Soon to be retired Metro Vancouver CAO Johnny Carline
On Tuesday, Vancouver city council gets back to work with a discussion on how much City Hall (and Metro Vancouver) plans to collect in fees we pay for water and sewer services. Water utility rates are spiking up another 9.9% to pay for – among other things – $800 million worth of water filtration infrastracture most voters have little knowledge about. Combined with garbage collection fee increases, that will work out to be over $100 per year more for many Vancouver households.
Vancouver's City Engineer reasons that we need higher water rates to curb usage, but their own report shows that water use per capita has been declining for a generation. The graph to the left (click to enlarge) shows that while Vancouver's population has gone up over 50% since 1986, the overall amount of water used by the city has gone down during that same period.
Additional bureaucracy will be needed to manage the installation and reading of water meters in the city, a Vision initiative that the NPA was highly critical of during the recent 2011 campaign.
Despite operating budgets in the billions, Metro Vancouver is the level of local government that has virtually no accountability to voters. This is due to the fact that all directors are appointed at the discretion of governing mayors and councils. However, with the election of new leadership at the board on Friday, and the replacement of the powerful Chief Administrative Officer in the spring, perhaps it's time to engage on the big changes taking place at the regional district offices. Especially considering this news reported by Jeff Lee:
In July a Metro Vancouver finance report said the cost of services will climb 44 per cent over the next five years as taxpayers pay the price for clean air and water, sewer services, parks and garbage collection.
The only discussion I've noted in recent weeks about the Metro Vancouver leadership issue have been this tweet by Daniel Fontaine (follow his new personal Twitter account @Fontaine_D), and a subsequent report by Charlie Smith at Straight.com. Jeff Nagel of the Surrey Leader newspaper – arguably the region's best reporter on Metro matters – is currently on a short leave.
The two choices for Metro Vancouver Chair will supposedly boil down to Port Coquitlam Mayor Greg Moore (a former BC Liberal candidate), and Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan (an NDP stalwart), which will make the politics of who wins the job of running the board very interesting. Metro's longstanding CAO Johnny Carline (dubbed "Cash" for his high salary) is stepping down in March. Vision councillor Raymond Louie, the man touted to be Vancouver's next mayor by Larry Campbell, is rumoured to have struck a deal to land the job of Metro Vancouver Vice-Chair.
Back at Vancouver city council, the City's 2012-2013 Budget is being discussed on Thursday. There are a number of red flags which might make taxpayers nervous, such as a shaky global economy, and flat revenues from development levies and parking fines. Oh, and there is the matter of all the city's major union collective agreements, which expire this month. Given the effort CUPE put into Vision's re-election, don't count on anything near to the net-zero mandate of the B.C. government seen during the recent economic downturn.
It will be interesting to watch how council's new opposition councillors handle themselves during these important discussions about public spending.
- post by @MikeKlassen.
Print 
PDF
Mike, MetroVanWatch is also concerned about the public unaccountability and high cots of Metro Vancouver. We posted a story on this a few days ago. http://metrovanwatch.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/public-vigilance-needed-mayors-councillors-eye-metro-vancouver-board-chair-vice-chair-roles-dec-16/. Absolutely, a MUCH higher level or public scrutiny is needed for the Metro Vancouver board and its committees. Too much has already been decided outside of the public eye. The mainstream media are failing to give Metro Vancouver decisions enough advance coverage.
Has there even been ANY rigorous environmental impact assessment and cost-benefit analysis of the $1.5 billion Metro Vancouver sewage plant “upgrades”?
Like in Victoria, the project is probably going ahead with only a skimpy assessment done under the BC Municipal Sewage Regulations – NOT the needed BC Environmental Assessment Act process.
Given that the case for the upgrade to secondary stage is based on a regulatory change (feds want everybody on secondary stage treatment whether or not the receiving environmental warrants it), the project must really include a cost-benefit analysis that reveals the actual dollar value of such regulatory change – given that these are “end-of-pipe” regs that don’t actually assess the true before-and-after environmental impacts.
The problem isn’t just a likely waste of $1.5 billions, but that going to secondary will demand more energy and produce more sewage sludge that will need disposal. Hardly an environmental benefit!
Victorians are engaged in this struggle now, with activist organizations like ARESST.ca and scientific organizations like RSTV.ca mounting an effort to communicate the downside of wasting billions on a sewage treatment plan – when its other sources such as storm drains that create the much higher priority problems.
