>> mayor naheed nenshi: ohgod, we ask thy guidance in orconsultations so the end that truth and justice may prevail inall of our arguments.amen. before we get into the formalpart of the agenda this morning,it will be a good, fun-packed and busy day.couple of quick announcementsjust for the interest of those in the gallery.we will be starting with thepublic hearing items this morning.we will be taking an extendedrecess over the lunch hour to meet with the premier andcabinet.so we'll be breaking at 11:30 instead of our usual 12 and ibelieve there will probably besome other changes to the agenda.before we do those, aldermanpincott.
>> thank you, your worship.it's my pleasure this morning tointroduce to members of council and the public our new cityauditor.mr. todd horbosenko started with us last week and i'mactually quite impressed hemanaged to get by four days without being either hounded bycouncil or the media or anybodyelse. so i'm quite impressed.that said, we're pleased to havemr. horbosenko with us this morning.and also to have him join thecity of calgary. as many of know, he was deputyauditor at the city of edmontonand after the extensive search of which i would like once againto thank alderman lowe and thetwo citizen members of audit committee, mr. draper andmr. carpenter, for the amountof work that they put in to come
up with the best candidate innorth america for this job.i also would like to thank council support and inparticular audit committee'ssupport for all of the work that has been going on after auditcommittee for the -- over thepast year. i know that the new members ofaudit committee have -- well, wehave continuing work, and in particular i'd also like tothank alderman hodges for hiswork as he is no longer on audit committee.with that, your worship, mr.edto horbosenko, our new city auditor.[applause]>> mayor naheed nenshi: welcome, we're very happy to youhave here and we look forward toworking with you a lot going forward.would you like to say a coupleof words?
>> yeah, just take a moment.thank you, alderman pincott, forthat kind introduction. mr. mayor, members of citycouncil.good morning. i just want to say a few wordsto share with you my excitementto work with you and the administration to providecost-effective high-qualityservices to the citizens of calgary.i'll lead and develop a team ofinternal auditors who, while independent of theadministration, will work withmanagement to provide city council and the citizens ofcalgary assurance that their taxdollars are being spent wisely. being a small team, weconcentrate our efforts on themost important or highest risk areas facing the city tomaximize the impact of our work.the results of our reviews
provide management with anindependent and objectiveassessment and they are intended to use the actions of the pastto improve the future.we'll then publicly report these actions to reenforce the city'spublic accountability framework.in addition to yourselves, i've read that this city has over14.000 employees workingtogether to achieve the city's vision.to create and sustain a vibrant,healthy, safe and caring community.i'm very excited to join thecity of calgary and these 14.000 people to work towards achievingthis vision.appreciate you having me here this morning.thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thank you very much.we're very happy to you havehere and i will also repeat what
alderman pincott suggested whichis our special thanks to thesearch committee and the audit committee for finding you.and i think alderman pincott hassomething for you. >> a little something.>> thank you.cartoon from the sun, i believe. >> mayor naheed nenshi: thankyou very much.all right, that takes us then to question period.alderman colley-urquhart onquestion period? >> on the agenda, your worship.>> mayor naheed nenshi:alderman low on question period? >> on the agenda, your worship.>> mayor naheed nenshi: andalderman hodges on question period?alderman pincott on questionperiod. anybody?no questions today.all right.
on the agenda.i suspect we're going to have anumber of these. so let's start with i'm justlooking at my list of lightsthat are on, let's start with alderman colley-urquhart.>> thank you, your worship.on the agenda under section 9, items from administration andcommittees, we have the citymanager's report 201105 the airport tunnel under pass and onfriday this confidential reportcame out c 2011-06 and i understand some of ourcolleagues that were away oncouncil business didn't receive this.and actually many of us thathave reviewed it over the weekend don't really feel itneeds to be confidential, yourworship, and i was wondering if it could be tabled publicly nowso people have a chance toreview it?
>> mayor naheed nenshi: i'mgoing to suggest not at thisjuncture. the reason some of it isconfidential is it requiresitems under active negotiation with the airport authority atthe moment.and there are in fact some updates to it.i will, however, suggest thatwhat we can do, which i think alderman stevenson was going tomove anyway, is we can movediscussion of 066 right behind 05.so my thought is we will havethe public presentation on 05. go in camera, discuss those six,determine what needs to stay incamera and what can come out. and then have the discussionafter that, if that works foryou. >> okay, thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi: isthat everything?
>> thank you marry mayor i mayoirealize i didn't ask for amover. alderman demong?seconder?thanks, alderman pootmans. let's keep working our way down.alderman lowe.>> thank you, your worship. you and i discussed it briefly,alderman hodges and i will bringthis forward and it has to do with amendments to the streetsbylaw concerning pathwayclearing, your worship. topical for today, i might add.we have a situation in the citywhere we have people who have passed designated pathwaysadjacent to their property whoare being served with notice and orders to clear the full pathwayto the full width, which iscausing some concern and anxiety out there.so the purpose of the motion,your worship, is to direct some
action with respect to stayingthese orders, doing someeducation and making a change to the bylaw.so i would appreciate addingthat. >> mayor naheed nenshi: do wehave a seconder for that?thanks, alderman hodges. to add this item of urgentbusiness, are we agreed?that's added as 11.1. alderman hodges?>> sorry, your worship, ontoday's public hearing agenda, i take it it's appropriate to --i'd like to bring for thegreenbriar item and the bowness arp amendment item, bylawses 12p 2011.so i'm moving this and it will be seconded by alderman pincottat the agenda for today'smeeting, we further amended by bringing forward cpc financeever 2011-018 the amendment tothe arp and the land use
redesignation to the 2011april 11th combined meetingof council. >> mayor naheed nenshi:april 11th?very well. alderman pincott, you'reseconding that?>> the reason is this is kind of a bit of a complicated issue.we're not actually holdinganything up. the transportationinfrastructure is not in placeto support -- yet in place to support this land useredesignation.that will be a subject of discussion in the coming months,and a tabling will enable thereto be further consultation between the planning departmentand the planning members of thecommunity association in the area.so i think the tabling would beworthwhile.
>> mayor naheed nenshi: great.all right then.any further discussion on this item?so to table this item are weagreed? any opposed?carried.alderman pincott. >> thank you.i will -- i would like to movethe tabling of cpc 2011-27, which is, if i look at -->> mayor naheed nenshi: 8.1 onour agenda? >> yes, indeed.i would like to bring thisforward and table it for one month to the next public hearingin march.>> mayor naheed nenshi: is that march 7th, madameclerk?or is that a regular meeting? [inaudible]march 7 then.>> and a couple of things here.
one is that i had askedindustries for some further dataand research on this, and i was advised on friday that they hadactually managed to find anelectrical engineer who could perform that work, but that workhasn't been performed yet.as well, alderma, alderman chabd been working on this bylaw, thendistributed to alderman chabotand he isn't here, and he asked me along with the tabling if icould have the proposedamendments included. i have 35 copies here.>> mayor naheed nenshi: okay.i think alderman mar seconded that one.>> so that's tabling of thatitem for one month. >> mayor naheed nenshi: onthat tabling any furtherdiscussion? are we agreed?any opposed?carried.
alderman farrell.>> thank you.i have a couple of amendments, please.i am asking for a tabling fortwo months for the item number cpc 2011-021 in crescent heightsand i'd like that forapril 11th if possible, please would be to give thecommunity more time to work withthe applicant. >> mayor naheed nenshi: okay.>> i have two of them.>> mayor naheed nenshi: do we have a seconder for that one?thanks, alderman pincott.any further discussion on that one?tabling then cpc 2011-21 untilapril 11th are we agreed? any opposed?carried.alderman farrell? >> thank you.my second one is in eau claireand it deals with the eau claire
arp and the b lands.one is a tabled report cpc2011-126 -- or 2010-126. and the other is a proposed newbylaw, 18 p 2011, cpc 2011-030.>> mayor naheed nenshi: items 6.1 and 8.4.>> yes.would i like to move the last item up to be dealt with atabled item.because as they are related. >> mayor naheed nenshi: thatshould be relatively easy.do we have a seconder? thanks, aldermancolley-urquhart.any further discussion on that? thanks, alderman farrell.alderman carra.>> on the agenda we have cpc 2011-02 which was tabled fromlast month.it's item 6.3 on the agenda. related to that is my notice ofmotion, which is 10.1.2 on theagenda.
i would -- they are very relatedand i would like to move 10.1.2up before we address 6.3 because they are intertwined.>> mayor naheed nenshi: can wedo that one, madame clerk? all right.so you want to move 10.2.1 --10.1.2. >> mayor naheed nenshi: excuseme.10.1.2 to just ahead of 6.3. >> yeah, i want it to be 6.3 and6.3 become 6.3 a. or something.>> mayor naheed nenshi: no problem.do we have a seconder?thanks alderman hodges. any further discussion on that?are we agreed?carried. oh, sorry, alderman pincott isopposed.and so is alderman lowe. the one time i don't call.all right.very well then.
alderman stevenson.>> thank you, your worship.i have a couple of amendments. the first one is i'd like tomove that we bring c 2011-05 --bring -- let me see here. the in camera one which is 06,bring it forward and have itheld -- heard at the same time as 05.>> mayor naheed nenshi: i'mgoing to put it right after 05 if that's all right.>> thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi: do we have a seconder for that?thanks, alderman keating.any further discussion on that one?that was what aldermancolley-urquhart was referring to earlier as well.all right.so on that one are we agreed? any opposed?carried.alderman stevenson?
>> yes.on procedure i thought you heardyou say you wanted us to go first in camera in 06?>> mayor naheed nenshi: theway alderman stevenson has put it is we'll have the publicpresentation first.then we'll go in camera and come back out and continue the debateif that's all right with you.>> i'm a bit confused about public presentation on 05.it's not part of the publichearing. >> mayor naheed nenshi: i'msorry.i meant administration presentation.the administration hasintroduction to the item that they would like to do in publicbefore we go in camera.>> thank you, your worship. >> mayor naheed nenshi:alderman stevenson?>> yes.
i have a letter from theproponent for cpc 2011-06 whichis the bottle depot in taradale. we have a letter that has beensent to the city clerk, lawdevelopment authority that they would like to withdraw both ofthese applications effectiveimmediately. >> mayor naheed nenshi: thankyou.i think the right way to do that is to table it sine die.alderman lowe, help me out here.>> sine die stays there forever. until the next election.if they want to withdraw withit, it's... i'm looking at mr. tully ormadame clerk.>> mayor naheed nenshi: sorry. you looked like you had ananswer for me, alderman lowe.>> you said stand up, so i stood up.[laughter]>> mayor naheed nenshi: madame
clerk?>> file and abandon the bylaw.>> mayor naheed nenshi: so we've got a motion to file andabandon the bylaw.do we have a seconder? thanks, alderman mar.and are we agreed?any opposed? carried.all right.anything else, alderman stevenson?>> that's it, thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi: alderman jones.>> thank you, your worship.your worship, i'd ask that 6.2 or cpc 2011-001 be tabled lastmonth to this meeting to beheard following cpc 2011-0 -- to hear bylaw 15 p 2011.and now that that one's beentabled a month, the applicants asked me to table mine to comeback following the bylaw.so i would lke to table cpc
2011-001 and land use for onemonth.>> mayor naheed nenshi: you're seconding?on that one are we agreed?any opposed? carried.all right.anyone else? all right.so then motion to approve theagenda as amended, are we agreed?>> your worship, you've got someother items here. >> mayor naheed nenshi: sorry.>> there's an item, a bluesheet -- >> mayor naheed nenshi: oh,yes.sorry. so i'm going to read these outand alderman pincott you'll movethem? thank you.so there is a blue sheet itemfrom the city manager which i
think we can make 9.1.3.on the budget process.all right. i have an in -- we'll do theseall together.i have an in-camera personnel item, 12.5.anything else, madame clerk?>> yes, your worship. there's a report from thecommunity services committee,cps 2011-10, it's an in-camera item.>> mayor naheed nenshi: allright. so that -- we'll add that is the12.6, in-camera item resouthlandleisure centre. okay.anything else?all right. that's it.alderman pincott one movingthose? do i have a seconder?thanks, alderman hodges are weany opposed?
carried.finally, to adopt the agenda,are we agreed? any opposed?carried.that then takes us to the confirmation of th the minutes.>> move the minutes.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thanks, alderman mar.seconder?thanks, alderman stevenson. any changes to the minutes?>> your worship.>> mayor naheed nenshi: alderman hodges?>> i have an item.i meant to draw this to clerk's attention before the meeting,page 5 of 8 of the minutes ofjanuary 17th, it's -- the word "products" appears, and i'mnot sure that the word"products" was meant. business plan and budgetcoordination is often the termused.
but i haven't seen the term"products" as a part of thebudget process. it's second motion on the pageof page 5 of january 17th.did we mean that? [inaudible]>> mayor naheed nenshi:mr. sawyer's presentation that kay was about the documentationthat would come to council andhe was using the term "products" to describe that.>> just the context.>> mayor naheed nenshi: any other changes?all right then on the motion tooapprove the minutes of the two meetings you see there, 17thand 24th january, are weagreed? any opposed?carried.consent agenda. thanks, colley-urquhart.seconder alderman pincott.on the consent agenda are we
agreed?any opposed?carried. that takes us then into publichearing items.and we'll do a little dance and get ready and we're startingwith cpc 2010-126 to beimmediately followed by cpc 2011-030.>> ian cope representing thecity. bylaw 18 p 2011 has also beenbrought forward as part of thispresentation. proposed land use that is beingsought is located in the area ofeau claire. the areas affected are outlinedin red and encompass two cityblocks bounded by eau claire avenue, 2nd avenuesouthwest, 6th streetsouthwest and 4th street southwest.the purpose of the directcontrol bylaw is to take the
lands from the existing directcontrol and add in someadditional local commercial type uses, allow for an increase inf.a.r. or floor area ratio aswell as to allow for additional commercial type activity inspecified locations within thedevelopment area. in reviewing the direct controlbylaw, the note that anamendment to the eau claire area redevelopment plan is necessarythat was originally covered bybylaw 108 d 2010, at the time that was first brought forwardand tabled, we noted that therewas an error in the map which still included a heightlimitation.because that was not the intent of the amendment to the bylaw orthe amendment to the arp wechose to take this back to planning commission andreadvertise the arp amendmentwhich is reflected in bylaw 18 p
2011.it is now in accordance with theexpectations of the applicant and the intent of administrationand cpc.in that respect, the dc bylaw is recommending an increase ofavailable commercial space up to9,000 square meets from the existing 4500 as well as a minorchange to the type and norcommercials uses might occur in the site.as well in return for theadditional floor area there is specifications on where thatcommercial must occur as well asthe extent of how big that commercial individual spaces isbe.in that respect, we are recommending that council adoptthe arp amendments as shown inbylaw 18 p 2010 and in respect of that abandon bylaw 108 d2010.as indicated, the policies and
the bylaws are the same with theexception of the change to themapping. and in that respect, we wouldalso recommend that counciladopt the proposed redesignation and give three readings to bylaw108 d 2010.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thanks.any questions of clarificationon in proposal? we'll move into public hearingthen.anyone in the public wishing to speak in favour of thisproposal?anyone wishing to speak in favour?>> good morning, your worship,and members of council. i'm jeff hyde representing theowner.we have worked long and hard with city of calgary planningdepartment and i'd like toexpress the fact that we're very
happy with the recommendationbeing put forth here.and as such, are supportive of the new dc bylaw.thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thank you.any questions for mr. hyde?all right. anyone wish to speak inopposition to this -- oh, stillin favour? sorry.>> your worship, tim barslyfraser milner. i think i'm still in favour.mr. mary of our office hasbeen working on this and we've been asked to take a look at thetitle issue.we've been talking to your staff about this quite extensively.we've got most of it resolved.what we would ask council to consider if it supports therecommendations and readings isto only give the bylaw two
readings today.that will allow us to finish theprocess we need to with respect to the title matter.that's the conclusion of mycomments. >> mayor naheed nenshi:alderman farrell?>> thank you, there were some concerns expressed by thecommunity about the possibilityof large bars going into this neighbourhood.how have you addressed that?>> my understanding, alderman farrell, through the chair iswhat's happened in the bylawsthere's been a definition crafted of a drinkingestablishment that essentiallyrestricts the public area to what you would call in the bylawa medium or a small.and i believe that was addressed to the community's satisfaction.they're sitting here and noddingyes.
so i believe that took care ofthe problem.>> thank you for doing that. >> mayor naheed nenshi:alderman lowe for mr. bardsly?>> thank you, your worship. if i understand, you're askingus to withhold third readinguntil the title issues are resolved?is that correct.>> yes, third reading of the bylaw.if i may make a point, my namehas an e. in it. >> up there?>> i'm still trying to get usedto this. it's kind of like watching aball game.anyway, just the bylaw. i think the bylaw i is the onlyone we're concerned about.>> you're happy with that. thank you, your worship.>> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman hodges for
mr. beardsly?>> wrong place for the e.i'm getting in trouble this morning.>> just briefly on page 2 ofthis report, mr. bardsley, the owner is listed as bcimc realtycorp.is that still the case? >> yes, your worship, it is.>> mayor naheed nenshi:anything else for mr. bardsley?thank you, sir.>> thank you, your worship, members of council.>> mayor naheed nenshi: anyoneelse wish to speak in favour of this proposal?anyone wish to speak inopposition to this proposal? all right.questions for administration.all right. alderman carra?>> i don't know if mr. cope isthe person to answer this
because he wasn't part of theland use team.he's representing cpc. i'm just curious, we're talkingabout here is building a vibrantdowntown core. with the ability to be manythings to many people over thefullness of time once we build something.we've just got so manydiscretionary uses right there that just seem to beno-brainers.i'm wondering what our rationale is for having discretionary usesas opposed to permitted uses?>> mayor naheed nenshi: mr. watson.>> thank you, your worship.we have discretionary use bylaw so we have discretionary uses oneverything including thedowntown. that gives us the ability as wesee what comes in and how itfits to -- well, frankly to
refuse it if it doesn't fit evenif it fits all the rules.it's certainly the consultant that we hired to look at ourland use bylaw said we weresomewhat an anomaly in north america for that.but that's a long history ofthat, and that's the way it's been.>> thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thanks.alderman farrell?>> thank you. i would like to move the item,cpc recommendations and tworeadings of the item. and -->> mayor naheed nenshi: tworeadings. >> two readings, please.a little bit of background, thishas been a really interesting application.quite exciting, really, and itshows the evolution of this
community into more of a mixeduse community.but it -- while the application was exciting, it contained asignificant amount of retail.so we had asked the applicant to work with the administration ondoing a market study on how muchretail could this neighbourhood actually absorb.recognizing that our goal was tosee eau claire market area develop as a retail area.and so i think we've achieved ahealthy balance, and i'm quite pleased with the results.happy to move it and thank youto the community association for coming down today.>> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman farrell. alderman mar, up seconding that?any further discussion on thisitem? all right then.on the recommendations, are weagreed?
any opposed?>> your worship, can we do themseparately because there's recommendations in the originalreport that refer to...[inaudible] >> mayor naheed nenshi: sure.so let's just say -- all right.alderman farrell you then were moving the recommendations incpc 2010-126 and two readings ofthe bylaw? very well then.on that, are we agreed?any opposed? carried.so then on bylaw 18 p 2011 onfirst reading are we agreed? any opposed?carried.on second reading are we agreed? any opposed?carried.on bylaw 108 d 2010 first reading are we agreed?any opposed?carried.
second reading are we agreed?any opposed?carried. and then the other one was cpc2011-30.so alderman farrell you're moving the recommendations andtwo readings there as well?okay. or did we just do that samebylaw?we did the bylaw already, didn't we?okay.we need the amendments to the arp.that's what we're looking for.you move the amendments to the arp then?madame clerk?>> you need to do the recommendations on this cpcreport 030 which isrecommendation one to abandon the proposed bylaw 41p and adoptthe amendments in the arp.you already gave three readings
to the bylaw 1 p.>> mayor naheed nenshi: tworeadings? >> two readings.>> mayor naheed nenshi: i see.because they both have the same bylaw in them.that's where we got a littleconfused. alderman farrell if you couldmove the first tworecommendations cpc 2011-030 which is to abandon the proposedbylaw and adopt the amendmentsto the arp? >> yes.do we nee public hearing forthis? >> mayor naheed nenshi: do weneed another public hearing ordo we take them both together? this is a little bit messed upbut we'll move forward.[inaudible] >> your worship, i'm a bitconfused myself.it seems too to me we'vem had
a public hearing, therecommendations of cpc 2010-126were called which with bow bylaw 14 p 2010 and 108 d 2010.as far as i can tell, that iswhat we have had the public hearing on.i do not believe, at leastaccording to my notes, that we've called the other item.so if the other item requiresreadings which i believe it's supposed to be abandoned, youdon't need any public hearing ifwe're going to abandon it. if we're going to be givingreads to 41 p and 108 d, we canjust call them. >> mayor naheed nenshi: ithink the challenge is what ijust called was 18 p. rather than 41 p.which is the one that they wantto abandon. >> and so when the item wascalled, perhaps mr. watson canconfirm so we're all correct, 41
p and 108 d are the two bylawsthat we require readings on.correct? >> now i'm confused too.[laughter]i'm hoping mr. michita and mr. cope have got it figuredout.>> the item that was moved forward which is cpc 2011-030and that's bylaw 18 p 2011, thatbylaw should be given the three readings -->> two readings.>> or two readings. and part of that recommendationis that bylaw 41 p 2011 beabandoned. >> you were right, madame clerk.>> 41 p 2010.>> so, your worship, if that item for 18 p has not beencalled, then technically we havenot had a public hearing on that item.>> mayor naheed nenshi: wewere taking them together and i
did call the vote on it.let's do a quick do-over, shallwe? on proposed bylaw 18 p 2011,mr. cope?anything to add? >> nothing to add at this point.>> mayor naheed nenshi: anyoneelse which to speak in favour of this bylaw?anyone wish to speak againstthis bylaw? alderman farrell?oh, sorry,mr. beck is coming. good morning, mr. beck.>> good morning.my name is oscar feck. i've ben seeking about theseissues many times, like aldermancarra indicated, he picked it up when i mentioned we create somany rules, so many bylaws, theplanning department doesn't even understand what's going onanymore.i've been here a long time.
i've been here since 1952.does city council or planningdepartment ever listen? we had good rules and laws fromthe 4 40s, 50s.it's called to fit whoever wants to get something approved.mayor nenshi, we have to listen.you're not listening. [inaudible]so my point is why is thetaxpayers or whoever just like talking to a brick wall?we shouldn't do that.in the beltline, same thing. you created more rules and lawsto fit whoever wants to getsomething approved, again, a bar and hotels and goes on and on.so why aren't we going back togood common sense, what we had? not create rules and laws to fitwhoever we want to make it fittoo. that's wrong.it seems like that's the way thewhole thing is going, and
nothing has changed for the last20 years.and seems like it's continual, and it probably won't change,not unless we start analyzingand taking the bull by the horns and say, look, what's just goingon here, planning department.let's create some good rules and laws, make it fit for everybody.everybody should have the samerights and rules. mayor, that's all i've got tosay for now, but even with thetunnel, we create so many -- fluoride, seems like we createso many...>> mayor naheed nenshi: don't go off topic.>> i'm not trying to get offtopic, but you know what i'm saying.>> mayor naheed nenshi: i hearyou. thank you.>> just hear me, mayor m.p.fluoride, the tunnel, it's just
a political ploy, that's all itis.smokescreen. including the zoning.so let's take the bull by thehorn, and let's start using common sense, would you pleasedo that, mayor and aldermen?>> mayor naheed nenshi: we will always try.thank you very much.all right. the latest breaking news up hereat the head table is i may havebeen right in the first place with where we were going.ms. sloane, what do we do now,ma'am? >> we've now had the publichearing on 18 p which we did nothave previously. however, council did give tworeadings to that bylaw.municipal act requires prior to second reading we hold thepublic hearing.we've now held the public
hearing but already begin secondreading.what council needs to do is rescind second reading, considerthe public's subpolitician andthen proceed -- submission and then decide whether you want tocontinue with second reading.>> on a point of procedure. >> mayor naheed nenshi: yes,alderman chabot.>> sorry, given i wasn't here -- >> mayor naheed nenshi: youcan't set.give us a moment. you're moving to rescind thesecond reading -->> i move what our legal counsel said.>> mayor naheed nenshi: andalderman pincott is seconding that.on that are we agreed?any opposed? all right.now i believe -- well, we stillneed to abandon the other one
too.alderman farrell...[inaudible] can you move second readingof -->> i will do just that, thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi:alderman pincott, you're seconding?second reading of 18 p 2011 arewe agreed? any opposed?carried.now, alderman farrell. if you could move the other tworecommendations in cpc 2011-30.>> so moved. >> mayor naheed nenshi:alderman pincott, you'reseconding. any further discussion?on those are we agreed?any opposed? carried.all right.thanks, miss sloane.
we got through that onerelatively easily.so now according to our amended bylaw, we are dealing withalderman carra's notice ofmotion, 10.1.2. alderman carra?>> thank you, your worship.let me just find my papers here. bear with me, i apologize.>> mayor naheed nenshi: noproblem. >> i don't know what happened tomy papers.>> mayor naheed nenshi: luckily you know this file sowell, alderman carra?>> i do. >> mayor naheed nenshi: tellus.>> all right. so last month, as you may or maynot remember, we tabled cpc2010-002, amendments to the parkhill stanley park arearedevelopment plan and anassociated land use
redesignation in parkhill.there was -- this is a classicshowdown between a community that was not happy with anupzoning and a developer thathad gone through the process and ended up with a compromisedupzoning that sort of fit wherewe want to go with plan it calgary which is densify ourinner city but doesn'tnecessarily give us the means to actually get there.i thought this was a perfectopportunity to step in and work with administration on aninovation project.my notice of motion that i'm bringing before 6.3 is a requestfor funds from city council topursue an inovation project and just give you a little bit of --what we did was we took a monthand we did two things: number one, we extensively worked withthe community associationsinvolved -- i'm sorry, i'm being
distracted by david watsonthere.what's happening over here? [inaudible]okay.keep an eye on them, shifty. [laughter]so what we did was we did twothings: we took the month and we put together a terms ofreference that should be in yourpackage, madame clerk, is that the case?no.there are no terms of reference? how can those not get -- didthose not get circulated?i apologize. i was in quebec city.we have an extensive terms ofreference that were put together in conjunction with -- and and iget those circulated to mycouncil colleagues? [inaudible]>> mayor naheed nenshi: we dohave the notice of motion, but
there's something else, isthere, alderman carra?>> there is the terms of reference that describes exactlip where we want to go withthis -- >> mayor naheed nenshi: ihaven't seen that myself.>> okay. can we table this until thelunch break and then we can sortof -- >> mayor naheed nenshi: whydon't we table this to -- thisand its associate item to, let's see, well, how about just theend -- first item after lunch?>> please. >> mayor naheed nenshi: let'sdo that.>> thank you, and my apologies. >> mayor naheed nenshi:alderman farrell, you'reseconding that? are we agreed?any opposed?we'll deal with that after lunch
then.thanks for being generous onthat, alderman carra. that then takes us to i thinkitem 7.1 on our agenda, cpc2011-016. is that right, mr. cope?>> yes, sir.>> mayor naheed nenshi: all right.take it away.and i assume the lights that were on were for the previousitem.i'll clear them now. >> thank you, your worship.a proposed redesignation that isbefore you in bylaw 11 b 2011 is located in the industrialcommunity of highfield.it fronts on to 42nd avenue northeast.it will take it from the igdistrict and redesignate it to ic, industrial commercialdistrict.purpose of the designation is to
allow for a wider range ofcommercial-type activities to belocated in the existing building on the site.the site itself as is shown herefronts on to 42nd avenue where the access is taken from,and there's considerable areafor parking located at the rear of the existing building.existing building is underrenovation as we speak. shows the access from 42ndavenue and the next to picturesshow the adjacent bay-type commercial uses that occur oneach side of the building.it will retain the industrial use of the area and thereforethey are recommending thatcouncil adopted proposed redesignation from ig to ic andgive three readings to bylaw 11d 2011. >> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks.any questions of clarification?
public hearing then.anyone wish to speak in favourof this application? >> your worship, members ofcouncil, my name is gregdonaldson. i'm with brown and associatesplanning group.i'm the applicant. if you have any questions, i'dbe happy to answer them.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thanks, any questions formr. donaldson?you're getting off easy today it looks like.thank you.anyone else wish to speak in favour of this item?anyone wish to speak inopposition to this item? all right then.questions for administration.alderman carra are you moving this one?>> thank you.yeah, i will just move that we
proceed with cpc'srecommendations that we adoptthe proposed redesignation and give three readings to theproposed bylaw.>> mayor naheed nenshi: great. alderman chabot you'reseconding.any further discussion on this one?very well then.on the recommendations are we on the bylaw then.first reading of the bylaw arewe agreed? any opposed?carried.second reading of the bylaw are we agreed?any opposed?caied. authorization for third readingof the bylaw are we agreed?any opposed? carried.and third reading of the bylaware we agreed?
any opposed?carried.thank you. all right.that takes us to item 7.2, landuse redesignation, bylaw 12 d 2011.>> thank you, your worship.proposed item for redesignation is located in the community ofstoney 2, also in an industrialarea. parcel is question is outlinedin red with access taken from100th avenue on the north and adjacent to the northportion of barlow trailnortheast. proposed redesignation will takethe lanes from the existing igindustrial district and redesignate the lands to ib,industrial business district,with a height limitation of 30 metres and a f.a.r. of 1.0.the area is currently used as aarea for the short or longer
term parking requirementsassociated with park and fly.the area outlined in red again showing access from 100thavenue and the parcel in itscurrent status as taken from barlow trail looking towards thenorthwest.proposed redesignation will allow the land to be redevelopedto allow for a morecomprehensive commercial type activity under the ib districtand it's primarily intended tobe used for a hotel complex. should note that the lands tothe west of the parcel arecurrently zoned with a similar designation for a similar typeof use.in that respect, calgary planning commission isrecommending that council adoptthe proposed redesignation and give three readings to bylaw 12d 2011.>> mayor naheed nenshi: any
questions of clarification?alderman chabot?>> thank you. very briefly, mr. cope, itsays the ultimate f.a.r. to bedetermined at the time of development permit application.it does indicate proposed f.a.r.for commercial to be .5 and the maximum f.a.r. of 1.0 tosupport -- sorry, supportcommercial uses, .5 for office uses.so the f.a.r. on the commercialside department be varied beyond 1?>> it's -- oh, beyond 1.no. 1 is locked in.>> and what about the f.a.r. forthe business unit? can that be varied above .5?>> that is not specified as partthis land use, depending on the type of activity that isoccurring in the area and basedon a t.i.a. that will determine
the f.a.r. for the site.the stoney and area structureplan does make provisions for that variance in f.a.r. based onthe types of use and trafficgeneration. >> is this contingent at allabout -- in regards to airporttrail and the tunnel? >> no.>> thank you, your worship.thank you, mr. cope. >> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman chabot.any other questions of clarification?any members of the public wishto speak in favour of this proposal?>> good morning, your worship,i'm the applicant for this and i'm here to answer any questionsyou may have.>> mayor naheed nenshi: good morning.any questions?you're getting off easy today as
well.>> i intend keeping it that way,your worship. >> mayor naheed nenshi: thanksvery much.anyone else wish to speak in favour of this proposal?>> mayor, aldermen, my name isoscar feck like i mentioned a little while ago.this building is finished.why are you coming back to get it approved again?this is what i'm talking about.keeps changing from one -- >> mayor naheed nenshi: thisone's just a park lot, there'snothing else there. >> this building come backbefore to get it changed fromhotel to condos, then back and forth.this has been here so manytimes. and i'm not knocking anybody.it's just...we seem to try to fit zonings
even when the buildings arefinished.this is the one by the airport. >> mayor naheed nenshi: ithink you're thinking the onenext door, but make your point anyway.>> well, i'm trying to make mypoint. the building that's finished,whatever, this is a parking lotnext door, but both are linked together as far as i understand.so -- well, even if they aren't,but what i'm saying, this is the chaos or problem that's going onhere.let's quit all this. once a building is approved,then let it build, let itfinish, get it finished and do with it whatever you want.same thing the one on 17thavenue and 24th street. they had to come back two, threetimes.the building is almost finished,
get the final approval.you know what i'm saying, mayorand aldermen. it's very simple.thank you.if there's any questions... >> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, mr. feck, and i haveto say your sentiment is an important one for us to hear.so thank you.>> thank you. >> mayor naheed nenshi: anyoneelse wish to speak in favour ofthis proposal? anyone wish to speak inopposition to this proposal?all right then. [inaudible]>> thank you, your worship.i'd like to move the recommendations on the threereadings of the bylaw.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thanks, alderman stevenson.seconded by alderman mar.alderman chabot?
