Newsletter July 15, 2018
Transparency & Compromise in “short supply”
The Mayor constantly informs residents the District has full consultation with residents and is completely transparent. Unfortunately, the reality is much different. The opportunities for public engagement provided are at best minimal and most often resident input is unheeded. Several strategies are used regularly to obscure transparency and restrict public input. Examples of this are:
All this came to a head at Monday’s July 9th, 2018 Council Meeting where it has been typical in the past two Council terms to hold meetings in July packed with important Community issues. Holding these meetings in a summer months when many residents are away is a far cry from transparency.
July 9. 2018 Council meeting agenda contained 17 items that included many complex community issues that required full public debate. The agenda included: the 2017 Annual Report, Secondary Suites Legalization terms of reference, the long-awaited Development Charges Report and the Council Remuneration Report. Suitable Public Engagement would have meant presenting the items at a Committee of the Whole meeting, with adequate advance notice for the community. By limiting input at the July 9, 2018, Council meeting the Mayor and District Staff demonstrated indifference and a lack of respect for public engagement.
This year's Annual Report is one of the best examples of “transparency ignored”.
Let’s take a look at some facts:
According to the BC Government:
‘Local governments must present the annual report at a public meeting before June 30 each year, and make the report available for public inspection at least 14 days prior to that meeting.’ The goal is to facilitate public access to the meeting and give citizens a chance to review and discuss the annual report, including the previous year's objectives and future goals.’
A Handbook for Municipal Councils Under the Community Charter and the Local Government Act
(This presented to each Council Member and has this to say about the Annual Report, page 15)
Annual Report (Part 26, Division 4, Local Government Act)
Factors to keep in mind are:
Oak Bay Watch observation: the Annual Report public hearing was presented at and confused with a Council meeting; there were no changes despite significant critical resident submissions and three Councilors. Murdoch, Brathwaite, and Zhelka voting against the Report; and the statutory procedure was not adhered to. Either the Mayor was not aware of the BC Councillor’s Handbook Annual Report Factors or chose to disregard them.
As public input is often ignored, and as indicated it certainly was in influencing any change in the annual report, this it is likely why very few residents were present at the July 9th Council meeting. And, judging by residents remarks who did attend and resident written submissions, they felt the Mayor and District Staff had failed to live up to their stated commitment to public engagement and transparency.
As indicated Oak Bay’s 2017 Annual Report also failed to impress 3 members of Council who voted against accepting the Report. One Councilor said it was ‘all cookies and cream’ and another said, “there were holes”.
At Monday’s July 9, 2018 Council Meeting, a resident specifically addressed the Mayor on the Agenda:
‘The Mayor, as the Chief Executive Officer, is responsible to work with District staff on preparing Agendas and to conduct productive meetings. Arguably meetings might be considered more productive if the public is excluded from the process. However many residents have expressed concern that they don’t feel that Council is being transparent or listening to the community. In today’s society "transparency" and the "right to know" are paramount values.
“Tonight’s Agenda simply does not meet a commitment to engage residents”.
-------------------------
There are too many public comments to include, but here are a few excerpts from the public submissions, the full submissions are provided in Appendix # 1:
“Opus Consultants and District Staff confirm that the District needs to allocate approximately $5.5 Million dollars per annum to maintain roads, storm/sanitary sewers and water lines. In 2017 Council approved only $1.7 Million – almost $4 Million less than what is actually needed to maintain services. In 2017, Oak Bay Engineering Department rated most of Oak Bay’s roads, sanitary and storm sewers, and water lines in poor to very poor condition. How does this relate to ‘sound fiscal management”.
Oak Bay’s 2017 Annual Report does not clearly articulate performance against objectives, significant changes and new or on-going concerns. Full accountability and transparency in reporting are based on weighing results against established objectives and performance measurements, and rationalizing decisions and the impact of those decisions on the community. And, if the District is committed to Public Engagement, presentation of the Annual Report should be timely and focused on dialogue, not just feedback.
Esther Paterson
Many residents voiced concern during the year about being left out of the District's land application process until the Public Hearing when it is too late to have input in the decision. This is an important issue, especially if the District plans to increase density. The problem has been identified, but the Annual Report doesn't identify this (or any other issues) that need to be resolved.
