City of Victoria looking for a consultant to review their Revenue and Tax Policy Review and Permissive Property Tax Exemption Policy

The City of Victoria is looking to engage a consultant in January to have a draft Revenue and Tax Policy Review and Permissive Property Tax Exemption Policy review report ready by February 28th and a final report by March 6th.


The closing for the RFP is January 9th.   


Here is the text of the RFP
_________________________________________

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF VICTORIA REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 11-065

REVENUE AND TAX POLICY AND PERMISSIVE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION POLICY REVIEW

TERMS OF REFERENCE

INTRODUCTION
The City of Victoria is requesting proposals from experienced qualified consultants who are interested in conducting a review of the City of Victoria’s Revenue and Tax Policy and its Permissive Property Tax Exemption Policy.

BACKGROUND
The City of Victoria has two Council policies relating to revenue and property taxes; Revenue and Tax Policy; and Permissive Property Tax Exemption Policy. As the City faces accelerating costs and ongoing pressure to provide additional services, there is a need to find alternative sustainable revenue sources. Many of the services the City provides are regional in nature as Victoria is the downtown core for the 13 municipalities in Greater Victoria. In addition, rising costs are putting pressure on the City’s main funding source, property taxes. As a result, there is a need to conduct a review of these policies to ensure a long-term focus that is fair and sustainable to the tax payers.

The City’s tax base consists primarily of residential and commercial tax payers. The City’s residential tax payers have the lowest household income in the region and therefore have a limited ability to pay increasing property taxes. The City’s commercial tax payers primarily consist of small businesses that also have a limited ability to pay increasing property taxes. The City’s Revenue and Tax Policy, and its Permissive Property Tax Exemption Policy must strike a sustainable balance between the services the City provides, alternative revenue sources and the allocation of property taxes between the property tax classes.

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this project is three fold:

1. To develop a revenue strategy and provide recommendations on changes to existing revenues and opportunities for new revenue generation.
2. To review and recommend changes to the City’s Revenue and Tax Policy to ensure the policy supports the City’s Strategic Plan, tax payer ability to pay, fair distribution of property taxes amongst property classes, and best practices.
3. To review and recommend changes to the City’s Permissive Property Tax Exemption policies and practices – including the Permissive Property Tax Exemption Policy, and Heritage and Revitalization Exemptions – to better reflect the City’s strategic priorities and budget challenges.

SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work for the Revenue and Tax Policy and Permissive Property Tax Policy Review, in addition to researching and making recommendations on best practices, includes the following:

Revenue Strategy
a. Assessment of Current Revenue Sources - Review existing revenue sources and identify opportunities to increase.
b. Identification of New Revenue Sources – Review BC legislation and other municipalities to identify opportunities for new revenue sources.

Policy on Distribution of Property Taxes Among Property Classes
a. Assessment of Current Tax Policy - Review the City of Victoria's policy on distribution of property taxes among property classes, and analyze the impact of these policies on Victoria's business, industrial and residential taxpayers, and other classes of property, highlighting key issues and identifying any inequities.

Include as part of this work the following:

1. Evaluation Criteria - Recommend appropriate criteria to use to assess the fairness of the City's property tax policies. Evaluation criteria may include benefits received, ability to pay, accountability, stability and predictability of taxes for an individual property from year to year, cost of administering and collecting the tax, socioeconomic impacts of the tax and/or impact of the tax on the competitiveness of Victoria businesses.
2. Appropriate Measures - Recommend appropriate measures to use in order to assess the impact of the City's property tax policies on taxpayers within each of the City's property classes, to determine the fairness of the City's property tax policies, and to understand the impact of Victoria's property taxes on commercial competitiveness.

The Consultant is asked to select measures that can be calculated using supportable, proven methodology, and to ensure that any comparisons made between Victoria and other cities are meaningful, taking into account the considerable differences among municipalities in property tax and assessment systems, methodologies, market values and property types.
b. Fair Tax Distribution Target - Recommend a definition of a fair tax distribution target for each class of property in the City.
c. Comparable Municipalities – Determine which municipalities the City should be comparing its tax levels and tax distribution targets to. Determine how the City compares to those municipalities. Any recommendations relating to the City’s current tax distribution, tax distribution targets, and tax levels should align with those comparable municipalities.
d. Implementation Strategy - Recommend a strategy that would allow Council to arrive at the recommended fair tax distribution target, with specific timelines identified.
e. Long-Term Policy and Mechanism - Recommend a long-term policy and mechanism that would allow Council to permanently maintain a fair tax allocation among the City's property classes.

