B.C. municipalities allowed to take on more debt for small projects, says province
Municipalities in British Columbia are fiscally conservative whether they want to be or not — but the province is letting that change, at least a little.
"The last time [we changed] the amount local governments could borrow to build infrastructure, Pavel Bure, Kirk McLean and Trevor Linden were making a run to the playoffs for the Canucks," said Ravi Kahlon, B.C.'s minister of housing and municipal affairs, referring to the NHL team's run of success in the '90s.
Municipalities aren't allowed to run operational deficits on a yearly basis. If they want to build or renew city infrastructure but don't have enough reserves, they generally have to approve capital debt through a referendum or an alternative approval process (AAP) — a type of reverse referendum where a project is approved if fewer than 10 per cent of electors fill out a form in opposition.
On Tuesday, the province announced changes that will:
Allow municipalities to borrow up to $150 per person without a referendum or AAP if the term of the borrowing is less than five years, up from $50.
Raise the borrowing limit without a referendum or AAP from five per cent of annual general revenue to 10 per cent for projects with a longer repayment schedule.
The changes won't allow municipalities to bypass public input for their biggest projects, but will allow more small projects to be approved quickly, said Kahlon.
"This is something local governments have been asking for for more than 30 years and we believe it is time for them to be able to catch up," he said.
WATCH | B.C. to allow municipalities to take on more debt
Are municipalities Dickensian orphans?
While some municipalities have taken pride in not going into debt for projects, the change came as a relief to cities that feel hamstrung by the current model.
"So kudos to the government. But like Oliver Twist said, 'Please sir, we want some more,'" said Nanaimo Mayor Leonard Krog, adding that it would help many cities deliver the increased housing and density mandated by the province.
"There is a tension around municipalities being expected to deliver housing … it's not as if we're paying for it in the direct sense, but we're responsible to ensure that the housing is serviced appropriately," he said.
Nanaimo has failed three times in the last two years to approve debt for a new operations centre through the alternative approval process, and Krog argued there's a funding gap between cities and other levels of government.
"Municipalities are treated differently. We're not recognized under the Constitution as a level of government that has an inherent right to exist," he said.
"But we deliver the most basic of services, the services that people may not wish to pay for, but if we turn them off tomorrow would have a tremendous impact on their lives."
Public approval still necessary for big projects
As more than 90 per cent of B.C. municipalities are under 100,000 people and $200 million in yearly revenue, virtually all big ticket items will still need AAPs or referendums to be approved.
One example is playing out in Saanich, where on Wednesday the deadline passed for residents to write in opposition against a proposed $150-million operations centre to replace the one that was built in the 1950s.
Organizers of the campaign against the AAP are confident that enough forms in opposition of the plan have been submitted, and argue the municipality should hold a referendum on the project instead.
"We chose to go the AAP route because it was a way for us to limit the potential additional cost to this project," said Saanich Mayor Dean Murdock, who estimated a recent referendum to approve a new pool in neighbouring Victoria cost $300,000.
"When you consider that so many of our facilities are going to require replacement or significant upgrades, I think the AAP is an appropriate tool," he said, adding that if it failed, Saanich would likely embark on a referendum.
The municipality with the most discussion around AAPs over the last year may be Kamloops, which has used them to move forward on a performing arts centre, arena multiplex, and a new RCMP detachment.
Kamloops deputy mayor Mike O'Reilly said that beyond the cost, going the AAP route instead of a referendum is a pragmatic choice.
"If an AAP fails, you can then move to a referendum," he said.
