Letter to City Council regarding new transit service for August 14, 2006, meeting
July 31, 2006
His Worship the Mayor
and Members of City Council
City Hall
Saskatoon, SK S7K 0J5
Dear Mayor Atchison and Members of Council:
Re: New Transit Service
Disappointment among users of the new transit service seems to be growing. I feel this can be attributed to the strategic plan’s lack of meaningful citizen engagement during the consultant’s (IBI Group) information gathering stage of the process.
Section 3.1 of the Strategic Plan Study for City of Saskatoon Transit Services – Request for Consultant Proposals January 2004 stated that the communications and consultations plan would include, “Involvement of the public at the community level through local neighbourhood community association meetings. This will assist in the identification of issues and needs at the neighbourhood level.” These never happened.
An August 13, 2004 transit department news release stated that public meetings would be scheduled that fall. They didn’t happen either.
Neither the transit department nor the consultant’s final report explained why these two crucial elements of the study process were eliminated.
The public consultation that was done was mainly by telephone, on-board and on-line surveys using pre-arranged questions. There was no opportunity for in-depth discussion.
The city said there would be “opportunities for the public to review the short and long-term strategies in public open houses.” The open houses that were conducted in April 2006, however, were designed only to help residents learn more about how the routes were changing and the new route numbers, which received final council approval in October 2005. The changes were basically a done deal by the time the open houses took place.
The consultant conducted a series of four focus group meetings with the business community, secondary students and institutions, the High School Boards, low-income advocates, seniors and the mobility challenged. Although minutes were released I believe the meetings were closed to the public.
The meeting with low-income advocates, seniors and mobility challenged had only eight participants, four of whom were from the Access Transit Advisory Committee. There was one seniors representative, two user representatives and one individual from the Get-On-the Bus Coalition. There was no city council representation to hear the comments or concerns. This seems hardly sufficient to address the needs of such a large and vulnerable demographic.
Meetings were also conducted with the Steering Committee and the Technical Working Group. They were advertised on the city’s website as being “public meetings” but in reality were closed to the public.
The consultant apparently met with members of city council but the final report does not provide an overview of their comments. If minutes were taken they were not made public like they were for the focus groups. The final report does not explain why.
What were lacking throughout were face-to-face open public meetings between the consultant, transit staff, city councillors, community associations and everyday transit users.
In a March 30, 2006, transit department news release Mayor Don Atchison said the new changes would include “serving areas that previously didn’t have transit service.” What Atchison never mentioned though were the areas of the city where service was being eliminated and the longer walking distances to bus stops that many riders would soon face. The consultant called it “streamlined”.
The Saskatoon Transit Strategic Plan Study Short-Term Improvement Plan – April 25, 2005 described the strategy used to achieve the proposed new service concepts as “a reorientation of the current regular service network to better serve the University, and other key destinations (Kelsey-SIAST, suburban centers, the airport, industrial areas) and to provide more direct, no-transfer (including cross town) connections, especially to key destinations,” and the “introduction of higher-order BRT service on four corridors”. The plan was crafted to meet the objectives “generally within the existing funding envelope for transit.” In short, service was eliminated or streamlined in some neighbourhoods in order to provide new or better service for customers elsewhere.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Joe Kuchta
Saskatoon, SK
http://owlsandroosters.blogspot.com/
Attachments:
1. August 13, 2004 Transit Services news release
2. Excerpt from Strategic Plan Study for City of Saskatoon Transit Services – Request for Consultant Proposals January 2004
3. Saskatoon Transit Strategic Plan Study “Get Involved” webpage (June 2005)
cc:Lori Coolican, The StarPhoenix
Jeremy Warren, Planet S
Letter from Western Economic Diversification and follow-up to Hon. Carol Skelton regarding federal centennial funding for Saskatoon - July 31, 2006
July 25, 2006
Dear Mr. Kuchta:
Minister Skelton has referred your recent correspondence to me and has asked that I reply on her behalf. I noted with interest your questions respecting the decision-making process for the Saskatoon projects under the “Canada Celebrates Saskatchewan” program.
The Government of Canada followed an open process to enable interested stakeholders to bring forward potential legacy projects in Saskatoon. This process led to nineteen proposals involving over $50 million in requested capital funding being identified. In accordance with the guidelines established in the “Request for Proposals”, WD officials reviewed each proposal and recommended for Ministerial consideration four projects, which would be lasting legacies of Saskatchewan’s centennial year.
I am pleased to be able to advise that every project was selected in accordance with the criteria published and made available to all applicants.
I thank you for your correspondence.
Yours truly,
Daniel Watson
Assistant Deputy Minister-------------------------------------------------------July 31, 2006
The Honourable Carol SkeltonMinister of National Revenue andWestern Economic Diversification Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Dear Minister Skelton:
I am writing in response to a July 25, 2006, letter I received from Daniel Watson, Assistant Deputy Minister of Western Economic Diversification Canada (WD). My correspondence of June 30, 2006, to you concerning the recently concluded Canada Celebrates Saskatchewan request for proposals (RFP) process in Saskatoon was apparently referred to him for reply on your behalf.
I would like to express my disappointment with the response I received from your department. Mr. Watson did not provide answers to any of the questions or concerns that were raised in my letter such as:
- Why was Saskatoon Prairieland Park Corporation not required to leverage funding from other levels of government for its proposal, when at least three other applicants were required to do so?
- Why did WD officials not communicate to applicants the department’s “in-house rule” that the confirmed funding criteria was 30% and not the 20% stated in the RFP submission guidelines?
- What is the purpose of this “in-house rule” and when was it created?
- Was the 30% “in-house rule” applied only to the Mendel Art Gallery’s application, or was it extended to all 19 proposals? If only applied to the Mendel could you please explain why?
- What other “in-house rules”, if any, did WD apply during the evaluation process that was not communicated to the applicants?
- Why did WD officials not ask the Mendel to provide confirmation letters of confirmed gifts?
- Why did WD officials not communicate to prospective applicants before the RFP deadline that provincial funding would be a strict eligibility requirement? Why did the submission guidelines not state this more clearly?
- Why did WD officials accept a proposal from the City of Saskatoon that included a project it did not own, that being Persephone Theatre?
WD has yet to address concerns over the bias it appears to have shown in favour of River Landing related projects and the department’s refusal to release the points ranking for projects to applicants or the public.
In November 2005 the federal government promised that the Canada Celebrates Saskatchewan RFP process in Saskatoon would be fair, open and transparent. In your March 24, 2006, speech announcing the winners of the centennial funding you said the selection process, like your new government, emphasized accountability. However, when approached to provide answers to legitimate questions and concerns about the process the government refused to do so.
Despite several freedom of information requests details of WD’s decision-making process are being kept secret. If such information is to be exempt, one of the major purposes of transparency fails, namely, to provide a means of holding the government decision-making process accountable; this simply cannot be done if there is no public access to the documents that government uses to base its decision. At every turn the federal government has hidden behind the Access to Information Act to deny the public access to critical information.
As a Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar constituent I am deeply disappointed. The very things the federal government says it stands for – fairness, openness, transparency and accountability – were not delivered.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Joe Kuchta
Saskatoon, SK
http://owlsandroosters.blogspot.com/
/Attachment
Cc: Saskatoon City Council
Mendel Art Gallery Board of Trustees
Meewasin Valley Authority Board of Directors
Hon. Glen Hagel, MLA, NDP, Minister of Culture, Youth and Recreation
June Draude, MLA, Saskatchewan Party, Culture, Youth and Recreation Critic
Catherine Bell, MP, NDP, Western Economic Diversification Canada Critic
Don Bell, MP, Liberal Party of Canada, Western Economic Diversification Canada Critic
Jeremy Warren, Planet S
Lori Coolican, The StarPhoenix
Legion Building - Letters to the editor - as of and prior to July 11, 2006
Legion building has potential to be adapted for other uses
The StarPhoenix
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
The Royal Canadian Legion should be commended for all the hard work its staff and members have done and continue to do for veterans and their families since its inception some 80 years ago.
Branch 63 on 19th Street East may be moving but the hall remains an important symbol of the sacrifices made by many Saskatoon families. The building is attractive and has a rich history, which makes it a worthy landmark for heritage designation.
With some creativity, it undoubtedly has tourism potential. Saskatoon would benefit from such an attraction.
Older buildings such as the legion can be adapted and re-used for purposes other than originally intended. If not as a veterans' museum, this building perhaps can be used as administrative offices for the new hotel or for conference and meeting rooms that could be rented out.
I urge city council and owner Remai Ventures to find a positive solution to this issue. Demolition is not the answer.
Colton Inglehart
Saskatoon
©The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2006
Preserve Legion building for future generations
The StarPhoenix
Thursday, July 06, 2006
The downtown Royal Canadian Legion building is a symbol of the sacrifices made by those who came before us and should be preserved for future generations to experience.
The building has enormous heritage potential. It was designed by one of Saskatoon's pioneer architects, David Webster, and remains on its original site. There are not many brick buildings downtown anymore with the kind of character it brings, not to mention the societal and historical events it is linked with -- and it's still in use.
Many examples exist of older structures being successfully renovated and brought up to current standards without destroying their original character. The old Eaton's building at 23rd Street and Third Avenue (which is of the same time period as the Legion hall) and the CP Rail Station at 24th Street and Idylwyld Drive are two that come to mind.
Surely, the building's owner, Remai Ventures, and Saskatoon city council can think of a better solution other than to simply demolish this irreplaceable landmark.
To tear down the Legion building is disrespectful to the memory of the veterans who built the hall in 1929 and to those who paid the ultimate price in serving their country. One only needs to visit the beautiful Field of Honour military section at Woodlawn Cemetery to realize the contribution made in wars past by families in Saskatoon and region.
Debra Harder
Vanscoy
© The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2006
Sale of downtown Legion Building question of survival for charter
The StarPhoenix
Friday, June 30, 2006
There have been comments in the news media recently that inply that Branch 63 Legion was coerced or rushed into the sale of their building.
The fact is, however, that circumstances dictated the decision to sell the beloved but crumbling building, because of a dwindling membership and the consequent lack of funds.
The Legion is not a building, it is a small group of hardworking people doing their best to support our veterans and keep the memory alive.
Legions across the country are losing their charters and dying due to lack of support. With this sale, our branch will proudly move our charter to a new building with hope for the future. If we sell enough hot dogs, work enough bingos -- just plain volunteer enough -- just maybe we can survive.
The branch has sacrificed its building in exchange for a future. If you care about preserving the memory of your veteran forefathers join your local legion. Its future depends on you and your participation.
Helen Waring
Saskatoon
© The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2006
Legion branch moving, not ceasing operation
The StarPhoenixWednesday, June 28, 2006
The Royal Canadian Legion Branch 63 Building was built in 1929, when the membership was plentiful and our branch was thriving.
It is now 2006, the building is in disrepair (not accessible to wheelchairs, walkers or canes), our membership is declining and our branch is struggling.
Thanks to Remai Ventures our new building (wherever it may be) will be accessible and affordable to everyone. Our old building will be forever remembered by the memorial Remai is putting in the hotel spa.
As for the declining membership, all those relatives of veterans who wrote to the paper to say the building shouldn't be demolished (and anyone who agrees with them), where have you been?
Our branch is not closing -- just moving!
Karen Kerpan
Secretary Manager
Royal Canadian Legion Branch 63
© The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2006
Demolishing Legion Building insult to honour of veterans
The StarPhoenixTuesday, June 20, 2006
I would like to voice my support to preserve the downtown Legion Building. Many of my ancestors were veterans and proud legion members.
My grandfather, John Paton of Saltcoats, belonged to the Great War Veterans' Association, which later became part of the Canadian Legion. His sons, Robert and John, were wounded in the First World War, with John receiving the Distinguished Conduct Medal in 1918 for bravery at Amiens, France.
The award citation reads "When an enemy machine gun was causing heavy casualties, he dashed forward over seventy-five yards of open ground in face of the heavy fire and rushed the gunner, killing him and putting the gun out of action. By his splendid courage and promptitude he saved many casualties, and greatly facilitated the advance." He was 20 years old.
Johnny, as he was affectionately known, died in 1924 from tuberculosis contracted during the war. Robert died in 1943 in Saskatoon.
Several more of my uncles served during the Second World War and belonged to the legion. There are no doubt many families in Saskatoon with similar stories to tell.
I am appalled at the thoughtless and hard-hearted attitude of city council and developer Remai Ventures. To them the Legion Building seems to be just another piece of property to be developed. Mayor Don Atchison has never explained why this travesty was allowed to happen, especially after council unanimously supported the idea of a Veterans' Museum within the building.
Equally disturbing was the excitement expressed by my ward councillor, Donna Birkmaier, in The SP last December when it was announced the building had been sold to accommodate a spa hotel. Don't our veterans deserve better?
Barb Nankivell
Saskatoon
© The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2006
Voters should remember how veterans treated
The StarPhoenix
Monday, June 12, 2006
I urge City Hall to reconsider allowing Remai Ventures to demolish the Legion Hall on 19th Street.
I can't believe that Mayor Don Atchison would turn his back on our veterans, especially considering their contribution to our city and our country.
After only two meetings -- on April 5 and May 28 -- City Hall just walked away with its usual weak explanation that the parties, "were unable to come to a mutually suitable arrangement."
Funny how this standard statement shows up when council is avoiding controversy. I think our elected officials used a similar statement when they failed to renew Police Chief Russ Sabo's contract.
This hall for the Royal Canadian Legion Branch No. 63 was built to honour our veterans, and was one of the first built in Canada. It opened on Dec. 11, 1929.
It is sad that our civic leaders prefer to pander to the whim of uncaring developers -- so called good corporate citizens -- rather than preserve our past and honour our pioneers.
It is from one's past that one knows one's future. In the fall of this year there will be another civic election. Citizens of Saskatoon, please remember how this mayor and council turned their backs on our veterans.
Bill Nixon
Saskatoon
© The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2006
LEAD Saskatoon Futures Inc. - as of July 10, 2006
[Note: The following corporate registry information is available to the public from the Corporations Branch of Saskatchewan Justice.]
Saskatchewan Justice
Corporations Branch
Corporate Registry Profile Report
Entity No.: 101047977
Entity Name: LEAD Saskatoon Futures Inc.
As of: 10-Jul-2006
Status as of Profile date: Active
Entity Type: Non-Profit Corporation
Entity Sub-Type: Saskatchewan Membership Corporation
Incorporation Date: 21-Aug-2003
Home Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
Annual Return/Renewal Date: 30-Sep-2006
Fiscal Year End Date: 30-Sep-2006
Financial Statement Due Date: 31-Jan-2006
Nature of Business: Political Lobbying
Registered Office: 374 3rd Avenue South, Suite 200, Saskatoon, SK S7K 1M5
Allowable Number of Directors: Min: 1 Max: 10
Director/Officer/Shareholder Information:
Joe C. Bloski - Director: Yes
David Criddle - Director: Yes
Gary Emde - Director: Yes
Coni Evans - Director: Yes
Don Funk - Director: No (ceased 31-Dec-2004)
Russel Marcoux - Director: Yes
Todd Peterson - Director: Yes
Don Ravis - Director: Yes
-----------------------------------------------------------
[Note: Not long after its incorporation LEAD Saskatoon Futures Inc. unveiled its civic election plans at a press conference on Thursday, September 18, 2003 at the Travelodge in Saskatoon. According to The StarPhoenix approximately 50 people attended – some by invitation. At the time LEAD had “about 40 unofficial supporters who have attended meetings during the past year,” and were “launching a fund-raising campaign aimed at generating between $10,000 and $20,000.” The money would be used to fund campaign advertising and a Web site for the organization.
The emergence of the group with its pro-business message generated significant coverage in the right leaning StarPhoenix. Columnists reporting on LEAD in September 2003 included Randy Burton and John Gormley, a former Conservative MP in the Mulroney government and current in-house counsel at RAWLCO Radio Ltd.
It is interesting to note that LEAD director Russel Marcoux is Chief Executive Officer of the Yanke Group of Companies, an international transportation company. He is also the current Chair of the Board of Directors for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
Coni Evans, a LEAD director, is with the Saskatoon City Hospital Foundation. She is the current President of the Saskatoon and District Chamber of Commerce.
Don Ravis, a LEAD director, was a former Conservative MP in the Mulroney government as well; in fact it was during the same time as John Gormley’s tenure – the mid-1980s.
Although the letter below is addressed to “all Saskatoon taxpayers” it seems it was not made widely available to the public when it began circulating prior to the 2003 civic election. It appears LEAD intended it only for select individuals as a means of soliciting donations for its cause. The names of contributors were not disclosed.]
TO ALL SASKATOON TAXPAYERS:
Over the past number of years, it has become apparent that our fair city has failed in keeping pace with its rival in the south, the City of Regina! There is a growing concern amongst the citizens of our community that our city has become stagnant and is failing badly on its economic course and its ability to make decisions on major issues and opportunities. There is an even greater concern that there does not appear to be a plan or vision for the future to ensure that we can continue to grow, prosper and enjoy the quality of life to which we have become accustomed.
WHAT CAN WE AS TAXPAYERS DO ABOUT IT?
Recently, a group of concerned citizens formed an organization to try and bring about some changes that, hopefully, will place Saskatoon back on track. LEAD SASKATOON FUTURES INC. is a non-profit corporation committed to encouraging and fostering leadership within and among all members of our community. Its mandate is to encourage people with leadership and visionary abilities to get actively involved in the politics of Saskatoon and, at the same time, provide encouragement to the people of Saskatoon to get out and vote for individuals with the ability to successfully lead us into the future.
To cite just a few examples as to where and how our current civic leadership is managing our issues and opportunities, consider how these examples have been mismanaged:
1. World University Games 2007
2. South Downtown Development
3. Casino
4. Police Department
5. Dialogue with Aboriginal Community
6. C.P. Wang Dismissal
7. Gathercole Site Proposals
8. Special Needs Transit Services
LEADERSHIP
Leadership means taking the initiative to participate and contribute to shared goals in the interest of community and economic development. Everyone can provide leadership in action, by example and by participating as an informed voter in our democratic process. Our great City of Saskatoon needs this type of leadership to continue to move forward into the future and to reclaim its position as the leading centre of development in Saskatchewan.
In order to effectively promote the aims and objectives of LEAD SASKATOON prior to the next civic election, we are respectfully soliciting your financial support. Your contribution will assist us in preparing and delivering a strong slate of common-sense, business-minded candidates who possess some of those qualities we so desperately need. We will also focus on evoking an emotional response from the taxpayers that will help them appreciate the importance and relevance of their vote. Your concern and financial support will greatly determine the success of our goal!
SASKATOON DESERVES BETTER!
Joe C. Bloski (Taxpayer)
LEAD SASKATOON FUTURES INC.
Note: Please make all cheques payable to LEAD SASKATOON FUTURES INC. and forward to:
LEAD SASKATOON FUTURES INC.
Box
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
-----------------------------------------------------------
[Note: The following information is from the one annual financial statement dated April 20, 2005, that LEAD Saskatoon has filed with the provincial government. The next statement appears to have been due January 31, 2006, but as of July 10, 2006, it had not yet been submitted.]
LEAD SASKATOON FUTURES INC.
Statement of Receipts and Expenditures
As at: September 30, 2004
Donations: $43,475.00
Interest: $6.56
Total receipts: $43,481.56
Radio: $18,000.00
Brochures: $1,778.77
Print advertising: $7,181.26
Professional fees (graphic design and legal): $751.72
Web Site: $1,696.81
Telephone: $141.58
Poll: $800.00
Printing: $146.28
GST paid: $578.81
Total expenditures: $31,075.23
Excess of receipts over expenditures: $12,406.33
Excess of receipts over expenditures, beginning: $0.00
Excess of receipts over expenditures / cash in bank, end: $12,406.33
See accompanying notes
Notes to financial statements:
September 30
1. Accounting policies
a) Nature of the business
LEAD Saskatoon Futures Inc. is a not-for-profit corporation, established to foster informed voter participation in the civic government of the City of Saskatoon.
b) Cash basis accounting
The Company accounts for revenues and expenditures on the cash basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded in the period of receipt and expenditures are recorded in the period they are made.
The company does not have any material assets other than the cash in the bank account.
c) Comparative numbers are not provided since this is the first fiscal period of operations for the company.
Letter to The Honourable Carol Skelton, Minister of Economic Diversification Canada regarding federal centennial funding in Saskatoon - June 30, 2006
June 30, 2006
The Honourable Carol SkeltonMinister of National Revenue andWestern Economic Diversification Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Dear Minister Skelton:
I am writing regarding the Canada Celebrates Saskatchewan centennial capital initiative Request for Proposals (RFP) process in Saskatoon that was administered by Western Economic Diversification Canada (WD) and concluded on March 24, 2006. I have a number of questions I would like to ask concerning the program. As information please find attached several federal and provincial documents obtained through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests.
On March 30, 2006, two representatives from the Mendel Art Gallery met with WD’s acting manager of special programs. The focus of the meeting was to receive feedback from WD on the assessment of the Mendel’s application for funding under the Canada Celebrates Saskatchewan initiative. On March 24, the Mendel learned that it was not among the recipients to receive this special centennial funding.
I understand the Mendel was advised that the amount of capital confirmed for its expansion project was the major factor as to why they did not qualify to receive funding. The application rules stated that 20% of funding must be confirmed, but the assessment committee required the applicants to have 30% confirmed (This was the committee’s own in-house rule and not communicated to the applicants in the application form or verbally). Apparently, the assessment committee assumed that the Mendel did not meet the 30% criteria, but in fact, the Mendel exceeded this benchmark.
Minister Skelton, could you please explain why WD officials did not communicate to applicants the department’s “in-house rule” that the confirmed funding criteria was 30% and not the 20% stated in the RFP submission guidelines?
What is the purpose of this “in-house rule” and when was it created?
Was the 30% “in-house rule” applied only to the Mendel’s application, or was it extended to all 19 proposals? If only applied to the Mendel could you please explain why?
What other “in-house rules”, if any, did WD apply during the evaluation process that was not communicated to the applicants?
The Mendel was requested to provide a letter from the City Manager that the City’s contribution of $4.5 million was confirmed (which the Mendel did), but it was not requested to provide confirmation letters of confirmed gifts, which the Mendel could have done.
Could you please explain why WD officials did not ask the Mendel to provide confirmation letters of confirmed gifts?
WD advised the Mendel that it would have received a higher score if it had had confirmation from the Province of Saskatchewan of its contribution of $4.5 million.
The proposal process for the Canada Celebrates Saskatchewan centennial capital initiative closed December 9, 2005. At the deadline I believe neither the Mendel nor Persephone Theatre had confirmation from the Province of Saskatchewan of its contribution. According to Persephone’s proposal it appears it would not have met WD’s 30% “in-house rule” either. (Attachment 1)
The three-page RFP submission guidelines posted on WD’s website did not state that provincial funding was a requirement. The eligibility criteria say only that projects must “leverage funding from other sources”, while the proposal rating criteria ask applicants to show “financial support from either public or private sector supporters (a measure of community support)”.
According to WD, during the eligibility screening process 7 proposals were eliminated and “Another three proposals required confirmation of pending provincial funding to meet eligibility requirements. These were passed through to the next stage on a provisional basis until such time as the status of the provincial funding could be confirmed.” WD refused to disclose which three proposals these were. (Attachment 2)
It appears, however, that the Mendel Art Gallery and Persephone Theatre may be two of them – since both applied for provincial funding – with the third possibly being the Meewasin Valley Authority, who apparently received a letter of support from the provincial minister responsible but their funding request still required cabinet approval. (Attachment 3)
Could you please explain why WD officials did not communicate to prospective applicants before the RFP deadline that provincial funding would be a strict eligibility requirement? Why did the submission guidelines not state this more clearly?
With respect to the Saskatoon Prairieland Park Corporation proposal WD’s April 6, 2006, draft Due Diligence Report (DDR) appears to indicate that WD will be covering 80% of the project’s cost and will be the only government agency to contribute funding. Could you please explain why this particular applicant was not required to leverage funding from other levels of government, when at least three other applicants were required to do so? At the RFP deadline it appears that this project would not have met the 30% “in-house rule” of confirmed funding either. (Attachment 4)
The Mendel was advised that it wouldn’t have received the highest marks for “uniqueness” of project. The explanation was that the Mackenzie Art Gallery in Regina is a similar operation. WD gave no further rationale as to why the Mendel’s application was not successful. Could you please explain why no further rationale was given?
There is one further dimension that was considered by the assessment committee. The application guidelines specified that the City of Saskatoon must state the priority it would place on each of its proposals. The City provided WD with the following list: 1) The Victoria Bridge; 2) Persephone Theatre; 3) Mendel Art Gallery; 4) Riverfront Park.
The RFP submission guidelines, released November 7, 2005, said, “Where an applicant, applies for more than one project, it must state, in writing, the relative priority that it assigns to each project being submitted.”
The City, however, in a November 3, 2005, letter to WD had already identified Persephone as a priority saying, “we request that $2.5M of the funds be dedicated to this project.” This was more than one month before formal city council approval on December 7, 2005. (Attachment 5)
In its December 8, 2005, RFP submission the City confirmed its decision saying, “As per your request for proposals, City Council, by the attached resolution, has formally set its priorities for the four projects submitted.” (Attachment 6)
For whatever reason, WD did not take the City’s recommendation and put the Mendel below Riverfront Park. The City included Persephone Theatre on its list of proposals even though Persephone is not owned by the City.
Could you please explain why WD officials accepted a proposal from the City that included a project it did not own?
It appears that the Mendel Art Gallery had little chance of receiving provincial or federal funding.
City Council made one of its top priorities known to the other levels of government on September 19, 2005, when it committed $1M towards Persephone Theatre’s proposed new facility. Furthermore, the entire $6.7M unconditional provincial Community Share 2006 Program grant was allocated to the Olympic-pool facility in the Blairmore development. The City never revealed what other projects were considered or why only two were chosen for consideration: the Victoria Bridge and the Aquatic Facility. The province, in an April 7, 2006, letter to the Mendel, seemed to be hoping that the City would fund the gallery from this money. (Attachment 7)
It appears as well, that a unique deal was struck with the theatre that reduced land costs from $32.50 to $30 per square foot. The City apparently “obtained a fresh appraisal that differentiates between the values of the north half and the south half of the River Landing cultural block.” (Attachment 8).
In November 2005, the province’s Standing Committee on Human Services debated a request by the government for an additional $3M in cultural operations funding from the General Revenue Fund that were not included in the main Estimates presented with the Government’s 2005-06 Budget. The government said that the money was required “to provide grants for cultural activities, for carry-over costs of Saskatchewan’s 2005 Centennial commitments.”
The Supplementary Estimates – November for Culture, Youth and Recreation – Vote 27 – Subvote CR03 – Cultural Operations Support shows a budget line of $3,033,000. (Attachment 9)
The November 24, 2005, Standing Committee on Human Services Hansard Verbatim Report indicates that $533,000 of this money was targeted for the Regina Globe Theatre. The remaining $2,500,000 was required “in anticipation of the request coming from the city of Saskatoon that’s going to be cost shared with a federal government, and that’s targeted to be a centennial legacy capital project,” said then culture minister Joan Beatty. (Attachment 10)
It is interesting to note that the $2.5M set aside by the province is, I believe, the same amount Persephone requested in its July 2005 proposal to CYR. Furthermore, Beatty’s comment seems to suggest that perhaps only one centennial capital legacy project would be funded by the province and cost shared with the federal government.
According to the April 28, 2006, Standing Committee on Human Services Hansard Verbatim Report, during discussion of the Mendel and the federal centennial funding issue, culture minister Glenn Hagel said, “I would like to see a federal-provincial-municipal collaboration in dealing with these kinds of capital requests…”
“Had the federal funds come forward to the Mendel, the province was not in a position where we would have been able to respond in this fiscal year...” he said. (Attachment 11)
As for the federal government I feel that in May 2005 WD exposed its bias in favour of River Landing when it told The StarPhoenix that, as far as it was concerned, the federal centennial funding should go towards the proposed cultural block, which would include Persephone. It was the department’s “No. 1 choice”, said director general David James. The federal government had been working with the City, and other stakeholders including Persephone, for over a year in trying to establish a Destination Complex; something, which WD has consistently said, was its “expectation”.
Additionally, throughout 2004 the federal government made it absolutely clear that it was not a funding partner on the Gathercole Site and that development of the property would be “funded entirely” by the City. The federal government has since reversed its position on this arrangement and thus far declined to elaborate on the matter.
In a February 9, 2006, letter to WD – stamped as received on February 14 – Persephone indicated they provided the province with a “significant update” and were “still on track” to be dealt with as part of the spring budget process. (Attachment 12)
On February 14, 2006, CYR sent an email to Persephone thanking them for the updated information, which the deputy minister’s office received on February 13. The department had several concerns, one being that the new theatre’s “novelty factor will create greater interest”, but that the theatre was proposing a “fairly dramatic increase in ticket prices that may stem the interest.” CYR requested clarification but it remains unclear what the theatre’s response was. (Attachment 13)
The following day, February 15, 2006, Culture, Youth and Recreation recommended to the finance department that Persephone’s $2.5M funding request be approved. Among the reasons were “the Government of Canada has indicated that the Persephone project was highly rated among the projects that were submitted to it for the Canada Celebrates Saskatchewan’s Centennial program.” (Attachment 14)
It seems that the senior levels of government were in close contact throughout the process.
WD prepared a draft Due Diligence Report for Persephone’s proposal on March 16, 2006, which was eight days before the official announcement and five days prior to the signing of the provincial Order in Council approving Persephone’s funding request. Under “special conditions” it reads: “The payout of the WD funding on this project will be conditional upon the client being approved for funding of approximately $2,500,000 from the Province of Saskatchewan as has been requested. If this provincial funding is not approved, it is doubtful that the project can be successful.” (Attachment 15)
The provincial Order in Council approving $2.5M in unconditional funding to Persephone Theatre was forwarded to CYR minister Glenn Hagel on March 14, 2006, and signed March 21, 2006 – some three months after the advertised deadline for RFP submissions. (Attachment 16)
The provincial Grant Approval Request for Payment of funds to Persephone Theatre was signed on March 23, 2006. The theatre was subsequently advised of payment “in the coming days”. (Attachments 17 & 18)
The near simultaneous provincial and federal funding announcements occurred on March 24, 2006.
It appears the federal government was simply waiting for the province to conclude its approval process.
According to a December 5, 2005, WD memorandum “By early February the project selection process should be complete, and a recommendation for project selection should be ready for approval by the Minister.” (Attachment 19)
A February 27, 2006, briefing note to Minister Carol Skelton identifies the four highest-ranking proposals but does not say when the final review decision was made. Furthermore, the note says that the eight projects with the highest number of points were “reviewed against several strategic Government of Canada criteria” including “the extent of support for the project from other orders of government, both in terms of financial support for the capital costs and in terms of ongoing operational funding.” (Attachment 20)
The reference to “strategic” federal criteria in terms of support for “capital costs” and “ongoing operational funding” from “other orders of government” was not stated as such in the RFP submission guidelines. Could you please explain why?
A March 7, 2006, WD email seems to indicate that federal officials had targeted March 24 as the “possible launch date”. On March 23 WD told a Saskatoon StarPhoenix reporter that the announcement would not come until April, which of course proved to be untrue. It happened the very next day. It appears the media were misinformed. (Attachments 21-24)
The federal government promised a fair, open and transparent process. The Mendel was apparently refused access to a copy of the points ranking for projects. My recent FOI request (A-2005-033) seeking access to those records was denied as well. In fact, the public has been denied access to a significant amount of River Landing related documents by the City, Province and Federal Government.
Could you please explain how fairness, openness, transparency and accountability were achieved in this process?
Thank you for your time. I look forward to receiving your reply.
Sincerely,
Joe Kuchta
Saskatoon, SK
/Attachments
Cc:Saskatoon City Council
Mendel Art Gallery Board of Trustees
Meewasin Valley Authority Board of Directors
Hon. Glen Hagel, MLA, NDP, Minister of Culture, Youth and Recreation
June Draude, MLA, Saskatchewan Party, Culture, Youth and Recreation Critic
Catherine Bell, MP, NDP, Western Economic Diversification Canada Critic
Don Bell, MP, Liberal Party of Canada, Western Economic Diversification Canada Critic
Jeremy Warren, Planet S
Lori Coolican, The StarPhoenix
River Landing spa hotel and site Access to Information request and response - June 6, 2006
Despite the filing of numerous Freedom of Information (FOI) requests the City of Saskatoon, the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada have denied the public access to hundreds of pages of River Landing related documents since 2004.
The provincial departments involved are Government Relations and Culture, Youth and Recreation. The Meewasin Valley Authority, which is a provincial responsibility, is also affected since it too has denied access to many records.
The federal departments concerned are Western Economic Diversification Canada, Infrastructure Canada, Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
One FOI request made to the City of Saskatoon on May 1, 2006 was for all documents and records between June 1, 2004, and December 12, 2005, regarding the proposed spa hotel and site (Parcel “Y”) within River Landing Phase I – with the exception of those records that had been tabled at a public meeting of city council.
In its June 6, 2006, response the city – citing various sections of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act – listed 81 documents that it was not willing to release. This decision has since been appealed to the Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner for review.
The following are descriptions of the River Landing spa hotel and site records that the City of Saskatoon has chosen to withhold from the public under this particular request:
1. Memo dated November 5, 2004 to Special Projects Manager from City Solicitor’s Office enclosing draft copies of the Realtor Services Agreement.
2. Memo dated October 29, 2004 to Special Projects Manager from City Solicitor’s Office enclosing draft contract wording for Realtor Services Agreement.
3. Memo dated October 25, 2004 to Special Projects Manager from City Solicitor’s Office enclosing draft Realtor Service Agreement.
4. Memo dated October 22, 2004 to Communications Manager from City Solicitor’s Office enclosing draft Realtor Service Agreement.
5. Results of reference check of Colliers McClocklin.
6. E-mail dated October 24, 2004 from Gwyn Symmons, CitySpaces Consulting Ltd., to City Solicitor’s Office commenting on draft realtor contract.
7. Memo dated October 20, 2004 from Communications Manager to City Solicitor’s Office regarding national realtor contract.
8. E-mail dated October 3, 2004 from Gwyn Symmons, CitySpaces Consulting Ltd., to City Manager, City Solicitor and Communications Manager regarding the establishment of realtor call selection criteria.
9. E-mail dated October 18, 2004 from Communications Manager to City Solicitor regarding realtor contract.
10. Memo dated October 19, 2004 from Gwyn Symmons, CitySpaces Consulting Ltd., to City Solicitor’s Office, City Manager and Communications Manager regarding realtor scope of work.
11. E-mail dated October 18, 2004 from Gwyn Symmons, CitySpaces Consulting Ltd., to Communications Manager, City Manager and City Solicitor regarding realtor contract.
12. Draft Realtor Services Agreement
13. E-mail dated October 18, 2004 from City Solicitor to Communications Manager regarding realtor contract.
14. E-mail dated October 3, 2004 from Gwyn Symmons to City Manager, City Solicitor and Communications Manager regarding realtor call selection criteria.
15. Memo dated August 30, 2004 from City Solicitor’s Office to Special Projects Manager enclosing draft Call for Expression of Interest.
16. E-mail dated August 25, 2004 from Special Projects Manager to City Manager, Communications Manager and City Solicitor regarding draft of call for realtors.
17. E-mail dated August 20, 2004 from Gwyn Symmons to Special Projects Manager regarding the call for realtor expressions of interest.
18. E-mail dated August 5, 2004 from City Solicitor to Special Projects Manager regarding preparation for a meeting of Meewasin Valley Authority.
19. Memo dated July 22, 2004 from City Solicitor to Mayor and Council regarding hotel site and realtor.
20. E-mail dated January 10, 2005 from Communications Manager to Gwyn Symmons regarding hotel site.
21. Letter dated December 5, 2005 from City Solicitor to Remai Ventures Inc. with revised draft of Sale Agreement.
22. Letter dated November 9, 2005 from City Solicitor to Leland Kimpinski, Barrister and Solicitor, regarding proposed hotel spa development.
23. Letter dated October 20, 2005 from Special Projects Manager to P.R. Developments regarding proposed hotel spa development.
24. Letter dated September 12, 2005 from Remai Ventures Inc. to Special Projects Manager regarding hotel and spa development.
25. Memo dated July 13, 2005 from City Solicitor to Special Projects Manager regarding hotel site.
26. Letter dated June 8, 2005 from Saunders Evans Architects Inc. to the Community Services Department providing information regarding their review of the proposal for the hotel and spa submitted by Remai Ventures.
27. Notes, dated June 9, 2005, from meeting of representatives from Community Services and Gwyn Symmons, CitySpaces Consulting, with Cohos Evamy, a consultant, regarding proposed hotel/spa development.
28. E-mail dated July 11, 2005 from City Clerk to Councillors, Senior Management and other administrative staff regarding special Council meeting.
29. E-mail dated January 27, 2005 from Colliers McClocklin to Gwyn Symmons, CitySpaces, regarding River Landing.
30. E-mail dated February 2, 2005 from Colliers McClocklin to Special Projects Manager regarding bidder for hotel site.
31. E-mail dated February 1, 2005 from Colliers McClocklin to Special Projects Manager regarding bidder for hotel site.
32. E-mail dated November 30, 2005 from City Solicitor to members of City Council regarding Remai Ventures proposal.
33. E-mail dated September 19, 2005 from City Solicitor to Randy Rooke, Q.C. regarding Remai.
34. E-mail dated May 30, 2005 from City Solicitor’s Office to Special Projects Manager regarding Remai Ventures proposal.
35. E-mail dated May 27, 2005 from City Solicitor’s Office to Special Projects Manager regarding Remai Ventures proposal.
36. Memo dated March 4, 2005 from City Solicitor to Special Projects Manager regarding hotel site RFP.
37. E-mail dated February 24, 2005 from City Solicitor to Gwyn Symmons, CitySpaces, City Manager and Special Projects Manager regarding the hotel site RFP.
38. E-mail dated February 24, 2005 from City Solicitor to Special Projects Manager regarding draft report to Council on EOI.
39. E-mail dated November 2, 2004 from City Solicitor’s Office to Gwyn Symmons, CitySpaces, regarding draft EOI proposal.
40. Letter dated October 5, 2004 from City Solicitor to Randall Rooke, Q.C., McDougall Gauley, regarding sale of hotel site.
41. Memo dated October 4, 2004 from City Solicitor to Gwyn Symmons, CitySpaces Consulting, regarding hotel site EOI/RFP.
42. Letter dated September 28, 2004 from McDougall Gauley to City Solicitor regarding hotel site.
43. EOI submissions for hotel/spa.
44. Report dated December 1, 2005 from City Solicitor to Executive Committee (In Camera) regarding Remai Ventures proposal.
45. Letter dated November 23, 2005 from City Clerk to Mayor advising of decision made at in camera meeting of Executive Committee regarding proposed spa hotel.
46. Excerpt from minutes of in camera meeting of Executive Committee held on November 21, 2005 regarding proposed spa hotel.
47. Letter dated November 21, 2005 from Remai Ventures regarding negotiations for proposed spa hotel.
48. Memo dated November 15, 2005 from City Clerk to City Solicitor providing instructions from in camera meeting of Executive Committee regarding proposed spa hotel.
49. Excerpt from minutes of in camera meeting of Executive Committee held on November 7, 2005 regarding proposed spa hotel.
50. Report of City Solicitor dated November 1, 2005, to in camera Executive Committee, regarding proposed spa hotel.
51. Excerpt from minutes of in camera meeting on Executive Committee held on October 17, 2005, regarding proposed hotel/spa.
52. Memo dated August 25, 2005 from Acting City Clerk to Special Projects Manager, providing instructions from in camera Executive Committee meeting regarding proposed hotel/spa.
53. Excerpt from minutes of in camera meeting of Executive Committee held on August 17, 2005 regarding proposed hotel/spa.
54. Report of the City Manager dated July 13, 2005, to in camera Executive Committee, regarding proposed hotel/spa.
55. E-mail dated July 22, 2005 from Communications Manager to Council Members and Senior Administration regarding special meeting of City Council relating to Remai Ventures proposal.
56. Excerpt from minutes of in camera meeting of Executive Committee held on July 20, 2005 regarding hotel/spa proposal.
57. Excerpt from minutes of in camera meeting of Executive Committee held on June 20, 2005 regarding hotel/spa proposal.
58. Report of City Manager dated June 15, 2005, submitted to in camera Executive Committee, regarding evaluation of hotel/spa proposal.
59. Memo dated March 2, 2005 from City Clerk to City Manager, providing instructions of Executive Committee from in camera meeting regarding EOI submissions.
60. Excerpt from minutes of in camera meeting of Executive Committee held on February 28, 2005 regarding EOI submission.
61. Memo dated March 2, 2005 from the City Clerk to the City Manager, providing instructions of Executive Committee from in camera meeting regarding RFPs.
62. Excerpt from minutes of in camera meeting of Executive Committee held on February 28, 2005 regarding RFPs.
63. Report of City Manager dated February 24, 2005, submitted to in camera meeting of Executive Committee, regarding RFPs.
64. Report of City Manager dated February 24, 2005 to in camera Executive Committee, regarding EOI submissions.
65. Excerpt from minutes of in camera meeting of Executive Committee held on November 8, 2004 regarding proposed spa hotel.
66. Report of City Solicitor dated November 3, 2004 to in camera Executive Committee regarding proposed spa hotel.
67. Memo dated October 18, 2004 from City Clerk to City Manager, providing instructions from in camera Executive Committee meeting regarding EOI process and RFP process.
68. Memo dated October 18, 2004 from City Clerk to City Manager, providing instructions from in camera Executive Committee meeting regarding expressions of interest for realtor.
69. Excerpt from minutes of in camera meeting of Executive Committee held on October 15, 2004 regarding EOI and RFP Processes.
70. Excerpt from minutes of in camera meeting of Executive Committee held on October 15, 2004 regarding expressions of interest for realtor.
71. Excerpt from minutes of in camera meeting of Executive Committee held on October 15, 2004, regarding development of hotel site.
72. Report of City Solicitor dated October 12, 2004, to in camera Executive Committee, regarding sale of hotel site.
73. Report of City Manager dated October 12, 2004 to in camera meeting of Executive Committee regarding EOI and RFP Processes.
74. Report of the City Solicitor dated October 5, 2004, to in camera Executive Committee, regarding Hotel Site EOI/RFP.
75. Memo dated August 10, 2004 from the City Clerk to the City Manager, forwarding instructions of in camera Executive Committee meeting regarding selection process.
76. Excerpt from minutes of in camera meeting of Executive Committee held on August 6, 2004 regarding hotel site development.
77. Excerpt from minutes of in camera meeting of Executive Committee held on July 21, 2004 regarding marketing of hotel site.
78. Excerpt from minutes of in camera meeting of Executive Committee held on July 21, 2004 regarding south downtown concept plan.
79. Memo dated July 20, 2004 from Gwyn Symmons, CitySpaces, to City Solicitor, regarding the hotel site.
80. E-mail correspondence dated July 19, 2004 between Mayor and Special Projects Manager regarding south downtown concept plan.
81. Report of City Solicitor dated July14, 2004, submitted to in camera Executive Committee, regarding marketing of hotel site.
Viewpoint - June 2, 2006
Legion Building should be saved
Joe Kuchta
Special to The StarPhoenix
Friday, June 02, 2006
Following is the opinion of the writer, a Saskatoon resident.
The First World War Book of Remembrance located in the Memorial Chamber of the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill contains the names of the 66,655 Canadian men and women who lost their lives in the Great War.
Veterans Affairs Canada reports there were 4,961 fatalities from Saskatchewan. The province lost another 1,928 army and navy personnel during the Second World War.
The Canadian Legion was founded in 1925 with Saskatoon among the first cities in Canada to form a branch shortly thereafter.
In July, 1929, city council approved the sale of land on 19th Street to the Legion for $3,788. C.B. Miners Construction Company was awarded a contract for $41,000 and it was decided that only veterans, as far as possible, would be employed to build the hall.
The branch opened on Dec. 11, 1929.
The hall was designed by local architect David Webster, who was responsible for designing many of Saskatoon's early schools, including Caswell Hill, Buena Vista, Westmount, Princess Alexandra, King George, Albert and King Edward. Webster also supervised construction of the Cenotaph located in City Hall Square. His achievements as a community builder were recognized in the special section of the May 26 SP commemorating Saskatoon's 100th birthday.
Webster, a Legion member, served as a lieutenant in the First World War. He was wounded at Messines-Ploegsteert in 1918 and returned home a captain.
Other notable residents who worked hard to establish the Legion in Saskatoon were: Maj.-Gen. Arthur E. Potts, who was a professor of agriculture at the University of Saskatchewan; Arthur Moxon, the first dean of law at the U of S; Frederick Henshall, who was wounded and gassed at the second battle of Ypres and who served as branch secretary; Charles Nash, a bakery owner and city councillor; Lt.-Col. Edward J. Scott-Dudley, a farmer and a veteran of both the First World War and the Boer War; Dr. Charles G. Cox, who served with the Canadian Army Medical Corps; Arthur W. Robinson, who was registrar at the land titles office; and the branch president was Col. Percy J. Philpott, who was wounded three times and received the Distinguished Conduct Medal and the Military Cross.
In his column City culture underfunded, (SP, Dec. 21, 2005) civic affairs columnist Gerry Klein wrote, "the Legion Building is not only physically attractive, it is a monument to the great suffering of Saskatchewan people who risked everything to serve their country."
He also says: "Saskatoon should be mustering its resources to save and enhance amenities such as the ... Legion building."
Sadly, owner Remai Ventures Inc. has scheduled the historic building for demolition next year. Only the Legion coat of arms plaque and the 1929 cornerstone from the building's exterior will be saved.
In June 2004, city council -- meeting in-camera as the executive committee -- abandoned the Legion Building when it decided to walk away from talks on establishing a Veterans' Museum within the hall. Council neither wanted the expense nor, as is more likely the case, to get in the way of developers wanting the land.
In contrast, the Legion Building on Cornwall Street in Regina, which was built in 1947, was designated a municipal heritage property in 1992. Among the reasons cited were the prominence of the building's architect and because the Legion is "an organization which commemorates, perpetuates and builds upon the memory of persons and events connected with an important aspect of Canadian history."
Remai, whom Mayor Don Atchison has described as "good corporate citizens," acquired the property after reportedly offering the Legion $1 million -- nearly four times its assessed value -- at a hastily called meeting on Dec. 14, 2005. Legion members were given until noon the next day to decide.
According to the developer the additional land will provide more design options for its luxury spa hotel.
"It breaks my heart to sell the building, but ... the reality is that we don't have the money to pay the bills," said branch president John Davidson. Apparently some members were working bingo nights just to cover the utility bills. Finding money to clean the carpets in the lounge and paint the ceiling was a challenge. Left to the vagaries of the marketplace, along comes a rich developer dangling an offer that couldn't be refused -- not for the building and what it represents -- just for the land.
Surely, the men and women of Saskatoon who served and died for their country deserve better.
© The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2006
Letter to City Council regarding federal centennial funding for May 23, 2006, meeting
May 10, 2006
His Worship the Mayor
And Members of City Council
City Hall
Saskatoon, SK S7K 0J5
Dear Mayor Atchison and Members of Council:
Re: Federal Centennial Funding
I wish to submit the attached documents to City Council as information. They were obtained through an Access to Information (ATI) request from Western Economic Diversification Canada (WD).
WD bureaucrats severed a significant amount of information. In fact, a number of pages were withheld in their entirety. The section of the federal Access to Information Act cited was 21(1)(b) – Operations of Government, which reads: “The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains (a) advice or recommendations developed by or for a government institution or a minister of the Crown, (b) an account of consultations or deliberations involving officers or employees of a government institution, a minister of the Crown or the staff of a minister of the Crown.”
When he announced the Request for Proposals (RFP) on November 7, 2005, former Liberal finance minister Ralph Goodale said the process would be fair, open and transparent.
In her March 24, 2006, speech announcing the winners of Saskatoon’s $10-million share of the Canada Celebrates Saskatchewan money WD Minister Carol Skelton said the selection process – like her new Conservative government – emphasized “accountability”.
Critical details of WD’s decision-making process are being kept secret. If such information is to be exempt, one of the major purposes of transparency fails, namely, to provide a means of holding the government decision-making process accountable; this simply cannot be done if there is no public access to the documents that government uses to base its decision.
Goodale and Skelton’s talk of fairness, openness, transparency and accountability were nothing more than empty words.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Joe Kuchta
Saskatoon, SK
/Attachments
cc:Hon. Carol Skelton, Minister of National Revenue and Western Economic Diversification Canada
Catherine Bell, MP, New Democratic Party of Canada WD Critic
Don Bell, MP, Liberal Party of Canada WD Critic
Canada Celebrates Saskatchewan Funding Applicants
Letter to City Council regarding allocation of Provincial Community Share 2006 Grant for May 8, 2006, meeting
May 4, 2006
His Worship the Mayor
And Members of City Council
City Hall
Saskatoon, SK
S7K 0J5
Dear Mayor Atchison and Members of Council:
Re: Allocation of Provincial Community Share 2006 Grant
City council is being asked for direction on how to allocate the $6,736,841 unconditional capital funding grant the city received from the province under the Community Share 2006 Program. City administration's report identifies two projects from which to choose: Competitive Aquatic Facility (Blairmore Development) and the Victoria Bridge Rehabilitation.
Wardrop Engineering’s Victoria Bridge Inspection and Assessment Report (February 2006) provided the city with 50-year rehabilitation options for MS 50 and MS 200 design vehicles. Both were subjected to a Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) to identify the most cost effective long-term solution. The LCCA results show that the MS 50 option is cheaper yet the more expensive MS 200 option is used by administration in its report. No explanation why is given.
Wardrop’s report shows an estimated cost for the MS 50 option as $7,582,000. When the provincial community share grant ($6,736,841) and council’s previously approved Victoria Bridge 20-year interim rehabilitation funding ($798,000) are subtracted the shortfall is $47,159.
In its report city administration rounded the shortfall for the MS 200 option up to $306,000. (It should be noted, however, that city administration used a figure of $7.804 million as the estimated cost for the MS 200 option, while the Wardrop report shows $7.704 million so administrations numbers appear to be inflated by $100,000. No explanation why is given.)
As stated in administrations report the shortfall for the New Competitive Aquatic Facility is $300,000 and does not include the cost of a walking track.
