HawthorneVillager.com

Hawthorne Village (Milton) Discussion Board
It is currently Sun Feb 25, 2024 3:23 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 380 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... 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: Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:28 am
Posts: 1546
darnold wrote:
In related news from the Canadian Cycling Association web site:

02.16.12 - CANADA’S WOMEN TEAM PURSUIT BREAKS CANADIAN RECORD, FASTEST IN QUALIFICATIONS AT OLYMPIC TEST EVENT

http://www.canadian-cycling.com/cca/media/news/2012/0216_track2.shtml

These women, who currently train in California at the expense of the Canadian government, will be future Milton residents once our forward looking and opportunistic town council gets our nation's cycling center build in MILTON!

Again, the business plan presented is based on real numbers from Carson City and other successful facilities. And remember that in California you do not have to ride your bikes indoors in February like we do in the gta.

This coming Saturday morning i will be riding at Forest City in London and then staying to watch the Junior Pan-Am Trials starting at 2pm. You can stay here and speculate about what a big waste the velodrome will be or you can drive to London and find out what a great opportunity this is for Milton.

-dan


Elitist. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:16 pm
Posts: 91
ergocentric wrote:
darnold wrote:
These women, who currently train in California at the expense of the Canadian government,


Bring us back our tax dollars, ladies!


They will. With gold. Gold medals.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:16 pm
Posts: 91
miltonLeo wrote:
Great articles, Bruce.

It's enlightening to read that an influential town developer is jet-setting cyclists around the world where they're learning such velodrome-planning gems as "Focus on cycling first. Try to do too much and the concept gets diluted." ... but meanwhile back at the ranch our councilors are busy appropriating 3.8M in DC funds that would otherwise have built general purpose gyms for real Miltonians.

Bruce_Sharp wrote:
This issue is not over and it will have a long life -- well beyond the next elections in 2014. In the short term, you can also look forward to hearing more about this debacle-in-the-making.


Keep fighting the good fight, we're behind you all the way!


I would be interested in seeing how far you think 3.8M in DC funding would go, and how much of a building you would get.

So hypothetically the velodrome doesn't get built. But part of the Official plan is to build a rec facility for "real Miltonians" so that will happen anyway to the tune of 38 Million - after all that's what the budget is.

So it gets paid for with the following contributions:

DC fund: 3.8 Million
Charitable donations: $0.00
Naming rights: $0.00
In-kind donations: $0.00
2015 PanAm via provincial/federal gov.: $0.00
Milton University campus: $0.00
"real Miltonian" taxpayers: 34.2 Million

Percentages paid for ongoing maintenance/staffing.
Pan Am legacy Fund: 0%
Commercial space: 0%
User fees: 5% (based on a successful participation rate)
"real Miltonian" taxpayers: 95%

By all means prove me wrong. But is seems like "real Miltonian" taxpayers will be on the hook for a bigger bill to pay if the Velodrome doesn't get built. You can scoff about the amount of tourism business that the velodrome will bring, but if is brings 1 single person, that'll be 100% more then a rec facility would bring.

And if so many people don't like that Peter Gilligan has enough money to take his friends on cycling trips, you shouldn't have lined up to buy one of his houses, after all you funded that without blinking an eye.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:17 pm
Posts: 3525
darnold wrote:
In related news from the Canadian Cycling Association web site:

02.16.12 - CANADA’S WOMEN TEAM PURSUIT BREAKS CANADIAN RECORD, FASTEST IN QUALIFICATIONS AT OLYMPIC TEST EVENT

http://www.canadian-cycling.com/cca/media/news/2012/0216_track2.shtml

These women, who currently train in California at the expense of the Canadian government, will be future Milton residents once our forward looking and opportunistic town council gets our nation's cycling center build in MILTON!

Again, the business plan presented is based on real numbers from Carson City and other successful facilities. And remember that in California you do not have to ride your bikes indoors in February like we do in the gta.

This coming Saturday morning i will be riding at Forest City in London and then staying to watch the Junior Pan-Am Trials starting at 2pm. You can stay here and speculate about what a big waste the velodrome will be or you can drive to London and find out what a great opportunity this is for Milton.

