From The Daily Graphic

Over the past week, there have been many people publicising supposed new taxation amounts and how they will impact local residents.

The www.portagemultiplex.com website has had cost calculators available for sometime that allows both City and RM residents to insert their own assessment numbers and see what the total impact of the PCU Centre will be on their individual tax bills.

The numbers used in these calculators have been confirmed by both City and RM officials and were not published until they were verified.

Unlike recent attempts to discredit these numbers by highlighting only certain portions of the costs, these cost calculators strive to take into account all possible costs for the PCU Centre.

These not only include the actual amounts the municipal governments are borrowing, but also interest costs for these loans, the amount that is being pulled from the reserve funds and, of course, the exorbitant annual operating deficit the facility will incur, including the payments to the fair board.

While some people have attempted to zero in on only the 2008 tax increases or point out the taxes are not expected to increase into the future, the real question to ask is what portion of my total municipal taxes are being allocated to the project.

RM taxes have increased in the past two years as money has been funneled into increasing the reserve fund in preparation for this project. There is also the variable of the 2010 provincial property value reassessment that could potentially shift even more taxation towards businesses and farmers.

As other debentures are paid off, perhaps people should ask why their taxes are not going down? Why the rural roads in 2008 have been in the poorest condition in recent memory? Or why Peony Farm residents have been recently informed that in an effort to reduce costs, the RM will not be restoring the areas where the sewer and water upgrades have taken place?

When all the PCU Centre costs are factored in, the total burden on local taxpayers to build and subsidise the PCU Centre over the next 15 years is approximately $52 million.

Anyone who doesn’t look at the full picture is only fooling themselves.

Dwayne Leslie

Poplar Point

From the Portage Daily Graphic

This week’s vote on PCU Centre tenders at the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie council may have given the green light for construction to get started, but the project is still in jeopardy.

The issue of whether to accept the tenders divided the council members on Tuesday morning, with the yes side narrowly winning by a final count of 4-3.

Like council, ratepayers in the municipality of Portage have been just as divided over the issue, and a group opposing the move have retained a lawyer and are filing a notice of application against the RM.

The ultimate goal of the court case, according to Kam Blight, an Oakville area farmer who is speaking on behalf of the group, is to force the RM to have to go back and revote on the borrowing bylaw for the money promised to the project.

“Never before had the RM ever taken out an $8 million loan for entertainment and recreational purposes,” explained Kam Blight, an Oakville area farmer who is speaking on behalf of the group. “We felt that the proper notification and information was not provided to us for us to have our say.

“When you’re spending this much money of the tax payer’s dollars, you really need to have the people behind you.”

The group’s lawyer also hinted that they may request an injunction to stop work on the project until the case is resolved.

The court proceedings are scheduled to start on Oct. 9 at the Court of Queen’s Bench in Portage.

From the Portage Daily Graphic

RM vote on multiplex tenders reflective of community views

Portagers let out a sigh — or a groan — Tuesday following a nail-biter of a vote by the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie council regarding the first two tenders for the multiplex project.

The 4-3 vote, with one notable abstention, was about as close as it can get. If Coun. Garth Asham, who abstained, had voted against the tenders, the resulting 4-4 tie would have defeated the motion to accept the tenders. That would have effectively put an end to the construction of the multiplex for this year and maybe indefinitely, as the City and RM of Portage are walking a tight financial line to make sure the downsized PCU Centre fits within their budget constraints. Hence, Tuesday’s vote was incredibly significant for the life of the project.

Unlike the unanimous front put on by city council, the 4-3 result is more truly reflective of the general mood of the residents of these two municipalities — as was Coun. Owen Williams’s vote. Williams did the truly democratic thing: he left his own opinion out of the equation and instead kept a two-column list next to the phone for his constituents’ positive and negative positions on the project. Those who support the multiplex came out just ahead on Williams’ list. His crucial “yay” was needed to keep this project going.

There are still two more construction tenders to vote on for the recreation complex, which will include a major arena, aquatic centre, fitness centre, walking track and multi-purpose rooms. But given that the first tender hurdle has been passed, the second one, hopefully, will be easier.

Unfortunately, there are farmers and other ratepayers angling to put more obstacles in this endeavour’s path, in the form of some legal actions. What these will entail and if they will be successful is not yet fully known, but it is hoped they can be overcome. The Portage la Prairie-area needs this recreation facility, and the incredible amount of work that already has gone into designing and funding an undertaking such as this should not be cast aside.

There may be other fallout from the current divisiveness over this project. The Portage Recreation Committee is entering its second phase of raising funds privately for the PCU Centre. How successful it will be at convincing local business owners to contribute to a contentious facility is a big unknown. Are those businesses risking alienating part of their client base by publicly supporting the multiplex? Or will having one’s name on some component of the facility for the next two decades be worth living through the tempest in a teapot now? And what effect will the current financial crisis in the United States, but also in Canada, have on people’s ability to make major donations to the project?

To reduce the controversy and start to build consensus, what Portage needs more of are people such as vegetable farmers Doug and Paulette Connery. The Connerys, who researched the property tax implications for their own farm and discovered the bottom line wasn’t as bad as some naysayers had made it out to be. The biggest key to increasing support for the multiplex is for an end to miscommunication on one side and a lack of communication — perceived or otherwise — on the other side. And the financial markets will bounce back eventually; they always do.

There are hurdles and obstacles and hills yet to traverse for the PCU Centre’s proponents. They are going to be in excellent shape from all the exercise they will be doing to get the multiplex off the ground. They just need to not pull too many muscles before reaching the finish line.

Clarise Klassen is the managing editor of The Daily Graphic.

From the Portage Daily Graphic

By simply raising their hands at Tuesday’s Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie council meeting, three councillors and the reeve gave the go ahead to officially get started building the $35.7-million PCU Centre at the Island Park fairgrounds.

The meeting, which had to be moved to the Herman Prior 55-plus Centre after nearly 70 people came to the RM office on Tupper Street to watch, saw councillors vote 4-3 to accept the first two of four tenders on the project. Coun. Ray Davidson of Ward 4, Reeve Toby Trimble, Coun. Larry Gibbs of Ward 2 and Coun. Owen Williams of Ward 6 all voted to accept the tenders.

Ward 1 Coun. Garth Asham abstained from the vote pending the results of a court case filed against the RM by concerned ratepayers regarding the project.

If Asham had voted against the tenders with Coun. Terry Simpson of Ward 3, Coun. Bill Alford of Ward 7, and Coun. Arnold Verwey of Ward 5, the resolution would have been defeated, and the project effectively would have been scratched.

After the meeting, Trimble said although the vote was close, he’s glad council will be able to go ahead with the multiplex.

“I would have to say I’m feeling very relieved,” he admitted. “I went into the meeting feeling confident that the outcome would be the way it was.

“I’m happy that council members stepped up and passed the approval of the two tenders.”

Some councillors at the RM had originally wanted to wait until all four tenders were in before voting on them, but Trimble explained before the vote council members had received and reviewed the last tenders in camera before the vote, and they had come in on budget.

PortageMultiplex.com will once again be blogging live from the RM of Portage Council meeting this morning. Please keep refreshing this page to see live updates.

At this point no one has said what will transpire, according to the lack of media coverage of the City council meeting Monday night it appears that they have not yet voted on Tenders 3 and 4.

I wonder why ? Inquiring minds want to know what the holdup is.

Our guess is Brennan’s Boondoggle will be reduced to a 35 million dollar outdoor rink and hot tub as they appear to struggle to get the tenders down to the magic number.

More details to follow as they become available.

10 am meeting will convene at Herman Prior approx 1030

Over 70 people in attendance as meeting reconvenes

The few supporters have resorted to wearing sticky notes that say “Yes”

Vote coming shortly

4-3-1

Resolution passes

Councillor Asham abstains pending results of legal challenge

Next step is off to the courts

Update.

Despite the announcement at the previous council meeting by Reeve Toby Trimble that they would not vote on the Tender package until the complete tender package was before them, The RM council today passed a resolution to vote in favor of accepting Tenders 1 and 2 without having the major tenders placed in front of them.

Councillor Terry Simpson asked Reeve Toby Trimble why they were voting on this when they had agreed to wait, and the Reeve would not give him an answer.

Reeve Trimble called for a vote and in the middle of voting Councillor Garth Asham asked if he could abstain on the vote until after the legal challenge was dealt with. Reeve Trimble agreed that was OK and the vote continued.

In favor were
Reeve Toby Trimble
Councillor Owen Williams
Councillor Ray Davidson
Councillor Larry Gibbs

Against
Councillor Terry Simpson
Councillor Bill Alford
Councillor Arnold Verwey

Abstained
Councillor Garth Asham.

Resolution passes 4-3-1 and construction could start immediately without anyone knowing what the final cost will be.

Where things stand

No one knows what Garth Asham was doing, By voting against the resolution he could of stopped it and earned the respect of his ward, but in effect his vote is the same as a Yes vote as his actions allowed the project to move forward.

While several councillors including Mr Asham indicated that they would vote it down if it was even 1 dollar over budget, they just passed 2 tenders that were a combined 6,720$ over budget without knowing what 3 and 4 are going to be.

How can the residents of the RM be satisfied that their interests are being looked after when the Reeve will not even answer questions of his own councillors during the meeting?

The RM and City have effectively given a blank check to the project manager to build this complex. With construction likely beginning immediately, if the final tenders are over budget it will be too late to stop it because construction will have already started. There is now no reason for bidders to adjust their pricing lower because they know the project will go through at any cost.

