First, Happy International Women's Day (Saturday, Mar 8); see Section below.

Happy St Patrick's Day March 17, then spring -- Mar 19 - 21 depending on your calculations, Nowruz Mobarak

Main Items Mar 10th: Evelyn Dr DP (for Apr 7); Finance Cmte TofRef revisions; 2008 Budget discussion (again info to be provided! how can we discuss something we haven't seen???); Correspondence includes new recycling program, dog-walking access, BC Cultural Crawl, EcoDensity, Smart Growth, parking tix (answer from staff)

=  International Women's Day; The Editor's Week; UPDATES (Marine Dr Gateway, Cmte Apptmts, WV characteristics); DANCEWATCH (Russian Dervishes); BOOKWATCH (Fortune Cookies, The Second World) 

=  Mar 3rd Ccl Mtg NOTES:  WV Ch of Commerce; DVPs for 2710 Rosebery, 5517 Ocean Place; Chief Election Officer; Apptmts to Finance Cmte (named!); Bldg Bylaw Amendment; Devt Applications (status list); CORRESPONDENCE: Budget; Waste Pickup Regs; CEC minutes; Fire and Rescue Fees; budget presentations: Fire/Rescue Services WG and Budget 2008 Capital Budget; then PQP on non-notice of DRC mtg on Ev Dr, setting record straight re Wetmore, banners banned, late five-yr capital plan second revision no public input without answer (interrupted), lawsuit and DWV.

=  Mar 10th Ccl Sp Mtg AGENDA; Int'l Women's Day Cont'd (Suffrage, PQ women in 1940; Iraqi Women Crisis)

=  Heritage Week 2008 Quiz Answers (out of 25!); Language (Acronyms); Quotations (WFB, Sesquipedalian)

*** IWD  -- 15,000 women marched through New York City in 1908 demanding shorter hours, better pay and voting rights. 100 years on, the pertinence of this event is honoured through IWD's 2008 global theme 'Shaping Progress'.  There are currently 522 IWD 2008 events listed from 47 different countries !!  In just three years time, 2011 will see IWD's Centenary - 100 years of women's united action for global equality and change. Organizations around the world have already commenced planning for their IWD Centenary celebrations. The first International Women's Day was launched on 8 March 1911 in Copenhagen by Clara Zetkin, Leader of the 'Women's Office' for the Social Democratic Party in Germany. This followed many years of women's campaigning dating back to British MP, John Stuart Mill, the first person in Parliament calling for women's right to vote. On 19 September 1893 New Zealand became the first self-governing nation in the world to give women the right to vote.

*** Canadian human rights activist and singer Nazanin Afshin-Jam who will speak at VPL Mar 12 (see Calendar) is a tireless advocate for victims of human rights abuses worldwide, particularly in relation to women and children in Iran and the Middle East.

***  Carolanne Reynolds was the first woman to run for Mayor of WV; Pat Boname was the first woman mayor; Pamela Goldsmith-Jones is the second. Who'll be next/third?

*** Licence to lie for Italian women: Italy's highest appeal court says that married Italian women who commit adultery can lie about it in legal cases. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7284134.stm >

*** Rachel Corrie -- http://www.ifamericansknew.org/about_us/rc-cards.html

As March 16th approaches, many of us feel committed to telling people about this tragic loss -- both because heroism deserves to be honoured, and because informing Americans about Rachel helps to open eyes about what their tax money is doing to Palestinians. When people finally learn this, the majority will demand change.

***  B*tch is the New Black (from SNL): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHnL8mUbopw

***  Iranian Saint: first woman in Iran to remove the burqa did it in 1842 and was killed the next day.

Russian Dervish Riverdance The New Show -- A colleague saw them at the Schubert theatre in Boston last year; this has some new ones: http://youtube.com/watch?v=8rxf7D8--Jo

***  Marine Drive Gateway update That and the sewer work still go into April  For info see DWV website:  http://www.westvancouver.ca/article.asp?a=5460&c=880 don't you just love their URLs?

***  Finance Cmte: see item 7 in Ccl mtg notes below; first mtg Mar 12.

***  Inaugural Board for the new Cmnty Ctr: see Item 7 in Ccl mtg notes below

***   Understanding West Van's Characteristics

[Mayor Goldsmith-Jones's penned article for the NS News.  Part of a five-week, "Chains of Office" NS News series.  See rest of article at: http://www.westvancouver.ca/article.asp?a=5603&c=694]

***  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 the whole board: board@adra.westvan.org and email mbrship is $5.

*  Design Review Cmte Shenanigans: meetings require Sherlock Holmes to find out when and what's on them, and they started Mar 4 mtg as 'closed', clearly not permitted under Cmnty Carter. Wrong Ccl liaison on DWV website.  Then uncovered fact mtgs were on EVELYN DRIVE devt, major issue at last election.  Is Ccl serious about openness?  Not from this experience!

* Conflicting statements: Five-Yr Capital Plan Version 2 introduced at Mar 3rd ccl mtg as "first discussion", cclr says "no motion" and "received for info", then passed as presented!  See Ccl mtg notes Mar 3 below.  Then Mar 10th ccl mtg again has info to be provided for Budget 2008 discussion -- why on earth isn't it on and part of the agenda/ccl package???  Well, hope it's given to Finance Cmte at least.

*  WETMORE (sorry, can't help it):  See ccl mtg notes for Mar 3 below for details.  Three cclrs spoke eloquently about this, a fourth said an RFP had been called for so he'd go along with selling; the Dir/Finance said it cd be delayed and need not be rushed as part of the five-yr capital plan.  So at least three and three, or maybe three for keeping, two against, and one reluctantly for.  Even if three and three, maybe, just maybe, the Mayor will recognize the division and seek some sort of compromise.  As I said at Monday's mtg (and I'm sure others have as well), it's crazy/silly/unwise/imprudent to sell an asset that will appreciate, grow in value, to pay for a building that will depreciate, lose value.  May saner beancounter heads prevail.

===   BOOKWATCH   ===  Book Reviews from NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/books/review/Stern-t.html?_r=1&8bu&emc=bu&oref=slogin

According to reviewer William Grimes: In this sweeping, often audacious survey of contemporary geopolitics, Parag Khanna argues that the United States, the European Union, and China are imperial powers busy reshaping the globe to suit their interests.

He entitles his review:A Game Where Resources Dwindle and Partners Shift, and starts: "In the 21st century the empires strike back. The United States, the European Union and China dare not call themselves imperial powers, Parag Khanna argues in "The Second World," his sweeping, often audacious survey of contemporary geopolitics, but they are busy reshaping the globe to suit their interests. The game is afoot, with the natural resources and potential wealth of countries like Ukraine, Turkey and Brazil as the prize.... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/books/05grim.html?8bu&emc=bu

Then there's a (long) essay but (for me) utterly fascinating; it assesses present, talks about future -- in global terms -- Sunday Magazine: An Essay Adapted From 'The Second World'

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?pagewanted=1

==  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]

        ~ 4pm ~ Fire & Rescue WG

        ~ 7pm ~ Cmnty Grants WG at Fulton House, 1538 Fulton

==  Wed Mar 12th               

        ~ 5pm ~ Finance Cmte (first mtg of the new, expanded, reconstituted Cmte)

        ~ 7pm ~ Cmnty Sport WG

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.

Admission is free.  (Please arrive early; seating is limited.)  Learn more about Nazinin.  Click here.

