Dan Ebenal: Group’s efforts destined to fail

The following editorial appeared in the 29 July, 2008, edition of the Western News:

The saga around the proposed salvation of two aging school buildings is threatening to become a never-ending story.

The Penticton League of Sensible Electors has — despite suffering a legal defeat last week — promised to carry on their good fight to save the Penticton Secondary School auditorium and north gym from demolition is planning to announce their next move this week.

What might this move look like when the group has already used up its most powerful option is beyond us.

Might this group announce that they would tie themselves to building in a courageous, even tragically heroic bid to keep the buildings upright? Or will they call for a mass demonstration or some other form of political action? They have already raised the spectre of running a slate in the next municipal election. Or will they look for help from outside the community, say provincial leaders, assuming that these individuals actually care about this matter? We are certainly open for surprises.

But it is highly unlikely that any measure announced this Friday will succeed. The actual facts on the ground are clear and will deny PLEASE any possibility of success, no matter how they define it. The group is of course, free to pursue their goal and persist in their efforts, something it has done with determination, since it continues to ignore appeals from this space and other voices to cease their futile and ultimately doomed campaign.

The points made in favour of saving the two facilities might have resonated two, three years ago. Yes, the group has inspired thousands of people to voice their opinion in recent weeks, but this out pouring comes too late.

Editorial aside: Two or three years ago the South Okanagan Events Centre was not on the books. Now it is, and the City of Penticton is at least $20 million (I suspect closer to $40 million) poorer. Call me crazy, but I think this is relevant.

So PLEASE, end this pointless agony and stop assuming that the powers that be can be forced into sharing your rose-coloured nostalgia for two buildings whose best days are long behind them.

I assume that Mr. Ebenal has come up with a plan to fund the replacement for the aging Pen-Hi auditorium: "The Penticton Western News Centre for the Performing Arts". Now all we need from Mr. Ebenal is a cheque for $40 million...

Zorka Kvestich: School board ignored electorate

The following appeared in the 24 July, 2008, edition of the Herald:

The School Board has not been fair. It thinks that two small meetings and a website was enough notification to tell the people about the new Pen High development and the demolition of the old school. Many people in Penticton are like me, retired, and do not use a computer. We expected our public officials to have our best interests in mind. However, it seems like the Board did not really want to hear from people like me, but we are taxpayers and want a say in assets that we believe are economical and can give many more years of valuable contribution to our community. The taxpayers should have a say on what happens to the north gym and auditorium. The Board has not accepted any suggestions that might include saving these buildings. They have not listened to the people that elected them. They are trying to destroy these structures in September just two months before the next civic election to avoid discussion and a possible referendum which would allow the majority to decide whether the buildings should be kept or not. The Board is actually asking a court to ignore the significant public opposition and allow the demolition of these buildings. This is unbelievable.

The taxpayers of town, many of whom are pensioners like myself, are already paying additional taxes because of the new South Okanagan Events Centre. I supported a referendum for this project after listening to the significant public discussion surrounding the proposal. A few years earlier, a plan to demolish the Memorial Arena was squashed by public input and the building was saved. The old arena is still giving excellent service to Penticton.

The Pen High development did not follow a similar excellent opportunity for public discussion. In fact, it actually appeared to be the opposite, with the School Board only informing the town what it was planning to do. The articles in the paper certainly suggested to me that the final choice about the gym and auditorium had already been made. I do not understand why two expensive buildings that we already own, with a small amount of renovation, cannot be utilized. It is the practical and economical solution to give our city much needed recreational and artistic venues. New facilities can be built later, with public support when the opportunity and funding is available.

I have attended scores of concerts in the auditorium while a member of the Okanagan Symphony and Community Concert Series. I watched my daughters during high school and now grand daughters playing basketball through the Penticton Basketball Camp in the gymnasium. I do not support destroying these facilities to make room for the parking lot of the new school. A new place can be found for parking, but these buildings cannot be easily replaced. I think that the Board has not represented the taxpayer’s best interests at all and should be held accountable in the next election. It is obligated to listen to the public and consider the practical alternatives that have been repeatedly made by concerned citizens and suffering taxpayers.

News: Judgment from BC Supreme Court

The ruling from Mr. Justice Barrow dismissing our petition against School District 67 can be found on the web at: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/08/09/2008BCSC0980.htm.

