WVM2008-07
Ccl NOTES Feb 18
AGENDA Mar 3
Cal to Mar 13
by Carolanne Reynolds, Editor
www.WestVan.org

...and a delightful St David's Day to you all (March 1) -- daffodils for the ladies and leeks for the laddies.... from BBC News: Harry in pictures And in the photos, see the leek in Prince Charles's lapel!
Prince returns after serving on the front line in Afghanistan
IN THIS ISSUE:
=  Main Items Ccl Agenda Mar 3rd: WV Ch of Commerce; DVPs for 2710 Rosebery, 5517 Ocean Place; Chief Election Officer; Apptmts to Finance Cmte (still no news -- to be provided); Bldg Bylaw Amendment; Devt Applications (status list); CORRESPONDENCE: Budget; Waste Pickup Regs; CEC minutes; Fire and Rescue Fees; then after Reports from Ccl and PQP there are budget presentations: Fire and Rescue Services WG and Budget 2008 Capital Budget
=  Vive le Canada (Canada wins tent-pegging; Cdn Lit); ANIMALWATCH :-); CULTUREWATCH (WV opera): Resident gRumble (Who's minding the store?); UPDATES (ADRA AGM, Forum on Dogs in Parks); WEBWATCH (Magic); NEWSWATCH (int'l); CALENDAR to Mar 13th (Housing Workshops; WVPD Victim Services Volunteer Info Night; Nazanin Afshin-Jam, Human Rights Activist, on Opera Speaks at VPL)
=  Feb 18th Ccl NOTES/SUMMARY:
Heritage Achievement Awards; VCH re smoke-free patios; Srs' Ctr; DVP for non-conforming sign at WV Presbyterian Church; Ccl Remuneration Report (rejected after diverse debate; I found it strange the Task Force reported after only one mtg and the forum never activated); Gleneagles Golf -- Service Bldg and Grt Hall (funding) convoluted depressing debate with many good presentations (last March's motion stillborn, thrown out the window? Phased proposal by BPettit; Cclr V questioning process since notice of revenue shortfall in mid-year report, not received until Nov, was only $40K and now turns out to be $250K, plus Ccl's previous decisions not carried through); CMNTY CTR QTRLY UPDATE (a bit testy); Apptmts to Finance Cmte (did not materialize); Bldg Amendment Bylaw to third reading!; OCP/Zoning Amendments, Devt Permit going from restaurant to 15 units, 24th & Marine Dr (increased density by any other name) stonewalled re uplift info?; Amendment Bylaws: Traffic and Parking; Bylaw Notice Enforcement; DVPs for 2710 Rosebery and 5517 Ocean Place set for Mar 3rd; Preliminary Engagement Framework: Metro Vancouver and Vancouver Fraser Port Authority; PQP: surprising legal questions at end, then my invitation to Heritage Week, in particular Heritage Fayre on Sunday
=  Mar 3rd Ccl MTG AGENDA; Quotations; HERITAGE: your comments, then the Heritage Week 2008 Quiz

=== Vive le Canada ===
***  TENT-PEGGING
Received an email notice from the Hon Brian Tobin that Canada had won the int'l tent-pegging championship.  I'd never heard of tent-pegging.  It's incredibly esoteric and rarefied!  Google to the rescue:
Tent pegging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From the results of the 2008 International Tent Pegging Championships, the world's three leading national teams are currently Canada, India, and Oman. [6] ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tent_pegging - 30k - Cached - Similar pages
Then wanted to know more about the captain:
Akaash Maharaj - 2007 International Tent Pegging Championships: My blog articles describing my participation in the 2007 FEI International Tent Pegging ...www.maharaj.org/blog-tentpegging.shtml - 79k - Cached - Similar pages
His description of Day One last year is hilarious:  Red Eyes and War Cries - Day 1 of the Championships  16 March 2007, 01h15 EDT (GMT-4)  http://www.maharaj.org/blog-mar07.shtml#b16
***  CANADIAN LITERATURE: The Englishman's Boy
Guy Vanderhaeghe's Governor General Award-winning novel comes the two-part mini-series The Englishman's Boy, an epic saga that spans two countries, two centuries, two views of history -- the Canadian Wild West as imagined by Hollywood -- and the sobering truth. It features an all-star cast, including Nicholas Campbell, Bob Hoskins, R.H. Thomson, Michael Therriault, and introduces young Canadian actor Michael Eisner in the title role.
The Englishman's Boy premieres on CBC Television, Sunday, March 2, at 8pm, and concludes Sunday, March 9, at 8pm.  Visit: www.cbc.ca/englishmansboy
===   ANIMALWATCH   ===
+ First: The Doggie and the Duck: http://www.sonnyradio.com/duckanddog.html
+ Then watching BBC wee hours Feb 29:
Absolutely adorable.  Here's a clip of a rare Amur Leopard cub (born recently at Marwell Zoo in UK, not yet named).  There are only 24 left in the wild, they said, and about 200 in captivity.
www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/ newsid_7270000/newsid_7270300?redirect=7270349.stm&news=... - 5 hours ago
===   CULTUREWATCH   ===  OPERA -- Our very own WV opera!
Fortunate enough to attend the premiere of The Dream Healer by Lloyd Burritt (of WV) at 3pm at Chan on Sunday Mar 1st.  Thoroughly enjoyable, floating and thoughtful.  Based on Timothy Findley's novel "Pilgrim".  Glorious music, lovely voices of Judith Forst and John Avey; soaring lyrical soprano Simone Osborne.  (Check www.thedreamhealer.com for related events and b/c the cast changes.)
About 40 with range of tics and costumes on stage the whole time! The set is incredible -- all scenes integrated. Tix www.ticketmaster.ca or call 280 3311.  Three other performances Tu/Th/Sat at 8pm.

===   RESIDENT gRUMBLE   ===  WHEN'S A CCL DECISION NOT A CCL DECISION?  or
Who'dathunkit?
wch is why questions of accountability are paramount, esp in an election year.
you've heard my comments about some overly bureaucratic measures for a loooooooong time.
As I said, what happened at the Feb 18th ccl mtg was a surprise and will undermine the integrity and credibility of Ccl.  Its decisions now can be seen as, if not meaningless, without assurance that decision will be carried out.
Staff play Ccl for fools; Ccl's transitory, staff will continue.  Staff can do anything and if wrong or a mistake, Ccl will take the flak, not staff.
Untouchable?
Some excellent.  Some virtually mock Ccl.  Ask for something? Ignored.  And nothing happens.
Establish a ridiculous disproportionate and high bylaw infraction fine (dogs) at $165, and Ccl scrambles to repair the damage.
Cancel Correspondence and then have it restored over the next few months, and then fool staff a second time after a year and cancel it again.  And Ccl falls for it.  Predictable reaction, same as the previous year.
Why did we have to spend time and effort to get it reinstated?
and be grateful it was?
If staff immune, shdn't Ccl be accountable for allowing it to happen a second time?
It shdn't be residents who protest.
Ccl shd prevent, be in control.  Count on CAO and if not, well then.........
If necessary or convenient or intimidated, Ccl can blame the public for forcing them to do something staff doesn't like.
Leaving out the background, let's see: Correspondence removed Nov 06 and reinstated a few months later then removed again Dec 07; told Grt Hall to be demolished Jan 07 so Ccl approved restoration Mar 07, nothing done and Grt Hall brought back in Feb 08 so Ccl has to approve restoration yet again.
That's two major DWV/Ccl policies for wch staff didn't take no for an answer.  What's going to be third?
PS: At moment trying to find out if Ccl were aware that they passed a bylaw last fall banning banners from the overpasses at Park Royal as of January.  Public sure as heck didn't know.
===   UPDATES   ===
***  ADRA AGM  Feb 21
ADRA Board 2008: Prez Elaine Fonseca (926 6686), VP Keith Pople, Secy-Treas Ray Richards, Directors: Frank Rutter, David Stephenson, Chuck Walker, Gordon Ward-Hall (and Past Prez Carolanne Reynolds).  To write to board: board@adra.westvan.org and email mbrship is $5.
Pleased the Mayor and Cclrs Day, Soprovich, and Vaughan attended (Cclr Smith was out of town).  They gave short remarks and then answered questions.  More in later issue, but one question was about who authorized the traffic 'bulges' at corners and how much.  Not a clear answer.  (I've heard it was a safety measure; will ask if more info given.)  Several attendees said their impression was that staff were running things, not Ccl.  One cclr said the list of M-owned property was not public but I pointed out it had to be; appears they're waiting it.  Also revealed that Ccl doesn't set (or hasn't) exempt staff salaries (dept heads) when asked about the large increases above COL/CPI.  Next Ccl Workshop on the Budget for public input is Monday March 10.
*** New Public Forum - Dog Access in Parks
There is strong public interest and a readiness in our community to review existing dog access regulations in parks, public forest lands, and along the waterfront.  In Nov 2007, Council directed staff to review both the Parks Bylaw and the Animal Control bylaw, and to report back with recommendations.
On January 21, 2008 Council received a delegation from the public advocating expanded access for dogs in parks (leashed and unleashed), self-policing of bylaws by the dog-owner community, and the introduction of dog-ownership education materials in schools and parks.
Community involvement is an important part of the process when revising bylaws. Council and staff are interested in your views and opinions.   Our Community Forum is one of the tools that will provide public voice in a moderated format.  Please visit westvancouver.ca/forums to participate
===   WEBWATCH   ===
        A magician at the supermarket:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD-emCexWVc
===   NEWSWATCH   ===
>>> SAUDI ARABIA
In a recent WVM I reported that Saudi Arabia had banned red roses and the Christian pagan festival of Valentine's.  Here's the latest:  Saudi men arrested for 'flirting'
Prosecutors in Saudi Arabia investigate 57 young men arrested for flirting with girls at shopping centres.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7260314.stm
>>> ZIMBABWE
In the last issue, Zimbabwe's inflation was listed as 66,000%.  On Feb 23, a BBC report said it was now 100,000% and that a new 10M note had been printed -- worth about $2, and shortly maybe half that.
>>> IRAQ
Brave man: Iraq's only brain surgeon refuses to join brain drain - Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080218/wl_mideast_afp/iraqhealthsurgeon_080218171011;_ylt=Ao.XeaW3LF5Qv522VkF1z2uaOrgF
>>> CENTRAL AFRICA
[This is a summary/analysis of the situation, including Jan 2008!]
CPTnet  1 March 2008
>>> AFRICA GREAT LAKES: Report of CPT delegation to DRC and Uganda now available
The report from the November-December 2007 Christian Peacemaker Team (CPT) delegation to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Uganda may now be viewed at http://www.cpt.org/files/Uganda%20and%20DRC%20Exploration%20Report%20-%20Nov%202007.pdf
Photos from the delegation are available at http://www.cpt.org/gallery/Winter-2007-Exploratory-Delegation-to-Uganda.
Participants in the delegation were Bob Holmes, Sandra Rinc=F3n, Andrea Siemens, and Jane MacKay Wright.
>>>  ISRAEL/PALESTINE
+ On Fri 29th BBC reported about 30 Palestinians have been killed since Wednesday (Feb 27) when one Israeli killed.  A major incursion of Gaza is expected. In a headsup sent out to enewsletter subscribers, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7272329.stm
+ Then Saturday: Last Updated: Saturday, 1 March 2008, 21:31 GMT
Dozens die in Israel-Gaza clashes There is no sign the fighting is abating
At least 52 Palestinians and two Israeli soldiers have been killed in one of the deadliest days of fighting in Gaza since troops withdrew in 2005.
+ Sunday Mar 2nd: three Israelis and over 100 Palestinians killed

===  CALENDAR to Mar 13th  === [M Hall unless otherwise noted; confi= rm no changes]
==  Thurs 28th besides the other four mtgs actually had the Rodgers Crk WG at 5:30pm
==  Fri 29th -- HAPPY LEAP YEAR DAY! 
It's North Shore Frog Week.  On Leap Day there's a workshop (3:30 - 5pm) co-sponsored by the Lynn Canyon Ecology Centre and the North Shore Wetland Partners (NB: Paul Berlinguette of NSWP a 2008 Heritage Achievement Award winner).  To register for the Lynn Canyon Ecology workshop, see www.dnv.org/ecology or phone 990 3755.  During Frog Week, find out about the native frogs on the North Shore, join the Frog Map Program -- visit www.NSwetlandpartners.com for more activities and info.
==  Sat Mar 1st
~ 10am - 4pm ~ NSh Festival of Volunteers at Park Royal Mall North     
~ 1 - 3pm ~  Hay Park Planting (at Inglewood) hosted by the Environmental Protection Network of WV Secondary: fun activities, prizes, refreshments; meet the kids and WV Streamkeepers too -- everyone welcome.
==  Sun Mar 2nd ~ 3pm
Premiere of WV's own opera!  See Lloyd Burritt's The Dream Healer at the Chan Ctr at UBC.  It's based on Timothy Findley's "Pilgrim". Tix www.ticketmaster.ca or call 280 3311.  Three other performances Tu/Th/Sat at 8pm.
==  Tues Mar 4th [See Museum, FBG, and Silk Purse, all with Opening Receptions!]
~ 4pm ~ Fire & Rescue WG
~ 4pm ~ Heritage WG at Library
~ 5pm ~ Design Review Cmte [Extra mtg; NO agenda posted; told continuation Thurs]
==  Wed Mar 5th ~ 10am ~ Cmnty Engagment Cmte
                ~ 6:30pm ~ Child Care WG
==  Thurs Mar 6th       ~ 5pm ~ NSh Substance Abuse WG; Design Review Cmte [4:30pm CANCELLED]
==  Sat Mar 8th ~ 9:30am - 2:30pm ~ Neighbourhood Character Workshop (Lawn Bowling Club)
                        [will be a second Workshop Mar 15 on Housing Issues and Options]
Community Dialogue Workshops
The Community Dialogue on Neighbourhood Character and Housing Working Group is hosting two all-day workshops (at the WV Lawn Bowling Club, 650 - 20th St) for more in-depth discussion of neighbourhood character and housing issues, and possible new housing types.  Participation is free (a light lunch is included), but space is limited, so pre-registration is required. Please call 925 7055 for more information or to register.  Watch for a newsletter with more information delivered to all West Vancouver homes, or visit westvancouver.ca/communitydialogue
== MONDAY MARCH 10th Ccl BUDGET Workshop ==
==  Tues Mar 11th              
        ~ 4pm ~ Fire & Rescue WG
        ~ 7pm ~ Cmnty Grants WG
==  Wed Mar 12th                ~ 7pm ~ Cmnty Sport WG
*  Victim Services Volunteer Information Night
It can be challenging and very rewarding and it could be your opportunity to provide an important service to the community.  West Vancouver Police are hosting an information open house for people interested in joining our excellent team of Victim Services Volunteers.  Victim Service volunteers do not offer counselling; instead, they refer victims to agencies that can provide these services.  The volunteers do provide emotional support and reassurance, practical assistance, and information about the police investigation, other community support services, crime prevention, and the Criminal Justice System.
The Victim Services program deals primarily in English, however those who can provide specific language skills, particularly Korean, Hindi, Punjabi, Farsi, and Mandarin, are encouraged to apply.
Anyone interested in attending the Victim Services volunteer meeting or learning more about the program is asked to contact WVPD Victim Services Program Manager Bunny Brown @ 925 7468. The information session will be held: Wed, March 12 at 7pm; WV Police Dept, 1330 Marine.  Please RSVP to 925 7468 or BunnyBrown@wvpd.ca
*  HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST AND SINGER NAZANIN TO APPEAR AT "OPERA SPEAKS"
Canadian human rights activist and singer Nazanin Afshin-Jam will be a presenter at Opera Speaks @ VPL on March 12. The former Miss Canada and Miss World 1st runner-up is a tireless advocate for victims of human rights abuses worldwide, particularly in relation to women and children in Iran and the Middle East.  Nazanin will join UBC political science professor Michael Byers, scholar and human rights activist Derek Evans, and BC Civil Liberties policy director Michael Vonn in exploring the plight of political prisoners throughout the world. The Moderator will be Vancouver Sun columnist and editorial board member Peter McKnight. Opera Speaks @ VPL is a free public forum in preparation for VO's March 22-29, 2008 production of Beethoven's Fidelio.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 7:30 - 9:30pm; Alice MacKay Room, VPL Central Branch
Admission is free.  (Please arrive early; seating is limited.)  Learn more about Nazinin.  Click here.

