Welcome to 2012

We are now a week in to 2012 and so far it doesn't seem like the end of the world. Unseasonably warm, yes. But end-of-the-world hot ... I don't think so.

2011 was a busy year; for me personally, in the region and here at city hall. In fact I was so busy that my last post was back in October which is pretty sad. So like everyone else I guess I'd better have a New Year's Resolution - I'm going to set a goal of one post every week. Let's see how it goes.

Looking back at 2011 there were a number of projects started, completed and celebrated. I believe the most significant  was the development of Council's new Strategic Plan. The plan sets out Council's values, priorities and goals for the balance of the term.

Some of the most important goals are aimed directly at reducing the need for future property tax increases by addressing the financial foundation and framework the city operates within. These goals are:

• Develop a fiscal sustainability model
• Prepare a post-annexation plan
• Prepare a strategy to encourage industrial land development

The exercise of working through the Strategic Plan ensured that each council member and administration had a chance to develop a shared understanding of what our collective priorities were. This collective focus  is what enabled us to pass a 3 year budget that provides the lowest tax increases in a decade while still reinvesting in the infrastructure and services that our community needs.

In 2011 we did the big stuff. We set out our long term strategic goals and developed the budget that will provide the financial resources to work towards them over the next 3 years.

So what does that leave for 2012? That'll have to be next week's post...

Paying for Police

Many time over I've highlighted the fact that in Alberta, provincial legislation creates an uneven playing field that financially disadvantages some municipalities. Essentially, in many areas the province has funding programs that create artificially uneven playing fields. The funding formula for police in the province is probably the prime example of this. In fact I highlighted it in this post from 2007. With the provincial cabinet making a tour of the province I'll press them on the issue again as it has a big impact on city residents.

The government's current funding formula states that:

• Towns and cities with a population from 5,001 to 20,000 receive a $200,000 base payment plus an additional $8.00 per capita.

• Cities and urban service areas with a population from 20,001 to 50,000 receive a $100,000 base payment plus $14.00 per capita.

• Cities and urban service areas with a population over 50,000 receive grants of $16.00 per capita.

In the case of the City of Grande Prairie this means the province funds only $800,000 of the City's $12 million dollar annual policing budget – approximately 6%. I've spoken with communities who are (probably jokingly) considering what they can do to convince people to move out of town so they don't go over the 5000 population mark. (See all the per capita grants given to communities across Alberta here)

The grant to cover 6% of The City of GP's cost is in contrast to the surrounding county, towns and village who are under no obligation to pay anything for towards the cost of RCMP service as the province covers 100% of the cost. As I noted back in the 2007 post to it's credit the County of GP does choose to hire additional RCMP at their full cost (I think it might be a total of 5 members now) which, in very round numbers, costs approximately $600,000.

Of course the advantage is that we are largely in control of our destiny when it comes to how many police we have - council makes the decision on when and how many RCMP officers we need to hire. But on the other side of the equation taxes in the city have to be higher to pay for those police and this added burden decreases the City's ability to be financially competitive with surrounding municipalities like the county.

So those who would like to see city taxes as low as the county should support our efforts to lobby the province make police funding more equitable. If it were we would at least have a fighting change.

GGS Committee Agenda for April 7th, 2010

The GGS committee meets today at 10am. The agenda looks to be fairly light - check it out below, with notes from me in italics.

General Government Services Agenda April 7, 2010

1. 2010 Orthophoto Project
K. McGriskin, GIS Manager
This is a project to update the aerial photos we have of the city. The photos are used by various city departments in their operations through the year. We partner with the County of GP on this to do the whole area at once and since the county area is larger than the city thy actually cover the majority of the cost but we manage the project. The total cost is $188,050 and the city's portion of that is $47,140.

2. 2010 Fiscal Plan
K. Anderson, Corporate Services Director
Given how the economy has been a little... unsettled, over the last while Council asked Ken to give us an update on how things were looking for the year and how administration was handling any challenges that might pop up. Report highlights:
• the short fall in MSI funding (which had even more cut from it than we expected -$653,000)
• loss of revenue when a long standing grant from the province disappeared in their latest budget (-$592,000)
• lowered revenue projections from development services due to slower than expected construction activity (-$500,000)
• lowered revenue projections from the Crystal Centre (-$300,000)
• loss of revenue when the province removed ambulance dispatch from our 911 call centre (-$300,000)
• better than expected revenue at the Leisure Centre & Coca-Cola Centre (+$100,000)
• savings by delaying borrowing for construction projects (+$200,000)
• higher than expected tax penalty revenue, also probably due to the economy (+$200,000)
• increased revenue due to climbing interest rates (+$250,000)
• savings due to wages not increasing as fast as predicted (+$942,000)

Many of the items above offset with the exception of the $653,000 loss from the further reduction (last year's reduction caused an increase in taxes) in MSI funding, to handle that admin is suggesting we use money from the Facility Depreciation reserve. I'm hoping that we'll be able to pay that reserve back because the province has said that we would eventually get all the MSI money, just over a longer period. So, if it's replaced down the road hopefully we can just pay ourselves back so that reserve is available for it's intended use.

All in all, those things balance out so that the budget increase will remain at the 2.8% council approved in the fall. I think it goes to show how big a task municipal budgeting is.

3. 2010 Assessment Report for Mill Rate Application
D. Swant, Assessment/Tax Manager
I've spoken about mill rates before. Interesting note in the report; the revenue producing assessment in the city is just over $7 billion. That means that if you added up the value of all the properties in the city it would be worth $7 billion.

4. Bylaw C-1247, 2010 Property Tax
D. Sauve, Financial Analyst
This is the bylaw that actually puts the tax rate in place and formalizes the 2.8% budget increase. Of note, due to a reduction in the education portion of the property tax we can collect an additional $578,000 which will go to reduce the borowing needed for the multiplex construction.

All told, An average house in GP (with an assessed value of $263,000) will see their tax bill increase by $80.00 this year.

5. Senior’s Property Tax Rebate
D. Swant, Assessment/Tax Manager
This rebate gives seniors a rebate of $100 on their property taxes. The administration of the program is done through the Alberta Seniors Benefit Program.

6. Cancellation of Regularly Scheduled Meetings
A. Cerny, Deputy Legislative Services Manager
Much of council will be away for the FCM conference so the May 31 Council meeting and the June 1st Public Works meetings will have to be cancelled. (I'll be staying in GP this year)

7.Bill 9, Local Authorities Election Statutes Amendment Act, 2010
A. Cerny, Deputy Legislative Services Manager

8. Correspondence
8.1. Alberta Municipal Affairs, re: Responses to Bill 9, formerly Bill 203, Local Authorities Election Amendment Act, 2009

Responding to a Concern About Snow Removal

I received a note on Facebook yesterday, my friend wanted to bring to my attention a discussion that was going on in a group called "Better Snow Removal for Grande Prairie".

