Motion by Councillor Schmolka re LVEC - Is this for real?

[Bill(2)]

It has been debated. It has been argued. It has been decided.

There are things right about the Kingston Regional Sport and Entertainment facility. There are things wrong. There are things that could have been different, or better. However, be that as it may, the job has begun and the need to get it finished now exists.

By placing the motion on the floor, perhaps a well needed debate can be held. However, if it passes the city will experience irreparable damage. Kingston will confirm that it is a city of closed minded, non forward looking, afraid of change pessimists.

Sure, the location could be better. Sure, another location would probably have allowed for more seats, as well as additional facilities to support convention business. Sure there are easier places to build. BUT - the decisions have been made. The holes have been dug. This is too big a project to just 'drop'. Cancellation fees will be required to be paid. Now. There is no negotiation on them. So, presuming the reports presented in the news are accurate, we will have to spend the money at any rate, so we might as well get something to show for it.

[Dogma]

Bill - Very good points.

I believe the motion (not so surprisingly) ...would come at trhe first signs of a minor overrun.

I thought Glover would be the one initating it though.

The so called "surprise" overage of 10% of the "estimated" LVEC budget is for the naysayers - just one more excuse to pursue their mandate.

But, what they and our community is disturbing missing is FOCUS for the future.

Should not the councilors be more concerned about another local plant closing? i.e Hershey's, and the selling of Novelis/Alcan?

Rather than trying to shut down another economic engine????

Haven't local groups, citizens spent enough of our tax money on studies (for) the LVEC? ...Moving the LVEC and minimanaging the project?

I for one knew (as most experienced project estimators do) this project (like most larger projects) would exceed the "original estimated budget".

No one has a crystal ball to foresee such a large project as this. - with its volume of complexities. The drawings and environmental assessments can only reveal so much. Certainly, anyone with common sense can agree? But, common sense is not the naysayers motives its insecurity and self interest.

One thing should be clear- we are neither building a farmers barn or a bombastic Skydome!

Yes, it is also true:

There are already mutterings in the city that the project cost was lowballed in the beginning and the overruns are actually costs that should have been included.

A recent consultant comments: “I know that’s a pretty common citizen’s complaint, but I’ve seldom found that to be true,” he said. “I have some degree of sympathy for city staff in a situation like this, but we do expect first-rate advice from them.”

The resent consultants also noted there was a large degree of employee burnout among staff and “signs of excessive stress” among those they interviewed.

That came as no surprise, who noted staff had a city to run and putting a huge project on top of that – and in Kingston’s case, a number of them – could be too much.

“This type of thing is a fairly common problem because municipalities are overworked,” he said. “That’s largely the result of downloading – staff are responsible for a whole lot of things they weren’t doing before.”

But Huggett - the consultant said no one has stopped an arena project that was underway, particularly in view of the tens of millions of dollars in penalties and other costs a municipality would incur.

“When you’re building an arena, once you’re in, you’re in.”

Denis Chamberland, a Toronto lawyer who is a municipal procurement expert and who regularly advises public bodies on contract law and risk mitigation, said what Kingston is considering is known as “terminating for convenience” and is an extremely rare occurence.

“Projects don’t get terminated for convenience just because politicians think it would be nice to do a project differently or not to do it at all,” he said.

He says it is not uncommon for candidates to run for office in opposition to high-profile projects and even get elected on that stance, but once contracts are signed, they cannot be torn up without substantial financial penalty.

“It’s one thing to run with that as a platform, but, after the fact, people need to come to their senses and start thinking about the lawsuits that will follow.”

Mayor Harvey Rosen, who has called the motion “Disney-esque,” is a solicitor and he warned of the jeopardy posed to the city by reneging on a signed contract.

Unfortunately; the naysayers have never really known the slightest about building anything.

Especially a "multipurpose facility". Sell the steel ?????????????????????????????????????????????????

“If it’s already been drilled and cut for your arena, the only thing you would be able to use it for as it is is another arena of the exact same size and shape that someone happens to be building two blocks away, and the chances of that being the case are pretty remote,” he said.

Chamberland - noted that companies involved in the project, and organizations such as the Frontenacs who have signed contracts dependent on the new arena, are entitled to sue for the profit they expected to realize but didn’t as a result of the city’s decision.

Although he has been involved in cases where municipal politicians threatened to renege on signed contracts for political reasons, he said it was not commonplace, and seemed taken aback at the particulars of Kingston’s case.

“They’re ready to incur $14 million in penalties to get out of a project that is $4 million over budget?” he asked.

It scares me even more - that our recent council thinks in these terms.

OK - you may have picked up some votes because of the "LVEC conspiracy theories" that you and others seem to reveal in....but it is quite another thing to propose to cancel a signed contract while the project is already well on its way! (based solely on your conspiracy theory - friends)

You are also just asking for trouble and lawsuits..(would you do it personally if YOU would be on the hook for the lawsuit?) Hmmmmmmmmmm? I doubt it. So, why do you think we should be?

Just remember the conspiracy theorists.......and who they are:

Remember though how most of the local conspiracy members are fairly well off retirees, who live at the Anglan Bay condo's (who sold their homes in T.O) or have 30 year government pensions (or both) and who likely have to much time on their hand to be a naysayer. I wonder? If all they wish is to retire in peace and collect their pensions, enjoy their tidy investments (pay low taxes), and not have to worry about the rest of us working folk.

Who by the way pay for their pensions.

Councils Priorities: the LVEC?

We just saw another local plant closing (that our local councilors, and KCAL says AND do nothing about) ???

I wonder???? Where are local citizens suppost to work here?

All tallied: 7500 good paying jobs are gone in the past 5 years in this region!

Should not the local councilors be protesting about this "marginalization" of local union and non union workers???

Is there a hypocrisy here? I have heard NOTHING from council on this emergency situation?

Again Bill - the conspiracy theorist continue to not surprise me. But, they are also the biggest hypocrisy I have ever seen!

They do little but complain about a reasonable project to help the local economy, but say nothing about the real issues facing this region.

[Bill(2)]

Well, it should be lively. I understand that there are some presentations / delegations scheduled. Could be interesting.

Also, KROCK has a petition going about this. More details at www.krock1057.ca/station_info/morning_show.jsp

Looking forward to tonight!:eek:

[Dogma]

I signed the petition. (Thanks)

I hope they sink the naysyers motion for good!.

I will be watching with beer in hand....

[Bill(2)]

Very exciting meeting. A lot of answers provided - and a lot of information that has always been available re-introduced. NO excuses, just explenations. Not bad, when all was said (but not done - they ran out of time).

[Dogma]

I watched the proceedings and as Glover, I have been reassured.

In fact; the presentation (as you said) was open and transparent.

I would also say the naysayers must have felt ridiculous, in light of the confirmation - information audit.

I would also add - for Garrisons sake - the drawings, details and design for all the costs associated were frankly not completed for him to "have all his disclosure issues" either in September/06 or infact until the project has dug the hole.

That is the reality of design-build. And it was revealing how little most of the council knows of such matters.

Sure the conspiracy theorist (KCAL) had to show up finally frombehing their computer screens and "rant". And it sure came off that way. The presenter Steven Black was a poor speaker and seemed to "rant" as like their website - that is full of conspiracy theory - as apposed to facts.

I wonder how Vicky is feeling over this? She ran over to Glover would second her motion to kill the project - immediately after council. Man I think she will look foolish if she goes ahead with her motion. It will be defeated.

One last thing..I was impressed by Hector. She was the only one that knew that the cafeteria F, F, E - was not included in the pre design. And this was documented for the council and the public last May and June/06 - while Garrison was on council!

Did he not read the business plan or any of the reports?

I have always susspected he and the naysayers - lack of experience, lack of attention to details - and their lack of understanding (or wanting to) of the LVEC has led to all this "conspiracy theory".

And Hector proved this in spades!!!!!

[Bill(2)]

Sure the conspiracy theorist (KCAL) had to show up finally frombehing their computer screens and "rant". And it sure came off that way. The presenter Steven Black was a poor speaker and seemed to "rant" as like their website - that is full of conspiracy theory - as apposed to facts.

I actually know Steve from activities other than this. It is unfortunate that he didn't prepare himself better for the presentation. He seems to have thought that given his five .. errr ten minutes that the key was to talk faster rather than making his point. Yes, it was a rant and it was supposed to be a presentation. He may have had some valid points to share, but it was lost on everyone. I noticed a number of councillors reading through the addeds and other material while Steve had the podium.


