Municipality of North Cowichan Committee of the Whole AGENDA · I hope that everyone will recognize the Assembly’s work as an important contribu- ... two jurisdictions several times

Municipality of North CowichanCommittee of the Whole

AGENDA

Wednesday, June 7, 2017, 11:00 a.m.Municipal Hall - Maple Bay Meeting Room

Pages

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Recommendation:That the Committee approve the agenda as circulated [or as amended].

3. BUSINESS

3.1 Amalgamation 2 - 167

Purpose: To discuss the final report and recommendation of the Duncan-NorthCowichan Citizens’ Assembly report and amalgamation study technical analysisreport.

3.2 Meetings with BC Government Ministers

Purpose: To discuss which ministers to request meetings with at the 2017 Unionof BC Municipalities' annual convention.

4. NEW BUSINESS

5. ADJOURNMENT

Final Report and Recommendation of the Duncan- North Cowichan Citizens’ Assembly

“Some of us have lived our whole lives here; others have recently arrived...We volunteered because we each saw this as an opportunity to give something back. We were curious to learn more about local government and become more informed about the way the two municipalities are managed. While we come from different backgrounds, we shared a desire to make a meaningful contribution to our communities.”

May 2017

2

Publication informationPublished by MASS LBP on behalf of the City of Duncan and the Municipality of North Cowichan You can download this publication at www.dnc-cama.ca This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0)

3

Table of contents

Chair’s Note 3Did you know? 5 About the Assembly 7Assembly Guests 9Assembly Snapshot 10Proceedings of the Assembly 11

Members’ Report and Recommendation 19Meet the Members 25

Appendix 31Minority Reports 31Public Roundtable Meetings 33Terms of Reference 41

Final Report of the Duncan-North Cowichan Citizens’ Assembly

4

Members of the Citizens’ Assembly meet on their first day, January 21, 2017

5

Members of the Citizens’ Assembly meet on their first day, January 21, 2017

6

Chair’s Note

I am pleased to convey to Duncan and North Cowichan Councillors the report of the Duncan-North Cowichan Citizens’ Assembly.

It has been a special privledge to chair this Assembly and I would like recognize the generous efforts of the Assembly members who worked very diligently on behalf of all local residents.

Each member contributed some fifty hours of unpaid volunteer time, and cumu-latively the members invested some 1,800 hours in examining whether the two municipalities should amalgamate. In this regard, I believe they performed a valu-able community service.

As anyone familiar with this issue will understand, the Assembly’s task was not easy. It involved learning about the role of local government, the experiences of other municipalities that have pursued amalgamation, the fiscal outlooks of both municipalities and the likely financial impact of amalgamation. Critically, it also involved considering the perspectives of some twenty invited guests who spoke to the Assembly and more than 140 residents who attended two public meetings.

The Assembly members know that their decision to endorse amalgama-tion will be closely scrutinized and debated.

Proponents of amalgamation often claim that combining governments and harmo-nizing local services will produce efficiencies and savings for taxpayers. As the Assembly learned, however, amalgamating Duncan and North Cowichan is unlikely to produce significant savings or have more than a modest impact on local taxes.

Residents may be surprised by this conclusion, but according to the findings of the accompanying technical report, the negligible financial impact of amalgamation is itself a consequence of the efficiency with which both municipalities currently provide services, and the extent of co-operation that already exists between them.

Without a strong fiscal rationale, the Assembly nevertheless believes that Cowichan Valley residents will benefit from merging their local governments. Members argue that Duncan and North Cowichan will be stronger together: harmonized bylaws will help businesses; a single official community plan will lead to more rational and coordinated land use policies; and over time a shared vision for the Cowichan Valley will produce a consistent and beneficial approach to growth. They are also

3

7

confident that an amalgamated municipality can promote and respect the distinct identities of the many Cowichan Valley communities.

With the delivery of this report, it falls now to both Councils to consider the merits of amalgamation. Should the Councils opt to endorse amalgamation, residents will have their say in a referendum. In this respect, the tabling of the Assembly’s report constitutes only an early step towards amalgamation.

Finally, I would like to recognize the professionalism of municipal staff who supported the Assembly. In every instance they worked to safeguard the integrity and impartiality of the process, and provide the Assembly with the information its members required to perform their task.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the Assembly’s recommendation, I hope that everyone will recognize the Assembly’s work as an important contribu-tion to local democracy and active citizenship, as well as a successful demonstra-tion of the ability of citizens to play a constructive role in local affairs.

Respectfully,

Peter MacLeodChair, Duncan-North Cowichan Citizens’ Assembly

Final Report of the Duncan-North Cowichan Citizens’ Assembly 4

8

Did you know?

Together again: After thirty-eight years as one municipality, Duncan separated from North Cowichan in 1912. In the 1970s, the two municipali-ties considered amalgamating but decided to remain separate. The Citizens’ Assembly was convened after residents in both municipalities endorsed a proposal to study amalgamation during a referendum in November 2014.

One foot in both communities: Residents often live and work in different municipalities, crossing the boundary between North Cowichan and Duncan each day. A car travelling along the highway through Duncan from the Silver Bridge to the high school passes through three jurisdictions: North Cowichan, Cowichan Tribes, City of Duncan and back into North Cowichan. The same car travelling from Allenby Road to the high school passes through six: those above, plus Cowichan Valley Regional District (CVRD) Areas D and E.

A history of co-operation: Duncan and North Cowichan already work together to provide a range of shared services including water and sewage to some homes and recreation for many residents throughout the regional district. Emergency Preparedness is a CVRD service.

Efficient government: Even when combined, the costs of running both Duncan and North Cowichan Municipal Councils are on par with other municipalities of a comparable size.

Similar taxes: Duncan and North Cowichan charge comparable residential property tax rates, which could be harmonized with only a modest impact on annual bills.

Two cheers for our two fire halls: The adjacent Duncan and North Cowichan fire halls provide complementary services. Combining the struc-tures would produce no meaningful savings. Currently, all Cowichan Valley firefighters are volunteers.

Small but mighty: At 2.07 square kilometers, the City of Duncan is the smallest city by area in Canada.

A similar story: The City of Chilliwack and the District of Chilliwack amal-gamated in 1984, after having separated like Duncan and North Cowichan nearly a century before, in 1908.

5

9

Not where you think: These facilities are often associated with Duncan, but in fact are outside Duncan’s city limits: Cowichan Secondary School, Vancouver Island University, Island Savings Centre, Cowichan Aquatic Centre, Chesterfield Track, Duncan Christian School, Cowichan District Hospital, Superstore, White Spot, WalMart and all three Tim Horton’s.

Time out: There has not been a municipal amalgamation in British Columbia since Abbotsford and Matsqui successfully merged in 1996.

Communities decide: After a series of controversial mergers in the1970s and ‘80s in Nanaimo, Kamloops, and Kelowna, the province established a “Community Charter” in 2003 with provisions to ensure communities led and supported any proposed amalgamations.

Working like a region: Both the City of Duncan and the Municipality of North Cowichan sit on the board of the Cowichan Valley Regional District (CVRD), a unique-to-BC branch of local government that was created in 1965 when the province was divided into twenty-seven regions that include both incorporated and unincorporated areas to provide regionally-based planning and shared services. The CVRD stretches north to south from Ladysmith to the Malahat, and east to west from Thetis, Penalakut, and Valdez Islands to Lake Cowichan, Youbou, Caycuse, and the west coast of Vancouver Island beyond the Carmanah Valley and Nitinat Lake.

How many people? In 2011, Duncan’s population was 4,944 and North Cowichan’s population was 29,676. By 2046, Duncan’s population is predicted to be 5,900 and North Cowichan’s population is predicted to be 40,800.

First Peoples: Cowichan Tribes is the largest First Nation band in BC, with a population almost exactly the size of Duncan: 4,957. One half of band members live off-reserve, with 10 percent living off-island. A further 2,000 Indigenous people belong to one of six additional First Nations within the boundaries of the CVRD: Halalt, Penelakut, Stzuminus, Lyackson, Ditidaht, Malahat.

Who governs? Each municipality has six Councillors and one mayor, each of whom is elected every four years.

Who works where? The City of Duncan employs 32 staff and 5 students. The Municipality of North Cowichan employs 263 staff and 35 students. According to the technical report, combined staff could all be housed in North Cowichan’s municipal building.


10

About the Assembly

The Citizens’ Assembly on Municipal Amalgamation was a unique exercise in local democracy that provided residents with an opportunity to develop and evaluate the case for amalgamating the City of Duncan and the Municipality of North Cowichan. The Assembly was an arms-length process that was commissioned by the elected Councils of both municipalities. Thirty-six area residents served on the Assembly, which met over six days between January and April, 2017.

Over the past decade, new growth has blurred the boundaries between Duncan and North Cowichan. Many residents routinely drive between the two jurisdictions several times during a normal day. Some municipal services are already jointly administered, and others could be combined. This has prompted both Councils to ask whether the time is right to consider amalga-mation. The creation of the Duncan-North Cowichan Citizens’ Assembly on Municipal Amalgamation is a first step toward examining this issue.

Mandate: The Citizens’ Assembly on Municipal Amalgamation was a delib-erative process intended to provide residents with an opportunity to actively participate in developing and evaluating the case for amalgamating the City of Duncan and the Municipality of North Cowichan. The Citizens’ Assembly was designed as an impartial advisory body that worked to represent all residents and exemplify high standards of transparency, accountability, and robust civic participation.

The Citizens’ Assembly was tasked by the City of Duncan and the Munici-pality of North Cowichan to learn about the needs and interests of residents; examine the implications of creating a new, amalgamated municipal structure; and advise local Councillors and their administrations on the conditions under which the municipalities should proceed. Specifically, the Citizens’ Assembly on Municipal Amalgamation was asked to develop:

• A set of values which describe their aspirations for good local governance;

• A list of issues which they believe need to be satisfactorily resolved for municipal amalgamation to merit consideration; and

• A detailed recommendation concerning municipal amalgamation, including any conditions to be satisfied if a merger was to proceed.

Membership: The members of the Duncan-North Cowichan Citizens’ Assembly were selected using a civic lottery. In December 2016, 10,000 area residents were randomly mailed an invitation to volunteer. From a pool of 144 volunteers, the thirty-six members of the Assembly were randomly

7

11

selected to broadly represent the population and communities that make up the two municipalities. The members each generously agreed to spend more than fifty hours serving on the Assembly. They did not receive an honorarium or any other form of personal compensation.

The Chair and Assembly Team: The Assembly was chaired by Peter MacLeod, principal of public engagement firm MASS LBP. This firm won the contract to lead the Assembly process following a public tender and is inter-nationally recognized for its work leading deliberative policy processes. The chair was responsible for developing the Assembly program and process, leading the local facilitation team, and serving as the spokesperson for the Assembly. He did not have a vote and was expected to remain neutral throughout the Assembly’s deliberations.

Process Summary: The Assembly met three times between January and February, and three times between April and May. It also hosted public meetings open to any resident in both February and April. During the Assem-bly’s March recess, technical consultants completed an independent study of the municipalities’ finances, infrastructure, and services. They reported their findings to the Assembly during the fourth meeting, on April 1, 2017. The study is intended to provide Councillors, Assembly members, and residents with an objective assessment of the likely costs and benefits of amalgamation.

The Citizens’ Assembly was designed as an advisory body and its recom-mendation is not binding. The support of both Municipal Councils, a majority of voters during a public referendum, and the consent of the Provincial Cabinet are required for amalgamation to proceed.


12

Assembly Guests (in order of appearance)

The Assembly benefited from numerous presentations representing a wide range of perspectives and interests. Generally, presentations lasted fifteen minutes or less and were followed by vigorous question-and-answer sessions. When presenters used slides, they were made available to download at dnc-cama.ca.

• Phil Kent, Mayor of Duncan

• Jon Lefebure, Mayor of North Cowichan

• Kyle Young, Assistant Manager of Planning and Subdivision, Munici-pality of North Cowichan

• Kathryn Gagnon, Executive Director, Cowichan Valley Museum and Archives

• Peter de Verteuil, Chief Administrative Officer, City of Duncan

• Gary Paget, Senior Policy Advisor, Local Government Division, Government of British Columbia

• Marijke Edmondson, Director, Local Government Structure, Government of British Columbia

• Patricia Ross, City Councillor, City of Abbotsford

• Debra Oakman, CAO, Comox Valley Regional District

• Brian Walliser, former senior policy advisor and expert on local government

• Jean Cardno, Owner, Cardino Shoes, representing Downtown Duncan Business Improvement Area

• Blair Herbert, Broker/Owner, Royal LePage Duncan

• Moira Hauk, First Vice President, Duncan Cowichan Chamber of Commerce

• Don Hatton, President, Hatton Insurance

• Marina Jozipovic, James Klukas, and Dan Huang, Urban Systems Inc.

• Bernie Jones, President, Chemainus Residents Association

• Inspector Ray Carfantan, North Cowichan/Duncan RCMP

• Mélie De Champlain, Director, Community Integration, Island Health

• Chief Scott Henning, North Cowichan Fire Department (South End Hall)

• Chief Mike McKinlay, City of Duncan Fire Department

• Maureen Tommy, General Manager, Cowichan Tribes First Nation

• Chief William Seymour, Cowichan Tribes First Nation

9

13

18

WOMEN MEN

18

83

18-29 30-44

13

45-64

12

65+

Representing Duncan and North Cowichan

CHEMAINUS

CROFTON

SOUTHEND

MAPLE BAY

NORTH RURAL

SOUTH RURAL

3

1

12

2

3

3

DUNCAN EAST4

4

4

DUNCAN CENTRAL

DUNCAN WEST

Assembly Snapshot


14

Proceedings of the Assembly

Meeting 1: January 21, 2017

On Saturday, January 21 the thirty-six members of the Duncan-North Cowichan Citizens’ Assembly on Municipal Amalgamation met for the first time. The chair of the Assembly, Peter MacLeod, welcomed everyone and invited the Mayor of Duncan, Phil Kent, and the Mayor of North Cowichan, Jon Lefebure, to acknowledge the traditional territories and welcome the members of the Assembly. Both mayors thanked the members for their commit-ment to the process and explained why they looked forward to receiving the Assembly’s report.

Next, the chair explained the Assembly’s mandate: “to examine the implica-tions of creating a new, amalgamated municipal structure, and advise local Councillors and their administrations on the conditions under which the municipalities should proceed.”

MacLeod took care to underscore that the Assembly was not deciding whether the municipalities would merge. Instead, their task was to advise both Councils, which would then vote on whether to endorse the Assem-bly’s recommendation. If a recommendation to pursue amalgamation was endorsed, a public referendum would also be required, as would support from the provincial government. In this way, the work of the Assembly is an important first step in a longer process that will involve significant public input.

Next, MacLeod described the role of the members as local representatives. He urged the members to think not only about their own interests, but to work to understand the needs and interests of others, and represent the community as a whole.

Members then introduced themselves and talked about the reasons why they had volunteered for the Assembly. Many were motivated by a sense of civic duty. Others were curious about the process and hoped to learn more about local government. Others still said it was a “good reason to get out of the house” and were keen to meet others and contribute.

After a short break, the Assembly heard from its first guest speakers. Kyle Young from the North Cowichan Planning Department began by providing an overview of the area’s geography and population, and explained how each municipality’s Official Community Plan guides local development.

1115

Next, Kathryn Gagnon from the Cowichan Valley Museum and Archives gave a lively account of the area’s local history using early photographs to help understand the Valley’s colonial past. Gagnon explained how North Cowichan was the fourth municipality to incorporate in 1874 and why Duncan separated from North Cowichan thirty-eight years later in 1912. Then, as now, the condition of local roads in part spurred new municipal reforms.

Following lunch, Peter de Verteuil, Chief Administrative Officer at the City of Duncan, provided a detailed introduction to the work of local government. He discussed the services each municipality provides, the infrastructure they must maintain, and their respective budgets, staffing levels, and governance model. He also explained how the municipalities work together – and with the Cowichan Valley Regional District – to provide some services and infrastructure.

Lastly, the Assembly spent two hours discussing how the Cowichan Valley had changed, what they thought was important to know about the valley, and what they valued about local government.

Meeting 2: February 4, 2017

To start the Assembly’s second meeting, an Indigenous member of the Assembly acknowledged the land, and talked about the history of local First Nations. The Assembly agreed that each meeting would start with an acknowledgement of the land and First Nations.

Next, Assembly members talked about their experience hosting the residents who attended the public roundtable meeting

Several members noted that many people seemed unclear about the bound-aries between the two municipalities. Others shared that they had heard concerns about the rural-urban divide and wondered whether these different perspectives could be well-addressed within a single municipality. Other members were concerned about the cost and wondered about the impact on taxpayers. Another member mentioned that much of the feedback he had received was unrelated to amalgamation. He encouraged Assembly members to stay focused on the task and to filter out those issues which would be unaffected by amalgamation.

The Assembly then heard from its second set of speakers. First, the Assembly heard from Gary Paget, a senior policy advisory in the local government branch of the BC government. Paget provided a history of municipal amal-gamations in BC, noting the change in policy that occurred in the 1970s following a wave of forced municipal amalgamations. Today, the provincial government insists that amalgamations be voluntary and community-led.

Marijke Edmondson, program director in the Local Government Division, then explained the province’s role in assisting communities to determine whether


16

they should amalgamate. Edmondson explained that the province provides support to municipalities for technical studies and public consultation and leads its own consultations with local First Nations. The province may also provide special funds to municipalities during a transition period following an amalgamation.

The Assembly then heard from Patricia Ross, a City Councillor from Abbots-ford. She spoke candidly about her own experience with amalgamation – the City of Abbotsford and the District of Matsqui amalgamated in 1996. Her story was a positive one: “We were already living together, and it just made sense to get married.” As a Councillor, she has found that being a larger municipality has helped Abbotsford to attract more businesses and garner support from senior levels of government.

With a more cautionary message, the Assembly then heard from Debra Oakman, CAO of the Comox Valley Regional District. She has overseen the division of two regional districts and she discussed the complexity and cost of adopting a new governance structure. According to Oakman, before commit-ting to any major reform, proponents should be very clear about what they are trying to achieve and attach benchmarks to their goals.

Finally, members heard from Brian Walliser, a former senior advisor with the province and expert on local government in BC. Walliser described how shared service agreements and greater use of the Cowichan Valley Regional District (CVRD) could provide an alternative to amalgamation, allowing the municipalities to proceed issue-by-issue. Walliser encouraged the Assembly to be clear about the specific service challenges they believe amalgamation can solve and to consider whether alternative approaches might prove less costly or more effective.

After lunch, the members of the Assembly revisited their discussion of values and worked to define and adopt seven values that would guide their work. These are: Efficiency and cost effectiveness; Quality services and infrastruc-ture; Public engagement; Environmental stewardship; Collaboration; Acces-sibility, approachability and accountability; and Respect for local differences.

During their final hour, the members turned their attention to identifying the issues they believe should be considered when considering the merits of amalgamation. Working in six small groups, they articulated and then shared with one another the issues they believed were most important. During their third meeting, the members would revisit these lists as they had done with their values, and use these issues to draft questions for the technical consultants.

Meeting 3: February 25, 2017

The Assembly reconvened for their third meeting on February 25. During his overview, the chair discussed the meetings he and a member of the Assembly had had with representatives of local First Nations. He reported that the meetings were generally positive and appreciated.

13

17

The Assembly then welcomed members of the consultant team from Urban Systems, who were hired by both municipalities as independent advisors to complete a technical analysis of the proposed amalgamation.

The consultant team described the scope of their analysis, shared several draft fact sheets they had prepared, and took questions from the Assembly.

After a short break, the Assembly heard from its first “perspectives panel,” whose members were selected to speak on behalf of Duncan and North Cowichan businesses.

Jean Cardno from the Downtown Duncan BIA, Blair Herbert from Royal LePage, Moira Hauk from the Duncan Cowichan Chamber of Commerce, and Don Hatton from Hatton Insurance each took turns sharing their points of view.

Two panelists spoke strongly in favour of amalgamation believing that a single municipality would be more efficient and cost effective, and that the area would benefit from harmonizing its bylaws and zoning, and having a unified plan for development and growth.

The other panelists were more cautious, believing that it was premature to endorse amalgamation without a clear analysis of its impact.

Following lunch, the Assembly returned to the issues they identified during their second meeting. When grouped together, these issues fell roughly into eight themes: Consistency of services; Governance and leadership; Economic development; Environment; Culture and identity; Land use and planning; Taxes; and Efficiencies and savings. Members were invited to join a table focused on the theme that most interested them and to refine a list of questions based on their theme, which could be sent to the technical consul-tant for review.

Meeting 4: April 1, 2017

Following a month-long break during which the technical consultants prepared their report, the Assembly members reconvened to begin the second phase of their work.

The Assembly chair began the morning by recapping the Assembly’s first three sessions and inviting members to update one another on what they had heard from other residents or considered since their last meeting.

Next, he invited James Klukas and Marina Jozipovic from Urban Systems to give a detailed presentation of their ninety-page report. The members under-stood that this report was embargoed and would not be shared with either Councillors or members of the public until the Assembly’s recommendation and report was released in May.


18

Klukas and Jozipovic took time to explain their own process, which included contributions from a special advisory and oversight committee of former mayors and senior municipal officials. Then they began to explain the findings of their review. They presented detailed information concerning how each municipality is organized, governed, and financed, as well as the services and infrastructure each municipality provides.

Over the next ninety minutes, members repeatedly interjected with questions or requests for clarification. The consultants responded to each question knowledgeably or else promised to conduct further research and report back.

This exchange quickly made clear an important concern of many Assembly members: they learned that there were no immediate financial barriers to amalgamation, but neither were there likely to be significant financial savings. In a sense, the members learned that the financial case for amalgamation was a draw, and that any argument for remaining as separate municipalities or merging would need to be made on different grounds.

The consultants were also careful to emphasize that their projections did not extend past year one, as it is impossible to speculate on what future Councils might choose to do as either independent or amalgamated municipalities. Future decisions could produce savings or increase costs. Their analysis was designed to show the likely impact of merging the two municipalities as they are today, with their existing policies, tax rates, debts, and personnel.

Following a short break, the members had the opportunity to hear from a final perspectives panel, which included representatives from the two fire services, the RCMP, Island Health, and the Chemainus Residents Association.

Many members were impressed with the camaraderie and close co-oper-ation between the fire services—which are staffed entirely by volunteers. The two chiefs explained how their members work together and why even the two adjacent halls—while unusual—are surprisingly efficient and provide complementary services.

Next, Inspector Ray Carfantan took care to explain the complicated business of police funding. Currently, municipalities like Duncan with fewer than 5,000 people make only a very modest contribution toward the cost of policing their communities, through a dedicated police levy. The majority of the cost is borne by the province. However, when a municipality grows beyond 5,000, it becomes responsible for footing 70 per cent of the policing bill. This bill itself grows as the local police force expands — with each officer representing approximately $160,000 per year in salary, benefits, and support costs. Municipalities like North Cowichan, with a population greater than 25,000, pay 90 per cent of their policing costs, with the balance paid by the province.

Carfantan noted that by provincial standards, his force is very lean and would benefit from additional personnel — a sentiment echoed by almost all Assembly members. New officers as well as the construction of a new police

15

19

station will pose significant costs for both communities, especially should Duncan grow as expected beyond 5,000 people at the time of the next census in 2021.

Following lunch, the Assembly members spent the afternoon reviewing the technical report in close detail and drafting a series of questions for the consultants to address in the final version of their report.


The Assembly met for its second-last day and its members began by recounting their experience of the second public roundtable, held the previous Thursday. Several members were disappointed by the relatively modest turnout of some thirty people. Others expressed concern that while they had had the benefit of the Assembly’s proceedings and technical report, which made it possible for them to learn about amalgamation, some residents who attended the public meeting seemed poorly informed or had strong assumptions leading them to either support or disagree with amalga-mation. Raising public awareness about the facts of amalgamation was a keen concern for many members.

Next, the members welcomed their final speaker, Maureen Tommy, general manager of the Cowichan Tribes First Nation. Earlier in the process, the chair and Gus Williams had visited with representatives of several area First Nations. The Assembly was keen to hear her perspective on municipal amalgamation and whether it was likely to have any material impact on the services her government provides for Indigenous residents, or affect the relationship between the municipalities and the First Nations.

Tommy began by explaining the range of responsibilities that fall to Cowichan Tribes—BC’s largest First Nations government. She also explained how Cowichan Tribes co-operates actively with both municipalities and the CVRD to deliver services, and described the relationship as both beneficial and respectful.

Following an extensive round of questions, the Assembly chair thanked Tommy for her remarks, and as a representative of a municipal initiative, recognized the important relationship with Cowichan Tribes by presenting Tommy with a blanket symbolizing friendship and co-operation.

Next, the Assembly turned its attention to developing specific scenarios concerning status quo, amalgamation, and greater service integration. Working in small groups, Assembly members developed these scenarios while gauging the likely implications for the issues they had identified in their prior sessions. Additionally, though mindful that it was beyond their mandate, several members also considered whether boundary changes might be another way to find a more optimal balance between the two municipalities.

This exhaustive exercise was punctuated by each small group reporting their findings and contrasting their observations. Ultimately, having examined each


20

scenario according to the issues they identified, the chair asked each group to see if they could reach a rough consensus concerning their preferred scenario.

While assuring the Assembly that no decision was being made, the chair canvassed each table for their decision. Each of the six tables reported a strong majority of their members supporting amalgamation. It quickly became clear that amalgamation was preferred by more than four-fifths of Assembly members. The chair invited those who were contrary-minded to express any outstanding concerns before asking the Assembly if he could deem amal-gamation to be the tentative direction of the Assembly, for the purpose of developing their recommendations on their final day.

With a sense of achievement and recognition of the careful work still ahead to finalize and communicate their recommendation and decide on any supporting measures or conditions, the Assembly adjourned.


The Assembly met for its final meeting two weeks after it reached a tentative consensus to endorse amalgamation. The chair began the session by inviting second thoughts and comments regarding their proposed direction. Broadly speaking, Assembly members remained comfortable with their consensus and turned their attention to reviewing updates to the consultants’ report.

Next, Assembly members split into small groups to consider the conditions and supporting measures they wished to attach to their recommendation. The rest of the morning was taken up with this activity as each group proposed specific measures for consideration by the Assembly as a whole. By lunch-time, they had finalized their key recommendations and were ready to begin drafting their report. Breaking into new groups that aligned with the sections of the report, the Assembly again worked to produce draft text for comment by other members. This back-and-forth process helped to ensure that all members were comfortable with the phrasing and that key ideas were not lost in the editing process.

This process continued up until 3:00pm, when the Mayors of Duncan and North Cowichan, Chief William Seymour of Cowichan Tribes First Nation, and Joint Council Committee member Maeve McGuire arrived to hear a reading of the draft report.

The chair thanked the guests for coming and took a moment to remind them of the extensive Assembly process and volunteer commitment. Then, taking turns, different Assembly members read out their section of the report.

Next, the chair invited members of the Assembly to speak openly about their experiences of serving on the Assembly as well as key considerations they felt their guests should remember. The chair then invited each guest to speak to the Assembly and show their appreciation for the Assembly’s efforts on behalf of Duncan and North Cowichan residents.

17

21

With formalities complete, the chair reminded the Assembly members that over the next two weeks they would have the opportunity to edit the entirety of the report and, should they choose, provide a personal minority report.

Finally, he asked the Mayors to present each member of the Assembly with a Certificate of Public Service, while sharing a special cake that marked the completion of their work together.


22

Duncan-North Cowichan Citizens’ AssemblyMembers’ Report

We are volunteers who were randomly selected using a civic lottery to serve our communities as members of the Duncan-North Cowichan Citizens’ Assembly. Last November, invitations were randomly distributed to 10,000 area households. 144 people responded and 36 of those respondents were randomly selected to represent the two communities and roughly match their demographic profile. Half of our members are men, and half are women. We represent a range of age groups and come from many different backgrounds. Some of us have lived our whole lives here; others have recently arrived. Twelve of our members are from Duncan, and twenty-four are from North Cowichan.

We volunteered because we each saw this as an opportunity to give something back. We were curious to learn more about local government and become more informed about the way the two municipalities are managed. While we come from different backgrounds, we shared a desire to make a meaningful contribution to our communities.

We met for six full Saturdays over four months and listened to presentations from a range of residents, business owners, public servants, first responders, academics, Indigenous leaders, and community stakeholders in order to understand the needs and perspectives of different people in our communities.

We also convened two public roundtable meetings, where we shared what we learned with residents and listened carefully to their feedback. Our members sought out their neighbours, friends, and colleagues for their perspectives as well.

19

23

We examined technical and financial analyses and came to understand them well.

We posed many questions to our guests and to the technical consultants, and appreciated their care in answering our questions.

We considered the area’s history and learned from both successful and unsuccessful amalgamations in other BC communities.

We believe this process was thorough and collaborative. We strove to be impartial in our conduct and discussions.

Throughout our time on the Assembly, we listened carefully to each other and tried to set aside any pre-conceived ideas. On balance, we were open-minded and tried to be considerate of different points of view.

Our Values

During our first two meetings, we identified seven values that helped us to find common ground. We used these values to help guide our discussions and weigh different scenarios.

Efficiency and cost-effectiveness We value local government that exercises good fiscal responsibility and works efficiently and consistently to respect residents’ time and money.

Quality services and infrastructure We value local government that provides quality services and infrastructure that have a measurable impact on the well being of residents. Our services and infrastructure should be cost-effective, mindful of current needs and future growth, highly satisfactory and appreciated by residents, and based on best practices.

Public engagement We value local government that proactively and regularly engages residents in local governance and decision-making. Good local government fosters public learning, consultation, collaboration, and transparency.

Environmental stewardship We value local government that ensures the protection of our air, water, wildlife, and green spaces. It works to enrich our urban, rural, and agricultural communities and ensure continued economic and ecological vitality for all. Collaboration We value local government that exemplifies an inclusive, non-partisan and collaborative approach to meeting the distinct needs and interests of our many communities.

Accessibility, Approachability and Accountability We value local government that is: easy to access, whether online, by post, in person, or by phone; willing to listen and seriously consider different perspectives in genuine dialogue with constituents; responsive to residents; and committed to providing clear explanations for its decisions.


24

Respect for local differences We value local government that takes care to ensure that local voices, sensibilities, character, and communities are preserved, recognized, and enhanced.

We also drew up a list of issues and questions we wanted to address in our deliberations. It is by answering these questions and examining amalgama-tion through the lens of each of these issues that we ultimately reached a strong consensus.

Our issues

1. Consistency of services 2. Governance and leadership 3. Economic development 4. Environment 5. Culture and identity 6. Land use and planning 7. Taxes 8. Efficiencies and savings

Specifically, we wanted to know:

• Whether amalgamation would be more financially viable than the status quo?

• How amalgamation would impact residential and business taxes?

• How amalgamation would affect zoning and bylaws?

• How amalgamation would change the public and protective services that residents receive?

• Whether amalgamation would change or dilute the identity of local communities, and how might a shared identity strengthen perceptions of the area?

• What might the consequences be of not amalgamating?

• How amalgamation stacks up against other options, including closer service integration and boundary changes?

• How amalgamation could affect environmental policies and change the focus of both municipalities’ Official Community Plans?

• Whether amalgamation would affect the local economy and lead to more and better jobs?

• Whether amalgamation would affect relations with local First Nations?

• What might the process, costs, and potential savings of amalgamation look like?

21

25

What we learned

Perhaps, like many people, we assumed that Duncan was larger than it is. In fact, it occupies just two square kilometres and has a population of just under 5,000 — one-sixth of the population of North Cowichan, which is home to almost 30,000 people. This makes Duncan Canada’s smallest city by area. Until 1912, Duncan was part of North Cowichan and served as the Cowichan Valley’s downtown, much as it does today.

This historical context is important, and our two communities have been considering amalgamation almost ever since they separated in 1912. Each generation seems to ask this same question, believing that the two communi-ties would be more successful together.

Many of us assumed that amalgamation would save money and hoped it would lead to lower taxes. Others feared that amalgamation would only drive up costs. As we learned from the technical study, amalgamation is likely to have only a modest impact on residential and business taxes.

On its own, amalgamation will not save much money. Both municipalities already co-operate closely, and there appear to be few obvious efficiencies. Amalgamation will not change the population of the Cowichan Valley—there will be as many citizens requiring services following amalgamation as before. Even the neighbouring fire halls provide complementary services; merging them would likely cost more, not less.

We learned that important factors like policing costs and infrastructure should also be considered when evaluating the case for amalgamation. The formulas, provincial programs, and drivers of costs are complicated, but we could all agree that both Duncan and North Cowichan would benefit from having more police services and infrastructure investment, and so both communities would likely benefit from drawing on a shared tax base.

We also learned that businesses are often frustrated with what they perceive as an unequal playing field; two different sets of bylaws and zoning regula-tions create confusion and can become costly.

We all know that the Cowichan Valley is a special place: it has long been a community of communities. We believe the strength of local identity matters and should be preserved and enhanced.

Some of us came to this process thinking we already knew how local government works, but we now know a good deal more. Based on our work together and what we’ve learned, we’ve reached a strong consensus.

Our recommendation

We have carefully considered the technical information and different scenarios for the future of our two municipalities, including closer service integration.


26

We believe that Duncan and North Cowichan will be stronger together, and so our consensus as an Assembly is to recommend amalgamation.

We believe that amalgamating Duncan and North Cowichan into a single municipality will make possible lasting co-operation. Amalgamation will enhance the sustainability of our communities by strengthening our fiscal foun-dation and allow local government to pursue a more coordinated approach to encouraging economic growth, delivering efficient and effective public services, and ensuring that residents benefit from good local planning and strengthened environmental stewardship.

We believe amalgamation will ensure that local government in the Cowichan Valley pursues a common vision and that residents benefit from a harmonized approach to services, policies, and governance.

These benefits include:

• One Council

• Streamlined regulations and bylaws

• A level and consistent playing field for businesses

• One Official Community Plan with consistent and coordinated land use policies

Additionally, we recommend that:

1. Should both Councils endorse amalgamation, that they establish a joint amalgamation working group to develop a clear proposal for amalga-mation prior to a referendum. This working group would develop:

• A framework to ensure equitable representation for each of the Cowichan Valley’s distinct communities. The framework could include an expanded role for neighbourhood and business improvement associations and ad hoc and issue-specific advisory committees, and also consider whether an amalgamated municipality should adopt an at-large or mixed-ward system;

• A multi-year transition plan to ensure equitable residential and commercial tax rates; and

• A universal standard of service that would apply across the proposed amalgamated municipality.

This working group would also:

• Propose a clear and concise referendum question that is identical in both municipalities;

2327

• Determine whether a simple majority or a higher threshold should be met, and ensure that the same threshold applies in both municipalities;

• Ensure that the referendum occurs in conjunction with the next municipal election; and

• Allocate sufficient funds to develop a referendum communications plan to ensure that residents are well-informed. This plan should use all available media, including a dedicated website, community infor-mation sessions, and a direct mail package including a summary of the Citizens’ Assembly and Technical Reports, as well as a clear accounting of any anticipated financial impacts, to all area households.

2. An amalgamated Council harmonize zoning regulations and develop a new official community plan and local area plans to designate and invest in the municipality’s unique features, strengthen environmental stewardship, and promote a more coordinated approach to economic and social development;

3. An amalgamated Council harmonize bylaws to ensure consistency for local businesses and industry;

4. An amalgamated Council retain independent consultants to identify staffing redundancies and inefficiencies;

5. Current and future Councils continue to build and strengthen a respectful and cooperative relationship with local Indigenous communities; and

6. Current and future Councils work to foster a strong sense of civic responsibility and community through information campaigns that include mechanisms for on-going feedback and dialogue.


28

Meet the Members

Tanya Ablonczy: I have lived in Cowichan Valley for twenty-three years – or my entire adult life – and have lived in the heart of the city of Duncan for the past fourteen years. I first came to the valley as a young child from Alberta visiting relatives, and even at that young age, was awestruck by the wonder of this unique and incredible place. I settled here when I became a mother, because I believed it to be the cleanest, safest, and most beautiful place for children to grow up. I volunteered to be a member of the Assembly because I am passionately concerned about the strength, safety and economic viability of my community, and I believe strongly in civic duty and the power that comes to the average citizen through being accurately informed.

Andy Anand: I am from India and have lived in the Cowichan Valley since 1957. I worked at the Crofton Pulp Mill and have been retired since 1995. I am 85 years young. It was my passion to do volunteer work in the community. I have been on the school board, a chief ranger in the IOF, and a member of the Centennial Committee. I was vice chairman when the Queen visited and laid the cornerstone in the senior centre building. I have been vice chairman of the library building, the old swimming pool, and the hockey rink. I have studied at the night school on topics such as power squadron, paper-making, business management, accounting, upholstery making, lumber grading, and PLIB. I’ve played tennis and cricket and was a past member of the junior chamber of Commerce. I go fishing and camping with my family, and wanted to volunteer for the Citizens’ Assembly because I want to see Duncan and North Cowichan use their resources better.

James Atkinson: Born on Vancouver Island, I left when I was twelve years old, and returned to live in North Cowichan nine years ago. I am a supervisor for the British Columbia Ambulance Service, based in Chemainus. I currently live in Crofton. I am also an active member of the Crofton Fire Department, and I was a member of the advisory working group, that assisted in the formation of the Crofton Local Area Plan for Revitalization in the Crofton Area. Since moving to the area, I have been interested in how the communities of Duncan and North Cowichan might better manage their resources.

Martin Barker: I am a chiropractor in the city of Duncan and have lived in the valley since 1993. Originally employed at the Crofton Pulp Mill, I took advantage of an extended strike and the Forest Renewal program to train out of the forest industry – first with a degree in Kinesiology and then one in chiropractic. I am also one term short of a microbiology degree. I am an avid exercise enthusiast and backpacker and can often be found in the gym, running the local trails, or in a tent on some remote beach. This year, I plan to run my first marathon (Victoria) at the age of fifty. I slowly developed an interest in local politics, which culminated in serving on a past Duncan City Council. Now, as a citizen at large, I am very interested in the future of the valley and feel very fortunate to be involved in the Citizens’ Assembly. Jaye Bryan: After thirty years working and raising a family in Williams Lake, BC, my husband and I retired to our sunny plot of land in North Cowichan nearly five years ago. A former teacher/administrator, I currently volunteer at the local BC SPCA shelter (Cowichan and District) as a dog walker and as the Community Council chair. Along with our family pack of three dogs, I enjoy exploring the many hidden trails and infinite number of back roadways that the Cowichan Valley offers. This ongoing discovery of our district’s historical background, and my perceived view of the area’s unique mix of rural and urban neighbour-

25

29

hoods, made it important for me to join this Citizens’ Assembly and have a voice in our community’s future.

David Clark: My wife, Anna, and I relocated to the Cowichan Valley in 1988 and have lived in both the Municipality of North Cowichan and the City of Duncan. With over forty years of experience in real estate appraisal, I have had the opportunity to interact with local businesses and municipal governments, which gave me insight into the development process and planning, zoning, and building. We have seen Duncan and the Cowichan Valley grow and prosper. In retirement, there is personal reward in giving back to my community. I participated in the Citizens’ Assembly because I believe I have something to contribute to the future prosperity and continuing diversity of Duncan, North Cowichan, and the Cowichan Valley.

Dee Dohm: I was born in this area seventy-six years ago to a wonderful, supportive family. My paternal ancestors were pioneers in the area who, through many hardships, worked to build and support the community. My maternal grandparents moved to the area in the 1920s from French Canada. After completing my education, I had many opportunities to travel and work around the world.When I retired at sixty-eight, I developed an interest in comparing the livability of the places I had visited to my home community, wondering whether it is time for a serious change. My interest in the governance and growth of my community also led me to serve on the Duncan-North Cowichan Citizens’ Assembly.

Nora Dowsett: I was born and raised in the Cowichan Valley but moved to Ontario for fifteen years after getting married. We were fortunate enough to be able to move back to Duncan in 2001 and are loving it! I am a recently retired financial planner, and throughout my career, I helped people achieve their retirement goals and offered advice on invest-ments, tax, and estate planning. I am very involved with the Rotary Club and am currently serving as president of our club. I joined this Citizens’ Assembly because I believe it is important to give back to your community when you are able to. In my free time, my passion and main de-stressing activity is gardening.

Beverly Hampson: I’ve lived on Vancouver Island on and off for over ten years and contributed to multiple community initiatives. My extensive background in statistical data retrieval and analysis led me to become increasingly interested in participating in community organizations. I currently work in post-secondary education and value higher learning, which has contributed to my community interests.

Hendrik Hiensch: I have lived in North Cowichan with my family since my wife and I emigrated from the Netherlands twenty years ago. Currently, I am self-employed as a real estate investor, and prior to entering the real estate business, I worked as a natural stone mason. One of the many reasons I love the valley is because it runs on island time, which fosters a more relaxed culture than mainland Vancouver. Sailing around the Gulf Islands in my spare time is my main hobby, which I enjoy all year round. I volunteered for the Assembly because I want to give back to the community that has been good to me and my family, and I hope the Assembly will have real and positive impact on the future.

Shiyana Hunter: I am the daughter of Sandra Patricia Hunter and Jerry Lee Miller from Ontario. I’ve lived in BC for most of my life. My fourteen years in the “Warm-land” have seen me in various areas – from the top of the Malahat to my current residence in Duncan. I am a student, mother, and community member. I am working towards a Bachelor of Arts with a major in sociology and a minor in liberal studies, and I volunteer my time to various clubs and student positions. I care deeply about all people and places, and embrace collabora-tive problem solving, which motivated me to take part in the Citizens’ Assembly. Tyler Jackson: I was born and raised in the Cowichan Valley. For the past fifteen years I have been employed in the construction industry. Currently I am construction superintendent for a family-owned Island Ionstruction Company. I joined the Citizens’ Assembly due to deep concern for the future viability of the Cowichan Valley and its citizens. I truly want to see the Cowichan Valley succeed in two ways: as a hub for smaller locally owned busi-nesses and as a vibrant organic agriculture industry.

Kathryn Jacobsen: We moved to Chemainus in 2014 after working in both Toronto and


30

Calgary. I am thrilled to be back “home” in BC, where I was born. I am the first vice-president for the Chemainus Health Care Auxiliary, a non-profit organization which was established in 1899 and whose mission is to raise money for patient and health care in the province. I take every opportunity to be an active participant in my community, socially, politically and environmentally, because I believe we all have an obligation to nurture and protect how and where we live, now and for the future.

Mona Kaiser: I grew up on Thetis Island, attended school in Chemainus and Duncan, and completed a degree at the University of Victoria (BA Hons. Eng.). Studies took me to the mainland for graduate work in history at Simon Fraser University (MA) and for doctoral work at the University of British Columbia. I have had the opportunity to travel widely throughout Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand – and with my husband, Tom Rimmer, have lived and worked in many small BC communities and Nova Scotia. We returned to the Cowichan Valley in 1999, bringing these experiences with us. As a full-time parent of two with an interest in community planning and engagement, I have enjoyed serving both municipalities through advisory work on North Cowichan’s Community Planning Advisory Committee, and Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee; Duncan’s Totem Committee. Volunteer work includes “Reel Alternatives” (CV Hospice), Parent Advisory Committees, Canadian Parents for French, and most recently, vice-presidency for the Cowichan 2018 BC Summer Games. Some of my most rewarding community projects include establishing SD79’s first outdoor classroom and spearheading funding and construction of the valley’s first intergenerational community playground.

Richard Matthews: My wife Sandi and I have lived in Chemainus for twenty-four years, where we happily raised our two children. I am proud and blessed to work with the youth of our beautiful Cowichan Valley, mostly in Duncan, as a school counsellor with District 79. I love to travel, hike, and take photographs in Cowichan and beyond. I have volunteered in various capacities of community service. I chose to volunteer for the Citizens’ Assembly to engage my valley neighbours in a worthwhile discussion and to celebrate democracy.

Justin McNutt: I am a Canadian-born technology and e-commerce entrepreneur and philanthropist, currently completing a Bachelor of Engineering in civil Eengineering at the University of Victoria. I am currently working on the development of a local mining company and a tech sector in Cowichan Valley. Some of my interests include sports, business, economics, real estate, computer programming, web development, mathematics, geology, and outdoor activities. I also spend some of my time volunteering with the Victoria Innova-tion, Advanced Technology, and Entrepreneurship Council. I volunteered for the Citizens’ Assembly because I consider community engagement to be a key strategy for achieving lasting change.

Anne Murray: I moved to the Cowichan Valley in 1959 after immigrating from the UK to Prince George in 1958. In 1942, I left Singapore as a refugee. I have five children, and have held several positions in the community. I worked as a hospital nurse, served as a school trustee for twelve years, and served as a Councillor for nine years. I have also volun-teered as a community worker in child and senior care and emergency services, in addition to volunteering with museums in the area. I decided to participate in the Assembly because I love being involved with my vibrant community and working to make a positive difference for our future.

Susan Newns: I was born in England, grew up in South Africa, and immigrated to Canada in the early 1980s, finally landing in the beautiful Cowichan Valley area where I currently live. I am a recently retired English and social studies secondary school teacher, and I appreciate the hands-on opportunity offered by the Citizens’ Assembly to experience the policy development involved in local governance and to brainstorm with my fellow citizens about the best vision for our community. Now that I have some spare time, I enjoy pursuing my artistic interests – painting, , drawing, and writing – and there is certainly no shortage of inspiration all around me in our Cowichan “Warm Land.”

Fred Oud: My parents emigrated from The Netherlands in 1951 along with six children. I am the youngest and have lived in both Duncan and North Cowichan all my life. I have been a union leader, a human resources manager, and most recently the president of the Cowichan Exhibition. Although retired from full-time work, I still run a small consulting

27

31

firm, which helps keep my mind active. I have over the years taken a keener interest in the workings of my community and am an active volunteer. Those who know me can attest to my strong passion for things that are important to me. The Citizens’ Assembly is a way to volunteer for my community and hopefully make it more successful and livable.

Marilyn Palmer: I live on a lovely little heritage farm, overlooking Quamichan Lake, which we’ve named “La Ferme des Rêves” (the Farm of Dreams). I’ve been a big-city architect for many years and am now a flower farmer and volunteer president of the neighbourhood association. I volunteered to be part of the Citizens’ Assembly because I’m deeply interested in the process and its outcomes, and I see my participation as a way to contribue to my community.

Lance Reese: I have lived in the Cowichan Valley area for thirty years and moved from Crofton to Duncan four years ago. Before my retirement, I worked at the pulp mill as a pipefitter and was an active member of the PPWC union executive for over twenty years. I live with my wife of twenty-one years, and I am serving as president of our condo Council and an unpaid handyman. I participated in the Citizens’ Assembly because I like to learn, and I believe those of us who can give back to their communities should.

Don Reynierse: I’ve lived in Crofton since June 2016, having journeyed from Prince Rupert, Prince George, Vancouver, and originally Calgary. I have lived many different lives, starting work as a rural and regional land use planner, moving into real estate development and property management, federal land management, and acquisitions. Then I moved into the delivery of education and training opportunities, managing social development programming and finally, First Nations community and treaty administration. My education background covers statistics and regional and welfare economics, through to municipal and transport engineering. I am interested in auto mechanics, hunting, traveling, Spanish and Dutch. I volunteer on numerous committees and non-profit social service societies and boards. I have an interest in municipal governance, having started on this journey in the early 1970s by volunteering for Calgary City Council, and later worked on initiatives to improve and enrich the community of Grandview-Woodlands, in East Vancouver. Now I have the pleasure of being part of Cowichan, I wanted to know more about the valley and offer my impression of where I live, to this initiative on amalgamation.

Kelly Ringer-Soikie: Originally from Ottawa, Ontario, my husband and I moved to beautiful Cowichan Valley nine years ago to pursue a relaxing and nourishing life for our family in a small town full of heritage and character. In the past I’ve worked as a registered RCA in both Ottawa and the valley. Currently, I’m a stay-at-home parent who advocates for our special-needs family, so that we can thrive as a family with my husband’s full support. I am autistic so my interests are fairly restricted and enriching. They include volunteering with my church and local public schools, and personal pursuits such as online gaming, hiking, camping, and sewing. I volunteered for the Citizen’s Assembly because I am passionate about participating in community gatherings that have a lasting impact locally. Being a member of the Assembly has been a rewarding and exhausting endeavour above and beyond my daily routine, and I am thankful for the experience.

Ross Shilton: I moved to Duncan seven years ago, after living in Nanaimo for thirty years. I’m currently retired and spend most of my time helping others in the community with small acts of kindness, like taking them to the hospital, painting their house, or helping out at the church. I was motivated to volunteer with the Assembly because, having lived in seventeen different countries, I have seen what happens when cities take care of big issues but forget about the small problems. I wanted to make sure we discussed the problems of water management and Duncan’s relationship with the RCMP within the context of amalgamation. I think this Assembly has done a great job of looking forward to the future, and I was eager to be a part of that change.

Barbara Swanson: I have lived in the Cowichan Valley for over forty years. I volunteer as treasurer for our local Chemainus food bank in addition to doing some relief work at our local antique store. I spent twenty-four years working in finance for the CVRD, so I have great interest in municipal procedures and the outcome of amalgamation of the City of Duncan and the Municipality of North Cowichan.


32

Sarah Thibault: Being part of a community is important – it creates a sense of belonging and unites us. Voicing our ideas and perspectives is a start in defining how we move forward and shape our community. I think we helped in a small way to accomplish this through the Citizens’ Assembly.

Jackie Thompson: I have lived in the Cowichan Valley for twenty-two years. Before then, I was on the lower mainland for seventeen years. I love that in the Valley, you can go swimming anywhere you want for free - and it’s clean. I work in pharmacy, and when I have spare time, I walk my dog, who likes to play in water. As I’m on the borderline of the City of Duncan and Municipality of North Cowichan I experience the border first-hand, and is something interesting to be a part of.

Rick Waddell: My wife and I moved to North Cowichan from Victoria twenty-two years ago. We live on a small farm near Mt. Prevost and raise mixed livestock. After twenty-eight years with a crown corporation, I am presently semi-retired and work part-time with a mechanical engineering firm. I volunteered for the Citizens’ Assembly to get a better understanding of both municipal politics and the issue of amalgamation.

Alec Wheeler: Born in Vancouver and raised in the small fishing village of Sointula, I have been a resident of the Cowichan Valley since 2013. My background in arts and culture development (both in the non-profit and local government sectors) have led me on adven-tures in Portugal, New York, Barbados, New Zealand, Australia, Vanuatu, and Jamaica. I am currently employed with MNP LLP, one of Canada’s leading accounting, tax, and busi-ness advisory firms, and am a volunteer board member with the Duncan-Cowichan Festival Society. As a member of the Citizens’ Assembly, I have gained a deeper understanding of the function of local government, and I am thankful for the opportunity to actively participate in the growth and development of our community.

Gus Williams: I was born in Victoria and raised in Nanaimo, but I have lived most of my life in Duncan. My mother was a member of the Cowichan Tribe in Duncan, and my father was from the Songhees Nation in Victoria. Before retiring, I worked as a cook all over the country and as part of the Canadian and American navies. I have held educa-tional workshops on colonialism in many different countries, and I have been a very active member of my community. I have volunteered as president of the Intercultural Society, with the Canada Royal Youth Program, and Social Planning Cowichan. I volunteer currently on the hospital foundation and with the Cowichan food basket. I volunteered for the Citizens’ Assembly because, since they began talking about amalgamation ten years ago, I always thought it was an important discussion. I also wanted to bring a voice for the many tribes in the area that often aren’t represented in municipal governance discussions.

Andrew Wilson: I am a Cascadian, flag-flying Vancouver Islander from the Cowichan Valley, living with my beautiful family in my hometown of Duncan. I volunteered for the Assembly because I was aware of the complexities and importance of local government: the Municipality of North Cowichan collects our property taxes, the CVRD gets a cut, and the City of Duncan sends a water bill to our Duncan, BC mailing address. This Assembly was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and a great complement to my current studies in urban and social sustainability at Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo.

Anthony Wingham: I lived in Mesachie Lake my whole childhood and went to elemen-tary, middle, and high school in Lake Cowichan. I played baseball and basketball in the community and have coached the high-school teams. I was in leadership programs as well as student Council president. I moved away after graduating in 2005 and have been back and forth from Vancouver to Duncan over the last ten years. I work in construction and design with my wife. I mostly work in tiling, and my wife in design and drafting. I have worked as a gas jockey in Lake Cowichan and at the local grocery store. I spend my free time with my beautiful wife and son. We explore the outdoors all over this beautiful island for hikes and camping. I am hoping to have a better impact on my community as I grow older. I volunteered for the Assembly because I wanted to have my voice heard on an issue that affected an area I grew up in.

Jackie Wood: I grew up in Edmonton and lived in small communities before moving to the Cowichan Valley with my family sixteen years ago. I worked in the printing industry in

29

33

Edmonton for fifteen years and ran my own web development business in Duncan for several years before pursuing a career in real estate. I have been selling properties in the valley for almost ten years. My hobbies include hiking, cycling, kayaking, and living a healthy lifestyle. I enjoy being an active member of the community and appreciate the opportunity to participate in the Citizens’ Assembly. I am eager to be involved in shaping the future of the area I live in.

Three additional Assembly members were selected but were not able to complete the process due to illness or changing employment. These members are Michael Mulholland, Fiona Barr, and Vicki Easingwood. We thank them for their contributions.


34

Appendix

Minority Reports

Each member of the Assembly was invited to contribute a ‘minority report’ if they wished to express an idea, issue or concern that they believed was inadequately addressed by the Assembly. Minority reports do not represent a consensus view, but the perspective of one or more named members of the Assembly. They are provided for the benefit of the reader so that he or she may consider the additional views of various members of the Assembly.

Tanya Ablonczy: In regard to the proposed amalgamation of Duncan and North Cowichan, my personal opinion is as follows.

While I am not violently opposed to amalgamation, I am decidedly against it. I deeply respect the consensus of my colleagues in this matter, but must agree to entirely disagree. I believe that their inclination to support the recommendation was born of high hopes and a positive attitude rather than likely and quantifiable benefit to the City of Duncan, of which I am a resident.

I believe that the City of Duncan and the Municipality of North Cowichan have vastly different demographics, land use and development challenges, and political interests. I believe that essentially nothing would change with regard to Duncan’s current success and viability—economically, socially, or in terms of the levels of service delivery.

I believe that there were some legitimate incongruities addressed throughout this process, and I believe that they could all be rectified without the cost, commitment, and upheaval of amalgamation.

I would recommend the following:

• Achieving the greatest possible degree of service integration between the two groups, including one shared infrastructure system and public-works department, a jointly funded administrator or administrative team for the two fire departments, and increasing service integration where possible with the Cowichan tribes. I am entirely in agreement with the recommendation that the two fire halls continue to operate at status quo.

• The implementation of a joint official community plan.

• A binding commitment from each group to require a joint consensus when initiating development plans for borderline properties, and a commitment from each side to contribute equal effort to ensuring smooth physical flow in borderline areas.

• That the City of Duncan should immediately put an end to signage bylaw inequities in situations where businesses directly adjacent on frontage are subject to different regulations. I understand what these bylaws were initially trying to achieve, but when businesses that are contributing to the tax base are facing a clear disadvan-tage, changes must be made.

• That the issue of inadequate police funding for the required number of staff to adequately handle current call volume in the City of Duncan be addressed in the most aggressive and immediate ways possible, as a joint effort between the Municipality of North Cowichan and the City of Duncan. If necessary, the two

3135

groups should draft a proposal to the provincial government to amend the funding model to address current inadequacies.

• That the City of Duncan and the Municipality of North Cowichan immediately and aggressively pursue a cohesive and jointly funded branding of the Cowichan Valley as an afficionado tourist destination of global rank. I believe it would be wise to include the area from Mill Bay to Cassidy, as well as Lake Cowichan, in international branding as part of the Cowichan Valley destination – and recom-mend that this also be a focus of pursuit.

• That the two Councils should be as continuously co-operative as possible, and that partisanship and special interest should be set aside for the sake of economic and social development of the valley as a whole.

• That both the city and the municipality explore ways by which to lessen tax burdens on local businesses and provide incentives for property upgrades and maintenance. I believe that the city should also consider increasing services to businesses, particularly in the areas of waste disposal and sidewalk snow removal in the downtown core.

I feel honoured and blessed to be part of this process and to have gotten to know such an amazing, admirable, and enjoyable group of individuals as my colleagues, the guests, and the facilitation team. Despite my disagreement with the recommendation outcome, I believe strongly in the value of this process as part of our democratic system.

A special thank you to the staff of Duncan Meadows golf course for providing our venue, complete with great food and service.

To all involved, well done.

Nora Dowsett: I came to this Assembly with the assumption that “of course amalga-mation would save money and be more efficient.” However, after going through this process, I learned that there were far more factors to consider than money.

I came to understand and appreciate the importance of a shared future vision for the Cowichan Valley, even though we have many diverse communities and neighbour-hoods within our borders. I also had been previously unaware of the existence of local neighbourhood and community associations. I believe that these are a valuable resource for local government to gain a clear understanding of what is important to its citizens. I also believe that it is the responsibility of local government to encourage and foster these associations and to take action on their recommendations.

Mona Kaiser: Two concerns emerged for me from our Assembly discussions.

First was the realization that we could not attach an economic value to the potential benefits of amalgamation. Costs can—and have been—clearly calculated, but in order to keep our recommendation free of conjecture, unquantifiable benefits (such as an even playing field for local businesses, economic development through shared vision and branding, or a unified voice at the provincial table) had to remain outside our calculations, potentially skewing the cost/benefit analysis to appear more expensive than it should.

Secondly, the further we examined the two municipalities, the more I began to question the long-term financial viability of the City of Duncan. Duncan’s limited size has resulted in not only a very narrow tax base, but also one with a disproportionate assessment of business and property tax (no relief through industrial taxes) from its neighbours. Aging city infrastructure will require significant investment on the near horizon (sewer life remaining 15 per cent, roads and drainage 22 per cent), as will police costs once Duncan’s population gains another sixty-six residents. The current policing funding formula contributes to a degree of underservicing in this area, and although taxes are


36

being collected to help bridge the inevitable increase in police costs, these funds are currently being used to pay for capital projects. Given the degree to which we all benefit from a strong commercial, cultural, and institutional core associated with the City of Duncan, unaddressed financial issues facing the city would likely have implications for the whole valley.

Don Reynierse: I feel I am standing on one side of the fence (amalgamation) and looking over it, seeing a municipality constrained by size (with a limited tax base to raise revenue), while facing major costs both to replace infrastructure nearing its end and increased policing costs. The Municipality’s only avenue previously was to allow commercial development in a two-block core, creating a tax base that has—in turn—created horrendous traffic congestion only seen in the likes of major urban metropolises. Any further tax increases will add to its current fate - urban decay. This is an evolutionary event for most, and a dire challenge for even small municipalities heroically facing it.

Drawing from surrounding resources is mirrored by loss of your own destiny – a fate already or inevitably faced by lack of a tax base that has a viable financial future. You also have to carry existing municipal debt from the surrounding area – is this an additional edge to a conventional sword?

Either way, the current situation is detrimentally affecting the ‘valley’, or ‘warm-land’. Needed is a well-thought-out, coordinated and planned implementation. And yet there are overlapping challenges - numerous local authorities and jurisdictions present in the valley; invisible boundaries that are not evident; and resources coordinated separately.

The solution is not found readily in existing regional authorities.

Public Roundtable Meetings

On the evening of Thursday, February 2, 2017, the Duncan-North Cowichan Citizens’ Assembly on Municipal Amalgamation hosted its first of two public roundtable meetings at the Island Savings Centre. More than seventy residents attended, as did two dozen Assembly members and several local Councillors. Peter MacLeod, the Assembly’s Chair, led the meeting and explained the Assembly’s mandate. Following his presentation, he invited residents to discuss four questions in small groups. Assembly members sat at each table and helped to facilitate the discussion and take notes.

Discussion questions

1. How have you seen the Cowichan Valley change?2. What values do you want local government to exemplify? 3. What issues or concerns do you think matter most when considering whether

Duncan and North Cowichan should be amalgamated? 4. What advice would you like to give the members of the Citizens’ Assembly?

Below are short summaries of each discussion and examples of the comments that we received.

Question 1: How have you seen the Cowichan Valley change?

Growth: Participants observed how the Cowichan Valley has grown. There are many more people, more housing developments, and, frequently, more traffic. They also discussed how the economic base had shifted from resource extraction to services, and how more people were choosing to commute to Victoria. They also cited demographic

33

37

changes—each year it seems like there are fewer young people and families, and more retirees. They also discussed the need for a more “coordinated plan” between the two municipalities to better manage growth and resolve outstanding tensions between urban and rural areas. Sample comments:• A lot of new people, we used to know everybody• Increase in split between rural and urban• Resource-based to service-based community• Agricultural shift to wineries, etc., has increased tourism• Chemainus: transformation from mill town to tourist destination• Aging populations in both municipalities• Increase of “out-of-town” demographic• Number of youth/students has decreased• Increase in traffic; buses are new and improved• Commuter society, a bedroom community• Infrastructure changes and fewer services—e.g. no police in Chemainus.• Even if services are centralised, many people don’t benefit. Services are loaded at

the south end of the valley• Dramatic traffic increase—e.g. crawl through the lights in Duncan. The roads haven’t

kept up with the traffic infrastructure. There is more commuting

Character: Participants clearly take pride in the distinct character of the Cowichan Valley and its many unique communities. They described the importance of being a “green” community; maintaining local agriculture and small-scale retail; encouraging new wineries; and appreciating good environmental stewardship. Others mentioned how these features were being diluted by “big box” stores, or threatened by increased crime, periodic water shortages and management issues.

Sample comments:• Unique—valley very agricultural• Community has embraced the farmers market, vineyards, slow food• Active arts and family events• Welcoming “big box” stores—unfortunately• Commercial shift from small businesses to bigger chains, etc. (better shopping)• Lots of empty storefronts, though now filling up in core of Duncan• New emphasis on the environment and recreation; many new recreational

venues—pool, track, ball fields, parks• There has been a rise in pan-handlers, homeless, graffiti and drugs• A substantial increase in population, but needs a coordinated plan• Loss of green space, agricultural land • Water shortages— same water source• Collective attitude• Lack of opportunity for young people• “Roots” feeling is coming back• Duncan has a more “green” mindset• Rural atmosphere formed my outlook/who I am

Relationship to local government: Many participants felt their relationship with local government had changed and that both municipalities could be more responsive to the concerns of residents. Several participants admitted that they were unsure of the differences between the two municipalities or their boundaries.

Sample comments:• CVRD—25 employees in the early 1970s• Property taxes gone up• More politicians? One Cowichan Valley• Lot more governance; lot more bureaucracy—and more power• Slow process for builders


38

• Local government more involved in management of resources, and less efficient—but taxes more

• Multi-level governments/no coordination of services—more separation of commu-nity

• Stronger feeling of support• Lack of leadership or vision• Lack of motivation on the part of citizens • Need to force politicians to get involved

Question 2: What values do you want local government to exemplify?

Fiscal Responsibility: Many participants discussed the need for frugality and respect for taxpayer money, but also the need to balance prudent fiscal management with important social investments, like affordable housing or environmental initiatives that protect and preserve the natural habitat.

Sample comments:• Be frugal • Less bureaucracy• Taxes should be used responsibly• Forward-thinking and willing to encourage and attract new business• Integrity, accountability, fiscal conservatism, streamlined regulatory processes,

protection for small businesses, preserving the environment• Respect taxpayers• Don’t over-regulate• Make decisions based on community values • Fiscal responsibility vs. progress • Not neglecting culture• Remember those who came before• Balance—environment, economy, social aspect (triple bottom line)• Good fiscal management• Social value—social issues need to address. E.g. social housing, affordable

housing • Value for our dollars

Community-building: Participants look to local government to reflect local voices and perspectives and to represent the different needs and interests of community members. Many would like to see local government make a stronger effort to listen and respond to community concerns and to take greater care to ensure that the special qualities of the area’s many communities are preserved.

Sample comments:• Listen to the people• Respect for First Nations• Representatives that live in the community• An active listening Council—when public has concerns, they listen. • Accessible hours for public participation• A Council keen on exploring issues for all ages: children, working parents, retirees• More responsibility to citizens’ points of view• Values of old—big picture, long-term• Government needs to provide tools and not rely on technology to encourage

people to become more informed citizens• Show respect and love for community vision with every decision • Strength is in diversity• Engagement of youth, First Nations• Find what make us, us• Proactive and exploratory—be open to financing citizen groups, bringing in new

info by outside experts and ideas from other groups of citizens. Need to be current

35

39

• Local government should value and promote citizen participation, beyond voting in Municipal Elections

Transparency: Participants also felt that there should be more openness and account-ability on the part of local government.

Sample comments:• Transparency—doing what they say they will• Accountability• Accessibility (know our government members)• Councillors that listen to the public and act. Be accountable • They are part-timers who just fill a seat and don’t do a good job. We should pay

more to get better people. We should have well-experienced, educated, and full-time Councillors

• Local government open for business • Government that listens • Consistency of government rules • Be more transparent when wanting to put in another service/facility

Collaboration: Many participants noted the lack of communication and collaboration between the two municipalities, believing they should do more to align and coordinate their activities.

Sample comments:• • Unity, cohesiveness, and working together• • Collaboration• • Working together—Council doesn’t do this now. Not cohesive• • Working with CVRD to create a shared environment with shared trails• • Willingness to share resources—i.e. snow removal, street cleaning, etc. • • No sense of unity, people are divided• • Focus on regional goals• • Tourism vs pastoral• • Industry community• • A community theme for region• • A shared vision

Question 3: What issues or concerns do you think matter most when considering whether Duncan and North Cowichan should be amalgamated?

Most participants focused on the financial challenges faced by both municipalities and by residents. Participants expressed concern about the potential cost of the amalga-mation process—severance pay, for example—as well as the cost of sharing services. Broadly, participants were keen to better understand the fiscal implications of amalga-mation and take a long view toward any costs or savings.

Participants were also keen to discuss what it might look like to take a “whole-of-valley” view of land management and zoning. Many believe it would be advantageous to streamline existing development guidelines, creating a more consistent and balanced plan for growth. They also cited the benefit of harmonizing bylaws, transportation plan-ning, and emergency services.

Participants noted several concerns regarding elected representation and the impor-tance of ensuring that future investments in Duncan wouldn’t disadvantage other communities in the valley. To this end, participants repeatedly flagged the importance of preserving and investing in the distinct identity of the many communities in the Cowichan Valley and the importance of maintaining a “small-town feeling.”


40

Sample comments: • A community of communities: Respect and celebrate identity, value, vision of each/

all: Chemainus; Crofton; Maple Bay; Sahtlam; Quamichan Lake; Duncan; and Genoa Bay

• Role of citizens: citizen participation—harder for larger number of citizens to have access and their voices heard; lose access and government representation

• Efficiencies of services and resources. Proximity, accessibility, and share of services/resources for outer communities

• How do you rationalize resource management between the different communities and avoid disparities in services—e.g. Duncan police response time is faster at the moment

• Don’t want amalgamation to make my taxes go up• Want to make sure things aren’t central in Duncan, and every community is fairly

represented and not neglected• Cost to amalgamate? Jobs lost/created—what’s the debt burden comparison

between Duncan and North Cowichan?• Will amalgamation bring young people? Will it create jobs? How will future

industry/jobs be affected?• Improve efficiencies; simplify organization; efficiency of resources; relocation of

offices; automation/technology• Look at European examples of separation of town from country• How to blend community plans?• Assets: what does each party bring to the table?• Staffing: severance costs?• Land management and zoning and sustainability of the whole valley watershed/

forest/protected land• What is the timeline?

Question 4: What advice would you like to give the members of the Citizens’ Assembly?

Participants urged the members of the Assembly to keep an open mind, think about the long term, and make a rational argument for either option based on detailed analysis.

Sample comments: • Keep an open mind and listen well• Review previous amalgamation concerns, and other municipalities’ experiences

and case studies, including cost comparisons with other similarly-sized amalgama-tion communities

• Expect mistakes and make the best of them• Push for quantitative data, and explore the pros and cons• Develop real criteria to make it worthwhile• Focus on the facts and analyse the source• Insist on a clear direction and full documentation with citizen access to the data• Listen to what citizens and the public have said• Become an informer to the community at large• “We, not I”• Don’t allow one community to overcome the other—either the different identities

of Duncan and North Cowichan, or in urban/rural identities. Listen to the small communities.

• Be strong advocates of your neighbourhood• Don’t be influenced by perceived limitations or by “expert” opinion. Be brave and

innovative—be the champion for community• Ensure land-use planning is considered• There should be citizen input post-report • Go out to the individual communities and hold meetings in each community—not

just Duncan Central. Get the whole community involved (i.e. Crofton, Maple Bay, Chemainus)

• Properly advertise—one-month notice and reminders up to the meeting

37

41

• These four questions on the website for public feedback?• Publish your report in a newspaper and hold a series of meetings once your report

is done to inform the public• What should the percentage of vote yes or no be to trigger amalgamation (is 51

per cent enough?)• Show up early, stay late; be curious and realistic• Think about the big picture—don’t sweat the small stuff, and consider the benefits

twenty years down the road• Don’t just focus on economics; consider vision and values equally• Take your time—as much as is needed• Don’t be stressed by the magnitude of the task• Keep a sense of humour and keep up the good work

Public Roundtable Meeting 2

On the evening of Thursday, April 6, 2017, the Duncan-North Cowichan Citizens’ Assembly on Municipal Amalgamation hosted its second of two public roundtable meetings at the Island Savings Centre. More than forty residents attended, as did two dozen Assembly members and several local Councillors. Peter MacLeod, the Assem-bly’s Chair, led the meeting and explained the Assembly’s mandate.

Following his presentation, he invited residents to discuss four questions in small groups. Assembly members sat at each table and helped to facilitate the discussion and take notes.

Discussion Questions:

1. What are the benefits and drawbacks of amalgamation?2. How would Duncan residents and businesses benefit or not benefit from

amalgamation?3. How would North Cowichan residents and businesses benefit or not benefit

from amalgamation? 4. What would you like us to share or explain in our report? What do you need to

know to have confidence in our recommendations?

Question 1: What are the benefits and drawbacks of amalgamation?

Benefits

Participants felt that amalgamation would create a better environment for businesses and stimulate local economy.

Sample comments: • Large population is more attractive to business• Branding consistency• Businesses have a level playing field• Small businesses may have a more enhanced voice• Ease of doing business with single municipality—single rules/bylaws evens the

playing field• More than one business centre• Potential revitalization of Duncan businesses

Participants felt there would be benefits through the streamlining of bylaws and services, and greater consistency in planning and policy.


42

Sample comments: • Well integrated services• Streamline bylaws• Consistent/effective policy and development decisions• Ability to plan together for the future• More effective governance of area• Reduction of political processes requiring decisions from two Councils

Participants also felt that the separate identities of the two areas could create a stronger amalgamated city; that amalgamation would solidify the current interdependence between the two areas; and that amalgamation could lead to a stronger government.

Drawbacks

Participants were worried about the social impact of amalgamation and, in particular, the loss of a small community feel. Sample comments:• Losing the personal service in the city of Duncan—the small town feel• Potential loss of small community identities

Participants worried about the financial impact of amalgamation, and the potential for higher costs (for Duncan residents in particular).

Sample comments:• City of Duncan residents would pay for the higher policing costs earlier than they

otherwise would• Tax increases for Duncan (based on the provincial government report 2016-07-25)• Cost of utilities going up• Duncan—loss of grant money • Impact on NC businesses • Potential negative response to NC businesses• Is Duncan going to become commercially dominant?

Participants were also worried about the political aspects of amalgamation, with less representation for Duncan residents. Sample comments:• Potential lack of voice/representation for Duncan• Loss of easy contact with municipal officials—smaller community more responsive• Harmonizing policies would be time consuming

Questinon 2: How would Duncan residents and businesses benefit or not benefit from amalgamation?

Benefits

Participants felt that Duncan could benefit by harmonizing their rules and bylaws.

Sample comments:• Solving current bureaucratic nightmare• More even playing field for businesses • Harmonization will be easier to achieve on service fees, licenses, land use controls,

zoning

Participants thought amalgamation would create a better environment for business.

39

43

Sample comments:• More level playing field• Businesses gain a stronger united voice• Lower business tax rate• Harmonizes business rules

Participants felt there would be more potential for growth. Sample comments:• Better potential for downtown growth • Real “downtown” feeling for Duncan, and with boundaries removed, Duncan’s

economy could grow

Drawbacks

Participants were concerned about the impact on finance, and the risk of higher costs. Sample comments:• Some policing costs (anticipated already by Duncan)• Potential property tax rise

Participants were concerned about Duncan getting fair representation. Sample comments:• May lose access to an engaged Council staff—small town becomes big town• Representation (potentially less for Duncan and businesses)

Participants also worried that Duncan could lose its uniqueness. Becoming part of a larger community was seen as both a positive and a negative. Participants felt that social housing is an issue answered better with amalgamation, and that residents would enjoy more unity between communities.

Question 3: How would North Cowichan residents and businesses benefit or not benefit from amalgamation?

Benefits

Participants felt that there would be a better environment for business. Sample comments:• Level playing field for businesses • Harmonizes business rules

Participants felt that North Cowichan would benefit by streamlining regulations and bylaws. Sample comments:• Clears up taxation/confusion over addresses• Harmonization and cost sharing need to emphasized • Harmonization will be easier to achieve on service fees, licences, land use

controls, zoning

Participants also felt that amalgamation could possibly eliminate issues of multiple street names, and offer a stronger sense of identity to the south end of North Cowichan.

Drawbacks

Participants were concerned about the impact on finance and the risk of higher costs. Participants were also concerned that North Cowichan would face a lack of representation.


44

Sample comments: • May lose access to engaged Council staff• Lose contact with Council/Councillors

Participants mentioned the need to maintain or restore the rural nature of North Cowichan or run the risk of losing a “community of communities.”

Question 4: What would you like us to share or explain in our report? What do you need to know to have confidence in our recommendations?

Recurring themes: • Can Duncan and North Cowichan explore another approach other than amalga-

mation to solve the “problem”?• Attendees requested more information about level of consensus among the Citi-

zens’ Assembly: whether they had enough information, clarity, and time to properly discuss issues; and whether they felt there was any bias.

• Attendees would have appreciated more information about what would happen with emergency services after amalgamation.

Additional themes:• Clarify water issues regarding shared supply, distribution, and control of watershed• Clarify borders—i.e. mailing address • Could amalgamation attract a younger workforce?• What implications will amalgamation have on the abilities of the Councils to carry

on their normal business during the amalgamation process?• Consider more amalgamations in CVRD to reduce the costs • More has to be known about other jurisdictions in CVRD, seems inefficient• More has to be known about public space and who owns it • More details re: cost differences/savings (numbers)

WebsiteThroughout the Assembly, the secretariat maintained a website, dnc-cama.ca. The purpose of the site was to share copies of various resources and reports, as well as presentations made to the Assembly, with Cowichan Valley residents. These materials will remain available to download until the end of 2017.

Citizens’ Assembly on Municipal Amalgamation Terms of Reference

1.0 Objective of the Citizens’ Assembly on Municipal Amalgamation The Citizens’ Assembly on Municipal Amalgamation is a deliberative process intended to provide area residents with an opportunity to participate actively in developing and evaluating the case for amalgamating the City of Duncan and the Municipality of North Cowichan. The Citizens’ Assembly will be an impartial, advisory body charged with providing detailed recommendations representing a broad consensus concerning the proposed amalgamation. The Assembly will work to represent all residents and exem-plify high standards of transparency, accountability, and robust civic participation.

2.0 Mandate of the AssemblyThe Citizens’ Assembly is tasked by the City of Duncan and the Municipality of North Cowichan (the Municipalities) to learn about the needs and interests of local residents, examine the implications of creating a new, amalgamated municipal structure, and advise local Councillors and their administrations on the conditions under which the

41

45

Municipalities should proceed.

Specifically, the Citizens’ Assembly on Municipal Amalgamation will develop:• A set of values which describe their aspirations for good local governance; • A list of issues which they believe need to be satisfactorily resolved for municipal

amalgamation to merit consideration; and• A detailed recommendation concerning municipal amalgamation, including any

conditions which would need to be satisfied if a merger was to proceed.

To assist the members of the Assembly with their task, an extensive learning program will provide them with the opportunity:• To examine the Municipalities’ respective infrastructure, services, operations, and

governance structures;• To inform and review the Amalgamation Study being undertaken concurrently with

the Citizens’ Assembly;• To learn from relevant case studies concerning prior, similar municipal amalgama-

tions in British Columbia; and• To consult with and learn from independent experts as well as local residents.

The Assembly will also host two Public Roundtable Meetings. These meetings will provide local residents with an opportunity to express the views and make it possible for members of the Assembly to test their assumptions and ideas with other residents. 3.0 Schedule of the AssemblyThe Assembly will meet over six days in early 2017.

1. Saturday, January 21, 2017; 9am–4pm (Assembly meeting 1)2. Thursday, February 2, 2017; 6pm–8pm (Public Roundtable Meeting A)3. Saturday, February 4, 2017; 9am–4pm (Assembly meeting 2)4. Saturday, February 25, 2017; 9am–4pm (Assembly meeting 3)

Interim directions document sent to Technical Consultants

5. Saturday April 1, 2017; 9am–4pm (Assembly meeting 4)6. Thursday, February 8, 2017; 6pm–8pm (Public Roundtable Meeting B)7. Saturday, April 8, 2017; 9am–4pm (Assembly meeting 5)8. Saturday, April 22, 2017; 9am–4pm (Assembly meeting 6)

Additional meetings of the Assembly may be scheduled at the Assembly’s discretion and with the authorization of the chair. The Assembly will also host two Public Round-table Meetings, which will be open to all residents of Duncan and North Cowichan.

4.0 Reporting and Communications4.1 General ReportingThe Municipalities will develop a shared webpage that will list the members of the Assembly, a detailed agenda including all speakers and resources, and the Assembly’s Terms of Reference. Following each Assembly meeting, a brief summary of its activities and progress will be posted.

4.2 Interim Directions DocumentFollowing its first three meetings, the Assembly will issue a brief directions document listing its draft values and the issues or questions that the Assembly believes deserve further study and consideration. This document will be conveyed to the Amalgamation Study team for the purpose of shaping their research activities.

4.3 Final ReportThe Assembly will deliver its report to the Municipalities no later than May 31, 2017. The report will include a letter from the chair, an overview of the process, and the proposed values, identified issues and final recommendations of the Assembly. It


46

will also include an appendix that contains copies of all materials considered by the Assembly, a list of the members of the Assembly, and a “minority report” that documents any dissenting perspectives.

4.4 CommunicationsThe Assembly’s chair is authorized as the exclusive spokesperson for the Assembly and will approve all public communications regarding the conduct of the Assembly unless otherwise delegated.

5.0 Composition of the Citizens’ Assembly5.1 Recruitment ProcessMembers of the Assembly will be randomly selected by Civic Lottery—a mechanism that ensures that a broad, representative cross-section of local residents are selected to participate. Ten thousand letters will be sent to households inviting residents to register as volunteers before a publicly–specified deadline. Within a week after the deadline, a blind draw will select members of the Assembly from the pool of registered volunteers.

5.2 Criteria for MembershipThe Citizens’ Assembly will consist of thirty-six members. In order to be eligible to serve on this Citizens’ Assembly, an applicant must:• Reside within the City of Duncan or the Municipality of North Cowichan, and• Be at least eighteen years old at the time of volunteering. Additional qualifications: • Prospective volunteers may only submit their name to the Civic Lottery once.• All residents who live at a household which has received a Civic Lottery package

may volunteer to serve on the Assembly. However, only one person per residential address can be selected as a member of the Assembly.

• Residents directly employed by the Municipalities, as well as any current municipal, provincial, or federal elected representatives are ineligible to serve as members of the Assembly.

5.3 Assembly CompositionThe Assembly will be composed of:• Eighteen men and eighteen women;• A proportionate number of members from four age cohorts: 18-29, 30-44, 45-64,

and 65+;• Twelve residents from the City of Duncan and twenty-four residents from the Munici-

pality of North Cowichan;• A proportionate number of members from three sub-areas in the City of Duncan

and six sub-areas in North Cowichan; and• At least two members who self-identify as Indigenous.

Proportions will be established based on the 2011 census profile.

To assist the Assembly members in participating, reasonable childcare, eldercare, and transportation costs will be reimbursed. Assistance will also be provided to those members with different physical or learning abilities. The working language of the Assembly is English. Translation services are not available.

6.0 Roles and Responsibilities6.1 Roles and Responsibilities of Assembly MembersMembers of the Assembly are expected to fulfil their duties and agree to:• Attend all sessions of the Assembly as well as the two Public Roundtable Meetings;• Work to understand and represent the varied perspectives of all residents in both

Municipalities;• Treat each other with respect and take an active role in the work of the Assembly;

and;

43

47

• Work collaboratively to achieve a strong consensus concerning the Assembly’s recommendations.

If a member of the Assembly must withdraw owing to illness or unexpected events prior to the third meeting of the Assembly, a new member will be appointed from the pool of volunteers who submitted their name to the Civic Lottery. Members who withdraw following the third meeting will not be replaced unless so directed by the Chair.

6.2 Roles and Responsibilities of the ChairThe Chair of the Assembly is appointed by the firm responsible for undertaking the Assembly and is tasked to:• Oversee a fair and representative selection process to appoint members of the

Assembly;• Develop and execute a sound deliberative process that upholds high democratic

standards and that yields a clear recommendation for consideration by the Coun-cils of both Municipalities;

• Develop and execute a balanced curriculum that will ensure that members of the Assembly are adequately and appropriately informed and able to fulfil their mandate;

• Support respectful dialogue and deliberation amongst members;• Ensure that regular updates concerning the Assembly’s proceedings are made

publicly available;• Produce and deliver a Final Report concerning the Assembly’s activities and recom-

mendations before May 31, 2017;• Exercise discretion in ensuring and safeguarding the integrity and sound conduct of

the Assembly;

The chair acts as project executive and lead moderator. Decisions concerning the conduct of the Assembly are made at the Chair’s discretion in consultation with the Chief Administrative Officer of each Municipality.

6.3 The Roles and Responsibilities of Other PartiesThe City of Duncan and the Municipality of North Cowichan will work to support the Assembly and ensure its success. They will endeavour to:• Provide expertise and access to relevant perspectives, documents and other

materials; and• Give careful and timely consideration to the Assembly’s Final Report, responding

publicly and in detail to the Assembly’s recommendations.• The Amalgamation Study team will respond to the issues and questions identified

in the Interim Directions Document, and support the Assembly in its deliberations by providing impartial expertise.

• Both parties agree to respect and support the independence and integrity of the Assembly.

Program development & facilitation

The Duncan-North Cowichan Citizens’ Assembly was designed and facilitated by MASS LBP. MASS is Canada’s leader in the use of long-form deliberative and partici-patory processes to shape public policy.

Since 2007, MASS LBP has led some of Canada’s most original and ambitious efforts to engage citizens in tackling tough policy options while pioneering the use of Civic Lotteries and Citizens’ Reference Panels. To date, more than 300,000 households across the country have received invitations to participate in 29 Citizens’ Assemblies and Reference Panels formed by governments to address a wide range of issues. To learn more about their work, please visit masslbp.com


48

Final Report and Recommendation of the Duncan-North Cowichan Citizens’ Assembly

49

Amalgamation StudyTechnical Analysis

prepared for

50

REPORT FOR :

Duncan-North Cowichan Citizens' Assembly on Amalgamation

PREPARED BY:

Urban Systems Ltd550 - 1090 Homer Street Vancouver, BC V6B 2W9T. 604.235.1701

March 29, 2017

USL file: 2323.0007.01

This report is prepared for the sole use of City of Duncan. No representations of any kind are made by Urban Systems Ltd. or its employees to any party with whom Urban Systems Ltd. does not have a contract. Copyright © 2017 Urban Systems Ltd.

Photo credit: Cover [right], "Chemainus Theater" by Keith Cuddeback is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

51

Duncan / North Cowichan | Amalgamation Study | i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ........................................................................ 1

Background .................................................................................. 1

Local Government Overview ....................................................... 2

Study Method and Report Overview............................................ 7

2. Overview of Duncan and North Cowichan ....................... 10

Duncan and North Cowichan at a Glance ................................. 10

Organizational Overview ............................................................ 12

3. Financial Overview .......................................................... 14

Property Taxation....................................................................... 14

Revenues and Expenditures...................................................... 22

Capital Assets and Projects ....................................................... 26

Other Considerations ................................................................. 30

4. Municipal Administration and Service Impacts ................. 32

General Government ................................................................. 33

Planning and Development Services......................................... 42

Public Works and Engineering/Transportation Services ........... 46

Protective Services .................................................................... 53

Environmental Health ................................................................ 64

Parks and Recreation Services ................................................. 68

5. Financial Impacts ............................................................. 72

Potential Annual Impacts to an Amalgamated Municipality ...... 72

Potential One-Time Implementation Expenses ......................... 79

Potential Property Tax Impacts ................................................. 80

6. Regional District Impacts ................................................. 89

Current Services ........................................................................ 89

Key Amalgamation Considerations ........................................... 90

52

Duncan / North Cowichan | Amalgamation Study | ii

Discussion .................................................................................. 90

7. Key considerations .......................................................... 92

Community ................................................................................. 92

Governance ............................................................................... 93

Transition Process ..................................................................... 96

Community Vision, Planning, and Development ....................... 98

Social and Environmental Goals ............................................... 99

Impacts of Not Amalgamating ................................................. 101

References ........................................................................... 102

Appendix A – Citizens’ Assembly Questions ........................ 103

Appendix B – Current Organizational Charts ........................ 104

Appendix C – Long-Term Debt (as of 2016) ......................... 107

53

Duncan / North Cowichan | Amalgamation Study | 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Background

Context

The possibility of amalgamating Duncan and North Cowichan has been debated by residents of both municipalities for years, including a previous referendum nearly four decades ago. During the 2014 municipal election, voters were asked if they were in favour of conducting a study on amalgamation. At the time, 52 percent of Duncan electors and 68 percent of North Cowichan electors voted in favour of a study. As a result, the municipalities established a citizen-led approach to research, study, and discuss the potential for amalgamation of the two municipalities. This technical study supports that process, which is being undertaken by the Duncan-North Cowichan Citizens’ Assembly on Municipal Amalgamation.

Duncan and North Cowichan are highly integrated communities; it is difficult to know where one begins and where one ends. Residents regularly travel between the two jurisdictions for work, school, recreation, and day-to-day tasks. The municipalities cooperate and share costs on many existing services, including the following:

• The municipalities share costs for the Cowichan Aquatic Centre and the Island Savings Centre. Both facilities are in North Cowichan but close to the border of the two municipalities.

• The City of Duncan supplies water to many residents in North Cowichan.

• The two municipalities, Cowichan Tribes, and Cowichan Valley Regional District (CVRD) Electoral Areas are served by the same sewage treatment plant. This plant site is leased on Cowichan Tribes land.

• The two municipalities are served by the same RCMP detachment (although Duncan is served by the RCMP Provincial Unit and North Cowichan is served by an RCMP Municipal Unit).

• The Duncan Fire Department and North Cowichan Fire Department provide mutual aid to each other.

• The municipalities have developed an Inter-Municipal Relationship Protocol.

Recognizing the existing level of cooperation and integration between the two municipalities, this study seeks to identify the key administrative, financial, and service impacts of amalgamation.

54


Study Purpose

This technical study helps to fulfill the mandate set by the vote in favour of studying the potential for municipal amalgamation. The study supports the work of a parallel Citizens’ Assembly process, which involves developing a set of values for good local governance, establishing a list of issues that need to be resolved for amalgamation to be considered, making a recommendation regarding amalgamation. The technical study identifies the key administrative, financial, and service impacts of amalgamation to help residents and elected officials make an informed decision.

As part of this process, the Citizens’ Assembly provided a series of questions to be addressed through this study (see Appendix A). These questions are addressed throughout this report.

Local Government Overview

Definition of a Municipality

Under the Community Charter, municipalities are recognized as an independent order of government. Municipalities have broad authority to provide a variety of services to meet local needs, including, but not limited to, the following:1

• General government; • Transportation; • Protective services; • Environmental protection;

1 Local Government Department. Municipalities. Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, N.D. http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/pathfinder-mun.htm (March, 2017). 55


• Recreation and Culture; • Land use planning and regulation of development; and, • Regulation of other areas under municipal jurisdiction.

Municipalities are governed by an elected mayor and council. The size of council is determined by the Community Charter and based on the population and class of the municipality. As the City of Duncan and Municipality of North Cowichan are both municipalities of less than 50,000 residents, their councils are set at a mayor and six councillors.

Amalgamation

Amalgamation is a type of municipal restructuring where two or more existing municipalities combine to form a single new municipality. In BC, amalgamation must be approved by a majority of voters in each municipality. Overall, municipal restructure is not uncommon in BC. However, the amalgamation of municipalities is rare because local governments have alternative options for sharing services. The last voluntary amalgamation occurred over two decades ago, when the District of Abbotsford and District of Matsqui joined to form the City of Abbotsford (see detailed description below).

Amalgamation, as with other forms of municipal restructuring, occurs through five phases:2

Phase 1: The communities considering amalgamation contact the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development (CSCD) to express interest in studying the issue.

Phase 2: A committee is created by the relevant local governments to oversee the amalgamation study and manage public consultation. In this study, the Citizens’ Assembly, facilitated by a consultant (MASS LBP), was created to accomplish this goal.

Phase 3: The terms of reference for the study are established and a Request for Proposal is issued to select a consultant to complete the technical study. The study is funded in part by each of the relevant municipalities, as well as through a provincial Restructure Planning Grant. For this study, this report is the fulfillment of this phase.

Phase 4: The study is presented to the community. The committee (Citizens’ Assembly) will make a recommendation regarding amalgamation, including any conditions which need to be met. It will be up to both Councils to determine how to proceed, including whether or not to recommend a referendum to the Province. The final decision to order a referendum rests with the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. If the study proceeds to a referendum, the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development would normally offer a restructuring assistance grant.

2 Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Managing Changes to Local Government Structure in British Columbia: A Review and Program Guide. Province of British Columbia, 2000. 56


Phase 5: The referendum is held. If citizens of both municipalities vote in favour of amalgamation, implementation will begin. The Ministry will work with Legislative Council to prepare Letters Patent for a potential recommendation by the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development to the Provincial Cabinet regarding the amalgamation of the municipalities. If amalgamation is approved, Ministry staff will normally provide financial assistance and help to coordinate the transition process.

History of Amalgamation in BC

Most people are familiar with amalgamation due to high-profile, forced amalgamations in eastern Canada, including Halifax Regional Municipality in 1996, City of Toronto in 1998, City of Ottawa in 2001, City of Hamilton in 2001, and City of Montreal in 2002.

Amalgamation has been touted as an attractive option to increase the efficiency of service delivery and reduce costs. However, research suggests that most amalgamations rarely result in these outcomes. 3 Moreover, BC’s system of regional districts provides for many opportunities to coordinate and share services. Because of this factor, BC municipalities typically do not need to amalgamate to achieve service efficiency and regional cooperation. In 2003, the provincial Community Charter included a provision (Section 279) which essentially stated that “no forced amalgamations” would be initiated.

The Province of BC provides some key forms of support for smaller municipalities. These forms of support include the provision of Small Community Grants to municipalities that have populations of less than 19,000 people, and lower levels of police taxes for small municipalities, especially those under 5,000. As a result of these factors, amalgamations are much rarer in BC than in other provinces. The most recent BC example is the amalgamation of Abbotsford and Matsqui in 1995.

3 Bish, Robert L. and Clemens, Eric G. Local Government in British Columbia. 4th Edition. Union of BC Municipalities. 2008. Vojnovic, Igor. “The Transitional Impacts of Municipal Consolidation.” Journal of Urban Affairs. Volume 22, Number 4, 2000, pgs. 385-417. 2000. 57


Case Study #1: Abbotsford-Matsqui

The District Municipalities of Abbotsford4 and Matsqui shared many characteristics with Duncan and North Cowichan. Abbotsford had a small, older downtown, while Matsqui was geographically larger with a spread out commercial area. The two municipalities shared many services and cooperated primarily through the regional district. However, rapid development and population growth put a strain on shared service delivery arrangements. When the communities finally voted in favour of amalgamation in 1993, the issue had already been debated for decades. More than twenty years have passed since the communities amalgamated and the benefits of hindsight allow us to identify several lessons learned:5

1. The implementation process was more substantial than anticipated—for example, it involved the cost of hiring consultants to support a joint committee of councils, costs associated with severance pay due to staff restructuring, and renegotiations of various agreements and contracts.

