Posted from the Daily Graphic July 10 2008

I am a former resident of the Portage area and understand and support a new recreation centre. However, are the size, location and cost right for Portage, and is the cost of the project being equitably funded?

I would reiterate the concerns of others with respect to the following:

1. Has there been enough local fundraising? This would show determination of the electorate to succeed in this venture and to support it in the future. This is particularly important as I understand there has been no referendum to establish community commitment for a non-essential service. And I understand this proposal was born in 1974, more than 34 years ago! Where is the fundraising component? Is there a business plan that supports the proposal and how is it affected by the scaled-back version recently announced?

2. Why are farms and businesses paying in excess of residences for this recreation centre vis-à-vis the debt repayment plan? For example: a two-section farm in the RM assessed at $1,500/acre would be contributing an additional $17,280 in taxes over the term of the loan, based on published debt payment mill rates. A farmer will also be paying on his residence and his farm buildings. This is additional taxes to what is already submitted annually. Sounds like more than three tanks of gas a year!

3. Location, location, location — one of the key elements of any business proposal. Why would anyone want this multiplex on the Island? The reasons not to build have been overstated, so I won’t repeat them, but I do not recall learning why it should be built on the Island. “It’s a done deal” doesn’t quite cut it.

4. Why is the tender process in stages? This could lead to cost overruns beyond your imagination! I understand the RM has advised there will be no further tax increases to build the multiplex. So if costs escalate while the tender process is delayed, where will the money come from … the taxpayers of the City of Portage?

I respect these decisions are difficult for elected members, and it is rare to have unanimous consent of the constituents. Everyone has an opinion, many express it, and that is democracy at work. And it is easy to disagree and harder to provide the answers. But can the RM and the City truly represent that after 34 years, the current proposal and funding is fair, equitable and in the best interest of the constituents as a whole? I agree with the principle of promoting Portage and area — encouraging new business development, encouraging growth of your population and the quality of life in Portage, but do not build a white elephant on the Island you cannot afford.

Build at any cost — I hope not.

In my opinion and based on information at my disposal,

K. Pohl

Georgetown, Ont.

Posted from the Daily Graphic July 10 2008

A presentation was made to council on behalf of the citizens of Portage who are opposed to the location of the planned multiplex on Island Park.

A petition of approximately 1,300 names, hastily put together, as well as e-mails with personal comments was presented to the council. In addition, a rally of some 200 sign-bearing supporters gathered in front of city hall to make their voices heard. Unfor-tunately, no one from council saw fit to address the crowd.

Council (specifically the mayor and two of the members) were adamant in their refusal to change the location of the multiplex. The reasons given were pretty flimsy, and were backed by a threat to abolish the project altogether. Anyone who has been following the plan for a water park in Winni-peg cannot fail to see the same dynamics in effect.

Once again, it is big egos and big bucks running roughshod over the insignificant little people.

Criticism by the mayor of that particular location was to the effect outsiders would fail to see our beautiful Island Park, and also the local businesses would lose out. Does that sound like enough reason to disregard that location, when so many other factors come into play?

Indeed, we would be most happy to welcome visitors to enjoy the complex events from time to time. But what about our own regular daily participants? What is in their best interests? Or is the main purpose of the complex to accommodate out-of-town attractions at whatever the cost, people who would be totally unaware and even disinterested in the detrimental effect the Island location would cause.

The mayor called on the engineer to support his declaration that a delay would increase costs 10-20 per cent. No indication was given as to the reason, except for the fact tenders would have to be delayed. Neither was it explained what major changes would be required in order for the project to proceed at a different location. We assume each proposed location had already been thoroughly examined as to suitability.

The mayor declared he had a few calls opposing the location, and invited anyone wishing to do so to call him. It is my hope that many of you will take him up on it.

Mary Kohut

Portage la Prairie

Posted from the Daily Graphic July 10 2008

I have restrained myself as long as possible, but now I must comment on the pool area of the new proposed complex.

Tax dollars are being spent on a pool that clearly is of no use to already established community groups. Yes, I am talking about the Piranhas swim club. Did you realize the current coaches of this club started with the Piranhas and today are contributing young adults to their community? That the Piranhas introduced a swimmer and inspired her to become an Olympic and World Cup coach? That several folks in this community have succeeded in achieving national officiating status? That several athletes made junior national qualifying times?

Also, over the past number of years, many swim competitions have been held here, with up to 240 athletes plus many parents attending. Most recently, the MSOS games in 2006 were held here, and they required a competitive sanctioned pool.

I spent some time working toward a pool in the 1980s and 23 years serving as coach to the Piranha swim club. I find it mind boggling any club is treated this way in favour of the “I’ll come if and when I feel like it” patron.

