Looking forward to new assignments

At the end of each year on Council, we decide among ourselves which Council members will sit on which committees and boards for the following year. Two of my long-time duties -- chair of the Coquitlam River Aggregate Advisory Committee and chair of the Evergreen Line Public Art Task Force -- have now ended because both bodies have completed their work, so I am looking forward to some new duties in 2017. Here's what I will be up to:
Metro Vancouver: New for 2017, I will be Mayor Richard Stewart's alternate on the Metro Board. I will also be a member of Metro's Performance and Audit Committee.
Culture Services Advisory Committee: I will continue to sit on the committee for the sixth consecutive year, but will be moving to the vice-chair position, with Councillor Towner taking over the chair.
Multiculturalism Advisory Committee: Continuing for third consecutive year as vice-chair, with Councillor Brent Asmundson continuing as chair.
Sustainability and Environmental Advisory Committee: A new responsibility for me, as I will be chairing the committee, with Councillor Chris Wilson as vice-chair.
Thanks to my Council colleagues for supporting me on the above!
As well, I will be continuing as the Mayor's Designate (City Rep) on the board of the Coquitlam Foundation.
Please click here to see the full list of committee, board, panel, partnership, roundtable, and task-group appointments.

Griping about GVRD governance

Ok, so here's what bugs me about the way the GVRD (aka Metro Vancouver) governance system works. 1. A candidate gets elected to a local council and is soon sworn in, pledging to do what's best for his or her community. 2. A few of those councillors and mayors are then selected by their councils to represent their community on the GVRD board of directors, where they are then sworn in, pledging to do what's best for Metro.

See the problem? You can't serve two masters. It's as simple as that. Yet, that's what's being asked of Metro directors. Not only are they not directly accountable to any electorate, they also find themselves in situations where, if they're doing what's best for Metro, they might not be doing what's best for the community that elected them.

This is why I tabled a Notice of Motion at last night's council meeting (seconded by Councillor Asmundson), seeking council backing to ask the provincial government to review GVRD governance. My motion follows a similar one passed last month at the BC Chamber of Commerce AGM.

You will find the text of my Notion of Motion below, as well as the background paper from the Victoria Chamber which explains the BC Chamber's motion.

I expect that Coquitlam council will deal with this issue at its next meeting.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Whereas concerns about the democratic accountability of the Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (Metro Vancouver) have arisen involving board members’ twofold roles as, first, politicians directly elected to serve their communities on local councils and, second, as representatives who are later selected by their respective councils to sit on the GVRD board; and

Whereas, at its May 2014 AGM, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, citing issues related to the need for increased accountability and better local decision-making at the regional-government level, called on the provincial government to conduct an independent study of urban and rural regional governance models to identify best practices and efficiencies and determine the feasibility of implementing those in B.C.

Therefore, be it resolved, that Coquitlam Council call on the provincial government to conduct a study of regional governance models, not only to identify best practices and efficiencies but also to increase democratic accountability, so as to determine the feasibility of implementing these goals in B.C..; and that Council’s resolution be forwarded to the next meeting of the Union of B.C. Municipalities for its consideration and endorsement.

Here is the text from the Victoria Proposed Policy Resolution that was adopted during the BC Chamber AGM in May 2014. The final version of the policy statement is currently being edited, but this is the resolution as it was passed.

REVIEW OF REGIONAL GOVERNANCE MODEL IN URBAN AREAS

In 1966, the B.C. government established the regional district concept of local government in hopes of dealing with problems that transcended traditional municipal boundaries. These regional governments operate throughout the province as a local form of government, governed by the Local Government Act. Prior to the introduction of regional districts, land use and planning were done directly by the Province, whereas local services (such as fire protection and water management) were provided by independently incorporated improvement districts or municipalities under contract with the Province.

Today, there are 162 municipalities in B.C., plus 27 regional districts. Most regional districts inhabit primarily unincorporated rural areas (electoral areas). However, some urban areas, which have been deemed regionally unregulated because of numerous neighbouring municipalities, have become dependent on regional districts for certain regional responsibilities. In the Greater Victoria area alone, there are 13 municipalities with one encompassing Capital Regional District (CRD), serving a population of over 350,000. In the Lower Mainland the regional district, Metro Vancouver (Metro) represents 24 members including 22 municipalities, one electoral area, and one treaty First Nation and serves a population of 2.3 million.

The purpose of regional districts is three-fold: they are regional governments that deliver regional services; they are inter-municipal and provide a political and administrative framework for the delivery of services on a partnership basis; and they can offer local government services for unincorporated areas.

