HEART OF THE CITY COMMITTEE AGENDA  DATE: April 10, 2013 LOCATION: Culver City Room TIME: 4:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. 1.

Approval of Agenda 

2.

Adoption of Minutes    a.

3.

Presentations  a.

4.

March 13, 2013 (Attachment 1)  Student Report (Attachment 2) 

Strategic  a.

Capital Improvement Program Update    i. April 15 – Public Meeting for Citizen Input to CIP (Open Microphone) 

5.

6.

7.

b.

Committee Retreat Scheduling (Attachment 3) 

c.

Civic Square Terms of Reference (Attachment 4) 

Operational    a.

2012 Year End Report (Attachment 5) – was presented at the April 2, 2013 City Council Meeting 

b.

Community Revitalization Levy (Attachment 6) 

c.

Sub‐Committee Reports  i.

Design, Planning, and Regulatory Sub‐Committee (Attachment 7) 

ii.

Championing, Marketing and Promotion Sub‐Committee 

iii.

Downtown Life (Events) Sub‐Committee 

iv.

Functional Works Maintenance and Upkeep Sub‐Committee  (Attachment on Downtown Safety  and Security Issues 8) 

For Information  a.

Building & Development Permit Activity for March (Attachment 9) 

b.

Advertisement for Member at Large – Interviews have been started but not completed 

c.

Community Futures Improvements Loan Summary (Attachment 10) 

d.

PRATS Winner of Award of Merit from Consulting Engineers of Alberta (Attachment 11) 

e.

Transforming and Revitalizing Downtown Summit  ‐ June 12‐13, 2013 in Edmonton (Attachment 12 ) 

f.

International Downtown Association Conference  ‐ October 6‐9, 2013 in New York City (Attachment 13 ) 

What’s Happening in Downtown  a.

Around the Table 

8.

Next Meeting 

9.

Adjournment  

MINUTES of a Meeting of the HEART OF OUR CITY REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE, held on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, at 4:00 p.m. in the City Hall of the City of Lethbridge with the following in attendance: CHAIR:

Bev Lanz, Citizen-at-large

MEMBERS:

Mark Bellamy, Citizen-at-large Kate Connolly, Citizen-at-large Belinda Crowson, Lethbridge Historical Society Grace Duff, Chamber of Commerce Ken Harvie, Urban Development Institute Ken Nakagama, Downtown BRZ (arrived at 4:15 p.m.)

OTHERS:

Maureen Gaehring, Community Planning Manager George Kuhl, Downtown Revitalization Manager David Sarsfield, City Clerk’s Office

ABSENT:

Renae Barlow, Economic Development Lethbridge Jeff Carlson, Councillor Suzanne Lint, Allied Arts Council

CALL TO ORDER: The Meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by Chair Bev Lanz. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The Agenda for March 13, 2013 was circulated. BELINDA CROWSON: THAT the Agenda for March 13, 2013 be approved as presented. CARRIED APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the February 13, 2013 Meeting were circulated. KATE CONNOLLY: THAT the Minutes of February 13, 2013 Meeting be approved as presented. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS: a. University of Lethbridge Chris Horbachewski, Vice President of Advancement, and Maureen Schwartz, Alumni Relations, provided information on the University of Lethbridge’s community commitment to Downtown Lethbridge. The following was presented: 

Goal is to continue to develop bridges to Lethbridge and southern Alberta communities

   

70 percent of the students come from outside the area, with less than 1,000 beds out of 7,500 students living on campus Dr. Foster James Penny Building (Capital Furniture Building) is in the process of being opened by the University for University Advancement, alumni relations, and development programs Student Art Gallery, graduate student space, and community-centric research centre may also be located in the building Opportunity for partnership with a community organization to utilize the meeting facilities

STRATEGIC: a. Capital Improvement Program Update The Capital Improvement Program schedule is as follows:   

April 2 April 2 – 5 April 15

 

April 22 May 6 – 10

Open House with presentation at 7:00 p.m. Foyer Display Public Meeting for Citizen Input to Capital Improvement Program (Open Microphone) Draft Budget circulated Finance Committee Meetings

The Committee members will encourage other groups to make a presentation on April 15th supporting the Downtown Initiatives. However, the Heart of Our City Revitalization Committee will not make a presentation. They will provide recommendations at the April 2, 2013 Meeting as part of the Annual Report. ACTION:



Members to ask their affiliate groups to speak in favour of the Heart of Our City Initiatives on April 15, 2013

b. Committee Retreat Funds had been put aside in the 2013 Budget to carry out strategic planning. It was recommended that a modified Business Plan process be done as part of a Committee retreat. Dates and format were discussed. ACTION:

 

David Sarsfield to send out a survey asking members if they wish to have the retreat on weekends or evenings and whether it should be scheduled for May/June or September Design, Planning and Regulatory Sub-Committee to coordinate the retreat

OPERATIONAL: a. 2012 Year End Report A draft 2012 Year End Report was circulated to the members. provided as feedback   

More personal stories to be included Section on recommendations to be included State of the Downtown section could be added

Page 2 of 4

Heart of Our City Revitalization Committee Minutes

The following was

 

Have executive summary Have a description of some of the programs showing who is the owner, who is the operator, and who is the funder Report to not be based on sub-committee activity



It will be presented at the April 2, 2013 City Council Meeting. b. Sub-Committee Reports i.

Design, Planning, and Regulatory Sub-Committee – The Sub-Committee reported the following:   

Downtown Area Redevelopment Plan is being revised to reflect the comments received, especially in the areas of development controls and parking Chamber of Commerce is conducting a door to door questionnaire to identify the parking needs for downtown George Kuhl is developing a scope of work for the classification of urban parks for the Galt Gardens

ii.

Championing, Marketing and Promotion Sub-Committee – have not met

iii.

Downtown Life (Events) Sub-Committee – distributed the event grant funding of $65,000 to eleven organizations

iv.

Functional Works Maintenance and Upkeep Sub-Committee – The SubCommittee reported the following:    

Sentinel Security has been retained to look after the security for Downtown WIFI coverage has been expanded to include an additional two new radios Looking to have a “grand opening” event for the new storage facilities for the Clean Sweep program Security meeting involving the key stakeholders to be held in March

FOR INFORMATION: a. b. c. d.

Building and Development Permit Activity for February Lethbridge Regional Police Services Statistics for Downtown 2008 – 2012 Future of the Fire Hall Located on 6th Avenue South Parking Survey Being Done by Lethbridge College for the Chamber of Commerce e. Advertisement for Member at Large

WHAT’S HAPPENING:  

Belinda Crowson named as a Woman of Distinction by the YWCA Ken Harvie to be on Design, Planning, and Regulatory Sub-Committee

NEXT MEETING: The next regular meeting, will be held Wednesday, April 10, 2013 from 4:00 - 6:00 p.m. Page 3 of 4

Heart of Our City Revitalization Committee Minutes

Topics will include the following:   

Student Report Community Revitalization Levy Civic Square Terms of Reference

ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.

CHAIRMAN

CLERK

Page 4 of 4

Heart of Our City Revitalization Committee Minutes

George Kuhl, R.P.P., M.C.I.P. Downtown Revitalization Manager Department of Planning & Development City of Lethbridge 910 – 4th Avenue South, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada,T1J 0P6 Phone:(403) 320-3926 Cell: (403) 330-4235 Fax:(403) 327-6571

Memo To:

Heart of Our City Revitalization Committee

Date: April 3, 2013 Re:

Measuring the Impact of Downtown Revitalization 2002 – 2012 University of Lethbridge – Applied Study Program; Student Presentation

The three U of L students who have been working on an Applied Study course as captioned above will be presenting their findings at the April 10th HOC meeting. Anecdotal information indicates that Downtown has improved greatly over the past ten or so years that intensified revitalization efforts have been underway. With this decade of change behind us and in order to continually improve the Downtown and its unique role within the City, it is equally important to provide an objective perspective in the overall assessment of the past ten years of effort. The purpose of the Applied Study was to assess how successful the revitalization effort has been by taking an analytical approach to several of those factors that influenced Downtown change during the 2002 to 2012 period.

4/11/2013

Measuring the Impact of Downtown Revitalization By Clark Kennedy, Kattie Schlamp and Katie Tyo

Contents • • • • • • • • •

Comparative Zones Population Distribution Lethbridge Overview Employment Assessed Property Values and Taxes Construction Influences Retail Final Remarks Acknowledgements

1

4/11/2013

Population in 2006 2006 Population by Area 4500 4000

Population Number

3500 3000 Downtown 2500

3rd Ave North Side

2000

Mayor Magrath Big Box

1500

West Side

1000 500 0 Downtown

3rd Ave

North Side Mayor Magrath Comparative Economic Zone

Big Box

West Side

2

4/11/2013

Lethbridge • Currently Lethbridge has a fairly balanced economy ▫ The College and University provide an influx of students ▫ 2012 census approximately 89, 000 people

• Main Street Projects match funds for building facades ▫ 36 building facades in the past 13 years

• The decrease in undesirable bars in the downtown has helped maintain businesses ▫ However, regular bars are encouraged

Social Capital • Revitalization efforts have increased social capital • Removal of undesirable bars that encouraged illicit activities or behaviour ▫ Businesses located near undesirable bars were impacted

• Lethbridge Centre put a lock on their underground parking ▫ Drug deals and skateboarding were a problem

• First Fridays and Farmers’ Market have helped change the social setting of the downtown

3

4/11/2013

History of Downtown • Prior to 2000 the downtown area had approximately a 60% occupancy rate • Now there is a 90% occupancy rate with less turnover and quicker fill-ins • More businesses now own or have long term lease of the land which means permanency ▫

This is reflected in the Lethbridge Centre and Park Place Mall  

Lethbridge Centre for the past 3-4 years has been at 100% Park Place had an occupancy rate in the high 80’s and now they are at 98.9% occupancy rate

Employment Employment by Sector for Downtown (2006) 1800

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

Number of Employees

1600

Mining, Oil and Gas Extraction

1400

Utilities

1200

Construction

1000

Manufacturing

800

Wholesale Trade

600

Retail

400

Transportation and Warehousing

200

Information and Cultural Industries Finance and Insurance

0

Real Estate, Rental and Leasing Professional Scientific and Technical Services Management of Companies Enterprises Adminstrative and Support/Waste Management and Remediation Services Educational Services Healthcare and Social Assistance Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Accomodation and Food Services Other Services

Employment Sector

Public Adminstration

4

4/11/2013

Comparative Employment Downtown Employment Compared to Other Economic Zones (2006) 1800 Number of Employees

1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400

Downtown

200

3rd Ave

0

North Side Mayor Magrath Big Box West Side

Employment Sector

Major Employment Sectors Major Employment Sectors 1800 1600

Number of Employees

1400 Retail

1200

Healthcare and Social Assistance

1000 800

Accomodation and Food Services

600 400 200 0 Downtown

3rd Ave

North Side Mayor Magrath Comparative Economic Zones

Big Box

West Side

5

4/11/2013

Assessed Property Value for Downtown Assessed Property Value of Downtown Commercial (C-D) and Direct Control (DC) Zoned Properties Downtown

Non-Residential Taxes Collected for Downtown 12,000,000

500000000 10,000,000

350000000 300000000 250000000

C-D DC

200000000

Value of Taxes in Dollars

400000000

8,000,000

6,000,000

Taxes Collected

4,000,000

150000000 100000000

2,000,000

50000000 0

0 2007

2008

2009 2010 Year

2011

2007

2012

2008

2009 2010 Year

2011

2012

Comparative Non-Residential Taxes Collected Non-Residential Taxs Collected 12,000,000

Non-Residential Taxes Collected

Assessed Property Value in Dollars

450000000

10,000,000

8,000,000 Downtown 3rd Ave

6,000,000

North Side Mayor Magrath Big Box

4,000,000

West Side 2,000,000

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Year

6

4/11/2013

Construction Average Permit Value (Downtown) 800,000.00

Permit Value in Dollars

700,000.00 600,000.00 500,000.00 400,000.00 Average Permit Value 300,000.00 200,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Year

7

4/11/2013

Construction Completed Construction Permits 2005-2012 Percent of Construction Permits Completed

96.00% 93.48%

94.00% 92.00%

90.91% 90.14%

90.00% 88.45% 88.00%

Downtown 3rd Ave

87.94%

North Side Mayor Magrath

85.58%

86.00%

Big Box West Side

84.00% 82.00% 80.00% Downtown

3rd Ave

North Side Mayor Magrath Comparative Economic Zone

Big Box

West Side

Construction $4,000,000.00

Value of Taxes Collected for Properties with Completed Permits

$3,500,000.00 Permits Completed in 2007 (Downtown) Permits Completed in 2008 (Downtown) Permits Completed in 2009 (Downtown) Permits Completed in 2010 (Downtown) Permits Completed in 2011 (Downtown) Permits Completed in 2012 (Downtown) Permits Completed in 2007