>> thank you, your worship.based on the last presentation iwonder if i could ask administration to come forwardagain and tell me exactly whatdo we have on this site right now?>> just a temporary building tofacilitate the park and fly operation.>> so the intent t to to demolihthat build -- >> once the permit is in placefor a permanent type of use, iwould presume that that building would be removed.>> mayor naheed nenshi: it'sjust a little hut, right? >> there's two.this is actually at thesouthwest corner with an access. there's another building at theentry off of 100th which isof approximately the same scale. >> so storage, essentially.>> yes.it's long-term parking for the
airport.>> thank you for that.thank you, your worship. >> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman chabot.any further questions or debate on this matter?all right then.on the recommendations, are we so then on bylaw 12 d 2011,first reading of the bylaw arewe agreed? we agreed?any opposed?carried. cpc 2011 -- i was going to say018 but that's been tabled.so 019, land use redesignation mayland, north airways, shepardindustrial.>> good morning, your worship, members of council.calgary planning commission isrecommending the redesignation of four privately owned parcelsassociated with item cpc 2010-019 and bylaw 14 d 2011.
they're intended to align theland use maps of bylaw 1 p 2007in order to better reflect the nature of these developments.proposal includes redesignationof four parcels to industrial business and industrialcommercial districts.parcel a maps a-1 and a-2 is located in the community ofmayland in ward 10, contains anoffice building. the site was originallydesignated i-2 district whichwas transitioned to ig district. the transition to a maximum usearea 50% of the gross floor areaof the building. in order to remove thislimitation an ibf 1.0 directedis proposed with a floor area ratio of 1.parcel b located in thecommunity of north airways in ward 25 contains a building witha variety of industrial andcommercial uses including retail
and consumer service uses.this site was also transitionedfrom i-2 district under bylaw 2 p 80 where retail and consumeruses were no longer permitted.there it will accommodate all of the existing use.item 3 parcel c maps c 1 and c 2located in the community of south wear airways in ward 5.it was transitioned to igdistrict which limited the existing office use to 50% ofthe gross floor area of thebuilding. redesignating this building willaccommodate the existing officeuses occurring on this parcel. parcel d maps d 1 and d 2 inshepard industrial ward 12contains an office building which is transitioned to igdistrict.redesignating this parcel will accommodate the existing officeuses.notification letters were sent
to the affected landowners, noopposition was received.therefore calgary planning commission is recommending thatcouncil give three readings andapprove this bylaw to assure the land use maps reflect the natureof these developments and landuse districts are consistent with the land use transitionstrategy which was part of theoriginal approval. >> mayor naheed nenshi: thankyou.mr. smith, is it? >> yes.>> mayor naheed nenshi: anyquestions for clarification for mr. smith?alderman chabot?>> thank you, your worship. there are no existing subleaseson site on any of these parcelsthat would create a legal, nonconforming use?>> i'm sorry, i don't...i don't know the answer to that
question.>> i believe mr. watson can -->> mayor naheed nenshi: do you know, mr. watson?>> can't speak definitively butwe do not believe so otherwise certainly we have looked at allthe sites and what is actuallyexisting on the site. >> so all tenants and subtenantswould have been notified of theproposed change? >> i believe not the tenants andsubtenants but all the ownerswhich would have a concern should one of their subtenantsor tenants have a problem.>> that would have been the responsibility of the ownerhimself to advise thoseindividuals. >> that's right.>> thank you, your worship.no further questions. >> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman chabot.in further questions of
clarification?public hearing then.anyone wish to speak in favour of this proposal?anyone wish to speak inopposition to this proposal? all right then.alderman jones?>> your worship, i'll move the recommendations of cpc and threereadings of the bylaw.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thanks, alderman chabot, you'reseconding.any further discussion? on the recommendations are weagreed?any opposed? carried.first reading of the bylaw arewe agreed? that takes us now to cpc2011-020, inglewood item 7.5 onyour agenda. >> thank you, your worship.those items before you today areboth a road closure and a land
use redesignation for thoseclosed portions of road.the areas affected are outlined in red, and affect the cornerever st. monica avenue and14th street southeast. should note the lands have beenredeveloped for open spacepurposes and pathway. the proposed closure will closethat portion of st. monicaavenue as well as two corner pieces of the former cul-de-sac,excuse me, and redesignate landsto rc 2 district and scs district to reflect the actualuses occurring on the site.council -- or cpc has considered the item and given the fact thatthe lands have already beenredeveloped in accordance with the proposed plans, arerecommending that council adoptthe proposed road closure and road closure bylaw 1 c 2011 begiven three readings.and secondly, adopt a proposed
redesignation of that portion ofclosed road and give threereadings to bylaw 15 d 2011. photos before you right now areshowing the current developmentof the site of the pathway which would did he designated scs andthe two little corner piecesthat are going to be designated rc 2.we are recommending approval ofthe bylaws. >> mayor naheed nenshi: anyquestions of clarification?alderman carra? >> this is interesting whe whentcame up because this road's beenclosed for years. it was basically a pylonned offstretch of highway that waspylonned off to prevent cut-through traffic when thesite was redeveloped.in recent years the community got together and working closelywith the parks department and abunch of other people built i
think the nicest plground inthe city of calgary.it is spectacular with public art and everything.i'm -- my question, i guess,would be how is this not closed before?i mean, this is obviously just alate after the fact piece of house keeping.>> mayor naheed nenshi: fairquestion. mr. cope, do you have ananswer?>> yes, i do. this area was subject of a roadclosure bylaw in the early1980s, i believe. however, the closure was neveraffected at land titles.so technically the roads have remained open, even though theywere redeveloped in theintervening time frame. >> there's some amazingall-access playground equipmentsitting in the middle of that
road right away.it's gone.but i will be -- >> mayor naheed nenshi: no onewill be driving through.>> i will make a motion to support this as soon as -->> mayor naheed nenshi: let'sfinish our public hearing first. combined public hearing on bothproposed bylaws, anyone wish tospeak in favour? anyone wish to speak inopposition?very well. alderman carra, wouldyou like to make the motion?>> as for the cpc report -- >> mayor naheed nenshi: don'thave to read them all.>> i recommend we do everything the cpc report asks.>> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks. one?all right.on the recommendations to
recognize that you shouldn'tdrive through a playground, arewe agreed? any opposed?carried.all right. so then we have two bylaws hereon bylaw 1 c 2011 first readingare we agreed? any opposed?carried.second reading are we agreed? any opposed?carried.authorization for third reading third reading are we agreed?any opposed?carried. and on 15 d 2011 first readingof the bylaw are we agreed?any opposed? carried.second reading are we agreed?any opposed? carried.authorization for third readingare we agreed?
any opposed?carried.third reading are we agreed? any opposed?carried.all right then. that takes us to 7.6 has beentabled.so 7.7, cpc 2011-022, land use redesignation in saddle ridge.>> thank you, your worship.proposed redesignation is locate in the community of saddleridge.the arrest sell affect a former acreage parcel as outlined inread and takes access from80th avenue northeast. proposed redesignation will takethe land from the existing sfudspecial purpose future urban development district andredesignate the lands to dcdirect control district to accommodate the additional usesof place of worship and aprivate school.
the land itself will be -- havetemporary access from 80thavenue, likely in the same location as you can see on thisaerial photo.the area of metis trail will be developed just to the west, butoff site.and, of course, no access to metis trail will be allowed.in the long term once theinterchange area is developed in this location from metis trailand 80th avenue, futureaccess will be located from the north once the rest of thedevelopment areas are developedand the internal road system created.and with respect to the use ofthe parcel, cpc was accepting of the proposed uses, existingdevelopment shown on the land inthis photograph. in that respect, cpc isrecommending that council adoptthe proposed redesignation from
sfud to direct control.and that three readings be givento bylaw 17 d 2011. >> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, mr. cope.questions of clarification for administration?alderman chabot?>> i saw a picture of a house on that site.>> this is a house that exists.>> sfud, future urban development.>> it allows for one residenceon a parcel. >> thank you for that.no further questions.thank you, your worship. >> mayor naheed nenshi: thatwould, alderman chabot.my favourite land use designation is sfud because it'sfun to say.typically these are acreage parcels where there is a home?>> quite often the sfud districtreplaced our old urban reserve
district it it's a holdingdistrict pending future urbandevelopment. but within that, there's anumber of uses and a singledetached residence is one of those uses.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thankyou. public hearing then.is there anyone who wishes tospeak in favour of this item? >> your worship, members of thecouncil, i'm the applicant.and i'm here to answer any questions you may have.>> mayor naheed nenshi: anyquestions for mr. chu? they really are letting you offeasy today.>> thank you. >> mayor naheed nenshi: anyoneelse wish to speak in favour ofthis? anyone wish to speak inopposition to this?all right then.
alderman stevenson?>> thank you, your worship.i will move the recommendations in three readings.your worship, this parcel hasbeen -- the application has been now for two years on it.we as the city has held it upfor a few different reasons. one of them was road --necessary decisions on necessaryroads right of ways there, also most recently because of stormwater retention.this is a part of the infamous cell d.there's 36 parcels here.and we've been trying to come up with an amendment to the saddleridge area structure plan toaccommodate development on these.and we have finally come up, ithink, with a way of doing it. so i would urge my fellowmembers of council to supportthis, but then i would like,
your worship, to be recognizedfor a motion arising when thisitem is complete on this. thank you, your worship.>> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman stevenson. could i have a seconder?alderman jones.thank you. alderman chabot and then i havea question for mr. cope.>> thank you, your worship. maybe alderman stevenson canaddress this.there's been some issues raised by the saddle ridge communityassociation as well as themartindale community association on things that they don'tsupport in this currentapplication. and i probably should have askedmr. chu to address this issuebut hopefully mr. stevenson can address it in his close.have any of thesers raised bythe two community associations
been incorporated into this?>> yes.as indicated the actual access to the site is temporary from80th avenue -->> right in, right out? >> well, likely right in, rightout.it's not divided at the current time.once it's fully developed ibelieve it is a divided roadway. yes, that's correct.the long-term access will comefrom the north from an internal road network.so i believe most of theirissues will be addressed. >> thank you.thank you, your worship.>> mayor naheed nenshi: that was actually my question too.i did notice there was onestrange note that talked about the height of the dome versusthe airport guidelines.i imagine that has been sorted,
yes?>> not yet.that would form part of the development permit review.certainly there is certainrestrictions on height for anything in proximity to theairport.part of the development permit circulation will includecirculation to the airportauthority as well as to transport canada.if there are any issues withheights in excess of what's allowed under the airportvicinity district, that will beaccounted for as part of the development permit.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thankyou, mr. cope. anyone else before i called onalderman stevenson to close?alderman stevenson? >> thank you, your worship.the letters from the communityassociation date back to '09 and
i talked to saddle ridgeyesterday about this.what the concerns are, twofold: one is the storm waterretention, and, of course, whathas happened is the applicant has put storm water retentionfor their site on the site.right? >> that's correct.>> and so when the land isacquired for the site, for storm water retention for the wholecell, there's a possibilitythey'd be able to use that land for development at that point.the other point is the access byroad, the contract is out, construction is underway on thebuilding of metis trail and80th avenue, and it will be a divided road.80th avenue will be as ofthis coming year. so what has to happen now is wegive them the temporary accessright in and right out, but with
the motion arising that i'mgoing to bring forward, it willbe the first step towards us actually developing the roadnetwork for the entire cell d.you just see the bottom of half cell d. there but the rest of itwill all be incorporated in anamendment to the area structure plan.thank you, your worship.closed. >> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman stevenson.so on the recommendations, then, on proposed bylaw 17 d 2011,first reading are we agreed?any opposed? carried.authorization for thirs third rgwith re agreed? any opposed?carried.third read are we agreed? any opposed?carried?alderman carra you have a motion
arising?>> thank you, your worship.alderman stevenson, you have a motion arising?>> thank you, your worship.if the clerks could put this up on the screen.so with the respect to cpc2011-022 and the bylaw, council requests that administration bedirected to investigate theproject requirements and impacts including estimated landpurchase costs, constructioncosts and cost recovery strategy for a permanent storm waterretention facility within celld. and report back to -- through land and asset no later thanjune.this would be the -- securing the land for the big stormretention which would take careof the entire facility -- the entire cell d.so planning has put thistogether so this is the first
step in bringing this forward.thank you, your worship.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thanks, alderman stevenson.seconded by alderman jones.alderman lowe? >> thank you, your worship.mr. watson or mr. cope, dowe have to purchase this land for the storm water retentionfor the whole area or will it bededicated? >> your worship, through thechair, as -- perhaps we can putthe area map back on, flip back, showing the whole -- that'sright.this whole area as you can see there is made up of smallparcels.there needs to be a comprehensive decision made onhow storm water is going to bedealt with there. the report that will come backwill lay out those options.i mean, if this was all owned by
one owner, the developer wouldbe building a pond.and then -- >> that's the genesis of myquestion.>> but if we don't find some way to build it in advance, i wouldsuggest that each one of theseparcels are going to have to come up with their own stormwater management systems, whichis what is happening on this parcel now.which is a terrible use of land,frankly, if each one of them has to use 5 or 10% of their siteuse on water retention.>> that's my point. we're not aware of anyconsolidation of these lands atthis point? >> we've had several meetingswith and in fact we're workingon a plan to look at this whole cell to make it -- in terms oftransportation and land usesthat's coming forward, planning
commission.but in our conversations withthe landowners, there's no appetite to get together and woktogether on it.what we would do if council chooses to buy the land and putin a permanent storm waterfacility, is that we would then -- there would be a bylawput in place and another one asdeveloped would have to contribute to the bylaw to payit back.but that could be over a long period of time.i will outline all those prosand cons for land and then ultimately council to decidewhether or not they want to doit. >> and when would we see thatreport?>> the first step would be in june when we start outliningthe -- sort of the parameters ofit.
if council then says...[indiscernible]and try to acquire the land, we'd need the instructions to dothat, that would be the secondstep. >> what would be the source offunding if we had to acquire it?>> it would probably have to come through the utility.>> through the utilities.>> and that is not -- i'm not either recommending orsuggesting that at this point.>> i'm seeing winces in some of my colleagues around the table,dr. watson.>> it's a problem we've got in several -- your worship, i'mgoing on here, but it's inseveral places in calgary where we have these small parcels.you either wait and don't doanything, and i heard -- alderman stevenson is absolutelyright, this took two years inthe process.
and in fact probably took evenlonger in buying the parcel.either way say we are not prepared to do anything untilsomeone comes and buys all theland orer agrees to work together.into neither case have we gotany appetite either for somebody to purchase all of it or for theindividual owners to worktogether. >> thank you, mr. watson.>> it's a dilemma.>> thank you, your worship. >> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman lowe.on the storm water motion, alderman carra?>> thank you.i just want to reiterate, general manager watson'sstatement that it would beextremely fortunate if we required site-specific stormwater management.and as a preview of coming
attractions to my sort of noticeof motion interruptus, it wouldbe nice if we had a system in place that could compel in avery positive way landowners towork together and find collective solutions.the small-parcel issues aresomething that come into play, but really incapacitate innercity development and that's whatmy notice of motion will be addressing, but in the meantimei think it's really important toat least lay out some possibilities for how thesepeople could work together in away that makes dollars and cents for everyone.them, the surroundingcommunities and the city. i'll be supporting this motion.[please stand by]with like i don't know ten or twelve different landowners, is that correct?30 cells?
>> 36.>> 36.okay. so it's looking for acomprehensive strategy,right, to dealing with storm water?excellent.i think this addresses the issues raised by aldermancarra.thank you. >> thank you.any further debate on thisitem? ald stevenson, did you wantto close?closed. very well then.on this motion arising, arewe agreed? any opposed?carried.that now takes us to item seven.8 in your agenda,disposal of reserve cpc2011-2023.
mr. cope?>> thank you, your worship.madam clerk, can you -- >> let me switch back tohim.there we go. >> thank you, your worship.i propose redesignation anddisposal of reserve affects the lands outlined in redand actually is affectingthe area bounded by 76th avenue and 72nd avenuenortheast, metis trail onthe east and 42nd street northeast on the west.disposition of reserveaffects the entire block except for that portionlocated in the extremenorthwest corner which is the current site of theformer saddle ridgecommunity hall. the disposition will allowthe lands to be redesignatedfrom the current s-spr
district to s-cri districtto allow for theconstruction of a storm water detention facility.the lands affected which isthe location of the storm water area are shown inblue.the area along metis trail shown in grey will be usedfor road widening for metistrail and there's a small portion in the very cornerof the remaining sfvr whichwill be disposed of to allow for road widening in thatlocation to provide accessto the internal parcels. considering the application,cpc noted there will becompensation to the reserve fund for those lands beingdisposed of.and in that respect are supportive of that withredesignation to s-cri toallow for the storm water
retention facility.in that respect, we arerecommending that council adopt by resolution thedisposition of 8.938hectares of land from community reserve, removingthat designation at landtitles and also asking council direct a designatedofficer to ensure that isundertaken at land titles. secondly, they'rerecommending that counciladopt the proposed redesignation of 7.88hectares from the existings-spr special purpose school park and community reservedistrict to s-cri specialpurpose city and regional infrastructure district toallow for the constructionof the storm water retention facility and that threereadings be given to bylaw18-d2011 in that respect.
thank you.>> thank you, aldermanhodges. on a question ofclarification?>> yes. thank you, your worship.mr. cope, on page 1right-hand column second paragraph down, there'sreference to a storm watermanagement system, not just a storm water pond but astorm water managementsystem. what's being contemplate?>> i do not have thedetails. i'm not sure if there'sanybody from developmenthere today or not but i believe this pond will beservicing an extensive areabetween 36th street northeast and metis trailand will be serving allthose currently former
acreage and current acreageindustrial type parcels as acomprehensive facility. >> i could have assumed that,too, but unless the water'scoming over land i take it there will be a piped stormwater system or pumps to getit over to this site. >> i don't have the detailson the mechanisms involved.>> do we know how big the proposed pond or theproposed system will be?i mean, just on this site alone?>> it will occupy majorityof the area that's outlined in red in this location map.there is activity on thesite right now to be stripping and grading whichis essentially using thatentire area. >> it's only a shortdistance south of theapplication we just dealt
with, 17-d, 2011, whichcalls for a pond and for onalderman stevenson's motion arising a study of the stormwater issues for 36 parcelsjust northeast of this site. >> that's correct.>> we have an answer for youhere. >> the chair, if i couldhelp alderman hodges, we didinvestigate that but part of the problem is in thisnortheast area, the land isvery, very flat, there's very little gradientanywhere because of metistrail, we did investigate the idea of maybe we cansomehow get it from one sideto the other side, but it isn't going to work.this one will deal with theland, this is both west and south from the previous siteand this pond deals with allthe industrial land on this
site.>> perhaps you're right,there is a distribution network to get it to thepond but we can't use it.>> but mr. watson, to reflect a bit on yourprevious comments, who'sultimately going to fund all of this?>> sorry, who's going tofund? >> yeah, this is a majorproject.>> well, no, this is being done through the utilities,i believe, and this one willbe the land owners that are going to benefit from it asthat industrial land isdeveloped. they're going to becontributing to it.>> so we'll have a system of local benefit bylaw oracreage assessments, one orthe other?
>> i would imagine so.i can certainly get thedetails on it. >> if i was a land owner upthere, i'd be rubbing myhands in glee. >> i don't think there's toomany land owners rubbingtheir hands in glee. the ones that talked to mewhen at the come into thecounter aren't rubbing their hands.but i can certainly find outthe details about it. certainly this one has beenplanned for some period oftime. and the benefiting landowners will be paying forit. there's no facility for thecity simply to build stormponds for free for anybody. >> well, if an appealarrives at the sgab on thisor related issues, you will
be the first person i willtell you about it.>> i'd love to come to it. >> we can arrange that.>> oh, alderman mar, you'reputting the cat among the pigeons yet again.alderman keating.>> thank you, your worship. i wonder if you could justclarify some differencesbetween community reserve and municipal reserve, whatthe uses are and thedifference. >> yes, your worship.the community reserve was aterminology that was used prior to i believe 1976 inthe municipal governmentact. it performs the samefunction as what we now callmunicipal reserve so therefore the same criteriafor disposition is requiredon the current act.
>> these are basicallyexactly the same, justdifferent terms? >> that's correct.>> and the money in through,where is that coming from, compensation, and -->> i'm not sure whose pocketthat is coming from. part of the requirement, iexpect any arrangementswould be negotiated through our corporate propertiesgroup.>> so i'm clear, we're actually disposing ofmunicipal reserve land for adifferent purpose than what was originally intended?>> that's correct.>> thank you. >> thanks, alderman keating.alderman chabot?>> yes, thank you, your worship.and thank you, aldermankeating.
actually you picked up onthe point that i had somequestions about specifically, and that's in regards tothat money in through,exactly where is that pot of money coming from?who deposited to this moneyin through. it doesn't make referencehere -- through.that per the request by corporate properties andbuildings and transportation,which kind of suggests to me that they're the holder ofthis money in through, iwould assume. >> that's correct.>> and -- lou.>> so that raises the question about the appraisedvalue of $280.000.i thought we had a specific number that we used foracquiring and disposing ofroad right-of-way and that
seems high to me.>> i am presuming that theamount that's been arrived here is based on anindependent appraisal whichis done within 30 days of the application being made.similar to what we would docash in lieu of reserve in a subdivision stage.>> i don't disagree with theappraised value based on that it was developablelands but when we're talkingabout road right-of-way, typically, and correct me ifi'm wrong, your worship, ormr. watson or whomever, typically when we acquireroad right-of-ways ordispose of right-of-ways, we have a specific number thatwe use to make thatdetermination. and this goes far beyondthat.>> to the chair, that's not
my understanding, sorry,alderman chabot.my understanding is that there is an appraisal basedon location, based on anumber -- each piece of road right-of-way purchased froma private individual isnegotiated and it's not a -- when we dispose of it, samething happens.>> you know what, honestly, respectfully, i wouldcertainly like to get somefeedback from corporate properties on this issuebefore voting on it so, ifpossible, and i don't know if anybody's willing to backme as a seconder on this,i'd like to table this matter, if possible, untilafter the lunch break, so wecan possibly get some clarification from corporateproperties on what wetypically do for disposition
and acquisition of roadright-of-way.in my opinion, this is high, your worship, so i'd like tomake a motion to table this.>> i wonder if there's anyone in the room who cananswer that question.i'm looking over at the chairman of the joint --she's shaking her head.okay. so we have a motion then totable this one untilimmediately after -- very subtle, very subtle,alderman chabot.immediately after lunch. after the park hill matter,why don't we do it afteralderman chabot's notice of motion after lunch.>> absolutely.>> second i by alderman colley-urquhart.are we agreed?are we agreed?
>> agreed.>> any opposed?all right. this we'll deal with afteralderman carra notice ofmotion immediately after lunch.so that then takes us to --where does that take us? cpc-20110.247.9 in youragenda.>> thank you, your worship. the land outlined in redaccessed from river crescentjust off of glenmore trail southeast.there is no access toglenmore trail southeast from the subject lands.proposed redesignation willtake the land from the existing rc 2 residentialcontextual 1 dwellingdistrict and sif you had future purpose urbandevelopment and redesignateto lands mcg with 50 units
per hectare to allow formulti-residentialalcontextualrade oriented development.the parcel in question isleft over from the riverbend development.future development to thewest will be for park areas and 24th street.therefore this has been anisolated residential parcel. this will allow for the areato be cleaned up anddeveloped in a similar vain as the existing developmentwithin the riverbendresidential community. parcel is showing up,showing you the currentcondition of the subject site which could use someobviously renewal prospects.in that respect, calgary planning commission isrecommending that counciladopt the proposed
redesignation from the rc 2nsfud to mcgd 50 and thatthree readings be given to proposed bylaw 19-d-2011photos above showing youright now are the actual location of the futureglenmore trail alignment anddevelopment area. >> thanks, mr. cope.any questions ofclarification? all right then.are there any members of thepublic who wish to speak in favour of this proposal?>> your worship, councilmembers, my name is tom for sany, calgary of calgonproperties here to answerany of your questions. -- forzani.>> thanks, mr. forzani.any questions for mr. forzani?we're letting all theapplicants off easy today.
thank you, sir.anyone else wish to speak infavour of this proposal. anyone care to move aldermancarra?>> this is a process that sort of has gone back andforth with the communityassociation. i know there are people wholive on the street who aredead set against it. but we've endeavoured tomake the communityassociation the place where they could engage in theseconversations.and the community association has beenextremely proactive inaddressing it so, i mean, was the discussion -- wasthere -- mr. cope, was thereany discussion of the community position at cpcand did that play in any wayinto cpc's decision?
>> my memory, there was nospecific discussion withrespect to the input from the community.of course their informationwas presented to planning commission.i think it was accepted atface value. >> okay.i will move therecommendations of cpc. >> thanks very much.and three readings of theproposed bylaw. great.and alderman chabot isseconding. any further discussion onthis item?very well then. on the recommendations, arewe agreed?any opposed? carried.proposed bylaw 19b2011,first reading of the blue,
second reading of the bylaw,are we agreed?any opposed? carried.authorization for thirdreading of the bylaw, are we and third reading of thebylaw, are we agreed?any opposed? carried.thank you.that takes us then to 7.10 on your agenda, cpc 201125,royal vista.>> thank you, your worship. the proposed redesignationis 0.9 hectares of landlocated in the royal vista area, redesignate the landfrom the existing directcontrol district to a new direct control districtallowing for a wider rangeof commercial-type uses including a building supplycentre.the parcel itself is located
at the intersection of royalvista drive northwest and112th avenue northwest. the area you see in grey isthe spy hill landfill site.lands directly to the south of the site are currentlynot developed.the one parcel in from that shown in white is currentlydeveloped and there is abuilding finished being developed on the subjectsite with a number of bayslocated in it. the direct controlincorporates a number of theitems in the original direct control with the additionaluses of building supplycentre and in addition to the available gross floorarea for displayincorporated and in that respect, calgary planningcommission is recommendingthat council adopt the
proposed redesignation andthat three readings be givento proposed bylaw 20d2011. all right.are there any members of thepublic who would like to speak in favour of thisproposal?>> your worship, members of council, greg donaldson withbrown and associates.i'm the applicant. if you have any questions,i'd be happy to answer them.>> any questions for mr. donaldson?so building supply centre isthe proposed use here, mr. donaldson?>> well, that would be oneof the tenants we hope to get into the building.we're not certain who wouldmove in there but we think there's a demand fortrademen and their suppliesto other tradesmen.
>> okay.thank you.anyone else wish to speak in favour of this proposal?anyone wish to speak inopposition to this proposal? very well then.alderman lowe?>> thank you, your worship. i'll move the recommendationto planning commission andthe three readings of the bylaw and mr. donaldsonpointed out the essentialchange to this is to provide, if you will, tradesmen'splace where a tradesman canhave opportunity to display and market tradesmansupplies or the goods heproduces. it's a gap in our bylaw thatwe're filling this way, itdoes not alter the direct control bylaw with respectto the architecturalcontrols as you saw by the
building.thank you.>> great. thanks, alderman lowe.and alderman mar isseconding that. terrific.any further discussion onthis item? very well then, on therecommendations are weagreed? any opposed?carried.first reading of the bylawr carried.that takes us to cpc20110267.11 on your agenda, west hillhurst.>> thank you, your worship.proposed redesignation of 0.31 hectares in thecommunity of west hill hurstlocated at the intersection of kensington road northweston 19th street northwestencompassing the entire
block along 19th street.or face block of 19thstreet. propose the designationtakes the lands from the rc2 residential district and redesignate the land to dcdirect control district toallow for a multi-residentialdevelopment with associatedlimited support commercial uses.commercial uses will belimited to facing on to 19th street and will be of theneighbourhood support typevariety. the land is currentlyoccupied by a number ofsingle detached houses, aerial photo showing thearea right now.lands to the north of this block are areas of localcommercial district therefor many years.
and the lands directlyacross the street onkensington road northwest are also the location of alocal commercial complex.in that respect, the area does comply with the policydocuments for the area.site photos showing from the south on kensington roadexisting development at theintersection. the existing development onthe site along the face of19th street. this next photo will beshowing the north end of thesite at the northern extent of the proposedredesignation.as i mention, there is a commercial area locateddirectly to the north.photo showing that along 19th street and this is thephoto of the commercial landlocated directly to the
east.in that respect, calgaryplanning commission considered the items and isrecommending that counciladopt the redesignation from rc 2 to dc direct controlwith guidelines as attachedand three readings be given to bylaw 21d2011.i do not i believe there isa public commission objecting to the proposedredesignation that formedpart of your agenda package. thank you.>> thanks, mr. cope.questions of clarification, alderman macleod?oh, you want to.why don't we wait a second till they're settled.questions of clarificationfor administration on this one?all right then.is there anyone here who
would like to speak infavour of this proposal?>> good morning, your worship, members of council,my name is tracey neilinghere to address any questions you may have onbehalf of the applicant.>> thanks very much. any questions?>> we really are letting -->> your honour -- your worship, sorry.>> alderman pootmans.you didn't put your light on, alderman pootmans.>> oh, i hit the microphone.yes, i notice november 29th, have you had a chance toaddress some of the issuesthey have raised? >> we have.we have had several members-- meetings with the community associationparticularly to address someconcerns associated with
traffic and shadowingimpacts and those have beenaddressed. >> thank you.>> thank you.any further questions? thank you.>> just a follow-up.>> alderman hodges. >> your worship, just afollow-up, ma'am.how did you address them, this application is not tiedto plans.>> no. with respect to a specificissue?>> well, say shadowing. >> the dc was crafted toaddress the buildingsetbacks and building stepback, that's why in thecpc package there's adiagram illustrating the setbacks specified in the dcand we've tested the shadowimpacts and those setbacks
will address any concerns.>> and parking underground,i take it. >> yes, there is undergroundparking.>> does it meet the bylaw? >> it does.>> and visitor parking,same? >> yes.>> thank you.>> thanks, alderman hodges. alderman farrel?>> thank you.perhaps you could go through some of the processes youwent through with thecommunity. -- farrell.initially, they weren'thappy with the envelope that was originally proposed andthere's been significantwork on behalf of the applicant and the communityto come to some agreement,so perhaps some explanation
in that area would behelpful.>> sure. an original -- the originalapplication called forhigher density and there was some discussion with thecommunity association.several meetings with the community associationparticularly, with respectto the traffic impacts of this higher density infilldevelopment.and although the city transportation departmentdid not require a trafficimpact assessment, we did complete a trafficassessment whichspecifically addressed some of the community's concernsrelating to access and tripgeneration rate. so the traffic impactassessment looked at a veryconservative analysis based
on suburban rates and it wasdeemed that the local roadnetwork would handle the increased traffic.there was ongoing -- we hadseveral meetings with the community association andcontacted adjacent landowners, and we didn't have any opposition.>> so beyond the trafficimpacts, though, you've changed the envelopeconsiderably?>> that's right. >> so help me out here.there's been significantmovement on behalf of the applicant in finetuning theapplication to address thespecific concerns of the agreement.or of the application.and the community. >> that's right.the building envelope on thewest side, for example, the
setback is very clearlydefined.there's a -- maybe if i take a -- yes.this diagram illustrates therequirements of the dc in terms of the buildingstepback and -- setback andthe purpose of this envelope was to prevent any shadowingon the adjacent property tothe west so with this building envelope is veryclearly defined in the dc.so the intent is to achieve this so the building stepbacksquite significantly on thewest side to avoid the shadow impacts.>> okay, thank you.and y've tested it out with some schemes, althoughthey're not in theapplication, because we're talking about land use,you've tested out thisenvelope to show what a
finished building could looklike?based on the land usage, not that we need to see themtoday.well, there we go. but, yes, you worked withthe community.i want to thank you for your work because it initiallystarted out where thecommunity was quite concerned about theapplication, and i thinkyou've done a lot to help them with their concerns.so thank you.>> thanks, ald farrell. ald macleod -- aldermanmacleod.>> it's my privilege today to introduce city hall classfor this week.there are 24 grade 6 students from corpuschristie school accompaniedby their teacher alana
carpchuk-park and theirfocus this week is what doesit mean to be a responsible citizen.it's great topic, sowelcome. thank you.>> welcome to all of you.stand up. ( applause )nice to see you all and asalderman farrell always reminds us, you've just beenon tv.alderman keating, i think you had something to say.>> thank you, your worship,and i do at this time ask for council's patiencebecause it's not often thatwe're able to tell some stories about the studentsstanding here, and i'veasked alderman macleod if i could help her with herintroduction.so as ex-principal of corpus
christie school, i do havesome stories.and i have a few stories and then there will be aquestion of a test at theend just to make it encompassing.>> principals don't givetests. >> soiled like -- so i wouldlike to talk about the firsttime i stood in front of corpus christie and had anassembly and we're talkingabout welcoming all new members, much like you didyour worship at our firstcouncil meeting where i stood up and welcomed allthe new students to theschool and all the new staff.and i happen to be one ofthem. unfortunately, in honestyand openness of being aresponsible citizen, one
kindergarten student stoodup quite serious and said,you're not new, you're old. so here i am.( laughing )standing there, and then, of course, we go through that,and the librarian happens tohave a trivia contest on a weekly basis, and she comesup right after me and thetrivia question today was what's the oldest thing inthe world.and of course immediately 300 eyes all shifted to mestanding off to the side.so, you know, open and honesty is one thing, butthen we can go to the nextstory where i had a young girl in my office who washaving a bit of a difficultyon that day. and we're descaling, youmight say, and workingthrough some issues, and i
gave her a picture, an 8 x10 with a hundred plusprincipals and administrators in thepicture so each of our headsare this big. and i said please find --see if you can find me inthe picture. so she looks at it, andquite surprisingly quicklylooks up with a puzzled look on her face, and she asks,"what would you look likewhen your hair was dark?" so again, open and honestlyis is another question wewould like to go forward. there was probably the lastyear that i was there thatwe had some very bright, green shirts that saidcorpus christi talents underthe sun and these sorts of things and i was wearingmine in the hallway and ayoung child stops me and
says you know you look likea turtle, and i wasn't quitesure if she meant the colour or the shape of the shell,but either way, we had somegreat times. so the question is i gave upall that for this.is that a test for my sanity, your worship, i'm not quitesure.but i do want to welcome them and it's great to seeyou.thank you. >> thank you.alderman keating, dependingon how the rest of the day goes, you and i both may beback in the classroom soonerthan later. thank you for your patiencewith that, ma'am.any other questions for the applicant?all right.anyone else who wishes to
speak in favour of thisproposal?>> members of council, aldermans, my name is georgedena, i don't know if i needto be in favour of it, but i'm in favour of it.let's get this built.thank you, alderman farrell for big support.we worked quite long time onthis, made lots of changes, accommodated the neighbourslast few units on it, iappreciate your help. so i look for your support.thank you.>> thanks. any questions for thespeaker?thank you very much, sir. anyone who wishes to speakin opposition -- anyone elsewho wishes to speak in support of this proposal?anyone who wishes to spaekin opposition to this
proposal?-- speak.>> your worship, council, peter, i'm a resident of19th street.i and some other neighbours who chatted about this areconcerned about theprecedent that this might set.the image that we sawearlier had a four-storey building.most of the buildings aroundthere are two storeys. and while this buildingmight not cause shadowing onnearby properties, further development in that areamight eventually move downthe street to affect other people.and so we're concerned verymuch as to also concerned to all the increase in parking.there's not an overabundanceof parking on 19th street
and with 50 or 60 units puton that street, it might --people might start parking a lot more on the street.a nearby house has a --that's for rent, that the owners rent it out.they all of a sudden -- onehouse parks several vehicles on the street.and while this residencemight have enough parking for one stall for most ofthe units, a lot of peopleown more than one vehicle and that could crowd thestreet.anyways, thank you very much.>> thank you.i'm not sure i caught your surname.>> leonard.>> leonard. thanks, mr. leonard.any questions formr. leonard?
alderman mar?>> thank you, mr. leonard.and that was actually my first question, your worship,i didn't catch your nameeither. could you indicate on themap by any chance where youare in relationship to the site?>> further north.probably closer to the west hillhurst community centre.>> closer to 5th avenuethen. >> yeah.>> okay.so you're like off the map then?>> yes.>> right. so you're really concernedabout this being the thinedge of the wedge. >> yes.>> that's what i'm hearing.>> yes.
>> and are you a member ofthe community association,did you attend any of the meetings at all?>> i've attended onepreviously where they were discussing designs for thebuilding.i work out of town so i don't often get to go tothings i want to go to.>> right. i mean obviously there'sdemand for time and iappreciate that. i was just curious.now, planet calgary, whichis the new municipal development plan that we'veimplemented -- sorry, wehaven't implemented, we passed, this is sort of atest of that scenario.should we be densifying in the inner city, should welook at a nodes and cornerstrategy.
when wee talking about aquarter, kensington road,which is a large development -- sorry, a large majorthoroughfare, thedevelopment here talks about also having a mixed use aswell as having all of theparking self-contained and so on and so forth so itshould be in theorysomething that not only supports itself in terms ofthe parking but alsosupports the neighbourhood and what we heard from theadministration and also theapplicant, that it would be something like a coffeeshop,barber, things of thatnature, which would -- >> a coffeeshop and a barber,just further down the street,but, yes, i understand. >> i'm talking about thosesorts of supportive uses.is that something you're
generally supportive of orare you sort of opposed todenseification in this area? >> i can see the benefit ofdenseification, if that's areal word, but it's -- i mean, that could beaccomplished with townhouses.and houses that are there are suitable for smallstarting families whereascondo developments are generally for singleindividuals and youngcouples. and this is a niceneighbourhood for familiesthat are starting out. these small, little housesare good starter houses foryoung people who have children or are planning onhaving children.>> my first test was very similar to those ones thatare in the pictures.-- house.
i understand what you'resaying about affordabilityand what you're saying about trying to maintain thatneighbourhood character.but i was just curious what your thoughts were withregards to denseification ofthe inner city as well as where you were inrelationship to the site.>> i don't have objections to denseification or smallbusinesses.i just don't want a four-storey condo buildinggoing up next to me nextyear. and so it seems reasonable-->> you're concerned about creep, and i appreciatethat.>> yeah. >> those are my questions.thank you very much.>> thanks, alderman mar.
just keeping an eye on theclock here, i remind councilwe have five minutes so keep your questions short.alderman carra?>> largely asked and answered.i mean, i appreciate yourconcerns as a citizen. you're seeing denseificationbut you don't understandwhat it's part of and how it fits into a comprehensiveplan and how it impacts yourneighbourhood. it's just, i guess, anotherteaser for my notice ofmotion interruptus but we'll be getting to that.thank you for coming outtoday. >> i'm not sure i heard aquestion mark there,mr. mar. alderman farrell?>> i said asked andanswered.
