Eight joined this ASK Salt Spring gathering to hear from Gary Holman, Capital Regional District (CRD) Director, and Earl Rook, Chair of the CRD Local Community Commission (LCC), on accomplishments and challenges, looking back on 2025 and some of the hopes for 2026.

Following Earl’s territorial acknowledgement, Gary and Earl distributed handouts to the participants that outlined the CRD 2026 Provisional Tax Requisition Summary, along with a budget table breaking down the total requisition by service, and their January 14th Driftwood article on the budget (below).

Provisional Budget Tax Requisition Summary – SSI 2026
Local Provisional Operating Budget – SSI 2026
Local Provisional Capital Budget – SSI 2026
Local Provisional Budget Tax Requisition – SSI 2026

When asked what “excited and delighted” them, Earl began with how local governance on Salt Spring Island (SSI) is continuing to evolve, becoming increasingly more democratic, transparent, and open to the people. While the transition is not as quick and complete as some people would like it to be, the LCC as a governance model has proven to be stable, with measurable progress, and its consultative approach important for local, grass roots democracy.

Following Earl’s comments, Gary reminded us that before the formation of the LCC which had been approved by 62% of voters during a referendum, budget decisions were made without debate and essentially by one person, the local CRD Director. Today, decisions are made by five elected at-large representatives (including the CRD Director) in regularly scheduled, public meetings, a much more democratic, transparent and accountable system.

While difficult to be excited and delighted during these troubling times, Gary shared that he is heartened by the success of the LCC. He added that one of the ongoing frustrations is with some regional services that tend to support more populated communities. A case in point being regional parks which has not made any significant investments on SSI over the past two decades due in part to our small population. However, more recently there have been some encouraging signs for smaller communities with respect to regional services. He mentioned that SSI does not pay taxes in the CRD for recycling, a regional service. The cost to operate SSI’s depot is roughly $410,000 per year, covered by Recycling BC, a new provincial non-profit, and tipping fees at Hartland, the regional landfill. The good news is that late last year, the CRD Board approved funding to SSI’s depot for another five years. The other bit of regional good news is that the new regional transportation service, which will likely be taking over the regional trail portion on SSI, has included funds for the design, as well as some construction costs of the CRD Regional Trail on SSI. The other news he shared is on building inspection. While permit fees are being restructured and are likely to increase somewhat to stabilize declining cost recovery for the building inspection service, there will be a 50% reduction in the permit fee for affordable housing projects.

Gary said that he is also heartened by a number of projects being recently accomplished on SSI, for example, the new emergency room at Lady Minto Hospital, the new firehall, the Ganges Hill Road upgrade, the Drake Road supported housing, the Heartwood health worker housing project. He also pointed out that North Salt Spring Water District (NSSWD) partially lifting the moratorium on new water connections, which will benefit new community housing projects in the Maxwell Lake portion of the NSSWD service area.

The conversation was then opened for questions. The topics were free flowing and included further clarification on the first-time funding in the Capital Plan for the Regional Trail on SSI, the oversight of local trails (pathways and cycling lanes in and around Ganges) by the LCC. Concerns were raised about LCC meeting room acoustics and software (e.g. the use of Teams instead of Zoom), lack of parking and ease of mobility at SIMS, and whether investment in improving these limitations are justified or if another building space should be explored, such as the library program room.

The discussion then focused on LCC decisions and whether an authority exists to reverse these. We learned from Earl that this depends on several factors. He explained that the LCC is a subsection of the CRD and cannot make bylaws or enter into legal proceedings. However, for the services delegated to the LCC it has full administrative authority — it makes the decisions and sets policy. He noted that the budget which is in effect a bylaw still goes to the CRD Board but at the detail level, it is fully under LCC control. Gary added that the degree of authority of a Local Community Commission within a regional district is hard-wired into the Local Government Act. While the CRD Director at the Board can vote against decisions by the LCC, he has not done so on delegated matters. However, Gary suggested that during the upcoming October election for a new CRD Director (Gary is not running), candidates should be asked if they will respect LCC decisions regarding delegated services at the Board. Gary believes that it would be difficult on a delegated service matter for the Board to ignore the wishes of an elected at large body.

Earl added that this discussion does identify potential tensions between the electoral director and the elected LCC. Because of the way it is structured, he stated that the potential for conflict is always going to be there, dependent upon who is in the positions. The LCC has been fortunate in that the current members are cooperative and have generally advanced issues without conflict or gridlock. Gary pointed out that municipalities have similar inherent tensions such as the Mayor being at odds with the Council.

Transportation issues
The discussion then moved to transportation and specifically about the long-standing need to reduce speed limits, especially in and around Ganges (e.g. from Community Services to Atkins). Earl responded that LCC Commissioner Brian Webster tabled a Notice of Motion for the LCC to advocate to the Ministry of Transportation and Transit (MoTT) an extension of the 30 km zone throughout the entire core of the Village and past Country Grocer. This will be discussed and voted on during an LCC meeting in February. He added that the LCC has a good working relationship with senior MoTT staff and is optimistic that they will get somewhere with this but probably not quickly. A participant expressed strong concerns that as a critical safety issue, this should be dealt with urgently. Gary agreed and noted that as there is the precedent for an existing 30 km speed limit to Rainbow Road, he believes this matter will be eventually dealt with by MoTT.

