municipality of north cowichan

M.N.C. Councillor Kate Marsh Advocating New Taxes For A New Staff Position For Climate Change

Posted on February 26, 2019 by admin

On 22 February 2019 the Cowichan Valley Citizen reported that Municipality of North Cowichan Councillor Kate Marsh is advocating new municipal taxes to fund a new Municipality of North Cowichan staff position to “specialize in climate change and environmental issues…”

Here is a link to the Cowichan Valley Citizen article of 22 February 2019.

In the words of the Cowichan Valley Citizen, “At the municipality’s council meeting on Feb. 20, Coun. Kate Marsh made a motion for staff to prepare a report on the logistics of hiring a person to specialize in climate change and environmental issues in North Cowichan.”

Municipality of North Cowichan Councillor Kate Marsh, 2019 (photo: Cowichan Valley Citizen)

This motion will be debated at a future meeting of Municipality of North Cowichan Council.

We are concerned about the taxation implications of this motion. As reported in the Cowichan Valley Citizen,

“As part of its budget building process for 2019, North Cowichan is already considering hiring five new staff members, at a cost of approximately $505,000 annually, this year as it moves forward with plans to modernize operations in the coming months.

At a budget meeting earlier this month, staff suggested that with the recommendations for the new staff members, as well as other budgetary issues in 2019, municipal taxes could rise by four per cent, or even as high as seven per cent, in 2019 for the municipality’s property owners.

But Mayor Al Siebring cautioned that the municipality is far from finalizing its budget for the year, which it must do by May 15, and more discussions are planned.

“With adjustments, I expect that the tax increase this year could be in the three per cent range,” he said.”

Councillor Kate Marsh also represents the Municipality of North Cowichan on the Cowichan Valley Regional District Board, where, in 2018, she strongly supported the creation of two new taxes on all homeowners within the CVRD through Bylaws 4201 and 4202. Councillor Kate Marsh has a history of supporting new taxes and higher taxation rates.

At DuncanTaxpayers.ca we are very glad that Duncan residents rejected Amalgamation with the Municipality of North Cowichan in June 2018. Our Duncan taxes would have definitely increased under the Municipality of North Cowichan Council, especially with Councillors sympathetic to Kate Marsh’s views having a majority on the current M.N.C. Council.

Here is commentary from Don Swiatlowski, a retired accountant who is a Municipality of North Cowichan resident:

“Councillor Marsh wants to hire an Environmental Manager.

Is Councillor Marsh demonstrating her arbitrary, and high-handed contempt for the taxpayers of North Cowichan (MNC) as she pursues her ideological hobby of climate change at taxpayer expense?

Some examples include:

First, she initiated an environmental property tax, a tax that I think only MNC levies on its citizens and exists nowhere else in all of BC.

Secondly, she created a bank of sorts, to loan out the environmental tax to MNC’s departments; that in effect doubles the tax on property taxpayers, because the MNC departments have to budget the repayment of the loan to the bank, thus artificially inflating municipal costs, that were funded in the first place, with your property taxes and now have to be repaid by the municipal department with yet higher taxes.

Now, she is proposing to declare a climate emergency because the Capital Regional District (CRA) did. We all share the world’s atmosphere. What impact will MNC’s declaration of an emergency have on the world? I know it is going to cause our property taxes to rise for no benefit to us. How bizarre is that?

It appears that her rational for this hiring is to save the world. So, in true Trumpian style, she wants to declare a bogus state of climate emergency in MNC, when the real culprits of increased CO2 are China and India burning all of that coal to generate electricity and all that livestock spewing green house gases into the environment and all of those new folks added to the world’s population. Anything Ms. Marsh does will be less than the equivalent of a spec of dust in the environment. Yet at MNC’s level, this translates into a rise in our property taxes that will produce zero effect on the global atmosphere. No benefit for the taxes here.

Recently, MNC hired a consultant to look at staffing. The consultant did not recommend the hiring of an environmental manager. [note: emphasis added]

Kate Marsh also wants staff to prepare a report on climate emergency; this request was made right after she stated many reports already exist on the matter; so she is just wasting valuable staff time. Ms. Marsh is out of touch with management of this town and it is resulting in wasteful spending of our property taxes.

Councillor Christopher Justice thinks that funding for this proposed new staff position may be available from other levels of government. Well, if it is, it will only be short term or project related and once that funding dries up, the local taxpayers will have to eat that in higher property taxes. Bad decision.

Duncanites should be glad they turned down amalgamation with MNC [note: DuncanTaxpayers.ca totally agrees with on this statement on Amalgamation. Fighting Amalgamation in 2018 why the reason this website was started in the first place.].”

We will add more commentary on this as Councillor Marsh’s motion makes its way through North Cowichan Council.

Would you like to leave a comment or question about anything on this post?

CVRD Referendum Questions On The Ballot For 20 October 2018 – I Am Voting No

Posted on September 13, 2018October 19, 2018 by admin

CVRD logo on the front of the CVRD building on Ingram Street in downtown Duncan (photo by Duncan Taxpayers)

Mark Anderson, 4 September 2018 (photo: Lexi Bainas, Cowichan Valley Citizen) — Mark Anderson, (photo: Lexi Bainas, Cowichan Valley Citizen)

The upcoming municipal election on 20 October 2018 will also include two questions being put to Referendum by the Cowichan Valley Regional District (CVRD).

These questions are, specifically, whether to pass or reject CVRD Bylaw No. 4201 and/or CVRD Bylaw No. 4202. There will be one Referendum question on each of these two questions.

I will be voting “No” on both these CVRD Referendum questions and my reasons are shown below.

But first, here are the CVRD explanations of these two Referendum questions, as taken directly from the CVRD website. Note that the CVRD is calling this “Assent Voting” as though the CVRD already considers public “assent” to be a foregone conclusion.

CVRD Bylaw No. 4201 – Service Establishment

“CVRD Bylaw No. 4201 – Cowichan Housing Association Annual Financial Contribution Service Establishment Bylaw, 2018“, will allow the CVRD to annually requisition up to the greater of $765,000 or an amount equal to the amount that could be raised by a property value tax of $0.04584 per $1,000 of net taxable value of land and improvements within the service area to assist the Cowichan Housing Association with costs associated with providing programs and services related to affordable housing and homelessness prevention in the Cowichan Valley.

CVRD Bylaw No. 4202 – Service Establishment

“CVRD Bylaw No. 4202 – Drinking Water and Watershed Protection Service Establishment Bylaw, 2018“, will allow the CVRD to annually requisition up to the greater of $750,000 or an amount equal to the amount that could be raised by a property value tax of $0.045050 per $1,000 of net taxable value of land and improvements within the service area to establish a service for the purpose of drinking water and watershed protection within the Cowichan Valley Regional District.

Here is why I am against these two CVRD Referendum questions:

First my reasons for opposing CVRD Bylaw No. 4201 – Cowichan Housing Association Annual Financial Contribution Service Establishment Bylaw, 2018“:

The CVRD Referendum question on housing (CVRD Bylaw No. 4201 – Service Establishment) is about raising $765,000, or possibly more, to give the Cowichan Housing Association for more studies and reports.

I don’t believe Bylaw 4201 will get a single unit of new housing built or get a single unit of new housing in existing structures.

The CVRD justifies this proposed tax, in part, by saying the Cowichan Housing Association will lobby senior levels of government for housing funds. But this can be accomplished for far less money.

One presenter at the CVRD Board meeting on this issue suggested that creating a CVRD staff position on housing issues could be created for far less money, approximately $125,00 as opposed to the $765,000 proposed in Bylaw No. 4201. That proposal made far more sense to me than what is being proposed in this CVRD Referendum question. A CVRD staff position would mean that the occupant of that position would be directly accountable to the CVRD Board, while the Cowichan Housing Association would be a non profit organization outside the CVRD administration.

Handling housing through a CVRD staff position would also mean that any funds collected by this proposed tax would remain on this CVRD books and under CVRD control. Turning these funds over the Cowichan Housing Association, as stated in the proposed Bylaw 4201, means the taxpayer funds collected are off the CVRD books and under the control of an non-profit organization outside the CVRD.

