Politicians appeal arena ruling

by Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star posted Oct 31, 2014 at 1:00 AM
Officials will attempt to stickhandle the arena issue around provincial opposition. The Greater Vernon Advisory Committee voted Thursday to challenge a provincial government ruling not to allow it to borrow money to expand Kal Tire Place because the facility is owned by the City of Vernon. “We believe we have grounds for an appeal” said chairperson Juliette Cunningham, who would not elaborate on GVAC’s legal strategy. The government’s actions forced GVAC to back off a borrowing referendum with the Nov. 15 civic election. If the appeal is shot down, a backup plan has been developed. The next step would be to hold a borrowing referendum for an expansion of Kal Tire Place. RDNO would own the facility and be responsible for debt servicing, and then lease it long-term to the city, which would take over maintenance and control. This plan fits in with the new recreation model, which sees the city owning facilities within its boundary and the other jurisdictions paying for access. “We’re just preparing for the next step,” said Cunningham if the appeal is blocked. The goal is to hold a referendum in spring 2015 to replace the aging ice sheet at Civic Arena. “Residents from the entire area will get a say at one time,” said director Jim Garlick. However, Regional District of North Okanagan staff caution a spring vote may not be possible. “We want to move this as expeditiously as possible but the province has a key role in setting the date because it will be reviewing its decision,” said David Sewell, chief administrative officer. A delayed referendum could mean that the scope of a new ice sheet and the original $13 million price tag could be considered further. “A review of what goes to referendum will certainly be necessary,” said director Bob Fleming. Director Mike Macnabb says a further study of an ice sheet would follow a process similar to that for the sports complex under construction at Okanagan College. “We had to cut millions of dollars off of it and I hope we would do that here,” he said.

Notice of Land Disposition and Provision of Assistance

Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Service Review
Pursuant to Sections 185 and 187 of the Local Government Act, the Regional District is providing notice that the Regional District intends to transfer to the District of Coldstream and the City of Vernon the lands legally described in the lists in the links below.  The transfer of title to these properties is part of the restructuring of the Greater Vernon Parks function whereby local parks will become the responsibility of the local government in whose jurisdiction the park is located.  The consideration to be received by the Regional District for the disposition of the properties is $1.00 and other good and valuable consideration.  The title transfers are proposed to take effect January 1, 2014 upon completion of all necessary documents for the parks restructuring.
If you would like more information, or to view a map of any of the properties being transferred, click on the appropriate link below:

• Notice of Land Disposition - Regional District to City of Vernon
• Notice of Land Disposition - Regional District to District of Coldstream

Kelowna's mayor says rules about mandatory city advertising are outdated

By Alistair Waters - Kelowna Capital News Published: March 04, 2013 5:00 PM

The prospect of the city producing what Kelowna's mayor predicts will be the biggest and "most boring" advertisement ever has prompted him to suggest municipalities in B.C. lobby the province to change a requirement in municipal law that makes it mandatory for cities and towns to advise their business in local newspapers. Walter Gray said in the Internet age, municipalities should not be forced to run advertisements such an upcoming eight-page ad listing hundreds of statutory rights-of-way it plans to transfer to Fortis B.C. as part of its deal to sell the assets of its electric utility to the company. Council was told about the plan for the ad Monday. It will run over eight pages in the Capital News and will be the biggest city news advertisement Kelowna has ever run, said general manager of community services John Vos. Vos told council that under the Community Charter, the provincial law that governs how municipalities operate, there is a requirement to advertise when city land is being sold or transferred. The newspaper advertisement will consist of eight pages of rights- of-way addresses. In a city report the list covers 29 regular letter-sized pages. That prompted Gray to question why such a requirement still exists. "It's about time we saved some trees," said the mayor. "This is the epitome of stupidity." He wants the city, through the Union of B.C. Municipalities to lobby Victoria to allow such advertising to be done solely on the city's website. (more)
---------
Don Quixote Note: When (and if) the Parks MOU gets resolved the Parks under RDNO ownership that will be transferred to local partners (If they are considered Local Parks) will require a similar advertisement. Also, the local jurisdiction that is compelled to transfer ownership of Parks to RDNO   (Parks considered Sub regional such as Kin Beach, Kal Beach and Marshall Fields) will also have to post ad(s) in the local newspaper.

