notice of city council meeting - lethbridge€¦ · 3 communications (copies enclosed) internal...

NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING

DATE: TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2009 TIME: 1:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS

A G E N D A

CALL TO ORDER 1:30 p.m.

Invocation Bouquets Adoption of Minutes Adoption of Agenda Delegations, Correspondence, Bylaws, Official Business and Reports

Note: Agenda and all Communications, Bylaws and Reports for Regular Council Meetings are available from the City Clerk’s Office prior to the meeting, as well as through the City of Lethbridge Website @ http://www.lethbridge.ca

2

ANNOUNCEMENTS: DELEGATIONS:

1:45 P.M. 1. Bill Cade, President and Chris Horbachewshi, Vice-President, Advancement, University of Lethbridge, re University of Lethbridge Strategic Plan [see Communications A]

2:00 P.M. 2. Doug Kaupp, General Manager, Water, Wastewater and Stormwater, re Draft Drainage Bylaw [see Communications 1]

2:45 P.M. BREAK

3:00 P.M. 3. Kathy Wallocha, President, Lethbridge International AirShow Association, re City of Lethbridge Support for the 2009 Alberta International AirShow (July 25th and 26th, 2009) [see Communications B]

3:20 P.M. 4. Rena Woss, Co-Chair and Lisa Lambert, Member, GREENSENCE, re Alberta Government’s Nuclear Power Consultation Process [see Communications C]

3:40 P.M. 5. Todd Hudson, Old Man River Tubing and Raft Tours, re Improvements to the Botterill Bottom Park and Peenaquim Park Riverfronts [see Communications D]

3

COMMUNICATIONS

(Copies Enclosed)

IINNTTEERRNNAALL CCOOMMMMUUNNIICCAATTIIOONNSS

R.D.T. 1. From Doug Kaupp, General Manager, Water, Wastewater and Stormwater, re Draft Drainage Bylaw

S.G.W. 2. From Dianne Nemeth, City Clerk, re Bylaw 5587, Authorizing a Loan of Two Million ($2,000,000) dollars to the Lethbridge College

R.K.P. 3. From Sam Conard, Engineering Planner, re Nicholas Sheran Leisure Centre Renovation

R.D.T. 4. From Mayor R. D. Tarleck, re Report on the AUMA Summit on the Future of Local Governance

J.H.C. 5. From Graeme Woods, Strategic Initiatives Coordinator, re Municipal Historic Resource Designation of Acadia Block (614 – 3 Avenue South)

M.A.S. 6. From Graeme Woods, Strategic Initiatives Coordinator, re Municipal Historic Resource Designation of David James Whitney House (3202 – 28 Street South)

K.E.T. 7. From Graeme Woods, Strategic Initiatives Coordinator, re Municipal Historic Resource Designation of Hick-Sehl Building (618 – 3 Avenue South)

TENDERS/REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

T.H.W. 8. From Garth Sherwin, City Manager, re C-09-08; Invitation to Tender – Firehall Renovation, 5th Avenue North Station

R.K.P. 9. From Garth Sherwin, City Manager, re E-05-20; Option for Renewal – Electrical Meter Management Services – Final Three (3) Year Option

4

COMMUNICATIONS (continued) (Copies Enclosed)

TENDERS/REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

B.A.L. 10. From Garth Sherwin, City Manager, re S-09-40; Sole Source – 2009 to 2011 Road Condition Survey and Data Load, Three Year Contract

K.E.T. 11. From Garth Sherwin, City Manager, re C-09-19.1; Invitation to Tender – Demolition of Foundations Earthworking Concrete (ENMAX Centre)

EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS

B.A.L. A. From Chris Horbachewshi, Vice-President, Advancement, re University of Lethbridge Strategic Plan

J.H.C. B. From Kathy Wallocha, President, Lethbridge International Air show Association, re City of Lethbridge Support for the 2009 Alberta International AirShow (July 25th and 26th, 2009)

M.A.S. C. From Rena Woss, Co-Chair and Lisa Lambert, Member, GREENSENCE, re Alberta Government’s Nuclear Power Consultation Process

K.E.T. D. From Todd Hudson, Old Man River Tubing and Raft Tours, re Improvements to the Botterill Bottom Park and Peenaquim Park Riverfronts

5

BYLAWS: FOR SECOND AND THIRD READING:

S.G.W. • BYLAW 5587 – Affordable Housing Program Loan to Lethbridge College

FOR FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD READING: T.H.W. BYLAW 5593 – Local Improvement / Lane Paving

OFFICIAL BUSINESS: LAID ON TABLE:

Trever Broadhead, Executive Director, Boys & Girls Club of Lethbridge & District, re Facility Renovations - Letter of Support to Accompany Community Facility Enhancement Fund Application, Alberta Lottery Fund – Tabled May 4, 2009

REPORTS: The following listed items are considered to be routine and are indicated on the Agenda by an asterisk (*). These agenda items will be covered by one resolution with the exception of any items City Council may wish to debate separately. T.H.W. *1. Tender Summary Reports:

a) March b) April

*2. Follow-Up Action List

INCAMERA REPORTS:

• Committee Appointments (FOIP Section 24) • Land Matters (FOIP Section 24) • Advice from Officials (FOIP Section 24)

ADDENDUM CITY COUNCIL MEETING

DATE: MONDAY, February 23, 2009 TIME: 1:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS

DELEGATIONS

S.G.W. E. Rudy Friesen, General Manager, Exhibition Park, re Request for a letter of support to accompany their application to the Marquee Tourism Event program

ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE

R.K.P. 12. David Ellis, Parks Manager, re Pathway System Expansion

1

Date of City Council Meeting: May 19, 2009

Subject: Draft Drainage Bylaw

Submitted By: Doug Kaupp, General Manager, Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater

RECOMMENDATION: That Mayor and Council direct Administration to prepare a

new stormwater bylaw based on attached draft Drainage Bylaw for first reading.

PURPOSE:

At the regular meeting of April 28, 2008, City Council passed the following official business resolution: WHEREAS the City of Lethbridge accepts responsibility for taking reasonable steps to protect the quality of water in our watershed; AND WHEREAS to date, the City of Lethbridge has not enacted a Storm Water Bylaw restricting the discharge of dangerous or destructive fluids into the storm water system; AND WHEREAS any material discharged into the storm water system will ultimately enter the Oldman River without treatment; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Manager be directed to ensure that a Storm Water Discharge Bylaw be developed for City Council’s consideration; AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Manager be requested to provide City Council with a timeframe for the development of said Bylaw, recognizing that city Administration already has a number of previously identified projects on its agenda. Attached is a draft bylaw for Council’s consideration.

REQUEST FOR DECISION

2

IMPLICATION OF RECOMMENDATION GENERAL: The proposed Drainage Bylaw Drainage Bylaw is intended to

protect the stormwater drainage system, public health and safety, property, and the environment. It prohibits the release of specified materials into the stormwater drainage system and regulates connections made to it. The proposed bylaw allows the releases to the stormwater system of water from foundation drains, portable swimming pools smaller than 3,000 litres, irrigation water, water from the washing of homes with potable water, and water used to extinguish fires. The release of the following materials into the stormwater system would be prohibited:

-soil, sediment, or solid waste -cement or concrete wastes -construction material -sawdust, wood -yard waste -animal waste -fecal matter -biomedical waste -general medical waste -hazardous waste -gasoline, motor oil -transmission fluid -antifreeze -solvents -paint -cooking oil -pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers -soaps or detergents -water from hot tubs

The proposed bylaw regulates connections to the stormwater system in a number of ways including a requirement that commercial, industrial, institutional and multi-family developments include stormwater retention. Other examples are prohibiting the connection of roof drainage to foundation drains or weeping tile, and requiring pipes to terminate at least two (2) metres from a surface drainage facility. The draft bylaw also authorizes the City to recover the cost of containment and clean up of prohibited releases, order remedial action, and levy fines for any contravention of the bylaw.

3

FINANCIAL: Authorizes the City to recover the cost of containment and

clean up of prohibited releases.

IMPLICATION/ COMMUNICATIONS:

Effective public notification and education are necessary to realizing the full benefit of the new Drainage Bylaw. Suggested methods of communication include an open house event at City Hall and notices sent out with utility bills.

BRIEFING SHEET Legislation & Policy Supports “Towards a Sustainable Future” by reducing the

community’s total impact on the environment.

Options 1. Bylaw can be accepted as presented.

2. Specific components of the proposed bylaw can be added to or removed prior to first reading.

3. Bylaw can be referred to Community Issues Committee (CIC) or the Environment Committee for further discussion and review.

Recommended Option Bylaw be accepted as presented.

Public Participation Public meeting can be scheduled to allow citizens to voice

support or concerns with the new drainage bylaw. Reports / Documents A proposed draft Drainage Bylaw is attached.

Submitted By: _________________________ Reviewed By: _________________________ City Treasurer: _________________________ City Solicitor: _________________________ Reviewed & Endorsed by City Manager: _________________________________ City Manager’s Comments: _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________

Revision Date & Time:

CONSOLIDATION OF A BYLAW OF THE CITY OF LETHBRIDGE TO REGULATE STORM SEWERS AND STORM DRAINAGE IN THE CITY OF

LETHBRIDGE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

WHEREAS the Municipal Government Act authorizes a municipality to pass Bylaws for municipal purposes respecting public utilities and services provided by the municipality; AND WHEREAS regulating storm sewers and storm drainage within the City of Lethbridge is desirable; AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to update and consolidate the bylaws which control and regulate storm sewers and storm drainage in The City of Lethbridge; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LETHBRIDGE, DULY ASSEMBLED, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1.00 TITLE

1.1. This Bylaw may be referred to as the “Drainage Bylaw”. 2.00 INTERPRETATION AND DEFINITIONS

2.1. Unless the context specifically indicates otherwise, the meaning used in this Bylaw shall be as follows:

2.2. “Animal Waste” means all forms of waste from animals or the treatment of

animals, and includes animal carcasses or parts;

2.3. “Biomedical Waste” means medical waste that requires proper handling and disposal because of environmental, aesthetic, health or safety concerns and includes, but is not limited to:

2.3.1. human anatomical waste; 2.3.2. infectious human waste; 2.3.3. infectious animal waste; 2.3.4. microbiological waste; 2.3.5. blood and body fluid waste; and 2.3.6. medical sharps, such as needles, syringes, blades, or other clinical

or laboratory materials capable of causing punctures or cuts;

2.4. “City” means the municipal corporation of The City of Lethbridge, and includes the geographical area within the boundaries of The City of Lethbridge where the context so requires;

2.5. “City Manager” means the Person designated by Council as the Chief Administrative Officer of the City or that Person’s designate;

2.6. “Connection” means a pipe or conduit installed between a Premises and the

Storm Drainage System for the purpose of draining Storm Drainage from the Premises;

2.7. “Decorative Pond” means an artificial body of water for ornamental purposes

but does not include fish ponds;

2.8. “Director” means the Infrastructure Services Director of the City of Lethbridge or his duly authorized agent or representative;

2.9. “Foundation Drainage” means Water collected beneath the surface of the

ground by a foundation drain or weeping tile;

2.10. “General Medical Waste” means non-hazardous medical waste and includes, but is not limited to, soiled dressings, sponges, surgery drapes, lavage tubes, casts, catheters, disposable pads, disposable gloves, specimen containers, lab coats and aprons, tubings, filters, towels and disposable sheets, but excludes Biomedical Waste;

2.11. “Hazardous Waste” means waste that is generated from any Premises and has

one or more hazardous properties as described in the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, Waste Control Regulation (Alta. Reg. 192/96), Schedule 1, as amended or any act passed in replacement of it;

2.12. “Industrial Waste” means waste generated by commercial or industrial

activities that presents health, safety or environmental concerns, and includes, but is not limited to, lime, sulphur, asbestos, contaminated soils, empty chemical containers and drums, carbon, acids, caustics, sludge, and industrial sump Water, but excludes Hazardous Waste and Biomedical Waste;

2.13. “Interceptor” means a receptacle approved by the Director and designed to

prevent oil, grit and other matter from passing from the source into the Storm Drainage System;

2.14. “Municipal Government Act” means the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A.

2000, chapter M-26, as amended or any act passed in replacement of it;

2.15. “Negative Drainage” means, on a Parcel with a single detached, semidetached or duplex dwelling, the continuous downward slope from the property line to the elevation of finished ground surface at any point immediately adjacent to the building on all sides of the Parcel;

2.16. “Negative Impact” means impairment of or damage to, or the ability to cause impairment of or damage to:

2.16.1. the Storm Drainage System; 2.16.2. human health or safety; 2.16.3. property; or 2.16.4. the environment;

2.17. “Officer” means any Person designated as a Bylaw Enforcement Officer by

the City Manager;

2.18. “Parcel” means the aggregate of one or more areas of land described in a certificate of title;

2.19. “Person” means any individual, or any business entity including, but not

limited to, a firm, partnership, association, corporation, society or legal entity;

2.20. “Premises” includes lands and buildings or both, or a part thereof;

2.21. “Prohibited Material” means any Substance that may, directly or indirectly, obstruct the flow of Water within the Storm Drainage System or may have a Negative Impact, and includes, but is not limited to:

2.21.1. soil, sediment, waste or other solid matter; 2.21.2. fecal matter, Animal Waste; 2.21.3. cooking oils and greases; 2.21.4. gasoline, motor oil, transmission fluid, and antifreeze; 2.21.5. solvents; 2.21.6. paint; 2.21.7. cement or concrete wastes; 2.21.8. sawdust, wood, fibreboard or construction material; 2.21.9. Yard Waste; 2.21.10. pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers; 2.21.11. Biomedical Waste or General Medical Waste; 2.21.12. Hazardous Waste; 2.21.13. Industrial Waste; 2.21.14. soaps or detergents; 2.21.15. Water from hot tubs; and 2.21.16. any Substance or combination of Substances that emits an odour.

2.22. “Provincial Offences Procedure Act” means the Provincial Offences

Procedure Act, R.S.A.2000, chapter P-34, as amended or any act passed in replacement of it;

2.23. “Release” has the meaning of “release” as defined in the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, R.S.A. 2000, chapter E-12, as amended or any act passed in replacement of it;

2.24. “Remedial Order” means a remedial order written pursuant to Section 545 of

the Municipal Government Act.

2.25. “Reserve” means a Parcel designated on its certificate of title as municipal reserve, school reserve, municipal and school reserve, environmental reserve or public utility lot, or a Parcel administered by the City as if it had such reserve designation;

2.26. “Sideyard” means that portion of a Parcel extending from the front yard to the

rear yard and between the side property line of the Parcel and the closest side of the principal building;

2.27. “Storm Drainage” means runoff that is the result of precipitation;

2.28. “Storm Drainage System” means the system for collecting, storing and

disposing of Storm Drainage, and includes:

2.28.1. the catch basins, sewers and pumping stations that make up the storm drainage collection system,

2.28.2. the storm drainage facilities, structures or things used for storage, management and treatment to buffer the effects of the peak runoff or improve the quality of the storm water,

2.28.3. the sewers and pumping stations that transport storm drainage to the location where it is treated or disposed of,

2.28.4. the storm drainage outfall structures, and 2.28.5. the Surface Drainage Facilities, but 2.28.6. does not include plumbing or service connections in buildings;

2.29. “Street” means any thoroughfare, highway, road, trail, avenue, parkway, driveway, viaduct, lane, alley, square, bridge, causeway, trestleway, or other place, whether publicly or privately owned, any part of which the public is ordinarily entitled or permitted to use for the passage or parking of vehicles, and includes:

2.29.1. a sidewalk (including the boulevard portion of the sidewalk), 2.29.2. if a ditch lies adjacent to and parallel with the roadway, the ditch,

and 2.29.3. if a street is contained between fences or between a fence and one

side of the roadway, all the land between the fences, or all the land between the fence and the edge of the roadway, as the case may be.