Property Tax Exemptions
a. Assessment of Current Policies – Review the City of Victoria’s current Permissive Property Tax Exemption Policies, Heritage Tax Incentive Program; and the Revitalization Property Tax Exemption Bylaw. Provide a recommendation on if the City should be providing permissive tax exemptions, and if so, consideration as to an appropriate cap, the length of time an exemption will be granted, changes to eligibility criteria, and a strategy to phase out “grandfathered” properties that do not meet the Permissive Property Tax Exemption Policy criteria, to better reflect the City’s strategic priorities and budget challenges. Refer to the City’s Civic Investment Program review to ensure consistency with its framework.
Include as part of this work the following:

1. Evaluation Criteria - Recommend appropriate criteria to use to assess the fairness of the City's property tax exemption policies. Evaluation criteria may include the degree to which an organization complements City services, benefits received, ability to pay, accountability, stability and predictability of taxes for an individual property from year to year
2. Appropriate Measures - Recommend appropriate measures to use in order to assess the impact of the City's property tax exemption policies on taxpayers within each of the City's property classes, to determine the fairness of the City's property tax exemption policies, and to understand the impact of Victoria's property tax exemptions on remaining taxpayers. Also, recommend appropriate measures to assess if the exempted organization has reasonably achieved the goals for which the exemption was granted.

b. The Consultant is asked to select measures that can be calculated using supportable, proven methodology, and to ensure that any comparisons made between Victoria and other cities are meaningful, taking into account the considerable differences among municipalities in property tax and assessment systems, methodologies, market values and property types.

c. Fair Permissive Tax Exemption Level (cap) - Recommend a sustainable maximum for Permissive Tax Exemptions, and rules around length of permissive tax exemptions.
d. Implementation Strategy - Recommend a strategy that would allow Council to arrive at the recommended level of Permissive Tax Exemptions, including phasing out grandfathered properties.
e. Long-Term Policy and Mechanism - Recommend a long-term policy and mechanism that would allow Council to permanently maintain a fair and sustainable permissive tax exemption level.

PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES
The Consultant is asked to undertake their work using the following principles and guidelines.

• Equity - The Consultant should have an appreciation of the impacts of any changes to the tax distribution on all classes of taxpayers.
• Sustainability - The recommendations should be consistent with the City's long-term objectives concerning economic, fiscal and social sustainability.
• Independence and objectivity -The Consultant should serve independently, and make recommendations to Council that will result in the best possible outcome for Victoria as a whole, without favouring any one stakeholder group over another.
• Simplicity - Any recommended changes to the City's property tax policies should be simple, transparent, and readily understandable by the City's taxpayers and other stakeholders.
• Municipal Taxes Only - The work of the Consultant should be limited to a review of the distribution of property taxes levied by the City of Victoria, and should not include property taxes collected by the City of Victoria on behalf of other taxing authorities.

CONSULTANT’S EXPERIENCE
The Consultant should have a strong understanding and experience with BC Assessment, the BC Community Charter, municipal property tax issues, municipal services in general, the challenges facing municipalities, and Local Government Economics.

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
The Consultant will be provided with the following reference documents, which should guide and inform the review:

1. Revenue and Tax Policy
2. Permissive Property Tax Exemption Policy
3. Heritage Tax Exemption Program
4. Revitalization Tax Exemption Bylaw
5. Corporate Strategic Plan
6. Civic Grant Review
7. Corporate Business Plan
8. Victoria Sustainability Framework
9. Official Community Plan
10. Financial Sustainability Policy
11. Citizen and Business Survey
12. Input/communications from business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce
13. Budget Reports
14. Staff Reports

MEETINGS
The consultant should plan to attend four (4) meetings at City Hall during this project.

SCHEDULE
The Consultant is expected to deliver the draft report to the Director of Finance by February 28, 2012
The Consultant is expected to deliver the final report to the Director of Finance by March 6, 2012

DELIVERABLES
The Consultant will be required to provide the following deliverables to the City’s Director of Finance:

1. Six (6) copies of the draft Revenue and Tax Policy Review and Permissive Property Tax Exemption Policy review report
2. One (1) electronic copy of the draft Revenue and Tax Policy and Permissive Property Tax Exemption Policy review report, including options for alternative revenue sources for Council’s consideration.
3. Ten (10) copies of the final Revenue and Tax Policy and Permissive Tax Exemption Policy review report
4. One (1) electronic copy of the final Revenue and Tax Policy and Permissive Tax Exemption Policy review report
5. One (1) electronic copy of recommended amended Revenue and Tax Policy in City of Victoria format
6. One (1) electronic copy of recommended amended Permissive Tax Exemption Policy in City of Victoria format.
7. One (1) PowerPoint presentation

Something has to be done about these ships.   It seems Jean Crowder, MP for Nanaimo Cowichan is making an issue of this.   You can search youtube for derelict boats in BC and you will find a long list of videos.   We have them from the size of  a rowboat all the way to one time freighters or even BC Ferries.

I wrote about this in July, very little has happened since.   I posted a number of videos of derelict ships in that post

Northern Junk Proposal

I was disappointed to hear the City of Victoria Council turned down the latest version of the Northern Junk Complex proposed by Reliance Holdings of Vancouver.

The two small buildings have been derelict on the site for many years.   The site itself is currently set up so as to be functionally useless to anyone.   The location is bisected by about 90 meters of Wharf Street.   This means there is more pavement there than anyone really needs.   The site also has parking on it meaning even more of the site is paved.   As a public space, the small piece of grass is offering the City nothing and costs money to maintain it.

photo from Merrick Architecture

The City not only gains by having what looks like a decently designed building going in on this site, it would also gain from the new taxes the site would bring in.   The roughly 2000 square meters of land that the City owns at this location would be much better served being added to some development at this location.

The existing property is only about 2200 square meters in size.   It also comes with some significant limitations because the slope behind the buildings.   The footprint of the two old buildings, 290 and 150 square meters respectively, does not leave much space to do much on this land.   Reeson Park, which is adjacent to the Northern Junk buildings, would be rescued from being a drug use location and actually allow people to make use of the park and enjoy the harbour.

The building proposed is on the same scale as Swan's Hotel or the Salvation Army.   It is in fact a much better building for the area than the Salvation Army building which at the moment seriously detracts from the old town feel of the area and creates a very dark and gloomy walking area.  The shape and size certainly would be an improvement over the current situation.

The building as proposed would have no significant impact on any existing views from old town to the habour.   This is because at the moment there are really no decent sight lines in the area.

I think it the City would be well served to work with the developer to come up with some way to transfer as much land as possible into functional building space and make some real open space for the public.  

The development would encourage more walking and extend the "LoJo" area southwards.   It creates a much more holistic and complete area.   Though the area still has to contend with the further dead zone in the area.

In fact the whole set of intersections of Johnson, Pandora and Wharf creates this dead space.  It is an area of green with trees that is completely out of sync with the rest of the old town.   The trees, as they have grown, obscures the view from the bridge to the old town.

The area of roads, parking and green space, without the 1/2 acre that would be part of the Northern Junk Proposal, is 2.5 acres in area.   The streets do not function well, the green space is not one that is open and friendly to the public.   No one's interests are served.  

My hope is that council will look at the bigger picture of the area and see that there are opportunities for the City to divest itself of some unneeded land.

Maybe it is time to make Wharf a one way couplet with Government from Pandora Street to the Empress.   Doing this would improve the traffic flows in the area and would also make the redesign of the roads in the area easier to accomplish.  

If nothing happens with the site and if the buildings fall down, it would be a shame.   No one is making new 19th century buildings and each one lost is one less available to make a consistent look and feel in old town.

1999 Esquimalt Election Results

MAYOR

1. Ray Rice      1617 (+21) incumbent
2. Wayne Hopkins 1513 sitting councilor

6 COUNCILLORS

1. Maurine Karagianis 1836 (+773) incumbent
2. Don Linge          1777 (+436) incumbent
3. Lynda Hundleby     1609
4. Connie McCann      1580 (+591) incumbent
5. Jim King           1545
6. Basil Boulton      1532
7. John Roe           1330
8. Pat McAdams        1040
9. Rod Lavergne        937
10. Paul Gilbert        723
11. Ryan Marshall       714
12. Christian Hauer     450
13. Joe Richards        362 (+141)

Past Election Results

2014 2011 2008 2005 2002 1999 1996

2002 Oak Bay Election

2002  Oak Bay Election Results
For The Office of Mayor Christopher Causton was acclaimed

For the Office of Councillor

1. Frank Carson         2761 
2. Nils Jensen          2512 (-411) (inc)
3. John Herbert         2471  (-93) (inc)
4. Caroline Macey-Brown 2237   (-3) (inc)
5. Allan Cassidy        2211 (-189) (inc)
6. Russell Irvine       2020 (+147) (inc)
7. Cheryle Scott        1863  (-57) (inc)
8. Christin Geall       1862
9. Pam Copley           1858
10. Mike Baskerville-Bridges 813
11. Jim Geiwitz           751
12. Alain Horchower       341

Numbers in brackets are change from 1999 results

Voter Turnout 35.26%

New Group Advocating Saving the E&N

The E&N Railway Action Group announced their existence today.  Jack Peake and Jim Sturgill are concerned about how the Island Corridor Foundation is looking after the rail line.   It has been more than five years now that the ICF has owned the railway.  

