Late night meeting raises more questions on arena deal

CALGARY — The deal for the Calgary event centre has long been overshadowed by various concerns and cynicism since it was announced at City Hall in 2019, with fresh concerns now being raised about the overall budget.

Late on Monday night, following the conclusion of an hours-long closed meeting, questions were directed towards city administration about possible increases in the cost of the $550 million project.

Ward 11 Councillor Jeromy Farkas asked how much more the project is going to cost, with an administration official estimating there could be an increase of between $50 and $60 million, however none of it was set in stone yet.

There was also mention of a secondary facility tacked on to the main event centre which would involve a community ice rink, but that is not actually part of the overall deal and if it were to be built it would be entirely on Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation to pay for it.

A back and forth ensued, with Ward 3 Councillor Jyoti Gondek accusing Farkas of breaching confidentiality from their closed meeting.

Farkas said that the city was throwing away the right to properly inform council and the public about the state of the project, a notion that was roundly dismissed by Mayor Naheed Nenshi in response.

Ward 6 Councillor Jeff Davison added during the discussion that there’s no request for extra funding at the moment, and the original deal from 2019 remains intact.

READ MORE:

• Economist not surprised over pause for Calgary arena
• Calgary arena project hits snag due to budget issues
• Taxpayers federation calls for spending cuts to Flames’ new arena

There will be formal discussion on the arena deal coming up on Jul. 26 at city hall, when hopefully many of these questions can be directly addressed.

This all comes as rumours have been swirling for some time about cost overruns and the public potentially being on the hook for more of the bill.

On Tuesday morning, Gondek gathered reporters along Stephen Ave. near City Hall to try and clarify the situation.

“What I can tell you is this: There is no decision on a change before council at this time,” she asserted. “We are not keeping anything from the public right now.

“What I can tell you is that if there are dollars to be invested beyond what we agreed to originally, that must come back to council. If there’s a secondary site to be discussed, it must come back to council. If (Calgary Municipal Land Corporation) is to be removed from the project, it must come back to council.”

Ward 3 Councillor Jyoti Gondek speaks to reporters on Stephen Ave. in downtown Calgary on Tuesday, Jul. 6, 2021. (PHOTO: Tom Ross, 660 NEWS)

Any vote on this sort of scale would also be called a reconsideration, and require support from two-thirds of councillors rather than just a simple majority as in other decisions.

As for the estimated cost overruns, she said that this is largely surrounding projected design elements for the interior and exterior, along with aspects involving the public realm of the facility.

Gondek said that, right now, she does not regret supporting the deal in 2019 but her feelings could change if there are some significant adjustments. Namely, she said there should not be more public money given to the project and there must also be a notable benefit for the community at large.

“It’s gotta have a good public realm to it, and it’s gotta be a strong project that offers public benefits. Now, we’ve been in limbo for six months wondering what’s going on with it. I’ve got to tell you, in July of 2019 we were told that decisions had to be made in a week, we’ve been waiting six months to find out what’s up,” she said.

Gondek said she shares in some of the frustration, but it is too early to say if the whole deal is in serious jeopardy.

Later on Tuesday, Farkas spoke with 660 NEWS to go more into his concerns related to what he brought up on Monday.

Ward 11 Councillor Jeromy Farkas admires the view from the top of the Glenmore Dam in southwest Calgary. Friday, Sept. 4, 2020. (PHOTO: Tom Ross, 660 NEWS)

He said this boils down to a lack of transparency, feeding a lack of public trust in local officials.

“Regardless of where you stand on this, you deserve to know how your money is being spent,” he said. “The importance of transparency is vital. Transparency with public money is vital. Because it’s public money, we deserve a public accounting. Somewhere, somehow, something got screwed up at city council.”

A final design for the arena has also not yet been approved, despite renderings being released recently.

Gondek said that even though she has long been a vocal supporter of the project, there are guidelines she hopes it follows and won’t let it cross the line.

“If the deal changes in a manner that removes the certainty of urban design, I’m not a fan of it. If the deal changes in a way that requires more public dollars, I am not a fan of it.”