At the last council meeting, a bare majority of council members (5-4) voted to increase your utility rates every year for the next four years. This was in spite of a motion that I put forward that we only set the new rates for one year, which would give us the opportunity to rethink things next year.
I voted against the proposed increase for a number of reasons. While I recognize the importance of maintaining the infrastructure that provides one of life's basic requirements, I don't believe that council, or the public, was provided with enough information about the proposed new rates, or what other options might have been. From the information that we have been given, it appears as though residential users will be getting a higher proportional increase than commercial users, and that those residential users who use less water will be getting a higher proportional increase than those who use more water, and both of those things strike me as being unfair.
Once again, it seems as though the impatience of some members of council to make decisions before having as much pertinent information as possible has trumped the importance of knowing exactly what it is that the citizens of Prince Albert are going to have to deal with.
Publicly, the message from administration is that this is an increase of 10.4 per cent for the average residential user. I asked for a breakdown on how this would affect high, medium and low residential users, and from the information that I was provided, it appears that the 10.4 per cent increase only applies if you're what is considered a high user - 2500 cubic feet per quarter. If you fall into the moderate user area, 1800 cubic feet (which is where my water bill puts our family), the increase in the first year is actually 11.8 per cent. And if you're what is considered to be a low user, 1200 cubic feet, your increase in the first year will be 13.6 per cent.
And who are the low users? They would be those households of one or two people, often seniors living on fixed incomes, who will be facing the largest proportional impact on their utility bills. And for those who have worked to reduce their water consumption - those who have invested in more efficient shower heads and low-use toilets, or who collect rain water for their gardens rather than using the hose - well, they probably did it because they're interested in the environment, but they won't be getting any financial thanks from the city for their efforts, that's for sure.
I would have been much more comfortable with this if the information provided had laid out the whole spectrum of changes, rather than just focusing on the 10.4 per cent. To me, that's being misleading, by giving only the least of the increases, rather than all of them.
The other confusing part to me, that has yet to be explained clearly, is the difference between the increase for residential and commercial users. The 10.4 per cent increase for residential users would appear to be quite a bit more than the 4.66 per cent increase that commercial users will be paying. However, the city manager has said that the two increases are the same, but he has yet to provide us with his reasoning for how 10.4 per cent equals 4.66 per cent (let alone how 13.6 per cent equals 4.66 per cent).
Part of the problem is that your utility bill covers far more than just your water usage - you're paying for infrastructure maintenance and repair, as well as for garbage pick-up, both of which are unrelated to your water use, and you're also paying for a portion of the costs of city administration. Once again, these are all necessary costs, but I would prefer that they are dealt with as part of the overall taxation process, rather than being hidden as part of your utility bill.
I also don't understand why water billing can't be done monthly, as most other household bills are. I've raised this in the past, and been told by administration that it would be too expensive, but, as with many other things, the reasons why this can't be done haven't been explained.
I've had a few phone calls and conversations with people saying that they don't understand the logic behind the proposed increases, and I haven't been able to provide them with much information. To me, that's a clear sign that we're not ready to move forward with these changes, and until we can explain clearly how people will be affected, we shouldn't be rushing to the first solution offered by administration.
"Figures can lie, and liars do figure." - Anonymous
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Saturday, February 16, 2013
A New Way of Dealing with Committees
This new council is looking at city committees, and how committee appointments are made, in a whole new way. We're hoping that the result is a set of committees that are functional, with defined work objectives, and that produce ideas that council can use in making decisions.
There are two types of committees to which council makes appointments. The first type is external committees - committees that are established by outside agencies, but that require representation from Prince Albert. The Library Board, the District Planning Commission, and the North Central Saskatchewan Transportation Committee are examples of these. Our council does not control the functioning of these committees, but council appointees to these committees are expected to keep council updated with new information that might affect Prince Albert.
The committees that are within council's control are called, appropriately, committees of council. These are set up to be a sounding board for issues that are brought before council, and are expected to give focused discussion on these issues, and make recommendations back to council on decisions that are council's responsibility. For example, in the past the Housing Committee has been asked to develop policy around the utilization of the Housing Trust Fund.
Our committee review process has three stages. The first was looking at all of the committees of council to see if there were any that were superfluous because their work was unnecessary, such as the Street Naming Committee, since there is a policy on street-naming in place. We were able to trim a few of the more than 60 committees on the list in that way.