I didn't jump into the conversation on the group but I did choose to contact one of the people directly. After getting some more details from her about what area of the city she lived in I sent along this response. I think it might answer questions other people in the city might be asking so I thought I'd share it here:

Thanks for the info!

I'll pass on the concern about the slippery intersection to see if we can get a little extra ice control there.

Just so you know when we talk about bus routes we're talking about the streets that city transit buses go on. We make these streets our second highest priority.

The first priority after a snow fall are the "Major Arterial" roads like 100 St, 84 Ave, 68 Ave, Resources Rd, Hwy 40 - Wapiti Road, etc. These are obviously the streets that have to carry the most traffic in the city.

After all the streets that fall in to the group above are done we move on to Priority 2 streets. This is where the city Transit Bus Routes are and also includes "Major Collector" Roadways that may or may not be part of a bus route; Crystal Lake Drive, Mission Heights Drive, Poplar Drive, Royal Oaks Drive, etc.

The idea is that if we can get the #1 & #2 streets cleaned quickly the majority of traffic can move pretty well through the city and important for emergency services like the police, fire and ambulances can get where they need to go.

After all that has been taken care of we move on to the residential roads as our #3 priority. This would include your street. Here, the City provides dedicated Snow and Ice Control on local roads & lanes in residential areas. Weekday mornings in North side Neighbourhoods (North of 100 Ave) and weekday afternoons in Southside Neighbourhoods (South of 100 Ave.)

Over all, our budget for snow removal is just over $4 million dollars per year ($4.035m in '09 to be exact and slightly more in '10). If we don't spend all the money in one year we put it in the bank and save it to help out in years where there is excessive snow and the budgeted amount won't cover the added costs.

You can find more information about what neighbourhoods the city crews are working on each day here:

http://www.cityofgp.com/citygov/dept/trans/worknotices/default.htm

(Check out the "Getting to Your Street" part)

Also, I had a chance to read the post on the group wall and you said "I would really like to see snow removal be paid for out of the City's pcket, not mine..."

It's important to remember that property taxes, like the ones you pay on your home, are how the city gets the majority of it's budget and it pays for much more than the bus you see in front of your house and the garbage collection.

Whenever council chooses to improve a service or build something new it will be reflected in your taxes. We try to be as efficient as we can when we spend your dollars but every police officer we add, or extra snow removal crew
we put on duty, or new recreation program we offer has to be paid for.

Our challenge is trying to balance having affordable taxes with providing the services that people want in our community. It's not always easy.

If you have any other thoughts or questions feel free to give me a call (780-814-0518, my cell) or send me a note here on Facebook.

2010 Budget Action - Who Voted for What?

Last night at our regular council meeting we passed the budget for 2010 which was hashed out through our meeting on November 19th. (Full minutes here.) This budget was originally to have a 6.5% increase from the previous year but it now it's only a 2.8% increase.

Over the last few years I've tried to pass on an inside look at the decision process that happens through the city budget discussions. (Check out last year's post here and the year before that here.)

Below are all the motions that were made to sort out what council would, and wouldn't, fund for 2010. There were a lot of mixed voted as council members chose which items to support and which where lower on their personal priority lists.


• MOVED by Alderman Given the Enforcement Services Administrative Support position be converted from casual to Permanent, with funding for benefits allocated within the existing department budget.
CARRIED. 6-2
For: Aldermen Blackmore, Given, Gustafson, Radbourne, Rice and Wong
Against: Mayor Logan and Alderman Minhas

• MOVED by Alderman Rice the Grande Prairie Regional Emergency Partnership Program Coordinator position be converted from temporary to Permanent, with funding for benefits allocated within the existing department budget.
CARRIED.

• MOVED by Alderman Given the Planning Assistant position be converted from temporary to Permanent, with funding for benefits allocated within the existing department budget.
CARRIED.

• MOVED by Alderman Rice the Committee refer the Legislative Services Public Relations account to General Government Services Committee.
CARRIED.

• MOVED by Alderman Wong the 2010 and 2011 Budgets be adjusted to add $40,000 per year and a total of up to $60,000 for “in-kind” support for the Wapiti Corridor Planning Group.
MOTION DEFEATED. 2-6
For: Aldermen Gustafson and Wong
Against: Mayor Logan, Aldermen Blackmore, Given, Minhas, Radbourne, and Rice

• MOVED by Alderman Rice the 2010 Budget be adjusted to add $15,000 funding for the Bear Creek Pool Operations.
MOTION DEFEATED. 4-4
For: Aldermen Gustafson, Radbourne, Rice and Wong
Against: Mayor Logan, Aldermen Blackmore, Given and Minhas

• MOVED by Alderman Rice the 2010 Budget be adjusted to add $112,760 funding for the South Peace Historical Restoration Society – Anglican Church Restoration Project.
CARRIED. 5-3
For: Aldermen Blackmore, Given, Gustafson, Rice and Wong
Against: Mayor Logan, Aldermen Minhas and Radbourne

• MOVED by Alderman Radbourne the 2010 and 2011 Budgets be adjusted to add $60,000 funding in each year and a further commitment of $60,000 for the next three years for Grande Prairie Minor Baseball – construction of diamonds at Evergreen Park.
CARRIED. 5-3
For: Mayor Logan, Aldermen Gustafson, Minhas, Radbourne and Rice
Against: Aldermen Blackmore, Given and Wong

• MOVED by Alderman Rice the 2010 Budget be adjusted to add $50,000 funding for the Centre 2000 Building Renovation Project.
CARRIED. 7-1
For: Aldermen Blackmore, Given, Gustafson, Minhas, Radbourne, Rice and Wong
Against: Mayor Logan

• MOVED by Alderman Given the 2010 Budget be adjusted to add $75,000 funding for the Grande Prairie Live Theatre Roof Replacement Project.
CARRIED. 7-1
For: Mayor Logan, Aldermen Blackmore, Given, Minhas, Radbourne, Rice and Wong
Against: Alderman Gustafson

• MOVED by Alderman Blackmore Committee refer to the Council Committee of the Whole 2011 Budget review the request for six additional RCMP members, in the amount of $712,000.
CARRIED. 7-2
For: Mayor Logan, Aldermen Blackmore, Deimert, Given, Minhas, Rice and Wong
Against: Aldermen Gustafson and Radbourne

• MOVED by Alderman Gustafson the 2010 Budget be adjusted to add $118,660 to fund one additional RCMP member.
MOTION DEFEATED. 4-5
For: Mayor Logan, Aldermen Gustafson, Radbourne, and Wong
Against: Aldermen Blackmore, Deimert, Given, Minhas and Rice

• MOVED by Alderman Wong the 2010 Budget be adjusted to add $104,500 to fund a Forensic Identification Assistant and a PROS Review Assistant civilian positions within the RCMP Detachment.
CARRIED.

• MOVED by Alderman Wong the 2010 Budget be adjusted to delete $400,000 for the RCMP Data Typing Pool program.
CARRIED. 8-1
For: Mayor Logan, Aldermen Blackmore, Deimert, Given, Gustafson, Minhas, Radbourne and Wong
Against: Alderman Rice

• MOVED by Alderman Given the 2010 Budget be adjusted to add $50,000 to fund STARS.
CARRIED.

• MOVED by Alderman Rice the 2010 Budget be adjusted to add $112,666 to fund the SPCA Contract, subject to funding from the County of Grande Prairie.
MOTION DEFEATED. 4-5
For: Aldermen Blackmore, Given, Rice and Wong
Against: Mayor Logan, Aldermen Deimert, Gustafson Minhas and Radbourne

• MOVED by Alderman Rice the 2010 Budget be adjusted to add $5,000 funding for the City’s 100th Anniversary Project.
CARRIED. 8-1
For: Mayor Logan, Aldermen Blackmore, Given, Gustafson, Minhas, Radbourne, Rice and Wong
Against: Alderman Deimert

• MOVED by Alderman Given the matter of identifying a capital project within the Muskoseepi Park Master Plan area as a potential 100th Anniversary Project be referred to General Government Services Committee.
CARRIED. 8-1
For: Mayor Logan, Aldermen Deimert, Given, Gustafson, Minhas, Radbourne, Rice and Wong
Against: Alderman Blackmore

• MOVED by Alderman Blackmore the Committee refer to Administration the matter of initiation of the development of the South Montrose Site Green Area as per the Downtown Enhancement Plan, using in-house resources.
CARRIED.

•MOVED by Alderman Rice the 2010 Budget be adjusted to add $55,000 to fund the purchase of a Zimek Decontamination Machine.

•MOVED by Alderman Blackmore the matter of purchasing a Zimek Decontamination Machine, for $55,000, be referred to Protective Services Committee.
CARRIED. 7-2
For: Aldermen Blackmore, Deimert, Given, Gustafson, Radbourne, Rice and Wong
Against: Mayor Logan and Alderman Minhas

•MOVED by Alderman Rice the 2010 Budget be adjusted to add $50,000 to fund the purchase of a Reverse Osmosis System for the ice within Canada Games Arena.

•MOVED by Alderman Given the matter of purchasing a Reverse Osmosis System for Canada Games Arena, for $50,000, be referred to Community Development Committee.
CARRIED. 7-2
For: Aldermen Blackmore, Deimert, Given, Gustafson, Minhas, Radbourne and Wong
Against: Mayor Logan and Alderman Rice

• MOVED by Alderman Blackmore Committee refer to the Council Committee of the Whole 2011 Budget review the Dave Barr Arena Building Expansion Project, in the amount of $750,000.
CARRIED. 5-4
For: Mayor Logan, Aldermen Blackmore, Deimert, Given, and Minhas
Against: Aldermen Gustafson, Radbourne, Rice and Wong

• MOVED by Alderman Deimert the 2010 Budget be adjusted to add $60,000 funding for the Affordable Housing Master Plan RFP.
CARRIED. 7-2
For: Mayor Logan, Aldermen Blackmore, Deimert, Given, Radbourne, Rice and Wong
Against: Aldermen Gustafson and Minhas

• MOVED by Alderman Wong the 2010 Budget be adjusted to redirect $1.5 Million of Alberta Municipal Infrastructure Program (AMIP) funding for the Downtown 101 Avenue Couplet Project to other previously approved infrastructure capital projects that are funded by taxes.
CARRIED. 7-2
For: Aldermen Blackmore, Deimert, Given, Gustafson, Minhas, Radbourne and Wong
Against: Mayor Logan and Alderman Rice

• MOVED by Alderman Wong the 2010 Budget be adjusted to add $35,000 funding for the Wapiti Corridor Planning Group.
MOTION DEFEATED. 4-5
For: Aldermen Given, Gustafson, Rice and Wong
Against: Mayor Logan, Aldermen Blackmore, Deimert, Minhas and Radbourne

•MOVED by Alderman Given the 2010 Budget be adjusted to reduce the Tax Revenue increase from $2.0 M to $1.5 M.
MOTION DEFEATED. 3-6
For: Aldermen Given, Rice and Wong
Against: Mayor Logan, Aldermen Blackmore, Deimert, Gustafson, Minhas and Radbourne

•MOVED by Alderman Given the Committee recommend Council approve the 2010 Operating and Capital Budgets as adjusted.
CARRIED.

An Economic Forecast As We Go To Budget

Some time ago council asked administration to provide an economic forecast for us so we could have some idea of how the global economic downturn might impact us locally. On Monday the 2nd they presented it to council for review at an open public meeting before our regularly scheduled meeting. There weren't many people there, aside from council and city staff, to see it so I thought I'd share the presentation from the report here:

**a couple of charts didn't come through the conversion to the post here - sorry.**

All in all, yes; we have to be aware that things have changed... Development isn't booming like it was and revenue will be down because of that (by about $900,000) but at the same time Grande Prairie is pretty well diversified and in a much better position than many other cities.

I understand that admin already has some measures to deal with the reductions in revenue they forecasted so hopefully our budget session will be pretty straight forward. One thing that is uncertain, and that we won't know until the spring, is how much MSI grant money we will get from the province. Last year the province reduced this grant by about $2.5 million and it did impact taxes - because we had already committed it to the construction of the Multiplex.

At the AUMA convention last week Premier Stelmach assured delegates that we would (eventually) get all the MSI money the province had committed to so hopefully we can deal with any reductions in the short term.

Multiplex Connection to Community Energy System?

Council is having a special meeting this afternoon to consider designing the Aquatics Centre/Multiplex so it can be plugged into the Community Energy System (CES), which looks like it may now be a reality thanks to new funding announced last week.

The CES would generate steam from waste energy at the Canadian Hydro EcoPower Co-Gen plant at Canfor. This steam would then be piped across the city and be used to heat large public buildings. (Overview of the plan HERE) The catch was that Aquatera had until the end of 2009 to start taking steam.

