Special Post

Planning - Spam, Sham, or Scam?



On April 21 the Prince Albert District Planning Commission sponsored an open house at City Hall (from 5 PM to 9 PM). The advertised purpose was to explain the policy document prepared by Crosby Hanna & Associates, a Saskatoon planning firm. This document was available by sending an e-mail request to the Commission(padpc@sasktel.net).

As might be expected, my reading of the document gave rise to numerous questions. At the open house, I directed a handful of these to a Hanna Crosby associate. There were so many people in the foyer that he only gave me a few minutes of his time.

[I was told by another observer of the sorry state of PA planning that most of the crowd were residents of the two RMs adjacent to the city - their keen interest piqued solely by the prospect of acquiring advance knowledge of developments that would either positively or negatively affect the value of their property; "planning policies" of any sort were only germane insofar as they affected future personal finances. Considering that residents of the City of Prince Albert are also directly affected by PADPC policy, and they outnumber the RMs' residents five to one, their noticeable absence was unusual.]

My submitted comments on the document are reproduced below. Unfortunately, it is not yet available at http://rmprincealbert.ca/planning.htm


******************************************************
Page 2:
- "2.2 (2) To strengthen the economic base of the member municipalities by creating a positive environment for sustainable business development."
The problem with this "goal" is that most businesses in the three municipalities are NOT sustainable; sustaining the opportunity for business development is not in doubt. The problem with the goal is that it is extremely confusing. The purpose of planning, moreover, is to accommodate differing interests. "Business" is only one of those - and if the goal of a physical planning process is to sustain business, other interests (social, political, spiritual, artistic, and recreational, to name a few) necessarily suffer. The statement should probably read, "To strengthen the economic foundation of the three member municipalities by creating a physical environment that supports the development of sustainable businesses."

Page 3:
- "The presence of streams and rivers in the R.M. of Buckland is ecologically important, from the perspective of habitat values . . . ."
Why are streams and rivers in the RM of PA and the City of Prince Albert omitted from this sentence?
- "(3) Responses to the community survey indicate that residents strongly support protection of the environment."
Where are the community survey description and results?
- "Policy is required to help ensure that development is consistent with the protection of significant natural resource values in the Planning District."
Where is the definition of "significant natural resource values"? (These cannot be left up to politicians to interpret on the fly. . . .)
- "(3) The Soil Survey report for the R.M. of Buckland indicates that a total of 17,400 ha (42,996 acres) of land is rated as Class 1 and 2 considered [sic] to be of high capability for dry land agricultural production."
Repetition of "3" may be a simple typo, but there is no excuse for failing to indicate WHERE that class 1 and 2 land is. "Map 1," the only inclusion in Appendix A, simply delineates the different policy areas. Since "policy is required to protect prime farm land (class 1 and 2) from being unnecessarily taken out of production for residential or other non-agricultural use" [although this concept has never inhibited local lawmakers before . . .] people reading this document should be able to see (now) where that land is. Of course, there must also be a map showing class 1 and 2 land in the RM of PA.

Page 4:
- "(8) Responses to the community survey indicate that residents strongly support protection of theenvironment."
This finding "(8)" is the same as the first finding (3) on the previous page. Neglecting the obvious cut-and-paste duplication error, was there something else about the (missing) survey that was noteworthy?
- "Proposed Objectives"
None of these directly addresses compatible land uses; number 8, while referring to development not compromising cultural and heritage resources, is too limited, and only alludes to land use compatibility. "Compatible land uses" should be clearly spelled out as an objective.

Page 5:
- "(3) Developments which ensure that water bodies, waterways, shore lands, groundwater and riparian systems are protected and sustained will be encouraged."
The word "encouraged" is effectively useless: change it to "required."
- "(4) The rural municipalities may employ site-specific planning programs, either alone or in cooperation with other agencies, organisations or governments, to protect water bodies, waterways and shorelands. . . Site-specific plans may result in limiting or prohibiting development in these areas."
To the best of my knowledge, developments in the RMs of Buckland and PA have NEVER been limited or prohibited. Perhaps the 'ideal situation' described in the policy should be reinforced - otherwise, this (standard) rhetoric is an empty shell.
- "(3) The member municipalities shall work in partnership with the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority to maintain and conserve the South Saskatchewan Watershed and its source water resources."
This is the second, of three proposed policy "(3)"s on this page. Obviously, there's some sloppy proofreading here - reinforced by the single reference to the SOUTH Saskatchewan River watershed: since the NORTH Saskatchewan River is the main watershed running through the area (it bisects the Planning District, rather than running along its southern boundary), it should be mentioned here.

Page 6:
- "(7) Development shall avoid land that is hazardous due to flooding, erosion, soil subsidence, slumping or slope instability. Map 2 - Potential Hazard Lands, identifies land in the Planning District that is potentially hazardous due to slope instability or flood susceptibility."
As was pointed out earlier, there is no Map 2 in this document - an omission that makes it impossible for people to assess and comment on "hazard lands."
- "(9) Development shall avoid land that is environmentally sensitive."
As was pointed out above, there needs to be a "definitions" section in this document. "Environmentally sensitive" needs clarification.

Page 7:
- "Responses to the community survey indicate that residents strongly support being able to recycle waste materials at a facility. The R.M. of Prince Albert currently does not operate a solid waste transfer station within its boundaries however, [sic] the City of Prince Albert owns and operates a solid waste transfer station located at the South 1/4 Section 19 and North 1/4 Section 18-49-26-W2. Ratepayers in the R.M. of Buckland can purchase a yearly dump pass for household waste. Policy is needed with respect to future management and disposal of solid waste and sewage generated in the Planning District."
The first sentence refers to recycling, but does not say WHERE recycling facilities are or should be. Strangely, the sentences that follow it are unrelated to the strong support for recycling manifest by RM property owners in the (unseen) survey. (Thus, we have a perfect example of a non sequitur). "Recycling" must be included somewhere in the final sentence - otherwise the policy is restricted solely to disposal of waste (which excludes recyclable materials).

