When the original Cottonwood Market folly was cancelled last year - after having cost the taxpayer and CBT at least $82.600 - the public wasn't officially informed of any of what - we know now - has continued to go on bandshellwise - not cancelled at all! - in City Hall's hushed corridors.
To this date, no specific purpose for its costly artificial life-support has been made clear by the City. The Request for Decision, 6 Jun, 2017, has not addressed this either, even though at last there it should be. Topping that - Council has been prompted to approve this unasked-for-by-the-public remake incomplete.
In the Committee of the Whole, 19 Jun, 2017, Councillor Dailly questioned the above/below amounts I presented - essentially calling them a lie. Making him an example of individual disengagement in Council's process: this not speaking well for the whole.
The figures are real - easily accessible to those interested.
Including Councillor Dailly if.
While it is unprofessional and presumptive of Cover Architecture to submit an incomplete proposal for approval - it is highly irregular of Colin Innes, Public Works, and Kevin Cormack, CAO, to accept and put it before Council as-is.
But then - Staff presenting incomplete and/or poorly substantiated or even unsubstantiated projects to Council for approval has become the norm: the original Cottonwood Market; Hall St 1, 2 and the Panhandling Bylaw come to mind.
Council approving an incomplete design such as this bandshell and Hall St 2 leaves loopholes for unapproved changes and additions in design - thus funding - at will.
Nowhere in this Request are costs of the new bandshell-design itself addressed. To be considered: designs for the ankle-twisting concrete vendors'-space, a similar bandshell (made of the same now praised-to-high-heaven material), toilet-facilities, etc. are already-paid-for-parts of the original Cottonwood Market plan.
When comparing the 2 renderings below - the viewer will find that Cover Architecture didn't bother with a completely different presentation for design #2. Foreground, people, ground-cover and produce-displays are those from #1. They basically just pulled the first bandshell and inserted the second. While this probably saves time, energy and money - it is also unimaginative and dismissive of those this ostensibly is meant for.
But it's not really meant for us: the architects have made clear that they are using this remake as a lab-test for their super-material, ultimately aiming for award-worthy.
For themselves - on our dollar.
What's the point in replacing #1 with #2? Both to be made of the same stuff - both insubstantial and non-functional.
City Staff's role in all this is unclear - they're not telling.
Back to biggish money. Last fall - after the cancellation of the original unworkable market extravaganza - I found: soon after that at least 2 cheques were cut at City Hall for Cover Architecture, totaling about $5.000. Inquiring for what these payments were made, I was informed: for the Cottonwood Market.
The gift that keeps on giving to Cover Architecture.
About the Need for a Bandshell:
1
If it is to be used only for informal performances during market-hours on Saturdays - we don't need it, particularly visually as off-putting as this. Its crippled, unbalanced form would add no acoustic value to sound; it would offer little shelter to performers.
2
If it is to be used for more formal evening-performances - here we go again! - there needs to be lighting and sound-amplification.
How much exactly - at what cost?
2a
There also needs to be adequate lighting to address safety-concerns for the whole area: from wherever people will park and stand listening to toilet-facilities.
How much exactly, hooked-up where and to what - at what cost?
2b
There will be major environmental concerns - like garbage containment/pick-up and people trampling all over unlit parts - such as the Japanese garden - in search of a place where to indulge their habits.
Who exactly will run parking, toilets, trash, general environmental degradation and security - at what cost?
2c
Who exactly will be responsible for operating the whole?
Cover Architecture's approach to the costs of actually building their self-serving design #2 follows the fundraising-pattern established by David Reid's ego and Kevin Cormack with the earlier Cottonwood Market: vague promises and vaguer possibilities and - nothing!
What is missing here - often at City Hall - is linear thinking: No feasibility-study towards a commonly established need plus clearly to spiral costs should make this project a no-go.
Councillor Cherbo - in his recent Star column - is looking at the possibility that Council could put more effort into connecting with the public. In my memory:
a first and to be commended.
This should apply to top-management as well - even more so: their jobs are fulltime, for which they get paid very well.
With our dollar.
The notion "You can't beat City Hall!" needs to go!
Image Credits:
Cover Architecture Collaborative
Nichole Fernandez
Kevin Cormack, CAO
kcormack@nelson.ca
Colin McClure, CFO
cmcclure@nelson.ca
Deb Kozak, Mayor
dkozak@nelson.ca
Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
Precisely the same thing happened with the Community Solar garden. It was presented to council by Alex Love manager of Nelson hydro using the consulting engineers report showing cost estimates at $224,000 when they had no idea of costs. But this is where the opt in pretend cost of $923 per panel came from. At that time no grants were known. I was at a city council meeting where CAO Cormack was urging councilors to move forward. Janice Morrison, acting mayor said "I think we need to know the costs". Next thing I heard, "its a done deal". Could this be legal in the eyes of the community charter? A later grant from the province stated there must be a media announcement about the grant. Where? I stumbled across this in the Rossland miner newspaper. Why was it not mentioned in local media? This entire project was pure politics with costs never known and we still don't know, other than it increases this cities carbon footprint although Alex Love states it aligns with the cities path to 2040 all about carbon reduction. At a public meeting I asked Mr. Love what makes the solar garden power green? His reponse "nobody said it was green". He says its a credit against excess power purchase from Fortis? How, we make a 250% profit selling clean green Fortis waterpower, they want me to pay full retail for this solar power so those who think they are saving the planet can appear as though there may be some payback. Mr. Love says it gives Nelson hydro a chance to learn about solar, all the work was done by contractors? The contractor hired to deliver the project, paid $79,000 one year is a cost not included, they still don't know their costs, a contractor was working these past couple weeks, was their any RFP or RFQ for this? Nothing I could find. They do what they want, does this mayor and council believe everything without question that city management brings to them?
ReplyDeleteLet me add, the consulting engineers report had a get out of jail free card, the engineers statement "not all costs are shown". Engineers spend a lot of their training learning how to avoid liability, these kinds of statements are part of that. There is no data to support the annual power earned at that location, it was from a Swiss computer program and Nelson airport weather records. Nelson has never recorded sunlight hours the only data pertinent to solar calculations. The engineers report shows annual power exceeding 30% of all known decades of local solar data. How else can you come up with a business case!
ReplyDelete