The project has a long history, at least as long as I've been on council I think. Back in the day Ald. Carol-Lee Eckhardt helped us get a grant from FCM to do a study on the feasibility of the project. The results were that the concept is technically possible but that the business model was hampered by Alberta's system of natural gas rebates, and the high upfront capital cost of construction and the eccoPower Centre was finally built in 2003/4.

The provincial rebates artificially made using natural gas cheaper when prices went up and reduced the incentive for organizations to sign up for the CES. We lobbied the provincial government quite a bit and eventually had the law changed so that any future rebates for natural gas would also apply to bio-mass projects like the CES. Barrier #1 removed.

Upfront construction costs were still an issue of course so it languished. The first three phases were estimated to cost $23 million in January of '08. Of course part of the cost of construction would be recovered through the rates paid by customers but at $23m it would drive the rates up so high that they (again) wouldn't be competitive with the existing natural gas system. It would need at least $12m in "no-cost capital" (aka grants) to make it a feasible alternative to natural gas at current rates.

So it wasn't until City Council committed $6m in a narrow 5-4 vote in the fall of '08 that the project seemed to have some legs again. As we rolled in to 2009 the clock really began ticking on the deadline for Aquatera to start taking steam by the end of the year, or risk loosing the right to do so. The $6m from the city was good but we still needed to find some way to get up to the $12m mark.

When the Federal & Provincial Governments announced the Building Canada Fund to stimulate the economy there seemed to be an opening. Building Canada's goal was to encourage spending by municipalities that would create jobs by getting new projects rolling across the country. The catch was that they had to be new projects that wouldn't happen otherwise, and that cities had to have the money to come up with at least 1/3rd of the project cost. (That last bit is proving difficult for many communities - it's not like communities typically have large amounts of uncommitted cash floating around.)

So about March GP submitted four applications to the Building Canada Fund; Art Gallery Reconstruction, City-Wide Wireless Network, Landfill Gas Extraction and the CES. As far as I'm concerned the CES is the perfect application; it's something that is labour intensive (building the plant and running the pipes through the city), wouldn't happen without the additional support, we have our 1/3 ready and it delivers new "green" infrastructure that can reduce CO2 production by about 13,000 tonnes/yr.

In the interim, construction was progressing at the Aquatics Centre / Multiplex. Although the facility isn't set to open until 2011 if we wanted to plug it into the CES some important design decisions needed to be made early on. How many hot water boilers would we have? Large boilers like these are not "off the shelf" things, they are "build-to-order" and need to lead time. Would the roof-top heating units be natural gas fired or not? If they're not then it changes how we plan for hot water lines to run up to the roof. By the start of May it had reached a point where city administration needed some direction from council: are we building the multiplex to plug into the CES or not?

We had 3 options for the facility heating system and each came with it's own caveat;

• Build in the traditional manner using only natural gas (Cost to connect to a CES later VERY high, approx $5m)

• Build to be totally dependant on the CES (rely on VERY expensive temporary heating solutions if the CES doesn't go ahead)

• Build a flexible system that could accommodate the CES in the future, and act as it's redundancy (about $1m additional upfront costs with a chance of getting $800k back if CES goes ahead)

On May 4th council considered the issue and voted 7-2 (Ald. Wong and myself opposed) in favour of building in the traditional manner. We were told that if we got positive word on the Building Canada application soon we should be able to change direction without too much wasted time or cost.

Fast forward to last week when it was announced that we will receive funds from Building Canada for the CES ( I hear it should be enough to get us to the magic $12m mark) and all the sudden it looks like council may have some reconsidering to do.

A meeting has been called for this afternoon at 1:30 to review the impacts of the new money towards the CES and design implications for the multiplex. I hope we'll end the day with council reversing it's previous decision and directing admin to go ahead with building a flexible system at the multiplex.

I'm not naive enough to believe that things will finally go smoothly for the CES from here on out but hopefully we're on the way.

Budget Surplus 2008 - What Should We Do With The Green?

In my last post I discussed how the city ended up with a surplus of approximately $1.4 million dollars at the end of 2008. Tonight council will decide what to do with that surplus - there are least a couple of options, and one that I think is particularly important.

Generally when a year ends of with a surplus it goes in to a "Financial Stabilization Reserve". Sorry, sorry ... let me correct that; any surplus money that council doesn't choose to direct to an emergent project or priority goes in to the Financial Stabilization Reserve... but before I go on to that let's finish looking at the reserve first.

Currently the reserve sits at $4,718,845 and although that's a decent amount it's only equal to 3.2% of 2009's operating budget of $146,276,063. That's a pretty small reserve for example; if we divided that total operating budget by twelve you could say that it takes roughly $12.2 million dollars per month to keep the city running. Looking at it that way, the reserve covers about two weeks of operating the city. Of course that's a pretty simple way to look at it but you get the idea, it's not much of a reserve really.

So, yes I believe it's prudent to put surplus money into the Financial Stabilization Reserve. (there is a limit of course but at the current 3.2% of operating we're no where near it yet)

I also believe that it's reasonable to utilize surplus funds to address emergent issues and this is where the "green" my title comes in. (did you think "green" meant cash? )

Following hot on the heels of the motion to move the surplus into the reserve will be a motion to provide a grant to Aquatera for the support of waste diversion programs at the landfill. This grant would be funded by using a portion of the surplus.

I don't think its any secret that Aquatera has been in the news lately there are some concerns with it's financial outlook - revenue has dropped in many places and it's obliged to pay it's shareholders (the City, County and Sexsmith) certain amounts each year. This obligation is a problem and we've been trying to correct it.

In the interim though, the loss of revenue means that Aquatera has had to make tough decisions about what services it continues to offer. Until I was removed in February when I was on vacation, I was on the board Aquatera board for some of these discussions about what to cut.

The consensus was that we had to make sound business decisions based on financial information. For it's survival Aquatera has to keep doing the things that make money and stop doing the things that don't - that's pretty straight forward.

The difficult part is that Aquatera really is a company that takes environmental implications in to account when it does it's business. It supports reusing, recycling, cutting CO2 emissions, and diverting things from the landfill if there's another use for them. Unfortunately a lot of that stuff isn't a money maker, especially right now.

So the board decided to discontinue some of these "right-thing-to-do-but-no-money-in-it" kind of things unless there was some other funding to cover them. Since the landfill is actually the City of Grande Prairie's (the County and Sexsmith have their own that Aquatera is not involved in) I suggested that the board request the City help with funding them and a majority of the board supported that motion, which sent a request to the environment committee.

