Demolition bids
http://www.crowsnestpasspromoter.com/2013/07/30/demolition-bids
Note: Cost of administration $4325 per day
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Crowsnest Pass Centre Demolition
Bids closed at 3pm yesterday, the following article from the Crowsnest Pass Promoter written by Joni MacFarlane provides all the details. This will be coming before council on August 6 with a recommendation from administration.
http://www.crowsnestpasspromoter.com/2013/07/30/demolition-bids
Note: Cost of administration $4325 per day
http://www.crowsnestpasspromoter.com/2013/07/30/demolition-bids
Note: Cost of administration $4325 per day
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
So does anybody know how these guys are going to pay for this?
What's your recommendation Dean?
My choice would be to get rid of the building it is an eyesore and has been for a long time having said that.
I have several concerns:
Should a council be making a $6-800,000 decision that was not budgeted for?
Especially less than three months before their term is up?
In three months you will have a new council that will be given the task of leading this community for the next four years. They may or may not agree with this decision but will have zero input in to it.
Administration previously discussed taking funding for this project out of MSI grants and Land reserves.
The grant money is one thing it just means other projects get pushed back a year. The money out of land reserves could be tied up for years.
With the minimal amount of money we have in reserves would it not be more prudent to build it into next years budget?
Dean Ward
"Biantco Environmental Services Inc. from Lethbridge was disqualified because there was no performance bond, no labour and materials bond and no bidding information."
The Hotel RFP said:
"Proponents must submit evidence of sufficient financial capacity to carry the hotel project to completion."
Why was the Vachon proposal not disqualified?
(BTW, today's Promoter says "Vachon was brought on by Medican ..." but the CNP press release said "The Vachon Group, who is still the official applicant for the hotel development ...". )
Dean, Thank you for answering my question. The way I see it the Ratepayers as an organization accomplished absolutely nothing in the year or so since coming together. They didn't even have the balls to shut council down to prevent them from making these type of decisions with less than 90 days left in their mandate. Do you think these do-nothings can actually do something if elected, other than to try and set the clock back? They've demonstrated no leadership or anything of a constructive nature to date why should we trust voting any of them in (including you) having the track record that they do?
I was amazed that these 4 companies, based on their tendered bids, seemed to have taken a run at us . Do they really think this town's council is a desperate lame duck?
In a perfect world these tenders would be parked on a corner of a desk waiting for the next council to deal with properly.
So 2:18 what more would you suggest the ratepayers should have done???
We worked within the boundaries of the Municipal government act. We signed up 2500 people in 18 days, the consultant has been working on his investigation and report for six months. What more legally could we have done???
"The balls to shut council down to prevent them from making these types of decisions" Tell me and every other ratepayer what action we should take to prevent them.
How would you suggest we shut council down???
Look what Nenshi in Calgary and his council is doing with the $52 million tax grab just before the same election date has ours. Maybe nobody in Calgary has balls?
In addition I fully expect there will be candidates running that signed the petition or were members of the ratepayers. When you sign up 60% of the voting eligible citizens there is a good chance that some of them will put their names forward.
Harry
Gosh... Harry stole my thunder! Well put.
Someone can't even fathom the idea of any member of the Ratepayer's Association as being part of the 'Dream Team'.
Mike
A lot of people signed, didn't even know what they were signing basically. But I agree, I do not think the Ratepayers were very effective either.
Yes 3:30 I have heard it all before some of the people were "bullied" those old ladies from Hillcrest can be very intimidating.
3:07 Harry you are 100% right. People will bad mouth but will they have a better answer I doubt it.
"Council voted unanimously to approve the demolition with funding split between MSI grants and land reserves."
http://www.crowsnestpasspromoter.com/2013/07/29/wrecking-ball-slated-for-crowsnest-centre
I looked up MSI grants, they seem intended for public facilities, not commercial developments. There is a list of eligible projects under Schedule 2, Page 19:
http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/documents/ms/2013__MSI_Capital_Program_GuidelinesPDF_Final.pdf
It says on page 18:
"The following costs are not eligible for MSI capital project funding:
...
• Costs of constructing or developing subdivisions. However, some of the costs that are incurred as part of the typical subdivision development process may be eligible under Schedule 2, such as road and sidewalk construction, water and wastewater lines to the property lines, and purchase of transportation and utility corridor rights-of-way;"
It doesn't mention commercial developments, but I guess the same rule would apply.
