Other Stories
-
by Kyra Hoggan on May 23 2013 -
by Rossland Recreation on May 22 2013 -
by Contributor on May 22 2013 -
by Nelson Daily Sports on May 21 2013 -
by Contributor on May 17 2013
Opinions
-
by Laurie Charlton on Saturday May 25 2013 -
by Andrew Bennett on Friday May 24 2013 -
by Andre Carrel on Friday May 24 2013 -
by Murray Dobbin on Friday May 24 2013 -
by Joseph Hughes on Thursday May 23 2013
Council approves contract with Copcan for Columbia-Washington project
by Andrew Bennett on 09 May 2012
Coun. Kathy Moore, Coun. Cary Fisher, Coun. Jody Blomme, CAO Victor Kumar, Mayor Greg Granstrom
Council has approved a multi-million dollar contract with Copcan Contracting Ltd. for the renovation of Columbia Ave. and Washington St. up to First Ave.—Rossland's biggest single project ever—as negotiated by CAO Victor Kumar and contract administrator Kevin Terness of ISL Engineering.
The final project cost to the city of Rossland is estimated at $4.64 million and will include Columbia Ave. between St. Paul and Spokane, and Washington St. up to First Ave.
There was no discussion about the contract at the council meeting on Monday evening, but Mayor Greg Granstrom stated that council had removed parallel parking from the design and staff had negotiated project deletions "to the tune of $425,000."
Council also announced the formation of a "communication task force" that will release weekly updates by a number of means including local media, the city website, and the city email list. Updates will include the previous week's work and a forecast of two weeks to come.
Feedback and questions from the public to the task force will be encouraged. Task force members include Mayor Greg Granstrom, Coun. Jody Blomme, Coun. Tim Thatcher, Renee Clark of the Chamber of Commerce, Aaron Cosbey of the Sustainability Commission, manager of city works Darrin Albo, and manager of planning Mike Maturo.
Excluding about $1.4 million that the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) will spend on Columbia Ave. as part of the highway renovation, Copcan's original tender figure for Rossland came to $4,683,731, plus $231,000 in site supervision and inspection, and $250,000 for contingencies, totalling $5,164,731.
Four major categories of deletions were agreed upon, however, saving $424,932.
In addition, because MOTI have agreed to cover project costs "curb to curb," Rossland expects to save $100,000 by removing parallel parking from the design and moving the curb back to where it is now.
Although parallel parking was not listed as "optional" in the tender, the city said it is considered a "change of materials"—concrete to asphalt—that came under the limit that may have triggered penalties.
After the deletions and the change in parking design, the project cost to Rossland is estimated at $4,639,798.60.
Among the four deletions were two types of sub-surface drains in the storm sewer system, one on Columbia and one on Washington. These drains were not essential to the storm sewer system, they were optional in the tender, and their removal saved $94,667.
Cured-in-place pipe liners were not originally listed as optional, but Copcan agreed to subtract this element to save Rossland $192,326.
Street furnishings totalling $137,939 were removed: casualties include benches, waste and recycling receptacles, bike posts and racks, picnic tables, and the mining cart seats.
The bus shelter remains in the contract, however, as does the remake of Harry LeFevre square and the base preparations for the future Olaus Jeldness statue.
The city also opted to retain conduit in the design to allow for future improvements to telecommunications services—for example to run fibre optic cable to tie Rossland into a future regional broadband Internet service, an idea once popularized by CMON, the Columbia Mountain Open Network and now re-energized by the Columbia Basin Broadband Corporation funded by CBT.
In addition to the $4.64 million on the project, the city will have to pay some $90,383 in "non-rebatable" HST—most HST is rebated to municipalities.
Rounding out the bill, engineering and expenses of $382,905 were already charged to the city in 2011.
Property taxes will likely go up in 2013 to cover these costs. The "worst case scenario" according to city staff, would be an increase of $1.13 per $1000 of assessed value, but they estimate the "probable" impact to be half of that.
Copcan Contracting Ltd. is based out of Nanaimo and specializes in grading, paving, and utility replacement. Recent projects were as geographically disparate as Vancouver Island, Vanderhoof, and the Yukon.
