A look at the agenda when council meets tonight

A long lineup of renewable energy advocates is set to address council on Monday, urging the City of Regina to do its part in the fight against climate change.

Twelve delegations have sent in written submissions regarding the Make Regina a Renewable City motion submitted by Couns. Andrew Stevens, Joel Murray and John Findura. Most are expected to speak in the lead-up to a debate over the motion on Monday evening.

The list includes an economist, a car-share co-op, solar boosters and a Filipino immigrant who worries that ever-stronger typhoons will continue to devastate his home country.

In their submissions, the delegations point out that Regina benefits from good sunlight and aquifers that can feed geothermal wells for heating. They note the price of installing solar panels has dropped precipitously in recent years.

If the motion passes, it would direct administration to develop a framework for Regina to commit to becoming a 100-per-cent renewable energy city by 2050.

A $1-BILLION WATER PLAN FOR REGINA

Monday ’s council meeting is also set to consider the next 25 years of water service in Regina.

City administrators have finished work on a Water Master Plan, which sets out more than $1 billion of needed investment during that period to keep the water utility flowing at the highest standard.

The plan commits the city to nothing, since every dollar of proposed investment must be approved by council through annual budgets. But administration has pinpointed projects it considers necessary to maintain its level of service, meet regulatory requirements and cover growth.

The plan came to committee earlier this month. Stu Niebergall of the Regina and Region Home Builders’ Association then expressed concern that the figure had ballooned by roughly $225 million from a 2017 estimate.

He’s set to address council again on Monday.

City administration expects the investments to lead to “low to moderate rate increases” over the 25-year period, as well as some degree of debt.

LIVING WAGE FOR LESS Living wage advocates will get a second chance to make their case on Monday, just weeks after coun- cil’s executive committee came out against a policy to set a $16.95wage floor for city and contracted employees.

Their new pitch: How about a dollar less?

Paul Gingrich of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ Saskatchewan chapter is set to address council on Monday. In his written submission, he urges the city to review its numbers, which suggest a living-wage policy would cost the city $1.1 million if applied to its own employees, those of its service partners and those of contractors who do work on city premises.

Gingrich says the city used an outdated wage estimate that didn’t account for the Canada Child Benefit. He believes the proper figure should be $16, the amount he says a pair of full-time wage earners would need to cover expenses for themselves and two dependents, after factoring in benefits and transfers.

He’s also asking council to consider a phased approach, with later target dates for contractors.

But some members of council seem to object to the idea in principle, not the timing or cost estimate. Mayor Michael Fougere has said wages are best addressed through collective bargaining.

BROAD STREET NOT GETTING MUCH LOVE

Coun. Andrew Stevens wanted to know what has been ailing Broad Street, and what the city plans to do about it. He now has his answer, and he’s not satisfied.

In a document attached to the agenda package for Monday’s meeting, administration answered a notice of enquiry submitted by the Ward 3 councillor.

Stevens had asked what the city is doing to revitalize downtown Broad Street and prevent further deterioration.

City administration pointed to only existing two incentive programs: The Heritage Building Rehabilitation Program and downtown incentives for residential development. It also mentioned neighbourhood plans and bonuses for developers.

But the answer didn’t explain how or even if those tools are revitalizing Broad Street.

It stressed that the city has “no legal authority to require land owners to develop or redevelop their property.”

Stevens said he wants a “robust strategy for addressing urban decay” on both sides of the once-vibrant corridor. He said he appreciates the response from administration, but still has questions about “the value of existing and potential incentives in helping to reverse decades of urban blight.”

“We can do better,” he said. “Unfortunately, the response to the enquiry is silent on the details.”