From the Portage Daily Graphic

At Monday night’s council meeting the mayor and council voted unanimously in favour of awarding the first two of four tender packages for the construction of the Portage Credit Union Centre.

The first tender package, which includes demolition, site preparation and piling, came in at nearly $2.1 million, $174,640 under budget. While the second, larger package, consisting of several tenders including the pre-engineered building and concrete, came in at more than $6.8 million and over budget by $181,830.

Mayor Ken Brennan said the $6,720 overage between the two tenders was not a concern, and will be paid for from a roughly $2.4 million contingency fund that was included into the $35.7 budgeted for the centre.

“The contingencies cover overages on tenders, change orders when we’re building it, or something that we forgot,” explained Mayor Ken Brennan after the meeting. “So up until tonight we’re still fine as far as money goes.”

The city’s awarding of the tenders is conditional on whether the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie approves the same two tender packages at their meeting scheduled for 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

From CBC News April 13 2007

From the Manitoba Provincial Ombudsman

For Release: October 24, 2007

Province Implements Ombudsman’s Recommendations To Improve Notice to Taxpayers About Proposed Borrowing By-Laws

Manitoba Ombudsman Irene Hamilton today announced that all recommendations made in her Report, issued August 27, 2007, regarding the Municipality of Killarney-Turtle Mountain Local Improvement Plan have been implemented.

“I want to commend the Council of Killarney-Turtle Mountain for their prompt attention to my recommendation that a public meeting be held, and the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Municipal Board for implementing administrative changes that will improve transparency and accountability province-wide in the process of Local Improvement Plans,” said Hamilton.

The final report is available on line at: www.ombudsman.mb.ca (under “Ombudsman Division”, “Reports and Publications”) or in hardcopy form from Manitoba Ombudsman at 982-9130 (Winnipeg) or 1-800-665-0531 (toll free in Manitoba).

Hamilton concluded in her report that, “The process by which the residents of Killarney-Turtle Mountain have incurred the significant tax burden associated with this project (a new recreational centre), does not meet an acceptable standard of transparency and accountability.” She found that inadequate notice provided by the Municipality of Killarney-Turtle Mountain and a failure of oversight by Intergovernmental Affairs and The Municipal Board resulted in residents being denied the right to speak on an extraordinary expenditure of public monies, for which they are now responsible.

Local improvements are regulated by The Municipal Act and municipal councils are required to give affected taxpayers notice of public hearings into proposed plans. These notices must include a summary of the information included in the local improvement plan. After an investigation by her office, the Ombudsman found that the notice to the residents of Killarney-Turtle Mountain did not include enough information to properly inform them of the financial impact of the proposed Local Improvement Plan.

Hamilton issued a preliminary report recommending that the municipality hold a special meeting to hear residents’ concerns before proceeding. The municipality accepted that recommendation.

Local Improvement Plans are vetted by the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs before being sent to The Municipal Board for formal approval. To correct deficiencies identified by the investigation, the Ombudsman recommended that the Department implement and publish a standard requirement for public notices in its Municipal Procedures Manual for all municipalities. Further, she recommended that a standard method for bringing any deficiencies of notice to the attention of The Municipal Board be adopted.

These recommendations were implemented on October 10th with the publication of an amendment to the Municipal Act Procedures Manual distributed to all municipalities by the department.

For more information about this news release, phone
Irene Hamilton, Manitoba Ombudsman
at (204) 982-9130 or 1-800-665-0531 (in Manitoba)

Backgrounder To October 24, 2007 News Release

The following Summary provides a synopsis of the investigative report.

For many residents of Killarney-Turtle Mountain, the publication of the Killarney Guide on the afternoon of Thursday April 5, 2007 was the first indication that the cost of a proposed “new recreational facility” had increased from $6.5 million to $10 million. It was also when they learned that their municipal council would be meeting the following Wednesday morning to give third and final reading to a borrowing by-law for an additional $2.5 million of that cost.

On the morning of Wednesday, April 11, 2007, between 50 and 100 people attended the council meeting, some in the council chamber itself and others outside in the hallway or on the sidewalk in front of the building. They wanted to speak to their elected representatives.

One of the delegation present also wanted to present Council with 100 copies of a letter asking council to “…re-consider the financial cost, as per Killarney Guide dated April 6, 2007, of the proposed New Facility complex and the total burden it will place on the taxpayers of the Rural Municipality of Killarney-Turtle Mountain for many years to come. ”

Because the municipal office had been closed on Friday and Monday, for Easter, allowing residents to speak to council on the morning of Wednesday, April 11th required a motion to dispense with the rule stating that delegations to council must give five days notice of their intention to appear. Mayor Brian Moore proposed such a motion. It was defeated.

Moments later, councillors voted to give second and the third (final) reading to a “Local Improvement” by-law authorizing the borrowing of an additional $2.5 million, bringing the total authorized borrowing for the project to $6.5 million. By this point, the estimated cost of the project had risen from just over $6 million in 2005, to $10 million. Immediately following that vote, Brian Moore resigned as Mayor and left the table.

Killarney-Turtle Mountain is a municipality of approximately 3,000 people. Much of the money needed to build the new recreational complex will be charged directly to residents in the form of an approved special tax levy, known as a “Local Improvement.”  There will be a direct and substantial impact on municipal property taxes.

A “Local Improvement” is one means by which a municipality can borrow money for large capital projects and then raise the funds through municipal taxes to repay that money. Local Improvements are regulated by statute and supervised by both the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs (the department) and The Municipal Board. In some respects, the Local Improvement process is exceptional in the framework of democratic government.  It allows citizens, who feel a decision by their elected representatives is unreasonable, to exercise veto power when two thirds of potential taxpayers are opposed to a project and file objections to it in accordance with the provisions of The Municipal Act.

Provincial law requires that a proposed Local Improvement Plan must identify the cost of the project for which money is to be borrowed; who is to bear the tax burden; how that burden is to be distributed; and the details of the borrowing itself.

Provincial law also requires that citizens be notified of Local Improvement Plans and given a right to express their support or opposition, first to their municipal council at a public hearing, and then to The Municipal Board. Notice of the public hearing must be mailed to individual property owners affected or, if everyone is affected, published in a local paper. Notices must contain information about the plan.

In the case of Killarney-Turtle Mountain, the notices of public hearing to consider By-law 5-2007, were published in January and the public hearing was held in February. Unfortunately, a citizen (potential taxpayer) reading the notice, would not be informed of the cost of the project or the implications for their annual property tax bill. When the hearing was held in February, only two people objected.

The last information provided publicly to Killarney-Turtle Mountain residents about the cost of the new recreational complex, identified the cost of the complex as $6.5 million. That information was distributed in July, 2005. By February, 2007, the cost was estimated at $10.8 million.

On March 30, 2007 council gave the go-ahead for the project at a cost of $9.5 million. It was at this point that the cost of the project came to the attention of the local newspaper, published on April 5, 2007.

The opportunity for residents to speak for or against the passage of borrowing by-laws for the new recreational complex, should not have come down to a last ditch effort on the morning of April 11, 2007. There should have been three prior opportunities for citizens of Killarney-Turtle Mountain to express an informed view on the utility and cost of this project.

Because of inadequate notice provided by the municipality and a failure on the part of both oversight agencies, Intergovernmental Affairs and The Municipal Board, this did not occur.  The citizens of Killarney-Turtle Mountain were denied the right to speak about a significant and extraordinary expenditure of public monies, for which they are now directly responsible.

The process by which the residents of Killarney-Turtle Mountain have incurred the significant tax burden associated with this project, does not meet an acceptable standard of transparency or accountability.

Recommendations were made to restore the opportunity for residents of Killarney-Turtle Mountain to have their say on this matter, and to improve the oversight process to ensure that in the future, the rights of municipal taxpayers in similar situations are protected.

In a preliminary report, the Ombudsman made the following Recommendations. The municipality acted immediately to hold the public meeting recommended, and this month the department finalized and published the procedural improvements recommended.

Recommendation made to R.M. of Killarney-Turtle Mountain

While I can make recommendations about changing the process for the benefit of potential taxpayers affected by proposed local improvement plans, such recommendations would do little for the residents of Killarney-Turtle Mountain who were denied their right to object. The only recommendation I can make that would be meaningful for complainants, is one that would result in an opportunity for the public to discuss the plan with their elected representatives and express their support for or opposition to the plan in that public forum.

Accordingly, pursuant to subsection 36 (2) of The Ombudsman Act, I am recommending that the Municipality of Killarney-Turtle Mountain hold a public meeting to provide residents with information about the cost and financing of the new facility, including the Local Improvement Plan borrowing, and to hear residents’ views on the cost and benefits of the project.

Recommendations made to Intergovernmental Affairs

With respect to the process whereby municipal borrowing by-laws are reviewed by Municipal Finance and Advisory Services, I believe this process can be amended to achieve the due diligence it was designed to foster.

I do not believe it is necessary to change the statutory framework to enshrine the authority of the branch. For the most part the convention works well. There is no reason to recommend that a provincial civil servant have the authority to accept or reject municipal borrowing by-laws. That responsibility rests appropriately with the Municipal Board.

It is necessary for the Branch to obtain guidance from the Board, on what constitutes an acceptable standard for notice of public hearing; to include that standard in its review of proposed borrowing by-laws and to bring any deficiency of notice to the attention of the Board; and to communicate that standard to all municipalities so as to assist municipalities in complying with statutory requirements in the future.

Accordingly, pursuant to subsection 36(2) of The Ombudsman Act, I am recommending that the Municipal Finance and Advisory Services branch of the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, in consultation with The Municipal Board, review and alter its practice of processing proposed borrowing by-laws so that the process contains a standard requirement for public notices and a standardized method of bringing any deficiencies in the notice to the attention of the Board.

I am further recommending, that the Branch include that standard requirement in the information it provides to municipalities in its Municipal Act Procedures Manual, and inform all municipalities of the change within 30 days of receiving approval from the Board.

From The Portage Daily Graphic

The winding road to construction of a recreation facility for Portage la Prairie has not been smooth

By Shane Gibson

Central Plains Herald-Leader

Last week, councils of both the city and Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie voted separately to sign a long-term lease agreement with the Portage Industrial Exhibition Association (PIEA) for the land on which the Portage Credit Union Centre will be built.

With those two simple votes, the debate over the right location of the new sports multiplex, which has divided people in the city and RM for months, came to an abrupt end.

The PCU Centre will be built on 8.5 hectares of land owned by the PIEA at its Island Park fairgrounds. The footprint of the facility will be roughly where the racetrack, grandstand and exhibition building currently sit at the eastern edge of the grounds.

Now, all that stands in the way of the city and RM realizing their dream of building the new sports facility in Portage are four groups of tenders — if those tenders come in on budget, and councillors vote to accept them, construction on the $35.7-million project will begin immediately.

It’s been a long road to get to this point, with ups and downs, and both councils have met with both opposition and praise since the city, the RM and the Portage Multiplex Committee first embarked on a feasibility study on the project in March 2006.

“I think we all knew when we set out on this trip that we were going to have some problems, and all we can do is do the best we can with the tools that we have,” said Portage Mayor Ken Brennan. “We’re so close now to getting the tenders all in, and when the walls (start) going up there, there’s going to be literally hundreds of people in Portage that are going to be relieved that it’s finally happening.”

The first opposition to the multiplex project came nearly two years after the feasability study, when a group of ratepayers from the RM became concerned the RM council was going to tax their farm land as well as their properties to help pay for the multiplex.

The city had decided to pitch in $16 million for the project, and the RM had promised $8 million, with the remaining money coming from both the federal and provincial governments and public donations.

Last April, as the RM council sat down to pass its 2008 budget, which included a tax levy bylaw increasing taxes in the municipality by 5.1 per cent to help pay for the multiplex, that’s when citizens became vocal in their opposition.

A group of seven farmers, mostly from the Oakville area, came to the council chambers that day and spoke to council for nearly an hour about their concerns. Since then, almost every seat in the gallery has been filled at nearly every one of the RM’s twice-monthly council meetings, with people opposing most of the issues around the multiplex.

Portage RM Reeve Toby Trimble said he is happy to have had the company at his meetings because it shows democracy in action. He said his council has taken the time to answer questions at the meetings and elsewhere, but he added not all the comments he hears are in opposition.

“Certainly, having people (at council) has shown us that people have an interest, whether it’s pro or against,” explained Trimble. “People have had the opportunity to come and speak to council; I’ve been stopped in the street in various places with people who are in favour of what we’re doing.

“Usually, the people who are not in favour of things are the most vocal, though.”

The opposition has also leaked over from the gallery to the councillors themselves, with a few of the RM councillors voting against various votes along the road to the multiplex, including a vote on whether to go to tender with the project.

At their meeting on June 24, both Ward 3 Coun. Terry Simpson and Ward 7 Coun. William Alford went against their fellow councilmen and opposed going to tender.

Portage city council has seen its share of opposition to the project this year, as well. A group of more than 200 protesters filled the street in front of city hall on June 23 to show their displeasure with the decision to build the multiplex at the Island Park fairgrounds.

“I’ve said to my council and to other people around me that it’s great that we’ve got something going on in Portage la Prairie that we’re so stirred up and passionate enough about it to stand outside city hall with placards,” said Brennan about the night. “It’s just sometimes we can react to those kinds of things. Unfortunately, in that particular case, we couldn’t react because of timing, but nevertheless, we had people excited about what we were doing.”

The rally was organized in just a matter of days by a group calling itself the Save Our Island Committee, and a petition of more than 1,300 signatures was given to council. The multiplex’s opposition was quickly able to organize the rally and petition for that night with the help of technology.

Word spread through a website called portagemultiplex.com, which had been set up just a few weeks before by Dwayne Leslie, an Oakville-area farmer and the creator of his own website, globalauctionguide.com. Leslie said since its launch on June 12, portagemultiplex.com has had roughly 15,000 page views from British Columbia all the way to the east coast of Canada.

“In a matter of about 20 minutes, we had set up the portagemultiplex.com website and opened it up for people to be able to give their opinions and help spread the information to everyone,” he explained. “We knew from watching other campaigns people have done on the Internet that it can be hugely successful in very short amount of time.”

For Leslie, giving people a forum to discuss issues about the multiplex was something he really wanted to do because he doesn’t feel residents in the RM are being fairly taxed on the project .

“The RM literally can’t afford this; it’s not just the $8 million, it’s the interest costs, and it’s the operating deficit,” he explained. “It’s created a huge division amongst people, and a huge lack of respect for both councils and our elected officials; it’s something that we shouldn’t have been dragged into in the first place.”

To show online visitors what he is talking about, Leslie has added a cost calculator to his website, which he says will show both RM and city residents exactly how much of their taxes will be spent to build and pay off the debt incurred for the multiplex over the next 15 years.

Leslie has used current mill rate numbers in the calculator, and said he has talked to representatives from both councils and they have verified the numbers are accurate.

“We give them a sheet where they can input their own assessment numbers and basically do all of the calculations themselves and basically see for themselves what it’s going to cost them,” he explained.

Leslie said when he ran his own numbers through the calculator, he was surprised to find he’d be paying $48,500 in taxes over the next 15 years just on his roughly 800 hectares of farm land, just to pay for the multiplex, and not including the rest of his taxes.

Neither Trimble nor Brennan said they have looked at Leslie’s 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.”

The city and the RM are very close to beginning construction of the PCU Centre, with all or some of the tenders expected to be voted on by both councils at their next regularly-scheduled meetings.

“I think we’re moving along,” Trimble said. “We’ve got the agreement signed with the fairboard, and we’re awaiting the tenders, and when they come in — hopefully, within our reach — then construction will be able to get underway.”

Leslie is not so optimistic.

“It is not a done deal by any means,” he said. “The fact that the tenders that were supposed to be done in August are being put off well into September tells that there are problems and issues that they are trying to work through.”

City council will meet next on Monday and the RM on Tuesday.

No matter what is decided at those meetings, Brennan said he’s pleased with how his council has handled the ups and downs that have come with embarking on such a huge project.

“I’m really grateful that I have the council that I have because this has been, for many of us, a test of our leadership abilities. And this council has stood firm on this right through and have helped us make the right decisions, even if it meant taking it on the chin a few times,” he said. “A weaker council may not have been able to get us to where we are today, and I’m pretty proud to be part of that group.”