The CRD and Metro are both somewhat considered regional district anomalies because of their highly-populated urban areas. In these two districts, the regional governments primarily provide fully regional services like water supply and air quality management. In contrast, less populated regional districts are more focused on providing local services like planning, and fire protection. While both the CRD and Metro share regional problems, the province deals them with quite differently. Most notably, accessing capital and transportation management are two key issues handled legislatively in a different way from one another.

In 1988, the legislature adopted the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act, which was the result of extensive negotiations between the province and the regional district. This was significant in a number of respects: it gave the GVRD new powers in transit, major roads, air care and Transportation Demand Management; and provided revenue sources to match. Significantly, it removed hospital financing as a regional district responsibility as one of the swaps necessary to achieve a balanced and mutually acceptable package. In contrast, the CRD, which is experiencing significant transportation challenges, has no governing transportation body overlooking the region.

The Municipal Finance Authority Act was created in 1971 and took advantage of the emergence of regional districts and mandated that all municipalities - with the exception of the City of Vancouver and special boards - had to borrow through their regional districts. This allowed local governments, through their regional districts, to pool their assets and borrowing requests and collectively approach the marketplace producing benefits in lower borrowing costs. Thus, while the CRD’s primary city, Victoria, must borrow money through its regional district, Metro’s primary city, Vancouver, is not mandated to do the same.

Metro’s unique agreements with the province have allowed some of its main issues to be somewhat mitigated. Particular areas of BC have grown and will continue to grow at unprecedented rates since the establishment of regional districts, including the CRD, Regional District of Central Okanagan, Regional District of Nanaimo, and Regional District of Fraser-Fort George. As these urbanized regions escalate, they may also benefit from similar agreements that the province holds with Metro.

A continuing concern of many residents in urban areas is the question of representation on regional district boards. Residents of electoral areas elect a representative to sit on the regional district board. Meanwhile, representation of municipal areas on the district’s Board of Directors is supposedly ensured by directors who are members of municipal council and appointed by their councils for terms of three years. In other words, municipal voters have no direct voice in deciding which of their elected representatives will be on their regional district’s Board of Directors.

A recent example of this need for increased accountability and better local decision-making is the concern over the proposed property tax increases outlined by BC Transit and the Victoria Regional Transit Commission in the coming years, echoing the concerns raised in the lower mainland over tax increases by Translink in 2010. While other regions are also experiencing unsustainable increases, the CRD’s example illustrates the problem most vividly. As published, the increases reflect a more than doubling of the property tax portion from just over $60 million in 2009/10 to over $113 million in 2015/16, increases that will hit businesses in the region particularly hard.

While the business community supports the goals of public transportation and the principles of sustainability, there are significant concerns that such increases are financially unsustainable. This most recent example continues to call for the formation of a regional transportation authority, one that encompasses all transportation modes and provides for increased accountability and local decision-making.

It appears the regional governance model does not serve the majority of districts well. The fine- tuning of the regional governance structure to meet the needs of particular areas is too short term an approach and longer-term solutions are required. The solution also needs to address the different issues and concerns facing both rural and urban regional districts. The regions need to be treated fairly and appropriately and review of this important governing body and its role is needed.

THE CHAMBER RECOMMENDS

That the provincial government conduct an independent study of urban and rural regional governance models to identify best practices and efficiencies and determine the feasibility of implementing those in B.C.

Coquitlam should be rewarded for shouldering population growth

I don't have enough information to comment on whether or not Vision Vancouver is mishandling the way the City of Vancouver is proceeding with rezoning plans for several neighbourhoods--rezoning that would lead to higher densities.
However, I think it is obvious that the public pushback, which was once again in view last night (see this story) is not simply about concerns over inadequate consultation, but is also reflective of deep concerns about densification.
Coincidentally, I attended a meeting this morning, staged by Metro Vancouver and MC'd by Mayor Richard Stewart, that looked at the importance of well-planned densification and, specifically, its relationship to transit. Coquitlam is getting it right, for the most part.
Nevertheless, a major issue is that, while Coquitlam is shouldering its fair share of regional population growth by proceeding with such multi-family-centric projects as the Partington Creek neighbourhood on Burke Mountain, the ultimate success of such projects depends on getting frequent, reliable public transit into the area. And the fact is, this sort of service is lagging in areas such as Burke Mountain.

Compare that with Vancouver's situation. As the map to the right shows (and if you can't see it clearly, you can click here to see the web version), Vancouver is extremely well served by the region's Frequent Transit Network, aka FTN (the orange lines).
So here's my point: I think that if Vancouver ends up backing down on the densification rezoning and, thereby, fails to take its proper role in shouldering population growth, then Translink must seriously look at downgrading the FTN in the City of Vancouver and improving it in cities like Coquitlam that are living up to their commitments.
Vancouver shouldn't be able to have its cake and eat it too--to have a rich FTN while refusing to proceed with rezoning to allow increased densities in selected neighbourhoods. Period.