Responses from Council

So, in an effort to be fair, I decided to hold off on posting the responses I received until some time had passed. It is summer and people may have been busy with things. It has now been a week (or 5 business days) since I sent my email and I have now received responses from the Mayor and some council members.

I received responses from:

• Jeff Coffman - Immediately with an auto-responder promising response in 3 days.
• Jeff Carlson & Joe Mauro - Same day with answers!
• Rob Miyashiro - Next day with indicating a thoughtful response would follow.
• Mayor - response by e-mail. Arranged a face-to-face.
• Rob Miyashiro - A thoughtful response.
• Mayor Spearman - Face-to-face meeting with answers.

I expect I have not heard from Jeff Coffman again (probably since he was just in the cc and it wasn't specifically addressed to him.)

In an effort to be concise I will present some excerpts from the answers. Where I have answers in writing, I will copy and paste them. Where the answers were from conversation Mayor Spearman, I will paraphrase as fairly as possible (sorry if I didn't catch the full meaning). I assume that all the answers provided were done so earnestly and honestly, and I feel that no one is intentionally trying to pull the wool over my eyes. Here goes...

Question:
How did the Leisure Centre build-out bypass the master plan requirement of a business plan?

Answers:
"I share your concerns about the CIP process, and how this project seemed to get unequal consideration.  I backed a motion to defer any debate until ALL unfunded projects could be considered, but that motion unfortunately was defeated. [...] Ultimately, I voted in favour of the project, which I believe will serve our community well into the future." (Carlson)

"I have many similar concerns.  Had I been at the meeting I would have voted NO because of the many unanswered questions but most important, it was done out of process, came back door and over the wall last minute.  This is a push for administration although they had no interest in this when we discussed fully all projects and voted to establish our 10 year CIP (capital improvement projects)." (Mauro)

"I would assert that the business plan requirement of the Master plan was not bypassed. A detailed business plan is required under “Resource Development” in the flow chart. I believe that the requirements listed in the flow chart have been met. In addition, the market feasibility and business case analyses were undertaken and completed in 2012 within Parts 4, 5 and 6 of the Lethbridge Leisure Centre Needs Assessment & Concept Design, which you can access at the following link: http://www.lethbridge.ca/Things-To-Do/Documents/LLC%20Funct%20Program%20Needs%20Assess%20Report_Final_2012_May_02.pdf" (Miyashiro)

The motion to amend the CIP now contains a provision to get the business plan before council. The urgency was expressed by city administration to avoid construction delays and maximize the advantage of a full build vs. a phased build. (Spearman - paraphrase)

Question:

What factors separate ready projects from un-ready projects?

Answers:

"[...] we can combine work already begun on the site with the newly approved work, which should save time, and design and construction costs." (Carlson)

"Major considerations of “what is ready vs. what is not” are site, funding and progress to date. [...] The argument about which projects to proceed with, begins and ends with the priorities set by the previous council. The Leisure Aquatic Centre was given the green light to be added to the Crossings ice complex (which was the first phase of the conceptualized full leisure centre) while the Performing Arts Centre and Convention Centre had financial conditions required to be met to trigger the City’s financial support. The full build of the Leisure Centre is possible due to capacity created by keeping the 2014 tax increase to the expected 2.8% rather than implementing a reduction. This allows for financing of the project with no new tax increases required. There is also some dollars available from the Alberta Community Partnership grant. " (Miyashiro)

This project is ready because there is already a part of the project underway and there is "no dissent" in the sport community about building the leisure centre. (Spearman - paraphrase)

My response: 

The leisure centre is already started BECAUSE it already received funding. Your funding argument is basically: we aren't funding other projects because we didn't fund them before.

The argument that other projects can't be funded because triggers were not met seems vacuous to me. Previous council absolutely said NO to a full leisure centre with no contingency for the field house in the most recent CIP. The same council provided for contingent funding for some other projects. If council can amend one project in the CIP it can amend any of them, but chose not to consider that option at this time.

Question:

Specifically what factors indicate the Field House expansion of the Leisure Centre is ready to proceed and what factors are missing from the Performing Arts Centre proposal and Lethbridge Exhibition proposals that have them classed as un-ready?

Answers:

"The Crossings ice centre is being built now, on land the City has designated for the Leisure Centre. A site for the Performing Arts Centre has not been selected. The Convention Centre proposed by the Exhibition Board will occur at Exhibition Park." (Miyashiro)

There is no common ground about location or size of a performing arts theatre. There is no proposed site. The sports community is completely behind the leisure centre and it was built based on a plan created and presented by a city committee. The sports community will be consulted about needs and configuration before construction. (Spearman - paraphrase)

My response:

The proposal for a performing arts theatre was proposed in a plan created and presented by a city committee. The performing arts community was consulted about needs and configuration before requesting funding. That proposal was doubly-reviewed to ensure accuracy and appropriateness for our community. A site was selected and was approved for contingent funding by council.

Question:

How can we know, or at least have a high level of confidence, that the new projected costs are correct?

Answers:

"Future costs are always difficult to define with any great degree of accuracy, but our administration has typically done a very good job in that regard. I have faith that over the last year, our staff was able to refine the costs, and that we will be able to complete the project within the budget." (Carlson)

"As with many sectors of our economy, the construction industry is market driven, based on supply versus demand. At the time of the previous cost estimate there were several competing projects in our province scheduled to begin last year or this year. A late 2015 start and late 2018/early 2019 completion would have fewer competitors for the specialized work required for projects of this nature." (Miyashiro)

Question:

"Will the city be able to finish Métis Trail in time for the opening of the Leisure Centre to avoid congestion? Further, and generally, why is the city not immediately working toward a 4 lane road to support the demand for such a civic hub?"

