Going For Gold - City To Bid On Summer Games - Opinion 250 - News for Northern and Central Interior of British Columbia, Canada

Going For Gold - City To Bid On Summer Games

Monday, February 05, 2007 08:15 PM

By a vote of 5-to-3 in favour, Prince George City Council has agreed to support a bid to host the 2011 Western Canada Summer Games.

The total budget to host the Games is estimated to be $3.5-million (2011 dollars). A Western Canada Summer Games Operating Grant would cover half of the cost. While the City of Prince George and Host Committee would responsible for the balance -- the city’s share is expected to be $1.05-million dollars cash and in-kind services and facilities, while the Host Committee’s portion would be $700-thousand dollars.

Included in tonight’s motion was a resolution that council establish a reserve fund with a 2007 deposit of $190-thousand dollars from incremental gaming revenues and annual deposits for the following four years.

It was the financial obligations that concerned Councillors Don Zurowski, Sherry Sethen, and Debora Munoz and prevented them from voting in favour of the bid. Councillor Don Zurowski says, "I’m not at all convinced that this is the best strategic investment for us, we’re inheriting some new costs this year with the operation of the Northern Sports Centre and the needs of other recreation-type of activities that provided benefit to the community, so this is a very expensive event for the number of althetes that come to the community."

Councillor Munoz says she’s not comfortable supporting such a commitment in advance of the 2007 budget, saying "I want to know that we’ve exhausted all of our public service needs before allocating funds to other areas."

Councillor Don Bassermann was a vocal supporter of the bid this evening, pointing to the positive exposure this would give the city across Western Canada and the implications for tourism. He says, in the past, "Prince George has been presented in certain venues in a less-than-positive way. Air quality issues being an example of that, we have work to do there, but while we’re working on that we need to be continually building and polishing the image of this community."

Councillor Glen Scott said, "I’m going to support this. To use the phrase of the gambler: "you got to know when to hold them and know when to fold them" and I don’t think this is a time when we should fold them."

Mayor Colin Kinsley says this is a rare opportunity, with the Games open to B.C. bids only once every 16-years. He says it’s important to look at the bigger picture and, as one example, points to how the Games tie into our "Train in Prince George" program for international athletes. With incremental gaming revenue ear-marked for the reserve fund, Kinsley says "What better way to show the gains of gambling can be put back into community well-being, community pride and community recognition throughout...all of Canada."

The mayor also says other revenue sources could be looked at to reduce the city's portion, like the much-talked about hotel tax not yet charged in our city, but tacked on to accomodation bills in other similar-sized B.C. communities.

The community of Selkirk, Manitoba hosted the Games in 2003 and was left with a Legacy Fund of $343-thousand dollars and Kinsley says he's quite confident Prince George will be left with an even greater surplus.

Initiatives Prince George President Gerry Offet says, "To say that the Games are going to cost us $1.65-million dollars^*, or perhaps even more, indicates that we would not be managing the Games in a fiscally responsible way. We would simply be using taxpayers' dollars to pay the municipal share of the costs of the Games instead of offsetting that with sponsorship dollars."

IPG's "Events Prince George" now has until February 16th to submit the city’s bid to the Games’ Secretariat. Other communities that have indicated interest in bidding are Kamloops, Revelstoke, Trail and West Shore municipalities.

^* the $1.65-million dollars is made up of $950-thousand dollars from the city ($190K/yr over 5-years) and $700-thousand from the Host Committee. The City would also donate $100-thousand dollars in-kind for staff services and facilities used to host the Games

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, February 05, 2007 08:15 PM in News by Michelle Cyr-Whiting

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Jeth on February 5 2007 9:02 PM

Councillor Glen Scott said, "you got to know when to hold them and know when to fold them"

Don't forget the rest of that tune Glen:

'You never count your money when you're sittin at the table.
There'll be time enough for countin when the dealin's done.'

Posted by: Harbinger on February 5 2007 9:15 PM

And maybe a few bucks fer the roads from that kitty. Meow, eh?

Posted by: Harbinger on February 5 2007 9:17 PM

Boost tourism? Ha ha ha . Does that mean longer line ups at the waterslide at the Treasure Cove Casino? Har har har.

Posted by: Longnecks1 on February 5 2007 9:44 PM

Can't you just feel more taxes piling on. Sure am glad I live way out of town...You poor devils...This counsel is going to run Prince George BROKE...Well at least the tax payers anyways...Then who's going to move and build here when taxes are way out of range of everywhere else, and our roads are still full of pot holes. Sand trucks don't work when roads are covered with ice. Medical is going out the window... There's more closed stores down town or stores that might as well be closed...
And we want to spend a million bucks on a few days of sports. Is everyone on cousel related to Campbell or what......

