HawthorneVillager.com

Hawthorne Village (Milton) Discussion Board
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:47 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 324 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 22  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 11:57 am 
THIS IS SO STUPID, AND A HUGE WASTE OF MONEY..


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2012 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:23 pm
Posts: 1107
robegerton wrote:
THIS IS SO STUPID, AND A HUGE WASTE OF MONEY..


I guess the Town of Milton has no other pressing matters to discuss. I believe those running the town should manage "our" tax dollar in a responsible manner.

And this in my opinion is not a responsible manner.

Just my 2 cents.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2012 8:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:23 pm
Posts: 1107
Rick Di Lorenzo wrote:
Martin Capper wrote:
It is somewhat ironic now that the decision has been made Council and Staff find the time for a Public Information session. Wouldn't it have been so much better if this time had been taken earlier in the process? Most of the Councillors ran on the basis that there would be consultation with the public on major matters - it is a shame that this was not turned into Town/Council Policy.
Well said.
Martin Capper wrote:
It is possible that the operation of a tax payer funded facility (I refer both to the capital put up by the Town and the operating deficit) will be managed by a majority of people whose interest is not Milton - In my humble opinion that is just wrong!!!
I agree so let's do what we can to protect the Town's interests and make sure the 6 people the Town of Milton appoints (3 year terms) to the 11 person committee are looking after Milton's interests.


I don't know why this is such an important issue for Milton.

Why get a town of our size involved in such a potential mess? There obviously appears to be some level of risk?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 2:47 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:46 am
Posts: 4498
Location: Tothburg, Winter Cres.
FYI the agreement in regards to the Management Committee has been amended to include a provision so the six Town of
Milton appointees (of the 11 total members) to the Committee be required to be residents or taxpayers of Milton.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:49 am
Posts: 1268
Location: HVE
Rick Di Lorenzo wrote:
FYI the agreement in regards to the Management Committee has been amended to include a provision so the six Town of
Milton appointees (of the 11 total members) to the Committee be required to be residents or taxpayers of Milton.


While we give you guys a lot of guff, I will also give you (council) kudos for so promptly getting the amendment done.

That said, it came up in the other thread (about parks) that the town is allocating a lot more resources than understood, so Rick/Zeesh, can I bother you for up to date answers on the following?

1) Was $250,000 of town general revenue spent hiring consultants related to the velodrome? If not, what was the correct amount and/or source of funds?
2) Is the town responsible for paying the $2.5 million if Laurier does not pay? If so, what would be the source of the funds? If it's the development reserve, would that increase the amount of development funds diverted to this single recreation project to $6 million, based on the previously announced $3.5 million figure?

Thank you.

Steve.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 9:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:56 pm
Posts: 523
Rick - why was the agreement amended in that manner? I think it's great, but it obviously didn't just happen on it's own. Was that your idea? Was it Rick Malboeuf's? I thought that from what I read, Malboeuf had an issue with the agreement as it stood, and you seemed to indicate you thought it was fine as is?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:36 am
Posts: 250
Quote:
Rick Di Lorenzo wrote:
FYI the agreement in regards to the Management Committee has been amended to include a provision so the six Town of
Milton appointees (of the 11 total members) to the Committee be required to be residents or taxpayers of Milton.


No thanks to you and the other 8 who voted in favour of the original agreement, it was only amended because I raised it and made it public. So I would be careful about patting myself on the back if I were you.

More to come following Mondays council meeting

Rick Malboeuf
Councillor Ward 4


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 10:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:56 pm
Posts: 652
Steve Heath wrote:
Rick Di Lorenzo wrote:
FYI the agreement in regards to the Management Committee has been amended to include a provision so the six Town of
Milton appointees (of the 11 total members) to the Committee be required to be residents or taxpayers of Milton.


While we give you guys a lot of guff, I will also give you (council) kudos for so promptly getting the amendment done.

That said, it came up in the other thread (about parks) that the town is allocating a lot more resources than understood, so Rick/Zeesh, can I bother you for up to date answers on the following?

1) Was $250,000 of town general revenue spent hiring consultants related to the velodrome? If not, what was the correct amount and/or source of funds?
2) Is the town responsible for paying the $2.5 million if Laurier does not pay? If so, what would be the source of the funds? If it's the development reserve, would that increase the amount of development funds diverted to this single recreation project to $6 million, based on the previously announced $3.5 million figure?

