Council Meeting Highlights - Sept. 27, 2011

The Sept. 27, 2011 meeting felt like the shortest Council meeting this term. Council approved the design and construction of a full pressure water distribution and & STEP wastewater collection system for Campbelltown Heights subdivision through a local Improvement tax levy. Residents had been requesting this for a number of years. Administration provided reports on a National Work-Life and Family Study to be conducted with staff in the final quarter of 2011.

Reports and minutes.

Webcast

I invite residents to go to the webcast to get the full flavour of how decisions are made tune into the webcast. The webcast is timed and titled so that you can refer immediately to your topic of interest. 

Organizational Review

I have lobbied Council since 2007 to initiate a corporate wide review of our municipal functions at the highest levels. Administration has set out terms of reference and hired firms to look at departmental operations. In the past few years - reviews were broadened to include two departments. Now it is time for a broader efficiency review that looks at best practises of other successful municipalities in the delivery of services to our residents and stakeholders. A clear and focused examination of Council, senior management and our way of doing business will, I believe, lead to the implementation of  better guidelines and processes to provide direction for an even higher level of customer service at greater efficiency than now exists.

Proclamations

Urged by public requests, I have been asking Council and Administration to post Proclamations (Policy GOV-001-015) for a specific time period. Councillors seem to want to look at other ways of heightening the profile of proclamations generally so I am discontinuing that request for now.

Second Quarter Management Report

Chief Financial Officer George Huybregts summed up the report on the health of the organization by indicating that the mandate of Administration and Council is to manage and monitor closely public funds based on the Business Plan. There were no surprises in the second quarter report, and the municipality is going into the budget season in a solid position. The first budget Council meeting is Oct. 4, 2011 at 1 p.m.

Strathcona County Environmental Advisory Council

Council heard an impressive presentation from public member Chair Cathy Wrightson. She reviewed what is I believe a first. This committee developed a three level decision matrix for use as an aid in selecting appropriate initiatives to pursue for this and future committees. This group of highly qualified professionals has spent the last several months in refining its ambitions, weighing its strengths and clearly identify ways of carrying out its mandate. 

Haunted Hike

While there was no discussion on this decision, I did have many residents contact me prior to the Council meeting. As I told them, this could be viewed as a precedent setting decision as Strathcona County Transit does not have the provision of transportation as a core service. My decision was based on the proposal being a cost recovery one with attendance numbers solid enough to make this a feasible attendee pay event. Strathcona County Transit has undertaken to develop a guideline for responding to similar requests in the future. I commend the organizers and volunteers of this great local tourism event to be offered the last three Friday/Saturday nights in October

Haunted Hike Information 

Council Open Houses

Mr Doug Kroetsch represented his family and all residents who drive Hwy 628 and Township Road 522. Intersections of Range Roads 231, 232, and 233 are presenting a traffic safety issue. From the provincial perspective: local land owners are resisting land sales at market value, according to Alberta Transportation. Another time consuming factor is the province’s focus on roundabouts as a solution. The province has committed to scheduling further discussions with the County as soon as the roundabout review is completed. As of Aug. 26, 2011 the status of the roundabout project was “underway and nearing completion”. I am hopeful – for the sake of all travellers in our County - that the review will be completed this year.

Mr Doug Bowes represented his 170 Sherwood Park Archery members well in an informative discussion on the request for letters of support from Council as they seek funding from other government levels to expand their current facilities. The Club also requested that Strathcona County transfer other leased lands to the Club. I look for both public comment and administrative information on the merits and possible negative impacts to taxpayers of such a move. 

Sherwood Park Archery  

Public Transit Input Requested

At the last Council meeting, Transit announced that it was entering into its second phase of public engagement. Residents are invited to comment on draft recommendations for a Transit Master Plan that addresses six key aspects of Strathcona County transit service: specialized transit and accessibility, inter-municipal transit, local transit, Park and Ride, rural transit and fares.

News release

Survey & history

I send out an E-News Bulletin to residents on community information and issues. It gives me an opportunity to touch base with you on a regular basis. You can obtain your copy by sending me your e-mail address. 

Council Meeting Highlights - Sept. 13, 2011

The Sept. 13, 2011  Council meeting was an interesting look at Council process and leadership. Administration provided an update on the Capital Regional Transportation Plan and Council engaged on a lengthy debate on photo radar. Other matters brought to Council were the announcement of the public engagement for Public Transit, River Valley Alliance project funding and a report on the updated Apiculture bylaw. I recommend that you refer to the reports and minutes.

Webcast

Residents will have to go to the webcast to get the full flavour of how decisions are made tune into the webcast. The webcast is timed and titled so that you can refer immediately to your topic of interest. 

Photo Radar – Mobile Speed Cameras

Council supported Councillor Botterill’s motion to cease operation of the mobile speed cameras.

I did not support the motion. My residents are asking why I took the stand that I did.

This is a complex issue. Each side can produce “highly credible” studies speaking for or against. This is a hotly debated topic in jurisdictions throughout North America. There may actually be no right or wrong answer.

Here is the problem, as I see it, with the process your Council went through:

Two weeks ago a notice of motion was presented to Council. Last Thursday Council received a rudimentary 8 page report from RCMP Traffic Services. One hour prior to Council, we received a nine slide power point presentation. Neither the Traffic Safety Office nor the RCMP Traffic Services were required to prepare and bring forward a presentation. I do not agree with moving forward on such a significant decision without requiring our administration to bring forward a comprehensive report and recommendation on the implication to road safety and budget.

