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

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.

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 !

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 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.

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 !