Page 8:
- "(3) To ensure that development does not create any traffic safety issues."
Another restrictive concept is evident here: rather than just assuming that "development" must create additional traffic, "development" must, at some point, be asked to assume responsibility for reducing traffic, and making traffic flow more safely than before.
- "3.2.3 Proposed Policies(1) All developments shall provide for:"
Add "(d) water conservation" to this list. Water is a finite resource, and it will get more scarce in the time frame envisaged by this document.

Page 10:
- "(12) Transportation Policies"
This list appears written solely for private motor vehicles - not for buses, off-road vehicles, self-propelled movement (cyclists and walkers), and (heaven forbid, apparently) train traffic. It must take these other means of transportation into account. The reference to development not creating "potentially unsafe traffic conditions" neglects to consider that increases in traffic volumes are inherently unsafe - and must therefore be accurately studied, assessed, and mitigated. Refer also to my comment above (i.e., "development" must, at some point, be asked to assume responsibility for reducing traffic, and making traffic flow more safely than before.)

Page 12:
- "(3) Lands in proximity to the City of Prince Albert that have been identified by the City as having potential for future urban development are designated on Map 1 Future Land Use Concept as Urban Future Growth Area. Map 1 also indicates planned future use of this area. Map 1 also identifies an Urban Future Growth Area for the Village of Albertville."
The area southeast of the city (adjacent to Crescent Acres) is projected as future urban development in official City of PA planning documents (most recently revised in August 2008), but this is the first indication that a huge tract of land directly south of the city (extending past the junction of highways 2 and 11, and eastward to highway 3) is included in the "Urban Future Growth Boundary" on Map 1, relating to "approximately 20 years of future growth and development within the Planning District" (see page 1 of the document). This also deviates from the city plan's express intention to expand to the southwest (in the neighbourhood of the soccer centre). How does this difference between planning documents get "planned around"? Or is it simply ignored? The absence of Map 2 from this document also makes assessment of impacts on land adjacent to the city impossible (see policies (5)(a) and (5)(c) on page 13); there's also potential conflict here with objective (6) on page 15 - "To encourage agricultural and natural resource development which will improve the local economy."

Page 19:
- "(3) Agricultural Related Commercial and Industrial Uses:(a) The Zoning Bylaw will list principal agricultural related commercial and industrial uses asdiscretionary uses."
Again, definition is needed with respect to these "principal" uses.

Page 21:
- "(2) Limited residential and commercial growth in the form of infilling of existing vacant land shall be allowed in the hamlets."
Infill of vacant lots is logical, efficient, and easily-sustained development; limits on such development warrant justification and clarification.

Page 22:
- "(4) Land use policy is required to minimize the costs of country residential development to the municipality and to ensure that it is undertaken in an orderly, planned manner."
Using land use policies to guide development also means issuing "Requests for Proposals" to ensure "orderly, planned" development (in particular, by the City of Prince Albert). The City also incurs costs when "country residential" lots are developed in the two RMs - especially with regard to traffic issues and water service.
- "(1) To ensure that country residential land uses do not jeopardize essential agricultural or other natural resource activities."
"Essential" agricultural and other activities need to be defined - in relation to class 1 and 2 farm land (see page 3 comment above).

Page 23:
- "(3) To minimize the economic costs of country residential development for the rural municipalities.
(4) To ensure that new country residential development is created at a scale and density to discourage the formation of new organized hamlets within the Planning District."
There are economic costs to the City of Prince Albert from country residential development (see page 22 comment above), not just the two RMs.
What is the rationale for discouraging new organized hamlets? Such population centres make more sense than the usual 1-acre country residential lots being created all over the district.
- "(5) Residential building construction shall be regulated by rural municipal Building Bylaws."
Why is there no reference here to provincial and federal building codes, or the construction of resource-conserving buildings?

Page 24:
- ". . . minimum separation from industrial uses as provided in Section 3.7.3 (8) [page 32] of this document."
Country residential locational policies in the table referenced here are totally confusing: 300 metres is NOT equal to 0.5 mile; and 1 mile cannot be converted into both 800 meters and 1600 meters. The author clearly did not understand conversion factors (or proofread this table's content). The current minimum separation distance of a single residence from industrial land in the RM of Buckland is 500 meters. This was ignored in the recent approval of the Boyer Estates property development (across the highway from Red Wing), so it appears the proposed change to 300 meters is how the district will avoid similar dysfunctional situations in the future. In any case, there is no justification for the reduction in the minimum separation distance.

Page 25:
- "(a) The Zoning Bylaw will contain a series of country residential zoning districts toaccommodate multiple-lot country residential subdivisions."
WHERE will those zoning districts be? The scarcity of maps in this document is again problematic.

