My Personal 'To Do' List 2008-What Didn't Get Done

At the beginning of the last term, I laid out personal projects to pursue. This is lifted from 2008:

Some Personal Projects for the next term...

* Enable innovative technologies for low cost housing, including manufactured homes

* Enact alternatives to commercial open air slash fires including waste diversion and controlled burning

* Launch a pilot project for low speed Electric Vehicles

* Introduce a Forest Retention Bylaw (to regulate large scale clear-cutting)

Interesting that these ideas went nowhere, for the most part. I wanted to see a competition around pre-manufactured homes, showcased on a piece of property I thought might be suitable. Two problems- we needed first to redo the OCP, and in the end, no new language came forth that would have permitted it. Also, very little interest from the companies I contacted, because of Bowen's location.

Burning bylaw- still waiting, though staff insist it is part of the waste management strategy that will be coming forward. Meanwhile, huge slash piles got burned at Cape Roger Curtis, but because of a quirk in the law regarding transportation of wood waste off-property, Eddy is subject to onerous requirements to do the same at his 'pit', even though he has an expensive air blower system.

LSEV's- We did get one over here- more like a $12,000 golf cart than a real road vehicle. There is a very small market for these vehicles due to their limitations; the Volt, Nissan Leaf, and Mitsubishi's new i- MIEV have pretty much supplanted LSEV's, and they require nothing in terms of legislation to put on the road here.

Forest Retention- pretty much got rolled into the EAS Development Permit area. The second reading has been rescinded, awaiting revision before it comes back again.

My Attributes as a Councillor

This is horn-blowing, so you are forewarned....

I think I've been a good elected official, and have been complimented on this (in between all the complaints). So here are some personal attributes:

1. I am well informed. This comes from interest and curiosity, coupled with having been at it a long time. Between myself and Alison Morse, we hold pretty much all of the corporate memory. Alison knows the details, I am more about big picture- strategic planning, trends, background. Our senior staff are all relative newbies.

2. I work hard. I do lots of homework, looking up comparable legislation, alternate solutions, etc. I attend almost all meetings and extra functions, go to conferences, get educated. I come to every Council meeting well prepared, and with an open mind. (That's why I don't hold strong positions about most things- I listen to what others say and have changed my vote as a result on many occasions). I sit on/liaise with lots of committees. Most of this is unpaid.

3. I communicate, often to excess. I talk with people, and am almost always 'available'. I post on the Phorum, write letters, lots of emails. I give interviews topress (mostly Vancouver and North Shore, on regional issues). Primarily, it is to inform, or to correct misperceptions, not push an agenda.

4. I advocate, for initiatives and for people. EVERY time someone contacts me and asks something, or has a problem at Muni. Hall, I investigate and try to help. Not always successfully. This takes time, effort, and is often not universally appreciated, particularly when the Muni. has messed up. They don't like me at the Hall when that happens.

5. I initiate. I have a long list of things that I spearheaded over time, from getting Bowen to be covered by the North Shore Women's Crisis Centre, to the anti-idling bylaw, to introducing new language on economic development in the OCP and a whole a new section on air quality. I got a grant to update our open burning regulation.

6. I follow through. Despite, having to concede defeat at times, I stick with stuff until it hits a dead end.

7. I play on the team. Many times, I will push for a compromise solution when things bog down, or will relinquish a position in favour of just 'getting something done'. This is a hard lesson, as often a compromise is not ideal, but between a choice of deadlock or a half-deal, I usually take the latter.

8. Besides knowledge, I've accrued enough experience to get pretty good at decision making. Through roles as Island Trustee, Metro Vancouver Director, sitting on three Metro Committees, plus LMTAC (Treaty Advisory), and finally Translink, I've gotten a huge range of exposure to important broader issues. So every time I sit down at our Council table, I bring that wide perspective.

What Constitutes a 'Dysfunctional Council'?

I get asked the question all the time, "Why is Council so dysfunctional?" To which I reply, "Oh, really. Well give me an example."

That usual gives pause, but the complainant generally collects (his) thoughts, and then asserts he has heard that Council members argued all the time, or the Mayor stopped someone from talking, or that certain Council members had an 'agenda', and that at Council those things were rubber stamped over others' objections.

But when one digs down to the actual events that have led to those accusations, they generally are not a Council meetings at all- more likely to be at BICS gym when a contentious subject such as the National Park, or a hearing for the OCP/LUB bylaws, or going back to CRC or even the turf field were up for discussion.

Two questions arise. Does a vocal and engaged citizenry mean that things are not working well? Does dissent on Council, or plain old divergence of opinion, also mean that things are going wrong?

I'd say no, on both counts. After all, Council members are elected by everyone, and there is bound to be an array of values, beliefs, interests, etc represented.

To me, things are off the rails when Council simply does not function because of divisions within, or the conduct of one or more members impacts normal process.

It doesn't take much to find examples. To wit, go to White rock 2009, where a Councillor was removed from the hall and office after he was found to have faked emails. But not before there were threats of suits, counter allegations and so on. Not long before, a Councillor stabbed another with her pen. Or perhaps Coquitlam, where Mayor Scott Young was convicted of assault in may 2008, refused to step down, and the rest of Council ignored/obstructed him for the balance of the term. Or Langley Township, where the mayor has accused staff of involvement in a development scheme, and some of Council have turned on him, a crown prosecutor has been appointed, and by accounts,everything has ground to a halt.

By comparison, Bowen is a piker. We are generally civil, collegial, and if resolution votes are a measure, we generally agree on a lot of things. Never has council business been interrupted because of procedural discord, or personal vendettas or anything else.

Take last Monday. In 3 1/2 hours in Committee, we nearly unanimously passed most of the 'elements', and selected two of four 'schemes' coming out of James Tuer's Snug Cove work (referenced earlier in this blog). Considering that we've been at this a long time, I'd say pretty good that there was consensus on what has been a pretty divisive issue. No screaming or yelling either...Too bad there weren't many people in the room, but one can catch the proceedings (they're riveting!) on the Phorum, as posted by Andrew Stone.