And lobbying the provincial government on housing could be accomplished by simply picking up a phone and calling our local M.L.A., Sonya Furstenau, who has the ear of government and who is very interested in housing issues. Lobbying the federal government could be done through our local M.P., Alistair MacGregor, who is also very interested in housing issues.

It would cost the CVRD nothing to pick up a phone to contact our local M.P. or M.L.A.

A common argument made in favour of Bylaw 4201 is that the CVRD needs to have a Housing Trust Fund similar to those maintained by other municipalities, such as the City of Victoria.

So I see no need for a new CVRD tax to raise $765,000 to simply give to the Cowichan Housing Association to create more studies and reports or to lobby the federal or provincial governments.

Apart from that, the CVRD is referring to this proposed new tax as a “financial contribution service.” Never trust any politician or bureaucrat who refers to proposed new taxes as a “financial contribution service.”

In short, this proposed new tax for housing will just produce more studies and reports; it will not produce any new housing. So I will be voting No on that Referendum question.

Here are some more articles against Bylaw 4201:

Ian Caesar on RichardHughes.ca – We Definitely Need More Critical Thinkers At The CVRD

CVRD Bylaw No. 4202 – Drinking Water and Watershed Protection Service Establishment Bylaw, 2018

Here are my reasons for opposing CVRD Bylaw No. 4202 – Drinking Water and Watershed Protection Service Establishment Bylaw, 2018

The water issue in proposed Bylaw No. 4202 is a bit different than the proposed housing Bylaw No. 4201. The CVRD currently has over 30 small water authorities running the water systems in small areas of the CVRD; Arbutus Ridge and Mill Bay are two examples among many.

A recent consultants’ report (the Innova Report) to the CVRD was quite scathing in its criticism of the current system of water governance in the CVRD.

Here is what the Innova Report had to say about current CVRD water governance:

“1.2. Governance

The current CVRD utility governance model and subdivision approving authorities do not support the
goals and objectives of elected officials, staff, and, most importantly, the utility users. It has become
extremely difficult to effectively manage the expectations of utility users through the current disjointed
model that essentially provides authority and leadership through the Electoral Area Services Committee.
It is also a challenge to manage growth without jurisdiction. There are two recommendations for changes
to governance in the CVRD:

Establish a Utility Commission – There should be strong consideration given to the creation of a commission candidate profile supporting professional industry experts, not specific community advocates. This would support the long-term goals of amalgamating water and wastewater utilities and ensuring that all new utilities are acceptable to overarching plans and objectives…..”

So the CVRD understandably wants to centralize control of CVRD water systems and resources under a centralized CVRD water governance authority. That actually makes some sense.

But the CVRD is trying to sell this proposed new authority to the public on the idea of combating the effects of climate change and global warming, safeguarding drinking water and protecting the watershed.

The CVRD Referendum question on Bylaw 4202 also proposes to tax the City of Duncan and Municipality of North Cowichan residents for this new water authority as well as CVRD residents. Duncan and the Municipality of North Cowichan already have their own water systems in place and have had those systems in place for decades.

So my reaction to this CVRD Referendum question is, “Why should Duncan and Municipality of North Cowichan residents be taxed by the CVRD to fund a new CVRD water authority for CVRD areas?”

I will be voting No on both the CVRD Referendum questions.

For additional commentary, here is a link to an article about CVRD water issues and Bylaw 4202 in the Cowichan Valley Citizen by CVRD Director Klaus Kuhn.

Would you like to leave a comment or question about anything on this post?

Decorative Crosswalks In The City of Duncan – July 2018

Posted on July 24, 2018 by admin

In June 2018 the crosswalk on Duncan Street in front of the Duncan Garage was painted with multi-coloured parallel stripes. We were curious about how much this cost the City of Duncan so we contacted Paige McWilliam at Duncan City Hall to find out.

Duncan Garage and "Rainbow Crosswalk" on Duncan Street, 3 July 2018 (photo by DuncanTaxpayers.ca) — Duncan Garage and “Rainbow Crosswalk” on Duncan Street, 3 July 2018 (photo by DuncanTaxpayers.ca)

Paige McWilliam told us that “The Duncan Garage paid $5,597.90 [in June 2018] to have the rainbow cross-walk painted, which covered the entire cost of the project. The actual painting was done by an outside company.”

Here is what Paige McWilliam told us about the history of this project:

On 5 May 2017 the City of Duncan received a request from Duncan Garage Cafe and Bakery asking for this crosswalk to be painted. Here is a copy of the 5 May 2017 letter to the City of Duncan from Leela Heyward of the Duncan Garage Cafe and Bakery.

Letter from Duncan Garage to City of Duncan on 5 May 2017 requesting installation of "Rainbow" cross walk on Duncan Street (Courtesy of City of Duncan) — Letter from Duncan Garage to City of Duncan on 5 May 2017 requesting installation of “Rainbow” cross walk on Duncan Street (Courtesy of City of Duncan)

In response to this letter, the City of Duncan Council, at its meeting of 15 May 2017, asked for a staff report on “the costs and maintenance requirements for painting a rainbow crosswalk for Council’s consideration..” Here is the City of Duncan staff report on what City staff refers to as “Decorative Crosswalks”, presented to the Committee of the Whole on 5 June 2017 [note: we have done a separate image for each of the 3 pages in the report]:

City of Duncan, Decorative Crosswalks Report-5 June 2017, page 1

City of Duncan, Decorative Crosswalks Report-5 June 2017, page 2

City of Duncan, Decorative Crosswalks Report-5 June 2017, page 3

The cross walk on Duncan Street in front of Duncan Garage was painted in June 2018.

Paige McWilliam of the City of Duncan tells us that “The Duncan Garage paid $5,597.90 to have the rainbow cross-walk painted, which covered the entire cost of the project. The actual painting was done by an outside company.”

We will seek clarification from Paige McWilliam about whether the City of Duncan is responsible for future maintenance costs of this crosswalk or whether these costs are to be borne by Duncan Garage.

We are also seeking similar information from the Municipality of North Cowichan about the “Rainbow Crosswalk” installed on 16-17 July 2018 on James Street between Cowichan Secondary School and the Island Savings Centre. We have contacted the Municipality of North Cowichan about this but, as of this date, we have not received any response.

Rainbow crosswalk on James Street during installation, 17 July 2018 (photo by DuncanTaxpayers.ca)

Since we took the above photo on 17 July 2018 this crosswalk has been damaged. We will contact the Municipality of North Cowichan to find out whether the MNC is responsible for repairing this damage and, if so, how much it will cost.

Here are some more articles from the Cowichan Valley Citizen about this crosswalk on James Street:

North Cowichan to allow Rainbow Crosswalk at school – 3 June 2018
James Street Rainbow Crosswalk Vandalized 4 Days After Installation – 20 July 2018

Here are some Cowichan Valley Citizen articles about Rainbow Crosswalks in other communities:

Merritt Council Rejects Rainbow Crosswalk Proposal – 3 March 2018
Rejected Rainbow Crosswalk In Merritt – 7 March 2018
Courtenay Crosswalk Vandalized One Day After Installation – 2 June 2018
Surrey Rainbow Crosswalk Vandalized 10 Days After Installation – 25 June 2018

Would you like to leave a comment or question about anything in this post?

Preliminary Cost Figures For The Amalgamation Campaign And Referendum

Posted on July 4, 2018July 11, 2018 by admin

We contacted the City of Duncan asking for the figures on the cost to Duncan taxpayers of the recent Amalgamation campaign and Referendum.

Paige McWilliam from the City of Duncan provided us with the document below, which was presented to the Committee of the Whole at its meeting on 3 July 2018.

Note that the financial costs to the City of Duncan, and thus to Duncan Taxpayers, of the Amalgamation campaign and referendum are stated as $68,725.79. Note that the $12,000 figure stated as the Referendum cost is a “Budgeted” figure; the actual costs of the Referendum may change as figures are compiled.

Note that the total cost to taxpayers, including the Municipality of North Cowichan and Province of British Columbia, is currently given as $278,510.90.

We will have more to say about this in upcoming posts.

Update: on 5 July 2018 Paige McWilliam from the City of Duncan advised us that the final figure for the City of Duncan’s share of referendum costs was $11,108 rather than the budgeted $12,000.

City of Duncan financials for costs of the Amalgamation campaign and Referendum - 3 July 2018 — City of Duncan financials for costs of the Amalgamation campaign and Referendum – 3 July 2018

Would you like to leave a comment or question below?

