Question & Answer Period

for an exception to the building permit requirement that overhead services be placed underground. It was stated that this requirement, combined with the presence of two (2) large trees on the property, is creating significant logistical and financial challenges for the family. They are asking permission to retain the overhead services in order to preserve the trees on the site.

A speaker expressed strong support for the warming centre, expressing frustration over the difficulties in establishing a partnership with the province to alleviate the city's financial burden. They urged the need for a long-term, sustainable solution to ensure the continuation of this vital service.

A speaker expressed support for the warming centre and stated he has never felt unsafe in the area. They reported no concerns regarding the warming centre’s location, though they noted an increase in litter, recognizing that this issue is becoming more prevalent throughout White Rock and not solely related to the warming centre.

A resident advocated for the continuation of a warming centre in White Rock, highlighting its effectiveness in assisting those in need. They emphasized the importance of the transportation provided between this location and the South Surrey overnight shelter, ensuring full coverage around the clock for individuals requiring support.

Have staff participated in training to deal with those experiencing homelessness? It was noted that there are sessions available that could benefit City staff.

It was confirmed that training is provided for Bylaw Officers and the White Rock RCMP. At this time, no other training is provided for staff members. 

A resident expressed gratitude for the warming centre in White Rock, emphasizing the importance of continuing this vital service in 2024/2025. They noted that Centennial Park has been an effective location for this initiative and encouraged the province to provide support for these essential services.

Staff informed that the municipality is not permitted to compensate businesses. The province may be somewhere to inquire about this.  The City is unable to help businesses within the provincial legislation.    

Questions were asked surrounding the City's Integrated Transportation Master Plan:

1)Oxford - Thrift Bike Route - Where is this at?

2) Bike path between Buena Vista and Best - what is the update on this project?

Why is City Council approving a 5-year financial plan that includes a 10 million dollar increase in Property taxes over the next 5 years. This Council has overseen 43 million dollars in operating surpluses accumulate over the first two years of its mandate. Isn’t it time to re-instate the Finance and Audit committee to analyze why property taxes need to increase an average of 2 million dollars per year?

In addition, why does the city have over 180 million dollars in Cash and Cash Equivalents in the bank today (up from 60 million 10 years ago)? Why does the city have 47 million dollars of Capital Asset Carry-Over projects from 2023?

If City Staff can’t spend the money City Council authorizes for collection each year, why approve an annual tax increase without understanding the reasons for the surpluses?

Why is City Staff recommending that the taxpayers of White Rock pay Agilyx Group $120,000 in travel costs to install the new Financial System Software?

Why is City Staff recommending an expenditure of $568,000 dollars for a "Manager of Revenue Services" in the contract award for the new 3.5 million dollar Financial System?

Why is City Staff asking the taxpayers of White Rock to pay $537,500 in "license fees" for the last 2.5 years of the 6-year contract when the funds have already been allocated as part of the financial plan of 2024?

What other accessibility improvements have been brought forward to the city by

community members, and if these issues were to take precedence over the accessibility of the pier,

which has been greatly researched, and hugely supported by the community, why?

Thank you for your email regarding the accessibility recommendations for the Pier. 

In response to your question about what other accessibility improvements have been brought forward to the city by community members, here are some examples:

• Improvements to uneven existing sidewalks.
• Construction of sidewalks on roads without sidewalks.
• Installation of wheelchair ramps.
• Addition of tactile strips on wheelchair ramps.
• Review of audible signals and street furniture at intersections to improve accessibility for persons with vision challenges.
• Installation of bus stop pads.

• Reconstruction of the substandard wheelchair ramps at Winter Street at Thrift Avenue as per a resident request.
• Current design work for accessible access to the southeast corner of the walking track at Centennial Park.
• Provision of an additional van accessible parking space on the waterfront near Elm Street.
• Installation of delineators on the east side of Martin Street north of Thrift Avenue to mark out pedestrian space.
• New crosswalk under design at Oxford Street and Russell Avenue.

These improvements are part of our broader commitment to enhancing accessibility throughout the city. Each project is prioritized based on safety considerations and the overall impact on accessibility.

For a comprehensive overview of our initiatives, please refer to our Accessibility Action Plan, which outlines our strategies and ongoing projects to improve accessibility. The plan is linked from the following web page: whiterockcity.ca/Accessibility

1. Why does the city have 113 million dollars more Cash and Cash equivalents in the bank than it did ten years ago?

2. Why is accounts receivable now 6 million when 10 years ago it was only 1.5 million?

The cash and cash equivalents have increased by $85.3M from 2014 to 2023, not $113M as stated in your question. It appears you might have been referring to the total financial assets before subtracting liabilities, which indeed have increased by $112.5M over the same period.

Regarding your observations on the 2014 figures, it's important to note that these numbers are a decade old, and significant changes have occurred since then. The City's population has grown, leading to increased infrastructure needs and consequently, a greater emphasis on bolstering reserve funds for asset improvements. Notably, the acquisition of the Water Utility in 2015 is not included in the 2014 figures. In 2014, cash and cash equivalents made up 97.2% of the annual budget. By 2023, this percentage increased to 105.8%, reflecting the City Council’s strategic emphasis on enhancing reserve fund balances to support infrastructure projects . Although the cash and cash equivalents—which primarily represent reserve fund balances—might seem substantial, they are critical given the estimate that upgrading and replacing the City's infrastructure could exceed $1B. This is significantly more than the $138M in cash and cash equivalents recorded as of December 31, 2023.

In response to your second query about the accounts receivable: the increase includes $1.7M attributable to the Water Utility acquired in 2015. For a detailed breakdown of the 2023 Accounts Receivable balance, please refer to Note 3 of the audited financial statements. The analysis shows that property taxes payable increased by $975K from 2014 to 2023, and there are outstanding water user fees of $1.7M in 2023, which did not exist in 2014. Interest receivable, included in the Accounts Receivable total, contributed $697K in 2023. The remaining $1M difference stems from savings related to the RCMP contract, receivables associated with asset improvement and Recreation & Culture programs, among other items

As previously explained, the surplus figures for 2022 ($18.7M) and 2023 ($23.6M) represent the amounts before budgeted transfers to reserves, as outlined in the "Budgeted Transfers to Reserves" section of the corporate report. These transfers are essential for funding the city's infrastructure needs and are an integral part of the property taxes and user fees collected by the City of White Rock.

The assertion that the city has collected $42.4 million more than necessary over the past two years does not account for these critical allocations to capital reserves, which support asset improvements and maintenance of our infrastructure throughout the year.

Moreover, it's important to understand the implications of using one-time surplus funds to reduce property taxes temporarily. Such a measure would result in a temporary tax decrease for one year but would necessitate a larger increase in the following year. This is because the city's operating expenses, including mandatory increases for inflation and union wages, are projected to rise by at least 3%-4% annually. Utilizing one-time funding to lower taxes for the current year increases the funding gap for the subsequent year. This gap includes both the one-time funds used and the ongoing costs of operating the city at the same service level. Unless service levels are reduced, the budget must accommodate these increases, which are largely beyond the City’s control. 

When is the Statement of Financial Information for 2023 going to be released to the public?

Specifically, when are the line items of Cash and Cash Equivalents as of December 31, 2023 and Operating Surplus for 2023 going to be available?

This question was addressed on 2024-01-15 Q&A.

The information requested will be available when year end is completed.

Please update us with respect on your deliberations reversing the federal Housing Accelerator Fund. I notice that White Rock did not receive an allocation this year and I would like to know the reasons for this.

Late last week we learned that the City was not successful in our grant application to the federal Housing Accelerator Fund. On Friday afternoon, staff met with representatives from the CMHC for further details. It is important to note that the meetings offered by the CMHC were limited to 15 minute windows, therefore the discussion was brief. The following points were discussed:

• While CMHC staff could not provide any information on application details or scoring, they did say that it was a highly competitive application process and they had more applications than they could provide funding for.
• All applications were reviewed against the same criteria regardless of the application stream (i.e size of community).
• CMHC staff advised that successful municipalities will be required to publish their action plans so we will have the opportunity to take a look at them. They recommended reviewing their website for the 10 best practices Resources for Housing Accelerator Fund Applicants |CMHC (cmhc-schl.gc.ca) . Upon review, I note that some of these would have required significant changes to our OCP and to our zoning.

Staff also sought clarification as to whether the implementation of the new BC legislation played a role in the decision-making process. CMHC staff noted that while similar in intent the new legislation was distinct from this grant process and was not a factor in the decision-making process. We also discussed potential community hub plans and advised that housing could be a consideration as part of that. CMHC staff said there may be other grants available, so we will keep an eye out for future opportunities.

Council considered this request later in the meeting. 

In accordance with Council's Procedure Bylaw, delegations are not permitted if they are on a subject that is beyond the jurisdiction of Council. No further action was taken on this request.

Council considered this request later in the meeting. 

In accordance with Council's Procedure Bylaw, delegations are not permitted if they are on a subject that is beyond the jurisdiction of Council. No further action was taken on this request.

• Why has Council endorsed $360,000 of the COVID-19 recovery funds to pay for this?
• Why not fund this from the Emergency Fund Contingency Reserve set up in 2023 from the 2022 operating surplus?
• Why not use that reserve to pay for the Daytime Warming Centre in future years instead of increasing property taxes?

(View full submission)

• Why does Council wait until financial planning process is almost complete to learn operating surplus amount?
• How is Council able to make informed decisions about the financial plan for 2024 - 2027 if they do not have access to the operating surplus from 2023 budget?

(View full submission)

Staff have noted that best practice, in a best-case scenario, is that budgets would be approved before the fiscal year starts, meaning before January 1 of the year, at which time operating surplus would not be known as the current year hasn't ended yet. Most BC municipalities do not approve their budgets until sometime in the 1st quarter of the year.   The City of White Rock is aiming to do the same and have its budget approved in early March 2024.

 As the City's year-end is December 31, the year-end work can only start in January. This early in the year-end process, operating surpluses are not yet known as it is only after the year-end work that these are finalized.  This is why they are not available until after the year-end work has been completed and are discussed as part of the audited financial statements.

 As is standard practice, the public will be notified of the year's operating surplus when Council is made aware.

 As was stated in the CFO's Letter of Transmittal for the 2022 Financial Statements, page 3 (part of the Jun 12, 2023, Agenda package), the $18.7M surplus that the writer is referring to is the consolidated surplus and before any of the budgeted transfers to reserves have been considered. The General Fund surplus was $12.8M. From that, the planned (budgeted) transfers to reserves of $9.3M left the city with an unallocated surplus of only $3.4M.  The majority of this amount was transferred to capital reserves. The writer is encouraged to read the CFO's Letter of Transmittal.

Staff noted that it sounds like the person is referring to the beachside strip of land on the south side of the train tracks from Oxford to Bayview.

Given the proximity of this area to the ocean environment and sensitive dune habitat it is currently being maintained in its natural state as much as possible, with occasional invasive plant removal work by staff and partnership with the Lower Mainland Green Team.

We will take this feedback into consideration and will assess the area with this in mind.