Who actually decides what Lethbridge will build?

I have calmed down somewhat since the City Council meeting of August 4th wherein, after a presentation and lengthy Q&A session, our council did vote to amend the mostly immutable and sacrosanct CIP to add a field house to the already funded leisure centre (hockey ice, curling ice, and aquatic facilities). I believe this is ultimately a wonderful thing!

Firstly, the full-meal-deal leisure centre will be used by families and individuals in Lethbridge for 40 years to come (based on historical replacement of facilities). We want it and we got it!

Secondly, it demonstrates that council can make changes to the CIP when it is good for the city and as money becomes available.

Thirdly (and here my bias may show a bit), it checks off so many Recreation and Culture facilities on the community want list that the next round of CIP may actually green-light a Performing Arts Theatre!

On the bleak side, the railroad fashion in which the Leisure Aquatic Field House complex thingy has been pushed at council by administration causes me some concern. I did attempt to use Twitter to get quick answers to my questions, but it takes more than 140 characters to explain why this horse is getting backed.

It was also suggested by a councillor that people asking these questions on Twitter were "trolls" and we were invited to e-mail our questions directly.

So I did and I cc'd the Mayor and all the other councillors.

Councillor Miyashiro,

Further to my twitter questions and to your request for "trolls" to e-mail, I ask you to please consider and respond to these questions regarding the Leisure Centre full build-out and its funding.

The Recreation and Culture Master Plan states: "No major ($1M+) public investments in recreation or culture infrastructure should occur without undertaking market feasibility analysis and business planning. This applies not only to initiatives championed by the City, but also to those projects led by not-for-profit groups and associations wherein public funds are required for the capital and/or ongoing operations of facilities." When asked about the business plan for the Leisure Centre, you equated a business case to a business plan. I assert that they are different. The business case is a demonstration of how it has worked somewhere; a business plan is how we intend it to work here. How did the Leisure Centre build-out bypass the master plan requirement of a business plan? 

The city manager, and others, asserted that this project is "ready to proceed" and others are not. What factors separate ready projects from un-ready projects? 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?

I have some difficulty reconciling some answers regarding project costs. The city manager asserted that costs for projects will go up over time, but after 16 months the projected cost of the full build is about 20% less expensive than the original proposal. The only answer I can recall about this difference is that more research was done and the facilities were going to be less expensive than originally estimated. This suggests that insufficient planning was done originally. How can we know, or at least have a high level of confidence, that the new projected costs are correct?

Given the assertion that the Leisure Centre is needed and will be extensively used, 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?

Thank you in advance for your responses.

Stephen Graham

I will post & discuss the replies I receive.

If I get any.

I'm just sayin...