While one local community group is raising concerns about Rocky View County's (RVC) new Community Recreation and Culture Grant Program guidelines after the policy passed at the Oct. 31 council meeting, RVC councillors and administrators say the guidelines are in line with other jurisdictions in Alberta.
According to the new Policy C-317, community groups will now be required to contribute 15 per cent of the funding for large projects exceeding $1 million in Rocky View County, a reduction from the previous 50 per cent requirement.
“The current policy requires a minimum of 50 per cent contribution for all capital projects so this amendment will allow more flexibility for community organizations to fundraise for these projects,” said Ghada Rafih, RVC’s community services coordinator, during the Oct. 31 council meeting.
“When we undertook the review of this grant program, we tried to put ourselves in the community's position of trying to raise money for large facilities,” added Dari Lang, manager of recreation, parks and community support. “[It’s] going to be very onerous if we’re trying to look for a 50/50 cost sharing formula.”
Changes to RVC’s Community Recreation and Culture Grant Program also included a new funding model with differing requirements for small and medium projects. The funding model includes a 30 per cent community funding requirement for projects from $500,001 to $1 million, and 50 per cent for smaller projects up to $500,000.
Aside from the funding model change, other changes to the program included the addition of salaries and wages as eligible expenses.
However, Karin Hunter, president of the Springbank Community Association, said her group reached out at the beginning of October to request RVC to engage with community groups that would be affected by the policy.
Hunter told the Rocky View Weekly she was surprised to see the policy approved on Oct. 31 with no public consultation. While the Springbank Community Association supports the changes made to now include salaries and wages as eligible expenses, they have concerns about capital funds, she said.
“Given that most projects are less than half a million dollars within their community, we think it unjustly burdens the smaller projects with higher community contributions,” Hunter stated.
Projects that fall just under one million are required to contribute significantly more than a project that costs just over $1 million, she explained.
“We think if a project is important enough and is beneficial to enough residents, and has a proven need within the community, that the County should by and large fund that project, regardless of the groups ability to pay,” Hunter said.
She pointed out that large capital projects like the recreation facility in Langdon would require a $5 million community contribution under this policy, while Springbank’s community centre project would need a contribution of roughly $2.25 million.
“First of all, it's completely unrealistic that either community will get anywhere near that quantity in fundraising and second, those projects should be County-funded,” Hunter said.
In the Oct. 31 meeting, Division 2 Coun. and Deputy Reeve Don Kochan, who represents Springbank, said finding a funding model is very difficult and it has to start somewhere.
“I was encouraged to hear that if the community organizations are having issues or trouble providing the funding on especially a larger project, they can actually come back to council and request a variance from the funding model,” Kochan said.
Based on this notion, he supported the changes.
Hunter commented on this notion of getting around the funding requirement, raising concerns that this is not included in the policy.
“If there's nothing governing an appeal process, what does that specifically look like?” she questioned. “[For example,] ‘We like Langdon today so we grant them that appeal, and we don't like Springbank today, we don't grant them that appeal?’”
Community fundraising has changed, she added, and she believes it will not generate the dollars needed for those small community projects.
Kochan, however, felt administration provided a model that is comparable with others in the province.
“Administration is proposing this community cost sharing formula based on research of provincial grant structures and best practices of other municipalities, as well as feedback from the County’s community partners,” confirmed Rafih, when asked for clarity on the issue.
RVC found that many funding requirements throughout the province for large projects fell between five to 25 per cent, which administration based their decision on to choose 15 per cent, Lang later added.
She said if a community group can’t raise the funds, there are other ways to look for funding to help move projects along if council chooses to do so.
Other changes in Policy C-317 included the addition of “Culture” in the policy's title, formatting of several sections, clarity to the conflict-of-interest section, the addition of evaluation on criteria of grant streams, updated terminology for school board eligibility, increased life-cycle maintenance eligibility, the addition to the operating funding framework from the recreation and parks master plan, the change of the community beautification category to community benefit, the addition of a new letter of support section, and the identification of funding maximums on operational expenses for recreation centres.
