Earlier this month Sarolta Saskiw from Shaw’s Go TV shadowed me to get a taste of a city councillor’s life outside of City Hall. This kind profile piece was the result:

Two years ago I said ‘this is probably the best deal we can get under the circumstances – it’s just the circumstances I have a problem with.’

That comment was more about serious concerns I have about how pro-sports franchises do business with their host cities – and I’m still bothered by this, as are many, many citizens.

The deal I was talking about two years ago had less City money in it than this version. So by that measure, our circumstances have gotten worse.

But this deal also has more Katz Group money than it did two years ago. Not enough to satisfy everyone, but cash up front – even $15 million – is finally an improvement.

I am also pleased that the ill-advised decision to borrow against the provincial MSI infrastructure grants was reversed today. The decision to use the CRL to cover more of the project costs does have risk, but the CRL does have an upside. The City captures not only the new municipal taxes within the boundary but the new education tax revenues on growth in property value, so there’s a gain here.

However, it bears noting that the success of the CRL is contingent on the surrounding development going ahead, and I will say that if the surrounding development does go ahead, this will all work out.

But there is a bet here – because if the development doesn’t go ahead then regular taxpayers will wind up on the hook. So that billion plus dollars better be invested tomorrow.

The provincial angle hasn’t really worked out as originally hoped, but that’s understandable for many reasons. The good news is we can finally quit asking them over and over for funding they’ve insisted they won’t provide. Backing off will allow us to turn our attention back to the City Charter, to getting a fair share in the region, and to securing the real money we need for LRT, roads, and other infrastructure.

The recent regional support is helpful, though I would still have preferred to see that come more directly from the actual people – including our regional neighbours – who will use the building in the form of a broader ticket surcharge. But we don’t always get everything we want.

So – all that being said, I will be supporting this decision today for two reasons:

The first is more of a gut feeling that this will be good for downtown.

I’ve consistently said that a vibrant downtown is about the whole package, from sewers to streetscaping, not just about the arena or its district– and I still believe that – but this project is a vital part of the downtown most Edmontonians would like to see built.

The second reason, and this is the more logical reason, is simply that we aren’t going to get a better deal.

I’ve tenaciously held out for that better deal, and worked constructively towards a better deal, but Council’s been outmaneuvered at a number of points, and I think we pushed back far too late. Hopefully we can learn from this for future negotiations.

Still, this is the best deal this city will get now or in the foreseeable future.

I can’t see any realistic scenario where we’ll come out ahead by saying no today.

If we start over we’ll lose time and costs will rise. And the next election will be about this question rather than where we go next as a City.

If we do nothing, we still have an aging building, a team with no location agreement, and the same owner with the same negotiating position.

As tough as this deal is to swallow, I don’t see realistically how we’ll do any better by dragging this out further.

Since this is the final vote, I can no longer hope to change the deal.

So, I will vote yes, accepting the outcomes of the imperfect process, and accepting that the will of Council is to go ahead in spite of the imperfections in this deal.

I realize this will surprise and disappoint some, but politics exists to answer the tough questions where you can’t please everyone.

Now, with this decision I am shifting my focus and energy to keeping this project on-time and on-budget, and to ensuring the arena and surrounding development delivers on all the promise it holds for our downtown.

CRL Catalyst Project List.

Then there’s the rest of us: open to the idea of a new arena downtown, aware that it could spark new investment, but not too happy about how the negotiations have played out and concerned that the City is being asked to put a lot on the line to make it happen.

I’m not ready to climb on board yet. I’m still holding out for a better deal. And I think we need to get there very quickly.

I think we can get a better deal with a reconfiguration of the ticket tax, which I pushed hard for today.

In the current deal, the City would collect a flat payment from the Katz Group to service $125 million in debt, based on a surcharge. Depending on the final interest rates it’s fixed at about $6 million per year. There is also a $1.5 million annual contribution for major maintenance that they will recover with the surcharge. My calculations show we could fill the last $55 million for about $2.6 more a year collected on the ticket tax (yes, that would require still more borrowing). On average that’s $1.50 a ticket give or take.