I'd say those that are promulgating the idea of a dysfunctional Council are more upset with outcomes than process. To be blunt, they need a lesson in Civics, as it is often the same people who complain about lack of transparency, or nothing getting done, or an emphasis on the wrong issues- characterized as 'diversions'. In fact, lots gets done. It just isn't to their liking.

I think we have a pretty healthy democracy on Bowen.

Oh- One last thing. This idea that Council rammed unpopular legislation down the throats of the community.

It bears looking at the record, and unless passing the OCP counts as that (which it patently is not), or the Watershed Protection, mandated by the Province and pretty well boilerplated from RAR , or maybe the ESA and Steep Slopes- reading rescinded, or the Belterra rezoning?, or was it the firehall rezoning, or the three budgets, one pretty quickly runs out of even potential actions that might have been heavy handed. Or maybe it WASN'T doing something, like not passing the CRC Neighbourhood Plan, that counts as riding roughshod.

More correctly, these were all contentious items that were labouriously debated, and a decision made. Different hands went up in the affirmative or negative in all of these, so it can hardly be a cabal.

Imperatives for the Next Term.

Complete a core review of municipal services

Senior staff are currently taking a close look and questioning what we undertake as a corporate entity. The timing of this is perfect, as we finally have permanent staff in place to do so.

Some things are mandated, such as annual budgets, an annual report, capital assets monitoring, an audit. These are the central instruments for controlling spending, ensuring transparency and communicating where all the money is coming and going. Certain functions of the Corporate Officer are also non-discretionary.

Other activities, and this includes front desk services , waste removal, water, sewers, road maintenance are basic services, and while the delivery model may change over time, and the service level vary, they are vital to the community, and would not likely ever be discontinued.

That leaves a number of other areas, from recreation to parks, to grants-in-aid, art and culture, the library which must periodically pass litmus tests as to their genuine value as measured by the public's willingness to pay.

I support an honest and open look at all our functions. It will be the job of Council to weigh the recommendations and act on them, which will not be easy nor pleasant. But it is overdue and must be done.

Achieve Fiscal Balance

If you spend more then you take in, trouble lies ahead. In the early years after incorporation, we were 'planners and savers', a moniker coined by the then Finance Officer. We had been given an establishment grant, and accumulated a surplus every year. The exception was the purchase of Crippen 'surplus lands', on approval by referendum of borrowing $2 million.

After about 2007, we started spending proportionately more money on roads, equipment, new projects. We took over the library, built the turf field, the sewer plant expansion/upgrade. We liberalized community grants-in-aid, upping the Historians, engaged the Chamber of Commerce to run a tourist information centre. Costs went up for Municipal Hall rental, as we expanded staff, and payscales rose to match those provided among the basket of comparator jurisdictions. It became increasingly difficult to hire without offering more at each turnover.

As well, we started setting more money aside for anticipated wharf and Old General Store repairs, and pledge to increase contributions to reserves by 1.5 % every year until 2017. so we were saving, and spending.

The result was that by 2010 and exacerbated in 2011, we were drawing down the capital and stabilization fund, not only for the intended capital purchases (eg a muni. hall so that we owned our building), but to pay for road reconstruction. That $1 million plus fund will scarcely have$100,000 in it by year's end. (The fund WAS scheduled to be depleted within ten years) Obviously we can't continue to operate this way.

So- what to do? I don't think any candidate would disagree on the need for fiscal discipline. The questions will be about the mix of cuts and revenue augmentations.

To me, the core review will inform the coming decisions. If we are clear about what we are going to do, and we know the costs, then it is possible to implement needed instruments.

There are a number of areas for consideration to raise revenues. Specified area charges, for sewer district expansion, or Snug Cove road/parking improvements, undergrounding of electrical services. Imposition of DCC's or development cost charges which would accrue to new development to offset tangential costs on the community (eg through increased heavy truck traffic). Re-examination of our permissive tax exemptions may yield property taxes from hitherto exempted lands and facilities.Increasing program fees, and rezoning application fees, hike the park and garbage parcel taxes.

Or increase ad valorem property tax rates. We are currently in the middle of the pack regionally for property taxes, yet we service a large area with low population. We have 3 times the road per capita as our more urban neighbours.

On the cost control side, grant-in-aid policy changes might reduce contributions to community groups. We could reduce parks/road maintenance, diminish frequency of garbage pick up. Perhaps fewer recreation programmers, and, as we saw this year reduced hours of operation at the library and in the school gym. None are pleasant options.

Whatever the final mix, I strongly support any effort to get our finances on an even keel, and will work very hard at the table to judiciously make the numbers balance.

Implement our Snug Cove planning

I think we are just about done with grand planning for Snug Cove. We have a number of derivative options in the village Design and Transportation Concepts that embody almost all the previous thought that has gone into 30 years of planning.

http://www.snugcoveconcepts.ca/

The time has come to get going. Sticking my head out, I have a preference for aspects of Scheme A in the short term, and Scheme D in the long term, but an early adoption of a preferred scheme or hybrid will clear the way for full costing analysis, negotiations with partners (Ferries and Metro Parks, to start).

There are very easy first actions to take. One is to amend our on-site residential parking requirement embedded in the LUB. If that were lifted, then the empty lots in Snug cove would not have that onerous restriction which has prevented redevelopment. Another is to modify the parking on Government road. A slight incursion into the park would allow angle parking , something that would increase parking stalls and, with marshaling changes, make them easier to access. Creating a better drop off/pick up area at the corner of Cardena would take a half day of machinery work and a bit of surfacing material. In fact, direction to staff to do just that was given by this and the previous Council, but never carried out pending completion of the concept plans.

Other easy first steps- public feedback greatly supported infill development in Snug Cove, a 'deepening' of the village to create a pedestrian enclave, including a hard surface pedestrian laneway behind the existing front row stores. Asking for some Metro Parks land on the north side of Gov't. Road got thumbs up, with considerable diversity as to just how much land. i think a maximum of about 25-30 metres is appropriate, and even that would be currently constrained by the Heron DP. Eventually, the herons will move on, and after 10 years, the DP can be lifted. In any case, I don't believe for a minute that Metro Parks would allow development to impact the herons.

