Hi. I did not make it to the Spring Joint Council meeting.
Afterwards, I was called into the Mayor's office because of my blog in late March or so was discussed at that meeting and found wanting. It seems some of my colleagues on Town and County Council objected to aspects of the blog.
The Mayor supported my right to speak. But he told me that Joint Council had instructed him to remind me that the three councils voted to hold those meetings In Camera or closed to the public and press. Joint Council then recalled that it had failed to make a Press Release available after those meeting (something it had committed to do after its first one last year). So, a pyrric victory. No more reporting from those mtgs by Mike G, but look for the press release.
One parallel thought.
When Town Council votes to hold closed Joint Council Meetings, that vote should come as a motion on our Town Council Agenda, and be taken and recorded in public. At least then the public will get a clear sense of who likes open democracy, and who doesn't.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Census 2006 and Athabasca
The basic population growth numbers for Canada were released this week. The trend for Athabasca is looking up, and looking good. The County is holding steady. And, growth in year round residents at Island Lake and around Baptist Lake has been enormous.
Growth around the lakes raises two issues: concerns about ecological sustainability of the lakes and overbuilding; and the need for tax support for the Town whose residents pay for all the human services for those 'Summer' Village residents. More about that later.
2006 Census Athabasca
The 2006 Census shows the Town of Athabasca grew by 6.6 percent and Athabasca County at a low 0.9 percent growth. Canada's population growth rate was 5.4 and the AB Province 10.6 percent.
Clik
That 2006 Census rate of growth for the Town has doubled from the 2001 Census which showed the Town of Athabasca grew 4.4 percent between 1995 and 2001, and the County at 0.9, the same rate as the 2006 census. The national average in 2001 was 4 percent and AB grew at 10 percent.
Clik
In the new 2006 Census there are some interesting patterns across Rural Canada. According to Statistics Canada - " Canada's population in small towns and rural areas grew by 1.0% between 2001 and 2006, after declining by 0.4% in the previous intercensal period. In 2006, just under 20% of Canadians (6.0 million people) were living in rural areas, that is, in areas located outside urban centres with a population of at least 10,000. (So for a small Town, Athabasca is growing 6 times the national average - MG).
Rural growth often depends on proximity to large urban centres. There are two types of rural areas: those close to urban centres, and those which are more remote. In rural areas close to urban centres, more than 30% of the labour force commutes to work in the urban centre. In these rural areas, population growth between 2001 and 2006 (+4.7%)was close to the national average (+5.4%). Population growth in such
locations is often associated with the presence of small towns that are easily accessible by highway from an urban centre.
In remote rural areas located farther from urban centres, the population remained nearly the same as in 2001 (-0.1%). These areas for example also lost population in the previous intercensal period. The lack of growth in such areas is often due to the fact that young adults move to metropolitan areas to pursue their education or find a job."
************
In 2006 Athabasca is one of the few small Towns bucking the rural trend of low or no growth north of Edmonton, and doing it nicely. Most of our neighbours (some much closer to Ecity) are losing people, not gaining as we have. It is worth noting how population declined in Smoky Lake - 0.1 and Lac La Biche -0.6; the low growth in Barrhead (0.1); Boyle (1.0); High Prairie (.5) and Slave Lake (1.6), and the modest growth in Westlock 3.9 percent (or 189 new people compared to Athabasca's growth of 160 people, which begs the question of why there is considerable re-investment by the province in health care in Westlock and Westlock County (0.7) which are growing more slowly and located closer to hospitals and specialists in St Albert)... Hmmm.
The big growth in the region was at the lakes west of Town in the Summer Villages -
Island Lake grew 76.4 percent from 199 to 351 residents (or up 152);
Island Lake South SV grew 47.6 percent from 71 to 105 residents (up 34);
South Baptiste grew from 44 to 69 residents or 56.8 percent (up 25);
Sunset Beach grew from 50 to 88 or 76 percent, (up 38).
West Baptiste grew from 46 to 104, (up 58);
That's a whopping 307 more residents (or almost twice the raw increase in the Town of Athabasca. Hmmm
Neither the town (nor County) receive any significant tax support from these villages (where taxes are very low compared to property values - BTW), yet the Town provides commercial services, schools, elder care, health services, recreation facilities, churches, doctors, dentists, etc, etc., to their residents. Keep in mind that we DO have over 20 cost sharing agreements with the County whose residents use the same Town services. Hmmm
Other Comparisions
When you look at towns about our size outside Edmonton
their growth was weaker. Both Gibbons -.5 and Redwater 0.9 are about our size or a bit larger. So Athabasca is doing real well.
If I had to venture a guess, I would argue that the investment the Town Council has made over the last few years...in all areas...has really helped, as has the job security and recent boom growth at Athabasca University, and the steady work at the pulp mill. But don't forget the efforts on the Riverfront and with Communities in Bloom to make the Town look good and feel so well looked after. Our Town.
It will be interesting, later in the year, when Statistics Canada releases
the age, education, workforce and income information, to review our other local patterns, so we can plan for the future.
A good news story for Athabasca. Now if we can just become more sustainable, low fossil fuel dependent, and begin to adopt green thinking like they are doing in Sweden, Clik Herewe might have something to pass on to future generations.
Mike
Growth around the lakes raises two issues: concerns about ecological sustainability of the lakes and overbuilding; and the need for tax support for the Town whose residents pay for all the human services for those 'Summer' Village residents. More about that later.
2006 Census Athabasca
The 2006 Census shows the Town of Athabasca grew by 6.6 percent and Athabasca County at a low 0.9 percent growth. Canada's population growth rate was 5.4 and the AB Province 10.6 percent.
Clik
That 2006 Census rate of growth for the Town has doubled from the 2001 Census which showed the Town of Athabasca grew 4.4 percent between 1995 and 2001, and the County at 0.9, the same rate as the 2006 census. The national average in 2001 was 4 percent and AB grew at 10 percent.
Clik
In the new 2006 Census there are some interesting patterns across Rural Canada. According to Statistics Canada - " Canada's population in small towns and rural areas grew by 1.0% between 2001 and 2006, after declining by 0.4% in the previous intercensal period. In 2006, just under 20% of Canadians (6.0 million people) were living in rural areas, that is, in areas located outside urban centres with a population of at least 10,000. (So for a small Town, Athabasca is growing 6 times the national average - MG).
