TAMRMS#: B06
6.1
Information Item Only
title
St. Albert Soccer Association Facility Development Proposal - Part 2
Presented by: Craig Cameron, Manager, Parks and Community Partnerships, Recreation and Parks
body
SUMMARY
This report provides a risk-based administrative review of the St. Albert Soccer Association (SASA) proposal for municipal investment towards their indoor training facility and outdoor artificial turf capital project.
Between July 17, 2025, and June 3, 2026, Administration supported SASA to confirm that SASA’s final submission aligned with the conditions set out in CM-25-012. Details of the review have been shared with SASA.
The review focuses on alignment with municipal priorities, SASA’s capital plan, SASA’s operating business case, and operating and financial impacts to St. Albert in supporting SASA’s request.
The review finds that:
1) The Project meets SASA’s operational needs. However, the Project does not address broad municipal recreation needs or align with the City of St Albert’s Service Level Inventory.
2) SASA’s capital plan best aligns to municipal standards for concept level design and should carry a cost contingency of +/-50% rather than the +5% suggested by SASA.
3) SASA’s operational business case does not reasonably address the capital, operating, and delivery risks identified by Administration.
4) Funding SASA’s request would require review of priorities in the 10 Year Capital Plan and may (depending on funding source) reduce future borrowing capacity.
ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL DIRECTION OR MANDATORY STATUTORY PROVISION
On July 15, 2025, Council passed the following motion:
CM-25-012
That the St. Albert Soccer Association’s request, as outlined in the June 17, 2025, Council presentation, be considered by Council within 90 days after SASA, at its own expense, has provided the City with:
1. An independent financial review, based on criteria mutually established by SASA and the City, of:
i. an operating business case, and
ii. a capital plan, including costing based on current environmental and geotechnical studies and municipal building standards and policy, and confirmation of project siting; and
2. Statement of support from adjacent and other Riel Park tenants.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
St. Albert Soccer Association’s History in the Community
Operating since 1955, SASA is one of the largest community sport partners in St. Albert. It reports to serve approximately 5,000 members from St. Albert and surrounding areas annually, providing year-round community and competitive soccer programs for children, youth, and adults. SASA is a member of the Alberta Soccer Association and Canada Soccer, holding a Canadian Soccer National Youth Club license.
The City of St. Albert has provided SASA with a nominal land lease in Riel Recreation Park since 1988. SASA has developed the site to include seven rectangular fields and a clubhouse. The clubhouse was built in 1992 with funding secured by a bank loan to SASA on which the City was the guarantor.
SASA programs rely on access to a network of municipal, regional, and private facilities. In St. Albert, this includes, annually, approximately:
• 1,100 hours rented on indoor, boarded artificial turf fields at Servus Credit Union Place,
• 150 hours of outdoor artificial turf field at Larry Olexiuk Field,
• 1,900 hours on City-owned outdoor natural turf fields, and
• minimal rental of the City’s community gymnasiums and multipurpose rooms.
SASA and Administration have a history of exploring facility needs. SASA was consulted on the initial design of indoor boarded fields at Servus Credit Union Place as well as the upcoming change in indoor turf standard. SASA, the City of St. Albert, and the City of Edmonton had a Memorandum of Understanding to explore the Field of Dreams project on the Mistatim Lands. SASA prompted the City of St. Albert to conduct a capital feasibility study to dome Larry Olexiuk Field, and Administration has worked with SASA to explore several other facility options which have partially informed SASA’s current request.
City of St. Albert Community Capital Project Approval and Support
Community-led construction projects on City-owned land are advanced through the Community Partner Capital Development Process. This process provides a gated approval process (see Image 1) that helps to ensure that community-led projects receiving City support are aligned to City priorities, are financially viable and sustainable for the organization, and are compliant with municipal development and construction requirements.
The process is led by Administration in Recreation and Parks and includes evaluation and approvals from various departments to move a project from an idea to operation.
Image1: Community Partner Capital Development Process
Typically, municipal funding for community-led capital projects is provided through the Community Capital Grant program. While SASA is eligible to apply to the grant program, the grant fund for 2026 was $265,000, well below SASA’s request, and current year’s funds have been fully allocated. There is also precedent for community groups to bring larger or more complex capital funding requests directly to Council.
St. Albert Soccer Association’s Request
Since SASA’s presentation to Council in 2025, Administration has worked with SASA to develop terms of reference, establish mutually agreed-upon review criteria, and provide feedback to SASA during their proposal development.
On June 3, 2026, Administration formally accepted SASA’s document submissions in accordance with CM-25-012 (the “Proposal”). The Proposal outlines a request for a municipal investment of $8.3M towards an $8.6M capital project (see Table 1) to construct a 7 vs 7 indoor training facility and an 11 vs 11 outdoor artificial turf field (the “Project”) to be located adjacent to their existing facility on leased land in Riel Recreation Park.
Administrative Review of St. Albert Soccer Association’s Proposal
The review focuses on risks identified in the Proposal, with specific emphasis on understanding the financial risks to the City in providing funds towards the Project.
The documents under review were confirmed by SASA on June 3, 2026, and the review was framed by the Community Partner Capital Development Process and aligned with the mutually agreed upon review criteria established by SASA and Administration.
Administration met with SASA on September 23, 2026 to share its findings.
1. Project Opportunity & Municipal Alignment
SASA’s Proposal Overview
The Project represents an opportunity for SASA to consolidate and leverage its rental and lease expenses to support the construction and operation of organizationally owned and operated assets.
The Project will improve SASA’s stature as top soccer club in the region, allowing them increased control over team training and game opportunities for their members, providing enhanced event hosting experiences and strengthening their club culture.
The Project will also offset a pending loss of training space, as their commercial lease for training space in Riel Industrial Estate (their current Performance Development Centre) is set to terminate in 2027.
Administrative Risk Review and Comment
As directed by Council’s Service Level Inventory, St. Albert is committed to providing a range of community amenities. Municipal investment prioritizes amenities that serve the broader public, supporting both spontaneous use and organized programming. Recognizing the value of partnerships in expanding recreational opportunities for residents, the City also facilitates access to commercial and noncommercial spaces and administers capital and operating grant programs.
The 2022 Recreation Amenity Needs Assessment (see Attachment 1) prioritizes municipal recreation amenity needs. The assessment ranked outdoor, artificial turf field as Low priority and indoor, non-boarded artificial turf field as Medium/High priority. SASA and Administration agree that the Project does not align with the scope or intent of these municipal needs, noting both the scale of project (training facility vs full-sized field) and primary user audience (SASA membership vs broad community).
In 2023, Council passed CB-23-50 directing Administration to work towards finding a suitable site and potential partnership for a future indoor, non-boarded artificial turf facility. Administration and SASA agree that the Project does not meet the intent of CB-23-50.
SASA is supported through a nominal land lease, and while acknowledging that existing grant programs do not have the capacity to support the level of funding requested in the Proposal, approving the proposed terms would set a precedent for municipal investment in community-led recreation amenities.
Conclusion
The Project clearly meets SASA’s operational needs. However, SASA’s needs do not align with the municipal priorities identified in the 2022 Recreation Amenity Needs Assessment or broad community interests outlined in Council service levels.
2. Capital Considerations
SASA’s Proposal Overview
SASA states that their capital plan meets development permit requirements, takes into full account the environmental conditions of the site, and provides construction-ready pricing at a cost certainty of +/-5%.
SASA also indicates that the Project can be sited within existing lease areas and will not require additional land or impact operations of leaseholders on adjacent lands.
Administrative Review and Comment
When considering municipal standards development permit readiness and capital planning, Administration finds that:
• Development permit considerations are at a pre-application standard. This means that further details are required to confirm elements such as parking requirements, setbacks and siting, site drainage, and landscaping. This also means that potential impacts on neighbouring lease parcels have not been resolved.
• SASA’s geotechnical study confirms known site conditions at Riel Recreation Park (a reclaimed garbage dump). However, it is not specified how these are reflected in design (e.g., through required building methane monitoring systems or foundation design considerations).
• The level of detail provided in the Proposal aligns to municipal expectations for concept level capital plans, which would carry a cost certainty of +/-50%.
Conclusion
Administration assesses that SASA’s capital plan and cost projections are less mature as related to COSA requirements, process and tolerance. Therefore, Administration cannot confirm SASA project siting and identifies attendant risk in accepting SASA’s capital cost assumptions.
