Council to consider plan for new police building

Proposed for corner of Clement Ave & Richter St
City Council will discuss a proposal Monday to build a new police services building in Kelowna. The existing 52-year-old building no longer provides sufficient space for effective policing in our community. A new Kelowna Police Services Building is proposed for the corner of Clement Avenue and Richter Street. “Maintaining a safe community is a priority for citizens,” says John Vos, Infrastructure Division Director for the City of Kelowna. “The City’s 2012 Citizens Survey ranked concerns about personal safety relatively low, while protective services were citizens’ top priority for community investment. That tells us people generally feel safe in Kelowna and they want to continue investing in protective services to give the RCMP the support system and efficiencies they need to keep our neighbourhoods, business areas and downtown safe.” This project, if approved, will be more than just a new building. It will include the design and construction of a new Police Services Building, necessary roadway and intersection improvements on Clement Avenue and Richter Street, parking lot provision, landscaping and required off-site utility servicing. The cost ceiling for the successful contractor is $36 million. That cost includes design and engineering, building construction, parking, landscaping, utility upgrades, street upgrades, sidewalk and irrigation. There are additional direct costs to the City (outside of the contract work) that equal $12 million, for a total project cost of $48 million. Those direct costs include planning, project management, development cost charges, building permit, furniture and computer networks, financing costs, design-build stipend for unsuccessful bidders and a contingency reserve. The funding strategy Council will consider Monday proposes the City secure a municipal loan for up to $42,384,000 from the Municipal Finance Authority of BC, amortized over 30 years, with another $5.6 million to come from reserve funds and other outside funding sources. Under the Municipal Policing Agreement, the City is required to provide adequate accommodations for the RCMP to perform their work within a set of nationally applied policing standards. Our current infrastructure does not meet those standards and poses a potential risk to effective policing in our community. Under these circumstances, the RCMP has the right to construct their own facility and bill it back to Kelowna residents. The City agrees that the facilities do not meet current and future requirements and is working toward a solution. “It is important to remember that this facility is more complex than office space – it is part prison, part high-tech lab, part library and part armory or high-security storage facility. It is operational 24/7 and required to be built to a post-disaster standard, which means after the occurrence of a seismic event, the building needs to not only remain standing, but needs to remain fully operational.” If approved by council, next steps will see the elector approval process for the borrowing of funds to complete the project, which is expected to be brought before council early in 2014. If approved, construction of the new building will begin in 2015, wrapping up in late 2017.

City to help Citizens Remove Snow !

Reprint of 11/30/06 Article.

CLICK ON CARTOON TO ENLARGE! (Wink, wink, Nudge, Nudge !)
















MINUTES OF A REGULAR OPEN MEETING OF COUNCIL
HELD MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2006

Moved by Councillor Cochrane, seconded by Councillor Beardsell:

THAT Council supports the City of Vernon continuing to be responsible for clearing snow from sidewalks adjacent to City owned property and major routes including 27 Street, Highway 97 and Highway 6 as designated in Section A of the Snow and Ice Control Policy;

AND FURTHER, that homeowners continue to be responsible for clearing snow from sidewalks adjacent to their property within 24 hours of the accumulation of snow as regulated by Section 5.7 in the Good Neighbour Bylaw No. 4980;

AND FURTHER, that Council amends 5(e) of the staff recommendations in the report dated November 14, 2006 from 50mm of snow to 150mm of snow as follows:

5.(e) Not withstanding the above, the City of Vernon will begin assisting with sidewalk clearing operations on residential sidewalks for major storms exceeding 150mm of snow, within 24 hours of the storm event, subject to available manpower.

AND FURTHER, that the 2007 Budget includes provision for the purchase of two pre-owned snow clearing machines estimated at a total cost of $60,000 and that the Snow and Ice Control Budget be increased by $20,000 in 2007 to account for the admanpower required to provide the higher service level; AND FURTHER, that the Operations Manager bring forward a request to Council for early budget approval for implementation as of January 1, 2007.

CARRIED, with Councillor Nicol, opposed.

WHEN IS A STORM 'A MAJOR STORM'

Reprint of Nov. 29, 2006

By Vernon Daily Courier staff http://www.dailycourier.ca/
It was a matter of inches. City council debated how deep the snow would have to be before staff started helping with the clearing of sidewalks at Monday's meeting. A staff proposal called for the city to come to the aid of resident snow shovelers only during major storm events.A major storm was defined as snow depth of two inches, or about half-an-inch taller than a ping pong ball."I have trouble equating two inches with a major storm," said Coun. Pat Cochrane. "Two inches is basically a skiff of snow." Council finally settled on six inches as a major storm event and the point at which the city would help citizens clear their sidewalks.Failure to remove snow and ice from a sidewalk includes a fine of $50 per infraction.Operation services manager Shirley Koenig had presented a report on snow clearing at the meeting. The report was launched after a resident complained it was unfair that residents with sidewalks were forced to do extra shoveling while those without sidewalks had no such obligation.The report recommended that the city purchase two pre-owned snow clearing machines for $60,000 and give residents a hand during major storm events of 50 millimetres or two inches.

Vernon's sister city struggles with Budget.

Budget decisions require openness and a long view Modesto Bee June 3/08
Tonight, the Modesto City Council will vote on a $120 million budget for 2008-09. It's not a pretty proposal, with police and firefighter positions left vacant, six neighborhood pools closed and a $5 fee tagged on for each athlete using city fields in organized sports programs. Around the region, boards and councils are having to make tough decisions, most of them the result of declining revenue because of the mortgage crisis, dropping real estate values and the general economic slump. Government agencies have gotten used to ever-rising revenues from property and sales taxes. Those started to fall this year and they're expected to continue to decline.

It is impossible to comment on every budget decision; we won't try. We think three principles need to guide elected officials:

Transparency: It's the public's money being used to serve the public, and the public should be able to understand how it is being spent. So the process has to be fully open -- and explained in a way that is understandable to everyday residents, not just accountants and those inside the bureaucracy.

Prudent reserves: One of the reasons Modesto is in relatively good shape compared with other cities -- Vallejo being the worst example -- is because in previous years it established and kept to a reserve, even when there was pressure to spend down. For next year, the city plans to have a 7 percent reserve, 1 percent below its target. But Mayor Jim Ridenour says he won't go any lower.

Employee costs: Around the state, a number of government bodies have committed to salaries, benefits and retirement promises that are overtaxing general funds. Elected bodies should be fair to their employee groups, but they have to recognize the long-term and ongoing costs of their contracts.

While elected officials make the decisions, residents bear an important responsibility in this process, as well. They need to stay informed and they need to speak up while the deliberations are under way -- not just after the fact. Too often, officials hear from staff and union representatives and others with vested interests. They don't hear from the public that ultimately is affected.The Modesto council will meet at 5:30 p.m. today in the basement chamber of Tenth Street Place, 1010 10th St. Televised live on Comcast Channel 7.

RCMP in the black

by Wayne Moore - Oct 19, 2007 Castanet
A number of vacancies within the Kelowna RCMP has resulted in a significant surplus in the detachment's 2007 operating budget. Kelowna City Council has agreed to amend the 2007 financial plan and re-direct the $300,000 surplus to address some capital deficiencies within the RCMP. The funds would be diverted into six specific capital projects

City Manager, Ron Mattiussi, says this type of fund transfer is uncommon within City departments. "We try not to ask for more than we need, but sometimes there are some anomalies that crop up, and this is one of those," says Mattiussi. He says the practice is discouraged, but with the unique nature of the RCMP, it does happen from time to time. "They don't always know if they are going to get an officer or a cadet. It is a situation we hope to be able to deal with."
================
Don Quixote Note: Vernon has yet to post their final 2007-2011 5 year financial on their website. Any amendments as required by the Community Charter to recognize significant deviations should be made before year end to help the upcoming 2008 budget cycle that is now underway.

City of Vernon's Financial Statements coming online shortly? (And detailed Variance report?) (And Annual Report ?)

City of Vernon's Financial Statements for 2006 Coming Shortly !
Originally posted Aug 21

I went to the Audit Committee meeting last Thursday. The Auditors presented their full report to the committee and the delay and the responses to the delay were presented by the Auditors and the Financial Administrator respectively.

