Tag Archives: city council

City Council data now available in Edmonton’s open data catalogue

By Mack D. Male ·

Yesterday Edmonton became the first city in Canada to release “a fully robust set” of City Council datasets to its open data catalogue. A total of five datasets were released, including meeting details, agenda items, motions, attendance, and voting records. There are now more than 100 datasets available in the catalogue, with more on the way.

Here’s the video recording of the news conference:

The City also produced a video about the new datasets:

The Office of the City Clerk is responsible for managing Council & Committee meetings, boards, elections, and more. The release of this data (referred to as “Clerk’s data” by some City employees) is another example of the way that office has embraced technology over the years. Kudos to Alayne Sinclair and her team, as well as Chris Moore, Ashley Casovan, and the rest of the IT team for making this data available!

I’m really excited about the potential for this data. The information has long been available on the City’s website, it was just locked away in meeting minutes as “unstructured” data – possible for humans to read relatively easily, but not for software. Now that it is available as “structured” data in the open data catalogue, applications can be written that take advantage of the data. You can find the data under the City Administration tab of the catalogue. Unfortunately the datasets only go back to June 1, 2011 instead of the start of Council’s term in October 2010. Currently, the datasets are updated daily.

I’ve now had a chance to look through the data, and while it looks good, it is unfortunately incomplete at the moment. There’s quite a bit of data missing. I would love to do some statistical analysis on the data, but with so many missing records there’s a good chance that my conclusions would be incorrect. I have already summarized my findings and passed them along to the team, so hopefully they can resolve the issues quickly!

I have already added functionality to ShareEdmonton for this data, and as soon as the datasets are fixed, I’ll release it. I hate to say “stay tuned” but there’s not much choice right now!

Budget 2012: Ten unfunded growth projects that caught my eye

By Mack D. Male ·

It’s budget time, and I have been looking into the documents that were released last week.

At the very end of the 2012-2021 Capital Investment Agenda, there are some really interesting tables. One is “Approved & Recommended Growth Projects” – projects that have previously been approved or that Administration is recommending. The list of recommended projects includes the seat replacement at Commonwealth Stadium, the South East Community Leagues Association Skate Park, and a number of other projects you may have heard about.

The last table is perhaps the most intriguing, however. It lists 77 different “Unfunded Prioritized Growth Projects” totaling a little over $1.5 billion. Most of these simply will not get funding in the 2012-2014 Capital Budget because there is just $9 million available for allocation to these projects:

In the 2009-2011 Capital Budget, Council made decisions to commit $883 million of future funding for growth projects in the 2012-2014 time frame. The result of these decisions means only $254 million additional funding is available for growth projects and $245 million of that funding is constrained as Retained Earnings or Developer/Partner funding. This leaves $9 million available for allocation to other priority growth projects.

That said, I’m sure we’ll see some creativity as Council digs into the budget.

Here are ten unfunded growth projects that caught my eye:

  • 12-60-1753: Closed Circuit Television (#6)

    Total Cost: $2.35 million, $1.7 million to become compliant

    Less exciting than it sounds, actually. The Province has revised its policing standards and those changes take effect December 31, 2013. This project is all about extending the existing CCTV coverage to enable EPS to meet the new standards.

  • 12-28-4149: Louise McKinney Riverfront Park Masterplan Completion
    (#23)

    Total Cost: $6.5 million

    The vision for Louise McKinney was approved by City Council way back in 1997, and it still isn’t done. This project would see the completion of the Grand Stair, two viewpoints, four gateways, Shaw Conference Centre linkages, and the redevelopment of the parking lot. It would be great to see us actually finish this project before embarking on too many more new ones.

  • 11-66-1293: SMARTBUS (#25)

    Total Cost: $34.433 million, $3.4 million of which was previously approved

    For me this one is a definite no-brainer. SMARTBUS technology includes Automated Stop Announcements, Computer Aided Dispatch, Automated Vehicle Health Monitoring, and Automated Passenger Counters. It also includes Automated Vehicle Location and Real-Time Customer Information, which will finally make it possible to see where your bus actually is, rather than just where it is scheduled to be. I think a lot of Edmontonians would strongly support this one!

    The previously approved piece of this was the 50 bus evaluation and that is expected to be completed by September 2012.

  • 12-21-7227: Winspear Centre Expansion (#44)

    Total Cost: $3.5 million

    The planned expansion would accommodate a multi-purpose facility for arts initiatives, studio space for youth, and rehearsal space, among other things. The expansion would take place on the east side of the building onto surplus City lands between 102 and 102A Avenue adjacent to 97 Street. The plan is for construction to take place in 2014. The Winspear received $50,000 as part of the 2011 Operating Budget to help with the preliminary concept planning.

