Another Shameful Slate Sideshow

************ UPDATED FEB 17, 2009 *************

Tonight's meeting televised to the masses on cable TV was a shameful display of disdain and hatred that the Green/Richter slate have for this current council. Councillor Charlie Fox had received a huge pile (24"/2 feet high - see below) of budget and related materials that the Mayor's Standing Finance Committee had either received or requested from staff as research. With this huge pile of materials and no idea where the committee is going with conclusions and recommendations, Coun. Fox put forth a Motion to get the committee to issue an interium report.

Councillor Richter was the first to take exception to the Fox motion as she accused the councillor of discrediting the three civilian volunteers on this Mayor's Standing Finance Committee. Councillor Fox NEVER attacked any volunteers in his motion or discussions about it. Next, Councillor Steve Ferguson made it clear to mayor and council that this committee had private meetings in the mayor's office (after the official meeting) and never invited him. Mayor Green said he took exception to that comment and suggested that Coun. Ferguson was always invited to every meeting. Ferguson disagreed with the mayor on that point.

Mayor Green also went into a big defence regarding his finance committee and their credentials. Again, there were unsolicited comments because no one attacked the committee's credentials. The Editorial Board was speaking with a well-seasoned investigator who opined that generally guilty people end up defending things that have never been questioned in the first instance. It is a basic rule of structured interview/ interrogation and investigation. Looks like The Slate has been caught red-handed. Secret meetings and a grossly unqualified committee.

It is interesting to note that standard committee volunteers in the Township have always submitted full resumes and have the been interviewed by mayor and council. Members of this Standing Finance Committee are insiders and campaign supporters - individuals hand-picked by Mayor Green himself. No extensive resumes, no interviews, nothing. Our Editorial Board has been doing some research and we have serious questions about the credentials of the majority of Finance Committee members.

To add insult to injury, Mayor Green said for the second time that perhaps the people on this committee have more budget experience than some members of council. What a slap in the face to his fellow council members! How arrogant! The man does not understand that he must work WITH council and not just with his slate. What Once again he was seen huffing and puffing each and every time a council member disagreed with his viewpoint. The body language is very clear with this mayor - he and his insiders know everything and this council is just plain stupid.

The Editorial Board took a telephone poll of a large cross-section of people we know who had been watching the meeting on TV. Our council monitors were also present for the meeting. All agree that the bully was back in the playground and the slate are clearly running damage control BEFORE anyone has struck out against their committee (with questionable qualifications). But it will soon be time to Roll Up The Rim and then we will see how the slate tries to turn this committee's findings into ammunition against the remainder of council. But tonight was nothing short of a slate Gong Show for sure. Meeting process has now been thrown out the window and the sideshow is in full swing. Stay tuned and watch the moves of this slate!

*** FOX MOTION & NOTICE OF MOTION***

Motion #1

Whereas the Mayor’s Standing Finance Committee has now been meeting one day short of 7 weeks, and there 13 weeks left prior to final date for approving this years budget, and for 3 of those weeks Council does not meet, and

Whereas to date Council has received only Notes, Minutes and comments made in the local press without a report or recommendations from the Committee, and

Whereas most, of not all, neighbouring communities have gone to third reading on their budget and in some cases completed the public consultation which we in the Township have yet to formally begin,

Be it resolved that a preliminary report from the finance committee be presented to Council in the afternoon meeting on Monday, March 2nd, and this outline the progress made to date and updates on any recommendations forthcoming to Council for consideration.

Final approval by amendment– Tuesday, March 3rd


Notice of Motion

Whereas Mr. Maitland made a presentation to the joint Finance and Council Priorities Committee meeting on the background and basic tenants of the Property Endowment Fund as it works in the City of Vancouver which is governed by the Vancouver Charter,

Be it resolved that Mr. Maitland be contracted to review the Township Land inventory of non ‘DCC’ lands and prepare a report to Council recommending which lands would be available for re-sale purposes, and

Be it resolved that Mr. Maitland review the Township policies and processes as to land holdings and disposition and recommend amendments to the Township's current bylaws, policies and procedures to make the necessary recommendations to transform the Township's Land Reserve fund to a Township Property Endowment Fund,

And Further, that once the regulatory framework is known, that Staff and Council schedule a workshop to review the recommendations and the Possible Surplus Properties that could be developed in accordance with such a Fund.

THE TOWNSHIP POOP PILE

Councillor Richter used to proport to be the finance & budget watchdog on council. Now it appears that watchdogism has been abandoned with the new Green/Richter Slate and left to The Langley Record.

HOW MUCH STAFF OVERTIME DID ALL THIS WORK COST THE TOL TAXPAYER?

A big thanks to Councillor Charlie Fox for exposing this waste, and providing a photo of the pile of poop to all of the media.

Upcoming Monday ToL Council Meeting

The following meeting Agendas and Reports are provided for reader information and participation at the February 16, 2009 Township of Langley Council Meetings.

Special Meeting - 3:00pm

Agenda

Previous Minutes

Doc 1

Doc 2

Doc 3

Doc 4

Doc 5

Doc 6

Doc 7

Doc 8

Doc 9

Doc 10

Regular Council Meeting - 7:00pm 

Agenda

Previous Minutes

Previous Minutes - Public Hearing

Previous Minutes - Public Input - Mufford/64th Ave Overpass

Doc 1

Doc 2

Doc 3

Doc 4

Doc 5

Doc 6

Doc 7

You Be The Judge

From: Kenneth Baker
To: Rick Green; Jordan Bateman; Bev Dornan; Steve Ferguson; Charlie Fox; Mel Kositsky ; Bob Long; Kim Richter;
Grant Ward (Councillor)
Sent: Wed Feb 11 22:35:47 2009
Subject: Mufford Diversion

Dear Mayor Green and Members of Council:

We do not in disagree that an overpass could be used to bridge the ever growing train traffic through Langley. We are, however, absolutely against the current proposal to have the traffic wind around to a termination point at the intersection of 216 and 64th. We see no sense in this design and fail to find any redeeming qualities, other than it offers a grade separation to the train traffic. It is our view that the traffic problems created by dumping this increased traffic volume onto a rural road will do nothing but move the restriction point. Further, it will create dangerous traffic conditions for the local residents and farmers.

At present one can drive on a four lane road from Delta to Costco in Langley. This plan simply moves that termination point to 216th and 64th. Who cares where they are stuck in traffic? Does it matter whether you are stuck behind a train or in an bottle neck created by too much traffic being funneled onto deficient roads. How long will it be before 216th street, 64th avenue and 232nd street are widened to four lanes? There is no way that they are currently capable of handling the increased traffic volume caused by the proposed overpass. The only plan that makes any sense is to take traffic over the tracks and route it onto an expanded (4 lane) Glover Road. With the proposed plan that is where it is ultimately going to end up via 216th street and 232nd street anyway. This highway (Glover Road) presently exists so why would it not be used?