The city recently issued a tender for structural steel repair and reinforcement work on the Victoria Bridge. The notice appeared in the April 22, 2006 StarPhoenix with a closing date of May 16, 2006. Would it not be worth considering completely rehabilitating the historic bridge now given that most of the money required appears to be available?
Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Joe Kuchta
Saskatoon, SK
Cc:
Saskatoon Heritage Society
Saskatchewan Architectural Heritage Society
Heritage Canada Foundation
Lori Coolican, The StarPhoenix
Letter to Saskatoon Board of Police Commissioners for May 11, 2006, meeting
April 28, 2006
Saskatoon Board of Police Commissioners
City Hall
222 Third Avenue North
Saskatoon, SK S7K 0J5
Dear Commission Members:
“There are people out there that want to know the whole truth – nothing more, nothing less.”
–Councillor Don Atchison, The StarPhoenix, August 14, 2001
(Referring to the public wanting answers from the Saskatoon Board of Police Commissioner’s regarding the dismissal of former police Chief Dave Scott.)
On March 2, 2006, Saskatoon police board chair Mayor Don Atchison announced that Police Chief Russell Sabo’s contract would not be renewed. The public has been asking for reasons why ever since but none have been provided. In the immortal words of former New York Yankees catcher Yogi Berra, “it’s déjà vu all over again.”
This matter appears to be the culmination of the controversy that followed the dismissal of former police Chief Dave Scott in June 2001 – which then councillor Don Atchison had a serious problem with.
At the July 16, 2001, city council meeting Atchison delivered a lengthy Notice of Motion requesting a vote of non-confidence in the board and the dismissal of its members – except the mayor whose position is provincially legislated. (It is interesting to note that the meeting’s agenda included four individuals opposed to the chief’s dismissal and who would later become directors of political lobby group LEAD Saskatoon Futures Inc. They were Russel Marcoux, Joe Bloski, Don Funk and Todd Peterson – who I believe is a former police board member. Other LEAD directors would include Coni Evans, Gary Emde, Don Ravis and David Criddle. The group’s purpose as described by StarPhoenix columnist Gerry Klein was “to unseat council members including (mayor Jim) Maddin” in the 2003 civic election.)
In his Notice of Motion Atchison called the chief’s termination an “abuse of power” and suggested that the board violated The Police Act by failing to give directives to Scott in writing. He accused the board of – among other things – not following due process because it did not evaluate Scott’s performance “according to an objective or known standard.”
Don Funk – the StarPhoenix reported on July 17, 2001 – told councillors they will be judged by how they vote on the motion. “Those who are responsible for this heinous act will be judged by the community. For the councillors who do support this action, I support you and applaud you along with citizens of this community. For those who don’t support it, you will be responsible to explain your actions at the next election,” he said.
The Executive Committee, at its July 18, 2001 meeting, passed the following resolution:
“that the City Solicitor provide a legal opinion on the Notice of Motion put forward by Councillor D. Atchison at the meeting of City Council on July 16, 2001 regarding the dismissal of former Police Chief Dave Scott, for public distribution in the agenda for the next meeting of City Council; with a copy to The Board of Police Commissioners as information.”
In her July 30, 2001 report city solicitor Theresa Dust wrote that Atchison’s Notice of Motion was “inaccurate in a number of statements” and that the board “had the legal right to do what it did.”
Aside from the opinion the solicitor’s report also provided a valuable understanding of the roles, responsibilities and the relationship between the police board and city council. Consider the following:
“In Saskatchewan, the Board of Police Commissioners, not City Council, has overall responsibility for the delivery of policing in the community. City Council’s role is limited by statute to essentially two things, namely: the annual appointment of the Board and the yearly approval of a gross estimate of expenditures. As we understand the statute, this limited role is intended to ensure that there is no ongoing interference by City Council in policing matters.”
“The Board is the body responsible for policing in the City of Saskatoon. They are the representatives of the community, not City Council. The Board provides general direction, policy and priorities for the Police Service and develops long-term plans. City Council has no such role.”
“The supervisor of the Board is the Saskatchewan Police Commission, and ultimately the Minister of Justice; not City Council. The Board does not report to City Council.”
“The purpose of an independent Board is to act as a buffer or insulator between the police and City Council.”
The police board is “an independent board which is not supervised by City Council.”
“City Council is not the employer of the police.”
City council defeated Atchison’s Notice of Motion at its August 13, 2001 meeting.
At the time of the civic election (October 22, 2003) Don Atchison had acquired a significant amount of experience as a councillor and obviously some knowledge about the police board. “I’ve been there nine years now. I know what’s going on,” he said in the October 14, 2003, StarPhoenix.
Examining some of his comments made prior to and following the 2003 election makes one wonder if the solicitor’s legal opinion – and what it meant – was lost on Atchison. It seems he had no time for an arm’s length independent police board. To him it was simply an extension of the mayor’s office. Political interference would be a given.
On October 14, 2003, The StarPhoenix reported that councillor Don Atchison sent a letter to the Saskatoon Police Services outlining his vision for the department. In his letter Atchison apparently wrote, “the membership resents working under a police commission whose chair is appointed and accountable to no one.”
In a response to a question on community safety from LEAD Saskatoon Atchison said, “We need a police commission with the Mayor as the Chair to make the commission accountable to Council directly.”
On October 21, 2003, The StarPhoenix published biographies as submitted by the various candidates. On the subject of policing Atchison said that the service needed “a police commission with the mayor as the chair, to be accountable to city council directly.”
‘The buck stops at the mayor’s desk’ was the catchy feel good campaign slogan of choice.
At the time of the civic election the chair of the Saskatoon Board of Police Commissioners was Leanne Bellegarde Daniels, a citizen. It did not take long for new mayor Don Atchison to challenge her position.
In the November 5, 2003, StarPhoenix, Atchison made it clear that “come Jan. 1, I certainly intend on being the chair.”
Atchison was confident that he would get the necessary votes from commissioners to assume the helm. “I ran on that and I think that carries a lot of weight,” he said. “The mayor is ultimately responsible for the actions that occur in the city. If that is the case, the mayor should be the chair.”
On November 6, 2003, Bellegarde Daniels resigned her position as chair of the police commission. Given Atchison’s bullying, intimidating attitude and “zero tolerance” policing philosophy who could blame her?
On November 20, 2003, the Saskatoon Board of Police Commissioners named Mayor Don Atchison as chair. Next up was the matter of citizen appointments to the board. Atchison had also campaigned on scaling those back.
On November 28, 2003, The StarPhoenix reported on a recommendation to city council by its executive committee that the number of citizen appointments to the police board be reduced from four to two.
“Elected officials will be accountable for decisions now. Before, when you had four non-elected appointees, they could control the board,” said Atchison.
City council adopted the recommendation on December 1, 2003. The mayor’s position on the board now had the power and control that Atchison seemed to desire. All that remained was waiting until the current chief’s contract was up for renewal.
It appears Atchison believed that not only was it his obligation as mayor to be chair of the police commission it was his right, which is something I find unsettling. I feel those things fundamental to having an independent board operating at arm’s length from city council, free from political interference, have been compromised.
This brings me to Saskatoon Board of Police Commissioners current process of recruiting, selecting and hiring a new Chief of Police for our city.
I feel the Commission’s activities are premature given that the public has not been asked what type of Commission it would prefer or the kind of hiring process it would like to see used to find a new chief. The current Commission seems to have taken it upon itself to undertake this endeavour without having this vital information from the public beforehand.
I recently had the opportunity to read the “Saskatoon Police Service Community Satisfaction and Policing Priority Survey Report Summary, July 2005” by Fast Consulting – who was retained by the Saskatoon Police Service to conduct a survey of Saskatoon residents in order to measure community satisfaction with the Service. According to the report the primary objectives of the survey was “to gain a better understanding of peoples’ perceptions and satisfaction with the Saskatoon Police Service.”
In this regard I am deeply concerned that the Board of Police Commissioners – which I firmly believe is an important component of the overall Saskatoon Police Service – was largely overlooked in the survey. In fact, of the 27 key questions asked in the survey only 3 dealt with the Commission, and those questions were shallow at best:
1) Do you know that Saskatoon has a Saskatoon Board of Police Commissioners? (78% of residents are aware.)
2) Do you know that the Board holds public meetings? (60% of residents are aware.)
3) Where do you find information about upcoming or past public meetings?
Considering the important and critical role the Commission plays I feel this is completely unacceptable. The issue of governance was – and continues to be – completely ignored.
Are residents satisfied with the job that the Commission is doing? Does the Commission have the trust of the public?
Does the public want a majority of Commission members to be civilians or does it prefer the current political makeup where the majority are city councillors?
Does the public want the mayor to be chair of the Commission or would it prefer a civilian?
Should the Commission have more members than the current level of five?
The Commission was not listed as an option for respondents to choose when considering what were the most important policing concerns or problems in the city. Why?
Perhaps it was not the Police Services’ place to ask in-depth questions about the board. If that’s the case then I feel it’s the Commission’s duty to start asking them.
At present the Commission appears unwilling to consider any options other than it’s own. The recent farce surrounding the two poorly planned and advertised public consultation meetings – where a total of 56 people attended – appears to confirm that the Board has no plan or idea of what it is doing. “We need to talk about more where we want to go,” Atchison said at the March 2 press conference. This on top of the controversy that followed the Commission’s decision not to renew Chief Sabo’s contract even though it said he was doing the job that he was hired to do and doing it well.
As a citizen and taxpayer I am not satisfied with nor do I support the Saskatoon Board of Police Commissioners in its present form.
Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Joe Kuchta
Saskatoon, SK
Attachments
1) July 16, 2001, Notice of Motion by Councillor D. Atchison
2) July 30, 2001, Legal Opinion on Notice of Motion by Theresa Dust, City Solicitor
Cc: Janice Mann, Secretary, Saskatoon Board of Police Commissioners
Letter from StarPhoenix publisher and general manager Dale Brin regarding downtown Legion Building - April 12, 2006
April 12, 2006
Dear Mr. Kuchta:
I am in receipt of your letter addressed to me and dated April 10, 2006.
Although I believe that I understand and do appreciate your frustration and disappointment in the process and subsequent handling of the sale of the Legion building here in Saskatoon, I am not clear as to what you are asking of me.