Adeline Rheaume: Court injunction for buildings necessary step

The following letter appeared in the July 15th Western News. A slightly different version also appeared in the Herald:

Why is it necessary for taxpayers of this area to take such extraordinary steps as asking for a court injunction to stop the destruction of the Pen Hi gym and auditorium?

It’s because we have such an extraordinary situation here, with tens of millions of dollars worth of valuable assets in danger of being hauled to the landfill. (And then we might well be forced into the position of replacing them.) All this with the distinct possibility of an economic “correction” facing us.

There is very strong evidence that an overwhelming majority of Penticton and area residents (approximately 97 per cent) do not want this to happen.

Yet our six school trustees, who speak with one strangely identical voice, plus five of our city council (everyone except Vassilaki and Ashton) have decided to ignore the usual democratic process and act against the wishes of this vast majority.

If they challenge these statements, we challenge them (if they cannot see fit to call a referendum) to sit down and carry out another opinion survey. With us.

When we conducted our survey, with every age group from high school to senior participating, over 2,600 said do not do it.

Only 85 said yes. If they can come up with that many people agreeing to the destruction of these facilities, I’m sure some of us would be willing to autograph the wrecking ball. That’s how confident we are the people of this area are completely against this insanity.

So what we have here is a handful of elected people who have forgotten that they represent us, the electorate. When there is such a huge disconnect between their thinking and what the general public wants, its time they did some soul searching. Especially when they are embarking upon something totally irreversible.

Working together, the city, school board and the South Okanagan Performing Arts Facility Society could have made this work on behalf of the community, serving both adults and students for decades to come. They chose not to.

That is when we began hearing, “PLEASE. Something has to be done.”

Remember. There are no grants or funding of any kind. Just people digging into their own pockets because they do not want to see pieces of Penticton destroyed and the city thrown into unnecessary debt.

And now on the lighter side. Overheard in Kelowna: “Good thing Penticton officials were not in charge of the new bridge. They would have taken it down first then started figuring out how to replace it.”

News: Pen High battle lands in Supreme Court

The following appeard in the Western News:

By Steve Kidd - Penticton Western News

Published: July 17, 2008 10:00 AM
Updated: July 17, 2008 6:34 PM

The Penticton League of Sensible Electors and School District 67 finally have something in common.

They’re both going to have to wait a little bit longer to find out if a B.C. Supreme Court judge will grant an injunction delaying SD67’s plans to demolish the auditorium and north gym at Penticton Secondary along with the rest of the old school buildings.

After two days at Supreme Court in Kelowna receiving affidavits and hearing arguments from both sides in the ongoing dispute over the future of the Pen High buildings, Justice Geoffrey Barrow reserved decision on the matter, saying he would render a verbal opinion on July 22.

The court proceedings were started by PLEASE after they felt they had exhausted all other means to convince the Board of Education that, separated from the school, the gym and auditorium could still be valuable assets to the community.

One of the main arguments presented to Barrow concerned whether the school board had done due diligence in terms of allowing for public input over the future of the building.

PLEASE lawyer Tom Johnston presented the argument that while there had been public consultation over the planning of the new school, the board of education had not fulfilled obligations for public input regarding the disposition of surplus buildings.

“When assets are built that have a larger public value, they have a responsibility to consult with us,” said Tom Siddon, a PLEASE member, saying that SD67 should not just be responsible to the needs of students and the educational community but to the larger taxpaying public as well.

Given their chance to rebut, Geoffrey Litherland of Harris and Co. argued that during a process spanning several years, a great deal of public consultation had been done. He presented affidavits from superintendent Gary Doi, former board chair Connie Denesiuk, director of maintenance John Hickling and secretary-treasurer Frank Regehr, all of whom were heavily involved in the consultation process.

“It has been a five-year process. There’s been a lot of board work done” said Regehr, who felt they had provided Barrow with a well-researched package of information.

If the court approves their injunction on Tuesday, PLEASE chairman Dave Shunter said the group will begin work on a business plan and ways of raising the millions needed to preserve the old buildings. But if the judge doesn’t grant the injunction, he added, PLEASE won’t be giving up — they’ll just begin work on another plan.

“It isn’t over yet,” said Siddon.

“That’s my bottom line.”

Anita Fashler: Not worthless after all

A slightly edited version of the following appeared in the July 4th, 2008, edition of the Penticton Herald:

Why does the school board and city council call the north gym and auditorium “worthless, surplus to the school’s needs” (Penticton Herald, 6 June 2008)? Why did they pursue an over half million dollar upgrade of the gym while at the same time planning it’s demolition? Why are all practical, common sense alternatives made by numerous public groups representing the taxpayers of Penticton immediately rejected by your elected officials? Many local groups and individuals have documented the usefulness and relevancy of both the gym and the auditorium. In fact, the recent court challenge requesting a re-evaluation of the demolition of these buildings includes sworn affidavits giving specific facts and figures. Alternatively the School Board and City Council are anxious to complete their original plans for demolition before the next civic election. It is difficult to view this decision as anything more than arbitrary and a grave misjudgment of public assets.

Why would the auditorium be viewed as “worthless” when Penticton has only one other functioning arts venue? For example, the City of Vancouver has 15 different arts and cultural venues. In addition to these public theatres, the Vancouver School Board has five high schools with auditoriums seating from 520 to 742. Four of these five facilities are decades old. The recently re-built Magee Senior Secondary included a new auditorium with 550 seats, replacing their previous facility. Apparently in other cities, high school auditoriums are not considered “worthless, surplus to school needs”. Penticton has two arts venues, including the Cleland Theatre and the joint school/community Pen High auditorium. The Pen High auditorium has seating for 743.

The high school auditoriums in Vancouver are used for the schools but are also rented for public use on weekdays, weekends, and during vacations. When rented, these facilities are providing revenue to the School Board. Rental rates during the school year range from $404 for the first four hours on weekdays to $834 on weekends. These rates increase during the summer months. The Penticton School Board has admitted to not vigorously advertising for out of school rentals, no doubt to support their opinion that the building is “worthless”.

The Penticton School Board and the City Council are powerful bodies. As such, they have pursued their demolition agenda without listening to their constituents. However, the public should know that they themselves are the ultimate power, with the Board and Council merely their elected representatives. The redevelopment of Pen High was presented over 4 years ago. With persistent public pressure and exposure, the people of Penticton are now becoming aware that this plan was not all undertaken in good faith.

The gym and auditorium are neither worthless nor surplus to school and community needs. For example, the auditorium has unique acoustic properties (Jonathan Sevy, letter to city council and school board, October, 2003). Several employees of the city’s park and recreation department have openly admitted that the current demand for prime-time gym space in Penticton exceeds capacity (Michael Brydon, April, 2007). If the auditorium and gym were marketed, they could raise funds for the school and the community or help to pay for their own maintenance and operation. How can burying these buildings in a landfill be responsible use of tax dollars?
The plans prepared by community experts to retain the gym and the auditoriums were based on detailed analysis, not sentimentality. They mapped out alternative configurations that would not affect the new school. The response from the School Board was “it is still our property and still our decision” (Brydon, April, 2007). The Board itself did no feasibility studies on possible retention of these buildings during any of their planning decisions. Your elected officials have never wavered in 4 years: they need a parking lot and it has to be exactly where these buildings now stand.

The future of the gym and auditorium must be based on honest documented data and reflect the wishes of the common sense, practical and responsible taxpayers of Penticton. It should not be left to the arbitrary whims of politicians near the end of their mandate.

Anita Kvestich Fashler (Vancouver)

Sudbury Star: Analysis of external funding for arts and recreation infrastructure

The following is from the Sudbury Sun. The article looks at external (provincial and federal) funding for arts and recreation infrastructure and concludes that Sudbury has little chance of getting such facilities without significant local investment. The analysis in this story supports our view that Penticton taxpayers will be on the hook for a significant portion of any performing arts facility in this city. Both the Penticton and District Performing Arts Facility Society (PDPAFS) and City Council have been unwilling to acknowledge the burden their scheme will impose on local taxpayers.

Funding the Legacy Projects: Where will we find the money?
DENIS ST. PIERRE
Sudbury Sun
7 Jun 08

For months, Greater Sudbury Mayor John Rodriguez has maintained the provincial and federal governments must be significant funding partners for the city's so-called legacy projects. It's likely safe to assume "significant" would translate into tens of millions of dollars, given total costs in the $140-million to $150-million range for the proposed projects -- a huge recreation complex and a performing arts centre. In fact, the mayor suggests senior levels of government, combined with generous support from the private sector, must cover the lion's share of the legacy projects' costs -- as much as 80 to 90 per cent.

The city has yet to quantify how much provincial and federal funding it needs for the legacy projects. It is expected to take several weeks or even a few months for those numbers to surface. But securing major financing from outside sources will be a key factor -- and possibly the defining issue -- determining the projects' fate. So what can the city expect in terms of provincial and federal support? Is it realistic to count on tens of millions from Ottawa and Queen's Park?