Value of Taxes Collected

$3,000,000.00

$2,500,000.00

$2,000,000.00

$1,500,000.00

Permits Completed in 2008 $1,000,000.00

Permits Completed in 2009 Permits Completed in 2010

$500,000.00

Permits Completed in 2011 Permits Completed in 2012

$2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Year

8

4/11/2013

Retail • Park Place Mall has become an anchor drawing people into the downtown ▫ 3.5-4 million visitors a year

• The emergence big box retailers can be contributed to the success of Park Place Mall • Success of the mall attracts more desirable retailers

Final Remarks • We can conclude there has been an improvement in the downtown area through qualitative change as evidenced by our quantitative analysis of the downtown • It is evident social change and economic change are equally important to the overall health of downtown

9

4/11/2013

Acknowledgements • Special thanks to the City of Lethbridge

▫ Specifically George Kuhl, Tyson Bolan, Stan Dilworth, Amy Sosick, Abnus Afshar, Lance Wehlage, Ryan Slovak, Dave Baines, Jeff Koshuta, David Sarsfield, and their corresponding teams

• We would also like to thank Ted Stilson from the BRZ, Grace Duff of Lethbridge Centre, Kevin Brees at Park Place Mall, and Stephanie Palechek with the Chamber of Commerce, who were all able to provide a narrative of the downtown. Finally, we would like to thank Ian MacLachlan our Faculty Supervisor at the University of Lethbridge and Jasminn Berteotti our Applied Studies Coordinator from the University of Lethbridge. As well as anyone else we may have missed.

10

Response to Scheduling of Retreat Mark  Bellamy Weekends Evenings

May/June September

prefer Prefer June Ok

Jeff  Jeff Coffman Carlson

Kate  Celinda  Grace Duff Connolly Crowson Prefer  Not  Not June 21‐ June 14‐16 22 prefer Weekend in  Prefer June June

Prefer June

Ken Harvie

Bev Lanz

Suzanne Lint

Friday/Sat

Friday/Sat

Prefer June

Prefer June

Ken  Nakagama

No Two Evenings

No

Prefer June

George Kuhl, R.P.P., M.C.I.P. Downtown Revitalization Manager Department of Planning & Development City of Lethbridge 910 – 4th Avenue South, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada,T1J 0P6 Phone:(403) 320-3926 Cell: (403) 330-4235 Fax:(403) 327-6571

Memo To:

Heart of Our City Revitalization Committee

Date: April5, 2013 Re:

Civic Precinct & Vicinity Area Redevelopment Plan: Update

The Planning and Development Services Department has commenced “Scoping” the captioned project. As HOC members may recall, the area surrounding City Hall and adjacent to Downtown was identified in the Heart of Our City Master Plan as a special district.

The HOCMP was not the first plan to recognize this distinctive area. In 1981, a City Hall Study Committee was struck by City Council to look into the possible siting of a new City Hall. Within the scope of that study, the notion of creating a Town Square was explored together with a concept of what that would represent and how it would look.

1|Page

If we fast forward to today, there are several issues influencing the current and future use of this area. The “Civic Precinct” houses the primary concentration of municipal and institutional uses in Lethbridge. The District is currently anchored by City Hall and a variety of recreational, cultural and community facilities. A number of opportunities exist to intensify the area and to reinforce the visual termination of a number of streets. The upgrading and expansion of these civic uses should seek to create a coherently planned area that will include the integration of the Civic Field, a new plaza at the east terminus of the Civic Corridor (5th Ave), mid-block pedestrian connections, and parking facilities internal to the block. Among the other issues and opportunities are the following:  the aging Civic Ice Centre which is due to be replaced leaving the existing structure to be partially or totally demolished which, in turn, will provide a sizeable and prominent site within the Civic precinct;  a severe parking shortage for the numerous public buildings and recreation facilities in the area including City Hall;  the functionally planning of for the future of 6th Avenue which could possibly involve widening or the elimination of parking;  growth of the Lethbridge Senior Citizen’s Organization, and it’s attendant land and facility needs;  the continued use/disposition of the Civic Field;  the size and possible future need of expanding City Hall;  the continued use/disposition of the RCMP site and the Old Court House site. The main purpose of an Area Redevelopment Plan for this plan would be to manage future growth and change. One of the prime objectives would

2|Page

be “to transform the civic use sub-area into a coherently configured and designed “Civic Campus” through comprehensively planning”. The HOC is anticipated to play a role within this project by being regarded as a “Stakeholder” and having a position on the eventual project Steering Committee.

3|Page

Heart of Our City Revitalization Committee

ANNUAL REPORT 2012 Cumulative Effects Lead to Success 2012 was a busy and successful year. The Heart of Our City Revitalization Committee undertook a variety of new projects as well as continued to nurture some existing ones. The cumulative effect of the HOC effort is represented by the graphic below. Essentially, the HOC is effective because of: it‟s balanced approach; it‟s relationships with strategic partners; it‟s ability to leverage funding;

This report provides an overview of the Heart of Our City Revitalization Committee activities and a summary of Downtown projects and activities 2012

its judicious investment of seed funding; it‟s commitment to planning; and it‟s attention to safety and security

Downtown Revitalization: by the Numbers

INSIDE: HOC SPONSORED EVENTS CONTRIBUTE TO VIBRANCY PG 2 ROUND STREET GATEWAY PG 2 FIRST FRIDAYS PG 3 REMOVING BARRIERS PG 3 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT LOANS: C F PARTNERSHIP PG 4 GETTING CONNECTED - THROUGH WIFI PG 4 HOC PARTNERSHIP WITH BRZ PG 4 PRATS - AWARD WINNING PROJECT PG 5 CLEAN & SAFE PG 5 CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY PG 5 DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT FUND SUMMARY PG 6 HOC COMMITTEE PG 6

Heart of Our City Revitalization Committee Downtown Vibrancy

Heart of Our City Annual Report - 2012

2012 was the second year of offering the Heart of Our City Activity Grant. The purpose of grant is to provide Heart of Our City funds to help Lethbridge organizations host events that create an exciting and vibrant downtown and attract audiences to the Heart of the City.

to ensure the grant continues to address the purpose for which it was established. In total, 10 events shared grant funding of $68,459 . Events were held in June, July, August, September & November.

