Committee formed to decide on Memorial Arena

In the summer of 2019, Council agreed that because of the cost of continuing to operate the Memorial Arena, that it should be closed (see link below).   Council agreed and directed that an Ad Hoc Committee be set up to decide what the future of that asset should be.  Nothing happened on this until the Committee of the Whole meeting on 29 March 2021 when Council directed staff to start the process to set up the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee.  It had been hoped that the 2019 Cultural Master Plan would provide ideas for its use – but no such luck. (In fact the Cultural Plan has had no noticeable effect on any actions by Council or Town Staff).  Then at the Regular meeting on 6 April, Council approved By-Law 021-2021 to set the terms of reference and start recruiting citizens for the Committee. 

The 2019 report said that continuing operational costs would be $175K per year and required Capital costs would be $1.7M over the next 5 years and $5.3M over 25 years.  Complete details were in a staff report stored on Civic Web which is no longer available.

Composition of Committee

Memorial Arena
Memorial Arena

The Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee will be comprised of a minimum of four and a maximum of six citizen appointments and at least one Member of Council as follows:

  • Member of Council Coordinator of Parks and Recreation Services (Chair)
  • Six Members of the Public appointed by Council
  • Deputy Director of Community Services (Staff Support)
  • Manager of Facilities (Staff Support)

Committee Mandate

The Committee will provide Council with a shortlist of three to six options for the Memorial Arena that:

  • meet the needs of the community,
  • are financially and technically viable, and
  • align with the Town of Cobourg’s Strategic Plan.

To fulfill this mandate, the Ad-Hoc Committee will:

  • Identify and consider the needs of the community;
  • Consider the Memorial Arena Property Condition Assessment conducted by Pinchin Ltd in 2018;
  • Review and tour the Memorial Arena building and site;
  • Consider the site in relation to the present and potential use of the adjacent Jack Heenan Arena, other area development plans, and the Town’s Zoning By-law and Official Plan;
  • Consider successful examples of arena repurposing from other municipalities;
  • Consider the Town of Cobourg’s commitment to sustainability;
  • Encourage and receive public submissions of ideas and suggestions for the site;
  • Consider a range of opportunities which may include, but are not limited to:
    • Alternative recreational or cultural uses;
    • Community partnership opportunities;
    • The disposal or development of the site.
  • Consider the financial feasibility of each option with input from the Town’s Finance Department;
  • Document the potential advantages and disadvantages of each shortlisted option;
  • Consider other matters as referred to the Committee by Council.

To apply to be on the committee, download the application form from the Town’s web site here.  As of 7 April, this committee was not listed on that page but no doubt the same application form and process will be used for this Ad Hoc Committee.

The full Terms of Reference include criteria to be used in evaluating applications to be on the committee – see link below. Members of the Memorial Arena Ad Hoc Committee will be appointed for the duration required to make a recommendation to Council.  Meetings will usually be open to the public.


Earlier related Posts on Cobourg News Blog

Related Documents

Print Article: 


Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
12 April 2021 10:12 pm

Did I miss something? At the time the CCC was built there was already discussion about need for a third ice pad in Cobourg. I was at first surprised at the nearly $6million in costs identified for Memorial Arena but it is over the next 25 years. And, should an item like fixing and repaving the parking lot be part of these building costs especially when the lot is shared with another adjacent ice surface facility for curling. The Memorial Arena building is currently in good condition according to the consultant’s report. I would like to know what a new third ice pad, if that is still part of facility plans in Cobourg, would cost as part of this discussion.
In addition, any change in use for Memorial Arena needs to take into account the fact it is located across the street from the Tannery District planning area, a new neighbourhood with great potential but in need of a champion with vision to lead redevelopment by multiple investors and community builders.

Reply to  MiriamM
13 April 2021 9:57 pm

A suggestion, amongst many I’m assuming. Its taken 2 years to get where we are i.e. nowhere. Councils plan as stated above doesn’t provide an answer to your question “…to know what a new third ice pad,…….would cost..”. As stated below the plan is to broad and without reasonable constraints, another never ending story. I truly hope they (???) prove me wrong.

