MOU To Be Signed Despite Concerns About Location
By Robert Thomas
The site for the proposed new joint-use school on South Hill was front row centre at Council Tuesday evening as representatives from both the Prairie South School Division (PSSD), Holy Trinity Catholic School Division (HTCSD) and the provincial Ministry of Education came to Council with a Memorandum of Understnding (MOU) on the project.
And despite an attempt by a lone PSSD trustee at their most recent meeting to put the brakes on the proposed location and now members of Council who have also raised similar concerns the MOU was approved.
Background
Initially the City offered to sell the entire West Heath 5 and West Heath 6 developments to the two school divisions - a total of 34.5 acres of land for $2.5 million.
As part of that offer the two school divisions would be responsible for the development and servicing of the neighbourhood. The City estimated that developing and then selling the lots would result in a $2.1 million profit to the City, a fee recovered by the sale of the two developments to the school divsions.
Following putting out an Expression of Interest (EOI) for a developer for the property, where there was only one submission which was considered not meeting the criteria of the EOI, the school divisions are now looking to purchase only ten (10) acres of land for the proposed joint use school.
The Ministry is now offering to purchase the ten acres of land for $15,000 per acre plus associated development levies and other mitigation measures a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) might require.
Despite changing the initial development from what the City has spent $300,000 developing the Ministry will not be compensating the City because the Ministry will be providing their own concept plan for the neighbourhood.
Traffic considerations figured heavily in the City’s decision not to initially offer the West Heath site for the proposed South Hill Joint-Use School.
A Freedom Of Information (FOI) request to the Ministry of Education found the school divisions had announced the proposed location through a press release without informing the owners of the land - the City - of their intentions.
“City Administration has identified several potential issues with locating the school within the final two phases of the neighbourhood, specifically in relation to the traffic impact on the area and policies contained in the Official Community Plan,” the report to Council read.
Administration’s report also mentioned the Ministry of Education’s own consultant also found traffic concerns the proposed new school would bring to the area.
“Upon initial review by the consultant, the Ministry was advised of potential traffic issues and it was suggested that a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) be completed prior to moving forward with any concept plan proposals,” the report to Council continued.
Empire School is one of two Prairie South School Division schools set to close and transfer students to the proposed new joint use school - MJ Independent photo
At the September 1st PSSD board meeting it was revealed the West Heath location was not four of the proposed locations presented to the public to discuss but came from the floor from a back table which included Moose Jaw Wakamow MLA Greg Lawrence and then PSSD chair Tim McLeod at one of the public discussions.
The Delegation
“The school represents a $50 million investment that will benefit more than a thousand students and provide a long lasting impact to the residents of South Hill and the City of Moose Jaw,” Laurie Jensen acting deputy minister of education told Council.
“At that meeting (July 27th) we discussed the KPMG report which concluded that the land located in the West Heath subdivison was the most suitable site for a new facillity as it offers the highest degree of safety and it is located in part of a growing residential neighbourhood with the potential for growing development. And the location provides the opportunity to tailor services, transportation corridors, site access and configuration to optimally align with project functionality,” Jensen said.
Jensen said the Ministry and two school divisions had worked with City Administration to re-draft a framework which is encompassed by the MOU. The framework would be in stages which allowed all parties to meet and address any concerns.
“We have redrafted a framework which promotes the interests of all stakeholders on the West Heath subdivision. The effect of the MOU is designed to be a stage gate process that collaborates with all partners and establishes check-ins where approriate,” he said.
“These (are) stages, at each stage gate we will bring it back a presentation at City Council’s discretion to present on progress and address any concerns by the City…the boards will lead the project with close consultation with the City. Unless otherwise noted the Ministry will pay all costs associated with any mitigation measures proposed by the TIA…we believe we have been working with the City in very close collaboration…we believe the revised MOU addresses all concerns which were raised at the City Council meeting of July 27th.”
The Ministry, school divisions and the City met on July 27th in an in-camera session (non-public) Executive Committee meeting.
Mayor Fraser Tolmie asked that a certain aspect be highlighted in the report “a clause has been added to the MOU which allows the City to back out pf the agreement if the results of the Traffic Impact Assessment require cost prohibitive mitigaton matters.”
The TIA has yet to be completed but is expected back by September 25th.
“We have been working with City Administration what the potential results would be of that and also that and to insure everybody is aware any mitigation strategies are at the cost of the Ministry,” Jensen said.
Asked by Councillor Crystal Froese what form the public engagement proposed in the MOU would take Jensen said they would work wtth Administration to
“The ministry and school boards would develop options for the proposed West Heath school site with the school at that location. We would release those for public engagement and stakeholder meetings to receive feedback and ensure that the community voice would be heard on the preferred site configuration,” Jensen replied.
“This would be for the layout of the residential, the school site location, the proposed roadways, the eventual configuration of the housing…the park space but it would not include the actual building the actual design of the school,” he said.
Council’s Discussion
Despite the re-assurances from the delegation there were concerns raised by members of Council about the proposed location of the joint use school.
Councillor Brian Swanson, who is also a PSSD Trustee but has declared a conflict of interest on that board and therefore is not participating in that debate and discussion at Prairie South, said he supported the moves to build a new school which amalgamates four schools but he has concerns about the proposed Westheath location.
His concerns are largely based upon the costs he envisions to City taxpayers in regards to the new location. Costs not addressed in the MOU nor in the Ministry’s offer.
“When the school site was announced by the school boards it was a complete surprise to the City. There had been no discussion with the City about that site and from the City’s perspective that is in a sub-division that is not there. Really it is just something on a piece of paper,” Councillor Swanson said, adding “to get through that process this Council indicated to the school boards that we were not interested in developing that sub-division at this time…but should that be their desired location they (the Ministry and school divisions) would have to develop that location and not put the taxpayers of Moose Jaw on the hook.”
The recent Expression Of Interest (EOI) coming back without an acceptable development proposal is a bad sign for City taxpayers, he said.
“What I take from that is anyone with their own money would not develop that subdivision at this time. Of course that leaves taxpayers and that is my concern here is that we are going to be getting into a sub-division that I don’t think is justified at this time.”
Evidence the Councillor pointed out as proof to back up his concerns are the recent home start statistics which showed ten new home starts to end of August in 2020 compared to 20 by the same time last year.
“Last year up until the end of August there had been 20 new houses built in Moose Jaw which is a pretty dismal number by any historical standard. What is even more dismal is this year up to the end of August only ten new houses have been built. So A there is no demand for a new subdivision in Moose Jaw and a subdivison entails outlaying a whole bunch of money in the hopes of recouping it from sales of lots. Ten new housing starts leaves new homebuilders and subdivisions crying out for customers.”
Building a new subdivison on the outskirts of the City would in the end cost City taxpayers more money because of stagnant population growth, he said.
“The development of that subdivision expands outward the footprint of the city at a time when we have no populatioin growth, no new housing starts and I think that is a textbook example of bad urban planning to be constantly expanding outward the footprint of your city while your population doesn’t grow…the long term consequences of that is a declining inner city, infrastructure issues that overwhelm the taxbase because you are constantly exending outwards your infrastructure when the population doesn’t grow.”
“I don’t think there is a need for a new subdivision but we are kind of being forced into it. I cannot support that it will be the (Moose Jaw) taxpayers that will be on the hook. It will be in seven figures the amount of money we are on the hook.”
Councillor Swanson said there were other options for the proposed joint use school’s location but they were ignored. In his opinion the other locations would be less expensive for Moose Jaw taxpayers.
He pointed out Administration’s report made note that the proposed location goes against several key points of the Official Community Plan.
There are a number of policies within the Official Community Plan designed to ensure any new school will help build and reinforce the neighbourhoods they serve. The proposed joint use school breaks the Official Community Plan in three separate ways.
The requirements of the Official Community Plan the proposed site breaches are:
b) All elementary school sites should be located as close as possible to the centre of the areas they will ultimately serve, should not be located on arterial streets and, wherever possible, should be located at street intersections.
d) School sites shall, wherever possible, be located adjacent to Municipal Reserves or other public open spaces. The use of the school and park facilities as the recreational centre for the neighbourhood or other area being served shall be promoted.
e) Sites for schools and other institutional uses shall be suitable for such purposes in terms of topography, utilities, transit service, access, and site frontage. School sites shall include adequate on-site pick-up and drop-off zones for students.
“This puts taxpayers in a compromised position in terms of costs there are other alternatives…what we are doing with this motion is to spread the city outwards yet again without the population growth to justify it when there are other reasonable alternatives which I believe are less expensive for everybody,” he said.
Councillor Swanson questioned what he saw was a waste of $300,000 by the City for an already pre-existing concept plan for West Heath 5 and 6 now that the Ministry will be replacing it with one of their own.
“You may as well have stood on Main Street and burnt $300,000 in January because you will get more use out of it than paying $300,000 for a concept plan that is now totally useless,” he said.
Councillor Crystal Froese expressed some of the same concerns but not to the same extent as Councillor Swanson.
“I believe Council here wants a new school for South Hill absolutely, we are well overdue for one. I don’t see where our provincial government or the Ministry would take that away from us necessarily if we have some concerns around the project itself. That is the whole part about trying to work collaboratively.”
Councillor Froese acknowledged there are some concrete concerns about the chosen location for a variety of reasons.
“I am not super in favour of Westheath and for lots of reasons of course being it does not follow our Official Community Plan, it is going to be located in the farthest western corner of our city limits which doesn’t actually allow for growth or in-fill around that…it does not service the central part of South Hill and infrastructure that is already there to serve a school of that size,” Councillor Froese said.
She said that other locations fell by the wayside due to safety concerns.
“There are alternate locations but the reason this one was chosen was largely because of the safety aspect which is why we are visiting a traffic study at this point…I am hopeful this will be expediated because if has been on the backburner for a little while and the students are waiting for a new school. They have been waiting for a long time.”
The issue of a perceived lack of communication and input with the community was a concern to Councillor Froese.
“We found out second hand and there was only two open houses initially about the actual location. And to me that is not enough communication with the citizens of this city in a generational project in 50 years and $50 million. We had more communication when we tried to move the garbage cans to the front streets with our citizens,” she said.
At the most recent meeting of the PSSD Trustee Jan Radwanski attempted to have the School Board hold more public consultations but did not receive any support. Trudtee Radwanski was further publicly castigated at that meeting by PSSD Board chair Trustee Robert Bachmann for being the “lone voice” in the community to express concerns about the proposed location of the new joint use school.
Councillor Heather Eby however took another viewpoint.
A viewpoint which was based on the actual physical realities of South Hill and the fear the school project could ultimately be abandoned if the City continued with resistance.
“I do support, pretty much from the beginning, supported this location,” Councillor Eby said, adding “when you look at South Hill, I know, I live on South Hill, we are kind of land locked on South Hill. It would be lovely if we could be building a brand new school in the middle of South Hill it would be great, but there isn’t the space unless we are going to start knocking down buildings and clearing some blocks away.”
She introduced the fear if the City were to hold up the project with concerns the new school could be cancelled.
“So when we are considering this large project we were forced to look outside of what is thought to be the ideal... We may not need a new sudbivision today but we do need a new school and South Hill needs a new school. And as much as we can argue about this, we can keep arguing or debating it for another six to eight months, I would be much more happier to see a new school on the west side of South Hill than the west side of Humboldt or Weyburn or Prince Albert.”
Councillor Eby portrayed the proposed new joint use school project decision as potentially tenuous and it could be cancelled if the City did not go along with the site the Ministry was proposing,
“I don’t doubt for a minute if we want to be obstinate we could very well lose this project and I amd not going to be one to sit here and see that happen. So I understand people’s hesitation for reasons like Councillor Swanson’s (and) for reasons of other people who think we shouldn’t have a big school and all that,” she said.
Despite initially not being informed about the site chosen but reading about it in the media Puffalt said “we worked very closely with the Ministry to come up with an MOU which met all of the needs of the City.”
The new school in the subdivision does provide the opportunity for the City to make some money on the surrounding yet to be developed lots Puffalt told Council.
“In part of our discussions we know that there was a potential for profit for the City. And we wanted to make sure the City was left as whole as possible. We think we have been able to work that out. Certainly the construction and building of the school requires a road to be built and we do not want to allow dead ends to happen. With that being the case there is residential lots which would be services as a result of this.”
“They have been most willing to work together and we are very pleased to recommend this MOU to Council we know it is an important project for our City, especially South Hill and again we have done everything in partnership with them to resolve any of the outstanding issues we had on the land,” Puffalt said.
Mayor Tolmie disagreed with Councillor Swanson’s take on the local real estate market and how it is incorrect.
“If you take a look at the local real estate market that is starting to take off,” the Mayor said, adding “what the community is looking for is (for us) to build confidence in the local community.”
That confidence is built by the City taking action and being ready for opportunity be said.
“To sit and wait and not have any plans for a better future (is wrong) you have to have a plan for a better future,” he said.
Councillor Scott McMann said it was not up to the City or Council to select the location for the proposed new school. There would be no dollars lost on the concept plan because the Ministry would be replacing it, he said.
“We need a new school and the quicker, the better,” Councillor McMann said.
“I am satisfied the traffic issue study has been covered off in this and it will come back and we will have a chance to look at it again so I will vote in favour of it,” Councillor Dawn Luhning.
In a 6 - 1 vote with Councillor Swanson being the lone vote in opposition Council voted to approve the signing of the MOU.