Rural growth often depends on proximity to large urban centres. There are two types of rural areas: those close to urban centres, and those which are more remote. In rural areas close to urban centres, more than 30% of the labour force commutes to work in the urban centre. In these rural areas, population growth between 2001 and 2006 (+4.7%)was close to the national average (+5.4%). Population growth in such
locations is often associated with the presence of small towns that are easily accessible by highway from an urban centre.
In remote rural areas located farther from urban centres, the population remained nearly the same as in 2001 (-0.1%). These areas for example also lost population in the previous intercensal period. The lack of growth in such areas is often due to the fact that young adults move to metropolitan areas to pursue their education or find a job."
************
In 2006 Athabasca is one of the few small Towns bucking the rural trend of low or no growth north of Edmonton, and doing it nicely. Most of our neighbours (some much closer to Ecity) are losing people, not gaining as we have. It is worth noting how population declined in Smoky Lake - 0.1 and Lac La Biche -0.6; the low growth in Barrhead (0.1); Boyle (1.0); High Prairie (.5) and Slave Lake (1.6), and the modest growth in Westlock 3.9 percent (or 189 new people compared to Athabasca's growth of 160 people, which begs the question of why there is considerable re-investment by the province in health care in Westlock and Westlock County (0.7) which are growing more slowly and located closer to hospitals and specialists in St Albert)... Hmmm.
The big growth in the region was at the lakes west of Town in the Summer Villages -
Island Lake grew 76.4 percent from 199 to 351 residents (or up 152);
Island Lake South SV grew 47.6 percent from 71 to 105 residents (up 34);
South Baptiste grew from 44 to 69 residents or 56.8 percent (up 25);
Sunset Beach grew from 50 to 88 or 76 percent, (up 38).
West Baptiste grew from 46 to 104, (up 58);
That's a whopping 307 more residents (or almost twice the raw increase in the Town of Athabasca. Hmmm
Neither the town (nor County) receive any significant tax support from these villages (where taxes are very low compared to property values - BTW), yet the Town provides commercial services, schools, elder care, health services, recreation facilities, churches, doctors, dentists, etc, etc., to their residents. Keep in mind that we DO have over 20 cost sharing agreements with the County whose residents use the same Town services. Hmmm
Other Comparisions
When you look at towns about our size outside Edmonton
their growth was weaker. Both Gibbons -.5 and Redwater 0.9 are about our size or a bit larger. So Athabasca is doing real well.
If I had to venture a guess, I would argue that the investment the Town Council has made over the last few years...in all areas...has really helped, as has the job security and recent boom growth at Athabasca University, and the steady work at the pulp mill. But don't forget the efforts on the Riverfront and with Communities in Bloom to make the Town look good and feel so well looked after. Our Town.
It will be interesting, later in the year, when Statistics Canada releases
the age, education, workforce and income information, to review our other local patterns, so we can plan for the future.
A good news story for Athabasca. Now if we can just become more sustainable, low fossil fuel dependent, and begin to adopt green thinking like they are doing in Sweden, Clik Herewe might have something to pass on to future generations.
Mike
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Condo Conversion and Rental Shortages
Last week the Municipal Planning Commission (comprised of the Mayor and four councillors) had to consider a request to convert one of Athabasca's few apartment buildings (with 12 units) to a condominium.
The conversion of apartments to condominiums is a hot issue in Edmonton and other parts of the province, as renters are pushed out of their homes to make way for condo buyers. This has resulted in a huge shortage of affordable rental accomodations, and a rent hike squeeze for those who are lucky enought to have a place to live.
Under the Municipal Government Act council cannot deny a condo conversion, but other cities, concerned about keeping a good supply of rental apartments available, have intervened and shown civic leadership to protect renters, and especially to encourage Apartment Building owners to assist renters to become condo owners.
Other cities have worked with owners and money lenders (such as Credit Unions and the CMHC) to make every effort to assist renters to become condo owners. According to the editorial in last Saturdays Ed. Journal, some cities have brought in tax penalties and other measures to slow or control the process of condo conversion. In other words, a socially conscious council can express its concerns about condo conversion and its support for renters and affordable housing as a social issue, not simply defend the status quo as the free market at work, and roll over as if councillors are powerless to address decisions by property owners, or worse, ignore the impact on our community. According to one of my friinds looking for an apartment in Athabasca last week, the wait list may be almost 50 people long, and getting longer, just to be considered for a rental.
I brought up these issues for discussion (it did not make the paper because the Advocate reporter does not attend MPC) and I proposed a motion that we draft a letter encouraging a social commitment from the owner (who lives in Edmonton) to the renters (who live in Athabasca)and ask him to consider at least to approach the current mortgage holder of his building about helping renters get affordable mortgages so they could have first dibs on the condo unit. My motion did not receive a seconder.
No interest.
Why should that bother Athabascans?
1) If not the Mayor and Council, who is supposed to show civic leadership and put the collective or community needs ahead of private self-interest. Councillors should draw on their backgrounds as lawyers or business people, or bankers, or professors, but in the end we are supposed to also be open to all aspects of an issue, to see things from the point of view of local citizens, especially those citizens who are most vulverable such as youth, the aged, and those whose housing security is tenuous. That is civic leadership.
2) Mayor Verhaeghe and Councillor O'Farrell had to ask the CAO where the building was located before they offered their opinions supporting owners rights and explaining how council should stay out of what, to them, was an owners decision. Councillor Hawryluk felt that the market would sort it out, and people would find places to rent.
3) Nobody was interested even in a letter of concern to the owner expressing our support for the renters who live and work in our own town, even if, according to the Town's own sub committee on Community Economic Development, there is a major shortage of affordable housing and rental housing in Athabasca.
Go figure.
MikeG
The conversion of apartments to condominiums is a hot issue in Edmonton and other parts of the province, as renters are pushed out of their homes to make way for condo buyers. This has resulted in a huge shortage of affordable rental accomodations, and a rent hike squeeze for those who are lucky enought to have a place to live.
Under the Municipal Government Act council cannot deny a condo conversion, but other cities, concerned about keeping a good supply of rental apartments available, have intervened and shown civic leadership to protect renters, and especially to encourage Apartment Building owners to assist renters to become condo owners.
Other cities have worked with owners and money lenders (such as Credit Unions and the CMHC) to make every effort to assist renters to become condo owners. According to the editorial in last Saturdays Ed. Journal, some cities have brought in tax penalties and other measures to slow or control the process of condo conversion. In other words, a socially conscious council can express its concerns about condo conversion and its support for renters and affordable housing as a social issue, not simply defend the status quo as the free market at work, and roll over as if councillors are powerless to address decisions by property owners, or worse, ignore the impact on our community. According to one of my friinds looking for an apartment in Athabasca last week, the wait list may be almost 50 people long, and getting longer, just to be considered for a rental.
I brought up these issues for discussion (it did not make the paper because the Advocate reporter does not attend MPC) and I proposed a motion that we draft a letter encouraging a social commitment from the owner (who lives in Edmonton) to the renters (who live in Athabasca)and ask him to consider at least to approach the current mortgage holder of his building about helping renters get affordable mortgages so they could have first dibs on the condo unit. My motion did not receive a seconder.
No interest.
Why should that bother Athabascans?
1) If not the Mayor and Council, who is supposed to show civic leadership and put the collective or community needs ahead of private self-interest. Councillors should draw on their backgrounds as lawyers or business people, or bankers, or professors, but in the end we are supposed to also be open to all aspects of an issue, to see things from the point of view of local citizens, especially those citizens who are most vulverable such as youth, the aged, and those whose housing security is tenuous. That is civic leadership.
2) Mayor Verhaeghe and Councillor O'Farrell had to ask the CAO where the building was located before they offered their opinions supporting owners rights and explaining how council should stay out of what, to them, was an owners decision. Councillor Hawryluk felt that the market would sort it out, and people would find places to rent.
3) Nobody was interested even in a letter of concern to the owner expressing our support for the renters who live and work in our own town, even if, according to the Town's own sub committee on Community Economic Development, there is a major shortage of affordable housing and rental housing in Athabasca.
Go figure.
MikeG
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Campground Relocation
CAMPGROUND RELOCATION - Council is split on this issue. We have two proposals in hand. One for the area east of the Tawatinaw along the riverfront. The other for the area south of Hwy 55 into the Tawatinaw Valley, entering the river valley just east of the new S.S. Athabasca carwash along the west side of the Tawatinaw river.
The community needs to think through the campground location options very carefully. There will be visuals of both options at the public meeting. We expect to hold a meeting in late March.
Option 1 - The riverfront east of the Tawatinaw. While it seems logical and desirable to do as we did in the past, and build the new campground on the riverfront, the proposed site directly east of the Tawatinaw is quite different than the previous Landing site. It is not a clear flat riverbank, but a heavily treed nature area.
Moving the campground there would massively disturb an intact forested area, and also impact the Bissel Conservation lands further along the river bend towards the bridge. The forest along that river bend is lovely mixedwood. In mass and form it made the old campground feel protected and provided a wonderful vista for all visitors. The campground proposal is for excavation of various sites into the trees, and a tiered campsite to provide pull-ins for fifth wheeles and campers. But the terrain is so uneven, earthwork will be required as the proposal assumes different elevations for the rows of campsites. Cutting out large campsites means that the remaining poplar trees will probably blow down more easily.
The campground proposed for east of Tawatinaw will be much closer to the highway traffic turning north to Calling Lake, even closer than the old campground had been. A new road will branch off of Hwy 55 at the Tawatinaw Bridge and run north between the campground and Hwy 55 on an angle over to the UFA Bulk Fuels entrance. This will bring truck and car traffic closer to campers.
I know that many people want to be nearer to the river. Closer to nature. But it doesnt make sense to me to destroy nature, in the name of allowing people to get closer to nature. Instead we could go with Option B below and still bring people over to the riverfront as a day park area, and even make a pedestrian bridge across the Tawatinaw and extend the Rotary trail east alongside these woods. That way people could appreciate the special remaining bit of treed riverfront, enjoy the river front all day long, and return to a nice quiet campsite across the street at night. See Option B.
Option B - In contrast, the proposed Tawatinaw Valley campground would bring people up into that river valley (which is quite beautiful and quiet). The sites are easier to build andd would not disturb many trees (the site has been disturbed decades ago as a lumber yard). The forest cover is thinner here, and younger, and the terrain is more open and flatter. Campers and fifth wheelrs would have a wonderful vista of forest on three sides).
The campground is designed with a safe pedestrian link under the highway to the riverfront (so people could access the day area, playgrounds, spray park, skateboard park and bike or walking trails). And campers or visitors could also go south into Tawatinaw valley on the Trans Canada Trail (and parts of the Historic Landing Trail). Athabascans I know seldom visit this valley (which is right in Town). It is a treasure. Check it out, and think through the campground options.
Let your Councillors know your preferences. If you have any questions, please email me at mikeg@athabascau.ca
The community needs to think through the campground location options very carefully. There will be visuals of both options at the public meeting. We expect to hold a meeting in late March.
Option 1 - The riverfront east of the Tawatinaw. While it seems logical and desirable to do as we did in the past, and build the new campground on the riverfront, the proposed site directly east of the Tawatinaw is quite different than the previous Landing site. It is not a clear flat riverbank, but a heavily treed nature area.
Moving the campground there would massively disturb an intact forested area, and also impact the Bissel Conservation lands further along the river bend towards the bridge. The forest along that river bend is lovely mixedwood. In mass and form it made the old campground feel protected and provided a wonderful vista for all visitors. The campground proposal is for excavation of various sites into the trees, and a tiered campsite to provide pull-ins for fifth wheeles and campers. But the terrain is so uneven, earthwork will be required as the proposal assumes different elevations for the rows of campsites. Cutting out large campsites means that the remaining poplar trees will probably blow down more easily.
The campground proposed for east of Tawatinaw will be much closer to the highway traffic turning north to Calling Lake, even closer than the old campground had been. A new road will branch off of Hwy 55 at the Tawatinaw Bridge and run north between the campground and Hwy 55 on an angle over to the UFA Bulk Fuels entrance. This will bring truck and car traffic closer to campers.