The 2006 Financial Statements will finally be presented to the City Council at the next meeting and will be available to the public shortly thereafter. The variance report that details the budget variances will be given to the councillors at the next meeting. I have been assured that it will be similar to the 2005 report in content so individual detailed analysis will be possible. (2005 Year End Detailed Variance Analysis - 1.13MB ) and it will be posted on the City's website. Also the 2007-2011 5 year financial Plan is to be posted to the website shortly so the list starting from 2004 will be updated.

The Annual report and public input meeting which was required to be complete by June 30 will follow 2 weeks or more after the report is made available. This report will present the financial statements, a summary of 2005 and 2006 objectives and results, a 2007 objectives section, statement of remuneration and expenses for both Politicians and staff in excess of $75,000, suppliers accounts greater than $25,000, permissive tax exemptions etc.

Regular Meeting of Council AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS

AGENDA AGENDA PKG 1 AGENDA PKG 2 AGENDA PKG 3
Regular Meeting Aug. 27 1:30 PM

• Vernon Transit Delegation
• Vernon Hospice House request for funding (p.15)
• Council discussion of Library/Civic Complex
• Municipal fee bylaw for Smith Creek Area 2 (P.17)
• Grant request for 2008 Ford's world Curling from NORD
• Financials for 2554 Lakeshore Road -from Airport Advisory Committee (P.49)
• Okanagan Landing sewer servicing plan .(P.53)
• Waterfront Plan (p.55) from Environmental Committee.
• BC Transit Grant priorities (p.59)
• 2006 Annual Report (p. 109)
• 2597 Lakeshore road Dev Variance permit and Road closure(p.151)
• Changes to Outbacker latecomer bylaw: P.191

Agenda Highlights COW JULY 9, 2007 8:40 AM

AGENDA Agenda Package

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MONDAY, JULY 9, 2007 8:40 AM

• BUDGET PRIORITIES (P. 7) 60 minutes allotted for this discussion
• 2008 BUDGET TIMELINE (P. 9)
• RCMP BUDGET REQUEST (P. 11)

Finance Committee Meeting Tuesday at 1 PM

http://www.vernon.ca/council/meeting_schedule.pdf

June 5, Tuesday: Finance Committee 1:00 pm Kalamalka Lake Room

---------------------
Don Quixote Note: At this meeting I expect to hear the debate and recommendation on the O'keefe Ranch Grant application for $1.1 million. I hope to hear the detailed variance report that will tell us how the $1.55 million operating surplus in 2006 was achieved.

I also expect some discussion of why The BC Property Tax Deferment Program information was not part of the tax package mailed out to all taxpayers. It was a great reminder last year and it was discontinued this year?

Under the program, the Province pays municipal or rural property taxes on behalf of eligible property owners who are 55 or older, a surviving spouse, or a person with a disability. Participants may defer taxes on a home in which they live and have equity equal to at least 25 per cent of the current value, and may continue to defer as long as they own and live in the home. After paying a one-time, $60 administration fee, approved applicants benefit from simple interest charged on their deferment accounts at a rate two per cent below the bank prime rate, and they can renew annually for $10.

More money spent inside, less on bricks and morter ?

These figures are taken off the sheets attached to each years tax notices sent to each taxpayer in May. Note where the trend from 2000 to 2007 has occurred. (administration has risen from 15.54% to 21.17% while public works has decreased from 21.05% to 15.17%) Taxes are those charged on the so called average house each year. Note that we have no debt charges in 2007 but a 4.95% Residential Tax increase. (go figure !)

Councillor calls city surplus ’ridiculous’

By Jordan Nicurity Monday, May 28, 2007 http://www.dailycourier.ca/stories.php?id=45955

Vernon City Council has revealed that 2006 was a good year financially for the city. A very, very good year. At the finance meeting on Thursday the city made it known that the net surplus for 2006 was $1,554,204. “It‘s a ridiculous amount of money,” said Coun. Barry Beardsell, “I was expecting a surplus but nothing of this magnitude. Usually you end up with a surplus of $50,000 or $100,000.” While this may seem like a pleasant surprise, Beardsell said he is not sure the public will view it as such, especially after the raise in residential taxes this year. “A lot of people will be saying, ’If (council) has got so much money then why not cut my taxes?‘” said Beardsell.

Coun. Patrick Nicol feels that citizens of Vernon will be more understanding. “Citizens always appreciate when they get something for their hard-earned tax dollars, and they‘ll see that they get that,” said Nicol, noting that much of the surplus will go towards the redesign of Middleton Way. “It‘s a matter of balance, we have big projects with considerable expenditures that need to be addressed,” said Nicol. While the sources of the surplus will not be made public until Thursday‘s finance committee meeting, it is known that approximately $440,000 has come from development fee revenue that was not budgeted. Councillors are aware that citizens may criticize the city for deliberately underestimating growth in order to secure a large surplus. According to Nicol, this is partly true. “The growth percentage we chose was us being conservative,” he said. “There was a very healthy debate on the percentage and maybe we were overly cautious.” Under a new accounting system known as Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP), the funds have been temporarily allocated to various reserve accounts until a full review of the city‘s reserve account system happens later in the year. The GAAP system must be used due to legislation enacted by the provincial government in the wake of the Enron scandal in the U.S.

Vernon has an extra $1,554,204 from last year budget !

The NET surplus for 2006 is $1,554,204. I stress the word NET because this is the amount that will be sliced and diced by the Council into various 'flavour of the day' projects or formally put into Reserves to be used in the future. This figure above of $1,554,204 does NOT include more than $726,090 that were 'carried over' projects of 2006 to be completed in 2007 that were authorized by the previous Financial Manager. As well a further $3,135,975 had been authorized by council resolution in 2006 to be carried over to 2007. (Mostly the 25th ave construction deferred to spring of 2007).

Despite the fact that the originally estimated surplus was $700,000 and they used $230,600 of this for the OCP review the council refused to use any of the surplus to reduce residential class taxes when they decided to reduce business class taxes. (Residential taxes were increased from the original 2% forecast of $193,868 to $468,868 which is a 4.95% increase, while business taxes were decreased from the original 2% forecast of $100,608 to ($311,092 decrease) which is a 6.6% decrease.)

I hope that when the Council does their final slicing and dicing and their formal reserve account review which is long overdue they will consider using account # 246-201-024 which is a tax equalization reserve to place sufficient money from this windfall surplus to reduce the residential class taxes in 2008 by at least the amount by which they were increased (screwed) in 2007 !

IT IS TOO LATE TO ADJUST THE 2007 TAXES AS NOTICES HAVE GONE OUT BUT PUT ASIDE ENOUGH IN THE TAX EQUALIZATION RESERVE TO CORRECT IN 2008. (After all it is an Election year and individuals vote not businesses.)

QUESTION: What is a tax Equalization Reserve?
ANSWER: It is the taxpayer's equivalent of the Council Initiative Fund, Slush fund or the Mayor's "wiggle room" where the excess taxes or surpluses that had been collected from the year could be deposited. This fund which would benefit the taxpayers tax RATES has not been used since late 1984 when it was created to smooth out excessive rate increases in any one year.
The Council should commit to put the under budgeted building fees and others of the same ilk into this reserve each year to smooth out future taxes when revenues are more correctly forecast or even mis forecasted on the high side. The Council of the day can still remove these reserves and slice and dice them but the open audit trail would be more transparent and open to constructive public scrutiny.

2007 TRAFFIC FINE REVENUE BY MUNICIPALITY

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2007CS0033-000561-Attachment1.htm
http://www.civicinfo.bc.ca/302n.asp?newsid=2176
VICTORIA – The Province is returning $58.8 million in traffic fine revenues to British Columbia municipalities, as part of government's ongoing commitment to enhance policing and public safety, Community Services Minister Ida Chong announced. "This year, we are returning the most ever under the Traffic Fine Revenue Sharing program to municipalities. Whether it is for more officers on the street, more crime prevention programs or better strategies to combat drugs and vandalism, this funding makes a difference in the lives of British Columbians," said Chong. "Through municipal accountability reports that communities submit to government, taxpayers are seeing how their municipalities are investing these significant funds to make their communities safer. We look forward to receiving these reports once again this year, providing local governments with an opportunity to showcase their innovative ideas and actions."
Since its expansion in 2004, when the Province began returning 100 per cent of traffic fine revenues, an additional $159.8 million has gone to municipalities for public safety, for a total of $199.8 million. This grant program is to assist those municipalities that pay local police enforcement costs. The provincial traffic fine revenue comes from ticket fines and court-imposed fines on violation tickets and the amount of money a municipality receives is based on its contribution to total municipal policing costs.

