A $10.76 Million Municipal Complex Defeated

A motion that would have seen 10.76 million dollars spent on a new municipal complex was defeated on September 1, 2015. Three councillors, the Warden and Deputy Warden voted for the expenditure (Best, Brothers, Ennis, Hirtle, Lloyd). Four voted against (Bishop, MacQuarrie, Raven, Winsor) and one abstained (Atwater). Six positive votes were required for this motion to pass. 

Councillor Atwater's eleventh hour doubt on his ability to decide whether to support this poorly founded motion is to thank for its defeat. His withdrawal from the horseshoe provided the opportunity we now have to find a better solution. 

Emails, meetings, and phone calls continue. Some discussion indicates that the motion was not so much defeated as stalled. I want to be clear that, for me, the overall project as it was envisioned, with its close to 11 million dollar cost, is now permanently past tense. I believe any attempt to rejig motions to allow the project to move forward, as was done directly following its defeat, would be unethical. District 3 constituents, as well as other constituents I have heard from are glad the motion was defeated.

I have many questions that need to be answered before the needed relocation project can be re-envisioned. I trust that we will now be going back to the drawing board. A workshop, unfortunately to be held behind closed doors, is scheduled for this Wednesday afternoon. A special council meeting is scheduled for September 22 to deal with the municipal complex dilemma.

Meanwhile, I have been assured that we have no contractual or verbal agreements that would place the county at risk if, or when, we move entirely away from the current project.

Council needs to set fresh goals aimed at a solution to our relocation problem. What was placed before us is best understood, despite the significant work that went into it, as a rush job. The hurry, hurry mantra we were under blurred the vision of too many and was not in the public's best interest. 

Below are some of the things I believe councillors need to have clearer answers to, if council is make a decision that can be defended to our bosses, you, the people of Kings County. 

With the September 1, motion behind us, we are now positioned to use the winter months to work towards a build that can start next spring. We can reset timelines by adding the extra 6-months permitted by the province for an exit date from our current location. That will provide a full year (April 1, 2016, to April 1, 2017) to complete the build. We will have the advantage and cost savings of a summer season building schedule to help the work along. 

Several things are on my mind right now...

Location
1. Do we continue looking at building on the land in Coldbrook or do we re-examine the tenets upon which that decision was supported? (I have received strong support from many constituents for keeping the municipal offices in Kentville).

• Council was, at least this particular councillor was, left with the impression that there was a $45,000 cost avoidance if we moved out of Kentville... In other words, we needed to be in the county because we shouldn't pay "taxes to the town". But now I'm hearing that the annual costs are much less than $45,000 and that the annual bills for our current location are largely tied to the rent paid by the Department of Justice. An accurate detailed description of "county payments to the town" could remove a key cost barrier to staying in Kentville. 
• Council was, I think, left with the impression that there was not a suitable piece of land available in downtown Kentville. That too appears to no longer be the case.
• Council was told it was too late to jointly address the need for new space for the regional library and the municipal complex. But the opportunity to revisit that appears possible.

2. Our public works and economic development staff have yet to weigh in on where the best location is from the perspective of:

• Limiting the distance that needs to be traveled to access or provide municipal services for most residents, businesses and staff. 
• Supporting economic development of our region.

3. A last location question can be asked from a regional planning perspective. Where should a new complex be built if a decision is made in the years immediately ahead to form a regional government (as more municipalities in our province are now doing)?

Affordability/Setting a Budget
4. The question of how much the county can truly afford to invest in a new municipal complex has yet to be answered satisfactorily
5. Are there any investments in a new municipal complex that could be made at this time to help increase future economic development opportunities? For example, should the small business hub being called for by entrepreneurs and small businesses be included at the complex?
6. What would the cost implications (likely savings) be if we co-located with the regional library?

Net Zero Energy Goal
7. I would like to hear directly from experts in the "green energy" sector about the pros and cons of building to the Net Zero standard, in 2016, in Nova Scotia. For example, what are the possible maintenance costs for such systems over a 20-year period or the costs of operation relative to energy savings?My initial reaction is to be very attracted by Net Zero, and the prospect of a federal Green Municipal Fund grant to offset its costs, but as discussions in the community have continued it is clear we need to know more.

We now have an amazing opportunity, presented to us when Wayne left the horseshoe, to give this project the sober, second thought it deserves. 

Councillor Atwater has proven, again, to be no-one's dummy. For that, I'm thankful.