I wonder how Vicky is feeling over this? She ran over to Glover would second her motion to kill the project - immediately after council. Man I think she will look foolish if she goes ahead with her motion. It will be defeated.


I think Dogma's thoughts got corrupted here. Perhaps Dogma could share the complete thought here. If I think I have it correctly, I think Dogma is suggesting that since the questions and concerns in the motion have been addressed, the need for the motion is moot and could therefore be withdrawn. If so, then I concur.

btw - Does Dogma perhaps have a different perception of Councillor Hector after last nights entertainment?


Did he not read the business plan or any of the reports? Is this required? /sarcasm:rolleyes:

[Dogma]

One last thing..I was impressed by Hector. She was the only one that knew that the cafeteria F, F, E - was not included in the pre design. And this was documented for the council and the public last May and June/06 - while Garrison was on council! I suspect he just did not wish to listen.

I certainly think that she (Hector) has done her homework. She does not seem to have the same hardwired conspiracy theory brain like some. Even Lisa seemed to be ok with the project! Lafarge issue seems to be her "torch".

Vicky and Garrison - will not let this go.



I actually know Steve from activities other than this. It is unfortunate that he didn't prepare himself better for the presentation. He seems to have thought that given his five .. errr ten minutes that the key was to talk faster rather than making his point. Yes, it was a rant and it was supposed to be a presentation. He may have had some valid points to share, but it was lost on everyone. I noticed a number of councillors reading through the addeds and other material while Steve had the podium. It would appear that Steve seems to be a reasonable website designer. His specialty are certainly not artistic type web pages, but for "information type web pages" - he seems very competent. What else does he do?

I tried to send Steve - a comment to his site a few months back. I have some experience with LVEC's and have worked and studied the industry for over 20 years. I asked them to answer a few basic questions. I posed questions based on general characteristics regarding an LVEC. i.e Logistics issues, inwhich they seemed "concerned".

One of the questions was:

What is drayage and its relevance to LVEC's? Their response was rather sharp and chilly.

In fact; he did not respond to the question posed - but just went on about the years of experience
their "core members" had with such issues. And that my letter would not be included because of some spelling mistakes.

To me this was not only rude but suspious. Were they formed for informing the community or just defending their self interest here?
(Many founding members live in the condo's at Anglan Bay.)

I had also been extremely pleasant and posed a very basic question relating to (all) LVEC facilities.

Maybe (ego, or threatened) or just questioning some of their expert "opinions" had something to do with their rude and unprofessional response? Others that have asked politely and also relevant questions to the group - were also rudely delt with in many cases "snubbed". - I found this also very disturbing.

I for one agree with experienced critical opinion. I have no issue with citizens groups input. But, in this case it seems that KCAL have a somewhat "tunnel" vision mentality. (As shown on their site and in Steve's presentation)

Its one thing to present (a few relevant points) to the "audience" and present them well. Its quite another to get some answers from the project manager by aggressively ranting about so many conspiracy and relevent issues at the same time - no one in their right mind will take you seriously. Or ask a question.

To convey dozens of antidotal and bias "opinions" to prop up your groups spin, misinforms the community, and does a disservice to this project. WELL KNOWING recent issues i.e The Grand and Market Square, that I believe KCAL is intentionally linking the LVEC to.

This should not be their intent to "inform" Kingston citizens with such pernious tactics. Speak to the LVEC issue you have a "concern" about...not ALL City projects.

They seem to (demand) the City and all associated with the project to communicate, critically expedite issues and divulge the characteristics and issues surrounding such facilities. But, again when asked to do the same from one that (has actual experience) with such facilities all over the world (big and small LVEC's) they (he) seemed to not want to know. This was another reason I felt alienated - they did not seem inclusive to others opinions.

I also asked them regarding (1) one of their main "so called experts" - Mary Lou Adams - an associate prof. in sports physiology at Queens. Who had some references on the subject (but did not know KCAL used them on their site)

I asked Mary Lou personally - if she knew KCAL used her references, had any experience with LVEC's or had studied the LVEC's or any of the existing type of conference, trade show or entertainment facilities or their associations.

She replied that she has "no experience either hands on, or has studied or any affiliation with any such facilities".

All she did is Google some articles that were 10 years old, based on a 1 billion dollar baseball stadium in New York. And suggested the issues surrounding this facility was (in her opinion) the same as our small downtown multipurpose facility.

I did not get a response from KCAL.

All I noticed in a week’s time..on their site that they added beside Mary Lou article link - "Kingston is no different".
And that the web link to Kingston Electors that had been on their site since inception somehow suddenly disappeared.

And lastly; and more telling there are NO comments on their site (critical or otherwise) that does not agree with their mission statement.

Hmmmmmmmm. You take what you wish from this.

[Bill(2)]

The continuation of the meeting will begin at 7:30 PM on Tuesday, February 27, 2007.

Yeee Haaaawwww!

[Dogma]

My speech could be within 5 minutes - guarranteed.

Beyond Hesheys 500 recent jobs loss....

Bosal Canada Inc. said the company had to lay off the workers because of a downturn in North America’s auto sector and they would be moving some of the work done at the Kingston plant to Mexico.

Two weeks before that, 123 employees lost their jobs when Michigan-based Collins and Aikman announced it was closing its Gananoque plastic-moulding factory, which supplies parts to the auto sector.

In December 2005, 100 people lost their jobs when Mahle closed its engine-parts plant in Gananoque.

Wong said there is a disturbing trend across Ontario with manufacturing jobs leaving the area.

He said Smiths Falls may even have an economic advantage over Kingston because of the large scale of the chocolate factory closure relative to the town’s population base.

“It will tend to make Smiths Falls possibly a higher-target area for provincial government funding,” said Wong. “Governments allocate money on a regional basis, so if we’re lumped in with Smiths Falls, anything that goes there won’t come here.”

In addition, Wong said the closure of the chocolate factory highlights the need for Kingston to distinguish itself from other neighbouring municipalities so that companies will want to locate here.

“This comes back to the notion of why it’s so important that we need to move quickly on things like the Grand Theatre, the multiplex, the Large Venue Entertainment Centre and Market Square, because at the end of the day, those are the things that will stand us apart from those other areas,” he said.

It’s not enough for a municipality to market itself as a small town that’s a “nice place to live.”

“That’s not enough as far as companies go,” said Wong.

Jeff Garrah, interim president of Kingston’s economic development agency, said hundreds of people are losing their jobs in eastern Ontario and governments should do more to sustain economic development locally.

“If you look at eastern Ontario, there’s a disturbing trend that we’re probably in some regards not far off some of the challenges that northern Ontario has had to face,” he said.

Garrah said the federal government in particular may need to start looking at establishing a program designed to promote economic development in all communities in eastern Ontario.

He cited the Eastern Ontario Development Program that already exists, but said municipalities larger than 100,000 aren’t eligible for funding. Kingston is one of those municipalities.

“We’re not far over 100,000 – why exclude us?”

Noting Bombardier, Alcan and Norcom have all downsized or shutdown operations...these are 1000's of well paying jobs not being replaced!

Since the late 1990's (7500 jobs) have left this community! Replacement of maybe 1000 call centre jobs - at half the pay.

Example:

= 7500 x 50,000 a year salary = $ 375,500,000 million dollars GONE!

And our local council worries about 4 million in obvious construction "needs" for the LVEC! ??????????????????????

If our council spends any more time and effort minimanaging these projects - for the sake of a few "concerned"
citizens taxes or because of some conspiracy theorists....

Maybe its about time we deal with the real issues that will be raising ones taxes, or marginalizing ones standard of living....across the region.

The public needs to wake up and "concern" themselves of an entire generation of working citizens that pay into your pensions, local taxes and economic quality of life.

An intelligent and innovative council should be more about "saving or building industry" not discouraging innovative projects.

http://www.kingstonelectors.ca/forums/images/misc/progress.gif

[Lydia]

Since you two guys think that the LVEC is so great, maybe you can also shed light on who it is that Harvey is protecting???

Apparently, the legal department doesn't want Harvey to tell the public who the INDIVIDUAL is that wants all details private.

Makes one wonder what kind of hold this person has over the city. Maybe we should just hand over the city and let this person run the whole city. Maybe this person should do everything. We don't need a council ever with this guy/gal's power. Heck we don't even need a mayor or even you guys. lmao.

You two don't get it. It isn't that people are upset with having an LVEC. It is the WAY it was done. You guys keep talking about this council being stupid in thinking the project should be canceled over 4 million.

WAKE UP 26-28 MILLION is what the BUSINESS PLAN said it would be. Just a little difference 46 Million if council goes with it minus 28 Million EQUALS A SCREW UP OF 18 MILLION not 4

[BornAndRaised]

Don't get Dogma going now, because somehow these cost overruns will get blamed on the "naysayers" for changing the location from the Anglin Bay to the current substandard location. My crystal ball says there would have been many cost overruns that would have most likely turned up from the poor planning or lack thereof in the design process. I agree that the way the LVEC has been handled, has peaked curiousity among the already untrusting public who will have to pay for the overruns somehow.

I do not believe that the motion was to actually get the LVEC cancelled but to rather bring forth a problem that needs to be addressed about poor control measures on budgets for large projects, and transparency issues that could have made a difference to the outcome of the last election. It would be nearly impossible to find a good reason to cancel the LVEC at this point and council must know this. The cost overrun would have to be in the ballpark of the costs of cancelling the project.

The Mayor has followed through with his election promise and has done what ever he had to do to see it through to the end. There will be no changing that. If there was no change in the location (from the M Centre) then there would have been much less friction among the public since he won the first election hands down based on his LVEC dominant campaign. The fact that he squeaked by with a narrow margin on the last election shows that people are not happy with the way the LVEC was handled. It didn't mean that everyone flip flopped and all of a sudden didn't want an LVEC. Granted the mayor doesn't have final choice on this matter but the unhappy public responded by not re-electing the council members who were pushing the Dream Train. Just my opinion, and well almost everyone who I have talked to about this.........not that it matters.

[Lydia]

You are correct Born&Raised. Keep in mind that the cost at this point is an addition $4 million OR IS IT??? Did anyone address the issue of Handicap accessibility in this overrun? Did anyone address other issues that Bill Glover has asked??

Hum, I personally see an additional $10 Million if not $20 Million in overruns. However like Dogma says I am not an expert in create this time of venture. Of course, this leads me to ask the question, "If the experts are so knowledgeable, how come there overruns where not factored into the forecast?? Do these councillors have ALL THE COSTS accounted for?? If they do why is staff so scared to tell everyone the FINAL COSTS.

[hddan]

Re, Dogma's remarks,

[Remember though how most of the local conspiracy members are fairly well off retirees, who live at the Anglan Bay condo's (who sold their homes in T.O) or have 30 year government pensions (or both) and who likely have to much time on their hand to be a naysayer. I wonder? If all they wish is to retire in peace and collect their pensions, enjoy their tidy investments (pay low taxes), and not have to worry about the rest of us working folk.

Who by the way pay for their pensions. ]

I agreed with most of your valid comments cocerning the LVEC but I strongly object to your character (assassination) assessment of government workers. Public service workers work and pay into the pension plans in lieu of wages. Most of these jobs are dangerous and stressful, ie, nurses, police, guards, etc.
I work as a health care professional, I deserve a decent pension. I have not seen a raise in my pay in 7 years, were as the private sector has enjoyed a average of 2-3% increases each year. Considering a large majority of workers in Kingston are public service workers and we spend our money to local businesses, whom pays who?

When I retire I will have worked 40 years for my pension and hopefully I can budget the best I can. Hopefully in retirement, I can contribute to MY community that I have lived in most of my life.

These type of bigoted comments diminish you and do nothing to further your arguments concerning the real issues.

[Bill(2)]

Earlier, Dogma quoted Mr Wong:

It’s not enough for a municipality to market itself as a small town that’s a “nice place to live.”

I submit to you that the first thing that needs to change is that this is not a small town. Small city perhaps, but not a small town. Sorry kids, but it's time to accept the size of our locale and the responsibilities that go along with it. This includes infrastructure support - including that of the 'old' city and the newer portions (formerly know as 'Townships'). And how we handle these responsibilities will also reflect how nice a place this is to live.

Taking to the next step, yes the Regional Sport nd Entertainment Centre will also be a reflection of this. It's all part of the big picture - and I fear that is what some of the people (including the 'naysayers' as Dogma like to tag them) are missing. More on this later.

Later, Lydia comments:

Since you two guys think that the LVEC is so great, maybe you can also shed light on who it is that Harvey is protecting???

Apparently, the legal department doesn't want Harvey to tell the public who the INDIVIDUAL is that wants all details private.


If Mayor Rosen will not share the name on the advise of the legal department, then I thank his for protecting us, the taxpayers from having to fund a law suite resulting from releasing information that can't be done. I wonder, is this the tactic of Councillor Garrison - he keeps demanding the name be spoken in public, yet he was reminded that he knows the name - it was shared in one of the in-camera sessions. Obviously because it has legal implications, and Councillor Garrison knows this and if he knows the name he certainly isn't placing his neck on the chopping block.

Lydia also poses the question:

You two don't get it. It isn't that people are upset with having an LVEC. It is the WAY it was done. You guys keep talking about this council being stupid in thinking the project should be canceled over 4 million.

WAKE UP 26-28 MILLION is what the BUSINESS PLAN said it would be. Just a little difference 46 Million if council goes with it minus 28 Million EQUALS A SCREW UP OF 18 MILLION not 4


Oh, I get it. And I agree that there is a lot of tension over how some of this was done in the past. The Mayor has acknowledged this, as have others on Council. But what was done is done. get over it. Now let's look at the current issues. I know an earlier document indicated that it might be done for 26-28 Million but I can't recall the formal business plan committing to this amount. In addition, I'd like to remind you that the person who put together early numbers and set some of the expectations is no longer part of the project. Ms. Hurdle has been putting a lot of work (as we saw in her presentation Tuesday last, and in the past) to address the issues identified in the audit / review that KPMG conducted. This means that if her work results in a more realistic estimate of 40 - 46 Million then good on her.

Some people have issues with the fact the KPMG report didn't go public right away. Well, in my experience audit reports such as this are put out, and the audited function or project is given the opportunity to provide response or rebuttal. To me, that's just efficient staff work. Again, as we have seen, the issues have been identified, prioritized and actioned (or rebutted) Failure to do so would have been irresponsible on the part of the City Staff. And, in it's incomplete form it would have been irresponsible - although for a couple candidates the report probably would have been a wonderful thing to mis-interpret and abuse. :p

[Lydia]

Thanks Bill for informing us about the legal implications here. You are 100% correct; we should know that the name would NEVER be forth coming. The question for us as a city is this, "Should one person or family have that kind of power over a city?" It doesn't matter who they are, Would you want Trumps, Eatons, McCains, etc to own this city?

Are you certain that there will NOT be any more oversights?? If it cost only another $4, million to FULLY complete the LVEC, so be it. I agree with get over it. However, because everything was done the way it was done how can we TRUST council, staff ever again UNLESS we find a better manner to deal with projects?

Would someone PLEASE come forth and tell us the EXACT COSTS. My husband says, Would you like to buy a new home from a developer and told that the cost was $400,000 to purchase and then half way into building this home told "I'm sorry we misunderstood this home ACTUALLY will cost you $600,000." Would you continue with the purchasing of that home?

I do have an idea, however, if that developer said $400,000 then he should absorb that $200,000. himself. Why couldn't the city make deals for a set cost period without oversights? Is the developer that bad that they don't know what it will cost? If that developer doesn't know what it will cost why do business with them?

Again, I personally would be very surprised if the LVEC is cancelled. People talk about our City's Credit Rating, City's Reputation, etc. Guess what folks, it all ready is. Maybe it is time for the crap to fly and then clean up to begin to bring back our Rating and Reputation.

[BornAndRaised]

Would someone PLEASE come forth and tell us the EXACT COSTS. My husband says, Would you like to buy a new home from a developer and told that the cost was $400,000 to purchase and then half way into building this home told "I'm sorry we misunderstood this home ACTUALLY will cost you $600,000." Would you continue with the purchasing of that home?

