Thread by @SamCraggsCBC

I'm at #HamOnt GIC. We're talking the future of FirstOntario centre, the transportation management plan, etc. Right now, Jasper Kujavsky, the Mercantis & Scott Warren are presenting

They're urging the city to create an entertainment "precinct." Worth noting: PJ Mercanti has said, after media questions, that this does NOT include a casino. The casino plan is dead

The staff report today recommends a 3rd party review into what kind of facility Hamilton needs (size, location, etc), ownership & mgmt models that have worked elsewhere, whether to cluster our sports/ent facilities into a "precinct" with residential & commercial development, etc

Kujavsky says he's not talking today about demolishing FirstOntario Centre & building it elsewhere. Today, he's talking about renovating & revitalizing it. And his team is focused on the urban core. Here's some background, for context: cbc.ca/news/canada/ha…

Kujavsky is showing some "precinct" plans that incorporate the SJAM school site. Kujavsky says his group has no plans to obtain this site, nor has it talked to HWDSB about it. This is a "blue sky" concept. HWDSB chair Todd White has said the board plans to keep the SJAM site

Kujavsky says his group wants to spend about $250K in private dollars to look at the precinct concept. That work would "mirror" the work done on the arena renovation study

We know where some councillors will stand on this. @Sam_Merulla wants the city to get out of the entertainment business. @MGreenWard3, meanwhile, likens it to the city handing over its public assets, & their revenues, to the private sector

.@Sam_Merulla is on for the study, but doesn't want one cent of city money spent on it. He also wants city staff to work with other private entities, including Global Spectrum. He'll move that

On the SJAM land: You can see it here on Kujavsky's slide. It's in red because it's already been studied in 2016. Kujavsky's group wants the school board to "sit down" & have "collaborative & conceptual" discussions before it decides what to do with that land

Ferguson says it doesn't make any sense that the Mercanti group will spend $250K on a no-strings-attached study. The procurement process says you can't give 1 proponent an advantage. The other bidders will sue you. So "what's in it for you?"

Kujavsky tells Ferguson not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. He says the group wants to contribute to the community, & it's "a calculated risk." "The fact of the matter is it is exactly as it appears to be. There no tricks. There's nothing hidden behind the curtain"

Kujavsky's slides show a potential convention centre & hotel on the SJAM site, & also where the Swiss Chalet is now. When Carmen's won the convention centre mgmt bid, they promised a 44-storey hotel. PJ Mercanti has said that's still in the works but they don't have suitable land

PJ Mercanti says Carmen's knows it will be a robust & competitive procurement process. @judipartridge is uncomfortable with all this though. She says it looks like the city is working Carmen's behind closed doors. Says they're not, but the optics are bad

.@FredEisenberger thanks the presenters for moving the conversation forward. Merulla moves to push the staff report (recommmending a 3rd party review) up on the agenda. Green & Eisenberger oppose that. It passes. They'll talk about it now

Eisenberger says the staff recommendation needs to be updated in light of Carmen's offer to put $250K toward the study. He also alludes to putting city money toward it too. "To suggest that the city shouldn't have any participation in this doesn't ring true to me either"

Eisenberger wants to refer this. "The offer that was made today deserves a thorough analysis by our staff." Now we're onto Partridge, who says again there's "some uncomfortableness around this table" about this. Why aren't Global Spectrum & others part of this process?

Nicole Aulty, city solicitor, says she has "significant concerns" about accepting private $ for the study without having a chance to properly review the offer. Merulla: "Do you think you can wrap your mind around this between now & Friday at council?"

There's some procedural confusion here, but they're discussing referring this back to city staff so they can talk to the Carmen's/Kujavsky group first. There's a major distinction here. The staff recommendation is to look at potentially putting FOCentre elsewhere in the city

Carmen's/Kujavsky, meanwhile, only want to look at having the facilities in the downtown core. Whitehead, of all people, proposes removing the "locate them outside of the downtown core" part. Other councillors seem on for this

I say "of all people" because Whitehead is usually a big proponent for having amenities located throughout the city - particularly the Mountain, where his ward is. He mentions all the time how the lower city gets a lot of attention & resources

The motion to refer this back to staff for a future GIC passes. @MGreenWard3 is opposed. He's been voting against everything on this matter