Part of the way to make it worth the partner’s while to get the $2.6 million would be to shift from a fixed payment to a floating payment – so if the ticket sales were higher one year the City would collect more to pay the debt, but in lean years the city would collect less (fair – and absorbable in the overall budget in the odd year). It’s a risk transfer, but it’s also sharing in the upside. Sharing in the upside is important because citizens have said to me over and over they expect as a return on the investment of so much public money. Sharing in the upside would also make us benefiting partners in the success of the operation.

A ticket tax is a good substitute for provincial money because it reflects the fact that a third or more of the current arena users come from outside the City, and so it would be users from the region and the North chipping in. Plus, we could refocus our efforts on getting support from the province for other needed investment they have been more willing to support, like roads, rec centres and LRT.

There’s no perfect way to do this, but I think there is strong public support for taking a user pay approach rather than putting more city money on the line.

Meanwhile, in related news, I again supported moving ahead with the Community Revitalization Levy. I moved it in fact. I did because, used judiciously, it’s a reasonable tool for paying for civic infrastructure, including a portion of the Arena. I don’t think it would be wise to pay for more of the Arena using it, but LRT connections, land, parks, sewer upgrades, are all important for Downtown’s success.

So next time someone tells you I don’t support downtown, you’ll know better.

I was very impressed with the presentations from the Citizen Panelists who spoke to Executive Committee yesterday. They were some of the 57 Edmontonians of diverse backgrounds who came together last fall to deliberate over six weekends on tough questions of climate and energy facing Edmoton.

Two things impressed me most: their positivity and their high level of consensus (here’s a video showing both).

On their positivity, the discussion paper they worked from laid out the intimidating scale of the challenges that lie ahead; and yet they were optimistic that with sustained political will, meaningful progress on reducing emissions could be achieved.

On the panelists’ high level of consensus, the appendix to their report shows that there was a diversity of views on the causes and significance of climate change going in. We heard that diversity honoured among the speakers. And yet, in spite of that diversity of views, the better than 90% of the panelists envision a sound case for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels over time. Climate change or no, they overwhelmingly agreed that reducing fossil fuel reliance will reduce consumers’ exposure to price fluctuations, lead to cleaner air, and support a healthier population, just to name a few benefits. In other words, they see more risk with business as usual than with taking proactive steps.

And the good news from the technical reports is that it is possible to make significant reductions (more than 50% from today’s city-wide) by 2044. The challenge is that the City, while able to influence some of the proposed strategies, only has direct control over a small portion of it. Proactive decisions by consumers, industry, and other orders of government are all required to make significant change. Nevertheless, it is significant that a diverse group of Edmontonians, armed with the facts and a chance to debate them thoroughly, endorses such a vision so strongly. And it’s telling that those panelists are still engaged and are self-organizing to continue to advocate their shared views.

Of the things the City does more directly influence, the panelists are advocating for building a more compact city with more density and more diverse housing choices (in both new and old areas) and supporting those with more transportation choices that enhance conditions for walking, cycling and transit use. They also recommended the city buy more renewable energy, which we’re doing, and increase the efficiency of our buildings and systems.

City administration will now work on a more detailed implementation plan with business cases around each recommendation, which will come back to Council in early in 2014. This will be a chance to highlight the great work already happening, as well as reach further.

I think citizen panels are a promising tool, which we’ve used a few times now, to work through complex issues that divide our citizens. As a decision maker, I think this kind of ‘deliberative democracy’ exercise with our citizens can be very helpful. They empower citizens and they cut through polarization – and we need more of both.

I wanted to thank the panelists and the U of A’s Centre for Public Involvement and the Alberta Climate Dialogue group for all their thoughtful work. Experts in public engagement have been monitoring and advising on this project all the way along and I believe it’s a good news story for Edmonton.

This example is from Allendale on 108 Street. There are many places like this that need more than just patching but are a long way from scheduled repaving.

To demystify the pothole: water infiltrates under the roadway surface through cracks but doesn’t drain because of our soil conditions. That water expands as it freezes and exerts pressure on the roadway material. This happens over and over, and combined with the pounding of vehicle traffic, you get a pothole.

