Business

Rank promises 'special' convention centre announcement

By CLARE MELLOR Staff Reporter
Halifax regional council on Tuesday approved a deal for the building of the $500-million Nova Centre, seen in this artist’s rendering.
Average: 3.6 (29 votes)

UPDATED 8:21 p.m. Tuesday

A public statement on the future of the proposed convention centre in downtown Halifax is set for Thursday, as another hurdle facing the development was cleared Tuesday at city hall.

After some heated debate, Halifax regional council endorsed an agreement with the Nova Scotia government over the centre.

Council already voted in favour of the convention complex in December 2010 and has now approved a memorandum of agreement outlining funding and operating arrangements between the two governments.

Halifax developer Rank Inc. has sent out invitations for “a special announcement” about the planned project. Politicians from all three levels of government have been asked to attend the event at Neptune Theatre at 10:30 a.m.

Council voted 19-5 Tuesday in favour of carrying out the agreement that municipal and provincial staff hammered out.

Councillors Jennifer Watts (Connaught-Quinpool), Jackie Barkhouse (Woodside-Eastern Passage), Debbie Hum (Rockingham-Wentworth), Peter Lund (Hammonds Plains-St. Margarets) and Reg Rankin (Timberlea-Prospect) voted against the agreement.

“A lot of people say that this (convention centre) is not the silver bullet — (that) this is not going to help our downtown,” said Coun. Dawn Sloane (Halifax Downtown).

“This is just one of the things that can help. When you bring in economic drivers such as a convention centre, the spinoffs are unbelievable.”

But it is clear not all councillors are happy about the project moving ahead.

Hum said it’s too big a risk to taxpayers.

“I can’t see moving forward with the convention centre (when) there is no guarantee on the timing of when the commercial, hotel and the other aspects (will be) moving forward on this project,” she said.

“There is no guarantee in here.”

Mayor Peter Kelly cut debate short several times when councillors began speaking out about the merits and pitfalls of the project rather than the agreement at hand.

“We are not redebating going ahead or not,” he said. “That decision has been made by council and the province.”

Council also voted on and approved two other staff recommendations related to the convention centre:

  1. It approved putting $40,000 of city funds toward a marketing campaign for the centre. The province is picking up the bulk of the cost of the campaign.
  2. Council also voted to ask staff to analyze and report back on municipal uses for the existing World Trade and Convention Centre on Argyle Street. The municipality has an option to buy that building at book value if the province is unable to sell it before the new convention centre opens.

“That has been further refined.  ... There are two other options to purchase the old space,” said Mike Labrecque, deputy chief administrative officer of Halifax Regional Municipality.

The new 115,000-square-foot convention centre is just one portion of the proposed $500-million, 1.2 million-square-foot Nova Centre development.

Rank Inc. will own and operate the rest of the project, including an 18-storey hotel and a 14-storey office building.

The convention centre portion is estimated to cost $159 million, split not quite evenly among the federal, provincial and municipal governments.

“Finance has looked extensively at the financial risk,” Labrecque said. “The broad theme of this is that we wanted to be able to pay for our share of the costs through the tax revenues so that we wouldn’t have to impact other municipal programs and services.”

The province and the city are contributing $56 million each to be paid in the form of a capital lease over 25 years. In the 30th year, they have the option to buy the convention centre for $1.

The memorandum of agreement approved Tuesday allows the municipality to defer 25 per cent of its annual payments for the new convention centre for up to 10 years if the rest of the project isn’t done when the convention centre opens.

“In the event that the revenues don’t match the expenditures, we just want the option to be able to defer a series of payments — not be forgiven payments, but defer them until such time that the revenues catch up and we can pay them back,” Labrecque said.

Under the agreement, the developer has also provided two letters of credit for $2.5 million each that can be used if the construction of the hotel and commercial space do not coincide with the convention centre construction.

Under the agreement, continuing operating costs not covered by convention centre revenue will be shared equally between the municipality and the province.

But the municipality will keep the property tax income it collects from the commercial centre.

“The real property taxes accrued from the whole of the site that go into the reserve aren’t shareable,” Labrecque said.

The province confirmed Tuesday it will meet soon with Rank to finalize project details.

