Dear editor:
In the 2013 municipal election, out of nowhere came the announcement by Mr. Clouthier of the Cochrane Eagle that a new pool was now ‘the’ election topic…funny, I still remember Cochrane residents talking about other important concerns like transportation, environment, connectivity, government transparency, etc. Nevertheless, the pool became the main focal point of the election.
The ‘debate’ seemed to focus a promise to put “shovels in the ground” by 2014, a promise that the costs could be covered by grants, fundraising or donations, that lease space could make the pool profitable and the scare tactic that delays would cost us so much more in the future that the project might not happen.
Let’s examine this further. First, the ‘shovels in the ground’ promise. So far, there is nothing that has happened faster despite Mayor Ivan Brooker’s and councillor Jeff Toews’ efforts and subsequent expense claims.
So far, the donations have been paltry and now there appears some genuine concern about overoptimistic targets. There is an admission that fundraising targets are lower than expected; not a surprise given the minimal sum that our mayor was able to obtain for the naming rights of the pool. It was also revealed that there is a projected growth rate of six per cent and community enhancement fees.
Mr. Toews has become the leading proponent of the added lease space being the ‘panacea’ that will overcome the operational deficit that almost all pools run. During the campaign, Mr. Toews stated that the pool would even make Cochrane money, however, he has since downgraded his estimations to a slightly more realistic expectation of operating on a cost neutral basis within five years.
The main issue that exists with this argument is this: in order to have lease space you must build that lease space and that lease space then adds to the total cost of the project which then adds to the interest paid on this expenditure. If you factor in the additional interest, the cost of building this lease space and the costs of servicing this lease space, I’m willing to bet you will not reach a cost neutral basis in five years. It’s a good idea and a good goal, but a dubious promise.
Another argument during the campaign was the dire predictions by some candidates (which were quietly supported by others) that any delay would cost untold millions of dollars in additional costs.
With council’s decision, we are now assured that a pool will be build.
I hope I’m proven wrong, but I share councillor Morgan Nagel’s concerns about taking on debt while risking funding for other critical infrastructure needs.
Dan Cunin
