So, no new property tax increase for 2012!!
The city delivered its 2012 budget on Monday 12 December and while there is no property tax increase, there will be an annual water tax increase of $35.00. Water tax will now be $615 per year.
This water tax increase was expected as the city laid out a plan several years ago indicating the increase to cover costs associated with the various water and wastewater-related projects. Permit fees will also increase.
The city budget is now $236 million.
The one question I do have for the city is this:-
What is the impact of the 2011 $3.4 million surplus on the 2012 budget?
Is it being used to offset some expenditures for 2012 and if so, which ones?
If it is being used, does this mean the 2013 budget is in a "structural deficit"?
I await a response from the city and will keep you informed.
UPDATE: I have been informed the surplus is not funding activity within the 2012 budget. Councillor Breen, chair of the Finance committee advised -
"We are holding that for the time being to be used for such contingencies as emergency capital (water and sewer issue, etc) or possible pension fund payments needed in 2013 as that is a valuation year (and we all know how the markets have been). Whatever the use it will be for one time uses as opposed to funding ongoing programs".
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Amalgamation - Where to now?
As reported in media, the City of St. John's has received a consultant's report on amalgamation. It has had this report for a couple of months and the City Manager, Bob Smart, has sent a memo to Council on his analysis of the report.
In a nutshell, his report is summed up with the comment - "The report does not present a compelling case for amalgamation and may in fact offer reinforcement for opponents of amalgamation".
While acknowledging the citizens of St. John's may receive a reduction in their taxes, residents of Mount Pearl and Paradise would receive an increase in their taxes.
Long term, there may be advantages to amalgamation but the short and medium term are not as promising.
Smart goes on to suggest the city has to re-think its strategy on amalgamation and awaits direction from council.
Council may discusss this issue within the next couple of weeks.
As to when we get to see the report, no decision has been made.
I have always been a proponent of regional co-operation rather than amalgamation as I believe, for now, this is the most cost-effective means of sharing resources within the North-East Avalon.
In a nutshell, his report is summed up with the comment - "The report does not present a compelling case for amalgamation and may in fact offer reinforcement for opponents of amalgamation".
While acknowledging the citizens of St. John's may receive a reduction in their taxes, residents of Mount Pearl and Paradise would receive an increase in their taxes.
Long term, there may be advantages to amalgamation but the short and medium term are not as promising.
Smart goes on to suggest the city has to re-think its strategy on amalgamation and awaits direction from council.
Council may discusss this issue within the next couple of weeks.
As to when we get to see the report, no decision has been made.
I have always been a proponent of regional co-operation rather than amalgamation as I believe, for now, this is the most cost-effective means of sharing resources within the North-East Avalon.
Monday, September 26, 2011
New Financial Arrangement With The Province
The City has put forward a paper titled: "Towards a Balanced Provincial-Municipal Fiscal Relationship and Municipal Sustainability"
It is an interesting read.
As the title suggests, the city is putting forward a proposal for improved fiscal relationship with the province. There are three key areas:-
Intergovernmental Relations
Provincial Government as a User of Municipal Services
Long-term Sustainable Support to Municipalities
Essentially the city would like the Provincial Government to waive the provincial HST on goods and services the city purchases and to eliminate payroll and gas tax it charges the city.
Another proposal is for the province to pay a payment-in-lieu-of-tax to the city while the city would eliminate the Municipal Operating Grant it currently receives.
The city would also like the provincial government to obtain building permits and adhere to the city's development regulations.
In return, the city is willing to alter the infrastructure funding formula to 50/50 from its current 70/30 ratio.
The city would see a net gain of approximtely $20 - 25 million in revenue should the proposal be accepted.
No word from any of the three provincial party leaders yet, but it will be interesting to see what they have to say on the proposals.
Stay tuned!
This is the link to the report on the city's website.
It is an interesting read.
As the title suggests, the city is putting forward a proposal for improved fiscal relationship with the province. There are three key areas:-
Intergovernmental Relations
Provincial Government as a User of Municipal Services
Long-term Sustainable Support to Municipalities
Essentially the city would like the Provincial Government to waive the provincial HST on goods and services the city purchases and to eliminate payroll and gas tax it charges the city.
Another proposal is for the province to pay a payment-in-lieu-of-tax to the city while the city would eliminate the Municipal Operating Grant it currently receives.
The city would also like the provincial government to obtain building permits and adhere to the city's development regulations.
In return, the city is willing to alter the infrastructure funding formula to 50/50 from its current 70/30 ratio.
