Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The City of Edmonton announced plans to decommission and replace three iconic bridges: the High Level Bridge and the Low Level Bridges. Plus, we talk with Coun. Erin Rutherford about unfunded service packages and how the budget process is changing this year.
- (00:00) - Introduction
- (01:38) - Ad: U of A Reads
- (02:10) - High Level and Low Level Bridges
- (10:49) - Our thoughts on the bridges
- (27:53) - Coun. Erin Rutherford on unfunded service packages
- (43:55) - Interview debrief
- (46:41) - Close
Here are the relevant links for this episode:
High Level and Low Level Bridges
- City of Edmonton recommends decommissioning High Level and Low Level bridges
- Central Area Bridge Renewal Update
- Let's Find Out Episode 58: The MacKinnon Ravine Mystery
Coun. Erin Rutherford on unfunded service packages
This episode is brought to you by U of A Reads from the University of Alberta. From poetry to protest, memory to motivation — U of A alumni authors unpack the forces behind their writing in candid, thought-provoking conversations. Learn more at uab.ca/reads
Speaking Municipally is produced by Taproot Edmonton. We deliver reliable intelligence about the Edmonton region.
Want to reach the smartest, most-engaged people in the Edmonton region? Learn more about advertising with Taproot Edmonton!
★ Support this podcast ★
Creators and Guests
What is Speaking Municipally?
Taproot Edmonton presents a weekly discussion on key stories in municipal politics. We pay attention to City Council so you don't have to! Join us as we delve into conversations about the context surrounding decisions made at City Hall.
Mack:
This week had highs and lows. The city has announced it plans to replace and decommission three iconic bridges in the city center.
Stephanie:
Plus, we go on a deep dive into the wild world of unfunded service packages.
Mack:
Hi, I'm Mack.
Stephanie:
I'm Stephanie.
Mack:
And we're…
Stephanie:
Speaking Municipally.
Mack:
Welcome back to Speaking Municipally, episode 357. Whoa, this bridge topic is gonna be a big one. It's what everyone's talking about this week. I guess this is what happens, when, you know, we're not quite into summer Festival season, we're done with hockey, there's gotta be some other topic that soaks up the air in every room, and this week it feels like it's the bridges.
Stephanie:
Yeah. It's a huge, it's a huge thing. Well, I've been literally thinking about it constantly, actually. Since I got the invitation to the press conference, like, last week. And I had I had the slightest tingling of a thought that this was what was gonna happen, but I thought more likely, they were going to announce, like, a construction schedule to get ahead of, like, the Downtown Recovery Coalition, saying, "Every bridge is gonna be closed." I thought…
Mack:
Yeah.
Stephanie:
They were gonna go clarifying, "No, this is what's happening for this construction season." But my I said my tinfoil hat, says this, but I was right.
Mack:
Okay.
Stephanie:
That they were gonna be shutting down the High Level Bridge. But anyways.
Mack:
We're gonna get into that. We're gonna talk more about the proposed decommission of the High Level and Low Level Bridges. But first, we have an ad for you.
Stephanie:
This episode is brought to you by U of A Reads, a podcast from the University of Alberta. It features conversations with alumni authors about the stories behind their books. Each episode goes beyond the page, diving into the experiences, questions, and moments that shaped their writing. Listen for everything from deeply personal stories to big conversations around history, identity, and social change. It's a great listen if you love books, or just want to understand the thinking behind them. Find U of A Reads wherever you get your podcasts.
Mack:
Okay, let's get into it. I'm sure that books have been written about these bridges. They are historic…
Stephanie:
Oh, yeah.
Mack:
Iconic, so important, even today, as part of our transportation network. What did you find out at this press conference this week?
Stephanie:
So, a report has shown that the city plans to decommission the High Level Bridge and the Low Level Bridges over the next 10 to 15 years. You may be asking, "Bridges? Low Level Bridges?" Because technically those are two parallel structures. The northbound one is the older one. That was the first bridge over the North Saskatchewan River in Edmonton. Very historic, right? However, those Low Level Bridges have been slated for demolition for some time, but the city was planning to rehabilitate the High Level Bridge to extend its lifespan. However, updated testing and monitoring has shown that it could cost more than one billion dollars to keep it in operation over the next 75 years. So, they've recommended replacing, the High Level Bridge and one of the Low Level Bridges, and the other one will be repurposed for active transportation.
Mack:
Okay, so instead of two traffic bridges, Low Level Bridges, we would have one bridge that is for vehicular traffic, and then one, probably the north one, 'cause that's the one that's got some historic designation…
Stephanie:
Yeah.
Mack:
Would remain for active transportation. Is that correct?
Stephanie:
Yeah. So the northbound one is the one that they're planning for active transportation.
Mack:
Okay. Well, I know people probably have a ton of questions about this, so let's just try and hit the high points right off the top…
Stephanie:
Yeah.
Mack:
Here to help people understand this. So, are they gonna build the new bridges before they get rid of the old ones?
Stephanie:
Yes, so they'they'they there will not be a time where we don't have a High Level Bridge, and same thing with the Low Level. They're not gonna cut off those points. And I just wanna say, all of these things, I'm taking this from the report.
Mack:
Yes.
Stephanie:
This is what the city says. If we're taking them at their word, of course these plans could change.