>> thank you for comingtoday, sir.i wanted to assure you that if you're up by where thewest hillhurst communityassociation, if there was any attempt in the future toupzone that area, therewould have to be an extensive consultation.this has been going on, thisconsultation, for at least two years that i recall.and so it wouldn't -- idon't see it as the thin edge of the wedge so i justwanted to assure you thatthat wouldn't be the case. but i appreciate yourconcern.>> thank you. >> thank you.>> thank you very much.for taking the time to come out, mr. leonard.it's important that citizenshave their voices heard so
thank you for being here.anyone else wish to speak inopposition to this proposal? all right then.alderman farrell?>> thank you. well, i will move the itemand three readings of it,and i wanted to thank the community association andthe applicant for workingtogether and keeping an open mind on both sides, for avery important corner.you look at kensington road, it has tremendous potential.that is unrealized at thistime. and i think there's been apretty good compromise.what we're seeing on 19th street is actually somethingquite exciting which is areally successful burgeoning local retail, and thecommunity is quite excitedabout the potential of 19th
and the potential of westhillhurst as far as planetis concerned but i want to assure the residents whocame here who were concernedabout that that there will be maybe even a laboriousprocess if we want to moveforward with any other changes.i also want to assure thecommunity that the applicant has agreed to sign adeveloper code of conduct.i think that was one of the concerns from some of theletters, is what'sconstruction going to be like and what's the impacton construction to ourcommunity? so the code of conduct helpsaddress that, and i'mlooking forward to moving forward with the dp.thank you.>> thanks, alderman farrell.
as someone who walked onthat particular streetcorner every day for all of my high school years, icertainly agree with youabout the importance of getting it exactly right onthat corner.alderman mar? >> just briefly, council,this is exactly what we'retalking about when we're saying that we believe inplanet calgary or we don't.this is a corridor. this is not necessarilysomething that we should beafraid of. we are moving forward fordensity because we know thatwe are increasing our population, probablydoubling our population inthe next 25 years. we need to find creativesolutions to house people.we need to also respect the
neighbourhood and thecharacter and understand theimplications that this density has.but i'm going to supportthis because i believe it is the right thing to do.i believe it will enhancethe neighbourhood, and i also believe that if we'regoing to move forward onthis strategy for planet calgary, we need to do itcourageously, and withoutlooking back. thank you.>> thanks, alderman mar.any further discussion on this item?very wl then.on the recommendations, are on first reading of thebylaw, are we agreed?any opposed? carried.second reading of the bylaw,are we agreed?
any opposed?carried.authorization for third reading of the bylaw, are weagreed?any opposed? carried.and third reading of thebylaw, are we agreed? any opposed?carried.i'll take a motion to recess now until 1:30.thanks, alderman stevenson.seconded alderman pootmans r we agreed?carried.we'll see you back here 1:30.captioning of this meeting isprovided as a communication accessibility measure and isnot intended as a verbatimtranscript of the proceedings. if inaccuracies occur, it maybe due to human error,technical difficulties or an
inability on the part of thewriter to hear or understandwhat is being said. while best efforts are made todocument as closely aspossible what is being said, the captions cannot be reliedupon as a certified accuraterecord of the proceedings. andwhat is being said.while best efforts are made to document as closely aspossible what is being said,the captions cannot be relied upon as a certified accuraterecord of the proceedings.>> and we're back. so according to our earliertabling, we are now --excuse me, item 10.1.2, notice of motion re missionroad main street project.alderman carra. it was under notices ofmotion, and you will havehad an additional -- you
would have had an additionaldocument on terms ofreference distributed to you before the lunch break.just before you jump up,alderman carra, alderman colley-urquhart, i see yourlight.>> no, your worship, it's asking questions on thisitem.>> all right. introduce it, aldermancarra.>> thank you very much. >> and i should say, i'msorry, we have a smallprocedural problem with your notice of motion.>> okay.>> because there are two items, two recommendations,thank you, after lunch, ihave trouble with english, two recommendations and thefirst one is arecommendation to table
which is a non-debatablerecommendation.so what i'm going to suggest is i'll let you introducethe topic, and then perhapswe will take the recommendation separatelybut you'll put the secondone first. so that we can have a debateabout it.>> i think that's a brilliant idea.>> okay.>> there's also an amendment to this notice of motionthat alderman keating willbe bringing forward. >> okay.>> just minor adjustments.this thing has been very fluid.we've been putting ittogether quickly. all right.>> we'll play it fast andloose and try and get
through this.>> first off, to my councilcolleagues and to people in the gallery, i apologize fornot having the terms ofreference. that was my mistake as anewbie alderman.you have it in front of you now.and what this terms ofreference, this notice of motion, this request fortabling all represents is anexciting draw, potential draw on our innovation fundto really challenge andpotentially change the way we do inner citydevelopment, and potentiallyhow we do development across calgary.now i come from an urbandesign background, and what i've found is that you haveto get the design and theprocess by which you achieve
that design and then therules and regulations thatallow that design to take place into a level ofcollaboration that we don'tcurrently achieve. my terms of reference takesa look at this section ofmission road, and it's an historic -- it's an historiccorridor, it's calledmission road because that's where the first nationspeople actually travelled tothe fathers in the mission area.and today, it is a placewhere two neighbourhoods meet.it's technically all withinpark hill, but structurally, it's where earlton and parkhill come together.much like the 19th street corridor where differentneighbourhoods within westhillhurst meet.
and so wherever you go in --wherever you go in calgary,you can see this sort of -- those active scenes wheremission and cliff bungalowmeet, the main street of 4th street, sunnyside andhillhurst meet you have themain street of kensington, and so the big question ishow do we get this idea ofan active street in a walkable neighbourhood inline with something thatmakes dollars and cents to the development industry, inline with a mission thatcommunities can get behind and what this innovationproject -- what these termsof reference are attempting to do is basically achievefour potential benefits,find a way to streamline inner city redevelopment.number two, streamline innercity development while also
maintaining a meaningful andevening more meaningfulpublic process than we have right now.i personally find it alittle bit frightening that our attempts to streamlineand blow up community voicesout rather than empowering them and what this does isput them at the front of theprocess and stream lines the back end when decisions arebeing made.it addresses the issue that was also addressed today ofhow do you take disparateparcels and respect individual property rightsand it achieves the holygrail for both the development industry andcommunities and that is itestablishes a great deal of certainty in terms of whatyou're going to get but alsoallows flexibility.
and that addresses thequestion i asked earlierabout -- i'm spacing on the term -- discretionary usesversus committed uses.so what this terms of reference asks is that wetake this particular part ofthe city, this seam of mission road, and we examineits potential for upzoningwithin the context of a main street.and we're looking at a threthree-part process. we're looking at a designprocess to bring all theplayers together and achieve a design verycollaboratively.it talks about establishing a smart code to regulate it,which is a differentalternative form of land use regulation that's beingadopted across north americaby cities that really want
to empower inner citydevelopment, and then italso has a component that's a financial market study tofigure out a way to, "a",make sure it's -- it pencils out and figure out a way todo public realm improvementswhere everyone pays an equitable share and we'relooking at doing this overthe course of the next year. the history of course isthat we tabled cpc 2011.02in january till now and we took that time to puttogether these terms ofreference and work extensively with thecommunity, with the landowners affected and with administration to establisha terms of reference thateveryone can get behind and is willing to gamble on andthis is contemplating ayear-long process that
potentially could replaceour current multi-yearprocess. and then the other thingthat we did was twosaturdays ago, we ran a world cafe visioning sessionwith the community.it was a very, very snowy saturday morning from 9:00till noon.i was worried that no one was going to show up.we had a tremendous amountof people show up. and a tremendous amount ofenthusiasm about addressingtheir neighbourhood in a proactive and collaborativeway so i really believe thatthis is the future of planning.i believe that we have theopportunity to draw the asked $300.000 from theinnovation fund to hire aconsultant team who's
well-versed in doing thiskind of work and then workthrough with the communities and administration andworking out the bugs.and hopefully, i'm very confident that this willlead to major transformationin how we address redevelopment issues.but my motion shouldhopefully be on the screen at some point.it's in our agenda?>> did you revise it from the notice of motion in theagenda?>> yes. we don't have the notice ofmotion up?just so we have something -- and i think alderman keatingis willing to make a coupleof minor adjustments to that in keeping with thediscussions we've had withthe community and the land
owners.>> all right, hold on, holdon, hold on. don't sit down yet.let's just get this right.it says july 26th public hearing.i notice that the actualterms of reference suggest december 5th public hearing.it's an interim report fromjuly. >> that's actually -- thatnotice of motion is therevised one. if that's what's up there...that's the amended version.>> okay. >> procedurally, we weregoing to just -- i was goingto put the original motion of motion up and aldermankeating was going to movethe amendment. and then as per hisworship's suggestion, iwould be interested in
putting whereas number onesecond.>> because it's a notice of motion, alderman carra, it'sprocedural fun house today,because it's notice of motion, you can just put therevised version.>> okay, i'm going to do that then.>> all right.>> so then the changes are the third whereas has aminor change.whereas it used to read whereas the communityconsultation hasdemonstrated that there is a desire to undertake a morecomprehensive design plan todetermine the feasibility of a mixed use main streetalong mission road prior torendering decisions -- prior to rendering a decision onthe individual developmentwe're change it go to say
along mission road as apotentiality native torendering individual decisions on individualdevelopment applications.and then the second thing is we've asked for an interimreport to come on july 26thto -- return to council on july 26, 2007, with aninterim report to councilthrough the sbc and lpt about july 20th.>> could you change publichearing to combined meeting, please?>> by all means.>> you probably don't want this to go to a publichearing if it's interimreport. >> by all means but thepoint is to allow thecommunities and the land owners to weigh in at lpt tomake sure that we are ontrack and everyone's still
incredibly supportive ofthis and that we have notgone off the rails. >> okay.alderman carra, while you'restanding, could you say a little bit more about theamount for which you'reasking? it seems awfully high to mefor a small street.so is your thought that this would help the city developskills in this area or wouldevery small street need a $300.000 spending?>> no, no.the idea -- i think this is the sort of ballpark to do afull neighbourhood roll-out.and i think that what this is is this is really anindepth exploration andskill development session, this is an attempt to goall-out and bring in thebest consultants from across
north america to reallyteach us how cutting-edgeplanning is being done and to work extensively withadministration on this.so, yeah, i agree it's a very small chunk of realestate.and i will say that the terms of reference have beenamended slightly over thelast week because at the public visioning session,there was a lot of talkabout the connection to the lrt station and that has tobe part of the scope ofconsideration as well. so, yeah, it is a chunk ofchange but it is a verysmall chunk of change that could have trand ennssimpact.>> great. -- transcended impact.>> your worship, could weconfirm the date.
there is no meeting on julythe 26th.it's a regular meeting on july the 25th.and the combined julymeeting is july 4th. >> let's do the regularmeeting on july 25th becausethis doesn't have to come to public hearing.>> thank you.>> meeting on the 25th. >> is that all right withyou, alderman carra?>> absolutely. >> okay.>> thank you forparticipating in fun house day with me here.>> every time, aldermancarra. every time.>> should i sit?>> yes. >> alderman colley-urquhart.>> thank you, your worship.>> hold on one sec, alderman
colley-urquhart.i didn't get a seconder forthat. alderman keating, thank you.please go ahead.>> thank you, your worship. actually, i had aldermancarra join me at the fishcreek lacombe t.o.d. initiative for developmentaround that site and it wasvery helpful and that's when i first heard of this bigidea, and it is exciting.but this is my problem: we came up with the innovationfund.and right away, and i'm looking at the engagementfor business planning andbudgeting alderman lowe and demong directed a withdrawalof $2.5 million from theinnovation fund. the closest we've had to aninnovation fund, as i recall,was the strategic
initiatives fund that we hadmanaged through aocc forcommunities and various groups to come forward withideas that they have.i think it started out at a million dollars, then we cutit down to 500.000.some refer to it as a slush fund, which was somewhatdisparaging.but what's lacking for me here, your worship, are theterms of reference aroundthis innovation fund. i've already been approached,i'm sure alderman mar aswell, by the calgary police service who have a lot ofreally innovative ideas thatthey would like to apply to this fund.so now i think the terms ofreference that are presented here are an excellent startfor this project.but who gets at this money,
is it first come firstserve?and is there going to be a period of applications whenthey're received and whenthey're reviewed as part of a screening process tocomply with terms ofreference? so this is what i need toknow.>> i can answer that a little bit.when the fund was initiallydesigned, it was deliberately designedwithout a lot of processaround it. because the overall thoughtwas that it was forinnovation as per the name. pilot projects and redesignof existing city processes.so we -- council agreed to set aside $5 million forthose purposes.of which we immediately took
2.5 million and put into theredesign of the businessplanning and budget cycles. there's two-and-a-half left.i don't believe there's anyother draws on it. so the idea was that it wasdeliberately left to councilto make those decisions so that individual members ofcouncil or frankly people inthe administration could bring forth ideas thatcouncil could then debate ontheir own merits without having too many guidelinesdirecting it, given thatit's meant to be for innovation.we don't want to presupposewhat that innovation may look like.that was really the thinkingbehind it and, as a result, it would need to be firstcome first serve because theinnovation is coming.
if you want to redesign theelements of that, of theinnovation fund, you're welcome to do so, council iswelcome to do so, but theidea was to keep it loose on purpose so that we could seewhat would start bubblingup. >> so it's $5 million, yourworship, is a lot to beloose with. >> well, council still hasto agree.council -- they all have to come to council, there's noone else who can make thedecision. >> what do you think theterms of reference arearound this? >> my own personal feeling?>> yeah.>> as i say, i think if it's for anything -- if i can bevery, very blunt, anythingthat is something that
hasn't been done before,that's really what i'mabout. it's about experiments,about pilots, about tryingnew things, so in my mind, this particular proposal,you know, without biasingthe vote on the proposal itself, but this is exactlythe kind of thing that iwould imagine would come up to the innovation fund.other examples might include,you know, one thing tossed around is piloting adowntown express bus serviceto the airport for a few months and seeing how thatworks.that kind of thing. so to me, i was veryhesitant to put more detailsaround it precisely because i don't know what innovationmeans because the whole ideais to experiment to try
things that are new.>> right.and i appreciate the whole transformation and theinnovation piece, butinnovation is probably different to each and everyone of us.and, you know, what i think is unfair about this is thatwe don't have a cut i don'thave period -- we don't have a cut-off period forreceiving these things.have a deadline and have all these come forward and weknow them and look at them.i love the idea. and i know it'sinappropriate with all theselights on to refer this back to try to have some generalterms of reference becausethis is so much money and half of it's already goneand we're only one monthinto the year.
so that's the reservation ihave.>> i actually quite like your idea of having anapplication deadline.quarterly or maybe semi-yearly given the ratethat we go on.you may certainly make a motion to refer, if youlike.>> i may do -- >> it has a tabling motionin it procedural, it's a bitweird but we can do it. >> i will wait to hear other-- maybe i'm the only onethat has this concern because we didn't get offthe mark to get something inhere to be considered. i know how hard i had towork for the 50.000 at fishcreek-lacombe and now i'm being told it's not nearenough to do the kind ofinnovation and blue skying
that this area needs.so thank you.>> alderman colley-urquhart, let's hear how it goes andi'll recognize you again, ifyou want to make a referral motion after we hear a fewmore lights.but let's work together on a notice of motion to flushthis out a little bit more.i do hear your concern. i think it's a good one.alderman pincott?>> thank you. yeah, no, this is great.i like the terms ofreference. i'm quite familiar with thisas that was in my ward priorto the election so i'm aware of the issue and this lookslike a good process.i do have concerns with the amount, certainly, $300.000is a lot of money to bespending on this project, so
i would like to know justfrom the mover in his closewhere that number comes from and if it is actuallyamendable.the other question i have was, as i looked at the timeline within the terms ofreference, it was interesting to me that theinformation session openedhouse followed cpc and i would be curious as to therationale for having theopen houses following the item being at cpc.it seems like it's a littlebit backwards to me. so if i could have those twoquestions answered by themover in his close, i'd appreciate it.>> thanks, alderman pincott,and i'm sure alderman carra has taken note of thosequestions.alderman chabot.
>> i have similar concernsthat my colleague to myright has, alderman colley-urquhart, in regardsto this fund.i find it kind of strange this council has madereference to our currentreserves and how they're not clearly defined enough maybein regards to what the moneyis for, how it's allocated, what the cap is going to beon the fund, et cetera, etcetera, questioning a number of different things relatedto our current reserves andyet we have this innovation fund that hasn't any cleardefinitions around what it'sintended to be used although i understand the mayor has agood understanding of whatit means. i until this very momentwasn't sure exactly what itwas intended for.
there's a lot of communityassociations that foughtlong and hard to try and get some money out of councilfor a number of differentinitiatives, many of which were, in my opinion, veryinnovative and had to gothrough a process as was indicated council'sstrategic initiative fund isone avenue they pursued to get funding for differentinitiatives.and in most cases when there's communityinvolvement, there's anexpectation there will be a community contribution.this doesn't clearly defineexactly how this $300.000 applies to all that, is thatall of the funding, is thatpart of the funding, where did the number come from aswas indicated by aldermanpincott, is that going to be
sufficient and to suggestthe $300.000 is just a smallamount, well, i don't know about you, but i don't have$300.000 to throw aroundpersonally, so i don't think we should be spendingcouncil's money in thatfashion either. so i'm likely not going tobe supporting this proposaland look forward to hearing alderman colley-urquhart'sreferral motion.>> i'll just point out one thing, which is that just toclarify for members ofcouncil, i do recall that you did pass this innovationfund with the terms ofreference as sketchy as they may be during the budgetdebate so it's not that thisis brand-new to council. the debate was certainly hadat that time.i think alderman lowe moved
it, as a matter of fact, ifi'm not mistaken.who is next on the list so he might actually agree withme or not.so we have had that. council of course has everyopportunity to review thosedecisions, to add more criteria if they would likebut the debate was had atbudget time. alderman lowe?>> thank you, your worship,and i think you summarized our discussion pretty wellbefore we put that money outthere. i think it is appropriate,alderman colley-urquhart, aswe move into this, and i guess the cold light of dawnsort of comes on theeuphoria just after an election that we do put aframe around this so -- buti think separate and
distinct from this would bemy suggestion.my first observation, listening to alderman carra,when he talks about, youknow, the small street vis-a-vis the wholecommunity turnover, isuspect a cost for doing a small street and a wholecommunity is probably prettyclose to one and the same when you start rolling theresources in.it's more speaking to using your resources efficiently,in other words, looking atlarger areas rather than these little areas tosubject to a whole functionlike this. your worship, i have nodifficulty with what we'resaying here, as i said, but what the difficulty i'mhaving is, in my mind, itwould be appropriate to
table this matter now, tohear the cpc report becausethere are questions arising from the cpc report, forexample, i have asignificant amount of difficulty tying thisprocess up over almost ayear, and i would like to know what the applicant hasto say about that.so, madam clerk, is it appropriate, then, that itable this matter, bringforward the cpc report, and then at the end of that, wedeal with that, we then riseand deal with this one? so moved.>> i don't see a proceduralbar to doing that, madam clerk.is that all right?do i have a seconder for that then.thanks, alderman chabot.what the motion on the floor
is, just before we vote onit because it isnon-debatable, just to explain, the very next itemon the agenda is a reportfrom the calgary planning commission dealing withthese same issues.alderman carra's notice of motion has imbedded in it atabling of that reportpending this process. however, what aldermanlowe's motion is suggestingis that we deal with the report now.we can still table it.and come back to this one depending on what's in thatreport, okay?is that clear? all right.all in favour, then, ofbringing forward the cpc report and tabling this item,are we agreed?any opposed?
alderman hodges is opposed.very well then.so that moves us then to somebody knows the number ofthis report, right?yeah, cpc 2011-002 item six.3 in your agenda.>> thank you, your worship.proposed bylaws that are before you are amendment tothe park hill stanley parkarea redevelopment plan. land use designationaffecting the lands outlinedin red on this location map which front on to missionroad southwest.proposed redesignation is to take the lands from theexisting rc 2 residentialcontextual one and two dwelling sdrakt andredesignate to gc directcontrol district to accommodate a wider range ofresidential densities andpossibilities.
essentially, the directcontrol bylaw that's beforeyou will retain the opportunities under thecurrent rc 2 residentialdistrict and also allow for a comprehensiveredevelopment for lowerdensity multi-residential development to occur on thesite providing access issuesand parcel sizes for property addressed.the reasons for the zoningare to maintain the development rights from theexisting low densityresidential uses while still allowing for long-termpossibilities ofredevelopment on a comprehensive basis.this reflects the fracturedownership of these lands. the arp amendment isintended to create a newdistrict within the arp to
recognize change from thelow density character of therc 2 to a new policy area called low and mediumsenseity grade orientedmulti-residential district. the district -- or the areasin the arp provide a set ofrules and guidelines on how this particular area couldpotentially be redeveloped.in that respect, calgary planning commission isrecommending that counciladopt the amendments to the arp and gave three readingsto bylaw 6 p 2011 and,secondly, to adopt a proposed redesignation fromrc 2 to direct control andgive 3-d use to bylaw 3-d 2011. >> thanks, mr. cope.any questions orclarification for administration?everyone's lights are on sojust wave at me if you have
any.alderman carra?>> yeah, mr. cope, i would really appreciate if youcould sort of give us thediscussion that took place at cpc.i mean, i'm going tobelabour this point because i think the whole point ofhaving a calgary planningcommission is to have a different set of eyes onthese issues to discuss themat length, to go back and forth over the pros and cons,to have a fullsomediscussion and then to bring that discussion and therecommendations coming outof that discussion before this council.so we can make a finaldecision. what we get is a prettystale recommendation.what i would love to hear
from you is what thediscussion was.how it was informed. how it fits into your ourhigh level planningobjectives like planet calgary and where we'regoing from there.i'd also like to know what the community felt that thisis occurring in and why andposition of planning council on that.>> i believe most of thatinformation is actually contained within the cpcreport.>> yeah, but -- >> we all due respect, youare paid to come up here andtalk to us and present in a public venue, so i wouldlike to have -->> your worship -- >> on procedure.>> the information thatalderman carra has asked for
is in the report.there's no reason to beratestaff. >> maybe i can take a shotat it.>> alderman carra. >> if i might, i apologizefor berating.i've been asking this -- i've been asking for a fullreport like this and i thinkit's important for a public process like this.i agree that it is in thereport. the report does notnecessarily give us the fulldepth of the conversation that took place at cpc.and it doesn't deal withnuanced issues and i think that's the whole point ofhaving a cpc and i'veendeavoured to make that point before.and again, i apologize forlashing out.
it was untoward.>> mr. watson.>> let me frame this, i guess.as chairman of planningcommission, we have certainly heard aldermancarra's concerns and he'sabsolutely right, the report's there, if somethinghappening to planningcommission and you get a recommendation and there'snot a lot beyond that,although there's myself, generally -- not generally,almost all the time aldermanfarrell and alderman lowe are on planning commissionand certainly i think partof their and my duties are to respond to sort of thecomments that you're making.we have, just so you understand, have beenlistening, and i've askedmr. cope and others to start
looking at our reports andto think about how we canmake them either fullsome or -->> nuanced i think -->> and then find a way that we can transmit that.on this particular one, as iremember it, now, this is going back a number ofplanning commissions andinto last year, there was a discussion.it wasn't on and on and on.i certainly asked alderman lowe and alderman farrell tohelp my memory if i getoff-base on this, but there was certainly a discussion.it was felt that this areaof property, given its geographical location,although, in parkdale butdown in the hollow as you were between the twocommunities, and given thestate of it, needed
something to expand the usesand densities along there toactually see anything happen, and the application that wasbefore us gave us thatopportunity. i remember discussing whatwas being proposed in termsof dcs, in terms of that would provide online landuse envelope.we had not done the design exercise that was beingcontemplated to the charestprocess and the work you're talking about.but given how we handlethese applications, which is to view them on their meritswithin the context of theland use bylaw, we've got this, we planning commission,thought this was anappropriate step forward. we're well aware that thetwo communities had concerns,but planning commission, i
believe, certainlyunderstood the concerns butfelt that this was not an unreasonable land use to puton the site and recommend tocouncil, of course it's council making the finaldecision whether you thinkthat is. there needs to be much moredesign work being done butbecause this was a land use, and that's the process, thatwould have to wait untilthere was actually permits brought forward by eithercomprehensively orindividual land owners and that's sort of where we gotto mr. cope, have i missedanything? >> no, i think the questionsthat did come out of thisdiscussion that are not in the report also dealt withthe fact that there is a gapin terms of the land use and
ownership which was notincluded in the land use butit is included in the arp amendment.there's also some discussionon the options for actual access to the sites if itwas developed as acomprehensive development scheme.>> and i believe aldermanlowe and alderman farrell to add anything else if there'ssomething i missed.>> thanks, mr. watson. mr. cope.any other questions ofclarification for administration?again, i'm just looking forways because all these lights are on.alderman chabot?>> sorry. mr. cope, the lands on thesouth side of the streetthere, are those not subject
to a road closure we dealtwith last year where therewas -- >> yes, actually to the westwhere it says see core two,that was a laneway undeveloped and notdevelopable, so those lotsup to about lot 39 were all affected by the road closure,and i believe the plannumber there is 0811454 so that laneway has beenclosed.>> it's the one on top, i think you're pointing to thewrong one there.on top. that's closed, right?>> that's correct.>> between 37 and 39, is there not a lot there?>> yes, yellow is a lot.>> what does that significant, city owned?>> no, it's developed with asingle detasmd residential.
they are simply not part ofthis land use application.>> can i ask why we wouldn't have included that?>> we would have liked to,however you need authorization from the ownerand my understanding is theywere not willing to participate in the process.>> sorry, i might be missingsomething. i thought we had the abilityto redesignate propertywithout approval from a land owner.>> if there is directionfrom council to do a city initiated redesignation, wecan do that.that's usually in response to a direction from a newarea redevelopment plan oramendment plan to bring that plan into effect.>> it just seemsinconsistent that we would
have specific land use andexclude just one property.okay. thanks for that answer.no further questions.thank you, your worship. >> thanks, alderman chabot.any other questions forclarification? alderman lowe?>> thank you, your worship.i'm just going to say i think mr. watson's summaryof the conversation was verythorough. it's also important to note,council, that planningcommission, this is a land use.we're dealing with a landuse and an application that was before it at the time.so what alderman carra issuggesting is a step beyond that into another range,which of and in itself isnot bad but it's important
to note that planningcommission deals with theissues and matters it has before it.when you look at the vote,there were five to two with two members who abstainedand if i recall correctly, ithink their issues were around the built form thatmay arise rather than theland use. so -- and i guess you'veheard me say this before,your worship, and council, when we have a land use,that's all we're dealingwith, just land use. so having said that, i doknow that the applicant willbe here and, your worship, the only question i havewith respect to the noticeof motion is before us is the question that i can onlyput to the applicant whenthey come up in this
process.which allows me to ask thequestion are they upset about taking their landoutside out of circulationfor a year? >> gotcha.any other questions ofclarification for mr. cope? all right.is there anyone in thepublic who would like to speak in favour of thisproposal?anyone who would like to speak in favour?well, welcome back tocouncil chambers. >> thank you very much.madeline king consultant for95, 99% of the property owners, and i'm here withstu sparks, one of theproperty owners and questions that i can't answer.i don't think, in thecircumstances, i probably
need to say anything aboutthe land use applicationthat's before you. but i'm happy to answer anyquestions.>> thanks, ms. king. questions for ms. king.alderman lowe?>> thank you. ms. king, you've heard myquestion, we're taking thisland use and effectively putting it in abeyance for ayear.may i have -- do you have any indication of what yourclient's view is of thisgiven that they paid a lot of money to get this landuse?>> yeah, well, obviously, it hasn't been an easyuestionfor them.it's been a long process. i see in the packagesomething talking about myfirst presentation to the
community in march 2008.so we're almost three yearsnow. so to delay it still furtheris difficult.and i had wanted it to be until july so that we couldsee that this process wasgoing in the right direction.certainly alderman carra hasgenerated a great deal of enthusiasm and energy, thevisioning session wasamazing, there were more than 50 people, i think,there.and so at the moment, there are property owners,although i have to say thatthe group is getting sort of split in bits as you canimagine because differentproperty owners have different requirements fromthis.but on the whole, it seems
okay to table it so that wecan see if some process isgoing to be a success. so that if the charetteprocess, which we hope willhappen in june, has not been a success, then it will bepossible for the propertyowners to continue and finalize their land useapplication in instead ofdoing the rest of it. but we're hopeful that thatwon't be necessary and whatwould happen at that time would just be a tabling.>> okay.so long story short, we're sort of okay with it, but wewould like to have this endin june of this year one way or -- least have anindication in june of thisyear one way or another, and i believe alderman keatinghas indicated to me that'shis amendment.
thank you, your worship.>> thank you.>> and just for clarification, alderman lowe,i think the dates inalderman keating's initial amendment are now reflectedin the notice of motion thatwill be back in front of us. any other questions forms. king?all right. thank you very much, -->> could i?>> sorry, alderman chabot. >> no, i want someclarification.i thought i heard you say june.>> well, no, actually thatwas what alderman lowe said. charette is hopeful forjune.and so it would need to be after that, but i don't knowwhether the land useapplication needs to be
tabled to a public hearingor whether it can be to aregular meeting of council. and i thought that there wasa public hearing at the endof july but there there isn't.so it will be the last ofwhatever will be appropriate for the land use applicationto be tabled to before thesummer break. >> i don't have an answerfor you on that one.miss sloan and i asked the same question or i asked thesame question of miss sloan.because we're having the public hearing today, if theland use must come back tocouncil unchanged, then there is no need for afurther public hearing andit can come back to our regular meeting at the endof july.if there's going to be major
changes, then it would haveto go to another publichearing, but if there's going to be major changes,it means the charetteprocess is working so i think it's clean the wayalderman carra has put it.>> good, thank you. >> alderman chabot.sorry.>> no problem. so you're okay with the july26th date as long as there'sa potential opportunity for this item to move forwardunamended in july of thesame month. >> yeah, yeah.and the idea of it alsogoing to lpt in july would be so that members ofcouncil can see that theprocess is working to the benefit of the greater cityand if community memberswanted to come and speak to
it, there will be thatopportunity there and thatwould be separate from the land use issue.>> so through the charetteprocess, if there was other areas within that sort ofentire strip, that indicatedthat there was probably some higher and better uses forother properties but didn'tnecessarily impact those properties, that could bethen vetted through lpt andpotentially not impact this development or this proposed-->> yes, yes, absolutely. the challenge with thisapplication has been thateach individual property owner has had to agree to bepart of it which is anunusual situation. but we had always understoodthat the arp amendmentcovers everything and
therefore gives a moregeneralized idea of whatshould be happening and in the same way, i believe, thecharette process will enablechanges to a greater range of the properties.>> now, it seems to me -->> can i just add that the one remaining property,they're not against what'shappening. they just didn't want to payinto the process.>> i see. >> ( inaudible )>> excuse me, don't i havethe floor? i'm sorry, alderman carra,respectfully.so it was just that they didn't want to participateand they didn't want to --okay. but they are aware of what'sgoing on.>> yeah.
>> and they wouldn't have anissue if council took itupon themselves to decide to redesignate.now, my question would bethen to mr. watson, your worship, if i may.>> i'll pass it along.>> whether or not -- actually, it would probablybe to miss sloan -->> whether we can include that last -->> yeah, or whether it hasto go through a new public process.miss sloan.>> did you catch that, miss sloan?there's one excludedproperty that you can see, that particular land ownerhas not been participatingin the process. alderman chabot's questionis does council have thepower to include that piece
of land in what we'retalking about today or wouldthat be a separate public hearing?>> that would be a separatepublic hearing and subject to advertising, yourworship.>> okay. >> but mr. watson is justsaying -- but the intent isif we go through the charette process, that pieceof property would beincluded. >> whether the land ownerwould be supportive or not,it would be city-initiated redesignation at that point?>> mr. watson?>> sorry to try to clarify, the charette process or theprocess being proposed byalderman carra is like a policy plan or a communityplan although on a smallerscale and we don't go out
and solicit people want tobe a part of that or not.it's only the redesignation where council tells us toredesignate where the ownerof the property says they want to redesignate.>> basically just setdirection saying that these types of uses, if anapplicant came forward witha land use change, it would facilitate it?>> well, depending whatcomes out of this process, and the terms of referencetalks about at the end we'regoing to a form-based code, we would then, you know,presumably council would say,yes, do it. and then we would includeand notify the land ownersthat that's what we're doing.>> that we were changing theland use designation so they
would not have to incur anykind of fee to go throughthe process. >> no, no.absorbing that costs.if we approve it. >> okay.thank you.i'm sorry, madeline. i'm so used to calling youalderman king.thank you. i was just curious as towhether or not that landlordhad been involved in the process and whether or notwe could make thatamendment. just wanted thatclarification.all right. well, i appreciate youcoming forward.and voicing your opinion on this issue.thank you, your worship.no further questions.
>> alderman carra, thenalderman macleod.>> thank you, ms. king. and this is a question thatmight also requiremr. sparks' expertise, but you started flushing thisout and approaching thecommunity in march 2008. and now it's january 2011,we're like two-and-a-halfyears into the process for just the land use and that'snot unusual, unfortunately,in inner city redevelopment. i mean, if we are believersin the planet process, wehave to find a way to make the ideals of planetactually be achievablewithin a time frame remotely reasonable because myquestion is through thatlong process, not collaborative, probablyinvolving compromise thatwas unsatisfactory to
definitely the communityassociation, howsatisfactory are the compromises to you guys, theland owners, and howbuildable is -- what are you looking at in terms of your-- the buildability of whatyou get out of this land use?is it where it could orshould be or is it sort of the best you've been able toget, not as good as you'dlike? >> i think certainly at thetime when it went toplanning commission, the property owners did feelthat this was the best useof the land. >> they did?>> yeah.>> okay. >> that it was what hadstarted off originally wasthe idea of condo buildings
or apartment buildings andthe major compromise wasthat it will be grade oriented so there will benumerous front doors facingon to the street to try and develop the community senseand also a lot of work wasput into the arp amendment and they seem to be like agood idea.so, yeah. but the property owners havebeen open to the possibilityof what you've raised and the enthusiasm in thecommunities has been, ithink it's taken us all by surprise.there's clearly a lot ofresident support for the mixed-use concept, thepossibility of the mixed-useconcept. >> thank you.>> do you have anything toadd, mr. sparks?
>> no, i think steve sparks,i'm one of the propertyowners. to try answer your question,as i understand it, we weredealing with some specific land uses that were outlinedin the land use bylaw.so we were confining our expectations or aspirationsto what might be achievableunder the existing land use bylaw.and we felt that the landuse that we had applied for would work for us and wasappropriate for thatlocation. since that land use wasapproved by the cpc, we havebeen presented by you with the possibility of a moreflexible type of land usethat would incorporate some other uses and we think it'sa good idea.so we would be okay, we
would be fine with what weoriginally applied for, butwe're excited about the possibility of somethingelse.so there you are. >> thank you.>> thank you, your worship.perhaps my question has just been answered, but i'mframing it differently.to go through this additional process will havean opportunity cost of atleast six months and perhaps 12.i'm assuming that you seesome benefit in this process, that it's something thatyou're open and willing todo and so there's a potential for some economicadvantage there as well.can you just comment on that for me so that i understandthis better?>> i think that you've
expressed it, if i might sayso, really well.it's not been an easy decision, and i think thecomplexity of that choice issomething that is not easy for a group of disparateproperty owners but it'salways been clear that this stretch of the road looks asif everyone forgot it andjust by changing the land use can go a long way, butit's not as far as anyonefelt needed to do. and, for instance, the morenortherly part of missionroad had a really successful traffic calming process thatvery much made it read as ifit was part of a neighbourhood.this part of mission roadsomehow missed out on that happening.and so it looks quitederelict.
so i think there's a lot ofhope from both thecommunities and the property owners that this processmight aid in rectifyingthat. >> thank you, that's veryhelpful to me.just a follow-up question on that, and perhaps, given theprocess, i understand whatwe're looking at here is trying to change the processfundamentally, but do youperceive that it would be the city's role to advancethis as opposed to theproperty owners? so nord, we're being askedto put a fair chunk ofchange into this, there's an opportunity cost but apotential benefit.but we're the ones putting out the money.is that what you perceivethe city's role should be in
this, in facilitating thiskind of thing?>> yes, i have to say that i do.there's a lot of publicspace issues involved in this particular stretch ofthe street and we've triedfor three years for the property owners to bechampions of some of thatchange. and it just hasn't -- theprocess just hasn't beenthere, it hasn't been possible for us to achievewhat we wanted to, and ithink that's why there's so much community excitement ofwhat alderman carra hasmanaged to do because it feels as if it's addressingsomething that has beenrequested for a long, long time.>> thank you.my last question, how many
property owners are there?>> oh, about 14.>> i can't remember -- >> just -- is there two oris there 20 sort of.thank you. >> can i add something tothat, please?i am not only a property owner on mission road, i'malso a real estate developer,and, as a matter of fact, i'm a resident of park hill.i've been active in realestate development in calgary for over 40 years.and have had the usualcomplaints about the approval process anddifficulties with workingwith regulations and so on and so forth.and i just see this as awonderful opportunity to change how things are done.almost inevitably, under thepresent system, you wind up
-- a developer winds up inan adversarial position withthe community. and so you kind of negotiateyour way to a settlementthat nobody's really thrilled with, but it's thebest you can do under thecircumstances. it would just be sorefreshing to be involved ina process that would lead to consensus.instead of a settlement.>> thank you. >> thanks, alderman macleod.any further questions forthe applicant? alderman lowe.you already had your go.>> i'm sorry, i'll address my questions to the otherpresenter, if i may.( laughing ) and i'm thinking about, youknow, the process is limitedto the land use -- the
proposed process thatalderman carra is bringingforward is limited to the properties that the land useis directed at.was there any discussion of extending that processaround the corner, on tomacleod trail into that seacord two area?if you want to maintain amain street-like atmosphere, maybe you need anchors oneither side of it.that's off the top of my head.>> that question did come upat the visioning session, and i think the conclusionwas that, yes, some of thepossibilities for neighbouring propertiesshould be addressed at thesame time as we look at the specific location underapplication.>> okay.
thank you.thank you, your worship.>> thank you, alderman lowe. any further questions forthe applicant?okay. thank you.anyone else wish to speak infavour of this item? anyone wish to speak againstthis item?anyone in opposition? all right.so that takes us to the endof the public hearing. alderman carra, if you wouldlike to move to table thisitem, you may do so or you can move the item or you cando whatever you like really.>> i would like to move to table this item until afterwe address my notice ofmotion. is that possible?which may or may not tableit massively.
>> yes.>> i can do that?>> i think so. >> our councillor is lookingat me with a scrunched upface. >> we've had theconversation already.>> okay. so i mean i could move totable it completely but ithink i would rather have the motion, discuss that andthen move forward.>> i hear you. we'll table this -- themotion then is to table thisitem pending consideration of the notice of motionagain.do i have a seconder? thanks, alderman pootmans.are we agreed?any opposed? >> opposed.>> alderman chabot isopposed.
>> all right.now we've got the notice ofmotion back up again. whew.now i can go back to mylights. alderman lowe.i think you spoke on thisone already. you were the last one.>> i'm sorry.the only question i have would be to administrationor to the mover in the close,the last question i asked of the last presenter, andagain i'm looking at theefficiency of use of resources was the -- was anyconsideration to expandingit out on to maclaud trail? he can answer -- mcleodtrail.>> i'm ready to answer a bunch of things in my close.>> do you want to take it?>> yeah.
through the chair, the termsof reference includes allthe parcels from mcleod trail west towards theescarpment including thoselands that you refer to. >> okay.do we then get ourselvesinto a position of having to encourage further landowners into the process?or are they there now? >> through the chair, thecharette process wouldinvolve everybody and i think the charette process,you'd get a sense of who'sinterested and who's not. the objective is to bringforward a comprehensive landuse for that entire corridor in one go so we don't do iton anapplication-by-application basis in future.that's the objective of theprocess.