12 April 2021 8:47 pm

May be we can use it for Vaccinations
Can’t get one at the CCC last couple of wks. the CCC wasn’t even on the Provincial web site as a Vaccination option . Where the MPP now that he got his Photo Opp ?
Half the people I know were sent Covid Tripping all over Ont. to get their shots
even while the stay at home Order was / is in place

Gerald Childs
Reply to  Sandpiper
13 April 2021 11:14 am

Can’t get one at the CCC last couple of wks.” CCC has been open for those over 70s since at least April 2 and those over 60s since at least April 7. How could you not get an appointment? When I booked it took less than five minutes to get both appointments for my spouse and myself.

10 April 2021 11:18 am

Not good, more of the same, expecting a different outcome. Evidence – “Committee will provide Council with a shortlist of three to six options” BY WHEN and WHAT COST; “To fulfill this mandate, the Ad-Hoc Committee will” BY WHEN and WHAT COST. Neither of these fundamental questions have been asked nor answered. 2019 folks is when this question was tabled. 2 years later nada. The “Mandate” reads like a revision of the Cultural Plan and Downtown Revitalization all in one. Its to broad. This move to is intended to deflect the question, which is what by the way? Hows this for a plan: Step 1 demolish; Step 2 clear land; Step 3 rezone (greatest number of options allowed by Planning; Step 4 now decide what/who should utilize the property.

Reply to  Gerinator
10 April 2021 11:41 am

Step 5 realize that it should not have been demolished, if we
had just thought it over first.

Last edited 5 days ago by JimT
Reply to  JimT
13 April 2021 12:13 pm

Possibly BUT we wouldn’t have spent 2+ years figuring it out. With the way properties are being snapped up it won’t be long on the market. Do something, anything in most cases is a bad plan; but not this time.

Irene k
10 April 2021 10:25 am

Good idea informed!!

9 April 2021 3:54 pm

Lease the floor space out to car dealers for their overstock. Seems like most of them dont have enough room on their lots. Winter storage for vehicles. At least that could defer some costs instead of it being empty while a decision is made.

Old Sailor
9 April 2021 11:49 am

After looking at the estimated 1-5 year and 6-25 year planned costs in John’s July 30, 2019 link above – $5.3 million costs in total, I am not clear on what the intended 1-25 year planned costs related to. Was it to maintain all of the present mechanical and building interior and exterior intended uses for a hockey arena? If so, no wonder they are prohibitive. The $5.3 million capital costs would be on top of operating losses from a hockey arena. Whatever the decision, lets not sell the property and blow the money on some “feel good adventure”. If sold keep the proceeds in a reserve until a best uses study for them is exhausted with broad taxpayer input.

Reply to  Old Sailor
9 April 2021 12:36 pm

Old Sailor – I have always hoped the people elected would be people from business, especially those in key positions who have successfully balanced budgets and turned a profit or stayed afloat in tough times. I have never been a fan of let the citizen decide – makes me think of a movie driving in treacherous mountain landscape when Chevy Chase exclaimed “let the cat drive.”

Reply to  Liz
9 April 2021 12:49 pm

We agree on this one, Liz.
People who actually understand what “profit” means, let alone ever “turned” one. Income statement. Balance sheet. Depreciation.
How can anyone make major decisions without understanding and having genuine experience with the concepts to begin with.

Last edited 6 days ago by JimT
Reply to  JimT
9 April 2021 2:30 pm

Sadly Jim the voters decide. I like the other guys hair better, he’s going to give us this – although his policies will bankrupt – case in point – the “mayor with hair” as he was billed – former mayor of Toronto, elected two terms – walked the line with the striking union workers – every City worker voted for him. I’ld rather have had a bald mayor with fiscal sensibilities not catering to ensure they are elected with very bad policies and use of tax dollars. The media is at fault as well. Gave that mayor terrific press – fell all over him with accolades.
Just one example and there are many more sitting today. People need to take their voting more seriously and look at the qualifications offered by the candidates.