        ~ 4pm ~ Fire and Rescue WG

        ~ 6 - 10pm ~ Norwuz-Iranian New Year celebration in Ambleside Park

        ~ 7pm ~ Bd of Variance; and in the Library, the Library Board.

but in the morning:

~ 7:30am ~ WV Chamber of Commerce Breakfast, Hollyburn Country Club (950 Crosscreek)

SPEAKER:  Constable Kash Heed, Police Chief for West Vancouver

        TOPIC: WVPD 2008 - 10 Strategic Plan

RSVP by noon Mar 14: website www.westvanchamber.com or phone 926 6614; $35 (mbrs $25)

==  Thurs Mar 20th  ~ 6pm ~ NSh Youth/Justice Cmte, DNV M Hall

Mr Readshaw is an engineering adviser to the Green Shores Technical Advisory team.  He is a Professional Engineer and has worked on shoreline erosion and restoration projects throughout BC, the US, and the world, including assignments with the Asian Development Bank and the United Nations.  His talk will be of particular interest to WV Streamkeepers and their close associate, Shoreline Preservation Society who have worked diligently to revitalize WV's extensive shoreline and the many creeks and streams entering English Bay and Howe Sound.  The Green Shores project, which is the subject of John Readshaw's presentation, promotes sustainable use of coastal ecosystems through planning and design that recognize ecological features and functions of coastal systems.

Women Artists from Vancouver's eastside: Val Arnzten, Stefany Hemming, Eri Ishi, Dori Luthy, Sharon Petty, Arleigh Wood

John Dowler, Paula Fodchuk, June Harman, Neda Mardkar, Gordon Montgomery, Albarosa Simonetti

OPENING RECEPTION: 6 - 8pm Tues, Mar 18; ARTISTS IN ATTENDANCE: 2 - 3pm  Sat. Mar  22

WV architect; full description in last issue

+++ SILK PURSE (1570 Argyle)

+++  WV MEMORIAL LIBRARY +++ see www.westvanlib.org

Tuesday 11 -- Author Visit - Robert Ward  ~ 7 - 9 pm

Thursday 13 -- Friends of the Library Booksale ~ 6:30 - 8:30pm

=== COUNCIL MTG NOTES Mar 3= rd ===  [best efforts] ===

2.  ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Feb 11 Council Workshop Minutes, Feb 18, Regular Council Minutes

Holly Alexander: Prez of WV Chamber of Commerce, here with Exec Dir, Tom Young.

2007 and Framework of our strategic objectives for 2008

[presentation with slides]

cmnty integration and partnership; focus on mbrship and value; networking opps

liaison/partnered with Library; ski event (freestyle World Cup)

Amb revitalization -- one of our directors was part of WG

WinterSong

Move to Partner Ctr; 175 at opening! WV Chamber has agreed to take on the operations management of the bldg at 1846 MDr

350+ mbrs; values: financial, networking, info conduit

Cap College email of appreciation

mbr-to-mbr discount program; recent one in HBay

25 events; 1500 attendees; most events sold out. Planning for future, 2010

Thank Ccl, 2007 a successful year.

Sop: how has the ctr helped you financially

HA: don't have the financial data, not readily av

being the hub of activity, can bounce ideas off; able to get new mbrs on site

Tom Young: successful, storefront, synergy of partners, financially and long term

Sop: think there'll ever be a day for those of us semi-sleep-deprived that your breakfast mtgs will be other than 7:30 in the morning?

HA to laughter: I love your feedback. I'll take that away; we have had a couple of evening presentations and I'll make sure you're the first on my list next time.

Mayor: good opp to advertise your next speaker who I think is Chief Heed

HA: Absolutely, great opp, have our looking forward to Chief Kash Heed

TY: Mar 19, breakfast 7:30am, posters just outside the door here you can take with you to remind you

HA: great day to start the first day of spring as well.

Mayor: thank you and congratulations on a successful year

Stuart Howes, Architect for project: here to answer any questions

working on it for a number of years, at first on addition to house, now new owner (bought several months ago); two frontages on Rosebery -- two front yards and one side year b/c triangular.

proposal does meet intent of the bylaw

Sop: driveway looks level and wide; appears to be some concrete -- driveway in past?

Ans: not sure what that was, there for 20 years; maybe permit and used as de facto parking

Sop: logical place for a garage but your proposal is to go underground for a storage area.

going to rip that up?

Ans: yes

Alan Shapiro, homeowner: grew up here since age of one went to school here

fortunate to be able to bring up my ppl here

three and a half and two, another on the way; find it difficult loading our kids; at least visible

support from nbrs

RD moved: all written and verbal submissions ... be received for information.

{PASSED}

then 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.

SJN: extremely steep site; change of sideyard definitions, similar with height

withdrawn b/c nbr opposed to previous proposal, mtg, now revised

Robert Burgers, the architect yes [that's what happened]; just here to say hello

still below allowable; if blasting, v v minimal -- 56 cu metres

Sop: pages x, 5, and 10; house height stays the same and structure moves down the slope

cd you pls explain those measurements, x. 22. x. and bylaw 12ft

RB: tough one

SJN: difficult to explain that; not allowed over 22ft from ground and 45 degrees, don't know if...

b/c of slope, allowed to go over

wd be no other way of building it; part controlled not being altered

RB: v confusing and elaborate bylaw

top of the roof does not change; basement, suddenly the lowest part of building face is lower so av height of house drops...

the original house complied

SJN: don't have to go far and it drops; swimming pool is an accessory structure...

{WAS received for information; then 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, was approved.}

PASSED

MS: Nancy Farran for a one-yr term ending April 9; Michael Lewis for one-yr, Ashley Morgan-Dann for two-yr term ending April 2010; [two-yr terms:] Paul Tutsch, David Ayriss, Robert Paterson; with Cclrs Smith and Clark as Ccl liaisons I'm happy to report for a one-yr term.

CARRIES

Mayor: is there something further?

MS: also I'd like to-- ah, I don't know what I'd like to do

Mayor: Ms Scholes?

Mayor: that wd be 7.1

SSch: second part of 7, apptmts

Mayor: apptmts to Finance

MS: plsd to announce, recommend following to inaugural WV Cmnty Ctr bd of directors.  I understand [you] and Cclr Sop and I think Ferguson--

Mayor: --Cclr Clark

MS: Cclr Clark have worked with Barbara Brink and a nominating cmte to come up with this v impressive list of names: [Barbara Brink, Chair,] Jane Baynham, Ron Erdman, Susan Evans, Judy Jansen, Jennifer Hatton, Bill Ireland, Andy Krawczyk, Liz Leduc, Joanne McKenna, Doug Murphy, Taleeb Noormohamed, Mary Peck, Al Thompson, Shannon Walker, and a representative to be named from Vancouver Coastal Health, and myself as the District Ccl rep

Mayor: seconder or motion to confirm?

SSch: motion to confirm

Sop: staff position on that bd?

KP: advisory; sev ppl assigned; do not have a position...

Sop: no liaison from staff?

KP: certainly will be, Josie Chuback start off, myself on occasions and Sue Kettler

ample staff; we'll be choosing who's likely to be there [as liaison/support]

Sop: doesn't state that

KP: ....

Mayor: like Library Bd

Sop: how communicate?  we have a ccl liaison, staff shd know what they're saying

KP: if you want to direct a mbr of staff be there on a regular basis, all right

wd not be no one on staff

in third and fourth year, directly resp will be present

so imp, want to be sure successful, we'll have a number of staff present, just as we did in the leadup

Sop: know it is imp; mbrs/directors terrific; if giving direction, really shd be a place on that board

Mayor: Mar 25th first mtg, maybe ask Cclr Smith to report back to us

don't want to pressure anybody, will be together ev step of the way

Sop: doesn't say; just curious

MS: I sit on the Srs' Bd, mbrs of Pike's staff always there

am sure with Ms Brink as chairman on this board will be more than anxious to ....

