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):

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.

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.

Getting curiouser and curiouser.

Why was the cmte mtg on May 4th not on the DWV website calendar?

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:

        ===ONGOING================

        + Youth Week events in Calendar were in the last issue

===  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]

~ 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)

~ 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 ~

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)!

 

~ 10am - 1pm ~ BC Special Olympics Walkathon (Ambleside)

~ 2 - 5pm ~ Canuck Place "Hike for Hospice" (Ambleside)

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.

~ 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

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)

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.

_______________________________________________________

~ 9am - 1pm ~ Gleneagles Cmnty Ctr Garage Sale

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.

Of course, if you would like to join the campers, contact: P_Barnes@Shaw.ca .

--------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:05:01 -0400 (EDT)

More From: info@eagleridgebluffs.ca

Subject: EAGLERIDGE BLUFFS - Join us in the Wild

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.

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

Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 21:39:12 -0400 (EDT)

From: Eagleridge Bluffs Coalition <info@eagleridgebluffs.ca>

BC SUPREME COURT, 800 SMYTHE ST. (between Hornby and Howe), 9:45 AM

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.

About the Coalition to Save Eagleridge Bluffs at Horseshoe Bay:

Dennis Perry: 604-818-1224 and Bruce McArthur: 604-921-6910

----------------------------------

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

Honk if you think a permanent scar on Eagleridge Bluffs is a good legacy for the 2010 Games.   mhume@globeandmail.com

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

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.

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.

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.

Mayor: five on this ccl did

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

spider monkey bars; conference journey to justice NShFamily Court; Hay Park

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)

----------------

May 8 is D-Day, or rather B-Day.

Previous presentations wrt the budget were in recent WVMs.

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.

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).

That, Mayor and Council, is your mandate. Nothing more.

George Pajari

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.

    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.

   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.

    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.

   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.

Budget comments continued:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

      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

Josie Chuback, Manager, Community Services Department

Telephone:  604.925.7127 *  Email:  jchuback@westvancouver.ca

= 6 ===  Your Editor's questions/comments  ============