HawthorneVillager.com

It sort of speaks for it self. I'll copy/paste the text on page 11 that I think your referring to. MOU stands for Memorandum of Understanding. Which part were you looking for more info? There is an assessment that is being undertaken of the area to see how viable geothermal would be as an option.

And it's a go! Council voted 9-2 in favour!

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/artic ... -velodrome

What a joke.

Why even bother having so many stupid meetings and stupid votes anyway when most councillors' minds were already made up before they even began. Over 40M, no guarantees re. Laurier, etc

... but who cares? Not milton council. It's pathetic.

Btw, I called it back on Jan 6th: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43666&start=76


Bad enough that we'd voted for this white elephant, but the additional total waste of money writing stupid consultant reports for these bunch of pre-decided cheerleaders is what really puts it over the top for me. Geeezzzzz

miltonLeo would rather Councillors just use their gut to vote on issues instead of empirical analysis
miltonLeo does not believe any numbers presented by the business plan so why even spend money on a business plan
mitonLeo clearly had opportunity to refute the numbers in the business plan but like all people against the project could not come up with any credible numbers or arguments to refute the assumptions in the business case
Your argument is simply pathetic. By the way, a council full of Malboeuf's would be a council too lazy to crunch numbers and would simply rely on pulling decisions out of their ....

Note, there is a contingency plan for Laurier because most of our Councillors are smart enough to request that the Town consider "what if" scenarios in the event of future funding shortfall. Check out Schedule D, Schedule D, Schedule D. The other funding has legal commitments being prepared.

Furthermore, fundraising goals count as actual funding. If $3 to $4.5 million is to be raised for the project can it not count towards the project? Remember, this is a public project, not a private endeavour such as purchasing a house. We don't have the right to pay for our house using "fundraising" which is where I think you are getting your parallel universes mixed up. As long as the goals are reasonable and attainable based on other fundraising initiatives than fundraising goals are perfectly legit. If you disagree, I dare you to provide a number and argument to refute the figures. Good luck with that.

I suppose this project would ONLY make sense to you if there was ZERO risk (no project would ever get done) and private donors paid in full prior to the business case presentation? Do you really think Mattamy is going to renege on their commitment? I would think the Town would then make it much more difficult for Mattamy to get permits, etc. if that were the case.

Project comparison
$40 million dollar Velodrome at a cost of $3.8 million to residents (+$2.2 million land and site servicing) that will have an estimated annual $2.9 million impact on the local economy (page 128 of 440)
vs
$49 million dollar main street underpass. I imagine the Town's portion is more than the $3.8-$6 million for the velodrome with essentially a zero annual impact on the economy.

The Velodrome does not mortgage our future, it gives Milton a future and impacts our economy in positive ways that road work, etc. do not.

For your infomation I spent the week end crunching the numbers and read ever one of the more than 400 pages. Of the 11 members of council I was the only one who questionned the consultant on how they arrived at the numbers they used to arrive at this business plan. After crunching the numbers I believe the revenues projected are over stated and the expenses under estimated. Which means if I am correct the annual operating deficit will be greater than projected which the tax payers of Milton will have to cover.

Ironically did anyone notice the only person other than councillors and staff who spoke in favor was from Credit Valley.

Will probably comment more on this issue, but for now I have to go to my real job.

Rick Malboeuf
Councillor Ward 4

My apologies if you did crunch the numbers. I look forward to your post on why the revenues are overstated and the expenses are under estimated.



What does this have to do with anything? Showing up to a meeting does not count as a vote for/against a topic. It is not a referendum. I attended the meeting at the sport centre that you were at and told Cluett that I was in favour of the Velodrome so I did not feel I needed to attend the town meeting.

This is great for milton. Hopefully it will be a multi use facility but overall its all good.

W

KGC

At the Council meeting at which the budget was approved Councillors DiLorenzo and Barkley attempted to introduce a motion charging taxpayers a levy for infrastructure reserves in order to build a fund to ensure that our infrastructure maintains value. I understood from last night's meeting that Staff recommend that such a reserve be created at the rate of 1.5% of asset value per year. The Business Plan for the Velodrome reflects a $250,000 p.a reserve for the Velodrome and Staff's own recommendation would see that at $600,000 - an understatement of $350,000. Further the consultant suggested that the life cycle of this building would be 40 years which suggests to me that if proper accounting principles were applied then the reserve requirement is closer to 2.5% or$1,000,000 giving an understatement of $750,000 per year.