The second stage is selecting which councillors will be appointed to which committees. Unlike previous councils, where decisions were made by the mayor, after meeting one-on-one with each councillor, then endorsed by council without any discussion, this council has chosen a more democratic and open process. First, all members of council were asked to indicate which committees, both external and council committees, that they would be interested in being on. Then, at last week's Executive Committee meeting, we voted on which councillors should be appointed to each committee, by secret ballot. In some cases, councillors withdrew from the vote, when they saw the interest of another councillor, so voting wasn't necessary. In other cases, taking a vote was necessary. The resulting recommendations will be ratified at the next council meeting on February 25th.
I think that this process is a great improvement. Everyone had the opportunity to declare their interest, and to see the interests of their colleagues. Everyone also was able to participate in the decision. And the voting was done in the open, with the ballot counting done by the city manager. It was a bit of a time-consuming process, but we got faster as we went along.
Some councillors may be disappointed that they didn't get to be on all of the committees that they expressed interest in, and some may be disappointed that they are no longer on a committee that they have been on for some time. As with most things in life, changes in perspective can bring new ideas to the table, which should be beneficial. I've been on the North Central Saskatchewan Transportation Committee for my entire time on council, and while I found it quite educational, and met many good people from other communities and from the Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure over the years, I'm sure that the councillor who will replace me on the committee will do just as good a job.
Meetings of committees of council are open to the public, so any councillor that has an interest in the committee, but wasn't successful in getting the appointment, can still attend the meeting, ask questions, and participate in the discussion. They just can't vote on committee matters, but they can bring forth their ideas when the actual decision is made by council. I did this quite often in my first term on council, and learned quite a bit, even though I actually wasn't a committee member.
There will be a third stage of this committee review process. All committees of council will be expected to develop a committee work plan for the upcoming year by the end of April, and report on their activities at the end of the year. If there is no work plan or report, the committee will be deemed not necessary at this time, and dissolved.
This new council is not afraid of doing things differently, and of including all members in discussions and decisions. I look at the extra time involved in these discussions as investments in figuring out how to do our jobs better, which should benefit Prince Albert in the long run. And that, of course, should be the goal of every member of council.
"Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half the people are right more than half the time." - E.B. White
There are two types of committees to which council makes appointments. The first type is external committees - committees that are established by outside agencies, but that require representation from Prince Albert. The Library Board, the District Planning Commission, and the North Central Saskatchewan Transportation Committee are examples of these. Our council does not control the functioning of these committees, but council appointees to these committees are expected to keep council updated with new information that might affect Prince Albert.
The committees that are within council's control are called, appropriately, committees of council. These are set up to be a sounding board for issues that are brought before council, and are expected to give focused discussion on these issues, and make recommendations back to council on decisions that are council's responsibility. For example, in the past the Housing Committee has been asked to develop policy around the utilization of the Housing Trust Fund.
Our committee review process has three stages. The first was looking at all of the committees of council to see if there were any that were superfluous because their work was unnecessary, such as the Street Naming Committee, since there is a policy on street-naming in place. We were able to trim a few of the more than 60 committees on the list in that way.
The second stage is selecting which councillors will be appointed to which committees. Unlike previous councils, where decisions were made by the mayor, after meeting one-on-one with each councillor, then endorsed by council without any discussion, this council has chosen a more democratic and open process. First, all members of council were asked to indicate which committees, both external and council committees, that they would be interested in being on. Then, at last week's Executive Committee meeting, we voted on which councillors should be appointed to each committee, by secret ballot. In some cases, councillors withdrew from the vote, when they saw the interest of another councillor, so voting wasn't necessary. In other cases, taking a vote was necessary. The resulting recommendations will be ratified at the next council meeting on February 25th.
I think that this process is a great improvement. Everyone had the opportunity to declare their interest, and to see the interests of their colleagues. Everyone also was able to participate in the decision. And the voting was done in the open, with the ballot counting done by the city manager. It was a bit of a time-consuming process, but we got faster as we went along.
Some councillors may be disappointed that they didn't get to be on all of the committees that they expressed interest in, and some may be disappointed that they are no longer on a committee that they have been on for some time. As with most things in life, changes in perspective can bring new ideas to the table, which should be beneficial. I've been on the North Central Saskatchewan Transportation Committee for my entire time on council, and while I found it quite educational, and met many good people from other communities and from the Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure over the years, I'm sure that the councillor who will replace me on the committee will do just as good a job.
Meetings of committees of council are open to the public, so any councillor that has an interest in the committee, but wasn't successful in getting the appointment, can still attend the meeting, ask questions, and participate in the discussion. They just can't vote on committee matters, but they can bring forth their ideas when the actual decision is made by council. I did this quite often in my first term on council, and learned quite a bit, even though I actually wasn't a committee member.