Do the OCP Followups

There is a long laundry list of tasks from the 1995 OCP that didn't ever quite get done. This was compounded by the update. Now, our planners will have to sieve through the remains, and get to work to amend bylaws so that the things we as a community we said we held dear, can be realized. The list is way too long to go through here. Suffice to say, that an ordering of work, setting time aside from day-to-day tasks, is needed to conscientiously attack the logjam. Planning is never ending, but cleaning up is part of the job, and I will continue to push for action.

Complete Our Regulatory bylaws

I have already spoken to this, and won't repeat the details. Our noise bylaw did not ever get updated, which is a shame because Chris Buchanan did 99% of the work needed, but justifiable public backlash against some egregious clauses stopped it dead. It should be revivified and passed, after dropping the 'no lawn cutting on Sundays' bits. Ditto our wharf bylaw, fire bylaw, open burning regulation. The night sky bylaw should be extended to commercial buildings, but on an 'as time permits' basis.

The Steep Slope and ESA DP's , as previously stated, should be toned down and passed. These done, we'd be pretty close to having a suite of defensible bylaws, which, couple with the North Shore Bylaw dispute resolution process, should make enforcement a lot easier and more fair.

Advance our Infrastructure Projects

Money considerations are always the biggest obstacle to infrastructure expnsion and renewal. Road, sewer, water, undergrounding electrical are all hideously expensive undertakings. Yet we know that they are fundamentally important, and a prerequisite to many projects. While Abbeyfield and Belterra may have contingency plans for on-site sewer and water, and Artisan Square is a shining example of ground disposal septic, that route will not work for a complete village revitalization plan.

There is a chicken and egg conundrum here. Can't build 'till there are services, don't have the money for the services without sales. The usual solution is to simply sell land/development rights to private interests. This is not a bad solution per se, but the trick is to ensure that the permitted mix of uses and building types is in the general public interests.

A couple of other approaches have been suggested. The first of these is to pre-zone lands, with very specific conditions, to provide certainty to any developer as to what the entitlements are. This was partially done by Michael Rosen for lot #3- north of the RCMP station, but at the time the OCP did not allow the intended housing forms. That is now corrected. A second approach is to send out a request for proposals, debate the incoming responses, and either endorse one directly, or do a supporting rezoning as per the first approach. A final thought is to actually have a design competition, with a prize, to see just what creative ideas are out there. The prize could include the right to proceed.

In any case, we will need partners as BIM cannot go it alone.

Pursue Our Dreams

No matter what the background considerations might be, we should never lose track of who we are as a community, and where we are going. Any time there is a survey, or a 'visioning session', as was done at the outset of the OCP update, the same things are said. We love the ambience on Bowen- the natural setting and beauty, the quiet and privacy, safety for us and our children.

We revel in our eclectic mix of personalities, the number of artists, the fact that we are attracting young families with children at a time when demographics are shifting the other way. We worry about too much development, we don't seem to like intrusions, whether imposed locally or nationally.

We rely on the ferry, think it is too expensive, and the hours are insufficient, but know that later sailings and lower prices would inevitably attract more people than we can handle. We support Snug Cove revitalization, but generally, prefer to live on larger lots in single family dwellings. And we drive a lot.

So what are our dreams? I'd say number one is to retain our community character. We don't want to see our way of life eroded. Number two, we want to be able to continue living here as we age, and are looking for housing forms and services to enable that desire. Three, we want to balance our expectations with reality, which means different things for many people, but implies realistic limits, and a sensible approach to taxation.

Here are my top action items to reconcile these often competing elements:

• Build new seniors' and affordable housing. I have worked hard to spearhead the expansion of the precinct around Bowen Court/Abbeyfield. All on Council want to figure out how to finance the needed sewer line extension along miller Road. Elsewhere on the island, I have always supported bonus density for additional rent/capital controlled housing.
• Keep plugging away on our community centre. It will become the nexus of community life. A health centre should be nearby or attached. A multipurpose hall that accommodates about 200 people.
• Reduce the stress on families that need to commute. Hard to do, but people tell me the toughest thing is to work hard all week, battle traffic and ferry lineups, pay a premium for on-island services, and not have enough time and money for the their families and interests. Every little thing we can do to make pick up/drop off safer and easier, improve ferry/bus connections, expand access to facilities, plow the snow. If every decision made has as its heart the benefit of people who are affected, we will be better for it.
• Support our community organizations. They are the heart of our community. From SKY to the Knick Knack Nook, BIHPA and the Historians, Zero Waste Bowen, Family Place, the Football Club, Gymnastics Association, BIGA (golf), and myriad others.
• Support and honour our committee members. We have at times overworked, yet underutilized our APC, Ferry , CCAC, Greenways, Board of Variance, and literally dozens of other advisory groups who have provided valuable input for countless years. Very specifically, I want to institute a process whereby all work of committees is presented to Council and acted upon, within reasonable boundaries. No more "Thank you for your opinion. Next!"
• Capitalize on our key strengths as a community. Build an economic development plan around those things that are known to resonate well. CNIB did well, the Orchard does well, B&B's and retreats are desired. Small artisanal works- eg furniture, are prized. Artists need outlets and traffic, so selling our island a s a place to come for a walk, have lunch and browse our galleries/shops makes sense. Our educational facilities attract homestay students. Tir-na-nog is nearly unique in all North America. Those are the things we should foster.
• Counter acrimony with genuine opportunities for public involvement. This sounds glib, but there are genuine means of involving people other than large public meetings or attending Council, filling out petitions. We should be transitioning to a much more direct participatory democracy- instant voting, receiving Tweets during meetings, Survey Monkey type immediate polls.
• Finally, and this is an attitude, not an action- accept our differences and celebrate our good fortune. We live in one of the best regions of the world, and one of the best parts of that region. We are so fortunate. So, as we debate issues and make choices, it should be done in an atmosphere of respect and recognition that we are privileged not to be worrying locally about many of the ills that pervade the world. I make that pledge, and renew it mentally at the beginning of every Council meeting, at the cenotaph at Remembrance Day, on Canada Day and BowFest parade.

