City needs more long-range planning to avoid significant debt
By Lethbridge Herald on June 21, 2025.
Editor,
As a Lethbridge resident who follows our city’s finances, I read the June 14 article, “Council to vote on borrowing bylaws,” with growing concern. The proposed cost increases for the essential upgrades to our water treatment plant are staggering. While the need for a modern and resilient water system is clear, I believe an immediate turn to significant new debt is a premature solution.
Our community deserves a thorough exploration of every possible option before we place such a heavy debt burden on taxpayers. Simply borrowing tens of millions is not a sustainable long-term strategy; it’s a short-term fix with consequences that will affect our city’s financial health for years to come. We must be more innovative.
I am urging City Council to pause this vote and give serious consideration to a range of proven alternatives.
First, let’s look beyond traditional borrowing. A public-private partnership (P3) could transfer significant financial risk to a private partner with specialized expertise, potentially leading to cost savings. We should also be actively pursuing Green Bonds, which are designed for environmentally beneficial projects like water upgrades and can attract investors on more favourable terms.
Second, an all-or-nothing approach to construction may not be the most prudent path. A phased, modular plan would allow us to address the most critical needs now while spreading the financial impact over several years. This avoids a massive, one-time debt hit and allows for more flexible project management.
Third, we must be relentless in securing our fair share of infrastructure funding from provincial and federal governments. A strategic and forceful lobbying effort is needed to ensure Lethbridge’s critical projects are prioritized for the grant programs designed to support exactly this kind of work.
Finally, this situation highlights the urgent need for more robust, long-range financial planning. A comprehensive asset management plan, coupled with a forward-looking debt affordability strategy, would allow us to anticipate and save for major projects, preventing taxpayers from being caught in this difficult position in the future.
This is a critical decision point for our city. Let’s choose a path of innovation and long-term fiscal health, not just the path of least resistance.
Ryan Mennie
Lethbridge
12-11
Like the bonds. Like staged development.
But P3s typically have private companies chasing secure returns with the public body assuming risks. Corporate welfare at its best. Better for the public to assume the returns for their risk.
Yes he is. So???? Maybe do a great job. The cult will have to scrutinize and approve of course.
The P3 requires further investigation and contract details. Certainly don’t need another Trudeau pipeline. 5 bil against 34 bil. Public. However back in the Carpenter years it was suggested a pay as you go program. Simple, identify an infrastructure project needed 5-10 years in the future, add .25 or .5 to property tax bills with a thorough explanation that the extra taxation would be used to pay for the project later. Having the temerity and honesty to use the funds for the designated would be a requirement. Hopefully it would minimize the cost of borrowing for the project when needed. It was called the Pay as you Go program which has now become the “borrow as you go” program salted with the appropriate amount of “crisis”.
Nice edit Sophie. Nice to see you remove your snarky comment. “someone running for council”. Hence my comment yes he is, so what in response.
Don’t know what you’re talking about …
(Actually, I didn’t mean to gaslight you, bw. I just went to correct my grammar and thought it was a moot comment as the letter writer had already declared his intentions – which I hadn’t known. We all know you don’t need any help appearing kookie 🙂
p3s indeed end up costing the public whilst providing a secure cash cow for the corporate welfare elite.
As bank managers we knew P3 projects doubled the cost to the Public and it’s likely higher now.
Precise and thoughtful letter Mr. Mennie. Much thanks. I understand that Council gets a lower rate because of their borrowing clout. What interest rate could they offer on Bonds?
Homeowners are the wallet of last resort, paying increased taxes and fees. It has to stop!
Council, halt unfettered expansion sprawl. Our tax base and most of all the Oldman River are finite. We will never be a Calgary and emphatically don’t want to be.
I agree the city administration and council have become careless with our finances. The agri-hub being the most current example. I still would like to know who was responsible for getting us into that mess, but I won’t hold my breath on that. Every few years I shake my head in what the city does with our money, and it is our money despite what they think. From the new city hall financing, abcp, casa, and now the agri-hub. I bet that money we put into that would’ve helped but that’s just me.
So once again we see Albertans blaming it all on Mayors and city councilors while these Reformers treat them like morons and help the rich get richer at their expense. That’s how stupid Albertans are isn’t it?
Smith is all about helping the oil industry screw the people, which is why she was an oil industry lobbyist isn’t it?
in addition to the usual graft and ineptitude, i suspect those in charge of how our money is spent get careless because it is easy to spend money that is not one’s own. perhaps a system could be set up, roughly, that blatant cost overruns and spending beyond what we actually have to spend costs those in charge. something like: if a dept overspends by 20%, 20% gets shaved off the salary of each of those in charge.
Sounds to me like the same scenario that was used to fund the Exhibition. The City could learn some lessons from other more successful cities. Add this cost for a backup treatment plant to the $43M for bicycle lanes, and you have a big portion of what’s needed for a new bridge. This city has to realize the long term damage that will result without a third bridge.
Hate to break it to you but a third bridge isn’t going to happen for a long time. I can get to any point in this city in under 30 minutes, paradise canyon included. A third bridge will not get any support from provincial or federal governments and with a price tag of 150+ million that would hit taxpayers hard. You didn’t like the threatened 2.5% increase threatened for the agrihub? Triple it for a third bridge conservatively. You think Whoop up and hwy 3 are bad hit the deerfoot at 7:30am. I’d rather they put more into public transportation.
OK, $150M for the bridge… we’ve already spent 1/3 of that on bike lanes, and the taxpayer hasn’t complained. Then there’s the Ex…..