Lions Property: Revenue Neutral Acquisition or Albatross

[occasional thoughts]

I've been accused elsewhere of not liking fun, not wanting to let people dance in Westbank, that sort of thing. Right, I'm a party-pooping downer.

There is some sentiment out there that Westbank (or what is preposterously called downtown West Kelowna) needs an improved image, a better face for the public and visitors to see. Right, so let's perpetuate a monstrous wooden clapboard ugly hall on the main street and keep it that way in perpetuity. Let's put our new modern infrastructure (if passed) way up a side street where only taxpayers and developers will see it. These guys (mayor and council) have to have their heads examined.

Think of the Simpson Covenant and how the City of Kelowna tried to break it after many, many years. We're going to have that monstrosity on Main Street forever? I'm not a fan of arson and other criminal activity, but I might make an exception.

[forumdoug]

While I too was surprised by this transfer, it's one that I welcome as it will be both a net benefit and cash flow positive to the City of West Kelowna, though I'm not sure what timeline that may be whether it'll be within 1, 3 or 5 years. It's a great asset, recently rebuilt, renovated and/or refurbished as a result of a combination of citizen fundraising and an insurance settlement from the fire a few years ago. In fact, I'd argue this building will be either the best or second best community centre owned by the municipality, since we technically have to exclude the Webber Road Community Centre as it remains owned by the Board of Trustees of the School District No. 23 (Central Okanagan) and leased on a long-term basis to the City of West Kelowna for a nominal fee, presumably because selling it to the City of West Kelowna would've meant 60% of the sale proceeds would've had to go back to the Province of British Columbia under provincial school capital asset disposition rules whereas lease revenues, if any, are retained by the local school district. The only other one that would come close to being in as good of shape would be the Mount Boucherie Community Centre once it is renovated and refurbished from a reserve fund the municipality's been paying their municipal hall lease rental fees into for the day when it is, quite rightly, returned to its original use as a community centre. :)

Moreover, this would essentially allow virtually every neighbourhood in West Kelowna and the separate Westbank First Nation to have a local governing body-owned or operated community centre, with Webber Road Community Centre primarily serving the Okanagan Boys and Girls Clubs but have part of it advertised to rent to community-oriented groups at any time for things like events and community meetings in the Glenrosa neighbourhood, the Community Meeting Room in the West Kelowna RCMP Detachment and the Westbank Lions Community Centre to serve the Westbank Centre, Gellatly and Smith Creek neighbourhoods, the Mount Boucherie Community Centre (once it is renamed and renovated and returned to its original purpose in approximately 2-3 years) serving the Shannon Lake, Boucherie Centre and portions of Lakeview Heights neighbourhoods, Lakeview Heights Community Hall serving the Lakeview Heights neighbourhood and, finally, the new Community Multipurpose Room at Mar Jok Elementary School serving the Rose Valley/West Kelowna Estates neighbourhood(s). The only community not served by a local governing body-owned or operated facility would be Casa Loma but, given its relative small size, they can easily utilize the Lakeview Heights Community Hall and/or the privately-owned Casa Loma Resort that has facilities for rent to for-profit and non-profit entities. :)

I can't imagine internal staffing costs would be much, if anything. It wouldn't need any municipal staff to run and look after things there on a day-to-day basis as security for the site could be coordinated between the City's alarm system provider and its appointed security contractor that oversees security for all its parks and municipally-owned facilities. Booking of the facility for rentals such as weddings, non-profit AGMs, community meetings, development open houses paid for by developers and other business-to-business type functions and/or conferences would likely be arranged by the City's Recreation and Culture department staff from within their own City offices.

As for potential tax liabilities with the Canada Revenue Agency, I can't imagine what those would be given that it has always been owned by the Westbank Lions Community Development Society, a non-profit and, I believe, a registered Canadian charity. I wouldn't imagine they'd be subject to capital gains taxes. I don't think it's appropriate at this juncture to speculate on tax implications to which we currently do not know.

The original poster also commented on the Westbank Lions potentially getting "free rent". Considering this facility was largely paid for by community donations, with some government grants and non-cash permissive property tax exemptions over the years yes, I wouldn't have a problem with this. Allowing them to continue using the facility up to a certain number of times per year (i.e., once a month or every calendar quarter, that sort of thing) would be great considering the tremendous asset the municipality would be receiving and the loss in revenue would be negligible, a mere "rounding error." This frees them of maintaining the facility from member and community donations and can continue their important work, be it raising money for new playground equipment, donations to things like the Westbank Health Network or Canadian Red Cross, things like that.