The HOC reviewed and made adjustments to the grant, including an evaluative process

THE PROJECT WILL PROVIDE AN ATTRACTIVE ENTRANCE TO DOWNTOWN AT “ROUND STREET & 6TH AVENUE SOUTH

Round Street Gateway - A Heart-felt Welcome The Round Street Gateway Project will enhance the identity of Downtown at a key entrance while contributing to pedestrian and vehicular orientation, particularly for visitors. The project builds on a concept originating from the Heart of Our City Master Plan to create landmark features that identify Downtown as a special place reflects

our unique culture, history and environment which in turn bolsters civic pride. Through the Public Realm and Transportation Study (PRATS), the gateway concept was further refined and blended into a distinctive component of a redesigned Round Street. Creation of this Downtown gateway stands alone as project but it is also intended to fit

seamlessly into the reconstruction of Round Street through future capital budgets. The gateway will also create a responsive interface between the London Road neighbourhood and Downtown.

Heart of Our City Revitalization Committee First Fridays Success First Friday has become a signature event as intended by the Heart of our City through its Strategic Marketing Plan. Essentially, First Friday is a monthly festival comprised of events that combines and showcases all of the community events happening in Downtown. The Heart of Our City engaged the St. Clements Group marketing firm to help create a strategic marketing plan for Downtown. The primary

The idea is to create a user-friendly source for identifying requirements for a wide variety of City approval processes.

goals of the “LethbridgeCentric” strategy were: Getting more people to use downtown; giving downtown a competitive edge ; creating an identity or brand; creating a sense of excitement; changing attitudes towards the downtown; managing and organizing existing events; identifying things which the downtown does better than anyone else; emphasizing culture (performing arts, community arts and sports).

Participation averages 70 entities which vary from month to month. Businesses reported higher than usual sales and customers. The program will improve when more businesses stay open later than their usual time. The goal is to have participating businesses stay open until 7:00 p.m. every First Friday. First Friday is leveraging approximately 88 cents for every dollar spent by the Heart of Our City

Advocacy & Removing Barriers The HOC‟s Design Planning & Regulatory Processes SubCommittee began researching the feasibility of developing a specific bylaw for the Downtown Area covering an array of topics and which could possibly replace multiple bylaws. Such an omnibus bylaw would enhance access to the regulatory side of reviPage 3

talization whereby as much information as possible would be found in one place.

and this number will continue to climb as more stores participate.

“Businesses reported higher than usual sales”

Heart of Our City Annual Report - 2012 Business Improvement Loans: Community Futures Partnership The Heart of Our City Revitalization Committee approved a business improvement incentive program devised by Lethbridge Community Futures. Through the provision of interest free loans, an opportunity has been provided to encourage businesses to improve the appearance of their premises in

the Downtown. The principal for interest free loans, up to $10,000, is provided by Community Futures and is available to businesses located and operating within Downtown. Interest is paid by the Heart of Our City in the form of a grant through the Downtown Redevelopment Fund. Administrative ser-

vices including program promotion and business contact are provided by BRZ. In 2012, there were 13 Community Futures Loans made totalling $124,000 for which the Heart of Our City paid $15,500 to cover the interest charges.

“We are very pleased with the success of this project and hope you are as well.” Darlene Sinclair, General Manager

Getting Connected - Through Free WIFI By the end of 2012, the network was serving just shy of 1,000 unique visitors a month. During 2013, we are looking forward to growing the network with additional wireless access points and focusing on he reliDuring 2012 traffic grew steadily ability. By the midduring the year, with 643 unique dle of 2013, we visitors in the month of July. The exproject that traffic pansion of Free Wi-Fi network and on the network will increased awareness led to more use have increased by by visitors, businesses and shoppers. at least 50%. Also during the year, a monitoring package was begun and is expected to be fully implemented during the first half of 2013. The free Downtown wireless internet was initiated to increase the number of people who visit downtown and to enhance their overall Downtown experience.

“By the middle of 2013, we project that traffic on the network will have increased by at least 50%”.

HOC Partnership with Downtown BRZ The Downtown Business Revitalization Zone (DBRZ) is a vital HOC partner. In order to maintain that relationship yet ensure the individuality of both organizations, a jointcommittee was created. Among the more significant matters dealt with by the joint-committee were: assembling empirical information

that conveys the impact of both private and public sector investment; identifying and providing measurable outcomes of HOC and BRZ programs; and keeping City Council up-to-speed on Downtown issues and opportunities. The committee acknowledges

the continual need to nurture a broader “community understanding” of the special nature of Downtown – “it is everybody‟s neighbourhood”. The joint committee also recognized the importance of thanking City Council for providing resources and ongoing support. Page 4

“The joint committee also recognized the importance of thanking City Council for providing resources and ongoing support”.

Heart of Our City Annual Report - 2012 PRATS-AN AWARD WINNING PROJECT City Council approved the PRATS on May 28, 2012 and the final report is available to the public through the City‟s website.

“The project advances an integrated and multi-disciplinary approach to the challenges involved in mitigating pedestrian and vehicular needs.”

The project consultants, MMM received an Award of Merit in the „Community Development‟ category, at the 2013 CEA Showcase Awards from the Alberta Innovators publication.

The project was made possible with funding from Canadian Badlands and will be used to support Public Realm Improvements funding requests through the CIP.

Judge‟s for the award commented:

CLEAN AND SAFE

Downtown Safer

“If the Downtown experience is not pleasant, people will choose not to come Downtown , thus efforts to revitalize will be stymied”.

Downtown Cleaner Through HOC funding daily cleaning of the Downtown takes place year-round, through the Clean Sweep Program. During 2012 over 7,800 hours was invested in keeping our public realm cleaner and more welcoming.

LRPS calls for service are on a decreasing trend. “Despite a trend of increasing total number of calls for service for LRPS, the calls for service for the Downtown Beat displays a decreasing trend” Calls are down form 4666 in 2008 to 3910 in 2012.

Leaf removal in the fall and targeted snow removal during the winter through the CSP reinforce this year-round initiative. year-round

Through the Rotating Park Security Program and HOC funding, contracted security services were again provided in Galt Gardens.

Through HOC funding, over 2000m² of rotating, remedial sidewalk cleaning was also accomplished. Thorough a private sector contract which included emergency graffiti removal.