Last edited 6 days ago by Liz
9 April 2021 10:41 am

Tear it down, sell the land. The coming years will not be kind. The deficit created by COVID will have to be repaid. User Fees and tax increases are in the cards. There are still many projects that will require tax dollars such as our “jewel” of a harbour. Tough decisions ahead this is just the first.

Last edited 6 days ago by Liz
Irene k
9 April 2021 10:02 am

I think we should demolish this arena and sell the land to build affordable rental housing. Use the money to add a swimming pool to the CCC.

Reply to  Irene k
9 April 2021 10:48 am

Who will build and pay for this “affordable rental housing” and if the cost of doing so cannot be recovered from rents that must be kept down in the “affordable” range, who should absorb the loss?
There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Reply to  JimT
9 April 2021 10:52 am

Let us have tent cities then Jim just like every where else. But whether affordable housing or some other use as you say tax dollars for anything will be short in the coming years. Hope everyone likes Kraft dinner.

Reply to  Liz
9 April 2021 11:34 am

Apparently food vouchers to be spent at local private fast food restaurants are being issued now by social services in Cobourg, $35,000 worth so far in this very new program to people in need where their income is needed for the very high rents they must pay Jim. I fail to see how anyone here can not see this is a growing problem.

Reply to  Liz
9 April 2021 1:12 pm

1) Those food vouchers seem like a very sensible
and effective way to feed those in need.

2) Let’s stop using that prissy euphemism “affordable” housing. It’s “subsidized” housing, plain and simple, and it’s necessary in a society that doesn’t want anyone living in the streets. Call it what it actually is.

Just don’t expect builders and landlords to rent out at less than their costs to build and operate; such would mean a steady transfer of their wealth from them to the tenants, and it just doesn’t work that way.

3) “Cannot” is one word. Otherwise you are stating that something “can” happen and then contradicting yourself with the very next word. Not fair to the reader. Pet peeve of mine.

Reply to  JimT
9 April 2021 2:43 pm

I’ll believe it when I see their profit and loss sheets Jim otherwise with doubling rents it would appear they are making a killing.

Reply to  Liz
9 April 2021 11:35 am

Wait a minute, Liz: I never said “tax dollars for anything will be short in coming years” nor, in fact, did I say build affordable housing there. Maybe you’re quoting someone else.

To me, “affordable” is a misleading euphemism for “subsidized” housing. Society must provide housing for those who cannot provide it for themselves, yes, but we must never lose sight of the fact that it is “taxpayer subsidized” housing that makes if “affordable”.

Last edited 6 days ago by JimT
Reply to  JimT
9 April 2021 11:53 am

So where do people live then Jim. Tents is the alternative. Toronto is a prime example a study was done about the supposedly decreased rents as there are many more vacancies – guess what the rent have actually gone up not down. There is a problem – one place advertised today on Kijiji just a short way from Cobourg is asking now $1650. Knew a lady renting there just 3 years ago she was paying at that time $850. What is wrong with this picture Jim, surely their expenses haven’t increased to the point where they needed to double the rent. That person worked at Mcdonalds.

Last edited 6 days ago by Liz
Reply to  Liz
9 April 2021 1:45 pm

That’s not the point, Liz. If a landlord can get $1,650 for their place, why should they take $850? Supply and demand in action.

Tents in the woods are not the answer. But the Golden Plough Lodge is going to be demolished soon, even though it’s perfectly livable and could house a hundred+ people needing a roof over their head for themselves and their kids.

I get the impression that local government is trying to figure out a way to provide housing to those in need while choosing to tear down existing facilities at the same time.

Their right hand seemeth not to know what their left hand doeth.