CARRIED

RECOMMENDED:  THAT a Special Council Meeting be scheduled for Monday, March 10 at 7pm in the Municipal Hall Council Chamber, immediately prior to the Council Workshop.

D Carlson, WG CHAIR: listed mbrs; good will; Terms of Ref

focus of first interim report, submitted to Ccl Feb 29; current challenges wrt 2008 budget

concern is that precious time cd be lost; see this as increased risk of injuries, prop damage, delays increased risks, sanctions from WorkSafe BC

alternative of closing a Hall wd exacerbate a prob we already have, of providing service in a timely manner according to Standards; other fire and rescue ...

neither of those proposals

recommended hiring firefighters

thank Mr Laing, came to our mtg last week provided background

demographics; clarity needed; wrt medical services, another area of discussion

next steps, training, rolling stock, service expectations, firehall infrastructure, emergencies/preparedness; opp to discuss role of Fire Dept as valued element of our cmnty; thank you for being able to give quick summary of our deliberations to date

Look forward to questions and feedback

Mayor: Fire Chief Oates is here as well; perhaps you'd like to join Ms Clausen for questions

Mayor: any other questions?

MS: appreciate work WG has done but if we're going to talk about Fire and Rescue Services, the subject on the table; can't remember anything that's been so misconstrued as cuts and proposed cuts to the Fire & Rescue Services

This nonsense that has been blown about, all as a direct result of the fact that we have a real issue with the Fire Dept; we have a problem with costing

I don't see how we can be proper and prudent custodians of the public purse if we just continue to ignore the fact that we have a real issue.  It's just unfortunate that in our attempt to come up with some system that allows us to have adequate, proper, in fact more than adequate, Fire and Rescue facilities and services available to our citizens, that we can't have an intelligent discussion how we can do that within the limited resources the cmnty has.

hope as WG moves forward, we can address these issues, all agree that we need, within budget levels, otherwise might as well not have any budgets; otherwise spend [whatever] and end of year just add up the bills and that's the budget.  To me that's not an acceptable way of doing biz in the M.  We have to find a better solution than the way we have been doing it.

challenge for WG and the Chief and our firefighters

Wish you luck as you go forward searching for those solns.

Mayor: Cclr Sop, I'd just like to make a couple of comments and then over to you

I think the concomitant question goes with the four-man standard on the truck wch certainly Cclrs Clark, myself, Day, and Sop were a big part of getting to that level, and we're continuing with that is, the flexibility of scheduling, so perhaps you cd also let us know wch Fire Depts in the LM provide that

Oates: have the flexibility? I can't name them all.  DNV does, I believe Delta does, I know Abbotsford does, not sure, more than than, can't name them, but quite a number in the LM have the flexibility.

Mayor: plsd to see that recognition in the WG report b/c it's going to take all of us working together to achieve that; that's why I think Ccl has raised this question. It's going to require all of us to do our part.  My belief is that we're more than willing to do that.

Sop: my hopes are final WB report, recommendations, won't say innovative or unique ideas but looking for some lead in future; read master plan and it has a lot of merit to it

I have a difficulty in one area, and Cclr Smith this is your first year, and you're--

Mayor: second; time flies

Sop: I mean first term

this issue has been going on for almost three or four terms

if we are the only M, saving New Westminster not doing that, WorkSafe instructions, then we shd be doing that first and foremost

if budgeting issue is around a budgeting method, then we have to look at ways altering that budgeting method in future

went away from what stated to you, consideration looking at money priority and budgeting brought new interest but I wish I hadn't done that in relationship to the rules set down for the safety and protection of our citizens; no matter what the future... this is fundamental requirement for safety of the citizens; that's where it shd be

Madam Mayor, we have sat with the Chief, Mr Laing, and worked through a lot of things; think through WG recommendations can solve this in future

I'm not going to support going away from a three-man [sic] truck

Mayor: what we're doing right now is receiving the WG's interim report

JF: I too wd like to thank Ms Carlson and all the WG; know it wasn't easy

Oates: No [they aren't], I mean, we've been staffing trucks with four at all the firehalls for a couple of years; and so they wdn't have the opp to run in with three, so that is strictly a rumour.

I don't know what wd happen if a truck showed up with three; ... hasn't happened yet

JF: when you there is a call, b/c a house fire, do you send one truck?

We try to meet the standards; no, we don't dispatch one truck

JF: so wd always be, maybe a minute late, be the add'l firefighters required to comply with WorkSafe BC's regulations

but depends on where it is how long delay

up by Sunset Marina takes a little while, four, five, six minutes before the next engine arrives

depends on location, sometimes no delay if in middle of two firehalls, and sometimes it cd be six, eight minutes

JF: did call Fire Dept some years back for a chimney fire in my house.  I live in a small cul de sac and I'm embarrassed to say the three trucks cdn't get in

it was a humbling experience

we were not left feeling at risk, more firefighters there than we needed; were prompt and efficient; we were v grateful

Oates: in the case that if those trucks were tied up in a structure fire, we have one truck left, it sits at Westmount and covers the whole M until we can get another crew or a truck from NV to come over and stand by with us.

Mayor: Cclr Sop has a correction to make, I think

Mayor: receive report with thanks

JC: move that; wd like to point out that they probably put in something in excess 250 manhours, and we're about half way there

Mayor: person hours

CARRIED

MS: happy to lead off; recall Mr Laing presented a first draft on Feb 4th and he noted at that time there were signif shortfalls in the resources we need to meet the proposed plan, so staff have redrafted the five-yr cap plan so it is now balanced

no insignif undertaking, credit to Mr L and rest of team balanced plan wch you have before you

not a lot of wriggle room left to do other things

2008 plan is in front of you, along with 2009 to 2012 plans

some adjustments; infrastructure reduced by $500K

we'll still spend over $7M in 2008 on renewing infrastructure; rest well outlined by Mr L

turn over to Mr L; sure he's anxious to answer questions

RL: since tabling of the first draft of the plan; comments received from mbrs of public and some mbrs of Ccl, been in three main areas

first is golf facilities; first plan tabled, only one of the two golf projects had been provided for and subsequent to the tabling of that plan, Ccl has had many discussions about those facilities and have resolved both facilities together to go forward, as Cclr Smith indicated and both provided for in this plan

comment from one mbr of public, that the proposed 2008 increase to our infrastructure envelope, that entire amt, be cut, largely driven as a suggestion to help in balancing the general fund budget

what we have done in this plan is rather than cut the entire $795K, we did cut $500K out of that envelope

I had some ongoing discussions with one resident in particular, who is rather keen for us to recognise in light of current economic conditions and construction pricing generally in the leadup to the 2010 Olympics; there's a strong recommendation that projects be deferred wherever possible so we get past the overheated construction market

three or four intensive mtgs, as a result the version you have in front of you much reduced from first draft on 4th

benefit of some of our thinking how approached

emphasis on capital comments for 2008 in particular and a v few selected high priorities thereafter; feel consistent with recognition 2008 final year of RFMP implementation and the consequent impact on resource balances, and by that I mean finishing Cmnty Ctr.  We've known for quite some time that the final year of that project that our reserve balances wd be fairly well depleted as we pay for that project on a pay-as-you-go basis

2008 and part of 2009, also consistent with new capital visioning framework exercise, later on this year, and that wd be undertaken during 2008 for implementation in 2009

know Cclr Sop keen shall I say to undertake that, and we envision new Finance Cmte will be quite involved

Our objective is to leave maximum flexibility going forward to a new planning framework

I shd point out there are signif resources that will go forward into the next five-yr plan and that includes the Endowment Fund threshold in excess of $20M; within this plan there's about $3.6M of other capital reserve funds that are left on the table, and we've minimized our long-term borrowings that we're committing to these plans

Some of the projects that were reduced or deferred -- we shd also realize one of the emphases that we're starting to develop, and wdn't say totally scoped out yet or they're as firm as we'd like them to be -- but we're certainly getting involved in a more diverse form of funding for projects; starting to emphasize amenity contributions, sponsorships, partnership support, and in some cases, the specifics of those funding sources not necessarily firmed up yet, but it's clearly our intention for specific projects to be pursuing that style of funding so not just District resources that we're relying on.

Gleneagles Grt Hall / Golf Services bldg now provided for, a sgl project $2M, and that's within the Golf Fund

Infrastructure envelope as Cclr Smith indicated, reduced by $500K

fire training ground tower has been eliminated

Srs' Ctr bldg envelope has bn extended over two years, rather than one year

Amb Park Plan improvement prog of $1M annually commencing 2010,  has for the moment been eliminated, plan requires revisiting and more discussion before we commit to a particular version of that plan

a number of ongoing progs deferred, starting in 2009 rather than 2008

childcare hubs, previously two projects but scaled back to match up with grant applications that we have out there

Hugo Ray Park, previously some $1.5M of District funds eliminated on the basis we provided for planning funds, need to see how cmnty and grant fund-raising plays out before we commit District resources

Gordon Area improvements now span a three-yr period rather than two in previous plan

Mayor: now begins our discussion

Sop: I can only speak twice, and the third time if you let me?

Mayor: right

Sop: appreciate your efforts going back a second time; signif is $500K reduction in infrastructure prog; other things pleasing

RL: we're being more disciplined about what we're actually committed to; being more disciplined about possible projects, more discussion and scoping out before onto a plan

wd say fair bit of what we tried to do

also tried not to necessarily anticipate what next five years visioning wd look like, not use up all resources currently available; we need to hear more from Ccl wrt long-term projects

Sop: two areas I want to talk about

if there was a plan, if we found a good deal down there and through amenities from a large land devpr, and all these things worked, it wd seem logical, but when put in for 2009 and we haven't had discussions to give you concrete direction, why wd you leave it in plan for 2009?

Sop: and that's my next topic

if discussing, budgeted for, and it has a life

we've come a long way with Cmnty Ctr but our reserves are down; to me, we'd better go back to basics and build those funds back up, wd be realistic

you even said in 2009, can change the five-yr budget ev year if we want; time for new innovative concepts in how we're financing this cmnty,...

[RL nodding in favour]

comes to what really irks me, coming to reality now, and that is that the final amt paying for Cmnty Ctr will come from, land sales, and part of that will be the sale of Wetmore

Some time ago Ccl I guess decided to instruct staff, what is the word Mr Nicholls?

Mayor and SJN: call for proposals

Sop: wch is serious

but it intimated then we wd make a decision at that time whether all of us on Ccl had a different thought

my expectation was that that unique piece of land wch is level and flat, you'll never get back, was going to sit there till we built Cmty Ctr, and we had then a decision to make sometime down the road.

and I've asked that over and over and over

in my view, it is the wrong decision at this point in time when we need, I don't know what the exact amt is Mr Laing, but it's up there a little bit

I know the property is valuable, and I know we have to pay under the threshold back for it

even in a proposal we don't know what's going to go there; we've heard diff things, we've had no major discussion on that, that leaves me in that dilemma.

I think you've done some good work here but that's where I wd ask Ccl to seriously consider lowering the threshold or borrowing the monies for future generations to pay it

that's my first go-round

Mayor: wrt Rec Ctr, what you're disputing is the funding stream or source for paying for the Cmnty Ctr

Sop: one portion of it, I understand

Mayor: the budget right now reflects that comes from the Endowment Fund (EF) wch is the policy Ccl has been working with for years.

that's good we've got that, we've noted that

Sop: the only question I wanted to analyze, in the $32M that's down here for the EF, a portion of that is $6.9M from land sales out west

so really in the EF wd be $32M less almost $7M; we're down to about $25, 24M

RL: not sure of the math of these numbers

Sop: just want to clarify --  if $32M is the EF as it is today, but it isn't, it has another $6.9M, that's part of $32M, right?

RL: this capital plan, wch includes completion of the Cmnty Ctr, anticipates Wetmore will be sold in 2008, and proceeds of that sale go into the EF, and those funds will be used to pay for the Cmnty Ctr

that's what this plan anticipates and is consistent with the way that transaction has been structured

we've had many discussions along the lines Cclr Sop is pursuing right now, but the latest Ccl decision is still unchanged and that is formally how that transaction is structured

Sop: that didn't answer my question. I asked if the threshold is around $20M and if we have $32M in the Fund today, and we're looking for X number of dollars to fund the Cmnty Ctr, do we have $12M in the fund that is over and above $6.9M from land sales?

the land out west was $6.9M and it was transferred or assumed wd be part of the $32M?  Is it part of it or is it not?

RL: are you looking at the last page of the five-yr plan?

the last page indicates the resources that are flowing through the EF and also the capital facilities fund

It's true it does have an opening balance of $32M; there's land sales and some other net rentals aggregating some $7.6M, wch does include the gain on the sale of the Wetmore property; we have to keep in mind the Wetmore prop was originally acquired from within threshold so that has to be repaid.

Then we're anticipating $19M being spent on current projects in 2008

Sop: from this I wd draw that the opening of $32M and that the $7.6M is a comb of $6.9M from one land area and $2.5M from another land area, bringing it to $7.6M, correct?

then we see interest earned, then we see a balance coming in from capital, and expenditure

what I'm asking, in the opening balance is the $7.6M within $32M

RL: being added to the $32M

Sop: on top of; that's what I wanted to clarify; so what did you put down here needed as sale of Wetmore to make this work?

RL: I'm going to ask Mr Nicholls assistance here b/c we've had discussion as to whether or not this prejudices how we might set a selling price in future

[Mayor speaks but away from mic]

but I do know, what we calculate wch is common is that the total land sales wd repay the $5.6M wch came out of the EF's threshold; it is not in threshold, but it has to go back in the threshold; plus an additional amt of money on top of the threshold to help pay for the Rec Ctr.

I do not believe the $5.6M being received initially has got anything to do with the Rec Ctr under this current budget, it is not, so it's $5.6M, and the amt going toward the Rec Ctr is over and above the $5.6M

Sop: without discussing figures, sensitive, I understand that fully, I want to get a grasp on the amount, wch takes me to the decision that we can make.  Mr Laing, when is it made, to look seriously at the original threshold of the EF.  It started around $15M and grew to roughly $20M.

if the consideration of a one-time payment for the balance needed for that Cmnty Ctr, cd it not come from a one-time payment and lower the threshold from whatever that amt is?

RL: consideration of lowering the threshold, borrowing long-term funds, is all within Ccl's purview, not mine

Mayor: believe those issues are precisely what we wish to discuss in forming our new long-term capital mgmt plan

this budget is viewed as the consolidation and narrowing to execute the RFMP

shdn't be considering any other major capital projects until we have an approach that addresses these various funding opportunities

fair game to introduce that to the capital budget debate, but that's not anticipated as part of the recommendations before us

Mayor: Ccl Sop, cd I just finish

the plan for funding the Cmnty Ctr for years has included the sale or long-term lease of Wetmore lands, we're pursuing that and asking for a proposal

not ev mbr of Ccl agrees with that; I think part of what informs that is an opp at that location for housing that the cmnty is demanding, so it's more than just the revenue, however I understand that's not your view, and certainly exploring the threshold level of the EF has been outstanding for years, and of interest to mbrs of Ccl

VV: my comment on that Wetmore matter as well

I think I agree we shdn't feel committed to sell the Wetmore land b/c that introduces new complications as to what kind of devt wd go there

an area already signif traffic probs, so that wd hv to be studied more carefully

lowering the threshold in the EF is a much more preferred route to go

did have some questions, perhaps Mr Laing or Mr Barth can help me with; same I had when I first came to the Ccl

looked at Fiscal Sust Task Force report and they also commented that they had counted up $100M worth of projects, not that were specifically in our plans, but were variously talked about, laid out; the obvious renovations we have to do to all our bldgs

so I really wonder, even as Cclr Day mentioned, we don't have to be alarmist about this, we can sell to begin with the Wetmore land, the police bldg land, but even if we did sell land we wdn't come anywhere near meeting the capital requirements that will hit us over the next perhaps 20, 30 year b/c we've got nothing like that

and I'm just wondering, my view, FSTF view, seems to be it's got to be $100M

We've got $18M here for Police Bldg, that means $80M to go; has an exercise been done to find out where we stand with this.  What is our share of this national $123B M infrastructure deficit?

RL: will ask Mr Barth to help me

first of all the numbers the TF came up with was a rather ad hoc adding up of potential high profile projects for the future

if you look at what was in that list, a number of discretionary type, so wdn't be alarmed with $100M

do know our infrastructure fund, envelope, our way trying to demonstrate that we're staying as current as we can with existing infrastructure

don't know necessarily spending enough, that's why trying to increase those envelopes ev year going forward; know Dir of Engg says we need more for roads but we manage to beat him back

we're attempting to do same envelope approach with sewers and water, again those amts to be proved up; assessing condition of that infrastructure

probably at that point some high profile civic facilities, possibly this bldg, certainly a public safety bldg, potentially some firehalls, I don't know that I'm particularly alarmed at what we don't know

we are positioning ourselves with this plan, just take on as few high profile projects as possible and making sure that we've got the resources forward to

Dir/Engg: I'd like some more money

seriously I agree with ev Mr L said; generally not spending enough, however situation was much worse long before I arrived here and Mr L has had foresight and has been increasing amts annually

don't think shortfalls alarming, not worried about our infrastructure suddenly collapsing or failing but look closer once past crunch with Cmthy Ctr can look at upping funds

Mr L has increased

we're engaged in utility area, doing detailed inventory of infrastructure, lot of it buried under the ground, a lot of info we had about it, drawings done by contractor, and have to say quite honestly, it's true of a lot of Ms, didn't have a really good handle on what their infrastructure was

first step inventory so we know what we have, now assessing condition it's in

pipes, soil conditions make a diff how long last

with that we can do detailed analysis, how much money we need but wisest way to spend that money

can make diff decisions about how to do repairs to road wch might forestall more signif expenditure in the future

yes, we cd use more money; we're working toward that and as we devp better information of what we need, clear I've got support to make that work

EB, Dir/Eng: be reluctant, at this point to put a number out there b/c that's part of the work to get real hard data, may not be accurate, hope to do that within the next year

RL: we did trim $500K out of the infrastructure envelope; prepared to do that for this year given bit of a tough budget balancing year; wd rather not have cut that; our intention to revisit

JF: thank staff for all of hard work done

app your determination to prioritize, draw in, look at diff ways to address to be more efficient, meet needs in future

prepared to accept that in spite of some regard wrt deferring maintenance to the point we cost ourselves more money; something most homeowners familiar with -- put off dealing with a leak, cost more than in first place

concern wrt Sr Ctr, we've deferred before; a little skeptical about your confidences but prepared to accept b/c put a huge amt of effort into this

we know what that is, not without variance --devprs want more FAR, more density in order to provide amenity; comes with a different kind of price tag

those are the kinds of things lose track of; looks so easy, partnerships, easy can get amenity

bonusing when frankly WV does little to get that kind of bonusing, we're not building 40-storey towers in WV, those major benefits, go into this a sense of caution

one year, diff processes for next five; must ensure looked at so not in same position next year at this time

JC: I too congratulate staff in creating Version 2, looking forward to Version 3

two items that have been raised; echo Cclr Sop but don't echo, I've been saying from outset wrt Wetmore site, shd not sell or not be in a rush to sell Wetmore; there are other properties we hv identified that wd satisfy same need

other issue

such a substantial number, Mr L not falling into overheated market...

looking to spend $400K bringing that bldg up to snuff and then immediately thereafter, spending another $9M on, for, space when in fact our own Chief, and I support his position personally on formation of a subregional North Shore force

spoke to a service group last week, apart from a few questions as to how it wd work, there was support for the concept and implementation

a lot of ppl out there, yet we're rushing here to spend $18M over next two years, in five-yr capital plan

I stress caution in those two areas

Mayor: not sure anyone want to address the Police bldg, really is just out there

the research that happens this year is critical, as is the NSh Policing Review, as is an awful lot of public discussion about the outcomes, may well take more than a year to do that

corollary to Amb renewal plan, is centrality of that block to that plan; part of next five years

not require capital in under 12 months

JC: I find it strange all focusing on Amb renewal, south side of 1300 M Dr where a third of that property subject to envtal assessment to move forward on it, and our own prop there

in fact at least one, if not more, parcels of roughly that size, one of wch an owner I know anxious to get started, cd be used as a catalyst and a trigger to get this Amb off the ground

Mayor: numerous sites, numerous things; first of wch is bringing the bylaws to Ccl

MS: wandering all over the place here, talks hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars infrastructure shortfalls, Police bldg, and ev else, when what we shd be talking about is this capital plan

we're talking about a 2008 cap plan

police bldg may or may not unfold in future, not contemplating spending money on it in 2008

what I find personally annoying, even if I, and I often don't, agree with what was done, I close ranks; at least I try to.

Ev Dr being a prime example; I voted against it and the next week I began supporting it b/c decision made; ev has to pull on the same oar

fact is decision was made; ppl making proposals, don't think we shd ev week revisiting decision

we shd confine our discussion decision to 2008 cap plan; been worked on v hard by staff; either approve it or not approve it

shd close ranks and support good work staff has done

RD: Cclr Smith is right, was not on Ccl when decision to build Cmnty Ctr was made I know it was connected to purchase of Wetmore; always part of the plan

selling those might be controversial, might be lengthy process

if we're going to meet the costs of the Civic Ctr; might have to sell or lease Wetmore land, don't see too much of an alternative myself

if we were to lower threshold cd be possibility, I don't know, we cd have to face that challenge; might lead to lowering of threshold

frankly pragmatic about it

we have to find the money; can see lowering threshold, can see selling Wetmore, and since Wetmore always part of plan

think Mr L has done a v good job

have to finish this debate sooner or later; Cclr Smith makes sense and I support that position

Sop: funnily enough, this is a five-yr cap plan, not 2008 capital plan; in it a host of new ideas

looked at financing in diff ways 2009, my thoughts we wd embark and look at our holdings, in millions, and look at Police Stn if it pans out; we've got all these buildings, this, museum, and other places

never had a master plan what we cd do over 50 years, acquiring, selling off land

seen other Ms sell off land for short-term gain, were in trouble

sensibly if original threshold was $15M, and it's worked over time up to $20M, why wdn't we sensibly at this point in time say we wd use about the threshold, or lower the threshold or use those monies

gives us excellent opp to look at Wetmore and decide what best b/c we assume when looking for appraisals, didn't have discussion of what it cd be; that's yet to be; took life of its own; never get land back; how best serve cmtny .... never been discussed

propose amendment to this, we in fact lower threshold one-time to cover the cost of the Cmnty Ctr

Mayor: not sure that's an amendment

RB: any threshold amt wd have to be through bylaw... can't deal with it tonight

Mayor: but this informs staff b/c they're wishing to bring forth budget bylaws

Sop: this is nothing but to be received; for info; for discussion only no motion, so staff can't

Mayor: if you wish to lower threshold; work for staff, if Ccl wants them to go off to do that...

so wd be appropriate for Cclr Sop to make a motion b/c staff work

Sop: wd make motion; wd like some discussion on that; look at logically; we have the best credit rating, triple A

haven't considered long-term borrowing

RL: the way this plan is structured, consistent with discussions

one way or the other, the EF is the source of paying for the Cmty Ctr, so it seems to me we cd defer until later this year whether lower threshold or follow RFP Mr N brings forward

one way or the other from EF, as long as we still have that as an understanding; scenario you're thinking of cd play out later in year

Sop: I want to see this completed, but how is worthy to talk about; don't think rush to judgement.