2. One of the largest costs was the harmonization of the Official Community Plans and Zoning Bylaws. The initial process took approximately two years and caused delays in processing land use applications and building permits.

3. Full administrative and cultural transition took almost a generation of staff.

4. Achieving full harmonization between the existing Zoning Bylaws took almost two decades.

5. One-time consolidation expenses amounted to about $1.15 million. The Province covered approximately one-third of these expenses.

6. Streamlined decision-making (one Council instead of two) facilitated large investments in infrastructure improvements. Costs of these improvements were spread out over a larger population.

7. Municipal spending did not change substantially.

8. The amalgamated municipality was able to plan new residential and commercial developments more effectively.

9. Economic development became easier to facilitate as there was only one set of plans and regulations to follow. Amalgamation also made it easier and clearer to market

4 It is interesting to note that pre-1995 Abbotsford was the result of the amalgamation of the Village of Abbotsford and the District Municipality of Sumas in 1972. 5 These conclusions are based on conversations with staff involved in the Abbotsford-Matsqui amalgamation, as well as the work of Igor Vojnovic assessing amalgamations in Canada in the 1990s. 58


opportunities to the business community; prior to amalgamation, there had been significant confusion over boundaries, postal codes, and which rules applied where.

Twenty years down the line, the legacy has been generally positive, and reference to pre-amalgamation rarely occurs.

Case Study #2: Nanaimo

In 1975, the City of Nanaimo amalgamated with five improvement districts (note that this was more of a boundary restructure rather than an amalgamation of two municipalities). This example was a case of forced amalgamation; the old City of Nanaimo had voted in favour of amalgamation while the improvement districts voted against. The new City inherited vastly different levels of service throughout each area of the community, along with expectations of service equalization. While it is hard to imagine Nanaimo pre-amalgamation, several lessons have emerged:

1. Expectations of equal service levels may be costly and difficult to implement. Forty years later, services levels are still being upgraded/equalized in Nanaimo.

2. Council adopted a blanket ‘no-layoffs’ post-amalgamation policy. The result was that all staff were assimilated into the new administration, regardless of need.

3. Combining collective agreements may raise salaries to the level of the most generous agreement.

4. A two-year ward system was put in place following amalgamation. The system was extended to ten years due to the difficulty of transitioning elected ward Councillors to at-large Councillors. The system was eventually changed to an at-large electoral system due to the disparity in the ratio of Councillors to voters between wards.

Ultimately, amalgamation is up to local citizens and their desire to be part of one municipality. The experience of other municipalities does not provide clear direction on whether or not to amalgamate. However, the experience of other municipalities provides some key themes to consider:

1. There is no right size “standard” for a municipality. On the surface, the larger size of a municipality may appear to offer economies of scale in service delivery and greater standing in negotiating agreements with senior government. However, experience from other jurisdictions shows that amalgamating into a larger municipality does not always result in direct benefits due to overall greater size.

59


2. The time to amalgamate is when the communities are ready. In the case of Abbotsford and Matsqui, the reason for the yes vote in 1993 was cited as increased familiarity with amalgamation through decades of debates.

3. There will be a transition period. Restructuring two local governments is a complex process. Even when the formal processes of consolidating organizational structures and service delivery arrangements are completed, it is likely that a period of time will need to pass before an amalgamated municipality becomes the “new normal.”

Study Method and Report Overview

Study Method

The work presented in this report was completed in parallel with the Citizens’ Assembly process. The information collected and analyzed was informed by previous municipal restructuring studies, questions posed by the Citizens’ Assembly, and key issues unique to Duncan and North Cowichan.

Information was collected through a variety of means, including:

• interviews with municipal staff;

• field visits;

• review of background documents, policies, plans, and bylaws; and,

• analysis of financial information, including five-year financial plans and capital plans, revenues and expenditures, assessment data, tax rate bylaws, and other data.

While responsibility for this report rests with Urban Systems, this technical study also benefited significantly from the research questions and insights raised by a local Advisory Panel, including: Mike Coleman (former Mayor of Duncan); Jim Dias (former North Cowichan Chief Administrative Officer); Tom Ireland (former Duncan Chief Administrative Officer); Mary Beth Mackenzie (former Deputy Clerk for North Cowichan and former staff member in Abbotsford during its amalgamation); and, Glen Ridgway (former North Cowichan Councillor). We are grateful to both the Advisory Panel and the Citizens’ Assembly for their volunteer efforts in support of this study process.

Limitations

Scope of Study

This study offers a ‘point-in-time’ snapshot of amalgamation impacts on key services areas and overall services based on 2016 values (assessment, revenue, expenditures and tax rates). While figures from 2011 to 2016 are provided for comparison, this study does not provide an in-depth analysis of the factors that have contributed to changes in assessment

60


values or municipal revenue and expenditures over time. This study also does not project future changes associated with factors such as community growth or changes in service levels over time.

Implementation of Amalgamation

As part of its mandate, the Citizens’ Assembly will provide recommendations regarding amalgamation, including any conditions which would need to be satisfied if a merger were to proceed. This study provides technical information to inform these recommendations but does not provide analysis of the implementation process itself, or the variables which may impact implementation. Based on our review of previous amalgamations, the implementation process is complex and requires significant financial and human resources capacity, as well as leadership in decision-making regarding staffing and priorities.

Prerogative of Council

The Citizens’ Assembly provided a number of questions to guide this study and these questions are provided in Appendix A. These questions have been addressed through the body of this study (particularly but not exclusively in Section 7 – Key Considerations). It is important to highlight that many decisions are ultimately up to the priorities and directions provided by current and future municipal Council(s) – whether the municipalities remain separate or amalgamate.

Report Organization

Section 1. Introduction provides an introduction to the study and an overview of municipal government and amalgamation.

Section 2. Overview of Duncan and North Cowichan provides an overview of the City of Duncan and Municipality of North Cowichan through community profiles and reviews of corporate structure.

Section 3. Financial Overview reviews financial information for both municipalities, including assessment data, tax rate information, municipal revenues and expenditures, capital projects, reserves, debt levels, and senior government grants.

Section 4. Municipal Administration and Service Impacts analyzes potential amalgamation impacts across six overarching service areas: general government, planning and development services, public works and engineering/transportation services, protective services, environmental health, and parks and recreation services.

Section 5. Financial Impacts assesses the budget and tax rate impacts of two main amalgamation scenarios, including impacts on the combined budget and tax rates.

Section 6. Regional District Impacts provides an overview of Duncan and North Cowichan’s participation in CVRD services and outlines potential impacts to the Regional District as a result of an amalgamation.

61


Section 7. Key Considerations discusses the key issues and themes raised by amalgamation across six broad themes: community; governance; transition process; community vision, planning and development; social and environmental goals; and the impacts of not amalgamating.

62


2. OVERVIEW OF DUNCAN AND NORTH COWICHAN

This section provides basic information about the City of Duncan and Municipality of North Cowichan, as well as an overview of corporate structures in both municipalities. This information is provided for context and to support the analysis in subsequent chapters.

Duncan and North Cowichan at a Glance

Duncan and North Cowichan are close neighbours. Both visitors and residents report a sense of not knowing where one municipality begins and the other ends. The map in Figure 1 shows the geographical connection between the two municipalities.

Figure 1 - Map of Duncan and North Cowichan

63


While two distinct municipalities, this area is often referred to as a “community of communities.” Duncan is considered a regional downtown. Its small geographic area holds a high concentration of commercial and civic buildings. North Cowichan is significantly larger and includes four larger communities (and a number of smaller ones). Unlike Duncan, it also includes a significant coastline, lakes, and forested areas. In North Cowichan, the primary community areas are:

• South End, a concentrated commercial and residential area bordering Duncan;

• Maple Bay, a rural, waterfront community experiencing rapid housing growth;

• Crofton, which includes a waterfront, residential community, significant forestry activity, and the Crofton Mill; and,

• Chemainus, a long-standing community with its own town centre, on the north-end of the municipality.

Though close neighbours, the two municipalities vary in geographical and population size. Table 1 provides a snapshot of Duncan and North Cowichan, including areas where they are similar and areas where they differ.

Table 1 - Municipal Overview Duncan North Cowichan Population (2016) 4,944 29,676 Population Change 2011 to 2016 0.2% 3.0% Land Area 2.07 km2 195.56 km2 Population Density 2,387.1/km2 151.7/km2

Representation (Municipal) Mayor and 6 Councillors Mayor and 6 Councillors

Representation (Regional) 1 Director (voting strength: 3)

3 Directors (voting strength: 15)

Sources: Canada Census 2016. BCA 2016.

Table 2 provides a summary of historic growth in Duncan and North Cowichan. Figures for Cowichan Valley Regional District (CVRD) and the Province are provided for comparison. Duncan’s population and dwelling count have remained stable, while North Cowichan has experienced growth comparable to the CVRD, though slower than the rate across BC.

Table 2 - Change in Population and Dwelling Counts Between 2006 and 2016 Duncan North

Cowichan CVRD British

Columbia Population -0.8% 7.7% 8.9% 13.0% Total Private Dwellings -0.3% 15.8% 14.2% 15.4%

Source: Canada Census 2006 and 2016.

Table 3 provides a snapshot of assessment data and taxes in each of the municipalities. This data is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3: Financial Overview.

64


Table 3 - Assessment and Tax Overview Duncan North Cowichan 2016 Net Taxable Assessment $604,930,000 $4,392,340,000 2016 Assessment Share 77% residential

23% business 87% residential 8% business 4% industrial 1% other

2016 Tax Share 56.4% residential 42.7% business

66.6% residential 15.4% major industry 13.3% business 3.5% light industry

2016 Residential Tax Rate* $9.5722 per $1,000 South End: $9.0638 per $1,000 North End: $8.3940 per $1,000

2016 General Municipal Tax Revenue** $4,690,000 $26,620,000 2016 Total Revenue*** $9,570,000 $54,330,000

*Includes general municipal, CVRD, school, hospital, BCA, and MFA. Duncan tax rate also includes provincial police tax and police bridging capital levy. North Cowichan includes two taxes charged by area: CVRD Island Savings Centre (South End only) and CVRD Theatre Grant (North End only).

**Duncan general municipal tax revenue includes general municipal tax and the police bridging capital levy. North Cowichan municipal tax revenue includes general municipal tax only (which includes tax revenue used for policing).

***Total revenue includes property taxes, parcel taxes, user fees (e.g. water and sewer), and other revenue (e.g. own sources, transfers from other governments). Cited total revenue figures are from adopted 2016-2020 Financial Plans.

Organizational Overview

As they serve very different population sizes, Duncan and North Cowichan have relatively different corporate structures. This section provides a high-level overview of corporate structure, staffing, and remuneration, while Chapter 4 reviews how a potential amalgamation may impact staffing.

Corporate Structure and Staffing

The differences in population and geographic size are reflected in the relative staff complements of each municipality. However, per capita, the two communities have similar levels of staffing. Organizational charts for both municipalities are provided in Appendix B.

Table 4 - Council and Staffing Overview Duncan North Cowichan CAO, Directors, and Managers 6 FTE 23 FTE General Staff 26.8 FTE plus students 144.8 FTE plus students and

contract Per Capita 1 FTE per 151 residents 1 FTE per 205 residents

North Cowichan has a more complex corporate structure with more than six times the number of staff as Duncan. This staffing level is reflective of a population that is six times as large as Duncan’s; a land area that is almost 100 times as large as Duncan’s; and, the

65


complexity of managing a forestry industry, marinas, fresh and saltwater waterfronts, industrial areas, agricultural areas, and more infrastructure. Major differences in staffing are summarized below.

Table 5 - Differences in Corporate Structure Service Area Duncan North Cowichan Human Resources Managed by each department

with some use of consulting services

Full-time staff

Information Services Contracted out Full-time staff Bylaw Enforcement Contracted to Commissionaires Full-time staff Parks and Recreation Parks maintenance and

operations managed by Public Works and Engineering department

Dedicated parks and recreation department

Remuneration

Total remuneration is reflective of the different community sizes. When considered per capita, the communities spend a comparable amount on salaries.

Table 6 - Total Remuneration Salary Type Duncan North Cowichan Elected Officials $130,000 $220,000 Employees $2,500,000 $14,160,000 Total $2,630,000 $14,380,000 Per Capita $530 per resident $485 per resident

Source: 2015 Statement of Financial Information. Includes salaries and expenses. Does not include employer cost of benefits not considered taxable to employees.

66


3. FINANCIAL OVERVIEW

This section provides a financial overview of both Duncan and North Cowichan, providing detailed information to inform the analysis in later chapters. The purpose of this section is to provide context for comparing the financial impacts of amalgamation.

Property Taxation

Assessment

Property assessment data for 2016 (Table 7) shows that there are 2,198 properties in Duncan, valued at approximately $605 million, and 13,557 properties in North Cowichan, valued at approximately $4.4 billion. Due to its size, the total assessed value of North Cowichan residential properties is more than eight times that of Duncan residential properties.

Table 7- Property Assessment Comparison (2016) Duncan North Cowichan Class Net Taxable

Assessment Average Property Value

Net Taxable Assessment

Average Property Value

Residential $463,590,000 $240,000 $3,828,670,000 $310,000 Utilities $900,000 $300,000 $4,900,000 $190,000 Supportive Housing $0 $0 $0 $0 Major Industry $0 $0 $134,230,000 $10,330,000 Light Industry $100,000 $100,000 $49,350,000 $630,000 Business $140,010,000 $490,000 $347,480,000 $760,000 Managed Forest Land $0 $0 $2,440,000 $120,000 Recreational Property & Non-profit Organization

$320,000 $160,000 $16,890,000 $840,000

Farm $10,000 $10,000 $8,400,000 $20,000 Total $604,930,000 $280,000 $4,392,340,000 $320,000

Property values in North Cowichan are generally higher than similar properties in Duncan:

• The average residential property in North Cowichan is valued 29 percent higher than the average residential property in Duncan: $310,000 versus $240,000.

• The average business property in North Cowichan is valued 55 percent higher than the average business property in Duncan: $760,000 versus $490,000.

North Cowichan includes the presence of major industry and forest land, two property types not found within Duncan. North Cowichan also has a significant coastline and lakes.

67


Converted Assessment

Another way of considering tax assessments is looking at converted assessment value (Table 8). Converted assessment values take into account the composition of the property tax base and provide a greater weighting to non-residential property types that generally pay higher tax rates (e.g. utilities, industry, and business). Converted assessment values are determined by multiplying net taxable assessment by a percentage prescribed by Provincial regulation. When assessment figures are used to apportion costs between multiple jurisdictions (e.g. for regional district services), total converted assessment is typically used as the basis for distributing the tax burden between property classes.

Table 8 - Converted Assessment Comparison (2016) Class Duncan North Cowichan Residential $46,360,000 $382,870,000 Utilities $310,000 $1,710,000 Supportive Housing $0 $0 Major Industry $0 $45,640,000 Light Industry $30,000 $16,780,000 Business $34,300,000 $85,130,000 Managed Forest Land $0 $730,000 Recreational Property & Non-profit Organization $30,000 $1,690,000 Farm $0 $840,000 Total $81,040,000 $535,390,000

Note, however, that both Duncan and North Cowichan use their own tax ratios for setting tax rates and that these tax rates are different than the provincial multiples used for regional district services or the Duncan Police Tax. See Table 15 (following) for an illustration of how each community’s assessment translates into property tax revenue.

Tax Rates and Tax Ratios

General municipal property tax rates are based on tax ratios that are approved by the Councils in each community.6 Tax ratios for 2016 are summarized in Table 14. As illustrated, the tax ratios for utilities, industrial properties, business properties, and managed forest land (North Cowichan only) are set so that the municipalities generate higher tax revenue per $1,000 of assessment from these property classes versus the residential property class.

The tables that follow provide a detailed breakdown of 2016 tax rates across all classes in both Duncan and North Cowichan.

6 Tax ratios identify different levels of taxation applicable to the various property classes in relation to residential properties (Class 1). For example, if there is a tax ratio of 2.2 for business properties (Class 6), the business property tax rate would be 2.2 times higher than the residential tax rate.

68


Table 9 - Duncan Tax Rates (2016)

Class General Municipal Police Bridging Provincial

Police Tax Regional District School BCAA MFA Hospital Total

Residential 3.8318 0.9305 0.3408 1.6420 2.2016 0.0543 0.0002 0.5710 9.5722 Utility 32.1844 7.8156 1.1928 5.7470 13.5000 0.4995 0.0007 1.9983 62.9383 Light Industry 9.9375 2.4132 1.1587 5.5828 5.4000 0.1575 0.0007 1.9413 26.5917 Business 9.6721 2.3488 0.8350 4.0229 5.4000 0.1575 0.0005 1.3988 23.8356

Recreational Property/Non-profit 3.8318 0.9305 0.3408 1.6420 3.1000 0.0543 0.0002 0.5710 10.4706

Farm 3.8318 0.9305 0.3408 1.6420 6.9000 0.0543 0.0002 0.5710 14.2706 Table 10 - Duncan Business Improvement Area (BIA) Rates for Business Properties (2016)

BIA Core BIA Fringe

3.7261 2.6084 Table 11 - North Cowichan Tax Rates – South End Only (2016)

Class General Municipal

Regional District

CVRD Island Savings Centre (South End) School BCAA MFA Hospital Total

Residential 4.6293 0.8505 0.7423 2.2016 0.0543 0.0002 0.5856 9.0638 Utility 36.4431 2.9768 2.5981 13.5000 0.4995 0.0007 2.0495 58.0677 Supporting Housing 4.6293 0.8505 0.7423 - 0.0002 0.5856 6.8079 Major Industry 30.5441 2.8918 2.5238 0.4995 0.0007 1.9909 38.4508 Light Industry 18.8544 2.8918 2.5238 5.4000 0.1575 0.0007 1.9909 31.8191 Business 10.1789 2.0838 1.8187 5.4000 0.1575 0.0005 1.4346 21.0740 Managed Forest 18.6661 2.5516 2.2269 0.3167 0.0006 1.7567 25.5186 Recreational Property/Non-profit 3.7399 0.8505 0.7423 3.1000 0.0543 0.0002 0.5856 9.0728

Farm 4.4976 0.8505 0.7423 6.9000 0.0543 0.0002 0.5856 13.6305

69


Table 12 - North Cowichan Tax Rates – North End Only (2016)

Class General Municipal

Regional District

CVRD Theatre Grant (North End) School BCAA MFA Hospital Total

Residential 4.6293 0.8505 0.0725 2.2016 0.0543 0.0002 0.5856 8.3940 Utility 36.4431 2.9768 0.2536 13.500 0.4995 0.0007 2.0495 55.7232 Supporting Housing 4.6293 0.8505 0.0725 0.0002 0.5856 6.1381 Major Industry 30.5441 2.8918 0.2464 0.4995 0.0007 1.9909 36.1734 Light Industry 18.8544 2.8918 0.2464 5.4000 0.1575 0.0007 1.9909 29.5417 Business 10.1789 2.0838 0.1775 5.4000 0.1575 0.0005 1.4346 19.4328 Managed Forest 18.6661 2.5516 0.2174 0.3167 0.0006 1.7567 23.5091 Recreational Property/Non-profit 3.7399 0.8505 0.0725 3.1000 0.0543 0.0002 0.5856 8.4030

Farm 4.4976 0.8505 0.0725 6.9000 0.0543 0.0002 0.5856 12.9607 Table 13 - North Cowichan - North End Only, Business Improvement Area (BIA) Rates for Light Industry and Business Properties (2016)

BIA 1 BIA 2 BIA 3 4.2500 3.5000 2.5000

Table 14 - Tax Ratios for the General Municipal Tax (2016)

Class Duncan North Cowichan Average Residential 1.00 1.00 1.00 Utilities 8.40 7.87 8.14 Supportive Housing n/a 1.00 1.00 Major Industry n/a 6.60 6.60 Light Industry 2.59 4.07 3.33 Business 2.52 2.20 2.36 Managed Forest Land n/a 4.03 4.03 Recreational Property & Non-profit Organization 1.00 0.81 0.90 Farm 1.00 0.97 0.99

70


Tax Rate Comparison

In general, Duncan tax rates are slightly higher than North Cowichan rates, except for light industrial properties. Duncan’s lower tax rates are reflective of the City’s lower property values.

Note: Tax rates shown here include general municipal, CVRD, school, MFA, and BCAA rates. Duncan rates also include police bridging capital and provincial police taxes. North Cowichan rates include CVRD hospital, CVRD Island Savings Centre (South End only), and CVRD Theatre (North End only). BIA taxes are area specific and not included here.

To provide a more direct comparison between residential rates in Duncan and North Cowichan, a breakdown of applicable taxes is provided in the chart below. As shown, Duncan residential property owners pay a higher rate per $1,000 of assessed value for the combined general municipal tax, police bridging capital levy, and provincial police tax are considered. North Cowichan’s North End pays a smaller CVRD tax rate as it does not contribute to the recreation facilities in the South End.

*In North Cowichan, CVRD taxes include the Island Savings Centre in the South End but not the North End. The North End has a separate (smaller) CVRD tax for a Theatre Grant, as illustrated in Table 11.

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Residential Utility SupportiveHousing

MajorIndustry

LightIndustry

Business ManagedForest Land

Seasonal Farm

Tax Rate Comparison2016

Tax Rates Duncan Tax Rates North Cowichan - South End Tax Rates North Cowichan - North End

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Duncan North Cowichan South End North Cowichan North End

Residential Property Tax Rates 2016(per $1,000 of Assessed Value)

General Muncipal Police Bridging Police Tax CVRD* School Hospital BCA and MFA

71


Between 2011 and 2016, Duncan’s tax rate rose by 13 percent. North Cowichan’s tax rate, on the other hand, experienced significant changes. Over this period, the residential rate rose by 62 percent, due to a shift in the tax burden from major industrial properties to residential properties. North Cowichan has also experienced significantly higher growth than Duncan. While this growth has helped increase its tax base, it also involves major investment in services and infrastructure. By 2016, North Cowichan’s tax rates appear to approach those of Duncan (see chart below).

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Changes in Residential and Business Tax Rates2011 to 2016

Duncan Residential North Cowichan ResidentialDuncan Business North Cowichan Business

72


Property Tax Revenue

Table 15 summarizes 2016 general municipal tax revenue from both Duncan and North Cowichan. The differences in tax revenue are reflective of each community’s size. North Cowichan has a more diverse range of properties from which to generate tax revenue.

Table 15 - General Municipal Tax Revenue 2016 Class Duncan North Cowichan Residential $2,210,000 $17,720,000 Utility $40,000 $180,000 Supportive Housing $0 $0 Major Industry $0 $4,100,000 Light Industry $0 $930,000 Business $1,680,000 $3,540,000 Managed Forest Land $0 $50,000 Seasonal $0 $60,000 Farm $0 $40,000 Total Revenue $3,930,000 $26,620,000

Note: Duncan figures include police bridging capital levy.

The chart below provides a breakdown of the proportions of tax revenue coming from each property class in Duncan and North Cowichan. North Cowichan generates more property tax from residential properties, but also generates a significant percentage of revenue from major industrial properties. Duncan, on the other hand, generates almost half of its tax revenue from business properties, reflecting its status as a regional downtown.

Note: Figures in this chart refer to revenue from the general municipal tax. In the case of Duncan, revenue from police bridging tax is also included.

Between 2011 and 2016, North Cowichan’s tax revenue grew much faster than that of Duncan: 25 percent versus 5 percent, respectively. This difference in the growth of tax revenue may be reflective of a number of factors, not least of which is faster population growth in North Cowichan and higher rates of development. North Cowichan’s residential property tax rate rose much faster than Duncan’s tax rate, as the tax burden

56%

67%

1%

1%

15% 3%

43%

13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Duncan

North Cowichan

Municipal Tax Revenue by Property Class2016

Residential Utility Major Industry Light Industry Business

73


shifted away from industrial properties to residential properties. The result has been that the two communities now have fairly comparable residential tax rates.

*Duncan figures include general municipal tax and police bridging capital levy. North Cowichan figures include general municipal tax only.

Parcel Taxes and User Fees

Parcel taxes and user fees vary widely, not only between Duncan and North Cowichan, but between different areas within the community. North Cowichan covers a large geographic area and service delivery ranges depending on the neighbourhood. When combined, annual user fees currently are lowest in Duncan and highest in Crofton.

Table 16 - Parcel Tax and User Fee Comparison (2017) Duncan North Cowichan

Chemainus Crofton South End Maple Bay Sewer Parcel Tax $20 $431 $401 $189 n/a Annual Sewer Fee $295 $137 $260 $149 $1,000 Water Parcel Tax n/a $249 $175 $175 n/a Annual Water Fee $210* $202 $350 $153 n/a Waste and Organics Collections $131 $83 $83 $83 $83 Total $658 $1,132 $1,299 $779 $1,113

Source: Duncan Fees & Charges Bylaw No. 2090, 2010. North Cowichan Fees Bylaw 3603. *Illustrated Duncan annual water fee is the base annual fee for a metered residential property within City limits. For a property outside of City limits but connected to the City’s system, the City charges a base annual rate of $320.

$3,740,000 $3,540,000 $3,620,000 $3,720,000 $3,820,000 $3,930,000

$21,350,000 $22,490,000 $23,770,000 $24,710,000 $25,700,000 $26,620,000

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Municipal Tax Revenue*2011 to 2016

Duncan North Cowichan

74


Revenues and Expenditures

Revenues

The chart below provides a comparison of total revenues for both Duncan and North Cowichan. These figures include own purpose taxation, grants in lieu of taxes, sale of services, transfers from senior governments, transfers from regional and other governments, and other revenue.

Between 2011 and 2015, revenues fluctuated in both communities. However, as the following two charts show, there were two primary reasons for the fluctuations:

• Duncan saw relatively stable tax revenue over this period--$3,960,000 in 2011 and $3,800,000 in 2015. However, transfers from senior, regional, and other governments, as well as other revenue, have fluctuated dramatically from year to year, reflecting different projects and funding opportunities.

• In contrast, North Cowichan experienced an increase in tax revenue over this period--$26,460,000 in 2011 and $31,280,000 in 2015. North Cowichan also experience wide fluctuations in transfers from senior government and other revenue.

$10,060,000 $11,290,000$8,800,000 $8,800,000 $9,850,000

$49,680,000

$43,180,000

$51,240,000$47,350,000 $47,280,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

Revenue Comparison (All Sources)2011 to 2015


75


$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Duncan Revenue (All Sources)2011 to 2015

Own Purpose Taxation and Grants in Lieu Transfers from Regional and Other GovernmentsTransfers from Senior Governments Sale of ServicesOther Revenue

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

North Cowichan Revenue (All Sources)2011 to 2015

Own Purpose Taxation and Grants in Lieu Transfers from Regional and Other GovernmentsTransfers from Senior Governments Sale of ServicesOther Revenue

76


Expenditures

The chart below summarizes total expenditures from 2011 to 2015. North Cowichan has seen steady increases in expenditures, which rose 12 percent between 2011 and 2015. This increase is attributed in part to development and population growth, as well as various capital projects undertaken from year-to-year. Duncan’s expenditures have stayed relatively stable, though dipping in 2012 to 2014, before rising again in 2015. Duncan’s total population remained relatively stable over this period, and operating expenses have remained stable over this period. The trend of overall declining and then rising expenses was influenced by policing taxation changes in 2012, as well as expenditures on capital projects.

$6,620,000 $5,880,000 $5,690,000 $6,000,000 $6,470,000

$38,400,000 $38,920,000 $40,110,000$42,980,000 $43,130,000

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

$35,000,000

$40,000,000

$45,000,000

$50,000,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Expenses (excluding amortization)2011 to 2015


77


Municipal Debt Levels

Based on data from 2015 Financial Statements (Year End of December 31, 2015), the two municipalities have outstanding long-term debt in the amount of:

• $1,260,000 for the City of Duncan – These debts are for the Cowichan Aquatic Centre and the Sewage Lagoons, both facilities that are jointly owned with the District of North Cowichan; and,

• $21,790,000 for the District of North Cowichan – Most of this debt ($19,570,000) is included in the general fund, for projects such as the Maple Bay Fire Hall, Cowichan Aquatic Centre, and Municipal Hall expansion.

Appendix C lists all long-term debentures.

The long-term debt is equivalent to about $250 per capita for Duncan and $725 per capita for North Cowichan. Note that Duncan’s debt is lower in part due to the uncertainty around policing costs. Between the 2006 Census and the 2011 Census, BC Stats reported that Duncan’s population had exceeded 5,000 and the City began contributing to 70 percent of its policing costs. The 2011 Census showed that the population was still under 5,000 and the Province refunded the excess contribution. The City used this refund to help pay down its debt associated with the Cowichan Aquatic Centre. Furthermore, Duncan started to collect the police bridging levy to prepare for a potential increase in policing costs after the 2016 Census. As the population has remained under 5,000, the City can now continue to use the amount collected by the levy towards capital projects and alleviate the need to take on new debentures.

If the communities were to amalgamate, debts associated with the general fund would become the responsibility of all property owners within the combined municipality through general municipal property taxation (i.e. debt payments would continue to be funded through a municipal-wide general fund vs. only being funded through a specific geographic area). However, debt payments associated with utilities (i.e. water and sewer) would continue to be funded through the specific local area services (i.e. debt payments would not be spread throughout the larger geographic area).

Reserves

Municipalities use reserves as a means of setting aside funds for future planned expenditures. Based on data from the 2015 Financial Statements (Year End of December 31, 2015), Duncan had total reserve fund balances of $6,240,000 (e.g. machinery and equipment, police bridging capital, water and sewer utilities, parking improvement, operating reserves), while North Cowichan had total reserve fund balances of $7,320,000 (e.g. machinery and equipment, forestry reserve, water and sewer local area services, parkland acquisition and development, harbours).

The reserve fund balances are equivalent to about $1,250 per capita for Duncan and $250 per capita for North Cowichan. With an amalgamation, some reserve funds used for

78


municipal-wide services could be combined, while other reserve funds would continue to be used within local areas only (e.g. specific water and sewer utilities).

In addition, municipalities report development cost charge reserve balances as liabilities, as their use is restricted by provincial legislation and amounts are recognized as revenue in the period in which corresponding development-related capital expenditures are incurred. In 2015, Duncan had a total DCC reserve fund balance of $1,930,000, and North Cowichan had a total DCC reserve fund balance of $6,990,000.

Capital Assets and Projects

Municipal Capital Assets

Not including land, Duncan’s municipal capital assets (such as buildings and infrastructure) are valued at approximately $122 million, while North Cowichan’s municipal capital assets are valued at approximately $693 million. Table 17 provides a summary of the replacement value, remaining economic value, and percentage of life remaining for assets in both municipalities.

In general, Duncan’s infrastructure is older than North Cowichan’s infrastructure. As a confined municipality, new development in Duncan occurs in existing areas. In contrast, North Cowichan has more land to develop new neighbourhoods. The development of new neighbourhoods is part of the reason why North Cowichan’s infrastructure is newer on average. One of the results of this age difference is that Duncan will have a greater need for investment in the near future, particularly for water and sewer. North Cowichan has more infrastructure overall, and more infrastructure per capita due to lower density of development. As a result, it will have higher long-term costs for maintaining and replacing its infrastructure.

79


Table 17 - Asset Information*

Replacement Value Remaining Economic Value % Life Remaining Infrastructure Deficit Duncan North Cowichan Duncan North Cowichan Duncan North

Cowichan Duncan North Cowichan

General $8,180,000 $37,180,000 $3,240,000 $12,340,000 40% 33% $2,970,000 $11,330,000 Parks and Recreation $13,130,000 $50,140,000 $5,190,000 $23,540,000 39% 47% $3,860,000 $7,310,000

Roads and Drainage $44,010,000 $441,550,000 $9,580,000 $199,840,000 22% 45% $27,130,000 $43,980,000

Sewer $12,770,000 $70,420,000 $1,860,000 $32,350,000 15% 46% $7,620,000 $8,660,000

Water $43,890,000 $93,750,000 $12,480,000 $41,840,000 28% 45% $11,800,000 $4,150,000

Totals $121,980,000 $693,040,000 $32,350,000 $309,910,000 27% 45% $53,380,000 $75,430,000

*Note: North Cowichan replacement values were provided by municipal staff. Duncan replacement values were calculated by inflating the historical cost using CPI data. Useful life assumptions for assets are comparable between the two communities with a few minor exceptions: North Cowichan assumes a 50-year life for all watermains, while Duncan uses a range between 50 and 80 years depending on the material.

80


Planned Capital Projects

Both Duncan and North Cowichan have current or future capital projects at various stages of planning or development. For example, Duncan is currently planning for Government Street traffic improvements and commencing upgrades to Second Street’s water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater mains. North Cowichan is planning the subdivision of the Chemainus Elementary site, Chaplin Street site improvements, a new RCMP detachment building, and various transportation, infrastructure and park/recreation projects.

Many capital projects have community-wide benefit (e.g. transportation projects or municipal building improvements) and they are generally funded by property owners within the whole municipality. Capital projects for local area services (e.g. water or sewer services provided to defined geographic areas within North Cowichan) are generally funded by property owners within those service areas only. Tables 18 and 19 on the following page summarize the five-year capital budgets for each community.

81


Table 18 - City of Duncan 5-Year Capital Budget Department 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 5-Year Total

General Government $120,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $280,000

Fire Department $40,000 $560,000 $80,000 $100,000 $100,000 $890,000

Transportation $3,620,000 $980,000 $800,000 $870,000 $1,030,000 $7,310,000

Waste Collection $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000

Parks & Cultural Services $200,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $310,000 Total $3,990,000 $1,630,000 $950,000 $1,050,000 $1,210,000 $8,820,000

Source: City of Duncan Detailed Five Year Financial Plan (2016-2020) Capital Expenditure Plan

Table 19 - Municipality of North Cowichan 5-Year Capital Budget Department 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 5-Year Total

General Government $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000

Acquisition and Development of Land $730,000 $900,000 $500,000 $700,000 $200,000 $3,030,000

Municipal Property Improvements $370,000 $390,000 $630,000 $630,000 $630,000 $2,630,000

Information Services $310,000 $200,000 $200,000 $210,000 $210,000 $1,130,000

Community Development $630,000 $50,000 $700,000 $550,000 $450,000 $2,390,000

Police and Other $500,000 $11,500,000* $11,500,000 $0 $0 $23,500,000

Fire Department $600,000 $80,000 $40,000 $380,000 $540,000 $1,630,000

Forestry $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000

Transportation $13,540,000 $3,420,000 $3,590,000 $3,690,000 $3,750,000 $27,990,000

Parks & Cultural Services $1,130,000 $830,000 $760,000 $770,000 $770,000 $4,240,000 Total $17,850,000 $17,370,000 $17,920,000 $6,930,000 $6,550,000 $66,630,000

Source: Municipality of North Cowichan 2016 Capital Budget

*Note: As of 2016, the project to build a new police detachment in North Cowichan has been delayed beyond 2017/2018.

82


While most capital projects would not have a significant impact on amalgamation discussions, the planned RCMP detachment is presently to be funded by both North Cowichan and the Province, but not directly by Duncan. Since Duncan remains under 5,000 as of the 2016 census, the Province is responsible to fund the portion of the cost for the Provincial RCMP Policing Unit that serves Duncan. The total capital project cost is estimated to be about $23 million. Based on the current staff complement, North Cowichan would be responsible for about $12.1 million of the project cost. If Duncan had over 5,000 people or if Duncan and North Cowichan amalgamated, there would be an additional capital cost of approximately $3.0 million to $4.5 million that would be a local responsibility (versus a Provincial responsibility).

Other Considerations

Senior Government Grants

Local governments receive unconditional grants from the Province, including a Small Community Grant for municipalities with populations of up to about 19,000, and Traffic Fine Revenue Sharing for communities of over 5,000 population (i.e. communities that pay directly for policing).

In 2016, Duncan received a Small Community Grant of about $510,000. This grant would not be available if the communities were to amalgamate. However, there would be net additional traffic fine revenue sharing funding of about $60,000 to $90,000 available due to the larger size of the community.

Taxes for Police Services

The Police Act outlines municipal responsibilities for police services. The Province is responsible for police services for unincorporated areas and municipalities under 5,000, through RCMP provincial units. Once a municipality reaches 5,000 in population, it is required to provide its own police services, either through a contract with the Province for an RCMP municipal unit, or through its own municipal independent police force. Municipalities with RCMP contracts are required to pay a portion of total police costs based on their population:

• Population size of 5,000 to 14,999: 70 percent of RCMP member costs and 100 percent of apportioned costs of detachment and civilian support staff.

• Population size over 15,000: 90 percent of RCMP member costs and 100 percent of apportioned costs of detachment and civilian support staff.

The remaining costs for both scenarios are paid for by the federal government.

Both Duncan and North Cowichan receive police services through the RCMP. As a Municipality over 15,000, North Cowichan pays for 90 percent of its police operating costs and 100 percent of its apportioned costs for the detachment and civilian support staff. These costs are paid through the general municipal tax.

83


As a municipality under 5,000, Duncan is served by an RCMP Provincial Unit, operating out of the North Cowichan-Duncan Detachment alongside the members of the RCMP Municipal Unit for North Cowichan. Residents contribute to a portion of policing costs through the provincial police tax. Duncan’s population has been on the cusp of the 5,000 population threshold for many years. To minimize the tax impact that would occur if its population exceeds 5,000, Duncan charges a police bridging capital levy. Note, however, that as Duncan’s population did not exceed 5,000 in the 2016 Census, the levy is currently used to fund capital projects.

Though the two communities are responsible for different proportions of their police costs, North Cowichan’s general municipal tax rate is roughly comparable to the combination of Duncan’s general municipal tax, provincial police tax, and police bridging capital levy. In 2016, North Cowichan spent $6,131,000 on policing costs. After revenues are accounted for, $5,882,000 of this amount was funded through general municipal taxation. In the same year, Duncan collected $1,040,000 through the provincial police tax (which is transferred to the Province) and police bridging capital levy. This amount is based on a provincial rate for the police tax and is not correlated directly with the total cost of providing police services to Duncan. Based on these figures, 25 percent of Duncan’s tax revenue (including general municipal tax, police tax, and police bridging capital levy) goes toward police services (or to capital projects being funded in lieu of paying higher police taxes), while 22 percent of North Cowichan’s general municipal tax revenue goes toward police services.

To allow for comparison with these figures, we estimated the portion of North Cowichan’s 2016 general municipal tax rate that goes towards police services based on same-year net policing expenses, as shown in Table 20, below.

Table 20 - Comparative Tax Rates for Policing Class Duncan Tax Rate for

Policing (2016)* North Cowichan

Tax Rate for Policing (2016)

Residential 1.2713 1.0230 Utilities 9.0084 8.0537 Supportive Housing n/a 1.0230 Major Industry n/a 6.7501 Light Industry 3.5719 4.1667 Business 3.1838 2.2495 Managed Forest Land n/a 4.1251 Recreational Property & Non-profit Organization 1.2713 0.8265 Farm 1.2713 0.9939

*Note: Illustrated Duncan rate includes the provincial police tax and police bridging capital levy.

84


4. MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE IMPACTS

If Duncan and North Cowichan were to amalgamate, the impacts would primarily be at the municipal level. Since Duncan and North Cowichan participate in the same regional and sub-regional services through the Cowichan Valley Regional District (CVRD), regional district administration and service delivery would not be directly affected (see Chapter 6 of this report).

For the purposes of this review, municipal services have been grouped into the following categories:

1. General Government – includes elected officials and the core administrations required to provide local government services to Duncan and North Cowichan.

2. Planning and Development – includes long-range community planning, land use regulations, development review, bylaw enforcement, and building inspection and permitting.

3. Public Works and Engineering/Transportation Services – includes the provision of transportation, stormwater management, water and sewer systems.

4. Protective Services – includes policing, fire protection, and animal control services.

5. Environmental Health – includes waste collection services and environmental programming, as well as the forestry program in North Cowichan.

6. Parks and Recreation – includes the provision of park land, public open space, recreational facilities, and recreational programs.

While Duncan and North Cowichan do not organize the municipal governments exactly in this way, the categories above provide a framework for comparisons between the two municipalities. For each of these categories, the following sections review the key service and financial impacts associated with an amalgamation.

Where applicable, financial impacts are organized into two different scenarios:

1. Scenario 1 identifies automatic impacts of amalgamation only (e.g. a reduction from two councils to one council, a change in policing costs, and impacts to the small communities grant currently received by the City of Duncan);

2. Scenario 2 identifies both the automatic impacts of amalgamation from Scenario 1, and plausible potential long-term changes in staffing levels that may occur with an amalgamation (e.g. the possibility of streamlined General Government requirements

85


and expenses and the possibility of a new full-time fire chief, deputy chief and support staff).

Additionally, where applicable, this study identifies potential one-time expenses associated with an amalgamation. It is noted that in many cases, amalgamation implementation could require significant existing staff resources. Therefore, it is possible that some staffing efficiencies may not be realized for a number of years following an amalgamation. In this respect, the Scenario 2 analysis provides a ‘point-in-time’ snapshot of potential changes once local government operations have normalized following an implementation period.

86


General Government

Overview

General government includes elected officials and the administration required to provide local government services to Duncan and North Cowichan. In each municipality, the municipal council is responsible for setting policy direction, while the chief administrative officer is charged with implementing policy and delivering services. Other key general government roles include preparing and preserving records and bylaws (i.e. corporate services), undertaking capital and operating expenditures as set out in the municipal financial plan, managing the collection of taxes (i.e. financial services), maintaining effective employee and labour relations (i.e. human resources), and managing information and communication technology services (i.e. information services).

Key Municipal Assets

City Hall Municipal Properties (e.g. Canada Building, Margaret Moss Health Centre site)

Municipal Hall Municipal Properties (e.g. Old Chemainus Fire Hall site, Chaplin Street site in Crofton)

Municipal Responsibilities

CAO Corporate Services Financial Services Human Resources (managed by each department, some consulting services) Information Services (contracted out)

CAO Corporate Services Financial Services Human Resources Information Services

Service Area City of Duncan Municipality of North Cowichan

Staffing Complement

Total 8.6 FTE: CAO: 1.0 FTE Corporate Services: 2.0 FTE and contract help with Records Management Project Financial Services: 5.6 FTE Human Resources: 0 FTE Information Services: 0 FTE

Total 26.6 FTE: CAO: 3.0 FTE Corporate Services: 6.0 FTE Human Resources: 2.1 FTE Financial Services: 10.5 FTE Information Services: 5.0 FTE

Shared Service Delivery

n/a

CVRD Services General government (regional) General government (regional)

87


Table 21 - General Government 2016 Budget

2016 Budgeted Revenue 2016 Budgeted Expenses

General Government $0 $182,000 $1,156,000 $3,499,000

Key Amalgamation Considerations

Table 22 - Key Amalgamation Considerations Service Delivery Considerations Administrative Considerations Financial Considerations

An amalgamated community would be governed by a single elected council of seven rather than two elected councils of seven.

The General Government functions of each community would be combined. The amalgamated municipality would have a full staff complement, including HR and Information Services staff (currently provided in North Cowichan only).

There are potential cost savings associated with having one municipal council and a consolidated general government staffing complement.

Discussion

A. Current Situation

Duncan and North Cowichan both have Councils of seven. The Councils have a variety of roles, including:

• setting policy; • undertaking decision-making for all municipal services; • reviewing and approving municipal bylaws and regulating the services that the

municipalities provide;

Comments on Level of Service

Each community has 1 Mayor and 6 Councillors Representation at CVRD Board varies (Duncan has 1 CVRD Director with total voting strength of 3 for weighted votes; North Cowichan has 3 CVRD Directors with total voting strength of 15 for weighted votes) City of Duncan does not have dedicated human resources or information services staff Both communities are part of CUPE Local 358. North Cowichan staff complement does weekend work (e.g. recreation) while Duncan staff complement works weekdays only.

88


• undertaking strategic plans; • approving municipal financial plans; • appointing representatives to other boards (e.g. CVRD); and, • appointing administrative officials.

Most decisions are made by a simple majority of councillors present at a meeting, although some matters require a two-thirds majority of councillors present.

In both Duncan and North Cowichan, a variety of committees advise Council, as illustrated in the table below.

Table 23 - Committees that Advise Council

City of Duncan Committees Municipality of North Cowichan Committees

Committee of the Whole Advisory Committee on Disability Issues Advisory Design Panel Environment and Sustainability Committee Tourism Committee and Totem Sub-Committee

Agricultural Advisory Committee Audit Committee Chemainus Advisory Committee Community Planning Advisory Committee Environmental Advisory Committee Forestry Advisory Committee Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Sports Wall of Fame Nomination Committee Protective Services Committee Public Works Committee

In addition, both Duncan and North Cowichan participate in a Joint Utilities Board for sewer.

Duncan and North Cowichan are both members of the CVRD. CVRD municipal directors are appointed by the Councils. Duncan has one CVRD director, while North Cowichan has three CVRD directors. Duncan and North Cowichan participate in the same bundle of CVRD services, including region-wide and sub-regional services. The Island Savings Centre is a unique exception, as Duncan participates in this service along with the South End of North Cowichan (as well as CVRD Electoral Areas D and E), but not the North End of North Cowichan. In turn, the North End of North Cowichan provides a grant for the Cowichan Performing Arts Centre. Along with CVRD Electoral Areas D and E, both Duncan and North Cowichan participate in the Island Savings Centre Commission, which oversees the operation of the Island Savings Centre.

The Duncan and North Cowichan General Government administrations are organized in similar ways with some differences in total staffing levels and arrangements for services such as Human Resources and Information Services/Information Technology. In each municipality, the CAO (Chief Administrative Officer) provides administrative leadership to

89


ensure that the policies, programs, and other directions of each council are implemented. Each CAO also advises and informs the council on the operation and affairs of the municipality.

Duncan and North Cowichan each have Corporate Services departments. The Corporate Services departments provide the communications link between the councils, other municipal departments, and the general public, providing assistance and advice to citizens with respect to Council/Committee processes, reporting procedures, and decisions. Key responsibilities typically include: drafting bylaws and agreements; maintaining minutes and overseeing records; administering elections; overseeing policy development; and, providing legal and procedural advice.

Duncan and North Cowichan each also have Financial Services/Finance departments. In each municipality, the Finance department prepares an annual detailed budget identifying all revenues and sources of funding for operating and capital expenditures, including projections for the next five years. In addition to the annual report and other legislative reporting, periodic financial reports are provided to Council and other departments. The Finance departments are responsible for receiving all monies paid to the municipalities, investing funds in authorized investments, expending money as authorized in the Financial Plan, and ensuring the preparation of accurate and full accounts of municipal financial affairs. Services are provided to other departments through the payroll, accounts payable, accounts receivable, and financial reporting functions.

The Human Resources function is responsible for maintaining effective employee and labour relations, including: providing advice and assistance with respect to recruitment, promotion, contract administration, benefits and salary administration; organizational development; formulation of corporate personnel policies and procedures; and, occupational health and safety. While North Cowichan has 2.1 FTE for Human Resources, Duncan does not have a Human Resources department. In the City, each department performs their own Human Resources function and Corporate Services assists with job posting and advertising. The City also retains consultants for some Human Resources needs as required, with a budget of approximately $24,000 per year.

The Information Services function provides core information and communication technology services. North Cowichan has 5.0 FTE for Information Services. In addition to providing core services to the municipality, Information Services staff also provide shared information technology services to the Town of Ladysmith. Conversely, Duncan contracts out managed information technology services for approximately $36,000 per year. In the City, the Finance Department is responsible for overseeing the work of the contractor and general information technology, while Corporate Services administers the website.

90


B. Potential Amalgamation Impacts

Scenario 1 – Automatic Annual Impacts Only:

With an amalgamation, the main automatic impact would be the establishment of one municipal council versus the two existing councils. The result would be the elimination of duplicate expenses for municipal councils, as illustrated in Table 24.

Table 24 - Potential Automatic Financial Impacts for General Government (2016)

Item Impact

Elimination of Expenses for 1 Council* ($140,000)

Net Annual Impact ($140,000)

*Includes Council remuneration and conferences/travel (e.g. annual UBCM convention)

This scenario does not contemplate additional savings associated with administrative staff, facilities or other related General Government expenses. As illustrated in the chart below, on a per capita basis, Duncan and North Cowichan’s current combined General Government expenses are generally in line with those of peer communities, even though the Duncan/North Cowichan per capita expenses include expenses for two councils, two Chief Administrative Officers, two Finance Directors, two Corporate Officers, etc. This comparison indicates that in Scenario 2 (below), there may be only limited opportunities to realize long-term efficiencies associated with streamlined General Government.

*Source: BC Local Government Statistics (2015). BC Local Government Stats reporting varies from the 2016 municipal financial plan figures presented above. Additionally, these figures represent a ‘point-in-time’ snapshot. It is acknowledged that General Government expenses can vary from year to year.

$-

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

Duncan/NorthCowichanCombined

West Kelowna Mission Campbell River Penticton Langford

Per Capita General Government Expenses: 2015*

91


Scenario 2 – Annual Impacts that May Occur:

A detailed amalgamation implementation plan would be required to identify General Government staff positions and facility requirements for an amalgamated municipality. In Duncan and North Cowichan, the possibilities for long-term cost efficiencies are the most apparent through the streamlining of General Government services (as opposed to other service areas). For example, one municipality would be responsible for developing a long-term financial plan and providing accounts payable and receivable functions rather than two municipalities. And, there would be one Chief Administrative Officer, one Finance Director, and one Director of Corporate Services. However, when staff from two municipalities are combined, a review of other amalgamations suggests that there is a tendency to harmonize different salary levels upwards (i.e. salaries are scaled up), thus limiting the potential for savings. As well, while certain ‘Director’ level positions may be eliminated, there is a possibility that additional mid-level management positions could be required (see Risks, Opportunities, and Uncertainties, below).

The scope of this study does not allow for a detailed amalgamation implementation plan identifying the exact number of administrative positions required in an amalgamated municipality. However, a ‘rule of thumb’ approach can be used to estimate potential efficiencies that may occur for General Government services. Because of North Cowichan’s size, its per capita net expenses for General Government are lower than Duncan’s per capita net expenses for General Government. Using North Cowichan’s current net General Government expenses of $111 per capita and applying this per capita rate to an amalgamated municipality of about 35,000 people, total General Government expenses would be approximately $3.9 million. This figure compares to current (2016) combined net General Government expenses of approximately $4.5 million for both Duncan and North Cowichan. Thus, using these figures, an amalgamation could result in potential General Government savings of approximately $580,000, as illustrated in the Table 24.

Table 25 - Potential General Government Savings

Item Net Expenses

Theoretical Combined Net General Government Expenses at $111 per capita $3,890,000

2016 Combined Net General Government Expenses for Duncan and North Cowichan $4,470,000

Potential General Government Savings ($580,000)

Of the $580,000 in potential General Government savings, $140,000 in savings would be associated with only having a requirement for one municipal council versus two municipal councils (as identified above). Therefore, the balance of $440,000 would be associated with savings such as those realized from the elimination of duplicate staff positions, office and

92


overhead savings associated with reduced staffing levels, and professional fees (e.g. legal, audit).

One-Time Implementation Expenses:

In General Government (and some associated functions), there are a variety of potential one-time expenses associated with an amalgamation. Key one-time expenses are highlighted in Table 26. It is noted that Provincial transition assistance could potentially assist with some of these expenses. However, at this stage, any potential Provincial transition assistance has not been quantified. Suggested allowances are used for these one-time expenses, many of which would be subject to further study and review as part of an Amalgamation Implementation Plan.

Table 26 - Key one-time expenses associated with amalgamation

Item Suggested Allowance

(Low

Suggested Allowance

(High)

Referendum on Amalgamation* $0 $80,000

Development of an Amalgamation Implementation Plan by a Joint Council/Joint Committee of Duncan and North Cowichan

$50,000 $100,000

Amalgamation Communications Planning and Implementation $50,000 $75,000

Policy and Bylaw Harmonization (focused on General Government – not including Land Use Planning and Development or Engineering)

$50,000 $75,000

Renegotiation of Leases, Contracts and Agreements (assumes mainly done by staff with some legal/consulting support)

$50,000 $75,000

Naming (including potential referendum), Branding, Logo, Letterhead, Website

$50,000 $150,000

Signage (e.g. Buildings, Parks, Fleet, Community Gateways) $300,000 $600,000

Integration of Records, Information Technology and Financial Planning**

$100,000 $400,000

Labour Relations (e.g. integration of union collective agreements, severance packages)

TBD TBD

Total $650,000+ $1,555,000+

*There is potentially no additional cost if referendum on amalgamation could occur simultaneously with local government elections.

**Further review would be required as part of the Implementation Plan to determine actual costs for the integration of records, information technology and financial planning. Costs could be minimized since both

93


the City and the Municipality use the same Vadim Software package for municipal financial management, and only the Municipality uses recreation software.

C. Risks, Opportunities and Uncertainties

Table 27 - Risks, Opportunities and Uncertainties

Issue Considerations

Potential Administrative Efficiencies

Depending on the amalgamation implementation plan, it is possible that current administrative staff from both municipalities would be required to engage in implementation activities, with any potential long-term savings to occur through natural attrition (e.g. retirements that result in positions left unfilled). Conversely, it is possible that an additional ‘layer’ of management would develop in an amalgamated municipality, with no resulting long-term savings from amalgamation.

Facilities (e.g. Municipal Hall)

Typically, municipalities have a single municipal hall. However, there are examples of municipalities that have departments spread throughout multiple buildings. In Duncan-North Cowichan, the North Cowichan municipal hall was recently expanded, and the facility currently has enough vacant or underutilized space to accommodate approximately 20+ additional staff members if required. The facility could potentially house an amalgamated municipal administration, with the possibility that the current Duncan City Hall could be repurposed (e.g. for other civic uses). Conversely, it may be possible to maintain a ‘satellite’ office at the current Duncan City Hall facility and provide front counter customer services, meeting space(s), and/or house a municipal department(s) in the facility.

Workloads There are certain administrative functions that would likely require fewer staff to administer than the combined total staffing levels of the current municipalities. For example, in the Financial Services area, there would be one municipal Financial Plan and Capital Plan, one annual audit, one set of Financial Statements, one accounts payable and receivable function, and one set of property tax bills for the whole municipality. With systems in place that can handle a larger population, budget, and volume of transactions, it is likely that the incremental workload increase would not require the combined total staffing levels of both current municipalities, at least after a transition period.

Salary Harmonization

Depending on the structure of a combined General Government Department, there may be a need for salary harmonization, which could result in some upscaling of salary expenses.

94


Planning and Development Services

Overview

Planning and Development Services include long-range community planning (e.g. Official Community Plan), land use regulations (e.g. Zoning Bylaw), development review, bylaw enforcement, and building inspection and permitting.


n/a n/a


Community planning Development review Building permitting and inspection Bylaw enforcement Business licencing

Community planning Development review Building permitting and inspection Bylaw enforcement Business licencing


Staffing Complement

Total 2.6 FTE Planning and Building Inspection: 2 FTE (1 planning and 1 building inspection) plus students most of the year Bylaw Enforcement: 0.6 FTE

Total 13.6 FTE Director/Approving Officer: 1 FTE Planning & Sustainability: 5 FTE Building & Compliance: 5 FTE Support Staff: 2.6 FTE


Cooperation on select planning initiatives (e.g. University Village Local Area Plan, Trail Network and Cycling Plan) There is a co-operative agreement for inter-municipal business licencing between Duncan, North Cowichan, Ladysmith, and Lake Cowichan. The agreement allows applicants to work in the co-operative areas with one valid business licence, rather than an individual licence for each area.

CVRD Services Economic development Social planning

Economic development Social planning


Duncan has a bylaw officer for general enforcement, and the City uses Commissionaires for parking enforcement and public safety patrols. North Cowichan uses a bylaw officer for all enforcement. Duncan CAO is the designated Approving Officer, whereas North Cowichan Development Services Director is the designated Approving Officer

95


Table 28 - Development Services 2016 Budget


Development Services $33,000 $461,000 $329,000 $1,967,000*

*North Cowichan expenses include Economic Development in addition to Planning and Building Division expenses.


Table 29 - Key Amalgamation Considerations

Service Delivery Considerations Administrative Considerations Financial Considerations

With an amalgamation, long-range plans, bylaws, and fees would need to be consolidated or otherwise brought into alignment.

Staff would be combined and all planning and building related matters would be administered through the same department.

Fees and charges associated with this department (e.g. Development Cost Charges) would need to be aligned. Potential cost savings if consolidation of staff results in increased efficiencies.

Discussion


Duncan and North Cowichan offer a very similar suite of planning and development services. The primary differences relate to the overall staff complement in each municipality and the level of resources that can be committed to projects. In addition, there are some organizational differences, particularly with respect to bylaw enforcement.

Duncan has one planner who reports to the Director of Public Works and Development Services, and the City utilizes planning students to help accomplish projects. The planner supervises the building inspector, who also functions as the Local Assistant to the Fire Commissioner. Duncan also has one part-time bylaw enforcement officer, who reports to the Director of Corporate Services. In addition to other bylaw enforcement duties, the bylaw enforcement officer supervises the work of the Commissionaires, who perform parking enforcement and public safety patrols.

In North Cowichan, the Development Services department includes both a Planning and Sustainability Division and a Building and Compliance Division, as well as support staff. Unlike Duncan, North Cowichan municipal staff are responsible for all bylaw enforcement functions.

96


The two municipalities recently cooperated in the preparation of the joint University Village Local Area Plan. As well, there are other examples of cooperation, such as the current inter-municipal business licencing arrangement that allows applicants in each municipality to operate with one valid business licence rather than needing to have a business licence in both municipalities. However, there are also identified areas for improvement, as the business community, in particular, has expressed dissatisfaction with the current need to deal with two sets of Official Community Plans, Zoning Regulations, Sign Regulations, etc.



If Duncan and North Cowichan were to amalgamate, there would be no automatic impacts to development services revenue or expenses. This scenario assumes that current net expenses for Duncan plus North Cowichan would be sufficient for a combined Development Services department.


With an amalgamation, it is possible that there could be a reduction in the combined planning staff complement by about 1 FTE, resulting in savings of approximately $100,000 including benefits.

Table 30: Potential Development Services Annual Impacts that May Occur

Item Impact

Streamlined planning expenses ($100,000)



With regard to Planning and Development Services, the main implementation expense would be the integration of Official Community Plans, Zoning Bylaws, Development Cost Charge Bylaws, and other Regulatory Bylaws (e.g. Fees and Charges Bylaws). Integration of GIS and mapping services is included in the allowance for integration of records and information technology under General Government services.

Additionally, while not a direct impact of amalgamation, there may be interest in advancing local area planning initiatives to further reinforce the identity of the various communities in an amalgamated municipality (e.g. Downtown and South End, Chemainus, Crofton, Maple Bay). Recent initiatives include completion of the Chemainus Downtown Revitalization Plan in 2011, the Crofton Local Area Plan in 2015, and the (joint) University Village Local Area Plan

97


in 2015. Depending on the priorities of an amalgamated municipality it is possible that funding could be directed towards new local area planning initiatives and/or implementation actions for existing local area plans.

Table 31 - Suggested Allowances


(Low)

Suggested Allowance

(High)

Integration of Official Community Plans, Zoning Bylaws, Development Cost Charge Bylaws and other Regulatory Bylaws

$200,000 $300,000

Local Area Planning Initiatives (i.e. new plans and/or implementation actions for existing plans)

$400,000 $800,000

Total $600,000 $1,100,000

C. Risks, Opportunities, and Uncertainties

Table 32 - Risks, Opportunities, and Uncertainties


Potential Staffing Efficiencies

Depending on the amalgamation implementation plan, it is possible that current development services staff from both municipalities would be required to engage in implementation activities, with any potential long-term savings to occur through natural attrition (e.g. retirements that result in positions left unfilled).

Development Fees

Each municipality charges different levels of fees for development. For example, development cost charge rates vary slightly between Duncan and the North Cowichan South End, and Duncan additionally provides DCC reductions for multi-family residential developments that achieve desired density levels and meet criteria set out in the City’s sustainability checklist. With amalgamation, it is likely that there would be a need to harmonize development cost charges between the South End and Duncan, as well as other associated development application and building permit fees.

Parking Enforcement

Duncan currently uses Commissionaires for parking enforcement and public safety patrols. While an amalgamation would not necessarily trigger a change to this arrangement, an amalgamated municipality could choose to have municipal bylaw enforcement staff perform this function.


Depending on the structure of a combined Development Services Department, there may be a need for salary harmonization, which could result in some upscaling of salary expenses.

98


Public Works and Engineering/Transportation Services

Overview

Public Works and Engineering/Transportation Services include the construction, maintenance, and operation of infrastructure. Each municipality’s department oversees infrastructure related to transportation, stormwater management, water systems, and sewer systems. Duncan is serviced by its own water and sewer systems; the City also provides water to parts of North Cowichan. North Cowichan has three water systems and four sewer systems by area: Chemainus, Crofton, South End, and Maple Bay (sewer area). Additionally, Duncan and North Cowichan both participate in the Joint Utilities Board for sewage treatment.