They could say it's for a park.
:^)
I'm glad to find an issue you haven't flip-flopped on, Dean!
I met a new Friend today.
Somebody that wants me to post their comments. Full of personal comments and attacks against people who have done nothing but exercise their democratic rights.
On July 1st I listen to the Mayor speak down in Coleman at the legion about how lucky we are to live in a country where we enjoy Freedom of Speech.
One time I have to say I agree 100% with the Mayor.
On my blog I post better than 99% of the comments that are left here. But I will not post anything that gets personal or potentially liable.
You don't agree with that too bad.
Keep wasting your energy writing comments that nobody but me and you will see.
I also find it very ironic that somebody who sits behind a computer and posts comments under the name "Anonymous" questions me about "having balls".
Do not take that has a slam against the vast majority of people that post on this site under the anonymous tag. I don't have a problem with that I have a problem with somebody attacking me personally that doesn't "have the balls" to pick up the phone and dial 403 563 4128 I would buy you a coffee and debate any issue you care to talk about.
Dean Ward
5:21 you can clarify that statement any time you like. What have I flip flopped on?
Dean Ward
Crowsnest Pass Home @5:30,
You have patience.
I guarantee your exclusion/ostracisation from a certain 'Dream Team', although I also think that your efforts to be part of our next council are realistic.
On Oct 21st an electorate will decide.
Your intensive research is welcomed by myself and may also give the general populace some form of insight that they may might never have been aware of.
It would have been a nice touch if someone on our current council would have also crunched some numbers and started asking questions.
It's a bit disheartening, for myself, when we elected a council that sat on their hands for over two years. (Relying, and riding, on someone's promises of enacting policy)
Now a few councillors appear to be deserting a sinking ship with only a few weeks left in the mandate.
Dean, leave Road Kill where you found it... move on to get to your destination quicker.
Gotta be some famous quote from someone, somewhere?
Why is it that when a ship sinks, the scum always comes to the top?
MSI Eligible Projects
"Eligible capital projects include municipal roads, bridges, public transit, water and wastewater systems, emergency services facilities and equipment, solid waste management facilities and equipment, regional and community airport facilities and equipment, and other municipal buildings and facilities such as recreational and sports facilities, libraries, public works buildings, and cultural/community centres."
http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/msi-qualifying-projects.cfm
They couldn't t have picked a worse time to get the demolition done. Just like the Provincial government which waited until the oil price was high and construction boom was in full force to tender road and bridge contracts a few years back.
Can we assume that a total cost record is being made by the Finance Director to give us a full accounting of the TRUE COST of the CLC proect, including the legal costs re Medican. Hopefully they will not hide the latter and associated costs, and attempt to paint a rosy picture of the demolition phase only. Any bets?
Hopefully they have enough sense to take the lowest bid but without the backfill option. I will be glad to see that building gone but I think this council is just playing politics as this decision should have been made by the next council. I am still afraid that this council will continue up until the last days before the election to make decisions that are not so easily reversed.
Anon @10:11
The lowest bidder in this case might be exactly who they wanted all along. Think about that?
MGA
Civil liability of councillors
249(1) A councillor who
...
(c)votes to spend money that has been obtained under a grant on something that is not within the purpose for which the grant was given
is liable to the municipality for the expenditure or amount spent.
Anon 10:23 I agree that the fix was probably in to begin with. Why only 1 week to submit a bid. Most companies would not have time to come down here and actually scope out the project. My only point was that they do not take the backfilling part of the contract as the lowest bid for this is by a different company.
I find it somewhat amusing the comments about "the next council will inherit the costs for this decision". This current council inherited this derilect from the previous council. At least they tried to move thiis forward. Shame on them for trying to engage a developer. Ok it did not work out. I think the next step is logical. As a community we need to move on. This property is doing nothing for us. We need to move on. Bury the hatchet and consider the greater good. Hopefully as a community we can make this property attractive to a developer and it will make an economic contribution to the community in the coming years.
1:56
Give me a break the building been empty for over three years. The previous council did all the "heavy lifting". All these guys had to do was put up a For Sale sign and pick wisely!
Post a Comment