2.30. “Substance” has the meaning of “substance” as defined by the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, R.S.A. 2000, chapter E-12, as amended or any act passed in replacement of it;

2.31. “Surface Drainage Facility” means any facility or facilities associated with

drainage or control of Storm Drainage that is ultimately directed to a Street or Storm Drainage System, and includes, but is not limited to:

2.31.1. a grass swale; 2.31.2. a concrete or asphalt walkway, gutter or swale; 2.31.3. a drainage control fence or structure; or 2.31.4. the sloping and contouring of land to facilitate or control Storm

Drainage;

2.32. “Water” means all water in any form on or under the surface of the ground;

2.33. “Yard Waste” means waste from gardening or horticultural activities and includes, but is not limited to, grass, leaves, plants, tree and hedge clippings, and sod.

2.34. Each provision of this Bylaw is independent of all other provisions and if any

provision is declared invalid for any reason by a Court of competent jurisdiction, all other provisions of this Bylaw remain valid and enforceable.

2.35. Any headings, sub-headings, or tables of contents in this Bylaw are included

for guidance purposes and convenience only, and shall not form part of this Bylaw.

2.36. All the schedules attached to this Bylaw shall form a part of this Bylaw.

3.00 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS

3.1. Nothing in this Bylaw relieves a Person from complying with any provision of any federal or provincial law or regulation, other bylaw or any requirement of any lawful permit, order or licence.

4.00 DISCHARGES TO THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM

4.1. No Person shall Release, or allow to be Released any Prohibited Material into

the Storm Drainage System, except as permitted in Subsection 4.2. 4.2. The following may be Released into the Storm Drainage System:

4.2.1. Foundation Drainage; 4.2.2. Water from a portable swimming pool, Decorative Pond or fountain,

having a capacity of 3,000 litres or less;

4.2.3. subject to the restrictions in the Water Service Bylaw, Water resulting solely from:

4.2.3.1. irrigating or otherwise watering a lawn, garden and trees or other landscaping; or

4.2.3.2. washing of single-family or semi-detached homes with potable water;

4.2.3.3. water resulting from extinguishing fires; 4.2.4. a discharge to the Storm Drainage System which has been approved

in writing by the Director.

5.00 UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGES

5.1. Any Person who, in contravention of this Bylaw, Releases, or causes or allows any Prohibited Material to be Released into the Storm Drainage System, shall immediately take all reasonable measures to:

5.1.1. notify the 911 emergency telephone number if there is any

immediate danger to human health or safety; 5.1.2. notify the Director; 5.1.3. notify any other Person that may be directly affected by the

discharge; 5.1.4. mitigate the discharge, including, but not limited to, taking measures

to prevent the obstruction of the Storm Drainage System or measures to prevent a Negative Impact; and

5.1.5. cover and clearly mark all hoses used to direct Water to the Storm Drainage System to protect the public from injury.

5.2. Nothing in this Section relieves a Person from complying with the

requirements of any federal or provincial law or regulation, other bylaw or any requirements of any lawful permit, order, or licence.

6.00 DIRECTING STORM DRAINAGE

6.1. Except where a Parcel has Negative Drainage, no Person shall allow downspouts, eavestroughing, piping or other means of directing Storm Drainage on a Parcel to terminate within 2 metres of:

6.1.1. a Reserve; 6.1.2. a Surface Drainage Facility, except where such Surface Drainage

Facility is located in a Sideyard; or 6.1.3. a Street.

6.2. No Person shall directly connect or allow direct connection of downspouts,

eavestroughing, piping or other means of directing roof drainage to a foundation drain or weeping tile.

6.3. Except in an emergency, no Person shall direct or pump impounded Water from a parcel to the Storm Drainage System without written consent of the Director.

7.00 RETENTION OF STORM DRAINAGE

7.1. The Director may require the owner or occupant of a Parcel to treat or restrict, impound or otherwise retain Storm Drainage on such Parcel.

7.2. On-site retention is required for all commercial, industrial, institutional and

multi-family developments. The volume of on-site storage required will be determined by the Director based on the available capacity downstream of a Connection.

7.3. Any Person who owns or occupies a Parcel on which the Director has directed

an Interceptor be located pursuant to Section 7.1 shall:

7.3.1. keep the Interceptor in good working condition at all times; and 7.3.2. service the Interceptor often enough so that it does not become

overloaded.

7.4. No Person shall deposit, or cause or allow, any Interceptor residue to be deposited into the Storm Drainage System.

8.00 USE OF STORM DRAINAGE

8.1. Without the written consent of the Director, no Person shall use any Storm Drainage or impounded Storm Drainage in the Storm Drainage System owned or under the control of the City for private or commercial activities including, but not limited to, construction or irrigation purposes.

9.00 INTERFERENCE WITH THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM

9.1. Any Person who owns or occupies a Parcel on which a Surface Drainage Facility is located shall ensure that:

9.1.1. no building or other structure is constructed, erected, placed, or

allowed to remain on or over the Surface Drainage Facility; and 9.1.2. the Surface Drainage Facility remains clear of soil, silt, Yard Waste,

debris, ice, snow or other matter which may obstruct, restrict or prevent the flow of Storm Drainage within the Surface Drainage Facility or the Storm Drainage System.

9.2. Notwithstanding Subsection 9.1, a fence may be constructed over a Surface

Drainage Facility provided there is a vertical clearance over the top of the Surface Drainage Facility of at least 0.15 metres.

10.00 COMPLIANCE WITH INSTRUMENTS REGISTERED ON TITLE

10.1. The owner of a Parcel shall comply with the terms and conditions of any easement, utility right-of-way, caveat, restrictive covenant, or any other document that has been registered on the title of the Parcel to protect a drainage structure, swale, ditch or other Surface Drainage Facility, or the stability of a slope.

11.00 CONNECTIONS

11.1. No Person shall make, alter or remove, or permit the making, alteration or removal of, any Connection to the Storm Drainage System without the written approval of the Director.

11.2. Applications for the installation, alteration or removal of a Connection shall

be made in writing to the Director.

11.3. The Director may approve the installation, alteration or removal of a Connection upon such terms and conditions as the Director considers necessary and the payment in advance of the cost or estimated cost of the installation, alteration or removal of the Connection.

11.4. The installation, alteration or removal of a Connection shall be carried out at

the expense of the applicant.

11.5. No Person shall re-use a Connection that has been discontinued, altered or removed without first obtaining the written consent of the Director.

11.6. Where the use of a Connection is discontinued, the owner of the Premises

which was serviced by such Connection shall immediately notify the Director in writing and the owner shall pay to the City, in advance, the cost of disconnection.

12.00 DISCONNECTIONS

12.1. The Director may, in addition to any other remedy available, disconnect or seal off the Parcel from the Storm Drainage System or take such other action as is necessary to prevent a discharge of Storm Drainage from entering the Storm Drainage System where the discharge:

12.1.1. contains a Prohibited Material; 12.1.2. creates an immediate danger to any Person; 12.1.3. interferes with or endangers the operation of the Storm Drainage

System; or 12.1.4. may otherwise cause or result in a Negative Impact.

12.2. Where the Director has taken action pursuant to Subsection 12.1, such action

may be maintained or continued until evidence satisfactory to the Director has been produced to assure that no further harmful discharge will be made.

12.3. Where the Director has taken action pursuant to Subsection 12.1, the Director

may, by notice in writing, advise the owner or occupier of the Premises from which the discharge was emanating, of the cost of taking such action and the owner or occupier shall forthwith reimburse the City for all such costs which were incurred.

13.00 AUTHORITY OF DIRECTOR

13.1. The Director may:

13.2. delegate any or all of the powers granted to the Director pursuant to this Bylaw;

13.3. establish any conditions or requirements of an approval or permit to Release

Water to the Storm Drainage System, including, but not limited to:

13.3.1. testing, monitoring or reporting requirements; 13.3.2. equipment or equipment maintenance requirements; and 13.3.3. filtration, settling or other treatment requirements;

13.4. order the testing of any discharge to the Storm Drainage System; and

13.5. establish fees for approvals or permits.

13.6. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Bylaw, the Director may establish

rates, volumes and locations of discharges, including, but not limited to:

13.6.1. overland flows to a City owned Parcel, including a Reserve; 13.6.2. discharges into a Storm Drainage System; and 13.6.3. discharges to a Street.

14.00 APPROVALS

14.1. A Person to whom a written approval has been issued pursuant to this Bylaw shall ensure every provision and condition of that approval is complied with.

14.2. Every Person who relies on a written approval issued pursuant to this Bylaw

has the onus of proving that they were the holder of a valid and subsisting approval.

15.00 INSPECTIONS

15.1. Subject to the entry notice provisions of the Municipal Government Act, a designated officer of the City, bearing proper identification, may inspect, observe, measure, sample and test the Water or Storm Drainage on any Premises in order to determine whether or not this Bylaw or an approval granted pursuant to this Bylaw is being complied with.

16.00 REMEDIAL ORDERS

16.1. Where an Officer who is also a designated officer believes a Person has contravened any provision of this Bylaw, he may issue to the Person a Remedial Order, pursuant to Section 545 of the Municipal Government, to remedy the infraction.

16.2. Every Remedial Order written with respect to this bylaw must:

16.2.1. indicate the Person to whom it is directed; 16.2.2. identify the property to which the Remedial Order relates by

municipal address or legal description; 16.2.3. identify the date that it is issued; 16.2.4. identify how the Premises fails to comply with this Bylaw; 16.2.5. identify the specific provisions of the Bylaw the Premises

contravenes; 16.2.6. identify the nature of the remedial action required to be taken to

bring the Premises into compliance; 16.2.7. identify the time within which the remedial action must be

completed; 16.2.8. indicate that if the required remedial action is not completed within

the time specified, the City may take whatever action or measures are necessary to remedy the contravention;

16.2.9. indicate that the expenses and costs of any action or measures taken by the City under this Section are an amount owing to the City by the Person to whom to order is directed;

16.2.10. indicate that the expenses and costs referred to in this Section may be attached to the tax roll of the property if such costs are not paid by a specified time;

16.2.11. indicate that an appeal lies from the Remedial Order to the City Council, if a notice of appeal is filed in writing with the City Clerk within fourteen days of the receipt of the Remedial Order.

16.3. A Remedial Order written pursuant to this Bylaw may be served personally

upon the owner of the Premises to which it relates, or it may be left with a Person apparently over the age of 18 years at the Premises.

16.4. If, in the opinion of an Officer, service of the Remedial Order cannot be reasonably affected, or if the Officer believes that the owner of the Premises is evading service, the Officer may post the Remedial Order in a conspicuous place on the Premises to which the Remedial Order relates, or on the private dwelling place of the owner of the Premises, as registered at the Land Titles Office or on the municipal tax roll for the Premises, and the Remedial Order shall be deemed to be served upon the expiry of three (3) days after the Remedial Order is posted.

16.5. Every Person who fails to comply with a Remedial Order issued pursuant to

this Bylaw within the time set out in the Remedial Order commits an offence. 17.00 INTERFERENCE WITH CITY FORCES

17.1. No Person shall hinder, interrupt or cause to be hindered any employee of the City or its contractors, servants and agents or workers, in the exercise of the powers or duties as authorized or required in this Bylaw.

18.00 OFFENCES AND PENALTIES

18.1. Any Person who contravenes any provision of this Bylaw by: doing any act or thing which the Person is prohibited from doing; or failing to do any act or thing the Person is required to do is guilty of an offence and any offence created pursuant to this Bylaw is a strict liability offence for the purposes of prosecution under this Bylaw.

18.2. Any Person who is convicted of an offence pursuant to this Bylaw is liable for

every day or part thereof upon which such offence occurs or continues, on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, and in default of payment of any fine imposed, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one (1) year.

18.3. Where an Officer believes that a Person has contravened any provision of this

Bylaw, the Officer may, in addition to any other remedy at law, serve upon the Person a violation ticket, in the form provided under the Provincial Offences Procedure Act.

18.4. Where there is a specified penalty listed for an offence in Schedule “A” to this

Bylaw, that amount is the specified penalty for the offence.

18.5. Where there is a minimum penalty listed for an offence in Schedule “A” to this Bylaw, that amount is the minimum penalty for the offence.

18.6. Notwithstanding specified and minimum penalties set out in Schedule “A” to this Bylaw:

18.6.1. where a Person contravenes the same provision of this Bylaw twice

within one twelve month period, the specified penalty payable in respect of the second contravention shall be double the amount of the specified penalty for a first offence;

18.6.2. where a Person is convicted of the same provision of this Bylaw twice within one twelve month period, the minimum penalty for the second conviction shall be twice the amount of the minimum penalty for a first offence;

18.6.3. where a Person contravenes the same provision of this Bylaw three or more times within one twelve month period, the specified penalty payable in respect of the third and subsequent contraventions shall be triple the amount of the specified penalty for a first offence; and

18.6.4. where a Person is convicted of the same provision of this Bylaw three or more times within one twelve month period, the minimum penalty for the third and subsequent convictions shall be triple the amount of the minimum penalty for a first offence.

18.7. This Section shall not prevent any Officer from issuing a violation ticket

requiring a court appearance of the defendant, pursuant to the provisions of the Provincial Offences Procedure Act.

18.8. The levying and payment of any fine or the imprisonment for any period

provided in this Bylaw shall not relieve a Person from the necessity of paying any fees, charges or costs from which that Person is liable under the provisions of this Bylaw or any other bylaw.

19.00 COMMENCEMENT

19.1. This Bylaw will come into full force and effect on the date of final passing thereof.

SCHEDULE “A”

SPECIFIED AND MINIMUM PENALTIES

SECTION OFFENCE MINIMUM SPECIFIED PENALTY PENALTY 1st offence 1st offence

4.1 Release a Prohibited Material $500 $3000 4.2.2 Discharge exceeding 3000 L $75 $500 5.1.1, 2 & 3 Fail to notify of discharge $75 $500 5.1.4 Fail to mitigate prohibited discharge $500 $3000 5.1.5 Fail to cover or clearly mark hoses $75 $200 6.1 Allow termination within 2m $75 $300 6.2 Connect directly to foundation drain or weeping

tile $75 $500

6.3 Pump/Direct water from a Parcel $500 $1500 7.3 Fail to maintain Interceptor $500 $1500 7.4 Deposit Interceptor residue $500 $3000 8.1 Unauthorized use of Storm Drainage $500 $1000 9.1.1 Allow structure on or over a Surface Drainage

Facility $500 $1500

9.1.2 Fail to ensure Surface Drainage Facility $500 $1500 remains clear of debris 9.2 Insufficient clearance over a Surface $500 $1500 Drainage Facility 11.1 Unauthorized Connection to Storm $500 $1500 Drainage System 11.5 Unauthorized re-use of Connection $500 $1500 11.6 Failure to notify Director of discontinuation $75 $300 14.1 Violate approval or condition of approval $500 $1500 16.5 Fail to comply with Remedial Order $250 $500 17.1 Hindering authorized City employee $500 $1000

Date of City Council Meeting: May 19, 2009 Subject: Bylaw 5587, authorizing a loan of Two Million ($2,000,000)

dollars to the Lethbridge College Submitted By: Dianne Nemeth, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That Bylaw 5587 be given second and third reading.

PURPOSE: BYLAW 5587 authorizes City Council to enter into

contracts with Lethbridge College for the purposes of loaning to the College the sum of Two Million ($2,000,000) dollars from the funds allocated to the City of Lethbridge pursuant to the Alberta Affordable Housing Program

IMPLICATION OF RECOMMENDATION GENERAL: Pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Government

Act we are required to advertise these provisions prior to proceeding with second and third reading to give the electorate an opportunity to express their views and to petition against this initiative should they so desire. Notice to Electorate was advertised in the Lethbridge Herald April 11th and 18th stating that petitions must be received by the City Clerk on or before May 4th, 2009. No petitions were received, consequently, Bylaw 5587 is presented for second and third reading.

