The City’s Sustainable Development Department released a working draft of the Growth Coordination Strategy today.

I have not had time to digest the whole thing but the most interesting parts relate to the estimated costs of infrastructure that the City would be expected to provide in new Areas being proposed for growth (specifically in the Green areas on the map to the right).

The thing that caught my attention (and the Edmonton Journal’s) was the $1.2 Billion (with a B) projected bill (in today’s dollars) for City infrastructure that would accompany the growth in these areas. [CLARIFICATION, May 10: $1.2 Billion appears twice in the report, once is the cost for these new areas, the other and additional $1.2 Billion is the unfunded obligations for approvals for 44 neighbourhoods that are under development today in Areas previously approved, e.g Windermere Area Structure Plan in 2004, Heritage Valley in 2001, Ellerslie in 1999, Lewis Farms 1988 and so on.]

An important bit of context: a lot of people think that the City pays for the roads, sewers, water lines, etc when a new area is developed; not so. Developers front end many of those costs and pass them through to the homebuyer. That’s a big part of the cost of any lot – the value of ‘servicing’ it with utilities, local roads, sidewalks, etc. Developers/homebuyers also pay for part of the main roads (we call them ‘arterial’ roads) adjacent to a neighbourhood. Lanes 1&2 are charged to the developer on one side, lanes 3&4 are charged to the other. Lanes 5&6, if needed, fall to the City to fund. Everything thing else downstream (road widening, interchanges, etc) fall to the City.

Developers also provide land for parks, but the City has to fund their development. The City also has to buy land for recreation centres, fire & police stations, libraries and then build them. These are the type of costs that add up to the $1.2 Billion.

The City does get infrastructure grants from the province and sometimes from Ottawa that can cover some of this growth cost, but those grants are also needed to cover the cost of renewing or replacing existing infrastructure (and we are not yet adequately funding renewal in my view).

The analysis is confined to the up-front infrastructure, which is a start, but we also need to get to a full model including the operating costs and lifecycle (repair/replacement) costs of this model of growth. That’s coming, according to the report (p. 33):

Although not included in the analysis at this time, operating and maintenance costs in suburban areas represents a significant operational expenditure to the City. Also a large component of capital spending, rehabilitation and replacement of infrastructure is not included in the analysis presented either. Administration is working towards the inclusion of these expenses into future versions of the Growth Coordination Strategy, but at this time the methodology for the gathering and synthesis of the data required for this is not developed sufficiently.

I’m concerned we may not have this full picture before the next Area Structure Plans (for the North East and South West green patches) come up for debate this fall.

[UPDATED: Forgot to mention, we did get some idea of this in a high-level report last year called "Costs and Revenues for New Areas" which showed that predominantly residential low-density areas do not pay for themselves over a 30-year timeline.]

We need this full costing before Council can responsibly approve planning for these new areas of growth. I think it will help raise the pertinent policy questions, which include, but are not limited to:

• Should city-wide taxes increase to build this infrastructure because we all benefit from it directly or indirectly, or do we figure out how to match benefits to charges so growth pays for growth, or do we put off building a lot of the needed infrastructure as Edmonton has sometimes done?
• Should we continue to subsidize low-density residential neighbourhoods (as we do today, both existing and new) with higher taxes on commercial and industrial property and grants?
• Can we design moderately denser neighbourhoods that make more efficient use of infrastructure and generate more revenue per acre and can financially sustain themselves?
• And, regionally, what competitive advantages or subsidies are allowing our neighbours to accommodate growth at lower costs and does some price-signal equity need to be introduced with regional cost sharing for regional projects?

[Update, April 20, 2012: City Administration sent an email (quoted below) to the Blue Quill Community League yesterday indicating that the Skyrattler site is being put on hold for further review. I continue to press for more community involvement in decisions affecting all these sites, and will demand meaningful community input into the options for developing this site:

"The Skyrattler site included within the City of Edmonton First Place Home Ownership Program is being reviewed.  The review will examine location needs, market potential and potential infrastructure requirements and connections.

