NANAIMO CITY HALL BLOG

Archive for the ‘MUNICIPAL/PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS’ Category

Lobbying Council

In CITY GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL/PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT on August 21, 2011 at 6:58 am

Gord Fuller: August 20, 2011

So, many of us have always thought developers have had an upper hand when it comes to lobbying council to get their agendas met.  In my opinion there is nothing wrong with this, if the opportunity is there then use it.  The reality is Neighbourhood Groups and individual Citizens also have that same opportunity, if they so choose to use it.  The sad reality is that more often than not they either don’t or wait until it is too late.  

I received the e-mail at the end of this post, the names of the innocent or not so innocent have been removed, from a friend who thought it would be nice if the neighbourhoods were aware of the context of the e-mail and call to action by the development community.  As you can see from perusing this e-mail was sent out as a result of council’s decision to put forward an amendment to the new zoning bylaw to keep maximum height in single family residential to the old standard 8.25m as opposed to the new 9m standard.   Read the rest of this entry »

Four Year Terms for Council?

In CITY GOVERNMENT, EMAILS TO MAYOR / COUNCILLORS, LETTERS TO THE LOCAL PRESS, MUNICIPAL/PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS on September 24, 2010 at 8:48 am

Ron Bolin —  September 24, 2010
Letter to the Editor:

Tom Fletcher’s piece, “Municipal politicians to vote on four-year elected terms”  (Bulletin, Sept. 23, 2010) raises an important question: When was the public asked for their approval to give four year terms to municipal politicians?  Does the public have any say in this matter or have we somehow given permission to our elected city officials to give themselves a longer reprieve against our disapproval?

The U.S. House of Representatives must ask the public for their approval every two years.  For a century, Nanaimo Councils were elected annually, then came 2, 3 and now proposed 4 year terms in rapid succession. Do we feel that our oversight is no longer required so frequently as we all approve of what is happening to our town?  Are elections so onerous that raising money for elections is getting harder for the businesses and unions which are their primary funders?  Who should be voting on four year terms, the governors or the governed?  Is this the kind of vote that we are sending our Councillors to Whistler to take on our behalf?  Should we not be demanding our say in this matter?

Ron Bolin

Home

Train Station Restoration Underway

In MUNICIPAL/PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT on May 16, 2010 at 11:00 am

ILLUSTRATION: ROGER KEMBLE

Phase one of the restoration of the E&N Train Station on Selby Street has begun. This is a $2.3 million project the first phase of which will lift the existing building to place it on a proper foundation and complete the framing and excavation work. There is a commercial tenant in place with plans for an Irish pub style restaurant. The station itself as well as the rail bed that extends north Read the rest of this entry »

Uploading or Downloading: You, Me and the HST

In MUNICIPAL/PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS on April 29, 2010 at 1:52 pm

I spent some time this morning trying to sort out the question of prepaid death expenses with someone in the Ministry of Finance in Victoria. It was both humorous and at the same time frustrating conversation. My concern is with when it would be necessary to pay the HST on such services, May 1, as was recently quoted in the local papers, or July 1, as the agreement generally reads.

The fundamental question revolves around the difference between when a good or service is paid and delivered relative to when it is contracted. Both our provincial and federal governments want to ensure that devious citizens cannot outwit their clutches by contracting before July 1, 2010 for goods or services which will not be delivered and paid for, until after July 1. One can understand the logic of this strategy –except in the case of burial expenses. One really doesn’t want, in order to save the 12% in HST taxes, to be forced to die before July 1, an act which one hopes is, in the end, involuntary.

It appears from my conversation this morning that the answer depends on the accounting practices of the service provider and leans toward the July 1 deadline being the operative one, but no assurances were offered. A visit to the Ministry of Finance in Ottawa via the internet seemed to support this view.

But the upshot of all this was to confirm that, while the province and our municipalities complain of the downloading of the costs of services, in this case the province has found a means to upload the costs of PST collection by giving the responsibility to Ottawa through the HST. I was informed that one of the main savings to be made with the HST was the loss of BC government jobs associated with the PST. Of course the fact that we will all now be paying Peter instead of Paul to collect our taxes seems to be lost.

Whether government services are downloaded or uploaded, it is the same sheep being shorn, and shorn, and shorn……

Ron Bolin

- home -

From the Daily News this morning: “Ex City Manager collects salary, severance”

In CITY FINANCE, CITY GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL/PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS on April 15, 2010 at 10:25 am

Here’s a link to the Daily News story reporting this morning former City Manager Jerry Berry’s work in Port Alberni for which he’s being paid by the provincial government while he continues to be paid the balance of his two year severance from the City of Nanaimo.

Letter to Mayor Ruttan from reader C.J. Adams

In CITY FINANCE, CITY GOVERNMENT, EMAILS TO MAYOR / COUNCILLORS, MUNICIPAL/PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS on April 14, 2010 at 9:27 pm

Please note that the 6.1% figure referred to by Mr Adams in the third paragraph came from the initial staff report


Mayor John Ruttan

City Hall – Nanaimo

8 April 2010

Dear Mayor Ruttan.

I am attaching to this letter a copy of a letter prepared In late September 2006, which was addressed primarily to “the Premier of BC” and his then “Minister responsible for Municipal Affairs” (Ms Ida Chong). The response I received from all addresses was a disgraceful joke!

The content of my letter of September 06 is even more applicable today because the number of excluded personnel in City Hall has increased to over 100, and in addition the salaries of all these people has increased significantly (plus expenses) during the past three years.

I do not know what kind of a platform you had when elected in the last municipal election, but nevertheless both my wife and I voted for you • precisely because we understood you to be a businessman. We supposed that you would bring some sorely needed business acumen to the running of City Hall – alas to date we have seen no sign of strong leadership and you have appeared to have sided with the those older members of Council who are responsible for placing all residential taxpayers in ever increasing debt for years to come. The local media always quote you as stating that you wish to increase property taxes by 6.1 % in 2010. I note that you do not live in Nanaimo, but have a business in the city and that you are anxious to decrease “business taxes”. You are the Mayor of Nanaimo and are supposed to represent those voters who elected you. Nothing has been done to my knowledge to recover the millions of dollars paid to Triarc I Millennium for failing to meet their contractual obligations for building a hotel to support the so called Conference Centre. No doubt you have read the many letters published in the local press copies of two examples also attached dated April 6 and 7′ – which express the views of many taxpayers.

Regardless of my personal feelings of your Mayoral performance to date, I would ask you to read my Sept 06 letter, and take some decisive action as Mayor of Nanaimo to demand that those persons (fat cats if you wish) in the excluded category

1) are denied any salary or expense increases for 2010

2) that serious action is taken by you to cut the fat in city hall

3) examine the urgent possibility of cutting excessive salaries

4) establish a Council Committee designed to examine the annual “EXPENSE ACCOUNT” of City Hall staff (last year I believe expenses totaled in excess of $700,000)

5) examine the need for City Hall employees being awarded “Car allowances”

6) immediately institute measures to disallow those employees collecting tax dollars to pay their so called “professional dues”. When I asked a senior city employee “how much” was involved, I was told I would have to apply under the “freedom of information legislation” (so I immediately “smelt a rat”), and

7) it is essential that all excluded City Hall employees be subjected to an annual performance assessment -as is the rule today in the Federal Public Service and Canadian Armed Forces. Annual pay increases should be determined only if the employee is so recommended by their superiors!

Finally if you wish to be re-elected in the next election, it is imperative for you to exercise some decisive leadership along the lines that I have suggested, because I am not the only Nanaimo resident who is disappointed with your performance to date. Nanaimo City Hall in my opinion is overdue for such action.

Yours truly,

C.J. Adams

Nanaimo, BC

Think City link: local campaign financing reform

In CITY GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL/PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS on April 8, 2010 at 10:12 pm

Send Election Reform Action Email by April 15

Please take a minute to urge Premier Gordon Campbell’s Local Government Elections Task Force to take big money influence out of BC’s civic elections.

Over the past few weeks, Think City has surveyed thousands of British Columbians about improving local elections. The number one reform that over 90 per cent of those surveyed supported was tougher regulations for election campaign financing.

The 2008 civic election resulted in complaints being filed in several BC municipalities regarding improper election activities, police investigation of campaign finance irregularities and general concerns by municipal watchdogs about the impact of unregulated money financing campaigns.

Here’s the link to the Think City Election Reform Action e-mail form

Cost of Natural Gas in B.C.

In MUNICIPAL/PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS on April 4, 2010 at 8:35 pm

Have you ever thought about how your monthly bill for natural gas compares to other locations in B.C.? Well,here are the rates,effective April 1,2010,with the total monthly bill based on a household consumption of 8 GigaJoules for comparison purposes.(A GigaJoule is equal to 1 Billion Joules. 6 GigaJoules is about the amount of chemical energy in a barrel of oil).

Total Monthly Bill

1.) Whistler $144.70

2.) Vcr.Island/Sunshine Coast $125.10

3.) East Kootenays $95.98

4.) Lower Mainland/Squamish $95.67

5.) Fort Nelson $87.30

6.) All Other Areas of B.C. $85.80

Your monthley bill from Terasen Gas will also include other charges not in above rates,including:
*Carbon Tax @ $ 0.75 per GJ.
*Clean Energy Level @ 4% of gas charge.
* GST @ 5 % of Total Bill.

Wayne Schulstad

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers