By Mark Squibb/March 31, 2022
When the City of Mount Pearl launched the Find Your Centre city centre renewal plan last June, the goal was to rebrand the city’s industrial and business core. But now, in the face of rising costs, one Mount Pearl councillor says she cannot support tendering the design for new signs.
At last week’s public meeting, Deputy Mayor Nicole Kieley brought forward a recommendation from the corporate services committee to award the City Centre Gateway Signage Design contract to Mills & Wright for $13,345 plus HST.
Kieley explained the signs, or ‘gateway markers,’ will be placed at key places along the boundary of the city centre. The city centre, as defined by the plan, incorporates Ruth Avenue, Commonwealth Avenue, Centennial Square and Bannister Street, Park Avenue, and Topsail Road.
“These signs will become the first impression of a realization of our City Centre Plan, and that builds on our already strong community brand,” said Kieley. “This step is just the beginning of our design phrase, and we’re excited to begin the design phrase and perhaps even include our residents in the final selection of the design. So, as you can imagine, this is quite an exciting item.”
Councilor Isabelle Fry, however, did not find the item very exciting.
“Personally, I don’t see the need for these signs,” said Fry. “To spend $13,345 to design signs, and then to have the cost of (manufacturing) the sign on top of that seems like an awful lot of money in a year where we’re trying to be fiscally (responsible). We did so much penny pinching and cuts to try and balance our budget and to spend tens of thousands on signs right now, I just don’t see it, I don’t agree with it. I understand the concept, I just don’t think this is a good spend at this time.”
Mayor Dave Aker reminded council the purpose of the signs has more to do with City branding than neighbourhood identification.
Director of Corporate Services Cassie Pittman, when asked, agreed with Aker’s assessment, and added the signs were a core recommendation of the plan.
“Mount Pearl has never really historically defined the city centre,” Pitman noted. “So having those gateways – and what they’ll look like I’m not sure, they could be improved lighting, they could be shrubbery or landscaping – that’s all part of the design consultation process. But at the end of the day, really what we’ve seen in areas similar to ours is, in municipalities across the country and internationally, that designated areas attracts additional visitors, and can attract private businesses and investments. It can make people want to be a part of the project. And I think ultimately, it does come down to branding and making sure our city is demonstrating our committee to ‘Find Your Centre.’”
Pittman added the City centre is a geographical region that is committed to redevelopment, and that highlighting the boundaries gives it an identity, and thus is a critical component of the plan.
To that point, Aker asked about the plan for involving the public in the project.
“Will there be some public engagement, so folks who feel like councillor Fry can come out, because maybe that’s the way our residents will feel, that they don’t want that special identification for a special part of the city,” said Aker.
Pittman said a preliminary consultation was held prior to the plan being published, and that gateway signage was a part of that discussion, and furthermore that, when completed, three gateways designs will be presented to the public for comment.
“The reality is, we really want citizens to be engaged in this whole process for ‘Find Your Centre’ because it is a plan that’s going to help reinvigorate the City centre of Mount Pearl, which I think is long overdue,” said Pittman.
Councilor Bill Antle said he understood Fry’s concerns, adding now may be the time to take another look at the report and see how much money council is truly ready to commit to the project.
“Because if we’re going to talk about the signage, there’s more money coming up, and we have to take a look at that and say, ‘Is this what we really, truly want?’” said Antle. “Maybe we have to look at the whole concept and see how much money we truly want to spend. Because we can’t look at $13,000 here and $10,000 there. Maybe we need to take a deeper dive. Because this is only looking at the design. The signs themselves are going to cost $25,000 to $50,000. And I’m just taking a guesstimate.”
Aker noted council does not have a cost for the signs yet, though he agreed it would be more than the $13,000 design fee.
Councillor Chelsea Lane echoed Fry’s opinion.
“I think she brought up some fair points,” said Lane. “We’re starting at $13,000, and like councillor Antle said, this could cost much more. Perhaps we should go back and take another look at the plan, because maybe that money could be spent elsewhere and have a greater purpose than signage. I do respect what the committee is recommending, but I think I do see councillor Fry’s side and perspective on this, and I think I do agree that perhaps we should take another look because perhaps we could use that money elsewhere.”
Councillor Mark Rice said he also understood the concerns, but confirmed his support for redeveloping the city centre.
“I think everyone at this table agrees that the City Centre is going to be really crucial to Mount Pearl in the next 10 years,” said Rice. “Are we serious about developing our City Centre, or are we going to pick it apart once we start doing it? That package, and I would like to go back and revisit it, but I do support the City Centre area being developed. Because in our main area, off Commonwealth and in our City Hall area and Centennial Square, we do need some work in these areas. Because if you look at the backs of some of these buildings, or even the front of some of these buildings in our City Centre, we do need some work.”
Councillor Jim Locke pointed out that council had already agreed during budget talks to financially commit to the project.
“We had great support, we had great input, we did all these focus group sessions, council supported the initiative to move forward, and I’m not one for revisiting the ‘Find Your Centre,’” Locke said. “This is a commitment for this year. And then in next year’s budget, we can look at where we want to move forward. But I don’t want to stall this, personally. I think this is a small investment here. We’re not committing to any expensive sings. Councilor Antle threw some numbers out there, but we don’t know that yet, that’s the whole purpose of doing this.”
Locke added that according to resident feedback, people are onboard with the idea of identifying the City Centre.
Locke said he is for protecting investments and using money wisely, but that $13,000 is a small portion of a $52 million budget, and he’s not ready to pull the plug on the project.
“Once we come out of COVID, there’s going to be a lot of people anxious to get development going, and I want to make sure that we’re in a ready position to accept any sort of opportunities businesswise, so I will be voting in favour of this expenditure.”
Aker then steered the conversation back to Fry for her final thoughts.
“I am fully in support of ‘Find Your Centre,’” said Fry. “I am fully in support of the development, and the intensification, and all the plans that are in place. My only concern is the signage.”
Fry said the money could be better put toward other aspects of the plan, such as to help local community groups like the Mount Pearl Soccer Association or Admiralty House.
“I just feel that this money can be better used this year,” said Fry. “I’m not saying not to do a sign. But is now the right time?”
Councillor Antle then clarified that he actually supported the motion, but that maybe in the next year council will have to take another look at what it is willing to commit to the project.
Deputy Mayor Kieley reminded council that as the budget has already been balanced, tendering the contract would not be ‘taking away’ from something else.
“This is not above and beyond what’s already budgeted for this year,” said Kieley.
After the lengthy discussion, the matter was put to a vote with councilors Fry and Lane both voting against the motion.