HawthorneVillager.com

Hawthorne Village (Milton) Discussion Board
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 1:33 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 324 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:17 pm
Posts: 3525
Rick Malboeuf wrote:
freemantrailfamily wrote:
Rick, you know there are only two other eligible facilities for Legacy funding outside the velodrome - the aquatics center/field house/Canadian institute for Sport Ontario on the U of T campus in Scarborough, and the Athletics stadium at York University.

I'd bet bottom dollar it's Markham begging for inclusion to pay for their olympic pools, and maybe Hamilton to help with their soccer stadium on the Ivor Wynn site. They should have taken that into consideration before bidding on their programs. Too late now I say! They can ask all they want - that legal document on the legacy fund was pretty darned clear which facilities would get funding. If the feds and pan am committee change it now immediately back out of the velo program and sue them for breach of contract for all costs incurred. Simple contract law.


There is no legal legacy agreement which is why I was critical of council approving to go ahead with the velodrome project, without having that legal document you speak of detailing the legacy funding. We were initially told our share would be 1/3, the latest is that will not be the case the majority of the funding will be going to the aquatic center, our share is yet to be determined.

Rick Malboeuf
Councillor Ward 4


Not true again Rick. The business case assumed 1/3 knowing that the specific divisions between the 3 facilities had yet to be determined. And it was known right up front the lion's share for the 3 facilities would go to the aquatics facility (as you have noted before they are the most expensive facilities by far to operate which is why you wouldn't support one in Milton, even as a partner with another municipality which while I may be an avid swimmer I think is a prudent decision). While the exact division of funds for the legacy fund has not been determined and that was certainly a known risk going in, the specific facilities supported by the fund is. If other municipalities want in after the fact for facilities not specifically mentioned in the legal agreements that were signed with the PanAm Committee, that is breach of contract. The 3 specific facilities to be supported by the legacy funds are defined in the legal documents.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:28 am
Posts: 1546
miltonLeo wrote:
And the fact that there is a supposed "cap" on Milton's share is a false security blanket anyway.

If the veledrome costs balloon to something like a 20million overrun, do people really believe the province is just going to merrily pick that up no questions asked? Yeah, like we've *never* heard of the province breaking a promise before, have we. :roll:


I believe the province and/or feds will cover the cost. Do you have examples where this wasn't the case? It sounds like you have several examples. Please share.

miltonLeo wrote:
Even if they do ultimately agree to cover crazy overruns 'on paper', to think it won't come back and bite us in the ass re. reciprocity in lower hospital and other infrastructure funding is the worst kind of naïveté.


Again, I challenge you to come up with examples where the government has deprived projects of funding because of costs overruns on a totally unrelated project. Good luck with that. Your argument is based on a fiction you want to believe, not on facts. A naivete of a "worster" kind.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:28 am
Posts: 1546
freemantrailfamily wrote:
Rick Malboeuf wrote:
freemantrailfamily wrote:
Rick, you know there are only two other eligible facilities for Legacy funding outside the velodrome - the aquatics center/field house/Canadian institute for Sport Ontario on the U of T campus in Scarborough, and the Athletics stadium at York University.

I'd bet bottom dollar it's Markham begging for inclusion to pay for their olympic pools, and maybe Hamilton to help with their soccer stadium on the Ivor Wynn site. They should have taken that into consideration before bidding on their programs. Too late now I say! They can ask all they want - that legal document on the legacy fund was pretty darned clear which facilities would get funding. If the feds and pan am committee change it now immediately back out of the velo program and sue them for breach of contract for all costs incurred. Simple contract law.


There is no legal legacy agreement which is why I was critical of council approving to go ahead with the velodrome project, without having that legal document you speak of detailing the legacy funding. We were initially told our share would be 1/3, the latest is that will not be the case the majority of the funding will be going to the aquatic center, our share is yet to be determined.

Rick Malboeuf
Councillor Ward 4


Not true again Rick. The business case assumed 1/3 knowing that the specific divisions between the 3 facilities had yet to be determined. And it was known right up front the lion's share for the 3 facilities would go to the aquatics facility (as you have noted before they are the most expensive facilities by far to operate which is why you wouldn't support one in Milton, even as a partner with another municipality which while I may be an avid swimmer I think is a prudent decision). While the exact division of funds for the legacy fund has not been determined and that was certainly a known risk going in, the specific facilities supported by the fund is. If other municipalities want in after the fact for facilities not specifically mentioned in the legal agreements that were signed with the PanAm Committee, that is breach of contract. The 3 specific facilities to be supported by the legacy funds are defined in the legal documents.


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.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:10 pm
Posts: 2288
KGC wrote:
miltonLeo wrote:
And the fact that there is a supposed "cap" on Milton's share is a false security blanket anyway.

If the veledrome costs balloon to something like a 20million overrun, do people really believe the province is just going to merrily pick that up no questions asked? Yeah, like we've *never* heard of the province breaking a promise before, have we. :roll:


I believe the province and/or feds will cover the cost. Do you have examples where this wasn't the case? It sounds like you have several examples. Please share.

miltonLeo wrote:
Even if they do ultimately agree to cover crazy overruns 'on paper', to think it won't come back and bite us in the ass re. reciprocity in lower hospital and other infrastructure funding is the worst kind of naïveté.