I am assuming you are asking our newsroom to bring this matter to the publics attention. I am passing your letter and attachments to Steve Gibb who is Editor here at the StarPhoenix for his consideration in that regard.
I would invite you to call on me directly if I am misinterpreting the intent of your letter, or further, call on Steve Gibb if the intent is to promote this as a news item.
Yours very truly,
Dale Brin
Publisher & General Manager
cc: Steve Gibb, Editor
Letter to the editor - April 11, 2006
Historic Legion Building victim of council apathy
The StarPhoenixTuesday, April 11, 2006
Citizens interested in Saskatoon's built heritage should be concerned with disturbing information that has surfaced surrounding the downtown Legion Building, which owner Remai Ventures Inc. has scheduled for demolition next year.
It appears the hall's pending demise may have been avoided had our city council cared more.
On April 5, 2004, council unanimously resolved that Mayor Don Atchison meet with veterans' groups to discuss the possibility of establishing a museum within the historic 1929 building. Initial discussions took place, and the Legion's building review committee received approval from members to continue talks with the city.
On May 28, 2004, the Legion delivered a letter to the mayor's office stating that a museum could be established, but the branch would not be responsible for renovations, upgrades, or its day-to-day operations. There would also need to be compensation for loss of revenue for the hall.
The city never responded to the letter, which city councillors considered at a closed-door executive committee meeting. No other discussions with the Legion took place, and the city did not explain why.
In fact, the matter never made it back to council. It appears the city simply shut the process down, without public debate, and walked away.
The mayor's office recently declined to offer any meaningful comment on the matter other than the parties "were unable to come to a mutually suitable arrangement." The city made certain of that the moment it pulled the plug on negotiations.
This will only serve to deepen public mistrust and lead to further questioning of council's motives in redeveloping the south downtown.
It appears demolition was the desired outcome. It's an insult to our veterans.
Joe Kuchta
Saskatoon
©The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2006
Letter to Publisher and General Manager of The StarPhoenix concerning downtown Legion Building - April 10, 2006
April 10, 2006
Mr. Dale Brin, Publisher and General Manager
The StarPhoenix
204 Fifth Avenue North
Saskatoon, SK S7K 2P1
Dear Mr. Brin:
RE: Royal Canadian Legion Building #63
As a StarPhoenix (SP) subscriber I am concerned with the newspaper’s lack of coverage regarding city council’s actions surrounding a Veterans’ Museum that was proposed for the downtown Royal Canadian Legion Building.
On April 5, 2004, city council unanimously resolved that Mayor Don Atchison meet with Veterans’ groups to discuss the possibility of establishing a museum within the historic 1929 building. The matter did not come back before a public meeting of city council again.
In Remai looks at Legion (Dec. 21, 2005) the SP reported that Remai Ventures Inc. had been speaking with Legion officials to purchase the hall. More than a year earlier Councillor Elaine Hnatyshyn had “floated the idea of turning the hall into a veteran’s museum.” The idea was pitched to Legion officials who Hnatyshyn said, “were going to think about it and get back to us, which they never did.”
In City culture underfunded (Dec. 21, 2005) SP city affairs columnist Gerry Klein wrote, “…Saskatoon should be mustering its resources to save and enhance amenities such as the King George Hotel or the downtown Legion building,” and “the Legion Building is not only physically attractive, it is a monument to the great suffering of Saskatchewan people who risked everything to serve their country.”
On February 1, 2006, Remai Ventures Inc. announced that the Legion Building, which they now owned, would be demolished next year.
I wrote to Mayor Don Atchison on February 4, 2006, requesting details of the city’s discussions with the Legion, specifically what the city had proposed or offered. I also wrote a similar letter to the Legion branch president.
The February 13, 2006, response from the Mayor’s office was short and did not provide any meaningful information other than, “the City and Legion were unable to come to a mutually suitable arrangement for the suggested veterans museum.”
The Legion’s March 4, 2006, response was more forthcoming with details. Branch President John Davidson informed me that the Legion’s building review committee received approval from its membership on May 27, 2004, to continue discussions with the city regarding the museum.
Davidson wrote, “On May 28, 2004 a letter was delivered to the Mayor’s office. The letter stated that a museum could be established but the Branch would not be responsible for renovations, upgrades, or it’s day to day operations. The letter also stated there would need to be compensation for loss of revenue for the hall.”
The City of Saskatoon did not respond to the letter and no other discussions between the two parties took place.
This correspondence completely contradicted what the public had been led to believe, that the Legion was responsible for the failure of discussions to establish a museum within its building. It was, in fact, the city that walked away from talks – without explanation.
I submitted a package of information to city council for its March 27, 2006, meeting along with copies to two SP reporters.
On March 28, 2006, I contacted the city clerk’s office enquiring about the Legion’s May 28, 2004, letter to the city. I was subsequently advised that the Executive Committee had considered it during an “in-camera” meeting.
In a March 14, 2006, letter to the Royal Canadian Legion, Councillor Elaine Hnatyshyn offered an apology “for any comments I made that incorrectly conveyed a lack of interest of your part for a Veterans’ Museum.”
Hnatsyhyn’s letter is important in that it identifies which closed-door Executive Committee meeting the Legion’s May 28, 2004, correspondence was dealt with – June 14, 2004. It also reveals that the committee resolved, “the conditions outlined in the letter were not acceptable.”
Among those listed as receiving a copy of Hnatyshyn’s letter were The StarPhoenix.
The SP, however, has not reported on any of these recent developments concerning the downtown Legion Building. Can you please explain why?
If Saskatoon is to lose another historic building downtown I think residents have a right to know the reasons behind it. I feel it is incumbent upon the SP to investigate and report on important civic issues such as this.
On several occasions the city has said that final decisions cannot be made at closed meetings. It appears though on June 14, 2004, that’s more or less what happened. The matter was buried.
Absolutely no public debate on the merits of establishing a Veterans’ Museum within the downtown Legion Building had taken place. It was dealt with behind closed-doors. Why?
Why did the city not respond to the Legion’s letter? Why did the city shut the process down and walk away?
If the Legion’s terms were unacceptable to the city, then exactly what terms was the city willing to accept?
What other alternatives, if any, did the city explore? Why did the Executive Committee not report back to city council?
How can the Mayor’s office say, “that the City and Legion were unable to come to a mutually suitable arrangement” when clearly the Legion was willing to continue discussions but it was the city that chose to end the process without explanation? How can a mutually suitable arrangement possibly be negotiated under such circumstances? Did the city even care?
Might the pending Request for Proposals for a spa hotel have had anything to do with the city’s decision not to get involved with establishing a Veterans’ Museum – since it would likely have meant that the Legion Building would remain standing?
History shows that there has been no shortage of developer interest in the Legion land.
In Speakers offer varied visions for building (Dec. 9, 2003) the SP reported Lawrence Rychjohn of P.R. Hotels Ltd. as saying they would make the Royal Canadian Legion “an offer they can’t refuse” for its land in order to accommodate the Marriott Hotel and condominium complex it was proposing for the nearby Gathercole site.
In a June 12, 2003 letter to City Council, The Blairmore Group outlined a spa hotel proposal for the Gathercole site that included the Legion land – but not the building.
Most recently, in Hotel deal ‘not dead’ (Nov. 18, 2005) Mayor Don Atchison admitted to having met with Ellen Remai, president of Remai Ventures Inc. on more than one occasion to discuss the spa hotel project.
As it turned out on December 12, 2005, city council approved the Sale Agreement and Incentive Agreement with Remai Ventures Inc. for a proposed spa hotel. On December 14, 2005, Legion members, in a hastily called meeting, voted to accept a reported $1M offer from Remai for its land, which the latest property tax assessment valued the building at $250,400. The Legion apparently had until noon the next day to accept the offer.
The Saskatchewan Land Titles Registry shows that the Title for Parcel “Y” on the Gathercole site (2.43 acres) was issued to Remai Ventures Inc. on February 1, 2006, while the Title for the Legion land (0.25 acres) was issued on February 2, 2006. The value of these lands is $1.6M and $1M respectively. It is difficult to believe that these simultaneous land activities were simply a coincidence.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to receiving your reply.
Sincerely,
Joe Kuchta
Saskatoon, SK
/Attachments
Cc:Gerry Klein, City Affairs, The StarPhoenix
Victoria Neufeldt, President, Saskatoon Heritage Society
Saskatoon City Council
Letter to City Council regarding federal centennial funding for April 10, 2006, meeting
April 3, 2006
His Worship the Mayor
And Members of City Council
City Hall
Saskatoon, SK S7K 0J5
Dear Mayor Atchison and Members of Council:
Re: Federal Centennial Funding
As a follow-up to the March 24, 2006, federal centennial funding announcement by Western Economic Diversification Canada (WD) I would like to submit the attached documents to City Council as information, which were obtained through Access to Information (ATI) requests.
When he announced the Request for Proposals (RFP) on November 7, 2005, former federal finance minister Ralph Goodale said, “The government of Canada has concluded, as a matter of fairness, that it is necessary to identify all potential centennial projects in Saskatoon through an open and transparent and totally fair call for proposals to invite all projects to come forward for consideration.’
With respect to openness and transparency it was discouraging to read in the March 31, 2006, SP that federal officials were unable, or unwilling, to provide the Mendel Art Gallery with a definitive answer why its proposal did not receive centennial funding. No doubt other applicants are asking the same question.
The RFP was open for 30 days. This is considerably shorter than what WD documents had earlier proposed that it “would have to be at least 60 days and possibly 90 days to allow a reasonable time for applicants to prepare a proposal.” Why the time period was shortened has never been explained.
In general, I do not feel the process has been fair or transparent. It seems that River Landing related projects were given preference.
The City of Saskatoon, in its April 14, 2005 letter to WD, identified the “River Landing Destination Complex” as the project it favoured for the centennial project for Saskatoon. The City denied my request for a copy of the letter through the ATI process. In fact, the City, Province and Federal Government have denied access to hundreds of pages of River Landing documents over the past two years.
In the May 4, 2005, StarPhoenix article Ottawa favours cultural center it was reported that the Federal Government was pressuring the City to target the centennial money on the River Landing cultural block. WD officials in Saskatoon were quoted as saying “We believe that's the best candidate,” and that “The cultural centre is our No. 1 choice.”