Posted by: bohemian on February 5 2007 9:52 PM

So, was there a business case supplied to justify persuing this bid?

If so, what were the projections for ROI?

If not, why not?

Why is it arts & culture need to make a real business case for investment, but sports and lesisure get a pass?

ps - it's nice to see the Moose gamble with money that isn't his. Perhaps it's time he learns when to walk away, or learns when to run.

Posted by: realitycheck on February 5 2007 10:27 PM

Hosts this year (Strathcona County Alberta)- "According to recent economic impact studies, the Western Canada Games generally has a province-wide economic impact of over $7 million."

The provincial government has estimated an economic impact of the 2011 games at $10 million.

$1.2 million to net the region $7-$10 million seems like a pretty good ROI to me. Even at $5 million it's still a decent deal.

Posted by: Runner46 on February 5 2007 11:08 PM

Interestingly,

The one councillor who chaired the committee on the "one time only fee" for roads voted against this idea.
Although I support it, since I am a sports buff and can see the down stream benefits, I take my hat off to Zurowski for calling like it is..............RISKY given the 2007 financial commitments of the City.

Posted by: bohemian on February 6 2007 12:06 AM

Hello realitycheck, but please define "economic impact." If you take $1 million and invest it differently, who's to say, with the multiplier effect etc., that the "economic impact" isn't greater than $10 million?

No one ever defines how "economic impact" is calculated when they use it to justify something they want to do. I wonder why?

Also, that's a "province-wide" economic impact. What's the impact "city wide?" A lot smaller, I'd say. THAT's what we need to measure the ROI on - the beneift to the invester, not third parties. Furthermore, Strathcona County people need to justify what they're doing so they pull these numbers out of their hat. Who's checked their numbers and methodology?

The recent "Education Economy" numbers had major leaps of logic too, but Offett assured me while he saw the "double counting" problem I pointed out, he said "this is the way these studies are done" and we have to use a similar (if drasticly flawed) methodology so we can favourably compete. Alan Idians, CNC economist, one of the poeple who mentored the study, also told me he had issues with some of the math and conclusions.

The numbers are BS but are taken as fact because our concil doesn't know how to count.

This is the same fuzzy, BS math that explains that a new score clock at CN centre is a good investment when we spend $1 million to receive a $300,000 grant, or that the new garbage collection system costs less than the old one when we now charge residents for their garbage cans, or that taxes need to go up 4% when inflation is less than 2%.

Posted by: owl on February 6 2007 2:03 AM

An observation or two.

We know that bringing events into town brings money into town.

We also know that some events will bring more than others - thus, events where visitors are billeted and those highly dependent on volunteer organizers will not bring as much as those where people are housed in hotels and eat at restaurants and rent hotel and city facilities for activities, use taxis and rental cars to get around, fly in, etc. etc.

So, the city is subsidizing the games to the tune of $1,000,000 + in 2011 dollars (supposedly). 2,500 participants are expected for 9 days, based on Strathcona 2007 games. In Strathcona it is estimated there will be a $10million benefit to the immediate region and $21million in the province. So, there is an event subsidy due to the event bringing money into the community, even though there is no direct return to the city via a tax on hotels, food, etc. other than giving its business community a shot in the arm.

Based on that, a convention of 400 Rotarians over a three day period will generate about 5% of the economic activity the games will. So, about half a million dollars locally and a million provincially.

Remember, Rotarians give to communities. Just look around at what they have poured into the community through their fundraising that has real value.

So, it seems to me that Rotarians should also be receiving about $50,000 from the city to hold a convention here. In fact, every single organization holding an event here should receive such support.

Fruthermore, it seems to me that event facilities should be free to all gatherings which bring in people from outside the community if one were to buy the argument made for the summer games.

Posted by: realitycheck on February 6 2007 10:20 AM

Most major events DO get a grant (in-kind) from the City for facilities (at least). Even non-sport ones.

I couldn't agree more on the need to look at all events equally. I'd wager my house that the combined economic impact of all the weekend beer league tournaments, minor sport tournaments and such, dwarfs that of all the 'major' events combined.
That being said it is difficult to put a dollar figure on the exposure and "social good" something like a Royal Bank Cup, Scott Tournament of Hearts, or 2011 Western Canada Games brings to a community.

Posted by: owl on February 6 2007 11:48 AM

Actually it is not that difficult, in my opinion. Those who place ads and even go so far as to sponsor tournaments to the extent that their name gets put on the event, certainly do not give dollars by tossing a coin. They know the type of event they feel their customers would like to see their name associated with and they know approximately how to spread dollars around in order to keep customers and get new ones in.

For PG to get good promo out of the event, the city ought to hire an individual or company who are able to use the event to promote the city. Of course, that individual may say that if the primary purpose of the city funding the event is to promote itself, then they may have been better off spending the money somewhere else. I think at least one Councillor was trying to make that point.

To me, this is more of an exercise of feeling good about ourselves. If we win the competition to host this event, we can "boast" that people came here to the Jewel of the North. Whether others outside the community feel that way as well, is another matter.

Of course, in my view, if we are a community that needs to spend money to feel good about ourselves, we are in bad shape. I would say we are suffering from an inferiority complex and I would have to ask why. Once we know why, we should then put money to fixing those things - roads, air, personal property crime, dying downtown, etc. come to mind immediately.

Take an "exit" survey in Lethbridge, Fernie, and Regina and find out what they thought about PG hosting the games. Most will likely say "What games?" And most of those who have heard of the games and even followed them may say "PG?".

Better still, take a survey in Edmonton and Calgary and Vancouver, the major population centres, and find out whether about 5 million people are now more likely to travel to PG as a result of seeing someone race at Masich Stadium.

If this is about that type of promotion, then we need to spend some money on sending out the right message to the target audience. Others have monitored the economic benefits to the community during the games and the spin off visits in the months and years following a games. I suggest we should do that here as well to add to the local knowledge about that.

NDI may be able to fund such an effort and promotional package as part of the action to develop diversified economic activities in reponse to the MPB. It would give promoters of convention and event tourism a better working tool to determine the benefits of doing A versus doing B. It is obvious we have no such tool at this time, otherwise I would think IPG would have dragged it out of the closet to put this proposal together and fewer peopel would be speaking about "intangibles".

Also, no one is speaking about spin offs to outside communities either during the event or post event. How can Quesnel join in and market itself, for instance? If the Olympics in Vancouver can do it for all of BC, then surely we can do it for communities within a 2 hour drive.

If we get these games, there are a lot of things we should be doing to capture potential benefits which have not been done is a systematic, businesslike way during past events we have hosted. There is considerable more work to be done, and money to be spent that does not relate to planning this event, but relates to making us more competitive in the event, convetnion and tourism business.

I saw none of that type of thinking coming from the IPG proposal.

Posted by: bohemian on February 6 2007 12:56 PM

Nice work, Owl.

Posted by: Palopu on February 6 2007 8:57 PM

Its rather interesting to note that the **Intent to bid** for the 2011 Western Canada Games must be received by December 1, 2006, and the **Hard Copies** of the bid must be received no later than Feb. 16th 2007.

If you look at the information that is required for the Hard Copy bid. ie; School District authorization for the use of Schools, for dorms, for atheletes, and the use of school buses. All the information and facilities, required for the various sports, etc;, I would suggest that it would be almost impossible to get all this information to-gether, and submitted by Feb. 16th., and therefore would conclude that most of it has been done ahead of time, and that this proposal before Council was nothing more than a rubber stamp to a decision that would have be have been made some time ago.

Look at 2011 Western Canada Games on the Internet and you will see what I mean. 35 pages on what all the requirements are for these games.

Are we being **duped** again.

Posted by: owl on February 6 2007 10:10 PM

Palopu ... those who are adept at managing complex projects do not approach such processes in a linear fashion.

Posted by: Palopu on February 7 2007 11:07 AM

Owl. I agree, however the Council Meeting and News Media reports would lead you to beleive that this proposal is just getting started, when in fact probably all the work has been done, and what was needed was a gaurantee from the City in regards to financing Ie: $195,000.00 per year for 5 years. Now that this is in place they can get the Bid to the Committee before the closing date of Feb. 16th.

Once again we have City Council proposing to spend significant dollars without any discussion or input by taxpayers. The $975,000.00 is the tip of the Iceberg as it will be necessary to get all these facilities into shape, and groomed, etc; which will probably cost a million more, before it is done.

You may get a lot of business from the Atheletes and others that come to town for this function, however I doubt that anyone will bother to see how much revenue was lost during this period because of people who normally come to town to spend the week-end and shop, gamble, etc; will not be able to do so because there will be no **rooms** available. There could be a loss of revenue because other venues that may have come during this 9 day period will go someplace else.

This is a huge undertaking, and will require 3000 volunteers etc; and will take a huge amount of work. Hopefully those who are making the proposal are prepared to do the necessary work to make it a success.