From the Portage Daily Graphic

Rob Swystun, Central Plains Herald-Leader
A group of municipal ratepayers has recorded a victory in the civil court case they brought against the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie.

Court of Queen’s Bench Justice John Scurfield said the Rural Municipality of Portage did not present an adequate plan to go ahead with borrowing its share of the Portage Credit Union Centre’s funding — $8 million — when it passed its local improvement plan and borrowing bylaw for the facility.

The RM’s plan contained information that was more akin to speculation than hard numbers, the decision said, which does not hold up to specific obligations set out in the Manitoba Municipalities Act to protect taxpayers from unwise municipal spending.

“The RM did not act in bad faith,” Scurfield wrote in his decision, handed down Dec. 9. “It simply acted prematurely. The right to estimate does not include the right to guess or speculate. An estimate must have its roots in a reasonably developed plan. There was no urgent reason to proceed with the local improvement plan prior to developing the proposal to a stage where it could provide a reasonable level of reliable information to its taxpayers.”

According to the decision, as reported first on thedailygraphic.com, the RM’s borrowing bylaw was given second and third readings by the RM council on Oct. 9, 2007, but it was not until May 15, 2008, that the design details of the multiplex and its estimated cost were revealed. That cost estimate was $41 million, as opposed to the original $32-million estimate. The scope of the facility was then scaled back to a more manageable $35.7 million by taking out some components like a second sheet of ice.

The judge’s decision had municipal officials remaining mum Wednesday on the subject for the moment until meetings and consultations could be set up to discuss what implications the decision will have on the now-estimated $35.7-million project, currently under construction at the Island Park fairgrounds.

“We haven’t had a chance to talk to our lawyer, and at this time we have no comment,” RM of Portage Reeve Toby Trimble said Wednesday afternoon.

Earlier in the day, Trimble said the RM’s decision on whether to appeal would also wait until officials had a chance to meet with their lawyer.

Officials with the City of Portage also played it safe.

Deputy mayor Dave Quinn said the court decision would be on the next city council meeting agenda to discuss. In the meantime, he aimed to meet with city manager Dale Lyle and other officials to see what implications it may have.

Kameron Blight, a member of the group of ratepayers, which also includes Blight Native Seeds Ltd., Leslie Farms Ltd., Verwey Farms Ltd., Wesley Packham, Schirp Farms, Orval Troop, Kevin Mason, Abe Peters, Kevin Yuill and a numbered company, said their lawyer, Mona Brown, would comment on their behalf.

“The RM has no authority whatsoever to proceed with anything,” Brown, a lawyer with Smith Neufeld Jodoin LLP’s Carman office, stated.

As for the multiplex’s project manager, Guenter Schaub of Tower Engineering said he did not know how the decision might affect the project and did not even know of Scurfield’s decision until The Daily Graphic called him to inquire about it.

The Herald-Leader and thedailygraphic.com will have more on this story as it develops.

From The Portage Daily Graphic

The Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie has lost a civil court case brought forward by municipal ratepayers.

Court of Queen’s Bench justice John Scurfield said the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie did not present an adequate plan to go ahead with borrowing its share of the Portage Credit Union Centre’s funding — $8 million — when it passed its local improvement plan and borrowing bylaw for the facility.

The RM’s plan contained information that was more akin to speculation than hard numbers, the decision said, which does not hold up to specific obligations set out in the province’s Municipalities Act to protect taxpayers from unwise municipal spending.

Those obligations include knowing how much money will be needed for a project, how that money will be raised and how any proposed tax-based fundraising will be calculated and imposed on taxpayers, as well as designs and locations for projects.

“The RM did not act in bad faith,” Scurfield said in his decision, handed down Dec. 9. “It simply acted prematurely. The right to estimate does not include the right to guess or speculate. An estimate must have its roots in a reasonably developed plan. There was no urgent reason to proceed with the local improvement plan prior to developing the proposal to a stage where it could provide a reasonable level of reliable information to its taxpayers.”

According to the decision, as reported first on thedailygraphic.com, the RM’s borrowing by-law was given second and third readings by the RM’s council on Oct. 9, 2007, but it was not until May 15, 2008, that the design details of the multiplex and its estimated cost were revealed. That cost was $41 million, as opposed to the original $32 million estimate.

Also, by the time the RM had finalized its improvement plan and borrowing bylaw, the judge pointed out, the design of the multiplex had changed significantly from its original design, which the plan was based on, causing ratepayers in the RM to question its validity. The design was altered to cut down on the estimated cost of the building.

The RM, however “steadfastly refused to redo the process” since the final design had been decided on, the judge said.

And although the RM had held pre-advertised public hearings about the project on Aug. 14, 2007, the advertisements for the public hearings lacked detail about the project and the cost to individual taxpayers.

