Well, if you've been living in a cave, or somewhere outside of the lower mainland, you may not be aware that Translink is having some financial challenges, and in particular, struggling to come up with the $ 400 million for their commitment to the Evergreen Line. Today, Translink hosted a meeting at Metrotown to discuss their funding outlook. The event was VERY well attended by municipal politicians from throughout the region, including Mayor Trasolini and myself from Port Moody, and media.
While the meeting was significant on the issue of funding, there was a VERY IMPORTANT side issue arising at this meeting, for residents of the north east sector.
First, on the funding issue:
Translink CEO Ian Jarvis walked through the proposed funding model for generating the revenues required for the Evergreen Line, and other regional projects. The model is split into two parts, or priorities: Part one being the Evergreen Line (400 million) and the North Fraser Perimeter Road (53 million). These projects are identified as the highest priority because of both importance to the region and leveraging senior government funding. Part two identifies 13 other priority projects for Translink - Main St Station Upgrades, King George Blvd B Line, Metrotown station upgrades, Bus Service Hour Extensions, Bike Capital Funding, Surrey Central Station Upgrades, Highway 1 Rapid Bus Project, MRN Minor Capital Funding, New West Station Upgrades, Bus Service Hour expansion (growth), Bus Service Hours and Infrastructure on U Pass routes, White Rock to Langley Bus Service and Lonsdale Quay Upgrades.
WAIT, you say... 15 projects and the Murray Clarke Connector is not even included on the list ? How can it be that a project that was a priority of the province in 1983 , remains un completed in 2010 and isn't even mentioned as being a priority in the region ??
WELL - interestingly enough, we didn't have to wait long for the answer. Mr Jarvis explained that the Murray Clarke Connector didn't meet the priority threshold, as it had no 'historical' significance and did not have any associated senior partner funding. While he is correct on the lack of senior govt partner funding, I wondered how this project could not have historical significance as a priority ?
WELL - interestingly again, we didn't need to wait long for that answer either. Mr Jarvis noted that the Murray Clarke connector was only needed when the Evergreen Line was an at grade light rail system running along St John's street - and now that it had been changed to skytrain, there was no longer any urgency for the Murray Clarke connector project.
OK, yup , hang on... is that my head exploding ? Did I really just hear someone say the Murray Clarke, a regional priority since 1983 (which of course is two years prior to ANY skytrain line ever being built in the region), was only a necessity if the Evergreen Line was light rail through Port Moody. Oh jeez.. here we go again.... you can refer to my blog post about our meeting with the Minister of Transportation at the UBCM if you don't already understand the frustration around this project !
So, with mind numbing down a little, the presentation into FUNDING for the priorities now proceeds. Translink has determined that the funding required for the Evergreen Line and NFPR projects requires $ 39 million per year, and if the additional 13 projects are also to be funded, they would require an additional $ 29 million per year - total of $ 68 million per year for all of the projects. Somehow, it doesn't sound like so much money when compared to other dollar figures we hear tossed around these days with multi-billion dollar mega projects like the Gateway project, Port Mann or Golden Ears Bridges.
Translink says they have options for funding that consist of.... well... property tax ! Under the legislation of the South Coast BC Transporation Act, they are currently maximized on Fuel Tax, Parking Tax, Hydro Levy and Replacement tax. The other options are Vehicle Levy, Benefiting tax area, Transit fares and property tax.
Apparently, there is no mechanism for collecting a vehicle levy and translink has not had time to figure out how to implement this. (I would think they could have by now, was first proposed , what, 10 years ago ??) Benefiting tax area is a VERY complicated issue whereby you would increase property taxes on development that is directly benefiting from transit projects (ie: area around skytrain stations). I would have to agree this one could not be implemented in such a short time frame and it will really require some long term investigation, but it IS a good tool. Transit fares, translink feels they have pushed the riders ability to pay to the limit with significant fare increases over the past few years. Not sure I agree, but I believe they are also dedicating their resources to the fare turnstiles and smart card system and they need to protect this interest for fare increases they know will be coming in the near future.
SO, we are left with property tax as the option. $ 31 / year for the 'average' household for Plan one, and $ 54 / household / year for plans one and two.
I have to say, I'm thinking that seems like pretty good value for money, to get the evergreen line for $ 31 / year in fact seems like a real bargain. Some quick, and very simple math in my head (OK , i used a scratch pad) tells me that the $ 50 million for the MCC , on the same formula, would be $ 3.85 per household. Now WHO would disagree that the MCC is worth $ 3.85 per year ? Boy, if they would just throw that into the plan 1, call it $ 35 / year, they'd have my support in a heartbeat !!
