In our view, the money government spends is ours and those in temporary charge of our municipality are our employees. It follows that it’s the responsibility of councils and municipalities to tell us clearly how much of our money they are spending and on what.

In an era of poor voter turnout and weak political engagement at a local level, anything a municipality can do to soothe cranky taxpayers and help improve transparency, is a good thing. We urge the new councils to adopt these six best practices:

• It’s called the ‘dashboard’ and it greatly simplifies finding out how your councillor or CRD director voted on every motion that’s brought forward and decision made. In April 2016 Vancouver City Council instituted a Council Voting Dashboard, so that interested parties can examine the voting record on each item (either in favor, opposed, abstained, absent or in conflict of interest). It also lets voters know if the councillor showed up for the vote.

Of course, meeting minutes and, in most cases, video archives, also show how councillors vote. The problem is that reading through minutes of multiple meetings or watching multiple archived council meetings is extremely time consuming for people.

The task of updating this record is performed by municipal legislative services, so it’s easy to maintain once set up and it could be done by the same person who records the minutes. The City of Victoria has recently approved implementing this valuable tool likely next year.

• Most taxpayers are unaware that annual financial disclosure statements are submitted each year in mid January by the incumbent mayor and councillors (as well as municipal nominees and employees) pursuant to the BC Financial Disclosure Act.

The legislation requires that politicians list income, real property, liabilities, corporate assets and investments with the aim of preventing conflicts of interest.

The City of Vancouver is one of the few jurisdictions that provides the public with yearly links to the financial disclosure statements on its municipal website.

In the interests of transparency, Grumpy Taxpayer$ urges municipalities, electoral districts and the CRD to follow suit and provide easy access by posting disclosure statements annually for the convenience of the public.

• Politicians have a tendency to close doors and go in-camera too often, with the result that the public never knows what happened.

The City of Vancouver makes a practice of posting in-camera decisions and reports on a regular basis.They’re released because they are no longer considered sensitive, but this practice is not necessarily followed by every municipality.

• By law, municipalities are required to compile a Statement of Financial Information (SOFI) annually that includes council remuneration and expenses.

But in North Vancouver, mayors and councillors expenses are posted quarterly instead of many months after the fact. That practice is far more timely for the inquiring mind.

• Council agendas can run up to an astounding 2,000 pages. The taxpayer doesn’t have time or patience to wade through to find items of interest.

The City of Victoria sends out a public brief ‘Council highlights report’ that outlines important items with convenient links to further information. Why in heck aren’t other jurisdictions – particularly the larger one’s – adopting this low-cost practice?

• The annual report, financial statement and annual budget are the three critical documents to learn what your council is doing with your tax dollars.

In our view, annual reports shouldn’t be full of public relations fluff, but provide important and understandable information about what’s going on. Complicated and highly detailed financial statements should be presented of course, but in there also needs to be a brief, understandable version. Budgets should also be presented in a summation format so as to be more understandable.

Links for all of these key documents should be prominently and permanently displayed on a local government website homepage, not buried.

In sum, better transparency in municipal affairs leads to more and better quality information for the public, along with increased involvement and scrutiny.

It will also result in increased respect for the political process and better value for our tax dollars.

“The document shows Saanich in a good light in my mind,” said Coun. Colin Plant Monday, as council received the report and forwarded its recommendation to staff. – Saanich News, Saanich’s tax burden below regional average, May 18

___________________________________________________________________________

Grumpy Taxpayer$ examined the assertions in the 2018 KPMG Audit and by Coun. Colin Plant and found them baseless.

One of the reasons the property tax burden per capita in Saanich is thought moderate is that utility rates and any special levies for garbage, sewer and water – which have been escalating significantly in recent years – are not included in property taxes.

Secondly, if the tax burden is actually moderate, it’s largely at the expense of the business owner, who pays a multiple of almost four times that of a residential owner. In 2017, the Saanich business tax was the third highest of the 13 municipalities.

Thirdly, if the tax burden is actually moderate, it is artificially low as a result of the municipality being slow to deal with its substantial infrastructure deficit.

Capital building reserves are very limited, even although tens of millions of dollars must be found to replace or redevelop 10 major municipal buildings identified in the master plan. This spring council approved a 152-page strategic facilities master plan that approved plans to first redevelop the aging parks and public works yard and Fire Hall No. 2 which are considered the most critical.

Fourthly, measuring and comparing municipal property taxation between municipalities must be done with great care in order not to provide distorted information. Using “per capita” measurements can be quite misleading.  It is the number of taxable properties by type, the assessed values, the tax rates and tax multiples that tell the tale.

This is precisely why the Ministry uses the Schedule 704 data to come up with the total municipal taxes and fees per single family dwelling, so that more accurate comparisons can be made. Similarly assessed “representative houses” have been paying very similar taxes over the past six years.

“Per Capita” measurements make tax burdens appear higher when all property taxes are lumped together and then divided by population when the municipalities being compared by significantly diverse property types. When half of the municipal property taxes are paid by business (as in Victoria), lumping those in with residential and then dividing by the lower population of Victoria makes the “per capita” appear higher in Victoria.  That is why the Ministry separates single family dwellings (which is the real impact felt by homeowners).  In other words, how much are similar homeowners paying in property taxes and fees (forget how many people live in the municipalities).

Lastly, another factor missed by KPMG is the average number of persons per household. In Victoria for example, according to Stats Canada in 2011 and 2016, it was 1.8 and in Saanich it was 2.4.  So you can’t determine the tax burden “per capita” using Census Data either because municipal taxes and fees are not determined on a “per capita” basis, or by the number of people per household. They are determined by the type of property, it’s tax multiple, (1 for residential), it’s tax rate (mill rate), times the assessed value, as determined by BC Assessment.

TWO STARS (OUT OF FOUR) PINOCCHIO AWARD:

Normally this would rate three Stars out of four, but given it’s a municipal election year, one star will be deducted. In our view the information provided by KPMG – even though they qualify it with its limitations – and commented on by Coun. Plant is distorted and misleading.

RELATED:

2018 District of Saanich Audit, KPMG, Page 14
http://saanich.ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=161&meta_id=7129

Saanich News, Saanich’s tax burden below regional average, May 18
https://www.saanichnews.com/news/saanichs-tax-burden-below-regional-average/

Schedule 704, Government of BC
http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/infra/tax_rates/tax_rates2017.htm

-30-

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?