Director Says Facility Cost Was Misleading

Posted on 4/7/2016 12:38 PM by Pete McIntyre 107.5 KISSFM
The cost overrun on the Greater Vernon Athletics Park will likely lead to more careful wording for future referendums. The final price tag was $8.5 million, one million more than what residents approved in a 2013 borrowing referendum. Greater Vernon Advisory Director Bob Spiers felt that was misleading, given that much of the public information before the vote indicated that 7.5 million would be the total price of the project. "The communications to the taxpayer were a little bit misleading. Most of us expected the final cost was going to be the borrowing cost, and it wasn't," Spiers told the media. Spiers says six months after it was completed, the regional district has "established" how much the project went over. He feels the extra spending could impact public support for future votes. "I was discouraged by what was put out the public, and there was substantial overages. Maybe the project should have been stopped before we went forward, if we knew about the overages." Spiers says the public relied on information in "Frequently asked questions" contained on the District's website, when they voted on the project in a 2013 referendum. Director Catherine Lord didn't feel it was misleading, adding they did stick to the amount they wanted to borrow, and used reserves and grants for the extra. Inflated construction costs and adding $340,000 showers to the project were two reasons the price grew. Director Doug Dirk says the borrowing amount and total cost are separate. "That misunderstanding needs to be taken apart. (The public) needs to know that the referendum is for the amount to be borrowed, not the project cost." Director Bob Fleming says stopping the project after it began was not an option. "I don't think we had a lot of alternatives going forward. The community will find the value is worth it." Director Jim Garlick had some advice for future referendums, given what they learned from this one. "Don't start a project with an estimate that is a few years old," said Garlick, who also suggested future projects try to include as many local companies as possible, as some of the out of town firms used on the park, was an issue. GVAC chair Juliette Cunningham noted the facility is being well used, beyond their expectations. "We have to be aware of the cost, but we also have a very good facility, and it makes us a better community," said Cunningham. RDNO Parks Planner Keith Pinkoski told the committee, the park is being used by 15 to 20 walkers and runners every morning, and the field is booked virtually every evening. The park next to Okanagan College in Coldstream, opened to the public last August.
--------------
Don Quixote Note:   http://www.rdno.ca/docs/referendum_FAQ.pdf
SOME of the questions and answers of the FAQ:

Q.  What does this $7.53 M include?
 A.  The $7.53 million dollars is to construct the facility, and includes the building, equipment and site development costs.  It will provide a facility ready to operate.  The cost of the land is not a part of the $7.53 M, as it has been provided by Okanagan College to the Regional District under a long‐term lease for only $1/year.

Q.  How can you guarantee the people that the cost will not climb? A.  The referendum is for the authority to borrow to a maximum of 7.53 M.  The cost will not climb beyond that, and only what is necessary will be borrowed.  

Q.  What happens if we get money from grants? A.  Only what is needed will be borrowed, so if money for the construction of the facility is obtained through grants or donations, the borrowing amount will be decreased.  

Q.  What is the annual operating deficit? A.  The annual operating deficit is estimated at $40,000/year and $11,000 for maintenance of the artificial turf; however some of this cost will be recovered through facility fees that are collected from organization who book the facility for programming.  

Q.  What is the cost breakdown for the project? 
 A.  Below is the cost breakdown.  The biggest cost is in the artificial turf and the high‐quality synthetic track.  This is an investment to increase the amount of programming time that the field can handle.  The synthetic track will also be able to be used in poor weather and is required in order to host any provincial track and field events, such as the BC Seniors Games.
ITEM Design/Site Work* $2,131,000  
Synthetic Turf Field $1,137,000  
Sports Facility Buildings $1,305,000  
Rubberized Track (MONDO) $1,705,000  
Natural Field $     50,000  
Throws Sectors $   414,000  
Uncovered Seating $   200,000  
Sports Amenities $   249,000 
 Landscaping $   339,000        _    
 TOTAL (includes contingency)    $7,530,000   *Design/Site work includes: costs associated with the design work; off‐sight works such as roadway lighting and drainag