==  Thurs Mar 13th      ~ 4:30pm ~ Design Review Cmte (find out if cancelled!)

+++ FERRY BUILDING GALLERY+++  "SIX" -- mixed media; March 4 - 16
Women Artists from Vancouver's eastside: Val Arnzten, Stefany Hemming, Eri Ishi, Dori Luthy, Sharon Petty, Arleigh Wood
OPENING RECEPTION: 6 - 8pm Tues, Mar 4 /*/ ARTISTS IN ATTENDANCE: 2 - 3pm Sat, Mar 8

+++  WV MUSEUM +++  see http://www.wvma.net/
Duncan McNab -  Modern In Sight  ~  March 4 to May 31
Opening Reception: Tuesday March 4 from 7 to 9 pm
Duncan McNab's architecture exhibits a deceptive clarity and simplicity achieved through rigorous attention to site, materials, and function. He was inspired by European Modernism and he developed his own distinctive style by being responsive to both geography and climate. The West Vancouver post-and-beam home he designed for his family in 1956 clings to a rocky outcropping with floor to ceiling windows framing a spectacular view. McNab's career paralleled the baby boom and the growing need for both affordable single-family homes and schools. McNab's office designed numerous elementary and secondary schools, was a finalist in the competition to design Simon Fraser University and, among many other notable projects, designed the Raymur Place housing project in Strathcona.

+++ SILK PURSE (1570 Argyle) --
= Tuesday, March 4 - Sunday, March 16, 2008
Ireland is the third largest island in Europe and the twentieth largest island in the world. Japanese-Canadian artist Bob Yoshisuke Araki has been fascinated by the countryside of Ireland, Scotland, and the United Kingdom since his arrival in Canada. Known for his outstanding landscapes of Scotland, he brings us his new collection in oils, of the landscapes of Ireland.
Opening Reception: Tuesday, March 4th from 6-8 pm -- Everyone is welcome
= Many events, see www.silkpurse.ca for info.  Irish Pub Night is Thurs Mar 13 ($10).

+++  WV MEMORIAL LIBRARY - MARCH +++ see www.westvanlib.org
Saturday 1 -- Celebrate 100 Years of Anne of Green Gables
Join us for cake in the Adult Dept. on the Main Floor, at 1:30pm.
Tuesday 4 -- The Irish Theatre: Sean O'Casey
Discussion series open to all. 10:30am - 12:30pm.  For further info call the Reference Dept. at 925-7405.
Tuesday 11 -- Author Visit - Robert Ward
The author of All the Good Pilgrims: Tales of the Camino de Santiago will discuss why this pilgrimage route in Northern Spain has lured him back five times! 7 - 9 pm, Peter J. Peters Room.
Thursday 13 -- Friends of the Library Booksale
Presale for Members only. Memberships available at the door - Adults $10, Youth $5. 6:30 - 8:30pm.
Friday 14  Friends of the Library Booksale 10am - 5pm.
 
+++ Don't forget to check out www.kaymeekcentre.com

=== COUNCIL MTG NOTES Feb 18th ===  [best efforts]
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor: Welcome to our mtg to and our special celebration of heritage, SRO
1.  APPROVAL OF AGENDA -- Add item 62 to Correspondence List re smoking bylaw
2.  ADOPTION OF MINUTES -- Feb 4 -- done
PRESENTATION
3.         2008 Heritage Achievement Awards
Mayor: Pleasure to welcome you to Heritage Achievement awards.  Cclr Vaughan, Ccl Liaison for Heritage, will be presenting the awards along with me.  Can we move forward and begin the ceremony.
{slides during this and before each presentation}
On behalf of Council, I would like to welcome you all to the 12th annual West Vancouver Heritage Achievement Awards ceremony which also kicks off our Heritage Week celebrations.
West Vancouver's natural, built, and cultural heritage define our community identity, give our neighbourhoods their distinct character, and enhance the high quality of life we have come to enjoy.
The Heritage Achievement Awards are presented in honour of individuals, groups, and businesses that have made a significant contribution toward preserving our diverse heritage resources.
Since the inception of the awards program in 1995, we have honoured 67 individual and group achievements.  Tonight, we will be adding seven more names to this list.
Tonight's honourees shed a spotlight on West Vancouver's diverse heritage with recipients in the categories of building conservation, landscape, and advocacy, and awareness including:
o       The sensitive restoration of three important historic homes;
o       The history of the protection of local creeks, and the renaming of a local creek to its traditional Squamish Nation name;
o       A local author's tribute to West Vancouver's magnificent natural heritage; and
o       The efforts of two very dedicated residents in raising heritage awareness in West Vancouver
Each of tonight's heritage achievements will be described by Councillor Vaughan.
Following each presentation, we will ask the recipient(s) to step forward to receive their award, and to be photographed.  I will now ask Councillor Vaughan to present our first award.
AWARD#1:  MRS. JACQUELINE BERNARD-TAK AND MRS. CARLILE
Councillor Vaughan:
The former "Creek Conservation Society" was formed in West Vancouver in 1966, with Norma Sorensen serving as coordinator. Mrs. Jacqueline Bernard-Tak and Mrs. Carlile were two of approximately 60 members of the society, and are now the only surviving members.
The Creek Conservation Society was established with the sole purpose of protecting some of the main creeks in West Vancouver from being culverted or cemented over, and indeed they achieved this objective, a legacy which West Vancouver residents enjoy today.
Mrs. Jacqueline Bernard-Tak and Mrs. Carlile were particularly active in preserving McDonald Creek that runs between Sinclair Street and Sherwood Lane.
IT IS WITH GREAT PLEASURE THAT WE PRESENT MRS. CARLILE AND MRS. BERNARD-TAK WITH A 2008 HERITAGE ACHIEVEMENT AWARD.
AWARD #2:  PETER MILLER AND NANCY SMITH, NORTH SHORE HERITAGE PRESERVATION SOCIETY
Councillor Vaughan:
Peter Miller and Nancy Smith, two neighbours on Nelson Avenue, have played a leading role in raising awareness of the importance of preserving heritage in West Vancouver, and the wider North Shore community. Now serving as chairman and co-treasurer, they helped to establish the North Shore Heritage Preservation Society, a not-for-profit group, in 2005. Since that time, they have worked hard to expand its membership and support, and put its finances on a sound footing. Both have been actively involved in the society's activities -- organizing events, raising awareness through displays and leaflets, and lobbying on heritage issues.
Peter, a former architect, became active in local heritage activities in early 2005, as part of a campaign to save Hodgson House, the former home of prominent local architect Hugh Astley Hodgson. Although the campaign failed to keep the house in West Vancouver, it succeeded in galvanizing the community in a bid to save an important historic building, and in raising the profile of heritage preservation.
Peter and Nancy, building on that campaign, joined with other concerned citizens of West and North Vancouver to form the North Shore Heritage Preservation Society, in an effort to complement the work of established community heritage groups, many of which have a focus on our natural heritage.
[PRESENTATION; PHOTO]
AWARD #3:  PAUL BERLINGUETTE AND RANDALL LEWIS
Councillor Vaughan:
"Co-existing with a mall and a busy street is not easy for a creek" (North Shore News), however, if you walk west along Marine Drive, past Park Royal south, you will find a creek with a tremendous amount of cultural heritage.
[The creek, formerly named "Pound Creek",] ran into what was once a large marshy area, a wetland full of diversity of wildlife.  Historically, Squamish Nation people paddled canoes up this creek carrying their deceased to the small cemetery which lies just below Keith Road. Many important people in Squamish Nation history are buried here, including Chief Joe Capilano, Chief Simon Baker,and Chief Joe Matthias. The creek flowed into a large estuary, where Squamish Nation people fished, hunted, and gathered.
Paul Berlinguette of North Shore Wetland Partners and Randall Lewis, Environmental Coordinator for the Squamish Nation, worked together to have the creek renamed in the traditional language of the Squamish Nation. The creek is now "Sway'wey" Creek, meaning 'place where people fish for smelt'.
[PRESENTATION; PHOTO]
AWARD #4:  Nicky Morgan and [Dave] Tupper, the "Gerson House"
{All the DWV info presented to this point had Don as the name, and so it was read out, but it turns out it's Dave so I have corrected it in my version.}
Councillor Vaughan:
The Gerson house is one of the more important houses that mark the modern movement on Canada's west coast. This uniquely shaped home, standing on Sentinel Hill in West Vancouver with a sweeping view across the Lower Mainland, is comprised of three barrel-vaulted pavilions that step down the steeply sloping site.
The house was designed by Wolfgang Gerson, a professor of architecture at the Universities of British Columbia and Manitoba. Along with others, Gerson was instrumental in introducing modern design theory to western Canada and his most notable building, designed with Richard Hale, was the Unitarian Church of Vancouver. This building was designated as a Class A building on Vancouver's Heritage Register and was the first post-1940s building to be added to the city's register. The Gerson house exemplifies the restrained style and use of light that would come together so magnificently in the Unitarian Church.
When Nicky Morgan and [Dave] Tupper purchased the Gerson house in 1993, it was falling apart. They hired Gerson's daughters Erica and Katie-both [practising] architects-to do an initial restoration suitable for a young family. More recently, with greenery blocking light to the lower floors and the need for additional space, they hired architect Elizabeth MacKenzie to renovate the existing dwelling to reflect the needs of a more adult family.
In her renovation, MacKenzie reflects Gerson's love of nature and the belief in simplicity and "calm permanency" that directed his work. According to architectural critic Adele Weder, the renovation has captured the original essence of the dwelling, notwithstanding the palette of colours that has replaced Gerson's white stucco exterior. Thanks to the sensitivity of owners Nicky Morgan and [Dave] Tupper, and the architects that they have employed, the house will continue to take its place as one of the cultural icons of West Vancouver.
[PRESENTATION; PHOTO]
AWARD #5:  Tom Houg, 144 Stevens Drive, the Vierma Residence
Councillor Vaughan:
The original house at 144 Stevens was built in 1960, and was known as the "Vierma Residence".  Tom Houg purchased the property in 2003, after it had been unoccupied for approximately five years, and had fallen into poor condition.
Mr. Houg recognized that his new home was an excellent example of many of the design characteristics of what is now known as "West Coast Modernism" and the journey of restoring this home became a labor of love for him. 144 Stevens Drive is identified as a "Support" building in the "West Vancouver Survey of Significant Architecture, 1945 - 1975".
Mr. Houg went through enormous effort to restore 144 Stevens Drive to its original form.  He commented that many people thought he was crazy not to tear it down, but the uniqueness of the home compelled him to see the restoration through.
[PRESENTATION; PHOTO]
AWARD #6:  Elspeth Bradbury, for her book "West Vancouver - A View Through the Trees"
Councillor Vaughan:
Elspeth Bradbury's inspiration for her book, "West Vancouver - A View Through the Trees" came in 1998, when she served on the District's Heritage Advisory Committee. As a result of committee discussions about updating existing heritage inventories, including the landscape inventory, it occurred to Ms. Bradbury how very valuable the information about trees would be if put into a broader context and made readily available to the public.  Thus, the idea of a book was born.  With encouragement from Committee members, and fuelled by her own vision and faith, she began her work.
Funding for the book quickly became a concern but, undaunted, and convinced of the value of the project for West Vancouver, she continued her own independent search for ways and means. After intense effort and some serendipitous events, she made connections that enabled her to prepare a mock-up of the book, attracting the interest and support of generous donors, which ultimately resulted in the [District's] being in a position to publish the book at no cost to the taxpayer.
While many contributed in a variety of ways to the book's production, it was Elspeth who spent countless hours pouring over material in library and museum archives, interviewing community members, obtaining technical assistance, and developing the book's theme, writing the text, and providing the many charming small drawings found throughout the book. Without Elspeth's perseverance over nine years, "A View Through The Trees" would not have been published. As the Vancouver Sun's November 24th book review stated, the book is "a true labour of love".
Over the years, Elspeth has also found time to serve as a director of the Lighthouse Park Preservation Society, establish a native plant propagation program to help restore damaged areas in Lighthouse Park, help edit the Society's newsletter, and assist in other natural heritage preservation efforts in West Vancouver. Her commitment is such that all net proceeds from her book will go to the Lighthouse Park Preservation Society.
By recording West Vancouver's rich natural history and the human impact on this landscape, Elspeth has greatly increased our appreciation of West Vancouver's natural heritage and helped us better understand how to protect what remains for future generations.
[PRESENTATION; PHOTO]
AWARD #7:  Padra and Sarah Farhangi, [2367 Marine Drive]
Councillor Vaughan:
Award No. 6 {wonder why 6 again}  Mr. and Mrs. Farhangi's home at 1924 Marine Drive [sic]
{For the record: This is address is what was said b/c it was on the sheet prepared for Cclr V to read; it has since been corrected to the restoration of a 1924 Arts & Crafts bungalow-style home at 2367 Marine Drive.}
stands as a lone example of an architectural style of the homes that once lined Marine Drive in Dundarave.  Homes such as this were among the first to be built as permanent family residences in West Vancouver.
With the incorporation of West Vancouver in 1912, the building of the Dundarave Ferry Pier in 1914, and the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern railway from North Vancouver to Dundarave in the same year, the neighbourhoods of Ambleside and Dundarave began to develop with "craftsman" style bungalows, which were popular throughout the [1910s and 1920s.]
The [Farhangis] retained all of the craftsman features of this house during its renovation, including shingle siding, appropriate exterior paint colours, window style, interior walls, architectural trim, and "arts and crafts" style lighting fixtures.
Padra and Sarah Farhangi have given the community a strong visual reminder of the history of lower Dundarave.
[PRESENTATION; PHOTO]
We have one more. um -- I think actually that brings us to the end; that was the last one.
{maybe a bit confused b/c given two numbered 6 and she knew there were seven?} 
CLOSING REMARKS & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Mayor Goldsmith-Jones: Thank you, and thank you, Cclr Vaughan, for your work on the cmte.  Thank you to our cmte.  Our Awards Selection committee had the challenging task of deciding this year's award recipients.  Thank you to:  Aline Brown, Lori Cameron, Carol Howie, Patricia Jarvis, Ian Macdonald, Carolanne Reynolds, and Tom Wardell; and these ppl have been at this for years.  We appreciate their dedication to heritage.
[Applause; as there was for every award winner.]
For those of you who wd like to join the cmte and the award winners, there's a reception to be held across the street at the appropriate location, Gertrude Lawson House, and then those that wish to carry on with the ccl mtg are welcome of course to join us.
The theme for this year's Heritage Week is: "Taking Care of Business - The Heritage of Trade and Commerce", and we hope you will enjoy the ceremonies and festivities and celebrate heritage in WV.
Thank you very much.