Locally, Copcan recently completed projects in Fruitvale, Nelson, and Castlegar, among other communities in the Columbia Basin from Revelstoke to Kimberley.
Copcan was last in Rossland in 2009 for the $3.3 million Caldera Phase 1 project at Red Mountain.
Subcontractors include Selkirk Paving (Crescent Valley), Mar-Tech Underground Services (Aldergrove, near Vancouver), Martech Electrical Systems (Castlegar), Sierra Landscaping (Winfield, near Kelowna), and Valley Curbing (Kelowna).
Copcan mobilized this week and have already started to cut pavement to work on utilities. Roadworks will begin in one month, and landscaping will begin in six weeks.
Expect "substantial completion" by Sept. 30, with surface paving complete by August 31. The construction schedule indicates some work, including clean up, will continue into October.
Virtual Paperboy
Navigation
Comments
NEW FACTS: Sidewalk widths, MOTI, and summer patios
City staff recently contacted me with the following information:
Sidewalk widths will not remain the same as they are now.
Less fun in the sun.
Great, more shaded sidewalk on the Southside and more sidewalk for Southside merchents to clear of snow, but more place to put stuff outside.
Less space on the sunny Northside sidewalk, where everyone prefers to hangout and park bikes!!!!
Nice one council and naysayers. Maybe we can hang bikes in the new trees.
So assuming that the buildings aren't going to be pushed back... there could be less road width than there is now?
I am really looking forward to crosswalks on all corners downtown, ideally diagonal too:)
Are these new bumpouts?
I'm sorry to see a decrease of sidewalk width on the north side however. Thanks for clarifying no summer patios on highway arterials.
So what's the next step?
Back to basics
It was perhaps wishful thinking to go beyond what needs to be done in terms of structural rebuild and repair. If a community has enough money to spend then by all means consult the community with "charettes" .
But when money is tight, then don't put all your hopes and wishes into grant funding. Personally, I think Council had no wiggle room and had to get the basics right.
Sidewalks in Rossland aren't particularly narrow and new street furniture can be specifically planned for in the next budget cycle.
So far as I know the widened
So far as I know the widened sidewalks were cost-neutral. This wasn't a matter of saving money.
there had to have been a cost
Do you know if a widened sidewalk with parallel parking would remain within municipal land?
I refer you to Andrew
I refer you to Andrew Bennett's reporting on this specific matter. As for your question, I don't know the exact answer, but to our knowledge this wasn't a factor in the decision council made.
Thanks for the info
Has anyone looked into the minimum width requirements of highways and sidewalks? I seem to have a (hazy) recollection that the minimum width for an adjoining sidewalk is ten feet and 66 feet for the highway itself.
Maybe there wasn't room for angle parking and wider sidewalks. I thought I read that merchants along Columbia were against parallel parking.
I don't find fault with them. Ever try parallel parking along Rossland Ave? Scary. Too many speeders and 18 wheelers. If you can't just drive in to the parking space, avoid trying to actually parallel park.
So maybe Rossland council made the best decision it could given the time constraints. Once the merchants raised the objection, there wasn't enough time to recanvas the issue.
Cost and confusion
1) As Adrian mentions above, when I originally looked into the cost difference, ISL and city staff told me the difference was neglible. Asphalt is less expensive on the surface but requires a deeper (more expensive) subsurface, I was told.
2) After the contract was signed, however, it seems $100,000 was saved by reverting to angle parking. I'm still confused by this, given that it contradicts the previous claims. I'm not sure how much of these savings are due to the removal of furniture and so forth from the design. Some of it may be that MOTI agreed to cover costs "curb to curb." Furthermore, I haven't seen the city account for the additional design costs that will be incurred by the change.
3) Yes, the widened sidewalk and parallel parking were okayed by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. All MOTI requirements regarding highway width, sight lines, and so on were met.
4) In fact, MOTI prefers parallel parking because it is actually much safer than diagonal parking—think about backing out of a diagonal stall and you'll know the car's rear end pokes a good way into traffic before you can see the traffic. Throughout the process, city staff report that MOTI was very accommodating to Rossland's desire to revitalize downtown.
