Mayor: "Is everyone clear on the question". Several aldermen: "No!"

Ald. Mar: "It's somewhat murky here." Mayor: "Murky began months ago."

1. Expect a council policy to allow an outside group determine ward boundaries in the future, so council won't get their fingers in the pie and make a mess of things like this again. This is pretty much exactly what they have done for determining their salaries and I think it has worked well. Ald. Farrell tried to pass a motion to this effect last night but as several members of council didn't like her wording and 9:30pm was fast approaching, it was referred to administration to wordsmith and come back with a proposal in September.
2. The next major redistricting - which normally happens every nine years (2010 being the ninth year) - will probably happen in time for 2013 now. With more time available between now and then I fully expect council to explore the possibilities of increasing the number of aldermen to created a more fair balance of representation. And a more manageable workload. You can read my thoughts on this topic here.
   

Subject: [All-staff-l] Budget Update from the President

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

Budget Update

July 14, 2009

We are now about three months into the 2009-2010 fiscal year. This period has allowed us to appreciate fully our financial situation at the end of the 2008-2009 fiscal year and to evaluate the reasonableness of some of the assumptions we made in constructing the 2009-2010 budget.

We ended 2008-2009 with a $14.3-million deficit. In fact, because of the financial prudence exhibited by the University community, we actually spent $4.5 million less in university operations in 2008-2009 than we anticipated. So, where did the deficit come from? It stemmed primarily from the fact that we continued to fund the various activities supported by the University endowments—things like undergraduate and graduate scholarships and bursaries, salary support for professors, equipment and facilities upkeep—even though, as a result of poor market performance, the return on endowment funds did not provide sufficient monies to underwrite these expenses. This resulted in an additional $19 million charge on our operating fund.

What does this mean for our 2009-2010 budgets, the fiscal year we are currently in? As we have indicated in other budget messages, the first charge on our 2009-2010 budget is the $14.3 million needed to cover the previous year’s deficit. In addition, though, the 2009-2010 budget will also be adversely affected by the increase in the deficit in the Universities Academic Pension Plan (UAPP), itself a victim of poor market performance. This will result in the U of C having an additional $8 million expense to cover the UAPP liability in 2009-2010.

One way that we are mitigating these financial hits, as indicated in previous messages, is that the University is increasing enrolment in a planned and strategic way. Hitting our enrolment targets is key to our financial sustainability and will also help off-set the anticipated zero-percent base increases from the Province of Alberta in the years ahead. Notwithstanding the enrolment increase, the University is in a situation where we must make difficult decisions to ensure that we produce a balanced budget in 2009-2010 and into the future—something mandated by the province and the Board of Governors.

To balance the budget and also to continue to live up to the commitment to fund envelope carryovers, we are pursuing several strategic initiatives. First, we have reduced the 2009-2010 budget allocations by an average of three percent for all units and Faculties. This means continuing budget adjustments by Deans and other budget managers, but this is the reality of the dynamics of budgeting and resource allocation.

Second, as we have indicated in previous messages, a significant portion of the University budget, approximately 60 percent, pays for the salaries and benefits of our employees. Given this reality, there is simply no possibility of ensuring that a balanced budget, once achieved, is sustainable unless we reduce our number of support and academic staff. I anticipate that we will need to reduce our staff complement by up to 200 people by the fall of this year. There is likely to be additional staff and faculty reductions in the future. The number is not known now, but will depend on a whole set of factors such as future government grants, tuition levels, endowment performance and salary and benefit settlements.

No one makes a decision like this lightly, even knowing that the staff complement at the U of C is greater on a per student basis than our comparator G13 universities. The University will reduce its staff complement in as transparent and supportive manner as possible. Senior leadership, as well as your deans, department heads and managers, will share information as it becomes available and work to ensure that you are all informed about the reductions and the plans for your particular units and Faculties.

Third, we are vigorously pursuing the iS² Project to improve our support service delivery and to reduce operating expenses strategically with as little impact on operations as possible. Projects like iS²allow us to make differential, strategic choices rather than just applying an across the board cost reduction strategy. This project will help the University improve its business processes and internal controls and also reduce expenditures through initiatives such as standardization of service levels and preferred buying arrangements.

I wish that the budget news was better, but it is not. You will continue to hear from us regularly about initiatives—such as iS², capital projects like the co-gen facility that reduce utility costs and strategic enrolment increases—that reduce University costs and increase revenue, and in some cases allow us to deliver the University’s mission more efficiently than we did before.

Thanks for reading.

Harvey P. Weingarten

President

WHEREAS the Plan-It project has produced a visionary document which will establish the "blueprint" for growth and transportation for the next 60 years with an impact on our city that cannot be understated;

AND WHEREAS the assumptions in the Plan-It document suggest a significant change in consumer and commuting behaviors which may or may not occur;

AND WHEREAS the measure outlined in the Plan-It document were seen to be too prescriptive and, in some cases, impossible to achieve;

AND WHEREAS given the challenges of predicting the future, a prudent and cautious approach to the Plan-It strategy should be employed.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the measures being prescribed in the Plan-It document be removed and be developed in the implementation phase of the project.

AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that a committee of industry stakeholders be struck to determine by consensus, measures that can realistically be achieved together with an implementation strategy and make recommendations to Council through the Standing Policy Committee on Land Use Planning and Transportation by 2009 December 09.

1. I agree with Ald. Connelly, we need to get the targets right. This is an important document that helps set out the future of our city. I don’t think anyone wants to delay it any longer than need be. Let’s get on with the process of ‘doing’ already.
2. After more than a year of public consultation (where hundreds of citizens provided their feedback) and a week of public hearings (where almost 200 people signed up to speak to council in the middle of a work day) what more could anyone possibly have to say? If that is not enough time for them to have had their say, how much time would ever be enough?
3. If the development industry did not feel they were given a voice, shouldn’t every other citizen be in the same boat? Why create a panel represented by only one industry? I believe it was Ald. Farrell who said during the hearings that if a panel absolutely had to be struck – thereby admitting the consultation the City has undertaken for the past year was not good enough and that one group of citizens IS more important than another – then there were several developers on the pro-side (such as the developer of Garrison Woods) and many other intelligent citizens (such as Chris Turner and Neil Keough) with exceeding knowledge of such things, who would have a lot to add to that discussion and should be included on the panel.

