It is interesting to note that the City does not foresee any increases to it’s operating budget because of the Multiplex. I guess since the RM will now be paying upto a third of all operating deficits for recreation programs in the City, even including the Youth Drop In programs they will be able to shift the costs to the Farmers , Commercial Businesses and residents of the RM.

A Great deal for the City, the Mayor should be very proud of his accomplishments.

From The Daily Graphic

Portage la Prairie Rotarians received the first virtual tour of the redesigned Portage Credit Union Centre at their weekly meeting Tuesday.

Jennifer Sarna, director of recreation services with the City of Portage, showed members of the Portage Rotary Club a nine-minute video showed them a virtual mock-up of the facility in its scaled back form.

“This truly will be, under one roof, a place for everyone,” Sarna told Rotarians after the video had played.

Accompanied by songs such as The Beatles’ “Here Comes the Sun,” Queen’s “We Will Rock You,” Doc Walker’s “Beautiful Life” and “You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet” by Bachman Turner Overdrive, the virtual tour took Rotary members and guests over the outside of the building, through the arena and common areas and into the aquatic centre.

This virtual tour, in draft form at the moment, will be presented at public forum in the near future, Sarna announced, although when and where still haven’t been decided.

The director of recreation and leisure services also showed Rotarians a quick slide show of the facility that included a secondary arena, which is to be built in a second phase. Sarna told Rotarians to ignore that portion of the building for now, but hinted it may be coming soon.

“We’re working really hard to find funding for that,” she said.

Sarna explained the wave pool in the Shindleman Aquaplex would be the biggest in Manitoba, as well as pointing out other aspects of the water park, which, according to the virtual tour, will have a waterslide and murals of buffalos on the walls.

“We also have a lazy river,” Sarna mentioned, “and the hot tub is about a 30-person capacity.”

In response to questions from Rotary members, Sarna said the multi-purpose room capacity will be about 250, with room for another 100 if the doors to the atrium are opened.

She also said wheelchair accessibility was a top priority for the multiplex.

“We absolutely kept mobility and accessibility options in mind,” Sarna explained, “when designing the place.”

Sarna handed the reins over to city manager Dale Lyle to answer questions about the multiplex’s operating budget.

Lyle said the City and Rural Municipality of Portage have been working on a draft operating budget for the past few months, but it has been delayed while the RM works out funding issues.

The city manager also commented the operating budget for the multiplex would not significantly increase the city’s operating costs as it pays for recreation services currently, anyway.

Needs $6.2 million for its commitment to the multiplex project

Posted By Angela Brown, The Daily Graphic

Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie’s multiplex borrowing bylaw passed first reading at Tuesday’s council meeting despite opposition from some ratepayers.

About 40 people filled up the council chambers to hear the results of the vote.

First reading of the bylaw was carried 7-1, with Coun. Bill Alford voting against. The bylaw would allow the RM to borrow up to $6.2 million to cover its $8-million commitment to the new PCU Centre project.

To date, the RM has contributed about $1.8 million to the project from its reserve funds. That money went toward concrete pilings and foundation costs.

The new bylaw replaces a local improvement plan struck down by the Court of Queen’s Bench in December, which allowed the RM to borrow up to $8 million for its share of the $35.7-million project currently under construction at the Portage fairgrounds on the Island.

The new bylaw will now go to the Manitoba Municipal Board for approval before it is given second and third reading by council. The bylaw can proceed without a public hearing if approved by the MMB.

RM resident Kam Blight made a presentation to council asking for the bylaw to be tabled until the ratepayers have received more information.

“How can you vote on a bylaw without discussing it with the ratepayers?” he said to council.

Trimble said the multiplex project needs to proceed to meet specific deadlines.

“We’re in the middle of the project and there are time restraints, so we felt we should go ahead,” Trimble said following the meeting.

“At our last council meeting, we instructed our CAO to put the borrowing bylaw together to come to council at this meeting. So, it was done and we gave it first reading,” Trimble said following the RM meeting Tuesday.