  • 12-75-3514: New Downtown Office Tower (#57)

    Total Cost: $140 million

    This project is part of the Edmonton Downtown Civic Accommodation Plan which focuses on strategies to support growth and expansion of City services and programs. The choice is either to lease existing building space or to construct a new civic office building. The $140 million pricetag is just what would be part of the 2012-2014 budget – the total amount of the project is currently $600 million.

    Analysis has not yet been completed, and the project profile states that “a financing strategy must be developed” if constructing the new office tower is recommended. The consequence of not building a new tower is that “the City will continue to lease a large amount of office space from the private sector.”

    This project isn’t an immediate one, so I don’t expect any major news will come out of the budget discussions. I’m glad to see the commitment to downtown, however.

  • 12-17-0373: 104th Street Funicular (#60)

    Total Cost: $20 million

    This project has been in the news quite a bit lately, usually in relation to the Rossdale redevelopment project. The idea is to “provide a way for people to move from the West Rossdale flats to the top of the bank thereby creating a more walkable area.” In other words, the hill is too step for most people! This project is specifically mentioned in the Capital City Downtown Plan actually, as part of the focus on River Valley Promenades.

  • 12-17-0371: Downtown Lands Acquisition (#71)

    Total Cost: $4 million

    Given the recent decision to purchase the land for the downtown arena, this project caught my eye. The land in question is located at Jasper Avenue and 100 Street, in front of Hotel Macdonald. “It is presently owned by a private developer who has publicly expressed an interest in constructing a condominium tower on the site. Purchasing this park will protect and preserve it in its current state, ensuring that the existing amenity space and historic view corridors are maintained.” Um, take that Occupy Edmonton!

  • 12-21-1200: City Collections Repository (#74)

    Total Cost: $29.539 million

    The proposed 55,425 square foot building would house historical artifacts from the O’Keefe Building and would also serve as the off site storage centre for the City Archives. “The building will be designed to allow for growth in both collections for 25 years.” The building was recommended by Lundhom & Associates after looking at the existing facilities and the collections. I think a new facility with proper temperature, humidity, light, and dust control systems makes a lot of sense. It’s important to preserve Edmonton’s history.

  • 12-21-5674: Medium Sized Stadium (#75)

    Total Cost: $53.016 million

    New stadium?! The proposed stadium would feature artificial turf and seating of 8,000 “with opportunities for increasing the seating further through temporary or expansion of seating for a total capacity of 20,000.” This project is intended to meet the needs for “certain amateur sports, professional soccer, FIFA and other championships and concert events.”

    Telus Field is one of the other venues identified, along with Foote Field (2,770), Clarke Park (1,300 seats), and Commonwealth Stadium (60,000 seats) but it lacks parking and LRT services. This new stadium would fit nicely in-between those facilities and would presumably be built close to the LRT, though the project profile does not mention a location.

  • 12-21-7663: CKUA Expansion (#77)

    Total Cost: $5 million

    I was wondering how CKUA could afford to move into the former Alberta Hotel, recently reconstructed just west of Canada Place on Jasper Avenue. Sounds like it is City of Edmonton to the rescue! The justification for supporting this is that it is adjacent to The Quarters, it would maintain and preserve a historic resource, and because “CKUA would offer below-market leasing space to other non-profit organizations.”

I encourage you to take a look through the budget documents, there’s a lot of really interesting information there!

Roundup: Reaction to the latest downtown arena vote

By Mack D. Male ·

On Wednesday afternoon, City Council approved a financial framework for the new downtown arena. The vote passed 10-3, with Diotte, Iveson, and Sloan voting against. Council also agreed to spend $30 million to complete the design of the arena to 60%, to enable contractors to bid on the construction project with a Guaranteed Maximum Price of $450 million. From the news release:

“A new downtown arena is a catalyst for revitalizing downtown. This is a fair agreement and will help sustain NHL hockey in Edmonton while increasing economic activity in the city,” says City Manager Simon Farbrother. “It will also improve land values and the livability and sustainability of Edmonton for all citizens.”

John Karvellas from the Katz Group also issued a statement:

“We very much appreciate City Council’s strong vote of support for the downtown arena, as well as the considerable time and effort Mayor Mandel and City Administration, in particular, have put into this project. We will work with the City administration to understand the implications of the new elements of the deal introduced in today’s motion in the context of the agreements that need to be completed by month-end.”

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman also shared some comments:

“I am thrilled for the City of Edmonton and I want to congratulate and thank Mayor Mandel and Daryl Katz for their hard work and commitment. The future of the Oilers couldn’t be brighter.”