Here's the list (each program name is followed by it's yearly cost and the Tonnes of waste diverted form the landfill):

Concrete Diversion
$46,000
440 Tonnes

Drywall Diversion
$56,000
500 Tonnes

Cardboard Diversion
$53,000
124 Tonnes

Clean Wood Waste Diversion
$123,000
1000 Tonnes

Other Transfer Station Diversion
(Propane Tanks, E-Waste, Batteries)
$26,000
106 Tonnes

Building Material Recycling Centre Operation
$191,000
100 Tonnes

Landfill Gas & Bioreactor Operation
$110,000
5,500* (*that's Tones of CO2 equivalent reduction)

So, tonight there's a motion on the agenda for the city to make a one time grant to Aquatera of $605,000 to support these programs. I think that number is a little high; firstly I believe the Building Material Recycling centre can be run at less of a subsidy, and secondly those numbers reflected a full year's operation... and it's the end of April now.

Those two points aside, I'll be supporting the grant because I believe we have a responsibility to minimize what goes into our landfill. I think that in the long run it makes financial sense (the less that goes in to the landfill, the longer it lasts and the longer we can put off buying land for a new one). And finally I believe that it's how residents of the City expect their landfill to be managed.

There was once a politician that basically said it was less expensive to bury something and forget about it. I disagree.

Budget Surplus 2008 - How'd We Get It?

Tonight at our regular council meeting we'll be discussing the results of our 2008 Audited Financial Statements, and what to do with the surplus of $1,461,116.

I know that there are those who will say that any government surplus is a sign of over taxation, so before going any further I feel I should address that point. Firstly although $1.46 million is a big amount if you look at it in perspective it's equivalent to approximately 1% of the total budget (capital and operating budgets totalled $140,133,123 - you can see a pdf of the consolodated financial statements here).

That's pretty tight budgeting and I have to say that any organization that ends the year plus/minus 1% of it's budget is doing pretty well. On top of that the city has to deal with new development coming on stream mid year - basically staff have to make a guesstimate of how many new buildings will be built and start paying taxes over the course of the year. Of course they look at lots of factors to come up with numbers that are very close but ultimately that's got to be kind of a crap shoot. (Over the past few years we could count on lots of growth so previous councils had increased the amount they incorporated into the budget off the top - there was a change at the last budget session with this council but that's another discussion)

Staff also manage the city's finances pretty closely and that saves money too. For example part, of this surplus is due to "cash management" on our capital projects like the library and service centre renovation. The budget included paying the "mortgages" on these projects, in the case of the library staff didn't borrow the money until payments on the construction were due (that saves a bit in interest) and the service centre renovation didn't start as early as planned, staff won't "borrow the money" for it until needed so we've delayed a few payments.

Working the opposite direction was the fact that the development department saw reduced revenue this year. It's well known that construction has slowed down, that means that the city has seen less revenue from the permits that are taken out before construction starts. (I think that department showed a short fall of something like $600,000.)

So there's some of the reasons we ended up with a budget surplus - check my next post to see a discussion on what we (should) do with it.

Talkin' Taxes

At last night's council meeting we approved the budget for 2009 as well as what should be considered a draft budget for 2011. Of course there is always a lot of public comment & media coverage with municipal budgets and taxes in general. Usually the discussion rotates around how much the taxes are or how much they are going up rather than what they are paring for.

So I thought I'd try to find a little different way to show what your monthly taxes will be paying for in 2009.

The charts below are based on a house valued at $350,000. Using the city's online tax estimator tool we can find out that the approximate municipal tax bill will be $2271.04 per year, or $189.25 per month.

This first chart shows roughly how much of that $189.25 per month goes to different city departments.
All the numbers shown in the chart are in dollars. For example; of that $189.04 monthly tax bill, $61.43 goes to pay for the Protective Services department, $9.74 goes to Transit and $2.39 supports the activities and expenses of Council.


Protective Services Breakdown
This second chart breaks it down even further by looking at the $61.43 per month in the Protective Services Area. Of that total $31.69 per month goes towards paying for RCMP and $23.82 pays for the Fire Department.

So, someone living in a house valued at $350,000 is paying approximately:

• $32 per month for access to round the clock, 365 day a year RCMP service
• $24 per month for access to round the clock, 365 day a year professional Fire Fighting service

Ok, ok... I know it's likely that breaking it down this way isn't going to change how one feels about paying taxes. I do hope that it at least give a little perspective on the "value for dollar" that your local government is providing.

By an interesting coincidence, the chart that inspired me shows that residents in Guelph are paying a similar amount for fire protection.

Pilot Project: LED Street Lights

Before I head off to my Environment Committee meeting at 3pm I thought I'd take a moment to highlight a pilot project the city is running.

I've mentioned LED street lights before when I saw them at the FCM convention in Quebec City. Well since then public works has installed two of the units on light poles in front of city hall.

As you can see in the detail photo below the lamp head is a slightly different shape than regular lights. The biggest advantage of LED lights is that they take less power to operate so they can save money by reducing operational costs. In 2008 the city paid about $1.1 million dollars to keep the street lights on. Generally it's recognized that LEDs can reduce electrical use by up to 90% so, even if we were conservative and said we'd only see a 20% reduction in electricity consumption that would save tax payers over $200,000 per year!



This is actually the city's second move towards LED lights on our streets - the first was when we converted the majority of our intersection traffic lights to LED technology. A note on the city's traffic FAQs page explains the savings that LEDs can achieve over the old incandescent bulbs, through their longer life-span and reduced power consumption.

These LED lights are becoming popular especially in northern cities where winter means long, dark nights.

Next time you drive by city hall at night check out the lights, they produce a little more of a "white" light compared to the "orange/red" light from the traditional bulbs. Hopefully you'll see them in your neighbourhood soon!

Action From the First Two Bays of Budget

Well, council has worked through the first two days of budget meetings for the year. Wednesday and Thursday focused on reviewing the 2009 budget and the capital portion of the 2011 budget respectively.

To carry on a tradition I started last year I'm posting the unedited list of motions produced changes to the budget. This list is just from the first couple of days so there will likely be more next week when we deal with the operating potion of the 2011 budget.

1.Moved by Alderman Wong that the City fund $10,000 per year for 2009, 2010, 2011 for Community Futures for a grant writer.

2.Moved by Alderman Given the 2009 budget be adjusted to add $3-million and a further $3-million total in 2010/2011 for the Community Energy System, with the source of funding beingborrowing.

3.Moved by Alderman Rice that the budget be adjusted to reflect $250,000 in 2009 and $250,000 in 2010 to be allocated to the Community Village Capital project.

4.Moved by Alderman Given the 2009 budget be adjusted to fund the SPCA at a 1:1 ratio with the County of Grande Prairie up to a total of $25,000.

