Newsletter - June 29, 2018
Who is looking after the Public's Interest?
There were two “events” that caught our attention this week:
1. Letter to the Editor of the Oak Bay News provided online only.
The Oak Bay News provided this very informative taxpayer’s letter on their web page. Notwithstanding that it takes some finding, we believe it’s well written, newsworthy and topical enough to publish for our readership. In our opinion, it is critical in an election year, that the public is provided with this information and perspective (See letter Attachment #1).
Note: Let’s hope, as the Oak Bay News has accepted the writer’s facts, and as it relates directly to our property taxes, it finds its way into a future edition.
2. Council Meeting - June 25, 2018
Council Salaries Trump Long-Term Problem for Residents
Two Council Meeting agenda items typify how inconsistent Council is and how we try to understand and “grapple” with how the Council majority has set their priorities the past two terms.
How the Compensation Resolution was addressed:
There was lots of discussion on how fast a remedy could be arrived at for what was described as, Council’s having to spend more time on their duties than anticipated and receiving far below compensation levels of other Municipalities. Without getting into the nitty-gritty of performance: e.g. not holding the line on taxes*, overspending*, lack of transparency issues, and continuing to allow over-building etc. Council approved a motion to have staff conduct a review and bring back a report on pay-scales in other Municipalities.
* (Oak Bay News - June 29, 2018) “The golden raspberry for the highest average tax bill on Vancouver Island in 2018 goes to Oak Bay…” See Attachment #1 for further details.
How the Neighbour’s Residential Parking Request was addressed:
The Beaverbrooke Street resident’s request however, received a very different outcome, although Council recognized that:
Council decided that staff were too busy with their present workload to see what options were available by holding a meeting with School officials, neighbours and the Municipality before the beginning of the September 2018 school year. It was decided this would have to wait until later in the year which would likely leave any remedy to the next Council.
Oak Bay Watch Perspective
While we have no problem with providing fair compensation for Council, we could not help wondering however , how these two issues were prioritized and why the use of staff time contradiction was not recognized? With agenda item #10, Council agreed staff were too busy to organize a meeting to help residents with the suffering they have experienced with their decade-long daily, parking/ traffic problem that was about to get a lot worse - even though staff had sixty days to accomplish this. Yet just three agenda items later, agenda item #13, Council directed staff to conduct, what will be a fairly extensive CRD Municipality salary review and report back on their compensation levels.
What makes this all the more disturbing is that, in this Council term, staff was directed to organize a half-day meeting for the development community regarding densification. This meeting was referred to as a developer lobbying session for infill. Also, staff organized two same-day, very expensive, morning and afternoon open house sessions at UVIC to convince residents that infill development would provide a significant benefit (note: no impact information was provided). Council, on the other hand, has not held an open meeting to address with residents the issues they have identified in recent surveys: over-building and infrastructure maintenance and improvement, tree loss, parking, traffic etc. Who is looking after the public interest?
Time for a Change
\ -----------------------------------------------------------------------
*******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.
Attachment #1
Oak Bay News - Letter to Editor June 26, 2018, "Oak Bay Needs to revisit fees for variances for developers".
Note: The headline for this letter is very misleading - we are aware that often the Oak Bay News provides the headline for the letters they receive. In this case, however, as often reported in our newsletters, and also in past Oak Bay News letters and, clearly explained by the Author of the following letter, other than permit fees, developers enjoy a virtual free ride in Oak Bay. This has resulted in the impacts of development being borne by existing Oak Bay residents, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The issue of charging Developers for the impacts of their developments, as is commonplace in most communities, was raised by the residents at a Council in 2015 and there has been little attention paid to this important issue since then. Neglecting implementing these charges has driven up taxes significantly - and as reported earlier in this newsletter, helping to place Oak Bay in its lofty "undesirable position" of, "the highest average tax bill on Vancouver Island".
Every $200, 000 not collected adds 1% to our tax bill.
Oak Bay News Letter to Editor: June 26, 2018
Having received my property tax assessment a couple of weeks ago, I was blown away to find that Oak Bay only took in $21,000 in developers’ fees and fees for variances. This news came in the same enclosure that wrote of the need to upgrade our aging infrastructure.
Now, I’m not opposed to development in principle. But when it comes with additional pressure on already-superannuated sewer, power, and traffic systems, then it seems truly bizarre that the municipality is not asking developers to pay something more like a fair share.
To put this in perspective, the municipality will take in the same amount of property tax from six properties like mine as it took in from all developer and variance fees last year. If that doesn’t constitute a massive transfer of wealth from the public to private developers, then I don’t know what does. Are you happy subsidizing developers’ bottom lines?
Signed by an Oak Bay Taxpayer
Who is looking after the Public's Interest?
There were two “events” that caught our attention this week:
- The first was a very enlightening, factual letter to the editor that the Oak Bay News published online,
- The second was how Council, at Monday’s June 25. 2018, Meeting put their compensation as a priority ahead of helping residents with a decade-long neighbourhood livability issue.