Supposed Sins of the Current Council

Corbin asked. "My question is, what has this council done that has got some people so upset with them? " So I posted a number of things that have been said to me. Then I was asked by Hendrik Slegdenhorst what my answers were. So here they are.....

1. You guys completely blew it with Cape Roger Curtis

We all lost an opportunity at the Cape for the benefits a comprehensive development would have provided. The blame cannot be placed solely on Council, the proponents or the public, or the market.

2. Where did the F...ing National Park idea come from? It is a distraction from what really needs doing.

It started in 2001, when the GINPR was first being planned, and Council asked that parts of Bowen be included. Iteration two began in 2009 with a unanimous resolution to send two Councillors to talk with Parks Canada, and they (PC) did a preliminary evaluation after which they confirmed their interest in exploring the idea of a Park on Bowen. In between 2001 and 2009 Council had repeatedly tried to get assurances of protection of our Crown land watersheds and Lieben to no avail. This, combined with the CRC situation, were the prime motivators. Hardly a distraction, given that conservation and recreation are generally pretty high on our collective wish lists.

3. Why is it you spent all the money in the kitty and got nothing done- particularly hiring all those consultants to draw up fancy plans that go nowhere?

Bowen does not, cannot run a deficit, by law, unlike senior governments. Bowen has drawn down some of its reserve accounts, especially the Capital and Stabilization Fund, which was over $1 million, and by the end of this year is projected to be 10% of that. But that is how we paid for the sewer plant upgrade, among other things. Meanwhile the Recreation and Community Use Reserve has about $750,000 in it. The Parks Reserve has about $300k+ in it, though the 2012 Tunstall Bay boat ramp will draw down those two fundsby about $220K in aggregate. On top of that, we have $1.3 Million in 'accumulated' surplus, ie money in the kitty not earmarked for anything other than a rainy day and to manage cash flow.

So- no, we are not broke. We have a $2 million debt on 38 acres of land which of course can be sold, held for our civic uses or banked... or all three. That said, we cannot continue to run down reserves. In fact, reserve replenishment is accelerating, by committing to an annual 1.5% dedicated tax increment.

As to hiring fancy consultants, yes we've had some great work down by HBBH and more recently by James Tuer on Snug Cove. I've posted those totals. Other consultant expenses I'm not so proud of- the Cygnus report on community centre fundraising, the burning bylaw reg. background work.

4. Why have the community lands not yet been serviced and sold off, to pay back the $2 million loan and seed fund all those great projects like the Community Centre?

We can't sell the land until they are serviced, or else accept a very low return on raw land. We can't service until we raise the money. There is a BIG question as to whether it is appropriate to go to referendum to borrow and then further tax all islanders for benefits that will largely accrue to one area, and whether BIM should be taking risks associated with development. Alternately, we could pre zone community lands, invite interested parties into a design competition and award projects. Or solicit proposals. This has been the impediment from 2005, and the market downturn has made short term prospects bleaker. We even paid Paul Rollo to do an assessment, and short of putting up single family homes in direct competition to unsold stack, there is little business case right now to jump into an expensive undertaking.

5a. Why did you have to introduce those really stupid, intrusive environmental bylaws into the OCP process?

The mapping for the bylaws was deemed to be aspirational, not regulatory, so they belonged in the OCP,and we did not want to craft an OCP, pass it, only to then immediately reopen it. As to the LUB (Land Use Bylaw amendments) wording, doing them alongside proved to be clumsy. But it is the regulations themselves which were disliked by some parties. Two things have happened. First the readings for two of the bylaws (steeps slopes and ESA) have been rescinded, and will come back to the new Council. My hope is that the recommendations to tone down the language and provide greater exemptions will be accepted. As well, amending the maps, for example to make 40% a threshold for steep slopes rather than 30% or to tier the provisions, seems like a reasonable thing to do. Second, the OCP maps have no force until the LUB portion is enacted. The Watershed, Aquifer and Stream Protection Development Permit Area is now enacted, but with exemption provisions around primary residences giving latitude within an adjacent area of around one acre- pretty liberal...

5b. Why was the whole OCP exercise such a useless waste of time and money? Which was it- an update or a new OCP?

The last major OCP amendment was in 2005, The Snug Cove Village Plan. The OCP was due for review and needed new elements to be compliant with Local Government Act requirements. Dave Witty determined that the review be an 'update', in other words, we would not incur the expense and time to go back to square one nor review every clause. Perhaps it was simply a label- i'd say we got a review AND update, but that review was not exhaustive. It did not look at some sticky issues such as how we measure density (Should a studio apartment be considered the same as a 5 br house?). Also, density transfer was dumbed down from the early thought of providing a virtual 'bank'. There was little on economic development. Because the document replaced the old one, technically it is a 'new OCP'

But it was far from a useless exercise. We have a much more elegant document. It includes new sections on climate change, air quality, tourism and institutional development. It paved the way for Belterra, and densification in the Cove and Seymour Bay. Plus the general precepts of the 1995 document were examined in public and strongly re-embraced. The cost, at over $200,000, was high, but much less than the aggregate costs of the 1995 OCP.

5c. Why did you cut off public input to the OCP after second reading, and then make changes which you then rammed through?

There is a petition, requesting the OCP 'be set aside for illegality or error of law', before the courts, dated October 6th, 2011, so I cannot comment on specifics. It was brought forward by Richard Underhill and Wolfgang Duntz. However, in general terms, (and Dave Witty wrote an article in the undercurrent outlining the public process), after public input was received it was tabulated, debated at Council, changes made to OCP in response to that public commentary, and a 'concordance table' drawn up to illustrate all tracked changes and to flag all principles/policies from the 1995 OCP. That took an awful lot of work and considerable time. witty said the public process was 'exhaustive', and the consultant, Linda Allen of CitySpaces, apparently remarked it was 'unprecedented'.

After a duly constituted public hearing, surviving an initial court challenge, and further readings , the OCP was finally adopted.Whether it is overturned- in which case there could be more public consultation, a new hearing and rereadings, will depend on the legal outcome of the current challenge

6. When are you going to 'just do something' in Snug Cove, rather than talk about it?

This is an enduring and legitimate question. There have always been barriers. Now, we have very good plan options, and on October 24th there will be a workshop on 'next steps'. Some things stick out, given the public reaction to Tuer's four derivative designs. Amending the parking provisions in our LUB to permit off-site residential, combined with lowering requirements, will enable property owners in the lower Cove to consider redevelopment. A small incursion into Crippen Park would facilitate angle parking, preferably on the south side. This would multiply those spaces and make them much more usable. Revamping the ROW behind the south side small lots to include a hard surfaced pedestrian laneway would bring new life to that area, and bookending with new and infill buildings would contain a new wider village area. Some of these things could, and should be done almost immediately. We CAN 'just do something'

7. Why did you spend $2 million of taxpayers money for a sewer plant when you've got no money to hook it up to anything?

This has partially been answered. It started with the opportunity of getting a Towns for Tomorrow grant from the provincial government. This was supplemented by a Federal Infrastructure grant- 'stimulus money'. So we got two-thirds of a $2.1 million upgrade paid for out of senior government coffers. It was too good a deal to pass up, even though it left us at an impasse as to how to now connect up additional properties. But make no mistake- the plant was at capacity, not always running within best parameters, and the environmental benefits of tertiary treatment all factor into making this a good decision at the time.

8. Just when are we going to get affordable housing and Abbeyfield?

Three years ago, we completed the Abbeyfield/Bowen Court rezoning. Three years later, they still can't get off the ground. Obviously, sewer pipes need to be extended, and the Cove Bay water supply augmented. This leads back to the previous questions about money. A genuine vicious circle, and the answer may well rest with gaining partners to make the needed infrastructure more affordable itself! Adjusting Crippen Park boundaries to enlarge the seniors' precinct area (a proposed 30 metre strip north of the existing Bowen Court lot line is being explored with Metro Vancouver Parks).

9. Why are the roads worse now than they were 12 years ago when we became a municipality?

We knew roads would be expensive, and unlike in the 1991 Restructure plan for incorporation, there was no promised $12 million matching fund dowry, just five years of maintenance, valued at $2.5 miillion.

Between 2000 and 2004, MOTH took care of our roads, and did very little. After we took them over, we dedicated about $500,000 annually in the roads budget, but for the first three years lacked the capacity to undertake much in the way of road improvement/reconstruction - se we focussed on surface maintenance. Since 2007, we have bumped spending, and the number of improvement projects has been impressive. Dorman Road, the reconstruction of Grafton near the firehall, repaving Senior's land, Mt. Gardner Road, Bowen Bay Hill all come to mind. We bought a lot of new equipment to improve our winter maintenance as well. So are roads worse? Some are- they have deteriorated over that period. others are much improved, and now there is a roads renewal plan in place and being followed that will continuously renew roads over a forty year cycle. Wil Hilsen has done an amazing job on this.

10. Why do we have so many people working at city hall? What is it now- over 30!, when they said it would only be about 12 needed? And with so many people running around, what are they doing other than moving paper around to justify themselves?

In 1999, the Restructure study concluded that at then current service levels, about 12 FTE's would be needed to fulfill staffing requirements. Since then, we have added services, grown, taken over contracts, and absorbed functions previously outside the municipal core services. The library became a municipal library. Ergo, librarians became municipal employees. Water sampling and system maintenance, same thing. Teen centre, ditto- including auxiliary youth workers. Bylaw control and building inspect, previously contract and Islands Trust, now in-house.

The real question is whether all the staff are necessary, and the muni. is conducting a core review of services to look at our operations. It is very easy to save money if you don't want the services. It is very easy provide great service if you have lots of money. The trick of course, and what is so difficult, is to define and curtail excessive service levels, if any, and adjust to what is affordable. That exercise will probably be the early prime focus of the new Council.

Add-on commentary after that post on the Phorum:

There are many interpretations of what went wrong vis-a-vis Cape Roger Curtis, including accusations that the mayor broke a tacit promise, or that good faith in negotiations was breached. I am not obfuscating, nor apologizing for those councillors who spoke very stridently about the neighbourhood plan. I know what my position was- it was, first, to be guided by public sentiment, and second, to seek accommodation through incorporating the CRC NP in the then upcoming OCP review. My motion to that effect,on April 20th, 2009- to give no further consideration or readings to the CRC NP bylaw 'at this time', pending the outcome of the OCP review (within which the proposal would be considered). My motion was defeated.

The following motion, to rescind first reading, which effectively put an end to the plan, passed 5:2, with only Alison and Dave Wrinch opposing. After Cro indicated he would vote to rescind, because he felt the number of units was too high, I realized the gig was up. I voted as I did so as to not have it appear I supported the plan as it was. Later Cro and I talked- his preference would have been, like mine, to try to come to some compromise.

All this is now moot. The overwhelming factor was the lopsided public sentiment. So when I say the blame does not solely rest with Council, I am inferring that the proponents failed because they held on to a target buildout that was too high for public support, the public process might be deemed to have failed because there was no resolution of the competing components- waterfront and park dedication vs density, and council for not plugging away until there was a deal. However, the proponents said quite clearly they were unable to wait for that uncertain OCP process to play out.

Peter: you are standing for office --- which invites transparency, not shadows. In response #2, for instance, what is the "CRC situation"? In #4, why does land needed to be serviced to be sold? In #1, how did the "market" shoulder some of the "blame"? In #7, how could it be that Council pleaded unawareness that the funding formula required a one-third's municipal contribution?

Reply Quote

Peter Re: Sins of Council Past- some answers October 20, 2011 09:08PM

Registered: 3 years ago Posts: 520

In answer to your questions:

CRC 'Situation' refers to the collapse of the Neighbourhood Plan process, and the default position of the land owners to proceed with a simple 10 acre lot subdivision.

