Moose Jaw Multiplex FAQ

Questions have been pouring in and we are doing our best to answer as many as we can. If you would like to ask a question please send it to and watch here daily for the answer.

If you wish to get answers to FAQ questions as they are posted then join our EMAIL list! Get news, answers to FAQ questions, site updates and more by sending a blank email to and respond to the confirmation email that we send you.

Q: Is it true Moose Jaw will lose the Warriors in the event of a "no" vote?

Not likely. That's the popular interpretation though. Sports leagues don't arbitrarily revoke a franchise that is profitable and actively paying their dues. A look at the WHL League Commissioner's statements about the situation will give some insight into what the league wants.

"We're commited to having a franchise in Moose Jaw. We have, however, a requirement for all of our clubs to have a facility of standard. That's all we're asking, is for the city of Moose Jaw to provide that for the Warriors hockey club so we can be on a solid foundation in that centre for many years to come," - Ron Robison, Western Hockey League Commissioner

All they are asking is that we provide a rink that meets their new standards, whether that is the renovated Civic Centre or a new rink. The hold up has been the fault of Council. Initially Council started renovations and spent $3 million before abandoning the project. Then in 2006 they passed a motion to build a rink equivalent of Chilliwack's Prospera Centre on the current Civic Centre site. 3 years later council still hasn't met the WHL standards or even attained the required funding to do so. No, if Moose Jaw loses the Warriors it will be through the inaction of Council and the Multiplex Builder's Inc., who fought against the Civic Centre location.

Q: I heard this would cost me less than $50 a year on my property taxes.  Is this true?

A: First, we keep hearing that the fundraisers can't raise any funds without a plan on paper, which we still don't have. The Warriors can't commit to a lease without a plan on paper, which we still don't have. If these arguments work so well to explain why they still haven't done these things they promised to do years ago, then how can they tell us what the cost will be for certain without so much as a plan on paper?

If there is anything we've learned from the recent court case of the citizens against City Hall regarding the last referendum, it is that no numbers are final and each referendum passed means a blank cheque for spending.

Looking at the steering committee's report and the resolution of Council it said "ESTIMATED" $61 million and "ESTIMATED" 9.76% tax increase. In 2006, the citizens of Moose Jaw voted to approve a multiplex with the City contributing only $15 million. In 2008 when the steering committee recommendation to build it downtown was passed, they increased that number to an estimated $34 million. Citizens took the City to court feeling that the actions of Council went against the citizens in the last referendum by exceeding the voted on amount by $19 million. Time and time again the court ruled that the City is not bound to the $15 million approved by citizens in the first referendum. That became a blank cheque for Council to spend what they want.

If that is the case, why would anyone believe the numbers being carelessly thrown around that this will only be $10 a month, $5 a month, $100 a year, or anything else? This referendum asks us to reaffirm the City's spending of $35 million, estimated, which, if approved, we know will give them a blank cheque again. The legal precedent has been set. The sky is the limit.

Q: Why is Moose Jaw contemplating building a multiplex?

A: According to a report to City council dated March 22, 2007:

City Administration and the Moose Jaw Warriors recognize that the primary reason the City of Moose Jaw is contemplating the construction of a new arena is to meet the facility standards of the WHL to accommodate the needs of the anchor tenant, the Moose Jaw Warriors.  As a result, prior to proceeding with construction of a new facility, it is necessary for the anchor tenant to commit to a long term lease.

Q: People keep quoting Moose Jaw's population at 35,000 but I remember Prince Albert overtaking our formerly held position as 3rd largest city in Saskatchewan long ago. What is Moose Jaw's population now?

A: Moose Jaw has been on a 25 year (or longer) losing streak. Our Population in 1986 was 35,073. In 2006, the most recent census year on record, it was 32,132. Despite several projects that were supposed to grow the city and keep young people here like the Spa, Cultural Centre, Library and Kinsmen SportsPlex, Moose Jaw keeps shedding people. Don't believe the same tired old arguments that the Multiplex will do what every other project couldn't.

Q: Does Moose Jaw have a shortage of recreation space for hockey?

A: In 1986 Moose Jaw's population was 35,073 and the Civic Centre was apparently quite adequate for space then.  In 2006 Moose Jaw's population has declined to 32,132.  We have 3,000 less people now than we did 23 years ago which is approximately the capacity of the Civic Centre, but suddenly we are being told we have a shortage of recreation space.

For comparison, Prince Albert is bigger than Moose Jaw by 2,000 people and their newly renovated rink called the Art Hauser Centre has a capacity of only 2,591 seats for hockey.  Moose Jaw's proposed downtown multiplex is begging for 4,500 seats even though the Warriors average attendance is only 2300.  Clearly, we do not have aspace deficit. Incidently, no one threatened to remove the Raiders from Prince Albert if they didn't build a new rink.

Q: We've talked about building a multiplex long enough.  In the 4 years that we've been talking, rinks have been built or renovated in Prince Albert, Swift Current and Yorkton to meet the new WHL standards. Why hasn't any real work been done in Moose Jaw?

A: Those who argue we've talked about it long enough, it is because those in charge haven't delivered the goods.  There has been no fundraising.  Nothing has been done that is supposed to be done. Many agreements years old go unfulfilled with no action to complete them.

• a resolution of council in 2005 stated the due diligence process requires negotiating and signing contracts for all the contractually obligated operating revenues according to the Nustadia business plan
• Feb. 2006 the City notified the Multiplex Builder's group their immediate task was to secure $24.7 million required in the Nustadia plan
• In same letter, detailed planning was not to proceed until after all required project funding is in place
• in 2007, City Administration said prior to proceeding with construction the Warriors are to commit to a long term lease

As of the date of writing, none of these things have been undertaken or completed.  None are in place and so the talk continues. What we saw was a fake process which was called "due diligence" and gave the conclusions everybody knew about before they started.  A hockey rink and curling arena downtown.  We talked about it long enough, but the one time we didn't get to talk about it was June 16th when a secret report was brought to council and passed without anyone getting to have a say in the details.

Q: Who represents the Warriors in negotiating their lease with the City?

A: According to a letter from the City Manager dated September 16th, 2008, The Warriors are represented by their President, Mr. Darin Chow, and General Manager, Mr. Chad Lang.  Mr. Chow is also a Moose Jaw City Councillor and a proponent of building the downtown Multiplex. The two sides were unable to agree on a lease and to date no lease has been signed.

Q: Is it true that even in the event of a "NO" vote, council will proceed building the multiplex anyway?

A: Do not feel powerless, that is what they want you to feel. Do not let fear of how they may react prevent you from excercising your democratic right. Senior levels of government will be hard pressed to finance a project voted down in a referendum. In addition, there would be political consequences for those who choose to proceed against the will of the citizens who put them in office. Council chose to not allow public input into the steering committee report before it was passed. This is your opportunity to finally have a say in this project.

Q: There were three consultants hired to assess the downtown location, and all three advised against it. Why did we pay for this service, and why was it ignored by council? Sounds like some have a lot to lose.

A: The pre-selected multiplex steering committee had downtown as their goal right from the beginning. Everything, all reports and studies done by the steering committee had the bias of showing the downtown to be the most feasible. Why they are hung up on the downtown remains the million dollar question. Chances are we won't find out until it is too late. Don't forget, a good consultant is one that determines who is in charge right away and then tells him or her what they want to hear, thus insuring an excellent recommendation.

Refer to the following videos for more information. Please note the dates on each video.

• Moose Jaw Multiplex - Schwinghamer argues downtown location
• Moose Jaw Multiplex - Location Solved!
• Moose Jaw Multiplex - A Brief History of Time Vol. I
• Moose Jaw Multiplex - The Great Shortfall
• Moose Jaw Multiplex - Location and City expense cost summary

Q: Are Councillors Swanson and Luhning to blame for the delays in this project?

A: No. You must remember it was Luhning's motion that was passed back in 2006 to put the new facility on the Civic Centre location. Although they like to blame Swanson or Luhning for delaying the project, losing each motion on the multiplex 5-2 (as they often do) doesn't stop anything. The delays have arisen because it is an unrealistic project, has no financing other than debt financing, and is being administered by elected officials of dubious quality. Mix it all together and you get the mess we have. Don't turn this comedy into a tragedy. Vote against the downtown multiplex.

