Just a bit south from here one can find an example of respect for tax paying citizens and democracy! Amazing!

Sure glad it was turned down, cause the city doesn’t even have enough cash on hand to do much of anything. Like snow removal for the 2013/2014 winter season ahead.

…borrow up to $15 million…? Sure wish I had their credit rating. Like the old Romans, eh? Give them bread (welfare) and circuses (sports) to keep the peons from getting upset and revolting.

Whoever thought to put a 5 year timeline on the borrowing was short a few screws.

However, the fundamental reason this was defeated is

1. They raised the local borrowing bar far too high for such a project. That should have been set at around $7.5 million instead of $15 million

2. They should have made a provincial and federal fund raising goal of $7.5 million each.

3. The remaining $7.5 million should have been raised from local citizens and corporations.

4. They let the project die over time by not having a proper fundraising campaign and even a good understanding of how much it costs for a multi-centre like that over time.

Finally, the project cost of $30 million was a 2008 figure. It would have been more like $40 million by now. Just look at the cost of the KIN I replacement with only 1,000 seats. There goes more than half the multi-centre dream budget.

So, whether one is for or against the project really does not matter to me.

For me, what I am seeing is that we have another situation where the people in charge really do not know what they are doing.

In fact, I would love to see the commitment that has been made over the past 5 years just to see how well they did. I would also like to see someone’s knowledgeable estimate of what it would cost to build if tendered in 2013.

An interesting hypothetical question would be “what would happen if, due to mill closure(s) an effort would be made by the feds and the province to pump some money into the community and they would help by replacing 60 or so year old arenas (which are costing a lot to maintain and operate) with an infrastructure replacement grant for $25 million combined.

The City would then look at something like $10 million instead of $15 million and find another $5 million from regional sources.

A different referendum question.

BUT, the problem is that last stupid part of the question: “to allow fund raising efforts to continue”.

Is the project dead? Of course not! That is the problem with such a referendum. It was far too specific.

Technically speaking they should not even be spending any time or effort on fundraising. So, the reality is that they have two existing arenas that are falling apart.

Now we will have a battle on, between those who think that the project is dead, and those who think the way it was proposed to come together is dead.

“Are you in favour of …extending its authorization to borrow…for a further two year period, to allow fund raising efforts to continue”.”

Well, that is plain enough. If they have raised some funds already they will either hang on to those or return them. Further fund raising efforts have been voted against so the pot stays too empty to go ahead with the project, i.e. for now no construction of a new arena, theatre and multipurpose event space.

It’s not that hard to figure out, leaving out all the guessing, surmising and fuzzification.

I agree. It is not hard to figure out.

What was voted down is the extension of the approval to borrow $15 million for a project consisting of a new arena, theatre and multipurpose event space, and to allow the fund raising efforts to continue.

The original approval had an expiration of December 31, 2013 on it.

They could actually still borrow that money under the original referendum. The current one did not undo the original one. That was not part of the current referendum. That borrowed money as well as any other money which was given, could go into a dedicated account for the building of the centre.

Barring that, they could do what they should have done from the beginning, design the complex, build the arenas with funding from all three levels government on an equal share, plus some corporate and private donations.

Remember, as soon as there is ink on a contract or understanding, it can be changed …… ;-)

It is VERY difficult to raise funds with a wishy washy referendum wording such as the first one.

They had the approval of the population. THAT is the key thing the feds and the province are looking for.

Then they are looking for financial commitment by the city, a plan that has a reasonable amount of certainty attached as to the sustainability, addressing todays “green” fad and marketability the project from the point of view of recreation more than culture ….. keeping people healthy (never mind the number of suspected concussions hockey players have to go to the hospital for) fit and keeping youngsters busy.

The City made no real effort to talk to their MP and their MLA over time as far as I can tell.

http://www.quesnel.ca/multi-centre.html

How is it possible that a referendum such as this one can actually be conducted between municipal elections? One would think that it is far too expensive? At least that is the excuse usually made here.

We have an alternate approval mechanism here where people have to inform themselves about the issue whereas there in Quesnel the approval was sought in many different ways, including mail-in ballots.

Why do WE have to wait for the next municipal elections to have a say (referendum) in vital matters, one in particular which is a very urgent health matter for many thousands of citizens?

Referendums cost money. It sounds like the Quesnel one was a white wash anyway.

Thank you for educating me with the wise explanation that referenda cost money!

Democracy is of secondary importance with some people who like Rover obey all orders from the masters.

I am impressed with Quesnel’s web site. Have not been to that for some time, obviously. Simple, straightforward to get around in, pleasing to the eye, and very informative!!

We have something to learn from that. We should see if they are willing to make us their Sister City.

Just look at all the buildings they have in their heritage registry.

Our Mayor lives in a building that badly needs to go on our so-called heritage registry. Do you think she would move off her behind to do such a thing as a leader to promote putting buildings on the registry?

Of course not!!! She prefers spending her time in China!!

http://www.quesnel.ca/Heritage.html

Correction …. I meant operates a business in a building that should be on the heritage registry …..

PG: “Democracy is of secondary importance with some people who like Rover obey all orders from the masters. “

Someone must’ve done something in your cornflakes this morning. Sorry about that.

JB wrote: “Referendums cost money”

Running a City costs money.

Remaining transparent as a City Council and Administration costs money.

Getting people involved in the decision making process costs money.

For private and corporate citizens to donate to public projects costs money over and above to the money they already provide to the City through taxes.

I find that very strange. I would have thought by now someone would have figured out how to do it for nothing.

A Lheidli T’enneh Band councillor is rallying for support.

Seeking supporters for Performing Arts Centre for Prince George
We need to fill the chambers at City Hall on Monday November 18th at 6:00!

The Prince George Regional Performing Arts Centre Society will be making a presentation to City Council and we need a show of support from our community. There will be a short presentation and a motion by the PAC Executive asking for city council to take action in support of a downtown Performing Arts Centre for Prince George.

We will be asking council:

“To declare that The Prince George Regional Performing Arts Centre as the city’s priority capital (large) project and to instruct city administration staff to refine the project’s budget and establish a timeline towards construction.”

The preliminary work and studies have been completed by the society on behalf of the city and its time for the city to begin their work.

Thank you and we look forward to seeing you on the 18th

Please reply to Lisa: lredpath@studio2880.com and tell us you’re coming. We need to fill 100 seats!

From the Quesnel 2012/2013 Strategic Plan come the following words

Objective
North Cariboo Multi‐Centre. 

Actions
1. Secure final funding required through fundraising and grant programs for the project to proceed.

2. Update the Request For Qualifications and Request For Proposals documents as necessary.

3. Issue the RFQ, short list the proponents to participate in the RFP, and issue the RFP.
======================================

I think they missed something …… they did not keep a close look at the state of the economic status of the industry that Quesnel still relies on and the impact the MPB has on the livability of a community so closely linked to that little bug.

Next steps?

“To declare that The Prince George Regional Performing Arts Centre as the city’s priority capital (large) project and to instruct city administration staff to refine the project’s budget and establish a timeline towards construction.”

I think they are missing a step. Hint …. look at Quesnel and what they missed in their strategic plan process.

BTW, where is PG’s Strategic Plan? I have not gone to the City site yet to find it.

PG’s Strategic Plan

http://www.princegeorge.ca/cityhall/committees/governanceselect/Reports/councilvision.pdf

How can an outside agency make a motion at City Council?

They could make a request or recommendation to Council to make a motion.

Performing Arts Center

Act III – Moving Forward

http://www.princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/councilagendasminutes/Agendas/2012/2012_06_25/documents/Rpt_Performing_Arts_Cntr_Report.pdf

Gus. When a Municipality gets the approval to borrow money for a project, they have (5) Five years to borrow the money and start the project.

If they do not borrow the money, then the borrowing initiative is DEAD and they have to start over.

I assume that their five years have run out and not getting the extension means that they are now DEAD in the water.

Performing Arts Center

In their report IPG concludes:

 Economic activity generated:
Pre-operation (construction) phase: $62,438,211
Operation (annual, ongoing) phase: $5,714,633
 Employment supported by this economic activity:
Pre-operation (construction) phase: 421
Operation (annual, ongoing) phase: 80.6

The site analysis contained in the Dialog Report is mentioned in this report and the appendices list; however, as the content remains in-camera with City Council, it is not included as an attachment at this time.

IPG Strategic Planning

http://www.princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/councilagendasminutes/Agendas/2013/2013_03_18/documents/Rpt_IPG_Strategic_Planning.pdf

HappyInMyWorld. Glad to see your happy.

You should know by now that the PGRPAC does not have the support of the majority of people in Prince George. However lack of support doesn’t seem to stop your **approx. 600** members. I would suggest to you that when it comes to active members you have less than 100.

If my understanding is correct your group is willing to do the following in order to get your PAC.

1. Tear down the Playhouse Theatre, and sell off the property.

2. Move performances that presently use Vanway hall to the PAC, even if this causes a reduction in revenue to the school.

3. Take approx. $15 million dollars in taxpayers dollars as the Cities share of this proposal and spend it on the PAC, even though we could use this money for road repair, infrastructure, or to eliminate the need to bring in a storm water utility. Even though this money could be used to try and keep down tax increases.

4. Saddle the City with an operating and maintenance deficit of $450,000.00 per year, when this money could be used for more important things like roads, sewer/water/garbage/tax reductions. The $450,000.00 is approx. what the City of Nanaimo pays to operate the Port Theatre.

6. Saddle the taxpayers of Prince George with another tax increase to cover the operating costs of this Monolith for years into the future.

Anyone who wants to perform in Prince George can do so presently at Vanway, or the Playhouse. Big shows of course could go the the CN Centre. Those who cannot perform here because of facility limitations can perform somewhere else, and those who wish to see the performance can go to Vancouver, Calgary, or Edmonton, and save us a pile of money.

The PAC proposal is more of a charade than a project, and only meets the needs, of your very limited group, some small group of performers, and of course the business groups who benefit from the construction, etc

If you have any faith in the acceptance of your project by the taxpayers of Prince George, then your presentation to Council should ask that this proposal go to a referendum. This could be done next year at election time with very little additional cost to the City.

Once you have approval through a referendum, then all systems are go. Trying to put this project through making vague references to some supposed understanding in the late 90’s just does not cut it. In fact it is being less than honest with the people of Prince George.

Have a nice day.

“I assume that their five years have run out and not getting the extension means that they are now DEAD in the water.”

It does not run out for another month.

HappyInMyWorld, you linked to a 2009 Strategic plan which covers 2010 and 2011 objectives. Kind of ancient history by now, but very telling how well our City Councils works.

Here is what it says in the case of PAC

——————————–
Regional Performing Arts Centre

Council initiated a feasibility assessment concerning a performing arts centre in 2007, which was conducted by the Prince George Regional Performing Arts Centre Society.

The assessment concluded that there is a basis for the creation of a performing arts centre in the downtown.

The Regional Performing Arts Centre project is consistent with the City downtown revitalization goals and with Smart Growth on the Ground recommendations.

The Performing Arts Centre project has potential to support downtown revitalization, cultural tourism opportunities, mixed use developments that centralize arts to become a community gathering place, and to create new educational opportunities in the downtown.

Progress Targets:

In 2010:
• A preferred location will be selected.
(Done, but likely also ancient history by now, but we do not know because, unlike Kamloops who is working on a similar project this is being kept under wraps by PG)

In 2011 or sooner:
• A concept design will be complete. (Done, but ancient history)
• Potential funding sources will be identified and evaluated. (sort of done, but ancient history)
• A proposed operational model and operating budget will be established.(Done but poorly, in my opinion)
• The priority and timing for the proposed project will be determined. (Not done. That is what the current PAC Board is expecting to extract from Council. I wish them luck!)

Papalou …I am happy… I’m not sure I support the PAC

Just sharing some info I read
Here is more

Closed meeting March 18/13

http://www.princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/councilagendasminutes/minutes/2013/2013_03_18_4pm.pdf

March 18/13

http://www.princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/councilagendasminutes/agendas/2013/2013_03_18/index.html

Item F4

Initiatives Prince George Governance Policy and Articles of Incorporation

http://www.princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/councilagendasminutes/agendas/2013/2013_03_18/documents/Rpt_IPG_MERGED.pdf

:)

HappyInMyWorld, IPG does not have the capacity to determine what economic activity is generated in PG versus the whole province.

There are no models for economic impact of a construction project which gets built in PG.

For example, on a typical commercial/institutional construction project the general contractor is likely to be from outside PG, along with some of the major subtrades and specialty trades workers. They will generate temporary space and travel costs.

Materials such as steel, specialty wood, gypsum board, flooring, paint, ceramics, ceilings, glass, roofing, doors, fittings such as cabinets, plumbing fixtures, etc. (in fact most finishing materials) will be shipped in from somewhere else in the province, Canada and even other countries.
The local construction economic impact, in my knowledgeable opinion, is less than half for major buildings.

In the USA, there are much better models to determine economic impact by economic regions.

BC is divided into economic regions, but there are no models to do any finer analysis than provincial. It is one of the projects organizations such as IPG should be working on. It is not all that difficult. One only needs people knowledgeable in the industry involved.

The problem is, it is better to work in ignorance because they can present us with this BS.

When it comes to annual operation the figure of $5,714,633 (it is amazing how accurate they can this isn’t it?????!!!!!)

That does not take into account that some of that is already happening through the Playhouse, the dance schools, the PGSO, and CN Centre. There is also some leakage to communities outside of PG. However, operations will eventually eclipse the figure for the local construction economic impact. In fact, if well run, the facility can export some of it expertise.

The employment projection of 80.6 total annual FTE has to be looked at in the same way as the above. Some of those people are already working in the arts and in support of the arts.

The key figure to get is the ADDITIONAL increment for both economics and jobs. That is not shown. It is a spin!!

Papalou..I have now read your post..I couldn’t agree with you more on most of what you wrote
You speak of Vanway…but you really mean Vanier Hall right?

Thought I’d throw some spark in the fire..for when the girls get back from China ;) lol

Here is the PG Council priority report for 2012-2014

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fprincegeorge.ca%2Fcityhall%2FStrategicFramework%2FStrategicPlan%2FDocuments%2F2012_2014_Council_Priorities.pdf&ei=JpGAUu2VIOaoyAHEnYC4BQ&usg=AFQjCNFQ0_WyzoypGQhEKoewDPgC1YCoDA&sig2=ThuQoEHaOVr9DXzEQxWaIw&bvm=bv.56146854,d.aWc

from that report:

Council’s 2012 – 2014 KEY PRIORITIES focus on sustainable fiscal management, organizational excellence, sustainable infrastructure, effective governance, diversified and vibrant economy, international connections, and civic pride.

IN ADDITION to its 2012 – 2014 priorities, Council continues to support
1. completion of the new RCMP facility,
2. the Official Community Plan update,
3. implementation of the Downtown Partnership work plan,
4. a Regional Performing Arts Centre,
5. flood mitigation works funded through provincial and federal partnerships,
6. implementation of the Prince George Air Quality Management Plan Phase III goals,
7. the Regional District of Fraser-Fort George Solid Waste Reduction Strategy, and
8. the development of a Neighbourhood Strategy
——————————

So, the PAC Society is reminding Council of its words ……..

If the PAC has done its work, that part of the evening could be over quickly.

A week will tell …..

Here is link to details of a $1million contribution from West Fraser to the Quesnel MultiCentre.

http://www.quesnel.ca/DocumentBank/Multi-Centre/releases/2012/2012.11.14_WFraser_announcement.pdf

The 2012 financial statement of the City showed a $4,065,771 line items under Payables for MultiCentre grant payable to the Cariboo Regional District.

One has to give it to the City, they have come much further than the City of PG has come.

Mind you, we have the Kin I rebuild and associated renovations. BUT, have there been fundraising events for that? I do not recall seeing a million dollars from Canfor.

HappyInMyworld. Yes I meant Vanier Hall.

Gus. Good info. Canfor has already shut down many mills in the PG area, so perhaps they are not in need of anymore goodwill for awhile.

On the other hand they have made many, many, contributions in Prince George over the years, Especially the Bentley Family to UNBC

Have a nice day.