A Capital Regional District (CRD) director’s 11th-hour reduction to a Local Community Commission (LCC) proposal to raise Salt Spring’s tax levy ceiling for transit services has driven a wedge between the island’s elected officials — leading one to walk out.
At the CRD Board meeting Wednesday, Sept. 10, Salt Spring Electoral Area director Gary Holman amended a recommendation from the LCC that had originally laid out a 78 per cent increase in the maximum levy for transit in 2026 to 25 per cent. Holman told board members that while he supported the larger maximum levy, he would not “sign off” on the higher number without explicitly consulting voters; the board defeated a motion to send the bylaw back to the LCC for further discussion, ultimately approving Holman’s amendment.
That decision did not sit well with some LCC members, who met the next day for a discussion on the upcoming budget. LCC member Brian Webster told fellow commissioners that it now felt to him that decisions by the local body “on anything of substance” no longer mattered, because the director could contradict them.
“And garner the support of a majority on the CRD Board to go in a direction contrary to that of the LCC,” said Webster. “So today’s meeting, which is scheduled to deal primarily with the budget, is a sham; on that basis, I’m not prepared to participate any further with this meeting.”
With that, Webster picked up his things and walked out of the room; reached later that day he said he was not yet certain whether he would return to the month’s second scheduled LCC meeting on Sept. 18.
“I don’t know what to do about this,” Webster told the Driftwood. “All I know is that I’m not willing to participate in decision-making unless it really is meaningful decision-making.”
Holman told remaining commissioners Thursday that against the backdrop of a previously-projected 9.7 per cent tax hike for next year’s LCC services becoming more like 11 or 12 per cent — a situation he attributed to an abrupt announcement from BC Transit that its lease fees and related charges would be going up by 20 per cent — he could not support the LCC’s recommendation for a 78 per cent increase in the maximum levy without consulting voters.
“That’s the principle here,” said Holman after Webster left, noting that it would likely take all of that 25 per cent increase to maintain current bus service levels.
“The ultimate authority, democratically, around budget decisions is not the LCC, it’s not the director — it’s voters,” said Holman. “What I was standing up for was the right of voters to have a say on whether there’d be a huge increase in the maximum levy for transit. I would support it.”
CRD chief administrative officer Ted Robbins explained to that body’s board Wednesday that bylaw recommendations with financial implications exceeding committees’ and commissions’ delegated authority advance to the CRD board for its consideration — at which time directors have the opportunity to amend any such recommendations.
“Ultimately this is a decision of the board, given that it is a bylaw and has a financial matter associated with it,” said Robbins.
“As was explained to the LCC in July, the process for approving such increases without voter approval is clearly defined in provincial legislation,” Holman clarified, “and requires written consent of the CRD director. I am exercising that consent in a reasonable way to ensure existing transit service levels are maintained in 2026 and beyond, while giving voters the opportunity to decide if they want to improve service levels.”
LCC member Ben Corno said Thursday he was disappointed and felt Holman had violated the “spirit” of the relationship between the commission and director. Corno said he hoped there would be no further amendments to LCC recommendations before the CRD board, and was surprised Holman seemed to think the situation urgent enough to vote against the motion referring the proposal back to the LCC.
“To be clear, this example only demonstrates that when we need the support of the director to affect our bylaws, including the approval of our budgets, we cannot guarantee that we will have that support,” said Corno. “Spending — deciding what to do with the money and staff that we do have — is still within our control.”