Q: In the Report from the Multiplex Steering Committee there was a figure referring to the sale of the Civic Centre ($1,355,000) as well as a cost for demolition of the Civic Center ($1,270,000). That means we will receive virtually nothing for a building taxpayers have poured $3M plus into in the last 5 years. This seems a real waste of money to me.

A: When the mall was built in the early 70's, they signed an agreement with the City that gives them right of refusal over any development on the Civic Centre parking lot area. The mall owners have already recently indicated they do not favour commercial development on that area. They will only negotiate if the City remains the tenant. This agreement is binding until 2019.

The price quoted for sale of the land is a much higher price than we are receiving for any other City land, including that along Thatcher Drive. The assumption that the Civic Centre land will be sold and developed at great benefit to the City ignores the agreement with the mall, and current economic realities. It is all a part of the house of cards.

Q: Who will be stuck with the cleanup bills for the contaminated downtown land where the multiplex is to be built? Is it not the former owners who are responsible for Environmental Cleanup?

A: No. If you want to find out who will pay the environmental clean up cost, look in the mirror. Although the steering committee estimate of $100,000 in 2008 seems unusually low compared to the Dominion Construction cost estimate (page 5, #4c) dated July 7, 2006 of $250,000 for hazardous waste removal.

Q: In the steering committee report a statement regarding the Parking Bylaw stated that there is a "$5000/Space Exempt Charge". Since the site will be about 648 or so spots short, does this mean a penalty of $3,240,000 will be levied, or is that going to be waived when appropriate Bylaws are amended by Council to suit this unique situation?

A: No. The City doesn't have to follow its own rules, just everybody else. See the multiplex parking page for more details.

Q: Moose Jaw City Administration was questioned at a Council meeting regarding the projected operating costs and a figure of approximately $276,000 to $786,000 (if I remember correct) was given as their best estimate. Has there been any further study or any "real world" figures been released or are we to just wait until it is built and have a further 5-6% tax increase to pay for the deficit?

A: No further analysis has been done. We're still waiting to hear about the projected expenditures and operating costs at the soccer bubble. You can bet it will be a disaster.

Q: Who came up with the question that we are voting on? Did it get run past council, and Swanson and Luhning were out voted...yet again?

A: The question in the referendum must be based off the petition that was circulated and signed by over 4000 residents, and that petition must be based off a resolution of Council. In this case it is the June 16th, 2009 meeting which passed all motions presented by the steering committee in their secret report without any public consultation.

It is unfortunate that it must be this way as people are concerned about the project for many reasons. The process, the cost, the priority it has received, the downtown location and on and on. In a normal city all public concerns would have been addresses in a consultation with the public but neither the steering committee nor Council felt that was necessary, effectively shutting the public out of the process. This is the same public who will pay for, donate to, use, operate, maintain and replace the facility at the end of it's useful life span.

Q: Is it true a vote for YES is not a vote for the downtown location?

A: That's incorrect.  A vote for yes is absolutely a vote for location.  If you vote "against the resolution" the multiplex will not go downtown.  If you vote "for the resolution" it will absolutely go downtown.

Q: When and where did city administration get the go ahead to purchase land in the downtown core for the multiplex? I recall a motion in council authorizing city administration to negotiate agreements to purchase these properties, but no motions to execute those agreements to purchase.

A:City administration is claiming the June 16th, 2008 meeting of Council, where the Multiplex Steering Committee brought in their secret report and council passed every motion from it, is authority enough to do what they've been doing.

Q: If we are to have 4500 seats in the hockey rink, and another 1500 seats in the curling rink, 6000 people, how are we to get them to the rink? How many cars and parking places do you need? Are people to car pool, 6 or 8 persons to a car, or are we going to encourage the taxi business to purchase 500 cars? Where is the land required for parking?

A: Administration claims the downtown site will have 200 on-site parking stalls according to what they requested in their invitations to bid.  This is less than 1/4 of what the bylaw requires (see the multiplex parking page for details).  But it seems unlikely room for even 200 cars will be able to fit on the downtown land, compounded by the problem that the City has purchased significantly less land than they originally intended. In addition, the downtown multiplex is being built right next to an apartment building and a block away from businesses which will also contend for the same on-street parking spaces.  You are right, there is totally inadequate provision for parking.