Best thing to happen here for everyone in years. Wish it was a bit cheaper tho.

This facility when it was originally proposed was supposed to be self supporting. Dezell did the initial study and said that the facility would generate $900,000.00 per year and cost approx the same to run, and therefore it would not cost the City or the University anything.

Since it was built both the University and the City have been paying $300,000.00 per year to support this facility. I dont see any mention of the University still paying their $300,000.00 per year.

Are the taxpayers of Prince George being stuck for $300,000.00 per year while the Sports centre socks away $110,840.00 Surplus. The students get in free so the University should be the first to pay the $300,000.00 per year, as they are actually collecting this money through tuition fees.

In any event it would be interesting to know who is paying what. When the building was originally planned, there was no mention of the fact that taxpayers would be stiffed for $300,000.00 per year.

are you sure unbc students get in free or just posting nonsense?

All UNBC students receive a free membership at the N.S.C. with their tuition and I think that is a great thing. Healthy minds and healthy bodies

There are not enough people registered with the sport centre because there aren't many businesses or properties up the hill and there is a swimming pool and a sport facility close to foothills. 6 years ego, creating a transport link between UNBC and the sport facilities down the hill was the more economical alternatives.

A solution would be to move the hospital up the hill (closer to the medical students) and give the building of the downtown hospital to the university for expansion of UNBC programs. Then the hospital staff can also register in the sport center and the city instead invests its 300,000$ in providing more urgent needs.

If UNBC and NHA open up to some "out of the box thinking".

To give a bit more detail. All UNBC students pay $55 for Intramural and Recreation fees per semester. This is a mandatory fee that is paid whether you use the facility or not.

Additionally, all students are required to pay $50 per semester for Intervarsity athletics. This money goes to support the UNBC athletics programs (basketball and soccer).

So yes it is built in to student fees but these amounts are broken out as separate line items.

I was just thinking, If the sports centre has to be subsudized, which it is by the taxpayer, if it was a business that had to operate like the rest of us, it would have went bankrupt. Just shows the city has not one project that would have made it on its own merrits. It shows the lack of expeirience here.

NSC is a tremendous asset to the community and worth every dime paid for it. $300k from the City is a smal amount to pay for a facility such as this and the benefits it brings to the community and to UNBC. It has been extremely poorly run by UNBC up until recently but it is good to see that is improving (hopefully it stays that way).
Do some reseach and you'll quickly see that we're getting quite a bargain.
Sport or recreation centres such as these do not make money ANYWHERE, and are subsidized by the tax payer everywhere.
FYI...UNBC contributes $300k as well AND they run the building which is not cheap. The contribute a great amount so don't think they are getting a free ride, nor are the students.

The original plan called for all the faculty and staff, and students to be paying members of the NSC. This of course never happened. It is foolish to think that everybody would join and use these facilities. This has been proven out by the small number using it to-day.

Because the idea of mandatory membership by Students didnt fly, they then came up with other ways of getting the money, and then transferring it to the Sports Centre.

Thats why the University and the City set up the program to pay the Northern Sports Centre $300,000.00 each per year to support the project. At the time they referred to it as **Creative Accounting**.

What we need to know now is whether or not the University is still paying $300,000.00 per year, and why the surplus funds are going into a capital fund, while the taxpayers of Prince George continue to pay $300,000.00 per year.

Why are taxpayers in Pr George responsible for the shortfall in revenue for the facility, when it was supposed to be revenu neutral???.

Is this another example of extreme poor planning?????

I was unable to quickly find the Annual Report for the local Y. I think that is a recreation facility that has a long history in Canada and beyond and so should have good expereince of how to run a multipurpose recreation facility.

So here is the vancouver one until someone can find the local one.

http://www.vanymca.org/pdf/ymca_annualreport2009.pdf

Here is how the revenue sources break down for a $29.4 million annual budget.

member + program fees 71.1%
gov. sources 21.8%
YMCA contributions 5.7%
United Way 1.6%
Investment income 0.5%

So it looks like as if the Y in Vancouver can operate on a cost recovery basis if the fees to its users were increased by 40%. That is a considerable amount and woul likely result in a significant number of people not using the facilities.

The question in my mind is why is that the case. Why do we need to subsidize such facilities? I assume the answer can be found in the types of programs they offer that do not pay for economically pay for themselves but are actually more community service oriented. On the other hand, there are likely some programs which do cost recover and may even partially subsidize some of the other programs.

Again, I am not that familiar with the operations of the Y. Someone else can maybe shed some more light on that.

It points out one more time, though, that the taxpayer subsidized physical recreation much more readily than art recreation - physical rather than mental.

Cozzetto, in his 1st year, hired leading by design (LbD) to look at finances and management in UNBC. Page 21-22 of the 2007 leading by design's report refers to "effective management" of northern sport center by a CFO and restructuring in UNBC. Currently the CFO in UNBC (renamed back to VP) is Eileen Bray and sport center is managed under CFO's ancillary following this LbD restructuring recommendation:

"Place the CFO’s ancillaries under common management. This size of this job
requires a manager with sufficient seniority that it would permit meaningful
delegation by the CFO. It would also create some important synergies, in particular between the Northern Sport Centre and Events Planning/Conference Services."

She is therefore accountable and should provide a reply. But it is time for UNBC to do a post mortem analysis of Leading by Design (LbD) restructurings. In order to see the effect of cost control and quality increasing proposed restructuring
measures. LbD also recommended moving Athletics(and FOIPP governance officer) to under the President in the chart.

The NSC provides a number of ancillary benefits to the community. Local businesses get the economic benefits of visitors attending tournaments and events scheduled at the Centre. Economic benefits provide much needed employment in the North. NSC self sustaining not yet, tangible benefit to Prince Goerge without a doubt

The NSC provides a number of ancillary benefits to the community. Local businesses get the economic benefits of visitors attending tournaments and events scheduled at the Centre. Economic benefits provide much needed employment in the North. NSC self sustaining not yet, tangible benefit to Prince Goerge without a doubt

I just checked the power point presentation to the City and UNBC. It has minimal info on the operating financials so I have to make some assumptions. I am trying to compare it to the Vancouver Y operation percentages.

Here is the raw slide data.

revenue projections $1,366,343

UNBC 22%
CPG 22%
RENTALS 14%
PROGRAMS 5%
MEMBERSHIPS 33%
OTHER 4%

I am goging to assume that UNBC contributions are from their general operating funds and that membership revenue includes the revenue from student athletic fees or portions of that.

Based on that and comparing it to the Vancouver Y operation, the direct user income is

RENTALS 14%
PROGRAMS 5%
MEMBERSHIPS 33%

for a total of "earned" income of 52% instead of 71%

Here are the "expenditures":

Sal & Benefits $451,358 = 33%
Utilities $179,824 = 13.2%
Other Expenses $624,522 = 45.7%
Surplus $110,840

Low salaries probably reflected by the low number of group led programs.

The biggest concern of min is certainly the sisze of the "other" category. It is the first time I have ever seen the "other" category being the highest single category. In those cases the category needs to be better defined.

My question is, why is it not in a public presentation where 22% of the revenue comes from City taxpayers and an unknown percentage comes from provincial taxpayers via the UNBC.

pgpercy wrote: "The NSC provides a number of ancillary benefits to the community. Local businesses get the economic benefits of visitors attending tournaments and events scheduled at the Centre."

I understand such spinoffs. However, we have little local information about such multipliers/spinoffs and use provincial ones instead. We may get a better idea with the Canada Winter Games since they will hopefully do a report specific to local economic impact of that event.

For the moment, I have to wonder whether, if we based our economy on running only just such programs, we would be able to avoid taking a major economic nosedive. In other words, when are such programs a net gain to the community and when are they a net loss.

"I was just thinking, If the sports centre has to be subsudized, which it is by the taxpayer, if it was a business that had to operate like the rest of us, it would have went bankrupt. Just shows the city has not one project that would have made it on its own merrits. It shows the lack of expeirience here"

I agree, shut it down. We should also shut down the other city run things that don't make money. The ball diamonds, the river boat launch at Cottonwood, Fort George Park, every single ice rink in town and the graveyard are all things that could be scrapped to save some dough. Gotta fix the potholes!

NMG. Get real. No one is complaining about tax dollars being used for ball fields, parks, swimming pools, etc; These things are all part of the make up of a City.

As usual people like to forget how we got this building in the first place. The Province of BC had $25 Million dollars available for a project that reflected the 2010 Olympics. Pr George had to come up with some matching funds, and an idea. The idea was the Northern Sports Centre.

Dezell and his buddies did the initial planning and as stated previously their study indicated that the Sports Centre would generate $900,000.00 per year, and that the costs would be about the same, and therefore it would not cost the taxpayers or the University any money after the initial investment.

