HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1001  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2010, 3:30 AM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is offline
Hmm....
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rottie View Post
The feds should contribute equally to all the cities "multi purpose" projects, maybe 20 or 25% of the cost under the conditions that the other 75% is covered by the province,city,the main tenant, grandma's purse if need be and a certain percentage of private investment as well. If those criteria aren't met then the feds can walk away from the project. Then all cities projects get the same amount and everyone is happy.
I'd think a limit might be a good thing to have on something like that too though... Maybe something like 25% of the cost up to a max of 150 mill. That way the government doesn't get maxed out if some places want to pull out some mega projects.
     
     
  #1002  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2010, 2:11 PM
Rottie Rottie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Calgary formerly Regina
Posts: 226
Yes precisely, that way you don't have scenarios like Quebec wanting the federal gov't to pitch in for half of the 400 mil with no private monies while Sask only gets 20 to 25% and supposedly province,city,riders and private money for the rest. Fair is fair.

I see nothing wrong with the feds contributing to these type of projects.We are a wealthy nation and there's room for childrens hospitals, museums and arenas are built for everyone and anyone to enjoy. In the meantime our tax dollars keep going to earthquake ravaged Haiti and flooded Pakistan and the gun registry. There's money for everything.

If the gov't wants to extend the stimulus spending into next year as is rumoured I have a feeling they will come up with something to include arenas as well.
     
     
  #1003  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2010, 3:44 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rottie View Post
In the meantime our tax dollars keep going to earthquake ravaged Haiti and flooded Pakistan and the gun registry. .
yes it is much more important that our government gives money to regina for its fancy dome than it is to help the people of impoverished third world countries or to operate public safety programmes that require people to declare that they own a machine made for killing things.

the $50b deficit this year might indicate that there isnt 'money for everything'.
     
     
  #1004  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2010, 12:40 PM
Rottie Rottie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Calgary formerly Regina
Posts: 226
I wasn't critical of money going towards helping people or other programs,just stating a fact. Gov't will keep spending money whether there's a 50 bil deficit or not so i would like to see some of it go to upgrading stadium infrastructure in all cities,not just Regina.
     
     
  #1005  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2010, 2:57 PM
khabibulin khabibulin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,112
spending restraint

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rottie View Post
I wasn't critical of money going towards helping people or other programs,just stating a fact. Gov't will keep spending money whether there's a 50 bil deficit or not so i would like to see some of it go to upgrading stadium infrastructure in all cities,not just Regina.
At this time, a little spending restraint might be in order for all levels of government. Take a look at what deficit spending has done to economies in some European countries like Greece. I'm not saying we are in that situation yet, but a little prudence would certainly seem to be wise.

Since 2005, Federal spending has increased an average of 7% a year from $210 Billion to $280 Billion. Meanwhile, revenues have only increased an average of 1% a year from $222 Billion to $231 Billion, over the same period. That is not sustainable. Governments must learn to live within their means or more and more Canadians will be negatively impacted in the future.
     
     
  #1006  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 4:24 PM
Devon Devon is offline
Regina SK
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Saskatoon via Regina
Posts: 643
REGINA — A proposed new stadium to house the Saskatchewan Roughriders could end up in private sector hands as a condition of the provincial government's application for financial assistance from Ottawa, Saskatchewan Party cabinet minister Ken Cheveldayoff said Tuesday.

The government has applied to the federal government's P3 Canada Fund for up to 25 per cent of the funding for a proposed $431 million retractable roof stadium in Regina.

That fund is intended to provide funding for public private partnership (P3) or alternative financing and procurement (AFP) projects.

The "minimum requirements" to access funding is that the private sector must either design or build the project. The private sector must also either finance or maintain operate the facility.

In an interview, Cheveldayoff said all aspects of the project - including ownership — are on the table.

"Conceptually we've talked to private sector groups about the design, about the build, about owning it, about financing it and about operating it and we've had positive response from the private sector in each of those areas," said Cheveldayoff, who has been tasked by Premier Brad Wall to shepherd the stadium project.

"If somebody came in and said they wanted to own it and operate it, that's something we would look at very favourably but it remains to be seen," he added, noting it would also be possible that a company could take a smaller equity stake in a new facility.

The current home of the community-owned Roughriders, Mosaic Stadium at Taylor Field, is owned and operated by the City of Regina. Mayor Pat Fiacco is on holidays and was not available for comment.

The provincial government has made federal funding a prerequisite for a new stadium to get the go-ahead.

But the issue of federal funding for facilities that house professional sports teams has erupted into a national issue in recent weeks as Quebec has pressed the Conservative government to cover 45 per cent of the cost of a new arena to return the NHL to Quebec City, with no private sector component.

While the two projects have been linked by no less than Prime Minister Stephen Harper, they are seemingly taking different paths.

The P3 Canada Fund — which has $1.2 billion to allocate over five years - will only pay for a maximum of 25 per cent of direct construction costs. The criterion for funding sports facilities includes that it "excludes facilities used primarily by professional athletes."

Cheveldayoff said the stadium proposal shows the Roughriders' potential usage of the facility as lesser than its use as a community recreation and entertainment facility.

One potential major stumbling block however is timing.

The province wants an answer from the federal government this fall but that timeline appears very unlikely to be met through the P3 Canada Fund.

Saskatchewan applied under round two of funding, which had a June 30 deadline.

But the first round of funding held by federal Crown corporation PPP Canada saw applications from 20 projects submitted in the fall of 2008. So far, only two have been allocated funding while others remain under review.

Saskatchewan's stadium proposal meanwhile remains under preliminary assessment. If it qualifies for a comprehensive assessment, PPP Canada will then ask for more information including a business case for the project.

Cheveldayoff said the government is prepared to supply whatever information is needed when it is asked for but is still hoping for an answer this fall.

"Time is of the essence. Our feasibility study was done in March of this year and they only have a shelf life of so long so that's why we're relying on our members of parliament and ministers to get that answer for us," he said.

Cheveldayoff also noted that while the P3 Fund appears to be a "logical fit" for Saskatchewan, the province is also looking for other potential sources of federal funding, which could make the outcome of the Quebec situation very relevant.

Cynthia Robertson, executive director of the Toronto-based Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships advocacy group, said that the P3 Fund is not a pork barrel fund determined by the lobbying of politicians.

"From where I sit, absolutely not," she said in an interview.

"They are very much merit-based. I think what they'll finance will be based on the number of projects they receive and the impacts the program will have and looking at revenue sources. They have to look at all sorts of things in terms of evaluating those kinds of projects," she added.

Projects must be approved for recommendation first by a board made up of high-profile former corporate heads and civil servants. A project with a dollar figure the size of Saskatchewan's would need to be signed off on by the federal ministers of finance and transport - and by the Treasury Board as well if it exceeded $100 million.

P3s are designed to transfer some financial risk associated with major projects from the public sector to the private sector while also creating business opportunities.

Proponents such as Robertson say P3s offer the advantages of coupling private sector innovation with more disciplined and transparent procurement and accountability systems on the private sector partners.

But P3s have also been controversial, with opponents such as the Canadian Union of Public Employees arguing they are more subject to cost overrun and often leave the taxpayer on the hook for private sector mismanagement.

CUPE Saskatchewan president Tom Graham said Tuesday he's concerned about the idea of a new Regina stadium being run as a P3.

"If we're building a stadium and the private sector wants to get involved, then they should get the money together and once they've got the lion's share of the cash they should approach government . . . the other alternative is, if we want one that badly, we should pay for it and I don't know if people want to spend half a billion dollars on a football stadium or not."


Read more: http://www.leaderpost.com/sports/Reg...#ixzz10HBtlU62
     
     
  #1007  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 5:00 PM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,228
Have fun convincing the feds that this stadium is more about "community recreation" than it is a home for the Riders. Last time I checked, a kids soccer field didn't cost $431 Million...
     
     
  #1008  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 5:33 PM
Welkin Welkin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 396
If I was a betting man, I would say that the federal government is not going to be coming up with $100 million dollars for this stadium any time soon. So that begs the question, can Regina go forward without federal government participation? Can Regina/Saskatchewan build, pay for and operate this project entirely on it's own with just private investors and city/provincial government support? Is it the will of the people of Regina/Saskatchewan to spend half a billion dollars on this project instead of spending that money on something else (roads, schools, medical, etc.) or just maybe not spending any money at all? Without federal dollars is this project A) Dead, B) On hold for the time being, C) Going forward but dramatically scaled back or D) Let's look at those renovations for Mosaic again?

I would love to see the Riders get a new stadium (preferably a beautiful new outdoor stadium), but I think it would be a travesty if something does not happen in the next ten years because they are still trying to make the multi-purpose entertainment center project work.
     
     
  #1009  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 7:17 PM
brithgob brithgob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 833
I can't find the quote, but I'm pretty sure Mayor Pat Fiacco has said it could be done without federal dollars if necessary.

One thing about an outdoor stadium, though: the authors of the concept review pretty clearly stated that an outdoor stadium should NOT be built on the downtown site because it would not be used often enough to justify building it on such a prime piece of property.
     
     
  #1010  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 7:52 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog View Post
Have fun convincing the feds that this stadium is more about "community recreation" than it is a home for the Riders. Last time I checked, a kids soccer field didn't cost $431 Million...
That is not what the P3 Fund criteria says. It says "excludes facilities used primarily by professional athletes." The question is: how do you measure that? I believe it is quite reasonable to interpret that as the number of days the stadium is used by professional athletes vs the days it is used for other uses. By that measure you would only have 10-12 days per year of professional sports use.
     
     
  #1011  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 8:28 PM
Spongebob's Avatar
Spongebob Spongebob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by brithgob View Post
I can't find the quote, but I'm pretty sure Mayor Pat Fiacco has said it could be done without federal dollars if necessary.

One thing about an outdoor stadium, though: the authors of the concept review pretty clearly stated that an outdoor stadium should NOT be built on the downtown site because it would not be used often enough to justify building it on such a prime piece of property.

I agree 100%. If the multi-purpose facility falls through, the CP rail yards should be used to expand the downtown with a mix of class A office towers and other in fill to link the existing downtown with the warehouse area. I still wouldn't put a dime towards Mosaic Stadium in its current location. Tear it down and build something in or around the university. Then maybe we could get Federal funding.

Having said that, my first choice is still the multi-purpose facility downtown.
     
     
  #1012  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 8:45 PM
Devon Devon is offline
Regina SK
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Saskatoon via Regina
Posts: 643
The longer it takes to get the money for this stadium, the more I want the land to be used as a link from the Warehouse district to downtown. It would be pretty interesting to see how that area would shape itself and there`s a lot of potential there.That being said, I would still prefer the stadium to be in the city centre rather than anywhere else for many reasons.
     
     
  #1013  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2010, 10:08 PM
one_brick_at_a_time's Avatar
one_brick_at_a_time one_brick_at_a_time is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Regina/Toronto
Posts: 2,245
I would be very disappointed if they chose to build it outside the city. It NEEDS to be Downtown!
     
     
  #1014  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2010, 12:03 AM
Welkin Welkin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
That is not what the P3 Fund criteria says. It says "excludes facilities used primarily by professional athletes." The question is: how do you measure that? I believe it is quite reasonable to interpret that as the number of days the stadium is used by professional athletes vs the days it is used for other uses. By that measure you would only have 10-12 days per year of professional sports use.
By that standard, almost no sports stadium would be classified as being primarily used by professional athletes. Certainly no arena like Quebec City's proposed arena would be classified since there are many more concerts/trade shows and community events than hockey games.
     
     
  #1015  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2010, 1:54 AM
jigglysquishy's Avatar
jigglysquishy jigglysquishy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 3,326
What they really need to do is go the Winnipeg route and have two separate facilities.

The MTS Centre and the new Bombers stadium cost about $250 million together. Adjusting for inflation, its about $300 million. We, as a province can save ourselves a bundle of money by going this route. Hell, if we scale down the hockey rink for 15,000 to 10,500 we'll save even more.

Literally, every single positive aspect of the Multi-Purpose Facility is also housed in the two-facility route, the major difference is that the province saves themselves $200 million.

Mark my words, if the $500+ million facility is built in Regina it will be a white elephant.
     
     
  #1016  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2010, 2:10 AM
Welkin Welkin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglysquishy View Post
What they really need to do is go the Winnipeg route and have two separate facilities.

The MTS Centre and the new Bombers stadium cost about $250 million together. Adjusting for inflation, its about $300 million. We, as a province can save ourselves a bundle of money by going this route. Hell, if we scale down the hockey rink for 15,000 to 10,500 we'll save even more.

Literally, every single positive aspect of the Multi-Purpose Facility is also housed in the two-facility route, the major difference is that the province saves themselves $200 million.

Mark my words, if the $500+ million facility is built in Regina it will be a white elephant.
I agree with you 100%. Plus the federal government would kick in money towards the $100 million downtown arena (since no professional team is involved) which would save the taxpayers of Regina/Saskatchewan even more. We all know that the million and millions of dollars coming from the private sector for the Riders Stadium/multi-purpose entertainment center could be re-directed towards paying for a big chunk of a $150 million outdoor stadium.
     
     
  #1017  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2010, 2:31 AM
thefourthtower thefourthtower is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Rueannatta
Posts: 2,597
This complex will be one of the best things ever to be built in Regina its time to do it
     
     
  #1018  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2010, 3:45 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
That is not what the P3 Fund criteria says. It says "excludes facilities used primarily by professional athletes." The question is: how do you measure that? I believe it is quite reasonable to interpret that as the number of days the stadium is used by professional athletes vs the days it is used for other uses. By that measure you would only have 10-12 days per year of professional sports use.
ah yes...the old P3 scam...get your kids to pay for something you want today.

how many uses that are not the football team will require 33 000 seats?....you could build an $80m convention facility that will take care of 90% of the supposed uses of this stadium....if it looks like a football stadium and smells like a football stadium...its probably a football stadium...nobody is fooled by the 'multi-purpose' label.
     
     
  #1019  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2010, 4:09 AM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is offline
Hmm....
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welkin View Post
I agree with you 100%. Plus the federal government would kick in money towards the $100 million downtown arena (since no professional team is involved) which would save the taxpayers of Regina/Saskatchewan even more. We all know that the million and millions of dollars coming from the private sector for the Riders Stadium/multi-purpose entertainment center could be re-directed towards paying for a big chunk of a $150 million outdoor stadium.
Doubtful. Many are probably getting onboard because it is just a large scale project and the clout of being part of something like that is part of the draw. I'm sure that's also why the hotels voiced their support (and 10 million). An outdoor stadium doesn't provide the same possible bonuses to private businesses as an enclosed one does.

Furthermore, the Brandt centre just recently underwent renos (to the tune of a couple million dollars), and the rest of the complex is also in the process I believe as well (something like 60 million for the whole complex if I remember right)... Building a brand new arena wastes all the money already spent... and Regina definitely doesn't need two arenas so close in size. How would you justify the costs of operating duplicate facilities like that? There will always be a need for an arena in that area (due to agribition), and to make that smaller arena viable, you also need the Pats involved. An arena downtown (without the continued maintenance of the Brandt Centre) would kill agribition, and that is a major financial draw for the city.

Also, who would use a new arena of only 10k? How many new acts are you going to pull in with those extra 3k seats? Now that would be a white elephant.

I'm definitely all for the new multi-purpose facility downtown. I'm sick of living in the "it's Saskatchewan... we can't do something like that" mode. We are now rolling along like we never have before, gaining population and wealth at quite a brisk pace and this complex would only serve to up Regina's status.

There are always alternate things money can be spent on... Heck, Saskatoon could have redirected the 300 million (From the Feds, Province, and city) they are putting towards the new bridge to some major public transit projects as well as perhaps up the contribution to something more worthwhile, like the Children's hospital... afterall, the health of children should be a higher priority than bridges. And who from Regina or other parts of the country is really going to make use of the bridge?

This stadium isn't going to have the same problems as Olympic Stadium in Montreal or the Skydome in Toronto. Both places were seeking to invent entirely new ways of doing things. I'm sure it will go a bit over the price quoted - what project ever comes in on budget? - but the fear mongering about it reaching hundreds of millions over is kind of ridiculous.

I see the indoor stadium as being more of a legacy project. A new outdoor stadium is really just maintaining the status quo and we aren't really gaining anything new from it.
     
     
  #1020  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2010, 4:53 AM
jigglysquishy's Avatar
jigglysquishy jigglysquishy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 3,326
Where will the $500 million come from? No one seems to know the answer.

Even with significant federal contribution, is Regina really in a position to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on anything new?

In my opinion, I'd much rather see the extra $200 million dollars spent on two new class A towers downtown. The Mosaic tower only costs $100 million.

We could have 2 new 20 storey+ office towers, a new 12,000 person hockey rink/ concert hall and a 35,000 person outdoor football stadium for the same cost as one 35,000 person indoor football stadium.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:03 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.