This would be compared better to someone owning some land and asking a homebuilder to build a home on it with a full basement to find out that there is a layer of bedrock 2ft down where most of the house should lie. What ever the remedy is there is going to be extra costs involved and in this case, as there is quite often. Who should have to pay for the unexpected extra costs? I would say the homeowner unless the homebuilder was specifically responsible for determining the soil depth. Then all of a sudden the homeowner asks for an in-law suite built into the basement for the same price because they thought that the inlaws were initially going to do it themselves. Again, not fair to the homebuilder. There needs to be a fair means of arbitration when it comes to overcoming the unexpected hurdles that can't be anticipated.

I think that many people feel that the numbers were intentionally kept lower to appease the public, then when the actual values were being realized everyone feels cheated or like they were lied to. It gives a very bad impression to the public that the people running the show don't really know what they are doing and the citizens hold a very low level of trust for those responsible. The question is who is responsible? and are the extra costs a result of incompetence or unforeseen obstacles? I hope the local politicians can look at this example and avoid some of the mistakes made for future projects of all sizes.

[Bill(2)]

Lydia asks the question:

Would someone PLEASE come forth and tell us the EXACT COSTS.

As Ms Hurdle mentioned last Tuesday, the numbers she provided are estimates, or forecast costs. Given the size of the project, it is all that can be done. You will not get the exact numbers until the project is complete. That is why the planning process sets a budget - it allows the comparison of projected costs against actual costs. If your project manager does a good job (or leads an effective team as it needs to be in this case) then there will be a small variance between planned and actual - which is why there is contingency funding. Personally, when I am working on a project with public funding, my project budgets reflect higher costs and lower revenues - that way in the end the news is not as bad as we all think.;)

Born 'n Raised makes some very good points to this question as well. As he mentions:
The question is who is responsible? and are the extra costs a result of incompetence or unforeseen obstacles? I hope the local politicians can look at this example and avoid some of the mistakes made for future projects of all sizes.
, all I can say is "what he said" (sorry, gender presumed).

[Lydia]

WOW AN ACTUAL AGREEMENT FROM ALL OF US WITH THIS STATEMENT.

Well done Born&Raised, this is exactly the main point here. You are 100% correct, that is why my in-laws are NOT ALLOWED to come and live here. lol lol. ( that and they are deceased) lol lol I can fully trust a council who will state that additional costs are forth coming because add ons that where NOT in the main plan have been decided upon.

Do I feel that there is a conspiracy? NO!!! What i feel is that council didn't have a process where overuns and additional costs are accounted for. I believe that a project was desired, was voted for, was done without advisory committee's views considered valued, and was rushed into.

Dogma always states that the KCAL group (which I am not a member of now) didn't look at the business plan. I did and found too many assumptions in it to be fully valued, just my opinion as an accountant. However, you can't have a business plan if you don't have the knowledge on the cost of other similiar projects. I just don't believe other costs of the similiar projects were total considered. I am sorry, If I am mistaken but if they were, then why don't we have a more realistic financial report.

[Lydia]

DON'T MAKE ME COME OVER THERE BILL. :D :D :D :D

I am not politically correct and never will be. lol lol. However, If you go OVER the line, Ill get you. lol lol.

[Dogma]

Dogma always states that the KCAL group (which I am not a member of now) didn't look at the business plan. I did and found too many assumptions in it to be fully valued, just my opinion as an accountant. However, you can't have a business plan if you don't have the knowledge on the cost of other similar projects. I just don't believe other costs of the similar projects were total considered. I am sorry, If I am mistaken but if they were, then why don't we have a more realistic financial report.I certainly must sound like a broken record...and my deliverance may seem somewhat bias - but indeed reality amongst all your assumptions needs to be repeated!



The original task force report was estimated @ $ 28,000,000, An estimate with no drawings, no design and no extra features or actual costs for i.e. LEED certified, staging, developing the property, environmental assessments etc. Along with the cost (staff reports) two enviromental assessments - to now move the facility to the North Block.

The original business plan - was used to get a "reasonable estimate" on most of the "known" costs and issues, for the success of ones venture.
Including identifying risks. i.e building costs at that time, cost associated for the general project - only based on Anglan Bay. Which = $ 37,000,000. (Approx.)

Business plans are also NEVER, EVER a 100% crystal ball of the outcome of a project or ones business venture. They are a guide or road map of project expectations, based on other facilities (in this case), or businesses in the same industry with inclusion of local frameworks/information - such as demographics, population base, usages, facility seating size..etc.

They are also generally built on conservative data.

Ms. Kennedy's analysis of the business plan, market studies and expenses to revenue for this project was well done.

Certainly not just because the positive numbers, or because she identified weaknesses and strengths in the "forecasts". And adjusted accordingly...

But, because it communicated and made the information (that has been available to the public for 2 years) more agreeable to consume or understand for most of Kingstonians, & council - whom assumed the info through the local gossip section, or naysayer groups or "council TV" staring R. Downes and company.

I suspected from the outset not many would take the time to read the entire business plan, market studies and subsequent spreadsheets on financials.

And I believe, I was correct.

There was little or no interest to read (and undersatnd) an 80 + page report, or visit other facilities, along with fully undertaking many other experts reports
...it is simply human nature to NOT do your homework unless you must. (And or get by .. or assume the City is reponsible to educate ones needs)

(Especially when your concerns are all about the here an now - and memories or circumstances of them ie. - 11 points below)

Ms. Kennedy (explained what the plan and finances meant) and gave an almost "independent" audit for the public and council. (I believe this was also well overdue.)

And if the City (had all the numbers, design etc.) they should have done this communication process earlier avoiding all this (uninformed speculation leading to conspiracy theory central), i.e. council TV, and hearsay on a project "large town" Kingston has NO history or will to understand.

Indeed, it is true the following contributing factors led to such issues.

1) Residential tax increases steadily since 1998. Up 25%
2) residential taxes to low, no allowance for infrastructure (previous 20 years)
3) Reliance of "institutional employment" in the region, general complacency
4) The loss or closing of manufacturing facilities in the area (5000 jobs) - an indeed the days of 40 year careers with pensions (are over)
5) Block "D" (25 year issue) - pent up development frustrations
6) Grand Theatre (concepted by hertitage interest groups) development - of an old, very risky building, foreseable budget overruns
7) Market Square - naming rights - closed door agreement - mistrust, not resolved
8) Previous council of business oriented "supporters", new council (lesser)
9) Social discourse relating to accountability, lack of communication
10) To many (pent-up or regulated) projects for the City at one time.
11) No central "point man" to communicate, articulates and liaison public concerns of the "process", design and scope of (all) of the 7 main projects identified by the general public 3 years previously.
12) Overrun report in Sept. that I believe Mr. Getch was fired for. - no disclosure, confidentiality issues.
13) Well organised tax groups and residence at the condo on Anglan Bay (who were instrumental) and generally had the time, money as retirees
- organized to fead the fire of the (lack of communication and transparency) - the City chose to ignore on the LVEC file.
- such sentiments wished their condo community to have free access to their panoramic views of the lake, quiet lifestyle and interrupted downtown lifestyle with no undue downtown inconviences, such as development. Along with the transparancy issues developed this atmosphere od suspision.


Don't get Dogma going now, because somehow these cost overruns will get blamed on the "naysayers" for changing the location from the Anglin Bay to the current substandard location. My crystal ball says there would have been many cost overruns that would have most likely turned up from the poor planning or lack thereof in the design process. I agree that the way the LVEC has been handled, has peaked curiousity among the already untrusting public who will have to pay for the overruns somehow.I believe to this day that self interest of this group, and some neighboring residence not only contributed to the cost overruns of the LVEC but indeed its marginalizing in terms of parking, opportunity costs such as the sqft floor area that is now 30% smaller for the facility at the North Block. (For the same budget)

And I pose to you:

If you had the choice to buy two homes, that are identical in its features, but one is 30% smaller, has a worse view, less property and less parking.. (For the same cost?) Which would you buy? And feel it was the overall better long term investment. Hmmmmmmmm.

I fully suspect the council will pass the LVEC project with maybe 3 against. Garrison. Meyers and Vicki S. Unfortunately the two absent will not vote , but have indicated their vote to continue with the project. So, for the 10% overage which is perfectly normal when you build anything, and the lack of contingency funds to cover such issues - I see this as a no brainer considering the latter argument.

Its time to focus and put our energy and tax resources on more pressing issues such as 5000 jobs x $ 50,000 a year salargies leaving our region = for you oh so concerned about "" $ 250,000,000 million ! in LOSS to our local economy - as apposed to $ 4 million of investments in our waterfront environment in addition to a new updated "Memorial Centre" (which this is about by the way)to HELP our region with economic development, that could not come at a better time.


