Council Meeting – March 2, 2015

This was a strange day at Council, because we opened with a Public Hearing on an issue where City Council serves as a sort of appellate court in a semi-judicial type hearing. I’m not really interested in discussing the matter here, but if you wish to know more about it,watch the video here.

The evening meeting began with presentations and open delegations (on of which had me thinking of Alex and his droogs), before the real business commenced with Recommendations from the Committee of the Whole from earlier in the day:

Appointment to the Canada Day Sub-Committee

Our Canada Day events are coordinated by a subcommittee made up of City representatives and representatives from the community at large. This motion was to assign someone from the Multiculturalism Advisory Committee to the Canada Day Committee. And I am reminded again how this City is run and made great by its dedicated volunteers.

Moody Park Off-leash Park Design
A few meetings ago, Council enthusiastically approved the initial concept for an off-leash dog park in Moody Park. Inevitably, this resulted in both criticism (see comments on link above) and kudos, which I take as meaning we threaded the needle of public opinion fairly well. Staff and representatives of Council have followed up with the Moody Park Residents Association and the expressed concerns of other members of the public, and have integrated some their concerns with this modified conceptual plan.

There was quite a bit of a debate at Council about how we ended up with a larger off-leash area than initially sketched, but I can see where Parks was going when addressing one of the major concerns of people who were critical of the original plan. There will now be a full 97m length, making for a pretty good run distance for dogs, especially for a park being shoe-horned into such a compact and well-programed park space as Moody Park. In the end, council voted 4-3 for the larger footprint.

Given the historic nature of the park, and its small size and attachment to adjacent residential and pedestrian areas, I think that the visual impact of the fence is an important part of integrating the off-leach area. Council did discuss the fence options as we see them, and have decided on what I interpreted to be the lowest-impact design, and one that fits the character of the park.

Campaign Finance Disclosure Statements

You may realize that these statements are now out and available for public perusal at this website. It should be noted that the Province just received the statements, and have not yet had an opportunity to review and audit them. I note several reports show declarations that are suspect (and a few that are frankly illegal), and I am sure Elections BC will be asking for some candidates, even locally, to re-issue with corrections. I also note that I will be issuing a correction, as it was only seeing the documents on-line that I realized page three of my declaration includes a typo. The “amounts of surplus funds disbursed” on that page ($12,454.46 ) does not reflect the real number which is disclosed on Form 4234 ($1,245.46). An extra 4 slipped into the .pdf there somewhere.

This does speak a bit to the complexity of these forms, and the fact that none of the forms were available from Elections BC until well into the election period (and they changed significantly since last election). Any Financial Agent who set up their accounting spreadsheets based on last election’s rules (as mine did back in August) found out late in the process that all of the rules had changed, and they had to go back and start again. There was also quite a bit of uncertainty with Elections BC staff about how to interpret some of the new rules. My Financial Agent is a spreadsheet and accounting genius who manages huge capital projects for a living, but the Elections BC staff knew her on a first-name basis by the end of the election, so frequently was she calling them to clarify some nuance of the rules.

This is mostly a pre-amble to my suggesting that we should probably cut a bit of slack to our neighbours in the community who did not file their paperwork in time. The $500 fine under the Elections Act is something we cannot (and should not) fail to enforce, just to be fair to the candidates who did file on time, but I hope you will empathize a bit with the complexity of doing these forms, and recognize that sometimes life interferes with your ability to get paperwork done in time!

Zoning Bylaw changes

Back on February 2, Council asked staff to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw to limit the number of roughed-in plumbing features allowed in accessory buildings in the City, to discourage he ready conversion of these buildings in to living suites, at least until the City is able to have a proper community and neighbourhood discussion around Laneway housing policy (which is occurring right now as part of the OCP review).

Staff have prepared this draft amendment Bylaw, and it will go to Public Hearing on March 30. C’mon out and tell us what you think.

HRA for 336 Agnes Street

There is a plan to restore the 1940 Dontenwill Hall to some of its former glory, and place long-term Heritage Protection on it. The application has been through a public open house, the Heritage Commission, the Advisory Planning Commission.

The Project will go to Public Hearing on March 30. C’mon out and tell us what you think.

Rezoning of 210 Durham Street

This is a proposal to re-zone a lot in Glenbrooke North to allow subdivision into two lots, each with a 33’ frontage. This is the very beginning of the formal process for a rezoning, as it will go to Advisory Planning Commission, the Neighbourhood Association, Public Open House, and Advisory Planning Commission.

Alberta Street Traffic Review

Regular readers (Hi Mom!) will remember that Alberta Street residents came to Council to express concerns about recent changes in the traffic patterns on their street. At the time, we asked staff to come back with options for a short-term “band aid”, and to look at longer-term neighbourhood traffic planning options. This report brought those, and the recommendations are good, but I was not without criticism of the report itself.

You can see my comments in the video, and I will use another blog post to expand on this issue. In the short term, Council decided to install the temporary traffic diverters at the foot of Alberta (the “band aid” previously discussed), then go back and do another traffic survey to see how it those changes affect drivers’ behavior. After that, we will start planning for a more comprehensive neighbourhood traffic management plan for upper Sapperton.

In my opinion, this speaks to a need or a bit of a culture change in how we (as a City) address neighbourhood traffic impacts in our City. It speaks to the Pedestrian Charter, the priorities set out in our Master Transportation plan, and even the direction we are receiving from the general public in the Official Community Plan public consultations. In short: I care less about how well Alberta Street works for through-commuters, and more about how Alberta Street operates for the people who live on it.

Animal Shelter Task Force

The City is looking to replace it’s 25-year old and wholly inadequate animal shelter. A task force has been struck to oversee the development of this shelter. Council approved the Terms of Reference. Woof.

Special Occasion Permits of Queens Park Arena

Beer and Bellies – two great tastes that go great together! Here’s to a good season!

Electrical Utility rates

The City runs its own Electrical Utility, which makes it pretty unique in BC. The City can buy bulk electricity at wholesale rates from BC Hydro, and sell it to residents and businesses in New Westminster for retail rates. The existing policy in the City is to sell electricity at the same rate as BC Hydro charges at the retail level. The City is able to use the difference to pay for the upkeep of the City’s electrical grid, and put a tidy sum of money into the City’s general revenue. Currently, that amount transferred is about $6 Million per year – that is $6 Million in City services and operations that you don’t have to pay for with your taxes.

The City has a lot of latitude about how it sets rates. We could charge more for electricity than BC Hydro charges in surrounding Cities, or we could charge less. Of course, if we did the former, people would probably not react well to paying more; if we did the latter, we would need to find alternate revenue sources to cover that loss to our operating budget (read: property tax increase). I have yet to hear a compelling argument that we should do anything other than what our current policy is: peg our rates at the BC Hydro standard, and use the income to offset property taxes.

This report recommends (and Council Agreed) to raise our rates to match the changes at BC Hydro. Council added to more recommendations.

Councillor Puchmayr asked that the Electrical Utility report beck on the root causes of BC Hydro’s increases: namely, mismanagement by BC Hydro and the Provincial government of the BC Hydro file, with a lack of oversight of the BCUC on issues from run-of-the-river contracts to the installation of Smart Meters.

I further requested that the Electrical Utility provide some reporting on how our rates in New Westminster differ from or match those of BC Hydro customers in our surrounding community. The overall amount of money we change per KwH is the same as what Hydro charges, but there are some subtle differences in how those rates are charged. Because of the different “base charges” and the tiered rates, there may be instances where these charges are different, and I think it is important that New Westminster residents and businesses know how our rates compare.

New West SkyTrain Station upgrades

There is a summary report on the consultations with Council and several Council Advisory Committees in regards to planned capital improvements at New Westminster SkyTrain Station. Timing of this work is not certain, and is likely contingent somewhat on the results of the upcoming Referendum, as TransLink Capital funding is rather up in the air until then.

The bit Council added to this discussion is about the name of New Westminster Station, and by extension Columbia Station. Back in 1985, calling New Westminster Station (as it was the terminus of the line at the time) made sense. Now we have 5 stations in New Westminster ,and two on Columbia Street. With other stations in the system more reflecting local community landmarks (Stadium, Roundhouse, Waterfront), it was thought that maybe we could re-think New Westminster and Columbia Stations. New West Anvil? New West Hyack Square? New West Riverfront? It suspect this is opening a can of worms that TransLink would rather avoid, but I think just having the conversation might be fun.

