HawthorneVillager.com

Hawthorne Village (Milton) Discussion Board
It is currently Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:28 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 318 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:12 pm
Posts: 57
I get that the Town's portion has not "officially" gone up yet, but the increased cost of this horrible idea comes from Ontario and Federal tax dollars, no? Pretty sure I pay those. It's pay day, let me check my pay stub. Holy Christ! You bet I do. I've cut wheat out of my diet, so maybe I can earmark that money to the Velodrome. So long wheat money.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:56 pm
Posts: 504
Robb_D wrote:
I get that the Town's portion has not "officially" gone up yet, but the increased cost of this horrible idea comes from Ontario and Federal tax dollars, no? Pretty sure I pay those. It's pay day, let me check my pay stub. Holy Christ! You bet I do. I've cut wheat out of my diet, so maybe I can earmark that money to the Velodrome. So long wheat money.


I totally agree - I guess its nice that it's not out of our municipal taxes, and we get to share it with the rest of the province or the country? But at the end of the day, its still coming from us as taxpayers, and we still end up paying for it. It's like when Rob Ford votes against certain provincial or federal grants because he doesn't believe in the projects they are aimed at, and his opponents make fun of him and say he is turning down "free" money. Same difference.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:36 am
Posts: 249
dillon wrote:
Can anyone advise if Rick D, Zeeshan, or Mike were councillors who voted in favour? If they were, why haven't they joined in by now to help us understand why? I only pick those three since they are obviously frequent contributors to the board and two of them have posted since Rick M brought this up.

Rick M - you were there, can you advise? And no, this isn't about making anything personal, I'm just asking since you were there and it was all obviously public, so this isn't any big secret.


It was a recorded vote. Ward 2 Councillor Nelson and myself voted against as we have on every vote relating to the velodrome. The other 9 members of council voted in favour.

Sandeep wrote:
I find it funny that Rick M. failed to mention that the town isn't on the hook directly for the extra cost.


Yes the extra 16 million is being covered by the federal government, but as far as I know Milton residents pay federal taxes. If I am mistaken let me know so I can contact Revenue Canada and have them refund me all the federal taxes I have paid over the last 25 years.

The majority of my objections raised last night were towards the increase of $ 4.5 million for site preparations, that is totally Milton money and also the increase to the annual operating costs to support a $ 56 million facility vs a $ 40 million.

Rick Malboeuf
Councillor Ward 4


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:56 pm
Posts: 504
Wll, Rick M, since you are the only councillor posting on this thread, do you have any idea why the other councillors won't/haven't tell us all why they voted in favour? I thought part of the benefit of this forum is for us (residents of Milton) to get different viewpoints on important issues, but here we just get silence. Rick, do you think it would be non-collegial or something for another councillor to chime in? Could that be why?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:36 am
Posts: 249
dillon wrote:
Wll, Rick M, since you are the only councillor posting on this thread, do you have any idea why the other councillors won't/haven't tell us all why they voted in favour? I thought part of the benefit of this forum is for us (residents of Milton) to get different viewpoints on important issues, but here we just get silence. Rick, do you think it would be non-collegial or something for another councillor to chime in? Could that be why?


I get into enough trouble speaking for myself without speaking on behalf on someone else. IMHO My guess would be they are in damage control mode trying to figure out how to spin this new info so that it looks like a great deal for Milton .

Rick Malboeuf
Ward 4


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 7:50 am
Posts: 1188
Why did the site preparation cost go from $2M to nearly $7M?

How did the initial estimate come in so low, and who was the visionary that discovered that it was wrong? Was it the same person?

Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 7:50 am
Posts: 1188
Anthony, no offense, but this is really dull stuff.

Coles notes:
- No geothermal
- Name: Mattamy National Cycling Centre
- Cost going up due to moving the location of the Cost-Sink-o-Drome


EDIT:

Possibly the most dull name ever.


Last edited by routehero on Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:56 pm
Posts: 504
routehero wrote:
Anthony, no offense, but this is really dull stuff.



This probably isn't what you were referring to by "dull", but this thread is definitely "dull". If this post was somehow started by Tony, there would be 50 posts on it and everybody would be questioning what he had for breakfast that made him vote the same way 8 other councillors did.

.... but .... it's got nothing to do with Tony, so nobody cares.

This is the sort of thing that makes me wonder how useful/informative this forum really is. Here you have an issue that is of great importance to Milton taxpayers, involving millions of dollars, that Rick M brings to our attention, but councillors can't be bothered to respond, and nobody is interested in hearing what they'd have to say.