I know that many people want to be nearer to the river. Closer to nature. But it doesnt make sense to me to destroy nature, in the name of allowing people to get closer to nature. Instead we could go with Option B below and still bring people over to the riverfront as a day park area, and even make a pedestrian bridge across the Tawatinaw and extend the Rotary trail east alongside these woods. That way people could appreciate the special remaining bit of treed riverfront, enjoy the river front all day long, and return to a nice quiet campsite across the street at night. See Option B.
Option B - In contrast, the proposed Tawatinaw Valley campground would bring people up into that river valley (which is quite beautiful and quiet). The sites are easier to build andd would not disturb many trees (the site has been disturbed decades ago as a lumber yard). The forest cover is thinner here, and younger, and the terrain is more open and flatter. Campers and fifth wheelrs would have a wonderful vista of forest on three sides).
The campground is designed with a safe pedestrian link under the highway to the riverfront (so people could access the day area, playgrounds, spray park, skateboard park and bike or walking trails). And campers or visitors could also go south into Tawatinaw valley on the Trans Canada Trail (and parts of the Historic Landing Trail). Athabascans I know seldom visit this valley (which is right in Town). It is a treasure. Check it out, and think through the campground options.
Let your Councillors know your preferences. If you have any questions, please email me at mikeg@athabascau.ca
Council Mtg Highlights 20 February 2007
We had three delegations last night.
1. Landing Trails or TransCanada Trail representative Nadine Hallett asked for council's financial help to pay for the repair of a major sink hole and drainage culvert that caused part of the TransCanada Trail to wash away (and left a deep 10 foot hole). Council referred the money request to budget deliberations in march.
Council is trying to clarify who is responsible for TCT trail maintenance on Town land and whether or not our insurance would cover the trail (so the local group does not have to pay again). Insurance companies have taken advantage of the post-911 context to put the screws to every little group and make it harder and harder for Municipal Council's to offer them insurance coverage for events or projects.
2. Family and Community Support Services has asked for about a 100 percent increase in the Municipal portion of financial support for their operations. We referred this to budget, but there is good support for the change.
My concern was not with the level of FCSS service, but with the downloading of provincial responsibilities to fund human services to the local taxpayer and Municipality. Town Council has only property taxes as a vehicle to find money to pay for such human service programs. The Province has much larger taxing powers - through land leases and resource rents, income taxes, and even sales tax. Why not tax large corporate profits (Encana announced 7 billion in profit this week) or wealthy Albertans (go back to a progresive provincial tax instead of a 10 percent flat tax- why should a Grama on a modest pension pay the same provincial tax rate as a millionaire with stock options). With the money generated the Province could pay for preventative social programs like those offered by FCSS (in all regions- Athabasca is one of the few FCSS regions of the Province that offers good services). Why shift the tax burden for human services onto municipalities and homeowners and their property tax?
Also I suggested that Town and County Council write the Alberta Government and ask them to increase their support for Athabasca FCSS by 100 percent next year, just like the taxpayers of Athabasca region will do.
3. AB Infrastructure gave us an update on the bridge over the Tawatinaw and proposed intersection. The drawings are 80 percent complete, 90 percent by April. Before completing their plans, they want Council to hold a public meeting and make a decision on the future location of the campground (in the bush directly east of the Tawatinaw river or south of Hwy 55 alongside the Tawatinaw river in the valley. Once we decide on a site they can fine tune their drawings and Infrastructure will then hold a meeting on the intersection.
We agreed to hold our campground public meeting and get community feedback on the preferred location. Lets face it,however, this way AB Infrastructure lets Councillors take the heat for a controversial intersection plan which will destroy the east end of the riverfront, remove the campground, and channel the Tawatinaw based on their enginnering plans for a new intersection.
1. Landing Trails or TransCanada Trail representative Nadine Hallett asked for council's financial help to pay for the repair of a major sink hole and drainage culvert that caused part of the TransCanada Trail to wash away (and left a deep 10 foot hole). Council referred the money request to budget deliberations in march.
Council is trying to clarify who is responsible for TCT trail maintenance on Town land and whether or not our insurance would cover the trail (so the local group does not have to pay again). Insurance companies have taken advantage of the post-911 context to put the screws to every little group and make it harder and harder for Municipal Council's to offer them insurance coverage for events or projects.
2. Family and Community Support Services has asked for about a 100 percent increase in the Municipal portion of financial support for their operations. We referred this to budget, but there is good support for the change.
My concern was not with the level of FCSS service, but with the downloading of provincial responsibilities to fund human services to the local taxpayer and Municipality. Town Council has only property taxes as a vehicle to find money to pay for such human service programs. The Province has much larger taxing powers - through land leases and resource rents, income taxes, and even sales tax. Why not tax large corporate profits (Encana announced 7 billion in profit this week) or wealthy Albertans (go back to a progresive provincial tax instead of a 10 percent flat tax- why should a Grama on a modest pension pay the same provincial tax rate as a millionaire with stock options). With the money generated the Province could pay for preventative social programs like those offered by FCSS (in all regions- Athabasca is one of the few FCSS regions of the Province that offers good services). Why shift the tax burden for human services onto municipalities and homeowners and their property tax?
Also I suggested that Town and County Council write the Alberta Government and ask them to increase their support for Athabasca FCSS by 100 percent next year, just like the taxpayers of Athabasca region will do.
3. AB Infrastructure gave us an update on the bridge over the Tawatinaw and proposed intersection. The drawings are 80 percent complete, 90 percent by April. Before completing their plans, they want Council to hold a public meeting and make a decision on the future location of the campground (in the bush directly east of the Tawatinaw river or south of Hwy 55 alongside the Tawatinaw river in the valley. Once we decide on a site they can fine tune their drawings and Infrastructure will then hold a meeting on the intersection.
We agreed to hold our campground public meeting and get community feedback on the preferred location. Lets face it,however, this way AB Infrastructure lets Councillors take the heat for a controversial intersection plan which will destroy the east end of the riverfront, remove the campground, and channel the Tawatinaw based on their enginnering plans for a new intersection.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Run For Town Council This fall 2007
Consider running for Town Council this fall - 2007.
The Town needs people with vision and commitment to take us forward into the future.
We need people who are thinking critically about the issues of the age, not dwelling on the issues of the past.
There are two important qualifications.
1) The ability to work in a group, offer critical analysis and advice and develop knowledge through dialogue.
