As you might imagine, I gave a lot of thought to what is the right move would be. I heard from many residents of District 16 and many more from the rest of HRM. I believe wholeheartedly that it’s responsible to undertake a fiscal review to ensure we are getting strong value for taxpayers while achieving the objectives we have set – this has been a recurring theme in my commentary at Council during budget and otherwise, and I believe that is a desire I share with Mayor Fillmore.
My objections to the Mayor’s motion as written were practical and procedural in nature. Normally staff reports come first – in fact, they are required to. It’s for that reason the Mayor’s motion had to ask for a waiver of an Administrative Order AND a 2/3 majority was needed to do so. We had not received a report to tell us how many bike lane projects were in flight now, whether there would be cancellation costs associated with the pause, how imminent some projects were based on tender versus award timing, whether some in-flight projects are attached to other recapitalizations of infrastructure that would be undertaken anyway (and therefore an opportunity may be lost), timeline expectations for the pause and associated staff report, etc. Ordinarily, vital questions like this (and often questions we might not think of ourselves) are answered in a staff report to help inform the direction Council gives to staff – the very purpose of the staff report is to provide a common base of understanding of important details, including risks and costs – as well as positives and negatives – and generally provide one or more expert recommendations from staff that council may consider, and even question during debate.
In this case, the Mayor’s motion sought to immediate halt awards on imminent work which we learned would have very real consequences (increased costs, delays and cost increases on other projects, impact to vendors, delay in being able to restart when the pause was concluded) while awaiting a staff report that could either confirm or deny that a pause would achieve changes to cost or traffic impact. We act on information presented to us as a council, and it’s further informed by our own research and discussion with residents. The motion asked us to do take action without the usual benefit of that information up front. It is for this reason that I could not support the Mayor’s original motion. And on the Mayor’s alternative, I supported the review of Morris Street because it gave staff time to respond and adjust since this project was in the design phase, while I did not support the Brunswick Street halt because it was within a day of the tender closing on construction, with design already complete, and it’s a vital connection point between sections of the bike network that have already been completed.
I understand that bike lanes are a contentious issue. As a newly-elected community leader, my role, which I take very seriously, is to seek solutions that provide opportunity for everyone. For years, our city has been pursuing a bike network to provide that opportunity: the opportunity for choice, viable alternatives in our choices of mode of transportation, options for transportation that are equitable and serve those that cannot or will not drive a car and for whom other alternatives are not accessible. Choices in our city don’t have to mean encroachment on the mode of transportation you choose. We have capable planners and designers at the city and with our partner organizations that can help us build it out the right way. We are still afforded the opportunity to conduct a comprehensive review of HOW we implement these opportunities and the costs associated with them – and that’s something I will continue to pursue on behalf of residents.