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."

Jonathan Sevy: Three Tenors or Three Taiko Drums?

The following is essentially a copy of the letter originally sent on 29 October, 2003 to Penticton City Council, School Board 67 Board, and MLA Bill Barisoff:

RE: Penticton Secondary School Auditorium Friends, In 1999 I returned to Penticton after a nearly 30 year absence. My wife and I joined the Community Concert Association, and have been attending those concerts regularly in the Pen High auditorium.

We typically sit in the front or second row. Last year Quartango played for us, and their music included many subtle elements that I thought must surely be lost to those sitting farther back in the hall. After intermission I went back and sat in the back row, just to satisfy my curiosity. There was no electrical amplification. To my amazement, the sound quality was as excellent at the rear as at the front. There were 600-700 people there, yet the music volume was nearly undiminished by the distance. In fact, the only difference I could detect was a gentle blending of the sounds, where the instruments sounded more distinct from each other when seated 10 feet away from the performers.

Between the next few pieces, I moved up about 10 rows each time and listened from those positions. Except for small wedges of seating just at the extreme ends of the front 3-4 rows, the sound throughout that hall was exquisite. Not good, exquisite. I commented on my findings to Mr. Hobden, President of the Community Concerts, and to the stage manager. Each of them confirmed my impressions, and mentioned performers who had made similar observations.

One renowned musician had only recently commented to a group of students that the sound in our high school auditorium is superior the Met. Very few of the excellent professional musicians that we have heard in the past 5 years have requested amplification. None needed it.
The Pen High auditorium is unusual. In fact, it is extraordinary. It is a treasure. I make that statement without sentimentality, but as a semi-professional musician myself with some personal stage experience. I have sat in celebrated concert halls in Canada, the US and Germany -- including the Mormon tabernacle. It may seem incredible to you, but in my opinion the acoustics in the Pen High auditorium are just as impressive as what I heard in the best of them.

To destroy the fortunate confluence of conditions which has produced this remarkable place is folly. To borrow millions of dollars to construct an electronic hall that will require tens of thousands of dollars of tinkering and upgrading every year, plus unknown tens of thousands for professional sound engineers at virtually every performance forever--folly. Cost, cost, cost, and no real benefit. We have attended and fully enjoyed a number of concerts, sans electric, while basketball games were being played in the gym across the hallway.

As a performer, I can tell you that the single most frightening part of going on stage is knowing that the person in the sound booth controls the performance. Unfortunately, many sound experts are careless or ignorant of their equipment, and most are careless or ignorant about how the performer wants to sound.. The results are far too often disappointing. The typical sound engineer drives to work with his boom-box car stereo system blaring, then cranks up the bass of every performer, making the Three Tenors sound like the Three Taiko Drums. Our city will regret relying on fickle electronics rather than stable, dependable acoustics. Our amateur and student performers will be particularly deprived by the high-tech systems that are being considered as replacements for the current auditorium.

Politicians love to borrow and spend money, leaving a legacy of debt for their constituents' children and grandchildren. I, for one, heartily disapprove. If you must alter the Pen High auditorium, please use a gentle touch. It can and should be celebrated as an ongoing source of joy to our community for generations.

Jonathan B. Sevy

David Dewar: What these spaces can foster

Last week I took the opportunity to come home to Penticton to say a fond farewell to “Old Pen Hi”. As I walked through the gym and sat in the auditorium I recognized that since graduation in 1970 a major portion of the arc of my life had begun in those two spaces. And so I feel it is important to write to you in support of saving the auditorium and gymnasium complex from being terribly wasted.

When I went to UBC I intended to be a teacher and I began a degree in Physical Education and History. My years at Pen Hi were filled with sports, particularly basketball as I played for the Lakers in grade 11 and 12 so choosing Phys Ed was a cinch. But after my first year at the University I realized I needed a new minor subject. I remembered the fun of my drama classes and the production of “The Music Man” and promptly dropped History in favour of Theatre. I’ve never looked back. I completed my degree and have worked in the theatre, film and television ever since. And without the confidence that those high school shows gave me I might never have considered a career in entertainment. One of my classmates at theatre school was Nicola Cavendish who spoke so wonderfully at the farewell event and its with some pride that I recall that we started together on that auditorium stage at Pen Hi. I have now spent more that 30 years in the entertainment industry first as an actor and dancer and later as a producer and director in film and television all over the world and it all grew out of those two spaces at Pen Hi.