>> has that beencommunicated to the landowners outside of the area? >> not directly.those that were invited tothe vision cafe, the world cafe we held last saturdaywas widely advertised butthere were no direct notices sent to land owners as aresult of that but when thecharette process was to be undertaken, the consultantresponsibilities wouldinclude notification of property owners involvement.>> and i'm going to assumethat during the charette process, if they wereunhappy, did not want to orhave anything to do with this thing, they could makethat position known directlyor indirectly. >> correct.>> thank you.>> so back to the motion on
the screen then, aldermanpootmans.>> thank you, your worship. pleas some questions i'dappreciate mr. aldermancarra could address in his closing.as i'm sure a number of mycolleagues are intrigued and tantalized by theopportunities to have thisis potentially very transformative, in theprocess, i'm looking inparticular at the third bullet on page 1 of 4, themilestones for cityadministration input and support is required, aquestion or perhaps anobservation. it strikes me that for thisto have the kind ofpotential to be transformative that cityadministration might want tobe engaged at a level beyond
this perhaps almost in apartnership or at some leveland i wonder if you might address how you see engagingperhaps even this and otherdepartments, the more -- to put it bluntly, for theinvestment of -- excuse me,to put it bluntly, in terms of the objectives but alsosome of the results we mightget, i would like to think for $300.000, we might get abroader engagement fromadministration and indeed have them gain insight andknowledge beyond justproviding input and support. thank you.>> thanks, aldermanpootmans. alderman macleod?>> thank you, your worship.i have several questions here.one of which gets back toalderman colley-urquhart's
questions about the process.it would seem to me we doneed some guidelines around this innovation fund, and iwould suggest that theremust be demonstrated city-wide value because ifwe degenerate intoward-specific issues, we're going to have troublebecause we might as welljust divvy it up between the 14 wards.so i would put that outthere, that every project that comes out of here needsto be clearly demonstratehow it has a city-wide process and in so inherentlywhat is innovative aboutthis, so alderman carra, in your closing comments, ifyou could address that.i'm also very concerned about the budget detail here,the lack of detail for$300.000.
the charette process, in andof itself, is not a newprocess, this is something that i have been familiarwith for many years.so i need to better understand how this isactually innovative, and youtalk in the terms of reference about a smart --the national charetteinstitute, nci, and the smart code regulatoryframework.i can find nci, i can't see anything particularly uniqueon that website, but i don'tsee anything about the smart code so maybe you couldaddress that as well, whatexactly it is, because i don't have a frame ofreference for that.and encompassing in that, if you could also answer, and ithink this is part of thesame question, how this
differs from the existingplanning process.and, again, that gets back to the innovative piece.and then finally, i guess itgets back to the process again, but priorizingprojects so if we have atime frame or time line on some of these things, thenit allows us to priorize sothat we don't end up at the end of the year or in thesecond half of the fiscalyear having run out of money on things that would haveinherently been lessimportant than something else.but i want to go back to myoriginal point. i am concerned about thisbeing a city-wide benefit.because this looks very much ward specific, and i think-- i like the idea, i thinkthere's some good ideas --
good potential here, but ireally, really need to seehere demonstrate that it does have city-wide benefitto garner my support.>> thank you, alderman macleod.alderman farrell?>> thank you. i think my comments orquestions are similar toalderman macleod's, but mr. watson, do you see thisas something particularlyinnovative? i know that we've talkedabout smart code before.would this be of benefit to your department, to explorea street of this nature insort of the smart code lens? and do you see using thelearning of this to assistin other areas? and another question afterthat.>> thank you, your worship.
alderman farrell, we haveparticipated in charettesbefore so i'm not going to tell her that a charette isinnovative.we don't use it a lot, but we have.we have a number of stafffully trained in it. what we believe with thisparticular piece of workthat's being proposed by alderman carra is a goodpilot to see if this is agood way to deal with some of these nodes and corridorthings which we are movinginto more as we start taking forward the new municipaldevelopment plan where wewill probably be emphasizing less community plans andmore edges of communities ornodes or corridors where we want to see intenseificationover time.so to that extent, we think
this is a pilot that wewould like to --( phone ringing ) something i said?no.it is something that we would like to try andcertainly support it.we can go into some detail on the cost o it, if youwant to talk about that.>> that's my next question. >> or alderman carra mayhave that detail.it is costly in the sense that we do not have staff todo it, which is why we'resaying we have to hire people not because we don'thave staff trained to do it.we have a fully loaded work program right now.but to answer your question,alderman farrell, we believe this is something we wouldlike to try.we're going to measure it,
see how much it costs, howmuch time and effort ittakes, what the value at the other end is.smart codes, we do not havesmart codes in the city of calgary.it's certainly somethingthat we've looked at. it is something ourconsultant who's looking atthe land use file has commented on.again, this could be a pilotto see whether or not we think this is somethingworth pursuing further,city-wide or in some specific parts of the city.alderman carra and i maydisagree on this, i'm convinced smart codes acrossthe entire city is the wayto go. >> i don't agree.>> there may be locationswhere this may be of some
value.to that extent, we'reprepared to participate but the problem is we need asource of funding to do it.i do not have money and the budget or the staff exceptto participate -- we areparticipating, you see in the terms of reference, butto launch this whole thing.>> okay. so then the $300.000,mr. watson, that was arecommendation by alderman carra, but based on yourexperiencet seems like a lotof money to me, but sort of a few other things, i'm justwondering if you think thatthat's the right number. that fund will evaporatepretty quickly.>> mr. mauler can give more details but i thinkoriginally we were talkingabout 250.000, and we've got
to look at both the timelines and the level ofdetail we're going into. there's a number of studiesand consultants hiredthrough the terms of reference that we have tosource and participate, but,your worship, if you allow, mr. moehler can provide moredetail.>> mr. moehler? >> through the chair, ithink that the differencebetween a typical community plan study or some of theother charette-basedexercises we've had, is the intent here to get through asmart code as part of thecharette includes a lot of front ended studies andtechnical studies that wewould do subsequent to that through land use ordevelopment permitapplications, that would
include some of thegeotechnical analysis,retail market analysis which we typically don't dofrequently and also thetraffic -- any traffic impact studies and design ofthis also includes thedesign of mission road. the fact that mr. watsonindicated, we don't havestaff to do any of this work ourselves, therefore we wantenough money within thatfund that for our departments who are going tobe evaluating this as partof the process are able to ask for furtherclarification and enoughwork that we can get to some answers through the charetteprocess.so that's why it is front loaded.>> okay.so do you see this little
road as a good candidate forthis type of exercise, nottoo big, not too small, just right kind of thing?>> through the chair, ithink it is a managable area, probably more from thestandpoint of engagement.when we go into a much larger area, the engagement,the number of stakeholdersinvolved becomes much more complex to work a process.this we've already got asense of who the key stakeholders are and wethink the charette processcan be better managed in a smaller area as a pilot.>> okay, thank you.i'll move into debate then. we don't have a terms ofreference for thisinnovation fund, but it's there.and it's for us to use, andi wanted to commend alderman
carra for exploiting thefund that may have benefitfor all of us and if we're going to have the successfulplan it document, take itinto reality, we need to figure out a different wayof planning, something a bitmore elegant. and so i'm happy to supportit with the expectation thatwe develop a terms of reference soon for futureprojects but then i'mlooking forward to seeing the results.thank you.>> thanks, alderman farrell. alderman pincott?>> thank you.coming out of the presentation, actually, someof the last questions wereother questions that i had coming out of this sort ofunderstanding the impact onour own staff and whether
this can be accommodatedwithin their work plan to dothis. it sounds like it has been,even though it's notbudgeted, it has been contemplated, the overallmanagement of the projectwithin city work plan. okay.and just to clarify as well,this will be city staff sort of leading the process asthe whatever -- i don't know-- >> for the chair, certainlythe city staff will becoordinating, we'll be hiring a consultant who weexpect will subconsultprobably on some issues but we'll be coordinating them.>> okay, good, thank you.my other question, i've been reading this and looking atthis and given we were justlooking at the other land
uses, there are actually noboundaries included in this.so maybe -- i mean, certainly knowing the area,knowing that, say, the enmaxbuilding and it sort of says roughly ending at 34th,would the enmax building beincluded in this? how far down on the southside does it go, does it goto 34th avenue on the south side?if alderman carra could alsojust sort of talk about what the boundaries are for thearea in his close as well,too. all the other questions he'sgot, i'd appreciate it.>> alderman carra, do recall that you have a five-minutelimit on that close.be efficient. alderman mar.>> thank you.okay.
i do have a couple ofquestions, and i know thatalderman carra is going to address them, but i do havea quick question for staff.mr. cope is fine. thank you.so mr. cope, if we werelooking at a scope of operations and doing adesign chart, we've donethose types of things before.i remember that mr. moehlerand ms. axworthy have done these before.is $300.000, is that high,low, in the range, do you know?>> you've probably got thewrong person up here. >> i see mr. moehler is onhis way.>> through the chair, the number $300.000 is not highgiven the fact normally whenwe do those things,
administration isresponsible for all aspectsof public engagement. the consultants that we hiredo the technical work, andthey work at the charette. the expectation in thisterms of reference is thatthe consultant would do all the logistical informationand size of the charettethat we would typically do, including advertising,booking of halls,notifications that are required and facilitatingthe entire event so often wewill just hire the architectural expertise towork at it and we engage therest. the expectation here wouldbe that they would beundertaking all the other ancillary things thatnormally administrationwould do.
>> okay.so what we're effectivelydoing is cutting the administration out and we'regoing out and tendering it,having somebody -- i'm assuming we're tendering it,having somebody elsebasically do the job that normal city staff would do,is that correct?>> that's correct. and to address any questionsthat come up during theprocess that administration would normally evaluate, sothe way the terms ofreference was worded is that this would be a competitivebidding process.it may not require the full 300.000, i haven't done aterms of reference like thisthat goes to this extent at least in my career here so idon't know that 300.000 isabsolutely required but i
think it's certainly in theballpark of what might beanticipated. >> okay.300.000.okay. i do have one other quickquestion, and mr. moehler,i'm pretty sure this isn't going to be in your section,but when we did the publicengagement on the west lrt, was that done by city staffor did we have -- i know wehad a contractor go out and i sift us.but i'm not sure if most ofthe engagement was done by administration.and i see that mr. logan isnot known -- he is not. that was a total fake-out!oh, my gosh!yeah, that was -- yeah, oscar performance.okay.are you aware of -- could
you enlighten me?>> through the chair,through the west lrt, there was a full-time consultanthired to manage the publicengagement process however there were stillconsiderable staff resourcesthat supported that individual but there wascertainly additional helpthat was brought in in order to undertake that resource.the dollar value, i can'tspeak to specifically. >> no, and you couldn't eventake a guess as to whetheror not that was higher or lower.okay.that's my question for now. i would actually make anamendment, though, and iknow you guys love it when i make these one-worders.i would say "up to" ratherthan of a specific $300.000.
yeah.just because -- yeah.see, you guys like -- >> ( inaudible )>> he's agreed.thank you, thank you, thank you.>> your worship, i've spokento this item, but i would like to propose an amendmentand the amendment is inkeeping with the beneficiaries and theircontribution to this wholeexperience based on some of the input that i've receivedso far.i'm not going to dispute that the overall cost forthe charette may very likelycome close to that figure. i do think, though, thatthere are going to be anumber of property owners that will benefit from thisprocess, and should somehowcontribute to it.
most of the charettes i'vebeen involved with haveincluded community involvement and communitycontributions, therefore myproposed amendment would be to change that number from300.000 to 100.000.if i can find a seconder. >> alderman hodge.right hand not working quiteas well. >> there's this pain i havein my back if i do thesethings, you'll have to forgive me, your worship.anyways, just to add alittle bit to that, as was indicated, if we go througha redesignation, there won'tbe a requirement for people to then make application toredesignate their propertiesand as such we'll be saving a significant amount ofdollars by having to gothrough that process as well
as poe tensionly somesignificant amount of time-- potentially some significant amount of timein regards to the processfor redesignation therefore i think the community shouldcome together and come upwith additional dollars to offset the dollars to us andkeep as much in thisinnovation fund we can before we determine otherguidelines.>> we have an amendment to change 300.000 to 100.000.mr. watson, you whisperedsomething in my ear about cost to that, folks havealready incurred, maybe icould ask you to say a bit more about that.>> your worship, through thechair, what i was mentioning was the fact that theapplicants have already paida redesignation process.
you could suggest that mighthave been their contributionat the front end of this. when you say the communities,i'm not quite sure, aldermanchabot, maybe in your close you can help me understand,you're talking aboutcommunity associations, property owners, you'retalking about passing thehat? i will caution council$100.000 is going to be --if we are unsuccessful in passing the hat.if we are unsuccessful -->> ( inaudible ) >> a hundred thousand bucksisn't enough.sorry, mr. watson. on the amendment, aldermancolley-urquhart.>> well, you see, that's the part of the problem here,when you don't have adetailed budget in front of
you and you don't know thebreakdown of the 300.000.and it's interesting to hear that key stakeholders havealready put in some money,so i think i'm going to try to refer this to the nextmeeting of council on monday,to come back with the detailed breakdown of thebudget and let's see --let's see how this money will be spent rather than mesending it to -- i was goingto do a motion arising, and i can wait till next mondayto do that, your worship,but the motion arising was going to be, if this passed,that administration berequested to consult with members of council indrafting a terms ofreference for the innovation fund and, further, that nofurther projects be approveduntil the tour have been
adopted by council.so i can wait a week, but ireally think that council is -- i think we're owed to seea detailed budget on howthis $300.000 would be spent or 100, now we're gettinginto the dutch auction.>> all right. two things, one is you canbring that -- jeez, we'regoing to run out of time. tell you what, aldermancolley-urquhart, on thesecond part on the motion arising that i may not getto do, how about i take itunder advertisement, i'll put it on the agenda.>> okay.thank you. >> i think it does makesense to do that otherwisewe'll miss the next pac meeting by the time councilcomes.>> that's true.
>> currently making a motionto you said refer but ithink you're tabling this to the meeting one week fromtoday.>> right. because i think a week -- ithink alderman carra has anidea how this money would be divvied up and what theevaluation process is.i hear that administration is going to be involved, buti don't see that clearlylaid out in the terms of reference to that extent.it's kind of unclear.so if i had a seconder. thank you.>> alderman mar, thanks.>> tabled till next monday to come back with a detailedbudget.thank you, your worship. >> my motion arising, it'stime to change the seatingplan in here.
people's arms are going toget sore.all right then. we have a motion to tablethis for one week.and we're just tabling it for week and the motion andthe idea being we would havemore information and a better budget at that time.so that's a non-debatablemotion. on the motion to table forone week, are we agreed?any opposed? alderman carra and farrell-- no, you'll have to callthe roll, please. >> alderman colley-urquhart.>> yes.>> alderman demong. >> yes.>> alderman farrell.>> no. >> alderman hodges.>> yes.>> alderman jones.
>> yes.>> alderman keating.>> alderman lowe. >> alderman macleod.>> yes.>> landlord alderman pincott?>> yes.>> alderman stevens? >> yes.>> alderman carra?>> no. >> alderman chabot.>> yes.>> mayor nenshi. >> yes.>> carried, your worship.>> we still have the -- it is procedural fun house inhere today.we still have the cpc report then on the table.>> your worship?on a point of order, were we not going to deal with theother item that was tabled?previously.
is that what you're talkingabout?>> we have to get rid of the cpc recommendation becausewe tabled that afterconsideration of this. then we get to the one thatyou tabled before lunch.>> thank you for that. >> okay.i think it would beappropriate at this time to table this one to next weekas well because the publichearing -- >> i apologize to members ofthe public for gettingdragged along further in this process.>> all right.so move to table -- what the heck was the number on thisone?2011-002, thank you. cpc 2011-002, we've finishedthe public hearing so we cantable it to the next meeting
of council, alderman hojsz.agreed?any opposed? all right, carried.now we bring back, i believeit was 7.7 in your agenda, was it?7.8.alderman chabot had a question how the amount forthe disposition wascalculated and from whom it was coming and hopefullywe've had a chance to get ananswer to that question. mr. cope?>> yes, i did talk tocorporate properties group. that requirement is based onthe aquirmts of the act andvetted by the joint use committee.-- requirements.>> so your worship, then, what's suggested is that ifwe're talking to a developeron undeveloped lands, we
typically apply what'scalled sector rates.would those not apply to these lands being they'reundeveloped predominantly orthe majority? there's a small structure onthere but that site, thatcorner is undeveloped. >> -- may have an answer forthat.>> perfect timing, mr. stevens.i think that alderman chabotmay have a question for you. >> perfect.>> i'm not sure if you heard,when we talk about sector rates, we talk aboutundeveloped lands and whenwe're dealing with a land developer, we typicallytrade at, you know, back andforth, at what we call sector rates.these are predominantlyundeveloped lands, although
it may not be owned by aspecific developer.they are obviously owned by somebody.and just because it happensto be us, why don't we apply sector rates?>> your worship, thearrangement we have in place is just primarily just forundeveloped roadright-of-way where there's a transfer back and forthbetween a developer here.there is specific requirements under themunicipal government act itbe handled in a certain way, that there be appraisal,that it be transacted atmarket value and that happened here.the independent appraisalwas received and that is the proposal that's before you.>> i'm a bit confused then.forgive me for asking, your
worship.but typically, when werequire road right-of-way, and we don't own the roadright-of-way, what's theprocess, do we not designate it as road right-of-way orroad right-of-wayrequirements? at which time then it'stransferred back and forthat sector rates? why doont we do that withthis piece of property?>> my understanding, this is a disposition of municipalreserve, that's the itembefore us. there are specificprovisions and in themunicipal government act that must be followed andthat's what's transpiredhere. this is not just atransaction in order toobtain rights-of-way.
that's not the item that iunderstand that's before youin the public hearing. >> typically, we don't seedollars associated withthese reports from cpc specifically, your worship,and that's why the reason --that's what's given rise to my questions and why weassess the specific that wedo. i understand that that'smarket value based ondevelopable lands. >> miss sloan has tried toexplain this to me as well.i think i got it now. what we're asking today,it's not a sale of landbecause we own it. it's left pocket to rightpocket of the city.but what we're doing today is we're actually removingthe reserve.that's all we're doing.
but when we remove thereserve, compensation has tobe paid to -- >> joint use coordinatingcommittee.therein lies my difficulty, your worship.transferring money into thatdepartment from corporate properties.hence the reason why i'm notoverly happy with this transaction at this price.>> miss sloan?>> your worship, maybe this will help.these lands are designatedas reserve. in order for the city to doanything with these lands along-term lease, a sale, use it for some other purposeother than what's listed inthe municipal government act, council must dispose of thereserve.you require a public hearing
for that.that's not the sale, that'snot the transfer. that's just simply takingoff the label of reserve.if there is going to be a subsequent sale, if there'sgoing to be something elsehappening, presumably it will go through anothercommittee.in other words if you're selling it through anotherparty, it goes to landcommittee and council for approval, if it wassomething that has to cometo council. this is just simply takingoff the label.( please stand by ) in a fund that then goes out andbuys parkland somewhere else.i can't speak to the price. i'm going to let mr. stevensspeak to the price.but in order that we get enough
money in that reserve, we buyparkland and school land acrossthe city based on moneys that we have in that reserve fund.we have to keep topping up thatresent fund. it's also important to make surewe have enough in the reservefund, because quite often where we have a deficiency we'rebuying at market rates.if you top up that reserve fund at less than market race, youwon't have enough money to buythe land you want to buy in the future.in terms of sector rates interms of independent appraisal that was done to get to thisprice, i've always undertsoodit's independent appraisal approach but i'll letmr. stevens speak to how oneversus the other. >> i'll try this again, yourworship.when you dispose of reserve, it
must be done on the basis of anindependent appraisal.that's what's happening here. i understand you're trying toequate the process of sellingreserve that's done in very -- and the process of using oursector rates.our sector rates are used in very confined circumstances whenyou've got -- when you're in anoutlying plan, the developer is in on something more than160 acres, the semiannual sectorrates approved by council kick in.when you're disposing of areserve it must be done on the basis of an independentappraisal that's used on ahighest and best use basis and that's why this was done on thatbasis so you could look at othersimilar industrial land in the area that arrived at about280.000 an acre.>> using capables, we don't have
any comparables included in thisreport, do we?>> no. i think that would have been inthe background report that wouldhave been part of it but that's -- we don't have anyproblem using that number forthis basis. >> so you're comfortable withthis -->> yes. my area would normally beconsulted in the preparation ofthe report that goes to planning commission.>> and also ties into myquestion earlier about how the value seems quite high.is that considerin consider ser?i'm not sure. unserviced?>> unserviced.>> thank you. i appreciate you providing methat latitude, your worship.although it's been said that
this fund -- this money is goingto be going into the joint usecoordinating committee reserve. i don't have the level ofconfidence in the jucc maybethat other members of council might have in regards to theredistribution of those funds.i'd rather see them staying in corporate properties, and ifthere was any way that i couldamend this amount to reflect what i think could be a littlemore appropriate and withouthaving comparables, of course it's kind of difficult to assesswhat exactly that number wouldbe. but in lieu of that, yourworship, if you could callrecommendation number one as i will be voting against it.thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thanks, alderman chabot.any further discussion on thisitem?
madame clerk, i must admit thati can't remember who moved andseconded it. alderman stevenson was it?and alderman jones.it was moved and seconded. did you want to close, aldermanstevenson?>> yes, your worship. although it seems similar towhat we went through with cell dthis morning, this cell app is a similar number of acreages thatmost of them around 4.7 acresand about, again, 35 to 40 of them in this one.it will be in this situation wehave -- we own the property, and as your worship, as you said,we're moving deep from one groupto another, but really it's our property and as a result we'rewilling -- or we're able to goahead. there's not the requirement forroad designation -- or at leasti don't think there will be on
this one.on the other one because it'sresidential, it's on the east side of metis so it's going tobe primarily residential ormixed use. this side here will beindustrial.it's likely the road structure that's in there will handlethis, i haven't discussed thiswith anyone. but that's my thinking on it.so, your worship, i wouldencourage my colleagues to support this.>> mayor naheed nenshi: andthey'll have a chance to do that very shortly, alderman stevensonexcept i made a mistake.i thought that we were in question to administration, whenwe tabled this.in fact, we were in questions of clarification meaning we haven'thad a public hearing yet.first mistake, right, alderman
low?very, very first one.so given that, we will do that now.is there anyone in the publicwho would like to speak in favour of this proposal?is there anyone who would liketo speak in opposition to this proposal?>> hi.my name is oscar fech. this is city-owned property.so why are we sending funds fromanother department to another department, or corporatecalgary?nothing makes sen anymore because it's owned by the cityand you're going to send ussomewheres else. the city of calgary has so manytrust accounts, they don't knowwhat to do with them. my feeling is when i look intoall these things, the city hasprobably billions of dollars in
a trust account.so why -- is this all a coverup?nobody knows what's going on or what?>> mayor naheed nenshi: and wedo try to sort these things out here at council.which is what we're gettingthrough now, mr. fech. >> no, but corporate calgaryowns so many properties, theyhave 20.000 land holdings, they own 15, 20.000 condos,apartments and trailer courts.does the public know all this? they don't because it's allhidden -- corporate calgary isworth at least maybe a hundred, $150 billion.so why isn't the public aware ofall this? mayor, i'm not trying to blameyou for anything.but i think you should look into all these things and let thepublic know what's going on.most of the aldermen know what's
going on, but there's nothingbeing divulged.the new aldermen, they probably don't have a clue what's goingon at this point.i want to give you one example. there's three hotels that soldfrom private companies to thecity. they were worth maybe 2 millioneach.but the city paid 10 million for them, each.>> mayor naheed nenshi: you'regetting a bit off topic -- >> your worship, on a point ofprivilege.the speaker has made reference to the new members of counciland not knowing anything.i think that's being disrespectful -->> i shouldn't put it like that.they don't know as much, maybe, i should say.>> well, your worship, i dobelieve on a point of privilege
i'm entitled to ask thepresenter to either apologize orstep down, your worship. >> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman chabot.i think i did hear a bit of an apology in there, mr. fech.>> well, apologize.that way. but city costs must beaccountable to the taxpayer.they should apologize to me if they aren't.and to the taxpayers.look, let's not call the kettle black, okay?>> mayor naheed nenshi: have ito remind you you're at a public hearing on a particular item,restrict yourself to that item,please. >> i'm bringing out an issuethat this has been done all thetime, but have never spoken out on it.but i've got some land not toofar away from this piece --
>> mayor naheed nenshi:careful.>> no, no. i'm just saying, and the citypays one department anotherdepartment 300.000. they don' don't want to pay me .you see, mayor, i mentionedthese things before at city council meetings.so let's check into these thingsand keep everything above board, and if they're not, it will cometo haunt us.>> mayor naheed nenshi: we will certainly -->> come to bite us.>> mayor naheed nenshi: we will certainly try to do so.thank you.>> thank you. >> mayor naheed nenshi: anyoneelse wish to speak in oppositionto this item? all right then.alderman stevenson, you'removing the recommendations?
alderman jones, you're secondingthe recommendations?i don't think you want to close again.all right.on the recommendations there, we're going to take themseparately.i'll just do number one separately from the other three.on recommendation number one arewe agreed? any opposed?alderman chabot is opposed.on the other recommendations are on the bylaw then, bylaw 18 b2011 first reading of the bylaware we agreed? carried and third reading of thebylaw are we agreed?any opposed? carried.that takes us to item 8.2 inyour agenda, cpc 2011-028. on one of my favourite topics, imight add.driveways.
driveways.>> good afternoon, your worship,and members of council. the proposed amendments i amintroducing will clarify therules in the land you're bylaw for a landowner to retain alegally existing driveway in thedeveloped area. from bylaw one p 2011 wasadopted council directedadministration to grandfather legally existing residentialdriveways in developedcommunities so that when redevelopment occurs they couldbe kept at the choice of theowner. accordingly on july 23, 2007,council approved amendments inthe land use bylaw to read that in the developed area where aparcel contains illegallyexisting front driveway and the parcel is the subject ofredevelopment, such driveway mayremain on the parcel provided
that it is in the same locationand has the same width.a notice of motion at the july 19, 2010, regular meetingof council directedadministration to report back through lpt to review both therules for driveways in the landuse bylaw and policies for driveways in the low densitygoals for establishedcommunities. on november 10, 2010, lptapproved by resolutionamendments to both the land use bylaw and the low densityresidential guidelines forestablished communities to ensure that legally existingdriveways can remain.amendments to the land use bylaw were directed to be broughtforward to the calgary planningcommission and amendments to the low density residentialguidelines for establishedcommunities were approved on
december 6th, 2010, councilconsent agenda.the recommendation of calgary planning commission is thatcouncil adopted proposedamendments and give three readings to bylaw 13 p 2011.this will ensure council'soriginal intent to allow residents to retain legallyexisting driveways as realizedand it will align with the amendments previously made tothe low density residentialguidelines for established communities.your worship, this concludes mypresentation. >> mayor naheed nenshi: i havea question of clarification.i could have sworn that in our very first meeting of thiscouncil, we also talked aboutfront driveways and change the contextual guidelines.this is the bylaw that makesthat real?
>> it would.i'm not sure if you're referringto the consent agenda that was on december 6th when theychanged the policy -->> mayor naheed nenshi: maybe that was it.>> that's actually on theoverhead right there. these amendments will align withthe changes at that point madeto the policy. >> mayor naheed nenshi: okay,great.thank you. alderman hodges on a question ofclarification?>> no, your worship, i guess you have to call a public hearingbut personally i've heard enoughabout this. this is chapter 15 for me.enough is enough.this should wrap it up. >> mayor naheed nenshi:debate, alderman hodges.it's clarification.
how about we let me call thepublic hearing and if we do itin the next minute and a half, we may be able to finish beforeour break.anyone in the public who would like to speak in favour of thisproposal?anyone who would like to speak against this proposal?alderman hodges?>> -- member of planning commission would move, i'll moveit, your worship.this is a conclusion of a long, long chapter of debate on frontdriveways.>> mayor naheed nenshi: great. alderman mar is seconding.any debate on this one?>> agree this will take one of the driveways off of our agenda,alderman hodges.[laughter] >> mayor naheed nenshi: anyoneelse?all right then.
on the recommendations -- wejust did.no one came. [inaudible]people!any further debate on this? on the recommendations, are weagreed?any opposed? carried.oh, i'm sorry, there you are,sorry, alderman farrell. on the bylaw, then, firstreading of the bylaw are weagreed? any opposed?carried.second reading of the law are we agreed?same division?second reading of the bylaw are we agreed?any opposed?same division division? alderman farrell is opposed.authorization for third raidedreading of the bylaw are we
agreed?any opposed?seeing none, carried. third reading of the bylaw arewe agreed?alderman farrell? opposed?any other opposed?carried. thank you.we are recessed until 3:45.captioning of this meeting is provided as a communicationaccessibility measure, and isnot intended as a verbatim transcript of the proceedings.if inaccuracies occur, it may bedue to human error, technical difficulties or an inability onthe part of the writer to hearor understand what is being said.while best efforts are made todocument as closely as possible what is being said, the captionscannot be relied upon as acertified accurate record of the
proceedings.>> mayor naheed nenshi: andwe're back. final item of the publichearing, cpc 2011-029 amendmentsto the beltline arp. well, hello.>> thank you, your worship.your worship, members of council, my name is matt rocklemrockley.the proposal i've brought before you today is a bylaw to amendthe managing transportationdesign section of the belt line re velocity plan.it provides new temporarysurface parking lots should not be permitted in the belt lineredevelopment plan area.the map on the overhead is just outlining the area redevelopmentplan area.the beltline area as can be seen on the north is the c.p. railtracks, to the west is 14thstreet south, to the west is
17th avenue southwest and tothe east and southeast is theboundary of the elbow river. the intent of the existingpolicy in the beltline arearedevelopment plan is to restrict temporary surfaceparking in the beltline area.the wording of the existing policy has not achieved theintended outcome.new temporary parking lots in the beltline since 2007 includeapproximately 1,800 stalls.the revised wording for the policy which is policy 7.6. 7.6fthe beltline area redevelopmentplan. the development of new temporarysurface parking lots within thebeltline should not be allowed. in no case shall the term of therenewal extend beyond threeyears. special efforts shall be made tominimize the visual impact orscreening applicantscreen can a.
administration is confident thatthe readvised wording is clear,the policy intent is to restrict the development of new temporarysurface parking lots and permitsfor existing temporary parking will only be renewed on athree-year period.the recommendation from the calgary planning commission isthat council adopt the proposedamendments in accordance with the land use planning and policyand to give three reading to theproposed bylaw 8 p 2011. that concludes my presentationand would be pleased to answerany questions. thank you very much.>> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks. questions of clarification.we're still in public hearing.alderman stevenson. >> your worship, i just want tocongratulate mr. rockleybecause he hasn't been here
since the election.he's now a councillor in ourneighbour to the south. congratulations, councillor.>> mayor naheed nenshi: iheard that. congratulations.>> thank you very much.>> mayor naheed nenshi: may you do as good work for them asyou do for us.>> absolutely. thank you, sir.>> mayor naheed nenshi:alderman hodges. >> through the chair,mr. rockley, the way this isworded it doe't talk about new applications other than shouldnot be allowed.do you mean should not be allowed?to me there's a differencebetween that phrase and will not be allowed.>> the wording, it has beenstated as a new temporary
surface parking should not beallowed.and the intent there is that the policy that that statement becomplied with, and that newtemporary parking -- that it should not be allowed.it has been worded that way sothat if there was a very exceptional circumstance whereit served as the best interestsof the community and of the city, in a particular instance,it does allow that latitude.but the policy intent is that it should be complied with and thatthere should be no new temporarysurface parking lots in the area.>> mr. rockley, i'm fullyaware of what you're trying to achieve.however, the next time one ofthese comes into sdab, i shall send you a personal invitation.and you can hear all the hummingand hawing that goes on from one
foot to the other from theapplicants who say you mean ihave to pave this thing? there's no intention to do that.you mean i have to landscape it?and on and on it goes. so you independent up with thesdab as the approving authority,is what i'm saying. you do know that.>> and if i could speak to that,thank you, your worship. and we believe that the wordingthat we have put together here,it does strengthen the position, the policy intent for the sndab.the existing wording, it doesright in the policy itself, it really speaks to specialallowances, and that kind ofbecame the rule rather than the exception or that argumentbecame the rule rather than theexception. so we do believe that therevised wording is stronger andhopefully it provides that extra
direction that we're lookingfor.>> i'll make sure you get that invitation, thank you, yourworship.>> thank you, alderman hodges. >> mayor naheed nenshi: again,we're on question ofclarifications. alderman farrell?>> thank you.why would we allow a renewal for a surface parking lot at all?>> a renewal would be allowed ifit had an existing temporary approval and if there wasn't anyimmediate redevelopment of thatsite that was happening and it was the applicant's interest tocontinue that use, they couldapply for another three-year renewal.the city could evaluate that atthat time, see if it still makes sense as an interim to have thatparking lot there or if the siteis needed for redevelopment.
so that's why there's theallowance for three-year renewalof the existing lots. >> so do they get to renew afterthat three years and when doestemporary become kind of a permanent fixture?i know lots of them that havebeen around for decades. and the economies of surfaceparking lot are such thatthere's really not a lot of incentive to redevelop.which is exactly the opposite ofwhere we want to go. are we still being too lenient?>> it's an excellent point.i don't believe that at this time we're being too lenient.i think that this policy changeis taking another step towards stronger regulations for the newlots, and then the existingtemporary surface lots, the notion is that in three-yearintervals the city gets toreevaluate if that's working for
that site, and the intent isthat over time, that thosetemporary surface parking lots would be phased out and theultimate vision of the beltlinearea redevelopment plan of ultimate development there wouldbe realize.>> so have we ever turned down a renewal?>> i'm not certain.i don't have that information. at my fingertips.there's been lots ofapplications over the years, so i can't speak to every singleone.it's in the realm of possibility that there has been one turneddown.>> you're dreaming about it. >> yeah.>> thank you.>> thanks. >> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman farrell.reminder that this is time for
questions of clarification.there will be time for moresubstantive questions of administration after the publichearing.alderman carra? >> would this be an appropriatetime to ask for sort of asynopsis of what the debate at cpc was?>> mayor naheed nenshi: ifthere ever were a good time to ask that question, this would bean all right time to ask it.>> i'm not sure i like the... the way you've turned thatphrase.>> yes. when the report was before thecalgary planning commission,there was some debate on the item.specifically one commissionmember was concerned that essentially what alderman hodgeshad picked up on, that we wereusing the word "should" rather
than "shall."so there was that discussion.and that particular commission member actually voted against itin the end.it was a split vote. there was discussion aboutpotential interim uses thatcould lap, so if we're not allowing temporary parking lots,what other type of interimthings could happen while ultimate develop is forthcomingand so some examples of interimuses that have been utilized in urban vacant lots were provided.those were kind of thehighlights. there was some debate -- or somenot debate but comment aboutwhether parks could be an interim use, open space, greenspace, recreation types of uses.so that was also brought up. but those were the main pointsthat i recall from the calgaryplanning commission debate.
>> can you give me yourprofessional opinion on shouldversus shall? and the appropriate message...>> mayor naheed nenshi: that ithink would be a better be a question for the council.and she's just written me anote. which i will share when wefinish the public hearing.>> okay. >> mayor naheed nenshi: otherquestions of clarification?alderman keating. >> my questions somewhat havebeen asked and answered but wheni first read this, i sat here and said why are we worriedabout temporary parking lotswith the emphasis on the word "temporary"?and that's where i'm going iswhat are we to do with the land as it says vacant, i guess.>> thank you very much.if i could, to help with this
answer if i could put anotherexhibit on the overhead.so, i guess to answer the first question, why are we concernedwith the temporary use, i've puttogether just a synopsis of some of the pros and cons of this usein the beltline area.so i'll just go through them, and they're not meant to line upone for one horizontally.but some of the pros of temporary surface parking isthat it does provide temporaryimprovement such as landscaping and lighting.brings site activity to a vacantlot. it does accommodate a parkingdemand and there's a temporarybusiness opportunity. now, in terms of cons, there's adisincentive to redevelopmenthindering the realization of the beltline area redevelopmentplan.a site isn't as likely to
redevelop if it's alreadygenerating an income for theowner. decreases transit ridership withthe beltline area beingimmediately south of the downtown.so there's an inconsistency withthe centre city plan that speaks to achieving transit vehiclemodal split to 60%, limiting thecreation of new permanent or temporary long-stay commercialparking facilities.ultimately consistently with the key direction for land use mobilnumber 4, land use decision totransit. temporary parking in thebeltline is also inconsistentwith calgary transportation plan policy 3.9. d.that speaks to using timerestrictions and pricing and those types of things to addressparking demand issues instead ofincreasing supply.
there's a reduced business taxfor a temporary surface parkinglot as opposed to c class office.the argument there, the notionthere is that in the beltline, there are some c class officebuildings and depending on theoffice market demand for office, it might get to a point whereit's more economically viable totake down that old office building and put a temporaryparking lot.but that creates problems in the neighbourhood and gaps in thestreet face and that type ofthing. and it also results in a lowertax base.the parking lots detract from the urban mixed use andresidential character of thebeltline area, draws in additional commuter traffic tothe area.and, again, the premature
building demolition concerns.those are some of the thoughtswhy we're strengthening the limitation on temporary parking.and i'm not sure if that answersall of your question or not. if you can refresh my memory,please.>> no, i think it does. i sat down because i just wantedan explanation.unfortunately, after hearing that, it seems that the -- we'rebeing restrictive and...[indiscernible] in some of our reasonings.thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thanks.again, questions ofclarification. alderman mar.>> thank you.mr. rockley, why three years versus some other number?is that an arbitrary number thatwe had or is that something that
was negotiated between theproperty owners and thecommunity and so on? >> for the purposes of thisamendment, that's the length oftime that is in place now for temporary permits.so it's just continuing that -->> continuing on with the existing policy.>> the existing policy ofthree-year renewals. >> there is a couple ofbuildings or lots in thebeltline that have approached me.one of them is a charitableorganization which i'm sure you're aware of the one that i'mspeaking of that has asked aboutextending beyond that time frame.we would still have theopportunity to do that, not necessarily through council butmy office coordinating withplanning.
is that not the case?>> they could put forward thatproposal with their application to have a longer length of time.and also there is the -->> this is obviously the difference between the "should"and "will" wording.is that correct? >> well, so, sorry, would thisbe a brand new temporary surfaceparking lot or they've got an existing and they're renewing?under this policy it would fallunder the three years. and deviation from that threeyears -- there's really twothings that could happen. they could proceed with thethree-year permit and then renewafter three years. if that suits them.and the city.the other is they could apply for a longer permit knowing thatit is against this policystipulation of three years and
then that could be decided on bythe approving authority.>> and would the approvalling authority decide upon that atthe counter in about two secondsor is this something that would actually go through a processwhere there is some discussionand debate preferably with the ward alderman?>> i'm not that involved withthe applications, but a deviation from policy, myinclination is that that wouldbe something that would go forward to the planningcommission and not dealt with atthe counter. that's my understanding of whatwould happen.>> okay. so i want to be able to beassured there so somediscretion, i'm talking about the united way here and theirparking, something that i'mvery, very concerned about
continent that we decide, hey,that's it, and all thesevolunteers that are donating their time are now looking foran alternate place to park.so -- [inaudible]>> go to another temporary lot.you can also discuss that at sdab then too.the invitation to sdab is -- youcan rescind that or refuse it at any time.those are my questions for now,your worship. >> mayor naheed nenshi: didyou have something you wanted toadd? >> just in case ther there was econfusion alderman mar, thewording this would suggest around applicant can apply foranything they want.there's no restriction on it. if this is approved, though,anything beyond a three-yearrenewal would be refused.
it says no case can you renewbeyond three years.they came in and asked for six or nine or 20 and said theywouldn't change it, you canapply, but if they say that's what we want, that will be arefusal and then alderman hodgescan deal with it at sdab, of course.the wording of this would notallow a renewal beyond another three-year term.[inaudible]>> mayor naheed nenshi: thanks very much.we're still on questions ofclarification. boy, there's a lot of them forthis one.alderman lowe. >> thank you very much.the issue of removable leaseholder improvement, do we have a way of making sure they don'tfall into direpair?the best process in this
approval process is thethree-year renewal.because at that three-year renewal, if there's an item ofthe approval that isn't beingupheld or maintained to the same standard as when it wasinstalled, then those would beaddressed at the three-year renewal.>> we would rely on thecomplaints process or bylaw enforcement during the threeyears.>> correct. >> thank you very much.and for alderman farrell, ithink at least two that i heard in dab and for alderman carrafundamentally you just heard thedebate, planning comission, i sent it back once because ididn't like the language.>> mayor naheed nenshi: alderman pootmans.>> thank you, your worship.in the event of a suspended
construction site and the goalwould be to finish to grade andi think the debate in the past should we have a parking lot orgreen space and it's typically adistressed situation, there are not a lot of options on thetable.what are the implications with this?it's never been consistent withthe arp but isn't this handcuffing some of the optionsto a certain extent?>> this policy speaks specifically to temporarysurface parking lots at grade.with a suspended development site, there's a -- if they'vebuilt the structure -->> well, we can go that. there's several ways it can go,we start with that.>> so if there's a structure involved, this policy doesn'tspeak to those structures.that's a separate --
[inaudible]and so this -- i guess thispolicy is specific the temporary surface at grade, so just thelot at grade.>> i know in a few cases what was contemplated was just simplyfilling and packing the site forsafety purposes and then leaving us without any kind of structurebelow grade, so filling in justwith soil. would this make it moredifficult to install temporaryparking as an option? >> yes.yes, this policy -- if the sitewas just reclaimed back to grade and then there was a proposalfor a temporary surface parkinglot at that location, this policy would restrict that, andin fact it says that that shouldnot be allowed. >> i notice there's a commentabout the victoria park businessrevisization comment.
was the 17th after businessrevitalization asked to commenton this? >> the 17th avenue, theuptown, 4th street andvictoria crossing were all requested -- asked for comments.and we received comments fromthe victoria -- >> and not the uptown 17th.>> no.>> thank you. >> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman pootmans.we'll open the public hearing now.are there any members of thepublic who would like to speak in favour of this proposal?anyone like to speak in favour?mr. hamilton. >> thank you, your worship.members of council.my name is william hamilton. i happen to be in theneighbourhood this afternoon soto speak and in the absence of
any other voices in favour ofthe amendment proposed byadministration today, i would like to lend my voice in supportof this amendment, and i wouldhope that council would support this amendment.i come before you this afternoonas a beltline resident and small business owner.i have passed a few of thetemporary surface parking sites and there they have made somestrides toward beautifying thespaces, making the temporary surface parking lots a littlebit less than bare tarmac, ithink it is important for council to understand certainlyfrom my standpoint thatfundamentally it is tarmac. it does little to -- it doeslittle to address my experienceof residing and doing business and undertaking recreationalactivities in the beltline.it doesn't give me any
particular incentive to partakeof the amenities in theneighbourhood when i walk past an ersat cedar fence and seeparking stalls beyond them.i would ask council to support this amendment before you, yourworship, and i would ask councilto remember that even under certain -- even under whateverclear and press exigentcircumstances might exist, i would ask council to considerthat these temporary surfacelots should remain temporary. with that, i will leave councilto its deliberations and thankyou for this opportunity to present today.>> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, mr. hamilton. alderman mar, question formr. hamilton?>> thank you, mr. hamilton. joelle says hi, we're well.i also wanted to mention thatyou are also a member, an
executive of the beltlinecommunity association, you'dforgot tone say that, and that the president is speak out infavour that he couldn't arrive,something about snow and was also in support of this.so thank you for coming down andbraving the cold. thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, mr. hamilton. anyone else wish to speak infavour of this proposal?anyone wish to speak in opposition to this proposal?mr. beck?>> mayor, aldermen, my name is oscar fech.i find it very discouraging,almost embarrassing, here's a land owner, bought a piece ofproperty and he can't even rentit out as parking. are we living in a democracy orheading towards dictatorship?part of the problem is the city
is create, towards more control,like the comin calgary parkingauthority is not making as much money as they used to becausethere's a lot of parkingeverywhere. this is partly why transit ismaking less because people canpark in the beltline and only pay maybe $8 or 5, $6 a day inthe next six months.that's why they use the cars. we all live in a democracy, ihope.why are the government so against private enterprise?because private enterprise paysyour wages. you are getting paid through thetaxpayers.why do you want to control them and get rid of the middle classand create more poor, homelessneedy? no, it's not funny.it's the truth.this is what's happening.
look, in the '50s, '60s,'70s the city didn't sayanything because they hardly controlled any parking.but since it took over, they gotmore parking spots than any company here in the steer.in the city.why are we doing it? you're hurting your owntaxpayers that is feeding youand your kids. mayor, aldermen, let's get ridoof all the shenanigans.just look at the taxpayers. they're the absolute power andshould be, but they're notanymore. but let's get back and analyzeeverything, mayor, aldermen andalso the city officials, all the managers, the 120 managers thatapparently we have.what i'm saying about all this, we have created a monster of abureaucracy and nothing isworking, it seems.
so let's get back, create thegood common sense because we allare all equal, not just the hierarchy.and name not knocking anybody,but that's where we're heading towards.that's whatted before the romanempire collapsed. we're heading the samedirection.so let's stop all this. analyze everything.it's supposed to be a democracy.so, mayor, aldermen, mayor, you start first.you're a young guy, you got fullof everything. [laughter]>> mayor naheed nenshi: a fewof the aldermen around here would say i'm full of somethings.thank you, mr. fech. i actually think this is a veryvaluable contribution to thisdiscussion and i thank you for
making it.>> take the bull by the hornsand go to it. thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi: anyoneelse wish to speak in opposition to this proposal?>> i'm helen mowat.and i'm very concerned what i've seen today in council.and as a citizen, i do not likeit. and i do know that geopoliticalpolitics that are being played.and i want a democracy. and i want democracy, and inaddition to that, i want truthand honesty and i want our councillors to stand up for theright intentions of the peoplerather than for corporations or other groups in the world thatcan perhaps control us or thatwere in a matrix. we have to be free citizens andbe able to express our truths,and we can only do that with
proper education and a mind thatgoes beyond the left linear tothe whole mind-body-soul connection -->> mayor naheed nenshi: on theissue, please. >> we can only make properdecisions when we go from rightintentions rather than from evil parameters.thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thank you, ms. mowat.helpful for all of us to alwaysremember. anyone else wish to speak inopposition to this?all right then. do we have someone who wouldlike to move -->> i'll move the items in the three readings, your worship.>> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman low. do i have a seconder?[inaudible]moved by alderman mar.
seconded by alderman lowe.any further discussion on thisitem? i actually do have a questionfor administration myself.but anyone else? i actually -- mr. rockley,find it interesting that we areaiming for this blanket exemption rather than looking atthis case by case in terms ofthe various elements that are -- the various elements of eachparticular proposal.can you just say a word about why the blanket prohibition, isuppose, on these temporary lotsrather than a guideline or a policy to put this right into abylaw?>> we've taken the approach with the revised wording because theexisting policy, it was meant toreally limit the temporary surface parking lots, and with1,800 stalls of temporarysurface parking being developed
in thebeltline since theapproval of the arearedevelopment plan, we felt that we did need to strengthen theintent of that policy.and we didn't feel that it was appropriate to go to a shellpolicy statement.if we said that development of new temporary surface parkinglots within the beltline shallnot be allowed, that's really the blanket prohibition theapproving authority can't decideon a very valid and beneficial instance.so we've taken this approachwith the should not be allowed to keep with the vision of thecity for redevelopment and thewishes of the community to do more community building type ofdevelopments and not parkinglots. so if there is an instance wherea site can be made safer throughthis, there might be exceptional
circumstances that can makesense.so that was why we took this approach.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thankyou, mr. rockley. and miss sloane, would you mindjust talking to us about shouldand shall? >> absolutely, your worship.this is one of my favouritetopics, as many people know. >> mayor naheed nenshi: thereis a reason you went to lawschool. >> your worship, can council puta must or a shall into a policydocument? absolutely.the question is, is itappropriate? because the difficulty is thelimitations contained inmunicipal government act when it comes to policy documents andthe apparent, and i say apparentbecause there isn't any recent
case law deciding this lack ofthe ability of the developmentor subdivision authority to relax any mandatory requirementscontained in policy.there is an ability to relax or vary from the requirements in aland use bylaw.the municipal government act and the land use bylaw clarify that.however, there is some case lawdating back many, many, many years and some slightly modifiedwording under the formerplanning act that suggests that perhaps a policy document ca caeread down and perhaps can berelaxed. however, they were very uniquecircumstances and in the contextof a direct control strict and i think should be limited to thosecircumstances.and it really creates a drain on resources, particularly in thelaw department when we getinvolved in this protracted and
arguably unnecessary litigation.for example last year we had apolicy and i don't know if many people are aware of it, butthere was a "must" buried in thedefinition in the parks open space master plan as it relatedto some improvements in northglenmore park. as a result of that little word,it led to quite a fewcomplications from a legal point of view.and quite a bit of resourcesbeing turned -- being consumed in the courts and the legalprocess.so my recommendation is that in policy documents, unless you areabsolutely adamant there willnot be any exceptions to that rule, that do you not use theword "must" or "shall" becausethe only way arguably that you can deviate from that is comeback to council and have apublic hearing to modify that
policy document.i hope that's helpful.>> mayor naheed nenshi: very helpful.thank you, ms. sloane.any further discussion on this item?very well then.on the recommendations, are we agreed?any opposed?call the roll, please. (roll being called)(roll being called)it's carried, your worship. >> mayor naheed nenshi: allright then, on the bylaw 8 p2010. first reading of the bylaw arewe agreed.any opposed? alderman chabot, demong, keatingopposed.[inaudible] same division.thank you.second reading of the bylaw are
we agreed?same division?all right. that's very handy.authorization for third readingof the bylaw are we agreed? any opposed?carried.third reading of the bylaw are wsame division?are we agreed?all right.thank you. something new.i like learning new things.that takes us to the end of our public hearing.portion of the agenda.that takes us to agenda item number 9.1, city managerreports.we'll wait for the musical chairs to occur here.>> mayor naheed nenshi: allright. so now we are at 9.1.1, c2011-05 airport trail underpass.i understand we have a
presentation from administrationto get us started.alderman stevenson are you going to wait -- okay.believe it or not, it was ontoday's agenda. no one noticed.but...>> thank you, your worship. we're -- there we go.excellent.thank you. let me.>> mayor naheed nenshi: justbefore you start, let me suggest a potential path for us to dealwith this issue.we'll listen to your presentation.we'll have questions ofclarification for you. then i believe aldermanstevenson is going to move totable further consideration of the item until the discussion ofthe in-camera portion.we'll do the in-camera portion
and come back into public.that's all the subject tocouncil's decision but that's sort of the overall thought ofhaw this may move forward.he'll do his presentation. we'll ask any questions ofclarification out here.alderman stevenson, i think, he'll nod, is go to move that wetable consideration of thepublic item until after we deal with the in-camera report.we'll go in-camera, talk aboutthe in-camera report, come back out here and have the debate.make sense?alderman lowe? >> your worship, i would like tosuggest a slight alteration tothat, and we hear mr. logan's presentation and that, then goin-camera.because quite frankly -- >> mayor naheed nenshi: beforethe questions?>> yes, because i can't separate
two reports in my questioning.>> mayor naheed nenshi: that'sfine. i'll recognize aldermanstevenson as soon as mr. loganis done. mr. logan.>> thank you, your worship.and good afternoon, members of council.i will be making certaincomments in my presentation. they're taking into account thatthere are people that arewatching this via the t.v. or internet.today's report is reporting backon notice of motion 2010-42, and that notice of motion instructedadministration to come back witha business case for a roadway to be built at the same time as thefourth runway at the calgaryinternational airport. as part of that notice ofmotion, we were instructed toconduct an analysis of the
network and the links currentlyunder construction and futurelinks that would be coming. we were instructed to reviewstudies of roadways in the area.we were also instructed to analyze options specificallycost estimates and how it couldbe staged. we were instructed to look atfunding options and finally wewere instructed to report back on the impact of this project onthe ten-year capital plan.if i could start the presentation with a little bitof a history or background.in the early 1990s, 1992 to be specific, the calgary airportauthority took over ownership ofthe calgary international airport from the federalgovernment, and were tasked withoperating, maintaining that infrastructure.as part of their management ofthe airport facility, they
undertook an airport master planin 2004.a substudy of that master plan was to look at the airport trailand that 2005 study looked atthe east-west link that was contemplated underneath thefourth runway.and exactly what that piece of infrastructure would look like,how it would integrate intoaccess in the terminal and approximately how much it wouldcost.that study was done jointly between the city and airportauthority.in 2006 and 2007, the city of calgary's transportationdepartment undertook ourtransportation infrastructure investment plan at which time wedid not have a firm timing forthe fourth runway construction, which is -- answers a questionwe're often asked is why wasn'tthis a priority previously.
in 2008, the airport was movingforward with their plans on avery firm note, and by early 2009 we were under detaileddiscussions about how we mightbe able to construct the airport tunnel as part of the airport'sproject.in 2010, the airport authority proceeded with securing the teamto build their new facility, andin 2010 we also had a civic election whereby the discussionof the airport project and theairport runway was an active topic of discussion in the civicelection.and finally we're here today to discuss the plans on how wemight be able to move forward ornot. in 2004, the airport master planidentified a new internationalarrivals and departures facility as well as a fourth runway tosupport increased movement.the long-range plan at this time
was for 27 million passengermovement through the airport peryear. and it looked at about a 2025horizon.the 2005 study that i have an exhibit of in the bottom leftwas the airport arrival anddeparture roadway network that was contemplated to tie in in2004.that does take into consideration expansion of theterminal area to the southeastwhich is currently the project underway, and how we would tieinto a free flow airport trailas well as the industrial commercial areas north of theairport on city of calgarylands. it's important to note that thebarlow trail closure which wascontemplated as part of the fourth runway construction takesplace on a roadway that the citydoes not own.
and i think there's members ofthe public that aren't awarethat airport trail sitting on federally owned lands that arecontrolled under the lease bythe calgary airport authority. and the city does not havediscretion as to when thatrunway construction will go ahead and when the roadway wouldbe closed.the airport trail connection has been part of our long rangetransportation plans for quitesome time. it has been -- it's also part ofour primary transit network.specifically linking the northeast lrt from a stationcontemplated north of the saddletown station at approximately airport trail, westwardunderneath the runway, goingthrough the terminal area in some manner and tying into thefuture north central lrt linewith a stop contemplated just
west of the deerfoot trailtieing into the regionalcomputer rail future high-speed rail in the aforementioned northcentral lrt line.it's estimated in our long range traffic forecasting that about 5to 10.000 passengers per daywould use that east/west primary transit linkage.airport trail is also consideredto be a primary goods movement corridor connecting through thelarge industrial commercialcomplex which surrounds the airport.as you may be aware, developmentin the vicinity of an trail has also been planned totie into the primary networkarea for the province, and this slide shows the ring road.that roadway is now open and inoperation and is part of the construction of the northeastring road, the provinceconstructed an interchange at
the 96th avenue or airporttrail location, which is shownin the lower left part of the slide.that interchange has been builtand is sitting there waiting connection to our overall roadnetwork.just a quick overview of the airport's development planswhich are dictating the timeline that we're working towards. the airport has two major plansas part of their airportdevelopment program. the first is the internationalfacilities project where a largeextension to their terminals to handle increased traffic to andfrom the united states and otherparts of the world. that's approximately a$1.4 billion undertaking.and supporting the overall airport complex is the runwaydevelopment program which is anew 14.000-foot runway to be
built approximately one mileeast of the existing runway.and that's about a 600 million-dollar undertaking.this facility would handle as imentioned before about 27 million passengers per year.and should easily accommodatethe population growth in the region to the 2025 horizon.i suspect beyond that, but thatwas just the information that i saw on line.this exhibit illustratesapproximately where the runway is relative to the airporttrail.the dashed red line represented the alignment of airport trailunderneath the runway.and this helps to illustrate the length of double tunnel requiredto go on the west end underneaththe two taxi ways on the west side of the runway carryingunderneath the runway to theeast side, what's called taxi
way tangle which is shown onlower left side of the runway.in prior studies done in support of council directives, we didlook at a segmented orcontinuous tunnel. we've met with transport canadato discuss that topic.and it's been made clear to us that a segmented tunnel wouldnot be deemed acceptable to theairport authority or transport canada.so all the plans that we didwith respect to building a link underneath the tunnel takes intoconsideration a continuoustunnel. where we sit today is thatairport trail will be closed onapril 3rd by the calgary airport authority in conjunctionwith the construction of therunway. they've been asked to look atdeferring that.we've been briefed on why that
is necessary, and it relates tothe movement of earth from theterminal area and in relation to the movement of earth on theairport side.they need to do this work in 2011 so that they can startconstructing the runway in 2012and be ready to operate on that runway in 2014.i wanted to point out thatbarlow trail is not a public road for those that are notaware of that.it's part of the airport lands, and as such it's governed underthe lease that they have withthe federal government. the city is investing ininfrastructure to handle theimmediate traffic changes as a result of the barlow trailclosure.but those are the short-term traffic needs, not the long-termtraffic needs.and council has asked
administration to review theimpacts this closure which getsme to the last part of the presentation.we looked at three macrooptions.the first option was the typically called the do-nothingoption and that we to abandonthe airport trail alignment underneath the fourth runway andaccommodate the shift in trafficon the area road network% we anticipate this would add twointerchanges we hadn't plannedon country hills boulevard at 36th street and at barlowtrail.we would also need to maintain the plans for our interchangesalong metis trail north ofmcknight boulevard, 64th avenue, 80th avenue,96th avenue and up tocountry hills boulevard. and at some point in the futurethere would be grade separationsin and out of the terminal area
but that's not included in thecost estimate in the upper left.and that's sort of a today dollar figure of what to withcost to build the gradeseparations in the area. would he have the opportunity toprobably downgrade 96thavenue east of the airport lands and i would suggest change thatfrom an expressway to a major,and change the access considerations along with that.i believe that this would haveland use implications along country hills.we would have country hillboulevard needing to handle quite a bit more traffic.we have professional approvedcommercial development along that corridor along withmultiple points of access, andit would be difficult to try to handle significant increase intraffic flow as well as multiplepoints of access.
so there will be an impact onthe land development as it comesin over time. and finally we will lose ourability to have a primarytransit corridor from east lrt into the terminal area andfurther to the west over time.on the positive side, it does eliminate a lot of the risksthat council is going to have todiscuss in more details later today.and it also preserves ourcurrent capital planning. the next option is the buildlater option, which would see usboring probably two or three doubles over time.we could possibly bore aseparate tunnel for lrt. the exhibit shows the dashedline south of the alignment forlrt but that's really just for clarity.that's just to make the slide alittle bit clearer in the
report.this plan also preserves ourcurrent capital plan as the incremental road improvementswould occur over time.however, i would advise council that due to the trafficcongestion that would occur overtime, i suspect that there would be a tremendous amount ofpressure from the public to makeincremental road improvements which will effectively cause usto build a do-nothing optionbecause the tunnel boring option is so expensive, to would takequite a bit of time that wewould get to a point of congestion that the public woulddemand we bore the doubles.there's a significant risk involved in tunneling laterbecause we're going under anactive runway and we're not sure that would be somethingpermissible to the airportauthority or the federal
government.option 3 is the build now optionwhich is the option we have been discussing to a large extentover the last two years.we believe that at the end of the day, it represents thelowest cost option in that258.8 million is our construction cost estimate for aroadway from barlow trailthrough to stoney trail. it does not include the financecharges required.we believe there's a potential by pursuing this road network toeliminate future interchangesalong metis trail which would have a cost savings at somepoint in the future.we believe that it provides an excellent east/west connectionbetween deerfoot trail andstoney trail. country hills boulevard wouldproceed as planned as ancommercial arterial corridor
with a more urban corridornation under the new calgarytransportation plan. we would protect our primarytransit link and we would at theend of the day end up with a better overall transportationnetwork in the northeast.this slide illustrates how we would -- council asked us tocome back with a opportunity tophase the construction or to have incremental construction ofthe facility.so section a is the section that's on airport lands andthat's the section that we wouldabsolutely have to build in conjunction with the tunnel.section b would extend from36th street to metis trail to the first arterial orexpressway linkage in the area.finally section c would connect from metis trail over to60th and create a continuousconnection through to stoney
trail.on the right-hand side of theexhibit, you'll see the portion of airport trail or 96 avenuethat we were building in 2011 asa connection to the ring road which we have an obligation tothe province to complete thatwork. and farther to the west, we alsohave construction underway forthe linkage from deerfoot trail over to the aurora business parkacross nose creek.construction of interchanges along this corridor would beplanned for but would not beunderuntil a later date. there should be a diamond shownon the 36th streetalignment, we would anticipate there would be at least apartial interchange at thatlocation. cost breakdown for thesedifferent phases are the firstportion on airport lands is
approximately 198 million, justunder 200 million.and then the further extensions to the east are an additional10 million, an additional14 million. this information is all includedin your council report underattachment one. in response to council's requestthat we try to minimize the costwherever possible, we took a further look at thecross-section in the designstandard. we had to balance a building avery long-term facility andallow for flexibility with trying to reduce the initialcost.we came up with a design that has two cells, so there would beseparate pieces with connectionsbetween the two sides. approximately 16 metres wide,each cell.it would be a 615 metre long
section.there would be a provision, thedimension within this tunnel would allow for either adedicated busway or a dedicatedrail-based transit system. from a design point of view, weused our existing lrt cars asa -- sort of a benchmark. they're probably larger than thetransit vehicles we might see inthe future, if it was a hot rail versus an overhead power line.the initial phase would see atleast two lanes of traffic in each direction tying into theroadway at either end.there would be an opportunity to add primary transit or an hovlane in each direction.we would use standard shoulder width and there would also besufficient room to addpedestrian and cycle facilities on one side.however, as i've stated before,we don't necessarily recommend
that.the overall project cost iscomprised of the tunnel section with the roadway atop theextensions farther to the eastsections b and c as i previously illustrated.which gives you a total roadcost of about 222 million. we then have to add additionalcosts which have been identifiedby the airport authority for redesign, delay costs and othercosts to modify their project aswell as special insurance that we would have to carry on thisproject which we typically don'thave to carry on a construction project.and that brings us to a totalconstruction cost estimate of about $258.8 million.that construction -- that costestimate has been reviewed by our engineers at least threetimes ands that also beenreviewed b an independent
engineering firm to vet thatnumber as instructed by council.and i would say that the variation in the somebody isbecoming very -- in the numberis becoming very small. interestingly enough it's quitesimilar to the number that wepresented to council about two years ago.so pretty confident that theconstruction cost is in this order of magnitude.however, as council knows, wedon't have a tremendous amount of excess capital available atthis time.and we will need to finance a good portion of the money tobuild this project now.building now is dictated by the airport's time line, but othercommitments have been made.it's not dissimilar to building a house where there's the costof the house and then there'sthe cost of the mortgage on top
of that.we took a look at how would wefinance this construction cost-based on the funds that wehave available to us today.we had identified msi funding. we have contingency funds whichhave previously been identifiedfor this project. there's an inovation fun whichwas discussioned by council atan earlier meeting in the order of $123 million which is notcurrently committed to aspecific project. transportation does have a smallamount of ms imoneys which arenot currently committed. additional funds are needed.we took a look at other projectswhich are not at the contractual obligation stage.and our program 543, which isallowing for the provincial ring road connector specifically thetie-ins on lands outside of theprovincial ring roads and our
obligations to tie our networkinto the province's ring road.we still have funds available there that are uncommitted.even after taking intoconsideration all the links that we have committed to,specifically on the southeastportion that's under construction now, and we'd berequired to find at leastanother $31 million to bridge the gap, if you will, yourworship.and finally, we're suggesting an allocation of 25 million forthe -- from the reserve forfuture capital totaling $295 million worth offunding for this project.so in conclusion, your worship, as instructed by the notice ofmotion, we've investigated thetechnical aspects of this project.and we find there will besubstantial investment required
in the northeast road networkregardless of the decision onairport trail. that the airport underpassresults in the best overalltransportation network, including primary transit accessto yyc.the projected cost is approximately $295 million forthe recommended design.and the project can be phased. however, the airport vicinitysection must commenceimmediately if it's to be build in conjunction with the newfourth runway.the recommendations that are outlined in the covering reportare designed around proceeding.specifically their authorization to commence detail design,authorization for the citymanager, gm transportation, gm of corporate services tocommence detailed negotiationson a preliminary agreement with
the authority.based on information which willbe presented to you in the following in-camera report.and to proceed only ifsatisfactory preliminary agreement can be reached.to approve a budget allocationof $294.8 million. and to give first eading to theborrowing bylaw.the specific wording of those recommendations is on the firstand second pages of your report.that concludes my presentation, your worship.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thankyou very much, mr. logan. and before we get into all thedetails on this, i want to makesure that i express my thanks, and i know i speak on behalf ofall members of council for thework that's been done across city departments in a remarkablyshort period of time to bring usthis report.
in your own department andcorporate services, the citysolicitor and in finance. so i just wanted to say thankyou to all of the folks aroundthe city who put in a heck of a lot of hours to get us to wherewe are today.thank you for that. alderman stevenson.>> thank you, your worship.well, there are as i've talked to many of my colleagues a loftquestions and especially aboutthe in-camera report, and i understand that there are someparts of the in-camera reportthat can be made public but i don't think anyone knows whichones can be and which ones can'tbe. so i would like to -- would imove that we move into thecorporate boardroom for the in-camera discussion and comeback out for the debate.>> mayor naheed nenshi: hold
on.your motion is to table furtherconsideration of this item until after the next item and also tomove in-camera in the corporateboardroom now. >> right.>> mayor naheed nenshi: madameclerk will catch all of that. and we will reconvene as acommittee of the hole in-cameraet cetera, et cetera. seconded by alderman jones.on that motion are we agreed?sorry, sorry. alderman chabot?>> thank you, your worship.alderman stevenson indicated that there are portions of thisreport that can be made publicand portions of it that can't. and he wasn't clear about whatcouldn't be.and i went through it and i can't see what can't be.>> mayor naheed nenshi: can wehave that discussion in
camera -->> the only issue i have withthis, your worship, is i'm not comfortable going in-camera witha report that i think should bemade public and discussed in public unless somebody candemonstrate to me or tell mewhat it is that's so important that we can't discuss it inpublic.>> mayor naheed nenshi: i can certainly try and the gentlemenon both sides of me said thesame thing which is what is contained in the in-camerareport is negotiating strategyfor the further round of negotiations on this project.and that's why administration isrecommending that we discuss it in-camera as we always do withnegotiating strategies.>> so is it an obligation that that we discuss this in-camera?i'm trying to understand that,your worship.
>> mayor naheed nenshi: it'scertainly not an obligation.council can do what council wants, and if you want to bringit out here you can.i would suspect mr. tolley would tell us there would besignificant risk until we've hada chance to talk about. >> as soon as we get to thatline of questioning then at thatpoint for sure we'd have to go in-camera.i can't support the idea ofgoing in-camera and presupposing a line of questioning.so i'm not going to besupporting a motion to go in-camera.and, your worship, i was goingto ask if you wouldn't be -- would be so kind as to recognizeme being as i'm up and you'vegiven me the floor when we return back -- i'm kidding.i will relinquish the floor.>> mayor naheed nenshi: can
you keep it, alderman chabot.any other discussion to now movein-camera? alderman colley-urquhart?>> i guess to mr. tolley someof under the circumstances have a lot of questions around riskand the different risk elementsand these are intertwined in the public report and in thisprivate report.it could be my hope to have an open discussion around risk andwould you deem that tocompromise the corporation? >> your worship, it depends onthe nature of the questions.so i think it's appropriate to have the discussion in-camerafirst and then to come out anddiscuss the matter in public, your worship.i think there are somenegotiating strategies that are embedded in the text of thatreport that would beinappropriate to reveal in a
public way because we aregetting into a discussion withanother party about -- >> land value.>> land values, risk,indemnities, those types of provisions and in my view it'sinappropriate to reveal whatcould well be a negotiating strategy to another party thatmay well in some of theseinstances be adverse in interest, your worship.>> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks. >> thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi: that'sa much more eloquent explanation of what i was trying to say.>> that just shows thedifficulty when we can't have an open discussion around risk butyet we're being asked to supporta huge amount of money in relation to this.so for that reason, i can'tsupport going in-camera.
thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi:alderman mar. >> thank you.sounding like a broken recordbut i'm echoing my colleague's concerns about this.we all cam papered on a --campaigned on a vigorous input from our citizens.we are saying we want to haveopen and transparent government notwithstanding the fact we'rehearing from law i think thatwhen we're being asked to spend the kind of money that we are,when we're asked to make thisleap, which has huge implications for us as amunicipality, for perhaps thenext decade or more, i can't support the idea of us not goingout and explaining to calgariansthe predicament that we are in as a result of this negotiatingstrategy.so i will not be supporting
going in-camera at this time.>> mayor naheed nenshi:lyremind all of council that much as this is an interesting debateto have, council chooses when tocome out of camera. and council chooses what todiscuss when we're out ofcamera. administration is asking for theability to present all of theinformation and then we can have a discussion about what to bringout.so we're being a bit red herring here on this discussion as faras i'm concerned.alderman lowe? >> well, i don't agree we'rebeing a bit red herring at all,your worship. the issue of risk is a majorsubject of discussion at anyboard, and i'm very concerned about any constraints -- what ithink will happen and i'll --i'm going to depart from my
colleagues' suggestions thatwe -- and support goingin-camera. my fear, your worship, my fearis that coming out to rise andreport on the advice of council and bearing in mind the languageof the mga about keeping inconfidence those things which are to remain in confidence,which is a rule by which igovern myself around here, that acting on the advice of councilon subjects that cannot bespoken because they may or may not form part of a negotiatingtactic will severely limit myability to really get into the issue of risk in a public way.and i think it's criticallyimportant that calgarians have a view of the risks that we'regoing into.i spent the weekend on it. and i don't think i'm anywherenear as complete on it as iwould like to be.
but i think it's important thatwe have this -- because weare -- at the end of the day, if but to item -- section 3, number3 on the bylaw we're going to beasked to pass, it says if there's any deficiency, we raisetaxes.and without understanding what the cost and the implications ofrisk of the value we're puttingon this might be, i'm not sure we'll have the informationbefore us that would enable usto deal with the matter until discussions with the airportauthority are further down theroad. so i'm just looking at thenormal business process ofdealing with risk at a board level.trying to translate it into ourresponsibility to calgarians, and while i will support goingin-camera, i'm very, veryconcerned about what we will be
allowed to discuss when we comeout.so having said that, your worship,ly support going in.but i'm very, very concernedabout -- and i'm going to ask mr. tolley when we come out inpublic to very clearlyexplain -- i'm sure he'll explain it to us in-camera, healways does, he's very goodabout that, but when we come out that, again, the instructionshe's given to us with respect tothe areas that we cannot enter in a public debate are clearlyspelled out so that calgariansunderstand the constraints we're under when we're trying to makethis decision.>> mayor naheed nenshi: you'll take that undertaking, mr.tolley?thanks, alderman lowe. on the motion to go in camerathen -- alderman farrell?>> thank you.
this is difficult because ishare my colleagues' concernsabout the in-camera report. and i think we need to discussit in the light of day,eventually. perhaps there could be acompromise where we don't agreeto make any decisions on the future of the tunnel until thecontents of the negotiations aremade public. if we're putting the corporationat risk.>> mayor naheed nenshi: we can discuss that.>> we can assess that in-camera,but that's the direction i would like to go.>> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman farrell. anyone else?alderman stevenson, did you wantto close? >> thank you, your worship.i'm not sure where some of mycolleagues are going because all
of us are very concerned aboutthe risk side of it.but the thing is that when we come to the discussion in publichere, we're going to know thenwhat we can talk about and what we can't.and so to actually start thiswhole discussion in public here without the advice of council onsome of the important issueswould be -- it would just be silly.it would not be right for us.so please support to go in-camera.thanks.>> mayor naheed nenshi: very well then.i have request for a recordedvote on this, please. [inaudible]yeah, i know.>> on the recorded vote, alderman mar against.alderman hodges for.alderman farrell for.
alderman carra for.alderman colley-urquhartagainst. alderman chabot against.alderman demong for.alderman macleod for. alderman stevenson for.alderman jones for.mayor nenshi for. it's carried, your worship.>> alderman jones.>> i move to rise and report. >> thank you.do i have a seconder.>> second. >> thank you.are we agreed.>> agreed. >> alderman jones.>> on c 2011, 0 of supportinginformation council received this information to the reportin support of report 2011, 05airport trail underpass and this report and theattachments remainconfidential pursuants to
sections 241 c. and 1 b. ofthe freedom of information andprivacy act. >> seconder.>> alderman pootmans.>> are we agreed. >> any opposed?>> call the roll.>> alderman jones. >> i move to rise and report.>> alderman farrell.alderman hodges. >> no.>> alderman jones.alderman keating. >> yes.>> alderman lowe.>> yes. >> alderman macleod.>> yes.>> alderman mar. >> alderman pincott.>> yes.>> alderman pootmans. >> yes.>> alderman stephen son.>> yes.
>> alderman can a are a?>> yes.>> alderman chabot. >> no.>> alderman demong.>> yes. >> mayor nenshi.>> yes.>> carried your worship. back to discussion then of2011, 05 i think was thenumber still on the airport trail underpass.alderman farrell?>> thank you. >> i have a number ofquestions.to mr. logan. mr. logan who wrote thisreport?>> it was a collection of several authors but at the endof the day i sign it.>> you signed it. >> i'm accountable for it.>> it does have your name onit.
mr. logan i never seen areport like this before.the stakeholder consultation overview.what's your thought on thatsection, page 1 of 7 of attachment 2?>> my thoughts on thatsection. >> yes.>> one of the challenges withwriting this report was to respond to council as rapidlyas possible on ainfrastructure project where we were not going through anormal process and one of theparts of the normal process that we were not following waspublic engage.and we were struggling to try to communicate to council howwe had assessed the public'sposition on this particular piece of infrastructure.so with respect to the firstpart of this, where we discuss
the results of the civicelection, the intent was totry to represent that this issue had been discussedbroadly in the public, andthat as represented by members of council, some of themembers of council felt thatthat election represented a public opinion on thatparticular issue.we did undertake to disseminate as muchinformation as we could on theweb and invite comment. in fact, on our web site ithink it's the first time weinvited people to comment on our blog, on our city newsblog on the topic.we produce videos and we also helped stakeholder event totry to get opinions.so i think the intent of including that unusualinformation was to try tosomehow assess what the public
opinion on this project was?>> okay, well i know thatthere were many issues discussed during the election.i don't see it as a plebisciteon the tunnel. nor do i see the decisiontoday as a vote of confidenceor non-confidence of our mayor as was indicated in the papertoday.i see it as a vote on a major infrastructure project and iwas so disappointed.in seeing that. i was disappointed because idon't know if we generallyinclude newspaper on line vars as a reason to justify adecision.it's a single question. there is no dollar valueduring the election.there were many numbers thrown out there.100 million was what i heardover and over again.
so i hope this isn't anindication after new way ofwriting reports. and i have to say, i find thisso disturbing.so i will leave it at that. at that time as well, we weretalking about four partners atthe table including the airport authority, the feds,the province and the city.there was also an accusation that the previous mayor wasdisinagain use when he went toask for money and i think we learned that any attempts i'msure were genuine because theyhave been repeated and the answer was the same result.so mr. dantony's letter thatwe received, i have huge respect for mr. dantony, i'mtrying to find it here.he raises some concerns that the consequences of not doingthe tunnel whereas underpassas my husband calls it tundra
pass.>> love it.>> do you. probably not new.that the consequences of notdoing it have been inflated. that we don't need to do allthose interchanges at thispoint in time. that that would be well, wellinto the future.what's your comment on that? did you read mr. dantony'sletter?>> i do not have mr. dantony's letter.if it's edward dantony.>> it's edward. >> yes, i know that individual,and he is with his backgroundas the former head of the roads department has a fairlyreasoned opinion.>> yes. >> i would share that opinion.i would say that over time wewill have to build the
infrastructure that'srepresented in the attachment1 would be built over time. the unusual thing about thispiece of infrastructure it'sunlike any i have seen council have to consider and we haveto build it.we have to basically build it before the problem exists.not after the problem exists.and so the intent of the report is not to say that wehave to build it now.it's to say over time we will have to build as much if notmore.and this flies -- it's consistent with themultiple parallel routestheory in neighbourhood design.if you put all the traffic onone street it has to be a bigger street.>> what he said is compared tothe tunnel routes the only
extra roads were to go aroundthe runway consists of twomiles of straight road. hasn't converted to kilometresyet.and one intersection that was planned in the future.the interchange at 96 andmetis trail under the mayor's plan can be moved north tocountry hills boulevard.who will benefit from the tunnel.30.000 homes and businesses inthe area. i suppose that same argumentcould be made for roadimprovements on the second busiest roadway in the citywhich is crowchild trail.you have included in your report the costs ofcongestion.have we talked about the comparisons of the otherpriority projects in the city.that one is one from
university through memorialdrive.twinning highway 8. have we looked at the cost ofcongestion in those?is that how we justify our tips list?because this wasn't on it.>> correct. >> the --thank you your worship.that's an excellent question and typically we would come tocouncil with a ten-yearinfrastructure program taking into consideration all ofthose various programs.and all of those various transit projects and roadprojects and comparing thecost/benefit of each. in this case, no we have not.>> okay.and then how would you see this with the estimated numberof users?how would you see this in
comparison with otherprojects?from what i see. we are emptying the cupboardand we established set ofpriorities through planet that talk about a more sustainablefuture and yet we are --it's like mildred's plant in little shop of horrors.feed me, feed me.you can't feed that beast. she is never satisfied.it's a matter of trade-offsand yet we are taking all the residual funds that we haveavailable and pouring it intoone project and i have a problem with that if it's notjustified.>> your worship, i believe that --i believe that this isactually a similar situation that we are looking at 20years before it happens.what you described on country
hill --sorry, crowchild trail.i honestly believe that by having a barrier that is thefourth runway and having theamount of distance that you would have to travel to getaround it regardless of howyou are travelling that you are naturally going to createpinch points same as you wouldat a river crossing. >> or railway.>> we are if a situation whereparticularly on the north side we made decisions, made landuse decisions.we have not protected right-of-ways.and we will be in a verydifficult situation to try to build our way out of that.and the hard part is reallysensing the urgency without the problem being out there.i guess that's my job to tryto advise council what we
forecast 20 years down theroad.>> so there are benefits landowners here.there has been significantpressure from those landowners.and hoteliers.why are they not asked to contribute through somedevelopment levy.>> we have given approval. can't go back in time.or can you?i don't know. why wouldn't we ask them toshare in the burden as theywill be benefiting? >> your worship i would agreewith you.i think there are tremendous benefit landowners by havingthis.and i do think it not only protects what we alreadyapproved but offers theopportunity for more intensive
land use.i would say the airport is oneof those landowners. if we were to look at abenefiting area levy, i wouldneed to get advice from the law department as to ourlatitude to do that.i think if possible we should look at exploring.>> i have an amendmentprepared. i do.thank you.now the idea of a toll, i kind of like the idea of tollroads.i know first one is painful. they make a lot of sensebecause they assign a cost toa decision. but the justification, and ibelieve the airport authorityexamined the feasibility of a toll.kind of like a three p.the toll company analyzed it
and said there were enoughalternate routes people wouldavoid paying the toll. and so doesn't that in itselfsuggest that this may not beneeded. that we may have otherpriorities?>> your worship when we did take a look sur core look at atoll and what that wouldamount to. in the short-term thosealternative routes have modestcongestion and represent an attractive route.the hard part you have tostart paying the bills right away.i would say out of all theroads in calgary that we have looked at building this isprobably one of the bestopportunities to try out a toll.i can't read council's mind asto what their appetite is to
do that.i would suggest that we wouldhave to go into it realizing that it's going to take usawhile to get that in placeand that the toll would probably have to be adjustedover time and it would have tobe much more modest at the first stage.>> at the first stage.>> yeah. >> that's a decision that wecould make now and then wecould determine whether it's successful if we want to godown the roads of tolls atall. >> the city doesn't own theland and that poses its ownset of risks. we heard about them incommittee and i find themquite concerning. one is the issue of securitynow we are seeing what'shappening in egypt.
