HawthorneVillager.com

Hawthorne Village (Milton) Discussion Board
It is currently Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:34 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 318 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:10 pm
Posts: 2288
Rick Di Lorenzo wrote:
The original proposal had us getting $500k each year but town staff negotiated a 50% increase :-)


How does that make it okay??? The increase is coming from additional taxpayer dollars. It's just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The problem is that you guys were sold a bill of goods on a 'business plan' that was a house of cards and only a couple of councillors even questioned it, and they were quickly voted down. We can't keep running this town on starry eyed dreams and wishes.

The business plan was crap, the costs are skyrocketing, and shuffling tax dollars from some people's pockets to other people's pockets is nothing to smile about.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:54 pm
Posts: 731
miltonLeo wrote:
Rick Di Lorenzo wrote:
The original proposal had us getting $500k each year but town staff negotiated a 50% increase :-)


How does that make it okay??? The increase is coming from additional taxpayer dollars. It's just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The problem is that you guys were sold a bill of goods on a 'business plan' that was a house of cards and only a couple of councillors even questioned it, and they were quickly voted down. We can't keep running this town on starry eyed dreams and wishes.

The business plan was crap, the costs are skyrocketing, and shuffling tax dollars from some people's pockets to other people's pockets is nothing to smile about.


It makes it better (if not okay) because the risk involved with the business plan took into account only $500K per year - if they can get $750k per year from the legacy fund, then that removes the vast majority of the risk for ongoing operations.

The important thing to remember is that no one will see an extra line on their taxes stating additional tax being taken off to pay for the Velodrome - the same pool of money they are collecting will be used whether it goes to the Velodrome or not. This not an either or situation - the tax money is being collected and will be spent - we might as well have it spent in our Town. Yes, that is a cynical view, and I wish gov't was more efficient, wasted less money, and reduced our taxes. But since that has as much chance of happening as Unicorns taking up residence in Milton (now there's a tourist idea!) , we might as well benefit from the money that is going to spent somewhere in Ontario.

Yes the cost went up with changes, but not 1 extra dollar is coming out of taxpayers pockets. Also of note, the 2 new roads built were always planned, this was just EARLY construction of them to make the Velodrome location better fit.

So, no additional money coming from taxpayers - money was going to be spent somewhere anyway.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 7:50 am
Posts: 1188
rickp wrote:
Yes the cost went up with changes, but not 1 extra dollar is coming out of taxpayers pockets. Also of note, the 2 new roads built were always planned, this was just EARLY construction of them to make the Velodrome location better fit.


Proof? If a government endlessly spends money, they don't ever need to raise taxes?

My provincial and federal taxes, the pool from which you are referring, will not go up next year?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:54 pm
Posts: 731
well since neither the federal nor provincial budgets have been released, can;t say that taxes are not going up - but since the Pan Am Games budgets were already set by both levels of government, I think it safe to say that any tax increases will not be related to the Pan Am Games, and therefore the Velodrome.

I'd be shocked if federal taxes go up to any degree, but with the Liberals needing NDP support for the budget provincially, good chance "the rich" (anyone making over $60k a year) will have to pay something.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 7:50 am
Posts: 1188
rickp wrote:
I think it safe to say that any tax increases will not be related to the Pan Am Games, and therefore the Velodrome.


As you said, it's just a pool of money. If everyone takes a nibble, there's a lot less pie to go around.

That's why endlessly spending always results in increased taxes. The government isn't in the business of making money.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:06 am
Posts: 577
Location: Fifth Line (at Derry)
rickp wrote:
It makes it better (if not okay) because the risk involved with the business plan took into account only $500K per year - if they can get $750k per year from the legacy fund, then that removes the vast majority of the risk for ongoing operations.

The important thing to remember is that no one will see an extra line on their taxes stating additional tax being taken off to pay for the Velodrome .


Two numbers have been mentioned in recent pages on this thread - An increase in Revenue of $250 000 from the legacy fund - An increase in costs of $500 000 for infrastructure reserve! Not sure how you take these two numbers and assume risk is retired! I don't know if it has been in fact I very much doubt that is the case and no Councilor has rushed to assure us that is the case.

You are right when you say we won't see an extra line on our taxes for the Velodrome but I expect the budget call report will have a line which says "Growth related expenses not covered by growth revenue". We saw this in relation to the Arts Centre and I will take a bet with you now that we will see it in one or two years relating to the velodrome!

Martin

_________________
Martin Capper

HVRA member

www.cappercares.ca
www.MartinCapper.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:54 pm
Posts: 731
I never said the risk is retired - there will always be risk. But if they do get an extra $250K a year, the risk is greatly reduced, and if the business plan is even remotely close to reality (and I'm not saying it is), the extra $250K/yr will go a long way to making sure there is no operating deficit.