Thank you.

Steve.


I was strongly against the velodrome from the beginning. My main concern was that past history dictates that the Pan AM Games will be a major flop and any involvement we had in those games would lead to the town incurring unnessessary debt.

Now as this monster grows I find myself worried about the town being on the hook for operating costs for years to come. Operating costs for a facility that serves only a small fraction of the community. I've said it many times and I'll say it again we have so many needs (solutions to our transit whoas, infrastructure) why are we focusing on the wants of the few?

Early on there were ramblings and assurances from our council that a legacy fund would cover operating costs. We the people were promised that if research suggested the velodrome would end up costing the town money that some councillors would walk away from this disasterous project.

See Mike Cluett's post from the "Milton in the race for Pan Am velodrome" thread posted Oct 18, 2011.

Quote:
Thanks for the feedback everyone. I was at a CSAC meeting and didnt see CHCH news and for some reason the site is down.

The admin and planning committee last night reviewed the letter and recommendation from staff. There were a lot of caveats with this and a majority of the committee and non committee members said that if this impacts the Milton taxpayer, then the answer is no.

We directed staff to look at it with private sector funding/cooperation with the university at the Education Village and other corporate citizens. If a way can be found that wont cost Milton taxpayers of course we'd like to do it. Theres a lot of if's...and if the if's cant be answered, then my recommendation would be to say NO and I know my council collegues would say the same thing. There are too many projects in town right now *cough* hospital expansion that we need to make sure we focus on.

This is definately, as the mayor would say, a LIKE to have, not a NEED to have. Im waiting for the report from staff to come back before making a final decision.

This velodrome can be repurposed to something else after its all said and done and its also a project that qualifies for "legacy funding" which will help defer operation costs for a number of years.

Nothing was set in stone and staff is reviewing it. If it can happen we can move forward, given our consideration for "tax neutral" but if it cant...then its a NO.
_________________
Mike Cluett
Ward 6 Town Councillor


Clearly Mike's vote would have to be a NO at this point.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 1:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:47 pm
Posts: 2328
Hated this thing from the get go.

Going to be a huge waste of money and future resources, guaranteed.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 1:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:46 am
Posts: 4498
Location: Tothburg, Winter Cres.
dillon wrote:
Rick - why was the agreement amended in that manner? I think it's great, but it obviously didn't just happen on it's own. Was that your idea? Was it Rick Malboeuf's? I thought that from what I read, Malboeuf had an issue with the agreement as it stood, and you seemed to indicate you thought it was fine as is?

The change wasn't initiated or done by me. Rick Malbouef raised it as a change he wanted. In the recent updates posted earlier this week I noticed the agreement had been amended. Any credit or pats on the back might be for either town staff or Rick. I just posted an FYI to let people know about the change. Sorry if you thought I was taking credit (I'm not)

The change means in the future the town can not select non-residents for the 6 town appointed spots that get reappointed every few years.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 6:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:06 am
Posts: 577
Location: Fifth Line (at Derry)
Rick Di Lorenzo wrote:
dillon wrote:
Rick - why was the agreement amended in that manner? I think it's great, but it obviously didn't just happen on it's own. Was that your idea? Was it Rick Malboeuf's? I thought that from what I read, Malboeuf had an issue with the agreement as it stood, and you seemed to indicate you thought it was fine as is?

The change wasn't initiated or done by me. Rick Malbouef raised it as a change he wanted. In the recent updates posted earlier this week I noticed the agreement had been amended. Any credit or pats on the back might be for either town staff or Rick. I just posted an FYI to let people know about the change. Sorry if you thought I was taking credit (I'm not)

The change means in the future the town can not select non-residents for the 6 town appointed spots that get reappointed every few years.


Rick

Things may have changed since I last reviewed a legal document but when items had not been agreed they used to be placed in square brackets[ ]. If this hasn't changed then, perhaps based on Rick M's question at Council, Staff are now seeking for the majority of committee members to be Miltonians but it has not yet been accepted by the Donor. If this is the case can I suggest that you and the other 8 proponents of the Velodrome, at least on this 1 point, put your support behind Rick M and send a strong message that this point is not negotiable?

Martin

_________________
Martin Capper

HVRA member

www.cappercares.ca
www.MartinCapper.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 7:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:54 pm
Posts: 733
I just read a Toronto Star article that Joan pointed out in another thread: http://www.thestar.com/sports/panamgame ... for-milton

Good article highlighting the pro and con sides.

