One of my readers send the following question to me via email. "Dean I am sitting here trying to read last year's mill rate bylaw, I can't figure it out. Can you explain to me what the Municipality actually collects of the taxpayers and where it goes. Also if I am understanding the news right, the municipality is stating that the budget did not go up this year, so does that mean my taxes will not rise?"
Answer:
If you grab last years Mill rate Bylaw #794 (available on the municipal site).
You will see under the third whereas it states that $6,432,821 is to be raised by general municipal taxation.
Then the next whereas refers to the Alberta School Foundation Fund which was $2,366,925.
Under that you will see Seniors Foundation which was $184,542.
So what the municipality does then is collects on your tax bills the total of the three sums above
$8,984,288.
It then keeps the $6,432,821 for itself and sends the ASFF portion $2,366,925 to the province and the $184,542 to the York Creek Lodge.
Now will taxes not rise because the municipality did not increase its budget? that's not so simple.
If you take the amount above $6,432,821 and go look back at the Mill rate Bylaw for 2009 (#777) you will see that the municipality collected $6,360,015 by general municipal taxation so the increase between the two years was $72,806 which only worked out to a 1.1% increase but your taxes went up 3.2% why?
Well if you look at the ASFF portion for 2010 was $2,366,925 in 2009 it was $2,234,452 so that went up by $132,473 a jump of 5.9%.
Then you look at the Seniors foundation it when from $167,766 in 2009 to $184,542 in 2010 a jump of $16,776 or 10%.
So if you take the total dollars that those three numbers increased from 2009 to 2010, it was $222,055 of which less than one third $72,806 was dictated by the municipality.
So looking a head the only way to guarantee that taxes will not go up is if all three parties to the mill rate do not raise their dollar amounts, what's the chance of that? slim to none.
The municipality as said they will hold their portion to zero, the other two parties the seniors foundation always raises their amount by 10% ($18,454) which they are allowed to do based on the MGA, the province is indicating that it's going to be a tough provincial budget on Feb 24th. Which usually means they down load costs on the municipalities ie. ASFF.
Despite all of that there still is a way for taxes to be kept at zero.
For example if the Seniors take there 10% $18,454 and the ASFF increases $180,000 for a total of almost $200,000 all the municipality as to do is slash three of those new positions which would drop their dollars by $200,000 (or any other means they see fit) then there truly would be no tax increase.
I hope this answered the question.
Time will tell
Showing posts with label Municipal Taxation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Municipal Taxation. Show all posts
Friday, February 11, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Holding the line in the Crowsnest Pass
In response to a question I was asked regarding tax increases in the Crowsnest Pass.
Is there anybody that believes the line as been held on Taxes? I don't.
In the George Cuff report it states on Page 86 Municipal Taxes in the Crowsnest Pass, grew at an average of 3.8% between 2002-2007. In 2008 they went up 11.2%, 2009 3.4% and 2010 3.2%. That's an average from 2002-2010 of 4.5% or 40.6% over nine years.
I would describe that far from holding the line.
According to Stats Canada and the Consumer Price Index the cost of living in that same time frame as gone up 21.5%.
Versus 40.6% on taxes that's almost double.
Is there anybody that believes the line as been held on Taxes? I don't.
In the George Cuff report it states on Page 86 Municipal Taxes in the Crowsnest Pass, grew at an average of 3.8% between 2002-2007. In 2008 they went up 11.2%, 2009 3.4% and 2010 3.2%. That's an average from 2002-2010 of 4.5% or 40.6% over nine years.
I would describe that far from holding the line.
According to Stats Canada and the Consumer Price Index the cost of living in that same time frame as gone up 21.5%.
Versus 40.6% on taxes that's almost double.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Crowsnest Pass Indoor swimming Pool update
Sorry it's taken so long to analyze my last poll, the issue of an indoor swimming pool.
At the web site listed here http://www.calendarofnakedmen.com/ is a more current update of a community building what sounds like a state of the art facility including an Indoor swimming pool. Do not be fooled by the address it a web site that's attempting to raise funds for this facility in Grande Cache, and provides a lot of good information.
Bottom line their facility will cost $20 million which is made up of $3 million each from the federal and provincial government, $8.3 million from the Town of Grande Cache, and $5.7 million from corporate and individual fundraising.
