You are here: K-ROCK report.

K-ROCK Centre budgets.

At council on March 22 the topic that had the longest discussion was the K-ROCK Centre. Staff had brought forward a recommendation that the budget be adjusted to reflect more probable results. I supported the recommendation for several reasons.

First, I believe it is important to understand that adjusting budget figures does not alter contract targets. The performance measures that the city has with SMG, the facility manager, are contractual. Targets and bonuses identified there are not changed because of a budget amendment. In fact, the SMG performance is much better than the Frontenacs, with whom there is no comparable contract and ability to measure performance. Harvey Rosen’s first council gave them a very generous licence agreement for the use of the facility, and access to revenue streams without being held to any revenue targets.

I believe it is important to have a realistic expectation of budget performance for several reasons. First, regardless of what the budget figures might be, revenue shortfalls that had been expected on the basis of the original business plan to repay debt must be made up. At the end of the day it is tax money that is being used. Adjusting the budget does not alter that. But what a budget adjustment does do is reduce the possibility of “bad news” stories. On March 22 I asked SMG if the “bad news” about the K-ROCK was affecting the ability to attract entertainment acts, and the answer, qualified as being anecdotal, was “yes.”

At an earlier council meeting SMG had explained how the economy is having a real affect on the performance of the K-ROCK. I had noted that Kingston had not been severely hurt by the economic downtown. The number of government and government supported jobs had protected us at least to some extent. Restaurants and bars always seemed full. In response it was pointed out that one stop does not make a tour for an entertainment act. If the performer is going to earn a living, a comprehensive tour has to be put together to cover the large overhead costs. The economic downturn made that much more difficult. (For example, I was told that the Alan Jackson tour probably had seven tractor-trailer trucks of equipment; driver salaries and gas had to be paid, regardless of audience size at any particular venue.) The drop in the number of international acts coming to the K-ROCK is hard evidence of that.

Going forward, it is the responsibility of this and all subsequent councils to ensure that this city-owned asset is managed as well as is possible. It is a very good facility. It has several times won awards for being the best in its size category. I think it is a very good facility that offers performances at reasonable market prices. Therefore it deserves our support. If adjusted, the budget to reflect more realistic figures will help dispel negative media coverage, that is important support that should be offered.

I would welcome any comments and ideas you have about this issue. Please email me directly.



613.549.1900
www.billglover.org
bglover@cityofkingston.ca


^ Top

Previous page: Strategic priorities 2011 – 2014.
Next page: New advisory committee.