Mayor: we're acting in a biz-like manner, with the cmnty that's going to respond

oblig to follow that through and go forward; don't think at all wise to move away from that

wrt EF, imp to recognize this is for 2008

five-yr emphasizing 2008, with a few priorities scoped in for remaining four years; kind of substantive debates will begin under Finance Cmte; borrowing is not something this Ccl has ever discussed, pay-as-you-go has always been the plan and we're seeing that through

wd like to add briefly on infrastructure side, a lot has been done at the fed level wrt this deficit situation, estimated that half of infrastructure in country within M purview

yes, there's a need wrt infrastructure, how we pay for it shd be paramount concern to this Ccl

so those are major, infrastructure, they're regional matters

certainly WV b/c of its high assessments and also b/c of requiring solid/liquid waste mgmt so I do want to do work on that in med to long term planning way

our engrs v involved with Metro V, quite high profile

time for Ccl to start working, planning stuff so far

how we succeed with those things has ev to do with our fed and prov govt relations

not us taking $10K from a minor prog not minor to somebody, has to do with partnerships

working on multiple levels; shd provide some confidence for Cclr V b/c you're right about the issues we're facing

wrt our own infrastructure, proactive things we're doing, stormwater mgmt, easing off on what we require of our infrastructure

roads question is going to be a big one, the bulging out, curbs, nbrhd character, concern about traffic, runoff

probably want to look at that and how your decisions are made

wrt this, Mr Laing, what do you need from Ccl to bring the bylaws forward?

RL: any concrete changes you want to this plan bearing in mind 2008 and not prepared to wait for a visioning exercise later this year

we're working toward putting this into bylaw format, planning numbers

RL: not trying to cap discussion, trying to be realistic, take a new approach to the EF; talk about bylaws that govern that fund

might include our new Finance Cmte and those kinds of issues; that's more along lines I'm considering

Sop: for this five-yr plan when bylaws come through, from what I'm gathering, will be status quo, we'll sell Wetmore

RL: when through, the five-yr capital will still be ten lines and the EF will be the signif source of payment for the CCtr

won't say anything about sale of Wetmore site or threshold level

Sop: I understand that.  If you're to break that down it's landsales cuz it all goes to the EF; wd say Wetmore to make this work

what I'm saying is no breakdown, but where is discussion re alternate source of funding

Sop: okay if we went with the idea of looking at the EF, I think there's ongoing discussion about what Wetmore truly cd be used for

If we sit down, cd come up with strategic methods to look at that property in the future

good asset to WV, but we have not really had any serious talk about what really shd go there

Mayor: numerous debates wch have resulted in a course of action that our staff have taken

we have to follow through on that and that will be returned to us for what we wish to do in public interest next

Sop: so bylaw will come through the EF

Mayor: in general

Sop: and that's it.  When is that coming?

RL: in parallel when you give us instructions as to what the operating portion of the budget bylaw shd look like

unless too cramped for Ccl but that's what we're shooting for, okay?

Ms Scholes, what form of motion to conclude this discussion?

SSch: to Mr L, what direction you need from Ccl?

Mayor: accept five-yr capital plan as presented?

Sop: indeed not

Mayor: purposes; we have to have a bylaw in front of us to debate.

Sop: we are waiting for bylaws, that's when we make a decision, we're still talking

Mayor: but Mr L has to draft the bylaws based on some direction from Ccl

MS: Sometimes I just-- sometimes I don't know how Mr Laing can sit there

at some point we have to think about running the M in some vague shape of organization

how can make decisions and expect staff carry it out when ev week change; no wonder nothing ever gets done -- that's not fair

if I worked here I'd just sit there and smile and say well next week we'll go in a different direction so I'll wait a month-- you know, north south east and west

we made a decision, Mr L is looking for direction; Ccl made a decision to call for proposals for Wetmore, haven't made a decision to sell it, he's looking for feedback on 2008

staff have prepared cap plan based on direction Ccl has provided to them

and we're wandering all over the place

Mayor: I think we will entertain that motion

RL: if Ccl can confirm for me these are the projects, this is how we're going to spend our money, then I'll bring forward a draft five-yr cap bylaw that on a funding source side will be acceptable to Cclr Sop

Mayor: all mbrs of Ccl, actually

JF: I move staff bring forth bylaws based on version 2

VV: just committed to what goes on in 2008 simpler, but if five years, then I wd have preferred discussion on long-term borrowing for the Police bldg

for every $5M we borrow the taxes go up a per cent and this is a $9M of long-term borrowing in that year; prop taxes go up perhaps normal 3% then add 2% on top, and I certainly wdn't be supporting that; and the other half presumes sale of land Police bldg on and we still haven't decided that

if we haven't decided Wetmore, we certainly haven't decided that?

how complicated is Mr L's situation if he's not confident of how Ccl will regard the funding of the Police bldg?

RL guess I wd look for direction how you'd like to change Police Bldg

Mayor: so many unknowns -- how come together, where it cd be

can't answer till 2008 settled; must it be there in 2009?

RL: do you want it removed?  to be scoped out during review and planning for 2008?

Mayor: realistically to me it doesn't seem we'll be building Police stn next year

an awful lot of things that have to happen in Ambleside and Police services before we cd decide something like that

RB: practical point; quite correct

Mayor: I don't want to be disingenuous by pretending this doesn't exist; it's something on the horizon for the cmnty

where is the best place to place that and how best to reflect an unknown wrt funding sources

RL: I cd move it one year, show built over 2010-2011, might be more consistent on how we view the construction market and those kinds of things

Mayor: if we don't put it in the five yr, can we put it in when we're ready to?

RL: absolutely

Mayor: make more sense, Ccl?

JC: year two of this plan is year one of next five-yr capital plan so this can be moved and positioned anywhere along that sliding scale

Mayor: we've got the feasibility planning budgeted for, obviously implies something's coming next -- make more sense take it out?

VV: don't know how we can have a five-yr plan with no money shown to spend to build that bldg; was hoping Mr L might find an alternate source, if there's really going to be zero in the EF, that wd be a problem

still potentially cd be removing threshold in EF then wd be enough for the police bldg

don't think we shd be asked to commit ourselves to long-term borrowing that the taxpayer has to pay for

different from borrowing for Health Auth, they'll make payments

departure from our previous principles; if Mr Laing can find another way finding the money other than long-term borrowing or selling land, EF, other land, land police bldg sitting on might be possible

just think if looking for support, wdn't if borrowing

1300block? does Mr L have any other place he can get money from here?

[someone into mic, God!]

