Questions for City Hall - Answered.

Here are the replies that were received from City Hall to the questions posed about the proposed Mid-town project.  If the central tenet of the petition is that the City of Rossland has not shared information with the community in a transparent and timely manner, then it behooves the petitioners to behave in a manner that meets the standards they feel have not been met by the City. (IMHO).  I applaud those who have become engaged about this issue and process, and it certainly deserves to be a community discussion.  That’s why the City held 2 Open Houses and 2 public hearings (one for the rezoning, and one for the development permit).  My personal background is that I became engaged in municipal affairs in the same manner (through concerns with City decision making, followed by questioning and gathering information), so I am thrilled to see others become engaged as well.  I have removed email addresses but left in dates for the email thread, and highlighted the City's answers.   I am always happy to share any information I have with people who are interested, but I don’t troll social media looking for issues to address.  If you have further comments or questions, please email me at councillor.nightingale@rossland.ca and I will do my best to answer them.  Or, contact any of your other councillors if you prefer. 

 


Sent: June 25, 2020 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: Petition requesting Referendum on proposed Emcon Mixed Use Development

 

Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 2:42:01 PM
Subject: RE: Petition requesting Referendum on proposed Emcon Mixed Use Development

 

Good afternoon Fletcher,

 

Please find some notes and/or information below in response to your recent information request.  Most items will have a short response – as we either already have the information posted on our website, or are not currently available to share in great detail (either based on current in-camera matters related to insurance or due to the fact that we are still actively involved in the planning stages for this project).

 

Regards,

Bryan

 

Hi Bryan, 

 

The petition for a referendum on the Emcon Mixed Use Development reached 315 in hand signatures this afternoon. While only residents and electors were asked to sign it, and there is no reason to anticipate more than a handful of mistaken signatures in the ~20 sheets, I spoke with Charity today regarding the receipt of a Voter List (personal request of a Candidate) in order to confirm all the undersigned prior to forwarding the documents to the province. 

The by-election was cancelled outright due to a Ministerial Order (MO74) that was issued on March 18, 2020, so there are no current candidates.  However, provincial voters lists should be easily available for anyone to view upon request.  Additionally, as it looks like you are submitting this petition to the Province while following their standard formatting requirements, I do not believe that signatures need to be specifically from City of Rossland residents, but rather just be a resident of BC (https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/40th-parliament/6th-session/petitions).

 

As significant public concern surrounding the transparency of this proposed development exists, there are a number of pertinent questions that clarification would be greatly appreciated on:

I would strongly argue this transparency statement.

 

1) As per the commitment in the City newsletter, what work has been undertaken in returning the old City Hall property to its pre-loss state, and when does the City anticipate the completion of these repairs?

Significant work has been completed for this, although recent events (medical issue with architect of project) have postponed this project.  We are continuing to move forward when/where applicable and in a timely-as-possible fashion.  At this time, I do not know when the project will actually be completed (we were hoping for Sept 2020, but this is now doubtful).

 

2) An increase in payments to CBT from $5670 in April to $6405 occurred in May. Does this reflect a change from Insurance covered to City paid rent? and what are the current operating costs of this facility?

Insurance covered rent for the current CBT building from March 2018 until mid-May 2020.  Current rental agreement is triple net – and I believe the slight increase noted above is based on an annual re-adjustment related to both property taxes and utility fees.

 

3) There is concern the City of Rossland is intending to dispose of recreational amenities and park land in order for the City to generate the additional funds required for this project. Please list the properties currently being considered and the values associated with them.

Unfortunately, this statement is false.  All info on the proposed disposition of lands currently being discussed can be found on our webpage info under the Midtown Housing Project Info button. Although all info is available online - in short summary, the following properties have been discussed in the preliminary project planning stages: Old City Hall: Appraised at $500,000.  Third Ave Properties: Not yet appraised but assessed at approximately $586,500

 

4) Where can an in-depth financial plan for the project be located? and (as an estimate) how much money has the City of Rossland spent in pursuing this project to date? 

In-depth financial figures are still being developed for review and consideration by the Project Committee.  The City has received numerous grants to complete aspects specifically related to the Midtown Mixed-Use Development Project’s design to date, therefore our current direct costs (minus staff time) for this project are pretty much null.  Previous to that, the City spent approximately $200,000 for the original purchase of the property from BCBC in the early 2000’s and probably around $40,000 for required environmental assessment work on the overall Midtown Transition Area site (including portions of the skatepark and properties south of 3rd Ave).  These are high level approximate figures.

 

and, 

 

5) What is the currently proposed ownership model for the development?

Again, this info should be readily available under the City’s Midtown Housing Project Info webpage – and final arrangements are still being discussed with relevant project partners.  In summary: City will own lower floor (commercial) and upper three floors (residential) will be a combination of BC Housing and LCAHS owned/leased properties. The City is not expected to be fully involved with specific negotiations and/or final arrangement between BC Housing and LCAHS.

 

Thank-you in advance,


Fletcher

 

Sent: July 6, 2020 4:43 PM

Subject: Re: Petition requesting Referendum on proposed Emcon Mixed Use Development

 

Hi Bryan,

 

Thank-you for the info. For clarity:

 

The Province's requirements for Petitions are separate and distinct from the intention of what has been proved to the City. In this case the language of the petition requests only 'citizens and electors of the City of Rossland' to sign as a means of reflecting the 10% of electors that would have been required by the Alternate Approval Process in support of a referendum should the City need to borrow money for the project. Having provided a digital copy of the first 330 signatures to the City of Rossland last Monday this has been sufficiently achieved; appreciating of course that the City has chosen to expend the communities reserves as a means of circumventing that specific requirement. Given the Environmental Engineer for the project has stated the City would be responsible for 1/5 of any cost overruns, the potential for the City to incur additional costs exceeding $500, 000 is significant, and the petition is intended to prevent taxpayers from incurring additional financial liability on the project without first receiving approval from the electorate. 

 

Given the Environmental and Geotechnical Engineering reports for this project were not publicly available until after the Public Hearing and the issuance of a Development Permit for the proposed project, it is difficult to claim transparency has been given primacy, or due process was followed in the City's approval of the project (also reflected in the language of the petition).

 

(1) Appreciating multiple parties have expressed interest in purchasing the City Hall property, and the City itself originally intended to use the insurance funds to finance the proposed development it is challenging to accept the City's assertion that it is working on bringing the property back to its pre-loss state when the architectural component has yet to be completed 2 years on.

 

(2) At this time then the City of Rossland is covering the Rental Costs, and will for the foreseeable future. 

 

(3) Thank-you for clarifying this as public concern surrounding the sale of the Pool and adjacent park along with the City Hall property has arisen. Although, the question was worded 'considered' not 'proposed' since that only covers what was publicly discussed up until February. Are the environmental reports for the 3rd avenue properties available for public review? It is no doubt difficult to value these properties if they are considered 'Brownfield sites' that would require significant remediation prior to their sale. 

 

(4) As per earlier comments, the financial plan as presented does not include the value of the Emcon Lot, nor the potential sale of this property to finance alternative options. 

 

(5) For clarity then, this is intended to be a Stratified property, and not a property wholly owned by the City with the residential portion being managed by LCAHS as per the available documentation?  

