u/JasonCongdon

Another poster recently asked about how the “Metro Vancouver Accountability Charter” is funded. Good question, but I hope the mods will permit me to take a deeper dive into the Charter’s contents. 

It’s important to consider how the Charter is funded, but I’m more interested in what it does. The Charter is clearly a campaign piece, as evidenced by the New West Progressive party’s authorization. But does it hold up as a blueprint for fiscally responsible governance reform in Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities?   

Let’s take a look:

1. The Charter and website make little or no effort to show that it addresses a proven need, has potential to solve a problem, or will save taxpayer’s money:

• Want to learn about Metro Vancouver? Looking for evidence about the problem that this Charter aims to solve? The Charter offers nothing. 
• Curious about the history and future of the Auditor General for Local Gov’t? Wondering what the problem is that requires BC municipalities to be reviewed by a higher level of government? Nothing.
• Want to know how much money these pledges would save, and how? Again, nothing.

It is difficult to take seriously a proposal for improving municipal governance when it takes no effort to justify itself, to demonstrate a need, or to provide a basis for its recommended interventions.

2. More effort has gone into promoting this as a campaign talking point than to crafting a sensible policy in the first place:

According to a quick Google search, the Charter has been promoted by the New West Progressives, Mr. Fontaine, and other signatories in news coverage and on social media at least 150 times. Yet, the Charter offers almost no justification for itself. Imagine if all that marketing labour had been directed toward creating a detailed and well thought-out plan – it might not have been so full of obvious omissions and contradictions, as I’ll show next. 

3. The “charter” itself, as a 5-point pledge, at best offers almost nothing, and contradicts the basic values of its authors:

• “Ethical Compensation” – There is nothing particularly ethical about forgoing compensation when the gesture itself functions as a campaign tactic. A genuinely ethical approach would begin with a careful review of whether the current practice is transparent, just, equitable, fiscally responsible, etc. That said, prioritizing a symbolic gesture regarding something so fiscally trivial (mayoral compensation makes up one ten-thousandth of Metro Vancouver’s budget) suggests that the Charter and its authors may be more concerned with virtue signalling than with meaningful budget reform.
• “Transparency” – as others have already pointed out, an independent review of the North Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant is already ongoing, and it appears to be fairly robust. Why does the Charter continue to call for an independent review when an independent review is already underway? How have Daniel Fontaine, Kash Heed, Ken Sim, Linda Annis, Colleen Hardwick, Kirk LaPoint, Dylan Kruger, and Mike Starchuk all managed to overlook this?
• “Smart Governance” – A smaller board might be advisable for the sake of efficiency, but this is a perverse strategy from the would-be Mayor of a relatively small Metro Van municipality, which could diminish the ability of smaller municipalities like New Westminster to participate in regional governance and oversight. Perhaps more importantly, it’s fiscally irresponsible: the cost of a direct election of a Metro Van “Regional Leadership Council of Mayors” would be enormous (for example, in today’s dollars, the 2015 Translink referendum cost over $8 million).
• “Independent Oversight” – We had an Auditor General for Local Government from 2012 to 2021, which cost $2-3 million per year. Despite the cost, there is little or no evidence that it saved municipalities or taxpayers any money. Mr. Fontaine’s municipality, New Westminster, was reviewed by the AGLG in 2016 with regard to “Managing Police Agreements and Police Budget Oversight”. The AGLG’s 46-page report broadly endorsed the City’s existing practices, and made just three organizational recommendations, none of which indicated savings for the municipality. Yet, the cost of researching and producing this report would have been significant. This is an example of the UBCM’s reasoning for opposing the AGLG: it costs taxpayers without providing demonstrable benefits.
• “Critical Services Review Within 90 days of election, launch an independent core service review” – This proposal is neither new nor especially innovative, fiscally or electorally. In New Westminster, this has been a hobby horse of the right for 15 years: for example, in 2011, Mayoral Candidate James Crosty campaigned on: “a core service review for cost saving opportunities, to identify duplicate services, redundant programs, and reduce red tape”. The problem is, city staff already do this, audits already do this, and as noted above, even a provincial AGLG failed to achieve savings in this lane. Yet, this recommendation suggests expanding Council’s role from governance into micromanagement. What costs are Mr. Fontaine and the other signatories proposing, and what for? This is especially pertinent given that City Council’s already perform this role twice or more each month, every time City Staff field questions from Council, and answer them publicly.

