KGC wrote:
freemantrailfamily, I do recall the facts you speak of. Many people do not like facts so you would be better off making up a story to support your argument. I fear you may upset people with your logical reference to facts. (Although I do appreciate and applaud your efforts to abstain from emotional fiction and focus on facts.)
KGC, Freemantrail and Rick M
I think everyone knows my view on the velodrome project.
I agree with freemantrail that the legal agreements are perhaps the only solid "facts" that we have. I also agree with the poster who indicated that governments are prone to amend or cancel contracts/agreements when the politics warrant it in the governing party's view! Economic circumstances will also almost always trump commitments in my view!
To think, and I am not saying you do, that the Business Plan is a statement of fact or facts is wrong. It was a set of assumptions used to support an argument (with apologies to KGC)!! We used the same consultants who had done significant work for Hamilton with the thinking that they had a solid grasp on the project and the Town would benefit from the work done and the expertise gained. Guess what - the starting point of the project (the capital cost of the facility) was totally wrong! Wait I know that the Town's cost are capped - that's not my point. My point is the credibility of the Business Plan and its developers.
Let's assume that it wasn't an error of judgment but rather a result of the design creep that the consultants warned us against. 30 odd years of practical experience in Capital Projects for the private sector ranging from new pulp and paper mills, new glass bottle manufacturing plants to major mining projects has taught me that significant capital cost overruns almost inevitably lead to operating cost overruns even if incremental deprecation (infrastructure reserve funding) is ignored( BTW it should not be ignored). So even if you still believe the consultants are credible you should at least be asking what this impact will be!
Now Rick seems to suggest that if we were to do the business plan today we may not use as much as a third of the legacy fund interest. To be fair he has always suggested that this is a soft number it seems with the passage of time this number has not been solidified and Rick at least to my mind seems to be saying that the evidence that it will be less than a third is growing stronger.
Given these three concerns, and I haven't seen or read anything to dispute them, I would ask why is Council not reviewing and amending where necessary the Business Plan. I would suggest that this project at its current estimated cost is very different from the $40million project that Council approved and therefore Council is obliged to revisit its decision. However I know the para legals on this board will point to the capital cost cap as a reason why Council is not obliged to do so. It's not a legal issue its a good governance and stewardship of the public interest issue!
Martin