I was only able to catch the City Council meeting tonight between 1900 and 2030.

Of interest were a few items that were up for discussion:

1. A series of 6 residents made presentations to Council on the pending Chief Whitecap Master Plan that will make it’s way before Council sometime this spring. There main contention was that off-leash dogs were detrimental to the Park and should be completely restricted. There concerns were generally detailed in a recent Star Phoenix article. Personally (as a dog owner and frequent user of the park) I found some of their conclusions a bit dramatic and at times patently false (wild, aggressive dogs running everywhere, no children in the park, contamination of the river water quality, dogs eating all the animals); however, a good point was raised by one speaker – the number of off-leash users accessing the park has dramatically increased over the past 3 years and it is a sign that the city does not have an adequate amount of off-leash area within the City limits. Here is a link to a post I wrote on the subject last year.

2. The Hampton Village re-zoning issue (detailed here) came up for approval this evening. Councillor Heidt (who represents the neighbourhood in Ward 4) raised the issue of parking. He was concerned that with a higher density development that on street parking could become an issue in the area. He appeared to be specifically asking that it be detailed in the RFP that would be eventually tendered to develop the site; however, it is my understanding that parking and the number of on-property parking sites is specifically outlined in the City By-laws. A member of the newly formed Hampton Village Community Association raised a concern that the $200,000-$250,000 price range targeted for the development could fall prey to developers trying to get “the best bang for their buck” (which I assume he was referring to the issue raised earlier by other residents of the development becoming “low income”); however, if he stopped to seriously consider his suggestion I think he would realize that if a developer wanted to maximize their return on investment it would be selling the units at a higher price – not at a lower price or operating rental units.

3. During the inquiry section (a time when Councillors  can submit specific requests for information to Administration) Councillor Paulsen asked for more details on what the City would be doing to address the 30% rise in rear-end collisions at intersections equipped with red light cameras. In a Star Phoenix article published earlier in the day, an Administration spokesperson appeared to suggest that the increased rear-end collisions were an acceptable replacement for the much more deadly t-bone collisions that occurred more frequently at the intersections before the camera’s were installed.

4. Councillor Heidt (returning after missing the last council meeting and the last two months of committee meetings) submitted the funniest inquiry of the evening. He asked for a report back on the feasibility of the city licensing bicycles. Initially, he raised the concern over bike theft but quickly veered (pun intended) into the apparent reason for his inquiry – providing a mechanism for people to report cyclists who ride on sidewalks. The idea isn’t new, it has been debated in Toronto,  and is actually mandatory in a few cities (Madison, WI and LA, California for example). However, those programs are geared more towards deterring theft and in Madison all proceeds from the licenses ($10 for 4 years) go towards maintenance of cycling infrastructure. Maybe the Saskatoon should focus on providing a basic level of cycling infrastructure and safe riding conditions before they even consider going after the cyclists? Though I think it would be hilarious to see our City Councillor’s trying to tell little Timmy that he can’t ride his tricycle without a valid license!