This forum is getting so predictable, it's almost getting too boring to follow.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:13 am
Posts: 1277
Location: Milton
Anthony wrote:
Now a year later, after the progress report, Rick M comes on and stirs the pot (as is his right) by posting about the fact that the costs went up just like he always thought they would.


I don't think this is fair. Using the term "stirs the pot" implies that his intent was to cause unrest or dissent. I do not believe this was his intent at all. Most of the councillors were elected on a platform of transparency and accountability. How is not telling us that the costs are double what they told us it would be when they signed off on it, transparent? Rick M isn't causing trouble here. He's alerting us that as taxpayers we need to pay attention. And yes.....he's entitled to an "I told you so". He did tell us so.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:12 pm
Posts: 57
I can't believe I'm asking this, but since I've spoken to more people against this than for it - how much would a Town wide referendum have cost us on this? $300,000 maybe? If that? It's just from my point of view, 9 people and cyclists want this. I think I'll take a poll and get back in a few days. Heaven forbid the people have a say. Anybody feel like volunteering a few hours to speed it up?

Approximately 50,000 tax payers in Milton. 382 polls to get answered for 95% confidence with a 5% margin of error. Anybody? I know it won't change anything, I'm honestly just interested.

That said, I'm a cyclist and I promise I will never use it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:17 pm
Posts: 3525
C'mon Robb! Go for 660 and a 99% confidence level with the 5% margin of error! Still won't change anything but you'll be that much more certain of it :-).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:10 pm
Posts: 2288
Anthony, what are you, the consultant on the project or something? Why the post after post after post defending the indefensible? It doesn't make any sense.

The town is on the hook for over four and a half MILLION dollars of unanticipated costs already, and the project has barely broken ground. Who cares if it comes out of a DC pot that could only be used for other sports facilities? That's four and half million dollars of other sports facilities that can't now be built for the residents of this town. (But at least a bunch of stretchy-panted visitors can wheel around a track, so it's all okay?)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 7:50 am
Posts: 1188
Great new thread title! I really am starting to feel a sense of community pride -- the Mattamy Open is a cycling event sure to come to Milton in the future.

http://www.insidehalton.com/news/articl ... 63-million

"The amendments, which will be funded through development charges from recreation facilities, include sufficient change rooms for cycling and community users and an infield capable of holding three basketball, four volleyball or nine badminton courts."

I can't imagine the suspense of watching 9 separate badminton games being played from the grandstands. This really is a historic compound.

EDIT:

Krantz noted the Town is expecting more funds than anticipated through the 2015 Pan/Parapan American Games’ Legacy Fund. About $750,000 will be received to cover operating costs for a 20-year period, up from the original estimate of $500,000.

After utilities, staff and insurance are paid, $750k covers... 1 year?

Funny.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:06 am
Posts: 577
Location: Fifth Line (at Derry)
dillon wrote:
Here you have an issue that is of great importance to Milton taxpayers, involving millions of dollars, that Rick M brings to our attention, but councillors can't be bothered to respond, and nobody is interested in hearing what they'd have to say.



This is my problem with the current situation. Most of this thread has been on the Capital Cost and most of that overspend is funded by Canadian taxpayers in general. I would like to hear from other Councillors because I believe the overspend on Capital will translate in to over runs on costs. At the very least surely it causes you to doubt the feasibility study/business plan? If you know something the public doesn't and have absolute faith in the Business Plan then say so!

If you have the same doubts as at least some, it may be many if this forum is indicative, of your constituents then at least ask staff for a review of the Business Plan. If you don't know if you are heading into a financial mess you will have no contingency plans to deal with it and the Taxpayers of this Town will have to dig deep!

It is clear that Staff were at the very least naive in accepting the business plan ( a sports venue without change rooms _ I call that naive) therefore it needs a comprehensive review. If any of the 8 Councillors who voted for it disagree I would love to hear why! Councilors???? I know we won't hear from the Mayor but some of you guys are regular contributors and your silence on this matter is disturbing at least to me!

Martin

_________________
Martin Capper

HVRA member

www.cappercares.ca
www.MartinCapper.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:34 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:46 am
Posts: 4490
Location: Tothburg, Winter Cres.
Routehero, CactusJack - It's $750,000 per year (ie we may get 750k each year for 20 years, not 750k spread out for 20 years). So if approved we'd receive about 15 million for operating costs over 20 years.

But it's not signed yet. The original proposal had us getting $500k each year but town staff negotiated a 50% increase :-)

Now I have to go bang my head against a wall which I promised I'd do next time I posted on this thread.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 318 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 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 : 0.050s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]