Roof reversal: Council to go ahead with RFP on arena replacement
By Andrew Zwicker
Two weeks ago during a special City Council meeting, council voted 'no' to looking into a grant opportunity to replace our aging arena’s roof. The project, whose cost has been estimated at approximately $800,000, was on the table as council discussed taking advantage of a $400,000 federal grant in addition to $284,000 in monies left over from the broken down regional recreation deal. The grant came with a number of conditions, including a required completion date of March 31st, leaving a short time frame for construction. This, along with other concerns, caused councillors to vote against going ahead with an RFP on the project to further explore the costs and time-frames associated with taking advantage of the grant money.
Following this decision, there was a large outpouring of community support for the arena. This week, Mayor Greg Granstrom re-called the defeated motion, which brought the question back before council. With all six councillors in attendance (the previous meeting, while a quorum, had three councillors absent), this Monday’s meeting ended differently than the previous one.
Councillor Spearn, who originally voted to defeat the motion, voted yes this time around.
“I originally voted against it because the clarity around the issue of the arena was not there. Just like the schools and every other institution, we have to pay attention to the fact that some say the arena is an asset and others would say it’s a liability. To say it is an asset to the community remains to be seen in my mind. I’m changing my position on it at this point, however, because there was significant feedback from the community on the issue and a lot of it was very emotional,” explained Spearn, adding, “I responded a few times in the Telegraph to make sure I outlined my position on it and where I stood. I do now see that there is little harm in pursuing this in preliminary steps. I am concerned about the one million dollar price tag there, however...For now, though, I will be voting in favour of the preliminary steps.”
The motion called for council to authorize the CAO to proceed with the proposal call for the upgrade of the Arena and further authorize staff to initiate an 'alternate approval process' subject to a final consideration by Council as to whether to proceed or not after the two processes have been completed.
City Hall will now put out a request for proposal (RFP) on the project to gain further insight into actual costs and timeframes of the project and whether or not it can be completed by the March 31st deadline.
Paralleling the RFP process, City Hall will also begin an 'Alternative Approval Process', as suggested by new CAO Victor Kumar to get approval to borrow the money required for the project.
This alternative approval process involves the following: a local government must publish a notice in the newspaper outlining the purposes of the proposed borrowing for the project where the approval of the electors is required. After the second of two notices is advertised, electors have 30 days in which to advise their local government that, in their opinion, the matter is of such significance that a referendum should be held. If more than 10% of the electors hold this opinion, then the local government cannot proceed with the proposed bylaw, agreement, or other matter without holding a referendum.
Electors can express their opinions by signing an Elector Response Form and submitting it to their local government within 30 days of the second notice. The local government can create the Elector Response Form in such a way as either single electors or multiple electors can sign it. Electors signing the form must provide their full name and residential address. Non-resident property electors must also provide the address of the property that they own within the area.
Having used this process numerous times in his previous post as CAO of Grand Forks, Kumar suggested this process would be the most expeditious way to seek approval to borrow the funds in the short period of time available.
Rather than seeking people in support of a project, this process puts out the question of whether or not people are against city hall borrowing money for the project. If less than 10% of the electorate is opposed to the project, then it is presumed to be accepted. Kumar explained, “It is used when the borrowing exceeds five years on a project. That tool is available to seek a consent of electors on whether they would not want council to borrow on the project that is before them If they decide they don’t want to borrow on the project, council is faced with three positions. They can drop the project completely, proceed with a referendum, or do nothing.”
Given that this is a tool not often used in Rossland in recent times, council asked the CAO to make sure an information package explaining the alternative approval process is sent out along with the form. Several councillors cautioned that Rosslanders are used to seeing petitions around town in recent years and cautioned that signing this form means you do not want council to proceed with borrowing money for the project. The concern is that people might mistakenly think they are signing a petition in favour of it.
The process will commence shortly and information packages will be produced and distributed with the form included.
The public will be asked to allow council to borrow up to $1.2 million for the project, a number significantly higher than the $800,000 number discussed at the previous council meeting. The additional $400,000 was included by CAO Kumar as a contingency on the project that with council’s approval could potentially be used for additional upgrades needed such as a new Zamboni room.
Andy Stradling, who was not in attendance when the original motion was passed, had his first say on the issue this week, voicing two opinions on the project. First Stradling did a bit of math and put some real numbers to the borrowing to give council a frame of context with which to make their decision.
“Council needs to be aware that we are now talking about $1.2 million of which only $400,000 comes from the grant... I would like to see this project go ahead, but we need to be fully appraised of the cost on this project. Council has also directed staff to a zero-based freeze on expenditures for 2010 based on the 2009 budget. Borrowing money costs money, and we’d be looking here at at least $96,000 a year in interest and amortization on the debt and that $96,000 has to come from somewhere.”
Stradling was also concerned at hearing that if the contingency for the project is not needed it could go into additional projects at the arena. He questioned the logic of that in a question addressed to the CAO.
“I’m worried that this thing is ballooning to $1.2 million and that we’re going to spend that $1.2 million no matter what. It sounds as if we get the roof done for $600,000 that we’re still going to spend $1.2 million. I’m keen to approve the estimation and borrow the money with a contingency. However, in engineering companies when you want to spend you contingency you have to go through an approval process. Those funds aren’t just released. To spend it on something else that was not contemplated is not normal.”
In reply, Kumar assured council that any additional spending above and beyond the roof repairs would still have to come back before council for approval and that the $1.2 million number was just to make sure there was a contingency in place if needed for the project.
“There is a major contingency in there as we don’t know what we will find when we strip off that old roof."
For the time being, however, council has reversed its original decision not to pursue the grant further and expects to have the alternative approval process and RFP process completed no later than January 31st, 2010 in order to leave time for the construction of the project before the March 31st completion deadline required in the grant.
Councillor Kathy Wallace summed up her feelings on the motion. “We had some strong voices in the last two weeks tell us that this is a valuable community asset and we need to listen to that and take care of it. If we have funds coming and available to us to do that then, absolutely, let’s proceed.”