I have been wondering for some time what the plan is for the rail line and what the ICF is actually doing.  I know they ask for over $100 million at one point to upgrade the line.  The ICF website has not been consistently updated, it still lists Jack Peake as mayor of Lake Cowichan, a position he has not held for some time.

I have no idea how well the ICF is run what does it cost to run and what revenues are coming in?  If there are no revenues, how can it be sustained?  


Text of their press release:

New E&N Action Group demands better governance and transparency from Island Corridor Foundation


ICF founder expresses concern that Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway is in jeopardy


Thursday, December 15, 2011: Vancouver Island railway professionals and advocates today announced the formation of a new E&N Railway Action Group, which will act as a watchdog to advise the public about challenges to the Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway, and governance issues with the Island Corridor Foundation, which oversees the E&N rail corridor.


“I am concerned that the ICF, a public non-profit organization, is not presenting any detailed plan for the future of the E&N, and has closed out important advisory committees from its decision-making,” says Jack Peake, a co-founder and former co-chair of the ICF, and a spokesperson for the new Action Group. “I fear that without input from the public, and professionals who have been involved with the railway for years, the E&N could be lost. With the VIA Rail cars having been removed from the island on November 5, this concern has never been more real.”


The ICF acquired the E&N Railway in 2006, as a donation from Canadian Pacific and RailAmerica. On March 19, 2011, daily VIA Rail service between Victoria and Courtenay was suspended after the track was found to be no longer safe for passenger trains. This prompted the ICF to step up its request for $15 million in federal and provincial funding to fix the E&N’s decaying infrastructure. However, the ICF has not publicly released any detailed plans on how this money will be spent.


Until recently, the ICF received suggestions and information from a Rail Operations Advisory Committee, chaired by Peake, and consisting of veteran railway professionals. “ICF executive director Graham Bruce told me that the ICF no longer needs our committee,” says Jim Sturgill, who operated trains on the E&N route for over 25 years and is a railway consultant. “The committee could help plan the ICF’s $15-million project, to ensure that the money is used effectively and will be adequate. I think the $15 million is a good first step, and could be used to get a commuter train running between Langford and Victoria, as I fear it will not be enough to repair the entire line.”


The ICF’s original funding request was for $103.8 million in 2008 for which a detailed plan was presented.


“We want to promote the railway and ensure it receives the funding it needs, but first we need transparency and public involvement,” says Peake, a former Lake Cowichan mayor who also led the public drive to save the historic Kinsol Trestle. “The E&N is owned by the people of Vancouver Island. The ICF board consists of elected representatives from five Regional Districts and five First Nations along the corridor. But ICF board meetings are not public, and its commissioned reports and financial statements haven’t been released. That is what our new group is demanding.”


The action group has also launched a website, saveislandrailway.org, where the public can learn more about the E&N, and get involved. The E&N turned 125 years old this year: on August 13, 1886, Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald drove the last spike for the railway at Cliffside, near Shawnigan Lake.


Contacts:


Jack Peake:
jack@saveislandrailway.org E-mail


Jim Sturgill:
jim@saveislandrailway.org E-mail

City of Victoria Special Council Meeting Today

At a special council meeting today the City of Victoria council raised utility rates for

• Garbage and Recycling (3.9%)
• Sewers (10%)
• Water (9%)

All of these are well above the rate of inflation.

This was done without any notice to the public that it was coming.  There was no discussion that I can see by the previous council that they intended to raise the rates this much.   The City of Victoria has Financial Sustainability Policy that calls for a two month notice before raising any fees - see section 9.

These fee increases are supposed to take effect on January 1st.

It seems to me someone screwed up in not getting this passed in October.   I assume one of the staff is in trouble for making a mistake.

I also have to wonder why the sewer and water rates are rising four times the rate of inflation.