#4: land servicing- I thought I was fairly clear. Nothing says you have to sell land serviced. However, when we got a land economist to run the numbers, he calculated that the net present value of unserviced land would be extremely low for multifamily housing development.

I referenced the market because after August 2008, all previous calculations went out the window due to the international financial crisis. What was marginally valued before, became under water after. This is what Abbeyfield directors found out- that owning land outright did not help all that much in getting off the ground. CRC owners acknowledged in 2009 that market conditions had deteriorated, and certainly they couldn't 'sweeten the deal' any further than they had.

Of course we knew we were on the hook for one-third of the costs. Nobody pleaded unawareness.This was a good deal. All I mean is that we don't have enough money to now be able to simply put collector pipes in the ground.

First formal mention of an NP correctly goes back to 2009. However, in 2001 there was a general invitation to meet with the then Environment Minister David Anderson. He was the political driving force behind the establishment of the GINPR, which was in planning stages at the time. At Council we thought it a good idea to send someone, and I offered to go, suggesting I ask about the possibility of parts of Bowen being included in the park proposal. That was agreed to, and I met him in North Van. He was wary, put me over to their public liaison person, lawyer Greg McDade, who over time got back and said -"no way"- The GINPR was to be on the other side of the Strait, and south of Active Pass.

Crippen Park boundaries- The idea is to take an approximately 100 foot (30 metre) wide chunk of land OUT of Crippen, immediately north of Bowen court. That's why I've been traipsing back in forth, 100 foot tape in hand, to measure the area. This area gets lots of light, is dead flat, has mostly small alders growing on it, and would make a wonderful extension to the 'precinct'.

Incoming Comment: I'm not going to spend much more time on this, as email debate usually doesn't get very far, and I have better things to do with my life than to look at reserves of quicksand being loaded to run off a fiscal rock. But, in comment:

* the neighbourhood plan did not collapse; it was destroyed
* the 10 acre lot subdivision was not the default position, but the original position, as required by the OCP of the day
* if one is more inventive than considering only multifamily unit development, the options expand, and did expand, considerably
* Abbeyfield has legitimately been seeking the assistance of the municipality and has not been given much of it
* what part of any 2009 "deal" needed to be sweetened?
* nobody pleaded unawareness: incredibly, yes, they did

XXXX- you were not here during the lead-up period to CRC. Your views are partially informed by opinion, and backcasting analysis. That doesn't fault or minimize them, but it does not jive with first hand experience. To say they NP process was 'destroyed' implies a deliberate attempt to stop it. The NP had many merits, but it did not stand up. Quite simply, the public was not willing to accept it. And yes, 2 councillors spoke very strongly, as did the mayor.

Default? Original?- same thing in my mind. It was always the fallback position to subdivide without rezoning.

Sweetening the deal- perhaps lowering the number of total units, or some other concession.

As to unawareness, I don't know what you mean. I think we all (the whole community) knew this was the biggest thing to have ever hit Bowen Island. It was certainly in the press a lot, a hot topic of conversation.

Alternatives to multi family housing- yes, the land economist said the best and highest use of community lands was to build single family detached units. As a Council, we rejected that for two reasons- why compete with a sector that was already being well served- Cates Hill, Cowan's had lots of lots available. Plus, what people have been saying for years is that they want to age in place, downsize, be closer to the Cove. So using our lands for multifamily makes sense, from a social planning perspective.

Abbeyfield got a major rezoning in 2008, and gets their taxes waived. We built a sewer plant that will ultimately serve them, and we are considering a land trade to help build synergies with Bowen Court

YYYY- The Lot 3 (east of Miller Road) community lands have high value- high park value, high development potential.

Extending the seniors' precinct (perhaps adding other affordable housing) does two things. It spares the other land for future uses, and expanding immediately adjacent into fairly recently logged land that does not really have competing uses (its park value is quite low) and is really accessible only through Bowen Court/Abbeyfield, ensures an ability to rebuild without tearing down the older units beforehand.

Metro Vancouver Budget 2012

Here area few excerpts from the preamble to tomorrow's (Oct. 19th) budget workshop. The forecast expenses derived from property taxes will actually drop by 3.2% in 2012 for the average household on Bowen Island.

Ooops- a correction. Regionally, the rate will drop by 3.2%. For Bowen, as our assessments have moved up relative to the average, our rate will go up1.5%, to a total of $103,421. That's a bit over $44/household for parks, GPS services, 911, GVRD administration, air quality.

Draft Metro Vancouver Districts’ 2012 Budget

To achieve the identified objectives, Metro Vancouver utilizes a sustainability-based program

planning and budgeting process that focuses on clearly defined program outcomes while

ensuring rigorous control of costs. That fiscal discipline has served to drive innovation and

creative solutions in terms of the effective provision of sustainable regional services.

An integrated suite of management plans

Flowing from the Sustainable Framework are interconnected, priority-driven functional plans.

Current management plans include:

· Liquid Waste, Solid Waste, Regional Growth Strategy, Air Quality, Parks and

Greenways, Drinking Water, Regional Affordable Housing Strategy

· Regional Food Strategy, Climate Change Plan, Ecological Health

Each of these plans contains an array of goals and the actions necessary to protect and

enhance the quality of life for current and future generations of Metro Vancouver residents.

Finance and debt management strategy

To ensure its financial practices are aligned with sustainability principles, the board adopted a

formal finance and debt management strategy that is conservative, yet prudent, and based on

the principle of debt avoidance.

Less than ten per cent of Metro Vancouver’s annual budget is derived directly from the property

tax. The vast majority is raised through utility user fees for water, sewerage and solid waste.

Wherever possible, debt financing – and the consequent impact on future generations – is

avoided through pay as you go and the strategic use of Contributions to Capital and Reserves.

When borrowing is necessary, the collective financial strength of the region and its member

municipalities allows borrowing through the Municipal Finance Authority of BC at the best

possible rates, resulting in lower costs and shorter amortization periods.

2012 Budget Overview and Budget Drivers

The 2012 Metro Vancouver Budget was developed based on the defined roles (Service

Delivery, Planning Policy and Regulation, Political Leadership) of the organization as outlined in

our Board approved Sustainability Framework. The budget represents the resources required in

2012 to fulfill those roles.