Alas, my train of thought is interrupted by the opening of the microphones to the audience, specifically , the mayors at the front of the queue. Overwhelming clarity of the message: Property Taxes are not the way to fund transit infrastructure !! There is a clear message about property tax being (the one and only) municipal domain, and meddling in property taxes for projects that would ordinarily be funded by provincial or federal governments or other programs, is yet another form of downloading and an erosion of municipal autonomy.
OK, i get that, I guess.. unfortunately, whether you take my money off my property tax bill, my vehicle insurance, toll booths, my cell phone, or whatever other zany idea you come up with, its still money coming from me, the taxpayer. Nothing will ever change that - government programs and projects are funded by the taxpayer, and there's only ONE taxpayer (OK, i mean, there's several million of us, but you get the point !!)
I do understand the frustration of the mayors and i certainly feel there is a united front on this issue -not sure i fully agree, but, certainly this issue will be playing out over the coming weeks and more information will be forthcoming.
The translink report can be viewed online via my website @ http://www.mikeclay.ca/default2.asp?active_page_id=1599
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
UBCM Day 2, morning, Tuesday Sep 28, Forums Day
Tuesday at the UBCM and still technically a 'pre conference' day, but an important one.
The day kicked off with the Large Urban Communities Forum - a gathering of local government of cities with a population of > 25,000. (Might not seem large by lower mainland standards, but in BC as a whole, there are MANY MANY cities with less than 25000 population).
Opening the session was a presentation by former Milwaukee mayor, John Norquist. Mr. Norquist is decidedly American in his confidence and his presentation. Clearly a visionary and a man with an opinion ! His presentation concentrated on the failures of urban engineering design with respect to the automobile - how engineering for streets has led to the decay of community, created abandoned and derelict cities and precincts, and demonstrated many examples of the reclamation of urban highways back into community. Particularly, John showed vivid examples of the destruction of elevated/grade seperated highway/roadway systems and how traffic and roads were being integrated into the community instead of destroying it.
Its hard to know where or how these scenarios would play out in a small town environment, aka Port Moody, where there are only two streets which serve as a commuter corridor, as opposed to Mr. Norquist's comments about how traffic 'finds another way'.. sadly, we don't have another way in the local setting, although, there are of course options in the regional context !
Next up, Hon. Ben Stewart, Minister of Community and Rural Development. This is essentially the provincial government ministry that deals with municipal/provincial issues and relations. Mr. Stewart is relatively new to this portfolio and discussed his recent travels around the province and his meetings with representatives from various communities around BC.
The minister stated that affordable housing is a top priority of his government, citing a statistic that 64% of pre-tax income, on average in BC, is going to mortgage / housing costs. He discussed the added affordability of housing on transit corridors , alleviating the expense and need for a vehicle or second vehicle. He acknowledged a number of recent achievements by cities throughout BC - Prince George being a top ten community for investment, Prince Rupert container port 'resetting' the vision of the community, Penticton's success in agriculture tourism.
When questioned from the floor regarding infrastructure deficits, affordable housing funding and other finance related issues, Mr. Stewart emphasized that the province has seen significant drops in revenue since 2008, that there is only one taxpayer, and the provincial government doesnt have a bottomless pit of money to meet all of the requests throughout the province. I think everyone appreciates this, although at the muncipal level, we have the same pressures and fewer tools at our disposal.
Next up, an update on the liquor control and licensing act changes. There has been some rumours and speculation circulating regarding the changes / proposed changes to the act, and representatives were on hand to explain the legislative changes and their impact.
Most importantly, it was repeatedly emphasized that the changes regarding muncipal involvement in liquor licensing, are enabling legislation - meaning, it ALLOWS something to happen but doesnt require it. Several changes are made, in regards to public safety, streamlining and good governance. Being considered are different processes for different types of liquor establishments, with one specific example given being a golf course wanting to add golf cart service, having to go through the same process as a 500 seat night club. Several of the examples given made good sense to revisit. The branch will continue to meet with the UBCM working group.
The day kicked off with the Large Urban Communities Forum - a gathering of local government of cities with a population of > 25,000. (Might not seem large by lower mainland standards, but in BC as a whole, there are MANY MANY cities with less than 25000 population).