RL: does not commit us to building in those years or funding in those ways

on a placeholder basis; looking out today most reasonable

Mayor: IOW, not committed to borrowing money by virtue if in budget

RL: not committed to borrowing but being realistic about going forward that pay-as-you-go for last five years, our resources really are quite depleted other than EF

if framework other than pay as you go; need to talk about it

JF: imp to leave Police Bldg in plan so on ccl agenda

stn or force, regional or otherwise, will have to be housed somewhere; obliged to provide something

keeps it on the burner; will talk about it; may not happen next year but in everyone's consciousness and that's extremely imp

RL: might make sense to move it one year

JF: fear if move one year, then ev will sit around and say we don't have to talk about it; don't have to make any plans; don't have to think about long term; this isn't committing us to spending or borrowing, but to talk about it

RD: can talk about it if 2010/11; leave it there; going to happen, bldg not in good shape

know not going to do it in 2009; 2010 after Olympics hope bldg costs taper off a bit

look at various ways to finance, going to take some doing to find money, can with time

keep in but 2010, Mr L suggested

Mayor: can hardly sit here without proper informed debate about regional police services

Cclr F is right, there will be a presence here

shd tell Ccl that the Police Bd told the the Chief at the mtg last week to move ahead with a Police Fdn

quite a bit of interest in the cmnty.  It is with the view to what substantive capital requirements this cmnty is facing; a lot of ground work, only beginning

Sop: feasibility plan for new $100K for police stn, not going to go away

don't see why you have to have a bracket of 9 or 10, can discuss it in future

we have some major discussions to have as Ccl, with staff, committed to feasibility, cd start instantly

like Cclr Clark, takes a life of its own; have some decisions to make; serious collaboration

we're committed to planning, not just going to put it on shelf

contrary to Cclr Smith's echoing of going all over the place; specifically I refer to another area and that is the Wetmore site, another deliberation we cd have for the best use

Yes, Mr L, its tough for you, but I'm not satisfied we've come to the right answer here yet.

Mayor: I think you made a motion wrt the Police Stn remaining?

JF: not thinking any more than I said; if anyone wishes to make an amendment I suggest they do so, b/c I won't.

RD: I don't care; as long as stays in budget; we're not going to do it in 2009, but if you want to leave it there

MS: the tragedy is if you get out the booklet, 2003 for three-yr biz plan, Staying the Course, to 2005; it has the bldg of the new police bldg

Mayor: I'll call the question.

[Sop and VV opposed]

Mayor: on that basis, the bylaws will come forward and we'll have this debate again at second reading of the bylaw; tyvm; good job

Mayor: a deep green home; outside our purview; interested in exploring

VV: wd be interested to hear

Sop: envtal side; worthwhile to listen

Mayor: I cd follow that up

CORRESPONDENCE LIST FOR CONSENT AGENDA [complete list in previous issue]

Mayor asks what to remove from Correspondence:

Sop: 1, 12, 14 in Corres

VV: 3 and 18

RD: 12 shd be revised; shd be received, not approved (12 above)

Sop: remember with Mr S re streetcleaning; phone call? cd be some back up?

Mayor: longstanding issue

RB: longstanding issue, tix have been paid; policy related to streetwsweeping; numerous corresp; gone to but not aware of discussion

Mayor: enormous amt of staff time

Sop:...

VV: the letter writer objected staff lobbying, rather than [public input]

shd not allow that sort of forum that we set up for public

think some time in future, shd discuss proper; general

Mayor: unusual, chose to allow it, not sure it helped staff; v difficult not to allow freedom of speech

KP: Mr Schramm, not an employee, with [WV] Employee Assn

DARE took fair amt of dollars to get, to be put in place, four years

that youngster having an awareness put in front of them; think it has served well; $13M -- out the door with nothing to replace it?  seems a bit odd to me

Mayor: happy to reply as I have to many letters; been going to PAC mtgs; not a Ccl decision; not a decision the Police Bd made either

much loved prog; even LA where started has now abandoned; info from both sides wrt efficacy

at core, parents and teacher belief in importance of our police officers being known as protectors and friends

JF: as Chair of Police Bd, hope you might make enquiry on behalf of Ccl that there might be a diff process for interaction with young ppl

from my perspective I wd encourage Police Bd and Chief to have discussions with parents' ccl and District

Mayor: that's what we're doing; and the sch bd chair and I hv been working collaboratively on that over a couple of months.  Item 14

Sop: quickly; I think this was answered for me; KMC looking for amenities from one source; think broken down by Mr Nicholls.

VV: same as No 3; handled

15.   REPORTS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS --none

CR: Good evening.  Carolanne Reynolds, Editor of West Van Matters.  Pls forgive me, I've just been taking down notes while you've been discussing so this is not going to be in a logical order, it's not even going to be in an order of what's trivial to what's really important, but as I wrote down.

Mayor: try to focus on the really important

CR:  I'll just start with-- my notes are here.  Thank you for changing the agenda for the budget.

I understand the jaws of life [fee], though, that [fee] was decided in 2005, so I don't even think it was [done by this Ccl].

The minor things first b/c they'll--

[garbled]

There are three Design Review Cmte mtgs coming up, but we can't find out [on what] b/c the agenda is not on the District website, to find why they have an extra mtg tomorrow Mar 4th, another one on the 6th, but you can't see the agenda.  That's one question.

Secondly, the motion at the beginning of this mtg was to replace the workshop mtg with a ccl mtg and that threw me b/c I thought it was a budget workshop next week and then you said it was a budget workshop, so if you cd clarify that, that wd be helpful.

And maybe wrt the budget, you're having three ccl mtgs [a month], that saves you time and maybe we can have some cost savings with that too, might save some staff time if you only have three mtgs so I don't know if that's going to be considered.

The Finance Cmte.  Glad to see that's been appointed.  Wonder if we know when it will next meet b/c of course now if we're starting with bylaws they wd want to discuss that so I'd like to know when that next mtg wd be.

The next thing is -- just some background.  I'm sorry, I have to apologize I'm bringing up Wetmore but Cclr Clark was correct that the Planning Cmte and many others said that we shdn't sell it b/c it's an asset.  Mayor Wood at the time, made a grand pronouncement, and I have the tape, that any disposition of Wetmore wd be a WIDE, WIDESPREAD discussion with the public on what to do with it.  Some of the comments were: that it seems foolish to sell a permanent asset (wch is what land is) for a cmnty ctr wch is a building (wch will deteriorate).  So one of the things that-- so I think there's more to be said on that-- I'm glad that the Director of Finance mentioned if it's put in there's still some flexibility.  Obviously-- one of the things [at the time was said] I suggested ppl wanted to do was a combination, lease part of it but keep ownership b/c it is a municipal asset.  It doesn't mean it can't be used and we can't get money from it, but it doesn't mean we have to sell it to get money from it, and I think that's the important thing that shd be kept in mind in your discussions on Wetmore.

Oh, and a minor thing.

Last week as a director of Streamkeepers, I went to reserve a space for the banners over the overpass wch we've done over the past few years on Adopt-a-Fish in April to be told that Ccl had passed a bylaw last fall that starting January this year, no banners are to be allowed to be on the overpass.  I called a few cclrs and they weren't aware of it either, so that's another question.

I can't read the rest of this so while you answer that I'll try to read this.

CR: what-- but also--

SJN: if they were not able to deal with it, they'd also have another mtg if they cdn't deal with it in one.

Mayor: We're scheduling a ccl mtg next Monday b/c we have to set a date wrt I believe Ev Dr and need a ccl mtg in order to do that, and then it seemed logical to continue with our budget discussion and then Ccl can also give direction to the Dir/Fin

CR: that's what I understood your agenda to say.  When I heard the motion read that it wd replace it [workshop], that's what alarmed me.  Now I understand.  Thank you for clearing it up.

