Q. In a recent article found in the Hamilton Spectator, Ti-Cat President Scott Mitchell is sounding very optimistic about the future of the team, up to and including a projected transition into sustainable profitability. While he was reportedly less enthusiastic on the period in which the Cats will have to play at a temporary location pending the build of the new stadium, overall he was sounding quite positive. Does this optimism surprise you and upon reflection, do you believe the taxpayers of Hamilton will be served well by the final outcome related to the stadium?
A. Ivor Wynne rebuild is being done without losing assessment growth with city building characteristics, an anchor tenant and doing so without a 35 to 120 million dollar deficit.
Also the total city commitment is approximately 25 million dollars more on capital than the 2007 renovation plan however this plan has no general levy impact ie taxes as a result of using the Future Fund and we are committed to incrementally eliminating the 1.3 million dollar annual subsidy provided to the Cats thereby mitigating the tax impact significantly and obtaining a newly refurbished stadium with a sustainable tenant. I said this then and I'm glad it is coming to fruition.
Hamiltonians have been conned by this whole fiasco!
ReplyDeleteThere is no democracy in this council.
Too bad they couldnt use their manipulating politics to clean up Hamilton.
Originally, councils majority vote and many times I might add, had this being built where it should be-West Harbour.
Bob Young said, oh well egress-people leaving the stadium would be compromised if built there.. lol..yep and Ivor Wynn area boasts differently,, good grief
Wait and see folks what the true bottom line will be charged to taxpayers.
The story is ever changing..
Meurella speculates to appease the masses.
This subject is a sore spot with many Hamiltonians.
It's the best it can be, I suppose, given that it cannot be undone but make no mistake, a mediocre solution at best.
ReplyDeleteSorce
Sorce, yes a mediocre solution at best.
DeleteThe area where Ivor Wynn stands is indeed a nostalgic memory for many of us in Hamilton.
The longing for the past drove this bus..
Its a wait and see, I suppose. Do us proud!
What purpose does this topic brings to the table? Sam from the onset was against Hamilton being part of the Pan Am games ( one of the rare occasion where I agree with Sam). This issue was/is a sore point with many taxpayers. Why bring this up again?
ReplyDeleteWhat Sam does not say is that the money from the Future Fund has to be re-paid by the taxpayers.
ReplyDeleteNow that all the crud is out of the way, I would really like to hear what the benefit is to the taxpayers. What can we expect out of this? Can anyone provide that in plain english? I am not being difficult. i honestly want to know. Maybe it is good for us.
DeleteSevern
They have absolutely no business using any amount of monies from the Future Fund!!!
ReplyDeleteWhy are more people not irate about this?
The city (taxpayers) is/are actually borrowing the money from the Future Fund and repaid with interest. This was done before,and the interest is the going rate. If you follow the money trail the Future Fund came from Horizon Utilities (approx.$120 million), Horizon borrowed this $120 million against it's assets
Delete( which the city owns @80% and St Catherine @20%). Horizon Utilities users (taxpayers) are re-paying the loan through their monthly bills. Effectively taxpayers are on the hook for $120 million Horizon debt that was paid out to the city and when the city borrows money from the Future Fund the taxpayer is again on the hook for whatever amount they borrow. What taxpayers should be up in arms is really that we citizens of Hamilton are paying twice for that money. Hard to believe isn't it?
There was a lot of dissention about using the Future Fund-I totally disagree with using any of this monies.
DeleteGuess my voice was not loud enough.
What type of question is that, Teresa? "Hey, Sam, the guy they pay to boost the standing of a corporate welfare case thinks everything is good. Do you think you're wrong now?"
ReplyDeleteThat question is so naive as to be disingenuous. What's your real end-game here?
It was just a question.
DeleteI was not happy with this outcome, but I am happy that things are going forward. I hopoe Mr. Mitchell is right about what he is saying.
ReplyDeleteSevern
I recently moved to Toronto and I can say that I miss have such competent and courageous leadership as Merulla provides. Hamiltonians are lucky to have such a great representative.
