Cost of Community Services

One of the challenges we have is to ensure we have a good mix of different types of development in our community. Not only is important for forming a well-rounded city it also directly affects our bottom line.

Give this report (pdf download) from Red Deer County a quick once over. It looks at different land uses such as Residential, Industrial and Commercial and compares how much revenue each one brings in with how much it consumes in services.

The key concepts it outlines are; that Residential uses more in services than it provides in revenue; that Commercial roughly pays for itself and finally that Industrial basically subsidizes everything else.

Two really interesting sections:

Industrial – The Industrial land use appears to be a significant subsidizer of all other land uses. The low cost of this land use is more or less in line with other COCS studies. A sensitivity test of the “Power and Pipe” taxes, a significant source of the Industrial land use’s revenues, indicated that even without these revenues, the Industrial land use would still pay for itself in dramatic fashion.

and

It is significant to note that the Residential land use did not pay for itself in any scenario in this study, not even in the re-calculations done to make this study more comparable to previous studies. ... This effectively means that other land uses are subsidizing the level of service provided to the Residential land use.

Although the specifics would be slightly different for us I'm willing to bet that the fundamentals would be largely the same for any community in the province.

It goes to show that a community like GP with a majority of it's land used for residential development is not sustainable because we don't have enough industrial development to subsidize the service residential development demands.

Communities with significant "Power & Pipe" or linear tax sources are much better off.

Moving on With York Hotel Site

Since council directed the city to purchase the York Hotel I've been focused on getting on to the point where we can start to move forward on getting something new built on the site.

We had to move through transitioning the residential and commercial tennants in the building to new homes. We had to go through inspections of the building, removal the hazardous materials it contained, an environmental site assessment (it got a clean bill of health) and finally demolition and removal of the building.



Late last year, just before Christmas, Council held a planning session to figure out what our priorities were with the now vacant land (both the York Hotel site and the Germaine Park site), what our vision is for that area of downtown and what we'd like to achieve with property. Out of that session a report came to our GGS committee yesterday that laid out the next steps in moving forward.

Essentially we've set up an open process where any party can submit their proposal for developing the site. We have not closed the door to anything at this point and we're looking to see what the business community thinks might be feasible. We'll be open to all-comers and looking for proposals far and wide. When they come in council will get together as a group to review the proposals and determine which we'd like to invite to move to the next step which would get in to a greater level of detail and be more formal. Essentially you could say we're looking to "pre-qualify" the proposals.

So everyone is clear, Council has agreed on a set of five broad principles that we'd weigh the proposals against to measure them. The 5 (with my comments in italics)are:

1. The proposal meets the concepts within the Downtown Enhancement Plan and the Municipal Development Plan.
(We've already approved these plans and they've received plenty of public input. Any proposal should support the goals and ideas contained in these documents.)

2. Explain the overall financial benefit to the City
(The city invested nearly $2m to buy the property and clean it up. We want to know what kind of financial return any proposal will generate. This could be just the purchase price someone would offer, but it could also relate to what kind of taxes any new property would generate. For example someone could offer more money up front to buy the property but build only a small building that doesn't generate a lot of property taxes. OR there might be a proposal that puts a low value on the land but builds a larger building that pays more property taxes each year. Keeping in mind that it'll pay property taxes forever that long term value of a proposal like that might be worth more to the city than one with a higher up-front purchase price.)

3. Project timelines
(How soon can you get something built? We want to see something build sooner rather than later. It's no benefit to the community - or our tax base - to have the property sit empty so we want to hear how quickly any proposal would expect to start and finish construction)

4. Developer’s experience in projects of this nature, including ability to complete, and proven financial expertise
(With something like this we want to know if the person we're talking to actually has the expertise to do what they are saying and, just as importantly, do they actually have the money in the bank to do what they say that can. We're looking for serious people who have the proven ability and financial backing to complete a project like this.)

5. Explain the increase in density of the proposal and impact on activity in
the Downtown
(We want to see something that adds activity and life to our city's core. We also believe that the land should be used to it's maximum potential and should be the kind of development which speaks to the future of our downtown. It is just an office building that's closed after 5pm or does it also have commercial/retail space that may be open in to the evening? Does it have any residential? How will it build on the activity generated by the Farmer's Market?)

