Notes: It is interesting to note how Councillor Janet Schindle feels that this facility will “significantly add to the range of recreation opportunities “. With the elimination of the grandstand, race track, and competitive pool  most people think that the new facility will become a white elephant.

Councillor Jeff Bereza says that it is something to be proud of after waiting 40 years. How much fundraising has Mr Bereza or anyone else done in the last 40 yearts?  None ! So taxpayers are just expected to pay for the next 99 years.

From PortageOnline.com

Portage City Council has approved most of the final two tenders for the construction of the PCU Centre.

They’re worth $14,126,148.00, which is better $734,573.00 over budget.

It means the total spent or committed on the project is $27,136,000.00, with another $7,467,000.00 budgeted for contracts still to come.

That includes $1,127,000.00 for contingencies and change orders.

Mayor Ken Brennan is pleased with where the project stands. He thinks with the contingency funds available, they can bring the project in on budget.

Councillor Janet Shindle feels this will significantly add to the range of recreation opportunities in the region.

Councillor Jeff Bereza adds it’s something residents of the city and RM can be proud of, after 40 years of waiting.

The RM Council votes on the tenders this morning.

The truth has finally come out why Reeve Toby Trimble forced through the vote on Tenders 1 and 2 at the Council Meeting on September 23 2008.

There was great concern amongst taxpayers when Reeve Toby Trimble refused to give an answer to councillor Terry Simpson during the meeting when asked why they were voting on this agreement when they agreed as a council at the previous meeting that they would not vote until all 4 tenders were placed in front of them as a package.

It was presumed at that time by PortageMultiplex.com that the tenders had a time limit on them since they would have been received several months before .

A subsequent question asked of RM CAO Daryl Hrehirchuk the following day (and then waiting the usual 30 days for an answer ) yielded the expected result that Tender #1 that was received July 30th would have expired after 60 days . The RM council had to accept it or lose it.

Why wouldn’t Reeve Toby Trimble stand up and say that to the taxpayers and media?

Is it any wonder taxpayers of the RM are disillusioned with this Reeve and council when they can’t be upfront about something so simple and insignificant as the expiry date of a tender?

The more secrecy there is , the more questions people have.

RM Residents deserve better than they have received from this council.

By Shane Gibson, The Daily Graphic

The construction of the PCU Centre at the fair grounds on Island Park in Portage la Prairie can move ahead as planned while a notice of application hearing against the project is heard next month.

At a hearing held at the Court of Queens Bench in Portage into whether an injunction would be placed on the project during court proceedings, Justice Albert Clearwater dismissed the injunction application without merit.

A group of concerned ratepayers from the RM have filed the notice of application against the RM in an attempt to quash their Aug. 14, 2007 vote allowing the RM to tax ratepayers for the $8 million in funding it has promised for the multiplex project.

The group had hoped to halt the construction at the project site until the notice was heard.

After listening to hours of arguments from lawyers on both sides, Clearwater said the RM had followed the rules specified in the Municipal Act when they notified ratepayers about the project.

The notice of application hearing has been tentatively set for Nov. 17 and 18 at the Court of Queens Bench in Portage.

RM and city councils don’t put construction approvals on their agendas

By Shane Gibson, The Daily Graphic

The final two tender packages for the PCU Centre in Portage la Prairie will have to wait a little longer to be voted on by the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie — the tenders were not on the agenda at Tuesday’s council meeting for councillors’ approval.

Reeve Toby Trimble explained although the project manager Guenter Schaub of Tower Engineering has gotten all tenders back, he is still working out the details of the packages.

“We’ve met with Guenter and Dominion Construction, and they are still working with individual contractors on some of the quotes,” he explained after the meeting.

Although Trimble couldn’t say whether the tenders would be on the agenda at the RM’s next council meeting, scheduled for Oct. 28, he did say the wait will not increase the costs or hold up the project.

“What’s being done now is being covered by tenders 1 and 2,” he said.

But just because the last two tenders weren’t on the agenda at the Oct. 14 meeting, didn’t mean the contentious issue wasn’t brought up during the council meeting Tuesday.

Bob Murray, who has appeared as a delegation before the RM council several times this year, again addressed councillors with his concerns about the RM’s $8-million commitment to the multiplex project.

The Oakville-area resident told council he doesn’t feel it’s fair the RM put $200,000 of taxpayer money into its reserve last year for the project, and will put another $500,000 in this year and next year.

