HawthorneVillager.com

So 100% depreciation / 40 years = 2.5%/year

Can any Councillor verify that the 1.5% rate makes more sense than Martin's 2.5% rate? (I assume the building has some residual value after 40 years so that could reasonably explain the 1.5% rate). Also asking the town to use figures for an accounting standard it has not yet implemented is not reasonable.



You allege that the legacy funding will not cover all of the infrastructure reserves on the non Municipal share but surely it covers more than zero percent? Therefore, why would the 2.5% (or 1.5%) be applied to the whole cost of the building when there are reserves for the non municipal portion?

Also, what information do you have that suggests the Legacy Fund is inadequate to deal with infrastructure reserves on the non Municipal share?

Zeeshan

In the second half of last year at Council I recall the Town Treasurer stating that Province would be requiring Municipalities to depreciate their assets. I specifically recall Brian Penman asking the Treasurer as to the implications of this on the Town's ability to borrow but do not recall the time frame that it was to be implemented. Further the 1.5% reserve was based on the Town's total assets I would assume that it is higher for Buildings, especially purpose built Buildings, than it is for Roads and bridges however a simple question to the Town Treasurer would give you the info you seek. With all due respect to your accounting friend depreciation is not just a "tax" write off perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that frequently tax and book depreciation differ giving rise to deferred tax liabilities or in rare cases assets.

The following is a quote from a 2010 report to Council "Although
amortization expenses should not be used to determine the impairment of an asset, it is
used to attribute the capital cost over the life of the asset and is a good tool to predict
the future annual financial commitment required for asset rehabilitation. As such,
consideration of a dedicated capital levy in future years budgets may be needed to
ensure that the Town’s tangible capital assets are being replaced/rehabilitated in a
timely manner without large fluctuations in the tax rate or the issuance of debt in excess
of the approved council policy. "

At the time this report was put forward Depreciation was to be required to be shown starting in 2011. I have no further information than that!

KGC

The Capital in the Legacy Fund will be $70 million. Of this 75% will be allocated to 3 projects of which one is the Velodrome. Only the interest earned on this Capital is available to the 3 projects. Sierra assumed that one third of this interest would apply to the velodrome. Do the math yourself and calculate how much this works out on an anual basis. Then compare that to the annual deficit reflected in the business plan. That will tell you how much, if any, is left over to deal with any depreciation on the non Town portion of the aaset cost!

Once again please understand I am only pointing this out to ensure that the Business Plan is as accurate as you believe it to be. Yes you are right these are my opinions and as they will likely be ignored any way there is little point in you and I continuing the debate enjoyable as it has been.

Martin

_________________
Martin Capper

HVRA member

www.cappercares.ca
www.MartinCapper.com

Martin, I enjoyed the debate as well. You provided the most intelligent arguments against aspects of the business case on this forum.

To me, the 1.5% rate does seem more reasonable than the overly conservative 2.5% rate.

25% of the 70 million is $17.5 million. Each percent of interest creates $175,000. A 2% return is $350,000 and at that level the facility will break even (page 12 of 440) versus the projected loss of $116,000 (page 5 of 440). Rates fluctuate and are currently low but 2% should be an achievable return at some point in the future. Let's hope everything goes to plan.

The other thing to note is the 70 million is a minimum amount the fund is guaranteed at, representing only the firm amounts pledged by the federal (65M) and provincial (5M) governments. Certainly it will also represent the majority of the funds but the PanAm committee can encourage private donations to that core principal amount. I do not know what the status, if any, of that fundraising effort is. The better question to be asked (and I'm sorry if it was at the meeting because I was quite ill at the time), would what happens if we don't the the 25% (33% of the 75% of the fund interest dedicated for facilities upkeep). There are two other facilities that are covered by the facilities portion of the legacy fund - the 50M pool and the athletics facility. I understand one of the things Milton has requested as part of it's agreement is membership on the Legacy Fund Board of Directors. One of the interesting paragraphs in the Legacy Fund multi-party agreement was this statement "Distribution of Funds between legacy facilities will consider but not be limited to; size and mandate of facility, volume of amateur and high performance athletes served, community access, and annualized operating need.

The legacy fund final distribution determination vs. the consultant assumption was one of the biggest risks I noted in reading the business report but the town did take steps to try an minimize that risk by making the board membership part of their agreement so they can be directly involved in this final determination.

[quote="MP"]Well I am starting to read stuff and came across this from the Town's own Report No. Milestone 005-001-12
[i]The opportunity to host the Toronto 2015 Pan/ Parapan American Games Velodrome facility and related training and competitive events leading up to, including and following the Games, is recognized as an [b]honour[/b]. The permanent facility would serve as a high performance and community legacy, founded on the principles of supporting high performance and community cycling participation and growth, volunteer development, sport tourism, financial viability, community engagement and diversity.[/i]

Beautiful

You know the underlying benefits are also there, but isn't there a chance to reduce the overall cost and future liability? Instead of spending $50M, why not $20M? Do we need to gold plate the structure and facilities like I feel was done at City Hall and even the new Beatty library. Moving forward, I thought we elected a group of smart and money wise public servants to protect our investment in this community, not to spend thrift.

Our Healthcare is more important than the needs of cyclists... We have growing infrastructure that needs investment for the future.
Sorry if I offended anyone. My bike is paid for and it serves me well. My governement is broke.[/quote]


WELL PUT MP! I'M TOLD MILTON HOSPITAL CANNOT HANDLE SEVERE EMERGENCY CASES. THE BEST THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT CAN DO IS STABLIZE THE PATIENT AND THEN MOVE THEM TO HAMILTON. WHEN A TEACHER LOST CONTROL OF HER CAR ON 15TH SIDEROAD, SHE HAD TO BE AIRLIFTED TO HAMILTON. JUST WONDER IF SHE WOULD HAVE LIVED IF CRITICAL CARE WAS PROVIDED AT THE MILTON HOSPITAL.

[quote="westender"][quote="Rick Malboeuf"][quote][quote]Colin Wrote I agree with the Mayor who has been promoting this facility stating " he would not do anything that would be a risk to the taxpayers of Milton".[/quote][/quote]

Main Street Leisure Center has been losing money for 20 Years, to date has cost taxpayers over $ 6 million and continues to cost taxpayers over $300K a year, New fitness center /swimming pool in Milton Sports Center annual operating deficit projected to be around $500k , Milton Centre for the Arts projected annual operating deficit $ 600K -$750 K, and finally our limosine style transit system that will cost taxpayers over $ 2 million this year and with the introduction of the 3 new routes at the end of the year that cost to taxpayers will increase to $ 2.7 million in 2013. And now a velodrome to add to this list. How much more can Milton taxpayers afford to pay to provide facilities and services that a small number of Miltonians actually use? Just Asking ???

I suspect that despite all the hype this velo drome will become a burden for the taxpayers of Milton. members of council are saying that this will be a multi-purpose facility, but the business consultant made it quite clear it's primary function will be as a high performance cycling track and other uses will have to be restricted to accomodate. As for the mentionned trade shows and conventions again the business consultant stated that it is not recommmended that it be used for these purposes. As far as all the recreational riders that would be using it, again I quote the consultant, this will be a high performance olympic caliber track....little Johnny will not be able to show up and ride his bike around it as one member of council believes.

I hope I am wrong on this, only time will tell, unfortunately the true impact of this decision will not be known or felt for at least 5 years.

Rick malboeuf
Councillor Ward 4[/quote]

You keep spewing out the same out of context quotes and misinformation, so much that it's gotten past the point of ridiculous. Little johnny is exactly who will be able to ride this track. You think you wake up at 21 years old and the first day that you ride a bike on the track you are ready to compete? Youth programing has to be one of the fundamental uses of the track. Londons FCV is considered one of the most difficult tracks to ride in perhaps the world and their junior programing starts for kids as young as 7. Considering most kids take their training wheels off at 5, I would say that's a pretty young age to get into the sport.

Mr. Hack's reference to the track being of a high caliber, was simply around the fact that in order to comply with the governing bodies like the UCI, the track must meet international standards to hold sanctioned competitions.

One of the appeals of cycling, in any discipline, is that you can use the same equipment and ride the same roads and facilities that the pros use. You loose that, you loose the appeal.[/quote]

THANKS RICK FOR POINTING OUT THAT MILTON IS BUILDING STRUCTURES THAT ARE LEADING TO HUGE OPERATING DEFICITS AND THE VELODROME WILL BE ANOTHER DRAIN ON THE TOWN'S FINANCES. DOES LITTLE JOHNNY NEED A $40 M OR $45M DOLLAR STRUCTURE TO LEARN TO RIDE A BIKE? MILTON IS GOING TO BECOME ANOTHER TORONTO--RUNNING A HUGE DEFICIT AND STRUGGLING TO CONTAIN COSTS.
ONE IDEA TO PREVENT RECREATIONAL FACILITES FROM BECOMING WHITE ELEPHANTS IS TO CHARGE THE TRUE COST OF OPERATING THEM
BY CHARGING USER FEES WHICH REFLECT THE TRUE COST OF USING THE FACILITY.

JOAN, SERIOUSLY, HOW MANY TIMES DO FACTS HAVE TO BE REPEATED BEFORE THEY SINK IN? HOW MANY TIMES HAS EVERYONE SAID THE MONEY CAN NOT BE PUT TOWARDS THE HOSPITAL FOR THE 100th TIME MILTON HAS TO SPEND THE $3.8 MILLION ON A RECREATIONAL FACILITY (3 OF THOSE TIMES IT WAS MENTIONED IN THE REPORT ON PAGES 110 & 111 OF 440). THE $3.8 MILLION WAS COLLECTED FROM DEVELOPMENT FEES (NOT TAXES). THE REMAINDER OF THE $40 MILLION VELODROME IS BEING PAID FOR BY THE FEDERAL/PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT, PRIVATE DONATIONS/FUNDRAISING, IN-KIND DONATIONS AND A RESPONSIBLE FINANCIAL STABILITY STRATEGY (SCHEDULE D PAGE 96 OF 440) FOR THE LAURIER PORTION SINCE WE CAN NOT COUNT ON THAT MONEY UNTIL/IF THE CAMPUS IS APPROVED. YOU SEEM TO BE HOPING SOMEONE DIES TO SUPPORT YOUR MISGUIDED ARGUMENT THAT THESE FUNDS SHOULD GO TO THE HOSPITAL WHICH I FIND UTTERLY DISTURBING.

ALL PUBLIC BUILDINGS TYPICALLY RUN A MODEST OPERATING DEFICIT. THE $116,000 NET OPERATING IMPACT (PAGE 5 OF 440) IS WHAT YOU ARE CALLING HUGE WHEN I SPOKE TO MIKE CLUETT AT THE SPORTS CENTRE MEETING HE SAID THIS IMPACT IS SIMILAR TO THE OPERATING DEFICIT FOR A $3.8 MILLION FACILITY SO THE VELODROME IS NOT CONTRIBUTING SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE NET OPERATING IMPACT BECAUSE OF THE LEGACY FUNDING, ETC. I CHALLENGE YOU TO PUT FORTH A MEANINGFUL ARGUMENT LIKE MARTIN CAPPER DID WHICH IS BASED ON FACTS AND NUMBERS NOT LIES LIKE YOU ESPOUSE!

JOAN, YOUR AND MP's CONDEMNATION OF MILTON COUNCIL'S SPENDING ON THE MODEST BEATY BRANCH LIBRARY AND TOWN HALL DO REQUIRE A MUCH LARGER HOSPITAL AS THE QUANSA HUTS YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE THEM BUILD WOULD BE SO DEPRESSING THAT ALL THE MILTONIAN'S SLASHING THEIR WRISTS, SELF-MUTILATING, ETC. WOULD RUN UP EMERGENCY ADMISSIONS TEN-FOLD. YOUR VISION FOR MILTON IS A TOWN THAT NO ONE WOULD WANT TO LIVE IN.

FINALLY, YOU MAY WANT TO RUN FOR TOWN COUNCIL TO MAKE AN IMPACT ON THE TOWN. I SUGGEST TONY LAMBERT'S REGIONAL WARD SINCE HE IS NOT LIKELY TO GET RE-ELECTED ALTHOUGH I WOULD VOTE FOR HIM OVER YOU AT THIS POINT IF BRIAN PENMAN DOES NOT RUN.

P.S. DID YOU EVEN TRY THE SUGGESTION RICK DiLORENZO MENTIONED TO FIX YOUR QUOTES SO YOU DO NOT HAVE TO WRITE IN CAPS?

A minority of people get arrested. Let's stop funding Halton Regional Police (except the parking enforcement because they actually bring in a revenue).
A minority of peoples homes burn down. Let's stop funding the Fire Department. (or charge outrageous user fees).
A minority of people use social services. Let's stop funding those wasteful social services. (these people don't pay user fees?)
A minority of people skate. Let's tear down the Milton Sports Centre.
A minority of people use the Leisure Centre/Swimming pool. Tear it down.
A minority of people use the Library. Tear them both down.
A minority of people use the Arts Centre. Tear it down as well.
A minority of people use Milton Transit. Let's dismantle it.

Rick Malboeuf wisely omitted what the total of all the budgets over the past 20 years has been because it is more of an impact to compare the operating deficits without a providing a reference point (in other words out of context as westender pointed out). $6 million on it's own seems like a lot of money but if it was compared to the total budget over those 20 years then it would be in context. But then that would not work as nicely with Joan's FUD campaign.

Rick Malboeuf (or any other Councillor) what is the sum of Milton's budgets over the past 20 years so we can put this $6 million figure into perspective?

heh.. no kidding!

I either just skip over her posts, and look for the responses that correctly quote her posts, or just scan for the crazy 'all caps' sections. Mostly I just skip them.

Read the question, I was almost tempted to vote yes, based on the wording. What do you think the results would have been had the question been simply Should Milton commit $19.8 million towards the construction of the Pam-Am Games velo drome ?

KCG: Please stop putting words in my mouth, I am quite capable of getting myself in trouble without your assistance. The only reason I mentionned the other facilities and their costs was to illustrate what the progressive and aggressive decisions of previous councils was costing the tax payers. I also question if the 10s of millions spent on construction of these facilities and the millions being spent to maintain them would not have been better spent on facilities and services that would have provided far more benefit to a far greater sector of our population. Such as an indoor all season soccer/lacrosse facilty or a winter bubble over the Milton tennis courts. I believe previous councils in order to appease small but vocal and influential special interest groups made some costly mistakes, and I am afraid this velo drome will become another such mistake.

As for the comments of those in support who say there is no fear of this velo drome going over budget because Milton has a record of coming in on or under budget on all their capital projects. The only difference is in each of those instances we had complete control. We issued the tender, we selected the contractor and we had overall control of the design and build. That will not be the case with the Velo Drome. Infrastructure Ontario will have total control, the only input from Milton will be on the amenities and added functions uses we may want to incorporate, and those will be at our cost.

As for the business plan let us not forget staff selected and recommended the consultant and that decision was ratified by council. The Consultant was well aware of the fact that the towns upper management including the CAO as well as the Mayor and a majority of council was supportive of our being the site for the Velo Drome. A fact that I suspect may have had some influence in the preparation of the plan and its findings. Anyways we will see how well the plan works out. If it doesn't pan out I wonder if we could get the $95K back that we paid the consultant?

I am tending to agree with Anthony that this debate is growing stale. We will have one last look at this once we receive the final MOU from the Pam-Am Group. I don't suspect it will read any different than the copy we had at the last council meeting and I suspect the council vote will be the same and Milton will get its Velo Drome and then hold on to your wallets.

Rick Malboeuf
Councillor Ward 4

Now Rick, my reading comprehension is quite fine, it's yours that I question. You and I both know that 19.8 million is not the contribution amount coming directly from the town of Milton. The private sector contribution can't be included in that figure.

By the way, how many municipal projects do you you suppose get 13.5 million dollars in private sector funding?

Lacrosse is a summer sport, always has been always will be, especially since most of the kids that play are on the ice all winter. How many adult lacrosse leagues are in Milton? So I don't see your logic, but that goes without saying.

Rick, I agree with westender's criticism of your poll question.

Rick, I actually do like your ideas for an indoor soccer/lacrosse arena and a tennis dome and I agree this debate is getting old (Joan was driving me crazy repeating the same old nonsense). Thought I'd end this on a high note!

KGC, I don't disagree that there are lots of people or groups that would use a tennis or lacrosse facility.

My point is around how Rick questions weather an Arts Centre, arena complex or velodrome serves the minority of the Milton population and are they of value. I would say we are still dealing with a minority that would use a tennis or lacrosse building. The truth is that in today's society there is never going to be complete mass participation in any sport or activity, and someone or some groups will always feel left out. But at least by having variety, there are options. So far I think the town is putting an effort into providing just those.

I agree. Refer to my sarcastic post a "minority of people" use arts centre, rinks, etc. An article in the champion (?) mentioned that the greater the variety of programs available to youth the less likely they are to get involved with drugs, etc. (I think the magic number was 20). So to me a velodrome, arts centre, fitness centre, swimming pool, tennis bubble, indoor soccer, hockey rinks, etc. is better than only having hockey rinks. Variety is key and the spice of life. In fact golf has one of the highest participation rates of any sport (21.5%) so by that logic we should build a municipal golf course (which I think is a great idea down the road if it can break even and be built within town boundaries so it is accessible for youth and public transit). A neighbor of mine was really encouraging his kid to play hockey but his son was not happy playing, much to his father's disappointment. He is now taking swimming lessons and loving it so it is great that Milton has a pool and an option for a great kid like that and kudos to the parents for recognizing that their child was not happy playing hockey but loved swimming. I'm sure kids will get into using the velodrome for the same reasons.

Hello Rick:
Thanks for the instructions. Hopefully this will correct the problem.