Funding the Evergreen LIne, Part 2053

Ok, maybe not 2053, but the ongoing saga of how to fund the Evergreen Line for the extension from Lougheed Town Centre to Coquitlam Town Centre continues today.

Apparently the mayors council is meeting to discuss a funding formula. As a reminder, the project is currently funded 1/3 federal, slightly more than 1/3 provincial, and Translink, representing the local municipalities in GVRD region, has not come up with their $ 400 million they committed to previously.

Let me take a wild guess here ... Mayors have said they will not accept property tax as a method of funding transit projects. So , what will it be then... hmm..

I say they will go gas tax - we know it is a 2 cent per litre tax that would make up the funding vs a $ 32 / household property tax. Or something blending the two. But it will be gas tax. Why ? Because the muni's don't want to be portrayed as raising taxes any more than they already are.

TWO problems i have with this:

1. Cost of the Evergreen Line is WAY higher than what is needed. Should be at grade light rail via the southern (riverview) alignment allowing for future expansion to the east at a much lower cost.

2. How is gas tax sustainable ? What if we managed, god forbid , to actually get people out of their cars and using transit ? Is that not the goal ? So, if we are requiring say $ 40 million per year of gas tax for the Evergreen Line , @ 2 cents per litre, must mean we are consuming 2 billion litres of fuel every year in the region (yikes.. thats a lot !) . SO what if we go down to 1.5 billion litres ? We would have to RAISE the gas tax to make up the 40 million we need - now we are pummeling those left on the roads, and that is the trucks that deliver the goods , the buses that deliver the people, etc. It's a vicious circle.. we need to get out of !

Ok , third problem - this isn't doing anything for the long term structuring of transit/transportation network funding, which is just being put off, yet again, because everyone is afraid of the conversation .

Stay tuned to the media and you can either tell me I'm so smart or so wrong when we hear what the agreement is.

One thing I KNOW for sure - the funding formula , or 'supplemental plan' will not include the Murray Clarke connector, however they propose to fund it !

Referendum approves borrowing - barely

Well, it seems that , with very poor turnout at the referendum polls, the majority of the residents who voted approved the borrowing of up to $ 16 million to build a new firehall.

As I said in earlier blogs and comments, I do not believe the replacement firehall will actually cost $ 16 million, and I hope it will end up being $ 12 million or less for the entire project. As noted previously, we do not yet have final design of the firehall or the geo-technical data needed regarding the site for pile driving, etc. that will be required. We have a draft design and preliminary geo-tech, but without the funding referendum, we did not wish to move this project forward, and spend large amounts from our current operating/capital budgets, until we knew if this project had the ability to move forward.

We now have that ability as approved by the voters, and we can get on with finalizing the design and moving this long overdue project forward !

Finally...

The need for, and cost of, a new firehall

On April 16, Port Moody voters are being asked to participate in a referendum to endorse the borrowing of up to $ 16 million for the funding of the replacement of Firehall #1, at Ioco and Murray Streets.

That's a lot of money ! So, what's this all about ???

Why do we need a new firehall ?

The current firehall was built in 1974, so it is only 37 years old. Well - only... maybe that sounds old, but my house is close to 100 years old, and there is no reason to replace it at this point. This will be the THIRD firehall (and third police station) Port Moody has had in my 44 years, and that doesn't include Glenayre. That doesn't seem right !

The problem is, I believe, the firehall was built poorly, by today's standards, and is not built to current earthquake/disaster standards. The sinking/shifting of the firehall is readily obvious if you go look at the site, you can see the stabilizing measures installed a few years ago are already 30+ cm from where they started. Also , the city has grown substantially since 1974, in fact, it has grown over 100%. While we have added firehall #2 in Glenayre, we also have the need to store more equipment/apparatus and the existing #1 hall is just becoming too small. The Fire Rescue service has evolved over those 37 years, with new extraction equipment, wildland interface equipment and now, the equipment needed to address the changing landscape of our community, particularly high rises.

Why is it so expensive ?