Submitted By: _________________________ Reviewed By: _________________________ City Treasurer: _________________________ City Solicitor: _________________________ Reviewed & Endorsed by City Manager: _________________________________ City Manager’s Comments: _____________________________________________

_____________________________________________


1


Subject: Nicholas Sheran Leisure Centre Renovation

Submitted By: Sam Conard, Engineering Planner

RECOMMENDATION: That City Council support the application for grant funding

under the Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RInC) Program for the planned renovation work at the Nicholas Sheran Leisure Centre.

PURPOSE: To obtain evidence of municipal support to accompany the

City’s application for funding under the RInC program. IMPLICATION OF RECOMMENDATION FINANCIAL: Should the RInC funding be awarded, the City will be

required to contribute 1/3 of the total project cost of $2,613,500. Therefore, the amount of $877,000 will be allocated from the Facility Services regular lifecycle operating budget.


The evidence of municipal support is required to accompany the grant application which must be submitted by May 26th.

BRIEFING SHEET Plans Securing the RInC funding will allow the planned

renovations at Nicholas Sheran Leisure Centre to be completed. The renovation work aligns with the strategic plans of the Facility Services Department by ensuring the reliable and effective delivery of services to the community.

Recommended Option That City Council support the application for grant funding

under the Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RInC) Program for the planned renovation work at the Nicholas Sheran Leisure Centre.

Reports / Documents Project Profile


2



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Change Room AdditionA joint use initiative of the University of Lethbridge and City of Lethbridge

The City of Lethbridge and the University of Lethbridge have long recognized the importance of educational sport and recreation programs for the health and wellness of the community. Their common mission is to improve the personal well being of individuals and to enhance the quality of life in local and regional youth by providing a wide variety of sport, and recreational opportunities.

The Nicholas Sheran Ice Center is a City of Lethbridge facility constructed in 1987 and functions year round as a single rink arena providing ice time to a variety of public user groups. The building encompasses 3518 m2, was designed to accom-modate up to 978 spectators and as the University of Lethbridge does not have its own arena facility an agreement was reached to provide a home location for the University of Lethbridge Men’s and Women’s Pronghorn Hockey teams. This resulted in the University Men’s Hockey team becoming a major tenant at Nicho-las Sheran Arena utilizing it for both practices and games. The agreement further provided space within the building for the Men’s Hockey program that included a change room with individual stalls, trainer’s room, laundry facilities, storage areas, and a coach’s office.

In 1998 the University of Lethbridge Pronghorn Athletics expanded to include a Women’s Hockey program. This group has also become a major tenant at Nicho-las Sheran using the facility six days a week for all practices and games. However within the confines of the current footprint, there is no available space to house a locker room or equipment storage area for the Women’s team. The University of Lethbridge is the only post-secondary school in Canada West that operates a female hockey program and does not have its own dedicated dressing room area to meet the needs of the program. Having a dedicated dressing room facil-ity at the home arena often becomes a key recruiting decision point for athletes when choosing to attend an institution and the addition of this space presents an excellent opportunity for the City of Lethbridge, and the University of Lethbridge to work together to develop a Sports Complex that can accommodate all stake-holders.

The proposed dressing room will be located as an extension to the current Nicholas Sheran structure since all of the space within the building has been fully allocated. Conceptual components will include a dressing room area with 25 individual stalls; washroom and shower amenities; equipment storage room, an athletic therapist area; and a changing area and office for the coaching staff. It is expected the space requirements will be similar to the locker room developed for the men’s hockey team, approximately 2000 sq. ft. to accommodatethe needs for a uni-gender facility. This new dressing room will reduce booking conflicts and free up space for other female athletes to use when playing on co-ed teams. During major provincial and national events and tournaments held at this arena (approx. 12 per year), this room would be used as additional dressing room space to accommodate more teams.

Nicholas Sheran Ice Centre

21

Additionally the existing second level bleacher exit stair does not meet current building code standards and requires modifications to provide a safe and usable emergency exit.

Lifecycle Upgrades

Several building components of the Nicholas Sheran Leisure Centre (Pool and Ice Rink) have been identified for lifecycle replacement. A large portion of the work identified is for systems that must work properly so that both portions of this facility are able to provide their services to the community. These systems include:

The mechanical heating and ventilation systems The ice making refrigeration plant system The electrical lighting, fire alarm, and security systems The rink boards

Several other building elements are known to have deteriorated; such as, win-dows in the pool area, lockers in the change rooms, and exterior doors.

In addition, the installation of automated sliding doors is recommended to im-prove the barrier-free accessibility of the facility.

COMMUNITY NEEDThis project will have positive impacts on the community and region in many ways. The most obvious impact will be the addition of an upgraded, better us-able facility for the City of Lethbridge and it will further boost the reputation and quality of the University of Lethbridge Women’s Hockey Program by providing the best environment possible for student-athletes. This will assist the University in at-tracting quality students in the future.

Pronghorn Women’s Hockey provides many opportunities for Southern Alberta. For example it provides a place for elite players to play hockey, remain close to home, and attend university; a strong team attracts quality players/students. Pronghorn players act as assistant coaches for local minor hockey teams and for-mer Pronghorn players act as coaches in minor hockey. Pronghorn coaches act as mentors to other coaches involved in minor hockey and most coaches/play-ers/former players have been involved in Alberta Winter Games and other Hock-ey Alberta development programs. The U of L also serves as a career progression opportunity for the Warner Hockey School.

22

23

This project also relates to a number of statements in the University of Lethbridge strategic plan such as,

“We are connected with the community.” The Universities partnership with the City of Lethbridge at this facility, and the opportunity this presents to local female athletes and businesses, further connects the University to the community. “We promote equal opportunity and diversity for participation.” “We promote gender equity.” The Men’s Hockey Program has had a dedicated space since 1990 and this project will provide equal space for the Women’s Hockey Program. “We are active and innovative in recruitment and retention.” This project will improve the quality of the experience we can offer to potential student-athletes. We aim to keep quality Southern Alberta female hockey players from seeking schooling and hockey opportunities outside of Lethbridge.

“We give students the best preparation for their future.” As an athlete, these stu-dents learn various life skills that help prepare them for their future in life and for employment. This project will build pride in our athletes of our University and they will continue to speak well of the institution once they graduate.

Cost Plan

25

The Nicholas Sheran Ice Centre project will employ approximately 20 full time employees of the construction industry for 12 months.

Nicholas Sheran Ice Centre

- 1 -

RECREATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE CANADA (RInC) PROGRAM

Program Information and Project Application Guidelines

What is the Recreational Infrastructure Canada Program? The Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RInC) Program is a new infrastructure fund that will invest $500 million in recreational facilities over a two-year period. This national initiative will provide a temporary economic stimulus that will help reduce the impacts of the global recession while renewing, upgrading and expanding recreational infrastructure in Canadian communities. Western Economic Diversification Canada (WD) will implement the fund for the four western provinces. RInC is part of Canada’s Economic Action Plan, the Government of Canada’s multi-faceted plan to ensure a quick recovery from the current economic downturn. Applications for the RInC program are now being accepted. Consistent with the Government of Canada’s commitment to taking swift action to stimulate the Canadian economy, WD will review and respond to applications as quickly as possible. Federal Contributions Projects approved under RInC can receive up to $1 million in federal funding, which will normally represent one-third of project costs. These investments in recreational infrastructure will stimulate the economy, create jobs and contribute to health and quality of life in communities across Canada, now and in the future. Who is eligible for funding? Organizations eligible to apply for funding under RInC include:

• Municipal and local governments, agencies, and provincial entities that provide municipal-type services to communities;

• Non-profit organizations;

• First Nation governments, including Band or Tribal Councils or their legally-designated representatives;

• Public sector body owned by municipal or local government.

What kinds of projects are eligible for funding? Projects eligible for funding through RInC will fall within the following categories of recreational infrastructure:

• Arenas;

• Gymnasia;

• Swimming pools;

• Sports fields;

• Tennis, basketball, volleyball or other sport-specific courts;

• Parks, fitness trails and bike paths; and

• Other multi-purpose physical recreation facilities.

Eligible projects will also:

• Normally be for the rehabilitation or repair of recreational facilities, including new construction to expand or replace existing infrastructure assets;

• Begin and materially conclude construction before March 31, 2011; and,

• Be incremental (i.e. projects would not proceed as proposed in scope or timing without the provision of RInC funding)

• On exception basis, be for the construction of a completely new infrastructure asset

http://www.actionplan.gc.ca/

Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RInC) Application

Examples of projects that would not be eligible under RInC include facilities exclusively used as:

• Cultural facilities;

• Libraries;

• Theatres; and

• Meeting halls.

What kinds of project costs will be eligible? Eligible costs shall be as specified in each contribution agreement, and will be all direct costs which are properly and reasonably incurred; are paid by an eligible applicant; and are paid under a contract for goods or services necessary for the implementation of a project. Eligible costs for support under RInC may only include the following:

• the costs to rehabilitate or repair fixed capital assets of recreational infrastructure, including new construction that is either adding to or replacing existing recreational infrastructure assets or capacity;

• the fees paid to professionals, technical personnel, consultants and contractors specifically engaged to undertake the surveying, design, engineering, manufacturing or construction of a project infrastructure asset and related facilities and structures;

• the costs of environmental assessments, monitoring, and follow-up programs as required by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act;

• the costs of any public announcement and official ceremony, or of any temporary or permanent signage; and

• other costs that are considered to be direct and necessary for the successful implementation of a project and that have been approved in advance.

Will employee or equipment costs be eligible? The incremental costs of the applicant’s employees or direct costs may be included in its eligible costs under the following conditions.

• the applicant is a local, regional or First Nation’s government;

• the applicant satisfies the Federal Departments and Agencies that it is not economically feasible to tender a contract;

• employees or equipment are employed directly in respect of the work that would have been the subject of the contract; and,

• approved in advance and in writing.

What costs are ineligible? Costs related to the following items are ineligible costs:

• project costs incurred before January 27, 2009, the date of the Budget 2009 announcement;

• movable equipment;

• services or works that, in the opinion of WD, are normally provided by the applicant or a related party;

• salaries and other employment benefits of any employees of the applicant except for as indicated above.

• an applicant’s overhead costs, its direct or indirect operating or administrative costs, and more specifically its costs related to planning, engineering, architecture, supervision, management and other activities normally carried out by its applicant’s staff;

• costs of feasibility and planning studies;

• taxes, such as GST/HST, for which the applicant is eligible for a tax rebate and all other costs eligible for rebates;

• costs of land or any interest therein, and related costs;

• cost of leasing of equipment by the applicant except for as indicated earlier in the “Will employee or equipment costs be eligible?” section above;

• legal fees;

• routine maintenance costs;

• salaries and benefits of existing staff and general administration costs unrelated to program implementation.

- 2 -


How will projects be assessed? In addition to meeting the eligibility requirements described above, preference will be given to projects that demonstrate:

• construction-readiness,

• planned completion date,

• leveraging from other sources including other government, non-profit and private sector, with a maximum of 1/3 funding from the federal government.

• local community and/or municipal government support

Depending on the volume of applications received in each western Province, additional criteria may be applied. What are the ongoing reporting requirements? Recipients will be required to report against performance measures identified in the contribution agreement on a quarterly basis until the project is completed. Performance measures will include the number of jobs created and, the number of new and/or improved infrastructure assets. Claims for costs incurred under each project can also be submitted on quarterly basis. DUE DATE FOR APPLICATIONS Applications for RInC funding are due at the WD office in your province by one of the two intake dates: either May 26 or June 19, 2009. Future intakes may be available pending the availability of RInC funding. Who can I contact for more information? Please contact the WD office nearest you. Completed forms can be mailed or faxed to one of the WD offices listed below: WD Alberta Suite 1500, Canada Place 9700 Jasper Avenue Edmonton, AB T5J 4H7 Phone: (780) 495-4164 Toll Free: 1 888 338-WEST (9378) Teletypewriter (TTY): 1 877 303-3388 Fax: (780) 495-4557 Email: [email protected] WD British Columbia 700 - 333 Seymour Street Vancouver, BC V6B 5G9 Phone: (604) 666-6256 Toll Free: 1 888 338-WEST (9378) Teletypewriter (TTY): 1 877 303-3388 Fax: (604) 666-2353 Email: [email protected]

WD Manitoba P.O. Box 777 Suite 712, The Cargill Building 240 Graham Avenue Winnipeg, MB R3C 2L4 Phone: (204) 983-4472 Toll Free: 1 888 338-WEST (9378) Teletypewriter (TTY): 1 877 303-3388 Fax: (204) 983-3852 Email: [email protected] WD Saskatchewan P.O. Box 2025 Suite 601, 119 4th Avenue South Saskatoon, SK S7K 3S7 Phone: (306) 975-4373 Toll Free: 1 888 338-WEST (9378) Teletypewriter (TTY): 1 877 303-3388 Fax: (306) 975-5484 Email: [email protected]

- 3 -

mailto:[email protected]





- 4 -

Application Package

Instructions

• For more information regarding Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RInC), please visit the WD website at http://www.wd-deo.gc.ca/eng/11264.asp.

• Complete all parts of the attached Application Form.

• Include additional information required for non-profit organizations as mentioned in Schedule A.

• Detailed Instructions to complete the application form are in Schedule B of the application package. Where necessary, please provide additional supporting material.

• Submit your application by email, mail, or fax to the Western Economic Diversification Canada (WD) office in your province - see last page of this application form for contact details.

• Ensure your application arrives by the due date above.

• Keep a copy of your application for your records.

• Note that additional information may be requested by WD if needed for the assessment of your proposal.

Document Checklist Please attach the following documents that apply to your organization / project. Put a check beside each document you attach to your application form, and include this sheet with your application. Be sure to provide all applicable documents.

Application Form

Schedule A - required only for non-profit organizations

http://www.wd-deo.gc.ca/eng/11264.asp

- 5 -

RECREATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE CANADA (RInC) PROGRAM

Application Form

PART A: Applicant Information Legal Name of Organization

Applicant Type Municipality Non profit * (see Schedule A for additional information requirements) First Nation governments, including Band or Tribal Councils or their legally-designated representatives Provincial entity providing municipal-type services Public sector body owned by municipal or local government

Business or GST Number (if applicable) Date of Incorporation (YYYY-MM-DD)

Street and/or Postal Box Address

City/Town/Village Province Postal Code

Primary Contact: Salutation First Name Last Name

Title

Telephone Number Alternate Telephone Number Facsimile Number

Email Address Website (if applicable)

Applicant Profile and Description


PART B: Project Information Project Title

Estimated Start Date (YYYY-MM-DD) Estimated End Date (YYYY-MM-DD)

Project Location: Municipality Province

Project Category Arenas Gymnasia Swimming pools Sports fields Tennis, basketball, volleyball or other sport-specific courts Parks, fitness trails, and bike paths Other multi-purpose facilities that have physical recreation activity as the primary rationale

Please describe: Project Eligibility (check all that apply)

Rehabilitation or repair of existing infrastructure New construction that is either adding to or replacing existing recreational infrastructure assets and capacity New construction Conclude construction before March 31, 2011 Would not have otherwise occurred during the time or in the scale proposed without RInC funding

Project Description

Project Rationale

Project Benefits: Person months of work created or maintained Number of infrastructure elements improved

Comment:

- 6 -


PART B: Project Information (Cont’d) Project Benefits: (Cont’d) Is this project incremental?

Yes No Comment:

Is this project construction ready? Yes No

Comment:

Is there community support? Yes No

Comment:

Is there Municipal Government support? Yes No

Comment:

PART C: Funding Amount requested under RInC

2009-2010 $ 2010-2011 $ TOTAL $

Detail Project Cost(s) to be incurred

Project Costs Amount

1. Capital Costs

2. Non-capital costs

3. Other Costs (specify):

4. Ineligible Costs

Total Project Costs

- 7 -


PART C: Funding (Cont’d) Sources of Funding

Amount Confirmed

Municipal Yes No

Provincial Yes No

RInC Yes No

Other Federal * (specify): Yes No

Other (specify): Yes No

Working Capital/Operating Revenue Yes No

In-kind (specify): Yes No

Total Project Funding

* Total federal funding, including funding received through RInC, cannot exceed 50% of total project costs. Comment:

PART D: Federal Legislation Environmental Assessment

Has an environmental assessment been completed on the project? Yes No

Is the project located within 250 metres of an environmentally sensitive area? Yes No

Does the project involve works or activities within 30 metres of water body? Yes No

Does the project involve works or activities on, under, over, through or across a water body such as a wetland, stream, river, or lake?