 

Bottom line: The Charter simply doesn’t serve the goals or live up to the standards it demands. Three of the five items entail significant new expenditures that will likely exceed $10 million. Where is the evidence these initiatives will save more than they cost?

The cost of AGLG’s budget, the cost of a direct election, and the cost of a core services review will easily total more than 10 million, yet the only clearly identifiable savings amount to roughly $500,000 (the approximate value of mayoral remuneration in 2024, should this promise be kept). This deficit is inconsistent with the authors’ claimed commitment to fiscal responsibility.

Accountability, transparency, and fiscal responsibility are important. But accountability reforms should meet the same standards they impose on others.

Fontaine and Heed have had months, if not years, to explain why existing oversight mechanisms are insufficient and provide evidence regarding the costs and expected benefits of their proposals. To date, they have provided little evidence about any of these questions.

We should hold our elected officials to higher standards than those demonstrated here. The Metro Vancouver Accountability Charter looks less like a serious reform package and more like a collection of politically appealing slogans still searching for supporting evidence.

 

 

A few days ago, the New Westminster Progressives elector group released its “A Greener New West” platform. Upon inspection, it contains just five genuinely new or unique ideas. More than 80% of the plan (22 of 27 points) merely reflects the city’s existing practice.

While the words “maintain,” “expand,” or “continue” do occur a few times in NWP’s list, many of these ideas are represented as new, and nowhere do they credit the people whose work they appear to be repurposing as their own platform.

Whereas Daniel Fontaine claims (@~40:10) that the “current administration” is “tired” and has “run out of ideas”, it’s surprising to see so many of those ideas predominate his party’s green platform.

The remainder of this post shows where the 22 points are already part of the city’s work, then briefly reflects on the other five points. Apologies for length – just documenting the evidence where applicable.

 

22 PLANKS THAT REPRODUCE WHAT THE CITY ALREADY DOES:

“Develop a long-term flood resilience strategy for Queensborough, including securing the necessary funding for continued investment in dikes and flood protection infrastructure.”

New West already has a Flood Resilience Plan, Flood Management Strategy, ongoing dyke rehabilitation projects, and a record of securing provincial funding specifically for Queensborough flood protection.

“Maintain a dedicated Climate Impact Reserve Fund to help respond to extreme weather events without placing unexpected costs on local taxpayers.”

New Westminster already has a Climate Action Reserve Fund, which was established in 2022. Councillor Fontaine has taken action to eliminate contributions to this fund.

“Invest in climate-resilient roads, drainage systems, parks and civic infrastructure”

These are already long-standing city priorities, as reflected in the Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience Plan, everything from the Streets for People Initiative to the Active Transportation Network Plan, simultaneous upgrades to west end roads and sewer/drainage, Integrated Stormwater Master Plan, and the Seven Bold Steps for Climate Action, which is a framework for developing sustainable and climate-resilient civic infrastructure. Climate Resilience is a “key theme” in the People, Parks, Play – the city’s comprehensive parks and recreation plan.

“Strengthen emergency preparedness plans for heat domes, wildfire smoke, flooding and severe storms”

The City’s response to the heat dome has clearly been an ongoing priority, including an indoor temperature bylaw that also prohibits A/C restrictions, collaborating with Fraser Health on the Emergency Monitoring Centre, creating misting stations and indoor cooling spaces, etc.

“Expand the City’s urban tree canopy with measurable canopy cover and planting targets.”

New Westminster has an Urban Forest Management Strategy, which includes canopy cover and planting targets.

 “Establish clear park and green space objectives based on population growth and publish regular progress reports.”

This is built into the city’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan – see here re “catch up” and “keep up” as well as a specific enumeration of some of the elements of the plan in this video.

“Dramatically accelerate tree planting in neighbourhoods — with a particular emphasis where there is limited shade and higher summer temperatures.”

Whereas 2,300 trees were planted between 2021-2025, Phase 2 of the Urban Reforestation Plan aims to plant 6,000 trees between 2025 and 2030.

“Protect healthy mature trees wherever practical. When tree removal is necessary, prioritize replacement planting to maintain and expand New Westminster’s long-term tree canopy.”

The city’s existing process for this is outlined here.

“Publish an annual Urban Forest Report outlining trees planted, trees removed, canopy gains and losses, and progress toward the City’s canopy goals.”

The City already has robust reporting, modeling and forecasting tools covering these topics, as clearly shown in this document (see esp. the section on forecasting and modelling).

“Expand partnerships and incentives that encourage tree planting and tree retention on private, institutional and commercial properties.”

This is covered by the City’s Tree Protection Bylaw and Replacement Tree Inventory and Assessment Project, as well as by initiatives such as the city’s tree sale every Spring and Fall.

“Continue transitioning City vehicles to electric or low-emission alternatives where operationally practical.”

In alignment with the seven bold steps mentioned above, the city has had a comprehensive e-mobility strategy since 2022. It includes goals for the greening of the city’s vehicle fleet. A recent report tracking progress toward a low-pollution fleet is available here (p. 5). Some of this planning is also described in the City’s Corporate Energy & Emissions Reduction Strategy (see pp. 26-29).

“Expand public EV charging infrastructure through partnerships with BC Hydro, the provincial and federal governments and private businesses.”

Here are some of the City’s many initiatives in support of e-mobility and the infrastructure to support it, including the requirement for new buildings to be EV-ready. Expanding public EV charging infrastructure is also part of the e-mobility strategy listed above (see Objective #5, pp 33-5).

“Make City buildings more energy efficient during renovations and new construction.” & “Continue reducing waste from City operations.”

The City’s ongoing work on both of these items is described in part in the Corporate Energy & Emissions Reduction Strategy. New West builds and renovates according to the higher tiers of the BC Energy Step Code and Zero Carbon Step Code. It regularly reports on progress in these areas such as here. It also promotes high standards of energy efficiency throughout the city using a variety of tools described here. The City’s recent work installing Advanced Metering Infrastructure also contributes to energy efficiency and reduced emissions.

“Aggressively pursue provincial and federal climate funding before asking local taxpayers to pay more.”

New Westminster participates in the Province’s Local Government Climate Action Program and the city’s most recent report is here. In March 2024 the city received $835,310 for years 2024-27. Through UBCM’s Community Emergency Preparedness Fund the city received $800,000 in 2023 for Queensborough dike rehabilitation and roughly $1,000,000 for the Urban Reforestation and Biodiversity Enhancement Initiative (URBEI). In June 2021 the City received $1.7M in funding for URBEI from the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (COVID-19 Resilience Infrastructure Stream). The city receives a variety of other funds that contribute to climate-related initiatives but aren’t specifically earmarked that way (for example over $300,000 annually from UBCM’s Community Works Fund.

“Require major environmental initiatives to demonstrate measurable environmental benefits and long-term value.”

New Westminster already has a Climate Action Decision-Making Framework (CADMF). It was approved unanimously by the current council on March 4, 2024.

“Continue seeking partnerships with educational institutions, community organizations and the private sector to make environmental dollars go further.”

The City’s collaborations in this area are almost too many to count, including the Youth Climate Action Fund (which itself supports at least 10 collaborative projects), participation in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Partners for Climate Protection network, partnership with the New Westminster Climate Action Hub, support for New West Community Garden Society, collaboration with 11 other municipalities in the Sue Big Oil campaign. Many other partnerships and collaborations are indicated in some of the planning and policy documents linked above, which outline work undertaken in partnership with UBCM, BC Hydro, local developers, and other stakeholders. 

“Report annually on the City’s progress preparing for extreme weather and funding received from other levels of government.”

The City already reports regularly about progress on climate initiatives in general here and through the Seven Bold Steps for Climate Action dashboard (which includes progress re electricity, emissions, transportation, tree canopy, water use, etc.) as well as on specific areas like flooding, reserve fund expenditures, emergency preparedness, etc. Obviously, all funds received by the city from other levels of government and elsewhere are already being reported.

“Ensure any future biodiversity initiatives are focused primarily in public parks and green spaces and do not eliminate or impact public access.”

This one is odd. New Westminster's Biodiversity and Natural Areas Strategy has been in place since 2022, but this seems like an attempt to speak to the Fifth Street Median Naturalization project, which was supported in general, but vocally resisted by residents on or adjacent to Fifth street, so the City modified its plans accordingly. But most of the pushback related to aesthetics and wildlife pests, rather than public access. That all said, whether manicured grass or rewilded biodiversity, are medians not “green spaces”?

“Continue supporting community gardens, neighbourhood tree planting and volunteer environmental stewardship initiatives.”

