[News] Calgary City Council votes 11-4 to approve event centre deal

[TheRealPepman]

Where them post-game win GIFs at? I was looking forward to that.

Treat this thread like a "Flames Win" thread, folks.

[Bunk]

The expected result. Really happy to see this move forward and it all coming to fruition!

[getbak]

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by FiveSeven

Does anyone have any insight into how you reply to the 60 million in cuts but spending 275 million on an arena? Assuming the person is completely ignorant of the situation.

$60MM cut out of a ~$4B operating budget. Negligible in the grand scheme of things.

$275MM from the capital budget. Some of that $275 was already there from cost under runs on other projects, iirc. Capital and operating are different animals. This particular capital project (unlike a road) will generate revenue. Which, I suppose, could be allocated to operating budget in the future. Or more capital projects.

Could the city have reallocated some of that $275MM to operating and not built the event center? Probably/Maybe. But, it’s not sound business practice to minimize investment/growth just “to keep the lights on”.

It’s all normal, just terrible timing and optics.

[Funkhouser]

I want to see the highlights of Farkwad saying idiotic things and then getting ripped into. AC?

[Willi Plett]

Originally Posted by FiveSeven

Does anyone have any insight into how you reply to the 60 million in cuts but spending 275 million on an arena? Assuming the person is completely ignorant of the situation.

As was said, capital and operating budgets are separate and different. Generally they and the funds cannot be commingled or moved back and forth for a number of reasons. The simplest of these for any organizational budget is the fact that a capital expense is a one time expense while an operational expense is ongoing and likely inflates over time.

For a municipal government it is even more complex as budgets include provincial and federal transfer payments. These transfers have specified budgetary nature either capital or operational.

The capital budget already exists to build replace and fix infrastructure. The operational budget needed to be cut as the ongoing revenue streams cannot support it.

Funny thing, almost all capital projects create additional operational expenses in the future. If you build roads you have to clear, clean and maintain them or if you build a new building you have to cover staffing utilities and maintenance. The event Centre is unique in that once built, the city has no operational costs and net positive revenue. As a capital project it is an operational investment instead of an operational expense.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by FiveSeven

Does anyone have any insight into how you reply to the 60 million in cuts but spending 275 million on an arena? Assuming the person is completely ignorant of the situation.

Cut $275 million more next year?

[Rando]

Originally Posted by getbak

Ken's been getting his suits from Eric Francis apparently.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

This is great.

To those who oppose the deal - let's be honest, are any of you really going to notice anything significantly detrimental in your day-to-day lives because this arena deal went through? Probably not.

Other than likely paying a 30% premium on my current season tickets and concessions? No, likely not

I don’t even pay city taxes as I live outside the city but am still bummed that the dome will be gone. Even with the long lines and crowded concourse I managed to never starve to death or piss my pants there somehow.

I’ve come to terms with the fact that it’s happening, and it will be cool for sure, but I am nostalgic and not overly excited to pay more than I currently do.

As long as it’s better than Edmonton’s soulless airport that they play their AHL hockey in then I’ll be happy(ish)

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

Other than likely paying a 30% premium on my current season tickets and concessions? No, likely not

I don’t even pay city taxes as I live outside the city but am still bummed that the dome will be gone. Even with the long lines and crowded concourse I managed to never starve to death or piss my pants there somehow.

I’ve come to terms with the fact that it’s happening, and it will be cool for sure, but I am nostalgic and not overly excited to pay more than I currently do.

As long as it’s better than Edmonton’s soulless airport that they play their AHL hockey in then I’ll be happy(ish)

If the inverted bowl is what we end up with, I think we'll have something pretty unique and cool. I hope we end up with a name that also hits the nostalgic side of things - like for example, the Scotiabank or Rogers Corral. I'd like to see something other than an "Arena" or "Centre" naming convention.

[DirtyMike]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

$60MM cut out of a ~$4B operating budget. Negligible in the grand scheme of things.

$275MM from the capital budget. Some of that $275 was already there from cost under runs on other projects, iirc. Capital and operating are different animals. This particular capital project (unlike a road) will generate revenue. Which, I suppose, could be allocated to operating budget in the future. Or more capital projects.

Could the city have reallocated some of that $275MM to operating and not built the event center? Probably/Maybe. But, it’s not sound business practice to minimize investment/growth just “to keep the lights on”.

It’s all normal, just terrible timing and optics.

While I'm happy to see the city approve the arena, I have found some of the messages about the deal interesting, specifically the whole capital vs. operating expenditure thing. Capex can certainly get reallocated to opex, so the city absolutely could have avoided a $60M cut by taking money from their capital budget.

Capital expenditures also eventually create ongoing operating expenses, although it sounds like the city will have zero responsibility for the building's operating expenses.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Whether you are 'pro-deal' or 'anti-deal', the deal is struck.


I just look forward to the next steps now, regardless of how we got here. Rumours, leaks, renderings! Should be fun.


Oh, and please make sure it is better than that toilet bowl in Edmonton!

[Reggie Dunlop]

I'm generally fine with building a new arena (and yes, fully cognizant of the arguments against publicly funded arenas and stadiums). It was going to happen eventually.

For me, it's the sweetheart deal CSEC will get on the bus barns land. Keep in mind, a new bus barn facility will have to built somewhere else. Even if you argue the property is on some very valuable real estate to offset that, why not have the parcel open for other bidders?

To me, it smells reminiscent of the Katz swindle.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

For me, it's the sweetheart deal CSEC will get on the bus barns land. Keep in mind, a new bus barn facility will have to built somewhere else. Even if you argue the property is on some very valuable real estate to offset that, why not have the parcel open for other bidders?

Well, the city has already built a new bus barns facility, and it's already been paid for: the super-large Stoney CNG Bus Storage and Transit Facility.

https://www.calgary.ca/Transportatio...toneybusgarage

I do agree with you though, that the current bus barns facility in the Rivers District is prime land. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to CSEC that they will do something impressive with that property though; let's see what they propose first. Keep in mind, they'll have to work with CMLC to follow the design guidelines for that area.

[JBR]

What a summer! The Flames officially can move on from a 30-something year old dinosaur that is breaking down and has not depreciated well.... but enough about James Neal..

[Locke]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I understand the appearance of Farkas and how him and some others appear to be grandstanding, it's their "thing".

What I don't like is this "illusion" that all this consultation occurred in the public forum and everything is on the up. Sure a lot of citizens knew that the Flames and the City/Stampede board were working on a deal behind close doors but the exact details were not made public until a week ago. Certain aspects of the deal and the optics aren't good and wouldn't be allowed if it wasn't for our beloved hockey club..

I don't think anybody would think that a handful of days of discussion would be enough.

Anyhow I am glad it's over, I am looking forward to it and I will enjoy it. Hopefully this really does end being the cat's A** like we are all being sold it will be and that everybody benefits from this in a huge way both as a city, the citizens who will frequent the area and those who attend events.

Sorry about the long post!

Heres the thing though:

The details werent made 'Public' until recently, but the Councillors knew all about it and had been informed in depth about the structure and framework of the proposal.

The 'Handful of Days' argument is pure Horse-Hockey.

That was just political grand-standing by Councillors wanting to absolve themselves of responsibility, and ergo their jobs and duties, and drop it in the Public's lap to absolve themselves of any blame or responsibility.

That is what people find reprehensible.

Farkas et al knew all about the proposal but wanted to hide from responsibility by foisting their duties onto the public so that they absolve themselves of any and all criticism.

Its pure politics and its disingenuous. Its the equivalent of saying:

"We're taking a risk, but we dont know if we're going to win or lose so we're just not going to play despite the fact that its our job."

And I hope the constituents remember that when the time came to do their jobs their elected representatives refused to represent them for good or ill.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

I'm generally fine with building a new arena (and yes, fully cognizant of the arguments against publicly funded arenas and stadiums). It was going to happen eventually.

For me, it's the sweetheart deal CSEC will get on the bus barns land. Keep in mind, a new bus barn facility will have to built somewhere else. Even if you argue the property is on some very valuable real estate to offset that, why not have the parcel open for other bidders?

To me, it smells reminiscent of the Katz swindle.

It's only good for 10 years. The city also has the option not to make the land available during those 10 years. So really, it could be viewed as a sweetener that the city offered in negotiations that they never need to come through on. Seems more like CSEC is taking the risk on that particular point.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Muta

Well, the city has already built a new bus barns facility, and it's already been paid for: the super-large Stoney CNG Bus Storage and Transit Facility.

https://www.calgary.ca/Transportatio...toneybusgarage

I do agree with you though, that the current bus barns facility in the Rivers District is prime land. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to CSEC that they will do something impressive with that property though; let's see what they propose first. Keep in mind, they'll have to work with CMLC to follow the design guidelines for that area.

Thank you. I somehow missed that bit of news. Usually I keep up with these sorts of things.

Still though, giving them first dibs on a development that has little to do with running a sports facility (outside of geographical proximity) is a mite suspicious.

[trublmaker]

I come full circle I work om the Saddledome construction and now its getting crushed

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by DirtyMike

While I'm happy to see the city approve the arena, I have found some of the messages about the deal interesting, specifically the whole capital vs. operating expenditure thing. Capex can certainly get reallocated to opex, so the city absolutely could have avoided a $60M cut by taking money from their capital budget.

Capital expenditures also eventually create ongoing operating expenses, although it sounds like the city will have zero responsibility for the building's operating expenses.

Yes and no, depending on the source. Most capital sources have strings attached that explicitly prohibit utilizing on operations. “Pay as you go” from priority taxes is the exception, but that is a pretty small portion of the capital budget.

Also, adding one time funds to solve a budget problem just kicks the same problem to the following year. It’s the base that matters on operating.