DuncanTaxpayers.ca has received several queries from people wanting to know where to vote in the Municipal Election on 20 October 2018.
The Voting Place for City of Duncan voters is at the Duncan Volunteer Fire Department, 468 Duncan Street. Voting hours are 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Here is a map showing the location of 468 Duncan Street:
Here is a Google Street View image of 468 Duncan Street:
Parking is available directly across Duncan Street from the Duncan Volunteer Fire Department building.
Earlier this year, the City of Duncan went through a divisive, and very expensive, Amalgamation Referendum which was conclusively settled on 23 June 2018 by a resounding No vote from Duncan voters. But although this Amalgamation Referendum was settled nearly four months ago the effects of the Amalgamation campaign are still on the minds of Duncan voters.
As I campaign door to door around Duncan, the first two questions I am most commonly asked by voters are:
Clearly the Amalgamation Referendum is still on the minds of Duncan voters. Both of these questions are very valid and I have to admit that they are also the first two questions I ask of any candidates currently running for Mayor of Duncan or for Duncan Council.
So, for the information of Duncan voters, let’s go through the list of current candidates for Duncan Mayor and Council and show the answers to the two questions above: What was your position on Amalgamation?; and, Do you live in Duncan?.
Let’s start with the Candidates for Mayor of Duncan (in alphabetical order by surname):
Martin BARKER
Daniel HELMER
Sharon JACKSON
Michelle STAPLES
Now for the candidates for City of Duncan Council (in alphabetical order by surname):
Mark ANDERSON
[Disclaimer: this website is run by Mark Anderson]
Bob BROOKE
Garry F. BRUCE
Roger BRUCE
Note: Incumbent Councillor
Jenni CAPPS
Tom DUNCAN
Note: Incumbent Councillor
Gordon HEPPELL
Lura McCALLUM
Stacy MIDDLEMISS
George NEILSON
Carol NEWINGTON
Glen SANTICS
Would you like to leave a comment or question about anything on this post?
These questions are, specifically, whether to pass or reject CVRD Bylaw No. 4201 and/or CVRD Bylaw No. 4202. There will be one Referendum question on each of these two questions.
I will be voting “No” on both these CVRD Referendum questions and my reasons are shown below.
But first, here are the CVRD explanations of these two Referendum questions, as taken directly from the CVRD website. Note that the CVRD is calling this “Assent Voting” as though the CVRD already considers public “assent” to be a foregone conclusion.
CVRD Bylaw No. 4201 – Service Establishment
“CVRD Bylaw No. 4201 – Cowichan Housing Association Annual Financial Contribution Service Establishment Bylaw, 2018“, will allow the CVRD to annually requisition up to the greater of $765,000 or an amount equal to the amount that could be raised by a property value tax of $0.04584 per $1,000 of net taxable value of land and improvements within the service area to assist the Cowichan Housing Association with costs associated with providing programs and services related to affordable housing and homelessness prevention in the Cowichan Valley.
CVRD Bylaw No. 4202 – Service Establishment
“CVRD Bylaw No. 4202 – Drinking Water and Watershed Protection Service Establishment Bylaw, 2018“, will allow the CVRD to annually requisition up to the greater of $750,000 or an amount equal to the amount that could be raised by a property value tax of $0.045050 per $1,000 of net taxable value of land and improvements within the service area to establish a service for the purpose of drinking water and watershed protection within the Cowichan Valley Regional District.
Here is why I am against these two CVRD Referendum questions:
First my reasons for opposing CVRD Bylaw No. 4201 – Cowichan Housing Association Annual Financial Contribution Service Establishment Bylaw, 2018“:
The CVRD Referendum question on housing (CVRD Bylaw No. 4201 – Service Establishment) is about raising $765,000, or possibly more, to give the Cowichan Housing Association for more studies and reports.
I don’t believe Bylaw 4201 will get a single unit of new housing built or get a single unit of new housing in existing structures.
The CVRD justifies this proposed tax, in part, by saying the Cowichan Housing Association will lobby senior levels of government for housing funds. But this can be accomplished for far less money.
One presenter at the CVRD Board meeting on this issue suggested that creating a CVRD staff position on housing issues could be created for far less money, approximately $125,00 as opposed to the $765,000 proposed in Bylaw No. 4201. That proposal made far more sense to me than what is being proposed in this CVRD Referendum question. A CVRD staff position would mean that the occupant of that position would be directly accountable to the CVRD Board, while the Cowichan Housing Association would be a non profit organization outside the CVRD administration.
Handling housing through a CVRD staff position would also mean that any funds collected by this proposed tax would remain on this CVRD books and under CVRD control. Turning these funds over the Cowichan Housing Association, as stated in the proposed Bylaw 4201, means the taxpayer funds collected are off the CVRD books and under the control of an non-profit organization outside the CVRD.
And lobbying the provincial government on housing could be accomplished by simply picking up a phone and calling our local M.L.A., Sonya Furstenau, who has the ear of government and who is very interested in housing issues. Lobbying the federal government could be done through our local M.P., Alistair MacGregor, who is also very interested in housing issues.
It would cost the CVRD nothing to pick up a phone to contact our local M.P. or M.L.A.
A common argument made in favour of Bylaw 4201 is that the CVRD needs to have a Housing Trust Fund similar to those maintained by other municipalities, such as the City of Victoria.
So I see no need for a new CVRD tax to raise $765,000 to simply give to the Cowichan Housing Association to create more studies and reports or to lobby the federal or provincial governments.
Apart from that, the CVRD is referring to this proposed new tax as a “financial contribution service.” Never trust any politician or bureaucrat who refers to proposed new taxes as a “financial contribution service.”
In short, this proposed new tax for housing will just produce more studies and reports; it will not produce any new housing. So I will be voting No on that Referendum question.
Here are some more articles against Bylaw 4201:
CVRD Bylaw No. 4202 – Drinking Water and Watershed Protection Service Establishment Bylaw, 2018
Here are my reasons for opposing CVRD Bylaw No. 4202 – Drinking Water and Watershed Protection Service Establishment Bylaw, 2018
The water issue in proposed Bylaw No. 4202 is a bit different than the proposed housing Bylaw No. 4201. The CVRD currently has over 30 small water authorities running the water systems in small areas of the CVRD; Arbutus Ridge and Mill Bay are two examples among many.
A recent consultants’ report (the Innova Report) to the CVRD was quite scathing in its criticism of the current system of water governance in the CVRD.
Here is what the Innova Report had to say about current CVRD water governance:
“1.2. Governance
The current CVRD utility governance model and subdivision approving authorities do not support the
goals and objectives of elected officials, staff, and, most importantly, the utility users. It has become
extremely difficult to effectively manage the expectations of utility users through the current disjointed
model that essentially provides authority and leadership through the Electoral Area Services Committee.
It is also a challenge to manage growth without jurisdiction. There are two recommendations for changes
to governance in the CVRD:
Establish a Utility Commission – There should be strong consideration given to the creation of a commission candidate profile supporting professional industry experts, not specific community advocates. This would support the long-term goals of amalgamating water and wastewater utilities and ensuring that all new utilities are acceptable to overarching plans and objectives…..”
So the CVRD understandably wants to centralize control of CVRD water systems and resources under a centralized CVRD water governance authority. That actually makes some sense.
But the CVRD is trying to sell this proposed new authority to the public on the idea of combating the effects of climate change and global warming, safeguarding drinking water and protecting the watershed.
The CVRD Referendum question on Bylaw 4202 also proposes to tax the City of Duncan and Municipality of North Cowichan residents for this new water authority as well as CVRD residents. Duncan and the Municipality of North Cowichan already have their own water systems in place and have had those systems in place for decades.
So my reaction to this CVRD Referendum question is, “Why should Duncan and Municipality of North Cowichan residents be taxed by the CVRD to fund a new CVRD water authority for CVRD areas?”