Why is anything so expensive these days ? Worst part of trying to do this sort of thing, as a city, is that our process is completely transparent. Every potential bidder on this job knows how much money we have to spend because our budgets are transparent and open. It's very frustrating, knowing there will be limited or no negotiations. I'm not used to this from my private business life - but, that is the way it goes. So, we have to have the building designed to meet our needs and come up with an estimate for borrowing purposes so we can go to referendum (see below for the why on that issue). Because there are still many variables, the $ 16 million budget contains many 'contingencies' for those unknowns. We believe the actual building construction cost to be 8-10 Million. Still a lot of money, but, substantially less than 16. Other contributors will be the design, environmental issues, site prep issues, pile driving, furnishings and finishing. The new firehall is designed to be an asset for the city for the next 50 years. It includes new training space, equipment space, administrative space, co-ed locker facilities, etc - many of these would NOT have been included 37 years ago. We want to ensure our fire rescue personnel are protected at their place of work, ready to react to serve our residents.

Why doesn't the city consider the earlier option of co-locating development with the firehall, or selling this site for development and building the firehall elsewhere ?

There are a few reasons for this, in particular, one that nobody seems to be talking about - or at least those in FAVOUR of more high density development in this area.

First, Port Moody residents, from the election in 2008 (when EVERY candidate for council was asked if they supported further high rise development and ALL said they did not), to the various public meetings on the OCP and the firehall issue itself, have made it clear that the current density in this area, even though Onni is not yet built out on the Suter Brook site, is stressing our city with commuter transport issues in particular, and they do not wish to see any more development here. I have always said that while I agree with that, the Firehall site was one that I would have considered on its own merit, as this has been 'on the books' for many, many years.

When we looked at options for co-locating development on a site with a firehall, we found that there were very few, if any, developments that we could do in that scenario, particularly due to the access issues at this location. Firehalls house big trucks and need to be able to get in and out very quickly, and this site doesn't lend itself to sharing that space with residential or commercial tenancy.

The last option then was to relocate the firehall elsewhere and simply SELL this site to raise money towards the construction of the new firehall. This seems to be where most of the misconceptions are now coming into play. First, and most importantly, all of the data we have around call volumes suggest that the hall should be located within about 400m of its current location. A very large percentage of our calls come from the Inlet Centre area. Relocating the firehall to Heritage Mountain/Bert Flinn , as was considered in 2005, would mean that 80% of our calls would have an increased response time, and only < 5% of our calls would have a decreased response time. Relocating the hall to St Johns Street, to co-locate with the Police Services building, unfortunately would put the April Road/Ioco Road residents OUTSIDE of the acceptable call response time service level. Getting through St Johns/Ioco intersection during rush hour, particularly the afternoon rush, when the highest number of calls for fire/rescue are received, is very difficult. Also this means both halls would be on the same side of the tracks and overpasses and leave the north shore isolated should and emergency take out the crossings of the tracks. Could we relocate the firehall to Eagle Ridge Hospital grounds ? That would have been my choice, if we HAD to move, and had that been an available option. But we don't HAVE to, we don't have that option, and that isn't city owned land, so we would have to buy it.

The BIGGEST misconception though, is the value of the land the current firehall sits on. In doing the analysis with the architects and the city, it became evident that fitting even a modest firehall on the site would be a challenge due to the environmental regulations on streamside setbacks. The site has TWO creeks running through it, which limits the scale of development on the site. The current draft plan of the firehall, at just over 1000 sq m. doesn't even fit entirely in that envelope, despite going outside of the setbacks to Knowle St and Murray St. The site is over 6500 sq m and we can only build on roughly 1000 sq m. My single family lot is Moody Centre is about 800 sq m. How much development can we get on a lot just slightly larger than a single family lot ? 4 units ? 10 ?? That development would be even more challenged than the firehall due to building code, and parking restrictions, and certainly would not have the economic position to contribute in any meaningful way to the firehall construction elsewhere. So, to suggest that we could get any high density development on this site which would pay for a firehall, is really a pipe dream. Unless we are willing to fore go the environmental regulations and violate our own city policy. I'm not willing to do that.

What happens if the referendum is defeated ?