-dan

Just curious - do we know if the Canadian teams and coaching staff currently training in Carson would re-locate here if there was a permanent world class velodrome? Don't they have an advantage in Carson training with the US teams and other elite teams? I know in other sports it's the cross-pollination and competitive spirit between teams that can push an athlete to their best. Not that the center for excellent and cross-pollination couldn't occur here (Cricket Club in Toronto, Mariposa Skating Club in Barrie are both examples of centers for elite figure skater training that attract top level skaters from around the world and are the ones I can think of off the top of my head).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:06 am
Posts: 577
Location: Fifth Line (at Derry)
darnold wrote:
In related news from the Canadian Cycling Association web site:

02.16.12 - CANADA’S WOMEN TEAM PURSUIT BREAKS CANADIAN RECORD, FASTEST IN QUALIFICATIONS AT OLYMPIC TEST EVENT

http://www.canadian-cycling.com/cca/media/news/2012/0216_track2.shtml

These women, who currently train in California at the expense of the Canadian government, will be future Milton residents once our forward looking and opportunistic town council gets our nation's cycling center build in MILTON!


-dan


Dan

Isn't this statement something of a non seqitur? First how can you state with certainty that they WILL be future Milton residents? Freemantrail has already made the point about athletes wanting to train with the world's elite. Golf and winter sports are prime examples of sports where Canada has world class facilities and yet we hear of skiers training at Park City! Jessica Shepley, an Oakville native and one of Canada's most promising young lady golfers was a member of our own Trafalgar Golf Club but she went to the University of Tennessee to hone her skills! I would have thought that they go were the great coaches are and in sport the coaches are frequently not of the same nationality as the athletes.

Secondly I agree that there is a "possibility" of the Velodrome being turned into a facility that will attract the best of the best and help bring our Canadian cyclists home to train. However if that happens you then have to heed the words of the Sierra Business Plan that the more successful the velodrome becomes as a world class cycling facility the less successful it is as a community recreational facility!

Martin

_________________
Martin Capper

HVRA member

www.cappercares.ca
www.MartinCapper.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:16 pm
Posts: 91
Martin Capper wrote:
darnold wrote:
In related news from the Canadian Cycling Association web site:

02.16.12 - CANADA’S WOMEN TEAM PURSUIT BREAKS CANADIAN RECORD, FASTEST IN QUALIFICATIONS AT OLYMPIC TEST EVENT

http://www.canadian-cycling.com/cca/media/news/2012/0216_track2.shtml

These women, who currently train in California at the expense of the Canadian government, will be future Milton residents once our forward looking and opportunistic town council gets our nation's cycling center build in MILTON!


-dan


Dan

Isn't this statement something of a non seqitur? First how can you state with certainty that they WILL be future Milton residents? Freemantrail has already made the point about athletes wanting to train with the world's elite. Golf and winter sports are prime examples of sports where Canada has world class facilities and yet we hear of skiers training at Park City! Jessica Shepley, an Oakville native and one of Canada's most promising young lady golfers was a member of our own Trafalgar Golf Club but she went to the University of Tennessee to hone her skills! I would have thought that they go were the great coaches are and in sport the coaches are frequently not of the same nationality as the athletes.

Secondly I agree that there is a "possibility" of the Velodrome being turned into a facility that will attract the best of the best and help bring our Canadian cyclists home to train. However if that happens you then have to heed the words of the Sierra Business Plan that the more successful the velodrome becomes as a world class cycling facility the less successful it is as a community recreational facility!

Martin


Martin, If you look out the window this morning you see what the majority of young Canadian golf talent is going south to train year round. RCGA/GC could be doing more to keep them here, but in some cases are supporting this. The lure of scholarships and turning pro means it needs year round outdoor training. Hitting at an indoor range just isn't the same . Comparing Golf Canada and their junior program and cycling is apples and oranges. From what I know of the national cycling program, if you are on the Canadian team, you train with the team Canada coaches, where the program decides to be their home base.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:06 am
Posts: 577
Location: Fifth Line (at Derry)
westender wrote:
[
Martin, If you look out the window this morning you see what the majority of young Canadian golf talent is going south to train year round. RCGA/GC could be doing more to keep them here, but in some cases are supporting this. The lure of scholarships and turning pro means it needs year round outdoor training. Hitting at an indoor range just isn't the same . Comparing Golf Canada and their junior program and cycling is apples and oranges. From what I know of the national cycling program, if you are on the Canadian team, you train with the team Canada coaches, where the program decides to be their home base.


Westender

Good point on the golf I did pick the worst day to make that comparison! I did want to get a plug in for Trafalgar and its junior program of which Jessica is a product! Note you didn't refer to the winter sports though! :)

I will defer to your greater knowledge on cycling I certainly made the assumption that it was an individual or club sport first and a National Team sport only on regular burt infrequent occasions. I was not aware it was a "full time" National Team sport - makes it pretty unique then!

Martin

_________________
Martin Capper

HVRA member

www.cappercares.ca
www.MartinCapper.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:16 pm
Posts: 91
Martin Capper wrote:
westender wrote:
[
Martin, If you look out the window this morning you see what the majority of young Canadian golf talent is going south to train year round. RCGA/GC could be doing more to keep them here, but in some cases are supporting this. The lure of scholarships and turning pro means it needs year round outdoor training. Hitting at an indoor range just isn't the same . Comparing Golf Canada and their junior program and cycling is apples and oranges. From what I know of the national cycling program, if you are on the Canadian team, you train with the team Canada coaches, where the program decides to be their home base.


Westender

Good point on the golf I did pick the worst day to make that comparison! I did want to get a plug in for Trafalgar and its junior program of which Jessica is a product! Note you didn't refer to the winter sports though! :)

I will defer to your greater knowledge on cycling I certainly made the assumption that it was an individual or club sport first and a National Team sport only on regular burt infrequent occasions. I was not aware it was a "full time" National Team sport - makes it pretty unique then!

Martin


Elite sport overall is changing, not just golf and cycling, but everything. There is still a playing season, but off seasons are now just short breaks before you ramp up for the next go round. It's the only way to remain competitive on the national or international stage, legally.

I cant comment on the winter sports. My best guess would be that that is where the best coaches are based out of. Most pro coaches train multiple athletes, so maybe in that case it's them that decide where the facility they use will be. It may also depend on where the events are held. Its better to train on the hill you'll race on.

You could also consider that there could be a few U.S groups would use our building too for training. Even periodically to get familiar with the track.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:06 am
Posts: 577
Location: Fifth Line (at Derry)
westender wrote:
I cant comment on the winter sports. My best guess would be that that is where the best coaches are based out of. Most pro coaches train multiple athletes, so maybe in that case it's them that decide where the facility they use will be. It may also depend on where the events are held. Its better to train on the hill you'll race on.



Westender

This was the point I was trying to make to Dan!

BTW the current world no 1 golfer, Luke Donald, an Englishman lives in Chicago which although a great city doesn't have year round golf! I know - that was absolutely apropos of nothing simply because I don't know any details of the current World No 1 cyclist!

Martin

_________________
Martin Capper

HVRA member

www.cappercares.ca
www.MartinCapper.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:16 pm
Posts: 91
Martin Capper wrote:
westender wrote:
I cant comment on the winter sports. My best guess would be that that is where the best coaches are based out of. Most pro coaches train multiple athletes, so maybe in that case it's them that decide where the facility they use will be. It may also depend on where the events are held. Its better to train on the hill you'll race on.



Westender

This was the point I was trying to make to Dan!

BTW the current world no 1 golfer, Luke Donald, an Englishman lives in Chicago which although a great city doesn't have year round golf! I know - that was absolutely apropos of nothing simply because I don't know any details of the current World No 1 cyclist!

Martin

Again Martin, I don't want to compare apples and oranges. What's good for skiing or golf isn't necessarily ok to be applied to every sport. But if Luke is training this winter it won't be in Chicago. It'll be at his other home in Palm beach gardens, Florida. Luke resides in Chicago since its his wife's home town, not to hone his golf skills.

Current uci leaders for track events can be found here. Track cycling isn't just one event it is actually a number of events ranging in distance, timing, and participants, so the ranking system is broken down for each discipline.

http://www.uci.ch/templates/BUILTIN-NOF ... Id=MTU2Mjk

A better sport for comparison is long track speed skating. A sport canadians have dominated especially in the women's events. A lot can be said of the facility in Calgary attributing to these successes.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:50 pm
Posts: 20
Hello folks:

Back to battle the "neutral", anti-anti-velodrome crowd ...

This post is numbers-heavy. If the "neutral", anti-anti- crowd haven’t already used the argument, I’m sure they’ll be tempted to play the “lies, damned lies, and statistics" card.

