Dear Members,

We just booked our venue to hold our first meeting to provide you the opportunity to ask questions and get information about the petition (based on the MOU).  

Our meeting will be held at: 

NUP on May 24th, 2012 at 7:00pm

Hope to see you there!



Your Board

Hi all,

Want to thank you for coming out last night. It was a major step for resolving our long standing issues and both motions/amendments to the MOU passed last night.

I want to speak specifically to those motions and in talking to board member Lorraine Hewlett after meeting, she is absolutely correct that I must give clarification regarding the intent of pushing for a cap but then resorting to the two motions that passed last night.

My intent initially was to push for a cap on $358.00 and accept nothing less. What we got last night could potentially be better than a cap and it basically is in my mind.

We now have a three year promise in writing that the City will work with us to continue to find additonal sources of potential funding in order to lower the monthly LIC payment. My point is that throughout the life of the project you investigate for more dollars to help and the City is committed to assisting with that in writing. In addition, if any members feel the LIC is too high, they now have the opportunity and time to invest in lowering the payment and contributing in some fashion. In essance, if your not happy with the payment you now have an opportunity to do something about it for an extended period of time. Don’t complain… find a solution.

Also, we are not just specifically tied to working together with the City to lobby GNWT for lower interest rate and not just the Housing Corp issue. The motion passed last night opens up potentially all kinds of funding opportunities, some we know nothing of right now.

The second motion passed last night speaks specifically to the “rules” of the cap, if you will. When we are pushing for a cap, what that means is the City will have to physically sink dollars in if the project exceeds the estimated budget. The City has always maintained that they can’t do that due to the legislative constraints of the CTV Act (Cities, Towns and Villages Act). They say that we are private among other things so their hands are tied and can’t put money in for overages.

In the short whirlwind of this previous week leading up to Council mtg  and in talking to councillors, specifically Mr. Bob Brookes, I came to the conclusion that we needed to investigate and rectify this while still proceeding with the deal. Through the assistance of Mr. Grant Rice we seemed to be getting a different message from MACA that maybe there were possibilities for qualifying for funding. The working group was a recommmendation directly from MACA.

With the motion and MOU passed last night, now we can proceed and investigate in front of MACA and City officials where, and how, and if the Condo Corp is legislatively able to access funding through the City. Some items to be discussed would be tenure and how Condo Corp would qualify given it’s classification in City and MACA’s eyes that we are private.

The City is now committed in writing to fully investigate these issues with us to possibly open other doors. At the very least, everyone will be at the same table and get the same answers and we have good clear understanding and can take direction from there.

So in essance, no we did not get the cap last night but we have a commitment to investigate even the possibility of the City doing a cap. Secondly, I believe between these two motions we have a path to some clarity and a path to funding opportunities that we would never have had the chance to explore because the motion is broad and the City is committed now in writing to help us access any/all funding opportunities on that broad basis over the life of the project. As well, it puts some ownership back in members hands if they are unhappy with the $358.00 per month, they now have the opportunity to find solutions and help… and not just complain.

Please do not forget about the other areas that can bring down the $358 figure as well. The closer we can get to $220.00, the closer we break even, we have new infrastructure and the city then has the roads. Right now we are paying $220.00 forever.

Thank you all. I hope this helps.

I must also inform you that I am stepping back from this process. Will attend information sessions and be there as a resource. I will also see the working group through so we can get clarification from MACA on some major items.

Thank you again everyone and we need to stay focused on big picture with no in-fighting.

Trevor Kasteel

Kasteel Konstruction Inc.

ph:  867-445-2800

email: tkasteel@theedge.ca

Trevor had asked that we take down the posting in response to a member's email from May 14th.  Some of the information in his answers were not entirely accurate in regards to points that MACA had said.  Maintaining a relationship with governing bodies is of the utmost importance as we move forward and truly apologize for any miscommunication that might have occured.

Here is an email that came in regarding the City Council meeting on May 14th.  Northlands member attendance is strongly encouraged.

Hello Everyone,

This is a crucial time and as a Northlands resident I am asking for your help.  Please come to the Monday, May 14th meeting, 7pm at City Hall to help Northlands ensure that the monthly amount in the MOU is guaranteed.  It has been asked that the City agree to charge a set amount for replacing the infrastructure and for them to be responsible for any costs that run over the local improvement tax amount agreed to in the Memorandum of Understanding.  Trevor Kasteel, a member of the negotiations committee, has given me permission to forward an email that will give you more information of what he would like Northlands to stand up for.  His email is provided below.

Please come out to Monday's meeting!  In this meeting the MOU is likely to be passed and we can move forward.  Show your support for ensuring that our costs remain as agreed to, and be informed!

Thank you,

Cheryl Fountain


__________________________________________________________________________________________
Trevor Kasteel Email:
Subject: Council meeting - MOU
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 12:07:31 -0600


There are several things I want to make you all aware of going into Council on Monday regarding the MOU as it currently stands. I cannot support the MOU as it exists without the cap as promised from City administration in negotiations. City would cover anything exceeding $358.00.

We instructed our legal counsel to include this and he sent it back to City with that revision several times. The MOU still went forward without this to Committee last week. Now politically we will look bad in satlling this but I will address this Monday.

 Did inform Wade of this and am now contacting all councillors as well a board member will be contacting the Mayor directly for me. 

The biggest thing for both sides is we all want to see the deal get done right away and nothing slowing it down BUT this is huge. If I can get enough councillors on board with this going into Monday meeting then we will be good. The only way I see it working for everyone is to get the MOU passed Monday night, but get it passed with an amendment that they cap it and we will be prepared for their (administration’s) legislative argument against it.

We have no security with not having a say in management of project and on top of that being responsible for overages (anything over and above the $358.00 per month). I plan on making a presentation to Council concerning this main issue and backing it up. Have met with Grant Rice again yesterday regarding specifically Gas Tax and he is also doing some legislative research for me to prepare for Monday. See below for several points and arguments for Monday presentation:

1.       All we are asking is for the City to include what they said in negotiations.

2.       We need that security.

3.       If the City is responsible too financially, they will have a fire lit under them to truly work as hard as possible together to find alternative sources oif funding to make sure this never does exceed $358.00 per month. On top of that they will be ever so diligent during the construction of the project if they are responsible as well for any overages. Bottomline, they will be forced to care more about the efficiency of the project.

4.       We have been a cash cow for the City in many, many ways over the year. Water wastage fees, high tax assessments which were lowered through appeal, individual water access fees on monthly water bills instead of one access fee for whole park if we are truly private, infrastructure levy fee, etc.

5.       Need to see cap amnedment made on Mou at Council and we will proceed with signing off on deal and not hold anything up.

6.   Admin knew our stand that cap needed to be included. This was put forth to Council without it and I almost think on purpose politically so we are backed into a corner to just accept because the alternative is we willl be looked upon as being the ones to be difficult and potentially causing harm to the overall deal.

7.   With in the MOU it says the City needs to work with us to explore any/every avenue to keep costs down and already from Monday they are not too supportive of Grant’s presentation and have not included cap. We haven’t even signed the deal yet and they are already showing signs of questionable support. This point alone shows me that we need to protect ourselves now because once we sign they will only honour what is signed.

8.   There is a lot more I want to write but I honestly don’t have the time.

We need to have the place packed of Northlands residents. More than ever before. This position needs support… HUGE! If people were ever going to come out for a meeting, this is the one we need them at. Pack the place and politically it very well could sway the cap into place. Please, please get as many people from Northlands out to this meeting and even if they are lined out past the doors it will show that if the cap is in place people that are there are willing to0 sign off on the deal on our behalf. This will be a huge influence on the outcome  of this cap amendment.

Please work on getting a ton of people out for Monday and I don’t care if they are standing in the lobby because it is so full. The bodies will show solidarity.

If overwhelming majority of people feel I am on the wrong path for them going into this then I will withdraw. I should honestly give you all that option as well. I will not make the presentation and I would withdraw from the Infrastructure committee if vast majority like deal as is.

Thank you all.

Trevor Kasteel

Kasteel Konstruction Inc.

ph:  867-445-2800

email: tkasteel@theedge.ca

Email from Member:
Good Afternoon
 
In reading the newspaper today there seems to be a little bit of light occuring with regards to the MOU.  Before I sign or agree to anything, can I have the following answered:
 
1. what happens to those individuals still in arrears with their condo fees?
2. Individuals who are in arrears with city taxes, will this have any impact on getting the MOU approved?
3. once the city does take over, that will mean Condo 8 will no longer exist, correct? It will be one monthly payment of approximately $358 and no condo fee, right.
 
Thank you,

Board Response:
Dear Member,

Persons in arrears for their condo fees will still be subject to collections until all arrears are paid.  Arrears of city taxes will not interfere with the local improvement tax proposed by the MOU agreement.
If the city does take over Northlands there is no need for Condo 8 but condo owners need to agree and follow a process to dissolve the condo.  The goal is to have only the payment for the local improvement tax when that tax is charged.  As we understand it, the idea is to have only condo fees until the infrastructure is fixed, then condo fees will end and the local improvement charge of $358 will commence from there. 

