PART 1: We need accountable and responsible government, not more ISDs.
Two recent documents, one from the Capital Region District (CRD) and another compiled by officials from our 13 municipalities, provide a lengthy and detailed overview of over 350 Integrated Service Delivery (ISD) agreements in the region. Advocates such as retired academic Bob Bish and some municipal mayors trumpet the existence of these “voluntary cooperative partnerships" between municipalities as evidence that the current model of local and regional governance is working well and major reform is not needed.
Conversely it can be strongly argued that the system is dysfunctional, unaccountable and out of control. In Part 1 of this blog, the topic of the 155 ISD agreements administered by the CRD is discussed. Part 2 elaborates on the mix of another 201 ISDs foisted upon us by our municipal officials.
The regional district model was created by the Province in late 1960s to accomplish three things;
First, to provide services such as fire, water, recreation, planning, etc. to residents of unorganized areas, a task the CRD does well.
Second, to ensure certain functions mandated as necessary services would be provided to all communities in the region, most notably water supply, landfill and regional parks, which the CRD also does well. [Note: Sewerage treatment is an obvious exception.] However this list of 'must provide' is very limited and badly needs to be updated.
A third category allows regional districts to assume other functions that individual municipal councils have delegated to the regional district to organize and deliver. Each municipality agrees to tax its residents to fund that particular service. Municipalities also have the legal right to opt out and provide their own local services, e.g. water delivery, garbage pickup, fire, police, parks, land use planning, etc.
The third category works well in most of the over 20 regional districts spread across the Province where there is one central community that is a service centre for regional residents, such as Prince George, Cranbrook, and Vernon.
But that third model of governance fails in polycentric areas such as Greater Vancouver and Greater Victoria, where there are multiple municipalities with common boundaries. In those situations, localism triumphs over regionalism. The result is a multiplicity of fire and police departments, emergency dispatch centres, conflicting building codes, small scale arts and cultural facilities, and more particularly – a region where no single elected body is in charge.
What's worse, in numerous situations smaller municipalities don’t offer the service(s) and their residents simply travel to the neighbouring municipality and thus are ‘free riders’ to the cost of providing that service. Most notably these costs are borne by urban residents for roads and new bridges, traffic congestion, policing and arts/cultural facilities that are used, but not paid for, by over half of Greater Victoria residents.
The CRD document provides a complex budget chart that details 155 ISD arrangements under the jurisdiction of the CRD Board. It is important to understand that each of these separate functions requires its own legal agreement, financial formulas, management committee and CRD staff to administer. The fundamental fact is that regional districts have no authority to impose taxes, and all such expenditures must first be approved by the various municipal councils who requested that service, then noted as a regional levy, and collected as part of municipal property taxes. The CRD budget chart provides a roadmap of what services they are requested to provide, by whom, and how costs are being allocated between residents of various parts of the region.
[Note: the CRD operating budget is $217 million, plus a capital budget of $98 million. Operating funds are generated by municipal property tax requisitions of $72 million, plus user fees of $104 – mainly from water sales to municipalities.]
A quick review reveals that 87 ISD agreements are for services to residents in the unorganized areas of Juan de Fuca, Saltspring Island, and Southern Gulf Islands.
Another 27 ISD agreements involve 2 - 7 of the small municipalities, mainly on the Westshore or Peninsula. Notably another 26 ISDs are related to sewer system management and we know how poorly that has worked!
But more concerning is that only 15 ISD agreements involve all 13 member municipalities for regional-scale service delivery.
Clearly the CRD is upside down. Despite the Regional Board composition, with 21 of its 24 members from the 13 municipalities, it spends the majority of time dealing with services to a population of less than 50,000. Very little time is devoted to managing the needs of our 300,000 urban residents
Does that make sense, considering that over 70% of all travel is inter-municipal travel? Residents reside in one place, but 'live' regionally to travel to play, work, study or shop. Seldom are airports, ferries, major shopping areas, college/university or places of employment situated in the home municipality of the majority of residents. It is clear that the organization of local government in the region does not reflect how we actually live and depend on others to provide essential services.
Academics characterize our governance situation as “heavy institutions, weak authority.”
And more particularly the charts show, by their absence from the list key service, that critical needs such as emergency services, transportation, and arts/cultural services are not deal with at the regional level. Further, the need to respond to matters that do not respect municipal boundaries, such as climate change, protection of environmental values, natural disasters, etc. are not addressed.
Continue to read Part 2, which will provide an overview of another 201 separate ISD arrangements organized and provided amongst municipalities, separate from those administered by the CRD. Horrors!