If we did the same in the Crowsnest Pass $8.3 million over twenty years at 4.5% interest works out to a payment of $627,883 per year divided by which is equivalent to a 10% tax increase roughly $200 per house hold.
That's just to pay for the building, whats interesting from my poll is that of the 62 responses 18 or 29% said they would not support paying additional taxes for a swimming pool, another 23 or 37% said they would only pay up to an additional $100.
That makes it very difficult to come up with $200 per year per household. Then keep in mind that half our taxpayers are seniors.
Then lets look at the operational side, previously I stated it cost Pincher Creek $350,000 to subsidize their pool, that was the 2008 number the number for 2009 which is now available on the Town of Pincher Creeks web site was about $600,000 that's another $200 per year per household.
Then the next big question the $5.7 million that they are fundraising, does anybody believe that would be possible here?
Myself personally I was one of the people that would pay almost any cost to have an indoor pool but only 9% of my responses said the same.
Any ideas on how we could achieve this lofty goal?
At the web site listed here http://www.calendarofnakedmen.com/ is a more current update of a community building what sounds like a state of the art facility including an Indoor swimming pool. Do not be fooled by the address it a web site that's attempting to raise funds for this facility in Grande Cache, and provides a lot of good information.
Bottom line their facility will cost $20 million which is made up of $3 million each from the federal and provincial government, $8.3 million from the Town of Grande Cache, and $5.7 million from corporate and individual fundraising.
If we did the same in the Crowsnest Pass $8.3 million over twenty years at 4.5% interest works out to a payment of $627,883 per year divided by which is equivalent to a 10% tax increase roughly $200 per house hold.
That's just to pay for the building, whats interesting from my poll is that of the 62 responses 18 or 29% said they would not support paying additional taxes for a swimming pool, another 23 or 37% said they would only pay up to an additional $100.
That makes it very difficult to come up with $200 per year per household. Then keep in mind that half our taxpayers are seniors.
Then lets look at the operational side, previously I stated it cost Pincher Creek $350,000 to subsidize their pool, that was the 2008 number the number for 2009 which is now available on the Town of Pincher Creeks web site was about $600,000 that's another $200 per year per household.
Then the next big question the $5.7 million that they are fundraising, does anybody believe that would be possible here?
Myself personally I was one of the people that would pay almost any cost to have an indoor pool but only 9% of my responses said the same.
Any ideas on how we could achieve this lofty goal?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Further Questions regarding the Crowsnest Centre
In response to my last post I will present questions that I have been asked and the answers to the best of my ability.
Good post Dean, and thanks for keeping us informed and up-to-date on this ‘dirty’ business. I hope you send this in as a letter to the editor. The public needs to be made aware of these latest developments on the Centre's 'profitability', as expounded on by the Chairperson of the board who stated “we do not need financial assistance from the municipality for 2009”. Another $30,000 plus in unpaid bills you say, along with legal bills to date passing the $50,000 mark. In addition, by the time the lease/relocation business issue is dealt with, all told, this whole ‘rotten business’ will most likely cost our local taxpayers’ in the neighbourhood of several hundred thousand dollars. All because a certain group did not want to let go and respect the wishes of a duly elected majority of council. And let’s not forget the “Block of three on Council” involvement in this sordid affair. How can a mayor and councillors be so cavalier with taxpayers’ money? How could these three be so intransigent in their position that the public purse be damned?None of these people should ever see the inside of a board again, never mind sitting on council, for such poor management in the public interest, and lack of due diligence. I'm sure at least one newspaper will print it, whereas, the other will most likely have issues with 'liability', which is their standard lame excuse for not printing what they don't like, or they find potentially damaging to them personally, or their 'friends', and/or their cause.The people involved in this whole fiasco should be held liable and accountable. The blatant disregard for the public purse cannot, and must not, be tolerated. It is time this type of governance came to an end!
November 25, 2009 2:20 PM
John very good comments, and I agree with you on most of what you had to say. You know better than most how politics work in this town.
Why are you saying this nonsense?
Of course the Center is making money its been full every weekend.
The bills you talk about must be a mistake.
Jay
November 25, 2009 3:29 PM
Well that's what I have been hearing for the last year, in council chambers, in the media everywhere you go. Well somebody made mistakes.
We have 2 community centres?
November 25, 2009 5:50 PM
Yes we do the Crowsnest Centre and the MDM facility
WOW!
Please send a letter to the editor of both papers...
The truth has come out!
November 25, 2009 5:10 PM
I sent a letter to only one local paper because the other has taken a position that they are not going to be involved in this debate
Turn the power off, turn the gas off, turn the phones off. I know you probably can not do this.What a shame that such a small group can cost the majority so much money.I wish there was an election today because the mayor and his group would be out on their ears.Maybe then we could move forward.
November 25, 2009 4:45 PM
I know where you are coming from and understand your frustration, but we have been receiving legal advice that we need to follow, the municipality has already been exposed to enough liabilty due to the actions of others.
What have we paid out on legal costs?
November 26, 2009 4:58 PM
Council was supplied figures a few weeks back, it breaks down to the following:
Cost to hold plebiscite $13,355.18
Costs regarding the petition and injunction $25,703
Cost to deal with Leases and CLC Bylaws $30,353.30
Total of $69,411.48
I think if any business stopped paying their bills that they would show that they have a positive cash flow (at least temporarily). However, that doesn't make them ‘profitable’. I'm surprised that so many people have bought the line of bull that they are selling. To me it was an obvious sham. The week before the plebiscite they were requesting $$$ from the municipal budget, the week after... they're profitable. Their claims to profitability are a poorly disguised desperate attempt to keep the Centre open.
November 27, 2009 9:39 AM
I don't see a question in here more comments, but I certainly understand and appreciate your comments. Last year much fanfare over a $30,000 profit in the media but no mention that 25% of their income ($100,000+) was municipal grants.
WHY is there such a problem getting the books for the center? FOIP is not a reason when the municipality owns it. Council has to do whatever it takes to have them audited. Enough of the BS!!!
November 27, 2009 8:19 AM
I agree totally with you, I have always had a problem understanding why a municipal owned facility, subsidized by the taxpayers is not accountable to the taxpayers through their elected representives. We have two other areas that are ran by societies for various reasons (Swimming Pool, Ski hill) but unlike the centre all of their financies must pass through the municipality. Our finance department can tell us at any time what is happening in those facilities. I am yet to hear that "I can not tell you who the tenants of the MDM are due to FOIP"
Do yu not answer questions put to you??
December 1, 2009 6:25 AM
Look above I have given it my best shot
Good post Dean, and thanks for keeping us informed and up-to-date on this ‘dirty’ business. I hope you send this in as a letter to the editor. The public needs to be made aware of these latest developments on the Centre's 'profitability', as expounded on by the Chairperson of the board who stated “we do not need financial assistance from the municipality for 2009”. Another $30,000 plus in unpaid bills you say, along with legal bills to date passing the $50,000 mark. In addition, by the time the lease/relocation business issue is dealt with, all told, this whole ‘rotten business’ will most likely cost our local taxpayers’ in the neighbourhood of several hundred thousand dollars. All because a certain group did not want to let go and respect the wishes of a duly elected majority of council. And let’s not forget the “Block of three on Council” involvement in this sordid affair. How can a mayor and councillors be so cavalier with taxpayers’ money? How could these three be so intransigent in their position that the public purse be damned?None of these people should ever see the inside of a board again, never mind sitting on council, for such poor management in the public interest, and lack of due diligence. I'm sure at least one newspaper will print it, whereas, the other will most likely have issues with 'liability', which is their standard lame excuse for not printing what they don't like, or they find potentially damaging to them personally, or their 'friends', and/or their cause.The people involved in this whole fiasco should be held liable and accountable. The blatant disregard for the public purse cannot, and must not, be tolerated. It is time this type of governance came to an end!
November 25, 2009 2:20 PM
John very good comments, and I agree with you on most of what you had to say. You know better than most how politics work in this town.
Why are you saying this nonsense?
Of course the Center is making money its been full every weekend.
The bills you talk about must be a mistake.
Jay
November 25, 2009 3:29 PM
Well that's what I have been hearing for the last year, in council chambers, in the media everywhere you go. Well somebody made mistakes.
We have 2 community centres?
November 25, 2009 5:50 PM
Yes we do the Crowsnest Centre and the MDM facility
WOW!
Please send a letter to the editor of both papers...
The truth has come out!
November 25, 2009 5:10 PM
I sent a letter to only one local paper because the other has taken a position that they are not going to be involved in this debate
Turn the power off, turn the gas off, turn the phones off. I know you probably can not do this.What a shame that such a small group can cost the majority so much money.I wish there was an election today because the mayor and his group would be out on their ears.Maybe then we could move forward.
