Report on Olympic bid highlights looming risks
Evaluation includes range of concerns about the projected cost to host event
Nearly half of the key factors of a potential Calgary Olympics are ranked as medium to high risk, according to a city assessment.
The evaluation, slated to go before the city’s Olympic assessment committee today, comes a little more than a month before Calgarians will cast their votes in a nonbinding plebiscite on whether they are for or against hosting the 2026 Games.
In the report, bureaucrats identified 18 potential risks of a potential Calgary bid, with two of those labelled yellow for medium risk and another six marked red as high risk.
Factors deemed to be high risk include ongoing negotiations between the city and the provincial and federal governments on the clarity and timing of a cost-sharing agreement.
Low-risk categories include the projected cost to host the Games, the effect on city investments and a review of the Olympic bid draft plan.
Earlier estimates put the cost of the Games at $4.6 billion, but the city’s draft plan released last month shows the Olympic hosting plan will cost at least $5.23 billion.
The public portion of the Games comes to $3 billion, according to the city’s bid corporation, divided between municipal, provincial and federal governments.
The province has committed to releasing details on its share of the bid no fewer than 30 days ahead of the Nov. 13 plebiscite.
“Time has always been one of the factors we flagged as being a high risk,” said Coun. Jeff Davison. “Could we always want more time? Of course. Are we going to know enough of the facts and the numbers between the goalposts? Yes, I feel confident that we will.”
Ottawa is expected to pay at least half the tab and Calgary’s portion of the bill is an estimated $500 million (or 15 per cent) if a cost-sharing agreement can be reached with the province.
The remaining costs would be paid through International Olympic Committee (IOC) contributions, corporate sponsorships, ticketing and merchandising.
The city’s own public engagement campaign ahead of the Olympic vote, which started in earnest this month, is also in the high-risk column, along with the city’s ability to keep sensitive documents around the bid confidential.
The report reiterated the city’s commitment to an “accountable ... citizen-centric” and neutral engagement campaign “to inform and educate the public about the bid process, seek public input ... and identify issues” with the bid process ahead of the vote.
Meanwhile, the report said the Calgary 2026 Olympic bid committee’s own engagement strategy “is independent of and separate” from the city’s, as the city-funded group released a video on its website asking families to talk about the city’s proposed Games bid during their Thanksgiving meals.
Calgary 2026’s website states the bid committee’s goal is to “explore, develop and promote a responsible bid to host” the 2026 Winter Games.
Davison said he’s confident the dollar figures cited by city administrators won’t deviate significantly.
“(Calgary 2026), they’re obviously going to go out and promote that those are the numbers and facts. The city’s job is to encourage people to also understand the risks. And, of course, the No side is going to tell people no for the sake of saying no,” Davison said.
Representing the opposing side is No Calgary Olympics, a grassroots anti-Olympic lobby group formed in August in response to pro- Olympic lobby group Yes Calgary 2026.
Erin Waite, spokeswoman for No Calgary Olympics, said Calgarians should be aware of any potential pitfalls with Olympic spending, particularly if political attitudes change after upcoming provincial and federal elections.
“If anything happened to those funding streams, Calgary is carrying the entire costs,” Waite said. “(Calgarians) need to understand that as a taxpayer, you are legally obligated to pay whatever (the Games) ends up costing . ... So, to me, that risk is huge and it needs to be understood.”