Opening the session was a presentation by former Milwaukee mayor, John Norquist. Mr. Norquist is decidedly American in his confidence and his presentation. Clearly a visionary and a man with an opinion ! His presentation concentrated on the failures of urban engineering design with respect to the automobile - how engineering for streets has led to the decay of community, created abandoned and derelict cities and precincts, and demonstrated many examples of the reclamation of urban highways back into community. Particularly, John showed vivid examples of the destruction of elevated/grade seperated highway/roadway systems and how traffic and roads were being integrated into the community instead of destroying it.
Its hard to know where or how these scenarios would play out in a small town environment, aka Port Moody, where there are only two streets which serve as a commuter corridor, as opposed to Mr. Norquist's comments about how traffic 'finds another way'.. sadly, we don't have another way in the local setting, although, there are of course options in the regional context !
Next up, Hon. Ben Stewart, Minister of Community and Rural Development. This is essentially the provincial government ministry that deals with municipal/provincial issues and relations. Mr. Stewart is relatively new to this portfolio and discussed his recent travels around the province and his meetings with representatives from various communities around BC.
The minister stated that affordable housing is a top priority of his government, citing a statistic that 64% of pre-tax income, on average in BC, is going to mortgage / housing costs. He discussed the added affordability of housing on transit corridors , alleviating the expense and need for a vehicle or second vehicle. He acknowledged a number of recent achievements by cities throughout BC - Prince George being a top ten community for investment, Prince Rupert container port 'resetting' the vision of the community, Penticton's success in agriculture tourism.
When questioned from the floor regarding infrastructure deficits, affordable housing funding and other finance related issues, Mr. Stewart emphasized that the province has seen significant drops in revenue since 2008, that there is only one taxpayer, and the provincial government doesnt have a bottomless pit of money to meet all of the requests throughout the province. I think everyone appreciates this, although at the muncipal level, we have the same pressures and fewer tools at our disposal.
Next up, an update on the liquor control and licensing act changes. There has been some rumours and speculation circulating regarding the changes / proposed changes to the act, and representatives were on hand to explain the legislative changes and their impact.
Most importantly, it was repeatedly emphasized that the changes regarding muncipal involvement in liquor licensing, are enabling legislation - meaning, it ALLOWS something to happen but doesnt require it. Several changes are made, in regards to public safety, streamlining and good governance. Being considered are different processes for different types of liquor establishments, with one specific example given being a golf course wanting to add golf cart service, having to go through the same process as a 500 seat night club. Several of the examples given made good sense to revisit. The branch will continue to meet with the UBCM working group.
Ubcm pre conference sessions Monday Sep 27
Monday at the ubcm is a pre conference day, the official start of the conference isn't until Wednesday.. But, pre conference sessions are a good opportunity to have some more in depth discussions with representatives from around the province, on their challenges and successes.
Of course, the emphasis everywhere is on green and sustainability, so I chose to attend two sessions - a green cities session and a sustainability session.
The sustainability workshop was quite broad ranging, with discussions starting around brownfields, and industrial land conversion/ remediation. Various perspectives were discussed, from port alberni, Victoria, Vancouver, and many more. The discussions tended to move to taxation issues as well as the cost of enironmental remediation and liability. Transferance of liability for brown fields was a hot topic, and the ability for buyers of lands to assume or not liability for past activities.
There was also significant discussion with provincial staff about species at risk. Species at risk definition varies in different parts of the province, and in this conversation it really drives home the rural / urban differences. Many rural communities spend considerably more time and resources on wildlife issues than we do in the urban cores, although the same issues exist of different scale for all of us.
The question / answer session and subsequent discussion was very valuable again to share the experiences of different cities and regionss.
The afternoon session was the green cities workshop, centered around the work of the Green Communites Committee and the climate action accord. Prince George, Delta and Saltspring Island presented on their initiatives and projects, and their successes and challenges rolling out their GHG reduction plans in their communities. Again, there was a great exchange of ideas and mutual learning. The province discussed carbon offset credits and the Pacific Carbon Trust, a company created by the province which will pre-qualify offset credits for government that adheer's to the criteria established. The green communities committee talked about the framework for Smart Tool web pilot for calculating GHG reduction and credits.
Most disappointing at this workshop was that discussion was around Reporting, Offsets and Measuring GHG's, but nothing around REDUCTION - the offset discussions can become very circular , for example, Port Moody, having curbside organic collection could report this as a reduction but in the framework could in theory also sell offsets to others as this would be a 'qualified' offset. A little weird and confusing, but the GHG offset discussion in general tends to get that way sometimes !
