Friday, January 6, 2012

2012 Priorities: Paving

Our first council meeting of 2012 will be held on Monday, January 9 at the Village Office.  I'm sure we'll start talking about priorities for the 2012 budget which for us is set in May of each year.  Besides the issues I mentioned in my New Years message a few days ago, there are a number of other projects we need to consider.  One of my favourites is pavement.

 There are a number of streets in the Village which need paving!  They are;  the avenues starting with Second Avenue going south at the Mountain View Credit Union, then Third Avenue going south from the Community Links building, and Fourth Avenue going south from the entrance to Friendship Park.  Beacon Heights Road going south from Beacon Heights also needs paving. 

The residents along Seventh Street turned down pavement a few years ago, but I think we need to ask them again!

All of these can't be paved over one year, probably not even over five years, but I believe we need to start the process of engineering, base preparation and applying for grants.

Let me know what you think.


  1. Yes I agree and the Town also need to take a look at the sidewalks in Beaver Place, in some spots you can hardly walk on them, or keep them clear in the winter.

  2. I agree about the streets that need paving, they all do indeed. The sidewalks on North Road also need redone, does the Village get any money from the provincial Government for North Road given that they run along the highway?

  3. North Road was upgraded at the expense of the province back when they upgraded Highway 572 to provincial highway 72. To my knowledge the village gets little or no financial support from the province to maintain or repair the sidewalks on North Road. The province still pays to have it plowed and maintained.

  4. Thinking back to the past, wasn't the concern with 7th street was that the paving was done only 1.5 years previous, along with the sidewalks, so why did it need to be done all over again? Was the job done on paving so poorly done at the time, it needed to be done again, but this time at the expense of the people of 7th street?

    By the sounds of things, since 8th street was going to be done, they wanted to redo everything on 7th street again (including sidewalks), for a special price for both 7th and 8th street. Wasn't the paving company the same one that did 7th in the first place, wanting to re-do 7th again but for additional costs?

    Hehe, slow day to day (well, until later to day) so shaking off the cobwebs trying to figure the all conspiracy theories floating around at the time :)

    1. Seventh Street was to be part of our regular village paving program. The sidewalks had been done the year before and did not need to be replaced. The street itself was "paved" in what we call "Saskatchewan Pavement"; a thin layer of cold mix applied over an existing base. The street needed a proper paving job! We (Village Council) wished to create a by-law to finish the Seventh Street upgrade. The project was not to replace the new sidewalks but properly pave the street itself.
      Soon after the by-law was advertised a petition to cancel the Seventh Street paving project was presented to council. Under the Alberta Municipal Governance Act, Village Council had to cancel the project.
      I heard rumours that the reason for the petition was that the petitioners mistakenly thought the village was going to tear up the brand new sidewalks and replace them.
      But at the time, there were no inquiries to the Village Office about the Seventh Street paving project and what was included in the project so I think that was a "red herring".
      I believe the people of Seventh Street simply did not want their street paved and partially paid for as a local improvement at that time. That is their democratic right!
      As the paving project continues, the folks along Seventh Street will be asked again. They will be able to refuse the project again by petition. It's up to them!

  5. Pretty accurate wrt the paving of Seventh Street. We residents didn't mind the new sidewalks, although the replacement of grass torn up during the project left a lot to be desired. What we did object to was the projected increase in our taxes to pay for the actual paving of the street. If memory serves me correctly my increase was projected to be almost $350 with some residents with larger lots paying $800. I suspect the village council will have a tough time convincing us to swallow an increase of similar magnitude if they ask again.

  6. As a resident on 7th Street that signed the petition...our main reasoning against the paving was that why are we as property owners responsible for the cost of paving the street when it is commercial that is tearing it up and pays a big fat nothing!!! There is a sign at the beginning of 7th Street (no big trucks), yet, I can not tell you how many semis, Greyhounds, tractors, dump trucks, school buses, double gravel trucks etc. drive up and down the street on a DAILY basis. Why should I have to pay for them to tear it up again??? I don't think so. I have mentioned this in the past to a couple of councilors and suggested cement blocks at the end of the street to only allow residential vehicles, but this was not a option. Should commercial vehicles be banned from using 7th Street or share the cost of repaving, then yes, I'm sure the residents would be in favor of it.

  7. Some good points made there! Commercial vehicles on Seventh Street have always been a problem. We haven't pushed our bylaw restricting that kind of traffic along that street because we have received very few written complaints from the residents. If the majority of the residents along 7th Street sign a complaint and bring it to a council meeting, then the bylaw will be enforced to the best of our ability.

    The local improvement levy only covered a portion of the total cost of the project. The commercial section of the village would also be paying for a portion of the project through their higher taxes. And, in fact every rate payer in the village would be paying for a portion of the project.

    If this project were to be re-introduced, I would want to revisit the local improvement levy amounts because I think those levies were quite high! Thanx for your comments.