City Comptroller By-law
Motion 13 · Standing Committee on Policy and Strategic Priorities, April 1, 2026
Vote
In favour 3
Abstained 1
Public comments
Read all 1 statements
Transcript
16 segments
So we will now move on to our next motion. Motion six, establishing a city comptroller bylaw for budget efficiency and asset management framework, which is to be moved and introduced by Councillor Frey. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now's the time to declare it. Does anyone have a conflict to disclose?
Okay, not seeing anyone. Councillor Frey, you have two minutes to introduce your motion.
Thank you. Okay, so the idea of a financial comptroller oversight rule is about protecting public money, taking better care of what we already own, and making sure that decisions are transparent and accountable. Our city manages over billions of dollars in public assets every year, and right now, responsibility for those assets is spread across multiple departments. That means decisions about spending, maintenance risk, long-term planning. It can all happen in silos without one single independent... voice that's overseeing and putting it all together so this motion responds to the auditor general's recent recommendations that talk about the city's asset management practices especially for major civic facilities that we need stronger structure better data and clearer long-term planning and the same thing i would say was echoed in the mayor's budget
My mic or my timing? Okay, never mind. We also know that we're facing a huge infrastructure funding gap and that we need to improve our asset management strategy, and we need to do it in real time. So the city comptroller is apolitical and independent. It is a watchdog function reporting directly to council. It's keeping an eye on major spending as it happens. It's breaking down silos between departments. And it's bringing consistent citywide oversight to how we manage assets from the planning to the maintenance to the replacement. So, again, this is really asking staff to come back with what the bylaw, which is entirely lawful, what a bylaw could look like and really complement our city processes in a way that really the independent auditor general did when it was introduced. last term and to great success, I would add, because I think that we have seen the functional improvement, even though there was some resistance at the time of deploying an auditor general. And I think that there was some resistance from management at the time. And we've now seen that it's actually become a very functional and essential piece of our civic governance. So I'm hoping that with an open mind, council will consider this as a positive step forward in our governance and accountability and oversight. Thank you.
Thank you. Do you have a seconder? Okay, Councillor Orr, thank you. So do we, or sorry, we'll now hear from registered speakers for the motion. Public speakers should state whether they're in support or opposition of the recommendations and may only speak once. And also ask speakers at their residence in Vancouver if it's not noted on the speakers list. Our first public speaker is Julie Sterelski. Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. I support this motion. Today's motion is about one core principle, stronger stewardship of public money in this time of growing financial pressure to build public trust. Five quick points. First, accountability to the public. Residents expect that every tax dollar is managed responsibly and transparently. While the Auditor General plays a critical role, their work is retrospective. They audit after the fact. A controller would provide real-time, ongoing oversight, ensuring issues are caught early, not after funds have already been spent. Second, closing a clear oversight gap. Right now, no single office is responsible for continuous financial monitoring and asset management across departments. Major funding is distributed across departments, yet oversight is fragmented. A controller would act as a central independent watchdog, breaking down silos and ensuring consistency, compliance, and discipline across the org. Third, efficiency and value for money. This is not about adding bureaucracy. It's about preventing waste, duplication, and misaligned spending. With better front-end controls, lifecycle costing, and capital planning, the city can make smarter decisions, prioritize effectively, and ensure we maximize value. Fourth, addressing the infrastructure funding deficit. The city faces a $500 million annual infrastructure gap. That's a structural challenge that cannot be solved by revenue alone. It requires better asset management.
This framework would ensure we understand the true condition, cost, and risks of our assets, allowing council to prioritize strategic and sustainable investments, particularly given the property tax freeze and challenges that causes for future years. Fifth, alignment with best practices. Other leading jurisdictions already recognize the value. For example, Toronto, Chicago, and LA have similar roles. Guidance emphasizes exactly what this motion proposes, clear governance, centralized asset management, and ongoing oversight. Having worked both in government and business for many years, I have first-hand experience with the importance of valuing and maximizing assets by leveraging discounted cash flow analysis to align long-term asset needs and capital plans, etc. Finally, this motion is about confidence for the public, for council, and for staff, for government spending. Decisions are being made without the best information, strongest controls, and long-term view. In short, better oversight, better decisions, and better outcomes for Vancouver so we can pay down the deficit and have more funds for climate resilience, housing, festivals, and other important initiatives. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay, that is the end of our speakers list. Thanks for speaking to our committee. Committee members, any discussion? Councillor Domenato.
Yeah, thanks, Chair, and just a couple of reflections in looking into this matter a little bit more and the motion as presented is that effectively this notion of controller or chief accountant, depending on how you look at it, is typically an internal position, management position within organizations, and So not only does the city of Vancouver have an external auditor general, which to the point being is being retroactive, as the speaker was saying, looking backwards. We have a general manager of finance supply chains, effectively the city CFO. We have an internal audit team, as well as the CFO effectively is the controller or can have an additional staff position within the city that acts as a chief accountant. But also this notion of sort of an external independent role. There were some examples cited from the U.S. I understand for the New York example that there with the strong mayor system, the controller is actually elected. They're not an independently appointed person. position, and that is to strike a balance between the strong mayor system and the U.S. model, which we're not operating under a U.S. model of governance. We have a weak mayor system here. And we've already commissioned and given direction around development of an asset management framework. And so for all of those reasons, I'm not going to be supporting this. We actually already have all of this in place. as needed. And if a member of Councillor is seeking, they should take a look at both the Board of Administration bylaw as well as the responsibilities of our general manager of finance. If they're wanting more reporting, more regular reporting, that direction can be given. And that is at the purview of council. We do get regular financial updates here at council and the opportunity to scrutinize and to give alternate direction. So with those comments, I won't be supporting the motion.
Yeah, thanks, Chair. I will probably echo some similar sentiments to Councillor Domenato. And Councillor Domenato and I actually took the opportunity to have a conversation with our independent Auditor General, just in the spirit of doing some research and engagement. I understand the move of the motion didn't reach out to the Auditor General's office. But it was interesting to, there's a person that's very familiar with the different constructs in different cities across Canada. and the U.S. with respect to their counterparts. And it struck me that, like Councillor Domonato mentioned, in New York, it's an independent elected city official. It's a political position, and it's a very different context. I'm not sure why we keep comparing to the U.S. or trying to bring American kind of politics into Canada. I think there's good reason these days to be proud of a lot of our Canadian system. That's probably me providing a bit of a personal perspective on it. I did sit on... I believe Councillor Domino may have other councillors at the time, trying to recall who, last term on the committee that established the independent office of the Auditor General for the first time, that did the hiring and recruitment around that, very, very familiar with the mandate of the External Auditor General. as well with the city. I think that that was really important. I think that transparency and accountability is. I agree with Councillor Fry with respect to the conditions of our asset management. I think that hopefully we're going to see that concern translate into broad support for really reinvesting in our community assets and our upcoming capital plan that Council will be considering. but it was curious to me to sort of effectively duplicate and I was trying to look for I understand the problem we're trying to solve for and I think that the answer to that is really investing in the community infrastructure and I think that that is something that all of Council can and should get behind in terms of where we put our capital dollars coming up, because we know we have this infrastructure deficit. I think I was the one that moved to quantify it and bring that forward. We also know, too, I think received some feedback from staff, and it's Council's job to take that feedback and make its own independent decisions. But it certainly can help inform some of the debate, and I think it did identify that a lot of these functions are the mandated responsibility of our existing Director of Finance. Colin Knight. And so I'm trying to look for, is there a gap in our transparency and governance? I'm not sure that there is between the existing control and the independent auditor general. And in fact, arguably, you could say that this motion duplicates some of the direction that's already being given, which is to complete an asset management assessment. And in fact, council will be receiving that very soon. My understanding is from staff as part of the upcoming information and work towards developing that capital plan. So that direction was given by a council motion, I think on October 7th, to develop an asset management framework. It's part of the capital plan development, and we will be getting that information. And I think we should really turn our heads and attention to that and put and make sure that we make the investments accordingly in the next capital plan because I think reinvesting back in communities is incredibly important. So I agree with Councillor Frey that we need to manage, monitor our infrastructure. I think we have the tools to do it and I think it's Council's job to use the tools that we have to prioritize investment and quite frankly hold Our staff to account that those priorities are being fulfilled So I'm not seeing that this is going to give us something new in addition to I think a well-established framework that we have Thank you.
Thanks very much, Chair. So what I've heard so far in sort of looking into this, I sort of don't find myself convinced that this is an initiative that would add any additional benefit. In fact, I think it potentially risks, being that it is a council-facing initiative, recommendation that it risks potential politicization in the future and the fact that we have a you know a 500 million dollar infrastructure gap which we've spoken about it seems to me that we should be prioritizing delivering projects instead of adding a new administrative layer to to the city there is no clearly defined gap or issues that could be potentially Have been prevented by the appointment of a separate controller of course we do have a Director of Finance and Auditor General and so it seems to me that we would also be creating a third Position that would potentially have redundancy with both of those There is a CONCERN AROUND COST, TOO. WOULD THE COST FOR THIS OFFICE, WHICH WOULD RUN IN THE MILLIONS UNDOUBTEDLY, CREATE ANY MEASURABLE SAVINGS OR IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN JUST GENERATING MORE OVERALL FINANCIAL BURDEN FOR THE CITY? And again, we have – if we do have existing challenges, certainly it feels like that we should be working on solutions instead of actually trying to create a new role, a new body to try and address the solutions. I think that we could actually work with the tools that we have right now and the very – I think really strong leadership we have in terms of financial accountability. So I do not find myself convinced that it strikes me as being more of a fancy title than an actual measurable role that could bring any real benefit to us. Again, I do believe that we've got... lot of work that is ongoing right now and I'm I'm prepared to support the work of our current teams right now rather than just creating new ones and then leave them with the challenge of where it is the organizational decision-making get made as a result of adding yet another position with into the mix here we have a independent auditor who has the ability to look at any number of files departments and initiatives in the city and then we also have a CFO who is accountable to to the city manager and also able to and to the rest of the corporate leadership team here. So, again, I do not see how this additional role will make any significant change to how we work here in the city.
Well, I certainly didn't have Comptroller as a fancy title on my bingo card for today, but, you know, I think it's not so much a fancy title as it is an actual additional layer. of oversight the auditor general is a is an excellent independent function and i'm glad folks are are happy with that and it is a relatively new construct in the city of vancouver and one that was was not uh uh met favorably by by many when when it was introduced yet has proven to be quite functional and the auditor general looks back on financial decisions and accountability comptroller is a real-time position um And I do appreciate that the CFO does an excellent job, but I think what I'm reflecting here is the asymmetrical access to information that we see. We've seen probably the leanest detailed budget, as far as I can remember, in this most recent budget document, which is... Not a lot of information, and there is an asymmetrical information flow here that others may have more access to information, but I do not as an elected council member, nor do the public. The public can't get any eyes on the details of this budget and how the zero means zero affects the various line items in the operation of the city of Vancouver. And I bring that up specifically in the context of we have somehow, despite a zero means zero budget, found significant amounts of funds for a new fireworks festival, for a new police academy, for a new policing district. And it is inconsistent with our understanding of a zero means zero budget. So, again, having that independent oversight. removes and eliminates any notion of politicization of the financial reporting because it is independent and it is reporting directly to council in a way that I'm not getting reported to right now. And I think I would assume others on council who are not of the majority party. And I think this is... At best, this is a request to look at it.
Quite a privilege, if I might, Chair. All councillors, just in terms of the suggestion that members of the majority party receive different information, all councillors receive the same information. I just want to level set that. Thank you.
I concur.
I wasn't aware, but thank you. Okay. I do believe still that there is an asymmetrical amount of information. that I'm not certainly privileged to. Because again, with the decisions to make large financial commitments like millions of dollars for fireworks, millions of dollars for a new police academy, that suggests that there's information and access to financial information that the rest of council do not have. I'll leave it at that. And this is really unfortunate that it's being sort of panned as something that's not necessary, when in fact, I think this is actually an opportunity to improve our processes as a city of Vancouver and for future councils as well. Thank you.
Okay. Thanks. Okay. Not seeing anyone else on the queue. So I'll now call the vote. Clerk, if you could please take us to the voting screen and committee, you please register your vote on the voting panel.
Okay. And that does not pass with myself in opposition. Councillor Kirby Young in opposition. Councillor Dominato in opposition.
Statement Watch
Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. I support this motion. Today's motion is about one core principle, stronger stewardship of public money in this time of growing financial pressure to build public trust. Five quick points. First, accountability to the public. Residents expect that every tax dollar is managed responsibly and transparently. While the Auditor General plays a critical role, their work is retrospective. They audit after the fact. A controller would provide real-time, ongoing oversight, ensuring issues are caught early, not after funds have already been spent. Second, closing a clear oversight gap. Right now, no single office is responsible for continuous financial monitoring and asset management across departments. Major funding is distributed across departments, yet oversight is fragmented. A controller would act as a central independent watchdog, breaking down silos and ensuring consistency, compliance, and discipline across the org. Third, efficiency and value for money. This is not about adding bureaucracy. It's about preventing waste, duplication, and misaligned spending. With better front-end controls, lifecycle costing, and capital planning, the city can make smarter decisions, prioritize effectively, and ensure we maximize value. Fourth, addressing the infrastructure funding deficit. The city faces a $500 million annual infrastructure gap. That's a structural challenge that cannot be solved by revenue alone. It requires better asset management. This framework would ensure we understand the true condition, cost, and risks of our assets, allowing council to prioritize strategic and sustainable investments, particularly given the property tax freeze and challenges that causes for future years. Fifth, alignment with best practices. Other leading jurisdictions already recognize the value. For example, Toronto, Chicago, and LA have similar roles. Guidance emphasizes exactly what this motion proposes, clear governance, centralized asset management, and ongoing oversight. Having worked both in government and business for many years, I have first-hand experience with the importance of valuing and maximizing assets by leveraging discounted cash flow analysis to align long-term asset needs and capital plans, etc. Finally, this motion is about confidence for the public, for council, and for staff, for government spending. Decisions are being made without the best information, strongest controls, and long-term view. In short, better oversight, better decisions, and better outcomes for Vancouver so we can pay down the deficit and have more funds for climate resilience, housing, festivals, and other important initiatives. Thank you.