CONSTRUCTION While 2012 experience relatively modest growth in development across the City, the Downtown still saw 33 Development Permits issued and 8 Building Permits issued with a construction value of $1,772,600.

2012 YEARLY STATS - DOWNTOWN

35

$2,000,000.00 $1,800,000.00

30

$1,600,000.00

25

$1,400,000.00

$

$1,200,000.00

20 A M O U N T

$1,000,000.00 15

$800,000.00 $600,000.00

10

$400,000.00 5

$200,000.00

0

$0.00 1

2

3

4

5

QUARTERLY AMOUNTS Building Permits

Compliance Letters

Development Permits

Electrical Permts

Gas Permits

Plumbing Permits

Portable Sign Permits

Zoning Letters

Building Construction Values

Heart of Our City Annual Report - 2012 REVELOPMENT FUND SUMMARY

STRATEGIC INVESTMENT AREA

DESIGN, PLANNING & REGULATORY PROCESSES

2012

2012

2013

BUDGET

ACTUAL

BUDGET

27,374

12,374

27,500

2014 BUDGET

-

CHAMPIONING, MARKETING & PROMOTION

70,000

44,969

70,940

47,000

DOWNTOWN LIFE

68,780

70,199

70,000

70,000

ENHANCEMENT WORKS

178,413

53,817

7,500

7,500

FUNCTIONAL WORKS, MAINTENANCE & UPKEEP

347,005

310,709

300,500

275,500

GOVERNANCE & ADMINISTRATION

133,030

125,744

133,030

133,030

6,000

12,756

CONTINGENCY

830,602 630,568 609,470 533,030 TOTAL APPROVED *Prior to 2012, each annual budget was $500,000. Unallocated funds accrued to be allocated on larger future projects, from 2012 onwards, the budget has been established at $465,000 per annum.

HEART OF OUR CITY REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE City Council:

Rajko Dodic Mayor (Ex-officio); Jeff Carlson (Councillor & ViceChair); Jeff Coffman (Councillor – Alternate)

Downtown Lethbridge Business Revitalization Zone (DBRZ):

Ken Nakagama

Citizens-at-Large:

Mark Bellamy; Bev Lanz (Chair); Kate Connolly; Kim Dohms

Economic Development Lethbridge:

Renae Barlow

Allied Arts Council:

Suzanne Lint

Lethbridge Chamber of Commerce:

Grace Duff

Urban Development Institute:

Ken Harvie

Lethbridge Historical Society:

Belinda Crowsen

3/27/2013

Submission to City Council April 2, 2013

HOC is effective because of it’s: • balanced approach; • relationships with strategic partners; • ability to leverage funding; • judicious investment of seed funding; • commitment to planning; and • attention to safety and cleanliness

1

3/27/2013

 Multi-year budgeting - sourced from DRF  Currently in year 2 of 3

 Prior to 2012: $500,000 per annum  Since 2012: $465,000 per annum  Since 2010 – funds allocated according to Strategic Investment Areas

2

3/27/2013

 Unspent funds may accrue for future/larger projects  Any over-budget expenses absorbed in subsequent year/budget  New project funding impacted by committed/ongoing projects  Planned surplus reduction underway

• 2012 Start

$830,602 • 2012 Actual

$630,568 • 2013 Budget

$609,470 • 2014 Balanced Budget + contingency

$533,030

3

3/27/2013

25,000 attend 10 sponsored festivals & events

$124K invested through CF & HOC Business Improvement Loan Program

We are very pleased with  the success of this project  and hope you are as well.” Darlene Sinclair,  General Manager  

“

4

3/27/2013

 First Fridays ◦ $26K leveraged advertizing ◦ Average of 70 businesses/month participating ◦ Significant social media response

Safe ◦ LRPS calls for service decreasing ◦ Galt Gardens ongoing security

Clean ◦ 7800 hours through CSP ◦ 2000m² remedial sidewalk cleaning

5

3/27/2013

WIFI Expansion 8700 parking

meters plugged @ Christmas

• 140 Heritage Signs • 5 Historic Building Plaques with LHS

6

3/27/2013

• PRATS Adopted by Council • Receives Community Development Award of Merit from Consulting Engineers of Alberta

Building on Lessons Learned 1. Implementing the HOCMP is everyone’s responsibility 2. The first projects are the hardest – resist doing what is easy 3. One high quality, high density project can generate new momentum 4. Leverage what exists – heritage, culture, the River Valley & create value 5. Private investment is needed

7

3/27/2013

Building on Lessons Learned 6. Success will depend on a variety of initiatives unfolding simultaneously 7. Collaboration is required across sectors 8. Achieving success is a long-term commitment 9. Downtown must have cheerleaders 10.Keep the vision present & monitor success on a yearly basis

8

Community Revitalization Zone (Public Realm)   Provincially sponsored tax incentive program   Legislation  regarding  the  Community  Revitalization  Levy  was  added  to  the  Municipal  Government Act in 2005 (Section 381.1 – 381.5)   Requires a Community Revitalization Plan to be developed for a defined area.  It is then  necessary to pass a provincial regulation as well as an annual community revitalization  levy bylaw.  If this happens, the province will forgo including the incremental assessed  values in the equalized assessments or requisitions (such as Alberta School Foundation  Fund).   Property tax revenues including school levies generated from assessment increases are  segregated for twenty years to finance identified infrastructure costs  o For example, the City of Calgary implemented a Community Revitalization Levy  (CRL)  in  2008,  which  allows  them  to  segregate  a  portion  of  the  property  tax  revenue generated from a specific district for a period of 20 years.  The City then  directly invests these revenues in infrastructure improvements within this area.   The  levy  is  based  on  the  increase  in  the  assessment  value  from  a  base  year  multiplied by the property tax.  The taxes collected from all properties remains  the same; however, a portion is  diverted to the levy.  If there is an increase in  assessment, there will be an increase assigned to the levy fund.   In place in Calgary, Edmonton, and Red Deer   If this program had been in place for the five year period of 2004‐2009, the City would  have had $2,067,288 in reserves from the School Foundation Levy.  This money, instead  of  being  forwarded  to  the  Province,  could  have  been  used  to  target  specific  infrastructure needs in the Downtown Area.   This program works where the market value of property continues to increase or there  is a significant new growth.   

