Michael Brydon: Why Mayor Kimberley is wrong

I stated in recent letter that the City of Penticton's decision to decline the opportunity to acquire the Pen-Hi gym and auditorium is incoherent. I understand that the decision has already been made and I should get on with my life. But it is important to recognize that the mayor did not permit public response to council's arguments during the debate on the issue. As a result, a lot of nonsense went unchallenged and some of us now feel compelled to conduct a kind of postmortem debate in the opinion pages of the local paper.

If you watch the archived recording of the gym/auditorium deliberations, you will see that there is much that begs for rebuttal. However, given space constraints, I will concentrate on the three key elements of Mayor Kimberley's argument for demolishing the buildings: A lack of parking for auditorium events, the availability of a newer, state-of-the art high school gym for community use, and uncertainty regarding the cost of converting the buildings for community use. As a general observation, the mayor's arguments suffer from two shortcomings. First, in each case, his facts are exactly wrong. Second, he fails to apply the same critical logic to his preferred alternative (immediate construction of a new $30M performing arts centre). Let's review the details:

Parking: Following a presentation by Dr. Sandra Congram, a spokesperson for Save Our North Gym (SONG), Mayor Kimberley asked if SONG's proposal addressed the parking issues that would arise when events held in the gym/auditorium coincided with regular school activities. This question is so comprehensively clueless that, when I heard it, I had a moment of self-doubt and actually checked the Internet for theatre schedules. Of course, I discovered what I already knew—what everyone knows—that theatre events are rarely (if ever?) scheduled during school hours. For example, the Sunshine Theatre series in Kelowna starts at 8:00 PM on evenings and matinees run only on Saturdays. Thus, rather than posing a parking problem, the Pen-Hi auditorium exists in almost perfect parking symbiosis with the school: when school is out, its hundreds of parking spaces can be used by theatre patrons. A downtown performing arts facility, in contrast, does pose major parking challenges, especially if, as the mayor suggests, dozens of condominiums are stacked on top of the facility to help defray its costs. Surprisingly the mayor's parking concerns were not challenged by anyone, including other members of council or even a local press outlet, which dutifuly opined that the Pen-Hi auditorium poses intractable parking problems. As for gym activities during the school day, these are equally unlikely. The whole point of saving the gym as a community resource is so that it may be used after school and after work.

Community use of the new Pen-Hi gym: In dismissing the need to save the Pen-Hi gym, Mayor Kimberley asserted that the new gym currently under construction for Pen-Hi will be available for community use (thereby negating the need for the older structure). In reality, high school gyms in Penticton are rarely available for community use because high school teams monopolize their gyms for most of the year. Dr. Congram explained this to the mayor and the city's Director of Special Projects, Barry Reid had, in his presentation just moments before, said the following: "The high school gyms are normally fully used; it is tough to get into them." (A video summary of this exchange can be found on YouTube) The mayor's certainty caused in me another moment of self-doubt, so I checked with both Maggie and Pen-Hi and discovered what I already knew: the high school gyms are booked solid during much of the year. Moreover, both high schools also make liberal use of the adjacent middle school gyms (copies of the gym schedules for both high schools have been posted on the SONG website). Although Mr. Reid acknowledged that the city faces a shortage of prime-time gym space for community groups, the city's position is that we can make do with our many empty elementary school gyms. Again, there is a logical inconsistency: the mayor advocates demolition of the Pen-Hi auditorium because it lacks a pleasing spot in which to have a glass of wine during intermission. However, citizens of less refined tastes—such as members of the 25 or so teams in this city who play adult recreational volleyball four nights a week for most of the year—are asked to make do with tiny elementary school gyms with dusty floors, low ceilings, and no space for warming up or spectators.

Cost uncertainty: The cost projections presented by SONG were developed by Greyback Construction at no cost to the city. The projections were then reviewed by city staff and verified by an independent quantity surveyor. Despite the time, effort, and cost expended on developing and verifying these estimates, Mayor Kimberley decided that the $1.2M-$1.5M estimate was too low. Councilor Litke concurred, based on his experience with used cars. Even if Messers Kimberley and Litke know something that construction professionals do not, which is unlikely, the same logic must then be applied to the new performing arts facility. If the city cannot afford cost inflation on a project with a base price of $1.5M, how can it then recommend an alternative with a base price of $30M?