Coldstream 58,062
Kamloops 1,241,323
Kelowna 1,351,532
Revelstoke 81,474
Salmon Arm 146,308
Spallumcheen 22,217
Vancouver 14,111,589
Vernon $495,253
Whistler 246,228
Total 58,805,497
---------------------------
Don Quixote note:
Vernon budgeted a total of $394,740 for 2007. This would indicate another $100,000 surplus in 2007. Indications are that these funds will flow through and be accounted for in the RCMP reserve fund .

Residential Tax Class will have a 4.95% municipal tax increase

Yesterday with little fanfare the Vernon City Council passed a tax bylaw in which the Residential Tax Class will have a 4.95% municipal tax increase (excluding fire which will make it higher) and the Business Class will have a 6.6% municipal tax decrease.

The additional $275,000 that was added to the residential class taxes and deducted from business class taxes (Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus as they got an additional $92,000 from the Utilities class and $44,700 from Industrial class to make their total reduction $411,700) came without looking for other revenue sources so as to ensure the Residential Class increase was maintained at the original 2% level.

Last year by this time the council had sliced and diced sliced and diced $630,000 of unbudgeted fee revenue in 2006. This money was divided into $300,000 in Capital Grants Matching Res., $130,000 into a Social, Environmental, Agriculture Studies Reserve and $200,000 into the Transit Expansion reserve. They talked about using some of it for a residential tax decrease but concluded that it would be imprudent.

The last years surplus estimated at $700,000 before the budget adjustments where it was decided to pay for the OCP review $230,600 from the existing $700,000 in 2006 operating surplus. This leaves only $469,400 (700,000 - 230,600) in the 2006 year end surplus (approx.) for the council to slice and dice. This could be used to lower the business tax ratio WITHOUT resorting to increasing the taxes extracted from Residential Property owners.
The 2007 Council has not yet established the 2006 surplus for public viewing but I feel that my figures are conservative. (Time will tell). They have yet to have their annual slicing and dicing but I look forward to what unforeseen item suddenly get priority !

I have yet to see any substanial discussion of this by the mainstream media as they seem to have accepted the spin that this is a necessary leveling of the playing field so as to attract businesses and have very little effect on the residential taxpayer.

Each year I fight with the Watchdog who tries to lower the business tax ratio and it seems when I win in the election years my residential taxes are maintained but not lowered and when he wins in non election years my residential taxes are raised. (It's like the guy who goes to the track hoping to break even because he needs the money.)

I agree that business taxes should be adjusted but the real way to level the business tax playing field is to pursue Coun. Beardsell's resolution to raise the $10,000 property tax exemption to $50,000 so as to benefit the smaller businesses. I know that he accepts my reasoning that tax ratio changes should not come solely at the expense of the residential class when there are surplus funds (Which are in effect excess taxes) from the previous year. Other Councillors should have pursued the surplus money trail especially the knowledgeable ones on the Finance committee.

Next year the utility tax review that resulted in a long overdue adjustment to this class after a 15 year hiatus where Vernon has the lowest effective Utility tax rates in the Province should provide the cushion for any further business tax rates lowering WITHOUT having to look to the beleaguered residential taxpayer.

Finance Committee Meeting Today at at 2 !!

The Finance Committee will be discussing the 2.7 option today. This is the option that the Finance Department was asked to calculate as one of the possible BUSINESS TAX RATIO and is the lowest one proposed so far. The other 6 ratio possibilities remain on the table. (These are 3.05, 2.96, and 2.8 with a two year phase in and 3.02, 2.93 and 2.77 with a one year phase in)

The new 2.7 option will roughly add $110,000 to the RESIDENTIAL CLASS TAXES to total $385,000 in the 2 year phase in option and $77,000 to total $352,000 in extra tax load to the Residential Class.