“So our taxes are up 6.7 per cent in 2008 to fund the multiplex that hasn’t even been built yet,” he said to council. “You’re taxing us in advance.”

After the meeting, the reeve defended the RM’s taxing structure, saying council has put money into reserves for things like the rural water project in the past, and did it again to reduce the amount the municipality would have to borrow for the project and save some money on interest.

There has been many questions asked about what this new Recreation Authority will be. The story was broke by the Daily Graphic apparently before the Mayor and Reeve were ready to discuss it.

Because there has been no more information come forward regarding their plans, we thought we at the PortageMultiplex.com website would assemble some information for the public to read.

An expected plan has this Recreation Authority to oversee the PCU Center complex and presumably other facilities in the City and RM . Because most city facilities run at a considerable deficit, it will make most rural residents concerned that they will have to begin paying for the City’s decisions of the past when the rural residents had no say in their construction. Not that Rural Residents have had any say in the PCU Center construction either.

Did you know during 2007:

Splash Island had a taxpayer funded deficit of 109,635 $

Centennial Arena had a shortcoming of 198,283 $

The Island of Lights was short 22,062 $

What about Island Park’s Operating expenses? Republic of Manitoba Park? Southport Swimming Pool? Glesby Center?

Does the Recreation Authority plan to annex the 4 recreation facilities in Oakville to help fund the deficits in Portage?

Looking at the Statement of Revenue and Expenditures linked above, is anyone surprised at how the sponsorship revenue and entrance fees of the Island of Lights has dropped dramatically?

If businesses are not willing to sponsor the Island of Lights, how does the PCU Center fundraising committee expect businesses to line up to fund their project?

We would hope the citizens and businesses continue to support the United Way campaign currently underway, as it would be a shame for all these volunteer organisations who truly need support to lose out if people have to choose where to send their discretionary funds.

That is if people and businesses have any discretionary funds left?

With the financial market chaos still swirling, many pensioners and those looking towards retirement have watched a large part of their savings disappear as the TSE has dropped nearly 39% since the optimism of the May 15th Glesby Center PCU Center unveiling.

Farmers have seen Canola prices drop upto 50% since their late winter highs along with large drops in most commodities. Input prices have barely moved from their all time record highs for Fuel, Fertilizer, and Chemical. This leaves farmers with a projected loss on their 2008/2009 crop

And any business who relies upon Farmers or the Public to sustain their salaries, they will be very hesitant to hand over any money in these uncertain times.

One only has to look at the number of businesses that have closed this summer in Portage la Prairie to see that the business climate is not a friendly one currently. No one besides City hall is excited that the only growth in the City is a Bargain Store and a Burger King.

And with the very real risk that they will have a consumer backlash against their business if they donate to the PCU Center, why would they?

Hopefully anyone that has some funds set aside for charity at the moment, chooses to give those funds to those who need it most, like the United Way. Or your local community group.

Or anyone who doesn’t already have both hands in your pocket through your property tax bill.

For anyone with an interest in the final copy of the Lease Agreement between the City, RM and the Portage Fair Board , please download the following file.

RM / City / PIEA Lease Agreement

Be sure to keep a pencil handy and make notes as to your best guess what the actual cost will be for everything.

Here is the original Memorandum of Understanding between the parties.

RM / City / PIEA MOU

From the Daily Graphic

The construction of the PCU Centre at the fair grounds on Island Park in Portage la Prairie can carry on — for the time being.

The hearing into whether an injunction will be placed on construction while a notice of application filed by a group of concerned Rural Municipality of Portage ratepayers is heard by a judge was adjourned at the Court of Queen’s Bench in Portage on Thursday.

The ratepayers filed the notice of application against the RM in an attempt to quash their Aug. 14, 2007 vote allowing the RM to tax ratepayers for the $8 million in funding it has promised for the multiplex project.

Dean Giles, the lawyer representing the RM, and Grant Driedger, the lawyer for the group of concerned ratepayers, met in front of Justice Albert Clearwater on Thursday morning to discuss the motion for the injunction and review the sworn affidavits filed by both sides.

Giles spent nearly an hour bringing up objections to 18 separate paragraphs in two different affidavits filed by the ratepayers, arguing that much of the evidence was inadmissible because it contained hearsay, opinion and arguments. Justice Clearwater agreed with many of Giles’s points, striking whole paragraphs from the record and expunging words and sentences from parts of the ratepayer’s affidavits.

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.