Budget 2023 Debate - November 29, 2022
This year, members of Council have proposed 39 changes (2 duplicates) to the draft budget that was proposed earlier this fall. All of these proposed changes will be accepted without comment at the beginning of our meeting unless a member of indicates they would like to debate - or oppose - the motion first. (I’m requesting that 28 of them are pulled for a vote.) The following is a very brief/incomplete description of the proposed changes, with my preliminary intention to accept the proposal or challenge it. The first section relates to capital projects and the second section is for operational activities which, depending on the funding source, impact the 2023 tax rate. The full agenda package has detailed explanations of the motions and potential consequences of them being accepted.
Budget motion highlights - Capital Projects
Business Process Consultant (+$150,000)
This is “to acquire the professional services of a Business Process Consultant to target possible documentation and implementation of priority areas of improvement for efficiencies or cost savings” in our Planning & Development, and Engineering Departments. As there are no known benefits to this one-time contract and both because the procurement/support of this role would be significant resulting in delays to permitting and because existing resources would likely be a better fit for achieving the same outcome, I’ll be pulling this motion for debate. (I will also ask that the funding source identified in the motion be changed from “pay as you go” to “stabilization reserve” to align with our financial policies.)
Capital Projects Resource Coordinator (-$1,500)
This is to eliminate $1,500 (yes, one thousand and five hundred dollars) that would allow us to make this position, which has existed to support fast turnover of planning applications for years, a permanent position. The costs (financial, cultural, reputational, resident/business service levels) relating to turnover exceed this small investment, so I’ll be opposing this proposal.
Engineering Positions ($4,500 no change)
This is just to change the funding source for a handful of Engineering-related positions to a different part of the budget. I don’t have a strong view on this, but I’ll pull the motion to support an Administrative recommendation to tweak the motion to read “To reflect stronger transparency of resources required in Engineering, the full funding for the following 3 engineering positions, the Capital Projects Resource Coordinator, Project Resource Administrator, Transportation Data Coordinator, is budgeted within the municipal operating budget with an equal offsetting budgeted transfer to capital and; That the existing 1.5 FTE permanent positions be managed under the same principle”.
Youth Transitional Housing Study (delay $132,000)
This is to delay the next step towards supporting our Youth Transitional Housing project. As this has consistently been a recommendation of our Task Force to End Homelessness, as well as being a stated priority in terms of our values and resident feedback, I’ll be pulling this for a vote.
Millennium Park design and construction (delay $337,000)
This is to delay the Millennium Park project until 2025. As this would increase overall costs of the project and because this is a stated priority in our Strategic Plan due to resident feedback about the importance of investment in recreation and community-building amenities, I’ll be pulling this for a vote.
Servus Place Operational Review (+$150,000)
This is to hire a consultant to evaluate the operations at Servus & make recommendations for efficiencies. As a similar review was completed and acted on in 2008, and as the 2020/21 Ernst & Young Operational & Fiscal Review made no recommendations about Servus supported by the fact that Servus’ cost recoveries (~60%) is quite a bit higher than cost recoveries observed in other municipalities (35%-55%). We know that public rec centres everywhere run at a deficit because they’re intended as a public service and ours is performing very well, so I’ll be pulling this motion for debate.
Contaminated Sites (+$30,000)
This motion is to ensure that we’re continuing “to complete the assessment of the risk management plan for the former Public Works Yard”. The result “could mitigate the long-term financial liabilities for the City in terms of making appropriate adjustments to how this site is managed”. I’m happy to let this pass without comment because I support staying on top of environmental risk.
Housing Options ($109,100 - no change)
I think this is a postponed motion for next year’s budget, but it’s worded to suggest it’s to move the Housing Options for Affordability and Accessibility project from 2023 to 2024 and to apply savings to this year’s budget. Except there are no savings. As it’s not in the 2023 budget and no one is proposing to move it to 2023, this would just pre-approve the project for 2024. (Maybe?) I’ll pull this motion because it’s unclear what the intent/result would be.
Oakmont Trail Phase 2 (-$687,800)
This is to direct that the Old Bellerose Drive (section 1) be left as-is rather than convert it to an asphalt trail. This reduces both our capital expenses and ongoing operational/maintenance expenses. Anyone who walks in this area knows that this stretch of the Oakmont Trail system is heavily used by walkers/dog-walkers who are happy with the old-school condition. I’m pulling this motion to make sure that we’re still putting in benches, waste receptables, signage (cost TBD, but way less than the cost to construct an asphalt trail) - but I’m otherwise supportive.
Oakmont Trail Phase 3 (+$5,000 + -$?)
This is to redesign the next section of Oakmont Trail so that it’s gravel rather than asphalt. There would be minimal redesign costs and the savings are unknown, but my guess is that they’d be significant. I’m pulling this because I’d like this section to be accessible for cyclists & other users who need a solid surface - Without this connectivity, doing a cycling loop wouldn’t be possible.
Oakmont Trail Segment 2 (-$1,041,600)
This is to cancel segment 2 of Oakmont Trail. Although the costs for this segment are high because of the proximity to the river, it’s critical to ensure that we have the river trail we’ve dreamed of for decades.
municipal area network expansion (+$380,000)
This is to fund the project called “ITVS-009 municipal area network expansion”. The background information for this motion “is confidential under the Freedom of Information Protection Act, Section 20(1)”. I’m cautiously supportive of this motion, so I don’t intend to pull it for debate at this time.
Villeneuve Road Rebuild (Delay ~$6M)
This is to defer planning/construction for Villeneuve Rd apart from completing intersection improvements at Villeneuve Road and Dennison Drive & the roundabout construction at Villeneuve Road and Hogan Road. The financial impact of project delay is unknown, but could increase/decrease because of re-tendering. The delays impact:
In 2025, reconstructing the portion of Villeneuve Road from west of Nouveau Drive to west of Dennison Drive/Jensen Gate including a new share use path and sidewalk segments, with streetlighting, utilities and landscaping.
In 2028/29, Villeneuve Road from Ray Gibbon Drive to west of Nouveau Drive and is planned for completion with Ray Gibbon Drive (Phase 4) and Fowler Way projects.
One concern about delays relates to the absence of a sidewalk/trail because pedestrians and cyclists are using the narrow shoulders to reach their destination, which is not the safest. I’m currently not planning to pull this motion for debate, but would consider opposing it if another member of Council has a compelling argument against it.
Transportation Master Plan (Delay $800,000)
Typically, municipalities of our size update their Transportation Master Plan (TMP) every 5 years with larger rewrites being triggered by big change. Our TMP hasn’t been updated since 2015, which means that our big updates - the annexation, the approval of our new Municipal Development Plan - aren’t considered in the old plan. Because our TMP doesn’t reflect the current state and because this document is critical as we plan major infrastructure projects, apply for transportation-related grants, etc., I will be pulling this motion for a vote.
Intersection Improvements ($90,000)
This is to fund Service/Safety Reviews for the intersections of Boudreau Road at Sir Winston
Churchill Avenue and Boudreau Road at Campbell Road. Based on the complex ranking system we use to prioritize projects, these two reviews were ranked lower than the unfunded updates at Sturgeon Rd & Beaverbrook Crescent (~$412k). I’m hesitant to skip a project with defined safety outcomes to fund lower-cost (and possibly lower-impact) projects, so I’m requesting that this motion be pulled for debate.
North St. Albert Trail Improvements ($?)
This is to have Administration split up the work on St. Albert Trail which is planned to “allow for the consideration of servicing the new development on the west side of St. Albert Trail via a portion of Fowler Way” using a particular assessment process. I’ll pull this for a vote because approval could create delays in the Fire Hall 4 project, which is critical to ensure the safety of residents in North St. Albert particularly, and is getting into administrative details regarding how to complete a project.
Budget motion highlights - Operational Activities
Transit Requisition(+$1,452,000)
We have a contractual obligation to pay the 2023 Edmonton Metro Transit Services Commission requisition, so this motion is directing where this funding is coming from, not whether we pay it. Although a member of Council could propose a different funding source, that would be quite unusual as this is an ongoing expense and reserves are not really used for this purpose. If it’s passed as proposed, it will result in a 1.2% tax increase for 2023.