Councillor Roger Bruce – Is He A City of Duncan Resident?

Posted on May 29, 2018May 30, 2018 by admin

Duncan Councillor Roger Bruce is a very vocal advocate of Amalgamation of the City of Duncan and the Municipality of North Cowichan.

In support of Amalgamation, Roger Bruce has recently released this video and posted it on Youtube:

DuncanTaxpayers.ca says No to Amalgamation of Duncan and North Cowichan

We disagree with Councillor Bruce’s pro-Amalgamation position and we urge Duncan residents to Vote No in the Amalgamation Referendum on 23 June 2018.

In the interest of clarification we would like to make some comments on another issue Councillor Bruce has raised while arguing in favour of Amalgamation.

In making various pro-Amalgamation arguments online – on Facebook and other platforms – Roger Bruce has repeatedly made statements to the effect that he is the only member of Duncan City Council who pays City of Duncan taxes.

He has also made this statement in the video shown above.

With regard to other members of Duncan City Council, we note that Councillors Michelle Bell, John Horgan and Michelle Staples are not residents of the City of Duncan and therefore do not pay residential property taxes in the City of Duncan. As far as we are aware, they do not own businesses in Duncan and do not pay City of Duncan business taxes.

City of Duncan Councillor Sharon Jackson (photo: City of Duncan)

Councillor Sharon Jackson was a Duncan resident until December 2017, when she sold her house in Duncan and moved to the CVRD. It can therefore be argued that she is not paying City of Duncan taxes at this time although we note that she was a City of Duncan taxpayer at the time of the last Municipal election in 2014 and she remained a City of Duncan taxpayer until December 2017. She has stated to us that she intends to move back into the City of Duncan as soon as she can.

Mayor Phil Kent and Councillor Tom Duncan apparently rent residential accommodation in the City of Duncan so, by Councillor Roger Bruce’s argument, Mayor Kent and Councillor Duncan do not pay City of Duncan taxes although they are City of Duncan residents. We will not address this argument here; readers can form their own opinions on that.

Councillor Bruce’s statements that he is the only person on Duncan City Council who pays City of Duncan taxes have given many people the impression that Councillor Roger Bruce lives in the City of Duncan. Apparently that is not the case; we have been informed that Councillor Bruce actually lives in the Municipality of North Cowichan.

But Councillor Bruce does pay City of Duncan taxes. He owns commercial property, on which he pays City of Duncan taxes, at the south east corner of Cairnsmore Street and Government Street. This property contains the buildings currently occupied by the 49th Parallel Grocery and the Fishbowl Cafe.

Here is a Google Street View image of this property in May 2015:

Councillor Bruce also owns adjacent properties to the south on Government Street between Cairnsmore Street and Herbert Street. In the past he has sought to develop these lots and has applied to the City of Duncan for variances for that purpose.

Here is a Google Street View image of these properties in May 2015:

City of Duncan Councillor Roger Bruce (photo: City of Duncan)

So there is no doubt that Councillor Roger Bruce is a City of Duncan taxpayer. He pays City of Duncan taxes on the commercial properties shown above.

But it seems he is not a resident of the City of Duncan. We have been told that he resides in the Municipality of North Cowichan. We have asked Councillor Bruce for clarification of this but, as of this date, we have not received an answer.

So for Duncan taxpayers and residents who have heard Councillor Roger Bruce’s statement and arguments in favour of Amalgamation and that he is the only member of Duncan City Council who pays City of Duncan taxes, be aware that, while Councillor Roger Bruce is in fact a City of Duncan taxpayer, he is apparently a resident of the Municipality of North Cowichan.

This is in no way meant as a personal attack on Councillor Roger Bruce. We are simply seeking to clarify his repeated statements that he is the only member of Duncan City Council who pays City of Duncan taxes.

We urge City of Duncan residents to Vote No on 23 June 2018.

Police Costs – Our Initial Response To The Pro-Amalgamation Campaign

Posted on May 15, 2018 by admin

One of the most frequent arguments put forward by Cowichan Pro-Amalgamation is that policing costs will become prohibitively expensive and unsustainable for the City of Duncan when the population of Duncan exceeds 5000 people. The proponents of Amalgamation therefore argue that City of Duncan residents should support Amalgamation of the City of Duncan with North Cowichan so that policing costs can be shared over a larger tax base.

