WVM2006-12: Ccl Notes May 1st; AGENDA 8th; Calendar to 18th
by
Carolanne Reynolds, Editor
www.WestVan.org
As we get older, time goes faster -- but this is getting
ridiculous.
Zoom!
As I wrote some years ago (if I can remember the haiku exactly
but this wd be close):
the
days become hours
months melt like weeks
and
soon the years disappear
As William Saroyan said: "In the time of your life,
live!"
Time is precious and hope you are enjoying this glorious spring
that's really like early summer (in the 70s on Thursday! -- I'm
an old-fashioned Fahrenheit gal). The intoxicating scent of
lilacs is in the air.
Unusual photos of rainbows:
http://www.missouriskies.org/rainbow/february_rainbow_2006.html
Sorry two well-known West Vancouverites passed on recently.
First, was caught by surprise b/c I'd just seen one of Art Jones's
interviews on Shaw not long ago, and he looked as well-groomed and
smooth as ever. Then, Ken Griffiths who was so welcoming and
kind when learning I'd been appointed Council liaison to the WV SPCA
to wch he devoted a great deal of time.
CULTURE WATCH: See Norman Foster's "Office
Hours" at our own KMC for some laughter (till May 6). Then
the three hours of Faust with a soprano from NV and a geometric
set.
THIS ISSUE:
May 8th Ccl Mtg has Five-Year Financial Plan, three readings
of Budget 2006 w/ amendments possible at Second Reading so make your
views known to Ccl about the largest tax increase in years; cost of
new Cmnty Ctr already up $5m from last year's estimate so making
cuts! (agenda at end, again strange the Apr 24th minutes not yet
available, will be 'on-table'; as I write this the DWV website is
partly down and I can't access some parts);
SECTIONS: EVELYN DRIVE as of May 4th; Calendar to
May 18th; UPDATES (Fire Chief's departure, Eagleridge Watch --
amazing info, EMAIL ATTACHMENT TO LETTER, that tunnel not
costed!!!); Ccl Mtg Notes May 1st (Budget
information/submissions and Youth Ccl); Ccl Agenda May 8th;
Quotations.
=== EVELYN DRIVE "Study Area" as o=
f
May 4th ==============
Getting curiouser and curiouser.
Why was the cmte mtg on May 4th not on the DWV website
calendar?
Why was it reported to the cmte that the public, as a result
of the Open House, favoured Option E, highest density, when over half
of the forms (about 85 of the ~150) were faxed/received after the Open
House, some -- almost clones -- from an untraceable fax number
received somewhat sequentially (and, no real surprise, favoured Option
E)?
Where were the 500+ residents against density when the previous
zoning change came to Ccl (maybe they'll come to speak when they see
the amendment to the OCP)?
The good news is that several queried the anomalies in the
feedback forms received, some diligent members of the cmte managed to
view the originals, and proved a large number questionable and ought
not to be counted.
(There may be a letter to Council from cmte mbrs detailing this,
as well as additional information on the DWV website as part of the
Evelyn Drive webpage.)
Why on earth wd any professional and/or staff take these feedback
forms at face value or seriously in the first place? Surely
they're experienced in such matters and not so easily fooled/misled --
one wd not want to think biased or motivated.
So the bad news from the point of view of the process is that the
feedback was flawed, the (semi-)good news is that the results were
discredited and cannot be used.
What was the use of the Open House?
One then wonders about the $160K cost of this study to taxpayers
so far.
(I hasten to say that none of the volunteer members receives any
compensation except for the sandwiches/nibblies at the mtg.)
As you may recall, I was incensed at the Open House in April
to see Option A, retaining present single-family zoning, showing that
wd represent a loss. RIDICULOUS! All over the municipality
and even a couple of lots near me, speculators buy a house, demolish
it, and put a new one there. And they're making money.
Absolutely no doubt. So with those Ev Dr homes, many only
.17 to .18FAR, replaced by those at the higher limit now of .35FAR, of
course there'll be a profit.
(It's not relevant but some of the properties were purchased at
2003 prices and you know how much your assessment has gone up so far!
Anyway, this is a study about what the cmnty wants to see in the
Evelyn Drive Area -- some housing options according to the OCP -- not
about risk.)
Not only that.
The new financial analysis given to the Cmte May 4th showed a
loss for Option B as well
-- MORE POPPYCOCK!
For the record, Option A is 57 units (since the rest of the 65
are not available for devt), B is 255, C is 350, D is 428, E is
511.
C is purported to be a profit of 6.3%. (Wanna buy a
bridge?)
Besides, Option D or E are not possible at this time.
BTW, during discussion at an earlier mtg, it was thought A and E
were goalposts, extremes, that few wd take as realistic or
acceptable.
Good to learn there will be a survey to see if any significant
plants or trees, and there'll be a heritage evaluation including of
one of the houses there where King George VI and Queen Elizabeth had
tea during their visit to WV (1939, I think).
What provisions for traffic are being made with this
concentration if high density?
What are the sizes of the units? the coverage? Makes a big
difference!
What do you want to see in the rejuvenated Evelyn Drive
area?
If any multi-family, what about rental units for the many older
WV residents who want to downsize -- this usage may come later once
Ccl has settled on the FAR?
What kind of report or recommendation on what basis is going to
go to Ccl when there are flawed factors?
How do we keep WV's character, or better still, enhance it?
Thank gosh for small mercies -- another mtg is planned for around
June 1st.
To find the info on the DWV website, here's the convoluted
route:
Home >>&n=
bsp;
Planning & Development >> Community Planning >>
Current Initiatives >> Evelyn Drive Area Planning
Study
PURPOSE: To guide the
preparation of alternative development scenarios for the Evelyn Drive
Area Planning Study and ensure issues are addressed.
The Evelyn Drive
Area encompasses 20.9 acres (shown on map). At present there are
65 lots with 62 single family homes.
The Official
Community Plan identifies the area as a study area, calling for a
comprehensive plan that addresses traffic issues, access, visual
impacts, views, topographical constraints, appropriate housing forms,
and that includes a description of community benefits.
Staff contact:
Geri Boyle (gboyle@westvancouver.ca), 925 5968
>>> CALENDAR to May 18th
<<<
===ONGOING================
+ Youth
Week events in Calendar were in the last issue
+++
FERRY BUILDING GALLERY EXHIBIT - "INHERITANCE" [Apr 18
to May 7] +++
----MEETINGS------pls note some changes/additions from
previous list-----------------
=== Monday, May 1st ~
Cmte of Whole CANCELLED; instead Youth Ccl Mtg in Ccl Chambers
*** NB: SPECIAL CCL MTG AT 5pm FOR BUDGET INPUT
before the Youth Ccl Mtg ***[see notes below]
=== Tuesday, May
2nd
~ 3:45 - 5:45 ~ YAC
~ 4:30 - 6:30 ~ EAC
=== Thursday, May
4th
~ 5 - 9pm ~ Community Open House at Ambleside Youth Centre
~ 5:30 - 8:30 ~ Evelyn Drive Guidance Cmte mtg in Ch of Commerce
boardroom (not on DWV Calendar)
=== Saturday, May 6th
~ 10am - 4pm ~ Beat the Heat! Basketball Tournament at Gleneagles
Cmnty Ctr
~ 7:30 - midnight ~ Battle of the Bands/Youth Fashion Showcase at
the Ice Arena
~ at Eagleridge ~
SATURDAY AT THE
BLUFFS
Join us for another informative and entertaining "Saturday at
the Bluffs". Bring your family, friends, and neighbours. Get
informed, take a walk, and enjoy the entertainment (bring your own
instruments and voices too)!
- Wild Salmon Barbecue
- Tours of the Bluffs and Wetlands
- Information Booth
- Entertainment
- Visit the Canopy Research Station - NEW
=== Sunday, May 7th
~ 10am - 1pm ~ BC Special Olympics Walkathon (Ambleside)
~ 2 - 5pm ~ Canuck Place "Hike for Hospice"
(Ambleside)
~ 2:30pm ~ Pacific Baroque Orchestra at WV United Church (21st
& Marine)
The Young Romantics: A Tribute to Youthful Genius; Rossini,
Mendelssohn, and Giuliani with Alexander Dunn, guitar soloist.
Tickets are available at the door or by phone (604-215-0406); $28; $23
(Senior); $12 (student); 19 and under, free
~ 7:30pm ~ Jubilate! Chamber Choir at WV Presbyterian Church
(2893 Marine) -- Shakespeare Sings, features choral music of
Shakespeare's time, plus settings of his poetry; Christopher Gaze is
special guest.
*** AT THE CCL MTG May 8th, Ccl will give three readings to BUDGET 2006
***
=== Tuesday, May
9th
~ 4:30 - 6:30pm ~ DAC (Special Meeting)
~ 6 - 8pm ~ HAC
~ 7 - 9pm ~ CSAC
Meanwhile, over at the FERRY BUILDING GALLERY:
~ 11am ~ Start of Art Sale for Fundraiser for Friends of the
Gallery (and hours May 10/11 also 11am to 7pm)
~ 7 - 9pm ~ FBG Opening Reception: Spring Runoff, paintings in
luscious oils and glazing by Carole Arnston
=== Wednesday, May
10th
~ 6 - 9pm ~ PEAC
But first:
~ 7:30am ~ Chamber of Commerce Breakfast with Mayor
Goldsmith-Jones talking about the Winter Olympics in Turin
2006 Olympic Experience -- Sponsored
by: The Whistler Mountaineer
Join us and our guest speaker, Mayor Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, as
she relates her experiences, observations, and memories of the 2006
Winter Olympics in Torino, Italy. She will also provide her insight
and offer some advice as to what we might want to consider when
developing our own 2010 Olympic offerings for West Vancouver.
Be sure to attend for a chance to win a trip for two on the
Whistler Mountaineer.
Location: Hollyburn Country Club -- Time: 7:30 AM to 9:00
AM.
$20 for members, $30 for non-members (GST included); Call 926
6614 to reserve (by noon Monday May 8th)
=== Friday, May
12th
Informal Concert at Hodson
Manor
Katelyn Clark,
harpsichord:
Harpsichord Music from the
Seventeenth Century
The programme will include works by Froberger, Frescobaldi,
Picchi, Byrd, Bull, Couperin and Jacquet de la
Guerre.
Harpsichordist Katelyn Clark, originally from Victoria, BC,
studied with Doreen Oke in Vancouver and with Bob van Asperen in
Amsterdam. She is currently enrolled in a Doctoral Programme in
Harpsichord Performance at McGill University in Montr=E9al, studying
with Hank Knox.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Concert at 8:00 pm | No Pre-Concert Introduction
Hodson Manor 1254
West 7th Avenue
Tickets at $10 (students, seniors & members $8) only at the
door on the evening of the concert.
Please see our web site for more details:
www.earlymusic.bc.ca/ssn-informal.htm or call (604)732-1610.
_______________________________________________________
SEHAB --
You're Invited
The severe
decline in coho returns to many south coast streams in 2005 and
predicted poor coho survivals in 2006 are of great concern to stewards
restoring salmon-bearing streams and to people who fish--anglers (who
fish in both rivers and tidal waters), commercial fishermen and First
Nations fishermen. Therefore, SEHAB is hosting a forum on coho issues
on Friday, May 12 in North Vancouver at The Holiday Inn, 700
Lillooet Road. The forum begins at 7:30 P.M.
There will
be panel presentations, followed by Q and A.
Salmon,
Bert Ionson - Acting Regional Resource Management Coordinator, will
speak on DFO's coho management actions.
Dr. Ron
Tanasichuk, Pacific Biological Station
Dr.
Tanasichuk will discuss his work on euphausiid shrimp, their influence
on survival of coho, chum and sockeye salmon and the ability to
predict salmon runs according to the abundance of one species of
euphausiid shrimp.
Reid
Schrul, - Capilano Salmon Hatchery.
Reid will
talk about the 2005 coho return to Capilano and how the facility would
cope if it appeared that the hatchery was not going to reach its brood
target of approx. 3,000.
Jack
Minard - Tsolum River Enhancement Society
Jack will
provide the perspective of a person in the PIP. Faced with a steep
decline in the coho return to Tsolum River, the Enhancement Society,
which does not work with coho at present, wonders if it should work
with coho.
Sandie
Hollick Kenyon DFO Community Advisor Will talk of watershed planning
required for coho enhancement for PIP projects. How small [facilities]
can work within the big picture.
The
Salmon Enhancement and Habitat Advisory Board (SEHAB)
SEHAB
provides a liaison between Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and
communities and volunteers engaged in salmon restoration, stream
monitoring and habitat work in urban and rural British Columbia. We
understand and appreciate the links between healthy fish stocks, sound
harvesting practices, good land use practices, monitoring and
enforcement, and the need for cooperation among the various
stakeholders in government, industry, First Nations and community.
SEHAB is a volunteer organization that provides a forum for volunteers
to provide advice to the Federal and Provincial government focusing
on:
=B7
Strategies to manage salmon stocks with conservation as a
first priority.
=B7
Comprehensive and effective habitat protection and restoration
policies.
=B7
Improved public understanding and education of the important
environmental, social and economic benefits of BC's salmon
resource.
=B7
Encouraging adequate resources are allocated to recovering,
restoring and maintaining habitat.
Our board
has representatives from around the province of British Columbia. We
meet three times per year, to bring forward the concerns and successes
of groups in our respective areas. We also conduct business
Province-wide between our regularly scheduled meetings. Please visit
our website at www.sehab.org for further
information.
=== Saturday, May
13th
~ 9am - 1pm ~ Gleneagles Cmnty Ctr Garage Sale
=== Monday, May 15th -- CCL CMTE
OF THE WHOLE MTG ===
=== Tuesday, May
16th
~ 3:45 - 5:15pm ~ YAC
=== Wednesday, May
17th
~ 5:30 ~ FAC
~ 7pm ~ Board of
Variance
~ 7pm ~ Library Board (Peters Room in
Library)
=== Thursday, May
18th
~ 5:30pm ~ North Shore Family Court &
Youth Justice Cmte at CNV M Hall, Conf Rm A
~ 7:30 - 9:30pm ~
West Vancouver Streamkeeper Society Public Meeting
St.
Stephen's Anglican Church, 855 -22nd Street
- Welcome, Call to Order, Agenda
- Review 2006 January 19th Public Meeting Notes
- Business arising from the mtg notes
- Report from the WV Streamkeeper Directors
- Stream Reports:
o DFO Community Adviser - Rob Bell-Irving
o DWV Issues - Steve Jenkins, DWV
o Hatchery Report - Elizabeth Hardy
o Nelson / Eagle / Wood Creeks - Elizabeth
Hardy
o Rodgers Creek - (HH),
o McDonald Creek - Ken Bryden
o Brothers Creek and Tributaries - Michael
Ritter
o Claymore / Willow / Cypress Creeks - Barrie
Adams
o North Shore Wetland Partners - Fiona
Wright
o West Vancouver Shoreline Preservation Society - Ray
Richards
- WV Streamkeeper 2006
draft Workplan
the WVS Directors seek your input for this year's needs and
priorities.
- New Business
- Announcements:
o WVS Annual General Meeting September 21,
2006
o Bring your community events, times, and dates to the
meeting.
- Adjournment -
Scheduled for 9:30 pm
=== UPDATES ===========
====
West Vancouver Fire Chief Making the Move to
North Vancouver
The District of North Vancouver has announced the appointment of
a new Fire Chief, Doug Trussler who will replace Chief Gary Calder who
has retired after 34 years of service. Doug Trussler is making
the move to North Vancouver from neighbouring West Vancouver where he
served as Fire Chief for the past four years.
Trussler's first assignment within the District of North
Vancouver will be to work with West Vancouver to identify
opportunities for the Fire Departments of both Districts to achieve
efficiencies where it makes sense, and to develop an implementation
plan to achieve those efficiencies. "We are pleased to be able
to put Doug's experience in West Vancouver together with his new
role as Fire Chief in North Vancouver, to explore cost management
opportunities while ensuring outstanding service to the community,"
says Mayor Pamela Goldsmith-Jones.
CAO David Stuart is pleased to announce that during the estimated
three month review process, Jeff Oates, currently Deputy Chief of
Operations, will be acting in the capacity of Fire Chief for West
Vancouver.
--- EAGLERIDGE WATCH
------------
From the
Coalition:
As you know, many of our neighbours
are sharing tents and sleep disorders; working to save Eagleridge
Bluffs and the Larson Creek Wetlands from the looming highway
disaster. While the media seems to think they have enough food
to last a lifetime, the reality is a little different. Donations
of food to those who are brave enough to tough it out on the Bluffs,
(Highway exit #2) would be greatly appreciated.
Please note: If you do choose to
donate food try to pick items that are not dessert types; ie. breads,
cookies and fruits.
--------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:05:01 -0400 (EDT)
More From: info@eagleridgebluffs.ca
Subject: EAGLERIDGE BLUFFS - Join us in the Wild
DAY 13 AT TENT CITY
BE PROUD OF YOUR EFFORTS!
Thank you to a growing group of campers and daily supporters! You
should be proud of being part of one of the most important citizen's
actions in the history of British Columbia! Our resolve to continue
the occupation at tent city until the BC Government halts the
devastation and chooses an alternative route is stronger than
ever.
Supporters of The Coalition to Save Eagleridge Bluffs at
Horseshoe Bay have been subjected to unprecedented scare tactics by
the provincial government regarding personal liability. Don't be
intimidated, there is no reason to feel uneasy about visiting the
bluffs. It is now, at this crucial time that WE NEED YOUR
SUPPORT more than ever.
NOTICE TO DEMONSTRATORS REGARDING PERSONAL
LIABILITY
MESSAGE FROM OUR LEGAL COUNSEL
"Late Friday, April 28, 2006, the contractor (Peter Kiewit
Sons Co. Ltd.) and the concessionaire (Sea-to-Sky Highway Investment
Limited Partnership) filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia against Dennis Perry, Bruce McArthur, John Doe and Jane Doe
as the first step in seeking an injunction order to restrain protest
activity in the vicinity of Eagleridge Bluffs. Our lawyers have
been advised that the companies wish to appear before a judge on
Monday.
Nobody, other than perhaps Dennis Perry and Bruce McArthur,
currently faces potential personal financial exposure as a result of
this lawsuit. Furthermore, nobody faces the possibility of
arrest unless, and until, the court issues an injunction order and the
order is defied. We will have plenty of advance notice before
that order is made. Please note that peaceful protest is not
only a lawful activity, expressive protest activity is a
constitutionally protected right in a democracy like ours.
Often, it is the only means available to a group like ours when the
government has tuned us out. We can feel free to continue to
peacefully demonstrate our displeasure with the government's
decision until we receive a lawful order to stop doing
so."
INSPIRATION FROM AMAZING INDIVIDUALS...
As most of you are aware, Jane Jacobs, one of the greatest urban
and transportation thinkers in the history of the world recently
passed away at age 89. Her book "the Death and Life of Great
American Cities" (1961) is the seminal book of its kind. Her last
public statement was that the Bluffs and Wetlands be saved. Her son,
Ned Jacobs presented a tribute to her yesterday at the Bluffs.
"Please Remember Jane by reading her books and acting on
her ideas. I have joined the tenters on the Bluffs. There could be no
better memorial for Jane than to join supporters at Eagleridge
Bluffs." -- Ned Jacobs
WITH YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT WE WILL
SAVE EAGLERIDGE BLUFFS!
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 21:39:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eagleridge Bluffs Coalition
<info@eagleridgebluffs.ca>
DAY TWO AT COURT
PLEASE COME AND SHOW YOUR
SUPPORT
BC SUPREME COURT, 800 SMYTHE ST.
(between Hornby and Howe), 9:45 AM
(Car pool from Gleneagles Community Centre,
8:45am)
Thank you to the many people that came out to court today. We had
such a large turnout that the proceedings were moved to a larger
courtroom! Please lend your support tomorrow. We understand that
everyone has busy schedules, so even if you can only come out for an
hour or two, it really helps!
As you are aware, we are fighting Peter Kiewit & Sons'
application for an injunction to keep us out of Eagleridge Bluffs. We
have launched our own injunction against Peter Kiewit, as well as
filed a lawsuit against the provincial government's many infractions
of the Environmental Assessment Certificate.
See below for details.
COALITION TO SAVE EAGLERIDGE BLUFFS AT
HORSESHOE BAY
IMMEDIATE RELEASE - May 3,
2006
STATEMENT TO THE MEDIA-EAGLERIDGE
BLUFFS AND WETLANDS PRESERVATION SOCIETY LAUNCHES LAWSUIT AGAINST THE
PROVINCE OF B.C.:
This morning the Eagleridge Bluffs and
Wetlands Preservation Society filed a petition in the BCSC seeking
Judicial Review of the actions of the Provincial authorities who are
suppose to be overseeing the mitigation aspects at Eagleridge Bluffs
and the Wetlands. This law suit is against the Province of
British Columbia, the Ministry of Transportation, the Minister of
Transportation, the Ministry of the Environment, the Minister of the
Environment, Sea to Sky Highway Investment Limited Partnership and
Peter Kiewit Sons Co.
A declaration that the Environmental
Assessment Certificate (EAC) does not comply with the legal
requirements of the Provincial Environmental Legislation or with the
Conditions of the Certificate, is sought. Other relief is claimed
including an injunction to keep the contractor from doing any work in
DB1. The EAC issued covers the Project from Horseshoe Bay to
Whistler. The work is divided into Sections. DB1 is for
Horseshoe Bay to Sunset Beach.
At the moment, no relief is sought against
the Federal Authorities including Environment Canada and Fisheries and
Oceans.
As you know the matter of the EAC was
previously before the Federal Court in 2005 at the instigation of West
Vancouver.
The Court allowed the EAC to be issued
but in strong language assured West Vancouver and the public that the
Commitments post issuance of the EAC would have to be adhered to by
both the Provincial and Federal Authorities.
Unfortunately this has not happened and
the following has occurred:
1. Limited or no
public input post the preliminary design phase;
2. No Environmental
Management Plan (EMP) has been issued for the section of the contract
known as DB1 from Horseshoe Bay to Sunset Beach;
3. The Contractor is
working illegally - they say that they are working pursuant to a
phased EMP but it is clear, either because of the documents in the
case, or the nature of the two sensitive ecosystems - Eagleridge
Bluffs and the Wetlands of Larsen Creek, that no phasing of an EMP is
appropriate;
4. No studies have
been completed and mitigation measures are not in place to ensure that
the impact on the sensitive ecosystems and the recreational trails is
reduced to a non significant level;
5. The necessary
permits, approvals and other authorizations have not been
issued prior to work commencing (thus also making the work
illegal);
6. Construction
schedules are dictating what happens in the case, and we suspect
pressure is put on RAs to agree, when indeed they have not finished
their work or considered the EMP;
7. The authorities and the
contractor have not developed compensation plans, and indeed, for this
area, none are really suitable.
Constructions schedules rather than
environmental protections seem to be driving this
activity.
- END -
About the Coalition to Save Eagleridge
Bluffs at Horseshoe Bay:
The Coalition consolidates public support
for protecting the ecosystems that will be destroyed with an overland
highway route, while working to inform the provincial government that
viable alternatives would save irreplaceable natural environments
while meeting all criteria for function, longevity, safety and cost.
For more information visit: www.eagleridgebluffs.ca
PRESS CONTACTS:
Dennis Perry: 604-818-1224
and Bruce McArthur: 604-921-6910
----------------------------------
*** GLOBE & MAIL EXPOSES MINISTER
FALCON...
Please take a moment to read the Globe & Mail article
attached below. We've had some very positive media coverage over the
last few weeks that challenges BC residents to seriously question the
government's ill conceived decision to build an overland highway
through Eagleridge Bluffs.
Our Tent City occupation is entering week three and it is imperative
that we bolster the work of the Coalition with a continued strong
presence at the Bluffs. We need volunteers to take morning, afternoon,
evening and night shifts at Eagleridge Bluffs and Black Mountain
camps.
With your support, we will save Eagleridge Bluffs! Get
involved now! Email us at volunteers@eagleridgebluffs.ca
READ WHAT THE GLOBE & MAIL IS SAYING (May
1, pg. S2)
A simple way to
preserve Eagleridge Bluffs
There's a safer, greener
route that the Sea-to-Sky Highway could follow, MARK HUME
writes:
MARK HUME - To
hear British Columbia's tough-talking Transportation Minister tell it,
there is no reasonable alternative to the plan he is trying to ram
through Eagleridge Bluffs in West Vancouver.
Every opportunity he
gets, Kevin Falcon verbally slaps down the protesters who for two
weeks have camped out on a right-of-way to block a government
contractor from cutting down trees and blasting rock.
He has portrayed
them as unreasonable, affluent elitists whose only concern is that
they don't want a new highway in their pricey backyards. In this
movie, he's cast himself as the courageous politician who has made an
unpopular decision for the greater good.
Mr. Falcon claims
the canyon he wants to blast through Eagleridge Bluffs -- as soon as
he sweeps the protesters aside -- is safer and far less expensive than
the alternative of a tunnel.
"There is no
room for co-operative negotiations, or any negotiations," Mr.
Falcon has declared. "We made the right decision. I am not going
to move forward with an option that is going to kill 2=88 times more people,
have worse environmental outcomes and cost a third of the entire
Sea-to-Sky budget for the first kilometre."
One assumes that Mr.
Falcon made this same pitch to persuade cabinet, and Premier Gordon
Campbell, to back him in what has become an increasingly ugly
showdown.
According to Mr.
Falcon, the overland route will cost $70-million less than the
$200-million tunnel and cause less environmental damage. Safer.
Cheaper. Greener. Argument over.
Well, not so
fast.
In the years
leading up to the $600-million Sea-to-Sky Highway upgrade, the
Ministry of Transportation exhaustively studied numerous options.
Engineers drew a lot of lines on maps, including plotting two
different tunnel routes under Eagleridge Bluffs. Then analysts worked
through various scenarios, looking at economics, traffic capacity,
project objectives and land-use issues.
They did not come to
the same conclusion that Mr. Falcon did. The Final
Designer's Response To Value Analysis Report, dated Jan. 9, 2003, is
one the minister might want to look up.
The report
studied three options. The "split grade" overland route Mr.
Falcon favours, a short one-kilometre one-way tunnel and a long
three-kilometre two-way tunnel. The long tunnel was deemed
too costly. The overland route was the cheapest -- but it did not
emerge as the obvious best choice.
"Of the .
. . alternatives, the short tunnel option was adjudged by the Team to
offer better value for money than the surface alignment . . . while
the tunnels are approximately 20 per cent more expensive than the
surface options, the benefit to highway users is approximately 50 per
cent greater," states the report.
"On
completion of the Value Analysis Workshop, the Review team recommended
that the Design Team adopt the 1 km tunnel
alignment."
The short,
one-way tunnel is a clever option that would direct northbound traffic
into two lanes burrowed under Eagleridge Bluffs. Southbound traffic
would use the old highway route. It avoids the unsightly overpass and
the great cut through the bluffs that has so angered West Vancouver
residents.
It's neat, it's
simple and it's only slightly more costly. According to the report,
the short tunnel would cost about $140-million -- not
$200-million. That means it would cost almost $10-million
more to build a short tunnel, instead of an overland route, not the
$70-million Mr. Falcon likes to cite. Analysts also looked
at collision estimates and "user costs," which include such
things as travel time and vehicle operating expenses.
