Don't hold your breath to wait for the Telus Park sign to come out of storage.
During July 17 budget hearings, Todd Stone, the infrastructure minister responsible for BC Pavilion Corp. (PavCo), told NDP critic Shane Simpson that BC Place stadium’s name will remain the same.
“It continues to be the position of the B.C. government that the proposed arrangement between Telus and the B.C. government was not in the best interests of the taxpayers of British Columbia,” Stone said.
“The province, therefore, is not in any current discussions with Telus or any other party with respect to the naming rights of BC Place.”
Talks had resumed in early 2013 between the BC Liberal government and the telecom to resurrect the 20-year, $40 million deal scuttled in February 2012 by the BC Liberal government. In April, Telus spokesman Shawn Hall told Business in Vancouver, “We have always been interested in attaching our name to that great facility.”
A Telus Park sign, stored at a Pattison Sign Group warehouse, was ready to be installed on the $514-million-renovated stadium. Behind the scenes, the government was facing ongoing complaints from Bell, Rogers and Shaw about how it directly awarded a $1 billion, 10-year omnibus telecommunications contract to Telus after more than two years of open tendering on nine smaller contracts.
The three companies argued the government broke its own procurement rules, but Telus claimed it was the only bidder able to fulfill the service and give the government a bulk discount.
In a Freedom of Information release on April 15, PavCo revealed to BIV that it paid Telus $15.2 million July 31, 2012 for equipment installed in the 2011-renovated stadium. The telecommunications and video package was supposed to be included in the sponsorship.
Meanwhile, Stone downplayed the upcoming BC Supreme Court trial over roof cost overruns between subcontractors Canam Group and Freyssinet. The 102-day trial is scheduled to begin October 21.
“The only reason that PavCo has been mentioned in this matter is because of claims against a lien holdback which was previously held by PavCo,” Stone said. “That being said, I'm pleased to report to the member that there actually is no financial exposure to PavCo or B.C. taxpayers. In fact, PavCo will not even be a participant at this trial.”
Freyssinet, which initiated the action, wants $6.5 million from steel contractor Canam. The French cable installation company named PavCo and general contractor PCL as secondary defendants. Quebec-based Canam countersued for $39 million. PavCo hired lawyer Murray Clemens as counsel.
July 22 is the next pre-trial case management hearing at the Law Courts. Canam applied in June to sever the parallel dispute over roof support cable grease leaks, because it could substantially delay the already complex trial. The June 12 application said some repair work to the outer fabric was done for $6.7 million plus taxes, but supplier Shade World Wide Inc. has advised that “significant repairs are required to both the outer roof fabric and the inner liner” for an estimated $19.4 million, “bringing the total estimated cost of repairs to approximately $26.1 million.”
The Canam application said Shade refused to provide the warranty for the outer roof fabric and interior acoustic liner to PCL. Mediation among the parties on May 28-29 was “unsuccessful in resolving those claims.”
The filing said that, should the claims over the grease leaks not be settled in the near future, “it appears to Canam that PavCo will commence an action to obtain its roof membrane warranty from PCL and to recover any damages it has suffered. PCL will in turn commence third-party proceedings against Canam, Freyssinet, FIC and (cable supplier) Geobrugg for contribution and indemnity.”
