Vernon council has given the green light to funding a second transit route to UBC Okanagan. The extra bus will start in September and will help reduce the heavy demand on the first bus. City transportation technician Amanda Watson says the extra route will cost 120-thousand dollars a year, and at this point that's all on city taxpayers. The extra route will cost 120-thousand dollars a year, and will double the number of daily runs from four to 8, with the first one leaving at 7:40AM.. The city says the decision was made in committee, not in the regular meeting. Councillor Bob Spiers says he supports the second bus--- but voted against the motion over concerns of NORD downloading the cost onto the city.
-----------------------
Don Quixote: When Peter Mcintyre refers to 'in committee, not in the regular meeting.' he means at NORD's Committee of the whole. Agenda Package PDF (675Kb). The details of the breakdown for the 9 Regional Partners can be found on Page 5 of the $120,000 cost if the bus remained as part of the Regional Transit function. Vernon's taxpayers share would have been $57,480. The potential subsidy to the other areas is $62,520 per year for a minimum of 2 years.
Vernon Council unanimously referred this back to the Full NORD Board for reconsideration.
The other factor in my opposition to this 'downloading' or perhaps 'side-loading' is the business tax ratio factor. Business at the Regional District Level have a Provincial Mandated ratio of 2.45. At Vernon the ratio in 2010 is 2.78 . Every time a function is taken over by the city or the costs are assumed by the city (even for a valid and needed function) a disproportionate share is assumed by the non-residential taxpayer. (Recent examples where this happened were the City's taking on the Tourism and Economic Development functions)
Another of my concerns is the tax base that is used at the NORD level. In this case the Regional Transit's assessment basis for taxation is 'Land and Improvements' as it will be in the city and there is no difference in this case.
This concern will be more prominent for Fire Dispatch ('Improvements only) and especially in the Recreational Function at NORD (Parks etc) which is also assessed on the basis of Improvements only. The mandated switch over to 'Land & Improvements' will have both negative or positive repercussions to both Residential and Business taxpayers if these functions change jurisdictions. There is no net loss to the taxpayers but who assumes the change will be dependent on your property assessment breakdown in relation to all other properties and their breakdown of Land and Improvements. The most recent example of this Law of Unexpected Consequences (LUC) occurred in 2009 when the Fire Costs were changed from'Improvements Only' to 'Land and Improvements. '
-----------------------
Don Quixote: When Peter Mcintyre refers to 'in committee, not in the regular meeting.' he means at NORD's Committee of the whole. Agenda Package PDF (675Kb). The details of the breakdown for the 9 Regional Partners can be found on Page 5 of the $120,000 cost if the bus remained as part of the Regional Transit function. Vernon's taxpayers share would have been $57,480. The potential subsidy to the other areas is $62,520 per year for a minimum of 2 years.
Vernon Council unanimously referred this back to the Full NORD Board for reconsideration.
The other factor in my opposition to this 'downloading' or perhaps 'side-loading' is the business tax ratio factor. Business at the Regional District Level have a Provincial Mandated ratio of 2.45. At Vernon the ratio in 2010 is 2.78 . Every time a function is taken over by the city or the costs are assumed by the city (even for a valid and needed function) a disproportionate share is assumed by the non-residential taxpayer. (Recent examples where this happened were the City's taking on the Tourism and Economic Development functions)
Another of my concerns is the tax base that is used at the NORD level. In this case the Regional Transit's assessment basis for taxation is 'Land and Improvements' as it will be in the city and there is no difference in this case.
This concern will be more prominent for Fire Dispatch ('Improvements only) and especially in the Recreational Function at NORD (Parks etc) which is also assessed on the basis of Improvements only. The mandated switch over to 'Land & Improvements' will have both negative or positive repercussions to both Residential and Business taxpayers if these functions change jurisdictions. There is no net loss to the taxpayers but who assumes the change will be dependent on your property assessment breakdown in relation to all other properties and their breakdown of Land and Improvements. The most recent example of this Law of Unexpected Consequences (LUC) occurred in 2009 when the Fire Costs were changed from'Improvements Only' to 'Land and Improvements. '
3 comments:
Wow, this is fascinating.
A Vernon Councillor is starting to understand what the cost to his own taxpayers is as a result of some sort of strategic direction to take control of various functions which NORD has been doing.
Perhaps this same Councillor will also start to do some investigation into the costs facing City taxpayers as a result of the various annexations occurring, too.
Seems that control comes at a price. How deep into our pockets are the politicians willing to go to feed this agenda.
Maybe the City should seek a lesson in the "economies of scale" concept.
"The other factor in my opposition to this 'downloading' or perhaps 'side-loading' is the business tax ratio factor. Business at the Regional District Level have a Provincial Mandated ratio of 2.45. At Vernon the ratio in 2010 is 2.78 ."
Setting business tax rates is totally in control of Council. If Council believes that the business tax rates are too high they can reduce the residential/business tax ratio. That, of course, will increase residential taxes.
Thank you Councillor Spiers for asking the questions that should be asked.
Why is the City so keen on UPLOADING to itself?
Why is the City apparently hell-bent on control versus cost-sharing?
Why should we pay 100% of a service, when we formerly paid 75% as a partner in Greater Vernon, or 50% as a partner in the Regional District, for the same service?
Councillor Gilroy wants to make the best decisions with the best information. Does that mean he will consider contracting out Fire Dispatch to Surrey, similar to what CSRD recently did, because it resulted in a 90% cost savings? Of course not.
Meanwhile, we domestic taxpayers are forced to continue supporting a very expensive treated wastewater irrigation system, with our tax dollars and user fees, that benefits only a few select businesses around our area, and does nothing to return drinking water to the residents.
We paid for the water, we paid to treat this water, and yet this water is then diverted from us as drinking water, and instead, provided cheaply as irrigation to these commercial customers.
Isn't there a rule about governments lending assistance to business, especially off the backs of your residential tax and ratepayers? Shame!
Post a Comment