Hi all-
We’ve recently learned that the City has spent over $600,000 on costs related to maintenance at the pulp mill. To get the exact dollar figure, as well as a month-by-month breakdown in a dazzling chart, please go here: muskegnews.com/the-cost-of-an-inoperative-mill
Ciao.
-Muskeg News
“Six suitors immediately showed interest, but City administration rejected all the initial bids without consulting council.” (Muskeg News)
That’s been reported before … but it still seems bizarre that anyone would think that not consulting with the council was a good idea. Hopefully the council members are now being kept in the loop so that in due course they can make well informed decisions.
It would be interesting to know if whoever Watson Island is sold to … CN and perhaps others associated with the Port, at least some of us hope … includes one or more of the six companies whose original proposals were returned to them by the administration. I never did get that … mailing information back … seems rather final, as if a statement was being made … kind of like Dief the Chief having the plans for the Avro Arrow destroyed.
“Despite the costs associated with the mill site, Mussallem said his legacy won’t be significantly understood through the prism of selling the property.” (Muskeg News)
Funny comment from the Mayor … as in odd not ha-ha … as if he’s contemplating how he will remembered in peoples’ memories or in historical accounts … after he’s gone. There’s also something mea culpa about his acknowledgment that the Sun Wave law suits were not expected and “the transaction has been harder to pull off than he would have ever expected.” There’s something a bit sad about that (but then I voted for him) … Watson Island will be part of his record … his “legacy” … but it doesn’t doesn’t sound like he and the council have been particularly well advised or supported in this matter.
Muskeg News reported on August 23 what appears to be incorrect or out-of-date information about “the exact price tag” for the city maintaining the Watson Island mill site since taking ownership from Sun Wave last year. The article reported expenses of $623,950.61 as of July 31, 2010. The source was cited as “City Hall”.
Information in financial reports presented by CFO Dan Rodin to the city council indicates that net costs during that period were considerably higher.
The CFO’s April 12, 2010 financial report to the council reported “Actual YTD December 2009” expenditures on Watson Island of $256,569 and revenue of $15,000, for a net cost of $241,569 in 2009. The revenue is presumably for renting warehouse space to Quickload.
Mr Rodin’s “July 2010 Monthly Departmental Report”, which is to be presented at tonight’s council meeting, indicates expenditures on Watson Island in 2010 of $620,433 and revenue of $35,000, for a net cost of $585,433.
Based on the CFO’s reports, the net cost to the city of maintaining Watson Island since taking ownership last year up to July 2010 has been $827,002.
The city’s approved budget provides for $1,007,000 expenditures and $60,000 revenue for Watson Island in 2010, for a net cost of $947,000. Based on a monthly average of $82,700 during the ten months covered by the CFO’s reports, the city may be exceeding the budget if costs continue at current levels until the end of 2010.
Oh oh, somebody didn’t do their research!
lol. You are funny Smurfette. I wish I knew who you were, I’d send you a bag of cheesies and can of cream soda to congratulate you.
[quote=“Huh?”]
lol. You are funny Smurfette. I wish I knew who you were, I’d send you a bag of cheesies and can of cream soda to congratulate you.[/quote]
Aw thanks ever so much, but cheeses don’t agree with me and cream soda makes me gassy!
Hi all -
As there appears to be some confusion, we’d like to clear something up. The numbers that we reported on were for maintenance costs only. We mentioned this a few times in the story, as you can see here: muskegnews.com/the-cost-of-an-inoperative-mill
As BTravenn’s in-depth report shows, there are costs over-and-above the maintenance costs that pertain to Watson Island. Still, you’ll notice that the maintenance costs from October 2009 - July 2010 ($623,950.61) form the vast bulk of the total expenditures for Watson Island.
In other words, we’re right, and so is BTravenn. Hope that clears things up a bit.
-Muskeg News
[quote=“Muskeg News”]Hi all -
As there appears to be some confusion, we’d like to clear something up. The numbers that we reported on were for maintenance costs only. We mentioned this a few times in the story, as you can see here: muskegnews.com/the-cost-of-an-inoperative-mill
As BTravenn’s in-depth report shows, there are costs over-and-above the maintenance costs that pertain to Watson Island. Still, you’ll notice that the maintenance costs from October 2009 - July 2010 ($623,950.61) form the vast bulk of the total expenditures for Watson Island.
