Council OKs fee-for-service reviews

By Al Beeber - Lethbridge Herald on October 23, 2024.

LETHBRIDGE HERALDabeeber@lethbridgeherald.com

Lethbridge city council on Tuesday unanimously voted to direct administration to conduct and complete fee-for-service reviews of Economic Development Lethbridge and Tourism Lethbridge.
Council agreed to change the header of the reviews to a “mechanism for improving how the City of Lethbridge does Fee for Service agreements” after Belinda Crowson expressed concern that the public may think council has issues with either organization.
Councillor John Middleton-Hope, who had put forward the original motion, agreed with the modification noting the reviews of the City’s two largest fee-for-service groups aren’t a criticism but rather “good business.”
Council acting as Economic and Standing Policy Committee on Oct. 10 unanimously gave its blessing to fee-for-service cost benefit analyses of Economic Development Lethbridge and Tourism Lethbridge.
Administration has been tasked to return to council through the SPC with the findings no later than the first quarter of 2026.
A report to the SPC by the City’s Chief Financial Officer and treasurer Darrell Mathews stated that the objective of cost benefit analysis plans for both organizations is to “evaluate the current and alternative models of services provided to the City of Lethbridge by EDL and Tourism Lethbridge, and to review the operational recommendations from the KPMG Phase 3 report.”
City Manager Lloyd Brierley told the SPC at the Oct. 10 meeting that the reviews are “typically standard business practice and so while this might feel to some that have not been through this as a punitive exercise, it is absolutely by no means. It’s good business and sometimes what that does, it ensures we’re aligned. Here is what the City is expecting for the funds that they provide in terms of returns and beyond that it ensures that the organization has a common understanding and where we can do a course correction. It might be that the organization has some really good things planned that isn’t well understood by the City, that the City’s the one sometimes needing to do a course correction. . .That could result in more funding sometimes, other times it could result in funding being distributed in different ways.”

3
-2