[And amid applause and congratulations:]
RD: v well done
VV: Yes, I got through it.  The last ppl told me that they had the wrong number here for their house.  Rather odd, but there we go.  They aren't 1924 Marine Drive, 2324.
Mayor: anyway they got their award.
[general comments, nice flowers, great work done by award winners]
{~~ Murmurings about wrong information.   Subsequently I learned that it was for a 1924 craftsman home and the address is 2367, so now that's sorted out -- confusing so no wonder Cclr V was a bit disconcerted.
People left Chamber but Ccl and other heritage buffs had to stay to follow ccl mtg.
What irony!
an evening to honour heritage and compelled to stay at ccl mtg to try to preserve the heritage of the Gleneagles Grt Hall which, having languished or ignored for years, was in danger once again of continuing to be neglected even after a formal decision to restore last year.
As to the split celebration, why oh why oh why?
So disappointed on at the same time as the ccl mtg; understand when planned, thought there'd be a short agenda and we cd all celebrate the awards and congratulate the winners.  There were attempts to postpone; I'd suggested that the reception be at a later date and then have a reception for both the environmental and heritage award winners since there hadn't been one for the env'tal folks.  This was well-received by the Mayor but in spite of that didn't happen.  Some of you know I was the first cclr for heritage in WV; this was the first heritage event (since 1989) I cd not attend.  That's just a fact.  My attendance, I hasten to add is irrelevant.  Holding a reception during a ccl mtg means that Ccl does not get to personally congratulate and talk to recipients.  Nor do those attending the ccl mtg.  As it happened at this ccl mtg, there were not only mbrs of the Heritage WG at the ccl mtg, but since there trying to defend and keep the plans to restore the Gleneagles Great Hall, they had to stay to speak and participate in the mtg.
On top of that.
Not just disregard if not an insult to those interested in heritage in WV by making it awkward/impossible choice --
what irony!
having a reception for heritage award winners when those interested in municipal affairs cd not attend both, but during a mtg in wch a reversal of a motion made a year ago to restore a heritage structure was up for debate!
This is not just insensitive to residents' interests, but also totally lacking common sense.
A sad day.
Certainly DWV can, and shd, do better.}

DELEGATIONS
4.         Dr. B. O'Connor, Vancouver Coastal Health regarding "We're Going Smoke-Free: The Next Generation"
Dr O'C: wrt smoke-free environment; will go to NV as well; even no smoking on patios
6 metre exclusion zone around, and around patio so ppl can't lean over the railing!
SIGN: Try secondhand smoke!  get all the effects of smoking, without those pesky filters!
NSh bylaw so level playing ground
Mayor: have you a draft bylaw we can be working with?
Ans: yes, the one Vancouver has already adopted
Sop: Smoking aside, climate change; unhealthy for ppl sitting on patios [cars passing]
Ans: no doubt vehicles, particles in the air if you are near a road
Sop: sign secondhand smoke kills; look at all emissions
take these steps but there's a broader picture, looking 50 years from now
Ans: emissions from trucks, cars, ships in our harbours
particulate matter has a detrimental effect on health; the exposure; connection with morbidity
RD: glad to see you again; remember North Shore Union Bd of Health; you've done a fine job
give us the bylaw and we'll deal with it; going smoke-free, next generation
Mayor: do we need a formal motion to give to staff for them to come back with the bylaw
RD: what I suggested is that when you get the model motion, refer it to staff and they can bring it to Ccl; or if you can find a proposed motion
RB: as soon as we have a copy of the bylaw we'll have a discussion with the other two Ms on the North Shore and bring it back to Ccl
REPORTS
5.         Seniors' Centre Board Annual Report Presentation from C. Lee, Chair, Seniors' Centre Board
Chris Lee:  Live in Spuraway property.  Delighted to be here on this heritage evening.
Almost feel the spirit of the late mayor, Derrick Humphreys, breathing down my neck, saying tell them about the place of excellence, our beloved West Vancouver.  I certainly will, Derrick, I certainly will.  He was a friend and mentor, when I first arrived here from Ontario ten years ago.  Getting to know my way around and he was a wonderful role model.  That is history.
One of the sparkling jewels is the Srs' Centre opened in 1981
indeed a Place of Excellence; doing research, Bruce Ramsay's book -- he talks of the SAC winning an architectural award for excellence
Facility Excellence Award -- blend of function and beauty
established our reputation as being a remarkable place -- amazes me -- and recognized so across Canada and in US
has 4000 mbrs, 700+ volunteers, putting in over 58K hours of volunteer help a year
they do it b/c they consider themselves stewards of this remarkable place
it's a model that seems to work for all ppl
entertained a friend, a lawyer, said I haven't felt such vitality in an eating place since my undergrad days at UBC; place just buzzing
no reason for a senior in WV to be alone and isolated in WV
remember you at Ch of Commerce; gave presentation so ably, we work as one in best interests of cmnty; enjoy our relationship and with Ccl and our Board, last May, and apptmt of Cclr Smith to our Board.  Welcome, Michael.
three things:
-  one is fiscal sustainability: using a user-pay approach for the services we offer our customers; these rates have increased, perhaps getting to a tipping point where our customers find it increasingly difficult
met a senior who said, I take exercises at Aq Ctr and I really can't afford them -- sending wrong msg
If I may suggest, slow down and just see where it's taking us; know we're trying to meet the needs
almost 25% of WV are seniors
I remember writing a paper some years ago as a grad student on being a senior and didn't think I'd get there; find I am a senior; not able to do what I used to do but a lot of spirit, as my colleagues at the Srs' Ctre
keep in mind, are we doing the best thing for our cmnty by increasing fees for mbrship and food for seniors, youth, raising cost of food
have to think of affordability; maybe we're squeezing too much and placing ourselves out of the reach of the ppl we're trying to serve

{will have to verify, but last I knew, the Srs' Ctr is subsidized in the amount of at least $500K a year; will find out present amount.  That's just over 1% of the operating budget.}

-  parking: certain angst;during challenging year of construction problem
welcome to our AGM 2pm Wed Mar 12th
our mbrship is down roughly 300 ppl this year, and I'm convinced when things come back to normal it will come back again; ppl drive but can't find a place to park and they simply drive away again
you've received letters; p 4 of your Qtrly report has a report on parking; thank you for revisiting this issue; shortfall of 80 spaces on Tuesdays and Wednesdays; don't know where this takes us but we shd be working together to resolve
south lawn area green space and beautiful fountain a wonderful idea; I've always been an environmentalist, I'm a birder; perhaps a blend, the architects, engineers, traffic planners, can come up with a scheme a blend; south door, ppl with art supplies
some say what about Marine Drive; I'd suggest only a right turn
perhaps optics good if they see Ccl and staff trying to do something; can't think of anything I've heard more of
Mayor: we'll be getting to that tonight
CL: v good; v important issue; think of the health and ongoing wellness of our senior cmnty
- our last point is governance of the Srs' Ctr
working together, delighted to have Cclr Smith on the board; this model will work and it has in the past
I was on the Governance Cmte for the cmnty ctr; appreciate leadership of Barbara Brink; think Society model will work well; OTOH I speak for the independence of the Srs' Ctr -- work under Parks and Cmnty Services, have had tremendous support from staff; sincerely thank Josie Chuback and Kevin Pike for their help ...
hear we're coming under the umbrella; but I say, just wait
we're maintaining our special place; a privilege to be part of it for five years
step down Ron Holton, VP of VANOC
challenging role; exciting time; look forward to welcoming you all
Sop: thank you for your [remarks]; individuals like you; incredible; thank you
MS: obviously the Srs' Ctr something ev in cmnty proud of; thank you for support
6.         Development Variance Permit Application 07-046 (2893 Marine Dr - West Vancouver Presbyterian Church)
CALL FOR PUBLIC INPUT
SSch gave background -- presentation, public input in past, now brought forward
Geri Boyle, Planning Staff: mtg with nbrs and that has brought forth some changes
landscaping around the sign
conditions attached to the permit
Gary Grafton: we're not planning any presentation tonight but willing to answer questions
Sop: for Ms Boyle: not only this sign but others all outside the bylaw
I know two of the signs are older and one maybe in the last ten 12 years
what does that say of our bylaw and what does that say of our bylaw?  if beyond limits?
Mayor: like to hear public first and then we can ask staff and have questions
Jane Wattridge: Minister at the Church.  This is about serving the cmnty; girl scouts, AA, ESL classes; it's not about increasing mbrship, it's about serving the cmnty
can do better if we have a sign out to tell cmnty what we have to offer
Mayor: anyone else?  None?  Then I'll refer this to Cclr Ferguson
JF moved: THAT all written and verbal submissions received for information
CARRIED
JF: I will further move THAT the DVP, which would provide for the replacement of the existing church sign with a new sign [shown on drawings] that does not comply with the Sign Bylaw, be approved.
GB: you bring up a good point that we shd look at the sign bylaw
Sop: no problem with this, but we need to get a better handle on this; shdn't have them break bylaws
I'll leave that with staff
JF: ... they're asking for an extension ... others have asked and been granted ... not out of control; sure doing the right thing
GB: obviously an opp to come forward with a variance as was done here; provides opp to meet with nbrhd; shown on drawings
Mayor: thank you for collaborative work on this
[CARRIED: the DVP providing for the replacement of the existing church sign with a new sign that does not comply with the Sign Bylaw]
7.         Council Remuneration Review Task Force Report
Mayor: Something revisited ev five years, as per ccl policy.
Pleasure to welcome Marilyn Duggan from the TF to present to us.
Ms Duggan: want to acknowledge other mbrs of TF here tonight; you have report so won't go through at length; set at average of a group of broadly other comparable Ms
recommend changes take place Jan 1st of next year and be adjusted thereafter using Vancouver CPI; practice of establishing ev five years to review changes be continued
thank all of the cclrs who responded to our questionnaire and spoke with us candidly
two themes we heard: all mbrs were v anxious to ensure that WV continues to be able to attract a diverse well-qualified committed group of men and women to serve
anxious to ensure remuneration was a positive impact, not an obstacle
also heard v clearly, none of the existing ccl mbrs felt the current level was an insurmountable obstacle or played a major role in their decision to run or not to run.

{isn't this a sort of self-fulfilling?  they ran at the current level, so clearly it was not an obstacle!  Were any ppl who decided not to run b/c of the low pay -- less than a quarter of what a dept head earns -- asked?}

we did hear though that time, time commitment, a potential deterrent for ppl wanting to serve their cmnties
you'll see a suggestion, perhaps a bit beyond the mandate of the task force, to see if there are ways to structure your work and mtgs to try [to] use that time as efficiently as possible so that the job, opp to serve be seen attractive as possible to new candidates and indeed to retain the ppl you have on Ccl.
Mayor: thank you.  Any questions? [none] Now possibly best to put motion on floor [for debate].
Sop:  I find it a bit odd that we wd be sitting her discussing our own stipends before budget debate and this will be for Ccl next year.  What's the rush on this?
But for conversation will make the motion:
1.   Council remuneration per annum be established at a rate of $70,630 for the Mayor and $25,643 for Councillors plus an Acting Mayor adjustment of 5% of base per month consistent with an average of Metro Vancouver municipalities with a population between 25,000 and 105,000 shown on Exhibit 6 (2007 rates) attached to Council Remuneration Review Task Force Report dated February 10, 2008.
2.    Council remuneration adjustments take effect for the new Council commencing January 1, 2009 and be adjusted each January thereafter at a rate equivalent to the Vancouver Price Index for the preceding year.
3.    Council continue to establish an independent task force every five years to review and recommend any changes to Council remuneration.
Mayor: Before I ask for a seconder, I see Carolanne Reynolds down here, v difficult to read what's written, but is it Item No 7 that you're wishing to speak to? What does 12, 13, 14, mean?
CR: --the next one--
Mayor: I'm not sure it's reasonable and ...[cdn't make out word]... to speak five times--
CR: 12-13-14 [same topic], I didn't know wch one [allowed comment]
Mayor: Now is your opportunity to speak to Item No 7.
CR: Thank you, Mayor G-J.  This is about process, it's not about the good work that the Task Force did.  I think many ppl wd be willing to serve on Ccl for no pay at all and for other ppl, you cdn't pay a million dollars for them to do it.  So this is not about your remuneration.
It was about process, and I understand Cclr Sop saying 'renumeration' b/c that's what it says on the website [holding up printout of that page of cmtes], but I saw that there, and I saw contact, and I saw 'forum', but there was no forum, so I went to the webpage of the Task Force.  And according to the webpage [holding it up too], it has only had one mtg, Nov 29, with one agenda and minutes.  And so the other thing that I wondered, it's hard then to see what was considered, what the process was.  I understand some cclrs say they spend 20 to 30 hours a week, I think that's normal for most ppl, but I wondered what was taken into consideration.  The salaries of the, say, the division heads, they spend 35 to 40 hours a week.  If you're trying to make a comparison of the time that ppl spend.
I don't want to take your time now, I just wondered if there was ever a comparison as to what the salaries were ten to 15 years ago, what increases say, the M Mgr wd get, compared with what increases a cclr wd get, and if there's a percentage.  And so I understand that it's important to come up with a formula, I'm not saying I have one; but I just wondered if any of those comparisons had been done.  It was hard to tell b/c there was only one mtg on the Web.
Mayor: to answer your question, probably too narrowly but the terms of reference are wrt remuneration levels for elected officials.
Cclr Sop has made the motion, is there seconder?
[RD]
MS: it's like this latest TransLink board.  I think the public is poorly served by politicians that, I think are paid, uh there's a fallacy out there that, certainly at federal and provincial level, that these ppl are doing it for great self sacrifice, and they cd be making much more elsewhere.

{Well, Mike sure makes a heck of a lot more than what he gets for his time spent on Ccl biz!
See his offer to put up $2M wrt Gleneagles in that agenda item.}
 
I never see them pull out tax returns for the last few years to prove the point
guess we shd concern ourselves with M pay
I find the report frustrating; if you go to p 4, it starts: Ccl spends as much or more time on the details of operational decisions as on policy debate and over-sight
it goes on to say time commitment and perceived opp to make a meaningful contribution rather than compensation, present the major barrier to attract qualified potential candidates
and I think the key part of the whole report: the TF fundamentally believes that the position of cclr must be viewed as a volunteer opp and thus compensated by an honorarium rather than a salary
and concludes by saying: this wd be of great benefit for mayor and ccl to set aside time for a strategic workshop to consider how they might better define their role as policy makers; it is our view it wd greatly reduce the time required by Ccl wch wd provide for a wider spectrum of citizens wanting to serve their cmnty
that's key part of whole report

{oh yeah.  Even more of a free-for-all for staff to make decisions Ccl will take blame for but apparently not aware of -- $165 dog bylaw fine, and the latest just discovered Feb 29th -- banners now banned on the overpasses since January b/c of a bylaw passed in the fall.  Goodbye to finding out about FBG, Scouts' events, and the Streamkeepers' Adopt-a-Fish as I found out trying to book space.
With such low pay and long hours, however, no wonder cclrs don't have time to read the whole report or contemplate repercussions.
Shades of Yes, Minister.  Cloak in anodyne verbiage and/or at the end of the report/memo.
Another angle:
staff just want Ccl to set policy and no time to make sure carried out or that the CAO makes sure carried out -- as we see with the Gleneagles non-restoration after policy set and motion adopted a year ago.}

then for some reason on the front page under recommendations, TF seems to ignore all that sound logic and says we shd pay whatever average of cmnties [with popn of] between 25K and 105K; I find that a bit of a conflict
I think one of the principal roles of this Ccl to encourage as many qualified to run as we can
the bottom line is we're not paid an honorarium
can't be argued that we're not paying enough to attract ppl to run b/c most of the incumbents run for re-election

{yes, but with a different amount, wd get different ppl probably -- no doubt some worse and some better.  Who's willing to give up free time for what and to do what? and how many?  with what skills and ability?}

Ccl stipend now is $22K a year but when you add 10% for acting mayor that brings it up another couple of thousand, and then take a third of that as tax free, so that's worth another $3K so that brings it up to $28K; then eligible for same benefit package as staff more thousands, so we're up over $30K; and opp for travel and expenses

{hm.  Will these calculations be used for staff salaries?  Dept Heads making in 2006, two years ago, from about $110K to $190K and then add 30% for the benefits -- and they have opp for travel and expenses.
Cclrs put in 20 to 30 hours a week (some more) and staff 35hrs/wk.}
 
so bottom line, it's not an honorarium; compensation I think, is more than adequate
the issue is as report says, the way this Ccl is structured is too time-consuming and it dissuades potential applicants from running, and that's what we shd be addressing; issue of pay really is irrelevant
as Cclr Sop said, we're facing a budgetary challenge; if we really want to look at this logically, we shd be stepping up and suggesting we take a 50% [cut]; wd address some of our budget issues and wd bring ccl remuneration back in line to what report says, an honorarium rather than a salary