Page 27:
- "(ii) Multiple lot country residential subdivisions shall not be located: . . . In a linear fashion stretched along municipal roads.
- On land having more than 10% of its total area classified as having high capabilityfor dry land agricultural production."
Mindful that such subdivisions are regularly stretched "in a linear fashion," the main issue here is really the vague reference to "high capability" agricultural land - a definition of which must directly relate to the concepts of class 1 and class 2 farm land.
- "(e) Development and Design
(i) Phasing
A maximum of three multiple lot country residential subdivisions in developmental stages will be allowed at any point in time in either of the member rural municipalities. Multiple-lot country residential subdivisions with less than 75% of building lots with completed residential construction will be considered to be in a developmental stage. However, if 75% of available lots in one or moreof those three subdivisions are vacant but it appears that development is lagging because the developer/land owner is holding land vacant or is encountering difficulty with financing the development then that subdivision will be deemed tonot be in a developmental stage and the affected rural municipality may consider the approval of up to three additional subdivision proposals."
This convoluted phasing provision allows a total of six subdivision proposals to be in various stages of (in)completion "at any point in time" in each of the RM of Buckland and the RM of PA - surely more than the planning capacity (and, perhaps, the residents' patience) in the district is capable of sustaining. This also makes it possible for six developments to bar additional proposals from being considered for several years if the developers/landowners are merely holding land vacant. [The nine-year history of the still-vacant land on the south side of 28th St. West, at what would be 8th Avenue in the City of Prince Albert, is instructive in this regard.] I suggest re-thinking this whole idea, to simplify the acceptable number of developments underway at any one time, regardless of the "developmental stage."

Page 29:
- "The Zoning Bylaw will prescribe maximum and minimum lot sizes and other appropriate development standards for multiple lot country residential development, with the aim of preserving productive agricultural land and ensuring that such development does not resultin increased road hazards related to obstruction of sight lines, etc."
"Maximum and minimum" lot sizes are clearly specified on page 25 of this document, so this section's reference to the size issue is redundant. The definition of "productive agricultural land" is likely to conflict with "high capability" agricultural land (see page 27 comment above), and again requires clear reference to class 1 and class 2 farm land.

Page 31:
- "(6) Future commercial or industrial subdivisions or re-zoning for commercial or industrial development shall avoid conflict with existing land uses and development. Conflict with existing land uses and development will be demonstrated by, but such demonstration will not necessarilybe limited to, the following:
(a) anticipated levels of noise, odour, smoke, fumes, dust, night lighting, glare, vibration or other emissions emanating from the operation will be sufficient to affect the residentialcharacter of existing residential areas; or
(b) anticipated increased levels or types of vehicle traffic may create unsafe conditions or situations for vehicles, cyclists or pedestrians within or adjacent to existing residential areas."
It's interesting that 'business' development is recognized here as having potential adverse effects on vehicular, cycling, or pedestrian traffic. Why was this not a consideration in the residential land use and development section (III 3.6)?

Page 32:
- "Table 3-3
MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM INDUSTRIAL LAND USES
Land Use/Location Required Separation Distance
Single residence(1) 300 metres (0.5 miles)
Multiple lot/unit
residential subdivisions(2) 800 metres (1 mile)
Urban municipality(3) 1,600 metres (1 miles)
Resort commercial
development(4) 800 metres (0.5 miles)

Notes:
(1) Distances from individual residences are measured between industrial site and residential building. (2) Distances from multiple lot or multiple unit residential subdivisions are measured between industrial site and the nearest residential site.
(3) Distances from urban municipalities are measured between industrial site and the corporate limits of the urban municipality.
(4) Distances from resort commercial development are measured between industrial site and resort commercial development site."
This is the infamous table originally referred to on page 24 - replete with incorrect metric-to-English distance conversions. For the record: 300 meters is 0.186 of a mile; 800 meters is just under 0.5 of a mile; and 1600 meters is just under one mile.

Page 33:
- "(11) If it appears that a proposed commercial or industrial development requires large volumes of water, the affected rural municipality may require the applicant to demonstrate that the water supply is sufficient for the development and the supply for neighbouring developments will not be adverselyaffected by the proposed operation."
A nuclear power plant would be such a development. The affected rural municipality MUST require such a development to demonstrate that there will be no adverse effects on the supply to neighbouring developments (or downstream water users) - the word "may" is inappropriate and ineffectual.

Page 34:
"Table 3-4
MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE FROM HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL USES
OTHER PRINCIPAL LAND USES DISTANCE
Single residence(1), tourist accommodation(2) - 1,600 metres (1 mile)
Multiple-lot country residential subdivision,
lakeshore residential subdivision orhamlet(3) - 2,400 metres (1.5 miles)
Urban Municipality(4) - 2,400 metres (1.5 miles)
Municipal Well(5) - 1,600 metres (1 mile)

Notes:
(1) Distances from individual residences are measured between hazardous industrial use sites and residential building development.
(2) Distances from tourist accommodations are measured between hazardous industrial use sites and the tourist accommodation site.
(3) Distances from multiple-lot country residential subdivisions, lakeshore residential subdivisions and hamlets are measured between hazardous industrial use sites and the residential or hamlet sites.
(4) Distances from urban municipalities are measured between hazardous industrial use sites and the corporate limits of the urban municipalities.
(5) Distances from municipal wells are measured between hazardous industrial use sites and the well head"
Table 3-4 needs to be revised in light of a potential nuclear power plant in the district. There is also no rationale for having two different distances in this chart; a uniform separation distanced of 2400 meters is probably a better choice than 1600 meters.

Page 38:
- "(3) The rural municipalities will not approve requests for the rezoning of land to Hamlet District to accommodate the subdivision and development of new hamlets.
(4) Where applications for multiple lot country residential subdivisions and development are made in the Residential Policy Area, Council will consider such applications favourably and make required amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to accommodate such developments where it is demonstrated that:
(a) site conditions are suitable for multiple parcel country or development;
(b) negative environmental impacts of such development are avoided or suitably mitigated; and,
(c) the development conforms to all other relevant provisions of the Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw."
No justification has been provided for the prohibition on new hamlets. In addition, the prohibition here conflicts with page 23 (see comment above), where the document wants to merely "discourage" the formation of new hamlets. Item (4) here, in its reference to "Council will consider such applications favourably," grants automatic approval to country residential subdivisions - hardly the stuff of democratically- or community-controlled development processes. To correct the mis-direction, "Council will consider such applications favourably" should appear AFTER the three provisos, not before them. The "Residential Policy Area" is also not on a map contained in this document.