Mack:
Council will give direction that might be different.
Stephanie:
Yeah.
Mack:
People like us are gonna criticize the plans. They're probably gonna get tweaked. Yeah.
Stephanie:
Yeah.
Mack:
Okay, so they won't do this at the same time either. Presumably, they'll separate the bridge construction, like they've done in the past with the Dawson Bridge and others.
Stephanie:
Exactly. That's what they're saying is that, you know, they're not gonna have the High Level Bridge and the Low Level Bridges closed at the same time, and they also said something about because McDougall Hill really needs to be reconstructed, which is, like, the Low Level Bridge leads into that hill. And they're saying that they want to do work on the Low Level Bridge and the hill at the same time, and I think that's to, like, keep all the, construction traffic impacts to one area, which I think makes sense. Because if you're gonna, instead of having, like, two annoying roads, have one that's, like, extra annoying and one that's fine, I don't know.
Mack:
It could be, I guess. I mean…
Stephanie:
Yeah.
Mack:
Hopefully we're learning about phasing of construction projects over this last little while. Some of the criticism in other projects that, are already underway but we'll see about that. Okay, are these bridges, these replacement bridges, will they be in the same spot or, like, right beside the is it kinda like a Walterdale situation, where it essentially is where the old one was?
Stephanie:
That is what they say, which seems difficult, especially when you consider the High Level Bridge. Like, go any further west and you're gonna be conflicting with the LRT bridge there, and, yeah, so questions remain about this. However, they're in such early stages of design and everything that it's pretty hard to get that answer. But apparently, they're gonna have the same alignment.
Mack:
Okay. Probably too early. We don't know what the design of these bridges would look like.
Stephanie:
So, I actually found this really interesting. There's a bit in the report that talks about the difference between functional bridge replacements and not signature bridges. So, signature bridge, this here baby right here, the Walterdale…
Mack:
Love it.
Stephanie:
For those of you who only listen to audio, I'm wearing my Walterdale Bridge shirt. But also the Tawatina, Pedestrian, Valley Line LRT Bridge, and then something, a functional bridge is like, I think, the James McDonald Bridge, the worst bridge in Edmonton, in my humble opinion, the ugliest one, and also I think the Grove Road Bridge would technically be a functional bridge 'cause it's just kind of a…
Mack:
Just something to get you over the river. Yeah.
Stephanie:
Yeah.
Mack:
Okay.
Stephanie:
Exactly. But like, as they are right now, especially the High Level, I mean, it was probably, it was built as a functional bridge, but it's become a signature crossing.
Mack:
Absolutely, yeah.
Stephanie:
And to me, because the Low Level Bridges are my favorite, that's a signature crossing. But at the time, they were very functional. So anyways, they said that they're planning on the, to have the more functional ones instead of signature, which is kind of sad.
Mack:
Well, I can understand that from a budgetary point of view. But if we're replacing these historic bridges with something really bland, I don't think that's gonna go over well. Okay.
Stephanie:
Yeah.
Mack:
A couple more questions off the top here, and then we'll get into the meat of this a little bit more. Timeline, what is the timeline they're talking about for these projects?
Stephanie:
So it's all tentative based on, you know, council budgetary decisions. But council would be asked to fund a new Low Level Bridge in the upcoming 2027 to 2030 budget cycle. And when I say that, it doesn't mean that it's gonna be built by 2030. It just means like you're beginning to fund it. So that would be planning, design, construction, and also the decommissioning of the old one. And then for the High Level Bridge, it would be funded in the 2035 to 2039 budget cycle. So again, it's like a 15-year timeline that we're talking.
Mack:
Assuming everything goes according to the…
Stephanie:
Exactly.
Mack:
Current proposed plan. Like it could…
Stephanie:
Again…
Mack:
Be longer.
Stephanie:
This is taking the city at their word and having the benefit of the doubt, et cetera, et cetera.
Mack:
The reason for this is that the city has said that both these bridges, or all three of these bridges, I should say, are, you know, beyond their serviceable lifetime. They've already extended the life of these bridges through other projects and maintenance in the past, but it's gonna get more expensive to do so. Having said all that, it's not like they're gonna fall down tomorrow. So…
Stephanie:
No.
Mack:
You know, there's not like a rush to build these replacements.
Stephanie:
So the city has been very clear that these bridges are still safe to use, and they're going to continue monitoring that over the next, you know, 15 years to make sure that stays the case. Now, backing up a little bit, a few years ago, right, we thought that the High Level Bridge was gonna be closed for three whole years to extend its life for another 50 to 75 years, but that's not the case anymore. However, it is gonna be closed next year for about three months over the summer, to do that, like, rehabilitation for the shorter term.
Mack:
Okay, two more, questions and then we'll get into our reaction and opinion. The historic nature of these bridges, which of them are protected and to what level are they protected?
Stephanie:
Okay. So for the Low Level Bridges, the northbound one is on the Inventory of Historic Resources, which means that it warrants some protection, but it's not legally protected. The southbound one doesn't have any heritage designation. Now, the High Level Bridge is on the Register of Historic Resources, which means that it's legally protected against demolition. You know, and we've, I think we've talked about this on the show before, but, you know, a lot of people do that to, you know, historic houses. Like, if a notable Edmontonian lived there, and like, you can't or if it's a notable piece of architecture, you can't modify the outside. And so people were saying, "Well, what about the High Level Bridge?" And the city said, "Well, we can just repeal the bylaw." So I guess it's not that legally protected if they can just repeal the bylaw, but…
Mack:
I think I saw somewhere that the city, in the history of this Register of Historic Resources, has only repealed, I don't know, one or two bylaws. Like, not very, this is not a thing that happens very frequently. And it shouldn't be. It's a significant decision, to make, right? If they do decide to repeal that bylaw about the, High Level Bridge. Okay, last one. It's very early, of course, but dollar signs. What's it gonna cost?
Stephanie:
Yeah. So like I said, rehabilitation for the High Level Bridge alone, they're projecting it's gonna cost over $1 billion to extend it for 75 years, if it's even possible. However, replacing the two bridges, or three, whichever you wanna say, that would cost $1.3 billion for everything. So new bridges and decommissioning the old ones. However, again, that's a really early estimate. They, there's actually no way to know, right? Like…
Mack:
Yeah.
Stephanie:
This isn't gonna happen for another 15 years. With inflation, yeah.
Mack:
Okay. Well, thank you for that overview of what the city has come out with this week in terms of news about these bridges. I think I saw you suggest somewhere that the reason they did this now is because these are big things and we gotta sort of ease people into it. So there's a lot of time here for this news to get digested, for council to talk about it, for feedback to be collected, and all of that. But this is our show and we both have thoughts about this. So let's start, let's start with what we think about this. So, I, you've got some really thoughtful things that I wanna ask you about. But first, let me say, a billion dollars over 75 years sounds like an insanely good deal to me. I'm thinking specifically about the High Level Bridge here, right? But it's gonna cost a billion dollars to maintain it for another 75 years. That's a little over $13 million a year. That is nothing in the context of the city budget. And for such a historic bridge, that sounds like a really steal of a deal to me. Like Why wouldn't we consider that? You know, I know that it's not gonna actually be $13 million per year. There's a bunch of upfront cost and, you know, all of that kinda stuff, but that doesn't seem like a lot of money to have that bridge last for another 75 years, right? And then, I just question, when we're talking about the lifespan of that bridge and how long it can go for, are we thinking about the lifespan as the bridge is used today? Because if you continue to have 30,000 to 40,000 heavy vehicles travel across the bridge every single day, then sure, I can understand how the deterioration of the bridge is going to accelerate. But what if we closed it to traffic? What if it was just for active transportation and pedestrians? Would that not allow the lifespan of the bridge to be even longer and maybe reduce some of that huge price tag for rehabilitation? I feel like that should be considered. I did not see that aspect of it considered in the report. This is something that I think council is gonna have to ask administration about. Where I'm going with this is just the historic significance of this bridge. There is no universe in which the High-Level Bridge should be torn down, none whatsoever. If you wanna replace it, you wanna build another one beside it or below it, or somewhere around it, fine. But that bridge, built in 1913, a key aspect of connecting the south side and the north sides of the city when we were young and growing. The one of the only bridges in the world that has this four modes of transportation, it's among the highest of these kinds of bridges. Like, there is just no universe to me in which we should consider, even for a second, tearing this bridge down, and it seems to me that closing it to traffic and just making it a pedestrian bridge or an active transportation corridor would allow it to remain structurally present and exist into the future, continuing to serve the city and playing that really significant, historic role. So I know that people are gonna get upset about this idea that the city has brought forward, and I think it's gonna come down to how much we value the historical significance of this bridge. We do, we are not a city that has a good track record at protecting historic things, and protecting things that are part of how the city came to be what it is. I really hope we can do something different with the High-Level Bridge.
Stephanie:
So I actually asked about the active transportation, part, because they said in the report that the low levels, part of it is being retained for active transportation, and I thought, "Whenever I cross the river on my bike, I will always use the High-Level Bridge because I am lazy and I don't want to bike up a hill."
Mack:
Absolutely.
Stephanie:
And that is, and that is valid of me because you have to make it easy for people. We don't live in a place like Calgary where the river is quite level with…
Mack:
Right.
Stephanie:
The, with most of the neighborhoods. So I asked, and they said, and huge grain of salt, grain of salt the size of my head, they said that rehabilitating the High-Level Bridge for pedestrian and active transportation would cost the same as for cars.
Mack:
Yeah, right. Okay, I don't believe that for a second.
Stephanie:
Yeah. (sighs)…
Mack:
That's not even grain of salt territory. That's…
Stephanie:
That's, like…
Mack:
That just sounds like…
Stephanie:
Himalayan pink salt lamp. Yeah, I don't know. Maybe we need to dig into that, and actually, I'm sure that, I'm hoping that it'll come up at council that they will dig into that because, no, there's no way.
Mack:
Yeah, okay. Well, we'll get more information about that. That's my big issue about this, right? And I think to a certain extent I feel similarly about the Low-Level Bridge, at least the northbound one. I think if we can retain that, which it sounds like is the plan anyway and make that active transportation corridor, that sounds like a win, and the one, the southbound one that was built to mirror it that doesn't have the same historical significance, we are gonna replace that with something that, presumably will be better for cars and sure. I can understand that. That can make sense. You, though, are thinking about this I love the point of view you're bringing to this. I see in the notes. You are coming at this with some optimism about What we might be able to do here. So what are you thinking?
Stephanie:
(sighs) Guys, listeners, like I said, I've been thinking about this constantly, and this sort of thing is so interesting to me. It's so important to me. I'm so passionate about infrastructure. Infrastructure is so important, and if you ever doubt it, look at what happened this week. You say, these, like, the city says these transportation corridors, like, that sounds, like, so boring, but everyone's losing their mind! And it's because infrastructure is, like, essential to the way that human beings live our lives. I have so many points here to get through, and I'll try not to just yap on for the next 45 minutes. Okay, one thing I'm excited about that was in the report, quote, "The replacement of the low-level bridges and High-Level Bridge will provide a rare opportunity to simplify road connections in the river valley and potentially reclaim valuable river valley space for other uses." So this is specifically around the Low-Level Bridge, which is very overbuilt because of the, what was it? Metropolitan Edmonton Transportation System, basically the big freeway that they started building through downtown and then stopped.
Mack:
Right.
Stephanie:
I've done so much reporting on this over the years. We also there's a really good podcast from our sister podcast, Let's Find Out, about the activists that stopped this from happening. And it, but part of it's, did happen, and there's so many of these, like, freeway loops and stuff built, especially on like the, by, like, Conner Connors Road, Scona Road, the south entrance to the Low-Level Bridge, and the city said that there's a chance to simplify these connections and get rid of some redundancies. They're already doing this on Rossdale. A few years ago, they closed down one direction of Rossdale Road and kind of fixed this what one of the engineers called a spaghetti intersection 'cause again it's just, like, all of these things on top of each other. It's not safe, and it encourages people to, like, drive like a rocket into downtown.
Mack:
Right.
Stephanie:
And also the, and then, and then the great part about that is that they could potentially daylight some parts of the Mill Creek ravine that were put underground when these roads were built.
Mack:
That would be fantastic.
Stephanie:
Yeah.
Mack:
If we don't need all of that space for cars, let's reclaim it.
Stephanie:
I'm looking at this with so much optimism. I tend to, as a person generally, sort of, this is, like, kind of bad, but I usually put heritage as, like, not my first consideration for things. I don't know. Maybe it's because I'm Gen Z or whatever, but I'm just, I am just looking at this really optimistically. But speaking of kind of a heritage/history part, this goes to show just how important infrastructure decisions are because their impact reverberates across a literal century. Like, imagine being an Edmontonian or a, in the, or a Strathconian…
Mack:
Yeah.
Stephanie:
In the 1900s or 1910s when these bridges were built. It completely changed the Edmonton region. Like, imagine one day you're going down to the Walter Ferry and you're going across, and you have to, like, wait around, and it takes so long. And then a few years later, you're able to just, like, quickly go across. It completely changed, like, economic development and cultural development, relationships. It was, it was, like-… cataclysmic change for the Edmonton and it's, nothing has been the same since. And what, my point for this is, the infrastructure decisions that council makes today, whether that's deciding to build really high-quality bike infrastructure, or adding lanes to a freeway to make it easier to travel through the suburbs, or cheaping out on a city-owned building, it will be felt for Edmontonians not only when they're completed, but in 100 years or even more. I think it's a really great point. Not all infrastructure lasts as long as these bridges, but the High Level Bridge, 113 years, it's been around for a very long time, longer than anyone thought when it was first constructed. And we're talking about extending the life of those things for perhaps another three-quarters of a century. So, I think you're right, that they have a really longer-lasting impact than people realize Mm-hmm. So, keeping in mind how consequential a bridge can be, there's a real opportunity here to impact how transportation works in this city, because, okay, I know this sounds obvious, but just like hear me out, the way that you allow people to cross the river will change the way they cross the river. And rivers and bridges inherently are kind of a chokepoint, they're a bottleneck, right Yeah It's very, it's very important. Think about the High Level. The way that it was designed in the early 1900s still impacts the way that we travel today. Big trucks can't go on it. Or they try, but they can't. B-buses bus traffic is limited, and you know, vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and the streetcar can go on it. So, building decisions that were made 100 years ago impact travel patterns today. So, everyone at the press conference was asking like, "Are you gonna make it four lanes?" Can we be a bit more imaginative? Are the Edmontonians in 100 years going to be shaking their heads at the 2026ers and be like, "Why did council decide to build this four-lane bridge focused on single-passenger vehicle traffic that costs so much to maintain when it was clear that in a few more decades more people would be using transit and active transportation?" Maybe I'm just being naive, but I'm hoping that my grandchildren are like, "Mom, Grandma, what's a, what's a, like a gas combustion vehicle, and why was the bridge built for so many?" And I'll be like, "Well, children back in the day… (laughs And they'll be like, "Go to bed, Grandma." But maybe I'm just being naïve, or, will they be as grateful as we are now that the city never followed through with the METS plan that would have built a freeway encircling downtown, and would have killed it, like made it so bad? We have choices here We have choices Are we just gonna build Are we going to build a bridge that would have been built in the '50s and '60s, or are we gonna be building a bridge that could be built in 2050? We have choices Great question, and I think this, language around functional versus signature is a bit worrisome, right? It's sort of setting the stage for it to be the one we would have built in the '50s, rather than what we could build. I think, I think, we should consider whether we need a bridge