{it wd address some budget issues?  wch ones?  at least direct it! at cutting in half it wd save maybe less than $100K, wch wdn't even pay for one senior staff mbr, but cd provide for better catering, at $35K in 2006.  Where wd it make more than a minimal difference?
Honourable thoughts, though.}

won't be supporting this even thought doesn't take effect till next year; set stage -- attract as many ppl who are working, not just retired, not househusbands or housewives; need to do that by looking at time commitment and take a look at how we conduct biz of M; that's more important than ccl remuneration
ask we not pass this motion and look at temporarily at least cutting our remuneration by 50% so we can address budget issues
look at time commitment so working ppl won't come forward to serve
report has a lot of good things to say, but it kind of throws it all out the window, by saying take average of pay what other similar-sized Ms pay
reduce our stipend to a true honorarium; address issue of how to attract as many as possible to serve
Sop: report well done by cmte; don't think their mandate was necessarily to look at time commitment
maybe worthwhile to look at ways and means; but to each to his own; elected for certain reason, one cclr's ability to provide service  to cmnty is diff from someone else; that's democracy
all passionate about cmnty, stand up for the citizens and done so for a length of time
never about the fee
working smarter in the future will be a benefit; don't think you're going to alter the enthusiasm of the indiv who ran for office -- his allegiance is to that group who elected him and the citizens of this cmnty; passion always going to be there
I see other Ms whose rates are higher, a few lower; all mayors/cclrs I talk to their work load is increasing not decreasing
don't see how look at criteria doing less, in fact work load this year and coming up, increasing
the concern I have, in this time of budget restraint and we don't have to do this for a year
maybe shdn't have done it
take $22K, mayor's stipend, tax free, benefits beneficial if one uses them; go away to UBCM or FCM fees are all paid; fair amt of compensation
TF did minimal increase, ..... based on popn; don't have a major problem with it
wd like to do this after our budget; doesn't sit well with me; said this at beginning; that's why TF; my hand is not out
Mayor: recommendation will apply to next Ccl
JC: see myself singing from the same songsheet as Cclr Smith
he missed one line -- pay shd be equitable particularly compared with other Ms
if true, perhaps other Ms are paying too much
I don't think I wd vote for anybody who was here for the money; don't want to go on and on, shd be here for the right reasons
not voting for ourselves, onus on next Ccl
I don't think anybody who gets involved in politics at this level shd be paid -- the private sector, just not the right reasons to be sitting around this table and I wdn't vote for anybody who did
RD: finding it a bit hard to follow the logic
in 2001 we set up a procedure that Ccl remuneration wd be reviewed; not by us but by a group of citizens
democratic way, study, they worked hard, interviewed a lot of ppl; understand they had more than one mtg

{wd guess that most of us wd think a TF wd hv had more than one mtg.  The TF's webpage has just one mtg, one agenda (with its notes from that mtg).  Also strange that it says the TF wd have a forum on the DWV website so ppl cd get involved but when looking at the TF's webpage to see what the story was on this TF and its recommendations, it was never activated.  Rather unusual.}
 
TF came to obvious conclusions, Ccl isn't v well paid compared to most other cmnties, and all other Ms pay their cclrs usually a fairly modest salary; as is the case with WV
reasonable to pay a modest salary, Sch Bds do too as well as other ccls, about $30/hr

{how was that arrived at??? by some calculations this wd be for someone spending much less than 15 hours a week -- some may, but I know some who spend twice that.  Of course, it is a choice.  A voluntary one.  Some give more of their time than others.}

I just paid a carpenter $77/hr for some work around the house
in any case does not weigh heavily on our budget at all, done ev five years, not ev year
money doesn't attract opp contribute instead; report says shd be fair esp compared with other Ms
obvious to me either we have procedures or we don't; have WGs or we don't
we ask WGs to consider what shd be paid and what shdn't; shd listen to them; they worked hard; came to sensible conclusion, pay in WV a modest sum and increase it from time to time with inflation and increasing duties; cclrs working harder and harder, gets more complex, tougher and tougher, so there shd be an increase
last point, it's not for us, for next Ccl
argument somehow we have our hands out is absurd; not taking any money at all; for 2009 Ccl after next election; we have no direct interest
argument we shd cut [ours] in half is just absurd
sometimes think the rich v good at giving away other ppl's money; we earn our money, we work hard for it, and that's what it is under a kind of contract, and to cut our salaries right now is unthinkable and unfair, and we shdn't do it.
if we want to work out other forms of compensation, we shd pass this, it's a routine matter ev five years; and then put our minds to time schedule Ccl what Ccl does, the work we do and apportion it better
paying and occasionally raising is perfectly is perfectly sensible
JF: thank the TF for an extremely good job, and done v thoroughly and not easy having to interview cclrs
not many wd like to spend half an hour with each of us and ask us what we feel we're worth
interesting exercise for them
do find some oddities; in a sense we got back what we asked for
decision for subsequent ccl, but find it distasteful from a personal perspective
you elect someone to do a job, and sometimes difficult decisions to be made and if I feel that I'm not being remunerated enough to do this job I shd hv the courage and be accountable; it does affect me
if they don't like it, they can throw me out at the next election, write me nasty letters, or disagree with me publicly
that's the right and proper thing to do; subsequent Ccl shd have the courage their own decisions wrt their remuneration
I wdn't be supporting this without an amendment being referred to budget process, debated, and then take effect directly after budget passed, so I am accountable for whatever decision I make; democratic thing to do
when on Sch Bd, when authority to levy our own stipends, were discussed in public and went into effect immediately; you wore your decisions; either make decision and wear it proudly
that's what we were elected to do
If Ccl wd entertain this, amendment this report be forwarded to budget debate, come into effect thereafter.

(bold, Cclr F, and totally reasonable.}

Sop: second
Mayor: motion on floor
JF: then I wd call to defeat this motion
Sop: point of order -- Cclr F's amendment?
Mayor: defeating a motion, followup motion
Sop: if amendment fails then motion
SSch: that's correct
Sop: can make amendment then motion voted on accordingly
RB: other option wd be for mover to withdraw the motion, so cd table either reinstitute original motion or as proposed by Cclr F.
Mayor: good to have Cclr V's point of view; then will have heard from ev and mine
VV: having seen our budget, in millions
this is penny ante; we shd find ways to constrain our time
if we don't vote for this, it's going to come back, small thing, COL
I'd say pass this, just a routine; then we can get on with ppl's biz in a more efficacious way
Mayor: I'll speak to this. I think the TF did a good job
ppl chosen b/c of their lack of political affiliation, we didn't know any of them I don't think
listen to their credentials:
Director of Human Resources, KNOWledge Network; Consultant with Strategic Solutions; Director of HR, Methanex Corp; Director of a number of public companies, mbr of each compensation cmte
they are familiar with this field; familiar with what bd mbrs are paid, and rejected outright shd be paid a Metro director, let alone TransLink
Agree with Cclr V, let's not get too bogged down with this; I do think it's a service to the future Ccl to deal with this, I don't agree with Cclr F, and I also don't think it shd be a race to bottom
no explanation for dedication of mbrs of Ccl, in my view, certainly doesn't relate to compensation
OTOH, I don't agree with the TF report finding; we don't have the kind of diversity we shd have
wd like to further explore -- if function of remuneration; think it's function of the time commitment
we are the masters of that
wd welcome, ccl participation in being more efficacious with our time; if we were, compensation in a sense rises
let's put motion on the floor as it is, happy to separate; if defeated, so it is.
Sop: point of order; a cclr made a motion and I was prepared to second it an amendment, Cclr F
Mayor: form of an amendment
Sop: shd be voted on first
JF: I'd propose item 2 be amended report "be referred to budget discussion for consideration"
Mayor: any further discussion?
RD: clarify, 1 then 2 then 3?
Mayor: amending second part of motion
RD: pass in principle, subject to?
Mayor: vote is on amendment
MS: the piece of information not being made public here is that in May in 2002, Ccl had a TF
July 2002 report, recommendation for change that the increase, then an annual increase based on Vancouver's CPI, going on, that seems to be glossed over reviewed ev five years
then in Jan 2007, Ccl received a report from Dir of Admin Services [RB], with a report, comparative data, levels showing WV was not keeping pace with other Ms
even though set 2002, indexed with CPI, now saying b/c other cclrs have nose more deeply stuck in trough, I just don't think acceptable
Mayor: that's fine, but right now amendment for second part, and have to stick with that; will come back to that.  On the amendment
JC: Sop made main motion;
Mayor: main motion; Cclr F made amendment
JC: Cclr Sop seconded, is that appropriate?
Sop: why not? made my thoughts known
Mayor: these adjustments be referred to 2008 budget discussion. Call vote.
So that fails, now the main motion stands as printed.
I asked Ccl if you wanted me to separate those
Sop: pls
Mayor: call the question on no 1 as printed. in favour? Motion fails
Not sure rest is relevant
Let's continue with 3 b/c 2 doesn't make any sense
No 3? in favour?
Motion  fails
is there a followup motion b/c we do have to deal with this matter?
Sop: favourable from my position, what Cclr F says.  It's part of budget process.  What's problem?
Mayor: in light of fact motion has failed; then status quo remains
if Ccl wishing to further whether reducing or an alternate process, more than welcome to.
RD: does that mean the 2009 Ccl won't get the COL adjustment
Mayor: the policy still covers that; status quo remains
8.         Gleneagles Golf -- Service Building and Great Hall
MOTIONS RECOMMENDED:
1.    The Five-Year Capital Budget - 2008 be designated as the source of funds for the construction under design-build arrangements, of a Golf Service Building which will include a Pro Shop, washrooms, golf club meeting space and a Caf=E9/Bistro to a target construction cost of $1,000,000.
2.    The Great Hall project at Gleneagles Golf Course be constructed in conjunction with the Golf Service Building under design-build arrangements utilizing Gleneagles Golf Capital Fund resources to a target construction cost of $1,000,000.
3.    Clause No. 1 of the resolution of March 12, 2007 regarding the Great Hall and Service Building as follows: "A design and building process for a new Golf Customer Services building be developed, including public washrooms, golf club meeting space, a Caf=E9/Bistro and a Pro Shop, to a target construction cost of $1,000,000.00 funded from golf course revenue", be rescinded.
4.    Staff be directed to reduce the Gleneagles Golf Course administration fee transfer of $375,000 commencing in the 2009 budget year.
Mayor: I have a number of ppl wanting to speak; have presentation from Parks and Cmnty Services first
KP: to begin process, the report presents recommendations that are close to the ones that you approved last March,

{good news! -- but that was approved a year ago, no? 
Wait a minute -- look at the printed motion (not read out) -- why does it state rescinded?}

however, a different source of dollars is suggested reflecting the signif drop in revenue from golf course at the end of 2007, we've seen been going down for a couple of years before that.
The source of the money identified here is the five-yr capital, but you are aware that fund has its difficulties as well, it's not approved as yet, and there's 2008 sources of dollars that need to be found, adding this wd hv complicated that.
We've been requested, for this report of course, we've also included here an option, wch you'll note under the options section -- the Dir of Finance has initialled that as well -- if objective is to move as quickly as we can, perhaps the other idea is to make another change that will not achieve what your March 2007 resolution did,

{hm? did I hear that correctly?
Let's see.
The report is close to the one last year, but the option negates it.
Is that the 'rescind' bit?} 

ie, it does not allow for both the Grt Hall and the Golf Service bldg to be constructed at same time.
The golf course, given where we're at with falling off of usage, needs to recover and it needs a golf service building to recover from that slump, while the Grt Hall will be a great addition to that, it does seem sensible need a facility that tends to the biz of that course, and that is golf.  You heard from Ms Gosney to that effect last week
I wd leave the presentation at that, with the option there and that comment from staff.

{So staff not only hasn't carried out the approved motion from a year ago, it's now coming to Ccl to do something different? to set aside the Grt Hall yet again even though years ago there was money for restoration?  Moreover, faced with staff telling the golfers in Jan last year that Gleneagles wd be demolished and there'd be a completely new bldg -- proshop, bistro, etc for golfers -- Ccl (after a reader alerted me and I brought it to cclrs' astonished attention who knew nothing of such a decision) went to the extraordinary lengths and precaution to pass a motion specifically wrt the Grt Hall, Ccl is now being asked to ignore that intent and plan and delay/neglect the panabode yet again?
Demolition by neglect is an old often-used tactic.
Pls let me point out that whereas M-owned bldgs ought to be maintained and this indicates they have not been, I think wrt the golfers that it has been unconscionable that their needs have not been accommodated all the way along.
The ANNUAL revenues have been from a low of around $375K now, to half a million dollars and more , surely more than enough to maintain the Grt Hall, add/build the proshop, bistro, etc, and still have money left over to go into general revenue.
But then.
Putting in only around 20 hours a week hardly pays for Ccl to keep track of whether or not their decisions are being carried out.
Contemplate the wisdom of shortening Ccl's hours and paying them even less.
You do get the govt you deserve.
Remember, you the electorate chose them.
And what to pay them.
It starts to look as if it doesn't really matter how much we pay Ccl, it depends on how much time thy're prepared to give/donate.
Some might compare that with how much at their real jobs and/or how much less time with their families or hobbies/interests.
There's the rub.
Kids, grandkids, ski slopes, beaches, books, etc.
There's the rub.
Some want to improve things, make a mark, leave a legacy.  Then they find out that a cclr has no power.
Four of them voting together do.
So we're left with trying to elect a team with a common purpose/vision.
How often do four ppl agree?
More on this as time goes on.}

Ross McOlman/McColman (?): here representing the men's golf club, guess women's as well but not speaking on their behalf
Before, can I be clear on this first part -- it says on 2008, five-yr capital budget, is that money two, five years out?
we understood money was there last year
KP: Mr Laing may want to comment as well
approx $1M is in the golf capital fund and last March those monies were committed to the Grt Hall; the golf bldg was to be built as well and that was to be paid out of future golf revenues

{if I recall, ~$1M was in the capital plan and earmarked for the Gleneagles panabode, the other $1M for the golf services part was to be borrowed and it wd be at a good (low) rate with MFA, and golf course raises ~$375K a year.}

reality is those are pretty much the same source, and with the falling revenues of the golf course, we were unable to meet present budget expectations, let alone create surplus for the golf service bldg.

{er, um.  Not the same source.  Capital budget for one, borrowing for the other. No?
This is getting convoluted and complicated........} 

the golf fund at $1M remains there, at the moment the resolution says for the Grt Hall; this resolution here keeps that, but suggests be paid from a source called five-yr capital

{and why not stick to last year's motion adopted, apart from saying or finding out why it wasn't carried out?
"Someone's got some 'splaining to do!"}

all this really does is changes the process; the intent wd be to do it in 2008; but as I note there are many calls on that budget
Mr Laing, is that clear enough, whether you understand that or the speaker does as well.
The monies are there and the intent of this motion is to do these projects together.
RMcO: we'd like to see the $1M available designated for the golf and the other $1M come out of the five-yr capital budget plan; b/c my feeling is that second million dollars cd be put off, put off, put off; wd like to have assurance that switched back to the golf services bldg
the other thing you mentioned I hadn't read before, some other option
KP: in the report the other option that is suggested is that the existing $1M be switched back for the golf service bldg rather than the Great Hall, that's the option

{SERIOUS!
not just that motion adopted a year ago not carried through, but to change it from the Grt Hall to the Golf Bldg.
No wonder resident says fear it'll be put off, when the Grt Hall motion was not only put off, but now suggested dropped in favour of the Golf Bldg!
What good is a Ccl decision if it's simply dropped, ignored, and then reversed or changed a year later?
Who's minding the store?}

RMcO: basically what I'm asking as well
hope you've read our latest communication from our golf group, from Bill Owen and did it get circulated and did everyone read it? ask questions? Bill Owen is in audience as are a couple of other past presidents
Mayor: yes
RMcO: I'm relatively new to golf club but have been elected as captain wch is why I'm speaking here today
one thing that gets on my nerves, this golf course and golf-services bldg is really a revenue-generating biz and it is a way for these assets to make money.  Shd be viewed as a biz opportunity, a way to make money; surely mbrs of Ccl have a strong biz sense
v clear to me and just about everybody I talk to, the golf course cd make more money
but a couple of things need to be done; needs to be marketed; golf course industry throughout NAm becoming competitive; v sophisticated in marking up asset; really no different filling up a plane or cruise ship -- fill up the golf course; don't do it with broadbrush, increase of price regardless of the season, and think that's going to solve your problems; need strong marketing, biz approach that asset can generate a lot of money
consider this as a biz proposition not an allocation of funds necessarily b/c some golfers want to have a bathroom to go to.
this debate has been going on for years and years, at least a dozen years, well before I came on the scene, surely time for concrete action
that's why I fear if put in some five-yr budgetary down-the-road plan, the money will never be available; not viewed in proper light; shd be viewed as a biz opp and

{cd anyone tell us why this was not considered and resolved BEFORE building the new Gleneagles Cmnty Ctr?  Something tells me it's in the same area so the golfers' needs shd hv been addressed then...}

you will pay for this allocation of funds if done properly
Take money you've set aside, borrow from future golf revenues if nec; or find other ways to acquire the funds, resolve and move this project forward now. Please.  And thank you.