I'd also argue it's important that the Westbank Lions insist on a restrictive covenant being placed on the title so that it be used only for community-oriented, recreational or non-profit activities, as is their stated wish, and that for that covenant to be removed, a majority of Council would need to approve it and a Voter Assent process approve it as well. :)

As an aside, this also what the Rutland Park Society should do considering the turmoil and "warring factions" emerging. It should enter discussions with the City of Kelowna to transfer ownership of the Rutland Centennial Hall community centre to the City of Kelowna, with a similar restrictive covenant, along with the funds from the City of Kelowna earmarked for renovations and allow those funds to serve as a sort of "catalyst" for the City of Kelowna to fund the rest of the demolition/rebuilding of that hall. It's quite clear there seems to be governance issue with Rutland Park Society from all sides and, also, an accountability/transparency issue on the part of its current board treasurer, based on information that I've read if it is indeed true that the treasurer has not made available its financial statements and bookkeeping records to the board in accordance with his or her responsibilities. :)

Cheers,
Doug

[inquisitive]

:forumdoug.
Certain words you have used cast doubt in my mind as to how duly diligent was the city’s Lions Club team prior to its recommendation to city council to proceed with the acquisition?
This query comes as a result of, for example, seeing the word imagine repeated in one statement re tax liability! In my mind the possibility of such exposure would have had to be pinned down and labelled worst case scenario before juxtaposing it with other factors to determine the viability of the proposed offer. Imagine that?
The Lions demand for a restriction on its use is absolutely preposterous – in perpetuity is a long, long, time. Talk about hog-tying? Not only do lions get out from under a crushing financial burden but they have had the temerity, having discovered the council falling over itself to acquire a property (nothing wrong with that in itself) without due diligence, and actually winning council over, or would rolling over on this be more accurate?
Too bad that the similarity of the Lions’ demand for restricted use with the Simpson Covenant was not recognised until my thread in Castanet – but – light at the end of the tunnel – forumdoug describes in his message that an escape can be enacted, preferably before the fat lady sings, but by due process as forumdoug described, once common sense has taken over afterwards. A positive legal position on this must be achieved now. It is also noted that forumdoug would also argue – his wording suggests that the position taken by city council’s Lion team could (and should) be changed. My arguments for such a change have been stated already in an earlier Castanet submission.
Forumdoug, glossing over the additional load to be assumed by existing city resources and their additional costs is not to be thrust aside as you did. There is no such thing as a free ride. Your presumptive 1,2, 3 years before revenue neutrality (?) is, again, piling up the bills for joe public, and me, to pay. Shrug – other peoples’ money.
The boiler-plating (at great length) in the body of forumdoug’s dissertation requires no comment as it is barely relevant to the question Revenue Neutral or Albatross? Apparently cost effectiveness, as deduced by your wording, was not assessed prior to sitting at the negotiating table.

[jetty1965]

Might shine some light on the subject.
**************************************************

Removed because I reread the rules and realized I'm not supposed to quote from other media.

So I guess i am not allowed to post Mr Knowles letter here. you can read it for yourself on Kelowna Daily courier.

snitch
sniCH/Submit
informal

noun
1.
an informer.

Funny how two people can read the same article and get a totally different perspective on it. What I read was it was law to keep negotiations in camera.

[inquisitive]

Thank you, Mr. Knowles, for you views on the on-going procedure re: Lions Community Centre as you posted today. Now I know that you have had an illustrious career, but I also noted your snoozes when in council chambers. (Some of the spectators did the same, but you were on our dime)
Loose lips sink ships as some of us old enough recall during hostilities. Now you have let slip today that this procedure has been active (secretly) since September of last year.
Only a week or so ago you also let it slip, the first intimation to me of the proposed acquisition, that the process was seemingly in an advanced state. Transparency? Now that tidbit wasn’t subject to “in camera” suppression.
Talk about transparency? I say that is another indication that the old boys’ club has permeated our current council’s modus operandi (perhaps not as a whole because I get the sense that there is a club within council, too – you are in or you are out).
Mr. Knowles, I ask you, “If this Lions Club Community Centre operation was a money-making entity or even self-sustaining would you have been so keen to let it go?” Not a chance. Like a hot potato you want to drop it and get out from under.
For you to actually demand that the property is to be run exclusively as a community centre (a losing financial proposition) is beyond the pale! Now, having failed as a Lions Club enterprise you feel that it’s perfectly OK to thrust the financial burden upon your fellow-citizens for time immemorial is O.K. Where is your civic conscience?
It is noted that, in the same forum and of recent date, (August 11, 2016) that forumdoug (who seems to be privy to lots of city business know-how) that he expressed surprise that the transfer of ownership had been sprung upon him? Now I ask you? Was it sprung last September? Ha! Ha! Or last week?
Surely, having faith enough in City council to virtually hand this property over, why can’t you extend that faith to the extent that city would, in any case, do its utmost to utilise the premises as a community centre, whilst still facing the reality of financial considerations to have “our” property utilised for other, yet to be identified needs, to help restore the financial viability of the property.
Would you, as a businessman yourself, Mr. Knowles, commit to this restrictive demand?
You have to date chosen to hog-tie the city ( well, you and me In reality) to a claaaause(in perpetuity) that might not sit well with either the townsfolk, or the city fathers of the future whose job it is to look to the welfare of the community they serve?
Having hesitated thus far to form an opinion as to whether this business venture is worthy of pursuing (not that my lonely voice is of consequence to you) via what has been committed to the Castanet forum under the title “Revenue Neutral Acquisition or Albatross”, I have come down on the albatross side of the question. I just am not convinced that the city team sitting opposite to you performed a thorough enough due diligence investigation plus a cost versus returns exercise before they so readily acquiesced to your outrageous demand. I seriously question whether there was any meaningful bargaining before the city team acquiesced to your demand. Feelings don’t count in big business ventures, but I can’t quell the thought that both sides were, as a clubby gathering, on the same side of any “deliberations” instead of on opposing sides until a just decision was honestly reached.
Of course, despite all of my discourse, I had the cynical view expressed a week or so ago, “Doesn’t matter – it’s a done deal”. I now think that the trustwworthy source was correct. Democracy? Transparncy? Not in this neck of the woods.
Mr. Knowles, both you and I are too far gone, so to speak, to visualise “perpetuity” for too much longer, but for you to saddle the citizens with an albatross – well, if common-sense doesn’t prevail, we won’t be around to witness the drama anyway.
In conclusion, Mr. Knowles, I haven’t read The Seymour column, but I have to say you came down a notch or two in my estimation, when you called one of your fellow citizens a snitch. You must, however, recognise that this person also cares about the future of the city and its propitious disbursement of “our” money.
Isn’t this your motto? Per ardua ad astra?