Page 39:
- "(3) Where applications for commercial or industrial development or subdivisions are made in the Highway Corridor Policy Area, Council will consider such applications favourably and make required amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to accommodate such development where it is demonstrated that:
(a) site conditions are suitable for commercial or industrial development;
(b) negative environmental impacts of such development are avoided or suitably mitigated; and
(c) the development conforms to all other relevant provisions of the Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw."
Another unfortunate result of 'cut-and-paste.' The same comment as for (4) on page 38, with respect to automatic approval, applies: "Council will consider such applications favourably" should appear AFTER the three provisos, not before them. In addition, the "Highway Corridor Policy Area" is also not on a map contained in this document.

Appendix B - Country Residential Evaluation Workbook
Overall comments:
There needs to be a clearly-indicated 'marking scheme' for every one of the questions on these nine pages ("Yes/No" categorization is insufficient). And where are the commercial activity considerations?

Page 1:
"1.2 How many residential sites are proposed by the subdivision?
Total number of sites:
Range of site size (smallest site – largest site):"
The requirement should be to specify the number of lots of EVERY size. Sustainability is also relevant to this consideration - see the Federation of Canadian Municipalities web site for guidance here (that ultimately creates eligibility for federal infrastructure funding).

Page 3:
- "1.6 Energy efficiency of proposed structures and/or subdivision layout (e.g., building location responding to daily sun/shade patterns, north-south orientation of residential sites, high performance envelopes, passive solar gain, solar shading, natural ventilation, ground heating/cooling)."
Water conservation also needs to be promoted. Include this concept here.
- "1.7 What proportion (%) of residential sites in the subdivision have a north-south orientation appropriate for taking maximum advantage of passive solar energy?"
Go the next step: refer to the roof slope (38 to 54 degrees) required to easily facilitate active solar energy (hot water, thermal, and photovoltaic) systems in this district.

Page 5:
- "1.13 How is the layout of the streets designed (e.g. grid, curvilinear)?
Street layout can influence maintenance costs as well as connectivity with surrounding development. Intersections and sight lines related to streets can influence public safety.
Describe:"
The item should also ask if the street layout is conducive to safe use by cyclists and pedestrians.

Page 8:
- "3.2 Does the subdivision have any features that will reduce the long-term costs to the municipality of operating and maintaining public services and infrastructure (e.g. reduce roads and pipes for servicing that will have to be maintained by the R.M.)?
Yes/No
Describe:"
Long-term costs to the City of PA need to be considered (see page 22 comment above).

---------------------------------------------

In summary, there is a traditional planning "box" firmly embedded in this document - one from which the authors need to extricate themselves in order to provide long-term, thoughtful planning policies for the City of Prince Albert and the two RMs. As currently written, this document merely serves to reinforce the district's failure to guide development in anything but a seat-of-the-pants, ad hoc manner.

Special Post: The April 6 Lecture

Thou Shalt be Lectured - Time & Time & Time Again . . . .

The posting for the April 6 council meeting refers to the Mayor's outburst near the end. His lecture was directed at Councillors Atkinson and Williams, over their refusal to allow third reading of the 2009 property tax bylaw at that meeting. This is the verbatim transcript of that five-minute segment of the meeting. My editorial comments are limited to explaining a few important points.

[We might reasonably expect former councillor Doris Lund to speak at the April 27 council meeting - determined, as in the past, to add her critical voice to the usual chorus rounded up in support of the mayor - as a follow-up to the mayor's remarks.]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Scarrow: It needs to be said, and I will say it. You voted against this, uh, Councillor Williams. Like, I have no malice towards either of you, unh, but, you were late arriving, and you didn’t return, uh, you you left about eleven-thirty [the meeting began at 8:30; council adjourned for thirty minutes at 11:30, for lunch, so everyone “left” then (myself included);the meeting re-convened at noon, and finished at 12:45 ] but you didn’t return, uh, so, you know how much interest you had in, you know a longer process of studying the budget, it’s okay. We, we stayed, okay. And uh by the way, last year you didn’t attend any of the budget proceedings. So I, I just want to qualify that.

Councillor Atkinson, I don’t know what your purpose is here but, you know we, we are very busy, the balance of us, in, in a lot of committee meetings [the city lists 65 committees as of December 1, 2008, seven of which the Mayor himself has added since December 1, 2006; on May 19, 2004, there were only 40] that we attend, unh, on faithful uh city business. And you’re forcing us, uh, to hold a meeting that you know would be held on Wednesday at 8 AM, to protest a zero per cent budget you’re protesting because of the lateness of the materials getting to you, but you failed to say that at all during the budget process. You could have asked for some type of adjournment, to, to study further, or, you know, some kind of indication that this was going to be met with this type of resistance here today. I [emphasis Scarrow’s] take exception to you changing my schedule [the mayor had earlier declared that an 8 AM, Wednesday, April 8, meeting was going to be held if third reading of the bylaw was not completed at this April 6 meeting - without consulting the City Clerk, or anyone else] uh, you know, on on items that I think are not con-, conducive to the function of this council. And it’s happened time, and time, and time again. Uh, you know, it just is beyond me and I hope the citizens of Prince Albert as well, that, that, uh this, whatever it is that you’re attempting to do here . . . places you in an awkward spot and also members of council. We want to get ih- get on, and do the affairs of our business, uh, not to be hu- brought back in at 8 AM to accommodate those who are working, unh, to, in order to get one item of business completed. So, ah, it’s too late now to, uh, I gave you an indication that what we were going to do with it. You know, I just think it is not respectful of the balance of the members of council and the work that’s been done by our administration for you to hold this off, uh, this evening.

So with that we’ll move to - I’m in the chair [Atkinson had raised his hand, in order to be recognized to speak, but the mayor ignores him] we’ll move to item number ten, bylaw number ten. What’s to be gained, right?