Well, the decision to replace the firehall, as far as I know, is made. This council has made this the number one capital priority, and the ONLY one. The site selection, I believe, has been made, through several years of consultation and consideration of the options. The need for the firehall is clearly identified. I don't believe the referendum will fail, but, if it does, then we will need to have a very serious conversation with our residents about what we are to do .

Why do we need a referendum ? Why can't council just make the decision and get on with it ?

Due to the financial state of the city, we are not in a 'legal' position to incur this kind of debt without going to the voters for approval. The Local Govt act/Community Charter, provincial legislation, limits the amount of debt a city is allowed to incur - much as we are not allowed to carry deficit budgets, as prov. and fed. governments do, we also are not allowed to commit to debt we cannot repay. Council COULD just increase taxes raising reserves for a few years and then back paying other reserves to complete the project, but, honest, open government doesn't work this way.

Why doesn't the city have the money to replace the firehall and police station ? Where has all the money from all of the increased growth gone ?

Great question ! Previous councils have approved development and sold city land to developers and in exchange for that, the city, 8 years ago, had very healthy reserves and no debt. Today , we find our reserves depleted and our debt piling up. Decisions were made, prior to my arrival on council in 2005 to build a new police building (9 million), and recreation centre (26 million), which consumed all of the development revenues and reserves, as well as incurring debt (borrowing). Those councils made strategic decisions on priorities for spending - and for whatever reason, despite the fact that the firehall replacement was known to be an issue , it was overlooked. Since I came onto council in 2005, there have been no major capital projects approved by the city council, and in 2008 the current council adopted the policy of only having ONE capital project on the plan, the firehall, which was my campaign commitment in 2008.

So, obviously, i believe we need a new firehall. I have said this since I ran for council in 2005. Everyone has agreed that we need a new firehall. It is unfortunate that we have not adequately planned for this financially, but, there are always varied opinons as to whether you should pay forward, pay back or pay now. Personally I prefer the city to have healthy reserves and to plan for the future, which is why I pushed for the implementation of the asset renewal reserve a few years ago, and why i work every year for responsible budgets that protect our taxpayers assets.

I wish it was cheaper, and I wish we had the reserves to pay for it, but we don't. Moving forward, I hope that residents approve this funding and keep pressure on city council to be spending every dollar wisely. Our taxes are increasing at a rate outpacing inflation and growth and forcing people to leave our community - we need to control spending and recognize what we can and cannot afford as a community. But public safety, and utilities, need to be protected as the number 1 mandate of city government, and we must not let our infrastructure fall apart. This should not and can not take a back seat to libraries, rec centres, or anything else, or we will be in a heap of trouble down the road.

If you have any questions before you vote PLEASE ask.. you can get me by email or by phone any time.

An empty food bank and incredible people

Its 3:43 PM on Monday, December 13th, and as I'm wrapping up my work day I see a note pop up on Facebook from local social media guru Dave Teixeira. Dave is posting an email he received from Heather at SHARE society about the dimished supply of food for the Christmas hampers in the SHARE warehouse. I have been in fairly regular contact with Martin at SHARE over the past few weeks, so I'm aware of the shortage, but frankly, unaware that it has escaled to the level that it has - the food bank is expecting to service a need for over 1600 Tri City residents this year @ Christmas, and their current inventory is depleted to the 'sub 500' level.

It's a crisis in waiting. I have always supported SHARE and value so much the work that they do in the community, and this news is horrible news to receive getting so close to Christmas.

What to do ? Immediately, I update my web site to include the information from SHARE. On Sunday I had posted a facebook event for the CPR Holiday train, which benefits SHARE, so I check out the status of the 'event' and I see only 3 people 'attending' . Obviously this isn't going to be much of a 'conduit' for passing on the information. I contact Martin at SHARE to get the info on what is needed and the details on the scope of the situation - unfortunately, no good news there. I tell Martin that I will be sure to include an appeal on SHARE's behalf at our council meeting the following night.

8:04 PM - Dave updates his facebook page with a link to an article by Chris Parry at the Vancouver Sun. Dave has contacted Chris and forwarded him the information and used his 'influence' , and I imagine friendship, with Chris to get this story published within 5 hours of hearing from Heather. CKNW is carrying the story on the radio. Dave has used his flair for social media to elevate this situation from a 'local' tri cities basis to literally MILLIONS of people through the lower mainland.