1. Letter to the Editor of the Oak Bay News provided online only.
The Oak Bay News provided this very informative taxpayer’s letter on their web page. Notwithstanding that it takes some finding, we believe it’s well written, newsworthy and topical enough to publish for our readership. In our opinion, it is critical in an election year, that the public is provided with this information and perspective (See letter Attachment #1).
Note: Let’s hope, as the Oak Bay News has accepted the writer’s facts, and as it relates directly to our property taxes, it finds its way into a future edition.
2. Council Meeting - June 25, 2018
Council Salaries Trump Long-Term Problem for Residents
Two Council Meeting agenda items typify how inconsistent Council is and how we try to understand and “grapple” with how the Council majority has set their priorities the past two terms.
- Item #13: Council Resolution: Council Compensation Pay Scale Review brought forward by Councillor Croft.
- Item #10: Residential Parking Request - Beaverbrooke St. at Victoria Avenue.
How the Compensation Resolution was addressed:
There was lots of discussion on how fast a remedy could be arrived at for what was described as, Council’s having to spend more time on their duties than anticipated and receiving far below compensation levels of other Municipalities. Without getting into the nitty-gritty of performance: e.g. not holding the line on taxes*, overspending*, lack of transparency issues, and continuing to allow over-building etc. Council approved a motion to have staff conduct a review and bring back a report on pay-scales in other Municipalities.
* (Oak Bay News - June 29, 2018) “The golden raspberry for the highest average tax bill on Vancouver Island in 2018 goes to Oak Bay…” See Attachment #1 for further details.
How the Neighbour’s Residential Parking Request was addressed:
The Beaverbrooke Street resident’s request however, received a very different outcome, although Council recognized that:
- There have been many years of traffic impacts due to a private school’s not having off street parking or a drop-off and pick up area. This has subjected the beleaguered residents of this small adjacent street to constant and repeated daily noise and heavy traffic every morning and early afternoon, as parents’ cars often block driveways and staff park on the street.
- Now, this is about to get a whole lot worse as the school has recently announced that it will not be closing after all. Instead, it will be increasing enrollment resulting in more students, teachers, parents, traffic and street parking.
Council decided that staff were too busy with their present workload to see what options were available by holding a meeting with School officials, neighbours and the Municipality before the beginning of the September 2018 school year. It was decided this would have to wait until later in the year which would likely leave any remedy to the next Council.
Oak Bay Watch Perspective
While we have no problem with providing fair compensation for Council, we could not help wondering however , how these two issues were prioritized and why the use of staff time contradiction was not recognized? With agenda item #10, Council agreed staff were too busy to organize a meeting to help residents with the suffering they have experienced with their decade-long daily, parking/ traffic problem that was about to get a lot worse - even though staff had sixty days to accomplish this. Yet just three agenda items later, agenda item #13, Council directed staff to conduct, what will be a fairly extensive CRD Municipality salary review and report back on their compensation levels.
What makes this all the more disturbing is that, in this Council term, staff was directed to organize a half-day meeting for the development community regarding densification. This meeting was referred to as a developer lobbying session for infill. Also, staff organized two same-day, very expensive, morning and afternoon open house sessions at UVIC to convince residents that infill development would provide a significant benefit (note: no impact information was provided). Council, on the other hand, has not held an open meeting to address with residents the issues they have identified in recent surveys: over-building and infrastructure maintenance and improvement, tree loss, parking, traffic etc. Who is looking after the public interest?
Time for a Change
\ -----------------------------------------------------------------------
*******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.
Attachment #1
Oak Bay News - Letter to Editor June 26, 2018, "Oak Bay Needs to revisit fees for variances for developers".
Note: The headline for this letter is very misleading - we are aware that often the Oak Bay News provides the headline for the letters they receive. In this case, however, as often reported in our newsletters, and also in past Oak Bay News letters and, clearly explained by the Author of the following letter, other than permit fees, developers enjoy a virtual free ride in Oak Bay. This has resulted in the impacts of development being borne by existing Oak Bay residents, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The issue of charging Developers for the impacts of their developments, as is commonplace in most communities, was raised by the residents at a Council in 2015 and there has been little attention paid to this important issue since then. Neglecting implementing these charges has driven up taxes significantly - and as reported earlier in this newsletter, helping to place Oak Bay in its lofty "undesirable position" of, "the highest average tax bill on Vancouver Island".
Every $200, 000 not collected adds 1% to our tax bill.
Oak Bay News Letter to Editor: June 26, 2018
Having received my property tax assessment a couple of weeks ago, I was blown away to find that Oak Bay only took in $21,000 in developers’ fees and fees for variances. This news came in the same enclosure that wrote of the need to upgrade our aging infrastructure.
Now, I’m not opposed to development in principle. But when it comes with additional pressure on already-superannuated sewer, power, and traffic systems, then it seems truly bizarre that the municipality is not asking developers to pay something more like a fair share.
To put this in perspective, the municipality will take in the same amount of property tax from six properties like mine as it took in from all developer and variance fees last year. If that doesn’t constitute a massive transfer of wealth from the public to private developers, then I don’t know what does. Are you happy subsidizing developers’ bottom lines?
Signed by an Oak Bay Taxpayer