Yes No

Comment:

Information Sharing/Consultations with First Nation Communities

Will the project have an impact on one or more First Nations communities? Yes No

If yes, please describe how the First Nations community/ies will be consulted and involved in the project:

Official Languages

In your opinion, could this project help to support the francophone community? Yes No Not applicable

If yes, please explain how this might be done (e.g. through the hiring of bilingual staff, through the provision of services in French, through the production of a final product in French, etc.)

- 8 -


PART E: Declaration and Signatures Applicant Acknowledgements: Applicant Organizations must acknowledge and agree that:

• This funding request and the attached proposal summary do not constitute a commitment from WD for financial assistance.

• Project costs incurred by the Applicant Organization in the absence of a signed funding agreement with WD are incurred at the sole risk of the Applicant Organization and that any such costs may not be considered eligible for WD assistance.

• Any person who has been lobbying on behalf of the Applicant Organization to obtain a contribution as a result of this application is registered pursuant to the Lobbyists Registration Act and was registered pursuant to that Act at the time the lobbying occurred.

• The Applicant Organization has not, nor has any other person, corporation or organization, directly or indirectly paid or agreed to pay any person to solicit a contribution arising as a result of this application for a commission, contingency fee or any other consideration dependent on the execution of an Agreement or the payment of any contribution arising as a result of this application.

All information provided by the Applicant Organization to WD will be treated in accordance with the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. These federal laws govern, protect and limit the collection, use and disclosure of personal, financial and technical information by federal government departments and agencies. In addition to and notwithstanding the above, WD reserves the right to make information relating to any contribution resulting from this application available to the public, including providing limited information on a public website as part of a list of all projects funded by WD. The Applicant Organization hereby represents that it has the authority to consent and consents to the information being made available to the public. I CERTIFY that all information provided in this document is true and correct. I have read and understood the Applicant Acknowledgements and agree also agree to allow WD to share information contained in this form, attached documents, and subsequent project information with other government departments as part of WD’s due diligence and program referral activities, subject to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act noted above. Applicant Name and Title Signature Date (YYYY-MM-DD)

Complete applications must be submitted prior to one of the two intake dates: either May 26 or June 19, 2009. WD Alberta Suite 1500, Canada Place 9700 Jasper Avenue Edmonton, AB T5J 4H7 Phone: (780) 495-4164 Toll Free: 1 888 338-WEST (9378) Teletypewriter (TTY): 1 877 303-3388 Fax: (780) 495-4557 Email: [email protected] WD British Columbia 700 - 333 Seymour Street Vancouver, BC V6B 5G9 Phone: (604) 666-6256 Toll Free: 1 888 338-WEST (9378) Teletypewriter (TTY): 1 877 303-3388 Fax: (604) 666-2353 Email: [email protected]

WD Manitoba P.O. Box 777 Suite 712, The Cargill Building 240 Graham Avenue Winnipeg, MB R3C 2L4 Phone: (204) 983-4472 Toll Free: 1 888 338-WEST (9378) Teletypewriter (TTY): 1 877 303-3388 Fax: (204) 983-3852 Email: [email protected] WD Saskatchewan P.O. Box 2025 Suite 601, 119 4th Avenue South Saskatoon, SK S7K 3S7 Phone: (306) 975-4373 Toll Free: 1 888 338-WEST (9378) Teletypewriter (TTY): 1 877 303-3388 Fax: (306) 975-5484 Email: [email protected]

- 9 -






Schedule A

Additional information required for non-profit organizations (please attach this information to the application form when submitting):

• Project timelines

• Most recent audited financial statements if available

• Most recent annual report of the applicant organization if available

• Annual projected statements of income and expenses and cash-flow

• Copy of the certificate of incorporation of the applicant organization

• List of board of director members

• List of amounts the applicant organization owes to the federal government under legislation or contribution agreements

Schedule B - Instructions to Complete Application Form

PART A: Applicant Information Legal Name of Organization Provide the full legal name of applicant.

Applicant Type Select one of the five eligible applicants.

Salutation, Name, Title Provide the salutation, first & last name, and title of a contact person who can answer questions concerning the project.

Telephone, fax, and email Provide the telephone, fax, and email address for the contact person.

Applicant Profile and Description Briefly describe the mandate, activities, and history of the organization that is applying for funding. Include structure of the organization, and management experience of the individual(s) implementing the project.

PART B: Project Information Project Title Provide the name of the project that could be used in potential communication products.

Estimated Start Date Provide the expected date for when project activity will commence.

Estimated End Date Provide the expected date for when project activity will be complete.

Project Location Provide the municipal location of the project (e.g. city, town, village, improvement district, Métis settlement, first nations reserve) and the Province.

Project Category Please select one of the project categories the best describes your project.

Project Eligibility Please check all the following statements that apply to the project.

Project Description Provide a concise description of the project including the objective, activities to be undertaken, work/tasks to be done, assets to be renovated or constructed and any other relevant information.

Project Rationale Explain how this project meets program criteria - including construction readiness (i.e. could commence within 15/30/60+ days following approval), leveraging from other government, non-profit and private sector.

- 10 -


Project Benefits Provide a description of benefits that would have an impact on your community, including the number of person months of employment generated, as well as the number of infrastructure elements improved. For example if your arena has two ice rinks that are implicated by the proposed project activity, indicate that two elements will be improved.

To calculate person months of employment: For example, if 6 people will be employed full time July 1 - December 30, 2009, and 18 people March 1 - August 31, 2010, then 6 people X 6 months + 18 people X 6 months = 144 months of employment. For part time employment, please pro-rate to full time equivalent, based on the hours/day full time employees work in your organization. For example, if 2 people work half time for 8 months, count it as 2 X .5 X 8 = 8 person months of employment. If 1 person works 5 hours/week for 52 weeks, and the organization’s normal work week is 35 hours, that person has worked 5/35th or .143 of full time for 12 months; count .143 X 12 months = 1.7 person months of employment.

Incrementality Comment on how the project is incremental (Would not have otherwise occurred during the time or in the scale proposed without RInC funding). If the project includes costs that could be considered routine maintenance, such as painting, explain how they are incremental.

Construction Readiness Under this program, projects that can start quickly will receive preference. Please comment explain the status and provide documentation to support the readiness of your project and include any relevant documents. Depending on its nature this may include drawings, permits, tenders, etc.

Community Support Please indicate whether or not there is community support for your project and attach any evidence (e.g. letters of support from community stakeholders) to the application package.

Municipal Government Support If the municipality where your project is situated has passed a resolution in support of this project, please indicate the details of the resolution and attach the council resolution. For projects taking place on a First Nations reserve, please include a Band Council resolution. Please note that municipal resolutions will not be required by all applicants (e.g. non-profit organizations).

PART C: Funding Where necessary, please provide supporting documentation for the costs and funding identified in your project. Amount requested under RInC Indicate how much funding you are seeking under RInC, broken down by fiscal year

(year ending March 31).

Project Costs Figures in this column should represent the total costs associated with the project for a given cost category (i.e. eligible costs and ineligible costs borne by the applicant).

Capital Costs Please include costs to rehabilitate or repair fixed capital assets of recreational infrastructure, including new construction that is either adding to or replacing existing recreational infrastructure assets or capacity.

Non-capital Costs Please include fees paid to professionals, technical personnel, consultants and contractors specifically engaged to undertake the surveying, design, engineering, manufacturing or construction of a project infrastructure asset and related facilities and structures.

Other costs Other costs include the purchase of materials, communication or signage costs directly related to the project and any other eligible costs.

Ineligible Costs Please indicate all non-eligible costs incurred by the applicant in relation to the project (e.g. administrative costs, land acquisition, GST).

Source of Funding Please identify all sources of funding from the three orders of government as well as any other funder.

Municipal Municipal contribution to the project.

Provincial Provincial contribution to the project.

RInC Amount being sought under RInC.

Other Federal Other Federal funding being sought or already committed to the project (indicate specific program and/or federal government entity).

- 11 -


- 12 -

Other Other non-government funding including not for profit and private sector.

Working Capital/Operating Revenue Applicant’s incremental contribution to the project.

In-Kind Any in-kind support provided to the project.

Confirmed (Y/N) Please indicate whether the funding source has been confirmed or not.

PART D: Federal Legislation Environmental Assessment Projects involving physical works or prescribed physical activity receiving funding from the Government of Canada may require an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). According to the CEAA, every RInC project must be screened for its impact on the environment. This checklist forms part of that screening process. A “yes” answer does not necessarily mean that an environmental assessment will be required because many physical works activities are excluded from environmental assessments. An officer from the Program Secretariat will advise the steps required to comply with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. No federal or provincial funds will be paid until the Canadian Environmental Assessment is complete. If additional work is required to address assessment or adhere to Canadian Environmental conditions, the costs can be included as part of the eligible project costs. Under the legislation an "“environmentally sensitive area” means an area protected for environmental reasons in regional or local land use plans, or by a local, regional, provincial or federal government body. (région écosensible)" For more information on the Exclusion list of the CEAA please go to http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/, select “Legislation” and then “Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and Regulations”. * Please Note: Absolutely no construction may commence until an environmental assessment process has been completed. Proponents will be notified of completion of the EA process through official documentation sent to proponent stating that the project is officially excluded or that the EA Screening Decision has been made and signed-off. Information Sharing/Consultations with First Nation Communities The Government of Canada has statutory, contractual, and common law obligations to consult with Aboriginal groups in the delivery of its programs and services. The purpose of these questions is to assist WD in determining whether or not the Department has an obligation to consult with Aboriginal groups in the provision of funding for this project. Official Languages The Government of Canada has an obligation to enhance the vitality of the official language minority communities (OLMCs) in Canada, support and assist their development, and foster the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society; and to ensure, where appropriate, that services or benefits will be made available in both official languages in accordance with the Official Languages Act. The purpose of these questions is to assist WD in determining whether the proposed project represents an opportunity to support the OLMCs (i.e. francophone communities in Western Canada). PART E: Declaration and Signatures After reading and understanding the section, fill in the required information, sign, and date. If required, please feel free to contact the nearest WD office for a further explanation of these requirements. Name and Title of Authorized Official of the Applicant Organization

Fill in the name and title of the member of the organization with signing power / the authority to enter into an agreement. (This person may be different from the Contact Person.)

Signature This is where the Authorized Official of the Applicant Organization signs

Date The Authorized Official of the Applicant Organization enters the date at which he/she signed the document

http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/

1


Subject: Report on the AUMA Summit on the Future of Local Governance

April 30-May 1, 2009, Red Deer

Submitted By: Robert D. Tarleck, Mayor

RECOMMENDATION:

City of Lethbridge communicate the following to the AUMA Committee on Governance and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs:

1. The City of Lethbridge believes that an essential principle of any discussions respecting the future role of municipal governance must be that such discussions take place within the framework of a respectful partnership of the Government of Alberta and Alberta municipalities.

2. The City of Lethbridge proposes that the goal of any review of municipal governance should be to foster the development of municipalities that are vibrant, sustainable, service-driven, and cost-effective.

3. The City of Lethbridge suggests that sustainable communities almost invariably demonstrate capacity to develop and measure short and long-term goals.

4. The City of Lethbridge concludes that the third of the AUMA’s six options, also known as Status Quo with Functional Change or Regional Cooperation, represents the best pathway to municipal excellence for most Alberta communities.

5. Recognizing that some Alberta communities may nevertheless wish to explore the annexation option, the City of Lethbridge suggests the following guidelines for such discussions:

• Municipalities would enter willingly into any amalgamation discussions; • Exploration of the amalgamation option would be undertaken on the

basis of thoughtful analysis; • Any consideration of this option would be undertaken with community

consultation. 6. City of Lethbridge recommends that the imposition of provincial solutions on

communities that fail the test of financial sustainability be undertaken only when all other solutions have proven unworkable.

PURPOSE: To inform City Council of Summit content


2

IMPLICATION OF RECOMMENDATION GENERAL: Council to recommend course of action


Communicate to the AUMA and Minister of Municipal Affairs

BRIEFING SHEET Options

Over the last several years we have witnessed a world-wide debate about the future of local government. It is within this context that the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association organized a recent forum to explore the future of municipal governance in Alberta. The report that follows will provide an abbreviated overview of the summit and recommend a course of action for Lethbridge City Council. The summit focused discussions on six models for municipal governance. Three of these models reflected variations of the status quo, while the other three reflected different takes on regional government. The models might be briefly described as follows:

Model 1: Status Quo Implementation of this model would see no changes to local governance in Alberta. Model 2: Status Quo With Financial Change This model would allow Alberta municipalities to maintain their existing governance structure but it would require the Alberta government to implement a yet-to-be-defined financial plan for struggling communities.

Model 3: Status Quo With Functional Change, also known as “Regional Cooperation” Governance Model three would maintain the status quo with respect to the number of municipalities and their boundaries but would require significant changes in the level of regional cooperation. Model 4: Single-tier, Full-capacity Municipalities This model leads to amalgamation on the basis of a yet-to-be-agreed to accountability framework. Model 5: Two-tiered Regional Government

This model would see the creation of an additional layer of government. Region governments would be established to manage municipal functions that are believed to be better carried out on a regional basis. Municipalities within the region would be responsible for strictly local issues. One version of this model is the City of Montreal and its Borough of Saint Laurent.

3

Model 6: An amalgamated Municipal Government with Council Members or Committees Assuming Local Responsibilities This amalgamation model attempts to preserve local identity by devolving neighbourhood or local issues to some form of local representation Commentary and Analysis There appears to be no evidence that there is an optimum size for a community. There is no persuasive evidence that amalgamation guarantees savings through economies of scale. There is some literature in the field suggesting that 80% of municipal services can be provided effectively by local government and that the remaining 20% could be provided through a partnership of two or more communities. There is some suggestion in the literature that communities moving toward amalgamation are at risk of underestimating the costs associated with amalgamation and overestimating benefits. The Alberta experience suggests that amalgamation is more likely to be viewed by citizens as being successful if the affected municipalities entered the process willingly and on the basis of careful analysis and community consultation. There is virtually universal agreement that Alberta communities have significant opportunities to save money and enhance the delivery of services by creating effective partnerships among communities and even within regions. The Minister of Municipal Affairs expressed the view that some communities in Alberta are currently facing severe financial hardship. This would appear to be a unique situation that includes, but is not restricted to, summer villages.

Submitted By: Reviewed By: _________________________ City Treasurer: _________________________ City Solicitor: _________________________ Reviewed & Endorsed by City Manager: _________________________________ City Manager’s Comments: _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________

Revision Date & Time: May 13, 2009 1:07 pm

Future of Local

Governance Discussion

Paper

April 15, 2009

1


Subject: Municipal Historic Resource Designation of Acadia Block

Submitted By: Graeme Woods, Strategic Initiatives Coordinator

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Clerk send a Notice of Intent to Designate a

Municipal Historic Resource to the property owners of the Acadia Block located at 614 – 3rd Avenue South and that a designation Bylaw be prepared for consideration by City Council after the required sixty days notice has passed.

PURPOSE: The Heritage Advisory Committee is recommending the

Acadia Block located at 614 – 3rd Avenue South be designated as a Municipal Historic Resource.

IMPLICATION OF RECOMMENDATION GENERAL: The municipal designation legally protects the site from any

changes that would reduce its historical integrity as well as allow the property owners to access provincial funding through the Alberta Historical Resources Foundation.

FINANCIAL: There is no cost to the Municipality.


Notice has to be sent to the property owners. This is considered to be a formality as the City only considers recommending those applications which are owner initiated. After sixty days, a designation Bylaw can be considered by City Council.

BRIEFING SHEET Legislation The Historical Resources Act permits municipalities to

designate municipal heritage resources. Plans The recommendation aligns with the Heritage Places Policy

and the Heritage Management Plan. Options 1. To send a notice of intent to designate to the property

owner of the Acadia Block (614 – 3 Avenue South) 2. To not proceed with the designation process

Recommended Option Option 1 - The Acadia Block has character defining

elements and is worthy of municipal designation.


2

Public Participation Notice is sent to the property owners. There is no Public Hearing.

Reports / Documents Letter from the Historic Advisory Committee

Statement of Significance for the Acadia Block



April 27, 2009 City of Lethbridge 910 4th Avenue South Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 0P6 Attention: City Council Dear City Council: Re: Municipal Historic Resource – Acadia Building The Heritage Advisory Committee is pleased to recommend to the City Council that the Acadia Building located at 614 – 3rd Avenue South be designated as a Municipal Historic Resource. The character defining elements as expressed in the form, massing, and materials of the 1909 two-storey building, such as;

• The common bond brickwork on the exterior • The commercial store front with central doorway and the cornice capping the

storefront • The cornice on the second level, with dentils, and an arched parapet with a large

name plate reading “Acadia Building” • The pattern, style, and construction of all original exterior windows, especially the

four semi-elliptical basket-handle arched windows and voussoirs on the second storey and the smaller, semi-circular arched window at the centre on the second storey

As a result, it is requested that Council give consideration to a designation bylaw after sixty days notice has been given to the landowner. Yours truly, Jean Johnstone, Chairman Heritage Advisory Committee c.c. Dove Christian Supplies Ltd. Graeme Woods, Strategic Initiatives Coordinator

City of Lethbridge – Inventory of Historic Places Acadia Block 614 – 3rd Avenue South Description of Historic Place The Acadia Block is a rectangular, two-storey, flat roofed, brick commercial building, with a one-storey addition on the south elevation. It is located on a vital pedestrian and commercial street, occupying a commercial lot across from the Galt Gardens and the Carnegie Library in the Lethbridge downtown core. Heritage Value The Acadia Block is significant for its association with the commercial development of Lethbridge. It is also valuable for its association with Charles Broughton Bowman. The Acadia Block is significant for its association with the commercial development of Lethbridge. Constructed by W.R. Virtue in 1909, during a period of commercial boom, the Acadia Block fulfilled local demand for office and commercial space for Lethbridge’s growing and diversifying service economy. While the block has accommodated accountants, lawyers, and doctors, some of its first tenants were the C.B. Bowman agency, the Red Cross Book Store, and Clarke’s Ladies’ Wear. The owners C.B. Bowman and Lewis Martin Johnstone repaired the building after it was damaged by fire in 1918. The Acadia Block’s rich commercial history attests to the continued commercial viability of the building given its key location in the downtown area, its large capacity, and its attractive design. The Acadia Block is valuable for its association with the C.B. Bowman, who came from Nova Scotia to Lethbridge in the late 1800s. He started the C.B. Bowman Agency in 1891, which dealt in insurance, loans and real estate and which moved into the Acadia Block after its construction. By 1918, Bowman is identified as co-owning the building with L.M. Johnstone. Bowman was also very active in the local community. Bowman was mayor of Lethbridge in 1909, and held other positions with the City such as municipal councillor, City assessor and secretary treasurer, and secretary of public schools. Bowman retired in 1936. Character Defining Elements The character defining elements as expressed in the form, massing, and materials of the 1909 two-storey building, such as;

• The common bond brickwork on the exterior • The commercial store front with central doorway and the cornice capping the storefront • The cornice on the second level, with dentils, and an arched parapet with a large name

plate reading “Acadia Building” • The pattern, style, and construction of all original exterior windows, especially the four

semi-elliptical basket-handle arched windows and voussoirs on the second storey and the smaller, semi-circular arched window at the centre on the second storey

Description Two-storey commercial building

Significance Criteria A: Theme – commercial development of early Lethbridge Context Built during a period of commercial and residential boom

Period of Significance (POS) 1909 - present

Character Defining Elements (CDEs)

• The common bond brickwork on the exterior • The commercial store front with central doorway

and the cornice capping the storefront • The cornice on the second level, with dentils, and

an arched parapet with a large name plate reading “Acadia Building”

• The pattern, style, and construction of all original exterior windows, especially the four semi-elliptical basket-handle arched windows and voussoirs on the second storey and the smaller, semi-circular arched window at the centre on the second storey

Integrity Criteria: The overall integrity of the building is satisfactory.

1. Location

The location of the building has not been changed.

2. Design

The design of the building has not been significantly altered. First storey altered sympathetically to building design.

3. Environment

The environment, or surroundings, has not changed significantly over the years.

4. Materials

The original materials of the building have not changed.

5. Workmanship

The workmanship of the building is original.

6. Feeling

The feeling of the building and site has not changed.

7. Association

The building retains its association with the theme of commercial development of early Lethbridge.

1


Subject: Municipal Historic Resource Designation of David James Whitney

House Submitted By: Graeme Woods, Strategic Initiatives Coordinator


Municipal Historic Resource to the property owners of the David James Whitney House located at 3202 – 28th Street South and that a designation Bylaw be prepared for consideration by City Council after the required sixty days notice has passed.

PURPOSE: The Heritage Advisory Committee is recommending the

David James Whitney House located at 3202 – 28th Street South be designated as a Municipal Historic Resource.









owner of the David James Whitney House (3202 – 28th Street South)

2. To not proceed with the designation process


2

Recommended Option Option 1 - The David James Whitney House has character defining elements and is worthy of municipal designation.

Public Participation Notice is sent to the property owners. There is no Public

Hearing. Reports / Documents Letter from the Historic Advisory Committee

Statement of Significance for the David James Whitney House



April 27, 2009 City of Lethbridge 910 4th Avenue South Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 0P6 Attention: City Council Dear City Council: Re: Municipal Historic Resource – David James Whitney House The Heritage Advisory Committee is pleased to recommend to the City Council that the David James Whitney House located at 3202 – 28th Street South be designated as a Municipal Historic Resource. The character defining elements as expressed in the form, massing, and materials of the 1903 two-storey house such as;

• The cross gable roof, and the gables above the windows and balcony doorway, which are adorned with vergeboards and finials

• The brick exterior • The pattern, style, and construction of all wooden windows and brick design

around all windows, including the segmented aches • The second storey balcony with gabled doorway and the full veranda underneath

the balcony, and the wooden support posts and beams • Balustrade typical of that period

As a result, it is requested that Council give consideration to a designation bylaw after sixty days notice has been given to the landowner. Yours truly, Jean Johnstone, Chairman Heritage Advisory Committee c.c. Jason Stone and Taina Arnell Graeme Woods, Strategic Initiatives Coordinator

D. J. Whitney House 3202 – 28th Street South Description of the Historic Place The David James Whitney House is a two-storey, brick residence with high gable roofs and a second storey balcony overhanging an open front veranda. The house is located in a suburb in South Lethbridge. Heritage Value The D.J. Whitney House, or Ideal Farm as it is also known, is significant for is association with the agricultural history of Lethbridge. The D.J. Whitney House is also significant for its distinct Gothic Revival cottage design influences. The D.J. Whitney House is significant for its association with both the advent of irrigated farming and agricultural innovation in the Lethbridge area. The farmhouse was built in 1903 for the residence of Mr. D.J. Whitney and it was surrounded by a 470 acre tract of farm land, known as the Ideal Farm. In conjunction with Dr. William Harmon Fairfield, Whitney successfully experimented with growing techniques and crop varieties and was recognized for his pioneering work in irrigated agriculture. The farmhouse and the surrounding fields were featured in a variety of promotional material, and they became a symbol of the area’s agricultural wealth. Much of the surrounding farmland was acquired by the Lethbridge Junior College (now called Lethbridge College), and now forms part of the college campus. The D.J. Whitney House is significant for its distinct Gothic Revival cottage design influences and as an example of the type of farmhouse common in the owner’s native Ontario at the time, but which was relatively rare in the region. The end gables and peaked roof over the doorway to the balcony have decorative vergeboards and are topped with finials. These elements, combined with the brick structure’s segmented window arches show the influence of the Gothic Revival cottage style. Character Defining Elements The character defining elements as expressed in the form, massing, and materials of the 1903 two-storey house such as;

• The cross gable roof, and the gables above the windows and balcony doorway, which are adorned with vergeboards and finials

• The brick exterior • The pattern, style, and construction of all wooden windows and brick design around all

windows, including the segmented aches • The second storey balcony with gabled doorway and the full veranda underneath the

balcony, and the wooden support posts and beams • Balustrade typical of that period

Description Two storey house

Significance Criteria A: Theme – agricultural development of the early Lethbridge area C: Design – Gothic Revival elements

Context Built during a period of commercial and residential development Period of Significance

(POS) 1903 - present

Character Defining Elements (CDEs)

• Cross gable roof and the gables above the windows, and

balcony doorway, which are adorned with cross bracing vergeboards and finials

• Brick exterior • Pattern, style, and construction of all wooden windows and

brick design around all windows, including the segmented aches • Second storey balcony with gabled doorway and the full

veranda underneath the balcony, the wooden support posts and beams

• Balustrade typical of that period

Integrity Criteria: The overall integrity of the building is satisfactory. 1. Location

The location of the building has not been changed.

2. Design

The design of the building has not been significantly altered. However, the 1960’s addition is unsympathetic, but the 2008 addition is sympathetic.

3. Environment

The environment has changed due to the institutional and residential development

4. Materials

The materials of the original building are authentic.

5. Workmanship

The workmanship of the building is original.

6. Feeling

The feeling of the building has not changed.

7. Association

The building retains its association with the theme of agricultural development in early Lethbridge and Gothic Revival design elements.

1


Subject: Municipal Historic Resource Designation of Hick-Sehl Building

Submitted By: Graeme Woods, Strategic Initiatives Coordinator


Municipal Historic Resource to the property owners of the Hick-Sehl Building located at 618 – 3rd Avenue South and that a designation Bylaw be prepared for consideration by City Council after the required sixty days notice has passed.

PURPOSE: The Heritage Advisory Committee is recommending the Hick-

Sehl Building located at 618 – 3rd Avenue South be designated as a Municipal Historic Resource.









owner of the Hick-Sehl Building (618 – 3 Avenue South) 2. To not proceed with the designation process

Recommended Option Option 1 - The Hick-Sehl Building has character defining

elements and is worthy of municipal designation.


2

Public Participation Notice is sent to the property owners. There is no Public Hearing.

Reports / Documents Letter from the Historic Advisory Committee

Statement of Significance for the Hick-Sehl Building



April 27, 2009 City of Lethbridge 910 4th Avenue South Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 0P6 Attention: City Council Dear City Council: Re: Municipal Historic Resource – Hick-Sehl Building The Heritage Advisory Committee is pleased to recommend to the City Council that the Hick-Sehl Building located at 618 – 3rd Avenue South be designated as a Municipal Historic Resource. The character defining elements of the 1912 three-storey building are defined as:

• The brick and stone material • The pattern, style and construction of all wooden windows, especially the large,

central projecting bay windows on the second and third storey of the front façade • The cast stone sills and lintels and decorative elements above the side windows

on the front façade • The cornice on the third storey façade and the arched, stone parapet above it • The ghost signage on the third storey, on the western side of the building • Pressed metal ceilings

As a result, it is requested that Council give consideration to a designation bylaw after sixty days notice has been given to the landowner. Yours truly, Jean Johnstone, Chairman Heritage Advisory Committee c.c. Sehl-Ryn Holdings Ltd. Graeme Woods, Strategic Initiatives Coordinator

Hick-Sehl Building 618 – 3rd Avenue South Description of the Historic Place The Hick-Sehl Building, located at 618 – 3rd Avenue South is a three-storey, flat-roofed brick building. It is located on a city commercial lot, across the street from the Galt Gardens, in the heart of the Lethbridge downtown core. Heritage Value The Hick-Sehl Building is a significant for its association with the commercial development of Lethbridge and for its neo-baroque style of design uncommon in the area. The Hick-Sehl Building is valuable for its association with the commercial development of the young City of Lethbridge. Fred Hick, a pioneer hardware merchant in Lethbridge and his partner, Edward J. Sehl, created the Hick-Sehl Hardware Company and constructed the building to house this venture in 1912. As it was the first retail hardware store in the City, the company quickly became a prominent business. It continued to operate successfully until 1947. The store catered to several markets, such as commercial and residential construction, and to the City’s vibrant agricultural sector. The Hick-Sehl Building is significant as an example of neo-baroque style of design uncommon in Lethbridge. The prominent central bay windows on the front façade, the decorative neo-baroque elements, and the use of brick and stone detailing on the front façade contribute to the grand appearance of the bow shaped structure. The building was unique in its time for a commercial building in the City and was of noteworthy design, and today it remains so – both an unusual and an attractive building in the downtown core. Character Defining Elements The character defining elements as expressed in the form, massing, and materials of the 1912 three-storey building such as:

• The brick and stone material • The pattern, style and construction of all wooden windows, especially the large, central

projecting bay windows on the second and third storey of the front façade • The cast stone sills and lintels and decorative elements above the side windows on the

front façade • The cornice on the third storey façade and the arched, stone parapet above it • The ghost signage on the third storey, on the western side of the building • Pressed metal ceilings

Date of City Council Meeting: May 19, 2009 Subject: ITT C-09-08; Firehall Renovation, 5th Ave. North Station Submitted By: Garth Sherwin, CA

City Manager RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation of the Purchasing Manager to award

the above competition to the low bidder, Dawson Wallace Construction Ltd. of Calgary, AB is submitted for your consideration and approval.

PURPOSE: This work entails the renovations of the North side Firehall at

5th Ave North for function and capability. FINANCIAL: The cost breakdown of the low bid is as follows:

Total cost of this bid $ 1,950,664.00 Contingency sum 97,553.00 GST 102,410.85 Total cost of the contract including GST $ 2,150,627.85 Less 100% GST refunds 102,410.85 Net cost to the City of Lethbridge $ 2,048,217.00

Reports/Docouments: Tender Overview Procurement Recommendation Memo

CIP D-9 Reviewed & Endorsed by City Manager: ____________________________________


Date of City Council Meeting: May 19, 2009 Subject: REN E-05-20; Electrical Meter Management Services - Final Three (3)

Yr Option Submitted By: Garth Sherwin, CA

City Manager RECOMMENDATION: The City Manager supports the recommendation of the

Purchasing Manager to extend the contract with Itron Canada Inc. of Mission, BC for the Electrical Meter Management Services’ final three (3) year option.

PURPOSE: This project is for the supply of electric metering hardware and

meter testing services. The goal is to ensure that the Lethbridge Electric Utility (LEU) is installing/upgrading/ maintaining metering devices that meet our functional requirements and comply with all existing Industry Canada requirements.

FINANCIAL: The cost of the breakdown of the final extension is as follows:

Est. cost of three (3) year extension including GST $1,093,018.50 Less 100% GST refunds 52,048.50 Net est. cost to the City of Lethbridge $1,040,970.00

Reports/Docouments: Tender Overview Procurement Recommendation Memo Reviewed & Endorsed by City Manager: ____________________________________


Procurement Recommendation Memorandum

Date: December 10, 2008

To: Craig Milley, Purchasing Manager From: Stewart Purkis, Electric Operations Manager Re: #E-05-20: Electrical Meter Management Services - Three (3) Year Extension DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT This project is for the supply of electric metering hardware and meter testing services. The goal is to ensure that the Lethbridge Electric Utility (LEU) is installing / upgrading / maintaining metering devices that meet our functional requirements and comply with all existing Industry Canada requirements. BACKGROUND The LEU is the wire services provider for the City of Lethbridge service area. One of the legislated responsibilities of a wire services provider is to apply and maintain metering infrastructure that meets the requirements set out in Industry Canada regulations. A Request for Proposal was issued in November of 2005 and a contract was awarded to the highest evaluated proponent Itron Canada Inc. to be the metering hardware and meter testing supplier for LEU for a period of three (3) years. The original contract with Itron also provided for an option to extend by an additional three (3) years if mutually agreed by both parties. LEU has received excellent service from Itron over the first three years of the contract and LEU would like to continue our existing relationship with this supplier. SCOPE The City of Lethbridge requires metering the following:

• New Industry Canada verified electrical meters for residential, commercial, and industrial applications

• Meter testing services to verify that existing metering devices meet all Industry Canada requirements

DELIVERABLES Deliverables will include:

• New electrical meters sealed according to Industry Canada requirements for new and upgraded metering points

• Testing services to verify existing metering installations in the LEU service area according to Industry Canada requirements

OUTCOMES/EXPECTED RESULTS The City of Lethbridge expectations of Itron are: • A reliable supply of new electric meters delivered in a timely fashion • All due diligence testing requirements required by Industry Canada will be completed

accurately and efficiently PROCESS Itron was asked for proposed meter hardware and testing pricing for the next optional three years. Itron’s response was to hold all pricing levels constant at the 2006 levels. Itron has delivered confirmation of pricing for the next three years of the agreement and agreed to existing terms and conditions. RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of the Electric Operations Manager is to extend the supply and test contract with Itron for a final three (3) year term. COST BREAKDOWN The cost of the breakdown of the final extension is as follows: Est. cost of three (3) year extension including GST $1,093,018.50 Less 100% GST refunds 52,048.50 Net est. cost to the City of Lethbridge $1,040,970.00 *This is a unit cost contract and the total is based on the estimated meter quantities and service work that will be required by the City of Lethbridge over the next three years. FUNDING SOURCE Electric Utility Capital

Date of City Council Meeting: May 19, 2009 Subject: SS S-09-40; 2009 - 2011 Road Condition Survey and Data Load -

Three (3) Year Contract Submitted By: Garth Sherwin, CA

City Manager RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation of the Purchasing Manager to award

the above sole source project to Stantec Consulting Ltd. of Lethbridge, AB is submitted for your consideration and approval.

PURPOSE: Conduct a road condition survey and update the Municipal

Pavement Management Application (MPMA) database. FINANCIAL: The cost breakdown of the sole source purchase is as follows:

Total cost of this three (3) year contract including GST $225,015 Less 100% GST refunds 10,715 Net cost to the City of Lethbridge $214,300

Reports/Docouments: Tender Overview Procurement Recommendation Memo Reviewed & Endorsed by City Manager: ____________________________________


Procurement Recommendation Memorandum

Date: February 10, 2009

To: Craig Milley, Purchasing Manager From: Al Covey, Project Manager Re: SS S-09-40; 2009 – 2011 Road Condition Survey and Data Load – 3 Yr Contract DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Conduct a road condition survey and update the Municipal Pavement Management Application (MPMA) database BACKGROUND The City of Lethbridge is responsible for the administration of a paved roadway network, consisting of arterials, collectors and locals. Totaling over 540 kilometers, and a replacement value estimated to be in the order of $175 million. This investment forms a valuable City asset to be managed in a cost effective manner such that it provides a desirable level of service to the users of the network. The Municipal Pavement Management Application (MPMA) was developed by Stantec Consulting Ltd. on behalf of Alberta Transportation in 1997 and uses Alberta-specific performance models for the various climatic zones, and for different pavement and underlying soil types. The City has used the product effectively to manage its roadway inventory. To achieve the most meaningful results, the software/program works best with current, accurate data. The City of Lethbridge has adopted a phased approach to maintain its pavement data current, with performance data collected on a third of the network per year. Alberta Cities must demonstrate that they have a pavement management system in place to be eligible for Provincial Basic Capital funding and other infrastructure grants. These Infrastructure Grants provide anywhere from 66% to 100% of funding for infrastructure programs. The Basic Capital grant provides for 75% of our Arterial Overlay Program. The MPMA system has proven to be very beneficial to the City of Lethbridge and numerous other Alberta municipalities:

Has allowed the City to forecast budgeting and to manage roads in a manner that provides a safe and quality infrastructure for all residents.

The MPMA system has assisted in keeping road condition at a high level. Stantec updates and maintains the MPMA System for a number of Alberta municipalities. The City of Lethbridge and other partnering municipalities pay an annual user fee for the

MPMA System.

SCOPE Undertake condition surveys for roughness, surface distress and structural adequacy on a third of the road network annually, plus selected Primary Highway Connectors as mandated by Alberta Infrastructure. Deflection testing to determine load bearing capacity is to be conducted every 100 meters, spaced to provide 3 tests per section. The longitudinal profile (roughness) and surface distress data of each roadway section. The following 13 distress types are also inventoried: Alligator cracking map cracking Longitudinal cracking transverse cracking Edge cracking flushing and bleeding Excessive crown rutting Rippling and shoving raveling and streaking Potholes patching Distortion DELIVERABLES All data to be downloaded onto MPMA program, data summarized in report format and all activities to be completed no later than September 31 of each year. OUTCOMES/EXPECTED RESULTS The objective is to provide updated performance information on the complete roadway network broken down by functional class, and as a whole. RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of the Project Manager to award the sole source project to Stantec Consulting Ltd. of Lethbridge, AB. JUSTIFICATION Compatibility/Continuity:

Stantec is the owner/developer of the database and information collected from the survey can only be loaded by Stantec.

Previous attempts to separate the survey and data entry functions in order to allow for competitive bids have resulted in undesirable consequences. The survey data must be collected in a format that is compatible with the database requirements and this can best be done by a single service provider.

The City could acquire the rights for data entry and competitively bid the survey portion of the work but resources are not available to support this function internally.

Stantec have proven in the past their ability to provide a quality product that is delivered at a reasonable cost.

Stantec’s rates for this service from 2003 through to 2011 will have averaged an annual increase of 4.1%. Our road inventory currently grows 2-3% per year.

COST BREAKDOWN The cost breakdown of the bid is as follows: Total cost of this bid including GST (3 yr contract) $225,015 Less 100% GST refunds 10,715 Net cost to the City of Lethbridge $214,300 FUNDING SOURCE $168,761.25 (75% funding) from Basic Capital Grant $56,253.75 (25% funding) from the Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) Grant

May 5, 2009 Mayor Tarleck and Members of City Council City of Lethbridge 910 4th Ave. S Lethbridge, AB T1J 0P6 Dear Mayor Tarleck and Members of City Council: SUBJECT: University of Lethbridge Presentation to Lethbridge City Council, Tuesday, May 19, 2009 On behalf of University of Lethbridge President, Bill Cade, I would like to request five minutes of City Council¹s time during their public presentation session on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 to update City Council on the U of L¹s strategic plan and how it fits into the city¹s long-term planning process. The brief presentation would be received as information with no funding or other requests attached. The University¹s relationship with the City is a key to our success, and we are mindful of the City¹s relationship with the University and our desire to keep members of Council -- and the community -- up to date on our plans for the future. Sincerely, Chris Horbachewshi, Vice-President, Advancement

City of Lethbridge Contribution Costs For

2008 Lethbridge International Air Show

Public Operations

1. Supply, deliver and remove bleachers $ 7,050.00

2. Line painting, materials, equipment & labour $ 1,200.00

3. Sweeping runways, equipment & labour $ 1,000.00

4. Water tanks, supply, deliver and remove $ 300.00

5. Gen sets: supply, service, deliver and remove $ 500.00

Total cost of contribution (in kind) $10,050.00

Community Services 1. Transit – Bussing $ 5,460.00 2. Bleacher Rental $ 1,103.00 3. Enmax – Building Use & Rental of 160 Tables $ 830.00 4. Wages $ 2,948.00 Total cost of contribution (in kind) $10,341.00 GRAND TOTAL $20,391.00 Note: Costs do not include GST or profit margin. Costs do not include Lethbridge Fire/Rescue/EMS Contributions

LETHBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL AIRSHOW ASSOCIATION

Financial Statements

Year Ended September 30, 2008

LETHBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL AIRSHOW ASSOCIATIONIndex to Financial StatementsYear Ended September 30, 2008

Page

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Statement of Financial Position 1

Statement of Revenues and Expenditures 2

Statement of Cash Flows 3

LETHBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL AIRSHOW ASSOCIATIONStatement of Financial PositionSeptember 30, 2008

2008 2007

AssetsCurrent

Cash $ - $ 47,974Term deposits 13,906 13,906Accounts receivable 35,892 59,439

49,798 121,319

Capital assets (Net of accumulated amortization) 48,119 39,053

$ 97,917 $ 160,372

Liabilities and Net assetsCurrent

Bank indebtedness $ 1,803 $ -Accounts payable 46,121 93,376Goods and services tax payable 1,524 2,884

49,448 96,260

Net AssetsGeneral fund 36,728 52,371Restricted fund 11,741 11,741

48,469 64,112

$ 97,917 $ 160,372

ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD

_____________________________ Director

_____________________________ Director

1

LETHBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL AIRSHOW ASSOCIATIONStatement of Revenues and ExpendituresYear Ended September 30, 2008

2008 2007

RevenuesAirshow revenues $ 219,490 $ 109,984Concessions revenue 47,871 46,240Sponsorship revenues 33,362 47,899Hosting revenues 31,848 35,723Special events revenue 20,943 23,441Media revenues 9,404 6,657Grounds revenue 1,752 2,025Casino revenue - 32,643Grant revenue - 75,000Volunteer revenue - 366

364,670 379,978

Direct costsPerformer and contractor fees 114,042 75,730Food and liquor costs 78,610 57,414Performer hotels and accommodations 42,753 42,727Fuel and oil 23,902 12,767Insurance and licenses 15,200 15,329Purchases 12,400 20,530

286,907 224,497

Gross profit (21%; 2007 - 41%) 77,763 155,481

ExpensesDonations 21,292 22,912Equipment rentals 20,312 77,024Advertising and promotion 19,759 15,643Grounds water and sanitation 6,877 3,720Telephone 6,067 2,433Meetings and conventions 4,569 347Rental 3,962 7,92750/50 Payout 3,068 4,316Volunteer T-shirts 3,000 3,374Miscellaneous 1,670 1,247Interest and bank charges 1,176 1,457Office 1,054 8,389Business taxes, licenses and memberships 600 1,252County and City of Lethbridge services - 1,593Professional fees - 170

93,406 151,804

excess (deficiency) of revenues over expenses for the year $ (15,643) $ 3,677

2

LETHBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL AIRSHOW ASSOCIATIONStatement of Cash FlowsYear Ended September 30, 2008

2008 2007

Operating activitiesExcess (deficiency) of revenues over expenses $ (15,643) $ 3,677

Changes in non-cash working capital: Accounts receivable 23,547 (59,400)Accounts payable (47,255) 63,426GST payable (receivable) (1,360) 2,657

(25,068) 6,683

Cash flow from (used by) operating activities (40,711) 10,360

Investing activitiesPurchase of capital assets (9,066) -Loss on disposal of capital assets - 42,000

Cash flow from (used by) investing activities (9,066) 42,000

Increase (decrease) in cash flow (49,777) 52,360

Cash - beginning of year 61,880 9,520

Cash - end of year $ 12,103 $ 61,880

CASH CONSISTS OF:Cash $ - $ 47,974Term deposits 13,906 13,906Bank indebtedness (1,803) -

$ 12,103 $ 61,880

3

City Council Meeting Monday, April 14, 2008 • Kathy Wollocha, President, Lethbridge International Air Show

Association, re Support for the 2008 Alberta International Air Show

590-B 625-D

T.H. WICKERSHAM: BE IT RESOLVED THAT the letter received from Kathy Wollocha, President, Lethbridge International Air Show Association, advising that the 2008 Alberta International Air Show will be held in Lethbridge on July 26 and 27 and requesting the City’s continued support in the amount of $24,950.00, be received as information and filed AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT because the support from the Lethbridge Fire Department in 2008 is an additional cost that $24,950 in-kind services be approved for 2008 with $12,500 provided in the budget and the additional $12,450 funded from contingencies AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT Ms. Wollocha be thanked for her presentation.

-------------------------CARRIED

ACTION: City Treasurer, Community Services, Infrastructure Services,

ENMAX Centre ………………………………..

INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM Office of the City Clerk November 24, 2008

590-B 625-D

To: Mayor Tarleck Re: Letter of Support – 2009 Alberta International Air Show At a Regular Meeting of City Council held on Monday, November 24, 2008, the following resolution was passed: “BE IT RESOLVED THAT the letter from Kathy Wallocha, President, Lethbridge International Air Show Association requesting letters of support for the 2009 Alberta International Airshow to submit with their funding request to Alberta Lottery Fund (Community Initiatives Program Grant) and the Federal Government Local Arts & Heritage Grant, be received as information and filed AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor’s Office write the appropriate letters of support AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT Ms. Wallocha be thanked for her presentation.”

Dianne Nemeth, CLGM, MMC CITY CLERK /bb

May 12th 2009

492 Heritage Blvd. W. Lethbridge, AB T1K7V9

Your Worship Mayor Tarleck and Members of City Council:

Representatives of GREENSENCE - Green Sustainable Energy Nonnuclear Chinook Country Enterprise would like to address City Council on May 19th. In our presentation we will state that the Alberta Government's Nuclear Power Consultation does not allow sufficient time for Albertans to both inform themselves about the issues and provide a reasoned response. Furthermore, we believe that the consultation is artificially limited to just two choices: coal and nuclear, ignoring other alternatives to coal and nuclear, namely green power.

We note that you have helped spearhead the SOUTHERN ALBERTA ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PARTNERSHIP with 37 municipalities participating. Cheryl Dick, your Economic Development Officer, was well received when she outlined this achievement at a recent SACPA meeting.

Ms. Dick explained that Team Lethbridge met this spring with Premier Stelmach and officials from 20 departments. She said that Team Lethbridge told Premier Stelmach (and we agree wholeheartedly) that

“this region has the natural resources, the inputs, the access to market, that make green energy development very reasonable and feasible: wind, sun, crops and biofuels”.

The Province of Alberta has more than enough bad press to deal with Black energy in the north. Why not get good press by promoting Green energy in the south? City Council would simply be asking for similar resources to create and achieve a sustainable future worthy of our new Alberta slogan.

Recently, Douglas Roche, former senator and Canada's Ambassador for disarmament, pleaded publicly for an “honest open public debate” of these issues. We at GREENSENCE are asking you to do the same. (His entire text from his article in the May 6th Edmonton Journal is attached for your perusal). Mr. Roche mentioned a new study by the Pembina Institute that found Alberta could go from producing more than 70 per cent of its electricity from coal to 70 per cent from clean energy sources in just 20 years, based on existing technology and rates of deployment already seen in other jurisdictions.

Please request the Alberta government slow down its Nuclear Power Consultation. Ask them to initiate immediately A Green Power Expert Panel and a subsequent Green Power Consultation with Albertans using similar financial resources as was granted for the nuclear study. Only then we can have a true, open and honest debate. City Council would thereby show the political will that southern Albertans have the freedom to create and the spirit to achieve if you, our elected representatives, help get the resources to achieve a Green future.

Sincerely,

Rena Woss, GREENSENCE Co-Chair (phone 403-795-9554)

Lisa Lambert, member of GREENSENCE (403-330-9530)

DOUGLAS ROCHE Page 1 of 4

An open, honest nuclear debate

Alberta's 'public consultation' on nuclear power seems designed to quash any opposition to the plan

BY DOUGLAS ROCHE, FREELANCE MAY 6, 2009

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Business/open+honest+nuclear+debate/1568305/story.html

The consultation process launched by the Alberta government to determine if a nuclear power plant should be built in the Peace River area appears designed to dampen any opposition to the plan. The Alberta nuclear consultation survey is cleverly formulated to intimidate all those without a scientific background, for example, asking the responders if they can explain the details of Alberta's electricity system or nuclear energy to others. The responder is asked to affirm whether or not: "I was very familiar with the history of nuclear use in Canada." In other words, if you don't have a technical background, is your opinion worth much? Why bother to proceed if you're not an expert? It is not so much the technical feasibility of bringing nuclear power to Alberta that needs to be examined and commented upon, but the political, economic and ethical wisdom of such a move. DOWNPLAYING THE NEGATIVES The report of the nuclear power expert panel and the government's subsequent workbook downplay the risk of nuclear accidents, the staggering costs to taxpayers of nuclear power, the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, and the immense new potential of alternate sources of energy. These are the questions that need open debate at public forums around the province. The inauguration of a nuclear reactor would profoundly affect the lives of Albertans over the next 50 years. The peaceful use of nuclear energy calls for great efforts to protect both people and the environment and to answer all legitimate questions about the future of the planet. The debate should not be limited to stakeholder groups out of the media spotlight, nor separated from the international debate already taking place on the future of nuclear power. The problems surrounding nuclear power lead me to the view that the Peace River reactor should not be proceeded with. Is my opinion to be discounted if I check this box, "I have some understanding of Alberta's electricity system but not sure of the details"? Far more important is a debate over the ethics and practicality of introducing nuclear power into Alberta, enabling the public to concentrate on the best ways to promote sustainable development that protects the environment.


Through my work for many years at the United Nations on nuclear issues, I am very conscious that the non-proliferation treaty of four decades ago granted countries the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. But a new era of alternative energy has opened up since then, and indeed, world leaders at the UN's 60th anniversary summit in 2005 agreed to "promote innovation, clean energy and energy efficiency and conservation." At the very least, it is now incumbent on the proponents of nuclear power to make their case in the light of growing doubts about the wisdom of further investment in nuclear power. A new study by the Pembina Institute found Alberta could go from producing more than 70 per cent of its electricity from coal to 70 per cent from clean energy sources in just 20 years, based on existing technology and rates of deployment already seen in other jurisdictions. Using proven renewable energy technologies, combined with industrial co-generation and a serious commitment to improved consumption efficiency, Alberta could satisfy its growing demand for power while dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other harmful environmental impacts. The Pembina Institute says Alberta does not need a single new coal-fired or nuclear power plant, even if its demand for power doubles in the next 20 years. That is the kind of statement that now needs open public examination. For every argument that nuclear power is entering a "renaissance," there is another that it is headed for obsolescence. ENOUGH RENEWABLE ENERGY Sixty years after the dawn of the nuclear age, the world is entering a new age when renewable energy shows signs of being able to surpass both fossil fuels and nuclear power in meeting the energy demands of a growing population. A new International Renewable Energy Agency is already taking shape, and the number of countries investing in renewable rather than nuclear energy is growing. At this turning point in history, when unstable oil prices, global warming, finite resources, and nuclear dangers all intersect, the world faces a crisis of how to meet rising energy needs in a sustainable manner and without further despoiling the environment. Can't ordinary people have a legitimate view on this?


The proponents of nuclear power claim that it is environment-friendly because it produces electricity with almost no greenhouse gas emission. But opponents affirm that this is not true. Shouldn't we also publicly debate the risks attached to nuclear power: the link between the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear weapons proliferation, reactor accidents (Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are examples), and the failure of science so far to devise an acceptable means for the disposal of nuclear waste. Though the risk of accidents, earthquakes or terrorist attacks on nuclear reactors may appear small, the consequences of a misstep are very large. The public needs to be informed about this and empowered to speak out without rejection by experts, many of whom are hardly objective. THE NEED FOR WATER A key ethical question needing examination is the use of water. All nuclear power plants must be situated beside a major supply of cooling water. Already, the oilsands -- the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada -- requires up to two million barrels of water per day from the Athabasca River to produce one million barrels of oil. Because climate change has already begun to leave a dramatic mark on the Canadian Rockies through recession of the Alberta Glacier, a recession of volume flows of water is occurring. In short, the oilsands are draining the Athabasca River and contributing to global warming at the same time. Let us debate this point. In addition, oilsands tailings ponds are despoiling the environment, and the aboriginal population of the area is experiencing declines in eco-resources related to the supply of water in the Athabasca River. The legitimate requirements of aboriginal peoples must be taken into consideration before further development of the oilsands proceeds. This is one more reason to at least question the ethics of introducing nuclear power, which will speed up the extraction of oil, with unknown consequences to aboriginal peoples. NUCLEAR WASTE The issue of nuclear waste must also be dealt with. Nuclear power production in Canada already produces approximately 85,000 highly radioactive waste fuel bundles each year, along with 500,000 tonnes or more of toxic and radioactive mine tailings (wastes left after uranium extraction). In fact, each stage of the nuclear energy production process generates large volumes of


uniquely hard-to-manage wastes -- wastes that in many cases will require care for hundreds of thousands of years. Currently, no approved long-term plan for the management of these wastes exists in Canada. The public needs to be alerted to the history of failures in storage facilities for uranium mine tailings in Canada and elsewhere. The problems these waste streams can lead to, including severe contamination of surface water and groundwater with radioactive and conventionally toxic pollutants need to be brought out into the open. Is it ethical to take the risk of introducing nuclear power into Alberta at the very moment when science has uncovered ways to meet energy needs without such risk? Let's debate the efficacy of nuclear power without fear or intimidation. Former senator Douglas Roche was an Edmonton MP from 1972 to 1984 and Canada's ambassador for disarmament from 1984 to 1989 © Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal Biography: http://roche.apirg.org/public_html/index.html

BYLAW 5587 ------------------------

A BYLAW OF THE CITY OF LETHBRIDGE TO AUTHORIZE

A LOAN OF $2,000,000.00 TO LETHBRIDGE COLLEGE

************************************************************************* WHEREAS Lethbridge College is a non-profit organization as defined in the Municipal Government Act; AND WHEREAS Lethbridge College requires financial assistance for the purposes of erecting student housing on the College Campus; AND WHEREAS the Lethbridge College Housing Proposal qualifies for access to funds allocated to the City of Lethbridge from the Alberta Affordable Housing Program; NOW THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LETHBRIDGE, DULY ASSEMBLED, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. The Municipal Council of the City of Lethbridge is hereby empowered and authorized to enter into contracts with Lethbridge College for the purposes of loaning to the College the sum of TWO MILLION ($2,000,000.00) DOLLARS from the funds allocated to the City of Lethbridge pursuant to the Alberta Affordable Housing Program.

2. Repayment of the said TWO MILLION ($2,000,000.00) DOLLARS

shall be required in the event that:

A. Student Housing accommodating at least 105 units is not complete on or before September 30, 2013

B. That the use of Student Housing facility on the College

Campus changes from Student Housing to some other use prior to September 30, 2033

C. That Lethbridge College sells or otherwise disposes of

legal ownership of the Student Housing complex prior to September 30, 2033

3. Provided repayment of the loan is not required pursuant to Section 2 of

this Bylaw, no interest shall be payable. 4. Interest shall accrue on all funds in default at the rate of One (1%)

Percent per month, Twelve (12%) Percent per annum.

2

5. Provided repayment is not required pursuant to Section 2 of this Bylaw

all outstanding balances payable to the City of Lethbridge shall be forgiven effective October 1, 2033.

6. Lethbridge College shall issue to the City of Lethbridge a Debenture in

the sum of TWO MILLION ($2,000,000.00) DOLLARS to secure their obligations pursuant to this loan.

7. This Bylaw shall come into full force and effect on the date of final

passing. READ A FIRST TIME this _____________day of______________ A.D. 2009 ___________________________ ____________________ Mayor City Clerk READ A SECOND TIME this _____________day of______________ A.D. 2009 ___________________________ ____________________ Mayor City Clerk READ A THIRD TIME this _____________day of______________ A.D. 2009 ___________________________ ____________________ Mayor City Clerk

Department: City Solicitor

May 12, 2009

For Submission to May 19, 2009

Council Meeting His Worship the Mayor and Members of City Council RE: Bylaw 5593 – Local Improvement – Lane Paving Please find attached Bylaw 5593 for the purpose of permitting the borrowing of $248,596.32 in order to complete lane paving for petitions submitted to the City of Lethbridge. The area proposed to be served is 5,918.96 lineal feet. Following third reading of the Bylaw our application for authority to proceed will be forwarded to the Alberta Capital Financing Authority.

Douglas S. Hudson, Q.C. City Solicitor

1

BYLAW NO. 5593 ---------------

A BYLAW TO AUTHORIZE THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LETHBRIDGE TO INCUR AN INDEBTEDNESS ON BEHALF

OF THE SAID CITY BY THE ISSUANCE OF DEBENTURES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING CERTAIN LANE PAVING IN THE CITY OF LETHBRIDGE

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WHEREAS it is deemed expedient and proper pursuant to Section 263 of the Municipal Government Act that the Council shall issue a Bylaw to authorize the undertaking and the construction of certain lane paving in the City of Lethbridge; AND WHEREAS plans, specifications and estimates for such work have been made by the Infrastructure Services Department whereby the total cost of the said construction estimated to be TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY-SIX DOLLARS AND THIRTY-TWO CENTS ($248,596.32); AND WHEREAS in order to construct and complete the said project it will be necessary to borrow the sum of TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY-SIX DOLLARS AND THIRTY-TWO CENTS ($248,596.32) on the credit of the City of Lethbridge as herein provided; AND WHEREAS the said indebtedness is to be repaid over a period of -- TEN (10) -- YEARS in annual installments with interest not exceeding EIGHT (8%) PERCENT, or with interest not exceeding the interest rate fixed from time to time by the Alberta Capital Financing Authority, payable annually; AND WHEREAS the amount of the equalized assessment in the municipality as last determined and fixed in 2008 by the Assessment Equalization Board was $9,674,121,641.00; AND WHEREAS the amount of the existing general debenture debt of the City of Lethbridge is $49,886,000, no part of which is in arrears; AND WHEREAS the estimated life of the project is TEN (10) YEARS; AND WHEREAS the proposed construction will serve about 5,918.96 lineal feet of frontage; AND WHEREAS all required approvals for the project has been obtained and the project is in compliance with all acts and regulations of the Province of Alberta; AND WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of Section 392 of the Municipal Government Act, as amended, the Council has received an adequate and proper petition praying for

2

the undertaking and construction of the lane paving, the cost or a portion thereto to be assessed against abutting owners in accordance with the attached Schedule "A". NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LETHBRIDGE, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, DULY ASSEMBLED HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Municipal Council of the City of Lethbridge is hereby empowered and

authorized to enter into contracts for the purpose of construction of certain lane paving.

2. That for the purpose aforesaid the sum of TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY EIGHT

THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY-SIX DOLLARS AND THIRTY-TWO CENTS ($248,596.32) be borrowed by way of debenture on the credit and security of the City of Lethbridge at large, of which amount the sum of TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY-SIX DOLLARS AND THIRTY-TWO CENTS ($248,596.32) be collected by way of a Local Improvement Tax as herein provided in attached Schedule "A".

3. The debentures to be issued under this Bylaw shall not exceed the sum of TWO

HUNDRED AND FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY-SIX DOLLARS AND THIRTY-TWO CENTS ($248,596.32) and may be in any denomination not exceeding the amount authorized by this Bylaw and shall be dated having regard to the date of the borrowing.

4. The debentures shall bear interest during the currency of the debentures, at a

rate not exceeding EIGHT per centum (8%) per annum or the interest fixed from time to time by the Alberta Capital Financing Authority, payable annually.

5. The debenture shall be issued in such manner that the principal and interest will

be combined and be made payable in, as nearly as possible, equal annual installments over a period of -- TEN -- (10) YEARS, in accordance with the schedule attached and forming a part of each debenture.

6. The debentures shall be payable in lawful money of TD Canada Trust in the City

of Lethbridge or at such other bank or financial institution as the Council may authorize as its banking agent during the currency of the debentures.

7. The Chief Elected Official and Chief Administrative Officer of the City of

Lethbridge shall authorize such bank or financial institution to make payments to the holder of the debentures, on such dates and in such amounts as specified in the repayment schedule forming part of each debenture.

8. The said debentures shall be signed by the Chief Elected Official and the Chief

Administrative Officer of the City of Lethbridge, and the Chief Administrative Officer shall affix thereto the corporate seal of the said City.

3

9. There shall be levied and raised in each year of the currency of the debentures

hereby authorized the amount necessary to pay the principle and interest falling due in such year on such debentures and in addition thereto the amount required to pay any of such debentures which fall due in each year after applying the special assessment hereinafter provided for by a rate sufficient therefore on all the rateable property in the said City and collectible at the same time and in the same manner as the other rates and taxes.

10. During the currency of the said debentures there shall be raised annually for

payment of the owners' portion of the cost and interest thereon, by Local Improvement Tax under the Municipal Government Act, the respective sums shown as yearly payments on Schedule "A" hereto attached and there is hereby imposed on all benefiting lands, a Local Improvement Tax sufficient to cover the owners' portion of the cost of the work and the interest thereon payable at the unit rate or rates set forth in Schedule "A". The said Local Improvement Tax shall be in addition to all other rates and taxes.

11. The said indebtedness is contracted on the credit and security of the City of

Lethbridge at large. 12. The net amount realized by the issue and sale of debentures issued under this

Bylaw shall be applied only for the purposes for which the indebtedness was created.

13. This Bylaw shall take effect on the date of final passing thereof. READ A FIRST TIME this day of , A.D. 2009 ____________________________ _________________________________ MAYOR CITY CLERK READ A SECOND TIME this day of , A.D. 2009 ____________________________ _________________________________ MAYOR CITY CLERK READ A THIRD TIME this day of , A.D. 2009 __ _________________________________ MAYOR CITY CLERK

4

LOCAL IMPROVEMENT TAX CITY OF LETHBRIDGE

SCHEDULE "A" TO BYLAW NO. 5593

RESIDENTIAL LOCAL IMPROVEMENT LANE PAVING 1 Properties to be assessed as per attached 2 Total Cost $ 248,596.32 3 Total Assessable Footage 5,918.96 4 Cash Price per Assessable Foot $ 42.00 5 Annual Unit Rate per front foot over 10

Years at 4.000% $ 5.18

6. Total yearly assessment against all of the above Properties $ 30,660.21

5

Sch

edu

le "

B"

20

09

LO

CA

L IM

PR

OV

EMEN

TS

LAN

E P

AV

ING

Pet

itio

n N

o.

Lega

l Des

crip

tion

M

un

icip

al L

ocat

ion

D

ate

Lett

er o

f A

sses

sed

Cos

t Es

tim

ate

#

Rep

rese

nta

tive

(Lan

e lo

cate

d be

twee

n…)

Val

idat

ed

Inte

nt

Fron

tage

Ft

. @

$42

/foo

t P

rope

rtie

s

LP-0

80

5

Plan

859

3GB

Blo

ck 2

Lo

ts 1

-13

6 Av

e. S

. 25

St.

S. to

28

St. S.

19

-Aug

-08

20-A

ug-

08

1,26

6.09

$5

3,17

5.78

14

Mar

y C.

Gor

don

Ric

hard

D. S

omer

ville

LP-0

80

6

Plan

031

241

5 B

lock

11

Lot

s 39

-53

Her

itage

Blv

d. W

. &

Her

itage

Gre

en W

. 17

-Jun

-08

23-J

un-

08

1,40

3.17

$5

8,93

3.14

33

Laur

a Le

a Pe

ters

Pl

an 9

81 2

934

Blo

ck 1

1 L

ots

24-2

6 H

erita

ge P

t. W

.

Ron

ald

Fran

k Pe

ters

Pl

an 0

21 3

606

Blo

ck 1

1 L

ots

27-3

8

Pl

an 9

41 2

055

Blo

ck 1

1 L

ots

1-3

LP-0

81

1

Plan

771

051

8 B

lock

10

Lot

s 39

-42

St. Ba

sil R

d. N

. -

13 S

t. N

. 11

-Aug

-08

27-A

ug-

08

2,41

4.70

$1

01,4

17.4

0 47

Roc

helle

Lav

ene

Aspl

und

Plan

011

342

5 B

lock

10

Lot

43

13 A

ve. N

. - S

t. A

ndre

w R

d. N

.