The issue of speeding (especially down the hill into the Ganges, along the section of Rainbow Road past the schools, and from Fulford harbour ferry to town) was raised as a concern, as well as the need for and safety of crosswalks, including whether these will be lighted. We learned that Gayle Baker, an LCC Commissioner, has been leading on this issue and through her efforts, ICBC has funded a crosswalk study which has involved public meetings. There has been at least a half dozen crosswalks proposed for the study, including Kings Lane (beside the police station).
It was agreed that transportation concerns have been taking a very long time to be resolved. To help with this, Gary asked that any correspondence with MoTT be sent to him or any other LCC Commissioner.

Gary informed us that under former MOTT Minister Rob Fleming, a pedestrian and cycling safety study was undertaken for SSI which included a recommendation for a review of speed limits on the Fulford-Ganges Road, for which the LCC could advocate. He added that regarding pedestrian safety, the situation has been improved through the pathways and sidewalks in and around Ganges that were built under the local CRD Transportation Service (unique among electoral areas in BC), now overseen by the LCC.

Earl added that because SSI is an electoral area, a rural area and not a municipality, it does not have the authority to change speed limits, but the LCC has been successful in advocating to MOTT. As Gary pointed out, if we want to be able to make decisions about speed limits, we would have to incorporate and take on maintenance and repair responsibilities for the 265 km of Salt Spring’s roads.
The group continued the discussion on sidewalks and related parking concerns. Gary noted that sometimes there is public concern about building sidewalks and pathways in the Ganges village core, as these could reduce parking spots. He pointed out that settlement patterns on SSI are very dispersed, resulting in automobile dependence. He pointed out the link between land use settlement and issues regarding parking, traffic and congestion in Ganges, primarily due to most people living far from the core and being car dependent. Consequently, in his view, we should be focusing on development that in or near villages or transit lines.

A participant asked if bus fees are going up. Earl responded that the LCC is undertaking a fare review, and that fare increases are possible. We learned that with Salt Spring roads being mostly sub-standard, risky to cyclists and walkers, they are also very hard on our buses, resulting in high bus maintenance costs.

The discussion then went to funding bus transit. Earl mentioned that the last time bus fees were increased was in 2012. A proposed increase is under consultation, and people are encouraged to attend an LCC open house on January 23rd, 2026 (12-3:00 PM) at the Rainbow Road Recreation Centre, contribute to surveys or email the LCC to make their opinions known.

Earl added that 30% of SSI’s transit system is funded by user fees, with Gary adding that our cost recovery is declining, and our transit fees are among the lowest in Greater Victoria. We learned that the transit system makes about 110,000 trips per year and that 3% of the Island population uses the bus system. Gary clarified that if we are going to expand the system, which the LCC is hoping to do, this will likely go to the voters this fall.
Earl stated that shifting more of the burden of fare costs to occasional users (i.e. tourists) while offering cost-effective passes to long-time resident users is the direction being considered.

One of the participants talked about their experience in Kingston, Ontario, and the approach to bus ridership there as “if you provide it, they will come.” For example, they found that by adding more express bus services, ridership increased. Also, by removing fares for youth in grades 9 to high school, ridership increased, together with a positive change in the mentality of young people in using the transit system. It was noted that children aged 12 and under ride free in BC.

In terms of expanding the transit system, Gary said that while we aspire to this, the question is, how do we fund it? And do bus fares play a role in this?

Use of the old firehall
A participant raised the need for a community drop-in centre for youth and whether this could be achieved through the old firehall, as a central hub. Gary informed the group that the LCC will be taking ownership of the old firehall in May. He cautioned that if the firehall is re-purposed, this will trigger current building code requirements and asbestos mitigation measures, which can be costly.

Shiny Geranium
A participant involved in the removal of Shiny Geranium asked Gary and Earl if there is any hope of it being eliminated on Salt Spring this year.
Gary responded that there is some funding through the Biodiversity Service. However, the funding is largely directed at enhancing coordination and information (so not direct removal). He believes that invasive species should be provincially funded. It is possible that some modest support for removal of Shiny Geranium could be obtained from the LCC grant in aid service via a local organization, noting that the entire grant in aid budget is $76,000.

Through the discussion we learned that Vesuvius is the worst area on Salt Spring for Shiny Geranium, and that paid staff are needed to pull it out. We further learned that now is the ideal time for removal. Participants suggested that articles alerting the public on this be sent to the Exchange and Driftwood. Ideas on financial incentives for property owners to remove invasive plant species were briefly explored.
During the discussion, Gary sent an email to CRD service to provide public information on Shiny Geranium. The meeting facilitator also let the group know that they have student teams periodically coming to SSI and could assist with removal of invasive plants. This is being followed up.

Liquid waste
Noting that there have not been any comments on the overall budget, the discussion then went to liquid waste, a service that assumes 17% of the operating budget, is 67% user financed, and represents 7% of the tax burden. Gary explained that it is a LCC service and the importance of not discouraging people from regularly emptying their septic tanks by making user fees too high. Earl clarified that if the liquid waste service was fully funded from property taxes or user fees, tipping fees related to the costs of emptying septic tanks would go up substantially, thereby acting as a disincentive. It was noted that the LCC did look at ways to reduce the cost of this service but nothing yet has been identified. Gary mentioned that it costs taxpayers about $6 per month for the liquid waste service (removing it off Island).

With the allocated meeting time past, we thanked Gary and Earl along with the participants for the lively and productive discussion.
~~~

Just in case you are interested….This meeting report has been written by Julie Thomson, a Board member with ASK Salt Spring, and reviewed by Gary Holman and Earl Rook.