Kingston & District Agricultural Society - Memorial Centre lands

[keoadmin]

KINGSTON & DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY
KINGSTON FALL FAIR
(original owner of the Memorial Centre lands)

see web site at - www.kingstonfair.com

HISTORY

John Graves Simcoe, Upper Canada's first Lieutenant-Governor, started the history of Agricultural Societies and Fairs in Ontario. His great desire was to see the largely unsettled colony of Upper Canada become an agricultural nation. In his opinion, the future of Ontario rested with farming. To work toward this goal, he helped organize the Agricultural Society of Upper Canada in 1792. These humble beginnings made possible our present day agricultural societies and fairs.

Building on the English example of agricultural improvement societies, hundreds of similar societies sprang up all over the province. Settlers took their love of farming and fairs with them to the new frontiers in Northern Ontario and Eastern Canada. Ontario agriculture has improved in so many ways in the last two hundred years ~ the advances are stunning.

On July 12, 1825, the Upper Canada Herald contained an advertisement for the Frontenac Agricultural Society Fair to be held near Kingston. The fair operated on and off until 1925, when a group reorganized under the name of the Kingston and District Agricultural Society. It has operated successfully since.

The "Crystal Palace" was erected in 1889, but eventually fell into disrepair. It was eventually condemned and torn down about 1946. A flagpole erected on the present Fairgrounds in 1946 bears a plaque verifying that the Kingston Frontenac (Midland) Agricultural Society operated from 1830-1930. The Kingston Memorial Community Centre was built with money received from the Kingston and District Agricultural Society on the Kingston Fairgrounds site in 1950.

KINGSTON & DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY TODAY

Agricultural societies are the organizations that sponsor our modern fairs and exhibitions. While the holding of fairs has always been one of their goals, they also pursue their goal of improving agriculture by many other methods such, as the buying and selling of seed and keeping breeding livestock.

The Kingston and District Agricultural Society is a nonprofit organization and sponsor of the Kingston Fall Fair. The Society is governed by an 18 member volunteer board of directors and volunteer associate directors.

Today the Society has approximately 450 members. Cost of membership is $5.00 per person year. Every person 18 years and over is entitled to become a voting member of the Society. Youth play an important role in our operation, which is evident through our involvement with the Junior Directors, 4-H Club and junior exhibitors.

MISSION STATEMENT

The Kingston Fall Fair's objectives are to encourage the awareness of and improvements in agriculture, life skills and quality of life by assessing the agricultural, economic and social needs of the community and developing programs to respond to those needs. Organize and hold exhibitions featuring competitions and exhibits. Promote the production, marketing and improvement of agricultural commodities and methods. Encourage the development of life skills and promote an appreciation and awareness of agriculture. Promote and encourage conservation of natural resources and community beautification. Develop activities to encourage and involve youth in the work of agricultural exhibits. Support and provide facilities to encourage activities intended to enrich rural and community life. Support and cooperate with other associations to improve the agricultural industry. The organization shall be carried on without purpose of gain for its members, and any profits or other gains to the organization shall be used in promoting its objectives.

source - http://www.kingstonfair.com/fair_history.html

Kingston & District Agricultural Society
303 York St.
P.O. Box 824
Kingston, Ontario
K7L 4X6

(613) 542-6701

[Phil Day]

who actually owns the M centre property? The City? The Agricultural Society?

[terry]

The Kingston and district agriculture society, until someone can prove to me that not to be the situation.

[Dogma]

The agreement is available from the city clerk.

I suggest you get it and read the entire agreement. And let us all know!

I believe it is still best (agreement or not) to negotiate in good faith.

Leave the sabre rattling/media hype against the (city) or public - were it belongs (behind closed doors)
-this so called 50 year + agreement (of that era) is also a living document thou, due diligence is required,
but I would think many things that could affect this orignial agreement on both side have changed:
i.e insurance, public policy, taxation and Ontario law regading such public agreements.

Lets just do whats best - not what always been done...

I personally stand by - that the fair should move and we (the public) do not spend 32 million (of public monies) on a Disney World Park for that community.

Hopefully, sobering days are ahead.

[terry]

First and most important to me is I am not against the city. I have met some of the city council and they have some great ideas and some not so great, however not all think alike. This will not be a $32,000,000.00 project.
This is a budget number only and this amount does not include the following.
-GST
-Design fees and cost
-Site plan development fees, permits, impost fees or further development charges.
-LEED consultants and the registration.
-Management of hazardous waste
-Management of contaminated materials.
-The handling, removal,transporting and specialized equipment and insurance cost of the overall unknown as to what may be in there to include asbestos, lead, pcb,mercury, and contaminated soil.
-Escalation contingency
-Rock excavation
-IT and PA equipment
-Security and technology equipment
-Roofing on the multi-purpose facility
-Windows
-Exterior pole lighting, exterior security
-The entire ice making equipment
-The entire mechanical for the pool area
- Furnishings and and interior decor
- Interior designing fees
-Exterior furnishings and design fees
- Turn key cost
-Specific features and many you could never include in any budget number,they happen as you go.
- Note: This will be a lot of extra money
In my opinion, and I have been wrong many times before however my best guess is this project will be over the $40,000,000.00 Price tag when completed.

[Dogma]

I agree Terry.

It will be at least 10-15% more than (as I said the "estimated" 32 million)

My main point remains.

It should not cost the City anything - if we recommend an alternative proposal that includes a PPP private, public partnership to build a limited amount of housing on that property, utilizing both affordable housing grants, market housing and user fees for any private/public recreational retrofit for the Memorial Centre.

This 50 year old centre must be brought up to code. And would be required for any public or private use.

- current safety regulations, insurance costs and major infastructure concerns that do exist now.

(Why do you think the "original task force for the LVEC - rejected the Memorial Centre building!)

Because it would need 10 million just to bring the facility up to code and retrofit for a multipurpose centre.

Not just a hockey barn! - as it is today.

And with the 10 million investment - the seats would remain at 3500. No expansion!

Thus the LVEC at Anglan Bay "recommendation" form the task force..............................
- and I still say its the best location for the money! - the naysayer blew the opportunity and alot of money!

The long term maintenance and security of the Memorial Centre / grounds would also need to be covered for that property.

So, ...that would mean ongoing revenues - to support that property what ever gets put there.

Including the Agricultural Societies and the Cities lawsuit - lawyer fees!

[Dogma]

KCAL - from a two week lull have finally mustarded up some real juicy "gossip" well knowing their well (and time) to try to comprehend the LVEC in its true context is almost over.

Here's the latest misrepresentation (or unexperienced banter)

http://www.kcal.ca/kcalrss.html#3550

It generally speaks to the concept that the Hershy Centre in Mississuga (T.O) basically - has a larger facility (or more numerous venue opportunities) - compared to our North Block Site - LVEC.

(Which by the way they KCAL helped petition/ relocate from the 30% larger site at Anglan Bay (at taxpayers cost...)

They go on... by saying Kingston's LVEC has similar seating capacity, but not the "extra capacity" !!!
- KCAL NOW deems this as "important for the finacial and multipurpose potential of Kingstons facility".

I thought they have made it very clear - they do not Want the LVEC - especially for "taxpayers on the hook..."

KCAL says:.........

The Hershey Centre (http://www.mississauga.ca/portal/discover/features) http://kcal.ca/offsitelnk.gif :
...seats 5400 for hockey in its main bowl.
...offers three other ice rinks in addition to the one seating 5,400.
...is 15 minutes from the Pearson International Airport.
...is easily accessible from Highways 401 and 403.
...is located on 160 hectares of land.
...New to the site: a 200,000 sq ft indoor sports facility (baseball and soccer), and a home to the Mississauga Gymnastics Club. The facility is spacious enough to allow eight soccer teams, six basketball teams and 100 gymnasts to compete indoors at the same time, while four more soccer teams play outside (citation (http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246836) http://kcal.ca/offsitelnk.gif ). It sounds like a very useful and functional facility, one with lots of future upsides, doesn't it? How does Kingston's "vision", and the Mayor's sycophants who pine about it (http://kcal.ca/Whig2007-08-21dm.html), look now? The dysfunctional LVEC has one pad, so no warmup rink, so no chance whatsoever of landing an event like this.

If they could only make up there minds what exactly they are speaking to - and with some experience and proof behind this KCAL rambling anidotial BS - maybe we could have had a decent conversation on the (merits and challenges) that the LVEC could have had either at Anglan Bay or the North Block site. But, no they strut around with their tired concepts until they put themselves to sleep (and many others) with their dribble!

[Dogma]

Here is the City's update for the LVEC site - as of September 2007 -


http://www.cityofkingston.ca/residents/recreation/arenas/sports-entertainment-centre/newsletter/index.asp

[Dogma]

They say:


There is a very interesting LVEC-related item Adobe PDF document in Report No. 95 of the CAO, which is on Tuesday's Council agenda.

Keep in mind that there isn't a single diagram adorning the item. The diagram below is by KCAL.

Also keep in mind that this is presented as a "done deal"; no alternatives are presented. Nonetheless, council is being asked to approve this.

And that the retractable seating is another scam and based on incompetent design oversights. And KCAL also add that our current council (as they said for the last) are also incompetent and useless. ...blah blah blah...more of the same high & mighty nonsense. (and offending everyone who dares not to agree with KCAL) - are they simple or what?

Here is the reality check:


1)The diagram of the the LVEC arena "bowl" is a drawing of the general seating and not the ( design / build ) drawing. No dimentions or specifications for seating...are on these drawing!

2) PLEASE - It is "normal" to have these general/preliminary drawings issued.

Especially, at the begining of a build.

- decision makers can grasp, (visualize) or (over examine) the "details" that they would not have the time to oversee. Nor is it their JOB to oversee. They are called "concept drawings"...or line drawing to visual (see) the design. (thats it)

If they want details drawing just ask the City...don't create more misinformation by being pernitious!

3) Any City council through the freedom of information act can have a "detail" drawings.

Keep in mind they may not have a concept of the details...since they are not trained designers..but they are avaliable.

So, KCAL stop making assumptions in lue of fact!

4) And no NONE of the drawings (are KCAL's)..they are "copies" and property of the projects design portfolio.

Have you ask the City for permission to publish them?

If not you maybe in hotwater, if push comes to shove.

5) There is enough room for the local "hockey Hall of Fame" and I am sure they are working on a website?
- Maybe Steve Black from KCAL could volunteer his armchair time..to a quality, positive local project.


Here is the real "public disclosure" article:

To truely inform the public - maybe KCAL should have read it first!

Arena seating plan changes; 'Challenges' nix retractable seats

Posted By Jordan Press

Posted 12 hours ago

Structural challenges won't allow retractable seats to fully retract away from the ice surface at the downtown arena, according to a city hall staff report.

Instead, those seats will be removed and additional seats added in other areas, which will increase the total number of seats overall when the arena opens in February, staff wrote.

There is no extra cost to the city, the report noted.

The arena will open with 5,650 seats, instead of the 5,000 as originally proposed.

"In order to be valuable from an operational point of view, the seats need to be fully retractable," the report said.
"There are no expenditures related to the recommendation in the construction contract. There is an opportunity to add additional seats to add revenue potential with no additional costs."

Tomorrow night, city council will be asked to approve the change in scope of the $46.1-million project.

Over the past month, city staff, builder EllisDon and the arena's private operator, Arcturus/SMG, reviewed the seating layout around the bowl of the downtown arena after councillors approved work that would allow an additional 1,000 seats to be installed in the future. During the review, EllisDon found the arena had "structural challenges" that "would impact the retractable seats," staff wrote. If they were to be installed, the 118 seats on the western end of the bowl wouldn't fully retract under the arena's risers to allow for stages to be set up for concerts.

Only two rows of seats would be able to retract under the current design, staff wrote. According to design plans, between three and four rows of seats were to be retractable.

"Based on discussions ... all retractable seats should be removed and that the space could be used as a premium zone," the report said.

The space would become a spot for bar-like tables and chairs from which people could watch games, staff said. During concerts, the area would be empty, the report said.

In the future, fixed seating could be added to this area, staff wrote.

As well, Arcturus wanted the 24 seats over the Zamboni entrance moved to another part of the arena, the report said.
Staff wrote that move and the removal of retractable seating would fill empty risers. There was a concern the foundation for the additional 1,000 seats would lead to empty risers around the bowl, making it look empty and incomplete.

The arena is scheduled to be open on Feb. 22. Staff note in their monthly report on the project that the time "is very tight," but EllisDon has guaranteed the opening date.

Workers from EllisDon will still be in the facility after the opening event to work on any mechanical, electrical and architectural deficiencies, the report said.

By Oct. 18, the arena should be enclosed, the report said.
Next month, councillors will get their first look at details of a naming rights agreement for the arena. After council has had a look at the deal and approved it, the name of the company will become public.

Operator Arcturus is currently in talks with a company to run the restaurant inside the arena.

Project manager Lanie Hurdle confirmed talks are underway with a company, the only one to express an interest in running the facilities.

The company is not based in Kingston, she said.

jpress@thewhig.com

[Dogma]

City seeks $8M in arena funding; Kingston originally asked Ottawa for $4M

Posted By Ian Elliot

Posted 12 hours ago

The city is hoping the federal government will pay $8 million toward the costs of the new downtown arena - twice what its initial business plan called for.

In a funding application sent to the federal government's transport, infrastructure and communities portfolio two weeks ago, the city listed a number of aspects of the $46.1-million project that it felt could be covered by federal grants.

However, Lanie Hurdle, the project manager for the city, said the city's request was not submitted to a specific pot of federal money in the Canadian Strategic Infrastructure Fund, the same program that bankrolled a large portion of the Ravensview sewage plant expansion. "We sent an application in and we listed a number of items they could fund, up to $8 million," she said yesterday.

"But we haven't specified a specific account for our request."
City officials have repeatedly said they are optimistic that Ottawa will look favourably on an application from the city for financial assistance for the arena, but despite almost 18 months of talks between city staff and officials in Minister Lawrence Cannon's office, the federal Conservatives have not pledged any money to the arena.

Calls to Cannon's office weren't returned.

Hurdle said this summer that federal officials suggested the city make a formal request for funding rather than depend on communications with officials in Ottawa. So, Hurdle said, one was drafted.

Besides the $4 million of base funding that the city hopes to get, also listed as items that Ottawa should consider funding, in whole or in part, are items related to the construction, such as environmental remediation and energy-saving aspects of the construction.

There is no standard application to complete in order to be considered for federal infrastructure money, so Hurdle said city staff laid out various costs of the project and suggested areas to which Ottawa could contribute.

"There have been communications between the city and Lawrence Cannon's office for quite some time, and in July, they suggested we submit something a little more formal," she said.

Previously, city officials have said they did not submit a formal application to Ottawa because there was no program identified to which they ought to apply.

ielliot@thewhig.com