* INCUMBENTS
NAME
Margie Goodman
Richard Walton*
Holly Back
Roger Bassam*
Howard Dahl
Doug MacKay-Dunn*
John Gilmour
AGE
67
61
61
42
52
"
54
OCCUPATION?
Retired
Mayor; chartered accountant
Business owner of salon and hairdressing school
IT consultant; Councillor
Professional engineer; small business owner
Retired police inspector; Councillor
Real estate development
LIST ANY POLITICAL PARTY MEMBERSHIP(S):
Liberal
No answer provided
No answer provided
No answer provided
Federal Conservative, B.C. Liberal
Conservative
No answer provided
HAVE YOU RECEIVED CUPE SPONSORSHIP?
No
Endorsed, not funded
Endorsed but not funded
No
No
No
Yes
ARE YOU SOLICITING CUPE SPONSORSHIP?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
DO YOU LIVE IN THE DISTRICT? FOR HOW LONG?
45 years
36 years
61 years
28 years
Eight years
31 years
42 years
INCUMBENT: YEARS ON COUNCIL?
Nine years
Three years
Nine years
NON-INCUMBENTS: LIST MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND/OR RATEPAYER ASSOCIATION EXPERIENCE.
Two terms school trustee; waterfront task force; recreation commissioner; Deep Cove Ratepayers Association
School trustee; Youth Justice Committee; Finance and Facilities; Chamber of Commerce
President, Lynn Valley Community Association 2007-2011; president, Friends of the North Vancouver Museum and Archives
WHAT ARE YOUR PRIORITY CHANGES IF ELECTED?
Amalgamation with city and getting voters to polls - but do not vote for me.
Implement communitydeveloped OCP; careful management of core infrastructure assets; careful stewardship of natural capital; gradual shift of housing types to meet young family/ elderly needs.
Better future for our youth on the North Shore; good fi scal management; broader "shared vision" with City of North Vancouver and North Vancouver school district.
Renegotiating several intergovernmental service agreements (First Nations, RCMP, fi re services and recycling); detailed planning of the town centres; William Griffi n replacement project.
No tax increase next year.
Use the OCP affordable housing policies, goals and objectives to develop an affordable housing strategy, providing more options for different residents' ages, needs and incomes.
Mandate the planning department to implement the offi cial community plan network of centres concept; prevent massive tax increases by implementing common sense solutions to challenges.
WITH HIGH PROPERTY TAXES, MUNICIPAL FEES AND COMING UTILITY PAIN, IS IT TIME TO CUT MUNICIPAL SERVICES?
Better fi scal management.
Public "wants" must fit into economic strategy that residents can afford. Core infrastructure assets (roads and water/waste) and safety services (public, maintenance) must seek efficiencies. Heavy utility investments imposed by senior governments require financial support or local tax base is not sustainable and social and wellness services will erode.
Time to cut municipal services? Perhaps undertake a core services review for the purpose of looking at what the district is mandated to do versus what is discretionary. Community dialogue around what discretionary services they are prepared to give up to hold the line on cost increases and taxes.
Renegotiate our service agreements to save millions. Change the GVS&DD agreement and/or obtain provincial/ federal project funding to lessen the impact of utility increases. Then we can project our future taxes more accurately and decide if cuts are warranted. Great facilities, services improve the quality of life in the district!
Last resort would be to cut municipal services but need to keep to no increase.
No. But it is time to focus on what we must do rather than what would be nice to do. If tax restraint is what the community wants, then hard decisions have to be made in the fi rst three months of the new term. Core services stay, frills don't.
It's time to start exploring means to generate revenue on the North Shore for the benefi t of the municipalities. Cutting services may be possible in some areas but the largest components of the budget are police, fi re and recreation. It will be a big challenge as revenues have recently reduced.
SHOULD THE DISTRICT AMALGAMATE WITH THE CITY OF NORTH VANCOUVER?
Yes
District is completely open to amalgamation within North Shore community. We actively pursue all opportunities for shared services to reduce public burden.
The city has no interest. I support a continuation of pursuing shared services where and when they make sense. This achieves many of the same effi ciencies.
Yes! I fi rmly believe the taxpayers in both the city and district will see signifi cant savings with no reduction in the quality of municipal services.
At the very least more sharing of services and moving toward amalgamation if it will reduce costs.
Yes. If an independent "blue-ribbon" committee recommends it after an independent and comprehensive costbenefi t analysis has been conducted and the citizenry consulted.
City residents fear their taxes will rise substantially. There is not much difference in tax rates at this time, subject to future infrastructure costs.
SHOULD METRO DIRECTORS BE DIRECTLY ELECTED?
Yes
A "yes" or "no" answer not provided as asked.
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
IS THE DISTRICT MANAGING GROWTH APPROPRIATELY?
No
Our community wants low growth but cost of housing and aging demographics provide livability concerns. OCP stresses inclusiveness and a vibrant community for all ages.
Since 1999, the district adopted a slow growth approach. I think this has served the district well and has resulted in more in-fi ll housing.
The OCP directs the majority of change to our four town centres. This allows growth while preserving the quality and character of our residential neighbourhoods.
Passing grade.
Yes, generally. The OCP has identifi ed centres to isolate growth; this strategy which will distribute growth more fairly with full community consultation.
The district has been extremely consultative making for slow progress. We need innovative solutions for the right growth to meet emerging needs.
YOUR WEBSITE?
www.waltonformayor.ca
Voteforholly.com
www.RogerBassam.ca
Howarddahl.ca
www.dougmackay-dunn. com
* INCUMBENTS
NAME
Robin Hicks*
Mike Little*
Kevin Macauley
Lisa Muri*
Alan Nixon*
Austin Park
Wendy Qureshi
AGE
65
35
54
46
63
28
56
OCCUPATION?