In our household this will be a total increase in costs of about $80 a year.   It is not a huge amount, but it is once again an increase from the City of Victoria that is much higher than the rate of inflation.   The City seems to be hell bent on taxing the crap out of residential and commercial property owners.   I would like to see a couple of years of increases below the rate of inflation to balance out the last few years.

The Sandown Proposal - too much risk is transferred to the local government

I have been meaning to look more closely at this proposal for sometime and it is only the motion yesterday that got me to look closer at it.

The proposal is for the owner to remove 12 acres from the ALR and give the remaining 83 acres to the municipality with it to be agricultural land into perpetuity.   The existing eight lots would be consolidated into the two above lots.  There is nothing to stop the 12 acres of commercial land being further subdivided

I like consolidation of ALR lands into larger properties, it helps protect lands for agriculture into the future.   But as I look at this proposal more closely, I am not convinced that it is not beneficial to North Saanich

1. The value of the 83 acres is not close to $6,000,000 as suggested.   As a single lot the land would have a value of about $2.5 to $3.0 million.
2. The addition of 12.05 acres of municipal lands into the ALR is something that should be independent of any proposal.    The Municipality could ask to add this to the ALR at any time.  The municipality is giving up land value by doing this.
3. Agricultural land owned by the municipality trying to make a profit is not a recipe for success.
4. The owner gets out of having to deal with all the old buildings on the site.
5. There is a major transfer of risk from the owner to the District of North Saanich.

So what happens to this land if this proposal does not go ahead?

It could be sold as eight separate lots.   Four of them are 20 acres and the last four combine for 15 acres.   The four small lots are not really very desirable for housing given the proximity to the Pat Bay Highway.  The land also still has the racetrack on it and to remove it has costs.   It does not make it that desirable to buy.  Only one of the 20 acre lots is not encumbered with the detritus of the racetrack.

So how much could you sell this land for?   Selling the three easternmost 20 acre lots is only realistic as a single unit.   Selling the properties off at this time would I suspect bring in net proceeds of about $4.5 to $5 million.  

The proposal would give the owner a 12 acre commercial property, given the shortage of commercial lands in this region it has a lot of value.   I am not sure what the 12 acres would be worth, but my guess is that something in the range of $8,000,000 to $10,000,000 as a bare property.

The proposal gives the owner a $3 to $5.5 million benefit over the status quo.  There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this.  The problem comes for the residents of North Saanich that might be on the hook for costs not expected.  This is a large transfer of risk from the current owner to the District.

North Saanich is in danger of getting into some dangerous territory if it goes ahead with this.   The problem is that I doubt anyone really knows what the land needs to bring it back to agricultural production.  By agreement with the ALC, the District of North Saanich will be responsible for removing all the racetrack infrastructure, it will be responsible for drainage on the property, and it will be responsible soil reclamation.   The District will have to hire an agrologist to oversee this.   I look at the staff report and it does not include costs for the agrologist, soil reclamation or the drainage.

The MOU also covers 95 acres of land and not just the single 83 acre lot.   It would also include the 12.05 acres of new ALR land from the District.  The District of North Saanich property seems to sorely lacking in top soil and would require soil reclamation.  

One interesting aspect of the agreement with the ALC is that the District has agreed that the land would not be used as park, and very specifically meaning no park developments.   What this means is ensuring the public does not make and use trails on the land.

The idea that the District would then manage this land as some form of an agricultural operation such as small allotments for new farmers, larger leases to farmers, community gardens, farmer markets, and educational activities by universities and other organizations.   I am not convinced that the District could recover the costs needed to manage this property.   It also forgoes taxes from the property.

The ideas of how this land would be used after it belongs to the District are much to airy fairy.  With airy fairy ideas, the District will have to remove more of the buildings than if there was someone with a clear idea of what to do with the land.

The net value the land to the District of North Saanich would be about $2,000,000 to $2,500,000.   The net cost liability to the District of Saanich would be in the range of $800,000 to $1,200,000.  I am adding costs for an agrologist, a cost for drainage, a cost for soil recommendation, and a wider variation in the cost of the removing the buildings and track.  There is a benefit to North Saanich but it disappears if there are any problems.   The District has all the risk.

In my opinion a better option would be to allow the consolidation and subdivison without any ownership going to the municipality    The MOU would be between the ALC, District and the owner.   The onus on removing the racetrack and other land improvements would fall on the owner.   The owner would also buy the 12.05 acres of land from North Saanich and bring it into the ALR.   During the time of the requirements of the MOU, the ALC and the District of North Saanich would hold a lien on the property.   When it is all done, the owner would be allowed to sell all of the lands.

Going forward in this way achieves everything North Saanich is looking for at no risk to North Saanich.   The owner would net roughly the same amount of money, but they would take on the risk.

Traffic in this region

In general we do not have major traffic issues in this region, the Colwood Crawl sucks, but it is nothing compared to a dozen or more daily traffic snarls in the Lower Mainland.    Though actions by local governments are hardly doing much to improve the situation.

I am concerned how many of the core arterial roads in this region are only a single lane in either direction.   I do not think that any arterial road should be less than two lanes in either direction.

Narrow Arterials:

• Interurban - this should be two lanes either direction as far as Camosun
• Burnside from Interurban to Mackenzie
• Helmecken/Wilkinson - this should at least be two lane from Hwy #1 to Interurban.   It should really be fully double laned all the way from Hwy #1 to Hwy #17 - allowing a cut through from the Westshore to the Peninsula would very quickly reduce the need for the Mackenzie interchange.
• Admitals - this should be two lane from Hwy #1 to the intersection with Craigflower
• Tyee/Skinner/Craigflower/Old Island Highway - this should be two laned the whole way
• Bay Street - two laned from Goverment to Esquimalt Road

You will notice these are all between the Core and the Westshore.  They were built with their small capacity decades ago when there was no demand but since then they have not been upgraded to what is needed.  These roads were already major travel routes before anyone bought a house on them.  

There could be a case made for making Carey Road and Glanford Road into dual lane roads, but I do not think the dire need is there.

Just adding the extra lanes would dramatically improve traffic flow because a lot more traffic could flow through various traffic lights.   Left and right turns get in the way of traffic flows.   Any problem with any vehicle quickly shuts the whole street.   Finally, there would simply more space for the vehicles.   Currently the traffic backlog stuffs up intersections behind and makes gridlock a serious possibility.

• The traffic backups do have an impact on business as it takes longer to deliver goods.   
• The large majority do commute to work in a car and the lack of properly built arterial roads causes people to lose a lot of time.   Many people take the bus and in a lot of locations the time for the bus is much slower than it needs to be because of the lack of travel lanes for vehicles.
• Shopping for almost all families means driving to the store and purchasing more than you can carry on a bus.
• It increases greenhouse gases as the vehicles are spending time in stop and go traffic.
• It means any road repairs required make for a traffic hell

Adding these arterial lanes will not increase the number of miles driven any faster than not adding them.   The addition of them is not going to increase the growth of the population at the western end of them.   It also does not encourage people to live in the Cowichan Valley because it does nothing to improve that commute.

What it will do is make life a bit more enjoyable for a lot of people in the whole region.

North Saanich Council Appointments

Given the decision of council to not choose the mayor as the CRD director for North Saanich, here is a full list of the North Saanich appointments

External Commission and Committee appointments

• CRD Director– Daly alt Browne (proposed was Finall alt Daly)
• Greater Victoria Labour Relations Association – Mearns alt Stock (proposed was McMurphy alt Daly)
• Peninsula Recreation Commission - Mearns alt Stock (proposed as Browne alt Stock)
• Director Saanich Peninsula Wastewater Committee – McMurphy alt Mearns
• Sannich Peninsula Water Commission - McMurphy alt Mearns
• Crest - Browne alt McBride
• Memorial Park Society Liaison - McBride alt Browne
• Memorial Park Society Joint Finance - Finall, McBride, Browne
• Peninsula Agricultural Commission – Mearns alt McMurphy
• Peninsula Emergency Measures Executive Committee Liaison - Finall
• Peninsula Streams - Macbride alt Stock
• Regional Housing Corporation Board - McBride alt Stock
• Regional Housing Trust Fund Board – McBride alt Stock
• Restorative Justice Committee - Stock alt Browne
• Sannich Peninsula Chamber of Commerce – Daly alt Finall
• SD 63 Liaison - Mearns and Stock
• Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee - Mearns alt Stock
• Treaty Advisory Committee – Mayor and CAO
• Vancouver Island Regional Library Board Steering Committee – McMurphy alt Daly
• Victoria Airport Environment Committee and Airport Noise Committee - McBride alt Stock
• Victoria Family Court Committee Liaison - Daly alt Mearns – (proposed was Browne alt Mearns)
• Regional Water Supply Commission - Mearns alt McBride

Internal Commission, Committee, and other appointments

• Advisory Planning Committee Liaison - Mearns alt Daly
• Agricultural Advisory Commission Liaison - Stock alt Daly
• Environmental Advisory Commission Liaison – Browne alt Stock
• First Nations Liaison with Pauquachin and Tseycum - Stock alt Mearns
• Heritage Advisory Commission Liaison - McBride alt Daly – tabled
• Mountain Bike Jump Park Liaison - Daly alt McMurphy
• Parks Advisory Commission Liaison - Stock alt Browne
• Tseycum First Nation Community 2 Community Forum – Mearns

Acting Mayors

• Decrmber 2011 – January 2012 McMurphy
• February – March Mearns
• April – May McBride
• June – July Browne
• August – September Stock
• October – November – Daly

City of Victoria Council Appointments

• Planning and Land Use: Alto (chair), Helps, and Madoff
• Corporate Services: Coleman (chair), Alto, and Gudgeon
• Community Development, Environment, and Infrastructure: Thorton-Joe (chair), Isitt, and Young
• Youth Council: Helps
• Honorary Citizen: Thorton-Joe
• Conference Centre Advisory: Alto and Madoff
• CRD Board of Directors: Fortin, Young, Isitt, and Alto - Alternates (in order): Coleman, Madoff, Thorton-Joe, and Helps
• CRD Arts Advisory: Madoff
• CRD Hospital Board: Fortin, Young, Isitt, and Alto - Alternates (in order): Coleman, Madoff, Thorton-Joe, and Helps
• CRD Regional Housing Trust Fund Commission: Thorton-Joe
• CRD Water Supply Commission: Isitt, Gudgeon, Helps, Coleman - Alternates (in order): Young, Thorton-Joe, Alto, Madoff
• Board of Cemetary Trustees of Greater Victoria: Thorton-Joe
• CREST: Young
• Downtown Victoria Business Association: Alto
• Greater Victoria Airport Authority Consultation Committee: Isitt
• Greater Victoria Family Court and Youth Justice Committee: Helps
• Greater Victoria Harbour Authority: Gudgeon
• Greater Victoria Labour Relations Association Board: Fortin and Coleman
• Greater Victoria Public Library Board: Madoff
• Royal MacPherson Theatre Society Board: Madoff
• Provincial Capital Commission Board: Young and Isitt
• Tourism Board of Directors: Gudgeon
• Tourism Destination and Marking: Gudgeon
• Victoria Civic Heritage Trust: Madoff
• Victoria Heritage Foundation: Madoff
• Victoria Parks and Recreation Foundation: Gudgeon
• Victoria Regional Transit Commission: Fortin and Alto

Neighbourhood Associations

• Burnside-Gorge Community Association: Thorton-Joe
• Downtown-Blanchard Advisory Committee: Isitt
• Downtown Residents Association: Helps
• Fairfield-Gonzales Community Association: Madoff
• Fernwood Community Association: Young
• James Bay Neighbourhood Association: Coleman
• North Jubilee Neighbourhood Association: Gudgeon
• North Park Neighbourhood Association: Gudgeon
• Oaklands Community Association: Alto
• Rockland Neighbourhood Association: Isitt
• South Jubilee Neighbourhood Association: Gudgeon
• Vic West Community Association: Helps

Above Appointments to be reviewed after 18 months.

Acting Mayor:
December - Marianne Alto
January- Charlayne Thorton-Joe

North Saanich - how will it go?

Yesterday at the first meeting of the new North Saanich council there was an upset, the council voted for Ted Daly as the CRD rep and not the Alice Finall who is the mayor.  Full details of the meeting in the Peninsula News Review.  Alice Finall is not even the alternate, that person in Dunstan Browne.

Looking at the vote, there seems to be clear 4-3 split on North Saanich council.   One side there is Ted Daly, Craig Mearns, Dunstan Browne and Connie McBride, on the other side Alice Finall, Celia Stock and Elise McMurphy.     Daly, Mearns, Browne and McBride ran as an informal slate referred to as Team North Saanich.

What will be interesting will be how far the authority of the mayor goes when the majority of the council is not on her side.  There are specific roles the mayor has but in general it will be very hard for to govern if she is at odds with the majority on the council.   At the end of the day she is only one vote of seven on council.   From reading the article in the TC and in the Peninsula News Review, she does not seem to taking having her authority challenged.

What this brings home to me is the need to do away with elected mayors and only elect the council and then have the council choose the mayor from their midst.