 

"While the site was proposed for development in Phase 1, development  will not proceed this year until the review is complete   Once the review has been completed, the City will connect with the Blue Quill community league to discuss next steps.  Development may take place at a later date.

 

"The City will continue its Phase 1 development with the remaining three sites and also continue work on review and preparation of remaining First Place sites. For future program updates watch www.edmonton.ca/firstplace."]

The 'cloud' shows the approximate location of the original Skyrattler school site which will host the First Place townhomes.

In 2006 Edmonton Public and Edmonton Catholic declared surplus 20 pieces of land set aside for schools. In many cases residents are unaware that these parcels were not meant to be park in perpetuity and in fact were always intended for development.

That same year City Council decided to zone these 20 sites to allow for townhouses as part of the First Time Homebuyers program, which is now called First Place. Two of the sites were advanced as pilot projects. A comprehensive review was concluded in 2011 and it was decided that the remaining 18 sites would move ahead over the next decade in phases (here is the schedule).

Last year when the pilot review and path ahead were being discussed I proposed a motion to review all 18 sites to see whether a different type of development might be more appropriate. It did not pass. (Minutes of the meeting are here).

The next phase of four developments includes one on Saddleback Road in Skyrattler. It will occupy 1.2 hectares out of the four hectare park, which is the same area the school development would have occupied. It will be developed with approximately 50 townhouses, which is permitted by the zoning Council applied in 2006.

I have heard loud and clear (and share) resident concerns about the process Council used to rezone these sites in 2006 and I do not think there was adequate public consultation about the change from school use to residential use.

However, I do support developing these school sites, and while I think other forms of development (e.g. seniors housing) might be more needed, I believe that the town housing will be built to a high standard.

The original 1978 Skyrattler park development plan (click to enlarge).

Residents of the Ward should be aware that in addition the Skyrattler site, that there are future First Place sites in Blue Quill (25 Ave & 112 St) and Bearspaw (16 Ave & 105 St).

More information can be found at www.edmonton.ca/firstplace.

In 2009 the school boards released another 20 sites. The City is exploring options for development on these sites as well. For Ward 10 these are in Blue Quill (Saddleback and 112 St), Erminskin (25 Ave & 106 St) and Keheewin (105 St and 20 Ave).

I have made it clear that I expect a more open process for decision making about this next round of surplus school sites.

The dark blue circle is 400m and a 5 minute walk; the light blue is 800m or 10 a minute walk. This is the generally accepted walkability radius for LRT. Notice that it reaches from Petrolia mall to 106 Street, both high schools and a bunch of older walkup apartments that could be redeveloped over time. I've centred it on the intersection but exact location would require further study.

Following up from a campaign promise (see previous post here) to look into the possibility of a station between Southgate and Century Park, I advanced a formal inquiry today at Council’s Transportation & Infrastructure Committee. I believe it will come back for discussion at the May 8 meeting of the Committee. The text of the inquiry is below:

During the concept planning of the South LRT in 2005 there was some consideration given to including a station between Southgate and Century Park. I believe there is still interest in looking at a station to serve communities and institutions in the area of 40th Avenue. Therefore, I would like Administration to comment on the following:

1. Given that the LRT Network Plan and Design Guidelines have changed since 2005, would an additional station be consistent with Council’s more recent direction from 2009 on LRT design?

2. Could construction of a new station be accomplished while maintaining LRT service?

3. Given that the LRT runs in the median, what special considerations would be required to accommodate safe pedestrian access to the platform from adjacent communities?

4. What would be the rough cost of constructing a community station similar to McKernan/Belgravia in 2012 dollars?

5. From a Land-Use perspective, are there medium- to long-term intensification opportunities in the area that could benefit from the presence of an LRT station?

6. What parking restrictions are available to control parasitic parking issues in adjacent communities that often accompany a new station?

7. What would be the next steps Administration would recommend to committee should there be a desire to explore this further?

Former Edmonton Mayor Cec Purves has been asking many of the same questions I have throughout the arena negotiations.