That with respect to Report CPC2009-082, the Proposed Amendments and Motions Arising to the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) and the Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP) be referred to the Administration for a report back to Council no later than 2009 December:

Alderman Ceci

Appendix F - Transportation Maps, that Map 7 Road and Street Network, in the Calgary Transportation Plan and Part 7 - Maps, Map 4 Road and Street Network in the MDP, be amended by reclassifying 61st Avenue S (between MacLeod Trail and Centre Street) as an Urban Boulevard, in order to align with the Chinook Station Area Plan approved June 2008.

Alderman Chabot

1. In the MDP, Part 7 - Maps, Map 1 Urban Structure be amended in the legend, under "developing" to add a new category entitled "Planned Greenfield with Regional Policy Plan (RPP) or Regional Context Study (RCS)" to reflect previously approved regional policy plans or regional context studies following the category "Unplanned Greenfield".

2. In the MDP, Part 7 - Maps, Map 2 Growth and Change in the Municipal Development Plan by deleting the Map in its entirety and by renumbering the maps accordingly.

3. In the MDP, Section 3.3.4, Neighbourhood Activity Centres, Land use policies, page 78 be amended by deleting letter e in its entirety and by re-lettering the sections accordingly.

4. In the MDP, Section 3.4.3, Neighbourhood Corridors, Land use policies, page 83 be amended by deleting letter g in its entirety and by re-lettering the sections accordingly.

5. In the MDP, Section 3.5.1, General Developed Residential Area Policies, page 84, paragraph one, be amended by adding the words "unless prohibited by provincial or federal legislation" following the words "Development Residential Areas".

6. In the MDP, Section 3.6.2, Land use policies, page 89, letter c be amended by deleting the word "gross" following the words "70 people per" and substituting with the word "net".

7. In the MDP, Section Amend 2.2.1 Vibrant, transit-supportive, mixed-use Activity Centres and Corridors, Policies, page 20, letter a be amended by adding the words "in established neighbourhoods" following the words "Direct a greater share of new growth".

8. In the MDP, Section Under 2.2.4 Complete communities, page 25, paragraph one be amended, by adding the words "that is respectful of adjacent communities and provides transitional development." following the words "compact urban form".

9. In the MDP, Section 3.7.1 Standard Industrial Area, page 91, letter d be amended, by adding the words "uses in industrial areas" following the words "stand alone office".

10. In the MDP, Section 2.3.1 Housing, paragraph three, last sentence, page 31 be amended, by deleting the word "can" following the words "variety of housing choices" and by substituting the word "may".

11. In the MDP, Section 5.2.7 Public accountability, page 109, Policies, letter a, be amended by deleting roman numerals " i.-viiii." in their entirety and by substituting with the following:

"i. Planned land supply

ii. Efficient utility servicing

iii. Suitable transportation capacity

iv. Strategic planning objectives

v. Financial impact of infrastructure and operating costs to the city

vi. Landowner interest"

13. In the MDP, Section 5.2.7 Public accountability, page 109, Policies be amended by deleting letter b in its entirety and by substituting with the following:

"b. Upon adoption of a new Local Area Plan, all relevant maps in both the MDP and CTP must be updated.".

14. That the proposed MDP and CTP be referred back to the Administration to make these plans more consistent with the land use and transportation plans recently adopted as part of the East Regional Context Study.

15. Direct Administration to delete the reference made on Map 2 of the MDP which would seem to require an unnecessary amendment to the Municipal Development Plan, just to start an Area Structure Plan for the 17th Avenue SE corridor and Area Structure Plan, for which Council established a commencement date after there is a new financing arrangement between the City and the land development industry.

16. In the MDP, Section 3.4 Corridors, Land Use Policies, Pages 79-83 be amended to create opportunities for large format retail which would include parking requirements necessary for these larger format retail stores.

17. Direct Administration to differentiate between what should be included in the Bylaw and what should form part of the policy document, example targets in policy.

18. Direct administration to work with the land development industry to ensure proposed targets and thresholds will be interpreted in such a way as to enable the Belvedere landowners to create a smart-growth, sustainable, transit-oriented, complete community, as envisioned by the Belvedere landowners within the 17th avenue corridor, which can be implemented and successfully marketed to Calgarians over the next 5 - 10 years.

Alderman Colley-Urquhart

1. That Policy 3.3.2 Major Activity Centres, 3.3.3 Community Activity Centres, and 3.4.2 Urban Corridors be referred back to Administration for further consultation with the Development Industry.

2. Direct Administration, in consultation with the building and development industry, to report back to Council on what the minimum thresholds and requirements for all activity centres (Major, Community and Neighbourhood) and Corridors (Urban and Neighbourhood) will be. The report should include but not be limited to making recommendations on appropriate ranges, and identifying mechanisms to allow for the intensification of these areas.

3. Direct Administration to report back to Council on what amendments would be required to the Land Use Bylaw and what the implications of these amendments would be.

4. Direct Administration to report back to Council on what changes would need to be made to Development Appeal Board to accommodate Plan It and Land Use Bylaw amendments.

Alderman Connelly

1. WHEREAS the City needs to be efficient in managing its costs in relation to operating and maintenance costs; and

WHEREAS a review of current City standards and specifications for infrastructure to find cost savings where possible would benefit the parties involved in the provision and maintenance of servicing and road infrastructure;

THEREFORE it is moved that the City will conduct a detailed review of City standards with the development industry to reduce specifications where possible, reducing the use of resources towards capital replacement and future maintenance.

2. WHEREAS the policies identified under section 2.6.4 Ecological Networking may be counterproductive toward achieving the objectives of compact design as contemplated by the Municipal Development Plan; and

WHEREAS no cost analysis has been performed with regard to the policies of section 2.6.4 to determine the cost impact of the maintenance of the infrastructure required to support the policies of section 2.6.4; and

WHEREAS the Policies of 2.6.4 have not been reviewed with the Development Industry;

THEREFORE it is moved that Policy 2.6.4. be referred back to the Administration for further consultation with the Industry to review and address these concerns.

