Local Government CAO Survey

Feedback from Chief Administrative Officers
on the Impact of Core Review Changes to the
Agricultural Land Commission

Background
In the past some of the most vocal criticisms of the Agricultural Land Reserve have focussed primarily on the Commission’s perceived intransigence in refusing to allow farmland to be removed from the ALR for development purposes. Most of the critics have, quite understandably, been owners of land in the ALR who have had their applications refused and, to a lesser extent, officials of local governments forwarding these applications.

However, the government’s recent changes to the ALR system resulting from Core Review are lessening these criticisms.

In March 2003, Chief Administrative Officers (CAO) of local governments with land in the ALR were invited to comment on the changes the Commission implemented 2002/03. A comprehensive questionnaire was sent out, and 85 of 133 CAOs responded.

This exercise did not canvass landowners or wider public opinion across BC, which would have been prohibitively expensive. However, given the key role of local governments in BC’s land reserve system and the senior role of CAOs within each government, it was felt such feedback would provide a good measure of the success of Core Review changes to date.

Commission Communications
Two questions were designed to solicit feedback about the ALC’s communications activities (see questions 4 and 5).

Our local government partners preferred to receive information firstly through the information brochure Reserve Opinion (by mail or e-mail, but not the website), and secondly from other forms of direct mail. Click here for a sample of comments responding to how the Commission could improve its communications follow.

Most respondents expressed a high level of satisfaction with the ALC’s communications and offered a number of positive comments, such as

• "to date good communication, ALC staff respond within a reasonable time to inquiries/questions" (Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine)
• "we need to know of ALC changes, but don’t require enhanced communications" (Golden)
• "we think you are doing a very good job right now" (Logan Lake)

Core Review Goals (question 6)
One of the main objectives of the feedback exercise was to determine whether the goals set for the Commission by Core Review were met. These goals included:

1. Bringing decision-making closer to community.
2. Bringing decision-making closer to the people affected.
3. Improving Commission responsiveness & flexibility.
4. Providing more opportunities for interaction & dialogue.
5. Having decision-makers who are more knowledgeable about regions.
6. Forging stronger partnerships with the ALC.

When asked about the success in achieving these goals in the first year, CAOs replied as follows:

		On whether decision-making was closer to the community, CAOs were overwhelmingly positive. 67% said it was, only 4% said it wasn’t, and 29% said they didn’t know or had no opinion.
		On whether decision-making was closer to the people affected, respondents were equally positive. 65% said "Yes", 7% said "No" and 28% either didn’t know or had no opinion.
		On whether there was an improvement in Commission responsiveness & flexibility, CAOs were uncertain, with nearly half (48%) answering "Don’t Know or No Opinion". However, amongst those with an opinion, 90% said there had been an improvement and only 9% said there had not.
		On whether there were now more opportunities for interaction & dialogue, CAOs were positive: 55% said "Yes", 7% disagreed and 38% said they didn’t know or had no opinion.
		On whether the changes would result in stronger partnerships with ALC, most respondents (59%) were unsure. Only 31% answered "Yes" and 10% answered "No".
		On whether decision-makers were more knowledgeable about regions, CAOs were much more positive. The answers to that question were: Yes 66% No 6% Don't Know/No Opinion   28%

Among the most worrisome results were perceptions that the Core Review changes would result in a stronger partnership with the ALC. Only 26 of 85 respondents felt partnerships would be stronger (31%), 9 thought they would not be stronger (11%) and the remainder (58%) either didn’t know or had no opinion.

Some of the most interesting findings concerning the Core Review goals came from communities in which previous criticisms of the ALC/ALR had been most vocal. In general these communities’ CAOs were supportive of the changes and satisfied with the new system. (Click here to view comments.)

Commission Staff (question 7)
Across the province, Commission staff were found to be extremely helpful, impartial, communicative, professional and courteous.

When CAOs were asked if Commission staff were helpful when dealing with local government officials on applications,

		56% were Satisfied or Very Satisfied
		8% were Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied
		18% were neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied
and the remainder Didn’t Know or had No Opinion.
[ View Comments ]

Asked if Commission staff were impartial when dealing with local government officials on applications,

		44% were Satisfied or Very Satisfied
		6% were Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied
		21% were neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied
and the remainder Didn’t Know or had No Opinion.
[ View Comments ]

When CAOs were asked if Commission staff were communicative when dealing with local government officials on applications,

		59% were Satisfied or Very Satisfied
		5% were Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied
		14% were neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied
and the remainder Didn’t Know or had No Opinion.
[ View Comments ]

When asked if Commission staff were professional when dealing with local government officials on applications,

		70% were Satisfied or Very Satisfied
		5% were Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied
		6% were neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied
and the remainder Didn’t Know or had No Opinion.
[ View Comments ]

Lastly, when CAOs were asked if Commission staff were courteous when dealing with local government officials on applications,

		73% were Satisfied or Very Satisfied
		2% were Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied
		5% were neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied
and the remainder Didn’t Know or had No Opinion.
[ View Comments ]

Click here to see comments from specific communities.

Presenting Information (questions 8 to 11)
When CAOs were asked if there was adequate opportunity for applicants to present information in support of their application,

			43% were Satisfied or Very Satisfied
			7% were neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied
			4% were Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied
			46% Didn't Know or had No Opinion

When asked what more could be done to increase opportunities for applicants to present information, many suggestions were made, including:

• "Providing the local government and the applicant with a copy of the staff report to the panel is an excellent approach which has improved communication and the opportunity to respond to concerns and issues" (Abbotsford)
• "Decisions should be made in public" (Chilliwack)
• "perhaps consider utilization of local government to meet with applicant and Commission panel members strictly as a resource person to answer questions or to provide information relating to local government bylaws, policies, etc." (Regional District of Central Okanagan)

Click here for more comments.

Question 10 asked "Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the review and processing of applications by ALC staff?"

			59% were Satisfied or Very Satisfied
			11% were neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied
			3% were Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied
			27% Didn't Know or had No Opinion

When asked what more could be done to improve the review and processing of applications by ALC staff, most of the comments (good and bad) were about timing,

• "Timing is the only issue. Staff do a good job but it often takes a long time. Regional commissioners are a big step to help the problem." (Kelowna)
• "decrease processing times" (Cariboo Regional District)
• "Number one complaint from public is turnaround time. Find application process too long." (Revelstoke)

Click here for more comments.

Landowner/Resident Expectations and Support
Another concern relates to landowner and general public support for the ALR, as perceived by the CAOs. (questions 12 & 13)

When CAOs were asked if they felt owners of ALR land in their community expected the Core Review changes to result in eliminating the ALR, 55% said "No", only 13% said "Yes" and the remainder (32%) didn’t know or had no opinion.

However, when asked if they felt owners of ALR land expected the Core Review changes to result in reducing the size of the ALR, opinion was more evenly split: 38% said "No", 31% said "Yes" and 31% didn’t know or had no opinion.

When CAOs were asked if they felt owners of ALR land in their community expected the Core Review changes to result in increasing the accessibility of Commissioners, only 9% said "No", 53% said "Yes" and the remainder (38%) didn’t know or had no opinion. This is good news, but is also evidence of higher expectations.

When asked if they felt owners of ALR land in their community expected the Core Review changes would result in decentralizing decision-making, 8% said "No", 50% said "Yes" and the remainder didn’t know or had no opinion. Again, the bar has been raised.

With respect to non-farm uses, when CAOs were asked if they felt owners of ALR land in their community expected Core Review changes would result in more non-farm uses in the ALR, 13% said "No", 47% said "Yes" and 40% didn’t know or had no opinion.

Finally, when CAOs were asked if they felt ALR owners expected the Core Review changes to result in the Commission being more regionally responsive, only 6% said "No", while 56% said "Yes" and the remainder didn’t know or had no opinion. Again, a very high level of expectation.

In addition to asking CAOs to gauge landowner expectations (above) they were asked to estimate the level of support for farmland preservation amongst residents of their community.

The results were encouraging. Of the 82 responses received, 51 felt that residents were either "Very Supportive" or "Supportive" and only 7 felt residents were "Very Unsupportive" or "Unsupportive". This is a ratio of over 7-1 in favour of the ALR. Only 9 of the 82 respondents believed residents were indifferent and only 15 didn’t know or had no opinion.

General Comments
Over one-third of CAOs responded when asked for comments or suggestions, click here to view.

Conclusions
While a small number of CAOs expressed dissatisfaction with the ALC’s performance in achieving the goals set by Core Review, the majority feel that the Commission is succeeding in that regard. And the vast majority of the Commission’s local government partners were satisfied (or very satisfied) with the level and types of communications utilized by the Commission and the performance of staff. Most respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied that Commission staff were helpful, communicative, professional and courteous. Although less than half of respondents were satisfied with staff impartiality (44%) this was several times the number who were dissatisfied (6%).

Among the most worrisome results were perceptions that the Core Review changes would result in a stronger partnership with the ALC. Only 26 of 85 felt they would (31%), 9 said they would not (11%) and the remainder (58%) either didn’t know or had no opinion.

Several interesting suggestions were made with respect to improving interactions with staff and Commissioners, particularly involving greater use of e-mail and increasing the number and type of face-to-face meetings.

The results of Question 10 ("Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the review and processing of applications by ALC staff?") were very positive. While 3% were Dissatisfied, 59% were either Satisfied or Very Satisfied.

On the whole the Commission should be very pleased with the high levels of satisfaction expressed by CAOs. There are several areas requiring improvement, and the Commission is committed to addressing those deficiencies. We can also be grateful for the many excellent suggestions made by respondents, and we will work to incorporate them into the policies and programs of the ALC in the months and years ahead.