Tank 77 replica losing support from council

Poll

Is Bill 20 a “power grab” by the UCP that with undermine the authority of Alberta municipalities?

• YES
• NO

View Results

 Loading ...

Recent News →

• Alberta Innovates helping businesses succeed
• VAB wins PBA tournament 
• Slo Pitch gets up to speed
• Southern Alberta Chaos open season with big win
• Get involved in Alberta’s health advisory councils

Recent Blog Posts →

• From the Archives of Western Newspapers
• From the Archives of Western Newspapers
• From the Archives of Western Newspapers
• From the Archives of Western Newspapers
• From the Archives of Western Newspapers

By Cal Braid
Taber Times
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

At a March 11 regular meeting of council, members continued to steer the administration away from the concept of building a replica of Tank 77, the first structure erected in Taber. The tank has historical significance for the town, dating back to 1903, when pioneers erected it on the Canadian Pacific Railway line, naming it Tank 77.

In February, Town council paused the development of a replica tank even though grant money was available from Prairie Economic Development Canada for a downtown revitalization project. Previously, the administration received approval from council to construct a park at the corner of 47 Ave and 51 St. When council first gave the administration the go-ahead on the project, it was split into two phases: first completing the park, and second, the construction of a replica Tank 77. At present, the park is substantially complete.

At the same time, council objected to building a full-sized replica for several reasons. First off, construction of a Tank 77 replica in the original concept plan would require the relocation of the existing Fortis overhead power lines. The relocation price received from Fortis created budget issue. Chris Eagan, director of planning, engineering and operations said that Fortis quoted the Town $250,000 to move the overhead power lines to the underground. A full-size replica would require a change in the power lines but a quarter-size replica would not, so that became a consideration.

At that time, Coun. Brewin said he didn’t agree with “blowing all of our money on a tank that we don’t really intend to use. It’s just to look at.” The idea of spending $6000 for development and inception plans for the structure didn’t seem to go over with Brewin either, who said that a plaque at the base of it would suffice and the money could be used in the park instead. Mayor Prokop said that his understanding was that if the replica was less than 50 feet high, the power relocation would not be necessary. He also asked for clarification about the time constraints upon the funding availability, and whether an extension was available. Brewin pointed out that at 50 feet high, the stability and wind resistance would be factors as well. The general consensus was that a smaller structure would be most feasible. Ultimately, council asked for more time and information from the administration.

When the administration brought the idea back to the March 11 meeting, it had re-imagined the project as a small tank-shaped structure that was a mini-play ground with stairs, a platform, a slide and climbing apparatus. Eagan called it an “homage to Tank 77.” The proposed price tag was $75,000 and would not be covered by the downtown revitalization grant, which expired at the end of March.

Coun. McLean was the first to comment on the new idea. “My two cents are I don’t think it’s a great location for the play structure – with the highway and a ton of traffic, a four-way stop right there, and also the railroad itself. I know there is a fence, but I do have young kids and I just don’t think that’s the most ideal location for a playground. And for the price tag, I would also rather put that somewhere else.”

Coun. Firth politely declined the proposal, saying, “While I thank the administration for putting this together, I think our goal was to commemorate the location of Tank 77. I’m not sure that this play structure necessarily does that or provides any information to visitors. It just is a very tiny playground with a very big price tag, and not in a necessarily ideal location. I would be more in favour of using a smaller portion of money with some information, perhaps pictures of the original tank.”

Coun. Brewin agreed with them both. “I think that we could spend the $75,000 elsewhere. Looking at past pictures in the Taber Times of the old water tank, it was kind of an ugly building, so I’m really kind of glad we’re not putting it up there.” He said he would prefer good signage, a plaque, or an arch over the entrance of the park to commemorate the history of the site. “Really, that’s a lot of money to spend on something like this. I could not vote in favour of this.”

The mayor put forward a motion directing administration to proceed with the programming and project inception planning and work for Tank 77 replica through grant funding. At Firth’s prompting, council agreed that for the sake of definition, the word ‘replica’ should cover any type of commemorative marking of that spot in town. Eagan agreed that the term ‘replica’ should be used broadly to help council arrive at a consensus for the concept.

Get More The Taber Times →