The net result of the mayor's factual contortions and inconsistent logic is that people actually believe him when he says that it makes more sense to chase a $30M facility than make do with what we have until we resolve some of the uncertainty regarding funding (and demand) for the new performing arts facility. At the very least, the city should mothball the gym and auditorium until they have the $30M in hand. Alas, a clique of local politicians has apparently hatched a clever plan that requires expeditious demolition of the Pen-Hi auditorium (the Pen-Hi gym being mere collateral damage in all this). But that is a topic for a future letter...

Michael Brydon: "Get on with it" or "look before you leap"

A slightly edited version of the following letter appeared in the June 14, 2007 edition of the Herald:

I have advocated converting the Pen-Hi gym and auditorium into community use facilities so I was disappointed when I heard of city council’s decision not pursue the opportunity. I could not attend the council meeting at which the decision was made due to travel, but I assumed that the outcome was the result of sound judgment and careful consideration of the facts. I was ready to admit that we had lost the battle and relieved to be done with the whole matter. But then I watched the archived video of council’s June 4th deliberations. The question I am now asking is whether a decision based on transparently shaky logic and a sometimes comical misapprehension of the facts actually resolves anything? The more I review the arguments used to justify the demolition of the gym and auditorium, the more I am convinced that council’s decision is not merely bad, it is incoherent. My objective in writing this letter (and any sequels) is to convince anyone who will listen that something is broken.

The gym/auditorium issue has many facets, but the most important justification for demolishing the buildings is that the city will soon have a new performing arts facility. Little information about the proposed facility has been made public (despite the fact that will be paid for with taxpayers’ money) but the basic idea is that it will cost roughly $30M and require funding from federal, provincial, municipal, and perhaps even private sources. Proponents of the facility and several members of council, including the mayor, are confident that the funding will be in place and the curtain will rise in the new facility within 24-36 months. But, given that some of these folks have already demonstrated the ability to be both confident and wrong at the same time (more about this in a future letter), it is worth drawing our own conclusions about the inevitability of funding. Let’s consider the potential sources:

• Federal: Conservatives have a doctrinal aversion to spending taxpayers' money on the arts. However, given their minority status, the Conservatives might be willing to fund some projects in an attempt to secure a majority. The problem is that Stockwell Day received more votes than the other three candidates combined in the 2006 election and has since been promoted to cabinet. His seat is one of the safest in Canada. Why then would scarce federal funding come here when it can be used in Ontario or Quebec to make a difference?
• Provincial: Messers Barisoff and Thorpe can join Mr. Day in the Safe Seat Club, having already delivered a whopping $50M contribution to the SOEC. So why would the provincial Liberals, who are facing increasing financial pressure from Olympic overruns, set an unsustainable precedent by giving a small city in a safe riding even more money?
• Municipal: Proponents of a new performing arts facility like to point to a series of studies and plans commissioned over the last couple of decades. Unfortunately, those documents became ancient history the moment the city agreed to underwrite the $17M cost overrun of the SOEC. In addition, new surprises might be in store once the SOEC is complete. Although a real business plan for the SOEC was never made public, it is clear the city expects the facility to turn a profit. But as communities such as Cranbrook and Youngstown, OH, have discovered, the revenue projections used to justify the construction of such facilities may bear little relation to actual revenues. Under the terms of its contract with its private sector partner, the City of Penticton bears almost all of the risk of operating losses, which may be significant. Making commitments to other major capital projects before the city’s true liabilities can be estimated with any precision strikes me as reckless.
• Private investors: Both Mayor Kimberley and Larry Little, the chair of School District 67, have argued in favor of the destruction of Pen-Hi’s auditorium by pointing out that building is seldom used. Others have responded that the district’s restrictive booking policies (e.g., no setup until the end of the school day) are the culprit and that events would be easier to book if the auditorium were under community control. Either way, an unused auditorium is hardly a ringing endorsement of the financial viability of an expensive replacement. More recently, the mayor has floated the possibility of using condominium development to cross-subsidize the provision of a new performing arts facility. No information on this idea has been forthcoming so it is hard to comment on its merits. However, given the city’s lack of success in getting developers to do simple things, like build on the vacant Three Gables site or invest in a supermarket in the downtown core, it is not clear how the city is going to convince a developer to underwrite an expensive money-losing auditorium.

Given this political and financial calculus, I would put the probability of raising $30M in the next 36 months somewhere between bleak and dismal. At the very least, we should acknowledge that the city is making important irreversible decisions in the face of massive uncertainty. Fortunately, much of this uncertainty can be reduced at low cost. Since the performing arts facility society insists that it cannot raise money until it owns land, the city’s first priority should be to acquire this land. This way, we can see whether all the happy talk about funding has any basis in fact. Naturally, the land could revert to the city if the fundraising fell short, making the transaction essentially risk-free for the city.

Unfortunately, the city has confused knocking over its backup facility (“Getting on with it”, seems to be the dominant slogan) and rational first steps. The prevailing theory seems to be that the $1.5M required to save the gym and auditorium should be spent to buy the land for the new performing arts facility. But $1.5M (which also buys us a large, much needed gymnasium) is a mere 5% of the cost of a new facility. It is like council saying it cannot afford travel insurance because it needs the money for airfare. My response is that, if it cannot afford insurance, it should not be traveling at all. Unfortunately, most councilors are unmoved by risk mitigation strategies or conventional logic. Instead, they seem to be most interested in facile slogans. As a conclusion then, let me offer some proven winners: Don’t count your chickens before they hatch. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Look before you leap.

Dodi Morrison: Decision divides community

The following appeared in the Western News on June 8, 2007:

This week Penticton city council decided to tear down Pen High auditorium and the attached gym. This was in spite of a very well-delivered and sensible presentation telling of all the uses that could be found for this quite newly renovated structure (that is, the gym). I was urged to attend the meeting but had the impression that we had till the end of June to come up with a plan and even thought one was almost in place — for the auditorium. I wished to speak, but apparently there was no time.

Why is the auditorium considered so old? The three schools I attended in Vancouver, which are far older, are still going strong with a little tweaking here and there. Our solidly built auditorium stands on cement and only the wood structure of the stage needs replacing. That could be done, I am told by reliable builders, for only $2-3 million, including dressing rooms, bathrooms and an entrance. That is a sum our small city could handle. Not that I would not enjoy a new venue with all the bells and whistles. But we have enough debt now, with the event centre and all the infrastructure caused by the many new buildings in town. Only the elite seem to want new taxes.

Monday night I sat beside a woman who lives in White Rock, hardly an impoverished B.C. town. She voluntarily admired the structure of our auditorium “I wish we had this in White Rock. It’s beautiful!” Then there are the artists who praise its acoustics — but those aren’t supposed to matter any more, I gather.

What a sad day. And what a divided town — divided unnecessarily.

News: Free rec passes make teens more active

When 2,500 Grade 5 students in Kingston and surrounding townships were given free one-year passes, nearly three-quarters of them took advantage of the passes to increase their physical activity, according to an evaluation conducted by Queen's University researchers.

See the full story" http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=9cda755c-945e-4d70-9a5f-ae02f2537c1b

Michael Brydon: Comments on the city's decision

The following rant is too long to be sent to the Herald as a letter. I will try, at time permits, to get shorter versions published in the Herald as letters to the editor.

Bismark is often quoted as saying, “Laws are like sausages; it is better not to see them being made.” Foolishly ignoring this advice, I just watched a recording of the recent city council meeting in which the city declined to acquire the current Pen-Hi gym and auditorium for community use. Naturally, like many other people in the community who have advocated saving both facilities, I am disappointed by council’s decision. Not so disappointed that I am going to chain myself to a bulldozer on demolition day (though we still may be able to convince Fred Fedorak to do this), but disappointed enough to comment on the decision process captured by the video camera.

The meeting started with a presentation by city staff (Barry Reid, the city’s Director of Special Projects) on the costs and benefits of saving the two facilities. I thought this presentation and accompanying memo were well done, although I have two quibbles. First, for consistency, the operational costs of the auditorium should have been left out of the analysis since any facility—new or old—involves ongoing operation costs. The inclusion of the payroll cost of a new arts coordinator in the estimate was especially misleading since the city will likely fill this position regardless of what happens to the Pen-Hi buildings. A second quibble is that Mr. Reid’s “cost-benefit analysis” actually said nothing about the benefits to the community of saving the auditorium and gym. This is understandable since the benefits of such facilities (culture, fitness, programs for youth) are diffuse and intangible. Instead, Mr. Reid argued that the city could achieve greater benefits on the auditorium side by building a new performing arts center or enlarging the Cleland Theatre and roughly equal benefits on the gym side by streamlining the process by which groups can access the school district’s existing gyms during evenings and weekends.