The city would see a net gain of approximtely $20 - 25 million in revenue should the proposal be accepted.
No word from any of the three provincial party leaders yet, but it will be interesting to see what they have to say on the proposals.
Stay tuned!
This is the link to the report on the city's website.
Discretion
The Telegram (Monday September 26) is reporting Deputy Mayor Shannie Duff wants city council to put some guidelines around its discretionary power.
I agree.
I've longed been critical of council and its use of discretionary power. Most troublesome about this power is the inconsistent application of it. Council approves a particular project yet when a similar proposal comes along, approval is not given. Recent examples of this inconsistency are the "drive-thru" applications. Some have been approved - some not. Another example is development on unserviced land.
I'm in favour of not having discretionary powers applied to any development within the city. The Municipal Plan should be designed so we all know what is allowed within certain zones. However, if discretionary power is avaialble, guidelines should be in place.
It will be interesting to see where Duff's proposal goes. I believe it to be a positive step and one long overdue at City Hall.
I agree.
I've longed been critical of council and its use of discretionary power. Most troublesome about this power is the inconsistent application of it. Council approves a particular project yet when a similar proposal comes along, approval is not given. Recent examples of this inconsistency are the "drive-thru" applications. Some have been approved - some not. Another example is development on unserviced land.
I'm in favour of not having discretionary powers applied to any development within the city. The Municipal Plan should be designed so we all know what is allowed within certain zones. However, if discretionary power is avaialble, guidelines should be in place.
It will be interesting to see where Duff's proposal goes. I believe it to be a positive step and one long overdue at City Hall.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Illegal Dumping!
Once again, the issue of illegal dumping has surfaced at city council. This complaint arises every year and as yet, no solution has been found.
I offer the following as possible solutions...
a) Modify the Robin Hood Bay operating hours. Can Sunday be included and/or adjust the summer hours to extend later into the evenings?
b) Large Dumpster Bins be placed at strategic points within city limits to encourage citizens to dump their garbage into these.
While the above may cost the city money, it may be less than the illegal dumping clean-up costs currently being incurred by the city.
I offer the following as possible solutions...
a) Modify the Robin Hood Bay operating hours. Can Sunday be included and/or adjust the summer hours to extend later into the evenings?
b) Large Dumpster Bins be placed at strategic points within city limits to encourage citizens to dump their garbage into these.
While the above may cost the city money, it may be less than the illegal dumping clean-up costs currently being incurred by the city.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Priorities?...It's Not a Municipal Responsibility
Is St. John’s City Council’s decision not to fund the school crossing guard programme an indication of its priorities and principles for the city’s 2012 budget?
We can only hope.
The principle behind the school crossing guard programme is “it’s not a municipal responsibility”.
Council should inform us of other activities it will apply this principle to.
I can think of a couple.
Tourism is a provincial responsibility, yet not only does the city give Destination St. John’s an annual grant, it has it’s own tourism department! Savings of 2 – 3 million dollars available here.
There is also the city’s grant ($100,000) for the Aquarena.
Upcoming there will be the $1 million in annual maintenance costs for the (provincial) Gushue Highway extension.
I’m sure there are others.
It is interesting this argument is being applied to a service that is budgeted at $125,000 for the year. This is $125,000 of a $225 million budget!
Surely there are ways to have this service funded. Can there be a three-way cost share between Eastern School District, Provincial Government and the City? What about sponsorship? Or maybe the city can redirect some of the surplus subsidy it provides to St. John’s Sports and Entertainment (SJSE). For the past two years, SJSE has declared surplus funding of at least $500,000. Take $125,000 of this and direct it to the school crossing guard programme.
Priorities? Principles?
One can certainly argue the city should not be involved in the entertainment business. Let me see…concerts and entertainment or children’s safety?
I applaud the principle of “it’s not a municipal responsibility”, but it has to be applied consistently and fairly. It is not an optional principle.
The city should re-consider its decision not to continue the funding of the school crossing guard programme. Why not provide funding until another solution is found to ensure this valuable safety initiative is maintained for the children of St. John’s?
We can only hope.
The principle behind the school crossing guard programme is “it’s not a municipal responsibility”.
Council should inform us of other activities it will apply this principle to.
I can think of a couple.
Tourism is a provincial responsibility, yet not only does the city give Destination St. John’s an annual grant, it has it’s own tourism department! Savings of 2 – 3 million dollars available here.
There is also the city’s grant ($100,000) for the Aquarena.