When I retire I will have worked 40 years for my pension and hopefully I can budget the best I can. Hopefully in retirement, I can contribute to MY community that I have lived in most of my life.

All I can say is -

I certainly do not expect the current or future generations to have the economic, and social assistance opportunities you and your generation undoubtingly deserve.

[Lydia]

And if the City (had all the numbers, design etc.) they should have done this communication process earlier avoiding all this (uninformed speculation leading to conspiracy theory central), i.e. council TV, and hearsay on a project "large town" Kingston has NO history or will to understand.


Bingo. Right on!!!!

NOW, I can understand why the overage for the $4 million is happening. Finally, the $38 million makes reasonable sense. Finally we can understand the $4 million. You have identified the cost. Thank you Thank you Thank you.

You are correct USUALLY it is the conservative data that gets presented. That is exactly why I said all along that we need to forecast for the unconversative side of things because of the way Council and Staff work together.

Now, I am on your side of this. the $38 million is what Anglin Bay would have cost us and because it was MOVED to the LVEC location we have incurred the additional amount. AM I CORRECT HERE? This makes the difference in understand the issue.

Still not happy with everything but at least less upset with the financial part. I still would like the know the answers to Bill Glover's financial questions.

[Lydia]

Sorry Dogma, you forgot a point here

Point 14 should read:

Business taxes never collected for years and years and years.

How many write-offs have the accounting and tax department in the city done because they have not acted fast enough to collect due taxes from businesses.

Rather than collecting taxes (AGAIN) from the residential side of things, how about COLLECTING taxes IMMEDIATELY from businesses. Why should they be allowed to not pay them, move out and then create another business somewhere else.

[Dogma]

Lydia - business taxes are paid. In fact they pay to much. That is the problem. The problem is Kingston's instiutional town, i.e Government agaencies, Universities etc, pay no tax! And they have primarily been the main stay of Kingston.

And that being said like Ireland who has a robust business atmosphere, taxes must be lowered, have highly educated labour force and indead a willingness to invest and change.........

The difficulty here is complacency in Kedco, The City and its residence, unions etc - including the downloading of services to the municipal level. There is only so much you can afford to absorb if you corporate tax base is marginal to begin with.

Again - the LVEC "bickering" is from frustrated individuals on both sides of the issue, that have had to live with poor communication, poor transparency from the outset. You cannot expect a community to fully understand this project by spoon feeding in small portions. The City lacked a person to manage the issues that would have made this project more trustworthy...when stuff happens. And 4 millon overage 10% is not unusual for any building from scratch.

And this surprises me that our council or the general public cannot or does not realise this? The best thing they should have done - is ballparked 42-49 millon and if it comes in less your a hero!

Issues:

1) Residential tax increases steadily since 1998. Up 25%
2) residential taxes to low, no allowance for infrastructure (previous 20 years)
3) Reliance of "institutional employment" in the region, general complacency
4) The loss or closing of manufacturing facilities in the area (5000 jobs) - an indeed the days of 40 year careers with pensions (are over)
5) Block "D" (25 year issue) - pent up development frustrations
6) Grand Theatre (concepted by hertitage interest groups) development - of an old, very risky building, foreseable budget overruns
7) Market Square - naming rights - closed door agreement - mistrust, not resolved
8) Previous council of business oriented "supporters", new council (lesser)
9) Social discourse relating to accountability, lack of communication
10) To many (pent-up or regulated) projects for the City at one time.
11) No central "point man" to communicate, articulates and liaison public concerns of the "process", design and scope of (all) of the 7 main projects identified by the general public 3 years previously.
12) Overrun report in Sept. that I believe Mr. Getch was fired for. - no disclosure, confidentiality issues.
13) Well organised tax groups and residence at the condo on Anglan Bay (who were instrumental) and generally had the time, money as retirees
- organized to fead the fire of the (lack of communication and transparency) - the City chose to ignore on the LVEC file.
- such sentiments wished their condo community to have free access to their panoramic views of the lake, quiet lifestyle and interrupted downtown lifestyle with no undue downtown inconviences, such as development. Along with the transparancy issues developed this atmosphere od suspision.

[Lydia]

And this surprises me that our council or the general public cannot or does not realise this? The best thing they should have done - is ballparked 42-49 millon and if it comes in less your a hero!


Again I agree, I have always maintained that this project would cost around 49 to 52 million. Because of how other projects were managed and calculated, I always said that the REAL costs are twice what the assumed costs were. Don't forget I did work for Trow Engineering Accountant Department. I saw this happen on several projects. Trow was not to blame for this, it always amounted to poor management decisions on behalf of their clients. This is especially true with governmental projects.

Don't get me wrong, Dogma, I know that businesses in Kingston do pay their share of taxes for the most part. My objection is with those businesses which DON'T pay taxes yearly and then go into arrears. I know that the tax department has written off taxes from those kinds of businesses and some of them actually continue to do business in this city (probably under new management).

Let's face it Dogma, as a business owner, we get to deduct expenses, buy polution credits, and get other considerations that the average citizen doesn't get to write off. Also as a business owner, we add the cost of taxes to our products or services that we provide. This isn't available to the ordinary resident. And as a purchaser, we all pay for those increases in business taxes whenever we buy something or get service.

Yes, we need to give incentitives to businesses that wish to come here. The question becomes, "At what Cost?" When people say that if the LVEC doesn't get build then Doctors won't want to come here, I have a problem. My question is this, "Which doctor would come to a city because there is an arena?" Warn me ahead of time, so that I could never use that doctor's services. Besides, what difference does it make when Doctors don't take patients now? When Napanee has physicians who are taking new patients, how come Kingston has NONE?

Thank you for presenting the real costs, at least you have been honest and have shed a better light on the issues.

[BornAndRaised]

I believe to this day that self interest of this group, and some neighboring residence not only contributed to the cost overruns of the LVEC but indeed its marginalizing in terms of parking, opportunity costs such as the sqft floor area that is now 30% smaller for the facility at the North Block. (For the same budget)
Do you actually believe that the Anglin Bay facility would cost the same as the North Block location? Obviously delays have added additional costs and the change of location added some costs which is why I feel if the location wasn't changed from the M-centre grounds that there would have been less of an uproar and less of a cost. Many of the overruns are from lack of planning for such things as kitchens, handicap parking, etc.


And I pose to you:

If you had the choice to buy two homes, that are identical in its features, but one is 30% smaller, has a worse view, less property and less parking.. (For the same cost?) Which would you buy? And feel it was the overall better long term investment. Hmmmmmmmm.


Good point Dogma. What if your relative also owned some of the land that the larger house was to be built on and they were able to dispose of that land at a premium since it was contaminated and nobody else wanted this land because it was too expensive to clean up? And what if this money was not even your money but everybody's money.:o

In regards to the view, I hardly see the need for a great view with such a project. Personally after a game or concert I don't want to fight with a crowd of people "standing around looking at the view" just so I can get out of the building.

I am also upset about the size of the facility as it seems inadaquate for the future and the present for that matter. The new police station wants their facility to be sufficient for the next 20 years or more so why are they not planning for the future needs with this project. It will certainly make the job more difficult for the management team to make this venture successful, it will at least give them an excuse in my opinion.:(

I believe to this day that self interest of one person, and some easily influenced people of power not only contributed to the cost overruns of the LVEC but indeed its marginalizing in terms of parking, opportunity costs such as the sqft floor area that is now (ADD PERCENT HERE UP TO 400)% smaller for the facility at the Memorial Centre grounds.:D

[Bill(2)]

Lydia. you say:

Let's face it Dogma, as a business owner, we get to deduct expenses, buy polution credits, and get other considerations that the average citizen doesn't get to write off. Also as a business owner, we add the cost of taxes to our products or services that we provide. This isn't available to the ordinary resident. And as a purchaser, we all pay for those increases in business taxes whenever we buy something or get service.

As a business owner myself, I'd like to point out that you need to have income to deduct those expenses from, and have enough left over to live on. I sometimes have to tell people that I run a 'not-for-profit' business, at least, that's what my books show.:o

Now, Born 'n Raised comments:

I believe to this day that self interest of one person, and some easily influenced people of power not only contributed to the cost overruns of the LVEC but indeed its marginalizing in terms of parking, opportunity costs such as the sqft floor area that is now (ADD PERCENT HERE UP TO 400)% smaller for the facility at the Memorial Centre grounds.

