BREAKING NEWS: Exhibition staying open after council vote
By Lethbridge Herald on December 11, 2024.
Herald photo by Al Beeber
Lethbridge city council on Tuesday voted late at night to keep the doors of the Lethbridge and District Exhibition open. More details to come on the funding source for the continued operations.Lethbridge Herald
Lethbridge city council voted by a 6-2 margin late Tuesday night to keep funding the operations of the Lethbridge & District Exhibition.
The vote by council calls for $4.1 million in funding to be provided to the Exhibition in 2025 and 2026. Acting mayor Jeff Carlson and councillor Rajko Dodic voted against the motion.
Dodic told council late of the four options presented to council on the LDE his was a fifth – to shut it down, calling the project “way too big, way too grandiose” and without guardrails to put on hold the expenditures.
The funding source was to be discussed by council which was exploring the third of four options presented as the meeting progressed well past 10 p.m. But the result of the vote is not yet known due to online coverage of the meeting on YouTube cutting out before discussions could begin.
The Herald will have complete details on the funding source in Thursday’s paper but the option being considered was to defer any tax increase above the 5.1 per cent already scheduled for 2025 and 2026 until 2027.
-1
That nest egg money could have been better put towards a new bridge, rather into a black hole.
Hindsight is 20/20. We need a second bridge for maybe 2 hours a day.
That’s why we’re in such a sorry state. The saying “hindsight is 20/20” makes me laugh. They’re gambling with our taxpayer money. The key issue is being proactive versus reactive. Lethbridge is going to grow, and costs are going to rise. A reactive approach would mean waiting until the costs are higher. A proactive approach would involve getting it done right now, efficiently, and before costs inflate. Lethbridge and Alberta as a whole are very reactive rather than proactive, which is why we face so many problems. There’s no need for hindsight when you plan accordingly. The West is growing faster than the East, and the previous and current Lethbridge administration’s reactive policies make us pay in the long run. I’m sick and tired of it. How long is our city going to run like this?
off topic quickly, another bridge, is only a problem for that relative handful of those that have chosen to move to an area that came without a bridge. put another way, a third bridge does not serve those of us not in the west, and it hardly serves most of the west…however, i am all for those that feel they need another bridge banding together to pay for it themselves. perhaps that group can request a special tax levy based on one’s address, or simply by signing on to be a contributor.
for me, and, i expect for a majority of lethbridge, paying for a third bridge is not desired. maybe people can choose to not move to the southern reaches of the west; maybe we can then stop ruining what is left our degraded natural areas over there.
Biff, I understand your perspective on funding a third bridge, but this approach could lead to a slippery slope. Our tax system is designed to pool resources for the collective good, funding various projects across the city. For instance, initiatives like downtown revitalization and bike lanes are financed by all taxpayers, even if not everyone uses them. Over the past decade, the City of Lethbridge has invested in several projects on the east side, such as the Pathway 17 multi-use pathway along 43 Street South and the Victoria Park Area Redevelopment Plan.
The west side of Lethbridge is experiencing significant growth and will continue to do so. It’s essential to recognize that the west side is here to stay and will continue to develop. Therefore, investing in infrastructure like a third bridge benefits the entire city’s connectivity and future growth, not just a specific area.
As for your concerns about preserving natural areas, it’s worth noting that growth on the east side, particularly in the south, also continues to expand outward into the coulees and nature areas. Would you argue that this growth should be stopped as well? If we apply the same logic, we’d have to halt development citywide, which is not practical for a growing community. Instead, we need to find balanced solutions that allow for development while preserving key natural resources, regardless of which side of the city they occur. The west side, like the east, is part of our shared future, and we need to invest in infrastructure and resources accordingly.
thanks for a thoughtful reply. we will agree that the collective requires services that do not always encompass the needs and wishes of everyone; i suppose where we may not agree is that some things that are costly – very expensive things like a 3rd bridge – that serve a small potion of the collective, are not worth the expense relative to the whole that do not benefit much or at all. that is the case with the 3rd bridge…makes life easier for some, but hardly enough of us, given the incredible cost to build and to maintain. moreover, it would provide yet another blow to our natural element.
we also may not agree on the primacy of the natural world. we may also not agree that “development”, a wonderful euphemism for destruction, is ever necessary.
despite how we each see it, i sure appreciate your entries. perhaps, insofar as a third bridge goes, it should be recouped and maintained by an additional tax levy to the area it serves, and/or an ongoing toll.