But the compounding factor is that we are behind on maintenance. Like most cities we are better at building new things than looking after old ones. So we have more cracks and more patchwork than we should.

We are still way behind on arterial (main) road maintenance. Last month Council diverted $13 million more into a ‘mill and fill’ program to get caught up on some of the worst stretches of road. That work will run all summer. We will need to commit more funds in future years too.

We are making better progress on our residential side streets, investing over $130 million this year in a combination of total reconstruction of broken streets and sidewalks as well as preventive maintenance and repaving to get full life and value out of our newer infrastructure.

However, the backlog is so deep that there are neighbourhoods in need of immediate total reconstruction that are still 5-10 years away. Therefore, this past week I suggested, and Council agreed, that we have a need for some extra attention on our worst local roads as well. ‘Triage’ was the word I used after responding to constituent invitations to see some of the more abysmal conditions.

Needs vary by ward, but I have several neighbourhoods that are a long way off from getting reconstruction, and will need something more aggressive than patching along the worst areas. And so Council allocated some $9 million for triage of local roads this season.

I’m not satisfied with triage. It’s necessary because we are still behind, and because the weather this past season has been so difficult. Long term, we need to dedicate a greater share of our limited infrastructure funding to properly looking after what’s already built.

For now, please stay alert and keep reporting potholes to 311 or on-line.

Mayor Mandel never fails to get the City’s attention with his annual State of the City address. This one was noteworthy as much for what wasn’t said as what was.

The most complex issue the Mayor raised was regional planning and equity. Elise Stolte from the Journal wrote a blog post which includes the text of the regional section.

I’ve been working with the region on one of the few files that’s made some genuine progress, which is regional transit. I brokered a consensus to jointly purchase a smart card system for handling fares, including sharing the cost with St. Albert and Strathcona County – just working on the paperwork now. And we’re midway through a project looking at whether delivering transit in the region would be more effective and efficient if united together in a regional services commission. It took two years to get to this point, but as Chair of the Regional Transit Committee I’ve been proud to show that diplomacy and cooperation can work in the region. It’s the kind of thing that we couldn’t have imagined when Mayor Mandel first made the call for a formal Capital Region in his 2007 State-of-the-City speech.

That said, I support the Mayor’s call for the province to take renewed interest in strengthening the region’s framework for cooperation, planning for growth, clearer prioritization of regional infrastructure and a way to achieve fair sharing of the costs and benefits of growth. He made the case that Edmonton is disadvantaged, and I think he’s right – for example, in the counties the major roads and interchanges are built and maintained by the province – in Edmonton developers and the City pay for this infrastructure. Examples like this go on, from inequitable policing grants to shouldering disproportionate burdens like homelessness. The City Charter work with the province is supposed to address some of these special circumstances, and Tuesday’s speech should create new urgency for the province to show results on the City Charter. Diplomacy will be required to deliver results in the long run.

Unexpectedly, the Mayor blasted the province for cuts to Post-Secondary Education, a key sector of Edmonton’s economy. I’ve long argued that the quality of learning and research happening here is an under-emphasized key competitive advantage for our city. It was wonderful to hear him speak so eloquently about our schools’ importance to creativity and human advancement, as well as the economic importance of research and technology commercialization. I too am very concerned about what these deep cuts could mean for Edmonton – and for our whole province. The ideas and solutions developed at our Post Secondaries are key to sustaining our progress as a city. They support improved resource development, spur investment and guide us in addressing social issues, just to name a few. His advocacy was consistent with the work I’ve spearheaded with our Post Secondaries, School Boards, EPL and others toward positioning Edmonton as a “City of Learners”. It was great to see learning and discovery emphasized with the full force of the Mayor’s influence.

As for the deferral of the mayor’s announcement of his intentions for this fall, it’s a shrewd move. It will put a lid on succession jockeying for a while, which is probably a good thing as Council works through arena details, budget revisions and government relations strategy over the coming weeks. Plus, standing for public office is a big decision for anyone, and so I respect that the mayor may need some more time to decide.