Council Agrees To In-Camera Change

Written by Peter McIntyre  107.5 KISSFM Tuesday, 09 October 2012 21:22

Vernon council has agreed to release more information about decisions made behind closed doors--at least sometimes.  Councillor Bob Spiers led a motion to have vote results of in-camera decisions released, if council approves it. "I'm sure that most votes will be released. More votes than naught are unanimous so there's no reason not to release them." However, Mayor Rob Sawatzky says it may not produce much change. "All that is is an option. It doesn't say that council will ever release the vote. It's just an option." The motion got unanimous support. In-camera matters deal with land, legal and labour issues.

Annual Report to be approved Monday ?

The Annual Report will be available to be picked up and will be posted online at the City's website after approval is given on Monday. It can be found in the Agenda Package - 18.9MB at pages 119-197.

There may however be a slight problem with this report if it is actually produced for the public in the form that it presently has been shown in the Package. The community Charter does spell out both the deadline and the requirements of what MUST be in the report.

(2) The annual report must include the following:
(f) a statement of municipal objectives, and the measures that will be used to determine progress respecting those objectives, for the current and next year;

There are objectives and their results for 2007 in this report (P.47) but there are no Municipal Objectives for either 2008 or 2009. I can not remember the Council discussing in open session the municipal objectives and goals for either this year or 2009 and unless this was done in a DARKSIDE Meeting and these objectives will be presented as a supplement then there may have to be a deferral of the approval of this Report until that debate occurs.

Don Quixote Note: A quick scan of the report produced a few oddities and discrepancies but I will wait for the published ready for prime time hard copy version to do a comprehensive review for the public input meeting to be scheduled tentatively for June 23. But these 2 were too obvious not to be shared and hopefully corrected.

• There also is either some hyperbole from the Mayor or understating of revenue from the finance department in the 2008 budget when he states than the Sparkling Hills Resort building permit brought in $500,000 alone while the finance department added $361,014 to their budget for the Krystall Resort B.P.
• There are also a couple of footnotes to the financial statements that may be misleading with regards to the Airport Corporation and the Vernon Land Corporation. Apparently the auditors were under the impression that these Corporations were dissolved on Jan 1, 2007. They then state that in 2007 two new City Owned Corporations were created -The Hesperia Development Corporation and the Captain Bailey Way Development Corporation. I have been assured by reliable sources at the City that these two corporations came about from a name change from their predecessor companies namely the Airport Corp and The Vernon Land Corps. As the Financial statements are a historical and legal document the Auditors may have to clarify this footnote.

Hesperia Lands - A laudable idea that needs financial Clarity.

The City of Vernon will shortly be approving the loan of $5,000,000 from the City of Vernon's non statutory general reserves to the Hesperia Development Corporation. (Also there will be a $2,000,000 loan from the Sewer Reserves to the Captain Bailey Way Corporation for the construction of 10 Hangers and 10 accompanying residents. {4, 4900 sq ft. hangers with 4, 2000 sq. ft residences and 6, 2916 sq ft hangers with 6, 1299 sq. ft. residences.} )

Even though both of these Corporations do not yet appear on the list of Government Corporations that have received Inspector approval and have been registered with the Registrar of Companies they are either new City controlled Corporations or the successors to the Airport Corporation and the Land Corporations and are legally constituted and will be added to this list in the future.

The Guide for Launching and maintaining a Local Government Corporation provides a reference point for what a municipal corporation can and can not do. I have investigated and questioned the Provincial Government's Local Government Infrastructure & Finance Department and they have been most cooperative in answering my questions. I have explored many sections of the Community Charter from the mundane sections 21 and 24 re the notice requirements of the Partnering Agreement to sections 175,179 and 180 of the act about the requirements to get Elector Approval (such as a counter petition opportunity).

It appears that Section 175 of the act that reads to the effect: "it would depend on whether the agreement was for less than 5 years. If so, no approval is needed, " This apparently in the Provincial Departments Opinion trumps section 180 that reads "180 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a loan authorization bylaw may only be adopted with the approval of the electors.

An opinion from the Provincial Department reads "As I understand it, the under 5 year exemption in the legislation applies to everything, regardless of where else in the information guides it refers to assent/approval. If the loan, agreement, borrowing, whatever it may be called is under the 5 year limit, no elector approval/assent is needed."

So it appears that the City's Lawyers, Administration and Financial Department have followed the letter of the Community Charter so that the decision to provide a $5,000,000 loan and 69 acres of City Owned Land to Hesperia for an announced repayment of $6,410,186 at the end of 5 years (subject to rate adjusted quarterly, presently BMO prime +1/4 = 5%) is correct.

