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.”

From the City of Portage Council minutes from April 28th 2008 regarding the upgrading of the Water Pollution Control Facility to achieve nutrient removal prior to discharge of the treated wastewater into the Assiniboine River.

• The proposed implementation schedule indicates that design would begin in 2009 with construction beginning in 2013, however, the schedule is greatly dependent upon the City obtaining grants from the Provincial and Federal governments, and on negotiations with industry.
• The cost estimate to implement nutrient removal and solids handling at the WPCF is in the order of $35 million to $40 million, in 2008 dollars. At the current construction cost escalation rate of 15% per year, the cost of the work is estimated to be in the order of $70 million to $80 million by 2013. Council has included $20 million in the debt management plan for this project.

If the City has maxed out their borrowing limits in 2008 to pay for the Multiplex, where are they going to find 20 million dollars by 2013 ? And how much will the RM be on the hook ?

Multiplex Cost Calculator for City of Portage Residents

After waiting for weeks to receive confirmation from the City of Portage, they finally came through with a response. As expected we were bang on in our numbers.

Here is the numbers for an average business person and also an average residential property in the City of Portage

Please insert your own numbers to compare your own business or residence. In this example the business has an assessment of 300,000 with a 65% portioned assessment of 195,000

To repay the 10 Million dollar loan that will actually cost 16.5 million dollars with interest over 15 years, the City has indicated that the amount of the mill rate to be attributed to this is 4.032 per year.

195,000 X .004032 =786$ per year X 15 years =11,793$

________X .004032 =_________ per year X 15 years =__________$

To arrive at an actual number for the 6 million that will come from the general reserve is a little more difficult as some of the money has already been collected in past years and is sitting in the City reserves. This is money that taxpayers have already paid or are paying on their 2008 taxes The City has indicated that if the money was taxed at a one time lump sum amount , it would equal a mill rate of 22.034

195,000 X .022034 = 4296$ One time

______ X.022034 = ______$ One Time

The RM has indicated that the Operating Deficit for the new complex will be 1.2 Million per year. While they say that they are currently in negotiations to decide on the funding arrangements for this, let’s just assume that the City / RM split this on the 2/3 – 1/3 agreement. City taxpayers will be on the hook for 800,000 per year, which using 2008 numbers would equal a mill rate of 2.938

195,000 X .002938 = 573$ per year X 15 years =8,595$

______ X .002938 =______ $ per year X 15 years =______ $

Over the next 15 years this business will contribute 24,684$ to the multiplex.

Your Total _________________$

For a residences with an assessment of 100,000 and a 45% portioned assessment of 45,000.
45,000 X .004032 = 181$ per year X 15 years = 2721$
_______X .004032 = _______$ per year X 15 years = _______$

45,000 X .022034 = 991$ One time
_______ X .022034 = _______$ One time

45,000 X .002938 = 132$ per year X 15 years = 1983$
_______ X .002938 = _______$ per year X 15 years = _______$

Total of 5695$ for this residence over 15 years

Your Residence Total ____________$

This average business person will pay over 30,000$ in the first 15 years.

Your Total _________________$

From The Daily Graphic, One of the best editorials I have read in a long time.

The road to a new multiplex on the Island in Portage la Prairie has had more than its share of ups and downs — not including the major heave in the Crescent Lake bridge.

Ratepayers of the city and rural municipality have been on a rollercoaster ride, particularly lately. The latest high was Monday’s pep rally/sod-turning ceremony at the construction site on the fairgrounds. All three levels of government were caught up in congratulating each other, as well as local native leaders, on all of their efforts to this point.

Congratulations for what? While it is good to fully secure the federal and provincial contributions to the project, the city, RM and Portage Recreation Committee still don’t have all of the funding in place. The $5 million the committee was counting on from the federal government is actually just $3.3 million. (Although, it is important to note, it usually takes many years to get any federal funding and that time was much reduced.) The Doer NDP government has now officially confirmed it will fulfill its election campaign promise of $5 million, even though not all of it will be matched by the federal Conservatives.

The $3.3 million (federal) + $5 million (provincial) + $16 million from the city + $8 million from the RM + $1.1 million in corporate sponsorships for naming rights = $33.4 million. That’s still $2.3 million short of the project’s estimated $35.7-million tab. Plus, judging by the web poll question at thedailygraphic.com, more than 85 per cent of respondents say they will not be making a personal financial contribution to the multiplex. In a story in The Daily Graphic on Aug. 15, the mayor said he is confident the individual donations will pour in once construction gets underway and the excitement starts to build.

Perhaps, but there are some things the municipal councils are going to need to address if they have a hope of swaying public opinion to the positive:

1. Sign the lease agreement already. It has been well over a year since the fairgrounds was chosen as the site of the new multiplex. Some site preparation has already begun — to the detriment of the Potato Festival’s charity slo-pitch game, it should be pointed out — and yet the city and RM don’t have the official right to do anything on that land yet. In their hurry, the municipal officials aren’t getting all of their ducks in a row.

2. Stop calling and then cancelling special council meetings. There has been too much of that lately. And, the RM should be following the same protocol for informing the public about special meetings as it does for its regular meetings. Send out an agenda to local media, just as the city council does. Putting a notice up on the municipality’s website alone looks like it has something to hide, even if it doesn’t. All of the false starts on approval of tenders and the lease agreement serve to make the councils look disorganized at best. And that’s not good when so much taxpayers’ money is on the line.

3. Communication. It can’t be stressed enough that more needs to be done to keep the city and RM residents up-to-date on the project, including pre-emptive explanations for the delay in the land-lease agreement. What is the particular wrangling that is taking the lawyers so long? The less information Joe Public has, the more likely he is to fill in the details for himself.

This multiplex will be a great venue for Portage once it is built, regardless of its location. The people it will draw to this city and the recreational opportunities it will provide are numerous. The city, RM and PRC just need to get their collective act together.

Clarise Klassen is the managing editor of The Daily Graphic.

The City and RM keep talking about the 35.7 million dollar project. Let’s have a look at the numbers, because that is what real business people do when analyzing a project.

City 16 million

RM 8 Million

Federal Government 3.3 Million

Manitoba Government 5.0 Million

Donations and Naming Rights to date 1.2 Million

Additional Fundraising yet to come 2.2 Million. (It is interesting that in the past they talked about 4 million total fundraising and they have already scaled that back to 3.4 million)

So that is 35.7 million

What about interest costs to repay the loans taken out by the City and RM? Local taxpayers have to pay that back so it needs to be included in the cost.

RM 4.2 Million in interest costs over 15 years

City 6.4 Million in interest costs over 15 years

So that is 10.6 million in interest costs over 15 years which is included in local taxes

35.7 million quickly becomes 46.3 Million

Now here is the kicker.

The RM has indicated that the facility will operate with a 1.2 Million dollar deficit every year. This burden will also be placed solely on local taxpayers.

Over the first 15 years that is another 18 Million Dollars

46.3 Million quickly becomes 64.3 Million dollars of which

52.6 Million Dollars will be paid directly by local taxpayers in the City and RM

Just think what could be done in this community with over 50 million dollars? How many jobs could be created by industry and businesses moving to Portage because we are forward thinking and have a tax structure friendly to business?

Where will the City get the huge amount of money needed for Sewer plant upgrades in 2012 / 2013 ? A project that will have long term effects on the environment and is for the good of all residents in the area.

Instead we want to spend it on a hockey rink and half a swimming pool.

So much for forward thinking ………….

All the dignitaries looked very happy at the the sod turning today. You would think that they had this whole deal wrapped up and the community behind them.

In the past week both the City and RM have cancelled several special meetings to approve tenders.

While apparently their lawyer is out of town, another Daily Graphic report mentions the project manager had some concerns about what was in the tender.

Unconfirmed reports have the tender amount well above the budget, so is that what the project manager had to change?

What was the rush to begin tearing down fences last week which caused disruptions to the Potato festival? Especially since there is no legal agreement in place yet with the Fair Board?

What about the Harness Races scheduled at the end of the month?

Did they have to show some progress to keep up the impression that things are going ahead?  With a Daily Graphic survey showing 93% of respondents will not donate any money to fundraising efforts, what does that tell you about community support?

Businesses that signed up for naming rights and other donations have already had angry customers refuse to continue doing business with them and moved their accounts or have chosen to take their shopping elsewhere. Once again, what does that tell you about community support?

Let’s not forget the many Portage residents who offered up donations of 10,000$ each, but only on the condition that the facility was moved to the Republic Park where every public survey and consultant reports have indicated it should go. That would have raised more money from local citizens than the Portage Recreation Committee has raised from private individuals in 3 years

If Premier Gary Doer thinks the NDP will garner enough votes in Portage with this pitiful handout, he is sadly mistaken. When 1400 people sign a petition in 4 days to Save the Island, I can’t imagine them voting for any provincial politician that helped the City/ RM pull off this scheme.

With the impending legal challenge and upcoming votes in City and RM councils, wouldn’t it be the prudent course to have everything in place before spending any more money? It would especially be the fiscally responsible way to do things

What is the rush?

From The Portage Daily Graphic. ( Check out the link for a picture, this is the closest these guys ever get to real work )

With scenic Crescent Lake as a backdrop, officials from all three levels of government met at the fairgrounds on Island Park in Portage la Prairie Monday to announce funding for the PCU Centre, and officially turn sod on the project.

Manitoba Premier Gary Doer, along with Vic Toews, president of the Treasury Board, on behalf of Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, Rona Ambrose, Portage Mayor Ken Brennan, and Toby Trimble, Reeve of the Rural Municipality of Portage, made the announcement to the crowd of nearly 200 people gathered at the future site of the sports multiplex.

The $35.7 million project will receive $10 million through the Canada-Manitoba Municipal Infrastructure Fund (MRIF) and an additional $1.7 million is being provided from the province’s Building Manitoba Fund.

The $10 million MRIF contribution is split equally between the three levels of government, and no new funding was announced at the ceremony.

Mayor Brennan said he was thankful to see the funding from the provincial and federal governments confirmed at the ceremony, and is eager to see construction get under way.

“We made a giant step forward today,” he said. “Turning the sod is ceremonial, but it does mean something.

“The project is going to go, it’s going to be successful and we’re going to have a great recreational multiplex.”

From the Portage Daily Graphic

Portage RM council postpones approval as final wording fussed over by lawyers

Posted By Shane Gibson, The Daily Graphic

Posted 13 hours ago

A hastily called Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie council meeting on Friday was supposed to give the proposed PCU Centre the green light to start construction — but the full gallery of citizens who came out in opposition were told the special meeting had been just as hastily cancelled.

Council had planned to approve the final agreement between the RM and City of Portage and the Portage Industrial Exhibition Association for a 99-year lease of the fairgrounds on Island Park to be used for the multiplex. The first of five tenders for the construction of the $35.7-million sports facility was also to be voted on at that short-notice meeting.

Reeve Toby Trimble explained to the roughly 16 surprised citizens in attendance the lease agreement was still in the hands of lawyers with a couple last-minute wording changes. He also said although the first tender came in within budget, council had a few wrinkles to iron out before voting on that as well.

“(The project manager) had some concerns about what was in and what was out of one of the tender packages, so he just wanted to talk to the bidder before we accepted it,” explained Trimble after the meeting.

After learning about the cancelled meeting, many of the residents voiced concerns about how much notice was given prior to the hearing.

The meeting had been advertised on the RM’s website since 4:30 p.m. on Aug. 13, fulfilling the municipal government’s requirement to give 24 hours notice of a public hearing.

Oakville area resident Dwayne Leslie questioned how fairly the RM gives public notices.

“We have to give 96 hours to come and speak (in front of council),” he noted in the council chamber. “It would be nice if you could at least give half of that to us, so we know what you’re up to.”

From the Portage Daily Graphic

After months of debate at city hall and in coffee shops throughout Portage la Prairie, preliminary work has gotten underway on the construction of the PCU Centre.

A trailer has been set up at the location acting as the site office, construction crews have been busy building a safety fence around the 8.5 hectares of construction site, and the official sod-turning ceremony is scheduled for Monday.

“We’re really looking forward to this, for the community,” explained Portage Mayor Ken Brennan. “We know that the community has been waiting for this for decades, and it’s going to feel real good on Monday when we finally get this thing going.”

Officials from the federal, provincial and both municipal governments will be on hand at the ceremony to discuss their financial contributions to the project.

As well as the government funding, $3-$4 million of the $35.7 million the new multiplex is projected to cost will be provided by fundraising efforts from the Portage Recreation Committee (PRC).

The PRC will embark on the second of three fundraising phases this September. The second phase will see the PRC canvassing businesses, foundations and other organizations in the community for donations.

“The reason we didn’t do much through the summer, is because it’s just a lousy time to try and get people together,” explained PRC co-chairman Brian Gilbert. “Everybody is on holidays and businesses are under pressure because of staff shortages.

“By the time September hits everybody is kind of back down to a schedule and structure, and it’s a little easier to sit down and talk to these guys.”

The third and final fundraising effort will be started by the end of the year, and will involve going out into the community and asking individuals to donate money for the project, a feat that could prove to be difficult according to a recent unofficial web poll conducted by The Daily Graphic on its website, thedailygraphic.com.

The poll showed 93 per cent of those who responded would not contribute personally to the project, a fact that doesn’t concern Gilbert.

“I’m confident we’ll raise the money we need,” he said.