Correspondence

Letters, we get letters. We get lots and lots of letters.

Bylaws

1: Commercial Vehicle Amendment Bylaw No. 7742, 2015. As Discussed on February 23, this Bylaw change will permit 4 more taxi licenses to be granted in the City. This process moves the Bylaw forward, and there will be an Opportunity to be Heard on this change on March 30, 2015 at our Regular Council Meeting. C’mon out and tell us what you think.

2: Electrical Utility Amendment Bylaw. As discussed above, your electrical rates are going up to match those rates offered by BC Hydro. This is now the Law of the Land.

3: Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7743, 2015 As Discussed on February 2, this Bylaw will limit plumbing rough-ins in accessory buildings to curtail their illegal conversion to unpermitted living quarters. A Public Hearing on this change will be held on March 30, 2015. C’mon out and tell us what you think.

4 & 5: HRA and Heritage Designation, 336 Agnes Street. As Discussed above, there is a proposal to restore Dontenwill Hall. A Public Hearing on this change will be held on March 30, 2015. C’mon out and tell us what you think.

New Rabble Rouser Website!

For long-time readers (Hi Mom!) I am happy to announce I will now have a website that contains everything my former blog was missing: form, function, design, and aesthetics.

If you are reading this on the NWimby.blogspot.com website, then you need to go to PatrickJohnstone.ca right now and see what you are missing. All new posts from this point forward will be there, and all old posts from here are also over there as well, with a much more friendly archive and search capability. It really is better over there. Go now, take the click.

If you are looking at this on the patrickjohnstone.ca website, welcome! Look around. This new website has all of the questionable content you have known from my former blog, along with new features and more questionable ideas, opinions, and news.

The quick good(?) news is that all of the content from my 5 years blogging as GreenNewWest and NWimby is included in the archive here. Those posts are tagged with their original tag, categorized with the NWimby label, and serchable by content and date. Also, all of the writings/musings I did for my Campaign website during the recent Election are also archived here, categorized as “Campaign” and similarly searchable. Hit the Archive button above and search the goodness!

You will also notice that red button over to the right that says “Ask Pat”. That is something new that I hope people will put to good use. Do you have a question about why the City does something the way it does? Do you have an idea about how to make the City better? Do you have a gripe about my use of prepositions? I want to make that feedback as easy as possible. Just click that button and Ask Pat, I will endeavour to answer as soon as I can reasonably get to it, and the answer will appear here and in your inbox.

Much thanks and volumnous shout-out to Wes at Of Desks right here in New Westminster for the incredible work he has done to make this website revamp so damn vamping. I wrote a few words and sketched something on a napkin, and he spun it into a custom design with custom functions that is estetically clean with really clear functions and navigation. It looks great – it works even better!

Welcome to the universe where my name is a web address. How did it ever come to this?

Council Meeting – February 23, 2015

The People might have noticed we didn’t have a Regular Council Meeting on February 16th. Instead, Council spend a bunch of time workshopping various topics as aCommittee of the Whole, both in open and closed session. You can watch the open portion online here.

This week, there was an interesting set of Delegations on the future of the Waterfront Parkade, but that is part of a bigger discussion I will cover in another post.

This week’s Regular Council meeting also included Opportunities to be Heard on two sign variance requests. Only the proponent of one came to speak on them, so Council moved ahead with the issuance of the permits:

DVP for 700 Sixth Street

The new Rexall Drugs want to add a couple of direction-finding signs to their free underground parking. Frankly, I was a little bothered that they had already installed these signs, and were asking for a variance now, but it appears there was a lack of understanding about the need for a variance, and the signs they are putting up will replace the ones they already have and will be less obtrusive (more neutral colour and non-branded), so I got past the oversight.

We received a bit of correspondence opposed to this variance from residential neighbours, but it appears they were mostly opposed to the existing lit signs on the buildings, which were approved without a variance back when the building was approved. I agree they are a little big and perhaps brighter than ideal, but it would be difficult for the City to go back and force the removal of a legally-installed sign. The new signs covered by this variance are not lit, so they at least won’t make the situation worse.

DVP for 1025 Columbia Street

We received no correspondence or delegations on this variance. Save-on-Foods want to add a sign to the side of their building so people on Royal Avenue are aware that they are driving by the back of a Save-on-Foods, which seems like a reasonable request.

So, on to the main meeting, which as always started with Recommendations from the Committee of the Whole from the afternoon:

Public Engagement Task Force

The Terms of Reference for the Mayor’s Public Engagement Task Force (of which I am a member) was expanded to put yet more public on it. There were many great applicants, and we had to work hard to winnow it down to what we feel are 6 unique voices who each bring something different to the table. I look forward to working with Jen, Chinu, Daniel, Nadine, Gabriella, and Nancy.

Financial Plan Update

Annual updates of the Financial Plan continue, and I suspect as the public process goes on, I will be writing several blog posts about it.

There were two votes Council took at the Committee of the Whole that were interesting (for a Mayor and Council that ran as a team this recent election) in that they both went down to 4-3 votes in Committee in the Whole. I think that is great sign that we are not being myopic as a Council, but are having meaningful discussions on important topics like the budget.

Council decided to save a bit of money by reducing the requested increase in Parks Labourer positions by 50%). I voted against this, as I felt Parks made an effective case for an increase seasonal staff to meet the demands that increasing green space in the City places on current crews. More people on Council agreed that the department should dig deeper for internal efficiencies to make this happen.

Another interesting discussion ensued around a request to allocate the “bonus money” we receive from digital sign revenues in accordance with the way we spend the baseline revenues. This is a bit complicated, but short version is that the City receives about $1,000,000 in base revenue from the digital signs that were installed last year, and Council made a policy decision when the signs were installed to split that base revenue into 50% for the fund to finance Canada Games Pool replacement, 40% for the Massey Theatre replacement project fund, and 10% into our Affordable Housing initiative fund. The signs are performing better than anticipated, so we expect about $400,000 in “bonus revenue” in 2015. Council has not established a policy on how these bonus revenues are used. It was proposed this year that we use that bonus money to offset some of the tax money we had already earmarked for the Canada Games Pool fund – which means we could take about $400,000 off of your annual tax bill and not short-change the capital planning for Canada Games Pool. Councillor McEvoy argued that not all of the bonus money should go to the CGP fund, but that 10% should go to our Affordable Housing reserve, as per council policy for the base funds. I disagreed, as did two of my council colleagues, but it takes 4 to win a vote.

During the last two Committees of the Whole, we have reviewed recommended changes to the Capital Plan that will move parts of the money into the 2016 budget. Short version here is that the City has both long-term capital plans (to schedule and finance the building and operation of City assets, from swimming pools to sidewalks to computers), and we have short-term capital needs. The money available to us (through your taxes, transfers from other governments, drawing from reserves, through cost-recovery, debt financing, etc.) for these items needs to be managed over a multi-year planning cycle. As a housekeeping measure mostly, the City moved many items from this fiscal year into the years when the funds are more likely to be spent. This move has no impact on your tax rate.

So our proposed tax increase for 2015 is currently pegged at 2.42%. Subject to change.

Mental Health Commission

It is no secret that most local governments are not satisfied with the lack of any kind of meaningful Mental Health strategy on the part of the Federal Government. The lack of leadership from senior governments means that local governments can either suffer the costs of having people with no access to care living on their streets and filling their police blotters, or local governments can step up and provide the missing programs to allow people with mental illness to live and integrate in our society. I’m new to Council so I can’t take credit, but I am proud of the work this City has done to take the latter approach. From working to find a variety of low-barrier housing options to bringing mental health training to our professional first responders so they can turn a potential conflict into an opportunity for someone to get assistance.

Amendment of Council Schedule

There are a couple of projects in the City that are looking like they will be coming to Council for a Public Hearing in April. If the volume of e-mails and letters Council is receiving on these projects is an indication, these will be well-attended public hearings. It is imperative that we allow everyone who wants to speak fair access to the process, but also have regular Council business to get done. Therefore Staff is suggestion we have two separate Public Hearing nights in April as opposed to only one. Hopefully this will allow us to hear more voices and still get home before midnight. Mark your calendars and clear some space on the PVRs, April 20 and 27th will both be Public Hearing nights.

Commercial Vehicle Amendment Bylaw 7742

Rolling right along on Opportunities to be Heard – Council previously agreed to move forward on a change in our Commercial Vehicle Bylaw to allow four more taxi licenses to be granted in the City. Changing the Bylaw requires a formal Opportunity to be Heard, which is scheduled for March 30, 2015 at our Regular Council Meeting. C’mon out and tell us what you think.

DP and DVP for 111 Wood Street

This is a 10-townhouse development on vacant land on South Dyke Road. The project has been though community consultation, Design Panel and the Advisory Planning Commission. Council moved to hold an Opportunity to be Heard on the required Zoning Bylaw change on March 23, 2015. C’mon out and tell us what you think.

Moody Park Spraypark

The plans to have a new spray park up and running this summer in Moody Park are, unfortunately, going to have to wait. The complicated job of re-jigging the underground services for the new waterfeatures is going to go into May, and that would mean the park would not be done until September or later, which would put the playground out of service for the busy summer season. Instead, Parks is going to delay the second phase of work until September, so Kids and family can enjoy the park in the summer, and have a spanking new park for spray season 2016.

Major Purchasing Transactions

The City’s Purchasing Policy requires staff to report out to Council on the major purchases over the previous fiscal quarter. This is that report. I’m happy to see many jobs were awarded slightly (but not too much) under budget. That means we are doing a pretty good job guessing estimating what capital projects cost, and that we are getting them done on budget.

ACTBiPed

I chair this committee, and am happy that ICBC volunteered to provide a liaison to the committee. So much of what we do at that committee has to do with pedestrian and cyclist safety, and ICBC is such an integral part of how transportation safety is planned in our region (and collects comprehensive stats on what works and what doesn’t), it will be valuable voice at that table.

Festival Grant Awards

The City has a staff committee who evaluate grant applications for festivals in the City. Staff are better able than Council to evaluate the viability of the proposed events, and to fairly evaluate the in-kind costs to the City of various events. Still, Council gets to decide if the recommendations of that Committee go forward. For the first time in 2015, these grant applications are separate from Community Partnership Grants, and the City has created a mechanism to “pre-approve” the events in up to two subsequent years. This will provide more certainty to the organizers, and allow them to secure longer-term sponsorship and event partnerships, which will hopefully result in bigger festivals in the upcoming years.

The City has $175,000 budgeted for festival grants, and we received requests for $273,844. Council agreed with the Committees recommendations and awarded $173,280 in total grants. I wish we could grant all of these events 100%. However, in the spirit of using many hands to make light work, I highly encourage you to contact the organizations and offer a little volunteer time. There is simply no better way to enjoy a Street Fest or a Parade than to actively take part in pulling it off! If you are going to be there anyway- why not volunteer a few hours to help out?

Council Delegation Procedure

In partial relation to the last item, our City Clerk (whose job it is to make sure our meetings are run fairly and in compliance with the applicable legislation) has made a couple of suggestions to make delegations work better.

The first is to restrict people from delegating on a topic once a Public Hearing for that topic has been scheduled. We can all think of previous occasions when a contentious project or decision is known to be upcoming, and for weeks leading up to that decision, people delegate to council speaking for or against it. If the project is coming to Public Hearing, it is vitally important that Council not pre-judge the process or argue for or against a project until the Public Hearing is completed. Therefore, if we allow delegations on a topic in the weeks leading up to the Public Hearing, Council cannot address the concerns of the delegate at that time, at risk of violating that impartiality.

This in no way limits your ability to speak with council in an open meeting on the topic, nor does it prevent you from calling, e-mailing, writing a letter, or bending a council member’s ear at the grocery store. It does mean, however, that if you want to delegate on a topic going to Public Hearing once the public hearing for the topic is scheduled, you need to do so at that Public Hearing instead of at a regular Council Meeting. It also assures when you do delegate on the topic, Council and Staff will have the correct information on hand to speak to your concerns.

The second change is to change the delegation form to allow a delegate to add their contact information right on the form, as often staff are requested to follow up with the delegate, and occasionally, that contact info is hard to get.

Review of City’s Towing Operation

The City operated tow trucks and a tow yard. Some people question (as with most things) whether it would make more sense for the City to contract that work out. In October (before I was on Council), Council asked staff to perform a financial assessment of Towing Services to determine if the City was indeed getting good value. Turns out the services provide better services at comparable rates to the major towing Service providers used by some other Cities. The service has (since 2011 at least) been revenue-neutral on towing operations, and has resulted in significant saving for the City in that the towing crews, when not actually towing things, have provided a variety of call-out services at no cost to the City, such as snow clearing, pump station or flood monitoring, parking meter maintenance, and assistance at special events emergencies that a towing company simply could and would not provide.

So we will be keeping our Towing Services folks around for a while longer.

Correspondence

Correspondence included two pieces requiring action:

1: An opportunity for the City to appoint someone to serve on the Metro Vancouver Agricultural Advisory Committee. We don’t have a lot of farms in New West , but we do have a farmer on council, and Councillor Puchmayr was our unanimous nomination.

2: The BC Seniors Games Committee is looking for host Cities for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019. Council asked staff to investigate the details regarding costs and commitments so Council can start the discussion if this is something New West is interested in doing.

Bylaws

Finally, we adopted Bylaw no. 7722, 2014. This is the final zoning amendment bylaw required to permit Bosa to start work on their development at 1000 Quayside Drive. This saw first and second reading on September 8 2014, went to public hearing on October 17 2014, and received third reading on the same night. Although I have not been part of the earlier discussions, I think this is a good development concept that has potential to benefit the Quayside area and especially the River Market, by boosting retail opportunities on that side of the tracks.

And that was a full day’s work.

Coldest Night

Walking with Councilors Harper & Puchmayr, Mayor Cote, and MLA Judy Darcy as part of the “Council of Champions” team at the 2015 Coldest Night of the Year walk for Seniors Services Society. Raising funds for a good cause is a little easier on the west cost, where the “Coldest Night” featured a spectacular sunset and flowers blooming along the Quayside boardwalk!

Spending wisely

I saw this story in the paper, and could see by the tone (and some social media flitter) that some people are wondering why Council decided to spend up to $20,000 on getting out the YES vote on the upcoming Metro Vancouver Transportation and Transit Plebiscite. I shouldn’t presume to speak for all of Mayor and Council, but I can give you my reasons

Transportation is the #1 issue in this City, and was so during the last election. At that time, this Mayor and the successfully-elected members of Council talked about their vision for addressing this issue, and it centered around implementing the newly-developed Master Transportation Plan. That is the mandate the voters gave us. The MTP contains a variety of goals and strategies, and they are all supported by the plan for transit and transportation infrastructure outlined in the Mayor’s Plan. None of those goals are supported by a NO vote.

Further, during the election I was told by citizens at the doorstep, by people in the media (social and no-so-social), and even by other candidates during all-candidates meetings that the City needs to work collaboratively with our neighbours to solve the regional transportation issues that are impacting New Westminster. The Mayor’s Plan that we are being asked to vote on was developed in collaboration with all of the municipalities in Metro Vancouver, and was approved by the vast majority of them. This is what working collaboratively looks like.

It might also help is we put that $20,000 into perspective.

$20,000 is the cost of a single parking spot. If a YES on this referendum means one more person has access to reliable transit for their daily commute, and the City has to build one less parking spot, we have already broken even.

$20,000 is about 0.7% of our annual paving budget. If traffic is reduced by the infrastructure that comes with this plan enough to reduce the wear on our streets by 0.7% for just one year, then the City breaks even.

$20,000 is less than it costs to respond and investigate a single road fatality in the City. If one less person in a car, on a bike, or walking, is injured or killed in an MVA in our City because traffic is reduced, or because they now have access to a night bus, or because the Pattullo Bridge is made safer, then the City is financially ahead.

A YES vote will bring hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure improvements to the transit and transportation system every person in New Westminster uses every day. $20,000 is a good investment, and we (as elected officials responsible for making good economic decisions for the citizens of New Westminster) would be fools to not support the YES side of this referendum.

On Spending our Reserves

A candidate for Council in 2014 wrote one of those letters to the local paper that I just have to respond to. I know Harm, am a customer of his business, curl with him at the Royal City, and respect him very much. However, this letter is so full of wrong, I need to reply in my customary paragraph-by-paragraph basis. I like to quote people directly, because I don’t want to be accused of misquoting them. However, if I err in fact or in representation, I invite Harm (or anyone else) to reply here.