Reply to  JimT
9 April 2021 3:14 pm

Lastly Jim I desired to know more about the changing workforce. I left a high paying job and set out to work contracts. I came in contact with many people, older workers were being dumped at that time. I attended an E.I. sponsored computer course with 40 others of the 40 plus range. Former legal secretaries, insurance industry – people that had held good jobs. After completion I called many to see how they were doing. They had achieved excellent marks and yes they were true marks. Many were still looking after repeated rejection, some had taken jobs so much lower paying. Don’t know what I had they didn’t – perhaps the gift of the gab – my mother always said bull shit baffles brains – I had excellent, very well paying jobs after.
They were very nice people that desired so much to work. Yet their prospects spelt dark futures and for some perhaps tent life. All because housing has not kept up with demand. With immigration especially it should have been a government priority to encourage private building, co-ops and affordable rent. Myself I was never fond of the big housing projects in Toronto. Regent Park got a bad rap originally but at that time it was a place for families with low income to thrive, live in a neighbourhood knowing each other and their children succeeding like anywhere else. Not so today so often in these projects.

Last edited 6 days ago by Liz
Reply to  JimT
9 April 2021 9:33 pm

The terminology used regarding housing adds to the confusion because the terms are used interchangeably but have quite different meanings.

Subsidized, geared to income, community. All are terms used to refer to housing that is available at rent rates somewhat (significantly?) below market. The properties are often owned by a tier 1 (upper) municipality (county, region or city) that has provincially mandated responsibility for housing. In our case, the tier 1 municipality is Northumberland County. Church and other non-profit organizations may also be involved.

Affordable is the term most mis-understood. All rents are affordable by some demographic so more detail and context is needed. Affordable housing (rent) is term that comes from a CMHC program that provides incentives to encourage new build/renovated housing (rental) where the rent is less than market. A landlord must offer a proportion of the units at 80% (or less) of the area average market rent (AMR) in order to qualify for the incentives..

CMHC does frequent surveys to determine the AMR in urban areas across Canada. The AMR is NOT the vacant unit “asking” rent. It is the average rent for existing rented units as determined by the CMHC survey. If renters move “frequently” the gap between AMR and “asking” will be small. Currently, the AMR and asking is larger because fewer renters are moving due to C19

CMHC defines “affordable” as 30% of the tenants gross (before tax) income. Someone earning $25 per hour has a gross income of about $50K. Their “affordable” rent is $15K per year: $1,250 per month (preferably utilities included).

Comment continues in following part 2

Reply to  Bryan
9 April 2021 9:40 pm

Affordable Housing Part 2

CMHC Average Market Rent (AMR)
CMHC Affordable Rent (AR) = 80% AMR

Year Location Size AMR $ AR $
2018 Nrthmbland 2br 1,044 835
2020 Oct Cobourg 1br 1,003 802
2020 Oct POHO 1br 1,229 983
2020 Oct Cobourg 2br 1,278 1,022
2020 Oct POHO 2br 1,328 1,062
2020 Oct Cobourg 3br 1,422 1,138
Note the rent increase 2018 to 2020  22%
Current Cobourg “For Rent” examples
Rent $
Munroe St 1BR 700′ 1,325 + Util
Munroe St 2BR 950′ 2,300 + Util
Green St 2BR 1000′ 1,500 Incl
Dale Rd 2BR 1000′ 1,650 + Util
Orange St 2BR 750′ 1,700 Incl
King W 2BR 750′ 1,700 + Util
Trillium 2BR 800′ 1,875 Incl
Trillium 3BR 930′ 2,075 Incl
Marina 2BR 1400′ 2,250 + Util
Westwood 3BR TH 1400′ 1,800 + Util

Last edited 6 days ago by Bryan
Reply to  Bryan
10 April 2021 7:14 am
  • Munroe Street, the new development classified as Affordable Market rent is $1325.00 + Utilities + Parking
  • Munroe St, new development Regular rent for this development is $2300. + Utilities + Parking
  • Orange Street is $1700. plus heat and hydro, parking included
  • Trillium is also plus hydro and plus parking

You have provided an excellent breakdown of the various affordable housing categories which I didn’t do as I thought people were aware of the different categories as they had expressed their opinions on the matter Bryan.

Cobourg taxpayer
9 April 2021 9:11 am

How many community centres can a town of 20000 support financially? In my opinion the CCC is already an excessive cost to the taxpayer,

Reply to  Cobourg taxpayer
9 April 2021 9:20 am

I agree…tear it down…sell the land…! At the current rate of events, this could be accomplished by, say, 2025.

Reply to  Cobourg taxpayer
9 April 2021 9:57 am

And how can it call itself a “community centre” when it’s so far, far away from the actual “centre” of anything?

Reply to  Cobourg taxpayer
9 April 2021 10:43 am

Sell the building with the land. The new owner can decide what to do with it!

9 April 2021 8:37 am

There were lots of suggestions to accommodate needs of the day Council ignored them .
Like a Homeless shelter or a transition house Farmers market as well
why even a covered Rib feast location affordable event center
In any event $1.7 Mil will go along way to creating — wait for it — A
Sustainable Something rather than tear it down .
Wash rooms , showers Kitchen / Canteen its all there may be old but so was Victoria College when it was repurposed
Even a youth center or a indoor sport park Roller skating , skate board park
broom ball , etc etc I know several Churches that could make good use of these marvelous buildings , parking lots . But the town will probably request a Pinchin report to justify its removal and demolition .

9 April 2021 8:15 am

A farmer / craft market on Saturday,
ball / floor hockey, or some activities the rest of the times

8 April 2021 7:11 pm

It appears that the building in question has a considerable array of solar panels on the roof, the income from which surely must be taken into consideration in any decision.
It’s not just a community building, it’s a solar farm as well.,+ON/@43.9638902,-78.176655,101m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89d5c5a7e8d5e831:0xad8838a5839714bb!8m2!3d43.9593373!4d-78.1677363

Last edited 7 days ago by JimT
Ken Strauss
Reply to  JimT
8 April 2021 11:16 pm

Are the solar panels owned by Cobourg or do we merely lease the space to someone?

Reply to  Ken Strauss
9 April 2021 10:57 am

Good question, but in any case, the town obviously has some degree of financial interest in the setup and therefore it must be considered in any discussion of the whole structure.

Last edited 6 days ago by JimT
Ken Strauss
Reply to  JimT
9 April 2021 2:25 pm

The solar panels were installed by the Northumberland Community Power Co-op in mid-2014 and a 20-year term is typical for such projects so the installation is perhaps committed until 2034. Cobourg’s budget documents show an annual rent of $6,000 from these rooftop solar panels.

Co-operative Installs Solar Panels at Cobourg, ON Arenas

Northumberland Community Power Co-operative is installing solar panels at the Jack Heenan Arena and Memorial Arena in Cobourg.

The contractor (Solarize Energy LP) obtained building permits for both arenas in August of 2014. The Town is leasing the roof space at these two locations to Northumberland Community Power Co-operative. They get a rental fee from the Town.

Northumberland Community Power Co-operative has committed to returning a portion of the projects to fund green projects within Cobourg. This partnership was approved by Cobourg council.

Source: Northumberland Today


Reply to  Ken Strauss
9 April 2021 3:46 pm

So why this discussion at all then?

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Liz
9 April 2021 4:50 pm

Liz, I’m unsure that I understand your question but… JimT’s comment piqued my curiosity. I learned that Cobourg was renting the roof for a pittance and that the contract likely has a decade or more to go. Cancellation penalties may make some suggested changes to the arena prohibitively expensive for the town.

Reply to  Ken Strauss
9 April 2021 6:35 pm

Hi Ken – my question was if a lease is in place why are we bothering to discuss what to do with the Memorial Arena as this fact of leasing was not brought out until now. Rather awkward wouldn’t you say to tear it down?
In view of the lease perhaps we should have been discussing uses for the building and the unfortunate fact it would have to be repaired in order to serve any purpose at all Ken.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Liz
9 April 2021 11:19 pm

I am not privy to the terms of the lease. Leases for rooftop solar panels were discussed in several closed sessions of Council in 2013/14 with, insofar as I can determine, no details ever being made public. One can always terminate a lease; the question is how much it will cost the town to settle any claims!