As for my own decision making, since I got asked a lot about it this week: yes, I continue to give strong consideration to running for mayor. I have already decided I won’t run for my Ward 10 Council seat again, and that stands. I have also said I won’t run against the mayor if he runs again. There are many factors in play, so this delay provides some more time to weigh them all carefully.

On Wednesday Council decided to approve 40 years of new supply of predominantly low-density residential development in the Horse Hills area in North East Edmonton. The reports and bylaw can be accessed here.

Horse Hills ASP Map. Click to enlarge.

It was inevitable. It was more than 30 years in the making. And yes, it’s fair to help landowners on all sides of the issue know what’s planned.

It’s true that land supply is becoming scarce in that quadrant of the city and though estimates vary, there are fewer than 5-10 years of existing supply. It is prudent to bring on more supply, especially given the job growth expected nearby in the Edmonton Energy and Technology Park, which will create new demand.

Meanwhile, demand is still strong for suburban low-density housing. And why not? The land is cheaper and the infrastructure and structures are new. With my 59-year-old fixer-upper house and crumbling uneven sidewalks, even I can see the appeal. And yes, many of the new and existing jobs are closer to these proposed neighbourhoods. So, no doubt, there is a market for the proposed housing.

I can’t deny that those are today’s economic realities for urban development. Given today’s realities, much of this plan makes sense. In fact, it has some really promising possibilities for integrating small-scale community food production, innovative ‘low-impact’ servicing and the potential for a proper town centre, hopefully linked with LRT.

For the first time, we did get some high level information about the costs to the City of supporting this growth (Mack Male’s offered some highlights of the report here). I think it was probably low on costs and high on the revenue forecast. Nevertheless, it showed what is the case for each of our low-density neighbourhoods, including mine, which is that we collect less in revenues than we face in costs. This isn’t particular to Edmonton – it is like this in most Alberta communities. We offset this either by subsidy from the non-residential tax base, other general revenues like the EPCOR dividend, or by delaying investments in infrastructure construction or repair.

It follows that denser communities make more efficient use of infrastructure, and therefore are more cost efficient. And we’ve made gains – these neighbourhoods are much denser than older Edmonton neighbourhoods, again, including mine. But the City is talking about adding density in my neighbourhood, which I agree with, and on the airport lands and other sites, and one of the strongest arguments is that it makes for a more efficient and affordable city.

On the food and agriculture question, while I am sympathetic in principle to the calls for preserving agricultural lands, the economics don’t support it unless you have a willing landowner, ready to forego the potential gains of development. Some advocates were calling for a large swath of land to be permanently protected; however, for the City to impose this or negotiate this would have meant compensation in the tens or hundreds of millions to landowners intent on development – so that was a non-starter. I still do think there is opportunity to look at long-term agricultural land preservation, and building a local food economy – but this should be in a regional context, where the lands are still affordable and the economics stands a chance. I encourage food security advocates to not lose heart, and to consider rallying around this as a regional issue.

But the remaining agricultural and market garden land owners who wanted to continue to operate their businesses have been significantly impeded by this plan. I had initially hoped this ASP would cerate some exciting opportunities to work with the cluster along 197 Avenue near the river to plan a neighbourhood and that integrated them. And even though there was significant public support for their protection and sustainability, the plan doesn’t protect them. At best it tolerates them. And because of the conceptual provincial road alignment, their long-term future is in doubt.

I could have supported the southern half of this (neighbourhoods 1-3), because that’s today’s housing market reality. We are only at the beginning of offering more city-wide choice in our housing market. There is work ahead to encourage a supply of more jobs in the core to support infill housing demand. And while the LRT network to support better mobility is growing, it is moving slowly.

But this is not only today’s decision; this is at least a 40-year decision (and beyond as we service and repair approved areas). Thinking ahead, I think we could have done better.

I think we could have found a way to better accommodate the cluster of remaining farmers, even perhaps around the provincial road. I don’t have the answer, but I’m not sure we tried hard enough to find one.

And I think that in less than forty years (if cost continue to rise, as distances grow, as demographics change, as traffic gets worse, and if tastes change as a result) that the communities we’re building then will be different from the ones approved yesterday – moderately denser, more efficient, more walkable, better connected to great transit, and with more mixed employment.