There will be a third stage of this committee review process. All committees of council will be expected to develop a committee work plan for the upcoming year by the end of April, and report on their activities at the end of the year. If there is no work plan or report, the committee will be deemed not necessary at this time, and dissolved.
This new council is not afraid of doing things differently, and of including all members in discussions and decisions. I look at the extra time involved in these discussions as investments in figuring out how to do our jobs better, which should benefit Prince Albert in the long run. And that, of course, should be the goal of every member of council.
"Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half the people are right more than half the time." - E.B. White
Sunday, February 10, 2013
SUMA Takeaways
I spent from Sunday until Wednesday last week in Saskatoon at the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association annual meeting, along with several of my council colleagues and the city manager. Like most conferences, SUMA provides a good mix of formal and informal educational opportunities to learn about how various municipal councils function, and could function better.
I found two of the formal speakers particularly interesting this year. The first, Darci Lang, a motivational speaker from Regina, set the tone on Monday with an extremely energetic and engaging talk about adjusting one's focus. Andrea had heard her speak several years ago, and had forewarned me that I might find her a bit too positive and motivational for my taste, so I did try listening with an open mind. Darci was upbeat, and cheerful, and perky (which I admit I am not known for being), and I, and the rest of the audience, quite enjoyed this learning experience.
What I hope to remember from Darci's talk was the need for council to focus on what we have in common, not on our differences. I'm sure that each member of council has their own list of goals and targets, and that none of these lists is identical. I'm also sure that all of these lists have at least some items in common, and perhaps we need to work together on these common goals that we agree on, not spend our energies fighting over what we disagree about. And hopefully, that way we will accomplish tasks that we all can be proud of, and feel that we were part of.
Also on Monday, George Cuff, a former mayor and councillor from Alberta who has written several books about municipal governance, spoke about the need for councillors to understand that our job is about developing policy and direction, not about micromanaging the details of carrying out that direction - that's for city employees to do. We have to realize that as council, we are supposed to be leaders, not managers, and not part of the city labour force either. And we also have to realize that we can't let personal relationships cloud our work as councillors - we need to remain impartial in our dealings with city employees and other agencies. I quite enjoyed George's talk, but I'm sorry that when I looked around at some of my colleagues, they were more focused on their Blackberry screens than on the good advice that we were being given.
Other presentations that I found worthwhile included a session about moving to single-stream recycling, a question and answer session with the Minister of Health, and a newcomers' session, which outlined our various legislated responsibilities, and included a presentation from the new mayor of Lloydminster, who gave us his perspective on the difficulties being a new mayor and shaking up the status quo. It was a good reminder of how easy it is for councillors and city administration to become complacent, and how we need to be careful not to fall into an attitude of resistance to change.
And as always, I enjoyed the chance to catch up with old friends from previous years, meet new people, and socialize with my colleagues. Being on a municipal council is a constant learning experience, and opportunities like SUMA are an excellent chance to learn from your peers, and from experts. Fortunately, this year provided plenty of fodder for us to use in the coming year - I hope that we use it well.
"The great aim of education is not knowledge but action." - Herbert Spencer
I found two of the formal speakers particularly interesting this year. The first, Darci Lang, a motivational speaker from Regina, set the tone on Monday with an extremely energetic and engaging talk about adjusting one's focus. Andrea had heard her speak several years ago, and had forewarned me that I might find her a bit too positive and motivational for my taste, so I did try listening with an open mind. Darci was upbeat, and cheerful, and perky (which I admit I am not known for being), and I, and the rest of the audience, quite enjoyed this learning experience.
What I hope to remember from Darci's talk was the need for council to focus on what we have in common, not on our differences. I'm sure that each member of council has their own list of goals and targets, and that none of these lists is identical. I'm also sure that all of these lists have at least some items in common, and perhaps we need to work together on these common goals that we agree on, not spend our energies fighting over what we disagree about. And hopefully, that way we will accomplish tasks that we all can be proud of, and feel that we were part of.
Also on Monday, George Cuff, a former mayor and councillor from Alberta who has written several books about municipal governance, spoke about the need for councillors to understand that our job is about developing policy and direction, not about micromanaging the details of carrying out that direction - that's for city employees to do. We have to realize that as council, we are supposed to be leaders, not managers, and not part of the city labour force either. And we also have to realize that we can't let personal relationships cloud our work as councillors - we need to remain impartial in our dealings with city employees and other agencies. I quite enjoyed George's talk, but I'm sorry that when I looked around at some of my colleagues, they were more focused on their Blackberry screens than on the good advice that we were being given.