"The 1 km
Tunnel Couplet is the recommended option . . . since the additional
capital of $9.6 M yields: $26.4 M savings in user cost and reduced
accident costs." The report also recommended the
short tunnel for "reduced land use and environmental
impacts."
So Mr. Falcon's
unpopular overland route is initially the cheapest, but it is not the
safest, it is not the greenest -- and for individual drivers, it turns
out to be the most expensive.
For all that, he's
set his government on a rough road that will end up tainting the image
of what is supposed to be the world's first sustainable
Olympics.
Honk if you think a
permanent scar on Eagleridge Bluffs is a good legacy for the 2010
Games. mhume@globeandmail.com
*** ATTACHMENT TO LETTER from Liz Byrd; May
8th Ccl Agenda (7.1.12) ***
From: Ken Dextras [mailto:kendex@dextras.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 2:25 PM
To: vpalmer@direct.ca Cc: pmcmartin@png.canwest.com;
denper@shaw.ca
Subject: [Eagleridge] Bluffs
Dear Vaughn:
I refer to my fax to you of Dec.15/05 and to our subsequent
discussions. I read your article in the Sun today and I thought
I should write to you to clear up some very serious misconceptions on
the above subject. As you know, I was directly involved in the bidding
of Sea to Sky as a subcontractor to the three major general
contractors: [Kiewit], Flatiron, and Aecon. I can tell you that the
third-lane option was openly discussed by all concerned including the
Ministry. I can also tell you that all three generals were quite
willing to submit a separate alternative price for both the
[third-]lane and tunnel options but for some unknown reason, the
Ministry never formally requested it as part of the tender
submission! Why this was handled this way is still a complete
mystery. Asking for alternative pricing is a very common practice in
the tendering of heavy civil projects of this kind. This is especially
true when the Ministry is paying each bidder $1.5 million for
preparing and submitting their respective tenders!
I see that Minister Falcon has told you that the [third-]lane
option was evaluated at approximately $200 million. This has to be
based on some sort of internal "ball park" estimate which is
almost certainly way off base. Sound familiar? After the tenders
closed, I was told by the generals that they had performed a rough
estimate of this option on their own and the cost for same should come
in at $80 to $100 million. In other words: even less expensive than
the Ministry's own preferred overland option of $130
million.
The bottom line of all the above is that making hard decisions
based on soft "ball park" numbers is inappropriate to say
the least. Hard decisions require hard numbers and the only way to do
that is to get firm, design-build, bonded, and insured pricing from
the contractors. Anything short of that is just glorified guess
work that's unreliable. The question now becomes: is it too
late to do the right thing ? I don't think it is. Additions and
deletions are a very common aspect of contracting. In order to
properly evaluate these options, I would recommend a 60-day cooling
off period during which time all three generals should be
invited to submit their respective option pricing.
Once this is completed, then and only then can a rational
additions/deletions decision be made. The overall schedule of the
entire project isn't that critical that this small 4.7 km section (out
of 95 kms) can't wait 60 days. By the way, the same logic applies
at Porteau Cove where 28 kms are effectively being ignored leaving us
with a permanent [two-]lane bottleneck right in the middle of a
[four]-lane highway!
According to the Ministry, overall pricing so far has put some
$200 million to the good. Therefore, why not take advantage of our
good fortune and put it to work getting rid of this bottleneck once
and for all. Again, firm pricing is required for that to proceed -
not "ball park" estimates.
I trust this is satisfactory for the time being and I
remain;
Yours truly,
Ken Dextras, P. Eng.
kendex@dextras.com - 604-521-9296
======= CCL May 1st NOTES and BUDGET
SUBMISSIONS =======
Please note: the emailed info on the Youth Awards were
promised to be sent to me by email to put in this newsletter.
Not received yet, so will put in next newsletter. You'll be
proud of the extraordinary youth honoured. The future may be in
good hands!
QUICK NOTES dashed off late May 1st~~~
Still a blustery day as I breezed in and budget comments in full
flow. (Sp ccl mtg started at 5pm, Youth Ccl ended at
8:40.)
Must start out saying that it was disconcerting to arrive at the
M Hall and see posted, where agendas by law must be at least 48 hours
beforehand, a notice that said a regular ccl mtg on April
24th, ccl mtg on May 1st cancelled, Youth Ccl on May
1st, and regular ccl mtg on May 8th.
INCREDIBLE.
What about the mtg at 5pm I was going into for budget input!
Had it been cancelled? So misleading.
DWV really owes out of courtesy to citizens to have correct
and up to date information about meetings.
And as you know already, the Ev Dr Guidance Cmte was nowhere
on the DWV website. A member on the WVM enewsletter
broadcast list wrote to say the mtg is indeed on Thursday May 4th and
at 5:30 in the Chamber of Commerce boardroom. Another person
wrote to say it wd be contentious. Strange that the feedback was
option E when at the last cmte mtg before the Open House, it was
decided to look at B, C, and D b/c A was rejected as single-family
(OCP envisions some multifamily to address cmnty needs for housing
options instead of replacing ~65 homes) and E as too high density
(over 500 units). Complicating this is the fact that C, D, and E
cannot practically be part of the equation at this time. Well,
their display board said a developer wd lose money if it stayed at
sgl-fam (what a crock! sgl-fam lots are being purchased
throughout this cmnty and another house put in its place, at a good
profit.)
Does that leave us with B?
Stay tuned.
Was told feedback favoured Option E, highest density. (Note
that more than half of the forms were handed in AFTER the
meeting!)
Go figure.
See Evelyn Drive Status above for latest.
=== SPECIAL CCL MTG @ 5pm, May 1st&nbs=
p;
===
John Clark absent.
When I arrived, David Marley of the I Team of Six was about to
speak. His remarks follow in the budget submission section --
wants zero increase and more focused Task Force instead of a
'cumbersome' review. Roff Johannson's submission also follows
(wants a new approach).
Ray Richards thought the taxpayers were being "treated like
cows to be milked", with M&Ccl as "eunuchs given the
ceremonial function of approving a budget", this is a budget of
their predecessors. He went on to recommend budget info given to
public for discussion the third week in October and expressed
confusion/frustration that there are hundreds of thousands (maybe
millions) in the capital budget but it may be something for a dept.
As multiple numbers started circling the room and our heads with
nonmatching figures/columns, examples, and page numbers, the Mayor
interrupted RR to say more wanted to speak and there's a Youth Ccl.
Although the Mayor said he cd conclude, he left the Chamber. Not
the first to opine how little time on the budget and so much on other
things. The full text of his submission is in the Budget section
below.
This plaint's been heard on Ccl too.
Yours Truly had a few notes, eg some had told me (and I'll have
one who brought it up write a formal letter) that if 70% of the budget
is salaries and they're getting 3%, then the remaining 30% shd be at
inflation, wch is 1.5%, meaning the increase shd be ~2.5%, not
4.2%. I requested wrt the much-touted survey wch says
residents prefer tax increases to a drop in services, the draft
questions be circulated to Ccl and ratepayer groups before going out
for comment/input. Asked if the quarterly budget report wd be
made public (ans: will be discussed -- gee, thx, folks). I also
wanted to know wrt the VCHA if the offer to lease or the lease
agreement had been signed yet. NOPE! (Yikes! that $40m all
on our backs???) I sympathized with the challenges to pay for
the most expensive project in WV's history but asked that Ccl let us
know what the choices are. Most of us do not want the Wetmore
property sold. How are they going to fund that honking great
hole at the civic ctr? One possibility wd be to move the GLHouse
down to waterfront as some have suggested, a precinct, and sell that
property -- it's already zoned highrise so with that density can get
millions for it. Tell us what you're considering selling as soon
as possible so you can get our feedback. To find out at the ccl
mtg next Monday night will not afford time for residents to give you
their opinion.
Well, I'll spoil the suspense and tell you that the motion, after
Bill Vaughan spoke and asked more penetrating questions (is this
reduction just deferring some expenses till next year? simply
rejigging? budget expanding like Parkinson's Law?), was for
staff to prepare a budget with a 3.5%. (3.25?) (Looked
like VV and MS voted against b/c of wanting it to be lower; will get
clarification on this.) Evidently the reduction from 4.2% had been
introduced at the beginning of the mtg before I arrived.
Let's hear it for the newies.
It sounds like they're going to go down fighting. Their
pleas were for more time, more info, lower increase (even zero);
outright exasperation at shortness of time for decisions on a $70m
budget. And the millions in the capital budget was only released
mid April.
Staff said started working on the budget last July, fees are
reviewed, rates compare favourably with other Ms, not staff's
prerogative to reduce staff b/c not part of their instructions.
The average assessment in WV is $1.026m and at 3.25% increase means
$90 more.
Sop welcomed the idea of a task force and added a few other
comments.
VV wondered if given what we know today, not known in July,
same decision; expressing concern "somehow we're expected to
function carrying out the mandate of the previous Ccl, not our own
mandate.; don't believe we're expected to rubberstamp.....