that could be a good thing.it could be a very, very badthing. i think people are quiteworried what's happening inthe middle east. the idea of airport securityaround the world is somethingthat i think we are grappling with.so the risk of us not owningthe land and it being shut down by the feds, what isthat?how have you explored the extent that have risk?and do you see that riskchanging over time. i suppose we could turn itinto an art gallery if we hadto shut it down. i don't know.we have a tunnel underneath.underneath city hall that's empty.i don't think it has any airto it otherwise we could use
it for something.>> your worship, there is twodifferent aspects of that that we considered.first off would be what is thelikelihood that the federal government might come in andask us to close the tunnel.i think that if the tunnel represents a benefit to thepublic and a benefitparticularly to the airport, it's unlikely they would bemotivate today see us closeit. and that i would say isconsistent with some of thefeedback that we have. with respect to the security,if there was a securityincident somewhere in the world let's say, would theychoose to close all similarfacilities? what we found in preparingthis report was that there arequite a number of of these
roads around the world undermajor airports and based onthe volume of similar facilities, i think it'sunlikely that all of thosefacilities would be shut down. in the united states,australia, asia, the middleeast, europe, they are all over the world, and i thinkit's unlikely that oneincident would cause this facility to be shut down.so it is a risk but i thinkthe probability is low. >> okay.thank you.i have got two more questions and then i'm done.>> are you going to put youramendment now, alderman farrell?>> at your discretion.>> i would recommend -- we don't have a motion on thefloor, do we.okay.
we are still in clarification.>> just two more questions.i promise. so we are making decisionsoutside our normal process,and that concerns me. these are similar decisions toone that is we have made inthe past that we have been heavily, heavily criticizedfor, including criticism frompeople in this room. during this the election.how do you justify the changeof our process, procurement and otherwise?in justifying thisapplication? >> your worship, i guess iwould --i'm not -- i don't think i'm really goingto try to justify the process.i think i'm trying to respond to what i was asked to do bycouncil and typically bringthese pieces of infrastructure
forward to you.that's not what i was asked todo. >> now metis trail.it was recommended in theplanet document that it be a major.it was upgraded to anexpressway at a future cost of a hundred million, 120 millioni think.again mill tread and the plant saying feed me, feed me.i think it's appropriate thatwe now take it back to a major.that means we can defer 100and some million dollars of future cost where we could beputting that into otherpriorities. what's your answer to that?what's your -->> your worship one of the things that i try to relate inmy presentation i believe ifairport trail if council does
decide to proceed with thatproject that we could revisitthe classification of metis trail and if nothing elseremove some of the plannedinterchanges. the reason that i would advisecouncil that i think that thetraffic volumes that would result in the subsequentnetwork with the tunnel woulddecrease the pressure on may at this and it would allow usto reasonably manage thecongestion with signalized intersection control andintroduce additional points ofaccess along that route which would improve thedevelopability of the landsalong the corridor and i think we would get a better -->> transit route.>> we would get a better regional overall development,comprehensive land use.>> that would be smaller land
costs and eliminated costs forfuture capital expansion ofthat. >> yes.along particularly along metistrail. i think i would --my advice would be to continueto protect for free flow route along airport trail at areasonable operating speed.not at some super highway speed.metis at country hills, forexample, if you released the lands that we are protectingand you free up opportunitiesfor access points because you don't have onramps andoff-ramps could make asignificant difference to the property owners.>> all right.more property taxes to help pay for our tunnel.>> alderman farrell, i realizethat we are not in a public
hearing.there are no questionsclarification. i must get the motion on thefloor.>> okay. if i get the motion on thefloor right now and you wantto put your amendment we can do that.i'm guessing that i canprobably guess who wants to move these recommendations.>> yes, sir.>> alderman stephenson -- stevenson.alderman jones, thank you.alderman farrell if you want to put your amendment.>> i think i left the writtencopy in my office. it would be directadministration to pursue --would that be -- >> alternative fundingmechanisms including a levyfunds from other levels of
government and explore a toll.or do you want to leave thetoll part out? >> mr. to beer is saying leavethe toll out.i think we should look at the toll.>> why don't we do thatseparate. >> i'm not saying we shouldjust explore the levy.i'm saying do it. but the toll i think we canexplore it.i would say negotiate a levy and explore other fundingmechanisms including the tollwith other levels of government.>> yeah.mr. to beer is saying impose rather than negotiate it whichi can buy.can i suggest though that i'm very much combat toe with whatyou are saying.i think rather than give the
ability to impose when wedon't know how many propertiesare affected or what numbers we are talking about.we can ask them to come backwith a recommendation on that piece of it as we moveforward.does that make sense to you? probably be options.>> i'm satisfied with that.i don't think it's a motion arising.>> i don't mind sticking it inas a new number four. can i try to work the languageout with you then.>> that would be helpful. >> direct administration toexplore further alternativefunding mechanisms including but not limited to a levyfurther funding from -->> other orders of government. >> other orders of governmentbecause i'm still working onthat.
and a toll and report back tocouncil no later than i'mlooking at mr. logan. you want it after -->> wouldn't be open until --open for business until 2014 but i think the land use onewould need to come in as soonas possible. >> should we say june.i am pulling that out of theair. >> this is a prettysignificant one, the land one.>> just say as soon as possible.we need a deadline, don't we?>> all right, as soon as possible.>> we are getting applicationsregularly. i imagine there will be a rushfor them now to avoid thelevy. thank you.>> do i have a seconder forthat amendment?
thanks alderman pootmans.any discussion on thatamendment. everyone's lights are on.wave at me.>> i can try. madam clerk have you got.did you get that?>> that would be a new number four.i would call it number 4.and on number 5 given that may influence the total amountcould we do --okay alderman farrell what's add in on current number 4first reading for theborrowing bylaw should say up to, that number may go down.>> just before the 173 millionthorough in the words up to in the next recommendation.which is currently number 4.this will be a new number 4 and that will be 5.all right.any discussion on this one.
again just wave at me sinceeveryone's lights are on.alderman can a are a -- carra.>> first question to mr. loganis to sort of give me an indication of what you thinkof when you hear the termexplore the potential of a toll?>> your worship, i would say iknow the technology is ready and feasible.what i don't know off the topof my head would be what would the overhead be involved withmanaging a toll at onefacility versus a broad number of facilities.physically we don't have agreat deal of room. we haven't allowed for that inthe land we surprised.so we probably have to do some sort of electronic collectionand bill later type process.and then there could be
legalities with the provincearound our ability to do thaton public right away. there is a bunch of questionsboth technical and legal thati want to explore. >> i'm going to sort of bluesky here.because i mean i think that i have heard massively fromcalgarians that they supportan airport tunnel. but i think the reasons fordifferent sort of sectors ofcalgary supporting that are very different.i find that i'm verysupportive of the idea of an airport tunnel because i seeit as the only viable way torealistically connect light rail transit to our airport.and you know, building thistunnel, going into the kind of financial quagmire that it is,that all of our auto orientedroad infrastructure is --
makes feasibility of actuallyconnecting the northeast lrtto the airport that much more challenging potentially.i see the toll.and i would like to get your comments on this as apotential if we say the wholepoint of tolling is to connect our airport with public tranceand i had to sort of focussome sort of funding mechanism in that regard and could wetoll airport trail?could we toll the approaches in order to fund transit tothe airport.if it's >> we certainly haven't givenany thought to date around theapproaches. we certainly did around thetunnel.the other thing i like about using a toll in thisparticular case to beperfectly honest is consistent
with our --with the policies that we workby that say that we should be a user --a user pay type oforganization, and this is the most direct user pay.the other opportunities thatrepresent some sort of a toll there is the ability to carrycertain utilities through thisfacility as well. non-hazardous utilities iwould suggest and it wouldcreate a significant savings of infrastructure for certaincompanies to do that.and i think there is an opportunity to benefit fromthat as well.to offset some of these costs. we haven't factored that intoour financial but i'm notopposed to what you are saying.i think it's a very linearrelationship between here's
the benefit you get and youare being asked to pay for it.>> is there enough leeway in alderman farrell's motion todo that level of exploration?or do you need more solid direction in that regard?>> we can certainly do theexploration with the motion that's there.i think at the end of the daywe would have to come back to council to say here's what wefound out and here's what wewould recommend either it's not feasible or it is feasibleand here's the charge thatwould be associated with it. >> well, i really, really likethe idea of doing everythingwe can to a, make the tunnel happen.b. make it happen so we canactually connect light rail to the airport, and c, actuallydowngrade as much of thesurrounding road network from
a flow through expressway tosomething that can actually beaccessed so we can actually have land uses that contributeto the tax base on to whichthey run. i will be supporting thismotion.thank you. amendment.>> amendment.and hopefully the motion. on the amendment aldermanchabot.>> leave my light in the queue i would appreciate that.mr. logan, i did a quickcalculation based on the report here and it doesindicate 15.000 vehicles perday, $3 toll generates 5.475 million.and i did a quick calculationat $3, 5,000 vehicles per day, 15.000 per day.would generate 5.4 million.not 15.000.
so does that mean then wecharge $1, 15.000 vehicles perday. that it would cover our costs?>> i think you are going tohave one of those curves, yes, your worship.the lower the charge the morepeople that would pay it. what i don't know is how muchis the overhead.what do you net? >> 109.109 million was the net after20 years. of course be some capitalcosts associated with that andcarrying costs. certainly reduce that numbersignificantly.>> yes. >> but, none the less justbased on the report at 15.000vehicles per day is what's projected as an average.it certainly wouldn't need tobe $3 to capture those kind of
costs.wouldn't you agree?>> we did those numbers at a pretty preliminary.i think we were looking at$200 million. >> sounds like what you wouldbe exploring in this report,right. >> including electronics.can we call it collections.>> i think it's the most seamless.>> i agree.thank you. appreciate that.>> no problem.on the amendment anyone else? alderman mar.you have to leave your lighton. >> yes.so i'm wondering i like thedirection especially the ability to have alternatefunding mechanisms whichincludes other orders of
government and i'm wonderingif this should come throughcommittee which is our normal process rather than goingstraight to council, is therea requirement for us to be particularly nimble?alderman farrell suggestingno. if i could get some guidancefrom the administration.>> there is no requirement for us to go through committee isthere?>> no. council can direct this reportany way it chooses.but you have to be asking yourself what's the purpose ofit to go to a committee.would be to hear from the public.>> well i think that if wewere going to be as nimble as we can and talk to otherorders of government i supposecould.
if we are not interfering inour process at all and havethe ability to go through council let's do that.sorry, thank you.>> thank you. anyone else on the amendment?all right then on theamendment are we agreed. >> agreed.>> any opposed?>> i'm sorry. alderman farrell.i'm sorry.i know you just wanned to point something out in yourclose.why don't you just go ahead and do that.>> i will do it after thefact. >> let me ask if there wereany opposed?i will give you the floor. >> after the fact.the levy isn't urgent.the others we have lots of
time with -- is urgent.i would say yes working on thelevy right away. >> i think it's clear theydon't have to come backtogether, mr. logan. >> thank you.>> thank you.>> okay. back to the speakers list.anything else aldermanfarrell. you still have the floor.>> i do.i will move and i don't think it needs to be written outthat the change designation ofmetis trail from an expressway to major.>> i think that one has to bea public hearing. >> i make that recommendationand return to council on apublic hearing. >> yeah.what would the right way ofwording that be?
>> direct administration toredesignate metis trail anddoing so avoid in the area. >> no.>> it would have to preparingthe bylaw and returning it to a public hearing.>> okay.>> so that would be a new number of that you areproposing i think.which is to direct administration to prepare abylaw, redesignating metistrail from a expressway, mr. logan.>> arterial.>> i was going to say arterial.i want today make sure.>> arterial road and return to council as soon as possible.>> perfect.thank you. >> alderman pootmans, are youseconding that.do i have a seconder?
>> i will second that.>> alderman carra secondingit. >> on this amendment.>> thank you, your honour.>> not a judge. >> general manager logan, iunderstand metis trail hasbeen been developers that front ended development costsand i understand there hasbeen few changes as it relates to the scale of that roadwayand i venture to suggestprobably no small measure of expenses to date onpreplanning and i'm not surewhat other work. can you hazard a guess whatsort of cost would be involvedin such a designation? >> your worship, with respectto the expenditures by thedevelopers, the adjacent lands in some cases are developedand have been developed withmetis trail planned as an
expressway.therefore they haveconstructed -- they have not constructedaccess and they have put upsound walls in the case of the residential boundaries.with respect to the actualinfrastructure that has been at city costs and there havebeen portions of airport trailspecifically between stoney trail, down to 96th avenuewhat would be airport trail.that were front ended by the developers to be repaidentirely by the city.so they would not be out-of-pocket for the actualroadway that's beenconstructed. in actual fact byredesignating the roadway anyfuture development would have to contribute to the roadrather than have it covered bythe city through our capital
budgets including theassessment.hopefully that's -- they are not out-of-pocket forthe road that's been built butplanned their developments around it being an expresswayand they would need topotentially adjust their planning if they so desired.and i think some of themwould. >> and again, if i may thatwould imply i would assumesomewhat lesser cost than the capital project, the roadwayitself.downgraded. >> your worship, i think iwould be looking to thedeveloper to pay the capital costs if they wanted to adjustour roadways that's alreadybeen built. >> no, no.thinks in terms of the road tobe built if the roadway is to
be downgraded, otherwise wouldbe costs involved with metis.no? >> well ...>> two parties at play payingfor roads. if it's an expressway it's allat our expense.if it's an arterial all at the developers expense.this would be a mixedblessing. >> one further point.we would basically build --we would finish building what we are building.there is two lanes for onemile, 1.6 kilometres that haven't been constructed.so after the end of this yearwe would only really have one chunk of road.the standard wouldn'tnecessarily change what we would have been is the futureinterchange plans in mostlocations.
i think airport trail we wouldsee.the other ones we wouldn't have future land set aside forinterchanges.so i took the tone of alderman pootmans comment would wechange the standard of theroad. not really.we would finish building whatwe are building now but we would be able to develop thelands adjacent to it andprovide access points differently than we otherwisewould.>> thank you. that helps.>> thank you, your worship.>> on the amendment alderman jones and alderman chabot.>> the difference in capacityfrom an arterial to an expressway, is there anydifference?>> you have two lanes of free
flow is two lanes of freeflow.it doesn't matter a great deal.arterial has a slightlynarrower lane. a major road would have a bikeversus a expressway.bike lane would be separate. it would be a sepanth and they dnorth probably going to headup metis. if we build the tunnel and wehave got people coming fromsky view ranch to the north with 50.000 people, and i'massuming we are probably goingto need more than two lanes in each direction.>> we have planned metis trailto accommodate three lanes in each direction your worship.and yes.that would be -- as well as 36 street will beupgraded over time as thelands develop adjacent to it.
you would have a four laneindustrial major and a majorarterial whatever ends up happening on may at thistrail.>> thank you your worship. >> alderman chabot.>> sorry, didn't go far enoughdown that road, no pun intended.major arterials does that meanit doesn't preclude the opportunity to develop threelanes each way?>> we have six lane majors your worship.this is a temporary transitcorridor you would have a fair volume of buses in theshoulder lanes.there is some advantage. >> your worship, the onlyissue i have with thisrecommendation is that although the direction is toprepare a new bylaw whichrequires a public hearing is
that this is significantlyvarying from what is before usand albeit that there is some relationship between the twoin accordance with to somecost savings socialed with this.but this your worship i seesomething is as so large and encompassing that itrealistically should bebrought forward as a notice of motion and not be somethingthat council makes a decisionon or variation on. on council floor, whichdoesn't directly relate to themotion that's before us. that's just my opinion.i appreciate where the moveris going with it. can't see myself supporting itin this fashion.>> i see it a little different from a notice of motionalderman chabot, didn't get acouple extra days to look at
it.it will have to come back to apublic hearing. i should mention that i wastalking whether it needs tocome back to lpt before coming to council.since it's a public hearinganyway, i think i'm comfortable with the way thatit's put.so just to be clear for council we wouldn't bemaking --if we were to pass we wouldn't be making the decision toredesignate the road.we do that at a future time when it comes to a publichearing.>> alderman pincott? >> mr. logan, i remember whenwe amended the ctp that wasbefore us to change metis trail from i believe it wasbeing called a modifiedarterial to an expressway.
is that what the amendment wasto the ctp, to change it fromwhat we called -- >> i don't recall the exactwording.>> okay. at the time the difference inthe capacity between thearterial that was before us and the expressway was 5,000cars.and the other difference was $128 million that shipping itfrom the arterial to anexpressway came with a price tag of $128 million.we make this change where isthat $128 million? >> that $128 million is not inour budget.i think the difference would be your worship that moneywould not show up in futurebudgets. and the difference in thecapacity further to aldermanjones's question was that the
signals control the capacityand the more signals you putyou systematically sort of reduce the overall throughputor the efficiency of the roadwith respect to time. so the 128 wouldn't come outof any budget that existstoday. may be less land than weotherwise would to finish theone piece that we are finishing now.however it would be futureexpenditures that would be avoided.>> okay.have we -- we have had a number of landissues come before us and ithink i asked every single one been along there whether thiswas required or not for it tobe an expressway. to your knowledge have we doneany of those land purchasesthat we would have to fill?
>> yes.>> okay.>> thank you. >> thanks alderman.on the amendment aldermankeating? >> thank you.a little surprised i hadn'tseen you wave yet. >> i just want to go back toalderman chabot's note that ithink in many ways should come back at a different time.i kind of remember somethingsimilar not long ago that had taken up little of our timethat's the fluoride issue.i wonder if these things should not come back at ageneral notice of motion sothat we can debate. i will not support theamendment.thank you. >> thanks.alderman stephen son.--
stevenson.>> thank you are your worship.this was not an amendment. it was an amendment to theproposal for the calgarytransportation plan but it was to maintain the status ofexpressway for metis trail.that was what the motion was then because it had been up tothat point p.m. i'm too ican't support the motion even though i think that we shouldbring this forward.i don't think it should be done here.mr. logan you are going toneed to do some study on traffic patterns and the buildout of the areas along metisbefore you bring this back, right?>> your worship we wouldrevisit the study based on council's overall decision onairport trail.>> have a mix up on airport
trail because we haveexpressway at the south end.we built a big fly over for that at mcknight.we have expressway at thenorth end coming down. in fact it's already builtdown as far as 96 airporttrail, right. (please stand by)>> that's a fair assessment,your worship. >> okay, and it failed then.>> i believe we did changethe -- >> no.>> sorry, we changed it fromthe ctp recommendation. >> no, no, that was by --because i was looking for the$120 million at the time for another project.and it failed.but i appreciate what alderman far develop attempting to dohere.-- farrel.
it's not putting money into abank account.what it does is avoids costs. >> avoiding a futurewithdrawal.>> i will support this. >> thanks.any one else on theattendment? >> mr. logan just out ofcuriosity, if we switch thisback to a arterial and the developers have to actuallypay for it, are are there anyexisting businesses that have not will to pay for it andwill it be retroactivelycharged to them? >> yes.your worship, there are landsalong this road that have not developed nor has the roaddeveloped.it's fairly limited. >> okay.>> yeah.>> so i'm sorry, would they --
>> the answer is -->> would they be retro active.>> we would be look for a contribution to the adjacentroadway.>> thank you. >> and on the amendment.>> thank you.i wanted to make an amendment to the amendment and it wouldbe to direct administration toprepare a report with dnd -- and an accompanying bylaw.i think it's important to havea report written on this. >> fair enough.>> and what the impacts are.it would deal with the costing aspect and cost avoidance,that sort of thing so toprepare a report and an accompanying -->> you don't have the wordaccompanying it's only three words, aldermancolley-urquhart.>> it's all right there.
the report and accompanyingbylaw.are you okay with that alderman farrell and who wasthe seconder?>> i was and i'm okay with it. >> i think it was aldermanpoot mans and he's okay withit too. any further discussion?did you want to close aldermanfarrell? >> i do.this is an important one.i think a number of members of council have concerns that weare taking -- we are emptyingthe cupboard and putting all of our residual money intothis one area.when there are competing needs throughout the city.so i'm hearing from the areaaldermen that he wants it all, including a road that's inexcess of what's neededbecause of the decision we are
just being asked to make.of $300 million-plus decision.so that really disappoints me. this could allow some fundingfor other projects up to 120million as well as ask for landowners to share the costwith us.so we're expecting the city to pay once again.i -- i'm disappointed.please, council, i'm just trying to find a way to makethis $300 million morepalatable. >> thanks, alderman farrell.on the amendment as you see onthe screen are we agreed? any opposed.call the role please.>> alderman keating. >> no.>> alderman lowe.>> yes. >> alderman macleod.>> yes.alderman mar.
>> yes.alderman pincott.>> yes. pootmans?>> yes.stephenson, no >> carra?>> yes.>> chabot? >> no.>> alderman colley-urquhart.>> yes. >> demong?>> yes.>> farrell? >> (inaudible).>> hodges?>> yes. >> jones.no.>> mayor nenshi, no. >> cared, your worship.alderman hodges.>> cared, your worship. alderman hodges.>> i don't have anyamendments.
it's whenever you are -- we'reready to go straight todebate. >> oh, yeah we can do it now.we are in debate now.we have no more amendments on the floor.>> well, not yet, but thereis -- there is some -- >> when your light comes, youwill have your chance.>> there is some coming on, your worship.the administration has done alot of detailed analysis on the position of the airportauthority.and the city administration's view of the airportauthority's request.and i realize this is part of the confidential agenda so iwill generalize in what someof the issues are. one of the major issues iscost of land as we know, 26million versus 6.
another issue is the length oflease on the lands that arerequired for this underpass. and we have a number of otherissues that have been outlined,including what mitigation costs and insurance costs theauthority expects the city tofinance. all in all, for me, this is anonstarter, your worship.the plain fact is, the airport authority doesn't see thisfacility to be -- this projectto be an advantage to the airport, which personally ibelieve it would be.they don't see it as an advantage for the -- as usefulto the airport and theoperation of the airport and they plainly don't want it ontheir property.the property more properly stated the property they leasefrom the federal government.so all in all, your worship i
will not be supporting thisrecommendation.thank you. >> thanks alderman hodges.did you have another motion tomake? >> your worship as a courtesyyou have mentioned they wouldlike the procedure bylaw suspended, but i know thatalderman mar has some mattersthat he would like to deal with as a personal issues,some personal matters and iunderstand that. so i will put the motion onthe floor for you as acourtesy. to suspend the procedure bylawso that -- to continue untilwe're done with this item but knowing that there are anumber of amendments yet tocome on and knowing that alderman mar and perhaps otherwould like to conclude herefor the time being at 9:30 and
continue tomorrow at 1:00, iput it with some hesitationbut i will put it. >> thank you.the motion that is to suspendthe procedure bylaw until we have completed this item andrecessed then to tuesday at 1p.m.. alderman krara are youseconding that?>> (inaudible). >> no, no.on that.>> i have got a pregnant wife at home.well, i could not be here atany given time. >> at any moment.>> (inaudible).>> thanks alderman carra. >> is this a debatable motion?>> i'm not sure.>> one moment. >> yes, it is.>> worship, what is it we'rechecking?
>> if this is a debatablemotion.all right so it is so any debate on this motion.>> well, thank you.and i -- as scintillating as this is and i know howeverybody is really, reallyexcited about it, i have ten amendments.to go through.i have a whole bunch of comments and concerns withregards to the reports that wehave seen. and i have a pregnant wife athome that is due at any momentas you all know. so it would be great for me togo home and be killed, but iwould really like to be able to maintain our proceduralbylaw, be able to go home anddeal with this when we have the procedure tomorrow at1:00.now, i believe that if we were
to maintain council tonight, ibelieve very strongly thatthis debate will go on for several more hours.not an hour.not two hours, but several more hours.at least.and sound decisions made when there are hundreds of millionsof dollars at stake are notmade at 1 and 2 in the morning.so that's my -- that's my pleato my colleagues. and hope that you will notsupport the waiving of theprocedure bylaw. >> anyone else on the motionon the floor?alderman stevenson. >> thank you, your worship.no, i will not support themotion, even though if alderman mar wasn't heretomorrow we wouldn't havethose 25 amendments.
so it would go pretty quick.anyway, no, i think that weshould finish this this evening.there are people that haveproblems with tomorrow, but at least we got everybody heretonight.so i would like to finish it off and hopefully because i'veoften said before that debateexpands to fill the time allotted and so i think thatif we put it tonight, we willfinish it quicker. thank you, sir.>> anyone else on this motion?i should point out that one of the people for whom -- aboutwhom alderman stevensonspeaking is myself because i actually am making a speech intoronto at the time of ourmeeting tomorrow. so i would certainlyappreciate a passage of thisas a courtesy to me, but i
also understand the concernswith how long this might go.any other debate on this item? all right.>> yes.>> yeah, i think it needs ten. yeah, m-hm.>> i'm wondering if we can puta cap on this one. i really don't think we canmake good decisions after acertain time. >> 10:30, alderman farrell?>> i would say 11:00.go to 11. >> try to finish it by 11?>> that's my amendment.>> and what if we don't? >> i don't think you can thismotion so if it fails you canput that one. i will recognize you rightaway.>> i think you can. >> i do think you can.>> because this is a differentmotion.
mr. sully is checking.>> madam clerk.>> it cannot be amended. thank you.all right.so then on this motion are we agreed?opposed?call the role, please. >> alderman ma claude.>> aimmediate.mar? pincott, pootmans.>> yes.>> stevenson? >> yes.>> carra.>> yes. chabot?>> yes.>> alderman colley-urquhart? >> no.alderman demong?>> yes. >> alderman farrell?>> yes.>> alderman hodges?
(inaudible)>> alderman jones.>> reluctant yes. >> alderman keating?>> yes.>> alderman lowe? >> no.>> mayor nenshi?>> yes. >> that's cared, your worship.>> great.-- that he had carried, your worship.you were at the top of mylist. did you turn your light offand on again?go ahead alderman mar. can you put them all together,all then of them?>> well, what's the fun of that will?now we have all night.don't you want to deal with this?right.okay.
so mr. logan, i've got somequestions for you.this report here c-20 1105 is very interesting report in sofar as it details all thereasons why we should be doing this tunnel.it's -- it essentially is anexcellent exercise in saying to not do the tunnel, youwould be kind of foolish notto. yet this report here, c-201106 quite the opposite.isn't it? it outlines a very diresituation.should we proceed. so i've got some questionsrelating to how we were goingto two reports, the public report, which everybody hasseen and the secret reportwhich only council has seen. when i was going over my notesand the presentation which yougave to us in camera which,
again, the public was not ableto see, there is some verypointed questions that i would like to answer, and i think wecan deal with some of them inthe public realm. >> m-hm.>> first of all, the lease ofthe land. if we were moving forward withthe proposed tunnel, we are infact improving property that we do not own.how many times have we donethat before in the city of calgary?to this -->> your worship, not very many times.>> ever?>> yes. we have.but -- $300 million.>> the only one i can think of is the south lrt has -- has --no we got the right-of-way onthat.
none that come to mind.of this order of magnitude.>> right, okay. now, since we don't have title,we don't own the land, it's aleased land and the report suggested that we would onlybe able to have the lease forthe tunnel for a finite amount of time, 40 years (inaudible)at the end of that -->> your worship for clarification it would be alicense.>> right a license of occupation, isn't it?>> sort of.>> okay. >> the -->> which is a little bit moretenuous. >> at the ends of the lease,the current agreement isbetween the airport authority and the federal governmentrunning through i believe it'sjune 302052.
at the ends of that period oftime, the airport authorityeither has to renegotiate their terms with the federalgovernment or the federalgovernment takes ownership back and any of the tenantsthat are on that land wouldthen have to renegotiate their leases so would be in with apool of others.>> so we would, in effect, be having a tunnel that we may ormay not be able to use andreally kind of in a position of limbo, wouldn't we?>> your worship, we would bein a position where even if the tunnel was to be -- havepublic value and have value tothe airport and they wanted to continue the use of it, wewould still potentially havenew terms to the occupancy of that land.>> okay.>> so the answer to my
question in a roundabout waythen was yes, right?>> yes. >> thank you.now, we are also talking>> let's get clarification of what we can talk about andwhat we can't so how doesthis -- if we were to do this, how do this impact our futureability to do infrastructurein the city of calgary over the next, say, two terms?>> with respect to capitalbudget? >> exactly.capital budgeting.>> with respect to capital budget, your worship been thebudget allocated to thetransportation department, this largely absorb any majorcapacity that we had to do alarge scale project. with respect to the corporateallocation of the msi, itwould absorb most of the -- of
the msi funds not alreadyallocated to a departmentdepartment -- and that runs through 2018 i believe is theterm of the msi -->> right. no and thank you for that.>> so win of my colleaguessuggested or used the term we are empty the cupboard, wouldyou character advertise thisas emptying the capital in terms of a capitalinfrastructure?>> i would say the transportation departmentwould have very limitedcapacity to do any major infrastructure without newsources of funding.>> right now as this council is looking at it today, we arelooking at this is it.we are blowing our load on one -- on one infrastructureproject.>> now, you mentioned msi a
few minutes ago.that's interesting because theprovincial government has before altered the time frameon the msi.>> yes -- yes, they have. >> what happened if the newbudget comes out february 22and the msi has changed? what does that do to us?as a municipality, especiallyin relation to this project? >> your worship, i believe youwould like to answer thisquestion. >> i would, actually, becausei have asked that precisequestion to the premier. just today at lunch again, whoassured me that the currenttimelines of the msi are in place for this budget.now, that said, could a newprovincial government change that?yeah.but we have much, much bigger
irons in the fire for projectsthat are relying on future msifunding than this one, not the least of which is the west lrtbecause that too is borrowingagainst future msi cash flows. mr. till bert?>> yes.statement around losing -- light, light.>> the question around(inaudible) -- i will use this one, i guess.your worship, before the msimoney showed up from the provincial government weactually had no capacity totake on additional projects. and if something were to showup we would have had to seek anew source of revenue like borrowing or going to thefederal government for sourceof cash. so we have been here before.we will be here again.>> thank you.
and it's nice to know thatthere is this confidence thatthe msi funding will be maintained for all of theprojects that we have becauseobviously that's incredibly important for our ongoingoperations.now, there was some discussion earlier also about solesourcing.we are sole sourcing a portion of this project, are we not?>> your worship, part of ourdiscussions with the calgary airport authority, they haverecommended to us that themost expeditious way to carry out this project is to use theconstruction manager that theyhave already selected. and we condition curr withthat recommendation, and thatdoes represent -- we concur with that recommendation andthat does amount to a singlesource.
>> is that our normalprocedure?>> no, it's not our normal procedure.we do employ it from time totime. >> didn't we just getcrustified for doing this oranother infrastructure project?>> yes, we were criticized forthis on -- >> i used the word crucifiedlittle bit more apt.>> i'm good here. >> mr. logan just to be clear,what -- i think it's importantto get this out because we did discuss this before.what proportion of the projectare you talking about here? capital expenditure.>> the design portion of it?>> no, the design portion we would do through an rfp.it would be the constructionmanagement so that would be
overseeing and coordinatingall of the contract work onthe site. sort of a general contractor,if you will.>> right. >> (inaudible).>> no, fine, thank you.i appreciate that. i just need to confer withcouncil for one second.again, there is so much -- i apologize to those following.that there is so much that wecan't talk about. well, i would say that it'sfairly severe, actually.well, i'm going to start putting up my amendments,then.if you don't mind. >> mayor naheed nenshi: noproblem.do you want to us take them all in one chunk and vote onthem separately?>> would i prefer to introduce
them one at a time and thenbring them up to vote on themas they come. >> mayor naheed nenshi: that'sfine.>> if that pleases your worship.>> mayor naheed nenshi: well,your no but i don't think your goal has ever been to pleaseme.>> that's not true. you cut me to the quick.madam clerk if i could bringup number 1 first please. now, this may not make senseto those in the audience, butit is essentially to direct administration to a range andconduct an independent thirdparty appraisal of the property and to report back tothe land and asset managementcommittee as soon as possible of its findings.i think this is quite franklypure due diligence.
if we are working on trying tobe as open and transparent aswe can be and if we're trying to go through the best processthat we can, anybody that'sinvolved in real state would realize that we have to havean independent appraisal doneon the property. thank you.>> secondsed.>> thank you. >> your worship?>> mayor naheed nenshi: justdiscussing with council how this relates to the rest ofthe recommendations.i am -- i am to understand, mr. logan, that an appraisalhas been conducted but not anindependent third party appraisal.is that correct?>> that's correct, your worship and i would rather --i would like to clarify thatwe are talking about the
portion of land which is oncalgary airport authoritylease lands. >> mayor naheed nenshi: thatwas your intent.>> that was implied. >> no there is other land too.>> all right.well, the affected area lands. now, i know that there was anappraisal done.there are two, actually, appraisals done, and how wouldyou characterize them?would you characterize them as being very close or very farapart?>> your worship i would suggest that they are quite aways apart.>> would it be in the best practices and best interest tobe able to have a third partyappraisal to be able to determine more closely whatthe real value of the landwould be and this would be
done by a third partyindependent appraiser?>> i think you -- we feel that a third party appraisal wouldstrengthen our perception ofthe value of the land. that doesn't obligate theairport authority to recognizethat appraisal at all. >> thank you.and the motion is put, yourworship. i will take my seat or do ineed to stand, remainstanding? >> mayor naheed nenshi: no, doyou not need to remainstanding but you do need a seconder.>> it was also seconded -->> mayor naheed nenshi: thanks alderman colley-urquhart.on this amendment, come on.>> bring it. >> look, i personally believethat in a sane world we wouldbe working hand in hand with
our airport authority to buildthis needed piece ofinfrastructure to all of our benefit.squabbling over land price, idon't want an independent third party appraisal to, youknow -- i think our -- i don'tthink we should paying for this land is what i'm sayingand i don't -- i worry that anindependent third party appraisal will set the landprice in such a way that webecome obligated to pay something that i don't thinkwe should be paying -- that'sa little bit further down the line.>> that's further down theline? i don't understand your logichere.>> do you ever? >> anyone else on thisamendment?alderman lowe.
>> well, i aagreewholeheartedly with aldermanmartha ultimately -- i disagree with alderman carra.simple due diligence, you taketwo appraisals, put it in the middle and offer that.so -- but i guess my questionhere is whether it's appropriate to come back toland and assets strategy or tobe considered by the team as part of their negotiations.it seems to me we are puttingan extra loop in here which may not be necessary.so alderman mar, i appreciateand i agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment that duediligence must be done on theland but i'm going to amend it to -->> mayor naheed nenshi:independent third party approval of the property aspart of the -- appraisal ofthe property as part of the
process from here on in.>> (inaudible)>> mayor naheed nenshi: i think the point alderman loweis making is it need not comeback. we are just saying do one aspart of your negotiation.>> and council will want to know what that is.>> mayor naheed nenshi: ofcourse. >> in due course.so report -- just end it.>> mayor naheed nenshi: after the word property?>> well, i would like, like -->> mayor naheed nenshi: and to report back, period.>> but i would like it to beconsidered -- or >> (inaudible).>> to report back is fine.it will be -- become -- >> mayor naheed nenshi: itwill become part of.>> i see the conversation
going on over here, yourworship.>> yeah, he does. do you have -- one secondalderman lowe before you putit. let's see what the result is.>> that's what i was saying.>> mr. logan or mr. stevens? >> i mean we have alreadytried to get this work donenow and mr. steeves is saying we're -- the time period itwould probably take is beyondthat. but would it still be ofvalue?i don't know. no, i guess.i guess.this becomes one of the critical issues.here we are walking up thisroad, your worship, is -- >> (inaudible).>> oh, mr. steeves, please.thank you.
>> thank you, your worship.yes, we have -- we began theprocess of trying to get an independent appraisal becauseof the timelines, we wereworking towards, we did not complete that so i would haveto go back to the staff tofind out whether or not someone was still retained orwhat.if any initial or preliminary work had been done before icould let you know with anyintegrity of when that could actually be done.that's usually what they havebeen taking on projects of this size and magnitude.>> the difficulty i'm having,mr. steeves or mr. tolbert or whomever, this is such a corepiece of due diligence arounda project is that you establish the price of thedirt you are going to involvein it.
with some reasonablecertainty.and as mr. logan pointed out, there is a significant gapbetween the two.the only way we're going to begin to establish what thereal value is is when -- asnegotiations go to try to close the gap that i wouldsuggest we would want somecomfort that the gap is actually representative of thevalue.mr. tolbert. >> your worship, i -- we'removing closer and closer torevealing strategy here. >> i know we are, sir.>> i am a little bit reticentto say this but we already boxed in, in terms of a numberby the things that we'reexpecting in the confideial report and so although we knowthat there is, shall we say, arather large number being
floated out by the airport,we're bound by the number weput to council. so it's almost immaterial whatthe airport's number is.we have a ceiling over which we cannot go.>> mayor naheed nenshi:mr. tolbert where did our number could from?>> our number was developed bycertified appraisers who happen to work for us.>> if we can further amendthat then to direct administration to endeavour -->> delete everything after 7.>> delete everything after the word administration.>> (inaudible).i think if we can do best efforts so that we no.>> mayor naheed nenshi: wewill endeavour to arrange and conduct.that's contrary?he's not going to take it.
>> not going to take it?then i'm going to -- i'mafraid i'm going to have to sit down and vote against itbecause to do it and run itthrough land and asset strategy as mr. stevens pointsout we are not going to haveit in time to be meaningful. i will just leave it as it isjust to report back and i willsit down. and this is what happens at10:00 at night, your worship.>> only 9:40, alderman. are you abandoning yourproposed amendment to theamendment? just report back.>> mayor naheed nenshi: do youhave a seconder? no, lack of a seconder so thatone is out.oh, i already closed it alderman farrell but if youwould like to, that's fine.so on this, then, alderman
chabot then alderman farrell.>> thank you, your worship.well, with all due respect to the mover, personally yourworship i don't think that youshould have accepted this motion.it in my opinion encoachesinto the confidential report. it kind of suggests or leadsinto undermining our abilityto negotiate with the airport. it will set a precedence inregards to one of the portionsof which we are considered for negotiations.so respectfully.>> i appreciate that alderman chan rot and we had the samefrgs up here.it's kate scathing on the edge.>> honestly, i can't supportthis recommendation. more am i going to speak tothe public specifically aboutwhat this kind of suggests.
-- it's skating on the edge.>> i'm going to encouragecouncil members not to support this.if you want to have thisdebate further it should be in camera based on the fact thatcouncil voted to keep thisreport confidential. of course i didn't vote forthat but having said that.>> mayor naheed nenshi: council did.>> that was council's decisionand i will abide by it. >> thanks alderman chabot.alderman farrell on the imendment? the amendment to the amendmentpm>> i will support both. i appreciate alderman marbringing it forward.we have been soundly criticized for not followingdue diligence with otherprojects.
this project is many, manytimes more expensive.so i think this is due diligence, council.i'm disappointed that you'rethinking otherwise. >> mayor naheed nenshi:anything else on the amendmentto the amendment? very well then on theamendment to the amendment arewe agreed? any opposed?amendment to the amendment.call the role please. >> pincott?(inaudible)>> pootmans? >> no.steevesson?>> no. carra?>> no.>> chabot? >> no.colley-urquhart?>> no.
>> demong 3>> no.farrell? >> yes.>> alderman hodges?>> yes. >> alderman jones?>> no.>> alderman keating. >> yes.>> mayor nenshi?>> no. that's lost, your worship.>> back to the main amendmentthen. further debate before i callon alderman mar to close.yes, alderman chabot. >> again on the sail vein ivoted against the amendmentand against the original motion.i have not spoken to it as youknow, your worship i only spoke to the amendment andagain for the same reason thati stated before, i can't -- i
can't express strongly enoughthe need for council to voteagainst this motion so members of council please think hardabout voting for thisproposal. >> mayor naheed nenshi:alderman mar to close.>> i'm going to echo alderman chabot's last words.think hard before you vote.because we're saying we don't want to know the truth.we don't want to -- oh, mimesorry. who has the floor?-- i'm sorry, who was thefloor? i don't want you to makedecisions blindly.and record a vote, your worship because this isabsolutely critical.this is plain and simple due diligence.go ahead and vote against itif you dare.
point of procedure.>> mayor naheed nenshi: wherewas that? alderman demong.it is closed already.you can raise on a point of procedure if you've got one.>> not entirely sure if it'sprocedure -- >> mayor naheed nenshi: i willstop you if it isn't.>> if this is not even going to make it back in time whichwe've already heard fromadministration, what's the point of even having a vote?thenen in it's not procedure.thank you. >> all right we've had arequest for a recorded vote.again this is a vote on this amendment that you see oopsthat you see own the screen.-- that you see on the screen.>> nar for, hodges for,farrell for, carra against,
colley-urquhart for, chabot 0against, demong against,macleod against, lowe for, pootmans against, keatingagainst, stevenson against,jones against. pincott for, mayor nenshiagainst.so that's lost, your worship. >> mayor naheed nenshi:alderman mar, number 2.>> that was fascinating. number 2.now, direct administration --oh, hang on. i need to confer.ald>> this is my advice. can you take that off thescreen, please?>> mayor naheed nenshi: sorry council we are just having aquick discussion with councilhere. we will be right back at you.if you want to call for a5-minute recess, you can.
sure.sure.alderman jones alderman demong seconded, are we agreed?any owe 0 posed m.p. verywell. -- any opposed?very well.>> we're back. just for the interest of thosein the gallery, in case youdid not hear the motion, we have extended passed ournormal end time to deal withthis item only. so if you are in fact here todiscuss perhaps another itemon the agenda, that won't come until tomorrow at one.i wanted to let you know thatwe're just going to finish off this item tonight and thenadjourn at the end of that.alderman marr? >> okay, so before we put upnumber 2shgs i was advised toremove a portion of it.
so it would be the wordingmadam clerk after citycouncil. so it should -- for number 2,after city council, correct?sorry number two completely. sorry, we're not going to donumber 2.we're not going to do number 3 and your worship, this is --makes it very, very difficulti find to be able to do my job effectively when i'm -- we'rereally being limited to whatwe can talk about. i hope the public appreciateshow difficult of a situationthis is because we are -- we're being told one thing andsomething quite different inanother. >> mayor naheed nenshi: idon't think that's fairalderman marr. i don't think that's fair atall as a matter of fact.it kind of i am puns the
professionalism of ouradministration.i would intend that the motions do you want put arecontained in the report wealready passed. >> okay, so could we -- yes,number 4.so madam clerk number 4 up. this is of course to directadministration to ensure thatall municipal construction contracts related to theairport tunnel, a public betendered within the city of calgary's procurement policyin full compliance with themunicipal government of alberta.this is of course to be asopen and transparent as we can be to ensure that we don'thave any issues with regardsto sole sourcing or any of these other situations we'vehad in the past.that i believe this is the --
the right thing to do andsomething we all campaignedon, openness, transparent government.>> mayor naheed nenshi: allright, alderman why do you have a seconder for that one?thanks alderman farrell.all right. i won't say it aldermanfarrell, i'm tempted but iwon't. alderman chabot.>> well, your worship, thefact that we've heard issues to the contrary in regards toour potential negotiationsprocess includes something that is contrary to the motionthat's before us, so i'm justwondering is that something -- >> mayor naheed nenshi: you'reright about that one.thanks alderman chabot for raising that.i would in fact -- i dobelieve that one is contrary
given the -- given what'sembedded in therecommendations already there and if the mover and seconderagree with me, i'll call thisout of order. >> i think it's within yourauthority to rule it out oforder -- >> i like to do it to bepolite.yeah, i think you're right. i'm going to move this one outof order, sorry alderman marr.>> a legal opinion and an opinion from the clerk europewith regards to the -- whetheror not this is out of order. i don't believe it is.>> mayor naheed nenshi: theright way to do that alderman marr is to challenge theruling of the chair on this.because the chair does in fact have the authority to do that.>> i thought you asked me formy opinion first.
>> mayor naheed nenshi: okay.>> out of politeness.>> mayor naheed nenshi: sure, i'll be happy to be polite.yes, mr. sully.>> well, wourp i think it's contrary to the text of what'sin the report actually so ishare the view that it's a contrary motion your worshipan the proper procedure wouldbe a challenge to motion the chair i think your worship.>> thank you, maybe we'll movedown into -- i'll reluctantly accept the opinion of yourworship and council then.council with an e, not i. number five then.you wanted to take that oneout. fifth one.sorry.just one second. >> right.we're dwindling.okay then could i go to number
7.madam clerk?this is really about public engagement.if we're going to construct atunnel which i believe we will, i i believe that we shouldhave a public engagementprocess. when i did west l.r.t., therewas a significant amount ofpublic engagement which was done to ensure that peoplewould understand what washappening and i think that this is something that weshould do.to inform the public of what's happening, how we're going tomove forward and if there isany delays at all. i understand fromadministration that it isvirtually completely contained, but i think that weshould still be able to go outthere with -- to calgarians
and explain the situation andi see that the mayor isnodding. i was thinking lpt.>> [ inaudible ].>> again, it's just to have a public engagement.we have an opportunity todiscuss with calgarians particularly the arearesidents, the businesses,commuters that are impacted by the tunnel.how is that going to impactthem -- >> mayor naheed nenshi: if imay, it's analogous to thewest l.r.t. process after council approved it.perhaps made some changesand -- not perhaps, did make some changes.>> it's a way to reach out tothe communities and sense. >> mayor naheed nenshi: do wehave a seconderer for thatone?
thanks alderman keating.any debate?alderman stevenson. >> your worship, this makes melawful i know alderman marrtold me he seldom goes to the northeast, but there's beendozens -- there's been dozensof meetings, i mean dozens of meetings up there with thestakeholders.i don't think there's ever been something in this citythat has had as muchstakeholder involvement as this.so i just -- i'm sorry, ican't help but laugh a little bit.this is not something thatshould even be on the screen here your worship.>> mayor naheed nenshi:alderman chabot. >> very, very briefly, yourworship, ditto.>> mayor naheed nenshi: madam
clerk, please note alderman'sshort answer.alderman jones. >> your worship, i could sayditto but i won't.it's like alderman steven son said, if anything's had publicengagement this has for thelast two or three years. even during the last electioni can assure you 65.000 of66.000 people in my ward agreed with it.it's the number one issue.everybody said -- i can't believe you guys are debatingthis.it should be a done deal. i don't know what public youwant to engage.they're engaged. some are in the audiencetonight.they formed their own committee.they meet every week.they're engaged.
>> mayor naheed nenshi:alderman keating.>> thank you, your worship. i would like to follow alongthat line, but it has beennote that had in the two wards here, there's been publicengagement and if this is atruly city issue, then i would like to see public engagementfrom across the city includingall of the wards, not just the ones that are in this area.thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi: i hear you alderman keating.i'm laughing because in myworld, boy do we have a lot of public engagement on thisissue in ward 12, 13, 14,every forum we went down there down there we heard this.>> same thing speaking onbehalf of -- and 6, thank you. as it relates to commuters, ithink this debate remindsactually of the west l.r.t.
project during construction.commuters to the airport,perhaps not commuters but travellers will have a keeninterest in being aware of howit will impact their lives over the next few years.yes, i will support thismotion. >> mayor naheed nenshi: thankyou.anyone else? on the amendment as you see onthe screen, are we agreed?any opposed? call the roll, please.>> alderman jones.alderman keating. >> alderman mcleod.>> yes.alderman marr. >> yes.>> alderman pincott.>> yes. >> alderman pootmans.>> yes.>> alderman stevenson.
>> no.>> alderman car rar.>> mayor naheed nenshi: oh alderman krar.>> i like public engagementbut no. >> alderman chabot.>> no.>> alderman colley-urquhart. >> yes.>> alderman demong.>> mayor naheed nenshi: if it said all areas of the cityyes, this is the northeastarea, no no. >> alderman frau.alderman hodges.>> yes. >> mayor nenshi.>> no.>> carried your worship. >> okay.alderman marr.last one. >> right.number 6 madam clerk if youdon't mind.
number 6 please.and this is quite simply todirect administration to include as part of the city ofcalgary's negotiating teamacting as observers to alderman not directly impactedby the airport tunnel project.>> mayor naheed nenshi: can you -- before you even put italderman marr, not directlyimpacted by the airport tunnel project.given that many would argueit's a city-wide project, let's try some differentlanguage.>> well, i would say, you know, the three northeast --northeastern side.i was just thinking in terms of just a -- to try to beas -- you know what, i wouldbe happy to say that two alderman to act as observerseven.maybe i'll put it --
>> who would appoint thosealderman?>> active council. >> by pack.we'll do that in march -->> sounds good. >> did you get that?no fewer than two aldermanappointed by pack. can we start without them?okay.you don't want to put the mayor on that team aldermanmarr?i have so much free time. you know, some -- get rid ofnot directed impacted by theairport tunnel project. up to you alderman marr.okay.do i have a seconder for this one?alderman -- do i have aseconder? alderman keating, thank you.on this one alderman lowe,then alderman pootmans.
>> your worship, alderman marrand i spoke about this.i disagree with it. it -- i think -- with respectto alderman stevenson, there'sbeen far too much aldermanic involvement as managers inthis now.we're governs -- governors, we're not managers.we should retain that role.>> alderman pootmans. >> thank you, your worship.similar vein, it's tantalizingand i wonder if there's any rationale or perhaps inclosing alderman marr if youcould treat your motivations for asking this.appreciate it.thank you. >> mayor naheed nenshi:alderman keating.>> i wondered if we could get an opinion of administrationof this because it came out ofthe blue and it looked
interesting, but i'm not surewhere we're going.>> mayor naheed nenshi: mr. tollbert.>> we welcome supervision.>> mayor naheed nenshi: me too.of myself.any further discussion on this one?alderman stevenson?>> i don't usually agree with alderman lowe but i do.there's been too muchpolitical interference in this.if people listened to me threeyears ago, it would be done. so anyway, the reason why i'mnot -- the reason why i'm notgoing to support this is because there's -- having beeninvolved in these meetings somuch, we got our legal people negotiating with their legalpeople, our engineersnegotiating with their
engineers.we got too many places.where would we put these people?i don't think that they wouldadd anything do it and i personally would not want tobe one of the alderman there.i would like to have the administration finish whatthey've been doing for nowsome three months. >> mayor naheed nenshi: thankyou.alderman chabot. >> thank you your worship.i too agree with aldermanlowe. our position here is toogovern and not manage and ithink administration has the expertise.we don't necessarily all --any of us have the expertise in negotiating these types ofagreements and i think ifanything we are likely to
create a situation that isakin to too many cooks spoilthe soup. so to speak.i'm not supporting thisrecommendation your worship. encourage members of councilnot.>> mayor naheed nenshi: anyone else before i call on aldermanmarr to close.alderman marr to close. >> thank you, your worship.i think very critically itshould be noted that the alderman that would be therewould be acting as observers.i think that it's quite clear that we don't exactly knowwhat's been said behind theseclosed doors and we want to be able to be able to report toeach other and since most ofthis is all in camera, i think it's -- it would just make ita little bit easier for us toidentify for each other and
speak quite plainly how thenegotiations are going andwhat -- what some of the issues are.and that's why i inconsultation with his worship actually wanted to bring thisas -- an an amendment.thank you very much. >> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman marr.on this one then, are we >> alderman low.>> no.>> alderman macleod. >> no.>> alderman marr.>> yes. >> alderman pincott.>> no.>> alderman pootmans. >> no.>> alderman stevenson.>> no. >> alderman carra.>> no.>> auld chabot.
>> alderman demong.>> yes.>> alderman farrell. >> no.>> alderman hodges,>> no. >> alderman jones.>> no.>> alderman keating. >> yes.>> mayor nenshi.>> yes. >> it's lost, your worship.>> thank you.alderman marr. that was it?>> that's it.>> alderman marr, thank you. thank you for trying this makethis whole thing better.i appreciate that very much. alderman chabot.>> thank you, your worship.my apologies if i may have missed something duringalderman marr's debate.some matters i had to attend
to.i have a couple of questionsand i'm a bit concerned without going into thespecifics of report 2011-06.there are some concerns certainly raised in thatreport and without revealinganything, i would like to know administration's position onsomething that was one of amotions put forward by alderman marr and i think aportion of his motion wasactually not contrary. that's in regards to us iguess fulfilling our judiciaryresponsibility as members of council and not contraveningthe act.there are some risks associated with this thatpotentially in my opinionmight put us in jeopardy of contravening municipalgovernment act.i'd like mr. tully's opinion
as to whether or not hebelieves or whether or not weare committing ourselves to negotiate terms that couldpotentially put us in conflictwith the municipal government. >> mayor naheed nenshi: that'sentirely legitimate to askalderman chabot. mr. tully?>> your worship as we talkedabout before in other megdz meetings, council has a feddouchery duty.as we discussed in camera, administration is attemptingto negotiate an agreement ingood faith and they've brought to you the various terms andconditions of that yourworship and so i doan see anything that theadministration has brought toyou that if council adopted would put you in breach ofyour duties.the act says as long as you
act in good faith, there's noliability that attaches to youand that -- and that is with respect to your fed doucheryobligations as well.as long as you act in good faith which i believe you havedone so far observing yourdeliberations i do not see anything that would put you inbreach of your fed shearobligations under the act your worship.>> thank you so much for thatyour worship. now as far as our msi funding,there's been some talk abouthow we could potentially fund this including using some msifunding for carrying costs andi'm just -- i just want to make sure we don't putourselves in a position whereby we're exceeding our borrowing -- our debtservicing and our debtloading.
capacity as supported by themga.we have limitations and council imposed someadditional limitations and iwould like to hear from mr. sawyer, make sure we'renot broaching that maximumthat we've imposed on ourselves.as well as -->> thank you, your worship. there are several limits thatapply to the city of calgaryrelating to debt. and let me just quickly walkthrough them.one is around the total amount of debt.and the total amount of debtmust not exceed two times revenue.just for your information,2010 we're sitting at about 54 percent of that maximum level.we're projected to peak in theyear 2013 based on the msi
funding at around 80 percentof the debt limit.so that is still within the capital financing policy.we also have debt servicinglimits under the mga. it's 35 percent of revenue andthe estimate here again 2010we're sitting around 33 percent of that limit.the forecast to reach amaximum of -- around 70 percent of that limit.so again, we've got room andthe other limit is the council debt service limit of 10percent.and we're actually to give you an example in the early 2000s,we were around 80 percent ofthat limit. we're projecting to be 2013less than 30 percent of thatlimit. so i can tell that you we arewithin the mga limits andwithin the council limits.
>> mr. sawyer please don't sitdown just yet if you don'tmind. you indicated around 2013 wewould be around the 80 percentkind of margin. is that correct?on our maximum debt service --or our maximum allowable debt? >> that's correct>> okay.so how does it look beyond that?does it look like it's goingto be declining? are we going to be retiringsome debt over the course ofthe next number of years? >> yes, i picked the year 2013because that's where it peaks.so it actually will come off from that level by 2018 we'reprojecting to be more likeabout 55 percent of the debt limit.>> phew.that's all i can say.
80 percent.that's pushing the limits.sorry, your worship for that commentary.if i may, we've -- councilapproved a motion to downgrade metis trail from a major to anarterial or -- from a --expressway to an arterial. >> mayor naheed nenshi: weasked administration to bringthat back as a public hearing. we haven't approved it to beclear.>> thank you for that. the implications of thatmr. logan, was there any msifunding alocated towards that expressway that have not beenexpended to date do you know?>> your worship, at the moment, we are undertaking theconstruction of metis trailfrom 80th avenue to 96 avenue and yes a portion of thatproject, it's a 2011 projectas included msi.
is that the question?>> yes, that covers thatquestion. now i guess a subsequentquestion to that or afollow-up, if council were to approve this recommendation,would that msi funding then goback into the cupboard so to speak?>> no, your worship we'vetendered and awarded that contract.>> okay.so what about cost recoveries now if the -- somebodymentioned that we would beable to be able to go retroactive on some of ourcosts.but of course that would probably exclude some of thosegreat separate interchangesrelate directly to an expressway.would we be able to recoversome of those costs?
>> your worship, i think withrespect to construction of theroad, no. with respect to some of theland that we may havepurchased that is now surplus to our needs we couldpotentially resell those andmr. stevens could probably help me.we often have clause that iswe have to offer that land back to the adjacent owners.there could be ways to recoupa portion of those costs. >> could i get furtherclarification from mr. stevenson that if you don't mind your worship.>> i think mr. -- go aheadmr. stevens. >> your worship, if we obtainland by way of expropriationand the land is then not subsequently needed for aordinary of up to two years,we have to offer that land
back to the owner.if it's negotiated then it'snegotiated transaction. we're able to deal with it aswe wish.that rule applies if land is expropriated.>> and on that point, thosecosts associated with that would be based on sectorrights, right?>> no. >> not sector rights?>> no, when you take landthat's entirely different valuation.>> market value?>> market value. it was if it was done byexpropriation, it's an awarddone by panel. that award is an award done byan independent third party.>> would that allow us to sell it back to the vendor at thoseprices we paid.>> yes.
>> or potentially higher?>> i don't think we've comeinto that situation. as long as i've beenresponsible where we'veactually run into that. we're very careful when weexpropriate land, we're prettysure that it's actually required.>> thank you for that.now the only other issue i had was in regards to the msicontingency fund.and just wondering whether or not we have the capacity basedon the current councildirectives being as 50 million was based out of contingencyfund and council had approvedfinancing up to seven percent. of the contingency fundspecifically for debtservicing. that was approved by theprovincial government.if we move into this direction
of looking at financing someof this using contingencyfunds, are we going to -- i guess rob the cupboard dryor -- you know?where are we at with regards to where that's going to bringus in regards to ourcontingency fund? >> thank you, your worship.a couple of comments on this.one, the interest costs right now are sitting at sevenpercent.of the total msi. that's the maximum rearcurrently allowed from theprovince. borrowing the funds, advancingthe funds as part of therecommendation around the tunnel would require thoseinterest costs to go higher.they would go higher by approximately one percent.to eight percent.we'd require the concurrence
of the provincial government.our indications is they wouldbe willing to do that. that would still be part of --so that would increase theamount of contingency dedicated to interest costs aswell right now we haveapproximately 70 million of unallocated contingency andthe proposal is to take 50 ofthat and use it towards the financing of the tunnel.>> so then that would leavejust $20 million unallocated within that contingency fund.correct?>> out of the original contingency fund that wouldleave us 20 million.>> so we can afford to do it i guess is the long and short ofit.now just curious about some of these other projects that arefalling off and i know thatcouncil had at one point
approved some financingspecifically for a greatseparated interchange. i believe at ogden road andglenmore trail.i'm curious as to what impact it's going to have on thatparticular project.is that something that's going to fall off the table or isthat still moving forward yourworship, where are we with that one, do we know?>> your worship, the glenmoretrail east corridor study or east corridor upgrades werepart of tiip.they've not -- they've had future funding allocated tothem.council has not approved the capital budget for thoseprojects.they would be the funding that's been allocated to thoseprojects would be a potentialsource of money to close the
funding gap that we have inthis project.>> that hurts a lot. because the benefit that thatcould have for the city as awhole i think is not something that i would want toentertain.hopefully we can negotiate an agreement that doesn't needdrawing from that particularproject because i think it's absolutely essential that wemove forward with thatproject, your worship. so i will leave it in yourgood hands.to associate the best agreement you possibly can sothat we don't have to draw onthose other projects your worship.>> just to the follow-upmr. logan, i want to highlight what you said which is thatno -- no particular projectsare -- if we approve that
today are on the choppingblock.those are decisions for council to make should thatmoney have to be reallocatedas part of our capital budget process going forward.>> we're not suggestingcancelling any approved projects your worship.>> thanks, mr. logan.>> well, i'm -- briefly in debate -->> mayor naheed nenshi: ofcourse. >> i'll try and keep under itfive minutes.>> mayor naheed nenshi: i was about to say of course.>> i -- you know, this is aproject that i've been supporting right from theget-go.i was right beside alderman stevenson when the attackcommittee first formed andalthough i wasn't involved as
much as alderman stevensonwas, of course they all knowthat i've been supporting this project all along.and i know that this issomething that potentially is going to hurt us.it's going to hurt usfinancially in being able to be innovative with the numberof other initiativesthroughout the city. but i also brief that this issomething that is absolutelyessential, that it be done today.because if we don't do ittoday, we'll never do it in the future.so it's a short-term pain fora long-term gain. and as much as i hate to sayit, it's something that i'mgoing to support albeit with some reluctance because i knowthat it's going to have somemajor impacts on the future in
regards to our ability to moveforward on some projects.certainly it would be also equally beneficial or almostas equally beneficial but ialso believe that it's a very time sensitive issue thatneeds to be dealt with today.and if we don't do it today, then i guess we'll be able tomove forward on some otherprojects. anyways, i hope council cansupport the motion.looking forward to the challenges that this brings inthe future.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thanks alderman chabot.that was nowhere near fiveminutes. it's okay, i turned his lightoff.alderman colley-urquhart. >> thank you.so i have a few questions.actually, miss cole if i could
ask you some of thesequestions.are you okay? thank you.i wondered if you could gistwithout getting into the specifics just give an overall-- just give an overview ofthe category or the risk elements as it relates to whatwe're faced with.>> your worship, the consent report outlines the status ofnegotiations with the airportauthority at this time. and the recommendation in thepublic report suggests thatyou should direct us to go back and address some of thoserisks and risk mitigationstrategies outlined in that confidential report.>> so the letter of december16th from the airport authority which was called thepreliminary terms andconditions regarding the
potential east work extensionof airport trail and therelated tunnel, it was not a confidential letter from theairport?>> no, it was not. >> all right.so -- and you're not able totalk about any of the categories of risk?>> i can tell that you thatletter outlines the airport authority's position.my understanding is that insome subsequent discussions they've indicated awillingness to perhaps moveoff some of those positions until we know at what stagethe airport authority is intheir deliberations. it's hard to assess thecurrent risk or the riskmitigation strategies that might be associated with thisproject.>> are there any short-term
financial risks?>> well, there's the -->> mayor naheed nenshi: that might be more of a financialthan legal question.>> i'll come back to that then.i'll stick with the ones thatyou may be familiar with. well, you looked at thisthrough the legal filter.i'm really interested from the legal perspective.do we know the exactconstruction costs as you reviewed the file?from a conceptual drawingsthat are done. >> mayor naheed nenshi: againi think that's not really alegal question. more for mr. logan.>> okay.so one of the amendments i wanted to make would it be anumber 7 or 8?>> mayor naheed nenshi: we're
on 7 alderman colley-urquhart.>> okay, miss gray i gave youthe amendment. if you could put that up.so it was one that i talkedabout in cam rand i don't think it's contrary but it isimportant from my perspectiveto have a paper trail as a result of the letter that waswritten by the airportauthority. and it's just askingadministration to continue tonegotiate with the airport authority in relation to thisdecember 16th letter.with best efforts to mitigate the risks to the city ofcalgary as i've identified incamera which we can't talk about and to report back tocouncil no later than march21st. now you could report backweekly if you wanted to.you could call a special
meeting if you wanted.but at least your worship itgets this matter on the record that this is really what wehave in front of us as anegotiating point. i know verbally you've saidthat things changed on fridayand you've had meetings that have changed with what theirintentions were.but if i have a seconder -- >> second.>> i do not believe this iscontrary even with option 3. it just says that we want youto proceed on with -- as apoint of negotiations from that 16th letter.so is that in your premierperspective since you've been on the negotiating team --would that be appropriatelyplaced? >> whether it's contrary wouldbe an issue for his worship toopine on.
>> mayor naheed nenshi: and iwill.i actually don't think it's contrary, excuse me, aldermancolley-urquhart.part of -- all of it except for the report back part ithink is already encapsulatedin recommendations number 2. it's not contrary.it's sort of already there.because recommendation number 2 talks about the in camerareport.but if you'd like to bring that out and make it morepublic, i don't particularlyhave a problemith that and the real part that will changeis the report back at the veryend. which is fine with me.>> well, your worship, even ifyou wanted to say report back to council in camera no laterthan the 21st.i don't mind that.
but i don't -->> mayor naheed nenshi: i haveno problem with that. >> yes.>> you know something, itreally -- mr. tully if we don't say in camera, dependingon the nature of the reportcould we decide if it was in public or in camera.we can leave in camera out.if there's something else confidential, they can putthat in camera if they needto. i think it's fine.it's a little funny becausejust of what it says in number 2 but you're really gettingthe report back right?>> and creating a paper trail. >> mayor naheed nenshi: ithink that's fine.i don't have a problem with that.do we have a seconder?>> second your worship.
>>>> mayor naheed nenshi: thankscloudy alderman chabot. any debate?all right.can i call it closed alderman colley-urquhart.>> sure.>> mayor naheed nenshi: on this one are we agreed?>> agreed.>> any opposed? carried.great, thank you.>> so just on my other questions then mr. logan, canyou tell us today what thefinal construction cost is? >> no, your worship.>> and why not and what arethe consequences of not knowing the final constructioncosts?>> your worship, until such time as we actually completethe work, tender the work andgo through the process of
building it and dealing withwhatever unknowns come upduring the process of construction we won't know thefinal construction costs.that's not unusual. and sorry the second part ofyour question was?>> so if you don't know the final construction costs, thenwhat are you asking ofcouncil? to prove a blank cheque?>> no, your worship.i don't think that any time we come to council and ask for acapitol budget to be approvedwe ask for an allocation of budget towards a project.and we ask for authority tospend up to that limit. i don't think we're asking fora blank cheque.i think in all honesty, we're asking for an amount that webelieve covers our bestestimate of the construction
costs plus a contingency andplus some other costs we'vetried to outline to you as best we can.>> but really it's only basedon a conceptual design at this point.>> it's based on a preliminarydesign, yes. which is actually exactly thesame as we would do any otherbudget allocation to be honest.>> and you've come back onsome occasions and had to ask for more money.>> yes, we have.>> where would we get that from?>> depending on how much moneyit was, it may be a bit of a problem.>> mayor naheed nenshi: ithink mr. tolbert had something to add to thatquestion.>> sorry?
>> i think mr. tolbert hadsomething to add to thatquestion or that answer. >> to add to what gm logansaid.we have a healthy contingency. we normally do on any projectand we have one on thisparticular one. it allows us to make someadjustments to the allocationsprovided for construction subject to the limits of ourcon singhsy.if we have gone beyond the limits of what we have in ourcon singhty, your question iswhat do we do, we have other monies in the program that wehave made allowances for.our intention is not to spend all that money.there may be ways of movingsome money around and still staying within the program.but let's say for instance wehave gotten partway through
and we need more money, wecome back and there's lots ofdifferent ways to get other money.there's other projects to lookat. there's borrowing db>> other projects where?>> we don't know yet. we don't know how much weneed.>> mayor naheed nenshi: you're suggesting this is typical fora project like this.>> this -- >> this one little part of it.>> but if you wouldmr. tolbert, on other projects like -- if we're alreadyskimming from other projectsto make this one work, and you're saying if we haven'treally truly nailed down thecosts which we haven't and it's not unusual at thesepreliminary stages, we couldgo back to other projects,
where -- what projects wouldthose be?>> your worship, i really can't say.and it's -->> offer an example. >> i'll let mr. logan -- wetalked about some of those incamera. do i need to go through thelist to say we've allocatedmoney for future projects but we hadn't actually approvedthe funding for them.they're way off in the future. if we need to adjust ourbudgets by going of a those wecan without impacting anything that's approved today.we do have some contingency inprojects. >> yes.yes.okay, thank you. and mr. logan, that tips listis sort of -- it's not amoving target but it's a list
that we compile an each year,every couple of years weupdate it. some fall off.some find their way up sooner.more specifically, on the tips list, and i think we're stillworking on that list as wespeak -- >> yes.>> give me an example of someof the projects that would fall off the table.i want -- i want calgarians toknow the challenges and the choices that we're having tomake as members of council.>> your worship, the tips list that we're working on goes tothe -- you know, really looksat the 20-19-2020-2021 time period.i don't think there's anyspecific projects that i could sort of say this one wouldfall off and that one wouldfall off.
we've tried to follow a flossy-- philosophy that we continueto balance on roads and transit and as alderman chabotpointed out earlier yourworship, we have suggested that one of the potentialprojects would be glenmoretrail east and while i share mr. -- alderman chabot'sconcern that that projectneeds to be done, we're saying well we can't do everything.we don't have enough money todo everything. so council has to make somechoices.so i can't really be specific. it's not that i don't want tobe.it's just that i don't have that list in front of me tosay here are the toppriorities. this is how much we wouldcarve out of it.>> where would this project
have ranked on that tips list?>> you know, i wish i knew theanswer to that question because when we did the tipsin 06-07 we started in 2006.we didn't understand the airports' timeline at thistime.it would have been very interesting to have gonethrough tips with that in themix. i -- you know, we'respeculating.i would have to speculate. >> another day.right.as far as land acquisition goes, how many other partieswould we have to enter intoagreements with as far as land acquisition or is it just thecalgary airport authority?>> your worship if we followed through with the additional --with the additional roadwaylinks to the east, we would
have a minimum of 2 landownersto negotiate with.>> could you speak to the timeline that we're faced withbetween what we're being askedto do tonight and when this decision has to be made.>> your worship, the airportauthority has been very clear that they're -- that theyintend to close barlow trailon april 3rd, 2011. that's approximately 55 daysfrom today i believe.it's my feeling that we need to be in a clear positionprior to that date as towhether we're moving forward with this project or not.and the sooner that thatdecision is rendered by council, if it is to goforward then we need to getworking with them -- with the airport authority as quicklyas we can to identify whatneeds to be done or what could
potentially be doneimmediately.so this -- you know, virtually today is the answer to thatquestion.that's how soon we have to know.it's not that wech to pushdirt tomorrow but we have to design and communicate and puttogether teams and things likethat. >> you need to know today butyou don't know the results ofthe negotiations with the airport authority.based on this december 16thletter. there are a loft issues thatare raised in there and you'reneeding to negotiate a pretty complex agreement in fiveweeks.so what element of risk does that impose on the city ofcalgary?>> your worship, i think that
the -- you know, the risk isdifferent if it's council'swill to move forward. then we have -- i think wehave a different indicationto -- to the airport authority that we're prepared to investsignificantly into that pieceof infrastructure on their property which i thinkenhanses both the overall cityand the northeast network and that would significantlyinfluence those negotiationsand would help to reduce our risk.reducing the risk as far ascost delays, as far as -- i think that would be thebiggest one.that it would help reduce. >> so would you vote onsomething if you didn't knowwhat the agreement was? ,>> your worship, i don't thinki can really answer that
question.i've never been in your seatto answer that question. i fully appreciate this is anextremely, extremely difficultdecision to make this evening. >> mayor naheed nenshi: may iask mr. tolbert.he would like to answer that question.>> we're not asking council tosign an agreement today. we're actually asking councilto give us permission towithin a set of strict confines not to be exceeded anagreement with the thirdparty. and the agreement's quiteclear and it says that goahead and do that negotiations and so our intent is to dothat hopefully successfullywithin the confines as approved by council.if, however, we reach aposition in which we weren't
able to, we would come back tocouncil and say here's wherewe are. here's how far apart we are.and we would do that asquickly as we could. so we're not asking council tosign a blank cheque or toapprove something for which the risks are unknown.we've done the best we couldto define the risks. and we've tried to limit itbased on a certain set ofcriteria to say this is how far we'll go and no more.>> on that point, mr. tolbert,i -- i have in my years on council never seen such a wellwritten report as theconfidential one that outlines risks to this corporation.so i'm very impressed withthat. i think you do know the risks.they've been outlined veryclearly.
i think they're quiteextensive and i just wonderhow will you go -- how will you -- what is your process ona go forward basis to mitigateall the risks that are in that confidential report?>> your worship -->> do you anticipate daily meetings like this is going torequire so much work.and i want to know if -- are we expecting the impossiblewith the timeline that we'reimposing on you with the risks that are at hand?>> no i don't believe it'simpossible. however, it takes two willingparties.>> yes. >> and we're certainlymotivated.>> well, some of us are probably more than others yourworship.so thank you.
and thank you mr. logan.i know my colleagues have someother questions as it relates to this matter.it's probably obvious that i'mhaving a lot of difficulty with this.it's probably more complexthan anything that we've dealt with on council and that wehave to deal with in such ashort period of time and that we can't talk publicly aboutbecause we will causedifficulty for the corporation and put the corporation atrisk which none of us areprepared to do and -- and hopefully the airportauthority is listening tonightand i would say that i don't support us going forward withthis.it's an impossible timeline. the risks are too much of aburden.and i think it's unfair to
expect our staff to reconcileall these risks.thank you. >> mayor naheed nenshi: thanksalderman colley-urquhart.thank you for asking those questions.i think it's really importantthat we have this discussion and precisely on the elementsthat you raised.so thank you. alderman lowe.>> thank you, your worship.i'm five to 11 i'm afraid i do have some questions.some of the questions i havehave been asked and answered. i will say from the onset yourworship that a couple ofthings i'm going to say. one is that i don't view thisas a vote of confidence new.>> mayor naheed nenshi: me neither.>> my fact that i'll be in thechair tomorrow does not
represent an alberta coup.so with that -->> mayor naheed nenshi: yet. >> yet.yet.carry on. mr. logan, if i could -- iwill admit when i -- in facti'll state categorically when i read report 05, the firsttime i was significantlydisappointed. more accustomed to veryobjective reports.and i found this report to be far from objective.and actually i thought of you,if you would not been on 0-within own side of this youwould have been somewhat lessthan kind to the report. having said that, mr. logan,looking at page 3 of six inthe right-hand column where you list the options.option one, two and three.option one and option two you
provide analysis and costing,et cetera, over about -- youknow, 20 to 30 year period. yet option 3, the recommendedoption you give us nothingbeyond two years. not exactly -- that was thething that leapt out at me wasthe complete lack of apples to apples turnips.looking at option 3, andprojecting ahead, what do you see that will be needed in --later on in the report.it seems to say that even with the tunnel, we're going tohave to do roadwayimprovements on mayty trail and country hills boulevardacross.i saw no mention in the report about 128th avenue overdeerfoot and 11th streetnortheast through stony and off stony trail as analternate access.i saw no discussion on that at
all.but this very narrow do itnow, put all your eggs in this basket and life is good.>> your worship, if i might,seeing as you've sort of implied that i wrote a biasedreport -->> i'm sorry, i didn't imply -- >> i was instructed to write areport to come back on thisparticular option in effect. what i tried to do was injectinto that report someopportunity to sort of say do nothing is always an optionbut i believe in this case donothing will have a cost over time.i was trying to quantify forcouncil's benefit sort of if we didn't do anything now whowhat might we have to dodifferently over time in the absence of that particularroadway lane.and i felt that there were
interchanges that we wouldhave to build and we alsowanted to be -- bring forward the information that we didearlier about the tunnel andimplied if we were to bore that tunnel later on it wouldbe considerably more expensivemeter for meter if you will and -->> we would have had theinterchanges built by then. >> i think we would have.so it's a fair comment inoption 3 we didn't forecast. at the same -- exactly thesame time horizon.maybe i could have put a little bit more rigor in thatgiven a fuller process.the difference in the two is really what would you have tobuild at say a 30 year horizonin one versus the other. the difference would have beenat 30 years, i've indicatedthat we were -- we would
probably have to build gradeseparations into and out ofthe terminal. those aren't included ineither cost.the deerfoot and 128th is not an either number.>> why not?>> what would be fair. would we -- by the time i saidwe would have had to build allof the interchanges around. i mean it -- i can go back andtake a look at that.it's quite possible. however the numbers that we'velooked at would suggest thatprobably not. you have two parallel routes.you probably wouldn't need tohave free flow on both of them.maybe either one of them.>> possibly not on airport trail.>> yeah.>> which is my point.
it sort of spend 300 millionon a tunnel now knowing fullwell we'll spend another 345 or whatever the number washere in another 20 years toget the other parallel route in -->> sorry, that's not what imeant to say. i think if we were to build --if we were to invest in theairport trail corridor dorre, that would be the free flowcorridor.the other corridors remain as arterial corridors over time.i wasn't clear on that.i apologize. >> i take it then your viewsis that this is -- this is theultimate solution to an east/west corridor throughnorth central calgary.>> your worship, i think that would be the only free floweast/west corridor we wouldneed and i think it would --
we would remain with countryhills as an arterial graderoad and i believe that as per our earlier discussion wecould go back to a non-freeflow corridor on mayty trail based on the forecast thati've seen.in broad terms, i think it gives us the best mobility.if we weren't pressed for timein construction, that would be what we would be workingtowards as it was warranted ona city-wide basis. >> one of the discussions i'vehad suggests -- suggested andi know you've -- you've disagreed that day one openthe upgrade intersection atbarlow and airport trail through the tunnel willoperate very close to f.>> that's not my information. >> and i realize that's notyour information.my question is did you ever
put this out -- we havetraffic studies.provided by the group advocating this.we don't know who fundedthose. we have our list of suspectsout there.of course. and we know that the city didits work.did we ever consider peer reviewing those?>> not our most recent pieceof work. the functional planning studywhich includes traffic volumeswe did not. however, we made it publiclyavailable sort of anticipatinga peer vee view by the members of the public who were vocallyagainst the project.>> i'm not sure that would be an objective peer review.by peer review you and i gettogether --
>> we used our regionaltransportation model and didan independent peer review by parsons brinkerhoff and theyassessed it to be one of thetop three in north america. i would say we're using afairly robust tool.we input information that came directly from the airportauthority on a joint study wedid. i didn't think that there wasany real macroassumption thatis we couldn't sort of substantiate.i wasn't too worried about theforecast. >> okay.just advice reaching me to thecontrary on that mr. logan. it's enough to make me worry.i mean we're forecasting yourown words or suggesting that there will be a tremendousamount of traffic on airporttrail when it becomes the main
-- seems to be some thingsthere.your report further and i'm staying on port 05 yourworship, page five of six.a couple of things worry me. $123 million.funding in innovation fundingfor capital programs. identified as a possiblesource of funding.at the time we received the mfi funding, councilestablished the innovationfund if memory recalls correctly.i believe 60 million to start.out of that we purchased a -- affordable and obtaininghousing project up in aldermanpootmans ward. are there guidelines aroundthat for this innovation fund.>> i can't answer that question.maybe mr. sawyer can help mewith that.
