Letter to the Editor
Resident concerned about process used to choose land for new pool, asks for independent verification
When a city asks its residents to take on a $185 million debt, the least people should expect is a clear explanation of how we got here. We deserve more than slogans and glossy brochures. We need actual steps, evidence, and math.
That is why Tyler Holte’s recent rebuttal is so frustrating. He tells readers that the process was solid and the numbers are trustworthy. But when you look at the publicly available record, the steps that would make his claims true are not documented.
It is also worth noting a piece of context missing from Mr. Holte’s rebuttal. His own firm’s website states that he practices in real estate and business law. When someone whose professional work is closely tied to land and development advocates for a major capital project at a specific new site, that background is relevant for readers to understand. This is not an accusation of conflict. It is simply a matter of transparency and optics, which are essential when discussing a $185 million public decision. The public has a right to know the background of those advancing this narrative.
Before any city can justify a project of this scale, there are basic requirements. The first is an independent condition assessment of the existing pool to demonstrate that replacement is necessary. The City has not publicly released such a report. The second is a proper needs assessment that examines demographics and alternatives like renovation. Based on the material available to the public, that work has not been demonstrated.
The City points to an old regional engagement summary, but that work became insufficient the moment the partnership dissolved. You cannot reasonably justify a City-only project using regional data without revalidation. These steps are not optional. They are the foundation of responsible planning.
Without them, the project fails the test of basic accountability. The required steps appear to have been missed. These are widely understood as core requirements of responsible planning. And here is the difficult part to avoid. If the City cannot clearly demonstrate its methodology and supporting analysis, it would likely struggle to meet typical Provincial or Federal infrastructure grant requirements. Reduced grant eligibility would mean a greater share of the cost falling to local taxpayers.
Holte also claims the City’s process was collaborative. The regional district has indicated otherwise. In writing, the PRRD stated that it did not identify Parkwood as the preferred site and that it is not aware of a basis for the City’s claim that Parkwood emerged from regional analysis. At a minimum, this raises serious questions about how prior regional work is being interpreted. When the partnership ended, that work could no longer serve as a standalone justification for a City-only project without further validation.
The financial side raises additional concerns. The City presents a $7.3 million operating cost based on inflation assumptions. This does not appear to account for the full implications of facility size and staffing. The revenue projections are more concerning. A projected 76% increase in revenue is presented without any publicly available demand analysis or price elasticity assessment. Without that supporting work, the projection reads less like a model and more like a dart at a very expensive dartboard.
The claim that the average household will only pay $40 per month does not align with the City’s own figures. According to City scenarios, every $1 million borrowed corresponds to approximately $0.29 per month per household. Using that ratio and a borrowing scenario in the range of $160 million, the cost reaches $46.40 per month for debt servicing alone. When the $18 per month operating gap identified by the City is included, the total rises to over $64 per month. When additional factors such as unsecured regional contributions and operating outcomes observed in comparable municipalities are considered, the potential monthly impact approaches $115. This is not speculation. It follows directly from the arithmetic using the City’s own framework.
Even more concerning, the PRRD report does not clearly identify how many Fort St. John residents supported a $40 tax increase, either as a raw number or as a percentage. The City is relying on a figure that does not appear to have been directly measured or validated for a City-only project.
Holte tells residents to ask Council for the facts. I have done that. When I recently asked for the evidence behind the City’s claim of a healthy downtown, a Councillor provided specific vacancy numbers. When I asked for the methodology behind those numbers, the explanation changed. He acknowledged that the City does not formally track this data and that the figures were drawn from private sources not available to the public. Similarly, when I sent a written request to the City’s Director of Finance on February 2 asking for the basis of the $40 monthly tax tolerance figure, I did not receive a substantive response. This is a figure that was publicly presented as fact to Council, and yet its basis remains shrouded in mystery.
Telling residents to rely on assertions that cannot be independently verified does not meet the standard of transparency that this decision requires. If the work exists, it should be made public. If it does not, it should not be presented as established fact. Based on the record available to residents, the process being described is not supported by publicly accessible evidence. A project of this scale deserves better. The people being asked to pay for it deserve the truth.
Stephen Foster, Fort St. John
the broken typewriter welcomes Letters to the Editor.
Letters must carry a first and last name, and include an address and daytime telephone number to help verify identity. These will not be published, only your name and community. All letters are subject to editing.
Please send letters in the body of an email, rather than an attachment. We don’t publish letters addressed to others.
Email: tania@brokentypewriter.ca