Kim Richter Report

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

2006-03-23T04:17:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-24T10:40:00.000-08:00

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:

$151,622...1996
173,253...1997
177,150...1998
173,078...1999
193,099...2000 (Alberts' first year as Mayor)
254,511...2001
241,218...2002
248,121...2003
308,075...2004
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

2006-02-14T10:40:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-11T01:04:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-26T03:58:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-26T03:42:00.000-08:00

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:

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?
Substantial decreases in the Township tax rates contemplated in December 2005 will not occur.
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.
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).
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

2006-01-15T11:50:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-08T20:46:00.000-08:00

“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

Over Budget Out-of-Control: Diary of the Township Grandstand Project Part 1 to 3

2006-01-03T16:25:00.000-08:00

Over-Budget & Out-of-Control: Diary of the Township Grandstand Project – Part 1

The Issue (First of a 3 part series)

On December 21, 2005, all members of the new Township Council (except for me) voted to pre-approve 80% of an additional $1.2 Million for the McLeod Athletic Park Grandstand project. This means that Township taxpayers are now paying 300% more than originally budgeted for their share of this project. It’s beginning to sound a lot like RAV….

Originally budgeted to cost $3.0 Million, the tally for the new open air grandstand with changing rooms now stands at $5.2 Million. Of the original $3.0 Million, $2.0 Million was contributed by the federal and provincial governments. The remaining $1 Million was to be cost-shared 80%/20% between the Township and City. However, Langley Township Taxpayers have gone from paying the planned initial budget total of $800,000 to now paying $3,000,000 because we’ve been picking up the tab for all the cost overruns.

This is a whopping 300% over-budget for the Township portion of the grandstand capital project. So when you eventually sit down in it, enjoy the seat as it will have cost you in the Township about $1270 a seat when it initially was budgeted to cost you just $339 a seat. When you pay your home taxes this July, you should calculate if your taxes paid for the equivalent of 1, 2 or 3 of the 2363 seats.

The Grandstand is in great company because adjacent to it in the same park is the new field house building that started out at an estimated $500,000 cost and ended up 70% over budget at $854,000. But that’s another story.

So when you drive by 56th Avenue and 216th street, look to the North West and you will see our McLeod Athletic Park (MAP) just east of Langley Secondary School with the artificial turf soccer field and running track. Facing this is the new gold plated Grandstand and changing rooms structure being built as we speak.

Compare the $5.2 Million value of this open air Grandstand construction cost which had no land costs included to the $6.1 Million purchase price of our new Municipal Hall - a 4 storey enclosed building which included the costly land as well! On the positive side, at least the new grandstand will have a roof.

Don’t or can’t believe all this? Stay tuned.

KIM RICHTER

Coming Tomorrow: Part 2 - The Background/ History (Second of a 3 part series)

Over-Budget & Out-of-Control: Diary of the Township Grandstand Project – Part 2

The Background/ History (Second of a 3 part series)

On December 21, 2005, with relatively little discussion or debate, the new Township Council blithely approved another million dollar injection to a project that continues to escalate dramatically in costs. This latest million dollars was over and above the extra million dollars injected by the last council in November 2004. The result: a project that was budgeted to cost $3.0 million is now costing $5.2 million AND the Township of Langley taxpayers have been bearing the full burden of all these budget overruns.

Don’t or can’t believe this? Well, thanks to the wonders of modern technology and Township records available through the TOL website, the following is a detailed chronology of the very sad saga of the MAP grandstand project, out of control.

At the October 30, 2000 Regular Council Meeting, Township Council approved a motion that the City and Township of Langley make a joint application under the Federal/Provincial Infrastructure Program to construct a grandstand at the Municipal Athletic Park (MAP).

Over the next 3 years, this project concept went back and forth between the City, the Township, various committees and the Province. Finally, on June 16, 2003, there was a Report to Council which identified that the estimated budget for completion of the grandstand facility would be $3,063,748.

At the Regular Meeting on August 25, 2003, Council approved the MAP Grandstand as the Township’s #1 “Municipal Recreation and Community” Infrastructure Project at an estimated cost of $3,060,000 (to be cost-shared 1/3 federal, 1/3 provincial and 1/3 municipal). Staff was directed to make application for these funds.

At the Special Meeting of April 5, 2004, Council reiterated its position that the MAP Grandstand was a priority for funding from the provincial/federal infrastructure program (community projects) and on June 14, 2004, a letter was received in the Special Meeting from the Canada/British Columbia Infrastructure Program confirming approval of funding in the amount of $2,000,000 for the Langley Grandstand Project.

So, the money’s all there – a done deal, right? Wrong. This is where the story starts to get really good.

At the September 15, 2004 Joint City/Township Parks and Recreation Committee, members were advised that the grandstand must be finished by 2006 to take advantage of the $2.0 Million federal/provincial funding. The grandstand had originally been scheduled for a 2007 completion.

At the November 17, 2004 Joint City/Township Parks & Recreation Committee, members were advised that the cost of construction would be “considerably higher” but that staff were looking at ways to reduce costs or rescope the project.

Then, at the November 29, 2004 Special Council Meeting, Township Council authorized early release of funds for the grandstand with a total budget envelop of $4.0 million (inclusive of all external costs) and that the Township’s contributions for this project would be limited to $1.58 Million.

On February 14, 2005, Council authorized the selection of an architect at a cost not to exceed $253,320 + GST for design, construction documents and construction administration services.

At the April 13, 2005 Township Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, members were advised that the grandstand was scheduled for completion by February 2006.

At the May 9, 2005 Special Meeting, Council received an update on the grandstand project which identified that the grandstand would consist of 2363 seats and only ½ a roof as a full roof would cost an additional $700,000. Only putting on ½ a roof would keep the project costs below the $4.0 million budget but the construction manager would strive to reduce costs to accommodate a full roof. Construction was scheduled to start mid-May 2005. Council asked staff to find other funding opportunities.

From May until December 2005, all was quiet on the grandstand front. There were no other formal reports to Council until the budget meeting of the new council on December 21, 2005. At this Special Meeting of Council, a budget line appeared on page 153 asking Council to pre-approve an additional $1.2 Million for the MAP Grandstand as “the project is underway and required further commitments to finish by the end of May 2006”. Huh? Where did this come from? Whatever happened to the Nov/04 resolution to limit the Township’s contributions for this project to $1.58 Million? (This $1.2 Million is in addition to the $1.58 Million limit).

An amendment motion from Councillors Bateman and Fox authorized that the requested grandstand pre-approval be made but limited to 80% of the $1.2 Million or $960,000. This was carried with only myself opposed.

As I recall, Council’s logic was that the additional 20% (of the new $1.2 Million) should be provided by Langley City. [Now, we can’t even get Langley City to pay for the 7 man-years of policing service they receive from the Township (at a cost of about $700,000+ per year). So, I don’t know why we’d think they’d be willing to cough up $240,000 for this budget overrun that they didn’t authorize].

Besides the real issue here is not that the City should pay 20%, it’s the fact that there has been such a significant budget overrun in the first place. A project that was estimated to cost $3.0 Million two years ago is now sitting at $5.2 Million. Of this, the Township taxpayers are on the hook for $3.0 million instead of $800,000 (80% of the original 1/3 municipal cost).

I am more than a little concerned about the dramatic budget escalations we’ve seen over the past few years in Township capital projects. In my opinion, they are just not sustainable. So what can we do to stop this from happening again? (Unfortunately, recall isn’t an option.)

KIM RICHTER
Coming Tomorrow: Part 3 - Solutions (Third & Final of a 3 part series)

Over-Budget & Out-of-Control: Diary of the Township Grandstand Project – Part 3

Solutions (Third & final of a 3 part series)

A project that was estimated to cost $3.0 Million two years ago is now costing $5.2 Million. Of this, Township taxpayers are on the hook for $3.0 million instead of their original $800,000 share – a 300% increase. So what can we do to stop financial disasters like this from happening again?

Here are my suggestions. (Any others would be welcome and are obviously needed).

1) Council should be prepared to say “NO” to budget increase requests and, if necessary, stop projects immediately without hesitation. Council should not be seduced into ever-increasing budgets.
2) A budget should be sacred and consequences clear. This new culture must prevail.
3) Council must be always assured of securing firm fixed prices under all circumstances in future and not be coerced into entering design-build contracts, especially in very active and inflationary construction times, and never on large and unique projects.
4) Contracts with co-sponsors should clearly state that all parties share all costs and cost overruns.
5) In light of this and other recent dramatic cost increases, Council should severely curtail and restrict new projects for the next few years until the Olympic construction boom cools down. We don’t have to build everything today. We can wait for more favourable cost periods.
6) A separate level of independent cost surveyor reporting to the Council should be employed on large and unique projects.
7) Finally, we should strike a joint public-township task force to investigate this specific project and all similar capital projects in the Township. In addition to a senior Township administrator and a member of Council, this task force should be comprised of competent, capable and independent individuals experienced in construction, contracts, design and cost accounting. They should be charged with reporting causes for overruns on budgets, and recommending policies & procedures for courses of action to prevent and eliminate overruns in the future.

Township taxpayers cannot be expected to continually suffer increases in tax rates to pay for over-budget spending. The gravy train must end.

KIM RICHTER

Richter Report – December 21, 2005 – Tax Shocks Coming

2005-12-22T00:18:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately, my first report to you in the Langley Free Press has to be about, what I believe is, bad news.

Your new Township Council approved a draft budget today recommending a 5.6% tax increase in 2006 and an 8.95% tax increase in 2007.

In real numbers, this is a 14.55% increase over 2 years (add 5.6% to 8.95%).

In the Special (Budget Workshop) Meeting of Council today, Council was given 4 different cost scenarios to choose from. They overwhelmingly chose the most expensive one (Option D). Only myself and Councillors Fox and Vickberg opposed this motion.

This means that the Township’s tax impact on the typical household will rise from $1707 in 2005 to $1946 in 2007. (This does not include GVRD, Translink or School Board taxes). Please note that the average Township property paid $1416 in 2000.

If there’s any good news in this story, it’s that you the taxpayers will be given an opportunity to voice your concerns. Council also decided today to have open houses on the budget and to commission a survey. Please voice your opinions in the new year.

2005-12-21T23:36:00.000-08:00