http://www.dnv.org/article.asp?a=1667&c=764&v=12

During the past 2 1/2 years your Council has been giving consideration to a recommendation from the North Vancouver Recreation Commission that a new pool and recreation centre be built to replace the aging and somewhat structurally challenged William Griffin complex. This recommendation from NVREC was largely driven by a very loud public outcry that arose on the rumour that the William Griffin Centre would be re-configured and that re-configuration would not include a new pool

This rumour also arose somewhat as a result of the PERC report that suggested a rationalization of existing Pool capacity between Harry Jerome and William Griffin and the suggested relocation of a new Recreation facility to another un-determined location somewhat closer to population centre of Upper Capilano/Delbrook. Such location was suggested to be in the Upper Capilano corridor as opposed to the Queens Ave. location. 

In any event, the District of North Vancouver, as the Owners of the existing facility, and the ultimate developer/builder of a replacement facility considered the recommendation of RECCOM and, somewhat in response to the 3000 name petition supporting retention of the William Griffin pool, commissioned a team of consultants to develop some concepts around what a new consolidated Griffin/Delbrook facility might look like.

3 concepts were presented. All of which were predicated on the consolidation of two facilities. Council considered 3 locations for the now conceptual centre:

1. Consolidation on the Delbrook School site which would permit the important continuing operation of the Griffin Pool while construction carried on
2. Construction of a completely new facility on the southern-most field and Tennis Courts of Delbrook Park which also had the advantage of allowing Griffin to remain open and available but which would cause the loss of at least 1 and possibly 2 much used, well-located playing fields and also would present some access challenges. 
3. Demolition of William Griffin , construction of a new consolidated facility and the ultimate demolition of the Delbrook facility. While the loss of Griffin pool during construction would be a negative it was felt that the site would more ideally lend itself to the development of a new facility and at the same time would allow the maximum potential equity transfer from the Delbrook  School site to assist in the financing of the new William Griffin facility. 

Council then digested the concepts presented  and instructed the Consultants to go away and come back with some more detailed financial scenarios applicable to each of the 3 concepts. Some months later the Consultants came back to Council and presented their findings. 

And now, because the concepts had evolved sufficiently and in greater detail the financial ramifications became more apparent. The estimate of costs had risen close to $50 million to incorporate all of the suggested uses and space needs.

Following on this presentation, Council decided that Option 3 would likely be the best of the three, all things considered. 

It became apparent to Council that this figure was likely going to be a very hard sell to the public already under ever-increasing tax, utility and Regional cost pressures. It was then suggested that the funds from the potential sale, or equity transfer, of the Delbrook School site might be used to “offset” the capital cost of the new facility. 

And now because the potential sale of District land was being considered, the Council meetings became more formal in nature and had to go “In-Camera”. Council then instructed the Consultant team to go away again and come back with some conceptual plans and estimated costs around developing the School site as a mixed-use, multi-faceted medium densityresidential development. Council received some indications as to what the potential “market value” might be of the site at this time. 

Council was satisfied that the concept of funding the construction of the new William Griffin site by realizing on the equity of the Delbrook site had some merit and would ultimately be worth taking to the public in order to hear its views on the matter. 

The District has basically two options available to it to finance the construction of the new William Griffin facility that up until now has been deemed necessary based on initial, albeit ill-informed, community input to the RECCOM as well as District Council. We can borrow 100% of the cost estimated at approximately $50 and likely to grow all of which would go directly on the Tax bill or, we can use the equity in the Delbrook School site to substantially mitigate the ultimate cost to the Taxpayer.  

The only other steps authorized by Council to date is to have a thorough analysis of the programming needs and a space needs assessment performed. This process is now underway with RECCOM staff, Vancouver Coastal Health and all other stakeholders and potential user groups being consulted.

Only after this stage will the Architectural and Engineering consultants be able to finalize a potential design of a new WG and most importantly forecast the ultimate cost with greater accuracy. 

Perhaps concurrently, a team will give consideration to the type and style of development of the Delbrook School site from differing perspectives such as optimum equity realization; environmental and societal impacts; traffic impacts, etc. etc. 

Armed with that information the public can then be reliably informed as to all the implications and ramifications around the ultimate decision as to how to proceed. 

So that is where we are today! No firm decisions taken, no “faites-accomplis”; no decisions as to whether to sell or lease any land; no decisions on when this whole thing will actually happen; and most importantly perhaps,  no decision yet on the design and implementation of the very thorough, transparent public process that the DNV will embark on in order to offer the most comprehensive information to all stakeholder and citizen groups to allow informed debate and discussion around the complex issues entailed in this project. 

The District, through the very rigorous community engagement processes that led to the successful adoption of your Official Community Plan, has learned there are no shortcuts in gaining the trust and support of the wider community. The District has also learned that there will always be some who remain dissatisfied with any given outcome. It is simply impossible to please everybody all the time. 

Contain DNV wage costs – 0% wage increase in 2012 and 2013 except for the 10% lowest paid staff who should receive a 2% increase in 2012 and 2013

Engage DNV residents to the fullest extent in discussions related to the re-configuration of the William Griffin and Delbrook Rec Centres. Make no decisions behind closed doors related to this critical project.

Take concrete, positive action towards implementing the Official Community Plan goals and vision around the Town Centres and alternate forms of housing within existing Single Family zones – Coach Houses, Small Lot infill, Duplexes on existing 50′ plus wide lots.