here at all Why would you say something so controversial yet so brave, Mack (laughs But I've been thinking this too. We got a lot of bridges in Edmonton We got a lot of bridges. I mean, if we need to have a crossing there, let's keep the northbound low-level bridge for active transportation uses, pedestrian, cyclist, that sort of thing. And if we need to have vehicles cross, let's put a barge in there. It's gonna be slower. You're gonna have to be really intent (laughs You're gonna have to really want to cross the river there. It's gonna be cheaper than a bridge Seriously It's gonna be cheaper to maintain that bridge and run it, or that, barge and run it than it would be to build that bridge and maintain it for another 100 years. And, well, talk about shifting transportation modes. People would be like, "Hoo, I'm not gonna drive today. I have to wait for that barge. I'm not gonna do it. Okay, I know you're joking, but actually, what if There's an element of truth there, yeah There's an element of truth because here's the thing. For the like last year, when they were doing rehabilitation on the low levels, they would reroute traffic onto the worst bridge, the James MacDonald Bridge, and people figured it out Yeah The James MacDonald Bridge is like, it's like, four lanes wide on each span. So, yeah, people figured it out. Do we need to build another half-billion-dollar bridge to encourage more people to be ripping downtown in their personal motor vehicles, or do we not do it at all? It kind of reminds me of the conversation that we had months ago about the 76 Ave renewal, where, you know, the or people were asking, "Hey, why don't we just close this to cars instead of building a whole new, brand new bridge?" Yeah. And like, being now in the care of this asset that's gonna cost millions of dollars to maintain for the next, you know, 100 years. Maybe we don't need another low-level bridge. I think it's worth considering. It should be an option on the table. Considering how much the city is always talking about how they don't have money for new infrastructure, we need to focus on maintenance and renewal, people figured it out when their, when the low levels were closed For sure. Okay, we're being kinda hard on the city here. What did they say about these bridges? Like, clearly they're not unaware of the importance of this and that people are gonna react so strongly Yeah, they were not jumping for joy that they had to make this announcement. It was a very somber mood in the, in the media room at the City of Edmonton. There was there was lots said. You know, they acknowledged that these bridges are not only important for transportation, which they are, but they're also so important to the city's identity. Pascal Ladouceur, the city's branch manager of Infrastructure Planning and Design, said, "The city recognizes the attachment many Edmontonians have to these structures and want to be clear that this work is not about disregarding Edmonton's history. It's about balancing heritage consideration, public safety, infrastructure reliability, and long-term transportation needs. Okay, so saying the right things there, at least, even if (laughs the proposed plans don't seem to back that up Yeah. And like At least not fully Yeah, and like, I, they seemed to me going into this with like I don't know. My interpretation is it's like, "Don't worry, guys. It's all gonna be fine. We're gonna build the same exact bridge in the same exact place." LikeBut then the report said, "Signature versus, functional." So I don't really know. Hmm. Well, I'm glad we got this information this week. I know that it's a long way off still, but it took time for people to come together to oppose the Met's plan. It will take time for people to come (clears throat)…
Mack:
To figure out what is the best possible use case and outcome for these bridges and for our city over the next 15 years. But there's some more practical stuff happening right away. So the city doesn't usually do a news conference for just any old report that comes out but they did. So where are we at in the process of this report in council?
Stephanie:
So this will go to Infrastructure Committee on Monday. I think that, like, they And the way that, like, reports work is that they're published about a week before. So the city rightly knew that people would care a lot about this, and that if they just posted the report with no news conference, that people would see it and go crazy. So they decided to kind of, like, get ahead of it. It's the same thing they did actually a few weeks ago with the, council committees, like the advisory committees that we cover. So, like, yeah, what's the next decision? Like, I think I said earlier, budget deliberations in the fall, they're gonna be asked to fund a new low-level bridge for the 2027 to 2030, and I think they also need to, like, keep debt room for the high-level bridge, which is kind of hard to explain, but basically, I guess, it's like, let's say you were going on a trip in, like, a year, and you're like, "I cannot spend too much on my credit card because I'm not I need to be able to top that thing when I'm in Europe." Like, you know, that's like You need to be able to I don't know. That's Maybe that's a terrible analogy, but I think you guys get what I mean.
Mack:
All right, so there's gonna be some budget asks. Is Was there any discussion with all this funding about sources? Like, is it just debt, other orders of government? Like, the high-level bridge, when it was constructed, cost $2 million at the time…
Stephanie:
My God.
Mack:
And it was shared between Edmonton, Strathcona, the province, the feds, and CPR.
Stephanie:
Damn.
Mack:
So if we're coming together…
Stephanie:
Okay.
Mack:
To build a new bridge here, is it all on the city? Did they say anything about that? Is this now the work of councillors for the next while to go and drum up funding from other sources of government?
Stephanie:
Basically, yeah, the city staff said as much. "We're gonna have to find a way to fund this." Part of it will probably have to come from, you know, tax-supported. Those bridges are very expensive, as we can tell from this report, but they did say, some other levels of government.
Mack:
All right. Well, let's hope we can make a good case, so that they will come to the table and fund this. All right. Well, thank you for bringing us this update, Stephanie, on the bridges. I'm sure it's not the last…
Stephanie:
Yeah.
Mack:
We will speak about the bridges on this podcast.
