Skip to content

EDITORIAL: A prudent choice on value-for-money assessment

Would you spend $50 for the potential of saving thousands? The numbers may be different, but that’s essentially the question put before St. Albert council Monday, writes the St. Albert Gazette's editorial board.
ourview

Would you spend $50 for the potential of saving thousands?

The numbers may be different, but that’s essentially the question put before St. Albert council Monday.

At the heart of the matter is the prospect of a new recreation facility, we’re told would cost $40 million – $20 million from the city, $10 million from the province, and $10 million from the federal government. The land, located west of Ray Gibbon Drive and south of Villeneuve Road, was donated by Rohit Land Development on the condition it be serviced by the city.

Leading the charge to get the facility built is Active Communities Alberta. The local non-profit group wants to operate a campus-style recreation site that would include two sheets of ice, a gymnasium and retail space.

One condition that must be met before the city commits its $20 million is a ‘value-for-money assessment’, where a third-party consultant would assess the risks of the project, including Active Communities’ ability to operate the facility.

In its business case, Active Communities contends it could save the city about $1 million per year in operating costs, or $50 million over the lifespan of the facility. Council debated Monday if it should spend $30,000 on the assessment to determine, among other things, if Active Communities’ business case is sound.

As Coun. Ray Watkins put it: “It’s prudent business practice to spend $30,000 to $40,000 on a $50 million project.” Sense doesn’t get more common than that. If the city is going to commit $20 million to this project, it must perform its due diligence.

What Active Communities is proposing in not unique. Non-profit groups operate recreation facilities in cities including Calgary and Red Deer. As both Watkins and Coun. Jacquie Hansen noted, this is an opportunity to do recreation differently – to look at providing quality and affordable programs and services in the most efficient and effective manner while maintaining responsible taxation.

If the last part of the above sentence reads a little bit like administrative-speak, that’s because it is. In fact, it’s the fourth main objective of the city’s operational and fiscal review, and the city is spending $1 million on consultants to do that review.

Coun. Natalie Joly voted against spending $30,000 on the value for money assessment, claiming it would send a signal that council is dropping aquatics off the priority list. Mayor Cathy Heron voting in favour of the review, but with hesitation. She said the province has no money and the city could be spending $30,000 with the prospect of no project moving forward.

Watkins and the rest of council, however, see the possibilities: “Here we have the chance for somebody else to build and run a facility in a way of creating less government as opposed to more government, and more importantly it’s a way that the taxpayers are not going to be burdened with the operation costs of the facility, so let’s do the money assessment and find out what the truth is.”

We agree.

push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks