What exactly were you expecting, Peter?

This is how this works. You want to save money, some things have to be sacrificed.

Just maybe KPMG should of looked at the so called community energy system, winter games, 18th ave building. These are the kinds of project that drive up the tax rate and overall city debt.
Everytime the provincial gov’t or feds hang out a carrot PG can’t grab it fast enough even if the project makes absolutely no sense or has any economic benefit.
We did not need to spend $375,000.00 for someone to tell us to raise user fees and quit clearing driveways.

Peter, if you actually READ the document you will discover that the majority of these suggestions came from the PUBLIC!!

Were you at the public meetings……oh….i didn’t think so!

Your only mission here is to light your hair on fire and make scene. You offer no help to this situation or the people in Prince George.

Stick to your lounge chair in mexico and leave the taxpayers in Prince George alone. We have had enough and WE voted for this core review!

One question: If those public city owned facilities are so profitable that private interests would consider buying them and making a profit with them running them – why are they such a burden to us taxpayers in the form of ever rising taxes for everybody and ever rising user fees for those who actually use them?

What say you, Peter?

I think everyone would agree that the status quo is not an option, something has to give. There either has to be a dramatic rise in taxes, a drastic cut in services or some of the biggest money losers sold off to stop the bleeding,or a combination of them.

Studies have shown that the people least affected by the economic downturn of the last decade are those employed by cities. Those chickens are now coming home to roost(to keep the foul theme going.) One in every three people employed by the city makes over $75,000 a year(220 of 683.) Add in benefits and that number will approach 100k.

To prevent some of these jobs being privatized the unions may have to give up such things as the no lay-off clause in their contracts. If that cannot be done then some downsizing should take place so the remaining people can be kept gainfully employed during slow times and part time, casual or contract workers brought in when work load increases.

The bloat is not just in the rank and file, management must also be looked at, duplication and overlap eliminated with the increased efficiency meaning fewer people are required. The population of PG has declined while the number of civic has remained the same(or grown in the case of a personal assistant for the mayor:) I know that even with fewer people there are still the same number of streets to plow etc but at some point things have to be looked at and waste cut.

“other hotels, restaurants and businesses also involved in organizing meeting and convention events.” are now competing with the civic center and CN center for business. So I guess what Peter is saying is that a city run facility offers no real competition because of bloat and inefficiency:P

“This is how this works. You want to save money, some things have to be sacrificed.”

Sacrifice to save money?

In order to change something from A to B, any reasonable business person would first have to know whether the change will save money and exactly whose money will be saved.

As yet, there is no meat to this report. There is nothing visible yet that shows that KPMG has looked at the corporate structure of the City and its organization to tell anyone that the structure is sound, that the competence required to conduct a viable business to serve the citizens is present and observable by an independent party that is competent to make such an assessment and that removing a service from public to private management and accountability is in the best interest of the citizens of this community, the people that the City and the private corporations contacted to do so, serve.

When one reads the Mission Core review summary and the info to date from our own, there is a total divergence of approach, although the review is driven by the same objectives of effectiveness and efficiency.

“community energy system, winter games, 18th ave building”

After the AAP on the dyke got soundly rejected I think it will be a lot harder to sneak these kind of things in through the back door.

“One in every three people employed by the city makes over $75,000 a year(220 of 683.)”

Can I please get someone to tell me how that compares to an organization like a Canfor run pulp mill.

I do not need a comparison with an operation such as a Bay store or any other regional retailer that may have a turnover of say $50 million in sales because they are two different kinds of operations. I know what the results will be.

A City is not a retailer. A City is a high level service provider with complex processes and relatively high level decision making. One would normally require higher levels of compensation.

In my few, compensation is not a good indicator of a competent organization. The organizational structure, objectives, and achieving of those objective is the proper indicator whether the organization is private or public.

What I am seeing is that those who are setting the direction and even those who are the individuals doing the consulting, do not understand that or are not willing to tackle that problem.

“A City is a high level service provider with complex processes and relatively high level decision making”

You are half right gus, while this might be true for someone on the forth floor the same cannot be said of the person wielding a mop at the civic center unless you consider “Does the flap go under or over when I install this roll of toilet paper” a high level decision:)

The organization is a dichotomy if you will and the half that provides the services are compensated well above what they would receive in the private sector.

This idiot Peter Ewart is making O-250 look absolutely ridiculous. Time for the hook.

I agree the janitor (sorry for not using the PC word) gets a high rate of pay compared to the janitor who cleans offices at night dowtown.

However, it is likely comparable to the fellow who makes sure there is no dust left on the sawmill floor, machinery and high ledges.

So, as a City, what are our ethics? THAT is, in the end, what we all have to live with. Let the private sector do the dirty work. The public sector will take the cream of the jobs.

Once those potential low paying jobs are gone from our conscience, which ones will be next? Because there always will be a low paying and low skill level job, no matter how mnay of those are cut.

I can see the foreign workers coming to town right now. ;-)

Hey, rocky. Welcome on board! You’re just another clown like the rest of us. Just depends on the POV which type of clown each one of us is, doesn’t it?

So there you have it, the solution, lower the janitors pay.

In business (contrary to all three levels of government) downsizing and outsourcing (contracting out) has been going on for two decades and a half. That includes large employers of all kinds, including Canfor and such.

Downsizing is done by early retirement options and normal attrition. Employees are told that money losing businesses eventually go out of business. No jobs left after the gates close for good.

Employees are told that they are expected to carry a heavier workload when an employee leaves and is NOT replaced.

All three levels of government do not have to show a profit or worry that borrowing more money to add to deficits will eventually lead to undesirable consequences. In other words, they have been generally shielded from these realities while the private sector has been going through them out of necessity.

The introduction of politics (socialism vs. capitalism) into a review or examination of how a city can be run more efficiently now and more affordable in the long run is not helpful and a distraction from the real issue at hand, in my opinion.

I really don’t care who fixes potholes as long as they are fixed efficiently and promptly.

The difference is that in a sawmill if all the floors and ledges are clean the guy might have to go home unless there is other work he can do. If something breaks and causes a huge mess people are called in from the casual list.

In the city’s case manning is scaled to deal with a huge mess and when everything is done right down to the dusting the no lay off clause kicks in.

At least a year ago I quit reading the editorials from Ewart… This one I broke down and read because I am curious about this whole review process. Thanks for reaffirming my need to ignore the drivel.

The post by *Prince George* basically covers the issue of downsizing and manning, and I agree with it.

There are a number of other areas that have either been ignored, or were purposely left out.

1. The $300,000.00 per year the City pays to keep the Charles Jago Sports Centre running. This facility needs to be turned over to the University, or to some private organization as soon as possible. Problem is no one wants it. How long do we continue to pay for people to excercise? Does the City need to be in the excercise business.??

2. The CN Centre. We have through our agreement with the Couger franchise basically set up a system where we are subsidizing the franchise. We need to charge a rate for the use of this facility that generates revenue for the City, or kiss the Cougers goodbye. Does the City need to be in the business of subsidizing private business??

3. We need to quit borrowing money for capital projects, and we need to face the reality of our infrastructure deficit. If we continue to ignore these serious issues, cutting a few jobs a City Hall, and privatizing a few buildings will make little difference.

4. None of the money from the sale of City buildings or property should go into general revenue, or into the Citys land reserve fund. The City uses the sale of land and the reservce fund to allow them to move money around and support their favourite programs, such as the Performing Arts Centre, Purchase of property for the Wood Innovation Building, etc;etc;. This has to stop.

If the City is going to sell of property then all the income from the sales, including all the income from the sale of the Par 3 Golf Course, needs to be earmarked to go to infrastructure projects like, water, sewer, roads, garbage, etc;

The last thing you want to do, is allow the City free access to this money without any controls on how it will be spent.

I’d like to know what the business case is for these assets. How much money are they losing that requires us to axe them? If I recall correctly, the Civic Centre has a healthy business and operates near break even.

The Four Seasons Pools would be a shame to see close. This is the pool that I see a ton of children at, and a lot of lower income families. Why isn’t the aquatic centre up for discussion too? Would its uppie patrons kick up too much of a fuss?

Funny how I don’t see anyone defending the golf course. I’m not sure why we have a publicly owned golf course.

One in every three people employed by the city makes over $75,000 a year(220 of 683.) Add in benefits and that number will approach 100k.
===================================
This is pure bull. A tradesman at a pulp mill dosen’t make that kind of wage. The clerical staff make between $20.00 and $25.00 an hour. This dosent even come close to $75,000.00 per year. A heavy duty mechanic that works at the City shop on 18th Ave makes about the same as a pulp mill tradesman..

It must be that all those free loaders that subcontract to the City that want all these employees laid off and get the contracts to rip off the tax payer.

I read all of Peter Ewarts editorials and they are very informative..So if you’re a wheeler and dealer they probably would not interest those people. He makes a lot of sense to those of us in the middle class that work to provide us with our needs

And as Palopu tells us the areas that the spending needs to be controlled have not even been considered by this right wing group that is conducting this Core Review.
Cheers

Retired 02

Before you make a statement that something is pure bull why don’t you do a little research for once. These numbers were taken directly from the city website and are all city employees.

I am not going to post the link…you can’t always have the info handed to you on a silver platter, your browser must have a search bar…use it!

You are rght lonesom I didnt get my information from the City website I got it from the people that work for tne City. Get off your computer and check in the world of reality.
cheers

Good editorial Peter. Keep it coming
cheers

Every public institution in this province including towns, cities, colleges, universities, etc must post a list of all employees earning over 75k a year all freely available online. Yet you take the word of someone who happens to work for one of them as gospel, no wonder you are so well informed, gossip always prevails over facts.

Should the City go with this Core Review not only will they be paying union wages they will also provide a profit for the contractor which could be anywhere from 100% to 200% and often there are also kick backs involved.
Cheers

“The $300,000.00 per year the City pays to keep the Charles Jago Sports Centre running.”

I called the Centre a few years ago and saked them how much the monthly rate is for a senior homeowner who has been paying taxes here for close to 40 years. Senior ParticiPaction when it is too cold to walk outside on the slippery never properly sanded sidewalks!

Answer: There is no reduced rate for seniors, everybody pays the same (very costly) annual membership fee.

So, the Centre is of no use to me although I am indirectly already paying to support it.

If they wanted to sell it to some private outfit I couldn’t care less.

Well Peter you have prompted a lot of posts. lol. I wonder Gus if you have access to what senior and middle managers make at Canfor or other large companies? It would be interesting to compare.

I also wonder how many of their employees are paid to put themselves in danger to save lives and run into burning buildings? I seem to recall that firemen makes up a large portion of those listed by the city as making over $75,000.

I’d like to respond to Palopu.

The Jago Sports Centre – we wanted a university, and this is one of the thing’s universities have. If we hand it over to the university, and they eat the $300,000.00, then city residents will either pay higher fees, or not be allowed to use it at all. And, tuition fees will go up, and we’ll have students marching in the streets – tongue in cheek on that one. Unfortunately it’s a cost of having a university, and it was built, with the understanding the city would underwrite part of the inevitable losses.

The Cougars. The city sure got suckered on that one. Who knew the owner wouldn’t care if he made money or not. The problem with kicking them to the curb, is what little rent they are paying for the 36 nights they use the CN centre a year, is more than the cost of keeping it open those 36 nights and the practice days, so we go cash backwards booting the Cougars to the curb. Unless we can find someone else to take those 36 nights and practice days, we lose less money renting it to the Cougars, than not at all.

I agree with everything else you said.

One thing I’d like to add. We better be careful we don’t make our city unlivable. More seniors have been retiring here than in the past. We make it rough on them, and they may just pack up, take their pension income with them, and move somewhere nicer. We’ll still be here, with less dollars flowing into our community.

I think most people are just sick of the way the politicians waste money on trips to China, conventions, and other stuff, and they don’t believe the city is being run well.

I think if you could get the citizens to trust that the city is being run well – and apparently the Core Review never managed to answer that question, you probably could raise taxes to get things fixed. And, if you put major capital items to referendum, when we are having an election anyway, people wouldn’t mind pay taxes for something they had a say in – which BTW – we did have a referendum on the CN Centre, and we knew back then it would run at a cash loss, but agreed that the city needed such a facility for overall benefit of all citizens.

Finally, I don’t live in the city, I live in the regional district – though I pay taxes via my commercial rent I pay. That said, I don’t think those of us who live in the RD pay our fair share for city facilities, and there should be some discussion about us kicking in more. My taxes are about $700.00 a year, compared to my friends $1,800.00. I’d be hard pressed to object to say an extra $200.00 a year to go toward improving city infrastructure – if it went for that, and not a fact finding mission to Russia to see how the Olympics are run, in case we want to make a bid in 2052.

Peter for Prime Minister!

ski: “The Jago Sports Centre – we wanted a university, and this is one of the thing’s universities have. If we hand it over to the university, and they eat the $300,000.00, then city residents will either pay higher fees, or not be allowed to use it at all. And, tuition fees will go up, and we’ll have students marching in the streets – tongue in cheek on that one. Unfortunately it’s a cost of having a university, and it was built, with the understanding the city would underwrite part of the inevitable losses.”

I would love to see the link where it states that it was ‘understood’ that taxpayers would make up the losses. Was it an unspoken understanding or was it written down somewhere? I seem to recall the proponents of the sports centre throwing all kinds of figures around and even stating that the facility would not run at a deficit. Maybe someone can correct me on that one.

ski: “The Cougars. The city sure got suckered on that one. Who knew the owner wouldn’t care if he made money or not. The problem with kicking them to the curb, is what little rent they are paying for the 36 nights they use the CN centre a year, is more than the cost of keeping it open those 36 nights and the practice days, so we go cash backwards booting the Cougars to the curb. Unless we can find someone else to take those 36 nights and practice days, we lose less money renting it to the Cougars, than not at all.”

I don’t think it’s entirely true to say that Brodsky ‘doesn’t care’ whether he makes money or not. The issue is that he has a perpetually bad team, partially due to the management. This is all complicated of course by having your son in law as the GM. Rick Brodsky seems to be unwilling to relieve Dallas Thompson of his GM duties and bring someone in who can build a winner.

I do agree that the town is better with the Cougars than without.

I’m not great at posting links so if I screw up, sorry. http://www.civicinfo.bc.ca/practices_innovations/prince_george_sports_centre.pdf

Here’s the section of the document where the City agrees it’s on the hook for $300,000. So that’s my point that this loss was a known before it happened loss because it was felt this was good for us all.

Long Term Results/Sustainability
The City of Prince George and University of Northern BC have formed a
corporation (Northern Sport Centre Ltd.) which will operate the facility. The
annual operating budget is $1 million. The City of Prince George and UNBC will
each contribute $300,000 and the balance of annual operating funds will be
raised through user and event fees, and rent revenues.

psst

Canfor upper management 2011 total compensation including short and long term incentives and pension and other compensation

CEO Don Kayne 788k
CFO A Nichol 388k
SVP M Feldinger 608k
SVP Al Cook 566k
SVP M Calabrigo 613k

Yet you take the word of someone who happens to work for one of them as gospel, no wonder you are so well informed, gossip always prevails over facts.
——————————————
My source is much more reliable then your website. I got tne info from my friends that work for tne City and they dont bulshit me.

On the other hand I would question any information that tne City provides on their website. They would provide info tnat is benificial to them and that would be to get the taxpayer on side at bargaining time.

And anyone that thinks this core review is just what will fix the ills of our City just dosent have the abilikty to see what its all about and that is the Mayor rewarding those that contributed to the $80,000.00 to her get elected at all costs.

