Project faces final challenge
Budget woes pose threat to facility
Brock Harrison, Steve Ladurantaye
Local News - Tuesday, February 20, 2007 Updated @ 11:26:32 PM
By Brock Harrison
and Steve Ladurantaye
Whig-Standard Staff Writers
It’s time for citizens to open their wallets and show they care about getting a
new downtown arena, suggested the councillor whose motion could kill the
facility.
“I get all these e-mails from people saying we have to go on, but they are not
recognizing the enormous financial commitment the city’s taxpayers are being
asked to make,” Councillor Vicki Schmolka said.
Her motion before council tonight proposes the city back away from building an
arena that was approved by the last council. Originally estimated to cost $41.8
million, councillors found out last week the price would be closer to $46.1
million because of budget overruns encountered since construction has begun.
Of that total, the business plan for the original estimate relies upon a
$3-million donation from the Kingston Accommodations Partners (a group largely
comprised of downtown hoteliers) and another $3-million from the Downtown
Kingston BIA.
The plan also counts on receiving
$2 million in private donations, although a campaign hasn’t yet begun. Staff
recommended the fundraising drive start immediately, when it proposed the budget
increase last week.
Other options to cover the budget increase include leasing the restaurant and
charging more for parking.
The rest of the project is to be paid with:
• $23 million of debt, to be repaid from operating and parking revenue;
• $ 4 million from the provincial government;
• $3.5 million from reserves;
• $3 million in development charges.
Schmolka said people talk about the need for the facility, but they aren’t
making personal contributions. To illustrate her point, she alluded to a story
that appeared in the Whig-Standard last week about an injured and abandoned
puppy.
“A puppy broke his leg and needed surgery and $4,000 was raised in less than 24
hours,” she said. “People should be getting that message, show us you care in a
way more than nasty e-mails.”
Closure may be hard to find tonight, as Councillor Rob Hutchison said he would
try to defer tonight’s vote to a later date.
“We got this stuff last Tuesday [Feb. 13],” said Hutchison, referring to the
staff report that detailed a proposed budget increase. “We don’t have enough
time to make the decision properly.”
Meanwhile, the two councillors who put forward the motion said they aren’t
necessarily sure which side of the vote they’ll fall upon. Councillors Schmolka
and Bill Glover said their decisions may depend on what they hear tonight.
“If cancellation fees are $50 million, I’m not voting to cancel,” Schmolka said.
“We’re not going to spend more than it costs to do the project to cancel the
project. I’m certainly not going to do that.”
The latest estimate on what it would cost taxpayers to halt the project came in
at $13.4 million in November, a penalty that doesn’t include legal fees
associated with breached contracts. The exact cost of potential legal fees is
unknown.
Glover said he seconded the motion not because he wants to stop the project, but
because he wants to know more about what it would cost to stop now.
“We don’t know how much it’s going to cost to cancel. We don’t know how much
it’s going to cost to complete,” said Glover. “We should get closer to knowing
those answers [tonight],” Glover said.
Supporters of the project, chief among them Mayor Harvey Rosen, have lashed out
at opponents and suggested the city’s reputation would take a hit if it were to
renege on its contract.
Rosen, whose colourful language in describing the motion has included calling it
“Disney-esque,” remains incredulous.
“I don’t understand how this issue can even be considered, given the
ramifications,” he said.
Councillor Ed Smith called the motion “ludicrous” and said Schmolka and Glover
are being irresponsible.
“The motion is damaging to the reputation of this city and the taxpayers of this
city,” Smith said.
Councillor Dorothy Hector, who is a supporter of the project, said she was
surprised by the negative tone in the motion.
“I wouldn’t have expected such a thing from an elected leader of the community,”
she said. “I don’t believe it should even be on the floor.”
Hector said the best way to deal with the budget issues would be to listen to
the staff report, and find positive ways to help the project along. She
suggested the mayor should invoke procedural rules that would knock the motion
off the agenda altogether.
It would be within his rights as the head of council, because the issue had been
dealt with by the previous council less than a year ago.
“It’s within the rules of procedure,” she said. “It’s up to the head of council
to make that decision. It is not easy because he’s damned if he does or doesn’t,
and that’s not fair.”
Rosen wouldn’t discuss whether he would consider invoking procedure to cut off
debate.
“There are procedural problems,” he said, “and we’ll have to work our way
through them.”