6:00 AM Tuesday - I roll out of bed , put on CKNW as I do every morning and the SHARE story is top of the news. CBC is carrying the story, as is GLOBAL TV. Heather is on the 6:00 AM news, live feed from the empty food bank warehouse in Port Moody. Dave's talent and connections have elevated this story now to the number one story in the Metro Vancouver news - in about 12 hours - at a time when BC Politics has been dominating the headlines. REMARKABLE. The story is being repeated , by all the media, seemingly every 5 minutes !!

10:22 AM Tuesday - Dave posts on Facebook that he has Canucks/Columbus tickets for Wednesday night available if anyone wants them. OK, seems unremarkable, and unrelated ? NOT AT ALL - Dave is giving up his Canucks tickets (which, if you know Dave, he would likely have used to woo an undetermined 'blonde' to accompany him) because on Wednesday he has committed to work with Heather and the crew at SHARE on the Christmas hampers.

A quick scan of Facebook status updates shows Dave's 'network' of friends are all reposting his post about the urgent need at SHARE.

4:51 PM - Dave updates his facebook page and blog with more on the story, including the tv coverage , and announcing that CKNW has mobilized , in what has to be the quickest response ever, to support a food drive event at Save On Foods in Coquitlam on Wednesday afternoon.

9:00 PM - As i sit at our regular council meeting, I dedicate my council report to the SHARE food bank crisis and implore those that can to support SHARE in any way they can at this crucial time. Also mentioning the CPR Holiday train on Friday as not only a great time but another opportunity to support SHARE. Sadly, we have only a handful of people at our council meeting, but we do have the local press and SHAW TV coverage, so , maybe some people will hear this.. but i doubt it will be very many.

11:00 PM - Watching the GLOBAL news final and the SHARE story continues to get top coverage. I send a message off to Dave... in a nutshell "Dave, you are a media god"

6:00 AM Wednesday - wake up, put on CKNW , again, SHARE food bank crisis leading the way, now with the added appeal of asking for residents to do what they can and to stop by the SAVE ON FOODS on Pinetree between 3 and 7PM to make a donation. Gord MacDonald will be broadcasting on location.

Throughout the day the story continues to dominate the news - the local media, and the media personalities are embracing the drive. How quickly has this story gone from a bad news to a good news story :)

3:44 PM - I stop at home to 'water my dog' before heading off to SAVE ON, and Dave has posted on his facebook page "Holy Crap! The food and money is already rolling in here for the Tri Cities Food Bank !" As I head over to SAVE ON , I hear Gord, Dave, Heather, Mark Madryga, Steve Darling on the radio from the site - great to see the celebrities lending their 'star power' to this event. I'm not sure if they know how much that is worth, but I sure do !

4:20 PM - arriving at Save On - CKNW truck is parked out front, groceries are piled up everywhere, volunteers are doing an incredible job. Gord MacDonald continues with the updates and interviews on the radio. John Wolff , SHARE society board chair is here, Heather Scott, Director of Development and so well known as the 'public' face of SHARE is here, Martin Wyant , Executive Directory of SHARE is here (more on that later !). So many staff and volunteers from SHARE that I don't know their names are here. Chris Wilson is here working tirelessly boxing up the donations.

Sometime after 5, the SHARE truck pulls up to collect the 'first run' of donations to shuttle back into Port Moody. I join the volunteers, including Steve Darling , Mark Madryga, John Wolff, Heather, Martin, Chris, the CKNW production staff, everyone pitching in to box up and load the donations into the truck.

OH - did I mention - in the middle of it all, in his never ending positive, energetic way - Dave Teixeira - chatting up the people making donations, helping out the volunteers, doing radio interviews, and co-ordinating with his ECCW team for the 'hamper assembly line' taking place later in the evening. Less than 100 metres from a KFC, but Dave is focused on the task at hand :)

Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart and City Councillor Selina Robinson arrive - Richard, as always, with his camera, his smile and his energy ! Thank god he has his camera, and I get him to snap a shot of me and Mark Madryga - Mark is my favorite local media personality and I'm so glad to have gotten the picture. The truck, fully loaded heads off to Port Moody to unload and then return.