The proposed increases are all below the 2012 targets discussed by the Finance Committee in

July and endorsed by the Board in September. The overall impact on a theoretical average

household in the region (assessed value of $605,000) will be an increase of $11, for a total of

$524.

Overall the total operating budget for all Districts has increased by $7.0 million to $614.6 million.

This is an increase of 1.2%

GVRD

2012 Target: 5.5% tax rate increase (approx. $2 per average household)

Proposed: Reduction (3.2)% (approx. $2 per average household)

The majority (52%) of this budget funds the Regional Parks function, with the remainder going

to several smaller functions ranging from Air Quality to Electoral Areas. The total property tax

on the average household to fund all the GVRD functions and programs will decrease to $37.

The expenditure budget here is down by 0.3% or $160,000. This budget includes decreases in

Labour Relations as a result of several members giving notice of their intent to discontinue full

membership in the function. In addition, one-time equipment upgrades for the Global

Positioning System included in 2011, have been removed.

It should also be noted that the Labour Relations budget is funded from reserves for 2012

pending completion of the function review currently in progress.

Comments on Translink

Transportation is one of the necessities of modern life. On our island, we are acutely aware of limitations to mobility, and have responded by buying cars- 3600 and counting registered on Bowen. Our low density, rural type of land use has led to low transit service ridership. Topography and road network make circle routes impossible. We lost our only taxi service, and the school bus service only runs four days a week. And that's just on-island.

Obviously, we are hooked into the regional transportation system, and are at the effect of all the benefits and ills- traffic jams on the bridges, overloaded or infrequent buses, poor coordination with ferries.

Where to start? I cannot begin to unravel the complexities, but my past three years on the Mayors' Council for Regional Transportation (Translink) have given some perspective on the regional response to the ongoing challenge of moving people and goods.

Working backwards, today's announcement that the provincial government has commenced debate on the 2 cent gas tax increase, is the culmination of 3 years of talks toward sustainable funding for Translink. We have gone from a regimen where any additional moneys were to have come from property taxes, to the potential for road taxes and other user pay options, plus a desire to saddle some of the costs on commercial truck movements.

Remember, Translink looks after major road networks in addition to providing bike lanes and AirCare and transit. It is a $1Billion plus corporation, based on annual revenues and expenses. Faregates represent about 38% of revenues, followed by property taxes and fuel taxes ( to be $.17/litre), plus a number of other minor sources such as parking taxes, advertising, real estate, hydro bill surcharges, etc.

Nobody likes to be dinged an extra 2 cents a litre, plus a backstop average $23/year potential property tax increment for two years (2013/14) if more permanent sources cannot be obtained. But the benefits of the long awaited Evergreen Line, increased bus routes and service through out the region, better Seabus service, more biking infrastructure are significant. I voted, along with 15 others (of 22 voting members) to approve this plan.

What does this do for Bowen? Directly- very little. Perhaps better 250 bus service, as the frequent bus network will extend along Marine Drive. But nothing on -island. 257 service is already closely monitored for ridership, and extra buses are put on as needed, especially on Fridays and end of long weekends.

But on Bowen we still have a big problem. Peter King will attest to his ongoing frustration with his immediate bosses at Coast Mountain. Inflexibility, arcane rules and bureaucracy, and structural limitations that disallow many services he would like to provide. The North Shore service review served up nothing to improve our service, and my intention is to get support from Council to lobby hard for a 'made-on-Bowen' plan to rationalize and improve service. One idea is to change to a quasi-taxi on call service off hours, another to obtain permission to combine school and public bus services.

However, indirectly, we all benefit from Translink. Anyone who has taken the Canada line to the airport knows what a boon it is. The reduction in street congestion is real and noticeable on Lion's Gate Bridge in the mornings, and on downtown streets, where traffic has been declining for years. Other benefits are improved air quality, better goods movements which translates into marginally less expensive prices for everything from concrete to fridges. Good transit is one of Metro Vancouver's great achievements, and helps put the region near the top of the heap globally in terms of being a desirable place to live.

Columnist Elizabeth James wrote the following:

BY ELIZABETH JAMES, SPECIAL TO NORTH SHORE NEWS OCTOBER 19, 2011

"Of course, taxing everyone a little bit is like putting the frog in the pot before turning up the heat - the mayors must hope the overtaxed and underserved don't notice the slight increase in pain."

George Pajari,

VANCOUVER SUN, OCT. 14,

WEST Vancouver resident, high-tech entrepreneur and thorn in the side of council, George Pajari is not too pleased with the TransLink Mayors' Council vote to approve a two-cents-a-litre gas tax.

Nor is he chuckling at the prospect of an annual $23 property tax hike which, of course, said mayors "hope to avoid."

Wait till Pajari hears the numbers crunched by fellow thorn, North Vancouver's Corrie Kost, namely that "the long-term debt of TransLink is about $1,000 per [Metro] resident."

To emphasize, that is $1,000 over and above the costs of an Evergreen Line and the latest commitments made by your representatives.

Pajari suggests that "people who choose not to use transit" should be "penalized" with road and congestion taxes.

That is where he and I part company, because my position with respect to pouring more dollars down the black hole that is TransLink is this: Not a penny more until we are given two things: a new board of directors and an arms-length, pre-project, value-for-money audit.

Members of the new board must have professional transportation/transit experience, preferably untainted by ties to the federal and provincial governments, and have no current or past connections to companies like Bombardier and SNC-Lavalin.

Next, the audit must be performed by transit-savvy staff from the B.C. auditor general's office, or similar professionals from the U.K. or Germany.

Why those caveats? Some of the most straightforward email conversations I have had about TransLink in recent months have been with Bowen Island councillor Peter Frinton, a member of the Mayors' Council. Although he and I differ on some points - along with 15 others he voted for the recent gas tax package - never once has he given me political spin in answer to my questions. Some of his revelations about what passes for democratic process in this region are enough to send you to the drugstore for anti-nauseants.

Last July, after I suggested that if only TransLink would build at-grade systems instead of SkyTrain, most of its funding problems would disappear, Frinton replied, "Most of the mayors/councillors feel the same way, but have made no headway with the province or feds . . . I have no idea why senior government has been so married to [SkyTrain] technology. . . ."

Well, having asked myself the same question every time TransLink held its hand out, I am ready to take the gloves off on a possible answer: Someone somewhere has found it advantageous to choose proprietary SkyTrain over more affordable alternatives - and the beneficiary cannot be Bombardier alone because, as Frinton observed, the company also manufactures light-rail cars.

Nor, despite their recent vote, does it appear to be the yeasayers on the Mayors' Council. The worst they are guilty of is not telling transportation minister Blair Lekstrom to take his dictates and pay for them.

No, although I have little doubt that some of the advantages have trickled down to a sequence of provincial governments, the TransLink buck stops in Ottawa. Also, because the question being asked has spanned at least 15 years of both Liberal and Conservative governments, whatever the advantages might be, they have been common to both.

Can it be that we pay through the nose merely to keep Quebec happy, or is the situation more sinister than that?

That there is an Ottawa connection seems obvious because, although the questions had their genesis in the mid-1980s when SkyTrain was chosen for the Expo Line, they gathered speed when former NDP premier Glen Clark abruptly changed his mind about using light-rail for the Millennium Line project.

The switch (pressure?) began after he visited Ottawa with Ken Dobell, a former Vancouver City manager under then-mayor Gordon Campbell. The rest is our very expensive TransLink history.

But no matter where the SkyTrain advantages originate, regional taxpayers are left paying for the mess because, as Frinton told me last March, "The provincial government has long attested that Lower Mainland municipalities have 'property tax room' as a result of lifting the hospital tax in our area."

There is much more to tell and sooner or later that will happen. For now, and in support of the relatively few people who try to keep this issue in the public eye, all I will add is this: Rather than trying to Occupy Vancouver without really knowing why, what the protestors could do is start small - Occupy TransLink, deal with that well documented billion-dollar problem and, if that succeeds, move on from there. rimco@shaw.ca

Read more:http://www.nsnews.com/news/Pricey+SkyTrain+love+affair+began+Ottawa/5572128/story.html#ixzz1bOHHscZA

The Arts On Bowen- Some Musings

I was one of those who talked about a ‘shovel in the ground’ for a Community Hall and Arts Centre in 2008, after having been the liaison to the Community Centre Working Group, which met 55 times during the three years it was active.

That wasn’t the first time; I’d said it before, in 2005, after being on the Community Centre Task Force that also had met innumerable times. So now I think I’ll be a bit more circumspect.

we are to cutting an opening ribbon, but there have been very positive steps taken.

In 2008, we had a complete feasibility plan, with conceptual drawings and some cost takeoffs, a chosen site, and a ‘program’-ie an understanding of how much space would be used for what. It was 18,000 sq ft., and it had a price tag of over $6 millioOf course it is a disappointment that we aren’t closer thann, and more realistically, higher than that to fit the the building out. But we had already seen the financial crisis impacts, and when infrasturcture funding programs popped up in 2009, thoughts were turned to sewers and firehalls, not community halls.

Still, the Action Committee, as it was deliberately named, focussed on what needed actions could take place, and I am impressed by the dedication and resolve of this group, under Shari Ulrich, and featuring perennials like Paul Hoosen.

There is a new building orientation on the site, a reworked concept plan, land dedicated, secured, and starting to be spruced up. The Cygnus Consulting report on fundraising, was disappointing to me, but clearly showed that work needed to be done to sell the idea of the centre. We have been putting money aside most years (though not in 2011), and now have $120,000 in the kitty, in addition to a recreation reserve which has close to $700,000 in it, and the remains of John Reid’s donation. I am fully confident that we will march forward; the logic and the desire is too compelling.

Some other thoughts about the arts on Bowen. Some might have paid attention to the fact that gross spending on recreation was cut back this year, to about $567,000. Now there are offsetting incomes, but the total still pushes $400,000. That’s about 7 times what arts and culture get.

Why is that? Partly that recreation, arguably, is more in demand, though I’m sure counterarguments to that statement could be made. But the main reason is that rec. is a core function of the municipality, with a recreation director, several programmers, access to several spaces.

A thought I’ve put out before is to follow burnaby’s example, where they have a Parks, Recreation, and Culture department:

http://www.burnaby.ca/cityhall/departments/departments_parks.html

If the arts were merged with at least recreation, there might still be fighting over dollars, but entitlements would be certain.

There is a municipal Greenways Committee, a soon to be revivified Recreation Committee, and an honest question ought to be why the purview could not be extended to arts and culture.

Some other thoughts- aggressive promotion. I attended a musical event at Tir-na-Nog a while back, a Vancouver klezmer accordionist like no other. There were 20 people in the audience. Cindi Keep brought over Morlove Oct. 22- I was unwell and didn’t go, but wonder how well that was attended.

Another thought- better integration of information. MAXguide is a region wide Metro Vancouver on-line tool. I searched for Bowen Island events- what cam eup was: “no events found from Oct. 23rd to April 23rd, 2012”. I did an advanced search under all categories- again nada. So use the tools we already pay for.

The message is to cross pollinate.

The Arts are not languishing on Bowen. A new ‘bugs’ show will be hung on Hallowe’en, and I’ve lived through months of our house being a studio for my partner’s contributions to that....

Somehow, though the momentum appears to slow, and not just because we lost Miss Mara and several visual artists, some musicians. People get older, and the output diminishes. The Movie Society called it a day, the legendary Kitchen Junkets are in hiatus. But then along comes someone like Janet Esseiva, who suddenly, it seems, creates a gallery fully of vibrant works,and starts teaching, and somehow raises two teens and works.

I guess it is always like that- people and interest wax and wane. but the community hungers for art, is proud of its artists, and finds ways to support them, just as the artists find new means of expression and venues to showcase their works.

But it is a real shame that all the while, we are making do, an dnot having one place that the arts community can really call ‘home’.