"If you do a referendum first, and it does not pass … you cannot fall back."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
12 minutes ago
- Vox
The Supreme Court's disastrous new abortion decision, explained
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Justice Neil Gorsuch, the author of the Court's new attack on Medicaid, shakes hands with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images Federal law says that 'any individual eligible for medical assistance' from a state Medicaid program may obtain that care 'from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required.' In other words, all Medicaid patients have a right to choose their doctor, as long as they choose a health provider competent enough to provide the care they seek. On Thursday, however, the Republican justices ruled, in Medina v. Planned Parenthood, that Medicaid patients may not choose their health provider. And then they went much further. Thursday's decision radically reorders all of federal Medicaid law, rendering much of it unenforceable. Medina could prove to be one of the most consequential health care decisions of the last several years, and one of the deadliest, as it raises a cloud of doubt over countless laws requiring that certain people receive health coverage, as well as laws ensuring that they will receive a certain quality of care. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. All three of the Court's Democrats dissented. Justice Neil Gorsuch's opinion in Medina is a trainwreck of legal reasoning. It's hard to think of a principled reason why, two years after the Court took a much more expansive approach to Medicaid law in Health and Hospital Corporation v. Talevski (2023), the Republican justices abruptly decided to reverse course. It is easy, however, to see a political reason for the Medina decision. The plaintiff in Medina, after all, is Planned Parenthood, an abortion provider Republicans love to hate. Medina involved South Carolina's attempt to forbid Medicaid patients from choosing Planned Parenthood as their health provider, a policy that violates federal law. In an apparent attempt to spite Planned Parenthood, the Republican justices have now effectively repealed that law. This is not aberrant behavior from this Court's Republican majority. Four years ago, before the Court overruled Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, the justices considered a Texas law which permitted private bounty hunters to sue abortion providers and collect bounties of at least $10,000 from them. The Texas law was an obvious attempt to cut off abortion rights in violation of Roe, but five of the Republican justices joined an opinion by Gorsuch, which held that this sort of law could not be challenged in federal court because, Gorsuch claimed, abortion providers must wait until after they are hauled into court by a bounty hunter to assert their rights. Medina fits within the same legal tradition. When a case involves abortion providers, the Court's Republican majority is frequently willing to twist the law into any shape necessary to ensure that the abortion providers lose. What was the specific legal issue in Medina? A federal law known as 'Section 1983' lets state officials be sued if they deprive someone of 'any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.' This is arguably the most important civil rights law ever enacted by Congress. Without it, many federal laws and constitutional provisions would be unenforceable. Medina turns on Section 1983's reference to 'rights' protected by federal law. Past Supreme Court decisions establish that not all federal laws create a right that can be enforced under Section 1983 and so the Court has developed a set of rules to determine which laws do. Before Thursday's decision in Medina, the key case laying out this framework was Talevski. Talevski held that a federal law creates enforceable rights when it is ''phrased in terms of the persons benefited' and contains 'rights-creating,' individual-centric language with an 'unmistakable focus on the benefited class.'' Thus, before Thursday, the key question was whether a law's text focuses on the individuals who benefit. A hypothetical federal law which provides that 'no state may prevent a hungry person from eating at Taco Bell' would be enforceable, under Talevski, because this hypothetical law centers the people who benefit from it (people who are hungry). A similar statute stating that 'states shall not impede access to cheap burritos' would likely not be enforceable under Talevski, because it does not mention who is supposed to benefit from these burritos. Under Talevski, Medina is an easy case, and it should have ended in a 9-0 victory for Planned Parenthood. Here is the relevant statutory language from the Medina case: A State plan for medical assistance must … provide that … any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required (including an organization which provides such services, or arranges for their availability, on a prepayment basis), who undertakes to provide him such services. This law is full of the kind of 'individual-centric language' demanded by Talevski. It provides a right to 'any individual.' It provides that these individuals 'may obtain' care from their chosen provider. And it concludes with a pronoun ('him') which refers back to the individuals who benefit from this law. There is simply no way to reconcile Gorsuch's Medina opinion with Talevski. So how does Gorsuch try to get around Talevski? The Republican justices largely try to get around Talevski by ignoring it, or by misrepresenting what it said. Notably, the key words laying out Talevski's legal rule — that federal laws are enforceable through private lawsuits if they are 'phrased in terms of the persons benefited' — appear nowhere in Gorsuch's opinion. Instead, Gorsuch introduces some new principles into federal Medicaid law that are likely to confuse judges who must apply his decision to other provisions of the Medicaid statute. In its brief, for example, South Carolina suggested that a federal law must use the magic word 'right,' or it is unenforceable under Section 1983. Gorsuch's opinion doesn't go quite this far, but it does repeatedly point out that the provision of Medicaid law at issue in Talevski, which the Court held to be enforceable, uses this magic word in its text. Unlike Talevski, however, Medina does not articulate a clear legal rule which lower court judges can apply to other provisions of Medicaid law. It does not even explicitly overrule Talevski. Instead, Gorsuch mostly just points to some random features of the law at issue in Medina, and then leaves readers to guess how to determine which Medicaid laws are still enforceable. Gorsuch, for example, finds it quite significant that a different provision of federal Medicaid law allows states to exclude some providers who are convicted of a felony from their Medicaid program — a fact that is completely irrelevant under Talevski. He also notes that the provision at issue in Medina 'appears in a subsection titled 'Contents.'' It's hard to understand how this title is relevant. Moreover, this segment of Gorsuch's opinion appears to conflict with the explicit text of a federal law, which states that a provision of Medicaid law 'is not to be deemed unenforceable because of its inclusion in a section…specifying the required contents of a State plan.' Gorsuch also includes an ominous line suggesting that, in the future, his Court will read Medicaid laws very narrowly: 'Though it is rare enough for any statute to confer an enforceable right,' Gorsuch claims, 'spending-power statutes like Medicaid are especially unlikely to do so.' Thursday's decision, in other words, is likely to have sweeping implications for low-income Americans' health care, even if it was handed down solely to wound Planned Parenthood. Federal Medicaid law is riddled with provisions governing how states must operate their Medicaid programs, including requirements governing who must be covered, and rules governing patient safety. The Talevski case, for example, concerned a law which prohibits nursing homes from using psychotropic drugs 'for purposes of discipline or convenience' when they are 'not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms.' Under Medina, many of these laws may now be rendered unenforceable. It should be noted that, even under Gorsuch's decision, there is still one possible way to enforce the law permitting Medicaid patients to choose their health providers — the federal government could cut off some or all Medicaid funding to South Carolina. Realistically, however, this remedy would only make matters worse. It does not help Medicaid patients to take away their funding, and so the federal government has historically been exceedingly reluctant to use this blunderbuss of an enforcement mechanism.