3. Operating Business Case
SASA’s Proposal Overview
SASA provided an operating business case, which was subject to an independent financial review (secured in accordance with CM-25-012) by a qualified accountant. The review found that:
“…the financial statements and projections provided by SASA present a fair and reasonable representation of the anticipated financial performance of the proposed facility, given the information available at this stage of development…the project demonstrates a disciplined and realistic approach to financial management, supported by a clear understanding of both opportunities and risks associated with indoor sports facility operations”.
Administrative Risk Review and Comment
As supported by CM-25-012, Administration met with the independent reviewer to clarify the scope and findings of the review. Except for considerations for amenity lifecycle management (which fall below typical municipal practices), Administration accepts the findings of the independent review.
In accepting the review findings, Administration points out that feasibility of the operating business case is dependent on the certainty of capital costs. Given the above-mentioned risk in accepting the capital costs, equal risk is given to accepting the assumptions outlined in the operating business case.
In addition, the reasonableness of the operating business case also relies on the assumptions that 1) SASA can manage construction, and 2) a repayment rate is set at 3% annually. These assumptions present challenges. SASA’s ability to manage the project is dependent on how the City secures its funding, and SASA’s proposed repayment rate is below current rates the City could access through debenture.
Conclusion
Administration finds several risks in accepting SASA’s operating business case. These risks are linked to 1) risks identified in SASA’s capital plan, 2) uncertainty surrounding construction management, and 3) the potential gap between SASA’s proposed repayment terms and those acceptable to the City.
4. Municipal Impacts
SASA’s Proposal Overview
The Proposal assumes SASA can retain construction management, the City’s investment would be part grant and part revenue-neutral contribution (see Table 1 above), and that the City would secure the revenue-neutral contribution through debenture.
Administrative Risk Review and Comment
Operational Impacts
The Project is identified as a community-led capital project. Typically, this kind of project is managed through the Community Partner Capital Development Process, with any municipal funding provided through the Community Capital Grant Program.
There is, however, precedent, when community group requests are complex or beyond the grant program’s scope, of Council considering (e.g., Dynamix Gymnastics and Active Communities Alberta) and funding (e.g., Active Communities Alberta) community-led capital projects outside of the Community Capital Grant Program.
There is no precedent for Council providing either most of a community-led capital project or funding through a combination of grant contribution and debt repayment.
Financial Impacts
SASA’s Proposal considered versions of Scenarios 1 and 2 (outlined below). Following the discussion with SASA on September 23, 2026, two additional funding options were identified. General considerations and municipal impacts for each scenario are outlined below. SASA has indicated a preference for Scenario 4.
Conclusion
The funding and delivery model in SASA’s initial Proposal is not feasible, as SASA cannot lead a project funded through City debenture.
Below is a summary of all four alternative funding and delivery models (Table 2).
- All scenarios require review of priorities within the 10 Year Capital Plan.
- Scenarios 1 and 2 set a precedent for funding community-led capital projects.
- Scenario 1 carries financial risks to the City beyond SASA’s request and would impact future debt limits.
- Scenarios 3 and 4 provide a reduced financial risk and impact to capital prioritization, while still allowing SASA to advance its project.
- SASA has revised their preferred funding model as Scenario 4.
Summary
The Proposal outlines a unique funding request for a community-led capital project. The Project shows strong alignment to SASA’s operational needs. Administration has identified risks in SASA’s capital plan which are consistent with capital projects at concept phase. The major risk identified in SASA’s operating business case is linked to what Administration believes is an undervalued capital cost.
Acknowledging that the City has precedent for investing in community capital projects that do not directly meet municipally identified needs, four funding scenarios and associated municipal risks and impacts are summarized in Table 2.
Having completed its review, in alignment with CM-25-012, Administration considers this scope of work complete and would seek Council direction to advance any further work related to SASA’s Proposal.
STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS OR ENGAGEMENT
ALIGNMENT TO PRIORITIES IN COUNCIL’S STRATEGIC PLAN
Initiative aligned with Strategic Plan:
None at this time
ALIGNMENT TO LEVELS OF SERVICE DELIVERY
A. Community Amenities
B. Community Development
body
Report Date: October 13, 2026
Author(s): Craig Cameron, Manager, Parks and Community Partnerships
Department: Recreation & Parks
Department Director: Daniele Podlubny
Managing Director: Dinu Alex
Chief Administrative Officer: William Fletcher