3. WHEREAS Policy 2.6.4 Ecological networks, Policies, Ecological protection a, be read in conjunction with policy 2.3.5 Municipal, school and environmental reserves, Policies, Municipal and school reserves c., which, may result in challenges in the provision of park space in communities;

THEREFORE it is moved that Policy 2.6.4 Watershed Management be deleted from the Municipal Development Plan.

4. WHEREAS Policy 2.6.4 Watershed Management z represents an intrusion of the public sector on private homeowners;

THEREFORE it is moved that Policy 2.6.4 z be deleted from the Municipal Development Plan.

Alderman Fox-Mellway

1. Direct Administration to review the Plan-It document and implement a small joint working group composed of City representatives and representatives from the Building and Development Industry should be struck to find appropriate targets and flexible thresholds to better respond to the desires of both current and future Calgarians. This group should also determine if any proposed directions are in conflict with existing City policy and address interpretation and implementation issues. This group will participate in a joint review of each of the objectives and policies of the MDP and CTP with the goal of reaching consensus, at which point administration will bring the Plans forward to Council, including an implementation strategy, prior to adoption of these Plans.

2. Direct Administration to provide a report to Council detailing the financial implications, capital and operating, of the MDP and CTP based on a sound understanding of how these documents will be interpreted and implemented. This report should include, but not be limited to, providing the required capital and operating costs for the City for each of the 10 year horizons to match the objectives, goals, targets, thresholds and policies of the documents.

Alderman Hodges

Direct Administration to amend the MDP, Section 2.3.4 Parks, Open Spaces and Outdoor Recreation, Policies, letter p, page 39 with respect to ensuring "public access is maintained or improved to major water bodies, where appropriate, including the Bow and Elbow Rivers and Nose Creek", as well as Map 1 of appendix F of the CTP, entitled Primary Cycling Network, wherein line #3 identifies regional multi-use pathway route (both sides of river).

The intent of the amendments would be to recognize that private property exists in some sections of the proposed pathway adjacent to the Bow River in the Community of Bowness, and would affect a number of residential properties in the Community of Montgomery, as well and, as such, alternative pathway alignments should be prepared for inclusion in both the MDP and the CTP which would not require the use or acquisition of private properties.

Alderman Jones

1. In the MDP, Section 2.3.7 Foster community dialogue and participation in community planning, Policies, Community Participation, page 40 be amended by adding a new letter "d." as follows:

"d. Local planning studies will include the necessary resources and timeframes to undertake community planning projects in a manner that is responsible, thorough, transparent and includes participatory community planning and consultation.".

2. In the MDP, Section 2.3.2. Respecting and enhancing neighbourhood character, Policies, page 33 letter d be amended by adding the words "early in the decision making process" following the words "Local Area Plans".

3. Direct Administration to involve community association representatives in discussions of MDP sustainment and implementation, and in the leading sustainment group (e.g. steering committee or similar body), once constituted, along with other stakeholders.

Alderman Lowe

1. In the MDP, Section 2.5.1 Transportation Choice, Objective, page 47, be amended by deleting the objective in its entirety and by substituting with the following:

"Facilitate the movement of goods and services, the effective movement of emergency and urgent services throughout the City while encouraging sustainable modes of transportation (i.e. walking, cycling and transit).".

2. In the MDP, Section 2.6.5 Energy, page 67, Policies, Energy and Buildings, letter c, be amended by deleting the words "such as LEED or Built Green, Go Green (or an equivalent rating system)" following the words "and management systems".

3. In the MDP, Section 3.3.1 General Activity Centre Policies, page 74, Mobility policies, be amended by moving policies n and k to be added before policies I and j and re-letter the policies accordingly.

4. In the MDP , Section 3.3.4 Neighbourhood Activity Centres, page 78, Land Use policies, be amended by policy letter e in its entirety and re-letter the sections accordingly.

5. In the MDP, Section 5.2.7 Public Accountability, page 109, Policies, letter a, ii, be amended by deleting the words "infrastructure and fiscal" following the words "An assessment of The City's" and by substituting the word "financial".

6. In the MDP, Section 5.2.7 Public Accountability, page 109, Policies, letter a, be amended by adding a new roman numeral "iii" as follows and re-letter the sections accordingly.

"iii. An assessment of the City's infrastructure".

7. In the CTP Section 1.5 Transportation Goals, page 05, Transportation Goal #4, be amended by deleting the words "To reduce automobile dependency," following the words "Make public transit, walking and cycling the preferred mobility choices for more people.".

8. In the CTP Section 1.5 Transportation Goals, page 05, be amended by moving Transportation Goal #5 to be Transportation Goal #1 and renumber the sections accordingly.

9. In the CTP Section 1.5 Transportation Goals, page 05, Transportation Goal #4, be amended by deleting the words "To reduce automobile dependency, "following the words "Make public transit, walking and cycling the preferred mobility choices for more people.".

10. In the CTP Section 3.1 Transportation Choice, Objective, page 9, be amended by deleting the objective it in its entirety and substituting with the following:

"Objective Maintain automobile, commercial goods and emergency vehicle mobility in Calgary while placing increased on sustainable modes of transportation (walking, cycling and transit).".

11. In the CTP Section 3.3 Transit, page 21, New river crossings, be amended by deleting the second sentence "These connections would be for exclusive use by transit, pedestrians, cyclists and emergency services." and by deleting word "dedicated" following the word "These".

12. In the CTP, Section 3.4 Goods Movement, page 27, Truck, Policies, letter e, be amended by adding the word "existing" following the words "and expansion of" and by deleting the word "should" following the words "within city limits" and by substituting the word "must".

13. In the CTP, Section 3.6 Quality of Service, page 35, Policies, letter d, be amended by deleting the word "should" following the words "transportation system" and by substituting the word "must".

14. In the CTP, Section 3.7 Complete Streets, page 43, Policies, Planning, design and maintenance of Complete Streets, letter b, be amended by deleting the word "and" following the words "pedestrians, cyclists" and by adding the words "and the movement of goods and services" following the word "transit".

15. In the CTP, Section 3.10 Transportation Safety, page 51, Policies, letter b, be amended by deleting the word "should" following the words "transportation system" and by substituting the word "must".