Good conversation and networking at both of these workshops, all in all , a pretty good day !
Of course, the emphasis everywhere is on green and sustainability, so I chose to attend two sessions - a green cities session and a sustainability session.
The sustainability workshop was quite broad ranging, with discussions starting around brownfields, and industrial land conversion/ remediation. Various perspectives were discussed, from port alberni, Victoria, Vancouver, and many more. The discussions tended to move to taxation issues as well as the cost of enironmental remediation and liability. Transferance of liability for brown fields was a hot topic, and the ability for buyers of lands to assume or not liability for past activities.
There was also significant discussion with provincial staff about species at risk. Species at risk definition varies in different parts of the province, and in this conversation it really drives home the rural / urban differences. Many rural communities spend considerably more time and resources on wildlife issues than we do in the urban cores, although the same issues exist of different scale for all of us.
The question / answer session and subsequent discussion was very valuable again to share the experiences of different cities and regionss.
The afternoon session was the green cities workshop, centered around the work of the Green Communites Committee and the climate action accord. Prince George, Delta and Saltspring Island presented on their initiatives and projects, and their successes and challenges rolling out their GHG reduction plans in their communities. Again, there was a great exchange of ideas and mutual learning. The province discussed carbon offset credits and the Pacific Carbon Trust, a company created by the province which will pre-qualify offset credits for government that adheer's to the criteria established. The green communities committee talked about the framework for Smart Tool web pilot for calculating GHG reduction and credits.
Most disappointing at this workshop was that discussion was around Reporting, Offsets and Measuring GHG's, but nothing around REDUCTION - the offset discussions can become very circular , for example, Port Moody, having curbside organic collection could report this as a reduction but in the framework could in theory also sell offsets to others as this would be a 'qualified' offset. A little weird and confusing, but the GHG offset discussion in general tends to get that way sometimes !
Good conversation and networking at both of these workshops, all in all , a pretty good day !
Saturday, May 1, 2010
What to do with our waste ?
This morning Metro Vancouver hosted a council-of-councils meeting, for all councillors and mayors of the Metro Region, in Langley. The topic of discussion: Draft Solid Waste Management Plan.
The solid waste issue is getting plenty of media attention these days, and Metro Vancouver waste management committee, staff and board are updating the solid waste management plan, setting the direction for the next 30-50 years in the region.
The draft plan has some good ideas, but there is no question the emphasis in the plan is Waste to Energy/Incineration. (MV is insisting that waste to energy is not just incineration, but all of their graphs, financials and other figures are based on incineration as the WTE technology).
Sadly, while 'lip service' is given to waste reduction and increased (pre WTE) recovery, the ideas in the plan in those regards are vague and for the most part , undefined. Unlike the plans for WTE which include estimated costs for incinerator construction, air emissions 'guesstimates', figures for electrical and heat generation and long term financing models. No other part of the plan, it is clear, has received the same level of detailed consideration, and there are many vague statements like 'work with senior government' on packaging and waste reduction.
I'll follow up on this post after tuesday's meeting in Port Moody where Metro Vancouver is bringing the 'travelling roadshow' (no disprespect intended) to city hall. Greg Moore, chair of the waste management committee, Joe Trasolini, chair of energy and environment committee, and MV Board chair Lois Jackson are taking the MV show on the road, moving throughout the region for public meetings over the next couple of months. Kudos for the board chair in particular for attending these sessions, and for the elected officials for being there - quite often, much to the dismay of attendees, elected officials send staff out to these meetings .. nice to see the decision makers there hearing the feedback first hand.
Stay tuned, more to follow later next week..
The solid waste issue is getting plenty of media attention these days, and Metro Vancouver waste management committee, staff and board are updating the solid waste management plan, setting the direction for the next 30-50 years in the region.
The draft plan has some good ideas, but there is no question the emphasis in the plan is Waste to Energy/Incineration. (MV is insisting that waste to energy is not just incineration, but all of their graphs, financials and other figures are based on incineration as the WTE technology).
Sadly, while 'lip service' is given to waste reduction and increased (pre WTE) recovery, the ideas in the plan in those regards are vague and for the most part , undefined. Unlike the plans for WTE which include estimated costs for incinerator construction, air emissions 'guesstimates', figures for electrical and heat generation and long term financing models. No other part of the plan, it is clear, has received the same level of detailed consideration, and there are many vague statements like 'work with senior government' on packaging and waste reduction.
