Lethbridge needs to be considered relative to similar sized cities

Lets try to be more precise.
What are the occupancy numbers “average” for performances, in all the above cities? If Red Deer has a 700 seat facility and the average occupancy is less than 400 per performance on average, your argument would be moot!
Secondly, the “group” you refer too (Mayor/Council) should be referred to as the 3-6 group. The 3-6 group have been known to do as they wish and not as the city residents want. So are you suggesting the group of “6” should be given more respect then the group of “3” that always “seems to appear to represent the majority of residents opinion?
Why not produce some attendance numbers rather than just seat numbers? Its easy to use size, try giving Lethbridge “empty seat numbers” rather then making it look like we lag behind other cities, are we lagging because the demand is not what you hope for in Lethbridge? A dated PAC report you conducted in 2010 seems to think so?
Your PAC report states “compared to National data, Lethbridge has a higher percentage of households earning $25,000 to $49,000 and $50,000 to $69,999. Overall Lethbridge is less affluent then the province, as it has lower than average household earnings above $100,000”.

In the same report it shows your audience is clearly the group above $69,999, (you even produced a graph)so why are you not putting this in the proper perspective, or as a minimum doing an updated study to show whether this is, or is not, the present case? You broke your audience down by Education, from Academic Degrees down to Vocational/Technical Certification and it even showed you that you did not have a category for “other” ! The mere vacancy of “other” should tell you something. Many people went straight from primary or secondary school to farming or supporting other family businesses. They would be above average wage earners but you did not demonstrate you recognize them. If you do not recognize them how do you target them? Fast forward to 2021 and if the same proportion of the top wage earners and the more educated are “still the only attendees” and those numbers have not changed, what warrants the expenditure?

Performing Arts is not just for the richer segments of society, but if that is whom attends exclusively then you have a marketing problem that will not be solved by a new building and taxing the people that do not attend! It proliferates the “tax the poor to entertain the richer”, policies in life”!
Do you agree that if you were unsubsidized you would be out of business? Preservation for preservation sake appears to be waining in todays society to the point where what was a known is now “not known and even wrong”!
This is not just your issue, its a PAC facility issue throughout Canada. You may think I am stating the obvious, but in the era of 27 different genders and Revisions to the Holy Scriptures on the “fly” to suit the “New Society”, what makes you exempt from change? So maybe its time for a conceptual review? I support the Performing Arts, but if what you “Perform” does not reflect the Culture of the Community you serve, then its a wasted performance.

Your report although dated states clearly where your problem lies and is indicative of a problem with no suggested solutions. If “pleading for millions”, do you not think an updated study is warranted? Without it, you ponder a lack of support, why?