BY BRUCE AND LAURIE KENNEDY

When newly-minted Mayor Fred Haynes and council sit down to plan priorities for the next four years, they must focus more on renewing the aging infrastructure in Saanich and less on election wish lists.

Saanich faces mounting budget pressures from several sources. Some are from unanticipated costs including the Employers’ Health Tax and cleaning up Regina Park after tent city, others from expected cost increases such as union contracts.

Meanwhile, the discussion around Saanich’s infrastructure deficit has faded into the background. So it’s critical to bring this discussion back into the forefront.

The infrastructure deficit is the difference between the cost of replacement of an asset, such as a building or a water pipe, which has reached the end of its useful life and the amount of money currently available to replace it. This should be the major issue for Saanich’s newly elected council: It seems that several of the younger members understand this, as they have expressed a concern about leaving a big tax bill for future generations.

Saanich has the region’s largest municipal population, with about 115,000 residents, and has an extensive, aging infrastructure.  For example, parts of the municipality are still serviced by wooden stave water pipes.

How much money does Saanich need to keep it all in good operating condition?  We asked the director of finance in 2018 and she responded, “Implementation of a full asset management program that would eventually lead us to reliable replacement and deficit calculations for all assets is some way off.”  We don’t hold Saanich staff responsible for not having an answer, but rather we saw this as a failure of the previous council to understand how crippling this deficit may be.

In the absence of a concrete deficit figure from Saanich, we turned to the Canadian Infrastructure Report (2016). This report is designed to assess the condition of municipally owned infrastructure across Canada.  This report puts the dollar replacement value of assets in poor and very poor condition at $10,000 a household (Page 12). In Saanich there are 49,422 private households according to the 2016 census.  So that gives a rough estimate of almost $500 million for its infrastructure deficit.   

As early as 2015 council and Saanich’s administration identified the poor condition of the district’s infrastructure – everything from streets, sewer and water pipes, buildings,  and information technology – as a priority. Since then, .75 per cent of each annual budget was set aside toward infrastructure replacement. The critical question becomes, is it enough in this age of escalating construction costs and rising interest rates?

This spring Saanich council approved a strategic facilities master plan that recommended to first redevelop the aging parks and public works yard and Fire Hall No. 2, which are considered the most critical.

The master plan prioritized 10 major municipal buildings that need redevelopment or replacement, but provided no cost estimates of timelines.  In the meantime, we are paying escalating maintenance costs on these aging infrastructures, funds that we will never recover.

So what are council’s options in dealing with this?

Saanich has the ability to borrow money. Saanich’s policy has wisely allowed for a maximum of $92 million of debt, and there’s currently only $46 million, according to the master plan. Using everything, we might be able to replace the public works yard and the fire hall, but what about everything else on the long list? Is this a good option as interest rates are rising (five times since July 2017 and more increases predicted in the next year)?

What about raising taxes?  Well, that would directly impact the issue of affordable housing with these costs being borne by renters and homeowners.  Council could put the burden on business owners, but that would negatively impact economic development.

The simple answer is that this new council needs to  prioritize its capital projects based on what must be done, versus, the nice to dos.  Any plans brought before council need to not simply be a vision, but also detail the costs.  Council also needs to insist that staff look for economy in their designs and avoid building monuments and adding unnecessary frills.

It will be up to mayor and council to decide; do we want new hockey arenas or a functional fire hall. We probably can’t afford both.

The Kennedy’s are Saanich residents and board members of the advocacy group Grumpy Taxpayer$ of Greater Victoria.

RELATED

The harsh reality of Saanich’s crumbling infrastructure, Times Colonist, Nov. 4, 2018

https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/island-voices-the-harsh-reality-of-saanich-s-crumbling-infrastructure-1.23485327

Strategic Facilities Master Plan, Administration Report, Apr. 12, 2018


http://saanich.ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=151&meta_id=6404

District of Saanich Strategic Facilities Master Plan, 2018

http://saanich.ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=151&meta_id=6405

Saanich Draft Financial Plan, 2018-22

http://www.saanich.ca/assets/Local%7EGovernment/Documents/2018%20Financial%20Plan%20Draft.pdf

Canadian Infrastructure Report Card (2016)

Calling Grumpy Taxpayer$ ‘grumpy’ is a term of endearment, but when a former politician Gary Holman, calls us ‘grumpy-pants’ it’s too much. If name-calling won arguments, ‘scaredy pants’ would describe someone who defends the dysfunctional status quo of regional government.

