Growth within the Gulf Islands does not –– by a wide margin –– pay its own way, according to an ongoing analysis.
Despite four- and five-figure fees, the shortfall between what the Islands Trust charges for development applications and what it spends to process them pencils out to show applicants paying less than 10 per cent of costs –– with the remainder carried by the general taxpayer, according to the most recent reporting from planning services staff.
The latest analysis, returned by the still-underway Trust Council-initiated Fees Review Project, examined a three-month period last year –– April through June –– using timesheet data to find how much staff time was spent processing development applications. Some 32 per cent of all available working hours that quarter were spent on applications, the project found, totalling almost 3,300 hours between planners and planning administrative staff.
The estimated cost of those hours was just over $112,000, according to the report, building that figure from average wages for those varying staff –– and during the same three-month period, application fee revenue was less than $10,000.
“It appears that the Islands Trust is continuing to effectively subsidize applications, financially, to a certain degree,” said Lasqueti Island trustee and Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee (LTC) chair Tim Peterson Wednesday, Feb. 5, addressing fellow vice-chairs on the Trust’s Executive Committee.
Peterson and trustees serving on Salt Spring’s LTC had passed a resolution back in December 2024 –– after results from the first phase of the analysis were received in September –– requesting the broader Islands Trust Council prioritize a review of planning services, in part to improve the imbalance in planning cost recovery.
“Fundamentally, that’s something we need to fix,” said Peterson. “I think applicants should be paying the cost of their applications, and not the general taxpayers.”
While the notion of a tenfold increase in development permit fees might raise eyebrows, Gabriola Island trustee Tobi Elliott suggested the Executive Committee consider advising Trust Council to put the issue to the people, so to speak –– by adding it to a public engagement survey being planned for future budgets. Support for raising fees might gain traction, she said, if ratepayers recognize that putting the cost of permits onto applicants –– getting that money “back” –– could very well result in lowering the tax levy about one percentage point for each $100,000 recovered.
“I think if the public were aware of how much applications are being subsidized, that’s going to be a conversation,” said Elliott. “We’re going to get feedback on that.”
If anything, that three-month analysis likely underestimates staff hours, according to the September report to Trust Council. Included was staff time spent specifically on processing applications and administrative tasks associated with applications; not included was time spent responding to enquiries, training, paid leave, time spent in meetings or time spent addressing bylaw enforcement and compliance.
There are limits to what can be concluded, staff noted; for example, application fees are often received over a longer time frame –– as milestones are achieved in the processing of applications –– and some older applications may still have been open and having work done on them, possibly first submitted months or years earlier.
Islands Trust staff are “actively gathering data” for the second phase of the analysis, chief administrative officer Rueben Bronee told the committee Wednesday. The next iteration for the analysis, according to planning staff reporting, will track paid time based on application type.
That batch of findings will be presented at the next Trust Council meeting, which begins Tuesday, March 11 in Nanaimo. During that session, among other agenda items, trustees are expected to finalize the Trust’s $11-million 2025/26 budget.

The other side of the argument is that IT staff spend too much time on unnecessary details of the application.
Case in point is when I applied for our permits to build our house and detached garage/shop I was told they couldn’t give me the “accessory building” permit before the main house was finished. The reported reason was because we may decide to build the garage and live in it and never build the main house. That took a half hour to explain to him how our build would transpire.
Same guy, different time in the application process, repeatedly questioned our basement/crawlspace saying it could be used as an unregulated extra bedroom. 10×12 space with 7’ headroom and no access from the main floor. At least another half hour wasted on that.
These ridiculous things are likely what likely adds to the amount of time they spend on each permit.
A great deal of the work done in preparation of a plan for a development permit is done by the developer’s civil engineer and architect. If staff is truly spending that much time on it I would look into what they are doing?