Alberta 55+ Games (+$10,000)
This is to fund the first part of a bid to host the 2027 Alberta 55+ Games. Although this is my motion, I don’t have a strong opinion on whether we should fund this project or the 2028 Alberta Summer Games bid, which would require a higher level of funding but wouldn’t be needed until 2024.
Grader Operators
This is to postpone consideration for adding operators to clear snow from streets/sidewalks until 2024. This doesn’t impact the 2023 budget, but would impact 2024 as we need to ensure funding to keep up with growth, including annexed lands. I’ll be pulling this motion for a vote because “approval of this motion may result in service levels for roadways and sidewalks/trails not being met, increased liability, increased risk to public safety and increased risk of economic loss… the risk increases as downtime of the City’s only grader and 3 sidewalk machines exacerbates the risk of meeting service levels”.
Assessment growth transfer ($576,700)
By policy, we use the assessment growth funds (so, funds from “new” development that didn’t exist when the previous budget was approved) to put into a reserve to fund projects that help us service the growing part of the city. This motion proposed to not invest in growth projects, but rather use the funds for temporary tax relief. So far, I’ve generally opposed proposals like this because I want to ensure St. Albert has solid long-term plans to serve all residents (for Fire/Emergency Services, recreation, etc.) as we grow rather than experiencing major demand crunches, like what we’re seeing now with aquatics space. If passed, this would reduce the tax increase by 0.5%.
Women Building Futures Program ($2,500)
This is to fund the Women Building Futures Program out of a Council Sponsorship Fund, so there would be no impact to taxes. We typically fund this group and I’m supportive of this proposal. Administration is recommending a switch to a different funding pot, but my preference is that we use the Council fund.
Outside Agency Grant (+$153,000)
This motion (which I made) is to increase funding to our Outside Agency Grant, supporting organizations like the Community Village & Food Bank, Stop Abuse in Families, etc. Although our $9/resident funding formula for this grant has created stability, we’ve heard from our community partners that the challenges of the last couple years - inflation, increased pressures related to mental health/food security/family violence/housing security, etc. - has resulted in a need to increase support to community-serving organizations. This increase would allow our Community Services Advisory Committee (CSAC) to reconsider grant recommendations, and would possibly allow us to refer the $10,000(?) one-off request from Wild North that is being presented by this organization to the CSAC for consideration.
Firefighter positions (-$429,000)
This is “to delay the hiring of four [full-time] firefighters”. I’ll pull this motion for discussion as the current plan takes into account hiring/training requirements to have Firehall 4 ready to go as soon as it’s built. I also don’t want to increase risk related to “firefighter fatigue and psychological injuries, [which are] a serious concern… [and] adjustments to construction requirements of new residential and commercial buildings and… [possible impacts to] our fire response ratings as they relate to commercial and residential insurance”.
Firefirefighter positions (-$99,500)
This is to delay the hiring of 4 firefighters by 3 months. I’ll pull this motion for discussion as this change could result in training delays related to access to the Edmonton training facility, and the reasons stated above.
St. Albert Library Funding (+$286,900)
This motion is to increase funding provided to the library based on their revised budget proposal, which was reduced from their original ask and reflects some of the findings related to efficiency opportities reflected in a recent audit.
Staff Training and Development (-$65,400)
When the pandemic hit, one of the budgets that was reduced was the Training and Development budget for our staff. Pre-pandemic, this budget was set at $730,600 and the 2023-2025 plan plans to slowly ramp this funding up to competitive levels would see an increase to $584,500 in 2023 and $730,600 in 2024, but this motion proposes to backtrack to low 2022 levels. If this passes, this budget would be less than 1% of payroll costs compared to investments around 2-5% for leading organizations. I’m vehemently opposed to reductions in this budget and would be open to increases that would support our competitiveness, improve retention, and support the health of our workforce.