Mayor: five on this ccl did
MikeS, bursting to speak -- been on ccl five months and really
has no idea where spending money, unlike when he was on Sch Bd; some
depts gone up 14.7% in two years, only way to find out about staff
hiring is looking at the job postings on the website...not blaming
staff, blaming who's steering the course. "I'd love to roll
up my sleeves and dive in but there's no pool to dive in! The
current situation is very frustrating and don't think
sustainable."
The Mayor made soothing comments: that the new biz plan will
be on the agenda next Monday; re budget, err on side of caution and
longterm interests of the public. The increase passes four to
two; even Machiavelli wd caution against caprice; budget process needs
to be deliberative, will change assumptions, biz plan is in draft form
and coming forward next week -- economically sustainable, ensure our
financial strength....
Sustainabliity Review (item added to agenda)
JF said public wants and expects high standards and high quality
of life
VV wondered why expenses going up when popn not growing and about
a quarter of users of rec facilities not WV residents -- growth or
constant?
CAO: wd like to explore with Task Force
KP: tracked and about 14 to 20% not from WV, some moved to
NV cuz cdn't afford to live here ;
RD said WV is a welcoming cmnty; fuel costs up, insurance costs
up; salaries LRB, no choice
Sop: some volunteers at SAC not from WV
Task Force passed unanimously
CAO (another item added to agenda, 4.3): a draft of the corporate
biz plan has been distributed to Ccl and next week will give to Cmnty
to comment on goals, governance
Correspondence, Consent
Agenda:
R Fassler sought more information wrt the
lots at 11th & Mathers
SJN said staff is talking to the province
about the situation, perhaps rerouting the path; prov wanted $900K for
it but DWV staff refused
RD: used by pedestrians and to get to Nepal
Crescent the longest cul de sac in the M.
REPORTS
RD: Ev Dr Open House, Clovelly Caulfeild
Open House (to keep forested and rural nature intact); saw
"Office Hours" at KMC (Mayor, Cclr Smith also
there)
spider monkey bars; conference journey to justice NShFamily
Court; Hay Park
JF re disability issues
MS had visitors from out of town and again
urged a lease (wd pay for the ad himself), having the concession stand
open year round with washrooms and a first class restaurant upstairs
in Ambleside
at PQP re fees and NV citizens, I suggested
joint membership so share fees; wanted confirmation of the Ev Dr G
Cmte mtg on Thursday at 5:30 at Ch of Commerce boardroom since not
posted on DWV website; also attended "Office Hours", great
and it's on till May 6th
break, music outside by WV Youth Band, the
official band for WV
7pm
INTRODUCTION OF THE 2006 YOUTH
COUNCIL
PRESENTATION BY ROTARY CLUB OF WEST
VANCOUVER SUNRISE AND ROTARY CLUB OF WEST VANCOUVER
DEBATE TOPIC: BIKE PATHS IN WEST
VANCOUVER
also included public transportation, widening MDr for a lane,
greenways, etc until
first motion failed, combination then passed (I didn't catch the
exact wording)
YOUTH APPRECIATION AWARDS
PRESENTATION
Really impressive set of awards and young
people
I've asked for the info to put in the next
WVM.
Adjournment about 8:40
ALL THE BEST TO OUR YOUTH -- GO OUT AND
ENJOY THE REST OF YOUTH WEEK!!!
----------------
May 8 is D-Day, or rather B-Day.
Previous presentations wrt the budget were in recent WVMs.
BACK TO BASICS -- BUDGET 2006!
This interim ebroadcast has a letter being sent to Mayor and Ccl
(about the increase/mandate using the survey so oft invoked as a
reason for the tax increase this year) [1] plus submissions in order
given at ccl mtg by Roff Johannson [2] and David Marley (made in
public May 1st) [3] as well as by Ray Richards (lots of
stats/comparisons, will boggle your mind -- just incredible the
complex obfuscation exposed, and includes the rest of his remarks b/c
he was in effect cut off and left) [4]. The statistics are
revelatory. So far there is one answer from staff (appended [5])
but I still have not received details about computer
purchases/expenses (over $1m) I was promised last week. The sad
critical factor is that we shd not have to ask!!! As a previous
presentation pointed out -- we used to get 111 pages and now it's down
to 11. Last year when I asked for something we used to
get, staff appeared not to know and I was grateful Steve Nicholls
remembered and explained. A few of my comments during
budget info mtgs and after [6].
David Adams rightly opined that with these 'macro' figures, we
don't really know how the money is being spent or where anything cd be
cut. He held up the Annual Report from last summer to remind Ccl
what their stated goals were. COL/rate of inflation of lower!
His notes were not available.
If other remarks/submissions are received I'll try to put them in
WVM for your consideration. One person wrote some time ago
complaining that his taxes had gone up from ~$12K to ~20K in a couple
of years. Staff said that people whose assessments were up over
17% wd note the increase (last year). This year the Director of
Finance said that the average house at just over $1m wd have an
increase of $90. Keep in mind water, etc, other taxes went up 7
- 14% but are not within the purview of the M.
Do note that staff salaries have climbed incredibly over the past
few years, 3% this year alone, well above CPI and inflation and prov
govt settlements (with many making over $100K, with benefits highest
over $200K) -- whereas poor councillors have had no increase for years
and are under $25K a year. Pity the pensioners.
This budget increase is the largest in many years. WV
already has the highest per capita taxation and we value our services
and quality of life but balk at a blank cheque.
Ccl has already said they'll reduce it from 4.2% to 3.25% but
there's a bit to go. Let us support Cclrs Vivian Vaughan and
Michael Smith urging zero-based budgeting and more and earlier
information. They need two more on board (on Ccl) to make a
difference. Let the others know!
Now to comments for you to consider. Remember Monday May
8th Budget 2006 gets three readings. Amendments can only be made
at second reading. Time is short.
*** BUDGET SUBMISSIONS:
= 1 = Letter sent to M&Ccl May 4th re
Mandate ============
Subject: Council's Mandate is to bring in a Budget at or
below 2.6%
As political leaders it is important that you consider your
mandate when making decisions.
Since no one ran last November on a platform of raising taxes we
must look elsewhere for guidance from the electorate.
If we consider the triennial 2004 Community Survey we find:
(1) Taxes & Spending is listed as the second most
important issue to residents (p.8). This also implies that
respondents' answers to survey questions related to taxes and spending
will have been carefully considered.
(2) Only 6% of residents want to see services (and taxes)
increased (p.13). We can therefore safely derive from this that
Council does not have a mandate to increase taxes to pay for
additional services.
(3) 34% said maintain or cut taxes even if this means cutting
services.
(4) 55% said increases taxes ONLY if required to MAINTAIN
services.
From these figures we can see that the only mandate Council has
is to increase taxes to the extent necessary to MAINTAIN
services.
Also the only factors that staff have brought forward as reasons
for the increasing costs of maintaining existing service levels are
labour contract increases and inflation.
Finally, staff have indicated that labour costs have increased
by roughly 3% and account for approximately 70% of the budget. Stats
Canada reports that the CPI in Vancouver is rising at about 1.6%
(which includes such increases as fuel).
From this we can determine that the necessary budget increase
to maintain services is 2.6%.
Therefore, from the above, at least 89% of West Vancouver
residents want a budget increase of 2.6% or less.
That, Mayor and Council, is your mandate. Nothing more.
George Pajari
= 2 === Roff Johannson
=================
Budget Questions -
2006
Mayor and Council, my name is RJ and I live
at 775 Eden Place. I have a background that includes banking and
government. That means I read balance sheets as a matter of
course.
Every year at this time during my 20 years
of living here, I find myself pondering the same questions concerning
our taxes.
* Are we getting the best value for our
tax money?
* How do I know this to be the
case?
* How much of Council's time is devoted
to managing our money?
* Have Council analyzed our past to see
if there were lessons to be learned?
* Have we systematically compared our
on-going (non-Capital) expenditures with
past years and with other Municipalities?
Why not?
* In short, how meaningful has
Council's review and overview procedure been? Is
it up to the task?
But until this year, I haven't asked
these questions publicly. I am today.
This year, as before, I have attended
meeting with the Staff to consider our financial situation. The
Staff are clearly telling us that things have
changed:
* the piggy bank (our reserve funds)
have been drawn down significantly;
* our past easy practice of "pay as
we go" is behind us; we have had the luxury of self-financing our
projects;
* we want shiny new baubles, but they
are beyond our immediate means;
* if we want the new toys, we will
have to go into debt to pay for them.
How did we get to this place? How did we
spend so easily? Why the crunch? Who is
responsible for it?
Staff [have] told us that:
* there is no regular review of
program expenditures regarding their policy validity
(no zero-based)
* there is no regular review of our
budget planning by outside groups (Finance Advisory
Cmte)
* surveys organized by Staff suggest a
very high level of satisfaction with services
Council members have
said:
* They may devote 40 hours in a year
to budget matters
* There is no effort made to compare
expenditures with other jurisdictions
* The public does not interest itself
in the Budgetary process.
Very respectfully, I suggest that these
answers clearly indicate why we are at a watershed.
We may be in a more challenging setting
than we know; I suspect that our structure is wrong and our results
reflect it.
* staff is not an uninterested party
to the outcome, yet they do all the work
* we don't have independent surveys
of satisfaction
* we don't have mechanisms and
procedures to compare systematically
* we don't review our experiences to
learn from them
* we don't provide the means or
resources for Council to do this work
* we don't ask Council to do this
work, nor ask such questions at election time.