To date, we have not received one answer from staff that would lead us to believe that this is not the best option. The current proposal has not been well thought out. It is a knee jerk reaction to an existing problem and does nothing to address the long term traffic flow problem. In addition it destroys some of the best farm land in the Fraser Valley ( the old Hudson Bay farm). Good farm land is a dwindling resource which should be preserved for future generations.

We understand that our Provincial Minister of Transportation has threatened to withdraw funding for this project if it does not go ahead as planned. We say let him go ahead and pull the funding. A bad plan is a bad plan no matter who is paying for it. Would council support a nuclear power plant in the township if it was being partially funded by the provincial government? We think not. The design of this project has been done as quietly as possible, so as to not attract the attention of the public. As evidenced by the turnouts and opinions expressed at both the open houses and public hearing there is overwhelming opposition to the current proposal. Council should listen to what is being said and go back to the drawing board and develop an alternative plan that will better serve the interests of the citizens of both the city and the township. We would go so far as to suggest that council address the real issue and the root of the problem and that is eliminating heavy rail traffic through Langley.

With the expansion of Roberts Bank the problem is only going to get worse and there are other options to route the heavy rail traffic to Roberts Bank without having trains travel through Langley The current proposed overpass is the first in a series of overpasses that will have to be constructed to keep vehicular traffic flowing. What will the total cost be considering that the budget for this one exceeds $50M? We would like to see a study done on the economics of rerouting heavy rail out of Langley as opposed to constructing multiple overpasses. We are also concerned that the environmental issues have not been properly considered and would like that matter revisited.

In short, we believe the current overpass plan is not in the best interests of the citizens of the Langleys and should be rejected. We believe that the whole issue of having heavy rail traffic routed through Langley should be reconsidered with a few to finding an alternative route. We will be watching with great interest to see how council lines up on this issue and you can be assured that those councilors who support the current proposal will not be receiving our support in the next election.

Yours truly,

Ken & (***edited spouse name***) Baker

LR EDITORIAL BOARD COMMENTS:

We have published this communique that is public and was transmitted over a public network for three primary reasons:

To present the other side of this overpass issue.

1. To provide insight into one of the three civilian members of the mayor's new Finance Committee, who is now a public official
2. For you to see first-hand the threats that council members must deal with from the mayor's insiders and supporters.

While it is perfectly acceptable for residents of the Township to voice their opinions on various issues and discussions in the Township, the province, and the nation, public officials should not make threats to other public officials.

BC Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon issued a letter to the ToL regarding the Mufford/64th Avenue Overpass Project and frankly stated the facts. The facts included a statement that should the Township not proceed with this overpass, the province will earmark those funds to other priorities. This was simply a fact and not a threat. However, the overpass opponents and the mayor have decided that this is a threat and accuse Falcon of being a bully. How is that?

Opinion

Our Editorial Board was very disappointed to see Mr. Baker's letter. Out of the three civilian members of the Finance Committee, we viewed Mr. Baker as the most qualified (despite having little to no municipal accounting expertise) to sit on this committee and had looked forward to his budget recommendations. Now we question whether Mr. Baker has the capacity to make non-partisan commentary and recommendations on the single most important issue in our Township. That paramount issue is today is the Township's budget for 2009-2011.

It appears to us that there are a core group (150 people??) of Green & Richter slate supporters that all have their own private back yard issues and special agendas. These special interests (back yard issues) appear to take precedents over OUR Township and the greater good of a community of 105,000 people. Again, it is OK to respectfully debate and disagree on the issues in our community. BUT, is it OK to ignore the higher good of our greater community, or hijack the whole progressive agenda of our Township?

Here are some other views of the project to balance things off HERE - HERE - HERE and HERE

So readers of the Langley Record, you be the judge. We have presented both sides of this issue, and now give you Mr. Baker's letter to mayor and council. What do you think?

Outrage! News Circulates in Langley Township

********** HOT Newswire **********

The Editorial Board of the Langley Record received numerous phone calls and information last night from very outraged Township of Langley residents. Apparently some VERY disturbing communication was distributed by a member of our community. This communique was very unexpected, as this person had been enjoying increased credibility.

The LR Board is still gathering details and specifics and will have a complete report to you by the end of this weekend. Stay tuned.

Scoop on the Poop - PAC Attendee and Eyewitness

******** BREAKING NEWS [Imagine That] **************

THE FOLLOWING IS AN EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT FROM SOMEONE PRESENT AT THE ALDERGROVE PAC MEETING LAST NIGHT -

From Guest Editorial Board Monitor

Strange sighting indeed, at about 7:10 pm last night my wife witnessed [Blog Name Censored] "Editor", Bob Richter strutting across the ACSS parking lot with video camera and tripod in hand. His facial expression one of disgust and the look in his eyes one of a defeated man. I was inside and saw the saga unfold.

Earlier The Follower had entered the 'Town Hall' meeting hosted by the four PAC's of the local Aldergrove schools. It was clear that the event organizers had made a decision prior to the meeting that the press were welcome to take still photos and notes as they saw fit but the PAC EXECUTIVES had mandated there would be no video or audio recordings of the meeting. Speakers were encouraged by moderator, Howie Vickberg, (who did a fine job as expected) to leave a copy of their speeches for the record with the time keepers.

It was observed by two local school officials that this gentleman was setting up his video camera. They went over to him and respectfully requested he cease setting up as the decision had been made by the organizers that video taping was not allowed. Explaining he was with 'the press' as "editor" of [Blog Name Censored], the two individuals were no more impressed and suggested he could stay and take notes or leave.

A brief verbal exchange occurred which, my humble opinion,was very disrespectful to the organizers and their earlier decision as communicated by the two interventionists.

Yes, there were other press there, in fact several, but they respected the request of the organizers and stayed for the whole meeting to hear the presentations. The [Blog Name Censored] videographer, did not have the decency or respect for the Aldergrove community to stay and at least listen to the many varied and well presented speeches. I guess without his trustee (no pun intended) video camera he can't really be much of a 'press' member.

The speeches, and there were some 27 of them were excellent. Parents, PAC members, community members, students all spoke in a very respectful manner.. They were passionate about the previous decision and unanimous in their support of Betty Gilbert transitioning to a middle school in September 2009. Many spoke directly to Trustee Bech and Cody and clearly indicated their distrust with the decision reversal and their lack of credibility with the Aldergrove Community.

Several spoke to the motion put forth by the absent trustee Johnson and the fact that most of the points in her motion had to so with residual issues form the HD Stafford decision and had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ALDERGROVE COMMUNITY'S support and desire to move in to a middle school model. Families have moved houses, moved schools, changed jobs, daycares have moved, this has been a full two year consultative process which Aldergrove has bought in to BY THEIR OWN CHOICE! Why then do they get dragged in to the Stafford mess and be reluctant (in fact frustrated) recipients of a decision made in a completely different part of the District. "We are unique", "We are a different community than the Stafford community" rang through many of the speeches.

The Follower was not there to report but in fact the level of decorum, respect and sensitivity was unbelievable and certainly shone well above the decorum of many if not all the meetings held by the HD Stafford parents/community.