“In response to both Mr. Lundy’s (Why I’ll be voting ‘No’ in referendum, Inbox, Jan. 23) and Mr. Johnstone’s (Why I’m voting yes, Inbox, Jan. 28) letters about the transportation needs and plans for Metro Vancouver. The reality here is that the governance of Metro Vancouver is a mess! Twenty-two city governments, police departments, fire departments, and unelected Metro regional government and TransLink: A gong show that needs a serious overhaul.”

An interesting argument, but not apropos of the current Metro Vancouver Transit and Transportation Plan referendum. Since the Kevin Falcon era, many have been asking for a review of TransLink governance and a return to a more accountable elected board – no-one has called for that more often and vociferously than the Mayors’ Council. However, the Provincial government has made it clear they are not interested in exploring this at this time, and there is no reason to believe a NO vote will bring this about any more than a Yes vote will. I think I made that point in my earlier letter to Mr. Lundy, so I won’t belabour it here.

“The reality is that Metro cities are sitting on a massive cash reserve in the order of $5 billion as reported in annual financial reports to Dec. 31, 2013. Of the $5 billion, the five cities most serviced by SkyTrain hold $3.4 billion.”

Let’s talk about reserves. If you would like to follow along, you can look at this document from the City website. The City of New Westminster has (or had at the end of fiscal 2013) about $15.7 Million in its bank account (“net financial assets”, Page 1 of the Financial Statements). That is derived from subtracting all of the things the City owes money on (invoices in our inbox + revenue we have deferred + money immediately payable on our debts, etc.) from the financial assets of the City (Cash in the bank + money people owe us + the money we have invested, etc.).

If you take away the fact we owe people money, and people owe us money, there are two more important numbers when thinking about the amount of money we have on hand. One is the “Cash and cash equivalents”, which was about $12 Million. The other number which kind of represents what we have in the bank is found on Page 8: $102M in Investments. When discussing “reserves”, this is the money we have set aside in various reserve funds, prudently invested and earning us a bit of interest income.

When we talk of “accumulated surplus” (Page 13), that is a different number, but $622M is a bit of a funny number, because it includes the depreciated value of most everything the City owns, including skating arenas, light posts and the furniture in the Mayor’s Office. I guess we could sell it all, but we wouldn’t really have a City anymore, would we?

“The reality is that the development of public transit infrastructure creates growth and, unlike traditional sprawl growth, does not cost municipal governments massive amounts of money to support. In fact the direct costs for public infrastructure directly related to density growth is charged back to the developers in the form of development cost charges, in reality a pre-paid tax which then becomes part of the purchase price of the units that are developed.”

Correct, the City collects DCCs from development to pay for present or future infrastructure and amenity cost related to the new population pressure. By necessity, we do not spend the DCC the day we get it. We can’t, because most of the needs are cumulative, and many of them carry operating costs that cannot be carried until the population increase happens. See Page 8 where the deferred Development Cost Charges are itemized:

DCCs1

This is money we collect from DCCs, and have put aside for specific uses. In the meantime, the DCCs sit in – wait for it – reserve. While the growth happens, we strategically draw from this reserve to continue to fund portions of capital costs for projects required to provide the services people demand. But you can’t build $100 worth of sewer every time someone moves to town, you need wait for a bunch of people to move to town, then pool their money to upgrade the sewer as needed
However, it isn’t enough. We simply do not collect enough DCC to pay for all future infrastructure needs, nor should we. People living in the existing housing stock have some use for future infrastructure as well, so the City puts a bit of money aside every year, the amount determined by our long-term capital plan based on projected needs, and fiddled with a bit by council (just because we can). We keep the money in the bank earning interest. Look at Page 13…
dccs2

…and see how reserve funds are set aside for everything from Affordable Housing to Equipment Replacement to Water and Sewer funds (I don’t want to get into the whole Tax vs. Utility thing here as this is already too complicated, so for simplicity, assume it is all tax). I’ll come back to this discussion of reserves in a bit below.

“So, while we all know that municipal spending growth has far exceeded the increases in the cost of living, municipal tax revenues in the cities that benefit directly from transit infrastructure development has even outstripped these massive increases in spending.”

