HawthorneVillager.com

Hawthorne Village (Milton) Discussion Board
It is currently Thu Oct 09, 2025 4:42 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 380 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 26  Next

Should we proceed with the velodrome?
This is a terrible idea. Kill it on sight 48%  48%  [ 64 ]
This is a fantastic idea/We should proceed if the funding works 52%  52%  [ 69 ]
Total votes : 133
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:58 pm
Posts: 2607
Location: MILTON
Thanks everyone for your comments, and Joan thank you for taking the time to read the reports and having an interest in the future of our community.

Yes, I have read all the reports and the business plan for the velodrome like all of the council. For anyone who has not seen the presentation you can watch this link with the velodrome presentation starting about the 20 minute mark.

http://archive.isiglobal.ca/vod/milton/ ... 0.flv.html

As noted in the presentation and business plan the professional cycling events are estimated to be held about 10-15 weekends a year leaving the other 330-360 days a year for combined events. As noted in the Forest City cycling track in London Ontario which is a substandard track, the use is about 15% elite cyclists and 85% recreational cyclists and the peak use varies with little use in the summer and heavy use on the winter so the infield can be used for a number of sports as well as trade shows and concerts similar to the Berlin cycling track which has a photo included in the report.

Also noted in the business plan in Appendix B Case Study Summary which available to read on the Town website, the only other cycling track in North America which meets the UCI standards for international meets is located in Carson California just outside of Los Angeles a similar market to the GMA in terms of cyclists. This track which is run by a private company has been generating a profit since its 5th year of operation after it was built in 2004.

I insisted on the recommendation which staff included in the report to have a private board run the facility similar to the Canada Games indoor facilities in Halifax which Mayor Krantz, Councillor Huffman and I toured last year at an FCM conference, where the city receives money every year from the operation of the facility. I have requested staff to find out more on this arrangement that possibly the Town can adopt to further protect taxpayers.

Not mentioned in the council presentation but in the business plan Appendix C ii Consultation Summary by Group (Non-Track) the Ontario Basketball Association which has offices in Toronto wants to use the infield for tournaments and practises for their teams in the GMA and have included a letter of support for funding the facility and possibly re-locating their 16 staff to use the offices in this 122,000 square foot facility of which the cycling track only uses between 25-30% of the floor area.

I agree with the Mayor who has been promoting this facility stating " he would not do anything that would be a risk to the taxpayers of Milton". Other councillors and I have adopted this position questioning staff on the estimates and there is still a number of details in the Memorandum of Understanding which still have to be worked out before council agrees to this proposal to ensure that there is proper planning and financial requirements in the legacy fund that the Province has set up to assist in the operation of this facility. If these measures are not included, which I stated at the council meeting I will be voting against going any further with this proposal.

In regards to Joan's comments about my tax policy. I would recommend that anyone concerned with my position on budgets watch the December 12th webcast of the 2012 budget as I chair the committee and I voted to cut taxes more than I voted to approve programs and facilities that would benefit Milton.

During the last budget in 2011 only Councillor Malboeuf and I made motions to cut costs, the motions that I made that were approved, amount to 90% of the decreases and I was defeated on almost a million dollars in other cuts that I proposed. I also have voted numerous times at both the region and town to defeat motions by councillors who wanted to raise taxes including some by my opponents.

For anyone not aware of Milton's position in comparison to other municipalities I prepare and submit this chart to both councils every year for their information. (my apologies for the irregular pattern of the chart)


2011 RESIDENTIAL TAX RATES

TOWN/CITY MILL RATEX$350,000 % DIFFERENCE $ DIFFERENCE
(AVERAGE ASSESSMENT)

TORONTO .007929218 =$2,775.23
MILTON
RURAL .00808743 2,830.60 + 1.99 % + 55.37

URBAN .00851644 2,980.75 + 7.41 + 205.52

BURLINGTON R. .00936781 3,278.73 + 18.14 + 503.50

HALTON H. RUR .00941323 3,294.63 + 18.72 + 519.40

OAKVILLE .00957907 3,352.67 + 20.81 + 577.44

CALEDON .00961677 3.365.87 + 21.28 + 590.64

MISSISSAUGA .00962611 3,369.14 + 21.40 + 593.91

BURLINGTON U. .00996134 3,486.47 + 25.63 + 711.24

BRAMPTON .01181834 4,136.42 + 49.05 +1,361.19

FLAMBOROUGH R..01259433 4,408.02 + 58.83 +1,632.79

HAMILTON .01479262 5,177.42 + 86.56 +2,402.19

OSHAWA .01658715 5,805.50 +109.19 +3,030.27

PLEASE NOTE : MILL RATES ARE THE AREA TOTALS INCLUDING REGIONAL
AND EDUCATION TAX RATES.

THESE FIGURES CAN BE VERIFIED AT EACH MUNICIPALITY'S WEB SITE
OR FINANCE DEPARTMENT PHONE NUMBERS.

COLIN BEST
905-878-3623

The Toronto residential taxes are artificially low due to subsidy of having the highest commercial and industrial taxes in southern Ontario (check the economic development website for details) and constant bail outs by the provincial government and surrounding regions including Halton which through a GTA pooling policy paid up to $ 30 million a year from Halton alone to pay for services in Toronto that Halton and other regions do not have. This policy which has been reducing annually in Halton by $ 6 millon a year ends in 2013.

A resident in rural Milton which I am also part of, pays on average $ 1500 LESS than a similar valued property in rural Flamborough just west of Campbellville for the same services and facilities.

A resident in urban Milton which I also represent, pays an average of $ 390 or 14% less than a similar valued property in Mississauga and even less than a number of other urban areas mentioned nearby.

I will continue to work to have Milton the lowest taxed municipality in southern Ontario and have the best value for services and facilities now and in the future. I encourage you, and all residents to be involved in the discussions on the future of our community and look forward to hearing from more people at meetings and in other forums.

Colin Best
Local & regional councillor
Wards 2,3,4,5 North of Derry road.
Milton/Halton

_________________
Become a Fan! Visit my website! Email: colin.best@milton.ca Twitter Follow! 905-878-3623


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:06 am
Posts: 577
Location: Fifth Line (at Derry)
colin b. wrote:
Also noted in the business plan in Appendix B Case Study Summary which available to read on the Town website, the only other cycling track in North America which meets the UCI standards for international meets is located in Carson California just outside of Los Angeles a similar market to the GMA in terms of cyclists. This track which is run by a private company has been generating a profit since its 5th year of operation after it was built in 2004.



Colin

Forgive me for bolding a part of your quote which I think is important:-) As you and I know there is a world of difference between a private Board for a "not for Profit" and a private Company running the business for its own profit. I may be wrong but I have heard the latter is the case in the LA facility. I would hope that when the resolution is finally debated it will be sufficiently broad to at least permit this option!

Martin

_________________
Martin Capper

HVRA member

www.cappercares.ca
www.MartinCapper.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:55 pm
Posts: 111
[quote="westender"][quote="MP"]First, I apologize for not spending the time to review all the contributions to this thread. To my point:
- The Town is growing at a pace that is unsustainable. Decisions made under these circumstances are high risk and it is not uncommon for actual project budgets and expenditures to exceed planned or advertised budgets by at least 50% especially when things are fast-tracked.
- Elected officials should consider a referendum with the facts on the table and let the residents decide if this is a go or no go. I don't recall this being an issue during the last election so this council and this mayor really have no mandate for this investment.
- Promoting the Town "complete with world class bicycle facilities" is NOT NOW the politically correct thing to do given what is going on financially and with our provincial and federal governments now out of money...... do we really really need this now....

I'd rather see the money and investments going to our hospital, wouldn't you?
............. end of rant. :cry:[/quote]

You really should have read the rest of the thread, or attended at least one meeting.[/quote]

YOUR IDEA OF A REFERENDUM IS EXCELLENT! SEVERAL PEOPLE, I AM TOLD, HAVE ASKED THEIR COUNCILLOR FOR A REFERENDUM, BUT THIS SUGGESTION HAS BEEN IGNORED. THE TOWN POLL DEFINITELY SHOWS THAT THE MAJORITY OF RESPONDENTS TO THE POLL DO NOT WANT THE VELODROME BUILT AT THIS TIME. THE COSTS FOR BUILDING AND FUNDRAISING DON'T ADD UP. IT'S DISAPPOINTING THE MAJORITY OF COUNCILLORS IGNORED THE POLL.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:55 pm
Posts: 111
[quote="Rick Di Lorenzo"][quote="Joan"]HI RICK;
HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE TOWN DOESN'THAVE MONEY IN THE RESERVE--HOW COULD THE TOWN HAVE DONE THINGS DIFFERENTLY IN THE LAST 10 YEAS SINCE THE BUILDING BOOM STARTED IN MILTON[/quote]The town does have different reserve funds but some are shrinking while others are not keeping up with the asset growth rate.

Milton does not have a public & transparent infrastructure reserve fund like some municipalities do. i.e. in a public way, monitor the infrastructure growth that occurs and allocate appropriate funds to a dedicated and visible infrastructure reserve fund so those assets are financially sustainable. This is important for municipalities like us that have high growth rates as you get infrastructure that is built all around the same time frame (relatively speaking) that will start to reach end of life around the same time. The infrastructure gets built using development charges but then when renewal comes up where's the money going to come from? It will hit the tax payer with a big whallop.

Mississauga is just starting to experience this problem and there's not much they can do about it now but start piling on debt, increase taxes and/or cut services. Their last tax increase was 7.4% which included a big 'infrastructure reserve levy'. The irony is them doing an infrastructure reserve fund levy now in 2012 is really closing the barn doors after the horse has already bolted. Mississauga's new "norm" is going to be significant tax increases year-over-year with ongoing infrastructure problems.

IMHO really Milton should have started planning for and setting up an infrastructure reserve fund at the same time as the growth rate started to climb many years ago. Each year it gets postponed just compounds the problem. But I've been accused of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_mongering]'fear mongering'[/url]on the topic by one councillor so please do your own due diligence.

Remember, if we do nothing and just "wait and see" we're still probably going to be fine for the next 10 or 15 years (or more? hard to tell since we still don't have long term studies going out past 10 years). It's easy to ignore because it doesn't become a problem until far off in the future, and by the time it becomes noticable it will be too late anyways to avoid it. So currently in my opinion we're emulating Mississauga because of course it's all working out so fantastic for them.[/quote]

HI RICK;
ARE YOU SAYING THAT PAST COUNCILS HAVE NOT DONE DUE DILIGENCE? WHAT RESERVE FUNDS EXIST NOW?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:07 am
Posts: 2074
Location: Milton
Joan,

Just so you know. Using "ALL CAPS" on an internet forum, chat site, comment section, et al, is considered yelling at people. Nobody likes to be yelled at all the time. Also, Rick has suggested a way to correct your quoting errors. Please try it, your post are almost impossible to read.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:28 am
Posts: 1546
[quote="JTP"]Joan,

Just so you know. Using "ALL CAPS" on an internet forum, chat site, comment section, et al, is considered yelling at people. Nobody likes to be yelled at all the time. Also, Rick has suggested a way to correct your quoting errors. Please try it, your post are almost impossible to read.[/quote]

Testing Ricks instructions as I have turned Enable BBCode by default to NO.

In the preview it appears unreadable. I will switch my default back as Rick suggested to Joan so that I will not annoy my fellow forum participants with difficult to read posts.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:17 pm
Posts: 3525
I think the budget for the project is pretty realistic. The velo facility in Carson was built for 40M.The Manchester one was built for 20M pounds (32 M can dollars). As long as they don't got nuts like the London one for this year's summer olympics which did go over budget (partly because they incorporated the bmx track into it - cool but pricey idea). Its also a physically much larger building with what appears to be a an architecturally challenging roof making it more challenging to build on budget.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:28 am
Posts: 1546
Martin Capper wrote:
KGC wrote:
I thought the infrastructure levy was for all infrastructure and not just the velodrome based on earlier articles in the Champion, etc. Rick DiLorenzo will need to clarify. The $250,000 reserve (1.5% asset value) [page 163 and 361 of 440] translates to a capital cost of $16.7 million. At 2.5% that would work out to $417,000, not $1,000,000. As such I am having trouble following your numbers.


KGC

We are using the same math but applying it to different figures. I believe it should be applied to the full Capital Cost of $40 million and not just to the Town's portion. Unless of course IO's portion is to be met from the Legacy Fund (and we both know that won't happen!). The 1.5% was quoted by Sierra as being Staff recommendation the 2.5% is what I think is prudent for an asset that has a 40 year life. Ater all Accounting practice in the private sector mandates that assets be "depreciated" over their useful life.

Martin


Martin, instead of conveniently applying rates to different figures in the business plan simply to support your argument, can you provide REASONS WHY (other than "believe" or "think") you use the figures you use and examples from other municipal projects (from Milton or wherever) that supports your argument? The $250,000 reserve highlighted in the business plan is a far cry from your $1,000,000 estimate. I assume since the $250,000 figure was highlighted in the business plan that Sierra probably did some extra due diligence to make sure their number was correct. To spell out my questions for you;

1. I assume you feel the 1.5% should be applied to the $40 million because YOU believe the government will reneg on their legacy funding (don't say that I know it won't happen because I believe the government will provide the Legacy funding they promised). Please provide examples of Canadian governments consistently reneging on legacy funding to turn your "belief" into a fact. After all, decisions can only be based on facts.
2. I agree that projects should be depreciated over their useful life. If the 1.5% is recommended by Town staff what proof or examples do you have other than you "think" 2.5% should be used? Again, you have not provided any basis for selecting this figure.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:28 am
Posts: 1546
Joan wrote:
MP wrote:
- Elected officials should consider a referendum with the facts on the table and let the residents decide if this is a go or no go. I don't recall this being an issue during the last election so this council and this mayor really have no mandate for this investment.


YOUR IDEA OF A REFERENDUM IS EXCELLENT! SEVERAL PEOPLE, I AM TOLD, HAVE ASKED THEIR COUNCILLOR FOR A REFERENDUM, BUT THIS SUGGESTION HAS BEEN IGNORED. THE TOWN POLL DEFINITELY SHOWS THAT THE MAJORITY OF RESPONDENTS TO THE POLL DO NOT WANT THE VELODROME BUILT AT THIS TIME. THE COSTS FOR BUILDING AND FUNDRAISING DON'T ADD UP. IT'S DISAPPOINTING THE MAJORITY OF COUNCILLORS IGNORED THE POLL.


Joan and MP,
Referendums are great ways to make decisions. :roll:
Look at California, a state paralyzed by referendums.
Quote:
So what blessings has the referendum system granted the State of California? Bankruptcy, a gutless Legislature, massive infiltration of special interests into the public sphere, and a succession of bad laws that have made us the laughingstock of the Union.

Democracy v. Liberty. The Paradox of the California Referendum System

Seriously, how many of our citizens would read the 440 page report to become educated enough to make a decision? My friend thought that the town was paying for the full $40 million facility until I set him straight. We elect our Councillors to make these types of decisions. They could not run on this prior to the last election because the opportunity had not been presented to them.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:28 am
Posts: 1546
Rick Di Lorenzo wrote:
Remember, if we do nothing and just "wait and see" we're still probably going to be fine for the next 10 or 15 years (or more? hard to tell since we still don't have long term studies going out past 10 years). It's easy to ignore because it doesn't become a problem until far off in the future, and by the time it becomes noticable it will be too late anyways to avoid it. So currently in my opinion we're emulating Mississauga because of course it's all working out so fantastic for them.


Rick, I think your initiative to build up a fund or a reserve for future capital projects is a great idea. Nice that some Councillors are thinking ahead beyond the next election to make sure the future of Milton is more predictable for the taxpayer.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:28 am
Posts: 1546
MP wrote:
First, I apologize for not spending the time to review all the contributions to this thread. To my point:
- The Town is growing at a pace that is unsustainable. Decisions made under these circumstances are high risk and it is not uncommon for actual project budgets and expenditures to exceed planned or advertised budgets by at least 50% especially when things are fast-tracked.


Why is the town's growth unsustainable? What does that have to do with a Velodrome? Your statement does not make any sense.

My understanding is that the VAST majority of our projects come in at budget or under. Road projects included, however they are more prone to completion delays. Zeeshan Hamid I believe made comments to that effect in this or the other Velodrome thread. In other words, the 50% figure you used is baseless and is simply a number you pulled out of a hole in your posterior... If the 50% is a factual number, please provide examples, I dare you.

MP wrote:
- Promoting the Town "complete with world class bicycle facilities" is NOT NOW the politically correct thing to do given what is going on financially and with our provincial and federal governments now out of money...... do we really really need this now....


The provincial and federal governments have already ponied up the money. A Velodrome is being built in Milton or Hamilton come hell or high water. The Pan Am games, which we have COMMITTED to are occurring in 2015. I would say we really do need this NOW. Your implication that this decision should be postponed to after the 2015 games is absolutely preposterous.

MP wrote:
I'd rather see the money and investments going to our hospital, wouldn't you?
............. end of rant. :cry:


You really should have read the thread or the report. I am not even going to honour your question with a reply. Was the crying emoticon what you were trying to make us do with your comments, because it worked. :cry: :cry:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:06 am
Posts: 577
Location: Fifth Line (at Derry)
KGC wrote:
Martin, instead of conveniently applying rates to different figures in the business plan simply to support your argument, can you provide REASONS WHY (other than "believe" or "think") you use the figures you use and examples from other municipal projects (from Milton or wherever) that supports your argument? The $250,000 reserve highlighted in the business plan is a far cry from your $1,000,000 estimate. I assume since the $250,000 figure was highlighted in the business plan that Sierra probably did some extra due diligence to make sure their number was correct. To spell out my questions for you;

1. I assume you feel the 1.5% should be applied to the $40 million because YOU believe the government will reneg on their legacy funding (don't say that I know it won't happen because I believe the government will provide the Legacy funding they promised). Please provide examples of Canadian governments consistently reneging on legacy funding to turn your "belief" into a fact. After all, decisions can only be based on facts.
2. I agree that projects should be depreciated over their useful life. If the 1.5% is recommended by Town staff what proof or examples do you have other than you "think" 2.5% should be used? Again, you have not provided any basis for selecting this figure.



KGC

I will answer your second question first as that then shows the answer to the first question. My comment on 2.5% is calculated from a comment made by Sierra Management at the Council Meeting. He stated that the building had a life of 40 years. Accounting standards applicable to the private sector dictate that assets be depreciated over their useful life - in this case it would be 2.5%. BTW this is not just my belief it is supported by IFRS which the Town has not yet implemented but which sooner or later it will be required so to do! The Staff rate of 1.5% is presumably calculated as a blended rate over the spectrum of Town assets.

It is always prudent in making any business decision to consider the incremental or marginal impact of a project which is why I suggest that a 2.5% rate is applicable. You, throughout this thread, have made much of the empirical analysis carried out by Sierra and the soundness of the Business Plan. That is your opinion, and by and large I agree with that opinion, however in this one area it is my opinion that they erred and I point to normal business practice in support of my opinion. I realise that Council has decided to proceed with the project and given that in order to ensure that Councillors deliver on their commitment of minimal impact to taxpayers I believe it is important that they work with realistic projections. If you don't know where you are going how will you ever get there?

Whether you use the blended 1.5% or the incremental 2.5% surely it should be applied to the full value of the asset of $40 million. That is all I am saying. Nowhere do I suggest that promises would be broken. The Legacy Fund will be established at $70million and 75% of that will be allocated in an as yet undefined manner over 3 projects, one of which is the Velodrome. The Capital of the fund will not be distributed only the investment earnings. The Legacy Fund has not been set up and is inadequate to deal with infrastructure reserves on the non Municipal share of the Capital cost.

If I had my druthers I would prefer that the operating details of the Legacy Fund were hammered out prior to final commitment but Staff and Council have made their decision to rely on a push for a Board seat on the management committee.

Martin

_________________
Martin Capper

HVRA member

www.cappercares.ca
www.MartinCapper.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:17 pm
Posts: 2540
Location: Arthur's Way
Joan wrote:
YOUR IDEA OF A REFERENDUM IS EXCELLENT! SEVERAL PEOPLE, I AM TOLD, HAVE ASKED THEIR COUNCILLOR FOR A REFERENDUM, BUT THIS SUGGESTION HAS BEEN IGNORED. THE TOWN POLL DEFINITELY SHOWS THAT THE MAJORITY OF RESPONDENTS TO THE POLL DO NOT WANT THE VELODROME BUILT AT THIS TIME. THE COSTS FOR BUILDING AND FUNDRAISING DON'T ADD UP. IT'S DISAPPOINTING THE MAJORITY OF COUNCILLORS IGNORED THE POLL.


If I could respond to that comment. No one had approached me regarding a referendum on the velodrome issue. Many had suggested having a public meeting / information session so that they can get as much information on this as possible. Although the time frame was tight, myself along with Colin arranged a meeting at the Milton Sports Centre to have public input.

The event was very well attended and many of the comments received were positive and Joan I hope you were one of those in attendance. There were a lot of concerns raised as well which we tried our best to provide answers on. Some people walked into the meeting against the project and walked out with more information and were in favour. This isnt to say that some were not convinced, but many were.

The poll results shown in the business plan were those received via the town website. Many of the negative comments were from people who said the town should put the money in the hospital expansion fund, or for Main Street road development and as we've explained that cant happen.

I also based my decision to support the project on emails and comments I received from people in town and in my ward for that matter. The poll in the report wasnt the ony factor taken into consideration.

A referendum on this issue would take months to prepare, execute and tabulate the results and with the tight timeframe we were dealing with, it wouldnt have worked.

I cant speak for my other council members on this but I personally spent a lot of time doing research on the project, looking at what other municipalities studied, our staff reports as well as direct input from residents. I posted a number of items on my blog over this time to get as much input as possible. I didnt shy away from hearing from people and did what I could to get as much feedback before making my final decision.

_________________
Mike Cluett
Local/Regional Councillor
Wards 1,6,7 & 8

Website | Email mike@mikecluett.ca | Cell (647) 888-9032 | Facebook Page | | Twitter @Mike_Cluett


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:36 am
Posts: 250
Quote:
Quote:
Colin Wrote I agree with the Mayor who has been promoting this facility stating " he would not do anything that would be a risk to the taxpayers of Milton".


Main Street Leisure Center has been losing money for 20 Years, to date has cost taxpayers over $ 6 million and continues to cost taxpayers over $300K a year, New fitness center /swimming pool in Milton Sports Center annual operating deficit projected to be around $500k , Milton Centre for the Arts projected annual operating deficit $ 600K -$750 K, and finally our limosine style transit system that will cost taxpayers over $ 2 million this year and with the introduction of the 3 new routes at the end of the year that cost to taxpayers will increase to $ 2.7 million in 2013. And now a velodrome to add to this list. How much more can Milton taxpayers afford to pay to provide facilities and services that a small number of Miltonians actually use? Just Asking ???

I suspect that despite all the hype this velo drome will become a burden for the taxpayers of Milton. members of council are saying that this will be a multi-purpose facility, but the business consultant made it quite clear it's primary function will be as a high performance cycling track and other uses will have to be restricted to accomodate. As for the mentionned trade shows and conventions again the business consultant stated that it is not recommmended that it be used for these purposes. As far as all the recreational riders that would be using it, again I quote the consultant, this will be a high performance olympic caliber track....little Johnny will not be able to show up and ride his bike around it as one member of council believes.

I hope I am wrong on this, only time will tell, unfortunately the true impact of this decision will not be known or felt for at least 5 years.

Rick malboeuf
Councillor Ward 4


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:17 pm
Posts: 3525
Rick, recreational facilities and associated services I understand are community services first. They provide recreational and cultural services for the community, and most particularly families, kids and teens at a fee that is reasonable and affordable. It's first and formost a service to the community so kids have more opportunities to learn important skills like swimming (not everyone can afford for-profit swim lessons like those at Carole Murray/Making Waves), team skills and generally provide places for teens most particularly a productive place to go. The Arts Center now adds a cultural component to that - in addition to providing an outlet for our very talented community organizations like the Choristers, Milton Concert Band, Milton artists, and numerous musicians.

My day care provider has lived in Milton for 30+ years and her daughter grew up in town before the Leisure Center existed. It was BORING by her accounts. NOTHING for teens to do. The result - kids get into trouble. Now, fundamentally I agree that it would be nice if the recreational centers broke even. But I also understand the balance to keep rates competitive for local sports groups. I remember the budget deliberations 2 years ago (previous council) when ice rates among other things were increased a representative from the local skating organizations made a delegation to council making a plea to keep the rates down and help keep hockey and figure skating affordable. In my mind rates should reflect the cost to do business but I do also understand that they are operated as a service to the community and the intent is to be assessable to local organizations and thus a modest loss year over year is considered acceptable. I will trust you and your fellow council colleagues will thoroughly debate rate changes going forward and continue a healthy debate on this issue. It's a healthy debate to have.

Now, with prudent management I hold out hope that over time the Center for the Arts will at least break even if not make money. Given the growth in town and corresponding increased demand for entertainment I think it will do well once established. I do not see any reason why under prudent management that in time a velodrome could not also be a profitable center. You are wrong about the facility only being available to olympic calibre athletes. Yes, it is designed to host world class events like those currently going on in Bejing but that does not limit it's use to those athletes by any means. Look at the center in Carson, LA. They have bikes for rent, and mix well the opportunities for recreational cyclists to utilize the facility (they're trying to encourage more of that actually) as well as provide training for the US and Canadian Olympic track cycling teams and high level athletes. And they way I heard the consultant and read the report, a prudent choice of recreational activities on the infield (like badminton for example) are not incompatible for simultaneous track use. Ball sports like soccer where even with a net could be distracting for track users yes, not great for simultaneous use. That's all in facility design and scheduling though which has not been done yet. Zoning first.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 380 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 26  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 183 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.246s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]