16. In the CTP, Appendix B Principles and Design Considerations for River Crossings, page 65, paragraph six, be amended by deleting the word "may" following the words "transit and pathway systems" and by substituting the word "will".

17. In the CTP, Appendix D Connectivity Handbook, page 94, Access to regional street system, letter g, be amended by adding the following "All temporary and permanent access points should also be designed to serve as emergency evacuation routes." following the words "two full access points are not practical.".

Alderman Mar

1. Direct Administration to amend the MDP and the CTP to explicitly address the fundamental differences between urbanism and sub urbanism in order to permit successful development, redevelopment and management of both of these development patterns within the City of Calgary throughout the life of the Plan It Calgary Plan.

2. Direct Administration to create an Implementation Team consisting of City Staff and the Development industry to address specific threshold implementation and interpretation concerns as identified by the development industry.

3. Direct Administration to refer the population targets and density thresholds to Administration for further consultation with the development industry, including but not limited to Urban Development Institute and the Canadian Home Builders Association with the intent that the targets and thresholds reflect the projected "Maintenance Rate Scenario" as per the geo-demographic predictions of the Baxter Study.

4. Direct Administration to prepare, as part of the Plan It Calgary implementation plan, detailed maps that reflect areas of intensification that would affect developed communities, with particular attention, but not limited to, area surrounding Transit Orientated Development sites and Traffic Corridors.

Alderman McIver

1. In the MTP, Section 1.5 Review of the MDP, page 9, first paragraph, be amended by adding the words "are long term and" following the words "Core Indicators of the MDP (Part 5)" and by adding a new sentence "Meeting these goals is intended to be done on a city-wide basis and will not be completely burdened onto each individual ASP, ARP, RCS or Land Use application as it comes forward." following the words "Calgarians and Council on three-year cycle.".

2. In the MTP, Section 1.7 Interpreting the MDP, page 10, third paragraph, be amended by adding the word "reasonable" following the words "be interpreted to mean that every" and by deleting the words "unless it can be demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Approving Authority, that the policy could be achieved in another manner." following the words "effort is to be taken to enact the policy".

3. In the MDP, Section 1.7 Interpreting the MDP, page 10, be amended by adding a new paragraph four as follows:

"In other cases, the policy is meant to be a guideline which will require judgment to be exercised. In these cases, the words should, may or might are used.".

4. In the MDP Section 2.1.2 Creating a city attractive to business, page 15, Policies, Supporting manufacturing and industrial businesses, letter n, be amended by deleting the word "industrial" following the words "and developable land for" and by substituting with the word "residential".

5. In the MDP, Section 2.1.2 Creating a city attractive to business, page 15, Policies, Supporting business and investment, be amended by deleting letter c in its entirety and by re-lettering the sections on page 15 accordingly.

6. In the Municipal Development Plan, under Section 2.1.1 Creating a city attractive to people page 14, Policies, be amended by adding a new letter g as follows:

g. Ensure the availability of competitively priced, easily serviceable and developable land for residential purposes; including providing opportunities for brownfield redevelopment.

7. In the MDP, Section 2.1.4 Ensuring sustainable municipal finances page 17, Policies, letter c, be amended by adding the words "market conditions" following the words "infrastructure requirements".

8. In the MDP, Section 2.5.3 Complete streets, page 51, Policy, letter a, be amended by adding the words "-as amended from time to time." following the words "contained in Part 3 of the CTP".

9. In the MDP, Section 2.5.4 Local transportation connectivity, page 51, Policy, letter a, be amended by deleting the words "must be assessed according to the connectivity policies contained in the CTP" following the words "Unplanned Greenfield developments" and substituting with the words "should aspire to the highest connectivity reasonable.".

10. In the MDP, Section 2.6.2, Land, page 55, Objective, be amended by deleting the Objective in its entirety and substituting with the following "Strongly encourage that any land taken from undeveloped areas and placed in permanent use for any purpose is done in a way that is contiguous to existing development and is an improvement on the value of the undeveloped land as an asset to the environment, the economy or the quality of life of Calgarians".

11. In the MDP, Section 2.6.2 Land, Policies page 55, letter b, be amended by deleting the words "seek to retain greater amounts of" following the words "Designs for new communities should" and substituting with the word "evaluate" and by deleting the words "in order to create more compact communities, increase" following the words "undisturbed land" and substitute with the words "to keep those areas undisturbed that have the highest value in regard to increased" and by adding the words "and opportunities to create more compact communities." following the words "improve water quality".

12. In the MDP, Section 3.2 Centre City, page 71, Land use policies letter a subsection I, be amended by deleting letter "i" in its entirety and by substituting with the following "Encourage all districts for business and employment while maintaining the Downtown as the largest.".

13. In the MDP, Section 3.3 Activity Centres, page 73, be amended in Table 3.3 with an over riding statement: "Intensity required of activity centres must be set location by location in consideration of the actual opportunities available for development.

14. In the MDP, Section 3.3.1 General Activity Centre Policies, page 74, Mobility policies, letter n, be amended by deleting the words "locally-destined" following the words "loading and unloading of".

15. In the MDP, Section 3.3.2 Major Activity Centres, page 75, letter b, be amended by deleting letter b it in its entirety and by substituting with the following:

"MAC's should aspire to an intensity target of 200 jobs and population per gross developable acre to be met over time as opportunities permit and market conditions allow.".

16. In the MDP, Section 3.4 Corridors, page 79, be amended in Table 3.4 with an over riding statement: "Intensity required of corridors must be set location by location in consideration of the actual opportunities available for development.".

17. In the MDP, Section 3.4.1 General Corridors, Land Use Policies, page 80 letter e, be amended by deleting all size limits referenced this paragraph.

18. In the MDP, Section 3.4.1 General Corridor Policies, page 80, Mobility Policies, be amended by deleting letter m in its entirety and substitute with the following "Alternatives to parking in front of stores should be considered.".

19. In the MDP, Section 3.4.1 General Corridor Policies, page 81, Public realm polices, letter r, be amended by adding the words "Where practical" following the words "onto public sidewalks on the north side of the street.".