There are other ways that the Business Tax could be lowered without just sticking in to the Residential Taxpayer. The Manager of Finance has presented his options. It is up to council to decide upon these possibilities. However there are other monies and considerations that should be looked at before the decision is made:

• There is $70,000 in Grants in lieu of taxes for BC Hydro (an Utility) that is not part of the above calculations. (probably only $30-$40,000 would be more accurate.)
• Furthermore there will be a rather large increase in this category when the 21.7 million Control Centre comes on line in 2008 (Hopefully). This money in excess of $400,000 may help lower the Business tax ratio.
• The excess profit from the Airport (A business) (estimated at least at $90,000 ) could be used for business tax ratio adjustment if it is not dedicated to the Airport reserve account if taxiway Charley is agreed to be built in 2007.
• Last years surplus estimated at $700,000 before the budget adjustments where it was decided to pay for the OCP review $230,600 from the existing $700,000 in 2006 operating surplus. This leaves only $469,400 (700,000 - 230,600) in the 2006 year end surplus (approx.) for the council to slice and dice. This could be used to lower the business tax ratio WITHOUT resorting to increasing the taxes extracted from Residential Property owners.

Don Quixote Recommendation: (If I Was KING)

• Phase in Utility Tax Ratio to 6.5 for the 2007 tax year.
• Phase in Lt. Industrial Tax Ratio only to same level as business tax ratio and stop. (i.e. Treat Lt. Industrial as a business) Do not proceed to the 3.2 intended TARGET ratio for this class. Resolve to treat the Lt. Industrial class in the same way as you treat the business class in the future.
• Signal to Business and Lt. Industry by Resolution that the tax windfall that comes from the new Control centre will be utilized to lower their tax ratios in future years.
• Use some of the monies suggested above to make these changes without resorting to increasing the residential taxpayers class BURDEN.
• Lower the Business Tax ratio to 2.7 in 2007 if above conditions are met.
• Kickstart the DVA or Chamber of Commerce by signaling that you will bring a resolution to UBCM to increase Property Tax exemption for Businesses from $10,000 to a higher amount (say $50,000) IF THEY LOBBY YOU FOR IT. (This tax change if implemented would not change the Amount of monies required from the Business Class at tax time, but would more efficiently change the distribution of tax load and benefit the smaller local businessman at the expense of the larger external conglomerate. (Banks, Walmart etc.)

Business tax ratio time tomorrow at COW meeting

Agenda Agenda Package (p.19-30 re 2007 General Tax Rates)

The COW meeting tomorrow morning at 8.40 will debate and set the Business Tax Ratio for 2007. The Manager of Finance has given 2 different Scenarios and 3 different options for each. The Business Tax Ratio presently sits at 3.05 under Scenario 1 (Phasing in of Light Industrial and Utility ratios over 2 years) and could be decreased to 2.8 through manipulation of monies between the tax classes. In Scenario 2 (full implementation of increased Light Industrial and Utility Ratios in 2007). The Business Tax Ratio under this scenario starts at 3.02 and could be manipulated down to 2.7.

The manipulation downward (good for business bad for residential tax payers) in either scenario starts with the use of the monies received by raising the amount payable from RESIDENCES by $100,000 and giving this money to businesses reducing their tax ratio to 2.98 or 2.93 (depending on scenario decided upon).

To manipulate the business ratio down below the 2006 ratio of 2.82 option 3 in both scenarios raises taxes required for RESIDENCES by $275,000 and giving this money to businesses reducing their tax ratio to 2.80 or 2.77 (depending on scenario decided upon).

Basically each $275,000 added to taxes of residential taxpayers lowers the business tax ratio by .25. To reduce from 3.05 down to 1.0 could easily be achieved by taxing the Residential Taxpayer an additional $2,255,000
------------------------------------
The Manager of Finance has presented his options. It is up to council to decide upon these possibilities. However there are other monies and considerations that should be looked at before the decision is made:

• There is $70,000 in Grants in lieu of taxes for BC Hydro (an Utility) that is not part of the above calculations.
• Furthermore there will be a rather large increase in this category when the 21.7 million Control Centre comes on line in 2008 (Hopefully). This money in excess of $400,000 may help lower the Business tax ratio.
• The excess profit from the Airport (A business) (estimated at least at $90,000 ) could be used for business tax ratio adjustment if it is not dedicated to the Airport reserve account if taxiway Charley is agreed to be built in 2007.
• Last years surplus estimated at $700,000 before the budget adjustments and now will come in at around $400,000 has not yet being sliced and diced by this council and could be used to lower the business tax ratio WITHOUT resorting to increasing the taxes extracted from Residential Property owners.

---------------------------------------

Don Quixote Further Rant (Will the D.V.A., Chamber of Commerce or City Council stand up for the small businesman ??? ) (full article)

I've been pushing a simple plan to help lower the property tax burden on the small business owner in this area. It takes a leadership role to champion the cause and persuade the Provincial Government to change its legislation re the property tax exemption already given to all business from $10,000 to $50,000 (or any other figure agreed upon). Hopefully the DVA or the Chamber of Commerce will push Council to bring this idea forward to the UBCM Conference in the fall.

The best way to lower the tax on businesses is to lower the tax on all Residential Taxpayers and the business will benefit because of the Ratio Leverage.

NORD okays 2007 budget

By RICHARD ROLKE Morning Star StaffMar 23 2007 http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/

The North Okanagan Regional District’s 2007 budget has been approved, but not without a lot of debate. Directors unanimously ratified the five-year financial plan Wednesday, but there were considerable questions prior to them raising their hands. Among the most contentious was the amount of money set aside to review 19 services accessed by the City of Vernon. The budget called for $150,000 to be spent on the review, but chairman Jerry Oglow asked for that to be reduced to $95,000 because of recent discussions with the city. “We’ve made measurable progress and 19 reviews won’t be required,” he said.

However, while it was Vernon that triggered the reviews, other jurisdictions weren’t willing to back off the formal process because there may be issues they want addressed. “Enderby is not prepared to sign these things off just because you met with Vernon,” said Earl Shipmaker, Enderby director. It was pointed out that even if formal reviews don’t occur, the need to address concerns about certain functions will still require staff time. “We are going to have more meetings. At the end of the year, if we don’t spend it all, all the better,” said Lorna Bissell, Spallumcheen director.

Vernon representatives felt they were being unfairly targeted. “We were approached by the chairman (Oglow) to reduce the onerous task on the organization,” said director Juliette Cunningham. Stan Field, BX-Silver Star director, almost refused to support the budget because staff had not provided him about the costs of renting space at Vernon’s works yard.
“Someone had two months to answer a simple question,” he said. “We spend a couple of hundred thousand a year on ages and I can’t get a simple answer.” Field agreed to support the budget if staff provided him the information within 15 days.

-------------------------------

Don Quixote Note: see The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight for details on why they might have to pass the budget again. Vernon's requistion increase for NORD will be 6.3% NOT 10.2%

Dead trees standing?

By Scott NeufeldMonday, March 12, 2007, http://www.dailycourier.ca/article_1026.php

Vernon city council will decide today whether to spend $62,000 this year to protect the city’s pines with no guarantee that any of the trees can be saved.The city’s finance committee has put together a plan to protect more than 1,000 trees on city-owned land from the pine beetle epidemic. Although none of the proposed methods are certain to protect the trees, Coun. Juliette Cunningham said the expenditure is worth it.“There aren’t any guarantees of course, but we feel that because of the size, because of the historic value of the trees we have to do something to try and save them,” Cunningham said. “We may get lucky and save most of them.”

In order to implement the plan, however, the city must find an additional $40,000 somewhere in the city budget. The city had only set aside $22,000 for pine beetle programs this year. Extra money may be pulled from the public works reserve but Cunningham said the program isn’t a done deal yet.“This is just a recommendation from the finance committee,” she said. “Council still has to take a look at it.”

The plan proposes two methods of preventing the beetle from devouring the city’s historic pines including wrapping the trees and using repellent. Wrapping involves cloaking the first 30 feet of the tree with a plastic mesh. Although this method has proven effective against the mountain pine beetle, western pine beetle often attacks the tree above the 30 foot line.Repellent involves attaching pouches to high risk trees. This method is not effective when beetle populations are high, but the beetle population in Vernon is believed to be in the low to moderate range, according to the city. Repellent must also be applied annually to have any effect and under the city plan would cost $11,675 each year.