This sentence is simply false. A graph from Woldring’s own website shows how expenses have gone up between 2003 and 2013.

dccs3

Indeed, all of those upward trends look concerning. However, Cities are subject to two types of continual growth: population and inflation. To understand the effect, I set an “index” value for City spending at $100,000,000 in 2013, and increased this value annually, factoring in only the inflation rate (which ranged from 0.3 to 2.9 over those 10 years) and the population growth rate in New West (based on census data, projecting the 2006-2011 trend up to 2013):

dccs4
If we superimpose these numbers on to the earlier graph, note how this line is ever so slightly shallower than the City’s actual expense increases over the same amount of time. Spending growth in New Westminster has only just matched population and inflation growth over the last 10 years:
DCCs5

If you want to stop inflation and stop population growth, then we need to have a serious sit-down about Capitalism as an economic model, but this is probably not the right time or place for that.

“What we have here is a giant power struggle and a fight about taxpayers’ money.”

Well, no. What we have here are two levels of government trying to NOT tax at their own level to pay for services that people want. Mayors don’t want to increase your property tax, and the Province doesn’t want to raise your other taxes, but they both agree the project should be funded. Why? Because they are tired of having to explain to people that public services cost money to provide, because every time they say so, Jordan Bateman steps up and calls them all wasteful incompetents, to the cheers of a hundred CKNW phone-in “men on the street”. This letter to the editor is an example of that phenomenon.

“If transit development creates a “development dividend” for cities, some or all of that dividend should be spent on the continuing development of public transit infrastructure across the district instead of simply fattening the coffers of individual municipalities.”

Far from fattening the coffers, that dividend goes to providing the services people who are living in those developments will need – hence DCCs and expenses going up in parallel to population growth and inflation as seen in the graph above.

“The reason I’m voting ‘No’ is that the money is already there and the provincial government should wrest our money away from those municipalities and invest it in regional transit infrastructure with the emphasis being on moving people and goods using transit infrastructure like SkyTrain, LRT and short sea shipping instead of building more roads, tunnels and bridges. The people are ready; isn’t it about time politicos and bureaucrats stopped protecting their own turfs and do what we pay them for: serve the taxpayer!”

I ask the simple question: if the 5 cities cited above convert the entirety of their reserve funds, 100% of them, to the 10-year Mayors Plan (which would only provide 47% of the needed funding, so let’s assume the Federal Government matches those funds, and we get this done): Now what? (I’m going to, for the sake of argument, ignore the fact that some of these reserves are Statutory, meaning the Community Charter or other legislation limits our ability to spend them on whatever we want).

If we drained our reserve and DCC funds to zero, what would that do to those things listed on Pages 8 and 13 of those financial statements? Money we have earmarked for the Canada Games pool replacement? Gone. Money for the required (and incredibly expensive) storm drainage separation project? Gone. Future electrical utility maintenance and upgrades? Money to re-build Massey Theatre? Future support for daycare, affordable housing, roof replacements on City buildings? Money set aside for future fleet vehicle replacements, computers, the cemetery reserve, or paving of roads? All of it gone. How does that serve the taxpayer?

The letter invokes a picture of City hall having this big vault in the back where Mayor and Council occasionally roll around in piles of cash, all for shits and giggles. In reality, consecutive Councils have created and supported a long-term financial plan that will provide for the ever-increasing needs of the community (a problem made worse by downloading of so many senior government coasts to local governments) while assuring that future councils have the capital required for the huge pile of inevitable big-ticket items the City will need in the future without the sudden need for sharp tax increases whenever a capital project is needed. It is responsible governance.

“p.s. The new bridge to replace the Deas tunnel isn’t as much about cars and trucks as it is about getting bigger ships farther up the Fraser River, and since that’s the case, shouldn’t Port Metro Vancouver and the federal government be funding that one?”

This is hardly a PS. This is the central point. But I’ve been banging that drum for so long I’m tired of the rhythm.

*My turn for a PS: This is a good time to have the discussion about the City’s reserves, not because they would be better served bailing out the Province from their responsibility toward TransLink, but because we are going into a budgeting cycle in the City where Council may ask taxpayers for yet another increase, and some of the money that increase will bring in will go towards reserves. The letter writer clearly believes these reserves are getting too big, I have talked to a Charted Accountant who has some experience in Municipal finance, and (after a cursory review of our 2013 Financial Statements, and admitting he didn’t know much about the pressure on New Westminster’s physical resources) he suggested they were moderate, or perhaps a bit low, and he is not alone in that feeling. We need serious talk about reserves and how we use them, for the long-term good of the City.