The project went ahead and was built. it was then (of course) determined that the Centre would not generate anywhere near enough money to operate it, and UNBC and the City came up with the scheme to pay the Sports Centre $300,000.00 each per year, for services rendered. A BS statement if there ever was one.

The $600,000.00 per year is considered revenue by the Sports Centre. Add to this the revenue from 1236 Members at $375.00 per membership and you can see that this facility is aprox 50% subsidized.

There is no point in trying to imply that it is available for the taxpayers of Prince George to use because it is not. That is unless you are willing to spend $375.00 per year to become a member. Otherwise forget it. In addition to being a paying member,. you are also paying for the facility through your tax dollars, so you are being double dipped.

The solution to the finiancial problem for this centre is the same as the solution for the CN Centre (Cougers also subsiized) would be for people to get off their asses and join the Centre, or buy a ticket and go to the Cougers games.

If people are not supporting these bloody facilities, or franchises, then why in the hell did we build them?????

Nice rebuttal Palopu, but your logic is warped.

First off you say "No one is complaining about tax dollars being used for ball fields, parks, swimming pools, etc; These things are all part of the make up of a City", as if to suggest that the things you mention are the ONLY items that are part of the make up of a city. You conveniently forget to mention things like Art Galleries, Performing Arts Centres and even facilities like the NSC, even though cities across North America have venues like these (taxpayer funded at that) as part of the makeup of their city. Why the exclusion for these things on your part? Is it because you want to pick and choose which items you think should belong? Is it because in your own arrogance you think you know best what is required for the City of Prince George? Or, are you unable to see the rather obvious similarity between a taxpayer funded swimming pool that "loses money" and a taxpayer funded indoor track that "loses money"? Why is a swimming pool allowed, but an indoor soccer field not?

You then go on to say "If people are not supporting these bloody facilities, or franchises, then why in the hell did we build them" as if to forget that your own response indicated, correctly I might add, that they are indeed part of the makeup of a city. That's why they were built. The simple fact of the matter is that none of these civic facilities (even the ones you listed) would ever have been built if turning a profit was a requirement. Not the pool, not the ball diamonds, etc. They all cost money and they all require taxpayer funding to maintain. Again, if it's okay to run a pool at a loss, why not an arena like CN Centre?

How exactly do you reconcile the paradox in your own argument? Does it quite simply come down to "Palopu doesn't like the facility so it shouldn't be built"?

NMG.There is a significant difference between ball fields, swimming pools, skating rinks, etc; that are for all intents and purposes built for kids, as a part of the structure of a City.

The Art Centre is a prime example of a huge expenditure that is rarely used, except for kids to go and finger paint. They could do that in the usually empty Civic Centre, or the Library. The performing arts centre would be much the same. A huge expenditure for very little use.

As usual you try to make a comparison between the CN Centre and other Civic buildings, while overlookng the fact that the main tenent in the CN Centre is **A PRIVATE BUSINESS**. (The Pr Geo Cougers) This business can make a profit because we have to subsidize it by giving it low rental fees.

The Norhern sport centre is for all intents and purposes a **private business** built with Government money. They have members that pay to use the facilities such as the weight room, soccer fields, handball, etc, plus they rent out office space etc; to private business. In fact this facility actually pulls business away from established business's downtown.

In addition it provides 3 basketball courts for the University Basketball Teams.

If anything it should be part of the University, and paid for by the University and the BC Government, and members, not by taxpayers.

UNBC needed a sport center, but with some planning, it could have used the under utilized facilities of CN center and **pay annually** around 400,000$ for transportation, its use for sport and gatherings there, the same way that it now pays for running North Sport Center (NSC). So the city, and not UNBC, is really losing money here, because the city invested some money and it is still paying. UNBC may lose if the city stops paying and UNBC fails to register more users (e.g. from Hospital or doubling students).

Let's not forget that the public sector is driven by votes and petitions and the private sector by money and profit. The cinema in the city is part of the make up
of the city, but the owner of the cinema cannot invest in building another cinema few KM away because this is not financially feasible. But the owner of CNC, the government, decided to construct UNBC a few KM away and NSC a few KM away.

It is too late "crying over the spilt milk" now, but the facilities, up there on the hill, can be better utilized, if the brain faculties, up there in the head, can be better utilized.

"If anything it should be part of the University, and paid for by the University and the BC Government, and members, not by taxpayers."

Palopu, I always thought the BC Government is paid by taxpayers too. hmmm?