Awww c'mon now - so far we (or at least I) have been trying to stick to facts. Or at least not make any accusations subject to interpreattion. If you have an issue with one person, please express your opinion and let us know who you speaking of.;)

[BornAndRaised]

Sorry Bill, I was just filling in the blanks to an opinion that was stated earlier in the thread. All I was trying to say was that we could have had a great facility built on the M-Centre grounds but the attempt to make things extravagant went sour due to the change of location. Location seems to be the biggest dispute, second to the overall costs. I can't really blame Rosen for trying to create a legacy since the LVEC won him at least one election.

[Dogma]

Sorry Bill, I was just filling in the blanks to an opinion that was stated earlier in the thread. All I was trying to say was that we could have had a great facility built on the M-Centre grounds but the attempt to make things extravagant went sour due to the change of location. Location seems to be the biggest dispute, second to the overall costs. I can't really blame Rosen for trying to create a legacy since the LVEC won him at least one election.


First I agree with Bill. I run a small business and infact ANY small business (which is the majority of Kingston’s, and the Countries businesses) first 5 years is more about loss, than profits.

Infact; the initial expense to setup and first year survival in business comes from someone’s pocket, and usually not a bank. (Sole proprietors). And there are (fixed costs) that are used as "write off". But, only a percentage of the initial investment and only if the company survives 7 years.

These are COSTS that comes from the business profits (and that the market can bear) That said - these real expenses rent, heat, salaries are continuing to rise, but our Walmart mentality "expects" lower costs, a better deal. Thus, does it seem reasonable that owners need to purchase from China, or invest their money to R&D? Who altimately "risks" for local economic development? The business owners! Not the consumers. Not Born & Raised....


Indeed; there are high risks to start even larger businesses, with Global competiton, rising Asian investors all on the hook for any rising taxes, regulations, downturns or corporate inefficiencies.

Personally I believe most people (employees) have no idea of the risk and pressures for little "profit" that a business owner(s) (corporate or not) survives on. Did you know the "average long term profit" for large companies is 2%. Except for the banks and oil companies it seems.

And the survival rate for most businesses is only 10%. And guess who is saddled with the debt, credit ratings and stigma for the rest of ones life?

In deed; most people who start businesses have NO business training.

They start because of a "passion" or opportunity, or circumstance in their work that leads to such ventures.

It is also very easy for anyone also to start a part time business and to benefit from "write offs".

It cost $ 60.00 to register a business, for home based hobby or small enterprise. The registered business is allowed to expense: operating expenses, inventory etc. Anyone can do this. It is NOT magic, or for the few.

Microsoft was started from a garage.

Indeed; Born & Raised has offered the conspiracy theories that have been epidemic in the LVEC debate.

I appreciate these "opinions", but I do not believe they are based on much fact. Likely most what you have read in the paper. Initially the Memorial Centre I had considered as an optional site, for "expansion only". In other words add 20 million onto the existing building spruce up, retrofit the existing building and property.

Ok seems reasonable right? And as you elude to a more politically tangible solution. Unfortunately; this would have led to many future issues, and certainly (in his case) would not have been on budget. And cost overruns would have developed.

If you had read the business plan and followed the reports, Medicine Hat was considering the same option. They had a 50 year old community centre/rink, but decided to build new for the following reasons.

1) "The existing building would cost an "estimated" 18 million to renovate, continue to be a "buried site" and there would be no increase in floor area for events, tradeshows or opportunities for the expanding market trends".

2) The investment that was needed and asked by the public to occour was better spent with the finances in hand to go new and have a "multipurpose facility" not just that it makes alot of money or just gets by..its the revitialization of exisiting community for the next generations not just the past.

3) The maintaning and upgraging of the existing building, i.e safe codes, heat and HVAC efficiecies, insuranace risks and cost to upgrade to the new multipurpose features: such as seating, staging and the labour hours to change out for events would be more efficient. And save money and equipment.

If you read the LVEC task force or business plan this is all discussed.

A "buried site" is one that cannot be easily found, has poor access roads for trucks and no opportunity for naming rights to offer additional funding to the investment. (Unless you think the tax payers should make uop the difference?)

It is also the only green space around that neighbourhood, so to build onto the site and create onsite parking, for trucks and partrons would likely eliminate alot of limited greenspace. Indeed non existing amenities to support the facility would be counter to many publiished reports, neighborhood associations and the success of your (20 million +) investment.

Additionally; the Kingston Agriculture Association agreement with the City (who donated the Memorial land) Gets a 50% cut of the profits of the Memorial Centre along with the right to run its 175 year old fair - it is good for 100 years!

Do you realise this may marginalize the financial plan for the success of your Memorial Centre renovation /tax money?

The fact is that the facility needs to be downtown and is a smart move..it does not need any supporting amendies, there is no 100 year binding agreements with existing land owners, it has potential for naming rights, it is easily accessed for logistics (i.e. trucks etc) the parking existing and expanded, while encourage less cars, (see: Master Transportation Plan) especially for most events held on.. off peek hours.

Indeed; (the view) onto the waterfront is unique to "visitors", maybe not for you - but for the majority of out of town visitors from Toronto, and the U.S our waterfront vista, impressions, cigarette breaks whatever can be easliy realised (cost effectively) becomes part of the overall impression a visitor will remember of our City. These design features are not just about you. Along with the "practical" free natural light, and natural heat for the building... that will be significant to its operating expenses. (In LEED buildings this is a requirement.) But, you knew this.



Do you actually believe that the Angling Bay facility would cost the same as the North Block location? Obviously delays have added additional costs and the change of location added some costs which is why I feel if the location wasn't changed from the M-centre grounds that there would have been less of an uproar and less of a cost. Many of the overruns are from lack of planning for such things as kitchens, handicap parking, etc.


You must be kidding.

The Anglin Bay site as suggested is the better location, for very obvious reasons. If you have ever been involved with such projects (let alone building your home) you can plan all you wish, make all the drawings details you want, but there are some things that cannot be planned for (like the weather, material deliveries, labour shortages, human error).

Indeed; you are correct there would not have been as much of a "fuss" - if we simply did the easy thing and 1/2 over for parking and live with some half done facility, plant a few tree's and paint. But, again it would never be a "multipurpose facility", with great sound, staging and modular floor space to accommodate reasonable quality shows that are available that generate not only "premium" facility income, but likely more interest in supporting the Centres traditional ways, OHL hockey, giant truck shows and WWF. I for one and families prefer more variety and entertainment than traditionally has been offered with the Centre. I also wonder what the neighborhood around the Memorial Centre would appreciate the increase in traffic, trucks and events throughout the year?


I am also upset about the size of the facility as it seems inadequate for the future and the present for that matter.

I agree with you here. But, I doubt you know what the real limitations are.

Floor space, number of seats etc seem adequate for its market. But, the North Block facility and its limited expansion are of concern. (But, I did not vote to move it from Anglin Bay - that had room to expand!)

There are two concerns.

Since the new site the "conference area" which is not the rink area - WAS 1500 sq ft. Three 500 sqft rooms /separate venues that can be expanded (opened up) to its full 1500 sqft capacity - designed for smaller conferences, events, beside the food serving area. Now - because the North Block - there is only room for 500 sqft of conference area!

This is marginalizing your opportunities for smaller, conferences that could be run at the same time as hockey or another event. (Filling capacity) And revenue opportunities.

There is room to expand the facility with the Basics Food property and the building warehouse, parking is already there. Indeed, Good life is also another potential expansion building. The City owns the property and it is not uncommon for facilities to be in multiple building. I.e. TICC (Toronto International Centre) Hanover Messe (Germany) and many other convention facilities. Again - moving the facility to North Block limits opportunities at a higher cost! Something the naysayer neither convey, or frankly realised in their petitions to move the site. Oh ya did I mention the staff time the North Bay site need to be redone?



I believe to this day that self interest of one person, and some easily influenced people of power....


I could not agree with you more if I could write an X-file TV series..or send an article into "The Independent" formally the PIC press. Why people seem to pick successful people as the ones that "hold down" or conspires for power over you and I is why I suppose they sell a lot of rag newspapers. Most of these people have earned their assets. Sure they inherited it to. But, I have seen many, many inherited establishments go belly up (usually with the third generations) remember Seagram’s? It’s the grandfather that builds it; the father/mother maintains it, and the kids that destroy it.

Don't be so jealous of other people’s hard work. And certainly respect that nothing comes that easy.

[BornAndRaised]

[quote=Dogma;7113]
Additionally; the Kingston Agriculture Association agreement with the City (who donated the Memorial land) Gets a 50% cut of the profits of the Memorial Centre along with the right to run its 175 year old fair - it is good for 100 years!

Do you realise this may marginalize the financial plan for the success of your Memorial Centre renovation /tax money? [quote/]

After reading the initial Business Plan for the LVEC I was led to believe that the sale of the Memeorial Centre was to help pay for the construction of the new LVEC. I must have overlooked the legal obligation involved. If there is a legal obligation for the Memorial Centre to give 50% of the profits to the Agricultural Society for 100 years will they not be breaking this obligation by relocating the arena to a different location leaving the city open to being sued? or for selling the land to help fund the project?
I hope not. I guess that's where the lawyer comes in handy!

Thanks for the information, Dogma. I had no idea about the 50% profit cut. :o Does that mean that they have payed 50% of the losses the last few years?LOL.

[Dogma]

Indeed, the agreement bwt. the two parties has been in discussions to negotiate the lease arangements....in recent years.

In fact the agreement is not for 100 years...

Derek Baldwin writes in the Wednesday, November 17, 2004 edition of The Whig Standard that Ann Pappert (http://www.cityofkingston.ca/cityhall/press/release.asp?mode=show&id=845) http://kcal.ca/offsitelnk.gif, manager of the city cultural services division, said at no time did she advise the society that city lawyers would be retained to end a perpetual lease of the Memorial Centre site by the fair board.

I do not have the exact money or costs the fair receives for the strings attached "donated land".

The Agricultural Society has also the proxy vote or final say of whatever goes happens on that property.

Infact; when a local community association made a new plan for the property inwhich they wished the fences surrounding the centre property to be remove to allow "better access to the grounds" for the general public...the society said no.

Citing the animals would get loose and could cause accidents and liabilities issues. Seems rather blunt and short sighted since the fair is only on 1 week in a year!

Fair enough, (your the ones with the ownership and power) Sound familar?

But you would think something could be worked out, so both parties could utilize the grounds more practically.

The Society and its previous President was rather militant and does not wish to see any changes that could affect its rather "tired" fair.

I believe with slipping attenance numbers and rather dismal barns, green and industrial desert landscape....I think the Society has seen better days!

Unfortunately; this is not reported by KCAL, since they removed Kingston Electors from their web site? I wonder why? Maybe they are on the fairs board?

[Lydia]

Business Owner or Career in an Industry

Bill and Dogma are total correct when it comes to business owners and what they need to endure. People think that they only need to spend $60.00 to start a business. Of course, this is true but once you get your licence what happens next???

Only 10% of business ever started actually last. In this global economy it is probably 5% who will be around for 20 to 25 Years.

Do you know who is really the bosses are of the economy? If you choose a Career in any type of work, you need to report to ONLY one person. (The person who hires you). If you choose to start a business, you have enumerable bosses. (YOUR CUSTOMERS). Who do you want to be accountable to??

Anyone who thinks owning a business of any type is easy and glorified is extremely naive and extremely unacknowledgeable. Titles may seem great but how many of us REALLLY want the responsibility and the willingness to work 16-hour days in order to continue with a business? How many people want to start a business but won't have anyone to turn the business over to should your health change? How many people have family who will run that business. How long do you plan on being in business and do you have a moral obligation to your staff? So as far as I am concerned, anyone who ownes, operates, or whatever of a business should have respect and should not be degrated just because they have some profit. (SOME PROFIT!!!) LOL

It is for this reason; I don’t believe one person or family should decide what happens in this city, regardless of who they are. I agree Bill that Harvey has the right to be excited about having an acknowledgement of developing the LVEC. I just wished he did it differently.

Let's face it folks, WORK IS WORK no matter what you do. Hopefully you will enjoy your work/business

[Dogma]

Let's face it folks, WORK IS WORK no matter what you do. Hopefully you will enjoy your work/businessIf you do not enjoy your work...you should move on and let the ones that have the fresh ideas, or enjoyment, or passion in the position.

Or what happens is the (customers/clients that pays ones salary) Not the boss... do not get the production value or the competitive suppliers they desperately need in this economy of JIT and Walmart mentality!

Indeed; if there was enough good paying work in Kingston, one would not fall into this unproductive categories, keeping their jobs to survive.. of worry about rising taxes etc.

The LVEC will attract business, doctors and people to stay and help the local economy, thus bringing prosperity to the community. The Memorial Center would not. Thats the difference!

And I wanted to ask Lydia - what ever happen to the "new" Kedco? Has anything changed? New board members???

[Lydia]

I have to be honest Dogma, I really don't know yet but when I will find out, I'll get back to you on this.

I think the situation with the LVEC has taken top priority. If I am correct we should find that information out in March.

[Dogma]

Seems like the budget went through, and there was only one "no" vote. And even though the reserved fund is part of taxes collect, I still believe that these funds (should) be used for the Centre. We have a stake in this we should invest in it.

10 - 1 + 2 proxies for the budget increase and finally 100% behind this project. (12 to 1)

Unfortunately; Vicki's motion which would have been discarded by Glover, was no tabled properly..and she missed the opportunity to spin it.

No more feet dragging.

Lets now get behind this and really realise its potential for Kingston!

[Bill(2)]

Dogma, well said.

I think we have seen that given an opportunity to pull together the information the project team can provide the answers, and confidence, a lot of people were looking for. Kudo's to staff.

And, the discussion was really good as a result of the briefings presented.

Moving on.

[Dogma]

Bill2 - I agree with you fully.

The staff did a great job and cleared alot of the arm chair "theories" up with their well presented analysis. (I believe this "puts the last nail in the coffin" for the naysayers and some hesitant ones...)

The naysayer will likely never admit it, there was solid evidence & unbias analysis (all along) and a general "buy in" for the projects completion & success by the majority of council (again) and always by the general public.

"Just build it"!

I will celebrate with champagne on opening day!

[Lydia]

I love this council, I said it all along and I still say it. :D :D :D

I knew that this council had to make it known that THEY won't just approve for the sake of "just do it". Gentleman, This is truly what THIS council wanted to achieve. They did it.

Staffers were NEVER THE PROBLEM. I said that all along. No conspiracy on their behalf. As Staffers they have to do want they are INSTRUCTED TO DO.

It was always the WAY it was communicated that had everyone up in arms. So Congratulations to all sides the naysayers and the approvers. I agree lets get this show on the road. Let's hope that all projects good or bad be conducted in an open manner with ALL sides considered AND NO MORE pressure from others to keep things secret.

(becareful Dogma, just remember people in a coffin have been known to come back and haunt) ie. Kingston Tours. :D :D :D

However, Let the celebrations begin and I will join you there. Still don't like the idea of no parking so i'll have to stay over lol lol lol

[Dogma]

Letters to the Editor

The Whig-Standard
Letters to the Editor - Monday, February 26, 2007 Updated @ 11:31:37 PM

It is interesting to note that after much posturing and rhetoric about the downtown sports and entertainment centre, we are finally getting down to the core issues: communication and project management.

My question is: why did certain city councillors choose to stir up the community with a motion to cancel the project?

The political battle over the arena was fought and decided in 2005 and 2006. All members of the current council should respect that fact.

Considerable time and energy have been wasted by city staff and the community because of the dragging of this issue back into the political arena.

Further, this approach is not constructive in addressing the key issues going forward: those of communication and project management.

In my view, any councillors who support the cancellation motion proposed by Councillor Vicki Schmolka and seconded by Councillor Bill Glover will have much to account to the community for and should be taken to task.

They will have much more to be accountable for if they cause a cancellation cost – word on the street has it at $20 million – that would have to be absorbed by taxpayers.

It is true that communication with the public regarding this project needs to be improved.

dcmaxversion = 9dcminversion = 6DoOn Error Resume Nextplugin = (IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash." & dcmaxversion & "")))If plugin = true Then Exit Dodcmaxversion = dcmaxversion - 1Loop While dcmaxversion >= dcminversionNot having a dedicated resource to manage communication has led to much misinformation and, consequently, lack of trust between council, city staff and the community. Both council and city staff are responsible for not having resolved this matter sooner.