I will be voting No on both the CVRD Referendum questions.
For additional commentary, here is a link to an article about CVRD water issues and Bylaw 4202 in the Cowichan Valley Citizen by CVRD Director Klaus Kuhn.
Would you like to leave a comment or question about anything on this post?
Update: 18 September 2018 – Also see the newer post about the need for a City of Duncan Controlled Substances Property Bylaw.
Update: 11 October 2018 – on City of Duncan Enforcement Efforts and Costs In Connection With 454 Garden Street.
The City of Duncan is having some serious issues with a property at 454 Garden Street. This house and property has been declared a “hazardous waste site” due to rampant drug use having taken place on the property.
In March and April 2018 the City of Duncan spent over $12,000 to have a local private hazardous waste contractor, Lakeside Property Maintenance, based in Lake Cowichan, remove used syringes and other drug related material from the house and yard at 454 Garden Street.
I spoke with the owner of Lakeside Property Maintenance, who told me that the work at 454 Garden Street was carried out over four days, 29 March 2018 and 2-4 April 2018, and involved a crew of five people wearing full hazardous material protective equipment. Lakeside Property Maintenance removed 5 five gallon pails full of used syringes from the property along with 30-40 cubic yards of other drug related refuse.
The $12,000 cost of the clean up has been charged to the property owner through the City of Duncan property taxes on the property. As of 5 September 2018 the City of Duncan has not been reimbursed for the clean up costs.
Here is a Google Street View image showing how this house at 454 Garden Street appeared in 2015:
Here are photos of 454 Garden Street taken on 31 July 2018:
I have asked the City of Duncan for information on the situation regarding 454 Garden Street but Paige McWilliam has told me I will need to submit a Freedom of Information request to get that information. I have submitted a Freedom of Information request for this information but the City of Duncan has until October 2018 to respond to the request. I will post the information released by the City of Duncan when I receive it.
In the meantime, here is some background to the current situation:
454 Garden Street was purchased by a Victoria based investor for $182,000 on 30 June 2015. It was then rented to tenants.
I do not know how many tenants rented 454 Garden Street after July 2015 but by the fall of 2017 the house had acquired a reputation in the surrounding neighbourhood as a “flop house” and what might commonly be referred to as a “crack house” where constant and rampant drug related activity was taking place. The City of Duncan and the local RCMP received numerous complaints from neighbours about the illegal activities taking place at 454 Garden Street.
On 26 November 2017 the Duncan/North Cowichan RCMP executed a search warrant at 454 Garden Street which resulted in the arrest of 15 people. I contacted the Duncan?North Cowichan RCMP to ask for details of the case but the RCMP advised me they cannot comment or release any information about the case due to privacy legislation.
But a Times-Colonist article about the search warrant execution, published 29 November 2017, quoted RCMP officers as saying the property “was littered with hundreds of needles and contaminated with fentanyl” and quoting City of Duncan Bylaw Enforcement Officer Garry Kerr as saying “the conditions of the house were the worst he’s seen since his time with the municipality.
“Nobody from the City of Duncan would enter that residence due to fear of contamination,” he said.”
The presence of fentanyl, used syringes and other drug refuse in the house and on the property meant it was a hazardous waste site and unfit for habitation. That required that WorksafeBC become involved in regulating the clean up of the site.
Between November 2017 and April 2018, the City of Duncan held many discussions with the owner of 454 Garden Street about cleaning up the site. These discussions were unsuccessful and did not lead to a clean up of the site.
In March 2018 the City of Duncan decided to clean up the site and retained Lakeside Property Maintenance, based in Lake Cowichan, to remove used syringes and other drug related material from the house and yard at 454 Garden Street. As noted above Lakeside Property Maintenance spent four days at the site with a crew of five removing five 5 gallon pails full of used syringes from the property along with 30-40 cubic yards of other drug related refuse.
This begs an obvious question: why was this site allowed to sit as an unremediated hazardous waste site between the RCMP raid on 26 November 2017 and 29 March 2018, when Lakeside Property Maintenance began cleaning up the property under contract to the City of Duncan?
The property was obviously a public health hazard during this time and I will be looking into why it was not cleaned up before that time. I will post what I found out about this. But I think the City of Duncan definitely needs a Controlled Substances Property Bylaw, modeled on other such Bylaws enacted by many other municipalities and districts in B.C.
Some Additional Background Information
Here is some additional information on 454 Garden Street [note: I will be adding more to this section in the next few weeks]:
The City of Duncan Bylaw Enforcement dealt with the drug issues on this property under Bylaw 3156, the Good Neighbour Bylaw, enacted in the summer of 2017.
Here are some City of Duncan documents leading up to enacting of the City of Duncan Bylaw 3156, Good Neighbour Bylaw:
Here are the City of Duncan statistics on Bylaw Enforcement efforts and Clean Up costs associated with 545 Garden Street. This information was released in response to my questions on 454 Garden Street:
Would you like to leave a comment or question about anything on this post?
In June 2018 the crosswalk on Duncan Street in front of the Duncan Garage was painted with multi-coloured parallel stripes. We were curious about how much this cost the City of Duncan so we contacted Paige McWilliam at Duncan City Hall to find out.
Paige McWilliam told us that “The Duncan Garage paid $5,597.90 [in June 2018] to have the rainbow cross-walk painted, which covered the entire cost of the project. The actual painting was done by an outside company.”
Here is what Paige McWilliam told us about the history of this project:
On 5 May 2017 the City of Duncan received a request from Duncan Garage Cafe and Bakery asking for this crosswalk to be painted. Here is a copy of the 5 May 2017 letter to the City of Duncan from Leela Heyward of the Duncan Garage Cafe and Bakery.
In response to this letter, the City of Duncan Council, at its meeting of 15 May 2017, asked for a staff report on “the costs and maintenance requirements for painting a rainbow crosswalk for Council’s consideration..” Here is the City of Duncan staff report on what City staff refers to as “Decorative Crosswalks”, presented to the Committee of the Whole on 5 June 2017 [note: we have done a separate image for each of the 3 pages in the report]:
The cross walk on Duncan Street in front of Duncan Garage was painted in June 2018.
Paige McWilliam of the City of Duncan tells us that “The Duncan Garage paid $5,597.90 to have the rainbow cross-walk painted, which covered the entire cost of the project. The actual painting was done by an outside company.”
We will seek clarification from Paige McWilliam about whether the City of Duncan is responsible for future maintenance costs of this crosswalk or whether these costs are to be borne by Duncan Garage.
We are also seeking similar information from the Municipality of North Cowichan about the “Rainbow Crosswalk” installed on 16-17 July 2018 on James Street between Cowichan Secondary School and the Island Savings Centre. We have contacted the Municipality of North Cowichan about this but, as of this date, we have not received any response.
Since we took the above photo on 17 July 2018 this crosswalk has been damaged. We will contact the Municipality of North Cowichan to find out whether the MNC is responsible for repairing this damage and, if so, how much it will cost.
Here are some more articles from the Cowichan Valley Citizen about this crosswalk on James Street:
Here are some Cowichan Valley Citizen articles about Rainbow Crosswalks in other communities:
Would you like to leave a comment or question about anything in this post?
We contacted the City of Duncan asking for the figures on the cost to Duncan taxpayers of the recent Amalgamation campaign and Referendum.
Paige McWilliam from the City of Duncan provided us with the document below, which was presented to the Committee of the Whole at its meeting on 3 July 2018.
Note that the financial costs to the City of Duncan, and thus to Duncan Taxpayers, of the Amalgamation campaign and referendum are stated as $68,725.79. Note that the $12,000 figure stated as the Referendum cost is a “Budgeted” figure; the actual costs of the Referendum may change as figures are compiled.
Note that the total cost to taxpayers, including the Municipality of North Cowichan and Province of British Columbia, is currently given as $278,510.90.
We will have more to say about this in upcoming posts.
Update: on 5 July 2018 Paige McWilliam from the City of Duncan advised us that the final figure for the City of Duncan’s share of referendum costs was $11,108 rather than the budgeted $12,000.
Would you like to leave a comment or question below?
Duncan Councillor Roger Bruce is a very vocal advocate of Amalgamation of the City of Duncan and the Municipality of North Cowichan.
In support of Amalgamation, Roger Bruce has recently released this video and posted it on Youtube:
We disagree with Councillor Bruce’s pro-Amalgamation position and we urge Duncan residents to Vote No in the Amalgamation Referendum on 23 June 2018.
In the interest of clarification we would like to make some comments on another issue Councillor Bruce has raised while arguing in favour of Amalgamation.
In making various pro-Amalgamation arguments online – on Facebook and other platforms – Roger Bruce has repeatedly made statements to the effect that he is the only member of Duncan City Council who pays City of Duncan taxes.
He has also made this statement in the video shown above.
With regard to other members of Duncan City Council, we note that Councillors Michelle Bell, John Horgan and Michelle Staples are not residents of the City of Duncan and therefore do not pay residential property taxes in the City of Duncan. As far as we are aware, they do not own businesses in Duncan and do not pay City of Duncan business taxes.
Councillor Sharon Jackson was a Duncan resident until December 2017, when she sold her house in Duncan and moved to the CVRD. It can therefore be argued that she is not paying City of Duncan taxes at this time although we note that she was a City of Duncan taxpayer at the time of the last Municipal election in 2014 and she remained a City of Duncan taxpayer until December 2017. She has stated to us that she intends to move back into the City of Duncan as soon as she can.
Mayor Phil Kent and Councillor Tom Duncan apparently rent residential accommodation in the City of Duncan so, by Councillor Roger Bruce’s argument, Mayor Kent and Councillor Duncan do not pay City of Duncan taxes although they are City of Duncan residents. We will not address this argument here; readers can form their own opinions on that.
Councillor Bruce’s statements that he is the only person on Duncan City Council who pays City of Duncan taxes have given many people the impression that Councillor Roger Bruce lives in the City of Duncan. Apparently that is not the case; we have been informed that Councillor Bruce actually lives in the Municipality of North Cowichan.
But Councillor Bruce does pay City of Duncan taxes. He owns commercial property, on which he pays City of Duncan taxes, at the south east corner of Cairnsmore Street and Government Street. This property contains the buildings currently occupied by the 49th Parallel Grocery and the Fishbowl Cafe.
Here is a Google Street View image of this property in May 2015:
Councillor Bruce also owns adjacent properties to the south on Government Street between Cairnsmore Street and Herbert Street. In the past he has sought to develop these lots and has applied to the City of Duncan for variances for that purpose.
Here is a Google Street View image of these properties in May 2015:
So there is no doubt that Councillor Roger Bruce is a City of Duncan taxpayer. He pays City of Duncan taxes on the commercial properties shown above.
But it seems he is not a resident of the City of Duncan. We have been told that he resides in the Municipality of North Cowichan. We have asked Councillor Bruce for clarification of this but, as of this date, we have not received an answer.
So for Duncan taxpayers and residents who have heard Councillor Roger Bruce’s statement and arguments in favour of Amalgamation and that he is the only member of Duncan City Council who pays City of Duncan taxes, be aware that, while Councillor Roger Bruce is in fact a City of Duncan taxpayer, he is apparently a resident of the Municipality of North Cowichan.
This is in no way meant as a personal attack on Councillor Roger Bruce. We are simply seeking to clarify his repeated statements that he is the only member of Duncan City Council who pays City of Duncan taxes.
We urge City of Duncan residents to Vote No on 23 June 2018.
One of the most frequent arguments put forward by Cowichan Pro-Amalgamation is that policing costs will become prohibitively expensive and unsustainable for the City of Duncan when the population of Duncan exceeds 5000 people. The proponents of Amalgamation therefore argue that City of Duncan residents should support Amalgamation of the City of Duncan with North Cowichan so that policing costs can be shared over a larger tax base.