Here is argument about policing costs from the Cowichan Pro-Amalgamation website:

“Better Coordinated Police Force

Policing is one place where the strength of a united amalgamated community is needed without question. They have been preparing for years for the day when Duncan’s population exceeds 5,000 and we must shoulder our full share of policing costs. More than $8 million of transition support the provincial government has offered would go toward off-setting policing cost increases. Duncan is likely already exceeding the population threshold and would face these increased costs even without amalgamation.

Its time for Duncan to actively embrace the future and take charge of its policing future.”

DuncanTaxpayers.ca did some research into this issue and here is some of what we found.

As noted by Cowichan Pro Amalgamation, any municipality with a population greater than 5000 people is required to pay for policing costs. Municipalities with less than 5000 people have their policing costs subsidized by the Province of British Columbia.

The population figures are taken from StatsCan Census data; the most recent Census was conducted in 2016 and shows the City of Duncan’s population as 4,944. The previous Census in 2011 showed the City of Duncan’s population as 4,932. The next Census will be conducted in 2021.

Here is a link to the Statscan page showing the 2011 and 2016 Census data for the City of Duncan.

Here is some of what we learned from City of Duncan records.

In 2011, prior to the 2011 Census data being released, the Province of British Columbia anticipated the population of the City of Duncan would exceed 5000 people and required the City of Duncan to pay for its own policing costs.

The policing costs attributed to the City of Duncan by the Province of B.C. were equivalent to the cost of 10 constables at the North Cowichan RCMP Detatchment. The City of Duncan suggested the costs should be equivalent to 8 RCMP members and this was being negotiated with the Province.

In response to the Province of B.C. ruling, the City of Duncan raised its taxes by 12% in 2011 to cover the costs of policing. But then the 2011 Census was released, showing the City of Duncan population was 4,932 and that the Province of B.C. had been therefore been mistaken in its projection of a Duncan population exceeding 5000 people.

The City of Duncan therefore went back to being subsidized by the Province of B.C. for its policing costs. The policing costs paid by the City of Duncan in 2011 were refunded to the City of Duncan by the Province of B.C. and the Province resumed paying the policing costs of the City of Duncan, as it does for all municipalities with a population less than 5000 people. The Province still subsidizes Duncan’s policing costs.

But recall that in 2011 the City of Duncan had increased its taxes by 12% to cover the new policing costs assigned to it by the Province of B.C. Rather than reduce its municipal taxes to the pre-2011 levels, the City of Duncan maintained its tax rates at the 2011 levels and put the funds collected for policing into a Police Bridging Capital Fund, which it has since used to finance projects like dike maintenance and the Canada Avenue repaving and development. The City of Duncan then kept the the policing subsidy funds paid to it each fiscal by the Province of B.C.

The cost of policing assigned to the City of Duncan is still subsidized annually by the Province of B.C. and will be until at least 2021, when the next Census data is released.

We spoke to City of Duncan staff who indicated that, in the event the City of Duncan population exceeds 5000 in 2021, the City of Duncan anticipates it can cover the costs of policing from the increased tax rates of 12% it imposed in 2011 when the City of Duncan was mistakenly directed by the Province of B.C. to cover its policing costs.

Based on this information, we think the Cowichan Pro-Amalgamation argument – that the City of Duncan should amalgamate with North Cowichan because the City of Duncan will not be able to afford policing costs if its population goes over 5000 people and the City loses the Province of B.C. subsidy of its policing costs – is seriously flawed.

Based on this information, we do not consider policing costs to be a valid argument in favour of Amalgamation. As a result, we still intend to vote against Amalgamation in the June Referendum.

Please don’t be fooled by the very slick and well financed campaign being mounted by Cowichan Pro-Amalgamation, which is far more concerned about the interests of North Cowichan than about those of the City of Duncan. All we need to defeat the pro-Amalgamation campaign is 51% of Duncan residents to vote against it. Please Vote No in the upcoming Amalgamation Referendum in June.