20. In the MDP, Section 3.6.2 Unplanned Greenfield Area, page 89, Land use polices letter c, be amended by deleting the words "70 people per gross developable hectare" following the words "should achieve a minimum intensity of" and substitute with the words "net developable acre".

21. In the MDP, Section 3.6.2 Unplanned Greenfield Area, Land use polices, page 89, letter e, be amended by deleting "1.5 km" following the words "located a minimum" and substitute with "500 m".

22. In the MDP, Section 3.7.2 Industrial-Employee Intensive, page 92, Land use polices, letter a, be amended by deleting the word "minimum" following the words "should achieve a" and substitute with the word "target".

23. In the MDP, Section 3.7.3 Greenfield Industrial Area, page 94, Mobility polices, letter k, be amended by deleting the word "shall" following the word "Sidewalks" and substitute with the word "should".

24. In the MDP, Section 5.2 A Strategic Framework for Growth and Change, page 105, paragraph two, be amended by adding the words "In consultation with stakeholders from the public, industry partners and available experts" following the words "and Directors Sub-Committee" and by adding the words "A terms of reference and membership list for GMSGC will be presented to City Council for approval within 3 months of the approval of the new MDP and CTP." following the words "Regional Context Studies and information on the City's infrastructure and fiscal capacity for growth.".

25. In the MDP, Section 5.2.2 Strategic decisions, page 105, end of second paragraph, be amended by adding the words, "The goals in Figure 5.2 are city wide and are considered aspirational and an example of what may be achieved over a medium or long period of time as area mature. These goals should not be applied to a specific RCS, ASP, ARP or Land Use but should be considered in the city wide context." following the words "orders of government, the public and stakeholders.".

26. In the MDP, Section 5.2.2 Strategic decisions, page 106, Policies, letter b, be amended by adding the word "across all sectors" following the words "supply".

27. In the MDP, Section 5.2.2 Strategic decisions, Policies, page 106, letter e, be amended by deleting the word "must" following the words "and investment decisions" and substitute with the word "should".

28. In the MDP, Section 5.2.3 Planned land supply, page 106, Policies, letter a, be amended by deleting the words "Endeavour to" at the beginning of the sentence.

29. In the MDP, under Section 5. 3 Monitoring and reporting, page 110, Policy, by adding a new letter b as follows:

"b. The goals in Figure 5.2 are city wide and are considered aspirational and an example of what may be achieved over a medium or long period of time as the MDP changes mature. These goals should not be applied to a single RCS, ASP, ARP or Land Use but should be considered in the city wide context.".

30. In the MDP, Section 5.3 Monitoring and Reporting, Page 111 Figure 5.2, be amended by adding an over riding statement as follows, "The goals in Figure 5.2 are city wide and are considered aspirational and an example of what may be achieved over a medium or long period of time as the areas mature. These goals should not be applied to development applications, RCS, ASP, ARP or Land Use but should be considered in the city wide context.".

31. In the MDP, under Part 6 - Glossary, page 116, be amended following the paragraph low impact development (LID) by adding a new definition of "market conditions".

32. Direct Administration to review the setbacks to the Sheppard Landfill on the map(s) in Plan It Calgary to ensure no unnecessary encroachment on surrounding property.

33. In the MDP, Section 4.1.1 Retail Structure, Pages 95 and 96, be referred to the Administration to make them less prescriptive in consultation with industry stakeholders.

34. In the MDP, Section 4.1.2 Retail Categories, Pages 97 and 98, be referred to the Administration to make them less prescriptive in consultation with industry stakeholders.

35. In the MDP, Section 2.6.3 Water on page 58, a to f, be referred to the Administration to return to council with an evaluation with how each of these policies can be achieved in co-operation with the development industry.

36. WHEREAS Appendix D is far too detailed to be included as an appendix to the City of Calgary Transportation Plan; and

WHEREAS the Connectivity Handbook will result in a "Plan by Numbers" approach to City Planning; and

WHEREAS the Connectivity Handbook will result in a form of development which is more costly to implement, increases impermeable surface, dedicates more land to roadways, increases maintenance costs and may reduce future opportunities for intensification;

THEREFORE it is moved that Appendix D be removed from the Calgary Transportation Plan, and all policies referring to this appendix be amended accordingly.

That the policy documents be amended to acknowledge that increased connectivity is important in all communities and initiatives should be developed in collaboration with the development industry to promote better connectivity throughout new and redeveloping communities.

37. WHEREAS Appendix C is far too detailed to be appropriate for inclusion as an appendix to the Calgary Transportation plan; and

WHEREAS standards in the Interim Complete Street Guidelines have not been constructed previously in the City of Calgary; and

WHEREAS these standards have not been field-tested nor reviewed with the Development Industry; and

WHEREAS these guidelines are more appropriate at a technical rather than policy level that allows for greater flexibility and adaptability to changing conditions;

Therefore it is moved that Appendix C be removed from the Calgary Transportation Plan, and all policies referring to this appendix be amended accordingly.

That a road and street palette be compiled as a set of guidelines in collaboration with the development industry and the public that provides a range of road and street types that can accommodate all forms of mobility:
walking, cycling, transit, and private vehicle use, goods and services movement and EMS, while supporting adjacent land uses.

Alderman Pincott

1. Direct Administration to amend the CTP to remove specific references to a 50th Ave Elbow River crossing and an Edworthy/Shaganappi Bow River crossing. Textual amendments are to be made in section 3.3 (Transit) New River Crossings, as well as Appendix B of the Calgary

Transportation Plan. The Primary Transit Network and the Primary Cycling Network maps should also be amended to reflect this change.

2. Direct Administration to amend Bylaw 40M2009 to reflect the above changes and remove the two river crossings from Appendix "A" of The City of Calgary Transportation System Map.

3. In the CTP, Section 3.11 Transit Accessibility, page 52, Policies, by adding a new policy c as follows:

"c.The Primary Transit Network, including all vehicles and supporting infrastructure (such as sidewalks and buildings), should be designed and built to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities."

4. Direct Administration to establish a monitoring and reporting mechanism that will include updates to Council on progress toward the targets identified in the Core Indicators for Land Use and Mobility. A multi-stakeholder panel should be convened to review the performance information and provide recommendations to Council on the implications for budget discussions. The reports must be delivered in advance of The City's business planning and budget cycle in order to inform those deliberations. A major review of all targets should occur on a ten year basis as part of the regular policy review.