There is no way that the community and Council can review, discuss and significantly improve the draft Annual Report at the July 9, 2018 meeting.
Michael Wilmut
My concerns about the Annual Report are many however, the main point is the definite “disconnect” between what is presented as accomplishments and in many cases what has actually been done.
Anthony Mears
See Appendix #1 for full Resident Submissions
Oak Bay Watch Perspective
It is ironical that a Public Engagement Task Force Report is about to be released with recommendations to “improve” community consultation. The Report will be provided to the public directly following a Council Meeting that made a mockery of Public Engagement. However, in light of this Council July 9. 2018 meeting, any improvement will not be all that difficult to achieve - albeit that it cost taxpayers $10,000 in more consultant fee overspending. The Annual Report lacked a great amount of detail yet it was approved in an all too familiar 4-3 vote by the Mayor and Councillors Ney, Croft and Kirby. It is notable that many other communities provide a public meeting exclusively for their Annual Report well in advance of the 2-week minimum timeline. Saanich currently is discussing their 2019 tax increase while Oak Bay Council provides minimal annual budget information in December each year. More on this next Newsletter
It is impossible to remain neutral when confronted with these facts
Home
Time for a change
*******Please help us continue to provide you with information about Community concerns and Council decisions and actions. Oak Bay Watch members also help community groups with their specific development concerns. Donate to Oak Bay Watch - even $5 or $10 dollars provides expenses for door- to- door handouts and helps us maintain our website. Oak Bay Watch is committed to ensuring the Community gets the full range of information on budget, governance and all key development issues – a well-informed opinion cannot be made without this.
(Please use Donate Button at bottom of oakbaywatch.com Home Page)
Keep informed please sign up for our newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.
Appendix #1 Council Meeting July 9th, 2018
Resident Submissions
July 6, 2018
District of Oak Bay electronic transmission
Warren Jones, Director of Corporate Services
2167 Oak Bay Avenue, Victoria BC
V8R 1G2
Mayor in Council:
Re: 2017 Annual Report
Council Meeting, July 9, 2018
In his opening message of the 2017 Annual Report, the Mayor states ‘the District remains committed to engaging residents’. Annual Reports are important tools for public engagement; other members of the CRD followed the guidance of the Province whose website states:
‘Local governments are required to prepare an annual report which states their goals and objectives for the coming year and demonstrates what progress has been made toward the preceding year's goals and objectives. Local governments must present the report at a public meeting before June 30 each year, and make the report available for public inspection at least 14 days prior to that meeting.’
‘The goal is to facilitate public access to the meeting and give citizens a chance to review and discuss the annual report, including the previous year's objectives and future goals.’
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/local-governments/finance/financial-reporting/financial-statements-annual-reports?keyword=municipal&keyword=annual&keyword=reports
Oak Bay’s report will be ‘considered by Council’ on July 9th and ‘members of the public are invited to provide feedback’. A Council meeting held in the month of July, and without provision for public discussion, does little to ensure broad public consultation and may not even comply with Province’s mandate.
The District’s website invites the public to provide feedback. In 2017 most resident concerns related to 3 major categories: Public Engagement/Transparency, Development/OCPand Finances/Infrastructure. I have framed my comments around those issues.
Conclusion:
It is important to recognize contributions and accomplishments of Community Volunteers, District Staff and Council; the whole community benefits as a result. It is also understandable that not everything goes according to plan; Council and Staff must have flexibilityOak Bay’s 2017 Annual Report does not clearly articulate performance against objectives, significant to deal with changes that can and do occur.changes and new or on-going concerns.
Full accountability and transparency in reportingis based on weighing results against established objectives and performance measurements, and rationalizing decisions and the impact of those decisions on the community. And, if the District is committed to Public Engagement, presentation of the Annual Report should be timely and focused on dialogue, not just feedback.
Respectfully,
Esther Paterson, Resident
Oak Bay
This Submissions Attachments please see Municipal website/ Minutes and Agendas/July 9, 201 8 Council Meeting Agenda/Item #8/correspondence.
July 8, 2018
Mayor and Council,
The Council Agenda for July 9 has too many items to be dealt with properly in one sitting. The 13 items include many of great importance to our community-presentation on Development Cost Charges, 2017 Annual Report, Secondary Suite Report and Water conservation plan.
The draft Annual Report in particular has two major problems. First the report was supposed to be presented to the public by June 30, after being made available to the public for at least two weeks. This did not happen.
Second, the draft report is clearly incomplete in many sections. Below are shortcomings in two of the Strategic Priorities.
Strategic Goal 4 is: "Develop, maintain and protect our infrastructure". Most of Oak Bay’s roads, sanitary and storm sewers, and water lines in "poor to very poor condition" according to Oak Bay's Engineering Department. Our infrastructure will require approximately $283 million over 20 years to repair (Opus/Moore Wilson Reports). We have only about $27 million in reserve. In short Oak Bay has "crumbling infrastructure". None of this information is in the report. Is one to believe that Oak Bay has been practicing "sound fiscal management” as stated by the Mayor (page 6, Annual Report)
Strategic Goal 2 is: "Focus on being well managed and well governed to serve our residents." The document makes many statements with little or no evidence including the four examples below.
The Report states “Continued to streamline application and notification processes for land use, heritage and building applications to be more cost effective and customer oriented” but fails to identify how that was achieved.
In 2017 the District announced a $1.7 Million purchase of a property as part of the Strategy for a new Village Plan. This was a significant purchase for the District; the Annual Report should give details on the reason for the acquisition and intended future use.
The 2016 Annual Report accomplishments included a manual and training seminar for the Advisory Planning Commission. This did not appear to be of benefit as Council is still not receiving APC minutes prior to considering an application. No update is provided in 2017 to demonstrative the positive outcomes of the training.
Many residents voiced concern during the year about being left out of the District's land application process until the Public Hearing, when it is too late to have input in the decision. This is an important issue, especially if the District plans to increase density. The problem has been identified, but the Annual Report doesn't identify this (or any other issues) that need to be resolved.
There is no way that the community and Council can review, discuss and significantly improve the draft Annual Report at the July 9 meeting.
In order fulfill the Mayor’s promise “the District remains committed to engaging residents and to strengthening the District’s public accountability in decision making” (page 6, Annual Report) and to create a more accurate and complete Annual Report I ask that Council reschedule item 8 (2017 Annual Report) to a date when sufficient time can be allocated to this item. (One possibility is July 23 which was originally scheduled for a Council meeting).
Mike Wilmut
Oak Bay
July 7, 2018
District of Oak Bay
Warren Jones, Director of Corporate Services
2167 Oak Bay Avenue, Victoria BC
V8R 1G2
Mayor in Council:
Re: 2017 Annual Report
Council Meeting, July 9, 2018
My concerns about the Annual Report are many however, the main point is the definite “disconnect” between what is presented as accomplishments and in many cases what has actually been done.
An example, page 2 portrays a positive picture of community satisfaction, over 90% satisfaction rate. Over-densification and the failing under-funded infrastructure were downplayed, even though they were by far the highest rated of community concerns.
Residents advised Council of their concerns, speaking at Council, writing letters to Council and to the Oak Bay News. Many residents had concerns about over-densification on the District’s aging infrastructure, and with significant tree loss. The Annual Report doesn’t have any methods of measuring what happened in 2017 compared to 2016, or targets for 2018. Over-densification, although highlighted, has no goals or objectives to respond to resident’s concerns.
Very little infrastructure improvement was achieved in 2017 (see Annual Report excerpt below). What is difficult to understand is when the Asset Management Plan was presented to Council in 2017 and the District’s infrastructure crisis was explained in detail, Council Members, sat in silence apparently in a state of disbelief, yet as indicated minimal action has been taken.
Although there are many references about Council supporting the Asset Management Plan, there has been no sense of urgency or explanation of District staff have difficulty getting budgets approved for work that needs to be done. There is however an indication that much much more development has taken place since 2014, (Annual Report, Building and Planning on page 2) however, this is not correlated with demolitions, tree loss, or the amount of (Council recognized) over-building due to the 2007 overbuilding zoning mistake or for that matter infrastructure impacts (note: no data is presented on these items).
Urban Forest Management Plan.