November 25, 2009 4:45 PM
I know where you are coming from and understand your frustration, but we have been receiving legal advice that we need to follow, the municipality has already been exposed to enough liabilty due to the actions of others.
What have we paid out on legal costs?
November 26, 2009 4:58 PM
Council was supplied figures a few weeks back, it breaks down to the following:
Cost to hold plebiscite $13,355.18
Costs regarding the petition and injunction $25,703
Cost to deal with Leases and CLC Bylaws $30,353.30
Total of $69,411.48
I think if any business stopped paying their bills that they would show that they have a positive cash flow (at least temporarily). However, that doesn't make them ‘profitable’. I'm surprised that so many people have bought the line of bull that they are selling. To me it was an obvious sham. The week before the plebiscite they were requesting $$$ from the municipal budget, the week after... they're profitable. Their claims to profitability are a poorly disguised desperate attempt to keep the Centre open.
November 27, 2009 9:39 AM
I don't see a question in here more comments, but I certainly understand and appreciate your comments. Last year much fanfare over a $30,000 profit in the media but no mention that 25% of their income ($100,000+) was municipal grants.
WHY is there such a problem getting the books for the center? FOIP is not a reason when the municipality owns it. Council has to do whatever it takes to have them audited. Enough of the BS!!!
November 27, 2009 8:19 AM
I agree totally with you, I have always had a problem understanding why a municipal owned facility, subsidized by the taxpayers is not accountable to the taxpayers through their elected representives. We have two other areas that are ran by societies for various reasons (Swimming Pool, Ski hill) but unlike the centre all of their financies must pass through the municipality. Our finance department can tell us at any time what is happening in those facilities. I am yet to hear that "I can not tell you who the tenants of the MDM are due to FOIP"
Do yu not answer questions put to you??
December 1, 2009 6:25 AM
Look above I have given it my best shot
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Crowsnest Pass, Budget process!
Just an update on the process, Administration will be providing us with a brief overview of the budget to night (Nov 10).
Then Council and Administration will be meeting on Nov 28 and Nov 29 to review the entire 2010 budget. Administration was given direction to bring back a budget with no more than a 3% increase in expenditures.
Then Council and Administration will be meeting on Nov 28 and Nov 29 to review the entire 2010 budget. Administration was given direction to bring back a budget with no more than a 3% increase in expenditures.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Municipal Development Plan in the Crowsnest Pass
Over the last couple of weeks I have been criticized a number of times for not supporting a new Municipal Development Plan.
The present plan is indeed out dated, the population of the Crowsnest Pass has changed significantly over the last ten years. The public deserves to have their input in to a new plan. I agree with all of those statements, so why did I not support proceeding with a new Municipal Development Plan this year? For the following reasons:
First of all the process is expensive (minimum of $50,000 I've been told by politicians in other municipalities that its probably closer to $100,000), its timely would probably take 6-12 months.
I recognize that the time and money need to be spent, but not now not until the Alberta Government decides where it is going with its regional plans under the Land Use Framework.
The Crowsnest Pass could come up with a plan that does not conform with the Land Use framework and all that time and money would be for nothing.
Take the time to read the Land Use Framework Plan the link is on the left hand side of the blog and below.
http://www.landuse.alberta.ca/documents/Final_Land_use_Framework.pdf
I will point out some areas to make my point:
Strategy 2 (Page 7)
"The Secretariat will develop regional plans in conjunction with government departments and Regional Advisory Councils. Final decisions on regional plans rests with Cabinet"
Are regional plans in place? have they been accepted by cabinet? No and No.
Strategy 3 (Page 7)
" A cumulative effects management approach will be used in regional plans to manage the combined impacts of existing and new activities within the region"
Within the region a cumulative effects approach will be used, once again the regional plan needs to be in place to see how we fit within it.
Provincial Leadership (Page 19)
"The Land Use Framework leaves final decision making authority with the same local officials who currently exercise it. However in the future; these decisions will have to be consistent with regional plans"
How can we be consistent with the regional plan until it is in place?
Strategy 1 (Page 19)
"Municipalities and provincial government departments will be required to comply with regional plans in their decision making"
How can our MDP conform with the regional plan until it is in place?
Local Planning (Page 26)
"However in the face of increasing pressures and conflicts the Government of Alberta needs to ensure that provincial interests are addressed at a local scale"
Would our plan conform with provincial interests? we do not know they have not told us what they are.
Municipal Planning (Page 26)
"Municipalities will be required to ensure their plans and decisions are consistent with regional plans"
We will not know the regional plan until sometime in 2010
Municipalities will;
"Prepare context statements outlining how their MDP's will align with and address provincial directions stated in regional plans, and amend municipal planning documents to adopt and align with regional planning directions"
How can we do the above without the regional plan?
Appeal Mechanisms (Page 27)
"Decision making bodies will be required to comply with regional plans and if any regional plan compliance issues arise, they will be resolved in existing review and appeal systems"
then it goes on to make the following statement;
"Because they are approved by Cabinet, regional plans are government policies and cannot be appealed"
So if you put a MDP in places that does not conform with the regional plan you do not even have the ability to appeal the regional plan.
On Page 47 the Land Use Framework clearly states that the regional plan for our area will be completed in 2010, why would anybody take the risk with taxpayers money of putting together a MDP prior to that?
The present plan is indeed out dated, the population of the Crowsnest Pass has changed significantly over the last ten years. The public deserves to have their input in to a new plan. I agree with all of those statements, so why did I not support proceeding with a new Municipal Development Plan this year? For the following reasons:
First of all the process is expensive (minimum of $50,000 I've been told by politicians in other municipalities that its probably closer to $100,000), its timely would probably take 6-12 months.
I recognize that the time and money need to be spent, but not now not until the Alberta Government decides where it is going with its regional plans under the Land Use Framework.
The Crowsnest Pass could come up with a plan that does not conform with the Land Use framework and all that time and money would be for nothing.
Take the time to read the Land Use Framework Plan the link is on the left hand side of the blog and below.
http://www.landuse.alberta.ca/documents/Final_Land_use_Framework.pdf
I will point out some areas to make my point:
Strategy 2 (Page 7)
"The Secretariat will develop regional plans in conjunction with government departments and Regional Advisory Councils. Final decisions on regional plans rests with Cabinet"
Are regional plans in place? have they been accepted by cabinet? No and No.
Strategy 3 (Page 7)
" A cumulative effects management approach will be used in regional plans to manage the combined impacts of existing and new activities within the region"
Within the region a cumulative effects approach will be used, once again the regional plan needs to be in place to see how we fit within it.
Provincial Leadership (Page 19)
"The Land Use Framework leaves final decision making authority with the same local officials who currently exercise it. However in the future; these decisions will have to be consistent with regional plans"
How can we be consistent with the regional plan until it is in place?
Strategy 1 (Page 19)
"Municipalities and provincial government departments will be required to comply with regional plans in their decision making"
How can our MDP conform with the regional plan until it is in place?
Local Planning (Page 26)
"However in the face of increasing pressures and conflicts the Government of Alberta needs to ensure that provincial interests are addressed at a local scale"
Would our plan conform with provincial interests? we do not know they have not told us what they are.
Municipal Planning (Page 26)
"Municipalities will be required to ensure their plans and decisions are consistent with regional plans"
We will not know the regional plan until sometime in 2010
Municipalities will;
"Prepare context statements outlining how their MDP's will align with and address provincial directions stated in regional plans, and amend municipal planning documents to adopt and align with regional planning directions"
How can we do the above without the regional plan?
Appeal Mechanisms (Page 27)
"Decision making bodies will be required to comply with regional plans and if any regional plan compliance issues arise, they will be resolved in existing review and appeal systems"
then it goes on to make the following statement;
"Because they are approved by Cabinet, regional plans are government policies and cannot be appealed"
So if you put a MDP in places that does not conform with the regional plan you do not even have the ability to appeal the regional plan.
On Page 47 the Land Use Framework clearly states that the regional plan for our area will be completed in 2010, why would anybody take the risk with taxpayers money of putting together a MDP prior to that?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Wow! we finally have a Budget in the Crowsnest Pass
Well its finally here the Crowsnest Pass Budget/Millrate was passed last night (April 14th).
How much does it hit our taxpayers? 3.8% average increase, please keep in mind that due to fluctuations in market assessment some properties will be higher some will be lower.
Nobody including myself likes tax increases but this was certainly a step in the right direction after last years whopping 11.2% increase.
