It could take more than $700,000 over three years to start addressing the $310 million capital budget shortfall St. Albert is facing. That was the recommendation from administration at the Jan.
It could take more than $700,000 over three years to start addressing the $310 million capital budget shortfall St. Albert is facing.
That was the recommendation from administration at the Jan. 16 standing committee of the whole meeting, outlined in a report city manager Kevin Scoble prepared.
Scoble recommended council approve $300,000 this year to support the development of a long-range capital financial plan for 2017, plus an additional $405,000 spread over 2018 and 2019. He also recommended that council should direct administration to come back March 13 with a “high-level workplan” to develop the plan over the next three years.
“This is a plan to plan document today, that administration is presenting for council's consideration,” he said.
Council unanimously supported the latter recommendation to develop a plan, but held off on the former, instead asking administration to provide more details on how, exactly, that money would be spent.
“At this point this is high level,” corporate strategic services manager Maya Pungur-Buick said. “We don't know what this project looks like until council helps us scope it.”
According to the report, the money would be used to “assemble the expertise” to develop lifecycle plans for assets and “close significant gaps in the existing capital program.”
During a one-hour discussion with council this week, Scoble said there are many municipalities facing similar long-term funding shortfalls, including the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, which addressed the problem by cutting all growth capital projects in the fall of 2014.
He recommended developing a 10-year capital financial plan for St. Albert, which he said is a relatively new idea in municipal government.
“If St. Albert undertakes development of this plan, it will be among the leaders in Alberta,” he said.
As for how the city got into this situation, Scoble's report outlined five factors that contribute to a lack of clarity around what capital spending will be needed in the long term and how it will be funded.
First, there are several ways projects can get added to the capital plan, like if council approves them individually, if they're determined to be necessary via the facility predictive model, or if they're required by legislative change from higher orders of governments.
Second, existing growth-management tools like the facility predictive model, which analyzes data to predict facility needs, and area structure plans don't do an adequate job of identifying future capital costs.
Third, the current life-cycle plans mean administration doesn't have a clear picture of how much money will be needed to repair, maintain and/or replace existing infrastructure to maintain service levels.
Fourth, existing fiscal policy is either lacking or disjointed making it difficult to know what funding will be available in the long term.
Finally, there is limited funding available to the city, while capital needs are increasing.
In providing feedback to administration for the work plan set to come back March 13, council members raised several concerns including problems with the facility predictive model, problems with lifecycle cost projections, and the fact administration is not already doing much of the work identified.
“It still seems like a lot of money to do this,” Coun. Sheena Hughes said. “I'm trying to figure out why our staff isn't doing this already.”
The matter will come back to the standing committee of the whole meeting March 13.