By Norm Picard

From The Portage Daily Graphic

The new proposed multiplex for the City and Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie does sound like a very entertaining proposal. Hopefully, it will be built to standards that would attract large scale completions such as provincial and Canadian swimming and diving meets. Perhaps Canadian and World Junior Hockey Championships, and even year-round provincial and

Canadian track and field competitions.

As I sit here and peruse the colourful brochure put out by the City of Portage and the RM, that is what I envision.

Unfortunately, what has transpired over the past months my vision is becoming obscure and hazy. Is this just a “Field of Dreams”? It may just be that.

It certainly would be nice for a small city such as Portage la Prairie to have a big city complex. But are we approaching this with big city ideas and small town planning?

Because of municipal blundering (this is not the first time) and poor planning by the city, this project is already being downgraded to the point where the city will have a very nice community complex for its citizens, but will be unable to entertain large-scale competitions to help pay for the complex and bring money into the community and businesses.

Another interesting aspect to add to the bizarre is why are we building this complex on land the city does not own and, therefore, will have to pay a lease forever and a day> Also, why build it on an old river bed where we can not find bedrock to build on? At this time, there is no proper access to the site; a causeway will have to be built off residential streets.

It has become apparent that land was available at very reasonable prices and in proximity to hotels, restaurants and shopping malls. Are we missing part of the puzzle?

As President George W. Bush said in his farewell speech. Maybe we are “misunderestimating” your capabilities as a true council body.

Are taxpayers going to become the carriers of of a multi-million-dollar mortgage?

Planning and going ahead without proper planning and and not looking at the possible consequences can be destructive. Let’s not burden taxpayers with the consequence of poor planning, blundering or foresight in this venture.

Anyone who attended the RM council meeting on Jan 13th will certainly understand how accurate this cartoon is.

From The Daily Graphic

The Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie has gone back to square one for the PCU Centre.

“We just authorized the CAO (chief executive officer Daryl Hrehirchuk) to draft a general borrowing bylaw,” Reeve Toby Trimble said in an interview after RM council’s regular meeting.

The bylaw, once it’s drafted, will seek to borrow up to $6.2 million to meet the RM’s $8-million commitment to the multiplex.

Coun. Bill Alford was the lone vote against the motion.

“I’m just trying to represent my ratepayers,” Alford stated. “And most people who have come forward are the naysayers.”

When drafted, the bylaw will need to pass first reading from RM council before it goes to the Manitoba Municipal Board for approval. If approved there, it will come back to council for the second and final readings.

Unlike the last time the RM sought to borrow money for the multiplex, under a local improvement plan, a general borrowing bylaw doesn’t require any public hearings.

Currently, the RM has contributed $1.5 million to the currently-under-construction project from its reserve funds. That money went toward concrete pilings and foundation costs.

Now that the reserve funds have been spent, Trimble noted, the RM will have to pull back from the project until it can procure the remainder of its commitment via the general borrowing bylaw.

It will probably take a few months for the bylaw to be drawn up, pass first reading, get approval from the Municipal Board and get final approval from council, the Reeve added.

From The Portage Daily Graphic

Without a doubt, the big story coming out of the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie in 2008 was the PCU Centre.

The biweekly meetings of the RM of Portage council had very few residents in attendance until councillors voted on their 2008 budget on April 22. That day, the gallery was filled with ratepayers angry over how the RM planned on paying for the $8 million it promised to give to the PCU Centre project.

Along with the budget, council voted to accept a tax levy bylaw that allowed the RM to increase the municipal millrate from 19.98 to 21.08 mills. The increase meant residents in the RM would see a 5.1 per cent jump in their property taxes in 2008.

Seven farmers from the Oakville area attended the meeting and spoke to council about the effect the bylaw would have on them. They were concerned the boost in property taxes to pay for the multiplex would hit them especially hard because of the amount of taxable land they own.

Farmers in the RM of Portage who own 400 hectares of farmland assessed at $1.2 million saw their taxes jump by $717.60 this year, just to pay for the multiplex, not including the rest of their taxes.

The group of farmers told council they feel the multiplex was being built mainly for city residents, but was being paid for by landowners from outside city limits. Abe Peters, one of the farmers, told reporters after the meeting although he will probably never use the multiplex, he’s more than happy to help pay for it, he just wanted to be taxed the same as everyone else.

“I think they should put the funding on residences only, so across the board everybody pays the same amount per residence. I think that would be fair,” he explained. “I’m not against the rec centre; I just don’t like the way it’s being funded.”

Despite the concerns, the RM passed the levy.

Reeve Toby Trimble told them there was nothing council could do to change the tax increase because the RM had already committed the money to the multiplex and had passed the necessary borrowing bylaw at a public meeting on Aug. 14, 2007, which no ratepayers showed up for. That answer did not sit well with the farmers.

“We were harvesting, and you don’t stop harvesting to come to an RM meeting, because what’s better? What’s more important?” said Peters.

Having angry ratepayers at RM meetings became commonplace after that, with residents coming to every meeting where anything multiplex was voted on.

Despite the concerns brought up at every meeting, council continued to vote in favour of the project. On July 30, the ratepayers decided to take the RM to court to try to quash the borrowing bylaw.

Through their lawyer, the ratepayers argued the RM should be forced to pass a new borrowing bylaw because of changes made to the design of the multiplex, and they said the RM had not properly notified residents of the true costs of the bylaw.

“Initially, the proposal was two arenas, a competitive pool and various other things,” explained their lawyer, Grant Driedger. “When the cost figures came in higher than they initially expected, they had to scale that down considerably.

“So the bylaw that they’re relying on to authorize them borrowing money to fund the project was based on Plan A, and now they’re going ahead with Plan B, so they’re borrowing the same amount of money, but getting a significantly lesser facility.”

When the first tenders were accepted by council at their meeting on Sept. 23, so many people showed up at the council meeting that day that the meeting was moved to the Herman Prior 55-plus Centre so the roughly 70 people had room to sit.

Despite the opposition, council voted 4-3 to accept the first two of four tenders on the project. Coun. Ray Davidson of Ward 4, Reeve Toby Trimble, Coun. Larry Gibbs of Ward 2 and Ward 6 Coun. Owen Williams all voted to accept the tenders.

Ward 1 Coun. Garth Asham abstained from the vote pending the results of the court case filed against the RM by ratepayers. If Asham had voted against the tenders with Ward 3 Coun. Terry Simpson, Ward 7 Coun. Bill Alford and Coun. Arnold Verwey of Ward 5, the resolution would have been defeated, and the project effectively would have been scratched.

After the meeting, Trimble said although the vote was close, he’s glad council will be able to go ahead with the multiplex.

“I would have to say I’m feeling very relieved,” he admitted. “I went into the meeting feeling confident that the outcome would be the way it was. I’m happy that council members stepped up and passed the approval of the two tenders.”

With council’s vote, construction of the PCU Centre was started at the fairgrounds on Island Park.

When the notice of application hearing was held at the Court of Queen’s Bench in Portage on Nov. 17, the judge said he would need more time to make his ruling. On Dec. 9, Justice John Scurfield made his ruling, and it did not go in the RM’s favour.

In his ruling, the judge said the RM of Portage did not present an adequate plan to go ahead with borrowing its share of the PCU Centre’s funding — $8 million — when it passed its local improvement plan and borrowing bylaw for the facility.

Those obligations included 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. “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.”

The decision quashed the RM’s borrowing bylaw, and leaves the $8 million from the RM in limbo. Following the decision, Trimble had very little to say.

“We haven’t had a chance to talk to our lawyer, and at this time we have no comment,” he said.

No one from the RM has commented publicly about what they plan to do.

Here is a link to the Complete Ombudsman Report From August 2007 regarding the background and actions as the RM of Killarney-Turtle Mountain proposed to build a multiplex in Killarney.

Click Here for the PDF Report

From the Portage Daily Graphic

Local rate payer satisfied with the courts decision to delay the PCU multiplex

What follows is a letter from a local ratepayer who is satisfied with the courts decision to delay the PCU multiplex and is dissatisfied about how the council has handle itself in this case:

“I am a ratepayer in the RM of Portage and pleased with the outcome of the court case. This has been a project (the municipal share) which was on the verge of being pushed through with little or no regard for input, consultation or approval of ratepayers. This is not a rural versus city issue.

It is time to get passed the “closed door” attitude by council and make this an open book to provide transparency to ratepayers. I would say in the rural areas there is a 90 to 95 percent rejection of the project.

Why? Because of the way the RM Council has proceeded with blinders on to dismiss any input from ratepayers and a closed ear to any questions raised, which were mistakenly interpreted by the Reeve to be negative. All ratepayers, residents and non-resident ratepayers of the municipality were looking for was information on the total cost and to be included in the final decision by the way of a municipal wide vote. This is the only way to obtain true measure, whether pro or con, to see if the council should continue or not. Council is not an autocracy.

No one can go to the banks or other lending institutions to try and borrow money for a project that you have no idea of the size, or scope, or future costs to maintain, or ultimately have to replace. So why would one assume you can borrow $8 million dollars from the ratepayers of the RM of Portage. Gentlemen, ratepayers pay the tax bill, we are the bank

In conclusion, the day to day operations of the Municipality are guided by the council with a reasonable standard of competence and fairness. It is difficult to keep everyone happy and it is a thankless job at times. But in the case of the PCU project contribution dealing in millions of dollars and long term debt to the ratepayers, this has been bungled since day one. If you were going to do this at all, do it right and do it right the first time.

This is my opinion.

J.R. McGowan.”

To see the actually story and other local reactions, please check Monday’s edition of The Daily Graphic. If you have any comments you would like to submit for consideration, Please e-mail them to pjames@cpheraldleader.com

Editorial from the Portage Daily Graphic December 13 2008

Some are touting it as a victory for democracy, and the others … well, they’re not saying very much at all.

Court of Queen’s Bench Justice John Scurfield ruled on Dec. 9 the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie did not present an adequate plan to go ahead with borrowing its share of the PCU Centre’s funding, which amounts to $8 million. According to Scurfield, the RM’s plan was pure estimation rather than hard numbers, and that is just not good enough.

“The right to estimate does not include the right to guess or speculate,” wrote the judge in his decision.

What this victory means for the ratepayers of the RM is unclear at this time, as nobody from the RM or the City of Portage is commenting, but that is nothing new.

While the multiplex is a great idea and something that will do nothing but good for the community, the developments of the complex have been shrouded in secrecy from the beginning. Trying to get any information as to the developments has been difficult, to say the least. The city and RM councils have done a lot of hard work to make this dream a reality, and kudos to them, but the tight-lipped approach to a project that requires community support and a great amount of community dollars is questionable.

The secondary phase of naming rights proposal submissions wrapped up at the end of October, but the results have yet to be released, and there is no reason given for the delay when the councils have been asked. This is just another example of how information is less than forthcoming.

This court case shows the citizens are concerned with where and how their tax dollars are being spent. There are no hard and fast numbers given, plans have been changing and bylaws and tenders have been passed with lightning-quick speed before the public has had a chance to get involved.

The PCU Centre is supposed to be a community project, so why has the community not been allowed to get involved, except with their chequebooks?

Perhaps Scurfield’s ruling will give the councils pause, will make them take a step back and think about their methods. Is the multiplex a good idea? Yes, there is no question about that. Is this something the community wants? Absolutely. But the ratepayers have said the means do not justify the ends, and have proven it before a QB judge.

The generic terms, the estimations, the speculations — they all have to end. Concrete answers are needed. No more closed-door meetings. No more “no comment.” The councils are doing a good thing by building the multiplex, but more information is necessary. It is time to let the people get involved in something that is meant to be for them.

Yes, the councils were elected by the people, but that does not give them carte-blanche to do whatever they want. The voice of the people is strong, and, as the ratepayers have shown, cannot be silenced.

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.