At this time with our financial state there are NO pros about having the PAC. Kind of like putting brand new tires on a car you are about to demolish.

If the city was run waaaaaaay better and we had lots of money in the coffers then sure, take a good hard look at it, but until we have our books in order keep it as a possibility.

It’s a luxury item, if we all ran our personal finances the way city does we would all be up to our ears in debt, living on the street with no food or clothes.

Here is a interesting thought, hold a referendum and actually let the voting public decide for a change.

And whom bought those city lands Mr. Koehler? Those lands should be sold all right and the money reinvested in infrastructures. What kind of shows are we going to attract with 800 seats? Or is this just another wet dream for 600 PAC Society members and their wannabe professionals? Well I’m sorry to say that the rest of the city “The Many” out weigh the needs of “The Few”!

much as I have made anti PAC comments I would like to clarify …
1)I do think a PAC would be nice to have.
2) I don’t think this is the time when those funds could go to areas they are so much more needed…ie sewers and infrastructure the city has been claiming for years need repair or replacement and so far they remain the same as 20 years ago.
3) the performing arts at this time are not fully utilizing the facilities they have available.
4) I don’t think the public should have to fund this… maybe if the PAC came up with some serious money on their own the city could help with a low cost loan to help finish the project.
5) the PAC organization should have to maintain and upkeep the PAC once built but from what I read they are going to sluff it all off onto the city and my taxes.

sorry much as I am more than prepared to pay the ticket to go see a performance (and if it needs to be a higher cost to pay costs) , I am prepared to make that choice and either go or not…I don’t expect the rest of PG to help me pay for it.

and first and foremost I think this needs to be put forwad in a referendum to find out exactly what the people want not just what the few want. So far we are only hearing from a precious few not the masses.

I don’t think this should be settled in city councl chambers as people, myself included, are basically lazy and won’t make it there….something the city has counted on before in their reverse referendums.

“I personally would support it, although a referendum is not the best method as long as financing can be arranged without a burden to the tax payer (sic), and there are solutions for it….”

And please tell us how this thing will never be a burden to the taxpayer? Not only are the demanding millions from the taxpayer to build the damn thing they want another $350,000 a year from us to run the damn thing!

If they can raise 10.63 million dollars through sponsorship and donations then 10.63 million dollars should be their budget. They can buy the land and build their PAC with their 10.63 million dollars and they can run the damn thing with the profits they make. If they’re not making a profit then they’ll have to shut the damn thing down!

It’s time to stop spending our money on special interest groups!

When spoiled people want something they can juggle the books to get it and justify it . Peter has been robbed way too many times in this town, it is time for paul to pay him back.

“The remaining one-quarter of the total cost, The remaining one-quarter of the total cost, $10.63 million, would come through sponsorship and donations.”

The whole thing suffers from misplaced priorities, in my opinion. First of all the PAC society should get busy and raise the $10.63 million through sponsorship and donations.

Then, the remaining three quarters may come from the three levels of governments through grants (taxpayers’ money of course).

If they fail to raise the first one-quarter within a certain time period the project is dead and the money will be returned to the donors.

They cut back snow removal to save money. They want to tax us for “storm water” because of an aging infrastructure. The roads are in brutal condition as usual.

Money should be put where it’s needed, not where it’s wanted.

If they go ahead without a referendum on this PAC, I think it just shows how out of touch the mayor and council is in regards to what its citizens want.

10 million plus interest at 4% takes 700,000 a year to pay off over 20 years. Add 300,000 management fee and PAC costs million a year. So sell land and pay off debt or build PAC. Simple enough question. Why don’t they want to ask the people for answer. Council certainly isn’t any smarter than the rest of us or why did they need kpmg. So why won’t they ask the question. Do they think the public aren’t smart enough to decide. I’ve met Koehler and everitt and I’m pretty sure I’m at least as smart as them

ski50

Don’t get carried away. While his performance on Council hasn’t impressed me, Koehler has an impressive resume, that includes a Phd in Mechanical Engineering I believe.

Politics is a funny thing, it can swallow up academics and intellectuals that aren’t politically savvy.

having a phd in mechanical eng doesnt mean you are smart..it means you had lots of time to spend in school. Also doesnt mean you are street smart.. book smart maybe but not wise in the world of politics. I have worked with numerous engineers of all types and they are no smarter than the other. A large percentage of the ones I have dealt with lack in people skills and make horrible managers.

I cannot get over the ideas that city council and the mayor come up with. PAC are closing across the country. And they are stupid enough to actually consider building a 40 million dollar facility. I agree put the money towards what is needed.

Mr. Koehler has enough smarts to be the only one who has kept insisting that the city ought to keep its budget increases within the annual cost of living index inflation number. He is saying that the city should learn how to work smartly within these budget limitations!

That’s plenty good enough for me! All the others have the opposite mentality.

Maybe two weeks after the city of PG pays every last nickel of their $111 million dollar debt maybe then and only then we can invest the money to build another “circus”. Remember, “give them bread and circuses”? Roman times are our times. Can I have a storm sewer instead of a ditch? Would enhance MY property values so I can afford to move away.

Isn’t this idea like buying a 60 thousand dollar truck after you just got laid of from your job?

That $111 million includes the Terasen deal which is an investment loan that pays off in cash coming from Fortis every year. I believe we have passed the point where we were paying more on the PI than the lease payments we are getting from Fortis. By the end of the terms we will have received our $60million or so back plus something in the order of $15million or so interest.

Only people who do not understand finance or are too lazy to check into facts themselves think that the City owes $111million net. It actually works out to just over half of that.

When people cannot understand that, how can we even expect them to understand the net cost of building ANYTHING in this city?

In the main we have too many people in this community who are functionally illiterate, that includes people here, on the PAC group and on Council.

“Isn’t this idea like buying a 60 thousand dollar truck after you just got laid of from your job?”

Nope ….

It is like starting a trucking business and waiting till you buy a truck on a MacJob wage.

You will be dreaming for the rest of your life as the truck keeps on getting more and more expensive and your wage does not keep up with it.

Ski50 wrote: “Why don’t they want to ask the people for answer”

Why would anyone want to ask a population who voted in the present Mayor and Council?

At least Council has enough smarts to know that anything that goes to the electorate may end up one way on one day and another way on another day ……. as it did in Quesnel after people had spent a lot of effort to fundraise for a project and actually raised over $4million or $5million.

What a waste of time and effort!! THAT is why no one in senior governments will give any money to ANY community for projects the Council is not solidly behind.

I am confused … easily done but all the same … PG’s population has been relatively static for the past 30 … UNBC’s FTE student count is down, CNC’s FTE student count is down, SD57’s FTE student count has been plummeting and is finally showing signs of leveling off. The number of jobs in the forestry sector has been declining as technology continues to displace workers. Along with beetle kill problems and annual allowable cut reductions. The long promised boom in the mining / oil and gas sector has yet to show up locally.

PG need a PAC now because???

This is really a guns and butter issue – which is more important to you, not really an affordability issue. As Gus pointed out, the city is not 110 million in debt, we have plenty of room left on our line of credit. With my estimate of a million a year for this thing, it’s about $33.00 a household in extra taxes – or, a cup of starbucks a month, and in return we get a brand new PAC that for sure would make the downtown better.

But the question council doesn’t seem to be interested in, is do the majority of PG residents want a PAC, or roads and sewers? Can we have both?

Let’s also keep something else in mind, which is the so called free money from senior levels of government and donations. If we go to the feds/prov for 20 million for a PAC, and then one day third avenue sinks into the ground because we never kept the infrastructure up to date, when we go to them again, they might say – you already got 20 million – no more for you, and we’ll have to pay that 20 million anyway, just at a different time and place.

As as for the 10 million of private money, if that goes to PAC, it can’t go somewhere else. Even at a personal level, kind of getting tired of everyone asking me to donate $2.00 here, round up my bill there, buy a raffle ticket etc. Canfor will only donate so much money every year, so if it goes to PAC, it won’t go be there for something else.

Clearly this is a contentious issue, and it’s beyond me why it would not be up for referendum other than the few, want to get the many to pay for their party.

BTW – I didn’t mean to infer Koehler and Everitt are stupid, I really mean what I said, I do know them, and I’m easily as smart as they are, and most of the people in PG are pretty much on my level, so I think if we were presented with the pros and cons of a PAC in a referendum, we could be trusted with that decision.

Current council came in with a mandate to reduce taxes, have increased them, and as far as I’m concerned, no longer have a mandate for anything other than day to day business.

Gus says – “Only people who do not understand finance or are too lazy to check into facts themselves think that the City owes $111million net. It actually works out to just over half of that.”

Wow! That makes ALL the difference. Let the city spend like there’s no tomorrow, because, hey, we’re ONLY (according to Gus) about 55 to 56 MILLION dollars in debt!!!

Taxpayers like me who would like clean water, drivable streets, working storm sewers, etc., etc. are so relieved to know that we are ONLY 55-56 MILLION dollars in debt!

Give your head a shake. You want a PAC. Then raise the money privately. Don’t force me to spend even more money on something I will never use.

Into every person’s life there comes an issue that becomes a turning point in some aspect of life. On the matter of taxes and affordability of life in the city of PG, this one has become mine.

Gus, are YOU on the committee to bring the PAC to the city? You have been asked that a couple of times now and have not answered.

First, Jetstream, it is a registered Society. It is not a committee. There is a world of difference.

I was on the founding Board of Directors, was on it for 5 years, did a heck of a lot of work on it, so know it like the back of my hand both pros and cons, and got off it because it was obviously a dead issue at this time.

With the last report that was given to the City at that time, we had done our job. It was time for the City to do it. That was almost 2 years ago.

The City made a botched try at putting together a proposal to an RFP request for P3 proposals which, to be best of my abilities, I considered to not provide what was required by the Feds in the proposal call.

Since that time the City never acted as if it was now in their court. So, from the outside, and that is the only view of it I have these days, it looks like the Society actually had to remind the City of who was in charge.

I left because as one of the Councillors told me in the first year of the Society’s existence, the PAC needs to go to a referendum. I agreed with that Councillor at the time, but discovered while a director of the Society, that is not the way business is done in this City. Going to the people is the last thing City Hall wants to do. That is not my philosophy, although I understand why they do not want to go to the people. So, they spend unknown hours on trying to figure out ways of not doing it.

So, all I see is that neither the Society nor the City is promoting this openly and completely.

There is a business plan that was done in 2008 and provided to Council at open meeting and that plan still sits on he Society’s web page. There is a more up to date version that is not on the web page, and I do not have the faintest clue why not. It needs to be.

So, there you have it.

I am for getting the thing ready to go if we have an opportunity to access money for the major component of capital …. it actually seems like some people are finally understanding that it will cost this city less than half as much as it did the police station.

That is a plus ….. it is finally sinking through!!

There are many other things I address on here off and on that shows ignorance on the part of the citizens. I do not blame them. Why should an ordinary citizen of this community understand what a PAC is in the first place such as what is wrong with performing spaces such a Vanier Hall, what types of acts will frequent the CN Centre and what type of performances we are missing out on because we do not have a PAC.

When the City decided to go for the Winter Games and then won the bid, it was obvious to any reasonable person that the PAC was dead.

The question I would like to ask is, which one would have been the better choice … Games or PAC. Now that would be a debate, rather moot now, but I bet you no one in authority ever had that debate when it would have made a difference.

THAT is what is wrong with this City!!

Jetstream …. we have a choice …

1. we save money and not do a thing until we have enough money saved to do a project. The money will bear low interest rates which may not keep up to inflation, especially when it comes to construction projects which typically have a high dependence on products which are oil and energy based. That is one of the reasons why ALL medium to major sized cities have costs which are higher than the rates of inflation. Thus based on past experience over several decades we would get less and less for the money.

2. we borrow money at the low rate that the MFA provides to cities and we build as early as we can. The interest of 2.5%, when looking at inflation in the construction sector alone, may in fact mean that when we pay $10million now, the actual value of money in 2035 may buy the exact some as the money “invested” in 2015.

Jetstream wrote: “Give your head a shake. You want a PAC. Then raise the money privately. Don’t force me to spend even more money on something I will never use.”

I have never used a hockey rink in this city. I never use a lacrosse box, not a baseball/softball diamond.

I have used ski hills which are private and are funded by the ski hill owners. I have used squash courts which are also operated by private enterprise.

When I count up the frequency that I have used sport as well as performance entertainment venues in my lifetime, the amount of money I have spent on private far outweighs the money I have spent on using public, subsidized venues – likely much more than 80% to 20%.

We all spend money through our tax dollars to fund things we ourselves actually do not use. That is part of what it means to live in a community.

So, I will, as bet as I can, force others to pay for things they do not use because I pay for things I do not use and I believe in that philosophy.

Don’t like it? Become a hermit!!! ;-)

“The society also expects the City would pay the society an annual fee to run the facility.”

That is a totally new way of looking at things.

The City does not give TNW over $110,000 a year as a fee to run their facility. It is an unconditional grant. There are also smaller federal and provincial grants. On of the reasons why he City has virtually doubled its grant is because the province has reduced its grant. I do not know which came first …. the chicken or the egg.

If the Society is saying with that, that it will guarantee that they will not touch the City for more than that money, that is a very bold move and, maybe, a good one for the taxpayers of the City.

However it is a City facility. What if they Society needs more money to operate it? The various local groups would likely want preferential rates. Will the Society provide them with those subsidized rates, or will they structure the rent to be the same for everyone? Maybe they will, and maybe the City will then subsidize each user group.

No matter which way it is done, it all means the same total dollars from the same City source. The one advantage is that we would know who is actually subsidized and by how much.

I wish Beth James the best of luck to figure this out so that it is presented:
1. openly
2. equitably
3. thoroughly
4. accurately
5. honestly

It would be a unique experience in this community.

“What type of performances we are missing out on because we do not have a PAC”

I’ve been to a handful of shows out in this area of the continent since moving from PG:

1) Seinfeld at the NAC
2) Bill Maher at the St-Denis Theatre in Montreal
3) Neil Diamond at Bell Centre in Montreal
4) Jewel at a Casino resort in New York State

Neil Diamond was the only one that played a big venue. The first two were stand up comedians so acoustics were not THAT big of a deal, but the seating arrangement of a dedicated hall was far superior for the actual experience. The acoustics at the Jewel concert were so far ahead of what the Bell Centre offered it would be a joke to even begin to compare them.

I currently have my eyes on some tickets to watch the Barenaked Ladies play at the NAC alongside the NAC Orchestra.

It’s funny, when I browse concert and show listings, probably 90% of the ones I would want to attend are NOT at larger venues. The vast majority are at halls that seat under 2,000 people and are custom built for the arts. There are a significant number of performers who choose to take their acts to such venues, because they offer their fans a better experience.

I’ve never seen the option for so many shows in my life. Part of that is the population out here, but I think part of it is also due to the venues. Artists will take their shows to where they can perform them effectively. Simple.

Gus – you and I would probably not agree on a lot of this stuff, but I thank you for answering my question.

And for my part, I did not agree with the city building the CN center nor the bringing of the winter games.

Someone has to start looking at the real costs of these things and quit using the excuse that it’s only a dollar a day here, and the price of a Starbucks for a month there.

At least I get to choose if I want to spend my money at Starbucks or somewhere else or … what’s even more likely, just save it.

Our politicians have robbed us of that personal freedom in many, many ways.

Gus:”When the City decided to go for the Winter Games and then won the bid, it was obvious to any reasonable person that the PAC was dead.”

Hmmm. Obviously some people were out of touch with reality or simply unreasonable when they continued to flog the “dead” PAC…

Actually I would have voted in favour of a PAC rather than that two week winter games extravaganza, but no one asked me to cast a vote!

Nothing new, of course!

If it was either or I would have gone PAC over winter games.

Gus finally came out of the closet! Please tell us what performances we are missing out on because we don’t have a 800 seat PAC? If I want to go see a Performing artist I will go see one where ever they perform. Didn’t Bill Cosby come here? Did he need a PAC? Elton John? PAC? Nope. Many other artists have come here without a fancy PAC.

If someone extra special needs a place special to perform setup a big tent Cirq style!

We can call the Terasen Lease in Lease out whatever the hell we want on this site, however on the books at City Hall it is shown an DEBT. So the City debt is $111 Million. In fact it is more than that because I don’t believe that all the money borrowed for the Police Station has been included in this figure. We will probably see the real number sometime next year.

Furthermore it appears that the City intends to finance its portion of the PAC through land sales. When we wanted to use land sales money to fix our roads, we were told that road rehabilitation should come from the Road Rehab levy, not from land sales, however it appears the money for a PAC can come from land sales. Hmmmmmm.

The City has already passed a bylaw that allows money from the sale of land along Highway 16 West to be transferred from the Land Development Reserve, and the Endowment Reserve, to be transferred to the Capital Expenditure Reserve on a yearly basis to fund the City’s capital expenditure projects that do not have a dedicated funding source.

So my take on this maneuver is to position funding for the PAC. This is further substantiated when you consider that at the last Council meeting it was determined the PAC would be the next capital project.

Soooo. The Cities portion of the funding for the PAC is pretty well in place. It allows the City to circumvent a referendum, or a AAP, and now only needs the money from the Feds, Prov, and private donations. This funding will probably become available sometime next year, as we are heading into a Federal Election in 2015, and of course the Province will kick in their portion.

Seems while we were sleeping the PAC Society and the City pulled a fast one.

Have a nice day.

Gus… Pathetic bud.. You must be on the PAC committee.. You think 55 million in debt is fine..really. Maybe a councilman? Maybe the mayors husband?

Cut and paste some more

P Val …. read much?????

How much can costs increase in 5 years?
Here is a copy of the article from 0-250.

Going from approx. 18 million to over 43 million is a drastic jump in 5 years.

Also looked at the original presentation given back then and the seating numbers etc. have not changed.

Sunday, January 27, 2008 03:48 AM

Prince George, B.C. – Leadership has been set for the new board of the Prince George Regional Performing Arts Centre Society.

This first team of elected directors was chosen at the society’s annual general meeting in the middle of the month, the board then met this past week to select its officers. The society’s goal is to secure a performing arts centre for the city — estimated to cost in the $18-million dollar range.

Sharon Cochran will take the helm as Board President, Vice-President is Peter Crolow, Les Waldie is Secretary and Jo Graber will be Treasurer. The other directors are: Keith Carlson, Tom Dielissen, Kirk Gable, Kent Greenless, Anne Martin, Bunny Murray, and Shawn Petriw.

Cochran says the team will continue to champion the work started by the founding Board. “We will work together with many other talented volunteers to lead the community in achieving the ultimate goal of a Centre for the Performing Arts in Prince George.”

The Society plans a public meeting in May to report on just how this goal will be reached.

Reading the PAC budget plan from Oct 2008

http://icsp.princegeorge.ca/ICSP%20Documents/Physical%20%20Business%20Plan%20for%20New%20Performing%20Arts%20Facilities.pdf

We as taxpayers have not been told the full story……….Take a look at projected costs etc.

I do hope I am not reading things wrong…
Over $51 mill was the original estimate in 2008 with a possibility of up to $1,794,095 in operating costs?

Pac formed as Registered Society Aug 21 2007 started with 13 founding members and registered with 11.

Gus – are you still singing?

And how many will be employed? 12?

NMG: “1) Seinfeld at the NAC
2) Bill Maher at the St-Denis Theatre in Montreal
3) Neil Diamond at Bell Centre in Montreal
4) Jewel at a Casino resort in New York State”

Seinfeld played the CN Centre recently. Didn’t quite sell out. Heard it was close.

Bill Maher wouldn’t sell 500 tickets here, no matter what the venue.

Neil Diamond could possibly play the CN Centre. We’ve seen Elton John.

Jewel wouldn’t sell well here, no matter what the venue.

Based on PG’s tastes and population, the only thing guaranteed to sell out would be AC/DC. And they’re not coming here.

My personal belief is ANY project of this magnitude SHOULD go to referendum. A councillor, in my opinion, that desires to usurp this democratic process isn’t worthy of the role.

This PAC may be a nice idea but we can’t afford it. Enough please.

The PAC is not even on my radar of major projects this city needs.

For me these infrastructure projects would be the priority.

#1 An Ospika overpass at highway 16 just above Wallmart to lighten the intersection traffic in the area, and facilitate the suburban development along the Crandbrook Hill Crest. This should be 100% ($25 million?) Federal as it involves much needed highway 16 infrastructure… the city could then fund the quarter mile extension to the Ospika overpass from Tyner (possibly $2 million). It would make for much safer access to the big box stores along this stretch of highway.

#2 A South Fraser crossing and Prince George dangerous goods ring road hook up to the new Boundary Road Airport logistics park. We have reached the traffic capacity of things like Peden Hill and need a rail overpass in the Danson Industrial Site. A project like this should be paid for 50% Provincial, and 50% Federal (possibly $150 million with bridge and overpasses)… federal and provincial as this involves an upgrade bi-pass for both highways 16 and 97.

#3 A major upgrade of the Hart highway to provide proper highway shoulders, walking/bike lanes, and have it fully lit from 5th Avenue to Chief Lake Road. 100% Provincial ($40 million) as per it being a provincial highway with some of the heaviest traffic volumes in the province.

Total cost would be federal government $100 million, provincial government $115 million, and the city of Prince George $2 million… meanwhile the city would focus on paying down its debt and with better infrastructure and less municipal debt the city could grow again… and with growth could consider further upgrades to the arts down the road based on population growth or dedicated reserve funds.

I think the city tax payer base would have to see the city population grow by at least 10,000 before something like a PAC should be considered for referendum.