Roads (25 km) Water system (80 km) Sewer system (29 km) Stormwater system (27km) Equipment (fleet of 52 units comprising solid waste vehicles, construction, snow and de-icing equipment, and parks equipment) Public works building/yard

Roads (291 km) Water systems (236 km) – Chemainus, Crofton, South End Sewer systems (149 km) – Chemainus, Crofton, South End, Maple Bay Stormwater Systems (156 km) Equipment (fleet of 131 units comprising solid waste vehicles, construction, snow and de-icing equipment, forest firefighting equipment, parks equipment) Public works building/yard


Construction and maintenance of municipal assets (e.g. roads, water and sewer utilities, stormwater management systems) Services for other departments (e.g. parks maintenance, garbage, recycling and yard waste)

Construction and maintenance of municipal assets (e.g. roads, water and sewer utilities, stormwater management systems)

Service Area City-wide for roads and stormwater management Sewer services to some areas of North Cowichan, CVRD Electoral Areas D and E, and Cowichan Tribes, through service agreements. Water services to some areas of North Cowichan, CVRD Electoral Areas D and E, and Cowichan Tribes, through service agreements

District-Wide for Roads and Stormwater Management Local Area Services for Water and Sewer

99


Staffing Complement

Total 18.9 FTE: Director: 1 FTE Operations Manager: 1 FTE Engineering Staff and Support: ~3 FTE Operations Crew: ~14 FTE Plus, about 4 summer students per year

Total 62 FTE: Director and Support Staff: 2 FTE plus 1 Contract Development and Capital Projects: 7 FTE Infrastructure and Environment: 7 FTE Operations: 46 FTE plus 1 Term


Duncan’s water system covers approximately 5 square km and services over 15,000 people extending into portions of North Cowichan, CVRD Electoral Areas D and E, and Cowichan Tribes lands There is a joint project underway to study a backup water supply for Duncan/South End Duncan and North Cowichan South End sewer and waste water is treated at Joint Utilities Board (JUB) lagoons that are on land jointly leased by Duncan and North Cowichan Joint diking and flood mitigation City and Municipality work cooperatively (e.g. when City’s garbage truck was broken, the Municipality loaned one to the City; municipal staff work together to coordinate water and roads projects) City and Municipality are currently discussing opportunities for purchasing and sharing some equipment

CVRD Services Malahat Transit (Victoria commuter service) Transit Liquid waste management - central

Malahat Transit (Victoria commuter service) Transit Liquid waste management – central (South End only)


North Cowichan is significantly larger and is responsible for more roads and infrastructure than Duncan. Duncan is currently undertaking a water metering program, including properties on the Duncan water system in North Cowichan. In North Cowichan, all residential and commercial water connections are metered.

Table 33 - Engineering and Public Works/Transportation Services 2016 Budget

2016 Budgeted Revenue* 2016 Budgeted Expenses*

Engineering and Public Works/ Transportation Services $0 $0 $1,014,000 $5,723,000

*Figures do not include separate water and sewer utility funds in each community.

100




Service Service Delivery Considerations

Administrative Considerations Financial Considerations

Roads and Stormwater

Service delivery would be combined.

Services would be administered from a consolidated department. Sewer Joint Utilities Board would be dissolved and CVRD Areas D and E and Cowichan Tribes would continue to purchase services from the municipality (as opposed to the Joint Utilities Board).

Costs of road and drainage maintenance and capital would be blended between the two communities.

Water

Local area services could remain in place. Duncan/North Cowichan South End water services could be consolidated.

User fees for Duncan’s water system would likely be synthesized (currently there are different rates inside versus outside City boundaries). Other user fees could potentially be synthesized. Applicable parcel taxes would likely remain the same.

Sewer

Local area services could remain in place. Duncan/North Cowichan South End sewer services could be consolidated.

User fees could potentially be synthesized. Applicable parcel taxes would likely remain the same.

Discussion


Each municipality has an Engineering and Operations/Public Works group responsible for roads, stormwater management, and water and sewer utilities. Duncan’s group also includes staff responsible for solid waste collection and park maintenance (dealt with separately in the report sections on Environmental Health and Parks and Recreation Services). In North Cowichan, the size of the community justifies a totally separate parks maintenance crew.

Each municipality has its own public works yard. Duncan’s works yard is located next to the Joint Utilities Board sewage lagoons, whereas North Cowichan’s works yard is located next to the North Cowichan Municipal Hall. Each municipality also maintains a fleet that consists of solid waste vehicles, construction, snow and de-icing equipment, forest fire-fighting equipment (North Cowichan only), parks equipment, etc. Each municipality has an equipment fund that tracks costs related to municipal equipment. Municipal equipment is ‘charged out’ to departments for each job that it works on.

101


As noted above, there are existing examples where infrastructure systems extend from Duncan into North Cowichan, or where there are shared service delivery arrangements. Most significantly, Duncan’s water system services over 15,000 people, extending into North Cowichan as well as CVRD Electoral Areas D and E, and Cowichan Tribes lands. Water users outside of City boundaries pay higher user fees than water users within City boundaries. Also, the City of Duncan is currently undertaking a program to install water meters, including meters for those properties located on the Duncan water system in North Cowichan. Conversely, all residential and commercial connections in North Cowichan are metered.

As indicated above, both Duncan and North Cowichan participate in the Joint Utilities Board for sewage treatment. Operations are undertaken by the Municipality of North Cowichan. The CVRD and Cowichan Tribes purchase services from the Joint Utilities Board but they are not members of the Joint Utilities Board. There has been ongoing interest in sewage treatment governance, although it has not been studied in detail to date.



For this function, the major amalgamation impact would be the consolidation of Duncan/South End water systems and the elimination of the Joint Utilities Board for sewage treatment. All residents would have water services provided by the municipality in which they live, and there would be further possibilities to interconnect the current Duncan and South End water systems.

At a minimum, for the current City of Duncan water system (which extends into North Cowichan and other surrounding areas), it is assumed that an amalgamated municipality would ‘blend’ the current differential water user fees that apply for properties within the City of Duncan boundary versus those properties that are outside of the City of Duncan boundary. This ‘blending’ of user fees could potentially result in increased user fees for property owners within Duncan and decreased user fees for property owners in North Cowichan, as illustrated in the table below.

Table 35 – Residential Water User Fees for City of Duncan System (2017)

City of Duncan Water System Current Rate Within City Boundary

Current Rate Outside City Boundary

Theoretical Harmonized Rate*

Residential Metered Water Rate per 6,000 cubic feet (semi-annual):

$105.27 $159.92 $129.48

*Theoretical harmonized rate is a blended rate based on the number of current service connections in Duncan vs. North Cowichan. An actual harmonized rate may vary from this figure.

102


An amalgamated municipality may also consider further harmonizing water and sewer user fees between all systems over time. However, user fees are currently different even within North Cowichan (e.g. the South End, Chemainus and Crofton water rates are different from each other) and amalgamation would not directly trigger a need to adjust these rates.

Additionally, there are various existing parcel taxes, which are used to fund water or sewer capital projects. Existing parcel taxes would not directly be affected by an amalgamation. It is likely that property owners within existing service areas would continue to pay for capital projects funded by parcel taxes, as opposed to having these costs spread amongst broader geographic areas.

One municipality would be responsible for sewage treatment, and the CVRD and Cowichan Tribes would purchase sewage treatment services from the municipality rather than the Joint Utilities Board.

For the purposes of this scenario, it is assumed that the current combined engineering and public works/operations budgets would be sufficient for an amalgamated municipality.


With an amalgamation, it appears that all current operations staff would continue to be required, with any potential future efficiencies to only be realized through natural attrition. However, it may be possible to streamline the combined engineering management functions, resulting in potential savings of approximately $150,000 including benefits.

Table 36: Potential Public Works and Engineering/Transportation Annual Impacts that May Occur

Item Impact

Streamlined engineering management expenses ($150,000)



There are a variety of potential one-time implementation expenses for Public Works and Engineering/Transportation Services, including: combining the asset management functions and undertaking asset management planning for the municipality as a whole; integrating infrastructure modelling; and harmonizing engineering-related bylaws (e.g. subdivision and development servicing standards). There do not appear to be significant one-time expenses for any equipment alterations or alignment in standards of service.

103


Table 37 - One-time amalgamation expenses


(Low)

Suggested Allowance

(High)

Coordination of Asset Management $50,000 $100,000

Infrastructure Modelling Integration $100,000 $200,000

Harmonizing Public Works and Engineering-Related Bylaws (e.g. Subdivision and Development Servicing Standards)

$75,000 $100,000

Total: $225,000 $400,000




Fleet Management The may be potential long-term savings associated with the rationalization of two existing fleets. However, these savings would likely be realized through fleet attrition over time as equipment is retired and not replaced.

Pooled Equipment An amalgamated municipality could benefit from pooled equipment. For example, Duncan has a vacuum truck while North Cowichan does not have a vacuum truck. With an amalgamation, the vacuum truck would be available for the entire amalgamated municipality.

Public Works Yard(s)

With some reshuffling of layout and/or equipment, the North Cowichan public works yard is sizeable enough to potentially function as the public works yard for a municipality of 35,000 people. The existing Duncan public works yard could be put to other civic purposes or the municipality could dispose of a portion of the site (which also includes a pump station that would need to be retained under municipal ownership).

Funding of Water and Sewer Service Areas

Functionally, an amalgamation would not have an impact on the funding of currently separate water and sewer service areas in each community. In particular, any existing debt associated with systems would continue to be funded by the property owners within their respective service areas, through parcel taxes. However, there is a possibility that annual user fees could be synthesized over time. In particular, it is likely that the user fees for Duncan’s current water system would be synthesized, as there are many users in North Cowichan and the current rates are different for North Cowichan users versus Duncan users.

104



Age of Infrastructure

Duncan’s infrastructure systems are generally older than North Cowichan’s infrastructure, and the infrastructure deficit would potentially be a liability for North Cowichan in the event of an amalgamation.


Depending on the structure of a combined Engineering and Public Works/Operations Department, there may be a need for salary harmonization, which could result in some upscaling of salary expenses.

105


Protective Services

Overview

The RCMP provides policing services to Duncan, North Cowichan and surrounding areas through a shared detachment. In the case of Duncan, this service is administered by the Province. Fire protection is delivered by separate volunteer fire departments serving each municipality. Both Duncan and North Cowichan provide animal control services through contract with Coastal Animal Services of BC.


Fire hall Equipment

Police detachment building Four fire halls: Chemainus, Crofton, Maple Bay, South End Equipment


Policing services: responsibility of the Province (population under 5,000) Fire protection Pet licensing and animal control

Policing services Fire protection Pet licensing and animal control

Service Area Policing Services North Cowichan City of Duncan First Nations Reserves CVRD Fire Protection City of Duncan CVRD Area E (Eagle Heights) through agreement Cowichan Tribes Lands through agreement Pet Licensing and Animal Control Full municipality

Policing Services North Cowichan City of Duncan First Nations Reserves CVRD Fire Protection North Cowichan Various service agreements to adjacent areas (e.g. Stz’uminus First Nation, Cowichan Tribes, Penelakut, Saltair) Pet Licensing and Animal Control Full municipality

Staffing Complement

Police Services RCMP Contract Administered by Province

Police Services RCMP Contract – Members: 31.0 FTE Clerical: 10.2 FTE

106


Approximately 8 RCMP members assigned to Duncan Fire Protection Chief, Deputy Chief, Assistant Chief, 4 Captains, 4 Lieutenants, and 25 firefighters

Information Services: 1.0 FTE Guards: 4.8 FTE Fire Protection 125 volunteers in total, including 4 fire chiefs and 4 deputy fire chiefs


The North Cowichan/Duncan RCMP detachment has 55 members in total and serves both communities as well as outlying areas. Fire departments have mutual aid agreements Coastal Animal Services provides pet licensing and animal control in both communities (through separate contracts)

CVRD Services Emergency 9-1-1 Emergency planning Victim Services Safer Futures Cowichan Community Policing

Emergency 9-1-1 Emergency planning Victim Services Safer Future Cowichan Community Policing


Duncan fire department has 100-foot aerial truck capacity. North Cowichan fire department has 65-foot aerial truck capacity and is equipped to do water rescue (by boat). New RCMP detachment building is being planned

Table 39 - Police, Fire, and Animal Control 2016 Budget


Police Services n/a $249,000 $283,000* $6,131,000

Fire Protection $277,000** $165,000** $558,000 $1,545,000

Pet Licenses/Other $5,000 $95,000 $72,000 $181,000

Total: $282,000 $509,000 $913,000 $7,857,000

*As a community with less than 5,000 people, Duncan has a separate Police Tax, which covers less than 50 percent of Provincial costs.

**Revenue includes Cowichan Tribes and Eagle Heights for Duncan, and various service contract agreements for North Cowichan (e.g. Stz’uminus First Nation IR 11 and Saltair)

107




Service Service Delivery Considerations

Administrative Considerations Financial

Police Services

Presently, an RCMP municipal unit provides police services for North Cowichan and RCMP provincial police provide policing services for Duncan (out of the same detachment). With amalgamation, the municipality would continue to be served by the same RCMP detachment. An RCMP municipal unit would provide police services for the municipality.

With amalgamation, administration (e.g. municipal employees and detachment costs) would be a municipal responsibility. The Province would no longer be responsible for Duncan’s policing services.

Currently, North Cowichan pays for 90 percent of its policing costs (the federal government pays for the remaining 10 percent). However, as Duncan is a municipality with less than 5,000 residents, Duncan property owners pay only a portion of front-line policing costs, through a Provincial Police Tax. Since Duncan does not currently pay the full cost of its policing services, following amalgamation, policing costs for the combined community would be greater than they are now, as the community would have to pay for 90 percent of the total policing costs.

Fire Protection

Currently, Duncan’s fire hall is close to North Cowichan’s South End Fire Hall. Due to current call volumes, a shift to a combined hall would likely trigger a requirement for at least some career staff. However, amalgamation may not directly trigger a need to change the current service delivery model. It could still be possible to operate two fire halls in Duncan/South End, each with volunteers.

Administration would be shared.

With volunteer fire departments in both municipalities, the current fire service delivery model is the most cost effective model available. The act of amalgamation does not directly trigger a need to change this model. However, there could be increased pressure to have a career fire chief and support staff, or a composite service delivery model with both career staff and volunteers, particularly if there is a desire to consolidate the Duncan and South End fire halls

Pet Licensing and Animal Control

Coastal Animal Services could continue to be the service provider.

Following amalgamation, the contract for Coastal Animal Services would be combined.

Costs would likely be similar as Coastal Animal Services would continue to serve the same area.

108


Policing


The North Cowichan/Duncan RCMP Detachment is an integrated detachment that currently provides serves both municipalities, but with significant differences in funding.

As a municipality with a population over 5,000, North Cowichan is responsible under the Police Act for providing, and bearing the necessary expenses of policing and law enforcement within its municipal boundaries. North Cowichan has a Municipal Police Unit Agreement with the Province for the provision of RCMP municipal police services. Under this Agreement, based on its population (over 15,000), North Cowichan pays for 90 percent of cost-base outlined in the Agreement for its 31 member RCMP municipal police unit, plus 100 percent of certain costs such as municipal support staff employees and the municipality’s share of the detachment facility (with cost recovery from the Province for information technology and detachment space occupied by Provincial members serving other areas). Residents pay for their policing services through general municipal taxes.

Conversely, as Duncan has a population of less than 5,000 people, the provincial government is responsible for providing and paying for the City’s policing services, provided by the RCMP Provincial Police Service. More specifically, for Duncan, these services are provided directly through the Duncan RCMP Provincial Unit, which is housed alongside the North Cowichan Municipal Unit within the North Cowichan/Duncan Integrated RCMP Detachment. Duncan property owners pay the provincially assessed Police Tax, which provides only partial cost recovery for front-line policing services (i.e. general duty/general investigative services). The Police Tax is assessed to unincorporated areas and to municipalities under 5,000 population, such as Duncan. In 2015, the Police Tax contributed to approximately 34 percent of the Province’s total estimated 70 percent share of front-line policing costs for these areas. It is important to note that the Police Tax is not directly linked to the actual costs of providing direct service to Duncan; further, the Police Tax excludes additional specialized services (e.g. police dogs, traffic services, forensic identification, etc.), provincial resources, or infrastructure that is a part of the RCMP Provincial Police Service.

In the future, if Duncan’s population were to reach or exceed 5,000, the municipality would be responsible for providing and paying for policing, provided either by the RCMP or by an independent police force. If Duncan were to enter into an Agreement with the Province for the provision of RCMP municipal services, the City would pay 70 percent of policing costs for RCMP members, plus 100 percent of certain costs such as support staff and its share of the detachment facility. Based on a 2009 resource assessment, it was estimated that 8 regular member positions would be the minimum resource level required for a Duncan Municipal Police Unit.

109


Given Duncan’s population of just less than 5,000, in recent years the municipality has collected a ‘police bridging capital levy.’ This levy has enabled the City to avoid incurring debt on a number of capital projects. This levy has also enabled the City to prepare for the eventual possibility of higher policing costs once the population reaches 5,000, and mitigate the possibility of a major one-time increase in overall taxation.

It is also noted that the Municipality of North Cowichan has plans for a capital project to replace the current police detachment building. The project cost is currently estimated to be about $23 million (not including financing costs through the Municipal Finance Authority), subject to further review and refinement as project planning progresses. Project costs are apportioned based on each community’s pro rata share of detachment building space. This pro rata share is determined using the establishment of the detachment (regular members and support staff).

Currently, North Cowichan is responsible for about 52 percent of the total project capital cost. Since the integrated detachment includes the Provincial Police Service which also serves Duncan, CVRD electoral areas, and First Nations Reserves, the Province is responsible for the costs associated with the Provincial Police Service’s share of the detachment space. The RCMP has an occupancy agreement with North Cowichan for the costs related to the Provincial Police Service occupying space in the municipally owned detachment building. Occupancy Agreements include the proportionate share of capital construction costs associated with a new detachment building until the Provincial Police Service’s share of the project cost has been paid off. The costs in the Occupancy Agreement form part of the overall costs of providing the Provincial Police Service and they are subject to the appropriate cost sharing between the Government of Canada and the Province.



If Duncan and North Cowichan were to amalgamate, the municipality would be responsible for 90 percent of policing costs plus 100 percent of certain costs such as municipal support staff and detachment space for the operations of the expanded Municipal Police Unit. Table 41 illustrates the key financial impacts associated with policing. The analysis focuses on the general municipal operating budget; however, in practice Duncan’s current separate Police Taxes would also be affected, as illustrated in Section 5 of this report.

The analysis is based on an incremental additional RCMP member complement of eight FTE for Duncan. In 2009 (and for a period until the Census confirmed that Duncan’s population was less than 5,000), Duncan contributed to policing based on the costs for a municipal unit with eight members assigned to the municipality. However, this staffing complement is considered to be a minimum. A workload analysis would be required to confirm the number of RCMP members (see Scenario 2, below). Additionally, an amalgamated municipality could request to adjust the policing strength as required based on local needs. Municipalities

110


with Municipal Police Unit Agreements may directly increase resource levels to address local policing priorities, goals, and objectives as set by the municipality.

Table 41: Potential Financial Impacts for Policing Based on an Additional 8 FTE (2016)

Item Impact

Incremental additional expenses for 8 RCMP FTE (member costs and overtime at 90% of actual cost)

$1,230,000

Incremental additional expenses for 2 municipal employees (at 100% of actual cost)

$170,000

Incremental additional detachment expenses for Duncan complement* $20,000

Incremental additional expenses for detachment information technology* $10,000

Additional traffic fine revenue sharing (approximate based on estimate of $350,000 compared to $290,000 for North Cowichan currently)

($60,000)

Net Annual Impact** $1,370,000

*Incremental additional expenses for the detachment and information technology would actually be reductions to North Cowichan’s current budget as the municipality currently receives revenue from the Province for these items.

**The net annual impact only reflects changes to the combined municipal general fund. If an amalgamation were to occur, Duncan property owners would also see elimination of the separate provincial police tax ($280,000) and municipal police bridging capital levy ($770,000). As discussed further in Section 5 of this report, elimination of the police bridging capital levy could result in increased taxation level and/or increased debt financing costs depending on the approach to capital projects.

Additionally, if Duncan and North Cowichan were to amalgamate prior to the completion of the capital project for a new detachment building, there would be an impact to the cost-sharing for this facility. Currently, only North Cowichan would incur municipal costs, with the 52 percent allocation to North Cowichan based on 40.3 FTE out of 76.8 FTE (including both RCMP members and municipal employees/public service employees). With an amalgamation, the municipality would have about 50.3 FTE out of 76.8 FTE, representing about 65 percent of the total staff complement. Therefore, based on the current estimated project costs and the current detachment establishment, the municipality would be responsible for a capital cost of approximately $15.1 million (North Cowichan + Duncan) rather than $12.1 million (for North Cowichan only), not including financing costs through the Municipal Finance Authority.

111



As indicated above, Scenario 1 is based on there being eight additional RCMP members assigned to the amalgamated municipal police unit, and this staffing complement is considered to be a minimum. Based on current call volumes to the North Cowichan/Duncan RCMP detachment, it is possible that up to about twelve additional RCMP members could be assigned to the municipality. To provide sensitivity analysis, Scenario 2 accounts for policing cost impacts based on this policing strength. Again, actual policing strength would be determined based on a workload forecast and discussions between an amalgamated municipality and the RCMP.

Table 42: Potential Financial Impacts for Policing Based on an Additional 12 FTE (2016)

Item Impact

Incremental additional expenses for 12 RCMP FTE (member costs and overtime at 90% of actual cost)

$1,850,000

Incremental additional expenses for 3 municipal employees (at 100% of actual cost)

$250,000

Incremental additional detachment expenses for Duncan complement* $30,000

Incremental additional expenses for detachment information technology* $20,000

Additional traffic fine revenue sharing (approximate based on estimate of $380,000 compared to $290,000 for North Cowichan currently)

($90,000)

Net Annual Impact** $2,060,000

*Incremental additional expenses for the detachment and information technology would actually be reductions to North Cowichan’s current budget as the municipality currently receives revenue from the Province for these items.

**The net annual impact only reflects changes to the combined municipal general fund. If an amalgamation were to occur, Duncan property owners would also see elimination of the separate provincial police tax ($280,000) and municipal police bridging capital levy ($770,000). As discussed further in Section 5 of this report, elimination of the police bridging capital levy could result in increased taxation levels and/or increased debt financing costs depending on the approach to capital projects.

Additionally, as a result of a change in the policing strength, there would also be changes to the apportionment of costs for a new detachment building. Using the increased policing strength figures from Scenario 2, the amalgamated municipality would have about 55.3 FTE out of 76.8 FTE (including RCMP members and public service/municipal employees), representing about 72 percent of the total staff complement. Therefore, based on the current estimated project costs and the current detachment establishment, the municipality would be

112


responsible for a capital cost of approximately $16.6 million (North Cowichan + Duncan) rather than $12.1 million (for North Cowichan only) or $15.1 million (Scenario 1), not including financing costs through the Municipal Finance Authority.




RCMP Staff Requirements

As indicated, 8 FTE would be the minimum RCMP complement required for the current Duncan area. If there is a desire or need to have additional policing strength, the policing cost impacts (presented above) could potentially reflect Scenario 2 more than Scenario 1.

New Police Detachment

North Cowichan is currently a few years away from building a new police detachment. At this time, the Province is responsible for the costs associated with the Provincial Police Service’s share of the detachment space. If Duncan’s population reaches 5,000 (e.g. in the 2021 census) before the project is constructed, the City would be responsible for about $3 million to $4.5 million of the project capital cost (depending on the policing strength assigned to Duncan). Or, as indicated, if the municipalities amalgamate before Duncan’s population reaches 5,000, the amalgamated municipality would be responsible for approximately $15.1 million to $16.6 million (depending on the policing strength assigned to the municipality) rather than $12.1 million (for North Cowichan only), not including financing costs through the Municipal Finance Authority.

Fire Protection


Duncan and North Cowichan both operate volunteer (paid on-call) fire departments. There is one fire hall in Duncan and there are four fire halls in North Cowichan, including halls in Chemainus, Crofton, Maple Bay, and the South End. There is a volunteer fire chief and deputy fire chief for each of the fire halls in North Cowichan and Duncan. In Duncan, the fire chief is appointed by Council, whereas in North Cowichan, the fire chiefs are elected by the members in each hall.

Each municipality has service agreements with neighbours. Duncan provides fire protection services to Cowichan Tribes and Eagle Heights (CVRD electoral area). North Cowichan provides fire protection services to various First Nations reserves and to Saltair (CVRD electoral area).

Between Duncan and North Cowichan, the level of service is comparable, with minor differences. For example, the Duncan fire department has 100-foot aerial truck capacity

113


while the North Cowichan fire department has 65-foot aerial truck capacity. The North Cowichan fire department has a boat and is equipped to do water rescue, while water rescue is not required for Duncan. While there are a number of differences in the equipment between the municipalities, there is mutual aid between the fire departments, allowing for access to equipment that would otherwise be unavailable or required. In 2016, there were 14 mutual aid calls.

There are minor differences in the training standards that each department has declared pursuant to the Fire Services Act and the most recent Structure Firefighters Competency and Training Playbook. The Duncan department has declared itself as being at the ‘full service operations level,’ with an implication being that fire fighters can enter larger or complex structures that do not have pre-plans. The North Cowichan department has declared itself as being at the ‘interior operations level,’ with an implication that fire fighters will generally only go into larger or complex structures that have pre-plans. However, the North Cowichan department is also equipped to enter larger or complex structures if there is life requiring a rescue.

Within both municipalities there are current service delivery pressures, particularly in Duncan and the South End. The annual call volumes are the highest in this area, with approximately 230 calls for the Duncan Fire Hall and 300 calls for the South End Fire Hall. A number of peer municipalities have career staff, typically using a composite arrangement including both career staff and paid on call firefighters. Regardless of amalgamation, any potential future shift to a composite staff would represent a cost increase.



In and of itself, the act of amalgamation does not trigger a need for changes to the current fire protection approach or the combined expenses for fire protection. The municipalities are currently able to support a five-hall approach with volunteers. Potentially there could still be five volunteer fire chiefs and five fire halls each with continued unique service areas (even in Duncan/South End). The Duncan fire hall could even potentially continue to operate at the ‘full-service operations level,’ with the North Cowichan fire halls operating at the ‘interior operations level.’ Therefore, no cost impacts are projected in this scenario.


Amalgamation could potentially trigger a need for a full-time fire chief. There could also be a need for a deputy fire chief, training officer, and/or administrative support staff. An allowance of approximately $600,000 is suggested for these purposes.

It is noted that amalgamation could also potentially result in increased pressure for additional career firefighting staff. For example, if the Duncan and South End fire halls were to be

114


‘merged,’ it is likely that the combined call volumes (of over 500 calls annually) would trigger a need for at least some full-time staff. This possibility is discussed further in the section on ‘Risks, Opportunities and Uncertainties,’ below.

C. Risks, Opportunities and Uncertainties



Staffing Level Although an amalgamation may not directly trigger changes to fire protection, an amalgamated municipality would have a higher probability of moving towards a fire protection model that includes at least some career staff. Alternatives may include: 1) hiring a career fire chief and potentially other career staff including a deputy chief, training officer, and/or administrative support staff, while maintaining paid-on-call crews; or, 2) using composite staff arrangements, which would include both career and paid on-call members in Duncan and the South End, as well as potentially Chemainus/Crofton. Depending on the model, fire protection expenses could range significantly. As indicated above, an allowance of about $600,000 is suggested to allow for the possibility of a career fire chief and associated support staff. Conversely, if there were to be a shift to a composite staffing model with both career fire fighters and volunteers, an allowance of about $2 million to $5 million+ could be required for additional expenses (over and above current combined net fire protection expenses of about $1.7 million for Duncan and North Cowichan after accounting for revenue from current service agreements). A more detailed fire services review would be required to establish an appropriate model and costs if there were to be a change from the current model. As well, if career staff were to be used and there was a desire to operate out of one hall in Duncan/South End compared to the two current halls, there would be a need to expand one of the existing halls and add a bay for a third pumper truck (see sharing of equipment, below).

Sharing of Equipment

Duncan’s equipment includes 2 pumper trucks, a 100-foot aerial platform, and a 3,500-gallon tender, while North Cowichan’s South End equipment includes 2 pumper trucks, a 65-foot aerial platform, and a water rescue boat. In an amalgamation scenario that combines the Duncan/South End resources, there could be sharing of equipment, resulting, for example, in a need for 3 pumper trucks in total (compared to 4 currently).

115



Insurance When developing property insurance rates, insurance companies refer to fire insurance grades. Published through the Fire Underwriters Survey, fire insurance grades are a measure of the capacity of the community to provide an effective level of response to structure fires that can be expected to occur based on the level of fire risk in the built environment. In determining fire insurance grades, various factors are considered, including: risk level; fire department; water supplies; fire safety control including prevention and education; and, emergency communications. Each insurance company uses its own formula to set property insurance rates. However, in general, as fire insurance grades improve, insurance companies consider the level of risk of loss to be lower, therefore increasing capacities and making the insurance market more competitive. Thus, improvements in fire insurance grades can result in lower insurance rates for property owners. In some communities, shifts to add career staff have resulted in improvements to fire insurance grades. It is possible that with an amalgamation, even a full-time fire chief and uniform training could result in improvements to fire insurance grades and resulting insurance rates. However, it is not possible to quantify the exact savings. A Fire Underwriters Survey and/or additional study can assist in determining actions that could be taken to improve fire insurance grades.

Pet Licenses/Other

This study does not contemplate any amalgamation related financial impacts to animal control services. Currently there are individual contracts between the municipalities and Coastal Animal Services. With an amalgamation, there would be one contract with Coastal Animal Services. There are no anticipated cost efficiencies or additional expenses anticipated as a result of this shift. Nevertheless, it is noted that Duncan and North Cowichan currently have different dog licencing fees (e.g. North Cowichan charges $35 for a licence purchased during January/February, while for the same period, Duncan charges $16 for a neutered/spayed dog or $35 for an unneutered/un-spayed dog). With an amalgamation, this fee structure would need to be harmonized.

116


Environmental Health

Overview

Environmental Health encompasses a range of services unique to each community. Both communities provide waste collection and environmental programs. Other environmental health initiatives include air quality management, corporate energy management, environmental education, management of native and invasive plants, water conservation, and West Nile Virus prevention.


Garbage truck Garbage trucks (4)


Garbage, recycling and kitchen organics (City) Yard waste and glass collection (contracted out) Environmental programs and initiatives such as corporate energy management, climate change, environmental education, native and invasive plants

Garbage (Municipality), recycling and kitchen organics (contracted out) Environmental programs and initiatives such as corporate energy management, climate change, environmental education, native and invasive plants Forestry program


Staffing Complement

Garbage and recycling: 0.6 FTE Garbage and recycling: 3.4 FTE Energy: 0.5 FTE Forestry: 2.34 FTE


Separate third-party contracts but with same providers (Multi Materials BC and Progressive Waste)

CVRD Services Environmental initiatives Solid waste management

Environmental initiatives Solid waste management


Residential solid waste collection: bi-weekly Residential recycling collection: bi-weekly Organic collection: weekly Yard waste and glass collection: monthly – 10 months per year

Residential solid waste collection: bi-weekly Residential recycling: bi-weekly Organic collection: weekly No yard waste or glass collection pick up Proposal currently being prepared to change to automated collection to service more homes and reduce WorkSafe BC claims and premiums

117


Table 45 – Solid Waste Management and Resources 2016 Budget


Garbage/recycling $211,000 $1,158,000 $247,000* $1,075,000

Energy n/a $0 n/a $266,000

Forestry n/a $1,659,000 n/a $1,509,000

Total: $211,000 $2,817,000* $247,000 $2,850,000*

*Includes garbage and recycling, public washrooms, and environmental programs.