Upcoming there will be the $1 million in annual maintenance costs for the (provincial) Gushue Highway extension.
I’m sure there are others.
It is interesting this argument is being applied to a service that is budgeted at $125,000 for the year. This is $125,000 of a $225 million budget!
Surely there are ways to have this service funded. Can there be a three-way cost share between Eastern School District, Provincial Government and the City? What about sponsorship? Or maybe the city can redirect some of the surplus subsidy it provides to St. John’s Sports and Entertainment (SJSE). For the past two years, SJSE has declared surplus funding of at least $500,000. Take $125,000 of this and direct it to the school crossing guard programme.
Priorities? Principles?
One can certainly argue the city should not be involved in the entertainment business. Let me see…concerts and entertainment or children’s safety?
I applaud the principle of “it’s not a municipal responsibility”, but it has to be applied consistently and fairly. It is not an optional principle.
The city should re-consider its decision not to continue the funding of the school crossing guard programme. Why not provide funding until another solution is found to ensure this valuable safety initiative is maintained for the children of St. John’s?
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
George Street Concerts - Why?
Why do we have concerts on George Street?
This is the question I never hear asked, when issues arise, concerning crowd control and safety at these concerts.
The City currently has a George Street re-development plan accumulating dust on some shelf or desk in City Hall. Part of this plan is to realign the street and move the location of the bandshell to provide better viewing and improve safety for concertgoers.
But is this necessary?
I assume the major reason for holding concerts on George Street is to attract patrons to the bars and improve revenues for bar owners. Can this aim be achieved in other ways?
Why not hold the concerts at Mile One? I'm sure the City would be willing to work with the George Street festival organisers and come to suitable financial arrangements for the hire of the facility.
After the concerts many of the concert attendees will wander down to George Street and patronise the bars.
The same aim (people in bars) achieved, but in a different and safer manner.
If this were to happen, the re-development plan for George Street could be reviewed and probable savings found.
Worth a discussion and debate isn't it?
This is the question I never hear asked, when issues arise, concerning crowd control and safety at these concerts.
The City currently has a George Street re-development plan accumulating dust on some shelf or desk in City Hall. Part of this plan is to realign the street and move the location of the bandshell to provide better viewing and improve safety for concertgoers.
But is this necessary?
I assume the major reason for holding concerts on George Street is to attract patrons to the bars and improve revenues for bar owners. Can this aim be achieved in other ways?
Why not hold the concerts at Mile One? I'm sure the City would be willing to work with the George Street festival organisers and come to suitable financial arrangements for the hire of the facility.
After the concerts many of the concert attendees will wander down to George Street and patronise the bars.
The same aim (people in bars) achieved, but in a different and safer manner.
If this were to happen, the re-development plan for George Street could be reviewed and probable savings found.
Worth a discussion and debate isn't it?
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Parking Development Questions
I hope St. John’s City Council will, in the near future, divulge more information to us concerning two downtown developments.
The two (Eastport Properties on Water Street and Henry Bell Developments on Duckworth Street), involve the City contributing money to create public parking spaces.
There are many questions surrounding this initiative of trading off development regulations for parking spaces with taxpayers’ dollars. Especially when, each developer was willing to work within the development guidelines.
How much money? We do not know yet, as the City is still negotiating with the developers.
Who will be responsible for the ongoing operational expenses attached to the public parking spaces? What of liability issues?
Will the city receive the parking fees? What is the estimated return on investment?
Is this the most efficient and effective use of taxpayers’ dollars for downtown parking? Would a stand-alone city-owned parking building be more cost effective?
Are these two initiatives a sign of the future development process within the city?
These are some of the questions. I’m sure there are others.
I hope the city enlightens us all very soon.
The two (Eastport Properties on Water Street and Henry Bell Developments on Duckworth Street), involve the City contributing money to create public parking spaces.
There are many questions surrounding this initiative of trading off development regulations for parking spaces with taxpayers’ dollars. Especially when, each developer was willing to work within the development guidelines.
How much money? We do not know yet, as the City is still negotiating with the developers.
Who will be responsible for the ongoing operational expenses attached to the public parking spaces? What of liability issues?
Will the city receive the parking fees? What is the estimated return on investment?
Is this the most efficient and effective use of taxpayers’ dollars for downtown parking? Would a stand-alone city-owned parking building be more cost effective?
Are these two initiatives a sign of the future development process within the city?
These are some of the questions. I’m sure there are others.
I hope the city enlightens us all very soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