5) Sidewalks where there was angle parking were going to be rebuilt slightly narrower, due to MOTI requirements, but recently that changed and sidewalk widths will remain the same as they are now.
6) Yes, some people raised a last-minute clamour that was convincingly misinformative and spawned considerable fear of change...
7) ... But the real issue here is that there was a process, the process resulted in a design that was strongly supported by those who bothered to get involved, and at the last minute the process was ditched without a speck of public debate or explanation by council.
This is council's second bout with really terrible process in the scant half year since they've taken office. I refer you to Adrian's recent editorial on the angst this has created among those of us who are democratically inclined....
Yes I see there was a process
However, at the end of the day, there wasn't enough money to do the whole project.
Have you consulted with Nelson City Council lately? It was considering getting rid of the bump outs and some of the congregating spots as they were attracting the wrong kind of people who were blocking access to shops.
During Spring summer and fall, portable cedar decks could be installed in front of restos and coffee shops. Fees could be levied to those businesses that use parking spaces in this manner. Patrons can enjoy food and cappuccinos without it becoming a hangout for buskers and panhandlers. There are already lots of parks for that activity.
Buskers breedin' on bump outs, oh my!
Early on the planning department broached the option of temporary summer-only parallel parking with decking that could be removed in the winter to return to angle parking, but MOTI rejected it.
Sitting on a dock in a sea of diagonally parked cars isn't exactly the ideal sidewalk café either, and diners feel that viscerally.
I'm not sure how you've decided there "wasn't enough money." Remember the AAP process last year that got a lot of people hot and bothered? The tenders came in higher than expected, but our loans will come in far below the $6 million borrowing authority.
This decision was political, not financial—at most it seems the savings come to 1.8% of the budget. It's fine for a decision to be political, it's only proper... so long as the process is followed. But it wasn't. A political decision was made behind closed doors to counteract years of public process.
The relatively small savings also neglect a very real opportunity cost to our downtown merchants and our entire town: we have foregone a positive change. Some merchants complain it's a tough town for business. There's plenty of evidence that pedestrianization increases retail sales. Well, this bone has been snatched away.
On another note, as a musician in a town of musicians, artists, and other hippy dippies, I dislike your implication that music in the streets sours the latté.
The whole point about the sidewalk expansion was to nurture the communitarian spirit that already makes this town special.
Perhaps you'd like to expand on your notion of what makes a "wrong" and a "right" person?
We happen to have a few "panhandlers" here in town, although I've yet to see them panhandle. More likely they're panning for gold. I really appreciate the extra colour they bring, the perspective, the difference, and the fascinating conversations.
But perhaps you're not the sort of person who talks to down-and-outs to expand your vision of the world...
In any case, you're right. I'm sure an extra few feet of sidewalk with trees and tables would have brought the junkies swarmin' like bees 'round the honey pot.
All I asked was...
Did you consult with Nelson City Council as to their experience with municipal bump outs? Merchants there are/were against them for the reasons you disagree with.
Summer Decks On Parking Spots...Going Full Circle
I have to laugh thinking about 'Summer Decks' for businesses that would take up a few parking spots.
With the recent parking fiasco and closed door decisions by council this would really take us full circle.
Here is the order of events as I see it:
1) Rossland spends a few years designing and getting approval from citizens for a re-vamped downtown core.
2) Seconds before construction begins various Rosslanders get upset regarding 10 less parking spots in the downtown core if the already approved parallel parking goes ahead.
3) Council buckles under pressure and eliminates the parallel parking in a closed door meeting, completely disregarding the design process that has taken place over the past few years
Looking into the future........
4) It's now the summer of 2013, construction is complete, angel parking has prevailed and the City of Rossland grants permits to the downtown restaurants to build temporary summer decks out onto the road.
As a result, the downtown core has 10 less parking spots....
Except....
The summer deck is temporary use of one or two parking spots. The merchant is responsible for it with guidelines set by the City.
It takes the burden off the taxpayer and onto the business owner who wants to offer temporary outdoor food service. How many coffee shops and restos are there on Columbia? Not all will want to build a removable deck according to City guidelines.