 

Thanks again for your time, 

 

Fletcher 

 

Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 11:31:53 AM
Subject: RE: Petition requesting Referendum on proposed Emcon Mixed Use Development

 

Hi Fletcher,

 

Yes you are right that those items are separate; however, the correspondence given to the City from yourself has clearly indicated that this petition was “being sent to you for information purposes only at a threshold of 100 signatures. At 200 it will be sent to CBT along with a letter requesting they make their funding of this project contingent on a Referendum, and at 300 to the Province requesting a Referendum be held.”  Based on that notion, and the fact that the petition is addressed “To the Honourable the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, in Legislature Assembled”, I am just providing you with information on the actual requirements of a petition via provincial legislation.  Further to that, please be advised that all reports have been made available when/where appropriate during the planning stages of this proposed development and due process has indeed been followed by all parties involved.  Also below is some further information based on your specific follow up questions/comments:

 

1.       From the onset, the City has reviewed all options with respect to the possible location of a City Hall.  At no time was had the City originally intended to use the insurance funds to finance the proposed development.  The City had options with respect to insurance and elected to proceed with receiving a repair allowance  to bring the building back to it’s pre-loss state.  This decision was made in May/June 2019, shortly after we received final information from our insurance company / project adjuster.  Accept it or not, the City has been actively trying to complete activates related to repairing the building since late 2018 and have been frustrated with lack of follow-up on this matter – and this project was clearly identified as expected to be completed in 2020 within the 2020 Budget, so the notion presented by you regarding below form yourself related to item #3 below again is incorrect.  However, as this is also a legal matter, I am not at liberty to discuss any further details on this specific item at this time. 

 

2.       Yes this is correct; however, this is also related to item #1 above.

 

3.       Considered vs proposed vs anticipated vs wording doesn’t take away the fact that misinformation has been spreading through the community from certain individuals that properties never discussed about being disposed have been brought up for future financing.

 

4.       Sorry don’t follow this logic at all?  The Emcon lot was bought back in the late 2000’s and the City’s current financial plan is for 2020-2024.  As such, the value of the property would not be included in the current financial plan as we already own it.  However, if you are actually talking about the financial plan for the project in general, then yes it has been included/considered and was part of the CBT BC Housing EOI that was submitted back in 2018 – but is not currently included in the construction figures for the building.  Also, and as previously noted numerous times, this project is still in the planning stages, so the financing portion / options of the project was based on previous cost estimates received for the construction of the building received in previous years.  We are currently awaiting an updated cost estimate, and when that is received, we will be in a position to further review the overall costs associated with the project (and more particularly, what City involvement may / may not be and/or look like).

 

5.       Yes (or something similar to this set-up or nature).  To be very clear, the City has no intention of owning or running a stand-alone affordable housing complex / building – and if the project moves forward, future City costs would be limited to/for the ground floor portion of the building occupied by a future City Hall.  Additionally, that residential portion of the project will be generating future taxation for the City, and this would not occur if it was fully owned by the City.

 

Regards,

Bryan

 

Hi Bryan,

 

Preferring clear and concise communication, while avoiding the propagation of misinformation, I thank-you again for shedding as much light on these matters as you can/ have. I will ensure it reaches the appropriate parties. (my highlight, JN)

 

Appreciably, this has been a time consuming process for all involved and with the Request for Referendum now submitted to the Province, the relevance of continuing this conversation at the municipal level appears counterproductive to the business of administering the City, or operating businesses within it. 

 

While there remains strong public support for the affordable housing portion of the development, the hope remains that the City will call a referendum on inclusion of City Hall in the proposed development by its own volition in recognition of the anticipated costs and financial liability the Corporation is assuming on behalf of the Taxpayer.  

 

Kind regards,

 

Fletcher

Thank you very much, Janice. 

Are these personal emails between Fletcher and Byran that you are releasing? I don't see your name on Any of these Janice.

is city Hall just going to Release every email we send?!?  is there not a privacy issue when city hall releases emails that aren't even addressed to the person releasing them? 

Charity,

 

            There were 10 people who were included as recipients on the original email written by Fletcher, and all the following emails.  I was one of them.  I removed the email addresses as indicated in my preamble because not all of the recipients are elected officials or municipal staff.  I respect those people’s privacy to choose who has access to their non-public email addresses.