One comment from Rick Malboeuf kind of ticked me off though (and I voted for Rick before moving to the other side of town):

"As to his constituents, he says, “Twenty to one, they’re against it. They want to know why we’re worried about a velodrome when we don’t even have a hospital. That’s what they want. But it’s going to get done. They have the votes. I’m still not going to vote for it.” (added bold)

I would hope that Rick would tell all twenty to one of the people who say this that the velodrome has NO IMPACT on the Hospital at all. Funding comes from completely different sources - the velodrome money can't be used for the hospital. It's bad enough when the average joe says that without actually educating themselves (especially after being stated many times on this board), but for a councillor to either use that argument, or not correct it if it is just the people he is talking to, is just plain bad and wrong.

Rick, if you did correct this misconception and the Star just did not write that, I apologize. I am only going on what was written in the article, and that may not be the whole story.

And for the record, I am in the middle on the velodrome, I would say 55/45 against it, but I do see that it can bring benefits to the city, and a lot of (but not all of) the risks have been identified and at least somewhat addressed. If this fell apart and we did not build it, I would be fine with it. If it goes forward and they manage it well, I will be okay with it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 9:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:36 am
Posts: 250
rickp wrote:
I just read a Toronto Star article that Joan pointed out in another thread: http://www.thestar.com/sports/panamgame ... for-milton

Good article highlighting the pro and con sides.

One comment from Rick Malboeuf kind of ticked me off though (and I voted for Rick before moving to the other side of town):

"As to his constituents, he says, “Twenty to one, they’re against it. They want to know why we’re worried about a velodrome when we don’t even have a hospital. That’s what they want. I would hope that Rick would tell all twenty to one of the people who say this that the velodrome has NO IMPACT on the Hospital at all. Funding comes from completely different sources - the velodrome money can't be used for the hospital. It's bad enough when the average joe says that without actually educating themselves (especially after being stated many times on this board), but for a councillor to either use that argument, or not correct it if it is just the people he is talking to, is just plain bad and wrong.

Rick, if you did correct this misconception and the Star just did not write that, I apologize. I am only going on what was written in the article, and that may not be the whole story.

And for the record, I am in the middle on the velodrome, I would say 55/45 against it, but I do see that it can bring benefits to the city, and a lot of (but not all of) the risks have been identified and at least somewhat addressed. If this fell apart and we did not build it, I would be fine with it. If it goes forward and they manage it well, I will be okay with it.


When the hospital comes up as an argument against the velodrome I do say that the 2 are not connected, our local media when reporting on this have made that clear, as have the pro velodrome councillors,but the majority of Miltonians do associate the 2. They see the $ 9 million donation from Mattamy going to the Velodrome and wonder would that not be better directed towards our hospital ?? That is the sentiment out there. Now I suspect that when it comes to hospital funding Mattamy will be stepping up to the plate.

Rick Malboeuf
Councillor Ward 4


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 9:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:42 pm
Posts: 3336
Location: Milton
I thought we have a hospital?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 9:09 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:46 am
Posts: 4498
Location: Tothburg, Winter Cres.
Martin Capper wrote:
Rick

Things may have changed since I last reviewed a legal document but when items had not been agreed they used to be placed in square brackets[ ]. If this hasn't changed then, perhaps based on Rick M's question at Council, Staff are now seeking for the majority of committee members to be Miltonians but it has not yet been accepted by the Donor. If this is the case can I suggest that you and the other 8 proponents of the Velodrome, at least on this 1 point, put your support behind Rick M and send a strong message that this point is not negotiable?

Martin
Not sure if you got the gist of the change...
Quote:
Agreement in regards to the Management Committee has been amended to include a provision so the six Town of
Milton appointees (of the 11 total members) to the Committee be required to be residents or taxpayers of Milton.
The amended changes would put restrictions on the Town of Milton (our) choices. It wouldn't put restrictions on the donor's choices. The donor would continue to be able to appoint whoever they like. It's the Town of Milton which is proposing not allowing the Town of Milton the ability to appoint non-residents. I don't anticipate the donor would be against such a change as the way it's worded it doesn't take away options/choices from the donor but simply removes options/choices from the donee (the town).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 324 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 22  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.013s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]