Recent experiences of other Ontario municipalities that have developed recreation and culture facilities suggest Greater Sudbury may get nothing at all. At the other end of the spectrum, a best-case scenario would appear to be one-third of total costs funded by senior levels of government.

For the most part, there appears to have been relatively little funding from provincial and federal coffers for major culture and sports complexes developed by municipalities recently, research suggests. In fact, in several cases, there has been no such funding at all, leaving municipalities to finance their projects entirely from the local property tax base and community fundraising.

The Sudbury Star took a look this week at 10 municipalities that have built either a major recreation complex or a performing arts centre in the last five or six years. In six of those cases, there was no provincial or federal funding, while two municipalities received what could be characterized as minimal help. Two other municipalities managed to secure what could be described as significant funding from senior government levels.

When the City of Brampton built its Rose Theatre, an 880-seat performing arts centre that opened in 2006 at a reported cost of $55 million, it was shut out in its requests for federal and provincial assistance. "There was a lobbying campaign with the province at the time ... as well as with the federal government for funding for the theatre," says Gordon Smith, Brampton's communications manager. "That was, unfortunately, unsuccessful."

The Town of Richmond Hill has fared only moderately better in seeking help to develop its $30-million performing arts centre, which is scheduled to open this fall. "We got $2 million from a federal grant," says David Dexter, Richmond Hill's director of financial services. "That's the only grant we've received so far." While more funding "opportunities" are being sought, municipal officials don't appear to be holding their collective breath for senior government partners to come to the table. "Nothing right now is on our plate," Dexter says. As a result, the municipality expects to finance more than 75 per cent of the project's cost -- about $23 million -- from its own coffers. In addition to the $2-million federal grant already provided, "another $5 million is to come from corporate and personal donations" and any additional government funding, says Dexter.

Only one of the four performing arts centres reviewed by The Star -- Toronto's Four Seasons Centre -- received funding from both senior levels of government. A survey of six municipalities which recently developed major recreation complexes found that only one community -- Sault Ste. Marie -- received provincial or federal funding. The other five municipalities were left to their own devices to finance recreation projects ranging in cost from $16 million to $39 million.

This rather uninspiring record of senior government support for culture and recreation projects appears unlikely to change, given current fiscal and political realities at Queen's Park and in Ottawa. Both levels of government are in belt-tightening mode, particularly the provincial Liberals who face a revenue crunch due to a slumping economy bordering on recession.

None of which deters Greater Sudbury's mayor, however. Federal and provincial funding for the city's legacy projects will and must be available, Rodriguez says. "I have to take the federal government at its word, that it is interested in cultural diversification and enhancement. They've said that," the mayor says. "I'm going to hold the federal government to its word and to its commitment and I'm going to try to drag the provincial government, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century, because this is where it's at."

It cannot be lost on the senior levels of government that there are important distinctions and unique circumstances to be acknowledged in evaluating the merits of funding community projects in any municipality, the mayor suggests. Rodriguez has argued since he campaigned for office in 2006 that the city needs a greater share of the mining-generated tax wealth received almost entirely by the provincial and federal governments. It also is a fact that Northern Ontario municipalities have not enjoyed the same level of assessment and revenue growth as their southern Ontario counterparts for the last several years.

Such factors may help explain why the City of Sault Ste. Marie received $4.7 million from the province and $3.7 million in federal funds to help build the Steelback Centre, its major-venue arena and entertainment complex. Combined, the provincial and federal funds represented one-third of the project's $25-million cost.

Rodriguez also notes generous allowances were made recently by the senior levels of government in southern Ontario, specifically Toronto's Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts. Home to the Canadian Opera Company and the National Ballet of Canada, the $186-million Four Seasons Centre opened in June 2006, with federal and provincial support accounting for 35 per cent of the cost, or a total of $66 million. The federal government donated $25 million and the province contributed $10 million in cash and land valued at $31 million.

The funding levels for the Steelback Centre and the Four Seasons Centre, extrapolated to reflect the cost of Greater Sudbury's legacy projects, would translate into roughly $50 million for the two local facilities. Such a figure likely would make Rodriguez salivate, given that he also expects huge support from the private sector, in particular two local mining giants that have been enjoying unprecedented profits.

Editorial aside: Penticton has no mining giants.

