There are no right or wrong choices in the debate over our recreational facilities. However, the decision making process of city council should give the public confidence. Since we won’t all agree, we should at least understand the implications of each choice. Every decision can go sideways. We should understand the risks going in.
Co-op Place: Ice Palace of the North
The conversation about the Moose Rink on the SE Hill and the old Arena is startlingly familiar. We began to refer to both facilities as reaching their “end-of-life”. Brand new facilities were floated as an alternative to reinvestment or closure for aging facilities. The argument is new facilities will save us operational money and benefit things like sports tourism. It’s fair to look at how the Events Centre is doing six years out.
The chosen location for Co-op Place, the crown jewel of our recreation facilities, was Box Springs Business Park (over the Waterfront)—to allow for easy access for the public. The decision to privatize operations was to save the city money and maximize usage by contracting a seasoned operator of event centres. At the time there was a reasonable case for both these decisions, but if the reality turns out different from expectations surely that should count for something?
I’m bluntly criticizing, not to lay blame. I don’t want to hold people accountable. I want to hold the idea accountable. We shouldn’t expect perfection from city council and administration. We should expect reflection.
Any criticism of the performance of Co-op Place should recognize we are only six years in and have plenty of time to turn things around. The provincial recession followed by the pandemic have been major factors, but so far privatizing this facility has not saved the city money nor maximized its use. And the easy access promised by its location has not translated to public use.
Co-op Place has under performed from the beginning and has gotten significantly worse every year. The initial financial target for Co-op Place was $360,000 annually—what it cost the city to operate the old Arena. The Medicine Hat News reported on September 27, 2016 that the facility missed its performance by $80,000 its first year.
By 2019, three years later, the operational costs had grown to $1 million a year as reported by Chat News, quoting Mayor Clugston. Even before the pandemic Co-op Place was struggling.
By 2021 our net operating costs had increased to $1.7 million. See June 7 council Package.
The increased financial costs underscore the event centre’s under-utilization.
There is widespread belief that privatization saves governments money, but obviously that isn’t always the case. I support privatization in certain circumstances, but the benefits are not automatic. As we consider privatizing other facilities, what lessons have we learned from this contract? What kind of privatized contract is structured so that it allows for ever increasing losses on the city’s dime? Has Co-op Place’s distant location from residents been a factor in its under-utilization? If we don’t talk about the challenges of Co-op Place why should the public have confidence in our ability to learn? Mayor Clugston’s platform (“ice in the north”) hints at building new rinks in Box Springs. What about the last six years supports doubling down on this idea?
As a member of Public Services Committee, I have been in charge for four of the six years Co-op Place has been operating. I’m embarrassed that even after four years I have not been able to comment on what the acceptable performance for this crown jewel looks like.
The old Arena
In the rush to build the events centre little thought was given to the future of the old Arena site. Two years after Co-op Place opened I was elected and we were still debating options. Though a conditional offer on the property was made in 2019 the building still stands—six years on. The city hasn’t shared publicly what the old Arena has cost the city to maintain even while it's been shuttered. Suffice to say it’s substantial. Another cost that hasn’t been property accounted for.
Lest you think I am too critical—I have seen from the inside the complexity of these projects. There are good reasons why sometimes these developments and decisions take years longer than expected. But given that reality city council should very carefully proceed with any large capital project. We’re again rushing to build new rec facilities with little discussion as to what redevelopment should occur on the old sites. If we build new, will the Moose and Crestwood sit shuttered for years until we figure out a plan?
Decision making process
There is a serious disconnect between the way city administration and the rest of us talk about the upcoming Parks and Recreation Master Plan. No where was this more obvious than at the last council meeting on October 4. When presenting their report to council, staff took great pains to assure the community that no decisions had been made regarding the future of the Moose rink and Crestwood Pool. Except many candidates, including Mayor Clugston, have already staked out positions on these long standing neighbourhood facilities.
The Mayor’s platform calls for “ice in the north”, “water in the south” and significant improvements to Echo Dale Regional Park. If Mayor Clugston, the person in charge of the bureaucracy, doesn't need to wait for this report to make an informed decision either we’re wasting staff’s time or the public’s time—likely both.
City administration must run the sprawling bureaucracy systematically. They try to make decisions from an overarching framework that each decision neatly fits into, but the reality is messy. City council hasn’t made any decisions, but we have been signalling the benefits of closing smaller neighbourhood facilities in favour of larger multi-purpose facilities for years now.
City council talks about the operational savings of multi-use rinks over single rinks without releasing the net cost for each facility. Council has said we first need a business plan to fully judge the benefit of multi-purpose facilities, but we specifically included language in the Municipal Development Plan supporting this direction. So we included this direction even though we don’t actually have the evidence yet? Given what we know about operations there is a good case for this argument, but there is also a case for reinvestment in our existing smaller facilities. We need the best versions of both arguments.
Excerpt from the current Municipal Development Plan.
Another example of council’s confusing decision making process. Last year council approved a $2 million outdoor pickleball court using Covid stimulus funds. I was the only vote against this project.
The draft rec plan presented last week, includes a list of the public’s recreational priorities.* Pickleball doesn’t crack the top 18 in this rec plan nor the last one. How did council decide pickleball trumped other recreation priorities? Council also funded this new facility with zero public discussion about the operating model for the new pickleball courts. (The upfront capital expense for facilities is dwarfed by the lifetime operational costs.)
The pickleball club came to a closed council meeting to lobby for a dedicated pickleball court last year. No other recreation group was given an audience with council.
Again, what exactly is our decision making process?
*Note: With every public consultation, staff canvas the city and work hard to reach people and hear their views. But other than the 2016 recycling study I haven’t seen any report that follows the methodology required for this feedback to be statistically relevant. Yet council and staff use these results as if they are. That being said, this is what was presented.
Public’s recreational priorities
Municipal Development Plan
The MDP is the guiding document for all our decisions. Although I don’t agree with everything, there is much to like in this plan. The guiding principle, the Transect Model, proposes matching municipal infrastructure (roads to rec facilities) to density. Lower density outlying suburbs should have less infrastructure, while higher density corridors should have higher levels of infrastructure.
There is a case that multi-purpose recreation facilities have benefits over smaller neighbourhood facilities. But where these are located is a critical part of the decision. Our MDP is clear about where they should and shouldn't go.
Building Co-op Place or any more ice rinks in Box Springs Business Park runs contrary to the MDP.
Building large multi-purpose facilities in suburban outskirts in the south runs contrary to this plan.
Council is creating plans for Echo Dale Regional Park even more ambitious, including a boutique hotel.
Again when scarce city funds are at stake I don’t understand how the placement of serious municipal investment on the borders of the city aligns with the MDP. Especially, when mature neighbourhoods need reinvestment.
Invest Medicine Hat has consistently emphasized the benefit of infill development to maximize use of existing infrastructure. They know that good development attracts good development. The location of any new recreation facilities benefits the surrounding neighbourhood. Building them in sparsely populated areas limits the positive impact of these developments.
Reforming our consultation process
The inconsistent way that council interprets our rec plan and MDP should give us pause. The consistent complaints from the public about consultation should motivate us to try different approaches.
I’m sure Parks and Rec staff are frustrated at my comments. After all, I'm a member of the Public Services Committee in charge of developing the rec plan since the beginning. But even in my oversight role I struggled to articulate what effective public consultation looks like. I’ve hesitated to criticize without offering an alternative. But I don’t have an alternative yet. Then I’ve struggled to understand how to interpret these high level plans to make good decisions. Four years in and I’ll admit I don’t have all the answers yet. A new council with fresh eyes hopefully has more success than me on this issue.