To that I say, “If you’re going to criticize and you don’t bring forth your own numbers, you’re talking through your hat.

Subject: Capital reserve

HV commenter Martin Capper has posted some thoughtful comments on the capital reserve subject and raised some good questions.

The annual contribution to capital reserve appears in each Town report scenario analysis and it is the same in each. I choose to reference the Community Legacy Stream, Scenario 2, found on page 178 of the report part 2 PDF file.

Here’s report part 2:

http://www.milton.ca/MeetingDocuments/Council/agendas2012/rpts2012/Milestone%20005-001-12%20Velodrome_%20Part%20II.pdf

The annual capital reserve amount is identified as $ 250,000, while there is notation on the same line (to the left) that says “1.5 % of original capital costs”. Now consider that the nominal capital cost of the velodrome is to be in the order of $ 40 million.

1.5 % of $ 40 million is $ 600,000 – a number $ 350,000 or 140 % more than the lower value used in the report. The fact that there was some discrepancy was acknowledged during the consultant’s January 30 presentation but town staff added little or nothing to the discussion. I can’t recall if anyone indicated that they had any intention to delve into the subject and include any modified values in a revised business case.

So, we are all left to wonder “why the discrepancy ?” and whether ort not any one’s going to do their “due diligence” on this.

Before moving on to calculations, I’ll state that the choice of a low operating reserve value certainly seems convenient and so by that measure alone it is suspect. The convenience derives from the fact that the annual net operating income shortfall of $ 116,000 plus the low $ 250,000 capital reserve are offset by the estimated annual $ 350,000 to come from the legacy fund. (More on the legacy fund in a future post.)

Now for the results of a series of calculations. These calculations can be done by anyone with a big-button calculator and a good set of and understanding of financial analysis factors. In my case, I chose to use an Excel spreadsheet and would be happy to provide any details people are interested in.

I’m sure the so-called-neutral, anti-anti- crowd will want to pounce on at least one aspect of the first scenario presented below. Perhaps they’ll surprise me by being patient enough to consider all of the scenarios and considerations presented below. If they don’t, it might indicate they wouldn’t have fared too well as children if they’d been part of the Stanford marshmallow test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment).

For the op-ed pieces published in the Hamilton Spectator and Toronto Star, I quoted an equivalent upfront cost (aka net present value / NPV) of $ 3.6 million for each additional $ 100,000 of operating shortfall. The other assumptions germane to the above metric are a 40-year analysis period, a future value (at the end of 40 years) of zero, a 3 % annual growth rate in the shortfall (consistent with the Town report’s cost increase projections for years 3 and beyond) and earned income (on the up-front amount) of 3.5 %.

For the version of the analysis behind the op-ed pieces, I assume a very conservative capital cost of $ 30 million and used the 1.5 % annual capital reserve factor noted in the Town report. This generated a required annual capital reserve payment of $ 450,000. With the Town report claiming $ 250,000, I identified an additional related annual shortfall of $ 200,000.

So the up-front cost of the operating reserve shortfall would be:

$ 200,000 annual shortfall x $ 3.6 million up-front per $ 100,000 of annual shortfall = $ 7.2 million

This is 77 % of the $ 9.4 million of additional up-front costs identified in the op-ed piece, with the remaining 23 % or $ 2.2 million coming from the estimated labour shortfall of $ 61,000 (noted in my previous post).

Now, the “neutral”, anti-anti- crowd might notice that I escalated the annual additional value of $ 200,000. At the time of putting together my initial analysis, I didn’t note that the Town report’s (low-balled) annual capital reserve amount of $ 250,000 was held steady at that amount and not escalated.

Adjusting for an escalator of zero, the up-front cost factor is $ 2.2 million per $ 100,000 of additional operating shortfall. This produces a lower up-front cost of $ 4.4 million for the additional operating reserve shortfall.

The table below shows these two scenarios (identified as A and B, respectively), plus two similar scenarios, the difference being that scenarios C and D use a higher capital cost of $ 40 million.

(Apologies for the table formatting ... looked OK in full editor mode but didn't translate to screen ... will later try to provide a table image.)

Scenario A B C D
Town report, annual $ $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
Capital cost used , $ $30,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $40,000,000
Appropriate capital reserve % 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
Appropriate annual capital reserve $ $450,000 $450,000 $600,000 $600,000
Additional shortfall, annual $ $200,000 $200,000 $350,000 $350,000
Escalated @ 3 % ? Yes No Yes No
Up-front cost factor, $ per $100,000 annual $3,600,000 $2,200,000 $3,600,000 $2,200,000
Up-front additional cost, $ $7,200,000 $4,400,000 $12,600,000 $7,700,000

So, using the assumptions and parameters identified above, the additional up-front cost arising from the low-balled capital reserve number ranges anywhere from $ 4.4 million to $ 12.6 million.

So Town staff, show us your numbers on this … and include them in the business case !


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:16 pm
Posts: 91
Bruce_Sharp wrote:
Hello folks:

Back to battle the "neutral", anti-anti-velodrome crowd ...

This post is numbers-heavy. If the "neutral", anti-anti- crowd haven’t already used the argument, I’m sure they’ll be tempted to play the “lies, damned lies, and statistics" card.

To that I say, “If you’re going to criticize and you don’t bring forth your own numbers, you’re talking through your hat.

Subject: Capital reserve

HV commenter Martin Capper has posted some thoughtful comments on the capital reserve subject and raised some good questions.

The annual contribution to capital reserve appears in each Town report scenario analysis and it is the same in each. I choose to reference the Community Legacy Stream, Scenario 2, found on page 178 of the report part 2 PDF file.

Here’s report part 2:

http://www.milton.ca/MeetingDocuments/Council/agendas2012/rpts2012/Milestone%20005-001-12%20Velodrome_%20Part%20II.pdf

The annual capital reserve amount is identified as $ 250,000, while there is notation on the same line (to the left) that says “1.5 % of original capital costs”. Now consider that the nominal capital cost of the velodrome is to be in the order of $ 40 million.

1.5 % of $ 40 million is $ 600,000 – a number $ 350,000 or 140 % more than the lower value used in the report. The fact that there was some discrepancy was acknowledged during the consultant’s January 30 presentation but town staff added little or nothing to the discussion. I can’t recall if anyone indicated that they had any intention to delve into the subject and include any modified values in a revised business case.

So, we are all left to wonder “why the discrepancy ?” and whether ort not any one’s going to do their “due diligence” on this.

Before moving on to calculations, I’ll state that the choice of a low operating reserve value certainly seems convenient and so by that measure alone it is suspect. The convenience derives from the fact that the annual net operating income shortfall of $ 116,000 plus the low $ 250,000 capital reserve are offset by the estimated annual $ 350,000 to come from the legacy fund. (More on the legacy fund in a future post.)

Now for the results of a series of calculations. These calculations can be done by anyone with a big-button calculator and a good set of and understanding of financial analysis factors. In my case, I chose to use an Excel spreadsheet and would be happy to provide any details people are interested in.

I’m sure the so-called-neutral, anti-anti- crowd will want to pounce on at least one aspect of the first scenario presented below. Perhaps they’ll surprise me by being patient enough to consider all of the scenarios and considerations presented below. If they don’t, it might indicate they wouldn’t have fared too well as children if they’d been part of the Stanford marshmallow test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment).

For the op-ed pieces published in the Hamilton Spectator and Toronto Star, I quoted an equivalent upfront cost (aka net present value / NPV) of $ 3.6 million for each additional $ 100,000 of operating shortfall. The other assumptions germane to the above metric are a 40-year analysis period, a future value (at the end of 40 years) of zero, a 3 % annual growth rate in the shortfall (consistent with the Town report’s cost increase projections for years 3 and beyond) and earned income (on the up-front amount) of 3.5 %.

For the version of the analysis behind the op-ed pieces, I assume a very conservative capital cost of $ 30 million and used the 1.5 % annual capital reserve factor noted in the Town report. This generated a required annual capital reserve payment of $ 450,000. With the Town report claiming $ 250,000, I identified an additional related annual shortfall of $ 200,000.

So the up-front cost of the operating reserve shortfall would be:

$ 200,000 annual shortfall x $ 3.6 million up-front per $ 100,000 of annual shortfall = $ 7.2 million

This is 77 % of the $ 9.4 million of additional up-front costs identified in the op-ed piece, with the remaining 23 % or $ 2.2 million coming from the estimated labour shortfall of $ 61,000 (noted in my previous post).

