On Monday night, the city council reluctantly approved applying for grant funding for a climate risk assessment, intending to secure up to $70,000. This funding would cover 85 percent of the project costs associated with hiring consultants to conduct the assessment. The remaining $12,500 would be sourced from the city’s operating budget allocated for storm sewer capital funding. This decision, although met with significant reluctance among council members, reflects the complex interplay between meeting federal requirements and addressing the community’s infrastructure needs.
Acting Director of Strategic Growth, Craig Hemingway, presented to the council that research into municipalities that had completed climate risk assessments and contractors who provide these services indicated that the project costs would be within the eligible funding range. He explained that the climate risk assessment aims to identify climate hazards such as extreme weather conditions, drought, flooding, and seasonal changes, and to evaluate city infrastructure vulnerability to these hazards. Such data is essential for making future infrastructure projects resilient to extreme weather events, a steadily increasing concern due to the effects of climate change.
Council’s Reluctance and Concerns
Opposition from Councillor Patrick Boyle
Councillor Patrick Boyle was particularly vocal about his opposition to the application, a stance he made clear during the meeting. Seeking thorough explanations from city administration, Boyle questioned what the plan entailed and scrutinized the value it would bring to Moose Jaw. Director of Operations, Bevan Harlton, addressed Boyle’s inquiries, highlighting that the assessment would provide high-level insights on climate resilience, guiding the types of infrastructure they should consider and the strategies for their implementation. Harlton also mentioned that the funding application was supported by his department to bridge gaps in current grant writing processes.
Boyle’s resistance was rooted in the procedural shift he observed, noting that federal funding for infrastructure traditionally flowed through provincial governments but now required municipalities to comply directly with federal agendas. He questioned the necessity of the assessment, particularly under the assumption that the primary climate risks the city faced were drought and flooding. Boyle argued that these issues were more directly linked to the Buffalo Pound Water Treatment Plant, suggesting that an assessment might be redundant for other city infrastructure projects.
Procedural Complexity and Federal Mandates
Boyle also criticized the procedural complexity associated with the funding, noting that a six-step process would precede the project commencement. He speculated that a future change in federal government could result in new funding policies, potentially rendering the current efforts futile. Acknowledging the diligent work from city administration in identifying funding opportunities, Boyle nevertheless remained skeptical about the climate risk assessment’s existing value and necessity.
Councillor Dawn Luhning echoed Boyle’s concerns regarding the assessment’s value. To this, City Manager Maryse Carmichael clarified that the assessment was initially a mandatory component when the city previously applied for the Disaster Mitigation Assistance Fund for the Crescentview Lift Station. Without it, the city could face barriers in future funding applications, a situation that weighed heavily in the council’s decision-making process.
Clarifications and Support from City Administration
Differentiating Climate Action Plan and Risk Assessment
Councillor Chris Warren queried if the required assessment information might already be covered in the city’s existing climate action plan or general knowledge that had been overlooked. Director of Community Services, Derek Blais, responded by differentiating the climate action plan from the climate risk assessment. He clarified that the climate action plan adopted in 2022 primarily focused on emission reduction and setting environmental targets, whereas the climate risk assessment would concentrate on mitigating and adapting to extreme weather events. Blais provided practical examples, such as cleaning up after windstorms and addressing freeze-thaw cycles that damage infrastructure, to illustrate the unique focus of the risk assessment.
Grant writer Tanya Reimer expounded on the necessities of the climate risk assessment in supporting other grant applications. She explained that the assessment provides essential documentation, confirming resilient construction practices within designated zones—a requirement for securing grant approval. Emphasizing the ongoing nature of climate-related concerns, Reimer assured the council that the need for such assessments in grant applications would persist, making them a relevant and indispensable component in the city’s funding strategy.
Financial and Practical Considerations
Councillor Warren acknowledged that the reality of extreme weather events was not going away and pondered developing an in-house assessment for $12,500. Hemingway responded that estimates for such services consistently exceeded that amount and questioned whether city staff had the qualifications required to produce an accurate and comprehensive report. This practical consideration added another layer of complexity to the council’s deliberations.
Persisting in his skepticism, Boyle reiterated his opinion that it was unreasonable for the city to be disqualified from federal infrastructure funding due to the lack of a climate risk assessment. Nevertheless, he ultimately acknowledged the necessity of meeting current requirements to secure essential funding. His stance encapsulated the broader dilemma faced by the council: balancing skepticism with pragmatism in navigating federal mandates.
Broader Council Perspectives
Frustration and Pragmatism
Councillor Jamey Logan expressed his frustration over the federal stipulations associated with the funding process. He conveyed a sense of exasperation with the procedural burdens but conceded that the municipality needed federal monies for crucial infrastructure projects. Logan commended city administration for addressing gaps in the application strategy and emphasized the importance of adapting to the current funding landscape, despite his dissatisfaction with the imposed requirements.
Councillor Heather Eby weighed in on the discussion by recognizing the uncertainty linked to federal budgets and elections. She stressed the need to address present community needs pragmatically, even if it required complying with federal mandates. Advocate for the climate risk assessment, Eby valued its long-term benefits and foresaw its importance in ensuring the city’s readiness for future extreme weather events, despite the complexities involved.
Final Decision and Implications
Ultimately, the council voted 6-1 to approve the grant application, with Boyle as the sole dissenter. The outcome underscored a consensus to pragmatically navigate federal requirements while addressing immediate funding needs for essential infrastructure projects. This decision illustrated a nuanced approach to municipal governance, wherein compliance with overarching government directives is balanced against addressing localized priorities and community sentiments.
The city council’s action encapsulated a calculated decision to align with federal funding requirements, despite prevailing reservations. The discussion highlighted a pervasive skepticism about the necessity and practical utility of the climate risk assessment, moderated by a pragmatic recognition of the benefits and eligibility it conferred for infrastructure grants. This decision underscored the intricate balance municipalities must strike between conforming to broader government directives and addressing local priorities and sentiments. The detailed examination of the points raised by council members underscored the complex interplay of local governance, financial strategy, and climate resilience planning.