Kudos to the Aldergrove Community and a message to the new Mayor and others, the over 200 Aldergrove folks can work as a team and be passionate, just give them an issue. Hopefully the message got through and the two flip/flop trustees, (Cody and Bech), who have alot to be accountable for, and new Trustee McFarlane, who has no idea of the culture and ethos of the Aldergrove Community, will do what's best for Aldergrove, be open and transperant, have listened to the community as they promised to do and reverse the parts of this motion that clearly or not well founded and holding a community and over 2,100 students in a lurch.
Lastly, maybe the [Blog Name Censored] will get a well-credentialed reporter and not rely on the man with the video camera and nothing else in his tool kit. At least he could have stayed long enough to be able to report accurately on the meeting and it's content and reported such on his ill-informed blog! Substance is a BIG part of journalism.

PS - apparently Trustee Cody was absolutely furious after the meeting at being singled out by the speakers - what does she expect! -Bob this was NOT YOUR MEETING! It's not about YOU.

Aldergrove PAC Sends Wannabe Packing

The newswire is buzzing with activity this morning as The Follower or "editor" of another blog was asked to shut off his camera in a meeting last night held under private rules determined by the group. One account is provided on that blog, but the Langley Record has the inside scoop that paints a very different picture of this scene. 

A respected member of the Langley Record Editorial Board was present for the fiasco and will provide a written report later today. It's amazing that this wannabe editor really thinks he is actually an official member of the press! Sorry, but wannabe editors just don't count, and now you know. 

The rumour mill is buzzing with word that this incident has seriously impacted the credibility of a certain politician and her significant other in a tremendous way. Stay tuned for a breaking update.

Lynn Whitehouse & Langley Chamber - Heros in Our Community

With a room full of Rick Green insiders who took over town hall last night, Lynn Whitehouse and several brave giants in our community dared to speak out in favour of the Preliminary Design for the Mufford/64 Ave Overpass. Lynn is the executive director of the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce and a long-time Township of Langley resident. Lynn Whitehouse has served as a leader in our comunity - a giant - in the Langleys.

We are very thankful and appareciate of Lynn Whitehouse and our Chamber of Commerce for making the case for an east-west connection here in Langley. Our community is a better place because of quality folks such as this.

While many other speakers resorted to name-calling and threatening of public officials, Lynn Whitehouse showed the class and respectfulness of a true leader as she took the floor and elequently stated her case and that of the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce. At the point before Lynn spoke, several of us Langley Record board members had lost all hope that this public meeting would be respectful and be a quality representation befitting of Langley Township. Hope was restored thanks to Lynn, our Chamber, and the few others with the courage to speak up.

There were 160 people present out of a Township population of about 105,000 people. A very SMALL fraction of our community and for the most part, a poor representation of a decent and respectful Langley. While its fine to debate and disagree, one can do so with respect and decency. There wasn't a whole lot of that last night unfortunately.

Let's hope the poll of the broader community provides rays of hope to us all who desire an east-west connection and options. Thank you Lynn Whitehouse and the Chamber of Commerce!

Monday ToL Council For February 9, 2009

On Monday, February 9, 2009 the Township Council will have a somewhat unusual meeting schedule as follows:

Special Meeting - 3:00pm
Agenda here
Last Minutes here
Doc 1
Doc 2
Doc 3
Doc 4
Doc 5
Doc 6
Doc 7
Doc 8
Doc 9
Doc 10

TERMINATE

Special Meeting - Public Hearing and Bylaws - 7:00pm
Agenda here
Doc 1

TERMINATE

Special Meeting for Public Input on Mufford Crescent/64th Ave Overpass - 7:00pm (following Public Hearing above)

Agenda here

TERMINATE

Reliable Rumour

************ UPDATE February 9, 2009 ***************

The community volunteers report that over the weekend a couple of them received emails from a certain councillor stating that the comments were from a reader (doubtful) and that they were "fair" comments. Not sure what is so "fair" about slandering a large group of people because you have an ax to grind against an individual that happens to be a member of that group, but was clearly not acting in that capacity when he is out and about. The "editor" there did remove the offending comment.

One thing is certain and that is that several board members and people that did not write in are influential people in our community and have good memory skills. It goes far beyond any individual when you are a public official and you allow your propaganda site to rub dirt in the faces of Langley's volunteers.

Falcon Tells Township to Consider Mufford Overpass or Lose Funding

The "other" blog editor will be sleeping on the couch tonight perhas because he disagrees with his Councillor wife. Or will Councillor Kim Richter do a Green flip-flop act and change her mind when the love fest crowd fills a couple hundred seats next Monday evening at her proposed public meeting.

You will recall during the civic debate that Coun. Richter said that we should not turn the money down for the overpass and we must be very careful. The slate's vocal Milner resident supporters (instigated by Valtac) put the squeeze on Mayor Green to force the ToL staff to place their "J" design up on billboards and hijacked the two public information sessions. Mayor Green would like nothing better than to have the issue go away by partners scrapping a project they have been working on since 2004, with everyone just accepting the "J". This "J" will be three times the length of the preliminary design (read 3x the cost to taxpayers), cross 3 red streams (read 3 salmon streams), and is not supported by the City of Langley, where most of it will be, nor any other partners to support it.

So, we see that Councillor Richter's blog supports the very possible contamination of salmon-bearing waterways and higher taxpayer expenses (perhaps 6 times with re-design costs) for the sake of a special interest group that is really preserving their financial future. Of course that blog also accuses Councillor Jordan Bateman of working with the BC Liberlas on this, even though Coun. Bateman has little regular contact with Minister Falcon. Of course it is yet another attempt by desperate people to try and discredit the man that garnered more votes than all those guys. Smokescreen for their pathetic desperation folks. If anyone has a "conflict of interest" it should be the Green slate. According to the Oath of Office we heard, at least Mayor Green (if not Green and Richter) should have excused themselves from all these overpass discussions. Again, the news you will not read on the "other" blog.

Bullies In Blog Land

The "other blog" representing the slate is apparently angry again because we present the other side of the story and infuriate them. Their slate cohorts post comments that back them up, pat their backs and egos. They continue to do their best to put The Langley Record in the same bucket as the "4th blog" that is posting outright libel and prophanity. Obviously we are not in that ballgame and have simply present the facts, based on our people being physically present at these various meetings.

It is doubtful that even a fraction of the commentors to that other blog even attend the public meetings, yet they are able to read a particular Langley newspaper (who's editor supported the Green slate) and tell us that we are wrong in our reporting.

The mayor's support for the Valtac group is very clear. He insisted that Valtac's "J" alignment (that benefits insiders) be posted at the ToL funded (read taxpayer-funded) open house. If we are wrong about the Valtac group shamelessly hijacking the taxpayer's public open house for their personal evangelism campaign, then why does this picture appear in the Langley Advance? The slate is trying very hard to shape public opinion about this blog, who is behind it, and the facts that we present.  Their efforts are futile, as only an idiot will not look at the other half of the story when both are being  presented to them. Connecting this blog to those they hate only satisfies their desire to discredit and mask the facts that we report to you. This smear attampt all flows from a single individual that believes he is a "political strategist". Howver, over the years he has failed miserably to deliver any political prize, other than a council seat. 