Thank you for your time and questions.
Sincerely,

Your Board

City Council reviewed the draft MOU yesterday. Councillor Bob Brooks has requested some amendments. The MOU is scheduled to return to City Council for review, next Monday(May 14th).

Dear Editor,

I feel I must provide some factual clarification to the current process and current state of negotiations with the City of Yellowknife to resolve the Northlands (Condo Corp #8) Infrastructure issue.  While it is not prudent on our part as the infrastructure committee to comment on the particulars of the negotiations there definitely needs to be some clarity given the lengthy process and publicity about it.

Firstly, Northlands Infrastructure committee is not willing to settle for anything that we believe is unfair or dead wrong.  We can appreciate that maybe the City of Yellowknife administration's negotiation team has pretty well exhausted all the avenues that they can but it will take the next step politically to this this deal done.

I want to emphasize very strongly that we as a committee are committed to getting this deal done, our focus is to break ground this summer/fall for the first phase, and we are working hard behind the scenes to achieve that.

While it may not look like that to the general public, we have to respect the confidentiality of these negotiations with the City and we must do our due diligence in having our respective legal counsel review and negotiate the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) with us as well.

It is not worth it to get into a blame game and say one side is causing  major delays and the other is being unreasonable or vice-versa.  We are in serious negotiations for a major infrastructure replacement for millions of dollars and it needs to be done right.

Again, it is our focus as a committee to get this done as soon as possible but more importantly... with a document that will pass when our membership votes.  There are a lot of variables we are juggling here and I would ask for everyone's understanding and patience regarding that.

I want to publicly thank the other volunteer infrastructure committee members, Mr. Wade Friesen (Chair), Ms. Pearl Benyk, and Mr. Aldin Jansen.

This letter is authorized by the Condo Corp #8 Board and the Condo Corp #8 Infrastructure Committee.  It was also made available to the City of Yellowknife in advance and in good faith.

Sincerely,

Trevor Kasteel
Condo Corporation #8 Infrastructure Committee Member

Condo Member wrote:

Hi there,
 
Just to clarify.  If we get the loan from the City are those fees on top of what we pay in condo fees right now?  For example, 3% interest over 25 years is $331 + $220 in condo fees = $551? 
 
Thanks,


Member


Board's response:
Dear Member,

Good question.  As it stands right now, we will be paying our condo fees until the the replacement of the infrastructure is complete.  Once this has been done and our  infrastructure is up to City standards, the City of Yellowknife will take over responsibility for our infrastructure and we will begin paying for the new infrastructure through a local improvement charge (LIC) which we will pay monthly to the City.

The property improvement tax will take the place of the Condo fee.  We will continue to pay the monthly $220 condo fee to the condo corp to  maintain our existing infrastructure until the replacement is complete. The new local improvement charge, to be paid to  the City, will kick in once the work is complete.  At this point we cannot speculate what the final monthly amount we will be paying to the City will be. The figures of $331 a month for 25 years (based on 3% interest rate on our individual portions of the loan) is an estimation.  The factors that will affect what our final individual monthly costs will be are the interest at the time of borrowing the money and how much the actual cost of the project turns out to be. The figures we are working with include a contingency fee to cover any unforseen expenses. So our final cost will be affected by how much of the contingency amount is actually used.
 
At the time when we sign the MOU, we will be agreeing to pay the monthly amount named on the MOU. If the contingency amount is not used, or if there are other savings during the project, those will reduce the monthly amount we will have to pay.   If there are unforeseen cost over-runs encountered during the replacement, we will not have to pay any more than the amount we agreed to by signing the MOU. That figure will be the maximum figure, it  can only go down, not up. The amount will also be reduced by any funds the Condo Corp has which can be used to pay down the cost - this includes things like the sale of any of our common properties and the amount of the condo fees which the condo corp has collected and not used to maintain the infrastructure or manage the trailer park.  
 
At this point there has been no decision made yet about whether the condo will be dissolved after the infrastructure replacment has been completed. One reason for not dissolving the condo corp would be to maintain the property lines as they now stand.  Before the condo corp could  be dissolved the property lines would need to be re-surveyed.  If the condo corp is not dissolved, the condo fees would be very small as there would be no infrastructure to maintain.

The condo board is striving for the lowest possible cost to replace the infrastructure so that the members will have only a single monthly amount to pay the City - something in the mid to low $300 range.

Thank you for your inquiry.  Hope this answers your question,

Your Board