Richter Report - March 23, 2006 - Where Is Our Military Heading?

Canada's military used to be known for Peace Keeping as our Business.Has something changed? When did it change to:

"Boots on the Ground. U.S.-Canada Relations: Security is our Business."?

The above Canadian Government paid poster ad in a public Washington DC Metro Center Metrorail station states just that. It is obviously spinning Canada's military support. It also has a link displayed to go to CanadianAlly.com on the same poster.

I don't know about you, but I wonder if this is the message Canadians really want to be selling. Do Canadians even know about this message?

Quoted on the Canadian Ally website: "CanadianAlly.com is an electronic newsletter maintained by the Canadian Embassy in Washington, DC, designed specifically for an American audience. The goal of this e-publication is to bring together pertinent defence and security information from a variety of government departments, agencies, military commands and bi-national organizations. The intent is to give American citizens a better sense of the scope of Canada's role in North American and Global Security and the War on Terror."

Sounds and smells like our Canadian Government is trying to sell a definitely more aggresive military message to the Americans - a message that Canadians may not be aware of or even in agreement with.

The photo and quotes are all from DCist blog based out of Washington DC written by Martin Andres Austermuhle who in his post on Canada's military advertisement says:

"We're not ones to question the allegiances of our neighbor to the north. But we are curious as to why they are looking to promote their security policy and close alliance to the U.S. to Metrorail passengers transferring from the Red Line to the Orange and Blue Lines. Has that ever been in doubt? We do suppose it's good to know they're there if we need them..."

I support peace-keeping and I respect and support our Canadian forces in their peace-keeping roles wherever they are. But, I have become increasingly uncomfortable with this government's move away from peace-keeping and into a more aggressive military presence. In fact, as a mother of three teenage children, I find this less than subtle shift very disturbing and I wonder where it's heading.

We used to be respected internationally as peace-keepers. Is this role changing and why?

If you are at all bothered by this poster in Washington or have questions, call your MP and ask for an explanation. See if they are comfortable with this or even aware of it. I will be asking our MP in Langley for his opinion on this advertising and I'll let you know what he has to say.

Kim Richter is in her 3rd term as Langley Township Councillor and also is a Professor of Business at Kwantlen University College. She holds a masters degree in health administration and was a health care management consultant.

Richter Report - February 24, 2006

So let’s talk about communication: the costs of and the threats to communication with the taxpayer. It was a primary issue yesterday at the “Council & Senior Staff Workshop” session facilitated by an external consultant (cost unknown at this point). Theoretically, the purpose of this session was the budget.

Now, if the purpose of this workshop was to determine what Council’s spending priorities will be over the next 3 years, do you think the public should be privy to what Council thinks it should spend your money on?

I do. But, unfortunately, there was no member of the local media or public present.

Also, I’m shocked (judging by the comments of my “fellow” councillors) that they still don’t understand the importance of public scrutiny in this regard. Specifically, one of the councillors had the gall to suggest that we keep “the contents of this meeting in this room” (i.e. in camera). I’ve had enough of this Old Boys Club Secrecy. I’ve told them before and I’ll tell them again: it’s against my nature and principles to ‘keep everything in the school yard locker room’ (so to speak), mainly because I’m not sure why we need a locker room (unless it’s for “Personnel, Property, or Liability” reasons – none of which were discussed yesterday).

However, bearing in mind their sensitivities, I will forgo the copious notes I made during this session for the moment. Instead, I will speak in generalities.

So, on the topic of communications: how much do you think the Township should communicate with you? Do you think that the Township is doing a good job on this? Do you think that the Township should advertise as much as they do in the local papers and just how much is the Township Page in the local papers worth to you?

To help you answer these questions, here’s some interesting facts and figures.

In 1996, the Township spent $151,622 on advertising. This was split as follows:

Langley Times...........$ 84,655
Aldergrove Star...........14,186
Langley Advance.........52,780
TOTAL......................$151,622

In 2005, the Township spent $344,059 on advertising. This was split as follows:

Black Press (Langley Times & Aldergrove Star).......... $237,678
Langley Advance.........................................................106, 381
TOTAL.......................................................................$344,059

The amount spent on advertising per year was:

1. $151,622...1996
2. 173,253...1997
3. 177,150...1998
4. 173,078...1999
5. 193,099...2000 (Alberts' first year as Mayor)
6. 254,511...2001
7. 241,218...2002
8. 248,121...2003
9. 308,075...2004
10. 344,059...2005

TOTAL $2,264,186

In the 10 year period between 1996 and 2005, the Township spent $2.264 million on advertising in the local newspapers. In this same period, the Township spent $812,816 on advertising in the Langley Advance and $1,451,370 on advertising in the Langley Times/Aldergrove Star.

Between 1996 and 2005, newspaper advertising expenditures have more than doubled. This equals an average 12.7% increase in advertising costs per year.

Has Langley grown that fast?

Richter Report - February 13, 2006

Council Pay Increase Discussions Going Public!

Good News! Council will discuss its intended pay raises next week in public rather than as planned for this week’s in-camera (private closed door) session. Thank goodness for Blogs!

I am very pleased to be able to report back to you that Council has now decided to discuss its proposed pay increase (less than 2 months after the last pay increase) at next week’s public meeting. I hope that next week’s public discussion about Council pay raises will occur during next week’s evening televised Regular meeting rather than at the non-televised afternoon Special meeting.

For the record, I will not be supporting the proposed combined 20+% increase in Councillor’s salaries (13.8% as of Dec 1, 2005 plus 9.0 % as of February 13, 2006). Given that property taxes are anticipated to increase by 20.35% and the Township’s current debt is anticipated to increase by $35.6 Million, I do not think that it is appropriate for Council to reward itself with a pay raise. The private sector does not reward increased spending and debt with increased salaries, nor should the “Corporation” of the Township of Langley.

My thanks to all the Councillors who moved that we take this item off today’s in-camera agenda! (Although I have to admit the heat was not appreciated which raises another question: Should attempted discipline of Councillors occur in-camera or is this too stretching the definition of “Personnel”?). Trust and Confidence are built on a foundation of good judgment in an honest spirit of openness and transparency. Trust and Confidence are not built on behind-the-scenes discussions or maneuvers complete with legal counsel.

In-camera items should be clearly and narrowly defined. In-camera should not be used to excuse Council from discussing “uncomfortable” topics. Legal, Personnel and Property items are the only valid in-camera discussion topics. I think using the label “Personnel” to cover an in-camera discussion of Council pay raises was a stretch and an abuse of in-camera.

I will remain vigilant about the future use and possible abuse of these in-camera labels.

Kim Richter is in her 3rd term as Langley Township Councillor and also is a Professor of Business at Kwantlen University College. She holds a masters degree in health administration and was a health care management consultant.

Richter Report - February 9, 2006

Should Council salaries be discussed “Behind Closed Doors”?It seems to me that this question has been asked before and resolved before. (I know that I’ve raised it on more than one occasion during my past 6-year tenure on Council).

If you go to the Township’s website and search Council Minutes, you will find a long history of discussion about Council remuneration dating back to 1992. All of this has been done in the public meetings of Council, and rightfully so. Just like Council reviews staff’s salaries, the community should review Council’s salaries. Community review obviously has to occur in public BEFORE Council makes a binding decision.

So, imagine my surprise when I opened my new Council Agenda package tonight and discovered that Council’s remuneration is slated to be discussed by Council behind closed doors on Monday.

I’m confused because it’s a matter of public record that Council got a pay raise on December 1, 2005. (See page 2 of the Minutes for the Regular Meeting of Township Council on August 25, 2003). Why would Council need another pay increase 2 months after the last one? And, why does Council have to discuss this in secret?

This must be a mistake. I’m sure it will be corrected by Monday. And, if it’s not, I’ll let you know.

Kim Richter is in her 3rd term as Langley Township Councillor and also is a Professor of Business at Kwantlen University College. She holds a masters degree in health administration and was a health care management consultant.

