2018 Budget Tax Increase
Budgeting Reform must be a priority in Oak Bay. Read on.
Councillor Murdoch’s website “murdoch4mayor.com” explains:
“There will be another significant property tax spike looking homeowners in the face in 2018. Total increase for an average household (estimated): $221 (or 6.9% over total 2017)” …………..Note: See chart at end of the newsletter.
Oak Bay Watch explains:
There is a possibility that the Council's “Adjustment Bureau” of Mayor Jensen and Council members Ney, Croft, and Kirby may manipulate the 2018 Budget tax increase to make it appear a lesser amount. As reported by Oak Bay Watch, this occurred in 2017 when the same four Council members transferred reserve funds to reduce the annual budget increase. However, although this reduced the annual tax rates, the transferred reserve funding had been collected to address an existing municipal project(s) and this will need to be replaced when future tax dollars have less buying power.
In 2017 Councilor Murdoch pointed out this was not sound fiscal policy and has confirmed this on his website:
“Council agreed to add 1% to the budget to seed future infrastructure spending. This is so small to be almost entirely symbolic, but it at least changes the direction from last year where the 1% to reserves was rejected, then (to add insult to injury) an additional 1% was taken from infrastructure reserves to keep the perceived tax rate down”.
“…the current Mayor insisted money be taken from reserves to pay for operational projects while no money was put into the budget (or reserves) to address paving or infrastructure deficits. This resulted in an artificially small tax increase at the expense of more potholes and far higher long-term costs”.
“It should be pointed out that, while starting to be realistic about costs, the downside of the 2018 budget is that we did not spend enough time on prioritization and cost reductions, a necessary ancillary to increasing infrastructure funding”.
“ I recently brought forward a motion to move 25% of regional sewer costs onto taxes so there would be a line item that could be seen (and these costs could also be deferred if over 55). Council saw the wisdom of that approach and voted 6-1 in favour, with only the Mayor opposed...”
“...but the very next meeting, having had the opportunity to speak to key Councillors outside of public view, the Mayor used his Mayoral powers of reconsideration to nullify the previous vote and call the same question again. While no new arguments were made, it was defeated with Councillors Croft, Kirby, and Ney switching their votes”. Tax deferral of these costs was no longer a possibility for those counting on this needed option".
“The result is that costs remain largely hidden on the water bill which continues to increase 10+ percent each year (equivalent to about an additional 3% on the tax bill)”.
What Councillor Murdoch also could have explained is that he and Councillors Braithwaite and Zhelka rejected the 2017 Budget. Their concern was the 4 vote Council majority had irresponsibly voted to over-spend on development and more new associated staffing and neglected to address the key concern - ensuring adequate funding for infrastructure upgrading. Mayor Jensen's "sleight of hand maneuver made it appear the budget increase was tolerable.
The following comment on murdoch4mayor.com website explains the need for a review of expenditures and operational efficiencies. Instead in the past seven years we have had administration staff increase after staff increase with no real explanation of the benefit or, why other administrations and mayors managed to provide “good governance” with a smaller staff complement.
Oakbay Guy
“Kevin, thanks for the clarity on the budgets. I am disappointed that there is another large increase in both taxes and water bill. Is there ever an effort to look deeply into the operations of each department to see where efficiencies can be made and costs reduced? When I worked for the BC Government, every year departments were asked to reduce expenditures and eliminate programs in order to keep budgets under control. Municipalities don't seem to have the same motivation or mindset to keep taxes low. Wouldn't a decrease in property taxes one year be a bold and daring move”?
Citizen’s Budget Survey:
Most comments regarding how new development and the “infrastructure crisis” in Oak Bay are being financed and planned were not “complimentary”. It is an important point to note the content of the information provided by residents for it explains why they are concerned.
Comments: (see more Appendix 1)
“Infrastructure in this town is falling apart. There is a massive amount that needs to be replaced - I'd rather pay over several years by building up a fund rather than discover the day when it has to be done and my taxes will increase massively or the city will be bankrupt or worse, falling apart and no longer the community I moved into (think Detroit)”.
“Get developers and those using the building and renovation permitting services to pay extra to cover these costs”.
“I don't want to lower this amount but applicants, particularly developers should be paying approx. 1-5 dollars per square foot for development cost charges (DCC), community amenity contributions (CAC) and park contributions. If this money was gathered, then the decrease I am suggesting might go away. Get on with DCC, CAC and Parkland Acquisition Charges already! Essentially, you are giving away the farm to big developers like Abstract.
Getting one hundred thousand dollars from Abstract for The Bowker development has made Oak Bay a laughing stock. Seriously, look at the profit margins, you could have asked for 500k in DCC, CAC and Parkland Acquisition funds and they would have paid it because they would still be making a good profit based on the variances they received. Many building and planning services should not be paid for by taxes, they should be paid for by applicants, developers, businesses and others availing themselves of the services”.
The question we must ask is:
Why, in the last two Council terms, are Oak Bay’s costs impacting taxes so much more than in other Municipalities? Why, as the following chart shows, have the annual increases for an average property sky rocketed since we changed mayors in late 2011? (see percentages % in red)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
6.37% 7.57% 4.95% 4.24% 4.03% 6.9%
“Over the 5 year period (2012-17) the increase was 30.2% - more than 4 times the 7.1%”total rate of inflation (CPI) for the same period.
--------------
*******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
More Citizen’s Budget Survey comments:
“Our infrastructure is going to fail! When will this get the attention it deserves”?
*Oak Bay Watch Note: This was a typical comment under the Engineering Section however, Engineering has been asking for adequate funding for a number of years now. This question then must be addressed to Council who have neglected to prioritize and fund this important issue. Mayor Jensen was a member of many of those Councils.
“I think the developers are already more well served by these services than most community members, so permit costs (or penalties for not having permits) should increase or there should be other ways to incur cost recovery, especially when the developers make so much profit in our community”.
“Developers need to pay something/more for subdivisions, new multi-family buildings, monster homes, Heritage Revitalization Agreements (HRA), etc ....great need in the municipality, we need to gather funds from those wanting to needs to look for other sources of revenue, not just resident taxpayers. At this time of The municipality develop/rebuild and profit in our community”.
“I think no more money should be put towards items that are not crucial to maintaining Oak Bay. Starting new projects such as legalizing and increasing secondary suites is a waste of money until other more important issues like infrastructure are dealt with. The last thing we need is more bureaucracy”.
“Replace buildings last please. I don't want a new city or fire hall or police station when the state of our sewers and storm drains are where they are. Make do with the current buildings until the underground infrastructure is replaced. As I have told mayor and council, "nothing else matters if your sewers don't work"
"Just because you are willing to restore a heritage home at usually the cost of deferred or neglected home maintenance, doesn't mean you should get a re-zoning windfall (960 Foul Bay., Abstract's Beach Drive Project, etc .... ). If the municipality is so willing to rezone to make this happen, the municipality needs to benefit beyond the restoration of a heritage house. We need dollars to replace infrastructure, not fixed up old houses that the developer is going to sell and make a profit on, plus the very large profits on the newly rezoned lots, and the most likely very large houses that will be built and sold. Consider DCC and CAC at each step of the process".
"Make the fine for demolition of homes without a permit very, very onerous so there is no sidestepping the process by knocking down a house without municipal approval. DCC charges should apply to all development, including HRAs .. The whole HRA needs to be reconsidered so there is more benefit to the community than a restored heritage home. Restoring and declaring heritage homes is a community good, agreed but, it should not be the only good the municipality gets from the developer". ------------------------------
Budgeting Reform must be a priority in Oak Bay. Read on.
Councillor Murdoch’s website “murdoch4mayor.com” explains:
“There will be another significant property tax spike looking homeowners in the face in 2018. Total increase for an average household (estimated): $221 (or 6.9% over total 2017)” …………..Note: See chart at end of the newsletter.
Oak Bay Watch explains:
There is a possibility that the Council's “Adjustment Bureau” of Mayor Jensen and Council members Ney, Croft, and Kirby may manipulate the 2018 Budget tax increase to make it appear a lesser amount. As reported by Oak Bay Watch, this occurred in 2017 when the same four Council members transferred reserve funds to reduce the annual budget increase. However, although this reduced the annual tax rates, the transferred reserve funding had been collected to address an existing municipal project(s) and this will need to be replaced when future tax dollars have less buying power.
In 2017 Councilor Murdoch pointed out this was not sound fiscal policy and has confirmed this on his website:
“Council agreed to add 1% to the budget to seed future infrastructure spending. This is so small to be almost entirely symbolic, but it at least changes the direction from last year where the 1% to reserves was rejected, then (to add insult to injury) an additional 1% was taken from infrastructure reserves to keep the perceived tax rate down”.
“…the current Mayor insisted money be taken from reserves to pay for operational projects while no money was put into the budget (or reserves) to address paving or infrastructure deficits. This resulted in an artificially small tax increase at the expense of more potholes and far higher long-term costs”.
“It should be pointed out that, while starting to be realistic about costs, the downside of the 2018 budget is that we did not spend enough time on prioritization and cost reductions, a necessary ancillary to increasing infrastructure funding”.
“ I recently brought forward a motion to move 25% of regional sewer costs onto taxes so there would be a line item that could be seen (and these costs could also be deferred if over 55). Council saw the wisdom of that approach and voted 6-1 in favour, with only the Mayor opposed...”
“...but the very next meeting, having had the opportunity to speak to key Councillors outside of public view, the Mayor used his Mayoral powers of reconsideration to nullify the previous vote and call the same question again. While no new arguments were made, it was defeated with Councillors Croft, Kirby, and Ney switching their votes”. Tax deferral of these costs was no longer a possibility for those counting on this needed option".
“The result is that costs remain largely hidden on the water bill which continues to increase 10+ percent each year (equivalent to about an additional 3% on the tax bill)”.