New York Times
20 minutes ago
- New York Times
NHL, NHLPA agree to 84-game schedule, playoff salary cap, other key elements of new CBA: Sources
The NHL and NHL Players' Association have agreed upon key elements of a new collective bargaining agreement, including an 84-game schedule starting in 2026-27, according to league sources. The sides had not signed a memorandum of understanding as of Thursday morning, but were meeting about it Thursday, and barring any last-minute snags, plan to announce a new four-year extension before Friday's NHL Draft. Advertisement The new deal doesn't include major changes to the league's financial system. The 84-game schedule will be introduced alongside a preseason shortened to four games per team. Among the new contractual rules will be a one-year reduction on the maximum length of player contracts — down to seven years for players re-signing with their own teams prior to free agency and six for those signed in free agency. Deferred-salary contracts will also be eliminated. The new CBA will additionally include the introduction of a new playoff salary cap system to close off the LTIR loophole as well as a new provision that allows teams to carry a full-time emergency backup goalie. Once finalized, the MOU will need to be ratified both by NHL owners and the NHLPA's membership. The existing deal doesn't expire until Sept. 15, 2026. The sides began negotiating this extension in April, reporting consistent progress throughout. The new MOU will guarantee labor peace until 2030. Frank Seravalli of Daily Faceoff was first to report on a pending announcement. (Photo of NHLPA executive director Marty Walsh and NHL commissioner Gary Bettman: Minas Panagiotakis / Getty Images)
CBS News
21 minutes ago
- CBS News
10 years after landmark Supreme Court ruling, Healey calls same-sex marriage "non-issue" in Massachusetts
This week marks the 10th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. The Supreme Court's landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015 followed years of national wrangling during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared that marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. More than a decade before the Supreme Court weighed in, Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004. Healey: Same-sex marriage a "non-issue" Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey said same-sex marriage will always be protected in the state. Healey told WBZ-TV's Jon Keller on Thursday that the future of same-sex marriage is a "non-issue," saying there's bigger issues people are concerned about. "Marriage is marriage, whether you're gay or not and that's the law here, it's going to continue to be that way," Healey said. "And you know what people really care about? They care about how they're going to pay their bills, can they afford a home, do they have access to jobs and economic mobility. That's what I'm focused on as governor and I will certainly make sure that we defend the rights of all to marry in our state and that people, gay and straight, that their rights, their freedoms are protected." What is Obergefell v. Hodges? James Obergefell and John Arthur, who lived in Ohio, married in Maryland since same-sex marriage was banned in their state by a voter-approved amendment in 2004. The couple married after Arthur was diagnosed with ALS. The legal battle began when they learned their marriage would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate. After a court approved recognizing their marriage on Arthur's death certificate, Ohio appealed and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision argued that marriage is guaranteed under the Constitution's 14th Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to marry is fundamental, calling it "inherent in the liberty of the person" and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize such unions performed in other jurisdictions. In CNN's presidential exit polls in 2004, only a quarter of Americans thought same-sex couples should be able to legally marry, with a larger percentage favoring civil unions instead. Ten years after Obergefell v. Hodges, some polls show nearly 70% approve of same-sex marriage. contributed to this report.
