But a call from director Brad West to slash board pay sidelined to one of two major reviews that chair Mike Hurley has commissioned
Metro Vancouver’s board headed off a motion Friday to slash board member’s pay by tossing the idea to yet another “independent” review of the regional district as it grapples with rising costs and increasing public distrust.
Recommended Videos
Metro director Brad West, who is also Mayor of Port Coquitlam, called for his 40 director colleagues to cut their meeting stipends in half, to $273.50 from $547 per meeting, end additional stipends for meetings longer than four hours, and cut the regional district’s list of 16 committees in half.
He said he took the step as a way to answer public outrage over the appearance of Metro directors getting exorbitant pay while taxpayers struggle with affordability and rising taxes.
At Friday’s board meeting, however, the board voted instead to put the issue of director compensation to an independent review by a panel of experts struck by Metro’s board chair Mike Hurley. It is led by business executive and former premier Glen Clark and former finance minister Colin Hansen.
Hurley also used his authority to trim the number of committees by folding the regional culture committee into its finance committee, the flood resiliency committee into the air quality and climate committee and by dissolving the Fraser crossing task force.
Hurley acknowledged those cuts would only save about $50,000 on a forecast 2026 budget of $1.6 billion, but he defended it as a small step in the more substantial set of governance and core-service reviews Metro has underway.
Hurley insisted the reviews are “definitely not window dressing,” though it is unclear how much in the way of cost savings might come from it.
“I am, and people who know me, know I’m a person of action,” Hurley said. “I want this committee and this board working in the most positive way possible, working in the most financially viable manner.”
During Friday’s meeting Hurley unveiled the consultants Metro has hired for the reviews.
The consulting firm Deloitte was hired from a list of five bidders to take on a look at the Metro board’s committee structure, composition and remuneration, with input from the expert third-party panel.
Metro also hired an independent review team lead by consulting engineer Peter Milburn, who has conducted examinations of huge projects including B.C. Hydro’s Site C dam, to consider what went wrong in Metro’s now $3.86 billion North Shore sewage treatment plant.
Hurley defended the reviews arguing that he wants all the outside help Metro can get to make decisions based on “facts and figures,” not emotion.
And Hurley said the board itself is continuing with its own internal, department by department cost-efficiency review, with more details of its efforts to be revealed at Metro’s meetings in March and April preceding it’s 2026 budget preparations.
“The tough decisions are coming,” Hurley said. “The next part is going to be looking at each department one by one and seeing where savings can be made.”
Hurley added that a lot will depend on co-operation with the province because most of Metro’s core services are legislated responsibilities.
“I’m not going to predict what the changes may be or how big they may be, but it’s possible that they could be really big,” Hurley said.
How substantial they are, however will also depend on the will of Metro’s directors, according to West.
West said he was satisfied that his motion on director compensation was put to a review because action is being taken when previously the board seemed slow to act. The elimination of three committees, he said, “is a good start.”
“There’s no question that savings can be found,” said West. “It’s a question of will the board accept them.”
West pointed to Metro’s last meeting, where potential $22 million in cuts were suggested, but the board could only agree on trimming a $300,000 grant to the Fraser Basin Council.
“The bigger elephant in the room is that the board is divided on what its role is,” West said. “There are people who think we should have a limited scope. There are others who think we should have a bigger role in public policy.”