In other words, we’re right, and so is BTravenn. Hope that clears things up a bit.
-Muskeg News[/quote]
How can you both be right?
If there is a discrepancy in the numbers reported between your article and the other website item referenced by BTravenn, one would think that one or the other discussion pieces is wrong?
By the way, any comment on the warning (in the original item referenced) to be wary of reports in the post Daily News era, could be illuminating as to your proposed concept of reporting for your site and flyer.
Does anyone else wonder if the POTASH facility may locate to the old mill site?
[quote=“Smurfette”]
I don’t think it’s so much a question of which numbers are right as which are most relevant. A report under the heading “City has spent over $600,000 on the mill” would seem to be talking about the city’s total Watson island costs, not just some of them. It turns out that for reasons unknown Muskeg was only talking about 3/4 of the costs, in particular $623,951.61 in undefined “maintenance costs” … as if what that is comprised of and why it’s significant would be self-evident to any reader, which it’s not, or at least not to me and I suspect some others.
Is that the cost of employing electricians, millwrights etc … I thought the city laid off the tradesmen when they summarily dismissed the PPWC workers and replaced them with former managers whose transferable skills I would think would be more in the watch keeping department rather than twisting wrenches, bashing tin or otherwise doing ‘maintenance’. I don’t know, maybe there’s a story in that number somewhere, but at present I don’t see one.
I think that the only number people are really interested in is the total cost to date, the whole shebang, not what a particular sub-total has added up to … other than perhaps how much the city has spent on lawyers … that would be interesting, but the number is probably buried in admin somewhere and would take much digging to reveal.
I don’t know why Muskeg decided to focus on part of the costs rather than the total. I’m not big on conspiracy theories … I like to read them but avoid writing my own … but perhaps the Mayor … concerned about his legacy and having admitted to Muskeg with surprising candour that he and the administration had not anticipated the Sun Wave law suits or the complexity of the issues … decided to float a partial number to a news starved audience … ie what has been spent on “maintenance costs” … in order to downplay the financial consequences of a misreading of the situation and other fumblings of the ball. If so, not a smart move … some of us read the council agenda packages.
In any event, the most relevant number, I suggest, is not the $623,950.61 spent on unknown “maintenance costs”, but the $827,002 total that, according to the CFO’s information, has been spent on Watson Island up to July 2010 … surprisingly close to initial projections or fears and if current trends continue a bit above the roughly $1 million a year that the city budgeted for.
I hope that there is a future for potash here, at Watson Island or otherwise, but the industry seems to be in some turmoil these days what with BHP Billiton’s hostile takeover bid of the Campotex group. Perhaps ThePodunkian will untangle the news reports when he returns to his op-ed labours.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
[quote=“Smurfette”]
How can you both be right?
If there is a discrepancy in the numbers reported between your article and the other website item referenced by BTravenn, one would think that one or the other discussion pieces is wrong?
I don’t think it’s so much a question of which numbers are right as which are most relevant. A report under the heading “City has spent over $600,000 on the mill” would seem to be talking about the city’s total Watson island costs, not just some of them. It turns out that for reasons unknown Muskeg was only talking about 3/4 of the costs, in particular $623,951.61 in undefined “maintenance costs” … as if what that is comprised of and why it’s significant would be self-evident to any reader, which it’s not, or at least not to me and I suspect some others.
Is that the cost of employing electricians, millwrights etc … I thought the city laid off the tradesmen when they summarily dismissed the PPWC workers and replaced them with former managers whose transferable skills I would think would be more in the watch keeping department rather than twisting wrenches, bashing tin or otherwise doing ‘maintenance’. I don’t know, maybe there’s a story in that number somewhere, but at present I don’t see one.
I think that the only number people are really interested in is the total cost to date, the whole shebang, not what a particular sub-total has added up to … other than perhaps how much the city has spent on lawyers … that would be interesting, but the number is probably buried in admin somewhere and would take much digging to reveal.
I don’t know why Muskeg decided to focus on part of the costs rather than the total. I’m not big on conspiracy theories … I like to read them but avoid writing my own … but perhaps the Mayor … concerned about his legacy and having admitted to Muskeg with surprising candour that he and the administration had not anticipated the Sun Wave law suits or the complexity of the issues … decided to float a partial number to a news starved audience … ie what has been spent on “maintenance costs” … in order to downplay the financial consequences of a misreading of the situation and other fumblings of the ball. If so, not a smart move … some of us read the council agenda packages.
