Even though it has been 10 months since the capital partnership program was introduced to councillors, they have decided they need another month to mull it over.
Councillors voted Monday night to delay the required votes on the proposed cost-sharing program for capital infrastructure in St. Albert. First proposed last June, council will now vote on May 21 whether or not to give it an official stamp of approval.
“I’m not sure anyone on council sufficiently understands the impact of this program,” said Coun. Cam MacKay. “I’m not sure why this has to be done today.”
The program as proposed by administration would make $40 million available to local non-profit groups to help cover the cost of significant community infrastructure. Successful applicants could receive up to one-third the cost from the program if they can provide proof they have secured two-thirds funding either from other orders of government or fundraising.
To pay for the program, the city will borrow from its own cash reserves over a period of five years, as well as allocate a percentage of its municipal sustainability initiative grant from the province.
Draper proposed the program last year, noting the city was committing more of its capital dollars annually to repairing infrastructure and less to building anything new. Creating the fund also allows community groups to go after more funding from the provincial and federal governments, and could mean the groups are able to build more than the city could afford to if it pursued construction on its own.
But just how much money will be available over the next five years won’t be immediately apparent as Mayor Nolan Crouse pushed through a motion to remove all references to the $40 million available.
“I’ve always struggled with this idea there are $40 million allocated,” Crouse said.
But city manager Patrick Draper, the driving force behind the program, bluntly told council there will be no “fund” of $40 million.
“The reason (the number existed) was to have an upper limit so at some point, if we hit that limit, we have established we now need to stop and evaluate its success before we go any further,” Draper said.
In fact, the city would only withdraw funding for approved projects, once annually, in the amounts approved by an advisory committee, Draper confirmed. The city wouldn’t simply withdraw $8 million per year regardless of how much it was contributing to projects.
“We cannot guarantee how many applicants will come forward,” Draper said. “It could be possible we only get one submission in the first year but we get more in year two.”
Crouse also tried to scrap the advisory committee that would review all applications and make recommendations to council on who should be funded, but his proposed amendment was voted down.
“This is the kind of stuff we should be spending time on,” Crouse said. “I have deep concerns with a policy … that we delegate anything to an advisory committee at any stage.”
Draper also explained how possible city projects could be submitted for consideration as well. A large scale project could be submitted for funding from the programming.
But the program is specifically designed to avoid “double-dipping” of city funds. Community groups would only be able to apply to one of the city’s grant programs for funding and the city itself would not be able to use its own reserves as the two-thirds funding required under the program.
“You can’t get other funding from the city to make up the rest,” Draper said, adding it also would not be proper to have city staff reviewing its own proposals for a funding decision.
Council will vote on the proposed program May 21.