Richter Report - January 26, 2006

And the budget numbers just keep on ballooning....

At the Township Budget Meeting held on January 16, 2006, Council was presented with a list of “General Major Capital Requests” (p.10; Slide 19). Included in this list was a $9.0 Million expenditure proposed for 2007 to expand the WC Blair Pool.

This was very interesting since the 2005-2014 10-year plan (approved by Council in Spring 2005) only included a $1.25 Million improvement to the Blair facility. So why the increase (in less than one year) from $1.25 Million to $9.0 Million? Have construction costs gone up that much? If they have, then we really should be putting a moratorium on new facility development until after the 2010 Olympics. Besides which, just how much bigger a Blair Pool does the Township need – especially when the growth in the Township is in Willoughby, not Murrayville?

From my perspective, if we need a pool expansion right now, it’s not in Murrayville – it’s in Aldergrove. And, if we need a whole new pool facility, it’s also not in Murrayville – it’s in Willoughby (based on population growth).

So just to keep the financial record straight, let’s remember that in the last year, the Township has:
i) Opened a new Township Hall;
ii) Added a new Library, Fitness facility and Community Police Office;
iii) Bought a golf course;
iv) Covered a $250,000 budget overrun on a field house;
v) Approved a $2+ million animal shelter; and
vi) Is building a $5.2 Million Grandstand.

Given all of these major capital expenditures (and this does NOT include roads or sewer or water improvements), does the Township really need a bigger Blair Pool in 2007?

By the way, the proposed new $35.6 Million of debt (to be incurred from 2006 to 2008) that I referenced in my last report does NOT include planned DCC debt. It is also over and above the proposed 20.35% increase in property taxes during the same period.

Do you still think we’ll be able to afford to live in Langley?

Kim Richter

Richter Report - January 17, 2006

Township Tax, Spend & Borrow Plans - Going from the sublime to the ridiculous
20.35% tax increase and $35.6 Million in new debt presented!

Yesterday, Township Council spent 2½ hours reviewing the Township’s draft 2006 to 2008 Budget. On December 21, 2005, Council had asked staff to “prepare the 10 year Long Term Financial Plan based on the preferred Service Enhancement Option D” and to bring this back to a Budget Workshop on January 16, 2006 at 3 pm (as reported in Langley Free Press [LFP] on Dec. 23/05). Those of you who visited LFP in December 2005 will recall that “Option D” was the most expensive option presented to Council for its consideration.

At yesterday’s meeting, Council did not get past the 2008 numbers. So the new Council failed to meet its earlier objective of reviewing a 10 year plan as originally scheduled. However, given the dramatic cost increases presented for 2006 to 2008, it was probably a good thing that we stopped at 2008 and did not proceed to 2016. (Otherwise, we’d likely all have to sell and move out of Langley because we wouldn’t be able to afford either the anticipated taxes or the new debt load).

We were fortunate to have had one member of the local media present. However, he only stayed for the first hour of the meeting and therefore missed the major piece of Council discussion on anticipated new debt plus new tax rates over the next three years.

While he was there, staff confirmed that the basic general levy tax increase being presented over the next 3 years is 20.35% (5.6% in 2006 plus 8.95% in 2007 plus 5.8% in 2008). Of course, this simple total of 20.35% does not include the compounded effect over 3 years.

I’m sure though that the editor of his paper will explain the difference between ‘simple’ and ‘compounded’ increases so that we’ll all be able to understand how a simple increase of 20.35% is not so bad, especially because the compounded increase is 21.7%.

Of course, these numbers depend on an increase in assessed property value of 13.58%. If your assessed property value increased more than this, the 20.35% won’t apply. You can expect more. Again, I’m sure that the newspaper editor will explain all of this to you.

Getting back to the main issue, tax increases may be justified (depending on who you are talking to). But, how do you also explain/justify increases in Township debt? Is new development really paying for itself? (This is a key issue that I’ve raised before).