Mayor: thank you

CR: what about the banners?

Mayor: Mr, uh, who's, I'm aware of this-- [who can] inform us a little more?

RB: It's my understanding, Your Worship, that last year as part of the sign bylaw review, our solicitors informed us we didn't have the authority to issue permits over the arterial highway.  At that time, we, staff, started phasing out the permits.  Now whether the Min of Transportation have picked that up,  and will allow it, I really cdn't comment on that, but we certainly can check into that.

Mayor: wd that be Mr Barth's Dept?

RB: currently being issued under the Bldg Dept.

Ans: yes, Madam Mayor.

CR: That wd be appreciated.  One of the things staff said to me is that they thought it might be an insurance or liability issue.  What I was going to suggest to that, is that when you issue the permit, this is what's done in many places, is that it is 'at your own risk' rather than putting the District at risk, if that's one of the things--

Mayor: --do things like that--

CR: your five-yr budget [capital] plan was 'to be provided', so we cdn't see this.  Are we able to provide input to the five-yr capital plan next Monday? b/c on the agenda, as you see, it says "information to be provided", so nobody in the public cd see the five-yr capital plan that you in fact discussed thoroughly tonight without our having the benefit of seeing it.

Mayor: Mr Laing? Ms Scholes?

SSch: We received that report {looking askance} -- Thursday? {nod} -- Thursday afternoon, and it was posted on the website Th afternoon with a link directly from that item and it was sent to the Library at that time.

Mayor: thank you

Mayor: Mr McTavish; I have your request here but Ccl is not, Mr McTavish, Mr McTavish? we're not prepared to discuss

Sir?  Mr McT, can you hear me?  can you hear me? can you hear me?

DMT: keep trying

Mayor: we're not able to discuss an outstanding lawsuit, so I'm not sure what the nature of your

DMT: I will be asking questions; you don't have to reply, that is your choice and I understand that

however as I told you at the last mtg, I've secured some of the best wisdom in western Canada relative to the rights of individuals to ask questions in a forum such as this.

Mayor: I'm going to

DMT: I'm going to proceed

Mayor: I'm going to ask our acting CAO for his advice on this

RB: important that we clarify what Mr McT's questions are of Ccl.  If they're pertaining to any form of pending litigation, then staff or Ccl wd not be in a position to comment on that.   If there is any clarification required, certainly we'd be prepared to meet with Mr McT.

Mayor: and I did write you based on the questions from last time.  Are these different questions?

DMT: I have not seen any response

Mayor: that letter-- I know I signed it.

RB: sent letter out on Friday, and emailed; and put in mail; maybe not received yet

DMT: there was a letter that essentially said nothing, if that's the one you're referring to

RB: it said

DMT: nothing, sir

RB: that's your observation; you did receive a letter

DMT: that is correct.

Mayor: good; think we've done our best

DMT: I'd like to proceed.  Madam Mayor and Ccl, as you are aware, I was literally dumped as joint project mgr for the Aquatic Ctr expansion--

Mayor: now you're on to another matter

DMT: same

Mayor: either you're mixing

DMT: Madam, you're gobbling up my three minutes

Mayor: I'm not sure it's appropriate; what you may be talking about is a contract matter, with somebody, not even--

DMT: Okay, I'll forget the contract matter; I will go on to questions I asked back on 18th

do you recall that?

Mayor: that's the letter I wrote you

DMT: it was a two-page

Mayor: I'm listening to your question

DMT: I left copies of a spreadsheet in each of your boxes on Feb 26

Why is Ccl and staff shielding the operations and conduct of M operations from scrutiny?

Taxpayers fund the millions spent per year on our operating budget for the running of the M.  Are we the taxpayers not entitled to info on how that money is spent?

are our elected representatives and certain staff hiding behind the "we can't answer or produce this info b/c it is before the courts"?  What do they fear about disclosure?

We the taxpayers are also paying for these runaway legal fees so these answers may never come out.

why are we the taxpayers defending ourselves and against what in this dispute.

How much have we paid over the past five years in legal fees?

do we know?  do you know?

what member of our WV staff is representing the taxpayers in this dispute?

we don't know

Mayor: actually, neither do we

DMT: how much have we paid--

Mayor: --nothing

DMT:--over the past five years in legal fees? How can we the taxpayers understand or accept any info regarding new budgets, if we do not have all the answers and info required?

Are the ppl we have placed in positions of authority on our behalf concealing inefficiency, incompetence, and indifference?

Notwithstanding the constraints of "can't answer b/c it's before the courts" we do not believe that the ppl we have placed in positions of authority to represent us shd withhold info about their operations from the public.

I do not believe that these ppl who we have placed in positions of authority have any reason or rights to withhold info from the taxpayers.

in my opinion, we the taxpayers of WV are entitled to any info regarding decisions made on our behalf by elected officials or staff.

In conclusion, Madam Mayor, do you or any mbrs of Ccl have any comments?

Mayor: I've written you the letter; that's my comment.  I'm not sure if you're talking about a bunch of issues, all v vague to me

DMT: pardon?

Mayor: v vague what you're stating

DMT: what is vague? I'll try to clarify

Mayor: you've got my letter; we've got your questions; I'm happy to meet with you, said that to you numerous times; wanted to get the letter to you first.

Mr Pike, have you anything to add?

KP: the letter sent out from Mr Beauchamp on the question that arose before is the reply to the question.  We state v clearly, and it isn't nothing, where this matter is at present, before the court, and matters before the court are not dealt with in this kind of manner.

DMT: WADR, that is a BS, teflon-coated answer

Mayor: and that changes the tenor of this discussion.  I think I'll call for

DMT: I have one more thing

[voice: Adjourn]

DMT: I have one more thing to say before you cut me off

copy of letter and questionnaire will be sent to you and to my MLA Ralph Sultan tomorrow.

You can expect action

Mayor: excellent.  Thank you I'll be happy

DMT: with the provincial govt--

Mayor: to take this up with our MLA.

***  WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage

Story from BBC NEWS:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7282064.stm

1   (two points)       

April 1912 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Vancouver,_British_Columbia

...  The Municipality of West Vancouver was incorporated on March 15, 1912, after separating from the District of North Vancouver. The first municipal election was held on April 6, 1912.

Is Park Royal on Squamish Band (First Nations) territory?  part of it is

3      

When did Park Royal open?  1950

4      

How many parks are there in WV?  about 140

5      

What year was the first celebration of heritage in WV?  February 1989

6      

        between 42 - 46,000 depending on whether or not the Squamish reserve is included

The original lighthouse at Point Atkinson was built in 1874.  It was replaced by the current hexagonal concrete structure in 1910.

8   (two points)       

Name the oldest house in WV and the year it was built.  Navvy Jack House, 1868

1938 -- according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions_Gate_Bridge it opened to traffic on November 14, 1938.

b)  When was the official opening and by whom?  1939, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth

10   (three points)

        Two Sisters, representing Peace and Brotherhood (also translated as Harmony)

11   (two points)

        The Ferry Building Gallery and the Gertrude Lawson House (the West Van Museum)

12   (two points)

Name the home/building in WV that has been named a national historical site and when it was built.       B C Binning House, 1941

What's the name of the famous house on an 'unbuildable lot' on the waterfront designed by Arthur Erickson that was demolished last year?       the Graham House

A West Vancouver reeve (1953 - 1954); Reeve was the name given to the position we now call Mayor

        Sway'wey Creek, meaning 'place where people fish for smelt'

Dr Ethlyn Trapp donated her estate on the banks of the Capilano River to West Vancouver.  What is the name of this park?       Klee Wyck