LOTS OF WAITING AND WONDERING ABOUT ARENA DISTRICT PROPOSAL
Saskatoon will wait a few months longer to hear how city hall intends to fund a proposed downtown arena and event district.
This week, city council will consider a proposal from city bureaucrats to extend the release of the funding plan to June or July.
Originally, this plan was supposed to be released in November and, possibly, plans for a new downtown arena and a revamped convention centre would have already been approved or rejected.
Bumping the release of this strategy to the summer can be viewed as an attempt to avoid attention. This seems unlikely, if intended, since voters who want to be informed will be watching regardless.
But moving the release closer to this fall's election intensifies the potential peril for incumbent councillors running for re-election.
Conversely, releasing the plan closer to the election leaves less time for an informed response to it from challengers who may want to gain traction by opposing the downtown arena idea.
Regardless, the delay is attributed to finding a private company to help pay for the development of the district, which will include a new arena built on the parking lot north of Midtown Plaza.
The deadline for proposals from companies is March 22 and it's expected to take 60 days to complete negotiations with the successful private partner. The company will also manage operations for the district and, since it's a private entity, reap a profit for its investment.
Before we see the plan, it's impossible to gauge the degree to which a private partner might lower the potential risk or impact on taxpayers — despite the loud chatter out there.
It seems unlikely, but perhaps an “arena angel” will step forward as happened in the 1990s in Kelowna, B.C., to assume all the risk, along with collecting all the profits, by paying for the construction and then operating the facility or facilities for several decades.
Surely that would silence all but the grumpiest of skeptics out there.
But we now won't know until summer. There's also the potential, with a provincial election scheduled for October and Saskatchewan Party fortunes sagging in Saskatoon, for a substantial contribution from the province.
Last week, the provincial and federal governments announced funding for a $128.1-million aquatic facility in Regina.
Remember, though, that a study released in the fall touting the potential economic benefit of Saskatoon's arena district suggested costs could run as high as $950 million — albeit using extraordinarily high rates of inflation that are unlikely to continue. Under this scenario, the arena would cost $320 million and a TCU Place convention centre expansion would cost $159 million. Those costs appear high, but must be viewed in comparison to the $300-million estimate from Sasktel Centre CEO John Howden of the cost of undergoing the needed renovations to keep the 36-year-old facility located in a remote northern part of the city relevant.
Arena opponents, including Starphoenix letter writers, have yet to cite an example of upgrades to an existing facility that maintained its vitality at a bargain price. That's why such extensive, and expensive, renovations are rarely attempted, unless there's no other option.
Other cities like Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg did not choose to go through the often tortuous and controversial journey to build new facilities because it's easy or popular.
Last month, council voted unanimously to endorse the purchase of the downtown YMCA building to support the future expansion of TCU Place, essentially approving the proposed design of the district. Politicians of all political leanings spoke in favour of the concept.
Meanwhile, we're still waiting for a coherent alternative proposal, aside from, presumably, letting the current facility deteriorate until it becomes a taxpayer liability.
As for those advocating for a vote on the district in November's election, they should have proposed one four years ago. The decision to explore a new downtown arena instead of renovating Sasktel Centre was made six years ago.
You don't have to support this plan, but you've had six years to voice your opposition and articulate a better option.