The CRD is unfortunately held in low regard by taxpayers and many mayors and councilors, but most of us agree it’s an important institution.

The 50-year-old CRD has outlived its usefulness in its’ present form. It cannot deliver solutions to the problems this community faces and the most recent examples are the province taking over the sewage treatment project, its’ inability to deliver consolidated emergency services, or draft a new regional growth strategy. It’s fashionable to sit fuming in the Colwood Crawl or Pat Bay Putt-Putt because of a non-existent regional transportation strategy.

Author of the provincial CISGI report on regional governance pitching shared services George Abbott concluded, “It (CRD) does a good job on some things and has a harder time with others. Getting to ‘yes’ on big contentious issues is a problem.” The rush to shared services since the report is underwhelming.

The CRD must function in a cost-effective, collaborative and accountable manner and to be and be seen as an effective mechanism for regional issues.

While we reserve the right to be irritable – although our slogan is ‘Almost the Best Place on Earth’ – Grumpy$ has made recommendations to the province.

Hold separate elections. The biggest drawback to reaching effectiveness and better value for taxes is the board structure and composition. The exception is the three electoral districts, where directors are elected directly and presumably held to higher standards.

Saanich and Victoria voters choose CRD directors, a practice which isn’t sanctioned or addressed in any legislation. However, to sit as directors they must also be elected council members. All remaining jurisdictions appoint their mayor.

No one ever runs on regional issues and so there’s no voter focused discussion. None. Directors by-and-large serve with no regional mandate on any issue, as they’re accountable only to voters in their municipality.
The CRD must become a separately elected body, with declared ward candidates and election platforms allowing for full democratic accountability for their actions. Otherwise little progress will ever be made to modernize and revitalize regional governance.

Dr. Robert Bish, who authored the Governing Greater Victoria report (2016) pitching shared services, concluded that directly electing the chair would “bring some political legitimacy to the CRD”, adding, the executive office has “much more potential to be cost-conscious.”

Review CRD governance and mandate. With 220 or so services involving residents of southern Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands, the areas of responsibility are considerable and not conducive to proper board oversight. The workload of current CRD directors is formidable, involving numerous boards, committees and commissions, plus their respective duties on council.

Insist on core competencies. It’s urged the province help develop core competencies such as financial literacy at the CRD board level. The challenge is to manage the largest operating and capital budgets in the South Island. The CRD services arguably have the greatest impact on residents.

Limit director terms. Professional politicians sitting on boards for several terms can be counterproductive to healthy local government. Roles thought of as a part-time public service by much of the public – difficult when directors are permanent fixtures – must allow for a diversity of skills, experience and viewpoints.

Reduce board size. With 24 directors – the PEI legislature has 27 members – the size of the CRD board is unworkable. In the current convoluted system of weighted voting, 5,000 in population translates into one vote, so to accommodate a smaller board this would change.

Modify oath of allegiance. Do CRD directors vote for the interests of their local authority or the entire region? Because of its structure, the CRD is an unaccountable level of government and its directors are unaccountable for their decision – good or bad. The dual and conflicting roles remain at the heart of the failure to reach a consensus on major issues.

Prioritize respectful governance and transparency. While the CRD professes to include public transparency and participation as part of doing business, that’s often not the case. Press releases cover ‘good news stories’, instead of informing the public on important issues. Increasingly, more closed-door sessions away from the prying eyes of the disapproving public, as evidenced by the debate around the now-dead Commonwealth Games bid.

The difficulty in improving governance and getting better value for taxes, Mr. Holman, lies not in new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones with your pants on.

Arguably an institution whose identity can’t be clearly defined is set up for failure and can’t be held accountable for anything.

It’s there at the bottom left-hand corner of the homepage of the Capital Regional District website – ‘The CRD is a local government.’ Furthermore, the Times Colonist reckoned in a recent editorial that it’s, “The government that Greater Victorians love to hate…”

Depending on the label you attach to the CRD, it has huge consequences for your escalating tax load: If the status of a public agency is unclear to voters and staff then accountability becomes complicated, if not impossible. In an accountability model based on lack of power to directly raise taxes, accountability is even more of an issue. To spend, but not be able to raise and account for the revenue, most residents agree results in a dysfunctional, undemocratic and costly local administration.

To help sort out the identity crisis we spoke with the CRD itself, consulted the most respected dictionary in the Western World (Oxford Dictionary), the recent provincial report Capital Integrated Services and Governance Initiative (CISGI), and the Community Charter and Local Government Act (the underlying legislation).

Andy Orr, the communications manager at the CRD “agrees the term (regional government) is open to interpretation but says it’s the right term.”

“We do go out of our way to use the ‘federation’ language and to be clear that many of our services are opt in, but even in that case they are generally supplied across the region,” says Orr.

Not so, if you look at the 16 services offered by the CRD as detailed in the CISGI report. Take policing for example, participation in shared services varies from 30 per cent in Langford to 93 per cent in Saanich. For recreation services, shared services range from 45 per cent in Sooke to 91 per cent in Victoria.

Orr says, “The ‘regional government’ is also an important term in getting grant money and responsibilities from senior level of governments, like being the entity for the federal housing strategy monies that flow to our region. I think we clearly have regional parks and regional water supply delivery and a regional watershed supply area.”

That’s confusing because the CISGI report is categorical in referring to regional districts as “federations of municipal and rural participants”, adding, ”Regional districts are created by the provincial government to provide a basis for inter-municipal collaboration, as well as to provide local government services to areas outside of municipalities (e.g. unincorporated areas or ‘electoral areas’).”

It goes on, “Regional Districts are designed to be a basis for partnership between their constituent units and not a second tier of local government or a fourth level of government. They are designed to enable participants to combine to provide services they cannot provide themselves.”

Mind you, the province and the federal governments often treat the CRD as a level of government. There are regional functions required by legislation and some services provided across the region such as a developing a growth strategy (or not) and the landfill function.

So, time to turn to the esteemed Oxford dictionary, which defines government as, “the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office.’

The CRD has some authority – but not a lot. It can’t raise taxes like other governments (municipalities contribute funds depending on which services they opt-in for). It doesn’t get involved in various activities such as roads (like the province and the feds). Its 24-person board isn’t directly elected or accountable to the public and tends to at in secrecy. It has failed miserably at the larger issues such as developing a sewer treatment plan, a regional growth strategy or a regional transportation plan.

When you look at the underlying legislation for the CRD, the Local Government Act and Community Charter, describe regional districts ambiguously as, “an independent, responsible and accountable ‘order’ of government within their jurisdiction.” It’s certainly debatable about how responsible and accountable the CRD is, and this writer has no idea what is meant by ‘order.’

So maybe the CRD – no other jurisdiction in the world has seen fit to replicate the regional district model since inception 50 years ago – is a federation?

It’s true that the Oxford definition of federation as “an organization or group within which smaller divisions have some degree of internal autonomy” and that the word fits the CRD to some extent. It’s true the word ‘federation’ is also a lot more upscale and reflective of its huge budget than calling the CRD an ‘administrative unit.’

The word federation is also less misleading and more accurate for taxpayers in 13 municipalities and three electoral areas who foot the bill for 571 full-time and 500 part-time staff.

This weak partnership with its limitations on pragmatism, compromise and common sense continues to suit the provincial government, which is very wary of having any powerful mega jurisdiction challenge it across the boardroom table.

Given its strong resistance to making substantive improvements, the public can only conclude that the province prefers to maintain this ineffective and squabbling federation.

Let’s go with federation.

Bartlett is the chair of Grumpy Taxpayer$ of Greater Victoria, a non-partisan advocacy group dedicated to lower taxes, less waste, and more accountable municipal government.

RELATED

Capital Integrated Services and Governance Initiative (CISGI), Section 2.2.1, BC Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, 2016. https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2017MAH0002-001472

BC Community Charter, 2016.
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/consol15/consol15/03026_00

Local Government Act, 2017, Part 5.
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/r15001_00

Grumpy Taxpayer$ is a non-profit, unaffiliated, non-partisan, citizen’s advocacy group dedicated to lower taxes, less waste, and more accountable municipal government. DONATE & JOIN US?

There were fewer than 60,000 residents in either Victoria or Saanich, and only a few thousand people in Sidney. Langford, Colwood and View Royal were only a twinkle in someone’s eye.

The same year British Columbia also ‘boldly went where no one had gone before’ and corralled a ragtag group of villages, towns, cities, and the spaces in between, into one administrative unit. The primary legislation governing regional districts eventually became the Local Government Act, although certain aspects of the Community Charter of 2003 also apply.

Unfortunately, during the last few generations the public has accumulated a widely held but false set of beliefs or myths about the Capital Regional District (CRD) which we hope to dispel.

1. CRD is a level of government. A common misconception, but the CRD is not a government. It’s an administrative unit and a forum where a board of 24 meets to deal with regional issues and needs. It does not have the power to implement decisions when opposed by local authorities.

2. CRD is a democratic institution. The CRD chair and all but three members of the board are not directly elected by popular vote or directly accountable for decisions and actions. So, 21 directors are selected or appointed by the various municipalities, bolstered by another 24 alternate directors who are also unelected. The board oath of allegiance does not require directors to act in the interests of the region.

3. CRD has taxing authority. It has no powers of taxation in its enabling legislation and can’t directly impose and collect taxes. It receives most of its revenue from an agglomeration of 13 municipalities and their taxpayers through annual assessments.

4. CRD directors represents an equal amount of population. Not at all. Municipalities are allocated one director for each 25,000 in population or portion thereof. Policy decisions are made by the board some of which affect the entire CRD. Population per director ranges from 2,221 per Highlands director to 22,153 per Saanich director. Then there’s ‘weighted votes’ made on funding decisions that vary from a population of 2,221 for the Highlands to 5,780 for Langford.

5. CRD is well run and efficient. After an epic and rancorous debate over regional sewer treatment that eventually required the province to step in – and $65-million wasted before agreement – the ineffectual CRD became a major issue for taxpayers. From animal control to parks to transportation, many of the roles and responsibilities of the CRD overlap with its constituent municipalities.

6. CRD is a transparent organization. The most striking thing about the CRD is its complexity: It’s not uncommon to have 1,000-page agendas or budget documents. There are 25 standing committees and select committees, along with a total of 53 committees, boards and commissions, topped up with appointments to 16 external boards. There are 155 inter-municipal arrangements, agreements between one or more municipalities administered by the CRD. Each of these separate functions requires its own legal agreement, financial formulas, management committee and CRD staff to administer. (There’s also 201 so-called ‘good neighbour’ agreements, separate voluntary integrated service delivery (ISD) arrangements organized among municipalities, separate from those administered by the CRD).

7. CRD services are paid for by everyone. True, every taxpayer in the South Island contributes to the operation of the CRD administrative operations. But, each municipality is also assessed a different amount depending on which of the 210 local, regional or sub-regional services they receive.

8. CRD is a low-budget operation. The CRD consolidated operations and capital budget this year totals almost $500-million, the largest budget in the region including Victoria or Saanich. The CRD has grown dramatically from six to 13 municipalities – Saltspring will hold a referendum in September to decide on forming a municipality – and three electoral districts across the South Island from Port Renfrew to the Gulf Islands.

9. CRD focuses on sewage treatment, water conservation, and managing parks. The CRD’s mandate has mushroomed to include 210 services, along with responsibility for the Capital Regional Hospital District and the Capital Regional Housing Corp. A recent addition was taking on duties for emergency management in the region for disasters like earthquakes.

10. CRD employs a couple of hundred people. It has morphed into a large bureaucracy especially during the last few decades. Now the staff complement totals more than 1,000, with 530 regular staff, 41 term positions, and 441 seasonal and casual staff housed around the district.

These myths aren’t only carried around by the bewildered public, but also by some elected officials and their staff. At the end of the day, the taxpayer has a CRD that’s undemocratic, dysfunctional and unaffordable, a situation that cannot continue for the taxpayer.

Better and more responsive local governance would help grow a $15-billion regional economy.

During the summer of 2016 the province struck the Capital Integration Services and Governance Initiative (CISGI) to review the governance and operation of the CRD. The public and local politicians eagerly await its recommendations and for the province to assume some leadership in shaping local government.

Since the regional district blueprint was introduced a half century ago there’s no other jurisdiction in North America – maybe the world – that has copied this alien approach to managing municipal affairs.
Reprint this Opinion Column with credit to Grumpy Taxpayer$ of Greater Victoria please.

Then credit card statements arrive, along with the new property assessment, and several fatter utility bills. On top of that city hall starts talking about big hikes to one of your largest bills of the year, dreaded property taxes.

