You are here: Strategic priorities 2011 – 2014.

Council's strategic priorities 2011 – 2014.

Council has now completed its strategic priority planning sessions. Residents may be interested to know my views on the outcome.

The document for our consideration on May 31, which had been based on our discussions at the end of April, began:

Council commits to the following priorities in alignment with the Sustainable Kingston plan:

1. Maintain and enhance infrastructure.
2. Enable economic development.
3. Rejuvenate Brownfields.
4. Facilitate affordable housing.
5. Create and protect green spaces.
6. Develop proactive community plans.


My colleagues did not share my concern that of the four pillars of sustainability, (economic, social, cultural and environment), only the economic pillar had a direct reference (#2) and the social pillar had a direct allusion (#4).

My proposal that we add as priorities “promote practices that further environmental sustainability” and another with comparable language for the cultural pillar, was rejected. It was thought that as these points had not be recorded during our earlier sessions they could not be added. The possibility of correcting an oversight was not accepted. It was deemed sufficient to ask staff to make a suitable reference in an amended preamble. It remains to be seen whether over the course of this term that will be sufficient.

In our first two sessions we had been asked to identify things that we thought were important. These came back to us as a list of nine projects, which we were asked to rank. They are listed below in order, with my comments.

1. Construction of John Counter Boulevard to 4 lanes: $70M capital and direct net operating costs estimate of $100,000. Note: 50% DC (development charge) funded (Score 32).

This refers to John Counter Blvd between Division and Princess Street. It includes building on overpass over the railway line to enhance safety as well as traffic movement. Half the capital cost will be funded from development charges. During the last council we acquired land to facilitate the overpass construction, and this priority represents continuity to complete a long standing project.

2. Invest $5 million in affordable housing (Score 19).

I would hope that this commitment is the first step towards achieving a better record on affordable housing than that of the last council.

3. Phase 2 701 Division maintenance and storage: $30M-$40M capital (Score 18).

A new public works garage has long been recognized as an important needed piece of our infrastructure. During discussion it was described as a big step to improve staff efficiency as well as working conditions for our employees. I was happy to support this.

4. Pending the finalization and outcome of the environmental assessment, design of an action plan for the construction of the Third Crossing: $120M capital with direct net operating costs undetermined. Note: 30% DC funded (Score 14).

When this came to a vote in the last council, I did not support the third crossing. I did not believe that the traffic study was adequate to support the need when we go to look for other government funding. A two-lane bridge not suitable for expansion will cost $120 million, while a four-lane bridge will be more than $200 million. In what I regard as the extremely unlikely event that the province and federal governments will each fund $40 million, the city’s capital cost would be significantly reduced by the development charge money. However, as the province is widening Highway 401, I would be surprised if they agreed to help finance a municipal road. If the Harper government is serious about the budget commitments, I very much doubt they would give us funding for this sort of project.

5. Expand the airport and create a viable transportation hub: $10 million capital, minimal operating costs (Score 13).

While I appreciate that it would be nice if we had a better air service at Kingston, I am sceptical that a market exists to justify another commercial carrier, such as Porter, coming here.

The Environment Infrastructure and Transportation Committee has recommended that a business case study to support expansion of the airport, including a 6,000 foot runway, look closely at what a realistic probable market is. Until that work is complete, I believe funding decisions for the airport are premature. Spending money on airport expansion does not of course mean that a second carrier in fact will come here.

6. Construction of Wellington Street: $35M capital and direct net operating cost estimate of $100,000. Note: 70% DC funded (Score North Section 10, South Section 0, Both North & South 6).

The rebuilding and expansion of Wellington Street can be divided into two sections: the northern part from Montreal Street to 401, and the southern part from Montreal Street into downtown.

I agree that the northern part could be an important link to the revitalization of the industrial Brownfields along the Cataraqui River.

For several reasons I remain of the view that expanding Wellington Street from Montreal Street into the downtown would be a horrible mistake.

First, the downtown traffic plan is not designed to handle and disperse an increased volume of traffic that the expansion would funnel into downtown. Indeed, the Princess Street improvements are meant in part to try to make downtown more pedestrian friendly!

Second, the expansion would eat into the Doug. Fluhrer Park, and the road would separate people from our one remaining relatively unspoiled waterfront park area.

Third, the drawings I was shown early in 2007 seemed to suggest that the expanded road would impinge on Metal Craft Marine. Given the importance of this employer to our economy, I cannot support an expense which has the potential of a significant negative economic impact.