He also happens to be a constituent in Ward 10. He met with me this week to share his extensive analysis of the Downtown Arena deal which he released to Council and the media today. He shared a copy with me, which I assisted him in posting on-line here.

I agree with much of his analysis, particularly the ongoing issue of the missing $100 million, and the question of whether we should be proceeding with major design work without having the funding gap resolved. His review of some of the pre-negotiation reports and their recommendations about funding models is interesting, showing that where we’ve ended up is a ways away from the funding assumptions underlying the recommendation to pursue building a new arena.

It’s a good read if you want to try to follow the money.

Something light to start 2012:

I had a lot of fun playing a bit role in the collaboration between ETS and Colleen Brown for the ‘Happy Love Song’ video. That bus was literally bouncing, and the acoustics were surprisingly good. Wonderful Edmonton talent on display – also promoting the new-and-improved ETS Trip Planner.

And the City recently put up a charming ‘behind the scenes’ video as well:

Enjoy!

[Update December 28, 2011: links to City's infrastructure budget page repaired. Also, City's full summary can be found here. Also, I had 5.38% but the increase was in fact 5.39% because of a rounding error on my end.]

Inclusive of drainage, waste and the tax increases, it will cost $178 more annually for an average household next year. I do realize this is a significant increase on a percentage basis, and is above the Consumer Price Index.

Information of the Utility rates can be found here. As Chair of Council’s Utility Committee I can speak to the year of work that went into understanding the elements driving these rates and rest assured they are justified. However, we are looking at whether there is a fairer way to charge for Waste than the current flat fee.

The tax increase itself was 5.39% in the final budget. 2.25% of this is specifically for priority infrastructure projects, such as financing the new Walterdale Bridge, land acquisition for Southeast to West LRT, and a new police station in the Northwest. The balance (3.14%) covers inflationary impacts plus a modest amount of new spending mainly for policing and crime prevention.

I do think the city can be more efficient with existing resources and I continue to work constructively with the City Manager and City Auditor to identify ways to streamline our business; most people don’t realize that our City Manager has helped trim over $100 million from a $1.88 billion dollar budget over the last three years through improved efficiencies.

I realize that we cannot continue to increase taxes beyond the rate of inflation indefinitely, but I also do not hear a lot of public support for reducing levels of civic service, nor do I hear support for deferring infrastructure investment.

Fundamentally, however, Edmonton has transitioned from a low cost place to do business 10 years ago to one of the most expensive places to do business in North America, mainly because of the higher cost of labour, but also because of higher material and energy costs. The City does business in this same market and that drives cost, which in turn drives fees and taxes.

The answer, of course, is not higher property taxes.

Rather, we need a new deal for municipalities. The City has roughly 5% of a typical family’s tax dollars, but we have well more than 5% of the responsibilities for services and infrastructure. We will continue to struggle until the existing tax dollars are reapportioned and/or until cities are given fairer tax tools.

In fact, I would like to see us move away from property tax, and instead focus on other revenue streams that grow with the economy and respond to income rather than taxing theoretical wealth via property tax, which is often highly regressive for those on fixed incomes.

Nevertheless, the City must move ahead, as we have with the 2012-2014 infrastructure budget. However, the $2.7 billion of planned infrastructure investment in 2012-2014 is down significantly from the $3.6 billion 2009-2011 budget, though it still accelerates work on neighbourhood street and sidewalk renewal and keeps moving on LRT.

We’ve been able to do more in recent years through borrowing (debt) and thanks to increased grants like the Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI).

However, MSI was initially to be $1.4 billion annually province-wide, Edmonton’s rightful share of which would be close to $400 million per year, even under a disadvantageous funding formula. However, the most we’ve ever been allocated is $260 million.

Unfourtunately, because of the provincial deficit, the MSI program has been scaled back, with our share falling to around $180 million per year. The provincial government did promise to restore the funds in future years and make up the shortfall down the road.