I travelled that bridge for four years in the early morning both ways and again in the afternoon. All seasons. Suggestion. 60 KMH limit. 4 photo radar cameras, tolerance set at 80. We have no need for a second other than for a few that can’t leave home on time and feel rather than using some common sense driving that they should be catered to because they are “special”. Meanwhile back to the LDE.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. While I understand the perspective of limiting investments in infrastructure like a third bridge, I think this approach overlooks the bigger picture. Lethbridge is growing, and the West side is increasingly desirable for its location, views, and lack of industrial areas. As more people move to the West, the current infrastructure will become less sustainable, and delays will worsen. Suggesting people “choose not to move” there isn’t realistic, especially as the city expands.
Proactive planning is essential. It’s not just about the immediate convenience of commuters; it’s about preparing for the inevitable growth of our population and ensuring our city remains accessible and connected. A 60 KM/H limit and photo radar cameras are practical short-term measures, but they don’t solve long-term capacity issues. Ignoring the need for a third bridge now only pushes the problem onto future generations, likely at a higher cost.
Similarly, with the LDE, the City’s current solution of dipping into emergency funds is another example of short-term thinking. It avoids the tough decisions now but creates financial vulnerabilities later. Whether it’s bridges or exhibitions, Lethbridge needs leadership willing to look beyond the next year or election cycle and make decisions that support growth and sustainability for the future. Reacting to problems as they arise costs more in the long run than addressing them before they become crises.
Investments like a third bridge may seem unnecessary to some now, but as the West side continues to grow, it will become clear that this infrastructure is as vital as other projects we once questioned but now rely on daily. So back to the LDE, the same goes for the it. Let’s focus on making decisions with the next decade in mind, not just the next budget cycle and narrow decision making.
Online coverage ceases before discussion begins. So much for open, transparent government. This didn’t happen by accident. Council agenda was jammed with items on purpose as has often been the way in the past when a crucial decision is discussed.
A matter of such complexity and importance should have been given a special day with no other items, even if it cuts into council Christmas holidays.
I reluctantly accept the tax burden that the LDE will be for the next year or two. However, if it doesn’t become self sufficient or reduce the taxpayers burden significantly then we must consider another management company, selling the facility or moth balling it. The cost of maintenance will be less than the +$4 million cost to keep running. Our current tax burden is not acceptable and must be reduced by making the hard and unpopular cost cutting decisions by our elected representatives.
I think that this issue should have been voted on by the taxpayers and residents of Lethbridge. We are the ones who will have to pay for this mess..possibly for years to come.
Go to a more current news source for the results. They voted to keep funding it but no “direct’ tax increase.
https://lethbridgenewsnow.com/2024/12/11/city-of-lethbridge-to-continue-funding-exhibition-with-contingencies/
So the city “found” the millions of dollars to fund the LDE for 2025 avoiding the additional 2% property tax increase. That is taxpayers money and only covers next year and leaves us exposed to a cash shortfall should an emergency arise. I consider this an indirect tax increase and wonder how we can run the LDE in 2026 and later without direct increases. Council hopes we congratulate them for not raising taxes beyond the 5% and pat them on the back for a job well done while ignoring the fact the whole LDE fiasco was their fault in the first place.
You’re absolutely right. This situation is essentially an indirect tax increase. The City didn’t magically “find” the money; they are dipping into contingency funds and budget surpluses, which are taxpayer-funded resources meant for emergencies or future needs. While it avoids an immediate 2 percent property tax hike, it doesn’t eliminate the fact that taxpayers are still footing the bill.
Using contingency funds leaves us vulnerable if a real emergency arises. This would force the City to scramble for funds or borrow more, potentially leading to even higher taxes in the future. With $10 million still owed after the grant reduction, the question remains: how will the LDE be funded in 2026 and beyond without another “emergency” reallocation or direct tax increases?
Council’s decision might seem like a win on the surface because there are no additional taxes now, but it is just a band-aid fix that shifts the financial burden to the future. Let’s not forget that this entire situation is the result of poor planning and mismanagement in the first place. If they want congratulations, they need to demonstrate real fiscal responsibility, not just play a shell game with taxpayer money.
Some emergency fund. 58 million with 40 already committed. What the hell were the 40 million dollar emergencies. I’d like to see what their investment account looks like. Hopefully no ABCPaper
Buckwheat, you raise a valid concern. The emergency fund is meant for unexpected crises, and it would be helpful to understand where that $40 million has already been allocated. Transparency about these expenditures could go a long way in reassuring residents that the funds are being used responsibly.
As for the investment account, it’s definitely worth asking for clarity on what the city holds and how those investments are being managed. Ensuring that they’re secure and not in riskier assets like ABCP (Asset-Backed Commercial Paper) would help avoid potential financial pitfalls.
It’s important that we, as residents, continue to hold the city accountable and push for better financial oversight, especially when such large sums are involved. Thanks for bringing up this important point!
right on, buck! if ever auditing is invented, it just might shed some light on what makes city hall so poor.
well said!