Reply to  Ken Strauss
9 April 2021 10:26 pm

Prior to installation of solar panels the non-profit cooperative that installed the panels replaced at its expense the existing roof on the Memorial Arena with a standing seam steel roof. Town benefitted with reduced maintenance costs and a roof with a significantly longer lifespan.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Tony
9 April 2021 11:48 pm

Tony (Walker?), since you are familiar with Northumberland Community Power’s Memorial Arena installation, could you provide any clarification regarding the lease agreement?

Reply to  Ken Strauss
10 April 2021 12:26 am

Thank you, Bryan and thank you, Ken Strauss for your research and comments.

Shows I was right all along in my original assertion (the first comment to appear on this page) – “the building in question has…solar panels on the roof, the income from which surely must be taken into consideration in any decision.”

Thanks again, guys.

Last edited 6 days ago by JimT
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 April 2021 9:35 pm

What would you like clarified? It is a 20 year lease ending in 2034.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Tony
11 April 2021 9:56 pm

Thank you, Tony. A 20-year term is exactly what I expected. Are there any explicit early termination penalty clauses in the lease? More generally, is a copy of the lease available for public consumption?

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 April 2021 11:00 pm

Port Hope have a similar agreement with Community Power for the use of the roof of their Town Park Recreation Centre. Their lease is probably very similar to Cobourg’s agreement which was approved a few months earlier. See page 85 of the document at which says: “During the Term the Landlord shall have no right to demolish all or any part of the Premises without the prior written consent of the Tenant, which consent may be withheld in the sole, absolute and subjective discretion of the Tenant.”

I’m not a lawyer but my guess is that we cannot demolish any part of Memorial Arena prior to 2034.

Reply to  Ken Strauss
12 April 2021 12:44 pm

CPN, a nonprofit renewable energy cooperative with about 100 local members, secured an Option to Lease in 2013. The actual lease was signed and later assigned to SE7 2013 LP in 2014. CPN is a 60% shareholder in SE7. Solarize Energy LP, a for profit company, owned the other 40%. In 2019 they sold their 40% equity to Potentia Renewable Industries.
There are termination clauses and penalties in the lease. Releasing the lease would require the consent of the Town and PRI.
In response to another comment there is no lease with the Town of Port Hope. It was only an Option to Lease which was never activated. Furthermore the payment of the annual lease by SE7 to the Town of Cobourg is the only exchange of funds that occurs between the Parties.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Tony
12 April 2021 6:36 pm

Tony, I appreciate the additional clarifications. I had been unable to locate the documentation for the exercise of the lease option in Port Hope but assumed that the problem was my lack of search skills rather than the fact that it never happened! Is it reasonable to assume that the contract with Cobourg is very similar to the preliminary agreement with Port Hope?

Reply to  Ken Strauss
10 April 2021 8:22 am

Thanks, Ken. I notice in passing that The Community Power Report (whoever they are) have reported the bizarre notion that “…They (the power co-op) get a rental fee from the Town” apparently in a mindless copy-and-paste from:

I sincerely hope that this is just addled reporting on the part of NN and not the actual facts of the case.

Last edited 5 days ago by JimT
Reply to  JimT
9 April 2021 4:50 pm

Sounds like another mess-up by Town Council…first the “lights”, next the CCC, and perhaps the Solar Panels. Just who decided this arena should contract out to 2034??

Reply to  cornbread
9 April 2021 6:34 pm

I’d love to know what the alternative to the CCC would have been? Something needed to be built. Memorial was built in the 1950s and does not even meet accessibility standards.

Reply to  Ahewson
9 April 2021 7:00 pm

As I happen to be on the blog I answer Ahewson – think Cornbread is referring to the bungling of the heating/boiler choice for the CCC. Apparently Council made a bad and foolish selection in this. This was brought out a few subjects back.