Hopefully we'll launch the process towards the end of this month and interested parties will be able to pick up a package with details on the site, the process how to submit a proposal. They'll then have 60 days to put together a proposal which will then be reviewed by council using the principles above. Council will have the ability to reject any or all proposals if we don't see anything that comes close. We'll also have the ability to select as many as we see fit and invite them to move on to the next step where they can provide a greater level of detail.

I think this allows us the greatest amount of flexibility and allows developers to enter the process without having to commit a great detail of resources to the first step - after all it costs something to put these kind of proposals together.

I'm looking forward to kicking this off and seeing what kind of innovative proposals come forward.


View City DownTown Property in a larger map

Development Proposals Anticipated In April
Media Release
January 12, 2011

The General Government Services Committee today recommended City Council initiate a Request For Information (RFI) process for developing downtown lands owned by the municipality.

The RFI would be issued for development concepts for the former York Hotel and/or Germain Park lands. City Council will consider the recommendation at its Jan. 24 meeting.

It would be open for 60 days and must address five principles. Proposals must meet the concepts within the Downtown Enhancement and Municipal Development plans. They will also explain the overall financial benefit to the City and include project timelines.

Submissions must also detail the developer’s experience in successfully completing projects of this nature and their proven financial expertise. As well, they will indicate the increase in density associated with the proposal and project its impact on Downtown activity.

“Council has underlined the importance of the development of these lands moving ahead as soon as possible,” says Economic Development Officer Brian Glavin. “We will promote the Request for Information across the country in a variety of media to maximize our opportunity for proposals.”

This strategy results from a visioning session Council had in mid-December.

York Hotel Update

One of the hot topics out there as we head in to the fall election is the city's purchase of the York Hotel. As it turns out the hotel is on the agenda for our regular General Government Services committee meeting this Wednesday. Staff are bringing forward a simple report to update council on what will be happening with the property over the next while. The highlights:

Building Tenants
Mar 4th, City takes ownership of the hotel
Apr 7th, Residential tenants were gone
Jun 17th, Commercial tenants were gone

Timelines for demolition (estimated)
July 9th, Receive hazardous material identification report.
July 23rd, Tender Hazardous material removal contract
Aug 23rd, Award Hazardous material removal contract & tender Demolition contract
Sept 20th, Award Demolition contract
Nov 12th, Demolition complete

Costs to Date
Building purchase $1.1 Million
Operational costs since purchase $52,497.53
(Operational costs are mostly related to security & utilities. Security costs are down significantly since the tenants moved out.)

I know a lot of people who have been concerned that the building would sit as a boarded up eyesore down town and with that in mind I've been pushing to have this all happen as quickly as is reasonably possible. If everything goes according to the plan above I think it's fair to say that we've had a pretty rapid process & that will be good for downtown.

As for next steps... I believe we need to come up with a plan that will see a new building built on the site sooner, rather than later. I also think we need to do that in a coordinated fashion, rather than dealing with just this property in isolation from the rest of downtown. I believe we should be to open up the downtown enhancement plan and take a big picture look at the west end of the city's core because there are a lot of changes coming to that area in the next few years.

In addition to the changes at the York Hotel/Germain Park property, eventually the old Park Hotel will come down and the city will build the 101 Ave couplet that will cross through the area of the old Coca-Cola bottling plant. When you add all this up we have a chance to remake the face of our downtown, if we have a good plan that looks at everything together, rather than dealing with individual sections.

I would like to see more mixed use development (commercial on the bottom and residential or office on upper floors) in the downtown. I believe having more people live in the heart of the city adds life to the streets and provides a housing option that is in short supply in GP.

So this Wednesday we're getting an update on the work that's been done so far and what's coming up shortly & that all looks well in hand. Now I want to see us get started on where we're going to go in the long term.

In Portland for the 47th Annual IMCL Conference

First off; Happy Mothers Day! Unfortunately I'm not in Grande Prairie to take my mom out for brunch, I'm starting off this Mother's Day in Portland, Oregon - sitting in Peet's Coffee. So, Mom, the best I can say is that I'm thinking of you and I hope the phone call will suffice - thanks for being you!

I'm in Portland for the 47th Annual Making Cities Liveable Conference (IMCL). I hadn't heard of the event until last fall when all of council was emailed an invitation to come. The invite immediately piqued my interest because Portland has a very good reputation for great neighbourhood planning, redevelopment and public transportation. Added to the fact that the host city has a great reputation the conference has a great program - that really strikes home.

In fact, the sessions really seem to speak to a lot of the themes that are coming out in the public consultation process of our Municipal Development Plan review. Here are a few sessions that caught my eye:

• Cities for health & well-being
Urban planning for physical & social health. Active living & the walkable, bikeable city. Planning for
commuting by foot and bike. Land Use principles for the healthy city. Health effects of sprawl. Sprawl, lack of community & social pathology. Dangers of social isolation for the young & the elderly. Psychological effects of the built environment. Making streets work to improve social & physical health.

• Integrating transit and land-use
Make towns - instead of traffic planning & housing development. Evaluating TODs: case studies. Including transit in development review. Environmental justice in transportation planning. Innovative new TOD projects.
(GP's Transit Master Plan is due to be released shortly)

• Regional planning for healthy cities
Sustainable regional transportation & land-use planning. Promoting regional identity. Curbing sprawl. Focusing development in town centers. Achievements in limiting big box retail.

• Nature in the urban environment
Importance of contact with nature for health & well-being. Natural urban places for exercise, adventure, relaxation & stimulation. Natural beauty & well-being. Designing & restoring parks, community gardens, wild areas. Restoring biodiversity.
(GP has a Urban Park Master Plan being developed right now)

So with all those great sessions (and many others) it looks to be a worthwhile week and I'm happy that I chose to come here and forego the FCM conference that happens at the end of the month in Whistler. During the week I'll be posting from the conference, covering the highlights of the sessions. Registration is today at 1pm and I'm looking forward to getting started!

Regional Board for Edmonton

The Journal is reporting some big news out of the Edmonton capital region this morning. Over the past while (ok, for just about as long as anyone can remember) there has been a lot of acrimony between the 25 municipalities in the region. Edmonton seems to essentially feel that they are providing a lot of services for the region while the new industrial developments (and the taxes that go along with it) were setting up shop just next door - in the counties.

Sound familiar?

Anyways, Premier Stelmach has chosen to step in and enforce a solution. It will essentially set up a governing board made up of the 25 municipalities. The board has final say in two very specific areas, the most important being land-use planning:

"The regional board will have authority over land-use planning and intermunicipal transit. Counties around Edmonton, two of which are in an upgrader-building boom tied to the oilsands, strongly oppose such a body.

But Stelmach said all 25 of the region's municipalities will be part of the new board. For a motion to pass, it will need the support of 17 of 25 municipalities representing at least 75 per cent of the region's population.

The structure essentially gives Edmonton a veto."

Full Story

It's going to be interesting to see how this works in actual practice and what kind of impact it makes on the region. It sounds as though Edmonton now has a say over where industry locates in the region and that could be big.

Of course the exact same issue of inter-municipal conflict has been brewing across the province so it's going to be interesting to see if this regional board is a sign of things to come for the rest of us.

Please Sir, Can I Have Some More?

The province has published the numbers on it's new Municipal Sustainability Initiative program (MSI). The goal of MSI is to give more money to municipalities and it is greatly appreciated...

... but ...

I'm at a loss for words when you see the unfairness in the way the money is split up. Thankfully, Kevin Crush at the Daily Herald Tribune is never at a loss for words - his article says it all. (The bold is added by me)

"...

It means tens of millions of dollars for Grande Prairie but after taking a closer look at the numbers it appears to be weighted in favour of rural municipalities with a strong industrial base, such as the County of Grande Prairie.

Over 10 years, Grande Prairie is expected to receive $134.6 million under the formula which is distributed on the basis of 48 per cent due to population, 48 per cent to assessed tax base, and four per cent to length of roads.

