan that allows children to safely go back to school in person with regular traditional scheduling this September.”
I intend to support this. School is important, not just for education but also for the mental health of families and to allow parents to work. Finding ways to open schools safely is important for our community. However, doing so also requires resources. I’m concerned that our government doesn’t appear to be providing school boards with the funding necessary to both deal with COVID while maintaining quality education and student support.
Revolution Place
On Tuesday, Council Committee of the Whole will be meeting to discuss the future of Revolution Place.
Revolution Place is an aging facility. It’s still in good shape, but it struggles to meet the demands of the modern entertainment industry. Committee will be looking at two renovation options:
Small scale renovation costing ~$4,000,000: 3 new loft-style suites, a new entrance/box office space, and a loading dock.
Full renovation costing ~$55,000,000: additional fixed seating and suites, additional concessions and premium lounge, loading dock, additional meeting rooms and movable walls in the Bowes Event Centre
I appreciate getting an update on what is needed to improve Revolution Place. And significant investments in the facility might be worthwhile. However, I do not support advancing them at this time. I have four major concerns with moving forward now:
Unknown impacts of COVID-19: it’s too early to tell how the pandemic will change the entertainment industry
No plan for downtown: renovating Revolution Place could be a great way to build our economy and community by stimulating the downtown. However, before we invest millions or tens of millions into our core: we need to have an actual plan for our City Centre.
Election timing: if this project is advanced now, a lot of money will go into design work. However, construction would be unlikely to begin this Council term. I’d hate to see design effort and money be wasted if our next Council decides to pull support for the project. Something like this needs to be initiated near the beginning, not the end, of a Council term.
My campaign promises: I take my campaign promises seriously. And one promise I made: that, outside of a replacement for the Leisure Centre, I wouldn’t support new Big Shiny Projects this term. I’m willing to change my mind on promises if circumstances change significantly or I get important new information. But that hasn’t happened in this case. If I’m on Council again, I could potentially support major renovations at Revolution Place next term. But I don’t feel right supporting them this term.
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