After much dispute, county council has given the first reading to the Debenture Borrowing Bylaw, Bylaw 3-2015, on Tuesday, Aug. 4 at their regular meeting. The bylaw will allow the county to finance a maximum of $5 million towards capital construction costs of the Town of Barrhead’s proposed aquatic center.
“Please bear in mind that the agreement that we have with the town is to borrow a maximum of $5 million in order to make a $5 million maximum contribution,” County Manager Mark Oberg said. “There has been a lot of discussion in both the town and county about what the cost of operating the new pool is going to be, what a reasonable amount would be, and this bylaw doesn’t address that.”
Oberg said that this bylaw is strictly for a capital contribution and is based on an agreement the county has with the town, and that operational costs will be determined in 2017, after the next election.
Coun. Darrell Troock expressed his concerns, siding with the public on the issue of the petition, and said, “I’m not necessarily against the first reading of the bylaw, but I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the people who put the petition out there, because I understand that they feel that they haven’t got the information required, and I’m not very comfortable with the explanation of the operating costs either. I want people to be very comfortable with what they know it’s going to cost them,” and added that he and the other members of council already know what it will cost because they’ve worked it out themselves.
“We don’t have to worry about the operating costs because we never said we were going into it, for more operating,” he said. “We’ve got an agreement with the town and I’ve explained myself to my residents.”
According to Troock, town council asked the county only one question, about whether they were going to contribute the $5 million towards capital, and he said that is exactly what county council was doing. “That is the only thing they asked of us,” he said, adding that afterward, town council said they wanted operating funds and that the county did not want to play ball. “You don’t throw a deal in after you’ve already shaken hands,” he said.
Coun. Bill Lane admitted the prospect was scary however.
“The unforeseen operating costs, town never talked about it,” Lane said. “They just threw a number out there and we don’t really know what it’s going to be. I look at Westlock and the trouble they’re having and the high operating costs there, and it’s scary because we don’t know the operating costs.”
Lane said he did not know if many residents, both town and county, knew what they were in for with this unknown expense and how it could affect them all financially.
Reeve Bill Lee said the town has made it quite clear however, in their minds at least, that recreation is an essential service.
“My only concern with this borrowing bylaw is where the rest of the money is going to come from,” Coun. Marvin Schatz said. “There’s three million dollars in there that is what, just going to show up? Are they going to go ahead and build a pool before that three million is there or are they going to build this pool and then all of a sudden there’s an extra three million, and are we saying, by approving this bylaw, we’re in favour of the pool they’re building and it doesn’t matter what it costs?”
According to Oberg, within the Bylaw however, it clearly states the estimated total cost of the pool and contains a list of where the proposed funding is to come from.
“If there are significant changes to the town’s own bylaw, then that means we will have to make changes as well,” Oberg added.
Lee wondered what exactly those changes are, if there are any, and what that will mean for the bylaw that was just approved.
“We can’t see that far ahead though,” Oberg admitted. “When you have a bylaw, at some point, you have to have a public hearing, and from there, there could be some changes. You do first readings to introduce things, then in the future you can do second, or even third readings, making changes as necessary.”
In addition, Lee said going forward with the bylaw does not mean much because technically, county has two years before they have to wrap things up and do their third and final reading. “That gives us lots of time to see how things will play out before we finalize this,” he said, adding that in the meantime it gets things started and gives the public a chance to petition.
And so, on exactly the same date as the town, October 7, the county is holding their own plebiscite, and they will be asking the public for their opinion on the matter of this capital funding.
“I think it’s important for the people to have a second chance because things have changed from March when we first introduced this to the public,” Lee said. “When we first introduced this to the public, it was just for a capital loan, but since then, we’ve had the amalgamation forced on us and while they [town] were at the table, we weren’t, and they want us to be paying more for their recreational programs which changes how taxes are affected and everything else.”
In 2017, when its election time, Troock said, people are going to have all the time in the world to ask what council thinks and where they are at financially.
“That is democracy at its best,” he said. “If there’s somebody out there in my division who wants to come up and challenge the meeting, in my chair, and they want us to open up the purse and give it to the town for recreation, then lets have that debate. I’m cool with that, because that’s what the people want.”
Schatz asked if a pool is built and its operating costs are running at a million dollar deficit, what do people think would happen, adding that they should expect the town to demand more money to come out of county coifers whether anyone liked it or not.
“We’re still in favour of a pool as we had agreed to a long time ago, and the $5 million that we asked our residents if they would support us with, we’re still in agreement to do that,” Coun. Dennis Nanninga said. “We’re doing our due diligence and as far as all the other matters related to the pool go, time will reveal exactly how that is going to unfold.”
Nanninga said he is not 100 per cent sure of anything except approving the first reading of the bylaw.
“In the event that there’s folks out there who want to start a petition, or don’t agree with our position, then it’s probably high time that we know exactly where that’s at,” he said. “It’s on that basis that I’m prepared to move forward because, I think, if we’re supporting the pool then actually, it would be wonderful if we could get it on the road as soon as possible. If we’re not, then a petition will reveal that, and if it’s legitimate, then we have to deal with a whole bunch of other issues, but right now we don’t know that, and I’m not going to second guess how our residents feel about that.”
“I’m in favour of a pool in Barrhead, but I’m not in favour of the pool that the town is planning on building, so how would I vote on a plebiscite personally, because the question is whether or not there will actually be a pool if we vote no, and I think that’s how a lot of our residents are thinking,” Schatz said, adding that it sounds like people are scared that they aren’t going to get a pool in Barrhead.
But the problem is not just about whether or not a pool happens, the issues are about money and who is going to foot the bill, of government transparency and the seeming lack thereof, according to councillors Nanninga, Troock, Schatz and Lane.
“I’ve heard from several in town who share my feelings that there is a general disregard for the petition and there are people pushing others to sign it, that the rest are not relevant to the issue of this pool,” Troock said. “That upsets me and really worries me, because that tells me that the town is not really paying attention to all the citizens, that they’re only listening to a few of the squeakers who are voicing their views out loud, and the people who are concerned about their finances, the seniors and all the rest, they’re signing this petition but they’re only asking the town for one thing.”
According to Troock, the answer that people are looking for is clarification on what the costs are.
“They didn’t ask to shrink it, they didn’t ask to throw it away,” he said. “Everyone still wants a pool and I guarantee that anybody who signed that petition, they still want a pool. They just want an explanation of what it’s going to cost, to have it more clarified.”
What worries him, Troock said, is that when he looks at the operating costs, that it is the weakest explanation of an operational budget he has ever seen.
A plebiscite is scheduled for October 7, for both town and county and council urges every resident to join in the discussion.