That same formula will give the county $79.3 million.

But when the totals are broken down into pure per capita distributions the county, with its high tax base but lower population, over 10 years will receive $4,414 per person while the city will get just $2,680 per person.

..."

This is not fair to Albertans who live in cities. This is a clear example of rural municipalities getting more and there are many examples of how they have to pay less. Here's one I've written about.

I'm not in any way saying that rural municipalities deserve less than urban ones, I just think we should all be treated equally.

Who Really Pays To Fight Crime?

Did you know: In Alberta, if you are a County, and M.D. or a town with a population of less than 5000 you don't have to pay anything for your RCMP officers?

If you are a city... you pay.

With Grande Prairie's growing population and the amount of money that flows around here it's no surprise that this area is a magnet for the "unsavory" side of prosperity.

From 2001 to 2004 we saw a 61.7% increase in Criminal Code offenses at our detachment. If we compare that to the other "growth hot bed" Fort McMurray where there was only a 9% increase over the same period you get the sense that there's something different about GP.

Going a little deeper you notice it again and again:

- we had 213 criminal code files per RCMP member in GP, the highest caseload in Alberta, compared to 115 in Fort McMurray.

- 26% increase in traffic offenses from 1999 to 2003 compared to an actual decline in the rest of Alberta from Red Deer North.

So back in 2004 when we put in the first three year budget for Grande Prairie we approved more money to fight crime. That meant tax increases of 8.2% in 2005, 6.3% in 2006 and 6.5% this year - which we've stuck to.

Over those three years almost half of the tax increase was because we decided to spent more on anti crime programs and more law enforcement professionals. We committed to hiring 16 additional RCMP officers and 3 more Bylaw Enforcement officers and in just three years, the RCMP costs have increased by 54%, from $6.3m to $9.8m!

Your city tax dollars pay for every single police officer that we have. It's not cheap, but it is important.

So keeping in mind how important proper public safety and law enforcement is for everyone does it seem kind of strange that there are people who don't have to pay anything for it?

In our area, Hythe, Beaverlodge, Wembly, Sexsmith and the County don't have to pay for RCMP - the province does it for them. (To be fair the County does pay for "Enhanced Policing", but it's only two more officers above what the province gives them.)

So, after reading this what do you make of this article about the MD of Rockyview (just outside of to Calgary)? They are upset because they feel that crime from Calgary is going into their area. They are so concerned about it that they have gone ahead and decided to pay for.... one more officer.

Gee - hope that $140 000 doesn't break the bank guys.

Rurban-sprawl?

You may not have heard the word Rurban before. It's a combination of Rural and urban and it's defined as: combining aspects of both rural and urban or suburban life.

If you weren't familiar with it get ready to hear this word more often in Alberta, there's very little true rural left. Actually, as of 2001 StatsCan said that Alberta's population was 81% urban.

The automobile has changed the way we live. When my Dad was born in the '50s coming into Grande Prairie from DeBolt was a big deal. He might have come to town a few times a year, if he was lucky. Now, DeBolt is a quick 30 minute trip and before my uncle left the homestead last year I bet either he, or my aunt (or both) were in town at least once a week. It's a fact now that you can live where you want, work where you need to, and have fun where you want - just just have to be able to afford the gas for the car (or truck).

That being the case, it's no wonder that we are starting to see areas that used to be rural looking pretty darn urban. Not just here in GP, with the new country residential subdivisions, but around the province.

The MD of Rocky View, just north of Calgary, wants to turn the hamlet of Balzac in to something pretty urban. Two area structure plans (ASPs) for the area say that it could be home to over 40,000 people by 2035.

That's a lot of rurbanites.

The question then, is this: How do local governments change to keep pace?

If a hamlet has 40,000 residents do they deserve their own local government?
- hamlets don't get one now.

If a rural (county or M.D.) has these type of communities do they start to pay for things like police in the same way cities do?
- right now, cities pay about 90% of the cost for each officer they have, the province pays for the rurals

If I live my day to day life in a one hour driving time radius, do the boundaries of governments need to change?