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.

MV Incineration 'expert', maybe not so much..

So, the front page of the Vancouver Sun catches my eye this morning with this headline:

Pro-incineration expert denied risks of second-hand smoke

(click to read the article) http://www.vancouversun.com/health/incineration+expert+denied+risks+second+hand+smoke/2066149/story.html

Now, I heard rumblings of this a week ago, and a caller asked this question of MV CAO Johnny Carline on CKNW on Saturday... the response to this from MV has been, to say the least, under-whelming.

At considerable cost to the taxpayers of the Metro Vancouver region, the GVRD or Metro Vancouver has been hosting public information sessions regarding their 'Solid Wast Management Plan'. If you have attended these events, you know a few things about them:

1) They should be retitled "On the road to incineration", as this is the only topic discussed and is being touted as the only salvation for our garbage problem.

2) Their 'expert panel' consists only of waste to energy proponents - originaly there was a member of the Canadian Energy from Waste Coalition (commercial waste to energy companies), Mr. Bridges, and a consultant from a Waste to Energy consulting company in Denmark. When asked why there are no alternate opinions being expressed on the panel, Marvn Hunt, Metro Vancouver Waste Management committee chair said " If you have 5 people telling you the world is round, do you really need someone there to argue that it is flat ? "

3) Various members of Metro Vancouver board and committee, and staff have all made a point of saying that Metro Vancouver has made great strides in their waste reduction strategies. I have to wonder, what these would be ? (And, no, E-Waste collection via return-it depots is NOT a Metro Vancouver initiative, and if you look into it, is not a really good program) Are we talking about the cardboard ban in the waste stream ? Wasnt that about 15 years ago ??

Where are the construction waste policies, or the capture of the 50% or more of the waste stream made up of fibres and organics (paper, wood, etc) ??

In fact, the per capita output of waste (including disposed and diverted) continues to climb, excessive packaging is more prevalent than ever - and Metro Vancouver is waging a silly, and very expensive, war on bottled water producers.

So , when people are wary of Metro Vancouver, using a stacked panel with questionable credibility taking their roadshow around the region to justify what could be a $ 5 billion plus plan to build incinerators, which will rely on a sustainable waste stream (do you get the irony here) to run the burners and generate the energy revenue projected, CAN YOU BLAME THEM ?

If we put this kind of effort into a waste reduction plan, enhanced recycyling programs and public education programs, we could start to understand the definiation of sustainability !

OCP Update Process

At our council meeting last night, we decided to ask city planning staff to bring back revisions to the current DRAFT OCP that would reflect minimal growth. This direction was given based on the current information that Translink is not able to fund the Evergreen Line.

The residents of Port Moody have consistently identified their top concern with the city being that the development has outpaced the infrastructure for transporation - a concern that I share obviously.

I believe that it is prudent for the city to proceed with the OCP as this document sets the future for our community - it is not ONLY about development and transit, it is the vision for our city moving into the future. It is unfortunate that the process was stalled earlier this summer, as I believed that we could move forward with a 'dual track' plan - one based on transportation infrastructure being in place, one without. My emphasis being on the current reality - which is without.

Frankly, an OCP is supposed to be a five year plan and the last OCP for Port Moody was developed in 2000. Major infrastructure like the Evergreen line will be 4-5 years in construction. We could easily adopt an OCP recognizing today's reality, including comments on the 'what if' scenarios, and revisit the OCP should the promises become reality.

We need to get on with addressing many issues in the city, and setting out a vision for our future.

School Closure public meeting - Feb 27,2007

Tonight I attended, along with councilors Lahti, Watkins and Elliott, and a couple of hundred parents, the meeting of the school board trustees on school closures.  As the conclusion of this process, this meeting was about what I had expected - the process leading up to this meeting was pretty much destined to end in conflict and division, and this is what occurred.  Trustees Watkins and Keryluk made several attempts to put a halt to the proceedings on process issues, but the attempts were dismissed by the rest of the board.  For a process that has been going on since November, the meeting was surprisingly disorganized and there seemed to be little thought put into the planning.  The recommendations from the senior staff seemed to be the same as before the public consultation process, and little mention was made of the hundreds of ideas that had been brought forward by parents, PAC's and members of the community.
 Voting on the closures was divided pretty much on municipal lines, with coquitlam school trustees Wallis, Sowden and Alty being the difference in the rejection of staff recommendations for Mountainview and Meadowbrook,  Burton proposing that Meadowbrook and Lincoln remain open, and Port Moody Trustees Watkins and Hyndes supporting College Park, Moody and Coronation Park remaining open.
 At times the board members seemed confused as to the motions in front of them - probably due to the 'double negative' nature of the motions, and in a few cases the votes had to be recast due to misunderstanding of the motions.
 At the end of the day, the trustees voted to close Vanier, College Park, Coronation, Millside, and Lincoln, and not to close Mountain View and Meadowbrook.  The staff recommendation on Moody - to remain open pending review to 2008/09 was accepted.