Bren

t Ke

nnet

h Jo

hn

Aspl

und

Plan

109

4LK

Blo

ck 7

Lo

ts 1

-3, 5-

38

LP-0

81

4

Plan

741

053

2 B

lock

26

Lot

s 1-

16

Phea

sant

Rd.

N.

& R

obin

Rd.

N.

28-A

ug-0

8 9-

Sep-

08

835.

00

$35,

070.

00

16

Way

ne D

ougl

as D

unca

n

Judy

Kay

Dun

can

Tota

ls:

5,9

18

.96

$

24

8,5

96

.32

1

10

Boys & Girls Club of Lethbridge & District

A good place to be 1405 – 8 Avenue North, Lethbridge, AB T1H 6N9 Phone: (403) 327-6423 Fax: (403) 327-1711 www.bgclethbridge.com

C:\Documents and Settings\bburke\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK22\Request for Support - City Council (2).docx

April 16, 2009 Dear Mayor Bob Tarleck and City Council, Re: Facility Renovations – Request for Support The Boys & Girls Club of Lethbridge and District is a registered society providing out-of-school care for children 5 to 11 years old in the city of Lethbridge. We are currently working to secure funding for major renovations to our gymnasium floor which will provide a safer, more durable surface for the variety of groups that utilize our facility for numerous events throughout the year. We would like to request a statement of municipal opinion in support of this project. This would allow us to meet the requirements of the Community Facility Enhancement Fund application that we are submitting to the Alberta Lottery Fund. We look forward to presenting more information about our project at an upcoming City Council meeting. Kind regards, BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LETHBRIDGE & DISTRICT Trever Broadhead Executive Director

Date of City Council Meeting: May 19, 2009 Subject: Tender Summary for March, 2009 Submitted By: Garth Sherwin, CA

City Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the Tender Summary Report for March, 2009 be

received as information and filed.

PURPOSE: Attached is a summary of all competitions awarded for the

month of March, 2009 and a description of each competition as well as the year-to-date summary.

FINANCIAL: N/A Reports / Documents: Tender Summary Report Reviewed & Endorsed by City Manager: ____________________________________


Date of City Council Meeting: May 19, 2009 Subject: Tender Summary for April, 2009 Submitted By: Garth Sherwin, CA

City Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the Tender Summary Report for April, 2009 be received

as information and filed.

PURPOSE: Attached is a summary of all competitions awarded for the

month of April, 2009 and a description of each competition as well as the year-to-date summary.

FINANCIAL: N/A Reports / Documents: Tender Summary Report Reviewed & Endorsed by City Manager: ____________________________________


Council Date Page Item Responsibility Estimated Completion Date Status

March 7/05 89

To ensure capsules are removed and contents distributed and capsules refilled for the next period (no time capsules from 2006 Centennial)

City Clerk September 2009, 2034, 2059 and 2084

Jan. 9/06 10 Purchase of land in Fairmont Park City Solicitor May 1/08 1/2 to be conveyed to Medican

Jan. 8/07 11Land swap with Elim Society for acquisition of land for road right-of-way for the future North Scenic Drive

City Solicitor June, 2009 Documents sent to solicitor for Elim Society

May 26/08 218 Water Conservation Request Ad Hoc Committee June, 2009Review request to incorporate water conservation measures as part of Environment Plan & Policy Initiative

June 23/08 266 Airport Governances and Potential Partnership Ad Hoc Committee June, 2009 Identify options and make

recommendations to City Council

Nov. 24/08 477Purchase of land in County for 43rd Street/9th Avenue N. intersection (and alignment for Electric Utility)

City Solicitor March 31/09 At Land Titles

Jan. 26/09 38 Sale of Public Utility Lot; Lot 6PUL, Block 1, Plan 8610580 (GoWest Marketing) City Solicitor May 30/09 Ready to transfer

March 9/09 105 Lethbridge College Residence Development Project City Solicitor April 30/09

Execute debenture to protect the source of funds in the event the units are no longer required

July 7/08; March 9/09 106 Sale of neighborhood commercial land in

Sunridge (Howler Developments Ltd.) City Solicitor March 31/10 Closing date extended to March 31/10

March 23/09 125 Alberta Health Services - Emergency Medical Services Mayor March 31/09 Awaiting return from AHS

March 23/09 137 SHIA Funding Agreements Mayor April 30/09 Mayor & City Clerk to execute appropriate funding agreements

April 6/09 159 Land Sale - Water Tower Site City Solicitor May 19/09 Execute related agreements

FOLLOW UP ACTION LIST - MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, CITY CLERK & CITY SOLICITOR

Mayor, City Council, City Clerkand City Solicitor 1Revised 5/13/2009


FOLLOW UP ACTION LIST - MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, CITY CLERK & CITY SOLICITOR

April 6/09 160 Rogers Communication - lease renewal on transmission towers City Solicitor June 15/09 Execute 15 year lease renewal (to

Dec. 31, 2023)

April 6/09 161Land Sale - 820/830 - 7 St. N. to Lethbridge Native Women's Transition Home Society

City Solicitor June 15/09 Execute mortgage and ensure maintenance fund is established

May 4/09 194 Request of Taras Negrych that cell phone use be banned while driving Mayor May 19/09

Mayor to write a letter to the Ministry of Transportation requesting that legislation on this matter be considered.

May 4/09 198

Approval of West Lethbridge Centre Construction Partnership Agreement for the West Multi-Use Lethbridge Centre construction project

Mayor & City Clerk May 19/09 Mayor & City Clerk to sign the agreement

May 4/09 186 Volunteer Lethbridge - concerns over Wild Rose Foundation funding Mayor May 19/09 Mayor to write to the Province

requesting clarification on this matter.

Mayor, City Council, City Clerkand City Solicitor 2Revised 5/13/2009


July 9/07 295 Habitat for Humanity - Building Lots Manager - Real Estate & Land Development April, 2009 Two potential lots being explored in

detail for sustainability

FOLLOW UP ACTION LIST - CITY MANAGER

City Manager 1Revised 5/13/2009


April 28/08 177 Facility Lease Agreement for the Bill Kergan Centre

Manager of Recreation, Parks & Culture June 15/09 SAEA has a draft of the proposed

lease for their consideration

June 23/08 260 Public Operations Master Plan Project Manager June 15/09Proceeded to construction drawings, report to City Council at the pre-tender stage

March 23/09 131Lethbridge Curling Club's request for a comprehensive planning review of the Civic Sportsfield

Director of Community Services May 1/10

Administration to complete a comprehensive review of the Civic Sports Field/LSCO/YMCA/City Hall/Civic Ice Arena area, and report back to City Council during 2011-20 CIP Discussions

May 4/09 189Canada Games Council request for support for the Canada Summer Games in Prince Edward Island

Director of Community Services August 15/09

City to hold a "Passing the Torch" legacy event at the ENMAX Centre in August, prior to the start of the Games

May 4/09 191 Unsightly Premises - 611-8 St. S.Regulatory Services

Manager / City Clerk's Office

June 15/09Issue notice, by way of Form B, to the owners; hearing to be scheduled for June 15/09

May 4/09 191 Unsightly Premises - 621-8 St. S.Regulatory Services

Manager / City Clerk's Office

June 15/09Issue notice, by way of Form B, to the owners; hearing to be scheduled for June 15/09

FOLLOW UP ACTION LIST - COMMUNITY SERVICES

Community Services 1Revised 5/13/2009


Jan. 22/07 23 Sustainable Water Use Practices Corporate Initiatives Director 2010

The Environmental Policy Council Strategic Initiative will begin in 2009. Water conservation will be a component of this initiative and it is recommended that implementation of any water conservation measures be part of the implementation plan that will be developed from the Environmental Policy Program

May 14/07 196 Worldwide Day Recognizing Labour Downtown Revitalization Manager Dec. 31/2010 Consider incorporating a memorial to

miners in downtown gateways

June 23/08 262 Central Neighbourhood Issues Identification Study

Senior Community Planner March 3/09

Develop options and budget implications and report back to City Council

Nov. 10/08 445 Micro Wind Turbines Senior Community Planner Spring, 2009

Proceed with a Land Use Bylaw amendment to establish a definition and standards for wind generation

FOLLOW UP ACTION LIST - CORPORATE INITIATIVES

Corporate Initiatives 1Revised 5/13/2009


Oct. 1/07 433 Bicycle corridors and bicycle/pedestrian corridors Transportation Manager Dec. 14/09 Update Bicycling Bylaw 3515

April 28/08 185 Circulation Roadways Planning Study Transportation Manager June 29/09

Complete evaluation of river crossing locations; Request Province of Alberta to amend Special Basic Capital Grant

April 28/08 185 Completion of Storm Water Bylaw Water & Wastewater Manager May 19/09 Provide City Council with timeframe

for development of a Bylaw

May 26/08 218 Water Conservation Request & Environmental Plan/Policy Ad Hoc Committee June 15/09

Review request to incorporate water conservation measures as part of Environment Plan & Policy Initiative

June 9/08 240 Vehicle Energy Efficiencies re: V4/V6 Engines versus V8 Fleet Services Manager June 29/09 Review and report back to City

Council

July 7/08 286 Land Development System Evaluation and Rebuild (LaSER)

Urban Construction Manager Dec. 14/09

Undertake an evaluation and rebuild of system for reviewing and approving new land developments

Nov. 24/08 468 South Gate Blvd. (34th Ave.) and 43rd St. South Transportation Manager June 01/09

Review impacts of temporary/permanent access from South Gate Blvd. to 43 Street S. and report back to City Council

Feb. 23/09 70 Pilot project to evaluate waste collection methods in the Downtown Core

Waste & Recycling Manager June 29/09 Administration to report results to City

Council

Feb. 23/09 77Canadian Paraplegic Association (parking in the downtown core for those with physical disabilities)

Transportation Manager June 1/09Administration to report to City Council on the feasibility of implementing the solutions

FOLLOW UP ACTION LIST - INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

Infrastructure Services 1Revised 5/13/2009


FOLLOW UP ACTION LIST - INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

Feb. 23/09 72 Snow and ice removal operations Transportation Manager Oct. 5/09

Review operating practices and procedures with the intention of improving the speed of snow removal, keeping the costs to a minimum and maintaining the level of service within the current snow removal policy -- and report back to City Council.

March 9/09 97 Curb Side Chipping Program Waste & Recycling Manager March 1/10

Administration to review the feasibility of a Curb Side Chipping Program and provide a recommendation to City Council

March 9/09 100 Protective Plumbing Program, and storm and sanitary sewer system improvements

G.M., Water, Wastewater & Storm Water Sept. 21/09

Administration to prepare a progress report and presentation for City Council on the progress of the LPPP and potential improvements to those areas which experienced overland flooding.

Infrastructure Services 2Revised 5/13/2009

Council Date Page Responsibility Estimated Completion Date Status

May 4/09 194

Bylaw 5591 - Affordable Housing Program Loan to Lethbridge Native Women's Transition Home Society to establish a Transition Home at 830 - 7 St. N.

City Solicitor June 15/09 Mortgage loan currently being advertised

FOLLOW UP ACTION LIST - BYLAWS

Bylaws 1Revised 5/13/2009


Sept. 29/08 392 SS S-08-80; Visitor Information Services (Chinook Country Tourist Association) City Solicitor Oct. 31/08 Awaiting return from CCTA

Dec. 8/08 506E-08-11; Amendment - Design Bowron Substation 674S Capacity Upgrade (GP Technologies Ltd.)

City Solicitor Jan. 15/09 Contract to be amended

Jan. 26/09 36E-09-03; Sole Source; Bowron Substation Capacity Upgrade (Rising Edge Technologies Ltd.)

City Solicitor Feb. 23/09 Contract to be executed

Jan. 26/09 28Public Safety Communications Centre - Business Model (Dave Mitchell & Associates)

City Solicitor Feb. 23/09 Contract to be executed

April 6/09 156

S-09-22; Professional Consulting Services - Office Space Expansion, etc., for the old Auto Appearance Building (Toker & Associates Architecture)

City Solicitor June 6/09 Contract to be executed

April 20/09 170EQ-09-32; Sole Source - Henderson Lake Water Quality Mitigation (H20 Logics, Sherwood Park)


April 20/09 170

S-09-30; Sole Source - Henderson Lake Water Quality Mitigation - Liquid Live Micro-Organisms (Advanced Water Technologies, Taber)


April 20/09 176 SC-09-09; Asphalt Supply (Tollestrup Construction Inc.) City Solicitor June 6/09 Contract to be executed

May 4/09 192S-08-73; General Construction/ Carpentry Services (Ward Bros. Construction)

City Solicitor June 30/09 Awaiting return from Ward Bros.

May 4/09 192C-09-06; SunRidge Park Features, Landscape Construction (Bos Scapes Ind. Coaldale)


FOLLOW-UP ACTION LIST - TENDERS & REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS

Tenders and RFP's 1Revised 5/13/2009


FOLLOW-UP ACTION LIST - TENDERS & REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS

May 4/09 193S-09-38; Sole Source - Cogeneration System Power Export Implementation (Rising Edge Engineering Ltd., Calgary)


May 4/09 193E-08-19; Transformer PCB Testing (JACO Environmental Systems, Ephrata, Washington)

City Solicitor June 15/09 Awaiting return from JACO

Tenders and RFP's 2Revised 5/13/2009


March 19/07 96 Galt Museum Expansion Project City Treasurer Dec. 31, 2011

Allocate $342,369 from MRSR for capital expansion - credit MRSR with Museum operating surpluses through 2008 and naming funds through 2011 (reduced to $169,316 in 2008)

FOLLOW UP ACTION LIST - FINANCE COMMITTEE

Finance Committee 1 Revised 5/13/2009

1


Subject: Pathway System Expansion

Submitted By: David Ellis, Parks Manager

RECOMMENDATION: That City Council support the application for grant funding

under the Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RInC) Program for the planned expansion of the Pathway System.

PURPOSE: To obtain evidence of municipal support to accompany the

City’s application for funding under the RInC program. IMPLICATION OF RECOMMENDATION GENERAL: The Recreational Trends Analysis done during the formation

of the Parks Master Plan and the Bikeways & Pathways Master Plans utilized recent Provincial Surveys and significant local stakeholder and general public input. The results of the analysis showed a decline in the preference for organized sport and recreational activities and a strong desire for unstructured recreational opportunities. The identified preference for expanding our pathway system was overwhelmingly strong. Pathways provide free access for anyone to engage in a variety of unstructured recreational activities including walking, running, riding bicycles, and rollerblading in different environments. The pathway system provides a venue for a growing number of special events including several marathons and fundraising activities. For the increasing numbers of individuals with high environmental consciences the pathway system provides options and safe routes for alternative transportation options.

ORGANIZATIONAL: The Bikeways & Pathways Master Plan provides the planning framework for this project. If funding is approved detailed planning work will be undertaken to compile tender ready plans by February 2010. Construction will be scheduled for summer of 2010.


2

FINANCIAL: Should the RInC funding be awarded, the City will be

required to contribute 1/3 of the total project cost of $3,000,000. The remaining $2,000,000 will be funded from other grant programs and City sources.


The evidence of municipal support is required to accompany the grant application which must be submitted by May 26th.

BRIEFING SHEET Plans Securing the RInC funding will allow the planned expansion

of the pathway system in Lethbridge to advance. The work aligns with the Bikeways and Pathways Master Plan recommendations adopted by Council in 2007 and helps meet the growing demand by the community for pathway options and improved connections. Support of this option will allow the development to coincide with work currently being planned by the Transportation Department for increased accessibility to the street network for bicycles.

Recommended Option That City Council support the application for grant funding

under the Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RInC) Program for the planned expansion of the Pathway System.

Reports / Documents Map of options for additional pathway routing attached.

Copies of Bikeways & Pathways Master Plan available.

