Review of the October 26, 2011 regular board meeting
Thursday, October 27th, 2011There were 6 commissioners present this meeting; Commissioner Enns was away. Notably, after his long health-related absence, Commissioner Cameron returned for this meeting and it was good to see him back.
The following is some colour on the thoughts I had regarding select board business of the day:
1. I believe this was the longest meeting of the year. There was a significant amount of material covered on the agenda.
2. There was a public input session on the 2012 budget and five year plan. There were no written submissions to the park board office, nor did anybody correspond with me to my own email about the budget. There were four people in the audience that spoke to the plan, two of which are candidates in the upcoming election. All comments received were in the form of questions, including questions on: clarifications on various line items of the budget, explanations of variances from actuals to budgeted values, comparative amounts from 2011 to 2012, and a question/comment amounting to “does the bottom line show enough of a surplus?”.
The most philosophical of questions was asked by Malcolm Shanks (candidate in the election), regarding the “moral authority” of the board to approve a budget that will be inherited by a new board just a month later. This is primarily a function of having a calendar year-end fiscal year and having the election cycles set by the province for a November election date (changing to October in 2014). While I do remember having the same thoughts myself as a newly elected (but not yet in office) commissioner while sitting on the November 26, 2008 meeting when that board passed third reading and adoption of their budget, we lived with their decision for the 2009 budget until it became apparent that there was no way the park board could afford it. In 2009, we then subsequently cut all non-critical spending until we could figure out what was going on.
The way to solve the budgetary timing matter (if it is indeed warrants a solution – it would occur every three years) is to change the fiscal year end, perhaps to March or June. Doing so has its own challenges with the limited hours we have in our finance staff and I rank this low on the priority list compared to other looming projects that they will be engaged in 2012 with, including the implementation of some new software that will assist with better financial reporting.
Ultimately the future board can re-open the budget if they want to. If they do, the reason will not be because they discovered we passed a budget the park can’t afford.
After considering public input, the board later on in the meeting passed third reading of the 2012 budget and 5-year plan 5-1 (Woodrow opposed). It will come up for adoption next meeting.
3. The board passed a motion concerning the positioning of signage for commercial businesses that do not have visibility from Columbia Valley Highway. This solution is amicable to all stakeholders.
4. The adoption of the fines, fees and charges bylaw was deferred 5-1 (myself opposed) upon more information to be received by staff to do a comparative review of relevant fees on our existing bylaws. I was fairly satisfied that this mirroring of development cost charges that other municipalities charge is the correct approach, but the rest of the board wants to see further information. In terms of differentials, however, our previous rates are far from what is charged in modern times. There are times to look at relative impact of changes and times to not, and in this instance relative comparisons are highly misleading.
5. An encroachment bylaw addressing the issue of grandfathered encroachments that are generally for the beautification of the park received first and second reading. This bylaw reflects a good balance.
6. A proposal to restructure our reserve accounts was effectively deferred until the December meeting when the new board can consider it. I think the information within the memorandum is quite in line with our financial transformation and although I would have preferred getting the ball rolling on this right now, ultimately it will be the next board that will be approving the follow-through changes and the two month delay will not be the end of the world. How and what projects we should be structuring our reserve funds for will be one of the initial challenges the new board will face this winter.
7. A reconsideration motion on the 2010 vote for a rejection of a variance application at 334 Balsam was defeated 4-2 (Hall and Woodrow in support of reconsideration). This board has seen two reconsideration motions make it to the table and I have voted against both of them as in both cases there was no misinformation or relevant new information since the initial vote. The applicant would be in his rights to re-submit a variance application if there is any new evidence to bring to light – he would probably have better luck doing so after the new board is in.