Better than nothing. Better than crying over spilled milk.
I don't consider a discussion
I don't consider a discussion about the failure of democractic process in our town 'crying over spilled milk' so much as 'valid concern over the town's long term milk supply'. Thanks for engaging the discussion!
thx for egaging...
Is that a hint to "scram"? :)
Geez, no! As Andrew notes, we
Geez, no! As Andrew notes, we appreciate all comments and all efforts to have specific conversations about important issues.
All points of view welcome
Not at all. All viewpoints are welcome here! The comments section is exactly so people can engage in open, public discourse on important local issues. Fair reporting, thoughtful commentary, and public engagement are what we exist for!
Tender dated Nov 2011
Gave this a look through (see page 5). It does say that angle parking on both sides and sidewalks on eithher side at 4 metres (13 feet).
So, what's the recent uproar about process?
Heads should roll.
It's absolutely disgusting that all the efforts to have a democratic discussion on the biggest public works project this town has ever seen have been dismissed single-handedly by our city officer (after being oddly enabled by city council to do so).
Years of deliberation to find out what this town wanted and what it should strive for, even a referendum to approve the spending (based on designs available at the time), and then last minute meetings behind closed doors throw all this out and construction begins immediately after - insuring that any protest about the decision making would be innefective.
Sure, there was concerted last minute opposition to the parallel parking, but no directives were issued by council regarding this, nor any attempt to discuss a compromise.
And the justification to toss out essentially all the positive visible impact the project would have? to trim approximately 10% of the cost! That's like renovating all the plumbing in your house, but then re-using the same 50 year old ugly sinks and bathtubs to save a few bucks, rather than seeing the renovation as an opportunity to improve the ease of use and beauty of fixtures you use daily.
Victor Kumar should be fired for this and other actions he took acting independently of any council directive. He singlehandely decided to go against every existing plans and directions set out for the city and approved by citizens.
Every coucillor and the mayor should be called to account on why they surrendered the decision making on a $5 million project to a CAO they knew had a history of making rash spur of the moment decisions.
I tend to blame council more
I tend to blame council more than the CAO. After all, he's an employee and they are our elected representatives.
It's pretty shocking that council can ignore the OCP, three design charettes, various city reports, and the commissioned-and-tendered design--then not even bother to explain their decision in public!
I'm (almost) speechless at the lack of democracy in this town.
It depends
Whether or not the CAO is to blame depends on any instructions he got from council. He asked to negotiate the details of the contract singlehandedly, and he got the OK. Considering the extremely short timeline the city had to negotiate a contract and still get things happening this summer, this was not an unreasonable request to grant. But unless he had specific directions from council to act otherwise, he should have followed the priorities set out by the OCP and the 2 years of staff work and both public and professional consultation. The CAO is the professional. It's his job to represent council and city interests in negotiations. Those desires are spelled out in very specific detail. He utterly failed in his job when he pursued the negotiations with his own set of priorities. I'm not saying the council is blameless - they're his boss, but at the same time I don't know if they had many options left to them when Kumar came back to them with his negotiated contract and time ticking away.
I would much rather see my taxes go up by $220 next year to see the kind of downtown we asked for, than to see my taxes go up by only $200 and see that money go towards a the same downtown we already have, and see a wasted opportunity that with no chance to correct for another 20-30 years. And as noted, this is much more than the parallel parking issue.
All excellent points, but
All excellent points, but nothing takes away from the fact that the CAO is under control of council. They don't have to do anything he suggests and if they give him power in these sorts of matters it doesn't erase their responsibility. IMHO!
Exactly
You're right the CAO is under control of council. That's why they should fire him. For failing to follow detailed guidelines. Unless council at some point told him to get rid of parallel parking, wide sidewalks, and most of the other features that city staff and citizens had strived for, then he was negligent in carrying out his duties.
In no way am I saying council isn't also responsible for this fiasco, but clearly considering what got axed from the contract, the CAO didn't do his job. He can get axed now. Unfortunately, we're stuck with the present council for a while. It's true council doesn't have to do what he asks (when he does), but in this particular case, there may have been severe drawbacks for forcing the issue back into negotiations.