Williams: We sit here. We get chastised. We have our reasons. Why I was late? You want your explanation?

Scarrow: Don’t you ---

Williams: You didn’t ask me. I had to take my son to school. That’s what was first. How do you motivate a fifteen-year-old? It’s pretty difficult. I have to be somewhere, so be it. And then I had to be somewhere else. So, don’t, you don’t even take the time to talk to me ---

Scarrow: But, but you assume ---

Williams: DON’T SIT THERE, AND CHASTISE ME, WITHOUT TALKING TO ME.

Dionne: Order.

Williams: That’s the end of it.

Scarrow: Do you don’t not think that each of us have given up something for that day? Uh, that, you know, I don’t know what your other events were, but, but, it’s it’s again, why you would, would do that. Not everybody, uh, attends our council meetings but I think they should know, uh, that, that you had ample time - as much time as everyone else. Nobody said, “Delay, postpone,” at that particular time. It was afterwards. Councillor Atkinson, do you have anything to add?

Atkinson: Uh, it seems like, uh, everyone’s getting their two cents’ worth. I guess, you know, there’s another item here tonight, I don’t oppose having leave [granted for third reading] for that particular item.

This - the budget - is probably one of the most important issues we have in the city to do. I believe that the public are entitled to an opportunity to adequately review that. The rationale of why there are two readings [sic - three readings] for any particular bylaw is an opportunity for re-visiting or re-looking at those particular items. That is the process. If someone has a problem with the process, I suggest they go to the province and ask them to change the process under which we operate. I am just abiding by the rules to give the public an opportunity to view the document we want to pass. If ah, two extra days, or whatever the schedule is, is so important, uhm, so be it. But this is the process, and these are the rules we have to follow - whether you like them, whether anyone else likes ‘em or dislikes ‘em, it’s immaterial.

Scarrow: But, again we’re coming up to another bylaw. We’re asking leave, I think? Councillor . . . Dionne.

Dionne: I’m looking forward to the meeting on on Wednesday morning. And they talked about process [Atkinson] and respect [Scarrow did - not Atkinson or Williams]. Well I hope they [he means Atkinson and Williams] show me the same respect as I take more time off to work to come in Wednesday and they show me the respect to be here to vote again against the budget - a zero increase - Wednesday at eight o’clock in the morning.

Williams: Actually, Councillor Dionne, I will be here. I will change my schedule. I will be here.

. . . . . . . . . . . [eight seconds of silence]

Scarrow: Okay, uh, the Clerk has just indicated that, unh unh, that he will give us a time of the council meeting following number ten, bylaw number ten. Okay. First reading.

Dionne: I’ll move that Bylaw number 10 be introduced and read a first time.

[Bylaw number ten passed two readings, then leave was granted to read it a third time. It passed third reading. There was no discussion at any of the four stages of the bylaw. City Clerk Skauge gave noon on Wednesday as the meeting time for third reading of bylaw #9. Councillor Williams, who had understood that the meeting was to be at 8 AM - because Scarrow and Dionne had said this - could not attend the noon meeting because he had to be in Regina at 12:30.]

Off the Rails 7

Here's another submission to the Prince Albert Daily Herald. It was written on Good Friday, in response to a letter to the editor published that day. The newspaper printed it on Thursday, April 16.

It seems some members of the community delight in the prospect of nailing certain city councillors to a cross (or something similar). As an ardent supporter of civility, fair play, and democracy, I sometimes tire of being the sole voice defending elected indivduals' right to adhere to rules of procedure and the provincial laws that govern municipal governments. But I won't stop doing it.

*************************************

April 10, 2009

The Editor,
Prince Albert Daily Herald

As predictable as snow melting in the spring, and the winter’s detritus and doggy doo revealed beneath it, yet another letter to the editor follows the mayor’s most recent critical outburst toward the same two city councillors.

Unlike the mayor, and Miles Mackenzie, councillors Atkinson and Williams have reasonably good knowledge of how democracy works, the content of Saskatchewan’s Cities Act, and Robert’s Rules of Order. How redundant (and coincidental) is it that Mr. Mackenzie twice uses the identical expression (“time and time again”) that the mayor used in his April 6 scolding of the two councillors?

The mayor’s attempt to ram through council that evening yet another item with as little discussion as possible was tiresome, if not worrisome. As the chair at city council meetings, he may eventually learn that his constant calls of “Question!” are inappropriate; trying to intimidate councillors Atkinson and Williams with this exclamation ultimately produces the democratic procedure “backlash” he so despises.

As the only member of the public to attend council’s public budget consultation (March 26), budget committee meeting (March 27), regular council meeting to adopt the budget (April 6), and special council meeting to give third reading to the budget bylaw (April 8), I can testify to the mayor’s impatience when his wishes are not immediately accepted by the rest of council. Mr. Mackenzie would do well to attend council meetings, and spend some time studying democratic meeting procedure before sounding off on his behalf so quickly.

Sincerely,
Brian R. Clavier
Prince Albert

6th Regular Meeting of 2009 - April 6

Even More Garbage, and Budget Brouhaha: Shout "Whoa!"

START: 7:00 PM

ABSENTEES: Councillor Gervais (ward 1) and Councillor Swystun (ward 7)

PUBLIC GALLERY: Brian Clavier, Brian Howell, Mike Mitchell, Tamara McKay, Rick Potratz, Don Cheeseman, Lorena Baker, Don Wood, and four others.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: 360 pages

RECOGNITION: Prince of Wales Scholarship winner Stephanie Sasakamoose [mis-pronounced as SaSASKamoose three times by Broadcast Hall of Fame member Mayor Scarrow] was present to receive her honour. The Wesmor High School student missed the initial attempt to honour her (at council's February 25, 2009 meeting).



