HawthorneVillager.com

Why is it better for Hamilton? Milton is more of a cycling hub than Hamilton. If Toronto campaigns for the Olympics in the future the outdoor cycling races would be held in Milton by the escarpment (based on the 2008 Olympic bid) so having the Velodrome in the same vicinity as the outdoor competitions would make more sense.

Also, why is Hamilton more deserving of the Federal Government $22.4 million contribution? I'd like to see some Federal money invested in Milton for a change instead of Hamilton or on gazebo's in Tony Clements Muskoka/Parry Sound riding.

[quote="KGC"][quote="Joan"]Hamilton has indicated that they have found private funds and could host the Velodrome, but the Pan Am People, for some unkown reason, perhaps they are offended by Hamilton Council not approving the Velodrome initially, are snubbing their request to build the Velodrome. The location of the Velodrome in Hamilton makes a lot of sense, since they aleady have the track and field, volleyball, and soccer venues.[/quote]

Why is it better for Hamilton? Milton is more of a cycling hub than Hamilton. If Toronto campaigns for the Olympics in the future the outdoor cycling races would be held in Milton by the escarpment (based on the 2008 Olympic bid) so having the Velodrome in the same vicinity as the outdoor competitions would make more sense.

Also, why is Hamilton more deserving of the Federal Government $22.4 million contribution? I'd like to see some Federal money invested in Milton for a change instead of Hamilton or on gazebo's in Tony Clements Muskoka/Parry Sound riding.[/quote]

Clustering Pan Am activities is more cost effective than spreading activities across the province, something Pan Am planners have just announced. Spectators are more likely to travel to one center where they can see more than one sport event, and consequently more revenue is created to pay the costs of the games which historically is a money loser. If the cycling is held in a Velodrome in Hamilton, more people will attend the event. This is not a matter of being more deserving. It is a matter of making the Pan Am games successful from a business venture. Added to this is that Hamilton is in a better position to stage the Velodrome. Mohawk College already exists and services exist on their campus to build the Velodrome. The Milton site for the Velodrome is a section of land out in an empty field which doesn't have any services. At this point in time, in Milton, the tax base is not large enough to absorb the costs of this $45M building, and it may even cost more. The only private money which is a relatively firm commitment is from Mattamy homes. Laurier University will not be donating the $2.5M which was their share for building the Velodrome. This money has to come from somewhere and, at the end of the day it will be from the Milton taxpayer. The Town is desperately trying to put together the money and even going to the extent of using in-kind contributions to defray the cost. Milton Hydro is to put in the geothermal system, and pay for the system. However, someone has to pay Milton Hydro and that is the Milton Hydro user. Your Hydro rates will escalate.
The town is struggling to put together private funding. Other than Mattamy, no one has committed any real money.

[quote="KGC"][quote="Joan"]AREN'T COSTS OVER $40M FOR THE VELODROME?
Council has stated that costs are not to exceed $40M. The local share will be 44% of $40m = 17.6M
Then Town Saff has added an additional 2.2M for Site Servicing. Isn't Site Servicing part of the building costs for the Vel. ?
When $2.2M for Site Servicing is added to the $17.6M, you get $19.8M. This translates to 44% of $45M.
Haven't costs exceeded the ceiling of $40M which Council put on this Velodrome project?[/quote]

Joan,
See Page 159 of 440 on the pdf report
$17.6 million is 44% of $40 million building cost
[u]+$2.2 million for land and site servicing cost (Milton is 100% responsible)[/u]
=$19.8 million total "Milton" contribution
So the building is still $40 million, the land and site servicing are extra.