 

            Any correspondence sent or received by government staff or elected officials at any level of government is by its very nature public.  That is to ensure that all communications are transparent.  That is why the use of private emails to conduct government business is not allowed, generates an investigation, and usually some kind of censure.  We recently had that happen with a provincial elected official in B.C,

 

            I would note that along with creating a public discussion with his local government, Fletcher also indicated he would be “ensuring it reaches the appropriate parties”, which in this case is the community who he is asking questions on behalf of, and did not appear to have accurate answers for.  Correspondence to the City is also often published in our public agendas.

 

Unfortunately the city does undergo private conversations with its residents. There is privacy and confidentiality agreements in place to protect the all of us.  When a resident makes a complaint against another, it SHOULD be in confidence! one of the laws protecting privacy is called the PIPEDA (there are Many more)

https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/business-privacy/safeguards-and-breaches/privacy-breaches/respond-to-a-privacy-breach-at-your-business/gd_pb_201810/

when you are publicly Posting someone else's email you could be misrepresenting that person or deleting information for your favour.  A government representative Should not be posting someone else's email.  You were CCed...it did Not say 'dear Janice' 'to janice' or even 'janice' 

The act in which you were first speaking is the access to information act, which you have embellished slightly.

The true purpose of the act is to enhance accountability and transparency of federal institutions in order to promote an open and democratic society. This was not that...you twisted the acess of information act to try and discredit a local resident. 

In this case he has the privacy act...which is Suppose to protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves.  

 

janice, you didn't actually have legal right to publish his name. 

Charity, maybe check out FIPPA instead of PIPEDA.  The legislation you are referencing is not the one governing municipalities.

Fortunately the privacy act still governs. 

Ok, so checking out the FIPPA...in order to access information it must be done so in writing and only the head of a public body is to do so.  there wasn't a written request and if there was, bhubble would not be the forum to be posting a PUBLIC response and Janice wouldn't be the one providing the information. 

Get outside people!!!

kcmountain is talking sense.

with clean hands and masks on of course...

There’s lots of great Bhubble-discussion-escape-toys for sale here too!

When someone posts their email questions on a public online forum (like Bhubble),titled “ Questions for City Hall” pointing out all the entities they sent it to, “This is the body of a letter that was sent to City Hall, CBT, and Katrine Conroy today” it isn’t private.  Anyone on the public online forum can feel free to answer. Even one of the 10 people included on the email thread.  You can find the online public post here:  http://www.bhubble.com/discussions/node/123234

 

It’s amazing to me that when the answers are posted on the same online forum, titled “ Questions for City Hall – Answered ) they are shocked!  If you are reading this, then you have seen the answers.  It would seem that if they made the questions public, they would also like a public response.  But perhaps the original posting of the questions was for some other purpose than getting a response?

 

Even more incredible is that they would post on another public thread on the same online forum that the email they shared on the public online forum was private, and only between two people, as stated here on Wed, 15/17/2020: “ My original email only went to Bryan Teasdale at the City on June 25, 2020 (at the top of Janice's post you'll see it), but that email was deleted from the string and the first one posted from Bryan back to me including everyone else was Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 2:42:01 PM. ”  http://www.bhubble.com/discussions/node/123652

 

Geez, no one seems concerned that Bryan’s name has been shared all over these public online posts without his permission.

 

There seem to be some significant inconsistencies here.

 

The answers to the publicly posted email were embedded in the body of the email, nothing was deleted.  I’ll let any rational readers of this forum toggle back and forth to confirm that. 

 

I’m certain I’ve done nothing to stop the ongoing attempts to discredit city council and staff with my post, but for those who might actually be interested in discussing the MTMUD or any other issue, we are always happy to answer questions and concerns as best we can.  Public online forums are not the best for that,and certainly aren't monitoed consistanly, so email or a phone call is best.  Thank you to all who have reached out so far. 

kcmountain...yes, thats why we live here. Hope whoever you are you are off this site and having fun in the sun

kcmountain...yes, thats why we live here. Hope whoever you are you are off this site and having fun in the sun