Category Archives: Portage Multiplex

Save the Island Rally Update.

Just got back from the Save the Island Rally held at Portage City Hall. Approximately 300 people showed up to voice their opinions on the proposed location and a representative was able to make a presentation to council.

The information received from City council has the project scaled back by reducing it to one rink and an expanded wave pool. The second rink will be added as a second phase when they can borrow more money in a few years. The total cost will now be 35.7 million with 5 million from the province and 3.8 million from Federal Funding.

Most importantly the council was adamant that the location will not be changed. It will be built on the island no matter what the residents say.

So now Portage will have two Splash Islands, and 2 separate arena facilities with duplicate costs while losing a competitive pool, a grandstand, a race track and making Island Park a traffic jam and parking lot.

This is progress?

The city council would not answer any of the questions posed by the group, they responded by saying that information would be coming at a later date while forcing through the tender at a special meeting Tuesday at 12:45 PM

If information was forthcoming 6 months ago we wouldn’t be in this situation today.

Organisers indicated they may have as many as 2,000 signatures from concerned citizens on the save the island petition.

So now, where do we go from here?

Comment below !

Save our Island Petition

There was a standing room only crowd at the information meeting held Thursday evening.

Among other plans moving forward is a petition campaign. To help with this, this website has launched the following online petition to help the group.

[[petition-1]]

What about spinoff?

Posted from the Letters to the Editor in the Portage Daily Graphic June 18 2008

What about spinoff?

With so many unanswered questions surrounding the construction of the multiplex, I have one for the city’s Economic Development Committee. How can you recommend the centre be built on the island?

A forty million dollar civic project should produce millions in spinoffs, but all I see are increased expenses. A centre built on already owned land at the Republic Park, with exits out Angle Road (recently upgraded for heavy traffic), would present the opportunity for development in the east end. It takes little foresight to predict a hotel, restaurant, gas bar, fast food and other developments servicing the new centre in the eastern end of Portage.

What new private developments are forseen with the centre located on the island?

A project such as the multiplex should increase the city tax base, not add costs to those already here.

Yours truly,

Craig O’Reilly

Portage la Prairie

Save our Island Meeting Thursday Night

Save our Island Meeting Thursday Night to be held at Centennial Hall at 7PM.

Centennial Hall is located North of the tracks at 601 Tupper St N.

Be sure to come and voice your opinions as this is about you !

Here are some talking points to get things going.

Island Park Concerns already voiced

1. Heritage aspect:
(a) Bridge – one of few remaining wooden bridges in continuous use
(b) race track – one of the oldest in Manitoba as well as one of the best in the country, with earth specially brought from Kentucky to be incorporated in laying of the track.
(c) uniqueness of a tranquil island and lake in the middle of our city

2. Effect on wildlife, deer, ducks geese

3. Instability of land for such a structure

4. Land not owned by city – must be leased

5. Limited access

6. Excessive costs due to # 3, 4, 5

7. Effect of traffic on Royal Rd. S, Crescent Rd and Broadway (5th St. E)

Tupper, Crescent Road designated truck routes

As Published in the Portage Daily Graphic June 10 2008

The City of Portage la Prairie is driving forward with plans to designate two city roadways as truck routes.

At Monday’s city council meeting, councillors voted to approve an amendment to the traffic bylaw that will see sections of Crescent Road East and Tupper Street South turned into truck routes in order to give heavy traffic access to the temporary causeway currently under construction west of the Crescent Lake bridge.

Council was poised to approve the amendment at its May 26 meeting, but decided to defer the decision after meeting stiff opposition from local residents.

The city’s transportation committee met with city engineers and the RCMP last week to look into any compromises that could be made.

“In our committee meeting, we were very cognizant of the opinions expressed at the council meeting two weeks ago, albeit that the project had to go ahead,” explained transportation committee chairman Coun. Orville Wagner after the meeting. “I don’t presume to suggest that everybody is going to be satisfied — as a matter of fact I’m sure they’re not — but it’s one inconvenience that that section is going to have to put up with.”

The changes will mean the north side of Crescent Road from Tupper to Royal Road and the west side of Tupper Street South from Dufferin Avenue to Crescent Road will be designated 24-hour, no-parking zones.

One of the concerned citizens who came to the May 26 meeting was Keith Hutchinson, who lives at the corner of Tupper and Crescent. He told council he receives dinners daily from Meals on Wheels, and the no parking zone would mean the drivers would have nowhere to park around his home.

The transportation committee changed the original amendment, to give an extra 10 metres of parking on the east side of the south end of Tupper Street to make sure essential services had access to Hutchinson’s home.

“We were particularly cognizant of the needs of Mr. Hutchinson, who requires services to be provided to him,” said Wagner. “The 10 metres is right adjacent to Mr. Hutchinson’s house, so hopefully that will resolve that particular problem.”

City moves ahead with plans to designate truck route

As Published in the Portage Daily Graphic June 9th 2008

The city of Portage la Prairie is driving forward with plans to designate two city roadways as truck routes.

At the June 9 city council meeting, councillors voted to approve an amendment to the traffic bylaw that will see sections of Crescent Road East and Tupper Street South turned into truck routes in order to give heavy traffic access to the temporary causeway currently under construction west of the bridge.

Council was poised to approve the amendment at it’s May 26 meeting, but decided to defer the decision after meeting stiff opposition from local residents.

The city’s transportation committee met with city engineers and the RCMP last week to look into any compromises that could be made.

“In our committee meeting we were very cognizant of the opinions expressed at the council meeting two weeks ago, albeit that the project had to go ahead” explained transportation committee chairman Coun. Orville Wagner after the meeting. “I don’t presume to suggest that everybody is going to be satisfied, as a matter of fact I’m sure they’re not, but it’s one inconvenience that that section is going to have to put up with.”

The changes will mean the north side of Crescent Road from Tupper to Royal Road and the west side of Tupper Street South from Dufferin Avenue to Crescent Road will be designated as 24-hour no-parking zones, once the temporary causeway is completed around June 27.

Look for the full story and more news from city council in The Daily Graphic newspaper.

Farmers call for multiplex referendum

As Published in the Portage Daily Graphic Thursday June 12 2008

The Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie should be forced to hold a referendum on whether its residents want to continue with its plan to give $8 million to the PCU Centre in Portage, according to a letter sent to RM council by two Oakville-area farmers.

Abe Peters and Bob Murray sent the letter to RM council, which outlined the matter to councillors. The referendum should be held if the multiplex committee decides to change any plans for the project, which has come in over budget.

Plans for the multiplex, which included two arenas, an aquatic centre and a fitness centre were released at a public meeting on May 15. The city and RM admitted at that time changes would have to be made to the plans because the building was more expensive than they could afford.

The original estimate for the project came in around $36 million, while the revised estimated cost was actually $42 million, and the build has been put on hold while planners look at ways of cutting costs, which may include changes to the plans.

“There is more than likely going to be changes made from the presentation that was made a week or two ago,” said Reeve Toby Trimble. “We’re in the process of meeting and deciding where we’re going to go.”

The RM authorized a borrowing bylaw allowing it to take on the $8-million debt on Aug. 14, 2007. No one showed up in opposition of it at a public hearing before the vote. Peters said that’s because no one knew about the hearing, and farmers were too busy harvesting at the time to come to the meeting anyway. Some rural residents are now upset because the RM raised taxes by 5.1 per cent this year in part to pay for the multiplex.

See the full story in The Daily Graphic or subscribe to our online edition at pdfsubscription.bowesonline.com/33/

Welcome to PortageMultiplex.Com

Welcome to the new website PortageMultiplex.Com

This site has been developed to help spread information and foster debate on the proposed Portage Credit Union Center in Portage la Prairie Manitoba, or the Portage Multiplex as it has been known as for the past few years.

There has been much talk and hype about this project since the Portage Recreation Committee was formed several years ago to look at the future requirements and possible feasibilty of new Recreation facilities for the City of Portage la Prairie.

It has only been in the last month that the full ramifications of what this project may mean to the residents and taxpayers of the City of Portage la Prairie and the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie has become public knowledge.

With no other forum available with all the facts, plans, and opinions, this website will endeavor to give all those interested in the project to have their say.

We encourage those with an interest in this project to submit their guest columns, whether they are for or against, but be prepared to have others comment on your articles.

We also welcome any submissions from the Portage Rec Committee, the City of Portage la Prairie, and the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie, especially if it is to provide new information or clarification to any information presented here.

We just want the facts to be here for everyone to digest, understand, and comment upon.

What is the RM council mandate?

While many rural residents and businesses cannot even safely travel down the RM roads when it rains because of questionable choices in purchased gravel the past few years, The RM has chosen to use their rainy day slush fund to help pay for new hockey rinks and swimming pools that will not even be in the RM’s jurisdiction.

While over the last few years they have clearly indicated that they would not help fund any capital projects on community club recreation facilities that are actually located in the RM, and used almost exclusively by RM residents and taxpayers. So I think we can all understand why RM residents are concerned about the way that the RM Reeve and councilors have made the decision to give 8 million dollars of RM tax dollars to a luxury project located in the heart of the City of Portage la Prairie without any consultation with taxpayers.

On a project of this magnitude, a small ad in a local newspaper about a bylaw hearing held August 15th 2007 in the middle of harvest does not constitute a proper notification of taxpayers.

No one wanted to rain on the parade of the organizers at the public launch at the William Glesby center on May 15th, but when it is the first time the public has had a say it should be no surprise that the majority of people in the crowd were from the RM and obviously very upset over the way the RM council has conducted themselves.

Most people feel the mandate of the Rural Municipality should be infrastructure including roads, bridges, drainage, garbage, water, sewer, gas, internet, zoning, building inspections, etc.

While a few people think that recreation facilities should be included under basic infrastructure, most people have agreed with past council decisions not to fund projects of this type. To change the direction of the past councils on such a grand scale without consultation is simply unconscionable.

At least the City of Portage had this issue front and center in their recent municipal elections with people supporting the idea of the project by electing councilors on the platform of Portage needing a multiplex. No specifics of course, just a grand idea that politicians make to get elected.

The subject was never brought up in the RM elections, not a word mentioned. Do you think any Rural councilor or reeve would have gotten elected if they proposed making one of the largest loans in RM history and also use the rainy day fund to pay for hockey rinks and swimming pools outside their jurisdiction ?

Whether you agree or disagree on the proposed location, no one was asked where it should go.

Whether you agree or disagree of how it should be funded, no one was asked how much they were willing to pay or if they should pay at all.

Information has been provided from the top down by the 3 groups , there was never anyone asked at the grassroots level what their opinion was.

Everyone is simply being told to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars per year more in taxes to fund this project.

What do you think? Click the comment link below and sound off !

Where’s the Business Plan?

At the meeting at the William Glesby Center on May 15th 2008, there were several people who asked pointed questions on what the business plan was, especially concerning annual operating costs of the new facility and what the future operating deficits could be that would have to be covered by taxpayers.

The group of assembled leaders on stage had no idea. Everybody looked at each other hoping someone knew.

A month later and we have still heard no public answer from the City, RM, or Rec Committee.

They want taxpayers to commit 42 million dollars and they have no business plan.

And they wonder why people are concerned.

Add your Comments below.