2011 Coop Rebate

I looked at our rebate last year so I thought I would do it again this year.

From April 2010 to April 2nd 2011 we purchased $1,823.96 worth of fuel from the Peninsula Coop for a rebate of $85.73.   The rate this year was 4.7%, down from 5.1% last year.  If we had the same rate as last year, this would have been another $7.30 in rebate.

The rebate in our hand was $47.13, well in the form of a voucher we could use at the Coop.   This is equal to 2.6% of our purchases in 2010/11 or about 3 cents a litre.

We now have $105.10 worth of preferred shares of Peninsula Coop.   The first of which we will see in four more years.   In 2015 it will be rather small, but in 2016 it should more or less double our rebate, assuming our patterns have not changed.

We also have an outstanding balance $32.91 in our patronage allocation balance for our common shares - this is the rebate we did not spend from 2008/09.   We lost our 2008/09 voucher, so I have no idea what happens to that money.

We spent $331.59 less at Coop in 2010/11 than in 2009/10 even though the price of gas was about 15% more expensive in 2010/11.  This is not because we have only one vehicle now, we only went to one in the summer.   I suspect that we did drive a bit less.   We also are no longer nearly as conscientious about making sure we go to the Coop, as an example, we tank up at Costco whenever we are there.

I have to say I do not feel like I am an owner of Peninsula Coop.   To me it really is all about the money I am saving.   Yes we get a vote for the board members and Coop gives donations to the local community, but it does not connect with me on a personal level.

When I was younger I was enthusiastic about joining coops or credit unions but as I have aged they have become more and more like just any other business and my drive to be part of them is no longer there.   As an example, I now bank with a major bank and not a credit union as I did for close to 20 years.

I think it all comes down to the coops becoming so large that there is no longer a sense of knowing the people involved on a first name basis.   The last coop election had 1746 votes cast out of a pool I think 55,000 members.   That is just over a 3% turnout in the election.   It also means that the over 300 people working for Peninsula Coop could be the deciding factor in the election.   Staff can control the operation of the coop at the board level when so few people bother to vote.   This is effectively what has happened with MEC.

City of Victoria proposed pick up of kitchen scraps

The City of Victoria is asking the opinion of the public of the city what form they would like for pick of garbage and kitchen scraps.

The Options are:

• Option A - one week garbage pick up, the other week kitchen scraps, the bin to picked up in your yard but left at the curb - estimated cost $229 per year
• Option B - garbage and kitchen scrap pick up every two weeks from your yard with the bin left at the curb - estimated costs $183 per year
• Option C - garbage and kitchen scraps pick up every two weeks but you have to bring it to the curb - estimated cost of $161 per year

This coming year the City will be charging $202.88 for the weekly garbage pick up.

Initially I had thought I would have no need for the kitchen scraps part of the program.   More or less anything that is related to food we either compost, give to the chickens or the dog.   But then I looked at the list and saw it was much longer than what I thought would go into the kitchen scraps bin.

Kitchen scraps include:

• All food leftovers such as fruit and vegetable scraps, eggshells, meat, fish and poultry, bones, dairy products, tea bags, coffee grinds and filters, nuts and shells, solidified fats and grease.
• Soiled paper products such as paper towels and tissues, soiled paper food packaging, ice cream, milk and cream cartons, used paper cups and plates.

Seeing this list, I can see things that I currently put in the garbage that would go in the kitchen scrap bin.   Mainly the soiled paper and the grease.

I personally will opt for Option C as it is the cheapest.   Just over $40 may not be much, but given the rapidly rising fees and taxes from local government, I will happily opt for any option that reduces costs.   The City of Victoria is becoming a significant burden on housing costs through their relentless increase of taxes faster than inflation.  

Meanwhile I got a flyer from CUPE local 50 asking that I speak up in favour of Option A.   They dropped off a flyer in my mailbox today.  They not only want Option A, they want Option A with the addition of the return of the bin to the backyard.    I find this sort of self serving action by the union to be very short sighted and simply shows how utterly out of touch they are with reality.   There is a reason so many people really do not like public sector unions, the public sector unions do not seem to understand that protecting public sector worker jobs for no good reason turns people off.

I would have more respect for CUPE 50 if their flyer had said "Please choose Option A so that the City has to keep more of our members.  We think the extra cost to you is worth keeping a few more or our members employed."

In my ideal world I would like to see the City engage in some sort of competitive tending process for garbage collection.   The only way we will know if we are getting value for money is if no one can do it better or cheaper than the City does now.