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 -

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.

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

• 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
  

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

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.

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.

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.

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 Officer
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.