Scotia Place | 36.85m | 11s | CSEC | HOK

Do you support the proposal for the new arena?

  • Yes

    Votes: 103 67.3%

  • No

    Votes: 40 26.1%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 10 6.5%
  • Total voters
    153
Council spent 5 hours behind closed doors getting a capital projects update. The CMLC was asked to be part of the closed door update which narrows things down to BMO, Arts Commons and the Event Centre. When Council came back into chambers Farkas said what they heard was one of the most shocking updates during his time on Council and wanted to make the information public. Diane Colley-Urquhart (big pro Flames/pro arena Councillor) used a procedural trick to block Farkas' motion from being considered and then Council voted on accepting the confidential update with Farkas, Farrell, Woolley, Chahal and Gondek voting against. One of the only times Farrell and Farkas have ever agreed was over the arena deal and the Event Centre Council Committee was chaired by Jeff Davison who is rumored to be contemplating a run for mayor so it would be in Gondek's best interest to have an arena controversy become public since he would be the one wearing most of the controversy.

To me it was enough to validate the rumours on here about a cost over run but the fact the Mayor, Keating and Carra voted in favour is enough to suggest to me it's not a major over run and there's an appetite to just get the thing built and it's better to push ahead and get it done right and not value engineer all the community benefits away to hit a budget targets.
 
outoftheice said:
Council spent 5 hours behind closed doors getting a capital projects update. The CMLC was asked to be part of the closed door update which narrows things down to BMO, Arts Commons and the Event Centre. When Council came back into chambers Farkas said what they heard was one of the most shocking updates during his time on Council and wanted to make the information public. Diane Colley-Urquhart (big pro Flames/pro arena Councillor) used a procedural trick to block Farkas' motion from being considered and then Council voted on accepting the confidential update with Farkas, Farrell, Woolley, Chahal and Gondek voting against. One of the only times Farrell and Farkas have ever agreed was over the arena deal and the Event Centre Council Committee was chaired by Jeff Davison who is rumored to be contemplating a run for mayor so it would be in Gondek's best interest to have an arena controversy become public since he would be the one wearing most of the controversy.

To me it was enough to validate the rumours on here about a cost over run but the fact the Mayor, Keating and Carra voted in favour is enough to suggest to me it's not a major over run and there's an appetite to just get the thing built and it's better to push ahead and get it done right and not value engineer all the community benefits away to hit a budget targets.
Click to expand...
Jeff Davidson has already confirmed that he's running for re-election in Ward 6. Not sure if that means he can't suddenly swap to run for mayor though
 
outoftheice said:
Anyone catch the closing antics at City Council tonight? All the confirmation I need that the rumours posted on here are accurate and the Event Centre is going to go ahead but end up way over budget at the same time.
Click to expand...
from https://twitter.com/LiveWire_DK/
"by far the most stunning thing that I've seen in my entire time as a Councillor," - Farkas
"Revealing this confidential information could compromise the commercial interests of the city," said City solicitor, Jill Floen
'voting on the main motion. That passes. The capital projects information will stay confidential.'

Expect as the Flames and the City go back and forth on what council directed them to do, that this gets MORE stunning, not less imo
 
outoftheice said:
To me it was enough to validate the rumours on here about a cost over run but the fact the Mayor, Keating and Carra voted in favour is enough to suggest to me it's not a major over run and there's an appetite to just get the thing built and it's better to push ahead and get it done right and not value engineer all the community benefits away to hit a budget targets.
Click to expand...
It should not be interpreted that way. At this point who picks up the overrun tab is still very much an open question, so making it public could be seen to compromise the negotiation.
 
darwink said:
It should not be interpreted that way. At this point who picks up the overrun tab is still very much an open question, so making it public could be seen to compromise the negotiation.
Click to expand...
From the Herald:
Under the terms of the agreement, possible cost overruns set off a complicated chain of events where the city and CSEC have to first consider using contingency funds, reducing the project’s cost and splitting the extra costs 50/50. If all that fails, either the city or CSEC can opt to contribute up to $25 million extra, and the other partner has to chip in half that amount.

If all those options are exhausted, the project is suspended until they find a way forward.
Click to expand...
Also, LOL:
Sutherland added that council will be watching “like a hawk” for cost overruns.

“One of the advantages right now in our not-so-great economy, the chances of cost overruns is narrowed down quite a bit,” said Sutherland.
Click to expand...
Anyway, it probably makes sense to delay construction for a year or so until costs normalize. There is just an insane amount of volatility in raw material costs (for everything - steel, wood, plastic) right now due to the imbalance in global shipping.
 
Last edited:
It shouldn't be an open question... it was sold to taxpayers as a "50/50" split. Anything less is completely unacceptable. If one or both parties find the resulting number untenable then the project should be suspended pending a change in the underlying fundamentals driving the overrun.
 
Koumori said:
It shouldn't be an open question... it was sold to taxpayers as a "50/50" split. Anything less is completely unacceptable. If one or both parties find the resulting number untenable then the project should be suspended pending a change in the underlying fundamentals driving the overrun.
Click to expand...
The base problem (beyond material cost inflation and the construction market being tight right now) is the scope of the project wasn't exactly decided in advance, and methods of reconciling each side's wish lists is hard. Deleting the (presumed) street facing CRU screen would be the easiest way to contain costs imo, and would be considered a must have by CMLC, but a extra feature by the Flames. So, in that case, should CMLC pay 100% of that cost, or should it be split 50/50? Should including the retail screen be considered a cost overrun or a base cost?
 
haltcatchfire said:
I feel like he would say this for all sorts of things. Like seeing a bird, or a cloud.
Click to expand...
Farkas RE: anything:

Screen_Shot_2018-10-25_at_11.02.15_AM.png
 
darwink said:
The base problem (beyond material cost inflation and the construction market being tight right now) is the scope of the project wasn't exactly decided in advance, and methods of reconciling each side's wish lists is hard. Deleting the (presumed) street facing CRU screen would be the easiest way to contain costs imo, and would be considered a must have by CMLC, but a extra feature by the Flames. So, in that case, should CMLC pay 100% of that cost, or should it be split 50/50? Should including the retail screen be considered a cost overrun or a base cost?
Click to expand...
Seems like a pretty significant failure then to kickstart the project and rush the deal. it was sold to Calgarians as being a major component of activating the "entertainment district", so I don't see how the CRU screen can be seen as anything other than base cost.
 
Good to remind ourselves that it's in the best (financial) interest of CSEC to squeeze the city for every dollar they can from the taxpayers, which is partially why it took so long to come to an agreement in the first place. The whole process in under the microscope, I don't blame them for keeping it confidential until it's resolved.

The same architect DIALOG delivered the library $10M under budget (orig. $245M), the same team DIALOG + HOK delivered Rogers Place $125M over (orig. $480). On a project of this scale, a cost overrun of <20% isn't too bad, and given material costs and poor scope definition, it's unsurprising they will need to take another look at it. Council is just going to do their best to make sure taxpayers don't eat it all.

Farkas will take any chance he gets to attack an opponent, even at the expense of honesty, interesting CBC article here.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top