I knew this PAC was coming again….
maybe if the society came up with come money and then approached council it wouldn’t sick in people’s throats so badly..
or how about utilizing the three venues available now that aren’t being used fully?

Maybe I’ve been living under a rock, but I’m puzzled why I’ve never heard a local Federal MP, Prov MLA, or their opposition, pump the tires of this project.

We cant afford it nor do we want it. Just kill the idea already.

They are certainly a persistent bunch!

I guess we’ll be hearing from gus / gopg about this all day long… :)

“…to “inform Performing Arts Centre Society of their responsibility for community engagement and fund‐raising.””

Well, I remember letters to the newspaper from a prominent supporter who argued that engaging in fund raising for a PG PAC is not an option because no fund raising was required to get soccer fields and other facilities built. Has there been a change in attitude?

These projects have to be driven by local governments, not provincial nor federal. In my opinion, the City made a huge mistake by supporting the creation of a local society and providing them the money to come up with a proposal which is typically done by City Committees.

In addition, instead of being transparent, the City did not want the public to know which properties were being looked at. They were afraid of speculation increasing property prices. To me, that was a crock from day one. That was never a concern anywhere else that I am aware of.

The first thing Partnerships BC said when they looked at the proposal (that is needed to get the province to buy into such a project) was that when the City identifies a location, has a proposed building plan and a budget, then they would take it seriously. The initial proposal actually got low marks because to them a $50 million project was at the lowest end of what they would get involved with.

Even though the City saw all such reports, they obviously did not understand the ramifications of what was said.

The inclusion of TNW is a major hurdle which will essentially create a $10 million theatre at a very high cost for a private theatre since they are unwilling to share the space with anyone else. They put on 4 or so productions a year each running 2 to 4 weeks. That is not an efficient use of space. Essentially their portion of the building would be theirs, running their own ticket office, their own bar services, their own washrooms, etc. I say locate the PAC where there are some opportunities to repurpose an existing building to their needs and let them find their own money. They are happy where they are. They are also concerned about safety downtown as well as parking. For the life of me I do not understand why the City report said that TNW was needed to make the PAC viable. The theatre consultant that the PAC Society had said the contrary.

Finally, people still do not understand that Vanier Hall is run by SD57, not the City. In those locations such as Kamloops and Abbotsford, similar (but newer and properly outfitted) facilities are run by the City with the SD have use of the facility. There is nothing that encourages the SD to make more use of the building.

If there is any discussion which should be had with another potential “partner” in the City it would be with SD57 to rebuild a Theatre (not a PAC) at PGSS similar to the Bell Centre or Sagebrush. Of course, that also becomes problematic for several reasons: the school is nearing the end of its lifespan, the Theatre would not promote development downtown (which was the reason the PAC was proposed in the first place) and an existing facility which is good enough to serve the PGSS purposes would be rebuilt.

At this stage I say wait till the Four Season Swimming pool reaches the end of its lifespan, which is within the next 5 to 10 years at the most, and build the PAC there, next to other facilities used for convention facilities. People are totally forgetting that such a facility would greatly expand the potential for large conferences and conventions in town without shuttling attendees to other facilities such as UNBC and CN Centre. The pool does not contribute to a gathering place for people. It was great for PG at the time it was built. It is now in the wrong place.

Time to give CH the pool they were “promised” at amalgamation.

The pool is one of the most well used faculties in town. It is essential for lessons for small children and should be maintained and not left to slide so the city administration and PAC society can run it into the ground with their own agenda for its land.

I am sure if the PAC floated the idea of allowing someone to rename the society then the city would be all over this idea… It seems that is this councils thing.

As far as fund raising goes. The PAC cannot get charitable status for the purpose of raising building funds. That is not allowed under tax regulations. Thus they cannot provide tax receipts. The City, however can. So can the PG Foundation.

The Society was created for the purpose of engaging consultants to make recommendations of whether a PAC could be supported by the city’s and regional populations, if so, where should it be located downtown (no other locations were allowed to be looked at under the funding agreement with the City) what would it look like and how much would it cost.

That is it. The Society delivered that report some 3 years ago and there it stayed. No one wants to say no at City Hall, but there is also no one doing anything about it. Communication has been non-existent no matter which Council is in power.

There is no one left at the Society who has any interest in raising funds. Quite frankly, I do not understand why they do not wrap up their Society. No one on the Board is effective at what they should be doing now, which I agree with what other say. RAISE FUNDS. There are ways to do it. Nanaimo did it. It took them 10 years but they got the facility they wanted which was a single theatre and a very nice one at that, in a similar “redneck”, small town.

“The pool is one of the most well used faculties in town.”

The building does not care how well it is used. The building is over 40 years old and the City, as normal, is not maintaining it.

What people are not learning in this community is that building do not last forever, whether the functional needs change over time or whether the building systems simply need to be replaced because the technology changes.

The building is not a Roman Bath in a two thousand year old edifice which is retrofitted with modern equipment. The building envelope, the mechanics, the pool size, they have all outlived their expected lifetime.

Do not for one moment blame the PAC or any other building that might get built there. It is a fact of the lifecycle of buildings these days.

Think renewal. Something the City has just started to realize over the last 5 or so years when it is starting to create more funds for just that purpose, whether rods, sewers, reservoirs, schools, hospitals, etc.

Buildings and people do not live forever. The older they get, the more they cost to maintain. :-)

Ah yes…..I remember certain people being up in arms over BC Hydro replacing its 40 year old bulding.

