Metro Vancouver Governance Model: Changing the Board Structure

A few weeks ago, I posted about proposed changes to the governance model at the Metro Vancouver Regional District based on recommendations by Deloitte earlier last year. The Regional District is currently working through these recommendations via its Governance Committee. One of the more complex areas that may require provincial collaboration is any change to the board's makeup, which currently has 41 Directors who are elected representatives: 39 appointed by their municipal councils, 1 by Tsawwassen First Nation, and 1 directly elected in Electoral Area A.

Directors were recently polled about what works and what doesn’t at the board level.

What works:

• The Regional District governance model is fundamentally sound.
• Strong commitment and engagement from Directors.
• Broad regional representation is valued and legitimate.
• Collaboration across jurisdictions has historically delivered results.
• Governance fundamentals and processes are largely in place.

What is a challenge:

• Board size can be unwieldy and inefficient (with 41 people in the room, discussing a single matter can take hours).
• Fiduciary duty to Metro Vancouver is difficult to balance with municipal obligations (municipal political expectations conflict with regional responsibilities).
• Board culture and turnover can inhibit constructive deliberation (who is elected matters, and every four years, there is normally a large turnover due to local government elections).
• Volume, structure, and timeliness of Board materials limit effective preparation (the agenda can be large and highly technical).
• Committee structure and meeting processes can be duplicative (committee decisions are often re-assessed at the board level).
• Perceived lack of subject matter expertise on Boards with high-risk exposure

Given my experience on TransLink’s Mayors’ Council and my involvement at the regional level through my role as mayor, I fully agree with both what works and the current challenges.

The governance committee will be looking at how to possibly restructure the board to most effectively accomplish the following objectives:

• Governance effectiveness (including proportionality, transparency, accountability, risk, and resilience).
• Stakeholder impact (including building public trust).
• Municipal representation
• Transition readiness (including ease of implementation and support from municipal and provincial governments).

Having a good governance structure is important, but even the best governance structure cannot prevent people who are only in it for power or self-interest from making decisions that are not in the region's best interest. I’ve also seen how challenging governance structures, such as those at TransLink, can deliver solid decisions when we all work together, as with the unanimously approved Investment Plan.

I look forward to seeing the committee's recommendations on possible changes to the board.

Net Financial Assets or Debt by Municipality in Metro Vancouver - Langely City A-OK

Earlier this week, I posted about the debt load of municipalities in Metro Vancouver based on recently released 2024 local government financial information data from the provincial government. This is the latest year available from the provincial government.

Net financial assets or debt are an indicator used in public accounting. A full explanation is included in “Understanding Canadian Public Sector Financial Statements”. A short explanation is that a local government in a net debt situation will require additional financial resources (taxes, further debt, or funding from other orders of governent) to continue delivering services and investments in tangible capital assets such as roads, water, sewer, parks and other facilities, while a municipality in a net financial asset situation will be able to investement in tangible capital assets with exisiting resources.

While being in a net-debt situation doesn’t mean a municipality is broke, it is an indicator that a local government is using debt more than its own savings to fund capital assets. If the net-debt continues to increase over a period of time, it could indicate that a municipality’s revenue is not keeping pace with its capital improvement program. All municipalities in BC have a debt limit which they cannot exceed.

Municipalities	Net Financial Assets or (Net Debt) at Year End
Township of Langley	(8,529,000)
Bowen Island	(245,281)
Belcarra	940,978
Lions Bay	4,348,455
Anmore	10,812,567
Pitt Meadows	34,864,663
Port Coquitlam	35,566,150
Langley City	51,584,299
Port Moody	66,233,649
White Rock	116,115,312
City of North Vancouver	133,668,685
New Westminster	139,599,807
West Vancouver	157,754,468
District of North Vancouver District	167,415,833
Maple Ridge	168,077,934
Delta	222,571,861
Coquitlam	1,010,804,000
Surrey	1,019,806,000
Richmond	1,212,467,935
Vancouver	1,489,852,000
Burnaby	2,101,833,906

Exploring a Resident-Permit Parking Program in High-Demand Areas

Yesterday, I posted about proposed changes to on-street parking and parking in City-owned lots in Downtown Langley City to ensure parking availability to support businesses as part of Langley City’s Public Parking Strategy. This plan calls for introducing two-hour, four-hour, and expanded monthly long-term parking options in Downtown. Today, I wanted to touch on the proposal for on-street residential parking.

Currently, people can park their vehicles for up to 72 hours on all streets in Langley City that aren’t signed otherwise. The community has expressed concern about on-street parking in certain neighbourhoods. Research by the City shows that some streets have high demand for on-street parking, as indicated by the dark purple on the following map.

Typical on-street parking utilization on Saturday, the busiest night of the week for overnight parking. Select the map to enlarge.

As all residents have on-site parking, some reasons people choose on-street parking are that on-site parking is priced (e.g., rental buildings or a university), used for reasons other than parking (e.g., storage), or not suitable for someone's vehicle (e.g., a commercial van). Of course, visitors also use on-street parking, and some people may have many vehicles.

To fairly manage residential parking in areas with high demand, such as the dark purple areas, the City would explore implementing a resident-permit parking program. A resident-permit parking program would encourage households to use available off-street parking, re-evaluate whether using off-street parking for alternative uses (e.g., storage) is optimal, and address chronic spillover parking from major destinations (e.g., a university). There are still many things to consider if the City were to implement a resident-permit parking program in select areas. Further work is required.

There will be a further opportunity to provide feedback on the City's proposed Public Parking Strategy. Follow “Let's Chat, Langley City!” to stay up to date.

Parking in Downtown Langley City: 2-Hour, 4-Hour, and Long-Term

Last summer, I posted about the work the City is doing to improve on-street parking management in our Downtown, Douglas and Nicomekl Neighbourhoods. After seeking additional public feedback, the City has further refined a proposed new on-street parking management strategy.

One of the big changes is switching on-street parking in Downtown from 3 hours to 2 hours to encourage more parking turnover, which is good for most businesses. Some customers may need to stay for more than 2 hours, so the City is also planning to increase the parking time limit in City-owned lots from 3 hours to 4 hours. Finally, we know that many employees need a place to park. Monthly, long-term parking will be expanded to include select parking spots at the Timms Community Centre. The following map shows the proposed parking time-limits for the Downtown area. Missing are the on-street parking spots west of 203rd Street in Downtown. I asked that they be included in the final strategy.

Proposed changes to on-street parking and city-owned lot timing limits in Downtown Langley City. Select the map to enlarge.

This change to the time-parking is something that the City would do as soon as possible. In preparation for SkyTrain, the City will also continue studying paid parking. The earliest paid parking would be considered for implementation would be in 2029 to coincide with the opening of SkyTrain in our community. The City would use paid parking to increase turnover and availability of parking for businesses near SkyTrain stations and to manage commuter parking. Any profit from paid parking would be directly reinvested in Downtown.

Other short-term projects to enhance the parking experience in Downtown include improving wayfinding, especially to City-owned lots, and modernizing and enhancing parking enforcement. In the longer-term, the City would look to implement real-time parking availability like in Kelowna, so people would know exactly where parking is available, either through an app or on-street digital displays.

Finally, the City will look to secure additional off-street public parking near SkyTrain stations as part of redevelopment projects.

Tomorrow, I’ll post about the recommendations for residential parking.