It's a done deal.
Barring any dramatic, unforeseen events - like a massive legal battle or the province suddenly, inexplicably, reversing course and deciding they don't want a new campus after all - the last legislative and bureaucratic hurdles have been cleared for the new University College of the North (UCN) campus, which is slated to begin construction in 2011, and will contain student and family housing.
"It is a zoning issue, but it is so much more than that to our community," said Coun. Charlene Lafreniere, the first councillor to speak to the issue at city council's Jan. 24 meeting, during which the rezoning bylaw passed its third and final reading.
Lafreniere also noted that she had thought the issue was over with as early as 2007, when the city transferred the land - in the rec centre area, encompassing the baseball diamonds among other facilities - to the province. "Signing the development agreement in October, three years after we transferred the land, there was a big celebration and good feelings and good energy flowing, and knowing we had an election ahead of us, I still wondered what the future was going to be," she continued, adding that the project had been expected to be completed before the October election, but "some community members raised an issue questioning whether we had it zoned correctly. We looked in the zoning use and we asked lawyers, and they said yeah, you can have a university campus on parks and recreation zoning, so away we went but because this group challenged us, and they got a lawyer to challenge us, our lawyer recommended going to a public and institutional zoning for the sake of clarity."
"Clarity meant two public hearings," she added. "It meant four years later - but in saying that, every moment's been worth it." Lafreniere also said that the city had received over 200 letters in support of the project.
Lafreniere was one of five councillors to vote in favour of the bylaw - along with Mayor Tim Johnston, Coun. Penny Byer, Coun. Dennis Fenske, and Coun. Erin Stewart. Coun. Judy Kolada, Coun. Luke Robinson, and Coun. Stella Locker voted against the bylaw, while Coun. Brad Evenson declared a conflict of interest and left the room - in other words, everybody took the same action they have taken more or less consistently in the last few months, although several councillors did say that they had given the issue a great deal of thought.
Kolada was up next, and she questioned what the rezoning and agreement would mean for the city's finances. "Those of us who have voted against the rezoning, we all know the importance of education and UCN to Thompson and the region, and we strongly support the UCN," she stressed. "However, by not putting housing on a lot zoned for housing, we are incurring costs that we can ill afford. If we put housing with basements in the proposed area, we will required to upgrade with a new lift station." Kolada noted that the cost of a new lift station would be $1.2 million, and said that property taxes could go up by as much as eight per cent to afford the lift station.
"With the mayor and council signing the agreement with the province of Manitoba for the campus, childcare, and single and family housing, one of the things that bothered me is that the agreement had no guarantees for the City of Thompson as there were no consequences or conditions for the province to hold building a campus," said Byer. "The only conclusion I could draw is that if the bylaw is not passed, there would be no campus. With all due respect to our past council, that was a very frustrating aspect of the agreement for me."
Despite that frustration, Byer voted in favour of the rezoning. At the Jan. 17 meeting of the Thompson District Planning Board, Byer expressed a desire to meet with the province to find out if other options for housing were still being considered, meetings which happened in the few days following. "Those discussions confirmed that we were past the point of considering housing models," reported Byer.
"It's a very emotional topic for our community, and therefore it's a very challenging time for this council," said Stewart. "There are emotions that are flying high, and there are perspectives that people hold to. They dig in their heels because they don't want to look like they turned, or like their reasons beforehand weren't just and sound. The challenge facing each member of council is evident. It's a very important issue, and we want to speak to it, and we want to make sure that the community knows our position."
"We have one the one hand an opportunity for growth, and for educational attainment for the residents of Thompson and the North," she continued. "But there are unknowns associated. There are questions that we don't have answers to right now. There are questions that we have answers to but that information hasn't filtered down to everybody."
Robinson brought up what the housing component might look like once the campus expands further. "You're looking at a hundred units with four children each, that's a lot of people concentrated in one area, which will be persecuted and targeted for having taken away something from someone else," he said. "I don't want that. I want them to be able to feel that, at the end of their education, this could be home for them, this could be a future for their children. Let's not trade off that style of living because we want to bring something else in."
"The students would be happier if they were in an area where the rest of the children were already settled, and the school was not affected in terms of the Polaris buildings being converted to family homes in Eastwood," said Locker. "The school is there, the playgrounds are there, there are streets for children to ride their bikes. Not only that, but when they move here, they don't have to leave their family housing just because the parent is finished their class or has been kicked out of their class. I think that would be harder on them than anything else." Locker also questioned where children in the proposed housing would go to school, whether they would have to cross busy streets to attend Deerwood or Westwood, or whether they would have to be bused.
Fenske, the last to speak other than Johnston, noted that with Vale's announcement that they plan to close the smelter and refinery by the end of 2015, the campus is even more important to Thompson's future. "I said at the outset I'm in favour of this, I support it 100 per cent," he said. "I'm still there."
"I truly believe it is a defining moment for Northern Manitoba," began Johnston. "I see a transition taking place, and I am very proud to say that I truly believe it is the right decision." Johnston also agreed with comments first made by Fenske that "you should give back to the community more than you took from it," noting that this might not always make one the most popular person in the room, and pledged to ensure that the development agreement - including clauses for potentially compensating various groups in the future - would be enforced properly even after he leaves office.