I guess Louie realized that with pretty boy installed as mayor for another three years, he might as well look around for something to do!
Mike,
Great overview and discussion of the issues surrounding Metro Vancouver and resource management.
But, really. “Johnny ‘Cash’ Carline”? “dubbed ‘Cash’ for his high salary”? Yes, but only by you, in an earlier article – that’s not really enough to make it sound like that’s what everyone’s calling him.
This kind of choppy negativity is the reason you weren’t elected, and why it’s so frustrating to read CityCaucus. You guys provide excellent commentary on important and often neglected issues, but then make it taste bad it with these sort of pithy slogans and attacks.
If you want to comment on Carline’s high pay, by all means do it, but please consider – is that pay ($191K) central to the discussion on water infrastructure ($800M) and service fees? Is there a way to raise that concern without recourse to all the negativity?
Hope that you’re still learning and that CityCaucus continues to get better and better.
Water and waste disposal. Not sexy but two of the most important things any city does. I would like to learn a lot more about the state of both of these in Vancouver and Metro Vancouver. Can people suggest sources?
..thanks for the great article Mike.. it’s good to have clarity in identifying these important issues.. they feel overwhelming to say the least… .. so many activist organizations created that really just keep complaining about the issues and protesting about the issues…but nothing really productive… I recognize that this may be a generalization .. but.. I am really craving IDEAS FOR SOLUTIONS .. I am not really seeing ANY constructive ideas with vision for plans to action to these issues .. having said that .. I also don’t have any ideas…
.. but I also know they must exist somewhere ..
Trying to remain hopeful….
Three ACTION suggestions:
(1) We encourage people to look for Metro Vancouver board chair/vice-chair candidates in their own municipal councils. Find out who your Council has appointed to represent you on the Metro Board as a director. Among them, if you feel one is close to the citizens and would work to make Metro Vancouver more transparent and accountable, PLEASE encourage them to seek the chair or vice-chair role.
(2) Encourage your entire city council, starting now, to call for live and archived web video of ALL Metro board and committee meetings. This is because they are always held during working hours on week days. Public scrutiny is close to zero. Web video would be a step in the right direction. Many municipalities already offer it. Why not Metro Vancouver?
(3)Ask the editor of your local community paper to cover the Dec 16 meeting, and to boost the scrutiny, analysis, and regular coverage of Metro Vancouver board meeting topics. Seriously. Hardly a word was mentioned in any print media in the critical final months of closed-door negotiations about the Metro Van “Regional Growth Strategy” this time last year. The public was asleep, and the media failed to wake us up. Now we will live with the RGS til 2040. The next two years are critical, for development of the parcel-by-parcel “Regional Context Statement” on land use in each municipality. Let’s not sleep through this one.
DB
Well, Johnnie Cash is quite funny, to be fair.
More importantly these very high salaries which put our civil servants at the top of the league worldwide, combined with exceptional benefits, do give an insight into the general attitude of government to public revenue.
http://northerninsights.blogspot.com/2011/12/oh-not-to-be-in-england.html
Actually, given the amount they think it appropriate to pay themselves and their cronies I think Mike is quite restrained. Comparisons to Sus domestica and a feeding receptacle would be more my line!
The Thought of The Day
“Once, Raymond Louie said that he didn’t quite understood the financials surrounding the Olympic village loans fiasco…. than, to his defense he sang this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNO72aCnVr0 ”
In all fairness, Heather Deal went even further on that item, she said: “What do I know? I am a Biologist for goodness sake!
Oh, really? Than WTF do these same people, execute jumping jacks and cartwheels in order to occupy positions they do not qualify for? Nobody told them that incompetence it’s a deal breaker?
Well, apparently not!
He must have said, hey, if Penny Ballem can play as City Manager, Robertson can act as Mayor, and Aufochs can be the Olympic Village Messenger, why can’t Louie himself play Metro Vancouver’s Second Chair?
It’s only… Furniture, after all!
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
PS.
Propping a guy like Louie in an important position like that, is a complete letdown of the electorate, and further proof, as if you needed one more, that Vision Vancouver was never, ever, looking after Vancouver’s best interest! If that’s not grounds for RECALL I don’t know what is.
@DB. Yeah, the ‘Cash’ handle is a throwaway line from blog posts past. It’s a shame that it bugs you, but this blogger won’t apologize for having a cheeky sense of humour. Carline’s compensation includes over $100K in expenses for a total of $305,207. We’ve discussed public sector compensation on this blog on several occasions. You don’t have to do too much digging to discover that the salaries for a top end public sector manager have grown much faster than the rate of inflation. By comparison, a Vancouver city councillor position – considered by most to be a ‘full time’ board role – pays about $65K with few benefits attached. While it’s not a pittance compared to what some people in our city earn, it’s striking to think that the people they hire are making six times their compensation.
@david hadaway:
Didn’t a report come out not too long ago that showed 82% of municipal taxes went to salaries and benefits?
It was just pre-election time.
Council is considered a full time position unless you are Kerry Jang, who has stated he considers it ‘part-time’.
Hey, you are quite right on this Glissando!
“Once, Raymond Louie said that he didn’t quite understood the financials surrounding the Olympic village loans fiasco….”
I think I remember that.
Hard question follows: Which Banking HR Manager would hire someone as unqualified as these guys to work for a bank… with their money?
Nobody, that’s who!
Yet we still put these guys in charge of wasting our hard earned money.
Madness!
So according to the graph less costs more,oh please hurry and give me a water meter before this rainforest dries up and we all just blow away.
Interesting Mike that Vancouver’s councillors are paid pretty much the median income for Vancouver, @$67k,(as it should be, I’d add). Compare Carline’s pay packet that. Johnny Cash indeed!
.. thankyou for your ideas MetroVanWatch ..have any of these tactics ever actually worked before? ..
.. thinking about all this is just giving me a knot in my stomach..and an overwhelming desire to ignore it all …
.. I suppose my effort to approach it from a non political perspective is kind of futile in the context of a political blog….
.. which is kind of interesting in it’s own right.. since I am a citizen .. and one of those 80 odd percent who is tired of the whole game of politics.. and part of the problem to politics .. of how to engage more of the citizens back into the process… ..
.. I can’t speak for anyone else .. but .. the process will have to change dramatically for me to want to be involved ..
.. perhaps this is a highly idealistic way of seeing things.. but I feel that the citizens want leaders in government to actually sincerely look out for their interests .. the political process has infested governance to the extent that it has polarized opinions of critical issues that impact the citizens directly .. egos.. agendas.. sound bites…opinions .. not enough factual information available to actually make informed choices.. .. .. I’m feeling very repelled by the process … and not interested in getting involved in the game ..
.. I am hopefull in a very different way .. .. I guess..
..so .. just thought I’d say .. ..
.. Michael .. ThankYou for letting me speak on your blog.. .. I hope you find the answers .. ..
All the Very Best!
Wendy
So according to the graph less costs more,oh please hurry and give me a water meter before this rainforest dries up and we all just blow away.
This post doesn’t provide any where near enough information to jump to conclusions. Don’t we need to understand the current state of the infrastructure, how much needs to be invested to maintain that infrastructure, and then upgrade it to account for growth, changing use patterns, etc.
If Vancouver is anything like Boston or NYC there is a huge structural deficit in that those cities have failed to invest in their infrastructure and maintenance and now face the liklihood of massive failures or loss of potable water or both. Fortunately Boston and Vancouver are both in areas where there is a lot of percipitation so supply is not (I believe) a problem. But investment in infrastructure is.
Water, transportation, waste management, power, zoning. Not sexy but they are at the core of what a municiapal government needs to do. And they are also where we have the opportunity to build resilient and sustainable cities.
One option for the NPA is to insist that the municipal government focus on only a few key things and to them extremely well.
Steven,this is a little odd as Gregory re-posted my earlier comment word for word without any comment on my comment.Now your comment on his comment which is really my comment saying his comment doesnt have enough info.Well I would say the info in the article is obvious as my comment and Gregorys comment,which was my comment,although somewhat sarcastic related directly to a comment in the article.”we need higher water rates to curb usage, but their own report shows that water use per capita has been declining for a generation. The graph to the left (click to enlarge) shows that while Vancouver’s population has gone up over 50% since 1986, the overall amount of water used by the city has gone down during that same period.I hope this comment clarifies Gregorys comment which in fact was my comment.
Now I am even more confused than usual.
My only point is that many places have been under investing in basic infrastructure upgrades maintenance and I would like to know if we are one of them. Think Burrard Bridge, Iron Workers Memorial Bridge, maintenance of alley ways, etc. Lets hope the water system is in better shape.