The Process

As I mentioned in the prior article, the Community Charter of 2002 ensured that any municipal amalgamations in BC would be grassroots driven and could not be forced on an area like in Toronto, Ottawa or Halifax.

Step 1.  All involved Councils must pass a motion directing their staff to develop a plan for amalgamation. In our case, it is just the Councils of the City and the District.  A amalgamation committee is struck to guide the staff and to do public consultation.  The province will commit funds to develop the amalgamation plan and for the transition.

Step 2. Once the plan is done, the Councils ratify the plan.  Only a simple majority vote is required in the City and the District.

Step 3. Both municipalities have to submit this plan to ratified by referendum by their citizens.  A majority vote is required of both municipalities is required.

Step 4.  The Province issues one new "Letter of Patent" which is like the constitution of a municipality.  One North Vancouver is created.

The provincial government cannot force amalgamation, they or even the citizens cannot even force a binding referendum. Only a majority vote of both Councils can start the process so to achieve amalgamation we must get 4 Council votes in the City and 4 Council votes in the District.

The best and perhaps the only way to get those 4 votes is to elect Councillors who will vote for the amalgamation motion as in step 1.  United North Van will be running 2-4 candidates in the November 2014 and will choosing them in June of 2014.  In the City none of the elected Councillors support amalgamation, in the District most have publicly supported it but until a formal vote is taken, we don't know.  

At this point, it is likely that we need to run 4 candidates in the City and if one of profile steps forward, one of them should a Mayoral candidate.  We probably only need two candidates in the District. In October we shall be doing a delegation to both Councils and gauging support.

A letter from the then Minister explains the situation.

http://www.nsnews.com/opinion/letters/joint-services-always-an-option-1.369740#

The 1981 referendum

All the "talks" of the prior decades led to a referendum on whether to do a study or not in November 1981.

It barely failed with a very low turnout.  The Mayor was acclaimed, driving the turnout down.  Many pro-amalgamation supporters saw the "talks" as a tactic used by anti-amalgamation forces to prevent any real progress.

In 2002, the province created the Community Charter which removed the Province's ability to order any amalgamation in BC's municipalities, ensuring that chances would be grassroots driven.  Like Unite North Van.

UPDATE:  I found the report that had the details of the 21 November 1981 referendum.

"Are you in favour of the City of North Vancouver participating with the District of North Vancouver in a study by professional consultants to provide information to evaluate the relative merits of amalgamation between the City of North Vancouver and the District of North Vancouver, which may subsequently be the subject of a referendum?"

2491 voters voted No and 2184 voters voted Yes

Signs of amalgamation?

This is the old sign in front of the city plaza.

The word city is the focal point of the sign. North Vancouver is a lot smaller.

These two new signs after the expansion of City Hall.

These pictures are used in media stories and the webpage.   No mention of the City or the District.

As it should be an United North Van!

Letter - Graham Hadfield

DNV's hobbits have little vision

BY GRAHAM HADFIELD, NORTH SHORE NEWS FEBRUARY 6, 2013

Dear Editor:

District of North Vancouver councillors, can't see out of their own burrows, correction, borough.

Coun. Roger Bassam at least got one thing right: "the need for one municipal government on the North Shore."

The latest decision by the district not to fund a 50-metre pool jointly with the city clearly demonstrates this. Coun. Alan Nixon was the one lone voice of intelligence and common sense on council to question as nonsensical the funding of a 25-metre pool at the William Griffin Recreation Centre while the city funds a 25-metre pool at Harry Jerome two kilometres away.

You do not have to be an aquatic user residing on the North Shore to be angered by the district's decision. All tax-paying residents should be livid. Should the district's protection of its petty fiefdom triumph over simple common sense and economics? Or should we build a facility that would benefit the greater good of all residents on the North Shore irrespective of where they live, district or city, and cater to all user groups at a cheaper cost for us as taxpayers?

The reason and need for a 50-metre pool can be taken even further. Ron Andrews Recreation Centre on district land, although not slated for replacement, does have a limited lifespan, like all structures. With a 50-metre pool its replacement will not be necessary. Two for one or even three for one; lets do the math on that.

The only thing holding back a no-brainer solution is the location, basically being on the wrong side of the municipal street. The mindset of district council is reflected in comments like that of Coun. Lisa Muri: "I cannot recall us being asked for a contribution for a facility that's not within our municipality."

Coun. Bassam you hit the nail on the head: Yes, we do indeed need only one municipal government on the North Shore - and decisions like this will be easy.

Graham Hadfield North Vancouver

© Copyright (c) North Shore News

http://www.nsnews.com/news/hobbits+have+little+vision/7925280/story.html#ixzz2VTkPcPzR

Shaw TV - The Rush

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1bVsvrsgMg&feature=youtu.be&t=6s

Mussatto hates amalgamation because the District is not left wing and dense enough.

He informs us that talks are ongoing about different models of North Shore policing.

Update

The City has a paper hidden in secret on some kind of joint North Shore Fire Services.

Letter NSN Dorothy Chala

Let's keep pushing for a vote on amalgamation

BY DOROTHY CHALA, NORTH SHORE NEWS JANUARY 30, 2013

Dear Editor:

I was happy to see the "A word" on the front page of the North Shore News.

Mayor Darrell Mussatto's comments on why it wouldn't be a good idea seem pretty lame. 

Surely operating just one municipal hall, and all the salaries that go along with it, would save money to start with. Obviously the mayors do not want to lose their jobs, but the taxpayers are tired of paying such huge taxes each year, and usually always with an increase.

Let's keep some pressure on the governments in North and West Vancouver to at least put it to a vote. I'm sure the residents of the North Shore would welcome it.

Dorothy Chala North Vancouver

© Copyright (c) North Shore News

http://www.nsnews.com/business/keep+pushing+vote+amalgamation/7892435/story.html#ixzz2VTfoplQA

Biz community quizzes NV mayors

Amalgamation remains a hot topic

BY BRENT RICHTER, NORTH SHORE NEWS JANUARY 27, 2013

MAYORS Richard Walton and Darrell Mussatto listen to questions from the business community at a North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce luncheon meeting moderated by Mike Watson on Thursday.

Photograph by: NEWS photo , Mike Wakefield

IT was a fine luncheon until someone had to go and utter the "A-word."

The perennial amalgamation question came up for a captivated crowd of North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce members who leaned forward in their seats as the two North Vancouver mayors explained why the municipalities ought, or ought never, become one.

City Mayor Darrell Mussatto and district Mayor Richard Walton were guests of a chamber luncheon Thursday, to take questions from the business community.

The larger, yet less cash-flush district is perceived to have the most to gain from a hypothetical union, from the perspective of district council and taxpayers, Walton said.

 "I think, in the last 50 years, it's almost automatic with the district," Walton said. "I've never worked with a councilor who didn't support amalgamation."

The assertion drew laughs from the crowd when it was suggested city Coun. Don Bell, formerly the mayor of DNV, was a sleeper agent sent to bring about amalgamation from within the city.

But, Mussatto cautioned, while the thought of amalgamations of like-municipalities may "feel good," they rarely, if ever, result in the cost savings the local governments were hoping to see.

"The evidence is pretty clear if you do any research that if you do it for financial reasons, you're not going to save any money," he said.

Mussatto pointed to the 1996 amalgamation of Halifax, Dartmouth and Bedford as an example. Post-amalgamation, the city piled on millions more in debt in the ensuing years.

The reason, he stated, is that amalgamations come with nasty growing pains, as taxpayers in neither municipality are eager to see their services go down to match their neighbours' service levels, so servicing and costs go up for both former neighbours.

Differences in delivery of services between private sector and unionized city staff that have evolved in two local governments are also notoriously difficult to marry together, he added, citing garbage collection for multi-family residences and business as an example.

Instead, Mussatto suggested regional governance and financing for services like water, sewer and land use planning, exactly as Metro Vancouver operates, as a much better model.

Roughly half of those in attendance applauded. As for the notion of regional policing, it would likely come at the expense of local priority setting, Mussatto said, but added it would be West Vancouver that would stand to benefit most as its policing infrastructure and costs could be absorbed by a single North Shore police force, but would not lose any noticeable level of service.

While there appears to be no sign of a budge on the amalgamation issue, the two mayors were "joined at the hip" according to moderator Mike Watson on some other broader issues including philosophy on development and attraction of business to their respective jurisdictions.

In his opening remarks, Walton quoted from an American urban studies academic who found that cities that prosper today are ones that can attract the 20 to 40 demographic, which sadly, the district has been failing to do.

But hopefully, Walton said, the seeds of a more prosperous district lie in its new official community plan, which calls for denser, walkable urban centres, which tend to be more attractive and affordable for that demographic.

The city meanwhile is also trying to make itself equally desirable for businesses and a mix of younger residents, Mussatto said. While the development proposal for the Safeway site has been stalled and sent back to another public hearing, it is the type of development he would like to see in the city's core.

brichter@nsnews.com

© Copyright (c) North Shore News

http://www.nsnews.com/news/community+quizzes+mayors/7878882/story.html#ixzz2VTZTnI9g