You know you have struck a nerve with the slate when they try to discredit you, call you names that are unfounded. One can see from the picture above, this unfounded name-calling just goes hand-in-hand with bullying. You will also note that Horny Toad, et al don't post here anymore, or at least don't put their names to the posts. Apparently the slate was threatened by the arguements (based on fact) and snuffed out free speech by telling these supports know they shouldn't post here. That;'s fine with us as we have better things to do with our time than to keep responding to requests for more information or details that they don't listen to anyway!

Regardless of who does or does not post comments here, The Langley Record will continue to have monitors at various public meetings and we will continue to post the facts. If you want one sided news, then feel free to read and post your comments to the single other blog that is 100% supporting a candidate and who hides the real editor's name so they can post things they accuse others of. Whether or not you post here, we will continue to publish the facts. We see from the third-party blog stats that we are being read daily by a significant number of people that spend more than 4 minutes on this blog, which indicates that people are coming here and actually reading things.  

Again, if we are being libelous, then there people should either file for litigation now or just keep quiet. Huffing and puffing with threats does not make this Editorial Board shake and quiver in the least. The sheer fact that they flap the jaw on threats of legal action only solidifies the fact that they have no real professional legal advice behind their blog. Lawyers write a letter and commence action. It's all a house of cards on their part and another ploy of the "master mind that wasn't". The slate has been exposed and they are very angry. But they are angry folks to begin with. The slate boat will rip apart when the honeymoon ends and one will throw the other under the bus before long. Keep watching and remember that freedom of speech is a basic human right and you shouldn't allow bullies to rule your life.

ToL Council Votes Not to Meddle with RCMP

Opinion
On Monday evening Coun. Kim Richter's motion to ask the RCMP to look at a matter brought forth by a citizen that had property seized was voted up. It was defeated with only Coun. Richter and Kositsky in favour. The other blog had made a big deal out of this and again paints Richter as the Don Quixote of Langley.

In hearing the presentation and speaking with council members it is clear that this issue is very civil in nature. The RCMP have absolutely NO jurisdiction in civil matters. This citizen met with Superintendent Janice Armstrong of the Langley RCMP the day of his ToL council delegation. While she agreed to be present in council chambers when the citizen made his delegation, it's not like the RCMP has to wait for a motion of council to do their job. They have reviewed the file and obviously decided they had no powers or rights to act on this matter.

Again, for council to meddle in police affairs just opens one big can of stinking worms. As Councillor Ferguson pionted out, people sometimes get tickets from the police for various driving infractions and would council now be asking the RCMP to re-evaluate them? Coun. Bob Long also made intelligent statements about not messing in RCMP business. What the other blog conveniently failed to mention is that apparently Mayor Green had his reservations with regards to meddling with the RCMP and did not support this Richter motion.

The other blog paints this story as the whole world falling down on this long-time resident of the Township and council standing by to watch. While this man may or may not have good reason to plead with council for help and may have legitimate concerns, the case was adjudicated by a court or a bailiff acted upon a contract, as is obvious from his delegation and what was discussed. We did not try to request access to the documents presented, but decisions to cease property don't just happen and the RCMP heard the delegation and still did nothing more with this matter. Council is wise to let the police be the police and for council to be council.

Green Friends, Supporters and Insiders Hijack ToL

If you didn't attend the Township of Langley's two Public Open House sessions regarding the Mufford Cresent/64th Avenue overpass, consider yourself to be very fortunate. The first session took place on Saturday, January 31st at the Milner Chapel. Our correspondent for that day reported a very noisy session with Mayor Rick Green's friends, campaign supporters and other insiders ignoring the briefings from competent ToL, City of Langley, TransLink and other technical staff, and getting their voices to bellow above the crowd. Our correspondent who is elderly stated that one could not make sense of anything for some time and that you had to push your way through the arrogant crowd in order to view any of the information panels. It was next to impossible to get to any of the staff to get answers to your questions, as these insiders blocked the way. But, our correspondent says that the rookie Mayor's insiders were happy to tell you how it is (the overpass according to them).

Last night another open house took place in the lobby of Township Council Chambers. Our council monitor tried unsucessfully for over 30 minutes to criculate around the room to view all of the story boards in the area. Once again it was reported to the Editorial Board of this blog that a large crowd of Rick Green insiders gathered in front of these story boards and did their best to evangelize the general public who really gathered to hear from the experts. Our monitor was not interested in hearing from these love-fest wanna-bee traffic engineers, but there was no option available as they behaved like members of a door to door cult in order to convert the masses. Indeed our monitor could not escape being "questioned", and in some cases interrogated by these Green insiders. Our monitor did not see any need to explain to these people a personal opinion on this project, but the crowd behaved much like their bully mayor.

If this is how public open houses and public "engagement" is going to be so transparent under this rookie mayor, then don't waste your time coming out to these open house events. You will only be met by attempts at intimidation from the love fest crowd who, like Mayor Green, believe it is their way or the highway. We are appalled that this disorder is allowed in our public meetings, but then again the rookie mayor himself does not understand how to properly chair a meeting of council, so why should we expect his insiders to do any better?

These "adults" should really be ashamed of themselves for forcing their views and trying to convert (and subvert) the public like some members of a cult. Shame on you people for turning a public open house into a circus while your mayor dearest allowed this nonsense to go on, as he was acting as MC to greet the love fest crowd once again to Township Hall. The bullies have found a place to roost and you know what they say about birds of a feather, don't you?

Township Council Agenda for Monday With Commentary

"It's OK Rick we need to get to council now.
Mr. Bakken will help you chair the meeting." --Kim

Here are the agendas for TOL Council for Monday, February 2, 2009

3:00pm Special Meeting

Last Minutes - Doc 1

Doc 2

Doc 3

Doc 4

Doc 5

Doc 6

Doc 7

Doc 8

Doc 9

Doc 10

7:00pm Regular Meeting

Last Minutes - Doc 1

Doc 2

Doc 3

Doc 4

Commentary From The Langley Record Editors

You will note in the list of motions below that Councillor Kim Richter once again is trying to meddle in RCMP/Police business. This is at least the third time in a few months that Coun. Richter ihas tried to interfere with our justice system, as if the Langley RCMP don’t know how to do their jobs.

In late 2008 there was a delegate to TOL Council who wanted council to instruct the RCMP to investigate a matter that the RCMP had previously reviewed and determined it to be unfounded. During this delegation a TOL Bylaws Officer was asked to stand by in council chambers, in case of incident, as there were some safety concerns. Later councilors told us that they had intended to listen to the delegate, but as the RCMP had already offered their professional opinion, council felt it inappropriate to tell the RCMP how to do their job. Councillor Richter ignored the safety of her fellow councilors and broke from rank to offer a motion, which was not seconded. Fortunately the delegate left council chambers without incident due to the Bylaws office being present.