Urban Forest Strategy (2016) and Urban Forest Plan (2017) received a positive response by residents. The objectives and measures for 2018 and future years are not clearly presented. There is no indication that the Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture’s April 2018 Report Urban Forest Management Plan, undertaking to acquire funding was carried out. It was not referred to in the April 2018 Council Estimates Meeting Agenda or in the meetings minutes. More to the point the 2017 Annual Report, Parks and Recreation section is silent on the status of the Urban Forest Management Plan.
These are a few of the key issues that I was looking for in the Annual Report. The District website says that residents can provide input, but no mention of discussion that will happen at the Council Meeting or at a Committee of the Whole. Which raises the whole question of Public Engagement, and what the goal is for allowing public participation in the future.
Director of Parks, Recreation and CultureReport to Council April. 2017.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
A number of the Urban Forest Strategy’s recommendations have a financial impact some small and some significant. An implementation plan will be developed for presentation to Council as part of the 2018 budget cycle. Funding for specific recommendations will be subject to Council approval when requested.
2017 Annual Report Page 12
Strategic Goal 4:
Develop, maintain and protect our infrastructure
What Was Actually Achieved
• Used a Clean Water Wastewater Fund grant of $1.38M in order
to support the final phases of the Henderson Road water main project.
• Supported the next phase of the Uplands Sewer Separation
Project, detailed design contract, by a Clean Water Wastewater Fund grant of $324,958.
Anthony Mears
Oak Bay
Transparency & Compromise in “short supply”
The Mayor constantly informs residents the District has full consultation with residents and is completely transparent. Unfortunately, the reality is much different. The opportunities for public engagement provided are at best minimal and most often resident input is unheeded. Several strategies are used regularly to obscure transparency and restrict public input. Examples of this are:
- Superficial ‘compliance’ with little substance.
- Important Community issues are placed last and introduced on packed Council agendas.
- Residents are given very limited time to analyze the agenda material and respond and also at Council, limited time for public remarks with no response to questions.
- Developers are given unlimited time to present their applications in contrast with the public’s literal “clock watch” measured three minutes.
- Repeated delays and excuses resulting in an unamended broken zoning bylaw that encourages demolition and allows over-densification. Note: the Mayor was instrumental in recommending spoiling what was considered the best, fairest zoning bylaw in the CRD
- Development charges were deferred from Council’s 2016 Strategic Priorities, and then finally presented at the July 9, 2018 Council meeting with no prior notice to residents, although residents paid $75,000 in tax dollars for the report
- Removing Council member discussion from Council meeting agenda minutes. The current webcasting audio and broadcasting problems mean there is no public record of why councilors voted the way they did.
- Failing to comply with Privacy Commission 30 day response requirement for Freedom of Information requests (it can take months and several submissions)
All this came to a head at Monday’s July 9th, 2018 Council Meeting where it has been typical in the past two Council terms to hold meetings in July packed with important Community issues. Holding these meetings in a summer months when many residents are away is a far cry from transparency.
July 9. 2018 Council meeting agenda contained 17 items that included many complex community issues that required full public debate. The agenda included: the 2017 Annual Report, Secondary Suites Legalization terms of reference, the long-awaited Development Charges Report and the Council Remuneration Report. Suitable Public Engagement would have meant presenting the items at a Committee of the Whole meeting, with adequate advance notice for the community. By limiting input at the July 9, 2018, Council meeting the Mayor and District Staff demonstrated indifference and a lack of respect for public engagement.
This year's Annual Report is one of the best examples of “transparency ignored”.
Let’s take a look at some facts:
According to the BC Government:
‘Local governments must present the annual report at a public meeting before June 30 each year, and make the report available for public inspection at least 14 days prior to that meeting.’ The goal is to facilitate public access to the meeting and give citizens a chance to review and discuss the annual report, including the previous year's objectives and future goals.’
A Handbook for Municipal Councils Under the Community Charter and the Local Government Act
(This presented to each Council Member and has this to say about the Annual Report, page 15)
Annual Report (Part 26, Division 4, Local Government Act)
Factors to keep in mind are:
- Do not confuse public hearings with council meetings
- Councillors must keep an open mind, i.e. listen to all points of view and be willing to accept a persuasive presentation
- The statutory procedure must be strictly adhered to.
Oak Bay Watch observation: the Annual Report public hearing was presented at and confused with a Council meeting; there were no changes despite significant critical resident submissions and three Councilors. Murdoch, Brathwaite, and Zhelka voting against the Report; and the statutory procedure was not adhered to. Either the Mayor was not aware of the BC Councillor’s Handbook Annual Report Factors or chose to disregard them.
As public input is often ignored, and as indicated it certainly was in influencing any change in the annual report, this it is likely why very few residents were present at the July 9th Council meeting. And, judging by residents remarks who did attend and resident written submissions, they felt the Mayor and District Staff had failed to live up to their stated commitment to public engagement and transparency.
As indicated Oak Bay’s 2017 Annual Report also failed to impress 3 members of Council who voted against accepting the Report. One Councilor said it was ‘all cookies and cream’ and another said, “there were holes”.
At Monday’s July 9, 2018 Council Meeting, a resident specifically addressed the Mayor on the Agenda:
‘The Mayor, as the Chief Executive Officer, is responsible to work with District staff on preparing Agendas and to conduct productive meetings. Arguably meetings might be considered more productive if the public is excluded from the process. However many residents have expressed concern that they don’t feel that Council is being transparent or listening to the community. In today’s society "transparency" and the "right to know" are paramount values.
“Tonight’s Agenda simply does not meet a commitment to engage residents”.
-------------------------
There are too many public comments to include, but here are a few excerpts from the public submissions, the full submissions are provided in Appendix # 1:
“Opus Consultants and District Staff confirm that the District needs to allocate approximately $5.5 Million dollars per annum to maintain roads, storm/sanitary sewers and water lines. In 2017 Council approved only $1.7 Million – almost $4 Million less than what is actually needed to maintain services. In 2017, Oak Bay Engineering Department rated most of Oak Bay’s roads, sanitary and storm sewers, and water lines in poor to very poor condition. How does this relate to ‘sound fiscal management”.
Oak Bay’s 2017 Annual Report does not clearly articulate performance against objectives, significant changes and new or on-going concerns. Full accountability and transparency in reporting are based on weighing results against established objectives and performance measurements, and rationalizing decisions and the impact of those decisions on the community. And, if the District is committed to Public Engagement, presentation of the Annual Report should be timely and focused on dialogue, not just feedback.
Esther Paterson
Many residents voiced concern during the year about being left out of the District's land application process until the Public Hearing when it is too late to have input in the decision. This is an important issue, especially if the District plans to increase density. The problem has been identified, but the Annual Report doesn't identify this (or any other issues) that need to be resolved.
There is no way that the community and Council can review, discuss and significantly improve the draft Annual Report at the July 9, 2018 meeting.
Michael Wilmut
My concerns about the Annual Report are many however, the main point is the definite “disconnect” between what is presented as accomplishments and in many cases what has actually been done.
Anthony Mears
See Appendix #1 for full Resident Submissions
Oak Bay Watch Perspective
It is ironical that a Public Engagement Task Force Report is about to be released with recommendations to “improve” community consultation. The Report will be provided to the public directly following a Council Meeting that made a mockery of Public Engagement. However, in light of this Council July 9. 2018 meeting, any improvement will not be all that difficult to achieve - albeit that it cost taxpayers $10,000 in more consultant fee overspending. The Annual Report lacked a great amount of detail yet it was approved in an all too familiar 4-3 vote by the Mayor and Councillors Ney, Croft and Kirby. It is notable that many other communities provide a public meeting exclusively for their Annual Report well in advance of the 2-week minimum timeline. Saanich currently is discussing their 2019 tax increase while Oak Bay Council provides minimal annual budget information in December each year. More on this next Newsletter
It is impossible to remain neutral when confronted with these facts
Home
Time for a change
*******Please help us continue to provide you with information about Community concerns and Council decisions and actions. Oak Bay Watch members also help community groups with their specific development concerns. Donate to Oak Bay Watch - even $5 or $10 dollars provides expenses for door- to- door handouts and helps us maintain our website. Oak Bay Watch is committed to ensuring the Community gets the full range of information on budget, governance and all key development issues – a well-informed opinion cannot be made without this.
(Please use Donate Button at bottom of oakbaywatch.com Home Page)
Keep informed please sign up for our newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.
Appendix #1 Council Meeting July 9th, 2018
Resident Submissions
July 6, 2018
District of Oak Bay electronic transmission
Warren Jones, Director of Corporate Services
2167 Oak Bay Avenue, Victoria BC
V8R 1G2
Mayor in Council:
Re: 2017 Annual Report
Council Meeting, July 9, 2018
In his opening message of the 2017 Annual Report, the Mayor states ‘the District remains committed to engaging residents’. Annual Reports are important tools for public engagement; other members of the CRD followed the guidance of the Province whose website states:
‘Local governments are required to prepare an annual report which states their goals and objectives for the coming year and demonstrates what progress has been made toward the preceding year's goals and objectives. Local governments must present the report at a public meeting before June 30 each year, and make the report available for public inspection at least 14 days prior to that meeting.’
‘The goal is to facilitate public access to the meeting and give citizens a chance to review and discuss the annual report, including the previous year's objectives and future goals.’
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/local-governments/finance/financial-reporting/financial-statements-annual-reports?keyword=municipal&keyword=annual&keyword=reports
Oak Bay’s report will be ‘considered by Council’ on July 9th and ‘members of the public are invited to provide feedback’. A Council meeting held in the month of July, and without provision for public discussion, does little to ensure broad public consultation and may not even comply with Province’s mandate.
The District’s website invites the public to provide feedback. In 2017 most resident concerns related to 3 major categories: Public Engagement/Transparency, Development/OCPand Finances/Infrastructure. I have framed my comments around those issues.
- Public Engagement/Transparency
- Commentaries by 2 ‘Acting Directors’, reveal there have been at least 2 changes in key members of staff since the previous report, the Chief Administrative Officer and the Director of Building and Planning. What impact has staff changes had on achieving performance objectives?
- The Remuneration Schedule (p40) shows that there was a full year’s salary paid to the Director of Building and Planning, but the individual was not an active member of staff June through December. In a year of increased development, why was the top job left vacant?
- The consequences of limited staff resourcing are obvious:
- Committee of the Whole meetings were reduced from 11 in 2016 to 8 in 2017
- Limited public consultation of Marina rezoning and use of District vacant properties
- Development Cost Charge Bylaw (deferred from 2016 ) not drafted
- Purchasing Policy deferred 2016 and 2017 Strategic Priorities
- Outdated/unrealistic policies for zoning, development and infrastructure
- ‘Succession Planning’ was on Strategic Priorities up to December 31, 2016, and then omitted from Strategic Priorities 2017-2018. Was the plan completed, and what were the results?
- Small communities are more severely impacted by staff vacancies; it is important to know how staff levels are being managed to meet objectives for performance. (attachment 1)
- Finances/Infrastructure
- One notable achievement not recognized in 2017 Annual Report was Amendments of Bylaws 4683 (Sewer), 4684 (Driveway), and 4685 (Water) to adjust fees for private service connections. This will result in saving hundreds of thousands of tax dollars which, by not charging sufficient amounts were effectively used for homeowner costs in previous years,
- The Reserve Fund Policy in developed 2017 is useful for discussion about reserves, but doesn’t specifically address sustainability of the funds to support services; maximum/minimum thresholds must be determined to demonstrate fair and equitable taxation, and sustainability.
- Asset Management planning section is not transparent about the magnitude of costs for repairing/replacing the District’s infrastructure and Municipal Buildings. In 2016 (p.43 Financial Annual Report) the District paid over $200,000 to consultants (Opus, Moore Wilson/WSP) for Asset Management Reports. Infrastructure and Municipal Buildings reports were withheld from the public until March 2017; the 2017 Annual Report should report on performance against objectives of the consultants’ reports, and impact of information on 2017 financial/operational decisions.
- In his Message, the Mayor states ‘Council’s ongoing commitment to sound fiscal management was evident throughout 2017’. The statement is misleading:
- Oak Bay’s Bylaw 4709 ‘Financial Plan’ states policies and objectives that do not align with the magnitude of the capital the District will need.
- Any ability for the District to move ahead with purchasing assets through issuing debt is hampered by the reality that Oak Bay lacks the requisite Bylaw or the Long-Term Capital Plan (not to be confused with the 5-year Financial Plan) that a municipality needs to provide evidence of financial sustainability to secure financing. As advised by the MFA representative, the bylaw would be a 6-month process with the Province/MFA.
- Opus/Moore Wilson Reports estimate $283 Million will be required over 20 years for repairing Oak Bay’s infrastructure and municipal buildings. At the end of 2017 the balance in Reserve Funds (p.67) was approximately $27 Million. How does this relate to ‘sound fiscal management’?
- Opus Consultants and District Staff confirm that the District needs to allocate approximately $5.5 Million dollars per annum to maintain roads, storm/sanitary sewers and water lines. In 2017 Council approved only $1.7 Million – almost $4 Million less than what is actually needed to maintain services. In 2017, Oak Bay Engineering Department rated most of Oak Bay’s roads, sanitary and storm sewers, and water lines in poor to very poor condition. How does this relate to ‘sound fiscal management’?
- Oak Bay’s 2014 Official Community Plan (p.143) stated that most of the Districts roads, sewers and water lines were near the end of their useful; estimated cost of replacement $198 Million. In the 2017 Annual Report (p.65) net book value of the roads, drains, sewer and water at the end of 2017 is $29.9 Million, an improvement of only 2.6% over the previous year. This is a big ‘red flag’ according to the Province in its publication ‘BC Guide to Local Government Finances’.
- Development/OCP
- The section headed Building and Planning P22, gives 2016 as the base year for comparisons on the charts. There is no explanation for comparing the number of applications for 2 years and comparing revenues over 4 years.
- Development application objectives and performance vary by District; statistics need to address local issues. Fully informed decisions also need to consider benchmarking performance to our neighbors in the CRD. (see attachment 2)
- Revenue from permit fees is not ‘profit’, but is used to offset labour and equipment used for private versus public projects. Performance measures should relate revenue, staff levels, applications and efficiency, and performance should relate back to the ‘Indicators’ specified in the OCP.
- The Annual Report (p.2) highlights ‘Citizens Important Issues’ (from 2016). Over-densification and infill strategy are still concerns. Residents have voiced concerns about demolition of existing housing inventory at Council Meetings and in the media. In response to those concerns, the chart listing types of applications could be expanded to include: demolitions, removals, new houses
Conclusion:
It is important to recognize contributions and accomplishments of Community Volunteers, District Staff and Council; the whole community benefits as a result. It is also understandable that not everything goes according to plan; Council and Staff must have flexibilityOak Bay’s 2017 Annual Report does not clearly articulate performance against objectives, significant to deal with changes that can and do occur.changes and new or on-going concerns.
Full accountability and transparency in reportingis based on weighing results against established objectives and performance measurements, and rationalizing decisions and the impact of those decisions on the community. And, if the District is committed to Public Engagement, presentation of the Annual Report should be timely and focused on dialogue, not just feedback.
Respectfully,
Esther Paterson, Resident
Oak Bay
This Submissions Attachments please see Municipal website/ Minutes and Agendas/July 9, 201 8 Council Meeting Agenda/Item #8/correspondence.
July 8, 2018
Mayor and Council,
The Council Agenda for July 9 has too many items to be dealt with properly in one sitting. The 13 items include many of great importance to our community-presentation on Development Cost Charges, 2017 Annual Report, Secondary Suite Report and Water conservation plan.
The draft Annual Report in particular has two major problems. First the report was supposed to be presented to the public by June 30, after being made available to the public for at least two weeks. This did not happen.
Second, the draft report is clearly incomplete in many sections. Below are shortcomings in two of the Strategic Priorities.
Strategic Goal 4 is: "Develop, maintain and protect our infrastructure". Most of Oak Bay’s roads, sanitary and storm sewers, and water lines in "poor to very poor condition" according to Oak Bay's Engineering Department. Our infrastructure will require approximately $283 million over 20 years to repair (Opus/Moore Wilson Reports). We have only about $27 million in reserve. In short Oak Bay has "crumbling infrastructure". None of this information is in the report. Is one to believe that Oak Bay has been practicing "sound fiscal management” as stated by the Mayor (page 6, Annual Report)
Strategic Goal 2 is: "Focus on being well managed and well governed to serve our residents." The document makes many statements with little or no evidence including the four examples below.
The Report states “Continued to streamline application and notification processes for land use, heritage and building applications to be more cost effective and customer oriented” but fails to identify how that was achieved.
In 2017 the District announced a $1.7 Million purchase of a property as part of the Strategy for a new Village Plan. This was a significant purchase for the District; the Annual Report should give details on the reason for the acquisition and intended future use.
The 2016 Annual Report accomplishments included a manual and training seminar for the Advisory Planning Commission. This did not appear to be of benefit as Council is still not receiving APC minutes prior to considering an application. No update is provided in 2017 to demonstrative the positive outcomes of the training.
Many residents voiced concern during the year about being left out of the District's land application process until the Public Hearing, when it is too late to have input in the decision. This is an important issue, especially if the District plans to increase density. The problem has been identified, but the Annual Report doesn't identify this (or any other issues) that need to be resolved.
There is no way that the community and Council can review, discuss and significantly improve the draft Annual Report at the July 9 meeting.
In order fulfill the Mayor’s promise “the District remains committed to engaging residents and to strengthening the District’s public accountability in decision making” (page 6, Annual Report) and to create a more accurate and complete Annual Report I ask that Council reschedule item 8 (2017 Annual Report) to a date when sufficient time can be allocated to this item. (One possibility is July 23 which was originally scheduled for a Council meeting).
Mike Wilmut
Oak Bay
July 7, 2018
District of Oak Bay
Warren Jones, Director of Corporate Services
2167 Oak Bay Avenue, Victoria BC
V8R 1G2
Mayor in Council:
Re: 2017 Annual Report
Council Meeting, July 9, 2018
My concerns about the Annual Report are many however, the main point is the definite “disconnect” between what is presented as accomplishments and in many cases what has actually been done.
An example, page 2 portrays a positive picture of community satisfaction, over 90% satisfaction rate. Over-densification and the failing under-funded infrastructure were downplayed, even though they were by far the highest rated of community concerns.
Residents advised Council of their concerns, speaking at Council, writing letters to Council and to the Oak Bay News. Many residents had concerns about over-densification on the District’s aging infrastructure, and with significant tree loss. The Annual Report doesn’t have any methods of measuring what happened in 2017 compared to 2016, or targets for 2018. Over-densification, although highlighted, has no goals or objectives to respond to resident’s concerns.
Very little infrastructure improvement was achieved in 2017 (see Annual Report excerpt below). What is difficult to understand is when the Asset Management Plan was presented to Council in 2017 and the District’s infrastructure crisis was explained in detail, Council Members, sat in silence apparently in a state of disbelief, yet as indicated minimal action has been taken.
Although there are many references about Council supporting the Asset Management Plan, there has been no sense of urgency or explanation of District staff have difficulty getting budgets approved for work that needs to be done. There is however an indication that much much more development has taken place since 2014, (Annual Report, Building and Planning on page 2) however, this is not correlated with demolitions, tree loss, or the amount of (Council recognized) over-building due to the 2007 overbuilding zoning mistake or for that matter infrastructure impacts (note: no data is presented on these items).
Urban Forest Management Plan.
Urban Forest Strategy (2016) and Urban Forest Plan (2017) received a positive response by residents. The objectives and measures for 2018 and future years are not clearly presented. There is no indication that the Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture’s April 2018 Report Urban Forest Management Plan, undertaking to acquire funding was carried out. It was not referred to in the April 2018 Council Estimates Meeting Agenda or in the meetings minutes. More to the point the 2017 Annual Report, Parks and Recreation section is silent on the status of the Urban Forest Management Plan.
These are a few of the key issues that I was looking for in the Annual Report. The District website says that residents can provide input, but no mention of discussion that will happen at the Council Meeting or at a Committee of the Whole. Which raises the whole question of Public Engagement, and what the goal is for allowing public participation in the future.
Director of Parks, Recreation and CultureReport to Council April. 2017.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
A number of the Urban Forest Strategy’s recommendations have a financial impact some small and some significant. An implementation plan will be developed for presentation to Council as part of the 2018 budget cycle. Funding for specific recommendations will be subject to Council approval when requested.
2017 Annual Report Page 12
Strategic Goal 4:
Develop, maintain and protect our infrastructure
What Was Actually Achieved
• Used a Clean Water Wastewater Fund grant of $1.38M in order
to support the final phases of the Henderson Road water main project.
• Supported the next phase of the Uplands Sewer Separation
Project, detailed design contract, by a Clean Water Wastewater Fund grant of $324,958.
Anthony Mears
Oak Bay