2) Good listening skills. 'Hear' is what one specialist who studies local planning and decision-making wrote -
The Town needs people with vision and commitment to take us forward into the future.
We need people who are thinking critically about the issues of the age, not dwelling on the issues of the past.
There are two important qualifications.
1) The ability to work in a group, offer critical analysis and advice and develop knowledge through dialogue.
2) Good listening skills. 'Hear' is what one specialist who studies local planning and decision-making wrote -
We can hear words, but miss what is meant. We can hear what is intended, but miss what is important. We can hear what is important, but neglect the person speaking. As we listen, though, we can learn and nurture relationships as well. Listening is an act of being attentive, a way of being in a moral world. We can make a difference by listening or failing to do so, and we can be held responsible as a result. Source: Forester 1998 Planning in the Face of Power cited in Sandercock, Cosmopolis II: Mongrel Cities in the 21st Century, 2003:76.
Part 2- Athabasca Region Joint Council Meeting - 10 January 2007
This blog stuff is time consuming.
But in the spirit of public openness.
Here are more of my notes about
the other agenda items discussed.
1. Alberta Hub (Cold Lake/Bonneville)did not come to the meeting. We are discussing with them whether or not to join a regional economic alliance with Hub, or with Growth Alberta (out of Westlock, Barrhead region). We met with Growth in the fall 2006. We will invite Hub to come in the future, but we need to decide which to join or to create our own hub. We find that we are a hybrid zone - a complex of agriculture and natural resource based industry (and public service employment). The impression is that Growth is agriculture focused, and HUB is resource focused. So, we need to get beyond these impressions and find the right fit. Apparently the Provinces wants all communities to align in these economic region/groups for their own benefit (and to qualify for funding).
One other issue is that the registration fees for HUB vs Growth differ considerably. The latter is much more expensive.
2. Rural Alberta Development Fund – Expression of Interest
The County drafted an application for funding to help us do more research into the design of regional economic development office, with an emphasis on job incubator, and day care, for example. The Town C. has approved sending in the application. Boyle wanted clarification. Their concern was to learn more about the intent of the application, and they expressed concern that day care was included (they do not see day care as a municipal issue).
Jim Woodward explained that we were hoping to take advantage of this new grant to further our planning in development are, and he argued that what he had in mind was not funding day care, but strengthening the infrastructure and training needed to run a break even day care.
3. Whispering Hills Day Care
This was on the agenda but no one could recall who put it there. When confronted with an opportunity, always take the time to educate. So, Mike G spoke in favor of municipal councils taking a role in day care issues. Day care is not a private issue (to be dealt with by parent/s) but a community and economic issue. Day care services are one part of the puzzle when trying to attract people to move here to work and take up residence. He noted how at AU we risk losing more people to the city if we do not provide a wide range of day care options – including a non profit day care that Council may want to support.
Some County and Boyle counselors mentioned that many ratepayers felt it was unfair to subsidize working people’s childcare, when others have made sacrifices to get family or parents to raise kids and received no government help.
I pointed out that this was not an option for all, especially when we are recruiting people from across the country and even internationally because we lack a trained local workforce. They don’t come with their families.
We need a mosaic of private, public, and personal solutions to the day care issue. The larger the service, the easier it is to generate enough funds to attract a trained, highly qualified day care director and staff.
4. Greater North Foundation Funding Discussion – http://athabasca.infomall.ca/greaternorth/
The three governments have all agreed to support regional seniors care residences in LLB and Athabasca. Each will pay their portions. The Cmt met with summer villages last week to outline their requisition portions. The Cmt will also meet with MD of Opportunity. If any or all of these groups do not support sharing in the funding of the service, the cmt will come back and ask the three of us to contribute more.
5. Regional Economic Development Issues
-see notes above on Hub and Growth discussion
- see notes above on decision and resolution on community economic development office/r.
6. Bulk Water Rates - Some county residents, water haulers, and councillors feel that the town raised the bulk water rates unfairly (from one dollar to two dollars per fill a few years ago), and that the water rates for country residents should be the same as those for town residents. The Town was asked to reconsider the issue. Lively, mostly uninformed, discussion by all sides ensued. TC will look into it, but I noted that when we go regional all this should go away with balanced tripartite (and public?) water board setting policy and rates for the region.
7. Regional Water – Boyle asked that now that they are in the regional system, they desire to be a full partner at the table with the province when meetings occur. They noted that they were not invited to the mtg announcing the Athabasca hub. They want lots of notice. Agreed.
8. Curling Rinks – Curling Club in Boyle has asked County for assistance, based on number of users who reside in County. They note County has assisted Athabasca and they should assist Boyle. County sees this as one of the ripple on effects of their supporting the Multiplex. The two parties agreed to meet. The message to TC was that this is a cost incurred because of their participatiojn in Multiplex, so we should not ask them for more help. Hmm. We agrees to disagree and go home for now.
Good meeting. To bad you were not there.
Next Mtg - I missed the date but there will be one.
But in the spirit of public openness.
Here are more of my notes about
the other agenda items discussed.
1. Alberta Hub (Cold Lake/Bonneville)did not come to the meeting. We are discussing with them whether or not to join a regional economic alliance with Hub, or with Growth Alberta (out of Westlock, Barrhead region). We met with Growth in the fall 2006. We will invite Hub to come in the future, but we need to decide which to join or to create our own hub. We find that we are a hybrid zone - a complex of agriculture and natural resource based industry (and public service employment). The impression is that Growth is agriculture focused, and HUB is resource focused. So, we need to get beyond these impressions and find the right fit. Apparently the Provinces wants all communities to align in these economic region/groups for their own benefit (and to qualify for funding).
One other issue is that the registration fees for HUB vs Growth differ considerably. The latter is much more expensive.
2. Rural Alberta Development Fund – Expression of Interest
The County drafted an application for funding to help us do more research into the design of regional economic development office, with an emphasis on job incubator, and day care, for example. The Town C. has approved sending in the application. Boyle wanted clarification. Their concern was to learn more about the intent of the application, and they expressed concern that day care was included (they do not see day care as a municipal issue).
Jim Woodward explained that we were hoping to take advantage of this new grant to further our planning in development are, and he argued that what he had in mind was not funding day care, but strengthening the infrastructure and training needed to run a break even day care.