The matter of Federal Government involvement on the Gathercole site has not been adequately addressed.
Consider the following:
Page one of the City’s April 13, 2004 Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund program submission requesting federal funding for the A.L Cole site states: ‘In conjunction with this project, the City will be developing the adjacent land, called the Gathercole site, entirely at the City’s expense.’
In his April 14, 2004 cover letter to the federal government Mayor Don Atchison said: ‘In conjunction with this project, the City will be developing the adjacent land, called the Gathercole site, at our own expense.’
A September 20, 2004 report by the City Manager concerning federal infrastructure funding states: “This grant is to be provided to projects that would not be undertaken without Federal funding. Federal officials had indicated they believed that City Council was going to undertake the redevelopment of the Gathercole site, with or without this funding. Therefore, as the City was going to proceed with the project without Federal funding, the project was not eligible for an incremental grant.”
The Infrastructure Canada document ‘Meeting with Mayor Don Atchison and Mr. Phil Richards – City of Saskatoon – October 5, 2004’ states: ‘The city also plans to develop the adjacent land called the Gathercole site. The city will cover the entire financing costs of this portion.’
The November 1, 2004 memorandum signed by The Honourable John Godfrey states: ‘Further to this project, the City plans to develop, and finance, the adjacent land called the Gathercole site.’
On December 10, 2004 a ribbon joining ceremony was held at the Saskatoon Farmers’ Market. In attendance were the Government of Canada, Government of Saskatchewan and the City of Saskatoon. The main participants were The Honourable Lorne Calvert, Premier of Saskatchewan, The Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Finance, Mr. Donald Atchison, Mayor of Saskatoon and Mr. David James, Director General, Western Economic Diversification Canada. Through an ATI request the Federal Government provided me with a document from that event called ‘Questions and Answers – Government of Canada’s contribution to the A.L. Cole Site restoration project.’
Question six states: ‘Will the federal government play a role in the development or funding of the Gathercole project adjacent to this site?’
The answer: ‘No, the Gathercole site development project will be funded entirely by the City of Saskatoon. The federal government is not a funding partner in the Gathercole project.’
I feel there is no ambiguity in these statements. The message is consistent and very straightforward, that the development of the Gathercole Site would be funded entirely by the City of Saskatoon. In fact, the Federal Government, in its Q & A document went so far as to emphasize that point by underlining the words ‘funded entirely’.
I believe all levels of government were aware of this to some degree given that all participated in meetings and teleconference calls regarding the South Downtown. These include:
September 7, 2004 – Teleconference call between Western Economic Diversification Canada, Infrastructure Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan.
October 4, 2004 – Teleconference call between Infrastructure Canada, Western Economic Diversification Canada and the Province of Saskatchewan.
October 5, 2004 – Infrastructure Canada meeting with Mayor Don Atchison and City Manager Phil Richards to discuss the South Downtown project, including the Gathercole site.
October 18, 2004 – Meeting between Infrastructure Canada, Western Economic Diversification Canada, Government of Saskatchewan (Government Relations and Aboriginal Affairs) and the City of Saskatoon.
The Canada Celebrates Saskatchewan initiative was announced on December 20, 2004, a mere ten days after the ribbon joining ceremony in Saskatoon. The initiative included selected strategic capital investments in Regina and Saskatoon and received Treasury Board approval on December 13, 2004.
As a result of participating in various meetings and teleconference calls it seems reasonable to assume that WD was aware of the understanding that Saskatoon would be responsible for entirely funding the development of the Gathercole site.
However, by early January 2005, the Gathercole portion of the River Landing development was being touted as a possible candidate for the $10M centennial funding.
Throughout the spring and summer, as evidenced in the attached documents, the Federal Government worked “with all relevant parties to attempt to broker an agreement acceptable to all,” and that the “expectation has been that a cultural centre planned for the South Downtown area of Saskatoon would emerge as the preferred option for the project in Saskatoon.”
On September 19, 2005, City Council approved a conditional $1M grant to Persephone Theatre and directed its administration “to officially ask the Federal Government for capital assistance through the Centenary Funding Program,” and to “pursue additional capital funding from the Government of Saskatchewan and other private sector sources.” This is not consistent with past civic and federal documents stating that the development of the Gathercole site would be entirely funded by the City of Saskatoon. On September 16, 2005, the StarPhoenix reported city manager Phil Richards as saying that should federal and provincial funding fall through the deal could collapse.
It should be noted that the Provincial ($5M) and Federal ($13M) governments are major funding partners on the adjacent A.L. Cole site (River Landing Phase II). In an October 7, 2004, letter to Infrastructure Canada city manager Phil Richards wrote, “In terms of success, I believe that unless the Gathercole development is successful, development on the A.L. Cole site would be impaired.” It appears that senior levels of government were compelled to contribute in a significant way towards the Gathercole development otherwise their sizeable investment on A.L. Cole might be jeopardized.
On September 30, 2005, the Mendel board heard, for the first time, the City’s interest in relocating the gallery to River Landing. Meanwhile, an October 4, 2005, e-mail from Meewasin CEO Susan Lamb to WD, reveals that the Authority had been approached about moving into the Mendel’s current building. The proposal quickly divided the public and the media. The Mendel family was wary and threatened to pull funding. Some speculated about the City’s agenda since the Mendel was well into the initial phase of its expansion and the City had just recently awarded a $978,457 contract to develop its design plans. Finally, on October 21, 2005, the Mendel announced that its board – in a unanimous decision –rejected the idea of moving to River Landing.
WD briefing notes from this time period seem to suggest there was federal support for the latest proposal that involved the Mendel and Meewasin swapping locations. It leaves one to wonder whether the ensuing controversy may have contributed to the decision not to provide the Mendel, and perhaps even Meewasin who it seems was gradually being squeezed out of consideration for a spot in River Landing, from receiving any centennial funding.
On October 17, 2005, WD convened a meeting of River Landing stakeholders “to identify and resolve key issues,” and to see whether “existing proposals can be made to work.” Among those invited were Meewasin, Mendel Art Gallery, Tourism Saskatoon, Wanuskewin and Persephone Theatre. (It is interesting to note that the October 12, 2005, briefing note identifies Persephone Theatre and Mendel Art Gallery as “key tenants” while the MVA seems to have been relegated to “other interested stakeholder” status.)
During a meeting held on October 20, 2005, the document “Not Quite Plan B - Options for Centennial Funding” was apparently circulated for discussion. The purpose of the meeting and who participated are not revealed. Four options – confined solely to River Landing – are outlined. The Riverfront Park is referred to as “popular and non-controversial” while providing resources to Meewasin and Persephone “still would be contributing to River Landing in a significant way.” None of the other stakeholders from the October 17 meeting are mentioned.
At its November 28, 2005, meeting City Council considered a River Landing Destination Complex assessment report by Vancouver consultant David Russell. It was recommended that the Meewasin/Tourism Saskatoon component be postponed while Persephone Theatre and adjacent spa hotel project continue as planned – which seemed to be precisely what the City wanted to hear.
In his report Russell wrote, “From the City’s perspective, the call for expressions of interest anticipates that the City would ultimately enter into a contractual agreement for operations with the selected proponent. The expectation was that proponents would offer concepts consistent with the City’s objective for the facility to serve as a destination centre, and operate on, or close to, a self-financing basis.”
The seven-page Expressions of Interest document that the City released on April 22, 2005, however, does not mention contracts nor does it express the expectation that the concept must operate on, or close to, a self-financing basis. Non-profit organizations, like Meewasin, were encouraged to apply.
With respect to the MVA, Russell said, “At the present time, the interpretive facility Meewasin operates does not include provision for admissions and is undertaken as a “public service” to increase awareness of the importance of the river and its role in the Saskatoon area.”
This seems to imply that “free” is bad, and that Meewasin may want to reconsider the policy in order to satisfy the City’s requirement that the project be self-financing. Meewasin, it should be noted, receives its operating funds from the City, Province and University of Saskatchewan.
At a special meeting on December 7, 2005, City Council resolved that WD be advised that Persephone Theatre and River Landing Phase I Riverfront be among the city’s four priorities for federal centennial funding. Meewasin did not make the list. At the same meeting City Council approved the Memorandum of Sale and Agreement with Persephone Theatre solidifying Saskatoon’s commitment to the project.
On February 13, 2006, Saskatoon City Council approved the signing of the following agreement: Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund Agreement for Saskatoon South Downtown ("River Landing Phase II") 2005-2006/2009-2010.
The last paragraph of Section 2.2 – Description of Project states: “Saskatoon also plans to develop the adjacent land called River Landing Phase I. Canada will not be providing any funding through this Agreement for remediation or development of River Landing Phase I.”
This statement does not accurately reflect what was written in earlier federal and municipal documents – that the development of the Gathercole Site (River Landing Phase I) would be funded entirely by the City of Saskatoon.
All reference to the City being responsible for fully funding the development of the Gathercole site was removed from the final agreement. To date no explanation for this reversal has been given.
On March 24, 2006, WD announced that Persephone Theatre, Saskatoon Prairieland Park, Wanuskewin Heritage Park, and the City of Saskatoon’s River Landing Riverfront Park Phase I would share in the federal centennial funding. A total of $5.5M would be dedicated to River Landing related projects. That same day the Province of Saskatchewan conveniently announced it too would contribute $2.5M to the Persephone Theatre project, which was dependent upon receiving both Federal and Provincial dollars. It seems WD simply used a variation of the options outlined in the “Not Quite Plan B” document that was discussed at the October 20, 2005, meeting – eighteen days prior to the RFP announcement.
In the absence of full disclosure from the three levels of government it is difficult to know for certain what took place and why. The public is left to try and piece the story together itself.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Joe Kuchta
Saskatoon, SK
/Attachments
1. October 25, 2005 Briefing Note for Information
2. October 20, 2005 Not Quite Plan B: Options for Centennial Funding (For Discussion Only)
3. October 13, 2005 letter to Sheila Gamble and Terry Graff
4. October 12, 2005 letter and agenda to various stakeholder representatives
5. October 12, 2005 Briefing Note
6. September 13, 2005 Briefing Note for the Honourable Stephen Owen
7. August 22, 2005 Briefing Note for the Assistant Deputy Minister
8. July 19, 2005 Briefing Note for the Deputy Minister