ReplyDeletePeter Brown
I suspect tongue & cheek! Merulla as always, careless in his choice of words. Now we know that the Ti-Cats never had direct subsidies, but Merulla has his own truth!
Delete@ presumptuous tongue and cheek. Whether the subsidy is direct or indirect is irrelevant when its all corporate welfare to the taxpayer. Now start paying your bill Ti Cats!
DeleteIn my previous post and in the past I have blogged in regards to the Future Fund and how the city is using this money and the provenance of this fund. It is a well documented issue and yet when I raise awareness of the poor taxpayers borrowing money from a fund that they already borrowed from money lenders i.e. a loan from a fund which we in turn borrowed money to create this fund, we are hit twice with interest and scarcely raises an eyebrow in the world of bloggers. Why is that? 1)Hard to believe that the city is borrowing and we are charged twice the interest? 2) That I am simply overreacting? 3) Difficult to follow the money trail.
ReplyDeleteFor those who are against the city using the Future Fund are you not content that this money is being lent to ourselves with interest and paid back, as my brother in law who use to work at city hall ( Peter B.) told me, is that the city is actually borrowing the money from ourselves cheaper than what the bankers would charge us.
Yves please continue to confuse fiction as fact because you are very entertaining. Also I suggest you email your premise as a question to the city receive a response post it so you can be exposed as grossly mistaken. Keep entertaining Yves.
ReplyDeleteI would like to see the evidence that you have or aware of that would prove my statement incorrect. These facts have been well discussed and publish in the local medias. Even this issue was discussed in the early days of this blog with an interview by Cal with a high school pal, Rossini our current fiscal Guru at city hall.This might explain why nobody is/have been responding to this issue, ignorance that it is very true.
DeleteWe recently receivrd the message below from Roberto Rossini.
Delete" Its not quite like that. What we've done is quite smart.
I've addressed this issue in the past before and provided an explanation. Please check. It was maybe a year and a half ago.
We did get $135M from capitalizing our equity ie ownership stake in Hamilton Hydro. That's how the Future Fund was started.
As part of a normal capital structure for a utility, Hamilton Hydro did borrow the money to pay us the $135M.
This was common practise as many local hydros did this in the early 2000s after they were commercialized.
We have borrowed money from the Future Fund and repaid them with interest to finance some City capital projects eg our waste management program. That's called a Revolving Fund. Its makes a reserve more self sustaining and is sound business practise.
We have also used the Future Fund to pay for capital projects without any repayments eg. the $45m for the Stadium.
Hope this helps
Rob
I guess there is a benefit to post under" Anonymous ".
ReplyDeleteThank you Rob for your response,When you addressed the issue
18 months ago you were somewhat playfully devious in your response. You had mentioned that Horizon utility users were paying the legacy loan re-payment which is correct, and then went on to say that yes , taxpayers had borrowed money from the fund. The interesting point is that you clearly differentiated as two entities, taxpayers and Horizon utility users. By doing so you were disassociating the debts from one single payee, us taxpayers. A simple request at Horizon provided me with the number of residential customers within Hamilton and these numbers compare quite favorably with published city data with one interesting tidbit of info.It appears that they are residential Hydro One customers within Hamilton boundaries and the question that I have "Are these people paying the levees and charges that the city imposes on our bi-monthly utility bill?".
to Anonymous
ReplyDeleteYour wish has been granted the city's CFO responded to your request to expose me as a fraud, communicator of evil, fairy tale story teller and all other descriptors of bad faith, As the old adage "Careful what you wish for", the opposite result of what ask for was granted ! Next time you accuse people of malfeasance put your name to your comments, be accountable.
Yves you presented the initiative as a faulty incompetent strategy when in reality the opposite is true. Therefore I accept your apology.
ReplyDeleteOnly a public opinion poll on the matter would answer that question. An alternative to the above scenario could include a "repayment without interest over a period of prearranged number of years"clause. It is no wonder that the people of Hamilton are in the top cities in Ontario having the highest municipal taxes.
Delete