Skip to content

Ponoka County hitches onto fieldhouse idea

County joins other municipalities in applying for grant money to pay for projects
13334303_web1_ponoka-fieldhouse-art
A change in the town’s recreation plans would see a new indoor field house as opposed to leisure pool, which was originally proposed last year. This new plan estimates a field house at $12 million plus other improvements to the Ponoka Culture and Recreation Complex. Town of Ponoka illustration

Ponoka County has tentatively jumped aboard the bandwagon to build a new field house recreational facility in Ponoka.

At it’s meeting on Aug. 14, council was presented the idea of being a contributing partner in a grant application with the towns of Ponoka and Stettler as well as the County of Stettler to construct new field houses in both communities.

CAO Charlie Cutforth noted that the proponents of building onto the current Ponoka Culture and Recreational Complex were in front of council earlier this year and presented the idea along with a way the county could contribute financially.

“However, we were approached a short time before the meeting by the Town of Ponoka and the Town of Stettler to join with them as the grant application deadline was the next day,” Cutforth explained.

“Council agreed to be part of this expression of interest for the Invest in Canada Infrastructure Program, though the funds and the project are a long way from being approved.”

The federal program would see approved projects proceed with the costs being split into thirds among the federal, provincial and local municipality.

What that potentially means for Ponoka County is paying for 45 per cent of the project, based upon the population split with the town, which amounts to approximately $ 1.735 million. The Town of Ponoka would pay the other 55 per cent of the $3.775 million project.

On the other side, the split between Stettler town and county is different — the town paying $2.516 million and the county cost being $1.335 million. That difference is due to those municipalities having a formalized agreement on recreational contributions, whereas there is no such deal in Ponoka.

“Part of the reason council jumped on this was it looks better with neighbouring municipalities getting into a partnership on capital projects to go along with the cost sharing benefits of construction two facilities at once,” Cutforth added.

No timeline for any decision on the application was available and any operational expenses of the future facility have not been determined.