If you are having problems reading the letter below, just click on the letter and it should pop up.
For more Information on this story check out what the CNP ratepayers have to say in today Pass Herald http://www.passherald.ca/
 |
I filed a request for information on the secret "briefing meeting" and a few other issues, above is what I received back. First impression is that they are telling me little but some of what they have provided me is very revealing.
First of all these "briefing meetings" have been going on for eighteen months since January 11 of 2012 why is it only in the last month that the CAO and or Councilors have felt the need to tell the public these meeting are taking place.
Mayor and councilors have received $1890 for attending these meetings, the information supplied to me surprisingly there was not a need for a "informal verbal briefing" meeting for eight months.
My next two questions indicate that council was given no information, documentation, plus out of those meeting came no direction, action plans etc. It leads one to ask why bother it sounds like the taxpayers paid almost $2,000 for council to listen to the CAO recite from memory (because there was no documentation available) a bunch of information that could have been put on paper and reviewed at a G+P meeting, if it was confidential under the terms of FOIP then it could have been dealt with at a regular meeting In Camera.
Then I requested information on the tenders on the demolition of the Crowsnest Centre, one of the conditions of the Medican agreement is that Medican receives a credit of $800,000 for demolition which is deducted of the purchase price of $1.3 million. Which is fine if that was what the true cost of demolition is, but if we had quotes lower than that, say around the $560,000 mark then are the taxpayers receiving true value for this disposal of municipal assets?
From everything we have been told the agreement between the Municipality and Medican has been concluded in fact it was released by the municipality and placed on the Transparency CNP site (link to the right). Within the answer I received on that question the reason for not releasing the information I requested is that "negotiations are continuing relative to this property" So is there a deal in place or not?
Are we really just waiting for Best Western to bestow their name on this property or is there more to this story?
|
12 comments:
Dean, as far as anyone can tell, the word "briefing" was not part of what these meetings were called until the municipal review.
These meetings were called Administrative Meetings until questions were asked and then the name was changed to CAO Briefing.
As far as anyone can tell, these meetings started before Myron was made CAO.
Again, looking at what just happened, only recently, George Cuff was contacted by Myron to see how to legitimize the meetings and the name was changed, and most likely the format, right after that.
Poor CAO is left to defend a decision which was not made under his watch. They can spin this all they want.
John Irwin had a good advice for a problem of this nature: "if you want to get out of a hole, the first thing you need to do is to stop digging."
FOIP Frequently Asked Questions for Municipalities
linked on this page:
http://www.servicealberta.ca/foip/faqs.cfm
63. Can a municipality disclose bidders lists/lists of plan holders for municipal
projects to contractors, construction companies, agencies or other persons
on request?
•
Yes. A list of bidders for a municipal project should be routinely available on
request as part of an open tendering process. A FOIP request for this
information is not required.
25(1)(c) is discussed on page 191 of Chapter 4 linked on this page:
http://www.servicealberta.ca/foip/resources/guidelines-and-practices.cfm
The Request for Review form is linked on this page:
http://oipc.ab.ca/pages/Resources/Forms.aspx
No fee.
A supposed professional putting out a letter as the following;
cal me. My goodness, does she not have someone to proof her work. When someone puts out something like that, to me credibility is lost. Sorry.
I am having a really hard time believing that they did not meet for 8 months. Obviously the deal on the center site is far from done.
So what she is saying, Myron did all the talking and the Mayor sat on his hands. And the pigs fly.
"Within the answer I received on that question the reason for not releasing the information I requested is that 'negotiations are continuing relative to this property' So is there a deal in place or not?"
You asked about the demolition bids. Weren't those totally separate from the Hotel RFP? And I don't think the demolition bids were negotiated.
The FOIP Act says:
Offences and penalties
92(1) A person must not wilfully
...
(c)make a false statement to, or mislead or attempt to mislead, the Commissioner or another person in the performance of the duties, powers or functions of the Commissioner or other person under this Act,
...
(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not more than $10 000.
They will not tell us what the demo bids were? where is our transparent municipal government? this tells me there were bids less than the $800,000.
It really does not matter what the bids were. This deal will likely linger for few more months before going south. Next developer will do their own due-diligence
The contract is really just a conditional offer to purchase with a $25,000 deposit. Everything is negotiable until all the conditions are signed off.
I think(??) the only remaining condition is:
1(d)securing an agreement with a hotel chain for the Development ...
(contract p. 7)
(g)"Development" means construction of the Hotel ..."
(contract p. 1)
Does qualifying for a BW franchise satisfy that?
BTW, at the bottom of section (1) on page 7 it says that conditions "may only be waived in writing by the Purchaser". So they could waive 1(d)???
This looks like only an option to purchase and not like a conditional sale. It still makes no difference, no demolition unless someone else comes along, but not with this crew in still in charge.
Re; 02:15:00
And more of our money was spent on lawyers, on what will, most likely, turn into a bogus contract, that is fraught full of holes due to desperation?
Um....what happened to the two other mountains in the logo???? Is this just the case of a bad scan job, or is it morphing on it's own????
Post a Comment