I do agree that reward always carries risk and I am sure you would also agree that it is important that risk is as accurately assessed as possible therefor I for one do not criticise Rick M for his questions. I also noted that the consultant seemed to be warning that this is a velodrome and to make optimistic assumptions about non velodrome uses and revenues was not wise. Further he warned about scope creep on the Capital Costs!

Does anyone else see the irony that if the Velodrome is a bigger success as a Velodrome than the Business Plan assumptions then it will be less of a success at providing "Community Recreational Services."

You said you prefer empirical analysis rather than gut so you must have noted that Councillors on both sides of this decision were relying on gut feelings!

Given the vote last night was entirely as predicted and the majority of Council is solidly behind the Velodrome I wonder why they have not considered other areas where zoning is not an issue such as Derry Green (full disclosure - that's where I happen to live!). I also wonder why Staff did not recognise the zoning issue at the start of the process

Martin

_________________
Martin Capper

HVRA member

www.cappercares.ca
www.MartinCapper.com

Thanks to Councillor Malboeuf for dodging the pom-poms and showing some healthy skepticism for this risky project.

Now taxpayers must hope that all the assumptions unfold as written, and that there is enough oxygen left to feed an even bigger hospital fundraising.

I note with interest that even Ward 3 voted in favour of the velodrome. I see a long line of rural folks showing up with training wheels on their 3-speeds to try it out. Not!

comments in bold

Hopefully it doesn't look industrial and ruins the look of the area

This is the one in London, UK for the Olympics, I don't expect it to look like this but if it does, it'll look nice
More wood accents would really be nice to see tho in Milton


The cost was £105 million,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Velopark

The infrastructure reserve motion was for all current infrastructure assets and was not for the velodrome or any one particular asset. I think Martin was just trying to use that as a cross example somehow.

I'm still waiting for a future report on our long-term infrastructure renewal liabilities and staff recomendations on how to address this. I'm really hoping it becomes a serious issue as if it's put off for years & years it just compounds the future debt and puts us in a difficult future predicament.

Rick

Your (and Councillor Barkley's) motion, as I understood it, was to further tax the taxpayers by a "levy" which would be added to existing infrastructure reserves to begin to rectify the reserve. If I misunderstood it please correct me. Surely it is logical, if you believe in the need to build reserves, to then apply an infrastructure reserve in all Business Plans - otherwise you just add to the deficit and therefore to the burden to be borne by the taxpayer. BTW Rick (and Sharon) I agree with your concept but disagree with the way you proposed to introduce it!

KGC

We are using the same math but applying it to different figures. I believe it should be applied to the full Capital Cost of $40 million and not just to the Town's portion. Unless of course IO's portion is to be met from the Legacy Fund (and we both know that won't happen!). The 1.5% was quoted by Sierra as being Staff recommendation the 2.5% is what I think is prudent for an asset that has a 40 year life. Ater all Accounting practice in the private sector mandates that assets be "depreciated" over their useful life.

I may also misunderstand the zoning issue but I believe it is related to appeals against ROPA 38 by third parties and is therefore somewhat more complicated than just getting approvals from higher levels. Perhaps the Councillors may comment as far as they can without prejudicing attorney/client privilege!

Martin

_________________
Martin Capper

HVRA member

www.cappercares.ca
www.MartinCapper.com

Hi Martin, no it was not 1% it was much smaller. Less then a third if that even. The idea being it's a start. Right now we do zero. We have humble (IMHO) current reserves (that are shrinking) and are mainly pay-as-you-go. The motion had a very modest small amount to start up an infrastructure renewal reserve and then future reports would better quantitfy how big our debt is (it's big big as over 50 million or so) and start to seriously lay out all the possible options on funding methods. I did not propose a 1% infrastructure levy, I think you got it mixed up with the hospital? The motion had a small almost symbolic start as we wanted to just get it started and to bring to the surface this long term 'ice berg' that's waiting to hit us in the future.

I guess as an alternative we can be like Mississauga and not build up an infrastructure fund at all, and then panic when we need the money.

_________________
omnia dicta fortiori, si dicta Latina