Selina has brought with her a donation she has collected from the firehall and the two of us head into the store to 'go shopping'. Cool - Selina was with SHARE for many years and she knows how this works - this will be fun ! Strikes me while we are in the store, that canned food is really expensive ! When did this happen ? I have to say, having run a warehouse for many years that moved alot of canned food, I have a bit of a stigma for it - and fortunately, living in BC and being fortunate to maintain a steady income, i enjoy fresh meat products and vegetables. $ 3.50 for a small can of chicken/tuna/salmon. $ 4.50 for a small can of corned beef. HOLY COW ! We find the 'warehouse pack' row and load up our cart - able to get the discounts of the warehouse packs many of the items come down to the $ 1 / can range - trying to guestimate if we are around the amount of the fire fighters donation... we go through the till and we were $ 1.87 over !! Selina pays the difference and I keep her quarter from the shopping cart (but dont tell her !) We wheel the cart out towards the exit - when i had originaly arrived I did not come in the store and was working outside helping box and load the goods into the truck so I had no idea what was going on in the store. We are having trouble getting through all the 'random carts' lined up along the inside front of the store, but I'm not paying a great deal of attention as we are talking to Heather and Richard and the fairly steady stream of people going by saying 'Hi Mike ! Good job ! ' (simultaeously makes you feel amazing and embarrassed, as I'm certainly not responsible for any of this but glad I could help out).

As I look for somewhere to 'park the cart' I realize that all of these carts - probably 40-50 carts OVERFLOWING with groceries, as well as about 8-10 dollies (the freight/pallet kind of dollies) lined up here are ALL donations for the foodbank. Chris Wilson is working on cashier number 8 (I dont actually know what number) , boxing and boxing and boxing the donations. Cases of beans, chilli, canned meats and meals - so much stuff, I wonder if Save On will have any food left for their 'regular' customers !

Back outside, so many cars driving through the parking lot stop, roll down their windows and hand us a wad of bills - $ 10, $ 20 , $ 50 . People open their hearts and their wallets - its just so great to see. A young girl jumps out of a car and drops two jars of coins - pennies, dimes, quarters - jumps back in the car and is gone. A young fellow gets out his dad's van, runs over and gives $ 40 - his dad yells from the van ' Merry Christmas Everyone , and thank you for all that you are doing '

6:00 PM - The second truck is arriving and the volunteers are concerned that they don't have alot to load into it yet. I'm the bearer of good news - like me, they had NO IDEA of all the groceries lined up inside, I point them in the direction and there is an instant elevation of excitement. I help Selina load up some water in her car for the 'work party' later at the warehouse, and I have to leave - heading off to dinner with the Transportation Committee, another great group of people volunteering their time to help out in their community. I make my personal 'year end' cash donation to SHARE and I head off. Smiling... and humming a christmas tune.

Tuesday was council day, and not a particularly good council day. In fact , a day where some of the WORST of what's wrong with politics was going on around me and I left Tuesday night wondering why I do this.

Wednesday was, quite honestly, one of the best days I've had since joining city council in 2005 - so many examples of what is right with the world and good about the people I serve in Port Moody and our neighbouring communities.

Mark Madryga - from White Rock - out in the tri cities supporting the food bank, and Steve Darling - local celebrity, supporting the food bank. Both loading boxes, bags, etc, and bringing out their 'star power'.

Gord MacDonald - hitting the listeners hard every couple minutes to come out and support the foodbank

Richard Stewart and Selina Robinson - two good hearted people that always seem to do the right thing

Heather Scott, John Wolff and the team from SHARE - these people do this 365 days a year ! Holy cow - thank you isnt anywhere near enough !

CKNW production staff - out there loading up boxes and keeping the positive energy

Save On Foods - are you kidding, wow - the support was unbelievable

Coast Capital and the other corporate donators - I dont have a list, but great support from the businesses in our community.