I have never voted for a tax increase in the last four budgets! why now? because for the first time in five years I was part of a council where the majority was willing to make tough decisions, was willing to make cuts where necessary. We all understand that costs go up each year but I always argued that taxes should not increase as long as a municipality is operating inefficiently.
How as council demonstrated its willingness to become more efficient?
First of all a Corporate Review, the majority as agreed that we need to have an independent non political outside body advise us as to where we could do better.
We made significant steps to reduce duplication of services, we will no longer be advertising in two local newspapers, we will no longer be doing a spring and fall cleanup.
We placed a moratorium on hiring, two positions that were scheduled to be put in place this summer, will not be filled.
We reduced funding to non profit organizations by 10%.
We reduced funding to our fire and rescue departments by close to $40,000
We reduced our equipment replacement program by 40%.
We reduced funding for country residential road maintenance, dust suppression and sidewalks by $55,000.
Finally the majority of council decided that we needed to lead by example and saved $10,000 by not sending Representatives to the FCM Convention in Whistler BC.
Most of these cuts were tough decisions especially when you have to reduce funding to non-profit groups but we can not keep on doing business the way we have.
Taxpayers cannot maintain double digit tax increases on an annual basis, just the areas listed above resulted in a yearly savings of $382,000 which is equal to a 6.3% tax increase add that to the 3.8% we agreed on and we would be above 10% again.
My hope here is that all of council will embrace the corporate review process, look at the results and take advantage of the recommendations that come forth to be even more efficient.
How much does it hit our taxpayers? 3.8% average increase, please keep in mind that due to fluctuations in market assessment some properties will be higher some will be lower.
Nobody including myself likes tax increases but this was certainly a step in the right direction after last years whopping 11.2% increase.
I have never voted for a tax increase in the last four budgets! why now? because for the first time in five years I was part of a council where the majority was willing to make tough decisions, was willing to make cuts where necessary. We all understand that costs go up each year but I always argued that taxes should not increase as long as a municipality is operating inefficiently.
How as council demonstrated its willingness to become more efficient?
First of all a Corporate Review, the majority as agreed that we need to have an independent non political outside body advise us as to where we could do better.
We made significant steps to reduce duplication of services, we will no longer be advertising in two local newspapers, we will no longer be doing a spring and fall cleanup.
We placed a moratorium on hiring, two positions that were scheduled to be put in place this summer, will not be filled.
We reduced funding to non profit organizations by 10%.
We reduced funding to our fire and rescue departments by close to $40,000
We reduced our equipment replacement program by 40%.
We reduced funding for country residential road maintenance, dust suppression and sidewalks by $55,000.
Finally the majority of council decided that we needed to lead by example and saved $10,000 by not sending Representatives to the FCM Convention in Whistler BC.
Most of these cuts were tough decisions especially when you have to reduce funding to non-profit groups but we can not keep on doing business the way we have.
Taxpayers cannot maintain double digit tax increases on an annual basis, just the areas listed above resulted in a yearly savings of $382,000 which is equal to a 6.3% tax increase add that to the 3.8% we agreed on and we would be above 10% again.
My hope here is that all of council will embrace the corporate review process, look at the results and take advantage of the recommendations that come forth to be even more efficient.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Budget Delibrations Continue In the Crowsnest Pass
Well here we are continuing down the path of trying to get a budget in the Crowsnest Pass. As we go through the old process of drag it out, stall and wait until the last possible moment to come up with the tax rate for the next year.
Monday night we did make a little progress we eliminated one of our cleanups, a request from the Chamber of Commerce for $25,000, a request to spend an extra $27,000 grooming trails, and will bring in $3,000 to remove deep freezes.
That leaves a gap of $156,461 to get down to 5% which is still high when you compare to other municipalities check the list on the left side of this blog. To pay that amount the increase would have to go to 7.5% and zero dollars would be placed into reserves. Some will argue that dollars should not go into reserves during difficult economical times, take a look on the Municipal Web site you will see that we have been depleting reserves for the last six years.
The problem we have, is we has councilors must be prepared to make difficult choices to get down to reasonable tax increase.
Councilors need to do one of several things, come to budget meetings prepared with ideas on how to decrease the budget shortfall, be willing to look at reducing services/programs/expenditures, or be prepared to go with a 7.5% tax Increase.