Please, we are talking big tax dollars here. Let’s be fair and reasonable to the existing groups. All existing groups. Then, if dollars permit, look at the frills that could add more or perhaps a new group of users to the complex. For the community needs — no problem! For the council’s wants — no way!

It appears that if the complex was a plank in the councillors’ election platform, that meant all the constituents were in favour of whatever they came up with. Well, I’m here to say that it isn’t necessarily so.

I am in favour of a complex! However, the proposal as I understand it, is light years off the mark. To make matters worse, there is absolutely no possibility of rectifying this pool error in the future. As is, it eliminates any possibility of growth, i.e.: a water polo club, scuba club, diving or synchro swim club. All are removed from possibility due to this design. Let’s slow down and ‘do it right’ this time. Surely, the community taxpayers, volunteers, coaches and club members deserve that much.

Swim-cerely,

Blaine MacFarlane

Portage la Prairie

It’s almost eerie how the current debate over the Portage multiplex echoes what occurred in the mid-1970s

Posted By Shane Gibson, Central Plains Herald-Leader

Posted from the Daily Graphic July 4 2008

Sun Media Photo/SubmittedPhoto/DailyGraphic/05/07/08 These plans show what the proposed multiplex sports centre would have looked like if it had of been built in 1976. City of Portage la Prairie and RM of Portage councillors had approved the plan, which was estimated to cost $4.2 million, and would have been built on the North West corner of the Exhibition Grounds, but the project was rejected by city and rural residents in a referendum held on October 22, 1975.

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery(‘#mycarousel’).jcarousel({ vertical: true, scroll: 1, visible:3 }); }); More Photos

The City and the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie made big news recently, with both councils approving a plan to build a recreation complex at the exhibition grounds on the Island.

But, as anyone who has lived in this community for the past 40 years knows, there is nothing new about the idea of building a sports facility on the island.

In 1974, the city and the RM partnered up and began planning to build a recreation centre on more than 17 hectares of land on a corner of the exhibition grounds, just southeast of the Portage Golf Club. If it hadn’t been for a referendum held late the next year, the City of Portage would already have a multiplex on the Island.

“We took it to the people, and they told us they didn’t want it at that time,” remembered Bill Linden, who was a city councillor during the sportsplex planning stages in 1975.

Linden said the main issue people had against the complex at that time was the estimated price, which was $4.2 million, a far cry from the $35.7 million the project is expected to cost today.

“I think people in the community were more involved in participating in saying what they wanted then,” said Linden. “The only trouble then was that the project got beyond the means we had to spend.

“It became a problem trying to tailor the recreation complex to the financial ability of the community.”

Although the price has changed, Linden, who was in favour of building the complex in 1975, said the reasons the city needs the complex have not.

“The whole idea of the sportsplex was no different than it is today,” explained Linden. “We wanted to give recreational opportunities to the public of the City of Portage la Prairie.

“We wanted to give the younger people of Portage a place where they could meet and play their sports.”

Past plans

According to the architectural plans, the multiplex proposed in 1975 would have included an arena with seating for 3,120, a 25-metre pool with a diving board, an eight-sheet curling rink with a lounge, viewing area and full kitchen and a multipurpose area with several small meeting rooms.

The arena area was to be 1,147 sq. metres, and parking would be provided for 940 cars. Unlike today’s plan, though, the grandstand and exhibition building were to stay where they were. The current plan is to tear down the grandstand and build the multiplex on top of the east end of the racetrack, with the exhibition building being relocated to another part of the fairgrounds.

At the time, the Portage Industrial Exhibition Association board was going to give the land to the project at no charge, and the cost of the project was to be split five ways. The City of Portage was to pay $1,763,750, while the RM was to kick in $311,250, local service clubs were to pay $150,000 and the Portage Curling Club had promised to contribute $200,000.

The plans were completed in July 1975, and were made public prior to the referendum on whether to go ahead with the project, which was held in conjunction with the municipal elections on Oct. 22 of that year.

In the referendum, city voters rejected the plan by a vote of 2,425 to 1,854, a margin of 671 votes. In the RM of Portage, the margin was even greater, with 1,135 against and only 483 voting in favour of the facility.

Although he was only a boy at the time, current city councillor and staunch supporter of the PCU Centre project, Jeff Bereza, said he can vividly remember the day Portagers rejected the plan more than 30 years ago.

“We were all so excited about this as a family, and I can remember my dad coming home and saying that it had been defeated and we wouldn’t be building this complex,” remembered Bereza. “Even when I was 12 years old, I could feel that in the pit of my stomach; I can remember that like it was yesterday.”

Bereza said he thinks one of the main reasons the plan was rejected was due to comments by a city councillor on the day leading up to the vote.

“It was the day before the referendum that there was some information come out from somebody within the city, that taxes would go up dramatically,” he said. “People are always a little afraid of change, and I don’t think that’s any different from back in the 1970s until now.”