I know that a new gym is part of the new school and I’m sure that it will give great service. But in any school, and always in a busy community there is never enough space to provide for all of the groups that need a place to play. I understand also that the new school will have classrooms of some sort for drama. But there is no substitute for a real theatre as a place to perform, to build sets, to learn lighting and to inspire an audience. The real thing happens in a theatre and once the theatre you have is gone you may never get it back. So these two spaces are not just important to the school but to the whole community. These buildings exist and they can galvanize community support for their restoration just as they have done for their defense. You have a real opportunity to retain a significant resource for the school and for the city and I urge you to seize it.

At the event on Tuesday there was a lot of pride expressed about the accomplishments of the school over its many years. The fine students it produced, their credit to the community and the achievement of the teachers, administrators and parents who supported each student year by year, encouraging them to stay in school and do their best. Look at the guests who were invited to speak, Cameron Phillips, Nicola Cavendish and Nikos Theodosakis. Its no surprise that each of them spoke well, and no surprise that each of them recognized their time on the auditorium stage as the starting point of their careers. Every school has its unusual characters, sometimes they are students who just don’t fit the usual mold. In my experience, and I have taught in universities and colleges across the country, sports and the arts are the only activities some kids have that keep them in school long enough to graduate.

In the final analysis why should these types of spaces be so important to the development of our young people and the enrichment of our community. Because today more than ever our world needs what these kinds of spaces can foster. A gymnasium and a theatre are exactly the places where kids learn some of life’s most important lessons. They learn to work together, they communicate, they struggle, they share their feelings and their ideas, they learn that no one on a stage or a gym floor will be successful alone and that its only as a team that they will achieve the triumph they seek.

So I urge you to find a way to save these spaces for future generations, to make them a continuing resource to the students and the community. This is an opportunity, please don’t waste it.

David Dewar
Class of 1970

Legal challenge to SD67

Summary of legal documents filed June 12, 2008

• Cover letter


• Notice of Motion


• Petition to the Court

Affidavits

• David Perry was on Council since 1990 and Mayor from 2002 to 2005 - David explains the community need for both facilities and the lack of public or formal meetings as well as the history of SONG & PLEASE - he and all the other living Mayors agree both buildings should be kept until replacements are ready for use


• Tom Siddon draws on his Parliamentary experience and engineering background to explain the need, plus the fine acoustic quality of the auditorium - Tom details the numerous requests/attempts to save the buildings and the process that lead up to the June 5/08 decision to file the Petition


• Sandra Congram focuses on the need for the gym in today's world where fitness facilities are at a premium; she also talks of her presentations to keep the facilities and that now is not the time to tear down functional facilities when the need is so great


• Marylin Cleland Barnay focuses on the need for the auditorium and the need for a Performing Arts Facility Plan that meets projected community needs; she is also critical of the Board for not allowing public input


• Adeline Rheaume reveals the overwhelming public support in favor of keeping the facilities as- 97% - 2671 to 85 and how the Board process on May 20/08 was a farce including the absent trustee, Kevin Andrews, saying his "nay" vote from Cuba!


• Ron Mason identifies the cost of up to $1.2M to bring the buildings up to standard; that the Board's plan to the Ministry did not include either facility; and that the asbestos can be effectively dealt with


• Al Kenyon confirms the "Six Mayors" support & cautions that the City & Board are taking a real gamble by demolishing before replacements are ready; Al also comments on the City apparently deliberately creating a facility deficit as the City seems to think it will have a better chance raising the $30M it needs for the new performing arts center, if the auditorium is down


• Dodi Morrison explains her opposition to the demolition and the lack of public consultation


• Dave Shunter highlights his lengthy experience as an educator and trustee and that the auditorium and gym were never part of the Board's plan; when he left the Board at the end of 2005, he thought the City would be taking over the facilities


• Keith Lindstrom another long time educator and trustee explains that even his own plan was not considered, even though he was a trustee at the time; he also confirms that "the plan" was to "knock 'em down" from the beginning. Keith says there was no public meeting where the final design proposal was presented


• Michael Brydon the professor, focuses on the numbers and Michael Brydon, the dad, focuses on the need. The $1,142,000 Greyback estimate, his paper "Saving the Former Pen-Hi Gymnasium and Auditorium: A Decision Analysis", and his Cost Assessment of SOPAC are filed with the Court


• Beth Campbell reinforces that she and former Mayors Messmer, Tinning, Pearce, Kenyon and Perry have all had decades of public service and they unanimously agree, despite the fact their politics are different, that the buildings should stay


• Cory Goodrich, an articling student at Johnston, Johnson & Company, reviewed all the School Board Minutes and other public documents and confirms the dates set out in the Petition

Ron Barillaro: Weighing the need for performing arts centre

The following appeared in the June 04, 2008, edition of the Western News:

The see-saw discussion, rhetoric, dialogue, hyped-press — call it what you will, it seems to ebb and flow at various times and from various individuals or factions. I guess that the real question is: Do we really urgently need a new performing arts centre? The jury is still out on this question and may be for some time.