Pecuniary Interests - No Forms Submitted


For the fourteenth consecutive meeting, the Mayor requested that members of council submit forms detailing what financial interests they have in the city that might affect their municipal counillor activities. No explanation has ever been given for this request.


[Note that this item is not included in council's procedure - specifically, Bylaw #10 of 2005, as amended by Bylaw #23 of 2008 and Bylaw #32 of 2006. In addition, re-read my comments posted February 25, 2009, under "Submission of Pecuniary Interest Forms."]



Development Permit Public Hearing - to allow a diamond cutting/polishing school and store at 1203 Central Ave. (formerly the Bank of Nova Scotia)

- Brian Clavier spoke in favour of the proposal, citing the optimism and tenacity of the proponent - in light of the current downturn in the industry, as evident from an article on page B6 of the March 24, 2009 Star-Phoenix. He also expressed the hope that the sidewalks adjacent to the property would now be cleared of snow and ice in the winter, something which has not happened since the bank moved out four years ago.

- THE VOTE (to allow the development permit): 7 - 0 in favour.


7:13 PM




Gratitude for Homelessness Initiatives: The Chair Must Speak

- Mike Mitchell, the Co-Chair of the Homelessness Partnering Strategy Community Advisory Board, said that almost $200,000 had been made available to the city under this federal government program.

- Mayor Scarrow asked Councillor Atkinson, the Chair of the Housing Committee, to speak on the committee's behalf inresponse to the letter of gratitude to the city from Mike Mitchell.

- Councillor Atkinson said there were avenues for this program that were now available, where they were not before.



Transient Traders Can't Afford to Work in PA . . . .

- Lorena Baker spoke in response to a letter to council from Brian Zinchak Publishing, whose photography business was asked to pay for a $500 "transient trader" license to photograph at the Ukrainian dance festival [his work can be seen at http://www.zinchuk.ca/hockeysamples/]. She has operated a home-based yard design business in the RM of PA since 2005. In 2007 she was asked by the City of PA to purchase a transient trader license for each yard she worked on in the city. In Saskatoon she pays for a "seasonal trader" license, at $95, plus a $75 fee. She asked Lyn Brown, the CEO of the Prince Albert & District Chamber of Commerce, to look into this issue. Lyn's reponse at the time was that the licensing barriers to doing business in PA were not likely to change.

- Councillor Dionne, in defense of the license fee, said that local businesses pay property taxes, and the fee is a tax.

- Councillor Ring said the city has to stay competitive with Regina, Saskatoon, and Moose Jaw in this area. He asked how many of these licenses are sold in a year, and how many businesses are "turned away."

- Councillor Atkinson said there is no business license requirement for vendors at the PA Exhibition, or the farmer's market, or the temporary booths at the Gateway Mall. He insisted this is not about "tax."

- Councillor Dionne clarified that the Gateway Mall pays the city an annual $5000 transient trader blanket fee on behalf of all the transient businesses that set up there.

- THE VOTE (to receive and file the letter, and have administration prepare a report on business licensing): 7 - 0 in favour.



Extend My Deadline - Again

- David Maxemiuk, who is renovating his rental property at 219 - 9th St. East, asked for an extension (to September 30, 2010) on his deadline for completing the work. [The deadline was originally May 29, 2009, as granted by city council on January 22, 2009.]

- Councillor Zurakowski, noting the difficulties in finding plumbers, electricians, and other tradespeople, moved an extension to September 1, 2009. Mr. Maxemiuk replied that this was better than May 29.



7:37 PM Mr. Maxemiuk and Lorena Baker leave. Three people remain in the public gallery.



New E-Waste and Battery Recycling Entrepreneur

["Computer waste" is currently collected by SARCAN. Old cell phones can be dropped off at Future Shop. This item refers to Paul Depeel Metal (PDM) Contracting setting up collection depots at the landfill and the city yards (the latter location for city staff use . . .) for all types of batteries and electronic waste, and paying the city $110/month plus taxes.]

- Councillor Atkinson asked if this will be competition for SARCAN.


- Public Work Director Colin Innes said no [??]. This will allow drop-off points that are convenient to the public.


- Councillor Zurakowski said he will put SARCAN recycling on the agenda for next month.



7:42 PM


Airplane Movements Growing Like Topsy due to Uranium Company Activity?

[The Airport Master Plan was presented to council. A public meeting to present the report's findings will eventually be held.]

- Councillor Atkinson noted that there was no explanation in the preport for the predictions of increased plane movements [from 2008 to 2031. Since 1996, these have fluctuated wildly - up and down. See pages 60 and 61 of the background documents at http://www.citypa.ca/Portals/0/PDF2/Council_Agenda/2009/2009%2004%2006%20-%20Order%20of%20Business/Agenda%20-%20Pages%201%20-%20209.pdf.]

- City Manager Cotterill said that although the trend is an increase, there is nothing on the horizon to indicate these [numbers].


More Free Garbage!

- Mayor Scarrow moved to add two more free weeks (May 11-16 and August 17-22) at the landfill [to the three listed in the report: June 1-6, September 21-26, and December 28-31]. He asked why no tires are accepted during free weeks. Director Innes referred to the sanitation manager's comment that more revenue is needed to pay for completion of the cutoff wall. The mayor moved an amendment to allow four passeneger vehicle tires with no fee, in each week.

- Councillor Atkinson [repeating something he has volunteered many times] said we have no idea who uses the landfill during these weeks; it should be for city residents; we could put coupons in water bills; there are 10,000 vehicles visiting the landfill during free weeks; we have no idea what weight of material they are depositing; and the $50,000 cost to the city for this program is only a guess.

- Councillor Zurakowski asked if there were any provincial initiatives for tire collection, and whether an additional recycling pickup at Christmas is possible.

- Director Innes said the city had participated in the provincial tire program [and that is no longer an option].

- Councillor Dionne said vehicles are weighed during free week. [Having used this service myself in each of the past four years, the truth is that it happens sometimes, sometimes not]. He says showing a driver's license could be used to prove city residency.

- Councillor Atkinson said Christmas wrapping paper is not recyclable.

- Mayor Scarrow said the free week dates should be published in advance, and that these free weeks help beautify the city.

- Councillor Williams reminded council that he and Councillor Atkinson have helped people with this service ion the past. Tracking which areas of the city use the free week service would be useful. He would like to see changes to the program.

- Councillor Ring agreed that keeping track of the users, remembering that North Central Waste Management Corporation members are participating, is important. Hazardous waste collection week should also be advertized.

- Mayor Scarrow states "Question!" [Chair recognizes Councillor Dionne, fortunately.]

- Councillor Dionne says there should also be education on composting pickups.

- THE VOTE (to add two weeks to the proposed three free weeks at the landfill, and approve the program): 6 - 1 in favour, Councillor Williams opposed.



Let's Spend MORE!

[In response to a report from Director of Public Works Innes, council approved sending an application to the Building Canada Fund for $8 million towards modifications at the water treatment plant and reservoirs - part of a $24 million tab that sees the province and the city each pick up $8 million.]

[In response to a report from City Manager Cotterill, council approved contributing $200,000 towards the construction of a heavy haul (grid) truck route in the RM of PA. It will connect highway 302 to highway 2, via a route west of the Saskatchewan Penitentiary and Elevator Road on the south side of the city. The intent is to reduce heavy truck traffic on 15th St. West and 2nd Ave. West.]


No member of council commented on these reports.


Slam Dunk on 2009 Operating and Capital Budgets Misses Hoop (Everyone Wants in on this Topic . . . .)

- Mayor Scarrow, noting that the list of recommendations is long [and hoping to give the budget bylaw all three required readings at this meeting], proclaims "Time is our enemy" [though there is no such enemy in Saskatoon, whose council passed that city's operating budget on April 20, 2009].

- Councillor Atkinson says there are some good things in the budget, pointing to the uses of the MEEP money from the province. He has several concerns. He asks whether growth in the police budget might become so high council can no longer support it; notes that this is the first year in the last three that money has been allocated to the fiscal stabilization ["rainy day"] fund, which stood at $2 million, and is now down to $200,000; and complains that the public had very little time to review the budget, and councillors only four days.

- Mayor Scarrow counters that the largest withdrawal from the fiscal stabilization fund was in 2006, before he was on council, and Atkinson has some responsibility for that because he was on council then. He admits the current council passed two consecutive 6% tax increases, but says there will be more money next year because the province will be sharing 100% of 1% of the [5%] Provincial Sales Tax with the province's municipalities - estimated at $20 to $30 million more than in 2009. He also says that the city had to give some indication to the province that the money the city receives would go to tax relief for residents. He says Regina and Estevan also had o% tax increases, and several other cities were less than 3%.

- Councillor Atkinson replies that most councils have dipped into the fiscal stabilization fund in the last nine years, yet they still put money into the fund, whereas this council has not. He says tax increases equal to the increase in the cost of living (about 2%) are reasonable, and projects set aside to 2010 and 2011 will cost more.

- Mayor Scarrow says MEEP is allowing the city to do projects.


8:12 PM


- Councillor Zurakowski posits that the budget moves us forward in a fiscally responsible way. He says grants to community clubs have been increased, with $50,000 for capital improvements at each one. He states that councillors are finding "too more" and "too less" [sic] in the budget from one week to the next.

- Councillor Dionne asks for a report on the good things we do [this was not in the form of a motion, so no vote was taken]. Four new projects were funded by the province, and he hopes for four more from the federal government. Since he is going to Ottawa next week, and the federal goverment has committed to 2500 more projects, he suggests "we can make a dint in crime" [a bizarre non sequitur, until you remember he became the President of the Canadian Association of Police Boards in July 2008].

- Councillor Williams agrees that the timeline to digest the budget was short - five hours [actually, four hours and fifteen minutes, less 30 minutes for lunch, were what council spent discussing the budgets onMarch 27 - see my April 2 posting, "Record-Breaking Breeze Through Budget"], including a break, to look at $45 million in expenditures. He says there needs to be more time to review it next year. He pointed to $35,000 more for the SPCA, and $50,000 or $45,000 to Cook Municipal [Golf Course] celebrations. Bridge enhancements were pushed back to a later date, and the $10,000 needed for defibrillators is relying on donations. He says it was very rushed, and he didn't feel comfortable, in spite of the good things in it.

- Councillor Matheson called it a good budget, saying "I'm shocked we wouldn't be in support of a 0% increase." He adds that (the golf course's) "100-year anniversary doesn't happen all the time." [Apparently, he has noticed that it only happens ONCE every one hundred years . . . .] He praised administration, who "put in a lot of work" and "makes us all look pretty good." He says"possibly" we could have put in more time on the budget.

- Councillor Dionne proclaims that "the budget process for Councillor Dionne and ward 2 is a three-hundred-and-sixty-five day process" [with no time off for good behaviour, obviously . . . .], not four days. He says, "I don't have to know the detail." Council members "have to keep up with the thing," and their "job is to oversee, 365 days a year."

- Councillor Ring, as Chair of the Committee of the Whole, notes "I do have the last say." He says the budget was rushed, but he has a day job, and sits on 14 committees. "We put faith in administration," and they have been working hard. He also says, "We can't micro-manage" and "timing comes down to when the provincial government budget comes down." [The City of Saskatoon was not in this boat, apparently, since their council took more time to discuss and pass that city's budget].