I'll follow up on this post after tuesday's meeting in Port Moody where Metro Vancouver is bringing the 'travelling roadshow' (no disprespect intended) to city hall. Greg Moore, chair of the waste management committee, Joe Trasolini, chair of energy and environment committee, and MV Board chair Lois Jackson are taking the MV show on the road, moving throughout the region for public meetings over the next couple of months. Kudos for the board chair in particular for attending these sessions, and for the elected officials for being there - quite often, much to the dismay of attendees, elected officials send staff out to these meetings .. nice to see the decision makers there hearing the feedback first hand.
Stay tuned, more to follow later next week..
Thursday, April 8, 2010
The loss of a community champion.
It is with a heavy heart today that we mourn the loss , and celebrate the life of Tomie Curties.
Tomie always brought a smile to my face, and embodied the spirit of community, volunteering countless hours at various events and neither asking for, nor expecting, anything in return - other than the joy of participating with her friends and neighbours to make our world a better place.
Tomie was one of those individuals who was happy to 'work in the background' to get things done, and always had a positive outlook and words of encouragement when life wasn't going quite as we might hope - truly possessing the ability to 'make lemonade' .
As our lives seem to grow increasingly hectic, and full of technologies, tweets, blogs, and other 'distractions', Tomie was a reminder to me that people, and social interaction, are the most important and gratifying aspects of life. The time we spend with our friends, family, neighbours and community is what makes it all worthwhile.
God bless you Tomie, and thank you for sharing your wisdom and compassion with me - and enjoy the next phase of your journey, wherever that may take you.
Tomie always brought a smile to my face, and embodied the spirit of community, volunteering countless hours at various events and neither asking for, nor expecting, anything in return - other than the joy of participating with her friends and neighbours to make our world a better place.
Tomie was one of those individuals who was happy to 'work in the background' to get things done, and always had a positive outlook and words of encouragement when life wasn't going quite as we might hope - truly possessing the ability to 'make lemonade' .
As our lives seem to grow increasingly hectic, and full of technologies, tweets, blogs, and other 'distractions', Tomie was a reminder to me that people, and social interaction, are the most important and gratifying aspects of life. The time we spend with our friends, family, neighbours and community is what makes it all worthwhile.
God bless you Tomie, and thank you for sharing your wisdom and compassion with me - and enjoy the next phase of your journey, wherever that may take you.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Is it a fee or is it a tax ?
The 2010 City of Port Moody Fees and Charges bylaw includes a fee ($97 annual) for homeowners who are renting out their dwellings, privately. If you follow council meetings, you will know that I opposed this. Why ? Because I don't feel that this is anything more than a 'hidden' tax, and a cash grab.
I asked for anyone to justify to me why the city would feel the need to collect this fee . Is it because we have some costs associated dealing with renters as opposed to owners ? Apparantly not. The report presented to council on this issue made reference to this fee funding its own collection and providing $ 50,000 in revenue to the city, which would help make up for budget shortfalls. Not for affordable housing, not for service enhancements for rental properties, and not for any service presently being provided .. but to prop up 'general revenues' rather than increase property taxes 'across the board'. $ 50,000 added to the overall taxation budget would represent about 0.20% tax increase, or more simply, if you divided that across 11,000 tax properties, an average of under $ 5 per tax bill. Instead, a lucky FEW will be facing a $ 97 fee or the equivalent of close to an additional 2% tax increase !
So we are going to charge a fee to anyone who rents out their house,townhouse, condo, or other property (residential properties only). If you have ever owned a rental property you will know that you already get hit just about every time you turn around. You are not eligible for the homeowner grant unless you live at the property. You have to declare your rental income, as income, but can only claim the INTEREST on your mortgage as an expense. Even if you want to VOTE, you have to go to city hall and fill in forms and jump through hoops. Not to mention the joys of dealing with tenant leases, evictions, repairs, etc. Rental housing isn't the way people get rich, or certainly, not in my experience !
So , as a city, we are piling on yet another burden to the rental property owner , despite the fact that we are constantly being reminded about the housing affordability crisis in our town, and seeing rental housing - which is generally the bulk of 'affordable' housing, being eroded.
Is it fair ? I don't think it is... and I'm surprised I seem to be alone on this one on council ! I voted against the fees and charges bylaw because it includes this fee. There are other fees that also need to be reviewed - some were adjusted in the 2010 fees and I am happy that we have agreed to embark on that process through the finance committee in the new year. However, I simply could not support adding this NEW fee, which I feel is unfair !
Let me know if you disagree, I would love to hear why I'm wrong ! mike@mikeclay.ca !
I asked for anyone to justify to me why the city would feel the need to collect this fee . Is it because we have some costs associated dealing with renters as opposed to owners ? Apparantly not. The report presented to council on this issue made reference to this fee funding its own collection and providing $ 50,000 in revenue to the city, which would help make up for budget shortfalls. Not for affordable housing, not for service enhancements for rental properties, and not for any service presently being provided .. but to prop up 'general revenues' rather than increase property taxes 'across the board'. $ 50,000 added to the overall taxation budget would represent about 0.20% tax increase, or more simply, if you divided that across 11,000 tax properties, an average of under $ 5 per tax bill. Instead, a lucky FEW will be facing a $ 97 fee or the equivalent of close to an additional 2% tax increase !
So we are going to charge a fee to anyone who rents out their house,townhouse, condo, or other property (residential properties only). If you have ever owned a rental property you will know that you already get hit just about every time you turn around. You are not eligible for the homeowner grant unless you live at the property. You have to declare your rental income, as income, but can only claim the INTEREST on your mortgage as an expense. Even if you want to VOTE, you have to go to city hall and fill in forms and jump through hoops. Not to mention the joys of dealing with tenant leases, evictions, repairs, etc. Rental housing isn't the way people get rich, or certainly, not in my experience !
So , as a city, we are piling on yet another burden to the rental property owner , despite the fact that we are constantly being reminded about the housing affordability crisis in our town, and seeing rental housing - which is generally the bulk of 'affordable' housing, being eroded.
Is it fair ? I don't think it is... and I'm surprised I seem to be alone on this one on council ! I voted against the fees and charges bylaw because it includes this fee. There are other fees that also need to be reviewed - some were adjusted in the 2010 fees and I am happy that we have agreed to embark on that process through the finance committee in the new year. However, I simply could not support adding this NEW fee, which I feel is unfair !
Let me know if you disagree, I would love to hear why I'm wrong ! mike@mikeclay.ca !
Monday, October 26, 2009
Translink 10 Year Financial Plan
On Friday, the Translink Mayors Council voted to accept a 'modest' supplemental option - the Funding Stabilization plan. The plan, which essentially holds transit services at current levels, requires $ 130 million in additional revenues. The revenues will be derived through an increase in fuel tax (additional 3 cents per litre) , fare box revenues (7 percent increase), parking tax (increase from 7% to 21%).
While service levels are essentially maintained at current levels, there will be no expansion (ie: Evergreen Line) and some reductions (ie: cycling improvements budget reduced from current $ 6 million per year to $ 1 million per year). Funding for the Major Road Network will remain at the current levels for existing and committed project - with no new projects (ie: Murray/Clarke connector) funded.
The Mayors Council was in, to say the least, a difficult position. Translink has identified the need for an additional $ 450 million per year to bring our regional transportation network into the 21st century and was seeking $ 275 million to at least 'get started' down that road. Many of the mayors have made comments about the competing priorities and what they might like to see done, or not done -however, they were given the option only of approving a base plan (current budget which would result in substantial service decreases), the $ 150 million dollar funding stabilization plan (close to maintaining current service levels but nothing new) or On Track to a sustainable region, $ 275 million dollar plan, which would have seen some growth in services, but still no major capital expansion. The $ 450 million dollar plan was not on the table as there was no funding mechanism.
Did they make the right decision ?
My thoughts: NO, and maybe. No, they did not make the right decision, they should have made the case for, and supported, funding a transportation authority that could move us into the future. At least they didn't decide to play extreme politics , as has been suggested in the media, and provide no funding (base plan). Sadly, this decision is a no win because the ground work hasn't been done prior to us getting to this point. So, I say maybe, because maybe this will jump start the conversation we need to be having.
We need to improve our transportation infrastructure, there is no doubt about that. We have spent far too many years in a sort of denial in this region - we continue to grow and expand but the infrastructure is sorely lacking - and nowhere is that more obvious than in Port Moody (well, I guess maybe you might argue it is even worse in Langley !)