I was paying attention to the meeting on Wednesday, and as the vote approached I tweeted much of Council’s final remarks. Here are some of the highlights:

  • Mayor Mandel: “I have not had one, not one call since SLRT opened about what it cost us to build.”
  • Mayor Mandel: “Today is about making a decision to change our downtown.”
  • Mayor Mandel: “This is a project about Northern Alberta, it’s not just about Edmonton. The province should come to the table.”
  • Councillor Anderson: “Thank goodness he lives here.” (referring to Daryl Katz)
  • Councillor Anderson: “I believe that the casino and the gravel project would sit for another several decades if this does not go forward.”
  • Councillor Anderson: “We all have to remember however, that no matter how we vote on this, it is still subject to $100 million appearing from somewhere.”
  • Councillor Batty: “I applaud Daryl Katz for his perseverance.”
  • Councillor Gibbons: “Hopefully we can work toward keeping Edmonton on the map.”
  • Councillor Gibbons: “We’ve done such a good job of growing out, maybe we can grow back inside.”
  • Councillor Gibbons: “I’ve travelled all over the world, and a great city has to have a great downtown.”
  • Councillor Leibovici: “We do have a downtown that needs a bit of a lift.”
  • Councillor Leibovici: “Do we need an arena? Yes. Do we need to change what we have? Yes.”
  • Councillor Leibovici: “A lot of this reminds me of the airport debate.”
  • Councillor Sohi: “I know it’s not a perfect deal, but it’s a reasonable deal that I can defend to the people I represent.”
  • Councillor Krushell: “It’s time to tell the Prongers of this world that Edmonton is not just a city with great people.”
  • Councillor Krushell: “The project will play a key part in revitalizing our downtown, and that is why I am supporting this.”
  • Councillor Loken: “This is a game-changer in my mind.”
  • Councillor Loken: “This is about Edmonton, this is about vision, this is about the future.”
  • Councillor Diotte: “There’s no reason to agree to a bad deal.”
  • Councillor Diotte: “I think we can all agree that the majority of Edmontonians want to see a new downtown arena.”
  • Councillor Sloan: “I maintain grave reservations about the costs and associated risks that the City is undertaking.”
  • Councillor Sloan: “I am further concerned that a lack of clarity has resulted in both Council and Admin losing face in the public.”
  • Councillor Caterina: “I’m comfortable that this is a much fairer deal than what was brought back from New York.”
  • Councillor Henderson: “I’m prepared to continue moving forward because I think at this point that our interests are being served.”
  • Councillor Henderson: “I don’t think the arena by itself is the magic wand.”
  • Councillor Iveson: “Nothing would anger me more in my old age than to see this debate play out again in my lifetime.”
  • Councillor Iveson: “I’m sold on what a new arena can do for our downtown, but I believe a better deal can be found.”

Slowly but surely, our Councillors are becoming more familiar with the tools and technologies available to them. Three Councillors blogged their final remarks, something I’d like to see the norm rather than the exception.

Many people tweeted about the news on Wednesday, and as I showed in my brief analysis, the response seemed to be mostly positive. There was also a fairly active thread on Connect2Edmonton about the deal.

Here’s what Paula Simons wrote about the deal:

“On Wednesday, Mayor Stephen Mandel described the arena as something to benefit all of northern Alberta. Sohi called on Edmontonians to petition Premier Alison Redford for financial support. Indeed, the province may be more willing to come up with the necessary cash, perhaps by some sleight of hand with casino money, now that the city and the Katz Group have come to terms. But this story, dear readers, isn’t over. We’ve just taken a whole new plot twist.”

Here’s what John MacKinnon wrote:

“Now that Oilers owner Daryl Katz’s downtown arena project is a qualified ‘go,’ maybe people can focus on what should have been the main issue all along: how this facility will help transform Edmonton’s downtown.”

Here’s what Gary Lamphier had to say:

“As I’ve said repeatedly over the past couple of years, I’d love to see a new downtown arena. But not at any price. I don’t think this deal represents anything close to an equitable sharing of risks and rewards between Katz Group and city taxpayers.”

In that same article, U of A sports economist Brad Humphreys shared his thoughts:

“It’s a terrible deal. They’re still short $100 million and I don’t see it going very far until they come up with the remainder of the funding.”

Here is what David Staples wrote:

“So did we get fleeced? Not even close. This is a good deal, far better than the existing Oilers deal at Rexall, and certainly right in line with what we see in terms of public/private funding models for new arenas in other NHL cities.”

Here is what Terry Jones wrote:

“The late great city of Edmonton has dared to be great again.”

Northlands CEO Richard Andersen hasn’t made many statements since the vote, but the Sun quoted him yesterday:

“We want to move on and get busy doing the other things we do. This is a huge distraction.”

Oilers star Taylor Hall tweeted his reaction to the news:

“Excited news on the new arena for Edmonton. In other news @ebs_14 and I got iPhones and they put BlackBerrys to shame.”

Here is what Yukon Jack wrote in his column:

“Finally! Finally another step in the downtown arena project. To say this thing is moving at a glacier’s pace is an insult to climate change.”

Bruce Urban, owner of the Edmonton Rush, is a fan of the project:

“It’s very exciting. Let’s picture Downtown Edmonton with this beautiful arena, the businesses that will follow, the restaurants and entrepreneurs who will follow. It’s very exciting for the city.”