All of the residents of the Tri Cities - I live in the best city in the world, and the 2nd and 3rd best are our neighbours ! (Sorry, no , its not a tie, but its close !!) So many smiling faces , and so great to see so many people that I knew, and some that I didn't but that knew me !! Thank you , thank you , thank you everyone !!

And, now, as promised above - Martin Wyant - Executive Director of SHARE. Martin is a recent transplant to our region and really is still getting his feet wet, with the monumental task of filling the shoes of Joanne Granek, which is impossible - but.. .Martin was out early in the day doing media and fund raising for the society and was wearing a suit and tie. He was running late and so rather than going back home to change and coming back to Save On, he went next door to Marks Work Warehouse , and bought a shirt and a pair of jeans and headed over to help load up boxes and trucks. Apparantly the selection wasn't 'all that' but great story, and great committment ! Welcome to the Tri Cities Martin !

Saving the best for last - Dave Teixeira, what a superstar !

www.dave.ca . ECCW wrestling. UFC promoter. Social Media GURU !!

Started Wrestling with Hunger in ECCW a couple of years ago, brings the ECCW crew out to assemble the hampers !

Dave is a miracle - he has the biggest heart, the most positive attitude and honestly , is just the nicest guy. Positively SELFLESS and gives so much back !

Hard to believe he ran for PoCo city council and didn't get elected ?! Oh well, a net benefit for the rest of us I guess as that likely would have consumed much of his valuable time.

CPR Holiday Train - Friday December 17 - 9:00 PM arrival at Port Moody (Queens Street at Clarke) - Bring a donation for SHARE !

Coquitlam Homeless Shelter Public Hearing

The public hearing wrapped up a little after midnight, and around 1230 AM this morning, Coquitlam council gave 2nd, 3rd and 4th readings to OCP and Zoning amendments in support of the proposed homeless shelter at 3030 Gordon Ave.

The public hearing was very emotional, many local residents came forward with their concerns for increased crime and activity in their otherwise quiet residential neighbourhood. Others expressed their concern for the well-being of those less fortunate in our community and their feeling of obligation to help those who are down on their luck. Of course, both sides in this discussion (debate ? argument ?) have merit, but at the end of the day, Coquitlam, I believe , made the right choice. It's so unfortunate that these conversations can get so ugly at times, but, strong emotions generally lead to heated debate !

The Gordon Ave location (behind the Superstore complex off Westwood and Lougheed) is an area where several homeless people currently congregate, and is in close proximity to services including health care, transit, police services, etc. I have confidence that the city staff in Coquitlam with guidance and support of council, will ensure that no resident feels unsafe in their own home and will work to alleviate the concerns of residents.

A question was asked last night, generally, 'What about Port Moody and Port Coquitlam ?' and specifically someone asked me 'What is Port Moody doing to contribute ?'

Its important to remember - Health Care , and Homelessness, are NOT the mandate of municipal government, but of the province. The City of Coquitlam made it very clear - they are not BUILDING or OPERATING this shelter, but made the same commitment that all three of the tri-cities made to this process : To provide zoning and relief of taxes, fees, and charges for a provincial facility if appropriate land could be found for the shelter. Port Moody also made this commitment, as did Port Coquitlam - however, Coquitlam identified this location and started conversations with the ministry / BC housing, and this project has moved forward over the past couple of years, in relative isolation, and not with any consultation from Port Moody (other than our continued involvement with the Homelessness task force). To the best of my knowledge, Coquitlam has never asked for any assistance from Port Moody, other than their required notification of the OCP amendment which we, and PoCo , agreed with.

Port Moody council has made it very clear via our strategic plan that we will vigorously resist downloading from senior governments.

Zoning and land use are the domain of municipal government - health care, addiction treatment, affordable housing are NOT, and, wading into those areas when municipal budgets are not even sustainable with the responsibilities we already have, would be irresponsible management of municipal tax dollars.

SO - congratulations to Coquitlam council and staff for identifying the property and for taking the steps necessary for the provincial ministry to step up to its obligation, and enduring a divisive and combative process and ensuring , as I know they will, that all residents opinions and concerns are respected moving forward. And kudos to all members of council for respectfully listening to the community and keeping the democratic process working, even if it meant working until 1am !