Here is argument about policing costs from the Cowichan Pro-Amalgamation website:
“Better Coordinated Police Force
Policing is one place where the strength of a united amalgamated community is needed without question. They have been preparing for years for the day when Duncan’s population exceeds 5,000 and we must shoulder our full share of policing costs. More than $8 million of transition support the provincial government has offered would go toward off-setting policing cost increases. Duncan is likely already exceeding the population threshold and would face these increased costs even without amalgamation.
Its time for Duncan to actively embrace the future and take charge of its policing future.”
As noted by Cowichan Pro Amalgamation, any municipality with a population greater than 5000 people is required to pay for policing costs. Municipalities with less than 5000 people have their policing costs subsidized by the Province of British Columbia.
The population figures are taken from StatsCan Census data; the most recent Census was conducted in 2016 and shows the City of Duncan’s population as 4,944. The previous Census in 2011 showed the City of Duncan’s population as 4,932. The next Census will be conducted in 2021.
Here is a link to the Statscan page showing the 2011 and 2016 Census data for the City of Duncan.
Here is some of what we learned from City of Duncan records.
In 2011, prior to the 2011 Census data being released, the Province of British Columbia anticipated the population of the City of Duncan would exceed 5000 people and required the City of Duncan to pay for its own policing costs.
The policing costs attributed to the City of Duncan by the Province of B.C. were equivalent to the cost of 10 constables at the North Cowichan RCMP Detatchment. The City of Duncan suggested the costs should be equivalent to 8 RCMP members and this was being negotiated with the Province.
In response to the Province of B.C. ruling, the City of Duncan raised its taxes by 12% in 2011 to cover the costs of policing. But then the 2011 Census was released, showing the City of Duncan population was 4,932 and that the Province of B.C. had been therefore been mistaken in its projection of a Duncan population exceeding 5000 people.
The City of Duncan therefore went back to being subsidized by the Province of B.C. for its policing costs. The policing costs paid by the City of Duncan in 2011 were refunded to the City of Duncan by the Province of B.C. and the Province resumed paying the policing costs of the City of Duncan, as it does for all municipalities with a population less than 5000 people. The Province still subsidizes Duncan’s policing costs.
But recall that in 2011 the City of Duncan had increased its taxes by 12% to cover the new policing costs assigned to it by the Province of B.C. Rather than reduce its municipal taxes to the pre-2011 levels, the City of Duncan maintained its tax rates at the 2011 levels and put the funds collected for policing into a Police Bridging Capital Fund, which it has since used to finance projects like dike maintenance and the Canada Avenue repaving and development. The City of Duncan then kept the the policing subsidy funds paid to it each fiscal by the Province of B.C.
The cost of policing assigned to the City of Duncan is still subsidized annually by the Province of B.C. and will be until at least 2021, when the next Census data is released.
We spoke to City of Duncan staff who indicated that, in the event the City of Duncan population exceeds 5000 in 2021, the City of Duncan anticipates it can cover the costs of policing from the increased tax rates of 12% it imposed in 2011 when the City of Duncan was mistakenly directed by the Province of B.C. to cover its policing costs.
Based on this information, we think the Cowichan Pro-Amalgamation argument – that the City of Duncan should amalgamate with North Cowichan because the City of Duncan will not be able to afford policing costs if its population goes over 5000 people and the City loses the Province of B.C. subsidy of its policing costs – is seriously flawed.
Based on this information, we do not consider policing costs to be a valid argument in favour of Amalgamation. As a result, we still intend to vote against Amalgamation in the June Referendum.
Please don’t be fooled by the very slick and well financed campaign being mounted by Cowichan Pro-Amalgamation, which is far more concerned about the interests of North Cowichan than about those of the City of Duncan. All we need to defeat the pro-Amalgamation campaign is 51% of Duncan residents to vote against it. Please Vote No in the upcoming Amalgamation Referendum in June.