Comment 55999

By ROI (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 12:34:52

“The big improvement” [of Ivor Wynne] over west harbour or east Mountain options is “simple costs.”

-Bob Young


If the only remaining issue for Bob Young is costs (not location), then I think the stadium decision has to based on what is the best return on investment for the Hamilton Future Fund dollars. Further, at tonight’s meeting there will likely be a request of staff to bring back a report on costs associated with Ivor Wynne before the Feb 1st deadline so there is an opportunity now to ask staff to review the two proposals together. There are a few issues here:


I would look hard at the Deloitte business plan that was presented to Council last February (http://hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/DC3BBCD6-82D8-45C1-AB04-B2B108A9087B/0/Feb18CM09006brevised.pdf).


It pointed a way to get to a 20,000 seat stadium without ANY contribution from the ticats (there was a mix of naming rights revenue, ticket surcharge, etc.) – Page 56. To get to a 25,000 seat stadium, there was a funding gap of $38-$51 million. This included a budget of $26M for site acquisition and remediation which is large completed so those costs are already sunk into the project. Also, this doesn't include the tax uplift that would occur in the surrounding region due to development and the establishment of a GO/VIA node, nor does it include the costs raised from the sale of land not needed after the games (e.g. the practice track land that is no longer needed with no track and field).

I would suggest getting staff to report back on BOTH proposals side by side so that the full costs of the Ivor Wynne proposal are considered (demolition costs, etc.).

Other considerations:

* The Deloitte business plan projected that the larger stadium would generate $4.1 million in tax revenues a year for senior governments (page 63) so this could lead to a case for additional money from senior governments (they were willing to kick in some during the CP debate).

* The Future Fund dollars were dedicated to this project based on the transformative impact of the west harbour location. Does Ivor Wynne achieve this objective?

Getting staff to report back on the detailed costs of BOTH proposals is the most responsible way forward now that location is not the issue.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds