Council Meeting: November 14, 2017 (Councillors Ney and Zhelka absent)
“This very bad decision and discussion indicate just how divided Council is in knowledge, priorities and public policy”.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill: “Never in the history of Oak Bay have so few made so many decisions that so adversely affect so many ”.
Case in point: At the November 14, 2017 Council Meeting, Councillor Murdoch’s previously approved resolution (Appendix #1) was overturned. It would have transferred back sewer capital charges from our water consumption billing to property taxes. If it had been allowed to stand without the Mayor’s intervention, this would have allowed residents to:
Councillors Murdoch and Braithwaite attempted to convince the “slate” Councillors to make sewer costs transparent and provide to some, an opportunity for property tax relief by way of deferment. However, “the slate” block vote struck again. The Mayor and Councillors Kirby and Croft voted to continue to hide sewer capital costs in the water bill charges and thereby deny the option to defer these properly-taxation charges. They voted (3 –2) to reject the resolution (explained in Appendix #1) and they openly admitted this was a political decision to prevent a true account of the 2018 property tax increase. Councillor Murdoch explained the “real” property tax increase in 2017 was 4.9%, not the reported 2.9%. To achieve this they moved some operating costs onto reserve funds to make it appear that the 2017 tax increase would not almost equal the 5.1% of 2015.
The Oak Bay News previously reported the benefits of Councilor Murdoch’s resolution (see link Appendix #2)
Read on for full report:
At a previous Council meeting on October 13th, 2017, Council voted 6-1 to transfer sewer capital cost charges back to the property tax bill. The Mayor was noticeably not happy with this decision and was the only dissenting vote. The rationale for approving this change outlined in the resolution by Councillor Murdoch would be to provide more transparency and allow residents to see and understand how the new CRD sewer charges were increasing their taxes. An added benefit would be to allow residents to defer these expected and significant costs through the Provincial Government Tax Deferral program. This program was especially implemented to allow some relief to specific targeted groups who are more likely to have limited incomes and be struggling to make ends meet in these difficult economic times of high prices and ever increasing property taxes.
Nevertheless at Council on November 14th, 2017, the Mayor used his prerogative to have the approved resolution reconsidered. The reason the Mayor used was that a request would have to be made to the Capitol Regional District (CRD) to allow the change. The delay would prevent the change from occurring by the late spring of 2018 (an election year). Councillor Murdoch was quick to point out that this was not accurate information as the CRD allows each Municipality to make its own decision in this matter.
The Mayor then changed direction and indicated that the change would be unfair to people who owned expensive homes as this would disqualify them for participating in the BC Tax Deferral Program. Councillor Kirby supported the Mayor’s supposition and said she could not vote for a change that put those with expensive real estate at a disadvantage. However staff and Councillor Murdoch pointed out that this was more inaccurate information: They explained that the Mayor had confused applying for the homeowner grant with the opportunity to defer. It was also noticeable that many members of the public in attendance were aware that the Mayor and Councillor Kirby had misstated the information.
When this reasoning to overturn Councilor Murdoch’s previously approved resolution (Appendix #1) failed, Councillor Kirby then suggested her opinion now was that this change would discourage people from conserving water. In effect she wanted the sewer charges to remain unclear and have residents prevented from deferring these taxes.
Councillor Kirby, unfortunately, is not aware of relevant reports. These indicate that if the public uses less water, this results in less revenue to maintain the water supply system and the price for water increases. Conversely if more water is used, then the higher demand also triggers an increase in the price of water. This has been explained in the Oak Bay News and by previous Councils. The reports show that a higher price for water is the common denominator in water conservation, not where it is reported.
Councillor Braithwaite stated it made much more sense to allow tax deferment relief and to let the public see what their sewer tax bill is and how high the impending CRD sewage treatment costs will be. She said this was preferable to hiding it in the water bill: if there were any problem, then Council could easily change back again. After all, sewer cost charges were identified and included in property taxes prior to 2010. This is when the Council transferred them to the water bill. It is not clear why this Council would not have had the 2010 staff report and corresponding Council minutes on hand to explain why sewer charges were reallocated at that time.
A resident made the following points at the beginning of this meeting in the 3 minute public participation period:
The Mayor did indicate it was an option to defer the decision until the other two Councillors, who had voted to transfer sewer cost charges to property taxes, were present. Although this is the usual Council procedure, he did not proceed with this option.
The Mayor then called the question to leave water charges combined with sewer charges with Mayor Jenson and Councilors Croft and Kirby voting in favour. “The slate”, having run out of reasons to overturn the approved resolution other than self-interest, disregarded Councillors Murdoch’s and Braithwaite’s, compelling, verifiable arguments: by changing their vote they thereby rejected more openness, transparency and the opportunity to help those in need of tax relief.
In defeating and overturning the approved resolution and admitting their motivation was just a tax reporting spin to make it seem taxes were lower than they actually were, they turned their back on the interests of the community.
*******Please help us continue to provide you with information about Community concerns and Council decisions and actions. Oak Bay Watch members also help community groups with their specific development concerns. Donate to Oak Bay Watch - even $5 or $10 dollars provides expenses for door- to- door handouts and helps us maintain our website. Oak Bay Watch is committed to ensuring the Community gets the full range of information on budget, governance and all key development issues – a well informed opinion cannot be made without this.
(Please use Donate Button at bottom of oakbaywatch.com Home Page)
Keep informed please sign up for our newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix # 1
Item 11. Proposed by Councillor Murdoch - Regional Sewage Cost Recovery Allocation Change .
Approved Resolution - Regional Sewage Cost Recovery Allocation Changes.
MOVED and seconded: WHEREAS the goal of cost allocation for services should at all times strive to be fair, transparent, and reflect the cost of services provided; AND
WHEREAS the 2010 change from 70%/30% (water consumption/taxes) split to 100%/0% split of cost allocation has resulted in the majority proportion of utility bills now covering CRD capital debt costs not water supply costs;
WHEREAS the CRD post-2006 sewer debt costs are primarily the fixed capital costs of a sewage treatment plant and are not directly related to water consumption;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the CRD post-2006 sewer debt costs be allocated in the following manner: 30% on taxes;· 70% on water consumption;· Where water consumption is calculated at 60% or 100% in accordance with the current practice.
CARRIED Mayor Jensen against the motion
Appendix # 2
http://www.oakbaynews.com/news/crd-sewage-debt-oak-bay-council-re-allocates-portion-to-taxes/
“This very bad decision and discussion indicate just how divided Council is in knowledge, priorities and public policy”.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill: “Never in the history of Oak Bay have so few made so many decisions that so adversely affect so many ”.
Case in point: At the November 14, 2017 Council Meeting, Councillor Murdoch’s previously approved resolution (Appendix #1) was overturned. It would have transferred back sewer capital charges from our water consumption billing to property taxes. If it had been allowed to stand without the Mayor’s intervention, this would have allowed residents to:
- Understand what their financial obligations would be when the impending new CRD (Capitol Regional District) sewage treatment charges come into effect and provide:
- The opportunity to defer them.
Councillors Murdoch and Braithwaite attempted to convince the “slate” Councillors to make sewer costs transparent and provide to some, an opportunity for property tax relief by way of deferment. However, “the slate” block vote struck again. The Mayor and Councillors Kirby and Croft voted to continue to hide sewer capital costs in the water bill charges and thereby deny the option to defer these properly-taxation charges. They voted (3 –2) to reject the resolution (explained in Appendix #1) and they openly admitted this was a political decision to prevent a true account of the 2018 property tax increase. Councillor Murdoch explained the “real” property tax increase in 2017 was 4.9%, not the reported 2.9%. To achieve this they moved some operating costs onto reserve funds to make it appear that the 2017 tax increase would not almost equal the 5.1% of 2015.
The Oak Bay News previously reported the benefits of Councilor Murdoch’s resolution (see link Appendix #2)
Read on for full report:
At a previous Council meeting on October 13th, 2017, Council voted 6-1 to transfer sewer capital cost charges back to the property tax bill. The Mayor was noticeably not happy with this decision and was the only dissenting vote. The rationale for approving this change outlined in the resolution by Councillor Murdoch would be to provide more transparency and allow residents to see and understand how the new CRD sewer charges were increasing their taxes. An added benefit would be to allow residents to defer these expected and significant costs through the Provincial Government Tax Deferral program. This program was especially implemented to allow some relief to specific targeted groups who are more likely to have limited incomes and be struggling to make ends meet in these difficult economic times of high prices and ever increasing property taxes.
Nevertheless at Council on November 14th, 2017, the Mayor used his prerogative to have the approved resolution reconsidered. The reason the Mayor used was that a request would have to be made to the Capitol Regional District (CRD) to allow the change. The delay would prevent the change from occurring by the late spring of 2018 (an election year). Councillor Murdoch was quick to point out that this was not accurate information as the CRD allows each Municipality to make its own decision in this matter.
The Mayor then changed direction and indicated that the change would be unfair to people who owned expensive homes as this would disqualify them for participating in the BC Tax Deferral Program. Councillor Kirby supported the Mayor’s supposition and said she could not vote for a change that put those with expensive real estate at a disadvantage. However staff and Councillor Murdoch pointed out that this was more inaccurate information: They explained that the Mayor had confused applying for the homeowner grant with the opportunity to defer. It was also noticeable that many members of the public in attendance were aware that the Mayor and Councillor Kirby had misstated the information.
When this reasoning to overturn Councilor Murdoch’s previously approved resolution (Appendix #1) failed, Councillor Kirby then suggested her opinion now was that this change would discourage people from conserving water. In effect she wanted the sewer charges to remain unclear and have residents prevented from deferring these taxes.
Councillor Kirby, unfortunately, is not aware of relevant reports. These indicate that if the public uses less water, this results in less revenue to maintain the water supply system and the price for water increases. Conversely if more water is used, then the higher demand also triggers an increase in the price of water. This has been explained in the Oak Bay News and by previous Councils. The reports show that a higher price for water is the common denominator in water conservation, not where it is reported.
Councillor Braithwaite stated it made much more sense to allow tax deferment relief and to let the public see what their sewer tax bill is and how high the impending CRD sewage treatment costs will be. She said this was preferable to hiding it in the water bill: if there were any problem, then Council could easily change back again. After all, sewer cost charges were identified and included in property taxes prior to 2010. This is when the Council transferred them to the water bill. It is not clear why this Council would not have had the 2010 staff report and corresponding Council minutes on hand to explain why sewer charges were reallocated at that time.
A resident made the following points at the beginning of this meeting in the 3 minute public participation period:
- This approved change would help families with children, old age pensioners, widows and widowers and people on the limited disability allowance to defer their sewer charges and,
- A spike in property tax deferrals in recent years indicates many need to take advantage of this benefit
- As the resolution impacts so many residents and it is obviously a public interest issue, he recommended the Mayor’s “reconsideration” provision be referred to a Committee of the Whole meeting where the public could let their viewpoint and preference be known and then this issue could be fully debated.
The Mayor did indicate it was an option to defer the decision until the other two Councillors, who had voted to transfer sewer cost charges to property taxes, were present. Although this is the usual Council procedure, he did not proceed with this option.
The Mayor then called the question to leave water charges combined with sewer charges with Mayor Jenson and Councilors Croft and Kirby voting in favour. “The slate”, having run out of reasons to overturn the approved resolution other than self-interest, disregarded Councillors Murdoch’s and Braithwaite’s, compelling, verifiable arguments: by changing their vote they thereby rejected more openness, transparency and the opportunity to help those in need of tax relief.
In defeating and overturning the approved resolution and admitting their motivation was just a tax reporting spin to make it seem taxes were lower than they actually were, they turned their back on the interests of the community.
*******Please help us continue to provide you with information about Community concerns and Council decisions and actions. Oak Bay Watch members also help community groups with their specific development concerns. Donate to Oak Bay Watch - even $5 or $10 dollars provides expenses for door- to- door handouts and helps us maintain our website. Oak Bay Watch is committed to ensuring the Community gets the full range of information on budget, governance and all key development issues – a well informed opinion cannot be made without this.
(Please use Donate Button at bottom of oakbaywatch.com Home Page)
Keep informed please sign up for our newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix # 1
Item 11. Proposed by Councillor Murdoch - Regional Sewage Cost Recovery Allocation Change .
Approved Resolution - Regional Sewage Cost Recovery Allocation Changes.
MOVED and seconded: WHEREAS the goal of cost allocation for services should at all times strive to be fair, transparent, and reflect the cost of services provided; AND
WHEREAS the 2010 change from 70%/30% (water consumption/taxes) split to 100%/0% split of cost allocation has resulted in the majority proportion of utility bills now covering CRD capital debt costs not water supply costs;
WHEREAS the CRD post-2006 sewer debt costs are primarily the fixed capital costs of a sewage treatment plant and are not directly related to water consumption;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the CRD post-2006 sewer debt costs be allocated in the following manner: 30% on taxes;· 70% on water consumption;· Where water consumption is calculated at 60% or 100% in accordance with the current practice.
CARRIED Mayor Jensen against the motion
Appendix # 2
http://www.oakbaynews.com/news/crd-sewage-debt-oak-bay-council-re-allocates-portion-to-taxes/