3. Whispering Hills Day Care
This was on the agenda but no one could recall who put it there. When confronted with an opportunity, always take the time to educate. So, Mike G spoke in favor of municipal councils taking a role in day care issues. Day care is not a private issue (to be dealt with by parent/s) but a community and economic issue. Day care services are one part of the puzzle when trying to attract people to move here to work and take up residence. He noted how at AU we risk losing more people to the city if we do not provide a wide range of day care options – including a non profit day care that Council may want to support.
Some County and Boyle counselors mentioned that many ratepayers felt it was unfair to subsidize working people’s childcare, when others have made sacrifices to get family or parents to raise kids and received no government help.
I pointed out that this was not an option for all, especially when we are recruiting people from across the country and even internationally because we lack a trained local workforce. They don’t come with their families.
We need a mosaic of private, public, and personal solutions to the day care issue. The larger the service, the easier it is to generate enough funds to attract a trained, highly qualified day care director and staff.
4. Greater North Foundation Funding Discussion – http://athabasca.infomall.ca/greaternorth/
The three governments have all agreed to support regional seniors care residences in LLB and Athabasca. Each will pay their portions. The Cmt met with summer villages last week to outline their requisition portions. The Cmt will also meet with MD of Opportunity. If any or all of these groups do not support sharing in the funding of the service, the cmt will come back and ask the three of us to contribute more.
5. Regional Economic Development Issues
-see notes above on Hub and Growth discussion
- see notes above on decision and resolution on community economic development office/r.
6. Bulk Water Rates - Some county residents, water haulers, and councillors feel that the town raised the bulk water rates unfairly (from one dollar to two dollars per fill a few years ago), and that the water rates for country residents should be the same as those for town residents. The Town was asked to reconsider the issue. Lively, mostly uninformed, discussion by all sides ensued. TC will look into it, but I noted that when we go regional all this should go away with balanced tripartite (and public?) water board setting policy and rates for the region.
7. Regional Water – Boyle asked that now that they are in the regional system, they desire to be a full partner at the table with the province when meetings occur. They noted that they were not invited to the mtg announcing the Athabasca hub. They want lots of notice. Agreed.
8. Curling Rinks – Curling Club in Boyle has asked County for assistance, based on number of users who reside in County. They note County has assisted Athabasca and they should assist Boyle. County sees this as one of the ripple on effects of their supporting the Multiplex. The two parties agreed to meet. The message to TC was that this is a cost incurred because of their participatiojn in Multiplex, so we should not ask them for more help. Hmm. We agrees to disagree and go home for now.
Good meeting. To bad you were not there.
Next Mtg - I missed the date but there will be one.
JOINT COUNCIL MEETING 10 January 2007- Part 1 Here's What You (and the Press ) Missed
Elected representatives and Admin staff from County Council, Town of Athabasca and the Village of Boyle met last night to dine together and discuss regional issues in the privacy of Elsa's Dining Hall in Athabasca.
It was about minus 30 when I decided to walk over to Elsa's at about 545 last night. The twenty minute walk ( hey - my heavy Sorels slowed me down) was bracing. Met Edgar K. slipping across the snowbank in front of Elsa's. We entered a warm, steamy room. My glasses fogged up before I got my gloves off.
A few councillors and administrators were milling around, chatting. The room looked good. Dim lights. Wine colored table covers. Nice glasses and plate settings. Cosy round tables - the kind that encourage discussion, I guess. Floating on the dinner plate, an ominous one-page meeting agenda with 13 items. That gave new meaning to groaning board.
We ate roast beef, salads (dressing on the side for some of us concerned about politician paunch), lots of potatoes and vegetables. Coffee and pie for dessert. So much for weight watching.
The crowd was thin. No mayors or reeves in sight (from either town, village, or county). Quite a few councillors from each group couldnt make it. But that didn't hold us back. We forged on with regional discussion and dialogue and of course some good old fashioned "non decision decision-making" that included directions to take some motions and positions back to our respective councils for official decisions. Regional Government without regional government (or the press and the public.)Okay, I wont mention it again.
Barry Fraser presented the Athabasca Regional Community Economic Development Advisory Committee report. We had this a few days early and a discussion ensued.
The ARCED Advisory group has done some good thinking and it was appreciated. The revised proposal included a new and considerable emphasis on Community Economic Development, as opposed to simple economic development (see next posting for some examples of the differences). There was general support for this idea, but we identified many issues that need to be ironed out. That's normal when we are talking about spending up to $250,000 taxpayers dollars.
Town Council plans to make this paper public at the next Town Council meeting. But for now, here is a summary of the issues that came up. Barry provided a good summary, and asked that the three councils now act on the main recommendation of the committee to hire a Community Economic Development Officer. Basically, Barry affirmed that what we had in front of us was coming from their discussions with community groups across the region, and while Councils can make any changes we want, we should keep in mind what people have recommended. He also urged us to recognize that we now need to move ahead and take ownership of the issue or we will lose the impetus and public participation. He then took questions. Here are a few examples of the give and take.
Questions Arising
Jim from Boyle asked if we can brand the name differently so that Boyle has more identity in the process? They seemed interested but want to assure good service for their area. Boyle had been working with their own economic development consultant. A regional approach would have to promise more. The Athabasca County - Town of Athabasca - Boyle Regional Community Economic Development Office? ACTABOR-CED? Hmm.
Hugh O. from A_Town pointed out our keen interest in this kind of position, then ceded the chair.
MikeG from Town pointed out a few tensions or questions arising from his and Town Council's reading of the document
It was about minus 30 when I decided to walk over to Elsa's at about 545 last night. The twenty minute walk ( hey - my heavy Sorels slowed me down) was bracing. Met Edgar K. slipping across the snowbank in front of Elsa's. We entered a warm, steamy room. My glasses fogged up before I got my gloves off.
A few councillors and administrators were milling around, chatting. The room looked good. Dim lights. Wine colored table covers. Nice glasses and plate settings. Cosy round tables - the kind that encourage discussion, I guess. Floating on the dinner plate, an ominous one-page meeting agenda with 13 items. That gave new meaning to groaning board.
We ate roast beef, salads (dressing on the side for some of us concerned about politician paunch), lots of potatoes and vegetables. Coffee and pie for dessert. So much for weight watching.