I think Translink has done themselves an extreme dis-service in their budget process, and that was not getting the discussion and debate out in the public sooner - maybe years sooner ! I think a good argument can be made that the previous translink board, made up of municipal politicians, painted Translink into the corner they now find themselves in - if this discussion had happened years ago, then the increases could have been far less dramatic and the plan could have evolved with more input and discussion. Instead, at least according to the current Translink board, they were handed an organization without sustainable funding - services and equipment had been purchased and implemented that they did not have the dollars to operate.
You should probably go back even further, to the initial creation of Translink , and how their funding has evolved. Translink is now responsible for funding many operations and capital projects that were formerly the responsibility of the Provincial Ministry of Highways and Transportation. The province is now a 'partner' (30-50%) on funding capital and not funding operating costs at all - all of Translink's revenue sources have had to be 'created'. Is it a download ? Or a shift ? Sure it is - but remember a year ago municipalities asking the federal government to provide them with 1cent from the GST. The feds instead reduced the GST by 1cent. The municipalities could have stepped up at that point and asked the taxpayer to give that money to them for transportation needs. But they didn't .. because it is politically incorrect to suggest increasing taxes ! (even when its really just a shift ?!)
I think most people understand a few things about our transportation network:
- we are paying the price for many years of neglect of our road network expansion, particularly for the movement of goods in the region.
- we are lacking in appropriate transit options to give people options to get out of their cars
- we need money to fund the improvements that everyone agrees we need
- most people are not wanting to pay more tax
Yes - that last point is the problem, and certainly, becomes a big problem at the municipal level. Municipalities are not allowed to run deficit budgets, and we are not allowed to carry our capital projects separately from our operating budgets - we must balance capital and operations on the wallets of property tax payers every year. Municipalities are the 'closest to home' level of government and mayors and councillors tend to take more personal criticism for tax increases than MP's and MLA's. Municipalities also have their own local issues to address which can make them less sensitive to provincial, regional and sub-regional issues.
We need to turn this thing inside out, upside down, or whatever - we need to change the way we think about our region - we are not sustainable as a region and we are not heading in the right direction.
We need to evaluate our regional growth strategy:
- if we are not willing to fund transit and transportation improvements, then we need to stop adding people to the region - our infrastructure simply cannot support the population we have now ! (and its not only transportation infrastructure - look at the massive costs associated with our solid waste, liquid waste, drinking water, etc. in this region !)
- if we agree that regional growth is positive, necessary, or inevitable, then we need to be willing to recognize the costs associated with the growth and fund it.
If we are moving forward, then lets move forward, and quit with the politics and the 'blame game'. We need to remember , there is only one taxpayer - so saying that this should be funded provincially, federally , or otherwise, doesn't change the fact that the costs are born by taxpayers. If the province and the feds have decided that they are not going to fund these sorts of projects, then municipalities and their regional bodies need to step up and take responsibility for their planning/growth actions , and find the funding necessary to support the infrastructure required. There is nothing to be gained in levels of government blaming each other for problems - lets work together to find solutions.
We may need to completely re-examine municipal taxation models - currently municipalities have revenues from property tax and from services - there is no economic gain to a municipality based on economic growth in the economy. You make more money, you pay the feds and the province more money, but you still pay the city property tax based on the value of your property (and contrary to popular belief, your taxes DON'T go up because the value of your house goes up, your taxes go up ONLY if spending in your municipality goes up !).
If the mayors wanted to make an interesting stand on this issue, they would have found a way to support the $ 450 million dollar plan. Get the conversation, which is long overdue, started ! There needs to be some courage and some leadership shown at the municipal level as these decisions are crucial for our future - this can't happen in a vacuum, we need an educated citizenry and we need all of the information on the table to have rational debate and decision making.
While service levels are essentially maintained at current levels, there will be no expansion (ie: Evergreen Line) and some reductions (ie: cycling improvements budget reduced from current $ 6 million per year to $ 1 million per year). Funding for the Major Road Network will remain at the current levels for existing and committed project - with no new projects (ie: Murray/Clarke connector) funded.
The Mayors Council was in, to say the least, a difficult position. Translink has identified the need for an additional $ 450 million per year to bring our regional transportation network into the 21st century and was seeking $ 275 million to at least 'get started' down that road. Many of the mayors have made comments about the competing priorities and what they might like to see done, or not done -however, they were given the option only of approving a base plan (current budget which would result in substantial service decreases), the $ 150 million dollar funding stabilization plan (close to maintaining current service levels but nothing new) or On Track to a sustainable region, $ 275 million dollar plan, which would have seen some growth in services, but still no major capital expansion. The $ 450 million dollar plan was not on the table as there was no funding mechanism.
