This letter on the capital budget is based on my presentation to council on Sept. 7 regarding the preliminary capital budget 2011-13.
It is the result of prior council review and discussion. After the municipal election on October 18, the preliminary capital budget will be reviewed, altered and finalized as part of the 2011 operations and 2011-13 capital budget processes. As presented today, it includes $48.8 million in municipal projects that this council has determined should be funded in 2011, 2012 and 2013 and $110.6 million in unfunded projects. In addition, another $40.24 million in funded utilities projects and $22.02 million in unfunded utility projects is proposed.
However, the list of $110.6 in unfunded municipal projects causes us to wonder how realistic council’s view of the capital budget is. How many of the projects listed as unfunded will be moved to funded projects after the election? I am concerned about the impact of these potential changes on taxes, debt or the removal of other projects to make way for them. Why am I concerned that this might happen? Primarily due to the nature of some of the unfunded projects. As an example, let’s look at three of them in more detail:
• Downtown area redevelopment plan (DARP). To move forward with this plan, there is $10 million in unfunded projects in the three capital budget years. This DARP plan is near and dear to council, so much so that they denied citizens an opportunity for a plebiscite vote on whether it is the way we want our downtown to develop, in favour of hurriedly passing the bylaw prior to the election. Yet some members of council have said don’t worry about the plan. There is no money for it now and it won’t go ahead for some time. If this is correct, then why wouldn’t this council move these unfunded projects to later in the 10-year budget (after 2012)?
• Riel Park. There is $10 million that is unfunded for completion of the outstanding phases of this project, which also includes the utility budget. Already this project has ballooned from an original 2006-estimated cost of $8.4 million to more than $30 million in June 2010 and I do not know if the $10 million increases that total more. However, if this council plans on completing the remaining phases of this project, then moving at least some of the unfunded dollars to funded would make this “preliminary” budget more realistic.
• South transit and park and ride. Some $12.45 million is unfunded for this project. This highly visible project has recently been before council. Although it may be conditional on receiving grant funding, should at least part of this amount be in the funded budget?
There are other projects that council has supported over the past three years. In some cases funding for planning and design has been spent. Yet these also remain unfunded over the next three years. They include the heritage sites project at $6.39 million, Servus Place fitness expansion at $5 million, library at $15.5 million, kids’ gallery and arts centre at $2.84 million, seniors’ club at $3 million and the museum expansion at $2.2 million. The total of all these unfunded projects is $67.3 million dollars or 140 per cent more than is currently listed as funded.
In summary, I suggest that the preliminary capital budget as provided today is this council’s view as seen through rose coloured pre-election glasses. From a taxpayer's perspective, I suggest it be taken with a grain of salt. I also suggest that as part of deciding for whom to vote, that you query them on their views of these unfunded projects and how they plan on voting on them should they be re-elected.
Lynda Flannery, president, St. Albert Taxpayers Association