The Calgary Herald asked Flames CEO Ken King to comment and received this statement:

“The news coming out of Edmonton regarding their new building is wonderful.  A state of the art new facility will be a great boon to their community and create a viable future for their team.”

Writing for the National Post, here is what Jesse Kline had to say:

“This is nothing more than corporate welfare, and by threatening to relocate the Oilers, Mr. Katz was essentially threatening to make business decisions based on how much money he can extract from local governments, rather than what city is the best market to do business in.”

The Edmonton Sun said that with the deal done, it is time to move on:

“City council has decided to proceed with a package that will see a major chunk of downtown Edmonton revitalized. It has been an acrimonious two-year debate, and the sensible move at this point is for the city to move forward together.”

The Edmonton Journal said the decision was the right call for our city:

“In this corner, the belief is that all Edmontonians will benefit – from economic spinoffs boosting the tax base, from the proliferation of non-hockey entertainment options that they will use, from the greater future attractiveness of Edmonton as a place to live, and from the fact that NHL hockey will now be guaranteed to remain a key part of community pride for at least the next 35 years.”

I’m sure I have missed some reaction, but I think the quotes I have highlighted are fairly representative.

ONEdmonton’s Downtown Vibrancy Task Force supports the Proposed Downtown Arena and Entertainment Deal

By Mack D. Male ·

Today the Downtown Vibrancy Task Force finalized a letter to City Council expressing our support for the proposed downtown arena and entertainment deal. This is a follow-up on the January letter written in support of the rezoning. Here’s the letter:

ONEdmonton Letter to Council Oct 25

Our chair, Stantec’s Simon O’Byrne, spoke to Council in the second group of participants at today’s public hearing. A couple of his statements:

  • “Only people matter when it comes to vibrancy.”
  • “We believe this deal is an acceptable and advantageous tradeoff for Edmontonians.”
  • “No other catalyst will result in more people downtown.”
  • “Incredible opportunity to turn 16 acres of horrifically ugly gravel parking into the city’s premiere destination.”

The public hearing continues all day at City Hall. You can watch or listen live here.

With a positive vote on the arena, Council can get back into the driver’s seat

By Mack D. Male ·

City Council probably could have done a better job of handling the arena issue this year. I asked Councillor Sohi about this a couple weeks ago, and he agreed. “In hindsight we should have been in the driver’s seat rather than letting the Katz Group drive the process,” he told me.

How much have things skewed in the Katz Group’s favor? Some would say a lot. Here’s what Paula Simons wrote about Council’s vote to purchase the land for the arena:

I am honestly awestruck at Katz’s audacity — and his brilliance. The city takes two large parcels straight off his hands, at his cost, allowing him to assemble and flip the land, with no expense or debt. The city pays all the upfront costs of the arena but still agrees to let the Katz Group choose and hire the architect, come up with the design, and keep all the revenues. We actually pay the team to promote the city. And, at Katz’s behest, we slap a tax on his business rival. It’s the most stunning power play in Oilers history.

The entire article is worth a read. It may have been a brilliant move on the part of the Katz Group, but I think it also opened the door for Council to gain some leverage. There are two key things to consider here – the land, and the design.

Purchasing the land that Katz assembled is a good deal for the City. Underutilized, valuable land is now owned by the City rather than speculative developers. The latest report on the proposed Downtown CRL pegs the cost of the land at around $30 million, a very reasonable amount. “The big piece of land for the arena proper is below market value so that was a no-brainier,” Councillor Iveson told me. Importantly, the City owns that land now regardless of what happens with the arena. “If the deal falls through, it’s a good asset,” Councillor Iveson said. I don’t know about you, but I’d much rather have the City own that land than a private interest. You might argue that the City could just as easily fail to do anything with the land, but at least we can put pressure on the City to make something happen. A private developer could just sit on the land forever. Getting rid of the parking lots is one of the most appealing aspects of this project.

Moving forward with the design process is an important next step. Conceptual stuff has been done by the Katz Group of course, but a vote in favor of the arena deal this week would really get the ball rolling. As I understand it, the City and the Katz Group would sit down and figure out the necessary retentions. They’d select the design architect, the local architect, and any consultants. An RFP would go out for the construction manager, and once the retentions were in place, the design process would start. According to the latest City report, “the City will fund the cost of design to a 60% level on which the tender documents will be based in order to get the best possible Guaranteed Maximum Price for the arena.” Keeping in mind the $450 million ceiling, the goal would be to produce a design that could be taken to market for that price, and the design itself is an element of that total amount. Importantly though, the City owns this design work (the Katz Group would retain ownership over the conceptual work they completed). “If either party elects not to complete the deal, the City will have ownership rights to the design work undertaken by the City.” You can read more about the budget request to start the process here.

The City needs the Katz Group’s help on this, so I think the collaborative approach makes sense. The Katz Group understands the market and they know what will sell. They’ve done the research and they know what has worked elsewhere around the league. Of course we want the design to be attractive, to comply with the Capital City Downtown Plan, and to support Edmonton’s other priorities, such as The Way We Green. But it has to be functional, too. With the proposed agreement, the City would get all of that design for less than all of the cost.

The design process also presents an important opportunity for Council to re-engage the public. The public consultation that will take place as part of getting to the final design must be taken seriously. It really should be seen as a rare chance to dramatically improve the way the City solicits input and feedback from citizens. We must do better.

Armed with both the land and a ready-to-build design for an arena, Council (and thus the City) will be in a much better negotiating position. Let’s assume for a minute that the deal falls through, perhaps because the province refuses to come to the table, and that Katz or a subsequent owner wanted to move the team. The City could justifiably go to the NHL and say “look, we have land and the design for a building ready to go” which would put the brakes on any move pretty quickly. The league is very unlikely to approve any move if the municipality is ready to play ball, especially in an important market like Edmonton. It gives Council leverage they lack at the moment, and it should put any relocation fears to rest, unfounded as they may be.

Not everyone agrees with this perspective. Councillor Caterina, for instance: “We could be spending taxpayers’ money…before we even know if an arena is a go or not.” But I don’t think there’s much harm in this limited amount of strategic spending. Everything appears to rest upon another level of government stepping up to the plate with $100 million or more. If that doesn’t happen, at least Council will be in a stronger position to move forward.

Maybe it’s not too late. Maybe with this week’s vote on the arena deal, Council can get back into the driver’s seat.

Edmonton’s Downtown Arena on the precipice

By Mack D. Male ·

Today is another big day for Edmonton’s downtown arena project. City Council will be meeting this afternoon to once again discuss the project, with a particular focus on the outcome of this week’s meetings in New York with Gary Bettman.

My sense is that the project is in danger. And I’m still trying to understand how we got here.

I used to think the arena was basically a done deal. It seemed like all of the right pieces were in place. The arena was listed as one of the catalyst projects in the Capital City Downtown Plan and that document was successfully approved. Edmontonians got engaged at public meetings and open houses. The City embarked on a high profile public consultation process. The Katz Group met with anyone who would listen (and they continue to). Council had questions and they got answers. Surveys showed significant support for the project, up from previous surveys. Organizations started becoming more vocal about their support, with letters from the Downtown Vibrancy Task Force and Yes 4 Edmonton. In May, the “agreement framework” was approved. In August, the Downtown CRL concept came forward and seemed to be well-received. The latest stats on calls to 311 suggest that more people support the project than oppose it.

Certainly there have been challenges along the way, but it seemed to me that most of those challenges were related to the details. For a while now it has felt like the arena was going to be built, it was just a matter of how and when.

But now? Well, it doesn’t look so good anymore.

The meetings in New York were taken by many to be a sign that negotiations between the City and the Katz Group were about to go off the rails. Mayor Mandel hasn’t been his usual optimistic self lately either. Two new websites launched this week to try to push the project forward, Heart of the Capital and Build the Arena. And my preliminary analysis of tweets about the arena shows that lately, the majority of tweets are about supporting the arena rather than opposing it. Edmontonians seem worried. The October 31 deadline is inching ever closer, but it feels like we’re getting further and further away from the goal line for this project.


Tweets about the arena in Edmonton for the first twelve days of October

I share the Katz Group’s growing impatience, even if I don’t agree with the way they have gone about things. I don’t envy Council’s position, but I’m confident they’ll make a decision that is in the best interests of the city (though likely not today). At this point, I just want some certainty. If we’re going to build the arena, great, let’s do everything we can to ensure it is a success. If we’re not going to move ahead with the project, fine, let’s refocus and get back to work.

For a decent overview of where we’re at, check out the Journal’s summary. You can follow this afternoon’s discussion on Twitter, or you can connect to City Council’s streaming audio and video. If you want to voice your opinion on the deal one way or the other, the number one thing you can do is email your City Councillor.

Edmonton’s downtown revitalization: now linked to the arena more than ever?

By Mack D. Male ·

Back in May, the City of Edmonton and the Katz Group agreed on an agreement framework. A month later, City Council asked a number of questions about that agreement, which Administration answered in a report (PDF) that went back to Council on July 20, just before the summer break. Unsurprisingly, a few of those questions were related to the Community Revitalization Levy (CRL). The answer was that Administration would return to Council with more information, including the new CRL boundary, with a target date of August 31.

Today, that date became official, not to mention a whole lot more complicated. Here’s what a media advisory titled “Proposed Downtown CRL could fund revitalization” said:

A vibrant downtown is a key ingredient of a great city. Gary Klassen, General Manager for Sustainable Development, will be available to speak about a report on an option for a boundary for a downtown Community Revitalization Levy which could fund revitalization.