$17.6 million "Milton" contribution for Velodrome only
[u]+$22.4 million from Federal Government (page 115 of 440)[/u]
=$40 million total for building
[u]+$2.2 million land and site servicing[/u]
=$42.2 million for building plus land and site servicing

The $19.8 "Milton" contribution is broken down on page 159 of 440. The Town of Milton's contribution remains at $3.8 million whether we build a $3.8 million facility or a $40 million Velodrome as the remaining $16 million comes from private sponsors, etc.[/quote]

Hi KGC:
Thanks for the info. If you build a house, the cost for the land and services is included in the cost of building the house. Building the Velodrome is no different. The cost of the Velodrome is not $40M. It is $2.2M more. Are there any post construction costs the Milton Taxpayer will have to pay?

If you ask me it's a case of the little guys want to play in the big leagues.

Clustering events may benefit attendance for the short duration of the Pan Am games, I'll give you that. However, the building is a legacy and the benefits of that building will contribute to the town of Milton for many years to come. That is more important to Milton than a few more people attending the Pan Am velodrome events in Hamilton. Crikey, the place only seats a couple of thousand people anyway.



You are now starting to make up your own numbers. The building is $40 million, not $45 million. The Milton portion is $3.8 million. That $3.8 million is being spent on a recreational facility whether you like it or not. It is a legal requirement of the development fees. Also, Milton has a great record for building projects on budget according to Zeeshan Hamid whose quote(s) you can find on this forum.



Laurier not donating $2.5 million? Come on, quit making up stories. There is a Schedule D (The FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY) I already pointed out which is a contingency plan to offset the $2.5 million in the event the campus never gets approved. Furthermore, building the facility here will only make the building of the Laurier campus in Milton that much more inevitable.



In-kind contributions are a perfectly legitimate contributions. Are you saying they have no value because they have been donated?



The geothermal is only $30,100 to scope (about 37 cents per person excluding Milton businesses based on population of 80k. Is 37 cents what you really call an escalation in Hydro rates!!!). The Velodrome business plan cost two to three times that. Furthermore, if geothermal ends up being a valid option it will save $1.2-1.5 million capital costs by eliminating mechanical equipment (Schedule D) and keep operating costs low by reducing electricity/gas.

No argument, my total ended up being $42.2 million. You just applied the "percentages" incorrectly as they only apply to the $40 million building, not the building plus land and site servicing. Everything is accounted for. I assume there are no post construction costs, otherwise they should have been included in the plan. You may want to ask your Councillor to verify.

Joan, how come your "quotes" get screwed up? It makes it harder to read your comments.

Actually no (to the hydro rates increasing due to GeoThermal installation at Velodrome). Milton Hydro is considering this on a business case viability that it will be a profitable venture. In my personal opinion Milton Hydro would not be able to increase Hydro Rates because of a geothermal installation (existing regulations wouldn't allow that).

The velodrome is a large facility and would have considerable heating/cooling requirements. As such a geothermal installation could have some excellent economies of scale that could mesh well depending on the ground/soil makeup near the facility.

[quote="Rick Di Lorenzo"][quote="Joan"] Milton Hydro is to put in the geothermal system, and pay for the system. However, someone has to pay Milton Hydro and that is the Milton Hydro user. Your Hydro rates will escalate.
The town is struggling to put together private funding. Other than Mattamy, no one has committed any real money.[/quote]Actually no (to the hydro rates increasing due to GeoThermal installation at Velodrome). Milton Hydro is considering this on a business case viability that it will be a profitable venture. In my personal opinion Milton Hydro would not be able to increase Hydro Rates because of a geothermal installation (existing regulations wouldn't allow that).

The velodrome is a large facility and would have considerable heating/cooling requirements. As such a geothermal installation could have some excellent economies of scale that could mesh well depending on the ground/soil makeup near the facility.[/quote]

Hello Rick:
Thanks for your reply. The Town is using Milton Hydro as an in-kind donation toward the Town's capital commitment. It is part of the 19.8M of the Town's portion for the Velodrome. Can you provide the stats which would show the cost of the geothermal system and the retrieval income which shows the system would pay for itself? Also, Rick, has the Board of Directors approved the installation of this system.

The Town receives over 2 million dollars from Milton Hydro which represents profit and debt repayment(deemed debt). This money goes into the Town's what I call general funds. Is any of this money being used to fund the Velodrome.