I miss Ben Miesner. He would of held the city’s feet to the fire on this issue.

if I remember correctly, about thirty years ago. There was a referendum vote. I think we voted and approved

1) New 5000 seat plus hockey rink
2) New Civic centre so that conventions can be held
3) New swimming Pool
4) New Art Gallery
5) New Performing Arts Center.

I personally think it is a lot of money to be spent on such a small population. I say if the major banks are willing to put three million shares in trust, the dividends earned from that goes into assisting the operating funds, than I say. Great. The shares always belong to the banks, held in trust, and only the dividends are accessible. 20 year commitment. Of course they get their name on it. RBC Perfoming Arts Center.

So me a viable business plan. Theatre Northwest is not interested, they are one of the biggest draws for these types of people. What are you going to do that is different. or is the idea to just steal audience.

Show me

I would like to see PAC…more then this Park they are going to put in behind that WOOD building….Bet council will be out there in the Mornings to pick up the left overs ,like NEEDLES Crackpipes,Condoms..

A viable business plan ? Maybe they could borrow the airports build it and they will come plan.

Call a referendum. When spending so much money for a luxury it should be put to the voters..

Those who want a PAC should dig deep into THEIR OWN pockets and pay for it themselves. City taxes have already taken a big jump in the last few years and they’re going higher still. And this still doesn’t account for the cost of all the infrastructure upgrades that are staring us in the face. The population is shrinking and so will the tax base, meaning taxes go higher still. Enough already with spending other peoples money!

Why don’t the PAC pack it in? Has the council enough guts to take this PAC idea to the voters? Highly doubt it.

I agree with Val and Dirtman.

Do I want the PAC, not really, but if it has to be. I feel that the investment of the structure will be a substantial amount of money. But it becomes a capital investment. What I don’t like to see is the group of artsy people, looking for annual handouts to maintain the building and operate an exclusive membership club off our backs. Prove the financial viability of the building, than put your money where your mouth is. I don’t care if it is $20,000 bond for 5 years. If you believe in it, prove it.

there are numerous people on council that are , in my opinion , drooling over the idea of a PAC….
we have not by any means even begun to hear the end of this over priced venue. but I am willing to wager it will happen…sooner than we think and via reverse referendum, ( that may not be the proper name ) so we have to go into city hall and vote against it, and they know people for the most part are to lazy or busy to be bothered…that way it goes through and they bypass a harder road to travel. This could have been on the ballots during the last vote but i think they all knew it would be defeated so they didn’t.

Alternate Approval Process…governments love to use it to get controversial things passed

INSANITY as defined by Albert Einstein:

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results!

I’m not against a PAC but not now. Fix the sidewalks, aging sewer infrstrasture, etc before looking at expensive new proejcts. City hall needs to realize that we don’t want our taxes to go up again. Find the money outside government (of any level) or don’t build it.

Properly maintained a building could last a good long time, maybe for the so called forever. The pool only has an issue from lack of maintenance. What is the cost of proper maintenance compared to a new one. Want to get rid of something stop properly maintaining it, the city and school board have a running record on that fact.

As has been pointed out the city has plans for the pool property.

Perhaps maintaining the status quo for the next 10 years is the way to go. Seems there is not much support for the PAC idea.

The City population has been stagnant for a long time. Infrastructure is failing and homeowners are being taxed to the hilt. Unless full provincial and federal shares of the cost of this wish list item can be secured I suggest putting and keeping it on the back burner for now. There are already other venues in town. Let’s keep priorities in proper affordable order, please!

It’s not just the cost of the building. There will be a small army of expensive CUPE employees and the fact the building won’t generate enough revenue to cover the electrical bill.

I just read the status of resolution from open Council Meeting July 7, 2014, NOT 2015. 2014!!!!

That is the lightning speed at which Councils (plural on purpose) work on not only this but other projects as well. They fester; they take up time in the frequency of revisits. Time is money.

That reminds me of the words of Gordon Wilson during the election debates when he picked up 15 or so Liberal seats in the BC Legislature – something like “now you see why nothing ever get accomplished in the Legislature”.

There are other items, but this is the one which concerns me the most. Talking about the City owned parcels of land to the east of City Hall, adjacent to Queensway. The status is: “City owned parcels have been kept available (at the direction of City Council). Some purchase enquiries have been made.”

Next steps are: “monitor purchase enquiries and determine whether there’s significant cause for Council to revisit this resolution.”

That site is a very poor site for a PAC to begin with for a number of reasons.

It is, however, a site which the City should be monitoring for what can go there which is supportive of City Hall and the connection with the Millar subdivision, including plans for Patricia Blvd. I think the City should do some real planning, which is what real cities actually do and set some parameters of what they would approve if someone were to be interested in developing that property.

Once they have wrapped their thinking around that, put it out for proposal calls to potential developers who will not stop work when the foundation and first floor slab is in place.

Otherwise, they might just want to keep it for future City Hall expansions or other municipal or regional functions.

Of course, we can also go back to the Smart City plans of a few years ago and start putting in the water features that were proposed and supported by those taking part in the charrettes. Easy way of getting rid of the surplus land.

It’s relentless . One drop at a time . Culture seeping in . Next thing you know you’ll have ballet and orchestral music crawling all over the place . And horror of horrors , contempery dance . It’s like a honkin big can of hick remover .