I believe we should plan for improvements of Doug Fluhrer Park, including, for example improving the road access and parking, currently in very poor condition, secure in the knowledge that the southern extension will be removed form the capital project list. The proposal was included in the 2004 transportation master plan which was completed before we turned our attention to the critical issues if sustainability. Changed circumstances can justify the removal of the project.

7. Undertake transit capital investments: $25 to $35 million capital and up to $5 million in direct net operating impact by 2014 with potential phase-in approach (Score 9).

The capital costs identified here would be for new express buses to add express service from the east and west into the downtown area. (A new bus costs about $500,000.) There would also be associated infrastructure costs, such as bus stops, and garage space.

The comparative lack of commitment to this important project approved by the last council disappoints me. Unless we are prepared to make the investment in public transport that will see a significant increase in use in preference to the single occupancy private car, I believe talk of Kingston as Canada’s most sustainable city will remain stalled at the “talk only” stage.

As long as we fail to provide a public transit system that is a viable alternative to cars, that people want to use, we will continue to have the on-going costs of heavier road use and maintenance, and the need for creating more and more parking in the limited space of downtown. Remembering the arguments of employers that we cannot increase parking rates because their staff rely on cars to get to work, of course parking costs will have to continue to be carried partially by the tax base. I do not believe this was fully considered as an offset to the operating costs of the transit system.

8. Construction of an Aquatic Centre: $32M and direct net annual operating costs of $800,000. Note: 10% DC funded (Score: 5).

Every study done has pointed out that by comparison with other communities, Kingston is seriously short on swimming pool capacity for our population, Until we address this, those for whom swimming is an important component of their quality of life, will probably chose to relocate elsewhere. In other words, our ability to attract new jobs will be impaired.

9. Expand downtown parking: $10M-$25M capital, parking fee supported (Score 0).

The North Block Urban Design study called for a new parking garage in that area. However the earliest possible date for any developer to want to undertake a project in the area, given the consequences of the 2008 economic downturn, was thought to be not before 2013. Notwithstanding my belief in the need for better transit, I do appreciate that we must consider parking development either in the downtown area, or in a revitalized Williamsville area, if not both.

An analysis of the priorities as ranked can yield some interesting observations. The first is an attempt to do things with someone else’s money. As an aside, I should note that staff believe we have the ability to take on an additional $100 million in new debt for capital projects. Of the ranked projects, John Counter Blvd would be 50% funded by development charges (an intended use); affordable housing would require partners; the Third Crossing can only be afforded with significant funding from other levels of government, and a Wellington Street expansion would be 70% funded by development charges. The other projects, of which only the public works facility was highly ranked, would be funded by ourselves. I am concerned at the potential message that we are not willing to invest to improve our community.

During the discussion, a number of councillors made the comment that the 1% infrastructure levy on the annual tax bill was important and that it was regrettable that at one time the councils of day prided themselves on having a 0% increase, which caused our current infrastructure deficit. Does the low ranking of transit improvements suggest a similar short sightedness?

I remain concerned that there is a reluctance to embrace sustainability. Yes, to do so means behaviour modification, including getting drivers out of their cars. But what is the alternative? William Rees of the University of British Columbia, who will be known to many of you as the originator of the “ecological footprint” concept, has this to say [“Are Humans Unsustainable by Nature,”Trudeau Foundation papers, Vol 1, 2009, p109].

“If we do not succeed in realizing our collective dream, modern humans will, indeed, wind up visiting vast misery on themselves and irretrievably mutilating their planetary home. As I have written elsewhere, ‘It would be a tragic irony if, in the 21st century, this most technologically sophisticated of human societies finally succumbs to the unconscious urgings of fatally self-interested primitive tribalism. The cycle of societal collapse will have closed again, this time on the global scale.’”


People who believe in a better future for their children and grandchildren should be concerned.

The strategic priorities session ended with a brief discussion about tax rates. The consensus of council was that staff should plan around an annual increase of 3.5%. This is made up of 1% for the infrastructure renewal fund, 2% to cover anticipated inflation forecasts, and about 0.4% for the cultural plan implementation. If we are going to achieve what we need to, we must look for additional revenue. Again, I would suggest that the imbalance of payments in lieu of taxes must be addressed.

As always, I welcome your views on this very important subject of priorities. Please email me directly.



613.549.1900
www.billglover.org
bglover@cityofkingston.ca

 

 

 

 


^ Top

Previous page: Reporting sewer problems.
Next page: K-ROCK report.