St. Albert city council will consider contributing up to $1.5 million towards an outdoor recreation facility and community hub proposed by Active Communities Alberta, council heard Monday.
Composed of two refrigerated outdoor rinks, the $6-million facility would operate year-round, accommodating dry-court sports in warmer months. The facility would sit behind Paul Kane High School. Active Communities recently reached an agreement — a legally binding contract — with St. Albert Public Schools for use of the land. Active Communities, a non-profit group, would lease the land for 35 years and in turn provide the division with exclusive access to the facility during school hours.
Coun. Mike Killick put forward a motion that outlined two conditions for Active Communities to adhere to before the city considers its request for financial support. First, the organization will have to fund a public engagement report and a third-party independent financial review of its proposal. Second, Active Communities must raise a minimum of $3 million from other sources towards the project.
Should Active Communities meet these conditions, council will then consider chipping in funds or in-kind support for the project, up to an amount of $1.5 million. At this point in time, what in-kind support might look like is uncertain, said Diane Enger, director of recreation and parks for the city.
Several features of the conditions — the maximum dollar amount for council support, the option for some of that support to be given in-kind, and the inclusion of a public engagement report in addition to the financial review — were all added to Killick’s motion as friendly amendments during the council meeting.
When opening debate on his motion, Killick said the facility “clearly meets a need” in the community.
“The beauty of this proposal is that we’re actually going to do a financial review and make sure the numbers make sense to us,” Killick said. “I think this is a great way to bring a new project forward … and I can only imagine if we had more groups like Active Communities that are committed in sticking with a project like this.”
Council hears concerns
While Active Communities has shown evidence of support for their facility — for example, their agreement with the school division and $500,000 in community member contributions raised toward the project to date — some residents have expressed concerns about the facility.
Coun. Ken MacKay noted that council received “quite a few emails” from concerned residents living near the proposed facility over the weekend.
Kirsten Brown-Smith, one concerned resident, addressed council at the start of the meeting. Brown-Smith said her main concern is access points to the rinks.
“As a homeowner who backs onto this block, as well as a parent who has children who walk to two of the schools [nearby], I have numerous safety concerns,” Brown-Smith said, noting that several students travel to school within the area.
Brown-Smith highlighted an increase in traffic and a limited number of nearby parking spots as potential concerns. In addition to concerns about safety, Brown-Smith said she was disappointed she hadn’t heard more about the project before it came to council, adding that she was concerned about a lack of public consultation. She said the proposed area doesn’t seem like a good fit for the city’s growth in the north.
“I’m not arguing that we don’t need additional ice surface,” Brown-Smith said. “But not when it takes away from land that’s already in use and will bring additional safety concerns to an area that’s already busy.”
Brown-Smith said she had reached out to Active Communities about her concerns earlier Monday morning.
Matt Bachewich, president of Active Communities, addressed Brown-Smith’s concerns later in the council meeting when Killick’s motion was on the table. He said the facility will be accessed off of Sir Winston Churchill Avenue, and constructed behind the Outreach School.
“That would provide a four-lane divided arterial roadway in order for people to access the site,” Bachewich said. “That doesn’t require traffic through the main residential areas of Forest Lawn or other parts of the community.”
Though Bachewich noted pursuing the facility will not trigger a public hearing as there will be no need to make changes to the land-use designation (outdoor recreation amenities is already a discretionary land use behind the schools) he said that does not mean public engagement won’t be essential going forward.
“We’re looking forward to those events,” Bachewich said.
In terms of parking, Bachewich argued that using school district stalls would be a “very efficient use of existing land and infrastructure.”
Brown-Smith had also raised concerns about the funding Active Communities raised for the facility, which has remained at $500,000 for the past year. Bachewich said Active Communities put “a pause” on fundraising activities while searching for a site for the facility. With the site located, Bachewich said the fundraising initiative is back on.
In terms of the land’s location, Bachewich noted the city advised Active Communities to pursue non-city land, advice that ultimately led Active Communities to pursue its agreement with the school district.
Bachewich said Active Communities supports the approach presented in Killick’s motion.
“We look forward to continuing our collaboration,” Bachewich said. “The outdoor hub is going to be something special.”
During debate, most members of council spoke in favour of exploring whether council should contribute to the project.
Coun. Wes Brodhead said while he is not sure the project’s location addresses the long-term recreational needs of St. Albert, it will provide some “more immediate help” in supplying additional rec surfaces in the city.
He said there is “wisdom” in Killick’s approach.
“[The motion] says we will consider what [Active Communities is] talking about and support you, to a certain extent, on the basis of some work and commitment on your part,” Brodhead said.
Mayor Cathy Heron said she has a “lot of reservations” with the proposal, primarily around the facility’s location. She also raised questions about the facility itself.
“I’m not sure why a hockey team would pay the same amount of money to go to an outdoor covered rink … as they would to Servus Place where it’s heated,” Heron said.
Ultimately, however, Heron described Killick’s motion as “innocuous,” noting council will have to see where it leads.
Coun. Natalie Joly spoke against the motion, arguing the location “couldn’t be worse in terms of municipal investment.”
“When St. Albert invests in a recreation facility, whether it’s for $100,000 or millions of tax dollars, we have to ensure the location is consistent with the community’s needs,” Joly said. “I would welcome a similar proposal in an area with a need for a recreation facility.”
Joly said she’s not comfortable committing staff time to come to an agreement about the requirements of a financial review, arguing Active Communities should go through the same processes required of other non-profits. She suggested Active Communities apply to the city’s community capital program grant.
A report to council noted the community capital program grant funding budget is $250,000 annually.
Coun. Sheena Hughes disagreed with Joly, noting the grant sees many applicants, and no single applicant has ever received the full budgeted amount.
“[Active Communities’] ask has been greater, and as a result, our demands are greater,” Hughes said. “We still are not guaranteeing anything.”
Killick’s motion passed 6-1, with Joly opposed.