It gets so tiring listening to "I'm not prepared to look at that", "we can't cut that", well bring your idea's lets debate them, I have no problem going with better ideas than mine.
Or maybe the good taxpayers of the Crowsnest Pass can live with a 7.5% increase this year!
Monday night we did make a little progress we eliminated one of our cleanups, a request from the Chamber of Commerce for $25,000, a request to spend an extra $27,000 grooming trails, and will bring in $3,000 to remove deep freezes.
That leaves a gap of $156,461 to get down to 5% which is still high when you compare to other municipalities check the list on the left side of this blog. To pay that amount the increase would have to go to 7.5% and zero dollars would be placed into reserves. Some will argue that dollars should not go into reserves during difficult economical times, take a look on the Municipal Web site you will see that we have been depleting reserves for the last six years.
The problem we have, is we has councilors must be prepared to make difficult choices to get down to reasonable tax increase.
Councilors need to do one of several things, come to budget meetings prepared with ideas on how to decrease the budget shortfall, be willing to look at reducing services/programs/expenditures, or be prepared to go with a 7.5% tax Increase.
It gets so tiring listening to "I'm not prepared to look at that", "we can't cut that", well bring your idea's lets debate them, I have no problem going with better ideas than mine.
Or maybe the good taxpayers of the Crowsnest Pass can live with a 7.5% increase this year!
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Government Spending, the Crowsnest Pass can we (Should we) afford more taxes?
All around us we read day after day, bad news about the International, National, and local economies. Now is a time that governments at all levels need to be responsible, to throw taxpayers money at large companies, does that make sense?
If its to save a key business sector that drives the economy, that is a fundamentally sound business that just needs to hang on, to retool its operations, to develop new product lines, until we start to come out of the recession, maybe that makes sense. But to shore up companies that have made poor business decisions, that are not prepared to change, I don't believe that makes sense, you just delay the date of failure.
Before these companies get a single penny of taxpayers money they should be forced to show how they are going to whether this recession. And most importantly how they are going to pay the taxpayer back.
Talking about governments being responsible, look at the city of Calgary at a time of $56 a barrel oil they are increasing their municipal taxes 25% over the next three years. I have read the outrage in the Calgary papers, where else but government can you increase spending during difficult economic times.
Last year in the Crowsnest Pass we raised taxes 12% for one year.
I hope that when we start the budget process in the Crowsnest Pass we recognize that a quarter of our taxpayers are retired and another quarter are within 10-15 years of retirement. How can government at any level expect the taxpayers to pay more tax increases than the rate of inflation. For retirees the Canada Pension Plan tells you that you have to live with a 2-3% increase per year, for anybody that is living of investments in mutual funds how much additional income will they be receiving in the coming years. Why should government not live with a 2-3% increase of taxation? Once you have shown that you have done everything to be has lean as possible.
Its critical that governments at all levels act responsibly in these difficult times and not add to the taxpayers burden by increasing their spending/taxation to outrageous levels.
If its to save a key business sector that drives the economy, that is a fundamentally sound business that just needs to hang on, to retool its operations, to develop new product lines, until we start to come out of the recession, maybe that makes sense. But to shore up companies that have made poor business decisions, that are not prepared to change, I don't believe that makes sense, you just delay the date of failure.
Before these companies get a single penny of taxpayers money they should be forced to show how they are going to whether this recession. And most importantly how they are going to pay the taxpayer back.
Talking about governments being responsible, look at the city of Calgary at a time of $56 a barrel oil they are increasing their municipal taxes 25% over the next three years. I have read the outrage in the Calgary papers, where else but government can you increase spending during difficult economic times.
Last year in the Crowsnest Pass we raised taxes 12% for one year.
I hope that when we start the budget process in the Crowsnest Pass we recognize that a quarter of our taxpayers are retired and another quarter are within 10-15 years of retirement. How can government at any level expect the taxpayers to pay more tax increases than the rate of inflation. For retirees the Canada Pension Plan tells you that you have to live with a 2-3% increase per year, for anybody that is living of investments in mutual funds how much additional income will they be receiving in the coming years. Why should government not live with a 2-3% increase of taxation? Once you have shown that you have done everything to be has lean as possible.
Its critical that governments at all levels act responsibly in these difficult times and not add to the taxpayers burden by increasing their spending/taxation to outrageous levels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)