I received responses from:
- Jeff Coffman - Immediately with an auto-responder promising response in 3 days.
- Jeff Carlson & Joe Mauro - Same day with answers!
- Rob Miyashiro - Next day with indicating a thoughtful response would follow.
- Mayor - response by e-mail. Arranged a face-to-face.
- Rob Miyashiro - A thoughtful response.
- Mayor Spearman - Face-to-face meeting with answers.
I expect I have not heard from Jeff Coffman again (probably since he was just in the cc and it wasn't specifically addressed to him.)
In an effort to be concise I will present some excerpts from the answers. Where I have answers in writing, I will copy and paste them. Where the answers were from conversation Mayor Spearman, I will paraphrase as fairly as possible (sorry if I didn't catch the full meaning). I assume that all the answers provided were done so earnestly and honestly, and I feel that no one is intentionally trying to pull the wool over my eyes. Here goes...
Question:
How did the Leisure Centre build-out bypass the master plan requirement of a business plan?
Answers:
"I share your concerns about the CIP process, and how this project seemed to get unequal consideration. I backed a motion to defer any debate until ALL unfunded projects could be considered, but that motion unfortunately was defeated. [...] Ultimately, I voted in favour of the project, which I believe will serve our community well into the future." (Carlson)
"I have many similar concerns. Had I been at the meeting I would have voted NO because of the many unanswered questions but most important, it was done out of process, came back door and over the wall last minute. This is a push for administration although they had no interest in this when we discussed fully all projects and voted to establish our 10 year CIP (capital improvement projects)." (Mauro)
"I would assert that the business plan requirement of the Master plan was not bypassed. A detailed business plan is required under “Resource Development” in the flow chart. I believe that the requirements listed in the flow chart have been met. In addition, the market feasibility and business case analyses were undertaken and completed in 2012 within Parts 4, 5 and 6 of the Lethbridge Leisure Centre Needs Assessment & Concept Design, which you can access at the following link: http://www.lethbridge.ca/Things-To-Do/Documents/LLC%20Funct%20Program%20Needs%20Assess%20Report_Final_2012_May_02.pdf" (Miyashiro)
The motion to amend the CIP now contains a provision to get the business plan before council. The urgency was expressed by city administration to avoid construction delays and maximize the advantage of a full build vs. a phased build. (Spearman - paraphrase)
Question:
What factors separate ready projects from un-ready projects?
Answers:
"[...] we can combine work already begun on the site with the newly approved work, which should save time, and design and construction costs." (Carlson)
"Major considerations of “what is ready vs. what is not” are site, funding and progress to date. [...] The argument about which projects to proceed with, begins and ends with the priorities set by the previous council. The Leisure Aquatic Centre was given the green light to be added to the Crossings ice complex (which was the first phase of the conceptualized full leisure centre) while the Performing Arts Centre and Convention Centre had financial conditions required to be met to trigger the City’s financial support. The full build of the Leisure Centre is possible due to capacity created by keeping the 2014 tax increase to the expected 2.8% rather than implementing a reduction. This allows for financing of the project with no new tax increases required. There is also some dollars available from the Alberta Community Partnership grant. " (Miyashiro)
This project is ready because there is already a part of the project underway and there is "no dissent" in the sport community about building the leisure centre. (Spearman - paraphrase)
My response:
The leisure centre is already started BECAUSE it already received funding. Your funding argument is basically: we aren't funding other projects because we didn't fund them before.
The argument that other projects can't be funded because triggers were not met seems vacuous to me. Previous council absolutely said NO to a full leisure centre with no contingency for the field house in the most recent CIP. The same council provided for contingent funding for some other projects. If council can amend one project in the CIP it can amend any of them, but chose not to consider that option at this time.
Question:
Specifically what factors indicate the Field House expansion of the Leisure Centre is ready to proceed and what factors are missing from the Performing Arts Centre proposal and Lethbridge Exhibition proposals that have them classed as un-ready?
Answers:
"The Crossings ice centre is being built now, on land the City has designated for the Leisure Centre. A site for the Performing Arts Centre has not been selected. The Convention Centre proposed by the Exhibition Board will occur at Exhibition Park." (Miyashiro)
There is no common ground about location or size of a performing arts theatre. There is no proposed site. The sports community is completely behind the leisure centre and it was built based on a plan created and presented by a city committee. The sports community will be consulted about needs and configuration before construction. (Spearman - paraphrase)
My response:
The proposal for a performing arts theatre was proposed in a plan created and presented by a city committee. The performing arts community was consulted about needs and configuration before requesting funding. That proposal was doubly-reviewed to ensure accuracy and appropriateness for our community. A site was selected and was approved for contingent funding by council.
Question:
How can we know, or at least have a high level of confidence, that the new projected costs are correct?
Answers:
"Future costs are always difficult to define with any great degree of accuracy, but our administration has typically done a very good job in that regard. I have faith that over the last year, our staff was able to refine the costs, and that we will be able to complete the project within the budget." (Carlson)
"As with many sectors of our economy, the construction industry is market driven, based on supply versus demand. At the time of the previous cost estimate there were several competing projects in our province scheduled to begin last year or this year. A late 2015 start and late 2018/early 2019 completion would have fewer competitors for the specialized work required for projects of this nature." (Miyashiro)
Question:
"Will the city be able to finish Métis Trail in time for the opening of the Leisure Centre to avoid congestion? Further, and generally, why is the city not immediately working toward a 4 lane road to support the demand for such a civic hub?"
"Metis Trail is high on our list of priorities. Not only will it further support the new facilities, it will provide the West Side of our community with another much needed North-South connection." (Carlson)
"Metis Trail is scheduled for an expansion this year (Jerry Potts Blvd. to Garry Drive) at a cost of almost $10 million. The continuation of Metis Trail to Whoop Up Drive is expected in 2020." (Miyashiro)
I'm concerned about Metis trail as well. This will be a busy area. I also don't know why we aren't twinning Whoop-up Drive past the fire hall. I'm not an engineer, but I will be asking those questions. (Spearman - paraphase)
So... That is what I know so far. I am thankful to those who replied for their time and consideration. I am thankful to all of council for working, to the best of their abilities, for the betterment of our community.
I am also thankful for the support I have received for asking questions. It's our role as citizens in a democracy to choose leaders who we believe will make the choices we would have made and to understand the choices that those leaders make.
Ask questions. Get answers.
And as I tell my kids, "Make good choices, honey!"
I'm insisting...
1 comment:
Thanks for keeping us informed of these various issues Graham! I'm in full agreement with your Response #1 (regarding which projects are "ready" vs. projects which are "un-ready" and how they are funded or not funded. It seems to be a bit of a circle (for lack of a better word).
Thanks again. I appreciate your efforts very much!
Darren
Post a Comment