More than 650 of the trees included in the pine beetle program are located at the Pleasant Valley Cemetery. The plan proposes wrapping 208 trees and using repellent on another 451. The total cost at the cemetery alone is $55,575.“For me it wasn’t acceptable to not try to stop it,” Cunningham said. “I think some of these trees are over 100 years old.”Trees listed as being of high importance will be wrapped and have repellent. Residents could soon see trees wrapped at City Hall, Ranger Park, Justice Court Park, near Village Green Mall and several other locations

Taking back the public purse

EDITORIAL http://www.dailycourier.ca/ Feb 23/07 – reporter Scott Neufeld

Apparently our story yesterday on pay increases for the North Okanagan regional board raised a few eyebrows. As the Vernon Daily Courier reported the proposed increase would mean directors from Vernon, Coldstream and the other municipalities would receive $6,000 for their services before they even attend a meeting. Last year, those same directors received $1,500 pre-meeting. No matter what calculator you use that’s a 300 per cent increase.

However, with the downgrading of the Greater Vernon Services Commission (and the downsizing of members paycheques), the final cost passed on to taxpayers for this increase is relatively light at $35,881. If you average that out over everyone’s tax bill it appears as barely a blip. Of course taxpayers won’t feel the full brunt of the increase until next year when that extra GVS cash is gone.

But the size of the raise isn’t the whole issue. Something is amiss when employees are free to set their own wage hikes. Of course we’d all love the freedom to place a monetary value on our own jobs, but the reality is, if you work for someone else you don’t have that option. One exception of course is the politician. Free to set the value of their own work, they’re limited only by public outcry. Take the MLA pay raise flip-flop in Nov. 2005 as an example of an outcry.

North Okanagan board directors are quick to point out that a study by the Central Kootenay district shows that local directors receive below average pay. When compared with the other districts in the survey, North Okanagan directors make half as much as their counterparts. But with such a variation in responsibilities, committees and membership between districts, the comparison isn’t really a valid one.

This is why a citizen committee should oversee pay increases for elected officials. A committee of taxpayers would assess the value of the work that politicians do and come up with a fair figure. The committee would also take into account what the district can afford to pay. Government revenues don’t rise fast enough to make sure our local politicians receive an above average salary compared with other districts. This is why people who don’t benefit directly from the final decision need to be brought into the process to control rising remuneration.

North Okanagan directors do deserve a raise, a raise that rewards them for their work. Do municipal directors deserve a 300 per cent increase in their base pay? Do electoral area directors deserve a $400 per month car allowance and $2,500 increase in base pay? The answer shouldn’t be left to public outcry or a vote among politicians. – a citizen committee should decide.

Oglow disputes 300 per cent increase figure

By Vernon Daily Courier staff Feb 23 /07 http://www.dailycourier.ca/
Jerry Oglow wants to set the record straight. The North Okanagan Regional District chairman disputed figures published in The Vernon Daily Courier that were based on information provided by NORD officials. According to figures provided to the newspaper the base pay for a regional district director will jump from around $1,500 a year to $6,000 – a 300 per cent increase. Oglow pointed out that there will be a pay reduction in other areas so the figure on its own is misleading. Specifically, municipal members of the Greater Vernon Services Committee will see their pay decrease from $4,600 to $1,600.

However, chief financial officer Alan Harris reconfirmed that some individual municipal directors will see their base pay increase to $6,000 from $1,500 which does not include their meeting pay. If municipal directors attend each meeting they will receive $7,904 whereas last year they would have received $3,357. “If you look at it on an individual basis and don’t look at anything else then yeah, it’s gone up,” he said. “Some (board) members will be getting more and some will be getting less.”

Although directors will see their pay increase, they will have to work for it. Oglow has created two new NORD committees and the directors attending those committees will be paid resulting in additional stipends. Including the cost of paying directors for attending the new committees, the overall bill for remunerating board politicians will rise 18.1 per cent to $233,933. Oglow could not say where the extra money would come from. He said the budget is just a recommendation and must be debated and approved before it can be implemented.

The pay increase, Oglow, said is based on the amount of extra work and responsibility the directors will have. “The bottom line is, the increase proposed is $35,800,” said Oglow. “That is assuming the directors approve all this stuff.” Oglow pointed out the pay local directors will receive is still below the average for directors in similar sized districts. The budget is expected to be tabled in March. Oglow said the last time the board had a raise was in the late 1990s, but he could not say exactly when, or how much the increase was for.