>  Bruce McArthur [text supplied]: co-chair of WRA.  Good evening, Madam mayor and councillors.
I have read with interest the council report that contains the resolutions put before you this evening. I am uncertain of the intent of the resolutions and I am also concerned about a few of the items that are in the body of the report.
Firstly the resolutions:
It is not very clear in item 4 if the intent is to bolster the golf fund by leaving in it, any of the revenue that the golf course generates, instead of these dollars being transferred to the general fund.  I assume this to be so and that this fund will now be a potential source for monies required to build the golf services requirements. It looks like there will have to be some borrowing initially but the facility upgrades and additions have a good potential for a return on any investment.
In the body of the report I have a concern regarding the process and the hierarchy of staff vs council.
Staff has directed a hold on moving forward on demolition works, pending clarification of financial arrangements. There was also a statement like "if council wishes that to proceed=8A", this gives the impression that staff is directing council instead of advising them and they won't proceed unless council reverses a former directive.
We are also told, "planning has proceeded on that basis for a design-build project to build both projects at the same time."  At a recent meeting between staff, the WRA, and the golf executive we were assured that this was being done.  I'd like some assurance that this is still being done and not also being put on hold along with the demolition.
I'd be very concerned if this council does not proceed, at the same time, with both the restoration of the Great Hall and with the golf services building. It would be the most cost effective construction program and should reach the expectations of the community for the preservation and upgrading of a valued asset. It would also show the ability of council to direct staff.  
> Dick Brown: I'm here wearing two hats; golfer and mbr of WRA
background as golfer; six of last seven years director of McCleery Golf [Vancouver]; familiar with the problems and operations of running a golf course
concerned and surprised back here today after what we went through about a year ago
my concern is the option motion
concerned that a hasty decision is going to be made without looking at the total picture
almost feel a sky-is-falling mentality in this situation right now
my question is: why are we in this position now?
been going on since 1988; been a maintenance problem with course since 1998; is it an oversight of this Ccl? past Ccls?  is it the Parks Bd not doing its job? I really don't know
three reasons revenue is down; golf is down overall, nobody's going to deny that; also, last year the weather was really poor.  Golfers are a hardy group, almost use the postman's creed neither rain nor sleet -- they'll be out there
Remind you that the average golfer is not the guy that plays once in a while in the summer; an av golver plays five and 20 rounds a year, no doubt some 60 a year
repeat biz; no disagreement, it's a biz; my concern is that we're going to make a gut reaction, no thought or planning
Mr Pike's report, that graph looks drastic; want to put a comment in that I don't think is in Mr Pike's report
last year strike in Vancouver, almost six months, each of those courses has about 65 to 70K rounds a year, I'm suggesting 100,000 went elsewhere last year, and if some of them came to Gleneagles, the report is really even worse.  Cd be 5K rounds we're not going to get back next year.
real reason we're having problems right now is the facility itself, and solution to that is in this Ccl
put in car philosophy -- course like Shaughnessy or Capilano a Cadillac/Bentley; then av course  Chev/Ford; then lower courses, Yugo and Hundai
right now we have a course no washroom facilities and no eating facilities -- we have a Yugo with no engine; that's where it is right now
the soln is within this Ccl to correct that; that means as earlier speaker said this is a biz, you have a product, you're competing against other ppl, got to spend some money to make some money
don't think anybody in WRA has any disagreement with the fact that the golf facilities need to be improved as soon as possible, what we're concerned about is that the Grt Hall is going to be sacrificed
I see, I guess, no planning; I have read in many ccl reports there are going to be plans coming in -- where are the plans? I've never seen anything.  I think you've got short term, medium term, and long term problems right now.  The short-term problem is get some type of facilities out there for the golfers!  Get a washroom, get a place you can pick up some sandwiches, get a trailer in there!
Mayor: I appreciate your passion, but cd you present in a little more of a less intimidating manner?
DB: not trying to intimidate anybody; certainly not my purpose
gotta spend a bit of money to make a bit of money
I know lots of probs out there; and excuses why it can be; I wd like to see solving the short-term probs; if any bldg starts right now, it's not going to be for this year; there needs to be something  this year done for the golfers, I don't think anybody disagrees with that.
the medium term is the bldgs, how to handle the buildings, the long term is the golf course itself
just concerned that we go back to the alternate policy that Mr Pike has suggested, and that's a real concern for us.
Heritage an easy thing to knock down; it's a soft thing, it's something that you can delay, as has been done many many times in this program
The other thing I want to talk about and remind Ccl, is the heritage value of the whole complex
The heritage of this facility goes beyond the boundaries of WV, reminding you ppl, Ccl and staff, that in the 1950s this was the ctr of basically Jewish social life in what we call Metro Vancouver today, and it is v important, so ppl are concerned about this situation outside of WV
Guess some of us feel that the Parks Bd itself doesn't care about heritage -- don't understand process why are we here right now
Also take a look -- anyone visited Klee Wyck lately? it's an embarrassment
What our concern is, if you do reverse the decision of Mar 12th, then I can see next year's Ccl budget mtg coming up, and one of the first things to get cut will be the Grt Hall --say, well, we'll leave it for another year b/c got to cut; that is our concern.

{Same thing the golfers say/fear.}
 
Finally, want to end on a more positive note.  Three of us in WRA, working as a marketing cmte and want the Grt Hall to make money; we don't want it to be a drain on the cmnty.  The three of us have over 100 years of marketing experience -- that's pretty awful, I guess! -- this is local, national, and international.
We've talked to ppl; we're in events marketing, and other things.  We get a v positive response; the size of facility, this is needed
The nine-hole course is an asset; a lot of tournaments are held out there, and most of the ppl who go to company tournaments, 80 to 90% have never picked up a golf club [in their lives], so nine holes puts them out of their misery much more quickly than 18; that's really what we're saying.
what we want to do and what I wd like to see from Ccl is a plan -- I'd like to see a short-term, medium-term, and long-term plan before any decision made, b/c that's what we need to make this thing go forward
We want both, there lots of options to get going and I think you'll hear a few later tonight; we want to make this a positive situation, and go forward.
> Aline Brown: I wd like to speak in favour of the recommendations as noted at the beginning of the report
[text of Council Presentation supplied]
I would like to remind the Mayor and Council about the heritage value of the Great Hall at Gleneagles Golf Course.  In order to understand the current situation it is necessary to discuss some of the history of Gleneagles Golf Course and the District of West Vancouver.
In 1959, the Council voted to hold a money referendum for $350,000 in order to purchase Gleneagles Golf Course.  The referendum passed with a record of over 90% in favour.  To put this in context: a house worth $25,000 in 1959 is now worth over $1,000,000.  If we extrapolate this 40-fold increase, Gleneagles Golf Course is now worth at least $14,000,000.  I think you will agree, this has been not only a wise capital investment but also a substantial source of annual revenue for the District.  I am wondering if the type of vision which was there in 1959, still exists.
Over the years the revenue from the golf course and the Great Hall have declined.  Other speakers will discuss the case of the golf course but I would like to talk about the Great Hall.
As recently as 1992, 89 events were held at the Great Hall, not including government and political meetings for which no rental fee was paid.  During the 1990s, the District established a building maintenance fund for Gleneagles with a view to fulfilling its responsibility for major repairs and maintenance.  This fund was never used for its intended purpose and is the source of the $875,000 referred to in Part 2 of the Motion passed by Council on March 12, 2007.
As a result of the lack of maintenance, the Great Hall deteriorated cosmetically and no one wanted to have a party in a dark, shabby room with overgrown landscaping.  Many potential renters enquired about "plans to upgrade the interior".
If action had been taken then, 1996, "an interim upgrade " could have been made for $200,000.  "A complete upgrade was (is) estimated at $500,000".  This information was prepared for the Council Workshop on September 30, 1996.
On March 12, 2007, the Council supported the rehabilitation of the Great Hall and the $875,000 from the maintenance fund was allocated for an immediate upgrade in conjunction with the construction of a new golf service building.  The Council motion stipulated that the Western Residents' Association was to fill a consultative role with District Staff.
However, after almost a year of meetings, discussions, and the letting of contracts with an architect and construction company, we have made little or no progress towards a rehabilitated Great Hall.
The WRA Gleneagles Committee has been asked to participate in a process that is completely lacking in transparency.  Decisions have been made and changed without any notification far less discussion.  In fact the report under discussion tonight came as a complete surprise to us.  Statements in the report such as "The Western Residents' Association has urged that the old 'Panabode' buildings be preserved but no source of funding was identified for that purpose, although a variety of heritage grant programs exist" are disingenuous to put it mildly.  On March 12, 2007 there was $875,000 set aside by Council specifically to fund the rehabilitation of the Great Hall.  Although heritage-funding sources were identified, it was made clear to staff that no heritage funding would be available until the Great Hall was on the District's Heritage Register.
Our concern is that the District will again evade its responsibility to the heritage legacy of West Vancouver by allowing a District-owned heritage building to fall down [owing] to neglect.  It is difficult to understand how any heritage plan will survive if the District is unwilling to lead by example and take action to retain its own buildings.
It is very important that a Working Group be formed to assist Staff with the difficult decisions that will be encountered in the Gleneagles Project.  If this project is to be conducted in a transparent manner with accountability to the taxpayers of West Vancouver, this type of citizen participation is essential. Thank you v much 
>  Barbara Pettit: [I live] right behind Gleneagles.  I wd really prefer not to be here at all this evening, I wd rather be at the reception for the heritage awards to wch I was invited.

{Yes, indeed, Barb.  Pity.  So wd Aline. who spoke before you, and I, since we're both on the Heritage WG.
Staff rules again.
And Ccl goes along with it -- even though they've been left out as well.
Maybe the old story, no time, wish, or will, to counter a staff diktat?  Sorry, I mean decision.}

Secondly, I wd like to say I have no personal interest in the golf club whatsoever; I don't play golf.
My interest is in the process that has been taken, and I'm looking for a positive outcome to that process, both for the taxpayer and for the golfing cmnty.  The golfers I have spoken to know v well where I stand.
I got the report this morning and have spent since 10am this morning putting this together for you.  It's in colour so can follow it more clearly; so I have seven copies.
---[read from text of handout:]
Over the past five years, the Western Residents Association (WRA) has talked to many people in our attempt to help West Vancouver District Council determine the highest and best use for this municipal asset. During this time, play on the course has dropped precipitously and revenues have decreased from a high of $375,000 to $125,000, primarily because municipal staff have failed to maintain or renew the facilities that Gleneagles once offered.
Here is what we know.
The asset, in its totality, is a heritage site of great significance for the Lower Mainland.
The "Great Hall" (in the existing building) is the largest banquet space on the North Shore.
Eagle Harbour Yacht Club, the closest similar facility, cannot accommodate the requests that it receives for functions.
Events marketers believe that the Great Hall, returned to prime condition, would be in high demand for weddings, trade shows, seminars, and other events.
Nine-hole clubs are increasingly popular despite a general decline in golf because many core golfers are aging, because golfers who are employed often want a shorter game and because of high demand for tournaments with a shorter play duration.
Here is what we need to know.
1. Where is the business plan?
For at least five years, the WRA asked for a business plan so that Council could determine how taxpayer money should be spent on this asset. Figures obtained by the WRA suggested that a restaurant/pro shop/ banquet facility would be [more] successful than a restaurant/pro shop. No business plan was forthcoming.
Notwithstanding the lack of a business plan, Council allocated $875,000 in March 2007 to refurbish the existing structure containing the Great Hall and felt that another $1 million could be found for the construction of adjunct golf services required (e.g. bistro/pro shop and meeting room). Staff have had an entire year to prepare a business plan to ensure that the taxpayers' money was being well spent. No business plan has been forthcoming.
Was the direction chosen by Council last March appropriate or is the option (File 2160-05f) the way to go? Only a business plan can provide a credible basis for moving forward.
2. What alternatives have been studied?
Renovation of the Existing Building: The $875,000 allotted by Council was sufficient to return the existing structure to prime condition had the District acted in a timely fashion (Council workshop 1996, Appendix F).
New/Build: Delays in decision-making and rising construction costs have eliminated the possibility of renovating the existing structure for under $1 million and certainly make a new/build alternative that replicates the existing facilities out of the question.
For Profit: An independent group presented an option that would essentially mean a privately run, for-profit operation
Basic Services: Subsequently, staff decided to tear down the existing structure and build a "golf services building" on or near the site of the existing pro shop.
Reno with New/Build: The restoration of the Great Hall portion of the existing building plus a new/build addition containing a bistro, pro shop, and meeting room could have been built for under $1 million when it was presented. Higher estimates obtained independently by the District showed a lack of knowledge of log construction.
Reworked Reno with New/Build: Staff asked for adjustments to the above plan. We understand that estimates for the resulting larger space exceeded the $2 million cap for the project.
A phased alternative that may have been considered by staff: Phase One would rework the existing building and add a new foyer. The combined space would provide washrooms, temporary bistro, and meeting room plus a banquet hall with catering facilities. Phase Two would add a permanent bistro, meeting room, and pro shop. The final building would be similar to the plans presented to Council last year.
A phased approach would help to resolve Council's budgetary issues and might allow revenues from the golf course to increase again in a more timely fashion than the option suggested in the February 8, 2008 report.
3. Some Questions of Costs
Has the contractor provided estimates for the reworked renovation and new/build addition? And if so, how did these costs differ from those prepared by the quantity surveyor?
Finally, if the Great Hall project is delayed, how much of the $875,000 set aside will be set aside to prevent further deterioration of the existing Panabode structure until it is finished as well?
---
That is my presentation.
Mayor: you'll circulate those right now?  I think it wd be useful fo Ccl, tyvm.
[BP did.]
>  Dave Roach [Rather than doing a transcript, DR has kindly provided me with his remarks, as follows]:
---The points essentially were these:
1) up to (and including) 2004 fiscal year, the Gleneagles Golf Course was operating in the General Fund under P&CS;
2) during 2005, the Gleneagles Golf Course was transferred to the newly set Golf Fund to operate as a separate business unit with its own reserves for maintenance and new facilities and facility renewal;
3) as a business unit the Golf Course should be operated as a utility, much like the Water Utility Fund or the Sewer Utility Fund;
4) as a utility it should be able to borrow to fund new facilities provided the revenues from operations are sufficient to service the debt (so that it does not become a burden on the general taxpayer);
5) the estimated $2M of construction could be financed by borrowing through the MFA (Municipal Finance Authority), say at 4.8% annual interest rate on a 20-year term loan basis;
6) the debt service requirements for a 20-year term loan at 4.8% with annual sinking fund (at an actuarial rate of 4% earned on the sinking fund balance) is $177,160 per year which appears to be well within the capacity of the golf course to manage (provided operations turn-around);
7) it was noted that the $375,000 per year transfer from the Golf Fund to the General Fund represented 0.8 percentage point of 2007 municipal property taxation revenue, and if the proposal to discontinue these annual transfers [were] effected in 2008 (i.e., the transfer stops in this 2008 budget year), then property taxes would have to rise 3.8% rather than 3% as per the staff proposed 2008 budget;
8) that, furthermore, any construction undertaken should be done on a fixed-price basis against a set of approved plans and it should not done on a design-build basis (as explained subsequently); and
9) that "design-build" is used where the question of schedule is paramount, and cost is a secondary consideration, and that "design-build" usually leads to higher overall costs (this point fell on deaf ears as this Council and this staff seems to regard "design-build" as giving them flexibility to alter plans 'on-the-go' which simply leads to subsequent higher costs).---
[Finally,] shd be capable of funding itself, I wd suggest looking at debt as a possible alternative for that purpose.  That just about sums it up.
> Linda Ross: resident 48 years, active executive, mbr, and player at Gleneagles for 33 years
have nothing prepared b/c prepared seven talks over nine years and facts exactly the same, so somewhere in your background of records.
Catch 22 situation, financing-wise, the orig $875K for golf facility then transferred to Grt Hall, the revenue from the golf course was going to pay for the golf facility but b/c you hadn't started to improve the golf facility, the revenues were down on the golf course, and now cdn't pay for it.  Is that not a perfect Catch 22?
not going to have the money to build the golf bldg till we have better revenue from the golf course; and not going to have better revenue form the golf course until you provide a better golf facility.
revenue from Grt Hall a nonevent since 1992 but golf course has still been producing funds, and that to me, if there's not enough to go around, is where it has to initially go.
Mayor: anyone further?  think Ccl really is looking forward to getting into this discussion and making a decision.  Cclr Clark, your motion
JC: won't be one on screen; last speaker took the words right out of my head, can't say it any better than you have.
we had $875K, grown to $1M; can only spend a dollar once, not twice, tried it many times and didn't work; my ex-wife tried even harder, didn't work
what you said is true, one generates funds for the other; and the other is the Grt Hall.
As sentimental as we want to be about it, and Cclr Sop has had several weddings there
Sop: only one that I know of--
JC: --only one you remember, joking aside, can only spend that dollar once
proposing we create a function for the golfers who will bring the revenue in however down golf is at the moment, a lot of ppl playing golf then we can address restoration of the Grt Hall
don't think anybody here or past Ccls I've been involved in wants to walk away from that bldg, too much sentimentality attached to it.
I move resolution 1 and 2 of March 2007 be rescinded; two, the Grt Hall restoration project be referred back to staff for preparation of a biz plan, heritage conservation plan, and a budget; three, that the golf service bldg, comprised of cafe, washrooms, proshop, and support facilities at Gleneagles Golf Course, be constructed on a design-build basis, using funds available in the Golf Capital Fund to an estimated cost of $1M; four, that staff be directed to reduce the Gleneagles golf course admin fee transfer of $375K, commencing in the 2009 budget year; and five, that the cafe be restricted to a max of 20 seats,
and the reason I put that in, is that I don't think we shd try to compete with restaurants in HBay or elsewhere; one of the most successful in Amb is 60 seats; it's a major event, particularly if we're looking at restoration of the Grt Hall where you can seat 20, 40, 60,  80, or 120 in increments.
Makes more sense to keep this tight and workable and function through the couple of years till we get at  the Grt Hall
Mayor: is there seconder?
{silence till RD spoke}
RD: Second.
Mayor: thank you
RD: this is one one of these issues that go back as far as I can remember and we've got to resolve it; big problem has been lack money.
Interested in providing golf facilities and restoring the panabode
we have $1M to do it so we have to make a choice
probably makes sense given decline in golf revenue, start with golf facilities right away; wd involve a plan to improve and upgrade golf course as well
makes a lot of sense, to go back to staff wrt banquet hall restoration; work into five-year plan to finance that as well
makes sense to me b/c next year building golf proshop and facilities and so forth, during that time cd be planning to restore the panabode; in fact there are sources of money that we can find; there's the Endowment Fund, and so forth; we cd lower the threshold on that.
In 2008 we'll find a way, I'm hoping, to restore the panabode; hoping to restore with the cooperation of the WRA and the golf ppl
wd like to leave the number of seats in the cafe, leave open; never know what you're going to need, maybe 25, who knows? depends on whoever runs it, agree stay small b/c going to have lots of seats in the panabode once it's restored; hope it is restored
favour Cclr Clark's motion and I hope Ccl passes it.
VV: we have two issues here: one golf and the other is our own processes, and our function as a Ccl and a govt
things have gone badly wrong; we're not really coming to grips with it.
going to read from our own annual report for year ending 2006:
"Progress Reporting:  The District has in place qtrly operating reviews that allow Ccl and management to track financial results throughout the year and identify issues and challenges at an early stage so that alternative corrective actions may be taken prior to year end."
Now, I thought that's how we did things, but what happened?
Look at 2007.  We have plans wch say this Gleneagles facility is going to be built, the mid-year operating review tells us it's 50% along the way, it doesn't tell us anything is wrong with the golf revenue.  We look at the notes to the mid-year operating review, although it refers June 30 we didn't receive it, not actually presented with it until Nov.
All we have on Parks and Cmnty Services (PCS) is that revenues will be short by $40K relating to a late decision not to implement certain sport field fee increases.
It also says "this review can and does flag unusual and unforeseen items that have occurred during the first six months."

{just a minute.  If Ccl only gets the mid-year report in November, there's no time to take any corrective measures that are meaningful before year end -- but you, Dear Readers, have already twigged to that, haven't you.}

what we're asked to believe is that nobody knew there was anything wrong with the golf revenues during 2007, yet now we're told -- just today! -- that it was $250K short.
Mayor: cd we find out about when we knew that and when that was reported to Ccl?
KP: we knew this for sure at year end, but during the fall period we certainly knew we were coming short and reported this to Ccl at the time when I raised this as a problem project, that we did not have the dollars coming forward, and that was early January.
VV: January 2008
Mayor: yes
VV: b/c I raised the matter on Jan 21st, and proposed a motion we have the company that's been engaged to do this, authorized to get on with it
We're in the position as a Ccl, having begun.  Early 2006, some of us toured the panabode golf clubhouse and decided we shd fast-track it; we agreed with the ppl from the heritage perspective, we can't leave it, we either restore it or demolish it, but we cannot let it go any longer.  We unanimously resolved that that Grt Hall/panabode bldg wd be restored with new washrooms, and we assigned it an amt of money we believed was adequate to do it.  We didn't know if the golf players wd want to use it but it was our hope and expectation that they might like to b/c that's its original name and purpose, the Gleneagles Golf Clubhouse.
Again, the thing proceeded, then we found to our surprise in 2007 that the money we had voted for restoration of the heritage bldg had been somehow re-assigned as though it were given generally for golf purposes, there was to be a diff bldg for that money.  I wasn't any too pleased b/c suddenly a new bldg that was called the Golf Clubhouse.  Keep the money and keep the approval, but slide the panabode bldg out from under it and slide in a different project.  We were lucky to catch that at one point

{That was thanks to an alert WVM Reader.  The Reader called me and wondered why I had not reported that the panabode was to be demolished and a new golf services bldg built.  I said b/c I didn't know about that, and hadn't heard of such a decision.  I called several cclrs.  They hadn't heard of that either and were still lulled by the the decision from a year previous to that.  WRA and others got organized (WRA was at Heritage Week last year letting ppl know, getting a petition from ppl to save it b/c most not aware endangered) and the result was that  (second, reconfirmed decision) motion March last year to try to ensure Ccl's intent and decision/motion carried out.  Cclr V is being constrained.  It's utterly shocking to have to go through this three times, three years in a row -- Jan 2006 (well, before it was the intent too, for years as some speakers pointed out), Mar 2007, and now Feb 2008.}

and we reaffirmed that that money was for that panabode bldg and for nowhere else
so again time dragged on, and we understood and believed, certainly I did from the documents that the project was underway; that's what it said
if we had been told, that golf revenues weren't coming in, that the $1M we had voted to be allowed from borrowing to be repaid by golf fees, if we'd known that was in jeopardy, certainly for myself, I wd hv bn happy to move, months ago as soon as we knew, that instead of going for long-term borrowing, we look to the Endowment Fund.  Not b/c the golf facilities are privileged, but b/c they'd been funding at the rate of over $300K a year, I don't for how many years but they've obviously been paying millions that they needed for their own renovation/restoration to keep themselves up.  It didn't happen.  The money was taken away to subsidize other activities,

{absolutely breath-taking!
hm  --  the Gleneagles Cmnty Ctr is subsidized to the tune of about $600K a year; wonder if some's being used to feed that white elephant.}

and as far as I'm concerned then obviously it was overdone; we need to repatriate the money back in sufficient amt to keep golf going
We basically killed the goose that laid the golden financial egg with that golf course
We cd and shd, and I wd be confident the majority of Ccl wd hv agreed to do that; we'd only be giving back money golf club had earned
As far as I'm concerned we allowed these priorities to get distorted, we weren't on top of the data, as I think we shd hv bn, it shd hv bn reported to us; and we always have that fear.
an email referred to this evening, from a former past president Mr Bill Owen, says they were told back in, prior to 2006, that, he calls it the unofficial word, that the old and tired facilities wd be demolished sometime in 2006 at the latest, and there'd be a new clubhouse, proshop, washrooms,..
so we're always left with this uneasy feeling that was this really administrative, kind of, slowness, or was there the hope that this Grt Hall wd finally collapse and money handed over for other purposes -- we'll never know.
What I'd like us to do, much as I appreciate the intent behind Cclr Clark's motion, I think we shd reassert the original motion and intent, and provide money from the Endowment Fund, a million or a million and a quarter, whatever it takes, but I don't want us to lose another year.
we've already lost one golf season by having it run with the old instead the new facilities and it probably cost us $200K; delay during wch construction costs up over 1% a month; we're just losing whilst we try to rearrange it.
Wd like us to reaffirm our authority as a Ccl {courage? someone coughed so cdn't hear word} that we said we wd do, that it was announced in the newspapers we wd do back in March of 2007; it was all over the newspapers what we wd do, and I think we shd deliver.  I think we shd follow through.  I think we shd fast-track it.  I think we shd provide the money from the E Fund, and put this out there in time for the 2008 golf season.
Regretfully, I won't support the motion as written but I will support the priority to the Gleneagles panabode bldg, and enough money to add what the golf players want, the proshop, the bistro, and all of the accessories and washrooms, etc., but I think we shdn't mess around with redesigning, we're just going to lose another golf season.
I'd love to get on with it but not technically the way it's set b/c again setting ourselves up for delays and problems around funding.
Mayor: the $875K that Ccl did designate for Grt Hall, is still there; that's in motion
quite right, staff have no right to change that wch is why here

{way to go, PGJ! some spine/process appearing....}

prev proposals, public-private partnership, maybe what he's referring to
v good summary; v gd for Ccl to stick to its motion
JF: wrt Cclr Clark's motion; supportive of motion except for that; not in the biz of letting bistro
by limiting the number of seats, appreciate limiting size may not have a viable biz; important that it be b/c profits wd be using; 30 to 40
KP: the prev facility was probably 20 to 25
we do not plan on operating a bistro; go for expressions of interest, perhaps an RFP; wd like this to have some flexibility
sympathize; want it to be a viable biz so we don't end up having to run it and subsidize that

{Right, KP.}

JF: rescind part on 20 seats
JC: in last couple of weeks, waiting for this policy to come forward, came to me 60 or 60+ seats
one of the most successful restaurants in Amb is 60 seats; and to focus so directly with one of the most successful restaurants, had a cross-market as opposed to a focus market wd be biting off, if you'll pardon the pun, a great deal more than we can chew
rather fill the restaurant with five foursomes, maybe six, than sit there with a facility underutilized and over cost, that's where the number came from.
Mayor: we'll cross that bridge when we get to part five.
MS: this old Gleneagles issue, if you sent this script to Ripley's Believe it or Not, they'd mail it back to you as being unbelievable
anyway, words almost fail me
question to Mr Pike and his report
it says it's been proposed at different times that the concept of mtg hall, catering service, be abandoned, and only golf service bldg be constructed, wch is what I understand this motion is suggesting

{that's sure not what was said at the very outset of the agenda item.}

it says the available capital funds wd pay for most of this, but that option wd again face the question of biz viability.  In add'n, food services presently provided within Gleneagles Cmnty Ctr must be a part of consideration
Then the report goes on to say the golf course can only be financially sustainable if it is able to offer high quality of service and amenities, that compete favourably with other courses in the region
Building the golf service bldg at same time as the Grt Hall renovation will accomplish that and wd help us get back to a level of patronage that sustains all aspects of the operation and allows a sound strategic operation and capital plan for the course.
That is, I quote directly from staff report
I'm a little lost as to whether or not this motion we're discussing wd be opposite to comments you've made in the report
KP: I've written so many reports on this topic over seven or eight years; I get lost; I've argued with and against all the speakers; I've looked for ways to reach a decision and get rolling on this