Taste of the Tri Cities - Oct 4,2006

Last night I attended the Taste of the Tri Cities, put on by the Society for Community Development at the Executive Inn in Coquitlam. This event showcases some local restaurants (I think there were about 12) with samples of their foods.  There was quite a large crowd, lots of familiar faces, including councillors from Coquitlam, Port Moody and Port Coquitlam, Diane Thorne, and Coquitlam Mayor Maxine Wilson.
 This is really a great event, the food is fabulous, and I think everyone always enjoys it.
 Got a tip to try Marco Polo , a new restaurant in the plaza with the IGA Marketplace on Johnston Street in Coquitlam, and had some fabulous food from Hazards as well.  St Street Grill, as always, had REALLY tasty foods, including a pork shoulder in a sauce that just melted in your mouth.  Pasta Polo, as always, was there, as were Me n Eds, Boulevard Casino, Milestones, Planet Organic, a thai restaurant i cant remember the name of (shame one me), Carlos or Charlies Mexican, the Executive Inn, Thrifty Foods Rodos Kouzina - hmm, i think thats everyone.
Also, on sunday night we went for dinner at Pacific Rim Grille on Austin - and, honestly, all I can say is WOW , I cant wait to go back. The food was incredible - probably the best I've had anywhere in Vancouver. Presentation was amazing and the menu has lots of selection, from seafood to steak, or, as I had, Elk !  Two thumbs WAY up on this one !!

OCP Review - Sep 19.2006

OCP REVIEW - SEPT 19

Last night was the cities opening public input meeting for the OCP review.

Click here for OCP review process details.

The meeting was relatively well attended with about 200+ people coming to share their outlook on the cities future. The OCP review is an important process that sets the 'tone' for the city for the coming months, years and even decades.

The session was seperated into three parts, the first being a graffiti session where residents were invited to write their comments on various topics - such as environment, parks, development, economic development, etc - on large sheets of paper hanging on the walls. This stimulated much discussion between those in attendance, and led to the second portion of the evening which was smaller 'focus groups' discussing what they liked, diskliked and wanted to see in the future for Port Moody. It then wrapped up with a spokesperson for each group presenting their focus groups items in the theatre.

The city has taken a 'blank slate' approach to the OCP review, meaning they haven't put any parameters on the discussions - other than trying to organize into some areas of focus. There was no references to the current OCP , or any information presented in terms of preferences or other pre-conceived direction for conversation.

Many common themes emerged in the written comments and the focus groups, most of which were consistent with what has been said many times before.

People like the small town charm of Port Moody, Heritage, Parks and trails, greenspaces, Cultural diversity, and the family environment.

Dislikes included traffic congestion, lack of cycling lanes on roads, crime and the perception of organized crime in the area.

Notably, there were also several comments made that people felt that the cities infrastructure - primarily for transporation - has lagged behind development, and also that the St Johns corridor is becoming less vibrant, or run down. Several people also spoke of concerns around the city communicating with residents in regards to process and development.

For the future, recurring comments included maintaining the diversity of zoning and development in the city (live, work, play), heritage preservation, affordable housing, local employment opportunities, and emphasis on the PORT in Port Moody.

I was pleased to hear many people say they wanted to see the city make better use of the internet for communication - If you are reading this, you know that I have been working very hard to make information available to people online through this blog and my information website at www.mikeclay.ca , including the opportunities for comments and feedback

HCA STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING - Sep 15,2006

After a VERY long 'break', the HCA Steering committee / work group / task force was reconvened last night at Kyle Centre.

With the guidance from Leslie Gilbert from the planning department, the working group members discussed the HCA designation, the physical location/boundaries and the implications.

It has been generally agreed that the HCA area will be developed in a two (or maybe more ?) phase approach, starting with a smaller area around Clarke St (St Johns to Queens) and eventually increasing to a larger area, based on the outcome of the process in the smaller area.

Conversations continued around what the HCA designation means, what can be done to encourage heritage revitalization and protection, and the impact on property owners, both negative and positive.

The HCA is an important process for Moody Centre and the city as a whole - we repeatedly hear about the charm and unique character of Port Moody, and without some efforts to preserve this, Port Moody could become 'just another city' !