In any event, the most relevant number, I suggest, is not the $623,950.61 spent on unknown “maintenance costs”, but the $827,002 total that, according to the CFO’s information, has been spent on Watson Island up to July 2010 … surprisingly close to initial projections or fears and if current trends continue a bit above the roughly $1 million a year that the city budgeted for.
I hope that there is a future for potash here, at Watson Island or otherwise, but the industry seems to be in some turmoil these days what with BHP Billiton’s hostile takeover bid of the Campotex group. Perhaps ThePodunkian will untangle the news reports when he returns to his op-ed labours.[/quote]
Well one thing is certain, it isn’t councillor Thorkelson who would offer up such devious interpretations of civic circumstances, after all, if I remember correctly she doesn’t think we should trust any information found on the inter tubes!
[quote=“BTravenn”]
[quote=“Smurfette”]
How can you both be right?
If there is a discrepancy in the numbers reported between your article and the other website item referenced by BTravenn, one would think that one or the other discussion pieces is wrong?
I don’t think it’s so much a question of which numbers are right as which are most relevant. A report under the heading “City has spent over $600,000 on the mill” would seem to be talking about the city’s total Watson island costs, not just some of them. It turns out that for reasons unknown Muskeg was only talking about 3/4 of the costs, in particular $623,951.61 in undefined “maintenance costs” … as if what that is comprised of and why it’s significant would be self-evident to any reader, which it’s not, or at least not to me and I suspect some others.
Is that the cost of employing electricians, millwrights etc … I thought the city laid off the tradesmen when they summarily dismissed the PPWC workers and replaced them with former managers whose transferable skills I would think would be more in the watch keeping department rather than twisting wrenches, bashing tin or otherwise doing ‘maintenance’. I don’t know, maybe there’s a story in that number somewhere, but at present I don’t see one.
I think that the only number people are really interested in is the total cost to date, the whole shebang, not what a particular sub-total has added up to … other than perhaps how much the city has spent on lawyers … that would be interesting, but the number is probably buried in admin somewhere and would take much digging to reveal.
I don’t know why Muskeg decided to focus on part of the costs rather than the total. I’m not big on conspiracy theories … I like to read them but avoid writing my own … but perhaps the Mayor … concerned about his legacy and having admitted to Muskeg with surprising candour that he and the administration had not anticipated the Sun Wave law suits or the complexity of the issues … decided to float a partial number to a news starved audience … ie what has been spent on “maintenance costs” … in order to downplay the financial consequences of a misreading of the situation and other fumblings of the ball. If so, not a smart move … some of us read the council agenda packages.
In any event, the most relevant number, I suggest, is not the $623,950.61 spent on unknown “maintenance costs”, but the $827,002 total that, according to the CFO’s information, has been spent on Watson Island up to July 2010 … surprisingly close to initial projections or fears and if current trends continue a bit above the roughly $1 million a year that the city budgeted for.
I hope that there is a future for potash here, at Watson Island or otherwise, but the industry seems to be in some turmoil these days what with BHP Billiton’s hostile takeover bid of the Campotex group. Perhaps ThePodunkian will untangle the news reports when he returns to his op-ed labours.[/quote]
I like how you wrote “I’m not big on conspiracy theories” and then went ahead and offered your own. One should never be ashamed of contradicting oneself in a paragraph… torn up by useless elipses… that yawn… er… where… was … I???
I’m huge on conspiracy theories, and here’s one: BTravenn is planning to run for mayor and is looking to get a dig on Mayor Moustachio whenever he can. So he posts here on the incredible HTMF that he has found the secret plan to destroy the fair city by those carpetbaggers and that nutty Mayor… oh Jack (elipses inspired by BTravenn).
So, BTravenn, an expert on media having worked at several of the world’s top rags comes up with this lunacy of “a number floated” to that dingbat Baker by Moustachio and then says, “some of us read the council packages.” What were his sources?.. somewhere out there… clearly Baker and Armstrong don’t read the council packages. And even more clearly, as offered by the in-denial conspiracy theorist, both are in cahoots with Moustachio in the big conspiracy to one day have Jack’s statue stand mightily beside that of St. Charlie’s at City Hall. Well, he or she – no, let’s go with IT – has done some navel gazing and has discovered the great north coast conspiracy.
Maybe it’s the rye, maybe it’s Sherie’s smelly feet, maybe it’s the neon orange glow growing in my belly, but I missed hearing about this “Campotex”. Did they also come to town, hold a town hall meeting for no real reason? Is it a rival Canadian potash marketing consortium? Why doesn’t Muskeg know about them too? Why didn’t the mayor tell us about this group? So many questions go unanswered by that man. And what’s he hiding under that moustache of his (that conspicuously grew in to a goatee… gasp! perhaps he’s hiding more than we think?)
Instead of that, though, maybe we can all hope CANPOTEX comes to town.
Welp, good posting all of you. Especially that funny Smurfette – that avatar gets me every time.
I hope you find out more about what these Muskeg losers are up to. And when you do get elected Non-Mayor of Conspiracyville, perhaps you will throw your hefty political weight behind the WTF Party’s federal campaign. We favour getting rid of the Pistol Gun Registry and with your support, I’m sure we can have Huh? for MP and the gun registry done away with as quick as a bullet.
“Yes, Sherie, I’m coming to bed. I’ve just got one more elipses to type…”
From Huh’s contribution above.
"I like how you wrote “I’m not big on conspiracy theories” and then went ahead and offered your own. One should never be ashamed of contradicting oneself in a paragraph… torn up by useless elipses… that yawn… er… where… was … I???
I’m huge on conspiracy theories, and here’s one: BTravenn is planning to run for mayor and is looking to get a dig on Mayor Moustachio whenever he can. So he posts here on the incredible HTMF that he has found the secret plan to destroy the fair city by those carpetbaggers and that nutty Mayor… oh Jack (elipses inspired by BTravenn).
So, BTravenn, an expert on media having worked at several of the world’s top rags comes up with this lunacy of “a number floated” to that dingbat Baker by Moustachio and then says, “some of us read the council packages.” What were his sources?.. somewhere out there… clearly Baker and Armstrong don’t read the council packages. And even more clearly, as offered by the in-denial conspiracy theorist, both are in cahoots with Moustachio in the big conspiracy to one day have Jack’s statue stand mightily beside that of St. Charlie’s at City Hall. Well, he or she – no, let’s go with IT – has done some navel gazing and has discovered the great north coast conspiracy.
Maybe it’s the rye, maybe it’s Sherie’s smelly feet, maybe it’s the neon orange glow growing in my belly, but I missed hearing about this “Campotex”. Did they also come to town, hold a town hall meeting for no real reason? Is it a rival Canadian potash marketing consortium? Why doesn’t Muskeg know about them too? Why didn’t the mayor tell us about this group? So many questions go unanswered by that man. And what’s he hiding under that moustache of his (that conspicuously grew in to a goatee… gasp! perhaps he’s hiding more than we think?)
Instead of that, though, maybe we can all hope CANPOTEX comes to town.
Welp, good posting all of you. Especially that funny Smurfette – that avatar gets me every time.
I hope you find out more about what these Muskeg losers are up to. And when you do get elected Non-Mayor of Conspiracyville, perhaps you will throw your hefty political weight behind the WTF Party’s federal campaign. We favour getting rid of the Pistol Gun Registry and with your support, I’m sure we can have Huh? for MP and the gun registry done away with as quick as a bullet.
“Yes, Sherie, I’m coming to bed. I’ve just got one more elipses to type…”
By GEORGE, you are a wordy fella aren’t ya!
[quote=“Smurfette”]
By GEORGE, you are a wordy fella aren’t ya![/quote]
Yes, George, you’re right, I did write for a national magazine in days gone by, and a regional journal as well … it takes one to know one sometimes. If writing something I’ve researched, as I did above, I avoid using ellipses, which is more of a texting technique and certainly not good journalistic practice. I’m not surprised that you took issue with that. My spelling and transcription of names are usually at least as good as PRDN’s during its’ last years.
And no, I don’t think that Muskeg is involved in a conspiracy with the Mayor. While conspiracy theories should be used with caution they are sometimes the only remaining explanation for misleading or incomplete reports from government. Around here it’s more of a conspiracy of silence against the electorate. I think that the pulp mill story was a good read, but “maintenance costs” should have been defined or more financial information asked for and presented.