[inquisitive]

Had a good night's sleep, then pulled up the ssubject Ron Seymour's August 4 (actually the 3rd of August) column thinking I might find a reason for the word snitch being used - nothing there but, moving right along.

This Lions Community Hall saga should rightly be linked with the City Hall referendum conversations. It should only strengthen the case for a very strong and resounding No vote to permit a complete reevaluation of any city plans for new digs.

The needless sub rosa handling of the offer, dating back to September of 2015, so we are just now informed, should back-fire because of inept handling, lack of due diligence, and so on and on. It is a game changer we voters deserve and can now win by a NO vote.

[inquisitive]

Like the "boil water" situation - since about August 4, 2016 - and the eery silence surrounding that subject and the Lion's property - since about early August, 2016, too, council chooses to keep its citizens pretty much in the dark when they could have enlightened us somewhat in the interim. This display of psychological shortfall, obviously deliberate, does nothing to endear council to its masters.

[occasional thoughts]

Blame our provincial government, the so-called B.C. Liberals, for the municipal legislation they passed that allows our civic governments way too much latitude to go in camera. Can you spell O P A Q U E and learn to love it over transparent?

[Steve-O]

Like the "boil water" situation - since about August 4, 2016 - and the eery silence surrounding that subject and the Lion's property - since about early August, 2016, too, council chooses to keep its citizens pretty much in the dark when they could have enlightened us somewhat in the interim. This display of psychological shortfall, obviously deliberate, does nothing to endear council to its masters.

What do you want to know about the boil water advisory? It is still in effect. Should they broadcast that every day? The notice is still up on their website, not exactly "silent".

In 10 years of biking around the reservoir, I have never seen it so murky. Don't know why, different weather situation this year than others is my guess. But city is following protocol even though the turbidity is barely above minimum allowable levels. If you take the time to read the advisory, it still recommends boiling for 1 minute for children, the elderly and if you have a weakened immune system. This hasn't changed since the advisory was initially released.

[inquisitive]

Well, the fat lady has finally sung, and yet I didn't' hear a word of the lyrics in the last many months. Did you? The fait a compli just came out of the blue.
Is this going to be an albatross?
Perhaps the city powers-that-be will soon deign to let us in on the way this venture will affect our pocket books for the next sixty years? As of April 1st (April Fools Day) one or more staff must start charging man-hours to the project.

[voice of reason]

they should move mayor mc cheese into the basement and take away his red stapler

[inquisitive]

Well, the Lions communiy hall has been "ours" for just about a month now.
Have you dropped by yet to admire your recent acquisition? Of course, there's nothing really new about the edifice, is there?
Better still, have you attended a "pay for entry event" which, besides our public coffers, must surely be the lifeblood of the facility if we are to see, at least a revenue neutral operation. Just askin'.
How about a renaming of the hall to reflect new ownership? A naming competition conducted, say, amongst school kids? (After all, they might be footing the bills in their turn, long after those who acquired the hall on our behalf, and those who, in perfect silence, allowed them to acquire it, have long since ridden of into the sunset.)

[mariareese]

As for potential tax liabilities with the Canada Revenue Agency, I can't imagine what those would be given that it has always been owned by the Lions Community Development Society, a non-profit and, I believe, a registered Canadian charity. I wouldn't imagine they'd be subject to capital gains taxes.