|
图/万锦市政府 万锦市大型体育馆模型图
万锦市议会体育、康乐和文化附属委员会周五提出新的财务框架：建体育馆所需的3.25亿元资金，GTA体娱(GTA Sports & Entertainment)承担其中的一半；按日前达成的协议，地产商集团将出资7000万元；市政府将体育馆出租给GTA体娱20年，将获得3250万元的租金；加上已经向发展商收取的1000万元费用，目前剩下5000万元的缺口。
市长薛家平表示，兴建体育馆可以为万锦市带来经济效益，不会动用纳税人的钱。
认为建体育馆应该完全由私营资金承担的副市长许正杰今天在一封题为《离目标尚远》的公开信中指出，新的财务框架只比老的财务框架好了一点点。
他在公开信中指出，他支持体育馆由私人资金来建，这有两个标准：第一，市政府不应该承担任何贷款或财务担保，但在新的财务框架里仍有一笔1.652亿元的贷款加利息（总共2.5亿）；第二，不应该征收任何可能影响作为整体或个人的纳税人的特别税收或其他费用。他不知道出资7000万元的发展商将如何收回7000万元加利息。他想知道将出资7000万元的是哪些发展商，并向他们提出他心中的疑问。
他还指出，尽管市长仍有5000万元的缺口，但市政府在旧的财务框架下收取的1000万元特别税收应该归坏，否则旧财务框架下收取，新财务框架下不收取，会引来官司，最后纳税人将蒙受损失。
他还在公开信中对新的财务框架提出了种种疑问。
许正杰认为，新的财务框架很复杂，市议会不可能在下几天进行投票。
附：
赞成方提出的新财务框架：
副市长许正杰回应建大型体育馆新的财务框架的公开信全文：
The New Financial Framework - Much More Has to be Done to Make it Work
I am not changing my motion to agree to the new framework. The new one is only a little better than the old one.
Where I start is with my two long-standing criteria for “private funding.” I support an arena being built if it is privately funded but this isn’t. First criteria, no loan or financial guarantee by the City, for a dime or for $325M plus interest. The New Proposed Financial Framework (NPFF) has a loan in it for $162.5M plus interest. So the total is almost $250M. No go. The second criteria is no special levies or any other charges which could directly impact the taxpayers as a group or as individuals. I don’t know how the developers on the hook for $70M plus interest plan to recover their money. Be assured they do and it will probably effect the price of new houses but if we start down that road it quickly gets very complicated. If they attach no special levies to new units, or anything equivalent, to the direct detriment of new or current taxpayers, then I am not going to argue too much. They are investors in this case and have a rights like any other business. I do want to know who the developers are and how much they have committed to, and talk to them about the many questions I have. I want to know who’s not in as well. Mandatory is an issue and very difficult. This part may need to be in-camera, I don’t see why but I will ask our solicitor. We should not approve this huge deal without knowing who our partners are and the exact contractual arrangements! Nevertheless, the Mayor is still $50M short. But the $10M collected from Special Levies in the old Proposed Financial Framework (PFF) is still in the new proposal. Why should a person who has bought one of those units, the amount collected equals about 2,000 units, have to pay their $5,000 or so when tomorrow’s purchaser doesn’t? I will want to know which developers paid the levies and if any didn’t. These are good reasons to sue to get it back. If such a suit were successful, the taxpayers of Markham have to pay. This Special Levy money is a left-over of the PFF and should be returned to the contributors; we start over with the NPFF.
The Mayor has stated that the NPFF does not include any tax dollars. Public funding is more than just tax dollars; with a loan or guarantee or Special Levies comes risk. The vast majority of our taxpayers do not want that.
There are many other problems with the new proposed framework, and most may be solvable, but for me, the two main criteria above have to be met before looking too closely at the rest.
But, I’ll try a few. At a glance, one major problem is that the City receives no money in the new Proposed Financial Framework (NPFF). Owning a building like the GTA Centre doesn’t help pay for repaving a street, or adding a new swing set in the neighbourhood park. In the NPFF, the lease revenues go to pay for the building on Markham’s side of the 50%! And after 20 years when the loan for the building is paid, the developers in for the $70M (and the other $50M still needed) get 25% of their investment back using the lease money from year’s 21 and on. There are no lease revenues, seat surcharges, parking profits, etc. going to Markham’s general revenues as in the old PFF to help keep taxes down. Nor to our life cycle reserve. For all they have endured, the taxpayers should be getting real cash. Diversifying Markham’s revenue streams has always been one of my objectives as a Councillor; that’s why I support our initiatives with Powerstream and Markham District Energy. I’ve run a business and really think diversified revenue streams make for a stronger entity. So far it is working very well with Markham; the first framework contributed to this strategy (even though it had major faults elsewhere!).
A second glance shows a totally inadequate Major Repair Fund. $.5M a year for 30 years is $15M – with inflation escalation maybe $20M. With a $325M building, how much more will the roof cost when it goes? I asked for more information this Friday, expected costs and a timetable for different repairs. After 22 years, who is going to pay for 20,000 new seats? That’s the time frame when we put in new seats at the FLATO Markham Theatre. A major portion would be gone for the seats alone! If the building is a Municipal Capital Facility, we would own it and have to pay the extra money for an inadequate reserve fund. Not for me, says Jack Heath.
A third glance shows the deal is short $212.5M. The Mayor has stated that he still needs $50M from the developers, and we all know the easy money comes first. He has about 60% of his $120M goal. But GTASE doesn’t have any investors either. The Star this morning stated that they must find $162.5M from investors. I thought they were signing a note for that amount with a wealthy business person or two, possibly associated with hockey, as co-signor(s). Not the case. This deal is very far from funded. We need much more evidence it is viable for GTASE, let alone us.
On the give-Frank-more-time idea, I haven’t thought about it that much. If Council agrees that it wants the construction costs privately funded, and I am seriously thinking of the building being private afterwards too, then Clause #3 of my motion speaks to this. Council including the Mayor will have to decide on that shortly. My motion says give him more time if private funding is main criteria. That clause is separate from the first two which basically kill the old PFF. I asked the Mayor if there was room for negotiation, as much more has to be done to make it work, and I am not 100% certain of his viewpoint. I hope so.
I feel inadequate doing an analysis only two days after seeing the NPFF. It is so complicated. But here are my quick comments! I trust we won’t be voting on it in the next few days. That would make a mockery of Council – approving our biggest capital expenditure ever on 4 days notice.
Feel free to distribute if you wish.
Jack Heath
Deputy Mayor of Markham & York Region Councillor |
相关文章