It is NOT appropriate for politicians to TELL the RCMP how to do their jobs. We are at a total loss to explain why this councillor thinks it is OK for politicians to control the police. It is a VERY slippery slope and this is NOT a good precedent. Would Coun. Richter be OK with the RCMP coming in to a council meeting and telling them what to do? This is BAD politics folks, and politicians have no business telling police professionals how to do their jobs. This is why the TOL Charter and other such charters prohibit a police board.

INTERESTING MOTIONS IN THE 7:00PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING

Q.

OTHER BUSINESS At the January 19, 2009 Regular Meeting of Council Councillor Richter provided the following Notice of Motions:

			1. Paul Houweling That Council refer Mr. Houweling’s delegation request to the RCMP to address his concerns as best as they can.
			2. Brown's Pit Whereas opening the Brown’s Pit for gravel extraction will create considerable difficulties in the surrounding neighbourhood and could significantly and adversely impact water quality and quantity in the Hopington aquifer; therefore Be it resolved that the material from the Brown’s Pit delegations of January 19, 2009 be referred to staff for a report and a recommended action plan to stop the re-opening of this pit for gravel extraction. At the January 19, 2009 Regular Meeting of Council Councillor Kositsky provided the following Notice of Motions:
			3. Metro Vancouver Board of Directors Whereas representation on the Metro Vancouver (Greater Vancouver Regional District) Board of Directors increases when a community passes the 100,000 mark in population; and Whereas UBCM now lists the Township of Langley as having a population of 100,575 people calculated using population estimates (December 2007 release) provided by BC STATS, the central statistical agency of the Province of British Columbia; Be it resolved that the Township of Langley formally apply to the regional district to increase its representation on the Board of Directors.
			4. Emergency Response Whereas members of Council expressed concern at the January 12, 2009 Council meetings regarding the service provided by our emergency personnel during the snow and flood period of December 13, 2008 to January 12, 2009; and Whereas there were no representatives in the Council Chamber to respond to remarks and questions; Be it resolved that Township of Langley Council direct staff to write to the heads of police, fire and ambulance services in the Township of Langley requesting a written report from each party and asking for comments on: • Any emergency incidents which occurred during this period; • What challenges were experienced due to road conditions; • What suggestions they can offer for improvements and coordination between public works and emergency services.

Questions Raised About TOL Mayor's Standing Committees

As we have previously blogged, Township Council has serious questions about the need for more committees and commissions in the TOL. The latest Langley Times article covers this debate here. As you will see from the agenda we will post tomorrow, this matter does not appear on the council's agenda and we therefore assume that Mayor Green still has no Terms of Reference (ToR) for his proposal now that we are entering February already! One would think that as the mayor had this plan in mind throughout his campaign he would have already had a ready written ToR many, many months ago. This appears to be yet another item that was presented in the campaign and which Mayor Green had absolutely no detailed plan to implement it.

Most of council feel this is simply a duplication of the structure that already exists and with a proper work plan for the existing structure, the same could be acommplished at a significant cost reduction to taxpayers. Why is Mayor Green so insistent on these duplicate committees? Does he simply have more friends and insiders that he wishes to inject into the Township?

Its not often that we agree with Councillor Richter, but in this case her statements are very much echoed by her collegues on council. Counsellors Steve Ferguson and Mel Kositsky have also been very vocal on this subject. 

“Why do we need an economic development task force?” asked Councillor Kim Richter.

Richter suggested that the work plan of the existing Economic Development (select) Committee could be changed to accomplish what Green proposes for his new economic task force.

Green said that a task force would be more project focused, possibly looking at industrial space, and industrial/commercial/residential base, over a period of up to six to eight months, as opposed to the committee’s ongoing role.

The existing committees are established under a bylaw, and the mayor does not have the authority to suspend them, said Councillor Mel Kositsky.

These committees have however been asked to suspend any substantive work, said administrator Mark Bakken, while the complexities of the mayor’s proposals for standing committees are worked out.

Kositsky said he is concerned about the volunteer members of the community who currently serve or have replied to advertisements to serve on the committees."

Councillor Steve Ferguson keeps having to remind the rookie mayor that democracy must prevail and if you profess to be a campion of open and transparent government, then you shouldn't create various committees filled with friends and insiders and given secret mandates from the mayor. Coun. Ferguson is very good at these reminders because he makes his appeals in a very civil manner as a "student of democracy". Ferguson really is a student of democracy in his interactions with Township Council for sure. The rookie mayor could get some valuable lessons from Councillors Ferguson, Kositsky and others.

Kositsky said that volunteers “who have a life,” need to know what is happening with the committees, so they can plan ahead for meetings.

Green said he is not planning to change or “subvert” anything by creating an economic task force or safety policing committee, but he sees the select and standing committees as having two different purposes.

“Council always works better when we do it together,” said Councillor Steve Ferguson, who suggested a council workshop or retreat to find out more about Green’s vision, and for Green to get oriented to what council and the committees are doing or have done.

Township Set to Lose Golden Opportunity Under Mayor Green

With budget cuts in the Township of Langley set to impact all residents in order to maintain his campaign promise of a zero-based budget (no property tax increase for 3 years), is Mayor Green setting this Township up for long-term failure and deterioration?

The mayor's finance committee has been pouring over the budget for things that could be cut. All department directors have been asked to bring forth lean budgets that will allow various proposed projects to drop off the list. Even the Langley RCMP has dropped some new initiatives off the list of funded projects for 2009. Does the taxpayer understand that zero-based budgets in other communities have simply meant that various projects that should be tackled this year will simply be deferred in order for us to realize no property taxes? Do that understand that at a future date these projects will have to be accomplished to combat crumbling infrastructure?

Are all of these infrastructure project deferrals really wise in our Township as the federal government is announcing a massive availability of funds for municipalities who can contribute towards the projects?  This could be the single most important opportunity for our community to get the much-needed infrastructure that will serve ourt projected growth from 100,000 people to almost 200,000 over the next 10-15 years. We may never see a federal program anywhere near the size of this in our lifetime. 

Of course, Mayor Green could seek to borrow this money and put the TOL into debt to cover this project fund-matching, thereby creating a zero-based budget in theory only. Will we as a growing community reject the goose that lays the golden eggs or will we get goosed for going Green? 

HOT NEWS - Vancouver Watchdog Warns City

**********************************************************************************

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

A kind reader in the know provided these supporting documents explaining how leased lands are over-valued in the City of Vancouver's Property Endowment Fund. 

Document 1

Document 2

**********************************************************************************

UNDER WHO'S WATCH DID THIS OVER-VALUATION HAPPEN ?

Vancouver watchdog citizen Robert Renger is doing the same thing that The Langley Record is doing in warning taxpayers of the Township of Langley to approach with caution Mayor Rick Green's suggestions of a Property Endowment Fund fashioned after the City of Vancouver. 

In an article appearing in today's issue of Straight.com, Renger's letter to the City of Vancouver dated January 18, 2009 is published:

Renger's e-mail to the mayor, council, and the city manager: 

From: ROBERT RENGER
Date: Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:01 pm
Subject: Property Endowment Fund overvaluation
To: mayorandcouncil@vancouver.ca,penny.ballem@vancouver.ca
 
To the City Manager, Mayor and Council,  

I want to thank you for becoming transparent and forthright with the public (and especially the City's taxpayers) regarding Olympic Village issues. 