Alderman Stevenson

Direct Administration to amend the relevant maps and text contained in the proposed Calgary Transportation Plan and Municipal Development Plan (M2009-012) to reflect the appropriate limits and classification of Airport Trail and 96 Avenue N.E.

Proposed Amendments to the Calgary Transportation Plan

1. In the CTP Section 3.1 Transportation Choice, Page 9, be amended by deleting the Objective in its entirety and by substituting with the words "Maintain automobile, commercial goods and emergency vehicle mobility in Calgary while placing increasing emphasis on more sustainable modes of transportation (walking, cycling and transit).".

2. In the CTP, Section 3.4 Goods movement, page 26, paragraph four, be amended by adding the words "Impacts on adjacent municipalities should also be considered." following the words, "The City must balance the need of goods and services movement with the needs of residential communities impacted by truck routes.".

3. In the CTP, Section 3.4 Goods movement, page 27, Policies, be amended by adding a new letter f as follows:

"f. The City should consider the impact of goods movement routes on roadways in adjacent municipalities.".

4. In the CTP under section 3.7, page 43, Policies, be amended by adding a new policy g. as follows and by re-lettering the sections accordingly:

"g. Appropriate transitions for road and street cross-sections should be developed where City infrastructure connects to infrastructure in surrounding municipalities." Also amend all subsequent policy lettering in Section 3.7 as necessary to accommodate insertion of this new policy.".

5. Amend the CTP under Appendix D, page 94, letter g, be amended by adding the words, "All temporary and permanent access points should also be designed to serve as emergency evacuation routes." following the words "two full access points are not practical.".

6. That Council direct Administration to work with industry and all other stakeholders to formulate a strategy to foster a clear understanding of the plan and its policies, as well as the implementation and interpretation of these policies.

As a marketer I find myself often telling clients “if you want to be seen as something, then just be that something.” You don’t need to spend a large amount of money to tell people what they should think of your company if you’ve got a good product. On the other hand, if your product is terrible, it doesn’t matter how much money you throw at the problem – people won’t buy it.

This appears to be exactly the kind of problem the City of Calgary may be facing in Plan It.

For those who are unfamiliar, Plan It is perhaps the most important policy document the City of Calgary has created in many years. It consists of two documents, the Calgary Transportation Plan and the Municipal Development Plan, that set out the vision for how the city will grow over the next 60 years and 1.3 million residents.

Housing developers and their lobby organizations are coming out of the woodwork to denounce Plan It’s goal of increasing housing density and generally not allowing them to build the kinds of suburban developments they have gotten so good at producing for over half a century. And who can blame them?

Nobody likes to be forced to fundamentally change their business model when their current one is so profitable and highly sought after. Assuming Plan It is approved, its success or failure will be based on its ability to change the public attitude toward these kinds of developments. If the public winds up preferring to live in smaller homes or closer to their place of work, more walkable communities or near transit, the homebuilders that adapt to this change will be the ones that succeed the most.

I have no doubt public attitudes will shift in this direction eventually. This is not the hill Plan It could die on however – despite the development industry’s request that it does. The good news – or bad news as the case may be – is that the success of Plan It will fall directly on the shoulders of the City of Calgary and how the plan is implemented.

Calgary City Council has done a very good job over the years looking down the road and helping set a vision for the city’s future in motion. Plan after policy after plan have been enacted, but clearly the citizens of Calgary feel unaffected for the most part by these plans and policies: urban sprawl has continued, there are constant complaints about transit usefulness, and despite a great pathway system biking to work has not caught on in a big way.

Why?

The answer is simple: you can’t just say you are something, you have to be that something.

Plan It lays out what we want to be. But we’ve had plans before. How has the City of Calgary done with these previous plans? They don’t have a good track record with turning previous ambitions into action.

As the average commuter waiting in traffic can tell you Calgary Transit has not been effective at getting people out of their cars despite the City setting public transportation higher than roadways on their priority list. The majority of C-Train stations are in the middle of large parking lots. This encourages people to drive to their local station instead of walk. Not to mention there is little in the way of amenities around most stations and therefore little to encourage you to take a C-Train for any use other than to go downtown. (Clearly this was the original intent of the C-Train system, but it hasn’t evolved since first being built despite the high-cost associated with operating it for only a single task.)

The need to drive to a C-Train station is further compounded by the frustration users feel when attempting to take a bus to the closest station. Many bus stops in the suburbs are lonely concrete islands with no sidewalks, and infrequently cleared of snow in the winter. Even if a suburb is lucky enough to lose their “Future Bus Stop” sign and have an actual route, the user demand is not enough to warrant a frequent schedule because, in short, we have built these communities so that a car is required for even the simplest of errands.

The same is true when it comes to other forms of alternative transportation. The City has been trying to encourage more commuters to use their bicycles to get to work. Plans and policies have been approved with this goal in mind. But what is actually occurring on the ground is far from encouraging people to bike to work. According to this Calgary Herald story the new bike lane installed last year on 26 Avenue SW is all but impossible to navigate. The lane icons have been scraped off the road by snowplows and, not being able to see the icons, drivers ignore the lane to the detriment of bikers peddling next to them. The article also mentions that at one point bikers must disembark and lift their bike over a low fence to even stay on the path.

Another bike commute route with similar issues is 20 Avenue N. Despite it being a road without a bike lane, it is frequented by riders as the main east/west inner-city route. It was not scheduled to be cleared of gravel until June 16 – well into Calgary’s bike riding season.

Just like the suburban transit user, when existing bicycle commuters are treated with this kind of indifference what is the incentive for more people to join them?

The City of Calgary has no shortage of plans – and Plan It is another example of the City’s excellent visionary thinking and should be approved – but until city Administration buys in to these plans and changes the way they think about city building, the hard work of those that have written these documents will continue to languish. As will our city.

The time has come to no longer just say we want to be a great city; the time has come to put our money where our mouths are, stop talking about what we could do, and work at becoming that great city.

CalgaryCowbell: We want our cake and to eat it too. Low taxes = no money for city to provide services for festivals #yyc

ScottHennig: @CalgaryCowbell low taxes = citizens have the ability to fund festivals, arts, and other things themselves.

djkelly: @scotthennig Canadian arts would disappear w/o granting support. And with it the differences between Canada and US, followed by the border.

djkelly: @scotthennig It is in the city/prov/country's interest to support the arts to attract and retain talent.

ScottHennig: @djkelly I don't think it is in the "city/prov/country's interest," it is in citizen's interest to support the arts, willingly and freely.

djkelly: @scotthennig Does that argument extend to garbage collection? Public transit? Road maintenance? And other things in the public interest?

ScottHennig: @djkelly there R some things that R difficult to fund directly & freely (ie. police) + there R things that R easy to do so (ie. arts).

djkelly: @scotthennig What makes the arts easy for individuals exclusively to fund? No country has been able to do it successfully. (Most don't try.)

ScottHennig: @djkelly Most theaters have ticket offices, most buskers have hats, & most painters will sell their work. Plus most arts groups R charities.

djkelly: @scotthennig NP arts revenue model: 1/3 ticket sales, 1/3 donations, 1/3 grants. No arts group can survive on ticket sales alone.

djkelly: @scotthennig Eliminate grants and prices would triple and no-one would come. Same thing if we made every street a toll road.

ScottHennig: @nenshi @djkelly 99.7% of the Metropolitan Opera expenses covered by non-gov't sources. But not the point.

ScottHennig: @djkelly vry doubtful. Lwr tax = more charitable giving. Plus, arts that nobody wld support wld disappear. Just like car companies...whoops!

djkelly: @scotthennig The increase of charitable giving created by lower taxes would not come close to offsetting the lost of grants.

ScottHennig: @djkelly True. But only to those who get a disproportionate amount of tax $. Other artists or charitable sectors would get more.

djkelly: @scotthennig Sorry, who currently gets a disproportionate amount?

djkelly: @scotthennig RE the Met: you cite an example from a city with 12M ppl. Your point doesn't translate to Canada as it would mean no opera 4 us

ScottHennig: @djkelly Those arts who get more tax $ than the public would give them freely if given back their money back currently get a disproport. Amt

ScottHennig: @djkelly RE: Met, the point is that citizens will support the arts, and yes on a smaller scale so could any group of citizens in Canada.

djkelly: @scotthennig Sounds like that would take more $ in red tape & admin than it would save.

ScottHennig: @djkelly Not much red tape involved in cutting taxes.

djkelly: @scotthennig Can't do the vast majority of operas on a smaller scale. A symphony and cast can't be replaced by less ppl.

djkelly: @scotthennig Looks like we are having a 140 character problem as I apparently didn't understand your proposal. Or you wanted a sound bite ;)

ScottHennig: @djkelly Yes, and the Calgary Flames don't play games in 500 seat arenas, but other hockey teams do.

ScottHennig: D djkelly Good convo. Gotta run.

djkelly: @scotthennig As a fiscal conservative I appreciate the CTF. Obviously we disagree on this issue though.

djkelly: @scotthennig Can't DM back bc your not following me. Thanks 4 debating the issue. 2 often ppl lob insults at the arts & won't back them up.

PlanIT is an extremely important document laying out the ‘plan’ for how Calgary will grow over the next 60 years. As a result public input has been sought for quite sometime and ‘for’ and ‘against’ side are now providing their thoughts in person to Council. The ‘pros’ concluded last night after two days of presentations (about 110 people signed up to speak) and the ‘cons’ began immediately following (about 60 people signed up to speak).

Last night – at number 97 – I provided my thoughts. Below are my comments to council:

Thank you for allowing me to the opportunity to speak. My name is DJ Kelly, I am an administrator in the not-for-profit sector and president of the Winston Heights/Mountview CA.

I’m happy to answer questions from the point of view of our CA but today I’m simply talking as an engaged citizen.

I wanted to begin, if I may, by thanking Council and Administration for showing vision in creating this document. I’m confident we can all agree, that no business or organization can possibly be effectively run without a big picture strategic plan.

I’m reminded once again of one columnist’s comment from sometime in the late 90s that Calgary is “the city that planning forgot”. With the approval of PlanIT no longer will we be able to be the butt of these kinds of jokes. PlanIT finally provides Calgary with the strategic growth plan columnists and citizens alike have requested oh so frequently.

I’m hopefully the cries of “those fools down at City Hall have no idea what they’re doing” will be, if not eliminated, at least lessened because of this document.
The benefit of speaking toward the end of the “for” or “pro-PlanIT” list is I don’t need to get into the reasons why you should or should not support PlanIT. Instead I can marvel at some of the fantastic comments made by previous speakers.

The main one that comes to mind is Derek the Urban Studies student from UofC. I think he brought forward a perspective that many have not thought of when discussing PlanIT and it bears repeating: our generation will not live the same kind of life our parents and grandparents did. Just as they did not live the same kind of life as those a generation before them. There are no pioneers or gunfighters in our midst any longer.

None of us in this room are psychics. We cannot predict the future and should not purport to. Even the City’s own marketing for the PlanIT response process makes light of this fact. I cannot say what the city will need in 60 years, and despite the protests of others that I’m sure are coming, they cannot either.

Look at what we planned on 60 years ago. Those are the very things we are now struggling with and that people smarter than us have shown to be unsustainable. Even the poor bulging city budget shows that at the very least we need to think differently.

This is why the “spirit” of PlanIT is far more important than anything else. So long as we can agree with the points and goals laid out in the first few pages we are heading in the right direction.

The one thing we can say for sure is that PlanIT will change and grow over time. It will have to be a living document. There will be variations as we move forward. We do not need to approve the perfect plan this week. However I think PlanIT lays an excellent the groundwork for the future and I’m proud to live in a city with this kind of vision.

Another thing I think is important to note is that every speaker who has lamented the non-inclusion of the airport tunnel has self classified themselves as “in favour” of PlanIT. I’m encouraged that despite their disappointment, they still have the foresight to see what PlanIT can do for the city.

I am interested to hear the comments of those not in favour of PlanIT. From what I have heard through the press it sounds like the majority are from one single industry, whereas those who have spoken in favour appear to represent a large swath of industries. Having PlanIT receive such wide-spread support leaves me further encouraged.

Personally I’m more concerned with the City’s track record of follow through on ambitious plans. My thoughts on that can be found in tomorrow’s post for Alberta Venture’s Think Alberta,

I won’t get into them today other than to say I encourage City Council to have the courage of our convictions, approve this big picture plan, and get on with the process of building the better city I know this council wants.

Questions followed from Ald McIver about my statements around implementation. I answered that, yes, indeed I do see this as the major concern facing council moving forward and regardless of what planning document we approve it will continue to be the major issue and Council and Administration has serious work ahead of them. More background on that is in my Alberta Venture Think! Alberta post that will be available at 1pm today. (I’ll cross post here following that.) Part II goes up on Friday.

Ald Chabot congratulated me on my timing for showing up shortly before my presentation time. I thanked the internet and the Council webcast. He followed up with another question but to be honest I don’t remember what it was. I remember it being akward and me not really understanding what he was asking. It felt adveseraly (is that even a word?) and I certainly didn’t mean for it to. Sorry if it came across that way!

That post was particularly popular with Government of Alberta officials – at least that’s what the stats tell me. Or at least it was popular enough that I was invited to be a guest on both CBC Radio One’s Calgary Eyeopener and Edmonton AM to talk about my thoughts around Doug’s use of social media and what he said. Once the interviews are posted (if they’re posted) you’ll probably be able to listen to them online at those links.

The interviews were both quick and and I didn’t necessarily get to say everything I wanted, so I thought I’d share those thoughts here.

1. While I don’t agree with Doug’s comments I fully support him. He said something dumb and he knows it. He’s human, we all say dumb things from time to time. I’m impressed with his handling of the situation however; he did an excellent job apologizing with the openness and honesty that made his Tweets and blog so refreshing in the first place. It wasn’t simply the standard empty apology one has come to expect from a politician. I wish I had an audio link to it so you could here it. It’s worth a listen.

   This is the main reason why I don’t think he should have deleted his blog. His honesty and engagement provided through the blog and Twitter – up until this point at least – I think should have allowed him a fair bit of patience from the public in this situation. If he would have apologized online and allowed us to see the process he was going through to make amends, I would not have been surprised to see come out on the other side with more supporters than before.

   I really do think we want politicians who represent us and are willing to communicate and engage in what concerns us. We don’t need another “walled off politician”. I hope Doug won’t become that because of this error in judgement.

2. I also hope this won’t discourage other politicians from communicating with constituents via these newer tools. As you can here in the Calgary interview, host Jim Brown mentions the Alberta PC party may be coming out with guidelines to monitor their party members online communications more closely. This concerns me a little.

   You can make as many guidelines or memos as you like to control a party’s members on the internet, but when it all comes down to it the only point guidelines will really set out is “don’t say dumb things”.

   I would argue that is the same advice you would give to them if they are talking giving a speech, writing a newsletter, or talking casually to friends.

   The point here isn’t that an MLA said these kinds of things online. The point is that he said them period. Social media is not the culprit in this situation. I hope the PC party doesn’t make the mistake of not seeing it the same way.

   The only other option is to not allow your party members to converse with consituents at all. And I think that is a terrible choice.

3. I did get to touch on this in Calgary interview, but for me when it comes down to it I want my elected officials to be engaged. I want them to hear what I and others are saying, and then make the decision they feel is in the best interests of their constituents. Social media provides direct access that no town hall or newsletter in a mailbox could ever give.

   In the future this kind of engagement will be expected of our political leaders. Currently about 40% of the population of Alberta is under the age of 30. These are the people learning to expect to know what their friends are doing on a regular basis. This is happening via text messages and status updates. There is no stopping it as it has become rooted in our culture. In 10 years about one third of the voting public will fall into this category and expect to know what politicians are doing on our behalf on a regular basis. To get elected you will NEED to master these tools. Our elected officials may as well lead the way and start on this course now. After all we elect them to be leaders.

PS – Please don’t just have a staffer update your accounts. We can tell the difference and will ridicule you and penalize you for your lack of transparency. Social media is about dialogue. If you are not responding you obviously don’t get it and don’t want to. And at the end of the day, remember this: who wants to elect a person who is non-responsive?

This is what makes social media such a powerful tool when it comes to politics: you get a chance to see inside the mind of our leaders and what makes them tick. And as you can imagine, when you get a chance to look inside someone’s mind you might not always like what you see.

The alternative to this is what we have been doing for generations. In that example, we elect someone without really knowing much about them and then either approve of what they do on our behalf or become belligerent and shocked when a massive scandal blows up.

I would argue social media like Twitter and Facebook allow us to get an inside perspective of what our elected officials do and think and that is a good thing. If they are corrupt or disengaged, status updates may give a peek at that attitude. If they don’t? Well they were just lying to us anyway so we’re no worse off then we were before.

Personally, I don’t agree with Doug’s comments. When I first read his tweets at the Edmonton Pride Parade I thought to myself, “Gee, I don’t think those are appropriate comments to say out loud.” And when I read what he said at a grade 9 graduation I thought, “That does not seem appropriate at all.” But you know what? He has a right to think and say those things. Just like we have a right to judge him based on what he said.

I would much rather an elected leader show me their true face and let me decide what to do with that information, than live a lie and pretend to be something they are not.

Where I really became disappointed with Doug was with his reaction to the controversy created by his remarks on his blog. Rather than apologizing on his blog and trying to help us understand why he made the remarks and what he is doing/going through in getting past them, he simply deleted the blog all together.

And in doing so left us all to wonder what is going on in his head and became just another walled off politician. And that is our loss.

With the advent of free online news there something had to give. And unfortunately we are seeing the outcome of that now as companies such as CTV, Canwest Global and even the government supported CBC, struggle to update their business model so they can keep the news flowing.

There isn’t much in the way of solutions to this issue – I certainly don’t have the answer – but at least someone has written a fun parody song outlining the situation main stream media finds themselves currently in. Enjoy the song while hundred-year-old news organizations nervously laugh themselves into a huddled crying heap!

h/t to Ken Chapman