Muskeg News is an interesting project and, subject to Smurfette’s cautionary advice above, I hope that it continues. That being said, notwithstanding that the journalism biz is in a pretty precarious state these days, I think that there are better opportunities elsewhere for a young journalist. Ciao, eh.
[quote=“Huh?”]
I like how you wrote “I’m not big on conspiracy theories” and then went ahead and offered your own. One should never be ashamed of contradicting oneself in a paragraph… torn up by useless elipses… that yawn… er… where… was … I???
I’m huge on conspiracy theories, and here’s one: BTravenn is planning to run for mayor and is looking to get a dig on Mayor Moustachio whenever he can. So he posts here on the incredible HTMF that he has found the secret plan to destroy the fair city by those carpetbaggers and that nutty Mayor… oh Jack (elipses inspired by BTravenn).
So, BTravenn, …[/quote]
By GEORGE, this is an interesting observation, one dripped in sarcasm and perhaps a healthy heaping of derision.
Using the “incredible HTMF” to suggest that those that peruse these postings are somehow not quite up to the task of divining information provided on these mighty portals of the intertubes. Particularly interesting considering the frequent use of Muskeg News of this same “incredible HTMF” to point would be readers off in their direction to learn more.
There surely is a useful word for a situation as this, one which seems to be working at cross purposes, perhaps someone with a better thesaurus than I can offer us up some helpful reading tips there.
Not sure what the folks at Rupert’s newest provider of news content might think of such talk, though one imagines they are thankful that Huh is not in charge of the marketing department!
It’s worth remembering that former media outlets in the market that tended to treat a potential audience with such a sense of derision didn’t fare too well.
[quote=“Smurfette”]
[quote=“Huh?”]
I like how you wrote “I’m not big on conspiracy theories” and then went ahead and offered your own. One should never be ashamed of contradicting oneself in a paragraph… torn up by useless elipses… that yawn… er… where… was … I???
I’m huge on conspiracy theories, and here’s one: BTravenn is planning to run for mayor and is looking to get a dig on Mayor Moustachio whenever he can. So he posts here on the incredible HTMF that he has found the secret plan to destroy the fair city by those carpetbaggers and that nutty Mayor… oh Jack (elipses inspired by BTravenn).
So, BTravenn, …[/quote]
By GEORGE, this is an interesting observation, one dripped in sarcasm and perhaps a healthy heaping of derision.
Using the “incredible HTMF” to suggest that those that peruse these postings are somehow not quite up to the task of divining information provided on these mighty portals of the intertubes. Particularly interesting considering the frequent use of Muskeg News of this same “incredible HTMF” to point would be readers off in their direction to learn more.
There’s probably a catchy term for these kinds of cross purpose machinations, but perhaps someone with a better thesaurus than I can come up with it.
Not sure what the folks at Rupert’s newest provider of news content might think of such talk, though one imagines they are thankful that Huh is not in charge of the marketing department!
It’s worth remembering that former media outlets in the market that tended to treat a potential audience with such a sense of derision didn’t fare too well.[/quote]
[quote=“Smurfette”]
[quote=“Huh?”]
I like how you wrote “I’m not big on conspiracy theories” and then went ahead and offered your own. One should never be ashamed of contradicting oneself in a paragraph… torn up by useless elipses… that yawn… er… where… was … I???
I’m huge on conspiracy theories, and here’s one: BTravenn is planning to run for mayor and is looking to get a dig on Mayor Moustachio whenever he can. So he posts here on the incredible HTMF that he has found the secret plan to destroy the fair city by those carpetbaggers and that nutty Mayor… oh Jack (elipses inspired by BTravenn).
So, BTravenn, …[/quote]
By GEORGE, this is an interesting observation, one dripped in sarcasm and perhaps a healthy heaping of derision.
Using the “incredible HTMF” to suggest that those that peruse these postings are somehow not quite up to the task of divining information provided on these mighty portals of the intertubes. Particularly interesting considering the frequent use of Muskeg News of this same “incredible HTMF” to point would be readers off in their direction to learn more.
There is probably a catchy term out there that can best describe such a thing seemingly at cross purposes, though perhaps someone with a better thesaurus than I can offer it up for our recitation.
Not sure what the folks at Rupert’s newest provider of news content might think of such talk, though one imagines they are thankful that Huh is not in charge of the marketing department!
It’s worth remembering that former media outlets in the market that tended to treat a potential audience with such a sense of derision didn’t fare too well.[/quote]