OK, so we’re counting down to Monday night, when councillors will deliberate on the direction they’ll take with recreational facilities. According to my sources, there’s a full-court press on this weekend to convince the decision-makers on which is the best option: building two Sprung structures, one over the outdoor pool, and a new rink at Central Park; or, forge ahead and explore whether it’s feasible to move ahead with a multi-rec facility at Central Park.
Now, the Sprung option — which will cost about $11.7 million — is the one that seems to be favoured by the majority of . It offers a quick chance for a new second ice surface for the community, as well as turning the existing outdoor pool — the only 25-metre pool in town — into an indoor one. From everything I’ve seen and read, the Sprung structures are durable and energy efficient. To coin them as ‘temporary’ would be a bit of a misnomer; I understand Sprung’s own head office is enclosed in its own product.
However, I’ve been spurred by Councillor Ian Chadwick’s Facebook posting to address a few of the ‘facts and figures’ that seem to be circulating about the Central Park project:
• The Central Park project is $35 million: Yes, based on the figures calculated by the Steering Committee (full report here), the multi-use facility for Central Park — including a double rink, new 25-metre pool at the Y, community space, and tied into the curling club — would be $35 million. That also includes new infrastructure for moving the ball diamonds, though it doesn’t include the cost of new real estate to house the diamonds (however, from what’s been talked about behind-the-scenes, a range of ‘free’ opportunities have been presented).
However, the Central Park committee has never said the municipality would be solely responsible for the cost… even though that hasn’t stopped several councillors — including Councillor Chadwick, based on his Facebook post — from using the figure as some sort of ‘showstopper’. That’s why the committee has urged council to follow through on the recommendation to explore funding opportunities such as grants through the upper levels of government, or a private partnership. So to say the facility will cost $35 million is a red herring…
• Covering the Y’s Costs: Councillor Chadwick, in his post referenced above, also states the town is being asked to cover the Y’s costs over the next four years, to the tune of $100,000.
Technically, that’s accurate, however… Based on the steering committee’s report, the town would cover the Y’s operating losses on an aquatic centre; in the first year, that’s projected to be $60,000, dropping to around $30,000 in the second year. By the fourth year, a modest operating profit (I think around $5,000) was projected.
So yes, Chadwick is right – the town is being asked to cover off about $100,000 in losses. However, what will be the town’s operating losses turning a three-month operation that presently loses about $30,000 annually, into a 12-month-a-year operation? Would it be double? Triple?
In which case, it would seem to be preferable to lose $120,000 (at a minimum, above what the operating loss of the town pool currently is) over four years to losing $100,000 – and in the latter case, a number that would gradually become an operating profit, while in the town’s case operating its own pool… who knows…
(It should be noted that Y CEO Rob Armstrong has made a similar suggestion about the Y operating an aquatics facility on behalf of the town; however, his numbers suggest an annual operating loss of $60,000 to $100,000, which would be preferable to the town operating its own year-round facility with an operating loss of $250,000 to $350,000 – a number Armstrong arrived at based on the town’s history of operating aquatic facilities, both with Centennial Pool, and the therapeutic pool at the now-closed Contact Centre).
• Operating Costs: Again, I don’t think this can be emphasized enough – the steering committee indicated the operating costs would decrease for both the Y and the municipality by about $200,000; the savings alone for the town on the double rink versus the Eddie Bush and the outdoor ice surface would be $70,000.
Granted, those are not audited numbers; they are, at best, assumptions based on best practices. However, in comparison to what council is being asked to accept on Monday, they’re better than, well, not getting any operating cost projections at all. Which, if you read
our editorial in our Friday edition, is the concern we raised. We don’t know what the town’s additional operating costs are, they are not detailed in the report, so therefore council is potentially making a decision in a partial vacuum.
• Y’s involvement: Are they in? Are they out? There’s a been a suggestion a letter to council in July from Y CEO Rob Armstrong signalled the Y was out, when in fact, it communicated that they still wanted to be a partner with the town – even though a grant they were trying to obtain fell through. A second letter is on the agenda for Monday, and an email has been circulating from Armstrong encouraging the town to stay open to a partnership at the Central Park location. Re-reading the July letter, it now appears the Y is being unfairly castigated in some quarters for Armstrong’s most recent letter and email – how dare he call on people to voice their opinion! Armstrong is right: council is considering a option that has the potential to double its operating costs for recreation facilities, and taxpayers need to be concerned about that.
• Ameresco: In his post, Councillor Chadwick touches on the involvement of Ameresco, and whether the town should be responsible for paying the costs of helping a private, for-profit business to expand (though, I suppose, it could be argued the town does that when it pays part of the costs to service industrial property, i.e. Raglan Street and the DiPoce industrial park). He’s right – we do need to be concerned. But, on the other hand, we have no idea what Ameresco is pitching, and I don’t believe the council or the community – given the very tight timeframe we’ve now been given – are in a position to give Ameresco’s proposal the consideration it deserves…
Unless, of course, there is a motion to defer… to which I don’t believe has support right now.
That said, I think deferring is council’s only ‘right’ option. And, it doesn’t have to be until three weeks from now (the next scheduled council meeting). Council is within its rights to defer to a special meeting, which could be held later in the week.
What’s the old adage: Haste makes Waste? What the committee, what the
Friends of Central Park, what the E-B’s editorial are asking for: explore the funding opportunities (which should have been done two months ago, but anyhoo), then consider the alternatives. The Sprung option may be the best out there – but we’ll never know…
