News profile1. What are your thoughts on city ownership of Saamis Solar, and what direction would you want to see council take with ownership of renewables?
The 1900’s were the century of oil; the 2000’s will be looked back on as the century of renewables. I firmly believe they represent an inevitable future. In that context, I am supportive of the City investing in Saamis Solar. My understanding is that several similar projects in other Alberta municipalities pay for themselves in around 5 years and have considerable profitability beyond that. Since the physical assets have a lifespan of roughly 25 years, this strikes me as a very sound investment. We need to explore renewables in addition to maintaining our existing infrastructure. I’ve heard anecdotally that one concern from international industry looking to invest is that we don’t have an alternate source of energy generation to mitigate the inevitable wind down of natural gas. We have the sunniest city in Canada, so it’s strange to be opposed to a passive but reliable power source.
2. What are your thoughts on the future of the energy division, specifically the concept of turning it into a municipally controlled corporation?
I initially shared many of the concerns that others have, and now I’m in favour of the MCC. Council essentially needs to collectively re-learn the energy business every four years. Generally speaking, they are not going to be experts in the energy / utility field. This slows down decision making and leads to redundancy and inefficiency on the part of City staff who play teacher instead of doing their jobs. An MCC would be fit for purpose and comprise experts in the utility generation and delivery field. We would maintain our exemption from the Electric Utilities Act, and the MCC would not open utility generation or delivery to private suppliers or competition. Along with the proposed Rate Review Committee, they would be charged with increasing transparency in the rate setting process and recommend fair and competitive rates for ratepayers. An MCC will not change the risks, but could reduce the City’s exposure providing increased oversight and predictability of cashflow between the utility and the City.
There has been exhaustive outside consultation, and the City has shared a lot of information about the MCC proposal. Public consultation is important, and the public has been given ample opportunity to engage and learn. I firmly believe the City has acted in good faith on this point, providing multiple information sessions, and publishing a massive amount of information on the subject. More than anything, I’m appreciative that a decision has been made and this isn’t the sole issue in the election.
3. How would you look to balance taxation with the operation costs of running a city, as well as the services provided to residents?
Taxes are an inevitable part of living in a society, and we are all subject to them at multiple government levels. At what rate and frequency to increase them depends greatly on what they’re being used to fund. As with any financial proposal, I would need to see a business case supporting an increase, and would push back to explore other revenue tools, cost savings, or other ways to minimize the impact to the public before supporting an increase. One big initiative I’d like to bring forward is to index tax increases to inflation. Regular frequency, somewhat predictable, and measured increases are much easier to stomach than unpredictable spikes and plateaus. It would make budgeting easier for both residents and City departments.
In that context, it’s important to talk about service levels. Municipalities must provide a baseline of services that are fundamental to daily life: police & fire, utilities, transit, waste collection, road infrastructure, etc. – and they eat up much of the budget. While efficiencies can always be found, that base will stay mostly intact. Where we have a different discussion is on what some candidates are calling “wants”: community microgrants, housing and support services, the Fair Entry program, Hat Smart, free and inexpensive programming through Community Development and the Library, pools & rec centres, etc. I am proud of the investments in those areas and want to maintain them, but many folks would be willing to reduce their service levels in the interests of fiscal austerity. It’s a big conversation!
4. How would you approach economic development and any need to incentivize business to come to Medicine Hat?
It’s honestly a bit of a mystery to me that we were once so attractive to large manufacturing and industry. Methanex, CF, Goodyear, Big Marble, etc. all made decisions to open here over the past several decades. While I want to restore whatever advantage we once had, we can’t “give away the farm” just to attract investment. We have limited revenue streams, and the ones related to industry and employment offset property taxes. We need to sell Medicine Hat as a stable, sound investment to companies without completely waiving things like business taxes or offsite levies. I would want to ensure they’re right fit and in line with other counties and municipalities so there’s no clear advantage to moving or investing somewhere else. But I would be very cautious about waiving them entirely as some are suggesting.
We also need to sell and promote ourselves as the amazing community we are. Two intersecting highways, a skilled workforce ready to start, lots of amenities with a small-town feel, relatively low cost of living – we have several advantages already. Part of the role of Council is to be ambassadors and cheerleaders for Team Medicine Hat. Once we develop a meaningful, detailed strategic plan, signal our ability to make sound and rational decisions, and stabilize the past tensions between admin and governance, we can get out to the market and show that we’re ready and open for investment.
5. With the proposed north-side location for a permanent homeless shelter off the table following public concerns, what do you think are the essential priorities that a shelter location must provide?
The Mustard Seed is only mandated to provide shelter, and it made the choice to try and work beyond that. It’s important to remember that the Province alone dictates which agencies can operate emergency shelters, and there has been a task force working on a location selection for several months. Any shelter is better than no shelter and there is no perfect location. Many of the public’s concerns concentrated on the residential locations of the Mustard Seed’s operations. The proposed move mitigates that, but there are obviously still concerns. The agencies that support emergency shelters, including the police, are mobile, capable, and willing to transport people in need of this emergency service and the adjacent supports. Safety of the clients, the staff, and the general public need to be the top concern. There is a level of social disorder that comes from these spacers and their users, so a good neighbour plan and security protocols need to be enforced and transparent.
We need to understand what an emergency shelter does, which is to house and feed people in a temporary, transitional setting. But we also have agencies supporting members of the community who need additional amenities outside of that. I would like to see the current buildings used as transitional housing (8th St.) and a community hub with some kind of non-profit food program (Allowance Ave.) given that they’re already zoned appropriately. I believe strongly in housing-first initiatives and in letting the various agencies who do good work in our community continue to do so. 6. A lot of focus during this election campaign has been on property taxes in Medicine Hat, though a majority of residents do not own property. What can or should the city be doing to ease cost-of-living issues for those who do not own property, such as renters?
Unfortunately, much of this solution rests with the Province. I would like to advocate for rental increase caps to be set at a maximum annual percentage during tenancies. This would allow for more stability and predictable housing for renters, which helps them to save for eventual home ownership. On the municipal side, the City can promote density in a few ways: – Easing permitting and zoning requirements to allow backyard / garage suites, – Zoning more areas as medium / moderate density, and closing appeal loopholes that slow down the development process, – Ensuring consistency with inspections and permitting for secondary basement suites while still following provincial codes. Increasing density increases the available rental inventory, and helps to ease market pressures and the functional “triopoly” we have here with commercial property owners. Many people moving here from elsewhere in the country or world are not likely to be able to afford large single-family units on the edges of town, nor is that what they desire. We also need to penalize property owners who let potential rental units (above retail, for example) sit dormant and derelict for years. I’m suggesting a “vacancy tax” or something similar that incentivises making these units desirable to rent. The City can contribute to building affordable housing, but it’s an expensive venture with little return. We need to have a stark conversation around our priorities and responsibilities in a province where the market is allowed to price people out of what should be a fundamental right. 7. What are your thoughts on proposed recreational facilities such as the Southside Outdoor Aquatics Centre and Brier Run Sports Field? How much focus would you want the city to put toward adding recreational facilities?
I am in favour of both proposals, understanding that they are very preliminary and subject to multiple levels of funding, grants, and more defined planning. The City has heard through several feedback avenues that ice, outdoor sport fields, and both indoor & outdoor pools are needed. Large, multi-use facilities like Big Marble GO provide families with diverse recreation options. I would need to see very detailed annual preventative maintenance plans and budgets, so we don’t end up with facilities reaching end-of-life with no future mitigation. I would also like to see surrounding county contributions and P3 options, including naming rights, explored from the beginning so that the cost is not borne completely by city residents. The Briar Run proposal also includes servicing some land for future residential development, which has a net benefit for the uptake of the new fields. Both proposals help bolster us as a destination for sports tourism and hosting tournaments & events, with enormous economic ripple effect potential. The cost of these facilities is large and needs to be considered. But, initiatives like this will never get cheaper in the future. I think the benefits of facilities like the Esplanade & Big Marble, which required heavy up-front investment and were met with hesitation and resistance, are obvious for their generational impact. I’m confident that Briar Run and the Southside Aquatics projects will be viewed the same way in the future!