A legal challenge of the RM borrowing bylaw has been filed and everyone is hoping for an expedited process to settle this quickly before any more dollars are spent. If the Judge rules in favor of the rural taxpayers then the City could be left with a hole in the ground and no money to complete the project.

It is interesting how some people try to muddy the waters of this debate by using current tax increase amounts when the actual debate is with the portion of your total tax bill that is allocated to the multiplex. RM taxes should actually be dropping as past debentures are paid off.  When taking into consideration the loans, interest costs, money from reserve funds, and the annual operating deficit, reality is a long ways from the information that Mr Connery is trying to promote in the media.

If you want to see the full impact on your taxes, click on the multiplex cost calculator on the right side of this page.

Please comment at the bottom of this post how you feel about this media report.

From PortageOnline.com

Yesterday, RM of Portage resident Doug Connery came out strongly in support of the PCU Centre, and outlined figures disputing the level of taxation the project requires.

He’s received about an even split in reaction to his comments so far.

Connery believes the whole assessment formula that’s in place is the right way to go. He notes a switch to residential assessment only would mean those people pay three-and-a-half times more in taxes.

Connery adds residential assessment would see organizations like Simplot, foreign landowners, CN, and non-residential parts of Southport not payng tax. He feels the whole assessment is the most economical method for everybody.

Connery points out Tuesday’s RM of Portage Council vote will decide whether the project goes forward. He urges residents to contact their councillor and let them know how they feel, adding it wasn’t done 25 years ago, and needs to be done now.

Meanwhile, Dwayne Leslie of the residents opposed to the project stands by the tax calculations made on portagemultiplex.com. He says the true cost has to include reserve fund contributions and the complex’s 1.2 million dollar a year operating deficit.

Here are Doug Connery’s comments and calculations.

In May of this year I had a phone call from one of the Oakville area farmers who is concerned with what was happening in the RM, and the council’s involvement with the multiplex. He asked me if I was concerned and what my feelings were. My comment was I had not thought about it and I would investigate. I knew that with our high valued land, large building complex, and with seventeen houses on the farm we would be one of the hardest hit. This person’s other comment to me was that the taxing for this complex should be residential based and not land based.

I called the RM office for information and this is what I found out. Total assessment value in the RM is $310 million and residential assessment of this amount is $89 million. If tax was only to go onto residential instead of total rural assessment, residential owners would pay 3.5 times more, which I do not feel is fair. You would also exclude absentee land owners and businesses such as Simplot, Can Oats, CN, Centra Gas, Southport, etc. My conclusion was that taxation on total assessment would be the fairest and most economical basis for all.

The other concern of this individual was what the cost was going to be. The RM again supplied me with the figures of what our tax increase would be over 2007, and clarified that 2/3 was for the multiplex and 1/3 for general operating expenses. When we received our tax bills for the farm, excluding school taxes, the RM’s information was confirmed:

Our tax increase was $984.00 less 2% for early payment equalling $964.00.

964 x 2/3 = 642 for multiplex

964 x 1/3 = 322 for general operating

642 x 15 year amortization = 9630 in total new taxes to our family farm

My final conclusion was that total assessment was the fairest process for taxing the multiplex contribution by the RM, and that the increased tax is more than fair. For 10 family members this works out to $64.00 a year over 15 years. What a deal!

One of the other main concerns for the group opposing the multiplex was the interest costs and operating costs of this complex. Again, I did my investigation and called the RM for information.

The RM office told me that there would be retiring debt over the next few years and this would cover all interest costs and other expenses, and that the tax increase this year would be the only increase needed for the complex. The opposing group feels we need to factor in this cost, so here goes:

I would multiply my yearly complex taxes by 3 to include other costs which would equal $28,890.00 (9630 x 3), not the $48,500.00 which has been put out in information packages.

The councillor’s job in managing the RM is to budget for costs and, if there is going to be a surplus, to investigate and decide what capital expenditure should be undertaken next with this money that is best for all the rural citizens now and in the future. This is the process that council has started and I congratulate you for your excellent hard work and forward thinking.

There will be a vote at the council meeting on Tuesday and I appeal to all rural citizens who agree with me to phone their rural councillor and give them their thoughts on the multiplex.

We lost our multiplex in the past and we stand a good chance of losing it again. I do not want to have to tell my grandchildren why we do not have a facility that other, smaller communities have.

Doug Connery

Connery Riverdale Farms Ltd.

The RM will apparently be voting on the Tender package on September 23rd at 10 AM . We presume that it will be held in the council chambers, but it is rumored that it may be moved to a larger location due to the expected large turnout from rural residents.

Several councillors have indicated that they would like to hear more from people in their wards, whether they are for or against the project.

Listed below are the contact numbers and the ward map so you can be sure to contact your local representative.

Click on map for larger version.