I conclude that if we are in a financial
difficulty, it is not the fault of staff: rather, it is because
citizens have not expected this kind of control and Council has not
provided it.
What we need, in my
view:
* more time and attention by Council
to financial issues
* standard financial reporting across
time and jurisdictions
* Quarterly Reports
* research and recommendations from
outside the staff to support Council's
decision-making;
* More generally, an approach by
Council to financial affairs that parallels a Board of Directors'
audit committee.
* A system that is open to paradigm
shifts, such as consideration of out-sourcing or [P3] as opposed to
always doing what we have done before.
We need new approaches, new thinking and
probably, new [practices].
As a community, we need to be more
professional, more systematic, and more creative. The changes that we
need to make need to be defined here, by Council, for future Councils.
I suspect that what we are doing isn't going to work in the future.
We need to make these changes at the political level, to give workable
guidelines to our Staff.
We are a lucky group of people, to be sure,
not just because we live in the country's finest neighbourhood. We
are not in debt, we have been warned in advance that we are on a debt
precipice. But more importantly, we live in a community where we have
people whose knowledge and experience in financial matters is
considerable and where there is a willingness to help
out.
I suggest that we need to use those
resources that can be found in the community to explore some
alternatives.
It's time for changes; please
begin.
= 3 === David Marley, notes for rema=
rks
at May 1st Ccl Mtg ====
Appreciate the opportunity to make a second
presentation to Council on behalf of ITAC.
Introduce members present:
Michael Lewis's birthday on May 8th
he's hoping Council will give him a present by not increasing his
property taxes.
I've told ITAC members that our mayor was
born on Bastille Day
hopefully, the spirit of that day will cause
her to lead a tax revolution here in West
Vancouver.
We know that she is justifiably proud to be
a fourth generation West Vancouverite
Like the rest of us, we're
confident she wants to see a fifth generation of her family able to
afford local homes and the accompanying property taxes.
It's worth mentioning that today is the
deadline for filing your income tax return
as well as the recently
released Fraser Institute study showing that, as of last year, the
average Canadian family pays an overall annual tax bill that is $6,300
or 29%
more than their cost of shelter, food, and clothing
combined.
I'm pleased and, frankly, surprised to
see so many people here at 5:00pm on a workday
when it was announced
at the April 12th meeting that there would be further opportunity for
public input to the budget process, I for one would not have expected
that opportunity to be scheduled at such an inconvenient time for most
residents
I'm not alone in this view, I'm sure.
The District's annual report for the year
2000 contains an extensive review of the budgeting process and calls
for more opportunities for informed comment from interested members of
the public.
In preparation for the 2007 budget,
operating and capital, we'd like to see the initial proposals from
staff emerge much sooner than they did this year
and with more
supporting information made available such that the public will have a
proper opportunity to offer informed comment to
Council.
We'd also like to see the District's
Tidings publication and newspaper ads make much greater mention of
the budget process
In our view it deserves more attention that many
subjects that get far more ink at taxpayers' expense.
Refer to a letter of today's date
sent to each of you earlier today by e-mail, with a copy
hand-delivered to the Municipal Clerk's office.
In it we make two submissions:
First, that Council instruct staff to
produce a budget before the May 8th Council meeting that involves
neither a tax increase nor a compromise in service delivery
levels.
This will necessitate finding efficiencies
in cost drivers that are not directly related to service delivery. Fat
tends to accumulate around the middle. That's where to
cut.
We are informed that to achieve a one
percent reduction in proposed property taxes will require a reduction
in the proposed budget of $407,000.
Given the proposed budget in excess of
$51,700,000 that should not be too much of a challenge for competent
managers
What is required is that council
demonstrate the necessary political will to instruct that the
necessary budget cuts be made.
As for the proposed Financial
Sustainability Review
we believe the task force recommended by
staff to be too cumbersome and the three-phase process proposed too
convoluted
It is likely that the task force will
become too time-consuming for it to make a useful contribution to the
2007 budget process
We submit that our recommendation of a
smaller and much more focused Budget and Operational Efficiency
Committee is to be preferred
Existing levels of municipal services do
not require review by a task force
staff should be conducting an
ongoing assessment of service levels and public
satisfaction
The issue is whether existing or enhanced
service delivery levels can be obtained for fewer tax dollars
We
believe this will prove to be the case
.
Council needs to appoint a committee
that focuses solely on finding and recommending ways and means of
achieving cost savings in the operation of our District's
government.
Thank you.
==== Ray Richards (and you can tell=
he's an
accountant!) ===
Comments on the West Vancouver 2006 Budget, May 1,
2006
The taxpayers of West Vancouver are being
treated as cows to be milked by the District. They show us the
Operating Budget at the end of March when we know that 90% or more of
the expenditures have been committed. It is even worse when the
Capital Expenditure Budget was not available until mid-April after
most of it is committed.
But, if the taxpayers are being treated as
inconsequential, consider how the Mayor and Council are being treated
as eunuchs - you are there to perform the ceremonial function of
approving this budget because legislation says it must be approved by
Council. You have no time to put your imprint on this budget because
it is too late to change it. In my opinion you were treated as a
necessary nuisance. There are a few inconsequential items you can
change, a few bones tossed your way.
Frustrating, if you are trying to do your job.
This is not the budget of this Mayor and Council, it is the budget of
your predecessors, but it will appear as yours.
Please don't let yourselves or future Councils be
put in this position again. Pass a resolution that requires the
budgets to be brought to Council and the taxpayers no later than the
third week of October each year - elections not withstanding. You
deserve to treat yourselves with respect. Taxpayers deserve no
less.
Parks and Community Services:
The greatest spending department is
Parks and Community Services. It spends more than the Police
Department, more than the Fire Department, more than all other
departments combined. Now is a good time to review in detail the
spending of this department.
General Fund Budget:
The General Fund Budget is misleading because a lot
of expenditures included in the Capital Expenditure Budget should be
included in the annual operating expenses of the various departments
-- they are not capitalized items. These expenditures are placed in
the capital budget, we were told, as a means of ensuring the funds are
not spent by department managers for some other purpose. Of course
this is wrong and should not be condoned by Council.
Financial Statements:
The 2005 financial statements are not
available. Why won't they be released? Let's look at the 2004
Annual Report and page 34 the Statement of Financial Position at Dec
31, 2004. We see an item Property Plant and Equipment $204,848,859 at
Dec 31/04, and $194.465.062 at Dec 31/03 indicating $10,383,797 of
capital expenditures during 2004. On page 35 we see Capital
Expenditures for 2004 $15,360,061, capital expenditures that were not
capitalized. On page 38 we see that Contributions to Property
and Equipment shown as $15,360,061 but, BUT, $4,976,264 are noted as
Not Capitalized, they weren't capital expenditures after all. What
were they? We must guess. My guess is that the Capital Budget is used
to hide some departmental operating expenses and/or as a way of using
funds designated for capital uses for operating expenses.
Why do we look at 2004 financials when we are
dealing with the 2006 budget? Because it leads us to look at items in
the 2006 Budget that has Capital Items totaling $28,621,382 and we
must ask Staff to indicate all of the items they expect will
not be capitalized at the end of the year and why these items are
in the 2006 capital budget. We will come back to these later.
Parks and Community Services - General Fund
Budget:
There are no page numbers that can be used as
references.
The Revenue Summary shows Fees and Charges for Parks and
Recreation $6,357,700
The Expenditure Summary shows Parks and Community Services
$14,607,676
Note the
difference in the names. Does the revenue not pertain to these
expenses?
There is another document that was not given out to the public
unless requested. It has another name, Parks and Culture Consolidation
- Facility Recovery Rates. It shows Revenues of $6,098,350 but there
is a strange item included in revenue, namely $325,000 of
administration costs allocated to Golf Course expenses but classed as
revenue. If you don't ask what the revenue was you don't find out
that it isn't revenue but some overhead charged to the Golf Course.
Why? Would it be an attempt to make the golf course expenses appear
higher and hence make the profit from fees the golfers pay look lower?
Or is it to make the net costs of administering the Parks and Whatever
Department appear lower?
This Facility Recovery Rates statement for
2006 does not show the Golf Course as a facility. In 2004 the golf
course was included in this statement and there is no mention as to
why this change was made. In 2004 the Golf Courses had revenues of
$1,074,100 and expenses of $705,193 and there is no indication whether
administrative costs were included. Remember, there are items in the
capital expenditure budget that might in fact be expenses of
maintaining the golf course, it is impossible to tell. I guess we
don't want golfers to see how they are being treated relative to other
recreational facilities run by the District.
***** Interrupted here so terminated and left ccl chambers,
rest of remarks received May 3 follows:
Budget comments continued:
Gleneagles CC
In the Parks and Culture Statement of Facility Recovery Rates the
Gleneagles Community Centre is budgeted to have Expenditures of
$1,430,000, approximately $176,400 more than in 2005, approximately
$306,500 more than in 2004.