Again, I challenge you to come up with examples where the government has deprived projects of funding because of costs overruns on a totally unrelated project. Good luck with that. Your argument is based on a fiction you want to believe, not on facts. A naivete of a "worster" kind.


You're kidding me right? You actually need me to document where the province or Feds have broken promises before???? I really don't have time for this so you'll have to google this on your own. Hint, start with words like power plant, helicopters, etc.

And to not believe that back room deals and reciprocity exists in politics, well words fail me. I am however somewhat amazed that this level of trust and a belief in transparent politics actually exists in this day and age, and I don't the heart to burst your bubble. Just keep on believin'.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:28 am
Posts: 1546
miltonLeo wrote:
You're kidding me right? You actually need me to document where the province or Feds have broken promises before???? I really don't have time for this so you'll have to google this on your own. Hint, start with words like power plant, helicopters, etc.

And to not believe that back room deals and reciprocity exists in politics, well words fail me. I am however somewhat amazed that this level of trust and a belief in transparent politics actually exists in this day and age, and I don't the heart to burst your bubble. Just keep on believin'.


Really? Powerplant? The provincial government is still going to cover the costs but that is not even a relevant example. Ornge (yes, the helicopters) is another irrelevant example. I'm not asking for an example where a "promise" is broken, I am asking for an example where the government does NOT cover the costs of a project that has ballooned in costs. The example I seek has nothing to do with promises broken. So you make up a story and ask me to search for a relevant example? Give me an example and I'll look it up, but you need to tell me what the example is, and make it RELEVANT. I DARE YOU TO BURST MY BUBBLE WITH A RELEVANT EXAMPLE.

Finally, which Milton councillors are in on the "back room deals"? This is a whole new accusation I was unaware you were making. Are DiLorenzo, Best, Krantz, Cluett, Hamid all getting kickbacks? Malboeuf for sure is not getting a kickback on this project! Forgive me, but I like to believe that most people get into politics to give back to society. A few bad eggs may ruin it for everybody (Quebec mayors are coming to mind and McKay's defense contracts) but I do believe the bidding processes for contracts, if followed correctly, are more open and fair than what they were a few decades ago. That being said, who is getting kickbacks on Milton council? Do you have any stats that say x percent of all municipal Councillors get kickbacks in Canada? I'm not holding my breath.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:06 am
Posts: 577
Location: Fifth Line (at Derry)
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

_________________
Martin Capper

HVRA member

www.cappercares.ca
www.MartinCapper.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:10 pm
Posts: 2288
KGC, please go back and read what I wrote. And use a dictionary. Back room deals and reciprocity does not equal kickbacks. Besides which, why are you listing the names of every town councilor when I was talking about province and Feds. And "relevant" examples? Please reread my original 2nd paragraph in context after 1st. Sorry but i have no more time for this. You want to believe. I don't. Fine, you keep believing, no skin off my nose.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:28 am
Posts: 1546
Martin Capper wrote:
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


Good points. For the original Business Plan to be that out of whack is ridiculous but I am glad our municipal government capped our commitment. Finally, I think we all knew the swimming facility would be the most expensive venue to operate and would likely require more than a third of the legacy fund, despite the assumptions.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:17 pm
Posts: 3525
Martin Capper wrote:
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


Martin, I'm 100% with you in that the business plan assumptions were exactly that - assumptions and the amounts each legacy facility gets don't get finalized until later. But it is VERY clear what the legacy facilities are and they are spelled out in the contract agreement where council authorized signature on Sept 10th.

https://www.milton.ca/MeetingDocuments/ ... eement.pdf

See page 64. It very specifically says:
Quote:
Article 9
POST-GAMES LEGACY MATTERS
9.1 Winding Up of TO2015.
Pursuant to the terms of the Multiparty Agreement, TO2015 shall be wound-up within 2 years after completion of the Games.
9.2 Creation of TO2015 Legacy Fund.
The federal and provincial governments have agreed to establish a legacy fund to support the operations of the Pan American Velodrome, Pan American Athletics Stadium and the Pan American Aquatics Centre. The purpose of the fund is to ensure that high performance sport has priority access to the legacy facility at preferential rates to regular public rates thereby enhancing Canada’s sport and podium performance. These high level principles will provide the framework for the future development of an agreement between the Town and the TO2015


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:25 am
Posts: 335
Location: Lot 2 NS Trafalgar
When the track isn't being used for cycling, it can be used for competitive Go-kart racing. :idea:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:28 am
Posts: 1546
miltonLeo wrote:
KGC, please go back and read what I wrote. And use a dictionary. Back room deals and reciprocity does not equal kickbacks. Besides which, why are you listing the names of every town councilor when I was talking about province and Feds. And "relevant" examples? Please reread my original 2nd paragraph in context after 1st. Sorry but i have no more time for this. You want to believe. I don't. Fine, you keep believing, no skin off my nose.