Chartered accountant; Councillor
Lumber exporter; Councillor
Retired fi refi ghter
Mother, Councillor
Realtor, vice-president and managing broker
SFU management informations systems business, IT consultant
Retired (communications)
LIST ANY POLITICAL PARTY MEMBERSHIP(S):
No answer provided
Federal Conservative; B.C. Liberal
None
None
B.C. Liberal Party
None
B.C. Conservative Party
HAVE YOU RECEIVED CUPE SPONSORSHIP?
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
ARE YOU SOLICITING CUPE SPONSORSHIP?
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
DO YOU LIVE IN THE DISTRICT? FOR HOW LONG?
33 years
35 years
27 years
46 years
58 years
16 years
16 years
INCUMBENT: YEARS ON COUNCIL?
Six years
Six years
15 years
Nine years
NON-INCUMBENTS: LIST MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND/OR RATEPAYER ASSOCIATION EXPERIENCE.
Several committees as a fi re service rep. i.e. emergency, diversity, combined service, fi re master plans.
I am a Neighborhood Block Watch captain
Director, North Shore Safety Council; anti-HST campaigner
WHAT ARE YOUR PRIORITY CHANGES IF ELECTED?
Service delivery rationalization and elimination as outlined below. Then intervention in burgeoning regional government services and levies such as TransLink and Metro costs for sewage.
We need to update the town centre plans. I will support new developments, but make certain they take responsibility for their impacts, including parking requirements.
New ways to communicate with residents; better relationships with other agencies; look at ways to better manage large projects.
Review new opportunities to deliver services while maintaining quality of life. Housing policy: How we maintain older affordable multi-family, while implementing OCP goals for more diverse housing.
Ensuring a more meaningful, more inclusive budget consultation and development process; Ensuring a more easily navigable process for citizens to interact with the district bureaucracy.
The biggest challenge in my opinion is effi ciency in dealing with affordable housing crisis, police cost overruns, sustainability of energy use and environment, traffi c bottlenecks.
More transparency in government, more public engagement, slower and more prudent densifi cation, and muchneeded upgrades of infrastructure, especially asbestos-cement water mains.
WITH HIGH PROPERTY TAXES, MUNICIPAL FEES AND COMING UTILITY PAIN, IS IT TIME TO CUT MUNICIPAL SERVICES?
We are taking a twopronged approach. Firstly, we will review and prioritize our range of services through a public consultation process, in which we will test cuts and reductions for reasonableness. We will also streamline service delivery through reorganization, partnerships and consolidation of business units.
Yes, we have trimmed 25 positions over the last two budgets without major service disruptions, but trimming will only get us so far. Our council has initiated a top-to-bottom service review, which will require your feedback to help us prioritize and cut some services.
I believe the district has tried with some success to maintain services in a more cost-effective way. A review of the costs within the metro region and how that can be better contained may be a way to relieve the pressure.
We need to prioritize the community's expectations of services with the costs that it takes to deliver that service. We are currently performing a survey with residents to determine those priorities, then we will test those opinions with additional residents in order to make decisions for new service models
We are currently surveying our residents to determine the services they rate as most important in their lives as well as determining their support, or lack thereof, to move to a more robust "user-pay" model of consumption. This will permit informed council decisions about the methods of funding services.
No, the only way to keep current property taxes and other fees in check is to analyze the current ineffi ciencies within the services offered and try to reduce expenses of offering the municipal services before cutting the services completely. Blindly raising all taxes and fees is not the answer.
No. Services do not need to be cut if cuts are made elsewhere. The bureaucracy needs to be chopped through amalgamation and wage freezes. We defi nitely don't need two fi re departments. And we most especially need a municipal auditor.
SHOULD THE DISTRICT AMALGAMATE WITH THE CITY OF NORTH VANCOUVER?
In principle yes, but in practice probably not achievable. So we need to extend shared services, partnerships and consolidation of delivery units.
Yes. We would save on administration costs, benefi t from economies of scale, and standardize services for our businesses. It would lower the cost of government.
I believe that amalgamation would be a good thing, but the parties have to want to do it with the goal of making it better for everyone.
The city and the district have a responsibility to taxpayers to, at the very least, study the advantages and disadvantages of amalgamation.
Absolutely there should be an amalgamation! However Victoria insists on a "willing dance partner" before proceeding to a plebiscite. That seems unlikely at this time.
Yes, only if amalgamating the district and city will save costs and cut red tape in offering effi cient community services.
Yes. We don't need two sets of bureaucracy. It's not just money, it's safety when it comes to having two fi re departments.
SHOULD METRO DIRECTORS BE DIRECTLY ELECTED?
Yes
A "yes" or "no" answer not provided as asked.
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
IS THE DISTRICT MANAGING GROWTH APPROPRIATELY?
Yes, we're a slow-growth municipality; although planning for an increase over the next 20 years, this will take place gradually (less than 1.5 per cent per year).
Yes, growth is like taxes, we accept the least necessary to get what we want. Balancing growth concerns with community service demands has been top priority.
I think that there needs to be more focus on the balance between growth and infrastructure.
Future growth will be contained in town and village centres, close to transportation and bridgeheads. We continue extensive dialogue to determine best outcomes.
I believe we are! We will continue to direct growth to existing transit corridors and those areas where we have support of the impacted neighbourhoods.
No. The district must support more affordable residential growth through more real estate development economically and naturally over time rather than building new affordable housing.
No. Many people opposed to the Pacifi c Arbour proposal, yet unanimously approved even though in total violation of the Seymour OCP.
YOUR WEBSITE?
www.robinhicks.org
www.mikelittle.ca
www.kevinmacauley .com
www.lisamuri.com
www.alannixon.com
www.facebook.com/ jeungkipark
wendyqureshi.ca