So there you have it in a nutshell! Let’s get it on!

eFYcwj3RkTc

Click on the link above to view the Youtube Video of my Campaign Speech on Shaw TV 

http://www.nsnews.com/news/William+Griffin+centre+rebuild+will+costly/5434230/story.html

First and foremost, I agree with your basic premise that “this trend is unsustainable and requires bold action by Council to bring spending under control.”

In the past 2 years my own General Municipal taxes have risen by 40%! On top of that I have lost the HomeOwner grant due to the rise in the assessed value of my home. But almost more critically is the inexorable increase in the Utility Charges that I pay.

It is these Utility Charges that are going to continue to place the most dramatic burden on District Taxpayers as we will have to absorb the capital costs of the new Secondary Treatment plant for Liquid Waste and the new Solid Waste Treatment solution(s) mandated by the Provincial Government. These two items could easily add another $700-$1500 to our annual Utility bill over the next 4-10 years!

Accordingly, in order to shelter our taxpayers from that shock we are going to need to drastically reduce the scope of taxpayer funded services and move to more “user pay” service fees. We are presently conducting and will be analyzing the results of a community-wide survey that will help Council determine the Service Adjustments we will need to make in order to reflect the priorities of community. Questions around Parks Maintenance (flower beds, park trails, dog walking), Recreation Infrastructure (do we make do, do we patch, do we build new), Transportation mode priorities (bike lanes, street upgrades, sidewalk construction), Playing field upgrades and maintenance. These are but a few of the services that many of our residents will comment on and their answers will hopefully help to inform Council as it makes the necessary tough decisions.

But to your direct questions:

1. What will you do to reduce the burden on tax payers within the District?

We will continue to try and work with the City of North Vancouver and West Vancouver to rationalize our Fire Service delivery. This is now our single biggest Department Budget line item at over $15 million per year. We have striven, unsuccessfully so far, over the past 2 years to work with those municipalities and our own Fire Dept and Firefighter Union to find ways to share more resources, to deploy our existing resources more efficiently and economically but we are always facing push-back due to fears that our response capability and response times will be compromised.

The second largest Department Budget is the RCMP contract costs over which we seemingly have little or no control while at the same time having little influence in setting District-wide policing policies. We have, in fact, only been able to realize any cost savings in this area by being below our authorized complement strength. This has occurred due to disability leaves, maternity leaves, etc and the positions have gone unfilled. We have also been able to contain costs by having a disproportionate number of new recruits who work at lower pay grades. Is this what we need or desire?

The only recourse available to us to dramatically impact our cost structure is at the Staff Salary and Benefit level. Wages comprise approximately ½ of all our costs. And so, when you have the Union successfully winning 4% wage increases that means a 2% increment in Property Taxes! We will bargain again in 2012 as the contract expires this December 31st and I can assure you that I will be personally advocating for a 0% wage increase for all but the 10% lowest paid workers within our staff complement. We also need to look very seriously at a hiring freeze in all but the most essential service areas. Normal attrition, due to our extraordinarily large cohort of long-service, loyal employees should help us achieve some serious savings in the wage category across all Departments. I was partially successful in advocating for a 0% wage increase for our “exempt staff” in 2011 who would normally have received a 4% increase in lock-step with the CUPE agreed increase. This represented a savings in the order of $250,000 in 2011. I say “partially” because the majority of Council was only prepared to accept a “deferral” of this increase. It could come back in 2012 for re-consideration and it could be paid out retroactively!

2. Will you support a 0% increase in property tax assessment for the duration of your term?

I cannot commit to a 0% tax assessment increase because as you know the assessed values are established by the BC Assessment Authority over which we have no control or influence.

I cannot, in good conscience, even agree to a 0% tax increase because that will have the consequence of our existing infrastructure such as sanitary and storm sewer lines, roads, sidewalks, pump stations, recreation facilities etc falling into disrepair as a result of preventative maintenance being deferred. You may, or may not, know that deferring preventative maintenance in favour of reactive maintenance always has a higher cost associated. Accordingly, since 2003, I have continuously supported our existing Council policy of increasing our Infrastructure Maintenance and Preservation budget by an amount equal to a 1% levy on the property tax. This amounts to approx. $700K per year dedicated to this specific program. Because of a steadfast commitment to this policy we have been able to steadily narrow our conitnuing Infrastructure Deficit

In summary, our last Tax Increase of approximately 3.25% on the average residential property was comprised of 1% for the Infrastructure Maintenance program and 2% for negotiated wage increases. So very little of the tax increase went to new, or enhancedprograms in spite of continued downloading of Social Service programming by the Provincial Government.

The best that I can promise _________ is that I will not support any tax increase in excess of 2% in the coming term and that can only be accomplished by some service delivery reductions and some significant, absolute wage and salary reductions.

You do need to know __________that in the past 2 years we have reduced our FTE staff positions by approximately 25 positions and we have accomplished savings in other areas to the tune of approximately $3 million, all without dramatically or even noticeably impacting on the unbelievably good quality of life we enjoy as District residents.

Sorry to be so long-winded but as you can sense, there are no easy answers and no quick fixes to the situation in which we find ourselves!

Feel free to share this message with anyone you see fit.

Best regards, Alan