The average Canadian family now spends more on taxes than housing, food and clothing combined with 42 per cent of income going to taxes, and 38 per cent being spent on the basic necessities of life. It’s likely a greater percentage here in the Victoria region, one of the highest cost of living areas in the country. All this before the CRD takes its generous cut, or the bills for sewage treatment or a new bridge, the two largest infrastructure projects in the region’s history.

With that in mind and a goal of better value for taxes, here’s a handy-dandy list of the Top 12 Budget Questions To Ask Your Councillor:

1. How does this year’s tax increase compare to inflation? Inflation is running at about two per cent so municipalities shouldn’t be asking for any more than that. Otherwise it needs to be clearly justified preferably through public hearing or a referendum. How have tax increases for residents and business, compounded annually, compared to inflation and population growth during the past 10 years?

2. Are you satisfied that you are sharing as many services as you can with neighbouring municipalities? What about joint procurements? Ask why the blazes 13 jurisdictions aren’t collaborating on payroll services for example? Demand municipalities work with the CRD to create a common procurement system to save tax dollars and improve services.

3. What percentage of the budget covers personnel costs and is that static or has it changed in recent years? It’s well known civic employees are generously compensated, far more than the private sector. Urge the municipality to press the province to develop compensation guidelines and regulations to prevent municipalities from poaching staff from one another and driving up wages.

4. What’s the bottom line? If you’re a City of Victoria or Saanich taxpayer – everyone supports the Capital Regional District, the Capital Regional Housing Corporation and Capital Regional Hospital District Board – the budget documents each weigh in at about 1,000 pages. Where are the two or three page financial statements and the summation? Most taxpayers don’t have the time, inclination or interest in rummaging through confusing door-stoppers.

5. Does council know the ground has shifted? Budget documents are prepared months in advance and local, provincial, national and international economic forces can change dramatically. A three per cent tax increase may have been justified then, but not now after the climate of economic uncertainty around the world, particularly in Canada and the U.S., after the American election. Now, the B.C. government will be required to hire hundreds of teachers and spend between $250-million and $300 million more e-a-c-h year on education, after the dramatic win by B.C. teachers in the Supreme Court of Canada. That huge annual shortfall comes out of your other pocket.

6. Why tax increases in a booming economy? Much of the region is experiencing economic growth not seen in 25 years. Sure costs go up, but with a windfall in additional tax revenue – along with increased assessment and a broader tax base – how can council justify increasing taxes so much?

7. Does your council know the Victoria region has a very high cost of living? It’s well established this part of the country has one of the highest costs of living in Canada. It’s even more so this past year, as housing costs have escalated dramatically driving up such fixed costs such as insurance and mortgage payments. Remind them.

8. Don’t we own any assets? Is it worth selling some land or physical assets to moderate tax increases or dipping into the cash in that rainy day fund’?

9. What about the debt side of the ledger? Nobody talks about the debt even though the region collectively owe a staggering half billion dollars by end of Dec. 2015 That’s before (local share of the) $765-million sewer treatment project and the $105-million plus bridge replacement in Victoria. Can your municipality support any more increased debt?

10. What is your council doing to encourage economic health and development? Prosperity and taxes are also created through nurturing business (which pays up to eight times the multiple of residential taxpayers). What is its plan and how much of the budget is contributed to specific goals?

11. Why isn’t ‘Zero-Based Budgeting’ applied to our municipal departments? Government tends to keep on growing unless councils refocus their mandates and goals in a rigorous, disciplined fashion. Instead of automatically adding a percentage increase every year in the budget, councillors need to start from zero. Every expenditure needs to be scrutinized and determined to be necessary to do a task. Start by zero base budgeting one municipal department every year.

12. Ask directors at the CRD to justify the proposed average 8 per cent rate hike. Esquimalt and the West Shore taxpayers face double digit increases this year, and the total budget is expected to soar 8 per cent. Ask your councillor if the orgy of infrastructure projects are necessary or can they be scaled back?

Reprint this Opinion Column with credit to Grumpy Taxpayer$ of Greater Victoria please.
Available for Media Interviews:

Stan Bartlett, Chair, Grumpy Taxpayer$
grumpytaxpayers@telus.net
250-477-9907

John Treleaven, 1st Vice-chair, Grumpy Taxpayer$
treleavengroup@shaw.ca
250.656.7899, cell 250.588.7899