The quandary over the saving or demolishing of the Pen High facility has brought controversy, discussion, finger-pointing and the press to the fore on several occasions. One should look at other communities our size and see what sorts of facilities they have and how old they are and what types of entertainment have been hosted.

Case in point is Brockville, Ont. (pop. 36,900). Here is a city approximately our size. It has a performing arts centre, although it does not have a convention centre the size of ours. Their arts centre was built in 1895, with many updates and upgrades over the years. There is also a very respectable art gallery in the centre. Because of geographic location, it can and does attract some world-class acts and talent. All one has to do is look where the centre is located. It is within a 200-kilometre radius of major Canadian and U.S. centres in New York state. There are New York state cities as close as 40 kilometres. Our own cities of Hull and Ottawa are within 90 minutes driving time. The city of Cornwall, Ont. is a stone’s throw away.

The population support and patronage support is almost a given. Some of the events that have been presented there are: Harry Connick Jr., Tragically Hip, Glenn Miller Orchestra, Peter Appleyard, Blue Rodeo, Great Big Sea, Roger Whittaker and Randy Bachman, to name but a few. There is a large area jazz festival that is a yearly event here. This centre is the home stage for St. Lawrence College with such productions as CATS, Beauty and the Beast, A Chorus Line and 42nd Street. The classics are represented as well with piano recitals and symphony concerts. Oops, getting carried away. Back to the subject at hand. When and if this proposed performing arts centre is built, who will we attract as patrons within a 200-km radius? Will people from Wenatchee come? Will people from the Kamloops area come? What about people from Trail or Cranbrook? The answer is ... who knows?

The next question that one needs to ask is: other than localized talent (e.g. the symphony and classical presentations, some of which I have enjoyed) who will we attract? We won’t be a Brockville, Ont. for obvious reasons. We won’t attract any acts that Kelowna couldn’t attract for obvious reasons. There isn’t a pressing need for a college interest in pursuing world-class stage productions. It begs the question: Why do we need a new performing arts centre?

Bottom line would be that taxpayers and taxpayers’ children and their children would be paying for something that would attract a few stalwarts to smaller productions. The next question might be the fact that the plans are not finalized, funding is not totally in place and commitments for funding from major government players is talked about but not in place. Who says it will be in place any time soon? If and when this project gets off of the ground, what will building costs be at that time? How much cost overrun will there be?

When all is said and done, how can the city fathers and others justify this project without realizing that costs go up and that we are a small city population-wise. It’s nice to think that the big government arm and the short casino arm will offset the taxpayers’ costs. That’s great in theory but most of us know better what the realities are or will be.

To entertain such a project is pure folly. The larger arms of government have just “ponied up” monies for a building project that is 300 miles over budget, due to construction cost increases and any other lame duck excuses that can be trumped up at the civic level. What makes city fathers think that these levels of government are going to cough up more monies for a project that is still a dream? If $30 million is the cost today, what will it be by the time that this venue comes to fruition in say two, three or even five years?

This also begs the question, Should succeeding councils have to deal with the issues set in motion by this council? Are we, as taxpayers, that gullible that we can accept this fact? And, to hear Mayor Kimberley saying that the taxpayers will not be bearing much of this load, is sheer and utter nonsense. Governments aren’t going to foot the total bill, nor can casino revenues or other grants. How much can we as taxpayers be asked to pay, so as to cover the cost?

Fellow taxpayers, now is the time to make known you sentiment if you don’t want our children and their children to be paying for something that we cannot really afford.

Michael Brydon: Another white elephant

The following letter appeared in the Jun 4th edition of the Herald:

Proponents of the 700-seat South Okanagan Performing Arts Centre (SOPAC) believe that they have no chance of getting funding for a new facility as long as the 700-seat former Pen-Hi auditorium is standing. What these folks fail to recognize, however, is that they have little chance of getting funding, even if the Pen-Hi auditorium is ground to dust and paved over. Unfortunately, our local politicians have no way of knowing this because, as Mayor Kimberley’s has recently admitted, “this council has not deliberated on the financing of [a new] performing arts centre”. Our leaders are, in effect, flying blind.

Such disregard for the fine economic details is dangerous. Indeed, the last time this council told us to trust it on a major capital project (the events centre), it cost the taxpayers of Penticton an extra $17M. With an eye to avoiding a similar fiasco, I have included a cost comparison of various alternatives for a large performing arts facility. The proposed Penticton arts, recreation, and culture (PARC) complex incorporates the existing, taxpayer-owned buildings made surplus by the construction of a new Pen-Hi (the Shatford building, the north gym, and the auditorium). Admittedly, the former Pen-Hi auditorium will never have a revolving stage (and all the economic benefits and spillovers such a feature entails); however, the former Pen-Hi buildings could provide Penticton with a large performing arts venue, a smaller studio theatre, and a magnificent gymnasium for a fraction of the cost and risk of a new performing arts centre. Given that the city is broke and has many other priorities, including sewage treatment, swimming pool modernization, and increased policing, my guess is that most taxpayers would prefer a cheaper, adequate performing arts centre to another magnificent and costly white elephant.
But our politicians have no intention of finding out what taxpayers think. They already know that at least 2,600 people in the community have expressed dismay with their decision to demolish the Pen-Hi buildings. Given that the margin of victory in the last mayoral election was only 500 votes, the more arithmetically-astute politicians may reckon that they are in a race against the electoral clock. Their only hope of getting their pet project built is to eliminate the only affordable alternative before voters make their voices heard in the fall. Why else would city council and SD67 be so loathe to give voters a real choice in a referendum?

Denis O'Gorman: Strategy needed on auditorium

The following letter appeared in the March 28, 2008, edition of the Western News. Mr. O'Gorman is a community planner and a former Assistant Deputy Minister in the Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks

In his letter published March 14, Gerry Karr raised the spectre of a public policy hijacking by a special interest group. His target was the group advocating retention of the Pen High auditorium. However, the advocates for a whole new centre, the Penticton and District Performing Arts Facilities Society, are already beneficiaries of a $2.5 million land grant plus significant funding for both feasibility and business plan studies from the city, suggesting they have made substantial inroads on setting public policy in Penticton.

Rhetoric about hijacking is unhelpful at a time when détente, analysis and dialogue would seem more valuable. As starting points of agreement, most parties including the above key groups would agree that Penticton’s downtown needs enhancement; an arts precinct and corridor could be a valued contribution to downtown vitality; and a new arts facility could help meet cultural aspirations, enhance livability and potentially also tourism.

Realizing these high objectives, however, requires a fuller downtown design strategy, a clearer picture of realistic tourism goals in a very competitive market and focused analysis of realistic cultural expectations. These have yet to surface.

Regarding a city-funded “needs assessment,” this, to my knowledge, has yet to be made available to inform the thinking of Penticton’s taxpayers. Similarly, a study which allegedly confirms financial feasibility has yet to be made generally available. There is considerable reason for skepticism given the extensive commitments to the events centre, rising property tax levels, and denial of an appropriate level of financial support to existing cultural facilities such as the Art Gallery of the South Okanagan.

Moreover, there appears to be the assumption by the arts facility society of considerable federal and provincial contributions without the sources for such funds being identified. Finally, the issue of potential internal competition with the events centre should be openly examined as part of a market analysis.

A starting point for the city would be to post the completed studies (on both cultural needs and financial feasibility) on the city’s website. This should be quickly followed by a preliminary design study to establish general physical feasibility of an Ellis Street site.

Similarly the deliverables from the $50,000 allocated to the performing arts facility society should be specified. This is a reasonable expectation given that most organizations develop their business plans using internal resources and available templates.

In the meantime, the reality of the Pen High auditorium and north gym, as “birds in the hand” should not be dismissed. Of course, they don’t represent “auditorium beautiful” and supporters acknowledge several shortcomings such as inadequate foyer and backstage space. However, the present auditorium and gym are standing and apparently upgradable. Moreover, upgrading costs are more likely feasible in terms of overall taxpayer impact. Plus an existing auditorium (and gym) can meet diverse community needs while carefully considered financial and development plans for a more permanent venue are developed.

A considered “side-by-side” analysis of the upgrade and new facility options including capital and operating costs would be especially helpful. It should identify funding sources and the respective implications for the city’s finances given clear funding assumptions. This information might even help guide a voter referendum on the question.

Certainly choice should not be pre-empted by a rush to demolish the Pen High auditorium and gym as is apparently being pursued by the school board. Sure, it’s Plan B from their perspective but overall public benefits of having an interim (10 years perhaps) auditorium and accessible gym may well warrant a sober second look.

And should provincial funding formulas be the driving concern of the school board, couldn’t they and any associated policies be revisited? With the help of our MLA, perhaps a staged building retention and transition strategy to best represent the overall civic interest might be forged. Constructive collaboration, as was done for ball field upgrades, would seem to present Penticton taxpayers their best option, at least while a consensus-based strategy on cultural needs and facilities is developed with both the city and school board actively engaged.