{but didn't Ccl make the decision in March last year???}

I've come to cmtes, I've come to Ccl; I admit to a great deal of frustration around this issue
remains that we do not have enough money in golf fund to do both the Grt Hall and the golf service bldg, and this has been the situation for many many years
where we're at at the moment, if we don't do the golf service bldg we're going to be in some difficulty
small cafe we had there before was viable b/c of the Grt Hall, b/c there was a catering biz
no one wanted to upgrade the building so it just deteriorated to the point that nobody wanted to go there any more, and nothing became viable
we've put together food services at the GCC and really isn't viable
need to look at this as a whole, a whole complex; the ideal wd be a small banquet hall with a small bistro that ppl cd use from the cmnty ctr and from the golf course
but the dollars do not sit and aren't available
I raised it in January, may have been late, but I can't watch and say that we don't have money there and plough ahead with a project despite the resolution and I brought that problem back to you
Heard tonight a number of suggestions; have to do a short med long biz plan, you've got to move; that's really what's held us before
have a stack of biz plans; all say same thing, biz viable but if you expect it to pay back the capital, it is not.
didn't want to do without the Grt Hall but I know we're going to continue to deteriorate our biz if we do not provide the golf services bldg with at least a place ppl to go to the washroom, get out of rain, and get a beer and a burger, and that's what we'd like to accomplish
MS: Appreciate that lengthy response, Mr Pike; you have ev right to be frustrated as everybody in WV has over this issue
followup question, is there a plan with a credible architectural, construction plans that show that Grt Hall can be renovated for $1M that was allocated to it?  just the Grt Hall
KP: no detailed plans, sketch plans of both of these bldgs, are being improved
not down to size that will allow us to golf service bldg for $1M, but the estimate on renovating for Grt Hall as the plan is currently laid out, is less than $1M, somewhere between $700K and $1M, something less than $1M, but it's only been costed through an architect's office and our Purchasing Dept.
MS: guess, we have to move ahead with something immediately, become a farce
even more farcical if go ahead and build 20-seat cafe and we can't find anyone to operate it or it operates at a loss
if we need Grt Hall as part to make operation fly, I'm struggling as to whether or not hearing answer to that
agree no way be able to repay $2M capital, $1M for Grt Hall and $1M for golf, but the bottom line is golf has returned $3-400K a year gross revenues so that clearly is enough to retire $1M or $2M of debt if we have to, so the project cd be viable
wd like to see firm assurance if we allocate $2M total to the project that we cd have a Grt Hall and a golf services bldg that meets needs of golfers; two bldgs fill the need, but can it be done for figures we're talking about? I haven't heard that answer
KP: our direction to the architect hs bn give us a design we can do for $2M
that's what's currently being developed, after clearly what was a false start that was for more than that
Mayor: does that answer your question?
[Someone say nope.]
MS: You know, I don't want to put Mr Pike on the spot, it does answer my question.
I'm in sympathy with Cclr Clark's motion, but if we need the whole project to make the golf course, whole project viable seems crazy to cherry pick the thing and do it in stages.  If the first stage, yes cd meet the needs of the golfers but cd end up costing us, end up draining the revenue from the golf
to subsidize an inefficient 20-seat bistro.  I dunno.
KP: in the wintertime that's the issue; the small cafe never really broke even, it needed the Grt Hall catering to make it viable; that's been the history
if no second million dollars we need to move on something before we witness more loss of revenue
MS: last question, Mr Pike.  Several ppl made reference to a biz case if this were your biz, your capital, wd you spend $1M on a golf services bldg and then carry on with planning for the second part of the project, the Grt Hall, or wd you bite the bullet and commit $2M to the total project and get on with it?
KP: the latter
Mayor: then it falls to Ccl to suggest that extra million be put in the 2008 capital budget, wch is in line with Cclr V's earlier suggestion
Sop: the merry-go-round has gone round and round, reach to get the brass ring and never quite got it, time Ccl took charge; been going on since I've been on Ccl
find it fascinating two bldgs when one project
always thought add'n to Grt Hall, services to make golf course better
a little uneasy with the fact that we have a golf services bldg and somewhere over there a Grt Hall; well in fact they're one; one will be built new and the other renovated; scenario for many years, but two biz cases have to be looked at
sensible biz case by staff, right provider, run the bistro and run consideration of catering; needs a biz case
unless a great marketing, it wd work but wd not produce large sums of dollars to pay back into this cmnty
second biz case that has to be done, Ccl discussed and thought it was accepted by staff, and that is to look at a biz case, where the entire golf funds were an entity unto itself and no funds into general revenue, and out of those funds, the golf course by add'n of new, wd provide not only the funds for paying off long-term debt, or golf course itself and its maintenance
v evident to me we have to take hold of this, what is needed there, dropped to 54K rounds, and get it back up to 70K or 80K in the future
pleased with presentations by everyone tonight and their desire to want to make this work
good advice from Mr Roach; from our staff; cd look at getting on with THE building, not two bldg and in two phases
necessities to provide the amenities, finish and renovate the heritage bldg associated out there; on those cd build our biz case for this crown jewel we have sitting out there; time is well past getting on with it
JC, ever mindful of the time: point of order: move to extend to close of biz
Mayor: seconder? Carries.
MS: don't want to go to midnight
Mayor: I'll check again at 10:30, and will try to be finished by then; sorry Cclr Sop, didn't mean to interrupt
Sop: s'okay. I wd think look at this, and it is budget item, look logically at Endowment Fund, enhancing this $1M I look at borrowing; these are budget concerns
haven't heard in Cclr Clark's motion -- shdn't be looking to design bldg by limiting number of seats
second, no assurance second phase has any timeline on it; when come back to Ccl, when go-ahead
one bldg, phase one and two, don't want to lose that interpretation b/c once we do the golf building, I guarantee it'll be five to seven to ten years, we'll never see the Grt Heritage Hall.
Mayor: you cd make an amendment to the second piece, funding in 2008 budget
Sop: I'll make that amendment; and maybe a motion to fund the entire project of $2M, of existing $1M from our fund and the second borrowed
Mayor: can ask Mr Laing about being that prescriptive
RL: I've been hoping to jump in all through this discussion
Mayor: now is your chance
RL: we do have a golf fund, it is a golf biz, it is treated as a separate fund and it does have $1M on hand to do one of these projects
I believe golf bldg proper project for the golf fund; wrt Grt Hall not sure that shd be done within the golf fund itself; I suspect it shd be done within the general fund
then I look at where doing that; we do have a draft five-yr capital plan wch staff brought one or two weeks ago.
that plan has issues, does not currently work; we have talked about this being a crunch year; where signif resouces going, finishing off the RFMP, the last year of that plan; year the Cmnty Ctr if construction gets completed; that budget and Endowmt Fund challenged to accomplish that this year
if we look at that five-yr capital plan we'll see tight resources and we will have to make some decisions over the life of that plan in the order of $4M+
making decision in context of five-yr not sure so definitive goes ahead in 2008 b/c may have some issues with some other projects
VV: I did have the opinion we shd use the Endmt Fund for this project
a little concerned about including it in budget discussions although relevant b/c we going into a six-month construction period
if go-ahead for the whole project straight away, they'll be hard pushed to have it ready for the main golf season, in summer; if we delay it for another two months while in the budget discussions, we're going to find we've lost another $1 - 200K b/c not ready for 2008 golf season
hoping regard time is of the essence, provide the $2M, make the adjustment in the budget process, but if we don't get the other $1M from the EFund but doesn't have to be if there's a better alternative, but if we simply refer it to that, we've lost another season and I don't think we shd lose another season.
JC: pretty much what I was going to say; if we sit around talking and talking some more, the golf season will be gone by, these guys in the front row will forget how to play, and we'll lose this opp, and costs are going up as we speak
I was looking for a way to get this thing started to get some excitement back on that facility, some activity, money back in that facility, and we can build the other bldg as soon as we can prove that it's a worthy investment, however if Ccl wants to find money elsewhere, not opposed to that
JF: I too think it imperative begin on golf facility right away b/c not simply loss of income
the longer the course sits, ppl will tend to forget about it
get it running, bring back popularity as soon as we possibly can
cd amend item 2 to say Grt Hall identified and placed on WV Heritage list b/c part of fund cd come from applying for grants or whoever responsible; certainly a great assistance; delaying until part of Heritage List ... or other methods within our five-yr capital plan
MS: I agree with ev Mr Laing said; the only thing left out of your analysis is that we have a staff report here saying with bistro might not be a viable without the catering facility of the Grt Hall and that concerns me
No point in building a facility that isn't viable.  Take tonight how many ppl tonight wd be using this cafe?  sure wd be going great for two months when sunny, four months when it's only light rain instead of heavy rain; rest of time going to be challenged
Mr Pike and staff have expertise in the area and the reality is I don't want to see
I'd like to get started on golf serv  bldg tomorrow, but don't want to be put in situation where we build something, can't find someone to run it, put employees in it, and start losing a ton of dough on it; it makes absolutely no sense.
bottom line is
I mean I'll put up the $2M if you give me $375K a year, that return works for me!
this thing can be viable to do the whole thing fly economically, staff is telling us in the report to be viable.  If that's true, somehow we have to hold our nose and find the money and get on with this thing tomorrow.  If I'm wrong then I hope Mr Pike will correct me.
KP: if the bistro, based on our past experience, is to run 12 months, that's right it will not survive on its own; that was before the Cmnty Ctr was there
before all of the ppl drawn looking for outlets, demand there is different from before; perhaps a new aspect to throw into a biz case, but that's certainly our experience from the past.
Mayor: we have a motion on the floor
Sop: Mr Pike, in conversation about this, in your view are we dealing with one bldg?
KP: yes.
Sop: one bldg
KP: yes, it's one bldg, we divided these projects in half only b/c of the money that sits available.
Sop: understand what Mr Laing said; we keep talking about the golf services bldg and then the other bldg is there; phase, but they're attached, they're one
one, don't forget second phase, how make it work
if budget process, if tomorrow or next week we decide to borrow money, then logically we can get on with both
we have to do this to get the revenues up then suddenly it's the Grt Hall
KP: the bistro wd be viable if ran six months a year and closed down the rest
deal we had required to run 12 months; knew clearly without Grt Hall was not viable; only way wd be to shut it down in lower season, and assume that was what was wanted there.
Sop: guess I was referring to the bldg itself, want to hear something concrete from staff that it is one bldg with two phases and I'm not hearing that
hearing it was a building, then maybe if monies then the other will be donek and if we are looking at the value of heritage and a v unique situation, why not look at it in its entirety after all these years? bite the bullet and say we'll borrow what we need to or take it from the topside of the EFund and get on with it
KP: that's never been proposed before, we've always been told--
Sop: --I'm proposing it tonight
KP: we've always been told to go away and do it with $1M, and we've never been able to do it
Mayor: that's true; Cclr Sop is right, the more we divide this into pieces, the more we divide the cmnty; we divide Ccl's decision from staff's recommendation, and to be honest, the benefit of the last year is that the cmnty has come together

{a remarkable ability the Mayor has to see the positive side.}

to say, cd we pls treat this as an asset, a treasure, a piece of our history although it's going to have to adapt a little bit, a major recreation facility, all these things; and it seems to me Ccl is ready to say we need to do this properly
I don't think anybody wants to get in the way of the golf facilities/services bldg immediately
wrt the Grt Hall we need, not to delay it, but we need heritage designation, a biz plan, a conservation plan, and funding in the 2008 capital budget.  I think this Ccl is willing to make that commitment.
Cclr V, I completely understand your frustration b/c I think that's what this Ccl thought it was doing last March, but to be honest that was a recommendation that came from the CAO, Dave Stuart, in the debate; just has not turned out that some of the assumptions he was making, and I don't think it's his fault the situation changed, they didn't come through
what's the best way to frame that motion?
Cclr Clark has a motion on the floor, Pt 2 wrt the Grt Hall restoration, suggested to go back to staff and come back to us.  Ccl, wd it suit you if it were a little clearer?
and it said reason it needs to come back to us is we want to designate this site, we need a biz plan, and we intend to fund it in the 2008 capital budget
Sop: and a timeline
Mayor: 2008 capital budget cdn't be more immediate, is that implied?
Sop: no, it's only implied when it's written down
Mayor, to some laughter: well, yeah; wd be in writing
Sop: I just felt, Cclr Clark has some of the motion; if it cd include bldg in two phases then second phase have to report back to us, wd like to have that before a certain date
Mayor: when wd this report come back?
[KP, head in hand]
Mayor: I think we shd change the term phase, b/c I think that introduces instability
we're really trying to drive this project in keeping with Ccl's motion from a year ago
KP: we'll work fulltime on this whatever it takes
Mayor: Cclr Sop, the intent is not to delay
JC: a small amendment to this clause, No 2; think all it really needs, just put a timeline
restoration of Grt Hall be referred back to staff for prep of biz plan, Heritage conservation plan, and budget by -- pick a date
Mayor: end of March 2008
Sop: agree but you're still referring, one bldg but it has a large heritage appeal inside
old wooden beams and a v attractive scenario for the future of this cmnty, it's all one bldg; this motion still referring it to as golf bldg and another over there
JC: attached
RB: but specific diff functions; identified individually or collectively, and important to take that into consideration in the design and I think that's what staff are suggesting
Mayor: restoration a diff process from building a new building
we're saying both parties hv bn patient with one another and worked together and wish to succeed together; and we're wishing to reaffirm that
however they are slightly diff pieces of one puzzle
Sop: okay, I understand that. One other area, in Cclr Clark's motion; detail, seating not designed yet
based on assumption that a bistro provider is going to have to look at several things to present a case to staff as to what's going to work, and he may vary his seating accordingly.  I hope in early stages that can come about.
JC: wd be willing to take out the number 20 but I will be really upset and it won't work to put a 60-seat restaurant out there.  It will not work.
KP: we'll bring this back to you ev week as we work forward, if nec; and we won't bring back with 60
Mayor:  Cclr Clark, are you going to remove Pt 5 from your motion
JC: delete that
RB: date or budget by Mar 15? item no 2?
Mayor: want to be realistic
KP:  can bring back a staff report and a budget, not sure about a biz plan and Heritage
Mayor: Cclr V is going to pick up the ball on heritage designation; I think we can be confident about that
KP: will do as much as we can to bring back by 15th
JC: before budget completed, gotta be here by end of March
Mayor: Ms Scholes, don't know if you've been able to keep track of the parts of this motion
One is to rescind the prev motion; is that nec or can this be treated as a replacement motion for last year's?
SSch: wd be best to rescind clauses 1 and 2 of the Mar 12 motion
Mayor: put that motion on the floor
Sop: what is the motion?
Mayor: first part is to rescind motion from last year
then replace this with direction, 1, proposal restoring Grt Hall and building golf services bldg, funding both in 2008 budget
MS: pending receipt of an acceptable biz plan
JC: that shd be No 2
RB: by way of clarification for No 2, currently reads Grt Hall restoration be delayed until funding can be identified and a biz plan developed
Mayor: no, that's not the motion
JC: no, that Grt Hall restoration be referred back to staff for prep of a biz plan, heritage conservation plan, and budget by whatever, Mar
Mayor: March 2008, it's not the printed motion you're looking at, Mr B
Sop: and seat biz taken out
Mayor: part 3 constructed using funds av in the 2008 budget; and part 4 is reduce the fee transfer commencing in 2009, does that make sense, Mr Laing?
RL: wd be more comfortable if it were phased approach, not accomplished in one year, don't think realistic
Mayor: that just makes it more difficult for us.  All right, reduce the fee transfer on a phased process
MS: we can assure Mr Laing, the way this Ccl works it will probably be 2016 by the time we--
Mayor: this Ccl is the Ccl that is dealing with this, and we have been at it for a while
JC: we can't spend all the money on the same day anyway, so will be phased regardless
SSch: back by beginning of Mar or Mar 17?
KP: Mar 17; two diff kinds of phasing
Mr Laing is talking about the $375K, Cclr Sop is talking about phasing project construction; I need some clarification there.  Construction?  and have to phase the $375K
Mayor: Ccl's got to keep this at a policy level; have both aspects proceed in tandem; will await your recommendation for what is the most cost-effective way to go; don't want to make it any more difficult, wrt repatriating or transferring golf course revenue
Sop: is it workable, Mr Laing?
RL: yes, if conditions, some other decision Ccl has to make, within the five-yr capital plan; but if that's what Ccl wants to do
Sop: call the question
Mayor: whole thing? everyone clear?  seats removed; 4 is phased fee transfer
CARRIES [Cclr V opposed it looked like]
9.         Community Centre Quarterly Update - Volume 6 - February 18, 2008
RECOMMENDED: THAT the report dated February 18, 2008 from the Deputy Director, Parks & Community Services titled Community Centre Quarterly Update - Volume 6 - February 18, 2008 be received for information.
{The Nov Qtrly Report had the figs for August, this to end of Dec?}
KP: refer this to Ms Chuback and Mr Davis
JCh: this is the sixth Qtrly Report, related to construction
total devt cost summary; cost to end of 2007, and projects to end of project completion; trade contracts
in Nov talked about LEED; parking and access
exciting devt; cmnty governance board, expect appted, working in March
parking report short 80 spaces at peak times; parking access, frustration primarily to Srs
temporarily parking on front line; also needed for staging; had to close off
temp parking on Wetmore for 50, shuttle buses, looking at a number of ways to manage a difficult situation; Sept when open and running....
around construction.... ; talked about green transportation; managing parking ...
will have much more parking when we open up
two days of the week for two hours [short parking]
if we find when we get into the bldg; look at keeping 50 on Wetmore, 24 spaces; 30 outside front door; at most six spaces short
think really imp; be as supportive and understanding as we can...
the great lawn that has been identified and highlighted in all of the plans
keep as a lawn and not as parking
to maintain bequest for the fountain and the Spirit Sq funding $500K, also LEED prog
commit to keep as lawn, number of factors coming into play
Basil Davis: this report comes about three and a half months since last one, not as cheerful as last one; things are getting tougher; weather
last schedule thought closing end of Jan and now reflecting end of March so two-month loss
real headache on roofing side
decking; four anchors; not available till decking in place
to into October itself; hoping to start with
other methods seriously considered solar or voltaic
shd put [?] infrastructure into roof; get conducting into roof before insulation and TPO
then take advantage of energy savings
at the moment, saying [?] so long extended
geothermal 16 years solar and voltaic longer periods
October a reasonable month for weather
Nov -- looked at weather records Nov Dec Jan; cdn't find a succession of good days to put insulation down; ended up with spasmodic; looked for 22 to 28 days; cdn't get trade to stay on our site, ... it was an endless battle; now 80% of the roof down; intending to finish by end of this month
confident by end of March
when this chart, now have clearer; now aiming for Sept 1; well into building end of July, reasonable period of putting in furniture and installations
two months that were lost so if you go to actual budget figs, though shows within budget, see contingency; have taken
will be inflated over the coming months
pullback decisions that can be made
as we go forward now, we want to turn into micromgmt; furniture, blinds, try to get this down to nuts and bolts
$38.8M under pressure but not panicking at this moment
MS: looks like contingency $5M down
wrt allocation to VCHA; how decide how their lease payments are going to change?
KP: ...
JCh: the payment schedule we have in place with Health includes contingency, full
and agreement a year ago that we we combine the contingencies; work
expect to be as appears on schedule
MS: ... cd you say it slower so someone with a modest IQ
28%, so 28% added to their lease payment
JCh: already in; lease payments wd be less
Mayor: a compliment from Cclr Smith
Sop: will be on budget $38.8M as of Sept?
BD: last was v confident until Mother Nature hit me in the head
enough in contingencies to meet; won't shout my mouth off
assurance, will carry on micromanaging
Sop: what if we don't make it and there is a shortfall? thoughts? talked about?
RL: I certainly haven't talked about it
Sop: goal all along
Mr Davis, valuable savings; may be wrong, I'm not in biz, may be ...
finishing takes extraordinary time ....  what's backup?
RL: continuing to massage the project and hard on change orders...
Mayor: we've seen the time stretch out to maintain quality; may be some finishing things
you're working on this daily?  and you'll be reporting monthly?
Sop: difficulty there but...  indicators monthly
where we sit end of Aug, end of June?
BD: wd like to think; I reckon into May, into June, whether having to do a pullback
Mayor: we can bring this back
want to get to other items...
wd still want to talk about parking, straightforward to bring back; concerns of Srs' Ctr
10.       Appointments to Finance Committee -- Information to be provided.
Mayor: we're not in a position to make appmts, regrettably, but Cclr Clark I believe is going to be on that. Sorry
JC: you're sorry I'm going to be on it?
Mayor: no, I'm sorry we can't do that tonight
11.       Building Bylaw No. 4400, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No. 4542, 2008
        ... introduced and read a first, second, and third time.  --  PASSED
BYLAWS
12.       Official Community Plan Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw No. 4534, 2007 (2396/2388 Marine Dr)
            This bylaw received first reading at the November 19, 2007 Regular Council meeting, and second and third reading at the December 17, 2007 Regular Council Meeting. A Public Hearing/Public Meeting was held on December 10, 2007.
RECOMMENDED: THAT "Official Community Plan Amendment ... be adopted.
SSch: OCP, Zoning, Devt Permit held Dec 10 and closed
confirmed by our solicitor, can receive no further submissions on bylaws once the public hearing has been closed and before adopted.
Mayor: for adoption, and no public input
        ADOPTED [looked like Cclrs Sop and V opposed]
13. Zoning Amendment Bylaw (2396/2388 Marine)  See report in Item 12. ADOPTED [same opposed]
14.       Development Permit No. 07-015 (2396 and 2388 Marine Drive) See report in Item 12.
RECOMMENDED: THAT Devt Permit, which would provide for a low rise residential development on the corner of 24th Street and Marine Drive, be issued.
Mayor: I have one mbr of Ccl wishing to speak; is it critical? we're really trying to get through this.
CR: just a question
Mayor: all right, a question
CR: perhaps I misunderstood but when this was all discussed, there was a comment made that the assessment of the commercial [zoning] wd be given and the assessment as the 15 units wd be given b/c was going to be confirmed whether or not Uplift.  I was wondering if that information had been received b/c it was going to be given.
Geri Boyle of Planning: there certainly was discussion about having such an appraisal or assessment done.  Ccl determined that this particular project given the point it was at when the assessment question was raised, wd be allowed to proceed on.  There were are reports dealing with benefits and cmnty benefits associated with the project.
{my oh my -- too bad staff didn't do as part of the procedure and Ccl didn't insist on as part of procedure.  Maybe next one?}