Metro Vancouver Budget

As the alternate representative for Port Moody on the Metro Vancouver Board, I attended the Oct 29 meeting of the board at which the 2011 budget was on the agenda. We had previously had a budget 'workshop' meeting on Wednesday (27th) to go over the budget revisions for 2011.

In a nutshell:

Metro Vancouver 2011 Budget, expeditures: $ 603.4 million , + 5.8% (across all functions)

Impact on 'average' household - $ 513 / hh / year , up $ 44 / hh or + 9.4%

Now, the Metro Vancouver budget is a VERY complicated budget, as any $ 600 million dollar budget is likely to be, but, the budget is actually quite transparant, and 'honest'. Particularly, they disburse 'common costs' and admin costs across the various functions (water, sewage, garbage, parks, etc), and the budget is very well analyzed.

Unfortunately, maybe due to the transparancy, there are also things that just LEAP off the page and set off the alarm bells. In particular, those items for me are:

- Solid waste (garbage) tipping fee - increasing from $ 82 to $ 97 per ton - or + 18%, due primarily to a decrease in garbage vs. fixed costs on operating the system. So if we continue to reduce our garbage our 'rate' will just keep going up ? We have seen this before in the 'metered water' discussions, where so much of the cost has NOTHING to do with volume that decreaasing consumption does not achieve efficiencies. YIKES, we need to reduce our garbage for so many reasons, if nothing else, maybe increased fees provide increase motivation to REDUCE !

- Corporate communications - + 19.64 %. Metro Vancouver has a huge budget for communications allowing them to produce the sustainable region tv series and many 'glossy' media releases, etc. Nice... but necessary ? These are tough times ! If nothing else we need to make sure these resources are not duplicates of what is already going on municipally and make sure we are getting full value for these costs.

- Media Relations - + 10.66%. In my opinion, part of the 'media relations' puzzle is that Metro Vancouver is being portrayed as a 'regional government', which it is NOT. It is an association of municipal governments, but, with items like this, seems to be somewhere convenient to hide some expenses from the taxpayers !

- Boards and Committees - + 44% since 2009. This is the one that bugs me the most - this is the salaries and indemnities for mayors and councillors to gather in Burnaby to discuss regional issues - in fact, to FEED THE BEAST that is Metro Vancouver, and where I'm concerned, to hide costs and spending from taxpayers. If we are electing representatives to our municpal councils, and it is in the interest of the municipality to participate in regional planning and operations, then this should be clearly and truthfully identified for the municpal taxpayers to adjudicate .. not buried in their water bills !

So yes, as you might imagine, I am not pleased with the MV budget, so , I had some amendments I was going to propose to the plan - particulary including reducing the expenditrues on those items noted above. After making my first amendment, it became clear that the board wasn't interested in revisiting the 9.4% increase to the taxpayers and I heard several times comments like '..at this late hour', '.. insignificant in the context of the overall budget', and '... it is what it is.' Yes, I find this offensive - its NEVER too late to evaluate the amount of money you are taking from taxpayers pockets, its NEVER insignificant if we can save $ 1 and, frankly, I dont even know what 'it is what it is' means, although I believe Todd Bertuzzi used the quote at some point ??

Metro Vancouver collects the vast majority of its revenue through municipal utility charges , and we all know that muncipal utility charges have increased in the double digit percentage wise for several years running. We are told that this is necessary for our waste, water and sewage systems - and yet, in the Metro Vancouver budget we have millions going to pay municpal politicians meetings, for advertising and PR, and $ 300, 000 for board international travel.

These things might have some merit if money isn't an object, but it's irresponsible spending of taxpayer money, and I voted against the budget for this reason. My preference would have been to amend the budget to remove / reduce some of these items, but as the board had no desire and defeated the two amendments proposed (one by myself and one by Vancovuer Mayor Robertson), they proceeded to approve the budget as written.

Next time a municipal politician says to you 'Its not us, its Metro Vancouver' , ask them to explain that and whether they supported the near 10% increase !

Translink, Oct 7,2010 Consultation on Funding

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