Other presentations that I found worthwhile included a session about moving to single-stream recycling, a question and answer session with the Minister of Health, and a newcomers' session, which outlined our various legislated responsibilities, and included a presentation from the new mayor of Lloydminster, who gave us his perspective on the difficulties being a new mayor and shaking up the status quo. It was a good reminder of how easy it is for councillors and city administration to become complacent, and how we need to be careful not to fall into an attitude of resistance to change.
And as always, I enjoyed the chance to catch up with old friends from previous years, meet new people, and socialize with my colleagues. Being on a municipal council is a constant learning experience, and opportunities like SUMA are an excellent chance to learn from your peers, and from experts. Fortunately, this year provided plenty of fodder for us to use in the coming year - I hope that we use it well.
"The great aim of education is not knowledge but action." - Herbert Spencer
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Look Before You Leap, then Look Again
You may have heard last week that a trip is being planned for city council and some administration to check out the new Mosaic Place in Moose Jaw. This trip was suggested by the board of the Raiders, who would like to see a new arena to replace the Art Hauser Centre.
I have a few thoughts about this whole idea. Starting to gather information at early stages, which everyone agrees we're at, is certainly a good idea. And checking with a community of similar size which has recently gone through the process is also a good idea. But there are far more things that we need to consider before we decide that this should be part of a ten year plan for the city - ten years is not a very long time, and we have more urgent, basic needs that have been neglected for too long.
I know that there's a certain excitement and energy to special projects that just doesn't happen with the regular, boring, infrastructure maintenance stuff. The city has an enviable history of residents getting together to fund the construction of such things as the original Comuniplex, the Kinsmen water slides, the Rawlinson Centre, and the soccer centre. And it's less than ten years ago that the Bring Back the Magic campaign put $5 million into upgrades that resulted in the Comuniplex being refurbished and renamed the Art Hauser Centre. These facilities all provide benefits to the city, its residents, and the surrounding area. They also each have added significantly to the city budget, and the costs to the city to keep them operating increase every year.
I think that before we even consider adding yet another city-owned facility to the more than 100 that we already are responsible for, we need to review the current state of all our facilities. We need to know their operating costs, the level of usage, and the revenues. We need to know their projected life span, and what sort of maintenance is required on an ongoing basis. And we need to decide if we can afford all the facilities that we currently own. Some difficult decisions may need to be made, because we have to realize that, even though the city may have carried the costs in the past, it's no longer practical or fair for some facilities to be subsidized to the extent that they have been.
We also need to develop some standard principles around these facilities. I think that the costs for each facility should include all operating costs, including water, which currently is included for some facilities, but not others. I think that all facilities should have to provide a financial report and a budget before their annual funding is approved - again, in the past, this has been required for some facilities but not others. I think that when facilities reach the end of their lifespan, when costs to keep them repaired start to be unreasonable, we need to decide at that point whether we need to maintain the facility, or if the need can be covered in some other way. For example, the Girl Guide Hall needed a new roof. When the repairs began, black mold was revealed, making it a far costlier project. This is the point where we need to ask ourselves why we are maintaining a building for a single organization, when we have several community halls that could probably accommodate their needs. And I'm not meaning to pick on the Girl Guides, whose building costs us far less than some other facilities, and who pay for their own water use, but no group should be considered off-limits or sacred.
This is difficult, I know. We all have our favourite causes that we support. But we have to make decisions that are objective, and not based on the affinities and connections of members of council. Too often we have made decisions that are more emotional than practical, and those decisions have cost the city as a whole. It comes down to balance. I'm not saying that all facilities need to be self-sufficient. I am saying that we need to treat all facilities the same, and look for cost-effective solutions, so that we can afford both the every day necessities of paved and plowed streets and safe drinking water, while being able to enjoy going to a hockey game, a concert, or a walk along the Rotary Trail.
And the place to start, as I've suggested before, is with a total facilities review. Only when we know where we are can we start to figure out what we need to do to get where we want to be.
"Some debts are fun when you are acquiring them, but none are fun when you set about retiring them." - Ogden Nash
I have a few thoughts about this whole idea. Starting to gather information at early stages, which everyone agrees we're at, is certainly a good idea. And checking with a community of similar size which has recently gone through the process is also a good idea. But there are far more things that we need to consider before we decide that this should be part of a ten year plan for the city - ten years is not a very long time, and we have more urgent, basic needs that have been neglected for too long.
