More Money for Non-Union Staff   On March 2nd, the City of St. Albert issued a News Release that Council supported the City Manager’s recommendation to provide a 1% cost of living increase for the City’s non-union staff. It is easy to see how some observers might think a 1% increase is reasonable, until you start looking at recent City pay increases.  The table below shows the increases in the Consumer Price Index for Edmonton as reported by Statistics Canada. (http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/101/cst01/econ45a-eng.html), and compares the rate of inflation for the period from 2006 to 2010, to the level pf pay increases for the City’s employee groups.  The pay information was provided by the City. The comparison shows over the past 5 years, pay increases for City employees were more than double the rate of inflation.  This, during a period spanning a major recession whn many Canadian private sector workers were losing their jobs and pensions. In addition, non-union staff is on a pay grid system.  This means that within each salary range for each group of jobs, with each year of service, employees move up the grid to the maximum pay level for their position.  This represents further wage increases over and above inflation adjustments. The recent pay increases should also be considered against the backdrop of the 2010 Compensation Study done by Hay Group Ltd.  One of the significant findings of the report was that pay levels of St. Albert’s non-union staff were above levels set by policy for 11 of the existing 12 pay levels! All together, this is a lost opportunity for Council to say enough:  let’s start the adjustment process right now by holding the line on salaries.  Let’s start to make up for the large increases we gave staff all through the recession, and provide NO cost of living adjustment for 2011.  But, Council chose not to, suggesting the tough, but right decision was just too much for Council to handle Recent News Your Membership is Your VOICE Riel Park Costs Quadruple in 4 years   This presentation speaks to the report provided to Council by Administration, September 27th, in which they summarize the Riel Park project and their view of how it increased in cost so much over 4 years. In earlier Council meetings on Riel Park costs, Mayor Cruse comment on “brown- field” sites in cities and how, when remediation costs are too high, these sites are left undeveloped. He asked this in the context of the question “how did we get to the point where costs on this project are constantly increasing”. This was a good question, given that in the July 4, 2006 Council meeting, the report “Integrated Redevelopment plan” for the entire 30 ha of the Riel site was proposed as an $8.4 million project. It was described in the report as “a cost effective way to incorporate former landfill site, expansion of the City's park system, and maintenance of important recreation and sports facilities for the whole community”. The Plan included: $1.4 million for remediation, based on the Golder environmental report that would maximize containment, minimize leachate and monitor the site; $2.3 million to put in place the integrated redevelopment plan; and $4.0 million to totally redevelop the Kinsmen Rodeo grounds and add a premier football field. The $8.4 million was to be paid out of a $5.6 million CANRIF grant, and $2.8 million of local taxpayer dollars (the 2005 budget already had $659,000 for the football field, and $250,000 for the landfill remediation). We'd need an extra $1.89 million. So it looked like not a bad deal that would deal with an environmental issue and maintain current facilities. That was mid 2006. By the end of 2006, Council was presented the Riel Park Master Plan and in early 2007, based on this report, the New Plan costing $15.9 million was introduced. It included $6.8 million for the football field, a far cry from the original budget of $659,000. Council had a chance to stop the cost explosion of this project, but chose instead to pursue the “world standard” approach for facilities that has been partially responsible for the unconscionable increase St. Albertans have seen in taxes. We wonder why Administration, in tonight's report chose to make this second plan costing $15.9 million as its base for calculating cost increases, rather than the original 2006 cost estimate of $8.4 million. This first increase itself is almost double the original costs, and due most to upgrading the recreation facilities. Since then, through a long saga of reports, estimates, and cost increases the total project cost almost doubled again, to $28 million in 2009. In 2010 budget discussions, Council asked for no more surprises, but in spring this year another $2 million was needed, and now again, another $2 million is required bringing the project total to $32 million. And a new “discretionary” Phase 5 is not included in the price. The Remediation portion of the project was estimated at $1.4 million, and we're now informed this will end up costing $14.5 million by the end of phase 4. We ask, who has been minding the store while these costs have skyrocketed. Why wasn't Council provided the full picture earlier when they could have said No, we won't continue with this project because it is just not affordable. Instead, the blame is laid at the door of unexpected “methane” monitoring costs, when the methane issue has been known by local environmentalists for many years. Instead, the blame is placed on higher construction costs. We find it difficult to understand that a tenfold increase in remediation costs doesn't have something to do with poor estimating and lack of knowledge about the environmental remediation needed. The Facility Replacement aspect of the project was originally in the range of $7 million. It is now expected to be $17.6 million by project end, or two and one-half times the original costs. This increase sits squarely on Councils doorstep under its mantra of “world class”. Our conclusion, Mr. Mayor and Council is the average taxpayer cannot afford this unrealistic standard, nor processes that allow this type of explosion of costs for ANY project. The project costs quadrupled in 4 years, they did not double as administration claims. Pretty logos won't change the fact that we pay the highest residential taxes in Alberta. (note at this point, my presentation was cut off by the Mayor, so my concluding two sentences were unstated) Better negotiations with the federal government, more realistic goals versus world class facilities, improved estimating and cost control practices, and better monitoring of what started out as an affordable project might have prevented at least some of the cost escalation. Instead we are stuck with a mega project of $32 million and it seems no one was responsible for us getting there. 70 Arlington Drive Discovery   As many of you know, a group of Akinsdale residents launched a lawsuit against the City of St. Albert stemming from the sale of 70 Arlington Drive site by the Protestant School Board to the City, and the subsequent transfer of the land by the City to Habitat For Humanity. After considerable delays and significant effort, documentation found among old City records indicates that Council did not have all the relevant information when it made its decision to proceed with the purchase and gifting the property to Habitat, and that it may have erred in its decision. In short the documents show: 1. In 1974 the City traded road allowances to Qualico Developments for the land in Akinsdale, and then allocated the site to the school board. This is significant because it confirms that the City in effect paid for the school site by giving up other City owned lands. 2. In 1976 a "Joint Use Agreement" was negotiated between the City and School Division where surplus school properties were to revert back to the City, and the City was to use this for public purposes. When the incumbent Mayor was replaced by Mayor Harvey, he appears to have dropped the ball, and did not sign the agreement. 3. The land transfer was signed in 1979 even though the school board had said it would not be building a school. 4. In 1981, the planner involved with Akinsdale planning brought this history to the attention of the City Manager, along with his concern that school board was planning to sell the property. In a memo he stated that this would be 'A gross breach of responsible conduct for the School Board to dispose of the property.' 5. By 1987, Council was informed by its City Manager that the School Division was to sell the site. Perhaps unaware of the history, Council didn't raise any objections. The history seemingly uncovers incompetence or dereliction of duty by past Councils and administration. Unfortunately, in our recent past, this pattern appears to have continued. What concerns taxpayers of St. Albert is that prior to buying the land from the School Board, current management appears to have not exercised due diligence in questioning whether in fact the School Board had the right to sell the land. Alternatively, they knew the history and decided to withhold it from those concerned, including St. Albert taxpayers. Whatever happened, the history clearly shows that the taxpayers of St. Albert paid twice for the 70 Arlington Drive property.