Part of this agreement reads " C- The City Transferred the Lands herein defined to Hesperia for the sum of $3 million, purchased by Hesperia with a portion of the loan monies referred to in section 3 of this agreement." (Attributed value of $43,478 per acre ?)

Now it is obvious that there is much more to this deal that must have been discussed at DARKSIDE Meetings (in camera) about the risk and reward and the financial benefit that will be returned to the taxpayer for the use of $5,000,000 and the transfer of 69 acres of land that will be shortly zoned for development under the control, direction and restrictions of the Hesperia Corporation for the purpose of meeting the Key Objective "To develop the Hesperia Lands with a significant proportion of attainable housing".

I trust that this Political Decision (as laudable as it may be) that will be finalized by vote by the 7 Council Members on Monday(?) will only be taken after the full details of the financial return to the Vernon Taxpayers is revealed, including cash flow projections to determine viability of loan repayment, expected subsidy to attain this attainable housing rather than selling off the 69 acres to free market development, expected proportion of estimated 1000 units to be attainable housings, expected dividends from the Corporation to City, and all other details that one would expect to be debated when taxpayers money is being put on the line.

There appears to be no legal requirement for Electoral approval but the Council always has the right if not the obligation to so submit this for full Public Input on the financial merits of this subsidy and or return before the actual deal is consummated.

I would expect the same details and input re the hangers to be built with a $2,000,000 taxpayers loan at the Airport.

When the average person can clearly say, we will give up "x" number of dollars if we develop that land rather than sell it to developers BUT we will get "y" number of attainable housing units and I think that is fair, then the deal should be made. When the average Councillor can actually say and understand that, than then and only then should they actually vote on this deal.
They can then defend their vote at the Fall elections.

Consideration for the 69 acres of Land to be used By Hesperia must be Published.

What are the notice requirements for providing property to the corporation?
The Community Charter Section 26 requires a council to publish notice before disposing of land or improvements. This requirement also applies when a municipality provides property to a corporation in which the municipality holds shares.

Notice of proposed property disposition

26 (1) Before a council disposes of land or improvements, it must publish notice of the proposed disposition in accordance with section 94 [public notice].

(3) In the case of property that is not available to the public for acquisition, notice under this section must include the following:
(a) a description of the land or improvements;
(b) the person or public authority who is to acquire the property under the proposed disposition;
(c) the nature and, if applicable, the term of the proposed disposition;
(d) the consideration to be received by the municipality for the disposition.
-----------------------
Don Quixote Note: I do not remember seeing this notification yet but it seems that the consideration (i.e. Consideration* is a benefit or right for which the parties to a contract must bargain;) would spell out what the City Of Vernon would be getting in dollars and other rights such as future dividends etc. for the 69 acres we would be transferring to the Hesperia Corporation. ???

* Although the consideration must be adequate in order to make a contract enforceable, adequacy does not mean that the contract price exactly matches, or exceeds, the fair market value of the property; instead, to be "adequate" the agreed consideration must only approximate the market value sufficiently that the conscience of the Judge is not offended.

NORD Salaries and expenses released yesterday.

As required by the Community Charter Political Salaries and expenses and staff salaries >$75,000 must be tabled each year. NORD did so today and since they do not put this public info on their website it is produced here for your convenience.

For comparison purposes you can find the 2006 figures at:
2006 NORD STAFF Remuneration > $75,000
May 11/07 Staff Remuneration and expenses
Nord Political Remuneration 2006
May 11/07 Political Remuneration and expenses

When Coldstream and Vernon publish their figures they will be posted here.

Conflict of interest debate cancels hearing

By Tyler Olsen - Vernon Morning Star - May 07, 2008

Concern that members of Spallumcheen council may have contravened conflict of interest rules forced the cancellation of a public hearing Monday that had drawn a crowd of more than 70 residents to the municipal hall. The public hearing was intended to give the public the opportunity to speak to changes to Spallumcheen’s official community plan that would have changed the future land use designation of certain plots. The move would make it easier for owners of some of the properties to subdivide. But after convening in closed session to discuss the situation, council decided to postpone the meeting. Mayor Will Hansma said concerns from both the public and independent counsel sparked the closed session. After township administrator Lynda Shakura explained the deletion of the public hearing from the council agenda, Hansma elaborated on the conflict of interest issue that has created problems. “Members of this council have inadvertently probably done some things that could be considered a conflict of interest,” said Hansma. “Until we get that clarified by our legal counsel, that’s the biggest reason for why (the hearing) has to be postponed.”