I know that there's a certain excitement and energy to special projects that just doesn't happen with the regular, boring, infrastructure maintenance stuff. The city has an enviable history of residents getting together to fund the construction of such things as the original Comuniplex, the Kinsmen water slides, the Rawlinson Centre, and the soccer centre. And it's less than ten years ago that the Bring Back the Magic campaign put $5 million into upgrades that resulted in the Comuniplex being refurbished and renamed the Art Hauser Centre. These facilities all provide benefits to the city, its residents, and the surrounding area. They also each have added significantly to the city budget, and the costs to the city to keep them operating increase every year.
I think that before we even consider adding yet another city-owned facility to the more than 100 that we already are responsible for, we need to review the current state of all our facilities. We need to know their operating costs, the level of usage, and the revenues. We need to know their projected life span, and what sort of maintenance is required on an ongoing basis. And we need to decide if we can afford all the facilities that we currently own. Some difficult decisions may need to be made, because we have to realize that, even though the city may have carried the costs in the past, it's no longer practical or fair for some facilities to be subsidized to the extent that they have been.
We also need to develop some standard principles around these facilities. I think that the costs for each facility should include all operating costs, including water, which currently is included for some facilities, but not others. I think that all facilities should have to provide a financial report and a budget before their annual funding is approved - again, in the past, this has been required for some facilities but not others. I think that when facilities reach the end of their lifespan, when costs to keep them repaired start to be unreasonable, we need to decide at that point whether we need to maintain the facility, or if the need can be covered in some other way. For example, the Girl Guide Hall needed a new roof. When the repairs began, black mold was revealed, making it a far costlier project. This is the point where we need to ask ourselves why we are maintaining a building for a single organization, when we have several community halls that could probably accommodate their needs. And I'm not meaning to pick on the Girl Guides, whose building costs us far less than some other facilities, and who pay for their own water use, but no group should be considered off-limits or sacred.
This is difficult, I know. We all have our favourite causes that we support. But we have to make decisions that are objective, and not based on the affinities and connections of members of council. Too often we have made decisions that are more emotional than practical, and those decisions have cost the city as a whole. It comes down to balance. I'm not saying that all facilities need to be self-sufficient. I am saying that we need to treat all facilities the same, and look for cost-effective solutions, so that we can afford both the every day necessities of paved and plowed streets and safe drinking water, while being able to enjoy going to a hockey game, a concert, or a walk along the Rotary Trail.
And the place to start, as I've suggested before, is with a total facilities review. Only when we know where we are can we start to figure out what we need to do to get where we want to be.
"Some debts are fun when you are acquiring them, but none are fun when you set about retiring them." - Ogden Nash
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Baby Steps
As I mentioned in last week's blog entry about getting to a new bridge, most of our goals as a city council can only be reached in steps. So much of what we want to accomplish is big, and costly, and will take time - it's really easy to get frustrated by the seeming impossibility of getting to where we want to go. We have to remember the words of Lao-Tzu, the Chinese philosopher - "A journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step."
We need to approach revitalizing the downtown area the same way. It's not going to be done by throwing big bucks at things like new building fronts, or putting in paving stones rather than sidewalks, or putting in a different style of street lights, or putting up banners. None of these things, either individually or together, is going to convince more people to come downtown to shop or dine or get their hair cut. And doing any or all of these things costs money that has to be taken from somewhere else.
But at last week's council meeting we did vote to take a small, inexpensive step to make it easier for those going downtown to spend more time there. We passed a motion to make all of the parking meters on Central Avenue two hour, rather than having the mix of one and two hour meters that is the current situation.
This situation came about a couple of years ago when the city spent $700,000 for new parking meters in the downtown - we'll be paying for those meters for the next three years and ten months ($14,600 per month). The new meters only take loonies and twonies, with the idea that this would increase parking revenues. We also hired another parking meter person, with the theory being that the increased meter revenues would pay for this person's salary. At about the same time, the fine for parking at an expired meter went up to $10 (if you pay right away), to discourage people from parking too long.
On Central Avenue, meters were all set for a maximum of one hour. Even if you put in a twonie, the most time that you could get was one hour. Part of the reason for this limitation came from businesses in the block where the university is located - students were parking on the street, and taking up spaces for the entire day, preventing customers of those businesses from having easy access. The hope was that shorter meter times and higher parking fines would discourage this behaviour.
Unfortunately, one hour isn't very long if you're downtown and want to run a number of errands, or have an appointment that runs overtime. When an accounting firm moved into the Forest Centre, they quickly found that this was a problem for many of their clients, so they made a request to the city to have the allowable time on meters in that block changed to two hours, and this was done.
However, when other businesses on Central made the same request, they were turned down, and told to work through the Business Improvement District, which didn't follow through. Frustrated, they asked me if there was anything that I could do.
Having been in the situation where I've been meeting someone for coffee, and they had to run out to feed the meter, or were ticked because they put in a twonie (since the meter says that it takes twonies and loonies) but only got one hour of parking, I thought that making all meters on Central two hour meters was the simplest solution that would end some confusion and give people some encouragement to stay downtown. So I brought forward a motion at council to do just that, and it was passed last week. One benefit of the new meters is that this will be very easy and low-cost to do, and should be done within a couple of weeks.
Is this the magic bullet for our downtown? Of course not. But it's something that was easy, low-cost, and lessens one of the irritants that people run into when they're considering whether to go downtown or elsewhere.
And it was taking a step, not standing in the same place talking about all the things that we could do, but not actually doing anything. We need to remember that it's the doing, not the talking, that gets things done, even if we're only taking baby steps.
"As I get older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do." - Andrew Carnegie
We need to approach revitalizing the downtown area the same way. It's not going to be done by throwing big bucks at things like new building fronts, or putting in paving stones rather than sidewalks, or putting in a different style of street lights, or putting up banners. None of these things, either individually or together, is going to convince more people to come downtown to shop or dine or get their hair cut. And doing any or all of these things costs money that has to be taken from somewhere else.
But at last week's council meeting we did vote to take a small, inexpensive step to make it easier for those going downtown to spend more time there. We passed a motion to make all of the parking meters on Central Avenue two hour, rather than having the mix of one and two hour meters that is the current situation.
This situation came about a couple of years ago when the city spent $700,000 for new parking meters in the downtown - we'll be paying for those meters for the next three years and ten months ($14,600 per month). The new meters only take loonies and twonies, with the idea that this would increase parking revenues. We also hired another parking meter person, with the theory being that the increased meter revenues would pay for this person's salary. At about the same time, the fine for parking at an expired meter went up to $10 (if you pay right away), to discourage people from parking too long.
On Central Avenue, meters were all set for a maximum of one hour. Even if you put in a twonie, the most time that you could get was one hour. Part of the reason for this limitation came from businesses in the block where the university is located - students were parking on the street, and taking up spaces for the entire day, preventing customers of those businesses from having easy access. The hope was that shorter meter times and higher parking fines would discourage this behaviour.
Unfortunately, one hour isn't very long if you're downtown and want to run a number of errands, or have an appointment that runs overtime. When an accounting firm moved into the Forest Centre, they quickly found that this was a problem for many of their clients, so they made a request to the city to have the allowable time on meters in that block changed to two hours, and this was done.
However, when other businesses on Central made the same request, they were turned down, and told to work through the Business Improvement District, which didn't follow through. Frustrated, they asked me if there was anything that I could do.
Having been in the situation where I've been meeting someone for coffee, and they had to run out to feed the meter, or were ticked because they put in a twonie (since the meter says that it takes twonies and loonies) but only got one hour of parking, I thought that making all meters on Central two hour meters was the simplest solution that would end some confusion and give people some encouragement to stay downtown. So I brought forward a motion at council to do just that, and it was passed last week. One benefit of the new meters is that this will be very easy and low-cost to do, and should be done within a couple of weeks.
Is this the magic bullet for our downtown? Of course not. But it's something that was easy, low-cost, and lessens one of the irritants that people run into when they're considering whether to go downtown or elsewhere.
And it was taking a step, not standing in the same place talking about all the things that we could do, but not actually doing anything. We need to remember that it's the doing, not the talking, that gets things done, even if we're only taking baby steps.
"As I get older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do." - Andrew Carnegie
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Bridge Report - What Next?
As you're probably aware, the well-publicized bridge report did not contain the news that was hoped for - that the province recognizes that a second bridge crossing of the North Saskatchewan River is needed, and that planning for such a project can now begin, with a funding commitment in place.
Instead, it said that the current bridge, if maintained, meets our needs, and should last for another thirty years, considering capacity and projected population growth.
While this news is disappointing, it wasn't a surprise. We have been told before that based on traffic volumes, a second bridge isn't required. Slow going during long weekends, while inconvenient and annoying, is not sufficient reason for the province to cough up several million dollars, no matter how many people sign a petition. In fact, the decision last summer to open all the lanes during the August long weekend so that people coming from the south weren't inconvenienced was probably not the best way of emphasizing to people from outside the Prince Albert area how serious the situation is.
And I don't think that there's a magic population number that if reached, would automatically trigger an opening of the money bags to fund a new bridge - it's just not that simple.
