To breakfast at Jonathan's hosted by M.P.Lois Brown. I decided yesterday I should go. I might get a chance to bring up the agreement with the federal government for lease of the town- owned Hydro building.
I think it's illegal.
The breakfast was from 8 to 10. I logged in at around 7 a.m. and thought I could write that last post and be on my way.
Then I thought about all the items on to-night's agenda I need to call for discussion. I have four motions to present. I need to make notes.
But about the hydro building lease; I talked to Ms.Brown about it during the election. I made a request for the Minister to hold off signing the agreement. I pointed out Councils are not supposed to make substantive commitments after candidate registrations close. The term at that point is a lame duck.
The member mumbled something about not being familiar with the Municipal Act and majority decisions. I knew then the conversation was falling on deaf ears.
Days later the Mayor triumphantly announced the Minister had signed the lease.
It may not have been true.
The announcement about an agreement with the Department of National Defense was made in September 2010.
During budget discussion in 2011, I inquired where rental revenue for the facility would show in receivables.
The treasurer responded there had been none until February 1st.
Rent, we were informed. was $139.Ks.per annum.
We spent more than $200Ks on the building to make it ready.
We vacated it in September or thereabouts.
The parks department were making good use of it.
I heard, after Morris' defeat in October, an amendment to the lease had been signed. Date for rent to start was moved forward three months, until February 1st.
We forfeited use of a building we owned and were using to our advantage, spent more than $200Ks for improvements for the tenant , for rent of $139ks that didn't start until 6 months after we vacated.
It's a ten year lease, no termination clause. The building is still vacant a year later. We have a couple hundred thousand dollars in the capital forecast for maintenance because we are landlord and responsible for maintenance.
Net rental revenue therefore is not what it was said to be.
Being a landlord is not part of a municipality's mandate.
We cannot sell property we own without declaring it surplus to our needs.
There's talk of Queen's York Rangers disposing of the Armories, their home for the last hundred and fifty years.
Does that mean they feel they are safely ensconced in a building owned by the municipality?
Does it mean, by sleight of hand, we have suddenly become responsible for accommodating the Department of National Defence at the expense of Aurora home owners and business operators?
Does it mean, although we cannot sell property unless it is surplus to our needs, we can give it away for next to nothing?
Does it mean this council can sleep comfortably in their beds at night knowing the best financial interests of the community, for which we are accountable, are being served?
I think not.
Sending you a big hug which you clearly need.
ReplyDeleteTake care of yourself, please.
Sending you a big hug which you clearly need.
ReplyDeleteTake care of yourself, please.
Off Topic
ReplyDeleteNotsure if it is still possible but unemployed
graduates in Arts used to get a list of all the
available Canada Grants and try to find one that they
could fill. It sometimes turned out to be a good
idea.
Maybe just an idea for you rather then a post ?
Sometime they just need a shove.
Evelyn
ReplyDeleteBe careful.
I also know I am ruffling feathers and people are getting nervous.
Dear Evelyn:
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't belong here. It's a story that first appeared on BBC World News and then on CNN International.
Apparently a drunken moose ended up stuck in a Swedish apple tree. It had been eating fermented apples.
The picture can't be reproduced from the BBC but can from CNN.
Please pass this along to Christopher Watts so that he can obtain the photo of the glassy-eyed creature for future reference to moose stories.
Thanks.
Anonymous - 9:05 AM
ReplyDeleteIt wouldn't shock me to learn that it was the very same moose and had considered tying in that imagery but took my post in a different direction.
Thanks for the heads up on image rights, its kind of the reverse of what I would have expected.