Stephanie:
Yeah, I think that this is going to be a frequent topic of discussion for the next 10 years, and (clears throat) I'm probably never gonna get sick of it 'cause like I said, this thing this sort of thing is so interesting to me. So if anyone, like, sees me in public and wants to activate, like, me to say, "High-level bridge replacement," and I'll go "da-da-da-da-da," and we can, you can listen to me talk for, like, three hours.
Mack:
There you go. You now have an in whenever you see Stephanie out and about. All right, Stephanie. We've got a one other thing we wanted to do, and that is an interview that you did with Coun. Erin Rutherford. So you had the opportunity to talk to her all about budget. Maybe tell us why you reached out to her and what you folks spoke about.
Stephanie:
Yeah, so a few weeks ago, I was listening to a committee meeting, as I do, and Coun. Rutherford said something about unfunded service packages and how administration wanted to change how and when they were used. But it was a little bit they were coming back from lunch, and she says, like, into the little mic, was like, "Yeah, so after the conversation we had during lunch, da-da-da-da-da-da," and I'm like, "Oh, that really, that really piqued my curiosity." I'm like, "What's going on here?" and so I know that Rutherford is a bit of, like, a policy nerd, governance nerd Just like me, so I thought it'd be fun to go deep on this, and I know our listeners would like this kinda nerdy conversation. So here it is.
Stephanie:
Okay, thanks so much for joining me, Coun. Rutherford, to talk about some nerdy stuff, unfunded service packages. So before we get into that, I just wanted to talk generally about the budget first. So, this term, council is doing what's been called zero-based budgeting or results-based budgeting. It's a bit You know, those two terms get thrown around, but just so far, how has this new process been going?
Erin:
It's results-based budgeting.
Stephanie:
Yeah.
Erin:
I think we had originally talked about zero-based budgeting, but the requirement and the capacity for that level of, budgeting, let alone the fact that we have so many legislative requirements that make going to zero in some budget lines impossible. Like, we can't just choose to not pick up garbage, right?
Stephanie:
Yeah.
Erin:
As an example. So we're doing results-based budgeting. It's starting a lot earlier. It's The One of the biggest changes is, first and foremost, collectively having council priorities that are really gonna focus a lot of where we wanna go in the next four-year budget. And then further to that, having really strategic conversations with council along the way to build the budget. So the budget that administration brings forward in the late fall is something that shouldn't be a surprise to council. It's not, you know, something that has things that we haven't discussed in there.
Stephanie:
Yeah, I remember during the last budget, that I covered in, like, my first few months of covering Edmonton City Council, there were a couple times people said "I Why is this here?" I didn't know this was happening, so interesting. Do you So you do feel like this, so far, is a substantially different way of building the budget compared to last time?
Erin:
I wouldn't say that it's substantially different, but I think it's more strategic. So that's what I will say. I think that it's more focused. We have a new city manager, who, I think will present a budget that reflects both his best advice and the advice of the people that he has, the experts he has in his team, but also really aligned with where council collectively wants to go. I feel very confident in that.
Stephanie:
So part of the reason why I wanted to have this conversation with you, Councillor, is because I was listening to a committee meeting from a couple weeks ago, and you said something that I found really interesting about unfunded service packages, and I want to dig into that. But first, for our listeners, like that word is really jargony, but it'it's like an important, really fundamental way that budgets have been built over the years. The way that I describe it, or an analogy that I like to use is that it's like an online shopping cart. You know, all year you're pressing like, ooh, throw that in, and that's an unfunded service package, that's an unfunded service package. Like, more snow clearing, increasing the extreme weather response, like do-do-do-do-do. And then when the budget comes you're like, "Oh my goodness, actually we have to go through and delete a bunch of things from the online shopping cart." Now, is that, an accurate way to describe it kind of?
Erin:
I've never heard that analogy But I really love it.
Stephanie:
Okay.
Erin:
I actually do. In a way it is. So unfunded service packages are really meant to indicate to administration and other council colleagues what we're interested in seeing funded in the budget without pre-debating the budget. So if we start to say we want to do a funded service package in, you know, council meetings in April, well, if we direct a funded service package, that means administration has no choice but that to come funded, and so we're already pre-debating without seeing the whole spectrum of what is causing pressures and what is in our budget, so it just makes it really limiting. So the practice is to do unfunded service packages. What's different this year, and has caused a little bit of confusion, is administration, through this new results-based budgeting process, is saying that rather than just if something is directed as funded or unfunded, we'we'll go forth and build it that way, they're saying even if something is unfunded as a service package, it will indicate to us that it's potentially important, and it will be weighed in advance of what the budget comes forward with. So what that means is that you can say, "I want an unfunded package for X." If administration, and through their prioritization and expertise, says, "Yes, we agree that should be funded," they will actually have the discretion to recommend it funded at the budget. So it'that's where the difference is this year, where before it was if it was directed to be unfunded, administration brought it unfunded. If it was directed to be funded, administration had to bring it funded. Now it's a little bit more, we'll weigh it amongst all the other things that we're trying to prioritize and make a recommendation that could include either funding or unfunding it. Ultimately, at the end of the day, councillors will be able to amend the budget as presented by administration, and so also having the unfunded service package allows us to know what the actual dollar amount is because some things, if they're a new program or a new idea or new initiative, don't actually have an estimated price tag. So it's like the shopping cart without a price tag, right?