Just to be clear
The debate was not public, but It is my understanding that council voted to axe the wider sidewalks.
If people feel the decision was unjust—a breach of the SSP, OCP, and public consultations—then council needs to be held accountable.
As far as I know, the CAO and city staff did their job negotiating the details on council's decision for angle parking and no furniture.
The CAO is responsible for the agenda, however, and he has a lot of say in how meetings are run, how issues are presented, and when doors should be closed to the public.
Closed door meetings
We can't know whether council did or did not give the CAO explicit instructions to revert the design to narrow sidewalks with diagonal parking because the debate—one assumes there was a debate—took place in a closed meeting, supposedly to protect confidentiality in the tender process.
I think that's baloney, and council propertly should have publicly debated the design change, separate from any issue that would require them to disclose sensitive information from the tender process.
Nevertheless, it is my understanding that council came to an in camera decision to make the change, and the CAO followed through with that request in the contract negotiations.
The CAO does prepare council's agenda and has a lot of say in what is debated publicly versus in camera. I think this bears closer scrutiny.
Because we can't be at in camera meetings to decide for ourselves whether the contents are in violation of Section 90 of the Community Charter—which limits what council can debate behind closed doors—we have to hope that councillors understand this law well enough to judge for themselves whether the privilege of closed door meetings is being abused.
An alert reader notes that,
An alert reader notes that, while parking is getting the lion's share of the attention, council has also ignored other elements of the OCP in their mad rush to appease petition-signers. To wit:
.7 Collaborate with Ministry of Transportation to encourage Best Management Practices and Standards for Highway upgrades through the Downtown Core, which encourage pedestrian movement and safety and mitigate wherever possible, negative impacts from truck traffic.
.8 Collaborate with Ministry of Transportation on the proposed Columbia Ave resurfacing in order to introduce natural landscape features, traffic calming designs, improved parking and a designated, separated bike lane.
.9 The Downtown Core shall be as pedestrian and bicycle oriented as possible.
.10 Further develop Washington St and nearby lanes as the location of mixed use retail, service, restaurant and medium density residential development.
.11 Continue to support a downtown and streetscape revitalization program.
.12 Supports capital investments in Downtown, including streetscape improvements, street furniture, public art and landscaping to increase the attractiveness of Downtown.
.13 Comprehensive trail connections and cyclist/pedestrian routes to and within the Downtown are a priority in the downtown transportation system.
.14 Encourage outdoor seating for restaurants, cafes and bars provided that surrounding residential neighbourhoods and pedestrian movement are not adversely affected.
.15 Investigate possibilities for parking areas adjacent to the Downtown Core.
An Opportunity Missed
The once-in-a-century opportunity for Council to produce a lasting positive legacy for the City of Rossland was squandered. I understand Council’s latest decision is to install angle parking on both sides of the street for the entire length of downtown, ultimately reducing the present sidewalk width. The downtown pedestrian friendly outlook is clearly described within the OCP. It’s very frustrating to see such little effort at even a compromise of the opposing parking and pedestrian opinions. I don’t think Council’s review got past the drawings once some were scared by the signatures on a poorly presented petition. I saw the petition in a store and asked employees for clarification. No one knew anything about it or who to ask for answers. I wonder how many people quickly signed it before they rushed out the door with their receipt. Very sad after hearing this news!
The decisions of residents
The decisions of residents who took the time to participate in the planning process and actually educate themselves on the options were ignored on this matter, as was the OCP, in favour of, as Mr. Howes notes, a quicky petition. Here's what the OCP has to say on the matter, for what little it appears to be worth:
Objectives
1. To ensure that the Downtown Core is maintained as the dominant commercial node in the community as well as a cultural and social focal point.
2. To increase the density and diversity of uses in the downtown.
3. To establish auto-free areas in the downtown core, areas dedicated primarily for pedestrian (not vehicular) movement.
Goals
9. The Downtown Core shall be as pedestrian and bicycle oriented as possible.
11. Continue to support a downtown and streetscape revitalization program.
14. Encourage outdoor seating for restaurants, cafes and bars provided that surrounding residential neighbourhoods and pedestrian movement are not adversely affected.