This is well-covered already – the city supports community gardens, tree planting, and environmental stewardship quite robustly (see New West Community Garden Society, tree planting, and environmental stewardship initiatives, among other links).

“Increase shade and cooling infrastructure in parks, playgrounds, around schools, public gathering spaces and areas most affected by heat.”

This is already covered above in links about responding to the heat dome, growing tree canopy, and building out other infrastructures like misting stations and cooling centres, in response to heat.

“Work with the New Westminster School District to improve access to cooling spaces during extreme heat events, and determine our legal ability to implement a Cool Schools By-law requiring schools and portables to maintain a maximum indoor temperature.”

While New Westminster School District is already working on this, it’s quite doubtful that the City can implement a by-law governing the management of school infrastructure re temperature. Such laws should most definitely be in place, but very likely fall outside municipal jurisdiction, though there may be some ambiguity re what municipalities can achieve via their Official Community Plan.

 

FIVE ORIGINAL NWP PLANKS

“Cancel the City’s participation in the ‘Sue Big Oil’ campaign and redirect those funds toward local environmental programs.”

What’s most interesting here is that the City doesn’t spend anything, nor take anything away from “local environmental programs” unless this lawsuit goes ahead, and contributing to this initiative is supported by the Council of Canadians in consonance with the polluter pays principle, is supported by scientific evidence and argument, and is locally supported by groups like New West Climate Action Hub and New West Secondary's Monkey Rebels. Given the well-established litigiousness of Councillors Fontaine and Minhas (toward their colleague the Mayor, but also elsewhere).

“Install more dual-stream (both recycling and garbage) receptacles throughout parks, commercial districts and public spaces where there is a demonstrated need.” &

“Expand public bottle and can collection stations to encourage recycling while supporting those who collect returnable bottles and cans.”

Ok, more garbage cans, fair enough.

“Explore opportunities to establish an urban farm that supports local food production, environmental education, volunteerism and community partnerships.”

I love this idea. The challenge is that we have precious little room for anything like this, especially in relationship to our city’s need for housing, schools, parks, etc. Where would we put an urban farm? How would we pay to create, maintain, and operate a farm? 

“Work with BC Hydro to identify more opportunities in Connaught Heights for new publicly accessible green space the public can use in their existing rights of way.”

Fair enough. This might be a sensible nod to NWP’s supporters in the West End if there’s green space that could be made more usable if the right kind of cooperation with BC Hydro could be forged.

 

Today the Fraser Institute published a report on municipal revenue and spending in Metro Van municipalities from 2009 to present. The New West Progressives made this report the basis of a Facebook post this afternoon – more about that later.

The report shows that New Westminster ranks third-highest in per-capita spending: our city spends $2,940 per person against an average across all cities of $2,387.

On the same page of the Fraser Institute Report, another chart indicates the growth in each city’s per-capita spending over the last 15 years. Here, New West’s spending growth is fourth-lowest among all cities at 8,8% compared to an average growth rate of 14.5%.

For additional context, New Westminster’s per-capita spending was already very high in 2009, when we ranked #2, which was also the case in 2016 and 2019.

Back to the NWP post, of course they chose to reproduce only the chart that showed us ranked third-highest in spending. They omitted the chart that shows that our spending growth has been more restrained than all but three other cities.

Contrary to the spin NWP seeks to build out of their cherry-picked presentation, the data they omit suggests to me two things:

(1) that fourth-lowest growth rate seems to imply that New Westminster’s spending has been reasonable, and reasonably restrained relative to our neighbours.

(2) the fact that we’ve ranked second or third for a quarter-century suggests a structural situation (small land base, dense population, etc.) – and not something that could be easily transformed by a few years of council decisions without damaging the level of service we are accustomed to.

I’d especially love to hear informed, reasonable feedback on whether those latter two points of interpretation seem legit. I’ve only lived here for 8 of the last 25 years, and I've only had a few minutes to think about this data. More importantly, I think it's valuable for voters, including me, to learn more about the shape of our finances.

Thanks!

Thompson's editorial in the Vancouver Sun is reprinted here on his blog.

I feel like in this particular election cycle our small city — with fewer local community news reporters than ever and an unhelpful social media ecosystem — is in a particularly vulnerable position and at least a few actors are working hard to exploit this.

What can we do, if anything, to ensure that our electorate is informed with accurate facts and reasoned arguments and not overwhelmed by hyperbole, misrepresentation, and spin?