The Coalition to Save the View said council should not have allowed itself to be rushed into considering the memorandum of agreement Tuesday.

“Much has changed in the past 19 months,” Judy Haiven of the coalition said in a news release.

“Victoria, B.C., like Halifax, is a key tourist destination, with a similar population. The Victoria Conference Centre expanded in 2008, but the number of non-resident delegate days at the centre is 16 per cent less than it was before the expansion. This year, Victoria’s taxpayers will have to pay 16 per cent of the conference centre’s operating budget.”

Halifax is likely to see similar losses, Haiven said.

Kevin Lacey, Atlantic Canadian director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, attended Tuesday’s council session. He expressed disappointment that voting went ahead on the agreement.

“This is a bad deal for taxpayers,” he said. “The (memorandum of agreement) does not change that. It will remain a bad deal for taxpayers and will likely result in taxpayers paying more taxes than they did before this convention centre began.”

(cmellor@herald.ca)
 

Good to see movement on this project.

This project will finally bring some improvement to this area of downtown that has been stale for a while. Good to see it get started. It will improve the area as well as bring people to the area.

Gross misconduct by Council & Trade Centre

This is the public's money and we have a right to know the details of the proposed transaction. We employ Councillors to oversee the services that the City needs to provide, which doesn't include subsidizing the hospitality business. Councillors are not financiers and they should not proceed with a positive vote without a business analysis (sounds just like the CWG Bid). It is gross misconduct that Council would vote on this secret deal, requiriing hundreds of millions, without doing their due diligence on the transaction. HRM is currently on the hook for up to $750k a year of WTCC's $2-$4 million losses. This new deal has us contributing $6 million a year PLUS half the operating losses without a cap. In addition, HRM is going to buy the current WTCC? No wonder the developer and Province are in such a rush to get HRM to sign off on this bad deal for HRM. The Mayor is too stunned to realize that HRM is being taken to the cleaners on this deal. In the end, regardless of who owns this convention centre, it will lose money. Every convention centre in Canada loses money (e.g. Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver). Those are the facts. Go read their annual reports, the numbers don't lie. The airy-fairy spin-off values can't be seen, can't be collected and won't pay our tax bill. People comment here daily about how bad the economy is and wonder how we can turn things around. We can start by stopping foolish expenditures. This convention centre could cost HRM $10-$20 million a year and it will cause tax increases or service reductions. Call you councillor today and tell them to say no. I hope HRM carries a big liability insurance policy for Councillors, this issue is screaming breach of duty.

Not sure what change you see

This appears to be the same deal that was presented in the beginning with the only acceptation being that the center will not be operated by the developer so I don't know where you are getting that it is a new agreement. It costs money to make money and the tax revenue and spin offs from this project will outweigh the cost.

"Spin-offs outweigh the costs"? Really? Prove it!

I can't believe the amateur approach taken with these huge infrastructure projects. Hundreds of millions are at stake in a convention centre and the taxpayers will be contracted for thirty years for the losses and people expect throw away comments like the spin-offs outweigh the costs to take the place of financial due diligence and appropriate disclosure. Can you prove that? Will the theoretical spin-offs cover the "cash" subsidy that the taxpayers will fork over to Trade Centre every month to cover the rent and payroll. Do you receive your salary in spin-offs? Can you pay your mortgage and groceries in spin-off benefits? Will Ramia accept a "spin-off IOU" instead of actual cash for rent? Maybe HRM will let you pay your increasing property tax bill with "spin-offs". Good luck with that.

Proof of nothing

Your statement proves absolutely nothing, except that you know the names of 6 cities bigger than Halifax. True there was a time when big cities were building convention centers, but it has been shown to be a poor investment in most 3rd party studies. The cities you have listed are bigger then Halifax for a variety of historical, geographical, and economic reasons, but I have never heard it even proposed that the reason they are more prosperous cities is because of their convention centers.

Recently came back from a conference in Ottawa

So, I recently attended a conference in Ottawa. This begs the question: was the conference in Ottawa because of the convention centre? No. The conference was in Ottawa because the majority attending it are based in Ontario (specifically, the Ottawa area).

What makes a city attractive for larger conferences? Location, location, location. It has to be central to minimize travel costs. Unfortunately, Halifax isn't central. Halifax is ideal for medium sized regional conferences. Three of the cities you identified (Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto) are central to attract participants from across Canada. Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton are not central but have large enough populations to support their own (although, some say Calgary is the new centre of Canada).

Having said that, I did attend a conference in Vancouver once (key word, "once"). The travel costs were so high that I was told never again.

On a side note: I've been told that my recent Ottawa conference was my last. To save money, we will now be having video/tele-conferences. I suspect most businesses/agencies are implementing similar cost cutting measures.

have pity on CMII

he/she accepts no arguement other than his/her own narrow viewpoint.

witness his/hers attempt to link hospitals, schools, libraries and other necessary building to this white elephant. he/she claims that they never pay for themselves, just like the convention center wont.

he/she refuses to accept the fact that hospitals were never meant to pay for themselves.

he/she refuses to realize that there is a little something called a recession and it hasnt reached its depths yet.

he/she refuses to see that the convention center business is falling worldwide.

he/she probably thinks that a stadium is a moneymaker too.

he/she also thinks the benefits outweigh the costs.

all of the taxes on anything the conventioneers buy or use, will go to the province or the feds. the city sees NOTHING.

the city is picking up a big chunk of the tab and yet CMII says we will benefit.

a few eating establishments will benefit along with a few hotels, all the city gets is the bill.

i say send the bill to CMII and the rest of his "buld it and they will come" ilk.

Too right, unfortunately

The new hospital in Truro will cost Nova Scotians $800-900 per square foot, if you amortize the way-over-budget construction cost over 25 years at a reasonable rate.

In comparison, the three levels of government are about to pay Rank $1420 per square foot over 25 years for carpet tile and card tables.

Which do you suppose costs more to construct, a hospital, or a convention centre? Where do you want to be operated on?

To add insult to injury, we are just renting this white elephant! We will only to given the chance to purchase after we have been fleeced for twenty-five years.

The federal money alone basically covers construction cost up front for the square footage we will use. Then the lease kicks in at $40 per square foot. That's more than double average Class A office rent in downtown Halifax.

Downtown needs stimulus, but this deal stinks to high heaven. Are our our governments really this STUPID?

Ridiculous comment

Your figures are absurd because they do not factor in a single cent of intangible benefit. This comment proves that you do not understand the concept. How much does your local library pull in each year? Something tells me that the late fees they charge are not covering the operating costs.

Absurd

CMII

Funny thing about "intangibles".

THEY ARE INTANGIBLE.

That means you nor anyone else can factor intangibles into anything. That means you can't use them in an argument either Einstein!

Before you call other peoples comments absurd I suggest you look at your own first.

You sound like a sore loser

I don't value the opinion of anyone who reverts back to the overused and unoriginal "Einstein" insult.

Not real

So intangibles are not real? Please explain.

Intangibles only exist....

To the extent that they help generate "superior" returns to a company. The brand or innovation or some other attribute allows a company to generate superior profits then it can be supported that there is an intangible benefit. The idea that there is an intangible benefit associated with a convention centre that will lose millions, but somehow generates an overall positive return isn't believable. A business that loses money has no intangible benefit. No one has ever proven any of these spin-off benefits and all we really KNOW is that the centres lose money and must be subsidized. The spin-off benefits of SYSCO and DEVCO eventually were worn down by the hundreds of millions poured into unviable businesses. This will be no different. Too bad we cannot learn from our past.

VOTE

Who ever votes against this white elephant gets my vote this fall .

VOTE

Who ever votes with this project gets my vote this fall.

whoever the peninsula DOESNT

whoever the peninsula DOESNT want to be mayor gets my vote. i am sure we will see youi here to express your opinion as to who shouldnt get the office.

and libraries, hospitals were never meant to make money.

Can't believe this is not being built on Halifax's waterfront

Ok, so its just another perpetual charity case then. Like how Atlantic Opportunities insists on a full blown business plan before even considering a loan and in this case the business plan has been deliberately dismantled and tore up in little pieces. What's the old convention center going to be, a parking garage for this new one? Just throwing this point out there as the previously published floor plan has practically NO parking reserved for convention center visitors!! The Cunard Center sounds a lot more practical considering Nova Scotians aren't getting any younger. Not a complaint, just an observation.

The proposed convention

The proposed convention center has the potential to bankrupt the municipality. It's a terrible plan, and if built it will start draining tax dollars almost immediately, with gross cost over runs, and the developer crying for more money, and Council voting while grumbling that they have no choice. Meanwhile, local small and very effective projects that have an immediate and measurable positive benefit to the community need to struggle for a few measly grant dollars, and for approvals in an outdated system that seems mostly interested in supporting already wealthy corporate interests.

Yes, really

Vancouver lost $44 million last year and $60 million in 2010. That was on the heels of hosting the Olympics. These are the facts.

No

No their convention centres lost this, show me the impacts on the city's financial statements.

Wake up

BC Pavillion is owned by the taxpayers, just like Trade Centre Limited is owned by the taxpayers. If they suffer a loss the taxpayers are responsible for covering the loss.

Read the Annual Report

Stop reading the marketing brochures and political promo pieces. The audited statements are required by law to be only the facts. When you wonder how much cash you have.....where do you look.....in you bank account....not a fairy tale.

Wrong again Halifaxguy

Overall there was a huge net benefit to the City of Vancouver. look beyond your P/L sheets.

Again, PROVE IT

Just once, show me the money. Show me and everyone where these convention centres generate enough tax revenue to justify the expenditure. Over and over again I have provided links to audited financial statements that PROVE that vast sums of money have been lost, yet not even once can the supporters provide TANGIBLE evidence of economic profit. If you want to invest your own money, then do as you wish. I believe the taxpayers of Halifax and Nova Scotia need protection from charlatans and sheisters who continually try to suck us into these idiotic schemes.

Proof as requested

If you want to see the money I suggest you visit any of the cities that have invested in a CC over the past 15 years. I was just in Ottawa for the past 2 weeks and the joke is on us.

proof?

Is this intangible proof? Or will we see it in the spin-off comments?

That isn't proof

Walking around a city isn't proof of anything except that your head is in the clouds. You would base a $500 million dollar decision on reading a marketing brochure and a stroll through the market? Next time you're out for a walk, pop out to Stockton California. Population 292,000, beautiful waterfront, brand new sports stadium, well paid employees with great benefits. Stockton is the largest city in the US to declare bankruptcy. Good thing you didn't buy their municipal bonds based on a walkabout :)

sorry cmii but

profit/loss sheets are all that will matter to the people that have to pay the bills.

hospitals and schools are never intended to pay for themselves.

this isnt a hospital ro school, then it should have to completely pay for itself.

the local businesses may see some minor benefit and the taxes all go to the province and the feds.

all we seem to be in line for are a good part of the bills.

so p/l sheets are very important.

Unreal

Convention centres are not supposed to directly pay for themselves either. Haven't you wondered why a private enterprise isn't building this thing? They are designed to be engines to economies like schools are to education.

Another very bad deal for HRM

This "deal" will insure that the developer takes no risk while HRM and the Province covers all the costs. There will be no tax revenue, the deal will include an exemption for property tax. Kelly is trying to leave us with another legacy that will cost us far into the future.

No tax?

What about income tax, hotel tax, PST, GST, liquor tax, fuel tax...and on and on......

Taxes won't come even close

If you assume that the convention centre loses its current $4 million plus the $12 million in operating lease every year, it's not possible to generate enough tax revenue to ever recover our investment. At these loss levels, and 17% HST & Hotel tax, the CC would have to generate $94 million in business every year to create enough in taxes to break even. Breaking this down further, assuming that every conventioner spent $300 a day in halifax we would need mean that the centre needs 26000 attendees a month. That is not possible. This is a very simple business, anyone can figure it out. Use logic and math. This business can never make money or even remotely break even. There is no reason why HRM would expose the taxpayers to $8-$12 million a year in losses for the opportunity to earn a 2% hotel tax. These centres lose money and we can't afford to lose more money.

You just don't get it

You forgot to fact in the expenditures of the business owners buying the supplies to service the people, their increase in income taxes, their employees increase in income taxes as well as their own personal expenditures as a result of more income generation. You can not just stop at one level down.

Yup

Right on Bob. Add to that the people who come here for the very first time only to return later with the families. I met a guy last month from Virginia who was here 10 years ago for work and brought his entire family back for a week based solely on that 1 experience.