- Finance Director Day says that future budgets will go smoother, with respect to timing. Since there is more certainty now about provincial government funding, this will accelerate the process.

- Mayor Scarrow blurts out: "I ran the meeting. Nobody said 'whoa!' "

- THE VOTE (to approve the budgets): 5 - 2 in favour, Councillors Atkinson and Williams opposed. As it is a recorded vote, the Mayor feels he is entitled to say, when his name is called, "I'm voting for a 0% increase in taxes for the City of Prince Albert." After the result is announced, he adds [much to everyone's surprise, since it is evident he is usurping the functions of the City Clerk] that "If this is not given three readings tonight, we will be meeting on Wednesday at eight AM!"


8:27 PM


(Stretch) Limo Service Gets Fast Track

[Don Wood, a health region employee, was at council last month trying to get a city license for his limousine service.]

- Councilor Atkinson says this change to the bus bylaw is a short-term solution.

- Public Works Director Innes says administration will bring back a new bylaw.

- Councillor Zurakowski says this is a business-friendly response to the proposed limo service.

- Councillor Atkinson thanked administration for expediting the matter.

- Mayor Scarrow barks "Question!"

- THE VOTE (to delete the section of the bus bylaw preventing Mr. Wood from operating a limo service, and referring Bylaw 10 of 2009 to the bylaw section of the meeting): 7 - 0 in favour.


Events Attended by Council . . . .

- Councillor Atkinson attended the silver ring ceremony for foresters.
- Councillor Matheson, citing the "events that I was gone to" [sic], attended the Saskatchewan Finance Minister's breakfast, a recognition of Jayne Remenda's work, the Premier's dinner, breakfast with the Mayor of Kincardine, the Business Retention and Expansion results gathering, and a planning sesssion with Community Futures.
- Mayor Scarrow went to a Community Networking Coalition meeting, a cancer fair at First Nations University of Canada, the 20th radio marathon for Children's Haven, the Building Mentorship session at The Loft, and [patting himself squarely on the back and slapping both shoulders] said "I ran a very effectiveMarch 27th meeting where nobody shouted 'whoa!' . . . That's a sense of humour coming through there." His duties also took him to an Indian-Metis Friendship Centre pow wow, the Premier's dinner, the Jubilation program dinner, the Advantage Credit Union opening in the east end [this is the third financial institution to desert the downtown area and move to the east end in the past four years], a SUMA board meeting, and the Ukrainian Dance Festival.


8:42 PM


Inquiries: Unacceptable Garbage and Clean, Clean , Clean!

- Councillor Dionne asked if the communications manager could help educate the public about large furniture (chesterfields, etc.) not being picked up by the city's garbage trucks.

- Councillor Matheson praised the city buses as being "shiny clean" in spite of wet streets. He said they were "very impressive." [Also outside the realm of an 'inquiry' . . . .] He requested people to "take a second and pick up garbage."


Third Reading of Tax Bylaw Denied & Decried

- First and Second Reading of the 2009 property tax bylaw were voted on with a recorded vote. Councillor Matheson moved the motions, seconded by Councillor Ring. Both votes were 5 - 2 in favour, Councillors Atkinson and Williams opposed.

- The motion to grant leave to read the bylaw a third time was also moved and seconded by Councillors Matheson and Ring. The vote was again 5 - 2 in favour, Councillors Atkinson and Williams opposed. [However, it only takes ONE negative vote on such a motion to postpone third reading to a subsequent meeting of council.]

[Opposition to granting third reading to a bylaw in the same meeting as the 1st and 2nd readings is not only legal, the right to "block" third reading is an important feature of The Cities Act. Councillor Dionne and Mayor Scarrow, immediately after the negative vote on granting leave, intimated their opposition to this feature of municipal democracy being used in a council chamber where they sit.]

- Councillor Dionne asked if this "unnecessary delay" would cost the city anything.

- Finance Director Day said "no," other than the cost of another council meeting.
- Mayor Scarrow launched into a tirade against Councillors Atkinson and Williams. In his interjected reply, Councillor Williams shouted loudly. Mayor Scarrow did ask Councillor Atkinson if he wanted to reply. Councillor Atkinson replied, and Councillor Dionne also commented. Other members of council were silent.

[The details of these lengthy exchanges are important. I will provide a word-for-word rendition of the accusations and responses in a future post . . . .]

- City Clerk Skauge told council that the meeting to deal with Third Reading of the property tax bylaw would be at noon on Wednesday, April 8.

- Mayor Scarrow thanked Shaw Cable, the Herald and Rawlco radio reporters, and administation for being at the meeting [but not Rick Potratz and Brian Clavier, both of whom stayed to the end].


8:56 PM Meeting Adjourned.


[The April 8 meeting lasted four minutes. Councillors Gervais, Swystun, and Williams were absent. The Mayor ignored the written agenda item about submission of pecuniary interest forms. He immediately called "Question!" after introducing the report on Bylaw 9 of 2009.

Councillors Matheson and Ring moved and seconded the motion on 3rd reading of Bylaw 9 . Councillor Dionne said he had five phone calls questioning the delay in passing the bylaw, and said he was certain no one on council had received a call supporting the opposing point of view. {I wonder how he succeeded in monitoring their phone lines . . . .} The vote was 5 - 1 in favour, Councillor Atkinson opposed.]

Off the Rails 6

They Came, They Signed, They Sang. . .
They'll be Back .

Respite from the lengthy prose.

The photos were taken at the Renewable-Power-The-Intelligent-Choice (RPIC) rally at City Hall. Three city councillors joined the crowd for a while. The group will be making a presentation at the city council meeting on April 27, 2009.

Left click to enlarge (photo sizes range from 600 KB to 1.2 MB). For non-commercial, personal use only.