Answers:
"Metis Trail is high on our list of priorities.  Not only will it further support the new facilities, it will provide the West Side of our community with another much needed North-South connection." (Carlson)

"Metis Trail is scheduled for an expansion this year (Jerry Potts Blvd. to Garry Drive) at a cost of almost $10 million. The continuation of Metis Trail to Whoop Up Drive is expected in 2020." (Miyashiro)

I'm concerned about Metis trail as well. This will be a busy area. I also don't know why we aren't twinning Whoop-up Drive past the fire hall. I'm not an engineer, but I will be asking those questions. (Spearman - paraphase)

So... That is what I know so far. I am thankful to those who replied for their time and consideration. I am thankful to all of council for working, to the best of their abilities, for the betterment of our community.

I am also thankful for the support I have received for asking questions. It's our role as citizens in a democracy to choose leaders who we believe will make the choices we would have made and to understand the choices that those leaders make.

Ask questions. Get answers.

And as I tell my kids, "Make good choices, honey!"

I'm insisting...

Who actually decides what Lethbridge will build?

I have calmed down somewhat since the City Council meeting of August 4th wherein, after a presentation and lengthy Q&A session, our council did vote to amend the mostly immutable and sacrosanct CIP to add a field house to the already funded leisure centre (hockey ice, curling ice, and aquatic facilities). I believe this is ultimately a wonderful thing!

Firstly, the full-meal-deal leisure centre will be used by families and individuals in Lethbridge for 40 years to come (based on historical replacement of facilities). We want it and we got it!

Secondly, it demonstrates that council can make changes to the CIP when it is good for the city and as money becomes available.

Thirdly (and here my bias may show a bit), it checks off so many Recreation and Culture facilities on the community want list that the next round of CIP may actually green-light a Performing Arts Theatre!

On the bleak side, the railroad fashion in which the Leisure Aquatic Field House complex thingy has been pushed at council by administration causes me some concern. I did attempt to use Twitter to get quick answers to my questions, but it takes more than 140 characters to explain why this horse is getting backed.

It was also suggested by a councillor that people asking these questions on Twitter were "trolls" and we were invited to e-mail our questions directly.

So I did and I cc'd the Mayor and all the other councillors.

Councillor Miyashiro,

Further to my twitter questions and to your request for "trolls" to e-mail, I ask you to please consider and respond to these questions regarding the Leisure Centre full build-out and its funding.

The Recreation and Culture Master Plan states: "No major ($1M+) public investments in recreation or culture infrastructure should occur without undertaking market feasibility analysis and business planning. This applies not only to initiatives championed by the City, but also to those projects led by not-for-profit groups and associations wherein public funds are required for the capital and/or ongoing operations of facilities." When asked about the business plan for the Leisure Centre, you equated a business case to a business plan. I assert that they are different. The business case is a demonstration of how it has worked somewhere; a business plan is how we intend it to work here. How did the Leisure Centre build-out bypass the master plan requirement of a business plan? 

The city manager, and others, asserted that this project is "ready to proceed" and others are not. What factors separate ready projects from un-ready projects? Specifically what factors indicate the Field House expansion of the Leisure Centre is ready to proceed and what factors are missing from the Performing Arts Centre proposal and Lethbridge Exhibition proposals that have them classed as un-ready?

I have some difficulty reconciling some answers regarding project costs. The city manager asserted that costs for projects will go up over time, but after 16 months the projected cost of the full build is about 20% less expensive than the original proposal. The only answer I can recall about this difference is that more research was done and the facilities were going to be less expensive than originally estimated. This suggests that insufficient planning was done originally. How can we know, or at least have a high level of confidence, that the new projected costs are correct?

Given the assertion that the Leisure Centre is needed and will be extensively used, will the city be able to finish Métis Trail in time for the opening of the Leisure Centre to avoid congestion? Further, and generally, why is the city not immediately working toward a 4 lane road to support the demand for such a civic hub?

Thank you in advance for your responses.

Stephen Graham

I will post & discuss the replies I receive.

If I get any.

I'm just sayin...

Bawdy House of Commons

What is wrong with sex? Seriously! How is it magically different than other things we do?

Substitute any personally provided service for sexual service in the prostitution related criminal code and see if it still makes sense.

“advertisement of accounting services” means any material — including a photographic, film, video, audio or other recording, made by any means, a visual representation or any written material — that is used to advertise accounting services contrary to section 286.4.

286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the accounting services of a person is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and a minimum punishment of, [...]

That being said, some of it makes sense: we should not force or coercion people of any age to engage in accounting services. We should not entice or coerce persons under the age of 18 to engage in accounting services? 

We are talking about making it non-criminal to sell accounting services but criminal to purchase accounting services. Does that make sense? I don't think so.

Lastly, I suspect we would find it contrary to public standards of decency to suggest that adults should be denied freedom of the person to have sex accounting with whomever they choose, provided it is agreed, consensual, and free from coercion.  If my suspicion is confirmed, Bill C-36 would make the House of Commons into a common bawdy-house.

(2) The definition “common bawdy-house” in subsection 197(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

“common bawdy-house” means, for the practice of acts of indecency, a place that is kept or occupied or resorted to by one or more persons;

And considering some of the other legislation being passed, I'd say those are some indecent acts.

Just thinking.