Stephanie:
Yeah.
Erin:
It's market value fish that you're buying. So you have to do unfunded service packages, especially with stuff that's new and novel, so that you actually know what would actually cost…
Stephanie:
Right.
Erin:
To be able to amend the budget at budget time and debate that with your colleagues.
Stephanie:
Yeah, I feel like I've seen in the past, like, bring forward a service package of, let's say, two million dollars to increase snow clearing capacity, but in this case it would be more Yeah, it's kind of the market price, as you said.
Erin:
And sometimes they'll do a service package that says, and I've seen it before in the last four-year budget, that, you know, with three different options of service level. Right? So you can do that, but then with escalating costs for those service levels. The challenge, though, is when things come unfunded to budget, and you have to move to amend to add them to the budget, you either have to increase tax levy, find another funding source, or unfund something else to fund that. So it's a lot more desirable to have it already funded, and in the budget, so that's why a lot of councillors are asking questions about, like, "Will this be considered to be funded? Will you prioritize this? Will you at least weigh it in those considerations?" That's why a lot of councillors are asking that question now.
Stephanie:
And those questions wouldn't have really been happening in the last four-year cycle?
Erin:
No. In the last four-year budget cycle, it was very clean. You did an unfunded service package, you were gonna be prepared to amend and debate it at budget. Now there is a chance that administration aligns with that vision and sees it as a priority, whether it's economic development, safety, one of the council priorities, and does recommend it for funding. I don't know how many they actually will, but there is a door open to that being a possibility that didn't exist in the previous four-year budget.
Stephanie:
So what do you think of this change, that the administration could potentially be funding things that are unfunded service packages?
Erin:
I think as long as they're using their priority-based system, and they have the ability to do that, I'm fine with it. What I worry about though, and what I've probably mentioned, and you've probably heard me at council say, is I don't want us to then have this, like, feeding frenzy where we need to, like, all put unfunded service packages forward just so that they're weighted and considered. We don't really know the back process of how administration is building their budget, so we don't know Like, for example, I've put out a video. I was I'm really keen to see 118 Ave traffic circle be renewed in this budget cycle. This is a capital profile versus a service package, which is another…
Stephanie:
Yeah.
Erin:
Thing we can nerd out about, but…
Stephanie:
For sure.
Erin:
It's the idea that, like, that's something I've been very transparent. I haven't done an unfunded capital profile motion to prioritize that because I assume that a report already came forward that had that one listed and that administration will already do that waiting. So there is a bit of grayness right now in what is actually be being considered and what is not being considered, and is there a gap that we need to direct in the in-between? So we're still having a few meetings with the city manager to sort that out, 'cause I really worry about us ending up, like, just having, like, a council meeting where there's, you know, 40 motions for unfunded service packages as an example.
Stephanie:
Yeah, I, this, so this isn't a rhetorical question: What's the point of having unfunded versus funded if administration could change those things? Like, is it kind of a leftover from previous processes?
Erin:
Well, funded will still come funded.
Stephanie:
Right.
Erin:
If we debated, if somebody was to say, at, on council, "Move a motion for a funded service package," we would debate that and if it was approved by council, administration would not unfund that.
Stephanie:
Right, okay.
Erin:
The difference is that when Before, administration was never able to override council decisions. So, in the past, it was, if it was funded or unfunded, that was the letter of the law. There was no ability to say, "You know what? That's a really good idea, it really helps with this council priority. We would actually recommend that funded." Because council directed it to be unfunded, it has to come to the budget unfunded. So we're just trying to give ourselves a little bit more flexibility and administration a little bit more permission to say, "Really understand what council priorities are, really understand where we wanna go, and make the best recommendations, including what we've already i-indicated is important to us, and what ideas you wanna bring forward." So it's a little bit more gray, it's a little bit more murky, but it allows for less rigidity and a little bit more flexibility. And that's the, that's the big difference. But, at the end of the day, there still could be unfunded capital or service packages that come forward and we might still have to debate them. Where people will find that funding from is, remains to be seen because it is gonna be a really tight budget and there's no doubt about that we're a growing city and there's a lot of things that we all want to do both in our wards and in, for the city as a whole. And constantly getting, I would say, roadblocks put in our way, I think about, the gap that we're gonna have to fill for Vision Zero because of our loss of photo radar revenue. As one clear example, we're talking about a substantive amount of money that we've lost in revenue and we know that traffic safety and pedestrian safety is really important to Edmontonians. It's one of the top three things I hear about in my office. So that alone, how do we fill that gap just to maintain the services that we already have been doing over the last several years, we have to grapple with before we even get to what do we wanna do that's new.
Stephanie:
Mm-hmm. We've been hearing it so much is that we're gonna have to really focus on maintenance and renewal, and I guess we need two new bridges. Well, maybe. We'll see. Did you have anything else that you wanted to add about this budget process, the unfunded service packages, et cetera, et cetera?
Erin:
I think that the one thing I love that we have a mayor that's such an not an optimist and a blue sky thinker, and I love that about him, but I do worry we're gonna put in so much energy and effort in the front end and I'm not sure it's gonna save us time in budget. I still think budget is gonna be a long slog and a long haul, and, I hope I'm wrong, but that's where I come from. I'm like, I still love the process. I'm glad we're trying something new and I think that budgets are challenging no matter what and there's still a lot that we're gonna have to grapple with in that November time period before we set our final budget.