The latter is certainly an attractive argument given the number of school gyms in this town. But the argument has an important caveat, which Mr. Reid made clear during his presentation of elementary school utilization: “The high school gyms are normally fully used; it is tough to get into them.” Mr. Reid’s “viable alternatives to Pen-Hi” thus depend on the assumption that gyms are fungible—that is, an elementary school gym is completely interchangeable with a high-school gym. As any adult who uses school gyms will tell you though, gym space is emphatically not fungible. Elementary schools are small boxes with poor lighting, low ceilings, and (invariably) dirty floors. More importantly, there is little or no room for spectators or warming-up since the playing area generally occupies the building’s entire footprint. The Pen-Hi gym, in contrast, is a huge space with lots of room for observing, preparing, and socializing. “Make do!” you might be saying. But it is interesting to note by way of comparison that Mayor Kimberley is much more sensitive to subtle differences in amenities when discussing his own interests. In his argument in favor of demolishing the Pen-Hi auditorium, for example, he notes that the facility lacks an adequate space to have a glass of wine during intermission.

Unfortunately, the critical issue of whether the Carmi School gym is really a “viable alternative” to the Pen-Hi gym was never seriously debated during the council meeting. Instead, Mayor Kimberley contradicted Mr. Reid and stated confidently that Pen-Hi’s state of the art new gym will be available in the future for rental by community groups. Dr. Sandra Congram, who was making a presentation at the time, recalled her own experience as a parent and reminded the mayor that high-school teams monopolize their gyms until late in the evening for most of the school year. Mayor Kimberley, unconvinced, returned to the ample availability of high school gym space in his concluding remarks. Why city staff did not interject and correct the mayor is unknown to me.

Mayor Kimberley also used the discussion to express personal opinions about the projected costs of saving the gym and auditorium, which he argued were far too low. I certainly do not dispute the mayor’s right to publicly scoff at detailed cost estimates prepared by Greyback Construction, reviewed by city staff, and verified by an independent quantity surveyor. The mayor has earned his chops in the construction industry and, to date, has consistently been within plus or minus $17M when estimating a project’s true cost. The problem is that he does not apply the same reasoning to the alternatives, specifically the proposed performing arts facility. If the city cannot risk cost increases in a project with a base price of $1.5M, how can it recommend instead taking on a project with a base price of $30M?

Of course many other financial objections were raised by council and there is not enough space to mock them all. But two stand out. Objection #1: The city cannot afford spend $500K of taxpayer’s money to demolish the gym and auditorium at some unspecified point in the future. Suggested solution: School District 67 has already budgeted $500K of taxpayer’s money to demolish the buildings next year. Perhaps a taxpayer-to-taxpayer transfer of some type can be arranged. Objection #2: Fundraising for a new performing arts centre cannot start until land for the facility has been secured. Suggested solution: Assuming this is true, the city should buy the land now and give it to the performing arts society so that they can get started. If the required $30M (or whatever) to build cannot be raised, the land can revert to the city (and sold for a net profit to the city if Councilor Litke’s prediction of negative real interest rates is accurate).

For some reason though, both the city and the performing arts facility society insist that the city cannot buy land for a new facility and take over the gym and the auditorium at the same time. Even though keeping the auditorium provides us with insurance against foreseen and unforeseen problems with building a new facility, and even though $1.5M also buys us a large gymnasium, they argue that the money for the upgrade should be channeled instead to the new performing arts facility. True, the money saved by abandoning the opportunity to retain the Pen-Hi buildings, plus a few bottle drives and perhaps a bake sale, gets us to the 5% mark. But it is not clear where the other $28.5M for the new facility is going to come from.

As both Mayor Kimberley and Councilor McIvor reveal in their closing remarks of the discussion, the overriding objective of their decision is not risk reduction, but risk maximization. Economists call it moral hazard, but we can it the Macbeth strategy: city council convinces SD67 to kill the rival auditorium, thereby eliminating any possibility of a “Make do!” argument. As Councilor McIvor points out, the absence of a large performing arts facility in a city of this size would be incongruous, making it much easier to pressure both the federal and provincial governments for funding. It is a shrewd strategy and may indeed improve our chances of receiving outside funding for a stunning new facility. Three problems though: The first is that our chances of outside funding may be improved, but still be very slim. We hear a lot of slogans about commitment, and “horsepower”, and “getting on with it” when discussing a new facility. What we do not hear is any specific funding commitments. The second problem is that a third of the capital cost and all operating losses of the new facility will be borne by local taxpayers. So while the Macbeth strategy may indeed compel outsiders to fund our new facility, it also compels local taxpayers to come up with a tidy pile of money. Taxpayers may balk at precipitating their own facilities deficit and respond: “You had an okay auditorium; you knocked it down.” The third problem (as Councilor Ashton recognized) is the gymnasium has become pawn in these machinations. Mr. Reid acknowledged early in his presentation to council that he initially thought saving both the gym and auditorium was a no-brainer, as did 60% of the people surveyed by the city. Somehow, the simplicity of it all has been lost.