That media conference will take place tomorrow at noon (right in the middle of the I (heart) yegdt BBQ taking place right outside City Hall in Churchill Square). The report itself will be made available at 11am.

The gist of it is this: the City is proposing a larger, downtown-wide CRL to fund not only the arena but also a number of other “catalyst” projects in the downtown (as outlined in the Capital City Downtown Plan). I can’t confirm this just yet, but my understanding is that the proposed CRL is big – as in $320 million big. It’s a smart piece of political maneuvering, when you think about it. How do you get councillors who are opposed to or on the fence about a CRL for the arena to support one? Add in a whole bunch of other stuff they would likely support. It’ll be especially interesting because with the summer break a number of the councillors have no idea this is coming.

I think there are two ways to look at this proposal.

One perspective is that the proposed CRL is a good thing because the catalyst projects will finally receive funding. Projects like the Jasper Avenue New Vision, At-Grade LRT, the High Profile Bikeway System, and the Warehouse Campus Central Park all sound great, but don’t have any funding attached to them. The proposed CRL could be used to fund all of these in addition to the arena. Some projects would certainly benefit as they’d sort of “catch a ride with the arena” and would get their funding without too much added trouble. And since they are all part of the plan to revitalize downtown, the CRL is a good fit. That’s what it was intended for, after all.

The other perspective is that the proposed CRL is a bad thing because it basically holds downtown revitalization hostage. You could see the proposed CRL as a message that either Council agrees to fund the arena, or the other projects don’t receive funding. The 2012-2014 Capital Budget is coming up for discussion later this year, and some of these projects (or elements of them) would have been part of the budget discussions. Now it seems they would just come along with the arena, or….what? It’s not clear what the alternative might be. Additionally, projects funded through the CRL might not actually receive any money for years (a CRL takes time to approve), whereas if they were funded through the budget process they could receive funding as early as January.

Take the Alley of Light project, for instance. It was slated to be up for discussion as part of the Capital Budget, with a line item of $500,000. Now it would fall under the Green & Walkable Downtown catalyst project. In a way this is a good thing – the Alley of Light might receive the funding under the CRL without too much debate. On the other hand, don’t we want Council to be clear about what they’re funding? I want Council to stand up for the Alley of Light, to say that it is absolutely worth the $500,000, and that it will have a positive impact on our downtown. I don’t want it to get funded “under the radar” just because the arena did. Likewise I don’t want the arena to get funded just because we want the other projects.

Not to mention that the proposed CRL is especially risky given that The Quarters CRL is immediately to the east. How likely is it that the required development will take place in both areas to generate enough tax “lift” for the CRL to work?

Ever since the beginning, the Katz Group has made it clear that this project is about downtown revitalization. To them, downtown revitalization doesn’t really happen unless the arena happens. Now with the proposal of a downtown-wide CRL, it seems that the City has bought into that idea wholeheartedly. Next Wednesday, we’ll find out if City Council has as well.

UPDATE: The report is now available. Details: “over the 20 year term of the levy is expected to generate an additional $1.18 billion in new tax dollars (net present value of $600 million) of which $788 million is based on appreciation of the existing assessment base (net present value of $385 million).”

City Centre Redevelopment ‘shorter-listing’ reveals problems that must be addressed

By Mack D. Male ·

Last week City Council shorter-listed three of the five finalists in the City Centre Redevelopment Master Plan Design Competition, with the winner set to be named on June 22. The decision to narrow the field to three after a botched media conference was unexpected and was largely overshadowed by last week’s arena news.

The media conference was set to take place on Wednesday afternoon. The advisory had gone out less than 24 hours earlier:

Join City Manager Simon Farbrother for the announcement of City Council’s selected design team to transform the City Centre Redevelopment project into a world leading, environmentally sustainable community. The announcement completes a year-long international competition to select the best team to deliver a master plan to develop this centrally-located land which is approximately 266 CFL football fields in size. A representative from the winning team will be on hand for media interviews after the formal portion of the announcement.

Members of the local media filled the Councillor’s Boardroom at City Hall which had been setup with chairs and the competing teams’ display boards. Mayor Stephen Mandel, City Manager Simon Farbrother, City Centre Redevelopment Executive Director Phil Sande, Fairness Advisor James McKellar, and a representative from each of the five finalists were set to be in attendance. We chatted amongst ourselves as we waited for the proceedings to begin.

ECCA Announcement

Just before four o’clock, Mayor Mandel and Simon Farbrother entered the room, nearly half an hour after the media conference was supposed to begin. The mayor took the podium and revealed that City Council had been discussing the proposals in camera (in private) and still had too many questions outstanding to make a decision. I tweeted the news at 3:57 PM, along with The Charrette and a few other people. Simon Farbrother also said a few words, and said the media would be given an update by the following morning. The whole thing lasted just five minutes.