I work in finance

I deal in reality, not theoretical spin-offs. We pay bills in cash, not airey fairy spin-off benefits. We've had a convention centre downtown for 25 years. Where are the spin-off benefits? Downtown has deteriorated due to poor transit and over-taxation, not the lack of a convention centre. The addition of a $16 - ??? million a year convention deficit isn't going to help downtown or the economy in general. What is real is the fact that these centres lose money and that it requires taxpayer cash to subsidize them. For all the cheerleading that the CC supporters do, they have never come forward with proof that any convention centre anywhere makes money or even a business case that demonstrates how this could make money. The economy is in tough condition and we need to start making tough decisions like turning down loser investments.

?

As I understand it, the only one of those taxes that go to the city is the hotel tax, so are you talking about whether this is a good deal for the city, the province or the Feds?

Sure you can afford this?

Montreal Palais de Congres operating losses: 2011 -$31.5 million, 2010 -$33 million (www.congresmtl.com/en/document)
Ottawa Convention Centre losses (and it's barely open): 2009 -$3 million 2010 -$3.4 million (www.ottawaconventioncentre.com/en)
Vancouver Convention Centre losses (before Govt subsidy): 2009 -$16.9 million, 2010 -$60.9 million, 2011 -$44.5 million

Here is some financial due diligence for politicians to consider. These are operating losses on these convention centre from the audited financial statements of the Convention Centre or their owner. These are facts, not spin. This is a very expensive undertaking and Council don't seem to understand that they're exposing the taxpayers to this type of subsidy for a very long time.

Don't believe this crap

Why don't you tell people the truth because this certainly is not reflective of the true story. Take Vancouver for example. You neglect to tell people that they had over 200,000 delegates last year or that they generate $300,000,000/year in economic activity for the city or that they employ 300 full time employees.

If we used your math we would halt the construction of all new ice rinks, soccer fields, libraries, schools, hospitals, roads, parks, public transit, etc.

These are audited results

These are the audited losses of Palais de Congres, Ottawa Convention Centre, and BC Pavillion Corporation. Unlike PR campaigns and marketing brochures, the financial statements are audited by independent 3rd parties so that creditors and investors can be assured that they are making intelligent investing decisions. If you invest your RRSP based on marketing statements, you'll be a very poor investor. Parks and libraries are part of the municipal mandate. Tourism is a provincial responsibility. Operating a convention centre, or a steel plant, or a coal mine isn't part of governments responsibility. This entire concept is ridiculous. If the Convention Centre cheerleaders think this is such a great idea they should privately syndicate the deal and invest in it themselves. They would be retiring into welfare.

You still don't get it

Virtually every convention centre in North America is mandated by some level of government. They are not designed to be profitable to operate by anyone other than those who can collect tax revenue generated by spin-offs. Otherwise the private industry would be building them.

More likely an economic millstone then economic engine

I must agree Halifaxguy.

While critics of the project present real facts to underline their concerns, the money magnets quip back with rhetoric and tired jargon of a business model from 20 years ago when convention centers were valuable ... before smartphones, electronic documents, teleconferencing and telecommuting became easy, cheap and effective. This gap between the old ways and new will only continue to grow throughout the years ahead.

While I agree it is possible for capital projects to generate sufficient revenue to offset their cost (and more), I do not believe this is the case in this circumstance. I believe it is far more likely this proposed convention centre will become an economic millstone, than a economic engine ... further sapping revenues needed for necessities well into the extended future (i.e. our children's generation).

An excellent, well researched, and well articulated critique of this project can be found here : http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/convention-centre-...

Not with my money

I do not live anywhere near Halifax and never will set foot in this building so why should my money go into this. Send some cash down Yarmouth way(the forgotten end of the Province).

What is wth all the negativety

This is an excieting day for Halifax....heavens for bid we invest in our communinity and try and inprove our econmomy for the future....geeech!

Huh?

Funny how all the cites with a convention centre have less poverty than we do. Explain that please....or perhaps you've just proven your "stupidity" statement.

What?

Surely you aren't suggesting that those cities are prosperous because they have convention centers, because that would demonstrate a complete lack of understanding on your part of correlation, cause, and the very concept of evidence, or facts. Very strange statement



Next Reads