We are in a period of change.
The university neighbourhoods are growing in size and population. Expectations around services, infrastructure, and representation are evolving in complexity with this growth. UNA governance needs to keep pace with these changes.
Given that context, the new Neighbours Agreement arrived at an important moment. A great deal of time and effort has clearly gone into it, and agreements of this nature are not easy.
They require compromise, balance, and a willingness to move forward even when not every issue is fully resolved. Like any agreement, it is not perfect.
A review of past UNA articles and public commentary makes one thing clear though: the core issue has not changed very much over time.
The UNA has long sought recognition as a “municipal- like” body. This desire is not an argument for abrupt restructuring and definitely does not mean incorporating campus into the City of Vancouver, like some politicians have suggested lately.
The more realistic path is continued governance evolution, but within the broader UBC framework, with clearer accountability, greater operational autonomy, and governance structures that better reflect the scale and complexity of the communities that now exist.
The UNA seeks a governance model that represents residents and ensures equitable management of the levies collected from homeowners and commercial tenants, while delivering essential services and maintaining meaningful input on decisions shaping its communities.
Progress has been made since the UNA was first created as a governing body with appointed members, to now having a fully elected board that advocates for fair tax treatment and a role in land use planning decisions.
Yet the original structure remains; that is, the UNA operates in a governance framework where it is responsible for delivering “municipal-like” services, while key financial and governance control remain with UBC’s Board of Governors.
The financial reality
The UNA’s primary funding source is the Neighbours Fund, which is funded through the levies paid by residents, tenants, and businesses.
While the UNA can request withdrawals, UBC retains authority over disbursements and can allocate these funds toward infrastructure, environmental initiatives, and administrative costs. The funds are controlled, collected and dispersed by UBC.
That financial control creates a structural imbalance that no amount of collaborative language can fully offset. Control of the revenue stream ultimately drives control of outcomes.
In practical terms, the UNA participates in consultation with the UBC Board, but it does not fully decide in how millions of dollars paid by residents is spent. This is not democratic. Changes in levy rates, collection practices, or contributions to funds such as infrastructure and capital reserves – particularly in an environment of rising costs – can materially affect the UNA’s ability to deliver services, but it has no control over those inputs. Board members elected by residents may have a mandate for a particular set of policies or actions, but they may be hampered by the inability to fund popular initiatives.
Similarly, provisions that require UBC only to negotiate financial support does not provide certainty as negotiation is not a firm commitment, and ambiguity in cost sharing for joint initiatives may disrupt spending on initiatives even if they have broad popular support.
As long as the UNA has a good working relationship with the UBC’s Board of Governors, the agreement is workable, but it does mean UNA governance must be disciplined, attentive, and clear about how the provisions operate in practice.
Responsibility without authority
The UNA is responsible for delivering services and responding to residents, but budgets, regulations, agreements, and other operational decisions remain subject to UBC approval.
The agreement notes that approvals should not be “unreasonably” withheld. In practice, however, “unreasonably” is a word that is open to interpretation. Where interpretations differ, the UNA may find itself constrained, even where it is acting within its mandate.
The implementation of neighbourhood regulations are a clear example.
Hypothetically, UBC could override UNA-created rules and regulations because it retains multiple mechanisms to influence or suspend them. The converse is also true. If the UNA elected not to provide a service, UBC can assume that service and recover costs from UNA controlled funds. And in the event of a dispute, final authority ultimately sits with UBC.
Growth, change, and the risk of falling behind
With the ongoing implementation of UBC’s Campus Vision 2050, the university neighbourhoods are undergoing major demographic change, including population growth, increasing diversity, and evolving community needs.
That change brings new expectations around services, programming, infrastructure, and representation. At the same time, key decisions around growth, density, infrastructure, and long-term planning continue to sit largely outside the UNA’s direct control.
Residents can attend workshops and open houses, and the UNA can consult on these matters, but again, consultation is not the same as shared decision-making. For example, in 2023 the UNA board at the time strongly voiced its opposition to UBC’s revised Land Use Plan, yet the university and the province went ahead and approved it anyway.
This consultation gap creates a practical risk, with the UNA responsible for responding to the impacts of growth, but without having a meaningful role in shaping it.
Evolution, not confrontation
The broader point that should not be overlooked is that governance must adapt with the changes in our community. If it does not, the gap between what residents need and what the UNA is positioned to deliver will continue to widen.
Evolution in governance must also extend to the UNA itself. The board should be prepared to examine whether its current model is sufficient for what lies ahead, whether in terms of board composition/representation, depth of experience, compensation for elected directors, as well as overall capacity of the UNA’s workforce.
The UNA has long been described as “municipal-like.” That description has served a purpose, but it should not be the end state. It must work toward a pathway that further recognizes the unique and valued relationship the UNA has within the broader UBC structure.
There are a number of possible directions for change, from campus becoming an independent municipality, to a shared governance model more like the University Endowment Lands, or the proposed expansion of the City of Vancouver to include the university neighbourhoods.
Regardless of how the UNA evolves and whatever shape its governance takes, it shouldn’t be created through a sudden shift or confrontation, but through structured and deliberate processes.
And this writer certainly believes it should not involve amalgamation with the City of Vancouver.
JAKE WIEBE IS A UNA DIRECTOR AND CHAIR OF THE UNA FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS ARTICLE ARE HIS OWN AND DO NOT REPRESENT THOSE OF THE UNA.