(no amdt) ALBERTA REGULATION 232/2006 Municipal Government Act CITY OF CALGARY RIVERS DISTRICT COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION LEVY REGULATION

Table of Contents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Definitions Scope of regulation Establishment of community revitalization levy area Community revitalization plan Community revitalization levy bylaw Borrowing bylaw Preparation of assessments Community revitalization assessment roll Community revitalization levy roll Community revitalization levy rate bylaw Calculating the amount of the levy Separate fund required Application of Parts 9 to 12 of Act Termination of a community revitalization levy bylaw Expiry Schedule

Definitions

1 In this Regulation, (a) “Act” means the Municipal Government Act; (b) “assessment baseline” means the property assessment of each property within the Rivers District as of December 31 of the year in which the community revitalization levy bylaw is approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council; (c) “community revitalization levy bylaw” means a bylaw passed by the council to impose a levy in respect of the incremental assessed value of property in the Rivers District;

Section 2

CITY OF CALGARY RIVERS DISTRICT COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION LEVY REGULATION

AR 232/2006

(d) “community revitalization levy rate” means the rate imposed under a community revitalization levy rate bylaw for the applicable assessment class or sub-class of property; (e) “council” means the council of the City of Calgary; (f) “incremental assessed value” has the meaning given to it in section 381.1(a) of the Act; (g) “property” has the meaning given to it in section 284(1)(r) of the Act; (h) “Rivers District” means the City of Calgary Rivers District community revitalization levy area established pursuant to section 3. Scope of regulation

2(1) This Regulation applies only to property located in the Rivers District. (2) Sections 6 to 14 apply only if (a) the council passes a community revitalization levy bylaw in respect of the Rivers District, and (b) the Lieutenant Governor in Council approves the community revitalization levy bylaw. Establishment of community revitalization levy area

3 This Regulation establishes a community revitalization levy area in the City of Calgary, known as the Rivers District, on the lands described in the Schedule. Community revitalization plan

4(1) Before passing a community revitalization levy bylaw in respect of the Rivers District, the council must (a) prepare a community revitalization plan for the Rivers District, (b) hold one or more public hearings on the proposed community revitalization plan in accordance with section 606 of the Act, and (c) make and keep a record of any public hearings and make the results of the public hearings available to the public.

2

Section 4

CITY OF CALGARY RIVERS DISTRICT COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION LEVY REGULATION

AR 232/2006

(2) A community revitalization plan must address (a) the objectives, risks and benefits associated with the plan, (b) the need for the plan, including substantiation that redevelopment will not progress significantly in its absence, (c) the costs associated with the plan, including the amount and timing of projected (i) redevelopment capital costs, (ii) borrowing costs, and (iii) other costs, (d) the revenues associated with the plan, including the amount and timing of projected (i) community revitalization levies in respect of the incremental assessed value of property in the Rivers District, (ii) general municipal revenues, and (iii) other revenue sources, (e) the amount, timing and source of projected borrowings associated with the plan, and the amount and timing of the repayments, (f) a low, medium and high projection of estimated changes in the incremental assessed value of property in the Rivers District and the consequent impact on projected revenues from community revitalization levies, (g) how the municipality will fund any shortfall in the event that actual revenues associated with the plan are not sufficient to provide for the actual costs and repayment of borrowings associated with the plan, (h) the proposed land uses for the Rivers District, (i) the proposed phasing of development in the Rivers District, (j) the impact, if any, that the redevelopment of the Rivers District will have on the residents of that area, (k) which features, facilities and characteristics of the municipality will be adversely affected by the 3

Section 5

CITY OF CALGARY RIVERS DISTRICT COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION LEVY REGULATION

AR 232/2006

redevelopment of the Rivers District and what is proposed to mitigate those effects, (l) which historically significant buildings in the Rivers District will be conserved and maintained and how they will be conserved and maintained, and (m) the expected role of private sector developers in the redevelopment of the Rivers District. (3) A community revitalization plan must be consistent with the land use policies established by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under section 622 of the Act. Community revitalization levy bylaw

5(1) A community revitalization levy bylaw must include all of the information required to be included in the community revitalization plan. (2) A community revitalization levy bylaw may be amended by the council, but the amendment has no effect unless it is approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Borrowing bylaw

6 Despite sections 256 to 263 of the Act, a borrowing bylaw for the purpose of implementing the community revitalization plan, in whole or in part, must be advertised in accordance with section 606 of the Act. Preparation of assessments

7 Assessments of property in the Rivers District must be prepared in the same manner as similar properties in the municipality in accordance with Part 9 of the Act, as modified by this Regulation. Community revitalization assessment roll

8(1) The municipality must prepare annually, not later than February 28, a community revitalization assessment roll. (2) A community revitalization assessment roll may be a continuation of the assessment roll prepared under Part 9 of the Act or may be separate from that roll. Community revitalization levy roll

9(1) A community revitalization levy roll may be a continuation of the tax roll prepared under Part 10 of the Act or may be separate from that roll. 4

Section 10

CITY OF CALGARY RIVERS DISTRICT COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION LEVY REGULATION

AR 232/2006

(2) A community revitalization levy roll must show the same information that is required to be shown on the tax roll in accordance with section 329 of the Act. Community revitalization levy rate bylaw

10(1) The council must pass a community revitalization levy rate bylaw annually. (2) A community revitalization levy rate bylaw must (a) set and show separately all of the community revitalization levy rates that must be imposed to raise the revenue required to meet the levy increment financing program and council’s approved budget, and (b) not be imposed in respect of property that (i) is exempt under section 351, 361 or 362 of the Act, or (ii) is exempt under section 363 or 364 of the Act, unless the bylaw passed under section 363 makes the property taxable. (3) A community revitalization levy rate must be equal to or greater than the tax rates established annually for the corresponding property tax bylaw for each assessment class or sub-class of property referred to in section 297 of the Act. Calculating the amount of the levy

11(1) The amount of the levy to be imposed in respect of property located in the Rivers District is to be calculated by multiplying the incremental assessed value for the property by the community revitalization levy rate to be imposed on that property. (2) If a tax exempt property in the Rivers District becomes taxable, the levy for that property is to be calculated in accordance with the following formula: Levy = (A+B) x C where A is the assessment baseline for the property; B is the incremental assessed value for the property; C is the community revitalization levy rate to be imposed on that property. 5

Section 12

CITY OF CALGARY RIVERS DISTRICT COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION LEVY REGULATION

AR 232/2006

(3) The levy under subsection (2) is to be applied beginning in the year that the property becomes taxable. (4) If a tax exempt property in the Rivers District becomes taxable, the assessment baseline for that property shall be excluded from the equalized assessment beginning in the year that the property becomes taxable. (5) If a taxable property in the Rivers District becomes tax exempt, no levy is to be applied to that property beginning in the year that the property becomes exempt. Separate fund required

12 A community revitalization levy collected from the Rivers District, and any interest earned from that investment of the levy, must (a) be accounted for separately from other levies collected, and (b) be used only for the purposes specified for the Rivers District. Application of Parts 9 to 12 of Act

13 Except as modified by this Regulation, Parts 9 to 12 of the Act relating to the assessment and taxation of property apply with the necessary modifications to a community revitalization levy and for that purpose a reference in those Parts to (a) a tax imposed under Part 10, Division 2 is deemed to be a reference to a community revitalization levy; (b) a property tax bylaw is deemed to be a reference to a community revitalization levy bylaw; (c) an assessment roll is deemed to be a reference to a community revitalization assessment roll; (d) a tax roll is deemed to be a reference to a community revitalization levy roll. Termination of a community revitalization levy bylaw

14 The community revitalization levy bylaw is terminated on the earliest of the following: (a) at the end of a period of 20 years from the year in which the community revitalization levy bylaw is approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council; 6

CITY OF CALGARY RIVERS DISTRICT COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION LEVY REGULATION

Section 15

AR 232/2006

(b) the date that all borrowings for the Rivers District are repaid or recovered from the revenues associated with the community revitalization plan; (c) an earlier date specified by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Expiry

15 For the purpose of ensuring that this Regulation is reviewed for ongoing relevancy and necessity, with the option that it may be repassed in its present or an amended form following a review, this Regulation expires on November 30, 2016. Schedule All lands in the City of Calgary contained in the area shown on the following map and which may be described as follows: Bounded on the north by the right bank of the Bow River, on the east and south by the left bank of the Elbow River and on the west described as follows: commencing at a point where the left bank of the Elbow River intersects with the west side of 1st Street S.E., north along the west side of 1st Street S.E. to where it intersects with 7th Avenue S.E., then westward along the south side of 7th Avenue S.E. to Centre Street, northward along the west side of Centre Street to 5th Avenue S.E., eastward along the north side of 5th Avenue to the intersection with 1st Street S.E., then northward along the west side of 1st Street S.E. to a point where, if extended northward, 1st Street S.E. would intersect with the right bank of the Bow River.

7

Schedule

CITY OF CALGARY RIVERS DISTRICT COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION LEVY REGULATION

8

AR 232/2006

Design, Planning & Regulatory Committee Report    DARP   Work is continuing on DARP and it will be moving forward to City Council shortly   DPR Committee members will review the proposed DARP one last time before it is submitted to  Council    PARKING   The  Lethbridge  College  survey  results  are  still  being  discussed  at  the  Chamber  level.  After  our  subcommittee has a chance to review them, we’ll bring the results forward to HOC.   Related  to  the  petition  and  the  Chamber  survey  results,  while  the  process  is  still  in  the  information gathering stage and not compiled, preliminary review suggests that in general:  o Most agree that parking is still a concern in the downtown  o Many believe that in general they are already paying too much to be downtown  o Most agree that employee parking is one of the largest areas of concern   Related to a parking authority, we are still moving forward with a historic review of the parking  authority  that  existed  in  Lethbridge  (1960s/70s)  and  a  best  practices  review  of  other  municipalities.     RED TAPE CUTTER/DOWNTOWN GUIDE   In general, there are four audiences that are looking for information related to the downtown:  o General Public  o People planning events or who are looking to hold activities  o Building/business owners  o Developers   We don’t believe one guide will work. We are now looking to those audiences and working to  find out their FAQs. Plan to have drafts developed within the next few months.    PARK CLASSIFICATION/GALT GARDENS   In the beginning stages of this and trying to determine what the scope of the study will be.   

George Kuhl, R.P.P., M.C.I.P. Downtown Revitalization Manager Department of Planning & Development City of Lethbridge th 910 – 4 Avenue South, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada,T1J 0P6 Phone:(403) 320-3926 Cell: (403) 330-4235 Fax:(403) 327-6571

Meeting Summary Meeting:

Downtown Safety & Security Issues

Date:

March 18, 2012

Attendees:

Ken Nakagama, Grace Duff; Diane Randell; Shaun Millband; Braylon Hyggen; Josh Bucsis; George Kuhl

Issues Update 

The proximity of the two liquor stores near the south end of 5th St. continue to be a significant source of issues related to nuisance behaviour in public.



Some nearby merchants still frustrated by situation



Education is a big part of the management of the problem; merchants and the public need to be coached on what to do and what not to do when they encounter bad behaviour.



The Mobile Urban Street Team (MUST) program should revise operating hours so that coverage is available when needed. For example, issues are more prevalent in the afternoon and evening than in the morning.



MUST improvements will lead to better police efficiency. When the police have to deal with issues that could be dealt with by MUST, Downtown Policing Unit (DPU) officers are tied-up for significant periods of time and not able to police as effectively.



The HomeBASE (centralized Intake, Assessment, Triage and Referral) program is operational. This includes a mobile Outreach program that is just commencing operations.



Diane will convene a sub-group of stakeholders to follow-up on the coordination of MUST and the role of the HomeBASE Outreach services.



The need for public loos has not abated.



Committee, stakeholders, want to pro-active in deriving management strategies

Moving Forward 

Diane R. indicated that there were some changes to the MUST Program in the works. She will follow-up on issues/ideas relating to MUST from this meeting and convene an information session regarding access and utilization.



Police will continue to monitor and report on Downtown “hot-spots”



The LRPS are available to conduct CPTED evaluations upon request from merchants



Suggestions have been made to address communications issues including: o

creating and distributing a handy reference list for merchants which would indicate a few things that could be done to deal with nuisance situations in or near their places of business as well as some contact numbers. This will include the Getting Connected publication

o

the HOC will conduct a short survey (5 to 7 questions) of all Downtown (perhaps through Survey Monkey) businesses and services to help identify safety/security perceptions of the Downtown to obtain an understanding of the current situation

o

ideas for questions include: 

what are police issues?



what can people do to help?



what is working and what isn’t?

o

the BRZ and Chamber of Commerce will be asked to assist – primarily to encourage their memberships to respond to the survey (contact lists through the City are difficult to obtain because of FOIP issues)

o

target time period is mid- April (Diane & George will craft questions with input/feedback from committee members)

o

People will want to know how their issues are being addressed therefore committee needs to be prepared to respond to the issues that come forward through the survey thus a report summarizing the findings and perhaps a followup meeting should be held. Target for a forum is late April or early May.



The notion of a “business watch” program similar to neighbourhood watch be was discussed and might be worth trying.



For quicker responses from LRPS, there may be some technological solutions such as on-line reporting that might be workable – this could be a “two-way” notification – “headsup” kind of thing

Folder Number

BP013869

Civic Address

150 ‐ 4 ST S

Subject to construct a commercial, industrial or  multi family building

Application  Date Total Value

21‐Mar‐13

2,400,000.00

Lethbridge Business Improvement Loan Interest Quarterly Report Contract Term November 17, 2011 to December 31, 2014 Date Disbursed Loan Number Loan Amount Interest Grant Balance November 17, 2011 to December 31, 2011 Q3 Opening Balance $25,000.00 December 21, 2011 BIL-LTBR001 $10,000.00 $1,206.33 $23,793.67 Boarder Line December 21, 2011 BIL-LTBR002 $5,000.00 $604.32 $23,189.35 The Wellness Place Total Q3 $1,810.65 January 1, 2012 - March 31, 2012 Q4 Balance Forward $23,189.35 January 6, 2012 BIL-LTBR03 $10,000.00 $1,238.72 $21,950.63 Nakagama's February 28, 2012 BIL-LTBR04 $10,000.00 $1,244.28 $20,706.35 Chinook Chiropractic March 26, 2012 BIL-LTBR05 $10,000.00 $1,223.80 $19,482.55 Power Forward Total Q4 $3,706.80 April 1, 2012 - June 30, 2012 Q1 April 12, 2012 BIL-LTBR06 $10,000.00 $1,234.62 $18,247.93 Pollux May 16, 2012 BIL-LTBR07 $10,000.00 $1,281.91 $16,966.02 Mocha Cabana May 25, 2012 BIL-LTBR08 $9,700.00 $1,199.32 $15,766.70 Anna Banana June 8, 2012 BIL-LTBR09 $10,000.00 $1,251.78 $14,514.92 Money/fax Total Q1 $4,967.63 July 1 - September 30, 2012 Q2 August 24, 2012 BIL-LTBR10 $10,000.00 $1,267.42 $13,247.50 Flair Travel August 31, 2012 BIL-LTBR11 $10,000.00 $1,232.03 $12,015.47 Streatside Eatery September 25, 2012 BIL-LTBR12 $10,000.00 $1,258.97 $10,756.50 The White Barn & Co. Total Q2 $3,758.42

December 21, 2012 Total Q3

January 28, 2013 March 8, 2013 March 21, 2013 March 21, 2013 March 21, 2013

BIL-LTBR13

BIL-LTBR14 BIL-LTBR15 BIL-LTBR16 BIL-LTBR17 BIL-LTBR18 Total Q4

October 1 - December 31, 2012 Q3 $10,000.00 $1,248.25 $9,508.25 The Drunken Sailor $1,248.25 January 1 - March 31, 2013 Q4 $10,000.00 $763.30 $8,744.95 $10,000.00 $774.00 $7,970.95 $10,000.00 $762.33 $7,208.62 $10,000.00 $752.14 $6,456.48 $10,000.00 $796.53 $5,659.95 $3,848.30

Parsa Lethbridge Ltd. The Pita Pit Patricia Luu AN Nam Holdings Ltd. Tania Wiebe o/a Bridge To Fitness

! l

JUDGES' COMMENTS:

-I-

"This project epitomizes the benefits to be accrued when the consultants coLLaborate and coLLectiveLy seekinnovative solutions. Both aesthetica[Ly

BUILDING ENGINEERING

satisfying as wet[as technically deve[oped, this

r T/OWNER: Edmonton iN Stantec Consu [tin g RegionatAirports Authority

project advances airport design in myriad ways, to the benefit ofthe general public."

TION: EdmontonInternationatAirport 1, Airport Road CONSULTANTS: Stantec ConsuLting

Lÿam

TRACTORS: PCL Construction Managementlnc.; !me Group.; Arpi's Industries Ltd.; Territorial ELectric Ltd. ec Architecture and Stantec Consu Lting's integrated team hitectura[, structuraL, mechanicaLand eLectricaLspedatists rated an innovative design-assist approach for the nton Internationa[Airport terminal expansion. Stantec borated with major contractors to mitigate cost escalation, Bge the project schedule and capitalized on economies [e, through the use ofsophisticated BIM software. This ect yielded maximum system fLexibi[ityto accommodate ng airport requirements, and is targeting LEED®

ification byinduding sustainable innovations such as a first i[iving wa[[in an airportterminaL, rain water co[[ection and ,ÿ, solar hot water, and displacementventilation in a large rint airport expansion.

Public Realm and Transportation Study FIRM: MMM Group Limited CLIENT/OWNER: City of Lethbridge LOCATION: Lethbridge, AB Leading the City of Lethbridge's PubLic Rea[m and Transportation Study (PRATS), M MM provided in novative strategies to transform the dty's downtown into a vibrant area that fosters sustainabi[ity, soda[ and cultural diversity, and economic opportunity. A fresh [ook at pub[ic space, this study alters the focus from vehicles space to people space, and delivers strategies forincreasing the use ofthe public realm while sti[[ meeting the community's transportation needs. MMM's recommendations regarding en handng people-oriented spaces, beautifying public space, providing additional green space, and promoting development around transit and alternative transportation, contributes towards developing an attractive city centre for future generations.

JUDGES" COMMENTS: ##

•

,

.

, .

The pro] ectadvances an ]nteg rated and mterd]so p [ina ry

COMMUNITY VELOPMENT 1, /, /

j

approachtothechatLengesinvo[vedin mitigating pedestrian and ÿI vehicular needs. This projectalso had the comp[icating factorof working with a rura[communitytowards urban solutions." I//////////////////////////////////

/ÿ/

"Great examples of consulting firms working on comp[ex

projectsforthe benefit ofcommunities. MMM Group's project synthesized a muLti-modaL, muLti-discipline approach to transforming a city centre. Good work!"

//

/

aÿbeÿ°ÿa innovators §3 I