What Councillor Murdoch also could have explained is that he and Councillors Braithwaite and Zhelka rejected the 2017 Budget. Their concern was the 4 vote Council majority had irresponsibly voted to over-spend on development and more new associated staffing and neglected to address the key concern - ensuring adequate funding for infrastructure upgrading. Mayor Jensen's "sleight of hand maneuver made it appear the budget increase was tolerable.
The following comment on murdoch4mayor.com website explains the need for a review of expenditures and operational efficiencies. Instead in the past seven years we have had administration staff increase after staff increase with no real explanation of the benefit or, why other administrations and mayors managed to provide “good governance” with a smaller staff complement.
Oakbay Guy
“Kevin, thanks for the clarity on the budgets. I am disappointed that there is another large increase in both taxes and water bill. Is there ever an effort to look deeply into the operations of each department to see where efficiencies can be made and costs reduced? When I worked for the BC Government, every year departments were asked to reduce expenditures and eliminate programs in order to keep budgets under control. Municipalities don't seem to have the same motivation or mindset to keep taxes low. Wouldn't a decrease in property taxes one year be a bold and daring move”?
Citizen’s Budget Survey:
Most comments regarding how new development and the “infrastructure crisis” in Oak Bay are being financed and planned were not “complimentary”. It is an important point to note the content of the information provided by residents for it explains why they are concerned.
Comments: (see more Appendix 1)
“Infrastructure in this town is falling apart. There is a massive amount that needs to be replaced - I'd rather pay over several years by building up a fund rather than discover the day when it has to be done and my taxes will increase massively or the city will be bankrupt or worse, falling apart and no longer the community I moved into (think Detroit)”.
“Get developers and those using the building and renovation permitting services to pay extra to cover these costs”.
“I don't want to lower this amount but applicants, particularly developers should be paying approx. 1-5 dollars per square foot for development cost charges (DCC), community amenity contributions (CAC) and park contributions. If this money was gathered, then the decrease I am suggesting might go away. Get on with DCC, CAC and Parkland Acquisition Charges already! Essentially, you are giving away the farm to big developers like Abstract.
Getting one hundred thousand dollars from Abstract for The Bowker development has made Oak Bay a laughing stock. Seriously, look at the profit margins, you could have asked for 500k in DCC, CAC and Parkland Acquisition funds and they would have paid it because they would still be making a good profit based on the variances they received. Many building and planning services should not be paid for by taxes, they should be paid for by applicants, developers, businesses and others availing themselves of the services”.
The question we must ask is:
Why, in the last two Council terms, are Oak Bay’s costs impacting taxes so much more than in other Municipalities? Why, as the following chart shows, have the annual increases for an average property sky rocketed since we changed mayors in late 2011? (see percentages % in red)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
6.37% 7.57% 4.95% 4.24% 4.03% 6.9%
“Over the 5 year period (2012-17) the increase was 30.2% - more than 4 times the 7.1%”total rate of inflation (CPI) for the same period.
--------------
*******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
More Citizen’s Budget Survey comments:
“Our infrastructure is going to fail! When will this get the attention it deserves”?
*Oak Bay Watch Note: This was a typical comment under the Engineering Section however, Engineering has been asking for adequate funding for a number of years now. This question then must be addressed to Council who have neglected to prioritize and fund this important issue. Mayor Jensen was a member of many of those Councils.
“I think the developers are already more well served by these services than most community members, so permit costs (or penalties for not having permits) should increase or there should be other ways to incur cost recovery, especially when the developers make so much profit in our community”.
“Developers need to pay something/more for subdivisions, new multi-family buildings, monster homes, Heritage Revitalization Agreements (HRA), etc ....great need in the municipality, we need to gather funds from those wanting to needs to look for other sources of revenue, not just resident taxpayers. At this time of The municipality develop/rebuild and profit in our community”.
“I think no more money should be put towards items that are not crucial to maintaining Oak Bay. Starting new projects such as legalizing and increasing secondary suites is a waste of money until other more important issues like infrastructure are dealt with. The last thing we need is more bureaucracy”.
“Replace buildings last please. I don't want a new city or fire hall or police station when the state of our sewers and storm drains are where they are. Make do with the current buildings until the underground infrastructure is replaced. As I have told mayor and council, "nothing else matters if your sewers don't work"
"Just because you are willing to restore a heritage home at usually the cost of deferred or neglected home maintenance, doesn't mean you should get a re-zoning windfall (960 Foul Bay., Abstract's Beach Drive Project, etc .... ). If the municipality is so willing to rezone to make this happen, the municipality needs to benefit beyond the restoration of a heritage house. We need dollars to replace infrastructure, not fixed up old houses that the developer is going to sell and make a profit on, plus the very large profits on the newly rezoned lots, and the most likely very large houses that will be built and sold. Consider DCC and CAC at each step of the process".
"Make the fine for demolition of homes without a permit very, very onerous so there is no sidestepping the process by knocking down a house without municipal approval. DCC charges should apply to all development, including HRAs .. The whole HRA needs to be reconsidered so there is more benefit to the community than a restored heritage home. Restoring and declaring heritage homes is a community good, agreed but, it should not be the only good the municipality gets from the developer". ------------------------------