The information Bereza remembers was printed in a letter to the editor in the Oct. 21, 1975, issue of The Daily Graphic.

In the letter, Alderman A.R. Barrett voiced concerns he saw with the project, which included issues eerily similar to those heard in opposition to today’s multiplex.

Barrett warned the city would use up all provincial grant money on the project and would be left broke for a number of years following construction. He also worried the Exhibition Grounds location would cause undue traffic in the residential area around the Island, and he stated the land chosen was not suitable for construction.

He said there were costs not included in the $4.2 million price tag, such as building access roads, adding water and sewer on the Island, and parking and lighting, which would bring the total cost closer to $6 million.

“At this time, we cannot afford this champagne palace,” wrote Barrett at the end of his letter. “Let us vote ‘no’ now and look at more realistic proposals in the future.”

The journal of the day

Just like today, The Daily Graphic reported on all the debate at city hall and throughout the region over the project. Former publisher Ian MacKenzie recalled the letter to the editor section in the paper was “continually” filled with opinion from those for and against the project.

MacKenzie said the exact same issues that have been debated by citizens today — such as taxes, location, cost and traffic congestion — divided the community back then as well.

“It was just exactly as it is now: build it somewhere else,” remembered MacKenzie. “The issue kept us extremely busy back then, too.”

Mackenzie admitted he was disappointed when the plan got voted down in 1975, and that’s partly the reason he worked hard at restarting the plan when he sat as mayor of Portage nearly 30 years later. He said he’s happy the city is now on the road to getting the project done.

“We started this whole project in the spring of 2006,” he said. “We wanted to make sure that we would have all the answers ready, and we would not be bullied out of it again. I think they’ve got a good plan, and they’re doing a good job on it.”

Although a referendum was needed back in 1975 to gauge the public’s desire to build a recreation complex, Bereza said he feels this time, the municipal election in 2006 was enough to give council the go-ahead for the project. Building the multiplex was a contentious issue in that election, and candidates such as Bereza, who were in favour of the building, were all elected.

“It was pretty clear in the election itself, when we all ran, that the constituents wanted us to build a multiplex,” he said. “It was almost like a referendum.”

In 1975, 56.5 per cent of the city’s eligible voters participated in the referendum vote, which was considered high voter involvement at the time. It was assumed the multiplex vote brought out the higher than normal numbers.

For Bereza, the memory of how hard councillors worked to get the original plan approved by both councils in 1975 was the main reason he wanted to get the project going again. He said he’s proud to be a part of the council that was able to get it done.

“It’s been something that the community and this area has been thinking about for over 40 years,” he said. “What we were able to accomplish here is just a continuation of the things that the guys who came before us started.”

The current multiplex has gone to tender, and work is expected to begin by sometime this August.

Posted from the Daily Graphic July 4 2008

Yes, about the recreation centre. I live in the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie, making my living here also. If the city and RM want to join forces and build the multiplex, go ahead “get ’er done,” but tax everyone fairly, so as everyone pays the same.

This is entertainment, nothing more, nothing less. Putting the multiplex in the same context as schools, hospitals, fire department, roads and drainage is not a fair statement. To demand some people should pay more than the next person is also not fair.

In the last civic election, it seemed to me, if elected, the new city council mandate was to “investigate” what ratepayers could afford and what they wanted. This quickly seemed to turn into a multiplex buying frenzy. At that time, the RM was not involved; what did I care? That’s for the city; do whatever you want. Then the RM announced a commitment of $8 million to the project, more or less blindsiding every ratepayer in the RM of Portage. Then to have a nice harvest-time meeting to bless the whole thing was kind of sneaky, considering not one RM councillor stood up at election time and said what they were up to. Every councillor ran on the normal platforms for roads, drainage and gravel.

I do realize council is elected to make decisions, and some need to be behind closed doors. The RM does a good job of doing the things RMs are supposed to do. Hospitals, schools, fire departments, drainage have never been better; snow removal is done very timely. Gravel, well, we know they are trying. Makes me wonder why we should now get into the recreation business. Are we to try to entertain everyone from horse fans, snowmobilers, skateboarders, dirt bikers to model airplane builders? What next?

I have heard about all the hard work people have been doing on the multiplex. I can’t imagine they aren’t having anything less than the time of their lives, flying around looking at other projects, spending other people’s money. But, when somebody finally signs on the line, you can’t return it with a bad case of buyer’s remorse.

“They” say we need this to attract business, but Simplot, McCain Foods and others came without the complex. Besides, who are “they”? The whole thing is starting to look like an episode of the Simpsons where a slick salesman comes to town to sell a monorail, and when things go horribly wrong, “Slick” is long gone with the money.

This is about entertainment. When I go to the movies, every adult pays the same. Nobody goes to watch a hockey work; they watch a hockey game. They call people who play hockey “players,” not workers, and when it is a job, they get compensated for it.

If everyone wants this so badly, where is the fundraising like other communities have done, like lottos?

Put the thing to a vote like it should have been from the start. If the majority of city and rural taxpayers want this multiplex, then I will pay my share the same as any ratepayer. Put an end to all the hard feelings. Let democracy do what it is supposed to do. The ratepayers of the RM deserve to have a chance to vote on it. We deserve better.

Raymond Verwey

Rural Portage la Prairie

Posted from the Daily Graphic July 4 2008

Regarding “Too little too late from citizens” (June 24th issue):

We’ve heard from the project managers, the politicians, the glowing reports from the financial elite about the recreation centre. It might be a little bit late, but now we’ve started to hear from the people who will be paying the bulk of this costly project. And as the costs are still quite high, I’m wondering several things.

Since the interior of the current arena was completely rebuilt and the second arena built less than 25 years ago in the 1980s, why does an arena even need to be part of this complex? It’s still in excellent condition, with extensive work being completed to the older part of the arena in the early 1990s, around 15 years ago.

Not only this, but having attended a number of playoff hockey games this past year, I noticed, even at the beginning of the series with Humboldt, there were still empty seats (more than just a handful), in the arena. There may have be a few sell-out Terrier games this past season, but does this constitute a good reason for doubling the seating capacity?

Instead of burdening taxpayers with this huge debt and interest — why not pare it down more, move it and spend the difference on things that are really needed, ie. the terrible conditions of our roads and other necessities? Especially since so little road work has been done in this city for the past number of years?

I’m not referring to the projects paid for by the province for provincial roads that run through our city ie. Third Street S.E. and Saskatchewan Avenue West. Other than those streets, it seems that the only work done has been the entranceway to Koko Platz, part of Lorne Avenue West, and all of two streets paved in 2006, much of this being done at election time of that year, at the end of October! And of course, Wilkinson Crescent is now being remade this year.

I’m not against making new facilities, but it is still the citizens of this city who will have taxes raised again and again and again to pay for this extravagant location, along with a $10-15 million bridge.

So why not “bite the bullet,” councillors, and listen to your citizens’ concerns. We may be late, but we’ll think much better of you for it, especially at election time.

Kevin Johnston

Portage la Prairie

Posted from the Daily Graphic July 2 2008

The editorial page in the June 25th issue of The Daily Graphic had an interesting juxtaposition of articles:

In the editorial column, we have Ross Romaniuk of the Winnipeg Sun writing that he can’t understand why anyone would object to the new Blue Bomber stadium being built in Point Douglas: The project would bring badly needed economic development to a struggling area of the city. It would mean great improvement. Let the rich and powerful (“the movers and shakers” of Winnipeg) do what they want. Why should a few thousand residents of Point Douglas have a say? (Maybe because they live there, Mr. Romaniuk?)

It’s highly questionable whether a playing field where the wealthy can sit and watch nine or 10 Bomber games per year will provide any economic or social improvement to the residents of Point Douglas. Sunday’s Sun provided two articles by experts who have examined similar developments across North America, and they suggest that in most cases, the benefits have been marginal, at best.

Appearing just below this poorly thought out editorial were two more letters to the editor about the new Portage recreation complex. They are part of a long series of letters to your paper about this project. The most consistent concern expressed for many months has been the total lack of consultation with the community. Our present mayor and council members seem to think, like Romaniuk, that “the movers and shakers” should have their way, that a few thousand objections don’t matter. The message we get is: “Don’t bother us with questions. We have the answers. It’s money that matters. It’s getting your name on a plaque that’s important. Concerns about the environment, about traffic, about the character of our city are irrelevant.”

The recreation complex project may be going ahead despite the many objections, questions and concerns that remain. Unfortunately, it will do so without the full support of many of the good citizens of Portage and area. The price that’s paid may well include a lack of ongoing, enthusiastic support from our citizens — and a wholesale rejection of the mayor and council in the next election. Is it really worth it, gentlemen?

Jim Penhale

Portage la Prairie

Posted from the Daily Graphic July 2 2008

Re: The lease agreement between the Portage Industrial Exhibition Association and the City and Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie.

I have been asking the city office for a copy of the above-noted lease agreement.

As a result of my request, I have a letter from the city, dated May 7, stating the lease agreement “is still in negotiations at this time and is not available.” As a result of my follow-up letter, I received a letter from the city, dated June 24, stating the lease agreement “is not complete and is currently being drafted.”

I would like to know how the multiplex committee (including the city and RM) are able to “tender” for the construction of a multi-million dollar building on land not secured by an EXECUTED, BINDING lease agreement. Should not the site of the building be secured by a signed, sealed and binding document before any steps towards construction are taken?

N.V. Kerman

Portage la Prairie