The crowd was thin. No mayors or reeves in sight (from either town, village, or county). Quite a few councillors from each group couldnt make it. But that didn't hold us back. We forged on with regional discussion and dialogue and of course some good old fashioned "non decision decision-making" that included directions to take some motions and positions back to our respective councils for official decisions. Regional Government without regional government (or the press and the public.)Okay, I wont mention it again.
Barry Fraser presented the Athabasca Regional Community Economic Development Advisory Committee report. We had this a few days early and a discussion ensued.
The ARCED Advisory group has done some good thinking and it was appreciated. The revised proposal included a new and considerable emphasis on Community Economic Development, as opposed to simple economic development (see next posting for some examples of the differences). There was general support for this idea, but we identified many issues that need to be ironed out. That's normal when we are talking about spending up to $250,000 taxpayers dollars.
Town Council plans to make this paper public at the next Town Council meeting. But for now, here is a summary of the issues that came up. Barry provided a good summary, and asked that the three councils now act on the main recommendation of the committee to hire a Community Economic Development Officer. Basically, Barry affirmed that what we had in front of us was coming from their discussions with community groups across the region, and while Councils can make any changes we want, we should keep in mind what people have recommended. He also urged us to recognize that we now need to move ahead and take ownership of the issue or we will lose the impetus and public participation. He then took questions. Here are a few examples of the give and take.
Questions Arising
Jim from Boyle asked if we can brand the name differently so that Boyle has more identity in the process? They seemed interested but want to assure good service for their area. Boyle had been working with their own economic development consultant. A regional approach would have to promise more. The Athabasca County - Town of Athabasca - Boyle Regional Community Economic Development Office? ACTABOR-CED? Hmm.
Hugh O. from A_Town pointed out our keen interest in this kind of position, then ceded the chair.
MikeG from Town pointed out a few tensions or questions arising from his and Town Council's reading of the document
- There is some confusion (tension) between an emphasis on economic development and community economic development in the document - These two approaches don't always mix well. This document looks much improved and suggests ways accomplish both. Mike explained that the CED focus is important to the Town Council, who wish to see a good portion of the CED Office emphasize strengthening the whole community from the inside (working with small business, associations, health, education, day care, small business, trailing, youth, native friendship centre, social or non-profits housing and coop development) as well as attracting large business opportunities by outside investors etc.
- the Town has its own pressures that we hope to address with this position (working with local and outside developers, assisting associations and other groups doing public work) etc.
- working with community groups to strengthen their organizations and their efforts at offering services such as day care, (as well as other sectors that make the community strong such as non-profits, farmer's market, food bank, faith communities, social businesses like Native Friendship, Blue Heron etc.)
- The County representatives who spoke asked us to think big, but most of their examples were focused on chasing outside investors and new businesses like trucking firms, precisely the focus of ED but not CED (which does some of this but not all the time)...so some real differences in vision are apparent here. Not incompatible, but we need to be clear about the emphasis and the mix of responsibilities.
- Town recognized as well the need to clarify governance (Barry clarified that they were proposing at least 2 councillors from each community, as well as public advisers. This was new info and well received.). The municipal representation is now clearer. I also mentioned that the public advisory council makeup should draw representatives from those who share and practice the wider CED focus of the position, as well as the business focus.
- The biggest issue the Town raised was the need for more than one position because the job is large, the region is larger, and past practice shows that one person will find it too difficult. Barry told us that the committee had considered an office with a director and a staff person - or one director and one or two .5 people who might work more closely with each community (that is, be present so many days a week in Boyle and Athabasca or other hamlets). I suggested at least two people (one to focus on the east side of the region, one on the west side). The east-west idea was criticized by some County councillors who saw it as divisive. They argued for one person. The County CAO argued for one position too and that we needed to get on with things and think big. Councillors from Boyle and Athabasca were more interested in the larger concept of an Office with at least two staff, and some presence in communities on a regular basis. I reminded everyone that the my experience as Chair of Regional Tourism (which Boyle dropped out of) led me to conclude we needed more people to be present in the communities and work face to face. On second thought, I felt that we should think bigger - organize the office with two people with some common functions and some specializations by function and not by region - say both do research, marketing and region wide strategizing and coordination and communication; and then each one focuses - one on community strengthening, another on working with outside investors etc...Again, thinking big is good, but cost might be the real brake on all this.
Later in the meeting under Business Items more discussion occured but the final decision was for each council to go home, nominate two people to take this proposal to the next stage - focus the Office concept, governance model, budget sharing ideas, and refine job descriptions. Motion approved (opps 'non-motion motion' approved).
More agenda items - see next posting
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Words from the Past Still True Today
Here are some pts I made in my fall 2004 newsletter just before the elections.
"We need a more open process of regional government. The Town needs to get more tax support from County residents to finance services and facilities that Town taxpayers currently subsidize for the region. Most people are unconcerned with long term issues of ecological and energy sustainability. There is much work to do to forge a common vision. We need more forward looking thinking about protecting the ecosystems that sustain our food, water, energy, and jobs. "
Most of this remains true today in early 2007.
Start Here with the Google Map of the Town and County of Athabasca
"We need a more open process of regional government. The Town needs to get more tax support from County residents to finance services and facilities that Town taxpayers currently subsidize for the region. Most people are unconcerned with long term issues of ecological and energy sustainability. There is much work to do to forge a common vision. We need more forward looking thinking about protecting the ecosystems that sustain our food, water, energy, and jobs. "
Most of this remains true today in early 2007.
Start Here with the Google Map of the Town and County of Athabasca
Regional Politics
Regionally, the joint councils have twice voted against my motion to open our meetings (Town, County of Athabasca, Village of Boyle) to the press and the public . Even in Bush's America this would not be acceptable.
Regionally, the joint councils have twice voted against my motion to open our meetings (Town, County of Athabasca, Village of Boyle) to the press and the public . Even in Bush's America this would not be acceptable.
Green Planning Issues
Green issues continue to be hard to get from the table and into the books. At the Town level, we are inching towards some simple land use bylaw changes in water conservation for new homes (efficient taps, toilets, rain barrels etc.) and some incentives for existing home owners. We have copied some of the best practices in other communities such as Cochrane, Alberta. But it is moving at a snail's pace. We hope to have these in place before the new sub-divisions proposed around the Town reach the development stage.