I remember thinking as I left City Hall that someone must have screwed up. I mean, since when does Council discuss anything quickly? It’s their job to make an informed decision, and that usually takes time. I found out later that inconveniencing the media was just the tip of the iceberg.

Mayor Mandel ECCA Announcement

When Mayor Mandel had told the media that Council still had questions, I assumed they were questioning the finalists directly. Not so, Shafraaz Kaba of Manasc Isaac told me. While the media were sitting in the Councillor’s Boardroom waiting for the announcement, the five finalists were sitting in a windowless room in the City Clerk’s office. Shafraaz said they had been taken there while Council was discussing the selection committee’s recommendation. They were not told how long they’d be waiting. “They provided coffee and drinks, and some fruit and dessert that basically no one touched,” Shafraaz told me. He recalled that everyone was starting to get impatient as they watched the minutes slowly tick by. Finally after an hour and a half they sent someone to find out what was going on. Soon everyone had left the room and was waiting outside the clerk’s office for some kind of update. “That’s when I saw your tweets, about Council not being able to make a decision,” he told me. A few minutes later, Phil Sande arrived and told them that Council would not be making a decision after all. When Shafraaz told him that they already knew that, Phil seemed surprised and asked how they had found out. “It was like he didn’t seem to know that there was a press conference going on,” Shafraaz said.

The next morning, Phil called Shafraaz and told him that their team’s submission had not been chosen as one of the three to move ahead. It was clarified that the Mayor and City Council will make the final decision on the winning team. At the Downtown Business Association’s Spring Luncheon later that day, representatives from all five teams were introduced and then a short, pre-recorded video with Mayor Mandel was shown. In the video, Mandel made reference to “the decision” which brought chuckles to the packed room. Simon Farbrother then made the official announcement about the shortlisting of three teams.

City Centre Airport Design Competition Finalists

The way the finalists were treated last week is completely inexcusable. Five world-class teams are competing to help shape the future of Edmonton and we lock them in a room with no information about what’s going on? It’s completely unacceptable. What are the chances that they’re going to want to work with the City again after being treated like that?

The worst part is that Wednesday was just more of the same, according to Shafraaz. There has been confusion and some disappointing decisions made ever since the start of the competition. “We asked early on who had the final decision, the ‘jury of distinguished experts’ or City Council,” Shafraaz told me. The response from the City was that Council had the final decision but that hopefully they would respect the jury’s decision. The RFP stated that “the jury will ultimately recommend a winning Submission or combination of Submissions to City Council for adoption” and that “City Council reserves the right to accept or reject the recommendation of the jury.” It certainly seemed as though Council’s role was not to conduct its own analysis but was instead to ratify the recommendation of the jury. Why have an independent jury if that wasn’t the case?

There were other bumps along the road too. “It was unclear what the deliverables for a ‘master plan’ should be,” Shafraaz told me. With no guidance, each team likely interpreted the amount of work involved differently. That’s especially problematic given that 25% of the evaluation scoring was price (vision & team philosophy was 30%, primary requirements was 25%, and master plan principles was 20%). “Is it about design or is it about cost?” Shafraaz wondered. “If you want the best design, you pay for it; it should never have been about cost.”

Unsurprisingly, the finalists also had to dig for details on the public involvement aspect of the competition. “We had to ask how much information we could present, how many boards we could have, how long the videos could be,” Shafraaz said. The jury was supposed to consider how the public responded, but teams were given no information about how that would be done. I saw some great coverage at The Charrette, but what little buzz there was about the videos didn’t seem to be sustained or capitalized on by the City, let alone factored into any evaluation.

Shafraaz is obviously disappointed that his team wasn’t shorter-listed, but he doesn’t regret taking part in the competition. “What made losing worth it, in terms of time and energy and all of the hours put in, is the experience of working with amazing designers, engineers, and other consultants that have done this kind of work in other projects.” He hopes other local participants also learned from the experience.

Ultimately, the real work will begin after a winning team is finally selected next month. Shafraaz thinks the project can gain some momentum after that decision is made, “but they’re going to have to work at it.” I don’t think it’s enough to simply hope that the City does indeed work at it. There are clearly some issues that must be addressed. We need to hold the City accountable and we need to ensure the mistakes that have been made so far are not repeated. This project is too important.

Edmonton’s Downtown Arena moves ahead with agreement framework

By Mack D. Male ·

The Katz Group scored a major victory tonight as City Council voted in private to approve an “agreement framework” for the proposed downtown arena. The framework is the basis for the two sides to negotiate a formal Master Agreement, which will require final approval by City Council. While not a final binding agreement, tonight’s deal nevertheless allows the project to move forward.

Here is the full motion and amendments as voted on back on April 6 (tonight’s was largely the same – see here):

Edmonton Downtown Arena Motion

The vote tonight succeeded 8-5. Who voted in favor of the framework? Who voted against?

For: Mandel, Krushell, Loken, Leibovici, Batty, Henderson, Anderson, Sohi
Against: Sloan, Gibbons, Caterina, Iveson, Diotte

The document outlines $350 million in funding for a $450 million arena. Where does the other $100 million come from?

Answering questions from the media tonight, Mayor Mandel would only say “other orders of government.” There is no confirmation on where the remaining amount will come from, but it is hoped that the Province will support the project.

How much of the total cost will be funded by a CRL?

The motion only states that $20 million be directed at the arena from a CRL. The remaining $105 million (the City’s maximum contribution will be $125 million) could come from direct tax revenues. However, the agreement framework page states that $45 million would come from a CRL. The final mix is likely to change.

What happens to Rexall Place and Northlands?

The motion specifies that City administration will continue “to work with Northlands to ensure the City understands their financial challenges and how these can be addressed.” Answering questions this evening, City Manager Simon Farbrother said that Edmonton cannot sustain two arenas. It would appear that Northlands has lost its seat at the table.

Will the City own the arena? Will it receive the revenue?

Under the agreement, the City would own the building and land. The Katz Group would be responsible for all maintenance, upgrades, operating and capital expense costs. The City also retains the right to access the facility four weeks a year. As for revenue, the motion only states that the City “negotiate options for potential revenue sharing.”

What will the arena look like?

The City stated tonight that the arena will contain 18,500 seats and 350 parking stalls. The design process will still need to happen once the project moves ahead.

What are the next steps?

The City and the Katz Group will now work to complete the Master Agreement. They’ll also be working to secure the remaining $100 million, likely from the Province.

Twitter was buzzing with the news tonight. Here are a few of the tweets that caught my eye:

#yegcc just came back in public – voted on a motion to approve a framework for #yegarena deal – details to be kept in private. Passes 8-5.
May 18 via Twitter for iPhone

News conference upcoming at City Hall for major #yegarena announcement.
May 18 via Twitter for BlackBerry®

City announces framework to build arena!
May 18 via Twitter for BlackBerry®

City and Katz Group agree on agreement framework to build arena http://bit.ly/ipraRy #yegarena #yeg
May 18 via TweetDeck

The City of Edmonton and Katz Group agree to framework that “sustains NHL hockey in #yeg for 35 years.” #yegarena #Oilers
May 18 via Twitter for BlackBerry®

Mandel stresses optimism, forward momentum, believes holes in plan will come together now that framework of deal in place. #yegarena
May 18 via Twitter for BlackBerry®

This arena will built just when the construction labour and materials market explodes. I’m guessing it comes in at $700 million. #yegarena
May 18 via HootSuite

This arena situation is just like the airport situation; everyone knew it was going to happen, it was just a matter of when. #yegarena #yeg
May 18 via Twitter for Mac

NOTE: #yegarena dissenters. A friendly reminder; you have until JULY 17th to file your plebiscite application. Just saying.
May 18 via web

It’ll be interesting to see what happens next! Much more to come, stay tuned.

ONEdmonton Downtown Vibrancy Task Force letter to City Council regarding the Proposed Downtown Edmonton Arena and Entertainment District

By Mack D. Male ·

ONEdmonton is a group of local leaders that have come together a few times over the last year to discuss how we can make Edmonton one of the world’s top 5 mid-size cities. The first subcommittee, called the Downtown Vibrancy Task Force, was launched in November after the larger group identified that our urban core is the top priority. I have been fortunate enough to be part of both groups.

Today, our task force sent a letter to City Council regarding the proposed Downtown Arena and Entertainment District:

The task force is a group of majority, not consensus. At the last meeting, the majority of the task force members voted the arena project as the top near-term priority in Edmonton’s downtown.

The task force members include: Chairperson Randy Ferguson (Procura), Bob Black (Katz Group), Dr. Paul Byrne (MacEwan), Carolyn Campbell (University of Alberta), Michael Janz (Public School Trustee, EFCL), Terry Kilburn (Avison Young), Bernie Kollman (IBM Canada), David Majeski (RBC), Mack Male, Doug McConnell (Dialog), Scott McKeen, Honourable Anne McLellan (Bennett Jones), Carol Neuman (Edmonton Next Gen), Simon O’Byrne (Stantec), Ian O’Donnell (Downtown Edmonton Community League) Keith Shillington (Stantec), Paul Verhesen (Clark Builders), Sheila Weatherill (EPCOR), Richard Wong (Sutton Place Hotel), and Ralph Young (Melcor). Representatives from EEDC facilitate the task force.

I don’t think anyone on the task force considers the arena project a done deal, nor do they think the issue is a simple one, and this is reflected in the letter. My read of what the task force is saying here is this: there’s potential with the arena project to positively impact our urban core, so let’s keep things moving and figure out how to make that happen.

UPDATE: I originally left out Ian O’Donnell and Sheila Weatherill, because they joined us after the first meeting. My mistake. EEDC has posted the list here.