Now, the “neutral”, anti-anti- crowd might notice that I escalated the annual additional value of $ 200,000. At the time of putting together my initial analysis, I didn’t note that the Town report’s (low-balled) annual capital reserve amount of $ 250,000 was held steady at that amount and not escalated.

Adjusting for an escalator of zero, the up-front cost factor is $ 2.2 million per $ 100,000 of additional operating shortfall. This produces a lower up-front cost of $ 4.4 million for the additional operating reserve shortfall.

The table below shows these two scenarios (identified as A and B, respectively), plus two similar scenarios, the difference being that scenarios C and D use a higher capital cost of $ 40 million.

(Apologies for the table formatting ... looked OK in full editor mode but didn't translate to screen ... will later try to provide a table image.)

Scenario A B C D
Town report, annual $ $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
Capital cost used , $ $30,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $40,000,000
Appropriate capital reserve % 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
Appropriate annual capital reserve $ $450,000 $450,000 $600,000 $600,000
Additional shortfall, annual $ $200,000 $200,000 $350,000 $350,000
Escalated @ 3 % ? Yes No Yes No
Up-front cost factor, $ per $100,000 annual $3,600,000 $2,200,000 $3,600,000 $2,200,000
Up-front additional cost, $ $7,200,000 $4,400,000 $12,600,000 $7,700,000

So, using the assumptions and parameters identified above, the additional up-front cost arising from the low-balled capital reserve number ranges anywhere from $ 4.4 million to $ 12.6 million.

So Town staff, show us your numbers on this … and include them in the business case !


Please explain how the 38 million dollar facility that was previously planned would have less of an economic impact than a velodrome. Or is it your opinion that building any recreational building is a bad idea?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:50 pm
Posts: 20
For posterity ...

KGC wrote:


Bruce_Sharp wrote:
P.S. Don’t be so shy, let us know who you are !


A few people who I have exchange PM's with "know" me. However, since I am searching for work it would not be wise to give potential employers reasons not to hire me such as my disdain for Tim Horton's Latte's and their lasagna casserole, etc. Unfortunately honesty is not always the best policy for getting hired.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:28 am
Posts: 1546
Bruce_Sharp wrote:
For posterity ...

KGC wrote:


Bruce_Sharp wrote:
P.S. Don’t be so shy, let us know who you are !


A few people who I have exchange PM's with "know" me. However, since I am searching for work it would not be wise to give potential employers reasons not to hire me such as my disdain for Tim Horton's Latte's and their lasagna casserole, etc. Unfortunately honesty is not always the best policy for getting hired.


Why are you making fun of the fact that I'm looking for work and my concern that honest comments I've left on this site could harm my chances at landing employment with said companies?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:06 am
Posts: 577
Location: Fifth Line (at Derry)
darnold wrote:
[
Please read the business plan!
-dan


Dan

With all due respect if you had read my (and I assume your post was directed at me and not freemantrail) earlier posts you would not have led with this! I read the Business Plan, I posted on this forum, on my own website, and I communicated with the Town on my views all prior to the vote! I also attended the Council meeting at which the Plan was discussed and the point I made in that post you are commenting on was actually made by the Consultant responsible for the Plan!

I have prepared enough Business Plans in my career to understand the process. At one stage in my career it was my primary function. If I had a project that I was committed to believe me the Plan was solid and defensible whether prepared by my own staff or by outside consultants. Staff were committed to this project and from the earliest of times the majority of Council supported it and the Business Plan was largely predictable!

The decision has been made and subject only to the zoning issue it will happen. I am not into "farting against thunder" but rather in my recent posts I am merely seeking to ensure that we give this project the best chance of succeeding! A Business Plan is always based on forecasts and assumptions prior to its acceptance by Council I, as others have also done, challenged some of those estimates and assumptions having read the Plan.

While I may not agree that the Velodrome is the right thing for Milton as a taxpayer I recognise that it is important that the Town do the right things to ensure that the Business Plan becomes a reality. Right things such as ensuring it is located in the right place and that is managed in the best possible manner!

I trust that clarifies for you both my position and my motives.

Martin

_________________
Martin Capper

HVRA member

www.cappercares.ca
www.MartinCapper.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 380 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... 26  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.015s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]