The ruling has just been announced that the Concerned Taxpayers were victorious in their court case against the RM of Portage la Prairie.

Here is a link to the ruling

It is a huge TIF image file so it is best read with Windows Picture and Fax Viewer and scroll through the pages

The last paragraph is worth the read.

(68) For these reasons I find that the RM did not comply with mandatory obligations set out by section 315 of the Act. Those breaches result in a loss of jurisdiction. I, therefore, quash the approval of the local improvement plan and the related borrowing by-law. The applicants are entitled to the costs of this application.

Signed
Justice Scurfield

From The Toronto Star

John Spears

city hall bureau

The City of Toronto has quietly put aside plans to raise money from private donors to redesign Nathan Phillips Square.

The renovation of Toronto’s signature plaza will go ahead, city officials say – but how quickly and at whose expense is less certain.

When the city approved the square’s redesign 19 months ago after a high-profile international competition, councillors were told $25 million of the $42.7 million cost would come from private donations.

But the city’s capital budget, released yesterday, shows that all the funds will come from the city.

Councillor Peter Milczyn, who has been quarterbacking the redesign, said fundraising was shelved after the city got discouraging signals about donor fatigue from its partnerships office, which co-ordinates public-private sector projects.

“The advice we got was: Don’t go out with a big fundraising campaign, because it’s going to be a flop,” Milczyn said yesterday.

That’s a turnaround from March 2007, when the city held a high-profile event in the City Hall lobby to announce the winning design.

“We’re confident we’ll be able to raise the money to complete it as it should be,” Mayor David Miller said at the time.

“It should be magnificent. That’s what we deserve in this city, and I think building a partnership with Torontonians is the way to do it.”

A news release yesterday said the city has earmarked $22.2 million for the square, and a further $21.1 million will come from “reserve funds.” It said nothing about private donations.

Cindy Bromley, of the finance department, said the redesign will be paid for in part by profits earned by the Toronto Parking Authority and the city’s street-furniture contract with a company that sells advertising on transit shelters.

A fundraising drive at some later date hasn’t been ruled out, she said.

The city says the square’s new look will be in place by 2012, but Milczyn was making no promises.

“It might take quite a number of years to do the whole thing, unless some philanthropist comes forward,” he said.

Milczyn (Ward 5, Etobicoke-Lakeshore) said the partnerships office gave two main reasons against public fundraising.

It said donors are reluctant to give directly to governments, fearing that their money will be thrown into general revenue and siphoned off for other purposes.

Secondly, recent campaigns by the Royal Ontario Museum, Art Gallery of Ontario and some hospitals have left “limited philanthropic space” for other public endeavours.

That could be discouraging news for the Toronto Zoo, which has announced a $250 million fundraising campaign.

The winning design for Nathan Phillips Square involves a renovation of the elevated walkway around the square that has a sweeping staircase in the northwest corner. A designer compared the staircase, to be shaded in summer by a trellis, to Rome’s Spanish Steps as a potent civic landmark.

Other features in the plan include a glass-roofed stage to be erected on the west side, and a restaurant near the reflecting pool.

A “disappearing fountain” would spray water from the pavement in another part of the square, and the roof of City Hall’s podium would become a sculpture garden.

This week the traffic to this website has topped 20,000 pageviews. Interest in this topic is not going away as more and more issues are being brought up.

The most recent issue has been Rural taxpayers wondering why the RM needs to pay a third of all of the City’s recreation deficits, not just the Multiplex?  When did Reeve Toby Trimble ever get a mandate for that?

Here are some links to You Tube videos of Moose Jaw Council meetings regarding the Multiplex fiasco they are going through. We will try to get some more updated details on the project.

Moose Jaw Multiplex – Engineer and Project Developer speaks

Moose Jaw Multiplex – Infatuation with Chilliwack

Moose Jaw Multiplex – Sagal-Hendry represents all citizens?

Moose Jaw Multiplex – The REAL Location Issue

Moose Jaw Multiplex – The Great Shortfall

update: Here is a link to a Multiplex forum in Moose Jaw, lots of interesting reading.

Ran into a fellow who is part of a new arena complex in Crookston Minnesota . Have a look at the project at Protecting The Legacy

It’s amazing how they were able to present multiple options to the people, including full business plans and operating expenses for each option. They even had the audacity to show the revenue and expense statement for the current facility they have.

The Advisory committee has guiding principles and provides their meeting minutes to the public.

Most interesting is that their will be no impact on local property taxes for construction costs and they only have to fund raise 1 million dollars locally.

3 Arenas for 14.6 Million dollars.

Too bad Portage la Prairie couldn’t have used the same project manager, maybe we could get a much better deal?

And if the taxpayers were presented with the full information up front there would be a lot less surprises.

Just as this website asked several months ago, Where was the City going to find 20 million dollars for Sewer Upgrades? Now we know.