While the vocalized disappointment is understandable, I don't think that there's any ground to be gained in getting angry or political. The report was prepared by independent consultants, and consultants aren't always going to give the answers that are wanted.
I think it is important to figure out how we can move forward, and take at least the first possible step. That's why I will be making a motion at the next council meeting that we endorse the report's proposed location for a future second crossing - east of the airport. Then, that decision will be made - we won't have to have another study at some future date to figure out a location. If we can get the surrounding RMs to come in on the endorsement, so much the better.
Knowing the general location can then be used in long-term planning, and in developing a functional study to identify the best specific site, taking into account such factors as geological bases, land ownership, and other service requirements. That way, we'll be ready for the next infrastructure funding opportunity, be it federal or provincial, and be able to move forward, rather than reworking the same study over and over again, and remaining in the same place that we've been for the last thirty years.
It would also be useful to identify each incremental step in the process to a new bridge. We're unlikely to get a full package of funding to do it all at once - bridge, plus all the highway connectors for the transportation plan. But if we can set the process out in less financially intimidating steps, then we might actually move ahead.
Most change happens in stages anyway. Let's be patient, work with other levels of government rather than pointing fingers, and figure out what we can do, not just complain about what we can't get right now.
"You don't have to see the whole staircase to take the first step." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Instead, it said that the current bridge, if maintained, meets our needs, and should last for another thirty years, considering capacity and projected population growth.
While this news is disappointing, it wasn't a surprise. We have been told before that based on traffic volumes, a second bridge isn't required. Slow going during long weekends, while inconvenient and annoying, is not sufficient reason for the province to cough up several million dollars, no matter how many people sign a petition. In fact, the decision last summer to open all the lanes during the August long weekend so that people coming from the south weren't inconvenienced was probably not the best way of emphasizing to people from outside the Prince Albert area how serious the situation is.
And I don't think that there's a magic population number that if reached, would automatically trigger an opening of the money bags to fund a new bridge - it's just not that simple.
While the vocalized disappointment is understandable, I don't think that there's any ground to be gained in getting angry or political. The report was prepared by independent consultants, and consultants aren't always going to give the answers that are wanted.
I think it is important to figure out how we can move forward, and take at least the first possible step. That's why I will be making a motion at the next council meeting that we endorse the report's proposed location for a future second crossing - east of the airport. Then, that decision will be made - we won't have to have another study at some future date to figure out a location. If we can get the surrounding RMs to come in on the endorsement, so much the better.
Knowing the general location can then be used in long-term planning, and in developing a functional study to identify the best specific site, taking into account such factors as geological bases, land ownership, and other service requirements. That way, we'll be ready for the next infrastructure funding opportunity, be it federal or provincial, and be able to move forward, rather than reworking the same study over and over again, and remaining in the same place that we've been for the last thirty years.
It would also be useful to identify each incremental step in the process to a new bridge. We're unlikely to get a full package of funding to do it all at once - bridge, plus all the highway connectors for the transportation plan. But if we can set the process out in less financially intimidating steps, then we might actually move ahead.
Most change happens in stages anyway. Let's be patient, work with other levels of government rather than pointing fingers, and figure out what we can do, not just complain about what we can't get right now.
"You don't have to see the whole staircase to take the first step." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
And Another Year Begins
Once again, we're looking forward to another year, which I'm sure will be filled with surprises. 2012 was certainly an interesting year. As with most years, there were lots of happenings that no-one would have predicted, both good and bad. That uncertainty about the future is what keeps life interesting. While it's important to remember and learn from the past, I think that it's more important to look ahead, plan as best you can, but accept that there's only a certain amount of life that is actually within our control. And when the unexpected happens, deal with it.
In the area of things that are classified as within our control, I'm hoping that this year, council takes a good look in two areas. I think that we need to look at everywhere that we're spending our money, and how we spend our time, and make sure that we managing both money and time efficiently and economically, because both are limited.
Managing our money is done mainly through the budget process, which I hope will be a longer and more open process this year. There are two components to budgeting - what do we need to spend money on, and where can we cut our spending. It's no problem getting people's ideas on where we need to spend more money - snow removal, street sweeping, infrastructure repair, better management of our urban forest, a new bridge - these are just a few of the areas that have been identified as needing more financial attention. It's harder when it comes to identifying areas where efficiencies could be made to save money that could then be redirected to these higher priorities.
We need to identify services that the city provides that cost more than the benefits received - one example that comes to mind is the way the city recycles residential grass clippings, branches, and other yard waste. Right now, we ask people to place such waste in clear plastic bags, and periodically a city truck carrying three employees cruises the back alleys, looking for these bags, separate from regular garbage and recycling pick-ups. The bags are then taken to the landfill, where they are cut open and added to the organic sludge that is used as ground cover for the cells where garbage is dumped.
