HawthorneVillager.com

Colin, I find it puzzling that Joan would even ask you to do all this work to break down the costs. No matter how it breaks down it is all "taxpayer" money as I quote her from the Velodrome thread.
From the Velodrome thread page 18;


Dear Lower Base Line readers, I promise I will not cross post any more Velodrome information on this thread.

Hello KGC"
The lower base line comments were connected to the Velodrome thread. I'm not sure how. Perhaps it was Colin's comments which connected the costs of the Lower Base Line to the Velodrome.

I wasn't asking for a detailed costing, I was interested in knowng, in broad figures or percentages, what the cost break down is for the project. I just thought Colin would have these figures. If he doesn't know the rough breakdown, or to obtain these figures is a burden, then I'm Colin could say so for himself.

So where does this stand? Has council decided to burden us tax payers with another white elephant?

Hi Richard:
That's a good question I'm hoping, perhaps naively, that this is not going to be a white elephant. I would hate to see Town expenditures increase due to the Velodrome having huge cost overruns and having huge operating deficits. I'm still searching for more information from our Councillors about the costs.

I'm waiting for Zeeshan Hamid to respond to his post of March 1st where he said he would clarify C1 and C4 of Schedule D Veldrome Financial Sustainability Strategy which is part of the Town's plan to cover the $2.5M donation from Laurier which we now know is not going to be donated Town staff has stated they could replace the 2.5M donation with the following:

C1 -Land endowment of 5 acres from Milton IV Lands for Velodrome (current value vs seviced)-land donation previously identified by partner.
This is suppose to riase between $0.75 to $2.5M.

C4-Benefiting partners road construction @50% of costs-Thee funds will be recovered fron adjacent property associated with building the access road to the site from Tremaine Road; set up as long term receivable

On January 30th Council approved the above as a potential way of replacing the 2.5M. I'm just not certain why Zeeshan hasn't responded, since I would think Councillors would know how the 2.5M is going to be replaced prior to voting to proceed with the Velodrome, and the above 2 methods appear to be critical in raising this money, which is a substantial amount of money.

Also, Zeeshan said there were risks he considered before voting yes to building the Velodrome and I asked him to share these risks and put a cost value on them. As well, he stated he "was fairly uneasy voting "yes" for the Velodrome. He hasn't shared his concerns, so, if Zeeshan could share his risk list and attach some costs to it, we could have a clearer understanidng of the potential risks he was concerned about.

I thought we were told that Laurier's donation was conditional on provincial approval of the Milton University campus which has not happened.

Are you saying that the 2.5M is promised unconditionally? If so, that would be good news. Please clarify.

I am just an "average joe" trying to figure out why our town would focus on something like this. We need to attract new businesses to support our community, create jobs, ensure we have solid infrustructure, etc... while keeping our taxes at a reasonable rate.

I am not holding my breath. Maybe our grandkids will attend a University campus in Milton.

quote="Joan"]I'm waiting for Zeeshan Hamid to respond to his post of March 1st where he said he would clarify C1 and C4 of Schedule D Veldrome Financial Sustainability Strategy which is part of the Town's plan to cover the $2.5M donation from Laurier which we now know is not going to be donated ...
I thought we were told that Laurier's donation was conditional on provincial approval of the Milton University campus which has not happened.
Are you saying that the 2.5M is promised unconditionally? If so, that would be good news. Please clarify.[/quote][/quote][/quote]


Hello Richard:
It would appear as if the 2.5M ,which would have been the part of the monies raised through private donation, coming from Laurier is not going to be donated. The 2.5M has to be replaced by some other means. The town has produced a contingency plan which Council approved on January 30th 2012. Two methods of replacing this money is C1 and C4 of Schedule D Velodrome Financial Sustainability Strategy, and I'm trying to get clarification about these because it would appear, and I am not saying this with certainty, that this is Town money. That's why I was asking Zeeshan or any other councillor to explain C1 and C4.

You know something rest of us don't then. How do you know it's not going to happen?
That said, the goal is to only put in $3.8 million of development charges money out of our share. We're getting 5 acres of land for free for the velodrome / road access as well as 50% of the cost of road construction. That's what C1 and C4 are. They'll keep our share fixed at $3.8 million of development charges money even if the Laurier donation is delayed.

Hello Zeeshan:
Perhaps I'm misinformed about the $2.5M which was part of the private donations to be made toward building the Velodrome. It was my understanding, perhaps I am wrong, that it wasn't going to be donated, and this was the reason for Schedule D Velodrome Financial Sustainability Strategy. Why is there a contingency plan to cover the 2.5M if Laurier is going to make the donation? I'm sure you have more information than the public. Is Laurier going to make this private donation of $2.5M?

I'm not sure I understand how the Town is getting 5 acres for free, since I thought the Town donated this land to the educational village.
How is C1 and C4 connected to the free land?

Interesting to see this discussion continue and still neither real consensus nor all the facts to be certain. Also disappointing to see so many ripping into others because of opinion – such is the state of our social network?

Dear councillors, the facts many are asking. Checking the Town's Velodrome web page doesn't offer any updates or clues as to where things REALLY are since this thread started over 2 months ago. This tells me something, nothing......... Spending is mounting and council will be considering approving an MOU at the end of the month to further solidify our path? How the heck did we even get on this path…………

All in all and this is something I noted many many pages ago, support for this velodoom initiative will further delay, if not displace as one editorialist has suggested, real funding for real needs such as our hospital. To me that is a fact………

Zeeshan wrote: The goal is to only put in $3.8 million of development charges money out of our share. We're getting 5 acres of land for free for the velodrome / road access as well as 50% of the cost of road construction. That's what C1 and C4 are. They'll keep our share fixed at $3.8 million of development charges money even if the Laurier donation is delayed.

Hello Zeeshan:
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying about C1 and C4. Could you please provide more information. How is the Town getting 5 acres for free, since I thought the Town donated this land to the educational village. Is the Town getting this land back and the value is $2.5M. If so, is the Town going to cover the 2.5M for Laurier, as payment for the land. This would make the Town share 6.3M The original costing for the Velodrome showed 2.5M coming from Laurier, which was part of the private donations. How is C1 and C4 connected to the free land?

Thanks for your assistance in trying to understand the financing here.

Joan - given all the concerns you have about the velodrome and its financing, don't you think you'd be better off just trying to meet with Zeeshan or whoever face to face to sort it out once and for all? That's gotta be more efficient than this spread out back and forth through this thread.

???? You're kidding, right?

Joan is calling out legitimate questions in this thread. Her point is that some councilors are glossing over, if not playing fast and loose with, certain facts (e.g., implying that the $2.5M Laurier's *conditional* pledge is a some kind of certainty, when in fact it is not). What is the point of her meeting in private to rehash the same double talk?

Joan is asking for public officials to take a clear and unequivocal public stand, to which they can therefore be held to account come next election. Do you honestly not get that?

Are you Joan? Can you read her mind? Joan is asking questions and it is a reasonable inference that she wants answers. That's the inference I drew. If Joan wants answers then this is a pretty poor way to try to get them. Half of everything in this thread is people asking for clarification about what other people either asked or answered. If you think this is a better way to explain a position or question a position than talking face to face, then we will have to disagree. In any event that was my civil non-sarcastic suggestion to Joan for her to take or leave as she pleases.

Now you, on the other hand, have suggested that this is all about calling people out to get them on the record. And you've asked rather impolitely if I honestly get that. Well get this, if you think the Hawthorne villager is like question period and you are all opposition politicians, well then I think you have an overinflated view of what this forum is. You want someone on the record? They are on the record, at every meeting and every hearing. Why don't you go get them on the real record there, again, face to face where we can have actual exchanges instead of these spaced out comments and responses which are just way too painful for anyone except diehard wannabe politicians to follow?

This forum is fine for our reps to answer questions that residents have but for this type of debate - well, you should re-read this whole thread and if you think it has been a success at calling anyone out on the record - well, more power to you, you should keep it up I guess.

No, it has not been a success at getting facts explained clearly on the record. That's rather my point.

That said, apologies for the sarcastic tone of my previous post. I'm just a little (okay a lot) cranky today after spending half last night on the tarmac while our plane couldn't get a gate, and then finally deplaning to wait another hour for luggage. Long night, next to no sleep ... didn't mean to take it out on you personally.