Rodriguez has yet to publicly provide numbers on the level of generosity he would like to see from the likes of Vale Inco and Xstrata Nickel. But the mayor has said that executives of the mining companies have not been scared off by ballpark numbers he has broached in private discussions.

The city also will be pursuing donations from the "broad" private sector, including corporations outside the city as well as various endowment funds and foundations, Rodriguez says. A community fundraising campaign also will be part of the city's approach, the goal of which will be to minimize the municipality's share of the legacy projects' costs, he says. "We're going to the private sector -- and I use the term broadly ... We intend to go far and wide to see how much we can raise."

One approach the city will not take is to sell the municipality's electrical utility -- Greater Sudbury Utilities -- to help finance the legacy projects, Rodriguez insists. There has been speculation recently within and outside city hall that council could be compelled to consider selling the GSU, which could fetch an estimated $70-million to $100-million, according to sources. That is precisely the course taken by a number of Ontario municipalities over the last several years to help finance major community projects and services.

Brampton, for example, sold its municipal utility to Hydro One in 2002, for about $260 million. About $41 million of that money subsequently was invested into the city's new performing arts centre. "That money was put into a number of funds, one of which was a specific legacy fund, to be held in perpetuity, like an endowment from which we get interest," says Gordon Smith, the City of Brampton spokesman. "Other (funds) were specifically for community investments, for projects like the Rose Theatre." Similar decisions made by Richmond Hill and the City of Burlington have helped finance their respective performing arts centre developments.

Greater Sudbury, however, will not divest itself of its municipal utility, Rodriguez says. The GSU currently generates an annual dividend of about $3.8 million to the city's coffers, the mayor points out. City officials also have long argued the GSU provides better service and lower rates than Hydro One, which would be the likely buyer if the municipal utility was sold.

"I can assure you, that's not in the cards," Rodriguez says. "Because our utility is an investment of the city ... and we get dividends ... that come every year. "We want to hold onto our utility, because our utility has subsidiaries as well. We think they're generating about seven-per-cent return on our investment and we can't get a seven-per-cent return on investment with investing institutions. So we're not going to do that. "We are going to go after what is in the private sector and what's there at the federal level and at the provincial level."

Another financing option that remains on the table is the potential for public-private partnerships -- so-called 3Ps -- in which a facility is financed, developed and operated by a corporation under agreement with the municipality. "Various configurations of 3Ps are being considered as part of the final development of business plans," the mayor's office said in a statement this week. Such agreements have been used by several municipalities, particularly to build and operated recreation complexes and those arrangements were reviewed by advisory panels working on Sudbury's legacy projects, the mayor's office noted. "Some were design/finance/build/operate, some were finance and leaseback, others were just design/build ... These options are being explored and the mayor is encouraging that all options be examined."

City council is expected to make a decision this fall on the legacy projects. Detailed funding applications to the senior levels of government must be ready before then, the mayor says. Until such details are known, it is premature to speculate on the likelihood of provincial funding -- let alone the amount -- for either project, says Sudbury MPP and cabinet minister Rick Bartolucci.

"I don't know which ministry they're applying to and they haven't contacted me," says Bartolucci. "And I can't speak for other ministries, that's where I'm caught, so honestly I don't know ... what the city is asking for. But I do know that there are so many unanswered questions that need to be answered before these projects move forward." Nor can he personally support either of the projects before crucial issues such as capital and operating costs, overall funding arrangements and long-term viability are addressed, Bartolucci adds.

"I'm not interested in a legacy that turns out to be a burden to our community," he says. "We have to be clear on what exactly this community stands to inherit. "So I am not sold on these projects at this point in time. They may convince me, but ... overwhelmingly, the feedback I'm getting from the people I'm in touch with is that they have many questions about these projects." Until his concerns and those of many of his constituents regarding the legacy projects are addressed, his funding priorities for the community lie elsewhere, Bartolucci says.

"My purpose in advocacy over the last little while has been more money for roads, I'm pushing for the school of architecture, I'm pushing for a new courthouse. Those have a greater priority, for me personally, than these two projects." Nor will he be swayed by confrontational or coercive arguments to lobby for provincial funding, Bartolucci says, responding to Rodriguez's suggestion the province may have to be dragged to the table kicking and screaming.

"I would suggest that he not lay down the gauntlet," says Bartolucci. "I won't be coerced into doing something that's not in the best interest of my community. My political legacy, if you will, will be always acting in the best interests of the community, not to fulfil personal dreams."