With a family member owning a piece of land that could be affected by the OCP changes, Hansma said he will probably rule himself out of future discussions. “I talked to my legal counsel and they said if it is a conflict of interest it’s a perceived conflict of interest because there’s no direct gain to me,” he said. Hansma told The Morning Star that he doesn’t want to subject his family to any court challenge that could come out of participation in the process. Both Hansma and Coun. Todd York own property that could be redesignated if the OCP changes go ahead, although neither properties could be subdivided further and thus both have stated they have no personal conflict of interest in relation to their own land. Coun. Carolyn Farris does own land that could be subdivided if the OCP is altered and has declared a conflict of interest. In late March, as council prepared to discuss the OCP changes, Farris declared herself in conflict and left the discussion. However on the way out of council chambers, she and Hansma had a loud exchange in which Farris declared her opposition to the changes.

With the community charter stating that in-conflict councillors “must not attempt in any way, before, during or after such a meeting, to influence the voting on a question in respect of the matter,” Farris, then, may have contravened the conflict of interest section of the community charter. Muddling the question, though, is the fact Farris was stating her opposition to a move that could, technically, benefit her. Farris said that, as council receives guidance on conflict of interest rules, the exchange was unfortunate.“As we’re getting the guidelines coming, that was probably not a wise choice of words but at the time, I was doing the best with the information we had at the time.” But Farris was also adamant she had judiciously excused herself consistently since the OCP review process began. Hansma said the 2004 Community Charter rules on conflict of interest make it more difficult to sit on councils in small municipalities. “It’s becoming so difficult in a small community where you have 5,000 people and you can call 2,500 people your friends and acquaintances. Where do you draw the line?” asked Hansma. “If there’s a lesson to be learned, even if there’s a remote possibility that you may be in conflict, whether or not there’s a pecuniary (financial) interest involved, check it out.”

As for the future of the OCP changes, Hansma said that depending on who declares a conflict of interest, the township may have to reintroduce the bylaw. Currently the township is seeking opinion from their lawyers. Coun. Lorna Bissell, however, said the township would move ahead with the process once those who are in conflict rule themselves out. “Yes there are some conflicts but not all councillors have conflicts. He made it sound like we were all in conflict,” said Bissell. “We, the councillors that haven’t had conflicts will carry on the process.”

Darkside Meeting at Coldstream Council on Sewer and Vernon's Exit from Water, Monday May 5

What is a Council Meeting?
The general rule that all meetings of council be open to the public is intended to be applied broadly, in keeping with the principle of openness and court decisions on the types of gatherings that are deemed to constitute a meeting. Based on some court interpretations, a council meeting is any gathering:

• to which all members of council have been invited; and
• that is a material part of council's decision-making process.

Council gatherings where all council members could be seen to be making decisions, or moving towards making decisions, would meet this two-part definition. All such gatherings should be held in accordance with the Community Charter's open meeting provisions.

Briefings by Staff

Staff briefings to further council’s understanding of an issue that do not constitute a material part of council's decision making process would not typically be considered to be a meeting of council.
---------------------
Don Quixote Note:
Looks like Coldstream will get a briefing from staff that will not be a material part of their decision making procress on Monday.

'The Workshop type meeting is not open to the public, but a report from the meeting will be produced and made public at a regular council meeting' (from P. A31 May4 Mor. Star.)

Coldstream Fire Halls Financed through Property Tax full Levy . Alternatives available not attractive

Coldstream Finance Meeting Minutes

Apparently Coldstream Council rejected a parcel tax as a means of taxing its Citizens for the $295,000 per year debt financing for the next 25 years for the new fire halls. Coldtream's Council has decided to fund this money with a tax on both land and improvements as this was the only option available to them when the parcel tax idea was turned down. Coldtream had hoped to have an improvements only tax levy (Buildings assessment taxed not - Land excluded) but this option was not available under the Community Charter. Vernon's fire operations are financed through an improvement only tax levy and the difference seems to be that Debt Financing (Coldstream Case) is different from yearly operational costs. (Vernon Case). Vernon's decision to build up reserves for fire equipment appears to be a good use of reserves so the tax on improvements only can be maintained. Hopefully Vernon won't have to finance Fire Halls in the future and have to go to Debt Financing and have to levy a full assessment levy on Land and Buildings.