Revenue is estimated at only $841,300, a decrease of
$41,000 from 2005. But this isn't all. Why did we look at the
Capital Expenditures not capitalized? Because the 2006 capital
budget has $35,000 of equipment replacements and upgrades and $4,000
for maintenance and there is probably more for computers and who knows
what else. That is why I think the Facilities Recovery Statement is
misleading. Those are huge increases in expenditures while revenue
from fees is decreasing. Now is the time to direct Staff to reduce
expenditures to 2003 levels or less, to increase revenues, and to
ensure that any "programs" bring in more revenue than they cost,
they should contribute to capital.
Seniors' Centre:
The Facilities Recovery shows that the Seniors' Centre lost
$536,600 last year and is budgeted to lose $518,000 this year. But in
addition the capital budget has $20,000 for equipment, 6,500 for
maintenance, $350,000 for building envelope, $125,000 to replace a bus
and another $113,150 to be expended re an ICBC claim - over
$1million dollars to subsidize the Seniors' Centre. My wife and
I are members and it costs us $25 each for a year. In my opinion the
annual fees should be more like $10 per month, $120 per year. Can you
tell that I am not running for election or to be the most popular
person in the place? I would say that 90% of the members are not poor.
It is time to do away with the myth that seniors in West Vancouver
can't afford to pay for their services. They go via bus to theatres,
symphonies, etc. and they pay appropriately at the theatres so why not
pay for the cost of the bus? Admittedly, there are some seniors
who are struggling financially and there is presently a process where
their fees can be subsidized. The higher membership fees would not
impact them, and there might be a few more that would need a
subsidy.
Aquatic Centre:
The Facilities Recovery Statement shows the Aquatic Centre has
an expenditure budget of $3,099,000, an increase of $248,000 over
2005, $980,000 more than 2004. The capital budget contains $104,000
for Equipment and Furnishings, plus $53,000 for maintenance and who
knows how much for computers, and this is for a two-year-old
facility.
Revenues were $2,162,600 last year, 2005, and are budgeted to
increase just $188,000 this year. Of course some share of the parking
lot expenses are applicable to the Seniors' Centre, the Ice Arena,
and the Aquatic Centre. Again, my wife and I are members here
and use it most days of the week when we are in town. People who use
it know that it is a bargain -- many from North Van attend and some
have left commercial facilities to come here because of the low rates.
Staff tell us the rates are 'competitive' with North Van. Let's
increase the rates and see if [North Van's] don't follow.
We were told by Councillor
Ferguson that there were three times the number of people using this
facility than was originally forecast. I have asked Staff to show me
the original document with the forecast number of users. Not
available. What are the facts? If use is three times the
forecast would we not have three times the original revenue forecast.
2004 was the first year and despite a lot of free passes at the
beginning there was approximately $2 million in revenue but they are
only forecasting $3,099,000 in 2006.
The Facilities Recover
figures are very misleading. Including non-capital items in the
Capital Budget contributes to the misleading of taxpayers BUT IT ALSO
MISLEADS THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL in my opinion.
Lawn Bowling Club:
Did you know the Lawn Bowling Club paid the capital cost of their
building, approximately $250,000 at the time; they paid for all the
costs of their greens, etc.; they look after their own administration,
fee setting, collection, etc. with ZERO subsidy from the
taxpayers.
Hollyburn Sailing Club:
Did you know this club pays an annual lease to the District for
the site they occupy. They pay for their boats and all their annual
operating expenses with ZERO subsidy from the taxpayers.
Duplicate Bridge players are not subsidized, nor are
skiers and many others so how does the District decide that potters
should be subsidized, or artists subsidized?
Audit Committee:
Once Council behave as Staff
expects them to and passes the 2006 budget, the audited financial
statements for 2005 will be presented to them for their approval. In
my opinion it is atrocious that December 31 2005 financials are not
available to us by March 31st.
The Audit Committee of Council
will receive these and meet with the auditors. For listed corporations
"All members of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors should
be financially literate and at least one should have appropriate
accounting and financial related experience." Since it is unlikely
that an elected member of Council has the appropriate qualifications
and experience the Audit Committee of Council should retain an
independent Chartered Accountant with suitable experience to assist
them in reviewing the financial statement with Staff and with the
auditors.
The Audit Committee should have a checklist
of questions to ask the auditors without Staff being present. The
expert they retain should have one. It is important otherwise they can
be hoodwinked. They should ask Staff to indicate all the items in the
2005 Capital Budget that were not capitalized in 2005, and they should
ask Staff to indicate the items in the 2006 Capital Budget that Staff
expect will NOT be capitalized and record them for checking at the
year end.
I haven't been able to take the time to go into more items and
we just don't receive enough information unless we make a special
request to Staff. Of course when just one person receives information
from the Staff they know it will not likely go to others and so it
will remain out of sight and out of mind for most taxpayers.
That's all for now folks.
Ray Richards
=== Reply to RR re Aquatic Ctr ========
=
Mr. Richards,
Here is some additional information related to
your budget [enquiry] related to the aquatic centre and recovery
rates. Community recreation facilities are typically subsidized
in communities; they do not fully recover costs nor make profits
as they are regarded as services to the community that contribute to
the quality of life. That said District staff endeavour to keep the
net cost within reason based on total cost and percent recovery. The
District of West Vancouver has a good record in this regard. When
the expansion and renovation to the old aquatic centre was
approved for construction an increase in the operating budget was also
approved by council.The aquatic centre has exceeded our expectations
in terms of participation and with that are both increased revenues
and expenditures to support the operation. Actual revenue from 2002 to
2005 grew by $1.6M, whereas the much larger and more complex facility
has increased costs of $1.86M . The recovery rate on the
incremental service is over 85%.
Actual recovery rates in the old aquatic
center, 2002, were around 53% and 74% in 2005.
I hope this helps clarify the
budget.
Josie Chuback, Manager, Community Services
Department
{There has been a response to this by RR raising more
questions.}
= 6 === Your Editor's
questions/comments ============
Some:
* Please tell us how you're going to pay for the at
least $40m new cmnty ctr. You didn't have a
referendum on spending this amount of money. You didn't ask,
so tell us the choices and get our opinions. Many don't want
the Wetmore property sold. The GL House can be moved and sell
that property already zoned highrise -- that'll give us millions and
not lose us valuable Marine Drive property. As for Wetmore, the
public was promised broad consultation as to what to do with it b/c
nothing said at the time. The bottom floors can be for public
use, then add some storeys as condos -- rented at market value for
income, subsidized to provide affordable housing -- or something
in between.
* It is frankly irresponsible, unconscionable really, to
find out May 1st that neither the offer to lease nor the lease
agreement itself has been signed with the Vancouver Coastal Health
Authority yet the rec ctr was demolished last fall, well ahead of
time. With no final design, we must seriously consider a
modular, phased approach. It may be too late to decry such
haste during a time of not just high but also escalating construction
costs. Many of my readers wondered why the grandiose plans cdn't
have waited until after the 2010 Olympics when constructions costs wd
probably be lower. (I'll add that then they'll probably want and
be grateful for the work.) Let's see if the replacement can be
broken down into components so we build as we can without
sacrificing/selling other municipal assets.
* Review user fees, not just ours but for those not taxed to
provide them. If NV residents using our facilities and WV
theirs (hard to imagine anyone not wanting to enjoy our aquatic ctr),
consider joint memberships and share the revenue (by visits or just
half and half or whatever)
* Justification for increases are often predicated on the
municipal survey done every three years. I will repeat my request
before previous surveys went out. Circulate the draft
questions. We all know questions can be worded to elicit
desired responses. Both Council and ratepayer groups at a
minimum should see what's being asked to make sure objective and
complete, not biased or missing things that wd be helpful.
For example, if a few residents say they're willing to pay more for
services, how much more? A questionnaire ADRA sent out a few
years ago revealed respondents wanted referenda for expenditures over
$20m (not just if money borrowed, it's a large expenditure taxpayers
want opportunity to approve);
* Information on the ~$1.2m on 'information technology'
(computers, etc) were to be provided last week and still not received
(May 5). How can anyone comment? Vulnerability to
computer salesmen selling to inexpert buyers is legend.
(Moreover, as I write, parts of the municipal website is down
again.)
* Please make departmental quarterly financial reports
public -- the fantastic Police Board do it monthly at their board
mtgs!!! (Answer was, it will be considered -- that shd
hv been a rapid yes, of course we'll do so in keeping with our policy
of openness and transparency!)
* Consider holding the line on the budget and make any
additional expenditures/operating costs dependent on increased
revenue. Perhaps facetiously I mused that the
Gleneagles Cmnty ctr cd be leased for some income... Anyway,
there are lots of things that can be looked at.
Those comments were made in public, however furthermore:
* Please appoint a Budget or Financial Overview Cmte to help
staff and Ccl evaluate programs, value for money, efficiency, degrees
of quality of service, fairness and equitability wrt subsidization,
and so on. One wonders why there was a Financial Advisory
Cmte appointed with ppl who have financial backgrounds when staff (and
presumably with Ccl's concurrance) refused to give them the budget to
comment on. WV has a high proportion of seniors, many live in
Ambleside in the earliest settled part of WV and are trying to stay
there on fixed incomes yet their public 'servants' ride an up elevator
in relative luxury.
* Please ask each department to cut 1%. that will
get the increase to 2.25% -- not as good as 0, but at least more in
keeping with what residents expect.