Decrease in Capital Reserves transfer
This motion is to reduce the amount we put away to maintain our existing assets (buildings, roads, etc.) from a 1.5% increase to 0.75%. I feel like a broken record talking about this one - Just like a homeowner, the city has to makes sure we have sufficient reserves to repair, maintain, and replace capital assets. Right now, we are wayyyyy behind in terms of keeping up with known future demands, so this 1.5% increase was decided upon to balance our short-term pressures with our long-term needs to catch up. I’ll pull this motion for a vote.
Servus Place subsidy(-$287,100)
This motion would reduce the Recreation and Parks budget, to reflect the different between current and revised use forecasts for 2023. I’m on the fence about this motion because “revenue targets may not be
achieved, as the post pandemic trends are still being assessed… [and] there are potential service impacts (longer lines or wait times at guest services or aquatics) that may have to be implemented to manage the expected net budget reduction”. I’m currently not planning to pull this motion for debate, but would consider opposing it if another member of Council has a compelling argument against it.
Safety Enhancement Program (-$47,000)
This is to permanently cancel our budget for safety enhancements, so any emergent safety needs would either not be met, would be delayed, and/or would have to be approved as one-off requests to Council. I support this modest budget and have no interest in ongoing one-off Council decisions regarding important operational/safety matters which impact the health/safety of staff & residents and our insurance premiums, so I’m pulling this for a vote.
Executive Leadership Capacity (-$480,000)
This is to postpone proposed changes to our leadership structure until 2024. This is an important decision & I’m supportive of a robust discussion regarding whether to support our new CAO through the proposal to adjust the executive leadership structure.
Executive Leadership Capacity (-$240,000)
This is to halve the request to increase capacity of our executive team. This is an important decision & I’m supportive of a robust discussion regarding whether to support our new CAO through the proposal to adjust the executive leadership structure.
Grass Cutting (+$39,000)
This is to increase our grass-cutting standard back to a 10-day cycle in certain areas from the 12-day cycle that was first used in 2022. Although I support a longer cycle (and more - I’ve been vocal about my disdain for turf grass outside of sports fields because of environmental impacts), I won’t pull this motion if there is overall support from Council.
Stabilization Reserve & Tax Rate ($1.4M)
This would cancel a one-time transfer from our Stabilization Reserve (essentially, a rainy-day fund) that is used to stabilize tax rates. This would result in a 1.2% tax increase in 2023, but would mean the tax increases in future years - which are expected to be significant - aren’t as steep. I’m cautiously supportive of this proposal.
IT Business Analyst-Purchasing Audit (-$108,400)
This is to eliminate the existing position that was recommended in the Purchasing Audit. I’ll pull this for a vote because if it passes, “the critical business analysis functions [the existing position] perform[s] will need to be performed by the IT project manager which will significantly delay/defer all technology and process related tasks on this project and delay/defer the implementation of the audit recommendations. It will also impact the IT project manager’s time to manage other IT projects, creating a domino effect that will delay all IT projects being managed by this individual which include but are not limited to the CRM initiative on the Corporate Business Plan”.
Procurement Specialist (-$82,400)
This is to eliminate a 3rd Financial Services and Information Technology Procurement Specialist, which if passed, would result in delays in the procurement of goods & services in addition to a deferral of the procurement audit recommendation implementations due to insufficient capacity. I’ll pull this for a vote.
Financial Controller (-$82,500)
This is to eliminate a 3rd Financial Controller, which if passed, will impair “the ability to continue provide project management and fiscal and grant management oversight” and the deferral of projects such as Multi-Year Budgeting and Long Term Debt Strategy due to current workload capacity. I’ll pull this one for a vote.
Abilities Management Advisor
Although there are no budgetary impacts because this position already exists as a temporary position, this motion would direct Administration to keep the position temporary. As this would have negative impacts (financial, repetitional, cultural, etc.) due to high turnover and resulting needs to “pay for overtime and/or expenses of a third-party contracted agency to support the service delivery (during periods of turnover/onboarding)”, I’ll pull it for a vote.
This is a brief and incomplete overview of my activities as a councillor and Council meetings, with my personal comments sprinkled in - In no way are my opinions representative of the official direction of council or the City of St. Albert. Please let me know of any typos or errors. Residents can register to speak if they have information to present to council. Full agenda packages and the Proposed Budget can be found on the stalbert.ca website.
