Mar 26 2006
(extracted from video tape of Council meeting)
I would remind Council that good process guarantees one thing, good process. We, in the past, have engaged in good process and have had no product at the end of the road. I am not suggesting that we are to engage in bad process but there are many ways of proceeding towards an objective. I am not going to catagorize what we have done as bad. We've had some problems but we've made changes having due regard to the submissions of our constituents at public hearings and have come up with a preferred site. Personally, not one that I thought was the best but it's the decision of our constituents. It's been expressed. We have had very little objections raised with respect to this new site since the decision has been made.It was the unanimous decision of Council, all of us, to vest the site choice in the task force. We all decided that was the way to go at that time. Not one of us suggested that it was improper at the time.
We are, it is suggested that the grants are at the forefront to our business plan, that's not the case. The grants form a very small part of the business plan. 80%, almost 80% of the project is being funded by this Community. About 20% is being sought from senior levels of Government. Some Communities have chosen to put the cost of their new entertainment centers on the tax base. Some have chosen to sell electric utilities to fund such projects. There are many options at our disposal and we are, I think we have decided to do this without affecting the tax rates, the current tax rates of our residents. I submit that is responsible.
Kingston 2000, I think many of us will remember that incurred almost 2 million dollars in costs pursuing that project. We don't have a product at the end of that road and I don't think anyone would suggest that because it included an entertainment centre or arena, that those costs should come off this project. The costs $504,000. are properly sunk costs, they don't relate to this building, they relate to another site that is unworkable for political reasons. And the working fund reserve fund reserve I submit is the proper source to look to, to help pay those funds, to pay those costs from. Thank You.
I will start off by agreeing with the Mayor that there are many ways to do things. They fall into three categories, good, mediocre and bad. Having said that, I will leave the selection of which of the last two are appropriate in this case, to the reader. Other than the 80% / 20% funding issue, the only comment on the remainder of the speech is that it is totally unsupportable. Take the statement that the North Block location is the decision of our constituents. ?????
As far as the allocation of sunk funds spent on Anglin Bay, it is obvious that most of the Councillors understood that a judgement error in a project (location) does not create a new project just for the purpose of burying unwanted costs. They voted accordingly.
I have managed many studies and the four most important ingredients for success are process, participation, sound analysis of findings and development of supportable recommendations. They keep a study on track, eliminate major errors and oversights and ensure a much greater chance for cooperation and acceptance. The only time that good process does not work is when predetermined constraints or results are injected into the process. e.g. the Kingston 2000 project. The proponent insisted on selling his product to uninterested and unwilling consumers. The product was simply not suitable and the public was not buying into the proposal. In the case of the LVEC, the closed process violated the most important ingredients for success.
Taxpayers were expecting a proposal for the Memorial Centre site and they were given a "take it or leave it" option for Anglin Bay. And now, Council does not want to accept the " leave it" response! They do not even have the flexibility to look at proposed alternatives. WHY ?
Moreover, there is now evidence of a survey of Memorial Centre subscribers, asking whether or not they would attend the downtown location. This is contrary to the consultants Market Survey presentation, wherein it was stated that they were not contacted. I have come across four subscribers, while delivering flyers for the Kingston Taxpayers Association, that stated they received phone calls from Toronto and provided a negative response. Was important information withheld from the taxpayers ?
Summing it all up, the Council for whatever reason, (taxpayers have their suspicions) chose to take an off the wall approach with the LVEC and it failed. The process circumvented all of protections afforded by the normal bureaucratic procedures and ignored the taxpayers right to participate. To this day, taxpayers do not know the origin of the recommendation to take such a covert approach. The net result of the lack of openness and transparency has produced resentment, deep mistrust and a complete lack of confidence in Council.
Howard Stone, 223 King St. East Kingston, K7L3A7, 544-8100