Correct me if I am wrong, but green initiatives, which the geo system falls under, are expenses which Milton Hydro writes off?

[quote="KGC"][quote="Joan"]Hi KGC:
Thanks for the info. If you build a house, the cost for the land and services is included in the cost of building the house. Building the Velodrome is no different. The cost of the Velodrome is not $40M. It is $2.2M more. Are there any post construction costs the Milton Taxpayer will have to pay?[/quote]

No argument, my total ended up being $42.2 million. You just applied the "percentages" incorrectly as they only apply to the $40 million building, not the building plus land and site servicing. Everything is accounted for. I assume there are no post construction costs, otherwise they should have been included in the plan. You may want to ask your Councillor to verify.

Joan, how come your "quotes" get screwed up? It makes it harder to read your comments.[/quote]

Hi KGC:
Don's know why my quotes are not in the correct format. My percentages, I believe, are correct. Initially the Velodrome was listed as costing $45M, and the town was committing to 44%. 44% of $45 is $19.8M. Subsequently the Town made a commitment for 44% of $40M and added land and services as a separate item. I guess the important figure to watch is $19.8M and how the town plans to meet this target without using a bundle of taxpayer money. In the fall, I believe it was Mayor Krantz who stated that taxpayer's money would not be used to build the Velodrome. He doesn't consider development money to be taxpayer money. I would humbly disagree. Development Charge money is paid by the developer to cover firehalls, roads, rec. facilities, etc due to growth. I maintain it is impossible not to use a huge amount of taxpayer money for the Velodrome. The slot money which is being used for soft costs is taxpayer money.

Hi Joan, I'll try to answer each question. Some of them I may not know an answer yet, or may not know if info is part of the public domain (Milton Hydro is a private utility and doesn't share all of it's business cases/proprietary info with the public)

I know people say "Milton Hydro" in relation to the GeoThermal project but actually it's "Milton Energy and Generation Solutions Inc." which although is related to Milton Hydro, is a seperate entity. MEGS (Milton Energy and Solutions Inc.) operations would not affect Milton Hydro's rates for electricity. That's the question I was replying to in your original post.

I can not provide stats which would show the cost of the system and income would pay for itself as those type of statistics or business case by a private utility corporation has either not been completed and/or not released to the public. But personally my opinion is a private corporation that has a responsibility to it's shareholders to be profitable on a going forward basis - it would be counter-productive to do a venture that didn't have a positive business case behind it.

Personally, I wouldn't classify MEGs involvement as an "in-kind donation" and personally I wouldn't support MEGs "donating" money to the velodrome.

The money that Milton Hydro sends to the town as dividend payments is not as far as I know being redirected by Milton Hydro to pay for the velodrome.

Also no, AFAIK this Geothermal plan of MEGS would not be a write-off by Milton Hydro as a green initiative.

Joan, your percentages are wrong. There is no $45 million dollar figure anywhere in the business plan. The $19.8 million is the non-Federal portion that the Councillors are keeping an eye on. The $3.8 million is development money that HAS to go towards a recreational facility. It CANNOT be redirected towards roads, firehalls, etc. [See page 110 & 111 of 440 for the following quote repeated three times.]


Please provide a source for Mayor Krantz's comment as I believe he said that there would be no ADDITIONAL taxpayer money other than the $3.8 million development charge that has to be spent on a recreational facility.

The $120,000 slot money is NOT taxpayer money, it is REVENUE. I and many other towns folk have never played the slots at Mohawk so we have obviously not been "taxed". Also, the OLG money is to be replaced in the future (page 2 and 12 of 440) and is simply used as a temporary measure to help coordinate the timing of expenditures.


This is the most telling statement. No numbers, reports, analysis based on fact can convince you that the Velodrome is a good idea. You claim a huge amount of additional taxpayer money will be required yet you can not provide any examples or hard facts that refute the underlying assumptions of the business case. It sounds like you might be the wife of Rick Malboeuf because you think decisions should be made based on beliefs or gut feel rather than empirical evidence.

Zeeshan/Mike/Colin/Rick D - where is the approximate location for the planned Sherwood Community Center that if it goes ahead the velodrome would be replacing?

Hi Freemantrailfamily

The $ 39.6 million Sherwood Community Centre which is planned to be built in 2014/15 to serve the 40,000+ residents who live in this area (page page 385 of the 2012 Capital budget 2012-2022) does not have a definite location yet but it is to be located within the Sherwood survey west of Bronte St. The design work is budgeted for 2013 to fix a location and features of the building which is the major reason for the Town being interested in the velodrome unlike other municipalities as the 20,000 sq. ft. infield space would be deducted from the recreation centre which would include an ice rink, possible indoor pool and library similar to other recreation centres in Oakville and Burlington which are also funded by development charges. The community centre could also be located within the Education Village along with the new Sheridan College campus and other uses.

The $ 39.6 million Boyne Community Centre also funded from development charges is planned for construction in 2017/18 within the Boyne Survey south of Louis St. Laurent Blvd. between Tremaine and James Snow Parkway for the 50,000 new residents who will be moving into the area, possibly as early as the fall of 2014 when the proposed velodrome is anticipated to open.

See the attached map for the approved plan for the current town expansion.

http://www.miltonthiswayup.ca/pdfs/Sche ... e_Plan.pdf

These plans do not include the 75,000+ new residents starting in 2021 within the Sustainable Halton area south of Britannia road and along both sides of Trafalgar road near the proposed GO station on the west side of Trafalgar just south of the #401. The regional planning and public works committee as already received requests for water and waste water allocations in this area by some builders.

Colin Best
Local & regional councillor
Wards 2,3,4,5 North of Derry road.
Milton/Halton

_________________
Become a Fan! Visit my website! Email: colin.best@milton.ca Twitter Follow! 905-878-3623

Thanks Colin,

The location is pretty good to serve the west side sherwood survey residents, and those who will move into the west part of Boyne. To incorporate the community center itself into the education village would require the same zoning hurdles faced by the velodrome correct? I must admit I like the idea as it would cluster community recreational facilities. If the Laurier/Sheridan campus goes ahead its even a better location.

[quote="Rick Di Lorenzo"][quote="Joan"]Hello Rick:
Thanks for your reply. The Town is using Milton Hydro as an in-kind donation toward the Town's capital commitment. It is part of the 19.8M of the Town's portion for the Velodrome. Can you provide the stats which would show the cost of the geothermal system and the retrieval income which shows the system would pay for itself? Also, Rick, has the Board of Directors approved the installation of this system.

The Town receives over 2 million dollars from Milton Hydro which represents profit and debt repayment(deemed debt). This money goes into the Town's what I call general funds. Is any of this money being used to fund the Velodrome.

Correct me if I am wrong, but green initiatives, which the geo system falls under, are expenses which Milton Hydro writes off?[/quote]Hi Joan, I'll try to answer each question. Some of them I may not know an answer yet, or may not know if info is part of the public domain (Milton Hydro is a private utility and doesn't share all of it's business cases/proprietary info with the public)

I know people say "Milton Hydro" in relation to the GeoThermal project but actually it's "Milton Energy and Generation Solutions Inc." which although is related to Milton Hydro, is a seperate entity. MEGS (Milton Energy and Solutions Inc.) operations would not affect Milton Hydro's rates for electricity. That's the question I was replying to in your original post.

Hello Rick:
Thank you for your response. I guess you can debate all you want about who owns Milton, but my position is that the Milton Ratepayers are the shareholders, and as the shareholders are entitled to privileged information and can and should hold Milton Hydro accountable as to how the company is "run". But the focus here is on the Velodrome costs. On page 11 of the Milestone report, it mentions a MOU with Milton Hydro in regard to the geothermal system. If you could clarify this statement it would be appeciated.

Thanks!