Mayor: Mr McTavish. a question on this?
DMcT: no
Mayor: we're considering this DVP
Motion? in favour? opposed?
PASSES [with Cclrs Sop and V opposed again it appears]
15.  Traffic and Parking Bylaw No. 4370, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No. 4535, 2008 ~ ADOPTED
16.  Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw No. 4368, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No. 4536, 2008 ~ ADOPTED
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
17.      Consent Agenda Items - Reports and Correspondence
RECOMMENDED: THAT the Consent Agenda items as follows be approved (18 - 21)
REPORTS FOR CONSENT AGENDA
18.       Development Variance Permit Application 07-049 (2710 Rosebery Avenue)
RECOMMENDED: the report dated Feb 5, 2008, ... be received for consideration on Mar 3, 2008.
19.      Development Variance Permit Application 07-042 (5517 Ocean Place)
RECOMMENDED: report dated Feb 11, 2008, ... be received for consideration on Monday, March 3, 2008.
20.      Preliminary Engagement Framework: Metro Vancouver and Vancouver Fraser Port Authority
RECOMMENDED: THAT Council endorse [framework]

CORRESPONDENCE LIST FOR CONSENT AGENDA
21.       Correspondence List -- RECOMMENDED: received for information.
***  Previous Correspondence
{V glad to see; this is the resurrected Correspondence I requested -- how wd we have known about a request for nominations for the Order of BC), and that reports were available in the Legislative Services Dept?  What about the provincial reports?   One letter was for Ccl to consider and respond wrt police funding.  What about the update on NSh Women's Ctr?  Replies from staff re bylaw enforcement, Dundarave parking, etc?  What was not for our eyes?
I'm still perplexed as to why they arbitrarily and suddenly removed all this information from residents' eyes........}
Mayor: shd be noted, the Correspondence from mtg in January when it was omitted is listed.
22. REPORTS from MAYOR/COUNCILLORS
Mayor: an awful lot I'd like to report but I think I'll wait; pertains to TransLink, regional policing, First Nations and integrated policing, and things that are quite significant and require a little bit more time.
23. PUBLIC QUESTIONS/COMMENTS
DMcT, who was still sitting at the mike since the DVP item:  v serious matter I have to discuss, I'll be as quick as I can.
As you know, WV is a small cmnty and eventually everything comes out.
I have heard recently that the District is involved in a lawsuit for the past five years, something to do with the Aquatic Ctr and the north parkade.
Mayor: We wdn't be discussing legal matters in public; I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'll ask Mr Beauchamp if he has a comment.
DMcT: I want to assure you that I consulted one of the sharpest minds, legal minds, and they assured me that what I was going to ask was valid, and the Ccl shd answer the questions if they know the answers.
RB: I'm not sure; I believe there is still a pending legal matter on the cmnty ctr, if it's--
DMcT: Aquatic Ctr and the north parkade
RB: the Aquatic Ctr and obviously we wd not be able to comment publicly on this matter, if there's pending litigation
DMcT: in that case I will read the questions into the public record.
I have heard recently that the District is involved in a lawsuit for the past five years,  I understand it is something to do with the Aquatic Ctr and the north parkade that was started in 2002, and it may eventually cost taxpayers in excess of $600K.
What is this all about?  I have heard it has something to do with the soils or construction.
Does the M have insurance to cover this liability if required?
Mr Pike has continually stated that the redevt of these projects have been on time and on budget.  Does Mr Pike include this liability in his assessment?
Where does this liability on the financial statements for the last five years?
Is it shown as a separate line item?
We the taxpayers hv bn paying legal fees to defend this action over the past five years.  What are the legal fees to date, and how much will the future legal fees likely be?
Next item.
Madam Mayor, we need answers to these questions now b/c as this may affect all budget planning now and in the future.  There may well be other claims by a multitude of contractors wch hv not been passed forward to you, Madam Mayor, and to Ccl.  I therefore wd like to, through you and perhaps to each of the ccl mbrs, were you aware of this situation and when did you become aware of it, and were you aware of the amounts involved?
I wd suggest you start off any way, go around the table.
Sop: I'm not going to answer anything at this time, Mr Mayor, until I find out the details from staff.
Mayor: that's right; that's what we will do, and we will try to respond to you, in an appropriate manner.  Thank you.
DMcT: are any of the cclrs prepared to say yes, I have heard about it but I don't want to talk about it.
Mayor: we will talk about this together, and we will respond.   Thank you.
DMcT:  can you set a date and a time we can talk about it?
Mayor:  well, our next Ccl mtg is Mar 3rd.
DMcT: I'm not talking about a ccl mtg.
Mayor: well, you've chosen to make this public
DMcT: Oh I see
Mayor: we'll say what we can in order to protect the taxpayers' best interests
DMcT: ?
Mayor: I've said we will respond with discretion in order to protect the taxpayers' best interests.  Absolutely.
DMcT: there are certain things you shd do, with immediate haste to protect the taxpayers.  If you want to give me a phone call tomorrow, I'll tell you what one of these is.
Mayor: thank you.

{Well, mbrs of Ccl are able to answer those questions -- such as are you aware, yes or no.
The Mayor is quite right though to say if the questions are asked in public, they're to be answered in public.  Mar 3rd mtg shd be interesting!}

Moving to Carolanne Reynolds, and it'd be nice to wrap this up by 11 o'clock.
DMcT: sorry I missed what you said.
Mayor:  I'm speaking to the next speaker.
That gives you a full three minutes.
CR: you're leaving your comments to next mtg and so will I but there's one that can't wait.
and that is -- this is Heritage Week, thank you for mentioning it at the beginning.  The theme is Taking Care of Biz: [the Heritage of] Trade and Commerce
Park Royal will have a display up in Park Royal North on their biz
We've also taken advantage of the fact; there'll be display by staff on the Heritage Register and the Cmnty Dialogue.
Pls try to see these [holding up a flyer]; there's lots of things, displays at biz, specials on at restaurants; there's Heritage Fayre on Sunday 24th from 2 to 4:30, when you can meet lots of ppl, from there from various heritage groups; and the Fire Museum is going to have a special restored jeep there, so will be lots of things. In fact there'll be portraits of HM the Queen if you want to put them up on BC Ferries.
[some laughter]
and there's a free snowshoe and barbecue up Cypress on Sunday as well
Pls try to find ... or call 922 4400 or visit www.heritage.westvan.org
Thank you v much and I hope to see  you all there.  Hope you have fun.  There'll be lots to see.
24. ADJOURNMENT [just before 11pm!]
 
=====  = COUNCIL MTG AGENDA  Mar 3rd   =====
CALL TO ORDER
1.  APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2.  ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Feb 11 Council Workshop Minutes, Feb 18, Regular Council Minutes
PRESENTATIONS
3.         H. Alexander, West Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, regarding West Vancouver Chamber of Commerce Annual Report
REPORTS
4.         Development Variance Permit Application 07-049 (2710 Rosebery Avenue)
At the Feb 18 meeting, Council received the report dated Feb 5 from the Planning Assistant
CALL FOR PUBLIC INPUT
RECOMMENDED: THAT all written and verbal submissions ... be received for information.
If Council wishes a further staff report, then: THAT Staff report back to Council
OR
RECOMMENDED: THAT the DVP application, which would allow for the construction of a detached garage (with a floor for storage below) with a variance to the required Front Yard, be approved.
 5.         Development Variance Permit Application 07-042 (5517 Ocean Place)
At the Feb 18 meeting, Council received the report dated Feb 11 from the Community Planner
CALL FOR PUBLIC INPUT
RECOMMENDED: THAT all written and verbal submissions ... be received for information.
If Council wishes a further staff report, then: THAT Staff report back to Council
OR
RECOMMENDED: THAT the DVP, which would allow for a basement addition that results in variances to siting, height and highest building face and a new pool with a variance to accessory building height, be approved.
6.         Appointment of Chief Election Officer and Deputy Chief Election Officer for 2008 General Local Elections
RECOMMENDED: THAT
1.          S. Scholes, Municipal Clerk, be appointed Chief Election Officer and
M. Chan, Deputy Municipal Clerk, be appointed Deputy Chief Election Officer for the 2008 General Local Elections (West Vancouver), in accordance with s.41(1) of the Local Government Act;
2.          the Chief Election Officer be authorized to enter into service agreements as may be necessary in respect of the 2008 local elections, with School District 45 (West Vancouver), Bowen Island Municipality, Village of Lions Bay, and Metro Vancouver.
7.         Appointments to Finance Committee (File: 0116-20-FC)
This item was deferred from the February 18, 2008 Council Meeting. Information to be provided.
8.         Change to March 10, 2008 Council Meeting Schedule (File:  0120-01)
RECOMMENDED:  THAT a Special Council Meeting be scheduled for Monday, March 10, 2008 at 7:00 pm in the Municipal Hall Council Chamber, immediately prior to the Council Workshop.
BYLAW for ADOPTION
9.         Building Bylaw No. 4400, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No. 4542, 2008 (File: 1610-20-4542)
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
10.      Consent Agenda Items - Reports and Correspondence
REPORTS FOR CONSENT AGENDA
11.       Delegation request:  Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Society of Canada regarding Super Cities Walk for MS
RECOMMENDED: THAT ... to appear before Council at the April 7, 2008 meeting be approved.
12.      Delegation request:  P. Lock regarding a request to allow sale of electricity from generators, upgrade infrastructure to support grid buffering, and incentive systems for funding sustainable projects
RECOMMENDED: be approved
13.      Development Applications Status List
CORRESPONDENCE LIST FOR CONSENT AGENDA
14.       Correspondence List
>  Correspondence received up to February 15, 2008
Requests for Delegation  --  No items presented.
Action Required
(1)       February 07, 2008, regarding Unpaid Parking Tickets
Referred to the Director of Administrative Services for consideration and response.
(2)       C. Marlo, Manager, Legislative Services - District of Maple Ridge, February 07, 2008, regarding Lower Mainland Ban on Plastic Bag Use
Referred to Mayor and Council for consideration and response.
(3)       S.B. Hean, February 12, 2008, regarding February 11, 2008 Council Workshop - Budget
Referred to the Director of Finance for consideration and response.
(4)       February 12, 2008, regarding New 12 Month Yard Waste Pickup Regulations
Referred to the Director of Engineering and Transportation for consideration and response.
No Action Required (receipt only)
(5)       Committee and Board Meeting Minutes
(a)       Community Engagement Committee - January 16, 2008
(6)       S. Bacic, Ministry of Environment - Environmental Management Branch, February 04, 2008, regarding Howe Sound Pulp and Paper (HSPP) Discharge Permit - PA-03095
(7)       J. Godey, The Rotary Clubs of the North Shore, February 06, 2008, regarding Thanks for Your Generous Involvement in Operation Red Nose 2007
(8)       D. MacKinnon, Rivers Without Borders and G. Senichenko, Wilderness Committee, February 06, 2008, regarding Publication: "Wild Salmon Rivers of Canada"
Attachments available for viewing in the Legislative Services Department.
(9)       N. Hollstedt, North Shore Community Resources, February 07, 2008, regarding 2008 North Shore Festival of Volunteers
Previously distributed [owing] to timing of event.
(10)     J. Kellett, Chairperson - West Vancouver Board of Education, February 08, 2008, regarding Possible Reduction of Community Services Unit Resources - Budget
(11)     February 11, 2008, regarding Budget - Fire and Rescue Fees
(12)     February 11, 2008, regarding Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) Program Elimination - Budget
(13)     February 11, 2008, regarding Sea to Sky Highway Improvements, Traffic Violations
(14)     S. Bell-Irving Gray and P. Gravett - Kay Meek Centre, February 11, 2008, regarding Thank You for the Opportunity to Report on Kay Meek Centre Activities on February 04, 2008
(15)     A. Sundberg, Chair - Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness, February 11, 2008, regarding 2008 Regional Homelessness Count, March 10 and March 11, 2008
(16)     February 12, 2008, regarding Speeding on the Sea to Sky Highway
(17)     Mayor D. Miller, City of Toronto, February 12, 2008, regarding Power Down for Earth Hour, March 29, 2008
(18)     February 11, 2008, regarding February 11, 2008 Council Workshop - Budget
Responses to Correspondence  --  No items presented.
Responses to Questions in Question Period  --  No items presented.
> Correspondence received up to February 22, 2008
Requests for Delegation  --  No items presented.
Action Required
(19)     D. Wright, British Columbia Society for Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse, February 18, 2008, regarding Request for Proclamation of April as Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse Awareness Month
Referred to the Municipal Clerk for response.
No Action Required (receipt only)
(20)     Committee and Board Meeting Minutes  (a) West Vancouver Memorial Library Board - January 16, 2008
(21)     February 04, 2008, regarding 4 (Four) Firefighters - Understaffed Fire Halls - Budget
(22)     February 15, 2008, regarding 2008 Budget Blowout Again
(23)     G. Johnson, Lions' Gate Hospice Society, February 17, 2008, regarding Invitation to Attend: Fundraiser - A Voice for Hospice and the Meek
(24)     A. Hilsen, Municipal Clerk - District of North Vancouver, February 19, 2008, regarding Tri-Municipal Review of Support for Community Social Services - Current Status
(25)     Metro Vancouver, Air Quality Policy and Management Division, December 2007, regarding 2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory and Forecast and Backcast Executive Summary
Responses to Correspondence  --  No items presented.
Responses to Questions in Question Period  --  No items presented.
15.   REPORTS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS
16.   PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
2008 BUDGET PRESENTATIONS
17.      Fire/Rescue Services Review Working Group Report (File: 0117-20-FRS/0860-01) Info to be provided.
18.      2008 Capital Budget (File: 0865-01) Information to be provided.
19.  ADJOURNMENT
 
===  QUOTATIONS  ===
Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?'  Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?'  Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?'  And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right.
                        -- Martin Luther King, Jr., American civil rights leader (1929 - 1968)
If the creator had a purpose in equipping us with a neck, he surely meant us to stick it out."
          -- Arthur Koestler, Jewish-Hungarian polymath naturalized British subject (1905 - 1983)
There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle, or the mirror that reflects it."
                        -- Edith Wharton, American writer (1862 - 1937)
Life is a great big canvas, and you should throw all the paint on it you can."
                                --  Danny Kaye, American actor (1913 - 1987)
As you know, the Cmnty Services Unit of the WVPD was at Heritage Fayre -- there's a new system to protect your valuables (visit www.PropertyCop.org).  Constable Jeff Palmer (Media Liaison 925 7348) always has interesting quotations at the end of his press releases/alerts.  The last one, however, is his very own and he gave me permission to quote him:
"Nobody can help Everybody, but Everybody can help Somebody.  Somebody is waiting everywhere for Everybody to understand that."

This comes from a packet of tablets for dogs marked:"For animal use only."
And then adds: "May cause drowsiness. If so do not operate machinery or drive. Avoid alcohol.