The province did allow us to ‘fast track’ that money by borrowing against it, so we’re still spending $260 million on MSI-funded projects, on the hope that we’ll be paid back later. This is some of the City’s borrowing I’m more nervous about.

The 2009-2011 budget saw significant borrowing approved, mainly for new rec centres. In the budget before that, borrowing was authorized for the South LRT. Debt, as in these noted cases, makes sense (just like a mortgage) to pay for certain projects that are of city-wide impact, when rates are low, and while costs are down. And we’ve needed it to keep building the city.

There absolutely are limits to how much the city can borrow, but we’re still a way from those limits, even with the 2012-2014 borrowing.

However, new arena construction and related projects will take us closer to those debt limits.

Ultimately, debt capacity won’t always be available, and the conditions won’t always be right to use it. In the long term, building our infrastructure will require more ongoing cash from provincial and federal partners. The upcoming provincial election is a good time to ask candidates for their views on predictable and sustained infrastructure support for cities.

[Update Nov 23, 2012: The public hearing on the budget started today with a thorough presentation from city administration chock full of historical information about trends driving the operating budget. A pdf of the presentation can be accessed here.]

Distribution of an average home's monthly municipal property tax.

Yesterday Council received its first look at the proposed 2012 operating budget (full documentation available here). To achieve Council’s previous objective of 1.5% for neighbourhood reconstruction and 3% for, well, everything else, means some significant cuts that Council will weigh against substitute cuts and/or increases in revenues.

See how average monthly household expenditures in Edmonton compare to municipal property taxes. Click on image to enlarge.

One of the main things driving our costs is is our infrastructure agenda: e.g. borrowing for all the new things we’re building like Meadows and Clareview rec centres, and then the cost of operations that hit when these new facilities open up. Some of the other things are cost of labour, which continues to rise briskly in recession-proof Alberta, and things like diesel fuel costs, which are way up. I’ll be spending the next few days getting acquainted with the 450 pages of the budget but if you want a handy overview, start with the executive summary.

2012-2014 planned neighbourhood renewal work. Still significant but less than previously committed to. Click to enlarge.

One of the things this budget (together with its companion 3-year infrastructure budget) will test is our commitment to keeping up with renewal needs. Repair and replacement of existing infrastructure is substantially underfunded in the capital budget, and even neighbourhood renewal has been slowed down in the draft. I am hopeful that we can get neighbourhood renewal back on track and increase our investment in existing infrastructure. My position going into our last budget three years ago was we shouldn’t be building new infrastructure without a companion commitment to fix our existing infrastructure. We’re short there with this infrastructure budget but I am hopeful that can be addressed.

Over the last several weeks I’ve heard significant concerns from residents of the Greenfield neighbourhood about a Cell Phone tower proposed to be located on the northeast corner of the Greenfield Baptist Church site at 3712 – 114 Street.

Many of the issues are site-specific concerns or process concerns with the way this application and consultation process has unfolded.

More broadly, these residents do share many of the same overarching concerns expressed by citizens in Cllr. Diotte’s and Cllr. Leibovici’s areas arising from similar applications for cell phone towers in residential parts of their wards.

The three of us jointly submitted a formal inquiry through Council’s Executive Committee yesterday, the full text of which can be found here. 

The inquiry focuses on opportunities to improve the consultation process and more strongly deter site selection in residential areas. I believe improvements can be made both to the city’s existing “Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities” (Policy C471B, accessible here) and Industry Canada’s overarching process for dealing with these applications.

In fact, I think it’s imperative given cell phone proliferation in general coupled with more demand for data over cellular networks. Match that up with the fact that most of the low-impact tower sites are already used up and we’re going to see many more of these kinds of challenging applications in urban areas across Canada. Our end of the problem, in my view, is the City’s policy really isn’t geared to dealing with these new trends.

It’s important to understand, however, that while the City plays a role in the cell phone tower approval process, it does not make the final approval on location. The decision ultimately rests with Industry Canada. The City has the opportunity to issue a statement of concurrence or non-concurrence with the application, which Industry Canada considers when they make their final determination. As background, you may download a pdf of a City brochure with more details on the City’s role in this process here.