This is a service that our family has never used. Andrea is a major proponent of composting - she grew up in a family where it was taken for granted that you dumped your coffee grounds, tea bags, apple cores and orange peels in a bucket that was periodically taken out to the compost pile behind the garden. We currently have three compost bins in the backyard, as well as a worm composter inside. And I know that many families do the same. I think that we first have to question whether we should be offering this as a door to door service, or if we would be better off with having a few centralized locations where people could bring their organic waste.
We could also save a step in the process by requiring that organic matter be put into paper bags, rather than plastic, which isn't recyclable. The last time that we were in Stratford, we noticed that people put out three kinds of garbage for pick-up - regular, blue recycling bins, and large paper bags filled with compostable material.
This is, of course, just one example of a service where we could possibly save money by doing things differently. Everyone at the table, and the city staff who provide us with information, need to start looking at every service provided to see how it can be done more efficiently and effectively, or if it is something that needs to be provided at all.
In the area of spending our time more efficiently, I think that we're taking a step in the right direction by looking at the current plethora of committees that we have, and eliminating some of them. The management committee will be bringing forward to council a list of committees that we see as being no longer necessary, for council to make the final decision. Then council as a whole will decide who will be on which committee. This should result in a lower overall workload, and a more fair distribution of work.
This council is just at the start of its mandate, and I'm sure that we will make plenty of mistakes over the next four years. But I think that if we remember to focus on the areas where we can actually make real differences, and keep ourselves open to new ideas and ways of doing things, we'll be able to see improvements that benefit the city as a whole. And that's a positive way to face our future.
"Look at life through the wind-shield, not the rear-view mirror." - Byrd Baggett
In the area of things that are classified as within our control, I'm hoping that this year, council takes a good look in two areas. I think that we need to look at everywhere that we're spending our money, and how we spend our time, and make sure that we managing both money and time efficiently and economically, because both are limited.
Managing our money is done mainly through the budget process, which I hope will be a longer and more open process this year. There are two components to budgeting - what do we need to spend money on, and where can we cut our spending. It's no problem getting people's ideas on where we need to spend more money - snow removal, street sweeping, infrastructure repair, better management of our urban forest, a new bridge - these are just a few of the areas that have been identified as needing more financial attention. It's harder when it comes to identifying areas where efficiencies could be made to save money that could then be redirected to these higher priorities.
We need to identify services that the city provides that cost more than the benefits received - one example that comes to mind is the way the city recycles residential grass clippings, branches, and other yard waste. Right now, we ask people to place such waste in clear plastic bags, and periodically a city truck carrying three employees cruises the back alleys, looking for these bags, separate from regular garbage and recycling pick-ups. The bags are then taken to the landfill, where they are cut open and added to the organic sludge that is used as ground cover for the cells where garbage is dumped.
This is a service that our family has never used. Andrea is a major proponent of composting - she grew up in a family where it was taken for granted that you dumped your coffee grounds, tea bags, apple cores and orange peels in a bucket that was periodically taken out to the compost pile behind the garden. We currently have three compost bins in the backyard, as well as a worm composter inside. And I know that many families do the same. I think that we first have to question whether we should be offering this as a door to door service, or if we would be better off with having a few centralized locations where people could bring their organic waste.
We could also save a step in the process by requiring that organic matter be put into paper bags, rather than plastic, which isn't recyclable. The last time that we were in Stratford, we noticed that people put out three kinds of garbage for pick-up - regular, blue recycling bins, and large paper bags filled with compostable material.
This is, of course, just one example of a service where we could possibly save money by doing things differently. Everyone at the table, and the city staff who provide us with information, need to start looking at every service provided to see how it can be done more efficiently and effectively, or if it is something that needs to be provided at all.
In the area of spending our time more efficiently, I think that we're taking a step in the right direction by looking at the current plethora of committees that we have, and eliminating some of them. The management committee will be bringing forward to council a list of committees that we see as being no longer necessary, for council to make the final decision. Then council as a whole will decide who will be on which committee. This should result in a lower overall workload, and a more fair distribution of work.
This council is just at the start of its mandate, and I'm sure that we will make plenty of mistakes over the next four years. But I think that if we remember to focus on the areas where we can actually make real differences, and keep ourselves open to new ideas and ways of doing things, we'll be able to see improvements that benefit the city as a whole. And that's a positive way to face our future.
"Look at life through the wind-shield, not the rear-view mirror." - Byrd Baggett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)