- Jim Anderson
Two recent documents, one from the Capital Region District (CRD) and another compiled by officials from our 13 municipalities, provide a lengthy and detailed overview of over 350 Integrated Service Delivery (ISD) agreements in the region. Advocates such as retired academic Bob Bish and some municipal mayors trumpet the existence of these “voluntary cooperative partnerships" between municipalities as evidence that the current model of local and regional governance is working well and major reform is not needed.
Conversely it can be strongly argued that the system is dysfunctional, unaccountable and out of control. In Part 1 of this blog, the topic of the 155 ISD agreements administered by the CRD is discussed. Part 2 elaborates on the mix of another 201 ISDs foisted upon us by our municipal officials.
The regional district model was created by the Province in late 1960s to accomplish three things;
First, to provide services such as fire, water, recreation, planning, etc. to residents of unorganized areas, a task the CRD does well.
Second, to ensure certain functions mandated as necessary services would be provided to all communities in the region, most notably water supply, landfill and regional parks, which the CRD also does well. [Note: Sewerage treatment is an obvious exception.] However this list of 'must provide' is very limited and badly needs to be updated.
A third category allows regional districts to assume other functions that individual municipal councils have delegated to the regional district to organize and deliver. Each municipality agrees to tax its residents to fund that particular service. Municipalities also have the legal right to opt out and provide their own local services, e.g. water delivery, garbage pickup, fire, police, parks, land use planning, etc.
The third category works well in most of the over 20 regional districts spread across the Province where there is one central community that is a service centre for regional residents, such as Prince George, Cranbrook, and Vernon.
But that third model of governance fails in polycentric areas such as Greater Vancouver and Greater Victoria, where there are multiple municipalities with common boundaries. In those situations, localism triumphs over regionalism. The result is a multiplicity of fire and police departments, emergency dispatch centres, conflicting building codes, small scale arts and cultural facilities, and more particularly – a region where no single elected body is in charge.
What's worse, in numerous situations smaller municipalities don’t offer the service(s) and their residents simply travel to the neighbouring municipality and thus are ‘free riders’ to the cost of providing that service. Most notably these costs are borne by urban residents for roads and new bridges, traffic congestion, policing and arts/cultural facilities that are used, but not paid for, by over half of Greater Victoria residents.
The CRD document provides a complex budget chart that details 155 ISD arrangements under the jurisdiction of the CRD Board. It is important to understand that each of these separate functions requires its own legal agreement, financial formulas, management committee and CRD staff to administer. The fundamental fact is that regional districts have no authority to impose taxes, and all such expenditures must first be approved by the various municipal councils who requested that service, then noted as a regional levy, and collected as part of municipal property taxes. The CRD budget chart provides a roadmap of what services they are requested to provide, by whom, and how costs are being allocated between residents of various parts of the region.
[Note: the CRD operating budget is $217 million, plus a capital budget of $98 million. Operating funds are generated by municipal property tax requisitions of $72 million, plus user fees of $104 – mainly from water sales to municipalities.]
A quick review reveals that 87 ISD agreements are for services to residents in the unorganized areas of Juan de Fuca, Saltspring Island, and Southern Gulf Islands.
Another 27 ISD agreements involve 2 - 7 of the small municipalities, mainly on the Westshore or Peninsula. Notably another 26 ISDs are related to sewer system management and we know how poorly that has worked!
But more concerning is that only 15 ISD agreements involve all 13 member municipalities for regional-scale service delivery.
Clearly the CRD is upside down. Despite the Regional Board composition, with 21 of its 24 members from the 13 municipalities, it spends the majority of time dealing with services to a population of less than 50,000. Very little time is devoted to managing the needs of our 300,000 urban residents
Does that make sense, considering that over 70% of all travel is inter-municipal travel? Residents reside in one place, but 'live' regionally to travel to play, work, study or shop. Seldom are airports, ferries, major shopping areas, college/university or places of employment situated in the home municipality of the majority of residents. It is clear that the organization of local government in the region does not reflect how we actually live and depend on others to provide essential services.
Academics characterize our governance situation as “heavy institutions, weak authority.”
And more particularly the charts show, by their absence from the list key service, that critical needs such as emergency services, transportation, and arts/cultural services are not deal with at the regional level. Further, the need to respond to matters that do not respect municipal boundaries, such as climate change, protection of environmental values, natural disasters, etc. are not addressed.
Continue to read Part 2, which will provide an overview of another 201 separate ISD arrangements organized and provided amongst municipalities, separate from those administered by the CRD. Horrors!
- Jim Anderson