"Growth related expenses not covered by growth revenue" can cover a lot of things - if it is used to frequently and results in tax increases, then we will all have the chance to vote out the current group of councillors. I am relatively conservative on fiscal policy, and would love lower taxes. But I also realize that A) getting 3 levels of government to all be conservative at the same time is near impossible, B) If this money is going to spent, I would rather have it spent on things that benefit the Town I live in, instead of Toronto, North Bay, Ajax, London, Windsor, etc.

I may never use the Velodrome at all (although the walking track I can see using) - but I believe getting the Velodrome will be overall beneficial to Milton - either through bringing new people to town (in the office space or with athletes visiting), or through helping to get the University here. Sometimes there are costs involved with investments - if the costs can be overall contained (allowing for some overruns or increases), I think the end result will be positive.

I used to be an optimist that gov't could rein in spending and everyone could get lower taxes. Now I am becoming more of a realist - gov'ts are inefficient - always have been, always will be. it's going to happen no matter what, so we might as well benefit.

On an unrelated note, whatever happened to your HRVA colleague Andrew Salmons? Did he move out of town? Always thought the 2 of you would be good future councillors (I voted for Rick M before moving to Zeeshan's ward) - I think we can certainly use some more voices on council that are fiscally conservative. I don't always agree with your (plural) opinions, but like that you do research and have informed opinions.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:21 am
Posts: 319
i'm sure they will turn this into a general recreation centre.
they list the following in the article but i'm going to assume that many of them can be modified to allow other sports and events like soccer fields. some are quick to point out that 9 badminton courts are pointless, but it does show that this area is very modifyable.

the real issue is the cost and who's going to be covering it. tax payers won't be happy to cover this.

Quote:
Reynolds also detailed how the velodrome design has been enhanced to function as both a high performance cycling centre and a community-based recreation facility.

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. The facility will also include a bike repair shop, a bike retail shop, a café, multipurpose room, office space, fitness and conditioning facilities, a walking/jogging track and non-cycling related storage.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:45 am
Posts: 888
Location: Phase 1
Anthony wrote:
miltonLeo wrote:
Anthony, what are you, the consultant on the project or something?

Nope, just think that if you want to understand the situation it helps to have all the info vs a sound bite headline that generates online rage without any detail to back it up.

I read the Staff Reports and watch Council meetings so that I have a better understanding of how and why the town does things the way it does. I don't support the velodrome, but at least I understand the what and why of the conversation.


I suppose the same could be said for Rick M and the Capper guy and yet you think you're smarter than everybody else.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:21 am
Posts: 4035
If the velodrome helps land the 2 university campuses, its worth it. If it doesnt, its a giant white elephant in 5 years. Seeing as I know nothing about whats happening behind close doors, I have a feeling theres been some winks and handshakes made and everything has already been approved for the universities to come to town. Im only hoping. At which point everyone should relax as this thing will be worth it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:36 am
Posts: 249
Just to help clear up a few things...First of all many of the amenities being associated with the increased costs of the Velodrome were in fact included in the $ 40 million velodrome. The walking track,change rooms, fitness centre, meeting rooms, gym floor were all costed in the $ 40 million dollar facility. This was the arguement used by those supporting the project for redirecting $ 3.8 million from the Sherwood Community Centre. Those who doubt my word can go to Milestone Report 005-001-12 Pages 6 & 7 which was presented to council Jan 25th.

As for the potential extra $250 K annual payment we may receive from the legacy fund, this will be more than offset by the extra costs in the operating and maintaining a $ 56 million facility vs a $ 40 million. The increase in the capital reserves that will have to be set aside will increase the operating budget by $ 500 K more a year than was budgeted for in the velodrome business plan. Over the minimum 20 year expected life span of this facilty that alone amounts to a $ 10 million shortfall. Also from the documents I have read and what I am hearing from reliable sources the legacy fund, if what is being proposed goes forward, could very well be depleted in 12 to 15 years and with it our $ 750 K a year.

We are putting a lot of faith in the Pan Am Committee, all political appointees who will not be around after the games, I am afraid that after the games these people and the 2 upper levels of government will walk away and leave the municipalities and the universities involved high and dry. Call me a skeptic but I just don't trust politicians.

Rick Malboeuf
Councillor Ward 4


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:10 pm
Posts: 2288
Rick Malboeuf wrote:
Call me a skeptic but I just don't trust politicians.

Rick Malboeuf
Councillor Ward 4


+1, lol. And bravo.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 1:57 pm
Posts: 1154
So, 4 years later and the velodrome...... is successful?!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:36 am
Posts: 249
Hodor wrote:
So, 4 years later and the velodrome...... is successful?!!!


If you believe as some members of council do, that a facility losing $ 1.2 million a year is a success than I guess it is ...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:27 am
Posts: 2920
They should fill the perimeter with slot machines, then they would have a reason to turn on the lights.

_________________
Even the calendar says WTF after Monday and Tuesday.


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

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 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 : 0.055s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]