**North Cowichan figures do not include cemetery revenue and expenses, included under Parks, Recreation and Culture for the purposes of this review.



Service Service Delivery Administrative Financial

Garbage and recycling

Both communities receive the same level of service for residential solid waste, recycling, and organics collection. Duncan residents also receive yard waste and glass collection on a monthly basis for 10 months of the year. While it may be possible for each community to maintain its current level of service (and pay separate garbage collection fees), a change in service for one of the communities is likely with an amalgamation.

Services would be administered by a consolidated Environmental Health department.

Financial impact depends on level of service chosen for combined community. If service level is raised to that received by the City of Duncan, total costs would increase. If service level is set to that received by North Cowichan residents, there would be a cost decrease as yard waste and glass collection services would be eliminated. Possible cost savings through consolidation of staff.

Energy North Cowichan has dedicated staff resources whereas Duncan staff deal with energy issues as part of broader portfolios – amalgamation would provide whole community with dedicated staff.

Any change in level of service would be funded primarily through general taxation.

Forestry This service is currently only provided by North Cowichan.

Revenue and expenses would likely be shared by amalgamated

118


Discussion


Solid waste collection is one of the more significant environmental health functions undertaken in both Duncan and North Cowichan. The City of Duncan has one garbage truck and one employee who collects garbage, recycling and organics three days per week. The City collects recycling under contract with Multi Materials BC. As a result, user fees decreased and the City instituted a yard waste and glass collection program. The City contracts with Progressive Waste to provide this program where people can leave up to 10 bags or cans of yard waste and unlimited clean glass at the curb once per month from March to December for pick up.

In North Cowichan, solid waste collection services are provided by 3.4 FTE, who operate four trucks. North Cowichan is currently preparing a proposal to move away from manual collection to automated collection as a means to maintain collection times due to an increase in the number of residences, and to reduce WorkSafe BC claims and premiums. Like Duncan, the Municipality has an agreement with Multi Materials BC, although recycling is contracted to Progressive Waste. Unlike Duncan, North Cowichan does not provide yard waste or glass collection services.

Duncan and North Cowichan also have a range of other environmental programs and initiatives. In Duncan, a budget for environmental programs is allocated for Environment Committee initiatives, which are supported by Planning and Public Works staff. In North Cowichan, various staff also support environmental initiatives, working with an Environmental Advisory Committee and a Forestry Advisory Committee. Of note, North Cowichan also has committed staff resources dedicated to the Corporate Energy Program as well as the Forestry Program. The Forestry Program manages 25 percent of the total North Cowichan land base as a Municipal Forest Reserve. Through this program, 50,000 trees are planted annually, 50 hectares are logged per year, and revenues from the land base are used to cover expenditures and produce a profit for the municipality.


For this function, the main amalgamation impacts relate to solid waste collection services. While possible, it is unlikely that an amalgamated municipality would continue to maintain two different levels of service and approaches for service delivery in relation to garbage and

municipality (nominal impact as non-tax revenues and expenses are similar for this service).

119


recycling programs. In particular, the municipality would choose whether to use a contractor or municipal staff for recycling services. As well, the municipality would choose whether to provide yard waste and glass collection services.

Since solid waste collection services are funded from separate waste collection fees, any changes to costs would affect these fees as opposed to the general municipal tax. Depending on the approach, user fees could be anywhere from the current Duncan level of $131 per residential property to the current North Cowichan level of $83 per residential property.


In this service area, there are a potential one-time expenses associated with contract changes or labour relations. The one-time expenses for General Government provide allowances for these items.




Level of Service Solid waste collection is one function where there is a different level of service between Duncan and North Cowichan. It is likely that the level of service would be streamlined as a result of an amalgamation, with associated cost increases or reductions for certain residents.

Service Delivery Provider

As indicated, Duncan and North Cowichan use municipal staff vs. contractors to deliver different aspects of solid waste management services. An amalgamated municipality would likely use a consistent approach in all areas.


As a result of amalgamation there could be a need for salary harmonization, which could result in some minor upscaling of salary expenses for this function.

120


Parks and Recreation Services

Overview

Parks and recreation services include the provision and maintenance of park land, public open space, recreational facilities, and recreational programs. These services are primarily provided by the Municipality of North Cowichan and the CVRD, with the City of Duncan as a joint-owner or contributor to several facilities and parks. Duncan is primarily responsible for parks within its municipal boundary.


» Sports fields at McAdam Park and Rotary Park

» Parks within City » Outdoor Totem Collection

» Cowichan Aquatic Centre » Fuller Lake Arena » Crofton Outdoor Pool » 15 ballfields » 300+ acres of park space » Pioneer Cemetery and Mountain

View Cemetery


» Ownership and maintenance of parks and sports fields

» Contribution to jointly owned recreation facilities and parks (e.g. Cowichan Aquatic Centre and Evans Park)

» Largest outdoor Totem collection in Canada

» Contribution to regional library, Valley Seniors’ Organization Centre, public art maintenance, and museum grants

» Ownership and maintenance of parks, sports fields, wharves, Fuller Lake Arena, Cowichan Aquatic Centre, Crofton Outdoor Pool, cemeteries

» Recreation programming » Contribution to regional library and

grants in aid to community organizations

Service Area » City of Duncan » Municipality of North Cowichan » Providing services to City of

Duncan

Staffing Complement

» Maintenance through Public Works staff complement (plus 3 students in the summers)

» 63.6 FTE


» Duncan is joint owner and contributor to Cowichan Aquatic Centre (operated by North Cowichan)

» Duncan is joint owner of Evans Park (sports fields in North Cowichan) » Duncan is a contributor to Kin Park (home to Kin Park Youth Urban Farm),

located in North Cowichan » North Cowichan is a contributor to Centennial Park, located in Duncan » Numerous recreation services provided through CVRD, including Island

121


Savings Centre (see below)

CVRD Services » Island Savings Centre » Island Savings Capital Loan -

Theatre » Cowichan Regional Parks and Trails » Regional Parks » Regional Parkland Acquisition » Regional Tourism » Kinsol Trestle » Arts and Culture » Vancouver Island Regional Library » Cowichan Valley Hospice Society

(grant)

» Island Savings Centre (South End only)

» Islands Savings Capital Loan – Theatre

» Theatre – North Cowichan (North End only, for grant to Cowichan Performing Arts Centre)

» Regional Parks » Regional Parkland Acquisition » Regional Tourism » Kinsol Trestle » Arts and Culture » Vancouver Island Regional Library » Cowichan Valley Hospice Society

(grant)


» City provides parks and contributes to other service providers (e.g. North Cowichan and CVRD) for recreation facilities and programming

» North Cowichan is a major provider of recreation, parks, and culture services in the region. This service area makes up 27 percent of the municipality’s budget.

Table 48 - Parks and Recreation 2016 Budget


Parks and Recreation $12,000 $2,431,000* $887,000 $8,459,000*

*Cited North Cowichan revenue and expenses include all parks, recreation and culture revenue/expenses plus cemetery revenue/expenses (included under Environmental Health in Financial Plan)




Parks and Recreation

While each municipality has separate areas of responsibility, there is significant cost and service sharing between the two

Administration for parks and

There is already significant cost/service sharing between the two communities. Amalgamation would lead to

122



communities. North Cowichan has a wider range of service responsibilities that Duncan. Regional recreation cost sharing has been a long-standing issue and the CVRD began a comprehensive review of this issue this year.

recreation would be combined.

combined administration but similar costs for service provision.

Discussion


Duncan and North Cowichan have highly integrated Parks and Recreation Services. While each municipality is responsible for park maintenance within its boundaries, there are joint ownership and/or cost sharing arrangements in place for parks like Evans Park, Kin Park, and Centennial Park. Duncan and North Cowichan jointly own the Cowichan Aquatic Centre, which is operated by the Municipality of North Cowichan. And, Duncan and North Cowichan (South End) both participate in the CVRD Island Savings Centre function along with CVRD Electoral Areas D and E.

Duncan operates its parks department with three full-time staff, and the City does not operate any indoor recreation facilities. However, the parks department maintains sports fields, several parks, and the largest outdoor Totem collection in Canada. In comparison, with its role in the delivery of recreation services, North Cowichan has a total parks and recreation staff complement of over 60 full-time staff.


It is unlikely that there would be any immediate direct impacts of amalgamation on parks and recreation services. The combined Duncan and North Cowichan staff complement would be required to maintain and operate current parks, facilities, and programs. The Cowichan Aquatic Centre would be owned and operated by the amalgamated municipality, and the Island Savings Centre would continue to be owned and operated by the CVRD (see Risks, Opportunities, and Uncertainties, below).

123





Island Savings Centre

Amalgamation could potentially put pressure on the current CVRD Island Savings Centre function, as CVRD Areas D and E would be partners with the amalgamated municipality rather than Duncan and North Cowichan.


As a result of amalgamation there could be a need for salary harmonization, which could result in some minor upscaling of salary expenses for this function.

124


5. FINANCIAL IMPACTS

The previous chapter assessed the potential scenarios for administration and service delivery if Duncan and North Cowichan were to amalgamate. This chapter analyzes the potential financial impacts of these scenarios, including impacts on net municipal expenses, municipal revenue, and total taxes and charges for property owners.

The scope of this study limits the analysis to a ‘point-in-time’ snapshot of potential impacts. The analysis uses 2016 budget and tax figures to estimate the immediate impacts of amalgamation. It does not provide analysis or insight into the financial impacts of amalgamation over time.

Potential Annual Impacts to an Amalgamated Municipality

Scenario 1 – Automatic Impacts of Amalgamation Only

Scenario 1 contemplates impacts that would automatically occur as a result of an amalgamation. This scenario does not contemplate changes in overall combined staffing levels or overall facility requirements. However, this scenario accounts for the following changes to the combined general municipal fund:

• One Council to serve the amalgamated municipality. This change would decrease costs associated with General Government.

• The addition of new policing costs. The new municipality would automatically be responsible for 90 percent of its policing costs (as North Cowichan is now).

• Elimination of the Small Community Grant: A larger, amalgamated community would not quality for the Small Community Grant currently received by Duncan.

Table 51 provides an overview summary of these automatic impacts.

125


Table 51 - Scenario 1—Automatic Impacts of Amalgamation

Item Variance from 2016 General Fund*

General Government (140,000)

Planning and Development Services --

Public Works and Engineering/Transportation Services --

Protective Services $1,370,000

Environmental Health --

Parks and Recreation --

Small Community Grant (Eliminated) $510,000

Net Additional Revenue Needed for General Fund $1,740,000

*Does not include Duncan’s provincial police tax and police bridging capital levy.

Table 52 illustrates the potential impact on the combined general municipal tax requirement. The pre-amalgamation combined revenue is the combination of Duncan and North Cowichan’s combined general municipal tax revenue (not including provincial police tax or police bridging capital revenue for Duncan).

Table 52 - Scenario 1—Financial Impact Analysis

Item General Municipal Tax Requirements

Pre-Amalgamation Combined General Municipal Tax Revenue* $29,780,000


Post-Amalgamation Required General Municipal Tax $31,520,000


126


Additionally, Duncan property owners would experience the elimination of the current provincial police tax ($280,000) and the police bridging capital levy ($770,000).7 Thus, while there is a net impact of $1,740,000 for the general fund, when including Duncan’s police taxes in the analysis, the combined net change in overall taxation is actually $690,000 (based on $1,740,000 - $280,000 - $770,000).

This analysis assumes that since an amalgamated municipality would be responsible for 90 percent of front-line policing costs, there would no longer be a need for a separate police bridging capital levy. Currently, Duncan uses this levy to mitigate the potential for a future major property tax increase once the municipality reaches a population of 5,000 and is required to directly pay a greater share of local policing costs. However, until such time that the population reaches 5,000, the City is using revenue from the police bridging capital levy to fund capital projects. Since 2012, the City has used this revenue stream for a variety of projects, including:

• Repayment of Cowichan Aquatic Centre debt; • Dike infrastructure and flood mitigation infrastructure; • Lee Street Pump Station; • Rotary Park upgrades; • Canada Avenue intersection and infrastructure replacement; • Cedar Avenue infrastructure replacement; and, • Fire Hall seismic upgrade.

Since Duncan’s population remains below 5,000 as of the 2016 census, Council is currently considering using police bridging capital levy revenue to fund over $4 million in capital projects over six years, including:

• Undergrounding of utilities on Canada Avenue/Government Street; • Marchmont Road infrastructure improvements; • Pine Avenue infrastructure improvements; • Day Road infrastructure improvements; • Storm main upgrades; and • Boulevard and Gateway improvements along the Trans-Canada Highway.

7 The police bridging capital levy was designed to buffer Duncan against potential budget shocks associated with reaching a population of 5,000 and becoming responsible for 90 percent of policing costs. The analysis assumes that this levy would be eliminated following amalgamation as costs for policing services would be paid for through general revenue of the newly amalgamated municipality.

127


It is noted that if an amalgamated municipality chose to continue funding capital projects at this level, there could be increased taxation levels and/or increased debt financing costs as a result of the elimination of the police bridging capital levy.

Scenario 2 – Potential Impacts of Amalgamation

Scenario 2 identifies potential changes to staffing and service delivery that may be triggered by an amalgamated municipality. It also includes the automatic impacts identified in Scenario 1. An amalgamation may trigger changes in a number of service areas:

• Efficiencies in staffing, office and overhead savings, and professional fees. Amalgamation would likely trigger a review of combined staffing needs. Efficiencies may be found particularly in areas where there would be duplicate positions. General Government, Planning and Development Services, and Public Works and Engineering/Transportation are three areas where staffing efficiencies could potentially be realized.

• Potential need for a full-time fire chief and support staff. Amalgamation, due to a larger overall municipality and the potential need for additional fire services coordination, may trigger the need for a full-time fire chief and/or administrative support staff. This impact is not a direct result of amalgamation, but a potential need based on discussions with key staff including the Fire Chiefs from the Duncan and North Cowichan South End detachments.

Table 53 provides a summary of these potential changes, including automatic changes identified in Scenario 1.

128


Table 53 - Scenario 2—Potential Impacts of Amalgamation

Item Variance from 2016 General Fund*

General Government ($580,000)

Planning and Development Services ($100,000)

Public Works and Engineering/Transportation Services ($150,000)

Protective Services $2,660,000

Environmental Health --

Parks and Recreation --

Small Community Grant (Eliminated) $510,000


*Does not include Duncan’s provincial police tax and police bridging capital levy

Table 54 illustrates the potential impact on the combined general municipal tax requirement. As with Scenario 1, the pre-amalgamation combined revenue is the combination of Duncan and North Cowichan’s combined general municipal tax revenue (not including provincial police tax or police bridging capital revenue for Duncan).

Table 54 - Scenario 2—Financial Impact Analysis

Item General Municipal Tax Requirements

Pre-Amalgamation Combined General Municipal Tax Revenue* $29,780,000


Post-Amalgamation Required General Municipal Tax $32,120,000

*Does not include Duncan’s provincial police tax and police bridging capital levy

129


As with Scenario 1, Duncan property owners would experience the elimination of the current provincial police tax ($280,000) and the police bridging levy ($770,000).8 Thus, in this scenario, while there is a net impact of $2,340,000 for the general fund, when including Duncan’s police taxes in the analysis, the combined net change in overall taxation is actually $1,290,000 (based on $2,340,000 - $280,000 - $770,000).

Summary of Potential Financial Impacts to an Amalgamated Municipality

The following table illustrates the main differences between Scenarios 1 and 2. As shown, Scenario 2 anticipates further savings for General Government, Planning and Development Services, and Public Works and Engineering/Transportation Services. At the same time, Scenario 2 also anticipates more substantial amalgamation-related expenses for protective services, including policing and fire protection.

The result is that in Scenario 1, the amalgamated municipality requires an additional $1.7 million in revenue for the General Fund, while in Scenario 2, the amalgamated municipality requires an additional $2.3 million in revenue for the General Fund.

8 The police bridging capital levy was designed to buffer Duncan against potential budget shocks associated with reaching a population of 5,000 and becoming responsible for 90 percent of policing costs. The analysis assumes that this levy would be eliminated following amalgamation as costs for policing services would be paid for through general revenue of the newly amalgamated municipality.

130


Table 55 Comparison of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2—Impacts of Amalgamation

Item Scenario 1 Variance from 2016 General

Fund*

Scenario 2 Variance from 2016 General

Fund*

General Government (140,000) ($580,000)

Planning and Development Services -- ($100,000)

Public Works and Engineering/Transportation Services -- ($150,000)

Protective Services $1,370,000 $2,660,000

Environmental Health -- --

Parks and Recreation -- --

Small Community Grant (Eliminated) $510,000 $510,000

Net Additional Revenue Needed for General Fund $1,740,000 $2,340,000


Table 56 illustrates the potential impact on the combined general municipal tax requirements. As noted, the illustrated net additional revenue requirements are Duncan and North Cowichan’s combined additional general municipal tax requirements. When factoring in the elimination of Duncan’s current Police Tax and Police Bridging Capital Levy, the overall increased taxation requirements are actually $690,000 for Scenario 1 and $1,290,000 for Scenario 2.

Table 56 Comparison of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2—Financial Impact Analysis

Item Scenario 1 General

Municipal Tax Requirements

Scenario 2 General Municipal Tax Requirements

Pre-Amalgamation Combined General Municipal Tax Revenue* $29,780,000 $29,780,000

Net Additional Revenue Needed for General Fund $1,740,000 $2,340,000

Post-Amalgamation Required General Municipal Tax $31,520,000 $32,120,000


131


Potential One-Time Implementation Expenses

The table below summarizes the potential one-time implementation expenses that are outlined in Chapter 4 of this report. As the annual financial impact analysis does not account for these one-time expenses, it is assumed that these expenses would be covered by potential provincial transition assistance, borrowing, or some combination of these and other funding sources.

Table 57 - Potential One-Time Implementation Expenses

Item Potential

Timeframe Suggested

Allowance (Low) Suggested

Allowance (High)

Referendum on Amalgamation Year 0 $0 $80,000

Development of an Amalgamation Implementation Plan by a Joint Council/Joint Committee of Duncan and North Cowichan

Years 1-2 $50,000 $100,000

Amalgamation Communications Planning and Implementation

Years 1-2 $50,000 $75,000

Policy and Bylaw Harmonization (focused on General Government – not including Land Use Planning and Development or Engineering)

Years 1-2 $50,000 $75,000

Renegotiation of Leases, Contracts and Agreements (assumes mainly done by staff with some legal/consulting support)

Years 1-2 $50,000 $75,000

Naming (including potential referendum), Branding, Logo, Letterhead, Website

Years 1-2 $50,000 $150,000

Signage (e.g. Buildings, Parks, Fleet, Community Gateways)

Years 1-10 $300,000 $600,000

Integration of Records, Information Technology, and Financial Planning

Years 1-2 $100,000 $400,000

Labour Relations (e.g. integration of union collective agreements, severance packages)

Years 1-2 TBD TBD

Integration of Official Community Plans, Zoning Bylaws, Development Cost Charge Bylaws and other Regulatory Bylaws

Years 1-5 $200,000 $300,000

132


Item Potential

Timeframe Suggested

Allowance (Low) Suggested

Allowance (High)

Local Area Planning Initiatives (i.e. new plans and/or implementation actions for existing plans)

Years 1-10 $400,000 $800,000

Coordination of Asset Management Years 1-5 $50,000 $100,000

Infrastructure Modelling Integration Years 1-5 $100,000 $200,000

Harmonizing Public Works and Engineering-Related Bylaws (e.g. Subdivision and Development Servicing Standards)

Years 1-10 $75,000 $100,000

Total $1,475,000 $2,955,000

Potential Property Tax Impacts

For both scenarios, the additional annual revenue requirements were used to calculate the long-term potential tax rate changes that could occur as a direct result of the act of amalgamation. This analysis does not account for factors such as community growth, changes in assessment, or Council decisions to change service levels. This analysis is based on a ‘point-in-time’ snapshot comparing 2016 budgets and property taxes to a hypothetical future year when amalgamation has been implemented and operations between the two existing municipalities have ‘normalized.’

As discussed earlier, Duncan and North Cowichan each use slightly different tax ratios to determine the relative tax burden on non-residential property classes (e.g. utilities, industry, business). If the municipalities were to amalgamate, the Council would need to decide on tax ratios for the amalgamated municipality. For the purposes of this study, tax impacts were calculated using an average of the tax ratios currently used in Duncan and North Cowichan (see Table 14). A Council could choose to adjust the tax ratios and the relative tax burden on respective property classes.

Tax comparisons include applicable assessment-based (ad valorem) property taxes, parcel taxes, and user fees. The analysis assumes the same parcel taxes and user fees as used in 2016, with one exception. For those properties that currently have water supplied by the City of Duncan, it is assumed that water user fees would be harmonized following an amalgamation (i.e. the water user fees would be the same regardless of whether the property is within the current Duncan boundary or located in an adjacent area outside of the City of Duncan boundary).

133


Potential Residential Property Tax Impacts

Table 58 illustrates the summary property tax and fee impacts of amalgamation for representative residential properties. As illustrated, amalgamation could potentially result in a reduction in tax rates for Duncan residential properties and an increase in tax rates for North Cowichan residential properties (in most cases). This situation is generally the result of current higher per capita government costs for Duncan (due to the municipality’s smaller population), lower average assessed values of properties in Duncan compared to North Cowichan, and the fact that Duncan has been charging the police bridging capital levy to mitigate potential future higher local costs for policing services. When the police bridging capital levy is included in the current situation but eliminated in the amalgamation scenarios, it has the effect of lowering taxes for Duncan property owners.

Table 58 – Potential Tax Impacts on Representative Residential Properties Total Taxes and

Fees (2016)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Representative Property Total Taxes and Fees % Change Total Taxes

and Fees % Change

Duncan $240,000 Property $2,934 $2,910 (0.8%) $2,932 (0.1%)

North Cowichan $310,000 Property (South End)*

$3,551 $3,542 (0.2%) $3,570 0.6%

North Cowichan $310,000 Property (North End)**

$3,455 $3,506 1.5% $3,535 2.3%

*Assumes a South End property on the City of Duncan water system, and harmonization of the City of Duncan water rates following an amalgamation.

**Assumes a property in Chemainus.

For each of the representative properties, detailed sample tax notices are provided in Tables 59, 60, and 61.

134


Table 59 – Potential Tax Impacts on a Duncan Residential Property Assessed at $240,000 Current Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Item Rate Tax Rate Tax Rate Tax

Tax Levies

General Municipal Tax* 3.8318 $ 920 4.7941 $ 1,151 4.8854 $ 1,172

Police Bridging Capital Levy 0.9305 $ 223 n/a $ - n/a $ -

Police Tax - Provincial 0.3408 $ 82 n/a $ - n/a $ -

CVRD 1.6420 $ 394 1.6420 $ 394 1.6420 $ 394

School Levy 2.2016 $ 528 2.2016 $ 528 2.2016 $ 528

Hospital 0.5710 $ 137 0.5710 $ 137 0.5710 $ 137

BC Assessment Authority 0.0543 $ 13 0.0543 $ 13 0.0543 $ 13

Municipal Finance Authority 0.0002 $ 0 0.0002 $ 0 0.0002 $ 0

Subtotal 9.5722 $ 2,297 9.2632 $ 2,223 9.3545 $ 2,245

Local Services/User Fees

Garbage Collection** $ 131 $ 131 $ 131

Sewer User Fee – Annual*** $ 276 $ 276 $ 276

Sewer Parcel Tax $ 20 $ 20 $ 20

Water User Fee - Annual**** $ 210 $ 260 $ 260

Subtotal $ 637 $ 687 $ 687

Total Taxes and Fees $ 2,934 $ 2,910 $ 2,932

% Change in General Municipal and Police Taxes (6.1%) (4.3%)

% Change for All Taxes and Fees (0.8%) (0.1%)

*The general municipal tax rate is calculated to generate $31.5 million in taxation (Scenario 1) and $32.1 million in taxation (Scenario 2). The tax rate would be the same throughout an amalgamated municipality.

**This analysis does not contemplate changes to garbage collection fees. As indicated in Section 4, it is acknowledged that fees may change depending on the service level for an amalgamated municipality.

***Illustrated sewer user fee is the 2016 rate as included on 2016 property tax notices.

****Water user fees are based on metered rates for a single detached home, assuming that rates would be harmonized following an amalgamation. Actual harmonized rates may vary.

135


Table 60 – Potential Tax Impacts on a North Cowichan South End Residential Property Assessed at $310,000: Assumes a South End Property Connected to City of Duncan Water

Current Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Item Rate Tax Rate Tax Rate Tax

Tax Levies

General Municipal Tax* 4.6293 $ 1,435 4.7941 $ 1,486 4.8854 $ 1,514

CVRD 0.8505 $ 264 0.8505 $ 264 0.8505 $ 264

CVRD Island Savings Centre (South End)

0.7423 $ 230 0.7423 $ 230 0.7423 $ 230

School Levy 2.2016 $ 682 2.2016 $ 682 2.2016 $ 682

Hospital 0.5856 $ 182 0.5856 $ 182 0.5856 $ 182



Subtotal 9.0638 $ 2,810 9.2286 $ 2,861 9.3199 $ 2,889



South End Sewer Parcel Tax $ 189 $ 189 $ 189

Sewer Flat Charge $ 149 $ 149 $ 149

Water User Fee - Duncan Water System***

$ 320 $ 260 $ 260

Subtotal $ 741 $ 681 $ 681


% Change in General Municipal and Police Taxes 3.6% 5.5%

% Change for All Taxes and Fees (0.2%) 0.6%



***Water user fees are based on metered rates for a single detached home, assuming that rates would be harmonized following an amalgamation. Actual harmonized rates may vary.

136


Table 61 – Potential Tax Impacts on a North Cowichan North End Residential Property Assessed at $310,000: Assumes a Property in Chemainus


Tax Levies


CVRD 0.8505 $ 264 0.8505 $ 264 0.8505 $ 264

CVRD Theatre Grant (North End)

0.0725 $ 22 0.0725 $ 22 0.0725 $ 22

School Levy 2.2016 $ 682 2.2016 $ 682 2.2016 $ 682

Hospital 0.5856 $ 182 0.5856 $ 182 0.5856 $ 182



Subtotal 8.3940 $ 2,602 8.5588 $ 2,653 8.6501 $ 2,682



Chemainus Sewer Parcel Tax

$ 431 $ 431 $ 431


Water User Fee $ 202 $ 202 $ 202

Subtotal $ 853 $ 853 $ 853



% Change for All Taxes and Fees 1.5% 2.3%



137


Potential Business Property Tax Impacts

Table 62 illustrates the summary property tax and fee impacts of amalgamation for representative business properties. As with residential properties, amalgamation could potentially result in a reduction in tax rates for Duncan business properties and an increase in tax rates for North Cowichan business properties. Again, this situation is generally the result of current higher per capita government costs for Duncan (due to the municipality’s smaller population), lower average assessed values of properties in Duncan compared to North Cowichan, and the fact that Duncan has been charging the police bridging capital levy to mitigate potential future higher local costs for policing services. When the police bridging capital levy is included in the current situation but eliminated in the amalgamation scenarios, it has the effect of lowering taxes for Duncan property owners.

Table 62 – Potential Tax Impacts on Representative Business Properties Total Taxes and

Fees (2016)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Representative Property Total Taxes and Fees % Change Total Taxes

and Fees % Change

Duncan $490,000 Property $13,877 $13,160 (5.2%) $13,265 (4.4%)

North Cowichan $760,000 Property (South End)*

$16,595 $17,419 5.0% $17,583 6.0%

North Cowichan $760,000 Property (North End)**

$19,156 $20,024 4.5% $20,188 5.4%

*Assumes a South End property on the City of Duncan water system, and harmonization of the City of Duncan water rates following an amalgamation.

**Assumes a property in Chemainus. Assumes property is located in Business Improvement Area 1.

For each of the representative properties, detailed sample tax notices are provided in Tables 63, 64, and 65.

138


Table 63–Potential Tax Impacts on a Duncan Business Property Assessed at $490,000 Current Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Item Rate Tax Rate Tax Rate Tax

Tax Levies


Police Bridging Capital Levy 2.3488 $ 1,151 n/a $ - n/a $ -

Police Tax - Provincial 0.8350 $ 409 n/a $ - n/a $ -

CVRD 4.0229 $ 1,971 4.0229 $ 1,971 4.0229 $ 1,971

School Levy 5.4000 $ 2,646 5.4000 $ 2,646 5.4000 $ 2,646

Hospital 1.3988 $ 685 1.3988 $ 685 1.3988 $ 685



Subtotal 23.8356 $ 11,679 22.3009 $ 10,927 22.5164 $ 11,033


BIA Core 3.7261 $ 1,826 3.7261 $ 1,826 3.7261 $ 1,826

Sewer User Fee - Annual $ 200 $ 200 $ 200

Sewer Parcel Tax $ 20 $ 20 $ 20

Water User Fee - Annual** $ 152 $ 187 $ 187

Subtotal $ 2,197 $ 2,232 $ 2,232


% Change in General Municipal and Police Taxes (11.9%) (10.3%)

% Change for All Taxes and Fees (5.2%) (4.4%)


**Water user fees are based on rates for a commercial premise with two fixtures, and assume that rates would be harmonized following an amalgamation. Actual harmonized rates may vary.

139


Table 64 – Potential Tax Impacts on a North Cowichan South End Business Property Assessed at $760,000: Assumes a South End Property Connected to City of Duncan Water


Tax Levies


CVRD 2.0838 $ 1,584 2.0838 $ 1,584 2.0838 $ 1,584

CVRD Island Savings Centre (South End)

1.8187 $ 1,382 1.8187 $ 1,382 1.8187 $ 1,382

School Levy 5.4000 $ 4,104 5.4000 $ 4,104 5.4000 $ 4,104

Hospital 1.4346 $ 1,090 1.4346 $ 1,090 1.4346 $ 1,090



Subtotal 21.0740 $ 16,016 22.2163 $ 16,884 22.4318 $ 17,048


South End Sewer Parcel Tax $ 189 $ 189 $ 189


Water User Fee - Duncan Water System**

$ 231 $ 187 $ 187

Subtotal $ 579 $ 535 $ 535





**Water user fees are based on rates for a commercial premise with two fixtures, and assume that rates would be harmonized following an amalgamation. Actual harmonized rates may vary.

