Thanks, but no thanks, we have everything under control.
That was the sentiment Barrhead town council had after a lengthy discussion on Tuesday, May 26 during their regular meeting.
In the letter dated May, 22 and signed by Reeve Bill Lee, Barrhead County council asks town council to consider reducing the capital cost of the aquatic centre as well as to review the operating costs of the new facility.
On December 16, 2014, the town and county came to an agreement that both councils would each contribute $5 million towards the estimated $13 million construction cost.
The remaining funding would come in the form of a $1.5 million contribution from Woodlands County and a combination of fundraising from the Barrhead Agrena Society and assorted provincial grants. Woodlands County also agreed to contribute 10 per cent of the operating budget.
In the letter, the county said it is worried about the ratepayer’s and town’s ability to absorb the latest financial setbacks and asks the town to scale back the facility.
On May 5, Woodlands County officially withdrew its financial commitment towards the project citing an inability for all three parties, the town and county of Barrhead and themselves to come to an agreement over the operating budget.
The county also said the project received another financial setback when the provincial government declined the town and county’s joint application for a $1,050,000 Alberta Collaboration Program (ACP) grant .
However, the county is more concerned about the projected operating costs of the building. According to the latest update the county had received, the operational budget will have a deficit of $531,000 yearly. Because of this deficit county council is asking the Town of Barrhead to review the proposed hours of operation and the overall operating budget.
“Our council believes that the ongoing operating costs for this facility will ultimately be a greater burden than the capital costs, and therefore the operating costs are our biggest concern,” the county’s letter said.
Barrhead Mayor Gerry St. Pierre said he was pleased to see through an article in the May 26 issue of the Barrhead Leader, that county council was discussing the aquatic centre project in open council, adding that in the past it seemed any discussion about the proposed pool would take place in camera.
“We now know what they are feeling and what they are saying regarding the project because they discussed it openly at a public council meeting,” he said.
St. Pierre then questioned the county’s commitment to the aquatic centre project.
“We have heard many times verbally over the last couple years that the county is in favour of a swimming pool, but I feel their actions clearly contradict those statements that they want a pool.”
An example St. Pierre gave was the county delaying the plebiscite question asking residents if they were in favour of building a new pool and if the county should borrow to do so.
“They then decided to ask residents to borrow a lesser amount than the town,” he said. In the town’s 2013 plebiscite question they asked residents, “if they supported the Town of Barrhead borrowing up to $7,000,000 to finance the $15,000,000 new aquatic centre, with the understanding that it will result in an estimated tax increase of $95 for every $100,000 in property assessed value and the project will not proceed unless the County of Barrhead supports the project at 50 per cent of the costs?” In March of 2014 the county asked a similar question, but the amount was $5 million.
He said the county’s suggestion that as a cost saving measure the pool building should be a sprung structure rather than a conventional building, was another example of how the county was not really committed to a new aquatic centre. A sprung structure is a building that uses aluminum arches as a frame. The frame is then covered by a strong, puncture resistant fabric.
St. Pierre also rejected the county’s concern that the capital and operational cost of the new aquatic centre, as currently proposed, is more than taxpayers can afford.
“The ACP grant was never part of our financial plan,” he said, adding while Woodlands County withdrawing their financial support was disappointing, Barrhead County had no one to blame but themselves.
“It was understandable considering the County of Barrhead council’s refusal to commit a fair and reasonable contribution toward the facility’s operating costs,” St. Pierre said. “The county must accept full responsibility for the loss of $1.5 million for construction and hundreds of thousands of dollars we would have received from Woodlands County.”
He then added that they had already scaled down the scope of the project as the original proposals came in at an estimated $24 to $27 million range.
In order to put the cost of the aquatic centre into prospective, St. Pierre asked the project’s architect how much in today’s dollars it would cost to replace the Barrhead Agrena. “Steve Bushnell (architect) indicated that it would cost about $16 million,” he said, noting the Agrena was built at a cost of about $4.5 million, 15 years ago. “So in today’s dollars we are taking on the same type of project that we proceeded with 15 years ago, with a very minimal five per cent contribution from the county and we survived.”
St. Pierre concluded by saying that while the town welcomed the county’s input about the construction of the facility, decisions regarding the construction and operation of the aquatic centre is up to the town.
Coun. Ryan Warehime agreed with St. Pierre’s analogy of the Agrena and how much it would cost if they were to build it today.
“We could have built a barebones 300 seat arena, with four dressing rooms and no running track and a lobby that is 12’ by 42’ for much less,” he said. “but I don’t think the community regrets building the Agrena and the facility we needed.”
He then added that while the recreation department would determine the operating hours of the facility, it would be regrettable if it was only open for a few hours each day.
Coun. Leslie Penny said she was concerned about how the town should respond to the county’s letter.
“By saying they don’t really want a swimming pool we are just continuing to escalate the situation and the bad feelings between the councils. Absolutely we need to explain that the operational costs are in the hands of our recreation department, but we need to do it in a way that deescalates the situation. A war of words isn’t helpful,” she said.
Coun. Don Smith agreed with Penny, saying that the town needed to be careful in how they worded their response.
“The past is the past and we need to look to the future. It is unfortunate that the county hasn’t come up with the right number, as far as we are concerned, for the operating costs for the facility,” he said, adding he hoped that in the future the county would be willing to increase its contribution. “It has to be stated that it is going forward whether the county is on board or not, and that if we try to get along from this day forward it is going to serve us much better than trying to demand the money from them.”
Council then voted unanimously to send a respectful response to the letter.
Other pool news
In other pool related news council unanimously approved to give first reading of the town’s $5 million capital cost pool borrowing bylaw. Council plans to give the bylaw second and third reading in a special council meeting on June 26 at noon. Council also unanimously approved to Clark Builders to manage the construction of the aquatic centre.