Yesterday, Council was informed that in addition to the 20.35% tax increase in the general levy from 2006 to 2008, a new debt load of $36.5 Million in same three year period (2006 to 2008) would also be required (and this new debt does NOT include the $30-$52 million estimated in the Fall of 2005 for Aldergrove’s Sewer and Water).

Our existing debt is about $4.5 million. Previous councils have worked very hard to pay the Township’s debt level down. So now that it is down, why do we want to run it back up again? And especially if running it back up again does not include key health and safety issues like sewer capacity in Aldergrove.

I sincerely hope that the rest of Council (especially the new Councillors) finally understand what I have been concerned about for many years. We are living beyond our means and our growth is not financially sustainable.

Council has been approving spending and new development on a piece-meal (by project) basis without regard to the bigger picture. As a result, Council has been increasing taxes to homeowners to pay for it. I don’t think we can continue in this manner. We must start differentiating between “Need-to-Have” and “Nice-to-Have”. It would be nice to have a new museum in Fort Langley but we need to have a new sewer system in Aldergrove and better roads in Willoughby.

If we don’t start making this key differentiation soon, we’ll be bankrupt (or taxed out of existence). Like many other people in this community, I started my family here and I want to retire here, but if taxes keep going they way they are, I won’t be able to afford to do so (and neither will you).

Like a buoy, I have been ringing a bell. The numbers are out of control. If you want examples, look at field houses and grandstands. Look at “old” (3 years ago) and “new” 10 year financial plans. Look at blackberries and expense accounts.

The budget planning meeting was to have been completed yesterday. But after the many questions that I (and a couple of other new members of Council) asked, Council decided to review these numbers again at a workshop in February and to delay all the public open houses/surveys for another month. Here’s hoping that the Council will be what it was elected to be and that is a Board of Directors. The Board should set the parameters and staff should respond to those parameters.

Now as shareholders who elect the Board of Directors, here’s your job. Do you agree to the following numbers? If you don’t, call your councillors and let them know your position. (Their phone numbers are available on http://www.tol.bc.ca/Langley/Council/Members/).

Proposed Tax Increases (2006 to 2008)
2006 tax increase 5.60%
2007 tax increase 8.95%2008 tax increase 5.80 %
Total 3 yr simple increase 20.35%

Proposed Debt (2006 to 2008)
New Debt:2006 General Capital $ 6.65 million
2008 General Capital $ 10.00 million
2007 Water Capital $ 1.50 million
2008 Water Capital $ 4.00 million
2006 Storm Water Capital $ 1.5 million
2007 Storm Water Capital $ 8.2 million
2008 Storm Water Capital $ 3.8 million

Total NEW DEBT $35.65 Million

Current Existing Debt $ 4.5 million
Grand Total Debt $40.15 Million

Summary Comments & Suggestions:

1. 
   In the last term, Council proudly announced that the Township no longer had significant debt. Obviously, this could be history. And, why should we incur more debt?
2. Substantial decreases in the Township tax rates contemplated in December 2005 will not occur.
3. Council should consider hiring an independent financial actuary to assist it in drilling down to, and understanding, the macros of the numbers presented by staff. With all due respect to Council, a business background is an asset and we need independent advice.
4. It clearly appears to me that even with dramatic growth in housing and commercial development starts, we are not able to pay for new development. We either have to stop new development or dramatically raise DCC’s. Alternatively, we could tax and borrow a lot more BUT only if our spending is non-exorbitant (which it’s not).
5. At what point do we ask ourselves whether we are living beyond our means? Maybe it should be soon and maybe we should start requiring more reports from developers as to their impact on the immediate and extended neighbourhoods, and especially about impact on new residents’ expectations concerning neighbourhood and community services.

Kim Richter

Richter Report – January 15, 2006

How important is a new Municipal Museum?

In the not so distant Langley past, there was a municipal political group that questioned the role of the “malcontent elitists” in this community. This political group went on to form a local government despite howls of protest. While in power (also despite howls of protest), they built an overpass, an award-winning pool, and ‘revitalized’ downtown Aldergrove. They got many things done in a short 3 year term but were severely criticized for the processes they used. Perhaps rightly so, but then again, they did build fundamental infrastructure for this community without having to increase taxes. Furthermore, the infrastructure they built is now used on a daily basis by most of Langley’s population.

Now, flash forward 10 years. Property taxes have increased substantially and are projected to increase another 14% over the next 2 years. (5.6% in 2006 and 8.95% in 2007 have been proposed).

Walnut Grove (population 23,000) is almost at build-out. Many of its young families are enrolled in soccer and have to practice 3 teams to one field. Willoughby is growing at a phenomenal rate (estimated future population 50,000) and there are virtually no recreation facilities for them (although there is lots of shopping if they want their kids to hang out at malls). Aldergrove is also expanding. It needs a new pool, especially with programs for seniors who can’t get to Blair or Walnut Grove because of a poor bus system. In addition, Aldergrove has sewer and water systems that are overcapacity and desperately in need of expansion (to the tune of $30+ million). Many roads through Langley, particularly in Willoughby, are in gridlock. Brookswood exists with a water supply that comes from an unconfined aquifer susceptible to leachate from outdated septic systems and industrial development next door in Surrey.

So, given all of these pressing issues, what do you think would be the priority issues for the new Council to deal with at its first Council Priorities Committee (CPC) meeting?

If you guessed any of the above, you’d be wrong.

The new Council had its first CPC meeting on Wednesday (January 11, 2006). There were 2 topics on the agenda. The topics were: 1. Heritage Center (in Fort Langley); and 2. Communities in Bloom.

Council was asked to give staff direction on whether to plan for replacing the existing municipal museum ($5 Million) or to build a “Bigger, Bolder, More Obvious” museum ($5 ++ million) in Fort Langley (home of the Mayor and one other Councillor). Council was told that they have to make this decision soon because of site, scope, timing and cost considerations. So the question I ask you is “How important is a new Municipal Museum?” Is this something that all residents of Langley want and need? Or, is this something that a small group is pushing the Council towards adopting? Also, how important is the Communities in Bloom project? (Have you even heard of it?)

Your property tax dollars will pay for these projects and your property tax dollars are increasing. Please make your thoughts known and your preferences clear about where (and on what) you think your money should be spent. Do you want a new municipal museum in Fort Langley? Or, do you want more soccer fields in Willoughby? What will you use more? What do you think is most important for Langley and its future?

Kim Richter

Preventing Another Grandstand Tax Drain

“Bateman & Richter discuss solutions in public”
Regarding my 3-part series on the new grandstand, I received the following communiqué from Township Councillor Jordan Bateman wanting to second some of the actions I proposed to prevent further capital project budget overrun fiascos.

"#3, 4, and 6 sound like they could be put into the much-needed procurement policy update. Craft it into a notice of motion, and I'll gladly second it. Jordan 01.05.06 - 8:26 pm"

Jordan is referring to three suggested actions that I put forward in Part 3 of my discussion on the grandstand budget fiasco (Langley Free Press; January 5, 2006). A recent correspondent, Blair, pointed out to me that we have to do what’s best for the Township and its taxpayers. So, in the spirit of “Getting to Yes” as recommended by Blair, now that I know I have a seconder, I’ll put the motion you suggested forward, Jordon. A small change in the right direction is better than no change at all. Thank you for your support.

On the topic of Township’s procurement policy, I will have more to say on this matter later as I’m not convinced that the revised policy as presented to Council for approval last fall is in the best interests of the taxpayers.

As an aside Jordan, I believe this is a somewhat historic event. Two Councillors, along with much input and opinion from taxpayers via both Langley Free Press and Langley Politics Dotcom, have in the open, public domain discussed the problems, causes and solutions of a significant issue and agreed to work together at the Council Table on fixing it. In my opinion, this is pretty significant for Langley! Thanks for taking this initiative. I appreciate it.
KIM RICHTER