140


Table 65 – Potential Tax Impacts on a North Cowichan North End Business Property Assessed at $760,000: Assumes a Property in Chemainus, in Business Improvement Area 1


Tax Levies


CVRD 2.0838 $ 1,584 2.0838 $ 1,584 2.0838 $ 1,584

CVRD Theatre Grant (North End)

0.1775 $ 135 0.1775 $ 135 0.1775 $ 135

School Levy 5.4000 $ 4,104 5.4000 $ 4,104 5.4000 $ 4,104

Hospital 1.4346 $ 1,090 1.4346 $ 1,090 1.4346 $ 1,090



Subtotal 19.4328 $ 14,769 20.5751 $ 15,637 20.7906 $ 15,801


Chemainus BIA 1 4.2500 $ 3,230 4.2500 $ 3,230 4.2500 $ 3,230

Chemainus Sewer Parcel Tax

$ 431 $ 431 $ 431


Chemainus Water Parcel Tax $ 249 $ 249 $ 249

Water User Fee $ 340 $ 340 $ 340

Subtotal $ 4,387 $ 4,387 $ 4,387





141


6. REGIONAL DISTRICT IMPACTS

Current Services

The Cowichan Valley Regional District provides many services to its member municipalities. In general, Duncan and North Cowichan receive the same services, except for instances where the North Cowichan North End and South End do not participate in the same services (e.g. Island Savings Centre). The table below provides an overview of each of the CVRD services relevant to Duncan and North Cowichan.

Region-wide Services

» General Government » Emergency 9-1-1 » Economic Development » Regional Tourism » Environmental Initiatives » Emergency Planning » Regional Parks » Kinsol Trestle » Regional Parkland Acquisition » Arts and Culture » Cowichan Valley Hospice Society » Solid Waste Management

Sub-regional Services Received by Both Duncan and North Cowichan

» Malahat Transit » Transit » Island Savings Centre Capital Loan – Theatre » Victim Services » Safer Futures » Social Planning » Cowichan Community Policing » Liquid Waste Management - Central

Sub-Regional Services with Different Participation for North Cowichan South End vs. North End

» Island Savings Centre » Liquid Waste Management Plan -

Central

» South End: o Island Savings Centre o Liquid Waste

Management Plan - Central

» North End: o Contribution to the

Cowichan Performing Arts Centre

142



Service Delivery Considerations Administrative Considerations Financial

Considerations

With an amalgamation, CVRD services would remain unchanged. All services currently provided would continue.

Administration of services would nominally change as CVRD would be interacting with one municipality instead of two. Communication between CVRD and municipal staff may be more streamlined. The number of Regional Board Directors and votes for an amalgamated municipality would be the same as the total number of Directors and votes for the separate communities of Duncan and North Cowichan. In total, there would be four Directors with a total voting strength of 18. Presently, there is one Director for Duncan (voting strength: 3) and three Directors for North Cowichan (voting strength: 15)

Cost recovery for CVRD services would remain unchanged with an amalgamation.

Discussion


Representation on the CVRD Board of Directors is determined by voting units based on total population. The CVRD uses a voting unit of one vote per 2,000 population (or portion thereof). Up to five votes can be cast by one Director. Based on these rules, Duncan currently has one Director with a voting strength of three votes. North Cowichan has three Directors with a voting strength of 15 votes in total.

At present, Duncan and North Cowichan receive largely the same CVRD services. The main exception relates to the Island Saving Centre and Cowichan Performing Arts Centre. In this case, the cost of this facility is distributed differently by area:

• Duncan and the South End of North Cowichan contribute to both the Island Savings Centre and the Cowichan Performing Arts Centre (along with CVRD Electoral Areas D and E); and,

• The North End of Duncan provides a grant to the Cowichan Performing Arts Centre and does not contribute to the Island Savings Centre.

Additionally, Duncan and the North Cowichan South End contribute to the CVRD Liquid Waste Management Plan (Central), while the North Cowichan North End is not a participant in this service.

143



If current CVRD voting rules remain the same, the voting strength for Duncan and North Cowichan as an amalgamated community would be the same as the combined voting strength now: four Directors with a total voting strength of 18. An amalgamated municipality could have a unified voice representing a larger municipality on a Board that has otherwise remained unchanged. However, there is a potentially changed dynamic at the Regional District Board, as the amalgamated municipality would have four directors and all other jurisdictions (including municipalities and electoral areas) would have one director each.

Services provided by the CVRD would continue unchanged, as would the methods of cost recovery. Regional district services are paid for only by the property owners in the ‘benefitting areas’—that is, the residents who receive given services. As a result, the distribution of costs (typically based on assessment) would remain unchanged with an amalgamation.

From a CVRD perspective, amalgamation may create uncertainty with smaller municipalities and Electoral Areas who may be concerned that an amalgamated municipality may take a more dominant role on the CVRD Board. This perspective could put pressure on services such as the Island Savings Centre, in which participants would include one large municipality and two smaller electoral areas. Notwithstanding, it is also recognized that representatives from an amalgamated municipality may not always vote as a ‘block.’ It is possible that on some issues an amalgamated municipality may not speak with one voice at the CVRD Board table.

If desired, the CVRD could request that the Province adjust the population represented by each voting unit. In turn, changes to the voting unit could impact the number of Directors for each jurisdiction. Similarly, the CVRD could review its electoral area boundaries and potentially request a change to the number/size of electoral areas. However, these changes would not be directly triggered by an amalgamation, and analysis of these options is beyond the scope of this study.

144


7. KEY CONSIDERATIONS

In addition to the technical impact analysis, there are numerous other key considerations associated with a potential amalgamation. This report chapter discusses the key considerations, organized around the following six themes: 1) community; 2) governance; 3) transition process; 4) community vision, planning and development; 5) social and environmental goals; and 6) the impacts of not amalgamating.

Community

Municipality Name

The name of a municipality carries significant weight for both residents and visitors and it can be a signifier of community identity. Should Duncan and North Cowichan amalgamate, a transparent and thoughtful process for determining the name should be initiated. This issue is likely to be of particular concern to Duncan residents with their smaller population and geographic size. Businesses already cope with confusion related to whether they are part of Duncan or North Cowichan. Amalgamation would provide more clarity for marketing purposes, though there would be a transition period until a new name “sticks.”

Three relevant case studies exist for the naming process:

1. Lake Country: The municipality’s name was chosen with no reference to existing neighbourhood names. This approach allowed a new identity to be created and avoided the perception that one community was more important than another.

2. West Kelowna: In this case study, the municipality’s name was chosen through an opinion poll, rather than a binding referendum, leaving a number of residents unsatisfied. A key lesson is that the naming process should be transparent and intentional.

3. Abbotsford: In the amalgamation of Matsqui and Abbotsford, Abbotsford was the smaller community. It therefore came as a surprise when most residents chose Abbotsford as the name of the new amalgamated municipality. However, as Abbotsford had been the downtown for the area, residents in Matsqui had also come to identify with the name.

Community Identity

Duncan and North Cowichan are described as a community of communities: Chemainus, Crofton, Maple Bay, Sahtlam, Quamichan Lake, Duncan, and Genoa Bay. Residents are understandably concerned about how a municipal restructure may impact their community’s identity. Ward systems are often cited as a way to protect unique neighbourhood identities

145


However, municipalities of all sizes boast strong and unique neighbourhoods and active residents. Support for vibrant neighbourhoods can be buttressed through Council decisions that respect and promote neighbourhood identity, as well as citizen engagement and activism. The integrity of a community will also be strongly impacted by planning and development decisions. When Abbotsford amalgamated, the new Council chose to continue using historical neighbourhood names as a way of preserving and strengthening neighbourhood identity.

Strong neighbourhoods benefit from local initiatives. A few examples of these initiatives are identified below:

1. Business Improvement Associations: Local businesses can organize and collectively invest in their streets, storefronts, and signage, among other neighbourhood aspects.

2. Neighbourhood Associations: Made up of local residents, neighbourhood association across Canada are working to build connections between neighbours and strengthen their communities. They may organize local events (such as fundraisers or concerts), arrange fundraisers, start community gardens or art projects, among many other initiatives.

3. Small Council Grants: In some municipalities, small grants can be provided to local groups for initiatives that strengthen community connections or help beautify public spaces, among many other goals. Both Duncan and North Cowichan already provide ‘grants-in-aid’ to a number of community organizations.

Governance

Council Size

Section 118 of Community Charter outlines council sizes for municipalities. For a city or district with a population less than 50,000, the council size is set at one mayor and six councillors. However, the number of councillors can vary from this size through either the letters patent by which the municipality is created or through a bylaw passed by council. If council size is deemed to be an issue, a question about this issue could potentially be included on a referendum on amalgamation.

Amalgamation would result in changes to local political representation. Duncan and North Cowichan currently have the same Council size for dramatically different populations. The ratio between Councillors and residents would increase dramatically following amalgamation. However, this change does not necessarily translate into a reduction in how well local interests are represented, particularly if a shared vision benefits the greater community.

146


In the case of Abbotsford, the Province required the first Council of the newly amalgamated municipality to be larger than what was normal at the time. This was to ensure that elections did not push out representation from the smaller community of Abbotsford. However, the first post-amalgamation election resulted in fairly balanced representation of Councillors from different neighbourhoods. After several years, the Council size decreased. Based on past experiences, the Province will likely look for local input in setting Council size.

Election Process

Concern over neighbourhood identity raised the issue of local representation in an amalgamated community. One suggestion favoured introducing a ward system to local government elections, as opposed to the present at-large election system.

At-large Councillors: In this system, elected Councillors represent the entire municipality. During elections, voters select their preferred candidate for mayor and their preferred candidates for Council (as many votes as Councillor seats can be placed). Because voters can vote for multiple Councillors, they may be able to choose Councillors who represent a range of their interests. The Council itself is more likely to represent the entire community as opposed to specific geographic areas. However, this system does not provide neighbourhood residents with a specific Councillor who acts as their point of contact. Residents can approach any/all Councillors to discuss issues of interest or concern.

Ward Councillors: In this system, elected Councillors represent specific wards. During elections, voters select their preferred candidate for mayor and their preferred candidate for their ward. In some municipalities, there may be several Councillors who are elected to represent the community at-large. This system allows for representation for specific geographic areas (wards) and offers residents a direct contact in Council for their neighbourhood. However, this system encourages Councillors to focus on localized issues at the expense of the general community and may create competition between wards for resource allocation and development projects.

Members of the Citizens’ Assembly asked for information on the ward system as a way to protect Duncan and North Cowichan’s five distinct community identities: Duncan, South End, Maple Bay, Crofton, and Chemainus. Each of these areas could be made into a ward and would have direct representation on Council.

The ward system is extremely unusual in British Columbia, though common in other provinces. Lake Country, which incorporated in 1995, is currently the only municipality in BC with a ward system (it is actually a combination of ward and at-large councillors). This system was chosen at the time of incorporation to protect the interests of each of the distinct neighbourhoods of Winfield, Okanagan Centre, Carr’s Landing, and Oyama. However, the

147


ward system has created a number of challenges for the municipality that are relevant to Duncan and North Cowichan:9

• Ward boundaries were based on geographic size, not population, and the ratio of residents for each Councillor is uneven.

• Councillors are generally well-known in their neighbourhood and are frequently elected by acclamation. Candidate participation is low.

• Voter turnout is low (although this may not be directly related to the ward system). • Neighbourhood distinction has become less important over time as the community

has grown and changed.

While a ward system offers a direct political representative for each neighbourhood, it does not automatically result in the preservation of community identity or a better voice at Council. It can also be costly and difficult to implement in a way that provides meaningful impacts over the at-large system. The approach to these issues is dependent on the elected officials and the local political culture. The ward system may in some cases encourage greater competition between neighbourhoods for capital projects and resources. In the at-large system, each Councillor represents the entire community. This may create greater incentives for Council to consider balancing the interests of each neighbourhood and the community as a whole.

Provincial-Local Government Relations

The question was raised as to whether or not an amalgamated community would have greater standing with the provincial government, including in terms of receiving funding, advocating for the area, or influencing regulations. The community as a whole (Duncan and North Cowichan) may find it easier to coordinate with the Province as an amalgamated community (one process instead of two). However, it is unlikely that amalgamation would result in a significant increase in standing as the increase in community size is relatively small.

An amalgamated community could benefit from a unified voice at important forums such as the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM). Conversely, in a UBCM context, a unified municipality would have only one opportunity to meet with a Minister on a topic of concern. Currently, if Duncan and North Cowichan both share an interest in a topic of concern, it is possible that they can engage with the Province either individually (i.e. twice) or jointly (i.e. as a unified voice).

9 District of Lake Country. Neighbourhood Constituency Wards: Information and Comments. Lake Country, BC. N.D. https://lakecountry.civicweb.net/document/797/Ward%20Information%20Sheet.pdf?handle=1C7AE3936A964F8EBA9F1BF38D541B05 (March, 2017).

148


Presently, Duncan and North Cowichan apply for conditional provincial grants separately. As an amalgamated community, they may have fewer opportunities to apply for funding (i.e. one application instead of two) and Duncan would no longer receive the Small Communities Grant. However, for any conditional grants, total funding should be similar to current levels.

Size of Municipality

The merits or challenges related to the size of an amalgamated community are not the same in every case. Economies of scale are often cited as a reason to amalgamate; however, this is not necessarily the case in all communities, particularly if service levels vary between neighbourhoods (e.g. rural versus urban) or if amalgamation results in increased salary or contract costs. A larger municipality may increase the taxpayer’s expected level of service across the community, thereby potentially increasing costs.

There are a number of areas where a unified, larger municipality may serve the residents of Duncan and North Cowichan better. Together, a single municipality could offer a unified economic voice for the area and avoid competing with their next-door neighbour’s interests. A unified municipality may also be seen as playing a larger, more cohesive role on regional issues within the CVRD (e.g. regional planning, transportation, emergency management).

Transition Process

Provincial Transition Assistance

The Local Government Grants Act (S.4) allows the provincial government to offer conditional grants to municipalities for

“reviewing, studying, planning, organizing, or implementing the establishment or other reorganization of local government, including any change in the functions, structures, boundaries, or classifications of one or more municipalities and regional districts.”

Two types of grants may apply if a referendum occurs and Duncan and North Cowichan electors both vote in favour of amalgamation:

• Municipal Restructure Assistance Grant: This grant provides transitional assistance for communities in favour of a municipal restructure, including help with police costs. The grant amount is generally calculated on a per capita basis.

• Restructure Implementation Grant: This grant is provided to support the implementation of a restructure, such as interim administration and transition support.

While there have been a number of municipal incorporations and boundary restructures in BC in recent years, amalgamations are rare and examples of comparable transition

149


assistance funding are unavailable. Nevertheless, it is expected that a per capita municipal restructure assistance grant could be available along with a restructure implementation grant.

Staffing of an Amalgamated Municipality

Amalgamation raises concerns related to staffing efficiencies. Some communities undergoing amalgamation have indeed experienced large changes to staffing structure. One of the findings of this study is that there are few opportunities for significant efficiencies based on current staffing levels. Both Duncan and North Cowichan operate fairly lean staff complements throughout their departments. It is possible that staffing complements would be combined with additional levels of management in some departments. Chapter 4 provides a review of potential amalgamation scenarios.

Labour Relations

One of the potential costly aspects of a municipal restructure is the renegotiation of union and other employment contracts. When wages differ for similar positions, the higher wage will often be used to set the benchmark in the new municipality. This was found to be the case in amalgamations forced by provincial governments.10

Communications

As with all major institutional changes, municipal restructure can be complicated and confusing, particularly during the transition period. Residents and visitors may be unsure of what to call the new municipality, who to ask about services, and what rules and regulations apply. Recognizing the potential for the transition period to be challenging, previous experience shows that a strong and consistent communications strategy is vital to smoothing out the process.

A clear communications approach is needed regardless of whether the Citizens’ Assembly and Council choose to recommend a referendum on amalgamation. Even in the case that there is no referendum on amalgamation, documentation and messaging on why the decision was made will support community understanding of the issues, and ensure that future conversations on amalgamation are fruitful and learn from lessons of the past.

10 Bish, Robert and Filipowicz, Josef. Governing Greater Victoria: The Role of Elected Officials and Shared Services. Fraser Institute. 2016.

150


Community Vision, Planning, and Development

Council Decisions

While we can speculate on the vision, direction, and priorities of a new amalgamated community, ultimately, these are decisions to be made by a future Council, influenced by the concerns of the day, economic climate, trends, and competing priorities. This study is about assessing the impacts of the act of amalgamation. Service levels would be decided by Council.

Land Use Planning and Development

With amalgamation, the two sets of Official Community Plans, Zoning Bylaws, and other regulatory and policy documents would be combined over a transition period. The goal would be to align documents to be consistent in the application of guidelines and regulations. The direction of future development will be provided by Council with input from staff.

Through amalgamation, future land use planning would consider the area as a whole and there would be strengthened coordination between what is now Duncan and North Cowichan. However, it is possible for two separate municipalities to embark on land use planning together, particularly when they work closely already and there are numerous mutual benefits for guiding planning and development as a region rather than as separate municipalities. For example, the City of Langford and the City of Colwood developed an Official Community Plan jointly. This allowed the communities to approach planning and sustainability in an integrated fashion.

We identified three main benefits of amalgamating that relate to land use planning and development:

1. Coordinated planning effort: Long-term planning and zoning would be integrated and an amalgamated municipality could direct development in a way that benefits the whole area. Separate communities face many barriers to such an approach, including competing interests and accountability to a different set of residents.

2. Harmonized rates and incentives: Differences in rates such as business licences and Development Cost Charges (DCCs), as well as incentives such as DCC reductions, can create competition for development with neighbouring communities. Together, the area could share in the benefits of new businesses and growth.

3. Harmonized OCP, Zoning Bylaw, and other development bylaws (e.g. subdivision, building, signage): Harmonized policies and regulations would provide clarity for property owners and businesses. Due to the highly-connected nature of the two communities, this harmonization may benefit both over time. During the study process, members of the business community expressed frustration at conflicting regulations in Duncan and North Cowichan.

151


Economic Development

Though Duncan and North Cowichan cooperate on a great number of community goals and issues, amalgamation would offer a greater opportunity for a community-wide approach to economic development. One example of this is the downtown. Presently, Duncan and South End, though neighbours, do not necessarily have a common vision as a cohesive community core. As a single community, there may be incentives to consider these two areas as two neighbourhoods in a broader community centre, and invest in them as the core of the community. This is, as with other community goals, dependent on vision and direction provided by Council. A unified community may find it easier to invest in its downtown. However, it may also feel pressure to direct economic opportunities to peripheral areas.

An amalgamated municipality would have the benefit of a single tax base. The result would be less competition for investment and development. A more coordinated approach may be easier to implement than through two separate municipalities.

Harmonization of Bylaws and Regulations

Uncoordinated bylaws and regulations between Duncan and North Cowichan are a common complaint by the business community, although it is noted that there are existing areas of cooperation, such as joint business licencing. It is possible for the municipalities to pursue greater alignment of bylaws and regulations as separate municipalities if the political will is there, as well as the time and funding to carry out changes.

One of the greatest challenges of implementing amalgamation will be harmonizing the two communities’ bylaws and regulations. The Zoning Bylaw of the City of Abbotsford was recently finally overhauled to deal with ‘post-amalgamation’ issues two decades after amalgamation. Harmonization of bylaws is a process that will take time but, once completed, will offer the greater community a streamlined approach to bylaws and regulations. Homeowners and businesses, particularly those who work or own property in both communities, will benefit from a consolidated approach to regulation and planning.

Social and Environmental Goals

Environment and Climate Change

The Citizens’ Assembly raised questions about the capacity of an amalgamated community to offer benefits related to environmental protection, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and local alternative energy sources. Many environmental regulations are set by the Province of British Columbia. Municipalities are required to follow these regulations regardless of size.

152


Municipalities can take on any number of additional environmental initiatives. For example, a municipality at risk of sea level rise may invest in programs that protect against coastal erosion, or pilot a clean energy project to attract energy investment. As separate communities, Duncan and North Cowichan are able to pursue such projects independently or in collaboration. In 2013, North Cowichan Council adopted the Climate Action and Energy Plan which seeks to reduce energy consumption and emissions in the community. Both municipalities are currently aiming to be carbon neutral.

Municipalities can also enact various types of bylaws (e.g. floodplain bylaws) and development permit bylaws for environmental protection purposes. For example, North Cowichan has development permit requirements for marine waterfront development, protection of environmentally sensitive areas, hazard lands, and farmland protection. As well, Duncan has development permit requirements for protection of the natural environment and hazard lands.

Amalgamation offers a number of potential benefits to environmental goals, should Council prioritize these goals. Note, that it is also possible for a new Council to take a different direction. The benefits offered are based on the ability of the communities to plan and invest as one:

1. Larger combined budget: Combining the present budget may offer opportunities to invest in new initiatives or pilot projects.

2. Improved coordination, particularly for land-based projects: Projects that benefit from wide application may be easier to implement in a combined community. There would be less chance that an initiative in one area conflicts with another area.

3. Shared benefits and risks: North Cowichan has significantly more land than Duncan, including municipally-owned land. While North Cowichan could use this land for initiatives such as alternative energy, as a separate community, it would bear all the risks and capture all the benefits. Together, there may be a greater appetite for taking investment risks and benefits could be shared among a larger pool of residents. There may also be differences in opportunity depending on the area that are easier to take advantage of through a coordinated approach.

4. Reduced competition: As separate communities, there is greater potential for competition. For example, one municipality may introduce an environmental initiative that adds costs to business owners; the neighbouring municipality could potentially use this as a competitive advantage in attracting business.

Social Planning

Duncan and North Cowichan face social and economic challenges together, as a part of a region, and separately, as unique communities. Homelessness, addiction, and crime may be more concentrated in some areas than others, but the issues driving these are much broader than municipal borders. Though direction on social planning issues will be based on Council

153


direction and resource allocation, an amalgamated community may offer a strengthened opportunity to respond and serve community needs better. Similar to other considerations, a larger municipality may have the budget and staff to support initiatives above and beyond basic service provision.

While amalgamation itself may not have a direct impact on social and economic challenges in the area, there are some important considerations for how a change in governance may be perceived:

• Property taxes: Residents may be understandably concerned about the potential for their property taxes to increase with an amalgamation. Based on our analysis, amalgamation would likely lead to a small decrease in municipal taxes for Duncan residents and a minor increase in taxes for North Cowichan residents.

• User fees: Analysis of user fees is beyond the scope of this study. However, based on the current provision of services such as water, sewer, and recreation, it is unlikely that user fees would change. The service with the most potential for harmonization would be waste collection.

• Social programs and affordable housing: Amalgamation may also create uncertainty over social programs and affordable housing. Our analysis is based on the continuation of existing services.

Impacts of Not Amalgamating

Amalgamation has long been discussed in Duncan and North Cowichan. Some residents may ask, “what might happen if we don’t amalgamate?” While understandable, the answer to this question can only be speculative in nature, and it could depend on factors such as Duncan’s population size (which affects policing costs), pressures on various existing services, and the level of collaboration between neighbouring jurisdictions. Whether the municipalities remain separate or amalgamate, Council decisions will play a critical role in determining the future vision and direction of a community. If the municipalities choose not to amalgamate, there are two main paths:

1) Status quo: Duncan and North Cowichan continue to remain separate and local services remain as they are (with the current level of cooperation and service integration).

2) Remain separate but increase collaboration: Duncan and North Cowichan can pursue additional opportunities of alignment and cooperation. Just a few examples of such opportunities are

a. developing a joint Official Community Plan; b. shared planning of fire protection and infrastructure services; or c. harmonizing bylaws, including regulatory requirements of development.

154


REFERENCES

Bish, Robert L. and Clemens, Eric G. Local Government in British Columbia. 4th Edition. Union of BC Municipalities. 2008.

District of Lake Country. Neighbourhood Constituency Wards: Information and Comments. Lake Country, BC. N.D. https://lakecountry.civicweb.net/document/797/Ward%20Information%20Sheet.pdf?handle=1C7AE3936A964F8EBA9F1BF38D541B05 (March, 2017).

Bish, Robert and Filipowicz, Josef. Governing Greater Victoria: The Role of Elected Officials and Shared Services. Fraser Institute. 2016.

Local Government Department. Municipalities. Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, N.D. http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/pathfinder-mun.htm (March, 2017).

Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Managing Changes to Local Government Structure in British Columbia: A Review and Program Guide. Province of British Columbia, 2000.

Vojnovic, Igor. “The Transitional Impacts of Municipal Consolidation.” Journal of Urban Affairs. Volume 22, Number 4, 2000, pgs. 385-417. 2000.

155

Appendix A

prepared for

Citizens’ Assembly Questions

Photo: "Chemainus” by Heather Harveyis licensed under CC BY SA 2.0

156

Questions for the Technical Consultants February 28, 2017

Members of the Citizens’ Assembly drafted the following questions which were transmitted to technical consultants at Urban Systems Inc. who have been retained by the Duncan and North Cowichan to provide an independent assessment of the fiscal, infrastructure, service and governance implications of amalgamation. Urban Systems will provide a report on their findings to the municipalities and the Assembly on or before April 1st, 2017.

To learn more about the Assembly, please visit: www.dnc-cama.ca

General

1) What lessons can Duncan and North Cowichan learn from Abbotsford and Nanaimo? How do the circumstances concerning amalgamation compare?

2) Why consider amalgamation now? Is there a better time or scale at which Duncan and North Cowichan should consider amalgamating?

3) What strategies could an amalgamated municipality adopt to preserve the distinct character and identity of local communities?

Land Use & Planning 4) Is there anything we can learn concerning the development or harmonization of OCPs from

other amalgamated municipalities in BC or other provinces?

5) What would be the approximate cost of creating a new Official Community Plan (OCP) for the amalgamated municipality as well as Local Area Plans for each of the communities within an amalgamated municipality, and harmonizing corresponding land use bylaws? What would be a reasonable timeline for completing this work?

6) Is it possible that the province could provide one-time funding to develop a new OCP and LAPs as part of transition funding?

157

Governance

7) How would the by-laws of the two municipalities be harmonized? Would they continue to co-exist, would new by-laws be drafted or would the existing by-laws of one of the two municipalities supersede the other?

8) How have comparable municipalities in Canada changed their council systems following amalgamation? Is there a case for expanding council or implementing a ward or hybrid ward and at-large system? What factors should be considered when determining the appropriate council system for an amalgamated municipality?

Environment

9) What environmental regulations would be affected by amalgamation? How would these regulations be harmonized?

10) Would an amalgamated municipality be better able to invest in local alternative energy sources, such as biomass, geothermal, tidal, or wind power? Would an amalgamated municipality be better positioned to attract alternative energy investment?

11) Would an amalgamated municipality be better able to influence provincial or federal environmental regulation? How would amalgamation affect our ability to responsibly manage and protect local water sources?

12) Would an amalgamated municipality be better able to protect and advocate for the local bioregion?

Taxation and finances

13) What is the likely impact of amalgamation on tax rates for residents and businesses in Duncan and North Cowichan?

14) What factors related to amalgamation could lead to increased taxes for residents and businesses?

15) Could amalgamation have an adverse impact on low-income residents? If so, what might it be?

16) What provincial funds might be available – for what use, period and amount – to offset transition costs?

17) How would amalgamation change North Cowichan and Duncan’s eligibility for specific provincial and federal funding programs?

158

Efficiencies, services, infrastructure

18) How would an amalgamated municipality harmonize its services and infrastructure? Where are the widest gaps between existing services and infrastructure affecting residents and businesses of the two municipalities?

19) If amalgamation was to occur, in which areas could local administration and services could be streamlined and what savings are likely to result?

20) Where have previous amalgamations typically found cost savings and improved methods for delivering municipal services?

21) Given anticipated capital expenses in the next 5 - 10 years, how would amalgamation affect the overall costs of these projects and how would it impact the taxes of residents in both Duncan and North Cowichan?

22) Are there any anticipated new capital costs associated with amalgamation?

23) What are the anticipated costs of integrating services, governance, bylaws and zoning? How do these costs compare with anticipated savings during both the implementation period and over twenty-five years?

24) How would user fees and parcel fees change for residents if the municipal were to amalgamate?

25) What advantages would an amalgamated municipality enjoy in terms of cost efficiency, quality of services and infrastructure and standing with the provincial and federal government?

26) If the municipalities amalgamate, what would happen to existing service contracts? Are there any specific liabilities with regards to these contracts?

27) How should emergency services be delivered in an amalgamated municipality? What are the likely costs or savings and consequences for services?

28) Would an amalgamated city be in a better position to provide social and affordable housing?

Economic growth

29) How is amalgamation likely to affect local economic activity and growth?

159

30) How does population and economic growth in Duncan and North Cowichan compare with the province as a whole and comparable municipalities over the past decade?

31) What are the current bylaw and policy differences between Duncan and North Cowichan that led to competitive advantages/disadvantages between municipalities?

32) What are the likely economic or opportunity costs of not amalgamating?

33) What advantages or disadvantages might accrue to local businesses from amalgamation?

34) Without amalgamation, does North Cowichan’s continued growth pose a challenge to the viability of Duncan businesses and its tax base?

35) Would amalgamation strengthen area tourism?

160

Appendix B

prepared for

Current Organizational Charts

Photo: “Maple Bay, B.C.” by Rick McCharlesis licensed under CC BY 2.0

161


Duncan Organizational Chart

162


North Cowichan Organizational Chart

163

Appendix C

prepared for

Long-Term Debt (as of 2016)

164

Duncan / North Cowichan | Amalgamation Study | C1

Duncan Debentures: Total debentures are $1,260,000 as at December 31, 2015, as follows:

General Fund Maturity Date 2015 Net Unmatured

Cowichan Aquatic Centre 2026 $1,140,000

Sewer Utility Fund Maturity Date 2015 Net Unmatured

Sewage Lagoons 2019 $120,000

North Cowichan Debentures: Total debentures are $21,790,000 as at December 31, 2015, as follows:*

General Capital Fund Maturity Date 2015 Net Unmatured

Maple Bay Fire Hall 2025 $950,000

Maple Bay Fire Hall 2028 $370,000



Duncan Curling Club 2032 $470,000

Tier 2 Flood Protection 2032 $670,000

Tier 2 Flood Protection 2033 $930,000

Municipal Hall Expansion 2033 $1,400,000

Stoney Hill Road 2040 $2,000,000

Total $19,570,000

*In addition, in 2016, the District of North Cowichan undertook long-term borrowing of anadditional $200,000 for flood protection (Loan Authorization Bylaw 3623).

165

Duncan / North Cowichan | Amalgamation Study | C2

Water Systems Capital Fund

Maturity Date 2015 Net Unmatured

Chemainus 2016 $20,000

Chemainus 2030 $1,430,000

Crofton 2029 $410,000

South End 2016 $50,000

South End 2016 $20,000

Total $1,930,000

Sewer Systems Capital Fund

Maturity Date 2015 Net Unmatured

Chemainus 2017 $180,000

Crofton 2017 $110,000

Total $290,000

166

www.urbansystems.ca

167

Documents

Municipality of North Cowichan Committee of the Whole AGENDA · I hope that everyone will recognize the Assembly’s work as an important contribu- ... two jurisdictions several times