>> your worship, i believethat those funds wereearmarked around the innovation but there was nospecific that i'm aware ofcriteria around it. >> would it be safe to saywhen we bought that condoproject that innovation because we could get this, butalso opportunity that we acton very early? if i recall, that was sort ofthe rationale we used at thetime. it's not part of thetransportation envelope is mypoint. >> okay.>> the -- the same page movingforward next call. city staff are currentlypresently investigating theability -- i'm sorry, annual road maintenance of theunderpass estimated to be$45.000 a year.
which on one hand struck me asnot a lot.but -- hardly an expert in maintaining the 650 metertunnel but the next paragraphdowncasts -- presently investigating availability andcost of operating insuranceand the costs in the range of one to 2.5 million a yearwhich has an immediate impacton the operating budget of somewhere between, you know,if you add the 45.000 andthe -- one and a half to -- to $3 million.there's a -- are there otheranticipated impacts on our operating budget of thistunnel?>> your worship, we did look at what would be sort of thestandard per lane kilometreoperating which is fairly easy to determine.we looked at things such asthe cost of operating the
lighting and the electrical,the ventilation systems.that's reflected in the $45.000 number.there would be additionaloperating related to the monitoring which we wouldfeedback through our trafficmonitoring center and i imagine that it would alsofeed over to the airportssecurity system as well. the one to two and a halfmillion is related toinsurance that we would have to carry for liability on theairport leased lands.and the reason why the prince edward island is so greatthere is that in the time thatwe've had available to us, it's difficult to shop a whatif number to the industry andthat's sort of the range of numbers that we've been ableto nail down to date.>> okay.
thank you mr. logan.the -- your worship, i'mhaving much of the trouble that several of my colleaguesare having in that the balanceof my questioning was really centered on the report that wecannot talk about.and -- >> mayor naheed nenshi: whichshall not be named.>> sequentially numbered to the one i just talked about.but there are some issues thati think -- questions i would like to ask and the one thatworries me the most and actualrisk that worries me the most is the fact that we areeffectively committing all ofthe balance of our msi funds plus other capital funds tothis one project based on apay out of the msi albeit while the province is agreeingtoday they're not going tochange the schedule.
that had been their habit whenthey get into trouble andwe've accommodated them. and i know the premierannounced he wasn't going tocancel that program which was the best news.he didn't in hisannouncement -- he indicated he's not changing theschedule.>> mayor naheed nenshi: this year.>> this year only.so mr. tolbert, the impact of building this tunnel on ourability to be nimble from acapital perspective, can you comment on it?mayor mr. tolbert?>> whatever flexibility we had, before council, if theywere to approve this projectwould be consumed to a great degree.>> that's a good answer.thank you.
what's what you're basicallysaying is we spent the creditcard up, made one payment on it, so we've got whatever roomleft the payment vacated forus. >> i believe our line ofcredit still has some roomthough. >> i'm not worried about theline of credit.we can always borrow money but again reading this report, oneof the worries i have and imentioned it in my -- before we went in camera that youknow item three in the bylawwe're asked to approve which is a standard clause in allborrowing bylaws laws thatsays if there's a deficiency we will raise taxes.we're hearing of a gap here ofsome $30 million. so there's a risk there.a significant risk and thatgoes directly to the rate
payer.i -- i listened very carefullywhen we were in the -- i did spend the weekend going overthat report in a great deal ofdetail. and trying to develop a -- amatrix and principle areas ofconcern, of course, and i understand why, i can't askthe question publicly aboutthem and i think that's a shame.so having said all that, iremain unconvinced -- i've always had three problems withthis project.the need. cost and the funding.and security.that's been my mantra as long as we've talked about it.somehow in my sense, i feelthe need in this has been hyped up by flogging a timeshare vacation, you know, it'sa -- nice to have, by by the
time you get out of the salespitch you have to have it.there's a gap in the middle there.and it's that -- that's neverbeen closed for me. we don't know the cost.we do not know the cost.and that worries me. security issue we can talkabout that hypotheticallyuntil we're pink in the face but i remain unconvinced andone of my worries that is thatwe build, it we buy it, we build and it occupy it only tofind out that perhaps we haveto restrict who goes through it.which would impact negativelythe airport's advantage if they're looking to serve theircommercial customers and theirindustrial lands through that. if they're looking for that,then it seems to me there's --they should be contributing to
the construction of it.but they're not.they've made it very plain they're not going to.so at the end of the day, yourworship, given what we have and given the late date, youknow the short time we have onit, my experience in other boards if we were looking atan investment of thismagnitude at this point, we wouldn't be making a decision.the board would be simplysaying carry on. here's concerns i have.tell me how you're going tomitigate these risks as you go down the road.and it would be a long waydown before we started making in principle decisions which ithink we're being asked tomake here and quite frankly i haven't got enough comfort andi'm significantly concernedabout the financial impact of
this on the city in theimmediate, the medium and thelong-term. but i can not support it and ican not recommend it.so with that, your worship, i will sit down, but i will voteagainst it all.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thank you.thanks alderman lowe.alderman pincott. >> thank you.picking up, so currently ourmsi for interest, we're at seven percent, we got thegovernment to -- theprovincial government allowed us to go up to seven percent.they had to change the -- sortof the rules around msi to get to seven percent?>> your worship, yes, therewas a restriction of up to five percent.basically we went back to theprovince and got them to agree
to move to seven percent.based on the proposal here, wewould need to get them to move to eight percent.there's been relatively seniorlevel discussion who is have indicated a willingness to dothat.>> okay. -- if we don't get that, ifwe have to stay at sevenpercent, that means then if the $36 million that isdescribed as interest charges,where would -- how would we pay for that?>> i think we would have tolook for some alternate funding and could come back towhat mr. tolbert said earlieraround some potentially other projects.i don't know specifically.>> all right. and -- if perchance msi isstretched out a littlefurther, that too would impact
our carrying -- our debtability to carry interest onmsi, right? would that naturally followout of that, too?>> well, i think your worship, we're probably in a situationwhere if the provincialfunding is stretched out, our ability to maintain ourexpenditure pat everyone andbridge finance -- is getting pretty limited.we would have to look at someprojects to delay out with the funding.i suspect.>> just before you sit down, one last time.i know exercise at 11:15 atnight is a good thing. >> absolutely.>> just -- so let meunderstand then how much money from the msi funding bucketthat we have -- the $3.3billion, how much then -- if
next year msi because we havea commitment that it's notgoing to stretch out this year, not going to change thetiming this year, let's say ina year's time it's stretched out a year, two years, how --over -- how much money ofprojects can we actually -- will we have left available todelay at that point?>> well have completed west l.r.t..>> i guess your worship i'm ina bit of difficulty with that. we are right now for 2011,we're expecting just over 250million in funding. and we have project that isadd up to much more than that.the same situation in 12 as well.so if for example we didn'tget all the funding we're assuming, then we'd have to --but we look to move a portionof projects out.
>> what i'm asking is of theprojects assigned to the $3.3billion that we got, how much will not at the end of 2012have begun that would beavailable for delay. >> i can't say for certainwith the information i've gothow many have not begun. but the fact that they'vebegun still means there couldbe on going expenditures in 2012 and 2013 and some thathave may have to be delayedeven if that you have begun. >> what exactly is begunversus not?>> i don't have -- >> i'm trying to understand.again, this is getting to --we're losing wiggle room all the time on the msi and thisis -- this is taking awayfurther -- what we have before us with the interest chargesbeing msi as well as pullingall the little bits of msi
left over is taking away evenall of our wiggle room andthat if perchance the provincial government looksand goes, for whatever reasonthey stretch the msi funding out further, we'll have tolook outside of msi forfunding for those projects as well as potentially thisproject.>> potentially but again we do have significant expendituresplanned in 2011, 2012, 2013.we'd have to look hard at some of those that could be delayeda year or two potentially.>> okay. >> we'd have to go throughthat.>> all right. thank you.so potentially there's $36million that we have to look at for other places offunding.mr. logan, the $31 million
that's identified from otherprojects, i understand youcan't actually identify which projects those are.i mean you've suggested a few,but what if we get into what council likes to do, which issay well you're not actuallycutting the project in my neighbourhood and you're notcutting the project in myneighbourhood and you're not cutting the project in myneighbourhood so we're leftwith $31 million that we haven't actually agreed onwhich projects would getcancelled or delayed for a period of time.for that $31 million thenwhere do we go? >> your worship, we would haveto excluding that option, youwould have to increase revenue and we have different ways ofdoing that.you can either temporarily do
that by incurring differentkinds of debt.or we could seek to increase our revenue through othermeans.there's a number discussed in the report that i recommendthat we pursue.you know, for example i've been suggesting that fuel taxis something that we need totalk to the province about particularly in the case offunding road projects.(please stand by) >> up until the year 2040, doesthat mean, then, that trulycountry hills boulevard is going to stay two lanes?because just earlier if thereport, it actually talks about increasing country hills to 6lanes, widening country hills to6 lanes, so are we truly going to leave country hills boulevardat 2 lanes until 2040?>> no, your worship.
i think that the systemicdevelopment of the northeastnetwork would occur, and that's listed on page 4 of 28, thatthose improvements would occurin both scenarios. i think the differences in thedo nothing scenario, we'reseeing that the planned development of country hillsboulevard would be insufficientto accommodate the traffic that we've forecast that would wantto use that route, andparticularly, the turning movements at the northeast andnorthwestern corners of theairport. and this is a piece of work thatwe actually did quite some timeago and have communicated to council in the past.>> yeah, because we've talkedabout this before when we were talking about the alternatives,we don't get the tunnel, andthese are the upgrades we need
to do, but it sounds like we'llbe doing the upgrades whether wehave the tunnel or not. >> your worship, maybe we shouldhave added several more pages onthis, but there are -- how can i say this, there are things thatwould be there with the tunneland there are things that would not be required without a tunneland what i'm saying in the donothing scenario is particularly on country hills boulevard we'llhave intersections fail and we'dhave to invest more than we have in our current other long rangeplans and i would suggest tomove around this block of land we'll have more traffic usingmetis trail than would be inplace with the tunnel scenario. >> are all of those upgrades tocountry hills and the like,would those all be funded solely by the city, or would they befunded by adjacent landowners.>> the interchanges would be
funded by the city solely andthe one that would have a costshare, that we've anticipated having a cost share -- at thepoint where we've anticipated weneeded to improve the access to and from the terminal, part ofthat is city traffic and part ofthat is traffic going in and out of the terminal and our priordiscussions have indicated thatthat should be a cost-sharing arrangement.>> is that airport trail andbarlow and airport trail and 19th?>> yes, sir.>> and are the costs of those intersections, or even the costshare cost of thoseintersections included in the price that's before us.>> they're not in either one?>> they're not in either? >> no.>> so we should anticipate thatat what point.
>> it would be required in bothscenarios, at some point intime, probably 2030 and beyond. >> oh, okay.so we will -- if we build outthe tunnel at the original plan of two lanes either way, thoseintersections will deal withthat for 20 years. >> that's -- that's the bestinformation that we have.>> okay. >> i didn't think it was fairto -- those intersections aregoing to be required in either case.i think it is fair to say thatin the build the tunnel scenario, option 3, that wewould trigger them sooner andthat's one of the major concerns the airport authority has isthat we would incur these costssooner rather than later, but we're forecasting a third of thetrips in and out of the terminalwe use a link to the east, so
it's a bit you get what you payfor.>> right. okay.now i want to talk -- i don'tunderstand transit here, and i don't understand the lrt beingin this, because everything i'veheard and read about the lrt and access of the lrt to the airportis that it has been planned tocome from the west. and this seems to suggest thatit's coming from the east.so is that -- is that the plan now?>> well, to be perfectly honest,your worship, lrt has never been planned to go to the airport.this has been -- we haveidentified a primary transit corridor along airport trail andwe've identified that with anortheast line and a north central line there's a perfectopportunity to tie the twotogether with a rapid transit
system with some description.that could be in the form of abus rapid transit or a rail based transit.but if we were to come in fromthe west side, it would still be -- it doesn't necessarilyhave to be the lrt, it could bean entirely different system. >> mayor naheed nenshi: butthe cross-sections we're lookingat are lrt compatible coming from the east, the plan -- thereport talks about adding astation there to get lrt to head -- to spur off.>> your worship there is astation planned there now. that would not be a new station.the next station is identifiedin our existing plans. >> mayor naheed nenshi: okay.so if, per chance, we were -- imean, lrt to the airport is, as far as i'm concerned and i'veheard this from a lot of people,is something that is definitely
needed, that if you -- you know,we hear all the time, worldclass cities have lrt to the airport.we have a plan before us thatactually has a nice little picture that includes a nicelittle train, and you talkedabout that earlier, about, you know, the clearances andallowing for it is lrtcompatible. does -- does this follow, then,would transportation be lookingat, say, looking at running that next station, and lrt to theairport before it gets to, wellas far as i know, there's three other lines that might be --that are planned before we evenget to that one. would it be looking at bumpingthat up, say right after thesoutheast lrt, or before the southeast lrt, after northcentral, after the tunneldowntown?
your worship, i think if councildecides to proceed, then, yes,we would have an opportunity to go and take a look at thefeasibility, the costs.one of the -- getting a little bit of detail, one of the thingsthat we've learned from ourdiscussions with the airport authority is that one of thereasons why they might like tohave a different system is the ability to pull it in closer totheir terminal.our trains are a little bit bigger than you probably need tohandle the demand and you'd havemore flexibility if you went to a slightly different system.the down side is there's atransfer involved. we could branch at the96th avenue station on theeast branch. canada branch has a branch atthe south end, one goes to theairport and one farther down the
line.we have options.i guess that's the bottom line. we have options that we couldexplore.>> mayor naheed nenshi: realistically, what's thehorizon that?30 years? >> no, actually, you know, asthe -- as a number of members ofcouncil have spoken today, we don't really know what our nexttranches of funding might befrom other levels of government, but i've noticed a significanttrend over the last few yearsthat those have trended to be focused on public transit.>> mayor naheed nenshi: andthat's one of my big challenges with this, is this isinfrastructure that is solelytargeted towards car culture. it supports, and a lot of therationale behind needing thisnow, before rather than later,
is pretty much a standard samekind of urban development thatwe have been doing in the northeast, that this is one ofthe arguments for that.was there any reason why we didn't, given our new ndp, givenour new transportation plan,actually look and say, this should be a transit onlyconnection?>> honestly, no, i don't think we -- well, yeah.there's one transit onlyscenario that we did discuss, and that would be in the bore inthe future, you would -- for atrain tunnel, which is a lot less complicated because youdon't have to involve generalpublic access, and it's -- i would suggest it's a simplerfacility.with respect to the car culture, actually, one of the points iwanted to make about the do thisnow versus do it, you know,
don't do it at all, is i thinkit's in line with our multipleparallel routes, is it gives you the opportunity to maximize thedevelopment on some of theseother corridors. we've looked at downsizing theroad.we originally had a 10-lane cross-section, we've taken thatdown, reduced the operatingspeed, there's a lot of things that we have tried to reflect aslightly different thinking, butunfortunately, the reality is, even with our go plan horizons,that individual vehicles will bethe lion's share wil of travel n our roadway and we have toaccommodate that.it doesn't matter if they're hybrid power, or hydrogenpowered they're individualvehicles and we need infrastructure to accommodatethat in the future.>> mayor naheed nenshi: and
you get stuck with a chicken andthe egg, that was one of thejoys of plan at, if we want to do a different form of land useand different form oftransportation, yet we're putting transportationinfrastructure in place thatsupports strat us quo, so you'll never get the different land useif you keep building theinfrastructure that supports. you know what i mean?i look at this and the argumentsfor it are status quo type of urban development at best.and that, i find disappointing.that's one of the challenges i've had with this from thebeginning is that it supportsexactly the same notion, 40.000 people living there, where wehave 1.2 cars per person.and this supports exactly that. and that is -- i -- i'd be allover this if we had said it'stransit only.
how do we make transit onlywork, and then how does thatsupport the kind of urban development that we said we wantto have for our city?we're -- with this, we're embedding in a sunk asset, we'reembedding doing the same.for in the northeast for another 20, 25 years and that isdisappointing.thank you photographe for answeg questions.>> sorry, are you putting in anamendment to make it transit only?alderman pootmans, what goodtiming, all you. >> are we asking questions ofadministration and debating.i noticed we started doing it all.your worship, general managerlogan, he's been on his feet for approximately 14 hours, thankyou very much.it seems like a long time, 12.
i'd like to follow up a littlebit where alderman dianecolley-urquhart was proceeding, but particularly cost overrunsand implications and impacts onother project, and i was wondering if i could ask you forthose please who might not beaware, a two or three sentence description of the tips program.>> the tips program is thetranscription investment program.it's a document that thetransportation department publishes every 3 to 5 years andoutlines our priorities forcapital funding. it doesn't necessarily.it's not a council document thatallo indicates that -- allocates that funding strictly, but itsays here are our highestpriority projects and given the cash flow to date here is thesequence we would do them and welook at sequencing construction
so we don't have conflicts, andspecifically the last couple ofgo-rounds it spoke to the size of the bucket, if you will,between public transit, roadsand active modes. >> thank you.provide some context to therisk. i'm wondering if you could tellme approximately how manyprojects are in the tips program at any given time over the nextfive to eight years as youmentioned. >> we're probably activelylooking at say 70, 80 projectsover a 10-year time frame. >> what would be the magnitude,again to give contest of a --context of a risk cost overrun, identifiable tips projects.>> it's quite a broad range,your worship. it goes from programs from amillion dollars up to things thesize of lrt a typical
interchange would be in the 25to 50 million dollar range.>> in the aggregate, do you have some sense in very broad terms,recognizing a lot of these arestill perhaps very general broad range estimates, butnonetheless, for a sense oforders of magnitude, what would the entire tips program budgetbe over the next decade?>> your worship, the total of the last ten-year cycle wasabout -- i have that numberhere. just give me a second.grand total of all projectsbetween 2009 and 2020 was approximately 2.7 billiondollars.the ten-year time frame, 11 to 20, so this year through to 2020we're looking at 2.7 billiondollars. >> not including future lrtlines?>> this includes west lrt,
northeast to saddle town, itincludes northwest to rockyridge. >> thank you.thank you very much.what i would like to do is perhaps comment a little bit onwhat, speaking for ward 6, whatthe implications, or the interest in the project is.i asked staff to track calls toour office, not all calls from ward 6 residents, but we fieldedapproximately 90 calls today,which surprised me, and i was further surprised to learn that98% of them were in favour ofthe tunnel, an overwhelming response, unscientific, butnonetheless, there it is.during the campaign, i was surprised, like many of us weknocked on thousands of doorsand spoke to perhaps more than a thousand people and this topiccame up frequently, and i wassurprised by the number of
people in ward 6 fairly farremoved from the airport, and iwould say two-thirds of the people at the doors almostinvariably volunteered aquestion about what my position would be on the tunnel andfrankly, i've always been a bitof a skeptic, and the overwhelming response was verypositive towards the tunnel.so i -- i proceeded to kind of figured out the question to askwas why, and it's part of anincredible citizenship. it was along the lines of foronce in our generation, let'snot leave an infrastructure deficit.this is perceived as anopportunity to proceed and leave something behind for theirchildren that would not be atraffic tie up. they endure these every day andthey would like to have that notas an example of what this
generation was doing for thefuture.a lot of people had a clear understanding that thepopulation densities would be anissue into the future, and we needed to make an investment ofpeople coming behind us, and iwas thinking, my gosh, i've got to get behind this project.if the voters of ward 6 feelthis strongly about it, it behoves me to support theproject, and i'm happy to do so.it's out of that genuine desire to do something that we'verarely done as a city, which isactually to build for a group of people coming after us, it's onthose terms that i will besupporting this motion. thank you very much.>> thank you, alderman pootmans.alderman keating. >> i'm reminded about a time wewere talking about improvementsto transportation, and i was
drawn between practices forsavings and again approvinganother budget process, and i was also worried at the sametime in this that it was kind ofa pivotal moment within our collaborative council on howwe're going to go down this pathand i respect both sides of the art, and i am concerned about --argument and i am concernedabout the risks, and putting all the eggs in one basket.but i need a coupleclarifications, i guess. when we look at further drawingsor other projects, it's myunderstanding, mr. logan, that this will only happen if we seeno savings in nov negotiations,rif the contingencies are not needed -- are not realized iguess is the better question.>> your worship, yes, i think that's a fair comment, and iwelcome any and all questionsthat we can offer to clarify
unknowns so you can make thebest decision possible, but inthis particular case we are carrying contingents in ourcontingents, which is as big ifnot slightly greater than the gap, and i suspect we'll have touse a portion of those, and yes,you are correct that the range of potential numbers negotiatingwith the airport authority couldwork in our favour, it could work against us.that's one of the risks wehaven't been able to nail down. >> thank you.i mean, the risks are there, andwe have to move on. i have been quoted as beingundecided and in favour, andundecided and in favour, and that's how i've gone down thepath.i'll blame mr. logan for making my mind up and i'll quoteyou somewhat, and it said we arebuilding an infrastructure
before the problem exists,rather than after the problemexists, and i really truly believe that's a change inpractice.where we are looking at something and saying, we'regoing to need it, we're going tosave by doing it now, the unfortunate part is, as we wishit were under differentcircumstances so that it would make us more comfortable, but onthat basis i'll be supportingthe motion. >> thank you alderman keating.alderman macleod.>> thank you, i see we're down to two lights after this, soi'll make this very short.>> and me, and me. >> and an amendment, oh, goodheavens.i got an email this morning about the tunnel and a friend ofmine and it said think big, actbold, it wasn't quite where i
was going, but i do they in somerespects, this is a leadershipissue. i think that we're asked ascouncil members to make the bestpossible decisions that we can with the information that wehave available.so what -- many of the points i was going to make have alreadybeen made and i'm not going torepeat them, but i did approach this with an open mind.there were a lot of good pointsmade on both sides of the argument.one of my thinking big thingswas the lrt, and it very much appears to be an after thoughtin the equation here.there's no money for the cars, there's no money for the tracks.there's space, but no lrt.perhaps a bus. but that has always been the bigfactor for me, and i guess if ihad seen transit as a priority,
i might think a bit differentlyabout it.another point that stuck with me is more of the same.we in many ways appear to bestarving the future by spending today, and it's all aboutaccommodating cars.we really -- we don't -- when we spend this much money, we don'tleave ourselves a lot of roomfor contingencies, and the other piece of that is that we don'treally know what prioritieswe're setting aside, when we put the money towards theunderpast, the tunnel.you say what is the cost. the equation to me is what isare we giving up and we don'tknow what the answer to that is. we haven't seen the tips list.we do know we're spending mostof the money that we have until 2018, so we really can't eventhink about going forward, andon that same theme, i mean, for
the southeast rec centres, well,the four rec centres, we'retalking about p3s, i don't know if the financing costs forthe p3 factors into all this,how it's going to impact that, but i do know we didn't haveenough latitude for those reccentres to build them with our own money, yet now we seem tohave enough for an airporttunnel, and these are the cost payoff things in my mind.the other point that has notbeen mentioned is the airport authority, while it's not amoney-making enterprise, it is acommercial enterprise with the ability to attract revenue, andany other organization thatcomes to us that wants roads, pays for roads, and i don'tunderstand why -- well, i guessi do. the airport is quite happy ifwe'll pay for it all, but itwould seem to me if we're not
contributing, if there's nofinancial contribution from theairport, then they can't be all that concerned about it, andthat's -- that becomes a problemfor me. i think that we're buildingroads to accommodate anorganization that is growing, growing to meet the needs of thecity, albeit, but i don't seethis as a social issue. i don't see it as something thatshould be entirely taxpayer --funded by the taxpayer. i see it more as a financialdecision, and i'm -- the math isnot working for me when the airport won't contribute, andnot only won't contribute, butwants us to contribute or to consider compensating them forputting in a road to theirfacility. that to me is just completelybackwards.and for those reasons i'm not
going to support this.thank you.>> thank you, alderman macleod.alderman demong.>> mr. logan, i'm particularly keen about sole sourcing andsingle sourcing, and any timesomebody brings it up, makes me lose a few more hairs, which youcan tell is a very dangerousthing for me. the sole sourcing you mentioned,and the company being solesourced, to your knowledge would the airport authority have putthis contract up for tender whenthey received the contract from them?>> your worship, just i guessfor clarity, the airport authority did tender out this --the construction managementcontract. they went through a procurementprocess that i believe took ayear if not more when they
selected pcl parsons dufferin.>> would you characterize thisas sole sourcing from more our point of view or trusting thehomework from another entity.>> your worship, i would characterize this as -- we hadto balance off using a singlesource. the benefits of doing thatversus the potential cost ofgetting a better price if we went to the market.and my advice to counsel is thati believe -- council is i believe the benefit we gain byusing the same constructionmanager outweighs the potential cost savings we might get bygoing to the market.>> i wanted to ask some more questions, but i can't for thelife of me think of any othersthat haven't been asked at least twice here tonight.thank you.there's no question this is a
great deal of money, colleaguesand there are risks, many ofthem. we have to start planning forgrowth, as alderman pootmanssaid, rather than acting to it. maybe it was alderman keating.you guys interchangeable, right.i too at the campaign was hit at the doors many times withregards to the tunnel.i was already leaning towards it, because i for the most partwould like to see an lrt get tothe airport. i think it's an integral part.while i'm campaigning, thecandidates out in ward -- the voters out in ward 14 weresuggesting they were in favourit. i actually commissioned a pollin my ward, and i wanted toconfirm that this is what -- that they still wanted this.the results for me were reallyquite surprising.
just as alderman pootmans, therewere 1170 in favour, 650against. now, in ward 14, one of thefarthest away from the airporttunnel to be voting 2 to 1 in favour of that is amazing, asfar as i'm concerned and kudosto them. we've got -- we've got our ownconcerns out in the southeast.we've got the southeast lrt, deerfoot, we'd like afunctioning interchange at 22x,but the ward 14 is willing to say, this is a choice, they seethe benefits of this, and theysee this as choice the city needs to make.and for these reasons, i'mcertainly going to be voting for it.thank you.>> thanks alderman demong, alderman carra, i feel likeyou've spoken on this, but thatmight have been the amendment.
>> it was the amendment.i'm going to try and be brief.>> alderman carra, i have yet to speak, so -->> i knocked on close to 20.000doors, and everyone had an opinion on the airport and itwas overwhelmingly.i think i can count on one hand the people who do not supportthe airport tunnel.we have received tremendous feedback through my office, andit is 90% in favour of thetunnel. and that's my ward andcity-wide.our job, and i mean, personally, i have been a major advocate ofconnecting lrt to the airportfor years now. i used to tease john hubble, andneil mckendrick, every time isaw him. have you drawn that line yet.and i'm talking about thenortheast lrt to touch the
airport and they're like, ahh.we have to do it, and there's noother way to do it. i think this keeps a vital dooropen, i'm sorry it's come downto a do or die moment. i'm a huge advocate of the factthat we are building way moreinfrastructure than we have tax paying structure to support it,and we have to fundamentallychange our approach to growth, but this is something we need aswe move forward.i've been to airports all over the world, and the ones that arerobust, multimodal hubs are onesthat have successful cities and regions as we move into thefuture, so i will be supportingthis, and i wish the terms were less dire, and i wish it wasn'tsuch a crisis.but i'm behind calgary, and vice versus.>> thank you, alderman carra.alderman lowe.
thank you.>> thank you very much, iactually will be brief i think we've heard a lot today.and i want to finish where istarted meaning i want to thanks administration.if you had told me when i firststarted this job that quote/unquote bureaucrats, andespecially the people from thecity's solicitor's office could be so flexible in their thinkingand working to move this stuffforward, i'm not sure if i would have believed you, and ouradministrations that doneyeoman's work, i've been proud of what they've been able toaccomplish in such a shortperiod of time. and i want to thank all mycolleagues around this table.you know, there was kind of a silly article in the newspaper,having an issue at council maymean that council can't work
together anymore, i don't thinkanyone intended that to be themeaning, and i don't think that's true at all and i've saidfrom the beginning, occasionallywe'll have 15-0 votes, sometimes 10-5, and yeah, sometimes 8-7and regardless of how thingsturn out today, as alderman lowe standing in this spot oh, anhour ago said, this is not areferendum on anyone. i really want to thank all of mycolleagues for being people ofprinciple, for talkling this -- tackling this and for askingreally tough questions, becausewe should ask tough questions, on an issue so important to ourcity.i want to thank you all, regardless of what issue youfind yourself on.my point of view on this is perhaps well known.i do believe that this is avital transportation link.
i do believe we need to moveforward on it, and i believedthat for a long time. and i too in my travels aroundthe city have heard a lot.and i wouldn't say it's 98%, alderman pootmans in favour, butit's extraordinarily high, and ihad the great great privilege of travelling the length and widthand breadth of this see andfound it remarkable, no matter where i was, i remember a forumostensibly where everyone wantedto talk about the airport underpass, it was a tunnel then.and, you know, the remarkablehow people in the city came together and said i think thatthat really matters and i wasreading in the newspaper someone was concerned that the fly overserving his own business mightbe delayed, but mr. logan said it woken be delayed -- won't bedelayed at all, and he said youknow something, build the
underpass first, because i canwait.calgarians have showed a remarkable generosity of spiritin all this.and the motion before us today is a good example of creativethinking of how to do this.should all of the financing go through.i can't underline enough there'sbeen no impact on the property tax, there's other sources offunding for this, and i thinkthat's a good thing. do i like it?do i like the fast that we'rebeing asked to give a mandate for a negotiation that's not yetcompleted, that we have so muchfuzziness, i don't like it at all.the fact we were able to get tothis flexibility i think is very good.there are a number of risks andi'm concerned about some of th
them.alderman lowe pointed outsomething to me today, which i thought was important, and itrestriction our ability, anexcellent question. i'm concerned a little bit aboutour debt capacity, althoughmr. sawyer has answered that very well, saying we're wellwithin our area.so what this comes down to for me is do we want to take a riskon a project we know we need?and be able to go a little bit outside of our comfort zone inorder to do that, or do we wantto wait for some unspecified future project that we may notknow anything about now and ithink the choice in this one is clear, that it's important forus to move forward.>>> the final thing i want to say before i say it is i want tomake it extremely clear, becausei think this has been reported
poorly, and we have heard alittle bit even around ourdebate today, insofar as -- this is not a referendum on me and itdoesn't matter if you like me ornot, we'll vote on the issues here, this is not the mayor'sproposal.you know, this is certainly a proposal that i askedadministration, as i alwayshave, from the first day i met with the alt, to take the datayou've got and give us your bestpossible recommendation. it's then council's job to applya political filter and determinewhether or not to accept that recommendation, and i think thisis precisely what we've had, soassertions about, you know, was this truly abiased report ithink are unfair, because weasked administration to answer a very simple question.how much is it actually going tocost to build this and what
would the cost to the citizensof calgary be if we don't buildit. and that's the answer that wegot back.and i'm very confident the answer we got back is preciselywhat's in the report.it costs more not to move forward than to move forwardwith this project.and that answers a lot of the questions arrange here.is there a need for it?what do we do if we don't build it.to me it's straightforward thatwe need to move forward with this project now.i thank administration, and allof you, and i hope you'll be able to support this.>> alderman stevenson to close.>> thank you, your worship. i want to address a couple ofthings that were brought outhere.
one was safety issues that werebrought up, and in the researchover the last three years with airports with tunnels andbelieve me, there are a lotstill being built around the world, even after 911, butatlanta is a great example thatyou see in there that is 8 lanes, and it's set up toaccommodate 18 lanes.it's not something that's on the radar for canada or theunited states to change.the other thing that was mentioned was accommodatingcars.there was quite a bit about accommodating cars, we have toalso understand that we need toaccommodate trucks. this is -- the airport is builtin the middle of a -- one of thethree main employment hubs in calgary, and it will be a hometo nearly 100.000 people in thenext 30, 40 years as far as
jobs, and that means a lot oftrucks that are going to berunning around there. i want to mention something thatwas brought up about the cost ofthe variance and the cost of the tunnel, but really what, we'vebeen saying what i've beensaying and the group has been saying all along is exactly whatthe cost is coming out at.it's 198 million, including 38.3 million in contingency to buildthe tunnel and the road.and that's exactlywa we've been say -- exactlywa we've beensaying.of course there's people out there saying 500 million, 800million and so on, but there wasone quote that came in at 40 million for 250 metres.that means it would be around100 million for the length of this tunnel.the concern that i have also isthe depleting, but i ask council
to think about the fact if thishadn't been brought to council'sattention, when the city was first notified about it in theearly months, the first quarterof 2007, then you would have listen looking at -- looking atputting out a tips list, becausei'm sure the council of that day say would have said hold it,before we spend a billiondollars on the west lrt, maybe we need to put something back toput this on the tip list, so itshould have been there. and by the way, members ofcouncil, when we're looking atthe costing and spending all the money and everything, there areoptions like the toll, theacreage assessment, province, feds, charges for utility, weheard mr. logan say that thatwasn't considered because they have to go through there, so allof these things are things thatcould be money coming in.
i want to say a particular thankyou to all the hotel people, thebusiness people, the community associations that have worked sohard to make this an issue, andi got to say, that this is not hype.this is something that is realto the people who live in that area and are affected and theirbusinesses are affected.it's not someone selling a time share.this is something that's urgentand needed and needed now. i also want to say thank you tofellow members of council, andto the mayor. there's some of you, somemembers of council that havebeen with me on this thing from day one, and working and helpingto put this forward, and i gotto say that mayor nenshi has really put so much into this,and worked so hard with all ofthe members of the
administration and the -- theteam of gms have done anunbelievable job, and i just have to say thank you for whatyou've done.and the thing that i had said from day one on this, for thelast three years, is thiscouncil has a chance for us to plan for growth instead ofwaiting and reacting to growth,and i'd like to ask for your support on this and i'd like toask for a recorded vote.>> thank you very much. on the recommendations asamended, a recorded vote, pleaplease. >> on the record ready vote,alderman mar against, aldermanhodges against, alderman ferrell against, alderman carrar for,alderman chabot for, aldermandemong for, alderman mcleod against, mayor nenshi for,alderman pootmans for, aldermankeating for, alderman stevenson
for, alderman jones for,alderman pincott against, deputymayor lowe against. it's carried your worship, 8-7.>> recess.>> the mayor has to take the chair.>> let's take a motion to recessuntil 1 p.m. tomorrow -- oh, sorry.>> mayor naheed nenshi: wejust need to do the burrowing bylaw which was embedded inthis, so on the burrowing bylaw,i don't have the number in front of me.1b-2011, first reading of thebylaw. opposed.>> opposed.>> call the roll, please. same division?same division.>> mayor naheed nenshi: sorry, agree to same division?agreed?very well.
>> recess, your worship.>> mayor naheed nenshi:motion to recess until 1 p.m. tomorrow, seconded, agreed?thank you all.disclaimer: the city of calgary hacaptions sprovided as a communicationaccessibility measure and is not intended as a verbatimtranscript of the proceedings.if inaccuracies occur, it may be due to human error, technicaldifficulties, or an inability onthe part of the writer to hear or understand what is beingsaid.while best efforts are made to document as closely as possiblewhat is being said, the captionscannot be relied upon as a certified accurate record of the proceedings.
No comments:
Post a Comment