Councillor Gariepy did force the issue and insisted that the RCMP representatives come forward and answer questions of Council. RCMP Superintendent Steinke and Traffic Sgt. Narbonne both spoke of the current statistics of an all-time low of fatalities and injuries and the need to move forward but not at the cost of systems and tools that have proven their effectiveness. RCMP representatives stated that officers are more effective than photo radar – but the cost to tax payers is significant – that is why they use a variety of enforcement tools.

I stand by my belief that inadequate research and debate went into this decision. I put forward a motion to have administration bring in an external firm to prepare a report on the merits and challenges of:

• ceasing operation of mobile cameras
• increasing the complement of officers
• looking at speed limits throughout the county. 

I called for public engagement. Both requests were defeated.

Subsequent motions and debate were required as Council members came to a sudden realization that it took 6 to 12 months to hire officers...but they had just passed a motion to cease all mobile camera speed vans.

So here we are. Within the next 12 months, five Safety Enforcement Officers will be hired to replace the photo radar mobile vans. (RCMP stated that 11 Officers would be required). When five are hired and trained, the photo radar will be discontinued. Safety Enforcement Officers can issue demerit points; they cannot act on criminal code offences such as impaired driving and outstanding warrants.

Was the system perfect? No. Was it abused? At times it was. Could it have been improved? Yes. But your Council chose to throw it out entirely. My issue is not with the final outcome, it is with the way in which we got there. Don’t get me wrong, the elimination of mobile speed vans has worked in other jurisdictions. It can work here. I will be putting my efforts into supporting this and other subsequent suggestions that will improve road safety in a fiscally responsible manner.

 Capital Region Board

On Sept. 8, 2011 the Integrated Regional Transportation Plan and our requested amendments were accepted by the Capital Region Board. Their acceptance of the changes to identify Twp Rd 540 (rather than 542) as the East /West road slated for expansion is a relief to those residents affected. It is also a credit to their persistence and the unflagging support of their Councillor.

 Strathcona County Youth Council

 Youth Executive gave an outstanding report on the Council’s mandate and activities. This year marks their 20th anniversary. Since its inception, the Council has had over 250 members who have contributed more than 25,000 volunteer hours and completed over 150 successful youth projects and activities

Public Transit Report

The public engagement section of the second phase of transit restructuring will begin on Sept. 25, 2011 and will continue for five weeks. I urge you to review the document and attend at least one of the upcoming open houses. Council needs you as the public users and non users to give your comments and opinions on proposed changes to SCAT, route structures and scheduling.   

River Valley Alliance

Council approved $306,280 dollars to be allocated to trail expansion in the parklands adjacent to the North 

Saskatchewan River Valley. Funding will be matched by federal funding.

Apiculture By Law

Bylaw 43-2011 received two readings from Council. The intent is to define the geographical area where apiculture is allowed in our municipality. All bee keepers are regulated by the provincial government. They must have a provincial registration and premise ID number. Our County regulations are now clearer. Agriculture producers on Agriculture lands may have hives without permits. However RA and Country residential zoned lands must apply to the Transportation and Agriculture Department for a permit. Basically that permit is a way for the County to ensure that people living within a 1 km area all know about the hives and can express any concerns they may have.

Administration has chosen not to address the changing trends in urban land use due to previous concerns raised in 1996 and a lack of interest shown in this go round. I have asked that apiculture be defined in our land use bylaws as they are refined in the next several months.

I send out an E-News Bulletin to residents on community information and issues. It gives me an opportunity to ‘touch base’ with you on a regular basis. You can obtain your copy by sending me your e mail address. 

Your Fences

Is your home (or a new home you may be looking at) adjacent to a multi-lane arterial roadway? Does your perimeter fencing face public or common property (ie the roadway)? Then you should be aware that Strathcona County requires fencing between residential areas 

and arterial roads, trails, storm water ponds, schools and park sites. 

There is a total of 45,000 meters of fencing in urban service areas along arterial roadways.

Some of that fencing was built by the County on County land (24%) and private land (6%) along arterial roads such as Wye Rd, Baseline Rd, Cloverbar Road, Sherwood Drive Broadmoore Blvd, Brentwood Blvd, Granada Blvd, Lakeland Drive. County built fences are the responsibility of the County to replace and maintain as required. Adjacent property owners need only to maintain their ‘private’ side.

Seventy percent of arterial fencing was built on private land, facing these same arterial roadways, and is the responsibility of the private property owner to maintain and replace. How did this come to be?

As the County grew from a small bedroom community of hundreds to a large urban centre of tens of thousands, the municipality realized that fence building and repair of fencing on arterial roadways would soon become an onerous burden on tax payers. Private owners constructed arterial fencing on their own lands and are responsible for maintenance and replacement. The remaining 63% of arterial fences were built by developers and then became the responsibility of the owner by a restrictive covenant upon purchase of the lot from the developer.

As these original fences lay in disrepair, with boards gone and entire stretches of fencing down, causing both unsightly and liability issues - our municipality is at a decision point. Do individual taxpayers take up the responsibility for their perimeter fencing? 

If they do – should the County maintain (stain or paint) it’s side? 

Do all taxpayers ante up? 

To what extent does the fact that these properties are on major public roadways factor in? 

If the municipality feels obligated to do a major replacement (at the taxpayers’ expense), then what about those condos and residents that have already replaced their fencing? Do taxpayers then have to pay retroactively?

The above mixed bag of arterial fencing comes from the evolution of the relationship between the municipality, homeowners and developers. There is much work to be done  - but it is on the front burner with County administration giving both this and last Council information sessions. Council has requested viable recommendations to come forward to the Oct. 25, 2011 Council meeting. 

Residents should expect their Council to make a decision on this issue that will be both fair and equitable to homeowners and minimize the burden on the taxpayer.

I welcome your comments at any time.

If you would like to be more fully informed – sign up for my e-news bulletin at carr@strathcona.ab.ca