To be clear, I do not have control over this decision at the City (it rests with City administration per Policy C471B) but I do have some influence on the evaluation and I do hope that this proposal will receive non-concurrence from the City.

I should note that I have been receiving a lot of health-related concerns about telecommunications radio waves from similarly concerned Greenfield residents. I know feelings are very strong on this but the City will not take a position on the health questions. The City’s position, as I understand it, is that those questions are addressed by the Federal Government, specifically Health Canada which governs the relevant safety standards.

Finally, I want to give credit to the Greenfield Stewardship Committee that has taken up this matter with very strong organization. I understand they are planning a community meeting this Saturday morning (November 5) at the Greenfield Community Hall from 10am-12pm. Unfourtunately I cannot attend but have provided this blog post by way of written update to interested residents.

I welcome any comments below and will update this post when I have an ETA for the inquiry to come back before Executive Committee of Council.

[What follows below are my remarks from today's vote on the revised negotiated framework to design and build a downtown arena.]

I’m sold on what a new arena could do for our downtown and our city. But I also believe there’s a better deal to be had than the one before us. I think the responsible thing to do is continue to work toward improving the funding and financing terms.

Make no mistake: I believe in Edmonton and I believe in Downtown.

I believe in it so much that I spend a good portion of my time and disposable income here. And I do this because our Downtown is making great strides today.

The arena could well be a bonus, but I do worry that — after the rhetoric of this debate — history will one day be written as if the arena district single-handedly transformed downtown, rather than giving due to the many businesses, the patrons, and the residents of downtown, who are already here, building a better downtown today.

As I said, I do agree that an arena development could be positive for downtown: it’s why I had no objection to the zoning, and why I think a CRL to fund some of the connective infrastructure, and other catalyst projects, is appropriate.

I don’t think we’re that far from a deal I could support, but I have not yet seen a compelling argument specifically justifying the particular funding formula before us.

Normally, a deal negotiated in a competitive environment is constrained by each party knowing that they can walk away and do business with someone else. That’s more or less the functional definition of competition, and that would be a good footing for negotiation. This deal, in contrast, flows from our weak negotiating position, weakened by the fear of losing the team – a fear I think is irrational, and a bluff I might call – but it is a fear which nonetheless powerfully grips many Edmontonians.

Many of the arguments supporting the funding and financing are framed as if this deal were negotiated in a competitive context, but this isn’t the case. When there is no competition — and there is only one hockey team, and only one league —we really need a different kind of negotiation, with more transparent justifications.

Instead, most of the arguments offered yesterday, and throughout the debate, boil down to a leap of faith. All these arguments speak, often elegantly, to why a downtown arena might be a good idea, but not one of them provides sufficient justification for the funding and financing deal.

So what would a better justification look like?

One method of justifying this funding and financing deal would be to open up the Oilers’ business model and explain for all to see what exactly is required for the team to be sustainable in Edmonton. In other words, offer a real and transparent business case as justification. Instead we’ve simply been told, over and over again, that the Oilers won’t be sustainable without this deal. This remains an unsubstantiated claim, without hard evidence to support it.

Another, and I suspect more practical, course would be to offer justification by way of comparison.

Let’s start with the oft-mentioned Columbus, OH, which had no public money up front, just relief from property tax. Meanwhile, LA’s Staples Centre, the other revitalization case, had 17.6% public funding. Winnipeg’s MTS Centre has about 30% public funding in it. Even Glendale, AZ was only 42% up front public funding (at least to begin with).

The Pittsburg deal has also been invoked, and my understanding is it’s largely publicly financed, but not necessarily publicly funded. The Sports and Entertainment Authority (a State and City joint venture) is doing the borrowing through a bond issue — that’s the financing. The main sources of funding are an amusement tax, which is something like a 5% ticket tax, so let’s call it a user fee, [NB: it's applied to all amusement across the city, but mainly from Sports and Entertainment events — here are the details of the tax], payments from an associated casino license, and rent payments from the Penguins make up the balance. Other cost overruns were split among the parties.