LOL "Use a dictionary."
Reciprocity "a mutual exchange of commercial or other privileges"
Kickbacks "a cut of the action" (differs from corruption (e.g. embezzlement) since since it requires the collusion of two parties).
How do you define them? It takes two to tango, two for reciprocity and two for kickbacks. What dictionary do you read?

miltonLeo wrote:
And the fact that there is a supposed "cap" on Milton's share is a false security blanket anyway.

If the veledrome costs balloon to something like a 20million overrun, do people really believe the province is just going to merrily pick that up no questions asked? Yeah, like we've *never* heard of the province breaking a promise before, have we. :roll:

You essentially mention that the province will "charge" Milton for the cost overruns. But you can't give a single example of a provincial or federal government screwing over a municipal government for a cost overrun where the provincial or federal government was responsible for covering the costs. All you provide are vague, irrelevant examples of governments "breaking promises". Your whole paragraph is BS because you are the one creating a story you want to "believe" to support your belief that Milton will be on the hook for cost overruns above and beyond the limits our Councilors set. I understand why you don't have time because it takes no effort to make up stories and a lot of effort to properly support an argument.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:06 am
Posts: 577
Location: Fifth Line (at Derry)
freemantrailfamily wrote:
Martin, I'm 100% with you in that the business plan assumptions were exactly that - assumptions and the amounts each legacy facility gets don't get finalized until later. But it is VERY clear what the legacy facilities are and they are spelled out in the contract agreement where council authorized signature on Sept 10th.



Freemantrail.

I realise the facilities covered by the Legacy Fund are specified. What is not specified, even now, is the percentages allocated to each facility and the amount of Capital placed into the Legacy Fund. Surely we aren't that naive to assume that overruns on Capital Cost will have zero negative impact on the Legacy Fund - I see that as a greater danger than the province and the feds forcing the Town to exceed the Cap although I do not totally discount that possibility to the extent that KGC does!

I also read into Ricks comment and yours that the majority - somewhat more than 50% of the Fund interest will be used to support the aquatic centre with the balance to be somehow, not yet defined, split between the other 2 facilities. That seems to point to less than 35% - but after many months it is still not defined!

However you have either missed or ignored, perhaps I didn't state it clearly enough, my major point. For a project to be 40% over Capital Cost Estimate at such an early stage is a significant pointer to a project that is either out of control or was not properly understood when estimated. Either way the entire project (Capital and Operating) needs critical review urgently. Your experience as an engineer would surely show that:-)


Martin

_________________
Martin Capper

HVRA member

www.cappercares.ca
www.MartinCapper.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:17 pm
Posts: 3525
Martin Capper wrote:
freemantrailfamily wrote:
Martin, I'm 100% with you in that the business plan assumptions were exactly that - assumptions and the amounts each legacy facility gets don't get finalized until later. But it is VERY clear what the legacy facilities are and they are spelled out in the contract agreement where council authorized signature on Sept 10th.



Freemantrail.

I realise the facilities covered by the Legacy Fund are specified. What is not specified, even now, is the percentages allocated to each facility and the amount of Capital placed into the Legacy Fund. Surely we aren't that naive to assume that overruns on Capital Cost will have zero negative impact on the Legacy Fund - I see that as a greater danger than the province and the feds forcing the Town to exceed the Cap although I do not totally discount that possibility to the extent that KGC does!

I also read into Ricks comment and yours that the majority - somewhat more than 50% of the Fund interest will be used to support the aquatic centre with the balance to be somehow, not yet defined, split between the other 2 facilities. That seems to point to less than 35% - but after many months it is still not defined!

However you have either missed or ignored, perhaps I didn't state it clearly enough, my major point. For a project to be 40% over Capital Cost Estimate at such an early stage is a significant pointer to a project that is either out of control or was not properly understood when estimated. Either way the entire project (Capital and Operating) needs critical review urgently. Your experience as an engineer would surely show that:-)


Martin


The legacy fund was always that way Martin. If you review the business plan the worst case scenario before ANY legacy funding the velodrome costs about the same as the Leisure Center. And even in the worst case scenario, the worst projected operating deficit (it's first year) is only 15% of the 5M total projected legacy fund revenue so 30-35% split between the athletics facility and velodrome would be adequate. Rick was implying that this might be split between more than the 3 defined facilities, which would be a contractual breach. If other municipalities want in (aka - markham or hamilton) they should have thought of that before bidding on non-legacy defined projects.

Yes, the cost overrun in concerning but it's unclear to me if the 40M was just a ballpark rough estimate and what margins the PanAm Committee expected to have on that prior to the RFP in October.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:36 am
Posts: 250
At last nights council meeting the majority of councillors rubber stamped a staff report which reported that the new revised budget for the velodrome is now $ 62.9 million up from the original budget of $ 42.2 million. A 50% increase in less than 12 months and construction is just beginning. The budget for the site preparartions, a cost borne solely by the town has increased from $ 2.2 million to $ 6.9 million a 250% increase.

Hate to say I told you so....

Rick Malboeuf
Councillor Ward 4


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:25 pm
Posts: 3641
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCQ7VLoY7bQ"]Hate to say I told you so[/url]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 324 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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 : 0.021s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]