I am sure that council, working with the chief administrative officer, can address this concern if it is truly interested in solving the problem. (Could it serve certain councillors’ interests to not have effective communication?)

But let’s be clear: this is the problem that needs resolution, not the viability of the project itself.

I believe the community would be encouraged to see council and city staff working together to address this vital concern, and would be very supportive of adding a resource to take on the communication challenge.

This would be the kind of clarity and leadership the community is looking for.

Regarding project management, it seems that city staff have taken positive steps in respect to updating cost projections and exercising cost control.

They have hired two firms with excellent reputations and a wealth of experience: EllisDon and Arcturus.

I am sure no one is happy to be facing a possible 10-per-cent cost overrun, but this is today’s reality, so it must be dealt with. However, spending $20 million in cancellation costs to avoid a $4-to-$5- million overrun does not seem a particularly constructive approach.

Who among us would make this decision in our own personal finances?

It is entirely correct for council to be concerned about this potential cost overrun. But council’s job now is to ensure that the project team in place is adequate to complete the job with no more surprises.

If changes need to be made to the team to ensure this, council should insist they be made now.

But project management is the real issue, not the viability of the project. And, again, I say that if councillors with concerns had focused clearly on this issue without calling into question the whole project, it would have been the kind of leadership the community could respect.

The economic benefits this project will bring have been conservatively estimated at $15 to $20 million per year.

That is about a three-year payback of its cost to the community.

Today London could not imagine its downtown without the Labatt Centre.

In addition, completion of the arena would significantly enhance the reputation of Kingston as a place to do business and as a tourist destination.

So let’s get on with the job at hand.

Clarify the real issues we can do something about and then show leadership in addressing them.

I urge council to focus on addressing legitimate concerns, drop the political rhetoric – which only serves to muddy the waters and create mistrust – and work positively to make this the best project implementation possible.

There was never any "conspiracy" to keep things secret or some black hole or Skydome nightmare equivalent.

The naysayer frankly made it up! That's the communication issue here.

Sure the City could of done better job (earlier)..but its not their fault that Kingston interests group "muddy the water" with such dooms day scenerio's.

I think the City was correct in pushing the "product" through, but could have had a better first face (Than Getch) to deal with public & a communication officer that looked out for both sides of an issue, i.e parking, traffic etc. (or the main public issues) To have a hired expert was not enough for the naysayers lobby.

And as recently the public (in this case) just finally listened to what was being told to them was true!

The conspiracy theorist and councilors who know little about LVEC's were the true spin doctors.

The learning curve just took longer than the organisers had expected.

[Lydia]

You will never ever convince the public that things were done openly. NEVER. What this council has done is TELL the people that NOTHING WILL EVER BE APPROVED WITHOUT ALL THE FACTS.

This council has done it's work and done it well. It showed the people of this city that things WILL BE DONE DIFFERENTLY with FULL CONSULTATION WITH THE PUBLIC.

It was never the City Staffers, (the messangers) It was always the JERKS who thought they could just snowball the councilors into signing things without full ACCOUNTABILITY.

These councilors DID NOT WASTE PEOPLE'S TIME, MONEY, OR ANYTHING ELSE. If there is any $20 million OVERAGE blame in on LAST COUNCIL.

Makes me wonder if the $20 million overage is part of what was NOT DISCLOSED SO FAR.

[Dogma]

I do not want everyone’s "opinions".

I want the experts and people in the know to help with the decisions of council. I would never want interest groups with little experience to just "protest" for the sake of protest. Muddy the publics water just because they want perfection or because they read to many "This" Magazines or have too much time on their hands...http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/

Give me a break.

That is what happened.

And so what the project is 10% over an estimated budget! I really don't see how that would have been changed if we had (full and lengthy public forums, or interest group participation) So, everyone felt "good". Yes, a front man/women for questions and more helpful responses...but Downes would he listen?

From the outcome of Anglin Bay, it was all about "conspiracy theory" by the "this" interest groups that started the BS.

Kingstown cronies that started the rumors! Are they not to blame for this mis-communication? Of course they are - they were the worse!!!

Look at Garrison last night - coming up with a conspiracy over why a report from the legal department would take 2 weeks and not one for some direction on the Market Square naming issue. Who thinks of these things? And you think this is good governance?

[Lydia]

Dogma, I can agree with half of what you say. No it isn't good governance at all.

I just don't think that this NEW council should not be put down because of the miscommunication by the public and previous council. They were entirely correct to question this project. Infact they had the right to do so.

If you can agree with me on ONE POINT then I will defend your position 100%.

The point is this: Whenever a project is considered anywhere within the city, then nothing goes behind closed doors, OTHER THAN a tendering process. Once a company, council and staff agree to a project than everything becomes an open book.

Okay two points: Once a developer agrees to construct a project for a set fee and doesn't deliver than the developer eats the difference not the taxpayers.

I agree a 10% difference is TOTALLY acceptable not the 50% overages previous projects costed. When you have a manager telling the public that the cost of excavating areas around city hall to protect historical artefacts isn't a COST of a rink, it ticks me off. I don't care where things get allocated to, IT IS STILL A COST. When you decided to renovate a building and don't bother getting an expert to evaluate whether the STRUCTURE is sound, it ticks me off.

These are the things that make the public distrust Council and City Staffers. That is why I said these new councillors are going to demand more accountability for projects in the future. Hopefully, everyone can now get over the conflicts and take pride in the projects the city has decided to pursue.

[Lydia]

What the heck is this??? lol lol

This" Magazines or have too much time on their hands...http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/



Okay I won't read THIS LMAO

[Dogma]

The point is this: Whenever a project is considered anywhere within the city, then nothing goes behind closed doors, OTHER THAN a tendering process. Once a company, council and staff agree to a project than everything becomes an open book.

Okay two points: Once a developer agrees to construct a project for a set fee and doesn't deliver than the developer eats the difference not the taxpayers.I agree with your first point. (Except, for the complete line by line details that you feel the public should be managing)

More likely than not the (changes) or extra's are either missed by staff or by the project manager or estimator. Or they were not detailed in the drawings so everyone misses it. Who is at fault? The developer in most cases "builds" the structure from the drawings it receives. If they are responsible for the design and the content of the building F.F & E in a contract sure the extra's should be the burden of the developer.

That being said, they will be temped to cut corners, drag feet on some of the other gray details, and generally it brings a "chillier" working relationship between the principles all in the name of "eating" the whole 2.5 mil loss.

This - magizine is the alternative "conspiracy" publication that many read including Jamie Swift (Independent Voice) one of LVEC's biggest critic's.

Not to say all the contents of articles are made up, but it tends to lean to the militant or fringes of an issues ultimate outcome..

[Lydia]

I am aware of different things that can affect the cost of projects. Family and friends of mine have actually built their own homes. They purchased blue prints for building those homes and then changed things a bit. This of course increased costs (i.e. 10% variance upward) It is the same with projects that the city would under take. (only on a smaller scale). I agree i would not want the public to MANAGE projects. I only want the public's priority lists being implemented first. We have alot of things that need to be corrected and improved. I guess my desire is to get our city's NEEDS in order firstly and then tackle our City's WANTS. That is why I am not upset with having a LVEC and I can see benefits for having it.

I hope that they won't cut corners, drag feet on some of the other gray details, and generally it brings a "chillier" working relationship between the principles all in the name of "eating" the whole 2.5 mil loss. I agree with you and Bill about once the decision is made, let's get on with it.

[Bill(2)]

It seems that we all agree (to varying degrees) about the resolution and the current status. Doing anything other than learning from the past would not be the best use of energy. Me, I'm moving on to my other thread (Springer Market Square). Thanks for the conversations - they have been enlightening.

So, what's the protocol here? - since I started this discussion thread does that mean I get the last word? :confused: :p

[Dogma]

What is the priority?

To many prioities and not enough cash!

And no one wants to pay any more taxes.......hmmmm what to do?

[Lydia]

Hell no Bill, Dogma does lol lol. I am sure between him and myself we can keep this thread open for ever about something that Vicky will deal with. lol lol

My advice to Dogma is RAISE CHICKENS to pay for stuff. lmao :D :D :D As long as we don't get egg on our faces.