In contrast – at this point our deal is 57% public funding if you include the land and infrastructure on top of the building, and 81% public financing. That will go to 100% public financing if we have to borrow against future provincial dollars to close the $100 million gap. So I will argue that this deal is out of line with the comparators. We should be working to bring it in line winch the comparators at the very least before approving it.

So what might a supportable deal look like?

It would require less public funding, perhaps offset by a higher city-administered ticket tax, and ideally we would see a return to the upfront $100 million payment from the Katz Group to reduce the public financing required. That could at least bring us in line with some of the comparators.

I’m also not wild about this $2 million/ marketing and sponsorship deal and don’t think we should commit to this as part of the deal without seeing exactly what we are supposed to get for it.

I want to thank Cllr. Caterina for the shrewd changes proposed today. Let’s continue to work toward the better deal that I still have to assume is out there. That doesn’t need to take years, I think it could be worked out pretty quickly in fact – it would be in everyone’s interest to do so.

However, if this is going ahead anyway, and if $450 million is going to buy us a ’damn good arena’, then we should make sure to build a 100 year building because nothing will anger me more in my old age than to see this debate play out again in my lifetime.

This stranded VW from last January is what we're trying to avoid. Notice the snow on the roof.

Last week Council debated several amendments to the already heavily revised Snow Policy. The revised policy as approved by Council is here.

There was significant debate about whether the City should be plowing residential roads down to bare pavement after every snowfall. In the end Council decided that we should aim for maintaining a 5cm snow pack through blading with truck plows to minimize windrows and increase the speed and efficiency of City response after snowfalls.

Council made a decision this past spring to add 20 more truck plows to the fleet for this winter to improve response times. The new policy sets a target of 5 days from end of snowfall for a full residential cycle of blading with the truck plows.

If the City falls behind or mother nature dumps a record snowfall and it’s not possible to achieve a 5cm snowpack with one round of blading then the City will trigger full plowing to bare pavement with plows and graders as occurred last winter.

The other big item of discussion was how to deal with parking along bus routes. Installation of signs indicating “Seasonal Parking Ban: Nov 15 – Mar 15″ was met with strong response from folks living along these roads, who thought a blanket ban was onerous.

In the end Council supported amendments to the Traffic Bylaw (see below) to shift away from Snow Routes which have to be declared, to a Seasonal Parking Ban which can be relaxed. Administration argued, and Council agreed, that many of the old Snow Route signs needed replacing, and so the replacement of these signs will continue this fall.

To be clear, the Seasonal Parking Ban is NOT intended to be a blanket ban as many initially feared. Rather, it can be ‘designated in effect’ when needed to facilitate plowing and windrow removal. The city will issue at least eight hours of notice that the Seasonal Parking Ban will come in effect, and will also announce when it’s no longer needed. Conventional media and social media will both be employed to carry these notices city-wide.

Cars remaining parked on these routes when the ban is in effect will be subject to towing. This is important to keeping our plows and windrow removal equipment moving efficiently.

One change Council made to the policy based on feedback about this Seasonal Ban is that alleys adjacent to streets subject to these parking restrictions will get priority attention to ensure residents are able to access on-site parking from the rear.

One thing is clear: whatever kind of winter we have, the policy and implementation will be reviewed again next year.

Bylaw 5590, the Traffic Bylaw, is amended by this bylaw. 2 Section 36 is repealed and replaced with the following:

SEASONAL PARKING BAN

36 (1)

A vehicle shall not be parked on a highway in any location identified as a seasonal parking ban route.

(2) This section only applies when the location identified as a seasonal parking ban route has been designated in effect by the City Manager.

(3) A vehicle parked on a highway in a location identified as a seasonal parking ban route must be removed from the location identified as a seasonal parking ban route within 8 hours of a seasonal parking route ban having been declared in effect.

3 Section 107(j) is amended by striking out “snow routes” and inserting “seasonal parking ban routes” after “truck routes, or”.