Hopefully you will now follow this same approach with respect to the value of the City’s Property Endowment Fund. I am certain that an independent evaluation would find that it is worth significantly less than the $2.7 billion claimed in the City’s Financial Statements. 

It seems clear to me that the value of the PEF has been systematically overstated for many years, by the way in which overvalued leased lands (including lands that the City has leased out for long prepaid terms) are included as PEF assets. There are details and examples in the attached documents which I wrote several years ago (and to which I received no substantive responses).  

On November 11, 2008, I sent this same material to Ken Bayne, your General Manager of Business Planning and Services, after I heard him on the radio saying “Vancouver's Property Endowment Fund is still worth two or two and a half billion dollars in real estate”. In my email I asked him the following question: 

"Can you tell me how much of the Fund’s $2.5 billion in land assets is land for which the City has sold prepaid leases, and whether or not you think that land’s value as a City asset has been overstated?" 

He hasn't answered or even acknowledged my email. 

I expect that at some point (even if City Hall tries to ignore the issue) it is going to become publicly evident that: 

(1) the City has been greatly overstating the value of PEF land assets, and that 

(2) its actual assets are mostly not very liquid. 

In the meantime, I am concerned that bad information leads to bad decisions. So I hope you will address this issue proactively, without delay. 

I would appreciate being informed of your intentions. 

sincerely, 
Robert Renger 

This article also states, "Renger has claimed that the city has "systematically overstated" the value of the Property Endowment Fund for many years by overvaluing leased lands. He believes that an independent evaluation would reveal this."

It will be interesting to learn if these allegations are correct, and just how long this overstating of value has gone on in the City of Vancouver. Also of interest to the taxpayers of the Township will be to see under which City of Vancouver Real Estate Manager(s) this occured, if the allegations are found to be true. Stay tuned folks!

Mayor Green Hires Olympic Village Bureaucrat

The Langley Record's Exclusive Expose'

Recently rookie Mayor Rick Green announced in the newspaper (and our blog) that he had hired on a consultant for the Township of Langley to investigate the possibility of establishing a real estate trust and examine the viability of such a plan during this economic downturn.

This hiring did not require council approval or pre-knowledge, and therefore was not made public until the newspaper announcement by Mayor Green.

Most municipalities in greater Vancouver are being very cautious with their real estate dealings and development after the City of Vancouver announced that the ongoing development of the Olympic Village Project, interchangeably referred to as “Southeast False Creek project” recently ran into funding issues that could cost Vancouver taxpayers over a BILLION dollars to bail out, should other funding sources not materialize.

However Mayor Green announced that the Township has hired Mr. Bruce Maitland, “…co-parent of the city’s Southeast False Creek project” (as the Vancouver Sun called him here) as a paid consultant to the Township. You can see from there articles here, here and here that Mr. Maitland was a key stakeholder in Vancouver’s now-troubled Olympic Village project.

The taxpayers of Langley must, in the interest of the principles of openness, transparency, accountability and full disclosure, be informed that Mayor Green’s election team broadcast e-mailed this Endorsement Letter written by new Township consultant Bruce Maitland, to many businesspeople and residents of the Township of Langley, ahead of the November 2008 election. In fact that endorsement was the first any member of the Editorial Board had heard of Mr. Maitland who lives in Willoughby and we think has been given the job of making big bucks off Langley’s land portfolio to pay for the Mayor’s poorly planned 0% tax freeze.

We say think because it seems very unclear to Township Council and the taxpayers as to just how much this consultant will cost the taxpayers and what the EXACT outcome or deliverables Mayor Green plans for us to get from this spending. Councillor Mel Kositsky recently tried to nail down the exact cost of this consulting engagement to the taxpayers at a Council meeting, but the mayor remained very tight-lipped about the details of this contract. So much for openness and transparency.

The only response from Township Hall has been that as this consulting contract was for 20-40 hours of time, therefore no prior council discussion or vote was required. We know Mayor Raging Bull loves to swing the power of his office around kind of like Sam Sullivan used to do in Vancouver. He has done so again by announcing the Maitland contract. Councillor Kositsky, a longtime advocate of proper public process, again tried to query just how much this 20-40 hours is costing us, to which there was no official or public response from Mayor Green.

Mayor Raging Bull, upset by the questions, in fact replied by listing Mr. Maitland’s credentials which sounded good on the surface. Interesting the supposedly transparent Mayor neglected to mention the Olympic Village deal or Mr. Maitland’s election endorsement.

Mr. Maitland is beside the point here. He may be an excellent bureaucrat and he may be the best in his field. We will never have that confidence because we have a rookie mayor who promised transparency and has been showing anything but. His finance committee is stocked with his friends and insiders. He has now overseen and announced the hiring of a consultant who endorsed him in the last election. This is not good government or good business for that matter.

For the loyal blog readers out there, you will note that it is not very often that the Langley Record’s Editorial Board agrees with blog regular posters “Willy Nilly” and “Horny Toad”. But in this instance we must agree with these two that the Township of Langley must exercise an abundance of caution with regards to real estate deals within the Township. Some recent blog posts from these two prolific commentators:

“Regardless of whether the economy went in the dumper or not the MAIN reason for the Olympic village fiasco is due to BAD BUSINESS PRACTICES. Its like putting all your money in the stock market and blaming the market when you loose. It was a gamble and the City of Vancouver lost. Good article in the Sun the other day on WHY cities should stick to what they are supposed to do and stay away from property development. There is a reason WHY property developers make a lot of money (usually) and that is because they know what they are doing.
Good lesson to all cities.”

Horny Toad | 01.16.09 - 5:44 pm


"they will sell for good money after the winter Olympics, and Vancouver (and the Province) will recover the investment costs".

“I see you're into clairvoyance now Boomer. I hope you're right, but unfortunately NOBODY knows and if they say things, as you did, it only means hopeful wishing. There is NO basis for your conclusion. I have been following most of the senior economists and they have differing opinions, and admit to not knowing. So, I wonder how you're able to predict that.

The US thought their real estate had to have hit the bottom 6 months ago, well, guess what, its still falling and they predict the worst is yet to come. Heck, if we can go down South and buy luxury condo's, townhouses, homes, for $100.000.00 in areas where there is no winter, why would anyone buy our condos?
We have major competition now in the Real Estate market, and our biggest buyers were from the US and Asia. Well, the US is not buying now and I have just learned that prices are falling in China, so that is probably going to be lost as well.”

willynilly | 01.16.09 - 10:15 pm


The Langley Record Editorial Board Comments:

Horny Toad believes the City of Vancouver exercised “bad business practices” with their Olympic Village/Southeast False Creek land deal. He believes land deals like this are a “gamble” with taxpayer’s assets at best and “the City of Vancouver lost.”

Willy Nilly opines this Olympic Village/Southeast False Creek land deal was nothing more than “hopeful wishing” and that real estate prices are still going to hell in a hand basket each and every day and the experts “predict the worse is yet to come” as Willy Nilly points out.

What will Green apologists such as Horny Toad and Willy Nilly say now? One of the “co-parents” of this Vancouver Mega Project gone sour, has been given the deed to Langley’s landbase by their Mayor Green.

Time for the rookie Mayor to come clean with the voters. We trust that the next Mayor’s Report will include the full details, terms of reference and costs of this consulting engagement and that he will come clean with his credentials and the fact he endorsed the Mayor. The local papers should also look through their parent company’s archives and report this matter. Our transparent Mayor must be held to account on this issue.

Other Related Reference Articles to Vancouver's Current Olympic Village Crisis:

Olyblog
OlyBlog
UPI
Vancouver Sun
Globe and Mail
Boston.com
Washington Post
Bloomberg

So What Does Mayor Fassbender Think?

The Editorial Board was having its regular coffee meeting this morning and reviewing various statements that have been repeated by our rookie mayor, Rick Green. One such repeated statement has been a soundbite regarding heavy rail traffic going through the "heart of our community".

If one reviews this rail line, we see that the alignment enters the Township of Langley along the outer edge of mostly agricultural lands with low-density housing and businesses in those areas, then along Hwy. 10/Glover Road where it finally enters the City of Langley. If one was to look at the "heart of our community" with regards to this heavy rail traffic, the greatest impact is in the heart of Langley City.

We wondered this morning what Mayor Peter Fassbender of the City of Langley thinks about Mayor Green's statements regarding his municipality? Is this a subtle way of Mayor Green suggesting that the age old debate of the City of Langley amalgamating with the Township progress? Does Mayor Green aspire to expand his kingdom?  Just wondering.

Langley Record Exclusive Expose'

For several weeks now the Langley Record has been researching some external public sources and gathering materials related to a matter that should raise alarm bells in the Township of Langley.

Join us as our research is presented this Saturday morning to the taxpayers of the Township, so that they may once again draw their own conclusions. It's not often that this Editorial Board agrees with Willy Nilly and Horny Toad, but in this instance we must agree with them on this one. The Countdown Clock is ticking away. Stay tuned!

Highlights of Monday Meetings of Township of Langley Council

TOL Council Special Meeting - January 19, 2009

Welcome to the new Langley Record quote format with regards to Township special and regular council meetings. We will not ignore commentary, however we will provide overwhelmingly more direct quotes on what was said and allow readers of the Langley Record to draw their own conclusions. Over time, perhaps we will provide introductions to sections and post audio files on the topics. As we have hours of audio files, we will post over the next week select discussions that council had and that we consider to be important to the community. Let us know what you think about the new format and please provide your input on what council discussed.

Council Discussion on Committees and Commissions

Coun. Kositsky pointed out that current council Standing Committees have been suspended since the new mayor took office and proposed a set of new Mayor’s Standing Committees and Taskforces that may duplicate the committees that are established by Bylaw and Coun. Kositsky questioned under what authority the Standing Committees were suspended, given that they are established by Bylaw.

Coun. Richter: “I had a question with regards to the selection process. Now you’ve indicated that you will be advertising and people can apply, but who makes the decision as to who is appointed?"

Mayor Green: “Are we talking about the Standing Committees?

Coun. Richter: “No, the mayor’s committees.”

Mayor Green: “Yeah, the mayor’s Standing Committees. I think that should be a discussion of council. I’m certainly prepared to have that discussion then. It’s really because of the Taskforce format in particular that I sort of want to keep that open. So we are not talking about a standing committee format in that case. In the area of protective services I think it really get’s down to basically just the quality of individuals that apply, their bio and their resume and I think council should be a part of that process.”

Coun. Richter: “OK, but I was going to suggest that if it’s a mayor’s committee, the mayor gets to make the choice."

Mayor Green: “Well I think technically I can pull that string if I have to, and I certainly want to show the discourse that I think is necessary to move this along. I’ll certainly make my feelings known. I feel comfortable going through that process”

Coun. Ferguson: “I guess the difference in a select committee and a standing committee… on a select committee you have a number of folks sitting around the table from the public, using Langley residents. [Example of Agricultural Committee given and other discussion]. Now the select committee you would have less people working maybe on specific things and it would come back to council, but you would have less members of the public involved. And I guess that would be the difference in philosophy. Would it be an issue of duplication or just less input from the public?”

“When would we be looking at some of these other mayor’s standing committees? And just looking at your list you have here and I know you’ve only talked about a couple. Horses, transportation, community, culture, and other things and I’m just wondering when they would come into place?”

Mayor Green: “I can’t answer that question.”

Coun. Ferguson: “You got kind of a guestimate or something?”

Mayor Green: “Um, no I don’t. Not at this moment.”

Coun. Ferguson: “OK, when would we be reviewing it again to look at it? A month from now? Two months from now? Six months from now?”

Mayor Green: “I…Councillor Ferguson I really can’t….we have an awful lot of work to do and to get through and budgeting and everything else in terms of priorities. I really can’t give you any indication at this point.”

Coun. Richter: “I had a question. Why do we need an Economic Development Taskforce? What’s the intent of this taskforce? What’s its mandate going to be? And similarly, why do we need a Protective Services Taskforce? What would it’s mandate be? And where I’m going with these questions is wouldn’t it be easier that instead of having these four committees, wouldn’t it be easier just to change the work plan for the select committees? So whatever task is being set before the Economic Development Taskforce…that we give that task to the select committee, and similarly with the Protective Services. But I’ve really like to know what the” [discussion ended abruptly by speaker as mayor injects his thoughts].

Mayor Green: “Well I think the…If I may. First of all let’s deal with the first one. The Standing Committee on Protective Services. In my view it deals probably in a higher overview of the issues surrounding policing and protective issues in our community. It involves…it might involve… yes it will involve fewer because you have to have 50% of that to be from members of council. But it will have a few key members of the community that can involve the community in the process. Involving the community in helping the police department and the fire department in terms of gathering assets, gathering donated assets and other things that may be supplied to the police department to allow them to do a better job, that may not be able to be provided through the regular budget process.”

“Secondly, the issue of the taskforce. I could I guess change the mandate of the Economic Development Committee. Other than to say a taskforce deals with a more focused view of in this particular case, economic development. What I would like them to look at is what I would call a 30,000 foot view of the Township of Langley. Where do we stand today in terms of our industrial and commercial land with a 100,000 population? Where are we going to stand in 13-15 or 20 years from now with a population of 168,000 to 200,000 population. How much acreage do we have available to us in industrial and commercial space? How unbalanced will our taxation be between residential and commercial and/industrial?”

“I think we all know that residential taxation…residential development doesn’t pay for itself. A lot of it is in the industrial/commercial tax area. I’d like to see them in a higher end and I think we have a number of people that are on the Economic Development Committee that could morph into this. But essentially develop a tax model for the municipality going forward, and what that might look like recognizing their interest and involvement in economic development and business. And they will bring a private view, a private enterprise view if you will, of where our challenges are going to be. Where our challenges are going to be in transportation, location, and what does that look like?...

Coun. Richter: “Well I guess where I’m coming from is that usually with a taskforce they have a specific mandate or end point and what you just said is basically you want a tax model for the municipality with regards to industrial, commercial, and residential. That’s the end point. That’s what you want them to come up with. Now looking at our existing Economic Development Commission, I don’t understand why they couldn’t do that job. I think they would be quite capable of doing that job, and it might be very meaningful work for them to be doing."

"Secondly with regards to Protective Services, again, what is the end point? Is the end point for them to come up with a recommendation that there be a police commission, or an assessment of whether there should be a police commission. If that’s the end point then it should be specified. And that may be something that the Community Safety group could do."

"It seems to me that one of the criticisms that was levied against our committee structure prior to the review was that there are good and well-meaning and capable individuals in the community, that are spinning their wheels at these meetings and not achieving allot. I would not want to see us create a parallel or duplicate structure that’s going to result in the same thing. I think if we can meld the two together, we kill two birds with one stone. We give meaningful work to the committees that already exist and we get the end points that we want to have achieved."

"So my recommendation is that instead of having separate committees or suspending committees, I’d just change the work plan for the Select Committees to focus them in on the next year on those specific end points.”

[Mayor’s discussion of Community Charter not allowing a Police Board and his views of a taskforce and what that looks like (project focused).]

Coun. Richter: “I see duplication. If we are going to have 8 different taskforces of the mayor, all with 3 members of council, council is not going to have any time to do anything else other than to go to these committee meetings. And I am concerned about that.”

Mayor Green: “I would suggest that won’t be the case.”

Coun. Richter: “And not just council, but staff members as well. I mean it takes an incredible amount of staff resources to run these committees.”

[Editor’s note of Councillor Bateman’s nodding of head in agreement to Councillor Richter’s statements. How much does all this staff time cost as Coun. Richter pointed out?]

[Coun. Kositsky comments about all of the volunteers that have applied for committees and are awaiting word on their applications since December. He also pointed out the Bylaw for the various committees and doesn’t understand how the mayor can suspend committees now in violation of the Bylaw.]

Coun. Kositsky: “These are council advisory committees and the mayor can form any committees he wants, but for the sake of the volunteers we need some direction Your Worship”

[Mayor directs discussion to Mark Bakken, TOL Administrator for comment. Mayor promises Terms of Reference for next council meeting.]

[Bob Long moves to move forward with Youth Commission and Parks. Administrator suggests discussion in Special Closed session during dinner break. Mayor suggests all committee appointments happen at the same time.]

End of public discussion on this topic.

Councillor Kositsky wrote a Letter to the Editor in the Langley Times.

Council Recap Coming Soon

The Editorial Board of the Langley Record is sitting around with cups of coffee and watching the US Presidential Inauguration of Barack Obama. Our faithful TOL Council representative has recorded the two council meetings as he started to do for us last week and later today and tonight we will be posting our council recap.

Our representative did comment as he dropped the recording off to us, that Mayor Rick Green starting in the last council meeting and now this one to change direction. As we said, we will report the good, the bad and the ugly. This is really good for the taxpayers of the TOL, in that Mayor Rick has for the most part, put aside the campaign rhetoric and is getting down to work WITH council. That is refreshing and greatly needed, and we congratulate the mayor on his decision to engage council and get things done.  More to come later today!

Advance Notice - Important Council Meeting This Monday

District Heating

Last year Councillor Jordan Bateman moved a motion to have staff investigate the provision of District Heating in new neighbourhoods. This innovative and green energy solution to use such things as geothermal sources to heat large areas of homes has been looked at and staff have now issued The Potential for District Heating in New Neighbourhoods report.

There is now a recommendation that council receive this report and approve a pre-feasibility study to identify potential opportunities and energy cources available to operate heating systems within the TOL. This could lead to much cheaper heating for residents and some potential cash generation for the Township. If devleopers are required to install these systems as part of the development process and the TOL created a public utility, there is the potential for profit. This discussion will take place in the 4:00pm Special Council Meeting. You can read the full staff report here.

Roundabouts

Also during the Special Council Meeting at 4:00pm, staff will be making a presentation on roundabouts. This should be interesting and we assume that staff will be supporting this traffic calming tool where strategic.

Brown's Pit

The Province of BC plans to use Brown's Pit for gravel extraction and was a vone of contention during last year's municipal election in the TOL. But the Township is a creation of the provincial government and can do little to halt this plan by the province. During this week's regular council meeting on Monday, January 19, 2009 at 7:00pm, several deletions will be speaking about the Brown Pit plan.

Mufford Cresent Overpass

Another big election topic centered around the long-proposed Mufford overpass project with many residents claiming that no prior public consultations took place. We previously outlined the process and clearly there was some consultations. People simply miss them at times and then blame others for their mistakes. At the end of this Monday's council meeting under Other Business there are two motions related to the Mufford overpass.

Notice of Motion By Councillor Kim Richter at the January 12, 2009 Regular Meeting of Council:

Mufford Crescent / Glover Road
Whereas the Mufford/Glover Overpass is a significant development and financial project, and all of Council should hear from the public on this matter; therefore

Be it resolved that a public hearing style of Council meeting be held following the open houses so that all members of Council can hear from the residents.

LR Editor's Note: Not bad...short and to the point!

Councillor Kositsky presented the following Notice of Motion within the deadlines according to Council’s Policy:

Mufford Crescent / Glover Road
Whereas a lot of time, energy and money has been spent on trying to address the traffic safety issues surrounding the T-intersection at Mufford Crescent and Highway 10; and

Whereas Langley Township has been preparing various options to take to the public for consideration and review, including presentations to Council from citizen groups and individuals; and

Whereas all of those options involve using farmland and sensitive environmental areas; and

Whereas the Township of Langley will be facing critical financial challenges due to the global economic downturn - and the federal and provincial governments are talking about looming deficits, forcing local governments to carefully evaluate their priorities; and

Whereas the majority of the traffic safety problems and congestion at the T-intersection are caused by having two railway crossings too close together;

Be it resolved that Langley Township Council direct staff for safety purposes to close the T-intersection at Mufford Crescent, such as putting up proper fencing along the tracks and/or cement blocks to impede traffic; and

That Mufford Crescent become a local traffic only road, making it safer for existing businesses to operate, with a cul-de-sac created (as necessary) west of the train tracks and an alternate route be explored with Langley City to allow traffic to flow back to the Highway 10 Bypass through 62nd Avenue; and

That any Township of Langley funds currently set aside for the proposed Mufford overpass and new road project be directed to improvements to 208th Street from the 62nd Avenue border with the City to 96th Avenue, where there will be connections with the Golden Ears Bridge; and

That the 208th Street upgrade also include completing the 208th Street Highway One overpass to full interchange status, expanding it to four lanes and creating on and off ramps, as it was designed for; and

That the Township of Langley apply for funding to both the Gateway project, Translink and any federal government infrastructure grants for the improvements to 208th Street and highway interchange.

LR Editor's Note: OK, so Councillor Richter is no the only one to write long motions, but in this case we should all agree it was warranted based on the description required.