There is room for the plan to change and evolve over time so I have hope that as it is implemented its ambitions can rise.

[Update - March 7, 2013: The report scheduled for discussion on March 13th has been posted here including some very interesting fall 2012 survey data here in Attachment 2 pf the report showing that more than half of Edmontonians already cycle, and that many would ride more with better facilities, including bike lanes.]

Last week the effort to increase cycling opportunities in Edmonton hit some bumps.

First, a consultation session designed to share information and get feedback about routes planned for implementation this season degenerated into a shouting match, which hindered the City from getting precisely the input they were there to hear. (The details of the proposed routes are here.)

The next morning the Mayor added fuel to the fire with a sharply worded inquiry that garnered a lot of media attention at the Transportation committee (you can watch the comments here by clicking on item 2.1 and waiting about 30 seconds).

The route network from the Bicycle Transportation Plan - major routes shown in blue, connector routes shown in green. Click to zoom in.

The inquiry will result in a report for discussion at the March 13th Transportation Committee. I won’t be at all surprised at that point if the whole program is put on hiatus for ‘study’, rather than having a real debate about whether Council actually supports making some tough decisions to enhance transportation choice. (Some of the city-building benefits making these tough choices are well articulated in this blog post from Executive Director of the Edmonton Bicycle Commuters’ Society.)

One of the more constructive suggestions I heard last week was from Paula Simons, which was to focus our efforts on high quality cycling facilities in the core (such as Downtown and Oliver, Strathcona and University areas).

This makes sense. I’d like to see those routes prioritized too. That’s where existing demand is highest, and where the greatest short-term potential is to attract new riders.

However, the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan still calls for a citywide network of bike lanes to provide enhanced choices for all Edmontonians, and better facilities for those who already choose to ride.

Council has an overall vision and numerous policies and plans that explicitly champion more transportation choices for citizens.

More travel options are crucial to dealing with worsening traffic congestion. Those options can also lead to a healthier city, cleaner air, and savings for individuals and the City.

Yes, most Edmontonians drive, but if we aren’t willing to endure some changes to make way for new choices, then traffic congestion will only get worse. That’s the real inconvenience to everyone, including present and future drivers. That’s the big picture.

Getting into the details, some people wonder why certain roads have been selected as cycling routes, but there is logic to it in the plan. The routes generally have two characteristics: 1) they are through roads, and 2) they are less busy. 106 Street instead of 109 Street, for example. People have suggested the city use local roads, and where they run through this makes great sense (like 83 Avenue between Mill Creek and 112 Street).

In any case, I don’t think the routes are the real issue.

The fact is there is simply no way to make space for bike lanes without making some changes to the roads they would share – and the same tensions that have come up (mainly around lost parking) will come up anywhere. This happens in every city that has tried to make this shift.

More engagement with residents and businesses is good; the City can always learn from the public when making changes to an area. I know the implementation of bike lanes in my ward benefitted from local knowledge – in many cases protecting parking for schools, businesses and churches based on feedback.

But I don’t think this is really about consultation either.

To me, this is about comfort zone: is Council willing to work through the discomforts of change to deliver on the vision for more transportation choice in our city?

All I know is that people are surprisingly resilient to change. They clear out their garages. They park around the corner. Sometimes they even chose to walk or bike more. If we move ahead it will work out; after all, the sky hasn’t fallen anywhere in my ward where the lanes have already gone in.

I know a lot of friends and supporters have questions about my vote yesterday. Perspective would vary in part depending on what people think we were voting on.

The actual motion was to endorse a design concept and approve a very specific updated framework to fund and lease out the arena. It is more or less the same arrangement that I voted against in 2011.

But politically, that wasn’t the way the vote was framed at all – the question it came down to was more or less, do you support downtown Edmonton?

I hope that in time the two questions can be separated, and that my support and advocacy for downtown can speak for itself. (And that support for buying the land, the zoning, and the CRL mechanism to enable a suite of Downtown catalysts including the arena, will be seen as constructive.)