Did they make the right decision ?
My thoughts: NO, and maybe. No, they did not make the right decision, they should have made the case for, and supported, funding a transportation authority that could move us into the future. At least they didn't decide to play extreme politics , as has been suggested in the media, and provide no funding (base plan). Sadly, this decision is a no win because the ground work hasn't been done prior to us getting to this point. So, I say maybe, because maybe this will jump start the conversation we need to be having.
We need to improve our transportation infrastructure, there is no doubt about that. We have spent far too many years in a sort of denial in this region - we continue to grow and expand but the infrastructure is sorely lacking - and nowhere is that more obvious than in Port Moody (well, I guess maybe you might argue it is even worse in Langley !)
I think Translink has done themselves an extreme dis-service in their budget process, and that was not getting the discussion and debate out in the public sooner - maybe years sooner ! I think a good argument can be made that the previous translink board, made up of municipal politicians, painted Translink into the corner they now find themselves in - if this discussion had happened years ago, then the increases could have been far less dramatic and the plan could have evolved with more input and discussion. Instead, at least according to the current Translink board, they were handed an organization without sustainable funding - services and equipment had been purchased and implemented that they did not have the dollars to operate.
You should probably go back even further, to the initial creation of Translink , and how their funding has evolved. Translink is now responsible for funding many operations and capital projects that were formerly the responsibility of the Provincial Ministry of Highways and Transportation. The province is now a 'partner' (30-50%) on funding capital and not funding operating costs at all - all of Translink's revenue sources have had to be 'created'. Is it a download ? Or a shift ? Sure it is - but remember a year ago municipalities asking the federal government to provide them with 1cent from the GST. The feds instead reduced the GST by 1cent. The municipalities could have stepped up at that point and asked the taxpayer to give that money to them for transportation needs. But they didn't .. because it is politically incorrect to suggest increasing taxes ! (even when its really just a shift ?!)
I think most people understand a few things about our transportation network:
- we are paying the price for many years of neglect of our road network expansion, particularly for the movement of goods in the region.
- we are lacking in appropriate transit options to give people options to get out of their cars
- we need money to fund the improvements that everyone agrees we need
- most people are not wanting to pay more tax
Yes - that last point is the problem, and certainly, becomes a big problem at the municipal level. Municipalities are not allowed to run deficit budgets, and we are not allowed to carry our capital projects separately from our operating budgets - we must balance capital and operations on the wallets of property tax payers every year. Municipalities are the 'closest to home' level of government and mayors and councillors tend to take more personal criticism for tax increases than MP's and MLA's. Municipalities also have their own local issues to address which can make them less sensitive to provincial, regional and sub-regional issues.
We need to turn this thing inside out, upside down, or whatever - we need to change the way we think about our region - we are not sustainable as a region and we are not heading in the right direction.
We need to evaluate our regional growth strategy:
- if we are not willing to fund transit and transportation improvements, then we need to stop adding people to the region - our infrastructure simply cannot support the population we have now ! (and its not only transportation infrastructure - look at the massive costs associated with our solid waste, liquid waste, drinking water, etc. in this region !)
- if we agree that regional growth is positive, necessary, or inevitable, then we need to be willing to recognize the costs associated with the growth and fund it.
If we are moving forward, then lets move forward, and quit with the politics and the 'blame game'. We need to remember , there is only one taxpayer - so saying that this should be funded provincially, federally , or otherwise, doesn't change the fact that the costs are born by taxpayers. If the province and the feds have decided that they are not going to fund these sorts of projects, then municipalities and their regional bodies need to step up and take responsibility for their planning/growth actions , and find the funding necessary to support the infrastructure required. There is nothing to be gained in levels of government blaming each other for problems - lets work together to find solutions.
We may need to completely re-examine municipal taxation models - currently municipalities have revenues from property tax and from services - there is no economic gain to a municipality based on economic growth in the economy. You make more money, you pay the feds and the province more money, but you still pay the city property tax based on the value of your property (and contrary to popular belief, your taxes DON'T go up because the value of your house goes up, your taxes go up ONLY if spending in your municipality goes up !).
If the mayors wanted to make an interesting stand on this issue, they would have found a way to support the $ 450 million dollar plan. Get the conversation, which is long overdue, started ! There needs to be some courage and some leadership shown at the municipal level as these decisions are crucial for our future - this can't happen in a vacuum, we need an educated citizenry and we need all of the information on the table to have rational debate and decision making.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)