Maybe in 2112...
Legacy
Well said! Let's hope a lot sooner than 2112.... This Mayor and Council have put the wrong foot forward in building its own legacy. Only a small number of the goals and objectives will be accomplished because of a hypocritical 11th hour decision. Let's hope that this council can step back for a moment and appreciate all the efforts, the time and tax payer funds dedicated to the design alone. How did they speak about the OCP during their campaign?
Some might think its a tight space walking behind the temporary construction fence in place downtown. Imagine, the fence virtually matches the alignment of the new trees. Don't forget, some petitioners will still be trying to use the sidewalk as personal retail space. A nice infrastructure upgrade and a nice new 1970s parking lot. One step forward and two big steps backwards.
There is still a sign of hope that the construction of a dedicated pedestrian block on 1 of the 6 blocks downtown could still proceed. The engineers are making the requested revisions to the drawings right now. This change order doesn't need to be fulfilled.
There just might some undesirable names attached to this legacy.
Outdoor retail space...or not.
It will be interesting to see if retailers are asked not to use the (remaining) side walk for merchendise by the by-law officer. Is there a by-law for this, especially around crosswalks?
I am hoping that there will be some opportunity to have seasonal cafe terraces so that there can be more outdoor seating.
I feel that the time I took going to city meetings info sessions about street design has been somewhat wasted. I will certainly be more cynical at future 'workshops'.
Yes, it's certainly hard to
Yes, it's certainly hard to see why ANYONE would get involved in any future design process initiated by the City.
It woul be interesting to
It woul be interesting to hold a public debate on this issue, attended by all stakeholders and the public. We could rationally discuss the two options--lay out all the information in favour of both sides--THEN hold a binding vote. It's actually probably not too late to switch back to the original sidewalk scheme.
If a couple of hundred Rosslanders heard all the facts and a majority still wanted skinny sidewalks, I think all parties would have to be satisified. As it is there's a horrible unresolved note to the whole thing given the lack of justification for council's decision to trash the planning process and defy the OCP.
Already two votes
We voted once to approve the funding for this project, back when we already had a pretty good idea of what the design was (wider sidewalks, loss of parallel parking...) and then we also had a municipal election where I believe most councillors seemed of the opinion they were backing the project as it was designed.
It makes me wonder if council even has the right to go ahead with this project, since it isn't what was being presented to the public when we gave city council the green light to go into debt to pay for the project.
A rational public discussion
A rational public discussion was the reason for holding the design charrettes. Everyone was given a chance to provide input. How much more effort is needed? Some people just get so frightened by change. They don't ask questions or share concerns because they won't agree with the response...
Big "F" for hijacking the process
There is a process for large groups of people (say, Rossland) to come to democratic decisions.
City clarifies total project cost: $5.64 million
The city recently provided the following information:
"The Total Cost for the City (excluding Highways portion) for Construction, Engineering and contingency is $5,638,018.
"The net cost to be paid by the City over a 5 year term will be $3.26 Million.
"The tender price from Copcan is $4.7 Million excluding Highways portion, engineering and contingency."
Further clarification
I was confused why it appeared that neither the $425,000 in deletions from the project, nor the $100,000 savings due to the change to angle parking, appeared in the account that summed the $5.64 million estimated total cost. So I asked the city:
Where are the deletions accounted for in the $5.64 million total cost?
CAO Victor Kumar replied: "These have not been accounted for until the actual change orders have been issued. Hence the total tender/project cost is initially accounted for until the project is completed and all actual change orders are issued by the Contract Administrator including the final HST/PST implications are clarified for both the City and the contractor."
Handy dandy site
The City has posted a page with ongoing updates of what's happening with the construction at http://www.rossland.ca/columbiawashington-construction-updates
Very helpful. Good to see the communication is improving.
Yes, good to see. Jody Blomme
Yes, good to see. Jody Blomme also informs us that council will be issuing regular updates to local media, so the Telegraph will also be posting this sort of material as work progresses!