St. Albert’s city council did the oddest thing on Monday – it voted unanimously to extend the long-term facility plan’s deadline by three years.
The facility plan will be due one year after the city completes revising the municipal development plan, which is expected by 2020. The date for the facility plan could change again, if the MDP revise is finished sooner or later than expected.
Odder still is that this item was on the consent agenda, which means it wasn’t discussed in chambers at all. An explanation on that alone should be forthcoming to say the very least.
This isn’t the first time the plan has been delayed. Late last year it was delayed by three months; it was supposed to come before council by the second quarter of 2018. Instead the plan’s due date was pushed back with the expectation of it being ready by the end of the third quarter.
Now this – another delay, and a very long one at that. A great deal can change in three years: construction costs, the community’s needs, and although St. Albert’s population isn’t growing in leaps and bounds, that growth will put more pressure on city facilities already stretched to their limits.
Coun. Natalie Joly, at the time of the first extension, called the delay “frustrating,” saying it would be tough for council to render decisions in a timely fashion.
Now, Mayor Cathy Heron said the extension should not have any effect on council making a decision to build something when the budget rolls around. Build something? That seems rather vague.
Heron also added if the short-term option is workable, say for example, adding ice and aquatic space to Servus Place, then the city could do it now. Otherwise, she said, if it’s not the right fit it would be added to the long-term facility plan.
That doesn’t sound convincing. Will something get built? When will it be built? And who will get it and who won’t?
Finally, Heron said the long-term facility plan is only a small piece of the capital planning process pie. She also said that council is not ignoring last year’s plebiscite.
Tell that to the St. Albert Minor Hockey Association – it could certainly use a new city facility to handle its increasing demand for ice time.
President Clayton Billey supports the Active Communities group in its bid to build a proposed Sport and Wellness Campus that would include numerous indoor ice surfaces. He points out that “our association cannot provide and support the demand due to the limited availability of contract ice.”
Others are in the same position. Just ask aquatics advocates. Werner Biegler, former board president of the Sailfish Swim Club, has pushed the city to expand aquatics facilities. He scoffed at what the city is considering: a $14-million project charter that would include a two-lane, 25-metre pool and a four-lane teaching pool. He called that “an embarrassment.” Swim groups are pushing for eight lanes, at minimum, to cover off short- and mid-term needs – not long-term needs.
Biegler also denounced the city’s prioritization process, saying last fall’s plebiscite to measure public support for aquatics, ice and library space should have been honoured. The plebiscite rated aquatics as No. 1.
He is upset the city went behind closed doors to rank six facilities based on a points system. When that was completed soccer became the No.1 priority followed by, in ranking order, indoor ice, aquatics, food bank, library and gymnastics.
This is a convoluted mess. We could go on.
One thing is for sure: The city needs to execute a clear-cut plan now, not in three years.