Green issues continue to be hard to get from the table and into the books. At the Town level, we are inching towards some simple land use bylaw changes in water conservation for new homes (efficient taps, toilets, rain barrels etc.) and some incentives for existing home owners. We have copied some of the best practices in other communities such as Cochrane, Alberta. But it is moving at a snail's pace. We hope to have these in place before the new sub-divisions proposed around the Town reach the development stage.
Water for Whom?
We are moving towards a Regional Water System for the Town and County and Boyle. Funded by the Province and ideologically framed as part of the Province's 'Water for Life Strategy'. Town of Athabasca will be the main treatment facility hub, and the Athabasca River the main water source. But it remains almost impossible to get conservation issues into the regional agreement, which focuses mostly on engineering, pipeline capacity, and now governance and pricing issues. Education and conservation fall by the wayside (or are give lip service- that is, the oft heard statement - we will deal with those later). The Province is showing no leadership here. The funding should be conditional on a comprehensive conservation plan.
When we met with the Alberta Environment staff in the fall, I described their policy as "More Water for People, Less Water for Life Strategy." They sat on their hands.
We need to put ecosystem needs ahead of the demands of human users. We could start by reducing per capita consumption to European levels would be a good start (that is, from current levels in excess of 450 litre per capita per day).
Unfortunately the Department of Infrastructure controls the funds for regional water projects , not Environment. So engineers and politicians eager for votes drive the projects, not the people with longer visions concerned about sustaining life and ecosystems.
We (Town, County, and Village and various hamlets) are currently discussing the role of a shared community and economic development office and officer for the region. This has generated considerable interest and some debate about what exactly we need.
Some people favor an economic development officer, others are seeking a more traditional approach to Community Economic Development (CED) that focuses on community resilience and strengthening services such as housing, health, training, small business incubation, social economy, cooperatives etc.) Still others see a chance to combine both.
I favor at least two or three positions; we need someone to work in the Town and Environs area (to focus on the 6-8 thousand people in this area - including calling Lake) and probably another to work the Hwy 63 Corridor (from Boyle to Wandering River) who are experiencing a different aspect of the Fort McMurray boom.
For the Town and Environs, I favor a CED approach that focuses on creating a diversified and sustainable local economy, with an emphasis upon strengthening local business and groups, recruiting key new services and businesses, strengthening local associations and societies, and buying locally produced products and using local services.
We are moving towards a Regional Water System for the Town and County and Boyle. Funded by the Province and ideologically framed as part of the Province's 'Water for Life Strategy'. Town of Athabasca will be the main treatment facility hub, and the Athabasca River the main water source. But it remains almost impossible to get conservation issues into the regional agreement, which focuses mostly on engineering, pipeline capacity, and now governance and pricing issues. Education and conservation fall by the wayside (or are give lip service- that is, the oft heard statement - we will deal with those later). The Province is showing no leadership here. The funding should be conditional on a comprehensive conservation plan.
When we met with the Alberta Environment staff in the fall, I described their policy as "More Water for People, Less Water for Life Strategy." They sat on their hands.
We need to put ecosystem needs ahead of the demands of human users. We could start by reducing per capita consumption to European levels would be a good start (that is, from current levels in excess of 450 litre per capita per day).
Unfortunately the Department of Infrastructure controls the funds for regional water projects , not Environment. So engineers and politicians eager for votes drive the projects, not the people with longer visions concerned about sustaining life and ecosystems.
Economic Development
The Town has unique challenges. We are small, about 2600 people, and are surrounded by about another 4000 - 5000 people in the County who work, shop, and seek services in the Town, while living in the County and pay taxes there. While we have some agreements with the County to jointly fund key services, they are not permanent agreements, and are subject to review when councillors want, and always when Councils change at election. This precariousness puts the Town at risk, and creates a sense of dependence and reliance on a big brother County that causes many Town councillors not to rock the boat or to strongly question whether joint agreements are fair to all involved. For example, do they accurately reflect the proportional use of the services provided.
Millions of dollars in industrial and pipeline or linear tax base in the region also resides in the County, not the Town. So, property and home owners taxes are low in the County (subsidized by high industrial revenues) drawing residents to move just outside town (a short drive to services they no longer pay for thru Town property taxes but like to enjoy)...A familiar story no doubt...
There are no easy answers here. Regional government failed in the County . The Provionce will not force amalgamation out of fear of losing its majority. So, we are stuck.
Community and Economic Development OfficerThe Town has unique challenges. We are small, about 2600 people, and are surrounded by about another 4000 - 5000 people in the County who work, shop, and seek services in the Town, while living in the County and pay taxes there. While we have some agreements with the County to jointly fund key services, they are not permanent agreements, and are subject to review when councillors want, and always when Councils change at election. This precariousness puts the Town at risk, and creates a sense of dependence and reliance on a big brother County that causes many Town councillors not to rock the boat or to strongly question whether joint agreements are fair to all involved. For example, do they accurately reflect the proportional use of the services provided.
Millions of dollars in industrial and pipeline or linear tax base in the region also resides in the County, not the Town. So, property and home owners taxes are low in the County (subsidized by high industrial revenues) drawing residents to move just outside town (a short drive to services they no longer pay for thru Town property taxes but like to enjoy)...A familiar story no doubt...
There are no easy answers here. Regional government failed in the County . The Provionce will not force amalgamation out of fear of losing its majority. So, we are stuck.
We (Town, County, and Village and various hamlets) are currently discussing the role of a shared community and economic development office and officer for the region. This has generated considerable interest and some debate about what exactly we need.
Some people favor an economic development officer, others are seeking a more traditional approach to Community Economic Development (CED) that focuses on community resilience and strengthening services such as housing, health, training, small business incubation, social economy, cooperatives etc.) Still others see a chance to combine both.
I favor at least two or three positions; we need someone to work in the Town and Environs area (to focus on the 6-8 thousand people in this area - including calling Lake) and probably another to work the Hwy 63 Corridor (from Boyle to Wandering River) who are experiencing a different aspect of the Fort McMurray boom.
For the Town and Environs, I favor a CED approach that focuses on creating a diversified and sustainable local economy, with an emphasis upon strengthening local business and groups, recruiting key new services and businesses, strengthening local associations and societies, and buying locally produced products and using local services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