I cannot recall how Macbeth ends (and since we are knocking down our best theatre with no replacement in sight, I am in little danger of being reminded). But I do recall some anxiety about a “damned spot” of blood. If their strategy falls short, perhaps the mayor and certain councilors will be similarly haunted by spots of demolition debris.

Update: SONG meets with the school board

A handful of SONG members met with the SD67 school board on Monday, May 14th, 2007, to present a case for saving the Pen-Hi auditorium and gym. An account of the meeting appeared in the Western News:

Plea to save Pen High buildings unlikely to sway board

By KATHY MICHAELS
Western News Staff
May 16 2007

A thorough list of why and how Penticton Secondary’s north gym and auditorium should remain in the community was presented to the school board on Monday, but to-date the district still intends to move ahead with their demolition plans.

About a dozen supporters of keeping the buildings intact filed into the Okanagan Skaha board meeting to plead their case to trustees, and they came armed with a litany of support letters, a petition 600 signatures strong in addition to some empirical evidence for keeping the structures up and running.

Dr. Sandy Congram addressed the board and outlined the group dubbed Save Our North Gym and Auditorium’s proposal. Leaving ownership of the facilities in the hands of the district, Congram proposed that the city lease and manage the recreational space and mirror what is being done successfully in several other communities throughout the province. According to Congram, both facilities are intrinsic parts of the community and, at this juncture, it would be imprudent to remove them, especially when it’s clear they won’t be replaced now that funds are tied up by projects like the South Okanagan Event Centre.

One of the key aspects of the groups proposal was a financial analysis by Greyback Construction Ltd. and Ron Mason. According to the evaluation, everything from maintenance, to upgrades of the building would tally up to approximately $1.14 million.

Noting that the funds needed for the project are minor in comparison to what would be needed to re-build the facilities, Congram said initial planning meetings that were held three years ago didn’t reflect the issues that are present today. “This is a matter of political will and looking at what we will need in the community,” she said. “It’s wasteful to tear the buildings down — we need them.”

Although trustees and district staff listened attentively during Congram’s presentation, school board chair Larry Little didn’t move from their original assertions. However, because of community interest Little said the district will take another look at the options. “We are still firm that it doesn’t suit our educational purposes, but we are going to explore some site options,” said Little.

Little highlighted four non-negotiable items that the district will keep mindful of if the city does decide to support SONG’s proposal for funding. “We need to maintain student safety, a bus in and out area, green space and adequate parking,” he said. Little also said that it was re-assuring to have contact with the group. Referring to the Greyback Construction cost analysis Little said the information will be taken seriously. “It’s a good document, there’s some substantial information in there,” he said, adding that the district is still waiting from a decision from the city.

Ted Makar: Auditorium not ready for wrecking ball

The following letter was published in the Western News on May 4th, 2007:

Will our city council and school board work together for everyone’s benefit?

It just doesn’t make sense to destroy Pen High’s auditorium before having a replacement built. So many letters to the editor have praised the acoustics of the facility and so many concerts have enriched the lives of its audiences that replacing the auditorium with a parking lot is unthinkable. Why not consider remodeling? Let’s save our money.

The auditorium is built using two forms of construction — the seating area is mostly poured concrete and the stage is wood-frame construction. The comfort, capacity, and acoustics of the seating area are up to standard and only need some cosmetic improvements and some new technology to continue into the future. The stage area, since it needs to be larger and have more elaborate production equipment, could be replaced. Redevelop — don’t wreck and (hopefully, eventually) replace.

In view of the city’s commitment to the building of the South Okanagan Event Centre, funds for building a new performing arts centre may be hard to come by for some time into the future. Neither city council nor school board need to face a taxpayer revolt to finance another new facility. These bodies need only come to an agreement for the redevelopment of the auditorium. They have worked well together to open up school facilities for multiple use. Why not a lease arrangement thus giving time for adequate planning and community consultation?

With continually rising construction costs it makes good sense to save taxpayer dollars by adding a foyer to the auditorium, a new performance area and also save the excellent gym for community use. This could be done for a fraction of the cost of acquiring land and building a new auditorium and drill hall. Compare an estimated $5 million with $35 million.

Citizens and politicians do take pride in good management. Together, we have preserved then developed waterfront parks, heritage ships and buildings, and infrastructure such as the original convention centre and city water and sewage treatment facilities. Legacies need not be new flashy showpieces.