Cochrane council officially voted against a plebiscite on the aquatic/curling facility Oct. 27 after a hotly contested debate that took some time to conclude in front of a packed council chambers.
Spurred by a recent public outcry that stemmed from councillor Morgan Nagel’s ‘Rock the Road’ petition, Mayor Ivan Brooker announced prior to the council session that there would be a discussion about bringing the issue to a plebiscite, saying there was a lot of animosity growing within and towards the current group of councillors.
“It’s your guys’ town and it’s your guys’ money,” said Nagel, whose satisfaction that the mayor announced there would be a discussion of a plebiscite could not be held back.
But despite having Tara McFadden in his corner — saying she approved of a plebiscite even though she favoured the project and was certain the public would also support it — the final outcome did not go the way Nagel had hoped, with a back-and-forth between him and councillor Jeff Toews raising the tension in the room.
“I absolutely am furious,” Toews said of the manner in which Nagel chose to pursue getting his opinions on the aquatic/curling project out to the public.
Toews told Nagel that he felt he had twisted things around to get the public to listen to him, and that doing so was unethical.
“Please stick to the facts,” Toews said to Nagel.
Toews addressed several of the points Nagel had posted on rocktheroads.ca, one being the contention that Cochrane taxpayers would have to fork out an average of $4,125 each on their tax bills, asking Paige Milner, the town’s senior manager of corporate services, if that number was accurate.
“That is not accurate,” Milner said.
Another issue Toews addressed was the debt limit, which is expected to peak at 95 per cent and has by some been solely blamed on the $45 million pool project.
Milner again spoke to Toews’ query and said the town’s debt limit would reach 95 per cent due to three projects — the Riversong bridge, a new RCMP station and the aquatic/curling facility.
Milner also said that the debt limit would decline back to around 35-40 per cent by 2023 once the large capital projects were paid off.
Brooker and councillor Ross Watson also pointed out that the assertion that the approval of the pool project was rushed or pushed forward by council is completely untrue, as it had been on the table, discussed and planned for eight years.
Councillor Mary Lou Davis, however, disagreed with this point.
“Both Ivan (Brooker) and Ross (Watson) are wrong,” said Davis. “This has not been up for debate for eight years...it’s been 11 years.”
Brooker outlined the consequences of a plebiscite, saying not only would it cost money, but would also delay the project by at least a year, potentially more.
The mayor also pointed out that the town had the chance to borrow the money it needed for the project ($19M) at a very low interest rate of 1.58 per cent.
“It takes a long time to plan for these things,” said Brooker. “We never pushed this agenda by any means.”
Brooker highlighted the fact that the town and council has said that they are not putting any projects, such as road work or the Riversong bridge, on the backburner by approving the pool project.
He also said the aquatic/curling centre would add to Cochrane being a complete community, something he said most in town desperately want.
Coun. Watson said he felt the town and council had done an excellent job when it came to public engagement on the pool project, and that the wants and desires of Cochrane residents were being met with the approved design.
“There will be strong opinions,” Watson said of any project with a hefty price tag. “We did a strong and respectful public engagement with the public.”
Councillor Gaynor Levisky said that from a business perspective, the project was ‘a solid plan’ and that the negatives of going to a plebiscite — cost, delay — outweighed the positives.
Coun. McFadden brought forward a notice of motion that read: “That administration be directed to return with an option for a public vote on a question to confirm the community support for the Aquatic/Curling Multi-Sport facility with a budget necessary to communicate the existing strategy. Administration to return with the option no later than the first meeting in December.”
That motion was voted down by a 5-2 vote.
Coun. Davis said the idea of a plebiscite came down to one simply point: that it had to be a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the project, and it would not be possible to ask the public what they wanted the facility to look like.
Coun. Nagel disagreed with this notion.
“The black and white approach is nonsense,” Nagel said, adding that the project could be adjusted.
Nagel said he felt some on council viewed him as being ‘young and stupid’ and someone who did not understand what was going on. He said the money being provided to the town through grants were taxpayer money, and perhaps others on council didn’t see it that way; a charge others on council took offence to.
In the end, council voted unanimously to borrow the $19M for the aquatic/curling project.
Councillors Nagel and McFadden voted in favour, not because they had changed their minds on the need for a plebiscite, but in an effort to save money for the town and taxpayers by getting the loan at the 1.58 per cent interest rate, which Milner and council agreed was an exceptionally good rate that would save the town hundreds of thousands of dollars. Total interests costs on the loan is expected to be $1.2M.