From The Portage Daily Graphic

Residents in Portage la Prairie will have to dole out a little more cash next year when they get their monthly water and sewer bill.

At its Monday night meeting, city council approved a six per cent rate increase for low- to mid-volume customers, and an eight per cent hike for high-volume commercial users, starting Jan. 1, 2009.

The increases to both the water and sewer rates will be used to maintain the services, while an additional five per cent increase applied to sewer rates will be put into a reserve to pay for the nutrient removal project.

“The Public Utilities Board awarded us these increases based on the need that we know is coming for nutrient management and removal,” explained Mayor Ken Brennan following the meeting. “We’re doing studies right now, and we’re building up our utility reserves to cover the costs that we know we’re going to have in regards to these nutrient management systems and studies that we are putting in place.”

The nutrient removal program, required by the province, is not optional for the city. It aims at reducing nutrients such as phosphorus, nitrogen, fertilizers, cleaning chemicals and sewage in city water before it enters waterways that flow into Lake Winnipeg. Studies have shown an imbalance of nutrients leads to toxic algae blooms, which kill fish, wildlife and cattle.

The additional five per cent increase in sewer rates will mean additional charges of $16 per year in 2009 for a family consuming 15,000 gallons per quarter; an extra $840 for a mid-sized industry consuming 1,000,000 gallons per quarter and an additional $51,800 for a large industry.

Coun. Dave Quinn, co-chairman of the city’s waterworks committee, said the additional $328,120 that the five per cent increase will bring in to the nutrient removal reserve is important because the project is not expected to be cheap.

From the Portage Daily Graphic

The City of Portage la Prairie is one step closer to having all four tender packages for the Portage Credit Union Centre awarded.

Although 10 of the 16 tenders came in over budget, city councillors voted unanimously in favour of a resolution awarding portions of Tenders 3 and 4, at their regular meeting on Monday night.

The tenders, which include major components of the multiplex, including the pool, electrical and mechanical work, were accepted by council at just over $14.1 million — $734,573 over the budgeted cost, which was nearly $13.4 million.

After the meeting, Mayor Ken Brennan said he is not concerned by the overages because they fit into a nearly $1.2-million contingency built into the $35.7-million budget for the project.

“After awarding the portions of 3 and 4 that we did tonight, we’re still very confident that we’ll be able to bring the whole project in on that budget,” he explained.

The mayor said all of Tenders 3 and 4 weren’t voted on at the meeting because the project manager with Tower Engineering is still “massaging” the costs of the remaining tenders with contractors to get the best price.

“They talk to the contractors and make changes and consult with the RM and the city to make sure they are suitable,” said Brennan. “I think Tower and Stantec have done an excellent job for us getting this thing in on budget.”

To date, the total cost of tenders that have been approved by the city is just over $27.1 million, with nearly $7.5 million left to award.

Brennan said the prices on the remaining tenders are locked in until at least their next meeting, scheduled for Nov. 10.

“We’re not defaulting on any dates on any tenders by any means,” he explained.

Here is a breakdown of which tenders Portage la Prairie city council approved at its meeting on Monday, how much they cost and whether they came in over or under budget. In total, 16 tenders were awarded, totaling $14,126,148, which was $734,573 over the budgeted estimate of $13,391,575.
Misc. Metals – Tatra Ornamental Iron Works for $346,460, over budget by $111,134;
Hollow Metal Doors – Allmar International for $275,492, over budget by $53,614;
Folding Panel Partitions – Shanahan’s for $22,171, over budget by $277;
Doors and Windows – Allan’s Glass & Aluminum Pro for $667,000, under budget by $15,500;
Steel Studs, drywall and acoustic tiles – SSS Drywall for $375,000, under budget by $50,923;
Dasher Boards – Global Sports Resources for $128,946, under budget by $11,054;
Food Equipment – Russel Food Equipment Ltd. for $211,884, over budget by $11,601;
Mechanical – Ambassador Mechanical Ltd. for $4,258,000, over budget by $241,000;
Fire Protection – Viking Fire Protection for $310,600, over budget by $36,528;
Electrical – Wescan Electrical for $3,889,500, over budget by $139,500;
Asphalt Paving – Bituminex Paving Ltd. for $354,250, under budget by $30,072;
Chain Link Fencing – Wallace & Wallace for $7,390, under budget by $9,860;
Roof Hatches – Shanahan’s for $17,400, over budget by $14,554;
Visual Display Boards – Shanahan’s for $8,105, under budget by $1,426;
Refrigeration Systems – Cimco Refrigeration for $836,650, over budget by $243,850;
Pool – Hollandia for $2,417,300, over budget by $1,350.

Tenders 3 and 4 are on the agenda, we’ll update this post as information becomes available.

Vote is 5-3 in favor, Looks like Councillor Garth Asham is not worried about the judges opinion any more.