Cheers

I posted actual numbers….the 2011 city financial statement states 220 of 683 city employees earned at least $75,000.00.

Not gossip, whispers or rumour or innuendo, actual numbers from an audited financial statement. What are the numbers from the inside source that would never BS you and what firm did the audit on what he said?

I take it this was a forensic audit? You have been had lonesome and how much did youi contribute to th Mayors election fund?
Cheers

In other words you cannot come up with any proof that my statement that 220 of 863 city employees earn in excess of 75k is incorrect.

put up or……..

Is that $75k a base salary or does it include overtime and benefits?

Salary and overtime only, benefits are not factored in.

Any idea what % of those wages would be OT?? When you understaff your OT costs can be substantial. I know because my annual income is quite often up 20-40 % because of overtime because our company doesn’t have enough trained workers. But it looks good to the bean counters to have fewer people on the payroll.

Wow, lots of rancour in the blogosphere today.

Dear Gus (or should I call you yeahright lol)

I liked it better when you did a little research into your indignant declarations, cause this stuff you’re spewing today is pure tripe.

I think you’d best go back and spend some time reading the core review materials available on the City web site because a) you missed it, or b) didn’t understand it. You’re just making silly arguments now that smack of spite, because they don’t make sense when you look at all that’s laid out there.

I’ve worked at Canfor, and I can tell you that there probably isn’t anyone there who makes less than $75k and if there is the list will be mighty short. $75k isn’t a lot of money anymore. This isn’t the sixties anymore boys. When you have professional credentials, you can demand these sorts of wages here and lots more depending upon your area of expertise.

What you have to remember Gus is that the City is just pure expense, much like a commuter car. You can call it an investment, but that’s not what it is in reality. A municipality isn’t a corporation, don’t confuse the two — totally different ball game and arena. It has utility and can facilitate some very necessary things. If you want to spend less and get the same level of utility, you’re going to be hard pressed, but it will involve cutting; cutting down on the amount you drive, rationalizing your routes, cutting out frills like stereo systems and air conditioners, car pooling, slowing down, optimizing maintenance, cutting down on car washes, making due with a 3/4 ton, when what you really need is a 1 ton, etc. Get the idea? If you want your taxes to go down, it will require cutting. That is laid out in those documents, the ranges of savings potential has been framed, comparisons to other similar organizations is there, etc… Do a little more homework before you spout off lest someone dismiss you as just an angry irrational old man…

As a side note, I did enjoy the part where you characterized yourself as a clown. At least that shows you a bit of self awareness.

Lonesome, those compensation figures you posted for Canfor executives are interesting, but that’s about all they are.

A business can pay its executives whatever it wants to, no taxpayers’ money is at stake.

When it comes to compensation for the government sector all the money comes from taxpayers.

That is why taxpayers have the right to hold them accountable for the way they behave.

Well lonsome your still blowing smoke. So my friends that told me what their wages were workuing for the City were just leading me on. Being an hourly paid employee during all the years that I worked let me show you that my information does not need an adudit

Tne average work week for all hourly paid emplyees is 37 hours at the City so the year has 52 weeks 37X52=1924 hour work per year. Now lets devide 75000/1924=$38.98 per hour. That would probably be the hourly rate for a tradesman.
Cheers

Who told you (Retired 02) the average work week for all hourly city workers is 37 hours a week ? I just called a city employee and I was told that is not true.

Geez louise, no tradesman at the City makes $38.98/hour.

If you guys just took some time to look, you’ll find this information it’s public after all.

Here is a link to the CUPE works’ pay rates
http://icsp.princegeorge.ca/ICSP%20Documents/CUPE%20Local%20399%20Schedule%20A%20Employee%20Classification%20and%20Wage%20Schedule.pdf

http://icsp.princegeorge.ca/ICSP%20Documents/Schedule%20B.pdf

Check it out for yourself.//

I think some of the old guys on this site that were living above average for 40k per year need to realize the 75k per year is pretty middle of the road now…

Yeh it is a little grumpy here today but I just get a little PO’d when someone calls out what I posted saying it is pure bull despite the fact I gave a legitimate source.

“My friends” is in no way shape or form a valid source of information, and your fuzzy math does nothing to disprove my original statement.

But I guess when a person posts something like this little nugget it shows how shallow the well of knowledge is when discussing money matters.

“a profit for the contractor which could be anywhere from 100% to 200% and often there are also kick backs involved.”

Prince George

I posted the Canfor salaries only because of a request by psst and happened to have this year’s proxy filing close at hand.

Lonesome,

thanks for posting them! Successful businesses reward their top people handsomely, and that’s alright. Successful levels of government should also be paid well. Those who mismanage are shown the highway in private business, Managers in government who mismanage should be following them down the road! Anybody can run something and pile up the debt and deficits! That must stop! Look at Greece – a basket case of decades of unsustainable government spending on entitlements for government employees plus the failure to collect taxes to pay for it.

It seems some people do not know, or have forgotten how the Northern Sports Centre came about.

The Centre was the result of the Provincial Government giving the City $25 Million dollars in funding to promote the Vancouver Olympics. The idea was to come up with a project that was sport related.

After much fussing, and fawning, and consternation the City and some private people came up with the idea of the Northern Sports Centre.

A committee was struck to see what the costs would be for this facility, and the committee (supposedly) did an indepth analysis of other facilities in Ontario, Quebec, etc; and came up with the following.

The project would cost $900,000.00 per year to operate, and it would generate approx $900,000.00 per year, so there would be no additional costs to taxpayers. It would provide indoor facilities that would be a huge benefit to the citizens of Prince George, and to the University.

How did they arrive at the income of $900,000.00.

1. All students would be required to join the centre when they enrolled.

2. All staff and faculty would become members.

3. There would be funds generated by renting out space etc;

4. The private partner would also make a contribution to revenues.

What happened.

1. The students said shove it. Joining the centre will be voluntary, not mandatory.

2. The staff and faculty said shove it. You cant force us to join a facility against out will.

3. They do lease out some space, and generate a little revenue

4. They could not find a Private Partner that would touch this white elephant with a ten foot pole.

So, the end result was they could not generate enough money to cover the cost of staff let alone all the other costs.

The City then decided to form the Northern Sports Centre Ltd. This company has three shareholders. 1.The City of Prince George, 2. UNBC 3. Northern Sports.

The City and UNBC each fund the centre to the tune of $300,000.00 per year, for a total of $600,000.00 and the centre generates something like $450,000.00 per year, and thats where it stands to-day.

At the time Mayor Colin Kinsley referred to the funding arrangement as **Creative Accounting**

In fact it is a huge drain on UNBC,and on the City. My understanding is that the agreement is to be in force for 30 years. If so the cost to the City would be $6 Million dollars. Same for UNBC.

We would have been far better off to have just built new basketball courts, etc; at the University rather than create this monster.

They have now come up with some new way of getting the students to join. I suspect it would be a minimal cost. This then allows them to state that they had an increase in membership of 1900 this year, which of course is bogus. Their real membership (those who pay full price) runs around 450.

Basil Fawlty was once told to not mention the war to some German tourists. In this scenario some one should tell Mr. Ewert to not mention our $111 million dollar city debt. Maybe someone did.

lonesome sparrow wrote “One in every three people employed by the city makes over $75,000 a year(220 of 683.)”
It actually says 220 of 903. The remaining 683 make equal to or less than $75,000

I am not against the City contracting out, nor am I against the City divesting itself of some of the assets it has which will be better managed or eventually disposed of by someone else.

What I am against is that such moves will likely be made without a full examination of the business as well as the social case before such a move is made. There are plenty of cases where some of these types of “solutions” have not worked and the private contractor has not been able to keep his part of the bargain and the City has had to use the “escape” clause and repatriated the operation.

We have to remember, that there is a cost to downsizing, in such a case, and there is a cost to starting up again. Not only this City, but many other organizations do not consider such costs and attribute them to that “project”. I see v very little cost accounting based on projects going on, so such costs are rarely accounted for.

One thing is for sure; the more functional and maintenance items are contracted out, the higher the average salary at City Hall will become and the larger the percentage of people at City Hall who will have salaries in excess of $75,000 or whatever the magic figure will be. There are many firms that specialize in contract administration. In fact, that is essentially what firms such as engineers and architects are, project management and administering the typically multimillion dollar contracts associated with those. For the City to deal with the modern project management firms whose lead people make a $75,000 annual salary look like chicken feed, they will need to have highly qualified people working for them if they are going to keep some semblance of understanding and control over what they are getting themselves into.

“It seems some people do not know, or have forgotten how the Northern Sports Centre came about.”

The one “little” matter that you forgot to mention, Palopu, is that the Centre was supposed to be operated as a full P3 project – Design, Build, Finance and Operate. That is the ultimate level of a Private, Public, Partnership project in governments’ eyes.

It was a project that was initially handled by PartnershipBC, likely it was because it was provincial money and PartnershipBC handling it was possible a condition of receiving the money. In my opinion, ParternshipBC is not geared to handle projects as small as that.

However, the project information is still available on their web site. Read it for content, because it gives a good summary of the process and organizations involved.

http://www.partnershipsbc.ca/pdf/VFM_Charles-Jago.pdf

There are a number of procurement models to consider when evaluating which model will have the potential to deliver best value for money. Value for money is defined as meeting or exceeding project objectives for the best cost. One of the most important determinants of value for money is the ability to transfer project risks, such as construction schedule and budget, to the party best able to manage those risks.

Three possible procurement options include:

• Traditional delivery – this option involves separate procurements for the design phase and the build phase in a linear process, often called Design-Bid-Build (DBB).

• Design-Build (DB) – this option involves developing one procurement process for both the design and build portion of the project.

• Design-Build-Finance-Operate (DBFO) – this option involves one overall procurement process for the design, building, operation and financing of the project.

Initially, the procurement process selected for this project was the DBFO model. A market sounding process was undertaken to ask market participants their views and assess responsiveness towards a flexible approach to consider different options for the project. As the procurement process unfolded, it was determined that a DB model was more appropriate for this particular project.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

There are a number of features unique to this project that supports the DB model versus the DBFO model. For example, the Centre will operate as an elite, Nordic sports training centre and it would have been difficult to find experienced operators due to the unique nature of the facility. In addition, the market sounding process suggested that although the DBFO model was favoured, the potential for additional revenue sources from programming opportunities at the Centre was considered a risk and therefore less attractive from an operator’s perspective.

Here is what it states in the detailed portion of the report about the revenue projections:

The revenue risk was significant and it was not clear what the additional programming opportunities and sources of revenue might be.

• The scope of the project would have been difficult to define during the procurement process, particularly with regards to programming and revenue responsibilities, and the technical specifications. This would pose difficulties in
defining performance specifications in an RFP format.

• There was a significant need for input from stakeholders during the project scoping and development of proposals for the project. Again, this would pose challenges for the RFP approach.

• The City and UNBC were willing to accept two thirds of the programming risk and wished to transfer one-third to the private sector operator. The response from the market indicated that although it was feasible to transfer that risk, it would be a challenge.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

So, some good work at the early stages, as I see it. Two publics, UNBC plus the City, were willing to take a third of the risk each, but they could not find a private partner to share that same risk.

Right here we see the difference in the purpose of Private versus Public. Private, unless there is a benefactor involved, is totally focused on finances; “show me the money”. A public purpose is focused on the social needs and wants and the social costs and benefits as well as the financial costs to the community. Private is focused on the needs of the company. Public is focused on the needs of the community.

Where the challenges come into play is that while the private enterprise is typically quite a simple entity able to come to quick consensus on what to do, the public enterprise is a very complex entity where consensus is very difficult to achieve and there will more often than not be significant numbers of people who will not agree to the actions taken.

And thus, we have Opinion 250 …. ;-)