Tonight’s unscheduled meeting deviated from the agenda and mostly for the good of the community.
When the meeting was first announced via a piece of paper stuck on the wall outside City Hall on Thursday and then forwarded to the media, myself and others, you could register the disappointment from the residents quite visibly.
The meeting was to start at 5:30pm, break for a closed meeting at 5:35pm then the open meeting would return at a later time that night. Also, no questions from the public would be allowed.
From the public outcry in advance of today, the meeting was handled professionally and in the usual manner of starting on time, going through the agenda and then taking questions from the residents (although a limited question period was in place – more on this later).
Here is how the Council voted on three major items along with some commentary from me.
Coast Meridian Overpass Temporary Borrowing Bylaw No. 3661
In late October, PoCo residents were shocked to learn that the “fixed price”; Coast Meridian Overpass had additional costs of $3.4 million thus pushing the coast up to $135 million. I received some harsh comments from senior folks in City Hall that the project was not all fixed price but just part of it was confirmed. What?! If I was alone in my thinking I would say I missed something but nearly 100% of the residents I spoke with during the 2008 election had NO IDEA the cost could go up. In fact a City Hall staffer told me the there were more costs to come which would be in excess of $10 million.
So it was. Last night (and the main reason the special meeting of Council was called) the City needed to vote on getting financing for the CMO to the tune of up to $25 million. Should we borrow of money in one shot (which may not be the case as money will be used as needed, like a line of credit) with an interest rate of 5.33% and paid back over 25 years the interest alone will be over $20 million (I used the mortgage calculator at G&F Financial website to make these calculations). Of course we may not borrow the full amount, pay back early, etc. but using the above realistic figures, I do not believe I am too far off. Check back here in January 2034 to verify.
We know for sure that the City needs over $6.2 million right now. Since various land sale deals did not go through due to the soft market, this is why we need to borrow the funds over the next few years.
There is no doubt that the project must continue receiving funding in order to be completed. Leaving a partially completed structure hanging in the sky is not the answer. The answer is to have better, more complete and more consultative communications and meetings with the public. This way we know just how much we will be paying over the next 20 to 30 years. Get ready for property taxes in the 7% range.
That said, in the absence of any other viable means to finance the project, I was glad to see all seven Council members vote YES.
YES (7)
Carroll Forrest Moore Penner
Pollock West Wright
Waterworks Regulation Bylaw No. 3657 and Sewer Rates Bylaw No. 3658
The first three readings of this Bylaw were rushed through the voting just last Monday with the idea that it would return to Council for final reading in January. Without any real explanation, here was final reading. As questions were not going to be taken from the public, residents who were pushing for one part of the plan to be changed – restoring the water grant for Seniors – had limited ability to be heard on this item.
Mayor Moore did say that he would hold and open discussion or meeting in the New Year to discuss the process / concepts behind all rebates for citizens, but that the vote would occur now. This proposed open discussion is an excellent idea but should / could have been held in early January with the final vote taking place on January 14th or 28th.
The voting and comments on both these Bylaws were identical and will perhaps highlight a continuing theme – the new Councillors voted NO while the remaining Councillors and Mayor from the 2005 election voted YES. Thus, both Bylaws passed by a single vote.
I agree with the “new block” on this vote. This was rushed for no reason; little to no public input in the last year; and the grant for Seniors could have been restored without any financial burden to the City. Hopefully the proposed open meeting on rebates will return the grants and map out a plan for the future.
YES (4)
Forrest Moore Penner Wright
NO (3)
Carroll Pollock West
No comments yet.