Stephanie:
Yeah, I don't foresee any time being saved at all, but just being someone who watches council and just knowing, yeah, how budgets go, no matter how much planning you do, there's still gonna be, lots of edits to make, lots of changes, lots of shifting around. But I see what you're saying, that it's still good to do all this extra engagement, for example, the wording, the, like, the beginning ward engagement and all of these different things. But no, I think you're right. I do not foresee a quick process at the end.
Erin:
And as somebody that's done this will be my second time round, I think that the key that makes this more unique is the building it with council. I think in the past, you know, the city manager and administration really built a budget and presented it. And then you can spend a lot of time trying to adjust it if it doesn't align, but there's only so much you can do in a you're in a time crunch 'cause you legislatively have to have a budget by the end of December and so it's really hard. So the fact that we're doing this so early so that what comes to, for, like, what comes before us in November doesn't miss the mark. Like, I still think about in the last four-year budget when there was, like, no environmental or, considerations in that budget and almost all of council was like, "How did we Like, we've told you that, like, climate action and climate mitigation were important." And the city manager at the time was just like…
Stephanie:
Oh, I remember.
Erin:
"Mm." Right?
Stephanie:
Yeah.
Erin:
And so I think that's the kinda situation we're trying to avoid this time round.
Stephanie:
Yeah.
Erin:
And I have full confidence in the process that we're in now and the…the work of a new city manager in having a budget that reflects us. Now, will each individual councillor be happy with certain things being either added or left out? Probably not, but I think they are getting the vibe of council collectively as a whole.
Stephanie:
Well, thanks again so much for joining me and getting nerdy, getting in the weeds with this thing. I think it's a really interesting new change to how the budget might be built, and we will see in the fall whether this does make a difference or whether you'll all just fight around the horseshoe for, like, two weeks.
Erin:
And probably a little bit of both.
Stephanie:
Yeah.
Erin:
But thank you so much for having me. It's Anytime you wanna nerd out about council things, I'I'm here for it.
Stephanie:
Awesome.
Mack:
All right. That was a fun interview. Thanks for doing that. It seems like you both got a opportunity to nerd out a little bit.
Stephanie:
Yep.
Mack:
I also like the analogy, Stephanie, the shopping cart one. That's pretty good.
Stephanie:
Yeah, I thought of that myself. (exhales)…
Mack:
Although, like the councillor says, it's like a shopping cart, but there's no price tags.
Stephanie:
Yeah.
Mack:
Anyway, I agree with you that I think these changes that the council talked about are unlikely to save a bunch of time in the end. Like, I feel like the time boxing is so important for those budget discussions we get to November and December. There's a reason there are a limited number of days set aside with specific hours because the conversation will expand to take up the time you give it.
Stephanie:
Yeah.
Mack:
It doesn't matter how much prep work they do, it's gonna take up that time. I think there's very few instances where they have finished budget dramatically earlier than planned, right? In the past 20 years that I've been paying attention to this. So, I agree with you on that point. And, you know, I think the increased alignment here is good. The idea that council and administration instead of, you know, administration just bringing forward the budget and then council saying, "Oh my God, that's not quite what we want," and then having to walk it. Like, they just don't have time to get aligned in the old way of doing things. So, maybe all this prep work that is going on will mean that when they bring the budget forward, council is in a more productive starting point, right? They can say, "Yeah, that reflects what the conversations we've been having, that reflects the direction that we've given. Here's how we can now tweak it." Well, was your curiosity satisfied around unfunded service packages?
Stephanie:
Yes. And I'm like, well, what she was saying about the feeding frenzy of, like, trying to get the unfunded service package in, and then, like, I imagine if I was on council and, like, mine didn't get, chose to get funded, but the other councillor did, I'd be like, "Oh, so you hate me. So you hate me and my ideas." You know what I mean? Like, I don't know. I feel like it's gonna be a It's I'm gonna be eating my popcorn while in the budget discussions in, the fall because, you know, I don't, I don't know, I think that might create some drama which I love, so…
Mack:
It could, depending on how the mayor decides to handle it like we've seen in the past. Mayor Sohi bringing forward these omnibus budget amendments really simplified things and prevented some of that from happening. Although we've definitely seen councillors get upset that nobody supported their stuff, and then they just vote no…
Stephanie:
Yeah.
Mack:
As a result, right? I also love the in the interview how Coun. Rutherford called out the previous city manager and the climate action and the lack of funding. That was pretty funny.
Stephanie:
Canadian heritage moment or maybe Edmonton heritage moment. One million Edmontonians need to talk about climate change.
Mack:
Totally. Well done. Okay, well, that was super interesting. I hope you enjoyed that interview. Stephanie and Coun. Rutherford nerding out, that's what Speaking Municipally is all about. I love it.
Stephanie:
Yep.
Mack:
All right. Well, we'll be talking more about budget and bridges and all of this great stuff in the future. But this is all for this week. So, until then, I'm Mack.
Stephanie:
I'm Stephanie.
Erin:
I'm Erin.
Stephanie:
And we're…
Erin:
Speaking Municipally.