I sincerely appreciated the coverage of the www.portagemultiplex.com website in the Central Plains Herald this weekend.

Especially the comments from Mayor Ken Brennan after he indicated he had never looked at the website.

“I don’t believe that anyplace where somebody can say what they want and not have to sign their name to it is valid,” said the mayor. “It’s not a concern to me.”

How can the mayor comment on how the website works when he has never been there? Perhaps Mayor Brennan should look at the website and see how many city hall employees have posted comments.

And why hasn’t he been looking for this feedback from all taxpayers ?

When launched www.portagemultiplex.com was the only place where citizens could comment on the project, this should have been the first place Mayor Brennan went to every morning.

He has obviously missed all the people commenting in support of the project and offering constructive criticism. With over 15,000 pageviews to the site, it is by far the leading community to share information on the project. And the Mayor and Reeve should take note of the overwhelming majority of commenters who are willing to stand up and put their name to their opinions.

But I don’t expect Mr Brennan to be an Internet expert. He is the Mayor after all and should have more important things to do.

There are high priced consultants that have already been paid millions of dollars to guide the City and RM though this entire project. Shouldn’t public relations and Internet strategy fall under the job description of these experts?

When construction starts Mayor Brennan is quoted saying

“there’s going to be literally hundreds of people in Portage that are going to be relieved that it’s finally happening.”

What about the thousands of people who have voiced their opposition ?

They are the people you should be listening to Mayor Brennan.

Before this goes down in history as Brennan’s Boondoggle.

I will be updating this post during the RM of Portage council meeting on Tuesday Sept 9.

Please refresh this page to receive the most up to date content.

From the agenda it appears that the tender vote is not to be discussed today<!–

A question is asked why there is no money allocated for roads and drainage in the capital budget for 4 of the next 5 years

Another question is asked what will happen if there is a 4-4 tie vote, Reeve Trimble confirms it would not pass

So many good questions, not enough time to type

Daryl indicated that some councillors wanted to wait until all 4 tenders are back

Does Portage Mutual still want to name an arena that doesn’t exist For 250,000 dollars?

Daryl indicated only 27% of rural residents will use the Multiplex. We will try to get clarification of what that really means

Daryl indicates that the deficit will range from 1.2-1.4 million per year. It is mentioned that the bylaw says the RM is on the hook for 33%. Reeve Trimble says it is under negotiation from 25%-33%

More later

Where things stand

The RM councillors have apparently refused to vote on the project until all tenders are placed in front of them and a final cost is locked in.

This is in stark contrast to the City of Portage whose Mayor and councillors apparently had no problem approving the first two tenders which would open them up to being on the hook for cost overruns if the next tenders came over budget.

There is also the looming court challenge of the RM’s borrowing bylaw that will move forward if the RM votes to proceed with the project. There have been more private donations raised for the court challenge than has been raised from private donations to the Multiplex in the last 30 years.

More donations are always welcome if you feel that this project should be stopped from proceeding until the funding is fairly shared or a proper location is chosen.

The RM would not give a timeframe for when they will vote on all 4 tenders, but watch this website for more details when it happens.

Thank you to all the new faces who attended the RM council meeting today, as this issue gets more and more people concerned everyday.

Despite what CFRY and Portage Online try to say, this is not a done deal and your support can still help make a difference.

From Portage Online.com

Portage City Council has approved two of four tenders for the construction of the PCU Centre at the fairgrounds.

Tender 1 was budgeted at $2,247,000, and came in at $2,072,360.

Tender 2 came in at 6,810,830 dollars. That’s $181,830 over budget.

Despite that, Mayor Ken Brennan is satisfied, adding this is something the City and RM have been striving toward for three decades. He’s happy they’ve been able to deliver something significant to the community.

Brennan isn’t concerned one tender is over-budget because they’ve built that into the 35.7 million dollar budget.

He notes the final two tenders should be in by the end of next week.

The RM Council votes on all four tenders September 23rd.

Here’s a breakdown of the tenders.

Tender 1 Budget: $2,247,000.00 Tender: $2,072,360.00

Demolition: EF Moon — $110,000.00

Site Preparation: EF Moon — $935,760.00

Piling: Metro Piling — $1,026,600.00

Tender 2 Budget: $6,629,000.00 Tender: $6,810,830.00

Rebar: Cowin Steel — $355,643.00

Concrete: Dominion Construction — $1,947,000.00

Pre-engineered Building: Crane Steel — $2,480,000.00

Structural Steel: Abesco Steel — $596,905.00

Masonry: Roma Masonry — $756,000.00

Pre-cast Concrete: Haywood Concrete — $365,110.00

Glulam Beams: Western Archrib — $165,893.00

Elevators: Thyssen Elevator — $58,839.00

Structural Steel Deck: Tri Clad Designs Inc. — $85,440.00