My main issue, and I’ve addressed this in greater detail previously, remains with the economics of professional sports and the degree of subsidy (usually indirect, in the form of tax concessions, reduced rent, control of all other revenues, etc) they require of their host municipalities. I know we weren’t going to fix that with this deal but the phenomenon still doesn’t sit well with me, and that’s just a matter of principle.

I know I could have said “the economics of this deal still give me pause, but I’m going to support it because we need to move Edmonton ahead.” That would have been the politically astute thing to do, as I alluded to yesterday. But that would be walking away from a strongly held principle, and in the end I just couldn’t fold on it.

I might have been able to support it if the terms had shifted significantly, for example to include a larger user-pay component and, ideally, less borrowing on our books. I was really hoping we might get there after hitting the reset button in October.

I don’t begrudge my colleagues for having a different view. And I don’t begrudge the Oilers or their owner for trying to get the best deal they can.

In fact, and I said this yesterday too, it probably is about the best deal the City could get under the circumstances. It’s still the circumstances I have a problem with. Let’s all agree to disagree and move on. I will do my best to be positive and support the will of Council.

So, from here on out our specific focus should be on ensuring it delivers on all it promises to do for downtown. I can get behind that and continue to move ahead constructively.

What happened yesterday? Essentially, the City and the Katz Group will resume negotiations, but only after we set some new conditions for how those negotiations will take place. It’s a small, cautious step forward for everyone. I felt I could support that, but it doesn’t mean I’m on board for everything in the Oct 26, 2011 framework.

The most important thing to know about yesterday’s Council decision is that the City will continue to explore options for design alternatives that can reduce project costs, in keeping with our October 17 motion. We will still get those options at our January 23 meeting. Design restraint, and alternate operational models, could help reduce the impact on taxpayers.

The issue of the missing $100 million of public funds from another government was ‘the elephant in the room’ yesterday, a cliche I was guilty of introducing. The Katz Group’s position was that the City must find those funds. In my view, if public dollars are required to make this happen, the significance of any provincial dollars is that they would correspond to the value to the Region and Northern Alberta. Absent those dollars, any alternate funding source should also reflect the fact that this is not only about Edmonton (as the Katz Group indicated yesterday, 35% of the patrons come from more than an hour’s drive away).

As before, I’d rather any new dollars needed to make the deal work come from the user-pay side rather than the property tax side, because allocating future tax dollars always has an opportunity cost for the City. There is a way to do this by moving from a Katz Group-controlled ticket surcharge to a City-controlled ticket tax like we have today at Northlands. It could expose the City to more volatility from one year to the next, but it would share in the upside as well (right now the Katz Group has to pay the same amount whether it’s a lockout year or a cup-run year).

To give credit where its due, the Katz Group has taken a number of the more problematic demands off the table, like expecting the City to lease space in their office tower. They backed off an annual subsidy request but substituted it with a new mechanism that would see new tax revenues in the arena district above the CRL forecasts allocated back to the arena. While I’m not at all sure the idea is legal under the province’s CRL laws, that approach would give them incentive to go ahead aggressively with the surrounding development to generate the higher tax revenues. I don’t know if this will fly but it indicates movement on their part, which is valuable.

The other thing they offered to do was put their arena financial performance model numbers up against ours for scrutiny to a third party, which can’t hurt. The results of this are not likely to be shared publicly but it will help Council understand where the Katz Group’s math is steering them. We may hope the process also allows the Katz Group to understand the nuances of our take on the arena financial performance model.

The motion passed yesterday reads as follows:

1. That Administration re-open negotiations with the Katz Group based on the October 26, 2011, Framework.

2.That Administration negotiate an extension in the deadline in the Land Inventory Agreement from December 31, 2012 to April 30, 2013.

3. That Administration work with the Katz Group to identify and appoint an individual who could act as a mediator by January 23, 2013.

4. That the Mediator appoint a financial analyst to evaluate the City’s and the Katz Group’s financial assumptions and analysis for arena revenues and expenses.

5. That Administration work with the Katz Group under the support of the mediator to evaluate all other non-financial issues.