Public Accountability Questions Council Should Answer on the Fire Hall RFQUAL

Governance and Authority

• Which elements of the fire hall project were explicitly directed by Council as policy decisions, and which were delegated to staff through the RFQUAL?
• What formal resolutions of Council authorized the scope, assumptions, and delivery model embedded in the RFQUAL?
• At what point does Council believe political accountability begins in a procurement process of this scale?

RFQUAL Purpose and Constraints

• What specific alternatives were excluded by the RFQUAL criteria before the public saw any costed proposals?
• Why was an RFQUAL chosen instead of first presenting Council and the public with clearly defined options and trade-offs?
• What assumptions about project size, scope, and integration were treated as fixed rather than debatable?

Delivery Model and P3 Considerations

• Did Council explicitly debate and approve the inclusion or encouragement of public-private partnership or mixed-use development models?
• What public-interest risks associated with P3 structures were identified and assessed before issuing the RFQUAL?
• How will Council ensure that long-term municipal control and cost certainty are not compromised by private financing or ownership arrangements?

Cost and Financial Exposure

• How does Council reconcile the original voter-approved borrowing limit with current cost realities and RFQUAL assumptions?
• What contingencies exist if qualified proponents indicate that the project cannot be delivered within the stated municipal contribution?
• At what point would Council return to voters if financial exposure materially exceeds what was approved?

Land Acquisition and Location

• What locations were realistically available before the RFQUAL, and which were effectively removed from consideration by its requirements?
• What criteria were used to determine land suitability, and were those criteria policy-driven or staff-defined?