Reply to  Liz
9 April 2021 7:22 pm

Fair enough, if that is the case then is council expected to be make the correct decision 100% of the time. The streetlight thing is brought up almost daily on this blog, how long ago did that even happen? Every business, municipality, person, makes poor decisions at somepoint, simple fact of life.

Reply to  Ahewson
9 April 2021 7:49 pm

I am just the bearer Ahewson of what Cornbread was referring to. Perhaps you should inquire with Cornbread.

Reply to  Liz
10 April 2021 5:57 am

I was making a general statement.

Besides that, your wording (bungling, bad, foolish) regarding the boiler choice for the CCC, leads me to believe you have similar thoughts as cornbread.

Reply to  Ahewson
10 April 2021 7:29 am

That was how it was described Ahewson – myself I wonder – the feel good town ….
Overwhelming opinions expressed in the Blog –
CCC is a big drain on tax dollars despite every community having some form of municipal run recreation centres
Affordable Housing garners nothing but down votes
Beach – citizens desire charges for use of beach and parking
Rehab Centre despite restrictions – not wanted
Sidewalks for safety apparently not wanted either

Myself I would like to see more enforcement. Strolling in Peace Park noted a group of crack addicts with pipes hanging a teddy bear off the bridge. Age late teens. Noted discussion among fishermen, local man snagging and being advised to stop by others, fine if enforced. Despite no travel rules people from Kingston and Toronto fishing – Toronto especially high COVID rate – news advised travel is restricted and fines would be issued for transgressors – now there is a source of income for the town yet regularly people from other regions are at our creeks daily.

Last edited 5 days ago by Liz
Reply to  Liz
10 April 2021 9:03 am

As with century-old places of worship with financial difficulties & the constant search for affordable housing; the demolition; sale or re-purposing of an old Arena is a common undertaking for communities all across the country. The process starts with an Ad-hoc Committee; 6 months later, the Committee comes up with a multitude of well-intentioned but unworkable ideas; 6 months later a market valuation; a few months later an impoverished-but popular-community group puts a bid in to lease the space for a single digit fraction of the market value; the Ad-Hoc Committee/Council is compelled to issue a Call for Submissions to sell 6 re-develop the site….and the next Council takes it from there…ho-hum…another study….
Research in Kitchener-Waterloo suggested that for every 10,000 citizens, a community needed one Arena. Well we are 19,000..and growing so….
In any case-I think the Ad-Hoc Committee should incorporate the CCC(use & financials) together in their discussion. The worst thing in the world would be to demolish the site and be compelled to build another money losing new Arena 5 years from now named after a failed Mayor(pick one)….or as with Cobourg West, to sell the property to the lowest bidder on conditions that never get met.

Reply to  Ahewson
12 April 2021 12:14 am

There are several consultants studies/reports on the CCC and Arenas, dated 2009 to 2012.
The Arenas Dept Business Plan March 2011 outlines a number of altenative uses for the Memorial and Heenan arenas. The report also notes that the arenas are in good structural shape with the following exceptions:
Ma: Roof $240K, North wall “crack” $70K
Ha: Pad
I don’t have a link to this document (civicweb documents not accessible) I have asked the CTA to post the documents on their website under Resources.

Reply to  Bryan
12 April 2021 8:57 am

The CTA has agreed to post these documents on their website in the resources section.

In addition to these “arena” reports, there are documents on numerous topics that you may find interesting.

Reply to  cornbread
12 April 2021 12:04 am

There seems to be a knee jerk reaction to fault Council each time something goes wrong. Staff are equally or more responsible. They do the research, negotiate the deals and prepare the contracts. Council are not “subject matter experts” and trust that staff have done the required due diligence. As we have repeatedly seen, staff have not been up to the task, resulting in poor decisions by Council.
This does not excuse Council from failing in their oversight duty as mandated by the Municipal Act.

Last edited 4 days ago by Bryan