5.Moved by Alderman Given the 2009 budget be adjusted to reflect a total of $85,000 for a Marketing Coordinator position for the Aquatics and Wellness Centre commencing January 1, 2009.

6.Moved by Alderman Given that Council adjust the 2009 budget to reflect $50,000 funding for STARS.

7.Moved by Alderman Rice the 2009 budget be adjusted to add $28,000 for transit shelters and stops.

8.Moved by Alderman Rice the 2009 budget be adjusted to add $45,000 for one mechanic commencing in July.

9.Moved by Alderman Rice the 2009 budget be adjusted to delete $40,000 for a Communications Coordinator.

10.Moved by Alderman Blackmore the Grande Prairie Museum Expansion project be delayed to reflect project planning costs in the 2011 Capital Budget and construction costs in the 2012 and 2013 Capital Budget.

11.Moved by Alderman Wong Council allocate $500,000 in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 Capital Budget for the River of Death and Discovery Dinosaur Centre project.

Quick Update On Budget Action

I'm just getting ready to head in to day two of budget discussions but I thought I'd take a moment to post a quick update on the status of the items that I mentioned yesterday:

Hiring a Marketing Co-ordinator for the new multiplex.
- This position is in starting in January 2009.

Hiring an Environmental Co-ordinator.
- This position is not in, the city is receiving funding for a Sustainability Coordinator from AUMA and the majority of council thought that would be good enough for the time being, maybe in 2010.

The future of the Dave Barr twinning.
- I flagged this item and we'll be talking about it today.

The District Heating project.
- Is in! Really this is the big news of the day, a total of $6m between now and 2011 to create Alberta's first bio-fueled district heating system. After a lot of debate, my motion to include it passed with a narrow 5-4 margin.

I've gotta go now but remember the sessions are open to the public - if you want to check it out first hand you are welcome to join us! We'll be at the Holiday Inn again today from 9 am to 12 pm and we'll be there again on the 19, 20 & 21.

5 Days of Budget - Starts Now!

This morning council will kick off 5 days of budget discussions. We run a three year budget cycle normally but this time around we are also setting the 2011 budget. The extra year will readjust the 3 year cycle to avoid what we had this year where a new council's first responsibility after getting elected is to deal with three years of budget.

A couple of items that I hope to discuss at the sessions are:

Hiring a Marketing Co-ordinator for the new multiplex (someone needs to start getting sponsorships, lining up companies for the lease spaces and doing pre-sales for memberships. This is a position that will generate revenue for the city.)

Hiring an Environmental Co-ordinator. (Now that the city has an environment committee we need to have some staff to work on the issues the committee will deal with. This position was rejected by a majority of council last year, I hope that will change this year.)

The future of the Dave Barr twinning. (The region needs more ice surfaces but the twinning will cost in the area of $10m - I'm not sure the city has the financial capacity to tackle it though.)

The District Heating project. (This great project could heat major community buildings like the multiplex and the college using the excess heat from the Co-Gen plant at Canfor. It would replace the use of natural gas fired boilers in each building with one centreal system that is getting it's heat from waste wood chips! This project is really in trouble but I'd like to find a way to make it happen - we're going to have to get creative, or have more than a little help!)

I'll post more on the budget over the next couple of days but the sessions are open to the public - if you want to check it out first hand you are welcome to join us!

We'll be at the Holiday Inn from 9 am to 4 pm on Nov 12, 13, 19, 20, 21. Come and see how a budget is made, I'll save you a seat!

Expansion of Fire Service

This morning at the Protective Services committee the City's Fire Master Plan study was presented. I didn't get to attend but was at the presentation of the draft plan back in June.

The report has confirmed what we believed waaaay back before the election when we told the county that we could not guarantee service beyond the current contract. We knew the local fire service was under sized for our region and that with out a significant investment we couldn't in good faith continue serving the areas outside the city. With the expansion of both the County and City there just were not the personnel or equipment to go on doing it.

Eventually we did come to an agreement with the county to renew the contract we had for service outside the city. This has seen an increase in the amount they contribute to the service (up to $1.6m in 2009 &$1.9m in 2010) and I think we'll see a move towards some kind of integrated regional fire service over the next two years.

But in the mean time (and knowing that we have additional money coming in) Council has approved expanding the city fire service over the next three years with a new hall somewhere on the west side of the city. This will give us halls in the north, south and west and good coverage across the region. This doesn't come cheap though - below is what is approved in the City's 2008 - 2010 budget for setting up that third fire hall. Thanks to Deputy Chief Lemieux for the concise data.

Capital Budget:
Third Hall Architectural Design (2009): $850,000
Third Hall Land Servicing (2009): $500,000
Third Hall Construction (2010): $8,500,000
Third Hall Pumper Truck (2010): $600,000
Third Hall Rescue Truck (2010): $150,000
Third Hall Tanker Truck (2010): $150,000
Third Hall Small Vehicle (2010): $40,000

Total Capital for Third Hall & Equipment: $10,790,000



2008 Operating Budget Increases due to new firefighters:
Six (6) firefighters hired in June 2008: $240,000
Gear & Equipment for new firefighters: $18,000

Impact of additional firefighters on 2008 operating budget: $258,000


2009 Operating Budget Increases due to new firefighters:
Full-year cost of the 6 firefighters from 2008 ($518,710) plus additional ten (10) firefighters hired in Jan 2009 ($764,640): $1,283,350
Gear & Equipment for new firefighters: $30,000

Impact of additional firefighters on 2009 operating budget: $1,313,350


2010 Operating Budget Increases due to new firefighters:
Full-year cost of the 6 firefighters from 2008 ($567,799), plus full-year cost of the 10 firefighters from 2009 ($946,332), plus additional eight (8) firefighters hired in July 2010 ($350,227): $1,864,358
Gear & Equipment for new firefighters: $24,000

Impact of additional firefighters on 2010 operating budget: $1,888,358

Budget Changes

At last night's council meeting the budget for 2008 - 2010 was approved by council. The DHT has the story here. This is the result of about three weeks of discussions where council reviewed all the requests and priorities from staff and community groups. We follow a process where if a council member wants to have further discussion on an item they "flag" it. The flagged items then come back for discussion at the end. This is where a council member can make their case for or against it and the advantage to doing things this way is that the non-contentious items are dealt with pretty quickly. Otherwise I'd shudder to think how long the process would take.

Admin put together a list of all the motions made by council that affected the budget. Some motions are to move items forward or backward in the plan (to do them sooner rather than later or vice versa) some are to fund projects (to commit money to doing them) and some are to unfund projects (to remove the funding and not do the project, project that have "undetermined" funding are the same).

So, here's the full unedited list of the motions that council members (including myself) made that had a direct impact on the city's three year budget:

Moved by Alderman Given, amended by Alderman Rice, Council fund the Grande Prairie Curling Club exterior painting project in 2008 the amount of $40,000 with $20,000 funded from the City and $20,000 funded from contributions.

Moved by Alderman Wong Council add to the Capital Budget funding in the amount of $10,000 in 2008 for repair of the Tennis Courts located at the D. Coy Armories facility.

Moved by Alderman Given Council include funds in the Capital Budget for transit buses in 2008 in the amount of $380,000 and 2009 and 2010 transit bus needs and funding be referred to the Public Works Committee for review.

Moved by Alderman Given Council amend the funding source for the Traffic Signals project at 100 Avenue and 93 Street to unfunded. (-$500,000 in 2010)

Moved by Alderman Given Council amend the funding source for the Traffic Signals project at 102 Street and 124 Avenue to unfunded. (-$500,000 in 2010)

Moved by Alderman Rice Council amend the funding source for the Traffic Signals – Resources Road and 76 Avenue project to unfunded. (-$450,000 in 2010)

Moved by Alderman Given the 102 street west side (117 to 120 Avenue) trails and paths project in the amount of $37,000 be identified in the Capital Plan in 2009 and the 108 Street (116 Avenue to Royal Oaks) trails and paths project in the amount of $90,000 be identified as in 2008 in the Capital Plan.

Moved by Alderman Blackmore the post and cable fence replacement project of $30,000 per year be identified as undetermined in the 2008, 2009 and 2010 Capital Budget.

Moved by Alderman Given the Website Redesign Project funding be adjusted to reflect funding in the amount of $125,000 over the years 2008 and 2009 in the Capital Plan.

Moved by Alderman Given Council fund the Coca-Cola Third Level Viewing area project in the amount of $120,000 from Capital Tax in 2009.

Moved by Alderman Gustafson the Dave Barr Building Expansion Project Design work in the amount of $750,000 from capital tax be advanced to 2010 with the remainder of funding remaining in 2011/1012.

Moved by Alderman Blackmore the FCSS Building Fire Alarm System Upgrade project in the amount of $20,000 be identified as Undetermined in 2008.

Moved by Alderman Given the Museum Expansion project amount of $60,000 in 2009 be identified as undetermined.

Moved by Alderman Given Council advance the CKC Ball Diamonds project to 2008 and 2009 in the amount of $30,000 each year.

Moved by Alderman Given Council fund the Morgan Meadows Park in the amount of $164,000 from Public Reserve in 2009.

Moved by Alderman Gustafson Council fund the Parks Operations Large Mower in the amount of $95,000 from Capital Tax in 2008.

Moved by Alderman Given Council include funds in the Capital Budget for the 116 Avenue Twin Existing Road project (Lakeland Drive to 92 Street) in the amount of $3,000,000 in 2008.

Moved by Alderman Given Council fund the Apprentice Plumber position in the Facilities budget in the amount of $25,000 in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Moved by Alderman Rice Council increase the Snow Removal Budget in the amount of $1,384,100 million in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Moved by Alderman Wong, amended by Alderman Blackmore, Council increase the GP Transit budget in the amount of $40,000 in 2008, $200,000 in 2009, and $200,000 in 2010 to implement new service in SW (Westpointe, Pinnacle, O’Brian) and implement new service in SE (Countryside North, Cobblestone, Signature falls, Creekside).

Moved by Alderman Gustafson Council increase the Development Services Budget to add one Safety Codes Officer in 2008 at $85,000, one Development Officer in 2009 at $66,000 and one Planning Technician at $56,000 in 2010.

Moved by Alderman Given Council fund the Grande Prairie Luge Association in the amount of $5,000 in 2008, $20,000 in 2009, and $5,000 in 2010.

Moved by Alderman Rice Council increase the Community Services budget by $5,000 in 2008 for the D. Company Armories towards painting the facility.

Moved by Alderman Blackmore and amended by Alderman Given Council increase the Economic Development Budget by $75,000 in 2008, 2009 and 2010 for staffing and support.

Moved by Alderman Given, amended by Alderman Blackmore, Council fund the Community Housing Facilitator position in 2008 in the amount of $50,000, 2009, $50,000 and $50,000 in 2010.

Moved by Alderman Gustafson Council fund the Dave Barr Community Centre concession staff in the amount of $10,000 annually

Moved by Alderman Given Council fund the Public Library operating grant under the Recreation and Culture Budget in the amount of $77,804 in 2008, $266,265 in 2009 and $470,000 in 2010.

Moved by Alderman Blackmore Council fund The Leisure Centre Casual Soccer/Pool staff in the amount of $4,529 in 2008, $11,858 in 2009 and $16,091 in 2010.

Moved by Alderman Given Council fund the Parks Operations Sanitation crew in the amount of $65,000 in 2008, $68,250 in 2009 and $71,662 in 2010.

Moved by Alderman Given Council fund the Parks Operations Tree Trim crew in the amount of $128,574 in 2009 and $135,002 in 2010

Moved by Alderman Radbourne Council fund the RCMP Executive Assistant in the amount of $51,620 in 2008, $54,148 in 2009, $56,885 in 2010

Moved by Alderman Given, amended by Alderman Wong Council fund the RCMP Typing pool in the amount of $360,176 in 2009 and $377,768 in 2010.

Moved by Alderman Wong Council fund the RCMP Specific Crime projects in the amount of $30,000 in 2008 and 2009 and $40,000 in 2010

Moved Alderman Blackmore Council approve $1,400 in the 2008 2009 2010 Operating Budget for the Grande Prairie Tennis Club for sump pump out.

Moved by Alderman Given Council approve funding of $1.25 per capita in the 2008, 2009 and 2010 operating budget for the Grande Prairie Regional Tourism Association.

Moved by Alderman Given Council approve $35,000 in the 2010 capital budget for the Grande Prairie Live Theatre lighting upgrade project.

Moved by Alderman Given Council increase funding to $80,000 in 2009 operating budget and $104,333 in 2010 operating budget for the Seniors Outreach Program.

Moved by Alderman Given Council increase funding to $55,000 in the 2008 operating budget, $69,000 in the 2009 operating budget and $74,500 in the 2010 operating budget for the Volunteer Services Bureau.

Moved by Alderman Blackmore Council eliminate funding of $14,373 each year from the 2008, 2009 and 2010 operating budgets for the Glory Garden Out of School Care program.

Moved by Alderman Given Council eliminate funding of $7,000 each year from the 2008, 2009, and 2010 operating budget for the Grande Prairie School Snack Program-Families Eating Wisely.

Moved by Alderman Given Council eliminate funding of $14,373 from the 2009 operating budget and $14,660 from the 2010 operating budget for Big Brothers and Sisters.

Moved by Alderman Wong Council approve $91,594 in the 2008 operating budget, $200,454 in the 2009 operating budget and $200,454 in the 2010 budget for the Prairie Art Gallery operating grant.

Moved by Alderman Given Council approve $40,000 in the 2009 and the 2010 operating budgets for Nitehawk Recreation Area.

Moved by Alderman Wong Council approve up to a maximum of $9,000 in the 2008, 2009, and 2010 operating budgets for the Community Village pump out costs.

Whew! - long list isn't it? Well, if you've made it this far you probably need a break so I won't provide commentary in this post. I will respond to questions and give you a little insight on my thinking on some of the motions in another post.

Centre for Creative Arts

Council has been getting a lot of emails this week about the Centre for Creative Arts.

It's all in response to thisrequest for funding to cover an operating deficit.

I'm always really happy when people feel passionate enough about something that they are willing to get involved and speak up for it. There's been quite a bit of this lately which is great - we've seen in this term a lot more than in the past two, specifically with Crime Prevention and with the Aquatics Centre.

One thing that happens sometimes is that people write notes without recognizing all the facts. That's ok because it's the job of council members like me to know all the facts. You (the public) are supposed tell me what you think and what you believe in, that helps me base my decisions on the desires of the community. This is the kind of dialogue that we should be able to have with our elected officials.

For my part of that dialogue I also like to be able to inform people on what is currently happening that they might not have known all the details of. My hope is that after we've spoken I'll know how they feel and they'll know the facts of what is happening.

So in that vein here is a copy of the note I've sent to a couple of the people who have written in support of additional funding for the Centre:

"Thanks for your note,

I've been a supporter of the Centre for quite a while so I'm concerned about it's security and ability to continue to operate, just as you are. Two of the specific areas where I've supported the Centre at the council table are;

• The renovation that is currently under way. This project is currently budgeted at just under $1 Million to retrofit all the mechanical and electrical systems, plus add an elevator for improved access to the whole building. The funding for this is 100% city dollars.

• The increased operating grant to the Centre in the 2008 -10 budget. I was totally supportive of moving the grant up from about $47, 000 to just over $80, 000 per year.

Additionally of course the Centre pays no rent to the city for the use of the building. The concept of course is that if there's no rent they will have the ability to put any money earned back into the operations. The city also does this for a number of community groups like the Live Theater, which has received no other operating dollars from the city (that I'm aware of) before this year.

So, just to be clear I believe the city does support the Centre. Of course if there is additional information to consider in light of the move to the old RCMP building then I'm happy to have it come forward so Council can make a decision. I want to see the Centre for Creative Arts healthy and ready to fill the renovated building with all the activity and vibrancy it provided our community before.

Thanks again for taking the time to write and support the Centre!
I'll take your opinion into account when we get to vote on it.
Bill Given"

City Budget Media Release

I thought since I had a short posting last night I'd also post this city media release focused on the budget process.

2008-2010 City Budget Deliberations Begin Today

Budget presentations for the City of Grande Prairie begin this morning at the Sandman Inn. Today and Thursday, capital plan items will be reviewed. There are a total of 217 individual projects being brought forward – 43 with undefined funding sources.

Capital items are non-recurring expenditures that can include larger scale purchases such as buildings and vehicles but also encompass functional and master plans and studies. Three days – Nov. 21-23 – have been allotted for aldermen to hear operational budget presentations.

Community groups will make submissions on Dec. 3 and 4.

A budget will be finalized on Dec. 17.

“During these presentations, aldermen are sitting as Council Committee-of-the-Whole and they make recommendations to Council,” explains City Manager Dave Gourlay.

“We operate on a three-year budget cycle, which allows for long-term planning,” adds Gourlay. “However, with our substantial growth over the past few years, Council will have a significant challenge dealing with the many needs of our municipality and the community as a whole.”

The City is operating with a $59 million 2007 budget.

I feel like I should note that the last line there is referring to the operational budget, as I mentioned yesterday the capital budget is in the area of $175 million over the 3 years. Also, City Manager Dave wasn't kidding - there are a lot of needs expressed in the budget, it was evident from day one. It's going to be interesting to see how this group on council responds to those needs and the resulting cost.

Budget Sessions- Day One

Today was day one of budget discussions, where council reviews the city's capital and operational budgets for the next three years. It's a big job, this year we have five full days dedicated to going over the plans and recommendations that administration has developed in their business plans. All the meetings are at the Sandman hotel down town, and the public is welcome to come and observe - although, I don't ever remember anyone coming who wasn't media or lobbying council for something specific.

BUT, you are welcome - we have chairs set up for you!

As I'm writing this It's getting a little late (I need to get to bed soon so I can be fresh for day two) so I'm just going to cover some of the highlights:

• Budget is broken into two parts, Capital (Buildings, Roads, Bridges and Vehicles we by for example) and Operational (Staff Salaries, Programs, and Vehicles we'd lease). Today was the first look at capital with operational to come next week.

• The years covered are 2008 - 2010 and over those three years the projected capital spending is $175 Million dollars!

• Funding for most of this comes from Taxes, Debt, Grants and different Reserves (pots of money, almost like a savings account, that are set aside for specific things).

• Some items are in the plan but are Unfunded - basically they are on the "to do list" but unless someone speaks up for them there isn't any money to do them and in my experience they never end up happening.

We go through the projects with a short description from the director of that service area. If a council member would like to change the status of a project, to fund it, remove it or change when it happens, we "red flag" it and come back to discuss and debate them later. The idea is that we can go through the whole list getting the ones that no one has a problem with out of the way first. Those that need a second look, positive or negative, are discussed after.

Below are some of the items I flagged today. With all of these I am hoping we can do them sooner, or save them from that unfunded/never gonna happen category:

• New buses to expand the Transit Fleet, improved bus stops and shelters and a transfer terminal.
• Twinning 116th Ave from Lakeland Drive to 92nd Street (north of Crystal Park School to the entrance of Crystal Lake Estates)
• Walking paths, (west side of 102 Street from 117 Ave to 120 Ave and 108 Street from 116th Ave to Royal Oaks
• Coca-Cola Centre upgrade, to add a viewing area in the 3rd level. (This is a big unused space looking on to both ice surfaces that could be earning money from rentals)
• Fixing the Leisure Centre Tennis Courts
• New Park space for the Morgan Meadows area

So tomorrow we'll go through these and all the other flagged items (there are lots) and we'll debate what should make the final cut.