Can a utility company owned by a city survive in Alberta’s deregulated market? Calgary’s ENMAX is up for sale, but how was the decision made? What’s the rush to get rid of it? As the city heads to the polls to pick a new mayor, ENMAX has become a powerful election issue. Mayoralty candidates Dave Bronconnier and Bev Longstaff go head to head for Business Edge readers.

Within 24 hours of being sworn in as Mayor, I will ask the new council to take steps to bring common sense to bear on the proposed sale of Enmax. That’s what’s been missing since the proposal was first brought before council at a 12-hour closed meeting on July 23.

Council voted the next day to sell the company. I voted against the motion because critical information was simply not presented. Among the most glaring omissions is any assessment on the impact on consumers. For example, how will they deal with even the simple reality that as private owners they will be subject to income tax, from which the city is exempt? Where is the independent analysis of the assumptions made by management that led to the recommendation to sell the company?

It does taxpayers little good to “lock in” a $30-million dividend by clipping coupons from the invested proceeds of the sale, if they’re forced to pay even more than that amount to new owners who, quite legitimately, will be seeking a return on their investment.

Not one of us would make such a profound decision without a full and complete analysis. Even the most ideological private enterpriser among us, upon examination of the way this is being handled, would notice these glaring omissions. (Please note, I am a small businessman with direct experience at meeting a payroll and all the other responsibilities that owning a business entails.)

It seems like much longer, but only two months have passed since we were told there could be no public debate on this deal because it would reduce the value of the company! That is perhaps the most troubling aspect of this unseemly affair. Then the city administrators took a poll and found out that Calgarians are very uneasy about what amounts to a quickie sale of a 95-year-old asset. All of a sudden, there appeared a communications strategy.

For a quarter of a million dollars, Calgarians were shelled with full-page newspaper ads and open houses.

Administrators took another poll . . . and the hard sell didn’t work. The unease wasn’t reduced . . . in fact it had increased. Why? Because people know the difference between meaningful consultation and a sales job.

Promoters of the sale, rather than listen to Calgarians, decided they’d simply buy some more ads. If you didn’t get the message for a quarter of a million dollars . . . they’d try spending another half a million.

That was approved by a one-vote margin on Sept. 13. The motion I will bring to council’s first meeting will call for an immediate halt to that spending . . . and to the spending of another million dollars authorized by the same one-vote margin for consultant’s fees.

Further, the motion will take steps to go back and do this thing right. A special committee of council will be formed to engage independent analysts to thoroughly investigate the pros and cons of selling Enmax. The analysts will report directly to this committee of elected representatives.

The committee will also be asked to examine the relationship between council and Enmax. A shareholders’ agreement provides the details of the existing relationship. For example, the agreement stipulates Enmax provide a $30-million dollar annual dividend to the city.

That number was approximately 50 per cent of Enmax profit in 1998, the year the agreement was approved. If the 50-per-cent ratio were in place this year, the dividend would be $150 million. That’s a lot of money. It could be used to finance the construction of interchanges to ease traffic congestion, or hold the line on taxes, or reduce energy costs to the consumer.

When the special committee of council completes its work, Calgarians will have a meaningful opportunity for input. Each household will receive extensive information. Responses will be sought. The Government of Alberta took the same approach to the proposed liquidation of the Heritage Fund. (Albertans told the government to keep the fund.)

A word about the criticism my approach to this issue has brought from the promoters of the quickie sale. “Politicking!’ they cry; as if an election is a poor occasion to discuss important issues. Where did we hear that before?

Thanks for taking time to read and consider this.