* Please stop chanting the mantra that all the rec facilities
were wanted or approved by residents b/c of the RFMP, and the new
cmnty ctr was listed. Yes, that did have citizen input, but that
was years ago and the amounts considered then are wildly different
from subsequent costs, eg the Aquatic Ctr renovations were estimated
to be $2.5m and the admitted cost was about $9m with some claiming
$12m if you count moving utilities, parking, etc.
* Please tell us about the funding for Hugo Ray Park -- the
proposal is about $14m and sports groups are committed to raising
~$7m, but what's the time frame? Where will we take the $7m
from? Is it fair to sports groups with no fixed dates or
confirmation if/when the municipality will come up with the
rest?
* What about P3 for the new Cmnty Ctr? -- that shd lower
cost to taxpayers!
--------------
==== AGENDA CCL MTG May 8th
=============
1. CALL TO ORDER
/ 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3. ADOPTION OF
MINUTES
3.1 Council Meeting
Minutes, April 24, 2006 (to be provided on
table)
4. DELEGATIONS
4.1 L. Feil, Executive
Director, North Vancouver Arts Council, regarding Mountain Mardi
Gras
5. REPORTS
Bylaws are passed by a simple majority vote unless otherwise
noted.
5.1
2006 Annual Tax Rate Bylaw
5.1.1 [Five-]Year
Financial Plan Bylaw
RECOMMENDED:...be introduced and read a first, second and
third time.
5.2 2006 Specified Area
and local Area Service Tax Bylaws
RECOMMENDED:
THAT "Specified Area Tax Rates Bylaw No. 4468, 2006" be now
introduced and read a first, second, and third time in short form:
Parcel Tax (Garrow Bay) Bylaw; Parcel Tax (Eagle Harbour) Bylaw; Local
Area Service Parcel Tax 1507-1581 Jefferson Avenue and 1522-1590 Kings
Avenue and 1285 - 15th Street Bylaw; Local Area Service Parcel Tax
1011-1093 Esplanade Avenue and 1010-1090 Keith Road Bylaw; Local Area
Service Parcel Tax 1305-1395 Lawson Avenue and 1310-1386 Mathers
Avenue and 1480 - 14th Street Bylaw
5.3 Commercial Dog Walking
- Amendments to Animal Control and Licence Bylaw (three
readings)
5.4 Corporate Business
Plan
RECOMMENDED: THAT The May 1, 2006 report on the 2006
- 2008 Corporate Business Plan from the Chief Administrative Officer
be received.
Staff be directed to place the Business Plan Goals, Mission
Statement and Governance Principles on a future Council Committee of
the Whole Agenda.
5.5 TransLink
Governance Review
RECOMMENDED: THAT
1. Council receive the report titled TransLink
Governance Review from the Director of Engineering and
Transportation.
2. Council direct staff to forward the
recommendations contained in this report to the TransLink Governance
Review Panel for their consideration.
3. Council direct staff to forward a copy of this
report to the North Shore TransLink Board Member.
5.6 Tree Cutting
Permit Application #000777 - 1373 Haywood Avenue
RECOMMENDED: THAT approval be given for the selective
pruning and re-topping of trees on an unopened municipal lane
allowance (near Haywood Avenue and 14th Street) as per Tree Cutting
Permit Application #000777 - 1373 Haywood Avenue.
5.7 Boulevard Encroachment
Revision (2397 Kings Avenue)
RECOMMENDED: THAT a boulevard encroachment at 2397 Kings
Avenue including a:
Four foot high solid fence; Driveway gate located approximately
at the property line; and Hedge on the west side of the fence be
approved.
5.8 Lane Paving 1800 Block
Esquimalt and Duchess (1808 - 1892 Esquimalt Avenue and 1809 -
1891 Duchess) Bylaw
RECOMMENDED: THAT "Local Area Service Lane Paving
Construction (1808 - 1892 Esquimalt and 1809 - 1891 Duchess) Bylaw
No. 4465, 2006" be introduced (and three readings).
5.9 Local Area Service
Lane Paving Construction (1515 - 1547 Kings and 1520 - 1550
Lawson) Bylaw
RECOMMENDED: THAT "Local Area Service Lane Paving
Construction (1515 - 1547 Kings Avenue and 1520 - 1550 Lawson
Avenue) Bylaw No. 4466, 2006" be introduced (and three
readings).
5.10
Community Centre at the Civic Site - Cost and Strategy
Update
RECOMMENDED: report dated April 28 from the Director of
Parks and Community Services ... be received.
Last year's $40m estimate already up $5m so cuts suggested,
eg cheaper/fewer windows, removal of ofc balconies, less landscaping,
joining with Srs' Ctr postponed, lower LEED/env'tal rating,
etc
=== START OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ===
6. CONSENT AGENDA
ITEMS
The following Consent Agenda items may be considered separately
or in one recommendation. RECOMMENDED: THAT the Consent Agenda
items be approved.
6.1 REPORTS FOR CONSENT
AGENDA
6.1.1 Status of Proposed Changes to
Doing Business (to be provided on table)
7. OTHER ITEMS
7.1
CORRESPONDENCE
* Action Required
7.1.1 D. O. Marley, Interested
Taxpayers' Action Committee, May 01, 2006, regarding proposed budget
and financial sustainability review
Referred to Director of Finance for consideration and
response.
* No Action Required (receipt only)
7.1.2 Committee and Board Meeting
Minutes:
(a)
Lower Caulfeild Advisory Committee Minutes, January 18, 2006
(b)
West Vancouver Police Board Minutes, March 23, 2006
(c)
Design Advisory Committee, February 23, 2006
(d)
West Vancouver Memorial Library Board Minutes, March 15,
2006
7.1.3 L. Clarke, April 30, regarding
Parc Verdun, letter with thank you card for Mayor and Council
7.1.4 S. Salbach, May 01, 2006
regarding dog walking
7.1.5 C. Reynolds, April 30, 2006,
regarding District of West Vancouver calendar
7.1.6 R. & B. Longe, April 23,
2006, regarding proposed building at 4769, The Highway
7.1.7 K. Lore, Committee Clerk, City
of Coquitlam, April 12, 2006, regarding Seniors Advocacy Project
7.1.8 E. J. Fonseca, President,
Ambleside and Dundarave Ratepayers' Association, April 17, 2006,
regarding Farmers' Market
7.1.9 K. Hille, April 25, 2006,
regarding dog walking
7.1.10 K. M. Dillon, April 26, 2006,
regarding dog walking and parking on Bellevue
7.1.11 B. Susak, General Manager, Lonsdale
Energy Corp and J. Barnes, President and Gen Mgr, Central Heat
Distribution Ltd, April 26, regarding Canadian District Energy
Association's National Conference
7.1.12 E. Byrd, April 27, 2006, regarding
Eagleridge Bluffs
7.1.13 Seniors Services Society (formerly
the Seniors Housing Information Program) Spring 2006
Newsletter
7.1.14 L. Santerre, Administrative
Assistant, The Elizabeth Fry Society, undated, regarding Elizabeth Fry
Society Week
7.1.15 L. E. Jackson, Chair, Greater
Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board, April 24, 2006, regarding
May 27, 2006 Council of Councils meeting to Discuss the Gateway
Program
7.1.16 C. Kennedy, BC Communities in Bloom
Program Coordinator, undated, regarding "Communities in
Bloom"
7.1.17 A. & H. Telenius, May 03, 2006,
regarding 2006 Budget
7.1.18 L. Jones, Vice President, Canadian
Federation of Independent Business, May 01, 2006, regarding dog
walking
7.1.19 Federation of Canadian
Municipalities, May 03, 2006, Member's Advisory regarding "Federal
Budget Good News for Municipal Governments"
7.1.20 C. Roome, May 04, 2006, regarding
Harmonization of Business Standards for Professional Dog-Walking
Businesses
* Responses to Correspondence -- None.
* Responses to Questions in Question Period --
None.
8. REPORTS FROM MAYOR/COUNCILLORS / 9. PUBLIC
QUESTIONS/COMMENTS / 10. ADJOURNMENT
=== QUOTATIONS
===
Author - James Baldwin
(1924) was born in New York's Harlem neighborhood, the first of his
mother's nine children. He never met his biological father and may
never have even known the man's identity. Instead, he considered his
stepfather, David Baldwin, his only father figure. David, a factory
worker and a store-front preacher, was allegedly very cruel at home,
which the young Baldwin hated. While his father opposed his literary
aspirations, Baldwin found support from a white teacher as well from
the mayor of New York City, Fiorello H. LaGuardia...
English - children have never
been very good at listening to their elders, but they have never
failed to imitate them
Author - Arnold Lobel
(1933-1987) During his distinguished wrote and/or illustrated over 70
books for children. To his illustrating credit, he had a Caldecott
Medal book - Fables (1981) - and two Caldecott Honor Books-his own
Frog and Toad are Friends (1971) and Hildilid's Night by Cheli Duran
Ryan (1972)...
English - when the need is strong,
there are those who will believe anything
Once upon a time a man whose axe was missing suspected his
neighbour's son. The boy walked like a thief, looked like a
thief, and spoke like a thief. But the man found his axe while
digging in the valley, and the next time he saw his neighbour's son,
the boy walked, looked, and spoke like any other child.
--
Lao-tzu, philosopher (6th century BCE)